Cost considerations for long-term ecological monitoring

Caughlan, Lynne; Oakley, Karen L.

doi:10.1016/s1470-160x(01)00015-2

Cited by 182 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Achieving sustained support requires regular reporting of results and champions of the program at multiple political and administrative levels. These, in turn, are all aided by having clear objectives and an organizational commitment to efficiency and effectiveness of the program as a whole (Caughlan and Oakley, 2001). …”

Section: Monitoring Principles For Potential Application To Alaska Nwrsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore it is necessary to choose individual indicators and design the overall monitoring program to be cost-effective (Caughlan and Oakley, 2001). In terms of individual indicators, there are several means to achieving cost-effectiveness:…”

Section: Incorporating Cost Considerations Into Indicator Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of the overall monitoring program, it is especially important to consider cost in the design phase, and then check the program's financial feasibility in the testing and implementation phases (Caughlan and Oakley, 2001; see table 15). Tools that can be used to evaluate cost-effectiveness include a cost-benefit (when benefits can be quantified) or a cost-effectiveness (when benefits are intangible) analysis to compare elements in the monitoring program.…”

Section: Incorporating Cost Considerations Into Indicator Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another tool for incorporating cost into indicator selection and program design is to consider three levels of budget (Caughlan and Oakley, 2001). Tier 1 assumes the lowest level of anticipated funding, and may consist of existing budgets and staff; tier 2 assumes a moderate level of program funding; and tier 3 assumes that additional, possibly one-time, funding becomes available.…”

Section: Incorporating Cost Considerations Into Indicator Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Framework for ecological monitoring on lands of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges and their partners

Woodward¹,

Beever²

2010

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Monitoring Principles For Potential Application To Alaska Nwrsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Incorporating Cost Considerations Into Indicator Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Incorporating Cost Considerations Into Indicator Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Incorporating Cost Considerations Into Indicator Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Framework for ecological monitoring on lands of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges and their partners

Woodward¹,

Beever²

2010

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, a bias towards the monitoring of restoration actions rather than impacts was found, together with inconsistent monitoring of ecological indicators. These challenges are common in conservation and restoration [4,6,16,17] and have been attributed to impediments such as imperfect knowledge, resource constraints and short project time spans [18][19][20][21][22][23]. Most of these obstacles have been reported by scientists working in the field of monitoring and evaluation rather than practitioners actually implementing the projects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Challenges to Building an Evidence Base for Restoration Practice

Ntshotsho¹,

Esler

Reyers

2015

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global acknowledgement of ecological restoration, as an important tool to complement conservation efforts, requires an effort to increase the effectiveness of restoration interventions. Evidence-based practice is purported to promote effectiveness. A central tenet of this approach is decision making that is based on evidence, not intuition. Evidence can be generated experimentally and in practice but needs to be linked to baseline information collection, clear goals and monitoring of impact. In this paper, we report on a survey conducted to assess practitioners' perceptions of the evidence generated in restoration practice in South Africa, as well as challenges encountered in building this evidence base. Contrary to a recent assessment of this evidence base which found weaknesses, respondents viewed it as adequate and cited few obstacles to its development. Obstacles cited were mostly associated with planning and resource availability. We suggest that the disparity between practitioners' perceptions and observed weaknesses in the evidence base could be a challenge in advancing evidence-based restoration. We explore opportunities to overcome this disparity as well as the obstacles listed by practitioners. These opportunities involve a shift from practitioners as users of scientific knowledge and evidence, to practitioners involved in the co-production of evidence needed to increase the effectiveness of restoration interventions.

show abstract

Estimates of vital rates and predictions of population dynamics change along a long‐term monitoring program

Vincenzi

Jeseňsek²,

Crivellì

2019

Population Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of monitoring, only a few studies have explored how estimates of vital rates and predictions of population dynamics change with additional data collected along the monitoring program. We investigate how estimates of survival and individual growth, along with predictions about future population size, change with additional years of monitoring and data collected, using as a model system freshwater populations of marble (Salmo marmoratus), rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) living in Western Slovenian streams. Fish were sampled twice a year between 2004 and 2015. We found that in 3 out of 4 populations, a few years of data (3 or 4 sampling occasions, between 300 and 500 tagged individuals for survival, 100-200 for growth) provided the same estimates of average survival and growth as those obtained with data from more than 15 sampling occasions, while the estimation of the range of survival (i.e., the difference, over all sampling occasions considered, between maximum and minimum survival estimated in a sampling occasion) required more sampling occasions (up to 22 for marble trout), with little reduction of uncertainty around the point estimates. Predictions of mean density and variation in density over time did not change with more data collected after the first 5 years (i.e., 10 sampling occasions) and overall were within 10% of the observed mean and variation in density over the whole monitoring program.

show abstract

Cost considerations for long-term ecological monitoring

Cited by 182 publications

References 35 publications

Framework for ecological monitoring on lands of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges and their partners

Framework for ecological monitoring on lands of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges and their partners

Identifying Challenges to Building an Evidence Base for Restoration Practice

Estimates of vital rates and predictions of population dynamics change along a long‐term monitoring program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About