Bisbal G A
Northwest Power Planning Council, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 851 S. W. Sixth Avenue - Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97204, USA.
Environ Manage. 2001 Oct;28(4):433-53. doi: 10.1007/s002670010235.
A logical sequence of seven steps is proposed as a generic template to design plans for monitoring and evaluating fish and wildlife in the Columbia River ecosystem. Management programs for these resources fail to include coordinated monitoring and evaluation plans. This short-coming is indicative of pervasive management conflicts detected from regional to local geographic scales. In the absence of a cohesive ecological management framework, monitoring and evaluation activities proceed without a clear understanding of what uncertainty they are intended to address, nor is there a clear description of the process to utilize the information gained. As a result, the accountability for the investment of public funds for fish and wildlife restoration is poor, information collected from the environment is not included in decision-making, and the ability to gain knowledge while taking management actions is compromised. The sequence of steps discussed here does not identify or describe distinct monitoring activities or methodologies at any particular location or listed under any specific monitoring plan. Instead, it concentrates on the generic elements necessary for the design and implementation of coordinated fish and wildlife monitoring plans. It is proposed that at least four major issues demand considerable attention in order to improve regional monitoring and evaluation capabilities: The first is adoption of an ecological framework for the management of fish and wildlife at relevant geographic scales within the ecosystem. Such a framework must include an explicit identification of goals, objectives, and actions to steer coordinated decisions across the boundaries of technical disciplines, management jurisdictions, and institutional responsibilities. The second is that the identification of these management goals for the geographic location of interest must precede the design of monitoring and evaluation plans from the top down. Third, the evaluation component must be considered early on in the planning process, so that it blends smoothly with monitoring at the time of implementation. Fourth, decision-makers and scientists engaged in the planning of fish and wildlife monitoring and evaluation efforts in the region must have a close collaborative relationship. Monitoring and evaluation plans designed under these premises may enhance our collective observational capabilities, promote cost-effectiveness and adequate evaluation, and provide a useful tool to adjust our management practices to the challenges of complex ecosystems.
本文提出了一个包含七个步骤的逻辑序列，作为设计哥伦比亚河生态系统鱼类和野生动物监测与评估计划的通用模板。这些资源的管理计划未能纳入协调一致的监测与评估计划。这一缺陷表明，从区域到地方地理尺度都存在普遍的管理冲突。在缺乏连贯的生态管理框架的情况下，监测和评估活动在进行时，既没有清楚地了解旨在解决哪些不确定性问题，也没有对利用所获信息的过程进行清晰描述。结果，用于鱼类和野生动物恢复的公共资金投资的问责性很差，从环境中收集的信息未纳入决策过程，而且在采取管理行动时获取知识的能力也受到了损害。这里讨论的步骤序列并未确定或描述任何特定地点的独特监测活动或方法，也未列在任何具体监测计划之下。相反，它专注于设计和实施协调一致的鱼类和野生动物监测计划所需的通用要素。为了提高区域监测和评估能力，建议至少要高度关注四个主要问题：第一个问题是在生态系统内相关地理尺度上采用鱼类和野生动物管理的生态框架。这样一个框架必须明确确定目标、目的和行动，以指导跨越技术学科、管理管辖范围和机构职责界限的协调决策。第二个问题是，必须先自上而下地确定感兴趣地理位置的这些管理目标，然后再设计监测和评估计划。第三个问题是，必须在规划过程早期就考虑评估部分，以便在实施时能与监测顺利融合。第四个问题是，参与该区域鱼类和野生动物监测与评估工作规划的决策者和科学家必须建立密切的合作关系。在这些前提下设计的监测和评估计划可能会增强我们的集体观测能力，提高成本效益并进行充分评估，并提供一个有用的工具，使我们能够根据复杂生态系统的挑战调整管理做法。
