Abstract
Urban protected areas are becoming increasingly valued as important
components of regional conservation efforts. Many municipalities are
beginning to initiate their own small-scale systems of urban protected
areas. The Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy was an attempt of one
municipality to design and to implement an urban system of protected
areas. In the present paper, the authors summarize the ten-year process
of completing the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy and provide an
initial evaluation of the Strategy. The approach taken to create a
system of protected natural areas in Peterborough is summarized as a
six-step process: 1) form a steering committee; 2) conduct a natural
features inventory of potential protected areas; 3) consult with
public/promote public awareness; 4) draft Official Plan policy
amendments; 5) seek formal approval of Official Plan amendments; and, 6)
form a Natural Areas Advisory Committee. The authors evaluate the
Strategy by comparing Peterborough Official Plan policies between 1984
and 2000; by evaluating whether the original eight goals of the Strategy
were met; and, by reviewing the recommendations offered by key
representatives that were involved in the creation and implementation of
the Strategy. The Strategy was successful in some aspects such as
securing ecologically important lands protection from development,
strengthening policies in the Peterborough Official Plan, and providing
linkages between natural areas for recreational opportunities. The
process in Peterborough did, however, take ten years to implement and
offers other municipalities lessons regarding means of creating other
urban protected areas strategies that are more ecologically protective
in a more temporally efficient manner.
On considere de plus en plus les zones protegees en milieu urbain
comme des elements importants dans les efforts regionaux de
conservation. De nombreuses municipalites ont commence mettre sur pied
leur propre systeme de protection de ces zones, comme en temoigne la
Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy. Les auteures de cet article
presentent un resume de cette strategie qui a mis 10 ans etre elaboree
et appliquee, et elles en font une premiere evaluation. La creation de
zones naturelles protegees s'est faite en six etapes : 1) formation
d'un comite directeur; 2) inventaire des caracteristiques
naturelles des zones proteger, 3) consultation aupres du public et
conscientisation; 4) ebauche des amendements au plan officiel; 5)
recherche d'une approbation officielle des amendements; 6)
formation d'un comite consultatif sur les zones naturelles. Les
auteures evaluent cette strategie en comparant les politiques
officielles de Peterborough etablies entre 1984 et 2000, en verifiant si
les huit objectifs originaux ont r ealises, et en examinant les
recommandations faites par les principaux representants impliques dans
sa creation et sa mise en oeuvre. Cette strategie est une reussite sur
plusieurs plans : protection de certains terrains importants sur le plan
ecologique en y empechant le developpement, renforcement des politiques
du plan officiel, et creation de liens entre les zones naturelles et les
possibilities recreatives. Ce processus ouvre Ia voie aux autres
municipalities en matiere de strategie contemporaine de protection des
zones urbaines.
Keywords
Urban protected areas systems, urban wildlife, scale, ecological
integrity, urban corridors
Introduction
The protection of global biodiversity depends on effective
conservation of habitat on all spatial scales from continental to
municipal. One of the recurring messages from protected areas officials
is that conservation programs cannot work in isolation; large- and
small-scale conservation efforts must be planned to support one another
(McNeely 1993; Norris and Camposbasso 1995; McNamee 1997). Given that
conservation efforts on all spatial scales contribute to the protection
of biodiversity, it follows that urban protected areas are an important,
although often disregarded, element of larger-scale conservation
efforts.
The term 'urban park' often conjures up images of highly
manicured open spaces, relatively devoid of 'wildlife' save a
few introduced species. McLach Ian and Simon describe a typical urban
park as a "landscape [which] is highly artificial with a most
notable absence of the structure, systems and processes that
characterize environments of nature" (1997: 78). However, a
considerable number of natural areas can be found in most urban centres,
and these natural areas, despite their urban surroundings, can help
maintain biodiversity (Adams and Dore 1989; Adams and Leedy 1991; Adams
1994; Saunders 1997). Testament to the importance of urban parks is the
proposed Downsview National Park, Canada's first National Urban
Park, which is projected to be established in Toronto in 2002 (Grewal
2001).
Historically, the primary purpose of many parks in Canada has been
to provide opportunities for human recreation (Dearden and Rollins
1993). More recently, however, the emphasis of the role of several parks
and protected areas has shifted from providing recreational
opportunities to conserving ecological features (Bouffard 1982; Dearden
and Rollins 1993; Parks Canada Agency 2000). Accordingly, many
municipalities are attempting to increase the ecological functions of
their urban park systems by incorporating some of the principles of
landscape ecology into the design of urban park systems. Cities in North
America that are incorporating ecological design principles into their
urban park systems include: Vancouver, British Columbia; Calgary,
Alberta; Waterloo, Ontario (Gosselin 2000); Portland, Oregon (Houck
1991); as well as San Bruno Mountain, California (Beatley 1994).
While methods for designing large-scale national, state, and
provincial protected areas systems are generally well established
(Dearden and Rollins 1993; McComb 1997; Smith 1997; Davey 1998), methods
for designing smaller-scale protected areas systems are relatively
underdeveloped. Hobbs (1998) argues that ecological management
activities must match the ecological scale of a target area and must
address the barriers specific to an area of such a scale. Urban natural
areas are associated with many characteristics which are found to impair
the ecological functions of the area; challenges that are different in
nature and/or magnitude from those affecting larger, more remote
protected areas. Lajeunesse et a!. (1997) identify such challenges in
urban protected areas as intensive recreational use, urban development,
air and water pollution, an abundance of introduced species and limited
area. Hence, one may conclude that simply downsizing conservation models
used for large-scale conservation may be an inappropriate approach for
establishing a small-scale municipal conservation program. Future
attempts to create small-scale urban protected area systems should be
facilitated by evaluating the successes and failures of past initiatives
that have attempted to develop protected areas strategies designed
specifically for urban settings. Such an evaluation should examine the
process of how the system of protected areas was created (e.g., who was
involved? how long did it take?) as well as the effectiveness of the
final product (e.g., size and shape of system; connectivity of system;
ecological functions of system).
Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this paper is to report on a case study and
evaluation of the process of establishing the Natural Areas Strategy, a
small-scale system of urban protected areas in Peterborough, Ontario.
The following questions are investigated: How was the Peterborough
Natural Areas Strategy created and implemented? How do policies differ
from those in place prior to the implementation of the Strategy? How
effective was the Strategy in accomplishing the initial goals of the
Natural Areas Strategy Steering Committee? Could the process have been
improved upon? The answers to these questions will be useful in
evaluating the process that occurred in Peterborough. More importantly,
however, the answers will be useful in guiding other municipalities
interested in developing a system of urban protected areas.
Methods
An evaluative case study was completed which allowed for "an
exploration of a 'bounded system' or case over time through
detailed data collection involving multiple sources of information rich
in context" (Creswell 1998: 61). Within the case study approach, a
variety of data collection techniques was used to gain an in-depth
understanding of the process by which the Natural Areas Strategy was
developed and implemented, and to enhance the validity of the research
through triangulation (Neuman 1997). First, an historical review of
public documents and private correspondence regarding the Peterborough
Natural Areas Strategy was completed. Second, informal interviews with
key individuals involved in the creation of the Strategy were conducted.
Third, several of the natural areas were visited. Fourth, the city
council meeting during which the natural areas policies were officially
accepted by City Council was attended.
An historical review of over 60 documents regarding
Peterborough's Natural Areas Strategy, including Official Plans
planning reports, City Council minutes, local newspaper articles,
academic theses, correspondence among stakeholders, and meeting briefs
was conducted in order to document the development of
Peterborough's system of urban protected areas. The researchers
attempted to reconstruct the events leading to the creation and
implementation of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy through an
approach called successive approximation (Neuman 1997). The researchers
initiated the reconstruction of the history of the Natural Areas
Strategy by reviewing a selection of approximately 15 documents
belonging to one of the founders of the Strategy. Documents were
reviewed chronologically at first, and as gaps in information were
identified, further data were gathered through informal interviews and
additional documentation supplied by each interviewee.
The sequence of events presented in this paper was verified through
interviews with five representative stakeholders, who were primarily
responsible for the creation of Peterborough's Natural Areas
System. Unstructured interviews with these five key individuals were
conducted for four main reasons: 1) to verify the history presented
through the written sources, 2) to gain insight regarding each
individual's initial vision of the Strategy, 3) to gather
commentary on their level of satisfaction with the outcome of the
process, and 4) to determine what recommendations they would suggest for
other communities wishing to create an urban system of natural areas.
The Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy: A Case Study
Background
The City of Peterborough, located 100 km northeast of Toronto,
Ontario, supports a population of approximately 130,000 people and has
been rated as one of the best places to live in Canada (Greater
Peterborough Area Economic Development Corporation 2000). The
Peterborough landscape is dominated by an extensive drumlin field, as
well as the Otonabee River and the Trent-Severn Waterway. As a result of
these extreme topographical and hydrological features, a noteworthy
proportion of Peterborough's natural features has been preserved
due to the complications of development on such lands. The City of
Peterborough slogan, 'Peterborough, It's a natural', as
well as the City's official goal of maintaining the image of
Peterborough as 'a city in the country' identified in the
Peterborough Official Plan (City of Peterborough 1984, 2000), suggest
that citizens of Peterborough value the natural character of the area.
Since 1990, members of the Peterborough community, representatives
from special interest groups, and City Council have been working on
creating and implementing a Natural Areas Strategy, a municipal system
of connected natural areas that would protect the city's natural
features from development. Over a decade later, on October 1, 2000,
Peterborough's City Council accepted into its Official Plan
policies which identify a network of environmentally significant lands.
The policies protect the identified land from development by restricting
land use to include only nature-based recreation, horticulture,
conservation, forestry, wildlife management, natural storm water
management, and trails for non-motorized forms of transportation (City
of Peterborough 2000). This Official Plan policy amendment is regarded
by some as the capstone of the City's process of establishing a
system of protected natural areas.
The Process
The approach taken to create a system of protected natural areas in
Peterborough can be summarized as a six-step process:
1. Form a steering committee.
2. Conduct a natural features inventory of potential protected
areas.
3. Consult with public/promote public awareness.
4. Draft official plan policy amendments.
5. Seek formal approval of Official Plan amendment.
6. Form a Natural Areas Advisory Committee.
Each of the steps will now be summarized.
Forming a Steering Committee
Peterborough's Natural Areas Strategy was initiated and driven
primarily by volunteers from the community with a range of motivations
for preserving the City's natural features. In 1990, Dr. John Marsh
(a faculty member from the local University) first proposed the need for
a nature conservation strategy for the City of Peterborough. He defined
the nature conservation strategy as a process "which would identify
the natural characteristics of the city environment, indicate which
characteristics merit protection, and suggest means to protect the
natural characteristics of the city and maximize the benefits to be
derived from them" (Marsh 1990: 1). Marsh (1990) stressed that such
a process was needed in order to protect remaining important natural
areas in the city from development, to attract tourists to Peterborough,
and to provide opportunities for environmental and outdoor education.
While Marsh conducted public lectures on the importance of a nature
conservation strategy, members of the local field naturali st club began
an initiative to identify and promote important natural areas in and
around the City of Peterborough. Simultaneously, the City of
Peterborough's Planning Division and Parks and Forestry Division
were reviewing existing City policy regarding parks and open space
within the city (Peterborough Planning Division 1990).
Early in 1991, the efforts of these three groups were joined
through the formation of the Peterborough Ecology Strategy Steering
Committee (later: Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy Steering
Committee) consisting of representatives from the City Planning and
Parks Divisions, concerned citizens, representatives from
conservation-oriented organizations, a member of the Chamber of
Commerce, as well as a representative from the local homebuilder's
association.
The initial goals of the Peterborough Ecology Strategy Steering
Committee were to:
1. Enhance and maintain a diversity of ecosystem types;
2. Protect areas of critical wildlife habitat;
3. Provide habitat corridors for movement of plants and animals;
4. Protect hydrology and water quality through watershed
protection;
5. Protect rare and endangered species;
6. Promote understanding of our natural heritage through
opportunities for direct experience and education;
7. Provide opportunities for nature-based recreation; and,
8. Provide opportunities for aesthetic/spiritual enjoyment through
access to natural areas (Greig 1991).
Conduct a Natural Features Inventory of Potential Protected Areas
The next phase of the Peterborough Ecology Strategy was to
identify, inventory and evaluate candidate natural areas for potential
inclusion in a connected system of protected urban natural areas. The
Ecology Strategy Steering Committee successfully submitted proposals to
receive funds from the provincial Ministry of the Environment, the City
of Peterborough, and local not-for-profit organizations to hire three
full-time staff to conduct a natural features inventory of 45 candidate
natural areas. During the summer of 1991, the staff team inventoried and
created detailed maps of the 45 candidate natural areas, as well as the
major waterways and existing natural corridors in Peterborough (Greig et
al. 1991). A field inventory of each identified natural area was
conducted and included a description of the site location, ownership
(private/ public land), size of the natural area, general description
(general vegetation cover, predominant species, built features if any,
land use type), special biological/geographic al/cultural features
(provincially significant wetlands, unique geology, presence of rare
species, proximity to other natural areas, human use, cultural
significance), and current disturbances (pest or invasive species,
human-caused destruction). Field work was supplemented with existing
Ministry of Natural Resources Wetland Evaluation reports and Otonabee
Region Conservation Authority Environmentally Sensitive Areas reports
(Greig et at. 1991). The inventory, which was scheduled to be complete
by the end of August 1991, was extended to finish in December of that
year to complete the summer's work and to conduct research in order
to prepare strategies for the creation and implementation of a connected
system of protected natural areas in Peterborough.
Public Consultation
Once the target natural areas were identified, inventoried, and
evaluated, 27,000 copies of an eight-page, newspaper-sized tabloid were
produced and distributed to residents of Peterborough in October of 1994
(Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy Steering Committee 1996). The
tabloid included a description of what the Peterborough Natural Areas
Strategy is, why protecting natural areas is important, who should be
involved, a map of key natural areas, how citizens can help, and a
commentary form. A public meeting was held soon after the tabloid was
distributed. The meeting included a presentation on the natural areas
identified in the Natural Features Inventory, a discussion of issues, as
well as five workstations with posterboards and facilitators who could
discuss specific issues with interested citizens (Fisher 1994). Over 40
people attended the meeting and many additional inquiries continued to
be received by the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy coordinator in
the following weeks (Fisher 1994). Presentat ions were also made to
service clubs and special interest groups to increase public awareness
about the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy, as well as to encourage
public input and support. The Peterborough Natural Areas Steering
Committee (1996) estimated that their public awareness presentations
reached over 500 local citizens.
Although some concerns were voiced regarding the means of
implementing the Strategy, public response to the Natural Areas Strategy
was largely supportive (Peterborough Natural Areas Steering Committee
1996). Suggestions and comments made by the public led to the production
of a draft of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy by November of
1995. The draft report, which encouraged and received further public
commentary, was revised and a final report was published by September
1996. The final report, which was presented to City Council the
following month, proposed 15 recommendations regarding the
implementation of the Natural Areas Strategy. Ten of the fifteen
implementation recommendations focused on Official Plan amendments,
while others called for promoting citizen involvement in the management
of the Natural Areas Network, initiating a private land stewardship
program, establishing a local land trust program, exploring the
potential of conservation easements, and developing long-term management
plans for lands within the natural areas network.
Draft Official Plan Policy Amendments
The initial preparation of Official Plan amendments based on the
findings of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy Final Report
commenced in late 1997. The first draft of the proposed amendments to
the Official Plan policies regarding open space land use, parkland,
natural areas, and related Official Plan policies were prepared by the
City's Planning Division in May, 1998. Previously, a blanket term
of 'Open Space' was used to designate lands primarily used for
recreation or parkland. Some areas of ecological importance were
protected by default as Flood Plain lands or lands otherwise unsuitable
for development because of hazards to the built structures rather than
threat to the natural environment. The amendments proposed a narrower
definition of Open Space and a new land-use designation, 'Natural
Area', to actively identify "areas containing significant
natural areas worth preserving as a part of a system of open space
within the urban environment" (City of Peterborough 1998: 18). The
proposed amendments emphasized that open space, natural areas and
parkland should be regarded and planned as components of a connected
'open space system' of municipal lands, which, when linked,
would better serve to protect the natural features of the City.
Although the general notion of protecting areas of ecological
importance was well supported, acceptance of the proposed Official Plan
policy amendments on November 1, 1999, was deferred due to concerns that
the level of protection devoted to natural areas was unclear, and that
detailed mapping of the proposed zoning changes was incomplete (Straka
2000). City Council further recommended the formation of a Working
Advisory Committee, which would review and assist in strengthening the
proposed policy amendments (City of Peterborough 1999). A Working
Advisory Committee, consisting of a representative from each of the
Peterborough Eco-council, the Peterborough Field Naturalists, the
Peterborough Real Estate Board, the Peterborough and District
Homebuilder's Association, the Parks Board, and the City of
Peterborough Planning Department, was formed in December, 1999 (Greig,
personal communication, March 2001). The Working Advisory Committee met
five times to discuss proposed policy amendments and recommend changes t
o policies regarding natural areas, open space, and municipal parkland.
Formal Approval of Official Plan Amendments
Revised policy amendments, based on the recommendations from the
Working Advisory Committee and further public input, were proposed and
submitted to City Council at a public meeting on August 28, 2000. Formal
acceptance of the proposed amendments was once again postponed due to
last-minute requests from the local university and college to have their
lands exempted from development restrictions. Strong opposition to these
requests was expressed by several of the representatives involved in the
creation of the Natural Areas Strategy. The academic institutions were
not granted exemptions, and the proposed policy amendments were
officially accepted on October 1, 2000. Figure 1 illustrates the natural
areas and corridors that were formally recognized within the Natural
Areas Strategy.
Formation of a Natural Areas Advisory Committee
Upon the acceptance of the Official Plan amendments in October
2000, Peterborough City Council encouraged the formation of a Natural
Areas Advisory Committee to provide "qualified, community-based
insight into the value of natural areas of local significance that may
be part of development proposals" (City of Peterborough 2001: 2).
The Natural Areas Advisory Committee will consist of four to six
individuals with expertise in natural or environmental science, physical
geography, or hydrology, and will review development proposals and
Environmental Studies pertaining to natural areas within the City of
Peterborough.
Although the acceptance of the Official Plan amendments in October
2000 is regarded by some as the capstone to the Peterborough Natural
Areas Strategy, it could be considered simply the beginning of the
integration of ecological values into community planning. Much of the
future direction of the Peterborough Natural Areas will be determined by
the Natural Areas Advisory Committee.
Evaluation of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy
Because the Peterborough Natural Areas policies have been in place
for only one year, it is not possible to effectively evaluate the actual
ecological impact of the strategies at this time. Rather, an evaluation
of the process of establishing a protected areas system in Peterborough
was conducted by:
1. comparing the 1984 Peterborough Official Plan policies regarding
Environmentally Sensitive Land, Flood Plain, and Major Open Space with
the corresponding 2000 Official Plan amendments;
2. reviewing the initial goals of the Peterborough Ecology Strategy
Steering Committee, which were established in 1991, and determining
whether they were achieved by 2001; and,
3. compiling the recommendations of key representatives involved in
the creation and implementation of the Peterborough Natural Areas
Strategy.
Peterborough Official Plan Policies: 1984 vs. 2000
The amendments to the Peterborough Official Plan resulting from the
Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy differ considerably from the
policies in place in 1990, when the notion of creating a conservation
strategy for the city was first proposed. A comparison of the 1984 City
of Peterborough Official Plan policies regarding Environmentally
Sensitive Land, Flood Plain, and Major Open Space with corresponding
policies in the 2000 Official Plan Amendment, reveals a strong shift
towards integrating ecological principles in city planning as a result
of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy.
In 1990, 'Environmentally Sensitive Lands' were defined
primarily as areas unsuitable for development due to hazards presented
by factors such as poor drainage, susceptibility to erosion, and
flooding (City of Peterborough 1984). The purpose for the designation of
such lands was primarily to identify areas "which possess
limitations for development" (City of Peterborough 1984: 330).
Protection of these lands was limited to a policy guiding City Council
to "discourage the expansion of any existing non-conforming
use" (City of Peterborough 1984: 330). Flood Plain policies in the
1984 Official Plan offered a stronger level of protection to City lands
where development was prohibited on flood plain lands unless proposed
development could be "achieved without detrimental effect to the
flood plain" (City of Peterborough 1984: 340).
In contrast, the 2000 Official Plan amendments have replaced the
'Environmentally Sensitive Land' designation with a two-tiered
level of designation for lands with ecologically significant features
that require protection in order to "support and protect the
ecological functions of a natural area from the impact of
development" (City of Peterborough 2000: 1). The amendments
proposed a first designation -- Protected Natural Area' -- for
lands of prime ecological importance in the City. Such lands may not be
subject to any development (City of Peterborough 2000). A second
designation -- 'Natural Areas' -- was assigned to other
ecologically important lands within the City. No development can occur
on land with a 'Natural Area' designation unless an
Environmental Impact Study can demonstrate that the proposed development
will not result in "negative impacts on the natural features or the
ecological functions for which the area is identified" (City of
Peterborough 2000:4). Further, City Council may require an envi
ronmental study for development proposals for lands within 10 metres of
a 'Natural Area' or 'Protected Natural Area.
The difference in policies between 1990 and 2000 can be illustrated
by examining a hypothetical development proposal in each year. In 1990,
a proposal for the creation of a golf course or skating arena, for
example, could be approved by council on any public or private land
provided the proposed development complied with the zoning policies in
place. In 2000, such a development proposal within a designated
'Natural Area' would not only be subject to the restrictions
delineated by zoning policies (such as the size and position of the
structure), but the submission of a detailed Environmental Impact Study
asserting that the proposed development would not negatively affect the
natural features or the ecological functions of the 'Natural
Area' would also be required. Furthermore, any proposal for use of
a 'Protected Natural Area' other than for nature-based
recreation, outdoor education or non-destructive research would not be
considered.
The 2000 amendments have resulted in a 'precautionary'
approach to development that overrides zoning policies on or near
ecologically important lands, requiring verification that the proposed
development is ecologically benign, rather than assuming that the
development will have no impact and tragically discovering otherwise
after the fact.
To complement the amended land-use designations, further
recommendations for community-wide implementation strategies, such as
the creation of a land stewardship program are outlined in the 2000
Official Plan as potential supporting activities to the natural areas
designations. However, no commitment to initiating or supporting such
activities has been formalized.
Overall, the amended policies resulting from the Natural Areas
Strategy provide a much more ecologically-based focus with which to
guide city planning activities. Also, the level of protection of areas
identified as ecologically significant has been augmented.
'Protected Natural Areas', which are of utmost ecological
importance in the City, are protected from any development. Further, if
development is to occur in any of the identified 'Natural
Areas', an Environmental Impact Study must be submitted in order to
guide City Council in determining whether the proposed development
should be approved or not based on whether or not the ecological
function of the 'Natural Area' is expected to be compromised.
Finally, a platform for further activities that may be encouraged by
City Council to complement the land use designations of the natural
areas has been established.
Achievement of Goals
The goals of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy were worded in
a general, and not easily measurable form. Without specific measurable
objectives, it is difficult to assess whether such goals have been
realized. To some degree, each of the goals of the Peterborough Natural
Areas has been addressed; however, for maximum fulfilment, many of the
goals require further attention to ensure that they are achieved.
Goal #1: To enhance and maintain a diversity of ecosystem types.
Lands with a diversity of ecosystem types were identified and included
in the Natural Areas Strategy in 1991. Of the 45 sites inventoried, 35
were within Peterborough city limits, and of those 35, all have at least
partial representation within the Peterborough Natural Areas Network.
Ecosystem types included in the Network include mature coniferous and
deciduous woodlands, mixed woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, small
islands, riparian areas, marshland, natural springs, drumlins,
lakeshore, and a wooded fen (Greig et a!. 1991). The Official Plan
policy now protects these areas from further incompatible development in
order to effectively maintain the level of diversity of the designated
natural areas.
A weakness of the process in Peterborough is that little has been
done to enhance the diversity of ecosystem types. Activities such as
habitat rehabilitation, restoration, and naturalization of presently
maintained lands could be done in order to enhance the diversity of
ecosystem types in Peterborough. Examples of successful habitat
enhancement projects for a variety of habitats include the Regional
Municipality of Sudbury's Land Reclamation Program (Ross 2001), the
North Branch Prairie Project (Stevens 1995; Bernard and Young 1997) and
the McEuen Seep riparian restoration project (Briggs 1996). Furthermore,
the Strategy focussed primarily on public lands. A more explicit attempt
to include private lands in the Network, via stewardship programs, would
have broadened the type of ecosystems that were included in the final
Strategy (see Hilts 1989).
Goal #2: To protect areas of critical wildlife habitat. It is very
difficult to determine the minimum amount of land necessary to protect
critical wildlife habitat (Beatley 1994). The authors believe that the
Peterborouqh Natural Areas Strategy was somewhat effective in securing
stronger protection for remaining wildlife habitat against possible
development. However, two of the three areas within the city which were
identified as provincially significant wetlands (Greig et al. 1991; City
of Peterborough 2000) were not designated as 'Protected Natural
Areas', the designation which provides the strongest level of
protection from development within the City. Although these provincially
significant wetlands currently fall under the 'Natural Areas'
designation, which is less rigorously protected than 'Protected
Natural Areas', it is unlikely that any development proposals that
would affect such lands would be passed (Straka, personal communication,
April 2001). Straka added that the provincially significant lands will
likely be given a higher level of protection when a reevaluation of
city-wide land designation is warranted.
Unfortunately, the Strategy defaulted by including only land bases
that were already identified as providing a noted degree of ecological
services. It is conceivable to imagine a more aggressive approach to
protecting areas of critical wildlife, whereby private lands are
acquired by or entrusted to the municipality. Further, enhancing the
habitats on the protected areas would assist in strengthening the
Strategy. Examples of habitat enhancement that could easily occur in
Peterborough to enhance the effectiveness of the Strategy include stream
restoration (see Riley 1998), land reclamation, as well as an invasive
species control program (see Wheater 1999).
Beatley (1994) discusses the challenges of evaluating the adequacy
of habitat conservation efforts in urban settings. He asserts that
considerable variation exists between conservation attempts and that
most of the variation stems from the fact that "different
conservation habitat plans have adopted different philosophies
concerning the amount of habitat conservation that is necessary or
desirable" (Beatley 1994: 197). He identifies three approaches to
urban conservation planning: 1) the 'minimal survival'
position, whereby the minimum amount of habitat needed to protect a
species is set aside; 2) the 'mitigation ratio' position,
whereby the amount of habitat protected is directly related to the
amount of habitat lost or destroyed; and, 3) the 'minimal
footprint' position, whereby the extent of habitat loss is reduced
and development is minimized. The Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy
seems to have adopted the 'minimal survival' position - an
understandable position given the challenges inherent in adopting the
other two positions. The adoption of this position does, however, leave
room for the Strategy to adopt more aggressive approaches towards
habitat protection and restoration.
Goal #3: To provide habitat corridors for movement of plants and
animals. According to Noss, "habitat fragmentation is considered by
many biologists to be the single greatest threat to biological
diversity" (1991: 27). Promoting connectivity of habitat, which is
one means of decreasing the effects of habitat fragmentation, was a
strong focus for the Natural Areas Strategy. Prior to the Official Plan
amendments accepted in 2000, habitat connectivity was not overtly
pursued by the City. The Official Plan now explicitly aims to support
ecological functions through the provision of connected natural areas,
open space, and connecting links.
How effective the corridors will be remains to be seen. Valuable
corridors are provided along the river courses within Peterborough, as
these lands have long been restricted from development due to flooding
and erosion concerns (Figure 1). However, not all species follow
riparian corridors for movement from one core area to another. Deer, for
example, have been observed in the west end of the city travelling from
one natural area to another via the shortest route, which was through
unprotected land rather than following the less direct, but protected,
riparian corridor (Straka, personal communication, April 2001). Target
species for which the corridors are intended must be identified early in
an urban protected areas planning process (Hermy and Cornelis 2000).
Target species should have been identified and corridors that best
reflect the range and movement patterns of such target species should
have been considered in the design of Peterborough's Natural Areas
System.
Many recreational trails have been identified as connecting links
between natural areas and corridor systems within the city. It should be
noted that although such trails facilitate the movement of humans from
one natural area to another, their function as ecological conduits
should not be overstated.
Goal #4: To protect hydrology and water quality through watershed
protection. Peterborough has several prominent hydrological features
including the Trent-Severn Waterway, the Otonabee River, and seven main
creek systems that flow through the city (Peterborough Natural Areas
Strategy Steering Committee 1996). Within city limits, much of the land
adjacent to the waterways is protected and designated as natural areas.
However, many of the headwaters to these waterways are located beyond
city limits and are thus exempt from the protection policies implemented
by the City of Peterborough. Inconsistencies between municipalities
regarding ecological protection can result in diminished effectiveness
of protection efforts. Such a circumstance has already occurred in
Peterborough. The Riverview Creek 'Protected Natural Area',
where a rare bird species was located in 1991 (Greig et al. 1991), is
situated along the northwest boundary of the city. Just outside of the
Peterborough city limits, a housing development has be gun upstream from
the 'Protected Natural Area' involving the deforestation of
several acres of mature hardwood forest around the headwaters of
Riverview Creek, undoubtedly impacting the riparian areas downstream.
Efforts should be made to coordinate ecological protection efforts
beyond political boundaries through communication and partnerships with
neighbouring municipalities. Furthermore, streams that have been
adversely affected due to human development should be restored to
protect the hydrological function of the waterbody (Riley 1998).
Goal #5: To protect rare and endangered species. The Natural
Features Inventory identified rare and regionally significant species in
16 of the 45 candidate sites (Greig et al. 1991). Of these, nine sites
were located within Peterborough City limits. Of the nine in-town sites
identified as having rare or regionally significant plants and/or
animals, six are now at least partially protected as 'Protected
Natural Areas,' and the remaining three are designated as
'Natural Areas.' Considering that the Official Plan amendments
outline that the 'Protected Natural Area' designation
"will be applied to significant portions of habitat of endangered
and threatened species, provincially significant wetlands and natural
areas of local significance as deemed by Council" (City of
Peterborough 2000), it would appear that the three remaining areas of
critical wildlife habitat, and lands supporting nationally,
provincially, regionally or locally rare or endangered species should be
reconsidered and designated at a higher leve l of protection as a
'Protected Natural Area.'
The Strategy should consult a growing body of literature that
examines how rare and endangered species in urban areas can be protected
via a comprehensive habitat conservation plan (Adams and Leedy 1990;
Beatley 1994; Wheater 1999).
Goal #6: To promote understanding of our natural heritage through
opportunities for direct experience and education. The mere presence of
natural areas in a city provides opportunities for direct experience and
education. Hence, in some respects, this goal was achieved by the
Natural Areas Strategy. However, natural heritage appreciation could be
much more actively promoted through interpretive signage, public
education initiatives such as visits to public schools, guided hikes and
the formation of partnerships between the city and educational
institutions at all levels, enabling monitoring programs and needed
ecological research to be conducted by students (see Kinlaw et al.
1991).
Goal #7: To provide opportunities for nature-based recreation. An
extensive network of bike paths and hiking trails has been established
through the effort and support of local service clubs and the Trans
Canada Trail initiative. Although establishing a network of recreational
trails was not a focal area of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy,
this is a strong example of how partnerships among organizations can
help complement each other's goals.
Goal #8: To provide opportunities for aesthetic/spiritual enjoyment
through access to natural areas. The Peterborough natural areas are well
distributed within the city, and are easily accessed and used by
citizens. Unfortunately, human visitors have misused many of the natural
areas. Litter and/or vandalism was documented in nearly all of the sites
included in the Natural Features Inventory (Greig et al. 1991). Such
conditions undoubtedly detract from visitors' aesthetic and
spiritual enjoyment of the natural area. Littering, vandalism, and
dumping could be addressed through the creation of management plans for
the natural areas, which may include the placement of waste receptacles,
scheduled community clean-up events, interpretive signage to heighten
awareness about the value of such areas, and enforcement of no-dumping
bylaws.
Further Recommendations by Representative Stakeholders
Generally, the steps taken to create the Peterborough Natural Areas
Strategy were agreed to by the representative stakeholders as a
satisfactory method of designing and implementing an urban system of
protected areas. The process of forming a steering committee, conducting
a Natural Features Inventory, consulting with the public, preparing
draft policy amendments, having the amendments approved by Council, and
forming of a Natural Areas Advisory Committee was generally thought to
be a logical and effective process.
All of the stakeholders agreed that approaching urban conservation
from a policy perspective is prudent. One interviewee commented that the
official plan provides legal justification for other, more hands-on
approaches to urban conservation such as habitat restoration or private
land stewardship. Ideally, supportive activities such as the
establishment of a conservation trust program, habitat restoration or
voluntary land stewardship could progress concurrently with policy
development.
Officially designating lands as 'Natural Areas' or
'Protected Natural Areas' will ensure that no natural areas
will be lost to incompatible development. However, one interviewee noted
that by the time the amendments were finally approved, some of the
originally recommended lands had been developed or approved for
development. Hence, timing and efficiency were identified by several
interviewees as areas in which the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy
could have been improved.
Two of the interviewees commented that they had envisioned the
Strategy to be more of a community endeavour, rather than an exhausting
effort by only a few individuals. The time line for the Peterborough
Natural Areas Strategy illustrates a conspicuous lag in activity between
1992 and 1994. This lag corresponds with a leave-of-absence taken by the
Strategy's major driving force for maternity purposes. To ensure a
constant effort, forming partnerships with special interest groups early
on in the process could help secure supportive commitments from
organizations such as the Peterborough Field Naturalists, who were able
to apply for and administer grant funds for activities such as the
Natural Features Inventory. Partnerships may also help garner support
for the initiative, contact volunteers to whom tasks and duties could be
delegated, and could help expedite the time, and reduce the effort
needed to complete tasks.
Conclusions
Although it could use some fine-tuning, the process by which the
Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy was implemented was successful in
achieving the goals set by the Peterborough Ecology Strategy back in
1991, and notably augmented the quantity and level of protection of
protected areas in Peterborough. The strength of the Strategy was in
prohibiting development on Protected Natural Areas' -- that is
lands identified as having prime ecological importance within the City
of Peterborough. The Strategy also requires developers to provide an
Environmental Study to ensure that proposed development adjacent to or
located within 'Natural Areas' will not negatively affect such
lands. Downfalls of the Strategy include the length of time taken from
the inception of the Strategy to the acceptance of the Official Plan
Amendments as well as the isolation of the policy created through the
Strategy from other, more active habitat protection and enhancement
activities such as naturalization, habitat restoration, land steward
ship programs, and environmental education activities. The actual
ecological impact of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy has not
been determined. Further field research should be conducted to determine
whether the size and state of the 'Natural Areas' and
'Protected Natural Areas' adequately function as habitat for
target species.
Other communities wishing to implement a system of connected urban
protected areas may use the process of the Peterborough Natural Areas
Strategy as a foundation for developing a strategy customized to the
specific goals of their community. Some modifications suggested
throughout the evaluation of the Peterborough Natural Areas Strategy may
be useful in reducing the time and effort required for such an
endeavour.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Lesley Curthoys and two anonymous
reviewers for their editorial suggestions. We gratefully acknowledge the
financial support of the Regional Research Fund of Lakehead University.
We would like to sincerely thank the following individuals for their
involvement in this project: Jean Greig, from the Peterborough
Eco-Council; Dr. John Marsh, from Trent University; Chris Risley, from
the Peterborough Field Naturalists; Paul Lumsden, from the Peterborough
and District Home Builders Association; arid Richard Straka, from the
City of Peterborough Planning Department.
References
Adams, L. W. 1994. Urban wildlife habitats: A landscape
perspective. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Adams, L. W. and L. E. Dore. 1989. Wildlife reserves and corridors
in the urban environment: A guide to ecological landscape planning and
resource conservation. Columbia, MD: National Institute for Urban
Wildlife.
Adams, L. W. and D. L. Leedy, eds. 1991. Wildlife conservation in
metropolitan environments: Proceedings of a national symposium on urban
wildlife. Cedar Rapids, Iowa: National Institute for Urban Wildlife.
Beatley, T. 1994. Habitat conservation planning: Endangered species
and urban growth. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Bernard, T. and J. Young. 1997. The ecology of hope: Communities
collaborate for sustainability. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society
Publishers.
Bouffard, S.H. 1982. Wildlife values versus human recreation: Ruby
Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Transactions of the North American
Wildlife Natural Resources Conference 47: 553-558.
Briggs, M.K. 1996. Riparian ecosystem recovery in arid lands:
Strategies and references. Tucson, AZ: Arizona University Press.
City of Peterborough. 1984. City of Peterborough Official Pla