424 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
constraints) (Fig. 34.5). Some of these barriers were universal (e.g. resources).
However, some were inversely linked to secondary objectives of a monitoring
organisation. Beyond overarching goals of species conservation, organisations have
additional values or reasons for monitoring (Fig. 34.1) and this was ref lected in the
strengths or, conversely, weaknesses of their monitoring programs (Figs 34.5, 34.7).
For instance, non-management agencies, especially NGOs, tend to value and invest
in engagement, and consequently have good community participation.
Evaluation of monitoring programs across all institutional categories was
variable, with academic institutions reporting proportionally higher levels of
evaluation (Figs 34.5, 34.6). When evaluation did occur, it varied from being
formal, independent and regular (e.g. annually, 3–5 years) to more informal,
internal and irregular (e.g. ‘a once-off event’, ‘only as needed’). Reasons for not
conducting any evaluation or less-than-optimal evaluation included a lack of
organisational support, funding and priority.
The diversity of expertise in various organisations means that practitioners
collectively possess the skills to potentially conduct more effective threatened
species monitoring. By acknowledging potential weaknesses, organisations can be
more targeted in how they design and implement programs. This may include
working more collaboratively, better integration across organisations or re-
assessing objectives and priorities for monitoring. For example, collaborations with
statisticians can assist with monitoring design, and closer alliances with
management agencies could foster greater integration of monitoring data into
management decisions. Better collaborations across institutions would also
improve the integration of consistent monitoring programs, particularly across
jurisdictional boundaries (Burbidge et al. 2 011).
Some constraints are beyond the immediate inf luence of practitioners (e.g.
resources, external inf luences, decisions by higher authorities). However, these
constraints are not static and can be inf luenced by changing the perspectives of
those with appropriate inf luence. Communicating the value of monitoring – for
example through regular analysis, reporting, evaluation and engagement – can
change perceptions about the importance of monitoring. Practitioners highlighted
that the value of monitoring was often inadequately communicated, which is a key
area for improvement in monitoring programs.
Conclusion
Synthesising practitioner perspectives from diverse organisational backgrounds
provides context and understanding for the range of issues facing those working in
threatened species monitoring. The process allows solutions to be developed that
more appropriately fit practitioner needs, with a greater awareness of constraints
within the system. Practitioners in threatened species monitoring programs share