1. The use of indicators to identify areas of conservation importance has been challenged on several grounds, but nonetheless retains appeal as no more parsimonious approach exists. Among the many variants, two indicator strategies stand out: the use of indicator species and the use of metrics of landscape structure. While the first has been thoroughly studied, the same cannot be said about the latter. We aimed to contrast the relative efficacy of species-based and landscape-based indicators by: (i) comparing their ability to reflect changes in community integrity at regional and landscape spatial scales, (ii) assessing their sensitivity to changes in data resolution, and (iii) quantifying the degree to which indicators that are generated in one landscape or at one spatial scale can be transferred to additional landscapes or scales. 2. We used data from more than 7000 bird captures in 65 sites from six 10 000-ha landscapes with different proportions of forest cover in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Indicator species and landscape-based indicators were tested in terms of how effective they were in reflecting changes in community integrity, defined as deviations in bird community composition from control areas. 3. At the regional scale, indicator species provided more robust depictions of community integrity than landscape-based indicators. At the landscape scale, however, landscape-based indicators performed more effectively, more consistently and were also more transferable among landscapes. The effectiveness of high resolution landscape-based indicators was reduced by just 12% when these were used to explain patterns of community integrity in independent data sets. By contrast, the effectiveness of species-based indicators was reduced by 33%. 4. Synthesis and applications. The use of indicator species proved to be effective; however their results were variable and sensitive to changes in scale and resolution, and their application requires extensive and time-consuming field work. Landscape-based indicators were not only effective but were also much less context-dependent. The use of landscape-based indicators may allow the rapid identification of priority areas for conservation and restoration, and indicate which restoration strategies should be pursued, using remotely sensed imagery. We suggest that landscape-based indicators might often be a better, simpler, and cheaper strategy for informing decisions in conservation.

Maintaining biodiversity is one of the key issues of sustainable agriculture. It is now stated that innovation to enhance biodiversity in arable land requires operational assessment tools like indicators. The goal of the article is to provide an overview of available indicators. Besides measured indicators and simple indicators based on management data, we focus on predictive indicators derived from operational models and adapted to ex ante assessment in innovative cropping design. The possibility of use for each indicator type is discussed.

International audience | Maintaining biodiversity is one of the key issues of sustainable agriculture. It is now stated that innovation to enhance biodiversity in arable land requires operational assessment tools like indicators. The goal of the article is to provide an overview of available indicators. Besides measured indicators and simple indicators based on management data, we focus on predictive indicators derived from operational models and adapted to ex ante assessment in innovative cropping design. The possibility of use for each indicator type is discussed.

Compiled by the Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla) | This publication is an updated and revised version of earlier 'State of Finland's Forests' reports. It has been discussed and commented by the Finnish Advisory Board for international Forest Policy appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

This review critically evaluates indicators of tidal wetland condition based on 36 indicator development studies and indicators developed as part of U.S. state tidal wetland monitoring programs. Individual metrics were evaluated based on relative scores on two sets of evaluation factors. A rigor score evaluated metric development based on conceptual relevance, indicator development method, degree of independent validation, and temporal and spatial extent tested. An applicability score evaluated metrics based on cost of data collection, probable spatial extent of applicability, technical complexity, and indicator responsiveness. The majority of indicators could be classified as biotic condition indicators (81%), with vegetation (37%) and macroinvertebrate (28%) metrics composing the largest proportion. Most metrics provided a conceptual model or scientific justification (97%), were developed by correlation to environmental gradients (46%), were tested over multiple seasons or years (49%) and at multiple sites (88%). Few were independently validated (18%). Average rigor score was 10 (on a scale of 0–25) and ranged between 1 and 21. Highest rigor scores were for trematode community metrics (community similarity index, species richness) and metrics of grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) individuals (gene expression, relative fecundity, embryo hatching success, larval survival). Most metrics had a high cost of data collection (63%), required field and laboratory processing (84%), would be applicable across the U.S. (72%), and were responsive to the variable of interest (44%). Mean applicability score was 4.9 (range: 2–8). Highest scores were found for metrics that only required field collection of data using simple or no instrumentation. Lowest scoring metrics required expensive equipment, specialized taxonomic knowledge, complex laboratory analysis, and/or culturing of organisms. Scores for individual metrics were grouped by indicator, then averaged and rescaled between 0 and 100 to provide a composite evaluation of the indicator they measured. Among major indicator types, biotic indicators had the highest rigor scores (mean=44, range 20–79), followed by indicators of chemical/physical characteristics (mean=36, range 16–56), landscape condition (mean=31, range 24–37), and hydrology/geomorphology indicators (mean=21, range 4–52). In contrast, biotic indicators scored lowest for applicability (mean=58, range 25–100) and indicators of landscape condition scored highest. The results of this review suggest that the development and selection of tidal wetland indicators could be vastly improved by employing a standardized development methodology that provides uniform information about each indicator. In addition, tidal wetland indicator research should focus on the development of indicators of ecological processes and disturbance regimes.

Developing socioeconomic indicators for ecosystem-based fisheries management is particularly important. This is because socioeconomic factors have direct effects on ecosystems, and ecosystems have direct effects on socioeconomic factors. Therefore, it is imperative that socioeconomic indicators are developed and evaluated in order to predict changes in ecosystems and to provide advice for effective fisheries management. In this study, socioeconomic indicators have been developed to be combined with biological and ecological indicators, in order to conduct the ecosystem-based fisheries assessment. In terms of socioeconomic indicators, five socioeconomic criteria were considered as important attributes of socioeconomic changes. These were economic production, business conditions, levels of income, the state of the market, and levels of employment. In order to establish reference points for the evaluation of indicators, target reference points and limit reference points were set through a comparison with other industries or other fisheries rather than by using the Traffic Light System (TLS) method, which has been used in many previous studies. In addition, on the basis of the application of developed indicators and reference points to the Korean large purse seine fishery, the socioeconomic conditions of the fishery and the usefulness of the indicators were evaluated and management implications were discussed.

Ecosystem-based fisheries management requires a holistic assessment of fisheries status that integrates fishery ecosystem indicators for several major objectives such as sustainability, biodiversity, habitat quality, and socioeconomic status. Scientists have already paid much attention to the first three objectives and to the development of their indicators. Although there have been some efforts to develop socioeconomic indicators, relatively less attention has been paid to socioeconomic status and the development of its indicators. In addition, the socioeconomic indicators developed to date are not firmly based on economic theory. We (i) discuss the problems with previous approaches to developing socioeconomic indicators; (ii) present theoretical foundations of a multi-attribute utility function (MAUF) approach in developing socioeconomic indicators; (iii) discuss the issues associated with implementing the MAUF approach for fisheries in Alaska; (iv) present, as an example, several socioeconomic indicators developed using the MAUF approach for a fishery off Alaska; and (v) present results from some sensitivity analyses for the form of utility functions and weights. Future directions are also discussed.

This report examines the use and influence of sustainable development indicators. The focus is on the role of indicators in assessing national and EU-level sustainable development strategies. The use of indicators is assessed through three country studies in Finland, Malta and Slovakia, all of which have developed such indicators and strategies during the past decade. The use is explored through document analysis and interviews of developers, regulators and other civil servants and other expected end-users.  Attention is given to the characteristics and relevance of the indicators and to the motivation to use indicators. Based on the results the methods used to produce, disseminate and communicate the indicators are discussed. Barriers to their use and potential ways to increase and improve the use are investigated. Finally, conclusions are formulated in order to enhance and enrich the use of indicators.

The paper presents a method of assessment of the ecological state of lakes. It is based on methodology proposed by the Polish Limnological Society. According to this methodology, a set of indicators may be determined and may serve as a basis to make recommendations on what actions should be taken to maintain or restore a good ecological state of a lake. The set of indicators used for remedy recommendations includes: environmental pressure indicators that determine the rate of eutrophication in bodies of water, indicators of the state of the environment describing water quality and the balance of the water resources of a lake, and reaction indicators providing information on the degree of eutrophication of a lake.