Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PhD Research Proposal
Exploring the Regional Integration of Protected Areas: The Case of Canadian National Parks
Waterton National Park, Alberta and its surrounding region
Julia M. McCleave
Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
e-mail: [email protected]
Approval date: March 13, 2006
Supervisor: Scott Slocombe, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies,
Wilfrid Laurier University
Committee: Brent Doberstein, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo
George Francis, Department of Environment and Resource Studies,
University of Waterloo
Mary Louise McAllister, Department of Environment and Resource Studies,
University of Waterloo
Abstract
It has long been recognized in the literature that protected areas do not exist in isolation from
their surrounding regions. Ecological, economic, and socio-cultural interactions between
protected areas and their surrounding regions occur on a regular basis within the context of a
politicized environment, a lack of knowledge, and a great deal of complexity. Many management
challenges can arise from these interactions including external pressures on protected areas'
ecological integrity due to land development, habitat fragmentation, resource extraction, toxics
and pollutants and exotic species; a lack of trust between protected area managers and local
residents; and a low level of communication, cooperation and coordination between government
agencies within a protected area's surrounding region. The term ‘regional integration’ broadly
means the integration of a protected area into its surrounding region in order to address these
challenges. Regional integration initiatives can involve building partnerships, collaborating, and
cooperating with actors within a protected area’s surrounding region; increased public
participation in protected area management and planning; the coordination of regional plans and
policies; resolving conflicts and improving relations with local people; or engaging in ecological
integration initiatives such as joint monitoring programs.
This study will examine the interactions between national parks and their surrounding regions,
how these interactions have been addressed by protected area managers and other actors, and
how the concept of regional integration is currently defined and practiced within the context of
national parks in Canada. Five national parks and their surrounding regions have been selected as
case studies: Kejimkujik National Park, Nova Scotia; Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland;
Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba; Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta; and Mount
i
Revelstoke National Park, British Columbia. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with
Parks Canada employees and actors within the national parks’ surrounding regions.
Anticipated outcomes include the development of theory related to regional integration; an
external perspective on the regional integration of Canada’s national parks; and suggestions on
how the regional integration of Canada’s national parks could be improved.
ii
Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... iii Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Goal and Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 3 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 3
Protected Areas and their Surrounding Regions: A Brief History.............................................. 4 Conceptual Framework for Regional Integration Issues and Approaches.................................. 7
Interactions.............................................................................................................................. 7 Context...................................................................................................................................... 11
Approaches and Tools for Regional Integration................................................................... 14 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 16
Case Study Selection................................................................................................................. 17 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 19 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 21
Anticipated Outcomes/Contribution ............................................................................................. 21 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................................. 22 Proposed Chapter Outline ............................................................................................................. 22 Proposed Research Schedule ........................................................................................................ 23 References..................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix 1: Generic Interview Schedule ..................................................................................... 30
iii
Introduction
It has long been recognized in the literature that protected areas do not exist in isolation from
their surrounding regions (Garratt, 1984; Hough, 1988; Janzen, 1983; Zube, 1995). Early
research on protected areas and their surrounding regions examined issues such as the
management of conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities (Hough,
1988) and the effects of national parks on surrounding communities (West & Brechin, 1991;
Zube & Busch, 1990). This research tended to focus on the establishment of national parks in
developing countries and the negative outcomes (such as physical displacement or the loss of
traditional uses of natural resources) that were a result of the ‘mismatch’ of a Western model of
protected area management and local circumstances.
Today, a vast literature details the many challenges that relate to protected areas and their
surrounding regions, in both developing and developed-country contexts. From the perspective
of protected areas in developed countries, some of the more common challenges include a lack of
trust between protected area managers and local residents (Bissix et al., 1998; McCleave et al.,
2004); a low level of communication, cooperation and coordination between government
agencies within a protected area's surrounding region (Beresford & Phillips, 2000; Danby, 2002;
Parks Canada, 2000b; Wright, 2002); external pressures on protected areas' ecological integrity
due to land development, habitat fragmentation, resource extraction, toxics and pollutants and
exotic species (Beresford & Phillips, 2000; Francis, 2003; Parks Canada, 2000a, 2000b; Walton,
1998); and overuse from recreation and tourism (Nepal, 2000; Parks Canada, 2000a, 2000b).
1
The term ‘regional integration’ broadly means the integration of a protected area into its
surrounding region in order to address the challenges that exist in the context of its interaction
with its surrounding region. Examples of regional integration initiatives are:
• Building partnerships, collaborating, and cooperating with actors within a protected
area’s surrounding region;
• Developing, participating in, and/or increasing support for local institutions;
• Increased public participation in protected area management and planning;
• The coordination of regional plans and policies;
• Resolving conflicts and improving relations with local people; and,
• Engaging in ecological integration initiatives such as joint monitoring programs.
Regional integration can have varied or multiple goals. They might include addressing specific
management problems, improving a protected area’s ecological integrity, or moving towards
economic or ecological sustainability in the protected area’s surrounding region.
Despite efforts at implementing the types of regional integration initiatives described above,
regional integration problems still remain for protected areas around the world (Brandon et al.,
1998; McCleave, 2004; McCleave et al., 2004; Wells & Brandon, 1992; West & Brechin, 1991).
Four preliminary ‘scoping’ trips to national park regions in Canada indicate that the national
parks of Canada are no exception. However, in depth research that focuses specifically on
regional integration is sparse with most research addressing various components of regional
integration such as partnerships in conservation (e.g., Brown et al., 2003; McNeely, 1995b;
Stolton & Dudley, 1999), or developing larger scale ‘bioregional’ institutions for conservation
2
(e.g., Gatewood, 1999; Miller, 1999). There is a notable lack of research which explores how
regional integration is being carried out within the context of national parks in Canada or how
the integration of national parks into their surrounding regions could be improved. Furthermore,
regional integration as a concept remains unclear, under-studied, and undefined.
Goal and Research Questions
The long-term goal of this research is to develop the theory and improve the practice of the
regional integration of protected areas. In order to accomplish this goal, this research aims to
answer the following four primary research questions:
1. What are the critical interactions between national parks and their surrounding
regions and what management challenges do they raise?
2. How have the interactions between national parks and their surrounding regions
been addressed by protected area managers and other actors?
3. How is the concept of regional integration currently defined and practiced within the
context of national parks in Canada?
4. How can the regional integration of Canada’s national parks be improved?
Literature Review
The purpose of this section is to present my current understanding and conceptualization of
regional integration, which influences the direction that my investigation will take and the areas
3
of the literature that I will focus on in my dissertation. It also serves as a ‘starting point’ for
answering the first three research questions above.
I will begin by presenting a brief history of the interaction between protected areas and their
surrounding regions, focusing on the ‘new’ and ‘traditional’ paradigms of protected area
planning and management. I will then present a conceptual framework for regional integration
issues and approaches which will subsequently inform my methodology and data analysis1.
Protected Areas and their Surrounding Regions: A Brief History
The establishment, planning and management of protected areas in relation to their surrounding
regions has undergone significant changes since Yellowstone National Park was established in
1872. Two main paradigms of protected area planning and management have been identified in
the literature (Nelson & Sportza, 2001; Phillips, 2003a, 2003b), and these serve as a basis for
discussing these changes.
The traditional paradigm of protected area planning and management has been labelled in
various ways including the ‘fences and fines approach’ (Wells & Brandon, 1992); the ‘fortress
conservation’ model (Mumphree, 2002); and the ‘protectionist’ approach to conservation
(Brechin et al., 2003; Wilshusen et al., 2002). Early national parks were generally ‘set aside’ for
conservation, with land being taken out of productive use (Phillips, 2003b). The focus of
management efforts in these early national parks was the attraction of tourists, the preservation
of spectacular (usually large) wildlife, and management efforts that were geared towards tourists
and visitors, “whose interests normally prevailed over those of local people” (Phillips, 2003b, p.
1 Please note that this literature review will be expanded in my dissertation.
4
12). Many authors describe parks that were originally established with little or no regard for local
people (e.g., Andrews et al., 1998; Guerrero & Rose, 1998; Moreno et al., 1998).
The management and planning of Canada’s early national parks also followed the traditional
paradigm. At the inception of the national parks system in 1885, national parks in Canada were
created for their economic value as tourist attractions and places of recreation (McNamee, 2002).
The establishment of some early national parks in North America resulted in the expropriation of
local people from villages and significant interference with local economic activities such as
logging (e.g., Bissix et al., 1998). As the national park system grew and policy evolved, more
and more attention was paid to the 'threats' faced by national parks from development and
overuse.
During the Third World Parks Congress in Bali, Indonesia in 1982, the limits of the traditional
paradigm of protected area planning and management were becoming apparent and there was
recognition of the fact that parks cannot be seen as islands which exist in isolation from their
surroundings. This signaled the beginning of the new paradigm of protected area planning and
management in which “a broad threshold was reached where the theory, methods, and practice of
protected area planning and management re-arranged themselves into what is essentially a new
framework that is still evolving” (Nelson & Sportza, 2001). Scientific advances in landscape
ecology, biodiversity, and conservation biology influenced the new paradigm (Sportza, 1999).
Essentially, the new paradigm of protected area planning and management moves away from the
classic model of protected areas as areas that are set aside for protection and enjoyment and
5
managed as ‘islands.’ It is a broader view of protected areas in three senses: 1) it includes a
wider range of actors among those who initiate and manage protected areas, 2) protected areas
are working at a far larger scale, and 3) there is a broader understanding of what encompasses a
protected area (Dudley et al., 1999). The paradigm recognizes that protected areas cannot be
managed as islands and that a more regional, multi-stakeholder, and co-operative approach is
needed (Janzen, 1983; Machlis, 1995; Machlis & Tichnell, 1985, 1987; Phillips, 2003b;
Slocombe & Dearden, 2002; Zube, 1995).
In Canada, attention also turned to issues involving protected areas and their surrounding regions
in the 1980s with some policy and research efforts focused specifically on ‘regional integration’
which was defined at the time as the “planning, development and operation of national parks in
the context of the regions in which they are located, so as to maximize the benefits and minimize
the cost to both the parks and the region” (Parks Canada, 1985, p. 1). National parks policy and
legislation evolved from 'boundary thinking' to more integrated approaches (Slocombe &
Dearden, 2002). By 1994, Parks Canada policy recognized that national parks are not islands, but
are part of larger ecosystems and cultural landscapes, and that ecological integrity can only be
maintained through the creation of cooperative relationships in surrounding regions (Parks
Canada, 1994). The maintenance of ecological integrity through ecosystem-based management is
the conceptual approach for national park management in Canada today (Parks Canada, 2005)2.
2 One way to address my third research question, therefore, is to examine how and if national parks in Canada are implementing this conceptual approach. For example, is there monitoring for ecosystem integrity outside of park boundaries? Are national parks recognized in regional economic development strategies?
6
7
Conceptual Framework for Regional Integration Issues and
Approaches
A conceptual framework is “a set of broad ideas and principles taken from relevant fields of
inquiry and used to structure a subsequent presentation” (Reichel & Raney, 1987; cited in Smyth,
2004, p. 2). A conceptual framework will be used to provide a common language for my
proposal and dissertation, structure my literature review, inform my research design, and as a
basis for presenting and comparing case study results (Figure 1). The framework will be
constantly reviewed throughout the research process therefore the framework as presented in this
proposal should be considered to be preliminary.
The conceptual framework has two main components. On the left, the interactions between a
protected area and its surrounding region are represented, along with the context in which these
interactions occur. On the right the main approaches and tools for addressing the challenges
arising from the interactions on the left are listed.
Interactions
There are ecological, economic, and socio-cultural interactions between a protected area and its
surrounding region. Figure 1 is a highly simplified representation of this system. The use of
dashed lines denotes that the boundaries between these systems and between the protected area
and these systems are fluid and ever changing. Many of the interactions that occur could be
categorized into more than one of these categories. For example, the limitation of resource
extraction by local people in a national park could be considered to have ecological, economic,
and socio-cultural dimensions.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for regional integration issues and approaches
Economic interactions
Ecological interactions
Politicized environment
Incomplete knowledge
Complexity
New paradigm of PA management
Approaches/Tools • Conservation
partnerships • Ecosystem approach • Bioregional initiatives • Local actor participation
in PA management & planning (various degrees of participation)
• Integration of different knowledge systems
• Buffer zones, links, networks
• Education and outreach • Economic benefits • Adaptive management • Conflict resolution
Addressing/ influencing
Protected area
Socio-cultural interactions
8
All of the interactions between a protected area and its surrounding region transpire through the
governance arrangements that are in place. As a general concept, 'governance' means "the
interactions among institutions, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised,
how decisions are taken on issues of public and often private concern, and how citizens or other
stakeholders have their say"(Kooiman, 1993). The concept of governance has been applied to
devise four categories for the 'governance type' of protected areas: government managed, co-
managed, private, and community conserved (Borrini-Feyerabend, 2004).
Ecological interactions
Ecological processes do not follow political boundaries (such as national park boundaries) and
water, sediment, flora, fauna, air, and disease continuously flow into and out of protected areas.
A protected area provides ecological services to its surrounding region by conserving water
resources, soil, plants and animal life. On the other hand, protected areas are dependent on
corridors, buffers and other connections with the surrounding landscape for their biodiversity,
ecological integrity, and environmental health (Nelson et al., 2003). Finally, common ‘threats’ to
the ecological integrity of protected areas often originate from the surrounding region such as
industrial activity, agricultural activity, tourism development, housing development, habitat
fragmentation, toxics and pollutants and exotic species.
Economic interactions
Some of the more common economic interactions that occur between a protected area and its
surrounding region include the employment of local people in protected area management (Zube,
1995), the generation of tourism in a protected area’s surrounding region
9
(Booth & Simmons, 2000; IUCN, 2000; Lawson et al., 1995; Nepal, 2000), the use of
community services such as fire protection for national parks management (Parks Canada, 1985),
resource extraction and resource management activities such as forestry that occur up to a
protected area’s boundary, and the limitation of economic activity within protected area
boundaries.
Socio-cultural interactions
The socio-cultural interactions that occur between a protected area and the actors within its
surrounding region can be described in terms of the major purpose or activity that key actors are
trying to fulfil and the impacts or consequences of these activities.
Local people within a protected area’s surrounding region often use protected areas for outdoor
recreation, which has been shown to provide many physical, psychological, spiritual, and
educational benefits (Jensen, 1995). Protected areas can also contribute to a community’s pride,
local residents’ sense of place, and as an appreciated visual backdrop to the surrounding region
(McCleave et al., 2004).
In other cases, local people may use (or want to use) the protected area for activities that are
inconsistent with protected area regulations such as hunting and some forms of recreation such as
snowmobiling or mountain biking. Oftentimes, when a protected area is established these
activities are limited or banned, which can lead to resentment or hostility towards the new
protected area by local people. Protected area managers also have an interest in similar activities
that take place outside of the protected area’s boundaries, which may have negative effects on
the protected area (i.e. hunting of animals that move out of protected areas seasonally).
10
Protected areas can generate increased tourism in their surrounding regions, which can affect the
quiet, rural lifestyle that many protected area neighbours enjoy. Increased tourism can generate
many negatively perceived impacts such congestion, irritation, and resentment (Mathieson &
Wall, 1982) although it is often difficult to make a direct correlation between a protected area
and the impacts of tourism in its surrounding region (McCleave et al., 2004).
The interaction between local people and protected area management agency staff has been
examined in the literature (see Hough, 1988; Kaltenborn et al., 1999; Kappelle, 2001; McCleave
et al., 2004; Ormsby & Kaplin, 2005; Propst & Rosan, 1997). McCleave et al. (2004) described
an often tumultuous relationship between the staff of the Department of Conservation who
manage Kahurangi National Park, New Zealand and those residents living near the park. Hough
(1988) found that trust of protected area staff is influenced by any history of hostility or
misunderstanding between park representatives and local residents, and the background of park
staff, including ethnicity, birthplace, socioeconomic status and appropriate training for
interactions with communities. It can also be related to the history of how the protected areas
were established (e.g., Bissix et al., 1998).
Context
All of the above interactions occur within the context of a politicized environment, incomplete
knowledge, complexity, and the new paradigm of protected area planning and management.
11
Politicized environment
The interactions between protected areas and their surrounding regions occur within the context
of a politicised natural environment, as informed by the field of political ecology.
Rogers (2002) has identified three main elements of political ecology:
1. The natural, non-human world exists as a contested space and control of its resources, material
and cultural, is the prize sought by the actors.
2. The biotic and abiotic elements of non-human nature are neither a neutral space not a passive
prize. The "ecology" in political ecology has an important effect on the "political."
3. Contestants are social actors differentially endowed with power over each other and their
natural environment. Contestation and politicization produces "winners" and "losers," and an
unequal distribution of environmental costs and benefits. Thus, it is important to examine the
actors, their interests, motivations, and resources (Bryant & Bailey, 1997).
Political ecology informs us that the planning and management of protected areas occurs within a
politicized environment. Many actors are involved including the protected area agency, other
governmental agencies (e.g. provincial natural resource agencies), NGOs, community
organizations, local residents, and industry. Each of these actors has specific interests and
agendas and different levels of power over particular issues. This can create multiple conflicts,
with “winners” and “losers” becoming apparent.
Most PA managers spend a lot of time ‘doing politics’ (Brechin et al., 2002). Some of the more
common political challenges include insecure or insufficient funding (McNeely, 1995a);
12
conflicts between local people and park management (e.g., Bissix et al., 1998; McCleave et al.,
2004); and non-existent or poor relationships with other governmental agencies in the region.
Incomplete knowledge
As in all natural resource management environments, the regional integration of protected areas
occurs within the context of incomplete knowledge. There is incomplete knowledge of
ecosystems and how they work, a lack of understanding of how ecosystems, societies and
economies interact, and a limitation of ‘expert’ science (Slocombe, 1993). Furthermore, there is
no one ‘right way’ to address regional integration challenges and many protected area managers
face a lack of clear policy or direction for regional integration (Birtch, 1985).
Complexity
As described above, protected areas exist within complex socio-cultural and bio-physical
systems and are in the constant interaction with their surrounding regions. Some of the main
contributors to this complexity are the facts that:
• Natural systems are not explicitly bounded by political demarcations (Mullner et al.,
2001);
• There is substantial spatial heterogeneity between actions that occur within a protected
area and their ensuing impacts (Agee, 1996);
• There is no one “community” in a protected area’s surrounding region but numerous
actors and institutions with different interests; and,
• Management challenges often come from regional dynamics that go beyond national and
provincial boundaries, such illegal logging, poaching, and over fishing (Alcorn et al.,
2003).
13
New paradigm of protected area planning and management
The management of protected areas is occurring within the context of the new paradigm of
protected area planning and management. From the point of view of the manager of a
government-managed protected area in the developed world, this means that a more regional,
multi-stakeholder, and co-operative approach to protected area management is needed (see
description of new paradigm above).
Approaches and Tools for Regional Integration
Several protected area management frameworks have the potential to address the challenges that
arise from the interaction between protected areas and their surrounding regions. The most
commonly cited and used management frameworks are integrated natural resource management
(Born & Sonzogni, 1995; Cairns & Crawford, 1991; Hooper et al., 1999; Lang, 1986);
ecosystem-based management (Agee & Johnson, 1988; Francis, 1993; Grumbine, 1994;
Slocombe, 1993); and non-traditional ‘governance types’ such as community-based natural
resource management (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999, 2001; Kellert et al., 2000; Worah, 2002) and
co-management (Berkes, 1994, 1997; Notzke, 1995).
A review of the literature on these management frameworks indicates that they share many of the
same themes, approaches and tools. Table 1 lists these approaches and tools and the associated
regional integration challenge that each has the potential to address3. Many of the approaches
and tools directly apply to the governance arrangement in place in the region, while others
3 The identification of these approaches and tools will influence but not limit my investigation of regional integration initiatives at the case studies (see Data Collection and Appendix 1).
14
Table 1: Approaches and tools for regional integration Approach/Tool Regional integration challenge Conservation partnerships
• Many actors involved in PA-surrounding region system • Lack of communication/coordination between PA agency
and other actors • Mistrust of PA agency • ‘Threats’ to PA originating from other actors • Conflicts between actors
Ecosystem approach • PAs do not follow political boundaries • PAs are embedded within complex bio-physical systems • Spatial heterogeneity between actions that occur within a
PA and their ensuing impacts • Common ‘threats’ to PAs often originate from the
surrounding region Bioregional initiatives • Common ‘threats’ to PAs often originate from the
surrounding region • Many actors involved in PA-surrounding region system • Management challenges often come from regional
dynamics that go beyond national and provincial boundaries
Local actor participation in PA management & planning (various degrees of participation)
• Mistrust of PA agency • No one “community” in a PA’s surrounding region but
numerous actors with different interests • Common ‘threats’ to PAs often originate from the
surrounding region Integration of different knowledge systems
• Incomplete knowledge of ecosystems and how they work, a lack of understanding of how ecosystems, societies and economies interact
• Limitations of ‘expert’ science Buffer zones, links, networks
• PAs are dependent on corridors, buffers and other connections with the surrounding landscape for their biodiversity, ecological integrity, and environmental health
Education and outreach • Common ‘threats’ to PAs often originate from the surrounding region
• Mistrust of PA agency Economic benefits • Limitation of economic activity within PA boundaries
• Loss of traditional use of the land (i.e. hunting and gathering)
• Expenditures from park operations in region Adaptive management • Incomplete knowledge
• Learning from experience • Complexity
Conflict resolution • Conflicts between actors
15
influence or apply to the context (politicized environment, incomplete knowledge, complexity,
new paradigm).
Methodology
This study will employ primarily qualitative research methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
Although qualitative research cannot be neatly pigeonholed into one uniform philosophy or set
of methodological principles, there are some common features that appear:
• It is concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood, experienced, or
produced.
• It is based on methods of data generation that are flexible and sensitive to the social context
in which data are produced.
• It is based on methods of analysis that involve understandings of complexity, detail, and
context (Mason, 1996).
Qualitative research methods were deemed as appropriate for the study of the regional
integration of protected areas for several reasons. First, regional integration is a way of
interpreting, understanding and experiencing the social world. There is no one ‘right answer’ to
the primary research questions and the data collected will be primarily based on people’s
interpretations. Second, since the concept of regional integration is somewhat under-studied and
un-defined, a flexible, open-ended research approach is needed. Finally, context, complexity and
detail will play an important role in exploring the particular situations at each case study site.
16
A multiple case study design approach will be used. The need for case studies arises out of the
desire to understand complex social phenomena (Yin, 2003). They are the preferred strategy
when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over
events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context (Yin,
2003). Multiple case studies will allow me to compare different cases and draw cross-case
conclusions (Yin, 2003).
Case Study Selection
I will be using five national parks and their surrounding regions (henceforth called ‘national park
regions’) as my case studies. They are: Kejimkujik National Park, Nova Scotia; Gros Morne
National Park, Newfoundland; Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba; Waterton Lakes
National Park, Alberta; and Mount Revelstoke National Park, British Columbia. Two case
studies will be examined in greater depth than the other three primarily due to limited time and
resources. One of the primary case studies will be Kejimkujik National Park. The second primary
case study will be decided upon at a later date, once I have finished my preliminary visits to each
case study site, but likely will be either Gros Morne National Park or Mount Revelstoke National
Park.
The rationale behind this case study selection was to choose national parks with broadly similar
regional contexts but in different parts of the country. The chosen national parks have the
following in common:
• They are ‘southern’ national parks (‘northern’ national parks have very different regional
contexts and would present too many logistical challenges related to time, cost, and access)
17
• The primary language spoken in the region is English (eliminating potential translation
costs)
• There is human habitation in relative proximity to the national park (within the park or
within 10 km of the park boundary)
• There is significant industrial or resource-based activity in relative proximity to the park (i.e.
forestry, agriculture, ranching, oil and gas)
Finally, I sought to examine national park regions with different formal regional integration
activities in place; varied relationships between national park and other actors in the region;
varied levels of public participation in park planning & management; and, varied local attitudes
towards Parks Canada.
Three of the case studies (Kejimkujik, Riding Mountain, and Waterton Lakes) include national
parks that are within biosphere reserves. Biosphere reserves have been cited as examples of an
ecosystem approach (Bridgewater, 2001; Dearden, 2004; Slocombe, 1993, 2004; UNESCO,
2000), sustainable development (Amos, 1994), 'honest brokers' for strengthening conservation
partnerships (von Droste, 1995), integrative governance mechanisms (Graham et al., 2003),
experiments in sustainability (Whitelaw et al., 2004), and coordinating frameworks (Ravindra,
2004). Danby and Slocombe (2005, p. 418) argued that “biosphere reserves can provide a
framework for regional integration of protected areas and sustainable development through co-
operative planning and management, research, monitoring and education.” In theory, at least, the
biosphere reserve model seems to be the ideal framework for addressing regional integration
challenges, making these three national park regions particularly suitable for investigation.
18
Data Collection
Data to construct the case studies will be collected through: 1) a review of relevant literature,
policies, reports, and historical data 2) in-depth and semi-structured interviews, and 3) field
observations.
Before travelling to each case study site to conduct interviews and field observations, I will
create a profile for each case study. These profiles will be based on a scoping trip to the region as
well as a review of site specific documents. These profiles will include:
• A list of regional integration issues and challenges in the region;
• A list of approaches being used for addressing regional integration issues;
• A list of key people to interview;
• A list of actors (local people, government agencies, NGOs, industry) relevant to regional
integration in the region;
• A categorization of potential interviewees (based on an interviewees’ occupation or
relationship to the national park);
• An interview schedule for each participant category (see Appendix 1); and,
• A list of additional facts, clarifications and details I need to seek through visits and
interviews.
Key interviewees will include park wardens, park superintendents, Parks Canada planners,
regional government representatives, biosphere reserve committee members, First Nations
representatives, and other relevant actor such as environmental NGOs and industry
representatives. Approximately 15-20 participants will be interviewed at the primary case study
19
sites and approximately 5-10 participants will be interviewed at the secondary case study sites.
For each case study I will interview at least one person from each of the participant categories.
This strategy will ensure that I interview a wide-ranging and representative group of actors at
each case study.
The interviews will be intensive and semi-structured (Fontana & Frey, 1994) and will be, at a
minimum, 30 minutes in length. Semi-structured interviews are appropriate for this research in
order to keep the format flexible and open but ensure that key themes are addressed. An
interview schedule will be used that focuses on several themes central to the primary research
questions (Appendix 1). Interviews will be recorded on a commercial digital voice recorder with
the consent of the participants. All in-person interviews will be transcribed by myself, a hired
research assistant, or an administrative assistant contracted to transcribe the interviews.
During my visits to the case study sites I will also observe (but not participate in) any relevant
meetings, gatherings, or workshops. This might include an annual general meeting of an
Environmental NGO, a meeting between resource managers, or a community event such as the
annual ‘hands across the border’ event at Waterton Lakes National Park. I will attempt to
standardize the type of events that I observe at each case study site.
I will use three strategies to verify the accuracy of my findings. First, I will use triangulation by
using different data sources (interviews, observations, and documents) to build a strong
justification for identified themes. Second, I will use member-checking (taking my preliminary
findings back to the research participants) by returning to each case study site during the fall of
20
2007 in order to present and verify results with study participants. Third, I will use rich
description to convey my findings in order to give the reader an element of shared experience
(Creswell, 2003).
Data Analysis
Interview transcriptions will be analysed in four steps: (1) open coding to identify ideas, themes,
and concerns (2) identification of general categories and subcategories [the categories will be
primarily based on the four research questions and the dimensions of regional integration] (3)
summarization of each interview using those categories with subheadings and specific details,
stories, or examples related by the participant, and (4) comparison and linking of categories
within and between interviews (see Crang, 1997; Robinson, 1998). The interview data will be
imported into the software program ‘Nvivo’ and steps 1 and 2 will be undertaken within this
program.
Anticipated Outcomes/Contribution
The primary anticipated outcomes of this research are an external perspective on the regional
integration of Canada’s national parks and suggestions on how the regional integration of
Canada’s national parks could be improved. These suggestions will be grounded in how regional
integration issues are currently addressed as well as the possibilities and potentials that could be
pursued by both protected area managers and staff and actors within the surrounding region.
This research will contribute to the academic literature on protected area planning and
management by presenting a new conceptual framework for regional integration issues and
approaches. By identifying gaps in the literature and research questions that merit further
21
attention, it will also serve as a basis for future research on the regional integration of protected
areas.
Ethical Considerations
I will follow the conditions of the Canadian Research Tri-Council’s Ethical Conduct for
Research Involving Humans. Ethical approval for this research will be obtained from the
University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee. A multiple park research permit will be
required from Parks Canada and the Parks Canada research coordinator at Waterton Lakes
National Park has indicated that this will not pose a problem. Since no physical works are
undertaken and no park resources are collected or manipulated, there are no environmental
assessment concerns.
Proposed Chapter Outline 1. Introduction
• Introduction to protected area – surroundings issues • Introduction to regional integration • Rationale for research on regional integration • Research Questions • Thesis structure
2. Literature Review • History of protected areas and their surrounding regions • Conceptual framework for regional integration
3. Methods • Description of methods chosen and why • Description of procedure • Issues and problems encountered; limitations of methods
4. Kejimkujik National Park • Description • Case study results
5. Second primary case study (Gros Morne or Mount Revelstoke) • Description • Case study results
6. Secondary case studies • Descriptions
22
• Case study results 7. Discussion
• General discussion/comparison • Analysis of results and integration of theory
8. Conclusion • Review primary research questions • Review method • Future research needs
9. References 10. Appendices
Proposed Research Schedule
I intend to defend my dissertation in April, 2008. Table 2 indicates how this can be achieved.
Table 2: Proposed research schedule Semester Activity Fall 2005 • Write and defend comprehensive exam (completed)
• Scoping field trip to Kejimkujik National Park (completed) • Scoping field trip to Waterton Lakes National Park (completed)
Winter 2006 • Scoping field trip to Gros Morne National Park (completed) • Finalize research proposal • Gain university ethics approval • Obtain Parks Canada research permit (in progress) • Scoping field trip to Mount Revelstoke National Park (March) • Start interviews at Kejimkujik National Park (end March)
Spring 2006 • Finish interviews at Kejimkujik National Park • Scoping field trip to Riding Mountain National Park (June) • Interviews at Gros Morne National Park
Fall 2006 • Interviews at Waterton Lakes National Park • Interviews at Riding Mountain National Park
Winter 2007 • Interviews at Mount Revelstoke National Park • Analyze results
Spring 2007 • Analyze results • Write dissertation
Fall 2007 • Write dissertation • Field trips to all sites to report/confirm results
Winter 2008 • Edit dissertation • Submit dissertation (March 1, 2008) • Defend dissertation (~April 1, 2008)
23
References Agee, J. K. (1996). Ecosystem management: an appropriate concept for parks? In R. G. Wright
(Ed.), National parks and protected areas: their role in environmental protection (pp. 31-44). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
Agee, J. K., & Johnson, D. R. (Eds.). (1988). Ecosystem management for parks and wilderness. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 619-649.
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (Eds.). (2001). Communities and the environment: ethnicity, gender, and the state in community-based conservation. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Alcorn, J. B., Luque, A., & Valenzuela, S. (2003, 8 - 18 September). Global governance and institutional trends affecting protected areas management: challenges and opportunities arising from democratization and globalization. Paper presented at the The Vth World Congress on Protected Areas, Durban, South Africa.
Amos, B. (1994, October 26-28). The challenge of biosphere reserves: living examples of sustainable development. Paper presented at the Leading Edge '94: A Conference Linking Research, Planning and Community in the Niagara Escarpment, Mono Township, Ontario.
Andrews, J., Migoya Von Bertrab, R., Rojas, S., Mendez, A., & Rose, D. (1998). Mexico: Ria Celestun and Ria Lagartos Special Biosphere Reserves. In L. Brandon, K. H. Redford & S. E. Sanderson (Eds.), Parks in peril: People, politics and protected areas (pp. 79-106). Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
Beresford, M., & Phillips, A. (2000). Protected landscapes: a conservation model for the 21st century. The George Wright Forum, 17(1), 15-26.
Berkes, F. (1994). Co-management: bridging two solitudes. Northern Perspectives, 22(2-3), 18-20.
Berkes, F. (1997). New and not-so-new directions in the use of the commons: co-management. The Common Property Resource Digest, 42, 1-3.
Birtch, J. (1985). Review of provisions for regional integration in park management planning documents. Ottawa: National Parks Branch, Community and Municipal Affairs.
Bissix, G., Anderson, C., & Miles, K. (1998). "Parklocked?" - sustainable rural development in the Northern Cape Breton Greater Ecosystem. In N. W. P. Munro & J. H. M. Willison (Eds.), Linking protected areas with working landscapes conserving biodiversity: proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 12-16 May 1997 (pp. 885-892). Wolfville, NS: Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association.
Booth, K. L., & Simmons, D. G. (2000). Tourism and the establishment of national parks in New Zealand. In R. W. Butler & S. W. Boyd (Eds.), Tourism and national parks: issues and implications (pp. 39-49). Chichester: Wiley.
Born, S. M., & Sonzogni, W. C. (1995). Integrated environmental management: strengthening the conceptualization. Environmental Management, 19, 167-181.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (2004). Governance of protected areas, participation and equity (No. 15, CBD Technical Series). Montreal, Quebec: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
24
Brandon, L., Redford, K. H., & Sanderson, S. E. (Eds.). (1998). Parks in peril: people, politics and protected areas. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Brechin, S., Wilshusen, P. R., Fortwangler, C. L., & West, P. (2003). The road less traveled: toward nature protection with social justice. In S. Brechin, P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler & P. West (Eds.), Constested nature: promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-first century (pp. 251-270). Albany: SUNY Press.
Brechin, S., Wilshusen, P. R., Fortwangler, C. L., & West, P. C. (2002). Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as a social and political process. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 41-64.
Bridgewater, P. (2001). Editorial. Parks, 11(1), 1-2. Brown, J., Mitchell, N., & Tuxill, J. (2003). Partnerships and lived-in landscapes: an evolving
US system of parks and protected areas. Parks, 13(2), 31-41. Bryant, R., & Bailey, S. (1997). Third world political ecology. London: Routledge. Cairns, J., & Crawford, T. V. (Eds.). (1991). Integrated environmental management. Chelsea,
MI: Lewis Publishers. Crang, M. (1997). Analyzing qualitative materials. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.),
Methods in human geography (pp. 183-197). Essex, England: Addison Wesley Longman. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Danby, R. K. (2002). Fostering an ecosystem perspective through intergovernmental
cooperation: a look at two Alaskan examples. In S. Bondrop-Nielson, N. Munro, J. G. Nelson, J. H. Willison, T. B. Herman & P. Eagles (Eds.), Managing protected areas in a changing world: proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas 14-10 May 2000. Wolfville, NS.
Danby, R. K., & Slocombe, D. S. (2005). Regional ecology, ecosystem geography, and transboundary protected areas in the St. Elias Mountains. Ecological Applications, 15(2), 405-422.
Dearden, P. (2004). Parks and protected areas. In B. Mitchell (Ed.), Resource and environmental management in Canada: addressing conflict and uncertainty (Vol. 3, pp. 314-341). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Dudley, N., Gujja, B., Jackson, B., Jeanrenaud, J. P., Oviedo, G., Phillips, A., et al. (1999). Challenges for protected areas in the 21st century. In S. Stolton & N. Dudley (Eds.), Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and management for protected areas (pp. 3-12). London: Earthscan Publications.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: the art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361-376). California: Sage Publications.
Francis, G. (1993). Ecosystem management. Natural Resources Journal, 33(2), 315-345. Francis, G. (2003). Governance for conservation. In F. R. Westley & P. S. Miller (Eds.),
Experiments in consilience: integrating social and scientific responses to save endangered species (pp. 223-243). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Garratt, K. (1984). The relationship between adjacent lands and protected areas: issues of concern for the protected area manager. In J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller (Eds.), National
25
parks, conservation, and development: the role of protected areas in sustaining society (pp. 65-71). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press.
Gatewood, S. (1999). Wildlands Project: the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and Sky Islands Wildlands Network. Environments, 29(3), 45-53.
Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003, 8 - 18 September). Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century. Paper presented at the The Vth World Congress on Protected Areas, Durban, South Africa.
Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27-28. Guerrero, K., & Rose, D. (1998). Dominican Republic: Del Este National Park. In L. Brandon,
K. H. Redford & S. E. Sanderson (Eds.), Parks in peril: People, politics and protected areas (pp. 193-217). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hooper, B. P., McDonald, G. T., & Mitchell, B. (1999). Facilitating integrated resource and environmental management: Australian and Canadian perspectives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(5), 747-766.
Hough, J. L. (1988). Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities in developing countries. Environmental Conservation, 15(2), 129-136.
IUCN. (2000). Protected areas: benefits beyond boundaries. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Janzen, D. H. (1983). No park is an island: increase in interference from outside as park size
decreases. Oikos, 41, 402-410. Jensen, C. R. (1995). Outdoor recreation in America. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Kaltenborn, B., Reise, H., & Hundeheide, M. (1999). National park planning and local
participation: some reflections from a mountain region in southern Norway. Mountain Research and Development, 19, 51-56.
Kappelle, R. J. (2001). Relationships between local people and protected natural areas: A case study of Arthur's Pass and the Waimakariri Basin, New Zealand. Unpublished Masters of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Lincoln University, Canterbury.
Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. A., & Lichtenfeld, L. L. (2000). Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 705-715.
Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governace: new government-society interactions. London: Sage.
Lang, R. (Ed.). (1986). Integrated approaches to resource planning and management. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Lawson, R., Merrett, T., & Williams, J. (1995). The social effects of tourism: a review of the literature with special emphasis on New Zealand. Dunedin: Tourism Policy Group, Department of Marketing, University of Otago.
Machlis, G. E. (1995). Social science and protected area management: the principles of partnership. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.), Expanding partnerships in conservation (pp. 45-57). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Machlis, G. E., & Tichnell, D. L. (1985). The state of the world's parks. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Machlis, G. E., & Tichnell, D. L. (1987). Economic development and threats to national parks: a preliminary analysis. Environmental Conservation, 15, 151-156.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publications.
26
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social effects. New York: Longman Science and Technical.
McCleave, J. M. (2004). Love thy neighbour? A case study of Kahurangi National Park, New Zealand and the people-park relationship. Unpublished Masters of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.
McCleave, J. M., Booth, K., & Espiner, S. R. (2004). Love thy neighbour? The relationship between Kahurangi National Park and the border communities of Karamea and Golden Bay, New Zealand. Annals of Leisure Research, 7(3-4), 202-221.
McNamee, K. (2002). From wild places to endangered spaces: a history of Canada's national parks. In P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada (2 ed., pp. 21-49). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
McNeely, J. A. (1995a). Partnerships for conservation: an introduction. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.), Expanding partnerships in conservation (pp. 1-10). Washington, DC: Island Press.
McNeely, J. A. (Ed.). (1995b). Expanding partnerships in conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Miller, K. (1999). Bioregional planning and biodiversity conservation. In S. Stolton & N. Dudley (Eds.), Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and management for protected areas (pp. 41-49). London: Earthscan Publications.
Moreno, A., Margoluis, R., & Brandon, K. (1998). Bolivia: Amboro National Park. In L. Brandon, K. H. Redford & S. E. Sanderson (Eds.), Parks in peril: People, politics and protected areas (pp. 323-352). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mullner, S. A., Hubert, W. A., & Wesche, T. A. (2001). Evolving paradigms for landscape-scale renewable resource management in the United States. Environmental Science & Policy, 4, 39-49.
Mumphree, M. W. (2002). Protected areas and the commons. Common Property Resource Digest, 60, 1-3.
Nelson, J. G., Day, J. C., Sportza, L. M., Vazquez, C., & Loucky, J. (2003). Overview of protected areas and the regional planning imperative in North America: integrating nature conservation and sustainable development. In J. G. Nelson, J. C. Day, L. M. Sportza, C. Vazquez & J. Loucky (Eds.), Protected areas and the regional planning imperative in North America: integrating nature conservation and sustainable development (pp. 1-21). Calgary: University of Calgary Press and Michigan State University.
Nelson, J. G., & Sportza, L. M. (2001). Evolving protected area thought and practice. The George Wright Forum, 17(2).
Nepal, S. K. (2000). Tourism, national parks and local communities. In R. W. Butler & S. W. Boyd (Eds.), Tourism and national parks: issues and implications (pp. 73-94). Chicester: Wiley.
Notzke, C. (1995). A new perspective in aboriginal natural resource management: co-management. Geoforum, 22(2), 187-209.
Ormsby, A., & Kaplin, B. A. (2005). A framework for understanding community resident perceptions of Masoala National Park, Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, 32(2), 156-164.
Parks Canada. (1985). Regional integration of national parks: discussion paper. Ottawa: Parks Canada, National Parks Branch, Community and Municipal Affairs.
Parks Canada. (1994). Guiding principles and operational policies. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada.
27
Parks Canada. (2000a). State of protected heritage areas 1999 report. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Parks Canada. (2000b). Unimpaired for future generations? Protecting ecological integrity with
Canada's national parks. Vol. I "Setting a new direction for Canada's national parks." Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Parks Canada. (2005). Principles of ecosystem management. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/ecosystem/ecosystem1_E.asp
Phillips, A. (2003a). A modern paradigm. World Conservation, 2, 6-7. Phillips, A. (2003b). Turning ideas on their heads: the new paradigm for protected areas. The
George Wright Forum, 20(2). Propst, L., & Rosan, L. (1997). National parks and their neighbors: lessons from the field on
building partnerships with local communities. Tucson, AZ: The Sonoran Institute. Ravindra, M. M. (2004). A road to tomorrow: local organizing for biosphere reserves.
Environments, 32(3), 43-60. Robinson, G. M. (1998). Methods and techniques in human geography. New York: John Wiley
& Sons. Rogers, P. J. (2002). The political ecology of pastoralism, conservation, and development in the
Arusha Region of Northern Tanzania. Unpublished PhD, University of Florida. Slocombe, D. S. (1993). Implementing ecosystem-based management. Bioscience, 43(9), 612-
622. Slocombe, D. S. (2004). Applying an ecosystem approach. In B. Mitchell (Ed.), Resource and
environmental management in Canada: addressing conflict and uncertainty (pp. 420-441). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Slocombe, D. S., & Dearden, P. (2002). Protected areas and ecosystem-based management. In P. Dearden & R. Rollins (Eds.), Parks and protected areas in Canada: planning and management (2 ed., pp. 295-320). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Smyth, R. (2004). Exploring the usefulness of a conceptual framework as a research tool: a researcher's reflections. Issues in Educational Research, 14, 167-180.
Sportza, L. M. (1999). Regional approaches to planning for protected areas and conservation. Environments, 27(3), 1-14.
Stolton, S., & Dudley, N. (Eds.). (1999). Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and management for protected areas. London: Earthscan Publications.
UNESCO. (2000). Solving the puzzle: the ecosystem approach. Paris: UNESCO. von Droste, B. (1995). Biosphere reserves: a comprehensive approach. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.),
Expanding partnerships in conservation (pp. 58-62). Washington, DC: Island Press. Walton, M. (1998). Ecosystem planning within Georgian Bay Islands National Park - a multi-
jurisdictional approach. In N. W. P. Munro & J. H. M. Willison (Eds.), Linking protected areas with working landscapes conserving biodiversity: proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 12-16 May 1997 (pp. 552-558). Wolfville, NS: SAMPAA.
Wells, M., & Brandon, K. (1992). People and parks: linking protected area management with local communities. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction.
West, P. C., & Brechin, S. (1991). National parks, protected areas and resident peoples: a comparative assessment and integration. In P. C. West & S. R. Brechin (Eds.), Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation (pp. 363-400). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
28
Whitelaw, G., Craig, B., Jamieson, G., & Hamel, B. (2004). Research, monitoring and education: assessing the "logistics function" of four Canadian biosphere reserves. Environments, 32(3), 61-78.
Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S., Fortwangler, C. L., & West, P. (2002). Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent 'protection paradigm' in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 17-40.
Worah, S. (2002). The challenge of community-based protected area management. Parks, 12(2), 80-93.
Wright, P. A. (2002, 14-19 May). Unimpaired for future generations? Key responses to the threats to protected areas in Canada. Paper presented at the Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World: 4th International SAMPAA Conference, Waterloo, ON.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zube, E. H. (1995). No park is an island. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.), Expanding partnerships in conservation (pp. 160-177). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Zube, E. H., & Busch, M. L. (1990). Park-people relationships: An international review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 117-131.
29
Appendix 1: Generic Interview Schedule This is a generic interview schedule that will be modified for each participant category of each
case study. It indicates the general questions to be pursued and denotes areas that will be
modified to suit each participant category and case study (they are denoted noted by square
brackets).
The four primary research questions act as an overall structure to the interview schedule.
Prompts such as ‘can you elaborate on that?’, ‘why?’, and ‘what do you mean by that?’ will be
used throughout the interviews.
Research question: What are the critical interactions between national parks and their
surrounding regions and what management challenges do they raise?
Interactions
• How does [x national park] interact with its surrounding region? Ecological interactions? Economic interactions? Socio-economic interactions? With (which) other agencies/organizations in the region?
Challenges
• [For each interaction] What challenges does this raise?
Context
• Tell me about some of the controversial or political issues in the community
30
Research question: How have the interactions between national parks and their surrounding
regions been addressed by protected area managers and other actors?
Treatment of interactions
• [For each challenge identified above] How has this challenge been addressed by Parks Canada?
• How has this challenge been addressed by [other actor]?
Research questions: How is the concept of regional integration currently defined and
practiced within the context of national parks in Canada? How can the regional integration of
Canada’s national parks be improved?
Relationship between Parks Canada and other actors
• Tell me about the relationship between Parks Canada staff at [x national park] and [x agency, organization]. Does one exist? Do you perceive it to positive, negative, or neutral?
• [If relationship exists] How often is there communication between Parks Canada staff
and [x agency, organization]?
• Who communicates at Parks Canada with staff at [x agency, organization]?
• What form does this communication take (i.e. email, phone, meetings)?
• Has the relationship between Parks Canada staff at [x] national park and [x agency, organization] changed over the years? [If yes] Tell me about how it has changed.
• How is information shared between Parks Canada and [x agency, organization]?
• Tell me about [x ‘hot topic’ or political dispute relevant to agency/organization]. How
was this issue dealt with? How are similar issues dealt with? [Repeat if interviewee is familiar with more than one relevant issue]
31
• [If negative/neutral relationship identified above] How do you think the relationship between Parks Canada staff at [x national park] and [x agency, organization] could be improved?
• [If negative/neutral relationship identified above] What steps would need to be taken by
[x agency, organization]?
• [If negative/neutral relationship identified above] What steps would need to be taken by Parks Canada?
Relationship between Parks Canada and local community
• Tell me about the relationship between Parks Canada staff at [x national park] and the local community.
• Do you perceive it to positive, negative, or neutral?
• Tell me about local people’s attitude about Parks Canada.
• Tell me about any outreach activities that Parks Canada engages in in the local
community. What do these activities accomplish? Who benefits?
• Tell me about [x ‘hot topic’ or political dispute between Parks Canada and local community]. How was this issue dealt with? How are similar issues dealt with? [Repeat if interviewee is familiar with more than issue]
• Tell me about the historical relationship between Parks Canada staff at [x national park]
and the local community.
• How has this relationship evolved over time?
• [If relationship between Parks Canada and local community identified as negative/neutral] How could the relationship between Parks Canada and the local community be improved?
Local actor participation in PA management
• How are local people involved in park management and planning?
• [If public participation identified as low] How could local people be more involved in the planning and management of [x national park]?
Ecosystem approach/new paradigm
• [For Parks Canada staff] Can you tell me a bit about Parks Canada’s approach or philosophy to the management of [x national park]?
32
• [If ecosystem management identified] How is ecosystem management carried out at [x
national park]?
• [For Parks Canada staff] How has the term ‘ecological integrity’ been interpreted?
• What is being monitored? Where? By whom? Cooperative initiatives/partnerships
• Tell me about [specific co-operative initiative/partnership].
• Tell me about your personal experience with [specific co-operative initiative/partnership].
• How has [specific co-operative initiative/partnership] evolved over time?
• How are decisions made about [specific co-operative initiative/partnership]?
• What is [x agency, organization]’s role in this initiative?
• What is Parks Canada’s role in [specific co-operative initiative/partnership]?
• Why is [x agency, organization] involved in this initiative?
• What have been the outcomes of [specific co-operative initiative/partnership]?
• Who benefits from [specific co-operative initiative/partnership]?
• [If regional integration initiative in place] How could [current initiatives] be improved?
• [If lack of/inadequate regional integration initiatives in place] What kinds of initiatives
are needed so that [x national park] is better integrated into its surrounding region? What steps would need to be taken and by whom in order for this to happen?
Buffer zones, links, networks
• [For Parks Canada staff] Are there any buffer zones, links, or networks between [x national park] and its surrounding region?
• [If any exist] Are they recognized as management units? What kind of cooperation is
there between the national park and [x agency with jurisdiction] to manage them as such?
33
Adaptive Management
• [For Parks Canada staff] Do you know what adaptive management is? [If yes] Is adaptive management practiced in the management of [x national park]? [If yes] How is it practiced?
Different forms of knowledge
• [For Parks Canada staff and First Nations] Is traditional ecological knowledge used in the management of [x national park]? [If yes] Tell me about how it is used.
Regional integration
• What does the term ‘regional integration’ mean to you? • What does the term ‘regional integration’ mean to [agency/institution participant
affiliated with]? • [If appropriate] What does the term ‘regional integration’ mean to Parks Canada]?
34
