Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Developing biodiversity indicators on a stakeholders’ opinions basis: the gypsum industry Key Performance Indicators framework

  • How can we restore the biodiversity and ecosystem services in mining and industrial sites?
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to establish a common Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) framework for reporting about the gypsum industry biodiversity at the European level. In order to integrate different opinions and to reach a consensus framework, an original participatory process approach has been developed among different stakeholder groups: Eurogypsum, European and regional authorities, university scientists, consulting offices, European and regional associations for the conservation of nature, and the extractive industry. The strategy is developed around four main steps: (1) building of a maximum set of indicators to be submitted to stakeholders based on the literature (Focus Group method); (2) evaluating the consensus about indicators through a policy Delphi survey aiming at the prioritization of indicator classes using the Analytic Hierarchy Process method (AHP) and of individual indicators; (3) testing acceptability and feasibility through analysis of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and visits to three European quarries; (4) Eurogypsum final decision and communication. The resulting framework contains a set of 11 indicators considered the most suitable for all the stakeholders. Our KPIs respond to European legislation and strategies for biodiversity. The framework aims at improving sustainability in quarries and at helping to manage biodiversity as well as to allow the creation of coherent reporting systems. The final goal is to allow for the definition of the actual biodiversity status of gypsum quarries and allow for enhancing it. The framework is adaptable to the local context of each gypsum quarry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Amankwah RK, Anim-Sackey C (2004) Strategies for sustainable development of the small-scale gold and diamond mining industry of Ghana. Resour Policy 29:131–138. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2004.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azapagic A (2004) Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J Clean Prod 12:639–662. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00075-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bubb P, Almond R, Chenery A et al (2010) Guidance for national biodiversity indicator development and use. Biodivers Indic Partnersh 1–40

  • Duelli P, Obrist MK (2003) Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:87–98. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00072-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Communities (2004) Final message from Malahide: halting the decline of biodiversity—priority objectives and targets for 2010. Stakeholders Conf. Biodivers. EU—Sustain. Life, Sustain. Livelihoods. Grand Hotel, Malahide, Ireland, 25–27 May 2004, p 50

  • European Commission (2011) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Access 1–16. doi: COM(2011) 244 fina

  • European Environment Agency (2007) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Techni:186

  • Global Reporting Initiative (2007) Biodiversity: a GRI reporting resource

  • Goepel KD (2013) Implementing the analytic hierarchy process as a standard method for multi-criteria decision making in corporate enterprises—a new AHP excel template with multiple inputs. Int Symp Anal Hierarchy Process. pp 1–10

  • HeidelbergCement Technology Center GmbH, Federal German Association of the Cement Industry, AG.L.N. (2008) Sustainable development indicators for integrated raw material and nature conservation management 22

  • Heneberg P, Bogusch P, Řehounek J (2013) Sandpits provide critical refuge for bees and wasps (Hymenoptera: Apocrita). J Insect Conserv 17:473–490. doi:10.1007/s10841-012-9529-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilson G, Murck B (2000) Sustainable development in the mining industry: clarifying the corporate perspective. Resour Policy 26:227–238. doi:10.1016/S0301-4207(00)00041-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A, Labib A (2009) Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: benefits and limitations. OR Insight 22:201–220. doi:10.1057/ori.2009.10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins H, Yakovleva N (2006) Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. J Clean Prod 14:271–284. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundholm JT, Richardson PJ (2010) Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. J Appl Ecol 47:966–975. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01857.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM, Baillie JEM (2007) The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conserv Biol. pp 1406–1413

  • International Council on Mining and Metals (2010) Mining and biodiversity: a collection of case studies—2010 edition. London, United Kingdom

  • Morandeau D, Vilaysack D (2012) Compensating for damage to biodiversity: an international benchmarking study. 1–133

  • Oliver I, Jones H, Schmoldt DL (2007) Expert panel assessment of attributes for natural variability benchmarks for biodiversity. Austral Ecol 32:453–475. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2007.01718.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003) OECD environmental indicators: development, measurement and use. Ref Pap. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira HM, Ferrier S, Walters M et al (2013) Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339:277–278. doi:10.1126/science.1229931

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rademacher M, Tränkle U, Friederike H et al (2010) Promotion of biodiversity at the mineral extraction sites of HeidelbergCement 83

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Šálek M (2012) Spontaneous succession on opencast mining sites: implications for bird biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 49:1417–1425. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02215.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo A, Hämäläinen RP (1997) On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Anal 6:309–319. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199711)6:6<309::AID-MCDA163>3.3.CO;2-U

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slocum N (2003) Participatory methods toolkit: a practitioner’s manual. Comp Gen Pharmacol. doi: 90-5130-506-0

  • Soares PSM, Cunha OGC, Yokohama L (2004) Environmental performance indicators in the mineral industry. VI Int. Conf. Clean Technol. Min. Ind. Concepcion (Chile), p 11

  • Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (2002) Indicators for environmental monitoring in international development cooperation 50

  • Tränkle U, Rademacher M, Friedel G et al (2008) Sustainability indicators for integrated management of raw material and nature conservation—pilot project in the Schelklingen cement plant. Cem Int 6:68–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH (1995) Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges. Int J Ind Eng Appl Pract 2:35–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Tropek R, Kadlec T, Karesova P et al (2010) Spontaneous succession in limestone quarries as an effective restoration tool for endangered arthropods and plants. J Appl Ecol 47:139–147. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01746.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tropek R, Kadlec T, Hejda M et al (2012) Technical reclamations are wasting the conservation potential of post-mining sites. A case study of black coal spoil dumps. Ecol Eng 43:13–18. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (2004) Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Seventh Meeting (UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21/Part 2) Decision VII/30. Conv Biol Divers 12

  • Waldhardt R (2003) Biodiversity and landscape—summary, conclusions and perspectives. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:305–309. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00090-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the various participants and contributors for sharing their opinions, experiences, and feedbacks. We are grateful to Philippe Chevalier, Dave Kent, Matthias Reimann, Hans-Jörg Kersten, members of the Quarry WG, who acted as internal leaders for this project. Eurogypsum provided the networking and logistic support. C. Pitz holds a Ph.D. fellowship from the Fund for Research Training in Industry and Agriculture (FRIA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Liege, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Biodiversity and Landscape Unit, Passage des Déportés 2, Gembloux, 5030, Belgium

    Carline Pitz, Grégory Mahy & Maxime Séleck

  2. University of Liege, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Forest Resources Management Unit, Passage des Déportés 2, Gembloux, 5030, Belgium

    Cédric Vermeulen

  3. Eurogypsum aisbl, Rue de la presse 4, Brussels, 1000, Belgium

    Christine Marlet

Authors
  1. Carline Pitz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grégory Mahy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cédric Vermeulen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine Marlet
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maxime Séleck
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carline Pitz.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 27 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pitz, C., Mahy, G., Vermeulen, C. et al. Developing biodiversity indicators on a stakeholders’ opinions basis: the gypsum industry Key Performance Indicators framework. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23, 13661–13671 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5269-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5269-x

Keywords