Features associated with effective biodiversity monitoring and evaluation

Kelly M. Dixon, Geoffrey J. Cary, Graeme L. Worboys, Sam C. Banks, Philip Gibbons

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of biodiversity has been heavily criticised. However, these criticisms have yet to be tested empirically across a range of geographical environments and institutions. We surveyed 243 protected area staff from 55 countries to describe how M&E is undertaken and to identify variables statistically associated with effective M&E. We found that M&E is routinely employed: 78% of respondents indicated that monitoring occurred and 64% responded that monitoring persisted for at least as long that a management action was implemented. However, our results suggested there is scope to improve the way that M&E is conducted: only 46% of respondents thought that M&E worked well, just 36% provided an example of monitoring informing management and 38% of respondents indicated that management is not undertaken in different ways to facilitate adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation was generally perceived to be working better in non-government organisations (NGOs), where data are entered in existing databases, and where research and management staff work cooperatively. Monitoring had a greater probability of informing management where documented thresholds were in place that trigger management intervention and where monitoring data were stored in a publicly available database. Management was most likely to be implemented in different ways to facilitate adaptive management in NGOs, where management intervention options were documented, monitoring had persisted as long as the management action and where reporting is done regularly. The most common suggestions that respondents gave to improve M&E were increased funding, better science management integration, and improving organisational culture and commitment.

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number108221
    Pages (from-to)1-11
    Number of pages11
    JournalBiological Conservation
    Volume238
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Oct 2019

    Fingerprint

    biodiversity
    monitoring
    adaptive management
    evaluation
    funding
    protected area
    conservation areas

    Cite this

    Dixon, Kelly M. ; Cary, Geoffrey J. ; Worboys, Graeme L. ; Banks, Sam C. ; Gibbons, Philip. / Features associated with effective biodiversity monitoring and evaluation. In: Biological Conservation. 2019 ; Vol. 238. pp. 1-11.
    @article{67d342b7bd5a4b60a65c451d5b470839,
    title = "Features associated with effective biodiversity monitoring and evaluation",
    abstract = "Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of biodiversity has been heavily criticised. However, these criticisms have yet to be tested empirically across a range of geographical environments and institutions. We surveyed 243 protected area staff from 55 countries to describe how M&E is undertaken and to identify variables statistically associated with effective M&E. We found that M&E is routinely employed: 78{\%} of respondents indicated that monitoring occurred and 64{\%} responded that monitoring persisted for at least as long that a management action was implemented. However, our results suggested there is scope to improve the way that M&E is conducted: only 46{\%} of respondents thought that M&E worked well, just 36{\%} provided an example of monitoring informing management and 38{\%} of respondents indicated that management is not undertaken in different ways to facilitate adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation was generally perceived to be working better in non-government organisations (NGOs), where data are entered in existing databases, and where research and management staff work cooperatively. Monitoring had a greater probability of informing management where documented thresholds were in place that trigger management intervention and where monitoring data were stored in a publicly available database. Management was most likely to be implemented in different ways to facilitate adaptive management in NGOs, where management intervention options were documented, monitoring had persisted as long as the management action and where reporting is done regularly. The most common suggestions that respondents gave to improve M&E were increased funding, better science management integration, and improving organisational culture and commitment.",
    keywords = "Adaptive management, Biodiversity conservation, Decision-making, Environmental management, Monitoring and evaluation, Science-management interface",
    author = "Dixon, {Kelly M.} and Cary, {Geoffrey J.} and Worboys, {Graeme L.} and Banks, {Sam C.} and Philip Gibbons",
    year = "2019",
    month = "10",
    doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108221",
    language = "English",
    volume = "238",
    pages = "1--11",
    journal = "Biological Conservation",
    issn = "0006-3207",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    Features associated with effective biodiversity monitoring and evaluation. / Dixon, Kelly M.; Cary, Geoffrey J.; Worboys, Graeme L.; Banks, Sam C.; Gibbons, Philip.

    In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 238, 108221, 10.2019, p. 1-11.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Features associated with effective biodiversity monitoring and evaluation

    AU - Dixon, Kelly M.

    AU - Cary, Geoffrey J.

    AU - Worboys, Graeme L.

    AU - Banks, Sam C.

    AU - Gibbons, Philip

    PY - 2019/10

    Y1 - 2019/10

    N2 - Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of biodiversity has been heavily criticised. However, these criticisms have yet to be tested empirically across a range of geographical environments and institutions. We surveyed 243 protected area staff from 55 countries to describe how M&E is undertaken and to identify variables statistically associated with effective M&E. We found that M&E is routinely employed: 78% of respondents indicated that monitoring occurred and 64% responded that monitoring persisted for at least as long that a management action was implemented. However, our results suggested there is scope to improve the way that M&E is conducted: only 46% of respondents thought that M&E worked well, just 36% provided an example of monitoring informing management and 38% of respondents indicated that management is not undertaken in different ways to facilitate adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation was generally perceived to be working better in non-government organisations (NGOs), where data are entered in existing databases, and where research and management staff work cooperatively. Monitoring had a greater probability of informing management where documented thresholds were in place that trigger management intervention and where monitoring data were stored in a publicly available database. Management was most likely to be implemented in different ways to facilitate adaptive management in NGOs, where management intervention options were documented, monitoring had persisted as long as the management action and where reporting is done regularly. The most common suggestions that respondents gave to improve M&E were increased funding, better science management integration, and improving organisational culture and commitment.

    AB - Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of biodiversity has been heavily criticised. However, these criticisms have yet to be tested empirically across a range of geographical environments and institutions. We surveyed 243 protected area staff from 55 countries to describe how M&E is undertaken and to identify variables statistically associated with effective M&E. We found that M&E is routinely employed: 78% of respondents indicated that monitoring occurred and 64% responded that monitoring persisted for at least as long that a management action was implemented. However, our results suggested there is scope to improve the way that M&E is conducted: only 46% of respondents thought that M&E worked well, just 36% provided an example of monitoring informing management and 38% of respondents indicated that management is not undertaken in different ways to facilitate adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation was generally perceived to be working better in non-government organisations (NGOs), where data are entered in existing databases, and where research and management staff work cooperatively. Monitoring had a greater probability of informing management where documented thresholds were in place that trigger management intervention and where monitoring data were stored in a publicly available database. Management was most likely to be implemented in different ways to facilitate adaptive management in NGOs, where management intervention options were documented, monitoring had persisted as long as the management action and where reporting is done regularly. The most common suggestions that respondents gave to improve M&E were increased funding, better science management integration, and improving organisational culture and commitment.

    KW - Adaptive management

    KW - Biodiversity conservation

    KW - Decision-making

    KW - Environmental management

    KW - Monitoring and evaluation

    KW - Science-management interface

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071420181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108221

    DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108221

    M3 - Article

    VL - 238

    SP - 1

    EP - 11

    JO - Biological Conservation

    JF - Biological Conservation

    SN - 0006-3207

    M1 - 108221

    ER -