Advances in monitoring the human dimension of natural resource systems: an example from the Great Barrier Reef

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of decision-centric social-economic monitoring using data collected from Great Barrier Reef (Reef) region. The social and economic long term monitoring program (SELTMP) for the Reef is a novel attempt to monitor the social and economic dimensions of social-ecological change in a globally and nationally important region. It represents the current status and condition of the major user groups of the Reef with the potential to simultaneously consider trends, interconnections, conflicts, dependencies and vulnerabilities. Our approach was to combine a well-established conceptual framework with a strong governance structure and partnership arrangement that enabled the co-production of knowledge. The framework is a modification of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and it was used to guide indicator choice. Indicators were categorised as; (i) resource use and dependency, (ii) ecosystem benefits and well-being, and (iii) drivers of change. Data were collected through secondary datasets where existing and new datasets were created where not, using standard survey techniques. Here we present an overview of baseline results of new survey data from commercial-fishers (n = 210), marine-based tourism operators (n = 119), tourists (n = 2877), local residents (n = 3181), and other Australians (n = 2002). The indicators chosen describe both social and economic components of the Reef system and represent an unprecedented insight into the ways in which people currently use and depend on the Reef, the benefits that they derive, and how they perceive, value and relate to the Reef and each other. However, the success of a program such as the SELTMP can only occur with well-translated cutting-edge data and knowledge that are collaboratively produced, adaptive, and directly feeds into current management processes. We discuss how data from the SELTMP have already been incorporated into Reef management decision-making through substantial inclusion in three key policy documents.


Introduction
The need to incorporate social and economic data into environmental or natural resource management is well-established (Berkes andFolke 1998, Cinner et al 2009). More recently, a critical shift in policy thinking has explicitly recognized the importance of nature to human development and economic sustainability (Guerry et al 2012). People are recognised as part of natural resource systems and regarded as beneficiaries of enviromental planning rather than as impacts. This transition in policy thinking is expected to enable environmental management that is adaptive and resilient where learnings and understanding of social, cultural, governance and economic aspects of natural systems are expected to better achieve management goals (Howden et al 2007, Stone-Jovicich 2015. The human component of natural resource systems can be difficult to consider and even more so to incorporate into decision-making (Liu et al 2007, Reyers et al 2013. This may be because social data are often complex and the social, cultural, environmental and economic aspects of natural resource systems are often competing. Science salience, credibility and legitimacy are often also problematic with social data (Cash et al 2003). Processes and analytical tools that enable the efficient assimilation of robust and timely social and economic data into decision-making processes are very much needed, but are still only within their infancy.
Longitudinal, up-to-date and comparable social and economic datasets of key stakeholders can provide an opportunity to simultaneously consider trends, interconnections, conflicts, dependencies and vulnerabilities in advance of strategies and policies being proposed (Marshall et al 2013). Knowledge of each can lead to more effective, feasible and acceptable resource management strategies. However, whilst examples of single stakeholder group monitoring programs are plentiful (Bengston et al 1999, Boyd andCharles 2006, https://lternet.edu/), there are only few examples of broader long term social and economic information collection programs that balance biodiversity conservation with human development and wellbeing (Fox et al 2014), particularly in developed regions such as the Great Barrier Reef.
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that, despite the unruly nature of social systems, decisioncentric social-economic monitoring is feasible, and to do so we use an example from the Great Barrier Reef. The social and economic long term monitoring program (SELTMP) for the Great Barrier Reef represents the first large scale, multi-user-group, (potentially) long term social and economic monitoring program of its kind. We modify a framework from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) that endeavours to conceptualise the complexity of human systems through isolating those social system components most useful to environmental management and incorporating a range of stakeholder groups at a range of scales. A further aim was to increase the chance that the data would be considered in management processes. Our approach was to combine the conceptual framework with a strong governance structure and partnership arrangement (Stone-Jovicich 2015). Importantly, reef decision-makers were research partners and co-producers of knowledge (Cash et al 2003, Reyers et al 2015). The approach and lessons provide a model for the development of long term social and economic monitoring programs elsewhere. Whilst we are not able to report on trends or changes within the social system at this early stage, the baseline data provide a unique insight into current social and economic conditions associated with the Great Barrier Reef. We have not attempted to interpret or analyse the data. Below we describe the SELTMP conceptual framework, design and initial baseline results.
Case study context: the Great Barrier Reef and its management The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is widely regarded as one of the most sophisticated and well-resourced natural resource management settings in the world (figure 1). The Great Barrier Reef supports a wealth of economic activity ($5 billion per year) and is a vital contribution to the wellbeing of coastal communities (Larson et al 2013, Stoeckl et al 2011, Australians more generally (Goldberg et al 2016), and broader international community. The long term implications of climate change, poor water quality and coastal development have emerged as key sources of uncertainty and community expectations around each of these management challenges is high (Goldberg et al 2016).
Management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area includes a range of tools such as zoning plans, management plans, permits and licences (including environmental impact assessment and measures to avoid, mitigate and offset impacts), Traditional Owner agreements, compliance, fees and charges, policy, partnerships, stewardship, education, research, monitoring and reporting 7 .
Three key documents have recently been developed to guide management of the Great Barrier Reef; (i) The Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment: Strategic Assessment Report, (ii) the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014, and (iii) the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (LTSP). These are critical documents for the forward planning and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area, and were the targeted policy recipients, in the short-term, of data collected from the SELTMP. For example, the LTSP focuses on the ecological, social and economic sustainability of Reef-dependent industries and activities that support the Australian economy. It has seven key themes, each with their own outcomes, objectives, targets, values and attributes (figure 2). Four of the themes presented in figure 2 describe the human dimensions of the system; (i) governance, (ii) community benefits, (iii) economic benefits, and (iv) heritage. Data from the SELTMP were expected to directly address community benefits and economic benefits. Community benefits were defined as: 'K the vital role that a healthy vibrant Reef plays in community life. People visit the Reef for a wide range of reasons such as nature appreciation, opportunities for relaxation and enjoyment, cultural connections and for livelihoods.' Economic benefits were defined as: 'K financial benefits derived directly and indirectly from the Great Barrier Reef and its catchment.' In 2011 the first comprehensive SELTMP for the Great Barrier Reef was initiated following repeated calls from reef managers of the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef for stronger and comprehensive social science data that could be used to assist managers in their day-to-day duties. It was designed to collect information that would enable Reef managers and other decision-makers to detect changes in condition in the social system, measure social impacts associated with management interventions, monitor trends in public support for management and to provide data for analysing trade-offs associated with decision-making. The baseline phase focused on commercial fishing, marine tourism, coastal communities, national residents (Australians), and ports and shipping. Subsequent phases are planned to include Traditional Owners, agricultural industries and mining.

The Great Barrier Reef monitoring program design
The SELTMP for the Great Barrier Reef was focused on process and structure so as to ensure both policy relevance and science credibility, salience and legitimacy (Cash et al 2003). A key design aim was to minimise redundancy, maximize end-user engagement and facilitate the co-production of knowledge. Our approach was to set up a series of advisory groups. We established a high level steering committee of only six members that ensured that the program was policy relevant and true to its contractual commitments yet sufficiently flexible to deliver on stakeholder needs. The group met twice a year and was chaired by a representative from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, who was a key end user of the SELTMP data. We also established a Scientific and Stakeholder Advisory Panel (SSAP) comprised of 22 representative members across community, government, research and industry. Initially the SSAP met twice a year, but once established it only met annually. The purpose of the SSAP was to engage high level potential end-users of the research and maximise the relevance of the SELTMP to the broad range of stakeholders in the region. We also established technical working groups for each of the major sectors of commercial fishing, marine tourism, coastal communities, recreation, and ports and shipping as well as technical working groups to advise on cross-cutting issues of drivers of change and wellbeing. The seven working groups comprised technical experts from community, government, research and industry. The groups met regularly and less frequently and less formally as the program continued, as agreed on by group members. Some groups comprised only a small number of members (e.g. four people in the Ports and Shipping working group), whilst others comprised larger numbers (e.g. 25 people in the Tourism working group). During the initial meetings, the groups were encouraged to highlight their own internal issues and priorities and discuss how the availability of social and economic data might be useful. Trust and effective relationships within each group were important to establish. Groups developed a 'wish list' of indicators over subsequent meetings. Some groups took longer than other groups to develop their 'wish list'. Group members understood that not all indicators on the wish list' would be monitored, and that whether they were chosen or not depended on their feasibility as well as whether there was scientific reason for them as dictated by the monitoring framework. The working groups were instrumental in selecting and prioritising the initial list of variables and indicators to be monitored. During the next phase of meetings, working group members were asked to assist SELTMP staff by identifying existing datasets where data describing chosen indicators could be accessed or made available. We then worked to access these datasets where possible. In the final stages of meetings, members of working groups were provided with project results and made aware of the compilation of data relevant to their working group area. In this way, we worked to deliver data where needed.
Our approach to structure the SELTMP was to use the drivers-pressures-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (Stokstad 2005) as the underlying framework for the design of the program and to guide the process of indicator choice. The DPSIR framework, upon which the MA was based, was familiar to managers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and later formed the basis of their Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (www.gbrmpa.gov.au) (figure 3). We adapted the MA framework for the SELTMP to focus explicitly on the social and economic dimension of the Reef system and its relationship with the ecosystem (see figure 3). The adapted SELTMP monitoring framework focused on: (i) resource use and dependency, (ii) human and community wellbeing, and (iii) drivers of change (describing the context within which environmental decisions are made), each of which are described below. The adapted SELTMP framework enabled data needs and gaps to be identified, and guided the process to decide which indicators selected by the advisory panels (the 'wish list') would be most informative and feasible to monitor.

Resource use and dependency indicators
The character and extent of well-being can be determined by how people are financially, culturally, spiritually and intellectually dependent on a natural resource (MA 2005). How people are dependent on a natural resource can provide foundational and fundamental information to Reef managers as it describes who uses the Reef, how many use the Reef, where they go, when, how, why and how much is used or harvested. Resource use and dependency provide a description of some of the community and economic benefits that each stakeholder group derive from the Great Barrier Reef, critical for reporting on the LTSP.

Ecosystem benefits or Human and community wellbeing indicators
Human and community wellbeing are related to a range of factors. Here we consider the well-being derived from an ecosystem as; (i) the opportunities that people associate with the Reef, (ii) the level of empowerment in reef processes and opportunities, (iii) the security or perceived levels of social stability, environmental sustainability and environmental quality both now and in the future (www.worldbank.org/ wellbeing). These indicators also provide additional descriptions of the community benefits that can be derived from the Reef, critical for reporting on the LTSP (Marshall et al 2007).

Drivers of change
This social-system component describes the social context within which management decisions are made. Six categories of drivers were identified using the literature and a workshop within the 'Drivers of Change technical working group' as: (i) economic, (ii) social and cultural, (iii) demographic, (iv) political and management, (v) communication and media and (vi) science and technology (Bohensky et al 2011). Socialcultural aspects are presented in this manuscript as the particular driver requiring primary data collection (B). The drivers of change could be used in LTSP reporting.

Methods and materials
In order to avoid redundancy and provide opportunities for partnerships, existing regional data sets (such as industry records, census data, government databases etc) were used wherever possible to provide indicators of key variables. Where existing data did not exist for priority indicators, we used standard socialscience techniques to survey each of the major usergroups within the region (Bryman 2012). We report here on the primary (new) data collected through the SELTMP. National residents were surveyed via an online research panel and sample size was determined by budget (n=2002). Coastal residents (n=3181) and tourists (domestic and international, n=2877) were surveyed using face-to-face methods by a team of interviewers that were located across a range of public places in the main population centres along the Great Barrier Reef (the response rate was 53%). Our aim was to get as many surveys completed from coastal residents and tourists that we could within a four week period (July-September 2013 across all regions), and remain within budget. Marine tourism operators (n=119) and commercial fishers (n=210) were interviewed by telephone using our own contacts databases and publicly-available data. The samples represent 56% and 35% of each industry. For a detailed description on the survey approach, please see the supplementary material provided. The collective response rate for the marine-based industries was 76%.

Results
The results presented below provide a large-scale overview of the relationship between people and the Great Barrier Reef. Detailed results from the 2014 baseline surveys can be downloaded from http:// seltmp.eatlas.org.au/seltmp. We report here only on the 'big picture' data as they provide an unparalleled insight into current social and economic conditions within the region.

Resource use
The Great Barrier Reef is a much used resource by all user groups (table 1). For example, 86% of local residents (total population=909 422) had visited the Reef within the last twelve months (table 1), representing 782 103 visitor days. Our results yield an estimated 66 568 effort days spent on the Reef by the 759 active commercial fishing operations; 132 008 days of operation on the Reef by the 569 advertised tourism operators and 52 129 700 total tourist days (assuming a tourist population of 74 471 000 and a 70% visitation rate to the Reef). In total, the Great Barrier Reef received an estimated 53.3 M days of use in 2013, with 98% of all days comprising tourism visitation. There were 8839 port visits from commercial ships. Resource use is typically measured as how people interact with the resource and to what extent, but overlaying cultural elements such as 'favourite places' (as opposed to 'frequented places') can be particularly useful to environmental managers who may want to know where the places that are important to people may be. A map of the favourite places of local residents is presented in figure 4 as an example of how resource use was captured (http://seltmp.eatlas.org. au/seltmp). This map might be useful to decide where extra resources might be allocated for heightened protection or recreational opportunities or to assess the level of threat that a potential change might be if near to a 'favourite place'.

Resource dependency
People depend on the Reef for financial and cultural benefits. Financially, we found that 25% of local residents depended on the Reef directly for at least some of their household income. Culturally, the Reef was an important part of the lifestyle of local residents, providing recreational opportunities and fresh seafood. For example, 41% of local residents, 76% of tourism operators and 65% of fishers stated that they lived in the region because of the Reef. Similarly, 78% of coastal residents valued the Reef for the fresh seafood it provides (table 1).
All user groups indicated that the Reef was an important part of their identity (figure 4). In fact, the broader Australian community identified with the Reef more than local residents (table 1 and figure 5). Tourism operators most strongly identified with the Reef (mean 8.02 on a scale of 1-10), followed by Australian residents (mean 7.39), commercial fishers, (mean 6.95), local residents (mean 6.43), domestic tourists (5.45) and international tourists (3.53). In figure 5 we provide some examples of how different stakeholders are dependent on the Reef through their identities, perceptions of whether the Reef is the best place to enjoy recreational activities, perceptions around whether their job is a lifestyle, and whether they want to be in any other occupation. The level of attachment to identity, recreational opportunities or occupation provides resource managers with some insight into how people might perceive a proposed management change that may threaten their relationship with the Reef. NATIONAL RESIDENTS: • Reef visitation in previous 12 months, lifetime.
• 86% of coastal residents in the region and 9% of Australians had visited the Reef in the previous 12 months.
• 70% of tourists in the region had visited the Reef during their stay and 50% took part in a commercial Reef tour.
• 30% of commercial fishers operate with 50 km of their home port; 46% roam further than 100 km from their home port.
• 1073 active tourism permits in Reef in 2013 (many operators hold multiple permits).
• Tourism operators spent a mean of 232 days on the Reef in the last 12 months • 44% of national residents surveyed had visited the Reef.
• Tourists to the region stay in the region for a median of 10 days • 25% of Reef coastal residents rely of the Reef for at least part of their household income.
• 41% of local residents, 76% of tourism operators and 65% of fishers stated that 'I live in this region because of the Reef' • 66% of coastal residents agree that there are few places better than the Reef for the recreation activities they enjoy.
• 78% of coastal residents value the Reef for the fresh seafood it provides.
• 63% of residents indicated that the Great Barrier Reef is part of my identity • 84% of tourism operators said that the Reef was part of their identity • 80% of residents, 93% of tourism operators, and 88% of commercial fisheries stated that 'the Reef contributes to my quality of life and wellbeing' • 93% of coastal residents value the Reef for the lifestyle it provides, and 95% agree that the Reef is a valuable asset for the regional economy.
• 88% of commercial fishers felt the Reef contributed to their quality of life, but only 46% felt optimistic about the future of their business.
• The mean satisfaction rating for tourists' experience of the Reef was 8.5/10 (overall very high). • 96% of tourists agreed that the aesthetic beauty of the Reef is outstanding, however 31% indicated that the place they visited most recently was not in great condition.
• 68% of commercial fishers felt proud that the Reef is World Heritage.
• 61% of tourism operators are confident they can plan for changes in the Reef, such as floods, cyclones of financial crises.

Values • Economic
• Intrinsic (e.g. biodiversity) • 70% of national survey respondents rated the Great Barrier Reef as the most, second most or third most inspiring place in Australia (highest ranked). • How inspiring is the Reef? (Comparison to other national landmarks) • The highest ratings for values of the Reef by coastal residents were: aesthetic values (9.10/10), biodiversity (9.07), economic (8.86), scientific and educational (8.48), lifestyle values (8.45) and international appeal (8.04).

Perceptions of Reef condition and threats
• Ecosystem state/health • Pressures and threats ALL: • What are the first words that come to mind when you think of the Reef?
• What do you think are the three most serious threats to the Reef?
• The different stakeholder groups perceived threats to the Reef differently. For example, for coastal residents the most frequently identified threats were shipping, overfishing and pollution; whereas for tourists the most serious threats were tourism, climate change and pollution (Curnock et al in review hopefully).

Level of connectedness with the Reef
• Place attachment • I wouldn't want to be anything other than a tourism operator/commercial fisher • 80% of national survey respondents agreed the Reef is part of their national identity.
• 40% of coastal residents agreed that they live in the region because of the Reef.
• 60% of tourism operators and 66% of commercial fishers did not want to be in any other occupation.

Networks, information and trust
• Societal norms • The media and social media were the least trusted sources of information about the Reef among all groups (lowest mean ratings).
• Commercial fishers rated their trust in the management agency as low (mean=3.9/10), while tourism operators gave a much higher rating (mean=7.1/10).  • 46% of commercial fishers were confident things would turn out for them regardless of events.
• 37% of commercial fishers were certain of how to plan for changes in the Reef that could affect them • 68% of fishers felt that they were good developing scenarios for the future and planning for them.
• 78% of fishers felt that they were more likely to adapt to changes compared to others they knew • 69% of commercial fishers had planned for their financial security Perceptions of Governance • Confidence in management ALL • I feel confident that the Reef is well managed • I support the current rules and regulations that affect access and use of the Reef • I do not have fair access to the Reef compared to other user groups • Industry rules and regulations create too great a burden on my time • 67% of tourism operators were confident the Reef is well managed and 68% supported current rules and regulations relating to Reef use, and 64% regularly get involved in research and/or management activities for the Reef.
• 40% of commercial fishers felt they did not have fair access to the Reef compared to other user groups and 71% felt that industry rules and regulations created too great a burden on their time. 21% of residents thought that they did not have fair access to the Reef compared to other groups.

Reef Stewardship
• Support for regulations • Personal responsibility to protect the Reef FISHERS: • It is not my responsibility to protect the Reef • 95% of coastal residents, 91% of tourists, 86% of tourism operators and 86% of commercial fishers felt that it was the responsibility of all Australians to protect the Reef • 87% of coastal residents, 79% of tourists, 98% of tourism operators and 90% of commercial fishers felt it was their responsibility to protect the Reef.  figure 6. Specifically, figure 6 presents results around the security that people feel towards its beauty, condition, future, and threats. If people continue to report on the outstanding aesthetic qualities of the Reef, for example, it is likely that their well-being around the Reef is being maintained, and that management actions are achieving their goals.

Social-cultural drivers of change
Example data reflecting the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, values, behaviours and perceptions of norms of all user groups are presented in table 1 so as to describe the context within which management decisions are made, and how particular political decisions or management strategies might be driven as a consequence of this context. Many commonalties and conflicting priorities were observed within and between user-groups. For example, commercial fishers valued aesthetic values more highly (9.0/10), than biodiversity (9.0), economic (9.0), scientific and educational (7.3), lifestyle values (8.7) and international appeal (6.8). These results were comparable to all other stakeholder groups suggesting that the Reef was most valued for its aesthetic qualities regardless of the economic benefits that some user groups may derive. Conflicts were recognised in how people perceived threats to the Reef. For example, coastal residents identified threats as shipping and overfishing (Curnock et al in review).

Discussion
We have developed a baseline dataset that empirically characterises the current social and economic conditions within the Great Barrier Reef. The data across all stakeholder groups empowers reef managers, industries and communities to gain an unprecedented insight into how people use the Reef (where they go, how often, when, how), and why (financial, cultural, spiritual and intellectual reasons), as well as recording stakeholder perceptions, attitudes, experiences, behaviours and perceptions of norms around the Reef resource. In sum, these measures describe the current social-cultural context within which behaviours are observed and decisions are made. As a (un-analysed) baseline record, the data presented provides opportunities for specific input into policy processes and day-to-day management decisions (Turner et al 2016). For example, in the development of the current Whitsunday Plan of Management (a key tourism area within the Reef), Reef managers can relatively accurately gauge the number of residents and recreational fishers, tourism operators and domestic and international tourists, and commercial fishers. From here, Reef managers can consider interconnections between stakeholder groups overlapping Figure 5. Some examples of how people can be dependent on natural resources. Different stakeholders develop different identities around the Reef, perceptions of whether the Reef is the best place to enjoy recreational activities, perceptions around whether their job is a lifestyle, and whether they want to be in any other occupation (see the 16 page brochure at http://seltmp.eatlas.org.au/seltmp). in space, identify hotspots for conflict, and protect places in which stakeholder groups are particularly dependent. The richness of data will mature with time as longitudinal trends and relationships emerge, as additional users and industries are incorporated and as comparisons are made with other resource systems (Rothlisberger et al 2010). Whilst a non-response bias may have occurred, the results reinforce the notion that people have a complex and rich relationship with the Great Barrier Reef, and that it is feasible to establish a social and economic monitoring within a complex and large social-ecological system.
Although the Great Barrier Reef is a capacity and resource-rich setting, we see that our framework and general approach can be applied in other contexts and within other countries that have lower resources and capacities. Commitment to long-term monitoring is critical for adaptive and resilient resource management. Long-term monitoring offers the best research approach available for refining theory and methods for conceptualizing and assessing how people are prepared for change and adapt. Long-term monitoring also offers the best opportunity to assess the future of each industry and community in the face of various change events including climate change, environmental degradation, regulatory change, cultural change and other non-defined short-term impacts through analyses of 'before' and 'after' data. Through accessing publically available and longitudinal datasets, such as the SELTMP, local and global social scientists can provide new insights through re-interpreting the data in novel ways. For example, Turner et al (2016) have reinterpreted the data to assess how trust, confidence and equity affect legitimacy. Goldberg et al (2016) similarly reviewed the data to more fully describe the response of Australians to climate change.
The success of a program such as the SELTMP can only occur with well-translated cutting-edge social and economic science data and knowledge that directly feeds into current management processes. The science must be excellent, collaborative and must itself adapt as learnings from the monitoring datasets are developed. Within the Great Barrier Reef context, policy documents have clearly articulated targets and outcomes. Data from the SELTMP have already been incorporated into Reef management policy processes through the development of the Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment: Strategic Assessment Report, the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014, and the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (LTSP). Each document used SELTMP data to describe the drivers of change affecting the Reef, and to assess the impacts of human activities undertaken within the Reef region. Each document describes attributes of human well-being that are linked to the Great Barrier Reef. The Strategic Assessment and Outlook Report also recorded the current conditions and values that describe the community benefits derived from the Reef. Currently, SELTMP data is being used to populate several 'report cards' within the region (Pascoe et al 2016). Report cards are increasingly used to measure and record changes in ecosystem health over time and provide ongoing snap-shots of progress towards specific ecosystem health goals (Pascoe et al 2016). While most report cards focus on the biophysical components of the system, there is a growing interest in including the social and economic implications of ecosystem management to provide a greater socialecological system understanding.
Partnerships between social scientists, ecological scientists and environmental managers are key to successful environmental management. Through co-producing knowledge and building trust, as well as sharing knowledge and acknowledging disciplinary differences in science approaches, more resilient and sustainable decision-making may be possible (Cvitanovic et al 2015). Approaching environmental issues through a systems understanding is critical to address complex dynamic relationships. Working across disciplines helps expose knowledge blind-spots, questions assumptions, exposes trade-offs and synergies and leads to better solutions (Arkema et al 2015, Marshall et al in review). A significant next challenge is to integrate social conditions and trends data with data from ecological monitoring programs to provide decision makers with a holistic understanding of the Reef system (Pooley et al 2014).
Further innovations in social and economic monitoring are needed if the complex and competing human aspects of resource systems are to be more effectively integrated into decision-making processes. The frequency that data should be collected is one such improvement. For example, while some social indicators are known to be relatively robust through time (such as education, income, population), and fluctuate only minimally, there is only little information available to determine the frequency with which others should be monitored to detect change (such as wellbeing, values, trust, etc) (Stidham et al 2014). Other innovations will need to focus on reducing the costs associated with monitoring, such as considering citizen science approaches that cut the costs of data collection ( Innovations in data collection and presentation through social media mechanisms also need attention. Innovations in increasing the useability of data are particuarly needed, and these are likely to be influenced by better choice of indicators, the extent of enduser involvement, the accessibility of monitoring data, the suitability and timeliness of interpretation, the frequency of new data collections, non-response improvements and the frequency of review, learning and assessment.
We hope that this is the beginning of a new era in natural resource management where social and economic information of social-ecological systems are collected and used as a routine part of natural resource management decision-making processes. Such developments are the foundations required for effective resource management in the face of increasing demands and accumulating threats that will inevitably accompany a rapidly changing world.