Ecological forecasts are increasingly required to inform science, policy and action in the face of rapid environmental and societal change. However, differences in how developers and end-users judge the value of ecological forecasts may limit their utility and uptake in real-world decision-making. Here, we use a participatory approach to propose a novel, holistic framework for the evaluation of ecological forecasts along two intersecting axes: quality and success. Quality is defined by the defensible development and predictive performance of ecological forecasts, while success captures the usefulness of a forecast in achieving its intended aim. We propose twelve shared criteria for evaluating quality and success spanning the forecasting process, set-up, and outputs while capturing forecast development, communication, performance, and operationality. Together, these criteria provide a common basis for the co-development of ecological forecasts, and better connect science with forecast-informed decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boult et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: