Before launching a monitoring program, conservationists are often asked how data will be collected, which indicators will be used, and how results will be analyzed. Less often, they are asked a simpler question: what is the monitoring for? A recent paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, led by Kate J. Helmstedt, argues that this question should come first. Monitoring, the authors suggest, delivers impact when it is tied to a clear explanation of how the information collected will influence decisions, policy, or outcomes for biodiversity. This may sound self-evident, yet conservation has long treated data collection as a default activity. Over the past decade, that tendency has been reinforced by rapid advances in technology. Satellites track forest loss in near real time. Camera traps document passing animals. Acoustic sensors record entire ecosystems. Environmental DNA can detect species from traces in water or soil. The result is a steady expansion in what can be measured, often accompanied by an assumption that more information will improve outcomes. Topher White of Rainforest Connection installing a bioacoustic device in the forest canopy. Image by Ben Von Wong. Work on conservation effectiveness has complicated that assumption. Monitoring trends—like forest cover, species abundance, compliance rates, and habitat condition—can describe what is happening without explaining why. Establishing impact requires a counterfactual: an estimate of what would have happened without the intervention. Even where methods improve, the link to outcomes is not guaranteed. Time and funding directed toward data collection can reduce what is available…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via This RSS Feed.