The Wetland Book pp 1795-1801 | Cite as

Gauging Networks for Wetland Monitoring

  • Seb Buckton
Reference work entry


Participatory monitoring of wetlands can provide a cost-effective alternative to conventional scientific monitoring which suffers from a number of constraints (such as high costs, difficult logistics of implementation, and sometimes scientific emphasis with little relevance to management). There is evidence that participatory monitoring provides a powerful complementary approach that enhances conservation management interventions even where conventional monitoring is already taking place. It provides relevant information for management, promotes participation of local people in management, and can be sustained using local resources. Generic methods that are suitable for participatory monitoring include patrol records, simple transects, species lists, on-the-ground photography, and village group discussions. A limitation for the application of these methods is that in some situations, conventional professional monitoring is required under national or international conservation legislation. Examples of participatory monitoring from the UK, USA, Australia, and Madagascar are given.


Wetland monitoring Community participation Conservation management 


  1. Andrianandrasana HT, Randriamahefasoa J, Durbin J, Lewis RE, Ratsimbazafy JH. Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetlands in Madagascar. Biodivers Conserv. 2005;14:2757–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brereton TM, Cruickshanks KL, Risely K, Noble DG, Roy DB. Developing and launching a wider countryside butterfly survey across the United Kingdom. J Insect Conserv. 2011;15:279–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Danielsen F, Burgess N, Balmford A. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv. 2005;14:2507–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Danielsen F, Mendoza MM, Tagtag A, Alviola PA, Balete DS, Jensen AE, Enghoff M, Poulsen MK. Increasing conservation management action by involving local people in natural resource monitoring. Ambio. 2007;36:566–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hockley NJ, Jones JPG, Andriahajaina FB, Manica A, Ranambitsoa EH, Randriamboahary JA. When should communities and conservationists monitor exploited resources? Biodivers Conserv. 2005;14:2795–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. JNCC. Common standards monitoring guidance for lowland wetland habitats. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Poteete AR, Olstrom E. Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Chang. 2004;35:435–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Stroh P, Hughes F. Practical approaches to wetland monitoring: guidelines for landscape scale, long-term projects. Cambridge, UK: Anglia Ruskin University; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:305–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.StroudUK

Personalised recommendations