U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Indicators are routinely 

used to report the status 

and trends of human health, 

economy, educational 

achievement, and quality of 

life. Some environmental 

indicators, such as for water 

and air quality, are routinely 

reported 

and used to inform personal, 

management, or policy decisions. Other environmental indicators, particularly those that do not 

relate directly to human well-being, have been harder to define, interpret, or use. These indicators may be just as useful and important 

in describing the ability to provide ecosystem goods and services, 

or less tangible quality of life measures, but they may be suspect 

because of the quality of data or even the source of the information. 

Scientists and stakeholders alike, however, agree that mutually 

agreed upon indicators can be used in decision-making and can inform policy debates. The long-term goal of the project, “Taking the 

Pulse of Colorado’s Front Range: development and application of 

human and environmental indicators,” is to provide better scientific 

information in support of policy- and resource-management decisions. Critical to the success of the effort will be dialog and trust between scientists and stakeholders. The “Pulse” project is beginning 

with development of mutually agreeable, objective, credible, and 

measurable indicators of environment and quality of life. 

The criterion that defines a useful indicator may differ from a 

scientific perspective and from a policy perspective (O’Malley and 

others, 2003). Scientific information is judged “good” if measurements are collected in a way that is accurate, precise, repeatable, 

and reflective of conditions in the real world. Policy information, on 

the other hand, is judged as “good” primarily if it is relevant. Does 

it deal directly with the question at hand? Does it illuminate the 

issue in ways that point to solutions? Acceptable indicators can be 

used over time to measure environmental change and inform policy 

and management. 

Central to the process of indicator development is iterative collaboration among stakeholders and scientists to develop indicator 

sets. A workshop in November 2004 developed a first-cut list of 

indicators of both environmental and quality-of-life conditions for 

the Colorado Front Range. Participants in the workshop included 

farmers, water providers, state and local government representatives, private companies and not-for-profit groups as well as scientists. Subsequent discussions at the Great Plains Grassland Conference emphasized that including a variety of stakeholders from the 

beginning of indicator development is vital to the success of future 

indicator application. Indicators become viable and trustworthy if 

managers, scientists, and non-governmental organization members 

participate in indicator development from the beginning.

The “Pulse” project builds 

upon existing indicator development efforts [e.g., Heinz 

Center, 2002; NAWQA, 2005, 

(http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/)];

State of the Rockies Report 

Card, 2004) and adds to them 

by including topics specific to 

the Colorado Front Range, a region that includes the South Platte 

River Basin, part of the Arkansas River Basin, and major metropolitan areas from Pueblo to Fort Collins. Biomes and sectors within 

the region include agricultural lands, freshwaters, grasslands, urban 

areas, and mountains/forests. Quality-of-life indicators such as 

income distribution, unemployment rates, education levels, daily 

commute time, and natural resource development, such as the extent 

and location of mineral and resource extraction are considered important by regional stakeholders. A list for agricultural lands shows 

the types of indicators that will be used to describe the State of the 

Front Range (see table). 

In order for indicators of condition to be judged as useful and 

“sound,” they must be filtered 

through a set of stringent characteristics that can withstand scientific 

rigor and must accurately reflect 

real world conditions. Characteristics of “good” indicators include 

relevancy, measurability, and costeffectiveness for both collection and 

interpretation, among others. The 

“Pulse project” is moving forward 

to determine which data are available and where data gaps exist in 

order to provide decision-makers 

with the tools needed to address 

the pressing issues of environmental 

condition and quality of life.

Taking the Pulse of Colorado’s Front Range: Developing Regional Indicators 

of Environmental and Quality of Life Condition

The fertile agricultural lands of the 

Front Range

Housing development on former 

Front Range agricultural lands

An oil-drilling pumpjack outside a Front Range neighborhood

Printed on recycled paper Fact Sheet 2005–3021

March 2005
System Dimensions Chemical and 

Physical Conditions

Biological 

Components Human Uses Quality of Life

Total cropland Nitrate, phosphorus, pesticides in streams and ground 

water

Soil biological condition Major crop yields Age of operator

Shape of “natural” patches 

in agricultural lands

Stream flow Native, non-native vegetationAgricultural inputs and 

outputs

Distance to schools, health 

care

Road density Soil organic matter Ground cover type: live 

vegetation, litter, mulch

Monetary value of production Corporate vs. private ownership

Land under conservation 

management

Soil erosion rates Animal species and numbers Recreation on farmlands Education attainment

Fallow area Soil salinity, metal content Animal unit months/area Hunting harvest Employment, percent and by 

sector

Irrigated or dryland Depth of a horizon Stream and riparian habitat 

quality

Land and water prices Income distribution

Land area for energy or 

aggregate extraction

Topographic relief Stream sediment load Irrigation type (flood, pivot, 

drip)

Land area reclaimed from 

extraction

Cultivated land on erodible 

slopes

Depth to groundwater

Number and type of wells

Atmospheric dust concentration, composition

Table. Agricultural Land Indicators

Criteria that make a good indicator (from November 2004 

workshop)

• Relevant • Understandable • Sensitive to change

• Measurable • Transparent • Scale appropriate

• Repeatable • Verifiable • Quantifiable

• Cost effective

For more information on the Pulse Project goals, framework, workshop attendees, and lists of environmental indicators and characteristics of indicators developed during the workshop, please go to: 

http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/Pulse/

References Cited

Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card., 2004., 

www.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies

H. John Heinz III Center, 2002, The state of the nation’s ecosystems: Measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the 

United States: New York, Cambridge University Press.

NAWQA, National Water Quality Assessment Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey, http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

O’Malley, R.K., Cavendare-Bares, K., Clark, W.C., 2003, Providing 

“better” data: not as simple as it might seem: Environment, 

v. 45, p. 8-18. 

Housing development in the Front Range foothills