BEYOND INDICATORS AND REPORTING: NEEDS, LIMITATIONS … · Natural Resources Canada for the...

BEYOND INDICATORS AND REPORTING: NEEDS, LIMITATIONS

AND APPLICABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS AND

STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORTING

by

Sarah Elizabeth Da Silva

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts

Graduate Department of Geography and the Centre for Environment

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Sarah Elizabeth Da Silva 2009

ii

Beyond Indicators and Reporting: Needs, Limitations and Applicability of Environmental

Indicators and State of the Environment Reporting

For the degree of Master of Arts, 2009

Sarah Elizabeth Da Silva

Graduate Department of Geography and the Centre for Environment

University of Toronto

ABSTRACT

This research examines the perceptions and use of environmental indicators and state of the

environment reports by local government and Conservation Authority decision makers and

practitioner’s within the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin. Participants

describe their information needs and how indicators and SOER are used at the local level; and

what limitations or challenges they face to bridge the gap between monitoring information and

policy. A multi-method approach including a web-based survey and follow-up telephone

interviews was the primary data collection method used. Indicator and SOER knowledge and

information are further explored to determine information exchange amongst different levels of

governance. To review the dissemination of indicator and SOER information from a higher

spatial scale down to the local level, the State of the Great Lakes environmental indicators and

SOER, developed by the governments of Canada and the United States served as a case study.

iii

Acknowledgments

This process has led me to be truly thankful for the valuable support of many people that without

them the completion of this thesis would not have been possible. I would like to extend a big

thank you to my advisor, Harvey Shear for his enthusiasm for this research and for supporting

me with guidance and words of encouragement. I would also like to thank Virginia Maclaren for

her insight and comments throughout this process and to Tenley Conway for their participation

on my thesis committee.

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude and appreciation to all of the research participants for

their time and willingness to share their incredibly valuable insight, perceptions and experiences

with me. Without these participants this research could not have been possible and I only hope

that this information will in turn be useful to you and future decision makers.

Thank you to the Taylor & Francis group for authorizing the use of their image for figure 3 and

Natural Resources Canada for the authorization of the Great Lakes basin map for figure 4.

To all of my family and friends, thank all of you for your tremendous support, especially with

your kind words of encouragement when I needed it the most. I will never forget how you

pushed me through this lengthy and challenging process. To my school classmates, particularly

the ones that toughed out the late nights in the lab when no one else was to be found, thanks for

the company and I could not have picked better people to share this experience and many, many

coffees with.

Specifically for my family, thank you for always believing in me and putting up with my ups and

most importantly my downs. I appreciate all of your love and support and I could not have done

it without your encouragement. To my mom, thank you for answering my panicked phone calls

and for supporting me when I needed it the most. Also, to my nephew, Dylan James Da Silva,

may you have the drive, perseverance and patience to turn all of your dreams into realities.

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my Uncle, Gary Halley.

iv

Table of Contents

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... vii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ viii

List of Appendices ................................................................................................................... ix

List of Participants .....................................................................................................................x

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Questions and Rationale .................................................................................. 3

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................6

2.1 Indicators......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 What are Indicators? ................................................................................................. 7

2.1.2 Evolution of Environmental Indicators .................................................................. 10

2.1.3 Indicator Uses, Functions and Purposes ................................................................. 13

2.1.4 Indicator Qualities .................................................................................................. 14

2.2 State of the Environment Reporting ............................................................................. 16 2.2.1 What are State of the Environment Reports? ......................................................... 17

2.2.2 Evolution of State of the Environment Reporting .................................................. 18

2.2.3 State of the Environment Report Uses and Functions ............................................ 20

2.2.4 State of the Environment Report Qualities ............................................................. 22

2.3 Indicator and State of the Environment Reporting Development ................................. 23 2.4 Who Uses Indicator and State of the Environment Reporting Information? ................ 25 2.5 Spatial Scales of Indicators and State of the Environment Reporting .......................... 27 2.6 Decision Making and Policy Development .................................................................. 28

2.6.1 Decision Making for Sustainable Development ..................................................... 30

2.6.2 Information ............................................................................................................. 30

2.6.3 Science and Policy – Bridging the Gap .................................................................. 33

2.6.4 Indicator and State of the Environment Report Relevance for Decision Making .. 35

3.0 CASE STUDY ..................................................................................................................44

4.0 RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND METHODS ............................................................47

4.1 Geographic Location ..................................................................................................... 47 4.2 Study Population ........................................................................................................... 48 4.3 Sample Size ................................................................................................................... 51

v

4.4 Recruitment Strategy .................................................................................................... 52 4.5 Data Collection Methods .............................................................................................. 54

4.5.1 Web Based Survey.................................................................................................. 54

4.5.2 Semi-structured Interviews ..................................................................................... 58

4.6 Feedback ....................................................................................................................... 60

5.0 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................61

5.1 General Awareness, Uses and Impacts on Decision Making ....................................... 61 5.1.1 General Awareness ................................................................................................. 61

5.1.2 General Use ............................................................................................................ 62

5.1.3 What products are used? ......................................................................................... 64

5.1.4 General Product Uses ............................................................................................. 73

5.1.5 General Product Non-Use and Limitations ............................................................ 81

5.1.6 General Product Qualities Needed for Local Use .................................................. 84

5.2 Local Policy Development and Decision Making ........................................................ 85 5.2.1 Information Types Used ......................................................................................... 85

5.2.2 Information Needs to Inform Local Level Decision and Policy Development ...... 87

5.3 Information Exchange and Spatial Scale ...................................................................... 89 5.3.1 What Spatial Scales are Used at the Local Level? ................................................. 89

5.3.2 What Spatial Scales are Useful for Decision Making? ........................................... 91

5.3.3 Information Exchange ............................................................................................ 91

5.4 Great Lakes Products Awareness, Uses and Impacts on Decision Making .................. 93 5.4.1 Great Lakes Product Awareness ............................................................................. 93

5.4.2 Great Lakes Product Use ........................................................................................ 95

5.4.3 Great Lakes Products Uses ..................................................................................... 97

5.4.4 How Can Great Lakes Information Inform Local Decision Making? .................... 99

5.4.5 Great Lake Products Non Use .............................................................................. 100

5.4.6 Limitations for Great Lakes Product Use ............................................................. 103

5.4.7 How can the Great Lakes products be improved? ................................................ 104

6.0 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................107

6.1 Awareness, Use and Sources Used for Local Environmental Decision Making ........ 107 6.1.1 Product Awareness and Use ................................................................................. 107

6.1.2 Products and Information Used ............................................................................ 109

6.1.3 Information Exchange .......................................................................................... 111

vi

6.1.4 Spatial Scales of Information a Local Perspective ............................................... 112

6.2 Factors Affecting the Use and Application of Products and Information in Local Decision Making ............................................................................................................... 114

6.2.1 Information Awareness, Access and Spatial Scale ............................................... 115

6.2.2 Utility for Users .................................................................................................... 121

6.2.3 Analytical Soundness and Measurability ............................................................. 128

7.0 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................131

7.1 Main Findings by Research Objective ........................................................................ 131 7.2 Research Limitations .................................................................................................. 135 7.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 136 7.4 Looking Ahead and Taking Stock .............................................................................. 139

References .............................................................................................................................140

Appendices ............................................................................................................................149

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Survey Response Rate by Organization Type ................................................................ 57 Table 2: Local Government Response Rate by Population .......................................................... 57 Table 3: Frequency of Public Reporting on Local Products ......................................................... 70 Table 4: Information Needs for Local Decision Making .............................................................. 87 Table 5: Use of Product Types...................................................................................................... 96

viii

List of Figures Figure 1: Pressure-State-Response Model .................................................................................... 25 Figure 2: Simplification of the Decision Making Process ............................................................ 29 Figure 3: Relationship between Tools for Municipal Environmental Management ..................... 39 Figure 4: Great Lakes Basin Reference Map ................................................................................ 48 Figure 5: Awareness of Product Type .......................................................................................... 62 Figure 6: Use of Product Type ...................................................................................................... 63 Figure 7: Use of Product Types by Organization ......................................................................... 64 Figure 8: Development of Local Products .................................................................................... 65 Figure 9: Development of Local Products by Organization Type ................................................ 66 Figure 10: Use of Pre-existing Sources as a Model for Local Product Development .................. 67 Figure 11: Use of Pre-existing Sources as Model for Local Product Development ..................... 68 Figure 12: Frequency of Monitoring Locally Developed Environmental Indicators ................... 69 Figure 13: Use of Additional External Products despite Locally Developed Products ................ 71 Figure 14: Environmental Indicator Uses by All Organizations Aware of Indicators ................. 76 Figure 15: Environmental Indicator Uses by User Type .............................................................. 77 Figure 16: State of the Environment Report (SOER) Uses by All Organizations Aware of SOER....................................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 17: State of the Environment Report Uses by User Type ................................................. 80 Figure 18: Reasons Why Environmental Indicators are Not Used Despite Awareness ............... 82 Figure 19: Reasons Why No State of the Environment Report Use Despite Awareness of the Product .......................................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 20: Types of Information Sources Used for Local Decision Making ............................... 86 Figure 21: Spatial Scales of Products Used at the Local Level .................................................... 90 Figure 22: Awareness of Great Lakes Product Type .................................................................... 94 Figure 23: Awareness of Products by Organization Type ............................................................ 95 Figure 24: Use of Great Lakes Product Types .............................................................................. 96 Figure 25: Great Lakes Environmental Indicator Uses ................................................................. 98 Figure 26: Great Lakes State of the Environment Report Uses .................................................... 99 Figure 27: Reasons Why Great Lakes Environmental Indicators Are Not Used ....................... 101 Figure 28: Reasons Why Great Lakes State of the Environment Reports are ............................ 102 Figure 29: Improving the Applicability of Products for Local Decision Making ...................... 115

ix

List of Appendices Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 149 Appendix 2: External Sources Used ........................................................................................... 169 Appendix 3: Environmental Indicator Uses ................................................................................ 173 Appendix 4: State of the Environment Report Uses ................................................................... 175 Appendix 5: Degree of Spatial Scale Usefulness for Local Decision Making by Product Type 177 Appendix 6: Great Lakes Environmental Indicator Uses ........................................................... 179 Appendix 7: Great Lakes State of the Environment Report Uses .............................................. 180

x

List of Participants Barbara Hodgins Senior Policy Planner Town of Ajax Susan Jorgenson Manager, Environmental Planning City of Brampton Mara Shaw Watershed Management Coordinator Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Heather Brooks Director of Watershed Planning and Natural Heritage Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Dan Lebedyk Conservation Biologist Essex Region Conservation Authority Mark Peacock Director, Watershed Services Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Barbara Veale Coordinator of Policy Planning and Partnerships Grand River Conservation Authority Paul MacLatchy Director of Strategy, Environment & Communications City of Kingston Cindy Wackett Corporate Project Consultant Town of Newmarket Bob Fields Water and Wastewater Compliance Supervisor Norfolk County Dave Featherstone Manager, Watershed Monitoring Program Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority

xi

Cindy Toth Director, Environmental Policy Town of Oakville Chris Critoph Manager of Environmental Services Raisin Region Conservation Authority Martha Nicol Water Quality Specialist Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority Mark Green Manager of Environmental Services City of St. Catharines James Vukmanich Chief Chemist City of Thunder Bay Scott Jarvie Manager - Monitoring and Reporting Section Toronto and Region Conservation Authority The remaining participants chose to remain anonymous.

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Environmental indicators and state of the environment reporting have been used to

diagnose the health of ecosystems and to provide a tool to monitor environmental

conditions and changes over time (Jorgensen, 2005). Environmental indicators are

evidence that represent something being measured in the environment, and over time, this

information, and state of the environment reports, can identify trends and environmental

changes. State of the environment reporting (SOER) is an environmental management

tool that also monitors and increases awareness of current conditions, trends and changes

in environmental conditions (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). “SOERs focus on a selection

of indicators that provide a general overview of environmental conditions from which

progress in dealing with environmental issues can be inferred through the systematic

measurement, collection, and publication of the environment and resource data which

focus on the interaction between human activity and the environment” (Campbell &

Maclaren, 1995, p. 7). Therefore, indicators are a central component of SOER where the

indicator is the measure or variable itself and the report is the documentation of indicator

findings and trends (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). “Environmental indicators are of an

increasing importance to relate the state of the environment to those who are interested in

it, or responsible for it” (Stein, Riley & Halberg, 2001, p. 215). Indicators, as discussed in

SOE reports, can show environmental trends and/or provide representative measures of

environmental pressures, conditions and responses. Indicators and SOE reports serve as a

tool that can provide scientific information over time on a variety of spatial scales

including local, regional, provincial, national and international. It is important however to

use this information in the pursuit of sustainability by including this scientific monitoring

data in policy development and decision making. Thus, indicators and SOE reports can

potentially serve as a tool for policy development and environmental decision making at

various spatial scales.

Understanding the impacts of the application of environmental indicators and SOE

reports at both the regional and local level is important, as it allows one to determine

whether or not the current environmental indicators and reporting systems used are

2

effective in meeting the needs of local policy developers and decision makers. This thesis

assesses the implications, applications and uses of environmental indicators and SOE

reporting on environmental policies, programs and decision-making. This research

focuses on the use of environmental indicators and SOE reporting in the context of their

use to local and watershed level decision making and policy development, such as

planning, information, verification, monitoring, and performance measures. The physical

context of what is being measured, how it is being measured and what specific indicators

and reports are used or developed are not discussed in this thesis.

In addition to addressing environmental indicator and SOER characteristics and uses, this

research addresses a geographical component. The Ontario portion of the Great Lakes

basin serves as the geographical context for this thesis. Local decision makers from

Ontario local governments with populations of 50,000 or greater and Conservation

Authorities served as the study sample for this research. A multi-method approach

including a web-based survey and follow-up telephone interviews was the primary data

collection method used.

Indicator and SOER knowledge and information are further explored to determine

information exchange amongst different levels of governance. The Great Lakes indicators

and SOER are used as a case study for the use of larger spatial scale monitoring tools on

the local decision making process. Larger or higher spatial scales refers to governance

scales that are broader than the local or community level, such as the regional, provincial,

national and international spatial scales. To review the dissemination of indicator and

SOE reporting information from a larger spatial scale down to the local level, the State of

the Great Lakes environmental indicators and SOE reporting, developed by the

governments of Canada and the United States as a response to the bi-national Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), served as a case study for the research (EC &

USEPA, 2000; Shear, Stadler-Salt, Bertram & Horvatin, 2003).

3

1.2 Research Questions and Rationale There is much research on environmental indicators, primarily in regards to their

development models, how to select relevant indicators for various measures, and ability

to supply quantitative measurements for long term monitoring (e.g. Donnelly, Jones,

O’Mahony & Byrne, 2007; Van Cauwenbergh et al., 2007; Zalidis et al., 2004).

Campbell and Maclaren (1995) have conducted research specifically on the use of state

of the environment reports by municipalities and their findings have indicated that

municipalities have a high interest in SOE reporting but that basic research on SOE report

methods and applications is limited. Despite this research and the fact that indicators and

reporting are widely used for monitoring and assessment, literature regarding the direct

influence of indicators and SOE reports on policy and practices is limited (Pinter, Hardi

& Bartelmus, 2005). There is a void in the literature describing the transfer of indicator

and SOE reporting information to local level policy development and decision making

process.

This thesis will explore, in the realm of environmental indicators and SOE reports,

awareness and uses of these tools for knowledge production, information exchange, local

decision making and policy development process and bridging the gap between

monitoring and policy development. This literature gap will be addressed by exploring

how monitoring and reporting tools serve in knowledge production and information

exchange, while also determining the explicit links to how these tools can inform the

decision making process by identifying the variables that promote or impede this process.

The research question for this dissertation is:

How are environmental indicators and state of the environment reports, both in

general and specifically the Great Lakes, perceived, used and subsequently, how

do they influence environmental policy development and decision-making at the

watershed and local level in the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes Basin?

4

The research objectives are to determine:

1. If environmental policy developers and decision makers in local governments and

Conservation Authorities are aware of environmental indicators and SOE

reporting;


Conservation Authorities use indicators and SOE reporting? If so, why do they

use them and for what purposes? If not, why are they not used? ;

3. What local government and Conservation Authority environmental policy

developers and decision makers information needs are;

4. What needs to be improved to help link environmental indicator and SOE

reporting information with local environmental policy development and decision

making?;

5. What spatial scales of environmental indicators and SOE reports are presently

used at the local level and what are most useful for local environmental policy

development and decision making?; and

6. How are environmental indicator and SOE report information exchanged through

the various spatial scales? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this

information transfer at the local level?

Specifically for the Great Lakes case study, the objectives are to determine:


Conservation Authorities are aware of Great Lakes indicators and SOE reporting;


Conservation Authorities use Great Lakes indicators and SOE reporting? If so,

why do they use them and for what purposes? If not, why are they not used?;

3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Great Lakes indicators and SOE

reporting from a local decision maker’s perspective?; and

4. What needs to be improved to help link Great Lakes indicators and SOE reporting

information with local environmental policy development and decision making?

5

The research described here identified the trends and perceptions of indicator and SOE

reporting use and provided insight into ways to improve the linkages between indicator

and reporting use with local and watershed level decision-making and policy

development needs. In addition, the spread of information through various spatial scales

and the degree that each spatial scale of information is useful for environmental decision

making and policy development at the local level, provides insight into the needs,

strengths and weaknesses of information transfer in regards to local level needs. The local

level impacts on an ecosystem contribute greatly to larger scale environmental trends.

Hence, local level environmental decision making and policy development can impact a

larger ecosystem and the ability to achieve sustainability.

6

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW Recently, environmental indicators have become a vital component of state of the

environment (SOE) reporting, ecosystem health assessment and monitoring and the

overall pursuit of sustainability. “Environmental indicators, as prime assessors of the

pressures on the environment, of the evolving state of the environment, and of the

appropriateness of policy measures, have come to play a vital role in environmental

reporting” (Niemeijer & de Groot, 2008, p.14). In response to this role and the indicators’

ability to simplify complex messages, there has been an increase in the influence of

environmental indicators on environmental management and policy making at all

decision making scales (National Research Council, 2000; Niemeijer & de Groot, 2008).

In the pursuit of environmental information and sustainability, decision makers at all

levels – international, national, regional, and local – need adequate information (Moldan,

Billharz & Matravers, 1997). However, current indicator and SOE reporting approaches

have often focused too much on data availability and scientific processes and not enough

on what the practitioners and decision makers need to know to guide them in the policy

development and decision making process (Bond, O’Farrell, Ironside, Buckland & Smith,

2005).

This chapter will review secondary literature to provide a context about indicators and

state of the environment reports. For both environmental indicators and SOE reports,

literature has been presented to identify terms, to describe the evolution of the

concept/product, to determine what the functions/uses are, and what qualities are needed

to make these products effective for use. This chapter will also discuss the development

models of environmental indicators and SOE reports, highlight who uses these products,

and discuss the different spatial scales of products. The final section of this chapter is a

literature review on local decision making and policy development by reviewing:

decision making for sustainability, information needs for decision makers, information

spatial scales and information exchange, bridging the gap between science and policy and

finally, discusses the links and limitations for indicators and SOE reports for impacting

decision making.

7

2.1 Indicators

2.1.1 What are Indicators?

An indicator is a signal or piece of evidence that shows the state of something being

measured (Bertram, Forst & Horvatin, 2005; EC & USEPA, 2000). Just as blood pressure

serves as an indicator for physiological health conditions or the Dow Jones stock market

average reflects economic trends, environmental indicators provide a point in time

assessment of a particular environmental component or condition. This information can

be about the state of a large ecosystem, including socio-economic issues, human health

conditions and environmental components, by examining a smaller component of the

whole system (Bertram et al., 2005). Since indicators have significance that extend

beyond what is actually measured, they can make complex phenomena perceptible,

measure trends in, or aid in identifying areas of concern or success that would not be

immediately detectable otherwise (Donnelly et al., 2007; Hammond, Adriaanse,

Rodenburg, Bryant & Woodward, 1995). Indicators aid in communicating progress

towards a goal over time, such as ecosystem health or sustainability, by revealing trends

and environmental change over a specific space and time (Hammond et al., 1995).

Indicators can also measure policy and program performance as they supply a target or

reference state for an objective; while also providing an indication of conditions and/or

problems (Maclaren, 1996; National Research Council, 2000). Environmental decision

makers and practitioners can use indicator monitoring and reporting information to create

policies and programs that can improve the overall state of the environment and aid in the

pursuit of sustainability. Environmental indicators have emerged as a common

assessment tool at various spatial scales and there is a growing need to have appropriate

indicators to give decision makers the opportunity to use informed judgment for

programs, policies and plans they may initiate (Donnelly et al., 2007).

There are many variations of indicators and there is no universal indicator set that is used

by everyone; in fact several sets exist to serve many audiences and purposes (OECD,

2003). Environmental or ecological indicators have a framework of parameters that

highlight the current and/or preferred environmental quality of a specific area (Turnhout,

Hisschemöller & Eijsackers, 2007). Environment Canada (2005) defines environmental

8

indicators as “statistics that are scientifically credible and representative of an

environmental issue and can help us to keep track of trends in the state of the

environment and measure progress towards sustainable development”. This information

is typically presented as tables, charts or maps with brief text explanations (Environment

Canada, 2005). Environment indicator frameworks incorporate both qualitative and

quantitative components that can be aggregated, if desired, and the parameters represent

characteristics of the environment itself (Turnhout et al., 2007). The Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is a key organization in environmental

indicator development, use and state of the environment reporting. The OECD has

defined an indicator as “a parameter [a property being observed/measured], or a value

derived from parameters, which points to, provides information about, describes the state

of a phenomenon/environment/area, with a significance extending beyond that directly

associated with a parameter value” (OECD, 2003, p. 5).

There are three main categories in which environmental indicators can be grouped: State

of the Environment indicators, Environmental Performance indicators and Sustainability

indicators; these terms are sometimes used interchangeably (Jakobsen, Draggon & Stuart,

2008). State of the Environment indicators are based on existing and available

information to report on the condition of the environment (Jakobsen et al., 2008).

Environmental indicators are a subset of SOE reporting and sustainability indicators.

SOE reporting, which will be discussed further, describes the current condition of the

environment, possible pressures on the environment, as well as tracking changes and

trends in environmental degradation or improvements. These indicator sets generally use

a model such as the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) or the Drivers-Pressures-State-

Impact-Response (DPSIR) model (Jakobsen et al., 2008). These models are discussed in

detail in section 2.3. State of the environment reports and indicator sets are typically used

by governments or agencies at various spatial scales (Jakobsen et al., 2008).

Environmental performance indicators monitor, track and demonstrate the overall

progress, either negative or positive, on stated benchmarks, goals and objectives

(Jakobsen et al., 2008). These indicator sets are commonly used by governments, non-

9

governmental organizations and businesses to help inform interested stakeholders and the

public about the progress in achieving particular goals (Jakobsen et al., 2008).

Environmental performance indicators are a subset of environmental indicators and can

be linked to qualitative objectives, such as goals or aims, or they can be linked to

quantitative objectives, such as benchmarks, targets or commitments (OECD, 2003). In

order to determine the progress towards a set goal, the indicator measures the current

state or condition and is then compared to the reference state/condition, thus, identifying

the distance from the goal or target (Jakobsen et al., 2008).

Sustainability indicators are tools that measure sustainability performance (IISD, 1995;

Jakobsen et al., 2008). Some environmental indicators have an underlying sustainability

framework that addresses the three main pillars of sustainable development by

incorporating social, economic, and environmental indicators (IISD, 1995). Sustainability

indicators have gained momentum as the concept of sustainability began to grow with the

Brundtland Commission, but more specifically from the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth

Summit (Jakobsen et al., 2008). Many indicator users, especially national level users such

as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, have made sustainable development a goal in

which indicators are used to measure their progress in this pursuit (Jakobsen et al., 2008).

Sustainable development indicators are generally broad, and focus on more than one

parameter of an issue, as well as measure the overall performance of the ecosystem

(Costanza, Mageau, Norton & Patten; 1998; Jakobsen et al., 2008). Levett (1997)

identifies two types of sustainability indicators that include the technical type and the

community type. The technical type models connections and links between human

activities (pressures) and the environmental consequences (states) in order to guide

decisions regarding actions (responses) to reduce pressures, thus providing a link between

environmental information and policy responses (Levett, 1997). The community type

expresses sustainability problems and goals in a way that is meaningful and important to

the average citizen (Levett, 1997). Maclaren (1996) identified four characteristics of

sustainability indicators that distinguish them from simple economic, social and

environmental indicators: 1) integrating indicators as they attempt to portray links among

the three pillars of sustainability: economic, environmental and social dimensions; 2)

10

forward-looking indicators if they are to be used for measuring progress towards

sustainability, such as trend indicators that explain historical trends and provide

information regarding future sustainability; 3) distributional indicators that should be able

to consider the distribution of economic, social and environmental conditions across

geographic regions or within a population; and 4) indicators developed with input from

multiple stakeholders in the community in the policy process.

When defining indicators, it is important to note that they are a tool for measurement that

serves as a representation of something more complex. Indicators have a variety of

attributes to ensure that they accurately and adequately represent an issue or concept in a

manner that is easy to understand and use. When developing indicators, one has to bear in

mind their intended uses, usually for decision making or policy development, as well as

for general information and awareness for a variety of users. The focus of this research is

on environmental indicators; since environmental indicators are a component of SOER

and of sustainability indicators, this research will include these types of environmental

indicators as well.

2.1.2 Evolution of Environmental Indicators

Historical Evolution

The fundamental aspects of environmental indicators are embedded in the history of

human culture. Plato suggested thousands of years ago that there was an understanding

that human activity impacted the local environment such as modifying agricultural

drainage systems that adversely impacted fruit tree harvest (Rapport, 1992). This is one

of the earliest recorded observations of environmental indicators according to Rapport

(1992). Throughout time, humanity has remained sensitive to indicators of change in the

environment and natural systems and it is recognized that people play a large role in

impacting environmental change (Rapport, 1992). In 1902, Kolkwitz and Marsson were

one of the first to use indicator species to describe aquatic ecosystems, whereas Ellenberg

in 1974 made a significant contribution to indicators for terrestrial systems (Turnhout et

al., 2007). Natural causes were once the primary reason for environmental change;

11

however, there has been a shift that has resulted in human activities becoming the major

source of stress on the natural environment (Rapport, 1992).

Evolution through International Conferences and Movements

The concept of sustainable development emerged from the 1987 Brundtland Commission

(WCED, 1987) which led to the evolution of environmental indicators. In the late 1980s

the Canadian government had already begun to develop environmental indicators, thus

making the country one of the leaders in indicator development (Jakobsen et al., 2008;

National Research Council, 2000). Other countries such as Norway, New Zealand and the

United Kingdom developed indicators for their respective countries (Jakobsen et al.,

2008; National Research Council, 2000).

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) made

environmental and sustainable development issues a priority, and sustainable

development became a universal goal (Brugmann, 1997; Hammond et al., 1995; Moldan

et al., 1997). The UNCED and Agenda 21 called for the development of indicators to

measure progress towards sustainability over time and to determine if development goals

were actually sustainable (Moldan et al., 1997; National Research Council, 2000).

Agenda 21, particularly chapter 40, was focused on the role and need for information for

decision making (Boulanger, 2007). In Agenda 21 there is one sentence that defines the

role of indicators of sustainable development in policy making, of which environmental

indicators can be a subset: “Indicators of sustainable development need to be developed

to provide a solid bases for decision-making at all levels and to contribute to a self-

regulating sustainability of integrated environment and development system” (Agenda

21, 40-1 in Boulanger, 2007, p. 15). This defining sentence is the foundation of present

day indicator development, particularly for indicators related to sustainability.

Following Agenda 21, much work at various user levels has occurred in the development,

evaluation and discussion of various types of indicators (Boulanger, 2007; National

Research Council, 2000). For instance, the United Nations Statistical Division

(UNSTAT) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) formed a

12

Consultative Expert Group Meeting on Environment and Sustainable Development

Indicators in Geneva in 1993 to assess the variety of indicator development approaches

being used (National Research Council, 2000). In 1994, the World Bank held a workshop

to establish a common ground in developing sustainable development indicators

(National Research Council, 2000). The Belgian and Costa Rican governments, with

UNEP and the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) held an

international policy conference in 1995 with a goal to gain consensus on various

international uses of environmental indicators (National Research Council, 2000).

In April 1995, a work program implemented by the United Nations Commission on

Sustainable Development (UN-CSD) began further development of indicators. The

program created a list of 134 indicators by 1996 (Rey-Valette, Damart & Roussel,

2007a). These indicators were tested in 22 countries and in 2000, the list was reduced to

59 basic indicators that provided a methodological guide that was published in September

2001 and updated in 2007 (Rey-Valette et al., 2007a; United Nations, 2001; United

Nations, 2007). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

from 1998 used a similar approach involving an initial extensive indicator list that,

through expert consultation, was reduced to a list of 69 indicators that were published in

2003 (Rey-Valette et al., 2007a). The OECD sets out a common framework for

environmental indicator development and use; a common understanding of definitions

and concepts; the use of the Press-State-Response model for indicators and reporting;

criteria for indicator selection and validation according to policy relevance; measurability

and analytical soundness; and a guidance for use of environmental indicators with

evaluation of environment performance (OECD, 2003).

Another international program that has influenced indicator development at other spatial

scales is the EUROSTAT, which also used a similar approach as UN-CSD and OECD.

After the June 2001 Göteborg summit, a task-force developed a prioritized system of 155

indicators that were validated in 2005: “12 so-called main indicators were to be used by

high-ranking decision makers and a large public, 45 strategic indicators were related to

sub-subjects, and finally, 98 so-called analytic indicators represented the various

13

processes” (Rey-Valette et al., 2007a, p. 124). All of these conferences and projects have

created an important foundation for the development of environmental indicators,

particularly at the national level to provide information for public policy decisions

(National Research Council, 2000). While it is evident that the international and national

scales have adopted the concept of sustainable development and have developed a strong

demand for environmental indicators, this thesis research will determine if this demand

has reached other spatial scales, particularly the local level.

2.1.3 Indicator Uses, Functions and Purposes

Environmental indicators are needed because environment issues are complex and

problems are multifaceted. It is virtually impossible to monitor and measure every aspect

of the environment (Romstad, 1999). Indicators provide information beyond what is

actually measured, to provide targeted information about trends and the state of the

environment (National Research Council, 2000; Romstad, 1999). There are many

functions that indicators serve, that result in indicators being widely used and promoted at

multiple spatial scales. When effectively developed, tested and implemented indicators

are used to: measure and assess the state of a condition over time; reveal and evaluate

trends; provide early warning signals of environmental changes or concerns; highlight

emerging issues, successes or areas in need of improvement; diagnose the cause of

environmental problems; identify what best practices or actions would yield the best

results; and monitor progress and performance over time (Dale and Beyeler, 2001;

Jakobsen et al., 2008; National Research Council, 2000). Indicators also provide

simplified and reliable monitoring data and information, increase awareness, build

capacity and initiate stakeholder mobilization, and aid in comparability of results or

trends (Jakobsen et al., 2008; Rey-Valette et al., 2007a). Indicator systems can aid in

policy development and decision making at various spatial and time scales (Jakobsen et

al., 2008; McElfish & Varnell, 2006). Indicators inform and assist experts, decision and

policy makers and the public by informing them about research priorities and gaps, and

areas that need attention and can help influence human behaviour through education and

awareness (Jakobsen et al., 2008; National Research Council, 2000). Where information

is incomplete, indicators are considered to be a low-cost way of improving the foundation

14

of decision making; however, indicators should not be used in isolation of other available

decision making information (Romstad, 1999). Indicator information provided also helps

managers adjust resource allocation and strategies to improve effectiveness in programs

and policies (Jakobsen et al., 2008). Indicators can inform policy makers and the public

by providing statistical information regarding conditions that may otherwise be

overlooked, thus indicators can influence decisions and policies by focusing attention and

expanding awareness on certain conditions (Cobb and Rixford, 1998). Interpretation of

indicator information is important as this will impact the actions such as policies and

planning, that will subsequently derive from this information.

2.1.4 Indicator Qualities

There is extensive literature that describes many characteristics or qualities that indicators

must have in order to be effective. Overall, effective indicators must be representative,

relevant, reliable, understandable, and based on accessible and accurate data gathered by

reproducible methods (Boulanger, 2007; Jakobsen et al., 2008; McElfish & Varnell,

2006). An indicator must be measurable, meaning that data are readily available, cost

effective, updated regularly with reliable procedures, of known quality and are

adequately documented (OECD, 2003). Indicators should be representative, meaning that

they should be highly correlated to the condition or trend that the indicator was selected

to represent (McElfish & Varnell, 2006). The relevance of an indicator, particularly

policy relevance, is an important indicator quality (OECD, 2003). An indicator must

serve a specific purpose, such as be applicable to a management or policy goal, relate to

an important issue, or provide some information that is critical to the policy or goal

(Jakobsen et al., 2008; McElfish & Varnell, 2006; OECD, 2003). An indicator must also

be flexible and adaptable so that it is sensitive to changes in the conditions being

measured (Andrieu, 2007; Boulanger, 2007; McElfish & Varnell, 2006). Validity and

long term monitoring and tracking of indicator data at an appropriate spatial and temporal

scale is also important (McElfish & Varnell, 2006). Long term time-series data and

tracking are also necessary for the identification of trends and indicator reliability

(Romstad, 1999). Finally, indicators should be timely, reliable, feasible and cost-effective

(Boulanger, 2007; McElfish & Varnell, 2006).

15

Indicators are supposed to simplify information, consequently understandability and

utility for users is a key characteristic (OECD, 2003). To be useful, indicators need to be

easily understood, even by those with no, or limited, scientific or technical background,

such as some managers, policy makers and the public at large (Andrieu, 2007; Hammond

et al., 1995; Jakobsen et al., 2008; McElfish & Varnell, 2006). Understandability is an

indicator quality highlighted in the literature but it does not identify what decision makers

need in order for indicator information to be understandable and useful. In order to be

policy relevant and useful for decision making, indicators must satisfy the needs of

practitioners and users. “Ultimately, an indicator is useful only if it can provide

information to support a management decision or to quantify the success of past

decisions” (USEPA, 2000, p. 1-5). Beardsley (1992) and Hammond et al. (1995) describe

in greater detail the qualities needed for indicators to be successful in the realm of public

policy. According to Beardsley (1992) the three areas to consider for policy development

and decision making are “the need to set up real objectives, the need to use indicators as a

management device in a more effective way, the need to use a combination of indicators

and shorter term measures of progress to allocate resources” (p.62). Indicators for policy

purposes should have public confidence and acceptance, and the belief that the indicator

measurement is credible, free from bias, (so that the indicator measures what is intended

and not the ideas of the one who is calculating it) – that it is scientifically valid, and that

those who develop indicators practitioners and decision makers who use them are

credible as well (National Research Council, 2000). Dale and Beyeler (2001) describe

criteria used for selecting environmental indicators that expand upon the above

mentioned qualities required for indicators to be effective, particularly for decision

making (Box 1).

16

Box 1: Criteria for selecting environmental indicators (Dale & Beyeler, 2001)

1. Are they easily measured? (straightforward and cost-effective to measure; easy to understand, simple to apply and provide information to decision and policy makers that is scientifically sound, relevant and easily documented);

2. Are they sensitive to stresses on system (responsive to pressures placed on the ecosystem by human actions while having sensitivity to natural variation);

3. Respond to stress in a predictable manner (indicator response should be predictable and unambiguous even if there is only a gradual change in the system);

4. Are anticipatory: signify an impending change in the ecological system (indicators should be measureable before there are substantial changes in ecosystem integrity);

5. Predict changes that can be averted by management actions (the value of the indicator is dependent on the relationship to possible changes in actions by management);

6. Are integrative: the full suite of indicators provides a measure of coverage of the key gradients across the ecological systems (a suite of indicators should incorporate key environmental gradients since a single indicator is not applicable across all areas of concern);

7. Have a known response to natural disturbances, anthropogenic stresses, and changes over time (the indicator should have a well-documented response to natural disturbances and human stresses in the ecosystem); and

8. Have low variability in response (indicators with a small range in response to certain stresses allow for changes in the response to be distinguished better from background variability).

2.2 State of the Environment Reporting

There has been a worldwide socio-political trend to report on the state of the environment

(SOE) at multiple spatial scales (Fairweather, 1999). State of the environment reporting

shares similar characteristics, users and functions as environmental indicators and are

usually combined to identify environmental stressors, current environmental state or

condition, and the socio-political responses to these trends and stressors. Since

“indicators are the basis of empirical systems of assessing the performance of our

environment” they are used as the foundation of SOE reports (Fairweather, 1999, p. 211).

17

2.2.1 What are State of the Environment Reports?

As described by the World Commission on Environment and Development, to achieve

sustainable development, but not at the expense of ecological capital, it is necessary to

monitor the state of the environment periodically and to have indicators that will identify

emerging environmental concerns or changes while identifying the potential sources of

that stress (Rapport & Singh, 2006). State of the environment reporting, particularly at

the sub-global and national scale, were developed for just that reason (Rapport & Singh,

2006). Canada was one of the leading nations in state of the environment reporting

(Environment Canada, 1991). Environment Canada, the agency responsible for Canadian

federal SOE reporting, asserts that “state of the environment reporting describes,

analyzes, and presents scientifically based information on environmental conditions,

trends, and their significance” (Environment Canada, 1991, p1). State of the environment

reports are an environmental management tool developed to increase awareness and to

guide monitoring of environmental status, trends and changes in environmental

conditions (Campbell & Maclaren, 1999). SOE reporting examines effects of human

activity on the environment and the resulting implications on economic well-being,

human health, and the state of the ecosystems (Environment Canada, 1991). Specifically,

SOE reports concentrate on a selection of indicators that give a broad “overview of

environmental conditions from which progress in dealing with environmental issues can

be inferred through the systematic measurement, collection, and publication of the

environment and resource data which focus on the interaction between human activity

and the environment” (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995, p.7). Indicators discussed in SOE

reports reveal environmental trends and give representative measures of environmental

stresses, conditions and responses (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). At the local level, SOE

reports involve local authorities collecting and publishing a series of data to provide a

comprehensive appraisal of a designated area’s state or condition (Sharp, 1998). A state

of the environment report is one of the forms of environmental reporting in which an

ecosystem approach; that includes and is not separate from humans, is used to review the

social and economic impacts of humans and interactions of these impacts with and on the

environment.

18

2.2.2 Evolution of State of the Environment Reporting

A long history of environmental degradation, and the concern for human health and

wildlife in the mid-twentieth century, such as smog and poor water quality in urban

centres in North America and Europe, and the abnormal reproductive failure of bird

species due to bioaccumulation of pesticides such as DDT, led to the call for

environmental monitoring and reporting (Rapport & Singh, 2006). The

interconnectedness of environmental problems and human-induced pressures became

evident to governments (Rapport & Singh, 2006). Environmental data collection and

monitoring had already existed in a piecemeal fashion, however a framework was lacking

that tied this monitoring information together (Rapport & Singh, 2006). The data

collection methods isolated one particular environmental problem, such as the presence

of algae blooms in the North American Great Lakes, while only looking at one stressor,

such as nutrient input (Rapport & Singh, 2006). This approach lacked the links and

understanding of the ecosystem as a whole, and the interactions between stressors

(Rapport & Singh, 2006). This piecemeal approach called for a framework that could link

environmental pressures, such as pesticide use, and environmental changes and their

impacts on human wellbeing and ecosystem level functioning and/or processes (Rapport

& Singh, 2006). Environmental statistics, prior to the 1970s, were reported on by sector

and by the agency responsible for each sector (Campbell & Maclaren, 1999). The

ecosystem approach of viewing humans (including their economic activity) as part of

nature was developed and implemented, laying the foundation for SOE reporting

(Rapport & Singh, 2006). A conceptual framework of accounting that identified regional-

level and long term trends and changes in the health and viability of ecosystems was then

made (Rapport & Singh, 2006). Previous environmental monitoring, such as air and

water quality measures, were incorporated into the new framework, as were signs of a

dysfunctional ecosystem and the relationships with anthropogenic influences and

ecosystem health (Rapport & Singh, 2006).

The United States passed the Environmental Protection Act in 1970 and was the first

country to move beyond sector based environmental reporting to mandate the

coordination of individual environmental statistics sources in one document (Campbell &

19

Maclaren, 1995). This Act required the United States Council on Environmental Quality

to develop annual reports on environmental quality as a component of its policy appraisal

process (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995).

By the mid-1970s, Statistics Canada, the national statistical agency for Canada, had a

breakthrough by integrating ecology and economics with a comprehensive reporting

system on the environment (Rapport & Singh, 2006). This was one of the first agencies to

identify the gaps that were in typical state of the nation reporting, as they were usually

economic and demographic based, and lacked information on health status and

environment and social components that are necessary for a complete assessment of an

area or nation (Rapport & Singh, 2006). Therefore, Statistics Canada designed the Stress-

Response Environmental Statistical System (SRESS) that has been adopted by OECD

and is now widely used as the Pressure-State-Response model (Rapport & Singh, 2006).

A unique feature of SRESS was the use of a suite of indicators to identify ecosystem

breakdown and an ecosystem approach that included human beings as part of the

environment (Rapport & Singh, 2006). The OECD developed its first SOE report in 1979

and by the early 1980s SOE reporting programs were created in many countries

(Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). By the mid 1980s, the Canadian Advisory Council

recommended that Environment Canada create a regular public reporting program that

focused on the state of the environment, so that multiple stakeholders from different

sectors and spatial scales, including the general public, could be kept informed of trends

and changes in the environment (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). Canada developed its first

SOE report in 1986, titled State of the Environment Report for Canada and by 1988

Canada had created a formal SOE report program under the direction of Statistics Canada

and Environment Canada with a commitment to provide information through a number of

tools that included environmental indicators (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). While early

SOE reports were more descriptive and focused on environmental conditions and trends,

SOE reports evolved to take on a role that evaluated the significance of policy and trends

by recommending areas for remediation (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995).

20

Municipal SOE reports were developed early in the evolution of SOE reports as

Washington and Seattle had created the first regional reports in 1976 (Campbell &

Maclaren, 1995). In Canada, the first regional municipality to write an SOE report was

the Region of Waterloo in 1987 and the first local SOE report was developed by the City

of Toronto in 1988 (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). In Canada by 1994, more than twelve

municipalities had completed SOE reports (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). Literature

suggests Canada and Britain were leaders in the field of SOE reporting (Sharp, 1998).

SOE reports became prominent at the international level at the 1992 United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) where national SOE report

submissions were required for participation by the 167 member countries; nearly every

country submitted a SOE report at that time (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995).

2.2.3 State of the Environment Report Uses and Functions

SOE reporting has a variety of functions, uses and purposes, the primary which is to

inform an audience about the environment by typically addressing the current condition

of the environment, pressures impacting the environment (Sharp, 1998), as well as the

responses/actions taken to mitigate and address these trends and conditions (Campbell &

Maclaren, 1995). Using Canadian evidence, Campbell and Maclaren (1995) have

identified six objectives/functions for local SOE reporting including: 1) improve decision

making, 2) evaluate programs and policies using the reports as a performance measure, 3)

provide information to the public to increase awareness, 4) measure progress towards the

ultimate goal of sustainable development, 5) act as a base for comparison, especially

between local authorities and groups, and 6) make recommendations for new or revised

policies or programs.

SOE reports can function as a tool to improve decision making, since they encourage

inclusion of environmental conditions into the decision making process by highlighting

environmental concerns and issues (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). Decision makers are

provided with systematic means, through SOE reports, for identifying and anticipating

environmental changes to consider potential alternatives for actions (Campbell &

Maclaren, 1995).

21

For decision makers and policy developers, SOE reports can aid in the long term

perspectives of environmental conditions to see improving trends and emerging concerns,

identify gaps in data and knowledge, and to help determine wise, effective use of local

resources and actions (Commonwealth of Australia, 1994; North Sydney Council, n.d.).

SOE reports can thus help to identify areas that need action or response to help improve a

particular condition or trend. SOE reports can provide policy recommendations for new

or improved policies or programs (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). Reports should not only

point out problems, but should also recommend a course of action for addressing the

issue or problem lest it be ignored or downplayed by decision makers (Campbell &

Maclaren, 1995). Action or response recommendations also transform SOE reports into a

proactive tool as opposed to a reactive, descriptive tool in giving information to

practitioners and decision makers to make a positive change (Campbell & Maclaren,

1995). Also, SOE reports can act as a base for comparison. For example, cities can

compare, the quality of their environment and remediation programs to other

municipalities with similar populations and physical properties, or compare conditions

between sub-areas within the designated jurisdiction (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995).

State of the environment reporting evaluates and describes environmental performance to

communicate information on progress of policies and responses to achieving goals,

targets or sustainability as well as environmental benchmarks or standards (CA et al.,

1994; Campbell & Maclaren, 1995; North Sydney Council, n.d.). Evaluating program and

policy performance through SOE reports can help to protect and improve the

environment, identify trends and areas of concern to evaluate the effectiveness and

relevance of existing policies, regulations, programs etc. (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995).

State of the environment reports help to incorporate indicator information and translate it

to a simple, understandable summary that can be used by many stakeholders for a variety

of purposes. Reports can compile information from a number of sources in an easy to

understand manner that could help improve environmental awareness (Campbell &

Maclaren, 1995). Reports on indicators help to communicate and interpret the science

22

presented through indicator information. SOE reports enable scientifically sound, timely

(reliable), consistent information about trends and changes in an environment – at a

variety of spatial scales – while the goal of the reporting is to enhance the relevance,

accessibility (understandability) and quality of information for the pursuit of improved

ecosystem health and sustainability (Commonwealth of Australia, 1994). Policies that

extend beyond meeting legislation and regulations require understanding of the impacts

that organization’s products and operations have on the environment and human health

(CA, 1994).

2.2.4 State of the Environment Report Qualities

State of the environment reporting shares some key attributes with environmental

indicators. SOE reports should be scientifically sound, reliable, representative,

comparable, timely, and understandable (comprehensible) by all intended users

(Commonwealth of Australia, 1994; Azzone, Brophy, Noci, Welford & Young, 1997;

North Sydney Council, n.d.). The credibility and scientific accuracy of reporting is

important. The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) environmental indicators should be

considered and represented in the report (Rapport & Singh, 2006). Also, a report is

typically divided into environmental categories, such as land, air, water etc., and within

each of these categories the PSR model is used, as is the case with the State of the Great

Lakes reporting (EC & USEPA, 2005) and the Australian State of the Environment

reporting (North Sydney Council, n.d.).

In order for state of the environment reporting to be effective, it should be developed with

a purpose or objective in mind. To decide on the appropriate policy that will best meet

the goal of the user, an objective must be clearly identified to explain the report purpose

(i.e. what is to be achieved in reporting on environmental performance) (CA et al., 1994).

The purpose and objective of the report will determine the audience, type of report used

and the content and scope of the report (CA et al., 1994).

23

2.3 Indicator and State of the Environment Reporting Development

There is a variety of methods for development of environmental indicator and state of the

environment reports. International and national guidelines, such as the OECD and the

Government of Canada, can help guide development of indicators and reporting to meet

specific needs. Typically, the indicator user, for example a local government, would have

certain policy objectives for which indicators are required. From these objectives, criteria

may be established, and with a consultative, participatory approach, an indicator set may

be created and validated (Andrieu, 2007). De Montmollin and Scheller (2007) describe

how the MONET (German acronym for - ‘Monitoring der Nachhalitgen Entwicklung’ i.e.

monitoring sustainable development) indicator system from Switzerland uses this

participatory process for their indicator program. Since ecosystems and the concept of

sustainability are very complex, the creation of a standardized and universal indicator set

does not exist. However, practitioners and developers of indicator and state of the

environment reports can use similar processes and models such as the Pressure-State-

Response (PSR) or the Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model.

The development of indicators is not the focus of this thesis, so it will not be discussed in

great detail; however, it is important to understand how environmental indicators and

SOE reports are developed.

Environmental indicators have been developed using a variety of conceptual frameworks.

The most common conceptual frameworks used for indicator studies are the pressure-

state-response (PSR), driving force-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR), or driving

force-state-response (DSR), which structure and organize indicators and SOE reporting in

the context of a causal chain (Niemeijer & de Groot, 2008). The DPSIR model was

created in 1999 by the European Environmental Agency and is used by several

sustainable development indicator systems such as the national level MONET system in

Switzerland (de Montmollin & Scheller, 2007). The causal chain frameworks consider

economic and social developments as driving forces that create pressure on the

environment, leading to changes in the overall state of the environment (Niemeijer & de

Groot, 2008). These changes then lead to impacts on ecological systems and human

24

health that may evoke a societal response resulting in a change on the pressures or

driving forces or possibly directly on the impacts (Niemeijer & de Groot, 2008).

The PSR model is used for both environmental indicators and state of the environment

reporting. Designed initially by Statistics Canada in the mid 1970s but then finalized by

the OECD, this model uses an ecological perspective that “allows for a determination of

the overall viability of environments and for the identification of the collective pressures

from human activity that threaten that viability” (Rapport & Singh, 2006, p. 409). The

OECD uses and encourages all its members to use this model for indicator and reporting

purposes (OECD, 2003). For example, the PSR model is used in Australia (North Sydney

Council, n.d.) and in the Great Lakes indicators (Shear et al., 2003). Both the PSR and

DPSIR models work in a cyclical manner as shown in figure 1. Pressures describe the

influence of human activities on the environment including on natural resources and

reveals direct and indirect pressures such as resource consumption rates (OECD, 2003).

State relates to the environmental condition and quality, including the quantity and

quality of natural resources and will reflect ultimate goals and objectives for policies

(OECD, 2003). By evaluating and measuring the state of the environment one can

determine the trends in conditions as well as what pressures are causing the impacts on

the environment. Responses, commonly in the form of policies, programs and planning,

describe society’s response to environmental concerns and can reduce the stressor to help

improve the state of the environment (OECD, 2003).

25

Figure 1: Pressure-State-Response Model

An agreement has been made between UNSTAT, the United Nations Department for

Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, the Scientific Committee on

Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) from the International Council for Science

(ICSU), and the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, to use the

PSR framework for indicator presentation (IISD, 1995). The World Bank also uses a

similar framework for indicator development and presentation (IISD, 1995).

2.4 Who Uses Indicator and State of the Environment Reporting Information? At the international scale environmental and/or sustainable development indicators are

used by the following: United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-

CSD), Organization for Economic Co-operative Development (OECD), United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), World Bank, European Union (Commission of the

European Communities, the European Environment Agency (EEA), and Eurostat

(European Indicators)) and the World Health Organization (de Montmollin & Scheller,

2007; Jakobsen et al., 2008; OECD, 2003). The majority of these international groups has

worked in cooperation with the OECD and has developed similar approaches for

STATE

Condition and quality of the environment

e.g. pollutant concentrations

RESPONSE

Society’s response to environment concerns

e.g. resource consumption limits

PRESSURE

Stresses on the environment

e.g. resource consumption rates

26

environmental indicators and reporting. The OECD requires that its members (countries)

produce regular state of the environment reports at the national level.

At the national level, many indicator and SOER users are federal governments, such as

Canada, United States, Australia, and New Zealand – all of which have environmental

indicator and reporting programs (Commonwealth of Australia, 1994). For example,

Canada has a National Environmental Indicator Series and the federal government

previously developed comprehensive national SOE reports every five years but have

since been replaced with periodic issue reports (Bond et al., 2005). There are also

provincial and/or state level indicators that are used by the corresponding level of

government and departments, such as the Province of British Columbia that develops a

comprehensive SOE report (Bond et al., 2005; British Columbia Ministry of the

Environment, 2007).

Regional level indicators that focus on a particular area such as the North American Great

Lakes indicators, or the Ontario Provincial Conservation Authorities have indicators

based on watershed boundaries. Finally, there are local level indicators such as those

produced by local governments. Other environmental indicator and SOER users include:

private sector (e.g. The World Economic Forum) (Jakobsen et al., 2008), institutions,

organizations (both governmental and non-governmental), academics and students,

scientists, First Nation groups, and the public (Commonwealth of Australia, 1994).

More specifically, indicators that are used for management and policy decisions are often

at scales defined by regulations or legislation that are established by governments

(National Research Council, 2000). The use of indicators relates to a desire for the

knowledge and what information is needed (Jakobsen et al., 2008). There are many users

of indicator and SOE reporting information; however, many potential users are often

unaware of what can be gained from this information if they are not familiar with this

information (Rey-Valette, Laloë & Le Fur, 2007b).

27

2.5 Spatial Scales of Indicators and State of the Environment Reporting Information can be developed and used at a variety of spatial scales. At the international

scale, indicators can serve as an educational tool and to establish standards, however

indicator development is generally implemented at other spatial scales (Rey-Valette et al.,

2007a). International level indicator information and reports are typically broad and

contain large amounts of information that are difficult to interpret or use by smaller

spatial scale users. International indicators and reporting generally have little influence

over local level decision makers (National Research Council, 2000). The spatial and time

scales of environmental indicators greatly influence the value of the indicator (Stein et

al., 2001).

National and local level entities have also begun the use of environmental indicators and

state of the environment reporting. At the national and local scale, indicators were

generally used “as an incentive tool for implementing sustainable management and

decision support principles for managers” (Rey-Valette et al., 2007a, p. 124). Rey-Valette

et al. (2007a) consider the best scale to evaluate the interaction between the sustainable

development pillars to be the local scale because “positive synergies between these

dimensions are expressed most accurately” (Rey-Valette et al., 2007a, p. 124). The

national level is expected to provide information to the smaller scales, so the information

has to meet a variety of needs for different users. At the national level it is difficult to

determine “appropriate and useful ways to aggregate information collected at small scales

into indicators covering the entire country” (National Research Council, 2000, p. 2).

However, national level indicator and reporting is required since many environmental

policies, decisions and laws are developed and/or implemented at the federal level. Also,

national level information is needed for many international agreements to aid in the

creation of international standards (National Research Council, 2000).

There is an inherent synergy between environment and local actions and behaviours and

this relationship plays an important role in environmental decision-making and

sustainable development. Activities conducted at the local level impact ecosystems in a

variety of ways, either positively or negatively, and influence larger scale environmental

28

trends and conditions. A sustainable approach and/or the pursuit of sustainability

acknowledge the importance of informed public involvement and locally relevant

decision-making (Robinson, Francis, Legge & Lerner, 1990). There is a desire to have

more efficient ways of matching the scales of ecological processes to the scales at which

indicators are deemed useful (National Research Council, 2000). Rey-Valette et al.

(2007a) note that recent conferences on sustainable development indicators have

established that the development of sustainability indicators for all scales are the

preferred tool for the implementation and pursuit of sustainable development.

There is limited literature that addresses the relevance of both environmental indicator

and SOE reports developed at higher spatial scales for use at the local scale and the

degree to which they influence policy development. Stein et al. (2001) address the

relationship between the scale of environmental indicator observation to the scale of

information required. To develop environmental indicators, information has to be

available at different spatial scales (Stein et al., 2001). The quality of an indicator is

reliant upon the scale of which it represents and the state of the environment quality at a

provincial scale has different information needs compared to local or regional scale state

of the environment measures (Stein et al., 2001). Primary components of matching or

changing spatial scales involve upscaling – a process of aggregating information

collected at smaller scales towards a higher scale – and downscaling – a process of

detailing information collected at a higher scale towards a smaller, more detailed scale

(Stein et al., 2001). The work presented by Stein et al. (2001) provides a number of

statistical methods and models for handling spatial resolution for particular

environmental indicators such as zinc, but they do not provide general information about

the relationship between indicator spatial scales needed for local decisions.

2.6 Decision Making and Policy Development The literature on environmental decision making and policy development focuses largely

on the various models, paradigms and theories associated with information and use.

There is little research that identifies what decision makers and policy developers need or

want in order to make useful, informed decisions, particularly at the local and watershed

29

level in Ontario. The literature also identifies that there is a gap between science and

policy, primarily because both groups have different languages, interests and objectives.

However, it is important to bridge this gap to improve ecosystem health and achieve

sustainability. Heal and Kriström (2007) state that the broadly interpreted purpose of

environmental policy is to change production and consumption patterns in a way that will

ultimately enhance overall social, economic and environmental welfare. In order to

understand the role that environmental indicators and state of the environment reporting

have in regards to policy development, planning and decision making, it is important to

understand what information is used for decision making, what the process of decision

making is, and what are the links between indicators, reporting and decision making.

The process of decision making consists of using information to inform the decision

making process to produce a response in the form of an action taken (Ruitenbeek, 1991).

The decision making process can use a variety of different methods, models and

paradigms to help convert information into a response or form of action, such as the

creation of regulations and programs. The responses are precise, and target something

specific in order to obtain an objective or goal (Ruitenbeek, 1991). This process is

illustrated in figure 2.

Figure 2: Simplification of the Decision Making Process (Adapted from Ruitenbeek, 1991)

Response / Action

Information

Feedback

Decision Making Process

Feedback

30

2.6.1 Decision Making for Sustainable Development

The foundation of sustainable development focuses on a need for change in the way

decisions are made, as well as the decisions themselves to effectively ‘use’ the

environment without hindering the ability of the environment to sustain itself and provide

goods and services for the future (Government of Canada, 2002; WCED, 1987). Since the

early 1990s, all levels of government in Canada (federal, provincial, territorial, municipal

and Aboriginal) have created policies and structural and procedural changes to help

incorporate the three pillars of sustainability into programs and policies, while reflecting

stakeholders views (Government of Canada, 2002). One concern about policy making for

sustainable development is that sometimes the decision making objectives are not

available beforehand (Boulanger & Bréchet, 2005). Also, it is rare that there is just one

decision maker. Each decision maker has his/her own expectations, objectives, beliefs

and preferences (Boulanger & Bréchet, 2005). For sustainability issues, it is often

difficult to assess the benefits and costs, primarily because sustainability results in

uncertainties (the longer the program the greater uncertainty exists) and externalities (i.e.

spatial, inter-temporal or social), as well as interplay between the environment and

humans (Boulanger & Bréchet, 2005). In addition, the broad definition of sustainability

makes it difficult to measure and make decisions.

2.6.2 Information

As already mentioned, reliable information is a key resource for decision-making.

Information may circulate in a manner that may be official or nonofficial, formal or

informal, regular or irregular (Le Fur, 2007). Many stakeholders rely on accurate

information to aid in decision-making and using indicator information for the joint

management of an environmental resource is commonly done (e.g. Le Fur, 2007).

Information serves as an intrinsic component to all organization activities (Choo, 1996).

Also, policy development and decision making are not random processes; rather, the

process is based on the uses of information, knowledge and insight from a variety of

different levels and sources (Winograd, 2007). Information in any form of decision-

making should be proactive, not only reactive. A proactive approach is needed to prevent

31

direct and indirect stresses on the environment and reduce these environmental pressures

(e.g. Winograd, 2007).

Successful assessment initiatives should develop and strengthen the capacity of the user

to create and use information and recognize best practices (Winograd, 2007). “To create

real capacity, it is not enough to give already developed frameworks, methods, tools,

recommendations and information to the institutions, people and decision-makers”

(Winograd, 2007, p. 104). Information alone is not suffice as high quality information

does not necessarily guarantee that the action based on it will be successful or that if

action is successful it is caused by good information (Besleme, Maser & Silverstein,

1999). It is important to have training to advise people on how to improve decision

making, policy development, and planning, and how to use information, thus allowing

users to transfer information and knowledge into action and build ownership over the

initiative at hand (Winograd, 2007). It is also important to ask decision makers what their

needs and limitations are to help mold information to be more useful for users.

Information Needs and Uses for Decision Making and Policy Development

Information is collected and used by decision makers for many purposes. In general,

information helps decision makers understand conditions or findings, which in turn

develop judgments to respond to these findings; however, not all information improves

understanding and judgments (Saaty, 2008). Le Fur (2007) emphasized that knowledge

and information are only useful when received in the proper context. Also, too much

information is likely as bad as too little information, since knowing more is not

guaranteed to yield better understanding (Saaty, 2008). It is not the quantity but rather the

quality of information that is important. “To make a decision we [decision makers] need

to know the problem, the need and purpose of the decision, the criteria of the decision,

their subcriteria, stakeholders and groups affected and the alternative actions to take”

(Saaty, 2008, p. 84).

Information needs for policy development and decision making, depend and vary on the

people involved (stakeholders), decision-making and interest group objectives

32

(Winograd, 2007). Managers and decision makers need information and data that are

technically credible, accurate and valid, and socially acceptable and politically relevant

(National Research Council, 2000; Winograd, 2007). Information should also be

translated from time scales and scientific language to the time scales and language of the

policy and/or decision maker, as well as all relevant stakeholders at all levels (Winograd,

2007). Appropriate information and data should also capture “the most critical dynamics

of ecological systems and the changes in their functioning”, which good quality

environmental indicators and state of the environment reporting should do (National

Research Council, 2000, p. 18-19). It is important for information to link social entities,

i.e. a local community, with a spatial entity, i.e. the ecosystem or watershed, “to

acknowledge a reality that implies both spatial and temporal dimensions” (Winograd,

2007, p. 104).

Information Scale and Exchange

Information for decision making and policy development comes in various forms and

spatial scales. There are numerous factors that can influence a decision, such as

legislation from higher tier governments, public concerns or issues, information

availability and usability, and resources (including financial). Some sources of

information include environmental impact assessments, scientific and academic literature,

both primary and secondary monitoring data, such as that produced for environmental

indicators, and reports on long-term or emerging trends and environmental conditions

(e.g. SOE reports). The amount and type of information tends to become more specific at

a smaller spatial scale and local government officials and volunteers have been

increasingly making an attempt to apply sustainability concepts at the local level

(Brugmann, 1997). However, it is important to consider the differences between

indicators and SOE reports at different spatial scales, as the work by Campbell and

Maclaren (1995) suggest.

Many organizations, such as municipal governments, may be burdened with many

responsibilities and few resources. Information exchange and data sharing can have the

potential to help decision makers and policy developers. Information exchange refers to

33

the sharing of information (data, reports, ideas) between users or organizations at all

spatial scales and may include upscaling or downscaling of the information (e.g. Stein et

al., 2001). As Dennis (1996) states, there is a lack of access to relevant information

especially for individual managers. Thus, group decision making – with multiple decision

makers – relies on information exchange. It is important that information and acquired

knowledge be disseminated to the largest set of concerned stakeholders to allow for this

information to be appropriated for operational purposes such as policy development (Le

Fur, 2007). Local governments and organizations, such as Conservation Authorities, have

to follow mandates and legislation from different levels of government, and it is

important to have a good flow of information. There is little literature that describes

information exchange and what would improve the process to help local level decision

maker’s access and share information, particularly from other spatial scales.

Many legislators have their primary interests in reelection or promotion to a higher office,

and this may influence decision making by focusing on short term decisions that coincide

with their political term (Hahn, 1989). “Most policy and management decisions are made

at scales defined by laws and regulations established by political entities, such as local

municipalities, counties, states, and the federal government” (National Research Council,

2000, p. 14). Politics and political entities maintain a strong influence over the shape of

environmental policy (Hahn, 1989).

2.6.3 Science and Policy – Bridging the Gap

There has been a long term gap between science and policy and the need to resolve this

(Rey-Valette et al., 2007a; Beardsley, 1992). Scientists and policy makers share a direct

and important relationship where both rely on each other to achieve progress (Rey-

Valette et al., 2007b). There are many possible reasons for this gap, including technical

and political processes respond to short term public concerns and crises, whereas

scientists typically maintain long-term concerns (Beardsley, 1992). There needs to be an

agreement built between scientists and policy makers that identify what information is

useful and appropriate for the measurement of short term progress towards environmental

goals and objectives that are practical to obtain, while also combining short term

34

measurements of progress with indicators in order to allocate resources (Beardsley,

1992). For example, creating and implementing policies that accommodate changes in the

understanding of underlying science and knowledge can save resources (Hahn, 1989).

It is evident that different audiences and users of information require the information for

different purposes. Some users, such as decision makers and managers, are not aware of

or have access to the available “products” that scientists provide which can cause users to

restrict the expression of their needs, especially when new information types are involved

(McElfish & Varnell, 2006; Rey-Valette et al., 2007b). It is typical that the supply of

information creates the demand for this information. However, it does not necessarily

mean that the supply is provided in a valuable or appropriate format. Policy makers need

scientifically sound information and expert consultation to have valid and credible

policies and decisions (Rey-Valette et al., 2007b); while scientists need to maintain a

level of rigour and credibility, in order for information to remain scientifically sound.

There is a need to discuss the requirements of both scientists and policy makers to reach

an agreement to produce information that is useful to both parties.

A better understanding of what is happening in an ecosystem can yield more efficient and

appropriate policy that maintains variability within acceptable targets or limits,

discourages undesirable changes, and encourages desirable changes (National Research

Council, 2000). Since environmental indicators include both scientific and social aspects

they are considered as a potential instrument for policy (Rey-Valette et al., 2007b).

Despite the fact that indicator and reporting information can function as a tool to help

inform policy development and decision making, it has been observed that this

information is not often used in public policy (Rey-Valette et al., 2007b). Research tends

to assume that as long as indicators, and the resulting SOE reports, are scientifically

sound, then decision and policy makers will use them as a tool to make better decisions;

however, this is not always the case (McElfish & Varnell, 2006). Scientific validity is a

key quality, but it is not the only criterion for usefulness in the realm of policy

development.

35

2.6.4 Indicator and State of the Environment Report Relevance for Decision Making

Many literature sources state that indicators and state of the environment reports can be

used for decision making and policy development or that indicators and SOE reports need

to meet user needs to be effective for decision making (e.g. Beardsley, 1992; Campbell &

Maclaren, 1995; Hammond et al., 1995; Jakobsen et al., 2008; National Research

Council; OECD, 2003). There are only a few literature references that discuss the impacts

and links of indicators and SOE reports and that show that indicators and SOE reports

can impact decision making.

Sharp (1998) describes the links between SOE reports and decision making and indicates

that although SOE reports provide information to the public about the local environment,

the extent that this is used and relevant is difficult to assess. The direct influences of local

SOE reports on councils appears to be limited, but the indirect influences in terms of

organizational networking and learning may be substantial (Sharp, 1998). Most forms of

information work indirectly, including indicators; goals are not achieved through

indicators but from the steps taken in response to indicator findings and trends (Besleme

et al., 1999). Indicators can raise awareness about problems, funding being allocated,

coalitions being formed, and place issues on the public’s agenda, but they do not

necessarily produce change directly (Besleme et al., 1999). Indicator reports are not

strategic action plans “but they can be an effective information resource for such plans,

particularly when the indicators process is carried out in such a way as to foster political

will” (Besleme et al., 1999, p. 39). Policy outcomes are “the creation, modification, or

implementation of programs in response to indicator feedback; the incorporation of

indicators into a planning process; the allocation of resources to meet needs on the basis

of indicators; or changes in individual behavior (for example, driving habits)” (Besleme

et al., 1999, p. 4). Policy outcomes represent actions taken to address issues identified by

indicators (Besleme et al., 1999). Despite limited information regarding the link between

indicators and/or SOE reports with decision making, there is the notion that information

alone is not sufficient and that information, even of high quality, does not guarantee that

a response based on it will be successful or that the success of the action is a result of

good information (Besleme et al., 1999).

36

Maclaren (1996) notes that a local effort to characterize sustainability would require: 1)

integrating indicators or indexes to show linkages between the social, economic and

environmental phenomena; 2) trend indicators that are linked to targets and thresholds; 3)

predictive indicators that rely on mathematical forecasting models or conditional

indicators that use ‘if/then’ scenarios to predict future conditions; 4) distributional

indicators that measures local upstream and downstream effects and intergenerational

equity through highly disaggregated data; 5) condition (state)-stress (pressure)-response

indicators, depending on the framework applied, that provide causal models for local

conditions. Each of these indicator types, although useful for evaluating features of

sustainability in a community has its own methodological complexities, requirements and

applicability standards (Brugmann, 1997).

Effective indicators for policy and management need to indicate the results of an action

because this promotes a sense of local accountability (Brugmann, 1997). “The most

results-oriented indicators projects are those that use indicators to hold institutions

accountable to their plans and to evaluate whether actions are having the desired effects”

(Brugmann, 1997, p. 71). In order to do so, environmental indicators need cause-effect

chains in order to be meaningful for an organization and to be environmentally effective

(Brunklaus, Malmqvist & Baumann, 2009).

If indicators do not serve their intended function, or do not satisfy the qualities or

characteristics discussed earlier, they are considered ineffective. For instance, some

indicators are considered less useful if they do not tie to underlying ecological processes

or are not associated with a management objective (National Research Council, 2000).

Environmental indicator programs do not always identify the users and management

goals, nor the possible constraints or obstacles that users may face. By neglecting to

identify indicator users and objectives, indicator systems rely on a belief that once created

they will somehow meet the needs of users later (McElfish & Varnell, 2006). “Nor do

indicator development and evaluation protocols typically specify what management

decisions are to be driven (or at least directly affected) by well-designed, scientifically-

37

valid indicators” (McElfish & Varnell, 2006, p. 109). Also, in some situations indicators

are specific to a particular area, or ecosystem type, or one or a few species types. Though

useful for their intended purpose, they are not applicable at other spatial scales (National

Research Council, 2000). It is also challenging for scientists, indicator practitioners and

managers to combine a number of variables into one single indicator, even though it is

not feasible or cost effective to measure every variable individually (National Research

Council, 2000).

The research conducted by Cobb and Rixford (1998), recommend that an analytical

approach to indicators is needed as it involves developing a theory as to why these

conditions exist. This is more difficult than a mere descriptive approach that states what

conditions exist. Looking at causal relationships between events as opposed to just

looking at the event itself is important because if indicators show the validity of a theory,

then the indicators demonstrate an ability to solve real problems (Cobb & Rixford, 1998).

One purpose of an indicator should be to develop and test the legitimacy and validity of

the models about how the world works (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). Their main

recommendations were to transition from description to analysis. To transfer indicators

into action it is important to determine the causes or pressures that are behind the

environmental conditions or issues (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). Supporters of descriptive

indicators suggest that motivating decision makers or the public to action is key in

creating change. Of course this is true, it is not sufficient to translate indicators into

action. “Providing evidence about which policies may actually work is perhaps the most

crucial step to create change” (Cobb & Rixford, 1998, p. 3).

Indicators serve a unique role as a performance measure in implementing local goals or

policies, particularly for sustainable planning (Brugmann, 1997). Performance indicators,

measure and verify the progress towards an objective or goal. The City of Seattle

developed a Comprehensive Plan with indicators that are embedded in policy

development that the City is obligated to implement (Brugmann, 1997). The plan

overlaps with themes from the Sustainable Seattle Project, a well known indicator and

reporting project focused on sustainability that is frequently used as a ‘best practice’

38

model (Brugmann, 1997). The City developed a core list of indicators that needed: to be

understandable and have a direct relationship to one more of the projects policies or

goals; to have available information that was regular, reliable and cost effective to track

the indicator; and the total list of indicators must describe progress to set out values and

aims for the Plan (Brugmann, 1997). The City also developed a secondary set of

indicators that linked municipal policy and planning processes with sustainability

reporting (Brugmann, 1997). Brugmann (1997) suggests that the Sustainability Seattle

Project failed in the area of performance measures where the City was more effective due

to their indicator and performance measure criteria. Indicators need to relate performance

drivers to results, identify cause-effect relationships, and establish links between indicator

findings and actions needed.

There are two links necessary to connect information and environmental management: 1)

technical information regarding carrying capacities that provides a framework for

establishing targets and objectives; and criteria for analyzing the effectiveness of actions

and 2) political links about human induced environmental consequences that stimulate

public concern and produce political pressure and support for environmental actions and

policies (Levett, 1997). The political link is needed to provide the resources and mandate

to produce the action; whereas, the technical highlights what needs to be done (Levett,

1997). These links can be seen in figure 3, where SOE reports fall within category A and

sustainability indicators are represented in categories B and F. Sustainability indicators

that help define actions and policies and those that link measures of the pressures, state of

the environment and the responses taken are represented by category B. Sustainability

indicators that express local sustainability problems and goals in a way that is

understandable and meaningful to ordinary people (i.e. community based indicators) are

reflected in category F (Levett, 1997).

39

Figure 3: Relationship between Tools for Municipal Environmental Management

Source: (Levett, 1997)

To transition indicators into action involves applying criteria to indicators to produce

information that decision makers, planners and practitioners can use (Besleme et al.,

1999). Furthermore, the needs of implementers must be considered from the outset of the

indicator process. Indicators also need to coincide with the language of the implementers

and decision makers, such as internal operational management (Brunklaus et al., 2009). It

is important to consider the implementers and decision makers throughout the entire

indicator process. Practitioners should also carefully consider their objectives prior to

implementing a particular initiative or action as clearly defined objectives help focus the

indicator and reporting process for implementing the response/initiative (Sharp, 1998).

Besleme et al. (1999) add that “since indicators cannot in and of themselves effect

change, they need to be part of a tool box of community empowerment that includes

outreach, research, advocacy, coalition- building, volunteer power, links to resource

allocation, and strong institutional relationships with committed members of the

government, business, human-services, advocacy, and nonprofit communities” (p. 40).

Cobb and Rixford (1998) have reviewed and evaluated the history of social indicators

and reports, which includes environmental indicators as a subset, to identify the successes

and limitations to make indicators more outcome oriented that have been summarized by

40

twelve lessons to help develop indicators that will impact society (Box 2). The last five

lessons are of particular interest for translating indicators to action. Indicators need to be

connected to a larger plan of action and although information revealed by indicators can

possibly alter perceptions the connection to action is not immediate or automatic – thus

measurement does not guarantee action (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). Information must affect

perceptions or motives of how the world and its components work in order to change

behaviour but this is not as easy as it seems, since indicators and reports are a form of

information they can only serve as one part of a larger puzzle (Cobb & Rixford, 1998).

The “greatest power in public policy debates lies in being able to change the definition of

a problem” (Cobb & Rixford, 1998, p. 25). Indicator reports must address problems or

issues that people care about, and this is an effective function of indicators, known as

enlightenment function, which is the ability of an indicator to alter the basic

understanding of a problem and offering an analysis of why the problem exists rather

than just pointing out the problem (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). It is important that indicators

and indicator reports reveal not only the symptoms of problems, but more importantly

their causes (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). Focusing only on symptoms will rarely cure a

problem and to solve a problem or alter a symptom it is imperative to have a theory on

what is causing it and how to repeatedly test this theory (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). If

indicators only focus on describing existing conditions without suggesting how this

happened, subsequently reports will be unable to easily lead to action (Cobb & Rixford,

1998). The last lesson suggests that indicators and subsequent reports are not an end in

themselves, rather the purpose is to alert decision and policy makers and the public about

the presence and cause of problems so they can be ‘fixed’ (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). “This

is only possible when indicator development is connected to those that have the power to

make substantive changes otherwise indicators may not influence outcomes” (Cobb &

Rixford, 1998, p. 29).

41

Box 2: Helpful Lessons of the Past for Practitioners Today (Below quoted from Cobb & Rixford, 1998, p. 32)

1. Having a number doesn’t necessarily mean that you have a good indicator. 2. Effective indicators require a clear conceptual basis. 3. There’s no such thing as a value-free indicator. 4. Comprehensiveness may be the enemy of effectiveness. 5. The symbolic value of an indicator may outweigh its value as a literal measure. 6. Don’t conflate indicators with reality. 7. A democratic indicators program requires more than good public participation processes. 8. Measurement does not necessarily induce appropriate action. 9. Better information may lead to better decisions and improved outcomes, but not as easily

as it might seem. 10. Challenging prevailing wisdom about what causes problem is often the first step to fixing

it. 11. To take action, look for indicators that reveal causes, not symptoms. 12. You are more likely to move from indicators to outcomes if you have control over

resources.

Challenges and Limitations

There a number of concerns that can hinder the use of environmental indicators and SOE

reports as a management tool. There is a complex relationship between data and

information on one side and behavioural change and policy on the other (Brugmann,

1997). One of the most basic conflicts about the purpose and nature of indicators is the

debate about whether they should be descriptive and simply identify conditions that may

have been overlooked otherwise; or should they be prescriptive and provide guidance

regarding what steps to take to address issues of concern (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). There

is limited research on what practitioners and decision makers identify as challenges or

limitations to the use of indicators and SOE reports or what obstacles they must

overcome. There is however literature on the qualities that are needed for indicators and

SOE reports to be useful for policy and decision makers.

Cobb and Rixford (1998) have revealed some frustrations and challenges practitioners

and decision makers face when trying to apply social indicators and indicator reporting.

Since environmental indicators can be a subset of social indicators, it is assumed that

these challenges could be applied to most indicator types including environmental. Since

SOE reports are one form of indicator reporting, it is assumed that these factors can be

42

applied to SOE reports as well. The biggest challenge facing indicator practitioners is

finding ways to make sure their efforts are meaningful and that the work matters (Cobb &

Rixford, 1998). It is possible that data/statistics will continually be collected and

published in reports but will have no visible or direct impact on environmental outcomes

and social processes (Cobb & Rixford, 1998). Practitioners do not have an ultimate goal

of awareness; rather they want to achieve a direct link between indicators and

outcomes/findings. Practitioners are often frustrated by the lack of change and action

resulting from the production of indicator reports (Cobb & Rixford, 1998).

Dale and Beyeler (2001) have outlined three concerns that limit the use of environmental

indicators as a resource management tool. First, a small number of indicators are often

used for monitoring programs. Consequently this simplification fails to consider the

complexity of the ecosystem and this can lead to poorly informed management decisions

(Dale & Beyeler, 2001). Secondly, the choice of environmental indicators is often

confused in programs with vague objectives and goals. Objectives and goals should be

established at the onset of the process as a means to tailor monitoring for current and

future issues (Dale & Beyeler, 2001). Third, monitoring and management programs can

lack scientific rigour due to a lack of defined indicator protocols (Dale & Beyeler, 2001).

A lack of standardized methods for selecting and using indicators limits and leads to

speculation for the interpretation of changes for a specific time and space (Dale &

Beyeler, 2001). Thus, standard procedures for indicator selection and use can allow

greater repeatability, impose a guideline for indicator selection, avoid bias and ensures

that the environmental indicators chosen will include management concerns (Dale &

Beyeler, 2001).

Sharp (1998) has outlined problems with local SOE reports and has identified two types

of difficulty that inhibit the local SOE report process: those that arise because of limited

resources and those that stem from vague objectives. One area of confusion was the lack

of clearly defined SOE report objectives or contradictory objectives as this results in

conflicting expectations about the purpose of the reports by practitioners (Sharp, 1998).

With a lack of clear objectives, every selection decision about the information to be

43

gathered and presented results in a difficult choice with conflicting objectives (Sharp,

1998). This is important since the scope of SOE reports can potentially be very large and

users have to be selective about what information they collect and report on (Sharp,

1998).

Limited resources are a main area of conflict for SOE report use (Sharp, 1998).

Practitioners had stated they underestimated the time commitment and level of expertise

required to develop and prepare local SOE reports (Sharp, 1998). Practitioners identified

four main difficulties related to limited resource availability that hinder SOE report use.

Often, information was difficult to find and once it was acquired the geographical scale

needed to be adjusted to meet local needs (Sharp, 1998). Practitioners noted that the

process of interpreting and understanding the data was very time intensive and

consuming (Sharp, 1998). Report practitioners and editors did not have the expertise

required for every component as data collected covered a range of topics and subjects

(Sharp, 1998). Practitioners were often ‘stretched thin’ as they had to juggle the SOE

report process of data collection and interpretation with other commitments which lead to

efforts on SOE reports being postponed to manage other commitments with more

immediate deadlines (Sharp, 1998). “The parallels between SOE reporting and other

initiatives suggest that descriptions of any environmental information-collecting activities

which imply that they are objective or politically neutral are misleading and, indeed, that

such descriptions might cause difficulties similar to those experienced during the SOE

reporting process” as mentioned above (Sharp, 1998, p. 89). The difficulties and

limitations expressed by Sharp (1998) are expected from any type of information

collection process within a position of limited or constrained resources.

44

3.0 CASE STUDY The Great Lakes basin has 16,000 kilometres of shoreline, approximately 33.5 million

residents and contains one-fifth of the world’s fresh water resources (Bertram et al.,

2005; EC and USEPA, 2000). The basin also provides drinking water for 16 million

Canadians and encompasses 95% of Ontario’s total population (Conservation Ontario,

2009). Not only is the Great Lakes basin an important geographic area because of its vital

resource functions, but millions rely on it for health and well being, economic, cultural,

recreational and agricultural uses (Conservation Ontario, 2009). The Great Lakes basin,

including the St. Lawrence basin, spans two countries, and includes two Canadian

provinces (Ontario and Quebec) and eight American states (Michigan, Minnesota, New

York, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois).

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), signed initially in 1972, serves as

a guide and framework for the bi-national management of the Great Lakes basin between

Canada and the United States (Bertram et al., 2005). The GLWQA was amended in 1987,

to reflect an emphasis on a more holistic, ecosystem based approach to water quality

issues in the Great Lakes (Bertram et al., 2005). Specifically, the GLWQA aims to restore

and maintain the biological, chemical and physical integrity of the Great Lakes basin

ecosystem (Bertram et al., 2005; Shear et al., 2003).

To assess the state of the Great Lakes system, a comprehensive set of environmental

indicators was created by Environment Canada and the United States Environmental

Protection Agency to obtain a basin wide trend in time assessment of the state of the

Great Lakes environment. The GLWQA stipulated a need for the development of

ecosystem objectives and for indicators to measure the progress towards objectives

(Bertram et al., 2005). These indicators are available to the Great Lakes community to

use as a framework to assess and monitor changes in the ecosystem (EC & USEPA,

2000). This set of approximately 80 environmental and socio-economic indicators has

been developed, reported on, and regularly updated since 1998 (EC & USEPA, n.d.).

These indicators are intended to give information for a general system overview and to be

generally applicable on a lake basin or basin wide scale (Bertram et al., 2005; USEPA,

45

2008). The indicators “will draw upon and complement indicators used for more specific

purposes such as Lakewide Management Plans or Remedial Action Plans for geographic

Areas of Concern” (USEPA, 2008).

The GLWQA mandated reporting requirements which are addressed through Great Lakes

reporting and biennial conference (Bertram et al., 2005). Environment Canada and the

United States Environmental Protection Agency co –chair the Binational Executive

Committee (BEC) to foster a bi-national coordination of the Great Lakes environmental

programs (Bertram, Stadler-Salt, Horvatin, & Shear, 2003). BEC developed the State of

the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) in order to report on the condition of the

Great Lakes ecosystem components and fulfill the objectives and goals of the GLWQA

(Bertram et al., 2003). SOLEC is held every two years to discuss indicators of the state of

the Great Lakes basin. The conferences are largely science-based, and “are a result of

consultation and collaboration between the U.S. and Canada, and between federal, state,

provincial and local government agencies, environmental groups, industry and the

public” (Bertram et al., 2003; p. 28-29).

A State of the Great Lakes report is developed every two years. The State of the Great

Lakes reports reflect the information presented, what assessments were made/presented

and any conclusions drawn (Bertram et al., 2003). The State of the Great Lakes reporting

is often presented in one large technical document and a smaller highlights report (e.g.

EC & USEPA, 2007a; EC & USEPA, 2007b). The reports and conferences are important

for environmental management programs and are intended for environmental managers,

senior administrators, decision makers and the public (Bertram et al., 2005).

There are four main objectives established for SOLEC including: “to assess the state of

the Great Lakes ecosystem based on accepted indicators; to strengthen decision making

and environmental management; to inform local decision makers of the Great Lakes

environmental issues; and to provide a forum for communication and networking among

all stakeholders” (Bertram et al., 2003; p. 29). The primary SOLEC audiences are

environmental decision-makers and managers; however, information needs of senior

46

administrators and the public are considered as well (Bertram et al., 2003). One of the

purposes of the SOLEC conferences and reporting is to reach audiences of different

scales including people in all levels of government, not-for profit and corporate sectors

that make decisions that ultimately impact the Great Lakes ecosystem (USEPA, 2008). In

addition, SOLEC provides Great Lakes decision-makers with a forum for information

exchange (EC & USEPA, n.d.).

An ecosystem approach is used for the SOLEC process. The ecosystem is viewed “in

terms of the state or “health” of the living system and its underlying physical, chemical

and biological components” where human health is deemed part of the system (USEPA,

2008). The SOLEC conferences and reporting do not focus on the status of the varying

programs required for Great Lakes restoration and protection (USEPA, 2008).

47

4.0 RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND METHODS This chapter describes the research procedure and methods used to answer the research

questions. This research focused on a particular geographic location – the Ontario portion

of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin – and populations that included local

government and Conservation Authority employees. A non-random method was used to

determine the initial sample size for the study. Web-based surveys and follow-up semi-

structured interview methods were used for primary data collection. A mix of qualitative

and quantitative analysis of the surveys and interviews identified trends and common

themes to aid in the understanding of local level decision makers needs, uses and

perceptions of environmental indicators and state of the environment reporting in relation

to decision making.

4.1 Geographic Location The Ontario portion of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin provided the geographical

boundary for the research. The North American Great Lakes basin is shown in figure 4.

Because of the large size of the basin, different laws, legislation and regulations between

individual states and the Province, governance structures and international decision-

making frameworks and policies, this research focused only on the Canadian side of the

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin. The bi-national Great Lakes indicators and reporting

served as a case study that provided an opportunity to analyze the research questions.

Analyzing the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin provided

information on the lakes, excluding only Lake Michigan, while simultaneously providing

a more uniform decision-making and policy development framework as all respondents

are exposed to the same federal and provincial legislations. The St. Lawrence basin,

although downstream of the Great Lakes, was included because it is addressed by

SOLEC and included some large population centres.

48

Figure 4: Great Lakes Basin Reference Map

Source: (Natural Resources Canada, 2003)

4.2 Study Population The study population was potential users and practitioners of environmental indicators

and state of the environment reporting at the local level within the Ontario portion of the

Great Lakes basin. There are a number of possible study populations including:

Conservation Authorities, First Nations, municipal governments, non-governmental

organizations, citizens and the private sector (Bond et al., 2005). There was a lack of data

to formulate a comprehensive list of all environmental organizations and businesses

within the Great Lakes basin. Due to time constraints and lack of data, it was neither

feasible nor accurate to look at environmental organizations and businesses

comprehensively. In addition, an environmental indicator study had previously been

undertaken with Great Lakes basin First Nation groups (Cave, 2004). Although each

49

group of potential indicator users is important to the overall understanding of indicator

and SOE report uses and awareness, this study focused on local governments and

Conservation Authorities in Ontario as the study population.

Ontario Conservation Authorities (CAs) have a mandate to “ensure the conservation,

restoration and responsible management of Ontario’s water, land and natural habitats

through programs that balance human, environmental and economic needs” within a

watershed basis (Conservation Ontario, 2005a). A watershed is defined as a natural unit

of land that is characterized by the space that empties into rivers and its tributaries

(Conservation Ontario, 2005c). Ontario CAs develop regulations and watershed based

programs to monitor and manage the environment over time and work with local

governments to provide them with advice and counsel that can help improve

environmental decision-making (Conservation Ontario, 2005a). All levels of government

have partnerships with CAs for the implementation of practical methods and solutions for

environmental issues at the local level by creating and implementing programs and

educational services for watershed management (Conservation Ontario, 2009). Indicator

and state of the environment report information can potentially be used by CAs for

watershed management and strategy development, as well as to inform programming,

priorities, action plans, and decision making. CAs play a significant role locally in

monitoring and collecting data on environmental conditions and changes over time.

These data can be valuable to local governments that may not have the resources and/or

capacity to carry out long-term environmental monitoring. Conservation Ontario serves

as an umbrella organization representing all of the CAs and it provides guidelines for

watershed indicators and watershed reporting, mainly through the Watershed Reporting:

Improving Public Access to Information document (Conservation Ontario, 2003).

Conservation Ontario worked with Conservation Authorities, particularly Upper Thames

River CA and Rideau Valley CA, academia, provincial and federal agencies and other

interest groups to help establish guidelines for watershed reporting in the form of state of

the watershed reports or Watershed Report Cards (Conservation Ontario, 2003).The

indicators and reporting presented by Conservation Ontario only serve as a guideline and

are not mandatory for each CA; however, it is strongly recommended that these

50

guidelines be used and adapted to local needs to improve standardized monitoring and

reporting to increase comparability among CAs (Conservation Ontario, 2003).

Indicators and state of the environment reporting have been developed at all levels of

government (Bond et al., 2005). Campbell and Maclaren (1995) identified that SOE

reports were emerging as a tool used by municipalities, and that interest by municipalities

in them was high; however, there is a gap in research on SOE methodologies and their

application at the municipal level. Typically at the local level, environmental policy

development, decision-making and reporting are conducted by the municipal

government. Government employees could potentially use environmental reporting and

assessment/monitoring data as tools to develop policies and environmental plans to

improve environmental conditions and to move towards sustainability. For environmental

indicators and SOE reports to be applicable and relevant in different settings and

geographical scales, local authorities need to be able to disaggregate the information

appropriately to target policy development (Rickard et al., 2007).

Within the local government population, this thesis focused on key informants involved

in environmental policy development and environmental decision-making. Key

informants were local government employees, particularly managers, involved in

environmental monitoring, decision making and policy development for the local area.

CA employees responsible for environmental policy and program development, as well

as managers in charge of environmental monitoring programs, served as the target

sample/contacts for this research. The participants had a range of job titles mainly

managers (such as managers of environmental services, environmental planning,

watershed planning, operations, policy and program development), directors (e.g.

directors of watershed services, watershed science and engineering services,

environmental policy and watershed planning and natural heritage), environmental

coordinators, engineers, scientists (such as senior environmental monitoring scientists,

chief chemist, conservation biologist and water quality specialist), policy and

environmental planners, water quality technician and even a regulatory compliance

officer.

51

The research focused on “larger” municipal governments, while excluding regional

municipal governments. Municipalities can respond to environmental issues in a way

appropriate to local needs, and there is interest in SOE reports in municipalities. The

basic research on SOE report methods and their application to municipal SOE reports is

limited (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). It is assumed that “large” cities and towns

typically have control over policy development and decision-making at the local level

and also have access to the internet for survey purposes. Conversely, it was also assumed

that smaller cities or towns would be limited in resources and capacity to conduct

environmental monitoring, decision making and policy development for their local

boundary, and would typically rely on their upper tier regional government and/or

Conservation Authority. These assumptions have been illustrated through the response

rate of the web-based survey discussed later in this chapter. The sample size breaks for

separating large municipal governments in Ontario are discussed in the following section.

4.3 Sample Size Geographic and watershed boundaries, as well as population of the individual

cities/towns, served as key components in defining the sampling frame for the research.

The sampling frame is the set of people that has a chance of being selected as survey

recipients and then for follow up interviews (Fowler, 2002; Parfitt, 2005). A non-random

sample method was used for the initial web-based survey. Follow-up interviews were

selected using a random method which will be explained later. Conservation Authorities

(CA) and local government environmental policy developers and decision-makers were

the target study population. All of the CAs that are within the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence

basin were included.

The sample population for local governments was drawn from a complete list of

municipalities in the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basins. This list

was obtained from the Canadian 2006 census for population and dwelling counts for

Ontario’s census subdivisions (municipalities) (Statistics Canada, 2008).

52

Initially, a population break for cities and towns of 100,000 people or greater, was used

indicating a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) or “large” city or town. Statistics Canada,

as defined for the 2006 Census, considers CMAs to be an area composed of one or more

neighbouring municipalities that surround a significant urban core, where the total

population of a CMA must have a minimum of 100,000 people consisting of 50,000 or

more residing in the urban core (Statistics Canada, 2007). According to the census, there

are only 23 municipalities in Ontario, excluding regional municipalities, with a

population of 100,000 people or greater (Statistics Canada, 2008). In addition, there are

many municipalities with populations less than 100,000, but it was not feasible due to

time, finances, and spatial scale, to include all local governments within the Ontario

portion of the Great Lakes basin. For instance, according to 2006 census data, there were

103 municipalities with a population of 10,000 – 49,999 population (Statistics Canada,

2008). Larger sample sizes yield greater statistical confidence; however, there must be a

balance between practical and statistical considerations (Jones, Duck, Reed & Weyers,

2000).

To further improve the statistical validity of this study, cities or towns with populations

of 50,000 people or more were selected. As a result, 17 more municipalities were added

to the research sample size, making the total number of municipalities included in this

research 40 local governments, which is more statistically robust and also more

comparable to the number of CAs included. These 40 municipalities represent 75.3% of

Ontario’s total population, as opposed to the previous 100,000 population break that

represented only 65.2% of the population (Statistics Canada, 2008). The total sample size

was 75 organizations, consisting of 35 CAs and 40 cities/towns with populations of

50,000 people or more.

4.4 Recruitment Strategy From the final sample, a list of contacts for each location was created. Initial internet

research was conducted on each location to find the appropriate contact information, or to

find the contact information for the CA and local government office. If the initial web

research did not provide the contact information, the organization was contacted via

53

email with an ethics approved information letter describing the research and requested the

appropriate contact information. If there was no response from the email, a call was made

to the organization to obtain the correct contact information for the potential participant.

This process provided the appropriate CA and government contact information to send

out the initial survey. There was no previous data set available that listed local

government and/or CA employees’ contact information and role.

Once the contact information was available for each of the 75 locations, an ethics

approved recruitment letter, that provided the details and purpose of the study, was

emailed to each contact. For the initial web-based survey, a hyper-link to the online

participation consent form and survey was included in the recruitment email, as well as

an option to suggest another contact if that person was not the inappropriate contact for

this study. Before recipients could participate in the survey portion of the research study,

they had to provide their consent on the survey website according to the University of

Toronto ethics approved participation consent form.

The online survey was developed using the Survey Monkey software and was sent out

during summer 2008. Initially the survey was intended to be available for only three

weeks. Because many participants were on vacation, the online survey was available to

participants for a total of six weeks. After the second week of data collection, a reminder

email was sent to the sample population that had yet to respond to the survey, since this

information was being tracked by the web survey software. Participants were reminded

about the survey and were told that the closing date for survey responses would be

extended three more weeks from the original closing date. With one week remaining for

the survey, a final reminder email was sent out to all potential participants that had

partially completed and/or had not yet responded to the survey.

The follow-up semi-structured interviews targeted those who had participated in the web-

based survey. At the end of the survey, participants were asked if they were willing to be

contacted for a follow-up interview. Those that answered yes were considered. A

maximum of twenty participants were to be contacted for these interviews. If more than

54

twenty people were willing to participate in the interviews, a random selection method

was used to determine who would be contacted for an interview. Each respondent would

be assigned a number and then a random calculator would be used to select the 20

respondents that would be contacted for a follow-up interview. However, if fewer than 20

people indicated that they would like to be contacted for a follow-up interview, than a

non-random or purposeful sample method would have been used and each of these

respondents would have been contacted for a follow-up interview.

4.5 Data Collection Methods

4.5.1 Web Based Survey

Survey questionnaires serve as an indispensable tool for collecting primary data about

people, their opinions, attitudes and behaviours and their awareness of specific issues

(Parfitt, 2005). Questionnaire surveys are a valuable means of eliciting information on a

specific target population and within a specific geographic boundary. The research in this

thesis ultimately focused on data that relate to people’s opinions, attitudes, perceptions

and behaviour regarding environmental indicators, state of the environment reporting and

decision making. A self-administered web survey was used to collect data on

Conservation Authority (CA) and local government perceptions, needs and uses, if any,

of environmental indicator and SOE reporting information, decision making needs, and

their knowledge and use of Great Lakes indicators and report information.

Web surveys have grown rapidly in popularity due to a variety of factors such as

availability of more stable, wide-band connections, increased telephone survey refusal

rates, high mail survey non-response, a wide demographic who use the internet, and

finally that large spatial scale research is more feasible and economical this way (Alreck

& Settle, 2004). Web surveys provide additional advantages including greatly reduced

data collection costs (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Web survey data collection technology

reduces data handling problems and decreases transcription time. Surveys can be

conducted faster than other methods, and web survey software is affordable and readily

available (Alreck & Settle, 2004).

55

There are some general challenges in using self-administered and web based surveys as a

research data collection method. A primary one for web based surveys is the potential

bias that only respondents with internet access can participate, leaving out those

populations that do not have access to, or knowledge of, the technology needed for

survey completion (Alreck & Settle, 2004; Parfitt, 2005). It was assumed that the target

population surveyed for this thesis typically had internet access. Web surveys can also be

duplicated when more than one survey is completed per sample population. Other

concerns include, a fear of lack of security and a participant’s internet connection being

slow and making the survey frustrating and time consuming if the survey is complex and

lengthy (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Some potential response errors for self-administered

surveys include insincerity, the participant wanting to provide the “correct” answer,

attitude forcing (the wording of the question generates a particular response) and

patterned responses (Parfitt, 2005). These disadvantages can be overcome by developing

a survey that is clearly worded, simple, short, and has security features such as password

log-ins.

Survey Monkey is the web-based survey software that was used for this study. This

software allows for an interactive web questionnaire to be created easily and affordably.

Multiple question formats were used to provide a variety of open and closed questions

that allowed the survey to be more interactive and efficient as opposed to using simple

questions (Survey Monkey, 2008). Open ended questions provided spaces for the

respondent to write their response online. Dynamic probes or filters were used to direct

participants to the next question, automatically allowing for good flow of questions, thus

decreasing response errors (Alreck & Settle, 2004; Parfitt, 2005). Web surveys allow for

real time processing and the Survey Monkey software keeps updated information

regarding the progress and results of the survey (Survey Monkey, 2008). The software

also aids in duplicate control and security of data. Passwords were installed so that

participants had to use one given to them in their recruitment email to access the survey.

Survey research methods have been applied to public policy and can serve as a valuable

tool in identifying trends, attitudes, perceptions and uses of environmental indicators and

56

state of the environment reporting (Fowler, 2002; Bond et al., 2005). Web-surveys are

growing in popularity and mail surveys have typically low response rates compared to

web surveys, particularly when surveying large organizations (Alreck & Settle, 2004;

Parfitt, 2005). This web based method was chosen because it met the needs of the

research topic, was cost and time efficient, covered a larger geographic area, had a higher

response rate compared to mail surveys, and was fast, simple and accessible for the target

sample.

Survey Questionnaire

Survey content was rooted in the research questions and objectives. The questionnaire

was divided into sections as follows: indicator users, non-indicator users, state of the

environment reporting (SOER) users and non-users, Great Lakes environmental indicator

and SOER users and non-users, and demands and preferences of environmental

information required for environmental policy development and decision-making at the

local political and watershed scale (appendix 1). Indicator and reporting dissemination

and spatial scale questions were mixed throughout the survey to gain insight about the

uses and impressions of indicator and reporting sources at various spatial scales in

relation to local decision making. The questionnaire used a mixture of question types

with a variety of open and closed questions. This mixture of question types provided

more opportunity for the respondent to contribute their various impressions or attitudes

towards particular question topics. Finally, the survey was completed with an open

question that allowed respondents to add any further information that they could not

provide during the survey. This ensured that all respondents had an equal opportunity to

voice their opinions on the topic of indicator and SOE report uses and impacts on local

environmental decision-making and policy development.

Web-based Survey Response Rate

The survey response rate was significant for this study and this research topic received

strong feedback and support from the respondents. Overall, there were 38 completed

surveys (18 Conservation Authorities (CA) and 20 local governments) and 5 partially

57

completed surveys (2 CAs and 3 local governments), resulting in a response rate of

57.3%. Response rates are shown in table 1.

Table 1: Survey Response Rate by Organization Type

Population Type Responded Sent Out Response % Local Government 23 40 57.5% Conservation Authority 20 35 57.1% TOTAL 43 75 57.3%

The response rate was lower for local governments with smaller populations. Table 2

shows the response rate distribution according to population size. The smallest population

group had the most municipalities that did not reply.

Table 2: Local Government Response Rate by Population

Population Responded Sent Out Response % 50k – 99,999 7 17 41

100k – 149,999 7 9 78 150k – 199,999 3 4 75 200k – 299,999 3 4 75 300k – 499,999 1 2 50

> 500k 2 4 50

Web-based Survey Analysis

The survey questionnaire was analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies

and cross-tabulations methods. The web-based surveys were analyzed using statistical

software, SPSS version 17.0. The SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences for Windows) was used to manage and analyze the quantitative and qualitative

data collected by the web-based survey (Einspruch, 2005; SPSS, 2008). This software is

the most frequently used statistical analysis program used in the social sciences (Rose &

Sullivan, 1993). All open-ended questions were analyzed through content/textual analysis

where open-ended or qualitative data were grouped into common themes or issues. The

remaining closed questionnaire questions were coded and entered into SPSS. Using the

SPSS software, descriptive statistics, mainly frequencies and cross-tabulations, were used

58

as a means to analyze the survey results. Frequencies are the number of observations or

cases for each category of a variable (Einspruch, 2005; Yockey, 2008). Cross-tabulations

or contingency tables are a common method for determining the relationship between

variables by illustrating the association between different variables typically in one table

(Einspruch, 2005; Sirkin, 1995). Cross-tabulation methods were used to establish

relationships between different variables of the survey data, compare organization type,

and to identify emerging themes.

4.5.2 Semi-structured Interviews

Follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted to expand upon survey results to

provide more detailed information about responses and to gain further insight into survey

trends. Interviews were conducted by telephone. Conservation Authority and local

government employees who had participated in the survey and who had indicated a

willingness to participate in the follow-up interview were selected as possible interview

participants. Interviews allowed participants to explain their experiences and/or opinions

and expanded upon answers provided on the survey. Semi-structured interviews are more

conversational, people-oriented and sensitive in allowing participants to use their own

words to express themselves (Valentine, 2005). The follow-up interviews allowed

participants a chance to further explore aspects and raise issues that may not have been

anticipated earlier or were not fully explored during the survey (Valentine, 2005). The

aim of using this approach was to have a dialogue between participants that allowed them

to openly express their views and motivations underlying the use of environmental

indicators and state of the environment reporting, including the Great Lakes indicators

and reports, for decision-making and policy development. Material generated by semi-

structured interviews was detailed, multi-faceted and rich (Valentine, 2005). Overall the

follow-up interviews provide more in-depth information on the research topic and

provided further information on the survey findings to maximize the understanding of the

research question.

The survey responses indicated that 25 respondents (14 Conservation Authorities (CA)

and 11 local governments) were interested in being contacted for a follow-up interview.

59

As per the recruitment strategy outlined previously, 20 respondents (11 CAs and 9 local

governments) were randomly selected, using a random sample calculator. These 20

respondents were contacted via email for a follow-up interview. Of the 20 organizations

contacted, 12 participants agreed to participate in a follow-up interview including, 7 local

governments and 5 Conservation Authorities. Interview respondents had a scope of

experience, knowledge and awareness of environmental indicators and state of the

environment reporting, ranging from a respondent who was unaware of both indicators

and reporting, to a respondent who had developed and used both indicators and reporting

at the local level.

The interviews were approved by the University of Toronto department of research

ethics. Participants were provided with an information letter about the research study,

consent form and their survey responses via email prior to the interview. The interview

participants were required to provide verbal consent prior to the commencement of the

interview. The interviews ranged from approximately thirty minutes to one hour in

length. Note taking occurred during each interview.

Semi-structured Interview Questions

The interview questions followed a similar format to the survey questionnaire to maintain

consistency and flow. The interview questions were divided into the same main sections

used in the survey questionnaire. Since the follow-up interviews were semi-structured,

the questions served as a general guideline for the interview. All participants were asked

similar core questions. However, the semi-structured nature of the interview allowed for

more non-scripted questions to arise based on participant responses. Also, the types of

questions used depended on their survey responses. For example, for indicator users, the

interviews focused on how indicator information was used and what needed to be done to

improve the effectiveness of indicators and reporting in regards to policy/program

development and environmental decision-making.

60

Semi-structured Interview Analysis

Similar to the analysis for the open-ended questions in the survey, a textual or content

analysis approach was used for the interview response analysis. A textual approach relies

on words and meanings as opposed to statistics and is efficient for analyzing semi-

structured interviews (Valentine, 2005). The interviews were reviewed for common

themes and interview responses. Frequency statistics were also used to relate and

compare interview and survey responses. Relationships, similarities, differences and

themes were determined by comparing responses among different organization types (i.e.

local government vs. Conservation Authorities) and survey responses.

4.6 Feedback As an inducement to participate, all participants were offered feedback of the results.

Offering research results, particularly for populations in their occupational role can serve

as a possible inducement to participate (Alreck & Settle, 2004). The outcomes of this

research highlighted trends, perceptions and demands of local decision-makers and policy

developers for the dissemination of information to be useful, as well as the content,

accessibility and information that is required at the Conservation Authority and local

government level to implement policies and programs that will improve ecosystem health

and potentially sustainability. Participants are often eager to see how other participants

are responding to the survey and interview questions and how their answers compared to

the other participants (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Participants may also have been interested

to see how environmental indicator and state of the environment reporting trends are

impacting local governments and CAs within the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes and

St. Lawrence basin. Participants received feedback via email of a follow-up summary of

the research following the completion of the study. Also, the respondents were given the

opportunity to receive the complete dissertation at their request.

61

5.0 RESULTS The results section is written up according to the research question and objectives

identified earlier. First, the results will be based on general environmental indicator and

SOE report awareness and local use, followed by results on the decision making needs

and information exchange. The last part of this chapter will address the Great Lakes

products case study. The term products is used throughout this section and refers to

environmental indicators and/or state of the environment reports in the general sense;

whereas, Great Lakes products refers to the Great Lakes environmental indicators and/or

state of the environment reports. For comparative purposes, mainly between organization

types, response values have been represented as percentages of possible responses. Since

there was not an even number of Conservation Authorities and local governments that

answered each question, percentages were used for better comparisons of responses.

However, many times, the response values were low and thus these percentages are not

representative.

5.1 General Awareness, Uses and Impacts on Decision Making This section addresses the primary research question for this study: how are

environmental indicators and state of the environment reports perceived, used and

subsequently, how do they influence environmental policy development and decision-

making at the watershed and local government level? This section will show if local

decision makers are aware of environmental indicators and state of the environment

reports; if these tools are used; why these tools are or are not used, and if used, how they

are used. The results also show what decision makers and policy developers consider to

be their information needs for the development of local or watershed level environmental

policy development and decision-making.

5.1.1 General Awareness

All survey respondents were asked if they were aware of environmental indicators and

state of the environment reports. As shown in figure 5, the majority of respondents 42

respondents or 98% (20 Conservation Authorities and 22 local governments), were aware

62

of environmental indicators. Only one respondent, representing a local government, was

unaware of environmental indicators. Respondents were less aware of state of the

environment reports, as only 34 organizations or 79% (16 Conservation Authorities and

18 local governments) of respondents indicated they knew of this product.

Figure 5: Awareness of Product Type

* The columns represent the percentage of possible answer and the number above the column represents

the number of responses * Percentages are based on 43 respondents in total

5.1.2 General Use

Environmental indicators were used more at the local level than SOE reports as shown in

figure 6. Thirty-seven organizations (88%) use environmental indicators in their

organization. Only 5 organizations (1 Conservation Authority and 4 local governments)

or 12% do not use indicators despite their awareness of the product, whereas, 24

respondents (71%) that are aware of state of the environment reports actually use them at

their organization. Thus, despite being aware of the tools, more local level decision

makers and policy developers use environmental indicators than state of the environment

reports at their organization.

42

34

1

6

03

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Environmental Indicators State of the Environment Reporting

% of respo

nse

Product Type

Aware

Not Aware

No Response

63

Figure 6: Use of Product Type


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentage based on 42 organizations aware of indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentage based on 34 organizations aware of SOER

When comparing the use of products by organization type in relation to awareness,

Conservation Authorities are more likely to use each product type compared to local

governments as shown in figure 7. Nineteen Conservation Authorities and 18 local

governments use indicators compared to the 15 CAs and 9 local governments that use

SOE reports. For general product use, Conservation Authorities are equally as likely to

use environmental indicators and state of the environment reports at the local level.

However, local governments use environmental indicators more than state of the

environment reports.

37

24

5

10

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Environmental Indicators State of the Environment Reporting

% of respo

nse

Product Type

Use

Do not use

64

Figure 7: Use of Product Types by Organization


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentages based on 20 CAs and 22 local governments aware of indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentages based on 16 CAs and 18 local governments aware

of SOER

5.1.3 What products are used?

5.1.3.1 Development of local products

Respondents, who stated that they used the products, excluding the Great Lakes products,

were asked what sources they use and if their organization had developed environmental

indicators and/or SOE reports for their local or watershed area. The survey results

indicated that local governments and Conservation Authorities have developed local

environmental indicators and SOE reports. The percentage of locally developed

environmental indicators and/or SOE reports, based on those that use these products,

indicates that the development and use of these products is very similar for indicators and

for SOE reports.

As shown in figure 8, of the 37 organizations that use environmental indicators, 24

organizations (65%) have developed indicators for their local organization. Of the 24

survey participants that use state of the environment reports, 16 organizations (67%) have

developed some form of local state of the environment report, sometimes referred to as a

19 15

18

9

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Environmental Indicators

State of the Environment Reports

% of respo

nse

Product Type

Conservation Authority

Local Government

65

watershed report card by the Conservation Authorities. Although environmental

indicators were used most by respondents, the development of local SOE reports was

slightly higher than the development of local environmental indicators when looked at as

a percentage of development based on use. Overall, it is evident that the majority of local

and watershed organizations that use environmental indicators and/or state of the

environment reports have developed their own products for their local or watershed area.

Figure 8: Development of Local Products


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentages based on 37 organizations that use indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentage based on 24 organizations that use SOER

When looking at the development of local products by organization type, 14 CAs and 10

local governments developed local indicators, compared to 13 CAs and only 3 local

governments that developed local SOE reports. Conservation Authorities are much more

likely to develop both environmental indicators and SOE reports compared to local

governments. Conservation Authorities were more likely to develop SOE reports (87%)

as opposed to local environmental indicators (74%) (figure 9). Whereas, local

governments were opposite and more likely to develop local environmental indicators

compared to local SOE reports (only 33%).

24 16

13 8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



% of respo

nse

Product Type

Development

No Development

66

Figure 9: Development of Local Products by Organization Type


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentages based on 19 CAs and 18 local governments that use indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentages based on 15 CAs and 9 local governments that use

SOER

Many of the organizations that have developed their own local products have used pre-

existing sources of information as a model for their own local development. Of the 24

organizations that have developed their own environmental indicators, 16 (67%) used

some sort of pre-existing model or source. Although fewer respondents developed local

state of the environment reports, in comparison to environmental indicators, the

percentage of pre-existing models or sources used was less. Of the 16 organizations that

developed local SOE reports, only 9 (56%) used a pre-existing source as a model to guide

their local development (figure 10).

14

13

10

3

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%


State of the Environment Reporting

% of respo

nse

Product Type


Local Government

67

Figure 10: Use of Pre-existing Sources as a Model for Local Product Development


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentages based on 24 organizations that developed local indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentage based on 16 organizations that developed local

SOER

For those organizations that have developed local products, both CAs and local

governments were likely to use a pre-existing source as a model to develop their local

environmental indicators meaning they have referenced other external sources of

information to influence the development of local products. Local governments were

more likely to use a pre-existing source as a model for local environmental indicator

development (4 organizations or 40%) as opposed to local SOE report development (1

organization or 33%) (figure 11). Similar to local government trends, Conservation

Authorities were more likely to use a pre-existing model to guide their local

environmental indicator development (12 organizations or 86%) compared to local SOE

report development (8 CAs or 62%).

16

9

6

7

2

00%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Environmental Indicators State of the Environment Reports

% of respo

nse

Product Type

Used a model

Did not use a model

No response

68

Figure 11: Use of Pre-existing Sources as Model for Local Product Development by Organization Type


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentages based on 14 CAs and 10 local governments that developed local

indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentages based on 13 CAs and 3 local governments that

developed local SOER

Pre-existing sources used to guide local development

There were many sources that were used to guide the development of local products as

expressed in an open ended question format that can be found in Appendix 2. The most

referenced sources were Conservation Ontario documents (8 responses), such as the

“Watershed reporting: improving public access to information” (Conservation Ontario,

2003) and Provincial programs such as the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP)

(3 responses) or the Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN) (2 responses).

Information from other levels of government were used as a source such as Regional

municipal government documents (3 responses) and some federal and international

initiatives such as the International Joint Commission indicators (1 response). The Great

Lakes products were mentioned by two respondents. For local environmental indicator

development, respondents stated that they used commonly accepted monitoring practices

and data.

12

8

41

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%

Environmental Indicators State of the Environment Reports

% of respo

nse

Product Type


Local Government

69

For SOE reporting, the main source that helped guide local development was

Conservation Ontario documentation and other CA watershed report cards as mentioned

by 9 Conservation Authorities. Municipal, Regional and Provincial reports were also

stated by one source as guiding local SOE report development. Only one local

government responded to this open ended question, and stated that natural area surveys

helped guide the development of their local SOE reports. All responses but one for this

question were by CAs, indicating the prominent role of Conservation Ontario and other

CA documents.

Frequency of Monitoring and Reporting

Organizations that have developed their own set of environmental indicators monitor

their indicators on a short time scale. Locally developed indicators are most frequently

monitored at a time scale of more than once a year (figure 12). This result is similar

between organization types as the majority of respondents from CAs and local

governments suggested this was the time schedule used for monitoring their

environmental indicators. It is important to note that this is a general time scale as

monitoring for indicators may be done at intervals depending on the indicator

requirements; therefore, not all indicators are monitored at the same time as was indicated

by two Conservation Authorities.

Figure 12: Frequency of Monitoring Locally Developed Environmental Indicators

more than once a year

50%

once a year12%

1 to 2 years4%

3 to 5 years13%

6 or more years4%

not regularly monitored

4%

no response13%

70

Of the organizations that have developed environmental indicators, 21 or 87.5% of

respondents claim to report publicly on these indicators. Only one organization, a local

government, stated that it does not publicly report on its locally developed indicators. For

these organizations and the ones that have created local state of the environment reports,

the most common reporting time frame is every 3-5 years. Local SOE reports are most

often publicly reported on in this time frame as shown in table 3. The frequency for

publicly reporting on locally developed environmental indicators is more distributed

among the various time frames with the highest responses for once a year and every 3-5

years. Locally developed indicators, however, were reported on more than once a year,

which is rare for SOE reports. A local government typically reports publicly on locally

developed indicators more than once a year, whereas CAs used the 3-5 year time frame.

Both Conservation Authorities and local governments most often report on their locally

developed SOE report every 3 to 5 years.

Table 3: Frequency of Public Reporting on Local Products

Time Frame Local Environmental Indicator

Reporting Local State of the Environment

Reporting Response # % of response* Response # % of response*

More than once a year

5 24% 1 6%

Once a year 6 29% 5 31% Every 1 – 2 years 2 10% 0 0% Every 3 – 5 years 6 29% 8 50% Every 6 or more years

1 5% 2 13%

Not regularly reported

n/a n/a 0 0%

No response 1 5% 0 0% * Percentages based on 21 organizations (13 CAs and 8 local governments) publicly reporting on locally

developed environmental indicators and 16 organizations (13 CAs and 3 local governments) publicly reporting on the local state of the environment

Organizations that have developed their own local environmental indicators and/or state

of the environment reports also use additional external environmental indicators and SOE

reports. External indicators and SOE reports refer to products that were not developed by

the local organization. In regards to environmental indicators, 67% or 16 organizations

with locally developed indicators also use external indicator sources at their organization

71

(figure 13). The uses of external products are described in section 6.1.3. CAs were more

likely to use additional external sources for both indicators and SOE reports as will be

addressed in the discussion chapter.

Figure 13: Use of Additional External Products despite Locally Developed Products


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentages based on 24 organizations that developed local indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentage based on 16 organizations that developed local

SOER

Respondents were asked in an open question format to list the external sources used. The

additional environmental indicators and SOE reports used vary and are not necessarily a

full representation of all sources used at the local level. Some respondents had mentioned

that there were too many sources to list and/or that all departments would have to be

consulted. Additional sources used by those with locally developed products are similar

to those that were used as a guide for local product development. In some cases

respondents stated that these external sources would be slightly adjusted to meet their

local circumstance and needs. For instance, the Ganaraska Region Conservation

Authority explained that they use a mix of indicators that have been created locally,

regionally and nationally and that these indicators are adapted to meet local needs and the

environment. Where possible the Ganaraska Region uses provincial or regional standards

16

6

4

9

4

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



% of respo

nse

Product Type

Additional source used

No additional source used

No response

72

but when changes to indicators occur, they are typically done within a regional

perspective where more than one CA uses the indicators. However, some collection of

indicators and use is directed by other initiatives such as the Provincial Drinking Water

Source Protection.

The most prominent sources for external information used were Conservation Authorities

and the Province of Ontario. Conservation Ontario and other Conservation Authority

documents and indicators were used by 6 respondents. The most commonly noted

Provincial programs used included: Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) (3

responses) and Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN) (3 responses). Federal

programs such as the Canadian Water Quality Index (2 respondents) and the Environment

Canada (2004) document How much habitat is enough (1 response) were also used as

additional information for local environmental indicator users.

Organizations that use additional state of the environment reports in conjunction with

their locally developed SOE reports had limited responses about what specific sources

they used. Two respondents stated that they use other Conservation Authority watershed

report cards in addition to their own. Organizations were interested in reports from other

organizations with overlapping jurisdictions. Great Lakes specific reports and SOLEC

information were stated by two organizations as being supplementary information to their

local SOE reports. A list of the additional external indicator and SOE report sources used

is available in Appendix 2.

5.1.3.2 Organizations without Locally Developed Tools

Of the 37 survey respondents (19 Conservation Authorities and 18 local governments)

that use environmental indicators, 13 respondents or 35% did not develop a local set of

environmental indicators. These 13 respondents (5 Conservation Authorities and 8 local

governments) only use external environmental indicator sources at their organization.

Respondents were asked in an open question format to list the external sources used. Not

everyone responded to this question. A list of the additional indicator and SOER sources

used is available in Appendix 2.

73

The most commonly referenced source of environmental indicators used by both CAs and

local governments was Conservation Authority indicators and reports (6 responses).

Similarly to additional sources used by organizations with locally developed indicators,

these organizations also use a variety of Provincial programs such as the Provincial

Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) (2 responses), Provincial Groundwater

Monitoring Network (PGMN) (2 responses), and different Ministry studies and

documents such as the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2 responses). Other indicator sources

mentioned include biological indicators such as benthic monitoring protocols (2

responses) and vegetation and forest cover (2 responses).

Of the 24 survey respondents (15 Conservation Authorities and 9 local governments) that

use state of the environment reports, only 8 (2 Conservation Authority and 6 local

governments) or 33% have not developed their own local SOER. However, two

respondents, Oakville and another local government, indicated that at the time of the

survey, they were in the process of developing their first state of the environment reports.

These 8 organizations that currently only use external state of the environment report

sources. They were asked to list the sources of SOE reports that they use. Most responses

indicated that they use regional municipality state of the environment reports (3

responses), and Conservation Authority SOE reports (2 responses). Two respondents

suggested they use provincial SOE reports; one did not specify what Provincial SOE

report they were referring to, while the other suggested that they used the SOE reports

from the Ministry of the Environment and Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

However, there is no SOE report for Ontario so it is unclear about what Provincial SOE

reports these respondents were referring to.

5.1.4 General Product Uses

The term use refers to the functions or purposes for which products are employed at the

local level. Literature suggested a variety of functions for which indicators and SOE

reports could be used thus participants were asked how these products were used by their

local organization. The functions specified by respondents are considered to be what

74

local decision makers constitute as use of products. There are 3 groups of product users

discussed in this section: 1) organizations that do not use the products but are aware of

them; 2) organizations with their own locally developed products; and 3) organizations

without their own locally developed products. Organizations that are aware of the

products but do not use them, were asked what they would potentially use the products

for. Organizations that use the products, both those with locally developed products and

without locally developed products, were asked why they use the products. Use options

provided in the survey included: 1) to identify environmental trends for a specific time

and space; 2) to identify environmental successes and/or areas of improvement over time

(monitor progress and performance); 3) to inform the local decision making process; 4) to

serve as a model or guideline to develop indicators and/or SOE reporting at the local

level; 5) for SOE reporting (for indicator) or to report on indicators (for SOE reporting);

6) as a method of data collection; 7) for long-term monitoring; 8) for knowledge sharing

and capacity building; 9) for public awareness and knowledge; 10) planning (including

budget); and 11) other reasons supplied by open ended responses. The response

frequency values for each user type can be seen in Appendices 3 and 4.

Follow up interviews suggested many purposes or uses of both environmental indicators

and state of the environment reports. Functions of indicator and SOE reports were similar

according to literature and survey responses, also interviewees commonly discussed both

indicators and SOE report products together. Thus, in order to determine overarching

themes of indicator and SOE report use, interview responses for indicators and SOE

reports were combined. Responses can be grouped into 5 major themes including: 1)

background information and awareness, 2) trend identification, 3) comparability, 4)

information exchange and 5) decision making. Six respondents stated that the general

products were used for general background information, such as on environmental

conditions, and for the identification of trends. Indicators and reporting are also used to

receive and deliver information to increase awareness about certain issues of concern or

successes, to help inform decision makers and the public. Products are used to identify

trends and progress towards certain goals or targets and help organizations allocate

resources. Three CAs discussed how they use Conservation Ontario guidelines for their

75

products to increase their ability to compare product information with other

organizations. Both municipalities and CAs stated that products are used to compare their

organization to external standards to see how they are performing in relation to these

standards. Five organizations stated that they used the products as a communication tool,

to exchange information for decision making and to inform the public. Four interviewees

highlighted the use of products for decision making and that these products serve mainly

as an information tool to help guide and inform the decision making process. The rest of

this section shows the uses by product type.

Environmental Indicator Uses

There were 42 organizations (20 CAs and 22 local governments) that were aware of

environmental indicators of which 37 organizations (19 CAs and 18 local governments)

use them. Figure 14 shows the uses or potential uses by all 42 organizations that are

aware of environmental indicators. Over all, main use of environmental indicators (81%)

was to identify environmental successes and/or areas of improvement over time and for

public awareness and knowledge. Use of environmental indicators as a method of data

collection and informing decision making was also selected by many organizations

(79%). The response frequencies for each user type are available in appendix 3.

76

Figure 14: Environmental Indicator Uses by All Organizations Aware of Indicators

* Percentages based on 42 organizations aware of indicators

All of the organizations that do not use indicators but are aware of them said they would

use indicators at their organization to identify environmental successes and/or areas of

improvement over time and for long term monitoring. Organizations that use

environmental indicators stated that data collection, informing decision making and

public awareness and knowledge (81% each) were the main uses of indicators at their

organization.

Of the 37 organizations that use environmental indicators, 24 have developed a local set

of indicators compared to 13 that have not. Figure 15 shows the uses of indicators as a

percentage of response by each of these user groups. The response values are available in

Appendix 3. Organizations with locally developed environmental indicators mostly used

indicators for public awareness and knowledge (83%). Organizations without locally

developed indicators used indicators primarily as a form of data collection (92%).

2834 33

20 22

33 3224

3429

11

67%

81% 79%

48%52%

79% 76%

57%

81%

69%

26%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0%10%20%30%

40%50%60%70%80%90%

# of respo

nses

% of respo

nse

Indicator Uses

# of responses

% of response

77

Figure 15: Environmental Indicator Uses by User Type


the number of responses * Local indicator percentages based on 24 organizations that developed local indicators * No local indicator percentages based on 13 organizations without locally developed indicators

Respondents described the following uses in an open question format within the “other”

category. Three Conservation Authorities with locally developed indicators suggested

that they use environmental indicators as a tool to measure progress and success with

their programs or projects which fall within the identification of environmental successes

and areas of concern category. Within the planning category, Conservation Authorities

suggested that they use environmental indicators for management purposes; i.e.

watershed planning and for performance based budgeting. One city uses environmental

indicators for land use planning while Kingston uses indicators as part of its energy

management strategy. For those without locally developed indicators, one Conservation

Authority suggested that it uses indicators for a state of the watershed report or watershed

report card. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority stated it used indicators in order to

contribute to Provincial databases.

By organization type (20 CAs and 22 local governments), indicator uses were generally

similar. Conservation Authorities were more likely than local governments to use

18 18 19

1214

18 18

13

20 19

5

7

11 11

67

12

9 910

8

5

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

% of respo

nse

Indicator Uses

Local indicators

No local indicators

78

indicators 1) to identify environmental trends over the long term, 2) for state of the

environment reporting, 3) to identify successes and/or areas of improvement and 4) for

knowledge sharing and capacity building. Local governments used indicators mainly for

public awareness and knowledge, planning, data collection and informing decision

making. Environmental indicator uses by organization type are listed in appendix 3.

State of the Environment Report Uses

There were 34 organizations (16 CAs and 18 local governments) that were aware of state

of the environment reports (of which 24 organizations (15 CAs and 9 local governments)

use them). All SOER use response frequencies and percentages are available in appendix

4. Figure 16 shows the uses or potential uses by all 34 organizations that are aware of

SOER. The main use of SOER is to inform the local or watershed level environmental

policy development and decision making process (94%), followed by identification of

environmental successes and/or areas of improvement over time (91%) and for public

awareness and knowledge (91%).

Figure 16: State of the Environment Report (SOER) Uses by All Organizations Aware of SOER

* Percentages based on 34 organizations aware of State of the Environment Reports

28 31 32

13

23 22 24 2631

23

1

82%91% 94%

38%

68% 65%71%

76%

91%

68%

3%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

# of respo

nses

% of respo

nses

SOER Uses

# response

% response

79

All of the organizations that do not use SOE reports but are aware of them said they

would potentially use SOE reports at their organization to inform the local or watershed

level decision making and policy development process (90%). One local government

suggested that they would potentially use SOE reports to measure progress towards

sustainability goals and/or targets. All organizations that use SOE reports, stated that they

use them for public awareness and knowledge. Other main uses (96% each) by SOE

report users included: to identify environmental trends, 2) to inform local policy

development and decision making, and 3) for knowledge sharing and capacity building.

There were 34 organizations that use SOE reports, of which 16 have developed a local

state of the environment report and 8 have not. Figure 17 shows the uses of SOE reports

as a percentage of response by both of these user groups. The response values are

available in Appendix 4. All 16 organizations that have developed local state of the

environment reports use them to inform local decision making and policy development

and for public awareness and knowledge. Organizations with locally developed SOE

reports are more likely to use them for decision making purposes than organizations

without locally developed SOE reports. Organizations without local SOE reports

indicated that they use external reports: 1) to identify environmental trends, 2) to identify

environmental success and/or areas in need of improvements, 3) for data collection, 4) for

knowledge sharing and capacity building, and 5) for public awareness and knowledge.

80

Figure 17: State of the Environment Report Uses by User Type


the number of responses * Local State of the Environment Reports (SOER) percentages based on 16 organizations that developed

local SOER * No local SOER indicator percentages based on 8 organizations without locally developed SOER

State of the environment report uses, by organization type are listed in appendix 4.

Overall, Conservation Authorities were more likely to use SOE reports for: 1)

environmental indicator reporting, 2) knowledge sharing and capacity building and 3) to

serve as a model for local SOE report development, compared to local governments.

Local governments were more likely to use SOE reports for planning (including budget)

than Conservation Authorities. There are 16 organizations (13 Conservation Authorities

and 3 local governments) that have developed local SOE reports. All of the Conservation

Authorities with local SOE reports, used their reports to inform the policy development

and decision making process and for public awareness and knowledge. Whereas, local

governments with local SOE reports used those mostly to identify environmental trends

over time, inform decision making, knowledge sharing, public awareness and planning

(including budget). There were only 2 Conservation Authorities without locally

developed SOE reports so it is difficult to determine uses from their responses. Local

governments without locally developed SOE reports mainly used the external SOE

1415

16

7

14

911

1516

10

0

8 87

34

8

5

8 8

5

00%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%% of respo

nse

State of the Environment Report (SOER) Uses

Local SOER

No local SOER

81

reports: 1) to identify environmental trends, 2) to identify environmental successes and

areas of improvement, 3) for data collection, 4) for knowledge sharing and capacity

building, and 5) for public awareness and knowledge. This is similar to governments with

local SOE reports. CAs used their local reports least for data collection, whereas

organizations without local products used them for data collection.

5.1.5 General Product Non-Use and Limitations

Why are Environmental Indicators Not Used?

Of the 42 participants that stated they were aware of environmental indicators, only 5

organizations or 12% (1 Conservation Authority and 4 local governments) do not use

indicators. As shown in figure 18, the primary reason that indicators are not used is

limited staff resources (80%). The following reasons were also given: 1) lack of funding,

2) lack of access to data, 3) no long-term environmental monitoring programs in place,

and 4) lack of environmental indicator standardization. One of the local governments

stated that they do not use environmental indicators because it does not have access to

long term data acquired by its Conservation Authority.

82

Figure 18: Reasons Why Environmental Indicators are Not Used Despite Awareness

* Percentages based on 5 organizations aware of environmental indicators but do not use them

Why are State of the Environment Reports Not Used?

Of the 34 respondents that were aware of SOE reports, 10 organizations or 29% (1 CA

and 9 local governments), did not use these reports. As shown in figure 19, the main

reasons given were: 1) lack of funding; 2) limited staff resources; and 3) little or no

demand for reports. One local government and Oakville mentioned that they were in the

process of designing their first SOE report and another local government had stated it was

working on an environmental master plan that might recommend the use of SOE reports.

Due to the low response rate by population type (1 CA and 9 local governments), it was

not representative or valid to compare responses by organization type.

1

3

1

43

1

3 3

12

20%

60%

20%

80%

60%

20%

60% 60%

20%

40%

00.511.522.533.544.5

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

# of respo

nses

% of respo

nse

Reasons for non‐use

# of response

% of response

83

Figure 19: Reasons Why No State of the Environment Report Use Despite Awareness of the Product

* Percentages based on 10 organizations aware of State of the Environment Reports but do not use them

Limitations for General Product Use

Follow up interviews provided greater insight into the limitations that can deter

organizations from using indicators and/or state of the environment reports. Specifically,

interviewees highlighted the lack of resources as a main component to limitations of

using products. The Provincial downloading of responsibilities, lack of funding, lack of

expertise and the fact that employees are “stretched thin” were major concerns mentioned

specifically by 4 organizations. Also, a lack of correlations and actions was stated by 2

organizations as a limitation to product use. A correlation, as used throughout this

research, refers to both cause and effect relationships, i.e. between pressures and

environmental conditions or trends and also the relationship between the local spatial

scale and larger spatial scales. Actions refer to responses that should or need to be taken

in order to impact an environmental condition or trend. Other limitations included a lack

of awareness about what information is available (3 respondents), understandability

(language) of products and time lag between data collection and reporting. Products need

45

2

5

2 23 3

1

5

3

40%

50%

20%

50%

20%20%

30%30%

10%

50%

30%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

# of respo

nse

% of respo

nse


# of response

% of response

84

to adapt and change over time to include new technologies and emerging information and

issues.

5.1.6 General Product Qualities Needed for Local Use

Survey respondents were asked to rank a list of indicator qualities to identify which

qualities were more or less important for local use. Respondents suggested that scientific

accuracy and credibility are the most important qualities for an indicator to be useful.

Other qualities considered very important are: standardized data collection and

monitoring over time; flexibility and adaptability; knowledge sharing and capacity

building ability at all levels; and accessibility of data at the local, regional and provincial

scale. In open question survey responses other qualities mentioned included: defensible

for planning, ability to be understood by the public; and ability to reflect land use

activities and measure these changes. A representative from the Town of Ajax stated on

the survey that it is critically important that “indicators are reviewed periodically for

relevance and updated or changed over time to better reflect what we know will be

changing environmental conditions due to, for example, climate change and

bioaccumulation.”

Follow up interviews provided more specific information on what characteristics

environmental indicators and state of the environment reports needed in order to be

useful for these local organizations. Products needed to be understandable and

quantifiable (six respondents). For products to be understandable they need to written in a

language that is mindful of the audience. Six respondents also stated that products need to

have a correlation that links to specific actions and targets. Product information can be

more useful for local decision makers if it identifies action and plans to help meet

specific targets or address issues of concern. Products should also reveal trends over the

long term (4 respondents). One CA stated that products need to indicate future trends to

show where work needs to be done and policies to be put in place. Information

accessibility and sharing are important to these local organizations (4 responses).

Organizations need access to product information from a variety of sources. Other needs

mentioned by respondents were products need to be - manageable and concise, i.e. low

85

number of indicators and easy to track; adaptable and flexible over time; committed over

the long term; and standardized especially for comparability purposes among

organizations of different scales.

5.2 Local Policy Development and Decision Making The results of this research, as described below, provide insight into information used and

needed to inform local environmental decision making and policy development.

5.2.1 Information Types Used

All 43 survey respondents were asked to choose from a selection of options, what types

of information they used at their organization for environmental policy development and

decision making. Of the survey options provided, the most common (40 responses or

93%) type of information used for local level decision making and policy development is

locally generated monitoring data (figure 20), followed by provincial level monitoring

data (39 responses or 91%). The information least used for local level decision making

and policy development are national and international data. The types of information

used by Conservation Authorities and local governments are very similar; however, local

governments are more likely to use international and national level data than CAs. The

purpose was to determine what spatial scales and types of information are used at the

local level. Only limited responses were provided in the open ended question format to

list specific sources of information types used.

Other information used by local governments as indicated in open question responses (1

response each), include: watershed level data; Conservation Authority studies and

recommendations; public opinion surveys; expert advice; planning journals; specialty

policy institutes (e.g. POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, Canadian Institute for

Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP)); information from non-governmental

organizations and other external sources to asses all sides of issues; and best practices

from other municipalities. Conservation Authorities also indicated in an open question

format (1 response each) that they used academic data, CA watershed report cards,

86

county or municipal studies, public input surveys, discussion with neighbouring CAs,

public input, and direction from Conservation Ontario.

Figure 20: Types of Information Sources Used for Local Decision Making

* EIA stands for Environmental Impact Assessments * Percentages based on 43 respondents in total According to interview results, all 12 interview respondents stated that they collected

some form of local data that were used by their organization. Two Conservation

Authorities, identified the importance of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for

local data collection. Four respondents stated they used and contributed to Provincial

monitoring data such as through the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network and

Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network. Whereas 3 respondents, used federally

collected data at the local level. Information for decision making was largely used for

identifying trends and serving as a baseline or benchmark for long term comparative

purposes, according to 5 of the interview respondents. University data collection and data

sharing agreements were also cited as information used for informing local policy

development and decision making. Other CA data was used by 2 interview respondents.

37 40 38 39

20 16

36

10

86% 93% 88% 91%

47%37%

84%

23%

051015202530354045

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

# of respo

nses

% of respo

nse

Information Sources

# of responses

% of response

87

5.2.2 Information Needs to Inform Local Level Decision and Policy Development

Local decision maker information needs are numerous and typically depend on the

specific issue that is being addressed. Information needs, as described by 27 survey

respondents in an open ended question format and 12 interview respondents, can be

grouped into themes including: spatial scale, trend information, data needs and

accessibility, call to action, literature and understandability, and comparability. The

response rates for this question can be seen in table 4 and the response rates only reflect

the comments made for this question and not from other survey or interview answers.

Table 4: Information Needs for Local Decision Making Themes Survey Responses Interview Responses Spatial Scale 8 2 Trend Information 9 4 Data Needs and Accessibility 11 3 Correlations and Actions 4 6 Literature and Understandability 4 4 Comparability 6 3

Information from various spatial scales was acknowledged by respondents as playing an

integral part in local environmental decision making and policy development. Two

interview and 3 survey respondents stated that higher spatial scale information provides a

general overview of trends and provides a general context for smaller spatial scales on

which to focus. Also, larger spatial scale information provides a better understanding of

broader scale trends and reference conditions to assist in comparing local trends to a

larger context. One CA stated that the regional level can provide information and

scientifically valid tools to provide environmental information for the local level.

Results showed that trend information, at a variety of scales, is important for local

decision making. Three survey respondents also indicated a need for best practices,

standardized monitoring systems, performance metrics and protocols to help identify

environmental trends over time. Two interviewees stated that they need data at a higher

spatial scale in order to track trends for outside local jurisdictions to set local trends in a

broader context over time.

88

Data needs and accessibility (information sharing) were other components needed for

local environmental information for decision making. Three interview respondents stated

that they needed data that are scientifically accurate, easily transferable and standardized.

One local government survey respondent stated that they needed access to data as well as

access to the methodologies used for data collection. Access to conclusions and findings

that are scientifically sound and bias free are also important. Access to environmental

information and data, even for full retrieval, and long term standardized monitoriong data

was needed for informing decision making as mentioned by 1 CA. One respondent

indicated that they need current data related to the state/condition of the environment and

for environmentally sensitive areas. While two respondent stated they need standards,

benchmarking or best practices to help set local targets or goals. Benchmarking

information and status reports from other organizations and different government levels

can help set local targets and to track trends (2 survey respondents).

Information is useful for decision making when it has a plan of action, a point of focus or

identifies relationships such as cause and effect (4 interview respondents). Two interview

respondents explained that decision makers need scientific information that can be linked

directly with policy. One local government stated that decision makers need scientific

fact that looks forward and that clarifies what actions need or should not occur in a

manner that is transparent for the public.

Literature and information that is understandable are important needs for local decision

making and policy development. Scientific literature that is credible and that is easy to

understand is useful for decision makers. Literature and research on the appropriate

indicators to use, and the best available science within the realm of local resources were

also needed for decision making at the local level. This information must be current,

unbiased, and easy to read and understand in plain language. One CA stated that research

is produced at a high level which is difficult to translate down and apply to policy

development and decision making.

89

There is a strong desire for standardized measures and procedures in order to increase

comparability between locations, trends and data points over time. Respondents showed

an interest in comparing their local environmental conditions or data with others of

various spatial scales as well as different organizations similar to their own. One CA

stated that useful information would be environmental data outside of an Area of Concern

that is within a similar but undegraded watershed that can provide reference information

in which they can measure their progress from.

There were numerous areas of environmental monitoring that were referenced by survey

participants as being an information need for local level decision making and policy

development. The most referenced data needed included: climate change, water quality,

aquatic species and fisheries, habitat and forest cover, groundwater information,

precipitation and climate, water levels (quantity and budget), and natural hazards risk

assessment - flood and erosion data. Other areas of data required included: runoff data,

geology, hydrogeology, point and non-point source loadings, terrestrial natural heritage,

nutrient data and cultural information such as land use and settlement pattern data.

5.3 Information Exchange and Spatial Scale This section focuses on the spatial scales of environmental indicators and state of the

environment reporting information that are produced, used and preferred by local level

governments and Conservation Authorities. The exchange of information from different

spatial scales will be addressed including the strengths and limitations of information

exchange.

5.3.1 What Spatial Scales are Used at the Local Level?

In order to determine how information is exchanged, it was important to know what

spatial scales according to product type are used at the local level. All 37 respondents

who stated that they used environmental indicators were asked what spatial scales of

environmental indicators were used. Overall, as the spatial scale of state of the

90

environment reports and environmental indicators decreases, the likelihood of their use at

the local level increases (figure 21).

The spatial scales for state of the environment reports are slightly different from the

environmental indicator spatial scales. The most frequently used spatial scale for SOE

reports are regional level reports, followed by the local level SOE reports. Of the 24

participants that use SOE reports (15 CA and 9 local governments), 21 or 88%

respondents use regional level SOE reports and 75% use local level SOE reports.

Figure 21: Spatial Scales of Products Used at the Local Level


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentages based on 37 organizations that use indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentage based on 24 organizations that use SOER

Based on organization type for product spatial scale use, both Conservation Authorities

and local governments were more likely to use smaller spatial scale products. For

instance, 84% Conservation Authorities and 89% local governments used local indicators

most often. Interestingly, both organization types preferred indicators at the local scale

but preferred SOE reports at the regional scale. Conservation Authorities were also more

likely to use both indicators and SOE reports of larger spatial scales than were local

governments. For example, CAs used international, national and provincial level

environmental indicators more than local governments.

3

9

24

3032

6

1012

2118

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

% of respo

nse

Spatial Scale



91

5.3.2 What Spatial Scales are Useful for Decision Making?

For all 37 respondents who indicated that they use environmental indicators, each was

asked about the degree of usefulness that each spatial scale of environmental indicator is

for local level decision making and policy development. The response values are

available in appendix 5. Similar to product use by spatial scale results, the larger the

spatial scale of the indicators and SOE reports the less useful it was for local decision

making. Conversely smaller scale products were deemed more useful for local decision

making.

The degree of usefulness for local decision making of different spatial scales of

environmental indicators and SOER is as follows. International level environmental

indicators and SOER were both considered slightly useful by respondents. National level

environmental indicators overall were considered to be useful by 41% of respondents.

National SOER were considered to be slightly useful. Local governments considered

national indicators to be between slightly useful and useful, whereas CAs deemed them to

be useful. For SOER, local governments considered national level reports slightly useful

and CAs considered them to be useful. Provincial level environmental indicators had an

equal split vote between useful (43%) and very useful (43%) because CAs (53%)

considered provincial level environmental indicators to be very useful and local

governments (56%) considered provincial level indicators to be useful. However,

Provincial level SOER were largely considered to be useful by both organization types

for local level decision making and policy development. Regional and local level

environmental indicators and SOER were largely considered to be very useful by

respondents.

5.3.3 Information Exchange

As has been described throughout the results, a variety of spatial scales is useful to local

level practitioners for many purposes. This section will provide the results of 12

interview responses about how information is exchanged, what the limitations are and

what areas could be improved. Information is exchanged from the local level to various

levels such as Provincial Ministries, between CAs and municipalities and the public (1

92

response each). Online information exchange via the Internet such as government

websites and different web portals is a valuable source of information and venue for

information exchange (5 responses), if the practitioner has the time and resources to

search for information actively. Three respondents discussed the need for data sharing

agreements but that such agreements can both hinder and help information exchange. The

main form of information exchange by local organizations, as mentioned by 8

respondents, is the use of networking groups, partnerships and committee participation.

Information Exchange Limitations

One of the main limitations, as indicated by 5 respondents, was that information is not

distributed by agencies, and that information has to be actively sought. One difficulty

associated with this is a lack of capacity and resources; that organization staff are limited

and spread thin, and cannot be involved in everything (6 respondents). Four respondents

stated that science is always evolving and that it is difficult to be aware of what

information is available or who is doing what in the field. Other limitations are: data

overload and scattered information; science is often shared sporadically through different

media sources; organizations get overloaded with information that they do not have the

capacity to analyze (5 respondents). Two organizations stated that there are sometimes

issues with consistency and standardization, and that data collection and analysis has to

be valid and consistent. For example, one CA relies on summer students for data

collection so it is constantly training new people.

Information Exchange Areas of Improvement

Four respondents suggested that information exchange would be easier if information

was stored in one central location, or if there was an available catalogue of information

available. Although two respondents said that they thought this was not very feasible, the

idea was appealing. Four respondents also stated that research data needed to be

accessible to be able to report on (1 response), should have a call for action (1 response);

and be consistent (regular reporting to the public) (2 responses). Similarly, four

respondents suggested that information exchange could be improved by having

information in concise documents that are written in plain language that is easy to

93

understand. A mechanism to help build networks and partnerships would be useful for

practitioners to be aware of the information that is available; what other groups are

working on and to promote collaborations with other organizations (3 responses). Two

respondents suggested the need for standardization to help organizations compare and

combine information.

5.4 Great Lakes Products Awareness, Uses and Impacts on Decision Making This section addresses the case study and how the Great Lakes environmental indicators

and state of the environment reports are perceived, used and subsequently, how they

influence local environmental policy development and decision-making? This section

will show if local governments and Conservation Authorities are aware of Great Lakes

products; if these tools are used; why they are or are not used, and if used, how they are

used. The results indicate the advantages and limitations these Great Lakes products have

on local level decision making and policy development. Finally, the results indicate what

works and what needs to be improved to help link Great Lakes information with local

level environmental policy development and decision making.

5.4.1 Great Lakes Product Awareness

Each respondent was asked if he/she was aware of Great Lakes environmental indicators

and state of the environment reports developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem

Conference (SOLEC) led by Environment Canada and the United States Environmental

Protection Agency. Despite the fact that all survey respondents are located within the

Great Lakes basin, it was evident that awareness of the Great Lakes environmental

indicators and state of the environment reports was lower than the general awareness of

both products. Interestingly, more respondents (63%) were aware of the Great Lakes

SOER than were aware of the Great Lakes indicators (56%) (figure 22).

94

Figure 22: Awareness of Great Lakes Product Type

* The columns represent the percentage of answer and the number above the column represents the number

of responses * Percentages are based on 43 respondents in total

Despite very similar responses by organization type, i.e. Conservation Authorities (CAs)

and local governments, regarding general awareness of environmental indicators and

SOER, there was a significant difference in awareness of Great Lakes indicators and

SOER. Local government participants were less aware of Great Lakes environmental

indicators and SOER than Conservation Authorities. Regarding the Great Lakes SOER,

only 48% of local governments were aware of these reports compared to 80% of

Conservation Authorities (figure 23).

2427

1512

4 4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



% of respo

nse

Product Type

Aware

Not Aware

No Response

95

Figure 23: Awareness of Products by Organization Type


the number of responses * All Conservation Authority percentages are based on 20 CA participants * All local government percentages are based on 23 government participants

5.4.2 Great Lakes Product Use

As shown in figure 24, only 9 organizations (7 CAs and 2 local governments) use the

Great Lakes indicators, whereas, 11 organizations (8 CAs and 3 local governments) use

the Great Lakes State of the Environment Reports at the local or watershed level. As was

described in section 5.1.4, the term use refers to the functions or purposes for which

products are employed at the local level and the functions specified by respondents are

considered to be that local decision makers consider as use. It is evident that despite the

awareness of these products, Great Lakes SOE reports are more likely to be used at the

local level compared to Great Lakes environmental indicators.

20

1613

1622

18

11 11

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


State of the Environment

Reports

Great Lakes Environmental Indicators

Great Lakes State of the Environment

Reports

% of respo

nse

Product Type


Local Government

96

Figure 24: Use of Great Lakes Product Types


the number of responses * Environmental indicator percentages based on 24 organizations that are aware of Great Lakes indicators * State of the Environment Report (SOER) percentage based on 27 organizations that are aware of Great

Lakes SOER

In comparison to general product use, responses indicated that the Great Lakes products

are used less, despite awareness, than general products as shown in table 5. Responses

strongly showed that the indicators and SOE reports created for the Great Lakes, through

the SOLEC process, are not widely used by these local organizations, compared to

general use of products. When comparing the use of Great Lakes products by

organization type, Conservation Authorities are more likely to use each product type

compared to local governments. This is similar for general product use results.

Table 5: Use of Product Types Product Type # of responses % of awareness Environmental Indicators 37 88.1% State of the Environment Reports (SOER) 24 70.6% Great Lakes Environmental Indicators 9 37.5% Great Lakes SOER 11 40.7%

911

1516

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



% of respo

nse

Product Type

Use

Do not use

97

5.4.3 Great Lakes Products Uses

Organizations that use the products were asked what they use the Great Lakes products

for at their local organization. The response rate values can be seen in Appendices 6 and

7. Follow up interviews indicated that Great Lakes products were useful to: 1) provide

broader context and comparability, 2) evaluate data and to provide a model/guideline for

indicator and SOER development, and 3) provide trend information. Seven interview

respondents stated that Great Lakes information has a broader context that gives an

overall understanding of Great Lakes conditions and allows the local areas to see where

they “fit in” to the larger picture. Similarly, one respondent stated that the Great Lakes

products can be used for evaluative or appraisal purposes and three respondents said it

can give insight into potential indicator and report framework adoption at the local level.

Great Lakes product information is useful to provide overall or broader trend information

(4 respondents). One Conservation Authority stated that the Great Lakes trend

information helps them to interpret their local trends by providing a larger context. The

use by Great Lakes product type is discussed further in this section.

Great Lakes Environmental Indicators

This survey indicated that 24 respondents were aware of the Great Lakes environmental

indicators. However, only 38% or 9 respondents that are aware of these indicators

actually use them. As shown in figure 25, the main uses of Great Lakes indicators was for

the identification of environmental trends for a specific time and space and for

knowledge sharing and capacity building. Not one organization uses the Great Lakes

indicators as a form of data collection. The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

stated it uses these indicators for knowledge on Lake Ontario conditions. There were 7

Conservation Authorities and only 2 local governments that used Great Lakes indicators

thus responses were not compared due to low response frequencies. The response values

are available in appendix 6.

98

Figure 25: Great Lakes Environmental Indicator Uses

* Percentages based on 9 organizations that use Great Lakes environmental indicators

Great Lakes State of the Environment Reports Uses

Regarding awareness of the Great Lakes state of the environment reports, 27 respondents

were aware of these reports; however, only 11 respondents actually use these reports at

the local level. As shown in figure 26, these organizations mainly use the Great Lakes

SOE reports for the identification of environmental trends for a specific time and space (9

responses). The lowest use of Great Lakes SOE reports was for data collection, similar to

Great Lakes indicator responses. By organization type, 8 CAs and 3 local governments,

the response values were low and not representative of the entire population. All

Conservation Authorities, noted that they use Great Lakes SOE reports for the

identification of environmental trends for a specific time and space. Local governments

indicated that they used Great Lakes SOE reports: 1) to identify environmental successes

and/or areas in need of improvement over time; and 2) for public awareness and

knowledge. Local governments also indicated that they did not use the Great Lakes SOE

reports for knowledge sharing and capacity building, whereas 5 CAs used Great Lakes

SOE reports for that purpose. Conservation Authorities also suggested that one of the

lowest uses of Great Lakes SOE reports was for planning (including budget). The

response values are available in appendix 7.

6

2 23

20

3

5

31 1

67%

22% 22%

33%

22%

0%

33%

56%

33%

11% 11%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

# of respo

nses

% of respo

nse

Great Lakes Indicator Uses

# of responses

% of response

99

Figure 26: Great Lakes State of the Environment Report Uses

* Percentages based on 11 organizations that use Great Lakes State of the Environment Reports

5.4.4 How Can Great Lakes Information Inform Local Decision Making?

Survey participants were asked, in an open question, their opinion about the Great Lakes

products and their impact on local level policy development and decision-making

process. For the 9 organizations that use the Great Lakes indicators, 7 respondents

provided feedback about how Great Lakes indicators can or do inform their local decision

making. Six users stated that this information can inform the local decision making

process by providing practitioners with general information that provides context and

allows for local comparisons to Great Lakes findings and conditions. As one CA

mentioned, the Great Lakes indicators help them set their watershed efforts into larger

context. Two respondents stated that this information only provides information on water

related issues such as coastal wetland conditions. Also, one CA stated that the Great

Lakes indicators provide endpoints for comparisons of regionally collected data as the

Great Lakes provides the larger scale of information. One respondent, a local

government, suggested that the Great Lakes indicators provide a well-researched model

for other organizations to use for environmental indicator development, evaluation and

reporting.

97

54

2

5 5 53

0

82%

64%

45%36%

18%

45% 45% 45%

27%

0%012345678910

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

# of respo

nses

% of respo

nse

Great Lakes State of the Environment Report Uses

# of responses

% of responses

100

Participants that use Great Lakes SOE reports (5 organizations), provided their view of

how this information impacts local decision making. Findings are similar to the Great

Lakes indicator responses. The Great Lakes SOE reports informs local decision making

by communicating environmental trends, either lake-wide or regionally, to decision

makers and the public (2 respondents). This information helps illustrate areas of concern

or potential future local environmental concerns that need to be explored by local

decision makers and policy developers. Also, the Great Lakes SOE reports impact local

decision making by providing context, background information and a point of

comparison, either for comparing trends, data or endpoints with local or regional

information (4 respondents). These SOE reports provide a valuable source of general

information to help set a larger context for local level decision making and policy

development.

5.4.5 Great Lake Products Non Use

Why are Great Lakes Environmental Indicators not used?

There were 24 respondents that said they were aware of the Great Lakes environmental

indicators. Of these, 15 respondents (63%), said they do not use these indicators. The

main reason given (8 respondents) was the inappropriate scale of information (figure 27).

The timeliness of indicator reporting was not an issue for Great Lakes indicator use, but

other considerations were 1) they use their own indicators and 2) limited staff resources.

Responses were consisent by organization type.

Some other suggested reasons for non-use included: 1) the Great Lakes are beyond the

control of a municipality, 2) existing indicators are under review, 3) not completely

aware of the indicators, 4) Great Lakes indicators are largely shoreline focused as

opposed to watershed focused, 5) large number of indicators and type are not all relevant

or manageable (at local scale), and 6) limited local regard for larger ecosystem. More

specifically one respondent, from the Town of Ajax, stated that planning at all levels of

government has had little regard for the adverse impacts of urbanizing watersheds in the

Great Lakes basin and on water quality and that “this might change if the SOLEC were

101

promoted by the Canadian Planning Institute and the Ontario Professional Planners

Institute, and if the findings were better and more widely distributed every two years.”

Figure 27: Reasons Why Great Lakes Environmental Indicators Are Not Used

* Percentages based on 15 organizations that do not use Great Lakes environmental indicators despite being

aware of them

Why are Great Lakes State of the Environment Reports Not Used?

Of the 27 respondents that are aware of the Great Lakes State of the Environment

Reports, 59% or 16 respondents (8 Conservation Authorities and 8 local governments),

do not use them. The primary reason that these are not used locally is limited staff

resources, as mentioned by 63% or 10 respondents (figure 28). Inappropriate scale of

information was another reason for not using the Great Lakes reports. In an open ended

question format, four organizations stated other reasons for non use were: 1) only recent

knowledge of the reports, 2) does not see the relevance to local watersheds, and 3) they

were not sure why they are not used at their organization. The Town of Ajax stated that

reports should be clearly written, readily available, and concise to serve local needs and

accommodate report deadlines and that they must “look forward and predict upcoming

8

2 1

5

2 1 0 13

7 6

53%

13%7%

33%

13%7%

0%7%

20%

47%40%

0123456789

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

# of respo

nses

% of respo

nse


# of Response

% of Response

102

‘tipping points’” while providing actions that can be taken locally to avoid them because

trend information is only helpful to a point.

By organization type, there was an even distribution of non-users of the Great Lakes SOE

reports between local governments and CAs (8 respondents each). It was evident that

both CAs and local governments strongly felt that they had limited staff resources (63%

each organization type) that hindered the use of the Great Lakes SOE reports. A

significant reason 50% of CAs did not use the Great Lakes SOE reports it was at an

inappropriate scale for local level use. A difference between the two organization types

was the lack of comparability and the use of locally created SOE reports, which

suggested local governments deemed these as more important reasons for non-use as

opposed to CAs.

Figure 28: Reasons Why Great Lakes State of the Environment Reports are Not Used

* Percentages based on 16 organizations that do not use Great Lakes State of the Environment Reports

despite being aware of them

7

1 1

10

2 1 1 14 4 4

44%

6% 6%

63%

13%6% 6% 6%

25% 25% 25%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

# of respo

nses

% of respo

nses


# of Response

% of Response

103

5.4.6 Limitations for Great Lakes Product Use

In addition to the reasons for non-use of Great Lakes products stated above, nine

respondents in the follow up interviews revealed four main limitation themes for use at

the local level. Two governments mentioned that the Great Lakes products do not tell you

about quantifying the information and one government stated that there was a time lag.

However, the most discussed themes included: information access and exchange,

correlations and actions, scale and understandability.

Respondents raised another limitation of Great Lakes products stating there were

problems with receiving information and knowing when the information was available

and where to get it. A local government stated that the information is not distributed and

that they have to actively search for it; it appeared that the work was done but that it was

“sitting” there. Two organizations noted that they only hear about SOLEC information at

conference time. Two CAs mentioned that they could contribute to Great Lakes

monitoring such as, one CA had data that would be useful for the Great Lakes indicator

and reporting group, but they were unaware of how to get the information to them since

there is a disconnect between the spatial scales for information exchange.

A lack of correlation and calls of action were also a concern for local organizations.

There was a strong desire from 5 respondents to have a link between the scientific

findings of the Great Lakes products and relation to policies or actions that need to take

place. A local government stated that the Great Lakes products continually monitor, but

that there is no call for action so they are unsure about how these products relate to policy

or action. Similarly, a CA stated that the products need to pinpoint areas that need to be

addressed. There was also concern from 3 respondents that a connection needs to be

made between what actions occur on the land or in the watersheds and how this impacts

the Great Lakes and vice versa. Two local governments stated that there is a disconnect

between the local area and what happens to the Great Lakes so it is difficult to see the

cause and effect relationship through the Great Lakes products.

104

Issues of spatial scale have been raised throughout this results section as being both a

limitation and reason for using Great Lakes information. Although respondents have

recognized that the Great Lakes scale of information provides valuable context, some

respondents have stated concern about spatial scale in regards to local applicability of

Great Lakes products. Two local governments and one CA stated that the scale is too

large; that there is too much information on all the lakes; and that data need to be scaled

down to be more manageable.

Understandability was stated by four respondents as being an issue of concern in regards

to Great Lakes products. Although two respondents in the survey had said the products

are written well there was some discussion in the interviews that the products were too

technical and not easily transferable to local level policy development and planning. The

products were viewed as complex and there was a desire to have more information in a

more appropriate language for decision makers and the public.

5.4.7 How can the Great Lakes products be improved?

Survey and interview participants were asked their opinion, in an open question context,

about how the Great Lakes environmental indicators and state of the environment reports

can be improved to better serve their local level policy development and decision-making

needs. Six major themes or areas of improvement emerged from the interviews. These 6

themes have been common throughout this results section and include: 1) data and

information access (and exchange), 2) communication and networks, 3) correlations and

actions, 4) standards and measurability, 5) understandability, and 6) scale and lake focus.

Data and information access (and exchange) was mentioned by many organizations in the

survey and interviews as an area in need of improvement for Great Lakes products. In

regards to data access, one government said improvements to the accessibility of SOLEC

data would be helpful, especially by informing municipalities. Another government

suggested that detailed graphics with links to science or an interactive method that

allowed users to see current indicators would be helpful at the local level. Two CAs that

use the Great Lakes products said they needed information on how to access SOLEC data

105

and that a better mechanism was needed to identify and solicit data that are collected

through local and/or regional programs that could support the Great Lakes products,

particularly the indicators. Thus, there is a desire to exchange information from the local

level to the Great Lakes and vice versa. More data points are helpful for long term

monitoring and local or regional programs can help with this.

Respondents indicated a desire for information exchange and access. Two interview

respondents from CAs suggested that Great Lakes products could be more useful at the

local level with a mechanism that builds partnerships for communication and information

sharing and to connect programs of different spatial scales. It would be helpful to identify

who is collecting what information and provide a venue for information exchange to and

from the local and Great Lakes scales.

One limitation was that Great Lakes products did not build correlations between issues

and actions, and between the Great Lakes and the local areas within their watersheds.

One local government stated that the Great Lakes products would be more useful at the

local level if the indicators and reports highlighted issues before they become a crisis and

that the products need to show the relationship between the land, watersheds and the

Great Lakes. Also, 3 respondents stated that the Great Lakes products should promote

specific actions that can impact Great Lakes conditions by providing links to actions and

policies that can be carried out at the local level. While it is helpful to have the

monitoring and trend information, they need to know how to use it. Seven respondents

shared that Great Lakes products need to build the connection between the Great Lakes

and the watersheds and overall people (including practitioners).

Six respondents stated that the Great Lakes products could be improved by having

standardized indicators and protocols, with wider use and agreement. Standardized and

measureable data can improve comparability between locations, scales and time frames.

Comparability helps determine trends, context and progress and helps the organization

determine where they “fit” in. One local government also suggested that there needs to

106

be more measureable standards or targets available that can possibly be adopted at the

local level.

Great Lakes products can be more useful at the local level if they are understandable,

simple and concise, according to five respondents. The language of the Great Lakes

products need to be scientifically sound yet, be devoid of jargon and meet the audience

needs. If the public and decision makers are going to use these products they must be

written in a language that is easy to understand and interpret, as the reports can be too

technical for non-technical staff. Overall, the Great Lakes products need to be concise,

relevant, and easy to understand while also being scientifically grounded and accurate.

Eight respondents have identified that Great Lakes products can be improved if they

address spatial scale and Lake-based focus issues. From a spatial scale point, the Great

Lakes information is useful for broad trend information and for monitoring the Great

Lakes; however, it is not directly applicable to the local level. Local users need to know

how this information can be scaled down so that it is something they can use beyond just

a broader background information tool. The Great Lakes products are strongly focused on

the lakes but tend to ignore the watersheds which are part of the lakes ecosystem. The

Conservation Authorities in particular would like to see more focus on the watersheds

and their connections to the Great Lakes. One local government stated that having the

Great Lakes information broken down into smaller manageable scales, even per lake, can

be more helpful to local level practitioners.

107

6.0 DISCUSSION 6.1 Awareness, Use and Sources Used for Local Environmental Decision Making This section addresses general and Great Lakes products awareness and use as a tool for

informing the local decision making process. This section also addresses the main

findings about local level decision making information sources used, how different

spatial scales of information are used and exchanged at the local level.

6.1.1 Product Awareness and Use

This research identified that local level decision makers are aware of environmental

indicators and state of the environment reports but are less aware of the Great Lakes

products. There are numerous sources that discuss who uses indicators and state of the

environment reports at larger spatial scales (e.g. de Montmollin & Scheller, 2007;

Jakobsen et al., 2008; OECD, 2003); however, there is little literature that discusses

product use for local decision making. More local organizations are aware and use

environmental indicators compared to SOE reports. Indicators serve as a measurement for

different aspects of the environment; whereas, the SOE reports typically focus on a

selection of indicators (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995). Indicators can be used as an

information source, whereas the reports compile data and information for the public.

Local organizations may be more aware of indicators and/or SOE reports in general as

opposed to a specific product such as the Great Lakes SOE reports, since there are many

indicators and SOE report programs around the world. For example, when reviewing the

literature on these topics, there is an abundance of information on indicators and a little

less on SOE reports, but little information on Great Lakes specific products. This is not

surprising, since only a few papers have been published on the Great Lakes indicator

work. There are a number of other reasons that hinder the use of Great Lakes products at

the local level that will be discussed further in section 6.2.

More local organizations were aware and use the Great Lakes SOE reports compared to

the Great Lakes indicators, which is opposite to general product awareness and use

findings. The Great Lakes SOE reports are released by the SOLEC every two years. One

108

might assume that respondents who were aware of the Great Lakes SOE reports would

also be aware of the indicators that comprise these reports, but this is not the case. There

are two types of Great Lakes SOE reports released: the technical State of the Great Lakes

report that is lengthy and provides more detailed scientific information about the

individual indicators (e.g. EC & USEPA, 2007a) and there is a State of the Great Lakes

Highlights report that is a short, easy to read, review of the status and trends of the

indicator suites (e.g. EC & USEPA, 2007b). According to the findings in this thesis, it is

evident that local organizations prefer information that is presented in a concise and

understandable manner, that is easy to read and not too technical. Respondents did not

comment on which of the Great Lakes reports they used. Also, the raw indicator data are

not generally available so the main source of indicator information is through the State of

the Great Lakes technical reports.

By organization type, Conservation Authorities are more likely to be aware and use both

general and Great Lakes products, especially state of the environment reports, compared

to local governments. This is probably because Conservation Authorities are more

environmentally focused and geared towards environmental monitoring compared to

local governments that have a broad range of foci to concentrate on. As stated earlier,

Ontario Conservation Authorities have a mandate to conserve, restore and manage

Ontario’s natural resources through programs that balance environmental, human and

economic needs (Conservation Ontario, 2005a). Conservation Authorities work with all

levels of government to develop partnerships for the implementation of practical

solutions for environmental concerns at the local level by developing and implementing

programs and educational services for watershed management (Conservation Ontario,

2009). Also, a current key initiative promoted by Conservation Ontario, is the pursuit of

healthy Great Lakes in which they refer to the Great Lakes SOE reports (Conservation

Ontario, 2005b). It is also likely that SOLEC targets CAs more than local governments

(e.g. on mailing lists) as they are based on watershed boundaries, have an environmental

focus and there are fewer of them compared to local governments. The scale of the Great

Lakes is very large and it is not feasible to keep track of contact information for every

local government within the basin. As was found in the recruitment of contact

109

information for this research, it is difficult and time consuming to secure contact

information for local governments compared to CAs and it is probably more feasible for

SOLEC to contact the upper tier regional governments as opposed to local governments.

The awareness and use of Great Lakes products at the local level indicates that

information exchange from higher spatial scales to the local level and vice versa is

difficult and there are many limitations.

6.1.2 Products and Information Used

Local organizations use a variety of information sources to help inform their decision

making and policy development process as was suggested by Winograd (2007). Interview

results showed that many organizations collect some form of local data, some use GIS

data and others referred to the use of different sources at varying spatial scales. Provincial

monitoring programs and other municipal and CA information is most used at the local

level. National and international data are used the least for local level decision making.

Thus, as spatial scale increases it becomes less useful to local decision makers which

justifies why inappropriate spatial scale is considered a limitation to use of higher spatial

scale information.

The majority of indicator users (65%) and SOE report users (67%) have developed local

products for their organization. Similar to use trends, Conservation Authorities were

more likely to produce local products than local governments, especially in regards to

SOE reports. Many of these organizations, 67% for environmental indicators and 56% for

SOE reports, used other external sources to help guide the development of their local

products. Also, organizations with local indicators and SOE reports, used external

indicator, SOE report and information sources from different spatial scales to influence

local decision making. The most used external sources were Conservation Authority and

Provincial documents. Therefore, indicators and SOE reports of both the same and

slightly higher spatial scales help guide the development of local products. Since CAs

were more likely to use external sources to guide local development, explains why

Conservation Ontario documents were such a highly sourced reference by respondents.

One Conservation Authority stated that they initially designed their indicators based on

110

local demand and need for information on forest conditions and surface water quality. To

do so their organization investigated other environmental indicator initiatives by

Conservation Authorities, other provincial and federal initiatives, and work done

internationally (SOLEC etc.) and developed a set of indicators for their local watershed

reporting. CAs were more likely to use an external source to guide their local product

development, but there were 13 CAs that made local SOE reports compared to only 3

local governments with local SOE reports. External sources, such as the Great Lakes

products, can be used for background information to set context, or for trend information

and comparability between local findings and other sources. Also, external sources may

serve as a guideline to prepare local products that are more standardized or comparable

with other jurisdictions.

Organizations without local indicators mostly used Conservation Authority indicators and

various Provincial information/programs. Main SOE report external sources used

included regional municipal reporting and CA reporting. It appears that CAs and local

governments suggested that they used external sources from similar organization types to

their own, revealing that smaller spatial scale information is more useful, compared to

higher spatial scales, as a source for indicator and SOE report information. Both local

governments and CAs indicated they used other CA and municipality general information

as a resource for local decision making.

The role of Conservation Ontario may also influence why Conservation Authorities were

more likely to use and develop these products. As discussed earlier in section 4.2,

Conservation Ontario, serves as an umbrella organization representing Ontario CAs and it

provides guidelines for watershed indicators and state of the watershed reporting

(Conservation Ontario, 2003). Local governments do not have environmental indicator

and state of the environment reporting guidelines specifically for their organization type

in Ontario. Conservation Ontario also provides a network and forum for information

exchange between Conservation Authorities in Ontario. This coincides with a need for

information awareness, exchange and the need for networks and partnerships. Also,

survey and interview results indicated a need for standardization which is addressed by

111

Conservation Ontario guidelines. Conservation Ontario (2003) recognized that although

monitoring and reporting efforts by CAs were effective locally, they lacked standards in

content and frequency of reporting that hindered comparability of results among the CAs

and for municipalities, particularly those that cross watershed boundaries. The

Conservation Ontario guidelines were meant to introduce standards for state of the

watershed reports to allow for comparisons and through coordinated efforts by all CAs, to

develop a permanent comprehensive state of the environment or watershed reporting for

all Ontario CAs (Conservation Ontario, 2003). The guide encourages consistent reporting

of a standard set of environmental indicators, which may be adjusted to reflect local

needs, and reporting by all CAs on a five-year cycle (Conservation Ontario, 2003).

Interviewees and survey responses stated that Conservation Ontario and other

Conservation Authority documents are often used for information and for comparisons.

One CA stated on the survey that “Watershed Report Cards prepared by other

Conservation Authorities are very useful for evaluating monitoring programs and

modifying existing programs, gathering new ideas on how to report and learning about

how the information collected is being used to improve environmental quality in other

areas.”

6.1.3 Information Exchange

This thesis research found that a variety of information types and sources are used for

local level decision making and that information is exchanged through various spatial

scales. Le Fur (2007) states that information can circulate via different methods that may

be regular or irregular, official or nonofficial, and formal or informal. Interview results

showed that information is exchanged at different levels through the use of data sharing

agreements, online information exchange through websites and portals and mainly

through networking, partnerships and committee participation. Essentially, information is

passed around informally and either information is actively searched out or local decision

makers become aware of information through networking and communication with other

groups or committees. The accessibility of information is a key information quality

needed for local decision making. Even though legislation and regulations have a strong

influence on environmental policy development, and that most policy decisions are made

112

at spatial scales defined by these laws and regulations, access to other information is still

required (Hahn, 1989; National Research Council, 2000).

6.1.4 Spatial Scales of Information a Local Perspective

This thesis research has determined that local level governments and Conservation

Authorities use information from a variety of spatial scale sources. Survey findings

showed that the usefulness of both indicators and SOE reports for local decision making

decreased as the spatial scale increased. International indicators were considered slightly

useful and national level indicators were considered useful. Provincial level indicators

were considered both useful and very useful by survey respondents. Regional and local

level indicators were considered very useful for local level decision making. For SOE

reports, international and national level reports were considered only slightly useful and

provincial reports were considered useful. Regional and local level reports, same as

indicators, were considered very useful for local level decision making. Not surprisingly,

this research reveals that different spatial scales of information serve different purposes to

local decision makers.

Literature states that decision makers at all levels need adequate information for the

pursuit of sustainability (Moldan et al., 1997). Indicators generally serve as an incentive

tool at the national and local scale for implementing sustainable management (Rey-

Valette et al., 2007a). The development of indicators for all scales is a preferred tool for

the pursuit and implementation of sustainable development (Rey-Valette et al., 2007a).

Products at the local scale, such as different government and CA organizations, were

often used by respondents as a source of environmental indicator and/or state of the

environment reports. Thus, local organizations tended to use products from similar

organization types, and organizations with a more comparable or small spatial scale.

Local and regional spatial scale indicators and SOE reports are used most by local

governments and Conservation Authorities. Local governments used more regional level

SOE reports than local SOE reports. The local scale is considered to be the best scale to

assess the interaction of social, economic and environmental components of sustainable

113

development because the relationship between these dimensions is most accurately

expressed (Rey-Valette et al., 2007a). Also in the pursuit of sustainability there is great

importance held for locally relevant decision making (Robinson et al., 1990).

Information from different spatial scales, especially from the Province of Ontario and

different Conservation Authorities and Conservation Ontario were the main external

sources of information used for local environmental indicators and state of the

environment reports. The Provincial scale impacts local decision making through

legislation and regulations. The National Research Council (2000) states that

management and policy decisions are conducted at scales that are defined by regulations

and laws, such as municipalities. Interestingly, regional scale SOE reports are used more

than local level reports, whereas local level indicators are used more. This was true for

both organization types. According to the research conducted by Campbell and Maclaren

(1995) it was difficult to analyze the relationship between upper-tier SOE reports and

lower-tier municipality SOE reports as there was only one regional municipality

(Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton) that had completed an SOE report in Canada

that also had a lower-tier municipality (City of Ottawa) that had completed an SOE report

within the region’s jurisdiction. When reviewing results about who developed local SOE

reports (13/15 CAs and 3/9 local governments) it was evident that local governments are

not as likely to develop SOE reports for their local organization. However, regional

municipality information was referenced as a general information source for decision

making as well as for both indicator and SOE report information. Since there is a void of

lower-tier SOE report development, the smallest scale of SOE report would be the region.

However, it is important to note that three local governments indicated they were in the

process of developing local SOER and another city was working on an Environmental

Master Plan that may recommend SOE reports.

Higher spatial scale products and information, such as the Great Lakes products, are used

typically at the local level for background information, to identify trends, to set context

and to help compare local information to the larger scale to determine where the local

organization “fits in” the larger picture. However, Great Lakes products are not used as a

114

form of or guide for data collection. Conservation Authorities were more likely to use

environmental indicators and SOE reports for higher spatial scales, mainly at the

Provincial and Great Lakes level, compared to local governments. Two interview

respondents discussed wanting to share information with the Great Lakes indicator and

reporting group but did not know how to do this. At the national level it may be difficult

to aggregate small scale information and data collection with national level indicators

(National Research Council, 2000). Thus, it is unclear if the information exchange can

move in both directions from larger to smaller spatial scales and vice versa. International

scale indicators and reports serve as a standard and as an educational function since they

are typically broad and contain large amounts of information that may be difficult to

adopt by smaller spatial scale users (National Research Council, 2000; Rey-Valette et al.,

2007a). International indicators and reporting have little influence on local level decision

making, but their approaches to indicator development, such as the PSR model, can be

typically implemented at different spatial scales (National Research Council, 2000; Rey-

Valette et al., 2007a).

6.2 Factors Affecting the Use and Application of Products and Information in Local Decision Making This section addresses the main results within the context of uses, issues that impact or

affect the application of information and products on local decision making, by

identifying the qualities needed for products and information to be useful for decision

making and what the limitations and deterrents are for local decision making and product

use. This section will describe the main findings for the uses and functions of

environmental indicators and state of the environment reports, including the Great Lakes

products, by local organizations. The needs and limitations raised through this thesis are

all based on the perception of local decision makers. Choo (1996) notes that information

is a fundamental aspect to all organization activities and there is literature that describes

different qualities of information that are needed for decision making and policy

development (e.g. Beardsley, 1992; CA et al., 1994; Winograd, 2007). McElfish and

Varnell (2006) explain that research typically assumes that if the products are

scientifically sound, then decision makers can use them as a tool to inform decision

115

making. This is not always the case. If indicator and SOE reports are too focused on

scientific processes and data availability, and not on what decision makers need to know

to guide the decision making process, it can result in non-use of the products (Bond et al.,

2005). Literature also identifies that information and products should be policy relevant

but there is limited information that states what practitioners and decision makers

consider as needs and limitations. This section (6.2) of the discussion has adapted the

three OECD (2003) basic criteria for selecting indicators (1) policy relevant and utility

for users, 2) analytically sound, and 3) measurable) to distinguish three main sectors that

encompass the uses, needs and limitations described in this research: information

awareness, exchange and scale; utility for users; and analytical soundness and

measurability. There is a gap between policy and science (Beardsley, 1992; Rey-Valette

et al., 2007a) and reviewing the uses, needs and limitations can help to bridge this gap to

provide insight on how to make indicators and SOE reports, and ultimately most

information, more applicable and useful for local decision makers. As shown in figure 29,

by meeting decision maker’s needs and eliminating or remediating limitations,

environmental indicators and SOE reports can become more effective tools for informing

the local decision and policy making process.

Figure 29: Improving the Applicability of Products for Local Decision Making

6.2.1 Information Awareness, Access and Spatial Scale

It was difficult to find literature that reviews indicators and SOE reports in the context of

information sharing and exchange, particularly across different spatial scales. This

section shows the uses, needs and limitations that impact information awareness, access

and exchange. It was evident that participants use information from a variety of sources

Needs

(i.e. qualities)Limitations or challenges

Effective information for local decision

making

116

from varying spatial scales and the case study provided valuable insight on information

exchange uses and limitations. Information exchange between spatial scales is a topic of

interest to local decision makers from this study as was expressed in interview and survey

comments, such as one respondent wanting to share local indicator data with the Great

Lakes scale (i.e. SOLEC).

Indicators and state of the environment reports are used as a tool to share information and

improve awareness and knowledge of different stakeholders. One of the main objectives

of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) is to inform local decision

makers of the Great Lakes environmental issues (Bertram et al., 2003). Survey responses

indicated that SOE reports were typically used as a tool for public awareness and

knowledge and for knowledge sharing and capacity building. Indicators were used as a

tool for public awareness and knowledge. Literature confirms that indicators inform the

public, increase awareness and build capacity to initiate mobilization of stakeholders and

help influence human behaviour (National Research Council, 2000; Rey-Valette et al.,

2007a). Indicators and SOE reports can provide information and communication to

managers and decision makers, especially when the topic is not always clear or

understood by stakeholders (Rey-Valette et al., 2007a). State of the environment reports

provide timely information to the public and decision makers and this information can

raise community understanding, awareness, and knowledge capacity in a way that may

initiate a change in behaviour (North Sydney Council, n.d.). An objective of SOE reports

should be to increase awareness and provide information to the public (Campbell &

Maclaren, 1995).

Higher spatial scale information, as demonstrated through Great Lakes product use, show

that this information is mainly used to give a broader context and overall understanding

of environmental conditions and help local organizations determine where they fit in by

comparison. Organizations use environmental indicators and state of the environment

reports to provide information about the current condition of the environment and this

can serve as a starting point for analysis and action.

117

According to results, information and data needs to be accessible by decision makers

such as full disclosure and access to data, data collection methods and conclusions that

are bias free. Survey and interview responses showed that local decision makers need

access to indicator and SOE report information and data. Survey responses demonstrate

that knowledge sharing and capacity building at all levels and accessibility of data at the

local scale are very important qualities of environmental indicators for local decision

making use. Access to regional and provincial scale data was considered important by

local decision makers in the survey.

Local organizations would like to see improved data and information access as well as

information exchange in regards to the Great Lakes products. Interview respondents

indicated that they would like to have access to Great Lakes data and a mechanism that

helps to solicit data at the local scale so that information can be exchanged from a top-

down and bottom-up approach through the different spatial scales. There was also a

desire for the Great Lakes information to be passed on and disseminated to local decision

makers. Winograd (2007) suggests providing training to advise the target audience of

how to use information so that users can improve the link between knowledge and action.

A lack of awareness of and access to information and data was the primary deterrent for

successful information exchange and was a limitation particularly for Great Lakes

product use and general indicator use. Literature supports this; there is a lack of access to

relevant information for managers and that decision makers are not aware of available

information provided by science (Dennis, 1996; Rey-Valette et al., 2007b; McElfish &

Varnell, 2006). McElfish & Varnell (2006) claim that many decision makers lack access

to indicators that may inform an organization or government’s decision making process.

Literature also supports the argument that users are unaware of what they can gain from

the information and that decision makers lack access to indicators that may inform

decision making (McElfish & Varnell, 2006; Rey-Valette et al., 2007b). However, the

literature did not specifically identify that information exchange and access can hinder

product use. Results indicated a lack of awareness by participants about what information

is available or what work is currently being conducted is considered a barrier to use. As

118

was evident with the Great Lakes products, a lack of awareness and accessibility to

information produced can hinder the exchange of information from the Great Lakes scale

to the local level while ultimately reducing product use by local decision makers. An

interview response from the Town of Ajax claimed that information is not pushed out.

For example the SOLEC information, when completed, is not widely distributed to

municipalities and is thus hard to find unless actively searched out. Another local

government also stated that they have to actively search out SOLEC information. This is

reflected by awareness and use patterns as local organizations are not highly aware nor

use the Great Lakes products at the local level.

Despite a challenge of not having access to information, interviewees stated that they can

be overloaded by information and do not have the capacity to manage it all well. One

local government stated that there is an abundance of information supplied through

emails, training sessions, seminars, committee meetings, brochures etc. that they can get

overloaded as it becomes too much to manage and they are already juggling many things

at once. Literature confirms that too much information can be as bad as lack of

information (Saaty, 2008). Thesis findings also suggest that there are issues of constantly

evolving science and the difficulty for local organizations to stay current with what is

being done in the field and what information is available. Le Fur (2007) adds that

information and acquired knowledge need to be disseminated to the largest set of

stakeholders for it to be appropriate for operational purposes and there seems to be a

disconnect between the Great Lakes and local level.

Spatial Scale

There is little literature that analyzes the use and information exchange of higher spatial

scale indicators and SOE reports at the local level. It was evident in the findings that local

organizations use higher spatial scale information to inform decision making and policy

development for many reasons such as: provide general background information, to set

local context, to determine overall trends, to guide indicator and SOE report development

and programs by serving as a model or guideline. Although respondents indicated that

local and regional information was the most useful and that they look at information at

119

the same spatial scale i.e. other local government and CA sources, they also wanted

information from higher spatial scales in which to compare their local conditions to and

some respondents also had a desire to share their information and data with the Great

Lakes scale. Local decision makers stated that information from different spatial scales

was useful for local level decision making. For example, the Grand River Conservation

Authority pointed out on the survey that they rely on information from federal, provincial

and municipal sources. This corresponds to Winograd’s (2007) argument that the

decision making and policy development process is based on knowledge and uses of

information from different levels and sources. While respondents did not identify

different spatial scales as a need per se, it was evident that different spatial scales of

information are used at the local level, particularly regional and provincial scales. It is

difficult to find literature that describes the use of higher spatial scale information at the

local level.

Inappropriate scale of information was mentioned as a constraint to product use.

Interviews revealed that the Great Lakes products were at an inappropriate scale and that

information needed to be disseminated down so that it was manageable for local use.

Sharp (1998) identified that a limitation to the SOE reporting process was that

information was difficult to find and that it was usually at a geographic scale that needed

to be adjusted for local needs. Similarly to how Conservation Authorities discussed the

need to alter Conservation Ontario indicator and reporting guidelines to meet local needs.

Interview respondents also stated that the Great Lakes products were too focused on the

lakes specifically and not enough on the inland and the watersheds that feed into the

lakes. National Research Council (2000) argues that large spatial scale products are

vague due to the vast complexity of large scale societies, economies and ecosystems and

though these larger scale products may be useful for their intended purpose these

products are not applicable to other spatial scales. Also, there is a desire for efficient

means to match the scale that an indicator is considered useful to the scale of ecological

processes (National Research Council, 2000). However, the Great Lakes indicators are

intended to provide an overview of the general ecosystem and be applicable on a basin

wide or lake basin scale (Bertram et al., 2005; USEPA, 2008). The State of the Lakes

120

Ecosystem Conference and the reports are intended for environmental managers, decision

makers and the public (Bertram et al., 2005). Although local organizations value the

broad background and trends information that are provided by the Great Lakes products,

these products are often too lake focused and need to consider watersheds within the

basins and provide recommendations for action in order to scale information down to a

level that is useful and manageable for local decision makers.

Limited Resources and Lack of Funding

Limited staff resources and lack of funding were the main limitations for non-use of

environmental indicators and SOE reports. It was emphasized by participants in this

study, as was mirrored in the study by Sharp (1998), that practitioners and decision

makers found that data collection and interpretation was time consuming and intensive

and that they did not have the issue expertise required due to reports covering a number

of concepts and components. Also, practitioners in this study and in Sharp (1998)

identified that staff are overworked and cannot manage the numerous demands of finding

information, reviewing and evaluating available information, while continuing to meet

other work commitments.

Areas of Improvement

Information exchange can be improved by making information easily accessible,

manageable, and understandable. The main concerns for information exchange were lack

of awareness and access to information. Local organizations suggested that information

exchange can be improved by having a central location for information or even a

catalogue of information so that local decision makers can see what information is

available either at their own or different spatial scales. The United States Environmental

Protection Agency, for example, is establishing and expanding their Environmental

Information Exchange Network which is an internet based approach for different

stakeholders and partners to share environmental data and information (Greene, 2005).

For this environmental network, information is exchanged from a number of partners on a

secure internet website (Environmental Information Exchange Network, 2009; Greene,

2005).

121

The thesis research findings have pointed out a desire by local organizations for a

mechanism to help build partnerships and networks and to provide a forum for

information exchange and to improve information awareness. A network of

organizations, such as CAs, particularly within an umbrella organization such as

Conservation Ontario, has also proved to be beneficial for information exchange and

promoting standardized indicator and SOE reporting use.

Findings suggest that Great Lakes products can be improved for local decision making by

having a mechanism of communication and network building. The State of the Lakes

Ecosystem Conference has an objective to provide a venue for networking and

communication among different stakeholders and to inform local decision makers within

the basin of environmental issues (Bertram et al., 2003). Study participants suggested that

it would be helpful to build communication through networks and partnerships as a

means to exchange information to the local level from the Great Lakes scale and vice

versa. A network would also help identify and connect research and programs that are

being conducted within the Great Lakes basin and provide a venue beyond the State of

the Lakes Ecosystem Conference for information sharing and exchange. It appears that

the Conferences do not provide enough information exchange and communication for

local level decision makers. The SOLEC program could provide a valuable forum for

information exchange.

6.2.2 Utility for Users

The OECD (2003) considers policy relevance and user utility as main criteria for

selecting environmental indicators. These criteria requires that environmental indicators

are representative, simple and easy to interpret and capable of showing trends over time;

provide a base for comparisons; are responsive to changes in the environment and related

human impacts or actions; and have a reference or threshold value in which to compare

data/findings to assess the significance of values (OECD, 2003). Beardsley (1992) noted

that scientists and decision makers need to build an agreement to identify what

information is useful and appropriate to measure short term progress towards

122

environmental objectives. These criteria encompassed many of the main responses shown

in this thesis.

Informing the Decision Making Process

According to survey responses, environmental indicators and state of the environment

reports are used as an information tool at the local level to inform local policy

development and decision making. State of the environment reports were used more for

informing decision making than indicators, for both general and Great Lakes products.

Great Lakes products were not typically used at the local level to inform local decision

making and policy development even though strengthening decision making and

environmental management and informing local decision makers are two main objectives

for SOLEC (Bertram et al., 2003). This finding agrees with the literature that states that

products influence policy and decision making at different scales, but it is difficult to

ascertain the direct links of the application of science (indicators and SOE reports) to help

decision makers select appropriate tools or actions that will produce predictable outcomes

that are measurable (Jakobsen et al., 2008; McElfish & Varnell, 2006; National Research

Council, 2000; Niemeijer & de Groot, 2008).

The literature notes that indicators and SOE reports can be used to identify best practices,

adjust strategies, actions/responses or behaviours that should be taken to influence the

pressures on the environment (Commonwealth of Australia, 1994; Jakobsen et al., 2008;

National Research Council, 2000; Niemeijer & de Groot, 2008; North Sydney Council,

n.d.). For instance the Pressure-State-Response framework for indicators suggest that this

cause-effect framework outlines the current condition of the environment, determines the

pressures on the environment and invoking a societal response (Niemeijer & de Groot,

2008). Interview responses show that indicator and SOE reports provided further

information on where to direct decision making and policy development focus, but that

this information was one of many pieces that influence decision making. It is sometimes

difficult to determine if indicator and SOE report information correlate to specific actions

that need to be taken because ecosystems are complex, interconnected and always

123

changing. However, this correlation was deemed a very important quality for products to

have as its absence can solicit non-use of products.

Correlations and Actions

Results of this research show that local decision makers need information and products

that have a point of focus, identify a relationship such as cause and effect, and that can

point to responses or actions that should be taken to remedy an issue of concern. The

process of decision making entails interpreting information and data to inform decision

making to produce actions that alter patterns or behaviours that will improve ecosystem

health and social and economic welfare (Heal & Kriström, 2007; Ruitenbeek, 1991). It is

also important that information links spatial entities such as the environment with social

entities such as communities (Winograd, 2007). The literature notes that information

should help decision makers determine a response or action; however, local decision

makers also need information that helps determine relationships between conditions and

pressures and identify areas to focus their attention.

Many sources indicate that both indicators and SOE reports are intended to identify

actions, responses, best practices or some form of action (e.g. Campbell & Maclaren,

1995; McElfish & Varnell, 2006; National Research Council, 2000; USEPA, 2000).

Indicators should serve a specific purpose, be highly correlated to the conditions that they

were intended to represent, be applicable to a policy or management goal or give

information that is required to inform the policy or goal (Jakobsen et al., 2008; McElfish

& Varnell, 2006). Understanding the relationship between indicators and SOE reports

and policy can help organizations allocate resources accordingly, budget and establish

priorities (Beardsley, 1992). The results of this thesis have confirmed this. Participants

need to have products that identify relationships between environmental conditions and

pressures and resulting actions or responses that need to be made in order to address these

issues.

Local organizations highlighted that indicators and SOE reports, including the Great

Lakes products, are not used if there is a lack of links or correlations displaying

124

environmental cause-effect relationships and links between spatial scale trends, and the

identification of actions or areas where environmental improvement is needed. It is

difficult to assess the relationship and interplay between the environment and human

activity (Boulanger & Bréchet, 2005) and to identify a specific pressure that is causing

environmental concerns or issues. Cobb and Rixford (1998) state that a practitioner’s

main challenge is making sure that efforts are meaningful and that indicators and reports

are not an end in themselves, rather that they illustrate direct impacts on outcomes and

that action is resulting from indicator and reporting efforts.

Another correlation or link that was identified by users, in regards to information

exchange and the Great Lakes products, was the need to understand the relationship

between the local and higher scales, such as the Great Lakes. Participants identified that

there was a disconnect between the local and Great Lakes levels and this relationship

needs to be made clearer for local users to consider and understand local impacts on the

Great Lakes system and vice versa. Lack of information between findings and actions and

cause and effect hinders the use of these products, especially the Great Lakes products.

There is a lack of literature regarding the use of higher spatial scale products at the local

level, but this thesis reveals that correlations between the spatial scales is needed and

wanted by local users, or it will hinder the exchange and use of information.

The Great Lakes products, according to research participants, would be more useful for

local level decision making if they directed decision makers and policy developers to

actions or areas of focus to be addressed or actions that need to be taken in order to

address environmental concerns. Literature emphasizes the need for indicators to be

policy relevant, user driven and meet the needs and be interpreted by their intended

audience (Hammond et al., 1995). Beardsley (1992) also states that for product

information to be useful for decision making it needs to translate the data and information

developed into resource and budget allocation. Campbell and Maclaren (1995) add that

the objective for an SOE report should include making recommendations for policies

and/or programs.

125

Trend Identification and Progress Tracking

The National Research Council (2000) states that more efficient and appropriate policy

can be accomplished by having a better understanding of what is happening in an

ecosystem and trend information aids in this. The literature shows that environmental

indicators and state of the environment reporting can be used to evaluate trends and status

and to monitor progress over time (Fairweather, 1999; Jakobsen et al., 2008; National

Research Council, 2000; OECD, 2003; Rey-Valette et al., 2007b). Indicators can also

help highlight successes and/or identify emerging issues of concern that would not be

immediately detected otherwise while also aiding in communicating progress towards

goals over time (Donnelly et al., 2007; Hammond et al., 1995; Jakobsen et al., 2008;

National Research Council, 2000). Indicators can help monitor policy and program

performance in relation to reference points or targets (Jakobsen et al., 2008; National

Research Council, 2000).

The literature also shows that state of the environment reports can be used to see

improvements or emerging concerns over the long term and measure progress towards a

goal (Campbell and Maclaren, 1995; Commonwealth of Australia, 1994). SOE reporting

evaluates environmental performance in order to identify and communicate information

on the performance of programs and policies, such as environmental, social stewardship

performance, to determine what is working and what is not and to assess the progress of

the pursuit to achieving certain benchmarks or reference points (CA et al., 1994;

Commonwealth of Australia, 1994, North Sydney Council, n.d.).

The identification of environmental trends over time and space, tracking progress of

conditions and/or programs towards certain goals or endpoints and resource allocation

were main uses of environmental indicators and SOE reports. Respondents stated that

Great Lakes products were also used to determine trends for a higher scale to help

organizations interpret their local trends. The fact that local organizations use indicators

and state of the environment reports to identify trends, successes and/or areas of

improvement and to track progress over time coincides with what the literature considers

to be a purpose for both indicators and SOE reporting.

126

The Raisin Region Conservation Authority stated in the survey that they use

environmental indicators to measure the progress towards delisting a designated Area of

Concern and the Ganaraska Region CA stated that indicators are used to determine the

success of their programs. One local government stated on the survey that they use state

of the environment reports to measure progress towards their sustainability goals and

targets and another local government used municipal reports to learn from the successes

and failures from other organizations in different jurisdictions.

The OECD (2003) pointed out that environmental performance indicators can be used to

link quantitative objectives, i.e. targets or benchmarks, with qualitative objectives such as

goals. For decision making purposes, thesis results show that users, need information on

benchmarking and status reports to help set local decision making goals and targets.

Product information is useful for decision making if it provides information to support

decision making and to quantify the progress of decisions (USEPA, 2000). As clearly

stated by the Town of Ajax, there is a trend of continual monitoring but where is the

action plan; when is the tipping point or threshold that action needs to be taken; and how

does science translate to policy? It is not enough for information and products to be

descriptive, they need to be prescriptive and proactive as described by Cobb and Rixford

(1998). It appears that this correlation and identification of action is lacking, particularly

for the Great Lakes products, resulting in them not being used for local decision making.

Winograd (2007) suggests training and advising users on how to use information and

how to transfer this knowledge into action in order to improve decision making.

Clear Objectives

A limitation to indicator and SOE report use cited in the literature is the lack of clearly

defined or vague objectives at the onset of indicator and reporting programs (Boulanger

& Bréchet, 2005; Dale & Beyeler, 2001; Sharp, 1998) and a belief that once information

is created it will meet users needs (McElfish & Varnell, 2006). Information needs for

policy development and decision making depended upon the different users or

stakeholders involved and should reflect and meet the organizations or user’s objective,

127

thus a goal or objective must be clearly identified (CA et al., 1994; Winograd, 2007).

This research showed that if information is available, such as the Great Lakes products, it

does not mean that it can meet local users’ needs and be effective.

Understandability

Decision makers require that information and literature be scientifically sound, credible,

current, unbiased and describe the best available science; but that is understandable.

Understandable information refers to information that is in plain language and easy to

read and interpret. Interviews emphasized that local decision makers need environmental

indicators and reports to be written in plain language geared to non-scientific audience,

but that is still scientifically valid. Some interviewees discussed that in many cases

information is too technical or scientific and this does not translate into information that

is useful for decision makers and policy developers. Literature suggests for indicators to

be useful they need to be easily understood, even by those with limited technical or

scientific backgrounds, be user driven to meet the needs of the intended audience, and

must produce information relevant, accepted and understood by scientists and policy

makers (Andrieu, 2007; Hammond et al., 1995; Jakobsen et al., 2008; McElfish &

Varnell, 2006; USEPA, 2000). State of the environment reports should also be

comprehensible by all intended users (Azzone et al., 1997; Commonwealth of Australia,

1994; North Sydney Council, n.d.). Findings confirm that products can be policy-relevant

if they are able to be interpreted by their intended audience (Hammond et al., 1995). Le

Fur (2007) suggests that knowledge is useful only when it is received within a proper

context and by the users themselves. Winograd (2007) also states that information should

be translated from scientific language and time scales to a language and time scale of the

decision maker. Lack of understandability is main limitation that hinders the utility of

products and information at the local level. A participant from Norfolk County stated that

if reports are not easily readable or easy to follow then the research gets left behind

because if people do not understand the information they have a tendency to not pay

attention to it. Many current indicator and SOE reporting approaches do not focus on what the public

and decision makers need to know in order to help guide decision making (Bond et al.,

128

2005). Findings show a desire by local organizations to have information that is

understandable so that it can be used for local decision making. This was similar for the

Great Lakes products. Local organizations stated that the Great Lakes products could be

improved to become more useful for local decision making by using appropriate

language, void of jargon, that is scientifically sound but that still meets audience needs.

6.2.3 Analytical Soundness and Measurability

According to the literature (National Research Council, 2000; OECD, 2003; Rey-Valette

et al., 2007b; Winograd, 2007) analytical soundness requires indicators to be grounded in

scientific and technical terms, be based on standards and have consensus about validity,

and be linked to forecasting and information systems and economic models.

Measurability refers to data that are readily available and cost-effective; adequately

documented with known quality; and updated regularly with reliable procedures (OECD,

2003). Local decision makers require information and data, as well as indicators and SOE

reports, which are measurable, scientifically accurate, credible, easily transferable and

standardized to make decisions and policies.

Comparability

Both local governments and CAs discussed using products to compare their organization

to specific standards and to other organizations. In the interviews, three CAs discussed

how they use Conservation Ontario guidelines for their products to increase their

comparability. Comparisons also are used to help an organization determine where they

are in relation to other organizations or to larger spatial scale trends. This was not overtly

addressed in the survey but was a common theme in interview responses. This section

relates to identification of trends and progress over time as current environmental

conditions are compared with past data in order to determine long term trends. Also,

current conditions need to be compared with a reference point in order to monitor

progress, thus this is an important component to indicator and SOE report use that is not

readily represented in the literature compared to trend and progress tracking. Indicators

should be comparable even with indicators developed in other jurisdictions (Maclaren,

1996) and municipal SOE reports also act as a basis for comparison so cities can compare

129

their environmental quality and remediation programs to municipalities with similar

populations and physical properties or for comparisons between sub-areas within the

jurisdiction (Campbell & Maclaren, 1995).

Standardization and Measurability

Although organizations such as the OECD have set out a common framework for

indicator and reporting development and use, there is no universal or standard indicator

set that is used by all (OECD, 2003). Findings revealed that standardized measures and

procedures provide decision makers with information that can be easily compared with

different data sets, organizations or spatial scales. Respondents stated that comparing

information with other organizations and spatial scales help to determine their progress

and current state in context with other areas. One Conservation Authority stated in the

interview that if jurisdictions use similar or standard indicators and similar methods of

collecting data it would make it easier to combine, share and compare data. They

provided an example that Conservation Ontario has established guidelines for CAs in

order to have similar indicators however this is a limited set that they have expanded to

include more local specific indicators for their CA. Conservation Ontario (2003)

recognize that Ontario CAs have developed a variety of state of the watershed products

(part of watershed management efforts) that are effective locally, however, lack of

standards prevents comparison of results among CAs, particularly for neighbouring

watersheds. Not only important for the CAs, but municipalities that extend between two

or more watershed boundaries could also benefit from viewing information in a

comparable format thus Conservation Ontario introduced standards for state of the

watershed reporting, which includes indicators (Conservation Ontario, 2003). The lack of

standardization and quantification was identified by respondents as another barrier to

indicator and SOE report use at the local level. Indicators also need to be feasible and practical for the long term (USEPA, 2000).

Indicators should be based on accurate data that are gathered by reproducible methods

and are reliable (Boulanger, 2007; Jakobsen et al., 2008; McElfish & Varnell, 2006).

Specifically for use in policy development, indicators must be measurable, provide

accurate and relevant information on issues of concern and measures what it is intended

130

(National Research Council, 2000). State of the environment report literature describes

that reports should also be scientifically sound, free from bias, timely, and reliable

(Azzone et al., 1997; Commonwealth of Australia, 1994; North Sydney Council, n.d.).

One survey respondent stated that indicators need to be defensible for planning purposes.

Both survey and interview respondents stated that the products should be flexible and

adapt to changes in conditions and technology over time. Literature indicates that

indicators need to be flexible and adaptable (Andrieu, 2007; Boulanger, 2007; McElfish

& Varnell, 2006). The OECD (2003) also stated that environmental indicators need to be

responsive to changes both in the environment and related human activities in order to be

effective. Interview respondents stated that they may not use these products if they are

not flexible and adapt overtime with new information and technology as well as with

environmental changes.

Respondents stated that they would like to see improvements to the Great Lakes products

to be more useful at the local level. Local decision makers would like to see standardized

protocols for indicators and reporting. Standardized measurements and protocols will

help improve comparability between local organizations with Great Lakes data and

trends. Also, standardized measurements and protocols can also help local organizations

adopt these tools for local indicator and SOE report development.

131

7.0 CONCLUSION The overall goal of this thesis research was to determine how environmental indicators

and state of the environment (SOE) reports are perceived, used and subsequently, how

they influence environmental policy development and decision making at the watershed

and local government level in the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes Basin. To answer

the research question, a multi-method approach was used to gather information through

secondary literature review, case study analysis, web-based surveys and follow-up

telephone interviews. This collection of information gained a broad perspective of

indicator and SOE report use at the local level and the relationships between different

spatial scales, products and the local decision making process. The findings met the goals

and objectives outlined for this research and have provided greater insight into local

environmental decision making needs and challenges; as well as, provided specific

information about the case study, Great Lakes environmental indicators and SOE reports

and how they are perceived and used by local decision makers. This chapter will review

the goals and objectives of this research and summarize the limitations and main findings.

Finally this chapter provides recommendations and suggests areas of future research.

7.1 Main Findings by Research Objective This section describes the main findings according to the research objectives set out at the

beginning of this thesis research. This section combines similar general and Great Lakes

environmental indicator and state of the environment report research objectives.

The first objective of this study was to determine if local decision makers and policy

developers were aware of environmental indicators and state of the environment

reporting. This objective also applied to the Great Lakes products. Research findings

revealed that local decision makers are more aware of environmental indicators than SOE

reports. Although all participating organizations are within the Great Lakes basin, it was

evident that the Great Lakes indicators and reporting are not very well known at the local

level.

132

Another research objective was to determine if local decision makers use environmental

indicators and SOE reports, including the Great Lakes products. Numerous literature

sources have examined the use of indicators and SOE reporting at larger spatial scales,

mainly the national and international scale (e.g. de Montmollin & Schellar, 2007;

Jakobsen et al., 2008; OECD, 2003); but there was little mention of indicator and SOE

report use at the local level. The findings from this thesis research, however, indicate that

these products are being used at the local level. An interesting finding, that was not

originally a research objective, was that many local organizations have developed their

own set of indicators and/or state of the environment reports. Not only are the products

used at the local level, but they are also being developed at the local level. Conservation

Authorities were more likely to develop products compared to local governments due to

their environmental mandate, the influence of Conservation Ontario, and the network of

Conservation Authorities that have access to indicator and reporting standard guidelines

and a forum for information exchange and comparison.

It was evident from this research that local decision makers receive and use information

from a variety of sources from different spatial scales. While the Provincial level is useful

for monitoring programs such as the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network, and

for directing local focus with legislations and regulations, other spatial scales served

different purposes to local decision makers. Local and regional level information and data

were seen as the most useful forms of information for local decision making. However,

larger spatial scale information was useful to provide background information, reveal

large scale environmental trends and to provide a context to which local organizations

can compare themselves.

Both the literature and participants identified different functions or uses of indicators and

state of the environment reporting. While both indicators and SOE reports were used at

the local level to inform the decision making process and to increase public awareness

and knowledge; indicators were also used as a form of data collection. SOE reports were

also mainly used to identify environmental successes, progress and emerging areas of

concern. The Great Lakes products, were not used for data collection, but were used

133

largely to identify trends over time, to provide background information for context and

comparability, which corresponds with the role of higher spatial scale information. The

uses of products fell within 5 main themes including: background information and

context, trend identification, comparability and progress tracking, information exchange

and awareness, and informing decision making. All products were considered as one of

many pieces that inform the decision making process. These findings addressed the

research objective to determine how environmental indicators and state of the

environment reports, including the Great Lakes products, are used at the local level and if

they can inform the local decision making process.

Another main research objective was to determine why indicators and state of the

environment reports, including Great Lakes products, were not used if people were aware

of them. These findings revealed the challenges that indicators and state of the

environment reports, and information in general, must overcome in order to be useful for

local decision makers. The findings suggest that the primary deterrents for using

environmental indicators, SOE reports and Great Lakes SOE reports are limited

resources. Main deterrent to use of Great Lakes indicators is inappropriate scale of

information. Overall, there are 6 main areas of concern that impede the use of both

general and Great Lakes products, including lack of resources, lack of correlations with

local issues, lack of action recommendations, lack of awareness of available information

and information access, lack of understandability, inappropriate timing, lack of

adaptability and quantification, and inappropriate spatial scale.

Information is a fundamental component to all organizational activities and the literature

describes many qualities needed for information to be effective for decision makers

(Beardsley, 1992; CA et al., 1994; Choo, 1996; Winograd, 2007). This thesis explored

the information needs of decision makers, and also determined what local organizations

required of indicators and state of the environment reports in order for them to be useful

for local decision making. This addressed the research objective to determine decision

maker’s information needs, as well as highlighted needs specifically for the products.

General information needs according to local decision makers can be categorized in 6

134

main themes that include: appropriate spatial scale, trend information, data needs and

accessibility, correlations and calls to action, literature and understandability, and

comparability.

There are also many literature sources that suggest characteristics or qualities needed by

indicators and SOE reports in order to be effective (e.g. Boulanger, 2007; McElfish &

Varnell, 2006; National Research Council, 2000; OECD, 2003). Environmental

indicators need to be scientifically accurate and credible, standardized, have accessible

data at the local scale, and improve knowledge sharing and capacity building according to

research findings. The qualities needed for both indicators and SOE reports to be useful

for local decision makers were grouped into 6 main themes: quantifiable and

scientifically accurate, understandable and policy relevant, draw correlations, reveal

trends overtime, improve information access and sharing ability, and be adaptable and

flexible.

Another research objective was to determine how information, particularly indicator and

SOE reports, was exchanged between spatial scales and what were the limitations and

needs for this. Results showed that local organizations used information, formally and

informally, from a variety of spatial scales. This topic is a major literature gap and this

research shows that local decision makers use information from a variety of spatial

scales. Interview participants described that information was exchanged mainly through

informal means such as actively searching for information, using websites and online

portals, but mainly through networking, partnerships and committee participation. A

formal method of information exchange used was the use of data sharing agreements

between different partners. There were a number of limitations of information exchange

revealed in this research. The main limitation for information exchange was a lack of

awareness and access to information that is relevant to decision makers. Other primary

concerns for information exchange included lack of resources, lack of understandability,

information overload and scattered information. Although local organizations discussed

using a variety of spatial scales some respondents did note that it was difficult to share

their local information with the Great Lakes products. Conversely, Great Lakes products

135

were viewed as inappropriate scale mainly due to challenges with information exchange,

lack of correlations and understandability. It was evident that there is a disconnect

between science and policy relevant materials if products do not meet decision makers

needs (user utility) for concise, easy to understand, information that informs decision

makers of what actions need to take place or what areas to set their focus. Another

concern for information exchange was a need for a mechanism to ensure better

communication between researchers and decision makers, and to build partnerships and

networks, as well as to have a central location or portal for easy information sharing and

accessibility.

The final research objective was to determine how environmental indicators and state of

the environment reports, including the Great Lakes products, can be improved to better

meet the needs of local decision makers. Similar to information exchange areas of

improvement, the needs and limitations of indicators and SOE reports that were

discovered in this research highlight how these products can be improved to meet local

decision maker needs. Findings show that products need to be understandable and policy

relevant and when they are not, the products are not used. Thus, products need to include

the required qualities outlined by respondents and remediate the limitations presented

here. Products must be scientifically accurate but must be written in non-jargon language

that is concise and easy to understand and interpret by decision makers. Secondly, in

order to meet decision maker needs, products must identify the relationship between

environmental issues and actions that need to be taken to remedy or address an issue or to

identify actions that are the source of environmental pressure. Decision makers need

direction about what to do with the data/information presented by these products.

Products also need to be quantifiable, reveal trends and correlations, be easy to access

and share information, and be adaptable and flexible.

7.2 Research Limitations A limitation to this study was in regards to the recruitment strategy. The contact list was

reliant on the organization providing the appropriate contact information. If organizations

did not provide the most appropriate contact information for this research then they were

136

unlikely to answer the survey as the best representation for their organization. However,

the contacts were asked if they were the most appropriate employee to answer the

questionnaire and if they were not, they were asked to supply the information for the

employee better suited to answer the questionnaire. Another limitation to this study was

that only one representative was surveyed from each organization and may or may not

have represented the organization’s views. Although the participant was supposed to

represent the organization, they did not necessarily have the ability to completely

describe every employee’s knowledge and use of products at their organization. For

instance, organizations are typically composed of different departments and more than

one department may look at environmental issues and monitoring.

The broad interpretation of terms, such as awareness, use and needs was a source for

another research limitation. Local organizations, for example, were asked if they were

aware of each product types and if they use the products. A description was not provided

to give specific outlines of what these terms meant, thus it was open for interpretation.

However, respondents were asked to describe how products were used, thus illustrating

their interpretation of functions/uses of environmental indicators and state of the

environment reports, including the Great Lakes products, at their local organization.

7.3 Recommendations This thesis discovered valuable information about the needs and limitations of local

decision makers, which in turn revealed areas that can be improved to make indicators

and state of the environment reporting more usable for local decision making. There was

an identified need for better communication, information access and exchange. An

information exchange network would be a valuable source for organizations to share

information and improve awareness. Since organizations recognized that they are limited

by resources, and that they can get overloaded with information coming from a variety of

sources, it would be helpful for information to be available in one central location.

Organizations also identified a problem of lack of awareness of what information was

available or what data were being collected; having an information network could help

alleviate this challenge. Organizations also have a need for information that is

137

standardized, adaptable and flexible. It is recommended that an information network

include a standardized based approach to improve comparability of information by users

and for consistency and accuracy. For example, the Environmental Information Exchange

Network by the United States Environmental Protection Agency is working on a

standardized based approach to their network (Environmental Information Exchange

Network, 2009; Greene, 2005).

Research has also shown that an umbrella entity that maintains contact with a group of

organizations can be useful for the local level. If a group of organizations works together

and develops an agreed upon guideline, such as the Conservation Ontario, Watershed

Reporting: Improving Public Access to Information document, this can be useful at the

local level (Conservation Ontario, 2003). Conservation Authorities (CAs) revealed that

they look to each other and Conservation Ontario as a source of information to guide

product development and for information to guide local decision making. Local

governments also refer to Conservation Authority monitoring and reporting. Essentially it

would be useful to have a mechanism or a central organization that can provide a forum

for information exchange between local governments, as this appears to be useful for

CAs.

The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process can serve as an umbrella

group for indicator and SOE report practitioners within the Great Lakes basin. Local

governments were less aware of SOLEC products, so the SOLEC objectives to reach

environmental decision makers, managers, senior administrators, and the public (Bertram

et al., 2005) are not being met. It is recommended that if Environment Canada and the

United States Environmental Protection Agency want to share Great Lakes indicator and

SOE report information with local practitioners and decision makers, there needs to be

increased awareness about SOLEC and its products. Since local organizations are limited

by resources and do not have the time to actively search out information, it is important

that Great Lakes products are more accessible and understandable. Also, promotion of

SOLEC information by key organizations or networks such as Conservation Ontario, can

lead to increased awareness among smaller spatial scale users. For example, the Town of

138

Ajax suggested that if SOLEC were promoted by the Canadian Planning Institute and the

Ontario Professional Planners Institute and its findings more widely distributed, it might

result in increased awareness and possible use of SOLEC products.

There is also a demand for standardized methods and guidelines to help inform

stakeholders on how to use information so it best suits their needs. For example, SOLEC

should release a concise, understandable how-to document that informs stakeholders on

how to maximize the potential of SOLEC products for their spatial scale. Winograd

(2007) suggests that users be informed about how to use information. It would be useful

to have a standard guideline, such as the Conservation Ontario guidelines, for

organizations within the Great Lakes basin to use to improve the standardization and

comparability of indicators and SOE reports within the Great Lakes basin. Great Lakes

basin products are an information tool that can be used at the local level for trend

identification, background information and context, and for comparability between or

amongst organizations. It is important that development of indicators and SOE reports

consider the needs and limitations of decision makers so that products can be tailored to

meet these needs. A primary concern is the need and lack of correlations and action

recommendations. The Great Lakes products could be more ‘usable’ by local

organizations if it clearly illustrated cause-effect relationships between conditions and

pressures and links between local level activities and Great Lakes conditions and vice

versa. It is important that information and products, especially the Great Lakes products,

suggest or highlight actions, responses and performance measures that can be taken to

remedy pressures on the ecosystem.

The final recommendation is that products and information need to bridge the gap

between science and policy. As described many times throughout this research,

information has to be produced in a format that meets audience needs. Indicators and

state of the environment reports need to be understandable, concise, reveal trend

information over time, be adaptable and be flexible to changes over time, and highlight

correlations and actions needed to affect environmental pressures.

139

7.4 Looking Ahead and Taking Stock This research was a broad, evaluative review on the use of environmental indicators and

state of the environment reports. Areas of future work involve more in depth analysis of

specific organizations to see if they support the broad overview that this study has

covered. Also, it is recommended that further research be conducted with other local

product users including local governments with populations fewer than 50,000 people

and non-governmental organizations to determine the differences between smaller and

larger cities and towns in Ontario.

It was evident that information exchange and the use of higher spatial scale indicators and

SOE reports at the local level is an important topic that has had little research conducted

on. It is recommended that this area is expanded upon to better bridge the gap between

spatial scales. It was of interest to gain the perspective, including needs and limitations to

practitioners and decision makers at higher scales to see how local level information is

perceived, used or of any importance. It could be useful to have information exchange in

both directions – from smaller to higher spatial scales and vice versa – as it can keep

people informed about what research and initiatives are being conducted and used.

This research provided valuable baseline information to raise awareness about indicator

and state of the environment reporting at the local level by environmental decision

makers. The findings of this research will prove beneficial to indicator and SOE report

practitioners and developers at all spatial scales so they can determine what to avoid and

what to include so products are more applicable and useful to local level decision makers.

As this research pointed out, it is not enough for indicators and reports to be only

scientifically accurate; these products need to meet the information needs of decision

makers by being understandable, accessible, reveal trends, be adaptable and flexible,

allow for information sharing and to identify relationships, correlations and actions. It

was evident that indicators and state of the environment reports play a role at all spatial

scale levels and this information can move beyond monitoring and reporting and can

influence policy development to employ a response or action to help address

environmental issues or concerns.

140

References Alreck, P.L. & Settle, R.B. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook Third Edition. New

York, New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Andrieu, N. (2007). Design of sustainability indicators of the production systems in

Brazilian semi-arid area by the analysis of biomass flows. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10 (1/2), 106-121.

Azzone, G., Brophy, M., Noci, G., Welford, R., & Young, W. (1997). A stakeholders’

view of environmental reporting. Long Range Planning, 30 (5), 699-709. Beardsley, D.P. (1992). Using Environmental Indicators for Policy Regulatory Decisions.

In D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt, & V.J. McDonald (Eds.), Ecological Indicators (Vol. 1, pp. 61-64). Essex, England: Elsevier Sceince Publishers Ltd.

Bertram, P., Forst, C., & Horvatin, P. (2005). Developing Indicators of Ecosystem

Health. In T. Edsall & M. Munawar (Eds.), State of Lake Michigan: Ecology Health and Management (pp. 505-519). Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/solec/peer_reviewed/dev_implement_indicators.pdf

Bertram, P., Stadler-Salt, N., Horvatin, P., & Shear, H. (2003). Binational Assessment of

the Great Lakes: SOLEC Partnerships. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 27-33.

Besleme, K., Maser, E., & Silverstein, J. (1999). A Community Indicators Case Study:

Addressing the Quality of Life in Two Communities. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from Redefining Progress, San Francisco, California: http://www.rprogress.org/publications/1999/CI_CaseStudy1.pdf

Bond, W., O'Farrell, D., Ironside, G., Buckland, B., & Smith, R. (2005). Current Status,

Trends, and Perceptions regarding Environmental Indicators and State of the Environment Reporting in Canada. Background paper to an Environmental Indicators and State of the Environment Reporting Strategy, 2004–2009, Environment Canada. Knowledge Integration Strategies Division, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/documents/bg_paper1_e.cfm

Boulanger, P.M. (2007). Political uses of social indicators: overview and application to

sustainable development indicators. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10 (1/2), 14-32.

Boulanger, P.M., & Bréchet, T. (2005). Models for policy-making in sustainable

development: the state of the art and perspectives for research. Ecological Economics, 55, 337-350.

http://www.epa.gov/solec/peer_reviewed/dev_implement_indicators.pdf�

http://www.rprogress.org/publications/1999/CI_CaseStudy1.pdf�

http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/documents/bg_paper1_e.cfm�

141

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. (2007). Environmental Trends in British Columbia: 2007. State of the Environment Reporting. Victoria, B.C. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/et07/

Brugmann, J. (1997). Is there a method in our measurement? The use of indicators in

local sustainable development planning. Local Environment, 2 (1), 59-72. Brunklaus, B., Malmqvist, T., & Baumann, H. (2009). Managing Stakeholders or the

Environment? The Challenge of Relating Indicators in Practice. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 27-37.

Campbell, M., & Maclaren, V. (1995). Municipal State of the Environment Reporting in

Canada: Current Status and Future Needs. Ottawa: Occasional Paper Series No. 6, State of the Environment Reporting, Environment Canada.

Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CA), Canadian Standards Association,

Financial Executives Institute Canada, & International Institute for Sustainable Development. (1994). Reporting on Environmental Performance. Toronto, Ontario: The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Cave, K. (2004). First Nation and Tribal Environment Projects, Programs, and

Indicators: Identification of Great Lakes Ecosystem Stress and Response Indicators. Unpublished State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Report prepared for Environment Canada.

Choo, C.W. (1996). The knowing organization: how organizations use information to

construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions. International Journal of Information Management, 16 (5), 329-340.

Cobb, C.W., & Rixford, C. (1998). Lessons Learned from the History of Social

Indicators. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from Redefining Progress, San Francisco, California: http://www.rprogress.org/publications/1998/SocIndHist.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia. (1994). State of the Environment Reporting: Framework for

Australia. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories. Retrieved January 17, 2009, from http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/publications/framework.html

Conservation Ontario. (2003). Watershed Reporting: Improving Public Access to

Information. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/pdf/reports/PHASE%20I/watershed_reporting.pdf

Conservation Ontario. (2005a). Conservation Authorities of Ontario: Mandate. Retrieved

May 6, 2008, from http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/about/mandate.html

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/et07/�

http://www.rprogress.org/publications/1998/SocIndHist.pdf�

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/publications/framework.html�

http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/pdf/reports/PHASE I/watershed_reporting.pdf�

http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/pdf/reports/PHASE I/watershed_reporting.pdf�

http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/about/mandate.html�

142

Conservation Ontario. (2005b). Proposal for a Federally Supported Healthy Great Lakes Program. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/pdf/HGLakes_Proposal.pdf

Conservation Ontario. (2005c). The Conservation Ontario Story. Retrieved May 6, 2008,

from http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/about/ontario_story.html Conservation Ontario. (2009). Great Lakes. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from Protect

Water: http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/planning_regulations/healthy_great_lakes.html

Costanza, R., Mageau, M., Norton, B., & Patten, B.C. (1998). Chapter 16: Predictors of

Ecosystem Health. In D. Rapport, R. Costanza, P.R. Epstein, C. Gaudet, & R. Levins (Eds.), Ecosystem Health (pp. 240-250). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Blackwell Science Inc.

Dale, V.H., & Beyeler, S.C. (2001). Challenges in the development and use of ecological

indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1, 3-10. de Montmollin, A., & Scheller, A. (2007). MONET indicator system: the Swiss road to

measuring sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10 (1/2), 61-72.

Dennis, A.R. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: you can

lead a group to information, but you can’t make it think. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 20 (4), 433-457.

Donnelly, A., Jones, M., O’Mahony, T., & Byrne, G. (2007). Selecting environmental

indicator for use in strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 161-175.

Einspruch, E.L. (2005). An Introductory Guide to SPSS for Windows Second Edition.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc. Environment Canada. (1991). A State of the Environment Report: A Report on Canada’s

Progress Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators. Indicators Task Force, State of the Environment Reporting, SOE Report No. 91-1. Published by Authority of the Minister of the Environment, Printing: National Printers Inc.: Ottawa, ON. ISNB 0-662-18394-0, ISSN 0843-6193

Environment Canada. (2004). How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding

Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern, Second Edition. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/pdf/habitatframework-e.pdf

http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/pdf/HGLakes_Proposal.pdf�

http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/pdf/HGLakes_Proposal.pdf�

http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/about/ontario_story.html�

http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/planning_regulations/healthy_great_lakes.html�

http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/planning_regulations/healthy_great_lakes.html�

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/pdf/habitatframework-e.pdf�

143

Environment Canada. (2005). Environmental Indicators. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from Glossary of Terms: http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Glossary.cfm?txtname=E_indicators

Environment Canada & United States Environmental Protection Agency (EC & USEPA).

(n.d.). State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). Retrieved December 3, 2008, from http://binational.net/solec/intro_e.html


(2000). The ABC’s of Indicators. Retrieved January 31, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/solec/solec_2000/ABCs_of_Indicators.pdf


(2005). State of the Great Lakes 2005. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from http://binational.net/solec/English/SOLEC%202004/Tagged%20PDFs/SOGL%202005%20Report/English%20Version/Complete%20Report.pdf


(2007a). State of the Great Lakes 2007. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/sogl2007/SOGL2007.pdf


(2007b). State of the Great Lakes 2007 Highlights. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://binational.net/solec/English/sogl2007highlights_en.pdf

Environmental Information Exchange Network. (2009). The Exchange Network.

Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://www.exchangenetwork.net/index.htm Fairweather, P.G. (1999). State of environment indicators of ‘river health’: exploring the

metaphor. Freshwater Biology, 41, 211-220. Fowler, F.J.J. (2002). Survey Research Methods Third Addition. Thousands Oaks,

California: Sage Publications Inc. Government of Canada. (2002). Sustainable Development: A Canadian Perspective.

Canada: National Library of Canada, ISBN 0-662-32582-6. Greene, M.E. (2005). Expanding the Environmental Information Exchange Network.

Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 25 (4), 44-46. Hahn, R.W. (1989). A Primer on Environmental Policy Design. Chur, Switzerland:

Harwood Academic Publishers GmbH.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Glossary.cfm?txtname=E_indicators�

http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Glossary.cfm?txtname=E_indicators�

http://binational.net/solec/intro_e.html�

http://www.epa.gov/solec/solec_2000/ABCs_of_Indicators.pdf�

http://binational.net/solec/English/SOLEC 2004/Tagged PDFs/SOGL 2005 Report/English Version/Complete Report.pdf�

http://binational.net/solec/English/SOLEC 2004/Tagged PDFs/SOGL 2005 Report/English Version/Complete Report.pdf�

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/sogl2007/SOGL2007.pdf�

http://binational.net/solec/English/sogl2007highlights_en.pdf�

http://www.exchangenetwork.net/index.htm�

144

Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., & Woodward, R. (1995). Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: World Resource Institute.

Heal, G., & Kriström, B. (2007). Chapter 10: Distribution, sustainability and

environmental policy. In G. Atkinson, S. Dietz, & E. Neumayer (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Development (pp. 155-170).

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (1995). Sustainable

Development Indicators…Selected Sources. In Information Centre Hot Topics. Available [Online] http://www.iisd.org/IC/INFO/ss9504.htm, Retrieved January 14, 2009.

Jakobsen, S., Draggon, S., & Stuart, R. (2008). Environmental Indicators. Retrieved

January 14, 2009, from The Encyclopedia of Earth: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_indicators

Jones, A., Duck, R., Reed, R., & Weyers, J. (2000). Practical Skills in Environmental

Science. Essex, England: Prentice Hall. Jorgensen, S.E. (2005). Introduction. In S.E. Jorgensen, R. Costanza, & F.L. Xu (Eds.),

Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health (pp. 1-4). New York, New York: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Le Fur, J. (2007). Communicating scientific knowledge to actors: how do indicators

respond to stakes in relation to the development of the fishery sector in the Guinea Republic? International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10 (1/2), 73-92.

Levett, R. (1997). Tools, techniques and processes for municipal environmental

management. Local Environment, 2 (2), 189-202. Maclaren, V.W. (1996). Urban Sustainability Reporting. American Planning Association.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 62 (2), 184-202. McElfish, J.M. Jr., & Varnell, L.M. (2006). Designing Environmental Indicator Systems

for Public Decisions. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 31, 101-139. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.asc.psu.edu/public/pubs/Articles/Final%20McElfish%20article.rev.pdf

Moldan, B., Billharz, S., & Matravers, R. (1997). Sustainability Indicators: A Report on

the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) 58, West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

http://www.iisd.org/IC/INFO/ss9504.htm�

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_indicators�

http://www.asc.psu.edu/public/pubs/Articles/Final McElfish article.rev.pdf�

http://www.asc.psu.edu/public/pubs/Articles/Final McElfish article.rev.pdf�

145

National Research Council. (2000). Ecological Indicators for the Nation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Natural Resources Canada. (2003). Great Lakes Basin. Retrieved September 11, 2009,

from The Atlas of Canada: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/english/maps/reference/provincesterritories/gr_lks/referencemap_image_view

Niemeijer, D., & de Groot, R.S. (2008). A conceptual framework for selecting

environmental indicator sets. Ecological Indicators, 8, 14-25. North Sydney Council. (n.d.). State of the Environment Report July 1999-June 2000.

Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/resources/documents/00_ns_soe.pdf

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). OECD

Environmental Indicators Development, Measurement and Use Reference Paper. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf

Parfitt, J. (2005). Chapter 6: Questionnaire Design and Sampling. In R. Flowerdew & D.

Martin (Eds.), Methods in Human Geography A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project Second Edition (pp. 78-109). London, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.

Pinter, L., Hardi, P., & Bartelmus, P. (2005). Sustainable Development Indicators

Proposals for a Way Forward. Discussion paper prepared for the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development (UN-DSD). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/measure_indicators_sd_way_forward.pdf

Rapport, D. (1998). Chapter 2: Defining Ecosystem Health. In (D. Rapport, R. Costanza,

P.R. Epstein, C. Gaudet, & R. Levins (Eds.), Ecosystem Health (pp. 18-33). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Blackwell Science Inc.

Rapport, D.J. (1992). Evolution of Indicators of Ecosystem Health. In D.H. McKenzie,

D.E. Hyatt, & V.J. McDonald (Eds.), Ecological Indicators (Vol. 1, pp. 121-134). Essex, England: Elsevier Sceince Publishers Ltd.

Rapport, D.J., & Singh, A. (2006). An EcoHealth-based framework for State of the

Environment Reporting. Ecological Indicators, 6, 409-428. Rey-Valette, H., Damart, S., & Roussel, S. (2007a). A multicriteria participation-based

methodology for selecting sustainable development indicators: an incentive tool for concerted decision making beyond the diagnosis framework. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10 (1/2), 122-138.

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/english/maps/reference/provincesterritories/gr_lks/referencemap_image_view�

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/english/maps/reference/provincesterritories/gr_lks/referencemap_image_view�

http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/resources/documents/00_ns_soe.pdf�

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf�

http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/measure_indicators_sd_way_forward.pdf�

146

Rey-Valette, H., Laloë, F., & Le Fur, J. (2007b). Introduction to the key issue concerning the use of sustainable development indicators. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10 (1/2), 4-13.

Rickard, L., Jesinghaus, J., Amann, C., Glaser, G., Hall, S., Cheatle, M., Le Kama, A.A.,

Lippert, E., McGlade, J., Ruffing, K., & Zaccai, E. (2007). Chapter 4: Ensuring Policy Relevance. In T. Hák, B. Moldan, & A.L. Dahl (Eds.), Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment (pp. 65-79). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Robinson, J., Francis, G., Legge, R., & Lerner,S. (1990). Defining a sustainable society:

values, principles and definitions. Alternatives, 17 (2), 36-46. Romstad, E. (1999). Theoretical considerations in the development of environmental

indicators. In F. Brouwer, & B. Crabtree (Eds.), Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy (pp. 13-24). Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB International.

Rose, D. & Sullivan, O. (1993). Introducing Data Analysis for Social Scientists.

Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. Ruitenbeek, H.J. (1991). The Role of Indicators in the Decision Process. In Canadian

Environmental Advisory Council, Economic, Ecological and Decision Theories: Indicators of Ecological Sustainability (pp. 59-90). Ottawa: Canadian Environmental Advisory Council (CEAC).

Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International

Journal of Services Sciences, 1 (1), 83-98. Sharp, E. (1998). Local State of the Environment Reporting: Lessons from Experience in

Britain and Canada. Planning Practice and Research, 13 (1), 81-89. Shear, H., Stadler-Salt, N., Bertram, P., & Horvatin, P. (2003). The development and

implementation of indicators of ecosystem health in the Great Lakes basin. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88, 119-152.

Sirkin, R.M. (1995). Statistics for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications Inc. SPSS Statistics 17.0 (for Windows), Release 17.0.0. (2008). Chicago: SPSS Inc. Statistics Canada. (2007). Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) and Census Agglomeration

(CA). Retrieved February 2, 2009, from 2006 Census Dictionary: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/reference/dictionary/geo009.cfm

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/reference/dictionary/geo009.cfm�

147

Statistics Canada. (2008). Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, and census subdivisions (municipalities), 2006 and 2001 censuses – 100% data: Ontario. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-550/Index.cfm?TPL=P1C&Page=RETR&LANG=Eng&T=302&SR=1&S=3&O=D&RPP=9999&PR=35&CMA=0

Stein, A., Riley, J., & Halberg, N. (2001). Issues of scale for environmental indicators.

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 87, 215-232. Survey Monkey. (2008). The Simple Way to Create Surveys. Retrieved May 7, 2008,

from http://www.surveymonkey.com/ Turnhout, E., Hisschemöller, M., & Eijsackers, H. (2007). Ecological indicators: between

the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators, 7, 215-228. United Nations. (2001). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and

Methodologies, 2nd Edition. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/indisd-mg2001.pdf

United Nations. (2007). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and

Methodologies, 3rd Edition. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2000). Evaluation Guidelines

for Ecological Indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, 20460, EPA/620/R-99/005, Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecol_ind.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2008). State of the Lakes

Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). Retrieved December 3, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/solec/.

Valentine, G. (2005). Chapter 7: Tell me about…: using interviews as a research

methodology. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in Human Geography A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project Second Edition (pp. 78-109). London, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.

Van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., Garcia

Cidad, V., Hermy, M., Mathijs, E., Muys, B., Reijnders, J., Sauvenier, X., Valckx, J., Vanclooster, M., Van der Veken, B., Wauters, E., & Peeters, A. (2007). SAFE – A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 120 (2-4), 229-242.

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-550/Index.cfm?TPL=P1C&Page=RETR&LANG=Eng&T=302&SR=1&S=3&O=D&RPP=9999&PR=35&CMA=0�



http://www.surveymonkey.com/�

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/indisd-mg2001.pdf�

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/guidelines.pdf�

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecol_ind.pdf�

http://www.epa.gov/solec/�

148

Whitford, W.G. (1998). Chapter 12: Validation of Indicators. In D. Rapport, R. Costanza, P.R. Epstein, C. Gaudet, & R. Levins (Eds.), Ecosystem Health (pp. 205-209). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Blackwell Science Inc.

Winograd, M. (2007). Sustainability and vulnerability indicators for decision making:

lessons learned from Honduras. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10 (1/2), 93-105.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common

Future. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press. Yockey, R.D. (2008). SPSS Demystified: A step-by-step guide to successful data analysis.

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Zalidis, G.C., Tsiafouli, M.A., Takavakoglou, V., Bilas, G., & Misopolinos, N. (2004).

Selecting agri-environmental indicators to facilitate monitoring and assessment of EU agri-environmental measures effectiveness. Journal of Environmental Management, 70, 315-321.

149

Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire PAGE 1: AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE I have read the information provided in the recruitment email about the study being conducted by Sarah Da Silva for her Master’s of Arts thesis for the Department of Geography, Environmental Studies Collaborative Program at the University of Toronto. I also have had the opportunity to ask the researcher any questions related to this study, to receive adequate answers to my questions, and any further information I wanted. I am aware that I may withdraw from the survey without penalty at any time by clicking the “exit this survey” link on the right hand corner or by simply closing the browser window. After the survey has been completed, I can withdraw from the study by simply contacting the researcher, Sarah Da Silva, and inform her of my decision. If at the time of withdrawal the project has entered the stages of data analysis, the researcher will attempt, as much as possible, to remove my data from the research but after that the material that has been provided cannot be withdrawn. I am aware that excerpts from the survey may be included in the Master’s thesis and/or publications to come from this research, with the understanding that the quotations will be anonymous, unless I request to be identified. This project has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance through, the Office of Research Ethics at the University of Toronto. I understand that if I have any concerns or comments resulting from my participation in this study, I may contact the Office of Research Ethics at [phone number] or [email address]. 1. With complete knowledge of all foregoing, I agree to participate in this survey. (Please select one) Yes No If yes, please proceed to the following question. If no, please exit the survey by clicking the "exit this survey" link on the right hand corner or simply close the internet browser window. 2. I agree to the use of anonymous quotations in any thesis or publication that comes from this research. (Please select one) Yes No 3. I want my name, employee position and employer to be recorded and presented in any thesis or publication that comes from this research. (Please select one) Yes No

150

You will be emailed a copy of this consent form to keep for your records. If you have any further questions please contact me, Sarah Da Silva, at [email address] or the research supervisor Professor Harvey Shear at [email address]. Thank you! (proceed to page 2) PAGE 2: Instructions Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your participation and insight are greatly appreciated. The survey is composed of four major components: general environmental policy development, planning and decision-making questions, environmental indicator questions, state of the environment reporting questions, and State of the Great Lakes indicators and report questions. The survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. By filling out the survey you will receive a summary of the findings of this research, as well as the option to obtain the full report. Click the Next button to continue to the next page. Click the Previous button to return to the previous page. Click the Exit the Survey button if you need to exit the survey. Click the Submit button to submit your survey. (proceed to page 3) PAGE 3: General Background In what organization are you employed? (Please fill out the one that applies) A. A Conservation Authority Please specify which Conservation Authority you work for: _____________ B. A local government Please specify which city/town government you work for: _______________ C. Other Please specify: ___________________ What is your job title? ________________________________ PAGE 4: Local or Watershed Level Environmental Policy Development, Planning and Decision-Making This section of the survey is about your organization’s general environmental policy development and decision-making, including planning.

151

What type of information does your organization use to inform and develop environmental policy, planning and decision-making? (Please select all that apply)

A. Environmental impact assessments B. Locally generated monitoring data C. Regionally generated monitoring data D. Provincially generated monitoring data E. Nationally generated monitoring data F. Internationally generated monitoring data G. Scientific literature H. Other (please specify) __________________________

How important is (or would be) environmental data, on a Great Lakes basin scale, to your local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making? (Please select one)

A. Very important B. Important C. Average D. Slightly important E. Not important

How important is (or would be) state of the environment trend information over time, on a Great Lakes basin scale, to your local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making? (Please select one)

A. Very important B. Important C. Average D. Slightly important E. Not important

Please indicate the degree that each spatial scale of information is (or would be) useful to your organization to inform local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making? Not useful Slightly

useful Useful Very Useful N/A

International level

National level

Provincial level

Regional level

Local or community level

152

Please use the space provided below to provide your environmental information needs to produce effective environmental policies, planning and decision-making at the local or watershed level scale. ______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ (proceed to page 5) PAGE 5: Environmental Indicators (Environmental indicator general background) This section of the survey is about environmental indicator awareness and uses. An indicator is a signal or piece of evidence that shows the state of something being measured. Environmental indicators provide a snapshot on a particular environmental component or condition and have been used to diagnose the health of ecosystems and to provide a tool to monitor environmental change over time. This snapshot can provide information about the state of an ecosystem, including socio-economic issues, human health conditions and environmental components, by examining components of the system. For this survey, environmental indicators also include sustainability indicators. Are you aware of environmental indicators? (Please select one) Yes (proceed to page 6) No (page 12) PAGE 6: Environmental Indicators (Environmental Indicator General Background Continued) Does your organization use environmental indicators? (Please select one) Yes (page 8) No (proceed to page 7) PAGE 7: Environmental Indicators (No Environmental Indicator Use) Why does your organization not use environmental indicators? (Please select all that apply)

A. Inappropriate scale of information B. Lack of funding C. High costs D. Limited staff resources E. Lack of access to data F. No available data G. No long-term environmental monitoring programs in place H. Lack of environmental indicator standardization I. Lack of comparability

153

J. Other (please specify) ________________________________________ Rate how important the following indicator characteristics would be for conducting local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and environmental decision-making for your organization. (Please rank the features from 1 to 11, where 11 is the most important feature and 1 the least important. The rank of each characteristic must be unique. Each ranking can only be used once.)

A. Flexibility and adaptability [ ] B. Scientifically accurate and credible [ ] C. Standardized data collection and monitoring over time [ ] D. Knowledge sharing and capacity building at all levels (international, national, provincial,

regional and local) [ ] E. Accessibility of data at the local scale [ ] F. Accessibility of data at the regional scale [ ] G. Accessibility of data at the provincial scale [ ] H. Accessibility of data at the national scale [ ] I. Accessibility of data at the international scale [ ] J. Scheduled reporting on the state of the environment [ ] K. Other [ ]

If you ranked other (please specify) ______________________________ If your organization were to develop and use environmental indicators at the local or watershed level scale, for what purposes would the indicators be used? (Please select all that apply)

A. To identify environmental trends for a specific time and space B. To identify environmental successes and/or areas in need of improvement over time C. To inform the local or watershed level environmental policy development and decision-

making process D. To serve as a model to develop and adopt environmental indicators for your city/town or

Conservation Authority E. For State of the Environment Reporting F. For data collection G. For long-term monitoring H. For knowledge sharing and capacity building I. For public awareness and knowledge J. For planning (including budget) K. Other (please specify) ____________________________________

(routed to page 12) PAGE 8: Environmental Indicators (Environmental Indicator Use) Has your organization created a set of environmental indicators specific to your city/town or Conservation Authority? (Please select one) Yes (proceed to page 9) No (page 10)

154

PAGE 9: Environmental Indicators (Locally Developed Environmental Indicators) Were the environmental indicators developed by your organization based on another set of environmental indicators? (Please select one) Yes No If no, continue to the next question. If yes, please list the environmental indicator sources used to guide your local or watershed level environmental indicator development for your city/town or Conservation Authority. ________________________________________________________________ How often are your organization’s environmental indicators monitored? (Please select one)

A. More than once a year B. Once a year C. Every one to two years D. Every three to five years E. Every six or more years F. They are not regularly monitored

Are the environmental indicators publicly reported on? (Please select one) Yes No If no, continue to the next question. If yes, please specify how often the environmental indicators are reported on? (Please select one)

A. More than once a year B. Once a year C. Every one to two years D. Every three to five years E. Every six or more years

Who uses these local or watershed level environmental indicators that were developed by your organization, specifically for your city/town or Conservation Authority? (Please select all that apply)

A. Your organization B. The public C. Academics D. The Provincial government E. The Federal government F. Municipal governments G. Conservation Authorities H. Other (please specify) ________________________________

155

How are these local or watershed level environmental indicators that were developed by your organization, specifically for your city/town or Conservation Authority, used by your organization? (Please select all that apply)




Does your organization use other environmental indicators that were not developed by your organization specifically for your city/town or Conservation Authority? (Please select one) Yes No If no, please proceed to the next page by clicking the “next” button. If yes, what other environmental indicators does your organization use? Please use the space provided below to list the environmental indicator sources that are used by your organization. ________________________________________________________ (routed to page 11) PAGE 10: Environmental Indicators (Organizations without Their Own Set of Environmental Indicators) What environmental indicator sources does your organization use? Please use the space provided below to list the sources of the environmental indicators that are used by your organization. _______________________________________________________ What are the environmental indicators used for in your organization? (Please select all that apply)



Conservation Authority E. For State of the Environment Reporting F. For data collection

156

G. For long-term monitoring H. For knowledge sharing and capacity building I. For public awareness and knowledge J. For planning (including budget) K. Other (please specify) ____________________________________

(proceed to page 11) PAGE 11: Environmental Indicators (Environmental Indicator Scale and Use for Policy) What scale(s) of environmental indicators are used by your organization? (Please select all that apply)

A. International level indicators B. National level indicators C. Provincial level indicators D. Regional level indicators E. Local level indicators F. Other (please specify) ___________________________________

Please indicate the degree that each indicator spatial scale is useful to your organization to inform local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making? Not useful Slightly

useful Useful Very

Useful N/A

International level indicators

National level indicators

Provincial level indicators

Regional level indicators

Local level indicators

For your organization, rate the following characteristics of indicators for conducting environmental policy development, planning and decision-making. (Please rank the features from 1 to 11 where, 11 is the most important feature and 1 the least important. The rank of each characteristic must be unique. Each ranking can only be used once.)

157

A. Flexibility and adaptability [ ] B. Scientifically accurate and credible [ ] C. Standardized data collection and monitoring over time [ ] D. Knowledge sharing and capacity building at all levels (international, national, provincial,

regional and local) [ ] E. Accessibility of data at the local scale [ ] F. Accessibility of data at the regional scale [ ] G. Accessibility of data at the provincial scale [ ] H. Accessibility of data at the national scale [ ] I. Accessibility of data at the international scale [ ] J. Scheduled reporting on the state of the environment [ ] K. Other [ ]

If you ranked other (please specify) __________________________________ (proceed to page 12) PAGE 12: State of the Environment Reporting (State of the Environment Reporting Awareness) This section of the survey is about state of the environment reporting awareness and uses. State of the environment reports are an assessment of environmental conditions, pressures and responses to those environmental pressures. These reports provide a venue to relay information regarding environmental conditions, environmental trends and progress towards specific sustainability and/or environmental goals. Are you aware of state of the environment reporting? (Please select one) Yes (proceed to page 13) No (page 19) PAGE 13: State of the Environment Reporting (State of the Environment Reporting General Background Continued) Does your organization use state of the environment reports? (Please select one) Yes (page 15) No (proceed to page 14) PAGE 14: State of the Environment Reporting (No State of the Environment Report Use) Why does your organization not use state of the environment reports? (Please select all that apply)

A. Inappropriate scale of information B. Lack of funding C. High costs D. Limited staff resources E. Lack of access to data

158

F. No available data G. No long-term environmental monitoring programs in place H. Lack of state of the environment reporting standardization I. Lack of comparability J. Little or no demand for the reports K. Other (please specify) ________________________________________

If your organization were to develop and use state of the environment reports at the local or watershed level scale, for what purposes would the state of the environment reports be used? (Please select all that apply)


making process D. To serve as a model to develop and adopt state of the environment reports for your

city/town or Conservation Authority E. For environmental indicator reporting F. For data collection G. For long-term monitoring H. For knowledge sharing and capacity building I. For public awareness and knowledge J. For planning (including budget) K. Other (please specify) _____________________________________

(routed to page 19) PAGE 15: State of the Environment Reporting (State of the Environment Report Use) Has your organization created state of the environment reports specific to your city/town or Conservation Authority? (Please select one) Yes (proceed to page 16) No (page 17) PAGE 16: State of the Environment Reporting (Locally Developed State of the Environment Reporting) Were the state of the environment (SOE) reports developed by your organization based on another model of SOE reports? (Please select one) Yes No If no, continue to the next question. If yes, please list the state of the environment report sources used to guide your local or watershed level state of the environment reporting development for your city/town or Conservation Authority. ________________________________________________________________

159

How often does your organization publicly report on the state of the environment? (Please select one)

A. More than once a year B. Once a year C. Every one to two years D. Every three to five years E. Every six or more years F. The state of the environment is not regularly reported

Who uses the local or watershed level state of the environment reports that were developed by your organization, specifically for your city/town or Conservation Authority? (Please select all that apply)

A. Your organization B. The public C. Academics D. The Provincial government E. The Federal government F. Municipal governments G. Conservation Authorities H. Other (please specify) ________________________________

How are these state of the environment reports that were developed by your organization, specifically for your city/town or Conservation Authority, used by your organization? (Please select all that apply)




Does your organization use other state of the environment reports that were not developed by your organization specifically for your city/town or Conservation Authority? (Please select one) Yes No If no, please proceed to the next page by clicking the “next” button.

160

If yes, what other state of the environment reports does your organization use? Please use the space provided below to list the state of the environment report sources that are used by your organization. _______________________________________________________ (routed to page 18) PAGE 17: State of the Environment Reporting (Locally Used State of the Environment Reporting) What state of the environment reports does your organization use? Please use the space provided below to list the sources of the state of the environment reports that are used by your organization. _______________________________________________________ What are the state of the environment reports used for in your organization? (Please select all that apply)




(proceed to page 18) PAGE 18: State of the Environment Reporting (State of the Environment Reporting Scale and Use for Policy Development) What spatial scale(s) of state of the environment (SOE) reports are used by your organization? (Please select all that apply)

A. International level SOE reports B. National level SOE reports C. Provincial level SOE reports D. Regional level SOE reports E. Local level SOE reports F. other (please specify) ___________________________________

161

Please indicate the degree that each state of the environment (SOE) report scale is useful to your organization for providing valuable information for local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making? Not useful Slightly

useful Useful Very Useful N/A

International level SOE reports

National level SOE reports

Provincial level SOE reports

Regional level SOE reports

Local level SOE reports

(proceed to page 19) PAGE 19: Great Lakes Indicators and State of the Great Lakes Reports Developed Through SOLEC (Awareness of Indicators Developed Through SOLEC) This section of the survey is about the Great Lakes indicators and State of the Great Lakes reports developed by Environment Canada and the United States Protection Agency. These indicators and reports are developed and presented at the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) every two years. The survey will first address indicators and then State of the Great Lakes reporting. Are you aware of the Great Lakes indicators developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)? (Please select one) Yes (proceed to page 20) No (page 24) PAGE 20: Great Lakes Indicators (State of the Great Lakes or SOLEC Indicators Awareness Continued) How did you initially become aware of the Great Lakes indicators? (Please select all that apply)

A. Mailing list B. Colleague or friend C. Browsing the internet D. A work related event

162

E. Other (please specify) ___________________________________ (proceed to page 21) PAGE 21: Great Lakes Indicators (State of the Great Lakes or SOLEC Indicators General Background) Does your organization use the Great Lakes indicators developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)? (Please select one) Yes (page 23) No (proceed to page 22) PAGE 22: Great Lakes Indicators (No State of the Great Lakes or SOLEC Indicator Use) Why does your organization not use the Great Lakes indicators developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)? (Please select all that apply)

A. Inappropriate scale of information B. Lack of funding C. High costs D. Limited staff resources E. Lack of accessibility of data developed through SOLEC process F. Inappropriate timeliness of data collection G. Inappropriate timeliness of indicator reporting H. Lack of environmental indicator standardization I. Lack of comparability J. Use our own indicators K. Other (please specify) ________________________________________

What would be the top 5 advantages of the Great Lakes indicators to your organization? (Please number the top five advantages from the list below, where five indicates the greatest advantage and one is less of a advantage)



Conservation Authority E. For State of the Environment Reporting F. For data collection G. For long-term monitoring H. For knowledge sharing and capacity building I. For public awareness and knowledge J. For planning (including budget) K. Other

If you ranked other (please specify) ____________________________________

163

What would be the top 5 disadvantages of the Great Lakes indicators to your organization? (Please number the top five disadvantages from the list below, where five indicates the greatest disadvantage and one is less of a disadvantage)

A. Inappropriate scale of information B. Lack of funding C. High costs D. Limited staff resources E. Lack of accessibility of data developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem

Conference (SOLEC) process F. Inappropriate timeliness of data collection G. Inappropriate timeliness of indicator reporting H. Lack of environmental indicator standardization I. Lack of comparability J. Other

If you ranked other (please specify) _______________________________________ Please use the space provided below to identify how the Great Lakes indicators could inform local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making. _______________________________________________________ Please use the space provided below to identify how the Great Lakes indicators can be improved to better serve the needs of local or watershed level environmental policy developers, planners and decision-makers. _______________________________________________________ (routed to page 24) PAGE 23: Great Lakes Indicators and State of the Great Lakes Reports Developed Through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) (State of the Great Lakes or SOLEC Indicator Use) What are the Great Lakes indicators used for in your organization? (Please select all that apply)




164

Please indicate the usefulness of each Great Lakes indicator category to your organization. Not useful Slightly

useful Useful Very

Useful N/A

Contamination Biotic communities Invasive species Coastal zones & aquatic habitats

Human health Land use – land cover Resource utilization Climate change What are the top 5 advantages of the Great Lakes indicators to your organization? (Please number the top five advantages from the list below, where five indicates the greatest advantage and one is less of a advantage)



Conservation Authority E. For State of the Environment Reporting F. For data collection G. For long-term monitoring H. For knowledge sharing and capacity building I. For public awareness and knowledge J. For planning (including budget) K. Other

If you ranked other (please specify) ____________________________________ What are the top 5 disadvantages of the Great Lakes indicators to your organization? (Please number the top five disadvantages from the list below, where five indicates the greatest disadvantage and one is less of a disadvantage)


Conference (SOLEC) process F. Inappropriate timeliness of data collection G. Inappropriate timeliness of indicator reporting H. Lack of environmental indicator standardization I. Lack of comparability J. Other

If you ranked other (please specify) ________________________________________

165

Please use the space provided below to identify how the Great Lakes indicators inform local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making. ______________________________________________________ Please use the space provided below to identify how the Great Lakes indicators can be improved to better serve the needs of local or watershed level environmental policy developers, planners and decision-makers. _______________________________________________________ (proceed to page 24) PAGE 24: State of the Great Lakes Reports (State of the Great Lakes or State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) State of the Environment Reporting Awareness) This is the final section of the survey. This part of the survey is about the State of the Great Lakes reporting. Are you aware of the State of the Great Lakes reports developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)? (Please select one) Yes (proceed to page 25) No (page 28) PAGE 25: Great Lakes Indicators and State of the Great Lakes Reports Developed Through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) (State of the Great Lakes or SOLEC State of the Environment Report General Background) Does your organization use the State of the Great Lakes reports developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)? (Please select one) Yes (page 27) No (proceed to page 26) PAGE 26: State of the Great Lakes Reports (No State of the Great Lakes or SOLEC State of the Environment Report Use) Why does your organization not use the State of the Great Lakes reports developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)? (Please select all that apply)

A. Inappropriate scale of information B. Lack of funding C. High costs D. Limited staff resources E. Lack of accessibility of data developed through SOLEC process F. Inappropriate timeliness of data collection G. Inappropriate timeliness of reporting H. Lack of report standardization I. Lack of comparability J. Use our own reports

166

K. Other (please specify) ________________________________________ What would be the top 5 advantages of the State of the Great Lakes reports to your organization? (Please number the top five advantages from the list below, where five indicates the greatest advantage and one is less of a advantage)



city/town or Conservation Authority E. For data collection F. For long-term monitoring G. For knowledge sharing and capacity building H. For public awareness and knowledge I. For planning (including budget) J. Other

If you ranked other (please specify) ____________________________________ What would be the top 5 disadvantages of the State of the Great Lakes reports to your organization? (Please number the top five disadvantages from the list below, where five indicates the greatest disadvantage and one is less of a disadvantage)


Conference (SOLEC) process F. Inappropriate timeliness of data collection G. Inappropriate timeliness of reporting H. Lack of report standardization I. Lack of comparability J. Other

If you ranked other (please specify) ________________________________________ Please use the space provided below to identify how the State of the Great Lakes reports could inform local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making. _______________________________________________________ Please use the space provided below to identify how the State of the Great Lakes reports, developed by the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, can be improved to better serve the needs of local or watershed level environmental policy developers, planners and decision-makers. _______________________________________________________

167

(routed to page 28) PAGE 27: State of the Great Lakes Reports (State of the Great Lakes or SOLEC State of the Environment Report Use) What are the State of the Great Lakes reports, developed through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, used for in your organization? (Please select all that apply)



city/town or Conservation Authority E. For data collection F. For long-term monitoring G. For knowledge sharing and capacity building H. For public awareness and knowledge I. For planning (including budget) J. Other (please specify) ____________________________________

What are the top 5 advantages of the State of the Great Lakes reports to your organization? (Please number the top five advantages from the list below, where five indicates the greatest advantage and one is less of a advantage)



city/town or Conservation Authority E. For data collection F. For long-term monitoring G. For knowledge sharing and capacity building H. For public awareness and knowledge I. For planning (including budget) J. Other

If you ranked other (please specify) ____________________________________ What are the top 5 disadvantages of the State of the Great Lakes reports to your organization? (Please number the top five disadvantages from the list below, where five indicates the greatest disadvantage and one is less of a disadvantage)


Conference (SOLEC) process

168

F. Inappropriate timeliness of data collection G. Inappropriate timeliness of reporting H. Lack of report standardization I. Lack of comparability J. Other

If you ranked other (please specify) ________________________________________ Please use the space provided below to identify how the State of the Great Lakes reports inform local or watershed level environmental policy development, planning and decision-making. _______________________________________________________ Please use the space provided below to identify how the State of the Great Lakes reports, developed by the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, can be improved to better serve the needs of local or watershed level environmental policy developers, planners and decision-makers. ______________________________________________________ (proceed to page 28) PAGE 28: Follow-up For any further comments please use the space provided below. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Are you willing to be contacted to participate in a follow-up telephone interview? Yes (proceed to page 29) No (go to page #30) PAGE 29: Contact Information Please provide the current information for where you can be reached. Name ______________________ Phone number (including area code) __________________________ Email _____________________________ (proceed to page 30) PAGE 30: END PAGE – CONCLUSION A follow-up email will be sent to you at the conclusion of this study that summarizes the findings of the research. Thank you very much for your time and participation. Your insight is greatly appreciated.

169

Appendix 2: External Sources Used

Source Type Source

Sources used to guide local development

Additional sources for locally developed products

Sources used by organizations without local products

EnvironmentalIndicators


Reports



Reports

EnvironmentalIndicators


Reports

Federal / International

Environment Canada (EC) documents 2 CA 1 CA 1 CA 1 CA EC sustainability indicators 1 CA SOLEC 2 CA 1 CA 2 CA 1 CA International Joint Commission indicators and reports 1 CA 1 CA 1 Gov. Canadian Water Quality Index 2 CA Federal water level data 1 CA Federation of Canadian Municipalities 1 Gov. Federal Auditor General Reports 1 Gov. World Health 1 Gov.

170

Organization reports United Nations reports 1 Gov.

Provincial

Provincial water quality objectives and drinking water standards 3 CA 2 CA 1 CA Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol 3 CA 3 CA Provincial indicators 2 Gov. 1 Gov. 1 Gov. Ministry of Natural Resources Low Water Response 1 CA Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network 2 CA 3 CA Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network 1 CA 2 CA 2 CA Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network 1 CA 2 CA 2 CA Ecological Monitoring and 1 CA 1 CA

171

Assessment Network Provincial landfill standards 1 Gov. RAPS 2 CA 1 CA Provincial report format 1 CA Ontario low water response 1 CA MAPLE 1 CA Provincially significant wetlands 1 CA Ministry studies 2 Gov. 2 Gov.

Regional/ Municipal

Regional government indicators 1 Gov., 2 CA 1 Gov., 1 CA 1 Gov. Regional government reports 1 CA 3 Gov.


Conservation Ontario Report Card Indicators 1 CA, 1 Gov. 1 CA 2 Gov. 1 CA CA report cards and documents 4 CA 9 CA 1 Gov., 2 CA 2 CA 1 Gov. 2 CA 2 Gov. "watershed reporting: improving public access" 1 CA, 1 Gov. 2 CA

172

Specific data

Biological indicators i.e. Benthic species 4 CA 2 CA 2 CA Water chemistry i.e. nutrients 1 CA Water level 2 CA 1 CA Ground water and surface water quality 3 CA 2 CA 1 CA 1 Gov. Ground water and surface water quantity 3 CA 1 CA Water temperature 4 CA 2 CA Species populations 2 CA 2 CA Vegetation and Forest and Wetland Cover 2 CA 1 CA 2 CA Community information 1 CA 1 CA Imperviousness 1 CA 1 CA Erosion rates 1 CA 1 CA

OTHER

SOER 1 Gov. local data 1 Gov. water consumption data 1 Gov. habitat indices 1 Gov. species at risk reports 1 CA

173

Appendix 3: Environmental Indicator Uses Environmental Indicator Uses Response Values Non-indicator users = 5 organizations (1 Conservation Authority (CA) and 4 local governments (Gov.)) Users with local indicators = 24 organizations (14 Conservation Authorities and 10 local governments) Users without local indicators = 13 organizations (5 Conservation Authorities and 8 local governments) Total users (users with and without locally developed indicators) = 37 (19 CA and 18 Gov.)

Uses/Purposes Non indicator Users Users with local

indicators Users without local

indicators Total Users

CA Gov. TOTAL CA Gov. TOTAL CA Gov. TOTAL CA Gov. TOTALto identify environmental trends for a specific time and space 1 2 3 12 6 18 3 4 7 15 10 25

to identify environmental successes and/or areas of improvement over time 1 4 5 12 6 18 5 6 11 17 12 29

to inform the local or watershed level environmental policy development and decision making process

1 2 3 12 7 19 4 7 11 16 14 30

to serve as a model to develop and adopt environmental indicators for your city/town or Conservation Authority

0 2 2 8 4 12 2 4 6 10 8 18

for state of the environment reporting 0 1 1 10 4 14 3 4 7 13 8 21 for data collection 0 3 3 11 7 18 5 7 12 16 14 30 for long-term monitoring 1 4 5 12 6 18 3 6 9 15 12 27 for knowledge sharing and capacity building 1 1 2 9 4 13 3 6 9 12 10 22 for public awareness and knowledge 0 4 4 12 8 20 4 6 10 16 14 30 for planning (including budget) 0 2 2 11 8 19 2 6 8 13 14 27 other 0 1 1 4 1 5 2 3 5 6 4 10

174

Environmental Indicator Uses as a Percentage of Possible Response

Uses/Purposes Non indicator Users Users with local

indicators Users without local

indicators Total Users




100 50 60 86 70 79 80 88 85 84 78 81


0 50 40 57 40 50 40 50 46 53 44 49

for state of the environment reporting 0 25 20 71 40 58 60 50 54 68 44 57 for data collection 0 75 60 79 70 75 100 88 92 84 78 81 for long-term monitoring 100 100 100 86 60 75 60 75 69 79 67 73 for knowledge sharing and capacity building 100 25 40 64 40 54 60 75 69 63 56 59 for public awareness and knowledge 0 100 80 86 80 83 80 75 77 84 78 81 for planning (including budget) 0 50 40 79 80 79 40 75 62 68 78 73 other 0 25 20 29 10 21 40 38 38 32 22 27

175

Appendix 4: State of the Environment Report Uses State of the Environment Report Uses Response Values Non-SOER users = 10 organizations (1 Conservation Authority (CA) and 9 local governments (Gov.)) Users with local SOER = 16 organizations (13 Conservation Authorities and 3 local governments) Users without local SOER = 8 organizations (2 Conservation Authorities and 6 local governments) Total users (users with and without local SOER) = 24 (15 CA and 9 Gov.)

Uses/Purposes Non SOER Users Users with local SOER Users without local

SOER Total Users




1 8 9 13 3 16 2 5 7 15 8 23

to serve as a model to develop and adopt SOER for your city/town or Conservation Authority

1 2 3 6 1 7 1 2 3 7 3 10

for environmental indicator reporting 1 4 5 12 2 14 1 3 4 13 5 18 for data collection 1 4 5 7 2 9 2 6 8 9 8 17 for long-term monitoring 1 7 8 9 2 11 1 4 5 10 6 16 for knowledge sharing and capacity building 1 2 3 12 3 15 2 6 8 14 9 23

for public awareness and knowledge 0 7 7 13 3 16 2 6 8 15 9 24 for planning (including budget) 1 7 8 7 3 10 1 4 5 8 7 15 other 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

176

State of the Environment Report Uses as a Percentage of Possible Response

Uses/Purposes Non SOER Users Users with local SOER Users without local

SOER Total Users

CA Gov. TOTAL CA Gov. TOTAL CA Gov. TOTAL CA Gov. TOTAL to identify environmental trends for a specific time and space 100 56 60 92 67 88 100 100 100 93 89 92

to identify environmental successes and/or areas of improvement over time

100 78 80 92 100 94 100 100 100 93 100 96


100 89 90 100 100 100 100 83 88 100 89 96


100 22 30 46 33 44 50 33 38 47 33 42

for environmental indicator reporting 100 44 50 92 67 88 50 50 50 87 56 75

for data collection 100 44 50 54 67 56 100 100 100 60 89 71 for long-term monitoring 100 78 80 69 67 69 50 67 63 67 67 67 for knowledge sharing and capacity building 100 22 30 92 100 94 100 100 100 93 100 96

for public awareness and knowledge 0 78 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

for planning (including budget) 100 78 80 54 100 63 50 67 63 53 78 63 other 0 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

177

Appendix 5: Degree of Spatial Scale Usefulness for Local Decision Making by Product Type

Environmental Indicator Usefulness Based on Spatial Scale (Response Rates)

Total environmental indicator users = 37 organizations (19 Conservation Authorities and 18 local

governments)

Population Type International Level Environmental Indicators

Not Useful

Slightly Useful Useful

Very Useful N/A No Response

Conservation Authority 3 8 5 0 1 2 Local Government 2 6 5 0 2 3 TOTAL 5 14 10 0 3 5

Population Type National Level Environmental Indicators

Not Useful




Population Type Provincial Level Environmental Indicators

Not Useful




Population Type Regional Level Environmental Indicators

Not Useful




Population Type Local Level Environmental Indicators

Not Useful




178

State of the Environment Report Usefulness Based on Spatial Scale (Response Rates)

Total state of the environment report users = 24 organizations (15 Conservation Authorities and

9 local governments)

Population Type International Level SOER

Not Useful




Population Type National Level SOER

Not Useful




Population Type Provincial Level SOER

Not Useful




Population Type Regional Level SOER

Not Useful




Population Type Local Level SOER

Not Useful




179

Appendix 6: Great Lakes Environmental Indicator Uses

Great Lakes indicator users = 9 organizations (7 Conservation Authorities and 2 local

governments)

Uses/Purposes Conservation Authority

Local Government TOTAL

to identify environmental trends for a specific time and space 5 1 6

to identify environmental successes and/or areas of improvement over time 2 0 2


2 0 2


2 1 3

for state of the environment reporting 2 0 2 for data collection 0 0 0 for long-term monitoring 1 2 3 for knowledge sharing and capacity building 5 0 5

for public awareness and knowledge 2 1 3 for planning (including budget) 1 0 1 other 1 0 1

180

Appendix 7: Great Lakes State of the Environment Report Uses Great Lakes state of the environment users = 11 organizations (8 Conservation Authorities and 3

local governments)

Uses/Purposes Conservation Authority

Local Government TOTAL

to identify environmental trends for a specific time and space 8 1 9

to identify environmental successes and/or areas of improvement over time 5 2 7


4 1 5


3 1 4

for data collection 2 0 2 for long-term monitoring 4 1 5 for knowledge sharing and capacity building 5 0 5

for public awareness and knowledge 3 2 5 for planning (including budget) 2 1 3 other 0 0 0

BEYOND INDICATORS AND REPORTING: NEEDS, LIMITATIONS … · Natural Resources Canada for the...

Documents

Transcript of BEYOND INDICATORS AND REPORTING: NEEDS, LIMITATIONS … · Natural Resources Canada for the...