Development of indicators reflecting criteria of spatial differentiation - 1.6. Natural assets environmental indicators. Marquínez, J., Colina, A., García, P., Menéndez, R., Groth, N. B., Álvarez, M., & Lobo, T. Technical Report European Commission, Spanish Environment Ministry, INDUROT, University of Oviedo, 1999.
Development of indicators reflecting criteria of spatial differentiation - 1.6. Natural assets environmental indicators [link]Paper  abstract   bibtex   
[Excerpt] In the task sharing established at the Preparatory Meeting of the Study Programme on European Spatial Planning (SPESP), Brussels, 7 December 1998, it was agreed that the Work Group in charge of the development of theme 1.6, Indicators on Natural Assets, would be made up of the National Focal Points (NFP's) of Spain and Denmark. Furthermore, it was planned that the work would be carried out in close collaboration with the European Environment Agency (EEA), given the obvious relationship of this organisation with the theme under study. Apart from this initial work structure we cannot overlook the contributions received from the rest of the NFP's, both as regards the various documents drawn up throughout the course of 1999, and also with respect to the survey on the proposed indicators prepared by this Work Group during the month of June. We should not forget the dozen of meetings of co-ordination of the Spanish Team (Oviedo, Madrid, Zamora...) that without a doubt helped to clarify numerous aspects. The short period of time available, along with some other inconveniences, has prevented the results achieved reaching as far as this Work Group would have wished. Nevertheless, the final evaluation of this first phase of the SPESP has been very positive. If we take into account the complexity of the object under study, the European territory, we are of the opinion that a lot of ground has been covered and that it has been possible to achieve certain basic principles that will noticeably help the continuance of the work and that the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) will manage to acquire a technical and practical dimension that will complement the political. During the development period of the work three Draft Reports have been drawn up coinciding with the Meetings of the NFP: Stockholm, in February 1999, Nijmegen, in June 1999 and Rome, in October 1999. These documents have attempted to outline and define a realistic indicator proposal which maintained a certain technical and scientific coherence. In this document we carry out a brief review of the ground that has been covered and specify the main conclusions arrived at in that which refers to theme 1.6 Natural Assets. This summary extracts the most relevant aspects contained in the three Draft Reports drawn up to date, of the contributions of the EEA and the NFP's, as well as of the co-ordinator, above all, through the enlightening meetings. [...] [Conclusions] The conclusions that can be drawn following the first phase of the ESDP Programme of Studies, at least from the standpoint of ” Natural Assets” indicators, should be limited to expounding some reflections on the construction of a system of indicators. The state of the work underway does not allow for a reliable diagnosis and therefore, to determine spatial conclusions and territorial implications would be extremely risky without a solid base upon which to base them. Therefore, some final reflections regarding the work and the proposal put forth are included under this heading: [Environmental focus] Having carried out a detailed analysis of the various ESDP official documents, it has been observed that the objectives and the focus pursued greatly exceed the concept of natural assets that was originally intended to be used in Topic 1 of the Study Programme. These official documents (Noordwijk and Potsdam) adopt an environmental vision of the European territory. The most important environmental studies that exist with regard to the European territory (among which the ” Dobris Assessment, on the environment in Europe” and ” Europe's Environment: The Second Assessment” can be highlighted) confirmed the need to adopt this point of view. By limiting the scope of study to strictly include natural assets, numerous aspects, which are of vital importance to spatial differentiation, are ignored. Therefore, the first conclusion arrived at is to overcome the natural assets focus and to adopt an environmental vision. [Conceptual framework] Once the decision to use an environmental focus was made, the main proposals of existing systems of environmental indicators were gathered together. From among them, and for various reasons, we can highlight those elaborated by the following organisations: European Environment Agency, U.S. Environment Protection Agency, United Nations Department for Policy Co- ordination and Sustainable Development, or those elaborated by the OECD. Although with some variations, a coincidence can be observed in the conceptual framework (Pressure/State/Response). For those reasons, and in order to maintain a certain methodological consistency, it was decided that this structure be adopted. Despite more complex ways of focussing on this issue (Driving Force/Pressure/State/Impact/Response), we consider that this structure, due to its simplicity, can perfectly satisfy the needs of this project. [Primary indicators] Taking documentary sources and the systems of indicators consulted as a starting point, a long list of indicators, which we term primary indicators, in which all the indicators of use for carrying out an environmental characterisation of Europe were compiled. Said list is organised by subject (atmospheric, inland waters, coastal and marine environments...). In this way it hopes to maintain a certain scientific scrupulousness and to effect an initial spatial approach taking into account all the territorial characteristics. At this point a direct relationship between the ESDP environmental indicators and the future European system of environmental indicators must be established. We believe that the list of primary indicators might be made up of said European system of environmental indicators on which the EEA is already working. For this it would be necessary to achieve compatibility, at least for certain indicators, above all in areas such as resolution or scale that made it possible to undertake the territorial analysis. Adopting this outline would at the same time allow for an improvement in the definition and quality of spatial indicators. [Synthetic indicators] The list of primary indicators is very long and exceeds the needs and objectives of the ESDP. For this reason the task of elaborating a proposal that could be viable and appropriate for the project was undertaken. The objective was to create a short list of aggregate or synthetic indicators, attempting to conserve the main approach initially established. To do so, in addition to the consideration made for the indicators in the ESDP official documents as a whole, the following conditions were taken into account: [::] They should be spatial indicators, with territorial implications and serve as spatial differentiation criteria. It is not a question of making an environmental diagnosis of Europe, and therefore it is not a typical system of environmental indicators. In practice, it becomes a predominance of the territorial characteristics of the information (in this way, for example and from this perspective, the sources of polluting gases is of greater interest than air quality). [::] The need to combine the indicators in this area with other spatial differentiation criteria must be remembered. In practice, this means adjusting to spatial units, which are different from those of the natural processes, which can bring about problems. The danger of detracting from the results, since some of the processes are very localised spatially, whereas others cross regional and national borders and has effects in far-off territories. [::] The need to specify a limited number of indicators to make the system as such viable. This meant selecting issues and giving up some problems or natural characteristics of great relevance for a system of environmental indicators. [::] The data sources must have European coverage. The use of national data sources or sources of some other territorial area is therefore ruled out. After several revisions, the list of indicators proposed is made up of 12 synthetic indicators that we believe can cover the ESDP needs. These 12 indicators are: [\n] S1, Pressures on the environment (Pressure) [\n] S2, Emissions of polluting gases (Pressure) [\n] S3, Water quality (State) [\n] S4, Water resources (State) [\n] S5, Coastal value (State) [\n] S6, Ecosystem diversity (State) [\n] S7, Biodiversity (State) [\n] S8, Value according to directive 92/43/CEE (State) [\n] S9, Potential productivity (State) [\n] S10, Natural hazards (State) [\n] S11, Threats on natural resources (State) [\n] S12, Designated or protected areas (Response) [\n] We have managed to carry out a trial for six of these indicators. The objective was to have indicators available in the area of ” natural assets” in order to cross check them with indicators for the other spatial differentiation criteria and obtain some preliminary results. The indicators for which it has been possible to do some kind of trial are: [::] S1, Pressures on the environment [::] S2, Emissions of polluting gases acidifying gases [::] S5, Coastal value [::] S6, Ecosystem diversity [::] S10, Natural hazards [::] S12, Designated or protected areas Many different sources of data of methods have been used for these trials. Therefore, the need to reduce the number of indicators has meant that some of them refer to complex processes and concepts, or are the result of the joint treatment of several data bases, on occasions of different characteristics (ecosystem diversity; pressures on the environment). On the other hand, there have been several factors that have reduced reliability from the results of the trials. From among the most important ones, worthy of special mention are: inadequate data sources, or ones that do not cover the whole territory under study; not having passed a process of validation; using the NUTS 2 which is too extensive for the objectives of this project in the case of environmental variables. We therefore understand that these trials have only served as an initial approach and perhaps as a starting point for discussion. In other words, it is not possible to draw reliable territorial conclusions from them. [Scale and resolution of the analysis] It is important to adequately define the scale of spatial analysis (figure 9). This aspect is vitally important to the results of the project. Perhaps in other areas, such as economic or social analyses, the analysis using large spatial administrative units can obtain reliable results. Nevertheless, when dealing with environmental issues, scale is not only important from a quantitative perspective, but also from a qualitative one as well. In short, one can state that, at a certain scale or using large administrative units, it makes no sense to strive to analyse if what you are attempting to do is to obtain spatial results, since the very size of the unit itself alters the results. The use, as units of reference, of some divisions of a natural or environmental type, such as biogeographical regions or the hydrographical basins should be closely studied. Nevertheless, the need to maintain the capacity of integrating the indicators of the ESDP should not be overlooked. The capacity of the ESDP system of indicators to act as a spatial differentiation instrument leads us to believe that one of the final objectives of the system of indicators could be the definition of what we could term ” Homogenous Spatial Units”. These HSU could be defined as the parts of Europe with similar characteristics, not only according to the natural or environmental criteria, but also with regard to the rest of the criteria of spatial differentiation. The definition of these units on a detailed scale (for example: sets of NUTS 5 that constitute homogenous areas within the regions) would allow us to obtain conclusions in terms of strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats. It also would make it easier to achieve the objectives and purposes that the ESDP pursues (cohesion / balance; sustainable development / protection; territorial competitiveness / development). [Data sources] An important part of the effort put into the work has been in finding and making a primary inventory of the data sources on environmental issues. The panorama of these sources caused us to be optimistic at the beginning of the work, mainly due to the existence of some sections of GISCO, of the CORINE Programme, with their different projects and various environmental reports that gave information about Europe with a view of the whole, even beyond the EU borders. The reality of the matter, as we later discovered, despite the cordial and efficient collaboration of the EEA, has been quite different: the following is a detailed report on some of the difficulties related to data sources that showed up during our work: [::] The version of the CORINE Land Cover to which we had access, gives rise to quite a serious problem which consists of the lack of uniformity of the legends for some countries. Nevertheless, it has turned out to be the only data source that has enabled the carrying out of a spatial analysis of the European territory to the necessary scale. [::] The data sources consulted regarding inland waters or polluting gas emissions had a resolution that did not advise their treatment, since this would make it impossible to obtain spatial results. [::] The access or availability to some data sources that we had planned to use required complicated paperwork that would probably exceed the time allotted to conclude the assigned work (biodiversity or threats on natural resources). In spite of all these problems, we must point out that the institutions and organisations that possess them have been willing to collaborate at all times. [::] Other data sources are not yet available (for example, CDDA). [::] The reports on environmental issues elaborated for Europe do not appear to have given rise to a cartographic database and the EEA does not have the corresponding digital information. The following are some complementary considerations referring to data sources: [::] It is essential to have environmental databases that are adequately georeferenced, with complete European coverage and proven consistency and homogenisation, these being characteristics that are vital if we are to adapt to the objectives of territorial analysis. [::] One of the important gaps observed is the lack of a data source that allows for the establishment of a degree of naturalness of European forests. Without this source of results, the naturalness analysis of the territory is greatly altered. [::] It is necessary to fill some important gaps such as the availability of a Digital Model of the Terrain for Europe with appropriate resolution. [::] In order to elaborate territorial indicators with environmental response, it is necessary to have data bases related with environmental economy and expense, that offer information regarding the investment in environmental improvement programmes, investment of funds from the EU, from the States and from the Regional and Local Administrations.
@techreport{citeulike:13546849,
    abstract = {[Excerpt] In the task sharing established at the Preparatory Meeting of the Study
Programme on European Spatial Planning ({SPESP}), Brussels, 7 December 1998,
it was agreed that the Work Group in charge of the development of theme 1.6,
Indicators on Natural Assets, would be made up of the National Focal Points
({NFP}'s) of Spain and Denmark. Furthermore, it was planned that the work
would be carried out in close collaboration with the European Environment
Agency ({EEA}), given the obvious relationship of this organisation with the
theme under study.
Apart from this initial work structure we cannot overlook the
contributions received from the rest of the {NFP}'s, both as regards the various
documents drawn up throughout the course of 1999, and also with respect to
the survey on the proposed indicators prepared by this Work Group during the
month of June. We should not forget the dozen of meetings of co-ordination of
the Spanish Team (Oviedo, Madrid, Zamora...) that without a doubt helped to
clarify numerous aspects.
The short period of time available, along with some other inconveniences,
has prevented the results achieved reaching as far as this Work Group would
have wished. Nevertheless, the final evaluation of this first phase of the {SPESP}
has been very positive. If we take into account the complexity of the object
under study, the European territory, we are of the opinion that a lot of ground
has been covered and that it has been possible to achieve certain basic
principles that will noticeably help the continuance of the work and that the
European Spatial Development Perspective ({ESDP}) will manage to acquire a
technical and practical dimension that will complement the political.
During the development period of the work three Draft Reports have been
drawn up coinciding with the Meetings of the {NFP}: Stockholm, in February
1999, Nijmegen, in June 1999 and Rome, in October 1999. These documents have attempted to outline and define a realistic indicator proposal which
maintained a certain technical and scientific coherence.
In this document we carry out a brief review of the ground that has been
covered and specify the main conclusions arrived at in that which refers to
theme 1.6 Natural Assets. This summary extracts the most relevant aspects
contained in the three Draft Reports drawn up to date, of the contributions of
the {EEA} and the {NFP}'s, as well as of the co-ordinator, above all, through the
enlightening meetings. [...]


[Conclusions] The conclusions  that can be drawn following the first phase of the {ESDP} Programme of Studies, at least from the standpoint of  ” Natural Assets” indicators, should be limited to expounding some reflections on the construction of a system of indicators. The state of the work underway does not allow for a reliable diagnosis and therefore, to determine spatial conclusions and territorial implications would be extremely risky without a solid base upon which to base them. Therefore, some final reflections regarding the work and the proposal put forth are included under this heading:
[Environmental focus] Having carried out a detailed analysis of the various {ESDP} official documents, it has been observed that the objectives and the focus pursued greatly exceed the concept of natural assets that was originally intended to be used in Topic 1 of the Study Programme. These official documents (Noordwijk and Potsdam) adopt an environmental vision of the European territory. The most important environmental studies that exist with regard to the European territory (among which the  ” Dobris Assessment, on the environment in Europe” and  ” Europe's Environment: The Second Assessment” can be highlighted) confirmed the need to adopt this point of view. By limiting the scope of study to strictly include natural assets, numerous aspects, which are of vital importance to spatial differentiation, are ignored. Therefore, the first conclusion arrived at is to overcome the natural assets focus and to adopt an environmental vision.
[Conceptual framework] Once the decision to use an environmental focus was made, the main proposals of existing systems of environmental indicators were gathered together. From among them, and for various reasons, we can highlight those elaborated by the following organisations: European Environment Agency, {U.S}. Environment Protection Agency, United Nations Department for Policy Co- ordination and Sustainable Development, or those elaborated by the {OECD}. Although with some variations, a coincidence can be observed in the conceptual framework ({Pressure/State}/Response). For those reasons, and in order to maintain a certain methodological consistency, it was decided that this structure be adopted. Despite more complex ways of focussing on this issue (Driving {Force/Pressure}/{State/Impact}/Response), we consider that this structure, due to its simplicity, can perfectly satisfy the needs of this project.
[Primary indicators] Taking documentary sources and the systems of indicators consulted as a starting point, a long list of indicators, which we term primary indicators, in which all the indicators of use for carrying out an environmental characterisation of Europe were compiled. Said list is organised by subject (atmospheric, inland waters, coastal and marine environments...). In this way it hopes to maintain a certain scientific scrupulousness and to effect an initial spatial approach taking into account all the territorial characteristics. At this point a direct relationship between the {ESDP} environmental indicators and the future European system of environmental indicators must be established. We believe that the list of primary indicators might be made up of said European system of environmental indicators on which the {EEA} is already working. For this it would be necessary to achieve compatibility, at least for certain indicators, above all in areas such as resolution or scale that made it possible to undertake the territorial analysis. Adopting this outline would at the same time allow for an improvement in the definition and quality of spatial indicators.
[Synthetic indicators] The list of primary indicators is very long and exceeds the needs and objectives of the {ESDP}. For this reason the task of elaborating a proposal that could be viable and appropriate for the project was undertaken. The objective was to create a short list of aggregate or synthetic indicators, attempting to conserve the main approach initially established. To do so, in addition to the consideration made for the indicators in the {ESDP} official documents as a whole, the following conditions were taken into account:
[::] They should be spatial indicators, with territorial implications and serve as spatial differentiation criteria. It is not a question of making an environmental diagnosis of Europe, and therefore it is not a typical system of environmental indicators. In practice, it becomes a predominance of the territorial characteristics of the information (in this way, for example and from this perspective, the sources of polluting gases is of greater interest than air quality).
[::] The need to combine the indicators in this area with other spatial differentiation criteria must be remembered. In practice, this means adjusting to spatial units, which are different from those of the natural processes, which can bring about problems. The danger of detracting from the results, since some of the processes are very localised spatially, whereas others cross regional and national borders and has effects in far-off territories.
[::] The need to specify a limited number of indicators to make the system as such viable. This meant selecting issues and giving up some problems or natural characteristics of great relevance for a system of environmental indicators.
[::] The data sources must have European coverage. The use of national data sources or sources of some other territorial area is therefore ruled out. After several revisions, the list of indicators proposed is made up of 12 synthetic indicators that we believe can cover the {ESDP} needs. These 12 indicators are:
[\n] S1, Pressures on the environment (Pressure)
[\n] S2, Emissions of polluting gases (Pressure)
[\n] S3, Water quality (State)
[\n] S4, Water resources (State)
[\n] S5, Coastal value (State)
[\n] S6, Ecosystem diversity (State)
[\n] S7, Biodiversity (State)
[\n] S8, Value according to directive {92/43/CEE} (State)
[\n] S9, Potential productivity (State)
[\n] S10, Natural hazards (State)
[\n] S11, Threats on natural resources (State)
[\n] S12, Designated or protected areas (Response)
[\n] We have managed to carry out a trial for six of these indicators. The objective was to have indicators available in the area of  ” natural assets” in order to cross check them with indicators for the other spatial differentiation criteria and obtain some preliminary results. The indicators for which it has been possible to do some kind of trial are:
[::] S1, Pressures on the environment
[::] S2, Emissions of polluting gases acidifying gases
[::] S5, Coastal value
[::] S6, Ecosystem diversity
[::] S10, Natural hazards
[::] S12, Designated or protected areas Many different sources of data of methods have been used for these trials. Therefore, the need to reduce the number of indicators has meant that some of them refer to complex processes and concepts, or are the result of the joint treatment of several data bases, on occasions of different characteristics (ecosystem diversity; pressures on the environment). On the other hand, there have been several factors that have reduced reliability from the results of the trials. From among the most important ones, worthy of special mention are: inadequate data sources, or ones that do not cover the whole territory under study; not having passed a process of validation; using the {NUTS} 2 which is too extensive for the objectives of this project in the case of environmental variables. We therefore understand that these trials have only served as an initial approach and perhaps as a starting point for discussion. In other words, it is not possible to draw reliable territorial conclusions from them.
[Scale and resolution of the analysis] It is important to adequately define the scale of spatial analysis (figure 9). This aspect is vitally important to the results of the project. Perhaps in other areas, such as economic or social analyses, the analysis using large spatial administrative units can obtain reliable results. Nevertheless, when dealing with environmental issues, scale is not only important from a quantitative perspective, but also from a qualitative one as well. In short, one can state that, at a certain scale or using large administrative units, it makes no sense to strive to analyse if what you are attempting to do is to obtain spatial results, since the very size of the unit itself alters the results. The use, as units of reference, of some divisions of a natural or environmental type, such as biogeographical regions or the hydrographical basins should be closely studied. Nevertheless, the need to maintain the capacity of integrating the indicators of the {ESDP} should not be overlooked. The capacity of the {ESDP} system of indicators to act as a spatial differentiation instrument leads us to believe that one of the final objectives of the system of indicators could be the definition of what we could term  ” Homogenous Spatial Units”. These {HSU} could be defined as the parts of Europe with similar characteristics, not only according to the natural or environmental criteria, but also with regard to the rest of the criteria of spatial differentiation. The definition of these units on a detailed scale (for example: sets of {NUTS} 5 that constitute homogenous areas within the regions) would allow us to obtain conclusions in terms of strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats. It also would make it easier to achieve the objectives and purposes that the {ESDP} pursues (cohesion / balance; sustainable development / protection; territorial competitiveness / development).
[Data sources] An important part of the effort put into the work has been in finding and making a primary inventory of the data sources on environmental issues. The panorama of these sources caused us to be optimistic at the beginning of the work, mainly due to the existence of some sections of {GISCO}, of the {CORINE} Programme, with their different projects and various environmental reports that gave information about Europe with a view of the whole, even beyond the {EU} borders. The reality of the matter, as we later discovered, despite the cordial and efficient collaboration of the {EEA}, has been quite different: the following is a detailed report on some of the difficulties related to data sources that showed up during our work:
[::] The version of the {CORINE} Land Cover to which we had access, gives rise to quite a serious problem which consists of the lack of uniformity of the legends for some countries. Nevertheless, it has turned out to be the only data source that has enabled the carrying out of a spatial analysis of the European territory to the necessary scale.
[::] The data sources consulted regarding inland waters or polluting gas emissions had a resolution that did not advise their treatment, since this would make it impossible to obtain spatial results.
[::] The access or availability to some data sources that we had planned to use required complicated paperwork that would probably exceed the time allotted to conclude the assigned work (biodiversity or threats on natural resources). In spite of all these problems, we must point out that the institutions and organisations that possess them have been willing to collaborate at all times.
[::] Other data sources are not yet available (for example, {CDDA}).
[::] The reports on environmental issues elaborated for Europe do not appear to have given rise to a cartographic database and the {EEA} does not have the corresponding digital information. The following are some complementary considerations referring to data sources:
[::] It is essential to have environmental databases that are adequately georeferenced, with complete European coverage and proven consistency and homogenisation, these being characteristics that are vital if we are to adapt to the objectives of territorial analysis.
[::] One of the important gaps observed is the lack of a data source that allows for the establishment of a degree of naturalness of European forests. Without this source of results, the naturalness analysis of the territory is greatly altered.
[::] It is necessary to fill some important gaps such as the availability of a Digital Model of the Terrain for Europe with appropriate resolution.
[::] In order to elaborate territorial indicators with environmental response, it is necessary to have data bases related with environmental economy and expense, that offer information regarding the investment in environmental improvement programmes, investment of funds from the {EU}, from the States and from the Regional and Local Administrations.},
    author = {Marqu\'{\i}nez, Jorge and Colina, Arturo and Garc\'{\i}a, Pilar and Men\'{e}ndez, Rosana and Groth, Niels B. and \'{A}lvarez, Miguel and Lobo, Tom\'{a}s},
    citeulike-article-id = {13546849},
    citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/13546849},
    citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.mcrit.com/SPESP/SPESP\_REPORT/natural\_assets.pdf},
    institution = {European Commission,  Spanish Environment Ministry, INDUROT, University of Oviedo},
    keywords = {biodiversity, clc, complexity, disturbances, ecosystem, europe, forest-resources, homogenous-spatial-units, indicators, indices, integration-techniques, knowledge-integration, land-cover, natural-hazards, similarity, spatial-pattern, water-resources},
    posted-at = {2015-03-11 17:45:15},
    priority = {2},
    title = {Development of indicators reflecting criteria of spatial differentiation - 1.6. Natural assets environmental indicators},
    url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/13546849},
    year = {1999}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021