Step 8: Make Shortlist - Project Template

Part of: Plan Section (Vision → Plan → Reality)
Type: Template/Playbook for Small Plot Restoration
Status: Template - Customize for Your Project

← Back to Project Hub

---

Purpose

After conducting thorough research, assessments, and site visits, it's time to synthesize all information and create a shortlist of the most suitable locations for your restoration project. This critical step requires balancing multiple factors - ecological potential, practical considerations, financial constraints, and strategic alignment with your mission.

This is a template. Customize evaluation criteria, scoring systems, and decision-making processes based on your specific project goals, priorities, and constraints.

---

🎯 Non-Negotiables (Science Consensus)

These must be followed - they are based on practical and strategic consensus:

1. Comprehensive Evaluation Required: Site selection must be based on comprehensive evaluation of all factors. Single-factor decisions are insufficient.

2. Documentation Required: All evaluation criteria, scores, and decisions must be documented. This is essential for transparency and future reference.

3. Objective Comparison: Sites must be compared objectively using consistent criteria. Subjective decisions without documentation are problematic.

4. Multiple Options: Shortlist should include multiple options when possible. Single-option decisions lack flexibility.

5. Stakeholder Input: Stakeholder input should be considered in site selection. Community support is essential for success.

---

🔀 Options & Pathways

Pathway A: Comprehensive Professional Evaluation

When to use: Larger projects, complex decisions, when thoroughness is critical, have budget

Approach:

• Professional evaluation consultant
• Comprehensive scoring system
• Professional analysis and recommendations
• Detailed documentation
• Higher cost but thorough

Pros:

• Most thorough and objective
• Professional validation
• Credible for grants
• Comprehensive analysis

Cons:

• Higher cost (€1,000-5,000)
• Requires professional expertise
• May take longer

Pathway B: Structured Team Evaluation

When to use: Standard projects, moderate budget, want structured approach, team involvement

Approach:

• Structured evaluation framework
• Team scoring and discussion
• Expert consultation as needed
• Good documentation
• Lower cost

Pros:

• Lower cost (€200-1,000)
• Team involvement
• Structured approach
• Good balance

Cons:

• May need facilitation
• Requires coordination
• May need expert review

Pathway C: Simple Comparison

When to use: Limited budget, straightforward decisions, small number of sites, clear differences

Approach:

• Simple comparison matrix
• Key criteria only
• Team discussion
• Basic documentation
• Lowest cost

Pros:

• Lowest cost (€0-200)
• Simple and direct
• Quick decision
• Accessible

Cons:

• Less comprehensive
• May miss nuances
• Less formal

Pathway D: Hybrid Approach

When to use: Most projects - balance of structure and flexibility

Approach:

• Structured framework
• Team involvement
• Expert consultation for complex issues
• Mix of formal and informal evaluation
• Flexible approach

Pros:

• Good balance
• Flexible
• Cost-effective
• Engages team

Cons:

• Requires coordination
• May need facilitation

---

📋 Implementation Steps

Step 1: Compile All Site Data

Gather Information:

• Desk research findings → Initial Research
• Land condition assessments → Land Evaluation
• Restoration potential estimates → Restoration Potential
• Accessibility evaluations → Accessibility
• Regulatory research → Regulations
• Landowner communication notes → Landowner Contact
• Site visit reports → Site Visits

Create Master Spreadsheet:

• List all candidate sites
• Compile key data points for each
• Include costs and timelines
• Note opportunities and challenges
• Record stakeholder input
• Document regulatory status

Step 2: Define Decision Criteria

Essential Criteria (Must-Haves): These are non-negotiable - sites failing any of these are eliminated:

• Legal Access: Can legally acquire or lease the land
• Budget Fit: Acquisition costs within available budget
• Size Appropriate: Appropriate size for project
• Restoration Viable: Degradation severe enough to justify intervention, but not impossible
• Regulatory Feasible: Can obtain necessary permits within reasonable timeline
• Safety: Safe for staff and visitors to access and work
• Geographic: Located in target region

Sites failing essential criteria are eliminated immediately.

Step 3: Develop Scoring Matrix

Weighted Scoring System:

Create a systematic way to compare sites objectively:

A. Ecological Factors (35% weight)

Criterion	Weight	Description	Score 1-5
Degradation Level	8%	Severe enough to justify, possible to restore	___
Biodiversity Potential	7%	Remnant species, habitat diversity potential	___
Soil Quality/Potential	7%	Current condition, restoration feasibility	___
Water Availability	7%	Natural sources, rainfall, harvesting potential	___
Climate Resilience	6%	Ability to withstand climate stresses	___

Ecological Subtotal: ___/25 × 35% = ___/35

B. Practical Factors (30% weight)

Criterion	Weight	Description	Score 1-5
Accessibility	10%	Road access, logistics, year-round viability	___
Infrastructure	7%	Utilities, accommodation, existing structures	___
Size & Configuration	7%	Appropriate size, good shape, usable area	___
Neighborhood Context	6%	Compatible land uses, minimal conflicts	___

Practical Subtotal: ___/25 × 30% = ___/30

C. Financial Factors (20% weight)

Criterion	Weight	Description	Score 1-5
Acquisition Cost	8%	Purchase price or lease cost	___
Restoration Cost	7%	Estimated restoration investment needed	___
Ongoing Costs	5%	Maintenance, management, utilities	___

Financial Subtotal: ___/25 × 20% = ___/20

D. Strategic Factors (15% weight)

Criterion	Weight	Description	Score 1-5
Mission Alignment	6%	Fits project goals and values	___
Community Support	5%	Local support and engagement potential	___
Demonstration Value	4%	Educational, visibility, replication potential	___

Strategic Subtotal: ___/25 × 15% = ___/15

Total Score: ___/100

Step 4: Score Each Site

For each candidate site:

• Score each criterion (1-5 scale)
• Calculate weighted subtotals
• Calculate total score
• Document rationale for scores
• Note any exceptional factors

Scoring Guidelines:

• 5 = Excellent (best possible)
• 4 = Good (strong positive)
• 3 = Average (acceptable)
• 2 = Below average (concerning)
• 1 = Poor (major problem)

Step 5: Create Shortlist

Rank Sites:

• Sort by total score
• Identify top 2-3 sites
• Consider exceptional factors
• Balance scores with practical considerations

Shortlist Criteria:

• Top scoring sites
• Diverse options (if possible)
• Different strengths/weaknesses
• Manageable number (2-3 typically)

Step 6: Document and Present

Create Shortlist Report:

• Summary of evaluation process
• Site profiles for shortlisted sites
• Comparison matrix
• Recommendations
• Next steps

Present to Decision-Makers:

• Clear presentation of findings
• Visual comparisons
• Recommendations with rationale
• Discussion and decision

---

💡 Customization Notes

When using this template for your project:

1. Criteria Weights: Adjust weights based on your priorities (ecological vs. practical vs. financial)

2. Scoring Scale: Use scoring scale that works for your team

3. Number of Sites: Adjust shortlist size based on your needs (typically 2-3)

4. Timeline: Plan adequate time for thorough evaluation

5. Stakeholder Input: Include stakeholder input in evaluation

6. Local Context: Consider local factors specific to your region

Remember: This is a template. Your actual project will have specific priorities, constraints, and decision-making processes that make it unique.

---

Remember: Thorough evaluation leads to better site selection decisions. Take time to compare sites objectively using consistent criteria.

This is a template. Customize it for your project.