Ecosystem Health Indicator Selection Criteria Developed by the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers
| Biologically relevant | *** i.e. important in maintaining a balanced biological community |
| Socially relevant | *** of obvious value to and observable by shareholders or predictive of a measure that is . . . |
| Sensitive | *** to stressors without an all-or non-response or extreme natural variability |
| Broadly applicable | *** to many stressors or sites |
| Diagnostic | *** of the particular stressor causing the problem |
| Measurable | *** i.e. capable of being operationally defined and measured, using a standard procedure with documented performance and low measurement error |
| Interpretable | *** i.e. capable of distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable conditions in a scientifically and legally defensible way |
| Cost-effective | *** i.e. inexpensive to measure, providing the maximum amount of information per unit effort |
| Integrative | *** summarizing information from many unmeasured indicators, one for which . . . |
| Historical data are available | *** to define nominative variability, trends and possibly acceptable and unacceptable conditions |
| Anticipatory | *** i.e. capable of providing an indication of degradation before serious harm has occurred, early warning |
| Nondestructive | *** of the ecosystem, one with potential for . . . |
| Continuity | *** in measurement over time, of an . . . |
| Appropriate scale | *** for the management problem being addressed. For the International Joint Commission, there are three relevant spatial scales: the Area of Concern, lakewide management and the basin ecosystem and many appropriate temporal scales |
| Not redundant with other measured indicators | *** i.e. providing unique information |
| Timely | *** i.e. providing information quickly enough to initiate effective management action before unacceptable damage has occurred |