3. The Role of Environmental Indicators in Monitoring and Managing Coastal
Environments
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Environmental, ecosystem, or ecological indicators are variables considered to
be representative of the biophysical or socio-economic status of a specific environment.
Management agencies and governments from local to international levels commonly
adopt the concept of ecological indicators. These are based on the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) “pressure-state-response” model,
where the indicators are selected for key environmental, economic, and social areas of
concern (Vandermeulen, 1998). In an environmental context (Bromberg, 1990;
McKenzie et al., 1992; and Australian and Queensland State of the Environment
Reports), the indicators can be grouped into:
• Response Indicators: quantify the condition of organisms, populations,
communities, or ecosystem processes.
• Exposure Indicators: physical, chemical or biological measurements that
reflect pollutant exposure, habitat degradation, or other causes of poor
ecosystem condition.
• Stressor Indicators: data documenting human activities and natural processes
that can cause changes in exposure indices.
The utility of basing monitoring and management programs around ecological
indicators is that agencies can then agree on a set of variables to measure, how to
measure them, and then commit to doing this over time. The net result is agreement on
variables that can be monitored and used to understand the current state, and short- to
long-term changes in an environment. In turn, the definition of environmental variables
to measure for each indicator at specific spatial and temporal scales provides a direct
link to remotely sensed data (Wallace and Campbell, 1997; Phinn, 1998; Foody, 2003).
Management agencies with common environmental requirements (e.g. forest
conservation, maintenance of water storage facilities), normally have met at local, state,
national and international levels to agree on common indicators. They then set
measurement protocols and develop coordinated mapping and monitoring programs.
Examples of this approach include the Montreal Protocol for Sustainable Forests, and,
within Australia, the State of Environment Reporting framework, which is used by local
to national government agencies.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS FOR COASTAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Indicators for coastal ecosystem monitoring have received significant attention in
the last ten years, mainly through the global promotion and development of Integrated
Coastal Management (ICM) activities (Table 1). A comprehensive summary of coastal
ecosystem health indicator development for ICM and their application for monitoring
environmental condition, and human impacts is provided in a special issue of Ocean
and Coastal Management (Belfiore, 2003). This journal covers key presentations given
at “The Role of Indicators in Integrated Coastal Management Conference” held in
2002. Coastal ecosystem health indicators are considered essential for tracking the
implementation of ICM activities. A number of key papers in this special issue define
220
Phinn, Joyce, Scarth and Roelfsema
Environments
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Environmental, ecosystem, or ecological indicators are variables considered to
be representative of the biophysical or socio-economic status of a specific environment.
Management agencies and governments from local to international levels commonly
adopt the concept of ecological indicators. These are based on the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) “pressure-state-response” model,
where the indicators are selected for key environmental, economic, and social areas of
concern (Vandermeulen, 1998). In an environmental context (Bromberg, 1990;
McKenzie et al., 1992; and Australian and Queensland State of the Environment
Reports), the indicators can be grouped into:
• Response Indicators: quantify the condition of organisms, populations,
communities, or ecosystem processes.
• Exposure Indicators: physical, chemical or biological measurements that
reflect pollutant exposure, habitat degradation, or other causes of poor
ecosystem condition.
• Stressor Indicators: data documenting human activities and natural processes
that can cause changes in exposure indices.
The utility of basing monitoring and management programs around ecological
indicators is that agencies can then agree on a set of variables to measure, how to
measure them, and then commit to doing this over time. The net result is agreement on
variables that can be monitored and used to understand the current state, and short- to
long-term changes in an environment. In turn, the definition of environmental variables
to measure for each indicator at specific spatial and temporal scales provides a direct
link to remotely sensed data (Wallace and Campbell, 1997; Phinn, 1998; Foody, 2003).
Management agencies with common environmental requirements (e.g. forest
conservation, maintenance of water storage facilities), normally have met at local, state,
national and international levels to agree on common indicators. They then set
measurement protocols and develop coordinated mapping and monitoring programs.
Examples of this approach include the Montreal Protocol for Sustainable Forests, and,
within Australia, the State of Environment Reporting framework, which is used by local
to national government agencies.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS FOR COASTAL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Indicators for coastal ecosystem monitoring have received significant attention in
the last ten years, mainly through the global promotion and development of Integrated
Coastal Management (ICM) activities (Table 1). A comprehensive summary of coastal
ecosystem health indicator development for ICM and their application for monitoring
environmental condition, and human impacts is provided in a special issue of Ocean
and Coastal Management (Belfiore, 2003). This journal covers key presentations given
at “The Role of Indicators in Integrated Coastal Management Conference” held in
2002. Coastal ecosystem health indicators are considered essential for tracking the
implementation of ICM activities. A number of key papers in this special issue define
220
Phinn, Joyce, Scarth and Roelfsema