Abstract
Protected area designation is a key component of sustainable land
use planning. This paper reports the perspectives of stakeholders
concerning those factors used to select protected areas in an extensive
land and resource management planning process in British Columbia. This
innovative collaborative planning process doubled the amount of land
dedicated as protected areas in the province. The stakeholders surveyed
were a sample of those directly involved in planning and selecting the
protected areas. The paper assesses: what criteria are deemed important
in the selection of protected areas; and to what extent were these same
criteria actually employed in the designation of such areas in the case
study regions of British Columbia. The findings suggest that
environmental criteria dominated the selection of protected areas, while
social and economic factors received less attention. This situation
existed despite the focus of planning on increasing economic and social
benefits for surrounding communities. Suggestions for developing a more
diverse mix of criteria are provided in order to inform future protected
area designation and management processes.
Resume
La designation des aires protegees est un element cle de la
planification durable de l'utilisation des terres. Dans cet
article, on presente un compte rendu des points de vue des intervenants
concernant les facteurs qui sont utilises pour choisir les aires
protegees dans le cadre d'un processus a grande echelle de
planification de la gestion des terres et des ressources en Colombie
Britannique. Ce processus novateur de planification collaborative a
permis de doubler la quantite de terres designees comme zones protegees
dans la province. Les intervenants interroges constituaient un
echantillon de ceux qui participent directement a la planification et au
choix des aires protegees. Dans cet article, on evalue quels sont les
criteres juges importants pour le choix des aires protegees et dans
quelle mesure ces memes criteres sont reellement utilises pour designer
de telles aires dans les regions de la Colombie Britannique ayant fait
l'objet de l'etude de cas. Les resultats donnent a penser que
le critere environnemental est celui qui a prime pour le choix des aires
protegees, alors que les facteurs sociaux et economiques ont fait
l'objet de moins d'attention. On a observe que cette situation
existait malgre le fait que l'on tende, en matiere de
planification, a viser une augmentation des avantages sociaux et
economiques pour les collectivites environnantes. Afin d'eclairer
les futurs processus de designation et de gestion des aires protegees,
les auteurs proposent des recommandations pour elaborer un jeu de
criteres plus diversifies.
Key Words
British Columbia, land and resource management planning, protected
areas, planning evaluation
Introduction
An important recommendation emanating from the seminal
sustainability policy publication Our Common Future (WCED 1987) was the
need to increase the proportion of the global land base designated to
protected area functions. However, while there are a wealth of
strategies and actions available for managing protected areas (IUCN
1994, Cole 2000), the processes for identifying and designating such
places are relatively haphazard in their approach and application
(Newsome et al. 2001). A particularly challenging aspect of protected
area (PA) development involves identifying sites that should receive
priority for protection.
This paper helps address this challenge by reporting the
perspectives of a multi-stakeholder group of respondents on the
importance and utility of PA selection criteria. All of the respondents
were engaged in the selection of sites associated with the unprecedented
expansion of an existing protected area system in British Columbia. The
paper begins with a summary of the literature on protected area
designation criteria. Based on this literature, a comprehensive set of
environmental, social, and economic criteria is developed. The degree to
which these criteria were important and subsequently utilized in the
selection of protected areas in British Columbia is then assessed via a
survey of stakeholders involved in the site selection process. British
Columbia was chosen for the evaluation of criteria because it had
recently completed a dramatic expansion of its protected areas using an
innovative multi-stakeholder process. Conclusions for protected area
designation and evaluation are made based on the survey results.
Protected Area Designation Rationales
The practice of designating PAs has existed in North America for
almost a century and a half. Over that period, the rationale for the
designation of PAs has evolved with society's ever-shifting
priorities. These priorities have ranged from designating unique lands
for hunting, recreation and tourism pursuits to reserving special areas
for wildlife conservation, cultural resource protection, and
biodiversity preservation purposes (Nelson 1993, Wright and Mattson
1996). The typical values and functions associated with PAs are listed
in Table 1.
Whether created for the purposes of maintaining environmental
values, or enhancing cultural priorities, the overriding intents have
been to enclose, reserve and protect key natural and cultural resources
for specific uses (MacEwen and MacEwan 1982). The World Conservation
Union's (IUCN) definition of a PA reflects this perspective:
[A protected area is] an area of land and/or sea especially
dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity,
and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed
through legal or other effective means (IUCN 1994 in IUCN 1998: 1).
Protected Area Designation Criteria
For the purposes of this paper, PA selection criteria are
attributes or standards that provide a systematic basis for assessing an
area's worth (adapted from Worboys et al. 2001). Numerous PA
selection criteria are recommended in the literature. For instance, Bos
and Lockwood (1995) identified approximately 50 individual selection
criteria used in protected area selection (Lockwood et al. 1997).
Assessments of such criteria suggest that some are easily measured and
precise (e.g., size, diversity), many are ecologically based (e.g.,
rarity, diversity), a few are socially based (e.g., intrinsic appeal,
recorded history), and several are vague (e.g. naturalness, and
representativeness) (Goldsmith 1991). Despite the availability of these
selection criteria, their application in specific PA designation
processes has been ad hoc (Nelson and Sportza 2000).
Traditionally, natural science criteria have been used most
frequently to guide designation and planning of PAs (Achana and
O'Leary 2000, La Pierre 1997, Lockwood et al. 1997, Gotmark and
Nilsson 1992, Smith and Theberge 1986). For instance, Smith and Theberge
(1986) found that eight of the most regularly used criteria were
constructed from biological principles. Similarly, Margules and Usher
(1981) discovered that four of the most widely used selection criteria
had a biological basis. In contrast, social criteria, including
human-influenced threats, landscape quality and aesthetics, recreation
opportunities, educational value, research value and historical,
cultural, and archaeological values received comparatively little
attention in selection processes (Eagles et al. 2002, IISD 2006).
More recently, some PA initiatives have been criticized for their
narrow focus on biological values and a disregard for interactions
between human populations and the natural environment (Tacconi 2000,
Owens and Cowell 2002). Some of this criticism focuses specifically on
how existing designation criteria fail to adequately address the role
that PAs can play as a catalyst to creating economic value for
neighboring regions and communities (Rothman 2000, Ghimire and Pimbert
1997, Dearden 1995, Wells and Brandon 1992, Parks Canada Agency 2000). A
growing literature is emerging that calls for the integration of more
social and economic criteria into designation processes so as to take
into account the needs of those who share a disproportionate cost of PA
development such as communities and other stakeholders beyond park
boundaries (IUCN 1994). As increasing awareness of the relationships
between PAs and surrounding landscapes and communities emerges (Zube
1989, Berliner 2004), so does the need to embed these PA values in
broader strategic and regional land-use planning processes (Owens and
Cowell 2002, Berliner 2003). Unfortunately little empirical research
exists to establish the extent to which such PA values are being
embedded within these types of planning initiatives (Eagles et al.
2002). The paper's case study of the process of PA designation
within BC's Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) processes
provides empirical insights into the realities of such integration.
Case Study Context
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s land use planning in BC was
characterized by resource sector conflicts and growing concerns about
economic diversification, environmental protection, and sustainable
development (Pierce Lefebvre Consulting 2001, Gunton, et al. 2003a,
2003b). To address these issues, an ambitious province-wide LRMP process
was launched in 1992. It was specifically designed to integrate many
aspects of natural resource allocation, including PA designations, into
a systematic land use planning system. Its focus was on the development
of enduring land use plans that would foster greater well-being for
B.C.'s economy, environment and communities (Brown 1996).
A key component of the LRMP process involved implementation of a
province-wide Protected Areas Strategy. Its purpose was to protect
unique ecosystems and cultural heritage, to provide recreation and to
contribute toward the long-term growth of BC's tourism industry
and, thus, the diversification of the BC economy. Established in 1992,
the strategy had a goal of doubling the total land base allocated to PAs
from 6% to 12%.
To help facilitate this PA expansion, the BC Ministry of Parks
developed the Parks Plan 90 blueprint for protected area designation.
This included the following publications:
* Special Features for BC Parks, an inventory of special
geophysical, biological, and cultural features, many of which were not
already designated as parks or protected areas (Ministry of Parks
1990a);
* Landscapes for BC Parks (Ministry of Parks 1990b), a description
of 59 landscape types, 27 with partial representation and 15 with no
representation in the BC Parks system.
The intent of these documents was to recommend candidate sensitive
areas that should be considered priorities for designation as PAs within
the province's broader LRMP processes. These recommended areas were
selected based on their perceived ability to meet specific goals
associated with representativeness and inclusion of special features
(British Columbia 1993a). A combination of environmental, social, and
economic criteria was used to define the extent to which the candidate
PAs met each goal. Table 2 summarizes these criteria.
Multistakeholder LRMP planning tables were created for each region
of British Columbia to prepare regional land use plans. The planning
tables evaluated potential PAs against selection criteria within the
context of potential land use scenarios that the planning table
developed. After much stakeholder input, the planning table's
recommendations for PA designation and other regional land uses were
submitted to Cabinet for final approval (British Columbia 1993b). By
2005, LRMPs were completed for 80% of BC regions and 12% of provincial
lands were placed under PA status (British Columbia 2004).
Research Methods
The purpose of this research was to determine "What criteria
were deemed important in the selection of protected areas?" and,
"To what extent were these criteria employed in the designation of
protected areas in British Columbia?" The first step in the
research was to establish generic PA selection criteria based on a
literature review, so that they could be used to frame the ensuing
evaluation process. The next step was to evaluate the significance of
these PA selection criteria by surveying stakeholders who had
participated in a specific subset of the province's LRMP planning
tables. The following sections describe these methods in more detail.
Literature Review
The literature review involved several components. First, the
history, roles, and definitions associated with PA designation and
development in North American and other jurisdictions were examined
(Paridaen 2005). Second, a list of generic environmental, social, and
economic criteria for PA selection was developed from the literature
(Table 4). Particular attention was focused on identifying social and
economic factors that might be relevant and important to consider in PA
designation processes. These factors were then refined to reflect and
complement the Protected Area Strategy designation criteria suggested as
guidelines for the province's LRMP processes.
Survey Design
The resulting PA selection criteria formed the foundation for a
survey used to probe stakeholder perspectives on the value of these
factors in designating protected areas. The questionnaire used
Likert-type scaling procedures to examine the perceived importance and
utility of 24 criteria in the selection of newly designated protected
areas within specific LRMP regions. Respondents were asked to rate the
importance of the criteria for PA selection on the following five point
scale (Figure 1).
Due to budgetary constraints, the often-isolated locations of
targeted respondents, and challenges in establishing direct
communication with informants, the questionnaire was designed for use in
a standardized, self-administered, mail-back format (Gliner and Morgan
2000).
Case Study Selection
Respondents from four LRMP regions were targeted for participation
in the survey. These case study regions were Mackenzie,
Cassiar-Iskut-Stikine, Okan-agan-Shuswap, and Kalum South (Figure 2).
They were all rural regions with:
* an interest in diversifying their economies into a range of
nonextractive resource activities
* candidate PAs possessing the potential to support the development
of gateway communities
* stakeholders participating in the most recently completed LRMP
processes at the time of the research (i.e. 2003)
* relatively current contact lists of past LRMP stakeholders
* stakeholders who had not participated in previous LRMP assessment
survey research (Gunton et al. 2003a, 2003b).
It was felt that these factors would create a research environment
in which interested, informed, and motivated respondents could be
encouraged to participate in the study.
Surveying Procedures and Response Rates
Contact lists for potential survey respondents were derived from
the LRMP coordinators in each of the four case-study regions. In three
cases, surveys were sent directly to potential respondents. However, in
one case the LRMP coordinator acted as an intermediary in distributing
them. Overall, 170 surveys were eventually distributed to the LRMP
participants between March and April of 2003. From the initial and a
second follow-up mailing, 46 completed questionnaires were returned.
This represented an overall 27% response rate. This paper reports on the
combined responses of informants. While some variations in responses may
occur within each region, the limited sample size within each LRMP area
makes it difficult to establish if statistically significant differences
in opinion existed between respondents from each region.
Data Analysis
Findings from the analysis of the data are presented using
descriptive statistics. In particular, frequency and mean score
statistics were used to establish the perceived level of importance and
use of specific PA selection criteria. In addition, a systematic
assessment procedure was used to determine the level and nature of
consensus, or "group think," that existed with respect to
specific opinions on PA criteria (de Loe 1995). This approach addressed
the problem of interpreting mean scores when the cut-off between
important and very important ratings was unclear, or when a high
frequency of neutral scores occurred in tandem with high responses to a
more polarized category such as interpreting 12 neutral and 14 important
responses to the same issue. The overriding principle guiding this
approach was that the greater the number of respondents that felt a
particular way about a statement, the stronger the consensus that
exists. In this research, consensus categories were defined as High,
Medium, Low, and None. The calibration of these categories is described
in Table 3.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
In combination, these statistical techniques provide the basis for
describing the ways in which PA designation criteria were perceived and
used in the LRMP processes, as well as how LRMP management objectives
impacted the establishment of these special areas.
Findings
The following section describes the key findings emanating from the
research. In particular, a profile of respondents, their views on the
general importance of specific PA selection criteria, and their
perspectives on the role these criteria played in selecting PAs within
the LRMP processes are presented.
Profile of Respondents
Respondents represented a broad range of stakeholder groups.
Overall, the largest proportions of them were affiliated with
conservation (24%), tourism/recreation (22%), government (17%), and
forestry (17%) organizations. Other respondents reported affiliations
with specific nongovernment organizations, transportation interest
groups, and municipal and regional district governments.
For the most part, the respondents were long-term residents of the
regions in which they had participated as LRMP stakeholders. Almost two
thirds of them (63%) had lived in their LRMP region for over eleven
years. Of this group, 37% had lived in the region for over 21 years.
About 11% of stakeholders did not live in the region in which the LRMP
planning process had occurred, but worked extensively with local
interests groups from that area on an ongoing basis.
About two thirds (63%) of the respondents stated that they were PA
users. About a third (33%) of them indicated they were relatively heavy
users of these areas--using such spaces more than three times annually
for work or recreation purposes. The remainder of users were less
involved, visiting these places 1-3 times per year.
This profile suggests that the respondents represented a diverse
range of stakeholder interests. These informants had several years of
exposure to the LRMP areas they had helped plan. For the most part they
had also been users of their area's PAs. As such, they and their
non-user counterparts represented a valuable cross-section of
stakeholders from whom useful insights into the use of specific PA
criterion in site designation processes could be gathered.
Generic Protected Area Criteria Ratings
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
This paper evaluated the relative importance and use of criteria
for designating PAs in British Columbia. It did this by surveying a
sample of those stakeholders engaged in a PA selection process as part
of a larger province-wide LRMP process. Consequently, the findings only
reflect their viewpoints, and not necessarily those of other LRMP
stakeholders who may have wanted other PA selection criteria afforded
higher priorities. Notwithstanding this sampling issue, the findings
provide insights into how the calculus of PA selection theory plays out
in practice. It is clear from the responses of this study's
respondents that:
* environmental criteria dominated the selection criteria in terms
of perceived importance and use;
* social criteria were considered to be of moderate importance to
PA selection processes and were perceived to have been used to a limited
degree;
* economic criteria were considered to be of least importance to PA
selection processes and were perceived to have received the least
attention in the designation of PAs.
While the primary purpose of PAs is to protect ecological integrity
and associated biodiversity, the literature also recognizes that
significant social and economic benefits can be derived from
strategically selected PAs. These benefits can bring greater
sustainability to not only surrounding communities, but also to the PAs
themselves. The challenge is to incorporate such perspectives into the
PA selection processes at an early stage so that consideration of such
factors is embedded in all management decision making. In BC's
case, the Protected Areas Strategy placed strong emphasis on
environmental criteria for protected area selection. However, it did not
provide substantive procedures for incorporating socioeconomic
considerations into the PA designation processes. As a result, social
and economic criteria were not given as much attention by the
stakeholders as warranted. Ironically, the long-term sustainability of
the areas selected may eventually be compromised if the social and
economic needs of surrounding communities are not supported by these
PAs.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank SSHRC for funding support for this research
and the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions.
References
Achana, F.T., and J.T. O'Leary. 2000. The Transboundary
Relationship Between National Parks and Adjacent Communities. In
National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and Policy in the United
States, G.E. Machlis and D.R. Field, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press,
pp. 67-87.
Berliner 2003. Social, Cultural and Economic Conservation For
National Forest Protected Area Selection. Cape Town, South Africa:
DWAF-WFSP Forestry Programme.
Berliner, D. 2004. A Systematic Conservative Planning Approach In
IUCN Protected Area Categorisation. Knowledge Management Report. South
Africa: University of Cape Town
British Columbia. 2004. Strategic Land Use Plans in BC.
[Accessed December 10, 2004].
British Columbia. 1993a. A Protected Areas Strategy for British
Columbia. Victoria, BC: Queens Printer.
British Columbia. 1993b. Social and Economic Impact Assessment for
Land and Resource Management Planning in British Columbia: Interim
Guidelines. [Accessed on June 28, 2002].
British Columbia. 1990a. Parks Plan 90: Special Features for BC
Parks. Victoria: Crown Publications.
British Columbia. Ministry of Parks. 1990b. Parks Plan 90:
Landscapes for BC Parks. Victoria: Crown Publications.
Bos, D.G., and M. Lockwood. 1995. Selection Criteria for Protected
Areas: A Review. Integrated Protected Area Selection in Australian
Biogeographic Regions. Environmental Management 21 (3): 395-404.
Brown, D.W. 1996. Strategic Land Use Plan Source Book. Commission
on Resources and Environment. Victoria, BC: Government of British
Columbia.
Canada. Parks Canada. 2000. Unimpaired for Future Generations?
Protecting Ecological Integrity with Canada's National Parks. Vol.
I A Call to Action. Vol. II Setting a New Direction for Canada's
National Parks. Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of
Canada's National Parks. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
Cole, D.N. 2000. Paradox of the Primeval: Ecological Restoration in
Wilderness. Ecological Restoration 18(2): 77-86.
Dearden, P. 1995. Park Literacy and Conservation. Conservation
Biology 9(6): 1654-1656.
de Loe, R.C. 1995. Exploring Complex Policy Delphi: A Multi-Round
Interactive Survey Method. Applied Geography 15: 53-68.
Eagles, Paul F. J., Stephen McCool and Christopher Haynes. 2002.
Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and
Management. United Nations Environment Programme, World Tourism
Organization and World Conservation Union.
Ghimire, K.B,. and M.P. Pimbert, eds. 1997. Social Change and
Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and
Protected Areas. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Gliner, J.A. and G.A. Morgan. 2000. Research Methods in Applied
Settings: An Integrated Approach to Design and Analysis. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Goldsmith, F.B. 1991. The Selection of Protected Areas. In The
Scientific Management of Temperate Communities for Conservation, I.F.
Sellerberg, B. Goldsmith, and M.G. Morris, eds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell,
pp. 273-292.
Gotmark, F. and C. Nilsson. 1992. Criteria Used for Protection of
Natural Areas in Sweden 1909-1986. Conservation Biology 6(2): 220-231.
[Accessed on May 30, 2002].
Gunton, T.I., J.C. Day, and P.W. Williams. 2003a. Collaborative
Planning in Sustainable Resource Management: The North American
Experience. Environments 31(2): 1-5.
Gunton, T.I., J.C. Day, and P.W. Williams. 2003b. Collaborative
Planning and Sustainable Resource Management: The British Columbia
experience, Environments 31(3): 1-13.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2006.
Summary of The CBD Workshop On Protected Areas. Earth Negotiations
Bulletin 9(352). Winnipeg, International Institute for Sustainable
Development.
La Pierre, Y. 1997. The Taming of the View. National Parks
71(9-10): 30-33.
Lockwood, M., D.G. Bos, and H. Glazebrook, 1997. Integrated
Protected Area Selection in Australian Biogeographic Regions.
Environmental Management 21(3): 395-404.
Lucas, P.H.C. 1992. Protected Landscapes: A Guide for Policy-makers
and Planners. London: Chapman and Hall.
MacEwen, A., and M. MacEwen. 1982. National Parks: Conservation or
Cosmetics? London, UK: George Allen and Unwin.
Margules, C.R., and M. Usher. 1981. Criteria Used in Assessing
Wildlife Conservation Potential: A Review. Biological Conservation 21:
79-109.
McTaggart-Cowan, I. 1989. Room at the Top? In Endangered Spaces, M.
Hummel, ed. Toronto, ON: Ken Porter Books, pp. 249-266.
Nelson, J.G. 1993. Beyond Parks and Protected Areas In Parks and
Protected Areas in Canada, P. Dearden and R. Rollins, eds. Toronto, ON:
Oxford University Press, pp. 45-56.
Nelson, J.G., and L.M. Sportza. 2000. Taking Stock: Changing Ideas
And Visions For Parks: Evolving Protected Area Thought and Practice. The
George Wright Forum 17(2): 59-69.
Newsome, D., S.A. Moore, and R.K. Dowling, eds. 2001. Natural Area
Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management. Toronto: Channel View.
Owens, S., and R. Cowell, 2002. Land and Limits: Interpreting
Sustainability in the Planning Process. London and New York: Routledge.
Paridaen, M.A. 2005. Protected Areas Selection and the LRMP
Process, MRM Report 370. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University, School
of Resources and Environmental Management.
Pierce Lefebvre Consulting. 2001. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment
of the Provincial Government's Strategic Land Use Plans on Key
Sectors in British Columbia. Final Report.
[Accessed on June 2, 2002].
Rothman, H.K. 2000. A History of U.S. National Parks and Economic
Development. In National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and
Policy in the United States, G.E. Machlis and D.R. Field, eds.
Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 51-66.
Smith, G.R., and J.B. Theberge, 1986. A Review of Criteria for
Evaluating Natural Areas. Environmental Management 10(6): 715-734.
Tacconi, L. 2000. Biodiversity and Ecological Economics:
Participant Values and Resource Management. London, UK: Earthscan.
Wallace, G., P. Tierney, and G. Haas, 1990. The Right Link Between
Wilderness and Tourism. Parks and Recreation 25: 63-66; 111-112.
Wells, M., and K. Brandon, 1992. People and Parks: Linking
Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Washington, DC: World
Bank, World Wildlife Fund, and U.S. Agency for International
Development.
Worboys, G., M. Lockwood and T. De Lacy. 2001. Protected Area
Management: Principles and Practice. London, UK: Oxford University
Press.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987 Our
Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1998. National System Planning for
Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: CNPPA, WCMC,
IUCN.
World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1994. Guidelines for protected
area management categories. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: CNPPA,
WCMC, IUCN.
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 --
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
COPYRIGHT 2006 Wilfrid Laurier
University Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.