Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
How practitioners integrate decision triggers with existing metrics in conservation monitoring.
Foster, Claire N; O'Loughlin, Luke S; Sato, Chloe F; Westgate, Martin J; Barton, Philip S; Pierson, Jennifer C; Balmer, Jayne M; Catt, Gareth; Chapman, Jane; Detto, Tanya; Hawcroft, Amy; Jones, Glenys; Kavanagh, Rodney P; McKay, Meredith; Marshall, Deanna; Moseby, Katherine E; Perry, Mike; Robinson, Doug; Seddon, Julian A; Tuft, Katherine; Lindenmayer, David B.
Afiliación
  • Foster CN; Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. Electronic address: claire.foster@anu.edu.au.
  • O'Loughlin LS; Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. Electronic address: luke.oloughlin@anu.edu.au.
  • Sato CF; Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
  • Westgate MJ; Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
  • Barton PS; Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
  • Pierson JC; Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia; Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, ACT Government, Tharwa, Australia.
  • Balmer JM; Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia.
  • Catt G; Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa, PO Box 504, Newman, WA, 6753, Australia.
  • Chapman J; Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Kensington, WA, 6151, Australia.
  • Detto T; Christmas Island National Park, Christmas Island, 6798, Australia.
  • Hawcroft A; Department of Conservation, New Zealand.
  • Jones G; School of Land and Food - Geography & Spatial Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia.
  • Kavanagh RP; Australian Wildlife Conservancy, GPO Box 4301, Sydney, NSW, 2001, Australia.
  • McKay M; Department of Conservation, New Zealand.
  • Marshall D; Trust For Nature, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
  • Moseby KE; Arid Recovery, Olympic Dam South Australia, Australia; School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia.
  • Perry M; Department of Conservation, New Zealand.
  • Robinson D; Trust For Nature, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia; Department of Ecology, Environment and Evolution, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia.
  • Seddon JA; ACT Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, GPO Box 158, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
  • Tuft K; Arid Recovery, Olympic Dam South Australia, Australia.
  • Lindenmayer DB; Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
J Environ Manage ; 230: 94-101, 2019 Jan 15.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30273788
ABSTRACT
Decision triggers are defined thresholds in the status of monitored variables that indicate when to undertake management, and avoid undesirable ecosystem change. Decision triggers are frequently recommended to conservation practitioners as a tool to facilitate evidence-based management practices, but there has been limited attention paid to how practitioners are integrating decision triggers into existing monitoring programs. We sought to understand whether conservation practitioners' use of decision triggers was influenced by the type of variables in their monitoring programs. We investigated this question using a practitioner-focused workshop involving a structured discussion and review of eight monitoring programs. Among our case studies, direct measures of biodiversity (e.g. native species) were more commonly monitored, but less likely to be linked to decision triggers (10% with triggers) than measures being used as surrogates (54% with triggers) for program objectives. This was because decision triggers were associated with management of threatening processes, which were often monitored as a surrogate for a biodiversity asset of interest. By contrast, direct measures of biodiversity were more commonly associated with informal decision processes that led to activities such as management reviews or external consultation. Workshop participants were in favor of including more formalized decision triggers in their programs, but were limited by incomplete ecological knowledge, lack of appropriately skilled staff, funding constraints, and/or uncertainty regarding intervention effectiveness. We recommend that practitioners consider including decision triggers for discussion activities (such as external consultation) in their programs as more than just early warning points for future interventions, particularly for direct measures. Decision triggers for discussions should be recognized as a critical feature of monitoring programs where information and operational limitations inhibit the use of decision triggers for interventions.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Biodiversidad Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Environ Manage Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Biodiversidad Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Environ Manage Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article