VI. MONITORING / ADAPTIVE MANGEMENT

Published studies on best practices for adaptive management and monitoring, with notes (by Rachel Neugarten.)  Many articles are copyright protected so you must be a member of this workspace (and logged in) to download them.

Return to Annotated Bibliography

Brooks, J.S., M.A. Franzen, C.M. Holmes, M.N. Grote, and M. Borgerhoff Mulder. 2006.  Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. Conservation Biology. 20(5): 1528-1538.

• Evaluated four hypotheses about success of conservation / sustainable development projects: utilization-protection continuum, market integration, decentralization, community homogeneity
• Looked at success of four types of success / outcomes: ecological, economic, attitudinal, behavioral
• Found that the permitted use of natural resources, market access, and greater community involvement in the conservation project are all important factors for a successful outcome
• Emphasize the need for clearer goals (ecological, economic, attitudinal, behavioral), better monitoring, and better information about outcomes - 80% of the 124 projects reviewed had insufficient data to be included in the study

Ferraro, P.J., S.K. Pattanayak. 2006.  Money for Nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLOS Biology. 4(4):e105

• call for empirical evaluation of conservation actions with controls, randomization, experiments or quasi-experiments, analysis of covariates, baseline data, etc.
• few examples of empirical analyses of conservation actions
• staff tend to collect data on capacity, activities - not effectiveness
• Sutherland et al., Pullin and Knight have called for evidence-based conservation, but not enough data yet

Legg, C.J., and L. Nagy. 2006.  Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. Journal of Environmental Management 78: 194-199.

• criteria for good management of monitoring
• ways to increase power in monitoring
• problems with establishing causality

• outlines the adaptive management cycle: clarify group's mission, design a conceptual model, develop a management plan, develop a monitoring plan, implement management and monitoring plans
• includes step-by-step guidance and examples

Margoluis, R., C. Stem, N. Salafsky and M. Brown. 2009.  Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation. Evaluation and Program Planning. 32:138-147. 

• describes the use of conceptual models (box and arrow diagrams depicting conservation targets, threats, contributing factors, and strategies) and results chains for conservation planning and evaluation
• compares to other tools (logic models, concept mapping)
• provides several real-world examples 
• use of conceptual models for: documenting assumptions, setting measurable goals and objectives, analyzing theories of change, developing timelines, identifying appropriate indicators, communicating about a project

Noss RF. 1990.  Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355–364.

Noss RF. 1999.  Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 135-146

O'Connor, S., N. Salafsky, D. Salzer. 2005.Monitoring forest restoration projects in the context of an adaptive management cycle. In: Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond Planting Trees. S. Mansourian, D. Vallauri and N. Dudley, eds. New York, NY, Springer: 145-149. 

• discussion of monitoring and adaptive management in the context of forest restoration projects
• outlines adaptive management process (identify biodiversity targets, causal links between targets and threats, objectives and actions)
• Complete monitoring plan: Outlines information need, Specifies the least number of indicators needed to meet these need, Details methods for collecting indicator data, Describes who has the responsibility and when the data are collected, Identifies what analysis is undertaken by whom, to whom information is circulated and when
• “the percentage of project resources spent on monitoring should vary inversely with your degree of certainty that your activities will be effective”
• Describes a number of tools/guidance by conservation organizations and government agencies for selecting indicators and developing monitoring programs, including the Forest Biodiversity Indicators Project – online indicators selection web tool (manometmaine.org/indicators) - provides a couple of case studies of forest restoration monitoring to show common mistakes 

Parrish, J.D., D.P. Braun, and R.S. Unnasch. 2003.  Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. BioScience. 53(9): 851-860.

• framework for measuring conservation effectiveness (TNC 5-S framework) - conservation targets, key ecological attributes, acceptable range of variation, indicator rating descriptions, threat status

Pullin, A. and G.B. Stewart. 2006.  Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. 20(6): 1647-1656.

• advocates for systematic review process for conservation science (evidence-based conservation), modeled on health field

Pullin, A.S. and T.M. Knight. 2001.  Effectiveness in Conservation Practice: Pointers from Medicine and Public Health. Conservation Biology. 15(1): 50-54.

• problems: 1. proposed actions are experience-based, not evidence based
• 2. no monitoring / evaluation of effectiveness
• 3. results not widely disseminated
• discusses "evidence revolution" in medicine
• stage 1: making evidence available to practitioners
• stage 2: actually getting practitioners to use it
• hierarchy of evidence types
• systematic reviews - preferably highest degree of rigor (random control trials)
• government should require evidence-based medicine for grant applications

Salafsky, N., R. Margoulis, K.H. Redford, J.G. Robinson. 2002.  Improving the practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology. 16(6): 1469-1479.

• basic conceptual model of generic project
• early lists of common threats, strategies, and practitioners' roles
• call for: evidence-based conservation,
• threat and capacity (non-biological) indicators,
• applied research

Sutherland, W.J., A.S. Pullin, P.M. Dolman, and T.M. Knight. 2004.  The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 19(6): 305-308.

• managers base decisions on anecdotal evidence
• practices are sometimes flawed for lack of testing / dissemination of information
• recommend systematic reviews AND database for actions and consequences of conservation interventions
• recommends database structure
• recommends organizations and funders/legal decision makers require evidence of policy effectiveness

Vaughn, H., G. Whitelaw, B. Craig, and C. Stewart. 2003.  Linking ecological science to decision-making: delivering environmental monitoring information as societal feedback. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88:399-408.

• EMAN = effort to standardize monitoring protocols & integrate results & make accessible
• Beginning to be applied to Biosphere reserves, municipalities / communities (user-requested)

Vos, P., E. Meelis, and W.J. Ter Keurs. 2000.  A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 61:317-344.

• outlines 7 components of a monitoring program (objectives, variables, sampling strategy, etc.)

Stem, C., R. Margoluis, N. Salafsky, and M. Brown. 2005.  Monitoring and Evaluation in Conservation: a Review of Trends and Approaches. Conservation Biology 19(2): 295-309.

• reviewed monitoring and evaluation approaches from 350 sources from conservation and other fields (including international development, public health, family planning, education, social servcices, and business)
• categorized monitoring & evaluation efforts into four broad purposes: basic research, accounting & certification, status assessment, effectiveness measurement
• found that monitoring & eval approaches have conceptual similarities, but there is inconsistent language across approaches
• recommend collaborative efforts by conservation community, and establishing clear definitions of common terms
• “monitoring only quantitative biological variables is insufficient” – recommend including qualitative & social variables