Planning for people and nature: Comparing quality‐of‐life outcomes across environmental systems to inform conservation planning
Marjorie R. Liberati,Christopher A. May,Scott P. Sowa,Stephanie R. Kyriakakis,Doug R. Pearsall,Patrick J. Doran
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12782
2022-08-24
Conservation Science and Practice
Abstract:Conservation programs have been slow to integrate socio‐economic indicators into decision making despite growing recognition that addressing social‐ecological systems improves outcomes for nature and people. Our goal was to identify small, comprehensive sets of socio‐economic indicators for conservation programs designed to (1) improve agricultural soil health and reduce sediment and nutrient loading to freshwater systems, (2) restore Great Lakes coastal wetlands, and (3) implement green stormwater infrastructure in cities. We piloted a structured decision‐making process to select indicators more objectively and transparently. Important elements of our process were (a) using a human quality‐of‐life framework to identify potential indicators and (b) evaluating indicators' relevance to conservation, resonance with communities, and data‐availability. The programs identified 278 potential indicators across seven quality‐of‐life domains, of which 78 were evaluated against six selection criteria. For each program, we developed intended use scenarios, assigned relative weights to selection criteria, and used these weights to calculate a weighted sum of the indicator's criteria scores and rank indicators. Across programs and intended uses, 21 indicators achieved top‐five rankings; indicators for flood risk and damage were common across all three programs. Our collaborative approach provided opportunities to evaluate indicator selections across quality‐of‐life domain, conservation program, and intended uses.
biodiversity conservation