Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation

Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Kerry A. Waylen, Kirsty L. Blackstock, Freddy J. van Hulst, Carmen Damian, F. Horváth, Richard K. Johnson, Robert Kanka, Mart Külvik, Christopher J.A. Macleod, Kristian Meissner, Mihaela M. Oprina-Pavelescu, Joan Pino, Eeva Primmer, Geta Rîșnoveanu, Barbora Šatalová, Jari Silander, Jana Špulerová, Monika Suškevičs, Jan Van Uytvanck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)373-384
Number of pages12
JournalScience of the Total Environment
Volume662
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 20 2019

Fingerprint

adaptive management
Monitoring
monitoring
Decision making
decision making
Environmental management
Common Agricultural Policy
Transparency
policy
evaluation
transparency
environmental policy
environmental management
management practice
learning
Water

Keywords

  • Adaptive management
  • Environmental governance
  • Monitoring & evaluation
  • Policy
  • Socio-ecological systems
  • Sustainability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Engineering
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Waste Management and Disposal
  • Pollution

Cite this

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation : Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? / Waylen, Kerry A.; Blackstock, Kirsty L.; van Hulst, Freddy J.; Damian, Carmen; Horváth, F.; Johnson, Richard K.; Kanka, Robert; Külvik, Mart; Macleod, Christopher J.A.; Meissner, Kristian; Oprina-Pavelescu, Mihaela M.; Pino, Joan; Primmer, Eeva; Rîșnoveanu, Geta; Šatalová, Barbora; Silander, Jari; Špulerová, Jana; Suškevičs, Monika; Van Uytvanck, Jan.

In: Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 662, 20.04.2019, p. 373-384.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Waylen, KA, Blackstock, KL, van Hulst, FJ, Damian, C, Horváth, F, Johnson, RK, Kanka, R, Külvik, M, Macleod, CJA, Meissner, K, Oprina-Pavelescu, MM, Pino, J, Primmer, E, Rîșnoveanu, G, Šatalová, B, Silander, J, Špulerová, J, Suškevičs, M & Van Uytvanck, J 2019, 'Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?', Science of the Total Environment, vol. 662, pp. 373-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462
Waylen, Kerry A. ; Blackstock, Kirsty L. ; van Hulst, Freddy J. ; Damian, Carmen ; Horváth, F. ; Johnson, Richard K. ; Kanka, Robert ; Külvik, Mart ; Macleod, Christopher J.A. ; Meissner, Kristian ; Oprina-Pavelescu, Mihaela M. ; Pino, Joan ; Primmer, Eeva ; Rîșnoveanu, Geta ; Šatalová, Barbora ; Silander, Jari ; Špulerová, Jana ; Suškevičs, Monika ; Van Uytvanck, Jan. / Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation : Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?. In: Science of the Total Environment. 2019 ; Vol. 662. pp. 373-384.
@article{e5371e7c2ef6428b975bf3dac6d7228e,
title = "Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?",
abstract = "Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems.",
keywords = "Adaptive management, Environmental governance, Monitoring & evaluation, Policy, Socio-ecological systems, Sustainability",
author = "Waylen, {Kerry A.} and Blackstock, {Kirsty L.} and {van Hulst}, {Freddy J.} and Carmen Damian and F. Horv{\'a}th and Johnson, {Richard K.} and Robert Kanka and Mart K{\"u}lvik and Macleod, {Christopher J.A.} and Kristian Meissner and Oprina-Pavelescu, {Mihaela M.} and Joan Pino and Eeva Primmer and Geta R{\^i}șnoveanu and Barbora Šatalov{\'a} and Jari Silander and Jana Špulerov{\'a} and Monika Suškevičs and {Van Uytvanck}, Jan",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462",
language = "English",
volume = "662",
pages = "373--384",
journal = "Science of the Total Environment",
issn = "0048-9697",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation

T2 - Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

AU - Waylen, Kerry A.

AU - Blackstock, Kirsty L.

AU - van Hulst, Freddy J.

AU - Damian, Carmen

AU - Horváth, F.

AU - Johnson, Richard K.

AU - Kanka, Robert

AU - Külvik, Mart

AU - Macleod, Christopher J.A.

AU - Meissner, Kristian

AU - Oprina-Pavelescu, Mihaela M.

AU - Pino, Joan

AU - Primmer, Eeva

AU - Rîșnoveanu, Geta

AU - Šatalová, Barbora

AU - Silander, Jari

AU - Špulerová, Jana

AU - Suškevičs, Monika

AU - Van Uytvanck, Jan

PY - 2019/4/20

Y1 - 2019/4/20

N2 - Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems.

AB - Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems.

KW - Adaptive management

KW - Environmental governance

KW - Monitoring & evaluation

KW - Policy

KW - Socio-ecological systems

KW - Sustainability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060447242&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060447242&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462

DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462

M3 - Article

VL - 662

SP - 373

EP - 384

JO - Science of the Total Environment

JF - Science of the Total Environment

SN - 0048-9697

ER -