REASONS FOR DEVELOPING A WATERSHED REPORT CARD
Watershed report cards are created for multi- ple reasons. Several respondents indicated that their main motive is to assess watershed conditions and trends to inform manage- ment decisions, emphasizing that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure.” Watershed report cards are seen as a planning tool to guide decision-making processes so that poli- cies, strategies, priorities, and management actions can ultimately aff ect deteriorating on-the-ground conditions and trends. Many view watershed report cards as a mechanism to catalyze public awareness and support and motivate civic action. Other reasons include: 1) attracting new participants and partners to the watershed planning process; 2) building knowledge and expertise around best management practices; 3) justifying additional fi nancial and human expendi- tures in support of resource management programs and projects; and 4) identifying knowledge, research, and data gaps associ- ated with understanding the impact of human interventions on natural processes.
REPORT CARD TRAITS
Watershed report cards are generally orga- nized by themes, indicators, and measures. Themes are represented by broad topics under which a number of indicators are described (e.g., water quality, water quantity, wildlife, fi sh, energy, etc.). Indicators are variables (characteristics that can take on diff erent values) that track or reveal certain phenomena of interest over time. Indicators can relate to stressors, input, output, per- formance or impact. Measures are specifi c descriptions about how an indicator is measured (the unit of measure, method, or timeline). An analysis of the 39 watershed report
cards shows that most themes are associ- ated with environmental conditions and trends, either wholly or combined with some social themes. Only three watershed organizations report on each of environ- mental, social, and economic themes. The themes under which indicators are grouped range from 1 to 18. Each watershed organi- zation has a unique approach for selecting, organizing, and presenting the indicators. Consequently, the number of indicators used also varies from 5 to 77.
Most watershed report cards use multiple, independent qualitative or quantitative measures to describe indicator attributes. A comparison of the types and foci of
the measures used to assess the status of indicators between the most recent water- shed report cards produced for the Fraser Basin and the Humber River watershed illustrates that over 80 per cent of the measures are quantitative, while less than 10 per cent are qualitative or descriptive. Most measures depict current conditions and trends over time. Very few measures gauge input (management eff ort, e.g., time, human and/or fi nancial resources), output (level of activity, e.g., participation, action, or reaction), or impact (outcomes due to changes over the short and long term e.g., learning or environmental and socio- economic impact). Indicator selection is generally guided by
broad environmental and/or socio-economic goals established in existing watershed plans or other strategic plans where they exist. Specifi c objectives and targets are not necessarily articulated in the watershed report card and where they are, objectives and targets are often qualitative (e.g., they refer to a certain level of public awareness or regard for specifi c aspects of watershed health) or descriptive (e.g., they refer to actions such as establishing priorities or maintaining existing conditions). Thus, there is no standard approach
or format for watershed report cards. Consistent, spatially-specifi c, and timely data are often lacking, particularly because most watershed organizations have limited monitoring capacity and depend on data
generated by other agencies. As a conse- quence, indicators and their associated measures are often inconsistent between successive watershed report cards. Goals, objectives, and targets are sometimes not explicit or used sporadically. The rating systems used to describe the status of indi- cators are generally subjective and the methods used to develop the rating system are seldom explained.
HOW WATERSHED REPORT CARDS ARE USED
Within watershed organizations, respon- dents stated that report cards are benefi cial for informing management decisions, engaging partners in stewardship activities, increasing public awareness, and identify- ing information, research, and data gaps. Yet, expectations often exceed outcomes. Many respondents expressed disappoint- ment that the watershed report cards do not prompt a higher level of public awareness, support, and community action and sug- gested that lack of clear and concise messaging and strategic marketing and out- reach activities are major reasons why watershed report cards fail to infl uence target audiences. Links between watershed reporting ini-
tiatives and other planning exercises are weak. In fact, stakeholders in the Fraser Basin and Humber River watershed stated that the scale and scope of watershed report- ing is too broad to inform planning at the local community level. Community indica- tor reports such as Vital Signs have their own processes for developing indicators
39
p l an c ana da | summe r · étÉ 201 1
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56