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

SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM OF ONTARIO (PRFO)STATE OF THE ART PROTECTED AREAS DESIGN WORKSHOP, 2006They felt that explicit acknowledgement of the “messiness” and difficulty associated with this stage wasnecessary (Table 1). Another group agreed that stakeholder involvement should be stressed at Step 8(“Implement conservation action”). Since involving stakeholders throughout the process has been seento be quite successful, this group recommended their continued involvement (with perhaps even broadercommunity involvement) at this phase of planning. This group also felt that Step 8 (“Implementconservation action”) should recognize that while a science-based approach tends to shape the processinitially, the planning process changes and modifies a great deal of the initial work or recommendations.Thus, this group felt it would be beneficial to include a subheading under Step 8 that could direct thatplanning principles should be incorporated into an approach which remains mostly scientific.One group decided that there should be one final heading in the process that could facilitate conservationplanning. They proposed a tenth stage to recognize the need to pool and share all data and methods,making every methodology and project outcome transparent, and easily accessed by those outside theeffort. Increasing data access and organization, perhaps even to society in general, would lessen the needfor experts to obtain and interpret data. If this initiative could be implemented on a national level,widespread data access would allow sharing of vital conservation planning information betweenconservation groups, and better inform the entire process.B. Discussion of Data-Related Needs and Issues at Multiple ScalesOne of the major topics of discussion for several groups was the concept of scale. Scale was felt to be afundamental concept that should be addressed at every stage of the design process. Determining thescale of a proposed project can help to identify stakeholders, determine realistic goals and setappropriate conservation targets, and is one of the keys to making this template an applicableframework. The breakout groups identified what they saw as being the major data-related needs andissues for multiple spatial scales and/or jurisdictional contexts, including: local/fine scale; borealspecific;Ontario-specific; and Federal. These “Data Requirements & Issues” are listed in Table 2.One group felt that stratification across scales (i.e., landscape, region, site) should be included explicitlyin the spine, but were uncertain as to where it might fit. This group felt that stratification of scale beyondconsidering landscapes or ecodistricts (e.g., including goals for species, ecosystems, and landscapes) canhelp put a focus on biodiversity, or focal species. As well, this group predicted that there would beredundancy built into stratification.1. Fine Scale Needs and IssuesIt was suggested that the analysis of fine resolution data can provide additional insights beyond thoseprovided by analyses conducted using only coarse resolution data. For example, fine resolution data canbe more appropriate for analyses conducted at small spatial extents. Local and Traditional EcologicalKnowledge generally fall into the “fine scale” category and thus, the stages at which fine scale data arecollected (e.g., for assessing the conservation value of existing reserves or candidate sites, duringmonitoring programs, etc.), constitute a major opportunity for First Nations and local stakeholderinvolvement. It was also emphasized that decisions regarding which decision support tools areappropriate for a given conservation planning scenario should be made with local stakeholderinvolvement. Finally, it was noted that information regarding specific opportunities for land acquisitionis fine scale in nature, and is crucial to the expansion of protected area networks.85 | P a g e