4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management

Journal

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
Volume 62, Issue 3, Pages 516-527

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.003

Keywords

criteria; ecosystem; framework; guidelines; indicators; objectives; scoring

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We develop a framework for the objective selection of a suite of indicators for use in fisheries management. The framework encompasses eight steps, and provides guidance on pitfalls to be avoided at each step. Step I identifies user groups and their needs, featuring the setting of operational objectives, and Step 2 identifies a corresponding list of candidate indicators. Step 3 assigns weights to nine screening criteria for the candidate indicators: concreteness, theoretical basis, public awareness, cost, measurement, historic data, sensitivity, responsiveness, and specificity. Step 4 scores the indicators against the criteria, and Step 5 summarizes the results. Steps 3-5 offer technical aspects on which guidance is provided, including scoring standards for criteria and a generalized method for applying the standards when scoring individual indicators. Multi-criterion summarization methods are recommended for most applications. Steps 6 and 7 are concerned with deciding how many indicators are needed, and making the final selection of complementary suites of indicators. Ordinarily, these steps are done interactively with the users of the indicators, thus providing guidance on process rather than technical approach. Step 8 is the clear presentation to all users of the information contained. The discussion also includes the special case in which indicators are used in formal decision rules. Crown Copyright (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available