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

Recommendations

Info

TOP-DOWN VS. BOTTOM UP? WORKING TOWARDS CONSENSUSON SYSTEMATIC PROTECTED AREAS PLANNING IN ONTARIOas a positive example of inter-agency data-sharing at the provincial level (i.e., different governmentaldepartments are able to access each others‟ data relatively freely).5. Future DirectionsThe future direction of protected areas network design at both the provincial and federal level wasbriefly discussed. It was stated that Australia is still far ahead of Ontario in terms of the progressivenature of their approach to protected area network design, and that Ontario would be well-advised tocontinue to follow Australia‟s lead in terms of their approach to systematic conservation planning. Interms of the role of the federal government in future expansions of Canada‟s protected areas network, itwas stated that the primary mandate of Parks Canada would be to support provincial efforts to select andregulate new protected areas. Major assessments of the existing protected areas network and acquisitionsof new reserves are likely to be initiated at the provincial level.88 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM OF ONTARIO (PRFO)STATE OF THE ART PROTECTED AREAS DESIGN WORKSHOP, 2006Appendix J. Summary of Presentation by Crins and DavisSummarized by: Yolanda WiersmaDepartment of Biology, Memorial UniversityBackgroundThe Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources‟ approach to life sciences representation was introduced inthe late 1990s. However, the OMNR has been actively engaged with protected areas system planningsince the 1970s. Protected areas system planning in this early era (1970s to early 1980s) followed lifescience and earth science frameworks, with design principles based on island biogeography theory. Sitedistrict reports were used to identify protected areas and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest(ANSIs). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, crown land use planning became driven by the classenvironmental assessment for timber management on crown lands. The late 1990s saw a flurry ofactivity to identify and delineate new protected areas under the “Lands for Life” planning process. Theidentification of important representative sites following the approach described here has been used invarious planning processes, including “Lands for Life” (where it helped select a suite of 378 protectedareas), FSC Forest Certification exercises, the “Room to Grow” initiative and currently, in the NorthernBoreal Initiative (NBI), north of the “Area of Undertaking”.The current approach to identifying representative sites is based on ecological representation at the levelof the ecodistrict (Figure 3). Landform/vegetation (L/V) associations are used as the biodiversitysurrogate, and the methods used to identify priority areas are designed to follow standards of scientificrigour and reproducibility. Ecologically sustainable management of the intervening lands (matrix)outside of the protected areas is assumed. Within each ecodistrict, the minimum representation thresholdis at least 1% or 50 hectares of each L/V association. Those L/V associations with less protection thanthis minimum are identified as gaps in representation. This approach forms the basis of a province-widesystem, and is based on the assumption that samples of current diversity will meet representation needs.The whole land base is analyzed, regardless of tenure; land tenure issues are addressed as potentiallocations for protected areas are identified. It should be stressed that the 1%/50 ha guideline is aminimum for representation, and is not considered adequate for long-term persistence. Potentialweaknesses of the L/V approach are that it makes use of coarse-scale data from a variety of sources andscales (see Methods below), and it does not include species data. Representation of aquatic features (animportant and abundant ecosystem in northern Ontario) is done on an ad hoc basis, and the method doesnot incorporate a dynamic/temporal component.MethodsOMNR developed a new software tool, GapTool, in 2004-2005 to assist with the automation of the L/Vrepresentation assessment. GapTool is written using Visual Basic and Arc Objects languages, and isdesigned to extend the capabilities of ArcGIS. It was developed by OMNR with input from ESSATechnologies Ltd. which conducted a needs analysis. Programming and technical development werecontracted to Cuesta Systems, Inc. of Burlington, Ontario.89 | 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 10 and 11:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44: SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
Page 93: SUMMARY OF THE PARKS RESEARCH FORUM
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?