TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 1 - Ecoinformatics International Technical...

1 - Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaborative Meeting RTP, N. Carolina, USA, 8-10 April 2008

TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UPEcoinformatics

Indicators workgroup-

Overview & conclusions

Research Triangle ParkNorth Carolina

8-10 April, 2008

David Stanners


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Organising our reflections

• Information exchange/reflections on the meeting

• Observation (annex)• Actions/recommendations• Format/use of this meeting/group (annex)


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Information exchangeExcellent presentations

SOER & Indicators: • Environment Canada- SOER experiences & planning• EPA /SOER/Indicators gateway• UNEP global assessments• State & country experiences

Environment & Health• CDC, EPA, EEA

Composite indicators & uncertainty• JRC, EEA, EPA

General reflections on the meeting/group• Recognise importance of mix of issues - indicators, data, uncertainty,

values• Importance of dynamic between local/national/global levels &

experiences• Strengthen link to technical workgroup (use of GMES/GEOSS?)

Actions/recommendations – trying to identify/distinguish between....• Short-term activities (tests/pilots?)• Long-term visions, objectives, processes...


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Actions – indicators/SOERs/assessments1. Define the ”nature of the beast”

• Describe the characteristcs of indicator/SOER activities• Identify different elements, processes, objectives, analyses...• Codify

This will help talk about, analyse, compare and improve our response to this enterprise,without confusing too much dissimilar elements

2. Analyse our different approaches• Document them (ongoing process – regular conference/journal?)• Compare and contrast towards good practice

This will help learning, response design & improvement of our indicator asessment, SOER activities

3. Then derive knowledge/insights• to design/improve our reporting processes/systems • to improve policy design (integrating feedback evaluation/policy as

an experiment4. Training / professionalism

• Workshops, network, conference, journal....• Web 2.0

5. Public access


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Additional core ideas/actions

Write a common paper on issue/problems faced as a needs defn of setting up a SOER network/conference/training...

• Document case studies in the use of indicators• E&H indicators overview analysis • towards a common language /framework

Support the EU biomonitoring proposal to show added value:• Make EU-US comparison/experiment to look at relative effectiveness of the

different approaches• does data make a difference?• show how can reconstitute env exposure from biomarkers

Composites – case studies of composites in use• is this a response to quality ”vs” fuzzy sets?

GEOSS model linking data to decision support – include indicators in model

• run example (computational support)• EU-US contracsting approaches• data policy

Exchange notes on SOERs when they come out Uncertainty workshop in thematic areas - practical approach


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Annex – summary notes

• Summary notes form June 2007 meeting• Current challenges (EEA)• Indicators/SOER observation• E&H observations and actions• Composites & uncertainty observations and

actions


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Reporting on topics & follow up (June 2007)• SD indicators – attempt to bring together actors in SD area or get an overview.

Streamlining the data experiences and link to stat offices….(toil issue)• Uncertainty – how to manage and integrate – process under IA – take our points

back to this group• Uncertainty – how to communicate – not dealt with….future topic….• Pre-publication notes on SOER/indicator reports to help link / brief each other

about the reports (USEPA SOER, Belgrade, GEO-4, Heinz report (early 2008), OECD Outlook, CEC N American SOER (early 2008)…)

• Composites (they wont go away) • initiate process to generate the support for develop of a SD composite? No! Track and

identify instead criteria or principles for judging acceptability/quality…methods and a good process for developing.

• policy use – understand better why they are liked how they are used so we can perhaps design something better? How are policy makers using this info….

• Urban sprawl and land accounting – process under Implementing Arrangement. Towards indicators – how? (SCP…)

• What is Q for an indicator/assment/model - Methods of analysing indicators their robustness, sensitivity – and principles for judging usefulness (high uncertainty doesn’t mean low Q)

• Training - related to many points above. Pool experiences or joint training (uncertainty)

• Id other areas (cfw land accounting) that would benefit from in depth exchanges: air Q, bathing water, land, wetlands.

• New business model implications on indicators….. (basics vs services)• Towards a joint paper on common challenges we face?• Id ideas that link with the technical group.


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Summary points of last meeting

• Indicator quality• Uncertainty• SD indicators & composites• SOERs & indicators• Urban sprawl and land accounting (other

themes?) • Towards a joint paper on common challenges

we face?• Training – combine efforts?• Improve links to Implementing Arrangement

and technical projects workgroup


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Current challenges (EEA view)

• To fully establish a regular, efficient & effective indicator-based assessment process to:• Track progress with existing commitments• Be a signal to identify new issues

• To improve knowledge of European-global-European interactions

• To improve learning & uptake of knowledge on HOW to tackle problems (”good” practice)

• To professionalise the whole indicator, SOER, assessment (craft) practice


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Indicators/SOERs/assessments – some observations (1)

• We have an intuitive attraction to these discussion

• But we are talking about these issues without having a common understanding & language

• ...and we also experience these processes under different socio-political contexts & terms of reference (policy and decision making and behaviour influence, adaptation...)

• This leads to a fog in our discussions, confusions and false comparisons


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Indicators/SOER observations (2)

• Indicators secondary benefits are high – so if missing (as for responses) then potentially missing benefits

• Indicators gateway (=SERIS) allows access to state/country-level assessments as input data into other/higher-level assessments....

• Policy as experiment – integrate monitoring needs into the policy encouraging small incremental adjustments/improvements

• Effectiveness – look at use (of the data) not impacts

• Focus on policy relevance.....


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP


• Repatriate data & indicators/assessments (web2.0, just-in-time information, shifting the burden, pushing up over the barrier....)

• Data-indicators-policy cycles (indicators the link)• Link better to GEO/GEOSS/GMES (as well as to technical

group)• GEOSS model linking data to decision support – include

indicators &computational support run example!• Needs of indicators, upscaling of P=VI into

regional/country level framework (not define this top-down) or explore the mismatch (of values at the different layers).


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP


• Indicators and.....• Values• Policy• Science limits• Policy cycle relevance

• Jan’s recomendations• Smallsets of indicators• Apply summary indicators in ...• Include economics

• Louise – understanding the frame of reference:• Knowledge base• Policy base• Knowledge for action• Weight of evidence?• Understand where you are in the typology of knowledge and of

problems


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

E&H observations & actions

• Helping states to make their data available (E&H)• Key differences (EU-US):

• US focusing on open distributed access (public health tracking)

• EU focusing on taking action on basis of existing info (but no biomonitoring)

data policy difference

• Support the EU biomontoring proposal to show added value:

• Show how can reconstitute env exposure from biomarkers• Make EU-US comparison/experiment to look at relative

effectiveness of the different approaches (does data makea difference?!)

• Overview the many E&H indicators to streamline


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Composites & uncertainty – obs & actions

• Are composites ”better” than large sets of individual indicators & headlines

• (policy) learning opportunity• Aversion in env to composites wrt other areas• Are composites the answer to the fuzzy

indicator sets need challenge?

Make the case for composites – gather examples• Communication – clusters and spatial

analysis......?


TEC

HN

ICA

L C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

DIC

ATO

RS W

OR

KG

RO

UP

Reflections on the format of the meeting

• Setting the frame – agenda, past and future topics

• Establishing some common undersandings (values, policy cycle, language, type of indicators ...)

• Role of states/countries at the meetings (ground truthing – examples – reality check)

TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 1 - Ecoinformatics International Technical...

Documents

Transcript of TECHNICAL COLLABORATIVE INDICATORS WORKGROUP 1 - Ecoinformatics International Technical...