4.7 Article

Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 417-426

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020

关键词

Science-policy interface; CSL; Credibility; Salience; Legitimacy; Feasibility

资金

  1. STW research programme 'Nature-driven nourishment of coastal systems (NatureCoast)' [12691]
  2. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)
  3. MAVA Foundation
  4. Total Foundation
  5. Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation
  6. French Ministry of Ecology
  7. EEA Financial Mechanism
  8. Romanian Ministry of Environment, Forests and Waters under the project Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites of the Niraj-Tamava Mica region [3458/19.05.2015]
  9. AQUACROSS project - European Union's Horizon 2020 Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration [642317]
  10. CESAM [UID/AMB/50017/2013]
  11. FCT/MEC through national funds
  12. FEDER
  13. MAES Finland projec - Ministry of the Environment, Finland
  14. Spanish Ministry of Education through a University Teacher Training grant
  15. National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on (NEAFO) programme
  16. German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) through the Junior Research Group PlanSmart [01UU1601A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decision makers are increasingly interested in information from ecosystem services (ES) assessments. Scientists have for long recognised the importance of selecting appropriate indicators. Yet, while the amount and variety of indicators developed by scientists seems to increase continuously, the extent to which the indicators truly inform decision makers is often unknown and questioned. In this viewpoint paper, we reflect and provide guidance on how to develop appropriate ES indicators for informing decision making, building on scientific literature and practical experience collected from researchers involved in seven case studies. We synthesized 16 criteria for ES indicator selection and organized them according to the widely used categories of credibility, salience, legitimacy (CSL). We propose to consider additional criteria related to feasibility (F), as CSL criteria alone often seem to produce indicators which are unachievable in practice. Considering CSLF together requires a combination of scientific knowledge, communication skills, policy and governance insights and on-field experience. In conclusion, we present a checklist to evaluate CSLF of your ES indicators. This checklist helps to detect and mitigate critical shortcomings in an early phase of the development process, and aids the development of effective indicators to inform actual policy decisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据