Skip to main content

Gauging Networks for Wetland Monitoring

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Wetland Book
  • 264 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen F, Burgess N, Balmford A. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv. 2005;14:2507–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JNCC. Common standards monitoring guidance for lowland wetland habitats. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poteete AR, Olstrom E. Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Chang. 2004;35:435–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroh P, Hughes F. Practical approaches to wetland monitoring: guidelines for landscape scale, long-term projects. Cambridge, UK: Anglia Ruskin University; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:305–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seb Buckton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Buckton, S. (2018). Gauging Networks for Wetland Monitoring. In: Finlayson, C.M., et al. The Wetland Book. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9659-3_295

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics