See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287208395

The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators for Scotland

Chapter · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 144

3 authors, including:

Simon Foster
NatureScot
30 PUBLICATIONS   274 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Canna seabird studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Foster on 18 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2 The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity
Indicators for Scotland
Simon Foster, Edward C. Mackey and Susan J. Marrs

Summary

1. Indicators provide a succinct overview of how different components of our

biodiversity are changing. In Scotland, we have developed 22 biodiversity
indicators, of which 17 measure the changing state and five measure
peoples’ engagement with biodiversity.
2. Since their inception Scotland’s biodiversity indicators have been developed
and improved. Here we describe the development of the indicator suite,
using two case studies to illustrate ongoing improvements.
3. The indicator for terrestrial breeding birds, for example, has incorporated
improvements in analytical techniques so that we can interpret the
significance of changes. Species coverage has been improved through
targeted surveys in woodland and the involvement of a greater number of
volunteer recorders.
4. Scotland hosts internationally important numbers of seabirds. The seabird
indicator describes their abundance, with the addition more recently of
breeding productivity. As productivity is more responsive than abundance
to environmental change, it provides a more sensitive way of assessing the
fortunes of Scotland’s seabirds and reasons for declines.
5. Indicators should be relevant at a range of spatial scales, particularly if we
want to track progress against global targets such as halting the loss of
biodiversity. Looking ahead, we aim to improve the speed and
accessibility of indicator reporting, to capitalise on advances in new
analytical techniques, and keep abreast of policy developments which may
call for the formulation of new indicators.

Foster, S., Mackey, E.C. and Marrs, S.J. (2011). The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators
for Scotland – The Changing Nature of Scotland, eds. S.J. Marrs, S. Foster, C. Hendrie, E.C. Mackey,
D.B.A. Thompson. TSO Scotland, Edinburgh, pp 23-38.

23
The Changing Nature of Scotland

2.1 Introduction
Indicators provide a succinct overview of how different components of our
biodiversity are changing, and thereby help inform policy, advice and management.
Singleton et al. (2000) describe indicators as ‘an integrated value, derived from a
reproducible assessment, which reflects the significance of change’. A good
indicator allows for early intervention should problems arise, and helps track
progress toward a predefined target. They also summarise complex information in a
consistent way in order to track change through time and can be used to determine,
for example, the effectiveness of a policy, the state of the economy or the state of
our natural environment. Perhaps some of the more recognisable indicators are
those that tell us how the economy is changing for example the Financial Times
Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100. The FTSE 100 summarises complex economic
information, including the price of shares, into a format which enables changes in
the economy to be tracked. Similarly there are indicators which measure the health
of people, such as the Scottish Government’s National Indicator measuring the
number of people dying as a result of coronary heart disease (Scottish Government,
2009). These indicators although quite different in subject have some commonality.
They are easily recognised and meaningful, simplify complex underlying data into a
format which can be used by policy makers, are easily understood by the public,
and can, perhaps most importantly, be readily updated. The development of a
single indicator to track biodiversity has been likened to the search for the holy grail,
and at present best practice recommends a suite of relevant biodiversity indicators
(inter alia Dale and Beyeler, 2001; Bispo et al., 2009; Feld et al., 2010).
Measuring change in our natural environment is important for a number of
reasons, notably to determine: whether ecosystems and their services are being
conserved; the effectiveness of land management policies and the benefits of
reducing pollution; and whether development is sustainable. Since the early 1980s
a range of indicators have been proposed and developed around key policies
(Rowell, 1994). Schneider (1992) identified seven criteria which indicators should
meet:

• Easy to measure;
• Inexpensive to measure;
• Provide early warning of ecosystem damage;
• They are more sensitive to ecological change (than other measures);
• Imply the state of the ecosystem;
• Useful to policy makers; and
• Provide to the public an index of the health of the environment.

24
2 The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators for Scotland

In 2003 this was refined by Gregory et al. (2003) who stated that ‘they
[indicators] must be; quantitative, simplifying, user driven, policy relevant,
scientifically credible, responsive to changes, easily understood, realistic to collect
and susceptible to analysis’. In this paper we look at the development of
biodiversity indicators in Scotland, selected to track progress with Scotland’s
Biodiversity Strategy and describe some of the improvements that have been made
to two of the indicators since their inception in 2004.

2.1.1. Indicator development in Scotland

In 1996, a group of 14 environmental organisations ranging from central and local
government, government agencies, research and non-government organisations
met to define a set of environmental indicators for Scotland (Singleton et al., 2000).
The purpose was to establish a shared view of how key aspects of the natural and
built environment could be quantified and tracked through time. The outcome was
a candidate list of 138 ‘potential’ indicators. These covered 16 public policy
sectors and six environmental themes: climate change; species and habitats; air
quality; soil-water interaction; development; and toxic substances. The indicators
were embedded within a DPSIR audit framework (Driving forces, Pressure, State,
Impact, Response), 81 were characterised as ‘state’, 33 as ‘pressure’ and 24 as
‘response’ indicators.
While this helped to inform, and was informed by, the subsequent publication of
147 sustainable development indicators for the UK, (DETR, 1999), the Scottish
initiative did not secure the level of government endorsement necessary to take it
forward (Dunion et al., 2002). Some of the proposed indicators were aspirational,
where the required data were poor or unavailable, and some opportunistic.
Nevertheless, important parts of the candidate list have been developed. Since
2001, Key Scottish Environment Statistics have been published annually and made
available on-line. The tenth edition, in 2010, reported 41 trends across 10
environmental themes: background; public attitudes; global atmosphere; air quality;
water; marine; radioactivity; waste; land; and biodiversity (Scottish Government,
2010).
The value of indicators to measure the changing state of biodiversity is widely
acknowledged (de Heer et al., 2005). The Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), adopted at the United Nations ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June
1992, refers to monitoring key components of biodiversity (Article 7) and reporting
on delivery (Article 26). Between 2001 and 2003, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technical and Technological Advice to the CBD Conference of Parties (COP)
undertook a global review of biodiversity indicators from which it established general

25
The Changing Nature of Scotland

principles for developing national-level indicators. It advocated four basic functions

of indicators: simplification, quantification, standardisation and communication.
Importantly, it also recommended pragmatism, a willingness to learn by experience
and to make improvements through time. Based on its recommendations, the
seventh COP established a framework of 17 indicators for assessing progress
towards the 2010 biodiversity target. By use of best-fit data, the framework could
guide indicator development at global, regional, national and local levels (COP 7
Decision VII/30).
The global framework for 2010 reporting fosters consistency along with flexibility
to reflect biogeographical, policy and data differences at regional, national and sub-
national scales. Scotland is represented within the UK biodiversity indicator suite
for CBD reporting, and has a biodiversity strategy in its own right (Scottish
Executive, 2004). Indicator development was undertaken at the national (UK) and
country (Scotland) scales, with close correspondence between the Scotland and
UK suites. The relationships between Scotland’s biodiversity indicators and those
at national, European and global scales are illustrated in Table 2.1. Some indicators
(such as genetic diversity of farm breeds) work best at the UK scale. Conversely,
some indicators for Scotland are additional to the UK suite, e.g. otter range (which
shows the re-establishment of otter populations in areas where they had been
absent for a number of years) marine plankton and estuarine fish, together with
greenspace and aspects of public awareness and involvement.
Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy, ‘It’s In Your Hands’ (2004), sets out a 25-year
vision and framework for action. The aim of the strategy was ‘to conserve
biodiversity for the health, enjoyment and well-being of the people of Scotland now
and in the future’ (Scottish Executive, 2004). The Strategy provided a foundation
for Scotland’s contribution to the UK’s obligations under the CBD, Scotland’s
commitment to sustainable development, and the statutory duty on public bodies to
conserve biodiversity under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
In developing a strategy for the protection and enhancement of Scotland’s
biodiversity (Scottish Executive Environment Group, 2003), the Scottish Biodiversity
Forum stated that it would need indicators to enable measurement of progress and
proper reporting. Although the availability of biodiversity trend data was reasonably
well known (Mackey et al., 2001; Saunders, 2004), an appreciable amount of
development was required to create the indicator suite. Candidate biodiversity
indicators were put forward by the Scottish Biodiversity Forum Action Plan and
Science Group. These were chosen on the basis that they would fulfil established
criteria, that data were available or deliverable for reporting within the required
timescale, and they reflected the wider state of the ecosystems of which they are
part. Following a review and public consultation in May 2004, the Indicators

26
Table 2.1 How Scotland’s indicators link in to national and global assessments. For clarity the table shows the main relationships, however several of the
indicators at a Scotland level will feed into different broader scale indicators.

Scotland Biodiversity UK Biodiversity European Biodiversity Global Biodiversity

Extent of selected biomes,

BAP priority habitats UK BAP priority species
ecosystems, habitats Trends in extent of selected
biomes, ecosystems, and habitats
Notified habitats in favourable
Protected areas Coverage of protected areas
condition

Status of protected / threatened

BAP priority species UK BAP priority species
species Change in status of threatened
Notified species in favourable species
Protected areas Coverage of protected areas
condition

Terrestrial breeding birds

27
Wintering waterbirds Selected species - wild birds
Breeding seabirds

Abundance & distribution of Trends in abundance and

Terrestrial insects - butterflies Selected species - butterflies
selected species distribution of selected species

Terrestrial insects - moths

Vascular plant diversity Plant diversity

Extent of selected biomes,

2 The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators for Scotland

Woodland structure
ecosystems, habitats
Area of forest, agricultural and
Sustainable woodland Sectors under sustainable aquaculture ecosystems under
management management sustainable management

Area of agri-environment land

Table 2.1 continued

Scotland Biodiversity UK Biodiversity European Biodiversity Global Biodiversity

Connectivity/fragmentation of Connectivity/fragmentation
Habitat connectivity
ecosystems of ecosystems

Otters
Water quality in aquatic Water quality of freshwater
River quality
ecosystems ecosystems
Freshwater macro-invertebrates

Sustainable fisheries
Trends in abundance and
Estuarine fish European commercial fish stocks
distribution of selected species
Marine ecosystem integrity

Marine fish stocks

28
Marine plankton Marine trophic index Marine trophic index

Number & costs of invasive alien

Non-native species Impacts of invasive species Trends in invasive alien species
species
The Changing Nature of Scotland

Genetic diversity of livestock, fish

& cultivated plants
Genetic diversity of livestock, fish
Genetic diversity
& cultivated plants
Genetic resource patent
applications

Ecological impacts of air pollution Nitrogen deposition Nitrogen deposition

Impact of climate change on Ecological footprint and related

Spring index
biodiversity concepts
2 The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators for Scotland

Working Group of the Scottish Biodiversity Forum proposed a suite of 22

biodiversity indicators for Scotland’s Biodiversity Strategy. First published by the
Scottish Government in November 2007 (Scottish Government, 2007), they are
now maintained and updated by SNH. These are split into two groups – 17 state
indicators (measuring the state of Scotland’s biodiversity) and five engagement
indicators (measuring Scotland’s peoples’ involvement with biodiversity; see Marrs
and Foster, Chapter 11) (Table 2.1).
The indicators are updated as frequently as survey time frames permit. Following
analysis and quality assurance they are published online. They are used routinely as
evidence for policy development and in reporting. Three of Scotland’s biodiversity
indicators have been adapted for use within Scotland’s National Performance
Framework (terrestrial breeding birds, site condition, visits to the outdoors) and Rural
Development Programme (farmland birds).

2.2 Developing biodiversity indicators

Once indicators have been agreed there comes the need to update, refine and
adapt them in light of new knowledge, better data and improving analytical
techniques. It has to be recognised that no indicator of biodiversity will be perfect,
and the development phase is likely to be iterative. As surveys continue over time,
data are added and we may see improvements in the sample sizes and areas
covered, as well as improvements in the analytical techniques employed.
The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010 BIP) brings together a host of
international organisations working to support the regular delivery of the 2010
biodiversity target indicators at the global and national levels. In 2010 the Partnership
developed a Biodiversity Indicator Development Framework. This work was achieved
using the experiences that have been gained from a number of countries including
Scotland. Figure 2.1 illustrates the framework used for the development of indicators.

2.2.1 Indicator development case studies

In order to demonstrate how Scotland’s biodiversity indicators have been
developed we focus here on two case studies – Terrestrial Breeding Birds, and
Abundance of Breeding Seabirds. These indicators each have an overarching
indicator that gives a headline summary of the state of the environment, and sub-
indicators (by habitat or feeding preference) that give more detailed information on
which policy may be based.
The two examples demonstrate how we started from an initial indicator as part
of a research project, and then refined and adapted them in response to
improvements in analytical techniques, data availability and the needs of users. This

29
The Changing Nature of Scotland

Identify and Identify

consult management
stakeholders/ objectives and
audience targets

Determine key Develop

questions and conceptual
indicator use model

Identify possible
indicators

Gather and
review data

Develop
Calculate
monitoring and
indicators
reporting systems

Communicate
and interpret
indicators

Test and refine

indicators with
stakeholders

Figure 2.1 The Biodiversity Indicator Development Framework. Adapted from 2010 Biodiversity
Indicators Partnership (2010). The colour coded boxes relate to the three stages for development namely:
Purpose (red) – actions needed for selecting successful indicators. Production (blue) – essential to
generate indicators. Permanence (green) – mechanisms for ensuring indicator continuity and sustainability.

30
2 The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators for Scotland

paper does not cover the full indicator set, of which others have also been refined
and updated including butterflies (see Brereton, Chapter 6), marine plankton,
wintering waterbirds and Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species.

2.2.2 Terrestrial breeding birds

The Terrestrial Breeding Bird Indicator (Figure 2.2) describes the changing state of
around 60 species of breeding bird in Scotland (SNH, 2010). The majority of the
data are from the volunteer-led British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Breeding Bird
Survey (BBS) which surveys around 300 sites in Scotland every year (Risely et al.,
2010). This indicator has seen the most development from the suite of 17, partly
as a result of its prominence as one of the Scottish Government’s National
Performance Indicators.
The indicator is divided into four categories with an overarching headline
indicator comprising all species, and three sub-indicators for farmland birds,
woodland birds and upland birds. Species were grouped based on the habitats
that they preferred using Jacob’s Preference Index. This index is a measure of
habitat use in relation to the frequency of that habitat among the sample surveyed
(Jacobs, 1974). Data that can be used to produce a robust indicator for terrestrial

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Index (1994=1)

0.8

0.6

0.4
All species (65spp) Farmland & Rural (27spp)
0.2 Woodland (23spp) Upland (23spp)

0
1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year
Figure 2.2 Scotland’s Biodiversity Indicator No. 3: Abundance of Terrestrial Breeding Birds. The
index tracks the abundance of 65 bird species in relation to a reference point in 1994.

31
The Changing Nature of Scotland

breeding birds in Scotland only date back to 1994. Therefore, to account for
historical declines that may have occurred, Noble et al. (2007) looked at the
historical range changes as a proxy for declining populations. They showed that the
declines in Scotland were apparent, although not as severe as elsewhere. This
context of historical decline is important to bear in mind when the indicators are
showing improvement (de Heer et al., 2005). One of the groupings (farmland birds)
has historically shown significant declines throughout much of their UK range
before the start of the time series (Wilson, Chapter 26).
Improving the accuracy of this indicator has involved enhancing the survey
coverage. In Scotland, as in most countries, volunteer led surveys are usually most
consistently undertaken close to towns, cities and roads. This can lead to relatively
poor estimates of some habitats, particularly uplands and woodlands. To address
some of these issues SNH and Forestry Commission funded BTO to augment the
BBS in Scotland, specifically targeting woodlands, so that a greater number of
species could be included within the indicator. The results of this project showed
that it was possible to increase the number of species and improve coverage of
woodland areas in Scotland (Eglington and Noble, 2010).
In response to requests from users of the indicator, following an apparent
decline in 2006 (see Figure 2.2), BTO undertook work to enable the significance of
annual changes to be determined and smoothed the data to show the general
trends. The work highlighted that for the duration of the indicator only two years
showed significant declines and five significant increases, furthermore smoothing
the data allowed the underlying trend (i.e. the trend with the annual fluctuations
accounted for) to be shown (Noble and Thaxter, in press).

2.2.3 Abundance of breeding seabirds

Scotland hosts around 6.6 million seabirds, representing approximately 76% of the
UK populations (Mitchell et al., 2004). They are an important indicator of the state
of the marine environment as their breeding performance often reflects conditions
therein (Frederiksen et al., 2007). Seabirds are one of the top predators within the
marine environment and changes in lower trophic levels are likely to be manifested
in seabird populations. They are also affected by anthropogenic pressures such as
changes in fishing effort, fishing practices (e.g. discarding at sea) or pollution
(Parsons et al., 2008). In 2006 the first indicator was produced which tracked the
abundance of seabirds. The modelling methods used to determine the trend of the
composite indicator were at the time novel and more importantly produced a robust
way of analysing, presenting and updating trends in seabird populations (Parsons
et al., 2006).

32
2 The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators for Scotland

Plate 2.1 Black-legged kittiwakes. © Lorne Gill, SNH

33
The Changing Nature of Scotland

Changes in seabird breeding productivity, unlike abundance, operate on a within-

year timescale and therefore may provide a more useful indicator of environmental
change (Parsons et al., 2008). As such in 2008, an indicator for the breeding
productivity was developed. Since 2009 it has been possible to produce updates
more quickly so that the indicator from the previous year is now available by the start
of the breeding season in the following year. Indicators are of course out of date as
soon as they are published, therefore rapid updates mean that the results are more
relevant, which is of particular importance in periods of change such as in the
declines that have been observed in seabirds throughout Scotland (Figure 2.3).
Parsons et al. (2006) also identified a series of other ‘alternative’ indicators, such
as one which tracks the trends in seabirds that feed mostly on sand eels
(Ammodytes spp.). Future updates or requests to show this aspect of seabird
ecology can be produced relatively rapidly.

120

100
Index (as a % of 1986 level)

80

60

40 Abundance

Productivity
20

0
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

Year

Figure 2.3 Scotland’s Biodiversity Indicator No. 5: Abundance and Productivity of Breeding Seabirds
in Scotland. The index tracks the abundance and productivity of 12 seabird species.

34
2 The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators for Scotland

2.3 The future of indicators in Scotland

The 22 biodiversity indicators have been central to Scotland’s assessment of the
2010 target to halt biodiversity loss (Mackey and Mudge, 2010). They are hosted
on the SNH website and are among a relatively few national examples cited by the
2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (2010 BIP), a global initiative to further
develop and promote indicators for the consistent monitoring and assessment of
biodiversity.
Continuing advances in available data and improvements in the techniques for
the production of indicators mean that they can be developed at different spatial
scales from regional to national, and international to global. Scholes et al. (2008)
argue that there is a need for national to global scale biodiversity measurements in
order to be able to assess whether targets, such as the CBD ‘reduce the rate of
loss of biodiversity by 2010’, are being met. There is read-across between
Scotland’s biodiversity indicators to the global indicators however comparisons at
different scales are not necessarily exact and in some instances there can be no
proper match (Table 2.1).
In 2009 the CBD reviewed the extent to which progress had been made in
meeting the global biodiversity target and to develop a new, post 2010 strategic
plan and associated targets (UNEP-WCMC, 2009). This review highlighted
achievements and perhaps more importantly identified areas that required further
work, making six recommendations, summarised as follows.

• A small set (10-15) of broad headline indicators should be developed.

• The current framework of global indicators should be modified and simplified
into four ‘focal areas’.
• Additional measures on threats to biodiversity, status of diversity, ecosystem
services and policy responses should be developed.
• National capacity for framework application, indicator development, data
collection and information management should be further developed and
properly resourced.
• Priority must be given to developing a communication strategy for the post-
2010 targets and indicators in order to inform policy discussions and ensure
effective communication of messages.
• A flexible and inclusive process/partnership for post-2010 indicator
development should be maintained and adequately resourced.

Developing a suite of biodiversity indicators is an important step in an ongoing

iterative process. Continuing improvements in spatial coverage and analytical

35
The Changing Nature of Scotland

techniques counterbalanced with limited resources means that a pragmatic

approach needs to be adopted. Delivery of indicators should be streamlined and
rigorous data management standards employed. At the time of writing SNH was in
the process of being designated as a provider of Official Statistics – a standard
developed by the Office of National Statistics in the UK. In the future, indicators will
continue to be developed with maximum utility in mind, focussing on those that can
be applied at local scales (e.g. regional) that also feed into the broad headline
global assessments. We need to ensure we target the communication of our
indicators, making the most of this valuable knowledge base, which should be at the
forefront of policy discussions.

Acknowledgements
SNH maintains Scotland’s Biodiversity Indicators on their website (http://www.snh.
gov.uk/publications-data-and-research/trends) and we gratefully acknowledge the
following organisations whose contribution is essential for their delivery and
development: British Trust for Ornithology; Butterfly Conservation; Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology; Forestry Commission Scotland; Joint Nature Conservation
Committee; Marine Scotland – Science; Scottish Environment Protection Agency;
Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science, and Vincent Wildlife Trust. Much
of the data are generated by thousands of volunteers across Scotland without
whom many of these indicators could not be produced and we thank them for their
ongoing support and commitment.

References
Bispo, A., Cluzeau, D., Creamer, M. et al. (2009). Indicators for monitoring soil
biodiversity. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 5,
717-719.
Dale, V.H. and Beyeler, S.C. (2001). Challenges in the development and use of
ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1, 3-10.
Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1999). Quality of
Life Counts. Indicators for a Strategy for Sustainable Development for the
United Kingdom: a baseline assessment. DETR, Rotherham.
de Heer, M., Kapos, V. and ten Brink, B.J.E. (2005). Biodiversity trends in Europe:
development and testing of a species trend indicator for evaluating
progress towards the 2010 target. Philsophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 360, 297-308.
Dunion, K., Holbrook, J. and Sargent, B. (2002). The role of indicators in reporting
on the state of Scotland and its environment. In The State of Scotland’s

36
2 The Challenges of Developing Biodiversity Indicators for Scotland

Environment and Natural Heritage, ed. by M.B. Usher, E.C. Mackey and J.C.
Curran. TSO, Edinburgh.
Eglington, S. and Noble, D.G. (2010). Final Report for 2009 on the Scottish
Woodland Breeding Bird Surveys. BTO Research Report No. 549. BTO,
Thetford.
Feld, C.K., Sousa, J.P., da Silva, P.M. and Dawson, T.P. (2010). Indicators for
biodiversity and ecosystem services: towards an improved framework for
ecosystems assessment. Biodiversity Conservation, 19, 2895-2919.
Frederiksen, M., Mavor, R.A. and Wanless, S. (2007). Seabirds as environmental
indicators: the advantages of combining datasets. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 352, 205-211.
Gregory, R.D., Noble, D., Field, R. et al. (2003). Using birds as indicators of
biodiversity. Ornis Hungarica, 12-13, 11-24.
Jacobs, J. (1974). Quantitative measurement of food selection. Oecologia, 14, 413-
417.
Mackey, E.C., Shaw, P., Holbrook, J. et al. (2001). Natural Heritage Trends:
Scotland 2001. Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby.
Mackey, E.C. and Mudge, G. (2010). Scotland’s Wildlife: An assessment of
biodiversity in 2010. Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness.
Mitchell, I.P., Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N. and Dunn, T.E. (2004). Seabird Populations
of Britain and Ireland. T. and A. D. Poyser, London.
Noble, D.G., Joys, A.C. and Eaton, M.A. (2007). Natural Heritage Trends: A Scottish
Biodiversity Indicator for Terrestrial Breeding Birds. Scottish Natural
Heritage Commissioned Report No. 245.
Noble, D.G. and Thaxter, C.B. (in press). Assessing the significance of changes in
the Scottish terrestrial breeding bird indicator. Scottish Natural Heritage
Commissioned Research Report.
Parsons, M., Mitchell, I.P., Butler, A. et al. (2006). Natural Heritage Trends:
Abundance of Breeding Seabirds in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage
Commissioned Report No. 222.
Parsons, M., Mitchell, I., Butler, A. et al. (2008). Seabirds as indicators of the marine
environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65, 1520-1526.
Risely, K., Baillie, S.R., Eaton, M.A. et al. (2010). The Breeding Bird Survey 2009.
BTO Research Report 559. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.
Rowell, T.A. (1994). Ecological indicators for nature conservation monitoring.
JNCC, Peterborough.
Saunders, G. (2004). Natural Heritage Trends: The Seas Around Scotland 2004.
Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby.

37
The Changing Nature of Scotland

Schneider, E.D. (1992). Monitoring for ecological integrity: the state of the art. In
Ecological Indicators, ed. by D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt and V.J. McDonald.
London, Elsevier Applied Science. pp 1403-1420.
Scholes, R.J., Mace, G.M., Turner, W. et al. (2008). Toward a global biodiversity
observing system. Science, 321, 1044-1045.
Scottish Executive Environment Group (2003). Towards a strategy for Scotland’s
biodiversity: Biodiversity Matters! Strategy Proposals. Paper 2003/5.
Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
Scottish Executive (2004). Scotland’s Biodiversity – It’s in your hands – A strategy
for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland. Scottish
Executive, Edinburgh.
Scottish Government (2007). Scotland’s Biodiversity Indicators. The Scottish
Government, Edinburgh.
Scottish Government (2010). Scottish Environment Statistics Fact Card 2010.
Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
SNH (2005). The Natural Heritage of Scotland: an overview. SNH, Battleby.
SNH (2010). Abundance of terrestrial breeding birds. Scottish Natural Heritage,
Biodiversity Indicator S003.
Singleton, P., Holbrook, J., Sargent, B. and Mackey, E.C. (2000). Potential
Environmental Indicators for Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Review No
136.
UNEP-WCMC (2009). International Expert Workshop on the 2010 Biodiversity
Indicators and Post-2010 Indicator Development. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK.
Wilson, J., Mackey, E., Mathieson, S. et al. (2003). Towards a strategy for Scotland’s
biodiversity: Developing Candidate Indicators of the State of Scotland’s
Biodiversity. Scottish Executive Environment Group, Paper 2003/6.

38

View publication stats