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

opportunities Important Minimize negative impacts on 3.60 None None

traditional activities Preserve community identity and values 3.21 Low Neutral --

Important Increase compatibility with adjacent 3.17 None None

land uses Increase education options 2.66 None None Improve the standard of living for 2.61 None None

local people Increase local infrastructure 2.00 Low Not at All

Important --

Not Very

Important Economic Criteria 2.76 Increase tourism business development 3.67 Medium Neutral --

opportunities Important Maintain forest resource development 3.14 None None

and extraction options Increase employment opportunities for 2.77 None None

local people Maintain options for mining 2.71 None None

development and extraction Maintain agricultural development 2.62 None None

options Increase local investment 2.51 None None

opportunities Minimize increases in the cost of 2.36 None None

living for local people Increase average incomes for local 2.33 None None

populations * 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 6. Comparison of Generic and LRMP Protected Area Criteria Criteria for Protected Generic LRMP Numeric Area Selection in LRMPs Score Score Difference Environmental Criteria 4.14 3.96 -.18 Represent unique ecosystems across the 4.43 4.35 -.08

province Preserve areas large enough to protect the 4.26 4.23 -.03

greatest diversity of ecological, cultural

and recreational values Protect the most rare or unique features. 4.51 4.16 -.35 Protect resources that are most threatened 4.04 4.05 +.01

by human activities Protect areas with a minimal degree of human 3.96 4.00 +.04

disturbance Increase scientific research 3.64 2.98 -.66 Social Criteria 3.61 3.25 -.36 Preserve regional aesthetic qualities 3.93 4.02 +.09 Preserve a full range of cultural heritage 4.09 3.90 -.19

values Provide a full range of backcountry 3.59 3.77 +.18

recreation opportunities Increase the variety of recreation 3.89 3.60 -.29

opportunities Minimize negative impacts on traditional 3.89 3.60 -.29

activities Preserve community identity and values 3.72 3.21 -.51 Increase compatibility with adjacent land 3.85 3.17 -.68

uses Increase education options 3.37 2.66 -.71 Improve the standard of living for local 3.43 2.61 -.82

people Increase local infrastructure (e.g. housing, 2.37 2.00 -.37

transit) Economic Criteria 3.22 2.76 -.46 Increase tourism business development 3.73 3.67 -.06

opportunities Maintain forest resource development and 3.13 3.14 +.01

extraction options Increase employment opportunities for local 3.54 2.77 -.77

people Maintain options for mining development and 3.09 2.71 -.38

extraction Maintain agricultural development options 2.86 2.62 -.24 Increase local investment opportunities 3.16 2.51 -.65 Minimize increases in the cost of living for 3.17 2.36 -.81

local people Increase average incomes for local 3.11 2.33 -.78

populations