Using decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices.

Aichi targets SDG assessment ciencias de la decisión criteria criterios decision science evaluación indicador indicator measurement medida monitoreo monitoring objetivos de Aichi 决策科学 可持续发展目标 指标 标准 测量 爱知目标 监测 评估

Journal

Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
ISSN: 1523-1739
Titre abrégé: Conserv Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9882301

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2021
Historique:
revised: 05 06 2020
received: 20 12 2019
accepted: 12 06 2020
pubmed: 20 6 2020
medline: 27 4 2021
entrez: 20 6 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Global biodiversity indices are used to measure environmental change and progress toward conservation goals, yet few indices have been evaluated comprehensively for their capacity to detect trends of interest, such as declines in threatened species or ecosystem function. Using a structured approach based on decision science, we qualitatively evaluated 9 indices commonly used to track biodiversity at global and regional scales against 5 criteria relating to objectives, design, behavior, incorporation of uncertainty, and constraints (e.g., costs and data availability). Evaluation was based on reference literature for indices available at the time of assessment. We identified 4 key gaps in indices assessed: pathways to achieving goals (means objectives) were not always clear or relevant to desired outcomes (fundamental objectives); index testing and understanding of expected behavior was often lacking; uncertainty was seldom acknowledged or accounted for; and costs of implementation were seldom considered. These gaps may render indices inadequate in certain decision-making contexts and are problematic for indices linked with biodiversity targets and sustainability goals. Ensuring that index objectives are clear and their design is underpinned by a model of relevant processes are crucial in addressing the gaps identified by our assessment. Uptake and productive use of indices will be improved if index performance is tested rigorously and assumptions and uncertainties are clearly communicated to end users. This will increase index accuracy and value in tracking biodiversity change and supporting national and global policy decisions, such as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Uso de las Ciencias de la Decisión para Evaluar los Índices Globales de Biodiversidad Resumen Los índices globales de biodiversidad se usan para medir el cambio ambiental y el avance hacia los objetivos de conservación, aunque pocos han sido evaluados completamente en cuanto a su capacidad para detectar las tendencias de interés como las declinaciones de especies amenazadas o la función del ecosistema. Evaluamos cualitativamente nueve índices de uso común para dar seguimiento a la biodiversidad a escala global y regional contra cinco criterios relacionados con los objetivos, diseño, comportamiento, incorporación de la incertidumbre y restricciones (p. ej.: costos y disponibilidad de datos) mediante una estrategia estructurada basada en las ciencias de la decisión. La evaluación se basó en la literatura de referencia para los índices disponibles al momento del análisis. Identificamos cuatro vacíos importantes en los índices estudiados: las vías para lograr los objetivos (objetivos medios) no fueron siempre claras o relevantes para los resultados deseados (objetivos fundamentales); el análisis del índice y el entendimiento del comportamiento esperado casi siempre fueron escasos; pocas veces se consideró o explicó la incertidumbre; y casi nunca se consideraron los costos de la implementación. Estos vacíos pueden hacer que los índices sean inadecuados en ciertos contextos de toma de decisiones y son problemáticos para los índices vinculados a los objetivos de biodiversidad y las metas de sustentabilidad. Es de suma importancia asegurarse que los objetivos del índice sean claros y que su diseño esté respaldado por un modelo de procesos relevantes para tratar con los vacíos identificados en nuestro estudio. La aceptación y el uso productivo de los índices mejorarán si el desempeño del índice es evaluado rigurosamente y las suposiciones e incertidumbres se les comunican claramente a los usuarios finales. Lo anterior aumentará la precisión y valor del índice en el seguimiento de los cambios de la biodiversidad y en el apoyo a las decisiones políticas nacionales y mundiales, como el marco de trabajo para la biodiversidad post-2020 establecido por la Convención sobre la Diversidad Biológica. 全球生物多样性指数被用于衡量环境变化和保护目标的进展情况, 然而, 很少有研究全面评估这些指数监测相应变化 (如受威胁物种的数量下降或生态系统功能丧失) 的能力。本研究利用基于决策科学的结构化方法, 根据目标、设计、行为、不确定性和约束因素 (如成本和数据可用性) 这五个标准, 定性地评估了九个常用于追踪全球和区域生物多样性的指数。我们以评估阶段已有的参考文献为基础, 在被评估的指数中找出了四个关键的差距:实现目标的途径 (方法目标) 有时不够清晰或与预期结果 (基本目标) 不相关;缺乏检验和理解预期行为的指数;很少考虑或解释不确定性;很少考虑实施成本。这些不足可能导致某些决策背景下指数使用不恰当, 或是与生物多样性目标和可持续性目标相关的指数存在问题。要解决我们在评估中发现的差距, 应确保指数的目标清晰, 且设计基于相关过程的模型。如果能严格检验指数的表现情况, 并向最终使用者清楚地传达其假设和不确定性, 则能改进对指数的理解和有效使用。这样将提高在追踪生物多样性变化、支持国家和全球政策决策 (如《生物多样性公约》 2020 年后全球生物多样性框架) 中指数的准确性和价值。翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚.

Autres résumés

Type: Publisher (spa)
Uso de las Ciencias de la Decisión para Evaluar los Índices Globales de Biodiversidad Resumen Los índices globales de biodiversidad se usan para medir el cambio ambiental y el avance hacia los objetivos de conservación, aunque pocos han sido evaluados completamente en cuanto a su capacidad para detectar las tendencias de interés como las declinaciones de especies amenazadas o la función del ecosistema. Evaluamos cualitativamente nueve índices de uso común para dar seguimiento a la biodiversidad a escala global y regional contra cinco criterios relacionados con los objetivos, diseño, comportamiento, incorporación de la incertidumbre y restricciones (p. ej.: costos y disponibilidad de datos) mediante una estrategia estructurada basada en las ciencias de la decisión. La evaluación se basó en la literatura de referencia para los índices disponibles al momento del análisis. Identificamos cuatro vacíos importantes en los índices estudiados: las vías para lograr los objetivos (objetivos medios) no fueron siempre claras o relevantes para los resultados deseados (objetivos fundamentales); el análisis del índice y el entendimiento del comportamiento esperado casi siempre fueron escasos; pocas veces se consideró o explicó la incertidumbre; y casi nunca se consideraron los costos de la implementación. Estos vacíos pueden hacer que los índices sean inadecuados en ciertos contextos de toma de decisiones y son problemáticos para los índices vinculados a los objetivos de biodiversidad y las metas de sustentabilidad. Es de suma importancia asegurarse que los objetivos del índice sean claros y que su diseño esté respaldado por un modelo de procesos relevantes para tratar con los vacíos identificados en nuestro estudio. La aceptación y el uso productivo de los índices mejorarán si el desempeño del índice es evaluado rigurosamente y las suposiciones e incertidumbres se les comunican claramente a los usuarios finales. Lo anterior aumentará la precisión y valor del índice en el seguimiento de los cambios de la biodiversidad y en el apoyo a las decisiones políticas nacionales y mundiales, como el marco de trabajo para la biodiversidad post-2020 establecido por la Convención sobre la Diversidad Biológica.
Type: Publisher (chi)
全球生物多样性指数被用于衡量环境变化和保护目标的进展情况, 然而, 很少有研究全面评估这些指数监测相应变化 (如受威胁物种的数量下降或生态系统功能丧失) 的能力。本研究利用基于决策科学的结构化方法, 根据目标、设计、行为、不确定性和约束因素 (如成本和数据可用性) 这五个标准, 定性地评估了九个常用于追踪全球和区域生物多样性的指数。我们以评估阶段已有的参考文献为基础, 在被评估的指数中找出了四个关键的差距:实现目标的途径 (方法目标) 有时不够清晰或与预期结果 (基本目标) 不相关;缺乏检验和理解预期行为的指数;很少考虑或解释不确定性;很少考虑实施成本。这些不足可能导致某些决策背景下指数使用不恰当, 或是与生物多样性目标和可持续性目标相关的指数存在问题。要解决我们在评估中发现的差距, 应确保指数的目标清晰, 且设计基于相关过程的模型。如果能严格检验指数的表现情况, 并向最终使用者清楚地传达其假设和不确定性, 则能改进对指数的理解和有效使用。这样将提高在追踪生物多样性变化、支持国家和全球政策决策 (如《生物多样性公约》 2020 年后全球生物多样性框架) 中指数的准确性和价值。翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32557849
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13574
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

492-501

Informations de copyright

© 2020 Society for Conservation Biology.

Références

Bal P, Tulloch AIT, Addison P, McDonald-Madden E, Rhodes JR. 2018. Selecting indicator species for biodiversity management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 16:589-598.
Branch TA, Watson R, Fulton EA, Jennings S, McGilliard CR, Pablico GT, Ricard D, Tracey SR. 2010. The trophic fingerprint of marine fisheries. Nature 468:431-435.
Buckland ST, Johnston A. 2017. Monitoring the biodiversity of regions: key principles and possible pitfalls. Biological Conservation 214:23-34.
Buckland ST, Magurran AE, Green RE, Fewster RM. 2005. Monitoring change in biodiversity through composite indices. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360:243-254.
Burgass MJ, Halpern BS, Nicholson E, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2017. Navigating uncertainty in environmental composite indicators. Ecological Indicators 75:268-278.
Butchart SHM, Stattersfield AJ, Bennun LA, Shutes SM, Akçakaya HR, Baillie JEM, Stuart SN, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM. 2004. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red list indices for birds. PLOS Biology 2:e383.
Collen B, Loh J, Whitmee S, Mcrae L, Amin R, Baillie JEM. 2009. Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conservation Biology 23:317-327.
Collen B, Nicholson E. 2014. Taking the measure of change. Science 346:166-167.
Collen B, Ram M, Zamin T, McRae L. 2008. The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring. Tropical Conservation Science 1:75-88.
Collen B, Whitton F, Dyer EE, Baillie JEM, Cumberlidge N, Darwall WRT, Pollock C, Richman NI, Soulsby AM, Böhm M. 2014. Global patterns of freshwater species diversity, threat and endemism. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23:40-51.
Costelloe B, Collen B, Milner-Gulland EJ, Craigie ID, Mcrae L, Rondinini C, Nicholson E. 2016. Global biodiversity indicators reflect the modeled impacts of protected area policy change. Conservation Letters 9:14-20.
Failing L, Gregory R. 2003. Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. Journal of Environmental Management 68:121-132.
FAO. 2015. Global forest resources assessment 2015.
Ferrier S, et al. 2016. The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany.
Frazier M, Longo C, Halpern BS. 2016. Mapping uncertainty due to missing data in the global ocean health index. PLOS ONE 11:e0160377. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160377.
Fulton EA, Smith ADM, Punt AE. 2005. Which ecological indicators can robustly detect effects of fishing? ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:540-551.
Grantham HS, Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Pressey RL, Rebelo TG, Possingham HP. 2008. Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning. Conservation Letters 1:190-198.
Gregory R, Arvai J, Gerber LR. 2013. Structuring decisions for managing threatened and endangered species in a changing climate. Conservation Biology 27:1212-1221.
Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D. 2012. Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley-Blackwell, United Kingdom.
Gregory RD, Skorpilova J, Vorisek P, Butler S. 2019. An analysis of trends, uncertainty and species selection shows contrasting trends of widespread forest and farmland birds in Europe. Ecological Indicators 103:676-687.
Halpern BS, et al. 2012. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488:615-620.
Hornborg S, Belgrano A, Bartolino V, Valentinsson D, Ziegler F. 2013. Trophic indicators in fisheries: a call for re-evaluation. Biology Letters 9:20121050.
Hudson LN, et al. 2017. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecology and Evolution 7:145-188.
Hugé J, Mukherjee N. 2018. The nominal group technique in ecology & conservation: application and challenges. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9:33-41.
Jones JPG, et al. 2011. The what, why and how of global biodiversity indicators beyond the 2010 target. Conservation Biology 25:450-457.
Karr JR. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish. Fisheries 6:21-27.
Lamb EG, Bayne E, Holloway G, Schieck J, Boutin S, Herbers J, Haughland DL. 2009. Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: are some more effective than others? Ecological Indicators 9:432-444.
Link JS, Yemane D, Shannon LJ, Coll M, Shin Y-J, Hill L, Borges MDF. 2010. Relating marine ecosystem indicators to fishing and environmental drivers: an elucidation of contrasting responses. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67:787-795.
Mace GM, et al. 2010. Biodiversity targets after 2010. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2:3-8.
Mace GM, Barrett M, Burgess ND, Cornell SE, Freeman R, Grooten M, Purvis A. 2018. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability 1:448-451.
Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akçakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN. 2008. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology 22:1424-1442.
McCarthy MA, Moore AL, Krauss J, Morgan JW, Clements CF. 2014. Linking indices for biodiversity monitoring to extinction risk theory. Conservation Biology 28:1575-1583.
Mcowen C, Ivory S, Dixon MJR, Regan EC, Obrecht A, Tittensor DP, Teller A, Chenery AM. 2016. Sufficiency and suitability of global biodiversity indicators for monitoring progress to 2020 targets. Conservation Letters 9:489-494.
McRae L, Deinet S, Freeman R. 2017. The diversity-weighted living planet index: controlling for taxonomic bias in a global biodiversity indicator. PLOS ONE 12:1-20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169156.
Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Hoffman A, Giovannini E. 2008. Handbook on constructing composite indicators. OECD Statistics Working Papers.
Nicholson E, et al. 2012. Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators. PLOS ONE 7:e41128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041128.
Nicholson E, et al. 2019. Scenarios and models to support global conservation targets. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34:57-68.
Nicholson E, Fulton EA, Collen B. 2017. Linking biodiversity indicators with global conservation policy. Decision-making in conservation and natural resource management: models for interdisciplinary approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Nicholson E, Possingham HP. 2006. Objectives for multiple-species conservation planning. Conservation Biology 20:871-881.
Olsen E, Fay G, Gaichas S, Gamble R, Lucey S, Link JS. 2016. Ecosystem model skill assessment. Yes we can! PLOS ONE 11:e0146467. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146467.
Pauly D, Watson R. 2005. Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity. Philisophical Transcations of the Royal Society B 360:415-423.
Pereira HM, et al. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330:1496-1501.
Pereira HM, et al. 2013. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339:277-278.
Possingham HP, Andelman SJ, Noon BR, Trombulak SC, Pulliam HR. 2001. Making smart conservation decisions. Soulé ME and Orians GH, editors. Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Punt AE, Butterworth DS, Moor CL, De Oliveir JAA, Haddon M. 2016. Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish and Fisheries 17:303-334.
Purvis A, Hector A. 2000. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405:6783.
Regan HM, Colyvan IM, Burgman MA. 2002. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications 12:618-628.
Rice JC, Rochet M. 2005. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62:516-527.
Saha A, McRae L, Dodd CK, Gadsden H, Hare KM, Lukoschek V, Böhm M. 2018. Tracking global population trends: population time-series data and a living planet index for reptiles. Journal of Herpetology 52:259-268.
Santini L, et al. 2017. Assessing the suitability of diversity metrics to detect biodiversity change. Biological Conservation 213:341-350.
Scholes RJ, Biggs R. 2005. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434:45-49.
Stephens PA, Mason LR, Green RE, Gregory RD, Sauer JR, Alison J, Aunins A, Brotons L. 2016. Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents. Science 352:84-87.
Tam JC, et al. 2017. Towards ecosystem-based management: identifying operational food-web indicators for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 74:2040-2052.
Tittensor DP, et al. 2014. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346:241-245.
van Strien AJ, Soldaat LL, Gregory RD. 2012. Desirable mathematical properties of indicators for biodiversity change. Ecological Indicators 14:202-208.
Villasante S, Rodríguez D, Antelo M, Quaas M, Österblom H. 2012. The global seafood market performance index: a theoretical proposal and potential empirical applications. Marine Policy 36:142-152.
Visconti P, et al. 2016. Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future development scenarios. Conservation Letters 9:5-13.
Vörösmarty CJ, et al. 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 468:334-334.

Auteurs

Kate E Watermeyer (KE)

Deakin University, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Integrative Ecology, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.

Gurutzeta Guillera-Arroita (G)

School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.

Payal Bal (P)

School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.

Michael J Burgass (MJ)

Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, SL5 7PY, U.K.
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, U.K.
Biodiversify, Newark, Nottinghamshire, NG24, U.K.

Lucie M Bland (LM)

Deakin University, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Integrative Ecology, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Lucie Bland Editing, 1-3 Theobald Street, Thornbury, VIC, 3071, Australia.

Ben Collen (B)

Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetic, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, U.K.

Chris Hallam (C)

School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.

Luke T Kelly (LT)

School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.

Michael A McCarthy (MA)

School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.

Tracey J Regan (TJ)

School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.

Simone Stevenson (S)

Deakin University, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Integrative Ecology, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.

Brendan A Wintle (BA)

Quantitative and Applied Ecology, School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.

Emily Nicholson (E)

Deakin University, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Integrative Ecology, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH