Environmental Management

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 629–639 | Cite as

Detection and decision-making in environmental effects monitoring

  • M. Power
  • G. Power
  • D. G. Dixon


The majority of environmental effects monitoring (EEM) frameworks that have been proposed compare selected indicator variables as a means of assessing whether significant changes in stressed ecosystems have occurred. Most are deterministic in nature and do not appropriately account for the natural variability and dynamics within the systems being comapred. This suggests that the comparative procedures should be statistically based and immediately raises the issue of whether the selected comparative procedures are to be used as decision-making tools or conclusive procedures. Conclusive procedures require a significant body of evidence before rejecting the postulated null hypothesis. The costs and time involved in environmental data collection accordingly bias action toward the maintenance of a status quo approach to environmental management. if, however, EEM is treated as a decision-making procedure, risk functions that include consideration of type I and II statistical error may be developed and combined with costs to select a minimum expected loss strategy for environemental management. Examples of the interpretative difficulties and conclusion reversal phenomena caused when EEM is used as a conclusive procedure are presented. In addition, risk functions appropriate for environmental management within an EEM context are constructed and applied. Only when such tools are fully developed and applied can EEM expect to have significant impacts on minimizing environmental degradation.

Key Words

Environmental effects monitoring Environmental management Hypothesis testing Environmental risk analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Allen, T. F. H., S. M. Bartell, and J. F. Koonce. 1977. Multiple stable configurations in ordination of phytoplankton community change rates.Ecology 58: 1076–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, V. 1982. Comparative statistical inference. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 325 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Bartell, S. S., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O'Neill. 1992. Ecological risk estimation. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 252 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Benlands, G. E., and P. N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 132 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Cairns, J., Jr. 1992. The threshold problem in ecotoxicology.Ecotoxicology 1: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colby, P. J. 1984. Appraising the status of fisheries rehabilitation techniques. Pages 233–257in V. W. Cairns, P. V. Hodson, and J. O. Nriagu (eds.), Contaminant effects on fisheries. Advances in environmental science and technology, vol 16. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, Ontario, 333 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Gilbertson, M. 1984. Need for development of epidemiology for chemically induced diseases in fish in Canada.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41: 1524–1540.Google Scholar
  8. Hill, I. D. 1973. Algorithm AS 66: The normal integral.Applied Statistics 22: 424–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hogg, R. V., and E. A. Tanis. 1984. Probability and statistical inference, 3rd ed. Macmillan, New York, 235 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Jeffreys, H. 1961. Theory of probability, 3rd ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 411 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Larson, H. J. 1974. Introduction to probability theory and statistical inference, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 343 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Larson, H. J., and M. L. Marx. 1986. An introduction to mathematical statistics and its applications, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 630 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Munkittrick, K. R., and D. G. Dixon. 1989. Use of white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) populations to assess the health of aquatic ecosystems exposed to low-level contaminant stress.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1455–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odum, E. P. 1985. Trends expected in stressed ecosystems.Bioscience 35: 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Peterman, R. M. 1990. Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Power, E. A., K. R. Munkittrick, and P. M. Chapman. 1991. An ecological impact assessment framework for decisionmaking related to sediment quality. Pages 48–64in M. A. Mayes and M. G Barron (eds.), Aquatic toxicology and risk assessment: Fourteenth Volume. ASTM STP 1124, American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  17. Ryder, R. A., and C. J. Edwards. 1985. A conceptual approach for the application of biological indicators of ecosystem quality in the Great Lakes basin. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. Windsor, Ontario, 169 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Schindler, D. W. 1987. Detecting ecosystem respnse to anthropogenic stress.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44 (suppl. 1): 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shradre-Frechette, K. S. 1991. Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 312 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Suter, G. W. 1993. Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 538 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Tukey, J. W. 1960. Conclusions vs decisions.Technometrics 2: 423–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vaughan, D. S., and K. D. Kumar. 1982. Entrainment mortality of ichthyoplankton: Detectability and precision of estimates.Environmental Management 6: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vaughan, D. S., and W. Van Winkle. 1982. Corrected analysis of the ability to detect reduction in year-class strength of the Hudson River white perch (Morone americana) population.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 782–785.Google Scholar
  24. Yoccoz, N. G. 1991. Commentary: Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and ecology.Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 72: 106–111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Power
    • 1
  • G. Power
    • 2
  • D. G. Dixon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations