Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making

Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven (1) , Matthias Schröter (2) , Evangelia G. Drakou (3) , Ilse Geijzendorffer (4) , Sander Jacobs (5) , Peter van Bodegom (1) , Laurent Chazee (4) , Bálint Czúcz (6, 7) , Karsten Grunewald , Ana Lillebø (8) , Laura Mononen (9, 10, 11) , António J.A. Nogueira (8) , Manuel Pacheco-Romero (12) , Christian Perennou (4) , Roy Remme (13) , Silvia Rova (14) , Ralf-Uwe Syrbe , Jamie Tratalos (15) , María Vallejos (16) , Christian Albert (17)

1 Universiteit Leiden = Leiden University
2 UFZ - Helmholtz Zentrum für Umweltforschung = Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research
3 University of Twente
4 Institut de recherche de la Tour du Valat
5 INBO - Research Institute for Nature and Forest
6 CTE/DB - Centre Thématique Européen sur la Diversité Biologique
7 Centre for Ecological Research [Budapest]
8 Universidade de Aveiro
9 SYKE - Finnish Environment Institute
10 LUKE - Natural Resources Institute Finland
11 University of Eastern Finland
12 UAL - Universidad de Almería
13 RIVM - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [Bilthoven]
14 University of Ca’ Foscari [Venice, Italy]
15 UCD - University College Dublin [Dublin]
16 Facultad de Agronomía [Buenos Aires]
17 Leibniz Universität Hannover=Leibniz University Hannover

Decision makers are increasingly interested in information from ecosystem services (ES) assessments. Scientists have for long recognised the importance of selecting appropriate indicators. Yet, while the amount and variety of indicators developed by scientists seems to increase continuously, the extent to which the indicators truly inform decision makers is often unknown and questioned. In this viewpoint paper, we reflect and provide guidance on how to develop appropriate ES indicators for informing decision making, building on scientific literature and practical experience collected from researchers involved in seven case studies. We synthesized 16 criteria for ES indicator selection and organized them according to the widely used categories of credibility, salience, legitimacy (CSL). We propose to consider additional criteria related to feasibility (F), as CSL criteria alone often seem to produce indicators which are unachievable in practice. Considering CSLF together requires a combination of scientific knowledge, communication skills, policy and governance insights and on-field experience. In conclusion, we present a checklist to evaluate CSLF of your ES indicators. This checklist helps to detect and mitigate critical shortcomings in an early phase of the development process, and aids the development of effective indicators to inform actual policy decisions.

Mots clés: Salience; Legitimacy; Credibility; CSL; Science-policy interface; Feasibility

Domaines: Sciences de l'environnement

Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven, Matthias Schröter, Evangelia G. Drakou, Ilse Geijzendorffer, Sander Jacobs, et al.. Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making. Ecological Indicators, 2018, 95, pp.417-426. ⟨10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020⟩. ⟨hal-01945046⟩