You are here:
Linking Indicators: Key Research Questions to Guide Decisions on What to Measure, Map and Model
Citation:
Boyd, J., P. Ringold, A. Krupnick, R. Johnston, M. Weber, AND K. Hall. Linking Indicators: Key Research Questions to Guide Decisions on What to Measure, Map and Model. Resources for the Future, 2015.
Impact/Purpose:
The Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program as well as members of EPA client offices have embraced the concept of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). FEGS are the biophysical units that best link changes in ecosystems to changes in human well being. Thus, they are useful for communication, benefits analysis, and for accounting for nature's wealth, for example in a "Green GDP". This paper authoritatively describes the rationale for and potential uses of FEGS. It identifies 7 key questions encountered in attempting to translate FEGS concepts into practice and reviews the state of the science on each. It recommends steps to take in addressing these key questions. Thus it should have a profound influence in shaping our research efforts to understand, use and identify metrics and indicators of FEGS
Description:
Public policy increasingly demands insight into the social consequences of environmental policy and drivers of human behaviors that affect the environment. Social consequences can provide potent justifications for environmental protection and management, and human preferences and related behaviors are the key to understanding both the cause of and solutions to most environmental challenges. The firmer the “handshake” between biophysical and social analysis, the better our ability to address those challenges will be. Yet often the indicators measured by biophysical scientists do not correspond to factors relevant to human preferences and behavior. A key to collaboration between natural and social scientists is the identification and measurement of linking indicators: biophysical indicators that facilitate social evaluation, including monetary valuation of ecological changes. Selection and measurement of biophysical indicators have traditionally been driven by natural scientists with relatively little input from the social sciences and (understandably) as a function of measurement cost considerations, regulatory mandates, and ecological theory. For their part, social scientists have traditionally underappreciated the importance of biophysical indicators’ definition to the accuracy of their own analyses and have not always employed indicators that link well with outcomes measured and modeled by natural scientists. The broader deployment of linking indicators—in monitoring programs, policy analysis, public reporting, and environmental accounting—requires natural and social scientists to share a common understanding of these indicators’ motivation, features, and practical deployment. This report is geared toward and carries implications for both natural and social scientists. The paper • develops a set of principles to guide the further identification of linking indicators;• describes linking indicators’ role in benefit-cost analysis; environmental accounting; and communication of ecological status, trends, and management outcomes;• compares their features to more commonly collected ecological measures; and• reviews empirical evidence pertinent to the further identification, definition, and performance of linking indicators, primarily from the point of view of conducting monetary valuation of ecological outcomes.
