Cost-efficiency assessments of marine monitoring methods lack rigor—a systematic mapping of literature and an end-user view on optimal cost-efficiency analysis

Abstract

Global deterioration of marine ecosystems, together with increasing pressure to use them, has created a demand for new, more efficient and cost-efficient monitoring tools that enable assessing changes in the status of marine ecosystems. However, demonstrating the cost-efficiency of a monitoring method is not straightforward as there are no generally applicable guidelines. Our study provides a systematic literature mapping of methods and criteria that have been proposed or used since the year 2000 to evaluate the cost-efficiency of marine monitoring methods. We aimed to investigate these methods but discovered that examples of actual cost-efficiency assessments in literature were rare, contradicting the prevalent use of the term “cost-efficiency.” We identified five different ways to compare the cost-efficiency of a marine monitoring method: (1) the cost–benefit ratio, (2) comparative studies based on an experiment, (3) comparative studies based on a literature review, (4) comparisons with other methods based on literature, and (5) subjective comparisons with other methods based on experience or intuition. Because of the observed high frequency of insufficient cost–benefit assessments, we strongly advise that more attention is paid to the coverage of both cost and efficiency parameters when evaluating the actual cost-efficiency of novel methods. Our results emphasize the need to improve the reliability and comparability of cost-efficiency assessments. We provide guidelines for future initiatives to develop a cost-efficiency assessment framework and suggestions for more unified cost-efficiency criteria.

A strategy for successful integration of DNA-based methods in aquatic monitoring

“…They offer the possibility to generate more detailed biodiversity inventories from environmental samples and improve taxonomic resolution in various groups of indicator organisms. All of this comes at a fraction of the cost and time of an equivalent conventional approach (Pawlowski et al 2018; Hyvärinen et al 2021). For some bioindicators, e.g., fish fauna (Pont et al 2021), the sampling procedure is also potentially simpler and less invasive.…”

Marine monitoring in transition: On the verge of technological revolution?

“…Therefore, legislation, such as the Clean Water Act and Oceans Policy (USA), the Oceans Act (Canada, Australia), the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (European Union EU), mandate rigorous monitoring of aquatic environments to follow up achievements of the policy objectives (Borja et al, 2008;Borja and Elliott, 2013). While the economic benefits of healthy environment can be estimated (Hyvärinen et al, 2021) and are appreciated (e.g. Nieminen et al, 2019), the economic benefits of monitoring are hard to capture, leading to attempts to save monitoring expenses (Borja and Elliott, 2013).…”

Innovative and practical tools for monitoring and assessing biodiversity status and impacts of multiple human pressures in marine systems

“…Long-term marine monitoring has demonstrated high value for informed management decisions addressed to reduce the impacts of human activities and pressures(Borja and Elliott, 2019). Therefore, maintenance of these long-term monitoring networks is critical, and relies on the development of costeffective implementation approaches (Borja and Elliott, 2013) and methods(Hyvärinen et al, 2021). These methods can be either traditional or rely on novel technologies, with a broad range of sampling, observation and analytical techniques(Danovaro et al, 2016), such as: instruments (e.g.…”