which are exclusive of other indicator initia- tives. Many respondents reported that the benefits of watershed report cards are over- stated and overshadowed by competing and conflicting socio-political forces (e.g., fund- ing availability, organizational will, partner support, etc.).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Many shortfalls and inconsistencies noted through the analysis of watershed report cards and by respondents parallel those discovered in community indicator initia- tives such as quality-of-life and sustainability reports.⁵ These studies sug- gest that report card outcomes can be concrete (they motivate changes in deci- sion-making processes and resource allocation), intangible (they prompt raised awareness, new social connections and working relationships, better understand- ing of community issues, increased community dialogue) or measurable (track on-the-ground progress). Outcomes are shaped by one or a combination of three distinct steps: 1) the process of developing indicators; 2) the publication and distribu- tion of report cards; or 3) outreach activities and follow-up actions. Most out- comes are intangible, which may, over time, inspire action. However, indicator initiatives can instigate change when they resonate strongly with decision makers or concerted outreach efforts are made, par- ticularly with key stakeholders.
40
Building on research findings, 10 princi-
pal recommendations for improving water shed report cards are:
> focus on stakeholder issues of prime concern and engage audiences in early discussions to build a constituency of support;
> link watershed report cards closely with watershed and community planning goals, objectives and initiatives;
> engage the scientific community to translate goals and objectives into meaningful targets and thresholds for measuring progress;
> work with monitoring agencies to use consistent indicators, measures and data analysis methods and identify data defi- ciencies and gaps;
> select science-based indicators and mea- sures which can show change during the reporting interval;
> explain and illustrate major cause-effect linkages through the use of conceptual models or other visual tools;
> work with the scientific community to develop a clear, transparent, and replica- ble process for ranking indicators and provide access to methods and detailed calculations;
> limit the number of indicators to those that inform stakeholder issues and ensure that key messages are clear and concise;
> incorporate strategic marketing and out- reach activities to gain profile and
encourage community dialogue and feedback; and
> consciously use watershed report cards as a “learning” tool to enhance adaptive capacity and management.
CONCLUSION
Watershed report cards are fledgling plan- ning tools that have not yet reached their full potential. This research has identified some of the major drawbacks and opportu- nities for improving the effectiveness and influence of watershed report cards. However, the evolution of watershed report cards is an iterative process and not all opportunities can be tackled at once. The process will take time, dedicated human and financial resources, and collaborative and concerted effort. ■
BARBARA VEALE, PHD, MCIP, RPP, is the Coordinator of Policy Planning and Partnerships for the Grand River Conservation Authority based in Cambridge, Ontario. Barbara recently completed her doctoral stud- ies at the University of Waterloo. Her research focused on watershed governance and explored the use of watershed report cards and other indicator reports as decision tools for watershed management in Canada. She can be reached at:
bveale@grandriver.ca
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. For the purpose of this research, the term “watershed report card” refers to watershed report cards, state-of-the watershed reports, or other watershed reports that include indicators. This study examined watershed report cards produced by 13 watershed organizations prior to April 2010.
2. This research is presented in my doctoral disser- tation entitled “Assessing the Influence and Effectiveness of Watershed Report Cards on Watershed Management: A Study of Watershed Organizations in Canada”. Available at: http://
uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/5610
3. Rahaman MM, Varis O. Integrated water resources management: evolution, prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 2005;1(1):15-21. Available at:
http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/ vol1iss1/
0407-03.rahaman.html
4. For example, other watershed organizations have been created or supported under strategic initiatives such as Alberta’s Water for Life Strategy, 2003 and Quebec’s Water Policy, 2002. In Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic Coastal Action Program supports 16 incorporated, non-profit, community-based watershed organizations.
5. Holman N. Incorporating local sustainability indicators into structures of local governance: a review of the literature. Local Environment 2009;14(4):365-75.
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