Literature DB >> 26347416

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

Carline Pitz1, Grégory Mahy2, Cédric Vermeulen3, Christine Marlet4, Maxime Séleck2.   

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.

Keywords:  Biodiversity indicators; Consensus; Extractive industry; Gypsum; Participatory process; Quarries; Stakeholders

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26347416     DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-5269-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int        ISSN: 0944-1344            Impact factor:   4.223


  2 in total

1.  The 2010 biodiversity indicators: challenges for science and policy.

Authors:  Georgina M Mace; Jonathan E M Baillie
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 6.560

2.  Ecology. Essential biodiversity variables.

Authors:  H M Pereira; S Ferrier; M Walters; G N Geller; R H G Jongman; R J Scholes; M W Bruford; N Brummitt; S H M Butchart; A C Cardoso; N C Coops; E Dulloo; D P Faith; J Freyhof; R D Gregory; C Heip; R Höft; G Hurtt; W Jetz; D S Karp; M A McGeoch; D Obura; Y Onoda; N Pettorelli; B Reyers; R Sayre; J P W Scharlemann; S N Stuart; E Turak; M Walpole; M Wegmann
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 47.728

  2 in total
  3 in total

1.  How can we restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in mining and industrial sites?

Authors:  Karel Prach; Anne Tolvanen
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-07-04       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Plant-plant interactions determine natural restoration of plant biodiversity over time, in a degraded mined land.

Authors:  Maral Bashirzadeh; Richard P Shefferson; Mohammad Farzam
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 3.167

3.  Antioxidant Contents in a Mediterranean Population of Plantago lanceolata L. Exploited for Quarry Reclamation Interventions.

Authors:  Federico Sanna; Giovanna Piluzza; Giuseppe Campesi; Maria Giovanna Molinu; Giovanni Antonio Re; Leonardo Sulas
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-16
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.