Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? Kerry A. Waylen a,⁎, Kirsty L. Blackstock a, Freddy J. van Hulst a,1, Carmen Damian b, Ferenc Horváth c, Richard K. Johnson d, Robert Kanka e, Mart Külvik f, Christopher J.A. Macleod g, Kristian Meissner h, Mihaela M. Oprina-Pavelescu b, Joan Pino i, Eeva Primmer h, Geta Rîșnoveanu b, Barbora Šatalová e, Jari Silander j, Jana Špulerová e, Monika Suškevičs f, Jan Van Uytvanck k a Social, Economic & Geographical Sciences, The James Hutton Institute, Cragiebuckler, Scotland AB15 8QH, UK b Department of Systems Ecology and Sustainability, University of Bucharest, 91-95 Spl. Independentei, Bucharest 050095, Romania c Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Alkotmány u. 2-4, 2163 Vácrátót, Hungary d Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7050, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden e Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Stefanikova 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia f Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51006 Tartu, Estonia g Information and Computational Sciences, The James Hutton Institute, Cragiebuckler, Scotland AB15 8QH, UK h Programme for Environmental Information, Finnish Environment Institute - SYKE, Survontie 9a, 40500 Jyväskylä, Finland i Centre for Research on Ecology and Forestry Applications - CREAF, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Catalonia, Spain j Freshwater Centre, Finnish Environment Institute - SYKE, P.O. Box 140 00251, Helsinki, Finland k Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Havenlaan 88 bus 73, 1000 Brussels, Belgium H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T • Policy strongly influences Monitoring & Graphical abstract showing the key focus and findings of this study on policy-based monitoring Evaluation (M&E) of socio-ecological systems. • We examine M&E of 3 major European policies in 9 regional and national cases. • Policy-driven M&E is imperfect versus ideals of M&E to support adaptive man- agement. • Attention needed to systems, social issues, sharing data, and sharing intended uses. • Examples from across Europe and different policies offer ideas for improvement. a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio- Received 12 September 2018 ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: how- Received in revised form 29 December 2018 ever, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. Accepted 30 December 2018 We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri- Available online 4 January 2019 Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: Kerry.Waylen@hutton.ac.uk (K.A. Waylen). 1 Present address: School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, University of Reading, Agriculture building, Early gate, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AR, UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462 0048-9697/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 374 K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 Editor: Damia Barcelo environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly Keywords: available documentation across nine regional and national cases. Adaptive management The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, Environmental governance we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive manage- Policy Monitoring & evaluation ment. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interven- Socio-ecological systems tions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and Sustainability processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several coun- tries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems. © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1. Introduction The objectives of this study are: Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are essential to adaptive manage- 1. To describe site-level monitoring and evaluation (M&E) driven by ment (Stem et al., 2005). However, monitoring practices are often re- three European-level policies; ported to be inadequate, limiting evaluation and learning within the 2. To compare existing practice to criteria for M&E advocated to support adaptive management cycle (e.g. Engel-Cox and Hoff, 2005; Margoluis adaptive management; in terms of (i) what should be monitored (ii) et al., 2009). Contemporary environmental management is no longer how monitoring should be carried out and (iii) how monitoring in- solely focused on single sites and single issues but must take account formation should be used in decision-making; and of ongoing global changes and challenges (Pahl-Wostl, 2007), which 3. To explore implications and recommendations for improving M&E to complicate the existing challenges of achieving sustainable and equita- better support adaptive management. ble outcomes from socio-ecological systems. The need for flexible ap- proaches that involve multiple actors working across multiple levels is In the following sections we review the literature to explore ideals an essential prerequisite for achieving societal objectives in the face of for M&E that would best support adaptive management, before describ- global change (Duit et al., 2010). This is particularly pressing given the ing the policies we focus on in this study, and our methods for doing so. need for progress to the international agreed objectives set by the Sus- We address the first objective by describing our cases and current prac- tainable Development Goals, which reinforce the need to consider tices for M&E across the three policies. The findings section focuses on socio-ecological systems and interconnections (Hajer et al., 2015; findings relevant to the second objective. These are structured accord- Nilsson et al., 2016). Thus, M&E should ideally enable environmental ing to the topics of monitoring, methods of monitoring, and then the managers to respond to new understandings, changing contexts and uses of this information in evaluation and decision-making. We address goals. the last objective by discussing the implications for future research and Policies designed to safeguard or improve the environment re- practice. main a key influence on environmental management practices (Jordan et al., 2005). Conversely, successful environmental manage- 2. What should monitoring & evaluation consist of, to support ment is often judged in terms of whether the management practices adaptive management? have achieved these environmental policy objectives (Mickwitz, 2003). However, despite the importance of policies, their influences Adaptive management, at its simplest, is conducting natural re- specifically on M&E of management practices have not been suffi- source management “in a manner that purposely and explicitly aims ciently examined. Some accounts suggest statutory policy require- at increasing knowledge and reducing uncertainty” (Holling, 1978). A ments may not match with what is actually needed to inform large body of theory and practice has developed on this topic management (e.g. Chapman, 2012), and that regulatory inflexibility (Macleod et al., 2016; Rist et al., 2013). The adaptive management can impede adaptive management (e.g. McLain and Lee, 1996), so a cycle (Fig. 1) entails designing and revising plans so as to allow knowl- closer examination of this topic is vital. edge collection that informs decision-making about management. Addi- We address this gap in the literature by exploring the monitoring tionally, the need to involve stakeholders at every part of this cycle has programmes entailed by three European environmental policies. The been emphasised by a literature on ‘adaptive co-management’ (Olsson European Union (EU) is often considered a world‑leader in adopting et al., 2004). Although different authors emphasise different aspects of policy designed to protect and enhance ecosystems and environmental adaptive management– some focus on the need for systems approaches quality (Kelemen, 2010; Zito, 2005), and so we have chosen three policy (e.g. Williams, 2011) whilst other focus on strengthening stakeholder areas associated with European environmental management: the Water involvement (e.g. Armitage et al., 2009) – all highlight the need to en- Framework Directive (WFD); The Natura 2000 network of protected able learning by those trying to achieve management objectives. Moni- areas; and Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) within the Rural Develop- toring the effects of past actions provides information needed for this ment Programmes of the Common Agricultural Policy. Exploring their learning; therefore M&E is pivotal to adaptive management, in order implications is timely given the 20th anniversary of Aarhus (UNECE, to inform and update future decisions about environmental 1998), which demands stakeholder access to information, consultation management. and active involvement in environmental management, and hence The adaptive management literature tends to focus on how learning should reinforce the demand for M&E that is transparent and and change could occur at the level of management practices, though democratic. there is scope to link this with other governance levels. In this paper K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 375 Fig. 1. The adaptive management cycle, adapted from various sources and in particular Macleod et al. (2016). we similarly focus on this level, i.e. primarily considering M&E at the should ideally be tracked before and after treatments are applied, e.g. level of specific management interventions and specific management - before-after-control-impact (BACI) and related designs (Conner objectives, rather than M&E of the overarching EU policies themselves et al., 2016). Careful monitoring design may seem overwhelming (e.g. WFD, Natura 2000 or CAP). The term “public policy” refers to a given the plethora of objectives to be considered (Strobl and Robillard, stated objective and intention by the State: though often associated 2008), but is needed or it can become impossible to distinguish between with legislation passed at the national-level, the term can encompass the effects of design, implementation or other factors (Hermans et al., a range of levels from the regional through to EU and a range of activi- 2013). Relevant information can be gathered and pooled from a variety ties. In the language of policy studies, we focus on the implementation of sources providing data in a variety of formats, including both qualita- of ‘level one’ steering policies. In other words, the subsidiary levels tive and quantitative sources (Patton, 2010). Related to this, informa- where the goals and objectives from ‘level one’ steering policies (WFD, tion should ideally be collected and analysed with the input broad Natura 2000, CAP) are operationalised with concrete manifestations in support of a range of stakeholders in the system. This can not only en- particular settings and places (Mickwitz et al., 2009). This is a focus hance the knowledge base, but also support transparency and legiti- that can help build knowledge of environmental policy implementation macy of the management process itself (e.g. Krasny et al., 2014). (Rauschmayer et al., 2009). Of course, monitoring by itself is insufficient: evaluation is also re- Our understanding of M&E appropriate to support adaptive manage- quired, and the results used to inform decisions about environmental ment draws strongly on the review of monitoring ideals contained management in order to fulfil the adaptive management cycle within Waylen and Blackstock (2017). This paper builds on a suite of (Mickwitz, 2003; Schoenefeld and Jordan, 2017). There are many existing literature that emphasises the need to consider both the subject forms and objectives for evaluation (e.g. ex-ante, formative, substantive and process of monitoring, i.e. both ‘what’ and ‘how’. Studying the ef- or ex-post) that all aim to systematically analyse evidence to make fects of actions is necessary but it is important to also build understand- judgements about whether objectives have been achieved (Mark ing about systems' processes (e.g. Cundill and Fabricius, 2009), socio- et al., 2006). Both the monitoring data – as well as a description of economic dimensions (e.g. Chapman, 2014), and context that influences how these data are expected to be used – should be openly available the system (Morandi et al., 2014); so that the cumulative effects on the and accessible, as transparency is widely accepted as principles of system can be assessed. All these approaches are needed to build confi- good governance (Lockwood et al., 2010) that can support adaptive dent understanding of the effect of interventions or management ac- management (Chaffin et al., 2014). Therefore, it is important to under- tions. For example, it is useful to monitor lake water quality before stand if and how the data are used to evaluate progress towards man- and after a management intervention e.g. to reduce effects of eutrophi- agement goals (i.e. not simply using data to describe system states) cation, but to understand the treatment's effects, information is also and how this new knowledge is connected with reviewing past man- needed about other ecosystem processes and changes in the lake (e.g. agement actions and making new management decisions. Thus feed- changes in aquatic production and respiration rates), connectivity, back and learning can potentially encompass decisions at any level up other activities in the lake (e.g. pollution from recreational uses), and to national or supra-national institutions – the idea of ‘adaptive gover- large-scale changes that directly or indirectly influence the system nance’ (Chaffin et al., 2014) – so for example at the level of European (such as seasonal changes in precipitation patterns). These factors and national environmental policy design. Such policy change is in 376 K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 principle possible, given the ‘Fitness checks’ to which many European Table 1 policies have been subject (European Commission, 2012), though adap- The criteria and questions used to structure analysis of monitoring programmes for each policy in every case. tive management is not explicitly cited in those checks. Often, studies refer to a policy cycle spanning the process by which a What is monitored? policy is developed, formalised, implemented, evaluated and adjusted • To understand (eco)system processes, • Is there monitoring of both abiotic both biotic and abiotic elements and biotic indicators? as needed, although this should be thought of as a heuristic rather should be monitored, with a focus on • Is there monitoring of interactions? than describing the reality of the policy process (Cairney, 2011; the interactions that form the system • Is information relevant to under- Jokinen et al., 2018). Therefore, there are similarities with the adaptive or ecological community. standing ecological aspects of the sys- management cycle (Fig. 1) and in an ideal world we therefore expect tem available from other sources, but not used as secondary data? policies that shape environmental management to also encourage • To understand social and economic • Is any social or economic information M&E appropriate for adaptive management. Given that EU policies are aspects of systems, these issues monitored? the drivers, we are therefore focused on the ‘inside’ or ‘formal’ evalua- should be monitored, likely entailing • Is information relevant to under- tion led by governments, rather than any ‘outside’ or ‘informal’ evalua- coverage of demographics, economics standing the social or economic tion led by civil society (Hildén et al., 2014; Weiss, 1993). We would and social attitudes and preferences. aspects of the system available from other sources, but not used as sec- expect these formal monitoring programmes to guide the collection of ondary data? information about several aspects of a socio-ecological system that is • To understand system change, • What aspects of context are incorpo- the target for management, using a range of information sources and in- influential aspects of the Social, rated into the monitoring programme volving a range of stakeholders. The resultant information should be re- Technical, Environmental, Economic (Social, Technical, Environmental, and Policy context should be Economic, Policy)? ported and used to inform decision-making at one or more levels. This monitored. • Is information relevant to under- learning process should be documented and available to public scrutiny standing the context available from to fulfil the Aarhus objectives (Mason, 2010). other sources, but not used as sec- It is unclear whether we can reasonably expect policy-driven moni- ondary data? toring to perfectly satisfy these requirements at every level, from site How is monitoring carried out? management through to national or European policy reviews, since • Monitoring should use targeted • What secondary data are used in the each level may have different priorities for learning and adaptation. Fur- collection of primary data and also monitoring programme? How? thermore, the implementation of any environmental policy always oc- relevant secondary data where available. curs in the context of other policies and non-subsidiary objectives, • Data provision can involve a range of • Do state or also non-state agencies whose goals may be added to monitoring and evaluation programmes. individuals and organisations to provide monitoring data? Therefore, we may find practices do not reflect the ideals of what is improve data coverage as well as • Is there any use of citizen science? monitored and how monitoring should be carried out, as set out engagement. above and summarised in Table 1. However, whatever occurs, the ex- • Monitoring data should be accessible • Are the monitoring data publicly to its users and the public. available and accessible? pected and actual uses of monitoring information should be explicitly • Are processes of data synthesis and stated. Transparently documenting all processes of learning and interpretation described anywhere? updating management will best enable future learning and stakeholder • Do any more general data-sharing involvement (Cundill and Fabricius, 2009); and lead to more effective polices affect how monitoring is shared? outcomes for the socio-ecological system. Unfortunately, many monitoring and evaluation processes have How is monitoring information used in decision-making? been reported as imperfect or inadequate. There is often an undue • The process by which monitoring data • Are any evaluation reports available? are expected to be used in decision If so, how are these used? focus on biological or biophysical indicators (Brierley et al., 2010) with- making should be transparent and • Is there any information on the pro- out understanding how an intervention contributed to these (e.g. publicly accessible. cess by which management is Margoluis et al., 2009), and insufficient attention to socio-economic as- redesigned, and how monitoring pects (e.g. Waylen and Blackstock, 2017) whilst overlooking non- should feed into that? scientific sources and non-quantitative types of knowledge (e.g. • Monitoring data should be used to • Are the management actions ever inform and update management. updated/changed? McLain and Lee, 1996). Since these studies sometimes cite requirements • If so, is it known how monitoring data or restrictions by higher-levels as constraining project and programme is feeds into these changes? M&E (McLain and Lee, 1996; Waylen and Blackstock, 2017), this sug- • Is lack of data ever explicitly noted as gests that policy-driven M&E may often not match the ideals of adaptive a problem? • Monitoring data should be used to • Is there any public information avail- management. Policies are sometimes criticised as inflexible, but as they inform and update policy. able on the process by which national exert a strong and persistent influence on environmental management, policy has or will be redesigned? this paper not only explores where they prompt divergence from an adaptive management ideal, but also considers how policy-driven M&E could be usefully re-orientated. impeded by changes such as climate change (e.g. Heller and Zavaleta, 2009; Johnson et al., 2010). It is therefore timely to assess monitoring 3. The three policy areas explored by this study driven by these policies, and do so in terms of adaptive management, since all the policy areas must adapt to change in order to deliver on Our study explores the effects of three influential European policy their original goals and be relevant to current global challenges. areas: The Water Framework Directive (WFD); the Natura 2000 net- The WFD (2000/60/EC) provides Europe with an ambitious ap- work designated under the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive; and proach to improving the ecological status of all its freshwaters, reinforc- Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) enabled by the European Agricultural ing where relevant the Natura 2000 provisions (Schmedtje and Kremer, Fund for Rural Development. Many other European and national-level 2011). Actions required to achieve Good Ecological Status are captured policies also influence socio-ecological systems: however, we chose within ‘Programmes of Measures’ specified for every River Basin in these three as they are commonly associated with environmental man- Europe, which are reviewed and revised every 6-year cycles of planning agement, are all well-established, and provide a common basis for ter- and implementation (European Commission, 2010). The WFD has restrial and freshwater management across Europe. Despite their catalysed significant effort to re-organise water management around prominence, each policy is experiencing challenges which threaten to aquatic ecology and catchments, yet still faces challenges in tackling compromise legitimacy (OECD, 2015) and which may be further the full range of pressures, dealing with dynamic systems, and K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 377 understanding anthropogenic factors (Bouleau and Pont, 2015; Hering Lastly, monitoring of AES is required by Title VII of the Rural Devel- et al., 2010; Kampa et al., 2012; Voulvoulis et al., 2017). opment regulation (1305/2013), within a monitoring and evaluation Biodiversity protection is most associated with Natura 2000 network framework covering the whole of CAP set up under Article 110 of of sites to safeguard endangered habitats and species (Evans, 2012) des- Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the ignated under the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and Habitats Directive Council of 17 December 2013 on the Financing, Management and Monitor- (92/43/EEC). Member states must take conservation measures for each ing of the Common Agricultural Policy and Repealing Council Regulations site, which will often entail a management plan (European Commission, (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, 2013). These measures may be revised to reflect new knowledge or (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ L 347 of 20.12.2013), changes in site status, but there is no fixed timetable or requirement 2013. Under Title VII, Article 68 states “The monitoring and evaluation to do so. Natura 2000 is now well recognised, with many sites desig- system shall aim to: (a) demonstrate the progress and achievements nated, yet the network is often thought to lack either political or local of rural development policy and assess the impact, effectiveness, effi- support, which limits the resources available for designing or ciency and relevance of rural development policy interventions; implementing site management (Kati et al., 2015). (b) contribute to better targeted support for rural development; In the wider landscape beyond these designated sites, the European (c) support a common learning process related to monitoring and eval- Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (Regulation 1305/2013; oth- uation.” Article 75 requires this information to be reported yearly. M&E erwise known as the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy) receives more attention than in earlier years of CAP implementation is important as it requires member states to create Rural Development (European Commission, 2017b) although the specification of what Programmes containing one or more AES (The European Parliament must be monitored and reported is less tightly prescribed than for the and Council of the European Union, 2013). These schemes provide fi- WFD or Natura 2000. Since 2014 member states have been obliged to nancial support for farmers to deliver environmental improvements to evaluate their agri-environment programmes – i.e. collections of AES – their land – for example, by providing wildlife-friendly habitats. They in relation to socio-economic, agricultural and environmental aspects are a major source of conservation funding in Europe (Batáry et al., (The European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development, 2015): 2015), affecting approximately 25% of its agricultural land (Science for however, most evaluation studies simply examine uptake and spending Environment Policy, 2017). These programmes are periodically revised on different schemes within programmes. This means the consequences as part of the wider Common Agricultural Policy cycle, every seven of those schemes are often poorly understood (Allen et al., 2014). years. AES can produce positive effects for wildlife on farmland, but Every member state or region that implements these policies must their effectiveness depends strongly on design and targeting (Batáry comply with their legislative requirements on monitoring and et al., 2015). reporting: they are of course free to go beyond these, but in practice compliance with policy often uses much of the resources available for 3.1. Monitoring programmes designated by each policy environmental management. The resources dedicated to monitoring are rarely explicit in absolute terms, or in relation to the overall spend- Importantly, each policy stipulates some form of monitoring and ing on policy implementation. However, we can infer that resources al- evaluation within their policy framework, though none of these moni- located will relate to the scope of monitoring that is prescribed. For the toring programmes have been designed to explicitly support site spe- WFD, monitoring is an important part of the directive's design, and cific adaptive management. Monitoring for the WFD is an important tightly prescribed and relatively inflexible with respect to novel meth- part of the directive and relatively tightly prescribed by Articles 5 and odologies due to the requirements of intercalibration, so all 8. Every member state in Europe must use standardized or comparable implementing agencies must use considerable resources to comply methodology (European Commission, 2009a) to monitor multiple as- with the required monitoring programme (Hering et al., 2018; Leese pects of the ecological status for every waterbody (European Commis- et al., 2018). Monitoring may receive less attention under the other sion, 2009b). Specific guidance on monitoring has been developed, as two policy areas since their monitoring methods are less tightly pre- part of the Common Implementation Strategy for the Directive scribed, although all three policies share the requirement for some de- (European Commission, 2003). The directive allows for three types of gree of pan-EU comparability (Waterton and Wynne, 2004). For monitoring: long-term “surveillance monitoring”, to provide a broad example, combining and comparing various pieces of information al- understanding of trends in the state of freshwaters; “operational moni- lows us to estimate that Scotland's budget for monitoring AES is less toring” to understand problems where waterbodies are in a in less than than 1% of its total budget for AES implementation.2 However, it is not good condition; and potentially “investigative monitoring” when Sup- usually possible to directly estimate or compare effort or resources be- plementary information is required to understand events (European tween cases or policies. Commission, 2009b). Although primary data collection is not needed Although each policy shapes M&E, none has been designed with ex- to report on every aspect in every waterbody, even carrying out the sur- plicit reference to adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. In veillance monitoring still entails a significant investment in data collec- particular, the Natura 2000 network, the oldest policy area we analyse, tion, analysis and modelling (Dworak et al., 2005; Hering et al., 2010). predates the widespread use of terms such as ‘socio-ecological systems’, Natura 2000 directives specify that protected habitats and species and has goals that focus on achieving the protection of individual spe- must be monitored (according to Article 11 of the Habitats Directive) cies and static habitats, rather than whole systems. Thus we may well whilst Article 17 of the Habitats Directive requires Member States to re- expect that the M&E processes entailed by these policies do not reflect port to the European Commission every six years on progress made adaptive management or systems approaches. Despite this, it is still ap- with implementation, incorporating reporting under the Birds Direc- propriate to ask to what extent these policies can enable M&E that sup- tive. There has been less guidance for monitoring than for the WFD. ports adaptive management, since this perspective is now widely The Commission's website (European Commission, 2017a) states that agreed as essential for sustainable and equitable outcomes from envi- “As the main focus of the directive is on maintaining and/or restoring ronmental management (Scott et al., 2015). a favourable conservation status for habitat types & species of commu- nity interest, monitoring & reporting under the directive is focusing on 2 that”. Assessments of conservation status are based on four parameters The 2014–2020 budget for AES implementation in Scotland is £355 million (http:// (for habitats, they are range, area, structure and functions, and future www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00514108.pdf). This is about 25–30% of the total SRDP bud- get of £1.326bn. The budget for monitoring AES in Scotland (as evident from invitation to prospects; for species they are range, population, habitat of species tender for monitoring the 2014–20 SRDP AES) is £350 k-£400 k, which includes monitor- and future prospects) however, by contrast with the WFD there are no ing of ‘greening’ measures which are not part of AES (https://www. prescribed methods for assessing these parameters. publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAR238898). 378 K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 3.2. Policy implementation at the national and regional levels publicly available documentation about monitoring under each policy area in their case. They then documented policy-driven monitoring in European policies are always transposed into national law, or di- their country or region, for all three policy areas, using a common tem- rectly into regional law within countries which directly devolve envi- plate. The templates were filled in based on information available from ronmental policy to the regional level (such as Spain, Belgium and the publicly available documents, with references to these documents made UK). Therefore here we focus on policy implementation in nine geo- for all statements within the completed templates. To ensure that each graphical cases, of which six are EU member states; Estonia; Finland, team had identified the relevant publicly available documents, mem- Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden; and of which three are re- bers consulted experts from their networks. To ensure comparability, gions within member states; Catalonia, Scotland, Flanders. These cases we have explicitly used only publicly-available documentation, even encompass a wide range of institutional and bio-climatic conditions, when participants, their institutions or other experts may have inside and the length of time they have been implementing the policies, and tacit knowledge of the practical implementation of monitoring of their approaches to transposing and implementing the policies. There- some schemes. fore, there will be limits to the comparability of our cases; however, The information was then compared and discussed at a structured we expect that any commonalities or trends across this diverse group three-day workshop, in which the data from each partner was gathered are likely to be generated by the common policy. into matrices of policies and countries to facilitate the identification of Every case defined the level of management as follows: for the WFD, patterns. The workshop followed a structured process of looking for pat- Programmes of Measures designed to improve the ecological status of terns by making comparisons across the directives and across countries; waterbodies; for Natura 2000, management plans to safeguard species ambiguities and inconsistencies were also discussed; and preliminary and habitats on designated sites; for the Rural Development Pro- themes and implications were iterated. A revised template (see Supple- gramme, AES that operate at the farm-scale. These were chosen as mentary material) was then used to consolidate and supplement this they correspond to the level at which officially designated monitoring first set of information, to clarify ambiguities and answer new questions. procedures also operate: for the WFD, the official WFD monitoring pro- The set of public documents used by for analysis of the nine cases is re- gramme in each country, plus any plans for monitoring of measures that ported in a companion Data In Brief article, together with the resulting were listed within River Basin Management Plans; for Natura 2000, tables of responses to each of the questions below, for all three policies monitoring guidance for sites, plus any plans for monitoring of mea- in all nine cases. The completed templates were used to answer ques- sures listed in the site plans; and for AES in the Rural Development tions that allowed appraisal of M&E against the main criteria describing Programmes, monitoring guidance for AES, plus any country-specific ‘what information is collected’, ‘how is monitoring carried out?’ and statements about how they apply the EU Common Evaluation and Mon- ‘how is monitoring information used in decision-making’ (see itoring Framework for the whole Common Agricultural Policy. Table 1). These criteria for evaluation were derived from the review of M&E to support adaptive management in Waylen and Blackstock 4. Data collection and analysis (2017), and structure the findings reported in the following section. Therefore, the paper presents the collective analysis (completed at the The research methodology is based on qualitative analysis, which re- workshop and through follow-up co-author virtual meetings) of a lies on looking for patterns based on texts and interpretation of those large set of documents using a common set of criteria and based on de- texts (Silverman, 2004). The basis of ‘validity’ and ‘reliability’ is different liberation regarding how to interpret and consolidate these rich data. to statistically-based analyses: ‘validity’ comes from using a theoretically-derived approach and member checks (i.e. explicitly 5. Findings questioning interpretations of data), whilst ‘reliability’ comes from transparency about approach and recognition of and reflection on sub- We review what we found about monitoring and its uses, discussing jectivity. It recognises the importance of interpretation in analysis of each of the main analytic criteria and then discussing any differences data; and requires explicit deliberation about what we understand between policies. Table 2 presents an overview of our results, which rather than believing that results are self-evident. Our thematic analysis are discussed below. These broad analyses necessarily synthesise mes- was based in the theoretically-derived criteria for M&E highlighted in sages and thereby remove the nuances within the detailed data; but Table 1, with these criteria explicitly questioned, discussed and revised help illustrate the main points arising from the comparative approach. before and during their application. In summary, whilst there is some variation in practices between each Furthermore, the approach adopted a collective approach to analysis policy area, none can be said to perfectly match what is required to sup- and interpretation of data using deliberation by experts from a range of port adaptive management. perspectives. This approach is increasingly used in environmental and conservation science, bringing together plural perspectives to ensure a 5.1. What is monitored? deeper and richer approach to analysis of data (e.g. Bartke et al., 2018; Sutherland et al., 2011). All co-authors also reflected on their own and Monitoring under the WFD included both biotic and abiotic compo- others' personal expectations, and backgrounds, to support a continu- nents, and was relatively comprehensive and consistent, allowing some ous process of member checks. The mix of co-authors reflects a wide but not all aspects of ecosystem functioning to be understood. However, range of disciplinary backgrounds (e.g. from sociology to hydrologists), there was potentially redundancy in some information collected, as sev- and the resulting mix provided a good means to complement different eral taxonomic groups must be monitored even though they are likely expertise, highlight ambiguities or inconsistencies, and to reflect on dif- to respond similarly to common pressures, such as eutrophication. fering epistemologies and subjectivities. There was less evidence of efforts designed to track the effects of man- The first step in the methodology was to recruit teams to investigate agement actions. The Natura 2000 directives often require habitat qual- and represent the effects of policy-driven monitoring in their country or ity to be understood but provide less insight into ecosystem processes, region. The lead authors advertised for and selected teams to capture a though drivers of some processes are tracked (e.g. hunting pressures) spread of cases across Europe, representing both biogeographical diver- often at the discretion of implementing agencies in different cases. Mon- sity (i.e. from Mediterranean to boreal settings) and institutional vari- itoring of AES was usually the most limited and narrowly focused on ability (e.g. in length of time in which European policies have been reporting management activities with little monitoring of resultant eco- implemented). This sample provided sufficient diversity to compare logical outcomes, i.e. checking the status of certain bird or plant species. and contrast approaches; whilst allowing data-management to remain There was considerable variation between cases: some such as Scotland feasible. Each team of co-authors searched for and reviewed any carry out limited or no evaluation of the consequences of schemes K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 379 Table 2 Summary of monitoring and evaluation practices driven by each policy, in the 9 cases, as appraised against our criteria (see Table 1) for M&E to support adaptive management. Traffic light symbols of green, amber and red respectively indicate good, moderate and poor compliance with the criteria. The ziz-zag symbol indicates very variable practices across cases, and ques- tion symbols indicate lack of publicly-available data. Evaluation Criteria Policy areaa Natura 2000 WFD AES What is monitored? • Ability to understand ecosystem processes Some but mainly focused on biotic processes Yes, some understanding of processes is Limited due to field and target species possible. scale focus • Ability to understand social and economic aspects of systems Some cases measure human pressures on Some information collected to understand Farm attributes and protected sites and species causes of pressures activities often measured • Ability to understand contextb Some cases track external pressures on Limited beyond that needed to Context not usually system e.g. from climate change understand pressures measured How is monitoring is carried out? • Use of secondary informationc Yes Very little Varies greatly between cases • Involvement of non-state actors Common - Non-state organisations and Occasional involvement of non-state Uncommon, except citizen science often used organisations for some subcontractors • Public availability and accessibility of Databases of species often available Information on ecological status often Usually limited or monitoring data available but not raw data non-existent How is monitoring information used in decision-making? • Transparency of intended process for Not well documented Not well documented Not well evaluating and using monitoring data in management documented • Publicly documented uses of monitoring data Monitoring data sometimes is used, but in In some cases but not others there is a Cannot answer as to update or adapt managementd many cases it is too early to answer this question clear link to revised programmes of measures not well documented • Publicly documented uses of monitoring data to revise policy Cannot answer as not well documented Cannot answer as not well Cannot answer as documented not well documented a Summary based on reviewing publicly available information about implementation of the official monitoring programmes for each policy in our 9 countries. This table solely focuses on common themes across countries: however, where implementation varies greatly between countries this is noted. b Potential aspects of context include Social, Technical, Environmental, Economic, Policy, following the ‘STEEP’ typology (Bradfield et al., 2005). c We distinguish between primary data (information collected as part of official monitoring programme for the policy) and secondary data (information collected for other policies and purposes). Secondary data is only included in this analysis if we know it is incorporated into monitoring or evaluation. d Management under each policy is defined as: WFD; Programmes of Measures, Natura 2000; Site Management Plans and EAFRD; Agri-Environment Schemes. whereas countries such as Romania and Estonia collect information on a WFD most strongly relied on primary data collection: though secondary range of abiotic and biotic indicators relevant to assessing the impact of data were sometimes used (i.e. soil erosion maps and ‘biological evalu- schemes. ation’ maps in Flanders) but this remains a minor and exceptional input Across all three directives there was some social and economic infor- into evaluation. Monitoring programmes for the Natura 2000 policies mation collected in the monitoring schemes, especially under Natura also relied mainly on primary data collection, but some cases also 2000, as requirements to monitor ‘pressures’ on habitats had led some have a significant input of secondary data, such as Seabird 2000 and countries to monitor forestry, agriculture, urbanisation, tourism and Wetland Bird Surveys led by statutory agencies in Scotland. Sweden hunting. For the other directives social and economic aspects were gen- and Catalonia appeared to most fully integrate secondary data into erally a negligible part of the formal monitoring or secondary data use. their Natura 2000 monitoring, sources of which include land use and cli- Many sources of information collected for other programmes and poli- mate data to establish threats on habitats and species (Sweden), and cies are overlooked as potential sources of secondary data: for example, habitat mapping and bird and butterfly abundance status (Catalonia). many places track domestic water use but do not use this in WFD mon- Monitoring under AES was most likely to rely strongly on secondary itoring. As a result, the socio-economic data that is used permits very data – e.g. satellite images are integral for compliance checks and limited insight into the interaction between humans and the ecosystem. modelling in Romania – but even so in many countries the use of sec- Related to this, the need to understand external factors that might influ- ondary data appears to be absent (Catalonia, Flanders) or more limited ence a system – for example, planned infrastructure development af- than in others (Estonia, Scotland). fecting water abstraction – was rarely stated within formal monitoring This focus on primary data collection appeared related to the domi- and evaluation programmes, even though we could see such data was nance of state agencies as the main actors involved in M&E, since these sometimes cited within plans for management. agencies or their contractors working to their standards are usually tasked with the collection of primary data. Monitoring for the WFD 5.2. How is monitoring carried out? was nearly always dominated by state agencies. Monitoring for the Natura 2000 directives was more often achieved via a mixture of state All three monitoring programmes placed a strong reliance on pri- and non-state actors, often involving NGOs (sometimes directly mary data, and although use of secondary data does occur, it is quite contracted) and sometimes relying on citizen science, especially for but- variable between places and policies. Monitoring programmes for the terflies and charismatic vertebrates such as birds and reptiles. In some 380 K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 cases the information generated by non-state actors is integral to Natura For example, a study of AES indicators in Finland has concluded that 2000 monitoring programmes: for example, Sweden has species data- they do not easily support either policy choices or management actions bases that are directly fed by citizen science, whereas other places use (Yli-Viikarä, 2011) and perhaps this is also the case elsewhere. this information more as a supplement (e.g. Estonia) and may require State agencies are usually the primary collector and user of these pri- it be validated (e.g. Catalonia). Monitoring of AES in our cases was mary data, although we observed use of other sources and types of data nearly always carried out by state agencies, probably as the private con- to be more common for the Natura 2000 network. These arrangements tractual nature of the voluntary relationship between farmers and gov- tend to reinforce the exclusion of local or experiential knowledge ob- ernment may make it more sensitive to involve non-state actors. served in other research, although the promise of citizen science is in- Availability of the resulting data to stakeholders and the wider pub- creasingly being recognised (Conrad and Hilchey, 2011). Finally, a lack lic varied widely. Monitoring data collected for WFD and Natura 2000 of transparency about decision-making hinders our ability to appraise are reasonably accessible, often via interactive web-interfaces, whilst if and how any of this monitoring is used in evaluation to influence easy access to AES data is very rare. Countries that have developed learning and change at any level. This lack of attention to the ‘back norms and policies of data-sharing (Estonia, Finland and Sweden) loop’ of the policy implementation cycle is well reported in the evalua- tend to have the most open and accessible data-sharing. Imperfect tion literature and represents a governance challenge, with potential data availability and accessibility is in turn likely to hinder transparency consequences for legitimacy (Schoenefeld and Jordan, 2017). and engagement of stakeholder groups in other parts of the adaptive Since our data rely on publicly available information, it is important management cycle. to note this may not always represent practice on the ground if this is undocumented, reflecting a common distinction between the 5.3. How is monitoring information used in decision-making? formalised depiction of institutions in texts and the reality of implemen- tation practices (Funke et al., 2007). Furthermore, sometimes we found It was usually very challenging to trace, using publicly available doc- it difficult to find or understand what was published; in other cases, we umentation, whether or how management actions were updated in re- were overwhelmed by the amount of technical detail available. There- sponse to monitoring data. We could often observe that management fore, this study summarises our expert interpretations of the published actions are updated – for example, Programme of Measures under the information and may not reflect the views of the responsible authorities WFD are revised every 6 years – but the link between these changes for these monitoring regimes in each of our cases. Whilst valuable con- and the data from the monitoring programmes is not clear. Our work- clusions emerged from the analysis, including understanding the avail- shop discussions highlighted that this apparent lack of connection ability and accessibility of monitoring data itself, we cannot claim our may occur for two reasons. Firstly, there genuinely is no link, because findings represent the full picture of how M&E data are used. These ca- the data collected are not suitable for informing management updates veats give rise to implications for policy, practice and further research. (e.g. due to issues with spatial resolution or the difficulty in attributing changes in the environment to the specific intervention). Secondly, 6.1. Implications for policy and practice there may be links between the data and updated management, but we cannot detect them because these links are not apparent in publicly Of the three policies we studied, monitoring under the WFD seemed available information. The most difficult policy area to understand was most suited to building systems understanding, whilst monitoring AES, but the feedback processes by which monitoring data were used under Natura2000 often demonstrated good involvement of stake- to review Natura 2000 site management plans and WFD programmes holders in data collection and access: however, no monitoring of measures were also opaque. Whether or not the monitoring data programmes showed a perfect fit with ideals from the literature. As were widely accessible, processes of data synthesis, evaluation and policy-driven M&E often does not match recommendations derived decision-making were rarely publicly documented. It is possible that from theory (Waylen and Blackstock, 2017) it is worthwhile to consider feedback could occur to higher-levels, such as to inform the redesign adjustments to the M&E systems that are required, guided or inspired of policies themselves, but again this was not possible to detect using by policy. High-level policies should not – and cannot - specify the publicly available information. fine detail of how to do M&E in different settings; however, policy objec- tives and requirements can help to enable M&E that will support adap- 6. Discussion tive management in different settings (Claruis et al., 2014). We recognise that the policies we studied, as for many others, have Our analysis shows that none of the studied European policies ap- not been explicitly designed around concepts of adaptive management pear to drive monitoring that is sufficient to support learning for adap- or socio-ecological systems. Furthermore, environmental policies are tive management of socio-ecological systems. Their monitoring not the only factor that can shape M&E practices – for example, in requirements do provide important information regarding trends in Europe any member state is free to go beyond the requirements of the the state of the environment and this is useful; but these data are not European Directives. However, in practice, there may often be little ap- enough to understand the full socio-ecological system. Our study sug- petite or ability to go further than compliance with their requirements gests that available data often do not enable understanding of dynamic (Vinke-de Kruijf et al., 2015). Given the influence that policy has on ecological processes, the effects of socio-economic influences, nor exter- data collection and data use in decision making, and the need to respond nal drivers, which in turn limits ability to understand the effect of man- to concerns such as climate change and the Sustainable Development agement actions. Goals (Selomane et al., 2015; Vasseur et al., 2017), it is appropriate to These findings confirm existing problems identified in the literature. consider how policy can help improve M&E. These insights are relevant The cases we studied seem to reflect and reinforce a trend for monitor- both within and beyond Europe, since the challenges of improving M&E ing to focus on narrow aspects of biophysical systems (Butler et al., and practicing adaptive management are internationally shared (Allen 2015; Hale and Adams, 2007). This may sometimes result in redundant and Gunderson, 2011). For example, in Australia, the principle of adap- information being collected on some aspects of systems (Kelly et al., tive management explicitly informs the management and evaluation of 2016), whilst generating limited understanding of socio-economic as- the whole Murray-Darling Basin (Murray-Darling Basin Authority, pects or the contextual drivers on the system to be managed (i.e. a des- 2017). ignated site, waterbody or farm). Thus, at present, monitoring often A key priority is to focus more on enabling learning about the effects seems to be seen as a technical issue, overly focussed on specified ele- of management actions. This may entail a greater attention to M&E as an ments of a system (Chapman, 2012). This partial perspective is likely essential part of the adaptive management cycle, accompanied by suffi- to limit learning by those responsible for land or water management. cient budgets: the literature suggests 10% of the total resources for K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 381 management is appropriate for monitoring (O'Sullivan, 2004). This be reported and used (Chelimsky, 2006). Doing so can foster engage- need not entail solely more primary data collection, but also investment ment and participation in adaptive management (e.g. Butler et al., in the processes of interpretation, social learning and public engage- 2015), allow observers and new actors to identify new possibilities ment (Chapman, 2014). It also entails a rebalancing of what is studied, and uses of the data, as well as enabling reflexive learning and updating to start with a more systemic approach. This may highlight trade-offs on the management cycle itself (Cundill and Fabricius, 2009). Beyond associated with investing in different data types or different aspects of these instrumental benefits to the environmental management process, the M&E process. Such reflection would benefit all of M&E programmes the anniversary of the Aarhus convention is a reminder that fostering that we studied, even programmes under the WFD, which was origi- participation in environmental decision-making is a valuable goal in it- nally intended to promote a more systemic perspective (Voulvoulis self (Mason, 2010). et al., 2017). However, the need to prioritise and rebalance monitoring There is a great deal of heterogeneity in monitoring practices, as the is particularly acute in the case of AES: these are sometimes are only three policy areas vary considerably in their remit and attention to mon- ‘monitored’ in terms of describing the distribution and spending on itoring, whilst every country and region we have studied has chosen dif- programmes; whereas adaptive management would require M&E of ferent ways to interpret and implement the policies. This study has both the activities and their consequences (see research on payment focused on the common themes across policies and cases, but the diver- by results, Hart et al., 2018). sity requires further attention. Administrative styles and cultures of nat- Enabling policy-driven M&E to support adaptive management may ural resource management vary between places (e.g. Pahl-Wostl et al., not always require significant additional resources, if there are opportu- 2008), which will affect both ongoing practices and the best ways to nities to rebalance attention towards learning about the effects of man- apply principles. For example, additional challenges - yet also additional agement actions, with less attention given to tracking trends that flexibility - may come where high-level policies are implemented cannot be related to management. Such a rebalancing may not always within federal or devolved political structures, such as Germany or the be appropriate or feasible, but should be considered especially in the UK (Verburg et al., 2016). Thus, even though we suggest that adjust- case of the WFD, where there are opportunities to reconsider the set ments to high-level policies are needed to facilitate M&E that supports of indicators that must be reported (Bouleau and Pont, 2015), i.e. adaptive management, re-appraisal is also needed at other levels. away from “surveillance” and towards “operational” monitoring. Op- Connecting principles for M&E with an in-depth understanding of con- portunities to improve the quality of monitoring and evaluation may textual factors is a logical priority for future work. As we build experi- also occur by capitalising on other initiatives that can provide secondary ence in doing so, this will then generate opportunities to share data (UNEP, 2009). Whilst not cost-free, it may be a cost-effective solu- learning across places and policies. For example, can frameworks or tion. For example, information about nitrogen depositions has not often concepts such as DPSIR (Binder et al., 2013) help to operationalise prin- been integrated into reporting under the Habitats Directive, even ciples about M&E? Are there risks to promoting transparency? What is though nitrogen depositions are a major threat to the Natura 2000 ob- an appropriate balance of efforts when trying to respond to multiple jectives (Whitfield and McIntosh, 2014). Relevant information may ideas from the literature? We can already see that monitoring under often come from initiatives not directly concerning environmental pol- the WFD offers examples of how to understand ecosystem processes; icy, especial for social and economic information. For example, many whilst monitoring of the Natura 2000 network offers experiences on cit- countries monitor outdoor recreation and access (Sievänen et al., 2008). izen involvement in monitoring and evaluation. Sharing experiences as In Europe, there are already proposals to link the reporting require- they accumulate will identify more examples and build more under- ments for some policies3 and this should perhaps go even further in the standing about strategies to improve M&E. scope of policies considered. Appraising other possible sources of infor- mation was not a central consideration for our study, but several times 6.2. Implications for research our research team could easily identify sources of information that ap- peared to be relevant. Sometimes these datasets are collected by state Trying to apply criteria for ‘ideal’ monitoring in real-world practices agencies, such as landscape maps or forestry monitoring. Other groups highlights several questions and tensions that are not easily resolved, of stakeholders may also hold relevant information and participatory in- and thus require attention from research. Otherwise, theoretically- formation systems may offer a way to ‘tap into’ this local knowledge, as derived ideas risk being seen as unworldly and inoperable by practi- well as strengthen stakeholder involvement (Behmel et al., 2016). Such tioners confronted by many competing demands and limited resources. secondary information may be particularly useful for addressing gaps in We highlight three key issues which need more attention or guidance. understanding the social processes and features – including attitudes, Firstly, the calls for transparency are not always easily achieved. Individ- preferences and activities – that are integral to understanding socio- ual and systematic barriers hinder ecological information sharing economic systems and the causes of specific environmental problems (Michener, 2015) whilst misgivings about confidentiality and transfer- (Jones et al., 2016). Overall, the priority should be to understand sys- ability might further impede sharing of socio-economic information tems in their context, targeted around what can be used in decision- (King, 2011). Some of these barriers can be tackled, often by allocating making for improved outcomes across the wider socio-ecological sys- institutional resources to enable and require data-sharing, whilst others tem, rather than collecting lots of data to give greater certainty about may prove harder to overcome. In particular, transparency can be in specific aspects of the state of the environment (Ortega-Argueta et al., tension with recommendations to widen the set of information sources 2016). that are used, since some actors may wish to protect their intellectual The processes of evaluation, interpretation, learning and decision- property or commercial data. making themselves need more attention (Cundill and Fabricius, 2009). Secondly, more information is needed about the processes and This paper has been able to report little about these, since little is pub- needs of decision-making at all levels, before monitoring and evaluation licly documented. If policy-driven M&E is not well suited to adaptive can be better targeted to support them. Existing literatures e.g. on management, we may expect it has limited influence on decision- knowledge use (Weiss, 1980) or policy implementation ‘deficits’ making about management – and may also limit what can be learnt Jordan (1999) can be used to infer some challenges that decision- by those working with higher-level policies – but we cannot know for makers face in acting on information to achieve change, but further di- sure. However, the principle of improving transparency applies not rect study of decision-making in environmental management is also only to the monitoring data but also to the processes by which it is to needed. Unfortunately, the learning and deciding part of the adaptive management cycle receives far too little attention versus the attention given, say, to revising indicators and reducing uncertainty (Allen and 3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-884453_en. Gunderson, 2011). There may also be political reasons why this happens 382 K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 – transparency about decision-making processes can risk Appendix A. Supplementary data exposing decision-makers to critiques, and identifying that changes are needed can be seen as admission of failure rather than celebrated Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. for showing responsiveness and flexibility. Learning and decision- org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462. making needs more attention (Williams and Brown, 2014) understand- ing adaptive management as a socio-political process (Voß and References Bornemann, 2011). Lastly, there is potentially a tension between employing policy to Allen, C.R., Gunderson, L.H., 2011. Pathology and failure in the design and implementation drive change, whilst also allowing flexibility. Public policies can be a of adaptive management. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (5), 1379–1384. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.063. powerful force to shape and improve environmental management prac- Allen, B., Hart, K., Radley, G., Tucker, G., Keenleyside, C., Oppermann, R., Underwood, E., tices (Jordan et al., 2005) including monitoring; but complying with Menadue, H., Poux, X., Beaufoy, G., Herzon, I., Povellato, A., Vanni, F., Pražan, J., their mandates often limits flexibility and adaptiveness (Young, 2002), Hudson, T., Yellachich, N., 2014. Biodiversity protection through results based remu- neration of ecological achievement. Report prepared for the European Commission, which are inherent to the adaptive management cycle. Allowing flexi- DG Environment, contract no ENV.B.2/ETU/2013/0046, Institute for European Envi- bility must be accompanied by efforts to safeguard processes that en- ronmental Policy, London. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/rbaps/hand- sure legitimacy (Cosens, 2013). This tension is apparent in European book/docs/rbaps-report.pdf (Accessed 13th June 2018). policies: although they allow member states flexibility in implementa- Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J., Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, tion (the principle of subsidiarity), M&E procedures are constrained by E.W., Wollenberg, E.K., 2009. Adaptive co-management for social–ecological com- the need for annual reporting and comparability, possibly due to con- plexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089. cern to ensure that environmental policy is implemented across Bartke, S., Hagemann, N., Harries, N., Hauck, J., Bardos, P., 2018. Market potential of nanoremediation in Europe – market drivers and interventions identified in a delib- Europe (Jordan and Jeppesen, 2000). The challenge of how top-down erative scenario approach. Sci. Total Environ. 619-620, 1040–1048. https://doi.org/ policies can best drive change whilst allowing flexibility, is an ongoing 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.215. challenge for research on environmental governance (Chaffin et al., Batáry, P., Dicks, L.V., Kleijn, D., Sutherland, W.J., 2015. The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 29 (4), 2014). 1006–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12536. Behmel, S., Damour, M., Ludwig, R., Rodriguez, M.J., 2016. Water quality monitoring strat- 7. Conclusion egies — a review and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 571, 1312–1329. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.235. Binder, C.R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P.W.G., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2013. Comparison of frameworks for In many ways, Europe is well endowed with ecological data, which analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4), 26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ has often resulted from the statutory requirements of environmental ES-05551-180426. doi:10.5751/ES-05551-180426. Bouleau, G., Pont, D., 2015. Did you say reference conditions? Ecological and socio- policies. However, some of the most important policies are driving mon- economic perspectives on the European Water Framework Directive. Environ. Sci. itoring that is not well-suited to the needs of adaptive management or a Pol. 47, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.012. systems approach. These policies may not have been designed to sup- Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., Van Der Heijden, K., 2005. The origins and evo- port adaptive management of socio-ecological systems, but the need lution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures 37 (8), 795–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003. to do so is increasingly obvious given global and systemic challenges Brierley, G., Reid, H., Fryirs, K., Trahan, N., 2010. What are we monitoring and why? Using like climate change. Our analysis illustrates priorities for rebalancing geomorphic principles to frame eco-hydrological assessments of river condition. Sci. M&E, which may often be facilitated by sharing examples across policies Total Environ. 408 (9), 2025–2033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.01.038. Butler, J.R.A., Young, J.C., McMyn, I.A.G., Leyshon, B., Graham, I.M., Walker, I., Baxter, J.M., and across places. Of course, it is impossible for any policy to dictate a Dodd, J., Warburton, C., 2015. Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation monitoring programme that perfectly satisfies all the varied and conflict resolution: learning from seals and salmon. J. Environ. Manag. 160, constantly-changing needs of all levels of decision-making. However, 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.019. Cairney, P., 2011. Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, improvements are possible. The time is ripe for policy to drive an ex- Basingstoke, England. plicit reconsideration of how and why we monitor, to best enable learn- Chaffin, B.C., Gosnell, H., Cosens, B.A., 2014. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: ing and action for sustainable environmental management. synthesis and future directions. Ecol. Soc. 19 (3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824- 190356. Chapman, P.M., 2012. Adaptive monitoring based on ecosystem services. Sci. Total Envi- Acknowledgements ron. 415, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.03.036. Chapman, S., 2014. A framework for monitoring social process and outcomes in environ- mental programs. Eval. Program Plann. 47, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. We thank the ALTER-Net High Impact Action for its financial support evalprogplan.2014.07.004. for the study that has led to this paper. ALTER-Net (http://www.alter- Chelimsky, E., 2006. The purposes of evaluation in a democratic society. In: Shaw, I., net.info/) is a network of partner institutes who research biodiversity Greene, J.C., Mark, M.L. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. SAGE, London, and ecosystem services and inform policymakers and the public about pp. 33–55. Claruis, M.H., Fatichi, S., Allan, A., Fuhrer, J., Stoffel, M., Romerio, F., Gaudard, L., Burlando, these topics. The research time for KAW, KLB, KM and FH was funded P., Beniston, M., Xoplaki, E., Toreti, A., 2014. Governing and managing water resources by the Scottish Government Strategic Research Programme 2016-21. under changing hydro-climatic contexts: the case of the upper Rhone basin. Environ. Research time for JP was funded by CREAF (Centre for Ecological Re- Sci. Pol. 43, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.11.005. Conner, M.M., Saunders, W.C., Bouwes, N., Jordan, C., 2016. Evaluating impacts using a search and Forestry Applications) and the Autonomous University of BACI design, ratios, and a Bayesian approach with a focus on restoration. Environ. Barcelona. Each author team would also like to thank colleagues who Monit. Assess. 188 (10), 555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5526-6. provided input or expert feedback: in Catalonia, Carles Castells (Barce- Conrad, C.C., Hilchey, K.G., 2011. A review of citizen science and community-based envi- ronmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 176 (1), lona Province Council) and Pau Sainz de la Maza (Autonomous Govern- 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5. ment of Catalonia); in Estonia, Irja Truumaa (Estonian Ministry of Cosens, B.A., 2013. Legitimacy, adaptation, and resilience in ecosystem management. Ecol. Environment); in Flanders, Desiré Paelinckx, An Leyssen, Jo Packet (Re- Soc. 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05093-180103. Cundill, G., Fabricius, C., 2009. Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a learning search Institute for Nature and Forest - INBO); in Scotland, Alison based approach. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (11), 3205–3211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Hester, Antonia Eastwood, Marc Stutter, Rob Brooker, Robin Pakeman; jenvman.2009.05.012. and Sophie Tindale (James Hutton Institute); in Slovakia, Miriam Duit, A., Galaz, V., Eckerberg, K., Ebbesson, J., 2010. Governance, complexity, and resil- ience. Glob. Environ. Chang. 20 (3), 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Vlachovičová (the Slovak Academy of Sciences); in Sweden, Pavel Bina gloenvcha.2010.04.006. (Swedish Species Information Centre, SLU) and Katarina Kyllmar Dworak, T., Gonzalez, C., Laaser, C., Interwies, E., 2005. The need for new monitoring tools (Department of Soil and Environment, SLU). We also appreciate the to implement the WFD. Environ. Sci. Pol. 8 (3), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. useful insights of Ketil Skogen and Helene Figari (Norwegian Institute envsci.2005.03.007. Engel-Cox, J.A., Hoff, R.M., 2005. Science–policy data compact: use of environmental mon- for Nature Research) who shaped the framing of the research and the itoring data for air quality policy. Environ. Sci. Pol. 8 (2), 115–131. https://doi.org/ development of our ideas. 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.12.012. K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 383 European Commission, 2003. Common Implementation strategy for the Water Frame- Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W., Zito, A., 2005. The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in compar- work Directive (2000/60/EC) - Guidance Document No 7: monitoring under the ative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Polit. Stud. 53 (3), 477–496. Water Framework Directive Produced by Working Group 2.7 - Monitoring, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00540.x. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https:// Kampa, E., von der Weppen, J., Farmer, A., 2012. 2nd stakeholder workshop for the fitness circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/63f7715f-0f45-4955-b7cb-58ca305e42a8/Guidance%20No% check of EU freshwater policy. Organised by ecologic, IEEP and BioIntelligence on be- 207%20-%20Monitoring%20(WG%202.7).pdf. half of the European Commission, Ecologic. https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/publi- European Commission, 2009a. Commission Directive 2009/90/EC of 31 July 2009 laying cation/2014/kampa_12_fitness_check_ws_paper_0.pdf (Accessed 1st August 2018). down, and pursuant to 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Kati, V., Hovardas, T., Dieterich, M., Ibisch, P.L., Mihok, B., Selva, N., 2015. The challenge of technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status. Off. J. implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000. Conserv. Biol. Eur. Communities L 201, 36–38. 29 (1), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12366. European Commission, 2009b. Monitoring programmes: taking the pulse of Europe's wa- Kelemen, R.D., 2010. Globalizing European union environmental policy. J. Eur. Publ. Policy ters, WISE Water Note No.6 - Notes on the Implementation of the Water Framework 17 (3), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501761003662065. Directive, European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/ Kelly, M.G., Birk, S., Willby, N.J., Denys, L., Drakare, S., Kahlert, M., Karjalainen, S.M., participation/pdf/waternotes/water_note6_monitoring_programmes.pdf (Accessed Marchetto, A., Pitt, J.-A., Urbanič, G., Poikane, S., 2016. Redundancy in the ecological as- 13th June 2018). sessment of lakes: are phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos all necessary? European Commission, 2010. Factsheet: the Water Framework Directive, European Com- Sci. Total Environ. 568, 594–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.024. mission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/water- King, G., 2011. Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science 331 (6018), framework-directive.pdf (Accessed 13th June 2018). 719–721. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/331/6018/719.full.pdf. European Commission, 2012. Fitness checks, European Commission, Brussels. http://ec. Krasny, M.E., Russ, A., Tidball, K.G., Elmqvist, T., 2014. Civic ecology practices: participa- europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/docs/fitness_checks_2012_en.pdf (Accessed tory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities. Ecosyst. 13th June 2018). Serv. 7, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.11.002. European Commission, 2013. Commission note on establishing conservation measures Leese, F., Bouchez, A., Abarenkov, K., Altermatt, F., Borja, Á., Bruce, K., Ekrem, T., Čiampor, for Natura 2000 sites. Doc. Hab.13-04/05, European Commission, Brussels. http://ec. F., Čiamporová-Zaťovičová, Z., Costa, F.O., Duarte, S., Elbrecht, V., Fontaneto, D., Franc, europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/commission_note/ A., Geiger, M.F., Hering, D., Kahlert, M., Kalamujić Stroil, B., Kelly, M., Keskin, E., Liska, comNote%20conservation%20measures_en.pdf (Accessed 13th June 2018). I., Mergen, P., Meissner, K., Pawlowski, J., Penev, L., Reyjol, Y., Rotter, A., Steinke, D., European Commission, 2017a. Habitats directive reporting, DG environment, Brussels. van der Wal, B., Vitecek, S., Zimmermann, J., Weigand, A.M., 2018. Chapter two - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm. why we need sustainable networks bridging countries, disciplines, cultures and gen- European Commission, 2017b. Technical handbook on the monitoring and evaluation erations for aquatic biomonitoring 2.0: a perspective derived from the DNAqua-net framework of the common agricultural policy 2014–2020, directorate general for ag- COST action. In: Bohan, D.A., Dumbrell, A.J., Woodward, G., Jackson, M. (Eds.), Ad- riculture and rural development, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/ vances in Ecological Research. Academic Press, pp. 63–99. regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=21095&no=3 (Accessed Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., Griffith, R., 2010. Governance principles 27th September 2018). for natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23 (10), 986–1001. https://doi. Evans, D., 2012. Building the European Union's Natura 2000 network. Nat. Conserv. 1, 11. org/10.1080/08941920802178214. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.1.1808. Macleod, C.J.A., Blackstock, K., Brown, K., Eastwood, A., Gimona, A., Prager, K., Irvine, R.J., Funke, N., Oelofse, S.H.H., Hattingh, J., Ashton, P.J., Turton, A.R., 2007. IWRM in developing 2016. Adaptive management: an overview of the concept and its practical application countries: lessons from the Mhlatuze Catchment in South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth in the Scottish context, The James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. https://www. 32 (15–18), 1237–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2007.07.018. hutton.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/research/srp2016-21/RESAS_srp143_aD1_ Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., de Boer, Y., Rockström, J., ReportOnRelevantAdaptiveManagementApproachesForScotland_v0.8Final.pdf Ludwig, K., Kok, M., 2015. Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the transfor- (Accessed 8th August 2018). mative potential of the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 7 (2), 1651. Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Salafsky, N., Brown, M., 2009. Using conceptual models as a plan- https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021651. ning and evaluation tool in conservation. Eval. Program Plann. 32 (2), 138–147. Hale, B.W., Adams, M.S., 2007. Ecosystem management and the conservation of river– https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.09.007. floodplain systems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 80 (1–2), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Mark, M.L., Greene, J.C., Shaw, I., 2006. The evaluation of policies, programs and practices. landurbplan.2006.05.002. In: Shaw, I., Greene, J.C., Mark, M.L. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Evaluation. SAGE, Hart, K., Baldock, D., Tucker, G., 2018. Ideas for defining environmental objectives and London, pp. 1–30. monitoring systems for a results-oriented CAP post 2020. A report for WWF Deutsch- Mason, M., 2010. Information disclosure and environmental rights: the Aarhus conven- land, Institute for European Environmental Policy - IEEP, Brussels & London. https:// tion. Glob. Environ. Polit. 10 (3), 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00012. ieep.eu/publications/agriculture-and-land-management/future-of-the-cap/measur- McLain, R.J., Lee, R.G., 1996. Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environ. ing-the-cap-s-environmental-and-climate-performance (Accessed 8th August 2008). Manag. 20 (4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01474647. Heller, N.E., Zavaleta, E.S., 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a Michener, W.K., 2015. Ecological data sharing. Eco. Inform. 29, 33–44. http://www. review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 142 (1), 14–32. https://doi. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574954115001004. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006. Mickwitz, P., 2003. A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: con- Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C.K., Heiskanen, A.-S., text and key concepts. Evaluation 9 (4), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Johnson, R.K., Moe, J., Pont, D., Solheim, A.L., de Bund, W.V., 2010. The European 1356389003094004. Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements Mickwitz, P., Aix, F., Beck, S., Carss, D., Ferrand, N., Görg, C., Jensen, A., Kivimaa, P., with recommendations for the future. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (19), 4007–4019. Kuhlicke, C., Kuindersma, W., Máñez, M., Melanen, M., Monni, S., Pedersen, A.B., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.031. Reinert, H., van Bommel, S., 2009. Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Gover- Hering, D., Borja, A., Jones, J.I., Pont, D., Boets, P., Bouchez, A., Bruce, K., Drakare, S., nance. PEER - Partnership for European Environmental Research, Helsinki. Hänfling, B., Kahlert, M., Leese, F., Meissner, K., Mergen, P., Reyjol, Y., Segurado, P., Morandi, B., Piégay, H., Lamouroux, N., Vaudor, L., 2014. How is success or failure in river Vogler, A., Kelly, M., 2018. Implementation options for DNA-based identification restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects. J. Environ. into ecological status assessment under the European Water Framework Directive. Manag. 137, 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.010. Water Res. 138, 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.003. Murray-Darling Basin Authority, 2017. Basin plan adaptive management framework, Hermans, L.M., Slinger, J.H., Cunningham, S.W., 2013. The use of monitoring information Murray–Darling Basin Authority, Canberra. https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/ in policy-oriented learning: insights from two cases in coastal management. Environ. files/pubs/basin-plan-adaptive-management-framework-2017.pdf (Accessed 29th Sci. Pol. 29, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.001. November 2018). Hildén, M., Jordan, A., Rayner, T., 2014. Climate policy innovation: developing an evalua- Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M., 2016. Map the interactions between sustainable devel- tion perspective. Environ. Polit. 23 (5), 884–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/ opment goals. Nature 534 (7607), 320–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a. 09644016.2014.924205. OECD, 2015. OECD principles of water governance, OECD, Directorate for Public Gover- Holling, C.S., 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & nance and Territorial Development, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/governance/oecd- Sons, Chichester, UK. principles-on-water-governance.htm (Accessed 3rd August 2018). Johnson, R.K., Bennion, H., Hering, D., Soons, M., Verhoeven, J., 2010. Climate change: de- Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in fining reference conditions and restoring freshwater ecosystems. In: Kernan, M., social–ecological systems. Environ. Manag. 34 (1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Moss, B., Battarbee, R.W. (Eds.), Climate Change Impacts on Freshwater Ecosystems. s00267-003-0101-7. Blackwell & Wiley, Oxford, pp. 203–215. Ortega-Argueta, A., González-Zamora, A., Contreras-Hernández, A., 2016. A framework Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Primmer, E., Van Herzele, A., Kopperoinen, L., Ratamäki, O., 2018. and indicators for evaluating policies for conservation and development: the case How does biodiversity conservation argumentation generate effects in policy cycles? of wildlife management units in Mexico. Environ. Sci. Pol. 63, 91–100. https://doi. Biodivers. Conserv. 27 (7), 1725–1740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1216-5. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.003. Jones, N.A., Shaw, S., Ross, H., Witt, K., Pinner, B., 2016. The study of human values in un- O'Sullivan, R.G., 2004. Practicing Evaluation: A Collaborative Approach. Sage, London. derstanding and managing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 21 (1). https://doi. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2007. Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate org/10.5751/ES-07977-210115. and global change. Water Resour. Manag. 21 (1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Jordan, A., 1999. The implementation of EU environmental policy; a policy problem with- s11269-006-9040-4. out a political solution? Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 17 (1), 69–90. https://doi.org/ Pahl-Wostl, C., Tàbara, D., Bouwen, R., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Ridder, D., Taillieu, 10.1068/c170069. T., 2008. The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water manage- Jordan, A., Jeppesen, T., 2000. EU environmental policy: adapting to the principle of sub- ment. Ecol. Econ. 64 (3), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.007. sidiarity? Eur. Environ. 10 (2), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0976 Patton, M.Q., 2010. Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance (200003/04)10:2%3C64::AID-EET219%3E3.0.CO;2-Z. Innovation and Use. Guilford Press, London. 384 K.A. Waylen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 662 (2019) 373–384 Rauschmayer, F., Berghöfer, A., Omann, I., Zikos, D., 2009. Examining processes or/and Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. Off. outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Envi- J. Eur. Union L 347, 487–548. ron. Policy Gov. 19 (3), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.506. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2010. Directive 2009/ Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 De- 147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the cember 2013 on the Financing, Management and Monitoring of the Common Agricul- conservation of wild birds. Off. J. Eur. Union L 20, 7–25. tural Policy and Repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, UNECE, 1998. Convention on access to information, public participation in decision- (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ making and access to justice in environmental matters, 2161 UNTS 447; 38 ILM L 347 of 20.12.2013)p. 579. 517 (1999), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Aarhus. Rist, L., Felton, A., Samuelsson, L., Sandström, C., Rosvall, O., 2013. A new paradigm for http://www.unece.org/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf. adaptive management. Ecol. Soc. 18 (4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06183-180463. UNEP, 2009. Integrated Policymaking for Sustainable Development: A Reference Manual, Schmedtje, U., Kremer, F., 2011. Links between the Water Framework Directive and Na- Earthprint & United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Indus- ture Directives: Frequently Asked Questions, European Commission, DG Environ- try and Economics, Geneva, Switzerland. ment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/FAQ- Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., WFD%20final.pdf (Accessed 13th June 2018). Edwards, S.R., Wit, P., Jones, M., 2017. Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Schoenefeld, J., Jordan, A., 2017. Governing policy evaluation? Towards a new typology. bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development Evaluation 23 (3), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389017715366. goals. Ambio 46 (7), 731–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6. Science for Environment Policy, 2017. Agri-environmental Schemes: How to Enhance the Verburg, R., Selnes, T., Verweij, P., 2016. Governing ecosystem services: national and local Agriculture-environment Relationship, Thematic Issue 57, Issue Produced for the lessons from policy appraisal and implementation. Ecosyst. Serv. 18, 186–197. European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit UWE, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.006. Bristol. https://doi.org/10.2779/633983. Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Kuks, S.M.M., Augustijn, D.C.M., 2015. Governance in support of inte- Scott, C.A., Kurian, M., Wescoat, J.L., 2015. The water-energy-food nexus: enhancing adap- grated flood risk management? The case of Romania. Environ. Dev. 16, 104–118. tive capacity to complex global challenges. In: Kurian, M., Ardakanian, R. (Eds.), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.04.003. Governing the Nexus: Water, Soil and Waste Resources Considering Global Change. Voß, J., Bornemann, B., 2011. The politics of reflexive governance: challenges for designing Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 15–38. adaptive management and transition management. Ecol. Soc. 16 (2), 9. https://www. Selomane, O., Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Tallis, H., Polasky, S., 2015. Towards integrated social– ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art9/. ecological sustainability indicators: exploring the contribution and gaps in existing Voulvoulis, N., Arpon, K.D., Giakoumis, T., 2017. The EU Water Framework Directive: from global data. Ecol. Econ. 118, 140–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.024. great expectations to problems with implementation. Sci. Total Environ. 575, Sievänen, T., Arnberger, A., Dehez, J., Grant, N., Jensen, F.S., Skov-Petersen, H. (Eds.), 2008. 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228. Forest Recreation Monitoring – A European Perspective. Finnish Forest Research In- Waterton, C., Wynne, B., 2004. Knowledge and political order in the European Environ- stitute, Helsinki. ment Agency. In: Jasanoff, S. (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science Silverman, D. (Ed.), 2004. Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and Practice. Sage Publi- and the Social Order. Routledge, pp. 87–108. cations, London, UK. Waylen, K.A., Blackstock, K.L., 2017. Monitoring for adaptive management or modernity: Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N., Brown, M., 2005. Monitoring and evaluation in conser- lessons from recent initiatives for holistic environmental management. Environ. Pol- vation: a review of trends and approaches. Conserv. Biol. 19 (2), 295–309. https://doi. icy Gov. 27 (4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1758. org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00594.x. Weiss, C., 1980. Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowl. Creation Decis. Utiliza- Strobl, R.O., Robillard, P.D., 2008. Network design for water quality monitoring of surface tion 1 (3), 381–404. freshwaters: A review. J. Environ. Manage. 87, 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Weiss, C.H., 1993. Where politics and evaluation research meet. Eval. Pract. 14 (1), jenvman.2007.03.001. 93–106. Sutherland, W.J., Fleishman, E., Mascia, M.B., Pretty, J., Rudd, M.A., 2011. Methods for collab- Whitfield, C., McIntosh, N., 2014. Nitrogen deposition and the nature directives impacts oratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. and responses: our shared experiences. Report of the workshop held 2–4 December Methods Ecol. Evol. 2 (3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x. 2013. JNCC Report No. 521 JNCC, Peterborough, UK. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Re- The Council of the European Union, 2010. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on port_521_web_revised.pdf (Accessed 29th November 2018). the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off. J. Eur. Union L Williams, B.K., 2011. Passive and active adaptive management: approaches and an example. 206, 7–50. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (5), 1371–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.039. The European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development, 2015. Establishing and Williams, B.K., Brown, E.D., 2014. Adaptive management: from more talk to real action. implementing the evaluation plan of 2014–2020 RDPs, the European evaluation Environ. Manag. 53 (2), 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0205-7. heldpesk for rural development, Brussels. https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/evaluation/pub- Yli-Viikarä, A., 2011. Numeroiden harhaa vai toteutuksen työkaluja? - indikaattorien lications/guidelines-establishing-and-implementing-evaluation-plan-2014-2020- käyttö maatalouden ympäristöpoliittisessa suunnittelussa. PhD Thesis presented at rdps_en (Accessed 13th June 2018). the University of Helsinki, MTT, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki. www. The European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC mtt.fi/mtttiede/pdf/mtttiede16.pdf (Accessed 8th August 2018). of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a Young, O.R., 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Union L and Scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 327, 1–72. Zito, A.R., 2005. The European Union as an environmental leader in a global environment. The European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2013. Regulation (EU) No Globalizations 2 (3), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747730500377156. 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural