Monitoring for Adaptive Management or Modernity: Lessons from recent initiatives for holistic environmental management

Abstract

Recommendations for improving environmental management often advocate a holistic approach that supports both social and environmental objectives. This should be reflected in approaches to monitoring and evaluation; however, monitoring is often inadequate and hence limits our ability to implement adaptive management. It is important to understand if monitoring practices are changing, and if not, why. Thus, this paper considers the monitoring practices and priorities of 24 ‘Ecosystem Approach’ projects implementing holistic and participatory environmental management. We found project monitoring was often focused on biophysical indicators, such as indicators of water pollution, even when adaptive management might prioritize understanding different issues or using different data‐types. By contrast, aspects of social and economic aspects were monitored infrequently. Procedural aspects were rarely tracked. Project managers' aspirations did sometimes include such issues, but these were seen as more difficult or even impossible to measure. Schema were also shaped by the need to demonstrate accountability and quantify progress to funders. Our study suggests monitoring still falls short of theoretical recommendations. This is partially due to the misfit between new understandings of socio‐ecological systems and pre‐existing modernist paradigms, whose conceptions and expectations still have pervasive effects of our ways of thinking and working. Tackling this requires explicit attention to sticking points across the levels of institutions that shape environmental management. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European environmental policies in 9 cases across Europe

“…Please see below for a copy of the template which guided the expert review of the documents. The criteria in these table are derived from previously published work on monitoring and evaluation suitable for supporting adaptive management [3].…”

Systematic learning in water governance: insights from five local adaptive management projects for water quality innovation

“…Additionally, participatory monitoring is increasingly recommended for integrating different knowledge types to reduce ecological uncertainty (Aceves-Bueno et al 2015, Waylen and Blackstock 2017). The lack of financial resources can disrupt the AM cycle particularly during this phase (Butler and Koontz 2005, Aceves-Bueno et al 2015, Williams and Browns 2016, Waylen and Blackstock 2017. Costs for monitoring are more challenging than in other management approaches, thus a sufficient budget is crucial.…”

A review of the U.S. invasive species policy mix: Questioning the prospect of an integrated regime

“…The prospects for policy integration and/or holistic resource management are being explored across a range of topical areas including coastal zone management, sustainable forestry management, air quality management, ecosystem management, climate change mitigation policy, climate change adaptation policy, nonpoint water pollution control, area-based fisheries management, and river basin management (Jordan & Lenschow, 2010;Rayner et al, 2017;Rouillard et al, 2018;Underdal, 1980;Waylen & Blackstock, 2017). The battery of information synthesized through such an evaluation process would provide valuable input for an adaptive management process and inform revisions and augmentation.…”

“…Such reviews should be calibrated in terms of agency goals and performance metrics but also include a critical review of the metrics themselves to assure (a) that they adequately reflect the diversity of invasive species management objectives (and do not inappropriately reduce logically distinct objectives to an overarching goal) and (b) are adequately operationalized to enable data-driven analysis. Further, programmatic review should also include some type of root cause analysis to illuminate "sticking points" and other reasons why a specified policy may have failed to meet expectations (Waylen & Blackstock, 2017).…”

“…Beyond the benefits that such an evaluation effort would provide for the adaptive management of the U.S. invasive species policy complex, it could also inform policy design and decision-making across a range of issue areas and in other countries. The prospects for policy integration and/or holistic resource management are being explored across a range of topical areas including coastal zone management, sustainable forestry management, air quality management, ecosystem management, climate change mitigation policy, climate change adaptation policy, nonpoint water pollution control, area-based fisheries management, and river basin management (Jordan & Lenschow, 2010;Rayner et al, 2017;Rouillard et al, 2018;Underdal, 1980;Waylen & Blackstock, 2017). For example, the Institute for European Environmental Policy has recommended an EU-wide legislative instrument to provide coordinated action against all invasive species (Shine et al, 2010).…”