Multi-party monitoring in Ontario: challenges and emerging solutions.

Abstract

The demand for environmental monitoring information capable of informing decision-making in environmental management is growing at a rate faster than can be provided by traditional governmental sources. Non-governmental organizations and academics are increasingly becoming involved in the collection and analysis of environmental information to fulfill the need. However, these data are rarely used to inform decision-making. Multi-party monitoring has the potential to address this disconnect. Ontario has a wide range of environmental monitoring programs that embrace the public at various levels of involvement, from local community initiatives to provincial and federal programs. Only recently has there been a collective process to bring participants from these various programs together in discussions. This process was led by new, primarily non-government monitoring actors who were instrumental in launching a new coordinating body, the Ontario Ecosystems Monitoring Council. This paper draws from experiences gained from this process and discusses: (1) the challenges of multi-party monitoring; and, (2) solutions that have been emerging in Ontario. The three main challenges centre on: science, including issues of monitoring protocol standardization and monitoring within the context of an ecosystem framework; community engagement and leadership including issues of networking and capacity building; and governance including issues of collaboration and use of monitoring data by decision-makers. Solutions to these challenges are emerging and a number of these at various scales are highlighted.

La demande pour une information de surveillance qui soit en mesure d'eclairer la prise de decision en matiere de gestion environnementale croit a un rythme plus rapide que ce que ne peuvent fournir les sources gouvernementales traditionnelles. Les organismes non gouvernementaux et les universitaires sont de plus en plus appeles a participer a la cueillette et a l'analyse de l'information de nature environnementale pour repondre a ce besoin. Toutefois, ces donnees sont rarement utilisees pour eclairer la prise de decision. C'est pourquoi la surveillance multipartite pourrait permettre de rectifier cette situation. L'Ontario est dotee d'une vaste gamme de programmes de surveillance environnementale qui font participer le public a differents niveaux, des initiatives communautaires locales aux programmes provinciaux et federaux. Ce n'est que recemment qu'on a vu naTtre un processus collectif visant a amener les participants de ces divers programmes a discuter ensemble. Ce processus etait mene par de nouveaux acteurs en matiere de surveillance, pour la plupart non gouvernementaux, qui ont gran-dement contribue a lancer un nouvel organisme de coordination, l'Ontario Ecosystems Monitoring Council. Cet article decoule des experiences acquises au cours de ce processus et presente un examen des defis de la surveillance multipartite et des solutions qui ont vu le jour en Ontario. Les trois principaux defis sont l'aspect scientifique, notamment les questions de normalisation du protocole de surveillance et de surveillance dans le cadre d'un ecosysteme; l'engagement et le leadership de la collectivite, notamment les questions de reseautage et de developpement des ressources; et la gouvernance, notamment les questions de collaboration et d'utilisation des donnees de surveillance par les decideurs. Des solutions a ces defis commencent a voir le jour; on fait ressortir dans cet article un certain nombre d'entre elles, a differentes echelles.

Key words

multi-party monitoring, governance, community monitoring, collaboration, capacity building

Introduction

The demand for environmental monitoring information that informs decision-making is increasing. Traditional government sources of environmental data are not capable of meeting this demand. In response to this need for information, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academics are increasingly becoming involved in the collection and analysis of environmental information. Ideally, information collected by NGOs and academics would feed into a variety of government decision-making processes; however, this is rarely the case. Multi-party monitoring processes hold potential to ensure that all parties have the opportunity to participate. Multi-party monitoring can involve any interested stakeholders, including private landowners, individual citizens, NGOs, businesses, governments, and others committed to developing a better understanding of particular issues and/or places. The multi-party approach builds on existing monitoring programs, aims to bring together those already involved and recruits new participants. It fills gaps in existing environmental and social monitoring arrangements and is likely to influence decision-making through cooperation rather than adversarial processes (Bliss et al. 2001, Whitelaw et al. 2003).

Ontario has a wide range of environmental monitoring programs that embrace the public at various levels of involvement, from local community initiatives to provincial and federal programs. Only recently has there been a collective process to bring participants from these diverse programs together in discussions. This process led to the creation of the Ontario Ecosystem Monitoring Council (OEMC). This paper draws from this experience and discusses:

1. The challenges to multi-party monitoring; and

2. Solutions that have been emerging in Ontario.

In order to place the discussion into context, it is important to understand the self-organizing nature of environmental monitoring governance in Ontario. Governance generally involves:

[A] wide range of institutions and actors in the production of

policy outcomes including NGOs, quangos, private companies, pressure

groups and social movements, as well as those state institutions

traditionally regarded as formally part of government (Painter 2000:

317).

The government is not solely responsible for societal development and has become less so over the past few decades with the private sector and civil society becoming more important. The nature of the relationships between the involved actors is key. Jessop views governance:

... as the reflexive self-organization of independent actors

involved in complex relations and reciprocal interdependence, with

self organization being based on continuing dialogue and resources

sharing to develop mutually beneficial joint projects and to manage

the contradictions and dilemmas inevitably involved in such

situations (Jessop 2002: 1).

This view of governance suggests that many stakeholders or actors are involved, that no one organization has control and that collectively their actions can lead to change. In the Ontario environmental monitoring arena, there has been an increasing number of non-traditional actors including NGOs and academic researchers, along with a decreasing role played by traditional government actors due to budgetary cutbacks and changing priorities. Traditionally, government has played the main role in data collection, analysis and reporting of information. Academics were mainly involved in one-off studies rather than long term monitoring and NGOs were involved in niche monitoring e.g. birds, weather. This has evolved with NGOs and academics becoming more involved. Understanding the challenges of multi-party monitoring and emerging solutions will allow for actors to collectively develop strategies to improve environmental monitoring in Ontario.

Challenges and Emerging Solutions to Multi-party Monitoring In Ontario

Three main challenges and associated emerging solutions are discussed below. These are:

1. Science, including issues of monitoring protocol standardization and monitoring within the context of an ecosystem framework;

2. Community engagement and leadership, including issues of networking and capacity building; and

3. Achieving influence through collaboration and linking monitoring data to decision-making.

Science: Standardization of Monitoring Protocols and Monitoring Within an Ecosystem Framework

The issue of monitoring protocol standardization is important because the quality of the information generated through monitoring programs in Ontario is affected by a recognized lack of standardization. One of the major barriers to an efficient, functioning regional monitoring program is the lack of consistent protocols. Standardized protocols are the building blocks of an integrated monitoring program. Such standards are clearly required, particularly in light of the fact that monitoring is often conducted by individuals with a range of backgrounds (e.g. professional scientists, dedicated naturalists, citizen scientists). Without standardization, the exchange of information and databases is not possible and consequently limits the integration and usefulness of the data for decision-making.

There are emerging efforts designed to address the challenge of standardized protocols. These standardization efforts go beyond field protocols (i.e. standardization of methodology) to include basic training in fieldwork and in the use of field equipment (standardization of field personnel), data management and verification (standardization of results) and assessment and reporting (standardization of conclusions). The following are examples. At the federal level, the Ecological and Monitoring Assessment Network--Coordinating Office (EMAN), Environment Canada, provides guidance on a range of parameters such as lichen, frogs and ice (EMAN-CO 2006). Provincially, the Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN) cooperates with Environment Canada on a protocol for monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates as biological indicators of water quality (Jones et al. 2005). The Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol provides a standardized protocol for assessment of streams with respect to potential for fisheries habitat and identifying areas of concern (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2003). At the NGO scale, the Watershed Report Card has set standards for community monitoring of watershed parameters (Watershed Report Card 2000).

Designing monitoring programs within the context of an ecosystem framework is equally important. Multi-party monitoring of the environment requires embracing a strong ecological foundation. Monitoring programs should be designed to track ecosystem composition, structure and process (Milne and Bennett, in press). The composition of ecosystems may be determined by resource inventories or may centre on specific bio-indicators or species at risk (or of conservation concern). The structure of ecosystems (species and habitat structure) may be determined by biodiversity studies, habitat evaluations or may focus on guilds, keystone species or predator-prey relations (Simberloff 1998, Canterbury et al. 2000). The processes within ecosystems (those that link species and environment) may be determined by studies of biotic productivity and nutrient cycling as well as work focusing on geomorphic processes (whether gravitational or fluvial) (e.g. Moss and Milne 1998, Friesen et al. 1999).

As one moves from monitoring 'composition' through monitoring 'structure' to monitoring 'process', a greater knowledge of the biophysical environment is required and a greater understanding of environmental impact and change is presented (e.g. Lovett et al. 2005). A successful environmental monitoring program requires the tracking of ecosystem change and the associated processes, whether natural or human-induced, that initiates and directs these events (Milne and Bennett, in press).

Few monitoring programs in Ontario are designed within ecosystem frameworks. Examples that have emerged recently include the Credit Valley Conservation Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program (IWMP) started in 1999 to determine the progress of conserving the health and sustainability of the Credit River watershed and to assist managers in adaptive management (Credit Valley Conservation 2003). The main goals of this program are to protect water quality and quantity. However, it is realized that these water parameters are influenced by terrestrial conditions and impacted by land use changes. The Terrestrial Monitoring Program of the IWMP integrates wildlife population studies with those focusing on vegetation health and dynamics. The monitoring program couples wildlife with land units (e.g. birds are monitored within upland forests, frogs within wetlands and fish within riparian systems).

Community: Networks and capacity building

For the purposes of this paper community is defined as a combination of the general public and NGOs such as naturalists clubs, community service clubs, watershed stewardship groups and so on. Although governments are expected to show leadership in developing monitoring protocols and programs, it is often the local community that raises awareness of the need for monitoring and brings the appropriate stakeholders together to develop monitoring frameworks. Community monitoring also involves people collecting data and initiating programs that provide information with an aim of influencing local-level decision-making. Unfortunately, most community-based monitoring data is not used in decision-making. In most cases, governments ignore communities in the design of monitoring programs. The result is a lack of trust on the part of communities in government agencies and a number of independent and ineffective community efforts generating data that are not being used (Conrad, this volume).

One of the barriers to involving citizens within the community in monitoring is the lack of integration and networking between different NGOs, NGOs and government and NGOs and scientists. This lack of integration and networking has been documented in several national reports generated over the past few years including the Canada Stewardship Agenda (Environment Canada 2002), National Watershed Stewardship Report (Langley Environmental Partners Society 2003), Appreciating the Values, Needs and Potential of the Stewardship and Conservation Sector in Canada (Gardner et al. 2003) and most recently Water Connections (Centre for Sustainable Watersheds 2006a). Unfortunately, part of the reason for this lack of integration and networking is due to 'turf and 'silos'. While ecosystem management, by its very definition, is intended to be an integrated process (Grumbine 1994), the governance mechanisms do not exist to support this approach. In this mix, an accepted role of community has not been defined. One of the major factors contributing to this lack of integration is simply the lack of resources dedicated to communications and networking--within individual organizations and agencies and for networking among them (Centre for Sustainable Watersheds 2006b). Government agencies indicate that it is difficult for them to connect with and support the growing number of community groups. Community groups do not have the resources to network with all of the stakeholders involved in ecosystem management. In fact, the many uncoordinated opportunities presented to these community organizations can lead to volunteer burn out (Centre for Sustainable Watersheds 2006b).

There needs to be a better means of providing community groups with the information they need to run their programs more effectively. Lack of access to this type of information has been identified as a barrier in a recent national survey related to water information in Canada (Centre for Sustainable Watersheds 2006a). Community groups need information about protocols, equipment required, training opportunities, fundraising, data interpretation, communications, best practices and lessons learned. This need for better information is not restricted to communities. Government agencies need to know which groups are operating within their jurisdiction, what data is being collected and what capacities exist. Scientists need to know about emerging local-level challenges in order to develop research that can be applied to management of local resources.

While there are increasing opportunities to use the Internet to compile and exchange this information effectively, the importance of face-to-face meetings and interpersonal connections needs to be emphasized here. Sharing experiences and networking increases opportunities for collaboration, and also provides numerous added benefits, including capacity building and regeneration of the volunteer spirit.

The Ontario Ecosystems Monitoring Council (OEMC) has recently emerged to support multi-party networking of monitoring practitioners. The concept arose from a number of community organizations working together to develop better support for community monitoring--specifically, access to protocols, training, and data management. While originally intended to serve community organizations, interest from government agencies and Conservation Authorities demonstrates new opportunities for multi-party monitoring in Ontario.

The Council will make use of technology to support information exchange at the provincial level and among regional nodes (website, mailing list, e-news, distributed organization directory), but the importance of local engagement is the focus. Community groups are the connection to the public. They raise issues, engage volunteers, generate data, communicate results and motivate action. The effectiveness of this work is related to the resources provided to support integration and networking. Improved communications among the players will help shape and direct community efforts, and hopefully bring forward a realization of their important role. The Council will also provide an impetus for government players to coordinate programs among themselves in an effort to integrate monitoring programs in the Province.

The vision of the OEMC is to support development of regional multi-party monitoring nodes that will engage the broad spectrum of practitioners within their region (Figure 1). These groups would then feed up to the provincial network to help develop priorities and opportunities for collaboration. A few regional nodes have already formed, with varying amounts of support and capacity. The Monitoring the Moraine project is a notable example, which has secured funding for a three year project (2005-2007) to develop a monitoring program and network for the Oak Ridges Moraine (MTM Project 2006).

Another barrier that limits the success of integrating communities into monitoring programs is a lack of capacity building. Capacity building in the context of multi-party monitoring involves recognizing and building on the strength of communities to enhance their ability to carry out monitoring and influence decision-making. Capacity building is expressed in many ways including training, certification and empowerment. Capacity building was identified at the founding meeting of the OEMC as critical in engaging citizens in monitoring, developing the relevant skills to allow community members to share data with decision-makers, and maintaining volunteer programs.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

An effective mechanism to deliver capacity building at the community level is to support existing community institutions. An example is a relationship being developed between the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Conservation Authorities in delivery of the Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN) (see Jones et al. this volume). The OBBN has engaged a number of Conservation Authorities to incorporate benthic biomonitoring into their watershed assessments, and is also encouraging a train-the-trainer role, whereby local agencies act as the link to the OBBN, providing training and support to volunteer groups to carry out the protocol.

One of the main benefits of community trainers, rather than centralized government staff, is that a relationship is built whereby volunteers have on-going access to local expertise to support all aspects of their monitoring program. Local support for volunteer efforts should also result in improved credibility and usage of community data in decision-making. The concept of regional nodes within the OEMC supports the idea of local trainers and coordination among agencies at the local level to identify priorities for monitoring and develop opportunities for communities to get involved.

Interest from universities and colleges presents new opportunities for capacity building. Students require field experience and a number of university and college institutions are supporting multi-party monitoring through field courses. For example, the University of Waterloo offers a monitoring course on forest biodiversity in conjunction with the Niagara Escarpment Commission (Milne et al. 2000; Whitelaw et al. 2005). This brings scientific expertise and resources to local issues. At the same time, these higher level educational institutions are supporting training opportunities through extra-curricular field courses, workshops and certification.

Influence: Collaboration and Links to Decision-making

The need to foster greater collaboration between those in the monitoring community has been identified as a challenge linked to ecosystem monitoring governance. This requires coordinating programs between government agencies and across jurisdictional boundaries (Bertram et al. 2003). Improved collaboration is also needed between citizen scientists, professional scientists and academic researchers.

Multi-party stakeholder monitoring can contribute to improved collaboration. This occurs when traditional and new actors come together to address monitoring. In the Monitoring The Moraine (MTM) Project, a coalition of NGOs has brought together traditional and new monitoring organizations (MTM Project 2006). Traditional partners include Conservation Authorities and the OMNR. New organizations include Citizens Environment Watch and Save the Oak Ridges Moraine. This initiative combines traditional environmental monitoring such as water quality with policy monitoring to determine whether, for example, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is being implemented properly. The initiative has the goal of integrating environmental and social aspects through a comprehensive monitoring framework. Extensive community engagement has occurred through a series of community workshops designed to identify valued ecosystem components and contribute to the development of community-based monitoring plans. This collaboration between traditional and new monitoring organizations and the community is expected to increase the relevancy of monitoring and the uptake of monitoring information by decision-makers.

Multi-party monitoring is also being developed in watershed planning including programs within numerous Conservation Authorities, as well as in several community organizations such as the Muskoka Watershed Council in central Ontario and lake associations such as Charleston Lake Association in eastern Ontario. In these cases, monitoring partnerships have been developed between local municipal governments and concerned community members. Monitoring programs are being developed that engage the public and provide information to improve regional and watershed planning.

Another challenge associated with achieving influence through monitoring activities is connecting the monitoring data with decision-makers. One of the complaints from citizen groups is that their time, energy and money spent on organizing volunteers, collecting field data and submitting detailed reports is wasted because results do not inform decision-making. It is important to identify why these data are not used in decision-making processes. Is it a problem with communication, access to data by decision-makers, a lack of trust in the quality of the data collected and/or lack of will on the part of decision-makers to act on potentially constraining information?

There is evidence that this situation is changing in Ontario. There have been several initiatives to engage the research community in sharing data and designing future monitoring projects. For instance, the Ontario Forest Biodiversity Network was established to encourage collaborative work between the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and academics, using data and forest plots designed to monitor the impacts of air quality on forest health (McLaughlin et al. 2000). In another example, the EMAN-Coordinating office has also tested approaches to community-based monitoring in 31 communities with a specific focus on linking monitoring data to decision-making (EMAN-CO 2006).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Environmental monitoring governance in Ontario is in a state of transition. New monitoring organizations, primarily NGOs, are combining their efforts to carry out monitoring as budgetary restrictions and restructuring have forced many government agencies to cut or reduce their monitoring programs. These new actors have been instrumental in launching a new coordinating body, the OEMC. This organization works at the provincial level to connect local, regional, provincial and federal monitoring practitioners. The OEMC is addressing many of the challenges identified in this paper and is facilitating solutions that are currently emerging through the adoption of multi-party monitoring. The following are a series of recommendations, framed around the challenges discussed in this paper. The OEMC and partners should address the following in their efforts to improve multi-party monitoring in Ontario.

1. Standardization: It is apparent that without standardization, multi-party monitoring becomes limited and the usefulness of collected data is reduced because of incompatibilities between information. However, it is important that community groups and individual monitoring projects retain a level of ownership and individuality. Community monitors often have specific monitoring objectives associated with their programs and do not want to invest in regimented programs that limit their own interests. Standard protocols should allow for flexibility while at the same time providing opportunities for data sharing and collaboration.

2. Monitoring within an ecosystem framework: Monitoring programs need to be more integrated from an ecological perspective. There has to be a greater emphasis on monitoring that addresses composition with process, habitats with species and different hierarchical levels such as forest wood-lots and fragmented landscapes. It is proposed that multi-party monitoring should focus on the watershed or landscape level. At this level the community can come together effectively to deal with issues or monitoring questions that are pertinent. It is also at this level that many environmental management and planning strategies are focused (e.g. Conservation Authorities, Ontario Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine, Niagara Escarpment).

3. Equity: Community engagement is required in the development of monitoring programs (frameworks and priorities) through consensus building processes. Communities often are not included in the development of monitoring strategies and programs. They are often only included as volunteers to provide data to the program. There is a need for stronger communication between all involved parties. This can take a number of forms but it begins with opportunities for all community members to interact in collaborative forums such as workshops and conferences. It is important that all parties involved are considered equal partners.

4. Networking: The strength of multi-party monitoring can be increased by improving communication. There is a need to inform community members of all aspects of the monitoring program. This would include updates on monitoring protocols, data results, reports on other similar group activities, and use of the information in decision-making. This will engage community members and reduce problems such as volunteer burn-out. This can be achieved through the application of technology, in particular through the Internet (COMAP 2006). An important component of this recommendation is tracking who is doing what. There are often gaps or overlaps in monitoring programs leading to a lack of information or duplication of work and wasted funds.

5. Capacity building: While the cost-effectiveness of community involvement in ecosystem management has been documented (Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists 2002), adequate resources to support and sustain multi-party monitoring, that include volunteer monitoring such as training, monitoring design, analysis, equipment, coordination, data interpretation, and communications are not available. All monitoring practitioners can learn through education and participation. This is best accomplished at the watershed or landscape level which brings together local citizenry with planning frameworks or governance at the regional and municipal scale. This strengthens ownership which can flow upwards to provincial and federal governance and to the general public of the region.

6. Linking to decision-making: Finally, it is essential that multi-party monitoring provide a mechanism that links monitoring information to decision-making. Long-term records gathered at a regional scale have the potential to inform policy development to address negative environmental and social change. Community data can provide information where there are gaps in the system. As well, this provides empowerment to the community acknowledging their contribution to the process. An environment where community-contributed monitoring data is recognized for its merit should be the goal. This can be achieved through training and certification of volunteers to ensure quality data, as well as a shift in attitude within government agencies and private industry to accept and encourage multi-party monitoring.

In conclusion, there is a need for more integrative environmental monitoring programs at all levels of government in Ontario. It is also important that monitoring by other organizations such as NGOs and universities be recognized by decision-makers when developing and implementing environmental policy and planning. Multi-party monitoring has the potential to improve the coordination of government and NGO monitoring programs and ensure that all data collected is standardized and used in decision-making processes. The Ontario Ecosystems Monitoring Council was established to meet these needs. Initial work has included a series of workshops that identified the gaps and strengths that currently exist in the Ontario monitoring community.

References

Bertram, P., N. Stadler-Salt, P. Horvatin, and H. Shear. 2003. Bi-national assessment of the Great Lakes--SOLEC partnerships. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81(1-3): 27-33.

Bliss J., G. Aplet, C. Hartzell, P. Harwood, P. Jahnige, D. Kittredge, S. Lewandowski and M.L. Soscia. 2001. Community-based ecosystem monitoring, Journal of Sustainable Forestry 12 (3-4): 143-167.

Canterbury, G.E., T.E. Martin, D.R. Petit, L.J. Petit and D.F. Bradford. 2000. Bird communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Conservation Biology 14: 544-558.

Centre for Sustainable Watersheds. 2006a. Water Connections: A Feasibility Towards Understanding and Improving Access to Water Information in Canada. Portland, Ontario: Centre for Sustainable Watersheds. In Press.

Centre for Sustainable Watersheds. 2006b. Shoreline Stewardship in Ontario 2006: Recommendations Towards a Framework for Improved Cooperation in Shoreline Stewardship Program Development and Delivery. http://www.watersheds.ca/downloads/shoreline_stewardship_ontario_2006.pdf [Accessed on April 27 2006].

Credit Valley Conservation (CVC). 2003. Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program 2002 Report. Mississauga, Ontario: Credit Valley Conservation.

CoMAP. 2006. http://www.comap.ca [Accessed on May 10, 2006].

EMAN-CO. 2006. EMAN. http://www.eman-rese.ca [Accessed on March 1, 2006].

Environment Canada, 2002. Canada's Stewardship Agenda: Report on Consultations. Ottawa, Ontario: Environment Canada.

Friesen, L., M.D. Cadman and R.J. Mackay. 1999. Nesting success of neotropical migrant songbirds in a highly fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology 15: 338-346.

Gardner, J., C. Sherlock, and G. Hunter. 2003. Appreciating the Values, Needs and Potential of the Stewardship and Conservation Sector in Canada: Strategic Directions for Funding and Other Support. Vancouver, B.C: Dovetail Consulting Inc.

Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists. 2002. An Evaluation of the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP): Economic Impact and Return on Investment. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Limited.

Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology 11: 41-47.

Jessop, B. 2002. Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety and Requisite Irony. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.

Jones, C., B. Craig and N. Dmytrow. 2005. The Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network. http://www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/2005/camesa/intro.html [Accessed April 27 2006].

Langley Environmental Partners Society. 2003. National Watershed Stewardship Report: Policy Recommendations and Suggested Actions to Expand and Strengthen Watershed Stewardship in Canada. Langley, BC: Langley Environmental Partners Society.

Lovett, G. C. Jones, M. Turner and K Weathers. 2005. Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. In Ecosystem Function in Heterogeneous Landscapes, G. Lovett, C. Jones, M. Turner and K Weathers, eds. New York: Springer.

McLaughlin, D.L., M. Chiu, D. Durigon and H. Liljalehto. 2000. The Ontario Hardwood Forest Health Survey: 1986-1998. The Forestry Chronicle 76: 783-791.

Milne, R.J., D. Ramsay and A.M. Braid. 2000. Building on the ONE Monitoring Program: Integrating monitoring programs in protected areas on the central Niagara Escarpment. In Parks and Protected Areas Research in Ontario, 1999, N. Pollock-Ellwand, K. Van Osch and J. G. Nelson eds. Waterloo, Ontario: Parks Research Forum of Ontario.

Milne, R.J. and L.P. Bennett, in press. Evaluating regional environmental monitoring programs: an ecosystem approach applied to south-central Ontario, Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Moss, M.R. and R.J. Milne. 1998. Biophysical processes and bioregional planning: The Niagara Escarpment of Southern Ontario, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 251-268.

Monitoring the Moraine (MTM) Project. 2006. http://www.monitoringthemoraine.ca [Accessed on November 1, 2006].

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2003. Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Painter, J. 2001. Governance, In The Dictionary of Human Geography, 4th edition, R.J. Johnson, D. Gregory, G. Pratt and M. Watts, eds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83: 247-257.

Watershed Report Card. 2000. Watershed Report Card. Peterborough: Watershed Report Card Inc.

Whitelaw, G., A.M. Laurence, B. Smith G. Michalenko, and L. Grbinicek., 2005. University of Waterloo's Niagara Escarpment Field Monitoring Course: Success through Partnerships, In Leading Edge 2004: The Working Biosphere, March 3-5, 2005, St. Catharines, Ontario.

Whitelaw, G., H. Vaughan, B. Craig and D. Atkinson. 2003. Establishing the Canadian Community Monitoring Network, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88(1-3): 409-418.

Rob Milne is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University. He received BSc and MSc degrees from the University of Guelph and a PhD from Wilfrid Laurier University. Rob's research focus is on wildlife response to biophysical processes. He has been involved in organizing and developing monitoring programs that engage volunteers and communities in environmental assessment. Rob can be reached at rmilne@wlu.ca

Sarah Rosolen is co-founder and Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainable Watersheds, a national charitable organization developed to support community involvement in protecting Canada's water. Sarah's 'on-the-job' learning is backed by formal education including a BSc in Environmental Science from Carleton University and an MSc in Civil Engineering from Queen's University.

Graham Whitelaw is an Adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Environment and Resource Studies, Faculty of Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo and an environmental consultant. His research focus is on the role of civil society in planning and management processes. He has taught courses on environmental assessment, environmental monitoring, sustainability and land use planning.

Lorne Bennett is an associate professor of Geography at the University of Guelph, Ontario with interests in physical geography and landscape ecology. Lorne attained BA and MSc degrees at the University of Guelph and a PhD at the University of Ottawa. His research is focused on long-term monitoring of wildlife distribution in the urbanizing landscape of Ontario.