Matching biodiversity indicators to policy needs |
| |
Authors: | Simone L Stevenson Kate Watermeyer Giovanni Caggiano Elizabeth A Fulton Simon Ferrier Emily Nicholson |
| |
Institution: | 1. Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125 Australia;2. Department of Economics, Monash University, Caulfield East, VIC, 3145 Australia;3. Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, TAS, 7001 Australia
Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7001 Austral;4. Land and Water, CSIRO, Canberra, ACT, 2601 Australia |
| |
Abstract: | At the global scale, biodiversity indicators are typically used to monitor general trends, but are rarely implemented with specific purpose or linked directly to decision making. Some indicators are better suited to predicting future change, others are more appropriate for evaluating past actions, but this is seldom made explicit. We developed a conceptual model for assigning biodiversity indicators to appropriate functions based on a common approach used in economics. Using the model, indicators can be classified as leading (indicators that change before the subject of interest, informing preventative actions), coincident (indicators that measure the subject of interest), or lagging (indicators that change after the subject of interest has changed and thus can be used to evaluate past actions). We classified indicators based on ecological theory on biodiversity response times and management objectives in 2 case studies: global species extinction and marine ecosystem collapse. For global species extinctions, indicators of abundance (e.g., the Living Planet Index or biodiversity intactness index) were most likely to respond first, as leading indicators that inform preventative action, while extinction indicators were expected to respond slowly, acting as lagging indicators flagging the need for evaluation. For marine ecosystem collapse, indicators of direct responses to fishing were expected to be leading, while those measuring ecosystem collapse could be lagging. Classification defines an active role for indicators within the policy cycle, creates an explicit link to preventative decision-making, and supports preventative action. |
| |
Keywords: | Aichi Targets biodiversity indicators Convention on Biological Diversity ecosystem based fisheries management extinction IUCN red list index population dynamics sustainable development goals Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica dinámicas poblacionales extinción indicadores de biodiversidad índice de la lista roja de la UICN manejo de pesquerías basado en el ecosistema Objetivos de Aichi objetivos de desarrollo sustentable 爱知目标 生物多样性指标 可持续发展目标 《生物多样性公约》 基于生态系统的渔业管理 IUCN 红色名录指数 灭绝 种群动态 |
|
|