<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="Ho-2020-Comparison">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Comparison of freshwater monitoring approaches: strengths, opportunities, and recommendations</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Elaine</namePart>
        <namePart type="given">Yee</namePart>
        <namePart type="given">Lin</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Ho</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Andrew</namePart>
        <namePart type="given">J</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Trant</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Michelle</namePart>
        <namePart type="given">A</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Gray</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Simon</namePart>
        <namePart type="given">C</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Courtenay</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>2020</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <genre authority="bibutilsgt">journal article</genre>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 192, Issue 9</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <originInfo>
            <issuance>continuing</issuance>
            <publisher>Springer Science and Business Media LLC</publisher>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
        <genre authority="bibutilsgt">academic journal</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>This review identifies strengths and weaknesses of water monitoring programs selected by Canadian water managers. We used 22 criteria, guided by outcomes of an exploratory study and supported by 21 semi-structured key informant interviews. The highest-scoring programs include the Slave Watershed Environmental Effects Program (Canada), the Government of Canada’s Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, and Healthy Land and Water (Australia). We describe five recommendations for improving future freshwater monitoring frameworks: (1) recognize different knowledge approaches (especially Indigenous), (2) use multiple reporting formats, (3) clarify monitoring and management roles, (4) apply a whole-watershed approach, and (5) link monitoring to management and decision-making.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">Ho-2020-Comparison</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1007/s10661-020-08570-1</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://gwf-uwaterloo.github.io/gwf-publications/G20-15001</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>2020</date>
        <detail type="volume"><number>192</number></detail>
        <detail type="issue"><number>9</number></detail>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Journal Article
%T Comparison of freshwater monitoring approaches: strengths, opportunities, and recommendations
%A Ho, Elaine Yee Lin
%A Trant, Andrew J.
%A Gray, Michelle A.
%A Courtenay, Simon C.
%J Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 192, Issue 9
%D 2020
%V 192
%N 9
%I Springer Science and Business Media LLC
%F Ho-2020-Comparison
%X This review identifies strengths and weaknesses of water monitoring programs selected by Canadian water managers. We used 22 criteria, guided by outcomes of an exploratory study and supported by 21 semi-structured key informant interviews. The highest-scoring programs include the Slave Watershed Environmental Effects Program (Canada), the Government of Canada’s Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, and Healthy Land and Water (Australia). We describe five recommendations for improving future freshwater monitoring frameworks: (1) recognize different knowledge approaches (especially Indigenous), (2) use multiple reporting formats, (3) clarify monitoring and management roles, (4) apply a whole-watershed approach, and (5) link monitoring to management and decision-making.
%R 10.1007/s10661-020-08570-1
%U https://gwf-uwaterloo.github.io/gwf-publications/G20-15001
%U https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08570-1

Markdown (Informal)

[Comparison of freshwater monitoring approaches: strengths, opportunities, and recommendations](https://gwf-uwaterloo.github.io/gwf-publications/G20-15001) (Ho et al., GWF 2020)

• Comparison of freshwater monitoring approaches: strengths, opportunities, and recommendations (Ho et al., GWF 2020)

ACL

• Elaine Yee Lin Ho, Andrew J. Trant, Michelle A. Gray, and Simon C. Courtenay. 2020. Comparison of freshwater monitoring approaches: strengths, opportunities, and recommendations. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 192, Issue 9, 192(9).