Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
DOI 10.1007/s00267-007-9042-x
Community-Based Monitoring Frameworks: Increasing the
Effectiveness of Environmental Stewardship
Catherine T. Conrad Æ Tyson Daoust
Published online: 17 November 2007
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract This article presents an adaptable community-
based monitoring (CBM) framework. The investigators
used a well-tested conceptual CBM framework developed
by the Canadian Community Monitoring Network
(CCMN) as a basis from which to work. With the use of
feedback from various types of CBM groups in the Prov-
ince of Nova Scotia, Canada, obtained through surveys and
interviews, the CCMN framework was modified into a
document that attempts to address current disparities and
inefficiencies within most CBM systems. The need for such
a framework was underscored by the lack of stewardship
groups’ use of standardized monitoring protocols and
inability to effectively provide information to decision
makers. From the information collected through the survey,
it was concluded that the proposed framework must be a
functional, multiparty form of CBM that addresses the key
concerns of a standardized monitoring and communication
program and must be able to be fed into the environmental-
management system.
Keywords Community-based
Environmental

Frameworks
Monitoring
Stewardship
C. T. Conrad (&)
Department of Geography, Saint Mary’s University, B3H 3C3
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
e-mail: cconrad@smu.ca
T. Daoust
Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Network,
Department of Geography, Saint Mary’s University, B3H 3C3
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
123
Introduction
Public participation in environmental monitoring, plan-
ning, and decision making, as well as other environmental
initiatives, has recently enjoyed significant growth (Chic-
oine 1996, Lasker & Weiss 2003), which can be correlated
with the dramatic increase in public environmental con-
sciousness that has occurred in the latter half of the 20th
century (Allen 2004). Public participation in environmental
stewardship initiatives often includes some form of com-
munity-based monitoring (CBM) program, which can be
defined as ‘‘a process where concerned citizens, govern-
ment agencies, industry, academia, community groups, and
local institutions collaborate to monitor, track, and respond
to issues of common community concern’’ (Whitelaw and
others 2003, p. 410). Community-based approaches to
environmental problems are advocated widely both inter-
nationally and within Canada (Wismer & Mitchell 2005).
Folke and others (2005) concluded that a community per-
spective was essential because communities are oft-
neglected but essential parts of ecosystem management.
The public’s roles and skills, including knowledge, expe-
rience, institutions, and organizational capabilities, should
be acknowledged and embedded in any governance system
that aims at strengthening the capacity to manage the
ecosystem’s sustainability for human well being.
All levels of the government’s capacity to properly
monitor the environment has decreased in recent decades
because of the increasing complexity of environmental
conditions and substantial cuts in funding to environmental
programs. CBM has provided government with the poten-
tial for a cost-efficient way to increase its monitoring
capacity (Yarnell & Gayton 2003). Government’s with-
drawal from monitoring activities in Canada has been well
documented, and the void has been filled by volunteers
Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
associated with community-based organizations (Cantwell
& Day 1998, Savan and others 2003). CBM has become a
widespread alternative for scientists and government
agencies that require data but lack the resources to collect
them (Pattengill-Semmens & Semmens 2003). Among
other benefits, CBM encourages the collaboration of dif-
ferent stakeholders in a community and thus can work to
build social capital in that community. Although few or no
legislative and policy requirements exist to promote citizen
involvement, many agencies support CBM though a variety
of programs (i.e., Environment Canada’s Atlantic Coastal
Action Plan). The long-term commitment of government
agencies and volunteers for CBM is difficult to predict in a
climate of shifting political and public interest priorities
(Day & Litke 2005). Despite its many real and potential
benefits, CBM is not used to its full potential by govern-
ment agencies (Sharpe & Conrad 2006). Many additional
issues that confront CBM groups include loss of volunteer
interest, lack of funding, data fragmentation, and general
lack of interest among decision makers in linking CBM
data to the decision-making process (Whitelaw and others
2003, Sharpe & Conrad 2006).
Volunteer environmental monitoring has become a
widespread activity worldwide (Harvey 2006), but moni-
toring in North America is particularly prolific (especially
monitoring lakes and rivers) (Griffin 1999, Savan and
others 2003). There is a diversity of mandates among CBM
initiatives, including education, establishment of states of
the environment, determining background levels against
which future states can be compared, and habitat restora-
tion. Regardless of the specific mandate, they all tend to
have the hope that their efforts will be used to assist in
local decision making. Further proliferation of volunteer
monitoring groups will undoubtedly influence environ-
mental protection, stewardship, and rehabilitation in North
America (Savan and others 2003). CBM is distinct from
community-based environmental protection (CBEP),
which explicitly involves environmental decision making.
CBM often strives to assist decision makers in making
informed decisions while at the same time recognizing that
the decisions do not reside in the community organizations.
The goal is to get the monitoring information to decision
makers in a way that will be acknowledged as being useful
and meaningful and ultimately considered in the decision-
making process. The question remains: How do we link
CBM and CBEP?
There is no universal formula for CBM; however, Craig
and others (2004) specified four approaches. The first is
government-led CBM initiatives or top-down approaches,
whereby the government initiates the project. The second
approach is interpretive CBM, which attempts to get citi-
zens involved in an environmental problem and thereby
educate them about the surrounding environment. Another
359
monitoring approach is advocacy monitoring, also known
as bottom-up monitoring, which usually occurs when a
group concentrates its efforts on areas of previous concern
in hopes of being able to spawn action that will affect the
decision-making process. This is a unilateral approach,
however, and is not usually successful. Although there may
be instances when advocacy-based monitoring is appro-
priate (e.g., in the event of a serious contaminant event or
fish kill), there are many reasons why this approach tends
to be unsuccessful. Some of the main reasons include the
fact that groups may be monitoring a problem for which
there are no comprehensive environmental laws or policies
to remediate the concern. The last approach is multiparty
monitoring. This approach involves ‘‘all interested stake-
holders—private landowners, individual citizens,
representatives of civil society organizations, business,
government, and other committed to the community’’
(Whitelaw and others 2003, p.411). Multiparty monitoring,
also referred to as a multitiered approach, is currently
seeing increased acceptance because it accommodates
collaboration of all stakeholders and affords citizens and
citizen groups more influence on decision making than do
the other approaches (Gaweda 2001).
Importance of Process: Monitoring Frameworks
For the establishment of a well-designed monitoring pro-
gram, a general and systematic framework is needed (Vos
and others 2000). Many ecologic monitoring systems lack
clear purposes and operate without the use of a framework. A
mere ‘‘knowing-what-is-going-on’’ argument often seems to
motivate the effort, without a detailed plan for communica-
tion of results or methodology to link the results to managers.
Monitoring in the absence of clear objectives and without the
context of a framework can often lead to ‘‘datakleptomania,’’
i.e., the uncontrolled desire to collect more data’’ (Hellawell
1991). Volunteer organizations with scarce financial and
personnel resources can not risk such pitfalls. A more fruitful
starting point is to consider monitoring as part of some
integrated system with decision makers and managers
engaged in the process. Therefore, a monitoring program
should start with the end point to identifying the kinds of
information environmental managers require to make good
decisions (Vos and others 2000).
Although volunteers affiliated with environmental
stewardship groups are effective at some tasks (i.e., mon-
itoring water quality) (Conrad, 2006), there remains a lack
of process (i.e., linkage to the management process). For
many environmental organizations, an overriding goal is to
link their monitoring efforts to informed decisions
regarding the management of the resource (McDaniels and
others 1999). One key challenge of resource-management
123
360
research relates to determining a process for the integration
of experiential learning with scientific and technical
knowledge into the planning and management of the
environment (Wismer & Mitchell 2005). Examples from
Canada (Day & Cantwell 2005) indicate that there remains
inadequate government support and assistance to enable
communities to participate meaningfully in shared decision
making at the local watershed level. The inability or inef-
fectiveness of CBM groups to link to decision makers is
not unique. Scientists and managers have historically had
to push communication of the value of monitoring or
assessment (Hoenicke and others 2003).
Increased collaboration and communication, coupled
with innovative partnerships, is required. Communities
may need to develop interdisciplinary, or multistakeholder,
groups to consider the issues, perceptions, and problems of
the broad community. Although there have been examples
of citizens, community organizations, different levels of
government, First Nations, and private businesses working
collaboratively, this continues to remain a challenge for
many communities (Day & Litke 2005). Building net-
works, trust, and relations across so many cross-sections of
society is a challenging and time-consuming endeavor.
The research outlined in this article aims to examine
current disparities and inefficiencies within the CBM sys-
tem and use the analysis to create an adaptable and
functional CBM framework that can be used by the average
CBM group. We used a well-tested conceptual CBM
framework developed by the Canadian Community Moni-
toring Network (CCMN) (Pollock & Whitelaw 2005) as a
basis from which to work. Figure 1 illustrates the
Fig. 1 The CCMN model for CBM
123
Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
framework of Pollock and Whitelaw, and more details on
the logistics of the framework can be found at
http://www.ccmn.ca. With the use of both established lit-
erature as well as feedback from various types of CBM
groups in the Province of Nova Scotia, Canada, obtained
through surveys and interviews, the CCMN framework was
modified into a framework that attempts to address current
disparities and inefficiencies within most CBM systems.
The framework created by Pollock and Whitelaw
(2005), which stemmed from the results of the CCMN
Project, was identified as being the easiest to implement
and the most relevant to CBM in Nova Scotia. First, it is a
refined version of a framework that was tested on 31 dif-
ferent CBM initiatives. The refinements came as a result of
feedback given to the researchers by community groups.
No other researched framework had been tested on so
many groups. Second, the framework was tested by groups
in Canada and thus took into account issues specific to
Canadian CBM, such as jurisdictional and policy con-
straints. Third, of the 31 CBM initiatives that were tested to
create the framework of Pollock and Whitelaw (2005),
three were from Nova Scotia and were undertaken by the
Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) Cape Breton.
This was the only CBM framework that we uncovered in
our research that had been tested in Nova Scotia. Last, the
framework of Pollock and Whitelaw (2005) was identified
as being favourable for this study because it is supported
and promoted by much of the literature as well as by
respected environmental networks such as Environment
Canada’s Ecologic Monitoring and Assessment Network
(EMAN), CCMN, and the Citizen Science group.
CBM in Nova Scotia
As in the rest of Canada, the growth of CBM can be
described as rapid and disorganized. The rapid growth of
CBM in Nova Scotia can in part be credited to the absence
of any sort of comprehensive policy structure used to
manage many of the province’s natural resources. Other
provinces that possess such structures include Ontario and
its Conservation Authorities and New Brunswick and its
water resource–classification system (Sharpe & Conrad
2006). The issues related to CBM in Nova Scotia are not
unique to this province, however. Pollock and Whitelaw
(2005) noted similar issues in other regions of Canada to
those that will be described here.
There is no precise count of how many stewardship and/
or CBM groups are currently operating in Nova Scotia, but
the Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Network
has approximately 50 organizations linked to their network.
The fact that there are so many organizations engaged in
environmental stewardship in one form or another is a
Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
testament to the interest and necessity for organized
attention in the nonprofit environmental sector. Some
groups, such as the Sackville Rivers Association in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, have expressed the opinion that if there were
more monitoring going on by government agencies, there
might not need to be such a proliferation of volunteers
doing the work they do. Most of the CBM groups in the
province engage in some sort of watershed monitoring,
testing for variables such as pH, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, salinity, macroinvertabrates, and various bacteria,
whereas fewer undertake terrestrial or wildlife monitoring.
Oddly, few marine-monitoring programs have been
undertaken in the province, although most CBM groups are
based on or near the coast. This is a function of the fact that
Nova Scotia’s Department of the Environment is not spe-
cifically mandated with protection of nondrinking
watersheds, and therefore communities have assumed, by
default, the concern and burden of understanding the state
of their freshwater systems. This may soon change, how-
ever, with the recent announcement of a proposed
provincial ‘‘water strategy,’’ which will also address non-
drinking watersheds.
Through this study, we found that the majority of CBM
groups in the province could best be described as engaging
in advocacy CBM. That is, most of their efforts are spent
reacting to current problems and attempting to force action
on an issue. Without a structure in place to facilitate
communication and cooperation between stakeholders, the
onus decreases on CBM groups to initiate such arrange-
ments. This process is an extremely burdensome task for
any CBM group to undertake and often proves to be det-
rimental because it takes significant amounts of resources
away from the task (monitoring), in which many groups are
first and foremost interested. This diversion of resources
can often lead to quality-assurance and quality-control
problems as well as a loss of interest among volunteers. In
addition, groups that involve themselves in such processes
often find that not all stakeholders are interested in working
with them. Without a comprehensive policy framework,
there is little incentive for many of the stakeholders to
participate in any sort of community group–led initiative,
making it difficult for CBM groups to achieve their man-
date and have their monitoring data considered by
decision-making bodies. This unfortunately may lead to a
loss of interest among volunteers caused by frustration that
their efforts are going unheeded.
Government involvement in CBM that does occur in
Nova Scotia comes in the form of Environment Canada’s
role in ACAP. ACAP has sites in all four Atlantic prov-
inces, five of which, including the Sable Island
Preservation Trust, are located in Nova Scotia (ACAP
2006). The four mainland sites all participate in CBM
activities within their communities; however, because most
361
of their funding is derived from government sources, vir-
tually no evidence exists that the data they collect is being
used by decision makers. Therefore, although Nova Scotia
ACAP groups have some distinct advantages over other
CBM groups, they are still plagued by some of the same
fundamental problems.
Perhaps the underlying issue is the fact that CBM groups
do not know to whom to deliver their information and in
what form they should deliver it. Therefore, as long as
groups continue to deliver their information to decision
makers in the absence of any policies or requirements on
the part of government to make a specific use of such
information, the data runs the risk of ‘‘falling on deaf ears’’
(P. Duinker, August 24, 2007, personal communication).
Survey Design and Implementation
Eleven environmental stewardship groups were inter-
viewed (Fig. 2), and a total of 15 individuals participated in
the study. Six of the groups (McIntosh Run Watershed
Association, Sackville Rivers Association, Cow Bay Lakes
Watershed Management Association, Clean Annapolis
River Project, Five Bridges Wilderness Heritage Trust, and
ACAP Cape Breton) were preselected as groups to be
interviewed using an open-ended set of interview ques-
tions. These six groups were specifically chosen based on
various attributes, such as number of years of monitoring
experience, relation with government, and spatial distri-
bution. We required groups that displayed a variety of
these attributes to ensure that our sample was representa-
tive of the population (indicative of the cross-section of
experiences in Nova Scotia), and preselection of these six
groups ensured that representation.
The other five groups included in the study (Birch Cove
Lakes Wilderness Society, Tusket River Environmental
Association, LaHave River Salmon Association, Spring-
field Lake Watch Committee, and Stewards of the River
Denys Watershed Association) were those that responded
to a request for participants, which was e-mailed to several
groups. The sample population of 11 organizations is rep-
resentative of approximately 22% of the environmental
stewardship groups in the province (on the basis of 50
organizations). The groups in the sample include those that
have been organized for decades (i.e., Sackville Rivers
Association, Clean Annapolis River Project) as well as
those that have been organized for less than a decade (i.e.,
Cow Bay Lakes Watershed Management Association, Five
Bridges Wilderness Heritage Trust). The organizations
include both ACAP and non-ACAP groups as well as a
diversity of monitoring programs and engagement with
varying levels and agencies of government. Two of the 11
groups have made attempts at establishing a monitoring
123
362
Fig. 2 Location of community-
based environmental monitoring
groups surveyed in this study
framework (Five Bridges Wilderness Heritage Trust, Clean
Annapolis River Project). The sampled group was therefore
a representative set of organizations on which to establish a
functional CBM framework.
All interviews and e-mail questionnaires were con-
ducted during February and March 2006. The primary
objective of the interviews and questionnaires was to
receive feedback from different environmental stewardship
groups in Nova Scotia about the CBM framework created
by Pollock and Whitelaw (2005). The secondary objective
was to compile information regarding the current state of
CBM in the province from the community perspective as
well as background information about each group in the
study.
The first seven interview questions helped gather details
about the group: when it was organized, by whom it was
organized, and for what reason it was organized. Questions
were also asked about the group’s relation with govern-
ment or other decision makers, its monitoring subject, and
what monitoring methods or protocols it uses. The next
four questions were aimed at how the monitoring data
collected by CBM groups are being processed and used.
The questions were designed to identify inefficiencies in
the way CBM occurs in the province, namely the current
gap between data monitoring and decision-making
structures.
The second part of the survey was designed to gather
information about what is done with the monitoring data
collected by groups and how they could be better used. The
123
Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
questions in this section covered what groups do with their
data once they are collected, how those data are used, and
how groups would like to see them used. Other questions in
this section extracted the processes that groups believe
would lead to a more effective framework for CBM and
help bridge the gap between monitoring efforts and deci-
sion-making structures. The results from these questions
were key in formulating the framework. The final two
questions were designed to allow groups to compare the
state of CBM in Nova Scotia to what they thought CBM
might be like in the rest of the country. These questions
were meant to allow participants to identify concerns,
hardships, and gaps faced by CBM groups specifically in
Nova Scotia that they were not able to mention in other
questions.
Analysis of Results: Framework Formation
Some interview and questionnaire responses provided
specific elements that groups would like to see included
or not included in a framework, whereas others were used
to gauge the group’s attitudes about certain issues and
processes. Most groups reported that their relation with
government is respectful and cooperative, but govern-
ments are generally not helpful and offer little in the way
of support when it comes to management decisions. Even
ACAP groups, which receive core funding from the fed-
eral government, reported that when it comes to
Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
environmental issues, their close ties to government do
little to help them influence decision making. Some
groups noted that at times they have been forced into an
adversarial role with government over environmental
issues in which the government shows little or no interest.
Although this type of behavior is sometimes necessary, it
is an undesirable situation for a stewardship group
because of the damaging effect it can have on their
relation with decision makers.
When asked about monitoring methods or protocols
being used by the group, a surprising 73% of respondents
reported that the group did not use any consistent moni-
toring method or standardized protocol to collect
monitoring data. The results indicate that it is generally the
larger groups with higher capacity that engage in moni-
toring using standardized protocols and methods, whereas
the smaller groups seem to monitor using their own
methods. This becomes a problem because it renders
monitoring data collected by CBM groups less credible to
decision makers.
When groups were asked what they did with their
monitoring data once they were collected, 82% of the
groups reported that they were provided to decision makers
the majority of the time. Participants also indicated that
knowledge generated from data is used as a tool for edu-
cation and public-awareness campaigns launched by their
groups. Even with the high proportion of groups whose
data were making it to decision makers, none of the groups
could provide any evidence to indicate that their data were
being considered during the decision-making process. The
CBM groups understand this inability to have their moni-
toring data considered by decision makers as the largest
problem facing the practice today and one that had to be
addressed in the framework.
The last section of the survey focused on participants’
reactions to the CBM conceptual framework of Pollock and
Whitelaw (2005). The results from this section were of
great aid to us in the formulation of the framework. Of the
groups, 82% surveyed reported that the framework of
Pollock and Whitelaw (2005) could be useful to their group
if it were expanded into a functional rather than conceptual
framework. It was explained to groups that the framework
of Pollock and Whitelaw is intended to be a conceptual
framework, and that a modified framework, which would
be created on the basis of their responses, would lead
toward development of a functional framework. Some
groups noted that many of the elements included in the
framework are already existing practices of their group.
The elements of the framework identified by the other
groups as especially beneficial included information
delivery, capacity building, community mapping, gover-
nance analysis, participation assessment, and information
gathering.
363
Step 1: Identify Stakeholders
Expanding on the framework by Pollock and Whitelaw, our
proposed scheme (Fig. 3) produces functionality by visu-
ally displaying process while not being overly complex or
overwhelming. The starting point for any CBM initiative is
to identify all possible stakeholders in the region under
investigation. Traditionally, engagement of stakeholders
has been a difficult task; however, it is a vital part of the
process because without stakeholder engagement, moni-
toring data will most likely go unused. Part of the
development of partnerships between stakeholders must be
an identification of the purpose and goals of the initiative.
It is important that, where possible, this exercise not be
started before engaging the stakeholders because all parties
must be able to help shape the vision of the group.
Step 2: Identify Skills and Resources
Step two calls for the identification of available skills and
resources. It comprises the following three steps: champion
identification, member assessment, and resource identifi-
cation. Champion identification is simply identifying a
person or party that will lead the initiative. It has been
found that CBM groups in Canada with strong champions
are much more likely to enjoy longevity (CCMN 2005,
Pollock & Whitelaw 2005). Member assessment is a useful
activity whereby the members of the group are assessed to
identify skills and/or resources that might be of use to the
group in obtaining its goals. Resource identification
involves assessment of outside resources that could offer
the initiative support. Examples of such resources could be
universities, funding agencies, or monitoring networks,
such as EMAN, CBEMN, or Citizen Science.
Step 3: Create a Communication Plan
The development of a monitoring plan consists of three
elements: (1) identifying the goals and objectives of the
monitoring activity, (2) identifying the data that are rele-
vant to decision makers, and (3) identifying the methods
and protocols that will be used to collect the monitoring
data. Development of the communication plan includes
identifying the audience(s) to which the group should be
attempting to communicate its data and message as well as
the best medium in which to communicate the data. The
communication plan is an essential part of the framework
and its ability to build capacity and social capital within the
community. As social capital builds, it will lead to indirect
benefits, such as increased stakeholder involvement as well
as the possibility for increased funding.
123
364
Fig. 3 Functional community-
based environmental monitoring
framework (created in response
to the needs and survey results
of 11 stewardship groups in
Nova Scotia)
Step 4: Create a Monitoring Plan
The next step in the framework is implementing the com-
prehensive monitoring plan, which brings together the
monitoring and communication plans. This step consists of
three important steps. The first is that of the ecologic
monitoring, to be carried out as identified in the monitoring
plan. The next step is to analyze the results of the moni-
toring plan, transferring them into a format agreed on by all
stakeholders. The third step is to communicate the results
of monitoring to not only the stakeholders but to the gen-
eral public in the way(s) specified in the communication
plan. Continuously throughout the function of this step,
evaluation and feedback must occur between the compre-
hensive monitoring plan and the separate development
123
Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
plans. Feedback is based on how well the comprehensive
monitoring plan fits the goals and objectives of the devel-
opment plans. Evaluation is carried out by the participating
stakeholders and is part of the ongoing communication and
partnership development noted in the first step.
The proposed framework is designed to increase the
operational efficiency of CBM groups, providing them with
a structured guide of how to implement and carry out a
CBM initiative. Groups must be mindful of the processes
of each step at all times during the initiative because they
will likely need to be adapted to fit changing circum-
stances. It is also important to note that this proposed
framework should be adapted to the context of the group
that is using it. It is designed to be an adaptable frames
work and should be used as such.
Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
Conclusion
It was determined through the literature and survey
responses that most CBM groups want to be involved and
understand the need to participate in some form of multi-
party CBM. Day and Litke (2005) noted the importance of
the creation of a multi-stakeholder organization for the
planning and stewardship of environmental resources, i.e.,
to build momentum, to develop new partnerships, and to
participate in planning and decision-making processes.
From the information collected through the survey, we
conclude that the proposed framework must be a func-
tional, multiparty CBM framework that addresses the
majority of concerns identified by the participants in the
study.
The framework proposed in this document will serve as
a guide for CBM groups to overcome some of the issues
identified in the study. It remains important to continue to
work on moving the framework from a more conceptual
model to one that is entirely functional and easy for envi-
ronmental organizations to implement. To increase the
long-term capacity of a CBM to promote change, the
products of the information-gathering process must be
translated into actions. CBM is a tool, and like any other
such tool, its success depends on its implementation. If the
group employing the framework put in a minimal amount
of effort associated with each step of the process, then its
results will reflect their effort. The framework was created
as a multiparty monitoring framework and thus demands
productive interaction between as many stakeholders as
possible. Increased communication and collaboration
among community groups, government agencies, and the
general public will take persistence, practice, and sensi-
tivity to all stakeholder interests. All partnerships involve a
certain level of trust and cooperation by those involved,
and such trust can only be earned with time (Day & Litke
2005). It should also be noted that the framework is only a
guide and may not be specific enough for some groups.
However, a balance between detail and complexity had to
be reached and thus is reflected in the proposed framework.
Useful next steps might include the development of a
concise manual that will guide CBM groups through each
step of the framework. A starting place for this could be the
Nova Scotia Department of the Environment and Labour’s
‘‘Municipal Source Water Protection Plan,’’ which includes
a manual for each of five steps in the development of such
a plan. Many individuals in both government and the CBM
community are hopeful that this might serve as a guide as
the province embarks on its new water strategy.
Perhaps the greatest challenge facing CBM groups, in
terms of community involvement and capacity, is the
willingness and readiness of current decision makers and
management institutions to work collaboratively with
365
citizens and community stakeholders for stewardship and
sustainability (Day & Litke 2005). Once again, the pro-
posed framework introduced in this article does not claim
to defeat this challenge, but it does provide community
groups with a step toward this goal. It remains to be seen
how CBM and CBEP will be better linked in the future. We
continue to evolve in our understanding and appreciation of
how community-based knowledge and perspectives can be
better integrated into environmental management. As oth-
ers (i.e., Fabricius and others 2007) have also indicated,
policies and incentives should be implemented to empower
communities and create institutional frameworks that
enhance their potential.
Acknowledgments We acknowledge the Saint Mary’s University
Student Employment Program for providing financial assistance to
undertake this study as well as the numerous environmental organi-
zations who willingly participated. We also thank Peter Duinker and
the anonymous reviewers whose helpful comments and suggestions
helped make this article better.
References
Atlantic Coastal Action Program (2006) Available at: http://www.
atlantic-web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/community/acap/default.asp?lang=En
&n=085FF7FC-1. Accessed: March 15, 2006
Allen JL (2004) The global environment: an emerging world view.
Environment 23:1
Cantwell M, Day J (1998) Citizen-initiated river basin planning: the
Salmon River Watershed example. Environments 25(2–3):80–
90
Chicoine G (1996) Citizen–scientist partnerships: a step toward
community-based environmental management. Unpublished
thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
Conrad C (2006) Towards effective and meaningful community based
environmental monitoring initiatives in Nova Scotia: where we
are at versus where we would like to be? Environments
34(1):25–36
Conservation Ontario (2005) Available at: http://www.conservation
-ontario.com/. Accessed: February 19, 2006
Craig, B, Whitelaw G, Robinson J, Jongerden P (2004) Community-
based ecosystem monitoring: a tool for developing and promot-
ing ecosystem-based management and decision-making in the
Long Point World Biosphere Reserve. Available at: http://www.
sampaa.org/PDF/ch4/4.4.pdf. Accessed: September 22, 2005
Day J, Cantwell M (2005) Citizen initiated river basin planning: the
Salmon Watershed example. Environments 25(2–3):80–89
Day J, Litke S (2005) Building local capacity for stewardship and
sustainability: the role of community-based watershed manage-
ment in Chilliwack, British Columbia. Environments 25(2–
3):91–110
Fabricius C, Folke C, Cundhill G, Schultz L (2007) Powerless
spectators, coping actors, and adaptive co-managers: a synthesis
of the role of communities in ecosystem management. Ecology
and Society 12(1):29 [online]. Available at: http://www.ecology
andsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art29/. Accessed: November 6, 2007
Folke C, Fabricius C, Cundhill G, Schulze L (2005) Communities,
ecosystems and livelihoods. In: Capistrano D, Samper C, Lee M,
Raudsepp-Hearne C (eds.), Ecosystems and human well-being:
multiscale assessments. Volume 4. Island Press, Washington,
DC pp 261–277
123
366
Gaweda J (2001) River talk: a report on volunteer water monitoring in
Ontario. Unpublished report, Citizen’s Environment Watch,
Ontario, Canada
Griffin CB (1999) Watershed councils: an emerging form of public
participation in natural resources management. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 35(3):505–518
Harvey, K (2006) Monitoring change: citizen science and interna-
tional environmental treaty regimes. In: Moomaw WR, Susskind
LE (eds.), Papers on international environmental negotiation.
Volume 15. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–14
Hellawell JA (1991) Development of a rationale for monitoring. In:
Goldsmith FB (ed.), Monitoring for conservation and ecology.
Chapman and Hall, London, UK. pp 1–14
Hoenicke R, Davis J, Gunther A, Mumley T, Abu-Saba K, Taberski K
(2003) Effective application of monitoring information: the case
of San Francisco Bay. Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment 81:15–25
Lasker RD, Weiss ES (2003) Broadening participation in community
problem solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collabo-
rative practice and research. Journal of Urban Health 80:14–60
McDaniels T, Gregory R, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk
management: successful public involvement in local water
management decisions. Risk Analysis 19(3):497–510
Pattengill-Semmens P, Semmens B (2003) Conservation and man-
agement applications of the REEF volunteer fish monitoring
program. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81:43–50
123
Environmental Management (2008) 41:358–366
Pollock R, Whitelaw G (2005) Community-based monitoring in
support of local sustainability. Local Environment 10(3):211–228
Savan B, Morgan A, Gore C (2003) Volunteer environmental
monitoring and the role of the universities: the case of Citizens’
Environment Watch. Environmental Management 31(5):561–
568
Sharpe A, Conrad C (2006) Community based ecological monitoring
in Nova Scotia: challenges and opportunities. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 13(1–3):305–409
Vos P, Meelis E, Keurs WJ (2000) A framework for the design of
ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and
nature management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
61:317–244
Whitelaw, GS (2002) Organizing community based ecosystem
monitoring In Canada. Available at: http://www.ccmn.ca/
english/library/whitelaw/intro.html. Accessed: October 8, 2005
Whitelaw GS, Vaughan H, Craig B, Atkinson D (2003) Establishing
the Canadian Community Monitoring Network. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 88:409–418
Wismer S, Mitchell B (2005) Community-based approaches to
resource and environmental management. Environments
33(1):1–4
Yarnel P, Gayton DV (2003) Community-based ecosystem monitor-
ing in British Columbia. Forest Research Extension Partnership
(FORREX Series) 13:1–37