This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Waterton National Park, Alberta and its surrounding region
Julia M. McCleave
Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Approval date: March 13, 2006
Scott Slocombe, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University
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
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.
............................................ 21 Anticipated Outcomes/Contribution ........................................................................................................................ i Table of Contents............................................................................................................ 11 Approaches and Tools for Regional Integration.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Context............................................................................................................................... 22 Proposed Research Schedule .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Proposed Chapter Outline ............................................................................................ 30 iii ............................................................... 7 Interactions.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Data Analysis .................. 4 Conceptual Framework for Regional Integration Issues and Approaches... 1 Goal and Research Questions ... iii Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix 1: Generic Interview Schedule ............................... 3 Literature Review.................................................. 21 Ethical Considerations .............................. 16 Case Study Selection...............................................................................................................................................Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 23 References....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Protected Areas and their Surrounding Regions: A Brief History.. 14 Methodology ...................................................... 17 Data Collection ...................
Zube. Janzen. 2000b. 2000a. Walton. in both developing and developed-country contexts. 1995). 2000. external pressures on protected areas' ecological integrity due to land development. a vast literature details the many challenges that relate to protected areas and their surrounding regions. McCleave et al. 2002). 1 . 2000. 1998. toxics and pollutants and exotic species (Beresford & Phillips. cooperation and coordination between government agencies within a protected area's surrounding region (Beresford & Phillips. Parks Canada. 2000a.. and overuse from recreation and tourism (Nepal. habitat fragmentation. 1983. 1998). Parks Canada. 1991. 2002. 1988) and the effects of national parks on surrounding communities (West & Brechin. 1984.. 2003. Danby. a low level of communication. Today. 2004). 2000. 1988. 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. 2000b. 2000b). resource extraction. Hough.Introduction It has long been recognized in the literature that protected areas do not exist in isolation from their surrounding regions (Garratt. 1990). Parks Canada. some of the more common challenges include a lack of trust between protected area managers and local residents (Bissix et al. Francis. From the perspective of protected areas in developed countries. 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. Zube & Busch. Wright.
Wells & Brandon.g. and/or increasing support for local institutions. 2004. The coordination of regional plans and policies.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. improving a protected area’s ecological integrity.. 2003. regional integration problems still remain for protected areas around the world (Brandon et al. • • • • • Developing. and. Resolving conflicts and improving relations with local people. West & Brechin.. Increased public participation in protected area management and planning. 1998. participating in. McCleave et al. Four preliminary ‘scoping’ trips to national park regions in Canada indicate that the national parks of Canada are no exception. or moving towards economic or ecological sustainability in the protected area’s surrounding region. or developing larger scale ‘bioregional’ institutions for conservation 2 . McNeely. Regional integration can have varied or multiple goals. Engaging in ecological integration initiatives such as joint monitoring programs. Despite efforts at implementing the types of regional integration initiatives described above. 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. Brown et al.. Examples of regional integration initiatives are: • Building partnerships. 1999). 1992. 1995b.. McCleave. Stolton & Dudley. However. They might include addressing specific management problems. collaborating. 1991). and cooperating with actors within a protected area’s surrounding region. 2004.
In order to accomplish this goal.. What are the critical interactions between national parks and their surrounding regions and what management challenges do they raise? 2.g. How have the interactions between national parks and their surrounding regions been addressed by protected area managers and other actors? 3. 1999). 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. under-studied. which influences the direction that my investigation will take and the areas 3 . Furthermore. Gatewood. and undefined. Miller. this research aims to answer the following four primary research questions: 1. 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. How is the concept of regional integration currently defined and practiced within the context of national parks in Canada? 4.(e. regional integration as a concept remains unclear. 1999. 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.
1992). with land being taken out of productive use (Phillips. Two main paradigms of protected area planning and management have been identified in the literature (Nelson & Sportza. 2003b). focusing on the ‘new’ and ‘traditional’ paradigms of protected area planning and management. It also serves as a ‘starting point’ for answering the first three research questions above. 1 Please note that this literature review will be expanded in my dissertation. and the ‘protectionist’ approach to conservation (Brechin et al. The focus of management efforts in these early national parks was the attraction of tourists. “whose interests normally prevailed over those of local people” (Phillips. 2003b.. Phillips. and management efforts that were geared towards tourists and visitors. the ‘fortress conservation’ model (Mumphree.of the literature that I will focus on in my dissertation. 2003. 4 .. planning and management of protected areas in relation to their surrounding regions has undergone significant changes since Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872. Early national parks were generally ‘set aside’ for conservation. 2002). p. I will then present a conceptual framework for regional integration issues and approaches which will subsequently inform my methodology and data analysis1 . I will begin by presenting a brief history of the interaction between protected areas and their surrounding regions. Wilshusen et al. 2001. The traditional paradigm of protected area planning and management has been labelled in various ways including the ‘fences and fines approach’ (Wells & Brandon. 2003b). 2003a. Protected Areas and their Surrounding Regions: A Brief History The establishment. and these serve as a basis for discussing these changes. 2002). the preservation of spectacular (usually large) wildlife.
. biodiversity. and practice of protected area planning and management re-arranged themselves into what is essentially a new framework that is still evolving” (Nelson & Sportza. 1999). 2002).g. Indonesia in 1982. During the Third World Parks Congress in Bali. 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... At the inception of the national parks system in 1885.. 1998. Scientific advances in landscape ecology. more and more attention was paid to the 'threats' faced by national parks from development and overuse. The management and planning of Canada’s early national parks also followed the traditional paradigm. 1998). Andrews et al.. 1998). 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 . Many authors describe parks that were originally established with little or no regard for local people (e. Moreno et al.12). methods.g. As the national park system grew and policy evolved. 2001). Guerrero & Rose. national parks in Canada were created for their economic value as tourist attractions and places of recreation (McNamee. and conservation biology influenced the new paradigm (Sportza. 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. Essentially. This signaled the beginning of the new paradigm of protected area planning and management in which “a broad threshold was reached where the theory. 1998. Bissix et al.
2002). multi-stakeholder. 2005) 2 . therefore.. 1987. development and operation of national parks in the context of the regions in which they are located. 1999). 1994). National parks policy and legislation evolved from 'boundary thinking' to more integrated approaches (Slocombe & Dearden. The paradigm recognizes that protected areas cannot be managed as islands and that a more regional. For example. The maintenance of ecological integrity through ecosystem-based management is the conceptual approach for national park management in Canada today (Parks Canada. 1985. is there monitoring for ecosystem integrity outside of park boundaries? Are national parks recognized in regional economic development strategies? 6 . Phillips. 2) protected areas are working at a far larger scale. p.’ 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. and co-operative approach is needed (Janzen. Machlis & Tichnell. Zube. 2 One way to address my third research question. 1983. so as to maximize the benefits and minimize the cost to both the parks and the region” (Parks Canada. 1995). 1985. 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. 1995. Slocombe & Dearden. 2003b. Machlis. In Canada. and 3) there is a broader understanding of what encompasses a protected area (Dudley et al. 1). Parks Canada policy recognized that national parks are not islands. but are part of larger ecosystems and cultural landscapes. is to examine how and if national parks in Canada are implementing this conceptual approach. 2002. and that ecological integrity can only be maintained through the creation of cooperative relationships in surrounding regions (Parks Canada. By 1994.managed as ‘islands.
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. 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. inform my research design. and as a basis for presenting and comparing case study results (Figure 1). On the left. cited in Smyth. p. the interactions between a protected area and its surrounding region are represented. The conceptual framework has two main components. 2004. Figure 1 is a highly simplified representation of this system. the limitation of resource extraction by local people in a national park could be considered to have ecological. economic. structure my literature review. For example. economic. Many of the interactions that occur could be categorized into more than one of these categories. 2). 1987. Interactions There are ecological. On the right the main approaches and tools for addressing the challenges arising from the interactions on the left are listed. A conceptual framework will be used to provide a common language for my proposal and dissertation. along with the context in which these interactions occur. The framework will be constantly reviewed throughout the research process therefore the framework as presented in this proposal should be considered to be preliminary. and socio-cultural interactions between a protected area and its surrounding region. and socio-cultural dimensions. 7 .
Politicized environment Ecological interactions Incomplete knowledge Protected area New paradigm of PA management Addressing/ influencing Economic interactions Socio-cultural interactions 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. networks • Education and outreach • Economic benefits • Adaptive management • Conflict resolution Complexity Figure 1: Conceptual framework for regional integration issues and approaches 8 . links.
processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised. 1995). 1993). On the other hand. protected areas are dependent on corridors. how decisions are taken on issues of public and often private concern. Finally. and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say"(Kooiman. flora. 'governance' means "the interactions among institutions. comanaged. buffers and other connections with the surrounding landscape for their biodiversity. soil.. Ecological interactions Ecological processes do not follow political boundaries (such as national park boundaries) and water. The concept of governance has been applied to devise four categories for the 'governance type' of protected areas: government managed. housing development. 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. and community conserved (Borrini-Feyerabend. tourism development. A protected area provides ecological services to its surrounding region by conserving water resources.All of the interactions between a protected area and its surrounding region transpire through the governance arrangements that are in place. agricultural activity. common ‘threats’ to the ecological integrity of protected areas often originate from the surrounding region such as industrial activity. and disease continuously flow into and out of protected areas. sediment. toxics and pollutants and exotic species. 2004). As a general concept. the generation of tourism in a protected area’s surrounding region 9 . private. air. plants and animal life. fauna. ecological integrity. habitat fragmentation. 2003). and environmental health (Nelson et al.
local residents’ sense of place.. Local people within a protected area’s surrounding region often use protected areas for outdoor recreation. the use of community services such as fire protection for national parks management (Parks Canada. 1995. In other cases.e. and as an appreciated visual backdrop to the surrounding region (McCleave et al.(Booth & Simmons. Lawson et al. 2000). which can lead to resentment or hostility towards the new protected area by local people. 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. psychological. 2000. 1995). IUCN. Oftentimes. Protected areas can also contribute to a community’s pride. 10 . 2004). when a protected area is established these activities are limited or banned. and educational benefits (Jensen. Nepal. 2000.. which may have negative effects on the protected area (i. Protected area managers also have an interest in similar activities that take place outside of the protected area’s boundaries. spiritual. 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. resource extraction and resource management activities such as forestry that occur up to a protected area’s boundary. 1985). hunting of animals that move out of protected areas seasonally). and the limitation of economic activity within protected area boundaries. which has been shown to provide many physical.
11 . incomplete knowledge. 1999. It can also be related to the history of how the protected areas were established (e. and the new paradigm of protected area planning and management.. 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. 2005. birthplace. 1998). and the background of park staff. New Zealand and those residents living near the park.. 2001. socioeconomic status and appropriate training for interactions with communities.g. Propst & Rosan. rural lifestyle that many protected area neighbours enjoy. 2004). (2004) described an often tumultuous relationship between the staff of the Department of Conservation who manage Kahurangi National Park.. Increased tourism can generate many negatively perceived impacts such congestion. 1997). which can affect the quiet. irritation. complexity. including ethnicity.Protected areas can generate increased tourism in their surrounding regions. McCleave et al.. Bissix et al. Kappelle. Kaltenborn et al. The interaction between local people and protected area management agency staff has been examined in the literature (see Hough. Context All of the above interactions occur within the context of a politicized environment. 2004.. Ormsby & Kaplin. Hough (1988) found that trust of protected area staff is influenced by any history of hostility or misunderstanding between park representatives and local residents. McCleave et al. 1988. and resentment (Mathieson & Wall.
. Contestants are social actors differentially endowed with power over each other and their natural environment. other governmental agencies (e.Politicized environment The interactions between protected areas and their surrounding regions occur within the context of a politicised natural environment. 12 . 1995a). and resources (Bryant & Bailey. Contestation and politicization produces "winners" and "losers. their interests. 2002). local residents. provincial natural resource agencies)." and an unequal distribution of environmental costs and benefits. NGOs. it is important to examine the actors.g." 3. The biotic and abiotic elements of non-human nature are neither a neutral space not a passive prize. Rogers (2002) has identified three main elements of political ecology: 1. Most PA managers spend a lot of time ‘doing politics’ (Brechin et al. Some of the more common political challenges include insecure or insufficient funding (McNeely. 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. non-human world exists as a contested space and control of its resources. is the prize sought by the actors. material and cultural. The natural. The "ecology" in political ecology has an important effect on the "political. Each of these actors has specific interests and agendas and different levels of power over particular issues. and industry. 1997). 2. as informed by the field of political ecology. motivations. This can create multiple conflicts. with “winners” and “losers” becoming apparent. community organizations. Thus.
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. • Management challenges often come from regional dynamics that go beyond national and provincial boundaries. societies and economies interact. Bissix et al. 13 . 2003).g. 1985).. protected areas exist within complex socio-cultural and bio-physical systems and are in the constant interaction with their surrounding regions. 2004). 1998. and a limitation of ‘expert’ science (Slocombe. • There is substantial spatial heterogeneity between actions that occur within a protected area and their ensuing impacts (Agee.conflicts between local people and park management (e. and. Complexity As described above.. Furthermore. McCleave et al. 1993). a lack of understanding of how ecosystems. the regional integration of protected areas occurs within the context of incomplete knowledge. poaching. • There is no one “community” in a protected area’s surrounding region but numerous actors and institutions with different interests.... and over fishing (Alcorn et al. such illegal logging. and non-existent or poor relationships with other governmental agencies in the region. Incomplete knowledge As in all natural resource management environments. 2001). Some of the main contributors to this complexity are the facts that: • Natural systems are not explicitly bounded by political demarcations (Mullner et al. There is incomplete knowledge of ecosystems and how they work. 1996).
A review of the literature on these management frameworks indicates that they share many of the same themes. 14 . 1994. Kellert et al. 1993). 1988. 1993. 1995. The most commonly cited and used management frameworks are integrated natural resource management (Born & Sonzogni. 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. this means that a more regional. and non-traditional ‘governance types’ such as community-based natural resource management (Agrawal & Gibson. 2001. and co-operative approach to protected area management is needed (see description of new paradigm above). Cairns & Crawford. 1995). 1999.. approaches and tools.. 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). ecosystem-based management (Agee & Johnson. multi-stakeholder. Francis.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. 1994. Lang. Hooper et al. Notzke. 2002) and co-management (Berkes. Slocombe. 1986). Many of the approaches and tools directly apply to the governance arrangement in place in the region. 1999. 1997. From the point of view of the manager of a government-managed protected area in the developed world. 2000. Grumbine. Table 1 lists these approaches and tools and the associated regional integration challenge that each has the potential to address 3 . 1991. Worah.
Table 1: Approaches and tools for regional integration Approach/Tool Regional integration challenge Conservation • Many actors involved in PA-surrounding region system partnerships • 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 • Mistrust of PA agency in PA management & • No one “community” in a PA’s surrounding region but planning (various numerous actors with different interests degrees of participation) • Common ‘threats’ to PAs often originate from the surrounding region Integration of different • Incomplete knowledge of ecosystems and how they work. buffers and other networks connections with the surrounding landscape for their biodiversity.e. • PAs are dependent on corridors. knowledge systems a lack of understanding of how ecosystems. 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. hunting and gathering) • Expenditures from park operations in region Adaptive management • Incomplete knowledge • Learning from experience • Complexity Conflict resolution • Conflicts between actors 15 . societies and economies interact • Limitations of ‘expert’ science Buffer zones. ecological integrity. links.
Methodology This study will employ primarily qualitative research methods (Denzin & Lincoln. complexity and detail will play an important role in exploring the particular situations at each case study site. Finally. • It is based on methods of analysis that involve understandings of complexity.influence or apply to the context (politicized environment. complexity. since the concept of regional integration is somewhat under-studied and un-defined. • It is based on methods of data generation that are flexible and sensitive to the social context in which data are produced. and context (Mason. 1996). There is no one ‘right answer’ to the primary research questions and the data collected will be primarily based on people’s interpretations. understanding and experiencing the social world. Second. experienced. 1994). 16 . or produced. Qualitative research methods were deemed as appropriate for the study of the regional integration of protected areas for several reasons. understood. regional integration is a way of interpreting. there are some common features that appear: • It is concerned with how the social world is interpreted. open-ended research approach is needed. new paradigm). context. First. Although qualitative research cannot be neatly pigeonholed into one uniform philosophy or set of methodological principles. a flexible. detail. incomplete knowledge.
Two case studies will be examined in greater depth than the other three primarily due to limited time and resources. and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context (Yin. 2003). The need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena (Yin. They are the preferred strategy when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed. and access) 17 . Case Study Selection I will be using five national parks and their surrounding regions (henceforth called ‘national park regions’) as my case studies. One of the primary case studies will be Kejimkujik National Park. Gros Morne National Park. 2003). The rationale behind this case study selection was to choose national parks with broadly similar regional contexts but in different parts of the country. Multiple case studies will allow me to compare different cases and draw cross-case conclusions (Yin. 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.A multiple case study design approach will be used. 2003). 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. and Mount Revelstoke National Park. Alberta. Waterton Lakes National Park. cost. Riding Mountain National Park. Newfoundland. Nova Scotia. when the investigator has little control over events. British Columbia. The second primary case study will be decided upon at a later date. Manitoba. They are: Kejimkujik National Park.
making these three national park regions particularly suitable for investigation. 1995). and. research. p.” In theory. Riding Mountain. Three of the case studies (Kejimkujik. monitoring and education. varied relationships between national park and other actors in the region. Biosphere reserves have been cited as examples of an ecosystem approach (Bridgewater. 2003). and Waterton Lakes) include national parks that are within biosphere reserves. 1994).. 2001. 2004). at least. Danby and Slocombe (2005. varied local attitudes towards Parks Canada. 1993. forestry. 418) argued that “biosphere reserves can provide a framework for regional integration of protected areas and sustainable development through cooperative planning and management. agriculture. 2004.. experiments in sustainability (Whitelaw et al. varied levels of public participation in park planning & management.e. Dearden. I sought to examine national park regions with different formal regional integration activities in place. sustainable development (Amos. the biosphere reserve model seems to be the ideal framework for addressing regional integration challenges. 2004). 2000). 2004. and coordinating frameworks (Ravindra. 18 . Slocombe. ranching. integrative governance mechanisms (Graham et al. UNESCO.• 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. oil and gas) Finally. 'honest brokers' for strengthening conservation partnerships (von Droste.
park superintendents. First Nations representatives. and. A list of actors (local people. These profiles will include: • • • • A list of regional integration issues and challenges in the region. Key interviewees will include park wardens.Data Collection Data to construct the case studies will be collected through: 1) a review of relevant literature. A list of additional facts. • A categorization of potential interviewees (based on an interviewees’ occupation or relationship to the national park). Approximately 15-20 participants will be interviewed at the primary case study 19 . Parks Canada planners. Before travelling to each case study site to conduct interviews and field observations. A list of key people to interview. A list of approaches being used for addressing regional integration issues. These profiles will be based on a scoping trip to the region as well as a review of site specific documents. regional government representatives. • • An interview schedule for each participant category (see Appendix 1). I will create a profile for each case study. biosphere reserve committee members. NGOs. and 3) field observations. and other relevant actor such as environmental NGOs and industry representatives. reports. government agencies. clarifications and details I need to seek through visits and interviews. policies. and historical data 2) in-depth and semi-structured interviews. industry) relevant to regional integration in the region.
Semi-structured interviews are appropriate for this research in order to keep the format flexible and open but ensure that key themes are addressed.sites and approximately 5-10 participants will be interviewed at the secondary case study sites. All in-person interviews will be transcribed by myself. or an administrative assistant contracted to transcribe the interviews. a hired research assistant. I will use three strategies to verify the accuracy of my findings. 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 . and documents) to build a strong justification for identified themes. 30 minutes in length. For each case study I will interview at least one person from each of the participant categories. I will use triangulation by using different data sources (interviews. An interview schedule will be used that focuses on several themes central to the primary research questions (Appendix 1). This strategy will ensure that I interview a wide-ranging and representative group of actors at each case study. First. a meeting between resource managers. I will attempt to standardize the type of events that I observe at each case study site. observations. Second. at a minimum. Interviews will be recorded on a commercial digital voice recorder with the consent of the participants. or workshops. During my visits to the case study sites I will also observe (but not participate in) any relevant meetings. The interviews will be intensive and semi-structured (Fontana & Frey. 1994) and will be. This might include an annual general meeting of an Environmental NGO. or a community event such as the annual ‘hands across the border’ event at Waterton Lakes National Park. gatherings.
2003). Data Analysis Interview transcriptions will be analysed in four steps: (1) open coding to identify ideas. 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. Third. The interview data will be imported into the software program ‘Nvivo’ and steps 1 and 2 will be undertaken within this program. and (4) comparison and linking of categories within and between interviews (see Crang. 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.2007 in order to present and verify results with study participants. By identifying gaps in the literature and research questions that merit further 21 . Robinson. 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. or examples related by the participant. themes. 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. I will use rich description to convey my findings in order to give the reader an element of shared experience (Creswell. stories. 1998). 1997.
there are no environmental assessment concerns. Second primary case study (Gros Morne or Mount Revelstoke) • Description • Case study results 6. Literature Review • History of protected areas and their surrounding regions • Conceptual framework for regional integration 3. Proposed Chapter Outline 1. Methods • Description of methods chosen and why • Description of procedure • Issues and problems encountered. limitations of methods 4. Ethical Considerations I will follow the conditions of the Canadian Research Tri-Council’s Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Since no physical works are undertaken and no park resources are collected or manipulated. Introduction • Introduction to protected area – surroundings issues • Introduction to regional integration • Rationale for research on regional integration • Research Questions • Thesis structure 2. Kejimkujik National Park • Description • Case study results 5. it will also serve as a basis for future research on the regional integration of protected areas. 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.attention. Secondary case studies • Descriptions 22 .
Appendices Proposed Research Schedule I intend to defend my dissertation in April. 2008. References 10. Discussion • General discussion/comparison • Analysis of results and integration of theory 8. 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.• Case study results 7. Table 2 indicates how this can be achieved. 2008) • Defend dissertation (~April 1. Conclusion • Review primary research questions • Review method • Future research needs 9. 2008) 23 .
In R. The Common Property Resource Digest. 27(4). 619-649. Borrini-Feyerabend. A. H. In N.References Agee. J. Beresford.. A. & Phillips.). (2001). (2003. C. (1996). W.18 September). New and not-so-new directions in the use of the commons: co-management. (1995). & Miles. Piscataway. B. Ottawa: National Parks Branch. 1-3. E. 8 . Tourism and national parks: issues and implications (pp. Paper presented at the The Vth World Congress on Protected Areas.). Booth. participation and equity (No. Butler & S.).. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. Rojas. Berkes. Agrawal.. Agee. 22(2-3). & Sonzogni.. (1998). Redford & S. Northern Perspectives. CBD Technical Series). 3144). Berkes. Bissix. Mono Township. Ecosystem management: an appropriate concept for parks? In R. 885-892). & Valenzuela. Birtch. J. A. Integrated environmental management: strengthening the conceptualization. A. Governance of protected areas... Paper presented at the Leading Edge '94: A Conference Linking Research. W.. (2004). Cambridge. 167-181. Boyd (Eds. Wolfville. (1998). C. Migoya Von Bertrab. gender. Luque. C. Parks in peril: People.. Mexico: Ria Celestun and Ria Lagartos Special Biosphere Reserves.: Island Press. and the state in community-based conservation. (1997). Chichester: Wiley. Global governance and institutional trends affecting protected areas management: challenges and opportunities arising from democratization and globalization. K. & Simmons.. 42. G. (1988). W. 39-49).). F. K. W.). Andrews. 1820. MA: Blackwell Science.. (1985). Tourism and the establishment of national parks in New Zealand. Ontario. Community and Municipal Affairs. Durban. K. D. 12-16 May 1997 (pp. Linking protected areas with working landscapes conserving biodiversity: proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas. B. Planning and Community in the Niagara Escarpment. M. Willison (Eds. 79-106). K. D. S.). 19. Wright (Ed. Environmental Management. Agrawal. Review of provisions for regional integration in park management planning documents. & Gibson. R. & Rose. K. G. F.sustainable rural development in the Northern Cape Breton Greater Ecosystem. NS: Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association. October 26-28). 24 . Amos. Co-management: bridging two solitudes. 17(1). National parks and protected areas: their role in environmental protection (pp. Brandon. & Johnson. Anderson. J. J. Washington. M. J. Sanderson (Eds. Protected landscapes: a conservation model for the 21st century. S. Communities and the environment: ethnicity. Alcorn. G. NJ: Rutgers University Press. World Development. In L.. M. 15-26. Mendez. C. Born. S. G. (2000). (1999). The George Wright Forum. Montreal.. (1994. L. D. (1994). 15. The challenge of biosphere reserves: living examples of sustainable development. Ecosystem management for parks and wilderness. politics and protected areas (pp. "Parklocked?" . C. H. Quebec: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. South Africa. & Gibson.. (Eds.. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Munro & J. R. A. P. (Eds. D. (2000). C. C.
California: Sage Publications. MI: Lewis Publishers. Denzin & Y. In R. Fortwangler. Entering the field of qualitative research. R. Brown. 183-197).). B. C. Washington.). In N. In J. Miller (Eds. Danby. A. et al. Denzin & Y. Munro. Nelson. Ecological Applications. National 25 . (2004). (1984). 405-422.. pp. T. L. P. P. Denzin... & Slocombe. R. NS. Eagles (Eds. H. Martin (Eds. K. London: Routledge. 3-12). Francis. Handbook of qualitative research (pp. (1998). K. Elias Mountains. Willison. & Sanderson. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Lincoln (Eds.. 314-341). The road less traveled: toward nature protection with social justice. & West. & Tuxill. Society and Natural Resources. & Crawford. In N. In S.. Crang. Methods in human geography (pp. England: Addison Wesley Longman.). Analyzing qualitative materials. (2001).. S.. (1993). (2002). & Bailey. DC: Island Press. Creswell. J. politics and protected areas. Partnerships and lived-in landscapes: an evolving US system of parks and protected areas. K. K. J.Brandon. R. P. P. (2003). Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as a social and political process. P. Wolfville. Integrated environmental management. S. Resource and environmental management in Canada: addressing conflict and uncertainty (Vol.). J.. S. (2002). Westley & P.. H. Francis. J. Research design: qualitative. Chelsea.. Experiments in consilience: integrating social and scientific responses to save endangered species (pp. (1997). (Eds.. The relationship between adjacent lands and protected areas: issues of concern for the protected area manager. Dudley (Eds. S. CA: Sage Publications. R.). Thousand Oaks. C. In F. Essex. (1991). W. R. Parks. Regional ecology. Flowerdew & D. P. J..). 15(2). Editorial. J. London: Earthscan Publications. V. Natural Resources Journal. H. G. (1994).). Wilshusen. (2003). Redford. S. P. A. & Lincoln.. 223-243). and transboundary protected areas in the St. Fostering an ecosystem perspective through intergovernmental cooperation: a look at two Alaskan examples. Thousand Oaks. 41-64. 3. N. Dearden. (Eds. Albany: SUNY Press. 13(2). (1997). Governance for conservation.).. Fortwangler. quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2 ed.). L. E. R. Bryant. Dudley. Jeanrenaud. California: Sage Publications. 315-345. C. In S. (1999). Danby. 1-2. Cairns. 33(2).). & West. Herman & P. D. 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. 11(1). Gujja. K. Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and management for protected areas (pp. N. 31-41. B. 1-18). S. Miller (Eds.). Oviedo. J. S. (2005). (2003). P.. 361-376). Fontana. West (Eds.. In B. L. & Frey. A. T. DC: Island Press. N. Third world political ecology. Washington.. Constested nature: promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-first century (pp. Wilshusen. Bridgewater. Interviewing: the art of science. ecosystem geography. Phillips. 251-270). C. N. K. Parks. Garratt. Mitchell. In S. Brechin. Challenges for protected areas in the 21st century. Lincoln (Eds. (1994). R. M. L. B. Bondrop-Nielson.. S.. Y. 15. Mitchell (Ed. Fortwangler & P. S. Ecosystem management. Parks in peril: people. Handbook of qualitative research (pp. J. Jackson. McNeely & K. R.). Parks and protected areas. G. G. G. Brechin. Wilshusen. Stolton & N. (2003)... K. Brechin.
In J. L. 45-57). & Rose. politics and protected areas (pp. Social science and protected area management: the principles of partnership. B.).. The social effects of tourism: a review of the literature with special emphasis on New Zealand. 27-28. CO: Westview Press. & Hundeheide. Kellert. D. Kooiman. B. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology... (1985). 129-136. L. Community natural resource management: promise. 45-53. 402-410. 42(5). Janzen. National park planning and local participation: some reflections from a mountain region in southern Norway. H. R. DC: Island Press. University of Otago. Paper presented at the The Vth World Congress on Protected Areas. G. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Machlis. 41. McDonald.. Boulder. Jensen. 15. DC: Smithsonian Institute Press. J. Society and Natural Resources. Washington. Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century. D. Ebbin... Oikos. Wildlands Project: the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and Sky Islands Wildlands Network. B. Dominican Republic: Del Este National Park. Gland. Parks in peril: People. Kaltenborn. 29(3). (Ed. (2003. Redford & S. G. (1996). (1999). London: Sage. IL: Human Kinetics. & Plumptre. & Williams. J. conservation. South Africa.18 September). & Tichnell.). H. Sanderson (Eds. Economic development and threats to national parks: a preliminary analysis. (1999). E. 8 . R. (2000). 705-715. (1995). J. Brandon. H. Machlis.). S. T. D. G. Durban. 151-156.. (2000). London: Sage Publications. 15(2). (1993). (1999). McNeely (Ed. Switzerland: IUCN. & Tichnell. A. Amos. 193-217). T. Lawson. J. and development: the role of protected areas in sustaining society (pp. Kappelle. (1994). P. 19. K.. Protected areas: benefits beyond boundaries. Hooper. J. Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities in developing countries.. Graham. 26 . 13. Lang. (1995). & Mitchell. (1987). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.. Guerrero. (1988). C. A. Facilitating integrated resource and environmental management: Australian and Canadian perspectives. Mountain Research and Development. B. Mason. 51-56. (1995). Expanding partnerships in conservation (pp. T. L. R. E. Mehta. Environmental Conservation.. rhetoric. Canterbury. E. and reality. 8(1). R. K. In L.). Modern governace: new government-society interactions. & Lichtenfeld. D. Machlis. DC: Island Press. (1983). Dunedin: Tourism Policy Group. New Zealand. G. Lincoln University. (2001). Recreation and Tourism Management. Outdoor recreation in America. L. Washington.. Champaign. Relationships between local people and protected natural areas: A case study of Arthur's Pass and the Waimakariri Basin. Unpublished Masters of Parks. (1998). IUCN. (Ed. 747-766. Gatewood. Integrated approaches to resource planning and management. N. Environmental Conservation. R. Washington. R. No park is an island: increase in interference from outside as park size decreases. Qualitative researching. L. M. E. E. S..parks. (1986). Reise.. S. Merrett. The state of the world's parks. Grumbine. Hough. J. Department of Marketing. Environments. J. 65-71).
G. Parks in peril: People. J. From wild places to endangered spaces: a history of Canada's national parks.. National Parks Branch. H.. C. McCleave. M. Madagascar. Recreation and Tourism Management. Chicester: Wiley. 27 . M. 1-10). Parks and protected areas in Canada (2 ed. A. Moreno. W. 1-21). (1995). G. A. & Loucky. Mumphree. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada. 202-221. A. E. A. (2005). Hubert.). Love thy neighbour? The relationship between Kahurangi National Park and the border communities of Karamea and Golden Bay. Evolving paradigms for landscape-scale renewable resource management in the United States. 39-49. Rollins (Eds. Tourism: Economic... Day. Stolton & N. ON: Oxford University Press. Mullner. DC: Island Press.. (1994). 17(2). The George Wright Forum. Bolivia: Amboro National Park. Environmental Science & Policy. J. (1985). Lincoln University. New York: Longman Science and Technical. J. Expanding partnerships in conservation (pp.). J. K. (2004). In J.. Sportza. A. Dearden & R. J. G. Annals of Leisure Research. Common Property Resource Digest. 22(2). (1999). Washington. Nelson.). (Ed. (2002). K. Nepal. politics and protected areas (pp. Expanding partnerships in conservation. McNeely. C. Nelson. 32(2). Washington. Tourism and national parks: issues and implications (pp. 156-164. C. Vazquez & J.). A. New Zealand. W.. Booth.. 73-94).). 4. A framework for understanding community resident perceptions of Masoala National Park. McNeely. (1982). Unpublished Masters of Parks.). Ormsby. (1995a). In S. & Wall. (2000). Notzke. C. (1995b). 41-49). Margoluis. J.Mathieson. M. Day. T. G.. S.. Boyd (Eds. Dudley (Eds. S. DC: Island Press. Environmental Conservation. & Sportza. A. New Zealand and the people-park relationship. (2004). 60. McCleave. (2003).. Partnerships for conservation: an introduction. A new perspective in aboriginal natural resource management: comanagement. In J. K. Washington. Evolving protected area thought and practice. (2001). K. Overview of protected areas and the regional planning imperative in North America: integrating nature conservation and sustainable development. A. A. Canterbury. Community and Municipal Affairs. Miller. London: Earthscan Publications. Don Mills. S. 21-49). (1998). Brandon. In P. R. Sanderson (Eds. Parks Canada. Love thy neighbour? A case study of Kahurangi National Park. Regional integration of national parks: discussion paper. J.). M. In L. Sportza. Bioregional planning and biodiversity conservation. M. (2002). Geoforum. J. Nelson.. A. New Zealand. (2001). & Espiner. McNeely (Ed. Loucky (Eds. J. K. In R. Redford & S. Protected areas and the commons. C. pp.. R. 1-3. B. Vazquez. Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and management for protected areas (pp. Parks Canada.. Butler & S. & Wesche. Tourism. & Kaplin. 187-209. national parks and local communities. Protected areas and the regional planning imperative in North America: integrating nature conservation and sustainable development (pp. W. McNamee. & Brandon. L. Calgary: University of Calgary Press and Michigan State University. K. L. physical and social effects. Ottawa: Parks Canada. DC: Island Press. 323-352). Guiding principles and operational policies. M. L. W. 7(3-4).
Brechin (Eds. Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and management for protected areas. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Ravindra. I "Setting a new direction for Canada's national parks. West & S. M. Rollins (Eds.ca/progs/np-pn/ecosystem/ecosystem1_E. Dearden & R. W. (2000). 552-558). 27(3). from http://www. L. Exploring the usefulness of a conceptual framework as a research tool: a researcher's reflections. A. (2000a). Washington. Toronto: Oxford University Press.. 28 . AZ: The Sonoran Institute. Washington. Solving the puzzle: the ecosystem approach. (2002). Ecosystem planning within Georgian Bay Islands National Park . & Rosan. In B. DC: Island Press. D. P. 6-7. (1993). Phillips.). 58-62). & Brandon. Applying an ecosystem approach. (1998). Robinson. Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation (pp. (1997). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bioscience. People and parks: linking protected area management with local communities. S. L. D. Wolfville.Parks Canada. (2002). (1999). Regional approaches to planning for protected areas and conservation. Paris: UNESCO. 1-14. Implementing ecosystem-based management. Principles of ecosystem management. N. (1991). (1995). A. G. 167-180. In J. S. Protected areas and ecosystem-based management. Smyth. and development in the Arusha Region of Northern Tanzania. National parks and their neighbors: lessons from the field on building partnerships with local communities. 12-16 May 1997 (pp. C. M. (2005). In P. (2004). A modern paradigm. DC: International Bank for Reconstruction. Vol. Retrieved February 21. Tucson. Willison (Eds. 14. 420441). Wells. M. 20(2).gc. Stolton. B.. In P.). 2. State of protected heritage areas 1999 report.. Parks Canada. Methods and techniques in human geography.pc. S. Slocombe. London: Earthscan Publications. West. von Droste. (2003b). ON: Oxford University Press. M.). H. Propst. 295-320). Mitchell (Ed. 612622. R. University of Florida. NS: SAMPAA. (1992). Slocombe. & Brechin.." Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. The political ecology of pastoralism. P. Unpublished PhD. A. 363-400). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Environments. Linking protected areas with working landscapes conserving biodiversity: proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas. M. S. (2000b). In N. Resource and environmental management in Canada: addressing conflict and uncertainty (pp. UNESCO. L. Ottawa: Parks Canada. National parks.). Unimpaired for future generations? Protecting ecological integrity with Canada's national parks.a multijurisdictional approach. D. P. Rogers. (Eds. Sportza. A road to tomorrow: local organizing for biosphere reserves. M. Turning ideas on their heads: the new paradigm for protected areas. (1999). (2003a)..). (1998). Issues in Educational Research. World Conservation..). (2004). Walton. 2006. conservation. Slocombe.asp Phillips. Parks and protected areas in Canada: planning and management (2 ed. McNeely (Ed. Don Mills. (2004). Expanding partnerships in conservation (pp. Munro & J. J. P. Biosphere reserves: a comprehensive approach. pp. S. The George Wright Forum. Parks Canada. C. K. & Dudley. 43-60. 32(3). R. Environments. & Dearden. 43(9). protected areas and resident peoples: a comparative assessment and integration. M.
. B. Yin. Brechin. 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. Parks. (2003). P. Craig. E. & West. No park is an island.. Wright. Jamieson. 160-177). L. Park-people relationships: An international review. (2002). 12(2). Research.. Case study research: design and methods (3 ed. & Busch. B. Waterloo. K. Wilshusen. (2002. Expanding partnerships in conservation (pp.Whitelaw.. G. 80-93. S. R. Zube. In J. McNeely (Ed. R. 17-40. Society and Natural Resources. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. E. 61-78. (2004). Fortwangler. C. 32(3). (2002).). (1995). The challenge of community-based protected area management. H. M. monitoring and education: assessing the "logistics function" of four Canadian biosphere reserves. Zube. G. A.. 19. 14-19 May).. ON. L. Landscape and Urban Planning. S. 117-131. DC: Island Press. Worah.. A. & Hamel. 15. 29 . H. Washington.). (1990). Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent 'protection paradigm' in international biodiversity conservation. P. Environments. P.
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 . ‘why?’. Prompts such as ‘can you elaborate on that?’. 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).Appendix 1: Generic Interview Schedule This is a generic interview schedule that will be modified for each participant category of each case study. The four primary research questions act as an overall structure to the interview schedule.
Does one exist? Do you perceive it to positive. How was this issue dealt with? How are similar issues dealt with? [Repeat if interviewee is familiar with more than one relevant issue] • • • • • • 31 . meetings)? Has the relationship between Parks Canada staff at [x] national park and [x agency. organization]? Tell me about [x ‘hot topic’ or political dispute relevant to agency/organization]. negative. phone. How is information shared between Parks Canada and [x agency. organization]? Who communicates at Parks Canada with staff at [x agency. organization].e. email. organization] changed over the years? [If yes] Tell me about how it has changed. organization]? What form does this communication take (i. or neutral? [If relationship exists] How often is there communication between Parks Canada staff and [x agency.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.
Tell me about any outreach activities that Parks Canada engages in in the local community. Do you perceive it to positive. or neutral? Tell me about local people’s attitude about Parks Canada. 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 . organization] could be improved? [If negative/neutral relationship identified above] What steps would need to be taken by [x agency. negative.• [If negative/neutral relationship identified above] How do you think the relationship between Parks Canada staff at [x national park] and [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. 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.
links. organization]’s role in this initiative? What is Parks Canada’s role in [specific co-operative initiative/partnership]? Why is [x agency. Tell me about your personal experience with [specific co-operative initiative/partnership]. 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. 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 . How has [specific co-operative initiative/partnership] evolved over time? How are decisions made about [specific co-operative initiative/partnership]? What is [x agency. networks • • [For Parks Canada staff] Are there any buffer zones.• • • [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]. links.
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 .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.