Making measures count: Structured indicator selection to improve program success

Liberati, Marjorie R.; Sowa, Scott P.; May, Christopher A.; Doran, Patrick J.

doi:10.1016/j.indic.2020.100077

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We knew that we would not have resources to evaluate every indicator identified for the Global List, so a “stop‐go” filter (Liberati et al, 2020) was used to prioritize a smaller set of indicators for a Scoring List. A stop‐go filter uses criteria as hard determinants of whether the indicator moves on to the next phase of the selection process.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The value of structured decision making is that the approach deconstructs complexities of a decision into component parts so each part can be addressed independently and then reassembled to transparently identify a defensible decision. The implementation of these steps to select indicators (Liberati et al, 2020) is described in the following sections and visualized in Table 1.…”

Section: Indicator Selection Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideally, socio-economic indicators would be identified and implemented at the start of a project or program. However, many ongoing conservation programs were not originally developed to address these integrated outcomes but would still benefit from considering socio-economic factors (Liberati et al, 2020). While ideally programs would want to include every possible measurement of the system, practically, there are logistical, budgetary, and technological constraints that limit what can be measured (Tulloch et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Integrating new indicators into conservation programs can come with substantial costs because indicators take time and expertise to develop (Baldera et al, 2018), and monitoring programs can require substantial resource expenditures (Bal et al, 2018). Programs are increasingly under pressure to demonstrate progress and return-on-investments, and indicators are integral for illustrating programmatic outcomes (Liberati et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this framework, alternatives are usually management actions or a combination of actions that are responsive to the defined objectives (Gregory et al, 2012). But if indicators are also viewed as irreversible allocations of resources, then indicators can also be the alternatives under consideration (Liberati et al, 2020). Using indicators can be extremely resource‐intensive if new monitoring initiatives are developed and implemented, but even using existing data is also an investment because it requires staff time and expertise to access, synthesize, and integrate indicators into program planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Planning for people and nature: Comparing quality‐of‐life outcomes across environmental systems to inform conservation planning

Liberati

May

Sowa

et al. 2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation programs have been slow to integrate socio-economic indicators into decision making despite growing recognition that addressing social-ecological systems improves outcomes for nature and people. Our goal was to identify small, comprehensive sets of socio-economic indicators for conservation programs designed to (1) improve agricultural soil health and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to freshwater systems, (2) restore Great Lakes coastal wetlands, and (3) implement green stormwater infrastructure in cities. We piloted a structured decision-making process to select indicators more objectively and transparently. Important elements of our process were (a) using a human quality-of-life framework to identify potential indicators and (b) evaluating indicators' relevance to conservation, resonance with communities, and data-availability. The programs identified 278 potential indicators across seven quality-of-life domains, of which 78 were evaluated against six selection criteria. For each program, we developed intended use scenarios, assigned relative weights to selection criteria, and used these weights to calculate a weighted sum of the indicator's criteria scores and rank indicators. Across programs and intended uses, 21 indicators achieved top-five rankings; indicators for flood risk and damage were common across all three programs. Our collaborative approach provided opportunities to evaluate indicator selections across quality-of-life domain, conservation program, and intended uses.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indicator Selection Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Planning for people and nature: Comparing quality‐of‐life outcomes across environmental systems to inform conservation planning

Liberati

May

Sowa

et al. 2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

Jurjonas,

May,

Cardinale

et al. 2023

People and Nature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, ecosystem restoration has focussed on standard ecological indicators like water or habitat quality, species population abundance or vegetation cover to determine success. However, there is growing interest in how restoration might impact people and communities. For example, researchers have documented positive socio‐ecological links between restoration and human well‐being indicators like property value, natural hazard mitigation, recreation opportunity and happiness. Furthermore, public health benefits from restoration have been linked to public support for programmes. Drawing from this research, the United Nations declared 2021–2030 the ‘Decade of Ecosystem Restoration’ and set a goal to promote more socio‐ecological goals in ecosystem restoration. Nonetheless, there is still a lack of information on the extent to which restoration practitioners consider well‐being because many granting programmes only require ecological goals and monitoring. To explore how restoration practitioners design, implement and measure the success of their projects, we used the federally funded Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) as a case study. Since 2010, GLRI has awarded over $3.5 Billion to over 5300 projects across the midwestern United States, but it does not presently require human well‐being considerations. We performed an online survey targeting project managers with a sample of GLRI projects (N = 1574). We received 437 responses and found that almost half set a human well‐being goal, and more than 70% of those who did believe they reached it. In comparison, 90% of project managers believed they met their ecological goals. These documented perceptions of positive impacts for both people and nature suggest that restoration may already transcend traditional indicators and monitoring for socio‐ecological metrics could capture many ‘unseen’ benefits. Therefore, we recommend that ecosystem restoration programmes adopt a socio‐ecological lens to document the full extent of their restoration outcomes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Ecosystem Services Value Realization and Ecological Industry Design in Scenic Areas of Karst in South China

Chang,

Xiong,

Zhu

et al. 2024

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services (ESs) value realization and ecological industry (eco-industry) are essential components of regional development. Due to the vulnerability and non-renewability of natural landscape resources in Karst areas, once unreasonable resource development takes place, it is easy to pose threats and causes damage to its ecosystem. This article selects the grain data correction equivalent factor coefficients in Guizhou Province, China, and establishes accounting indicators for Karst scenic areas. It is found that the total economic value of ESs is as follows: Shanmuhe Scenic Area (CNY 5096.3 thousand) > DaXiaoQiKong Scenic Area (CNY 2778.6 thousand) > Huangguoshu Scenic Area (CNY 2130.7 thousand). Among them, the value of regulating services plays a dominant role in the composition of ESs, and the value of forests accounts for the largest proportion. Through web crawlers, tourism data can be acquired, and the Product–Experience–Feedback–Improvement (PEFI) model can be applied to reveal that tourists have a predominantly positive perception of Karst scenic areas. This indicates that karst landscape resources are deeply loved by domestic and foreign tourists, especially mountain, water and forest landscapes. Based on the results of the ES value accounting of the scenic area and the external perception data of tourists towards the scenic area, the eco-industry spatial layout development plan is formulated. According to local conditions, the development, construction, and protection of the scenic area are carried out, jointly promoting the realization of the ecological product value (EPV) of the Karst scenic area, to determine the optimal development direction of the eco-industry, and to promote the coordinated development of ecological resources and assets.

show abstract

Making measures count: Structured indicator selection to improve program success

Cited by 4 publications

References 39 publications

Planning for people and nature: Comparing quality‐of‐life outcomes across environmental systems to inform conservation planning

Planning for people and nature: Comparing quality‐of‐life outcomes across environmental systems to inform conservation planning

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

Ecosystem Services Value Realization and Ecological Industry Design in Scenic Areas of Karst in South China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About