Confidence assessment Henrik Nygård, Vivi Fleming-Lehtinen, Samuli Korpinen BalticBOOST Biodiv WS2 2016, 14-15.9.2016 Copenhagen
Confidence categories ● Accuracy of the indicator result ● Temporal coverage ● Spatial representability ● Methodological confidence indicator experts were asked to estimate the confidence of the indicators based on these four categories into the classes High, Intermediate, Low. For accuracy the tool allows for using s.e.
Temporal coverage of indicator data The monitoring data covers the entire HOLAS II assessment period. i.e. - indicators with year-to-year variation: all years in the range 2011-2016 are included HIGH - indicators with no year-to-year variation: the requirements set for temporal frequency of monitoring are met The monitoring data cover most, but not the entire HOLAS II assessment period. i.e. INTERMEDIATE - indicators with year-to-year variation: 3 or 4 years in the range are 2011-2016 included The monitoring data cover the HOLAS II assessment period inadequately. i.e. - indicators with year-to-year variation: only 1 or 2 LOW years in the range 2011-2016 are included - indicators with no year-to-year variation: the requirements set for temporal frequency of monitoring are not met 3
Spatial representation The monitoring data is considered to cover the full spatial variation of the indicator parameter. i.e. - the data represents reliably at least 80% of the relevant habitat types occurring in the area. HIGH - in cases with clear spatial gradient or patchiness in the parameter value: the monitoring set to cover at least 80% of this variation The monitoring data is considered to cover most of the spatial variation of the indicator parameter. i.e. - the data represents reliably at least 60-79% of the relevant habitat types in the area INTERMEDIATE - in cases with clear spatial gradient or patchiness in the parameter value: the monitoring set to cover 60-79% of this variation The monitoring data is not considered to cover the spatial variation of the indicator parameter properly. i.e. - the data represents reliably less than 60% of the relevant LOW habitat types in the area - in cases with clear spatial gradient or patchiness in the parameter value: the monitoring is set to cover less than 4 60% of this variation
Accuracy of the indicator result Standard error or The compliance check to the GES boundary shows a clear signal whether GES has been achieved or not. i.e. HIGH - GES has been / has not been achieved by at least 90% probability The compliance check to the GES boundary shows that values are generally clearly GES/sub-GES, though some outliers and variation in the data are present. i.e. INTERMEDIATE - GES has been / has not been achieved by 70 – 89% probability The compliance check to the GES boundary does not show clearly whether the data points are GES/sub-GES, and/or the overall evaluation is very close to the boundary. i.e. LOW - GES has been / has not been achieved by less than 70% probability 5
Methodological confidence For indicator parameters that have HELCOM guidelines for monitoring: the monitoring has been conducted according to these. HIGH and The data is quality assured according to HELCOM or other internationally accepted guidelines. For indicator parameters that have HELCOM guidelines for monitoring: the monitoring has been conducted only partly according to these. and/or INTERMEDIATE The data originates from mixed sources, and is partly quality assured according to HELCOM or other international standards. and/or The data is quality assured, but according to local standards. For indicator parameters that have HELCOM guidelines for monitoring: the monitoring data has not been collected according to these. LOW or The monitoring data is not quality assured. 6
Additional criteria to take into account for the final confidence assessment In an integrated confidence assessment, the representability of the different components is important Suggestion from BalticBOOST ● If any criterion lacks indicators, the overall confidence is automatically set as ‘low’. ● An indicator group (e.g birds, fish, mammals, pelagic and benthic habitat) with only a single indicator receives automatically ‘low’ confidence, regardless of the confidence of the indicator. 7
Example of results Kattegatt Ecosystem Conf D1C1 D1C2 D1C3 D1C4 D1C5 D1C6 D1C7 Component Biodiversity 0.76 1.00 0.76 0.75 0.64 Mammals 0.90 1.00 0.75 Birds 0.75 0.75 Fish 0.83 0.85 0.75 Benthic habitat 0.67 0.75 0.66 Pelagic habitat 0.63 0.63 8
Recommend
More recommend
