Limits...
A biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi biodiversity targets using disaggregated global data.

Han X, Smyth RL, Young BE, Brooks TM, Sánchez de Lozada A, Bubb P, Butchart SH, Larsen FW, Hamilton H, Hansen MC, Turner WR - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world's governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity's "Aichi Targets".We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision).These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America; Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world's governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity's "Aichi Targets". These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However, comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity "dashboard"--a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.

Show MeSH
Monitoring status of the indicators, as reported by national experts via questionnaire responses.The mean score and its standard error for each indicator are shown by region. Number of respondent is 36 for Tropical Andes, 46 for African Great Lakes, and 50 for Greater Mekong.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4237332&req=5

pone-0112046-g002: Monitoring status of the indicators, as reported by national experts via questionnaire responses.The mean score and its standard error for each indicator are shown by region. Number of respondent is 36 for Tropical Andes, 46 for African Great Lakes, and 50 for Greater Mekong.

Mentions: Our questionnaires revealed significant differences in the degree to which indicators are currently monitored (p<0.001), with hydrologic measures (average score  = 0.40) and species extinction risk (0.57) less frequently monitored than deforestation (0.72) and protected area coverage (0.79) (Figure 2). While there were no differences in the average score across regions (p = 0.88), the status of monitoring differed widely among nations. Of the 22 countries, those with the highest overall scores for existing monitoring were Colombia (0.875), Malawi (0.875), and Thailand (0.75). Countries with very limited monitoring include South Sudan and the D. R. Congo (both ≤0.25).


A biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi biodiversity targets using disaggregated global data.

Han X, Smyth RL, Young BE, Brooks TM, Sánchez de Lozada A, Bubb P, Butchart SH, Larsen FW, Hamilton H, Hansen MC, Turner WR - PLoS ONE (2014)

Monitoring status of the indicators, as reported by national experts via questionnaire responses.The mean score and its standard error for each indicator are shown by region. Number of respondent is 36 for Tropical Andes, 46 for African Great Lakes, and 50 for Greater Mekong.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4237332&req=5

pone-0112046-g002: Monitoring status of the indicators, as reported by national experts via questionnaire responses.The mean score and its standard error for each indicator are shown by region. Number of respondent is 36 for Tropical Andes, 46 for African Great Lakes, and 50 for Greater Mekong.
Mentions: Our questionnaires revealed significant differences in the degree to which indicators are currently monitored (p<0.001), with hydrologic measures (average score  = 0.40) and species extinction risk (0.57) less frequently monitored than deforestation (0.72) and protected area coverage (0.79) (Figure 2). While there were no differences in the average score across regions (p = 0.88), the status of monitoring differed widely among nations. Of the 22 countries, those with the highest overall scores for existing monitoring were Colombia (0.875), Malawi (0.875), and Thailand (0.75). Countries with very limited monitoring include South Sudan and the D. R. Congo (both ≤0.25).

Bottom Line: Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world's governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity's "Aichi Targets".We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision).These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America; Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world's governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity's "Aichi Targets". These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However, comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity "dashboard"--a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.

Show MeSH