Interview scorecard template

Ecosystem Services Valuation Analyst interview scorecard

Evaluate Ecosystem Services Valuation Analyst candidates across 4 weighted areas: method and rigour, real casework, interpretation and judgement, and reporting and testimony. Method and rigour leads at 35%, so check command of non-market valuation methods: contingent valuation, choice experiments, hedonic pricing, benefit transfer, plus InVEST or ARIES modelling, discount rate selection. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
science investigationinvest modellingnatural capitalnon market valuationseea ea accounting
TL;DR
For method and rigour, look for evidence the candidate names methods chosen for specific service types, defends discount rates and benefit transfer adjustments, and cites TEEB or SEEA-EA conventions accurately. For real casework, look for evidence the candidate walks through named studies with sites, data sources, service bundles valued, and the decision or account the numbers fed into. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Method and rigour

35% weight

Check command of non-market valuation methods: contingent valuation, choice experiments, hedonic pricing, benefit transfer, plus InVEST or ARIES modelling, discount rate selection and SEEA-EA accounting structures.

Evidence to listen for

  • Follows and can justify an established methodology
  • Understands contamination, bias, and chain of custody as they apply to the field
  • Knows the limits of their techniques and says so
  • Documents procedure so results are reproducible and defensible

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Careless method; unaware of contamination, bias, or procedural integrity.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows procedures but applies them inconsistently; gaps in documentation.

3
Satisfactory

Sound standard practice; less certain outside familiar techniques.

4
Very Good

Rigorous and well documented; understands the limits of each method.

5
Excellent

Names methods chosen for specific service types, defends discount rates and benefit transfer adjustments, and cites TEEB or SEEA-EA conventions accurately.

02
Evaluation factor

Real casework

25% weight

Probe actual assignments: catchment natural capital accounts, biodiversity net gain assessments, carbon or flood regulation valuations, corporate TNFD disclosures. Ask for hectares covered and monetary ranges produced.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific cases, sites, or projects rather than general description
  • States their own role and what they personally handled
  • Can describe an ambiguous or degraded case and how they proceeded
  • Knows what happened to the work afterwards

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on casework; experience is entirely academic.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their own contribution clearly.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific cases with clear personal scope and outcomes.

5
Excellent

Walks through named studies with sites, data sources, service bundles valued, and the decision or account the numbers fed into.

03
Evaluation factor

Interpretation and judgement

25% weight

Test how they handle double counting, spatial scale mismatch, transfer error and thin ecological data; ask when they refused to monetise a service.

Evidence to listen for

  • Separates what the evidence shows from what they infer
  • States confidence levels and what would change their conclusion
  • Comfortable saying the result is inconclusive
  • Handles pressure to reach a preferred conclusion without bending

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Overstates findings; no separation of evidence from inference.

2
Needs Improvement

Reaches conclusions the evidence does not support; uneasy with uncertainty.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

Clearly separates evidence from inference and states confidence unprompted.

5
Excellent

Flags uncertainty bounds explicitly, explains sensitivity runs, and describes services left in physical units rather than forced into currency.

04
Evaluation factor

Reporting and testimony

15% weight

Assess reporting to councils, water utilities, planning inquiries or sustainability committees: technical annexes, GIS map outputs, and defending figures against consultants or objectors.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings that a non-specialist can act on
  • Has presented or defended work to an external audience: court, client, review board, publication
  • Withstands challenge without overclaiming or retreating
  • Keeps records that hold up to scrutiny

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate findings; records would not withstand review.

2
Needs Improvement

Reporting is unclear or incomplete; avoids external scrutiny.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reports; limited experience defending work externally.

4
Very Good

Clear reporting and real experience presenting to an external audience.

5
Excellent

Produces layered outputs (headline figures, assumptions log, spatial maps) and recounts holding valuation conclusions up under hostile technical scrutiny.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Ecosystem Services Valuation Analyst

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe a time when your valuation influenced a policy or project decision?

  2. 02

    Can you describe your experience assessing ecosystem services?

  3. 03

    Which ecosystems have you worked on?

  4. 04

    Which valuation methodologies are you familiar with?

  5. 05

    Can you describe your experience with field data collection and surveys?

See the complete Ecosystem Services Valuation Analyst question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards