• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

EDM

Home
Interactive Directory
Introduction and Overview
Introduction
Overview of Guidance Document
Data Management Planning
Data Management Planning Home
Data Management Planning Overview
Data Governance
Data Lifecycle
Data Access, Sharing, and Security
Data Storage, Documentation, and Discovery
Data Disaster Recovery
Data Quality
Data Quality Home
Data Quality Overview 
Analytical Data Quality Review: Verification, Validation, and Usability
Using Data Quality Dimensions to Assess and Manage Data Quality
Considerations for Choosing an Analytical Laboratory 
Active Quality Control During Screening-level Assessments
Field Data Collection
Field Data Collection Home
Introduction to and Overview of Field Data Collection Best Practices
Defining Field Data Categories and Collection Methods
Field Data Collection Process Development Considerations
Field Data Collection Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
Field Data Collection Training Best Practices
Field Data Collection Training Best Practices Training Development Checklist
Other Considerations for Field Data Collection
Data Exchange
Data Exchange Home
Data Exchange Overview
Valid Values
Electronic Data Deliverables and Data Exchange
Data Migration Best Practices
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
Traditional Ecological Knowledge Home
What is Traditional Ecological Knowledge?
Acquiring Traditional Ecological Knowledge Data
Using and Consuming Traditional Ecological Knowledge Data
Managing Traditional Ecological Knowledge Data
Geospatial Data
Geospatial Data Home
Overview of Best Practices for Management of Environmental Geospatial Data
Organizational Standards for Management of Geospatial Data
Geospatial Data Standards
Geospatial Data: GIS Hardware
Geospatial Metadata
Geospatial Data Software
Geospatial Data Collection Consistency
Geospatial Data Field Hardware
Geospatial Data Dissemination: Web Format
Geospatial Visualization of Environmental Data
Public Communications
Public Communications Home
Public Communication and Stakeholder Engagement
Environmental Data Management Systems
Environmental Data Management Systems Home
Environmental Data Management Systems
Case Studies
Case Studies Home
Historical Data Migration Case Study: Filling Minnesota’s Superfund Groundwater Data Accessibility Gap
Case Study: USGS Challenges with secondary use of multi-source water quality monitoring data
LEK Case Study: Collection and Application of Local Ecological Knowledge to Local Environmental Management in Duluth, Minnesota
TEK Case Study: Improving Coastal Resilience in Point Hope, Alaska
Case Study: Integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge to the Remediation of Abandoned Uranium Sites
Case Study: Local Ecological Knowledge of Historic Anthrax in a Natural Gas Field
Rest in Peace? A Cautionary Tale of Failure to Consult with an Indigenous Community
Case Study: Use of Traditional Ecological Knowledge to Support Revegetation at a Former Uranium Mill Site
Additional Information
Supplemental Resources
References
Acronyms
Glossary
Acknowledgments
Team Contacts
Navigating this Website
Document Feedback

 

Environmental Data Management (EDM) Best Practices
HOME

References

Ref ID. Parent Document
  Data Management Planning Overview
1 USEPA 2006

 
USEPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process: EPA QA/G-4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C., https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/g4-final.pdf

  Data Governance
3 DAMA 2017

DAMA International. 2017a. DAMA-DMBOK: Data Management Book of Knowledge, 2nd ed. The Data Management Association. New Jersey: Technics Publications, LLC.

4 Eryurek et al. 2021

Eryurek, E., U. Gilad, V. Lakshmanan, A. Kibunguchy-Grant, and J. Ashdown. 2021. Data Governance: The Definitive Guide. California: O’Reilly Media.

  Data Lifecycle
5 Faundeen et al. 2013

Faundeen, J.L., T. E. Burley, J.A. Carlino, D.L. Govoni, H.S. Henkel, S.L. Holl, V.B. Hutchison, E. Martín, E.T. Montgomery, C.C. Ladino, S. Tessler, and L.S. Zolly. 2013. The United States Geological Survey Science Data Lifecycle Model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1265, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131265

6 USEPA 2018

USEPA. 2018. Best Practices for Data Management Technical Guide. November. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/100001798.pdf

  Data Access, Sharing, and Security
8 CDC 2018

Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 2018. “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.” September 14. https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html#:~:text=The%20Health%20Insurance%20Portability%20and,the%20patient’s%20consent%20or%20knowledge

9 DAMA 2016

DAMA International. 2016. The DAMA Dictionary of Data Management, 2nd ed. The Data Management Association. New Jersey: Technics Publications, LLC.

10 DHS 2021

DHS. 2021. “What is Personally Identifiable Information?” U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Last modified December 8, 2021. https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-training/what-personally-identifiable-information

11 IBM 2021

IBM. 2021. “What is data security?” https://www.ibm.com/topics/data-security

12 Steneck 2007

Steneck, Nicolas H. 2007. Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/rcrintro.pdf

13 USEPA 2021

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Information Security Policy.

14 USGS Undated

United States Geological Survey (USGS). Undated. “Data Management: Backup & Secure.” Accessed May 2022. https://www.usgs.gov/products/data-and-tools/data-management/backup-secure

  Data Storage, Documentation, and Discovery
  DAMA 2017 Reference ID 3
15 FGDC Undated

FGDC. Undated. “Geospatial Metadata Standards and Guidelines.” Federal Geographic Data Committee. https://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/geospatial-metadata-standards

16 NISO 2008

NISO. 2008. “Metadata.” National Information Standard Organization (NISO). http://framework.niso.org/24.html

17 Open Data DC 2021

Open Data DC. 2021. “Metadata Submission Guide.” City of Washington, DC. https://opendata.dc.gov/documents/DCGIS::metadata-submission-guide/about

18 OGC Undated

Open Geospatial Consortium. Undated. OGC Standards Open Geospatial Consortium. https://www.ogc.org/docs/is

19 USEPA 2022

USEPA. 2022. “USEPA Data Standards.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/data-standards. Last accessed 8/26/22.

20 USGS Undated

USGS. Undated. “Data Dictionaries.” United States Geological Survey. https://www.usgs.gov/data-management/data-dictionaries. Last accessed 8/26/22.

21 USGS 2021

USGS. 2021. “USGS Metadata Creation.” United States Geological Survey. Updated 6/21/21. https://www.usgs.gov/data-management/metadata-creation

  TEK Case Study: Improving Coastal Resilience in Point Hope, Alaska
22 EA 2021

EA. 2021. Community Involvement Plan: Identifying Priority Restoration Sites for Resilience. Point Hope, Alaska. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (EA), Anchorage, AK. June 2021.

23 Lane 2021

Lane, Russel. 2021. Point Hope resident and village services supervisor. Informal discussion. July.

24 Oomittuk 2021

Oomittuk, Steve. 2021. Native Village of Point Hope President. Formal interview. July.

25 North Slope Borough 2017

North Slope Borough. 2017. Point Hope Comprehensive Plan 2017–2037. May. https://www.north-slope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PHO_Adopted_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf.

26 O’Neill 1994

O’Neill, Dan. 1994. The Firecracker Boys. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

27 Whiting 2022

Whiting, Alex. 2022. Appendix 1: Native Village of Kotzebue Research Protocol. In: Native Village of Kotzebue Environmental Program 1997-2022. Kotzebue IRA.

  TEK Case Study: Use of TEK to Support Revegetation at a Former Legacy Uranium Mill Site, Saskatchewan, Canada
28 Saskatchewan Energy and Resources Undated

Saskatchewan Energy and Resources. Undated. Government of Saskatchewan Archives.

29 Saskatchewan Research Council Undated

Saskatchewan Research Council. Undated. Saskatchewan Research Council Archives.

30 Woodland Aerial Photography Undated.

Woodland Aerial Photography. Undated. Ownership Saskatchewan Research Council. Woodland Aerial Photography & Doug Chisholm. http://woodlandaerialphoto.com/aboutus.htm

  LEK Case Study: Local Ecological Knowledge of Historic Anthrax in a Natural Gas Field
32 Skirrow 2019

Skirrow, Sue. 2019. “Anthrax.” Government of Western Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. April 12, 2019. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/livestock-biosecurity/anthrax.

33 USDA-FSA 2021

USDA-FSA. 2021. Disaster Assistance: Livestock Indemnity Program Fact Sheet. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. April 2021. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/livestock_indemnity_program_lip-fact_sheet.pdf.

34 US Energy Information Administration 2015

US Energy Information Administration. 2015. Top 100 U.S. Oil and Gas Fields. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. March 2015. https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/top100/pdf/top100.pdf.

  TEK Case Study: Rest in Peace?
35 Ford 2016

Ford, Emily. 2016. The Year in Cemetery Vandalism: 2016. December. http://www.oakandlaurel.com/blog/the-year-in-cemetery-vandalism-2016#_ftn1

  TEK Case Study: Integration of Traditional Ecological Knowledge to the Remediation of Abandoned Uranium Sites
36 CanNorth 2011

CanNorth. 2011. Country Foods Study, Uranium City, Saskatchewan Year 1–and Former Eldorado Beaverlodge Properties. Canada North Environmental Services Limited Partnership. February 2011.

37 CanNorth 2012
(NOTE: Also, referenced as “CanNorth 2011 and 2012)”

CanNorth. 2012. Uranium City Country Foods Study Year 2. Canada North Environmental Services Limited Partnership. June 2012.

38 PAGC 2022

PAGC. 2022. “Welcome to the Prince Albert Grand Council Website!” Prince Albert Grand Council. Last modified February 11, 2022. https://www.pagc.sk.ca/.

39 PAGC 2011

PAGC. 2011. Gunnar Mine and Lorado Mill Sites Remediation: Traditional and Local Knowledge Contributions to the Environmental Impacts Assessment. Prince Albert Grand Council. January 18, 2011.

40 SENES 2015

SENES. 2015. 2014 Uranium City Consultation on Land Use. SENES Consultants and Kingsmere Resources Services. January 2015.

41 SRC 2008 (Also SRC 2008 in figure reference)

SRC. 2008. SRC Geospatial Geodatabase. Saskatchewan Research Council. June 2008.

42 SRC 2021
(Also SRC 2021 in figure reference)

SRC. 2021. SRC Geospatial Geodatabase. Saskatchewan Research Council. June 2021.

43 YNEC 2017

YNEC. 2017. Fond du Lac Denesuline First Nation Public Consultation on Land Use. Yutthe Nene Engineering Consultants Inc. April 2017.

  LEK Case Study: Collection and Application of Local Knowledge to Local Environmental Management in Duluth, Minnesota  USEPA Office of Research and Development Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division
44 City of Duluth 2021

City of Duluth. 2021. “St. Louis River Corridor.” City of Duluth, Minnesota. Accessed August 27, 2022. https://duluthmn.gov/parks/parks-planning/st-louis-river-corridor/.

45 City of Duluth and Barr Engineering 2019

City of Duluth and Barr Engineering. 2019. Mud Lake Causeway Alternatives Analysis. May 1, 2019. https://duluthmn.gov/media/7954/may-1-2019-mud-lake-final-causeway-alternatives-report.pdf.

46 USEPA 2019

USEPA. 2019. Mud Lake Future Alternatives Community Values and Health Impact Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/F19/054. https://duluthmn.gov/media/8009/mudlakecommvaluestechmemo-final.pdf.

47 USEPA 2021

USEPA. 2021. Kingsbury Bay-Grassy Point Habitat Restoration: A Health Impact Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-21/130. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/kingsbury-bay-grassy-point-hia-report.pdf.

  Historical Data Migration Case Study: Filling Minnesota’s Superfund Groundwater Data Accessibility Gap
48 MPCA Undated

MPCA. Undated. “Minnesota Groundwater Contamination Atlas.” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Accessed August 26, 2022. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/data/minnesota-groundwater-contamination-atlas.

49 MGS Undated

MGS. Undated. “County Well Index.” Minnesota Geological Survey. Accessed August 26, 2022. https://cse.umn.edu/mgs/cwi.

  Case Study: USGS Challenges with Secondary Use of Multi-source Water Quality Monitoring Data
50 Sprague, Oelsner, Argue 2017

Sprague, Lori A., Gretchen P. Oelsner, and Denise M. Argue. 2017. “Challenges with Secondary Use of Multi-source Water-Quality Data in the United States.” Water Research 110 (March 2017): 252-261. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2016.12.024.

51 Neumiller and Shumway 2017

Neumiller, Christine, and Laura Shumway. 2017. “Nutrient Data Management Best Practices.” Presented at the International Conference on Data Management. May 10-11, 2017. http://www.icedm.net/previous-conference-agendas.

52 USEPA 2017

USEPA. 2017. Best Practices for Submitting Nutrient Data to the Water Quality eXchange (WQX). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-06/documents/wqx_nutrient_best_practices_guide.pdf.

  Valid Values
53 ICEDM 2017

ICEDM. 2017. “Valid Values Best Management Practices in an Environmental Data Management System.” International Conference on Environmental Data Management. http://www.icedm.net/s/ICEDM-Valid-Values-BMP-Final-7jnk.pdf

54 USEPA 2022

USEPA. 2022. “Substance Registry Services.” US Environmental Protection Agency. https://sor.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/LandingPage.do. Last accessed 8/27/22.

  Electronic Data Deliverables and Data Exchange
55 ICEDM 2017

ICEDM. 2017. “Minimum Requirements for a Global Standardized EDD Structure for Environmental Laboratory Data.” International Conference Environmental Data Management. http://www.icedm.net/s/ICEDM-Analytical-EDD-Requirements-Final.pdf

  ICEDM 2017 Reference ID 53
  Data Migration Best Practices
56 ICEDM 2017

ICEDM. 2017. “Environmental Data Quality Audit: Foundation and Framework.” International Conference on Environmental Data Management. http://www.icedm.net/s/ICEDM-Historical-Data-Migration-Audit-Final.pdf

  Data Quality Overview
57 DAMA UK Working Group 2013

DAMA UK Working Group. 2013. The Six Primary Dimensions for Data Quality Assessment: Defining Data Quality Dimensions. DAMA United Kingdom, Bristol, UK. October 2013.

58 Bansal 2021

Bansal, M. 2021. “Flying Blind: How Bad Data Undermines Business.” Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/10/14/flying-blind-how-bad-data-undermines-business/?sh=1677b02729e8. October 14, 2021.

  USEPA 2006

Reference ID 1

  Using Data Quality Dimensions to Assess and Manage Data Quality
 

USEPA 2006

Reference ID 1
  Analytical Data Quality Review: Verification, Validation, and Usability
59 DOD, 2019

DOD. 2019. General Data Validation Guidelines. US Department of Defense. November 2019.

60 USEPA, 2002

USEPA. 2002. Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. November 2002.

61 USEPA, 2009

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use. US Environmental Protection Agency. January 2009.

62 USEPA, 2011

USEPA. 2011. Data Quality Screening Using Trend Charts. US Environmental Protection Agency Quality Assurance Office Region 9, San Francisco, CA. October 2011.

63 USEPA, 2020

USEPA. 2020. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. November 2020.

  Environmental Data Management Systems
64 Broman and Woo 2018 (Also, “Broman and Woo (2018))

Broman, Karl W., and Kara H. Woo. 2018. “Data Organization in Spreadsheets.” The American Statistician 72 (1): 2-10.

65 Dunn 2010  (Also, “Dunn (2010))

Dunn, Angus. 2010. “Spreadsheets—The Good, the Bad, and the Downright Ugly.” In Proceedings of the EuSpRIG 2015 Conference, Practical Steps to Protect Organizations from Out-of-Control Spreadsheets.” European Spreadsheet Risks Interest Group.

66 Panko 2005

Panko, Raymond R. 2005. “What We Know About Spreadsheet Errors.” Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Special Issue on Scaling Up End User Development, 10(2):15-21. DOI: 10.4018/joeuc.1998040102

67 Powell, Baker, and Lawson  2009

Powell, S.G., K.R. Baker, and B. Lawson. 2009. “Errors in Operational Spreadsheets.” J. Org. and End User Computing 21(3):24-36.

68 USEPA 2014

USEPA. 2014. Sampling and Analysis Plan—Guidance and Template v.4—General Projects—04/2014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/quality/sampling-and-analysis-plan-guidance-and-template-v4-general-projects-042014

  Overview of Best Practices for Management of Environmental Geospatial Data
69 Federal Geographic Data Committee, Undated.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. Undated. Lexicon of Geospatial Terminology. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Reston, VA. https://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/a-16/lexicon-of-geospatial-terminology

  Organization Standards for Geospatial Environmental Data Management
70 FGDC 2020

FGDC. 2020. “National Spatial Data Infrastructure Strategic Plan 2021–2024.” Federal Geographic Data Committee. Reston, VA. https://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi-plan/nsdi-strategic-plan-2021-2024.pdf.

71 ISO 2021

ISO. 2021. ISO—Standards. International Standards Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.iso.org/standards.html.

72 Lewin 2021 (Also “Lewin [2021]”)

Lewin, Matthew. 2021. “How to Review a Geospatial Strategy.” ESRI. Accessed December 10, 2021. https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/arcuser/how-to-review-a-geospatial-strategy/

  Geospatial Data Collection Consistency
73 EBJ 2020

EBJ. 2020. Digitalization & Data Management in the Environmental Industry in the 2020s. Environmental Business Journal 33, no. 9 & 10. https://ebionline.org/product/digitalization-data-management/

74 FedStats Undated.

FedStats. Undated. “Latitude and Longitude.” Accessed August 26, 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20140813074310/http://www.fedstats.gov/kids/mapstats/concepts_latlg.html.

75 Kerski and Clark 2012

Kerski, Joseph J., and Jill Clark. 2012. The GIS Guide to Public Domain Data. Redlands, CA: Esri Press.

76 GISGeography 2021

GISGeography. 2021. “GPS Accuracy: HDOP, PDOP, GDOP, Multipath & the Atmosphere.” Modified May 30, 2022. https://gisgeography.com/gps-accuracy-hdop-pdop-gdop-multipath/

77 Maher 2020

Maher, Richard. 2020. “Datum Epochs, And How to Understand Them.” April 6. Accessed November 12, 2021. https://www.xyht.com/surveying/links-need-seeing-to-datum-epochs-and-how-to-understand-them/

78 Gakstatter, 2013

Gakstatter, Eric. 2013. “Part 2: Nightmare on GIS Street – Accuracy, Datums, and Geospatial Data.” Modified May 23, 2013. https://geospatial-solutions.com/part-2-nightmare-on-gis-street-accuracy-datums-and-geospatial-data/.

79 U.S. Space Force 2022

U.S. Space Force. 2022. “GPS Accuracy.” Modified March 3,2022. https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/#how-accurate

  Geospatial Data Standards
80 Breunig et al. 2020

Breunig, Martin, Patrick E. Bradley, Markus Jahn, Paul Kuper, Nima Mazroob, Norbert Rösch, Mulhim Al-Doori, Emmanuel Stefanakis, and Mojgan Jadidi. 2020. “Geospatial Data Management Research: Progress and Future Directions.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9, no. 2: 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9020095

81 Evans et al. 2020

Evans, Ben, Kelsey Druken, Jingbo Wang, Rui Yang, Clare Richards, and Lesley Wyborn. 2017. “A Data Quality Strategy to Enable FAIR, Programmatic Access across Large, Diverse Data Collections for High Performance Data Analysis.” Informatics 4, no. 4: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics4040045

82 USEPA 2003

USEPA. 2003. Guidelines for Creating a Geospatial Quality Assurance Project Plan: EPA QA/G-5G. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C. March 2003. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/g5g-final.pdf.

  Geospatial Data: GIS Hardware
83 ESRI Undated

ESRI. Undated. “Components of ArcGIS for Server.” Accessed August 26, 2022. https://enterprise.arcgis.com/en/server/10.3/get-started/linux/components-of-arcgis-for-server.htm

84 USGS Undated

USGS. Undated. “What is a geographic information system (GIS)?” Accessed August 26, 2022. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-a-geographic-information-system-gis?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

  Geospatial Metadata
  EBJ 2020 Reference ID 73
85 GISGeography 2022

GISGeography. 2022. “What is Metadata? (Hint: It’s All About the Data).” Modified June 4, 2022. https://gisgeography.com/gis-metadata/.

  Geospatial Data Software
86 Huisman and de By, 2009

Huisman, Otto, and Rolf A. de By. 2009. Principles of Geographic Information Systems, 4th ed. Enshede, The Netherlands: The International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC).

  Geospatial Data Dissemination: Web Format
87 Fu and Sun, 2011
Also “Fu and Sun (2011)”

Fu, Pinde, and Jiulin Sun. 2011. Web GIS—Principles and Applications. Redlands, CA: Esri Press.

88 Tomlinson 2003

Tomlinson, Roger. 2003. GIS—Thinking about Geographic Information System Planning for Managers. Redlands, CA: Esri Press.

  Geospatial Visualization of Environmental Data
89 Field 2018

Field, Kenneth. 2018. Cartography. Redlands, CA: Esri Press

90 Balley et. al. 2014
Also “Balley et. al. (2014)”

Balley, Sandrine, Blanca Baella, Sidonie Christophe, Maria Pla, Nicolas Regnauld and Jantien Stoter. 2014. “Chapter 2, Map Specifications and User Requirements.” In Abstracting Geographic Information in a Data-Rich World, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, edited by Dirk Burghardt, Cécile Duchêne, and William Mackaness. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00203-3_2

  Public Communication and Stakeholder Engagement
94 Corner, Shaw, and Clarke 2018

Corner, Adam, Chris Shaw, and Jamie Clarke. 2018. “Principles for Effective Communication and Public Engagement on Climate Change: A Handbook for IPCC Authors.” Oxford: Climate Outreach. January 2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/Climate-Outreach-IPCC-communications-handbook.pdf

  EA 2021 Reference ID 22
95 GO FAIR 2021

GO FAIR. 2021. FAIR Principles. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/. Last accessed September 15, 2021.

99 Jarreau et al. 2017

Jarreau, Paige Brown, Zeynep Altinay, and Reynolds, Amy. 2017. Best Practices in Environmental Communication: A Case Study of Louisiana’s Coastal Crisis. Environmental Communication 11:2, 143-165. DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1094103

103 Wilkinson et al. 2016

Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E. Bourne, Jildau Bouwman, Anthony J. Brookes, Tim Clark, Mercè Crosas, Ingrid Dillo, Olivier Dumon, Scott Edmunds, Chris T. Evelo, Richard Finkers, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Alasdair J.G. Gray, Paul Groth, Carole Goble, Jeffrey S. Grethe, Jaap Heringa, Peter A.C ’t Hoen, Rob Hooft, Tobias Kuhn, Ruben Kok, Joost Kok, Scott J. Lusher, Maryann E. Martone, Albert Mons, Abel L. Packer, Bengt Persson, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Marco Roos, Rene van Schaik, Susanna-Assunta Sansone, Erik Schultes, Thierry Sengstag, Ted Slater, George Strawn, Morris A. Swertz, Mark Thompson, Johan van der Lei, Erik van Mulligen, Jan Velterop, Andra Waagmeester, Peter Wittenburg, Katherine Wolstencroft, Jun Zhao and Barend Mons. 2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3: 160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18

105 Zong et al. 2022

Zong, Jonathan, Crystal Lee, Alan Lundgard, JiWoong Jang, Daniel Hajas, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2022. “Rich Screen Reader Experiences for Accessible Data Visualization.” MIT Visualization Group. Eurographics Conference on Visualization (EuroVis) 2022. 41:3. http://vis.csail.mit.edu/pubs/rich-screen-reader-vis-experiences/

  What is TEK?
106 Miraglia 1998

Miraglia, Rita A. 1998. Traditional Ecological Knowledge Handbook: A Training Manual and Reference Guide for Designing, Conducting, and Participating in Research Projects Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/techpap/rp97052b.pdf.

107 NRCS Undated

NRCS. Undated. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: An Important Facet of Natural Resources Conservation. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Baton Rouge, LA. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045244.pdf.

108 NYSDEC 2020

NYSDEC. 2020. New York State Forest Action Plan. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. December 2020. https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/nysfap.pdf.

109 U.S. FWS 2011

U.S. FWS. 2011. Traditional Ecological Knowledge for Application by Service Scientists, Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. February 2011. https://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/pdf/tek-fact-sheet.pdf.

110 U.S. NPS 2020

U.S. NPS. 2020. “Overview of TEK.” National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior. Modified August 5, 2020. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tek/description.htm.

  Acquiring Traditional Ecological Knowledge Data
111 Anderson 2010

Anderson, Jane. 2010. Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property. Center for the Study of the Public Domain, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC. https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/pdf/ip_indigenous-traditionalknowledge.pdf.

112 U.S. NPS 2018

U.S. NPS. 2018. “Protection of TEK.” National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior. Modified February 23, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/tek/protection.htm#.

113 WIPO Undated

WIPO. Undated. Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property—Background Brief. World Intellectual Property Organization. Accessed April 8, 2022. https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/tk_ip.html

  Using and Consuming Traditional Ecological Knowledge Data
114 USACE 2015

USACE. 2015. Colonie Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Site Record of Decision, Colonie Site Main Site Soils. United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District Office.

  Managing Traditional Ecological Knowledge Data
115 Cresswell 2004

Cresswell, Tim. 2004. Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

7 Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 2018

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. 2018. Expanding the Narrative of Tribal Health: The Effects of Wild Rice Water Quality Rule Changes on Tribal Health. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Resource Management Division, Cloquet, MN. http://www.fdlrez.com/rm/downloads/WQSHIA.pdf.

31 Tuan 1975

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1975. “Place: An Experiential Perspective.” The Geographical Review LXV (2): 151-165.

2 Williams et al. 2018

Williams, Kathleen, David Bolgrien, Joel Hoffman, Ted Angradi, Jessica Carlson, Rosita Clarke, Adam Fulton, Heidi Timm-Bijold, Molly MacGregor, Anett Trebitz, and Salaam Witherspoon. 2018. How the Community Value of Ecosystem Goods and Services Empowers Communities to Impact the Outcomes of Remediation, Restoration, and Revitalization Projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Duluth, MN. EPA/600/R-17/292.

image_pdfPrint this page/section


EDM

Home
glossaryGlossary
referencesReferences
acronymsAcronyms
ITRC
Contact Us
About ITRC
Visit ITRC
social media iconsClick here to visit ITRC on FacebookClick here to visit ITRC on TwitterClick here to visit ITRC on LinkedInITRC on Social Media
about_itrc
Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer). This web site is owned by ITRC • 1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 • (202) 266-4933 • Email: [email protected] • Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Usage Policy ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States.