Improving biodiversity monitoring

David Lindenmayer, Philip Gibbons, Max Bourke, Mark Burgman, C Dickman, Simon Ferrier, James Fitzsimons, David Freudenberger, Stephen Garnett, Craig Groves, Richard Hobbs, Richard Kingsford, Sarah Legge, Andrew Lowe, Rob McLean, Jensen Montambault, Hugh Possingham, Jim Radford, Doug Robinson, Lisa Smallbone & 6 others David Thomas, Tony Varcoe, Michael Vardon, Glenda Wardle, John Woinarski, Andre Zerger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Citations (Scopus)
1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Effective biodiversity monitoring is critical to evaluate, learn from, and ultimately improve conservation practice.Well conceived, designed and implemented monitoring of biodiversity should: (i) deliver information on trends in key aspects of biodiversity (e.g. population changes); (ii) provide early warning of problems that might otherwise be difficult or expensive to reverse; (iii) generate quantifiable evidence of conservation successes (e.g. species recovery following management) and conservation failures; (iv) highlight ways to make management more effective; and (v) provide information on return on conservation investment.The importance of effective biodiversity monitoring is widely recognized (e.g. Australian Biodiversity Strategy).Yet, while everyone thinks biodiversity monitoring is a good idea, this has not translated into a culture of sound biodiversity monitoring, or widespread use of monitoring data.We identify four barriers to more effective biodiversity monitoring in Australia. These are: (i) many conservation programmes have poorly articulated or vague objectives against which it is difficult to measure progress contributing to design and implementation problems; (ii) the case for long-term and sustained biodiversity monitoring is often poorly developed and/or articulated; (iii) there is often a lack of appropriate institutional support, co-ordination, and targeted funding for biodiversity monitoring; and (iv) there is often a lack of appropriate standards to guide monitoring activities and make data available from these programmes.To deal with these issues, we suggest that policy makers, resource managers and scientists better and more explicitly articulate the objectives of biodiversity monitoring and better demonstrate the case for greater investments in biodiversity monitoring.There is an urgent need for improved institutional support for biodiversity monitoring in Australia, for improved monitoring standards, and for improved archiving of, and access to, monitoring data.We suggest that more strategic financial, institutional and intellectual investments in monitoring will lead to more efficient use of the resources available for biodiversity conservation and ultimately better conservation outcomes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)285-294
Number of pages10
JournalAustral Ecology
Volume37
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

biodiversity
monitoring
conservation programs
funding
managers
resource

Cite this

Lindenmayer, D., Gibbons, P., Bourke, M., Burgman, M., Dickman, C., Ferrier, S., ... Zerger, A. (2011). Improving biodiversity monitoring. Austral Ecology, 37, 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x
Lindenmayer, David ; Gibbons, Philip ; Bourke, Max ; Burgman, Mark ; Dickman, C ; Ferrier, Simon ; Fitzsimons, James ; Freudenberger, David ; Garnett, Stephen ; Groves, Craig ; Hobbs, Richard ; Kingsford, Richard ; Legge, Sarah ; Lowe, Andrew ; McLean, Rob ; Montambault, Jensen ; Possingham, Hugh ; Radford, Jim ; Robinson, Doug ; Smallbone, Lisa ; Thomas, David ; Varcoe, Tony ; Vardon, Michael ; Wardle, Glenda ; Woinarski, John ; Zerger, Andre. / Improving biodiversity monitoring. In: Austral Ecology. 2011 ; Vol. 37. pp. 285-294.
@article{4196411a144d49788a0800a7bea248d2,
title = "Improving biodiversity monitoring",
abstract = "Effective biodiversity monitoring is critical to evaluate, learn from, and ultimately improve conservation practice.Well conceived, designed and implemented monitoring of biodiversity should: (i) deliver information on trends in key aspects of biodiversity (e.g. population changes); (ii) provide early warning of problems that might otherwise be difficult or expensive to reverse; (iii) generate quantifiable evidence of conservation successes (e.g. species recovery following management) and conservation failures; (iv) highlight ways to make management more effective; and (v) provide information on return on conservation investment.The importance of effective biodiversity monitoring is widely recognized (e.g. Australian Biodiversity Strategy).Yet, while everyone thinks biodiversity monitoring is a good idea, this has not translated into a culture of sound biodiversity monitoring, or widespread use of monitoring data.We identify four barriers to more effective biodiversity monitoring in Australia. These are: (i) many conservation programmes have poorly articulated or vague objectives against which it is difficult to measure progress contributing to design and implementation problems; (ii) the case for long-term and sustained biodiversity monitoring is often poorly developed and/or articulated; (iii) there is often a lack of appropriate institutional support, co-ordination, and targeted funding for biodiversity monitoring; and (iv) there is often a lack of appropriate standards to guide monitoring activities and make data available from these programmes.To deal with these issues, we suggest that policy makers, resource managers and scientists better and more explicitly articulate the objectives of biodiversity monitoring and better demonstrate the case for greater investments in biodiversity monitoring.There is an urgent need for improved institutional support for biodiversity monitoring in Australia, for improved monitoring standards, and for improved archiving of, and access to, monitoring data.We suggest that more strategic financial, institutional and intellectual investments in monitoring will lead to more efficient use of the resources available for biodiversity conservation and ultimately better conservation outcomes.",
keywords = "conservation effectiveness, management intervention, monitoring, biodiversity, National Biodiversity, Strategy",
author = "David Lindenmayer and Philip Gibbons and Max Bourke and Mark Burgman and C Dickman and Simon Ferrier and James Fitzsimons and David Freudenberger and Stephen Garnett and Craig Groves and Richard Hobbs and Richard Kingsford and Sarah Legge and Andrew Lowe and Rob McLean and Jensen Montambault and Hugh Possingham and Jim Radford and Doug Robinson and Lisa Smallbone and David Thomas and Tony Varcoe and Michael Vardon and Glenda Wardle and John Woinarski and Andre Zerger",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "285--294",
journal = "Austral Ecology",
issn = "1442-9985",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

Lindenmayer, D, Gibbons, P, Bourke, M, Burgman, M, Dickman, C, Ferrier, S, Fitzsimons, J, Freudenberger, D, Garnett, S, Groves, C, Hobbs, R, Kingsford, R, Legge, S, Lowe, A, McLean, R, Montambault, J, Possingham, H, Radford, J, Robinson, D, Smallbone, L, Thomas, D, Varcoe, T, Vardon, M, Wardle, G, Woinarski, J & Zerger, A 2011, 'Improving biodiversity monitoring', Austral Ecology, vol. 37, pp. 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x

Improving biodiversity monitoring. / Lindenmayer, David; Gibbons, Philip; Bourke, Max; Burgman, Mark; Dickman, C; Ferrier, Simon; Fitzsimons, James; Freudenberger, David; Garnett, Stephen; Groves, Craig; Hobbs, Richard; Kingsford, Richard; Legge, Sarah; Lowe, Andrew; McLean, Rob; Montambault, Jensen; Possingham, Hugh; Radford, Jim; Robinson, Doug; Smallbone, Lisa; Thomas, David; Varcoe, Tony; Vardon, Michael; Wardle, Glenda; Woinarski, John; Zerger, Andre.

In: Austral Ecology, Vol. 37, 2011, p. 285-294.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving biodiversity monitoring

AU - Lindenmayer, David

AU - Gibbons, Philip

AU - Bourke, Max

AU - Burgman, Mark

AU - Dickman, C

AU - Ferrier, Simon

AU - Fitzsimons, James

AU - Freudenberger, David

AU - Garnett, Stephen

AU - Groves, Craig

AU - Hobbs, Richard

AU - Kingsford, Richard

AU - Legge, Sarah

AU - Lowe, Andrew

AU - McLean, Rob

AU - Montambault, Jensen

AU - Possingham, Hugh

AU - Radford, Jim

AU - Robinson, Doug

AU - Smallbone, Lisa

AU - Thomas, David

AU - Varcoe, Tony

AU - Vardon, Michael

AU - Wardle, Glenda

AU - Woinarski, John

AU - Zerger, Andre

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Effective biodiversity monitoring is critical to evaluate, learn from, and ultimately improve conservation practice.Well conceived, designed and implemented monitoring of biodiversity should: (i) deliver information on trends in key aspects of biodiversity (e.g. population changes); (ii) provide early warning of problems that might otherwise be difficult or expensive to reverse; (iii) generate quantifiable evidence of conservation successes (e.g. species recovery following management) and conservation failures; (iv) highlight ways to make management more effective; and (v) provide information on return on conservation investment.The importance of effective biodiversity monitoring is widely recognized (e.g. Australian Biodiversity Strategy).Yet, while everyone thinks biodiversity monitoring is a good idea, this has not translated into a culture of sound biodiversity monitoring, or widespread use of monitoring data.We identify four barriers to more effective biodiversity monitoring in Australia. These are: (i) many conservation programmes have poorly articulated or vague objectives against which it is difficult to measure progress contributing to design and implementation problems; (ii) the case for long-term and sustained biodiversity monitoring is often poorly developed and/or articulated; (iii) there is often a lack of appropriate institutional support, co-ordination, and targeted funding for biodiversity monitoring; and (iv) there is often a lack of appropriate standards to guide monitoring activities and make data available from these programmes.To deal with these issues, we suggest that policy makers, resource managers and scientists better and more explicitly articulate the objectives of biodiversity monitoring and better demonstrate the case for greater investments in biodiversity monitoring.There is an urgent need for improved institutional support for biodiversity monitoring in Australia, for improved monitoring standards, and for improved archiving of, and access to, monitoring data.We suggest that more strategic financial, institutional and intellectual investments in monitoring will lead to more efficient use of the resources available for biodiversity conservation and ultimately better conservation outcomes.

AB - Effective biodiversity monitoring is critical to evaluate, learn from, and ultimately improve conservation practice.Well conceived, designed and implemented monitoring of biodiversity should: (i) deliver information on trends in key aspects of biodiversity (e.g. population changes); (ii) provide early warning of problems that might otherwise be difficult or expensive to reverse; (iii) generate quantifiable evidence of conservation successes (e.g. species recovery following management) and conservation failures; (iv) highlight ways to make management more effective; and (v) provide information on return on conservation investment.The importance of effective biodiversity monitoring is widely recognized (e.g. Australian Biodiversity Strategy).Yet, while everyone thinks biodiversity monitoring is a good idea, this has not translated into a culture of sound biodiversity monitoring, or widespread use of monitoring data.We identify four barriers to more effective biodiversity monitoring in Australia. These are: (i) many conservation programmes have poorly articulated or vague objectives against which it is difficult to measure progress contributing to design and implementation problems; (ii) the case for long-term and sustained biodiversity monitoring is often poorly developed and/or articulated; (iii) there is often a lack of appropriate institutional support, co-ordination, and targeted funding for biodiversity monitoring; and (iv) there is often a lack of appropriate standards to guide monitoring activities and make data available from these programmes.To deal with these issues, we suggest that policy makers, resource managers and scientists better and more explicitly articulate the objectives of biodiversity monitoring and better demonstrate the case for greater investments in biodiversity monitoring.There is an urgent need for improved institutional support for biodiversity monitoring in Australia, for improved monitoring standards, and for improved archiving of, and access to, monitoring data.We suggest that more strategic financial, institutional and intellectual investments in monitoring will lead to more efficient use of the resources available for biodiversity conservation and ultimately better conservation outcomes.

KW - conservation effectiveness

KW - management intervention

KW - monitoring

KW - biodiversity

KW - National Biodiversity

KW - Strategy

U2 - 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 285

EP - 294

JO - Austral Ecology

JF - Austral Ecology

SN - 1442-9985

ER -

Lindenmayer D, Gibbons P, Bourke M, Burgman M, Dickman C, Ferrier S et al. Improving biodiversity monitoring. Austral Ecology. 2011;37:285-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x