Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Are we missing the boat? Current uses of long-term biological

monitoring data in the evaluation and management of marine
protected areas
P.F.E. Addison a, *, L.B. Flander b, C.N. Cook a
a
School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
b
Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Protected area management agencies are increasingly using management effectiveness evaluation (MEE)
Received 21 March 2014 to better understand, learn from and improve conservation efforts around the globe. Outcome assess-
Received in revised form ment is the final stage of MEE, where conservation outcomes are measured to determine whether
29 September 2014
management objectives are being achieved. When quantitative monitoring data are available, best-
Accepted 19 October 2014
Available online
practice examples of outcome assessments demonstrate that data should be assessed against quanti-
tative condition categories. Such assessments enable more transparent and repeatable integration of
monitoring data into MEE, which can promote evidence-based management and improve public
Keywords:
Management effectiveness evaluation
accountability and reporting. We interviewed key informants from marine protected area (MPA) man-
Outcome assessment agement agencies to investigate how scientific data sources, especially long-term biological monitoring
Evidence-based management data, are currently informing conservation management. Our study revealed that even when long-term
Long-term monitoring monitoring results are available, management agencies are not using them for quantitative condition
Conservation assessment in MEE. Instead, many agencies conduct qualitative condition assessments, where moni-
Marine protected area toring results are interpreted using expert judgment only. Whilst we found substantial evidence for the
use of long-term monitoring data in the evidence-based management of MPAs, MEE is rarely the sole
mechanism that facilitates the knowledge transfer of scientific evidence to management action. This
suggests that the first goal of MEE (to enable environmental accountability and reporting) is being
achieved, but the second and arguably more important goal of facilitating evidence-based management
is not. Given that many MEE approaches are in their infancy, recommendations are made to assist
management agencies realize the full potential of long-term quantitative monitoring data for protected
area evaluation and evidence-based management.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ultimately MEE is designed to facilitate evidence-based manage-

Management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) has gained global
recognition as an important framework to promote the continual
improvement of conservation efforts in protected areas (Coad et al.,
2013; Leverington et al., 2010). MEE involves an assessment of the
complete management process: beginning with clearly defining
the management context, through to measuring conservation
outcomes to determine whether management objectives are being
achieved (Fig. 1; Hockings et al., 2006). In response to the growing
societal demand for environmental accountability, there is a focus
on publicly reporting MEE results to demonstrate the value for
money of conservation efforts (Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006). But
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 3 9035 6336.
E-mail address: prue.addison@gmail.com (P.F.E. Addison).
ment to ensure the best conservation outcomes for protected areas
(Hockings et al., 2006; Leverington et al., 2010).
MEE should draw on the best available evidence, using both
qualitative and quantitative data to support assessments (Cook and
Hockings, 2011; Hockings et al., 2009). Whilst qualitative data are
most appropriate for some aspects of management (e.g., measuring
stakeholder engagement), other aspects (e.g., measuring ecological
condition) should ideally be based on quantitative data sourced
from monitoring or research (Hockings et al., 2009). However, a
lack of quantitative data often necessitates reliance on qualitative
information, such as expert judgment, in MEE (Cook et al., 2010;
Hockings et al., 2009).
Outcome assessment is the final stage of MEE, where the con-
dition of important attributes is assessed to determine whether
management objectives have been achieved or if management

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.023
0301-4797/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P.F.E. Addison et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156
Fig. 1. The management effectiveness evaluation cycle, designed to enable assessment
of the complete management process and facilitate evidence-based management.
Adapted from Hockings et al. (2006).
should be adapted (Fig. 1; Hockings et al., 2006). This requires an
assessment of the condition of indicators, such as the abundance of
a threatened species. When monitoring data are available, these
should be assessed against condition categories that have been
defined numerically (Hockings et al., 2006; hereafter “quantitative
condition assessments”). Quantitative condition categories are
commonly based on an acceptable range of natural variation of an
indicator (e.g., Hockings et al., 2008; Parks Canada, 2011; Parrish
et al., 2003). For example, the United States National Parks Ser-
vice uses historic long-term monitoring data to define quantitative
condition categories for average forest patch size to reflect land-
scape fragmentation due to anthropogenic stressors, as: Good
(>50 ha); Caution (10e50 ha); and, Significant Concern (<10 ha)
(Tierney et al., 2009). Quantitative condition assessments can
enable more transparent and repeatable integration of monitoring
data into MEE, and when condition categories represent thresholds
that trigger management action promotes evidence-based man-
agement (Lindenmayer et al., 2013). In addition, condition rating
scales can help simplify complex information about natural sys-
tems for public reporting (Hockings et al., 2006).
In cases where monitoring data are lacking, managers default to
using expert judgment to assess condition using qualitative state-
ments of outcomes (hereafter “qualitative condition assessments”;
Cook et al., 2010; Hockings et al., 2009). Qualitative assessments
typically use a simple rating scale, but instead of having a numerical
basis condition categories are defined using broad statements such
as “GooddPopulations of a number of significant species…have
declined significantly…” (State of the Environment Committee,
2011). These qualitative condition categories can be subject to dif-
ferences in interpretation by experts, thus can seriously compro-
mise the accuracy and repeatability of condition assessments
(Burgman et al., 2011; Cook et al., 2014).
Long-term quantitative monitoring can yield data that are ideal
for quantitative condition assessments of environmental indicators
in MEE (Hockings et al., 2006; Tierney et al., 2009). Such data can
reveal both the current condition and the temporal dynamics of
indicators (Magurran et al., 2010; Sergeant et al., 2012). These two
vital aspects assist managers in interpreting environmental con-
dition, to determine when a system is moving beyond the desirable
bounds of natural variability, and decide when to adapt their
149
management approach (Nichols and Williams, 2006). Whilst
rigorous long-term monitoring programs potentially enhance
protected area management, monitoring data can be of limited use
when programs are not targeted to address management needs
(Field et al., 2007; Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010; Nichols and
Williams, 2006). Commonly cited reasons for the lack of targeted
monitoring include that monitoring programs are led by scientist
who are independent of management agencies (Legg and Nagy,
2006; Lindenmayer et al., 2012), and management and moni-
toring objectives are often not adequately aligned (Kemp et al.,
2012; Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010). The cost and expertise
required to establish and maintain long-term monitoring programs
can be major impediments for management agencies (Lindenmayer
and Likens, 2010; Lindenmayer et al., 2012). The reality is that well
designed long-term monitoring programs are a rare but valuable
resource for MEE and evidence-based management.
Evidence-based management involves the use of the best
available evidence to inform a management decision and can take a
variety of forms. The most highly structured approach to evidence-
based management is adaptive management, which involves an
extensive decision-making process to develop, trial and select
among multiple potentially effective management options (Nichols
and Williams, 2006; Westgate et al., 2013). The MEE process also
facilitates evidence-based management, and in contrast to adaptive
management, is being increasingly used by protected area man-
agement agencies to ensure the best available evidence informs
management decisions (Coad et al., 2013; Hockings et al., 2004;
Leverington et al., 2010). However, the implementation of MEE is
still evolving, with managers citing difficulties associated with data
availability and “closing the loop” to ensure evidence-based man-
agement (Jacobson et al., 2008, 2014; Parr et al., 2009). Given the
existing challenges in implementing MEE, we focus on investi-
gating cases where best-practice MEE could be achieved: where
long-term quantitative monitoring data are available to inform
evaluations. We specifically focus how these data are being used to
inform: i) outcome assessments for MEE of protected areas; and, ii)
evidence-based management.
2. Methodology
To understand the current use of long-term biological moni-
toring data in protected area management we interviewed pro-
tected area managers and scientists in Australia with access to long-
term monitoring programs. We targeted monitoring programs
within similar ecosystems that occur in protected areas under
similar management contexts. We focussed on long-term moni-
toring programs from Australian marine protected areas (MPAs), as
they are some of the world's longest running monitoring programs,
significantly contributing to the scientific understanding of the
long-term effects of MPA protection (e.g., Babcock et al., 2010;
Barrett et al., 2009; De'ath et al., 2012). Australia's MPAs are
established for biodiversity conservation and many were gazetted
more than ten years ago (State of the Environment Committee,
2011). These MPAs fall under either state or federal jurisdiction
and all management agencies aspire to regularly monitor, evaluate
and report on management effectiveness of MPAs (ANZECC, 1999).
Like other parts of the world, long-term monitoring programs in
Australian MPAs predominantly assess the effect of protection on
subtidal coral and rocky reef communities (Babcock et al., 2010;
Kemp et al., 2012; Lester et al., 2009).
2.1. The long-term monitoring programs
To identify long-term monitoring programs capable of inform-
ing MEE, we used the following criteria: i) monitoring is conducted
150 P.F.E. Addison et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156

in Australian MPAs that include no-take management zones, where
all extractive activities are banned (IUCN-WCPA, 2008); ii) moni-
toring is ongoing (as of 2013) and involves field-based, empirical
measurements with at least five sampling occasions over the pre-
ceding ten year period; iii) monitoring programs include the census
of fish, invertebrates and/or algae from subtidal coral and rocky reef
habitats; and, iv) monitoring results are publicly accessible through
scientific publications (e.g., published reports or peer-reviewed
papers), or are available upon request from data custodians.
We used the web-based resources Google, Google Scholar, and
Thomson Reuters Web of Science to identify Australian monitoring
programs that met our selection criteria. We used a series of 12
search terms in the following combinations: (long-term OR moni-
toring OR survey OR surveillance) AND (biodiversity OR rocky OR
coral OR reef) AND (marine protected area OR MPA OR marine
reserve OR marine park). We searched peer-reviewed literature,
government agency websites and reports, and environmental
legislation. Bibliographies of literature included in the review were
also searched for additional literature.
Seven long-term monitoring programs met our selection criteria
(Table 1). These monitoring programs occur within five networks of
MPAs in Australian state and Commonwealth waters (see ‘MPA
network’, Table 1). These MPAs are some of the oldest in Australia
having been established for an average of 20.3 years (ranging from
11 to 39 years) and have some of longest running monitoring
programs, undertaken for an average of 18.7 years (ranging from 12
to 27 years; Table 1). All monitoring programs sample both inside
and outside of no-take zones, and either occur in a single MPA or
are replicated in several MPAs across a network (Table 1). All
monitoring programs include the visual census of biological vari-
ables within shallow rocky reef or coral reef habitats. Five of the
seven programs were established by organizations independent of
the responsible management agency (Table 1).
2.2. Key informants
We interviewed key informants from each of the management
agencies associated with the MPAs where the monitoring programs
occur. Key informants are those that hold intimate knowledge of
the interview topic (Patton, 2002), which in the case of our research
related to the long-term monitoring programs and MPA manage-
ment. Informants held management or science focussed roles.
Managers were involved in tasks such as conducting outcome as-
sessments for MEE, undertaking direct management of MPAs (e.g.,
compliance/enforcement patrols), and contributing to the strategic
direction of the MPAs (e.g., developing management strategies or
plans). The scientists were responsible for research (e.g., managing
or conducting scientific research), conducting outcome assess-
ments for MEE, and contributing to strategic direction of the MPAs.
After initial consultation with coordinating managers and sci-
entists from each of the relevant management agencies, we iden-
tified 26 key informants through snowball sampling (Patton, 2002).
Two key informants could not be contacted during the interview
period and four informants declined to be interviewed because
they did not feel they could adequately answer questions relating to
the monitoring programs. The remaining 20 key informants rep-
resented five management agencies where the seven monitoring
programs occur (Table 2).
Key informants had worked in protected area management for
an average of 15.5 years and held their current positions for an
average of 5.5 years. The variation in the number of informants per
agency reflects the number of MPAs where monitoring occurs, and
the number of staff who hold intimate knowledge of the moni-
toring program within each agency. At least one manager (the
marine manager responsible for the MPA) and one scientist (a lead
scientist within the agency who holds knowledge of the monitoring
program) were interviewed for each monitoring program (except

Table 1
Long-term monitoring programs associated with Australian marine protected areasa.

Marine protected area details Monitoring program details

Network name MPA name Year Monitoring program Year Habitat monitored Biological variables Who conducts
declared name monitoring monitored monitoring
began

Great Barrier Reef Great Barrier 1975 1: Long-term reef 1993 Coral reef Fish, algae, Australian Institute of
Marine Park, Reef MP monitoring program (10 m) invertebrates Marine Science (AIMS)
Queensland scientistsd
New South Wales Jervis Bay 1998 2: Ecosystem 1996 Subtidal rocky reef Fish, algae, University of Tasmaniad
Marine Parks MP monitoring program (10 m) invertebrates and NSW DPI scientists
New South Wales Solitary 1998 3: Baited remote 2002 Subtidal rocky reef Fish NSW Department of
Marine Parks Islands MP underwater video (30 m) Primary Industries
monitoring scientists
Victoria's Marine Victoria's 2002 4: Subtidal reef 1998 Subtidal rocky reef Fish, algae, Consultants to Parks
National Parks network of monitoring program (10 m) invertebrates Victoria
MNPsb
Tasmania's Marine Tasmania's 1991 5: Ecosystem 1992 Subtidal rocky reef Fish, algae, University of Tasmania
Reserves network of monitoring program (10 m) invertebrates scientistsd
MRsc
Western Australia's Jurien Bay 2003 6: Ecosystem 1999 Subtidal rocky reef Fish, algae, University of Tasmania
Marine Parks MP monitoring program depth (12 m) invertebrates scientistsd
Western Australia's Ningaloo 1989 7: Western Australian 1987 Coral reef (6 m) Invertebrates Established by AIMS
Marine Parks Reef MP marine monitoring and the
program (WAMMP) Commonwealth
coral monitoring Scientific and Industrial
program Research
Organizationd. Now
conducted by
Department of Parks
and Wildlife scientists
a
For a full list of the literature used to support the summarized information presented Table 1, see SI Appendix 1.
b
Monitoring occurs in six of Victoria's MNPs: Bunurong, Cape Howe, Point Addis, Point Hicks, Port Phillip Heads, and Wilsons Promontory Marine National Parks.
c
Monitoring occurs at Maria Island, Governor Island, Tinderbox and Ninepin Point Marine Reserves.
d
Organizations that conduct monitoring are independent of the responsible management agency.
 P.F.E. Addison et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156 151

Table 2
Summary of key informants interviewed, the management agencies and marine protected areas they represent, and their tasks performed.

Monitoring program MPA network Management agency MPAs represented by Key informants Tasks performed by key
key informants interviewed informants (defined
belowa)

1 Great Barrier Reef Great Barrier Reef Great Barrier Reef MP 3 Scientists Research, MEE and
Marine Park, Marine Park Authority 1 Manager strategic direction
Queensland MEE and strategic
directionb
2 New South Wales NSW Department of Jervis Bay MP 1 Scientistc Research, MEE and
Marine Parks Primary Industries 1 Manager strategic direction
(formerly NSW Marine MEE, direct
Parks Authority) management and
strategic direction
3 New South Wales NSW Department of Solitary Islands MP 1 Scientistc Research, MEE and
Marine Parks Primary Industries 1 Manager strategic direction
MEE, direct
management and
strategic direction
4 Victoria's Marine Parks Victoria Cape Howe, Point 1 Scientist Research, MEE and
National Parks Addis, Point Hicks, Port 5 Managers strategic direction
Phillip Heads, and MEE, direct
Wilsons Promontory management and
MNPs strategic direction
5 Tasmania's Marine Tasmania Parks and Maria Island MR 2 Managersd Direct management
Reserves Wildlife Service and strategic direction
6 Western Australia's Department of Parks Jurien Bay MP 3 Scientistse Research, MEE and
Marine Parks and Wildlife (formerly 1 Manager strategic direction
Department of MEE, direct
Environment and management and
Conservation) strategic direction
7 Western Australia's Department of Parks Ningaloo Reef MP 3 Scientistse Research, MEE and
Marine Parks and Wildlife 1 Manager strategic direction
MEE, direct
management and
strategic direction
a
Definition of tasks: research e responsible for managing or conducting scientific research, and interpreting monitoring program results; MEE e responsible for conducting
outcome assessments for biodiversity indicators; strategic direction e contribute to MPA management strategies/policies/plans; and, direct management e compliance/
enforcement patrols, infrastructure maintenance or education within MPAs.
b
The Great Barrier Reef MP is co-managed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services (QPWS). The GBRMPA is
the agency responsible for the MEE of the Great Barrier Reef MP, and also contributes to field management along with QPWS (GBRMPA, 2009). Key informants were selected
only from the GBRMPA, as they hold direct knowledge of the monitoring program case study, are directly involved in MEE and contribute to the direct management of the
Great Barrier Reef MP.
c
This scientist holds direct knowledge of the monitoring programs 2 and 3, thus was interviewed about both monitoring programs.
d
The MPA manager involved in strategic direction provided information about MEE for all of Tasmania's Marine Reserves, whilst the second manager provided information
only about Maria Island MR.
e
These scientists hold direct knowledge of the monitoring programs 6 and 7, thus were interviewed about both.

for Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, where no in-house sci-
entists are employed).
2.3. Semi-structured interviews
One author (P.F.E.A.) conducted semi-structured telephone in-
terviews with all key informants. During the interviews, informants
were asked six open-ended questions (see SI Appendix 2 for the full
interview protocol) which addressed our two research themes: the
current use of long-term monitoring data in i) MEE and ii)
evidence-based management. The semi-structured interview
format allowed informants to respond to each question in their
own words. Each question was followed with standard prompts if
informants misunderstood the question or failed to provide some
of the information requested (see SI Appendix 2). Informants were
advised not to answer any questions they felt unqualified to
answer. In these cases, informants were asked which individuals in
the agency could answer the question (i.e., snowball sampling; see
2.2 Key informants), ensuring we captured a comprehensive pic-
ture of each monitoring program and management agency.
For the first research theme, we asked key informants to identify
the MEE that their agency undertakes, with MEE being defined as
the process whereby “your management agency evaluates progress
towards achieving conservation objectives, such as ‘to maintain
biodiversity’”. Informants were also asked to describe how the
monitoring programs have been used to inform the most recent
MEEs conducted by the agency, which in some cases related to an
assessment that had not yet been publically reported. Informants
were provided with definitions of quantitative and qualitative
condition assessment (see SI Appendix 2), and were asked to
identify which best reflected how they used the monitoring pro-
gram data to inform their MEE.
For the second research theme, we asked key informants to
describe specific examples where the results of the monitoring
program were used to inform management decisions. We also
asked informants whether it was the MEE process that led to the
management responses, or a different mechanism (e.g., published
monitoring reports or speaking directly with scientists; see SI
Appendix 2).
2.4. Qualitative analysis
All key informants were de-identified and audio recordings of
the interviews were independently transcribed prior to analysis.
The interview transcriptions were open-coded to develop common
themes within each question, following an inductive category
152 P.F.E. Addison et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156

Table 3
The current use of long-term monitoring data in management effectiveness evaluation based on informant interviews and content analysis.

Monitoring program MEE report name Evaluation Reporting Evaluation and Type of Condition Source of the
scale scale reporting frequency condition assessment monitoring
(number conducted) assessment conducted by information
used for MEE
assessment

1: Long-term reef Great Barrier Reef Individual Individual Five years (n ¼ 1) Qualitative Great Barrier Published
monitoring program, Outlook Report parka park condition Reef MP Authority monitoring
b
Great Barrier Reef (GBRMPA, 2009) assessment managers and results
MP scientists, and
external experts
2: Ecosystem Jervis Bay MP Zoning Individual Individual Initial evaluation five Otherc NSW Department Published
monitoring, Jervis Plan Review (NSW park park years after establishment, of Primary monitoring
Bay MP MPA, 2009a) then every ten years Industries results
(n ¼ 1) managers and
scientists
3: Baited remote Solitary Islands MP Individual Individual As above (n ¼ 1) Otherc As above Published
underwater video Zoning Plan Review park park monitoring
monitoring, Solitary (NSW MPA, 2009b) results, and raw
Islands MP data analyzed for MEE
4: Subtidal reef Victoria's State of the Individual Networkd Five years (n ¼ 2e) Qualitative Parks Victoria Published
monitoring program, Parks (Parks Victoria, park condition managers and monitoring
Victoria's MNPs 2007). Supported by assessment scientists results
park-scale MEE surveys
filled out by Parks
Victoria staff
5: Ecosystem None currently e e e e e e
monitoring program, produced
Tasmania's MRs
6: Ecosystem Marine Parks and Individual Network Annual (n ¼ 5) Qualitative Department of CPR reports: raw data
monitoring, Jurien Reserves Authority park condition Parks and Wildlife analyzed for MEE.
Bay MP Annual Audit report assessment managers and scientists PA reports: published
(MPRA, 2013), monitoring results and
supported by park- results from CPR reports
scale internal MEE
reports (Condition
Pressure Response and
Performance
Assessment reports)
7: WAMMP coral As above Individual Network As above (n ¼ 5) Qualitative As above As above
monitoring, park condition
Ningaloo Reef MP assessment
a
Individual park: evaluation and/or reporting occurs for an individual marine park.
b
Qualitative condition assessment: qualitative descriptions are used to define condition categories of the current condition and trend in biological indicators from
monitoring programs.
c
Monitoring data incorporated into a habitat classification scheme to inform the adequacy of MPA zoning.
d
Network: MEE reporting occurs only at the MPA network scale (i.e., individual park evaluations are aggregated and reported at for the whole network).
e
Two rounds of evaluation have been completed by Parks Victoria. Only the first evaluation has been publicly reported (Parks Victoria, 2007), and the second evaluation has
been conducted but not publicly reported.

development methodology (Patton, 2002) using NVivo version 10
(QSR International, 2012). All coding was independently validated
by another researcher (CNC), to ensure consistent coding of in-
formants' statements.
As multiple informants from each management agency were
interviewed to gain a complete understanding of each monitoring
program, we pooled informants' responses to avoid over-
representation of some monitoring programs. Informants' re-
sponses to all questions were generally consistent and/or com-
plimentary, thus pooling responses was straightforward. The only
exception was informants' responses to Question 3 regarding how
monitoring program results are used in MEE (SI Appendix 2),
where two informants from the same management agency pro-
vided responses inconsistent with other informants' descriptions
of the nature of the outcome condition assessments. To resolve this
issue, we conducted a content analysis of MEE documentation
provided by the management agencies (see 2.5 Content analysis).
Based on these results, we concluded that the observed contra-
dictions were based in informants' confusion about the difference
between quantitative monitoring and quantitative condition as-
sessments for MEE. Only those informants' responses that were
supported by the MEE content analysis are presented in the
results.
2.5. Content analysis
We collected all publicly available MEE reports and informants
provided copies of reports that were not publicly available. We
conducted a content analysis of these reports to determine the type
of outcome assessment done (either qualitative or quantitative
condition assessment) to assess biological indicators from each
monitoring program. We also collated information on the evalua-
tion frequency and the scale of the evaluation and reports.
3. Results
3.1. The current use of long-term biological monitoring data in
management effectiveness evaluations
Key informants revealed that management effectiveness eval-
uations (MEEs) have been conducted for four of the five MPA net-
works included in this study (Table 3). Whilst MEE had not been
 P.F.E. Addison et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156
undertaken for Tasmania's marine reserves, one informant re-
ported that an MEE framework was currently under development
and MEE would be conducted in the future. The frequency of
evaluation and reporting ranges from yearly (MPRA, 2013), to every
five (GBRMPA, 2009) or every ten years (NSW MPA, 2009a; Table 3).
For four of the management agencies, MEE is in its infancy, with
evaluation and reporting having only occurred once or twice (see
“Evaluation and reporting frequency”, Table 3).
Outcome assessments of biological indicators occurred at the
level of the individual park, and in three cases these evaluations
had been publicly reported at the park-scale (e.g., GBRMPA, 2009;
see “Evaluation scale” and “Reporting scale”, Table 3). For the
remaining three cases, the park-scale outcome assessments were
not publicly available, as MEE results were reported for the entire
MPA network (e.g., Parks Victoria, 2007; Table 3).
Four of the seven monitoring program results have been used to
inform qualitative condition assessments of biological indicators
(Table 3). All qualitative condition assessments have been used to
evaluate current condition and temporal trend in biological in-
dicators against descriptive condition categories. For example, a
condition category used to evaluate biological indicators from the
Great Barrier Reef MP is “Very good: Available evidence indicates
only a few, if any, populations of a species or group of species have
declined” (GBRMPA, 2009). Typically agency managers and scien-
tists contributed to qualitative condition assessments, and in one
case external experts also contributed to the assessments (Table 3).
Where monitoring results were not used to assess environmental
condition (two monitoring programs), these data were used to
judge the effectiveness of the configuration of management zones
within the MPAs (i.e., the comprehensiveness, adequacy and
representativeness of species and habitats protected by the MPAs;
NSW MPA, 2009a,b). In these two cases, informants highlighted a
restructure of MPA management (NSW Government, 2013), which
meant that this type of MEE was unlikely to be repeated in the
future. Given the specific nature of these assessments and the un-
certain future MEE of NSW Marine Parks, these results are not
discussed further.
Monitoring data have been analyzed specifically for MEE in only
three instances (Table 3). For the remaining three monitoring
programs, managers source monitoring results from scientific
publications (i.e., peer-reviewed papers or technical reports;
Table 3).
Fig. 2. Management decisions made in response to the seven long-term monitoring programs. The different shades of gray represent different monitoring programs (de-identified
to avoid direct comparison). Management response categories are defined in SI Appendix 3.
153
3.2. The current use of long-term monitoring data in evidence-
based management
Sixteen informants provided specific examples where moni-
toring results had directly influenced management decisions
(Fig. 2). Informants described nine distinct management decisions
in response to monitoring results, which fell into three categories:
i) research and monitoring; ii) routine management; and iii)
planning. The categories used to code informants' responses are
defined in SI Appendix 3. Monitoring programs triggered up to
seven different types of management decisions (Fig. 2).
Five of the seven long-term monitoring programs have been
used to justify the need for research or monitoring within the MPAs
(Fig. 2). Informants suggested that monitoring program results
have been used to justify the continuation of the long-term
monitoring program, or to instigate targeted research to better
understand the patterns observed in the monitoring results.
Routine management decisions made in response to monitoring
data included: compliance efforts, such as increased ranger patrols
to stop illegal activities like fishing (triggered by four monitoring
programs; Fig. 2); informing educational programs (two moni-
toring programs); and, directing eradication efforts for introduced
species control programs (one monitoring program). Planning de-
cisions made in response to monitoring results included: altering
MPA zoning arrangements (two monitoring programs; Fig. 2); and,
updating management plans or strategic documents based on new
information (one monitoring program). One informant reported
that monitoring results had supported a decision not to act, when
biological evidence suggested no change in management response
was required. While only one informant mentioned a decision not
to act, the way in which the question was asked (i.e., requesting
specific examples of management activities or strategies; Question
5, SI Appendix 2) suggests that our data may under-represent this
type of management decision.
Twelve of the informants who provided examples of manage-
ment responses (75%) stressed that monitoring results alone would
rarely trigger a management decision. Rather, management de-
cisions were generally supported by multiple lines of evidence.
When informants provided specific examples of management
decisions they were also asked whether it was the MEE process that
led to the decision (Question 6; SI Appendix 2). Informants noted a
variety of mechanisms which led to management decisions,
154 P.F.E. Addison et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156
including: the MEE process (one monitoring program); the scien-
tific publications that detail monitoring results (one monitoring
program); both MEEs and scientific publications (three monitoring
programs); speaking directly with scientists about monitoring re-
sults (one monitoring program); or, scientific publications in
combination with speaking directly with scientists about results
(one monitoring program).
4. Discussion
4.1. The use of long-term monitoring in management effectiveness
evaluation
The last decade has seen the implementation of management
effectiveness evaluation (MEE) by many agencies for marine pro-
tected area (MPA) management in Australia, reflecting a similar
increase in use of MEE in terrestrial protected areas (Coad et al.,
2013; Leverington et al., 2010). Despite the availability of long-
term monitoring data, these are typically only evaluated using
qualitative condition assessments of rocky and coral reef indicators
(Table 3). These assessments rely on the interpretation of quanti-
tative monitoring results by groups of experts, which are translated
into broad qualitative condition statements. While the majority of
MEEs conducted globally rely on qualitative condition assessments,
overwhelmingly these evaluations use expert judgment due to a
lack of available quantitative data (Cook and Hockings, 2011;
Hockings et al., 2009). Whilst qualitative condition assessments
are vital when data are lacking, experts have their own biases and
assumptions, which can influence how they interpret qualitative
condition categories (Burgman et al., 2011). Consequently, quali-
tative condition assessments based on expert judgment can lack
transparency, and the accuracy and repeatability of assessments
can be seriously compromised (Cook et al., 2014; Hockings et al.,
2009; Jacobson et al., 2008).
The monitoring programs included in this study have been un-
dertaken for 12e27 years (Table 1), and many have revealed unique
insights into the temporal dynamics of marine protection (e.g.,
Babcock et al., 2010; Bates et al., 2013; Speed et al., 2013). Such
monitoring data are a rich source of information to develop quan-
titative condition categories (following best-practice cases; e.g.,
Parks Canada, 2011; Parrish et al., 2003; Tierney et al., 2009). The
resulting quantitative condition categories could be used for objec-
tive and transparent condition assessments of fine scale indicators in
report cards, allowing readers to understand the contribution of
individual monitoring program results to broader assessments of
overall condition (e.g., Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program, 2012).
The failure of management agencies to capitalize on available
quantitative long-term monitoring may relate to the disconnect
between those collecting, analyzing and interpreting monitoring
data and those using the data to inform management (Table 1). This
disconnect can lead to situations where management agencies are
not driving the questions being asked of these data, which is a
commonly cited reason for the failure of long-term monitoring
programs influencing conservation management (Legg and Nagy,
2006; Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010). Qualitative condition as-
sessments were more frequently based on monitoring results
presented in scientific publications than on in-house data analysis
(Table 3). Scientific publications often focus on presenting novel
results (Fazey et al., 2005), rather than results that specifically
address management needs. Agencies often lack the capacity to
conduct specific analyses to obtain the answers they need because
they do not have appropriately trained staff (Ferraro and
Pattanayak, 2006; Leverington et al., 2010). The implication for
management agencies is that they are failing to get the greatest
benefits from the rich quantitative datasets available to inform
MEE.
4.2. The current use of long-term monitoring to inform evidence-
based management
Despite the limited use of long-term monitoring results in MEE,
our results clearly demonstrate that these data are being used to
inform evidence-based management of Australian MPAs (Fig. 2).
Many management agencies use monitoring results to justify the
continued need for long-term monitoring programs, or to instigate
additional research to resolve key uncertainties and identified
knowledge gaps (Fig. 2). Given the limited resourcing of many
management agencies, this reflects a genuine commitment to the
continuation of long-term monitoring programs and a dedication
to invest in research that supports evidence-based management.
This finding is contrary to the common criticism that conservation
management agencies often fail to commit to long-term invest-
ment in monitoring and research (Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010;
Lindenmayer et al., 2012).
Long-term monitoring results have been valuable in supporting
planning decisions, including changes to the MPA zoning arrange-
ment of based on an improved understanding of the distribution of
marine habitats (e.g., Fernandes et al., 2005; Malcolm et al., 2012).
Long-term monitoring results informed a variety of routine man-
agement decisions, such as the development of educational pro-
grams, compliance efforts, introduced species control and
infrastructure development (Fig. 2). Finally, one informant noted
that long-term monitoring was valuable for deciding not to act
when the biological evidence suggests no change in management
response was required (Fig. 2). This acknowledges that no action is
a valid decision, and a sound management alternative in evidence-
based management (Gregory et al., 2012).
While evidence-based management is clearly occurring in
Australian MPAs, informants stressed that long-term monitoring
results are rarely the sole driver that prompt management de-
cisions. Rather multiple lines of evidence are required to provide
critical information about the social, political and economic di-
mensions of decisions (Cook et al., 2012). While biological moni-
toring data are important, combining multiple lines of evidence
provides greater certainty in management decisions (Hockings
et al., 2009; Jacobson et al., 2008).
4.3. Is management effectiveness evaluation facilitating evidence-
based management?
Despite the goal of MEEs to enable evidence-based management
of protected areas (Hockings et al., 2006; Leverington et al., 2010),
we found that MEE is rarely the sole mechanism driving evidence-
based management of Australian MPAs. This finding is not limited
to MPAs, with similar observations being made around the globe for
the management of terrestrial protected areas (Jacobson et al.,
2008) and coastal areas (Jacobson et al., 2014). While some in-
formants used the MEE process to some degree, it was also
commonly not used at all when making management decisions.
Instead, informants preferred to go straight to the source of the
data: by using monitoring results interpreted for them in scientific
publications, or speaking directly to scientists. This finding con-
firms that conservation managers do use scientific information to
directly support their management decisions, particularly valuing
scientific publications that synthesize empirical evidence and also
directly engaging with scientists (Cook et al., 2012; Seavy and
Howell, 2010).
The current MEE procedures used by management agencies
may not adequately reflect the complete cycle of MEE
 P.F.E. Addison et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156
recommended for protected area management (e.g., Fig. 1;
Hockings et al., 2006; Pomeroy et al., 2005). Whilst our study did
not specifically address where breaks in the MEE cycle occur, we
point to previous criticisms that management and monitoring
objectives are rarely adequately aligned (Kemp et al., 2012;
Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010). It may be that management
agencies have failed to establish prioritized management and
monitoring objectives in MEE, so there is no direct way for
monitoring results to influence management decisions through
the MEE process.
Finally, the frequency with which evaluations are conducted
(most commonly on a 5e10 year cycle; Table 3) is likely to be an
impediment to the use of MEE in evidence-based management.
This frequency appears to be completely divorced from the time-
frame required for management decisions. Instead, evaluation
frequency seems to be largely driven by the need for external
reporting. Only one agency in our study conducts MEE on an annual
basis (Table 3). This frequent evaluation cycle was associated with
the second highest diversity of management decisions arising,
partially in response to MEE results (Fig. 2). Whilst only a single
observation, this suggests that more frequent evaluation can pro-
vide greater opportunities for management agencies to respond to
monitoring results.
4.4. Final recommendations
Long-term monitoring, MEE and evidence-based management
are occurring in many of Australia's MPAs, however we found poor
links between these three elements. We found no evidence that
MPA management agencies are using long-term monitoring data
to develop quantitative condition assessments, despite these data
making them well placed to achieve best-practice outcome
assessment for MEE. Our study has revealed that long-term
monitoring results are informing evidence-based management,
however MEE is not the primary mechanism for this knowledge
transfer. This suggests that whilst the first goal of MEE (to enable
environmental accountability and reporting) is being achieved,
the second and arguably more important goal of facilitating
evidence-based management is not being achieved. Given that the
MEE approaches examined in this study are still in their infancy,
this situation may improve as MEE becomes institutionalized
within management agencies. Much of the peer-reviewed litera-
ture relating to evaluating management effectiveness of MPAs
addresses how to set management objectives and select indicators
to assess MPA effects (Beliaeff and Pelletier, 2011; Kemp et al.,
2012; Pelletier et al., 2005). There is a great need for prescrip-
tive discussion about how to set quantitative targets and use these
to assess the effectiveness of marine protection (e.g., Samhouri
et al., 2012).
During our interviews, most informants indicated a willingness
to move towards using monitoring results in quantitative condition
assessment and to forge a stronger link between MEE and
evidence-based management. We make the following recommen-
dations to help MEE achieve these aspirations:
1 Ensure internal MEE procedures reflect MEE theory
Closing the loop of MEE to ensure that outcome assessments
inform evidence-based management remains a substantial chal-
lenge for many management agencies (Jacobson et al., 2008, 2014;
Parr et al., 2009). We recommend management agencies conduct
audits of their MEE protocols to identify where breaks in their MEE
cycle are occurring, in order to improve the flow of information
from monitoring programs through to evidence-based manage-
ment of protected areas.
155
2 Invest in targeted long-term monitoring to support outcome
assessments
Monitoring specifically for outcome assessment is recognized as
the most challenging and costly aspect of MEE (Hockings et al.,
2006; Pomeroy et al., 2005). Simply dedicating more resources to
long-term monitoring is not a realistic solution; rather strong col-
laborations between management agencies and the scientific
community will be required to ensure that existing and new long-
term monitoring programs are targeted to the needs of MEE.
3 Move towards quantitative condition assessment of long-term
monitoring results
It is worth investing in the benefits of objectivity, repeatability
and transparency that flow from quantitative condition assessment
(Hockings et al., 2009; Jacobson et al., 2008). Once monitoring data
are targeted to the needs of MEE, management agencies should
develop quantitative condition assessment. By incorporating
management responses into quantitative condition assessment,
true evidence-based management through MEE will be achievable.
4 Increase the frequency of evaluation to ensure MEE enables
evidence-based management
A shorter evaluation timeframe, more frequent than the com-
mon 5e10 year cycle, will improve the alignment of MEE with
evidence-based management. This may mean that evaluation and
reporting frequency must be decoupled, as the cost of producing
publicly available reports on a more frequent basis will not be
viable option for most resource-limited management agencies.
More frequent evaluation will ensure evidence-based management
is the main driver of MEE, rather than public accountability through
reporting.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted in compliance with human ethics
requirements at University of Melbourne (HREC approved project:
1238593.1). We would like to thank all of the informants who
generously donated their time to participate in this research. We
thank Mark Burgman, Jan Carey and three anonymous reviewers
for valuable comments on this manuscript.
PFEA was funded by an Australian Postgraduate Award Schol-
arship, with support from the Parks Victoria's Research Partners
Panel Program, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (United
Kingdom) and the National Environment Research Program, Ma-
rine Biodiversity Research Hub. CNC was supported by the National
Environment Research Program, Environmental Decisions Hub.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.023.
References
ANZECC, 1999. Strategic Plan of Action for the National Representative System of
Marine Protected Areas: a Guide for Action by Australian Governments. Envi-
ronment Australia, Canberra.
Babcock, R.C., Shears, N.T., Alcala, A.C., Barrett, N.S., Edgar, G.J., Lafferty, K.D.,
McClanahan, T.R., Russ, G.R., 2010. Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal
differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 107, 18256e18261.
Barrett, N.S., Buxton, C.D., Edgar, G.J., 2009. Changes in invertebrate and macroalgal
populations in Tasmanian marine reserves in the decade following protection.
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 370, 104e119.
156 P.F.E. Addison et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 149 (2015) 148e156
Bates, A.E., Barrett, N.S., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Holbrook, N.J., Thompson, P.A.,
Edgar, G.J., 2013. Resilience and signatures of tropicalization in protected reef
fish communities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 62e67.
Beliaeff, B., Pelletier, D., 2011. A general framework for indicator design and use with
application to the assessment of coastal water quality and marine protected
area management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 54, 84e92.
Burgman, M.A., Carr, A., Godden, L., Gregory, R., McBride, M., Flander, L., Maguire, L.,
2011. Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv. Lett. 4,
81e87.
Coad, L., Leverington, F., Burgess, N.D., Cuadros, I.C., Geldmann, J., Marthews, T.R.,
Mee, J., Nolte, C., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Vansteelant, N., Zamora, C., Zimsky, M.,
Hockings, M., 2013. Progress towards the CBD protected area management
effectiveness targets. Parks 19 (1), 13e24.
Cook, C.N., Hockings, M., 2011. Opportunities for improving the rigor of manage-
ment effectiveness evaluations in protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 4, 372e382.
Cook, C.N., Hockings, M., Carter, R.W., 2010. Conservation in the dark? The infor-
mation used to support management decisions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 181e186.
Cook, C.N., Carter, R., Fuller, R.A., Hockings, M., 2012. Managers consider multiple
lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions. J. Environ.
Manage. 113, 341e346.
Cook, C.N., Carter, R.W., Hockings, M., 2014. Measuring the accuracy of management
effectiveness evaluations of protected areas. J. Environ. Manage. 139, 164e171.
De'ath, G., Fabricius, K.E., Sweatman, H., Puotinen, M., 2012. The 27-year decline of
coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
109, 17995e17999.
Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program, 2012. Report Card 2012 for the Waterways
and Catchments of South-east Queensland. South East Queensland Healthy
Waterways Partnership, Brisbane, Queensland.
Fazey, I., Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D.B., 2005. What do conservation biologists
publish? Biol. Conserv. 124, 63e73.
Fernandes, L., Day, J., Lewis, A., Slegers, S., Kerrigan, B., Breen, D., Cameron, D.,
Jago, B., Hall, J., Lowe, D., Innes, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Thompson, L.,
Gorman, K., Simmons, M., Barnett, B., Sampson, K., De'ath, G., Mapstone, B.,
Marsh, H., Possingham, H., Ball, I., Ward, T., Dobbs, K., Aumend, J., Slater, D.,
Stapleton, K., 2005. Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great
Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas.
Conserv. Biol. 19, 1733e1744.
Ferraro, P.J., Pattanayak, S.K., 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evalu-
ation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. 4, 482e488.
Field, S.A., O'Connor, P.J., Tyre, A.J., Possingham, H.P., 2007. Making monitoring
meaningful. Austral Ecol. 32, 485e491.
GBRMPA, 2009. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009. Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Townsville.
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., Ohlson, D., 2012.
Structured Decision Making: a Practical Guide to Environmental Management
Choices. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Hockings, M., Ervin, J., Vincent, G., 2004. Assessing the management of protected
areas: the work of the world parks congress before and after Durban. J. Int.
Wildl. Law Policy 7, 31e42.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., Courrau, J., 2006. Evaluating
Effectiveness: a Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Pro-
tected Areas, second ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland/Cambridge, UK, p. 105.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Mathur, V., Makombo, J., Courrau, J., Parrish, J.,
2008. Enhancing Our Heritage Toolkit Assessing Management Effectiveness of
Natural World Heritage Sites. World Heritage Centre, UNESCO, France.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., James, R., 2009. Data credibility: what are the
“right” data for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas? New
Dir. Eval. 2009, 53e63.
IUCN-WCPA, 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and World Commission on
Protected Areas, Gland, Switzerland.
Jacobson, C., Carter, R.W., Hockings, M., 2008. The status of protected area man-
agement evaluation in Australia and implications for its future. Australas. J.
Environ. Manag. 15, 202e210.
Jacobson, C., Carter, R., Thomsen, D., Smith, T., 2014. Monitoring and evaluation for
adaptive coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 89, 51e57.
Kemp, J., Jenkins, G.P., Smith, D.C., Fulton, E.A., 2012. Measuring the performance of
spatial management in marine protected areas. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev.
50, 287e314.
Legg, C.J., Nagy, L., 2006. Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a
waste of time. J. Environ. Manage. 78, 194e199.
Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I.,
Gaines, S.D., Airame, S., Warner, R.R., 2009. Biological effects within no-take
marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33e46.
Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., Hockings, M., 2010. A global analysis
of protected area management effectiveness. Environ. Manage. 46, 685e698.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Likens, G.E., 2010. The science and application of ecological
monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 143, 1317e1328.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Likens, G.E., Andersen, A., Bowman, D., Bull, C.M., Burns, E.,
Dickman, C.R., Hoffmann, A.A., Keith, D.A., Liddell, M.J., Lowe, A.J., Metcalfe, D.J.,
Phinn, S.R., Russell-Smith, J., Thurgate, N., Wardle, G.M., 2012. Value of long-
term ecological studies. Austral Ecol. 37, 745e757.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Piggott, M.P., Wintle, B.A., 2013. Counting the books while the
library burns: why conservation monitoring programs need a plan for action.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 549e555.
Magurran, A.E., Baillie, S.R., Buckland, S.T., Dick, J.M., Elston, D.A., Scott, E.M.,
Smith, R.I., Somerfield, P.J., Watt, A.D., 2010. Long-term datasets in biodiversity
research and monitoring: assessing change in ecological communities through
time. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 574e582.
Malcolm, H.A., Foulsham, E., Pressey, R.L., Jordan, A., Davies, P.L., Ingleton, T.,
Johnstone, N., Hessey, S., Smith, S.D.A., 2012. Selecting zones in a marine park:
early systematic planning improves cost-efficiency; combining habitat and bi-
otic data improves effectiveness. Ocean Coast. Manag. 59, 1e12.
MPRA, 2013. Annual Report. 1 July 2012e30 June 2013. Marine Parks and Reserves
Authority, Western Australia.
Nichols, J.D., Williams, B.K., 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21,
668e673.
NSW Government, 2013. Government Response to the Report of the Independent
Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in New South Wales e a New Approach to
Managing the NSW Marine Estate. NSW Department of Primary Industries,
Sydney.
NSW MPA, 2009a. Jervis Bay Marine Park: Zoning Plan Review Report. NSW Marine
Parks Authority, NSW, Australia.
NSW MPA, 2009b. Solitary Islands Marine Park: Zoning Plan Review Report. NSW
Marine Parks Authority, New South Wales.
Parks Canada, 2011. Consolidated Guidelines for Ecological Integrity Monitoring in
Canada's National Parks. Parks Canada.
Parks Victoria, 2007. Victoria's State of the Parks. Parks Victoria, Melbourne.
Parr, C.L., Woinarski, J.C., Pienaar, D.J., 2009. Cornerstones of biodiversity conser-
vation? Comparing the management effectiveness of Kruger and Kakadu Na-
tional Parks, two key savanna reserves. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 3643e3662.
Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P., Unnasch, R.S., 2003. Are we conserving what we say we
are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. Bioscience 53,
851e860.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, third ed. Sage
Publications, California.
Pelletier, D., Garcia-Charton, J.A., Ferraris, J., David, G., Thebaud, O., Letourneur, Y.,
Claudet, J., Amand, M., Kulbicki, M., Galzin, R., 2005. Designing indicators for
assessing the effects of marine protected areas on coral reef ecosystems: a
multidisciplinary standpoint. Aquat. Living Resour. 18, 15e33.
Pomeroy, R.S., Watson, L.M., Parks, J.E., Cid, G.A., 2005. How is your MPA doing? A
methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected
areas. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48, 485e502.
QSR International, 2012. NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Version 10. QSR
International.
Samhouri, J.F., Lester, S.E., Selig, E.R., Halpern, B.S., Fogarty, M.J., Longo, C.,
McLeod, K.L., 2012. Sea sick? Setting targets to assess ocean health and
ecosystem services. Ecosphere 3, 1e18.
Seavy, N.E., Howell, C.A., 2010. How can we improve information delivery to support
conservation and restoration decisions? Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 1261e1267.
Sergeant, C.J., Moynahan, B.J., Johnson, W.F., 2012. Practical advice for implementing
long-term ecosystem monitoring. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 969e973.
Speed, C.W., Babcock, R.C., Bancroft, K.P., Beckley, L.E., Bellchambers, L.M.,
Depczynski, M., Field, S.N., Friedman, K.J., Gilmour, J.P., Hobbs, J.-P.A., 2013.
Dynamic stability of coral reefs on the west Australian coast. PLoS One 8,
e69863.
State of the Environment Committee, 2011. Australia State of the Environment 2011.
Independent Report to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Department of Sustain-
ability Environment Water Population and Communities, Canberra.
Tierney, G.L., Faber-Langendoen, D., Mitchell, B.R., Shriver, W.G., Gibbs, J.P., 2009.
Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 7, 308e316.
Westgate, M.J., Likens, G.E., Lindenmayer, D.B., 2013. Adaptive management of
biological systems: a review. Biol. Conserv. 158, 128e139.