No abstract

The magnitude and urgency of the biodiversity crisis is widely recognized within scientific and political organizations. However, a lack of integrated measures for biodiversity has greatly constrained the national and international response to the biodiversity crisis. Thus, integrated biodiversity indexes will greatly facilitate information transfer from science toward other areas of human society. The Nature Index framework samples scientific information on biodiversity from a variety of sources, synthesizes this information, and then transmits it in a simplified form to environmental managers, policymakers, and the public. The Nature Index optimizes information use by incorporating expert judgment, monitoring-based estimates, and model-based estimates. The index relies on a network of scientific experts, each of whom is responsible for one or more biodiversity indicators. The resulting set of indicators is supposed to represent the best available knowledge on the state of biodiversity and ecosystems in any given area. The value of each indicator is scaled relative to a reference state, i.e., a predicted value assessed by each expert for a hypothetical undisturbed or sustainably managed ecosystem. Scaled indicator values can be aggregated or disaggregated over different axes representing spatiotemporal dimensions or thematic groups. A range of scaling models can be applied to allow for different ways of interpreting the reference states, e.g., optimal situations or minimum sustainable levels. Statistical testing for differences in space or time can be implemented using Monte-Carlo simulations. This study presents the Nature Index framework and details its implementation in Norway. The results suggest that the framework is a functional, efficient, and pragmatic approach for gathering and synthesizing scientific knowledge on the state of biodiversity in any marine or terrestrial ecosystem and has general applicability worldwide.

This paper addresses some interrelated questions regarding ethical investments: does ethical screening provide any incentives for improved social responsibility within firms? Are ethical screened portfolios competitive compared with conventional funds with respect to risk‐adjusted return? Does the risk‐adjusted return of a screened portfolio depend on the screening strategy applied? Considering ethical screening as a kind of segmentation of the equity market, it is shown that screening might create incentives for changes in firms' behaviour. The strength of this incentive depends on the relative share of screened portfolios, which in turn partially depends on the financial performance of the screened portfolios. While some theoretical arguments suggest that screening imposes a handicap compared with conventional portfolios, the empirical evidence does not suggest that screened portfolios systematically under‐perform conventional portfolios. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Sustainable development indicators (SDIs) may have good potential to bring environmental concerns to the policy agenda. However, different understandings of sustainability, definitions of SDIs and measurement procedures may give completely different assessments of whether society moves towards a sustainable development path or not. Compilation of statistical indicators for environmental change and sustainability comprises not only a selection of facts in some technical sense, as the choices involved are conditioned by societal interests and implicit values embedded in the data-generating processes. This implies that statistical offices cannot ignore the role that values play in the generation of accurate data sets. To give an assessment of sustainability, we need not only to address historical trends but also to evaluate policy choices made today and how they may influence future development. SDI sets should be evaluated according to how they contribute to deliberation on sustainability in learning processes involving participants beyond the science-policy interface.

No abstract