Evaluating and benchmarking biodiversity monitoring: Metadata-based indicators for sampling design, sampling effort and data analysis

S. Lengyel, Beatrix Kosztyi, Dirk S. Schmeller, Pierre Yves Henry, Mladen Kotarac, Yu Pin Lin, Klaus Henle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The biodiversity crisis has led to a surge of interest in the theory and practice of biodiversity monitoring. Although guidelines for monitoring have been published since the 1920s, we know little on current practices in existing monitoring schemes. Based on metadata on 646 species and habitat monitoring schemes in 35 European countries, we developed indicators for sampling design, sampling effort, and data analysis to evaluate monitoring practices. We also evaluated how socio-economic factors such as starting year, funding source, motivation and geographic scope of monitoring affect these indicators. Sampling design scores varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring and decreased with time in habitat monitoring. Sampling effort decreased with time in both species and habitat monitoring and varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring. The frequency of using hypothesis-testing statistics was lower in species monitoring than in habitat monitoring and it varied with geographic scope in both types of monitoring. The perception of the minimum annual change detectable by schemes matched spatial sampling effort in species monitoring but was rarely estimated in habitat monitoring. Policy implications: Our study identifies promising developments but also options for improvement in sampling design and effort, and data analysis in biodiversity monitoring. Our indicators provide benchmarks to aid the identification of the strengths and weaknesses of individual monitoring schemes relative to the average of other schemes and to improve current practices, formulate best practices, standardize performance and integrate monitoring results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)624-633
Number of pages10
JournalEcological Indicators
Volume85
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 1 2018

Fingerprint

metadata
benchmarking
data analysis
biodiversity
monitoring
sampling
funding
habitat
indicator
Biodiversity
Metadata
Sampling
Monitoring
Benchmarking
habitats
socioeconomic factors
hypothesis testing

Keywords

  • 2020 target
  • Assessment
  • Biodiversity observation network
  • Biodiversity strategy
  • Citizen science
  • Conservation funding
  • Environmental policy
  • Evidence-based conservation
  • Statistical power
  • Surveillance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Decision Sciences(all)
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology

Cite this

Evaluating and benchmarking biodiversity monitoring : Metadata-based indicators for sampling design, sampling effort and data analysis. / Lengyel, S.; Kosztyi, Beatrix; Schmeller, Dirk S.; Henry, Pierre Yves; Kotarac, Mladen; Lin, Yu Pin; Henle, Klaus.

In: Ecological Indicators, Vol. 85, 01.02.2018, p. 624-633.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lengyel, S. ; Kosztyi, Beatrix ; Schmeller, Dirk S. ; Henry, Pierre Yves ; Kotarac, Mladen ; Lin, Yu Pin ; Henle, Klaus. / Evaluating and benchmarking biodiversity monitoring : Metadata-based indicators for sampling design, sampling effort and data analysis. In: Ecological Indicators. 2018 ; Vol. 85. pp. 624-633.
@article{b0dee82ce44c4004bb77a73796c1f83c,
title = "Evaluating and benchmarking biodiversity monitoring: Metadata-based indicators for sampling design, sampling effort and data analysis",
abstract = "The biodiversity crisis has led to a surge of interest in the theory and practice of biodiversity monitoring. Although guidelines for monitoring have been published since the 1920s, we know little on current practices in existing monitoring schemes. Based on metadata on 646 species and habitat monitoring schemes in 35 European countries, we developed indicators for sampling design, sampling effort, and data analysis to evaluate monitoring practices. We also evaluated how socio-economic factors such as starting year, funding source, motivation and geographic scope of monitoring affect these indicators. Sampling design scores varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring and decreased with time in habitat monitoring. Sampling effort decreased with time in both species and habitat monitoring and varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring. The frequency of using hypothesis-testing statistics was lower in species monitoring than in habitat monitoring and it varied with geographic scope in both types of monitoring. The perception of the minimum annual change detectable by schemes matched spatial sampling effort in species monitoring but was rarely estimated in habitat monitoring. Policy implications: Our study identifies promising developments but also options for improvement in sampling design and effort, and data analysis in biodiversity monitoring. Our indicators provide benchmarks to aid the identification of the strengths and weaknesses of individual monitoring schemes relative to the average of other schemes and to improve current practices, formulate best practices, standardize performance and integrate monitoring results.",
keywords = "2020 target, Assessment, Biodiversity observation network, Biodiversity strategy, Citizen science, Conservation funding, Environmental policy, Evidence-based conservation, Statistical power, Surveillance",
author = "S. Lengyel and Beatrix Kosztyi and Schmeller, {Dirk S.} and Henry, {Pierre Yves} and Mladen Kotarac and Lin, {Yu Pin} and Klaus Henle",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.012",
language = "English",
volume = "85",
pages = "624--633",
journal = "Ecological Indicators",
issn = "1470-160X",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating and benchmarking biodiversity monitoring

T2 - Metadata-based indicators for sampling design, sampling effort and data analysis

AU - Lengyel, S.

AU - Kosztyi, Beatrix

AU - Schmeller, Dirk S.

AU - Henry, Pierre Yves

AU - Kotarac, Mladen

AU - Lin, Yu Pin

AU - Henle, Klaus

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - The biodiversity crisis has led to a surge of interest in the theory and practice of biodiversity monitoring. Although guidelines for monitoring have been published since the 1920s, we know little on current practices in existing monitoring schemes. Based on metadata on 646 species and habitat monitoring schemes in 35 European countries, we developed indicators for sampling design, sampling effort, and data analysis to evaluate monitoring practices. We also evaluated how socio-economic factors such as starting year, funding source, motivation and geographic scope of monitoring affect these indicators. Sampling design scores varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring and decreased with time in habitat monitoring. Sampling effort decreased with time in both species and habitat monitoring and varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring. The frequency of using hypothesis-testing statistics was lower in species monitoring than in habitat monitoring and it varied with geographic scope in both types of monitoring. The perception of the minimum annual change detectable by schemes matched spatial sampling effort in species monitoring but was rarely estimated in habitat monitoring. Policy implications: Our study identifies promising developments but also options for improvement in sampling design and effort, and data analysis in biodiversity monitoring. Our indicators provide benchmarks to aid the identification of the strengths and weaknesses of individual monitoring schemes relative to the average of other schemes and to improve current practices, formulate best practices, standardize performance and integrate monitoring results.

AB - The biodiversity crisis has led to a surge of interest in the theory and practice of biodiversity monitoring. Although guidelines for monitoring have been published since the 1920s, we know little on current practices in existing monitoring schemes. Based on metadata on 646 species and habitat monitoring schemes in 35 European countries, we developed indicators for sampling design, sampling effort, and data analysis to evaluate monitoring practices. We also evaluated how socio-economic factors such as starting year, funding source, motivation and geographic scope of monitoring affect these indicators. Sampling design scores varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring and decreased with time in habitat monitoring. Sampling effort decreased with time in both species and habitat monitoring and varied by funding source and motivation in species monitoring. The frequency of using hypothesis-testing statistics was lower in species monitoring than in habitat monitoring and it varied with geographic scope in both types of monitoring. The perception of the minimum annual change detectable by schemes matched spatial sampling effort in species monitoring but was rarely estimated in habitat monitoring. Policy implications: Our study identifies promising developments but also options for improvement in sampling design and effort, and data analysis in biodiversity monitoring. Our indicators provide benchmarks to aid the identification of the strengths and weaknesses of individual monitoring schemes relative to the average of other schemes and to improve current practices, formulate best practices, standardize performance and integrate monitoring results.

KW - 2020 target

KW - Assessment

KW - Biodiversity observation network

KW - Biodiversity strategy

KW - Citizen science

KW - Conservation funding

KW - Environmental policy

KW - Evidence-based conservation

KW - Statistical power

KW - Surveillance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034659250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034659250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.012

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.012

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85034659250

VL - 85

SP - 624

EP - 633

JO - Ecological Indicators

JF - Ecological Indicators

SN - 1470-160X

ER -