Research article

Assessing rapid environmental

change using geoindicators
A. R. Berger

dition, state-of-the-environment (SOE) reporting has

Abstract Geoindicators are high-resolution meas- been developed to test new approaches to, and policies
ures of short-term (~100 years) surface or near- for, environmental (ecosystem) management on many
surface changes in earth processes, and phenomena spatial scales. A major objective is to identify – and com-
that are significant for environmental monitoring municate to decision-makers – trends in key environ-
and assessment. They are based on standard con- mental signals, especially those warning of impending
cepts and procedures and can be used to track thresholds and requiring changes to policy, institutions
changes in fluvial, coastal, desert, mountain, per- and human behavior. SOE reports, of which several
mafrost and other terrestrial areas. Geoindicators hundred have now been published, address the following
assess both catastrophic events and those that are questions:
more gradual, but evident within a human lifespan. 1. What is happening in the environment? (conditions
Most deal with changes on the landscape (0.1– and trends)
10 km) and meso-scales (10–100 km), but some, 2. Why is it happening? (causes, links between human
such as relative sea level and volcanic unrest, have influences and natural processes)
regional and global dimensions. Some are complex 3. Why is it significant? (ecological, economic and health
and costly to measure, others are relatively simple effects)
and easy to apply. Geoindicators can also be used 4. What are we doing about it? (implications for plan-
to unravel trends over the past few centuries and ning and policy)
longer through paleoenvironmental research, thus
providing the important baselines against which
human-induced and natural stresses can be better
understood. Geoindicators have been designed by A gap in SOE reporting
the International Union of Geological Sciences as
an aid to state-of-the-environment reporting and SOE reports generally deal with biodiversity and ecosys-
long-term ecological monitoring. tems, with obvious and important biological and chemi-
cal parameters relating to pollution (e.g. air and water
Key words Geoindicators 7 Sustainability 7 quality), and with changes in land use and natural re-
Ecosystem sources (Colborn and others 1990; CTAP 1994; Hettelingh
and others 1991). Much less attention is paid to the
abiotic processes and parameters that also determine the
nature of the landscape – the natural, changing back-
Introduction ground on which human and all other organisms live and
function.
There is much current discussion about the natural (phy- For example, the 1993 SOE report for British Columbia
sical, chemical and biological) environment and how best (BC 1993) ignores fluctuations in the extent of glaciers
to manage the resources of the land, soil, water and bio- and ice fields, which may be related to climate change. In
sphere. The Brundtland Report (World Commission on British Columbia many of these are retreating, some very
Environment and Development 1987), for example, ar- rapidly, with significant consequences for water supplies,
gued that to be sustainable an environment should be hydroelectricity generation, freshwater fisheries, and re-
able to meet human needs and should last well beyond creational use (Brugman 1992). A very detailed program
the present generation. As an aid to attaining such a con- of environmental assessment in Florida proposes an ex-
tensive assessment of changes related to groundwater
but, surprisingly, none relating to coastal processes
(SAFE 1993). Changes in sea levels, fluvial erosion and
Received: 26 July 1996 / Accepted: 1 November 1996 deposition, soil chemistry, and seismicity are also gener-
A. R. Berger ally omitted in SOE reports (UNEP 1992; World Bank
528 Paradise Street, Victoria, BC V9A 5E2, Canada 1995).

36 Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag


One reason why geological processes are neglected may
be that the long time-perspective of geoscience tries the
patience of those whose concern is the present and the
near future. Geoscientists emphasize the importance of
understanding the nature and rates of environmental
changes in the distant geological past, involving time
spans in which millennia are mere instants. Those moni-
toring the environment may be aware of geological data
about rapid environmental fluctuations during Pleisto-
cene interglacials or during the Younger Dryas and the
Little Ice Age. Certainly the recent revelations about past
climates that come from the study of long ice-cores, or
from ocean-floor and lake sediments, have altered our
thinking about climate change (Berger and Labeyrie 1987;
Johnsen and others 1992; Dickinson 1995). However, geo-
morphologists, Quaternary researchers and others con-
cerned with paleoenvironments have only recently been
able to determine rates and extents of past surface pro-
cesses (e.g. via speleothems, lake sediments, tree rings
and soil water chemistry) on the annual and decadal
scales that are meaningful to environmental planners and
the general public.
If we had now a full picture of how global, regional and
local environments have changed in the past century or
so, we would be in a better position to distinguish be-
tween natural processes and human influences, whether
desirable or not. There is extensive historical information
on weather patterns, but very much less on past trends in
erosion, slope stability, peat accumulation, or the chemis-
try of groundwater, not to mention the lack of time-se-
ries data on biodiversity and atmospheric composition.
Managers and decision-makers 50–100 years from now
will have a much better understanding of environmental
changes and trends if they are able to draw upon a timed
series of ‘snapshots’ that characterize the natural environ-
ment at any one time.
Environmental indicators
Most of the thinking on environmental monitoring ap-
pears to have come from those concerned with ecosystem
dynamics and integrity (Costanza and others 1992; Sol-
brig and others 1992; Woodley and others 1993; Speller-
berg 1993; Herman and others 1995). This reflects the
public concern that the well-being of wildlife, rare and
endangered species, and even human life itself, is jeopar-
dized by environmental stresses of human origin. There
has been much interest, therefore, in developing indica-
tors to assess the sensitivity to stress of ecological vital
signs such as population dynamics, species and genetic
diversity, energy flux, and nutrient budgets.
Ideally, environmental indicators measure the ‘integrity’,
stability and sustainability of the biological and physical
environment, and in particular those aspects that can,
like miners’ canaries, warn of impending rapid change. A
physician assesses human health by monitoring a pa-
tient’s vital signs, using a standard set of indicators –
Research article
blood pressure, chloresterol levels, and so forth. Those
responsible for judging the state of the natural environ-
ment are now demanding their own tools, protocols and
standards to assess the health of the environment, and to
determine whether it is rapidly changing or stable over
time.
Environmental indicators should provide a clue to issues
of larger significance. In order to be useful for forward
projections, they should also make perceptible a trend or
phenomenon that is not immediately detectable. Ideally,
they should both quantify and simplify information about
complex phenomena (Hammond and others 1995; OECD
1991; World Bank 1995). The question is, what environ-
mental elements need to be monitored? The International
Union of Biological Sciences has its own committee on
bioindicators (Jeffrey and Madden 1991), and much effort
is being directed towards the development of indicators
for agriculture (McRae and Lombardi 1994), soils (Acton
and Gregorich 1995), and forest condition and manage-
ment (Riitters and others 1992; Montreal Process 1995).
The landscape and the physical environment also re-
spond to natural processes in the soil, on the bedrock,
and in the hydrosphere. Processes in deserts (erosion and
deposition by wind, migration of dune fields) and in per-
mafrost regions (melting, slumping, water table fluctua-
tions) provide examples, and there are dynamic processes
(crustal rebound, glacial deposition, meltwater outflow)
that influence the land in parts of Canada and Scandinav-
ia. Landscapes may be rapidly modified by physical pro-
cesses like soil movements, landsliding, coastal and river
erosion and deposition, and frost-heaving. All of these
processes can, of course, be intensified, speeded up or
slowed by human actions (Turner and others 1990), but
they also operate in the absence of life. Any reasonably
complete set of environmental indicators should therefore
include measures that describe abiotic, surface and near-
surface geological processes.
Geoindicators – their definition
and character
In response to this need, the International Union of Geo-
logical Sciences established in 1992, through its Commis-
sion on Geological Sciences for Environmental Planning
(COGEOENVIRONMENT), a working group to develop
geological indicators of rapid environmental change. The
goal of the project, which has now been completed (Ber-
ger and Iams 1996), was to compile an inventory and
checklist of geoindicators that should be monitored in
any properly integrated program of environmental assess-
ment and SOE reporting. The checklist, which is also
available through the Internet (http://www.gcrio.org/geo/
toc.html), is a compilation to a standard format (Table 1)
from which appropriate indicators can be selected and
modified as required.
Geoindicators are measures (magnitudes, frequencies,
rates, and trends) of geological processes and phenomena
Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag 37
 Research article

occurring at or near the Earth’s surface and subject to
changes that are significant for understanding environ-
mental change over periods of 100 years or less. They
measure both catastrophic events and those that are
more gradual but evident within a human lifespan. They
are high-resolution measures of dominantly abiotic,
short-term changes in the geological environment, of
which many can result in irreversible ecosystem distur-
bance on one scale or another, Twenty-seven geoindica-
tors (Table 2) have been identified to monitor and assess
geological changes in fluvial, coastal, desert, mountain
and other terrestrial areas.
Although the emphasis is on abiotic change, biological
and geological systems interact intimately in time and
space, so that it is not possible to ignore living organ-
isms. This is especially so when dealing with corals, de-
posits of organic origin such as peat and soil, the in-
fluence of animals and plants on weathering, erosion and
deposition (Thornes 1990), or microbiota that play a me-
diating role in groundwater chemistry and karst pro-
cesses.
As defined, geoindicators do not apply to important but
slow, earth processes such as diagenesis, metamorphism
and deformation, and plate tectonic movements. Geoindi-
cators can, however, also be used in paleoenvironmental
research to unravel trends over the past few centuries
and longer, thus providing important baselines against
which human-induced and natural stresses can be better
understood.
Geoindicators have been developed from standard tech-
niques in geology, geochemistry, geophysics, geomorpho-
logy, hydrology, physical geography and other Earth
sciences (Cooke and Doornkamp 1990; Goudie 1990; for
different approaches to indicators of geological change
see Hughes 1995; Panizza 1995; Fabbri and Patrono 1995).
Some are complex and expensive, but many are relatively
simple and can be applied without great cost. Some, such
as shoreline position and lake areal extent, are parame-
ters that can be represented on a map to reflect climate
change, human interference or both, as in the familiar
images of the much diminished Aral Sea, with fishing
boats abandoned on the dried-up lake bed. In contrast,
soil and groundwater quality, which depend on many
separate chemical, biological and physical components,
are far more difficult to represent spatially, though there
are many examples of the spatial representation of indi-
vidual chemical components (Låg 1990; Selinus and oth-
ers 1996).
At this stage of their development, geoindicators focus on
the terrestrial environment, including the coastal zone,
because this is where SOE reporting and long-term eco-
logical monitoring are mainly carried out. Geoindicators
could also be identified for marine environments, includ-
ing heat flow, changes in sediment chemistry, tempera-
ture and chemistry of hot springs and smokers, and fre-
quency of turbidity currents.
Because they are of rather restricted significance for as-
sessing the health of the environment, certain geological
processes and phenomena that are liable to perceptible
change in years or decades have not been included in the
present checklist. These include geomagnetic field and
other geophysical parameters such as rock permeability,
rock stresses, rock weathering, rock-microbe interactions
such as are important in bacterial leaching and karst
processes, swelling of clays and expansive soils, burning
ground, and degassing of lake and marine sediments.
Geoindicators describe processes and environmental pa-
rameters that can change without human interference,
though human activities can accelerate, slow or divert
them (Turner and others 1990). Humans are certainly an
integral part of nature and the environment, but it is es-
sential to recognize that nature and the environment are
always changing at one temporal and spatial scale or an-
other, whether or not people are present (Dickinson
1995). Environmental sustainability must, therefore, be
assessed against a potentially moving background. Table
3 is an attempt to assess the relative influence of human
and natural (nonanthropogenic) stresses on geoindica-

Table 1
Summary of format for geoindicator entries in the checklist

Name Of geoindicator
Brief description How does it relate to geological processes and phenomena?
Significance Why should it be monitored?
Human or natural cause If possible, how can human causes be distinguished from nonhuman ones?
Environment where applicable General landscape settings
Types of monitoring sites Specific locations for monitoring
Spatial scale Over what area would monitoring take place?
Method of measurement Field and lab techniques
Frequency of measurement How often should monitoring be done?
Limitations of data/monitoring What difficulties in gathering data and using results?
Applications to past & future Utility for paleoenvironmental studies and predictive potential
Possible thresholds Beyond which significant change in environments may occur
Key references Practical manuals and key publications
Other sources of information Organizations and programs
Related issues Regarding other environmental and geological processes
Overall assessment Importance for environmental monitoring and sustainability

38 Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag

 Research article

Table 2
Geoindicator list

Geoindicators Some environmental changes they reflect

Coral chemistry and growth patterns Temperature of oceanic and coastal surface water, salinity
Desert surface crusts and fissures Aridity
Dune formation and reactivation Wind speed and direction, moisture, aridity, sediment availability
Dust storm magnitude, duration and frequency Dust transport, aridification, land use
Frozen ground activity Climate, hydrology, downslope movement – especially in the active layer
Glacier fluctuations Precipitation, insolation, melt runoff
Groundwater quality Industrial, agricultural and urban pollution, rock and soil weathering,
land use, radioactivity, acid precipitation
Groundwater chemistry in the unsaturated zone Weathering, climate, land use
Groundwater level Climate, abstraction and recharge
Karst activity Groundwater chemistry and flow, climate, vegetation cover, fluvial
processes
Lake levels and salinity Climate, land use, streamflow, groundwater flow
Relative sea level Coastal subsidence and uplift, climate, fluid withdrawal, sedimentation
and compaction
Sediment sequence and composition Climate, land use, erosion and deposition
Seismicity Natural & human-induced release of earth stresses
Shoreline position Coastal erosion, sediment transport and deposition, land use, sea levels,
climate
Slope failure (landslides) Slope stability, slow and rapid mass movement, land use
Soil and sediment erosion Climate, surface runoff, wind, land use
Soil quality Chemical, biological and physical soil processes, land use
Streamflow Climate, precipitation, basin discharge, land use
Stream channel morphology Sediment load, flow rates, climate, land use, surface displacement
Stream sediment storage and load Sediment transport, flow rates, basin discharge, land use
Subsurface temperature regime Climate, heat flow, land use, vegetation cover
Surface displacement Land uplift and subsidence, faulting, fluid extraction
Surface water quality Climate, land use, water-soil-rock interactions, flow rates
Volcanic unrest Near-surface movement of magma, magmatic degassing, heat flow
Wetlands extent, structure, and hydrology Land use, climate, biological productivity, streamflow
Wind erosion Climate, land use, vegetation cover

tors, though it excludes from consideration indirect
changes brought about by global-scale, human-induced
climate change.
Geoindicators may be useful for assessing the geological
aspects of global change, climatic or otherwise (Jones
1993). Indeed, one might recognize two constituencies
that would use geoindicators, one that needs to assess en-
vironmental sustainability on a broad scale (national or
larger), the other that is responsible for the management
of smaller-scale jurisdictions and environments. Table 4
shows the relevance of geoindicators to many of the is-
sues of regional and global change identified in Agenda
21 (Robinson 1993), which resulted from the 1992 United
Nations Rio Conference on the Environment.
Compiling geoindicators – proxies
and aggregations
The approach used in developing geoindicators was to
identify a minimum set of parameters that would togeth-
er describe the most important, short-term dynamics of
common landscapes and geological settings. In doing so,
certain geoindicators may be regarded as proxies repre-
senting a myriad of other parameters on which they de-
pend. Shoreline position is an example of a geoindicator
that can represent, at least partially, local sea level, coas-
tal subsidence, or wave climate. Seismicity might be tak-
en as a proxy for the release of earth stresses.
Another class of geoindicators comprises related but in-
dependent measures and can be regarded as ‘high-level’
or ‘integrative’ (Munasinghe and Shearer 1995). An ex-
ample of this kind of geoindicator is frozen ground activ-
ity, a term that groups many important soil and surface
processes and changes in permafrost areas, such as frost
heaving, thermokarst, and active layer thickness. Other
high-level indicators that describe the quality of ground-
water, surface water and soils illustrate the difficulties of
choosing a few parameters for a world containing in ex-
cess of 10 000 potential contaminants produced by mod-
ern societies. These chemical components and other nat-
ural ones may vary independently, and any one, alone or
in combination with others, may affect the health and
functioning of humans and other organisms.
There does not seem to be a ready method to combine or
aggregate into one simple index the many chemical pa-

Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag 39

 Research article

Table 3 cover, which is an important determinant for runoff, soil

Relative influence on geoindicators of human and natural moisture, soil creep, solifluction, frost action and aval-
(nonhuman) stresses (after Berger and Iams 1996, Table 1; filled anches.
square – strongly influenced by, open square – may be
influenced by, open circle – no substantial influence on)
One problem in compiling any such checklist or menu is
that the inevitable, but false impression is given of sepa-
Geoindicator Natural Human rate compartments with little interaction. Yet chemical
influence influence loads and fluctuations in surface water and groundwater,
sediments, soils, biota and the atmosphere are intimately
Coral chemistry and growth patterns J J linked, and variations in one affect others. Moreover, nat-
Desert surface crusts and fissures J j ural patterns are commonly overridden by human in-
Dune formation and reactivation J j
Dust storm magnitude, duration and
fluences. For example, coastal subsidence (the surface
frequency J j displacement geoindicator) may be part of the same
Frozen ground activity J j overall situation – as in the Mississippi delta – that in-
Glacier fluctuations J i volves changes in river channel morphology (streamflow
Groundwater quality j J and stream channel morphology), loss of nearby wetlands
Groundwater chemistry in the (wetlands extent, structure, water budget and geochemis-
unsaturated zone J J try), river sediment load (stream sediment storage and
Groundwater level j J
Karst activity J j
discharge), local sea level (relative sea level), and the
Lake levels and salinity J J morphology and location of the shore (shoreline posi-
Relative sea level J j tion). Nevertheless, the checklist responds to the need to
Sediment sequence and composition J J start at some simple and basic level.
Seismicity J j
Shoreline position J J
Slope failure (landslides) J J
Soil and sediment erosion
Soil quality
J
j
J
J
The question of natural hazards
Streamflow J J
Stream channel morphology J Geoindicators are concerned more with the buildup to
J
Stream sediment storage and load J events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, than
J
Subsurface temperature regime J with the events themselves. Nevertheless, change in many
j
Surface displacement J j
geoindicators takes place during infrequent, extreme
Surface water quality J J
events (e.g. floods, sinkhole collapse, landslides, erup-
Volcanic unrest J i
Wetlands extent, structure, and
tions, and faulting) that are difficult to capture by rou-
hydrology J J tine monitoring.
Wind erosion J j The volcanic unrest geoindicator, for example, describes
the thermal, structural, and geomorphological state of a
region liable to erupt, rather than the eruption itself. Li-
kewise, a single earthquake is not a geoindicator: the
rameters that are important for monitoring groundwater well-known seismicity geoindicator reflects the state of
(Edmunds 1996). For example, Cl may be used to assess stress and its release within specific regions of the Earth’s
inorganic waste, HCO3 the extent of microbial activity in crust, which may or may not lead to an obvious earth-
degrading organic pollution, and dissolved organic car- quake. Tsunamis, which can produce so much damage to
bon (DOC) total organic pollutants. Moreover, aggregat- coastal areas, are not geoindicators, and neither are land-
ing chemical parameters can be dangerous to policy mak- slides, per se, but rather the state of slopes likely to fail.
ing, because specific chemicals that are potentially harm- Parameters that assess soil erosion are included, but a
ful may easily be overlooked. Thus, the decision was single river flood is not, though the frequency of flooding
made to define groundwater quality in terms of salinity; is implicit in the streamflow geoindicator.
pH; redox status; fluoride in drinking water; radioactivi-
ty; NO3; K/Na, PO4, herbicides, pesticides and insecti-
cides; SO4, As, F, Sr, and metals; and HCO3, DOC, B, and
solvents. Earth resources as indicators
Distinctions between geoindicators and other, nongeolog-
ical, measures of environmental change and quality are Geoindicators that assess soil, surface water and ground-
not always sharp, and some rather arbitrary choices have water quality reflect the common emphasis on their sui-
been made in compiling the first checklist of geoindica- tability for human use, with much less regard placed on
tors (Berger and Iams 1996). For example, many chemical the extent of the resource. There are no geoindicators, as
parameters needed to assess the quality of both surface defined here, that deal with changes in stocks of nonre-
and groundwater are included, because of the interdepen- newable earth materials consumed by society (minerals
dency of surface water with other parts of the hydrologi- and fossil fuels). Resource extraction and utilization are
cal cycle. On the other hand, the checklist excludes snow not geological processes but wholly human actions on

40 Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag

 Table 4
Relevance of geoindicators to Agenda 21 issues and other major concerns (after Berger and Iams 1996, Table 2, p 386). Agenda 21 issues: A/C atmosphere/climate (Chapter 9);
Ag agriculture (Ch 14); Bidv biodiversity (Ch 15); CZ coastal areas (Ch 17); Ds desertification (Ch 12); For deforestation (Ch 11); FW freshwater (Ch 18); HH human health
(Ch 6); LR land resources (Ch 10); MD mountain development (Ch 13); ND natural disasters (Ch 7); USW urban settlements (Ch 7); waste (Ch 19–22). Other issuses:
E ecosystem health, integrity; ME mining, oil, gas development; R reservoirs, dams, irrigation systems, canals (filled square – major relevance, open square – potential
relevance, open circle – immediate relevance limited)

Geoindicator HH USW ND FW CZ LR Ds MD Ag For Bidv A/C E ME R

Coral chemistry and growth patterns i i i i j i i i i i j J J i i

Desert surface crusts and fissures i i i i i j J i i i i J j i i
Dune formation and reactivation i j i i j j J i i i J J J i i
Dust storm magn., duration & frequency i i j i i j J i J i j J J i i
Frozen ground activity i J j i j j i J i j J J J j i
Glacier fluctuations i j i j i i i J i i j J j i j
Groundwater quality J J i J J i i j j j j j J J J
Groundwater chem. in the unsaturated zone j i i i i i j i j i i J i i i
Groundwater level j J i J J j j j J j j j J j J
Karst activity J J j j j j i J j j J J J j J
Lake levels and salinity j j i J i j J i J i J J J j J
Relative sea level i j j i J J i i i i i J J i i
Sediment sequence and composition j j i i j i j j i i J J J J J
Seismicity i J J i J i i J i i i i j j J
Shoreline position i j J i J J i i i i j J J i i
Slope failure (landslides) i J J i J j i J j J j j J J J
Soil and sediment erosion i J J j J J J J J J J j J J J
Soil quality J J j j j j j j J J J J J j j
Streamflow j j J J j j i j J J j j J J J
Stream channel morphology i j j i j j i i j i i i J i J
Stream sediment storage and load j j j j j j j J J j j j J j J
Subsurface temperature regime i i i i i i i i j j j J J i i
Surface displacement i J J i J i i J i j J j j J j
Surface water quality J J i J J i i J J J J J J J J
Volcanic unrest J J J j j j i J j i j J j i i
Wetlands extent, structure, & hydrology J J j J J J i i J j J J J j J
Wind erosion i j i i j J J j J i i J J i i

Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag

Research article

41
 Research article
earth materials, most of which do not undergo natural
change on the geoindicator time scale.
A number of geoindicators do, however, deal indirectly
with resource issues. These include glacier fluctuations as
one cause of variations in the supply of water to rivers,
groundwater levels as a measure of the availability of
subsurface water for use by society, and the areal extent
of wetlands as an indication of peat resources. It would
not be difficult to extend the geoindicator concept to
measure the extent of resource (minerals, rocks, energy,
and water) extraction and usage, even including process-
ing and recycling. Indeed, many national economic sys-
tems include standard measures of (human-induced)
changes in mineral and fossil fuel reserves, rate of extrac-
tion, processing, usage, and recycling.
Landscape ecology and sensitivity
Landscape ecology is a well-developed field with links to
botany, ecology and geography (Forman and Godron
1986; Naveh and Lieberman 1990). It deals with the struc-
ture, function and change of land composed of interact-
ing ecosystems. In reviewing the dynamics of landscapes,
Huggett (1995) emphasizes the importance of interactions
between soils, plants, animals, and the atmosphere, hy-
drosphere, ‘toposphere’ and lithosphere. Many European
examples of landscape change are given in Boer and De
Groot (1990) within the context of climate change. Mat-
thews (1992) discusses an extensive body of knowledge
on the geoecology of glacier forelands, ideal places to ob-
serve the development of succession in plants and soils.
Fortescue (1996) links geoindicators to some of the basic
concepts of landscape ecology and develops a vision of a
new landscape geoscience. Note that geoindicators are
not in themselves measures of integrity, health, resilience
or sustainability, terms which require human judgements
and values (Costanza and others 1992; Westra 1994;
Woodley and others 1993).
The geoindicator concept is, in some senses, complemen-
tary to that of landscape sensitivity, the potential magni-
tude of change within a geomorphological system and the
widely varying capacity of a landscape to resist or absorb
impulses of change (Thomas and Allison 1993). Sensitivi-
ty can also be used to gauge how near a landscape com-
ponent is to a threshold of change. Some landforms (e.g.
certain river patterns and alluvial fans) are sensitive and
ready to respond, whereas others are not (Schumm 1979).
Geoindicators and sustainable
development
There is now intensive discussion of ways to assess envi-
ronmental and socioeconomic sustainability (Adriaanse
1993; Woodley and others 1993; Bakkes and others 1994;
42 Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Bartelmus 1994; Hammond and others 1995; Munasinghe
and Shearer 1995; CSD 1995, Hodge and others 1995; Jäg-
er and others 1995; World Bank 1995). Many new ap-
proaches have been proposed for a wide range of indica-
tors dealing with ecosystems, human ‘systems’ and their
interactions. If geoindicators are to keep pace with con-
tributions from economics, environmental studies, ecolo-
gy, and other disciplines, it will be necessary to keep a
watching brief on new developments and to cooperate
closely with others engaged in environmental assessment.
Of particular interest is the work of the United Nations
Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 1995;
Gouzee and others 1995), which is developing a ‘core
menu’ (checklist) of indicators to be used as policy in-
struments. The indicator menu, which contains few
measures of natural environmental change, is based on a
driving force-state-response framework. In this, driving
forces are limited to stresses from human activities, pro-
cesses and patterns that affect the state of the environ-
ment (its sustainability) and that elicit various policy re-
sponses to correct undesirable situations. The difficulty
with this scheme is that the condition of most environ-
ments at any time reflects not only human stresses but
also natural processes, which may be causing change
whether or not people are present (Berger and Hodge
1997). Clearly, harmful human stresses on the environ-
ment must be curbed but, particularly in rural and wild-
erness areas, it may be very difficult to distinguish the ef-
fects of human actions that can be controlled from natu-
ral influences that generally cannot (see Table 3). Though
policies must obviously be directed to human actions (re-
sponses) rather than to abiotic stresses (processes) – one
can sue neither God nor Nature – it seems strange to ig-
nore the impact of natural environmental processes and
phenomena on the condition (state) of the environment
within which humans live. The further development and
application of geoindicators should, thus, complement
the core menu of indicators that the United Nations has
adopted as a draft international standard.
One challenge will be to define more closely the thresh-
olds or critical loads involved, so that it may be possible
to express in specific terms the relative stability of a par-
ticular environment. Indeed, if for each indicator there
were targets set by environmental policy (Adriaanse
1993), or clear thresholds or limits that once crossed
would require policy action, the process of aggregating a
multitude of complex indicators to a small number of
readily understood, higher-level indices would be facili-
tated. If this could be done for a broad range of environ-
mental indicators, including those dealing with biodiver-
sity and ecosystem integrity, then it might be possible to
combine these with parameters that describe some of the
important human dimensions of environmental change –
the socioeconomic indicators of sustainability that are
now much discussed. After all, decision- and policy-mak-
ers commonly demand simple environmental measures
involving a few indicators that will tell them, and the
general public, what progress is being made towards en-
vironmental sustainability. The danger of such an ap-
 Research article

proach is that a high-level index may suggest that the en- (British Geological Survey, Wallingford), Bob Vance (Geological
vironment and human systems are improving, whereas a Survey of Canada, Calgary), David Elliott (Geosgil Consulting,
destructive earthquake or hurricane, warnings of which Calgary), and Waite Osterkamp (U.S. Geological Survey, Tuc-
son).
may not show up in such an index, could nullify the im-
provements. Moreover, one may well question the wis-
dom of trying to represent open natural systems by sin-
gle measures.
References
Acton DF, Gregorich LJ (1995) The health of our soils: to-
Conclusion ward sustainable agriculture in Canada. Centre for Land and
Biological Resources Research, Research Branch, Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa
Geoindicators have been developed for use in integrated Adriaanse A (1993) Environmental policy performance indica-
environmental monitoring in order to assess changes im- tors. Sdu Uitgeverij Koninginnegracht, The Hague
portant for the attainment of sustainability (Table 4). Bakkes JA, Born GJ van den, Helder JC, Swart RJ, Hope
They also have utility for ecosystem management, envi- CW, Parker JDE (1994) An overview of environmental indi-
ronmental auditing, and environmental impact and risk/ cators – state of the art and perspectives. National Institute
of Public Health and Environmental Protection and Nairobi
hazard assessments. In any particular setting appropriate UNEP, Bilthoven
geoindicators should be applied in combination with in- Bartelmus P (1994) Towards a framework for indicators of
dicators of biodiversity, ecosystem health/integrity, cli- sustainable development (Working Paper Series 7). United
mate, or other parameters needed to assess the state of Nations Dept. for Economic and Social Information and Poli-
the environment. They may help to develop a new kind cy Analysis, New York
of landscape metric – a way to assess in an integrated BC (1993) State of the environment report for British Columbia.
fashion the dynamic character of terrestrial environ- BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria
Berger AR, Hodge RA (1997) Natural change in the environ-
ments. Together with appropriate hydrological, meteoro- ment: a challenge to the pressure-state-response concept. Soc
logical, and biological parameters, geoindicators should Indic Res (in press)
contribute to a better understanding of environmental Berger AR, Iams WJ (eds) (1996) Geoindicators: assessing rap-
change and sustainability. id environmental changes in earth systems. Balkema, Rotter-
It is interesting to note the recent work in Europe on in- dam
dicators that deal with landforms in the context of envi- Berger WH, Labeyrie LD (1987) Abrupt climatic change: evi-
ronmental impact assessment (Panizza 1995; Fabbri and dence and implications. Riedel, Dordrecht
Boer MM, De Groot RS (1990) Landscape-ecological impact of
Patrono 1995; Rivas and others 1995). Though their ap- climate change. IOS Press, Amsterdam
proach is quite different to the geoindicator concept pre- Brugman MM (1992) Search for trends in glacier mass balance
sented above, it is one that also draws attention to ways from Western Canada. In: Kite GW, Harvey KD (eds) Using
of assessing in quantitative terms changes in geological hydrometric data to detect and monitor climatic change.
systems. (Symposium 8), National Hydrology Research Institute, Sas-
The next step will be to apply geoindicators in a syste- katoon, pp 233–244
matic fashion in long-term monitoring programs. Geo- Colborn TE, Davidson A, Green SN, Hodge RA, Jackson
CI, Liroff RA (1990) Great Lakes – great legacy? The Con-
scientists are challenged to ensure that earth systems are servation Foundation, Washington, DC
included in integrated monitoring programs and SOE as- Cooke RU, Doornkamp JC (1990) Geomorphology in environ-
sessments. Doing so will encourage the crossing of tradi- mental management, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford
tional discipline boundaries such as between geology and Costanza R, Norton BG, Haskell BD (1992) Ecosystem
biology, and will contribute to environmental assess- health – new goals for environmental management. Island
ments that take into account all important components Press, Washington, DC
of the environment. From such case studies will come the CSD (1995) Programme of work on indicators for sustainable
development. Document E/CN.17/1995/18, UN Economic and
information needed to test the relevance and value of this Social Council, New York
new kind of landscape metric and to make the revisions CTAP (1994) The changing Illinois environment: critical trends.
to both the checklist framework and detail that will un- Critical Trends Assessment Project, Illinois Department of
doubtedly be needed. Energy and Natural Resources, and Nature of Illinois Founda-
tion, Springfield, IL
Acknowledgements The development of the geoindicator con- Dickinson WR (1995) The times are always changing: the Ho-
cept has been a collective effort by a COGEOENVIRONMENT locene saga. Geol Soc Am Bull 107 : 1–7
working group. As Chairman of this group, I acknowledge with Edmunds WM (1996) Indicators in the groundwater environ-
gratitude the contributions of members from many countries ment or rapid environmental change. In: Berger AR, Iams WJ
and disciplines. In particular, I am grateful for their encourage- (eds) Geoindicators: assessing rapid environmental changes in
ment to Ed de Mulder (Geological Survey of The Netherlands, earth systems. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 135–150
Haarlem), Peter Bobrowsky (British Columbia Geological Survey Fabbri AG, Patrono A (1995) The use of environmental in-
Branch, Victoria), Antonio Cendrero (University of Santander, dices in the geosciences. ITC J Spec Issue 1995-4, pp 358–366
Spain), Bill Iams (Memorial University of Newfoundland, Corn- Forman RT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New
er Brook), Joe McCall (South Cerney, UK), Mike Edmunds York

Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag 43

 Research article
Fortescue J (1996) Guidelines for a ‘systematic landscape geo-
sience’. In: Berger AR, Iams WJ (eds) Geoindicators: assessing
rapid environmental changes in earth systems. Balkema, Rot-
terdam, pp 337–350
Goudie A (1990) Geomorphological techniques. Allen and Un-
win, London
Gouzee N, Mazijn B, Billharz S (1995) Indicators of sustain-
able development for decision-making. Report of the SCOPE
Workshop, Ghent, Belgium, 9–11 January 1995. Bureau fédér-
al du Plan, Brussels
Hammond A, Adriaanse A, Rodenburg E, Bryant D,
Woodward R (1995) Environmental indicators: a systematic
approach to measuring and reporting on environmental poli-
cy performance in the context of sustainable development.
World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
Herman TB, Bondrup-Nielsen S, Willison JHM, Munro
NWP (1995) Ecosystem monitoring and protected areas.
Science and Management of Protected Areas Association,
Wolfsville, NS
Hettelingh J-P, Downing RJ, de Smet PAM (1991) Mapping
critical loads for Europe. RIVM Report 259101001, National
Institute of Public Health and Environment Protection, Bilt-
hoven, The Netherlands
Hodge T, Holtz S, Smith C, Baxter KH (1995) Pathways to
sustainability: assessing our progress. National Round Table
on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa
Huggett R (1995) Geoecology: an evolutionary approach.
Routledge, London
Hughes SP (1995) Two tools for integrating geology into eco-
system studies. Environ Geol 26 : 246–251
Jäger J, Liberatore A, Grundlach K (1995) Global environ-
mental change and sustainable development in Europe. Euro-
pean Commission Directorate-General for Science, Research
and Development, Luxembourg
Jeffrey DW, Madden B (1991) Bioindicators and environmen-
tal management. Academic Press, London
Johnsen SJ, Clausen HB, Dansgaard W, Fuhrer K, Gun-
destup N, Hammer CU, Iversen P, Jouzel J, Stauffer B,
Steffensen JP (1992) Irregular glacial interstadials recorded
in a new Greenland ice core. Nature 359 : 311–313
Jones DKC (1993) Global warming and geomorphology. Geogr
J 159 : 124–130
Låg J (1990) Geomedicine. CRC Press, Cleveland
Matthews JA (1992) The ecology of recently-deglaciated ter-
rain – a geoecological approach to glacier forelands and pri-
mary succession. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
McRae T, Lombardi N (1994) Report of the consultation
workshop on environmental indicators for Canadian agricul-
ture. Environment Bureau, Policy Branch, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa
Montreal Process (1995) Criteria and indicators for the conser-
vation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal
forests. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada,
Hull, Que
Munasinghe M, Shearer W (1995) Defining and measuring
sustainability – the biogeophysical foundations. United Na-
tions University and World Bank, Washington, DC
44 Environmental Geology 32 (1) July 1997 7 Q Springer-Verlag
Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1990) Landscape ecology: theory and
application. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York
OECD (1991) Environmental indicators: a preliminary set. Or-
ganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Paris
Panizza M (1995) Introduction to a research methodology for
geomorphology and environmental impact assessment. In:
Marchetti M, Panizza M, Soldati M, Barani D (eds) Geomor-
phology and environmental impact assessment. Quad Geodi-
namica Alpina Quaternaria 3 : 13–26
Riitters KH, Law BE, Kucera RC, Gallant AL, DeVelice
RL, Palmer CJ (1992) A selection of forest condition indica-
tors for monitoring. Environ Monit Assess 20 : 21–33
Rivas V, Rix K, Frances E, Cendrero A, Brunsden D (1995)
The use of indicators for the assessment of environmental
impacts on geomorphological features. In: Marchetti M, Pan-
izza M, Soldati M, Barani D (eds) Geomorphology and envi-
ronmental impact assessment. Quad Geodinamica Alpina
Quaternaria 3 : 157–180
Robinson NA (1993) Agenda 21: working toward a global
partnership. Oceana Publications, New York
SAFE (1993) Strategic assessment of Florida’s environment: final
review indicator manual. Office of Planning and Research,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee
Schumm SA (1979) Geomorphic thresholds: the concept and its
applications. Trans Inst Br Geogr, New Series 4 : 485–515
Selinus O, Frank A, Galgan V (1996) Biogeochemistry and
metal biology. In: Appelton JD, Fuge R, McCall GJH (eds) En-
vironmental geochemistry and health. Geological Society,
London, Spec Publ 113 : 81–89
Solbrig OT, Emden HM van, Oordt PGWJ van (1992) Bio-
diversity and global change. (Monograph 8) International
Union of Biological Sciences, Paris
Spellerberg IF (1993) Monitoring ecological change. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge
Thomas DSG, Allison RJ (1993) Landscape sensitivity. Wiley,
Chichester
Thornes JB (1990) Vegetation and erosion – processes and en-
vironments. Wiley, Chichester
Turner BL, Clark WC, Kates RW, Richards JF, Matthews
JT, Meyer WB (1990) The Earth as transformed by human
action: global and regional changes in the biosphere over the
past 300 years. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
UNEP (1992) Saving our planet – challenges and choices. The
state of the environment 1972–1992. United Nations Environ-
ment Programme, Nairobi
Westra L (1994) An environmental proposal for ethics: the
principle of integrity. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD
World Bank (1995) Monitoring environmental progress: a re-
port on work in progress. Environmentally sustainable devel-
opment, World Bank, Washington, DC
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987)
Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Woodley S, Kay J, Francis G (1993) Ecological integrity and
the management of ecosystems. St Lucie Press, Boca Raton