부산대학교 도서관

Keywords: Aichi targets; assessment; criteria; decision science; indicator; measurement; monitoring; SDG; ciencias de la decision; criterios; evaluacion; indicador; medida; monitoreo; objetivos de Aichi; SDG; e[macron]a1/4[degrees]; a[sup.3]c-cs.a-[bar]; ae[micro]e; cae[micro]; c[+ or -]c[yen]c[R]ae ; a[macron]aec'-aa[+ or -]c[R]ae ; ae a; aeae Abstract Global biodiversity indices are used to measure environmental change and progress toward conservation goals, yet few indices have been evaluated comprehensively for their capacity to detect trends of interest, such as declines in threatened species or ecosystem function. Using a structured approach based on decision science, we qualitatively evaluated 9 indices commonly used to track biodiversity at global and regional scales against 5 criteria relating to objectives, design, behavior, incorporation of uncertainty, and constraints (e.g., costs and data availability). Evaluation was based on reference literature for indices available at the time of assessment. We identified 4 key gaps in indices assessed: pathways to achieving goals (means objectives) were not always clear or relevant to desired outcomes (fundamental objectives); index testing and understanding of expected behavior was often lacking; uncertainty was seldom acknowledged or accounted for; and costs of implementation were seldom considered. These gaps may render indices inadequate in certain decision-making contexts and are problematic for indices linked with biodiversity targets and sustainability goals. Ensuring that index objectives are clear and their design is underpinned by a model of relevant processes are crucial in addressing the gaps identified by our assessment. Uptake and productive use of indices will be improved if index performance is tested rigorously and assumptions and uncertainties are clearly communicated to end users. This will increase index accuracy and value in tracking biodiversity change and supporting national and global policy decisions, such as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Article Note: Article impact statement: Evaluating biodiversity indices against criteria testing fitness for use means more effective and robust application in decision making. CAPTION(S): Glossary (Appendix S1), supplementary methods (Appendix S2), an overview of construction of reviewed indices (Appendix S3), assessment subcriteria and expanded assessment guidelines (Appendix S4), and detailed assessments (Appendix S5) are available online. The authors are solely responsible for the content and functionality of these materials. Queries (other than absence of the material) should be directed to the corresponding author. Byline: Kate E. Watermeyer, Gurutzeta Guillera-Arroita, Payal Bal, Michael J. Burgass, Lucie M. Bland, Ben Collen, Chris Hallam, Luke T. Kelly, Michael A. McCarthy, Tracey J. Regan, Simone Stevenson, Brendan A. Wintle, Emily Nicholson