Choosing Indicators and Data
This report is the collective effort of close to 150 researchers, organized
into seven committees, working over nearly five years. A multidisciplinary
Design Committee, with members drawn from industry, environmental
groups, government, and universities, identified ten key characteristics
of ecosystem condition that are valued by Americans and that, in our judgment,
need to be addressed in any credible, balanced and useful report. These
ten characteristics describe the physical dimensions of the systems, their
chemical and physical conditions, the status of their biological components,
and the amounts of goods and services people receive from them (see Figure
3.1). We also decided to report on these indicators for the nation as
a whole and for six major ecosystem types that have long been the focus
of policy debate, research, management, and monitoringcoasts and
oceans, farmlands, forests, freshwaters, grasslands and shrublands, and
urban and suburban areas.
Six ecosystem-specific work groups, each with representation from business,
environmental, academic, and government institutions, identified between
15 and 20 specific indicators for each system, as well as a set of core
national indicators. The indicators were selected based on their
importance; no indicator was ruled out simply because the data to report
on it is not currently available. Each of the ecosystem-specific work
groups then carefully examined potential data sources for reporting on
each indicator. We used data only if it met high professional standards
for integrity and overall quality and allowed us to report on most of
the United States, and if there was a reasonable likelihood that the underlying
measurements would be repeated over time. Key data gaps became apparent
and are identified throughout the report.
Finally, we obtained the required data from the government agencies and
private organizations that collect and maintain them. Our primary focus
was to present current conditions and to lay the groundwork for future
reporting, but wherever possible we sought datasets with records long
enough to reveal trends. When they were available, we compared data on
current conditions with widely accepted reference points, primarily regulatory
and related standards and guidelines, while recognizing that there are
judgments involved in setting such standards. In many cases, we also provided
data on a regional basis, allowing comparisons between regions.
|