Assessing the sustainability of freshwater systems: A critical review of composite indicators

Abstract

Quantitative indicators are a common means of assessing the complex dimensions of a sustainable freshwater system, and framing scientific knowledge for policy and decision makers. There is an abundance of indicators in use, but considerable variation in terms of what is being measured and how indicators are applied, making it difficult for end-users to identify suitable assessment methods. We review 95 water-related indices and analyze them along their normative, procedural, and systemic dimensions to better understand how problems are being defined, highlight overlaps and differences, and identify the context(s) in which a particular index is useful. We also analyze the intended use, end-users, and geographic scale of application for each index. We find that risk assessment is the most common application (n = 25), with indices in this group typically focusing either on hazard identification (biophysical assessments) or vulnerability of human populations. Indices that measure freshwater ecological health are not explicitly linking these indicators to ecosystem services, and in fact the concept of ecosystem services is rarely (n = 3) used for indicator selection. Resource managers are the most common group of intended end-users (n = 25), but while 28 indices involved consultation with potential end-users, 11 did not specify an intended use. We conclude that indices can be applied as solution-oriented tools, evaluating scenarios and identifying tradeoffs among services and beneficiaries, rather than only assessing and monitoring existing conditions. Finally, earlier engagement of end-users is recommended to help researchers find the right balance among indices’ salience, legitimacy, and credibility and thus improve their decision relevance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0792-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ecosystem Vulnerability Review: Proposal of an Interdisciplinary Ecosystem Assessment Approach

“…Vulnerability indices can be understood as systematically documented and transparent hypothesis frameworks that can be based on empirical data and expert opinions (Blatt et al 2010). They can be applied as solution-oriented tools, evaluating scenarios and identifying trade-offs, rather than only assessing and monitoring existing conditions (Vollmer et al 2016). …”

The Water Footprint Assessment of Electricity Production: An Overview of the Economic-Water-Energy Nexus in Italy

“…Since the abundant number of indicators in the scientific literature have different intended use, end-users and geographic scale of application, it becomes difficult to identify suitable assessment methods. Notwithstanding, a lot of them are useful in evaluating scenarios and identifying trade-offs, rather than merely assessing and monitoring existing conditions [32].…”

Hierarchical multi‐taxa models inform riparian vs. hydrologic restoration of urban streams in a permeable landscape

“…Because, multi-taxa hierarchical model structures tend to produce more reliable parameter estimates for taxa with sparse data (Link and Sauer 1996, Sauer and Link 2002, Zipkin et al 2010, Ovaskainen and Soininen 2011, it is likely that these patterns would have been missed with alternative analyses. Changes in community metrics that summarize multiple taxa, such as species richness, tend to be disproportionately determined by the most abundant taxa and often lack the detail necessary to inform management decisions (Vollmer et al 2016). Furthermore, analyses that model community summary metrics directly would have likely missed these patterns.…”