| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Q | Categories | Explanation | Options | Description | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Q1 | Framework Used | Framework used to explain or to categorize the relationship between the socioecological system (e.g. Pst-2020 Global Biodiversity or DPSIR Framework) | Aichi Biodiversity Targets | The Aichi Biodiversity Targets are 20 goals set in 2011 to reduce biodiversity loss. The targets were created by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). | |||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Post-2020 Global Biodiversity | The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is a plan to reverse biodiversity loss and help people live in harmony with nature by 2050. It was proposed by CBD. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Sustainable Development Goals | The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 goals that aim to transform the world by 2030. The goals were established in 2015 by the United Nations as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | National-level biodiversity goals | National biodiversity approach, develop for countries to achieve the Global biodiversity Goals propose by CBD. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Natural Capital | Natural capital is the value of everything that comes from nature. It was firstly propose by David W. Pearce. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | DPSIR Framework | Framework assumes a chain of causal links starting with 'driving forces' through 'pressures' to 'states' and 'impacts' 'responses. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | MEA (ESA) | Ecosystem services assessment is the evaluation of the benefits that ecosystems provide to humans. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Not provide | The study doesn't provide a framework. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Other | Different framework that mentioned above. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Indicator used | Category of the indicator. It could be more than one (e.g. economic, social, biological/ ecological) | Economic | Indicators that describe economic aspects. May include information on markets, income or monetary dynamics. It can also be associated with activities such as agriculture and mining as well as forestry. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Social | Indicators that use social information to be calculated. It can included practices or lifestyles as well as social infrastructure as schools, hospitals. Also include army conflicts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Biological - ecological. | Measurements that used any natural life form to be calculated. This includes natural covers. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Policy | Studies were laws and public institutions are measured. Includes measures to assess the impact of public policies but excludes measures that represent a state of the target community. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Physical | Measures assessing the physicochemical characteristics of the environment. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Multidimensional index | Index constructed with information of different resources. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Result level | Effect of the indicator(s) used (e.g. output or impact) | Output | The indicator counts the result by category and is related to the result of the applicability of the study in terms of the number of trainings, products or technology development. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Outcome | The indicator measures the applicability of the result to first or second level users. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Impact | Measure the change in the state as a condition, in flow production, soil condition or biodiversity. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | Support | Measurement of the state of the system without considering the nature of the changes. This may be a monitoring program for biodiversity, or a chemical assessment for physical systems. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Not provide | It is not clear how the indicator was used. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Management implications | Summarize what the results mean in terms of actions (e.g. best practices to improve the economic activity or environmental policy and governance) | Ecological or biological Conservation - Restauration | The results offers alternatives to preserve the biodiversity. Also include actions to improve conservations actions to guarantee the maintenance of natural areas. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Best practices to improve the economic activity | The results include actions to improve the economical activity in terms of monetary efficiency. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Water or soil management | The study offers options to management the soil of the water resources with different purposes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Environmental policy and governance | The study present governance or policy tools that improve the lifestyle of the communities studied. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | environmental risk assessment | The study provides information to improve the environmental risk present in the analysis area. It doesn't included future scenarios, as climate changes to priories the risk. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation | the study offers scenarios to understand the vulnerability of the area of interest using climate change as an approach. Also could be included adaptation plans. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Not provide | The study doesn't provide action or information that can be used to management. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Other | Other management approach different to the described above. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | outcomes or outputs to support decision making | The scope of the study includes scenario development, policy support, monitoring over time, and decision-making relevance. | Future change scenarios | The study present scenarios across time. It includes economical models. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | Public policy to improve activities | The study includes approved or submitted policy documents that facilitate or will facilitate decision making. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | Results from time-monitored characteristics | The study offers methods or tools to visualize the analysis. It can be include the specially explicit results. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Not provide | The study doesn't described outcomes or output to facilitated the decision making. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Q2 | Geographical Scale | Politico administrative boundaries defined. (e.g. local, subnational, regional or global) | Local | Any area of study below the department, state o province categories in the country. | |||||||||||||||||||||
35 | Subnational | Areas of at least one department, state or province, but below the national category. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | National | Studies done at national level. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | Regional | Zones covering more than one country but not the whole world. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | Global | Global analysis. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | Hierarchical biodiversity | Biological unit used in the study (e.g. genes, Population or communities) (based from Noss 1990) | Genes | The biological approach refers to the gene as the unit. For example by applying an allelic diversity or heterozygosity–based approach. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | Population/Species | The biological approach refers only to populations of one species or to a single species as a unit. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | Communities | The authors use community-level analysis or integrate different species in the study. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | Ecosystem | The study was develop using an ecosystem as biological unit. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Landscape | The research uses different paths to refer to the biological dimension or to include multipatch landscapes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | Habitat type | General type of habitat described in the study (e.g. Freshwater, marine, or forest) | Freshwater | Bodies of water that includes lakes, rivers streams and wetlands. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Marine | Habitat in areas where predominates the salt water. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | Forest | Habitat dominated mainly by trees. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | Grassland | Habitat dominated principally by grass. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | Other habitats | Habitat with different characteristics that develop before. E.g. Polar or dessert regions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | Multiple types | Studies to use information of different habitats. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | Revealed Preferences | Empirical variables obtained to answer the goals of the papers (e.g. Ecological surveys, remote sensing or economic model) | Remote Sensing | The methods used remote sensing in the methods. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | Ecological surveys | There are biological information in the methods. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | Economic information | Endogenous variables and exogenous variables that are used to understand economic practices. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | Social model | Variables how reflect the state of the community object of study as socioeconomic status, demography, education. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | Policy model | Variables that facilitates the scenarios, based in the policy decision. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | Physical monitoring | Physical information, usually elated with air, water or soil but can include other environmental measures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | Not provided | The authors do not refer empirical variables. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | Stated preferences | Information obtained from individuals through systems (e.g. interviews, participatory mapping or focus group) | Interviews | Structured questions with or without response options. It could be recorded, or can be noted down by the researchers during the interview. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | Questionnaire - Survey | Survey questions, where respondents are asked to choose between two or more possible answers (closed) or where they can openly argue their answer (open). The survey is usually written. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Q-method | The Q method aims to identify homogeneous latent clusters of viewpoints towards a certain topic from a larger more heterogeneous set of (a priori unknown) different viewpoints held by respondents in the population. It must be explicit indicated in the research. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | Participatory mapping | Participatory mapping is a mapmaking process that strives to make visible the relationship between a place and local communities through the use of cartography. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | Focus groups | Bring together several participants to discuss a topic of mutual interest to themselves and the researcher. Researchers can use the audio tapes and transcripts produced by focus groups either as a source of data in and of themselves or as an adjunct to other forms of data collection. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | Scenario simulation | Research method where researchers create hypothetical scenarios to explore potential outcomes of social situations, allowing them to analyze how individuals or groups might react to different conditions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | Decision-Making models | Specific decision-making models stabilsed by the authors to understand the system evaluated. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | Other | Other stated preferences were not referenced previously. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | Q3 | Country | Country where the study was developed | Country | List of the countries where the study was developted. There could be more than one. | |||||||||||||||||||||
66 | Participant types | Type of contributors how participated in the study (e.g. Local people, academic or civil servants) | Academic | People linked with the academy. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | NGO's | People linked with a NGO. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | Civil servants | People part of the Civil servants. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | Policymakers | People who was recognized as policymakers, even having another positions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | Local People | Individuals who are part of indigenous peoples, farmers, local communities or civil society. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | Other | Persons who do not belong to one of the groups described above. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
72 | Not used | Studies in which no persons are involved. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
73 | Rol | Role of the participants in the study. It must be explicit in the methods (e.g. stakeholder or experts) | Stakeholder | The authors explicitly refer to the participants as stakeholders. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
74 | Expert | The authors explicitly refer to the participants as experts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
75 | Other | Other rol that differ from those mentioned earlier. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
76 | Nod defined | The authors do not refer to the role of the participant, different of their type. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
77 | Q4 | Limitations in the study | Limitations described by the authors in the study (e.g. data availability or conceptual issues) | Methodological approach | The authors refers there were methodological issues in the study. It could included limitation in the model proposed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
78 | Data availability | The authors indicated there were difficulties to obtain data availability. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
79 | Need to include social aspects | The authors indicates is necessary to include social aspects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
80 | Conceptual issues | The authors referenced there are some conceptual issues in their approach. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
81 | Other Limitations | The authors refer to other limitations that differ from those mentioned earlier. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
82 | Not provide | the authors don't provide limitations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
83 | Challenges or suggestions for the future | Challenges or suggestions offers by the authors (e.g. applicability, more empirical research u others) | Applicability | The authors referenced the applicability of the results as a challenge or a suggestion. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
84 | Communicative tools | The authors referenced the necessity to create a communicative tools as a challenge or a suggestion. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
85 | More empirical research | The authors referenced the necessity to have more empirical research as a challenge or a suggestion. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
86 | Participation multiple actors | The authors mentioned the need to include more stakeholders in future research as a challenge or suggestion. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
87 | Other suggestions | The authors mentioned other challenge or suggestion. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
88 | Not provide | the authors don't provide challenges or suggestions. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
91 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
93 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
95 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 |