science investigationinvest modellingnatural capitalnon market valuationseea ea accounting
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.
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.
