Artículo

Estamos trabajando para incorporar este artículo al repositorio
Consulte el artículo en la página del editor
Consulte la política de Acceso Abierto del editor

Abstract:

Environmental indicator sets (EIS) are tools to monitor and assess sustainability, and many environmental organizations have embraced their use. Due to the large number of EIS, it is a challenge to compare and reconcile their differences and gain a comprehensive view of their utility. To compare EIS, the first step is to classify their component indicators, for which several frameworks exist. Among the most widely used, is the causal-chain framework, also referred to as PSR after its categories of Pressure, State and Response. Other frameworks classify indicators by subject, yet none is widely applied. Aiming to compare EIS, we first proposed a unified classification criteria for indicators using PSR and five subject categories (i.e., biodiversity and ecosystem health, E; natural resources, N; physical and chemical contamination, C; human environment, H; and general, G). Then, we used these classification criteria to describe and compare fourteen existing environmental indicator sets. Finally, we compared EIS based on their production characteristics and goals. Across the fourteen EIS, we analyzed 706 indicators (which represent ∼1200 variables) and selected 16 and 79 keywords for classification in the PSR and ENCHG categories respectively. We found on average that the ratio of categories in the causal chain framework was 2.5S:1.5P:1R, while we observed a large variability across EIS. For the subject categories, C-E-N were nearly equally represented among EIS, and better represented than H-G. Also, the evaluated EIS showed a polarization between C-H and E categories that we interpreted as a human vs. natural-ecosystem welfare focus. Finally, we identified three broad categories of EIS based primarily on the organization that produced them, non-governmental organizations, governmental organizations, and international organizations. Our results can contribute to the design and implementation of scientifically robust and representative EIS, which are key to incorporate environmental data to policymaking in the search of sustainability. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Registro:

Documento: Artículo
Título:Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
Autor:Brambila, A.; Flombaum, P.
Filiación:Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Argentina
Departamento de Ecología Genética y Evolución, Universidad de Buenos Aires Pabellón II piso 2, Ciudad Universitaria, Buenos Aires, C1428EGA, Argentina
Palabras clave:Causal chain framework; Environmental indicator sets; Sustainability index; Biodiversity; Chains; Ecology; Ecosystems; Indicators (chemical); Societies and institutions; Causal chains; Design and implementations; Environmental indicators; Environmental organizations; International organizations; Nongovernmental organizations; Production characteristics; Sustainability index; Sustainable development; ecosystem health; environmental indicator; environmental legislation; nature-society relations; nongovernmental organization; polarization; policy implementation; policy making; sustainability
Año:2017
Volumen:83
Página de inicio:96
Página de fin:102
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.023
Título revista:Ecological Indicators
Título revista abreviado:Ecol. Indic.
ISSN:1470160X
Registro:https://bibliotecadigital.exactas.uba.ar/collection/paper/document/paper_1470160X_v83_n_p96_Brambila

Referencias:

  • Böhringer, C., Jochem, P.E.P., Measuring the immeasurable – A survey of sustainability indices (2007) Ecol. Econ
  • Booysen, F., An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development (2002) Soc. Indic. Res., 59, pp. 115-151
  • Cinelli, M., Coles, S.R., Kirwan, K., Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment (2014) Ecol. Indic.
  • Dale, V.H., Beyeler, S.C., Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators (2001) Ecol. Indic., 1, pp. 3-10
  • De Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation (2010) Econ. Ecosyst. Biodivers. Ecol. Econ. Found., pp. 1-422
  • Di Rienzo, J.A., Casanoves, F., Balzarini, M.G., Gonzalez, L., Tablada, M., Robledo, Y.C., (2011) InfoStat Versión 2011, 8, pp. 195-199. , http://www.infostat.com.ar, Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba Argentina (URL)
  • EEA, Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010: Proposal for a First Set of Indicators to Monitor Progress in Europe (2007), EEA Europe; Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (2014), https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/, [WWW Document]. URL (Accessed 1 January 2014); Gibson, R.B., Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach (2006) Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais., 24, pp. 170-182
  • Goodland, R., The concept of environmental sustainability (1995) Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
  • Hattam, C., Atkins, J.P., Beaumont, N., Börger, T., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Burdon, D., De Groot, R., Austen, M.C., Marine ecosystem services: linking indicators to their classification (2015) Ecol. Indic., 49, pp. 61-75
  • Heink, U., Kowarik, I., What are indicators? on the definition of indicators in ecology and environmental planning (2010) Ecol. Indic., 10, pp. 584-593
  • Heinz, H.J., Tufford, D., The state of the nation's ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters and living resources of the United States (2003) Electron. Green J.
  • Holdren, J., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects (1995), United Nations University Washington, D.C; Jorgensen, S.E., Burkhard, B., Müller, F., Twenty volumes of ecological indicators-an accounting short review (2013) Ecol. Indic.
  • Kristensen, P., The DPSIR Framework. A Compr./Detail. Assess. Vulnerability Water Resour. to Environ. Chang. Africa Using River Basin Approach (2004), pp. 1-10; Lazarus, E., Zokai, G., Borucke, M., Panda, D., Iha, K., Morales, J.C., Wackernagel, M., Gupta, N., Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts (2014), p. 127; Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., Hák, T., How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets (2012) Ecol. Indic., 17, pp. 4-13
  • Niemeijer, D., de Groot, R.S., A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets (2008) Ecol. Indic., 8, pp. 14-25
  • OECD Environment Directorate, OECD Key Environmental Indicators (2008), Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation Paris; OECD, Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews: A Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Enviroment (1993), pp. 1-39; OECD, OECD Environmental Indicators: Towards Sustainable Development (2001), OECD Paris; Perrings, C., Naeem, S., Ahrestani, F.S., Bunker, D.E., Burkill, P., Canziani, G., Elmqvist, T., Weisser, W., Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (2011) Front. Ecol. Environ
  • Prescott-Allen, R., Barometer of Sustainability (1996), The World Conservation Union Gland, Switzerland; Sistema De Indicadores Y Desarrollo Sostenible 5th Edition (2010); Indicadores Básicos del Desempeño Ambiental de México 2010 DR © 2012, SECRETARÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS NATURALES Dirección General de Estadística e Información Ambiental Dirección de Análisis e Indicadores Ambientales Boulevard Adolfo Ruiz Cortine; SOPAC, UNEP, Environmental Vulnerability Index: Description of Indicators (2004), pp. 1-60; Saunders, D., Margules, C., Hill, B., Environmental indicators for national State of the Environment reporting −biodiversity (1998) Environment, p. 72
  • Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Dikshit, A.K., An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies (2012) Ecol. Indic.
  • (2009), pp. 1-45. , UNEP/WCMC, The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators and the Post-2010 indicators framework; EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment (2008), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC; UK Biodiversity Partnership, UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2011 (2010), p. 54. , Jncc.Defra.Gov.Uk; Vačkář, D., Ten Brink, B., Loh, J., Baillie, J.E.M., Reyers, B., Review of multispecies indices for monitoring human impacts on biodiversity (2012) Ecol. Indic.
  • Vačkář, D., Ecological Footprint, environmental performance and biodiversity: a cross-national comparison (2012) Ecol. Indic., 16, pp. 40-46
  • World Wildlife Foundation, The Living Planet Report 2012 Biodiversity, Biocapacity and Better Choices (2012), WWF; Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Y.U, Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index: Full Report 99 (2012); Ziegler, C.R., Webb, J.A., Norton, S.B., Pullin, A.S., Melcher, A.H., Digital repository of associations between environmental variables: a new resource to facilitate knowledge synthesis (2015) Ecol. Indic., 53, pp. 61-69

Citas:

---------- APA ----------
Brambila, A. & Flombaum, P. (2017) . Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework. Ecological Indicators, 83, 96-102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.023
---------- CHICAGO ----------
Brambila, A., Flombaum, P. "Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework" . Ecological Indicators 83 (2017) : 96-102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.023
---------- MLA ----------
Brambila, A., Flombaum, P. "Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework" . Ecological Indicators, vol. 83, 2017, pp. 96-102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.023
---------- VANCOUVER ----------
Brambila, A., Flombaum, P. Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework. Ecol. Indic. 2017;83:96-102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.023