developing and applying a plan quality evaluation
TRANSCRIPT
Developing and Applying a Plan Quality Evaluation
Protocol to Protected Area Management Plans
in British Columbia
by
Bryan K. Wong
B.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 2013
A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
School of Community and Regional Planning
We accept this project as conforming to the required standard
......................................................
.....................................................
....................................................
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2016 �© Bryan K. Wong, 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to especially thank and acknowledge my graduate supervisor Dr. Mark Stevens for his time, guidance, and dedication to my research. This protected area management plan quality evaluation my not have existed if it weren’t for his generous invitation to be involved with his Planning Evaluation Lab. His Lab provided the resources that allowed me to complete this project. I would also like to acknowledge and thank my co-supervisor Dr. Jordi Honey-Roses for his insight and feedback as this project progressed, as well as allowing me to be a part of his Ecological Research Group. His group provided me with opportunities to share my work, learn from others, and engage with a wonderful group of people. I would like to express my gratitude to the other members of the Planning Evaluation Lab: Dr. Maged Senbel, Victor Ngo, Steven De Sousa, and Lecia Desjarlais. The camaraderie of this group made it not seem like work at all. I would especially like to thank Lecia Desjarlais for being the second coder for my plan quality evaluation and not vacating when I told you the number of management plans I wanted to code. Finally I would like to thank the family for their amazing support throughout my career as a graduate student. Above all, my wife: Dr. Nadine Meyer, thank you for confirming in me I could finish and for aspiring us each and every moment; you are my rock.
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... 1 1.0 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Research Summary ................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Protected Area Management in British Columbia .................................................. 5
1.3 Research Objectives ................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Relevance of Research .............................................................................................. 6
1.5 Paper Overview ........................................................................................................ 7
2.0 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................ 8 2.1 Plan Evaluation Process ........................................................................................... 8
2.2 Protected Areas ........................................................................................................ 9
2.2.1 Parks ................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Marine Protected Areas .................................................................................. 10 2.2.3 Ecological Reserves ......................................................................................... 10 2.2.4 Conservancy Areas .......................................................................................... 10 2.2.5 Recreation Areas ............................................................................................. 11 2.2.6 Designations under the Environment and Land Use Act ............................... 11
2.3 Park Management Framework .............................................................................. 12
2.4 Park Management Plans ........................................................................................ 14
2.4.1 BC Parks’ Management Plans ........................................................................ 15
2.5 BC Parks Plan Types ............................................................................................. 16
2.5.1 Master Plans ................................................................................................... 16 2.5.2 Operational Plans ............................................................................................ 16 2.5.3 Regional and Sub Regional Plans ................................................................... 16
2.6 IUNC Protected Area Management ...................................................................... 17
2.7 Components of a Park Management Plan ............................................................. 17
3
2.8 Management Plan Evaluation Frameworks ........................................................... 19
3.0 Research Design and Methodology ........................................................................... 21 3.1 Plan Selection ........................................................................................................ 21
3.1.1 Park Classification .......................................................................................... 21 3.1.2 BC Park Districts Attribute ............................................................................ 21 3.1.3 Year of Plan Publication Attribute .................................................................. 22
3.2 Plan Quality Evaluation and Content Analysis ..................................................... 22
3.3 Content Analysis .................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 23
3.5 Analytical Techniques ............................................................................................ 23
4.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Plan Quality Evaluation Protocol .......................................................................... 26
4.2 Protected Area and Plan Attributes ....................................................................... 27
4.2.1 Protected Area Size Attribute ......................................................................... 27 4.2.2 Dominant Zoning Type Attribute .................................................................. 27 4.2.3 Plan Authorship Attribute .............................................................................. 27 4.3 Influence of Attributes on Plan Score ................................................................ 28 4.3.2 Dominant Zoning Influence ........................................................................... 29 4.3.3 Plan Authorship Influence .............................................................................. 30 4.3.4 BC Park District Influence ............................................................................. 30 4.3.5 Classification Influence ................................................................................... 31 4.3.6 Year of Publication Influence .......................................................................... 31
5.0 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 32
5.1 Assessing BC Parks Purposes of a Management Plan ........................................... 32
5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 34
5.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 34
5.4 Future Research ..................................................................................................... 35
4
Table 1 BC Parks' Protected Area Overview - As of June 15, 2015 (BC Parks, 2016). .... 9 Table 2 Legislation Governing the Establishment and Management of BC Provincial
Parks and Protected Areas. ...................................................................................... 11 Table 3 BC Parks Purposes of Management Plans (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2013b).
................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 4 Thomas and Middleton (2003) components to be present in a protected area
management plan. .................................................................................................... 18 Table 5 Berke et al. (2006) normative criteria for plan quality evaluation protocol. ........ 19 Table 6 Plan Quality Evaluation Protocol Categories ..................................................... 26 Table 7 BC Parks Protected Areas in hectares and the Protected Area attribute in the
study. ........................................................................................................................ 27 Table 8 Plan Attribute Data Collected During Coding. ................................................. 28 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for BC Park Protected Area Size Attribute on
Comprehensive Plan Scores ..................................................................................... 28 Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for BC Park Dominant Zoning Type Attribute on
Comprehensive Plan Scores. .................................................................................... 29 Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for BC Park District Attribute on Comprehensive Plan
Scores. ...................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 1 Management Framework for BC Parks, (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2013b).
................................................................................................................................. 13
5
1.0 OVERVIEW
1.1 Research Summary
The purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of protected area management planning in British Columbia by exploring it through provincial park and protected area management plans.
1.2 Protected Area Management in British Columbia Provincial park and protected area lands are under the management of BC Parks. These land parcels are designated under the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, to be managed under the Park Act. BC Parks mission and mandate is to meet the dual mandates of conservation and recreation as set out in the BC Parks Mission Statement:
Asapublictrust,BCParks'missionistoprotectrepresentativeandspecialnaturalplaceswithintheprovince'sProtectedAreasSystemforworld-classconservation,outdoorrecreation,educationandscientificstudy.BCParksiscommittedtoservingBritishColumbiansandtheirvisitorsby:
•Protectingandmanagingforfuturegenerationsawidevarietyofoutstandingparklandswhichrepresentthebestnaturalfeaturesanddiversewildernessenvironmentsoftheprovince.
•Providingprovince-wideopportunitiesforadiversityofhighqualityandsafeoutdoorrecreationthatiscompatiblewithprotectingthenaturalenvironment.
InherentinthismandateistherequirementtomaintainabalancebetweenBCParks'goalsforprotectingnaturalenvironmentsandoutdoorrecreation.
In order to, meet the dual mandate of conservation and recreation, management plans are used by BC Parks as the guiding tool for park managers and operations staff to meet the goals of protecting natural environments while providing outdoor recreation that is compatible with the natural environment. The management plans guide management actions and set parameters and conditions around activities, development and protection of the protected area values. 1.3 Research Objectives
British Columbia’s protected area management plans come in a variety of forms; from long term comprehensive management plans to prescriptive annual operational plans. A management plan should be both comprehensive and unique to a particular site or area, balancing the diversity and complexity in planning for conservation and recreational
6
objectives as well as unique community characteristics and values (Alexander, 2008). While plans should remain unique, all comprehensive management plans should contain shared components, incorporating descriptive and communicative components (e.g. assessment of resource, vision statement, monitoring strategy) (Berke & Godschalk, 2009; Norton, 2008; and Bunnell & Jepson, 2011).
To date, no studies have analyzed the components of British Columbia’s protected area management plans or the connection with plan and area attributes. It is unclear whether British Columbia’s protected area management plans are capturing the necessary components of a comprehensive park management plan and if so, under what conditions.
The overarching research goal is to increase understanding of provincial protected area management planning in British Columbia. The two primary research objectives are to:
1) Characterize the comprehensiveness of British Columbia protected area management plans. a) Do plans address all four basic components of a plan: issues and vision statement;
fact base; goal and policy framework; and plan proposals, including spatial designs, implementation, and performance monitoring?
b) Do plans address the criteria associated with how well the plan fits the local situation that facilitate the use and influence of the plans: encourage opportunities to use plans; create clear views and understanding of plans; account for interdependent actions in plan scope and reveal the participation of actors?
2) Assess the influence of protected area and plan attributes on the comprehensiveness of a plan. a) Does a protected area’s size, zoning, classification, or location have an influence
on the comprehensiveness of the plan? b) Does a plan’s author or creation date influence the plan’s comprehensiveness?
1.4 Relevance of Research Starting in the 1980’s, BC Parks and the Ministry of Environment have published approximately 193 protected area management plans. These management plans guide the management of their conservation and recreational policies; which can require extensive resources such as staff time, technical analysis, consultation, and funding. To date, no studies have systematically reviewed these management plans or considered their extensiveness. This work includes the first analysis of these plans, and the first attempt to understand the components and attributes that influence the overall comprehensiveness of a plan. While work has been done in Canadian Provincial Parks around analyzing park visitor and tourism policy (Eagles et al., 2014) and park governance structures (Eagles et al., 2010), there has been little to no work to analyze the comprehensive quality of provincial park management plans.
This paper also contributes to the framework for developing and evaluating protected area management plans at the provincial level. The recent popularity of plan quality evaluation studies has reinforced the notion that the plan remains one of a planner’s
7
primary tools (Lyles &Stevens, 2014; Dalton, 1989). One way to evaluate a plan is by using a set of normative criteria, based on the contents that should be included in the plan. This paper contributes a synthesized set of evaluative plan criteria that can be used and adopted by protected area or park agencies preparing or evaluating protected area management plans. While protected area management plans have been around for many decades, there is currently no widely accepted framework for developing them. This paper provides a framework to provide guidance for future park management planning efforts and offers a set of criteria for evaluating park and protected area management plans.
The results of this paper should be useful to park program planners or researchers, as a model for park and protected area management plans and guides, which is a recommended area of further research for plan evaluators and park managers (Eagles et al., 2014).
1.5 Paper Overview
This paper is divided into five chapters. The first chapter introduces the BC Parks’ protected area classification, protected area management program, and outlines the two main research objectives. The second chapter provides the background and details for parks and protected areas in British Columbia; protected area legislation; the framework of BC Park management plans; and the introduction to the plan evaluation protocol. The third chapter describes the study’s methods of content analysis: the development of the plan quality (comprehensiveness) evaluation protocol and the protected area attributes collected in the study. Chapter four reports the results of the content analysis, the plan quality evaluation scoring, and the relationships between plan comprehensiveness and plan attributes. Finally, chapter five provides a discussion of the findings, recommendations, limitations, and ideas for further research.
8
2.0 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides background information on protected areas and discusses the literature relating to park and protected area management and management plans. The chapter begins with a brief introduction to plan evaluation, forming the basis for the study’s methodology. Next, the chapter reviews the protected area system in British Columbia, followed by a broad overview of the BC Parks’ dual conservation and recreation mandate/objectives, which is important for introducing the concept of park and protected area management. While there is considerable access to literature about park and protected area management, there is far less literature about the park and protected area management plan or evaluation of it. A discussion about park and protected area management plans, including several frameworks that have been presented in the literature, follows. This chapter concludes with an overview of the components of a comprehensive park and protected area management plan, subsequently synthesized to develop a framework to analyze park and protected area management plans in British Columbia.
2.1 Plan Evaluation Process This section provides a brief overview on the literature regarding plan quality evaluation. For the purposes of this study, the evaluation tool focuses on the quality of the plan document and not the planning process. However, a strongly written management plan should document the planning process as a component of the plan (Berke et al., 2006). Several authors have written about evaluating comprehensive plans and have suggested criteria for determining plan quality. Some of the suggested criteria include the presence of a vision statement, assessment of current conditions, the quality of goals and objectives, and the presence for implementation and monitoring strategies (Berke et al., 2006; Baer, 1997; and Lyles & Steven, 2014). Criteria are necessary to evaluate what a plan should include and how its quality should be assessed and according to Baer (1997), the appropriate criteria to evaluate a plan are embodied by the document. Baer (1997) goes on to suggest that a set of “positive criteria”, akin to a professions’ generally accepted standards, should be included in plans that are “traceable footprints” showing how planners got from their descriptions to the current situation to their recommendations for the future. A set of evaluative plan criteria is most useful at two stages of planning: (1) when developing a plan and (2) when evaluating a plan (Baer, 1997). Berke et al. (2006) recommends creating evaluative criteria and assessing both internal and external plan quality. The internal plan quality criteria relates to evaluating the vision statement, goals, plan proposals, implementation, and monitoring, while external plan quality criteria includes revealing the participation of actors, interdependent actions, and how the plan encourages opportunities to actively use it (Berke et al., 2006). Ubiquitously, the process of evaluating plan quality can identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvements (Berke & Godschalk, 2009).
9
2.2 Protected Areas
British Columbia’s protected areas system provides for the protection and maintenance of important natural and cultural values and outstanding outdoor recreation opportunities. Protected areas contain some of the best representative elements of British Columbia’s natural and cultural heritage. They include ecological reserves; provincial parks; conservancies; recreation areas; and protected areas. As of June 15, 2015, the system managed by BC Parks included 1,029 protected areas, covering approximately 14.4 percent of the province or approximately 14 million hectares (140,000 km2). British Columbia’s protected areas system is one of the largest protected areas systems in North America and one of the largest provincial/territorial systems in Canada.
Table1BCParks'ProtectedAreaOverview-AsofJune15,2015(BCParks,2016).
Designation NumberofAreas AreaSize(hectares)ClassAParks 627 10,510,204
ClassBParks 2 3,778
ClassCParks 13 484
RecreationAreas 2 5,929
Conservancies 156 2,998,507
DesignationsundertheEnvironmentandLandUseAct
81 383,892
EcologicalReserves 148 160,456
Total 1,029 14,063,2502.2.1 Parks
There are three classifications of provincial parks in British Columbia: Class A, Class B, or Class C parks. The majority of the provincial parks in the system are Class A parks (627); 75% (10.5 million hectares) of the total land area in the protected area system (Table 1). All three classes of parks are similar in that, they are all dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. Development in a Class A park is limited, activities such as grazing, hay cutting and other uses (except commercial logging, mining or hydroelectric development) that existed at the time the park was established may be allowed to continue in certain parks. Class B parks differ from Class A parks in that a Class B park may permit a broader range of activities and uses provided that such uses are not detrimental to the recreational values of the park. The requirements for the management of Class C parks with respect to interests and protecting natural resources is identical to those for Class A parks. Class C parks differ from Class A parks in that a Class C park must be managed by a local board appointed by the minister. Class A parks can be established by either order in council under the Park Act or by inclusion in a schedule to the Protected Areas of British
10
Columbia Act. Class B parks are established by order in council. Class C parks are established by order in council (Table 2, BC Parks Act, 1996). All the park area management plans in the study, were classified as Class A parks; as either a standalone Class A park or an integrated protected area; no Class B or Class C park management plans were evaluated. 2.2.2 Marine Protected Areas
BC Parks, along with other provincial agencies, have coordinated with the Canadian Federal Government on the establishment of marine protected areas (MPA) in British Columbia (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2014). One concern about the difficulties in evaluating marine protected area management plans is the unique challenges of management jurisdictions and coordination for different purposes. For the marine environment, this is particularly important as the fluid and dynamic nature of marine ecosystems, and the high diversity of habitats and species that may occur within an area, including migratory species, often requires multiple objectives and diverse management schemes (Phillips & WCU, 2012). Multiple-use MPAs are generally zoned, each zone type having different objectives, with some allowing greater use and removal of resources than others. For this study, one marine protected area was included due to its integration in the Desolation Sound and Copeland Islands Marine Park and Tux'wnech Okeover Arm Provincial Park management plan; no stand-alone marine park management plan was evaluated. 2.2.3 Ecological Reserves
Ecological reserves are areas reserved for ecological purposes including the following: areas suitable for scientific research and educational purposes associated with studies in productivity and other aspects of the natural environment; areas that are representative examples of natural ecosystems in British Columbia; areas that serve as examples of ecosystems that have been modified by human beings and offer an opportunity to study the recovery of the natural ecosystem from modification; areas where rare or endangered native plants and animals in their natural habitat may be preserved; and areas that contain unique and rare examples of botanical, zoological or geological phenomena (Table 2, Ecological Reserves Act, 1996). Ecological reserves are open to public access, however they are not established for outdoor recreation and no extractive activities are allowed. For this study, five ecological reserve areas were included due to their integration in five management plans; no stand-alone ecological reserve management plans were evaluated. 2.2.4 Conservancy Areas
The conservancy designation by BC Parks explicitly recognizes the importance of these areas to First Nations for social, ceremonial and cultural uses (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2013a). Conservancies provide for a wider range of low impact, compatible economic opportunities than Class A parks, however, commercial logging, mining and hydroelectric power generation, other than local run-of-the-river projects, are prohibited. For this study, no conservancy areas and no stand-alone conservancy area management plans were evaluated.
11
2.2.5 Recreation Areas
BC Parks describes recreation areas as lands set aside for public recreational use. Historically, the designation of recreation areas was to allow for mineral resource evaluation under a time-limited tenure. Currently there are only two recreation areas: Cypress Park and E.C. Manning (Cascadia) recreation area. The E.C. Manning Provincial Park and Cascade Recreation Area management plan was evaluated in this study. The future of the recreation areas designation is unclear, a recent BC Parks policy direction stated: all current recreation areas are being evaluated to determine if they should become fully protected or returned to integrated resource management lands (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2013a). 2.2.6 Designations under the Environment and Land Use Act
Designations under the Environment and Land Use Act are another classification of protected areas, aptly named protected areas. These land parcels are established by order in council under the Environment and Land Use Act and generally have one or more existing or proposed activities that are not usually allowed in a park (e.g. proposed industrial road, pipeline, transmission line or communication site). The allowable activities in protected areas are determined by specific provisions when the area is established as well as relevant sections of the Park Act and regulations (Table 2). For this study, six protected areas were included due to their integration in five management plans; no stand-alone protected area management plans were evaluated. Table 2 Legislation Governing the Establishment and Management of BC Provincial Parks and Protected Areas.
ACTS & REGULATIONS DESCRIPTION
1 Ecological Reserve Act
Providesfortheestablishmentandadministrationofecologicalreserves.EcologicalreservesareestablishedbyinclusiontotheschedulesoftheProtectedAreasofBritishColumbiaActorbyorderincouncilundertheAct.
2 Park Act
Providesfortheestablishment,classificationandmanagementofparks,conservanciesandrecreationareas.ClassAparksandconservanciesareestablishedbyinclusionintheschedulestotheProtectedAreasofBritishColumbiaActorbyorderincouncilundertheAct.ClassBandCparksandrecreationareasareestablishedbyorderincouncilundertheAct.
3 ProtectedAreasofBritishColumbiaAct
ConsolidatesinitsschedulesmostoftheClassAparks,conservanciesandecologicalreservesforthepurposesoftheParkActandtheEcologicalReserveAct.TheActensuresthattheboundariesoftheseareascannotbemodifiedtoremovelandsexceptbyanActoftheLegislature.
4 Ecological Reserve Regulations
Identifiesconductandactivitiesthatarenotappropriateinanecologicalreserve.
5Park,ConservancyandRecreationAreaRegulation
Providesregulationsaroundtherequirementforpermits;publicconductandenforcement;theuseofmotorvehicles,vesselsandaircraft;useoffirearmsforhuntingandfishing;wastemanagement;campingandpicnicking;fees;andtheauthorityofparkrangers.
12
6 EnvironmentandLandUseAct
EmpowersaLandUseCommitteeofCabinettoensureallaspectsofthepreservationandmaintenanceofthenaturalenvironmentarefullyconsideredintheadministrationoflanduseandresourcedevelopment.Orderscanbemaderespectingtheenvironmentorlanduse,includingtheestablishmentofprotectedareas.
7MinistryofLands,ParksandHousingAct
Section5(b)describesoneofthefunctionsoftheMinistryasbeingtoencourageoutdoorrecreation,establishparksandconservethenaturalscenicandhistoricfeaturesofBritishColumbia.Section6providestheMinisterwiththeauthority,forthepurposesoftheAct,toenterintoagreementswiththeGovernmentofCanada,thegovernmentofanotherprovince,orwithanyotherpersonoramunicipality.Section9givesauthoritytotheministertodisposeof,acquireandmanagelandforministrypurposes.
8 MinistryofEnvironmentAct
GivestheMinisterauthoritytoacquirepropertyandtoenterintoagreementswithothergovernmentswiththeapprovaloftheLieutenantGovernorinCouncil.
9SpecialAccountsAppropriationandControlAct
Establishesspecialaccounts,whichareaccountsinthegeneralfundoftheconsolidatedrevenuefundwheretheauthorizationtoexpendmoneyfromtheaccountislocatedinanActotherthanaSupplyAct.Section9.6oftheActdealswiththeParkEnhancementFund.ThissectiondetailswhatmoniescanbeaddedtothespecialaccountandhowthemoniescanbeusedbytheMinisterofEnvironmenttoenhancevolunteer,researchandotheropportunitiesinparksandprotectedareas.
The British Columbia protected areas system is governed by several pieces of legislation (Table 2), the most important to this study being the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, Parks Act, and Park, Conservancy, and Recreation Regulation. 2.3 Park Management Framework Park and protected area establishment, planning, and management occur within a hierarchy of law and policies, with the governing legislation at the top, and site planning and operational management at the bottom (Figure 1). Management plans are a component of this hierarchical management framework that also consists of legal and strategic direction and other plans or related documents. Figure 1 shows the management framework for BC Parks, management plans are central within that hierarchy. The hierarchical structure is important as policies become more specific as they move down the hierarchy. An important issue is the degree of specificity that should be given in management plans. The highest level of direction for managing protected areas is provided by legislation (e.g. the Park Act), which defines the parameters within which a protected area must be managed. Land use plans provide direction for landscape/regional level land management including the establishment of new protected areas and may include appropriate activities within those areas (British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2006).
13
Each park operates within a specified legal and policy structure; the management directions of plans are not legally enforceable. Referencing the official park boundaries is the only legal requirement for “official plans” (management plans) under the BC Park Act 7.1(1). These plans are policy statements only; subject to political, not legal, implications. As the park managers and the government are not required by law to follow the management plan policies, activities can take place that are not mentioned, since activities are only subject to the Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation which only provides the requirements for permits; public conduct and enforcement; the use of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft; the use of firearms for hunting and fishing; waste management; camping and picnicking; fees; and the authority of park rangers (Table 2).
Figure1ManagementFrameworkforBCParks,(BritishColumbia.BCParks,2013b).
14
2.4 Park Management Plans The BC Parks’ Strategic Management Planning Policy for Ecological Reserves, Parks, Conservancies, Protected Areas and Recreation Areas states:
“The policy requires that a management plan be prepared and kept current for every protected area in the BC Parks’ system. The percent of protected areas with approved management plans is a performance measure that is reported on annually”.
Management plans are not required by legislation, but they are essential for providing direction to protected area managers, and represent a commitment to British Columbians regarding the protection and use of protected areas (British Columbia, BC Parks, 2013c). The most compelling reason for producing management plans is to provide benefits to the protected area and those who rely upon its good management. According to Thomas and Middleton (2003) a good management planning process which has the support of staff and local people, provides the following benefits: (1) improved management of the protected area by providing guidance for managers and continuity of management direction; (2) improved use of financial and staff resources by prioritising actions and highlight where additional resources are required; (3) increased accountability of the protected area manager(s) and the managing organisation(s); and (4) improved communication by: identifying key audiences, providing a means of communication with the public, and publicising the protected area to a wide range of stakeholders. Frequently much time and effort is put into management planning for protected areas but the plans are often not used or are unusable (Talen, 1996). However, given these circumstances there is a general agreement about the desirability for preparing management plans and their creation is supported, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) 1992 Caracas Action Plan wishes to see plans in place for all protected areas (McNeeley, 1993). Without a comprehensive management plan: the preservation, development and use activities in a park will occur in a haphazard basis, often in response to political pressures with little consideration as to the implications for the future, thus the result is likely to be lost opportunities and irreversible damage to park resources and values (Alexander 2008). Among the many benefits discussed in the management planning literature, Thomas and Middleton (2003) expresses the primary effect of management planning should be more effective management of the protected area by producing: (1) a clear understanding of the significance of the protected area; (2) providing guidance for managers for day-to-day operations and direction towards a long-term vision; (3) providing continuity of management, maintaining the direction and momentum of management; and (4) assisting in identifying and defining management effectiveness based on well written, specific, and measurable objectives.
15
Having a clear understanding of the purpose of a management plan is critical in order to evaluate the potential implementation success of that management plan (Baer, 1997). The international literature provides a set of criteria which are useful to evaluate plan quality, drawing extensively on Eagles et al. (2002), Eagles & McCool (2002), a protected area management plan has eight purposes: (1) Communicate clear information where decisions can be traced and defended; (2) explicitly communicate value judgments; (3) incorporate an understanding of stakeholder perceptions; (4) provide an opportunity for public contribution; (5) set precedence for following plans; (6) guide and control management of a protected area; (7) satisfy legislative requirements; and (8) provide a document that can be implemented. 2.4.1 BC Parks’ Management Plans
Management planning is a process of involvement and engagement with interested communities and individuals and a mechanism used by protected area managers to develop and achieve a shared vision and objectives for protected areas under their stewardship. According to the BC Parks website: the management plan is the result of a management planning process and is developed with First Nations, local governments, the public and other interest groups. It outlines the management direction and desired future condition for a protected area and how to achieve it. Table 3 BC Parks Purposes of Management Plans (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2013b).
Specific Purposes of Management Plans are to:
1 Describetheecologicalintegrityandtheprimaryvaluesforwhichtheprotectedareawasestablishedanddefinetheirdesiredfuturecondition.
2 Ensurethatthemanagementofprotectedareasmeetslegislatedrequirementsandothermandatedcommitments.
3 Ensurethatecological,culturalandrecreationmanagementobjectivesareclearlydefined.
4 GainFirstNations,publicandinterestgroups’involvementinprotectedareamanagement.
5 Provideaframeworkfordecision-makingandtosetprioritiesforimplementingthosedecisions.
6Identifythetypes,locationandthresholdofusesandactivitiesappropriatewithindifferentpartsofaprotectedareaincludingappropriatelevelsofvisitoruseandfacilitydevelopment.
7Guidetheappropriateuseoflimitedresourcesbyidentifying,describingandprioritizingthemanagementactionsrequiredtoachievetheobjectivesfortheprotectedarea.
8 Serveasatooltoinformthepublic,governmentsandBCParksstaffofthevision,managementdirectionandprioritiesforprotectedareas.
16
2.5 BC Parks Plan Types 2.5.1 Master Plans
Initial iterations of BC park plans were referred to as master plans rather than management plans. According to Thomas & Middleton (2003), in an early issue of IUCN’s PARKS magazine, the author Eidsvik argued that a master plan implied an unrealistic degree of perpetuity for the document; he thought the term ‘management plan’ should be used instead. BC Parks’ master plans have since been superseded by management plans. 2.5.1.1ZoninginManagementPlans Management planning in BC Parks uses zoning to assist in the planning and management of British Columbia’s protected areas. They identify the boundaries of the zones and contain detail on how each of the zones is to be managed. Zoning plans provide additional definition and help implement the management plan. In general terms, zoning divides an area into logical units to apply consistent management objectives for protection of protected area values. The zones reflect the intended land use, existing patterns of use, the degree of human use desired, and the level of management and development required. Zoning provides visitors and managers with a quick visual representation and appreciation on how a particular protected area is managed. Zoning is a mandatory requirement for all protected areas except ecological reserves (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2012). The BC Parks Zoning Framework includes six possible zones that can be used in protected area planning: Special Natural Feature Zone; Cultural Zone; Intensive Recreation Zone; Nature Recreation Zone; Wilderness Recreation Zone; and Wilderness Conservation Zone (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2012). 2.5.2 Operational Plans
Operational plans or annual management plans are usually comprised of guidelines for the on-the-ground activities of a management plan. Operational plans typically focus on the conservation or recreation resource without much consideration for intergovernmental coordination and management or community involvement. Operational plans are usually specific to one task such as facilities maintenance, and work schedules and best management practices. Typically, operational plans will have a shorter time scale than the management plan, for example an annual work plan. 2.5.3 Regional and Sub Regional Plans
The some park area management plans in British Columbia were created as a result of Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) process. Regional plans or LRMPs in British Columbia were developed in the early 1990’s to address land use conflicts, environmental issues and competition amongst resource user groups (British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2006). Land and Resource Management Planning is
17
an integrated, sub-regional, consensus building process that produces a Land and Resource Management Plan for review and approval by government. The plan establishes direction for land use and specifies broad resource management objectives and strategies. Its use has been a primary process for obtaining public sanction for new parks and protected areas. Typically its multi-agency initiatives are coordinated by a designated planning agency, and involve stakeholders in an “interests-based negotiation” at a planning table (British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2006). Land and Resource Management Plans cover sub-regional areas of approximately 15,000 to 25,000 square kilometres. LRMP guides lower level plans, and in total, over 85% of the provincial Crown land base is now covered by a combination of 26 regional land use plans and LRMPs (British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2006). In 2007, the British Columbia government confirmed the conclusion of the LRMP program, dropped the LRMP terminology, and initiated a new planning program, branded as Strategic Land and Resource Planning (British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2006).2.6 IUNC Protected Area Management The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), is an international authority on important conservation issues. They define protected areas as:
“An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” (IUCN & WCMC, 1994).
The IUNC categorize protected areas according to their primary management objective. The categories imply a gradation of human intervention, ranging from effectively none at all in the case of some Category I areas, to quite high levels of intervention in Category V areas. The majorities of protected areas in this study are classified by BC Parks as IUCN Category II Protected Areas, which are described as:
“Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities” (IUCN, 1992).
2.7 Components of a Park Management Plan Management Plans should be succinct documents that identify the key features or values of the protected area, clearly establish the management objectives to be met and indicate the actions to be implemented. They also need to be flexible enough to cater for unforeseen events, which might arise during the lifespan of the plan. Related documents to the management plan may include more detailed zoning, visitor and operational plans to guide its implementation. However the management plan is the prime document from
18
which other plans flow, and it should normally take precedence if there is doubt or conflict. Thomas and Middleton (2003) define a protected area management plan as “a document that sets out the management approach and goals, together with a framework for decision making, to apply in the protected area over a given period of time.” They also outline components that should be present in a protected area management plan: (1) Executive Summary; (2) Introduction; (3) Description of the Protected Area; (4) Evaluation of the Protected Area; (5) Analysis of Issues and Problems; (6) Vision and objectives; (7) Zoning plan; (8) Management actions; and (9) Monitoring and review (Table 4). Table 4 Thomas and Middleton (2003) components to be present in a protected area management plan. COMPONENT DESCRIPTION
1 Executive summary Thissummarisesessentialissueswithintheplanandrelevantdecisions.Thisisimportant,asmanyofthefinaldecision-makerswillnothavetimetoreadanddigestsupportingdetail.
2 Introduction
Thisstatesthepurposeandscopeoftheplan,andprovidesanexplanationofthepurposeforwhichtheprotectedareawasestablished(includinganylegislativebasis)andtheauthorityforplandevelopment.Itmayalsocontainsomebasicsummaryinformationabouttheprotectedarea,suchasitslocation,size,primaryre-sourcesandvalues.
3 Description of the protected area
Thissummarisesrelevantdescriptiveinformationabouttheprotectedarea.Itnormallyincludesasummaryaccountoftheresources(features)ofthearea(natural,cultural,historicalandsocio-economic),howitisused,anditslegalandmanagementframework.Itcanbeequallyimportanttostatewhattheplandoesnotcover.
4 Evaluation of the protected area
Thisidentifieswhytheprotectedareaisimportant,andexplainsthevaluesassociatedwithit.Itfrequentlytakestheformofa‘StatementofSignificance’orKeyFeaturesofthearea.
5 Analysisofissuesandproblems
Thissectioncontainsananalysisoftheconstraintsandopportunitiesaffectingtheareaandastatementoftheprincipalthreatstoitsconservation,managementandmaintenance.Alsoanyimpacts(internalorexternal)ontheimportantfeaturesoftheareashouldbestated,alongwithanyothermanagementconsiderations.
6 Visionandobjectives
Thiscontainsabroad,long-termvisionfortheprotectedarea,whichmaytaketheformofgoals,anda‘visionstatement’.Anyguidingpoliciesformanagementcanbeincludedhere.Asetofobjectivesisprovided.Thesearespecificstatementsoutliningwhatistobeachievedbymanagementinthetimeframeoftheplan.Arationalefortheobjectivesisoftenincludedandprovidesvaluablejustificationofthedecisionsmadeduringtheplanningprocess.
7 Zoningplan
Ifdifferentmanagementzonesarerequired,azoningplancanbepreparedtoillustratetheboundaries,classificationandmanagementandotheractivitiesallowedorprohibitedforeachzone.Sub-objectivesforeachzonecanalsobeprovided.ThezoningschemecanbeincludedintheManagementPlan,orpresentedseparately.Inmanycases,thezoningplanwillbepreparedtoinformtheManagementPlan;oritmayalreadyexist.ItsfindingsarethensummarisedwithintheManagementPlan.Specificconstraintsandconditionsapplyingineachzonemustbeclearlydescribed.
8 Managementactions
Thiscontainsthespecificactionstobecarriedoutinordertoachievetheobjectives.Itcommonlyincludes:listofmanagementactions/activitiesrequiredscheduleorworkplanidentifyingwheneachactionwillbecarriedoutandbywhom;priorityactivitiesidentified;andstaffandfinancesrequiredtocarrythemout.
19
9 MonitoringandreviewThissectionoutlineshowimplementationoftheplanwillbemonitored,andwhenandhowareviewoftheplanwillbecarriedout.Itwillincludetheindicatorsagainstwhichtheperformanceoftheprotectedareawillbemeasured.
2.8 Management Plan Evaluation Frameworks
There is no authoritative literature or framework on the components that should be included in an park management plan, however, several frameworks have been presented in the literature that suggest a basic framework for management plans and evaluation. Berke et al. (2006) presents a plan quality evaluation protocol that provides a normative basis for producing and evaluating comprehensive plans. The plan quality evaluation protocol provided by Berke et al. (2006) and Berke & Godschalk (2009) is a framework that has synthesized the prior work on plan quality and evaluation: Kaiser & Davies, (1999); Baer, (1997); and Hopkins, (2001). Their suggestion of normative criteria based on the prior work of plan quality and evaluation, recommends that two key conceptual dimensions of plan quality should be included in any evaluation of plans: (1) internal plan quality which includes the content and format of key components of the plan; and (2) external plan quality which deals with the relevance of the scope and coverage of the plan in fitting the local situation. The planning and organizing components of a land use management plan, from Berke et al. (2006) and Berke & Godschalk (2009):
Table 5 Berke et al. (2006) normative criteria for plan quality evaluation protocol.
INTERNALCRITERIA FEATURES
IssuesandVisionStatement
Apreliminaryassessmentofmajortrendsandimpactsofforecastedchangeduringtheforthcomingplanningperiod.Adescriptionofthecommunity'smajoropportunitiesforandthreatstodesirabledevelopments.Areviewofimportantproblemsandissuescurrentlyorpotentiallyfacinglocalgovernment.Avisionstatementthatidentifiesinwordsanoverallimageofwhatthecommunitywantstobeandlooklike.
FactBase
Shouldconsistsoftwokeyattributes:(1)generallydescribeandanalyzethepresentandfuturefeaturesoftheplanningarea:stateofenvironment;landuse;facilities;andinfrastructure(2)identify,explain,andsupportreasoningforissuesandpolicies:tablesthataggregatedata;referencesfordata,methods,andmodels;andmapsthatvisuallyportraypolicies.
GoalsandPolicyFramework
Goalsarebroadexpressionsofthedesiredfutureconditions,policiesareestablishedprinciplestobefollowedinguidingpublicandprivatedecisionstoachieveadesiredfuturelanduseanddevelopmentpattern.
PlanProposalsPlanproposalsconsistofspatialdesigns,developmentmanagementprograms,andmonitoringprograms.
EXTERNALCRITERIA FEATURES
RecognizeandEncourageOpportunitiestoUsePlan
Keyoverarchingaspectsofplansthatenhancethechancesthattheywillbeusedandinfluential,shouldbe:Inspirational,Action-oriented,Flexible,andLegallydefensible.
20
CreateClearViewsandUnderstandingofPlans
Shouldbecasttofittheauthorityofmultiplegovernmentalunits.Clearlyunderstoodbyelectedofficialsandcitizens,forpromotingawarenessandsupportfromthepublicatlarge.
AccountforInterdependentActionsinPlanScope
Embraceascopeofinterdependentactionstakenbyvariousorganizations.Recognizingthepossiblerangeofinterdependentactionsassociatedwithdevelopmentpolicyandlandusechange.
RevealParticipationofFormalandInformalActors
Shouldrevealcharacteristicsoftheparticipatoryprocessusedinpreparingtheplan.Shouldexplainwhowasinvolved,howtheyparticipatedinplanmaking,whateffectstheyhadintheevolutionoftheplan,andhowtheirinputaffectstheplan.Shouldbeeffectiveinexplaininghowtheyaccountfortheinterestsofmultiplestakeholders.
21
3.0 Research Design and Methodology
This chapter presents the methods used for addressing the research objectives introduced in Chapter 1. The major goal of this paper was to systematically explore park and protected area management plans in British Columbia. As described in Chapter 2, park and protected area management planning should be comprehensive in order for BC Parks’ to achieve their conservation and recreation mandate. This chapter will include an overview of methods for the document collection, development of the evaluation protocol, content analysis methodology, and evaluating the management plans and attributes.
3.1 Plan Selection Since little was known about the park and protected area management plans developed by BC Parks, this research was meant to both identify and evaluate existing plans and characterize their comprehensiveness based on the land use planning and protected area management literature. To address the overall research objective and increase understanding of park and protected area management planning in British Columbia, the first step was to identify the park and protected area management plans. The management plans selected for the study satisfied five criteria: (1) were approved BC Parks’ management plans, as opposed to a draft plan; (2) be the most recent plan; (3) primarily classified as a Class A Provincial Park, as opposed to a marine park, conservancy, protected area, or ecological reserve; (4) be available on the BC Parks website on January 1, 2016; and (5) published from the year 2000 onwards; to limit the depth of institutional policy direction changes recorded in the timeframe of park management plans under study. The criteria chosen ensured that the most recent and complete plans were used from the protected area management classes that contained the majority of the recreational use in the BC Park system.
3.1.1 Park Classification
At the time of this research, 55 published BC Park management plans fulfilled all of the above criteria; 44 solely classified as Class A Provincial Park management plans, and 11 classified as combined Class A Provincial Park and Protected Area or Ecological Reserve or Marine Park management plan (Appendix II). Two examples of combined protected areas include the Stikine Country Protected Areas and Brackendale Eagles Park management plans, both of these Class A Parks management plans integrated ecological reserve and protected area objectives into the management plan’s overall long-term strategies and vision. The plans solely written for stand-alone marine parks, ecological reserves, protected areas, or conservancies were not selected for analysis.
3.1.2 BC Park Districts Attribute
Of the ten BC Parks planning districts, the highest number of management plans was nine in the Thompson district; the Cariboo, Kootenay, and Skeena districts recorded eight management plans apiece; and the lowest number of management plans recorded by a district was Omineca with one recorded management plan (Appendix II).
22
3.1.3 Year of Plan Publication Attribute
All the management plans in the study were written between 2000 and 2015, no plans were produced in the years 2005, 2009, and 2011. According to BC Parks policy statements, all plans included in this study represent the most recent plan and have been reviewed within the last two years (British Columbia. BC Parks, 2013c). The majority of plans (55%) were written between the years 2000-2008 (Appendix II).
3.2 Plan Quality Evaluation and Content Analysis
The plan evaluation tool applies a research technique called content analysis. Content analysis is a qualitative method to analyze text with the goal of taking a volume of qualitative material and identifying themes and meaning; is an established methodology used in multiple disciplines such as communications, journalism, and social sciences; and is applied across a variety of mediums including newspapers and plans (Krippendorff, 2004). Content analysis has recently been used in planning studies to examine various elements in comprehensive land-use plans, including climate change, environmental protection, ecosystem management, coastal management, and sprawl, among others (Lyles & Stevens, 2014).
Plan quality evaluation and content analysis was used to characterize the comprehensiveness of British Columbia park and protected area management plans. Plan quality evaluation and content analysis are appropriate methods for systematically analyzing documents and linking normative criteria to evaluate the comprehensiveness of plans (Lyles & Stevens, 2014). Following the principles of comprehensive criteria found in land use management plans and protected area management plans described by Berke et al. (2006); Thomas & Middleton (2003); and Alexander (2008), a set of evaluative criteria was developed to create a plan quality evaluation protocol for park and protected area management plans to classify the comprehensiveness of the 55 BC Park management plans. Appendix III outlines the specific evaluative criteria associated with the eight components of the plan quality evaluation protocol. Each item in the protocol was assessed for presence or absence using a binary scale of “1 “or “0”; “0” indicating the item was not present or mentioned; and “1” indicating the item was present or mentioned. The plan quality evaluation protocol utilized a modified version of Berke et al. (2006) land-use management plan evaluation protocol, the modifications synthesized protected area management plan recommendations from Thomas and Middleton (2003), Eagles et al. (2002), and Alexander (2008) (Appendix III). It was necessary to review and amend the suite of items constructed from Berke et al. (2006) in its applicability to conservation and recreation management plan parameters recommended by the literature. 3.3 Content Analysis The plan quality evaluation protocol contains 67 items, each of which utilizes a binary scoring system with a score of “1” indicating that the item was mentioned in the management plan and a score of “0” indicating that the item was not mentioned in the management plan.
23
A graduate student researcher assisted the author in evaluating and coding of the management plans under study. The graduate student researchers were master’s students in the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia, and were admitted to the school under the Urban Design and Ecological and Natural Resource Planning areas of concentration. Both had completed coursework in quantitative and qualitative research methods, and plan-making and evaluation before the study. Each coder independently pretested the draft protocol using a sequence of four pre-2000s BC Park management plans, with revisions made to the protocol after each of the pretest management plans were coded and discussed. Once the content and format of the protocol were finalized, the two coders independently administered the protocol to each of the park management plans under study. The coders then met regularly to resolve disagreements and reach consensus on the score for each item. Each of the plans under study achieved over 80% agreement between the two coders.
After the park management plans were coded, Krippendorff’s α was used to calculate each of the 67 items as a measure of intercoder reliability (Krippendorff, 2013). Scores (α) were calculated using a web-based tool developed by Freelon (2010). Following the procedures recommended by Stevens et al. (2014), those items that displayed a combination of low α scores (< .33) and relatively low levels of agreement (< 70%) on item scores between coders were excluded from the analysis. Based on the review of the respective α score for each of the 67 items, 11 items were excluded from the analysis; thus, the analysis is based on 56 protocol items. Appendix IV shows each of the 67 items in the protocol, together with the α score and percent agreement for each item. 3.4 Data Analysis The next phase of the analysis of the park and protected area management plans was meant to address the second research objective of assessing the influence of plan and protected area attributes on the comprehensiveness of a plan. To accomplish this, each plan’s quality evaluation protocol score of comprehensiveness was tallied and transferred into SPSS, a statistical software package to statistically test the influence of attributes such as protected area size, age of plan, geographic location, and authorship on the comprehensiveness of the resulting plan. The relationships between study variables and the plan scores were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 23), to explore the relationship between comprehensive plan scores, protected area size, dominant zoning types, plan authorship, park classification, BC Park District location, and creation date.
3.5 Analytical Techniques Using the data generated by applying the plan quality evaluation protocol to the management plans under study, descriptive statistics; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests; an independent sample t-test; and a Pearson’s r correlation were used to address the research questions. The descriptive statistics provided insights into the mean values of variables under study, and the means comparison tests evaluated differences across protected area and plan attributes and their comprehensive management plan mean scores. Given that the larger sized protected areas typically contain more ecological and
24
recreational features, it was not unreasonable to assume that park management plans will display greater variances with respect to the physical proportions of parks and protected areas in British Columbia.
25
4.0 FINDINGS This chapter presents the findings and results relating to the overarching research goal of increasing understanding of park and protected area management planning in British Columbia and the two research objectives to:
1. Characterize the comprehensiveness of park and protected area management plans in British Columbia; and
2. Assess the influence of plan and protected area attributes on the comprehensiveness of a plan.
The chapter then evaluates the plan quality evaluation protocol variables described in Appendix I, the scores are summarized for the evident categorical scores of individual indicators. Because of space constraints that prohibit discussion of all 56 items in the protocol, only a small number of indicators were examined. These items were considered to be particularly worthy of mentioning because the frequency of inclusion in the plans for them, were relatively high (or low), or because they were considered to be relatively important items for assessing the management plans under study. The management plans with higher scores are considered more comprehensive, based on the 56 items included in the protocol. Each item of the protocol was weighed equally to avoid making judgments about the importance of one item over another. Next, this chapter provides an overview of the protected area and the management plan attributes of the 55 protected areas under study, as a way to provide context for the subsequent results. Lastly, this chapter presents the quantitative results of the plan quality evaluation protocol and plan attributes for significant relationships. The analysis results reveal that protected area size, dominant zoning type, and BC Park District location of the protected area management plans were the most influential attributes in having differences in comprehensiveness mean scores for management plans. A discussion of the results is presented in Chapter 5 along with conclusions and recommendations for future research.
26
Table 6 Plan Quality Evaluation Protocol Categories
* The minimum plan score depends upon how many of the indicators for that category were found to be present in the lowest plan scored. **The maximum plan score would be equal to the highest number of indicators for that category were found to be present in the highest plan scored. ***The mean plan score would be equal to the average plan score across the 55 plans under study. View Appendixes III & IV for indicators included. 4.1 Plan Quality Evaluation Protocol Using a standardization process from Stevens (2013), that allows for a comparison of scores across plan quality categories while accounting for the varying number of indicators included in each category, each observed category score for each plan (mean plan score) was divided by the number of protocol items included in the respective category. The resulting mean score quotient is a value that can range from 0.00 to 1.00, reflecting the proportion of the items in a category that were included in the plans (Table 6). Each standardized category score thus becomes a variable with values that can be meaningfully compared across categories.
Based on the mean score quotient values in Table 6, the high level of inclusion of internal plan quality categories: Values, Issues, and Vision Statement (0.72); Fact Base: Sub- category-Description and Analysis of Key Features of Local Protected Area (0.68) and Framework (0.90) categories, appear to meet the BC Parks management plan purpose policy (Table 3) for providing a framework for decision-making and setting ecological, cultural, and recreation objectives. However, the relatively low mean score quotient values for external plan quality indicators in the Encourage Opportunities to Use Plan category (0.33) and the Participation of Actors category (0.36) suggests that management plans are generally not fulfilling their purpose of being used as a tool to inform the public as a instructed by the BC Parks management plan policy. This is further reinforced by the results in the Plan Proposals category: (0.35) Sub-category-Spatial Design of management plans mentioned details regarding land-use proposals or processes; (0.31)
27
Sub-category-Implementation of plans included details on implementation timelines, funding, and responsibilities; and (0.17) Sub-category-Monitoring of management plans mentioned items such as quantified monitoring objectives, responsibility spatial design or were planning to develop a mitigation plan. Appendixes III & IV contain all the plan quality evaluation protocol indicators and categories.
4.2 Protected Area and Plan Attributes This section summarizes the attributes of the park and protected area management plans under study.
4.2.1 Protected Area Size Attribute
Of the 55 plans in the study, 44% were written for protected areas with land sizes greater than 10,000 hectares (Table 7) this is an over representation compared to the total percentage of protected areas greater than 10,000 hectares in the total protected area system in the province is only 17%. For the plans under study, the medium-sized 1-100 hectares protected areas comprised 9% of the plans; this was under representative of the total 26% of 1-100 hectares areas in the entire provincial protected area system. The 100-1,000 hectares areas were also under representative of the total protected area system percentage of 35%. Generally, the remaining two categories of protected area size: < 1 hectare and 1,000-10,000 hectares were within 2% of the total protected area percentages. In whole, the plans under study represented a total area of 2,761,084 hectares or 19% of the total 14.4 million hectares in the BC Parks protected areas system.
Table 7 BC Parks Protected Areas in hectares and the Protected Area attribute in the study.
AreaSizeProtectedAreas
inStudy TotalProtectedAreaSystem
<1 1 2% 5 0.49%1-100ha 5 9% 272 26%100-1000ha 14 25% 356 35%1000-10000ha 11 20% 221 22%>10000ha 24 44% 173 17%
4.2.2 Dominant Zoning Type Attribute
The most common zoning category used in the plans under study was the Wilderness Recreation Zoning with 49% of the plans containing this category as the dominant zoning in its management plan (Appendix II). There were two interesting observations to note: (1) Cultural Zone and Wilderness Conservation Zone were never found to be a dominant zoning type in any of the management plans; and (2) 13% of the management plans contained a dominant zoning category, Natural Environmental Zoning, not referenced in the BC Parks zoning guidelines. All the management plans containing the Natural Environmental Zoning category were written between the years 2000-2002. 4.2.3 Plan Authorship Attribute
28
Consultants wrote or assisted in writing 4% (2) of the 55 management plans under study; 49% (27) were written by BC Parks staff; 31% (17) were written by a specialized division of the BC Parks Department; and 16% (9) plans were jointly written with First Nations or non-government organizations (Appendix II).
Table 8 Plan Attribute Data Collected During Coding. ATTRIBUTE VARIABLES
1 ProtectedAreaSize(1)<1hectare;(2)1–100hectares;(3)100–1,000hectares(4)1,000–10,000hectares;and(5)>10,000hectares
2 DominatingZoningType(1)IntensiveRecreationZone;(2)SpecialNaturalFeatureZone;(3)NaturalEnvironmentalZone;(4)NatureRecreationZone;and(5)WildernessRecreationZone
3 PlanAuthorship 1)Joint-initiative;(2)Consultant;(3)BCParkDivision;and(4)BCParkStaff
4 BCParkDistrict(1)Cariboo;(2)Kootenay;(3)LowerMainland;(4)Okanagan;(5)Omineca;(6)Skeena;(7)SouthCoast;(8)Thompson;(9)VancouverIsland;and(10)WestCoast
5 ParkClassification (1)ClassAor(2)ClassAcombinedwithrespectiveprotectedarea(s)
6 YearPlanPublished Years:2000-2015
4.3 Influence of Attributes on Plan Score
To address the second research objective of assessing the influence of area and plan attributes on the comprehensiveness of each management plan, area and plan attributes were analyzed in relation to the comprehensive evaluation plan scores. This study analyzed the following attributes: (1) Protected Area Size; (2) Dominant Zoning in the Park; (3) Authorship of the Plan (4) BC Park District; (5) Park Classification; and (6) Year the Plan was Published (Table 8). The following sections will review the results of this analysis, starting with the influence of protected area size and dominant zoning on overall protected area management plan comprehensiveness.
4.3.1 Protected Area Size Influence
Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for BC Park Protected Area Size Attribute on Comprehensive Plan Scores
ProtectedAreaSizeComprehensiveMean
ScoreStandardDeviation
NumberofPlans
1 < 1 hectare 12.0
12 1 - 100 (ha) 16.2 7.7 53 100 - 1,000 (ha) 25.8 6.4 144 1,000 - 10,000 (ha) 24.3 3.8 11
29
5 > 10,000 (ha) 28.9 5.2 24 All Plans 25.7 6.7 55
It was expected that protected area size would have an influence over the overall plan comprehensiveness score, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted to identify differences among five protected area size categories found in the management plans under study: (1) < 1 hectare; (2) 1 – 100 hectares; (3) 100 – 1,000 hectares (4) 1,000 – 10,000 hectares; and (5) > 10,000 hectares. The plan comprehensiveness mean scores differed significantly across the five protected area size categories, F(4,50) = 7.46, p = 0.000. This suggests a difference exists between the protected area size and the comprehensiveness of its plan. Parks and protected areas larger than 10,000 hectares have the highest comprehensiveness mean score with 28.9 (SD = 5.2), while the less than one hectare park, which only occurred once in the management plans under study, had the lowest comprehensiveness score of 12 (Table 9). The parks sized 1 – 100 hectares received the second lowest comprehensiveness mean scores of 16.2 (SD = 7.7). The parks sized 100 – 1,000 hectares and 1,000 – 10,000 hectares had comprehensiveness mean scores of 25.8 (SD = 6.4) and 24.3 (SD = 3.8), which was near the total overall mean score 25.7 (SD = 6.7) for all BC Park management plans. These results reveal a difference between management plan comprehensiveness and park proportions; this suggests that park area planning might be more devoted to the comprehensiveness of larger park management plans. 4.3.2 Dominant Zoning Influence
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for BC Park Dominant Zoning Type Attribute on Comprehensive Plan Scores.
DominantZoningTypeComprehensiveMeanScore
StandardDeviation
NumberofPlans
1 Intensive Recreation 12.0
12 Special Natural Feature 21.3 8.9 33 Natural Environment 25.3 8.5 74 Nature Recreation 23.9 6.9 175 Wilderness Recreation 28.1 4.9 27
All Plans 25.7 6.7 55 Assuming that the parks’ dominant zoning type (majority of land use in the park) would have a strong influence on the overall plan comprehensiveness score, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted to identify differences among the five dominant zoning categories found in the management plan sample: (1) Intensive Recreation Zone; (2) Special Natural Feature Zone; (3) Natural Environmental Zone; (4) Nature Recreation Zone; and (5) Wilderness Recreation Zone. The plan comprehensiveness mean scores differed significantly across the five dominant zoning categories, F(4,50) = 2.87, p = 0.032. This suggests a difference between the dominant zoning type (or park characteristic) and the comprehensiveness of its plan. Parks with the majority of its area zoned Wilderness Recreational have the highest mean plan score with 28.1 (SD = 4.9), while the Intensive Recreation Zoning only occurred once as being the dominant zoning type in a management plan, had the lowest comprehensive score of 12.0. The Nature Environmental Zone plans have a mean score of 25.3 (SD = 8.5), which
30
was approximately the overall mean 25.7 (SD = 6.7) for all BC Park management plans. These results reveal a difference between management plan comprehensiveness and dominant zoning or primary park form, suggesting that Wilderness Recreation Parks may have more developed conservation and recreational sequencers catered to the development and planning of park management plans. 4.3.3 Plan Authorship Influence
It was expected that a plans’ Authorship would have an influence on the overall plan comprehensiveness score, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted to identify differences among the four Authorship categories found in the management plans under study: (1) joint initiative; (2) Consultant; (3) BC Park Division; or (4) BC Park Staff. The plan comprehensiveness mean scores did not significantly differ across the four Authorship categories: F(3,51) = 2.12, p = 0.109. These figures indicate that the plan authors did not significantly differ in their comprehensiveness when writing BC Parks management plans. The management plans that used a joint initiative approach to plan writing had the highest mean plan score with 30.6 (SD = 2.0), comparatively the plans written by consultant (Future Legacy Consulting) had the lowest mean plan score with 22.5 (SD = 1.41). The plans authored solely by BC Parks or BC Parks’ Divisions had mean scores of 24.5 and 25.5, similar to the total comprehensiveness mean score for all plans 25.7 (SD = 6.7).
4.3.4 BC Park District Influence
Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for BC Park District Attribute on Comprehensive Plan Scores.
BCParkDistrictComprehensiveMean
ScoreStandardDeviation
NumberofPlans
1 Cariboo 26.1 8.0 82 Kootenay 28.1 3.9 83 Lower Mainland 23.0 4.8 54 Okanagan 24.9 5.5 65 Omineca 25.5
1
6 Skeena 31.8 3.3 87 South Coast 25.3 6.7 28 Thompson 17.3 5.7 99 Vancouver Island 28.6 3.5 5
10 West Coast 29.8 6.7 3 All Plans 25.7 6.7 55
It was imagined that BC Park Districts, where the park was located, should have no influence over the overall plan comprehensiveness score, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted to identify differences among ten BC Park District categories identified in the management plans under study: (1) Cariboo; (2) Kootenay; (3) Lower Mainland; (4) Okanagan; (5) Omineca; (6) Skeena; (7) South Coast; (8) Thompson; (9) Vancouver Island; and (10) West Coast. The plan comprehensiveness mean scores differed significantly across the ten BC Park District categories: F(9,45) = 4.21, p = 0.001. This suggests a difference exists between the BC Park District the park is
31
located in and the comprehensiveness of its plan. Parks and protected areas in the Skeena BC Park District had the highest comprehensiveness mean score with 31.8 (SD = 3.3), while the parks and protected areas in the Thompson and Lower Mainland BC Park Districts, had the lowest and second lowest comprehensiveness score of 17.3 (SD = 5.7) and 23.0 (SD = 4.8) (Table 11). The comprehensive mean scores for BC Park Districts: Cariboo 26.1 (SD = 8.0); Kootenay 28.1 (SD = 3.9); Vancouver Island 28.6 (SD = 3.5); and West Coast 29.8 (SD = 6.7) were higher than the overall mean score for all plans 25.7 (SD = 6.7). The comprehensive mean scores for BC Park Districts: Okanagan 24.9 (SD = 5.5); Omineca 25.5; and South Coast 25.3 (SD = 6.7); were near the total overall mean score 25.7 (SD = 6.7) for all BC Park management plans. These results reveal a difference between management plan comprehensiveness and park geographic location in the province; this suggests that park area planning might be variable in terms of comprehensiveness based on the location of the park and protected area. 4.3.5 Classification Influence
The parks’ classification: (1) Class A or (2) Class A combined with respective protected area(s), were found to have no significant difference on overall plan comprehensiveness mean scores. Results of an independent sample t-test confirmed that there is no significant difference between the plan comprehensiveness scores of Class A Parks or Class A Parks combined with respective protected area(s); t(53) = -0.867, p = 0.39. The 44 Class A Parks, had an average plan score of 25.4 (SD = 6.9), while the 11 Class A combined protected area management plans had an average score of 27.3 (SD = 5.8).
4.3.6 Year of Publication Influence
Using Pearson’s r correlation, no correlation was found between the overall plan comprehensiveness score, and the year of plan publication (2000 – 2015); r = -0.127, n = 55, p = 0.354, two-tailed. These figures indicate that the year of management plan publication did not significantly differ in their comprehensiveness.
32
5.0 DISCUSSION This chapter will conclude the paper by revisiting the eight BC Parks Purposes of a Management Plan, in light of the paper’s findings. The chapter will conclude with the author’s recommendations, and the limitations of the methodology.
5.1 Assessing BC Parks Purposes of a Management Plan This section comments on Table 3, by assessing the eight BC Park Purposes of a Management Plan, as found in the results of the plan quality evaluation protocol and content analysis of the 55 park management plans.
1) Describe the ecological integrity and the primary values for which the protected area was established and define their desired future condition.
BC Parks did fairly well in achieving this Management Plan Purpose. Generally, the Values, Issues, and Vision Statement category of internal plan scores obtained the second highest mean frequency score for all the Values, Issues, and Vision Statement indicators, on average 72% of all management plans contained indicators of this category (Table 6).
2) Ensure that the management of protected areas meets legislated requirements and other mandated commitments.
This purpose is not being met by BC Parks’ management plans. According to the Park Act: the legislated requirement of “official plans” is to describe park boundaries (BC Park Act, 8(1)). The inherent to BC Parks mandate is the requirement to maintain a balance between BC Parks' goals for protecting natural environments and outdoor recreation. All the management plans under study met the legislated requirement describing park boundaries. However, given the complex nature of balancing goals for protecting natural environment and outdoor recreation, the management plans scored low on the mean frequency of accounting for interdependent actions in plan scope category. On average less than half (46%) of all management plans contained indicators of this category, which suggests BC Management plans are not coordinating planning efforts in meeting their mandate.
3) Ensure that ecological, cultural and recreation management objectives are clearly defined.
This purpose is being met by BC Parks’ management plans. The goals, objectives, policy, and strategy framework category of internal plan scores obtained the highest mean frequency score for all the goals, objectives, policy, and strategy framework indicators, on average 90% of all management plans contained indicators of this category.
4) Gain First Nations, public and interest groups’ involvement in protected area
33
management.
BC Parks’ management plans did poorly in achieving this Management Plan Purpose. The participation of actors category of external plan scores obtained the second lowest mean frequency score for all the external plan category indicators, on average only 36% of all management plans contained indicators of this category.
5) Provide a framework for decision-making and to set priorities for implementing those decisions.
BC Parks did fairly well in achieving this Management Plan Purpose. The goals, objectives, policy, and strategy framework category of internal plan scores obtained the highest mean frequency score for all the goals, objectives, policy, and strategy framework indicators, on average 90% of all management plans contained indicators of this category.
6) Identify the types, location and threshold of uses and activities appropriate within different parts of a protected area including appropriate levels of visitor use and facility development.
BC Parks’ management plans did poorly in achieving this Management Plan Purpose. The Spatial Design category of internal plan scores obtained a relatively low mean frequency score for all internal plan category indicators. Typically the indicators in this category take into account the mentioning of land use thresholds and capacity for appropriate uses. However, on average only 35% of all management plans contained indicators of this category.
7) Guide the appropriate use of limited resources by identifying, describing and prioritizing the management actions required to achieve the objectives for the protected area.
This purpose is not being met by BC Parks’ management plans. The implementation category of internal plan scores obtained the second lowest mean frequency score for all the implementation indicators, on average only 31% of all management plans contained indicators of this category.
8) Serve as a tool to inform the public, governments and BC Parks staff of the vision, management direction and priorities for protected areas.
BC Parks’ management plans did poorly in achieving this Management Plan Purpose. The encourage opportunities to use plan category of external plan scores obtained the lowest mean frequency score for all the external plan category indicators, on average only 33% of all management plans contained indicators of this category.
34
5.2 Recommendations Two general recommendations could be drawn from the findings: (1) the problems that relate to the narrow legal requirement of management plans and (2) the lack of monitoring and implementation indicators within management plans.
First, scholars point to the benefits of a mandated requirement for management plans: Brody & Highfield (2005) acknowledged a correlation in their analysis of plan quality and environmental compliance when strict sanctions for failure to implement required policies were present. Berke & French (1994) examined the influence of state mandates on the content and quality of comprehensive plans, which indicated that state mandates had a measurable effect in enhancing plan quality. Dalton & Burby (1994) findings suggest the quality of local plans improved with state environmental mandates. Additionally, they found that state mandates strengthened local planning agency commitment, which in turn led to increased elected officials’ support for development management objectives. These findings suggest: BC Parks’ management plans would benefit if their legislative requirement were expanded to include greater accountability for required policies.
The second general conclusion relates to the important role of monitoring and implementation indicators within management plans. Based on the plan quality evaluation, many of the plans lack monitoring and implementation details. The lack of specificity can be attributed to the differences in comprehensiveness in smaller park and protected area management plans that account for the majority of park and protected areas in British Columbia. Performance measurement is critical for evaluating the progress towards the plan’s goal after implementation. More specifically, monitoring and implementation actions that identify the responsible party, estimate costs, include measureable indicators and a timeframe for implementation. Finally, plans rarely contain provisions for monitoring to the degree to which the goals have been achieved or monitor indicators that track progress towards these goals (Berke et al., 2006). These plan shortcomings make successful plan implementation very difficult as specific action steps may not be sufficiently outlined and progress is nearly impossible to measure without a monitoring strategy.
The recommendation is: resources must be available to adequately action monitoring and implementation plans unique to a protected area. In addition, park-planning staff should be involved in plan development and implementation to ensure the action steps are realistic. Each action step should be linked to the budget, have a timeline, and be assigned to a staff person or department for implementation. A “Did it work?” monitoring strategy would be effective for the management plans that included adaptive management approach strategies; without a monitoring strategy, adaptive management would be nearly impossible.
5.3 Limitations
35
This paper reflects the author’s attempt for positive contribution to the planning scholarship’s ongoing search for the “good plan” (Berke & Godschalk 2009). Plans can rarely reflect the entirety of a park and protected area management program and all of the operational activities relating to park and protected area management. Neither interviews nor surveys with BC Park staff related to plan development and content were included in this research. This limits the known context of many of the plans, as the reasons for writing the plan and guiding principles may not always be explicit in the document. Means comparison tests are only a small first step in understanding the relationship between plan quality and plan implementation. More in-depth statistical methods are needed to better explain the factors contributing to plan comprehensiveness, including spatial regression analysis and an expanded set of variables that contains socioeconomic related controls.
5.4 Future Research The next step in evaluating park and protected area management plans is to conduct an implementation evaluation of the plans, using the plan contents as a baseline or comparison to the actual operational management decisions and activities. An implementation evaluation will help provide a deeper understanding of how these plans are being used.
REFERENCES:PlanEvaluationBCParks Alexander, M. (2008). Management planning for nature conservation. A theoretical basis & practical
guide. Barmouth: Springer.
Baer, W. C. (1997). General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329-344.
Berke, P.R., & Godschalk, D. R. (2009). Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 227-240.
Berke, P.R., Godschalk, D. R., Kaiser, E.J., & Rodriguez, D.A. (2006). Urban land use planning. University of Illinois Press.
Berke, P. R., & French, S. P. (1994). The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. Journal of planning education and research, 13(4), 237-250.
Bunnell, G., & Jepson Jr, E. J. (2011). The effect of mandated planning on plan quality: a fresh look at what makes “a good plan”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 338-353.
British Columbia. BC Parks. (2014). 2013/14 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/research/year_end_report/bc-parks-annual-report-13-14.pdf
British Columbia. BC Parks. (2013a). Guide to Writing Protected Area Management Plans March 2013. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/docs/guide-to-writing-mp.pdf
British Columbia. BC Parks. (2013b). Protected Area Management Planning Manual 2013. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/docs/management-planning-manual.pdf
British Columbia. BC Parks. (2013c). Strategic Management Planning Policy For Ecological Reserves, Parks, Conservancies, Protected Areas and Recreation 2013. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/docs/mp-strategic-policy.pdf
British Columbia. BC Parks. (2012). Zoning Framework June 1, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planning/docs/zoning-framework.pdf
Brody, S. D., & Highfield, W. E. (2005). Does planning work?: Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 159-175.
Dalton, L. C., & Burby, R. J. (1994). Mandates, plans, and planners: building local commitment to development management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(4), 444-461.
Dalton, Linda C. (1989). The Limits of Regulation: Evidence from Local Plan Implementation in California. Journal of the American Planning Association 55,2: 151-68.
Eagles, P. F., Coburn, J., & Swartman, B. (2014). Plan quality and plan detail of visitor and tourism policies in Ontario Provincial Park management plans. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7, 44-54.
Eagles, Paul F. J., Mark E. Havitz, Bonnie L. McCutcheon, Windekind Buteau-Duitschaever, and Troy D. Glover. (2010). The Perceived Implications of an Outsourcing Model on Governance within British Columbia Provincial Parks in Canada: A Quantitative Study. Environmental Management 17(02): 231-248.
Eagles, P.F.J., & McCool, S.F. (2002). Tourism in national parks and protected areas: Planning and
management. New York, NY: CABI. Eagles, P.F.J., McCool, S.F., & Haynes, C.D.A. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas: Guidelines
for planning and management. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Freelon, D. G. (2010). “ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a web service.” Int. J. Internet Sci., 5(1),
20–33. Hopkins, L. D. (2001). Urban development: The logic of making plans. Island Press. IUCN & WCMC (1994) Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, Gland, Switzerland IUCN (1992) World Park Congress Caracas: Recommendations and Action Plan Kaiser, E. J., & Davies, J. (1999). What a good plan should contain: A proposed model. Carolina planning,
24(2), 29-41. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411-433. Lyles, W., & Stevens, M. (2014). Plan Quality Evaluation 1994–2012 Growth and Contributions,
Limitations, and New Directions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X14549752. McNeeley, J. A. (1993). Parks for life: report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected
Areas, 10-21 February 1992. In Parks for life: report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, 10-21 February 1992. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).
Norton, R. K. (2008). Using content analysis to evaluate local master plans and zoning codes. Land Use
Policy, 25(3), 432-454. Phillips, A., & World Conservation Union. (2002). Management guidelines for IUCN category V protected
areas: Protected landscapes/seascapes (Vol. 9). IUCN--the World Conservation Union. Stevens, M. R., Lyles, W., & Berke, P. R. (2014). Measuring and reporting intercoder reliability in plan
quality evaluation research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 77-93.
Stevens, M. R. (2013). Evaluating the quality of official community plans in Southern British Columbia. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(4), 471-490.
Talen, E. (1996). Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of planning literature, 10(3), 248-259.
Thomas, L., & Middleton, J. (2003). Guidelines for management planning of protected areas (Vol. 10). Gland Cambridge: Iucn.
VALUES,ISSUES,ANDVISIONSTATEMENTPROTOCOL
ITEMDESCRIPTION PercentAgreement Krippendorf'sAlpha protocolfrequency percentofallplans
1Is there a preliminary assessment of major trends and impacts of forecasted change during the future planning period?
81.8 0.39 11 20.0%
2Is there a review of the problems and issues currently or potentially facing park management?
85.5 0.60 46 83.6%
3
Is there a vision statement that identifies in words an over-all image of what the stakeholders or authorities want the park to be and look like?
98.2 0.90 49 89.1%
4
Does the plan contain a value and role section providing the reader with information about why the protected area is important in a local, regional, and provincial context?
98.2 0.00 55 100.0%
PROTOCOLITEM
DESCRIPTION PercentAgreement Krippendorf'sAlpha protocolfrequency percentofallplans
5 Is there a description of Natural Biological Features and Significance? 96.4 -0.01 55 100.0%
6 Is there a description of Geological or Physiographical Features and Factors? 83.6 0.43 46 83.6%
7Is there a description of Cultural Features and Significance (Historical and Archaeological)?
90.9 0.50 47 85.5%
8Is there a description of Recreational opportunities (Current, Future, and Historical Uses)?
96.4 -0.01 55 100.0%
9
Is there a description of Public Access and Options (specifically: actual or potential demand, accessibility of the site, access within the site, carrying capacity of the site)?
89.1 0.44 49 89.1%
10 Is there a description of inappropriate activities and uses in the protected area? 92.7 0.76 44 80.0%
11 Are future projections included for biological features? 96.4 0.49 2 3.6%
12 Are future projections included for recreational features? 96.4 -0.01 1 1.8%
13Are zoning maps included that display information that is clear, relevant, and comprehensible
89.1 0.68 41 74.5%
14 Are data in the plan cited or validated or critically scrutinized? 81.8 0.63 25 45.5%
15 Are methods cited for deriving facts? 81.8 0.07 5 9.1%
16 Are projections clearly tied to plan’s policies? 94.5 -0.02 1 1.8%
INTERNALPLAN-QUALITYCRITERIA
BCParksManagementPlans-QualityEvaluationProtocol
FACTBASEDescriptionandAnalysisofKeyFeaturesofLocalProtectedArea
TechniquesUsedtoClearlyIdentifyandExplainFact
APPENDIX I
PROTOCOLITEM
DESCRIPTION PercentAgreement Krippendorf'sAlpha protocolfrequency percentofallplans
17 Are objectives clearly stated? 92.7 0.30 53 96.4%
18Are strategies internally consistent with objectives wherein each strategy is clearly tied to a specific objective?
89.1 0.57 44 80.0%
PROTOCOLITEM
DESCRIPTION PercentAgreement Krippendorf'sAlpha protocolfrequency percentofallplans
19 Does the plan include a zoning map? 94.5 0.77 47 85.5%
20 Are land use areas related to tenure, rights of way, or accessibility proposals? 83.6 0.51 13 23.6%
21 Are land use areas related to infrastructure proposals? 96.4 -0.01 2 3.6%
22 Are land use areas sized to accommodate natural processes? 81.8 0.58 16 29.1%
23 Are actions for implementing plans clearly identified? 80.0 0.56 31 56.4%
24 Are the actions for implementing plans prioritized? 87.3 0.72 33 60.0%
25 Are timelines for implementation identified? 96.4 0.84 6 10.9%
26 Are organizations with responsibility to implement policies identified? 94.5 0.77 6 10.9%
27 Are sources of funding to implement the plan identified? 100.0 undefined* 0 0.0%
28 Are the actions derived directly from the objectives? 90.9 0.77 13 23.6%
29Are goals quantified based on measurable objectives (i.e. Twenty percent of the park revenue goes towards developing facilities)?
94.5 0.55 3 5.5%
30Are indicators of each objective included (i.e. annual percentage of park revenues used towards developing facilities)?
94.5 0.55 5 9.1%
31Are organizations identified that are responsible for monitoring and/or providing data for indicators?
96.4 0.49 3 5.5%
32
Is there a timetable for updating the plan? (Specifically every five years, or triggered by a public request or changing conditions within the protected area including: significant environmental change; discovery of a significant value; significant new visitor activities; or urgent need for ecosystem restoration).
90.9 0.82 27 49.1%
PLANPROPOSALSSpatialDesign:
Implementation:
Monitoring:
GOALS/OBJECTIVESANDPOLICY/STRATEGYFRAMEWORK
PROTOCOLITEM
DESCRIPTION PercentAgreement Krippendorf'sAlpha protocolfrequency percentofallplans
33 Is the plan imaginative, offering compelling courses of action that inspire people to act? 92.7 0.47 6 10.9%
34
Does the plan provide clear explanations of alternative courses of action that enhance community flexibility and adaptation in dealing with complex situations?
96.4 0.81 7 12.7%
35
Is the legal context that requires planning explained in reference to the authority of the Ministry of Environment or BC Parks (i.e mandates, identify top priority issues that need to be addressed to ensure legal defensibility)?
89.1 0.78 33 60.0%
36Is the administrative authority for planning indicated (council or planning commission resolution, provincial, federal requirements)?
96.4 0.93 30 54.5%
CREATECLEARVIEWSANDUNDERSTANDINGOFPLANSPROTOCOL
ITEMDESCRIPTION PercentAgreement Krippendorf'sAlpha protocolfrequency percentofallplans
37 Is a table of contents included? 100.0 undefined* 55 100.0%
38 Is a glossary of terms and definitions included? 100.0 1.00 6 10.9%
39 Is there an executive summary? 100.0 1.00 25 45.5%
40 Is there cross-referencing of issues, goals, objectives, and policies? 98.2 0.95 14 25.5%
41Is plain neutral language used? (avoids the use of poor grammatical verbose, jargon, and unidentified acronyms).
98.2 0.79 52 94.5%
42 Are clear illustrations used (e.g. diagrams, pictures)? 89.1 0.78 29 52.7%
43 Is spatial information clearly illustrated on maps? 92.7 0.68 48 87.3%
44 Are supporting documents included with the plan (scientific reports, surveys)? 85.5 0.69 30 54.5%
PROTOCOLITEM
DESCRIPTION PercentAgreement Krippendorf'sAlpha protocolfrequency percentofallplans
45
Are horizontal connections with other local plans and programs explained? (Specifically: Non-government agencies, corporate plans, First Nations Engagement and Consultation/Reconciliation Protocols).
85.5 0.71 31 56.4%
46
Are vertical connections with other government plans or policies and programs explained? (Specifically: provincial ministries, regional/federal boards).
85.5 0.65 41 74.5%
ACCOUNTINGFORINTERDEPENDENTACTIONSINPLANSCOPE
EXTERNALPLANQUALITYENCOURAGEOPPORTUNITIESTOUSEPLAN
47
Is a process or policy for external coordination explained for providing any infrastructure and services, protecting natural systems, and adapting or mitigating natural hazards?
80.0 0.60 34 61.8%
48Is there an archive of actions and investigations, to inform future adaptive measures?
98.2 0.00 0 0.0%
PROTOCOLITEM
DESCRIPTION PercentAgreement Krippendorf'sAlpha protocolfrequency percentofallplans
49Are organizations and individuals that were involved in plan preparation/writing identified?
85.5 0.64 38 69.1%
50Is there an explanation of why the organizations and individuals identified in the plan were involved?
83.6 0.58 15 27.3%
51Is there a clear explanation of how stakeholder involvement in the plan is related to prior planning actions?
87.3 0.30 8 14.5%
52Does the plan include a standalone objective and strategy for stakeholder relationships? (Alexander 2000b, 2005)
72.7 0.43 15 27.3%
53Is the plan’s evolution described, including effects on citizens and private stakeholder groups?
89.1 0.66 12 21.8%
54
Does the plan explain the support and involvement of key public agencies (provincial public works, economic development, local municipalities)?
76.4 0.48 19 34.5%
55
Does the plan explain the support and involvement of key First Nations’ collaboration or First Nations’ goals and objectives for the area?
83.6 0.65 22 40.0%
56 Does the plan incorporate input from a broad spectrum of stakeholders? 83.6 0.67 24 43.6%
PARTICIPATIONOFACTORS
Protected Area Name
Plan Quality Evaluation
Score
Size of Protected area (Ha)
Year of Publication District
Park Classifica-
tion*
Dominant Zoning Type**
Plan Authorship***
Anstey Hunakwa Park 23 6852 2013 West Coast A WRZ BC Park Staff
Atna River Park 30 21092 2010 Skeena A WRZ Joint-Initiative
Beaver Creek Provincial Park 29 89 2007 Kootenay A NRZBC Park Division
Bonaparte Provincial Park 23 11848 2001 Thompson A WRZ BC Park StaffBowron Lake, Cariboo Mountains and Cariboo River Provincial Parks 29 256006 2002 Cariboo A, A, A WRZ BC Park StaffBrackendale Eagles Park, Baynes Island Ecological Reserve, Tantalus Park 30 12180 2012 South Coast A, ER, A NRZ Joint-Initiative
Burgoyne Bay Park 36 524 2015 West Coast A NRZ BC Park StaffBurnie-Shea Park and Burnie River Protected Area Management Plan 31 36881 2010 Skeena A, PA WRZ Joint-Initiative
Cape Scott Provincial Park 29 22220 2003Vancouver
Island A WRZBC Park Division
Chilliwack Lake Park and Ehilliwack River Ecological Reserve 24 9180 2000
Lower Mainland A, ER NEZ BC Park Staff
Churn Creek Park 39 36747 2000 Cariboo PA NEZ BC Park Staff
Denison-Bonneau Park 26 376 2013 Okanagan A NRZ BC Park StaffDesolation Sound and Copeland Islands Marine Park and Tux'wnech Okeover Arm Provincial Park 21 8876 2008
Lower Mainland A, A, A NRZ
BC Park Division
Dragon Mountain Park 21 1773 2015 Cariboo A NRZ BC Park StaffE.C. Manning Provincial Park and Cascade Recreation Area 20 89789 2004 Okanagan A WRZ
BC Park Division
Francis Point Provincial Park and Ecological Reserve 18 82 2008
Lower Mainland A,ER SNFZ
BC Park Division
Gladestone Provincial Park 22 39322 2001 Okanagan A WRZ
Future Legacy Consulting Group
Goat Range Provincial Park 31 78947 2004 Kootenay A WRZBC Park Division
Golden Ears Park 21 62539 2013 South Coast A WRZ BC Park Staff
Granby Provincial Park 24 40845 2001 Okanagan A WRZ
Future Legacy Consulting Group
Hamber Park 26 25137 2015 Kootenay A WRZ BC Park StaffItcha Ilgachuz Provincial Park and Ilgachuz Range Ecological Reserve 29 111231 2002 Cariboo A, ER WRZ
BC Park Division
Junction Sheep Range Provincial Park 32 4778 2006 Cariboo A WRZBC Park Division
Kakwa Provincial Park and Protected Area 26 170890 2006 Omineca A, PA WRZBC Park Division
Kikomun Creek Park 23 682 2014 Kootenay A NRZ BC Park Staff
Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park 32 32035 2010 Kootenay A WRZ BC Park Staff
Koksilah River Provincial Park 33 210 2001Vancouver
Island A NEZ BC Park Staff
APPENDIX II
Lac le Jeune Provincial Park 12 213 2001 Cariboo A NEZ BC Park Staff
Malaspina Provincial Park 24 572 2008Vancouver
Island A NRZBC Park Division
Monashee Park 36 22722 2014 Okanagan A WRZ BC Park Staff
Monte Lake Park 9 5 2012 Thompson A NRZBC Park Division
Moose Valley and Flat Lake Provincial Parks 24 6666 2002 Cariboo A, A NEZBC Park Division
Morice Lake Park 31 52430 2010 Skeena A WRZ Joint-Initiative
Mount Assiniboine Park 34 44113 2012 Kootenay A WRZ BC Park Staff
Mount Erskine Provincial Park 32 107 2012Vancouver
Island A SNFZ Joint-Initiative
Mount Maxwell Provincial Park 27 231 2012Vancouver
Island A NRZ BC Parks
Nadina Mountain Park 26 2789 2010 Skeena A WRZ Joint-Initiative
Nenikekh/Nanika-Kidprice Park 34 17006 2010 Skeena A WRZ Joint-Initiative
Old Man Lake Park 32 326 2010 Skeena A NRZ Joint-Initiative
Pillar Park 15 2 2014 Thompson A SNFZ BC Park Staff
Quesnel Lake Park 25 992 2015 Cariboo A NRZ BC Park Staff
Roche Lake Park 21 2041 2013 Thompson A WRZ BC Park Staff
Roderick Haig-Brown Provincial Park 24 1076 2002 Thompson A NEZBC Park Division
Ruckle Park 32 529 2014 West Coast A NRZ BC Park Staff
Sasquatch Provincial Park 23 1220 2002Lower
Mainland A NEZBC Park Division
Say Nuth Khaw Yum / Indian Arm Provincial Park 31 6688 2010
Lower Mainland A WRZ Joint-Initiative
Seton Portage Historic Park 12 1 2012 Thompson A IRZ BC Park Staff
Seven Sisters Park and Protected Area 38 39200 2003 Skeena A, PA WRZBC Park Division
Stikine Country Protected Areas: Mount Edziza Provincial Park, Mount Edziza Protected Area (Proposed), Stikine River Provincial Park, Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Provincial Park, Gladys Lake Ecological Reserve, Pitman River Protected Area, Chukachida Protected Area, Tatlatui Provincial Park. 34 1404861 2003 Skeena
A, A, A, ER, PA, PA, A WRZ
BC Park Division
Valhalla Park 25 50060 2012 Kootenay A WRZ BC Park Staff
Victor Lake Park 12 15 2012 Thompson A NRZ BC Park Staff
Wap Creek Park 24 328 2013 Okanagan A NRZ BC Park Staff
West Arm Provincial Park 27 25319 2007 Kootenay A WRZBC Park Division
White Lake Park 22 266 2014 Thompson A NRZ BC Park Staff
Yard Creek Park 19 175 2014 Thompson A NRZ BC Park Staff
*Park Classification: ER= Ecological Reserves; PA= Protected Areas; and A= Class A Provincial Park
**Dominant Zoning Type: WRZ= Wilderness Recreation Zone; NRZ= Nature Recreation Zone; NEZ= Natural Environmental Zone;
SNFZ= Special Natural Feature Zone; and IRZ= Intensive Recreatio Zone
***BC Parks Staff= management plans with no clear author; BC Park District= Environmental Stewardship Division or Protected Areas Division;
Joint-Initiative= BC Parks Staff and Squamish Nation or Nature Conservancy of Canada or Tsleil-Waututh Nation or Wet'suwet'en Nation
BCParksManagementPlans-QualityEvaluationProtocolINTERNALPLAN-QUALITYCRITERIA(1-4)
VALUES,ISSUES,ANDVISIONSTATEMENT
1.1 Isthereapreliminaryassessmentofmajortrendsandimpactsofforecastedchangeduringthefutureplanningperiod?
1.2 Isthereadescriptionoftheprotectedarea’sfuturechallengesandopportunitiesthatmightaffecttheabilitytoachievethevisionorobjectives?
1.3 Isthereareviewoftheproblemsandissuescurrentlyorpotentiallyfacingparkmanagement?
1.4 Isthereavisionstatementthatidentifiesinwordsanover-allimageofwhatthestakeholdersorauthoritieswanttheparktobeandlooklike?
1.5 Doestheplancontainavalueandrolesectionprovidingthereaderwithinformationaboutwhytheprotectedareaisimportantinalocal,regional,andprovincialcontext?
FACTBASE
DescriptionandAnalysisofKeyFeaturesofLocalProtectedArea2A.1 IsthereadescriptionofNaturalBiologicalFeaturesandSignificance?2A.2 IsthereadescriptionofGeologicalorPhysiographicalFeaturesand
Factors?2A.3 IsthereadescriptionofCulturalFeaturesandSignificance(Historicaland
Archaeological)?2A.4 IsthereadescriptionofRecreationalopportunities(Current,Future,and
HistoricalUses)?2A.5 IsthereadescriptionofPublicAccessandOptions(specifically:actualor
potentialdemand,accessibilityofthesite,accesswithinthesite,carryingcapacityofthesite)?
2A.6 Isthereadescriptionofresearch,education,orresourcedevelopmentactivitiesintheprotectedarea?
2A.7 Isthereadescriptionofinappropriateactivitiesandusesintheprotectedarea?
2A.8 Arefutureprojectionsincludedforbiologicalfeatures?2A.9 Arefutureprojectionsincludedforrecreationalfeatures?
TechniquesUsedtoClearlyIdentifyandExplainFact2B.1 Arezoningmapsincludedthatdisplayinformationthatisclear,relevant,
andcomprehensible?
APPENDIX III
2B.2 Isaggregatedatapresent,relevant,andmeaningfultotheplanningarea?2B.3 Aredataintheplancitedorvalidatedorcriticallyscrutinized?2B.4 Arefactsusedtosupportreasoningofexplanationforissues?2B.5 Arefactsusedtosupportreasoningofexplanationforpolicydirection?2B.6 Aremethodscitedforderivingfacts?2B.7 Doestheplanincludebaselinespatialdataandinventoriesforecological
features?2B.8 Doestheplanincludebaselinespatialdataandinventoriesforrecreational
features?2B.9 Areprojectionsclearlytiedtoplan’spolicies?
GOALS/OBJECTIVESANDPOLICY/STRATEGYFRAMEWORK
3.1 Areobjectivesclearlystated?243.2 Arestrategiesinternallyconsistentwithobjectiveswhereineachstrategyis
clearlytiedtoaspecificobjective?3.3 Arestrategiestiedtoaspecificactionandtechnicallyfeasible?(egvague=
reducewildlifedisturbances;detailedpolicy=eliminateunauthorisedmotorvehicleaccessinwildlifeareas).
3.4 Arestrategiesmandatory(withwordslikeshall,will,require,must)asopposedtosuggestive(withwordslikeconsider,should,may)?
PLANPROPOSALSSpatialDesign:
4A.1 Doestheplanincludeazoningmap?4A.2 Arekeymanagementobjectivesandstrategiesdiscussedoutsideofthe
zoningsectionsoftheplan(andnotexclusivelyintroducedinthezoningplansection)?
4A.3 Arelanduseareasrelatedtotenure,rightsofway,oraccessibilityproposals?
4A.4 Arelanduseareasrelatedtoinfrastructureproposals?4A.5 Arelanduseareassizedtoaccommodatenaturalprocesses?4A.6 Areproposedlocationsoflandusestiedtosuitabilityoflandscape
features?Implementation:
4B.1 Areactionsforimplementingplansclearlyidentified?4B.2 Aretheactionsforimplementingplansprioritized?4B.3 Aretimelinesforimplementationidentified?4B.4 Areorganizationswithresponsibilitytoimplementpoliciesidentified?4B.5 Aresourcesoffundingtoimplementtheplanidentified?4B.6 Aretheactionsderiveddirectlyfromtheobjectives?
Monitoring:
4C.1 Aregoalsquantifiedbasedonmeasurableobjectives(i.e.Twentypercentoftheparkrevenuegoestowardsdevelopingfacilities)?
4C.2 Areindicatorsofeachobjectiveincluded(i.e.annualpercentageofparkrevenuesusedtowardsdevelopingfacilities)?
4C.3 Areorganizationsidentifiedthatareresponsibleformonitoringand/orprovidingdataforindicators?
4C.4 Isthereatimetableforupdatingtheplan?(Specificallyeveryfiveyears,ortriggeredbyapublicrequestorchangingconditionswithintheprotectedareaincluding:significantenvironmentalchange;discoveryofasignificantvalue;significantnewvisitoractivities;orurgentneedforecosystemrestoration).
EXTERNALPLANQUALITY
ENCOURAGEOPPORTUNITIESTOUSEPLAN5.1 Istheplanimaginative,offeringcompellingcoursesofactionthatinspire
peopletoact?5.2 Doestheplanprovideclearexplanationsofalternativecoursesofactionthat
enhancecommunityflexibilityandadaptationindealingwithcomplexsituations?
5.3 IsthelegalcontextthatrequiresplanningexplainedinreferencetotheauthorityoftheMinistryofEnvironmentorBCParks(i.emandates,identifytoppriorityissuesthatneedtobeaddressedtoensurelegaldefensibility)?
5.4 Istheadministrativeauthorityforplanningindicated(councilorplanningcommissionresolution,provincial,federalrequirements)?
CREATECLEARVIEWSANDUNDERSTANDINGOFPLANS
6.1 Isatableofcontentsincluded?6.2 Isaglossaryoftermsanddefinitionsincluded?6.3 Isthereanexecutivesummary?6.4 Istherecross-referencingofissues,goals,objectives,andpolicies?6.5 Isplainneutrallanguageused?(avoidstheuseofpoorgrammaticalverbose,
jargon,andunidentifiedacronyms).6.6 Areclearillustrationsused(e.g.diagrams,pictures)?6.7 Isspatialinformationclearlyillustratedonmaps?6.8 Aresupportingdocumentsincludedwiththeplan(scientificreports,
surveys)?
ACCOUNTINGFORINTERDEPENDENTACTIONSINPLANSCOPE
7.1 Arehorizontalconnectionswithotherlocalplansandprogramsexplained?(Specifically:Non-governmentagencies,corporateplans,FirstNationsEngagementandConsultation/ReconciliationProtocols).
7.2 Areverticalconnectionswithothergovernmentplansorpoliciesandprogramsexplained?(Specifically:provincialministries,regional/federalboards).
7.3 Isaprocessorpolicyforexternalcoordinationexplainedforprovidinganyinfrastructureandservices,protectingnaturalsystems,andadaptingormitigatingnaturalhazards?
7.4 Isthereanarchiveofactionsandinvestigations,toinformfutureadaptivemeasures?
PARTICIPATIONOFACTORS
8.1 Areorganizationsandindividualsthatwereinvolvedinplanpreparation/writingidentified?
8.2 Isthereanexplanationofwhytheorganizationsandindividualsidentifiedintheplanwereinvolved?
8.3 Isthereaclearexplanationofhowstakeholderinvolvementintheplanisrelatedtopriorplanningactions?
8.4 Doestheplanincludeastandaloneobjectiveandstrategyforstakeholderrelationships?(Alexander2000b,2005)
8.5 Istheplan’sevolutiondescribed,includingeffectsoncitizensandprivatestakeholdergroups?
8.6 Doestheplanexplainthesupportandinvolvementofkeypublicagencies(provincialpublicworks,economicdevelopment,localmunicipalities)?
8.7 DoestheplanexplainthesupportandinvolvementofkeyFirstNations’collaborationorFirstNations’goalsandobjectivesforthearea?
8.8 Doestheplanincorporateinputfromabroadspectrumofstakeholders?
ITEM DESCRIPTIONPercent
AgreementKrippendorff's
αprotocol
frequencypercent of all
plans
1 Is there a preliminary assessment of major trends and impacts of forecasted change during the future planning period? 81.8 0.39 11 20.0%
2Is there a description of the protected area’s future challenges and opportunities that might affect the ability to achieve the vision or objectives?
47.3 -0.07 39 70.9%
3 Is there a review of the problems and issues currently or potentially facing park management? 85.5 0.60 46 83.6%
4Is there a vision statement that identifies in words an over-all image of what the stakeholders or authorities want the park to be and look like?
98.2 0.90 49 89.1%
5Does the plan contain a value and role section providing the reader with information about why the protected area is important in a local, regional, and provincial context?
98.2 0.00 55 100.0%
6 Is there a description of Natural Biological Features and Significance? 96.4 -0.01 55 100.0%
7 Is there a description of Geological or Physiographical Features and Factors? 83.6 0.43 46 83.6%
8 Is there a description of Cultural Features and Significance (Historical and Archaeological)? 90.9 0.50 47 85.5%
9 Is there a description of Recreational opportunities (Current, Future, and Historical Uses)? 96.4 -0.01 55 100.0%
10Is there a description of Public Access and Options (specifically: actual or potential demand, accessibility of the site, access within the site, carrying capacity of the site)?
89.1 0.44 49 89.1%
11 Is there a description of research, education, or resource development activities in the protected area? 61.8 0.22 36 65.5%
12 Is there a description of inappropriate activities and uses in the protected area? 92.7 0.76 44 80.0%
13 Are future projections included for biological features? 96.4 0.49 2 3.6%14 Are future projections included for recreational features? 96.4 -0.01 1 1.8%15 Are zoning maps included that display information that is clear,
relevant, and comprehensible 89.1 0.68 41 74.5%
16 Is aggregate data present, relevant, and meaningful to the planning area? 63.6 0.27 25 45.5%
17 Are data in the plan cited or validated or critically scrutinized? 81.8 0.63 25 45.5%18 Are facts used to support reasoning of explanation for issues? 58.2 0.14 13 23.6%19 Are facts used to support reasoning of explanation for policy
direction? 65.5 0.03 11 20.0%20 Are methods cited for deriving facts? 81.8 0.07 5 9.1%21 Does the plan include baseline spatial data and inventories for
ecological features? 49.1 -0.01 40 72.7%
22 Does the plan include baseline spatial data and inventories for recreational features? 63.6 -0.06 20 36.4%
23 Are projections clearly tied to plan’s policies? 94.5 -0.02 1 1.8%24 Are objectives clearly stated? 92.7 0.30 53 96.4%25 Are strategies internally consistent with objectives wherein each
strategy is clearly tied to a specific objective? 89.1 0.57 44 80.0%
26Are strategies tied to a specific action and technically feasible? (eg vague= reduce wildlife disturbances; detailed policy= eliminate unauthorised motor vehicle access in wildlife areas).
52.7 0.02 33 60.0%
27Are strategies mandatory (with words like shall, will, require, must) as opposed to suggestive (with words like consider, should, may)?
52.7 0.06 23 41.8%
28 Does the plan include a zoning map? 94.5 0.77 47 85.5%
29Are key management objectives and strategies discussed outside of the zoning sections of the plan (and not exclusively introduced in the zoning plan section)?
70.9 0.03 37 67.3%
30 Are land use areas related to tenure, rights of way, or accessibility proposals? 83.6 0.51 13 23.6%
31 Are land use areas related to infrastructure proposals? 96.4 -0.01 2 3.6%32 Are land use areas sized to accommodate natural processes? 81.8 0.58 16 29.1%
APPENDIX IV
33 Are proposed locations of land uses tied to suitability of landscape features? 52.7 -0.14 18 32.7%
34 Are actions for implementing plans clearly identified? 80.0 0.56 31 56.4%35 Are the actions for implementing plans prioritized? 87.3 0.72 33 60.0%36 Are timelines for implementation identified? 96.4 0.84 6 10.9%37 Are organizations with responsibility to implement policies
identified? 94.5 0.77 6 10.9%
38 Are sources of funding to implement the plan identified? 100.0 undefined* 0 0.0%
39 Are the actions derived directly from the objectives? 90.9 0.77 13 23.6%
40Are goals quantified based on measurable objectives (i.e. Twenty percent of the park revenue goes towards developing facilities)?
94.5 0.55 3 5.5%
41 Are indicators of each objective included (i.e. annual percentage of park revenues used towards developing facilities)? 94.5 0.55 5 9.1%
42 Are organizations identified that are responsible for monitoring and/or providing data for indicators? 96.4 0.49 3 5.5%
43
Is there a timetable for updating the plan? (Specifically every five years, or triggered by a public request or changing conditions within the protected area including: significant environmental change; discovery of a significant value; significant new visitor activities; or urgent need for ecosystem restoration).
90.9 0.82 27 49.1%
44 Is the plan imaginative, offering compelling courses of action that inspire people to act? 92.7 0.47 6 10.9%
45Does the plan provide clear explanations of alternative courses of action that enhance community flexibility and adaptation in dealing with complex situations?
96.4 0.81 7 12.7%
46
Is the legal context that requires planning explained in reference to the authority of the Ministry of Environment or BC Parks (i.e mandates, identify top priority issues that need to be addressed to ensure legal defensibility)?
89.1 0.78 33 60.0%
47Is the administrative authority for planning indicated (council or planning commission resolution, provincial, federal requirements)?
96.4 0.93 30 54.5%
48 Is a table of contents included? 100.0 undefined* 55 100.0%
49 Is a glossary of terms and definitions included? 100.0 1.00 6 10.9%50 Is there an executive summary? 100.0 1.00 25 45.5%51 Is there cross-referencing of issues, goals, objectives, and
policies? 98.2 0.95 14 25.5%
52 Is plain neutral language used? (avoids the use of poor grammatical verbose, jargon, and unidentified acronyms). 98.2 0.79 52 94.5%
53 Are clear illustrations used (e.g. diagrams, pictures)? 89.1 0.78 29 52.7%54 Is spatial information clearly illustrated on maps? 92.7 0.68 48 87.3%55 Are supporting documents included with the plan (scientific
reports, surveys)? 85.5 0.69 30 54.5%
56
Are horizontal connections with other local plans and programs explained? (Specifically: Non-government agencies, corporate plans, First Nations Engagement and Consultation/Reconciliation Protocols).
85.5 0.71 31 56.4%
57Are vertical connections with other government plans or policies and programs explained? (Specifically: provincial ministries, regional/federal boards).
85.5 0.65 41 74.5%
58Is a process or policy for external coordination explained for providing any infrastructure and services, protecting natural systems, and adapting or mitigating natural hazards?
80.0 0.60 34 61.8%
59 Is there an archive of actions and investigations, to inform future adaptive measures? 98.2 0.00 0 0.0%
60 Are organizations and individuals that were involved in plan preparation/writing identified? 85.5 0.64 38 69.1%
61 Is there an explanation of why the organizations and individuals identified in the plan were involved? 83.6 0.58 15 27.3%
62 Is there a clear explanation of how stakeholder involvement in the plan is related to prior planning actions? 87.3 0.30 8 14.5%
63 Does the plan include a standalone objective and strategy for stakeholder relationships? (Alexander 2000b, 2005) 72.7 0.43 15 27.3%
64 Is the plan’s evolution described, including effects on citizens and private stakeholder groups? 89.1 0.66 12 21.8%
65Does the plan explain the support and involvement of key public agencies (provincial public works, economic development, local municipalities)?
76.4 0.48 19 34.5%
66Does the plan explain the support and involvement of key First Nations’ collaboration or First Nations’ goals and objectives for the area?
83.6 0.65 22 40.0%
67 Does the plan incorporate input from a broad spectrum of stakeholders? 83.6 0.67 24 43.6%