Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework

Autores
Brambila, Alejandro; Flombaum, Pedro
Año de publicación
2017
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Environmental indicator sets (EIS) are tools to monitor and assess sustainability, and many environmental organizations have embraced their use. Due to the large number of EIS, it is a challenge to compare and reconcile their differences and gain a comprehensive view of their utility. To compare EIS, the first step is to classify their component indicators, for which several frameworks exist. Among the most widely used, is the causal-chain framework, also referred to as PSR after its categories of Pressure, State and Response. Other frameworks classify indicators by subject, yet none is widely applied. Aiming to compare EIS, we first proposed a unified classification criteria for indicators using PSR and five subject categories (i.e., biodiversity and ecosystem health, E; natural resources, N; physical and chemical contamination, C; human environment, H; and general, G). Then, we used these classification criteria to describe and compare fourteen existing environmental indicator sets. Finally, we compared EIS based on their production characteristics and goals. Across the fourteen EIS, we analyzed 706 indicators (which represent ∼1200 variables) and selected 16 and 79 keywords for classification in the PSR and ENCHG categories respectively. We found on average that the ratio of categories in the causal chain framework was 2.5S:1.5P:1R, while we observed a large variability across EIS. For the subject categories, C-E-N were nearly equally represented among EIS, and better represented than H-G. Also, the evaluated EIS showed a polarization between C-H and E categories that we interpreted as a human vs. natural-ecosystem welfare focus. Finally, we identified three broad categories of EIS based primarily on the organization that produced them, non-governmental organizations, governmental organizations, and international organizations. Our results can contribute to the design and implementation of scientifically robust and representative EIS, which are key to incorporate environmental data to policymaking in the search of sustainability.
Fil: Brambila, Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera; Argentina
Fil: Flombaum, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Departamento de Ecología Genética y Evolución; Argentina
Materia
Causal Chain Framework
Environmental Indicator Sets
Sustainability Index
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/58907

id CONICETDig_95a2ccd21cc0ae42ad3bf194193e05d4
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/58907
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification frameworkBrambila, AlejandroFlombaum, PedroCausal Chain FrameworkEnvironmental Indicator SetsSustainability Indexhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Environmental indicator sets (EIS) are tools to monitor and assess sustainability, and many environmental organizations have embraced their use. Due to the large number of EIS, it is a challenge to compare and reconcile their differences and gain a comprehensive view of their utility. To compare EIS, the first step is to classify their component indicators, for which several frameworks exist. Among the most widely used, is the causal-chain framework, also referred to as PSR after its categories of Pressure, State and Response. Other frameworks classify indicators by subject, yet none is widely applied. Aiming to compare EIS, we first proposed a unified classification criteria for indicators using PSR and five subject categories (i.e., biodiversity and ecosystem health, E; natural resources, N; physical and chemical contamination, C; human environment, H; and general, G). Then, we used these classification criteria to describe and compare fourteen existing environmental indicator sets. Finally, we compared EIS based on their production characteristics and goals. Across the fourteen EIS, we analyzed 706 indicators (which represent ∼1200 variables) and selected 16 and 79 keywords for classification in the PSR and ENCHG categories respectively. We found on average that the ratio of categories in the causal chain framework was 2.5S:1.5P:1R, while we observed a large variability across EIS. For the subject categories, C-E-N were nearly equally represented among EIS, and better represented than H-G. Also, the evaluated EIS showed a polarization between C-H and E categories that we interpreted as a human vs. natural-ecosystem welfare focus. Finally, we identified three broad categories of EIS based primarily on the organization that produced them, non-governmental organizations, governmental organizations, and international organizations. Our results can contribute to the design and implementation of scientifically robust and representative EIS, which are key to incorporate environmental data to policymaking in the search of sustainability.Fil: Brambila, Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera; ArgentinaFil: Flombaum, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Departamento de Ecología Genética y Evolución; ArgentinaElsevier Science2017-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/58907Brambila, Alejandro; Flombaum, Pedro; Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework; Elsevier Science; Ecological Indicators; 83; 12-2017; 96-1021470-160XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.023info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X17304375info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:07:14Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/58907instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:07:14.566CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
title Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
spellingShingle Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
Brambila, Alejandro
Causal Chain Framework
Environmental Indicator Sets
Sustainability Index
title_short Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
title_full Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
title_fullStr Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
title_sort Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Brambila, Alejandro
Flombaum, Pedro
author Brambila, Alejandro
author_facet Brambila, Alejandro
Flombaum, Pedro
author_role author
author2 Flombaum, Pedro
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Causal Chain Framework
Environmental Indicator Sets
Sustainability Index
topic Causal Chain Framework
Environmental Indicator Sets
Sustainability Index
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Environmental indicator sets (EIS) are tools to monitor and assess sustainability, and many environmental organizations have embraced their use. Due to the large number of EIS, it is a challenge to compare and reconcile their differences and gain a comprehensive view of their utility. To compare EIS, the first step is to classify their component indicators, for which several frameworks exist. Among the most widely used, is the causal-chain framework, also referred to as PSR after its categories of Pressure, State and Response. Other frameworks classify indicators by subject, yet none is widely applied. Aiming to compare EIS, we first proposed a unified classification criteria for indicators using PSR and five subject categories (i.e., biodiversity and ecosystem health, E; natural resources, N; physical and chemical contamination, C; human environment, H; and general, G). Then, we used these classification criteria to describe and compare fourteen existing environmental indicator sets. Finally, we compared EIS based on their production characteristics and goals. Across the fourteen EIS, we analyzed 706 indicators (which represent ∼1200 variables) and selected 16 and 79 keywords for classification in the PSR and ENCHG categories respectively. We found on average that the ratio of categories in the causal chain framework was 2.5S:1.5P:1R, while we observed a large variability across EIS. For the subject categories, C-E-N were nearly equally represented among EIS, and better represented than H-G. Also, the evaluated EIS showed a polarization between C-H and E categories that we interpreted as a human vs. natural-ecosystem welfare focus. Finally, we identified three broad categories of EIS based primarily on the organization that produced them, non-governmental organizations, governmental organizations, and international organizations. Our results can contribute to the design and implementation of scientifically robust and representative EIS, which are key to incorporate environmental data to policymaking in the search of sustainability.
Fil: Brambila, Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera; Argentina
Fil: Flombaum, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro de Investigaciones del Mar y la Atmósfera; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Departamento de Ecología Genética y Evolución; Argentina
description Environmental indicator sets (EIS) are tools to monitor and assess sustainability, and many environmental organizations have embraced their use. Due to the large number of EIS, it is a challenge to compare and reconcile their differences and gain a comprehensive view of their utility. To compare EIS, the first step is to classify their component indicators, for which several frameworks exist. Among the most widely used, is the causal-chain framework, also referred to as PSR after its categories of Pressure, State and Response. Other frameworks classify indicators by subject, yet none is widely applied. Aiming to compare EIS, we first proposed a unified classification criteria for indicators using PSR and five subject categories (i.e., biodiversity and ecosystem health, E; natural resources, N; physical and chemical contamination, C; human environment, H; and general, G). Then, we used these classification criteria to describe and compare fourteen existing environmental indicator sets. Finally, we compared EIS based on their production characteristics and goals. Across the fourteen EIS, we analyzed 706 indicators (which represent ∼1200 variables) and selected 16 and 79 keywords for classification in the PSR and ENCHG categories respectively. We found on average that the ratio of categories in the causal chain framework was 2.5S:1.5P:1R, while we observed a large variability across EIS. For the subject categories, C-E-N were nearly equally represented among EIS, and better represented than H-G. Also, the evaluated EIS showed a polarization between C-H and E categories that we interpreted as a human vs. natural-ecosystem welfare focus. Finally, we identified three broad categories of EIS based primarily on the organization that produced them, non-governmental organizations, governmental organizations, and international organizations. Our results can contribute to the design and implementation of scientifically robust and representative EIS, which are key to incorporate environmental data to policymaking in the search of sustainability.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/58907
Brambila, Alejandro; Flombaum, Pedro; Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework; Elsevier Science; Ecological Indicators; 83; 12-2017; 96-102
1470-160X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/58907
identifier_str_mv Brambila, Alejandro; Flombaum, Pedro; Comparison of environmental indicator sets using a unified indicator classification framework; Elsevier Science; Ecological Indicators; 83; 12-2017; 96-102
1470-160X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.023
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X17304375
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier Science
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier Science
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613930021814272
score 13.070432