Community-Based Ecosystem Monitoring

Bliss, John C.; Aplet, Greg; Hartzell, Cate; Harwood, Peggy; Jahnige, Paul; Kittredge, David B.; Lewandowski, Stephan; Soscia, Mary Lou

doi:10.1300/j091v12n03_07

Cited by 49 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(i) government-led CBM designed to provide early detection of ecosystem changes (Stadel & Nelson, 1995;Whitelaw et al, 2003); (ii) an interpretive approach focused on education and conservation (Cuthill, 2000); (iii) advocacy monitoring where citizens concerned about an issue use monitoring to force action (Lukasik, 2000;Sharpe et al, 2000); and (iv) multi-party monitoring designed to include all interested stakeholders (Bliss et al, 2001).…”

Section: Sustainability and Community-based Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Email: rebeccapollock@trentu.ca. (Cuthill, 2000) as citizens themselves seek opportunities to learn more about the environment (Lukasik, 1993;Bliss et al, 2001). Responding to the needs of those involved in CBM, Environment Canada's Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network Coordinating Office secured federal government funding, in partnership with the Canadian Nature Federation, to carry out developmental work on CBM across the country (Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network Coordinating Office, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Community-Based Monitoring in Support of Local Sustainability

Pollock¹,

Whitelaw²

2005

Local Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-based monitoring (CBM) activities in Canada are increasing. A conceptual framework developed for and used to guide a pilot CBM project in 31 Canadian communities is evaluated. The framework provided the strategic direction necessary for successful implementation of the pilot and proved useful in the training of community coordinators hired for the project. Limitations of the framework include its inadequate attention to community diversity, its linearity, and insufficient expression of the adaptive and synergistic nature of its components. In order to support local sustainability, CBM appears to require an approach that is context-specific, iterative, and adaptive. Given these emergent characteristics, an enhanced conceptual framework for CBM in Canada is developed based on four dynamic themes: community mapping, participation assessment, capacity building, and information delivery.

show abstract

Section: Sustainability and Community-based Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community-Based Monitoring in Support of Local Sustainability

Pollock¹,

Whitelaw²

2005

Local Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most have concluded that, with appropriate resourcing and robust protocols, volunteer data agree closely enough with professional data for use in government http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss4/art32/ Involving community members in monitoring increases not only their ability to contribute data, but also their ability to discuss their knowledge with experts (described as "interactional expertise" by Carolan 2006). Community members participating in environmental monitoring also commonly show increased scientific literacy, greater awareness of local ecosystems and wider environmental issues, stronger social networks including relationships with local government, and greater interest in freshwater planning (Bliss et al 2001, Savan et al 2003, Overdevest et al 2004, Pollock and Whitelaw 2005, Stepenuck and Green 2015, Peters et al 2015b. All of these benefits may lead to more effective community engagement with government in freshwater decision making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volunteer stream monitoring: Do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making?

Storey¹,

Wright‐Stow²,

Kin³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Recent freshwater policy reforms in New Zealand promote increased community involvement in freshwater decision making and management. Involving community members in scientific monitoring increases both their knowledge and their ability to discuss this knowledge with professionals, potentially increasing their influence in decision-making processes. However, these interactions rarely occur because, in particular, of perceptions that volunteer-collected data are unreliable. We assessed the agreement between volunteer (community group) and local government (regional council) data at nine stream sites across New Zealand. Over 18 months, community groups and regional council staff monitored, in parallel, a common set of water quality variables, physical habitat, periphyton and benthic macroinvertebrates that are routinely used by regional councils for statutory state of environment reporting. Community groups achieved close agreement (correlations ≥ 0.89, bias < 1%) with regional councils for temperature, electrical conductivity, visual water clarity, and Escherichia coli. For dissolved oxygen, nitrate, and pH, correlations were weaker (0.2, 0.53, and 0.4, respectively). Volunteer assessments of physical habitat were as consistent over time as those of councils. For visual assessments of thick periphyton growths (% streambed cover), volunteers achieved a correlation of 0.93 and bias of 0.1% relative to councils. And for a macroinvertebrate biotic index that indicates water and habitat quality, correlation was 0.88, bias was < 5%, and the average difference was 12% of the index score. Volunteers showed increased awareness of local freshwaters, understanding of stream ecosystems, and attentiveness to local and national freshwater issues. Most volunteers had shared their knowledge and interest with others in their community. Most groups had developed relationships with their regional council, and some volunteers became more interested in engaging in freshwater decision making. Given adequate professional support, community-based water monitoring can provide data reliable enough to augment professionally collected data, and increase the opportunities, confidence, and skills of community members to engage in freshwater decision making.

show abstract

“…It may enable experimental learning and negotiation, contributing to building trust and changing perceptions, behaviour and attitudes among stakeholders (Estrella and Gaventa 1998). It may also build social capital (Bliss et al 2001; see also Becker et al 2005 (this issue)). Success is not primarily determined by the products, but by the quality of the process (Agrawal and Gibson 1999;Schanz 2002).…”

Section: Ownership Of Management Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory Resource Monitoring as a Means for Promoting Social Change in Yunnan, China

Rijsoort

Zhang

2005

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Recent international forest policies stimulate involvement of communities in forest management as a strategy to improve biodiversity conservation and the quality of local livelihoods. Increasingly, the role of local people in monitoring forest resources is also acknowledged. This paper presents a participatory resources monitoring (PRM) system developed and implemented by representatives of 12 villages, six each within and adjacent to two nature reserves in Yunnan, China. The short-term objectives are to monitor resource and wildlife abundance, resource use, wildlife damage to crops, and land use. Main methods used by the village monitoring team are: (1) observation through forest walk, (2) village interview, and (3) market survey. Monitoring is implemented throughout the year to fit in the daily work of villagers. Staff from the nature reserve or forestry bureau provide support by visiting the villages several days per year. Results indicate that participatory monitoring is a valuable tool for villagers to engage in self-owned management actions. We discuss how monitoring is also a process which could lead to social change. Based on narratives we suggest that participatory monitoring builds trust between stakeholders, changes perceptions and attitudes and leads to more democratic and transparent decision-making. In discussing accuracy, we argue that all stakeholders perceive and interpret nature differently based on different worldviews, knowledge systems, values and beliefs. We argue that if participatory monitoring is to be sustainable, community-based monitoring -preferably linked to scientific monitoring and patrolling -should be designed as a discursive institution where the process of building social capital and inter-actor learning is extremely important. Finally, we briefly reflect upon efforts to scale up participatory monitoring.

show abstract

Community-Based Ecosystem Monitoring

Cited by 49 publications

References 2 publications

Community-Based Monitoring in Support of Local Sustainability

Community-Based Monitoring in Support of Local Sustainability

Volunteer stream monitoring: Do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making?

Participatory Resource Monitoring as a Means for Promoting Social Change in Yunnan, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About