Skip to main content

Monitoring for Threshold-Dependent Decisions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Application of Threshold Concepts in Natural Resource Decision Making

Abstract

Management decisions are threshold-dependent if actions or determinations change when monitoring data indicate that a resource crossed a specified value (e.g., reference vs impaired conditions). In this chapter, we review the literature on monitoring for threshold-dependent decisions and illustrate how uncertainty and prior knowledge about resource condition may affect such decision thresholds. A critical consideration is whether monitoring is linked to specific management actions and models are available to predict the consequences of those actions on the resource condition. This consideration leads to a split between two different management and monitoring approaches; adaptive management with targeted monitoring or sequential evaluation of resource condition with surveillance monitoring. We compare and contrast these two types of monitoring with regard to threshold concepts, objectives, use of models, and incorporation of uncertainty. Both types of monitoring are being applied to natural resource management, and we cannot conceive of a time when all monitoring will be of only one type. The best strategy, in our view, is to be familiar with when and how to apply both.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andersen, T., J. Cartensen, E. Hernandez-Garcia, and C. M. Duarte. 2009. Ecological thresholds and regime shifts: Approaches to identification. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, M. B. 1987. Structured decision making in fisheries management: trout fishing regulations on the Au Sable River, Michigan. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:475–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennetts, R. E., J. E. Gross, K.Cahill, C. McIntyre, B. B. Bingham, A. Hubbard, L. Cameron, and S. L. Carter. 2007. Linking monitoring to management and planning: Assessment points as a generalized approach. The George Wright Forum 24:59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bytnerowicz, A., M. Tausz, et al. 2002. Summer-time distribution of air pollutants in Sequoia National Park, California. Environmental Pollution 118(2):187–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dorazio, R., and F. Johnson. 2003. Bayesian inference and decision theory—A framework for decision making in natural resource management. Ecological Applications 13(2):556–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Guidance on systematic planning using the data quality objectives process. EPA QA/G4. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf.

  • Fancy, S. G., J. E. Gross, and S. L. Carter. 2009. Monitoring the condition of natural resources in US national parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 151:161–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, S. A., A. J. Tyre, N. Jonzen, J. R. Rhodes, and H. P. Possingham. 2004. Minimizing the cost of environmental management decisions by optimizing statistical thresholds. Ecology Letters 7:669–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, L. R., M. Geger, M. A. McCarthy, and H. P. Possingham. 2005. A theory for optimal monitoring of marine reserves. Ecology Letters 8:829–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, W., and J. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of temporal variability of survival in animal populations. Ecology 79(7):2531–2538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. K., and V. H. Resh. 1988. Sequential decision plans in monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates: Cost savings, classification accuracy, and development of plans. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:280–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer, D. B., and G. Likens. 2009. Adaptive monitoring: A new paradigm in long-term studies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:482–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. E., M. C. Runge, H. P. Laskowski, and W. L. Kendall. 2008. Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1683–1692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R. L.Value-Focused Thinking. 1992. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., M. C. Runge, et al. 2009. Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management. Ecological Applications 19:1079–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, J. D., and B. K. Williams. 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:668–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overton, W. S., and S. V. Stehman. 1996. Desirable design characteristics for long-term monitoring of ecological variables. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 3(4):349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, K., J. Nichols, et al. 2002. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13(2):105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, H. M., M. Colyvan, et al. 2002. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications 12(2):618–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starfield, A. M. 1997. A pragmatic approach to modeling for wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:261–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens Jr., D., and A. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 4(4):415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens Jr., D., and A. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99(465):262–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift, T. L., and S. J. Hannon. 2010. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: A review of the concepts, evidence, and applications. Biological Reviews 85:35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B., and T. Gerrodette. 1993. The uses of statistical power in conservation biology: The vaquita and northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 7(3):489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos, P., E. Meelis, et al. 2000. A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 61(3):317–344.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior technical guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoccoz, N. G., J. D. Nichols, et al. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:446–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David R. Smith .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, D., Snyder, C., Hitt, N., Geissler, P. (2014). Monitoring for Threshold-Dependent Decisions. In: Guntenspergen, G. (eds) Application of Threshold Concepts in Natural Resource Decision Making. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8041-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics