Vollmer Derek, Regan Helen M, Andelman Sandy J
Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA, 22202, USA.
Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521, USA.
Ambio. 2016 Nov;45(7):765-780. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0792-7. Epub 2016 Jun 1.
Quantitative indicators are a common means of assessing the complex dimensions of a sustainable freshwater system, and framing scientific knowledge for policy and decision makers. There is an abundance of indicators in use, but considerable variation in terms of what is being measured and how indicators are applied, making it difficult for end-users to identify suitable assessment methods. We review 95 water-related indices and analyze them along their normative, procedural, and systemic dimensions to better understand how problems are being defined, highlight overlaps and differences, and identify the context(s) in which a particular index is useful. We also analyze the intended use, end-users, and geographic scale of application for each index. We find that risk assessment is the most common application (n = 25), with indices in this group typically focusing either on hazard identification (biophysical assessments) or vulnerability of human populations. Indices that measure freshwater ecological health are not explicitly linking these indicators to ecosystem services, and in fact the concept of ecosystem services is rarely (n = 3) used for indicator selection. Resource managers are the most common group of intended end-users (n = 25), but while 28 indices involved consultation with potential end-users, 11 did not specify an intended use. We conclude that indices can be applied as solution-oriented tools, evaluating scenarios and identifying tradeoffs among services and beneficiaries, rather than only assessing and monitoring existing conditions. Finally, earlier engagement of end-users is recommended to help researchers find the right balance among indices' salience, legitimacy, and credibility and thus improve their decision relevance.
定量指标是评估可持续淡水系统复杂维度以及为政策制定者和决策者构建科学知识的常用手段。目前使用的指标众多,但在衡量内容和指标应用方式上存在很大差异,这使得最终用户难以确定合适的评估方法。我们回顾了95个与水相关的指数,并从其规范性、程序性和系统性维度进行分析,以更好地理解问题是如何界定的,突出重叠和差异,并确定特定指数适用的背景。我们还分析了每个指数的预期用途、最终用户和应用的地理范围。我们发现风险评估是最常见的应用(n = 25),该组指数通常侧重于危害识别(生物物理评估)或人群脆弱性。衡量淡水生态健康的指数并未将这些指标与生态系统服务明确联系起来,事实上,生态系统服务的概念很少(n = 3)用于指标选择。资源管理者是最常见的预期最终用户群体(n = 25),但虽然有28个指数涉及与潜在最终用户的磋商,但有11个指数未明确规定预期用途。我们得出结论,指数可作为面向解决方案的工具应用,评估各种情景并确定服务与受益者之间的权衡,而不仅仅是评估和监测现有状况。最后,建议尽早让最终用户参与,以帮助研究人员在指数的显著性、合法性和可信度之间找到恰当平衡,从而提高其与决策的相关性。