Multidisciplinary indicators of impact and change Key issues for identification and summary

Much progress has been achieved in defining indicators of impact and change at national and international levels. Concern has been raised about data quality, standardisation methods and aggregation issues. This paper addresses these issues for multidisciplinary studies at a project level, from where data are aggregated to supply national databases. Component indicators of different types are identified and problems of forming composites, weighting and aggregation are discussed. Initial suggestions for robust design and analysis to monitor change in a multidisciplinary way are given. Many system databases are not truly multidisciplinary and until these are available the necessary research to underpin good data quality may not be possible. Guidelines for the handling of indicators of the different types are given. Suggestions are provided for the inclusion of stakeholders at all project stages to identify issues and indicators, to liaise over project results and to encourage ownership of the data.

[1]  R. Lefroy,et al.  Indicators for sustainable land management based on farmer surveys in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand , 2000 .

[2]  David R. Cox,et al.  Quality‐Of‐Life Assessment: Can We Keep it Simple? , 1992 .

[3]  R I Smith,et al.  Ozone dose mapping and the utility of models. , 1999, Novartis Foundation symposium.

[4]  Louise Sperling,et al.  Rethinking the Farmer's Role in Plant Breeding: Local Bean Experts and On-station Selection in Rwanda , 1993, Experimental Agriculture.

[5]  Janet Riley,et al.  An illustrated review of some farmer participatory research techniques , 2001 .

[6]  Jamie Goode,et al.  Novartis Foundation Symposium 220 - Environmental Statistics: Analysing Data for Environmental Policy , 1999 .

[7]  N. Hanley,et al.  Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment , 1994 .

[8]  M. Loevinsohn,et al.  INSECTICIDE USE AND INCREASED MORTALITY IN RURAL CENTRAL LUZON, PHILIPPINES , 1987, The Lancet.

[9]  William M. Lafferty,et al.  Towards Sustainable Development , 1999 .

[10]  Linda Stone,et al.  The Use and Misuse of Surveys in International Development: An Experiment From Nepal , 1984 .

[11]  Eric Neumayer,et al.  On the Methodology of Isew, Gpi and Related Measures: Some Constructive Suggestions and Some Doubt on the 'Threshold' Hypothesis , 2000 .

[12]  John S. Strauss,et al.  Role of education and extension in the adoption of technology: A study of upland rice and soybean farmers in Central-West Brazil , 1991 .

[13]  Jamie Goode,et al.  Environmental statistics : analysing data for environmental policy , 1999 .

[14]  E. Vartiainen,et al.  The North Karelia youth project: evaluation of two years of intervention on health behavior and CVD risk factors among 13- to 15-year old children. , 1982, Preventive medicine.

[15]  Jules Pretty,et al.  Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance , 1995 .

[16]  Janet Riley,et al.  The effect of sample size and spatial scale on Taylor's power law parameters for the coffee berry borer (Coleoptera:Scolytidae) , 2000 .

[17]  Ian Scoones.  Browse ranking in Zimbabwe , 2001 .

[18]  R I Smith.  Air pollution statistics in policy applications. , 1999, Novartis Foundation symposium.

[19]  Mark S. Myers,et al.  Sediment quality thresholds: Estimates from hockey stick regression of liver lesion prevalence in english sole (Pleuronectes vetulus) , 1998 .

[20]  Christopher Allen,et al.  Incorporating biological regeneration into economic assessments of mining in forest regions , 1998 .

[21]  Alfred Stein,et al.  Requirements for effective modelling strategies , 1997 .

[22]  W. Janssen,et al.  Targeting new technology at consumer food preferences in developing countries. , 1991 .