Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive coastal management
Introduction
Adaptive management has become a normative approach to environmental management since its initial development as an experimental approach to address uncertainty (Holling, 1978, Walters and Hilborn, 1978). The approach is now widely used in all environmental sectors, including forestry, fisheries, conservation and coastal management (McFadden et al., 2011). Debates about the nature of adaptive management and tendencies to either an experimental or collaborative approach have been prevalent in the literature since the 1990s (Allen et al., 2011, Jacobson et al., 2009). Common to all descriptions is a structured process of learning from management in the face of uncertainty, which can occur from policy to project scales (Allan and Stankey, 2009). Structured learning involves monitoring and evaluation of the management process and using that information to inform management decision-making, by reflecting on and adapting actions, or by reflecting on and adapting both actions and assumptions about the most appropriate actions (Jacobson et al., 2009). The integration of monitoring and assessment information is a core component of a structured learning process (Jacobson et al., 2011, Jacobson et al., 2009, Smith et al., 2009). However, it is often this component that challenges managers (Douvere and Ehler, 2011, Jacobson et al., 2011, Smith et al., 2009).
Uncertainty in the coastal zone is exacerbated by complex environmental and socio-economic processes (Smith et al., 2013, Smith et al., 2009). Discussion on monitoring and evaluation and the way it can support adaptive management of the coastal zone is rare. Some monitoring and evaluation frameworks, such as the pressure-state-response framework, can provide a benchmark of management performance (see Allen et al., 2012, von Koningsveld et al., 2005, Doody, 2003), while alternative frameworks such as orders of outcomes (Olsen, 2003) and management effectiveness evaluation (Hockings et al., 2006, Ehler, 2003) offer a more structured approach to learning that enables reflection on both actions and assumptions. The later involves assessment of each element of the management cycle (objectives, plans, inputs, management processes, outputs and outcomes) for any given management objective, to enable adaptation of appropriate elements if desired outcomes are not achieved (Hocking et al., 2006).
In a review of integrated coastal management in Europe, Pickaver et al. (2004) identified that while monitoring was conducted routinely, this did not correlate with assessment of progress towards sustainability, nor improvements in the sustainability of coastal resources. As noted by McDonald-Madden et al. (2010), the benefits of monitoring are not often assessed. Smith et al. (2009) argue that the capacity of managers to integrate information is a critical impediment to realizing the potential benefits of adaptive management. In other fields, for example conservation management, the monitoring and assessment of all stages of the management cycle (including context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes) has been proposed as a way to support managers in identifying how to adapt management (Hockings et al., 2006). Without coverage across different components of the management cycle, identifying which elements of management to adapt is problematic (Jacobson et al., 2008).
Coastal challenges exist in many parts of the world, particularly where cumulative environmental and socio-economic issues intersect. Australia is one such area, where about 85% of the population reside within 50 km of the coast (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004a). Demographic trends indicate that concentration of population in Australia's coastal zone will continue (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004b). The population growth extends beyond the capital cities and has been described as a sea change phenomena caused by various push and pull factors (Smith and Doherty, 2006, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001). Although attention to coastal management followed the lead of the USA in the early 1970s, and despite various reviews (such as the 1993 Resource Assessment Commission Coastal Inquiry), there has been little agreement on a national approach to coastal management or a comprehensive and integrated coastal management policy. In addition, while notions of adaptive management pervade many natural resource management policies and strategies, there is little analysis of monitoring and evaluation approaches in the coastal zone to support it. In this article, we explore the extent that monitoring and evaluation might be useful in supporting an adaptive approach to both socio-economic and ecological aspects of coastal zone management. This is the first such national study of its type of which we are aware.
Section snippets
Methods
This study was part of a broader research program on adaptive learning in the coastal zone (see Smith et al., 2013), and part of a purposely-built online survey benchmarking monitoring and evaluation in the coastal zone (www.coastaleval.com.au). For this article, we were particularly interested in analyses of the survey data that build understanding about the adaptive behaviour of coastal organisations and the influence of monitoring and evaluation programs.
Relevant survey questions included:
- 1.
Results
Overall, the survey had a response rate of 24%, typical of many surveys (see Jacobson et al., 2013). A response bias was evident, with proportionately higher community group, state group and university group participation than expected (10%, 6% and 17% respectively compared to 3%, 1% and 4% expected participation), and lower than expected regional group and local government group participation (53% and 12% respectively compared to 65% and 27% expected participation). Further, respondents from
Discussion
The low number of coastal organisations conducting monitoring and evaluation is at odds with the Australian coastal zone being at significant risk to threats such as increased coastal erosion, sea level rise, salt water intrusion, loss of native coastal habitat (e.g. mangroves), coastal development, more frequent and severe flood and storm events (IPCC, 2007), all of which are exacerbated under climate change. Institutional requirements for monitoring and evaluation in the Australian coastal
Conclusions
In this article, we explored the extent that monitoring and evaluation might be useful in supporting an adaptive approach to coastal zone management in Australia. Our findings indicate that while monitoring and evaluation programs may be common place, their sufficiency for supporting adaptive management is limited. These findings are comparable to some other studies of adaptive coastal management, including: Pickaver and others' study (2004) of Integrated Coastal Zone management in Europe
Acknowledgements
This research is undertaken by the CSIRO Flagship Coastal Collaboration Cluster with funding from the CSIRO Flagship Collaboration Fund. The Coastal Collaboration Cluster is an Australian research program designed to enable more effective dialogue between knowledge-makers and decision-makers in Australia's coastal zone, and to thereby contribute to coastal sustainability in Australia. The Cluster is composed of seven Australian universities working with the CSIRO's Wealth from Oceans Flagship
References (50)
- et al.
Adaptive management for a turbulent future
J. Environ. Manag.
(2011) Indicators to measure governance performance in intergated coastal management
Ocean Coastal Manag.
(2003)The coastal sustainability standard: a management systems approach to ICZM
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2010)- et al.
Monitoring does not always count
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2010) - et al.
Evaluating the efficacy of adaptive management approaches: Is there a formula for success?
J. Environ. Manag.
(2011) Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2003)- et al.
An indicator set to measure the progress in the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2004) Population Projections by SLA (ASGC 2001), 2002–2022
(2001)How many people Live in Australia's Coastal Areas?
Australian Social Trends: Population Seachange – New Coastal Residents
(2004)
Learning to implement adaptive management
Nat. Res. Manag.
Adaptive Management: a Practitioner's Guide
Effective Indicators for Freshwater Management: Attributes and Frameworks for Development
Getting technical information into Watershed decision-making
Working Together for Environmental Management: The Role of Information Sharing and Collaborative Learning
The Practice of Social Research
The effects of institutional design on the utilization of evaluation: evidence using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
Evaluation
Maladaptation
Global Environ. Change
Using logic analysis to evaluate knowledge transfer initiatives: the case of the research collective on organization of primary care services
Evaluation
Environmental evaluation practices and the issue of scale
Evaluation models and evaluation use
Evaluation
Information required for Integrated Coastal Zone Management conclusions from the European demonstration program
Coast. Manag.
The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime spatial planning
J. Coast. Conserv.
Adaptive people for adaptive management
Empowerment Evaluation: Collaboration, Action Research, and a Case Example
Cited by (37)
Governing experimentation to decarbonise the electricity sector
2024, Energy PolicyClimate change and intensifying human use call for a monitoring upgrade of the Dutch North Sea
2022, Journal of Sea ResearchCitation Excerpt :Our system knowledge is limited and insufficient to understand the effects of human actions on the functioning of the system, its carrying capacity and to translate these into management adjustments (Rees et al., 2020). Various studies have pointed to the importance of adaptive, iterative, hypothesis-based monitoring as part of the so-called ecosystem approach for managing the marine environment (Atkins et al., 2011; Heenan et al., 2016; Jacobson et al., 2014; Kupschus et al., 2016; Wilding et al., 2017). Moreover, the ecosystem approach has become the tenet of the MSFD.
Towards adaptive coastal management law: Lessons from Australia and Brazil
2022, Ocean and Coastal ManagementCitation Excerpt :For example, Bremer and Glavovic (2013) noted that issues with the coastal management regime in New Zealand, including a reduced focus on monitoring, have undermined adaptive management implementation. Jacobson et al. (2014) surveyed coastal management practitioners in Australia and found that problems with evaluation designs and the lack of financial resources and technical skills have impeded truly adaptive management. In Italy, Buono et al. (2015) highlighted that insufficient periodical assessment of coastal policy results is a barrier to adaptive management.
Problem framing for Australian coastal management
2022, Environmental Science and Policy‘Going digital’ - Lessons for future coastal community engagement and climate change adaptation
2021, Ocean and Coastal Management