11.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOWARDS CONSENSUSON SYSTEMATIC PROTECTED AREAS PLANNING IN ONTARIOName of Presenter(s): Steve Kingston and Julee Boan1. Title of presentation: Square pegs? Adapting conservation planning tools for an intact landscape2. Name of representative protected area design project: Protected areas design in intact landscapes: theNorthern Boreal Initiative3. Date of project inception: 2001 and ongoing4. Number of staff involved in the project: 25. Please describe the conservation applications for your project: Results eventually to be submitted asinput to community-based land use planning, and to Ministry of Natural Resources planners as part oflandscape-level planning.6. Brief overview of project:Goal/purpose of project: To apply concepts of systematic conservation planning and protected areasdesign, through ecological representation and conservation values mapping, as applied to Ecoregion 3S,with a closer look at Ecodistrict 3S-4 in northwestern Ontario.Specific objectives: To provide landscape-level advice to the community-based land use planningprocesses, demonstrate the application of systematic conservation planning tools in northern Ontario,and potentially create a model for application to planning processes through the Northern BorealInitiative planning areas.Study region for project: Ecoregion 3S, specifically Ecodistrict 3S-4Partners: Ontario Parks/CPAWS- Wildlands LeagueTarget audience/clients: First Nation community planners, and MNR planners7. Please list all tools and techniques used in identifying proposed representative protected areas (e.g.,reserve selection algorithms, software packages, community consultation, etc.), and for each list source(e.g., developed in-house; purchased; contracted out; shareware; tool described in literature; etc.):Tool or techniqueSourceMNR gap toolOntario Parks: contracted to Cuesta SystemsWWF Assessment of Representation Developed in-house / contract(AoR) toolC- PLAN SharewareHCVF FrameworkDescribed in literature22 | P a g e

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!