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

Recommendations

Info

TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOWARDS CONSENSUSON SYSTEMATIC PROTECTED AREAS PLANNING IN ONTARIO9. Please list specific hardware platform(s) for analysis and identify what stage of the process it is usedfor (e.g., data compilation, analysis, presentation of results, etc.).Hardware platformWindows-based personal computer withminimum 512 megabytes (Mb) of randomaccess memory (RAM)Stage of project usedGap analysis of under-represented featuresunder current protected areas and scenariosof potential new protected areas10. Please list specific software packages used as part of the project, their source (e.g., purchased;shareware; developed in house) and identify what stage of the process it is used for (e.g., datacompilation, analysis, presentation of results, etc.).Software package Source Stage of project usedArcMap Version 8.2 or 8.3 ESRI AllESRI Spatial Analyst for ArcGIS ESRI AllGapTool Ontario Parks AllExcel (for tabular results) Microsoft AllAdobe Reader Version 7 or newer(to view PDF output maps)AdobeAll11. Please describe the nature of any field work conducted in support of the project:None conducted to support the project. However maps and tabular results are used in conducting lifescience inventories for individual protected areas.12. Please list the specific project outputs (e.g., maps; databases; reports) and identify the targetaudience (e.g., university researchers; government staff and management; stakeholders/partners; nongovernmentalorganizations; general public; etc.).Project OutputTechnical papers (e.g., Crins and Kor 2000) andcommunications bulletins (e.g., Davis andMcCalden 2004)GapTool software application and associated datasetsFormatted maps, tabular reports, and GISshapefiles on current ecological representation forall of Ontario‟s 71 ecodistricts and 600+ regulatedprotected areasGapTool users guideTraining workshopsPresentations (perhaps 20 to date)Value-added reports (Ecodistrict Life ScienceReports, 2006 State of the Forest Report, 2006State of Protected Areas Report)Target AudiencePrimarily OMNR ecologists, biologists,foresters, analysts, GIS techniciansPrimarily OMNR ecologists, biologists,foresters, analysts, GIS techniciansPrimarily OMNR ecologists, biologists,foresters, analysts, GIS techniciansPrimarily OMNR ecologists, biologists,foresters, analysts, GIS techniciansPrimarily OMNR ecologists, biologists,foresters, analysts, GIS techniciansPrimarily OMNR ecologists, biologists,foresters, analysts, GIS technicians“State Of” reports intended for public, ENGOs,other jurisdictions; Internal reports intendedprimarily for ecologists, biologists, foresters42 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM OF ONTARIO (PRFO)STATE OF THE ART PROTECTED AREAS DESIGN WORKSHOP, 200613. Please describe any process undertaken for validation of project results (e.g., peer review, publicconsultation, etc.)Public consultation associated with protected area selection and design projects such as Lands for Life,Room to Grow, FSC forest certification exercises.Identification and review of sites for possible designation as Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest(ANSIs) and for potential securement.14. Please list any publications (including internal reports, grey literature, conference proceedings andpeer-reviewed articles) that have arisen from the project.Crins, W.J. and P.S.G. Kor. 2000. Natural heritage gap analysis methodologies used by the OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources. Version 2.0. Open File Natural Heritage Technical Report 2000-1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: Peterborough, Ontario.Crins, W.J., and P.W.C. Uhlig. 2000. Ecoregions of Ontario: modifications to Angus Hills‟ site regionsand districts: revisions and rationale. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Draft Report. 7 pp.+ figure and table.Davis, R.G. and L. McCalden. 2004. Representing Ontario‟s ecosystems: Ontario‟s approach torepresenting ecosystems in a system of protected areas. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources:Peterborough, Ontario. 8 pp.Davis, R.G. 2005. GapTool users guide. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources:Peterborough, Ontario. 51 pp + app.15. Please identify any limitations you feel you have encountered in your specific exercise of identifyingproposed representative protected areas.This approach doesn‟t go as far as identifying potential protected areas. It only identifies underrepresentednatural features. Under-represented landform/vegetation associations often serve as buildingblocks for identifying potential protected areas as conservation planning opportunities arise. Duringconservation planning, other protected area selection criteria including condition, diversity, ecologicalfunctions, and special features are considered, as are other values such as wood supplies, mineralpotential, and water power potential.Although representation is the primary concept used to identify possible additions to Ontario‟s system ofprotected areas, it is not the only one. MNR uses the following five criteria when selecting anddesigning protected areas:‣ Landscape Criterion 1: Representationo Terrestrial features based on landform/vegetation associationso Aquatic features will be assessed once aquatic representation framework is prepared‣ Landscape Criterion 2: Conditiono Freedom from anthropogenic disturbances such as roads, mining, and timber harvesting‣ Site Criterion 1: Diversityo Landscape diversityo Species Diversity43 | 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 47: SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
Page 99 and 100:
SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
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?