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.

Resources allocated to natural resource management often fluctuate, requiring the types and numbers of parameters used in monitoring programs (e.g., indicators of ecosystem health) to be frequently reassessed. Conventional approaches to selecting monitoring indicators are often biased and non-inclusive. A new Criteria-based Ranking (CBR) process for selecting and/or prioritizing indicators was tested in the Muskoka River Watershed (Ontario, Canada). The CBR process is based on two environmental assessment tools, Simple Weighted and Leopold matrices. It incorporates environmental components and criteria for assessing each indicator, which generate a score per indicator. The process tested in this study was concluded to be an effective way to prioritize and/or select environmental monitoring indicators. A different set of indicators emerged when a common set of criteria was used to assess monitoring indicators. Benefits of the CBR process include: •Standardization of indicator selection process with less bias and lower cost (e.g., time and human resources).•Indicators that are representative of the community and more relevant for decision-making (e.g., more resilient to socio-political change).•Adaptability: (1) to other goals, e.g., selecting from a list of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs), and (2) to any context through localized scoring criteria. Easily integrated into existing practice.

Abstract Climate is changing at an unprecedented rate with impacts being felt in social and ecological systems around the world. Opportunities for building climate resilience of the social-ecological system surrounding freshwater areas are assessed using the aquatic monitoring and reporting programs of Muskoka River Watershed (Ontario, Canada) as a case study. A three-step study design was used: establishment of a knowledge baseline (i.e., what has been done), confirmation of the baseline to ensure perspectives that emerged were inclusive of multiple stakeholders (i.e., broadly applicable) and an exploratory workshop to disseminate recommendations and discuss implementation with key stakeholders. Two themes are discussed: the strengthening of watershed-scale monitoring approaches, and improved communication with stakeholders (e.g., through ‘state of the watershed’ reporting). This study offers an evaluation of watershed-scale aquatic monitoring and reporting and provides concrete examples from the case study. We test a new process for refining, selecting, or prioritizing indicators for aquatic monitoring. Cumulative effects assessment and monitoring (CEAM) is considered as the suggested monitoring approach at a watershed-scale. Recommendations for developing CEAM in the Muskoka River Watershed include considerations for selection of monitoring indicators, consistent communication of indicators, and implementing a metadatabase. Ways to enhance education of, and engagement with, local stakeholders through improved ‘state of the watershed’ report cards are highlighted. Resilience is strengthened by addressing two goals in the case study: engaging with the community and improving knowledge of stressor-effect relationships in the watershed via stronger aquatic monitoring.