Abstract
As all environmental programs also programs monitoring the biotic aspects of our environment (dealt with in this article) should contribute to a more effective and efficient environmental policy. These programs have to function therefore (as no other type of environmental information does, according to the authors) as cheap and efficient ‘early warning’ and ‘early control systems’, providing decision makers with ‘important’ and reliable monitoring results.
How these monitoring programs should function in the decision making process is illustrated in abstract in this article by a simple control system with feedback (as shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3).
The monitoring programs dealt with in this article should enable us to detect and forecast changes in the most important biotic aspects of our environment and-by continuous monitoring-to control whether the use of policy instruments has been effective or not in averting or diminishing unwanted changes (‘problems’).
Two options of decision makers with respect to monitoring results are shown (either to disregard unwanted changes as a problem or to accept these changes as a problem and to do something about them). To contribute to an effective and efficient environmental policy monitoring results therefore have to be ‘important’ and reliable enough to react upon.
The question is raised which biotic aspects in our environment are (or have to be considered as) important (because of their own value, as indicators and/or as biotic ‘conditions’) and how reliable monitoring results can (have to) be obtained.
It is discussed how environmentalists could try to make it more difficult for decision makers to duck the problems (by monitoring only important aspects and by using only perfectly clear targets and standards) and how they could try at the same time to make it easier for them to take action (by setting up integrated ‘environmental monitoring programs’ in order to find out how desired and undesired changes can be influenced). The role of active publicity is stressed in this connection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Janssen, M. P. J. M., Van Latesteijn, H. C., and Meijers, E. J. M.: 1983, ‘Biologische meetnetten: meten aan de natuur—een studie naar een aantal methodologische aspecten van beleidsgerichte biologische meetnetten; deel 1: hoofdrapport’. Rapport van de Onderzoeksgroep Milieubiologie en het Instituut voor Theoretische Biologie der R. U. Leiden, Leiden, oktober 1983.
Meijers, E. M. J.: 1986, ‘Defining Confusions-Confusing Definitions’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 7, 157–159 (this issue).
Meijers, E. M. J. and Van Selm, A. J.: 1982, ‘Een literatuurstudie ten behoeve van de opzet van een biologisch meetnet’, Rapport van de Vakgroep Milieubiologie der R.U. Leiden. Leiden, juni/juli 1982.
Meijers, E. M. J., Ter Keurs, W. J., and Meelis, E.: 1983, ‘Biologische meetnetten voor het beleid’, WLO-mededelingen 9, 1, 51–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ter Keurs, W.J., Meelis, E. Monitoring the biotic aspects of our environment as a policy instrument. Environ Monit Assess 7, 161–168 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00398694
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00398694