J. For. Sci., 2014, 60(2):84-88 | DOI: 10.17221/72/2013-JFS

On the potential policy use of some selected biodiversity indicators: limitations and recommendations for improvementsShort Communication

Z. Benedek
Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

In order to facilitate the use of biodiversity indicators in policy making at the country level, a few and well-established indices should be suggested. Promising candidates include biodiversity-related indices of the Convention on Biological Diversity; their current use and performance are evaluated through a Hungarian case study. Especially indices of the ecosystem level have already been in use, but they are not necessarily useful measures of the state of biodiversity in their current form. For example, ecosystems suggested globally for monitoring (forests and marine habitats) are not present in all the countries, thus the way of ecosystem selection should be standardized, not the actual ecosystem types. Besides the information on the extent of some selected habitats, the original cover should also be considered to evaluate the present situation. Recommendations are demonstrated in the case study. With the use of existing data, the applicability of certain indices can be improved, but in the long run, ecosystem-based indices of the natural capital should be favoured.

Keywords: convention on biological diversity; environmental policy; policy making; ecosystem services; Hungary; document analysis

Published: February 28, 2014  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Benedek Z. On the potential policy use of some selected biodiversity indicators: limitations and recommendations for improvements. J. For. Sci. 2014;60(2):84-88. doi: 10.17221/72/2013-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010): Biodiversity Indicators and the 2010 Target: Experiences and Lessons Learnt from the 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. Technical Series No. 53. Montréal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: 196.
    2. Bartha D., Bodonczi L., Szmorad F., Aszalós R., Bölöni J., Kenderes K., Ódor P., Standovár T., Tímár G. (2005): Az erdők természetességének elemzése tájak és erdőtársulások szerint. [Evaluation of the naturalness of the forests by regions and forest associations.] Erdészeti Lapok, 140: 198-201.
    3. Bowen G.A. (2009): Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9: 27-40. Go to original source...
    4. Brink B. ten (2000): Biodiversity Indicators for the OECD Environmental Outlook and Strategy: a Feasibility Study. Bilthoven, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment: 52.
    5. Bubb P., Butchart S., Collen B., Dublin H., Kapos V., Pollock C., Stuart S., Vié J. (2009a): IUCN Red List Index: Guidance for National and Regional Use. Gland, IUCN: 11.
    6. Bubb P., Fish L., Kapos V. (2009b): Coverage of Protected Areas: Guidance for National and Regional Use. Cambridge, UNEP-WCMC: 12.
    7. Collen B., Loh J., Whitmee S., McRae L., Amin R., Baillie J.E. (2009): Monitoring change in vertebrate abundance: the living planet index. Conservation Biology, 23: 317-327. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. Czúcz B., Molnár Z., Horváth F., Botta-Dukát Z. (2008): The natural capital index of Hungary. Acta Botanica Hungarica, 50: 161-177. Go to original source...
    9. Dale V.H., Beyeler S.C. (2001): Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1: 3-10. Go to original source...
    10. Drábková A., ©iąák L. (2013): Forest visitors' opinion of recreational facilities and trails in forests in the Blaník Protected Landscape Area - a case study. Journal of Forest Science, 59: 185-190. Go to original source...
    11. FAO (2010): Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Rome, FAO: 340.
    12. Haslett J.R., Berry P.M., Bela G., Jongman R.H., Pataki G., Samways M.J., Zobel M. (2010): Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19: 2963-2977. Go to original source...
    13. Heink U., Kowarik I. (2010): What criteria should be used to select biodiversity indicators? Biodiversity and Conservation, 19: 3769-3797. Go to original source...
    14. Jeníček V. (2013): Sustainable development - indicators. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská ekonomika), 59: 74-80. Go to original source...
    15. Jordán F., Scheuring I. (2002): Searching for keystones in ecological networks. Oikos, 99: 607-612. Go to original source...
    16. Kumar P. (2010): The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London,Washington, Earthscan, James & James: 456.
    17. Landeta J. (2006): Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73: 467-482. Go to original source...
    18. Mace G.M., Baillie J.E. (2007): The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology, 21: 1406-1413. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    19. Mace G.M., Norris K., Fitter A.H. (2012): Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27: 19-26. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    20. Mack N., Woodsong C., MacQueen K.M., Guest G., Namey E. (2005): Qualitative Research Methods: A data Collector's Field Guide. Durham, Family Health International: 137
    21. McRae L., Loh J., Bubb P., Baillie J., Kapos V., Collen B. (2009): The Living Planet Index: Guidance for National and Regional Use. Cambridge, UNEP-WCMC: 11.
    22. MEA (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Washington, DC, Island Press: 155.
    23. Molnár Z., Biró M., Bölöni J., Horváth F. (2008): Distribution of the (semi-) natural habitats in Hungary I. Marshes and grasslands. Acta Botanica Hungarica, 50: 59-105. Go to original source...
    24. CBD SBSTTA (2005): Indicators for Assessing Progress Towards the 2010 Target: Trends in Extent of Selected Biomes, Ecosystems and Habitats. Bangkok, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: 19.
    25. Sheehan D.K., Gregory R.D., Eaton M.A., Bubb P.J., Chenery A.M. (2010): The Wild Bird Index - Guidance for National and Regional Use. Cambridge, UNEP-WCMC: 25.
    26. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN (2011): The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Available at http://www.wdpa.org/resources/statistics/2011MDG_National_Stats.xls (accessed February 21, 2014).
    27. Vačkář D., Brink B. ten, Loh J., Baillie J.E., Reyers B. (2012): Review of multispecies indices for monitoring human impacts on biodiversity. Ecological Indicators, 17: 58-67. Go to original source...
    28. Wackernagel M., Rees W.E. (1996): Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, New Society Publishers: 160.
    29. Wilson E.O. (1987): The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conservation Biology, 1: 344-346. Go to original source...
    30. Zólyomi B. (1989): Magyarország természetes növénytakarója. [Map of the potential natural vegetation of Hungary.] In: Pécsi M. (ed.): Nemzeti Atlasz. [National Atlas.] Budapest, Kartográfia Vállalat: 89.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content