Introducing the index-based ecological condition assessment framework (IBECA)

Abstract Sustainable nature management and ecosystem conservation depends critically on scientifically sound and stakeholder-relevant analytical frameworks for monitoring and assessing ecological condition. Several general frameworks are currently being developed internationally, including the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBV), and the UN’s SEEA EEA Ecosystem Condition Typology (ECT). However, there has so far been few attempts to develop empirical implementations of these general frameworks, or to assess their applicability for environmental decision-making at national or regional scales. In this paper, we aim to fill this implementation gap by demonstrating a practical application of an empirically-based ecological condition assessment framework, the Index-Based Ecological Condition Assessment (IBECA). IBECA defines seven major classes of indicators of ecological condition, representing distinct ecosystem characteristics, and empirically synthesizes indicators for each of these characteristics from various monitoring data. We exemplify and explore the utility and robustness of IBECA using a case study from forest and alpine ecosystems in central Norway, and we investigate how IBECA aligns with the two international frameworks EBV and ECT. In particular, we analyze how the different approaches to categorize indicators into classes affect the assessment of ecological condition, both conceptually and using the case study indicators. We used eleven indicators for each of the two ecosystems and assessed the ecological condition according to IBECA for i) each individual indicator, ii) the seven ecosystem characteristics (indicator classes), and iii) a synthetic ecological condition value for the whole ecosystem. IBECA challenges key concepts of the international frameworks and illustrates practical challenges for national or regional level implementation. We identify three main strengths with the IBECA approach: i) it provides a transparent and management-relevant quantitative approach allowing assessment of spatio-temporal variation in ecological condition across indicators, characteristics and ecosystems, ii) the high degree of flexibility and transparency facilitates updating the ecological condition assessments, also back in time, as improved data and knowledge of indicators emerge, and iii) the quantitative and flexible procedure makes it a cost-effective approach suitable for fast management implementations. More generally, we stress the need for carefully choosing appropriate classification and aggregation approaches in ecological condition assessments, and for transparent and data-driven analytical approaches that can be adjusted as knowledge improves.

[1]  R. K. Neumann,et al.  EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity , 2014, Science.

[2]  Katarzyna Biala,et al.  Streamlining European biodiversity indicators 2020: Building a future on lessons learnt from the SEBI 2010 process , 2012 .

[3]  B. Collen,et al.  Choice of baseline affects historical population trends in hunted mammals of North America , 2020 .

[4]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[5]  Gordon Luikart,et al.  Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  Vigdis Vandvik,et al.  Setting reference levels and limits for good ecological condition in terrestrial ecosystems – Insights from a case study based on the IBECA approach , 2020 .

[7]  J. Martínez-Alier,et al.  Series Editor: , 2007 .

[8]  John L Stoddard,et al.  Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. , 2005, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[9]  O. Skarpaas,et al.  Knowledge gathering and communication on biodiversity: Developing the Norwegian Nature Index , 2012 .

[10]  Terje Gobakken,et al.  Can airborne laser scanning assist in mapping and monitoring natural forests , 2016 .

[11]  Ben Collen,et al.  Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity , 2015, Nature.

[12]  Y. Lü,et al.  How to integrate remotely sensed data and biodiversity for ecosystem assessments at landscape scale , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  Marten Scheffer,et al.  Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability , 2010 .

[14]  Peter Haase,et al.  Bridging the gap between biodiversity data and policy reporting needs: An Essential Biodiversity Variables perspective , 2016 .

[15]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Resilience in ecology: Abstraction, distraction, or where the action is? , 2014 .

[16]  K. Meissner,et al.  How Essential Biodiversity Variables and remote sensing can help national biodiversity monitoring , 2017 .

[17]  Emilio Hernández-García,et al.  Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: approaches to identification. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[18]  E. Tomppo National Forest Inventories : pathways for common reporting , 2010 .

[19]  Robert J. Scholes,et al.  Current state and trends : findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2005 .

[20]  Michael Drielsma,et al.  Using the essential biodiversity variables framework to measure biodiversity change at national scale , 2017 .

[21]  H. D. Cooper,et al.  A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets , 2014, Science.

[22]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation , 2003 .

[23]  V. Dakos,et al.  Toward Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services , 2012 .

[24]  Enrique Alonso García,et al.  Towards global data products of Essential Biodiversity Variables on species traits , 2018, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[25]  J. Karr Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities , 1981 .

[26]  M. Rönkä,et al.  National ecosystem service indicators: Measures of social-ecological sustainability , 2016 .

[27]  K. Gaston,et al.  Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, consequences, and implications , 2018 .

[28]  K. Wyckhuys,et al.  Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[29]  G. Mace,et al.  Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[30]  Xiao Feng,et al.  Open Science principles for accelerating trait-based science across the Tree of Life , 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[31]  Walter Jetz,et al.  Large conservation gains possible for global biodiversity facets , 2017, Nature.

[32]  Pål Kvaløy,et al.  The Nature Index: A General Framework for Synthesizing Knowledge on the State of Biodiversity , 2011, PloS one.

[33]  M. Allentoft,et al.  Global Amphibian Declines, Loss of Genetic Diversity and Fitness: A Review , 2010 .

[34]  Rocky Harris,et al.  Progress in natural capital accounting for ecosystems , 2020, Science.

[35]  S. Díaz,et al.  Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being , 2006, PLoS biology.

[36]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Essential Biodiversity Variables , 2013, Science.

[37]  H. Mooney,et al.  Toward a Global Biodiversity Observing System , 2008, Science.

[38]  M. Reed Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[39]  Norway. , 1988, Revue scientifique et technique.