The Science of the Total Environment 310(2003) 1–8

0048-9697/03/$ - see front matter� 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00257-2

Detecting environmental change: science and society—perspectiveson long-term research and monitoring in the 21st century

T.W. Parr *, A.R.J. Sier , R.W. Battarbee , A. Mackay , J. Burgessa, a b b c

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Merlewood, Windermere Road, Grange-Over-Sands, Cumbria LA5 0EY, UKa

Environmental Change Research Centre, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UKb

Department of Geography, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UKc

Abstract

Widespread concern over the state of the environment and the impacts of anthropogenic activities on ecosystemservices and functions has highlighted the need for high-quality, long-term datasets for detecting and understandingenvironmental change. In July 2001, an international conference reviewed progress in the field of long-term ecosystemresearch and monitoring(LTERM). Examples are given which demonstrate the need for long-term environmentalmonitoring and research, for palaeoecological reconstructions of past environments and for applied use of historicalrecords that inform us of past environmental conditions. LTERM approaches are needed to provide measures ofbaseline conditions and for informing decisions on ecosystem management and environmental policy formulation.They are also valuable in aiding the understanding of the processes of environmental change, including the integratedeffects of natural and anthropogenic drivers and pressures, recovery from stress and resilience of species, populations,communities and ecosystems. The authors argue that, in order to realise the full potential of LTERM approaches,progress must be made in four key areas:(i) increase the number, variety and scope of LTERM activities to helpdefine the operational range of ecosystems;(ii) greater integration of research, monitoring, modelling, palaeoecologicalreconstruction and remote sensing to create a broad-scale early warning system of environmental change;(iii )development of inter-disciplinary approaches which draw upon social and environmental science expertise tounderstand the factors determining the vulnerability and resilience of the nature–society system to change; and(iv)more and better use of LTERM data and information to inform the public and policymakers and to provide guidanceon sustainable development.� 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: LTER; Ecosystems; Management; Indicators; Environmental governance; Public awareness; Review

1. Introduction

The gathering pace and extent of environmentalchange over the closing decades of the 20thcentury has given a new urgency and relevance to

*Corresponding author. Tel.:q44-15395-32264; fax:q44-15395-34705.

E-mail address: twp@ceh.ac.uk(T.W. Parr).

the detection and understanding of environmentalchange. Concerns over issues such as biodiversityloss, atmospheric pollution, changes in water qual-ity and quantity, land use change, sustainabledevelopment and climate change and its impactshave highlighted the need for high quality, long-term datasets and proxy records,(e.g. from sedi-ment archives) to interpret environmental trends

2 T.W. Parr et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 310 (2003) 1–8

and inform policy making(Urquhart et al., 1998;Oldfield and Dearing, 2003). It is, therefore, timelyto review progress made during the 20th centuryand the priorities for future development in thisfield.

In July 2001, a conference was held in London,UK on Detecting Environmental Change: Scienceand Society(www.nmw.ac.ukychange2001). Theconference reviewed progress in a range of disci-plines covering terrestrial, freshwater, marine,hydrological, atmospheric and social systems. Itsobjectives were to:

1. assess the value of long-term environmentalresearch and monitoring(LTERM) for thedetection and management of change in dis-turbed and natural ecosystems in relation tocontemporary and future environmental issues;

2. strengthen integrated approaches to LTERM byimproving links between social and environ-mental research disciplines and between moni-toring, modelling, palaeoecologicalreconstructions, remote sensing and experimen-tal approaches;

3. consider how the results of environmentalchange research can best be communicated topolicy makers and the wider public to supportthe development of more sustainable productionand consumption and enhance protection of theenvironment;

4. consider future options and approaches toLTERM for both science and policy, particularlyin relation to the early detection of change.

The papers presented at the conference(someof which are published in this special edition ofScience of the Total Environment) provide manyexamples of how long-term data from research andmonitoring programmes have been used to detectchange. In this paper we consider some of thebroader objectives of the conference, particularlyin relation to the question of how LTERM shouldbe developed to ensure that good quality science(both natural and social) underpins the develop-ment of environmental governance in the 21stcentury.

2. Detecting environmental change in the 20thcentury—state of the art

A wealth of high-quality long-term data aboutthe environment are being gathered worldwide andthese data are vital for informing us about the stateof the earth’s terrestrial, freshwater, marine andatmospheric systems. The examples published inthis special issue show how these data are contrib-uting to the detection of environmental problemsand their solution. Issues being addressed include:climate change(Hawkins et al., 2003; Hejzlar etal., 2003; Knights, 2003; Reading, 2003), atmos-pheric pollution (Forsius et al., 2003; Hirst andStorvik, 2003; Lorz et al., 2003; McCartney et al.,2003), land managementyland use change(Eldrid-ge and Koen, 2003; Foy et al., 2003; Tibby, 2003);catchment management(Burt, 2003; Foy et al.,2003; Folster et al., 2003; Harriman et al., 2003;Sear and Newson, 2003), marine ecosystems(Hawkins et al., 2003; Knights, 2003), waterquality (Edmunds et al., 2003; Mitikka andEkholm, 2003; Raike et al., 2003; Vrba et al.,¨2003), fisheries management(Knights, 2003;McCartney et al., 2003; Vrba et al., 2003) andbiodiversity protection(Greenwood, 2003; Ling,2003; Purvis et al., 2003).

2.1. LTERM for change detection: definition ofbaseline conditions

The detection of change depends on being ableto define baseline conditions and natural variabil-ity. Where monitoring records are absent, bothhistorical(e.g. documentary records) and palaeoe-cological records,(e.g. those provided by lakesediments and ice core analyses) are particularlyuseful for looking at decadal-scale variations inecosystems over long time periods(Battarbee,1999; Tibby, 2003). Depending on the archivesavailable, short-term fluctuations may also beresolved. In marine systems, long-term data overa century provide information on the relationshipbetween biota and climate driven sea temperaturefluctuations that will provide the basis for under-standing the impacts of anthropogenic climatechange in the future(Hawkins et al., 2003).Baseline conditions may be relatively stable, e.g.

3T.W. Parr et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 310 (2003) 1–8

Fig. 1. Relationship between monitoring and research in theenvironmental assessment process.

in groundwater quality(Edmunds et al., 2003) orhighly variable especially for the biological com-ponents of systems where year-to-year and spatialvariation are pronounced. For instance, Eldridgeand Koen(2003), using data from 1989 to 1999,attempted to derive measures of the health ofAustralian rangelands. They found that these weredifficult to derive because the systems were highlyvariable in space and time. Furthermore, it wasdifficult to separate management-induced changesfrom climatic effects in an environment that expe-riences wide spatial and temporal variation inrainfall. Baseline conditions are particularly diffi-cult to define where natural variations are com-pounded with human impacts and pre-impactconditions may only exist in the distant past.Recent changes in land use may also mean thatmany of the systems we are studying are still along-way from a stable equilibrium condition(Tib-by, 2003).

2.2. Change detection and ecosystem management

Reliable long-term data are also required tomake informed decisions on ecosystem manage-ment, for example, for catchment management(Burt, 2003), rangeland management(Eldridgeand Koen, 2003), management of biodiversity,management of fish stocks(Knights, 2003) andrecovery from acidification(Forsius et al., 2003;Harriman et al., 2003).

LTERM is necessary to understand the processesby which ecosystems recover from damage. Slowrecovery of biological systems may be an intrinsicproperty of ecosystems arising because of internalsystem dynamics,(e.g. hysteresis and the existenceof multiple-stable states) or the slow rate of someecological processes,(e.g. recolonisation). Forinstance, widespread improvements in water qual-ity have been recorded in response to the controlof atmospheric sulfur emissions but, in some cases,biological components of ecosystems are recover-ing more slowly(Raike et al., 2003). Other exam-¨ples of slow recovery in damaged biologicalcommunities include return of fish to glacial lakesafter acidification(Vrba et al., 2003), brown troutsurvival in Scottish freshwaters(McCartney et al.,

2003) and lichen floras near London(Purvis etal., 2003).

Recovery may also be slow because as onepressure recedes another takes its place. Examplesinclude delayed recovery of freshwater systemsfrom point-source pollution,(e.g. sewage outlets,urban contamination) because of increases in dif-fuse sources of pollution from the atmosphere(Raike et al., 2003) or agriculture (Foy et al.,¨2003) and a lack of recovery of lichens followingimprovements in atmospheric sulfur pollutionbecause of increasing inputs of nitrogen fromtraffic emissions and agriculture(Purvis et al.,2003).

3. Approaches combining research, monitoringand modelling

Monitoring, research and modelling are closelyinter-linked activities(Burt, 1994; Summers andTonnessen, 1998) and all are required to detectand manage environmental change(Fig. 1). Oneof the most important uses of monitoring data isto validate model predictions(Forsius et al., 2003;Lorz et al., 2003; McCartney et al., 2003). This‘reality checking’ can lead to improvements in the

4 T.W. Parr et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 310 (2003) 1–8

model and provide more plausible estimates ofrecovery and change. For instance, a commonassumption of models is that biological responsescan be modelled using average conditions whereasfield data may indicate that they are more oftendetermined by extreme events(Hirst and Storvik,2003; McCartney et al., 2003).

Data from LTERM are now being increasinglyused to develop more realistic process-based mod-els that improve our capability to understand andforecast environmental change, e.g. recovery fromacidification in Finnish lakes(Forsius et al., 2003).Other examples use monitoring data to developforecasts of change, such as predictions of theeffects of climate change scenarios on dissolvedorganic matter in upland streams(Hejzlar et al.,2003) or on amphibian survival rates(Reading,2003).

4. The contribution of LTERM to policy, partic-ularly in relation to the early detection ofchange

A recent review by the European EnvironmentAgency (EEA) of 14 major environmental issuesin the late 20th century(Harremoes et al., 2002)¨indicated that long-term environmental studies hada key role to play in the identification of environ-mental problems. The speed with which policymakers are able or willing to develop suitableresponses to ameliorate environmental problems isdependent upon many factors; not least the com-plexity of the problem, its temporal and spatialscales, the extent to which it is characterised byuncertainty and indeterminacy and the extent towhich regulatory or other policy responses willimpact on powerful interests in society(see Har-remoes et al., 2002; Berkhout et al., 2003).¨Although changes in policy may take longer toachieve than environmental scientists believe wise,the examples reviewed by the EEA show theimportance of maintaining a wide range of LTERMstudies in order to identify emerging issues. Manyenvironmental issues now being addressed areglobal in scale and these require more co-ordinatedand harmonised approaches to LTERM. Remotesensing has a key role to play in these extensiveobservation activities, e.g. to produce global maps

of net primary productivity(Running et al., 1999)and carbon fluxes(Cihlar et al., 2002). However,many ecosystem attributes and processes cannotbe measured remotely and there is a need for wellinstrumented in situ observation networks and forstronger links between in situ and earth observationcommunities(Cohen and Justice, 1999).

Large-scale observation networks are beingdeveloped but these must be strengthened throughincreased standardisation of methods, more freeexchange of data and development of efficient dataand information systems(Lane, 1997; Hale et al.,1998; Michener and Brunt, 2000). This is partic-ularly true in the case of the Global TerrestrialObserving System(GTOS, Gwynne, 1996) whichrelies on linking of existing local, national andregional programmes to meet global data require-ments. Existing networks tend to be national inscale,we.g. the UKs Environmental Change Net-work (Sykes and Lane, 1996) or the Acid WatersMonitoring Network (Monteith et al., 2001; Har-riman et al., 2003)x or confined to a particularsector we.g. European WaterNet(Mitikka andEkholm, 2003), ICP-Forests(Lorenz, 1995)x.

The priority now is to link together nationalterrestrial observing systems such as those thatexist within the International Long-term EcologicalResearch Network(Waide et al., 1998). In theresulting extensive large-scale networks, complexdesign issues must be addressed that take intoaccount the need to combine practical issues, suchas availability of sites or resource limitations, withthe requirement to address multiple objectives overlong time periods(Parr et al., 2002; Schmoldt etal., 1994). It may never be possible for thesenetworks to be designed and implemented rigor-ously enough to provide robust regional or globalscale estimates of change. However, their essentialrole as long-term monitoring sites is to be able todetect temporal components of change and toextricate the effects of multiple pressures of changein representative ecosystems(e.g. Ferretti andChiarucci, 2003).

5. Governance issues

LTERM is playing into a highly dynamic polit-ical context where relations between science and

5T.W. Parr et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 310 (2003) 1–8

society are changing rapidly. This is well reflectedin the new strategy for environmental decision-making: the ‘decide–announce–defend’ approachtypical of the second half of the 20th century haslargely been abandoned in favour of a more inclu-sive and deliberative approach—‘meet–under-stand–manage’. The new forms of governance—where multiple voices are heard, where differentkinds of knowledge have weight, where conflictingvalues are acknowledged—require environmentaland social scientists to join in partnerships with amuch wider range of stakeholders than has previ-ously been the case(Munton, 2003). At the sametime, communicative strategies based on a top-down, one way process of ‘information dissemi-nation’ need to be replaced by dialogue betweendifferent interests in a process of sharing knowl-edge and values to promote mutual learning. Thiswill not be easy, as both high profile crises suchas introduction of genetically modified organisms(Marris et al., 2001) and local examples of theimplementation of biodiversity enhancementschemes show(Burgess et al., 2000). Two areasin which progress is being made to engage a widerrange of stakeholders in LTERM are in relationto: (i) the use of indicators; and(ii) participatorymonitoring.

5.1. Indicators

The use of economic, social and environmentalindicators to measure changes and the efficacy ofpolicy instruments has become a key feature ofgovernments’ strategies to progress sustainabilitygoals over the last 10 years(Owens, 2002). Indi-cators can be used for a range of purposes inLTERM. They may be used to assess changes inspecific environmental conditions at a particularlocation, e.g. using plant growth characteristics asindicators of soil condition(Ling, 2003). They arefrequently used as surrogates for more difficultand expensive measures: for example, Hawkins etal. (2003) recommend that inter-tidal organismscan be used as a cheaper surrogate measure offuture climate change impacts on plankton andfish and, therefore, on the socio-economic well-being of coastal communities dependent on marineproduction. Indicators can also be used to raise

public awareness of issues or as a means ofdefining or assessing policy targets and policyinstruments(Greenwood, 2003). The 1990s saw arapid rise in the use of indicators as tools formeasuring broad-scale environmental change butwith this has also come the recognition that thelong-term data currently being collected are inad-equate to meet the needs of policy clients forsimple measures of environmental information.Many environmental and social scientists are alsouncomfortable with the degree of simplificationrequired in the presentation of complex processesas simple indicators. The best indicators—in sci-entific terms—are not necessarily those that maybe used effectively as a communicative tool.

5.2. Involving the public in monitoring

Examples are growing of programmes to encour-age greater public involvement in monitoring envi-ronmental change at the local level. Partnershipsbetween local people, professional environmentalscientists and policy-makers can achieve normativegoals of increasing social learning and enhancingenvironmental values, whilst also achieving a moreutilitarian goal of running extensive LTERM pro-grammes with limited resources. One largely vol-unteer monitoring programme on birds run by theBritish Trust for Ornithology(Greenwood, 2003)provides an example of a monitoringyalert systemthat incorporates conservationists and the public.It demonstrates the importance of extensive mon-itoring networks, unbroken monitoring, appropriatedesign and modelling and the importance of par-ticipatory monitoring but also shows how long-term monitoring can influence a policy area. Inthis case, the presentation of complex data assimple indicators of bird decline in farmland andwoodlands has captured public and policy attentionand this indicator now forms the basis of policytargets to arrest farmland bird decline.

6. Challenges for the 21st century

Over the last 200 years, the potent combinationof capitalism and industrialisation has resulted inunprecedented pressure on the physical, chemicaland biological systems which support life on earth.

6 T.W. Parr et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 310 (2003) 1–8

Data from long-term research and monitoring ofpopulations, communities and ecosystems havealways played an important role in the develop-ment of ecological ideas but now, as never before,they are also playing a critical role in making theimpacts of human activities on biophysical systemsvisible and tangible. Some policy progress is beingmade—the development of an international regimeto address climate change may not be sufficientbut it represents an important precedent; newpolicy instruments such as the Climate ChangeLevy, or the development of a global market inemissions trading also represent institutionalresponses to current levels of public understandingabout environmental change(Berkhout et al.,2003).

In order to realise its full potential, newapproaches to LTERM need to be developed. Fromthe examples summarised above and the manyother contributions to the Detecting EnvironmentalChange: Science and Society Conference, there arefour important areas to take forward.

First, we need a wide range of LTERM activitiesto help define the operational range of the earthsystem and its component ecosystems. This willprovide the baselines for the detection of environ-mental change and help identify which ecosystemsand landscapes are most vulnerable to change.There is a particular need for LTERM to under-stand the processes of change in ‘working land-scapes’ and to understand how system functioningmight change in the future as a result of changingclimatic boundary conditions. There is also a needto better integrate research and monitoring indifferent ecosystems or components of ecosystems.Terrestrial, freshwater, marine and atmosphericsystems are all too often studied in isolation fromone another, as is the case with aboveground andbelowground components of terrestrial ecosystems.

Second, we need joined up systems that enableus to combine information from research, monitor-ing, modelling, palaeoecological reconstructionand remote sensing. Such systems would developthe existing fragmented examples of successfulLTERM into broader-scale early warning systemsfor the detection, forecasting and management ofenvironmental change. Key components of such asystem would be: networks of LTERM sites adopt-

ing harmonised procedures; inter-linked distributeddata and information systems; and the developmentof high-level indicators as a means of trackingenvironmental change and generating appropriatesocial and political responses. To create such sys-tems, research is required to understand howtoday’s relatively independent activities ofresearch, planning, monitoring assessment anddecision support can be better integrated intosystems of adaptive management and societallearning.

Third, there is an urgent need to link moreeffectively with the growing community of envi-ronmental social scientists to create more integra-tive, inter-disciplinary teams to deepenunderstanding of the factors determining the vul-nerability and resilience of the nature–society sys-tem to change. The failure to engage seriouslywith the social and economic dimensions of envi-ronmental change is probably one of the mainreasons why LTERM is currently undervalued asa policy-relevant field. Most existing programmesinvestigate the direct relationship between environ-mental change and their effects on ecosystems butdo not consider the socio-environmental system ofwhich they are part. The 21st Report of the RoyalCommission on Environmental Pollution on envi-ronmental standards addressed this issue explicitly.A more holistic approach requires that the socialand economic dimensions become an integral partof the whole system and that we take properaccount of the interaction between people andenvironment. One consequence of this will be theneed for LTERM to focus both on ‘workinglandscapes’ and ones that are closer to pristineconditions in cases where the latter can be used asreferences for more disturbed systems.

Fourth, public understanding of environmentalchange is both culturally specific and geographi-cally variable. ‘Environment’ is not a word with aclear, unambiguous meaning; rather it is a syntheticmacro-concept, reflecting its particular biographyin the mass media over the last 40 years(Burgesset al., 2003). For the wider public and manypoliticians, ‘environment problems’ are defined aswhatever happens to be attracting media commentat the time. The scientific challenge is to addressenvironmental problems in an integrated way and

7T.W. Parr et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 310 (2003) 1–8

to help prioritise programmes of action. If, as wehave argued above, lay people are to becomeengaged more effectively, then integration needsto be done at a spatial scale which people canidentify with through their own knowledge andexperience. Furthermore, integration must be com-bined with new kinds of decision-making pro-cesses which bring experts and a range ofstakeholders into partnership. From the perspectiveof the LTERM scientific community, this willinvolve accepting that there will be uncertainty inour observations and knowledge, and finding waysof communicating levels of risk associated withobserved and predicted environmental changes.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all those organisationswho helped sponsor or support the conference,Detecting Environmental Change: Science andSociety: Scottish Executive Environment and RuralAffairs Department, Environment Agency, Depart-ment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,the Royal Society, ENSIS Ltd., The British Eco-logical Society, Blackwell Science, World Scientif-ic Publishing Ltd. and the organisers of theInternational Biodiversity Observation Year(IBOY). The conference was a Core NetworkProject of IBOY. We are also grateful to all thosestaff of the Environmental Change Research Cen-tre, University College London, the EnvironmentalChange Network and the Natural EnvironmentResearch Council’s Centre for Ecology andHydrology who helped organised the conference.We especially wish to acknowledge the immensecontribution made by Dr Cathy Stickley.

References

Battarbee RW. The importance of palaeolimnology to lakerestoration. Hydrobiologia 1999;395y396:149–159.

Berkhout F, Leach M, Scoones I, editors. Negotiating environ-mental change: new perspectives from social science. Chel-tenham: Edward Elgar, 2003. (320 pp).

Burgess J, Clark J, Harrison CM. Knowledges in action: anactor-network analysis of a wetland agri-environmentalscheme. Ecol Econ 2000;35:119–132.

Burgess J, Bedford T, Hobson K, Davies G, Harrison CM.(Un)sustainable consumption. In: Berkhout F, Leach M,Scoones I, editors. Negotiationg environmental change: new

perspectives from social science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,2002. p. 261–292.

Burt TP. Long-term study of the natural environment-percep-tive science or mindless monitoring? Prog Phys Geog1994;18:475–496.

Burt TP. Monitoring change in hydrological systems. Sci TotalEnviron 2003;310:9–16.

Cihlar J, Denning S, Ahern F, Arino O, Belward A, BrethertonF, Cramer W, Dedieu G, Field C, Francey R, Gommes R,Gosz J, Hibbard K, Igarashi T, Kabat P, Olson D, PlummerS, Rasool I, Raupach M, Scholes R, Townshend J, ValentiniR, Wickland D. Initiative to quantify terrestrial carbonsources and sinks. Eos T Am Geophys Union 2002;83:1–6,7.

Cohen WB, Justice CO. Validating MODIS terrestrial ecologyproducts: linking in situ and satellite measurements. RemoteSens Environ 1999;70:1–4.

Edmunds WM, Shand P, Hart P, Ward RS. The natural(baseline) quality of groundwater: a UK pilot study. SciTotal Environ 2003;310:25–35.

Eldridge DJ, Koen RB. Detecting environmental change ineastern Australia: rangeland health in the semi-arid woods.Sci Total Environ 2003;310:211–219.

Ferretti M, Chiarucci A. Design concepts adopted in long-term forest monitoring programs in Europe—problems forthe future? Sci Total Environ 2003;310:171–178.

Folster J, Bishop K, Kram P, Kvarnas H, Wilander A. Time¨ ´ ¨series of long-term annual fluxes in the streamwater of nineforest catchments from the Swedish Environmental Moni-toring Program(PMK 5). Sci Total Environ 2003;310:113–120.

Forsius M, Vuorenmaa J, Mannio J, Syri S. Recovery fromacidification of Finnish lakes: regional patterns and relationsto emission reduction policy. Sci Total Environ2003;310:121–132.

Foy RH, Lennox SD, Gibson CE. Changing perspectives onthe importance of urban phosphorus inputs as the cause ofnutrient enrichment in Lough Neagh. Sci Total Environ2003;310:87–99.

Greenwood JJD. The monitoring of British breeding birds: asuccess story for conservation science? Sci Total Environ2003;310:221–230.

Gwynne MD. GTOS and the Conventions. The Global Terres-trial Observing System and the Data and Information Needsof some of the Environmental Convention Secretariats.UNEPyDEIAyTR.96-3, 1996.

Hale SS, Hughes MM, Paul JF, McAskill RS, Rego SA,Bender DR, Dodge NJ, Richter TL, Copeland JL. Managingscientific data: the EMAP approach. Environ Monit Assess1998;51:429–440.

Harremoes P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne¨B, Guedes Vaz S. Late lessons from early warnings: theprecautionary principle 1896–2000. Environmental issuereport, 22. OPOCE, 2002.

Harriman R, Watt AW, Christie AEG, Moore DW, McCartneyAG, Taylor EM. Quantifying the effects of forestry practices

8 T.W. Parr et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 310 (2003) 1–8

on the recovery of upland streams and lochs from acidifi-cation. Sci Total Environ 2003;310:101–111.

Hawkins SJ, Southward AJ, Genner MJ. Detection of environ-mental change in a marine ecosystem—evidence from theWestern English Channel. Sci Total Environ 2003;310:245–256.

Hejzlar J, Dubrovsky M, Buchtele J, Ruzicka M. The apparentˇ´ ˇ˚and potential effects of climate change on the inferredconcentration of dissolved organic matter in a temperatestream(the Malse River, South Bohemia). Sci Total Environˇ2003;310:143–152.

Hirst D, Storvik G. Estimating critical load exceedance bycombining the EMEP model with data from measurementstations. Sci Total Environ 2003;310:163–170.

Knights B. A review of the possible impacts of long-termoceanic and climate changes and fishing mortality on recruit-ment of anguillid eels of the Northern Hemisphere. Sci TotalEnviron 2003;310:237–244.

Lane AMJ. The U.K: environmental change network database:an integrated information resource for long-term monitoringand research. J Environ Manage 1997;51:87–105.

Ling KA. Using environmental and growth characteristics ofplants to detect long-term changes in response to atmos-pheric pollution: some examples from British beechwoods.Sci Total Environ 2003;310:203–210.

Lorenz M. International co-operative programme on assess-ment and monitoring of air pollution effects on forests -ICPForests. Water Air Soil Poll 1995;85:1221–1226.

Lorz C, Hruska J, Kram P. Modeling and monitoring of longˇ ´term acidification in an upland catchment of the WesternOre Mountains, SE-Germany. Sci Total Environ2003;310:153–161.

Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Weldon S. Public perceptionsof agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final report ofthe PABE research project, CT98-3844(DG12-SSMI). EU,2001.

McCartney AG, Harriman R, Watt AW, Moore DW, TaylorEM, Collen P, Keay EJ. Long-term trends in pH, aluminiumand dissolved organic carbon in Scottish fresh waters;implications for brown trout(Salmo trutta) survival. SciTotal Environ 2003;310:133–141.

Michener WK, Brunt JW, editors. Ecological data: design,management and processing. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.

Mitikka S, Ekholm P. Lakes in the Finnish Eurowaternet:status and trends. Sci Total Environ 2003;310:37–45.

Monteith DT, Evans CD, Patrick S. Monitoring acid waters inthe UK: 1988–1998 trends. Water Air Soil Pollut2001;130:1307–1312.

Munton R. Deliberative democracy and environmental deci-sion-making. In: Berkhout F, Leach M, Scoones I, editors.Negotiating environmental change: new perspectives fromsocial science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2003. p. 109–136.

Oldfield F, Dearing JA. The role of human activities in pastenvironmental change. In: Alverson KD, Bradley RS, Ped-

ersen TF, editors. Paleoclimate, global change and thefuture. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2003. p. 143–162.

Owens S. A collision of adverse opinions? Major projects,planning inquiries and policy change. Environ Plann A2002;34(6):949–953.

Parr TW, Ferretti M, Simpson I, Forsius M, Kovacs-Lang E.Towards a long-term integrated monitoring programme inEurope: network design in theory and practice. EnvironMonit Assess 2002;78(3):253–290.

Purvis OW, Chimonides J, Din V, Erotokritou L, Jeffries T,Jones GC, Louwhoff S, Read H, Spiro B. Which factors areresponsible for the changing lichen floras of London? SciTotal Environ 2003;310:179–189.

Raike A, Pietilainen O-P, Rekolainen S, Kauppila P, Pitkanen¨ ¨ ¨H, Niemi J, Raatel R, Vuorenmaa J. Trends of phosphorous,nitrogen and chlorophylla concentrations in Finnish riversand lakes in 1975–2000. Sci Total Environ 2003;310:47–59.

Reading CJ. The effects of variation in climatic temperature(1980–2000) on breeding activity and tadpole stage durationin the common toad,Bufo Bufo. Sci Total Environ2003;310:231–236.

Running SW, Baldocchi DD, Turner DP, Gower ST, BakwinPS, Hibbard KA. A global terrestrial monitoring networkintegrating tower fluxes, flask sampling, ecosystem model-ling and EOS satellite data. Remote Sens Environ1999;70:108–127.

Schmoldt DL, Peterson DL, Silsbee DG. Developing inventoryand monitoring programs based on multiple objectives.Environ Manage 1994;18:707–727.

Sear DA, Newson MD. Environmental change in river chan-nels: a neglected element. Towards geomorphological typol-ogies, standards and monitoring. Sci Total Environ2003;310:17–23.

Summers JK, Tonnessen KE. Linking monitoring and effectresearch: EMAP’s intensive sites network program. EnvironMonit Assess 1998;51:369–380.

Sykes JM, Lane AMJ. The United Kingdom environmentalchange network: protocols for standard measurements atterrestrial sites. Nat Environ Res Council, 1996, 220 pp.

Tibby J. Explaining lake and catchment change using sedimentderived and written histories: an Australian perspective. SciTotal Environ 2003;310:61–71.

Urquhart NS, Paulsen SG, Larsen DP. Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends over time. Ecol Appl 1998;8:246–257.

Vrba J, Kopa(ek J, Fott J, Kohout L, Nedbalova L, Pra(akova´ ´ ´ ´M, Soldan T, Schaumburg J. Long-term studies(1871–´2000) on acidification and recovery of lakes in the Bohe-mian forest (Central Europe). Sci Total Environ2003;310:73–85.

Waide R, French C, Sprott P, Williams L. The internationallong term ecological research network 1998. US LTERNetwork, Department of Biology, University of New Mexi-co, 1998, 109 pp.