Indicators, sometimes expressed through quantitative metrics, are widely used across environmental management, community development, climate adaptation, and policy. They can become overly technical, disconnected from the decisions they are meant to inform, or reduced to reporting requirements that add little real value. The challenge is usually not a lack of indicators, but a lack of connection between what is measured and what people need to know in order to act.
Getting indicators right is as much about process as it is about selection. It involves building shared understanding of the system, bringing together different forms of knowledge, and keeping indicators connected to the conversations and decisions where they are actually used.
Different knowledge systems, including scientific, local, and Indigenous perspectives, shape what is valued and how change is understood. Working across them involves creating space for dialogue and recognising that these perspectives are not always easily combined or directly comparable. There is a risk that some forms of knowledge are subsumed or overlooked. Effective indicator processes acknowledge these differences and work with them, rather than reducing them to a single framework.
This page brings together a small set of resources to support a more grounded and practical approach to indicator work. The focus is on indicators that are used and useful, not just indicators that exist, and on the collaborative processes through which they are developed, interpreted, and refined over time.
Explore indicator resources
The resources below approach indicators from different angles, from practical process guidance and conceptual frameworks through to sector-specific applications and reflective practice. If you are developing indicators for a new initiative or reviewing an existing set, the practitioner guide below and developing indicators page are good starting points. If you are working with system-level frameworks or trying to connect indicators to wider monitoring systems, the DPSIR and climate adaptation metrics pages may be more immediately relevant.
- Effective indicators for place-based initiatives
– A practical, downloadable guide to developing and using indicators in collaborative, multi-actor settings. It outlines a six-step process and connects indicators to system understanding, programme design, and decision-making. - Developing indicators and metrics – A curated collection of approaches, frameworks and tools for developing and using indicators in practice, across environmental, social and policy contexts. Includes annotated links to key resources on indicator selection, conceptual frameworks, and the relationship between indicators and decision-making.
- Blog: Indicators, judgement, and adaptation: making sense of change in complex settings – Explores how indicators function in practice across long-running programmes, particularly how their value emerges through interpretation, dialogue, and ongoing use.
- DPSIR framework – Introduces the Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses framework and its applications. DPSIR provides a structured way to understand the relationships between human activities and environmental change, and is widely used to organise indicator systems in environmental and sustainability contexts. Includes annotated links to key resources and recent developments in the framework.
- Blog: Using a DPSIR framework to support natural resource management and policy – A reflective post exploring an extended DPSIR framework that more closely links social and natural sciences. It looks at how the framework can be used to address complex, multi-actor situations and offers pointers to supporting just and equitable transitions.
- Climate adaptation metrics and resilience – Explores how climate adaptation is currently tracked at national and international levels, and where gaps remain in linking indicators to learning, equity, and decision-making. Highlights the persistent gap between adaptation ambition and the indicators used to assess progress. This page sits within the wider climate adaptation section of the site.
- Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) – The parent section for indicators on the site. Brings together strategies and tools for complexity-aware MEL, supporting teams to connect data with dialogue, measure what matters, and use reflection to guide ongoing adaptation
– A practical, downloadable guide to developing and using indicators in collaborative, multi-actor settings. It outlines a six-step process and connects indicators to system understanding, programme design, and decision-making.Quick answers to common questions
How do I know if my indicators are actually useful?
A useful indicator is connected to a real decision and discussed by the people who need to act. A simple test is to ask: what decision does this inform, and who will use it? If an indicator is collected but never interpreted or acted on, it is unlikely to be useful.
What is the difference between an indicator and a metric?
A metric is a specific, quantified measure. An indicator is broader: it provides a signal about the condition or direction of a system. Many indicators use metrics, but some also draw on qualitative evidence, proxy measures, or structured judgement rather than direct measurement.
How do indicators connect to a theory of change?
A theory of change describes how activities are expected to lead to outcomes and makes underlying assumptions explicit. Indicators provide evidence about whether those changes are occurring. In practice, they are developed together: a theory of change helps identify what to measure, and indicator results often prompt teams to revisit their assumptions.
What do we do when we don’t have baseline data?
This is common in place-based work. Baseline information is often built progressively as understanding improves. Being transparent about how the baseline has been established is usually more important than having a precise starting point. It is generally better to begin with what is available and refine over time than to delay action.
How many indicators should we have?
A small, focused set is usually more effective than a long list. Too many indicators can make monitoring difficult and reduce their usefulness in decision-making. In practice, teams often start with a larger list and then refine it to a manageable set that is regularly reviewed and used.
These resources are for practitioners, programme managers, policy staff, evaluators, and others working with indicators in collaborative and place-based settings. The aim is not to provide a single method, but to support approaches that are useful in practice, grounded in shared understanding, and connected to the decisions that matter.
This section sits within the wider Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) area of the site.
[* Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay]