Display options
Cite
Reynolds JH, Knutson MG, Newman KB, et al. A road map for designing and implementing a biological monitoring program. Environ Monit Assess. 2016;188(7):399doi: 10.1007/s10661-016-5397-x.
Reynolds, J. H., Knutson, M. G., Newman, K. B., Silverman, E. D., & Thompson, W. L. (2016). A road map for designing and implementing a biological monitoring program. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 188(7), 399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5397-x
Reynolds, Joel H, et al. "A road map for designing and implementing a biological monitoring program." Environmental monitoring and assessment vol. 188,7 (2016): 399. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5397-x
Reynolds JH, Knutson MG, Newman KB, Silverman ED, Thompson WL. A road map for designing and implementing a biological monitoring program. Environ Monit Assess. 2016 Jul;188(7):399. doi: 10.1007/s10661-016-5397-x. Epub 2016 Jun 08. PMID: 27277094; PMCID: PMC4899497.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Environ Monit Assess. 2016 Jul;188(7):399. doi: 10.1007/s10661-016-5397-x. Epub 2016 Jun 08.

A road map for designing and implementing a biological monitoring program.

Environmental monitoring and assessment

Joel H Reynolds, Melinda G Knutson, Ken B Newman, Emily D Silverman, William L Thompson

Affiliations

  1. Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Anchorage, AK, 99503, USA. [email protected].
  2. National Wildlife Refuge System, US Fish and Wildlife Service, La Crosse, WI, 54603, USA.
  3. Lodi Fish and Wildlife Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lodi, CA, 95240, USA.
  4. Division of Migratory Bird Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD, 20708-4002, USA.
  5. National Wildlife Refuge System, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA, 01035, USA.

PMID: 27277094 PMCID: PMC4899497 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-016-5397-x

Abstract

Designing and implementing natural resource monitoring is a challenging endeavor undertaken by many agencies, NGOs, and citizen groups worldwide. Yet many monitoring programs fail to deliver useful information for a variety of administrative (staffing, documentation, and funding) or technical (sampling design and data analysis) reasons. Programs risk failure if they lack a clear motivating problem or question, explicit objectives linked to this problem or question, and a comprehensive conceptual model of the system under study. Designers must consider what "success" looks like from a resource management perspective, how desired outcomes translate to appropriate attributes to monitor, and how they will be measured. All such efforts should be filtered through the question "Why is this important?" Failing to address these considerations will produce a program that fails to deliver the desired information. We addressed these issues through creation of a "road map" for designing and implementing a monitoring program, synthesizing multiple aspects of a monitoring program into a single, overarching framework. The road map emphasizes linkages among core decisions to ensure alignment of all components, from problem framing through technical details of data collection and analysis, to program administration. Following this framework will help avoid common pitfalls, keep projects on track and budgets realistic, and aid in program evaluations. The road map has proved useful for monitoring by individuals and teams, those planning new monitoring, and those reviewing existing monitoring and for staff with a wide range of technical and scientific skills.

Keywords: Adaptive management; Effectiveness monitoring; Inventory; Monitoring design; Status and trends monitoring; Structured decision making

References

  1. Environ Pollut. 2002;116 Suppl 1:S233-42 - PubMed
  2. J Environ Manage. 2006 Jan;78(2):194-9 - PubMed
  3. Environ Monit Assess. 2013 Oct;185(10):8583-600 - PubMed
  4. Environ Monit Assess. 2011 Jun;177(1-4):665-79 - PubMed
  5. Ecol Appl. 2009 Jul;19(5):1079-90 - PubMed
  6. J Environ Manage. 2011 May;92(5):1395-402 - PubMed
  7. Ambio. 2007 Jun;36(4):304-7 - PubMed
  8. Environ Monit Assess. 2010 Nov;170(1-4):499-507 - PubMed
  9. Environ Monit Assess. 1993 Jul;26(2-3):85-9 - PubMed
  10. Ecol Lett. 2005 Nov;8(11):1235-46 - PubMed
  11. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Dec;21(12):668-73 - PubMed
  12. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Sep;24(9):482-6 - PubMed
  13. Environ Monit Assess. 1993 Jul;26(2-3):177-85 - PubMed
  14. Environ Monit Assess. 1994 Apr;30(2):139-62 - PubMed
  15. Environ Monit Assess. 2011 Jun;177(1-4):419-36 - PubMed
  16. Glob Chang Biol. 2015 Feb 27;:null - PubMed
  17. J Environ Manage. 2011 May;92(5):1339-45 - PubMed
  18. Environ Monit Assess. 2009 Apr;151(1-4):161-74 - PubMed
  19. Curr Biol. 2014 Jan 6;24(1):94-7 - PubMed
  20. Environ Monit Assess. 1993 Jul;26(2-3):219-34 - PubMed
  21. Ecol Appl. 2006 Dec;16(6):2411-25 - PubMed
  22. Environ Monit Assess. 2008 Jun;141(1-3):19-25 - PubMed
  23. J Environ Manage. 2011 May;92(5):1379-84 - PubMed
  24. J Environ Manage. 2011 May;92(5):1346-53 - PubMed
  25. Eval Program Plann. 2009 May;32(2):138-47 - PubMed
  26. Conserv Biol. 2008 Aug;22(4):897-911 - PubMed
  27. Environ Monit Assess. 2003 Jul;85(3):277-92 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types