Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making
Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Kommentare / Debatten / Berichte › Forschung
Standard
Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making. / van Oudenhoven, Alexander P.E.; Schröter, Matthias; Drakou, Evangelia G. et al.
in: Ecological Indicators, Jahrgang 95, 12.2018, S. 417-426.Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Kommentare / Debatten / Berichte › Forschung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making
AU - van Oudenhoven, Alexander P.E.
AU - Schröter, Matthias
AU - Drakou, Evangelia G.
AU - Geijzendorffer, Ilse R.
AU - Jacobs, Sander
AU - van Bodegom, Peter M.
AU - Chazee, Laurent
AU - Czúcz, Bálint
AU - Grunewald, Karsten
AU - Lillebø, Ana I.
AU - Mononen, Laura
AU - Nogueira, António J.A.
AU - Pacheco-Romero, Manuel
AU - Perennou, Christian
AU - Remme, Roy P.
AU - Rova, Silvia
AU - Syrbe, Ralf Uwe
AU - Tratalos, Jamie A.
AU - Vallejos, María
AU - Albert, Christian
PY - 2018/12
Y1 - 2018/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Credibility
KW - CSL
KW - Feasibility
KW - Legitimacy
KW - Salience
KW - Science-policy interface
KW - Ecosystems Research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051376958&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020
DO - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020
M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports
AN - SCOPUS:85051376958
VL - 95
SP - 417
EP - 426
JO - Ecological Indicators
JF - Ecological Indicators
SN - 1470-160X
ER -