Indicator framework for measuring quantity and quality of biodiversity - exemplified in the Nordic countries

TLDR: The Biodiversity Change Index (BCI) as discussed by the authors is constructed with a two-dimensional resolution, allowing for a direct evaluation of the relative importance of changes in quantity and quality, respectively, to the overall change in biodiversity.

About: This article is published in Ecological Indicators.The article was published on 2012-02-01 and is currently open access. It has received 35 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Measurement of biodiversity & Convention on Biological Diversity.

Figures

Table 3. Area (km²) of main habitat types in the Nordic countries

Table 2. Availability of area data for Nordic habitat types

Table 1. Quality criteria to obtain relevant biodiversity indicators

Table 4. Proposed biodiversity indicators and data availability for each indicator

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the future works in "Indicator framework for measuring quantity and quality of biodiversity – exemplified in the nordic countries" ?

In Finland a new monitoring programme was set up in 1995 to study the impacts of the EU agrienvironmental scheme. However, in order to apply these new data into robust and consistent indicators for biodiversity, such as the BCI, further efforts to apply and harmonise data from different monitoring schemes are also needed. 

Q2. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Indicator framework for measuring quantity and quality of biodiversity – exemplified in the nordic countries" ?

The Biodiversity Change Index ( BCI ) this paper is a two-dimensional resolution, which measures the relative importance of changes in quantity and quality, respectively, to the overall change in biodiversity. 

Q3. What is the main aim of applying indicators and indices for biodiversity?

A central aim of applying indicators and indices for biodiversity is to enable comparison of biodiversity trends across geographical regions, e.g. across different countries. 

Q4. What is the common approach to generating indicative measures of biodiversity?

Estimating species abundance trends is a broadly accepted approach to generating indicative measures of biodiversity (Mace and Baillie, 2007; Collen et al., 2009; EEA, 2010). 

Q5. What are the main objectives of the new 2020 policy targets?

These new policy targets call for strengthening of efforts towards preserving biodiversity but also need to be accompanied by robust and representative methods in order to measuring changes in biodiversity. 

Q6. What criteria are used to determine the classification of the main habitats in the Nordic countries?

The classification at the 1st level is based on well-defined criteria including the type and degree of vegetation cover, the type of underlying substrate and human influences, such as agricultural management. 

Q7. What is the main purpose of the Swedish National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden?

These include the Swedish National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS), which was launched in 2003 and complements the Swedish National Forest Inventory (NFI) in a common effort to describe terrestrial habitats and ecosystems in a detailed and consistent way, in all terrestrial habitats (Ståhl et al., 2011). 

Q8. What are the richest indicators for BNt?

Among the habitat quality indicators that the authors have selected, area-based indicators such as the proportion of pristine nature types are the richest in data. 

Q9. What is the way to show the BCI?

<Figure 2>If consistent data of good quality and adequate temporal resolution exist, the BCI can be aggregated to any habitat level, country level or even pan-Nordic level (Fig. 3). 

Q10. How did the authors make their system compatible to other studies?

To make their system as compatible as possible to other studies, the authors related habitat types from their classification to habitat types from existing classification schemes (see Appendix A for definitions of Nordic habitat types and conversions to EUNIS). 

Q11. What are the main arguments for a model for the development of biodiversity measures?

Some have suggested that economic indices such as the Dow Jones or Nikkei should been taken as models for the development of biodiversity measures (Gregory et al., 2003; Loh et al., 2005). 

Q12. What are the main reasons why the assessments are so difficult?

These assessments are highly data and labour intensive and depend on expert judgements for a number of indicators to decide if progress (or regress) has been achieved. 

Q13. What are the key objectives for 2010?

The 2010 targets are important milestones for European and global efforts to protect biodiversity as any significant progress towards these targets would mean a significant shift in their attitude towards the living environment. 

Q14. What are the characteristics of birds that can be considered good indicators of the state of biodiversity in different?

In general, birds can be considered good indicators of the state of biodiversity in different habitats (Gottschalk et al., 2010) although some traits, as the tendency to migrate and the often relatively great capacity to adapt to changing environment, may complicate interpretation (Billeter et al., 2008). 

Q15. What is the risk of obscuring the phenomena?

By its nature, applying indicators and indices always involves a simplification and therefore contains a risk of obscuring the phenomena itself as well as the underlying reasons and causes related to it (Heink and Kowarink, 2010). 

Q16. What is the reason for the decline in biodiversity in the Nordic countries?

With due consideration of the limited data availability, their results indicate that biodiversity decline continues in the Nordic countries.