, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 179–186 | Cite as

Developing and Communicating a Taxonomy of Ecological Indicators: A Case Study from the Mid-Atlantic

  • Denice Heller WardropEmail author
  • Carl Hershner
  • Kirk Havens
  • Kent Thornton
  • Donna Marie Bilkovic
Original Contribution


To ensure indicators of ecosystem health are integrated into environmental decision-making, it is imperative to provide a comprehensive framework for indicator selection and use. The same framework can also be used to evaluate the utility of any given indicator. The Atlantic Slope Consortium (ASC) has developed such a framework, based upon three primary elements: 1) The specific questions to be answered (the type of indicator), recognizing the following types of questions/indicators: Condition assessment: snapshot of the current state of the system; Stressor diagnosis: identification of causative factors of condition; Communication to the public: encouraging comprehension of condition in its most elementary or integrated form; Futures assessment: estimating the probable trajectory of condition, or assessing the vulnerability of any system to a stochastic event; Evaluation: a subset of condition indicators that evaluate the effectiveness of management actions. 2) The spatial and/or temporal scale of the issue being addressed (the spatial/temporal scale over which the indicator is valid). 3) The context of the question, using categories of surrounding land use as surrogates for social choices. A Fish Community Index (FCI) developed for the ASC will provide an example of utilizing the framework to select an indicator, as well as using the framework to judge the utility of the indicator.


Indicators taxonomy framework mid-Atlantic aquatic resources 


  1. Azar C, Holmberg J, Lindgren K (1996) Socio-ecological indicators for sustainability. Ecological Economics 18:89–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bilkovic DM, Hershner CH, Berman MR, Havens KJ, Stanhope DM (2005) Evaluating nearshore communities as indicators of ecosystem health. In: Estuarine Indicators, Stephen Bortone (editor) Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., pp 365–379Google Scholar
  3. Brinson MM, Rheinhardt R (1996) The role of reference wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecological Applications 6:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks RP, Wardrop DH, Thornton KW, Whigham D, Hershner C, Brinson MM, et al. (editors) (2006) Integration of Ecological and Socioeconomic Indicators for Estuaries and Watersheds of the Atlantic Slope. Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency STAR program, Washington, DC, Agreement R-82868401, University Park, PA: Atlantic Slope Consortium, 96 pp + attachments (CD)Google Scholar
  5. Dale VH, SC Beyeler (2001) Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deegan LA, Finn JT, Ayvazian SG, Ryder-Kieffer CA, Buonaccorsi J (1997) Development and validation of an Estuarine Biotic Integrity Index. Estuaries 20:601–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hughes JE, Deegan LA, Weaver MJ, Costa JE (2002) Regional application of an index of estuarine biotic integrity based on fish communities. Estuaries 25:250–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hughes RM, Larsen DP, Omernik JM (1986) Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potential. Environmental Management 10:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Innes JL (1998) Measuring environmental change. In: Peterson DL, Parker VT (editors) Ecological Scale: Theory and Application, New York: Columbia University Press, pp 429–457Google Scholar
  10. Jackson LA, Kurtz JC, Fisher WS (editors) (2000) Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators, EPA/620/R-99/005, Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  11. Jordan SJ, Vass PA (2000) An index of ecosystem integrity for Northern Chesapeake Bay. Environmental Science and Policy 3:S59–S88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karr JR (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karr JR, Chu EW (1999) Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring, Washington, DC: Island Press, 206 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly JR, Harwell MA (1990) Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environmental Management 14:527–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kentula ME, Brooks RP, Gwin SE, Holland CC, Sherman A, Sifneos JC (1992) An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation, Washington, DC: Island PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Niemi GJ, McDonald ME (2004) Application of ecological indicators. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 35:89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Niemi GJ, Wardrop DH, Brooks RP, Anderson S, Brady V, Paerl H, et al. (2004) Rationale for a new generation of indicators for coastal waters. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:979 –986Google Scholar
  18. Noss RF (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olsen AR, Sedransk J, Edwards D, Gotway CA, Liggett W, Rathbun SL, et al. (1999) Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54:1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paul JF (tech. leader) et al. (1998) Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries, EPA 600-R-98–147, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker IM, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Goodell K, Wonham M, Kareiva PM, et al. (1999) Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biological Invasions 1:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rheinhardt RD, Rheinhardt MC, Brinson MM, Faser KE Jr (1999) Application of reference data for assessing and restoring headwater ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 7:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. US EPA (2000) Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment, EPA/903/R-00/015, August 2000, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Office of Research and Development, Corvallis, OR, and US EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  24. US EPA (2001) How Will Climate Change Affect the Mid-Atlantic Region? EPA/903/F-00/002, June 2001, Philadelphia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3Google Scholar
  25. US EPA (2003) A SAB Report: A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition, EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009A, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  26. Wardrop DH, Bishop JA, Easterling M, Hychka K, Myers WL, Patil GP, et al. (2005) Use of landscape and land use parameters for classification and characterization of watersheds in the mid-Atlantic across five physiographic provinces. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 12(2):209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Young TF, Sanzone S (2002) A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition: an SAB Report, Washington, DC: EPA Science Advisory BoardGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecohealth Journal Consortium 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denice Heller Wardrop
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carl Hershner
    • 2
  • Kirk Havens
    • 2
  • Kent Thornton
    • 3
  • Donna Marie Bilkovic
    • 2
  1. 1.Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, Department of GeographyPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Virginia Institute of Marine SciencesGloucester PointUSA
  3. 3.FTN Associates Ltd.Little RockUSA

Personalised recommendations