Top-Down vs. Bottom Up: Working Towards Consensus ... - CASIOPA

Recommendations

Info

TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOWARDS CONSENSUSON SYSTEMATIC PROTECTED AREAS PLANNING IN ONTARIOTable 2. General recommendations for “Data Requirements & Issues” at multiple spatial scales and/orjurisdictional contexts.SCALEDATA REQUIREMENTS & ISSUES1. Fine scale Local knowledge Identify & implement decision-support tools to evaluate securementopportunities Include data from all diversity levels (e.g., genetic, species,community, ecosystem) Include biotic (e.g., vegetation types, species) and abiotic data (e.g.landforms)2. Boreal-specific “Reverse matrix”, importance of size & matrix (disturbanceregimes) Integrate scientific and traditional knowledge and managementapproaches3. Ontario-specific “Intact boreal”, “Allocated boreal” & “Southern Ontario” planningcontexts = fundamentally different in terms of institutionalarrangements, data availability & requirements, threats tobiodiversity General political and public support for protected areas Integrate private land stewardship4. Federal context Detailed census data from Statistics Canada, facilitate dataintegration & access12 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM OF ONTARIO (PRFO)STATE OF THE ART PROTECTED AREAS DESIGN WORKSHOP, 2006Table 3. Evaluation of the degree to which sites selected by breakout groups followed the criteriaoutlined in the refined “Pressey Steps” (presented in Appendix H together with rankings of the realworldcase studies). Descriptions of sites and rationale are in Appendix K. For anonymity, groupnumbers do not correspond between Appendix K and Table 3, and are not identified in Figure 1. Scoresreflect the number of sites chosen where the rationale for the inclusion of that site made reference to oneof the Pressey Steps.AUGMENTED “PRESSEY STEPS” GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 31. Scoping and costing 2. Involve Stakeholdersa) identify excluded areas/conflictsb) scale commensurability3. Identify Goalsa) matrix management4. Compile Dataa) uncertainty in datab) assumptionsi) biodiversity pattern (representation) surrogates- ecotonesii) biodiversity (persistence) process surrogatesiii) EG&S surrogatesc) mapped biodiversity elements5. Set Conservation Targetsa) Representationi) %ii) numbersb) Persistencei) qualitativesizeshapeconnectivityreplicationclimate changefitness-based (λ)metapopulationfocal (umbrella, indicator, keystone, etc.)ii) quantitativesizeshapeproximityconnectivityreplicationalignmentclimate changefitness-based (λ)metapopulationfocal (umbrella, indicator, keystone, etc.)6. Assess Existing Conservation Areas 7. Select New Areas8. Implement Conservation Actiona) Retentionb) Tradeoffs9. Maintain and Monitora) active/passive adaptive management13 | P a g e
Page 3 and 4: Top-Down vs. Bottom Up?Working Towa
Page 5: SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
Page 8 and 9: TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOW
Page 13 and 14: SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
Page 22: TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOW
Page 65 and 66:
SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
show all

Top-Down vs. Bottom Up: Working Towards Consensus ... - CASIOPA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?