Approaches for indicator selection for the SLM Indicator framework

1
Approaches for indicator selection for the SLM
Indicator framework

• International workshop on
• GEF Land Degradation Focal Area Indicators
• Rome, 8-9 January 2007
• Dr. David Niemeijer
• d.niemeijer_at_niemconsult.com

2
Outline

• Introduction
• Current indicator selection practice
• Proposed selection approach
• Conclusions

3
Introduction

• Problem is not lack of indicators, but selecting
  the right ones
• Environmental indicator initiatives
• Impact tracking of interventions
• GEF tracking tools (e.g., BD, IW)
• UNDP-GEF Impact performance indicators for
  capacity building and mainstreaming in SLM
• Measurement of LD
• LADA
• KMLand MSP -gt Bridging

4
Indicator selection practice

• Historical practices and regulations
• Political motivations
• Intuitive assessment of experts
• Participatory stakeholder based
• Selection criteria for individual indicators
• Conceptual frameworks only used for presentation,
  not selection

5
Indicator selection criteria
6
Set level criteria example

• Swart et al. (1995) mention set-level criteria
• balanced coverage of the population, economic,
  environmental and ecological subsystems
• cover pressure, state, impacts and responses
• be capable of measuring progress towards policy
  goals

7
What is needed

• Conceptual framework that structures selection of
  indicator set
• For coherence transparency
• Information on existing indicators (LADA, etc.)
• Set level selection criteria
• Individual indicator selection criteria
• Selection methodology
• Indicators for baseline establishment, impact
  estimation, proxy of actual impact

8
Conceptual framework
9
Proposed set level criteria
10
Tradeoffs example

• Indicator set must do justice to tradeoffs across
  different domains and scales
• Ideally, set should incl. indicators for
• different forms of capital (natural, social,
  manufactured)
• different categories of ecosystem services
  (supporting, regulating, provisioning, cultural)
• different dimensions of human wellbeing

11
Proposed individual criteria
12
Selection methodology

• Build causal network that maps key factors and
  their interactions
• Use causal network to identify key nodes
• Select indicators for the key nodes

Based on Niemeijer, D. and de Groot, R., 2006. A
conceptual framework for selecting environmental
indicator sets. Accepted by Ecological Indicators.
13
Hypothetical causal network
14
Building a causal network

• 1. Broadly define the domain of interest
• 2. Determine boundary conditions that can help
  determine which aspects to cover and which to
  omit
• 3. Determine the boundaries of the system
• 4. Identify (abstract) indicators covering the
  factors and processes involved
• 5. Iteratively map the involved indicators in a
  directional graph
• a. Organize indicators in terms of environment
  related indicators, society related indicators
  and those at the pressure interface.
• b. Organize indicators in sub-categories such as
  economic sectors or environmental compartments
• c. Draw the causal network with nodes connected
  with arrowed arcs showing the cause-effect
  pathways

15
Hypothetical causal network
16
Using a causal network

• 1. Define the research question
• a. Determine the kind of available information
• b. Determine the scale at which to work
• c. Determine where in the DPSIR chain the focus
  lies
• 2. Determine whether an environment, or
  human-centred perspective is required
• 3. Identify key-nodes in the causal network and
  explore relevant sections of the causal network
  in more detail
• 4. Select the best concrete indicators for the
  selected nodes

17
Hypothetical causal network
18
Using key nodes for selection

• Identify external factors that can lead to
  attribution problems (correction indicators)
• Identify proxies for hard to measure components
  (on central key nodes)
• Identify indicators at cause end (on root key
  nodes)
• Identify integrative indicators (on end-of-chain
  key nodes), including those for tradeoffs

19
Hypothetical causal network
20
Conclusions

• We need to bridge project process and
  environmental process approaches
• We need transparent selection
• Based on conceptual framework
• Individual and set level criteria
• Set selection methodology
• Causal network approach can provide the basis for
  a solution