A Methodology for Evaluating and Ranking Water Quantity Indicators in Support of Ecosystem-Based Management

Abstract

Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) is an approach that includes different management priorities and requires a balance between anthropogenic and ecological resource demands. Indicators can be used to monitor ecosystem status and trends, and assess whether projects and/or programs are leading to the achievement of management goals. As such, the careful selection of a suite of indicators is a crucial exercise. In this paper we describe an indicator evaluation and selection process designed to support the EBM approach in Puget Sound. The first step in this process was the development of a general framework for selecting indicators. The framework, designed to transparently include both scientific and policy considerations into the selection and evaluation process, was developed and then utilized in the organization and determination of a preliminary set of indicators. Next, the indicators were assessed against a set of nineteen distinct criteria that describe the model characteristics of an indicator. A literature review was performed for each indicator to determine the extent to which it satisfied each of the evaluation criteria. The result of each literature review was summarized in a numerical matrix, allowing comparison, and demonstrating the extent of scientific reliability. Finally, an approach for ranking indicators was developed to explore the effects of intended purpose on indicator selection. We identified several sets of scientifically valid and policy-relevant indicators that included metrics such as annual-7 day low flow and water system reliability, which are supportive of the EBM approach in the Puget Sound.

Conceptualizing and operationalizing human wellbeing for ecosystem assessment and management

“…Develop a set of indicators for each focal attribute, and identify where complementary research is needed. Choosing indicators for a specific attribute typically involves compiling available candidate indicators, screening them according to predefined criteria, and selecting parsimonious sets that serve the purpose at hand (James et al, 2012;Kershner et al, 2011;Levin et al, 2009). To facilitate the selection process, we developed a database of nearly 2300 existing social indicators (Appendix B) compiled from 34 projects around the world (Appendix C) and coded each indicator with relevant attributes from Table 1.…”

Evaluating indicators of human well-being for ecosystem-based management

“…In the California Current, the large marine ecosystem running the length of the US West Coast, IEA practitioners have developed a systematic method for selecting indicators of ecological integrity (James et al 2012;Kershner et al 2011), but a similar effort has not been completed for human well-being. Elsewhere, indicators of human well-being have been developed to inform sustainable development, conservation (e.g., Mascia, Claus, and Naidoo 2010), ecosystem recovery (e.g., Dillard et al 2013;Biedenweg et al 2014), and vulnerability assessments (e.g., Jepson 2007).…”

Shifting Perspectives in Assessing Socio-Environmental Vulnerability

“…A "top-down" approach depends more heavily on detailed scientific data, published studies, downscaled climate projections, and expert opinion. For example, experts often review literature and suggest indicators that they think are useful for measuring vulnerability [59].…”

“…This indicator contained information critical to anticipating climate effects on particular crops and to making decisions about what to plant in the future. While emphasizing values that are important to community stakeholders, these facets can be built on recommended principles of scientific reliability [59]. Work with tribes in the US has similarly emphasized biophysical metrics to quantify the usability and availability of key forest product species, including the abundance of mature hardwood trees that produce culturally important foods [84,85].…”