ArticlePDF Available

Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European environmental policies in 9 cases across Europe

Authors:

Abstract

The data presented in this DiB article provide an overview of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) carried out for 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy), as implemented in 9 cases (Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden). These data are derived from reports and documents about monitoring programs that were publicly-available online in 2017. The literature on M&E to support adaptive management structured the issues that have been extracted and summarized. The data is related to the research article entitled “Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?” [Stem et al., 2005]. The information provides a first overview of monitoring and evaluation that has been implemented in response to key European environmental policies. It provides a structured overview that permits a comparison of cases and policies and can assist other scholars and practitioners working on monitoring and evaluation.
Accepted Manuscript
Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European environmental
policies in 9 cases across Europe
Kerry Waylen, Kirsty Blackstock, Freddy van Hulst, Carmen Damian, Ferenc Horváth,
Richard Johnson, Robert Kanka, Mart Külvik, Christopher Macleod, Kristian Meissner,
Mihaela Oprina-Pavelescu, Joan Pino, Eeva Primmer, Geta Rî�noveanu, Barbora
Šatalová, Jari Silander, Jana Špulerová, Monika Suškevičs, Jan Van Uytvanck
PII: S2352-3409(19)30136-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.103785
Article Number: 103785
Reference: DIB 103785
To appear in: Data in Brief
Received Date: 2 January 2019
Revised Date: 6 February 2019
Accepted Date: 18 February 2019
Please cite this article as: K. Waylen, K. Blackstock, F. van Hulst, C. Damian, F. Horváth, R. Johnson, R.
Kanka, M. Külvik, C. Macleod, K. Meissner, M. Oprina-Pavelescu, J. Pino, E. Primmer, G. Rî�noveanu,
B. Šatalová, J. Silander, J. Špulerová, M. Suškevičs, J. Van Uytvanck, Data summarizing monitoring and
evaluation for three European environmental policies in 9 cases across Europe, Data in Brief, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.103785.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
DATA IN BRIEF TEMPLATE
Meta-Data (Mandatory information required for the transfer of your article to Data in Brief –
will not be typeset)
*Title: Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European
environmental policies in 9 cases across
Europe
*Authors: Kerry Waylen
*Affiliations: Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences, The James Hutton Institute
*Contact email: Kerry.waylen@hutton.ac.uk
*Co-authors:
Kirsty Blackstock Kirsty.Blackstock@hutton.ac.uk
Freddy van Hulst f.vanhulst@reading.ac.uk
Carmen Damian carmen.damian@g.unibuc.ro
Ferenc Horváth horvath.ferenc@okologia.mta.hu
Richard Johnson richard.johnson@slu.se
Robert Kanka robert.kanka@savba.sk
Mart Külvik mart.kylvik@emu.ee
Christopher Macleod Kit.Macleod@hutton.ac.uk
Kristian Meissner kristian.meissner@ymparisto.fi
Mihaela Oprina-Pavelescu mihaela.oprina@bio.unibuc.ro
Joan Pino Joan.pino@uab.cat
Eeva Primmer eeva.primmer@ymparisto.fi
Geta Rîșnoveanu geta.risnoveanu@g.unibuc.ro
Barbora Šatalová barbora.satalova@savba.sk
Jari Silander jari.silander@ymparisto.fi
Jana Špulerová jana.spulerova@savba.sk
Monika Suškevičs monika.suskevics@emu.ee
Jan Van Uytvanck
jan.vanuytvanck@inbo.be
*CATEGORY: Environmental Science: Management, Monitoring, Policy & Law
Data Article
Title: Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European environmental policies
in 9 cases across Europe
Authors: Kerry Waylen*
a
; Kirsty Blackstock
a
; Freddy van Hulst
a1
; Carmen Damian
b
; Ferenc
Horváth
c
; Richard Johnson
d
; Robert Kanka
e
; Mart Külvik
f
; Christopher Macleod
g
; Kristian
Meissner
h
; Mihaela 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
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Affiliations:
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, 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
1. Present address: School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, University of Reading,
Agriculture building, Early gate, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AR, UK
Contact email: Kerry.Waylen@hutton.ac.uk
Abstract
The data presented in this DiB article provide an overview of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
carried out for 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura
2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes implemented under the
Common Agricultural Policy), as implemented in 9 cases (Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland,
Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden). These data are
derived from reports and documents about monitoring programs that were publicly-available
online in 2017. The literature on M&E to support adaptive management structured the issues
that have been extracted and summarized. The data is related to the research article entitled
“Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ecological systems?” [1]. The information provides a first overview of monitoring and
evaluation that has been implemented in response to key European environmental policies. It
provides a structured overview that permits a comparison of cases and policies and can assist
other scholars and practitioners working on monitoring and evaluation.
Specifications Table
Subject area
Environmental policy
;
More specific subject
area
Monitoring; evaluation; European Policy; Water Framework
Directive; Natura 2000;
Agri
-
Environment Schemes
Type of data
Table
s and text
How data was acquired Review and analysis of any publicly-available information on
monitoring programs
Data format
Summarized
,
analyzed
Experimental factors In 2017 the authors searched for publicly available about monitoring
programs associated with 3 policy areas: the Water Framework
Directive, Natura 2000 and Agri-Environment Schemes under the
Common Agricultural Policy. Authors from each organization
searched for information about monitoring in the country or region
of the organization where they are based: Catalonia (Spain), Estonia,
Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland
(UK), Sweden. Internet searches of grey and academic literature
were used: some authors also contacted policy contacts for advice
about where this information could be found, but did not use any
information that was not already publicly available.
Experimental features Bibliographic information on the information sources was recorded
(see reference list below), and each author team searched for and
summarized information about monitoring and evaluation according
to a standard template (see below).
Data source location Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary,
Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden
Data accessibility
All of the data are within this article.
Related research article Companion paper to:
Waylen, K.A.; Blackstock, K.L.; van Hulst. F.; Damian, C.; Horváth, F.;
Johnson, R.; Kanka, R.; Külvik, M.; Macleod, C.; Meissner, C.; Oprina-
Pavelescu, M.; Pino, J.; Primmer, E.; Rîșnoveanu, G.; Šatalová, B.;
Silander, J.; Špulerová, J.; Suškevičs, M.; Van Uytvanck, J. 2019.
Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive
management of socio-ecological systems? Science of the Total
Environment
,
662
: 373
-
384.
[
2
].
Value of the Data
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The data provide the first overview of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices carried
out by a selection European member states and regions, under 3 European environmental
policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and
Agri-Environment Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy).
The data permit comparison across cases as well as across policies, and so provide a
baseline for comparative studies.
The source of information used to describe monitoring in each case are provided, thus
providing a baseline for researchers seeking more in-depth analyses.
Data
The dataset provided by this article allows an overview of key aspects of monitoring and
evaluation carried out in 9 cases in response to 3 European environmental policies. M&E has
been identified as an essential part of adaptive management [1]: therefore the information
about M&E has been extracted and summarized in terms of attributes that can support
adaptive management.
The data are provided in two supplementary files. Appendix A provides a list of the reports and
documents from which the data are derived. For ease of reference these lists are separated
firstly by each of the 9 cases, and then within each case are subdivided by each policy. Many of
the sources are not academic papers, but reports published by government and state agencies:
where possible we provide weblinks for ease of access. Appendix B lists of sets of tables
summarizing the authors’ summaries of aspects of M&E carried out for each policy within each
case. Sets of tables describe firstly what is monitored, then describe how monitoring is carried
out, and finally describe what is known about how monitoring information is used in evaluation.
The summary judgements in these tables are derived from the authors’ review and analysis of
the documents provided in Appendix A.
Experimental Design, Materials, and Methods
In early 2017, nine teams of co-authors agreed to collect information about policy-driven
monitoring and evaluation in their country (or in their region, where environmental policy has
been devolved). The three European policy areas were: the Water Framework Directive,
Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes under the Common
Agricultural Policy. The nine cases were; Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium),
Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden. In mid-2017 each team used major search
engines (e.g. google) to search for any publicly available documentation about monitoring
under each policy area in their region or country. To ensure all relevant documents were
identified, authors also consulted experts from their networks: however, the study explicitly
used only publicly-available documentation, even when participants, their institutions or other
experts may have had “insider” or tacit knowledge of the practical implementation of
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
monitoring of some schemes. The final set of documents is contained within the references list.
They then documented policy-driven monitoring in their country or region, for all three policy
areas, using a common template which is already available as supplementary information to
[2]. The templates were filled in based on information available from publicly available
documents, with references to these documents made for all statements within the completed
templates. Please see below for a copy of the template which guided the expert review of the
documents. The criteria in these table are derived from previously published work on
monitoring and evaluation suitable for supporting adaptive management [3].
Appendix A: List of sources used to analyze policy-driven M&E, for each case
Appendix B: Tables summarizing of key aspects of M&E for each case and every policy
Acknowledgments
We thank the ALTER-Net High Impact Action for its financial support for the study that has led
to this paper. ALTER-Net (http://www.alter-net.info/) is a network of partner institutes who
research biodiversity and ecosystem services and inform policymakers and the public about
these topics. The research time for KAW, KLB, KM and FH was funded by the Scottish
Government Strategic Research Programme 2016-21. Research time for JP was funded by
CREAF (Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications) and the Autonomous
University of Barcelona. Each author team would also like to thank colleagues who provided
input or expert feedback: in Catalonia, Carles Castells (Barcelona Province Council) and Pau
Sainz de la Maza (Autonomous Government of Catalonia); in Estonia, Irja Truumaa (Estonian
Ministry of Environment); in Flanders, Desiré Paelinckx, An Leyssen, Jo Packet (Research
Institute for Nature and Forest - INBO); in Scotland, Alison Hester, Antonia Eastwood, Marc
Stutter, Rob Brooker, Robin Pakeman; and Sophie Tindale (James Hutton Institute); in Slovakia,
Miriam Vlachovičová (the Slovak Academy of Sciences); in Sweden, Pavel Bina (Swedish Species
Information Centre, SLU) and Katarina Kyllmar (Department of Soil and Environment, SLU).
References
[
1]
Stem, C., R. Margoluis, N. Salafsky, and M. Brown, Monitoring and Evaluation in
Conservation: a Review of Trends and Approaches. Conservation Biology, 2005. 19(2): p.
295-309.
[2] Waylen, K.A., K.L. Blackstock, v.H. F., C. Damian, F. Horváth, R. Johnson, R. Kanka, M.
Külvik, C. Macleod, C. Meissner, M. Oprina-Pavelescu, J. Pino, E. Primmer, G.
Rîșnoveanu, B. Šatalová, J. Silander, J. Špulerová, M. Suškevičs, and J. Van Uytvanck,
Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-
ecological systems? Science of the Total Environment, 2019. 662: p. 373-384.
MANUS CRIP T
ACCEP TED
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[3] Waylen, K.A. and K.L. Blackstock, Monitoring for Adaptive Management or Modernity:
Lessons from recent initiatives for holistic environmental management. Environmental
Policy and Governance, 2017. 27(4): p. 311-324.
... The application of space observations like InSAR has the potential to improve our assessment of Nordic water resources and their changes. Despite this data being mostly freely available in the Nordic countries (in contrast to many other European countries) (Waylen et al. 2019a(Waylen et al. , 2019b, it is still not taken full advantage of for studying Nordic water resources and ecosystems, one obstacle being their large data storage capacities and processing time requirements. Furthermore, there is still little information of climate change influences on ET at the Nordic scale despite its key control on the water balance. ...
Article
Full-text available
The 21st century has brought new challenges and opportunities and has also increased demands on the Nordic hydrological community. Our hydrological science focus and approaches need rethinking and adaptation to the changing requirements of society in response to climate change and human interventions, in search of more comprehensive and cross-disciplinary solutions. This commentary highlights new possibilities and suggests vital steps forward for the scientific discipline within Nordic hydrological research. By providing a common direction, we hope to increase awareness, accelerate progress in the hydrological community, and emphasize the importance of hydrological knowledge for serving other fields of science and society at large. We hope that our vision and the opportunities we identify will raise awareness of the scientific discipline and assist in the long-term development of the Nordic hydrological frontier in the 21st century. HIGHLIGHTS In this commentary, we highlight new possibilities and suggest vital steps forward for the scientific discipline within the Nordic hydrological research.; By providing a common direction, we hope to increase the awareness, and thus not only accelerate progress in the hydrological community but also emphasize the importance of hydrological knowledge for serving other fields of science and society.;
Article
Full-text available
Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the 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 available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and 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 countries 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.
Article
Recommendations for improving environmental management often advocate a holistic approach that supports both social and environmental objectives. This should be reflected in approaches to monitoring and evaluation; however, monitoring is often inadequate and hence limits our ability to implement adaptive management. It is important to understand if monitoring practices are changing, and if not, why. Thus, this paper considers the monitoring practices and priorities of 24 ‘Ecosystem Approach’ projects implementing holistic and participatory environmental management. We found project monitoring was often focused on biophysical indicators, such as indicators of water pollution, even when adaptive management might prioritize understanding different issues or using different data-types. By contrast, aspects of social and economic aspects were monitored infrequently. Procedural aspects were rarely tracked. Project managers' aspirations did sometimes include such issues, but these were seen as more difficult or even impossible to measure. Schema were also shaped by the need to demonstrate accountability and quantify progress to funders. Our study suggests monitoring still falls short of theoretical recommendations. This is partially due to the misfit between new understandings of socio-ecological systems and pre-existing modernist paradigms, whose conceptions and expectations still have pervasive effects of our ways of thinking and working. Tackling this requires explicit attention to sticking points across the levels of institutions that shape environmental management. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Article
There is growing recognition among conservation practitioners and scholars that good project management is integrally linked to well-designed monitoring and evaluation systems. Most conservation organizations have attempted to develop and implement monitoring and evaluation systems, often with mixed results. One problem seems to be that organizations are trying to build their systems from scratch, overlooking lessons learned from the many efforts to develop useful and practical monitoring and evaluation approaches. Thus, we undertook a review of monitoring and evaluation approaches in conservation and other fields including international development, public health, family planning, education, social services, and business. Here, we present our results for the field of conservation. We categorized the considerable variety of monitoring and evaluation approaches into four broad purposes: basic research; accounting and certification; status assessment; and effectiveness measurement. We focus here on status assessment and effectiveness measurement. Specific lessons that emerged follow: different monitoring and evaluation needs require different approaches; conceptual similarities are widespread among prevailing approaches; inconsistent language impedes communication; confusion among monitoring and evaluation components hinders practitioner ability to choose the appropriate component; and monitoring only quantitative biological variables is insufficient. We suggest that the conservation community continue support of collaborative initiatives to improve monitoring and evaluation, establish clear definitions of commonly used terms, clarify monitoring and evaluation system components, apply available approaches appropriately, and include qualitative and social variables in monitoring efforts.