Evaluating protected areas selection processes: a case study of land use planning in British Columbia.

LRMP participants were asked to rate the importance of 24 criteria for PA designation processes (Table 4). Overall, respondents considered environmental considerations to be the most important criteria to consider when designating PAs. The average rating for all the environmental factors considered was 4.14 based on a Likert scale ranging from 1 representing not important to 5 meaning very important. Social criteria received the next highest average rating (mean = 3.61), followed by economic considerations (mean = 3.22).

Environmental Criteria

Five of the six environmental criteria were ranked as important to very important for PA designation processes (Table 4). Only one environmental criterion ('increased scientific research') ranked in the neutral to important category (mean = 3.64). All rankings for environmental criteria had a medium to high consensus. The environmental factor considered most important for PA selection purposes focused on protecting unique ecosystems.

Social Criteria

Six of the ten social criteria were ranked as important to very important by respondents. The top-rated social criteria were related to preserving cultural, aesthetic, and recreational values (Table 4). In contrast, respondents rated 'increasing local infrastructure' (mean = 2.37) the lowest of all 24 PA designation criteria examined in this study. Overall, there was limited consensus on the importance of incorporating social as opposed to environmental criteria in protected area selection processes (Table 4).

Economic Criteria

Economic criteria received the lowest overall mean importance ratings (mean = 3.22). None of the eight economic criteria were ranked as important to very important. The highest ranked economic criterion was 'increasing tourism business development opportunities (mean 3.73).

LRMP Protected Area Selection Criteria Ratings

In the previous section, respondents provided their perspectives on the importance of specific criteria to generic PA selection processes. This section summarizes respondents' views on how important these same criteria were to PA selection within the LRMP processes they experienced. Environmental criteria were rated the most important in the LRMP PA selection process (mean = 3.96), followed by social criteria (mean = 3.35), and economic criteria (mean = 3.26) (Table 5).

Environmental Criteria

Five of the six environmental selection criteria were rated important to very important in the selection of PAs in the LRMP process. The environmental criteria of highest importance were 'representing unique ecosystems across the province' (mean = 4.35); and, 'preserving areas large enough to protect the greatest diversity of ecological, cultural and recreational values '(mean = 4.23). Respondents expressed high levels of consensus on the rankings of both of these factors (Table 5). Other key factors identified as being highly important in the LRMP PA designation processes included: 'protecting the most rare or unique features' (mean = 4.16); 'protecting resources most threatened by human activities' (mean = 4.05); and 'preserving regional aesthetic qualities' (mean = 4.02). However, only medium levels of consensus were apparent with respect to the importance of these in the PA designation processes they experienced (Table 5).

Social Criteria

Only two of the ten social criteria were perceived to have been important to very important in PA selection in the LRMP processes (Table 5). However, the level of consensus on these two criteria was not high.

Economic Criteria

Economic criteria were rated as being of limited importance to the PA selection processes experienced by LRMP respondents (Table 5). Only 'increasing tourism business development opportunities' was considered to have played any role in the LMRP process. All other economic factors received importance ratings that clustered near the bottom of the criteria actually used for PA designation (Table 5).

Generic and LRMP Based Criteria Importance Comparisons

A comparison of generic criteria deemed to be important in protected area selection, with those considerations actually cited to be important in LRMP decision making is summarized in Table 6.

Overall, the perceived importance of environmental, social, and economic criteria to generic PA selection processes was considered greater than their value to the actual designation of such places within the case study regions. Of the 24 generic protected area criteria examined, 19 were cited as being of less importance to actual designation of PAs than their generic importance (Table 6). Overall, the mean decrease in importance levels accorded to criteria was least apparent among environmental (mean difference = 0.18) as compared to social (mean difference = .36) and economic factors (mean difference = 0.46). The greatest decrease in the perceived importance of generic versus applied environmental criteria was related to the role 'increased scientific research' played in the selection of PAs (mean difference = 0.66), followed by 'protect the most rare or unique features (mean difference = 0.35). The importance rating for the remaining four environmental criteria remained virtually unchanged. All social criteria were less important in the actual PA selection process than their generic rating except for 'provide a full range of backcountry recreation opportunities' and 'preserve regional aesthetic qualities'. All economic criteria were less important in the selection process than their generic importance except for 'maintain forest development and extraction options'. One other economic criterion--'increase tourism business development opportunities'--recorded only a marginal decline (Table 6).

Management Implications

Several implications for land use planning managers and their stakeholders emerge from these findings. Those suggested here are based on our interpretation of the 'top of mind' and 'close-ended' remarks of respondents, as well as our synthesis of perspectives in the literature. These implications may be of value to other land use planners, protected area managers, community development organizations, and civil society organizations addressing protected area issues.

* Environmental values should be the most important considerations when establishing PAs.

Respondents consistently regarded environmental criteria to be the most important considerations when selecting PAs. This environmental priority was perceived to have existed in the selection of PAs for the case study regions. As was the case in British Columbia, comprehensive, clearly-defined, and measurable environmental criteria are needed for use by stakeholders in PA selection processes.

* Social and economic criteria should be developed and used in PA designation processes.

While this research shows that environmental criteria received the highest priority in designating PAs, the research revealed that social and economic criteria should also be used in PA selection. The research shows that social and economic criteria played a less significant role in PA selection than warranted by their generic importance ranking. Consequently, a greater effort is required in future to incorporate social and economic criteria into the PA selection process.

* Protected area values should reflect and support the cultural and social priorities of surrounding communities.

While protecting the social and cultural values inherent in PAs was considered important in principle, only moderate emphasis was perceived to have been placed on such factors in the BC designation processes. PAs can gain substantial benefit by supporting programs which reinforce or complement the social, aesthetic, and cultural values of surrounding communities. This is especially the case with respect to accommodating the leisure pursuits of citizens in gateway recreation communities, as well as the traditional values of First Nation communities. Both of these stakeholder groups can be exceptionally important in protecting and reinforcing appropriate forms of protected area use.

* More research should be done on the role that protected areas can play in economic development.

While the management objectives for LRMPs in the case study regions emphasized the need to achieve economic development goals, economic development was perceived to be a low priority in the actual selection of the PAs. In fact, designation of PAs is viewed as a trade-off between economic development and environmental preservation. This perceived trade-off results in greater controversy in land use planning than necessary. Growing opportunities exist for PAs to enhance the economic viability of businesses associated with culture and nature-based tourism. These forms of economic development depend on access to areas of high environmental quality and cultural authenticity for their long-term sustainability. By linking programs for the appropriate use of PA assets to such forms of economic development, valuable community and external stakeholder partnerships can be generated for such areas. This support can be invaluable in promoting and ensuring the long-term protection of core PA values. Therefore, more research should be done on the role that PAs can play in promoting recreational and economic development objectives.

Conclusions