228 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
● (^) be designed to test specific hypotheses derived from the conceptual model, that
relate to clear objectives and defined endpoints
● (^) incorporate enough replicates across time and space to ensure sufficient
statistical power
● (^) include controls for all potentially inf luential biotic and abiotic factors so that
variation in outcomes explained by management versus other factors can be
partitioned
● (^) provide unambiguous evidence for progress against management objectives
that can be reported frequently.
Wherever possible, monitoring regimes designed for SoS projects aim to adhere
to all of the above principles. In practice, however, there are many constraints to
achieving this all of the time – most frequently a lack of resources or ecological
knowledge. Given these constraints, the SoS framework applies a pragmatic
approach, consistent with the key objectives outlined above. The highest priority
for SoS monitoring programs is to answer the question, ‘Is the species, habitat or
threat responding to management as expected?’ in the most rigorous and cost-
effective way possible. A recurring challenge with this approach is that there is
generally a trade-off between rigour and cost-effectiveness in monitoring design.
Cash or in-kind investment in threatened
species (e.g. by OEH, other government
agencies, external partners, community)
Outputs / implementation of management
actions (e.g. pest/weed control, habitat restoration)
Sufficient investment =
appropriate and cost-effective
action implementation
Expenditure monitoring:
Are outputs being
achieved efficiently?
Assumptions: Monitoring questions:
Threat outcomes (e.g. reduced pest/weed
extent, improved habitat condition)
Population outcomes (e.g. increased
species abundance or reproductive
success at management site)
Project/species outcomes (species is
on track to be secure in the wild for 100
years)
Threat monitoring: How effective
is management in reducing
extent/severity of threats?
Implementing management
action = controlling threat
Species monitoring: Is control of
threats leading to improved
species survival, reproduction
and population growth?
Controlling all known
threats = improved local
population viability
Project evaluation: Is the project
meeting its long-term objective?
Viable population at all priority
management sites = species
on track to be secure for 100
years
F i g. 17.1. Process model guiding monitoring under the SoS framework.