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

Wright, R.G., and D.J. Mattson. 1996. The Origin and Purpose of National Parks and Protected Areas. In National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection, R.G. Wright, ed. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Science.

Zube, E.H. 1989. National Parks in a Changing World. Society and Natural Resources 2(3): 241-243.

Margaret Paridaen has a Master's degree in Resource and Environmental Management from Simon Fraser University. Building on her background in landscape and recreation planning, she has worked in a variety of community and regional planning contexts managing recreation and park development programs. Currently, she is an independent recreation planning consultant.

Peter Williams is a professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management and Director of the University Centre for Tourism Policy and Research at Simon Fraser University. His research relates to the use of land and resources for sustainable tourism. He can be contacted at peterw@sfu.ca

Thomas Gunton is a professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management and Director of the Resource and Environmental Planning Program at Simon Fraser University. He has held numerous senior positions in government including Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines for the government of Manitoba and Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands, and Parks for the government of British Columbia. His research focuses on environmental mediation and dispute resolution and resource and environmental planning. He can be contacted at tgunton@shaw.ca Table 1. Values and Functions of Protected Areas * Life-Support -- Protecting oxygen/carbon cycle and watersheds; erosion

control * Scientific -- Providing understanding of ecosystems and evolution;

research * Genetic Diversity -- Preserving gene pools and natural selection * Aesthetic -- Protecting natural patterns and pristine landscapes * Cultural Symbolization -- Providing references for freedom, purity and

strength * Historical -- Conserving past human activity and landscapes * Character-building -- Providing a setting for challenge, adventure and

self-reliance * Therapeutic -- Providing a setting for recovery and psychological

needs * Spiritual -- Recognizing the inspiration and relationship with the

natural world * Intrinsic -- Ensuring the value of wild nature in and of itself, apart

from humans * Recreational -- Providing opportunities for sports, skill development,

fitness and challenge * Subsistence -- Recognizing indigenous reliance on native plants and

animals * Market -- Generating income from commercial ventures associated with

wilderness recreation, water, wildlife and mineral interests Table 2. BC Protected Area Strategy Goals and Selection Criteria Goal 1: Ensure Representation of Province's Distinct Geographical

Regions Environmental Selection Criteria

* Representativeness

* Degree of naturalness

* Viability

* Diversity

* Vulnerability Socioeconomic Selection Criteria

* Opportunity for public use and appreciation

* Opportunity for scientific research Goal 2: Protect Special Natural, Cultural, and Recreation Features Environmental Selection Criteria

* Rarity, scarcity, and uniqueness

* Diversity

* Vulnerability Socioeconomic Selection Criteria

* Opportunity for public use and appreciation

* Opportunity for scientific research

* Cultural heritage significance

* Ability to address public perceptions and demands (British Columbia 1993a) Figure 1. Sample Rating Scale Used in the Survey How important is each criterion in the selection of Not Not N/A protected at all very Very Don't areas? important important Neutral Important important Know Improve the 1 2 3 4 5 standard of living for local people. Table 3. Interpretation of Consensus Categories High = 70% of ratings in 1 category or 80% in 2 related categories * Medium = 60% of ratings in 1 category or 70% in 2 related categories Low = 50% of ratings in 1 category or 60% in 2 related categories None = Less than 60% of ratings in 2 related categories * Related categories "Important" and "Very Important"; "Not at all Important" and "Not Very Important" (de Loe 1995) Table 4. Perceived Importance of Generic Protected Area Selection Criteria

Mean Generic Criteria for Protected Score * Group Area Selection (1-5) Consensus Support Type Overall Environmental Criteria 4.14 Protect the most rare or unique 4.51 High Important --

features Very Important Represent unique ecosystems across 4.43 High Important --

the province Very Important Preserve areas large enough to 4.26 High Important --

protect the greatest diversity of Very Important

ecological, cultural and

recreational values Protect resources that are most 4.04 Medium Important --

threatened by human activities Very Important Protect areas with a minimal 3.96 Medium Important --

degree of human disturbance Very Important Increase scientific research 3.64 High Neutral --

Important Overall Social Criteria 3.61 Preserve a full range of cultural 4.09 Medium Important --

heritage values Very Important Preserve regional aesthetic 3.93 Medium Important --

qualities Very Important Increase the variety of recreation 3.89 Low Important --

opportunities Very Important Minimize negative impacts on 3.89 Medium Important --

traditional activities Very Important Increase compatibility with 3.85 Medium Important --

adjacent land uses Very Important Preserve community identity and 3.72 Medium Important --

values Very Important Provide a full range of 3.59 Low Neutral --

backcountry recreation Important

opportunities Improve the standard of living for 3.43 None None

local people Increase education options 3.37 Medium Neutral --

Important Increase local infrastructure 2.37 None None (e.g. housing, transit) Overall Economic Criteria 3.22 Increase tourism business 3.73 None None

development opportunities Increase employment opportunities 3.54 None None

for local people Minimize increases in the cost of 3.17 None None

living for local people Increase local investment 3.16 None None

opportunities Maintain forest resource 3.13 None None

development and extraction

options Increase average incomes for local 3.11 None None

populations Maintain options for mining 3.09 None None

development and extraction Maintain agricultural development 2.86 None None

options * High = 70% of ratings in 1 category or 80% in 2 related categories; Medium = 60% of ratings in 1 category or 70% in 2 related categories; Low = 50% of ratings in 1 category or 60% in 2 related categories; None = Less than 60% of ratings in 2 related categories Table 5. Perceived Importance of Protected Area Selection Criteria in LRMP Processes

Mean Criteria for Protected Area Score * Group Selection in LRMPs (1-5) Consensus Support Type Environmental Criteria 3.96 Represent unique ecosystems across the 4.35 High Important --

province Very Important Preserve areas large enough to protect 4.23 High Important --

the greatest diversity of ecological, Very Important

cultural and recreational values Protect the most rare or unique 4.16 Medium Important --

features Very Important Protect resources that are most 4.05 Medium Important --

threatened by human activities Very Important Protect areas with a minimal degree of 4.00 Medium Important --

human disturbance Very Important Increase scientific research 2.98 Low Neutral --

Important Social Criteria 3.25 Preserve regional aesthetic qualities. 4.02 Medium Important --

Very Important Preserve a full range of cultural 3.90 Low Important --

heritage values Very Important Provide a full range of backcountry 3.77 Medium Neutral --

recreation opportunities Important Increase the variety of recreation 3.60 Low Neutral --