Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets

Chris J. Mcowen, Sarah Ivory, Matthew J.R. Dixon, Eugenie C. Regan, Andreas Obrecht, Derek P. Tittensor, Anne Teller, Anna M. Chenery

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Biodiversity indicators are widely used tools to help determine rates of biodiversity change and the success or failure of efforts to conserve it. However, their sufficiency and suitability in providing information for decision-makers is unclear. Here, we review the indicators brought together under the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership to monitor progress towards the Aichi Targets to determine where there are gaps. Of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Targets 2, 3, and 15 are missing indicators entirely. Scoring the indicators in relation to their alignment, temporal relevance and spatial scale shows additional gaps under Targets 1, 13, and 16–20. Predominately, gaps were found to be socio-economic in nature (i.e., benefits, pressures, and responses) rather than status-related (i.e., states), principally due to a poor alignment between the indicator and the text of the Aichi Target. Hence, it is critical that existing indicators are properly resourced and maintained and new indicators developed to be able to effectively monitor biodiversity and its influencing factors to 2020 and beyond.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)489-494
Number of pages6
JournalConservation Letters
Volume9
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

biodiversity
monitoring
socioeconomics
indicator
alignment

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Mcowen, C. J., Ivory, S., Dixon, M. J. R., Regan, E. C., Obrecht, A., Tittensor, D. P., ... Chenery, A. M. (2016). Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets. Conservation Letters, 9(6), 489-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12329
Mcowen, Chris J. ; Ivory, Sarah ; Dixon, Matthew J.R. ; Regan, Eugenie C. ; Obrecht, Andreas ; Tittensor, Derek P. ; Teller, Anne ; Chenery, Anna M. / Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets. In: Conservation Letters. 2016 ; Vol. 9, No. 6. pp. 489-494.
@article{35d0c208743346e888a9fc40c25b7671,
title = "Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets",
abstract = "Biodiversity indicators are widely used tools to help determine rates of biodiversity change and the success or failure of efforts to conserve it. However, their sufficiency and suitability in providing information for decision-makers is unclear. Here, we review the indicators brought together under the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership to monitor progress towards the Aichi Targets to determine where there are gaps. Of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Targets 2, 3, and 15 are missing indicators entirely. Scoring the indicators in relation to their alignment, temporal relevance and spatial scale shows additional gaps under Targets 1, 13, and 16–20. Predominately, gaps were found to be socio-economic in nature (i.e., benefits, pressures, and responses) rather than status-related (i.e., states), principally due to a poor alignment between the indicator and the text of the Aichi Target. Hence, it is critical that existing indicators are properly resourced and maintained and new indicators developed to be able to effectively monitor biodiversity and its influencing factors to 2020 and beyond.",
author = "Mcowen, {Chris J.} and Sarah Ivory and Dixon, {Matthew J.R.} and Regan, {Eugenie C.} and Andreas Obrecht and Tittensor, {Derek P.} and Anne Teller and Chenery, {Anna M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/conl.12329",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "489--494",
journal = "Conservation Letters",
issn = "1755-263X",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Inc.",
number = "6",

}

Mcowen, CJ, Ivory, S, Dixon, MJR, Regan, EC, Obrecht, A, Tittensor, DP, Teller, A & Chenery, AM 2016, 'Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets', Conservation Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 489-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12329

Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets. / Mcowen, Chris J.; Ivory, Sarah; Dixon, Matthew J.R.; Regan, Eugenie C.; Obrecht, Andreas; Tittensor, Derek P.; Teller, Anne; Chenery, Anna M.

In: Conservation Letters, Vol. 9, No. 6, 01.11.2016, p. 489-494.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sufficiency and Suitability of Global Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Progress to 2020 Targets

AU - Mcowen, Chris J.

AU - Ivory, Sarah

AU - Dixon, Matthew J.R.

AU - Regan, Eugenie C.

AU - Obrecht, Andreas

AU - Tittensor, Derek P.

AU - Teller, Anne

AU - Chenery, Anna M.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Biodiversity indicators are widely used tools to help determine rates of biodiversity change and the success or failure of efforts to conserve it. However, their sufficiency and suitability in providing information for decision-makers is unclear. Here, we review the indicators brought together under the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership to monitor progress towards the Aichi Targets to determine where there are gaps. Of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Targets 2, 3, and 15 are missing indicators entirely. Scoring the indicators in relation to their alignment, temporal relevance and spatial scale shows additional gaps under Targets 1, 13, and 16–20. Predominately, gaps were found to be socio-economic in nature (i.e., benefits, pressures, and responses) rather than status-related (i.e., states), principally due to a poor alignment between the indicator and the text of the Aichi Target. Hence, it is critical that existing indicators are properly resourced and maintained and new indicators developed to be able to effectively monitor biodiversity and its influencing factors to 2020 and beyond.

AB - Biodiversity indicators are widely used tools to help determine rates of biodiversity change and the success or failure of efforts to conserve it. However, their sufficiency and suitability in providing information for decision-makers is unclear. Here, we review the indicators brought together under the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership to monitor progress towards the Aichi Targets to determine where there are gaps. Of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Targets 2, 3, and 15 are missing indicators entirely. Scoring the indicators in relation to their alignment, temporal relevance and spatial scale shows additional gaps under Targets 1, 13, and 16–20. Predominately, gaps were found to be socio-economic in nature (i.e., benefits, pressures, and responses) rather than status-related (i.e., states), principally due to a poor alignment between the indicator and the text of the Aichi Target. Hence, it is critical that existing indicators are properly resourced and maintained and new indicators developed to be able to effectively monitor biodiversity and its influencing factors to 2020 and beyond.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85001950297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85001950297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/conl.12329

DO - 10.1111/conl.12329

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85001950297

VL - 9

SP - 489

EP - 494

JO - Conservation Letters

JF - Conservation Letters

SN - 1755-263X

IS - 6

ER -