A global dataset of indicators for biodiversity, ecosystems, and sustainability decision-making

Description

Table of contents (English)

1. Abstract

2. Full Description

3. Methodology

4. Dataset Fields

5. How to navigate the dataset

6. Supporting Files

7. Usage Notes and References

Technical info (English)

Full Description

Each record in the dataset corresponds to a unique nature-related indicator extracted from business-oriented initiatives, such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and policy-oriented initiatives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and the European Green Deal.

In this dataset, an indicator is defined as a quantitative or qualitative measure derived from verifiable data that synthesises information about a specific environmental condition, ecological process or function, or element of biodiversity (BIP, n.d.; SEEA, 2021; Brondízio et al., 2019). Although this definition allows for both quantitative and qualitative indicators, only quantitative indicators were retained.

The dataset comprises 1,798 indicators drawn from 143 documentary sources across 25 business and non-business initiatives — the full list of initiatives is available in Table 7 of the accompanying Methodology.pdf file. It includes information on each indicator’s nature domain, functional classification, thematic scope, spatial scale, classification confidence, originating initiative(s), and supporting reference information.

Indicators are organised across three nature-related domains — biodiversity, ecosystem condition, and ecosystem services — and classified through internationally recognised monitoring and accounting frameworks, including the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EA), and the Essential Ecosystem Service Variables (EESVs) (Pereira et al., 2013; SEEA, 2021; Balvanera et al., 2022).

Each indicator was also assigned a primary functional type using an adapted DPSIR typology comprising Dependency, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response (Smeets and Weterings, 1999). This adaptation makes the typology more suitable for the nature-related and business-oriented indicator landscape covered by the dataset, particularly by capturing relationships of reliance on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and ecosystem condition (TNFD, 2026; SBTN, 2023).

Traceability is supported through linked reference identifiers, a methodology file, a terminology file, an indicator harmonisation file, and an initiative screening file.

Framework Alignment

Indicators are aligned with internationally recognised environmental monitoring and accounting frameworks.

Biodiversity-related indicators were classified according to the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), including Species Populations, Species Traits, Genetic Composition, Community Composition, Ecosystem Functioning, and Ecosystem Structure (Pereira et al., 2013; GEO BON, n.d.).

Ecosystem condition indicators were classified following the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EA), including Compositional State, Functional State, Structural State, Chemical State, Physical State, and Landscape/seascape State (SEEA, 2021). For landscape/seascape condition indicators, classifications distinguish between land cover and land use, following SEEA-EA principles (SEEA, 2021).

Ecosystem service indicators were classified in two complementary steps. First, they were assigned to SEEA-EA ecosystem service categories — Provisioning, Regulation & Maintenance, and Cultural services — and to specific service types (SEEA, 2021). Second, they were assigned to Essential Ecosystem Service Variable (EESV) categories, including Ecological Supply, Anthropogenic Contribution, Use, Demand, Instrumental Value, and Relational Value ( Balvanera et al., 2022).

Indicators were also functionally classified using an adapted DPSIR typology comprising Dependency, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response (Smeets and Weterings, 1999; TNFD, 2026; SBTN, 2023).

Methods (English)

Initiative and document selection

Initiatives and documents were selected using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure conceptual relevance, international applicability, and policy/business relevance. Full screening details are provided in the methodology and initiative screening file — the full list of initiatives is available in Table 7 of the accompanying Methodology.pdf file. 

Indicator extraction and harmonisation

Only quantitative indicators were retained. Definitions provided in the original sources were comparatively reviewed to assess whether differently worded indicators referred to the same underlying measure, allowing equivalent formulations to be consolidated into single harmonised indicator records.

Example: Indicators such as Amount (tons) of fish caught, Marine landings volume, Fisheries production (catch volumes), Fish (tonnes), Gross tonnes of aquatic products harvested, and Landed catch (capture fisheries production) were treated as equivalent formulations and consolidated into the harmonised record Amount of fish and species caught.

Indicator typology

Indicators were assigned a primary functional type using an adapted DPSIR typology comprising dependency, pressure, state, impact, and response. The typology builds on the DPSIR framework used in environmental indicator reporting, while replacing the traditional Driving force category with Dependency (Smeets and Weterings, 1999). This adaptation was made to better reflect the nature-related indicators identified through the study, particularly the strong presence of business-oriented initiatives and their emphasis on relationships of reliance on biodiversity, ecosystem condition, and ecosystem services (e.g., Water abstracted for use by household and industry, Abundance of species used sustainably by farmers and local communities, or Energy consumed per unit produced) (TNFD, 2026; SBTN, 2023).

Detailed definitions of the adopted typology and supporting references are provided in the accompanying terminology file.

Classification across nature-related domains

Indicators were classified across biodiversity, ecosystem condition, and ecosystem services using internationally recognised monitoring and accounting frameworks, namely the EBVs, SEEA-EA, and EESVs (Pereira et al., 2013; SEEA, 2021; Balvanera et al., 2022). Together with the adapted DPSIR typology, this multi-framework structure allows the dataset to combine nature monitoring and accounting with a functional classification of indicators. 

Detailed definitions of the adopted nature-related domains, EBV classes, ecosystem condition components, ecosystem service categories, EESV categories, and supporting references are provided in the accompanying terminology file.

Thematic area classification

Indicators were also classified according to the thematic scope of their originating initiative, capturing the main application context in which they are used, such as assessment, valuation, strategic planning, target setting, reporting or  policy monitoring.

Detailed definitions of the adopted thematic scopes are provided in the accompanying terminology file.

Classification confidence

A classification confidence level was assigned to each indicator based on the clarity, completeness, and consistency of the source information. Confidence was recorded as high, medium, or low.

Full methodological details, terminology, and traceability are provided in the accompanying supporting documents.

Other (English)

Dataset fields 

The main dataset includes the following fields, grouped according to their role in identification, classification, traceability, and analytical context.

Core identification fields

Functional and domain classification fields

Traceability fields

Analytical context fields

Notes (English)

Notes (English)

Other (English)

Usage Notes

This dataset is intended for researchers, policymakers, businesses, and sustainability practitioners working on indicator selection, gap analysis, cross-framework comparison, and integrated monitoring of biodiversity, ecosystem condition, and ecosystem services. It supports both analytical and applied uses, including comparative assessments, indicator screening, and nature-related monitoring across policy and business contexts.

References

Balvanera, P., Brauman, K. A., Cord, A. F., Drakou, E. G., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Karp, D. S., Martín-López, B., Mwampamba, T. H., & Schröter, M. (2022). Essential ecosystem service variables for monitoring progress towards sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 54, 101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101152

BIP, Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. (n.d.). National indicator development. Biodiversity Indicators Partnership. Retrieved 7 February 2026, from https://www.bipindicators.net/national-indicator-development

Brondízio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., & Ngo, H. T. (Eds.). (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673

Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Walters, M., Geller, G. N., Jongman, R. H. G., Scholes, R. J., Bruford, M. W., Brummitt, N., Butchart, S. H. M., Cardoso, A. C., Coops, N. C., Dulloo, E., Faith, D. P., Freyhof, J., Gregory, R. D., Heip, C., Höft, R., Hurtt, G., Jetz, W., Karp, D. S., McGeoch, M. A., Obura, D., Onoda, Y., Pettorelli, N., Reyers, B., Sayre, R., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Stuart, S. N., Turak, E., Walpole, M., & Wegmann, M. (2013). Essential biodiversity variables. Science, 339(6117), 277–278. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229931

SEEA, System of Environmental-Economic Accounting. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). United Nations. https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting

SBTN, Science Based Targets Network. (2023). Science Based Targets Network Glossary of Terms. Science Based Targets Network. https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SBTN-Steps-1-3-Glossary_2023.docx-1.pdf

Smeets, E., & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental indicators: Typology and overview (Technical Report No. 25). European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25

TNFD, Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. (2026). Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures — Glossary. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. https://tnfd.global/publication/glossary/