Long‐term ecological monitoring and institutional memories

Abstract

Summary Many important ecological management issues can only be addressed by long‐term monitoring or through studies carried out over extended periods. But such studies require institutional settings that ensure funding is sustained and that data arising from these studies are securely managed. Recent experience suggests both are difficult to achieve. This is because management agencies and research bodies are periodically restructured, especially in recent years. This has often led to long‐term work being terminated. But there is anecdotal evidence that the data collected in at least some of these studies are not always lost. Instead, it can remain stored in the back rooms of agencies or in the personal files of former staff. Such data are clearly at risk; with time fewer people remain aware of the work or of the existence of data that were collected, thereby increasing the likelihood that the information will eventually disappear. This seems a waste. Securing funds for any long‐term ecological study is always likely to be difficult, and many of these previous long‐term studies are likely to be relevant to some of our present management problems. One approach to taking advantage of these earlier studies would be to ask scientific and professional associations to survey their older members to identify relevant previous investigations. But any re‐establishment of former studies will require the creation of new institutional arrangements, more robust institutional memories and sufficient funds that are able to sustain any resurrected investigations into the future.

Organization Science improves management effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas

“…The strategy should be designed consistently with the formalized mission, vision and goals, to provide clarity on crucial activities, like enforcement, environmental education and monitoring (Campbell and Yeung, 1991). Long-term monitoring using appropriate protocols can assess performance and effectiveness based on the goals set (Guidetti and Claudet, 2010;Lubchenco and Grorud-Colvert, 2015;Lamb, 2017). Standard methods for data collection should be defined to make the data readily available and comparable across MPAs (Lester et al, 2009).…”

Long live the data! Embedded data management at a long‐term ecological research site

“…Data management at the site developed a broad view of what constituted site data, augmenting their data efforts from production of a collection of data packages, that is, tabular datasets described with EML metadata. By planning to manage and make available Web site content as well as recently digitized materials that contributed to the story of how, where, and why datasets were collected, an understanding emerged of a collection as an assembly that "houses a greater institutional memory" (Lamb 2017). Such a collection represents a valuable and comprehensive data product, providing additional contextualization that can inform interpretation during reuse of datasets by audiences unfamiliar with the field site.…”

“…Preparing data for reuse requires critical attention throughout the process of assembling and documenting data for sharing (Michener and Waide 2008, Johnson et al 2010, Peer and Green 2012, Moran et al 2016, Popkin 2019) as digital research collections that can serve as resources for a variety of audiences (NSB 2005). While the value of data management for long‐term ecological research is documented (Michener et al 1994, Stafford et al 1994, Sutter et al 2015, Lamb 2017), Kitchin (2014) points out “we lack detailed case studies of open data projects in action, the assemblages surrounding and shaping them, and the messy, contingent and relational ways in which they unfold.” In this article, we seek to supplement these few studies with an example of a site within a research network that at its launch made an explicit long‐term investment in data management.…”