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