University of Calgary

PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies Legacy Theses

1998

Communication for ecosystem management:

recommendations for Banff national park

Greenaway, Guy

Greenaway, G. (1998). Communication for ecosystem management: recommendations for Banff

national park (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

doi:10.11575/PRISM/18479

http://hdl.handle.net/1880/26321

master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their

thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through

licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under

copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.

Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

Communication for Ecosystem Management: Recommendations for Banff National Park

by Guy Greenaway

O Guy Greenaway 1998

National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie SeMces services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A O N 4 OtiawaON KtAON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/film, de

reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantid extracts f?om it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author' s ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

ABSTRACT

Communication for Ecosystern Management: Reconmendations for Banff National Park

Guy Greenaway

Prepared in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Masten of Environmental Design

- in the Faculty of Environmental Design. University of Calgary

Supewisor: Dr. Stephen Herrero

Ecosystem management (EM) and communications are two relatively well- analyzed , but poorly integrated areas of study. Ultimately, the success of ecosystem management in an area such as Banff National Park, Canada (BNP) will require that both fields, and their relationship, be better understood.

Ecosystem management is a useful, but value-laden concept and process, engendering significant debate. Ultimately. its goal is the long-ten sustainability of ecosystems. Communication is important for EM in that it 1) affects behaviour, attitudes and values, 2) can make the science more clear, 3) facilitates co- operation. and 4) can defuse public cynicism.

This project used an extensive literature review, a series of interviews, and three case study analyses (Yeltowstone National Park. USA; Acadia National Park, USA; and the Fraser Basin Management Program, B.C.) to explore this relationship generally, and with specific regard to BNP.

With regard to EM communication in BNP, I concluded: 1) BNP is not yet practising cornprehensive ecosystem management; 2) Policy direction regarding ecological integrity is ambiguous; 3) The role of communication needs to be better understood; 4) Four core EM message areas need to be addressed; 5) Communication requires greater support; 6) Communication needs better organization and coordination; 7) Communication should be more pro-active; 8) The public needs to be involved more effectively; 9) Partnering should be approached with more caution; and 10) 'Communication' should be added to Grumbine's (1 994a) EM themes.

Thirty-three general recommendations and 74 specific action items were generated to address the conclusions.

Key Words: Ecosystem Managemenf, Communication, Banff National Park

Acknowledgements and Dedication

I am indebted to Banff National Park and the Faculty of Environmental Design who have contributed significantly to funding the research

for this Masters Degree Project.

as well as to the numerous people who enthusiastically gave their time, and provided information.

Their desire to see this work done allowed me to do fi.

1 would Iike to dedica te this work . . .

To my parents, brothers and sisters - my oldest and dearest circle of friends -

and especially to my mother for showing me the value of wisdorn and humour.

TO my MDP cornmittee, Steve Herrero, Bob Page, and Jillian Roulet, for the quality and perceptiveness of their contributions

- in particular to Steve, who has been my supervisor, advisor, mentor and friend

throughout this project;

- and also to Bernie Lieff, who contributed greatly to this project until his death in 1997.

And last and most importantly to my wife Cathy, who tells me that the secret to life is "passion and joy."

and who has taught me what that means every day that I have known her. Without her support, I would not have made it this far,

or had as much fun getting here.

Executive Summary

1 Introduction 1

The goal of this study is to draw together the fields of ecosystem management and communication - showing the former's dependence on the latter; then to apply the results in generating recommendations for improving Banff National Park's delivery of 'ecosystem management' messages.

Banff National Park is in need of a change in its approach to communication. and is well aware of that at virtually every level. The results of this study are intended to help plot these changes in Banff National Park's ecosystem management communication strategy.

The objectives of the project are to: Provide a brief background of ecosystem management Describe the integral role which communication plays in effective ecosystem management Assess EM communication in BNP Compare ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park with case studies to detemine lessons that might be applicable to BNP Create a series of conclusions regarding, and recomrnendations to improve. the ecosystem management communication strategy of Banff National Park

I conducted an extensive literature review focused on ecosystem management. environmental communication. EM and communication of EM messages in BNP. and questionnaire design.

As well. I conducted a series of intensive focused key informant interviews to gather information on the delivery of ecosystem management messages by BNP to general lay audiences.

Early on I detenined that a series of case studies of areas experiencing similar issues and with a similar mandate might provide valuable insight into the EM communication problems that BNP faces. I chose Yellowstone National Park to be a major case study because of the similarity in mandate, human-use issues. development pressures, ecological make-up. and especially visitor use. Their experience with a CO-operative management initiative (the 1990 Vision exercise). and the communication problems associated with it. presented a potentially excellent learning opportunity.

Two additional minor case studies were also chosen - Acadia National Park (Maine. USA) and the Fraser Basin Management Prograrn (British Columbia).

Executive Surnmary EX- 1

From the collected information, I generated 10 conclusions. 34 recommendations. and 74 action items for effecting the recommendations. The recommendations and action items were then prioritized in an implementation strategy.

1 Background to ecosystern management I Ecosystem management (EM) is a value-laden concept and process. There is a great deal of debate surrounding what it is, and more so, what management initiatives do. or do not, constitute ecosystem management. This makes 1 difficult to provide a clear, agreed-upon definition for ecosystem management.

Previous resource management frameworks were, in general, not sustainable. not science-based, and not ecosystern-based. They have progressed from what Grumbine (1 992) calls resourcism - a short-term view of human needs that believes in inexhaustible abundance and indomitable technological sawy - to various degrees of conservation. This move was driven largely by grassroots initiatives, and saw a parallel shift in protected area management from simple preservation to complex integrated management (i.e. ecosystem management). However, it rnust be remembered that EM is not just a protected areas management paradigm.

The move to EM has sparked a great deal of debate about what it is, and whether it represents a 'new way of doing business' or not. Sorne attempts to define the nebulous concept have focused on exhaustive operational definitions. However, more effective descriptions have corne from defining goals and relevant themes or elements. An EM initiative may not need ail the elements to be called EM, but should consider al1 those elements in planning, and explain inclusions and exclusions .

The overall goal for EM is the long-term sustainability of ecosystems. The process of ecosystem management is the CO-ordination of the objectives and activities of scientists, managers and the public (see figure EX-1) so as to achieve that goal.

Executive Summary EX-2

Figure EX-1: The Relationship between the ecosysfem management players

- manage ecosystems for long-terrn sustainability

Grumbine's (1994a) ten dominant themes of EM are by far the best summary yet created of what constitutes ecosystem management. As well as the natural science aspects, these themes present the social science aspects of EM, the significant within-organization restructuring requirements, and the often- frightening need for power-sharing .

Grumbine's last theme, values, is an often-forgotten keystone of €M. The impacts we have on the ecological landscape are dictated by motivations born in the social landscapes (see figure EX-2). These values exist, and must be recognized, in our conservation attitudes, our public policy, and Our science.

Figure EX-2: Three conceptual landscapes of human activity

Though resource management has made great strides in incorporating natural science in decision-making, the explicit inclusion of values and motivations has lagged behind.

Executive Summary EX-3

[Impomce of communication in ecosystem management I Communication in EM is the exchange of information between the EM players. Engaging in such communication brings an organization that much closer to doing EM. However, communicating about EM is tricky for any agency because no one in the worid appears to be doing a comprehensive job of €M.

Communication is important for EM in that it 1) affects behaviour, attludes and values; 2) can make the science (process and values) clear; 3) facilitates co- operation; and 4) can defuse the public cynicism that erodes management support.

For ecosystem managers, it is critical to communicate with the public. Providing information allows managers to improve understanding, encourage appropriate behaviour, generate support, and infom public participation. Receiving information from the public allows managers to understand societal values, solicit local knowledge, identify misconceptions, becorne better facilitaton, and receive valuable input into the management process.

Public participation alone has its own set of communication issues. Participants need to have the background information to inform their input. Simply providing 'increased understanding' style information will not suffice for active participants. And in fact, people receiving information will want to become more involved. It benefits the agency to provide opportunities to be involved in the development of both the decisions and the decision-making process. And it is important for the agency to ensure that potential participants are aware of the opportunities to participate.

Effective EM communication will be objectives-based, targeted at clearly defined audiences, coordinated, sensitive and responsive, proactive, adaptive and well- monitored. The challenges for EM communication can be organizational (e-g., limited resources). societal (e.g., ecological illiteracy), and ecological (e.g., complexity of ecosystems and thus of messages).

(Ecosystem management in Banff National Park 1

Ecosystem management in Parks Canada and Banff National Park has evolved (and is evolving) slowly and steadily, adapting to changes in knowledge, policy and public attitude.

Virtually al1 of Banff National Park's management and policy documents make note that BNP is employing an 'ecosystem-based approach to management.' However, the general perception amongst those interviewed was that, aMhough BNP was making sincere efforts towards doing so, it is not yet practising ecosystem management.

Executive Summary E X 4

Challenges to BNP effecting an ecosystem-based approach to management will include the apparent rnovement away from managing the mountain parks as an ewsystem, the Town of Banfk ever-present ecological plug of the Bow Valley. the debate between natural regulation and active management, the recent fiscal cutbacks, and the ambiguous policy direction regarding the relative importance of ecological integrity

The federal Auditor General's report found several barriers to EM in Parks Canada, including an overemphasis on social and economic factors, poor links between ecological integrity objectives and initiatives, a lack of key information necessary for park management, increasing visitor trafic, inadequate baseline biophysical information, incomplete detemination of indicators for ecological integrity, and incomplete monitoring of ecological conditions.

The Banff-Bow Valley Study also found that resources are insufficient for collecting the needed data, site/species specific research and management continues. and two paradigms are competing (protection and revenue generation). They concluded that EM as described in the policy is on the right track. but the frequent policy and personnel changes will rnake it take longer to effect.

1 Communication of easystem management messages in BNP 1 A description of how ecosystem management communication is currently being approached in Banff National Park requires looking at the legislation, policies, and management plans; several task force reports; assessments (surveys. workshops, and reviews); comprehensive plans; and some aspects of the actual implementation of communication in BNP.

Looking at the evolution from the 1988 Park Management Plan, to the 1994 Policy, to the 1997 Park Management Plan, cracks are appearing in the cornmitment to communication. The newer plan advocates an 'eveiybody is a communicator' approach, and a new Heritage Tourism Strategy (HTS). 60th will need to be monitored regarding their effectiveness in delivering park messages.

Various task force reports from 1990 to 1996 show a consensus that communication is vital for implementing EM. Since the time of the earliest reports, there has been a marked decrease in the cal1 for advocacy, and an increasing cal1 for partnenhip initiatives with tourism interests. The reports highlight a need to be vigilant about maintaining national park values in the face of fiscal constraints, the importance of maintaining 'core knowledge' and 'corporate rnemory', and the need to coordinate communication actions.

The various assessments showed a mixed bag of good and bad in BNP and Parks Canada communication programs: an Angus Reid survey showed that Parks Canada staff have a high degree of credibility, and several of the

Executive Surnmary EX-5

communication concems raised in the 1995 Warden Service Review have already been addressed. However, situations such as the lack of communication training for staff, and the loss of outreach in the Alberta Region likely wntributed to the Auditor General's assessrnent that Parks Canada is doing a poor job of wmmunicating ecological messages and raising ecological awareness.

The 1997 Parks Canada Alberta Reg ion Transition Communications Workshop was an excellent start to addressing the lack of attention and cornmitment to communication, but that cornmitment will have to be sustained and implemented before concems are allayed. Concerns include the variation in cornmitment by managers, the flaws in the 'everybody is a cornmunicator' approach, and the need to prioritize clients (Canadians) and customers (visitors). Ultimately, inadequate funding is perceived as an indicator of lack of upper management support for communication.

Two other important plans exist regarding communication. The first is BNP's 1993 Tourism, Recreation and Communication (TRAC) Plan, which was an excellent guide to communication planning and could be updated and expanded into a park-wide strategy. The second is the National Business Plan where the focus on 'awareness' is heavily biased to awareness of tourism opportunities, rather than ecological awareness.

Communications in BNP was very much affected by the recent corporate reorganization. Positive changes include the establishment of the Ecosystem Secretariat, and the placement of communication specialists in various departments. Problems created included the lack of clear direction regarding core services, the loss of outreach, the loss of staff without an accompanying loss of workloads, the lack of a park-wide communication strategy or department, and assignment of communication functions to managers who were unclear regarding the role of communications.

Interna! communication requires attention as well. Areas that need to be addressed here include staff training, personality-driven initiatives, workloads that discourage between-communicator communication, and the need to be aware of and 'sell' intemal communication skills.

One area where BNP and Parks Canada have been quite successful is the creation of message sets. However, the distribution and acceptance of those messages have been problematic, as has the need to focus on basic messages before launching into issue-specific messages.

BNP has a variety of techniques and tools for delivering these messages. As none of these techniques is devoted solely to ecological messages, the need for coordination is critical.

Executive Summary EX-6

The interview research provided the following conclusions: that the four core message areas (see page EX-8) for EM were not being adequately addressed there was unanimous belief that communication was vital to EM values are important, but difficult to incorporate into the decision-making process interviewees in Parks Canada employees saw the recent Trans Canada Highway twinning communications program as very successful; non-Parks interviewees saw it as poor.

Other significant general impressions related by the interviewees were that values were considered important because they are impediments rather than positive contributions; that the meaningfulness of participation is tied to understanding of 'background' information; that there is a variable amount of respect for the public among some Parks Canada employees; and that BNP communication is seen to be focused on the park, not across boundaries.

1 Case studies 1

I examined a series of case studies to see what lessons could be learned and applied to the EM communication issues which BNP is currently grappling with. The case studies chosen were:

Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. Acadia National Park, U.S.A. the Fraser Basin Management Program, B.C.

Yellowstone National Park The National Park Service and the United States Forest Service in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystern conducted a major regional planning exercise in 1990 (the Vision exercise). There was a severe public backlash to the release of the document. In the wake of the failure of the Vision, there have been several major 'post-mortems' done on the exercise. Most of those have emphasized communication related causes for the backlash.

Wiih the benefit of hindsight, there are several causes for this backlash which provide lessons for BNP, including: 1) the lack of cornmitment by upper management. 2) a miscalculation of the Wise Use Movement resistance, 3) a vagueness of purpose. 4) a failure to engage the public, and 5) a failure to ensure the support of conservation groups.

For BNP. the Vision failure shows the need to address the above issues, as well as the need to improve staff training on these issues, provide proactive public education, distinguish between 'information' and 'consultation', and be ready with a broad analysis of the social consequences of management actions.

Executive Summary EX-7

Acadia National Park, U.S.A. Acadia National Park on the coast of Maine has corne up with a wellconceived seminar program for locals to help address the significant park usage rate and resulting impacts. The program is designed to reach park neighbours with information about resource issues to ensure that Yhe people who share the resourœs with us undentand why we are taking certain management actions, what we are doing, what the research has told us, and [to get] some feedback from them."

The advantage of the program is that it allows issues to be presented without going through the filters of the media, and before they get too 'hot' to handle. Other communication initiatives which provide ideas for BNP include a newspaper insert, their comprehensive web site, and an Advisory Commission rnodel which includes an Education Cornmittee.

Fraser Basin Management Program, B.C. In 1992, a five year program to 'advance the environmental, economic and social sustainability" of the Fraser Basin in British Columbia was inaugurated. The Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP) included representation from al1 levels of govemrnent, First Nations, business, labour, non-govemment organizations, and other stakeholders.

communication was a significant part of the FBMP's approach and success, and though not a protected area. provided definite tessons for BNP. The approach included both top-down and bottom-up aspects, extensive consultation, a significant facilitation role, a focus on understanding, the strategic use of success stories, and several well-conceived and focused publications. Foremost among the latter was the use of Report Cards to inform residents about progress, and a BasinPlan workbook to provide a sincere opportunity for input into the final sustainability strategy .

From the collected information, I drew ten major conclusions regarding ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park:

7. Banff National Park is not yet practising comprehensive ecosystem management

2. Policy direction regarding ecological jntegflty is ambiguous 3. The role of communicafion needs to be better understood 4. Four core message areas need to be addressed

Background information regarding ecosystem management Connections between management actions and rationale Connections between personal actions and impacts ûpportunities for public participation

5. Communication requires greater support

Ekecutive Summary EX-8

6. Communication needs better organization and coordination 7. Communication should be more pro-active 8. The public needs to be involved more effectively 9. Parinering should be approached with more caution 1 O. 'Communication' should be added to Grumbine's EM thernes

1 Rccommendations and action items 1 To address the concems raised by this study, there are a nurnber of actions and changes in attitude toward communication which BNP can try to bring about. I generated thirty-four general recornmendations to guide BNP in this pursuit. The issues addressed in the recommendations were:

Ecosystem management Embracing uncertainty Ambiguity regarding ecological

integrity and entrepeneurship Power-sharing Local knowledge S hared positions

Attitudinal Committing to communication Personal programs Broaden audience focus Promoting advocasy Extra-park conservation activities Countering anti-conservation

messages Connecting business and ecological

health Administrative

Virtual communications department Environmentai education Continuity of positions Rationalization of workloads Personnel increase Business plan and communication

strateg ies

Communications audit Communication strategies for the EM

player relationships Front-line to management connections

Co-operation Public participation strategy Participation coordinator Strategic Advisory Board Choosing partners Coordinating communication with

regional agencies Creative funding Balancing business and environmental

special interests Techniques

Maintain connections between scientists and communicators

Establish policy and mandate as fall backs

Use interpreters for broad communication

Facilitate fund-raising for projects lnstitute consistent corporate look

I also identified 74 action items which would help effect the recommendations. These suggestions were focused on communication techniques, partnerships, publications, non-print media, personal communication, outreach, education, public participation, faciiitation, staff training, researcher involvement in communication, intemal communication, messages, and monitoring.

Finally, 1 created an Implementation Strategy to organize and prioritize the recommendations and action items.

Executjve Summary EX-9

Table of Contents ... TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................m.......m...................... xiii

......................................................................................... 2. METHODOLOGY 2-1

............................................................................................... ................... Goals .. 1

............................................................ Methods ........................................................ 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................ ... ......... 1

Results ................................................................................................................................ 2 .............................................................................................................................. INTERVIEWS 2

.............................................................................................................. Informant selection 3 Procedure ............................................................................. .. 4 .......................................... Questions ............................................................................................................................ 4 Results ................................ .... .................................................................................... 5

CASE STUDIES ................... .. ............................................................................... 5 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 6 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 7 ASSUMPTIONS ............................... ......... ...................................................... 8

................................... . 3 BACKGROUND TO ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 3-1

Introduction ........................... .. .............................................................................. 1 PURPOSE ...................... .... ........................................................................................... 1

................................................................................................. OUTLINE ............................. .. 1

History of resource management ........................................................................... 2 .............................................................................................................. RESOURCISM ...... ..... 2

....................................................................................................................... CONSERVATION 3 PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 3

........................................ NATURAL REGULATION VS . IMERVENTION OR ACTIVE MANAGEMENT 4 MANAGING ECOSYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 4

.......................................................................................................... GRASSROOTS INITIATIVES 5 MODELS AND TOOLS ............................................................................... .................................. 6

.............................................................................................................. Core/buffer models 6 User management ............................................................................................................. 6 Geographical Information Systerns (GIS) .................................... .... .................................. 6

Defining ecosystem management ................... .. .................................. ............... 7 .......................................................................................................... .................... DEBATE ... 7

............................................................................................................. DEFINITION ........... .. 8

................ .................................,........*.........*... Goals of ecosystem management .. 9 .................................................................................................................................. GOALS 9

.................................................................................... ........................... GOAL-SETTING .... 1 0

.............................................................................. Ecosystem management playen 11 .......................................................................................................................... f HE PLAYERS 1 1

.................................................................................. RELATIONSHIPS AMONGST THE PLAYERS 12

.......................................................... Dominant themes of ecosystem management 13 .......................................................................................................... HIERARCHICAL CON^ 13

....................................................................................................... ECOLOGICAL BOUNDARJES 13 ........................................................................................................... ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 14

................................................................................ DATA COLLECTiON ..................... ,... . ., 14 ........................................................................................................................... MONITORING 14

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ................... ... .. .. ........................................................................ 15 ~NTERAGENCY CO-OPERATION .................................................................................................. 15 ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE ...................................................................................................... 15 HUMANS EMBEDDED IN NATLJRE ............................................................................................. 16

........................................................................................ VALUES .............................. ,.. . .,. 16

Ecological integrity and health ............................... ........ ................................. 1 6 .......................................................................... ECOLOGICAL HE AL^ .............................. .. 17

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ............................. ............ ..................................................... 18 PERSPECTIVE ........................... ,..,. ... ..... ..................... .......... 19 DESCRIBING ECOLOGICAL INTEGRiTY TO LAY AUDIENCES ................... ... ................................. 20

Values ......................... ........... ...................... . .............................................. 20 VALUES AS MOTIVATIONS FOR ACTiONS ............................... ... ............................................... 21

Three landscapes .............................................................................................................. 21 Interaction of the landscapes ..................... .... .............................................................. 22

VALUES AND SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION ............................. ..... ...... .. ............. 2 3 VALUES AND POLICY ............................................................................................................. 24 VALUES IN SCIENCE .................................... ... .... .... ................. 24

Ecosystem management's applicability ............................................................. 25

4 . THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION IN ECOSYSTEM ........................................................ MANAGEMENT ............................ ......... 4-1

Introduction ........................................ ............ ......... 1

What is 'Communication in ecosystem management'? ........................................ 1 ........................... COMMUNICATION FLOWS BETWEEN THE EM PLAYERS ,. ............................ 1

......... .......... COMMUNICATION ABOUT ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ... ... .................................. 2

Key communication issues in ecosystem management ........................................ 2 COMMUNICATION AND BEHAVIOUR. Al7iTUDES. AND VALUES ............................... .... .............. 3 COMMUNICATION AND SCIENCE ................................................................................................ 3 COMMUNICATION AND CWPERATION ......................................................................................... 5

..................................... COMMUNICATION, PUBLIC CYNlClSM AND ORGANlZATlONAL COMMITMENT 5

Why communication is important to managers ............................................................ 7 ~MPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATING TO THE PUBLIC ....................................................................... 7

lmprove understanding ........................ ...... ....................................................................... 8 Encourage appropriate behaviour ................................................................................ 10 Generate support ......................................................................................................-....... 10 lnform public participation ............................................. 11

............................. ............ IMPORTANCE OF RECElVlNG COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC .. 12 ...................................................... Understanding values (attitudes, needs and desires) 12

'Little science' and local knowledge ................. ....... ..................................................... 13 Misconceptions ................ .... ..................................................................................... 14

................................. Enhancing the facititation / mediation raie of ecosystem managers 14 Receiving input into the process .............................. .. .................................................. 15

Communication issues in public participation .......................................................... 16 Citizens need background information to understand the issues ................... .. ............. 16 Communicating to increase understanding and to inform active participation are not the

same ............................... .. .......................................................................................... 16 ............................................ Effective communication will lead to increased participation 16

...................................................... Ciüzens will need to know opportunities to participate 17

Citizens need to be involved in the development of both the decisions and the decision- .............................................................................. making process .............. ......... 17

............................................................................................................. Summary 1 9 PROPERTES OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC COMMUNlCATlON FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ................. 19

........................................................................................................... Objectives based 2 0 ................................................................................................. Clearfy defined audiences 20

Co-ordinated approach ................................................................................................... 20 .................................................................................................. Sensitive and responsive 20

................................................................................... ................................ Proactive .. 2 0 ...................................................................................... .............................. Adaptive .. 2 1

.................................................................................................................. Well monitored 21 ............................ CHALLENGES FACING ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION ... ....... 21

5 . ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN BANFF NATIONAL PARK .................... 5-1

Interview question 1 : 'Does BNP practice ecosystem management?" ........................ 1

Analysis of ecosystern management in Banff National Park ................................ . . . 1 Administrative boundaries ..................... .... ............................................................... 3 The Town of Banff ................................... ... .................................................................... 3 Natural regulation and active management ........................................................................ 3 Managing to an arbitrary historical point in time ..... .......................................................... 4 lnteragency cooperation ...................................................................................................... 4

......................... Funding cninch ,. ...................................................................................... 4 The business plan ............................................... ... 5 Warden Sewice review ....................................................................................................... 5 Auditor general's report .................................................................................................... 6 The Banff Bow Valley Study (BBVS) .................................................................................. 6 Parks Canada as an agency ............................................................................................... 7

6 . COMMUNICATION OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT MESSAGES IN ............................................................................... BANFF NATIONAL PARK 6-1

Legislation . policies . and management plans .............................................................. 1

................................................................................................. Task force reports 4

......................................................................................................... Assessments 6

........................................................................................................................... Plans 8

lmplementation ....................................... .............. ....................... ............... ........ 10 ........................................................................................................................ ORGANIZATION 10

..................................................................................................... INTERNAL COMMUNICATION 11 .................................................................................................... COMMUNICATION STRATEGY 13

.............................................................................................................................. MESSAGES 13 ........................................................................................................................... TECHNIQUES 14

....................................... . ............................... PRNATE SECTOR COMMUNICATION .... ..... 15

Interview Research Results ..................................................................................... 16 ............................................................................................. AGGREGATION OF RESPONSES 17

Question 2(a): Does BNP effectively communicate to the various publics information ........................................................ .................. about the ecosystems of the park ? .. 17

Question 2(b): Does BNP effectively communicate to the various publics information about how management actions are related to ecological protection? .......................... 17

Question 2(c): Does BNP effectively communicate to the various publics information about the impacts people have on Park ecosystems ? ................................................. 18

iii

Question 2(d): Does BNP effectively communicate to the vanous publics information about how people can participate in Park management? ..... ......................................... 18

Question 3: Is communication of these concepts impurtant to effective ecosystem .......................................................................... management ? .............................. ... 18

Question 4: Does the public get the information they need to assess park management ?19 Question 5: Are values important to effective EM ? ....................................................... 19 Question 6: Did the recent TCH Wnning project have an effective public communication

....................................................................................................................... process? 2 0

7 . CASE STUDIES ............................. ..... ......................................................... 7-1

Yellowstone National Park. U.S.A. ....................... ........... ............................................ 1 ................................................................................................................................. SUMMARY 1

ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 2 Ac~ornplishments ............................................................................................................... 2

................................................................................ ........................... Core problems ... 3 ........................................................................................................................... Condusion 5

APPLICATION TO BANFF NA~ONAL PARK .................... .... ..................................................... 5

Acadia National Park. U.S.A. ..................................................................................... 7 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 7 APPLICATIONS TO BANFF NATIONAL PARK .................................................................................. 8

Resource Acadia seminars ........................... ... .............................................................. 8 Other communication initiatives ............................ .. ........................................................ 8

Fraser Basin Management Program. B . C ...................... .................. ................... 9 .................................................................................................................................. SUMMARY 9

APPLICATION TO BANFF NATIONAL PARK ................................................................................... 9

8 . CONCLUSIONS ......................... ......... ..................................................... 8-1

1 . Banff National Park is not yet practising comprehensive ecosystem management . 1

2 . Policy direction regarding ecological integrity is ambiguous .................................... 2

3 . The role of communication needs to be better understood ...................................... 3

4 . Four core message areas need to be addressed ...................................... ... .......... 4 ........................................... BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 4

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND RATIONALE .......................................... 5 CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PERSONAL ACTIONS AND IMPACTS ..................... ... .................... 6

......................... .................................................. OPPORTUN~TIES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .... 6

5 . Communication requires greater support ....................................................... 7

6 . Communication needs better organization and coordination ................................. 8

7 . Communication should be more pro-active ........................................................... 9

8 . The public needs to be involved more effectively .................................................. 10

9 . Partnering should be approached with more caution ............................................ 11

10 . 'Communication' should be added to Grumbine's EM themes ............................. i 2

9 . RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION IN BANFF NATIONAL PARK ..................................... 9-1

1 ntroduction

Recommendations .................................... .. ................................... ............. 1 €COSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................... 1

Embracing uncertainty (4) ................................................................................................... 1 Ambiguity regarding ecological integrity and entrepeneurship (2) ................... ... ........... 2 Power-sharing (1) ................................. ............................................................................ 2

........................................................................................................... Local knowledge (8) 2 Shared positions (6) ............................................................................................................ 3

A ~ D I N A L ................................................ .., ........................................................................... 3 Cocnmitüng to communication (5) ................................................ .... ......... 3 Personal programs (43) .............................................................................................. 3 Broaden audience focus (7) ................... ... .................................................................... 3 Promoting advocacy (7) ...................................................................................................... 4 Extra-park conservation activities (7) .................................................................................. 4 Countering anti-conservation messages (7) ....................................................................... 4 Connecting business and ecological health (4) .................... ... ...................................... 5

ADMINISTRATIVE ........................................................................................................................ 5 Virtual communications department (6) .............................................................................. 5 Environmental education (4, 7) ............................................................................................ 6 Continuity of positions (6) .................................................................................................... 7 Rationalization of workloads (6) ......................... .. ........................................................... 7 Personnel increase (5) ................... .. ................................................................................ 8 Business plan and communication strategies (5, 6) ..................................... ... .................. 8 Communications audit (6) .............................. ,.. ............................................................. 8 Communication strategies for the EM player relationships (6, 7) ........................................ 8 Front-fine to management connections (6) ..................................................................... 9

CO-OPERATION ............ .. ......................................................................................................... 9 Participation coordinator (6, 8) ......................... ... ............................................................. 9 Public participation strategy (6, 8) ........................................................................................ 9 Strategic Advisory Board (8) ........................................................................................... 9 Choosing partners (9) ....................... ...... .................................................................... 1 O Coordinating communication with regional agencies (6) ............................ .......... . . . . . . . . . 10 Creative funding (5) ........................................................................................................... 1 O Balancing environmental and business special interests (8) ........................................... 11

TECHNIQUES ........................................................................................................................... 11 Maintain connections between scientists and communicators (9) .................................... 11 Establish policy and mandate as fallbacks (2, 4) .............................................................. 12 Use interpreters for broad communication (5.7) ............................................................. 12 Facilitate fund-raising for projects (5, 8) ...................... .. .................................................. 13 lnstitute consistent corporate look (6) .............................................................................. 13

10 . ACTION ITEMS f OR EFFECTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 10-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 ~~PLEMENTATION NOTES ............................................................................................................ 1

...................................................................................................................................... C o s ~ s 2 ............................................................................................................................ REDUNDANCY 2

General action items ........................................................ ................................ 3 ........ TECHNIQUES ............................................................................................................................. 3

Celebrate successes (3. 8) .......................... ....... ............................................................ 4 ................................................................................................ Favour personal contact (8) 4

Declare long-terrn goal (6) .................................................................................................. 4

Appeal to the heart as well as the head (4) ................ ....... .......................................... 4 Be interpreters of science (4) .......................... .... .............................................. .. ..... 5 Piggy-back issue communication (6, 7) ............................................................................... 5 Borrow risk feedback gathering techniques (8) .................................. ... ........................ 5 Consider 'outrage factors' (8) ..................................................................................... 6 Seize opportunities (7) ..................................... .................................................................. 6

.................... .......................................................................... List contact people (4) .... 7 PARTNERSHIPS .............. .. ...................................................................................................... 7

........................................................................... ................................. Use incentives (9) ,... 7 Information packages for partners (9) ......................................................... .. ............ 8 Handbills for outFitters, rental companies (9) ................................................................... 8

PUBLICATIONS ...............~................................................................ ... ... , ............................. 9 Report cards (4) ................................................................................................................. 9

............................................................................ ....................... Newspaper inserts (4) .. 9 Ecosystem management report (4) ................................... ,. ............. 10 Visiter's Guide (park magazine) (4) ................... .. ........................................................... 11 'How We're Managing' fact sheets (4) .............................................................................. 11 Fact sheets (general) (4) ................................................................................................... 12 'Individuaf's Guide for Ecological Integrity' (4) ................................................................. 13

................................................................................................. 'Your impact' brochure (4) 14 ........................................................................................................ Ecosystem primer (4) 15

Ecosystem management media kit (4) ............................... ... ................................. 15 ............................................................................ Post cards (4) .................................... .... 16

Conflict maps (4) .............................................................................................................. 16 Bookmarks (4) ................................................................................................................... 17 Maintain BNP documents availability (7) .......................................................................... 17

NON-PRINT MEDIA ................................................................ ,..... ..................................... 18 Park management interpretive trail (4) ............. ..... ......... .. ......................................... 18

........................... ............................................................................. Parks Day (4) ..... 18 lnternet (4) ......................................................................................................................... 19 Trailhead information (4) ................................................................................................... 20 Outdoor trade shows (4) ................................................................................................. 20 Temporary highway informational signs (4) ...................................................................... 21 Games (4) ......................................................................................................................... 22

PERSONAL COMMUNICATION ..................................................................................................... 22 .................................................................................. Face-to-face communication (7, 10) 22

Resource Acadia (7) ........................................................................................................ 23 Town hall meetings (7, 8) ................................................................................................... 23 Superintendent field trips (7.8) .......................................................................................... 24

............................. ...................................................... Protected area store-fronts (4) .. 25 OUTREACH ............................................................................................................................ 25

.......................... ............................................................... Outreach coordination (6) ... 25 ................................. Audio/visual (5'6) ........................... ... 2 6

EDUCATION ................... .. ............................................................................................... 2 7 School at Banff National Park (4) ................................................................................. 27

PUBLJC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................ 28 ........................................................................................ Responsiveness surnmaries (8) 28

................... ................................................................. 'How to Participate' booklet (4) .. 28 Volunteers (8) ................................................................................................................. 29 Adopt-a-( ... ) Programs (8) ............................................................................................. 30

........................................................................................................................... FACILITATION 30 Community leader and researcher meetings (4, 7) ........................................................ 30 Special interest group workshops (8) ................................................................................ 31

STAFF TRAINING ...................................... .. .............................................................................. 32 Key message sets (3) .................................................................................................. 32 Rote of communication in ecosystem protection (3) ......................................................... 32

'Selling' communication to managers (3) .......................... ... .................................... 33 Communications primer (3) ............................................................................................... 34 Ecosystem management training (3) ..................... .... ............................................. 34 Current initiatives training (3) ............................................................................................ 35 Sbtement of principles (2) ................................................................................................ 36 . . Availability of information (3) .................... ., ....................................................................... 36 Communication skills list (3) ............................................................................................. 37

RESEARCHER INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNICATION .................................................................. 38 Communication worksheet (6) .......................................................................................... 38 Researcher questionnaire (6) .................................. .. ............................................... 42 Researcher communication requirements (4) .............................. ., ................................ 42

........................................................... .............................. Ecological integrity index (4) ..., 43 Science and communication workshop (3) ..................... .. ........................ .... . 4 3 Enwurage publications (4) ................................................................................................ 44

INTERNAL COMMUNICATION ............................................... ... .............................................. 4 4 Communicator communication (6) ................... .. ........................................................... 44

What to Communicate ........................................................ ......................... . 4 5 Ecasystem management messages (4) .............................. .. ................................. 45

................................................................................. Encourage conservation broadly (4) 46 Legislation and policy (4) .................................................................................................. 46

................................................................... ..................... Misconceptions (4, 8) ....... 4 7

Monitoring (3) ................................................................... .............................. 4 7 GENERAL TECHNIQUES ............................ ... ........................................................................ 47

Design post-presentation assessrnent (3) ........................................................................ 47 Use 'Enquiries' database to monitor post-visit impressions (3) ........................................ 48

...................................... Staff survey (3) .........................................................&.............. 48 Coordinate monitoring with other mountain parks (3, 6) .................................................... 49 Encourage partners to monitor communication (3.9) ........................................................ 49

SURVEY ............................................................................................................................... 49 Objectives ........... .. ...................................................................................................... 50 Design ............................................................................................................................... 50 Assessrnent of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour ...................................................... 51

..................... ........................................................................... Administering the survey ... 52 Resources ......................................................................................................................... 52 Execution .............. .... ................................................................................................. 53

............................................................. 11 . IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Il -1

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

Prioritization ...................................................................................... .................... 2 ............................................................................................................................... DISTRICT 2

...................................................................................................................... SUPERINTENDENT 3 ....................................................................................................... ECOSYSTEM SECRETARIAT - 4

..................................................................................................................... WAROEN SERVICE 5 ........................................................................................................................ FRONTCOUNTRY 5

................................................................................................................... MEDIA RELATIONS 6 ..................................................................................................................... CUENT SERVICES 6

................................................................................................................... HERITAGE TOURISM 7 HER~~AGE PROGRAMS ............................... .. ...................................................................... 7

........................................................................................... kt COMMUNICAT10N SPECiAiISTS 7

12 . FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................................................... 12-1

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

Ecosystem management .......... .... ............................... ......................... . . . 1 Ecosystem management in general ............ .... .......................................................... 1 Ecosystem management for the region ...................................................................-...-...... 1 Ecosystem management and 'landless' agencies .......................................................... 1

Communication ............................... .. ............................................................... 2 Effects of communication and understanding on supportive behaviour .............................. 2 Communication and ecosystem management ............................ .. ...................................... 2 The importance of communication to other EM players ...... .. ....... ... ....................... 2 Monitoring communication efforts ..................................................................................... 3

........................................................................................... Alternate service providers ..... .. 3

Other EM communication models ................... .... ........... ................... ................. 3 Models fmm the developing world .................................................................................... 3 Conservation marketing .................... .. ............................................................................ 3 Assess communication in other regions of Parks Canada .................................................. 4 Additional case studies ........................................................................................................ 4 Volunteer models ............................ ... ........................................................................... 4 Advisory committees ........................................................................................................... 5

Ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park ................................ 5 Regional cooperation on communication ........................................................................ 5 Virtual communications department .............. .. ................................................................ 5 Parks Canada staff awareness ........................................................................................... 5 Communication in Calgary ............................................................................................... 5 Feasibility of altemate funding ............................................................................................. 5

......................................................... Tapping into existing tourism revenues ............. ... 6

13 . REFERENCES ................ ............... .................................................... 13-1

14 . PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS .......... .... ............................................. 14-1

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Interview details ............................................................................... A-1 .......................................................................................................................... INTERVIEWEES 1

................................................................................................ !NTERvIEw PACKAGE MATERIALS 2

Appendix B: Ecosystems. biodiversity. threats. and ecological realities ................. 8-1 ............................................................................................................................ ECOSYSTEMS 2

BASIC THEORY ............................................................................................................ 2 3 ................................................................................................................. What is an ecosystem ? -

.............................................................................................................................. Definitions -3 .......................................................................................................................... Characteristics 3 ........................................................................................................................ Misconceptions 4

...............................*...... ......................................... Greater ecosystem .. 5 .............................................................................................................................. Basic concepts 5

Composition, structure and fwiction ............................... .. .................................................. 5 ..................................................................................................... Spatial scales of ecosystems 6

................................................................................................ Temporal scales of ecosystems 6 ................................................................................................................................ Interaction 7

.................................................... Ecological integrity and ecosystem health ..................... .... ..7 Comp l exity .......................... .... .................................................................................................. 7

-

viii

INTERMEDIATE THEORY ........................................... ... .............................................. 8 Ecological processes ..................................... ... -8 .....................................................

............................................................................................................................ Energy flows 9 Nutrient cycles .............................................................................................................. 9 Hydrological cycles ................................................................................................................. 9

............................................................................................................... Disturbance regimes 10 .......................................................................... Equilibriurn processes and feedback effects 10

...................................................................................................................... Landscape ecoIogy I O Succession .......................................................................................... 1 1 Patches and the vegetation mosaic ......................................................................................... I I

............................................................................ Edge effect 1 2 ........................................................................................................................... Comectivity 13

ADVANCED THEORY .................................................................................................... 13 Resilience .....................................,.......................................................................................... 14 Self-organization ......................................................................................................................... 14 Ecosystem change over t h e .................. .. ............................................................................... 16 EquiIibrium and stability ......................................................................................................... 17 Catastrophe theory and chaos theory ................... ... ............................................................... 17

B I O D I ~ E R S I ~ .......................................... .... .................................................................... 19 The definition debate ......................................................................................................... 19 The biodiversity hierarchy .................................................................................................. 19

Genetic diversity ........................... .. ......................................................................................... 20 ........................ ......................................................................................... Species diversity ... 20

Community/ecosystem diversity ............................ .. ..... .... ............................................. 20 Regional 1 landscape diversity ................................................................................................ 1 Alpha, beta and gamma diversity ................................................................................................ 21

.............................................................................................. ........................... EXTINCTION .... 22 What causes extinction ..................................................................................................... 22

............................................................................................................... Stochasticity 2 3 ............................................. Genetic uncertainry ... .................................................................. 23

........................................................................................................... Demographic uncenainty 2 3 Environmental uncertainty ......................................................................................................... 23 Carastrophic uncertainty ................................ ... ................................................................ 24

............................................................................................... Population viability analysis 24 ................................................................... Island biogeography ............................... ... 24

................................................................ ................................. VALUES OF BIODIVERSITY .... 25 ................................................................................................................ Utilitarian values 25 ............................................................................................................ Ecological values 26

............................................................................................................................ Redundancy - 2 6 Information storage ..................................................................................................................... 27

..................................................................... .......................... Non-physical values ... 27 .......................................................................................................................... Intrinsic/ethical 2 7

........................................................................................ ..................... Aesthetic ., ......... .... 27 .......................*....... .......... ECOLOGICAL REALiTlES AND CHALLENGES FOR MANAGEMENT .... 2 8

................................................................................................................ Uncertainty 2 8 ...................................................................................................... lnadequate knowledge 28

Ecological scale of space and time ................................................................................. 29 ............................................................................................................... Constant change 29

.......................................................... Inadequacy of nature reserves ...................... .......... 29 ................................................................................................................................ TH REATS - 2 9

Appendix C: Ecological integrity definitions ............................................................ C-1

. Appendix D: Linkages between information. attitudes and behaviour .................... D-1 THEORET~CAL CONNECTIONS ...................................................................................................... 1 PRACTICAL CONNECTIONS ....................................................................................................... 2 POTENTIAL PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................... 2 COMMUNICATION CAN CHANGE BEHAVIOUR ................................................................................. 3 CONCLUSION ................... .... .......................................................................................... 4

Appendix E: The evolution of ecosystem management in Parks Canada. emphasizing ..... ......................................................... Banff National Park .............................. E-1

Appendix F: Review of ecosystern management communication in Banff National Park .................... ,.. ............................... ..... ................................. . . . . F-1 LEGISLATION. POLICIES. AND MANAGEMENT PLANS ...................................................................... 1

Banff National Park Management Plan (1 988) .................................................................... 1 Parks Canada Policy ........................................................................................................ 2 Banff National Park Management Plan (1 997) ................................................................. 3

TASK FORCE REPORTS .............................. ... ............................................... .. .................... 5 Parks and People Task Force ............................................................................................ 5 Science and Protection Task Force ................... .. ........................................................ 6 Reaching Beyond Reg dations .......................... ... ......................................................... 7 Toward Sustainable Ecosystems ........................................................................................ 8 Environmental Citizenship ................................................................................................... 9 Banff Bow Valley Study ..................................................................................................... 10

ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................................................... 13 Angus Reid Survey ........................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Education Baseline Survey ....................................................................... 14 Warden Service Review ................................................................................................... 15 Standing Senate Cornmittee ............................................................................................. 16 Auditor General Report ..................................................................................................... 16 Transition Communications Workshop ............................................................................. 16

PLANS ..................................................................................................................................... 18 ........................ Tourism, Recreation and Communication (TRAC) Plan ...................... .. 18

National Business Plan .................................................................................................... 21 l MPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................................... 24

Organuation ..................... .... ................................................................................... 24 Internat communication ..................................................................................................... 26 Communication strategy ............................ .... ................................................................. 26 Messages ......................................................................................................................... 28 Techniques ........................................................................................................................ 28

Personal prograrnrning ................................................................................................................ 29 Non-personal media ................. .. ............................................................................................... 32

PRIVATE SECTOR COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................... 35

Appendix G: Interview research results .................................................................. G-l QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE MATRlX ..................... ....... ...................................................... 3

Appendix H: Heritage Tourism Strategy ...................................... . . ...................... H-1 OBJECTIVES: ............................................................................................................................. 1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND VALUES (SAMPLE COMMENTS) ............................................................. 1 ADOPT~NG P . CODE OF ETHICS AND GUIDELINES .......................................................................... 1 FRAMMIORK FOR THE hPLEMENTATlON OF THE HERITAGE TOURISM STRATEGY ......................... 2 ACTION PLAN: PARKS CANADA (BRIEF) ............................. .. .... .... ................................................ 2

Appendix 1: Environmental education survey indicators ....................... ................... 1-1 lNDlCATORS 1.2. 4. WHY PARKS AND S E S WERE SET ASIDE. THElR BENEFTTS AND VALUES. THElR

IMPORTANCE TO CANADIAN IDEMl lY AND THE IMAGE OF CANADA ........................ .. .............. 1 INDICATOR 3: WHAT NANRAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE MEANS (TO THE PUBLIC) IN TERMS OF

THEIR OWN ACTIONS AND FOR THE FUTURE ................................. ..... . . 1 INDlCATûR 5: NAMES AND LOCATiONS OF PARKS AND SITES ......................................................... 1 ~NDICATOR 6: TYPES OF EXPERIENCES PARKS AND S E S OFFER .................................................. 2 ~NDICATOR 7: PARKS CANADA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING NPs AND NHSS .......................... 2 INDICATOR 8: NPs AND NHSS ARE PART OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM AND AN INTERNATIONAL

PROGRAM OF PROTECTED HERiTAGE AREAS ........................................ .. ............................... 2 ~NOICATOR 9: MAJOR CHAUENGES FACING FtATüRAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE IN NPS AND NHSS 3 INOlCATOR 10: HOW T 0 ACCESS INFO ON NPs AND NHSS ........................................................... 3

Appendix J: Transition Communications Workshop issues .................................... J-1 NATIONAL ISSUES ..................... ... .................................................................. .. ............... 1

...................................................................................................... PARK ISSUES .............. ... 1 COLLECTIVE ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 2

................................................................................................................................. REMINDER 3

Appendix K: Background for Yellowstone National Park case study ...................... K-1 ............................................ ................. BACKGROUND ON YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK .... 1

Physical setting ....................................................... .. . . . 1 Bnef history ......................................................................................................................... 2 Political 1 management context ....................... .. .............................................................. 3

...................... ........................ ................................. .... Similarities .... ... .. 5 ...................................................................................................................................... Limelight 5

.......................................................................................................................................... Budget 5 .......................................................................................................................... Reorganization 5

Communication ...... ..... .............................................................................................................. 5 Federal goverment relations ........... ... ......... ... .................................................................... 6

.................................................................................................... Wise Use Movement (WUM) 6 .......................................................................................................................... Differences 6

....................................................................... ........................ Reason for establishment ....... 6 Conservation movement ............................................................................................................... 7 Development pace ........................................................................................................................ 7 Federal presence ....................................................................................................................... -8

............................................................................................. Regional planning ..................... ... 8

..................................................................................... THE VISION FOR THE FUTURE EXERCISE 9 ......................................................................................................................... Background 9

........................................................................................................................... Backlash 1 1 .................................................................................................................... Post-Mortems 13

....................................................................................... COMMUNICATION AFER THE VISION 20

................................. Appendix L: Background to Acadia National Park case study L-1 ........................................................................................................................... BACKGROUND 1

...................................................................................... RESOURCE ACADIA SEMINAR PROGRAM 2 ..................................................................................... Seminar design ..................... ... 3

Program management .......................................................... .. .......................................... 5 ................................................................................................. Resul ts ..................... .... 5

........................................................................................ OTHER COMMUNICATION INITIATIVES 6 ................................................................................................................ Newspaper insert 6

....................................................... Web page ................................................................ .. 6 ...................................................................... Acadia National Park Advisofy Commission 7

Appendix M: Coordinating a Resource Issues Seminar Series .............................. M-1 ........................................................................................... CHOOSING A TOPIC ..................... .. 1

SCHEDULING .......................................................................................................................... 1 CHOOSING AND WORKING WITH A GUEST SPEAKER .................... .... .................................... 1 PUBLIC~T~ ................................................................................................................................. 2

.................................................................................. REGISTFWTION ............................... ...,.... 2 THE SEMINAR ROOM .................................................................................................................. 2 YOUR ROLE DURING THE SEMINAR ........,... .. ............................................................................ 2 VARIOUS AND SUNDRY .............................. .. ............................................................................ 3

Appendix N: Background to Fraser Basin Management Program case study ........ N-1 .................................................................................................................................. S ~ I N G 1

fBMP STRUCTURE ..............................,.............................................................................. ...... 2 .......................................................................................................... APPROACH 3

............................................................................... COMMUNICA~N ...................................... .. 4 ........................................................................................................................ REPORT CARDS 6

BASINPLAN ........................ .... ................................................................................................. 7 ......................................................................................................... FRASER BASIN COUNCIL 9

Appendix O: Fraser Basin Management Board ................................................... 0-1

Appendix P: Selling the importance of communication ...... ........ .......................... P-1 COMMUNICATING LlKE AN ECOSYSTEM .................................................................................... 1

..................................................... 'SCIENCE' IS LlKE A FOREIGN LANGUAGE 2

Appendix Q: Ecosystem management messages ............................... ................ R-1

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: The relationship between the ecosystem management players ....................... 3-12 Figure 3-2: Three conceptual landscapes of human activity ................... ...... ............ 3-21 Figure 3-3: Human motivations and activities. and ecosystem management ....................... 3-23 Figure 4-1: Communication Objectives in Ecosystem Management ....................................... 4-8 Figure 4-2: General Model of the Interpretation-Protection Interface ........... .. ......................... 4-9 Figure 4-3: Scales of Environmental Citizenship ..................................................................... 4-9 Figure 44: Information characteristics of various public participation types ............... .. ........ 4-19

......................................................... Figure 10-1 : The rote of BNP in a landscape context 10-46 Figure B-1: The four ecosystem functions and the ffow of events between them .................. 6-15 Figure F-1: Categories of Actions Arising from the Principles of Ecosystem Management ..... F-8 Figure -1: Greater Yellowstone Land Ownership (adapted from GYCC 1990) ...................... K-1

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Case study selection criteria ............................................................................... 2-6 Table D-1: The cornponents of attitudes .................................................................................. D-1 Table L-1: Resource Management projects and functions covered during

Resource Acadia field seminars, 993-94 [sic; 1993-951.. .............. .. ...... ................ L-4

List of Boxes

Box 4-1: What is public participation in ecosystem management ......................................... 4-18 Box 10-1: FBMP 'Individual's Guide for Sustainability' ...................... .. ............................. 10-14 Box 6-1: Measures of how many individuals are needed to counter genetic uncertainty ....... 8-23 Box E-1: Principles of Ecosystem-Based Management in the CPS ....................................... E 4 Box F-1: Excerpt from 1988 BNP Management Plan ............................................................... F-1 Box F-2: 2.5 Vision for the Future (1997 BNP Management Plan) ........................................... F-3 Box F-3: 3.5 Communicating the need for ecological integrity .................................................. F 4 Box F-4: 5.4 Awareness and Education (1 997 BNP Management Plan) .................................. F-5

...................................................................... Box F-5: Principles of environmenbl citizenship F-9 Box F4: Environmental education baseline survey indicators ............................................... F-14

....................................................................................... Box F-7: Ten Key Market Segments F-19 Box F-8: TRAC Plan - Current trends, Vision, and General objectives ............................... ... F-19 Box F-9: Categories of Cost Recovery ................................................................................... F-21 Box F-10: Draft Communication Strategy: Section 7: Ecosystem-Based Management

................................................................................................................. and Research F-27 Box N-1: Publications order form included with the 2nd Anniversary Report (FBMP 1994) .... N-6

ntroduction

There are two kinds of leaming: one for a stable wodd and one for a world of uncertainty and change.

Learning appropriate for the fonner worid has to do with leaming the r@ht answers and leaming how Co adapt and seMe into another mode of being and doing.

Learning appropriate for our world has to do with leaming what are the useful questions to ask and leaming how to keep on leaming since the questions keep changing.

- Donald N. Michael 1995

The goal of this study is to draw together the fields of ecosystem management and communication - showing the former's dependence on the latter - then to apply the resultant 'leaming' in generating recommendations for improving Banff National Park's delivery of 'ecosystem management' messages.

The thesis of my study is that improvement of the communication process will improve the management process and ease the task of management.

There were two primary dilemmas which the study faced.

First, Ecosystem Management and Communication ind ivid ually represent topics which would make hefty Masters Degree Projects (MDPs). An MDP which attempts to cover both risks an inadequate treatment of either. However, ecosystem management's success will depend on effective communication, and so the two need to be tied together in some fashion.

Second, it is perhaps overly-ambitious to expect both an academically rigorous thesis and a quickly implementable set of recommendations from the same project (especially given the breadth of the subject matter). In some senses these goals work against each other in that a thesis strives for completeness, and a recommendations report for practicality - pursuing either diligently can lead to sacrificing the other. However, it is vital to the implementation of ecosystem management (and its communication) that sound and complete academic research be married to practical suggestions for improvement.

I intend that this project will contribute to the process of bridging both these considerable chasms. The result of addressing these chasms is the mther large document which you are now reading.

The format of the report is as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Background to Ecosystem Management - an examination of what is

meant by 'ecosystem management' and what is involved in practising it

Introduction 7- 7

4. The Importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management - a detailed and explicit connection of the contributions of effective communication to effective ecosystem management

5. Ecosystem Management in Banff National Park - a brief background of how ecosystem management has evolved and been applied in Banff National Park

6. Communication of Ecosystem Management Messages in BNP - a detailed study of the policy, study and execution of communication initiatives related to ecosystem management

7. Case Studies - an examination of some efforts to communicate ecosystem management messages by organizations with similar goals and predicaments as Banff National Park

8. Conclusions - a list and elaboration of 10 major conclusions from the project

9. Recommendations Regarding Ecosystem Management Communication in Banff National Park - a date of 33 general recommendations

10. Action Items for Effecting the Recommendations - a list of 74 action items which will help realize the recommendations

11. Implementation Strategy - a strategic organization of action items and recommendations, grouped by lead department (or administrative level) and prioritized within time frames

12. Further Research - suggestions for further research in ecosystem management and ecosystem management communication

There was a danger that an emphasis on the needed organizational changes would leave staff currently facing these communication challenges with no useful suggestions. Likewise, a focus solely on recommendations which are immediately implementable. without addressing the serious structural concerns would require 'presuming the problems away.'

Thus, this report is aimed at both 'managers' and 'communicators' in Banff National Park. In general, the background information is aimed more at 'ecosystem managers', and the action items more at communication specialists. However, al1 sections have applicability to both groups.

Banff National Park is in need of a change in its approach to communication, and is well aware of that at virtually every level (see Transition Communications Workshop in Chapter 6 and Appendix J). This is good news because the grand solutions to management problems using communication tools - which have been espoused in numerous reports, assessments, management plans, etc. - will be unworkable without adequate support. The results of this study are intended to help plot these changes in Banff National Park's ecosystem management communication strategy.

2. Methodology

This project has two primary goals. The first is to show the importance of communication for effective ecosystem management (EM). A first step to improving a communication strategy for ecosystem management is to clearly establish the connection between quality communication and effective ecosystem management.

The second goal is to provide a series of recomrnendations for BNP to help it improve their curent communication strategy for ecosystem management. This report is intended to identify EM communication needs which have not been addressed adequately, provide guidance in creating a strategic framework, and suggest new or improved communication techniques.

More specifically, the objectives of the project are to: Provide a brief background of ecosystem management Describe the integral role which communication plays in effective ecosystem management Assess EM communication in BNP Compare ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park with case studies to determine lessons that might be applicable to Banff National Park Create a series of conclusions regarding, and recommendations to improve, the ecosystem management communication strategy of Banff National Park

In order to achieve these objectives, 1 undertook an extensive literature review, a series of intewiews and the investigation of several case studies.

Literature ~ e v i e w

The topics for which 1 reviewed literature are: Ecosystem management Environmental communication (communication techniques related to environmental topics) Ecosystem management and communication in BNP Interview and questionnaire' design

1 The term 'questionnaire" is used broadly throughout this report to refer to the list of questions which were asked of the interviewees. Others may have preferred to use various more restrictive terms such as survey device, interview guide, interview schedule. interview script, question list, etc., but I felt none of these was wholly accurate, and chose to use 'questionnaire."

Methodology 2- 1

The majority of this literature review was done at the University of Calgary libraries. Other sources were interlibrary loans, the Banff Warden Office Library, the Alberta Environmental Protection Library, suggestions from interviewees, and documents forwarded by case study contacts (notably Yellowstone National Park, the Fraser Basin Management Program, Acadia National Park, and the United States General Accounting Office).

Much of the background infomation given on ecosystem management and communication (Chapters 3 and 4) is summarised from other sources for whom these were the primary research topics. For ewsystem management in particular - which is still an emerging concept - there is a great amount and vafiety of -information, widely scattered. In 1993 (when I began this research), an electronic search of the terni 'ecosystem management' yielded a handful of hits; now that number is in the thousands.

Results Results of the literature review are in most cases directly reflected in specific sections. The background chapters (Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management; Ch. 4: The importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management) are the results of the research done in those areas. Chapter 5: Ecosystem Management in Banff National Park and Ch. 6: Communication of Ecosystem Management Messages in Banff National Park constitute the results of this research and the interviews relating to those topics. Finally, the 'Interviews' section below, the questionnaires in Appendix A (Interview details), and the survey recommendations (Ch. 10: Action Items; Monitoring; Suwey) constitute the results of the research on interview and questionnaire design.

I conducted a series of intensive interviews to gather infomation on the delivery of ecosystern management messages by BNP to general lay audiences. The interview process employed the use of focused2 key informant intewiews3 This

2 A focused interview in 'an approach which allows people's views and feelings to emerge, but which gives the interviewer some cantrol ..." (Robson, 1993). ' '... focused use of key infamants ... is sbuctured in the sense that the interviewer, familiar with the type of material sought from the informant, has a frarnework of questions in mind. This frarnework, which gives an idea of the type of material sought and which limits the universe to be studied, is told to the key informant at the beginning of the interview in order to give him some orientation. If the informant's conversation is irrelevant to the topic or if he veers repeatedly from the main focus of the interview, the research worker inte jects camrnents or questions intended to bring him back, but without forcing him to adopt a pre-determined pattern of conversation. The technique is flexible in that the informant is allowed considerable leeway in regard to the content of his answers and the manner of presentation. He is encouraged to follow by associative processes, from one thought to the other with relative freedorn. A salient feature of the informant researcher interaction is that the former is encouraged to bring out al1 the facts pertinent to the researcher's interest. Clues are followed and clarifications requested so that the informant's interest is continuously revived and sustained. The technique is self-developing, in that the researcher can refine his interviewing method during the course of a session, or through repeated

allowed me to use this more intensive method to gather a representation of knowledge and attitudes, as opposed to the extensive, expensive and tirne- consurning method of mass surveys.

This interviewing style is often called 'unstructured,' though that is sornewhat inappropriate in that 'although the informant is given latitude to choose his own order and manner of presentation, there is a systematic attempt on the part of the researcher to cover wmpletely the topic under analysisn (Tremblay 1982:98).

There has been considerable discussion on the validity of focused interviews. which I will not repeat here (see Robson 1993:240 for summary of discussion and direction to other sources). I concluded that this was the best format to allow the collection of both solicited, fact-based answers and un-solicited, opinion- based answers.

Each interview had two purPoses: 1) to collect information on the communication techniques used by BNP to deliver EM messages, and 2) to ascertain the informant's feelings as to the adequacy of those techniques. An unstructured (or semi-structured. actually) interview was chosen because it allowed the interviewee to provide opinions at the same time as s/he answered concrete questions about the communication techniques used.

A total of 17 people were interviewed (in 25 interviews) comprising a total of about 30 hours.

Informant selection Potential informants were selected based on:

rnembership in one five pre-determined categories (see below); membership in one of the three major ecosystem management player groups (see Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management); an expected knowledge of, and ability to cornmunicate, information about BNP and communication coming from the park; and availability of the infonants.

The five pre-determined categories were Park Users, Academics, Communicators, Ecosystem Managers, and Community Relations. These categories were a hybrid of the stakeholder sectors identified in the Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table process (BBVS 1996b), and the three ecosystem management player groups identified in this research (the Public, Scientists, and Decision-Makers). There is no question that any one penon might fit into more

-- -

contacts, as the amount of knowledge about the problem incteases and as the ability of the informant is fully revealed. The interview process develops the informant's skills to recall facts and situations, stimulates his memory and facilitates the expression of these recollections." (Trernblay 1982%)

Methodology 2-3

than one category, but they were slotted based on which category best represented their major interest in BNP (see Appendix A).

There were limitations which becarne apparent in process: though al1 categories were represented, the selection of informants was limited in some cases by their schedules; some who would have wntributed greatly and likely represented their group well were unavailable; two categories that might have been added had time permitted were Senior Management, and CulturaVSocial interests; and interviewees were chosen only from the conservation, academic, park staff and recreational user groups (for explanation of why. see Ch. 6: Communication of Ecosystem Management Messages in Banff National Park; Interview research results). No representatives of the tourism or business groups were interviewed.

Proced u re Potential informants were contacted either by phone or in person and asked to consent to an interview. They were told what the research was for, and what was expected of them. No interviews were conducted immediately. Each person who consented (or was considering) was given an interview package (see Appendix A: Interview details), and a time to do the interview was scheduled. Given the logistics involved, some were interviewed in person, and some were intenriewed by phone, al1 by a single interviewer (myself). Most interviews were tape- recorded so that wording could be certain.

The key informant interview process allows for an evolution in that informants could be re-contacted as needed, and several were. Those informants whorn I knew could be contacted again quite easily were done first. In this way, they constituted a pre-test group. For example, a question on the communication initiatives accompanying the Trans Canada Highway twinning in Banff National Park was added later on when it became apparent it would add considerably to the research.

Interviewees were told that their responses would be confidential and would only be represented in an aggregated format4. This was to ensure that they would be comfortable in answering honestly, especially about controversial issues or personal beliefs. Indeed, several informants were quite unsure about being tape- recorded until they received these assurances.

Questions The actual interview questions (see Appendix A) were a mix of attitude and information questions. They are similar in essence for each informant category,

.- . .

4 Except in the cases where it was deemed necessary ta attribute words or attitudes directly to them. In these cases, they were assured that they would be contacted and have final Say as to whether that information would be included.

Methodology 2 4

and changed only to reflect differences in their roles (e-g., Park Users receive information, Communicators dispense information). This allowed a degree of comparability between infomants on key questions and issues.

Each informant was also asked a series of questions that were not pre- detemined. These helped solicit attitudes and additional information. It would only becorne apparent during the interview what they could offer in the way of additional information and feelings.

An obvious limitation to the question lists was that they are relatively short. It would be possible to expand each list severaîfold, but this might have intimidated interviewees (Mann 1985). Also, informants had only so much time to devote, so there would not have been the opportunity to let them add unsolicited information with each answer.

Results The compilation and analysis of the comparable interview research (Le., questions pertaining to the beliefs of interviewees) is presented and analyzed in C hapter 7, lntewiew Research Results.

Early on I felt that a series of case studies of areas experiencing similar issues and with a similar mandate might provide valuable insight into the EM communication problems that BNP faces. Chapter 8, Case Studies, describes the case studies and the results of the interviews, research and literature search related to them.

Yellowstone National Park was chosen from the outset to be a major case study because of the similarity in mandate, human-use issues, development pressures, ecolog ical make-up, and especially visitor use. Their experience with a CO-operative management initiative, and the communication problems associated with it, presented a potentially excellent learning opportunity. As well, the Banff Bow Valley Study (BBVS) scientific panel identified Yellowstone as being in an analogous situation to Banff National Park in many respects (Page pers. corn.).

I detemined that additional case studies would be useful, but that there was a low probability of another case being so analogous to BNP. Therefore only specific communication programs or initiatives of additional case studies were studied. To select these cases, a set of criteria was established and potential case studies were identified. No criterion was a "must-have", that is, the lack of any one criterion did not disqualify a potential case study area.

Table 2 4 : Case study selection cnteria Pa@ . - Hig h

Medium

Low

1 contacts, etc.) (adapted from Coopers and Lybrand 1995b)

Y ~ e q uirérment efforts to teconcile resource use with conservation an education mandate visitation or use rates similar or greater than BNP long history of human use and/or human habitation efforts to reconcile public and private interests commercial and non-commercial values being

acwmmodated non-Parks Canada example com plex jurisdictional issues high degree of recreational use

O ecosystem management initiative administrative boundaries ecolopically determined sirnilar land area Canadian example example of especially successful or unsuccessful

ecosystem management initiative

lnevitably

The additional case study areas are described and analyzed in Ch. 7: Case Studies are :

Acadia National Park Fraser Basin Management Program

3

convenience (availability of personnel, quality of

Once the parameters of the case studies had been established, information for the case studies was collected through literature searches and interviews with people directly involved. Case study interviewees were given a similar information package as other interviewees, and a set of questions was prepared in advance. However, as there was no intention of comparing their responses, questioning was entirely unstructured. Again, the interview style was intended to solicit factual information. but also kept flexible to ensure respondents felt free to add any information. Several iterations of interviews were conducted in some cases.

Conclusions

My conclusions grew out of the information collected and analyzed in this study. Specifically, I noted the concerns, cautions and/or cornmendations regarding ecosystem management (EM) communication revealed in:

interviewee cornrnents

the llerature review (especially that relating directly to EM communication in BNP) the case studies (after establishing the similarities to. and therefore relevance for, BNP) personal observation frorn work experience in Banff National Park and observation of the Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table

My criteria for detenining what concems, cautions and /or commendations would constitute my major conclusions included:

tnangulation - greater weight was given a concem/commendation the more times it was raised the source - the above four points are listed in order of their relative importance, although individual suggestions were ultimately judged on their own merit devance to BNP - though my final conclusion is related to communication in EM in general relevance to communication - rny first and second conclusions are focused on EM, however concems related to EM obviously affect the ways and ability to cornmunicate the EM concept

Finally, the conclusions were grouped. Several distinct concerns I cautions 1 commendations. though separate and important, al1 led to a single broad conclusion. In those cases, the broad conclusion was identified, but the various sub-conclusions were also noted.

Recommendations From the start of this research, I have kept a 'recommendations journal.' Throughout the study, I have collected suggestions for improving the delivery of EM messages (see Ch 4: The Importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management for a description of what these messages are). These suggestions came from several places, though primarily from:

suggestions by interviewees suggestions in various pieces of the literature review personal observation successful (and unsuccessful) aspects of the case studies

My criteria for inclusion of a recommendation in my journal included: Nnpmvements - suggestions aimed at improving the delivery of EM messages practicality - avoidance of suggestions which were too utopian success - suggestions for inliatives which had achieved some measure of success cost neutrai - though not always possible, this criterion was at the fore of my thoughts

applicability to mandate - suggestions or initiatives that contribute to BNP's mandated communication requirements

The primary criterion by which recommendations made it from my journal to this document was how the recommendation applied to the general conclusions. As can be seen in the Recommendations (Ch. 9) and Action Items (Ch. 10) chapten, recommendations are related directly to the major conclusions which they address.

After creating the action items, and relating them to my conclusions. I designed an implementation strategy which identifies who in BNP should take the lead on implementing an action item, and on what time frame.

Assumptions

My first assumption is that the ideal of ecosystem management is not a management paradigm where the fmt step in responding to ecological threats and stresson is active manipulation of natural systems. The majority of ecosystem management effort is devoted to manag ing human impacts on ecosystems. Active manipulation may be deemed an appropriate rnitigative response in crisis situations, but insufficient information and understanding of ecological systems makes this a last resort.

My research is also based on the assurnption that an improved EM communication strategy will lead to a public which is better informed about how park managers manage BNP. Further, it is assumed that a better infoned lay public will be more able to understand the rationale and motivations behind park management actions. A greater degree of understanding will decrease the management-public friction that is based on misunderstanding. This makes for a less adversarial, and therefore srnoother process of management implementation.

The material covered by the background chapters (Chs. 3 and 4) make a defensible case for these assumptions.

3. Background To Ecosystem Management

1 Introduction 1

Purpose Ecosystem management (EM) is a value-laden concept and process. There is a great deal of debate surrounding what it is, and more sol what management initiatives do, or do not, constitute ecosystem management. This makes it difficult to provide a clear, agreed-upon definition of what is ecosystem management.

This chapter has two goals.

The first is to give a description of what I mean by ecosystem management. The t e n is used repeatedly throughout the document, and any recomrnendations given, or research described, on how the concept should be communicated would be hollow with no accompanying description of what is meant by 'ecosystem management.'

A concurrent goal is to provide a capsule description that can be used by communicators who are unclear about the concept, but who are charged with describing it to their audiences/constituencies. In essence, this chapter - along with the basic ecolog ical concepts described in Appendix B: Ecosystems, biodiversity, threats and ecological realities - seeks to answer the question, 'What does a person need to understand, to understand ecosystem management?"

This chapter begins with a brief summary of the history of the resource management thought and action which has led to ecosystem management.

Following that is a short discussion of the definition of ecosystem management - and of the limited applicability of forrnal definitions here. This leads to what is likely a more enlightening exercise of exploring the goals, players and dominant themes of ecosystem management. Two of these themes, ecological integnfy and values, are extracted and discussed in greater detail as they have particular relevance to this report as a whole.

The chapter ends with a discussion - and reminder - of ecosystem management's applicability to al1 resource use, protection and regulation.

Background to EM 3- 7

1 History of resource management 1

In order to be clear about what ecosystem management implies, it helps to understand the attitudes which preceded it. The following discussion indicates that previous resource management frameworks were, in general. not sustainable, not science-based, and not ecosystem-based.

Resourcism God blessed them and said to thern, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; f711 the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birrls of the air and over every living mature that moves on the ground. '

Genesis 128

It is not difficult to establish whence came the generalised societal feeling that nature was intended to be dominated by humans. Nor is this attitude unique to Christian cultures. Greek mythology, for example, is characterized by a fear of the wild creatures, high mountains, and dark spaces(Morford and Lenardon 1985); humans saw nature as something dangerous and apart from them.

This stark line between humans and nature characterizes what Grumbine (1992) calls resourcism. He notes three assumptions underlie this 'dominant Western world viewn: 1) human demands need only be met in the short term, 2) Earth's abundance is inexhaustible, and 3) technological sawy will continue to push back limits to growth.

The settling of the North American west saw the extreme of this belief. New governments, anxious to have their lands settled, encouraged any settlement. The only rules related to land management ensured people did not interfere with each other's land, but they were more or less free to do what they wanted on their own land (Napier 1994).

Roderick Nash describes well how the separation between humans and nature has slowly been giving way to an ecologicalperspective. Despite the quote above, Nash notes that Christianity has a concept of an interconnected oneness, with nature as the body and God as the soul. He calls this theological ecology. Darwin's Ongin of the Species (1 859) was the beginning of the end for the dualism concept (Le., the idea of nature as apart from humans). In the late 1800's and early 1900's. as wilderness could now be seen to be decreasing, people like Henry David Thoreau, John Muir and Aldo Leopold helped create both a science and a culture that viewed humans as part of nature. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1 962) popularised the idea of the ecological perspective, and the 1960's saw a groundswell of environmental concern. Today, Nash says. we use 'the Martin Luther King concept' of protection, not just to protect blacks. Hispanics, whites, men and women, but for al1 species (Nash 1994).

Background to EM 3-2

NOSS and Coopemder (1 994:69) split the conservation actions which arose into this milieu into three categones: 1 . species protection - they give several examples of early species protection

legislation, but note that these were not proactive concerns about extinction. but rather reactive worries that productivity was diminishing.

2. land protection or preservation - these actions created (in particular) national parks out of a recognition that "something of importance was being destroyed by hurnan activity." Such areas were not big enough, nor in the right place. and inappropriate activity was allowed that threatened biodiversity.

3. natural resource management - this refers to forestry, game management, range-management, fisheries management, etc. Though the term conservation was coined here, there was really a resource use mentality at work.

For the agencies created to oversee the natural resources. resource management has rneant commodity production (sustained yields of game, fish, timber, etc.). This led to disastrous management actions like the removal of predators to increase 'desirable' game species (Leopold 1949, Corn 1994). Holling and Meffe (1 996; Holling 1995) note how this focus on productivity rather than presewation led to attempts to decrease variability in ecosystems, and thus a decrease in the resilience and health of ecosystems.

This attitude, combined with organisational (and research) structures separated arbitrarily by species or jurisdiction (Nepstad and Nilsen 1993). and a simplistic view of ecosystems having constant or desirable ecological states (Christensen et al 1996), led to agencies that did not act on a CO-ordinated ecosystem basis. The rare cases when they did were only to address crises (Walters 1986).

Protected areas management

Philip Dearden (1991; Dearden and Rollins 1993) describes Eidsvik's mode1 showing the evolution of protected area management since parks first began to appear across North America. The corresponding change in context is that in 1850, we had islands of civilisation in a sea of wilderness; today, that situation is reversed, with islands of wilderness in a sea of civilization.

The first phase described in Eidsvik's model is preservation. The concern was to protect an area from development, and the suffcient solution was an arbitrary line on a map. A growing awareness that influences from outside of the park could be threatening led to the protection phase. This was characterized by such actions as the prevention of trespassing, and predator control within the boundaries. The management phase began in response to increasing recreation pressures in the 1960's. and passive protection gave way to active management. Parks began zoning and CO-ordinated (though species-specific) research.

Background to EM 3-3

By the 1980's. parks in North America were starting into the integrated (or Ecosystem) Management phase. There was a realisation that the survival of species and processes depended on the entire landscape, not just the protected cores. Research was becoming ecosystern focused, and interagency CO-

operation was becoming more common. - - - - -- - -

Natural regulation vs. intervention or active management The mode1 above notes a move from a laissez-faire style of management to a more active one as time, reserve size and complexity advanced. To this day. the natural regulation debate rages unresolved.

These two approaches represent two sides of a continuum (Taiga Environmental 1995b). However, proponents of either approach often characterise the other as an extrerne in the sense that natural regulation means 'hands off no matter what', and active management means 'tinker with everything no matter what' (Chase 1986, Nash 1969, Dearden 1991, Kay et al 1994).

Current management tries for a realistic approach which lies somewhere in between. There are Wo realities here: 1) humans could never entirely replicate the vast array of complex, interacting ecological processes that structure an ecosystem; and 2) a long and continuing history of ignorant human activity has degraded many ecological processes past the point where they can recover without intemention.

Ehrenfeld (1 99 1 ) characterizes this as the 'conservation paradox': "Active management needs rules; rules are based on generalities, simplifications and assumptions; and generality is often the enemy of specificity, which is the same as diversity" (31). However, he notes that "It is the application of general rules. not management per se, that opposes specificity or diversity" (37). He recommends opting for low-management (or no management in some cases). He compares this to the more individualised craft production system versus mass production system. Management response should be "decentralised. flexible. capable of small-scale operation, information-sensitive, and cornposed of elements that are integrated yet independent" (38).

Grum bine (1 992: 185) feels it is a matter of intervening until ecosystems are able to function without active management: "Restoration is critical now, though it may not be an important goal later on. Short-terrn strategies may bear little resemblance to long-run ecosystem management."

By the 1980's many resource managers, scientists and others were advocating an ecosystem-based approach (Grumbine 1994a). However, a formai recognition of the need for a broader perspective on wilderness and wildlife

Background to EM 3-4

protection dates back quite some time.' Though, as Christensen et al (1996) point out, being involved in management activities in an ecosystem is not necessarily ecosystem management.

Today, it has been suggested that the environmental issues we are facing have greater political, economic, social, and cultural complexities (Christensen et a l 1996). One could argue, we are simply now seeing more of the complexity that has always existed. Recent scientific pursuits, such as conservation biology (Grumbine 1992; Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Soulé 1994) have illuminated a great deal about how ecosystems work, and how we function within them. The information in Appendix B (Ecosystems, biodivemity, threats, and ecological realities) is largeiy the putview of conservation biologists.

The lag between the arriva1 of the EM concept and its forma! acceptance is very similar to what accompanied the 'multiple-use' concept. Keiter (1 996) notes that multiple-use was the de facto method of operation on American public lands for decades before it was fonnalised by Congress in 1960. He suggests ecosystem management will likely have to prove its durability for a similar period before it acquires formal acceptance (e-g ., in legislation).

Grassroots initiatives Looking at Nash's evolution of human attitudes toward nature (above), it is very apparent that individuals not aligned with resource management agencies have driven the conservation movement. Government has traditionally played a responding role to these popular initiatives.

Noss and Cooperrider (1 994) note that the 1 960's new environmental and access to information legislation allowed people to become more aware and involved. Using tactics borrowed from the anti-war movement (protests to capture media and political attention) and farm labour rnovement (product boycotts), environmentalists pressured the public and decision-makers to take a more holistic view of the world's ecosystems.

The activities of grassroots organisations have rnatured considerably in the intervening period. These groups' protest activities now include strategic lawsuits to force govemments to adhere to their mandate (e.g., Canadian Parks and Wildemess Society (CPAWS) forcing a stop to logging in Wood Buffalo National Park). Their scientific work represents some of the best conservation study being done. Examples include the World Wildlife Fund's ( W F ) Gap Analysis Project (lacobelli et al 1994), Endangered Spaces Campaign (Hummel 1989, 1 995b), and Large Carnivore Conservation Strategy (Paquet and Hackman 1995). The

1 for exarnple, Canada-U .S. Migratory Bird Convention 1 91 6; Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1971 (a. k.a. Ramsar Convention); UNESCO's Convention Conceming the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Hentage 1 972 (under which World Heritage Sites are designated); Polar Bear Convention 1974; Convention on lnfemafional Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 1975; etc. (Eidsvik 1993)

Background to EM 3-5

Wildlands Project (Noss 1 992, Maguire 1 994. Trombulak et a l 1 99516, Johns and Soule 199516). a strategy to designate an effective continent-wide protected areas system, is an initiative so ambitious and multi-~urisdictional that it perhaps could only be initiated by a nongovernment organisation.

Models and tools

Corefbuffer models In order to address the need to develop a land use strategy that allows humans to use the landscape. but also to ensure some areas are protected, a number of 'CorelBuffet models have been developed.

Though they have differences, the basic features of ail such models are: a core area which is protected, a zone surrounding the core where development can occur, but where it's

impacts are managed, more so as it approaches the core, and a system of connections that link core areas.

The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program is a long-standing international program which uses this model for its Biosphere ~ e s e r v e s ~ (Grumbine 1990, 1992; Eidsvik 1993; Nelson 1993). Other examples are the Multiple Use Modules or MUMs (Harris 1984, Grumbine 1992, Noss and Cooperrider 1994), and the Wildands Project model for reserve design (Noss 1992, Noss and Cooperrider 1994).

User manaaement The recognition that ecosystern management in fact means management of resource users (Christensen et al 1996) supports a variety of models for planning for and managing resource users. Exarnples which apply to government lands are the U.S. Forest Service's Recreation Opportunity Spectmm.(Clark and Stankey 1979, Payne and Graham 1993) and Limits of Acceptable Change or LAC (Stankey et al 1985, Payne and Graham 1993); the American National Parks and Conservation Association's Visitor Impact Management (or VIM) framework (Graefe et al 1990, Payne and Graham 1993); and the Canadian Parks Service's Visitor Activity Management Process or VAMP (CPS 1986, Payne and Graham 1993).

Geoara~hical Information Svstems (GIS) One of the most important tools to appear in the last decade is Geographical Information Systems (GIS). The increasing power and ease of cornputers has allowed this tool to becorne virtually ubiquitous in resource management in a very short time.

Waterton Lakes National Park. for example. was designated a biosphere reserve in 1979.

Background to EM 3-6

Data on various study subjects (e.g., a species habitat. wildlife corridors, potential development, etc.) can be represented visually in maps. These maps can then be lain over one another to note areas of conflict. high biodivenity. etc. Gap analysis work (identifying areas of high biodiversity and low protection) uses this tool extensively (lacobelli et al 1994, Machlis et al 1994).

- -

( ~ e ~ n i n g ecosystem matsagemen t -

J There is not enough agreement on the meaning of the concept [of ecosystem management] to hinder its popularity.

- American Congressional Research Service (quoted in GAO 1994)

Today, the ecosystem management paradigm has been adopted by virtually al1 the major federal land management agencies on the ~ont inent.~ This has occurred despite - or because of (Wilcove and Blair 1995) - the fact there is no widely accepted definition of ecosystem management. A brief examination of the debate helps address the question of whether there needs to be such a definition.

A great debate rages about ecosystem management. Viewpoints range from seeing EM as "a fundamental reframing of how humans may work with naturen (Grumbine 1994a); to "an expansion of the multiple-use approachn (Sedjo 1996); to 'anti-western, anti-American, and definitely anti-Christian" (Wiant 1995).

Much of the debate grows out of perspectives limited to a single agency or resource use. Dr. Harry Wiant at West Virginia University views EM with great suspicion. He feels EM's goal is to "bring private lands under government control (highly desirable to one-world government types)" (Wiant 1 W5:ZO). He also feels EM is unnecessary for forestry because forestry represents "undoubtedly the most successful conservation effort ever."

Sedjo (1996:25) gives a similar but less shrill assessment: ... for decades [American] public lands have been managed to sustain a variety of purposes, as codified since the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act [1960]. If the objective of EM is simply the management of whole systems for a variety of purposes on a sustainable basis, it might be viewed simply as an expansion of the multiple use approach.

This illustrates a basic dilemma in accepting EM: no one wants to admit that there were problerns with what they were doing before. However, a report on ecosystem management by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO 1994) concluded that current practices do not adequately address even the basic legislated agency mandates of (1) sustaining multiple uses of federal lands and (2) protecting individual natural resources.

3 including US. Forest Service, U.S. National Parks Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Parks Canada (GAO 1994, Parks Canada 1994c)

Background to EM 3- 7

One further cause of the debate surrounding ecosystem concerns what has been temed Yhe arrogance of humanism." In his 1981 book of that title. David Ehrenfeld described how humanism assumes that al1 problems are soluble by humans (either by technology or social institutions of economics, politics, etc.). Similarly, Stanley (1 995) illustrates how even the most apparently biocentric view of ecosystem management w n assume that an understanding of al1 ecosystern functions is achievable (an ultimately anthropocentric assumption). The application of chaos theory to ecology (Appendix B: Ecosystems, biodivemity, threats, and ecological realities) disputes that assumption.

There is a concern that even the t e m ecosystem management implies an ability (and necessity) to rnanipulate entire ecosysterns to predictable and desired ends. Parks Canada. for example. uses the t e n ecosysiem-based approach to management rather than ecosystem management (Parks Canada 1 994c) to avoid that implication.

This is not to Say that al1 current and former practices promoted unsustainability. More (1996) catches a key cause of the debate here by noting that the crucial differences between sustained yield and EM are found in the goals (the ends) not necessarily the techniques (the means). Sirnilarities in techniques used by 'sustained yield' and 'ecosystern management' lead to a sentiment of 'this is what we've always done', and a feeling that EM represents nothing new.

Definition Some feel that it is appropriate to let the definition of EM evolve as we better discover what we need from it (More 1996). Others feel there is a risk in this approach. Huff (1995) gives three reasons for his concern here: (1) the lack of a scientifically derived definition prevents the creation of scientific principles. which calls into question whether EM can be said to be scientific; (2) without a consistent definition various agencies c m interpret the concept according to their own policies and goals; and (3) the absence of a distinct definition leaves a gap between concept and application such that legitimate management practices could be erroneously excluded (quoted in More 1996). HufTs concerns are valid, but a definition perse is not necessarily what is required.

In order to examine the usefulness of a definition for EM. More (1 996) used tools from cognitive psychology. He describes a 'classic' vs. a 'prototypic' definition. Cognitive psychologists have developed the notion of a prototypic definition around which a 'fuzzy set' of similar and overlapping concepts can be grouped (Rosch 1978). For example, chair is a prototypic concept at the centre of the category; al1 manner of chairs (benches to bean bag) are within the category and reflect to some degree the prototype. It is difficult to create a 'classic' definition for chair which fits al1 cases ('four legs', 'is sat upon' - al1 have limitations).

Further, More argues one need not define the prototype, or the essence of the prototype. He refers to Wittgenstein's (1 958) doctrine of family resemblances

Background to EM 3-8

and his use of 'games' to illustrate it. It is very ditficult to define the concept of a 'garne'. and likely more ditficult to define the essential features of a game, than those of ecosystem management. This leads to an exercise of defining the themes of EM (as in Grumbine 1994a, 1997), rather than trying to operationalize EM with a simple definition. Such an approach ieads to the question/criticism, 'If al1 themes are not represented, is the project an EM initiative?" More (1996122) provides a clear way to address this:

... mile we need not include al1 the elements of ecosystem management in a particular project, perhaps we need to consider them al1 in project planning and explain why some were selected and others mjected.[my italics]

At this point, efforts to operationalize ecosystem management will not gain from another definition (More 1994), and we risk a process sirnilar to defining What is a car" in order to aid a mechanic in hislher work. It is more constructive to look at the goals, players and themes which outline ecosystem management.

1 Goals of econstem management 1

As is appropriate to any emerging management paradigm, there is considerable discussion about what are the goals of ecosystem management. In reviewing this topic, 1 distinguish between the goals of EM in general, and goal-setting in EM; two topics which fiow together, but which are distinct.

Goals

Is there a single overall goal to which ecosystem management aspires? Previous resource management paradigms were marked by consideration of the production of commodities to satisfy human wants and needs (Grumbine 1994a. Holling and Meffe 1996). Some suggest that the goal of ecosystem management is to balance three sets of objectives: ecological, social and economic (Haufler et al 1996). But this begs the question what happens when providing for human wants and needs conflicts with ensuring ecological integrity. Some resource management agencies are unclear at that point (GAO 1994); others are clear in policy (see Parks Canada 1994~). but unclear in action (BBVS 1996b).

Even for agencies whose mandate includes providing goods for humans (and despite their actions) sustainability is an explicitly mandated or legislated goal (GAO 1994, Parks Canada 1994~). However, EM represents a change from focusing on the sustained provision of goods and activities, to focusing on the sustainability of ecosystems (Callicott and Mumford 1997). The U.S. General Accounting ûffice's review of ecosystem management concluded that regardless of where agencies stood, ecological integrity should be their primary goal (GAO 1994). The Ecological Society of America's Cornmittee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystern Management concluded that, "Sustainability is indeed the central goal or value of ecosystem managementn (Christensen et al l996:668).

Background to EM 3-9

In answer to the question above: yes, there is a single overall goal for ecosystem management: 'The long-terni sustainability of ecosystems." This is applicable to protected, non-protected, public, or private lands; and to govemment land management or regulatory agencies.

A universal set of goals for ecosystem management is unlikely, and unwanted (Agee and Johnson 1988. Grumbine 1992, Nepstad and Nilsen 1993). Each ecosystem is ecologically different, and exists within a different social and political framework. However. ecosystem management should be driven by explicit goals (Christensen et al 1996).

Grumbine has distilled the varied views on EM down to five main ecosystem management goals4. As valid as these are, they provide Iittle operational direction for creating site-specific goals and objectives. Creating such goals must include consideration of natural and social environment needs, societal values, adaptability, and desired futures.

Natural and social environment needs - ecosystem management goals must be informed by the best science related to both natural environment conditions and socio-economic concerns (Agee and Johnson 1988229).

Societal values - "Management goals are statements of values - certain outcomes are selected over others" (Grumbine 1994a:32). Goals reflect what society expects for an ecosystem (Woodley 1991). Nepstad and Nilsen (1 993) point out that this requires that goals must be developed in CO-

operation between managers and society. As will be discussed in detail later, scientists bring information to the process, but they also bring their values (see Grumbine 1994a:32). Norton (1992:25) describes this succinctly as environmental management "employ[s] science in the service of valued goals."

Adaptability - The scientific values and knowledge that inform the creation of management goals may change, and are likely to be greatly lacking in the first place. Therefore goals must be viewed as experimental, and must be adaptable (Agee and Johnson 1988, Norton 1992, Nepstad and Nilsen 1993).

4 These are: Maintain viable populations of al1 native species in situ; Represent. within protected areas, al1 native ecosystem types across their natural range of

variation; Maintain evolutionary and ecological processes (Le., disturbance regimes, hydrological

processes, nutrient cycles. etc.); Manage over periods of time long enough to maintain the evolutionary potential of species and

ecosysterns; and Accommodate human use and occupancy within these constraints. (Grumbine l994a:3l)

Background to EM 3-10

This implies that goals must also be measurable so that the success of the 'experiments' can be gauged (Christensen et al 1996).

Future directions - Ecosystern management goals must have a vision of their destination. This is often expressed as detennining a 'desired future condition' for ecosysterns (Agee and Johnson 1988. Nepstad and Nilsen 1993). However. a better concept would be 'desired future trajectories' or 'desired future characteristics' (Christensen et al 1996). as this more appropriately refiects the d ynamic nature of ecosystems.

1 Ecosystem management players 1

The playen

The people involved in the ecosystem management process can be grouped into three categories: managers, scientists and the public. These are not exclusive groups; for example. a manager is member of the public.

Each group is delineated by the role they play with relation to the ecosystems in question. The roles are as follows:

/ Public

- --

a own and use ecosystems hold societal values

1 Scientists 1 gather information and understanding

Managers 1 O manage ecosystem use for long-term sustainability

These groups would include (but are not limited to) the following sub-categories:

Public

park visitors park residents broad publics informed uninformed

cultural interests environmental interests business interests resource users speciai interests

Scientists

Managers

in house academics other agency

natural science social science

field managers other agencies bureaucrats industry politicians private land owners adjacent land managers lessees

These categories have been grouped in other ways by other researchers (Grumbine 1994a, 1997), usually by separating out politicians from field

Background to EM 3-1 1

managers. I have grouped thern together (and with private land owners) because they each have a direct decision-making authority and stewardship role over specific resources. In ecosystem management, that is their defining characteristic.

Relationships amongst the players Each player has a distinct relationship with each of the other players (figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1: The relationship between fhe ecosystem management players

Provide obsewibonal experuse: study prowdes undentanding of human impacts on ecosystems and rn

- gather-information and understanding Provide undentanding of ecosystems

and of human impacts on ecosysterns

MANAGE AND PROTECT

M R N f f i B - manage ecosysterns for

long-terni sustainability

The diagram represents the ideal, and has not been the case in previous resource management paradigms, which were characterised by:

Managers managing without benefit of good scientific knowledge, nor a clear undentanding of the desires of the general public; Scientists conducting research without putting resultant knowledge in a management context. nor considering the role that public values or observational knowledge might play; and The Public assuming both scientists and managers were the experts, and were best left alone.

Ecosystem management provides a way for each to better satisfy their objectives by CO-operating. This requires effective communication amongst and within these groups.

Background to EM 3- 12

The process of ecosystem management, then, is the co-ordination of the objectives and activaies of scientists, managers and the public so as to achieve the goal of long-tem sustainability of ecosystems.

1 Dominant themes of easystem management 1

Ed Grurnbine's 1994 article, "What is Ecosystem Management?" proposed a working definition for ecosystern management, but the major contribution of that paper toward defining EM was the identification of ten dominant themes inherent in ecosystem management. These themes may not be perfect, but they are by far the best summary yet created of what constitutes ecosystern management.

The themes are presented here, for the most part, very briefly. However, certain themes bear more discussion as they are more relevant to the discussion of communication in ecosystem management.

Hierarchical context The management issues within an ecosystem can occur at the genetic, species, community/ecosystem, or landscapelregional level. In fact most issues become apparent as one views an ecosystem across these scales (e-g., the genetic health of a grizzly bear population becomes critical when landscape level barriers prevent the import of new genetic material).

Management which focuses on any one level without reference to the others is incomplete, and unlikely to address problems over the long-terni.

Ecological boundariesS

Administrative boundaries of resource management have traditionally been created without reference to ecological criteria (Christensen et al 1996), but the central tenet of ecosystem management is to plan and manage on ecosystem scales. This implies that the spatial scale of management must be big enough to "capture the complexities and linkages among the components and processes of the ecosystem" (GAO 1994:62). It also implies that managers have a responsibility to 'think' problems and issues beyond their jurisdictional limits, and must then work across these boundaries.

It is often not stated explicitly, but these same principles apply to temporal boundaries. Election, career, and business plan time frames are usually inadequate for viewing ecosystem scale issues.

5 Much of the dilemma here is illustrated by the discussion of what is an ecosystem (see Appendix B: Ecosystems, biodiversity, threats, and ecological realiiies) .

Backgmund io EM 3-13

Ecological integrity

This terni (and the terni ecosystem health) is becoming more widely used in legislation, policy, scientific investigation, and stakeholder discussions (Costanza et al 1992, Parks Canada 1994c, BBVS 1996b). For that reason, it is critical that it be adequately explained to lay audiences, and is discussed in detail in a later section.

Data collection Ecosystem management is decision-making based on the best available information. This rneans that adequate data must be collected, and that it must be utilised well. There can never be complete and ideal data sets, but there is general agreement that we do not yet have the basic data we need to adequately understand ecosystem function (Grumbine 1992, GAO 1994, BBVS 1996b, Christensen et al 1996). Because of the complexity of ecosystems, our knowledge needs may be unbounded. Thus the process of collecting data is continuous.

However, as we continue to collect data for resource management, we must do it in a slightly different way from before. First, researchers and managers must CO- ordinate to determine what information is needed to allow us to manage for the sustainability of the ecosystems we use. The Ecological Society of America's panel on ecosystem management concluded:

Research programs driven solely by the imrnediate needs of management nsk overiooking new insights and opportunities. However, programs that are innocent of an understanding of public concems and pnonties risk being irrelevant (Christensen et al l996:68l)

Secondly. we must recognise that ecosystem management is informed by both natural and social science data (Roe 1996). Ecosystem management is a response to an ecological crisis - a set of ecological conditions - and we have therefore tended to focus our "EM" science on natural sciences (biology. ecology. botany, etc.). However, this crisis was created by human activity - a set of social causes. Thus we should include science that explains the motivations and actions of people (sociology, psychology, economics, etc.). These two realms of science contribute in equal rneasure to ecosystem management.

Monitoring This theme ties in with goal-setting and adaptive management. Once goals have been stated - in terms which can be measured (Christensen et al 1996) - data must be collected and analysed. This provides the information base which guides alterations in management strategies.

Data collected for the purpose of monitoring ecological integrity or for monitoring response to management actions is ideally quantitative, and is collected over long terrns. lndicators which can reflect changes in the issue being addressed

Background to EM 3- 14

are the primary tools used here. It should be noted that data collected for this task rnay be similar to primary data collection, but it performs a different task and cannot be assumed to be the sarne (Grurnbine 1997).

Adaptive management

Adaptive management as a formal concept pre-dates - and is a foundation for - ecosystem management (see Holling 1978, WaAers 1986). This concept assumes that ecosystem knowledge is provisional, and ecosystem management is a series of experiments (GAO 1994, Grumbine 1994, Christensen 1996). Monitoring tracks the changes in ecological knowledge and societal activities, as well as the success of past management actions. This provides continuous feedback to managers and scientists that allows them to adapt an ecosystem management initiative accordingly.

Operationally, this is probably the most important of the themes. Because of the fact that ecological issues span jurisdictional boundaries, and the fact that those boundaries are currently quite firm, ecosystem management cannot be operationalized without CO-operation amongst agencies.

This theme could be shortened simply to 'CO-operation.' Non-agency organisations, private land owners or managers, the general publics, academics, etc. al1 influence the ecosystems and understanding of ecosystems, and must al1 be involved.

This type of CO-operation is difficult because it requires that management goals are not just compared, but integrated (Grumbine 1994a); that partners develop an attitude of CO-operation as well as a process (Grumbine 1996, 1997); and a recognition that solutions require interdisciplinary as well as interagency co- operation. The process of co-operation cannot become wholly self-centred and forget that the long-term sustainability of ecosysterns is still the ultimate goal.

Organisational change In order to accomplish the kind of ecosystem scale visioning. research, and co- operation required in ecosystern management, there has to be a considerable reworking of the organisational structure of agencies. However, in cornparison to interagency CO-operation, being nice to your neighbour may not be nearly so diffcult as re-structuring your own home.

Co-operation of the kind required for ecosystem management is difficult because it implies a loss of 'turf or 'power.' Creating CO-operating committees (especially for data collection) is relatively easy because the costs are minimal and the rewards are tangible. Relinquishing traditional control over resources to partners, and sharing decision-making is the opposite - i.e.. significant cost to power, and long-term and intangible rewards.

Background to EM 3- 15

This required paradigrn shift has several other smaller implications. Organisations must reward appropriate risk-taking, create incentives for employees to think and co-operate across boundaries, and train staff across disciplines (Grumbine 1994a. 1996)

Humans embedded in nature Humans who are part of the ecosystems will, of necessity, define the future of those ecosystems.

- Ecological Society of America (Christensen et al 1996)

Ap pendix B (Ecosystems, biodiversify, threats, and ecological realities) mentions how billiard balls were used to illustrate how Newtonian mechanics explained motion and interaction (Kay and Schneider 1994). Classic analysis ignored such things as friction. potential for non-spherical balls, etc. These were considered 'noise' in the experiment, but in truth are often defining variables. In ecosystem science, humans have traditionally been considered noise: a variable to be discounted in order to conduct pure research (Agee and Johnson 1988).

Ecosystem management does not discount humans because our effects can be rneasured in any ecosystem on the planet. We are the cause of the major challenges to sustainability which ecosysterns face (Christensen et al 1996). But we are also integral member species of those ecosystems (Grumbine 1994a, Christensen et a l 1996). and have been so for the entire evolution of most existing ecosystems (Ka y et al 1 994. Truett 1 996).

This implies that Our values, motivations and actions need to be studied as much as ecosystern function and response to threat if ecosystem management IS to be effective

Values

Like ecological integrity, the theme of values is of particular importance to the topic of this report, and so is covered in detail below.

1 Ecological integrity and health 1 Grumbine's (1 994a) review of ecosystern management literature found that ecological integrity was one of the dominant themes in EM. Several land management agencies (Parks Canada 1994c), regulatory agencies (GAO 1994). and restoration initiatives (Francis and Regier 1995) now cal1 for ecological integrity as their guiding principle. At the same time the concept of ecological (and ecosystem) health is appearing with greater frequency (Costanza et al 1992).

Background to EM 3-76

This situation exists despite the lack of clarity surrounding the ternis (Costanza et al 1992; Woodley et al 1993). What is meant by ecological integrity or ecosystem health, and the implications for public communication are discussed below.

Ecological health Several conceptions of ecosystem health follow a human health model (see Parks Canada 1994d; Haskell et al 1992; Ehrenfeld 1992). It is an attractive way to denote quality because it is vague and intuitive. For example. we generally have a fair degree of farnilianty and comfort with the ambiguity of the health concept in humans.

Health, in general, is defined as "soundness" (Oxford English Dictionary 1987; Haskell et al 1992) - a vague term that is difficult to use in any sort of assessment. In an effort to be more precise, it has also been described negatively, that is, something is healthy if it is "free from disease" (Costanza 1992, Parks Canada 1994a,d, Karr 1992, Haskell et ai 1992).

Though disease seems like a concept that is easily transferable to ecosystems. there has been great debate on this. It has been suggested that the diagnostic mode1 used by physicians to assess patients could be applied to ecosystems, and is lacking only in that there is no compendium of diseases yet compiled for ecosysterns (Haskell et al 1992). Karr (1992) states that these criticisms highlight a failing of the human health model, not its applicability to ecosystem health. Both, he says. should focus more on general well-being and prevention. not after-the-fact diagnosis and treatment. Rapport et a1 (1985; cited in King 1993) feel the inappropriateness of the model is deeper than that. Humans are homeostatic systems, while ecosystems are open systerns which likely will not manifest 'health' in a sirnilar fashion.

Operational definitions (Norton 1992, Theberge 1993) add more precision to the idea of ecosystem health, but is that a good thing? Ehrenfeld (1 992335) concludes that "health is an idea that transcends scientific definition." It is a concept that has value because it is intuitive. Karr (1992:230) points out. "As continued use of aspirin demonstrates, theoretical understanding is not essential."

Aldo Leopold's ofi-quoted Land Ethic provides one of the best conceptions of ecosystem health6:

"A thing is nght when it tends to preserve the integnty, stabiiity and beauty of the biotic community. it is wmng when it tends otherwise. " (Leopold, 7 949)

In keeping with the intuitive sense of health, Leopold's definition does not address intensity or nature of effects. but rather direction. Without being able to

ci This is true despite the outdated reference to 'stability'

Background to EM 3-77

measure or define health, one can usually sense when one is affecting it positively or negatively.

The bias here is obviously for the lay person trying to understand the state of an ecosystem. They are allowed the luxury of intuition. For those responsible for ensurhg - and therefore assessing - ecosystem health, another more scientific concept is useful.

Ecological integrity There are numerous definitions of ecological integrity7, but as with the terrns ecosystem, biodivemity and ecosystem management, we are perhaps bey0 nd the need for a definition. The literature on the topic has, however, produced a set of characteristics that can be referred to when describing the ecological integrity of an area. These characteristics are described briefly below. It should be noted that they var- in their usefulness.

Unimpaired by stress - The stressors which affect an ecosystem have been used to measure ecological integrity. It is a useful but tricky characteristic. Stressors are well used tools in science because they are testable and definable (Ehrenfeld 1992). There is a fair amount of existing knowledge on deterrnining the nature of a given stress on an ecosystern. However, there are normal stresses as well (Holling 1996) which affect an ecosystem and must be considered. The concept of 'stress syndrome'8 provides a conceptual way to group these stresses and Say if stress - in general - is leading to a systern collapse (or 'flip', as Holling and Meffe (1 996) would likely terni it). Operationally. it is difficult to define individual and (especially) group thresholds for such collapse-inducing stresses.

Resilience - This ties in to stress, but is somewhat different in that it conceptually represents the ability to respond to stressors. The resilience discussion from Appendix B will not be repeated but simply referred to here. Measures of a system's resilience are often used to indicate ecological integrity.

Sustainability - One of the key requirernents of ecological integrity is that the ecosystem in question can sustain itself in perpetuity - which is more easily said than measured. Like resilience, sustainability is in the context of a dynamic system. Thus, sustainability refers to the capacity for self-organisation, and continuation of the birth, growth, death, renewal cycleg.

Loss or gain of species - Without dwelling on the details of extinction described in Appendix 6, this concept is very simply that when extinctions outpace

7 A series of definitions are collected in Appendix C. 8 Stress syndrome: "the irreversible process of system breakdown leading to collapse" (Haskell et al 1992). 9 Or forrnally, exploitation, conservation, release, reorganisation (Holling 1995).

Background to EM 3-78

speciation, or if speciation is artficial (exotic invasions), ecological integrity is degraded.

Cornparison to baselines - This is an oftquoted descriptor of ecological integrity (Angermeier 1994, Kavanagh et al 1995), but it is a poor one. It assumes that baseline areas (Le., protected areas) have ecological integrity, which is a fallacious assumption.

Biodiversity - A loss of biological diversity is considered to be a loss of ecological integrity. This is true, but it is a relative measure, and must also be subject to a complete view of biodiversity (see Appendix B). A simple rneasure of species richness; for example, is inadequate given considerations of exotics and the natural variation between ecosystems.

Self-organisation - The self-organising (re-organising) ability of an ecosystem (see Appendix B) is key to its function and sustainability (Kay and Schneider 1994, Norton 1992). This is conceptually perhaps the best indicator of ecological integrity, but operationally perhaps the most difficult to measure.

Natural processes - Though hurnans are a natural part of ecosystems, our activities are the cause of stresses, loss of resilience, unnatural rates of species gainfloss, etc. Thus, an indicator of ecological integrity in a natural system can be that it is influenced primarily by natural (non-human) processes.

Perspective

Because of the variety and multi-faceted nature of the characteristics which rnay describe ecological integrity, judgements about ecological integrity can be dependent upon perspective. An ecosystem cornponent judged constant in the short term rnay change significantly in the long term. A srnall area rnay be species rich, but the broader landscape rnay have no additional species and actually be relatively impoverished. A consideration of ecological integrity must view a spatial and temporal expanse adequate to encompass the interactions being assessed (King 1993).

As well, a particular process rnay have integrity and wholeness, but exist within an otherwise degraded landscape (Ehrenfeld 1992).

Kay and Schneider (1 994) distinguish between ecosystem integrity and ecological integrity. If humans are not separate frorn, but integral to ecosystems, then ecosystem integrity includes social and economic integrity. For exarnple, a fire rnay increase ecological integrity, but diminish aesthetic integrity; the resulting change in ecosystem integrity is a value judgement.

Background to EM 3-19

Describing ecological integrity to lay audiences

As mentioned above, researchers and managers - those responsible for assessing the state of ecosystems - do not have the luxury of imprecise, intuitive assessrnent concepts. However, for a lay audience, ecological integrïty can be a sornewhat esoteric term.

Ecosystem health. on the other hand, is quite accessible. Lay audiences are farniliar with the ambiguity inherent in it. having already adapted the health concept to economics, as in a 'healthy economy.' For a non-scientific audience, it can be quite a powerful metaphor (Gunderson et al 1995b). It can be bridging concept for communication. connecting two worlds - the scientific and the lay (Ehrenfeld 1992). In the practical example of the Banff Bow Valley Study round table (consisting mostly of lay people), it was found that the ecosystem health terni was much more readily understood than the ecological integrity concept (Bob Page. pers. comm.).

For organisations and individuals committed to using ecological integrity even for lay audiences, it might be best to determine the set of processes or threats that best describe ecological integrity for the area in question. Examples might include Diamond's 'Evil Quartet' of threats (quoted in White 1993). or the similar 'Evil Seven' in Banff National Park (White et al 1993). This set could also be the state of the key processes that structure the ecosystem, for example disturbance regimes, predation, connectivity, exotics, and water flow and quality (Holling 1995).

A suggestion from Callicott and Mumford (1 997) may help clarify the distinction between ecolog ical integrity and ecosystem health. They propose considering the two concepts hierarchically; ecosystem health being a necessary but not sufkient condition for ecological integrity:

The norm for biodiversity reserves, in which human habitation and use are severely restncted, should be ecological integnty. The norm for sustainably inhabited and used ecosystems should be ecosystem health.

Grumbine's (1 994a) review of ecosystem management literature also determined that 'values' was one of the dominant themes which repeatedly appeared. But why should we include values in ecosystem management decision-making, when we have n<jw just begun to ensure that rigorous scientific knowledge is a vital part of resource management? There are at least four areas to consider in answering that question:

values as motivations for actions values and support for conservation values and policy values and science

Background to EM 3-20

Values as motivations for actions

The values held by society (the people who use ecosystems) have a great effect on how they use ecosystems. This can be illustrated using the concept of three conceptual landscapes.

Three landscapes Humans exist on at least three landscapes: 1) the ecological landscape, 2) the cultural landscape, and 3) the economic landscape. Contrary to some conceptions. these are not 'three legs of a stool', nor three equal and overlapping circles. but rather three nested landscapes (Figure 3-2).

Figure 3-2: Three conceptual landscapes of human activity

Economic f/andrcape

Social landscape

The ecological landscape The ecological landscape is the most basic, and most extensive. It includes the vegetation, the other fauna, the abiotic elements. and the relationships between all. It is the backdrop to Our lives at the most elementary level. It provides the air we breathe, our food. etc.

The cultural ~ a n d s c a ~ e ' ~ Humans exist also on a cultural landscape. This is set within the ecological landscape in the sense that without the basics of life, there would be no humans, and therefore no human cultures.

The cultural landscape is a rnosaic of cultures. the landscape on which we interact as social beings. A culture has three basic elements: 1) a technological subsystem; 2) an ideological subsystem; and 3) the transmission of artifacts and rnentifacts to succeeding generations.

The technological sub-systern of a culture is the collection of material objects and the techniques with which we carry out Our "productive activities." These objects are artifacts. and include tools, houses. clothing, etc. The ideological

10 The information in this section on culture and cultural subsysterns is adapted from Fellmann, Getis and Getis (1 990).

Background to EM 3-2 1

sub-system is the collection of our ideas, beliefs and knowledge, and the way we comrnunicate them. Individually, these are called mentifacts, and include language, religion, folklore, and artistic traditions. A culture's collection of rnentifacts is its value system, which is a summary of "its common beliefs, understandings, expectations, and controls."

Finally, in a culture these features are enduring. Though they are constantly being modified, they "are transmitted within a society to succeeding generations by imitation, instruction and example."

The economic landscape The econornic landscape is a subset of the cultural landscape, but our actions on that landscape affect the ecological landscape disproportionately. and thus it should be considered separately .

It is important to differentiate here between the science of business, and the science of economics. The objective of business, or capitalism, is to increase or sustain monetary income. This is not what is meant by econornics, which studies 2he allocation of scarce resources to satisfy human wants,' or "how people acquire material necessities and comforts" (Blomqvist, Wonnacott and Wonnacott, 1983). Economics studies how we value things, which is in most cases measured with money.

Interaction of the landscapes If the goal of ecosystem management is to ensure the long-term sustainability of the ecological landscape, why be concerned with the other two landscapes?

Most of our human needs and material wants are satisfied by exploiting the natural environment (the ecological landscape). Many of our activities are not instinctual or genetic, they are learned by instruction, example and imitation. What we consume, and (more importantly) how we consume, is dictated largely by our knowledge, beliefs and values. These were passed on to us by those in our society who came before us (parents, teachers, etc.).

To understand the problems (the degradation of the ecological landscape) requires studying the ecological landscape. This is where the negative effects of the hurnan activities are apparent. However, it is intuitive that to deal only with the symptoms of a problem, will not solve that problem. Our impacts on ecosystems exist on the ecological landscape, but our motivations for those actions can be seen in Our value sets (on the cultural landscape), and in a study of how we O about satisfying Our needs and wants (on the economic

9 1 landscape) (Figure 3-3).

I f In terms of EM, this relates to what Montgomery (1995) describes as input- and output-oriented approaches to EM. Our traditional mode1 (assessing ecosystem condition after degradation has reached unacceptable levels) is output-oriented. Ecosystem management should be input-

Background to EM 3-22

Figure 3-3: Human motivations and activities, and ecosysfem management

Humui activicy in ecosystems

p i i G G - J - ~ A c t i v i i y l - ~ l 1

Social 1

Natural Science Science Study Study

Ecosystem mdy

c - - - - - - 1 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTI

I \ Understand motivation for Understand adivities' impact

activities so as to on ecosystems so as to encourage appropriate activity mitigate impacts

Management response Prevention Mitigation

Values and support for conservation

There are many different ways that humans value nature - Le., several different value sets. Nume rous attempts have been made to group people into categories based on how they view nature or natural resources (Regier 1993, Angus Reid 1993, KeIlert 1996).

We tend to value most things monetarily, and arguments for and against conservation often attach dollar values to nature via wildlife, timber, recreation opportunities, etc. (Gauthier 1991, Eagles 1993). The 'intangibles' (those values we do not generally attach a dollar figure to) are often as important to large segments of society, but are underrepresented in 'valuation' discussions, likely "due to the methodological diffïculties involved in gaining some appreciation of their worth" (Dearden 1991).

In gaining support for a conservation effort (such as ecosystem management), however, it is important to understand al1 the different ways that people value nature and natural resources. Maguire (1994) in her critique of the Wildlands Project (Noss 1992) notes that even among supporters of the project there are

oriented, focusing on tailoring activity to minimire impact to the processes operating in the ecosystem.

Background to EM 3-23

those who value nature for its goods and services, aesthetically, ethically, etc. In order to achieve success, these people with different value sets rnust CO-operate. To co-ordinate such an effort and gamer support from across the landscape. a manager must understand what these different value sets are.

- . .-

Values and policy We would like to believe that public policy decisions are largely the result of rational thought infomed by qualiQ factual information. The truth is people (managers and lay citizens) rnake decisions based more on their values than on logic and facts (Grumbine 1994a). Therefore, a belief that "the acquisition of 'poslive knowledge' alone will avert rnass extinctions is misguidedn (Barry and Oelschlaeger 1996).

It is possible to influence societal values in that connections can be shown that link biodiversity to the things that people already value (Maguire 1996). This creates an opportunity for EM. However. decision-makers, scientists and lay publics must be clear on the relationship between biological diversity, their values, and policy. This requires that all involved are clear on their own values. otherwise they 'have a hard time making consistent judgements about what actions are desirable and an even harder tirne explaining why they prefer some actions to other alternativesn (Maguire IgW268).

This also requires that ail parties be involved in deciding what are 'good' public values1*. Such determinations should avoid the use of "expert controln as a remedy for faulty public judgements. These can be (or be seen to be) 'hired gun expertsn who may simply be hiding 'prejudiced value judgements behind the cloak of expertise" (Shrader-Frechette 1996). Kay (1 993) notes that even for questions as seemingly scientific as determination of ecological integrity, this kind of broad based value determination is necessary:

Several authors in this volume (Regier, King, Steedman and Haider. Munn, and Marshall et al) have noted that it is crucial to explicitly include societal issues and values in any evaluation of ecological integrity. Otheiwise, the evaluation will only reflect the values and concems of the evaluator, and as such is likely to have little meaning, orbe of little use, to policy and decision makers (who must represent a bmad group of stakeholders).

--

Values in science Perhaps one of the most important areas for which to examine the role of values is scientific investigation. It is also potentially one of the rnost uncornfortable for many professionals because it implies the abandonment of a view of science as

12 u ... philosophers, anthropologists, humanists, economists, and citizens must join the search for appropriate public values. ... Conservation biology, social sciences, and the humanities must therefore interact within the maelstrom of public debate regarding conservation goals, practices, and standardsn (Norton 1992:38).

Background to EM 3-24

value-free (Norton 1992). However, in a recent Special Section of the journal Conservation Biology on Conservation Biology, Values and Advocacy," Noss (1 996) noted that few conservation biologists would claim that their science (or any science) is value free. In fact, al1 M e r s in that section agreed that values were an integral part of the science of conservation biology (Noss 1996. Bany and Oelschlaeger 1996, Shrader-Frechette 1996. Maguire 1996. Meine and Meffe 1996, Tracy and Brussard 1996, McCoy 1996).

There are several places where an examination of ecological integrity and health is subject to the values of the researcher. For example, is the researcher following a current ecological fad (Ehrenfeld 1992). or are the variables selected limited to those relevant to the researcher's discipline (Haskell et al 1992)? A small occurrence in an ecosystem can have a big effect. and vice versa - determining the relative significance of the two is partly a value judgement (Meredith 1991).

What a researcher chooses to examine can detemine the results, and that choice is based on values (Ehrenfeld 1992). The simple fact that someone chose to investigate elk (not wolves, not economics, not physics) indicates that they see some value in doing that over other punuits.

The inability of science to avoid contextual and methodological value judgements does not invalidate scientific investigation, but rather raises the question of how to incorporate values into the scientific process. Or, as Shrader-Frechette (1 996) puts it, how to avoid "throwing out the baby of objectivity with the bathwater of positivism." The key is recognising underlying values as explicitly as possible while laying out the study (Lélé and Norgaard 1996). Exploring ones own values as a researcher is part of being objective (Barry and Oelschlaeger 1996). There is no doubt that this is a messy process, but several value-included processes for science and management exist as models (see Reading and Kellert 1993, Mount 1996, Gresswell and Liss 1995, Hyman and Wernstedt 1995, Taiga Environmental 1995b, Wyant et al 1995).

1 Ecosystem management's appliubility 1 Ecosystem management restncted to govemment lands is a prescription for extinction.

- R. Edward Grurnbine I992:2l l

Ecosystem management is a program for entire landscapes. Thus. it requires commîtment by al1 organisations and individuals with decision-making authority that might affect biological divenity.

Ecosystern Management is not a protected areas management scheme, although a system of protected areas is a requirement. It is "as applicable to

Background to EM 3-25

intensive utilitarian objectives as it is to the conservation of pristine wildemessn (Christensen et al 1996:669).

Ecosystem management is not solely a public lands management scheme (Grumbine 1992. GAO 1994. Christensen et al 1996). Yaffee's (1 996) review of ecosystem management in the state of Michigan saw projects on govemment. non-profit, corporate and tribal lands. Examples include the Wildands Projeet (Noss 1992) which is an NGO- and academic-created program. The ecosystem- based management of the Chesapeake Bay area was begun by govemment, but is adrninistered by a citizen/corporate/govemment body (Costanza and Greer 1995). In Massachusetts, a voluntary incentive-based prograrn has been set up to implement ecosystem management on non-industrial private forest (NIPF) ownerships (Campbell and Kittredge 1996).

In govemment, ecosystem management is not only applicable to land management departments. The ecosystem management mentality must pervade the protection and use agencies, but also the regulatory agencies responsible for such things as clean air and clean water. The GAO (1994) report on ecosystern management noted that in the U.S.A. this would include (aside from the major land management agencies) the Environmental Protection Agency, US. A m y Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Bureau of Reclamation, National Marine Fisheries Service. In Canada, this would include (but not be limited to) such federal depadments as Revenue Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, and Forestry Canada to name but a few. The case would be the same for the provincial agencies and departments.

Background to EM 3-26

4. The Importance Of Communication In Ecosystem Management The survival of pmtected areas may well hinge on the public's understanding and acceptance of Cheir importance.

- Standing Senate Cornmittee on Energy, the Environment and Natuml Resources, 1996

One of my basic assumptions in writing this document is that an irnprovement in communication related to EM will facilitate the implementation of €M. This chapter vil1 outline the arguments behind that hypothesis.

The following sections include a description of what is meant by 'communication in EM,' an overview of the key communication issues in EM, a detailed examination of the role that communication between management and the public plays in the ecosystern management process, and a preliminary discussion of how communication from management should infom the public participation process. - - - -- -- - - -

[ m a t is 'Communication In ccosystem management'? -

I Communication flows between the EM players Recall that three main EM players were identified in Chapter 3 (Background to Ecosystem Management, Ecosystem Management Players): 'managers' , 'scientists' and 'the public.'

Each relationship indicated in the diagram implies a communication channel, or a set of communication channels. Thus. communication in EM is the exchange of information between the EM players.

Communication in EM 4-1

As I noted in the Introduction, the focus of this chapter will be on the exchanges between managers and the public. This communication channel is the rnost relevant to the study, and is also where the greatest amount of improvernent to the management process - through communication - can be had. However, the communication link between scientists (researchers) and managers (policy- makers) is another very important channel (Morrissey 1996), is currently inadequate (Zinn and Corn 1994), and rnerits a complete investigation Ïtself. This topic wiil be discussed bnefly below.

Finally, it should be noted again that separations between these three players are somewbat artificial, and the iines are very blurry. The term 'manager' is used here in the broadest sense of the word (e.g., Parks Canada is a 'manager'). This means communication by the manager will include the input of the organization's comrnunicators, and rely on information provided by its - and other - scientists.

Communication about ecosystem management

The second aspect of communication in EM, is communication specifically about EM and what it is. This is not a focus of this chapter but it bears mentioning here.

Two important points need to be made, however, regarding communication about ecosystem management. First, the process of communicating about the existing management scheme is an important part of EM, and brings the organisation that much closer to achieving EM.

However. during the course of my research, I found no example of a comprehensive EM approach (following the description of EM in the previous chapter). It is a goal being worked towards. Therefore. the second point is that there is a subtle but important difference between an organisation putting out information on EM, and information on its current management scheme.

1 Key communication issues in ecosystem management 1 Before discussing communication specific to the manager 1 public interface, it is worthwhile identifying some of the key communication issues that pervade ecosystem management. The successful implementation of EM will have to address these issues and the communication components of each.

Communication and behaviour, attitudes, and values Changes in the attitudes and behaviour of the general and key publics are considered necessary for ecosystem management (Yaffee 1996), and EM supporters believe managers and scientists can influence those changes (Grumbine 1997). However, knowledge is only one of several factors influencing attitudes. and simply providing more information will not necessarily translate into the desired changes in behaviour and increases in support (Reading and Kellert 1993).

Communication in EM 4-2

The key way to effect these changes is through identifying values and attitudes. and keying communication inliatives directly to them (see Appendix D: Linkages between information, attitudes and behaviour).

That values play a role in EM has been described above (see Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management; Values). The practice of EM must incorporate several science, management and public value sets - with their attendant conflicts. For example, the apparent societal value that ecological degradation is out-weighed by short-terni economic well-being is a core challenge for EM (Christensen et al 1 996).

In order for a public agency to anticipate responses to public policy options, it must undentand the attitudes of those being presented to (Reading et al 1994). The tool for this is communication with the various publics. This also provides an opportunity in that citizens with less well-fomed attitudes and values have a greater potential to change (Reading and Kellert 1993). (Again, see Appendix D: Linkages between information, attitudes and behaviour for a more indepth discussion of this relations hip).

Finally, al1 that holds true for citizens with regard to values and attitudes. holds true for resource management agencies. It is important for the organisation to understand its own values so as to be clear on its priorities (vision statements. for example, are statements of values), and thus it can present these clearly to the public. An organisation that appears (and is) unclear of its values and priorities will fall victim to public cynicism.

--

Communication and science I noted above that communication between scientists and the other EM players was not going to be covered in detail, but to avoid it entirely would be a mistake. Scientists' input into, and feedback from, the communication Rows cannot. in reality, be extricated so simplistically. For example, much of the information which the managers must give to the public is scientific in nature.

Researchers and scientists have two basic communication roles in EM: they provide information. and they solicit information.

Scientists play a significant communication role in the management process by providing information. EM requires scientists to help frame the questions of management (Cooperrider 1996), but they must also be aware of the conditions under which planning processes are actually receptive to scientific input (see Westley 1 995).

The areas where scientists can play a communication role are: helping to educate non-scientist process participants (managers. public) about the science specific to a project (Zinn and Corn 1994)

communication in EM 4-3

helping to educate non-scientist process participants about the science process. Arnong other things, this means explaining: D the basics of the 'language' of science (dernystifying the jargon, etc.)

the experimental nature of science; D the nature of complex systems and the inherent uncertainty in dealing with

them; and D the role of values in the scientiic process (see Values in science, above).

Science is both a process and a paradigm, and the inherent values need to be clear to other EM participants.

The common denominator here is that the information disseminated needs to be in a 'language' that the other participants can understand. Examples exist that show the management process moving more quickly and with better information, when this is the case (Dodge and Biette 1992).

Though there has been a deficiency in the ability of scientific disciplines to explain their conclusions to the non-science EM players, they have traditionally been better at that than at soliciting input from them. This is an area for improvement.

To address this, scientists need to better: solicit traditional and local knowledge learn the basics of other 'languages' (those of managers and various publics) hear and understand the misconceptions and fean that people have (one comment from an intewiewee was that ecology researchers need to understand, IYhat people are afraid of fire.")

The common denominator here is that scientists, as part of the EM process, must understand and be sensitive to the value sets of the other players

Finally, it must be remembered that 'science' in EM is ecological, economic. psychological, etc. These scientists must communicate amongst themselves, and that implies similar communication challenges as those described for the EM players: i.e., understanding the different value sets, 'languages', etc.

Communication and cooperation

Co-operation is a pillar of ecosystem management (Grumbine 1994a. 1997). Communication and CO-operation are Siamese twins; one necessarily implies the other. However, cooperative efforts do not always recognize that fact, nor do communication plans.

'Co-operation' is an umbrella term for the various relationships that exist in EM. These include interagency efforts, partnerships w lh business and organizations, joint research with academics, etc. Public participation is a growing area of CO-

operation, and thus one that will need increasing amounts of time and cornmitment in terms of communication.

Communication in EM 4-4

Later sections of this chapter will deal with specifics of communication in several of these areas.

Communication, public cynicism and organizational cornmitment

One evolving area in ecosystem management that needs to be addressed is the increase in public cynicisrn towards government agency messages. Peter C. Newman's reœnt popular book, The Canadian Revolution, 7985-7995: from deference to defiance (1 995) suggests that this is a nation-w'de transformation we are going through; where we once used trust as the starting point with any dealings with our govemments, we now begin wlh suspicion.

There are three factors that will create this cynicism of govemment among citizens:

a belief that they have not received al1 the information that they need to understand the issue; a belief that there has been a lack of opportunities for input into the decision- making process; and a belief that input has not been incorporated (BBVS 1996b, IAP3 1994).

Whether these beliefs are true or not is not what creates the problem; it is the perception that these things are true. Thus people need to be informed, have adequate opportunit- for input, and be shown to some degree of satisfaction how the input was used. Reading and Kellert (1993) summarize the significance of this with an understatement, 'If the public is antagonistic, 1 is difficult to develop support."

All three of the points above are dependent on communication. of course, but also on organizational commitment to addressing thern. In 1991, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council (CEAC 1991) described the need for greater support for public education and interpretation in protected areas as "desperate" - and that preceded the current fiscal crunch in the federal government.

Parks Canada has an exemplary policy for public participation, but, as the Senate report on protected areas noted, 'What is lacking is political will to translate cornmitments already made into actionn (Senate 1996). And regardless of the reality, people perceive that their input 'never seems to affect final decisions' (Grumbine 1992; var. pers. coms. from interviewees).

In summary, public cynicism will erode management support. Communication to alleviate that (Le., to better inforni public perceptions of agency actions) will require agency commitment. And that communication will be ineffective if the public's cynical perception of their input into the process is, in fact, accurate.

Communication in EM 4-5

[Why communication is important to managers I Education and communication are peritaps the most cntical tools available to resource

managers - Michael Dornbeck (1996), Bureau of Land Management

Frances Westley, viewing adaptive management from the perspective of a 'social scientist and researcher in the area of management of contemporary organizations," had this to Say:

As I read it, adaptive management is a way of managing in order to ensure that the organizations responsible for ecosystems are responsive to the variations, rhythms and cycles of change natural in that system, and are able to react quickly with appropriate management techniques (Westley 1995:394).

This statement would be just as true if the words "that system" were replaced with "the organization's operating environment."

Westley goes on to describe how the field of studies in strategic management 'has stniggled with the problern of how to position an organization, in an ever- changing environment, to ensure system health and survival." The traditional paradigm has been focused on ucontrol" and 'strategic planning ... rational, mechanical, analytic, and programmatic." The new paradigm sees the organization as " 'embedded' in their environments." and strategy as "a more natural, emergent process, the end result of the creation of meaning within the system and of ongoing learning linked to these meanings" (394).

This 'embeddedness in their environrnent' which will give organizations that responsiveness and necessary adaptability to persist and flourish will require a constant two-way communication flow.

Importance of communicating to the public

lnterpretation and public education are essential activities in national parks and protected areas. The provision of these services not only enhances public appreciation and understanding of protected areas, but diects visitor attention to the intnnsic attractions, promoting preferred visitor patterns and ultimately fostering an enhanced environmental ethic.

- Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, A Protected Amas Vision for Canada, 1991

There are several reasons why it is important to establish and maintain communication flows from managers to the public. The most important of these are discussed individually below. However, there are two points that are true for each. Fint, governrnent agencies which manage public lands usually have a legislated mandate to educate and inform the public. Second. as mentioned in the Key Communication Issues section above, it is critical to the communication (and management) process that the other EM players are aware of and understand the manager's values.

More practically, for a manager trying to manage an area according to ecosystem management, the overall goal is to ensure the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem(s) (Christensen et al, 1996). To attain that goal. there are

Communication in EM 4-6

several objectives that must be satisfied. From a public communication stand point. there are four general objectives (see Figure 4-1). and these are the basis for the following sections.

Figure Cl: Communication Objectives in Ecosystem Management

GOAL Long-term sustainability

of emsystems

J

MANAGMENT OBJECTIVES

Im~rove understandinq

I Communication Objectives 1

There are a number of benefits for ecosystem managers to be had from communication that increases public understanding of EM situations or issues (Whatley 1993). The first is the opportunity to proactively address the misinformation which will arise in the absence of solid accurate information. As examples. Callicott and Mumford (1 997) illustrated how sustainable development can be interpreted as simply the status quo. And a Senate cornmittee' identified public uncertainty over as basic a concept as 'protection' (Senate 1996: 10).

lncreased understanding is also the first step to achieving advanced objectives (e.g., the other three communication objectives listed here). Regardless of the involvement 'ladder' used (see Figures 4-2 and 4-3). education and increased

1 Standing Senate Cornmittee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Communication in EM 4- 7

awareness are the first step. These concepts are also ones that increase open- endedly - as Grumbine (1 992:236) suggests, 'There is no end to enlig htenment."

Figure 4-2: General Mode1 of the Interpretafion-Protection

Figure 63: Scales of Environmental Citizenship

(frorn Canadian Environmental (from Task Force on Environmental Advisory Council 1991 ) Education 1991)

The third benefit is in helping affect the attitudes and values of people with a low knowledge and awareness of the issues, a particularly impressionable group (Reading and Kellert 1993). As members in this group are exposed to the issues. these people will f o n their feelings toward the agency and its actions2. If information is unavailable, or is only availabie from sources who are not sympathetic to the agency's ideals, these people can form negative opinions about the agency simply because they are unaware of the agency's true objectives. An Angus Reid survey of attitudes of Canadians toward national parks found that the most educated people were also the most supportive of Parks Canada (Angus Reid 1993).

Finally, proactive information initiatives with the 'increased understanding' objective can incite people to inaction, or passive support. A great deal of opposition to management actions, or management paradigms, stems from a poor understanding of the underlying rationale (Barbee et al 1991, Stapleton 1 993b, Read 1995, Wiant 1995). If a solid foundation is built, then it is harder for

-- - -

2 This is especially true of school children who are in the process of forrning their values.

Communication in EM 4-8

counter-communication to tear it down. And, of course, the reverse is true as well.

Encoura~le apsropriate behaviour

Only when visitors understand the critical pmblems that threaten park resources, can we expect them to play a role in minimizing those problems (Winter 1993).

The above ladders of the interpretation-protection interface and environmental citizenship (figures 4-2 and 4-3) both have as intermediate goals a change in behaviour - what the former lists as 'respect' and the latter as 'behaves.' The aim is to motivate the public regarding conservation (Mangel ef a l 1996).

There are two aspects to this objective: to encourage appropriate behaviour (backcountry etiquette, to respect warnings, etc.) and discouraging inappropriate behaviour (illegal camping, feeding wildlife, etc.)3. Though they are similar - in that they are the reverse of each other - they are subtly different. One is a proactive strategy to establish good behavioural practices from the start; the other focuses more on changing established inappropriate behaviour. The latter is a more diffwlt task.

It is important to note that behaviour can refer to a great range of activities that extend well beyond the agency's jurisdiction, but which ultimately have an effect on the agency. Some examples are voting, consumption. management decisions, econornic judgernents, and demands on government and fellow citizens (Berle 1 988).

For managers of parks in particular. if this sort of communication takes place before a citizen arrives, they will have appropriate expectations, and are more likely to act accordingly. This reduces the need for more formal enforcement (BBVS l996b).

Generate sup~ort

An infomed public can be an ecosystem manager's greatest ally (Swanson 7994)

Christopher Servheen of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in assessing the management of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, concluded that "te public's acceptance of [management] actions has been the primary factor in limiting more successful actions to manage the grizzly bear" (Servheen 1994). Steven Yaffee of the University of Michigan examined 77 EM case studies, and found 'Public opposition was the obstacle most frequently cited by respondentsn (Yaffee 1996).

- - - . . . . . -

3 As discussed eariier, it is possible to change behaviour through this sort of communication (see Appendix O: Linkages between information, attitudes and behaviouc the Communication, behaviour, attitudes and values section above; Roggenbuck and Berrier 1982; Doucette and Cole 1993).

Communication in EM 4-9

There is little question that EM depends on public support of management. The models above (see figures 4-2 and 4-3) imply that communication will be central to generating that support. The question is what kind of communication will produce that support.

Communication which will engender support must illustrate five basic management characteristics:

leaitimacv - that management actions are required, and that those taken are appropriate;

accountability - that management will respond to criticism, and will be adaptive; transparencv - that the public understands both the process and who the

players are; effectiveness - that management action accomplishes the goals it sets out to;

and comprehensiveness - that al1 issues and concerns are addressed by

management to the greatest extent possible. Of course. these messages cannot be disseminated by agency cornmunicators if agency management are not committed to these principles.

For the most part, the above characteristics are focused on publics who have already demonstrated some concern and interest in the issues being discussed. Ecosystem management cannot rely only on those audiences, however. Varley and Schullery (1996). based on their experiences in Yellowstone National Park, note the importance of reaching the 'luke warm' audiences. These are people who are "mildly opposed to or in favor of what you think you should do, or they may just be mildly curious about it, or they may not care at all." They are key ones to target for support for the following reasons:

1) They are the only group you have much chance of enlisting to your cause as the dialogue continues;

2) They are the group that traditionally you will tend to spend the least time communicating with, because so much of your energy will be absorbed by the more determined personalities on the left and right ascending and descending arms of the bel1 curve;

3) They may be the most numerous, but they are the hardest for anybody to communicate with directly because they aren't on customary mailing lists and, generally, they must be reached through the dimming and distorting filters of the commercial media; and

4) They are the people who most need to hear from you, and whose concern you most need to activate (Varley and Schullery 1996).

lnform public partici~ation The final important characteristic of communication which generates support is communication which inforrns public participation. This objective is somewhat of a combination of the previous three objectives. but public participation is becoming such an integral part of park management (Christensen et al 1996.

Communication in EM 4-70

Redelsheimer 1996. Cortner and Moote 1994) that its communication issues deserve separate treatmentS4

Public participation continues to evolve as people becorne more insistent on being involved in more areas of the government agencies' mandates (Eagles 1993). The public participation policy which Park Canada cunently has (augmented by the requirements in the Canadian Envimnmental Assessrnent Act. Govemment of Canada 1992) is very strong, however:

1) it must continue to evolve as public sentiment does, and 2) it must strive to ensure that the process is implemented is to its fullest

potential (Coopers and Lybrand 1995a.b; BBVS 1996b).

Importance of receiving communication from the public Both for the goal of the long-term sustainability of ecosystems (Christensen et al 1996), and for the goal of maintaining a successful organization over the long- terni (Westley 1995). it is important for the management5 of an agency to keep its lines open for receiving information from the public.

There are at least five essential reasons for receiving (and soliciting) public feed back:

to understand the values (attitudes, needs and desires) of the publics; to receive 'smatl science' and local knowledge; to remain aware of misconceptions; to allow managers to play an active facilitation/mediation role; and to receive direct input into the decision-making process.

Each is discussed below.

Understandinci values (attitudes, needs and desires)

Managers who are able to understand social dilemmas may be better equipped to align individual behaviour and management practices (Crance and Draper 1996).

It is important for agency managers to work at understanding what citizens want and need - in other words, what are their objectives? Divining this information must be a constant and iterative process because the political environment in which managers must make decisions is in a perpetual state of flux. It should be noted that this is not to Say that these objectives must usurp the agency objectives. but they must be addressed.

"Human values and ensuing human actions drive our assault on natural resources" (Wagner 1996). People act based on their values (Grumbine 1997). and these actions constitute the majority of the threats which natural ecosystems face (Westley 1 995). Understanding what are people's objectives g ives

4 A later section (Communication issues in public participation) will mver this topic in more detail. 5 Again, 'management' in this sense is bounded by a blurry Iine. Agency managers require the aid of communicators and scientists to maintain this communication fiow.

Communication in EM 4-1 1

managers direction in determining when and where inappropriate behaviour is likely to occur. and when support (or lack thereof) is likely exist.

Managers must also understand how people are going to perceive proposed ecosystem management actions. Their perceptions may have little to do with what managers and scientists perceive to be the actual facts of the situation. In exploring public perception of, and reaction to. risk. sandman6 identified a series influencing variables or 'outrage factors." Sandman defines outrage factors as Lverything about a risk except how likely it is to cause harm" (Santos 1990). Though the original reference is to environmental risk, the public's reaction to ecosystem management actions is comparable:

Voluntary risks are accepted more readily than those that are imposed; Risks under individual control are accepted more readily than those under government control; Risks that seem fair are more acceptable than those that seem unfair; Risk information that cornes from trustworthy sources is more readily believed than information from untrustworthy sources; Risks that seem ethically objectionable will seem more risky than those that do not; Natural risks seem more acceptable than artificiai risks; Exotic risks seem more risky than familiar risks; Risks that are dreaded seem less acceptable to people than those that carry less dread; Risks that are undetectable create more fear than detectable risks; and Risks that are well understood by science are more acceptable than those that are not (Benjamin and Belluck 1990)

'Little science' and local knowledae

Information needed for wise management resides in many organizations, pn-vate and public (Ya ffee 1996).

Allen Cooperrider of the American Fish and Wildlife Service chided the Ecological Society of America's forum on Ecosystem Management as having a 'rather traditional view of what I will cal1 'big science' (Cooperrider 1996)":

One sees visions of an elite pnesthood, ensconced in academic temples, emerging for occasional semons to enlighten the public and for convivial dialogue with managers. In this vie w there is no #le for science outside the temple, no mle for the thoughtful citizen, with no letfers behind the name, who wants to pursue 'little science'.

There is potentially a great deal to be leamed from "the informal but thorough acquaintance of [the area by] long-term residentsn (Alpert 1995). It is not hard to find examples, nor even hard to find dramatic examples. Cannon (1996) looked at WOUS Whooping Crane conservation efforts in North America, and found that private initiatives were at least as successful as government ones. As mentioned in the preceding chapter (Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management; History

6 As quoted in Santos (1990) and Benjamin and Belluck (1990).

Communication in EM 4-12

of Ecosystem Management; Grassroots initiatives), much of the impetus for EM itself has corne from grassroots efforts. A dramatic example is that of Dr. Peter Sherrington. an amateur ornithologist, who discovered that thousands of eagles migrate through a Rocky Mountain corridor right in the middle of a heavily researched area. However, other researchers either did not see, or did not undentand, the eagle migration.

As resources have decreased for govemment agencies, and personnel are less available to do research, this is an obvious area for attention. The loss of 'hands' to do research, as well as the loss of corporate rnernory that has resulted from down-sizing make the observations and assistance of long-term interested citizens very appealing.

One of the most important objectives that can be accomplished after receiving feedback from the public is addressing misconceptions. This is the other half of the loop in the impmving understanding objective.

As mentioned above, the interested public is actively soliciting information, and the passive public is absorbing existing information to a lesser degree. In the absence of quality information, misconceptions arise. Information presented by the agency proactively cannot be one hundred percent effective in preventing misconceptions. If an agency makes a cornmitment to hearing the concerns of citizens, they will become aware of the misconceptions at a time when these can be addressed without a great deal of anxiety on the part of the public. The misconceptions will surface as the background to issues broug ht foward by people who are likely already angry or emotional.

Misconceptions can also arise from information presented improperly by the agency. If the agency presents information laden with scientific jargon, or if it is presented without addressing the common concerns that arise out of the uncertainty inherent in EM, misundentandings and anxiety will likely appear. It is a tricky task because people like to hear 'yes' or 'no', but ecosystem management can usually only provide condÏtional answen. This is where it is extremely helpful to have an audience who is aware of the uncertainty of science-based management.

Enhancing the facilitation / mediation role of ecosystern manaaers Ecosystem management require managers with greater facilitation, mediation and conflict resolution roles. "Managers need to move frorn the expert opinion role in traditional environmental management to an ernpowerment role as a mediator, catalyst or broker" (Selin and Chavez 1995). This will require a greater 'listening' role for managers.

As the various groups who wish to use diminishing resources increase. and their desire to be involved in the process increases, this role for management will

Communication in EM 4-13

become more important. The more these groups' images of 'place' - or what is appropriate on a given landscape - differ and conflict, the more conflict over use there will be (Backes 1995).

If managers embrace the 'listening' role, even before they become facilitators, they will be better able to identify potential conflicts and inappropriate activities already taking place.

Receivinci input into the process The development of both the communication process and the decision-making process can benefit greatly from the input of the p u b k 7 And management can benefit from the spirit of involvement they display in doing so.

There are a number of process design tasks for which members of the public could be ideally suited. In segmenting the audience for message targeting and in profiling the community, there are few who could be of more help than those actually in the community (IAP3 1994). They are aware of the issues that concem the community, and are in control of several informal and formal information networks. And there are often people in the community with considerable expertise in various areas who could help buttress agency efforts which are sagging from lack of interna1 resources.

As the various public participation initiatives progress, community members are a vital source of information, helping managers keep a pulse on the process and the mood. Comrnunity participants can identify sectors of the public who have recently appeared, or who have not been (and should be) included. The strength and reach of an initiative is greatly increased if a 'catalyzing' mernber of the public is added to the effort (Dovetail and Talbot 1995).

Regular communication with process participants from the cornmunity can help managers (facilitators) identify when 'consultation fatigue' (Dovetail and Talbot 1995, BBVS 1996b) is becoming a problem, and aid in identifying people and techniques for solutions.

Perhaps the greatest return for managers from involving citizen participants (in the design and execution of communication and decision-making processes) cornes from the spirit of such efforts - provided they are sincere! Trust and credibility issues are widespread concerns (Shindler et a l 1996). Consultation and power-sharing are acts in which people see agency concerns and commitment demonstrated, and can go a long way to establishing public trust in the organization.

One caution is that these commitments can be very diff~cult as they require agencies to overcome considerable 'turf-protection' sentiments. lnsincere efforts

7 For more description of the Communication issues in public participation, see the next section.

Communication in EM 4-14

are quickly identified by community participants, and can damage trust and credibility as much or more than sincere efforts can improve thern.

1 Communication issues in public participation 1 A thorough discussion of the public participation process is not within the scope of this study. but there are several communication issues in EM related to public participation and it therefore meAs a brief discussion.

Citizens need backaround information to understand the issues There are various kinds of public participation in EM (see Box 4-1 : What is public participation in ecosystem management at page 4-1 7). Virtual ly every type - and especially the more active types - requires that al1 people involved have as complete an understanding as possible of the underlying issues.

For an ecosystem manager, it is particularly important that the process start from what the public participants know, and not what it is assumed they know (Varley and Schullery 1 996). Participants will learn as processes progress (Alpert 1 995), but they will have a less bumpy path if al1 involved have as good a grounding in the facts, policies, concerns, involvees, etc.

Communicatinq to increase understandina and to inforrn active particbation are not the same

This can be a subtle difference (and may depend on one's definition of 'participation'), but the implications can be important. The level of sophistication of information required for active participation (advisory boards, alternative service providers, partnerships) is much higher than that required for 'the lukewan' (see Varley and Schullery 1 996, and importance of communicating wiih the public; Generate support, above).

Assurning that broad based messages (general brochures, etc.) are adequate to prepare the community for intensive participation (round tables, advisory boards, etc.), or that greatly detailed information (scientific reports, small meetings, etc.) is adequate for passive participation can be dangerous. Managers can believe that certain audiences are receiving information which they are not.

Effective communication will lead to increased ~articipation Ecosystern managers must be prepared for the fruits of their communication labours. The secondary role of information ostensibly designed to increase awareness is to move people along the participation ladden (see figures 4-2 and 4-3 above). Organizations have to be prepared for the fact that as people are more infomed (as they increasingly desire to be) that they will also want to become more involved in the decision-making process (Dovetail and Talbot 1995, Roberts and Marshall 1995).

Communication in EM 4-15

An organization or agency which provides information, and then does not provide adequate opportunities for the 'informed' to become 'involved,' will appear insincere. lnsincerity will decrease credibility and trust in the organization, support will decrease, and management actions will be harder to implement.

CÏtizens will need to know opportunities to partici~ate

[Keep] sight of the measumble, even profound, contribution a mncerned public can rnake ta a planning pmcess (Varfey and Schullery 7996).

An integral part of public participation is the responsibility of the managers to i n fon the community of their opportunities to participate. It is not enough for opportunities to simply be provided - they rnust also be well advertised. This applies to al1 types of public participation (see Box 4-1, page 4-).

There are groups and individuals who will make a point of finding the chances to be involved, and for some public participation opportunities it wili seern as if no advertising is necessary. However, this leads to having the same people involved over the long-terrn. These can be the more radical (and less representative) extreme ends of the bel1 curve (Varley and Schullery 1996).

Citizens need to be involved in the develo~ment of both the decisions and the decision-ma kina Drocess

For any ecosystem management action, the communication strategy which precedes it has as a basic goal the increased support of the cornmunity. This requires the managers to adopt attitudes and techniques like those described above. In the end, it is hoped this will lead to an increased ease of implementation. and perhaps even an improved ease of enforcement (Welcomme 1992).

However, it is as - or perhaps more - important to have input into the design of the decision-making process, as having input via that process (IAP3 1994, Westley 1995, Dombeck 1996, Grumbine 1997). The reasons are those listed above in this chapter: the positive impact on credibility and trust, the considerable expertise which exists in the community, the increased understanding of the audience, etc.

Communication in EM 4-76

8 0 X 4-1: What is public participation in ecosystem management There are many different types of public participation for EM in parks, each with its own set of goals and challenges. The purpose of this inset is not to provide a cornprehensive Iist of the types of public participation, but rather to briefiy outline what they might be.

Being well infomed This is often missed on lists of public participation types. However, having a level of information

and awareness that allows one to judge when to act and when not to act is a valid measure of participation in an issue. -

Knowing about opportunities for fomal participation Again, this is not a commonly recognized level of participation. As people become more aware of

issues, however, they will begin to seek opportunities for inclusion in the management process. For managers who are attempting to move communtty members along a continuum of participation and awareness, it is important to ensure citizens are infomed of these opportunities.

Volunteering Volunteering is the first fomal active step in getting involved with how a resource is managed.

There is a double benefit for managers in that participants are more Iikely to leam and develop an appreciation from the hands-on experience (Noss and Coopemder 1994, Grumbine 1988, O n 1989). and the extra hands are greatly needed in a time of diminishing financial and human resources.

Altemate service providers Another result of the increased desire to be involved and decreased agency resources has been

the emergence of altemate service providers. These are organizations who, through the course of their business pursuits, help the agency perform their tasks and achieve their goals. This type of participation is relatively new for agencies like Parks Canada, and will require careful exchange of communication to ensure that alternative service providers are, in fact, helping to satisfy agency goals.

Partnerships This type of participation is one step above the alternative service providers by virtue of the

balance of power inherent in the relationship. In these relationships, the partners jointly develop goals and objectives. For the agency, it is a frightening affair because of the implication that power will be shared - a situation new and unsettling to entities who are still ultimately responsible for the resciurces being managed.

Advisory boards Advisory boards and similar bodies provide those community members who sit on them the

greatest degree of input into the management process. Though the power-sharing is less (because the boards usually act only in a non-binding advisory role), the input into the decision- making process is greater, boards can have more Say into the design of the process, are usually established with the express purpose of examining policy, and are standing bodies (rather than partnerships which are subject to the whims of business).

Note that as you move through the items on the list, there is an increasing need for quantity of information, sophistication of information, and increasing desire on the part of participants to have input into the ecosystem management process (see figure 4-4 below).

Communication in EM 4-7 7

Participation

Figure 44: lnfonnation characteristics of various public participation types

l Summan I

I have included much discussion in this chapter of what are the flows of communication, what are the advantages to managers, the issues for public participation, etc. To sum up, this section will draw frorn this discussion to identify what are the properties of effective EM communication, and what are some of the challenges for an agency that this sort of communication implies.

Properties of effective public communication for ecosystem management Michael W hatley. in his study . lnterpreting Cntical Na tural Resources Issues in Canadian and United States National Park Service Areas, quotes a seven-step format for communicating with the public proposed by Mullins and Peine (1987):

7 . ldentify general reserve management issues where the public can play a legitimate role. 2. Develop specific message objectives on the issue, and incorporate perspectives from the

community, visitor and reserve management into the definition of objectives. 3. Analyze the clientele's economic and social structures to identlfy the orientation of vested

interests, categories of networks, and individual leaders concerning each issue, public interest and behavior.

4. Select target audiences for specific messages. 5. Design specific programs and media applications to cost effectively link the messages to

target audiences and receive feedback 6. Program and implementation phase. 7. Analyze the effectiveness of the messages and programs in meeting the intended message

and objectives.

This process - and this chapter - refiect certain properties which an ecosystem management communication strategy must have in order to be effective. It is

Communication in EM 4-18

interesting to note that these properties are, in fact, quite similar to the properties of effective ecosystem management.

Obiectives based A communication strategy needs a set of clear goals and objectives (IAP3 1994). This helps the communicators by providing direction, coordinating multiple objectives, and prioritizing in times of fiscal restraint. An overarching goal is very useful. too. An example might be a ten-year plan to increase ecological literacy (Orr 1989, Disinger and Roth 1996).

Clearlv defined audiences I have paid relatively little attention to audience targeting and segmentation in this chapter. as the focus has been more on the link between managers and communication (audience determination is a task which should be directed by communication specialists). However much has been said about the diverse nature of the 'public', and the need to tailor messages to specific audience segments. This needs to be done in a CO-ordinated fashion so that al1 relevant audiences (as well as the 'general' public) are targeted with an appropriate style and intensity of messages.

Co-ordinated approach There is a tendency in some agencies to dissect the communication tasks, but this ieads to disjointed, inefficient and sometimes contrary communication initiatives. The result is unrealized objectives and potentially a loss of credibility. The roles of basic public education. infoming public participation, media relations. interna1 communications, etc. rnust al1 be CO-ordinated with a single strategy (or a set of well-connected strategies).

Sensitive and responsive Communication. like ecosystem management and politics, is a value-driven process. Managers (and cornmunicators) must remain aware of attitudes. s hifts in priorities. community concerns and arising issues. Two-way communication is the key to maintaining an organization's awareness of its environment.

Proactive There are several aspects of the EM process which require people to have information sooner than later. Visitors to a protected area need to understand expectations before arriving; participants in a public involvement process need to know the background to the issues as early as possible; and the attempts to generate support for EM actions through education should not begin afier an issue has arisen in the public eye. A communication strategy which is only reactive, or one that is only proactive will eventually (or quickly) fail. This speaks to CO-ordination in that there must be CO-operation between those responsible for

Communication in EM 4-79

education and those communicators responsible for addressing emerging issues.

Adaptive A communication strategy needs an overall vision or goal for what is to be accomplished, but this cannot become an excuse to avoid adapting the process to new information and the objectives of the various players. A well crafted communication strategy should bring in a constant (and constantly changing) flow of information about attitudes, 'little ~cience, '~ political details, etc. This creates the need for the strategy to be both a solid directional tool and 'a work in p rogress'.

Well monitored This is the corollary to the basing of communication strategies on clear objectives. Quite simply, results need to be monitored and analyzed in order to see if objectives are being accomplished. This is both a process and a credibility issue. as monitoring will verify results and objectivity (Mangel et al 1996). There is one very significant wrinkle in that there are few widely accepted mechanisms for monitoring communication initiatives (Benjamin and Belluck 1990).

Challenges facing ecosystem management communication Finally, the discussion in this chapter makes it apparent that an agency that commits to this sort of comprehensive communications approach might face a num ber of organizational, societal and ecolog ical realities which pose sig nificant challenges:

Organizational lirnited resources poor links between communication actions and measurable results frag mented communication infrastructures lack of CO-ordinated communication objectives lack of cornmitment to communication by upper management lack of advocacy for agency ideals by agency management maintenance of reputation

Societal ecological illiteracy (leading to inappropriate behaviour, lack of support) increasing ly involved public poor (but improving) understanding of human motivations and values public cynicism toward govemment agencies

Ecological complexity of ecosysterns (thus cornplex messages)

e see Cooperrider 1996, and 'Little science' and local knowledge above.

Likewise, the tasks that must be accomplished to address these challsnges are significant, and include:

Designing messages make ecosystem science undentandable ensure the integrity of messages delivered by others address 'wise-use' movement and radical preservationistg messages respond to issues, while providing proactive messages provide 'good news'

Targeting messages identify, segment and target audiences educate decision-makers educate potential allies educate future decision-makers

Co-operating cooperate and communicate with partners (business partners, adjacent jurisdictions, other agencies) CO-operate and comrnunicate with al1 publics (extreme, 'luke warm', visitor) co-operating and communicating internally

Encouraging suppofl foster stewardship (move people along the stewardship ladder) foster support for agency ideals (advocacy)

Monitoring monitor effectiveness of communication initiatives

9 Those that advocate humans as apart from ecosysterns.

Communication in EM 4-2 1

5. Ecosystem Management in Banff National Park

Ecosystem management in Parks Canada and Banff National Park has evolved (and is evolving) slowly and steadily, adapting to changes in knowledge, policy and public attitude. A brief chronology highlighting the major events in that evolution is included in Appendix E (The evolution of ecosystem management in Parks Canada, emphasizing Banf National Park).

1 Interview question 1 : "Does BNP practice ecosystem management?" 1 Virtually al1 of Banff National Park's management and policy documents make note that BNP is ernploying an 'ecosystem-based approach to management.' As one part of the interviews adrninistered during this research, each interviewee was asked if they felt BNP was managing with an ecosystem-based approach.

The general perception appears to be that although Banff National Park administration was making some sincere efforts towards doing sol they are not practising ecosystem management. Within that broad perception is a range of beliefs from 'they are trying to' to 'they never have'. Those who feel BNP is trying to do EM, see it as facing obstacles such as lack of co-operation from adjacent agencies, and contrary political pressures. There was also a belief by non-Parks Canada interviewees that upper level managers did not understand what EM is.

There is also a perception that BNP is trying to do EM within its own boundaries. There is appreciation for the holistic perspective apparent in some management actions, but a sense that BNP's participation in ecological management is not extended beyond the borders of the park (whether by choice or not).

1 Anabsis of ecosystem management in Banff National Park 1

Examining both the comrnents made by interviewees and the various reports and occurrences listed in Appendix El this section will look at some of the obstacles which Banff National Park might be facing in its effort to implement ecosystem management.

The new legislation is extremely robust, with its specific reference to the paramountcy of ecological integrity in zoning and planning (Government of Canada 1988). The policy document. Guidhg Pnnciples and Operational Policies (Parks Canada 1994c) outlined a surprisingly unambiguous cornmitment to EM and ecological integrity. Of the ten guiding principles, the first was 'Ecological and Commemorative I ntegrity." This principle stated that:

Protecfing ecological integnty and ensuring commemorative integr* take precedence in acquiring, managing, and administenng heritage places and prograrns. In every application of policy, this guiding pnnciple is paramount (1 6).

Ecosystem Management in BNP 5-7

This sarne principle made the cornmitment to EM very clear: The integnty of natural ... heritage is maintained by striving to ensure Mat management cfecisions affecting these speciaf places am made on sound . . . ecosystem-based management (1 6).

Administrative boundaries The attempts to combine the management of the four rnountain parks was certainly an 'ecosystem' effort (see Appendix E): one ecosystem. one set of issues. one approach. However, the recent re-alignment of pseudo-park boundaries appears to be based more on the te-allocation of administrative workloads, than on ecological criteria. For example, though both are part of Banff National Park. adrninistratively the Lake Louise area now falls under the jurisdiction of the YoholKootenaylLake Louise Field Unit Superintendent, and the Town of Banff area under the Banff Field Unit Superintendent (see 'Field Unit Superintendents in Western Canadan 1997).

The Town of Banff The Town of Banff continues to be an ecological problem for the park (BBVS 1996b). Its boundaries have been set, and its population capped at 10.000, but its ecological impact increases. There is likely already 10,000 people in the town on a summer's day, and the Town Council is currently trying to approve 850,000 square feet' of additional commercial development, despite a recomrnendation for less from the Banff Bow Valley Study, and citizen protests (Ellis 1997). The increase in development would require an increase in housing, waste treatment, front and backcountry use, air pollution, etc.

On the other hand, concentrating the high number of visitors (5 million in 1995; BBVS 1996b:41) in one small area would reduce the overall impact on the park. Unfortunately, that area is a large proportion of the park's limited but ecologically critical montane zone.

Natural re~ulation and active management Unfortunately, there appears to be an emerging polarized view within BNP (and other parts of Parks Canada) of natural regulation and restoration ecology (Taig a Environmental 1995). Natural regulation is seen as complete laissez-faire management (White et al 1992, Kay et al 1994), rather than a principle to which to aspire when possible. This has the potential to side-track the growing awareness of our ignorance of ecological processes, and could lead BNP's EM efforts into manipulative intervention which assumes complete knowledge of ecosystem dynamics - an unlikely situation.

Manaqinci to an arbitrarv historical oint in time Much of the ecological research produced in Banff National Park assumes management goals should work toward an arbitrary historical dztum - 'pre-

1 About 79,000 square metres.

Ecosystem Management in BNP 5 2

Columbian times' (White et al 1992, Kay et a l 1994, BNP 1995). While this is certainly convenient. rnanaging to a particular moment in history is a tenuous scientific procedure. Choosing a single point in time belittles a professed effort to protect the 'evolutionary' capacity of ecosysterns. and n'sks ig no ring the possibility that ecosystems have evolved since that tirne. As well, the phrase 'pre-Columbian times' is an imprecise one given that 1 refers to the 1 0,000 years before a point in time 500 yean ago.

Proponents of this method may, in fact. be supportive of protecting the 'evolutionary' capacity of ecosysterns. However, use of such a target (pre- Columbian times) gives the appearance of trying to mimic and recreate a static ecosystem state. This can deeply affect the park's credibility with external audiences who will want to know why that particular datum was chosen.

BNP has pursued several very effective greater ecosystem initiatives, such as the Central Rockies Ecosystem lnteragency Liaison Group, the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, the Bow Comdor Ecosystem Advisory Group, the Banff Bow Valley Study (see Appendix E), the new Biosphere lnstitute for the Bow V ~ I I ~ J (Watt 1997). and participation in the Natural Resources Conservation Board hearings for the Three Sisters Golf Resort Inc. in Canmore. Although these research and CO-operation initiatives are an excellent first step, ecosystern management will require managing comprehensively across jurisdictions, and we are still not there. This is likely not a result of the laudable efforts of the people involved in these efforts. but rather of the jurisdictional issues which appear to pervade both the provincial and federal governments at the political level (Coopers and Lybrand 1995a, BBVS 1996b).

Fundinrt crunch The funding crunch (see Appendix E) has had significant implications for EM in Parks Canada. The connection behveen resources and the considerable amount of work which EM entails are direct. The Banff Bow Valley Study Task Force concluded that ecosystem-based management will "require more human and financial resources for scientific research and analysis than Parks Canada can currently affordn (BBVS 1 W6b: 17).

The business plan The National Business Plan (Parks Canada 1995; see Appendix E) represents corn petition between two paradigms: ecosystem-based management, and entrepeneurship. The BBVS aptly descnbed the difference and the danger:

One has a heavy emphasis on protection, the other on revenue generation. At this point they are not mutually exclusive, but they do reflect senous dflerences in philosophy and managemect (BBVS 1996b: 17).

Set up to coordinate information for the Bow Valley

Ecosystem Management in BNP 5-3

There are several examples of these 'serious differences': The BBVS concluded that "the current rates of growth in visitor numbers and development, if allowed to continue, wili cause serious, and irreversible, ham to Banff National Park's ecological integrity" (BBVS 1996b:lA). However, the National Business Plan is based on the prernise that 'significant arnounts of revenue will be obtained from expenditures made by the greater volume of customen who will purchase Parks Canada goods and services." It goes on to hopefully predict that visits by Canadians, Americans, Europeans, and Asians will increase, that average lengths of stay will increase. and that non-peak season use will increase (Parks Canada 1995:92-3). According to the National Business Plan, 'Parks Canada will begin applying more marketing concepts, such as adjusting the service offer and level to actual requirernents of the public" (Parks Canada 1995: 1 1 ). However, ecosystem management does not view Parks like consumer goods where. if people want changes, marketing dictates that you will change the product to increase sales. An underlying (and contrary) principle of EM says, 'we do not manage ecosystems, rather we manage or influence human actions, or stresses, that affect ecosystemsn (CPS l992:2). Finally, the two label the sarne entity differently: what is a 'national park ecosystem' for EM is a 'non-depreciable heritage asset' for the Business Plan.

With relation to ecological integrity, the Business Plan says very little that is not said in other places. Still, perhaps the most significant message of the Business Plan (for E M ) is not in what it says, but in what it does not Say. For example. with regard to ecological integrity, the plan says:

Ensuring the ecological and cornmernorative integrity of parks and sites is a fundamental value and imperative for Parks Canada" (Parks Canada 1995:32).

However, the National Parks Act (Government of Canada 1988) and the Policy (Parks Canada 1994~) both state that ecological integrity is the fundamental value. Advocacy for entrepeneurship is not put into context as secondary to ecological integrity.

Warden Service review The 1995 review of the Warden Service in the Alberta Region (Sandford 1995) drew some conclusions which relate to the effectiveness of ecosystern management in Parks Canada. The review found that natural resource wardens tended to view with suspicion external views on resource management. This "exclusionary thinkingn works against the CO-operative approach needed for EM.

The reviewer also felt that senior management have abd icated d ifficult decisions to the Environmental Assessrnent and Review Process (EARP). This had led to a "strong external perception that senior management and the warden service have used the EARP process as a means of delaying decisions on delicate resource matters by advocating more studyn (Sandford 1995: 1 1 ).

Ecosystem Management in BNP 5 4

Auditor aeneral's report The report on Parks Canada by the Auditor General (Ruthnum 1996) made particular note of the efforts made to irnplement ecosystem management. It went on to draw several blunt conclusions about what it felt were impediments to the department maintaining ecological integnty in the national parks. They were:

in some instances, management plans emphasize social and economic factors over ecological factors; planning does not always provide a clear link between ecological integrity objectives and initiatives; Parks Canada lacks key information neœssary for park management; increasing visitor trafic in national parks could compromise ecological integ i ty ; baseline biophysical information needs to be improved; detemination of indicator species of ecological integrity is not completed; and monitoring of the ecological conditions in national parks is incomplete (from Ruthnum 1996).

The Banff Bow Valley Studv (BBVS) The conclusion of the BBVS Task Force (see Appendix E) was that the ecological integrity of the valley was in peril, but that there was time to address that successfully. It was for that reason that they sub-titled their report At the Cmssmads (BBVS 1996b). Some of the conclusions of the Bow-Valley Study Task Force have been described in other parts of this section, but they bear summarizing:

resources are insuffkient for wllecting the data needed to drive a truly ecosystern-based approach; research and ecological management still being done on a siteispecies specific basis; two paradigms are cornpeting in Parks Canada, two differing views for the future: protection, revenue generation; and EM as described in the policy (Parks Canada 1994c) is on the right track, but the frequent policy and personnel changes will make it take longer to effect3. implicit conclusion of the Task Force was that there had been a traditional

exclusion of aquatics in BNP's ecosystem management. Their approach focused too far in the other direction, and this highlights a constant issue: much of the research and management focus in BNP is driven by key personalities. An effective EM strategy will require including al1 the scientific disciplines appropriately.

Parks Canada as an agencv As Parks Canada has yet to rnake the change to an agency (see Appendix E), it is yet to be seen what opportunities for I impediments to an ecosystem-based

From a report on the govemance of the Banff-Bow Valley done for the Task Force (Coopen and Lybrand 1995b)

Ecosystem Management in BNP 55

approach to management will be created. There are signals which create both cause for concern and for hope (based on Parks Canada 1997b). Causes for hope:

current restrictions on financial authorities. which make revenue generation and facilitation of outside funding difficult, wuld be removed; while remaining a part of the Public Service Commission, some of the current restrictions on classification and deployrnent wuld be removed allowing a more personalized and efficient structure; and at senior levels, administrative delayering and direct reporting could increase efficiency.

Causes for concern: the change to an Agency would require a change in legislation, and there is always a fear of what might be added that could dilute the firm cornmitment to ecosystem management principles implicit in the existing legislation; the strearnlining that reduces the connections between the Agency and the department (creating an executive relationship between the Agency and the Minister) has the potential to also reduce the accountability of the Agency - or at least the ease of the public to ensure accountability; as Parks Canada resources have decreased, fiscal concems already appear to be gaining dominance over the legislated mandate (Ruthnum 1996). A structure which has greater financial autonorny as its goal could inadvertently increase this dominance, and decrease concern for ecological integrity;

As the BBVS Task Force concluded, BNP is indeed at a crossroads. The BBVS gave BNP a springboard to a higher level of information, understanding and participation in park management. However, there is a cornpeting paradigm (see The business plan, above), and it remains to be seen which will gain paramountcy in Parks Canada.

By the vision of 'pure' ecosystem management described in Chapter 3, there is likely no government agency on the planet who can claim to be doing cornprehensive EM. Banff National Park has made great strides in the last two decades toward this vision, but there is still a great deal of work to be done, and the accomplishments of the past are by no means permanent.

Ecosystem Management in 6 NP 5-6

6. Communication of Ecosystem Management Messages in Banff National Park

Since the adoption of the National Parks Act in 1930, the Canadian national parks have seen communication and education as a fundamental role of their mandate. This chapter will briefly analyze how communication is currently being approached in Banff National Park. This analysis will f om a core source for the general conclusions in Chapter 8.

The analysis is based on : the legislation, policies, and management plans; several task force reports; assessrnents (surveys, workshops, and reviews) comprehensive plans; and some aspects of the actual irnplementation of communication in BNP

al1 of which are reviewed in Appendix F: Review of ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park. The review in that appendix is separated into the same section headings as this analysis.

The last section is a summary of the relevant parts of the interview research results (see Appendix G: Interview research results) for a more fuli representation of responses).

1 iegislation, polides, and management plans 1 Looking at the transition from the 1988 changes to the National Parks Act (Government of Canada 1988) and the 1988 BNP Park Management Plan (CPS 1988a). to the 1994 Policy (Parks Canada 1994~). to the 1997 Management Plan (Parks Canada 1997a). cracks are appearing in the commitment to communication of ecolog ical messages.

It can be a difficult cornparison to make because the commitment to communication in the 1997 plan is scattered through the document - a reflection of how communication is now approached in the park (see lmpiementation; Organiza tion be low) .

The overall perspective in the current management plan is that 'everybody in the park is a communicator', a view which can help spread park messages wideiy. However, there are some potential flaws that will have to be monitored as this approach progresses. First. there can be no doubt that everybody is a communicator, but this does not mean that everybody is a good communicator, nor interested in communicating EM concepts. The interpretation corps of the various park systems in the world grew out of the realization that just because one had the information (and even commitment) did not rnean that one could present it in a convincing and understandable way.

Communication in BNP 6-1

Secondly, there is an implicit expectation that this focus on a 'community of comrnunicators' will reduce the need for BNP financial and human resources. However. co-ordination and monitoring of messages are key to assessing and assuring such a program works, especially at the start. Banff National Park is likely not currently devoting the resources to communication that would be required for them to do this degree of CO-ordinating and monitoring.

As well, BNP needs to be clear how the community of cornrnunicators will balance messages regarding tourism opportunities and park values. These various partners will not. Despite the sincere efforts on the part of some business operators (BBVS 1996b:266), the various partners who will aid in delivering park messages will not al1 do so for purely altruistic reasons; there must be a benefit for them. The motivation in this case depends on a clear connection being made between ecological health and economic health (i.e., don? kill the [ecological] goose that lays the golden [tourism] eggs). The reality of that connection is not new. though hopefully society is becorning more aware of it. Efforts to illuminate these connections are not new, but have in the past not led to a community of conscientious communicators. Rather, they have led to a tragedy of the commons. BNP will have to be vigilant that this new heritage tourisrn focus does not take them from businesses striving for as big a piece of the tourisrn pie as possible. to striving for as big a piece of the ecu-tourism pie as possible.

In its principles. the Heritage Tourism Strategy (Heritage Tourism Working Group 1997) is a very encouraging effort. with its focus on raising public awareness of the natural environment and promoting environmental stewardship (see Appendix H: Hentage Tourism Strategy). It also represents a very significant and positive effort towards cultivating partners for the delivery of messages. This strategy, which grew out of recommendations made by the Banff Bow Valley Study. is currently being forrnulated by the Heritage Tourism Working ~ r o u ~ ' . * .

Banff National Park has whole-heartedly embraced this 'community of communicators' communication approach inherent in the Heritage Tourism Strategy (Parks Canada 1997). The apparent fiscal savings the HTS represents likely cause a certain degree of haste in adopting this approach. However, there is a risk that the perceived advantages of the HTS approach will cause Banff National Park to decrease support for the traditional methods before these new methods are proven.

' The Herîtage Tourism Working Group consists of the BanffILake Louise Tourism Bureau. the Banff Lake Louise HoteVMotel Association, Ski Banff Lake Louise, the Banff Centre, the Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies, the Town of Banff. the Town of Canmore and Parks Canada. * The group. created its sixth draft as of Febniary, 1997. and that is the incarnation refened to in this document. For a brief description of the HTS objectives, Code of Ethics and Guidelines, framework for implementation, and Parks Canada Action Plan, see Appendix E.

Communication il; BNP 6-2

A similar concern exists with the integrity of BNP's communication objectives. As the BBVS noted, 9he time-honoured traditions and values of a national park are not those of most business communitiesn (BBVS l996b:266). Businesses in the park will adopt the Heritage Jourism Strategy to satisfy their objectives - for most the prime objective is economic well-being and growth. The HTS will not be the only way that they pursue their objectives. BNP has a primary objective - protection of ecological integrity. The HTS is only one tool for achieving that objective. The park must not let implementation of the HTS eclipse pursuit of this objective in other ways until the HTS is proven to better achieve park objectives than current methods.

A final concern is that the Heritage Tourism Strategy has the potential to encourage interpretation of cultural themes to overshadow the interpretation of ecological themes. Much of the interpretation expertise that exists in Banff outside of Parks Canada is in cultural heritage facilities (Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies, Luxton Museum of the Plains Indian, CP Hotels). Many of the local businesses refer visitors to the BNP's cultural sites within the Town of Banff (chiefly Banff Park Museum, Cave and Basin National Historic Site, Cascade Gardens). As well, the 1997 Management Plan (Parks Canada 1997a) appears to have a greater focus on public education regarding areas of cultural significance, than for areas of ecological significance. Finally, the themes for employee training in the HTS are virtually al1 cultural (see Appendix H: Heritage Tourism Stra tegy) .

l ~ a s k force reports 1 In the early 1990's there was a series of task forces struck to examine various aspects of Parks Canada's. Western Region operations. Several of those focused on. or were related to, the communication functions of the organization. Despite the dates. some of the recommendations are even more appropriate for today's management and communication environment.

The task force reports I reviewed (see Appendix F: Review of ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park) are:

Final Report of the Parks and People Task Force (Parks and People Task Force 1990)

Science and Protection Task Force report (Science and Protection Task Force 1990)

Reaching Beyond Regulations: Communication and lnterpretation as Keys to Environmental Citizenship (Task Force on Environmental Education 1991)

Toward Sustainable Ecosystems (Ecosystern Management Task Force 1992) Environmental Citizenship Discussion Paper (CPS 1 992) Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads (BBVS 1 996b)

Communication in BNP 6-3

In the task force reports reviewed, there is a consensus recognition that communication is required for the irnplementation of effective EM in Parks Canada. This spans reports focused on education, ecological science, and management as well as the comprehensive Banff Bow Valley Study. The model of action item categories for implementing EM created by the Ecosystem Management Task Force shows communication as one of 5 key areas.

The earlier studies in this list are very much the product of the federal Canada's Green Plan for a healthy environment (Govemment of Canada 1990), specifically their recurring focus on environmental stewardship. However, the expiration of the plan did not signal the end of the responsibility to this concept. As the Green Plan fades into history, and other initiatives arise to substitute for it, the need for Parks Canada to champion this cause increases.

Comparing the Green Planera studies to current strategies, plans and practice. shows a rnarked decrease in the cal1 for advocacy. The terni 'advocacy' is certainly used less, and that may be a positive development. There can be a negative connotation to the word, suggesting a position-based interest which will not co-operate. However, in the more positive sense of advocacy (Le., advocacy as the promotion and championing of a cause), there appears to be a waning of commitment. The plan for staff-based. management-encouraged advocacy, as espoused by the Environmental Citizenship paper, has not been realized. This would require training for al1 staff in several awas of communication: negotiation. confiict resolution, public speaking. If anything. the advocacy role is much diminished, rather than augmented.

BNP still devotes considerable time to developing messages (see lmplementation below) , but relatively little to causes. These cou Id perhaps be thought of as what we have today as principles, but principles donnt suggest the active promotion that causes do. It is likely that Banff National Park is trying to down play its role as an advocate for protected areas in order to avoid offending tourism minded potential partners, and to pursue revenue generation opportunities.

The concepts of facilitation and partners exist in the older studies and the newer policies and plans. However, the vision of the potential relationships does appear to be changing. Earlier talk of partners concentrated on those whose vision was aligned with the conservation principles of Parks Canada (CPAWS, AWA, CNF, CWF~); now it is on those groups providing services in the park, as well as those who are currently delivering the whole range of messages. This has led to a greater focus on tourism partners, whose financial resources complement Parks Canada's financial need (Parks Canada 1995, Heritage Tourism Working Group 1997).

3 Canadian Parks and Wildemess Society, Alberta Wilderness Association, Canadian Nature Federation, Canadian Wildlife Foundation

Communication in BNP 6-4

There is a delicate balance needed in choosing partners. which the BBVS captured and described. They are strongly in support of alternate service deliverers, but not for core services - which include heritage communication (BBVS 1996b:305. see Appendix F). At the same time, they propose a tourism model as a key tool for increasing the awareness of ecological integrity among tourists. The rnodel, however. focuses on Parks Canada playing a role of educator of the tourism industry and creator of standards, as well as continuing to provide direct services itself.

There is repeated reference in the task force reports to values. and the need for Parks Canada to understand both those of the publics and their own (see Appendix'F). The BBVS commented on the need to retain the organization's values, especially while facing fiscal realities:

Parks Canada's senior management must continually identify and reinforce the organization's values. The Business Plan cannot detract from or replace these values. Its implernentation must enhance the organization's traditions and mandated responsibilities (BBVS 1996b:305).

This was noted in the context of maintaining tore knowledge' and the 'corporate memory' of the organization. Effective communication will require a corporate memory in order to survive - and vice versa.

The task force reports made several considered recommendations that applied to the organizational structure of Parks canada4. In some cases the earlier reports may have outdated recommendations, but some are more cornpelling because of the time passage. The Parks and People Task Force (1 990) saw communication as fragmented even before the Heritage Communications departments were disbanded. In fact, there was a need seen for better co- ordination of ail communication functions, preferably within a directorate which covered al1 aspects of communication. There was a belief at that time that volunteers were an under-used resource. And these identified lacks and recommendations for irnprovernent were given at time of greater fiscal resou rces .

Finally, a telling comment on the effort to influence visitor behaviour and generate public support for visitor management actions was the BBVS conclusion that Parks Canada programs were "inadequate for this purposen (BBVS 1996b:246). This suggests that without increased understanding of (and support for) this relationship, searching for new communication solutions maybe a somewhat futile effort.

1 Assessmen t s 1

There have been a number of surveys, reviews and workshops which have focused on, or touched on, an assessrnent of how ecological messages are

4 Most of these earlier reports focused recommendations on the nowdefunct regional offices. As the functions of those offices have now been passed to the individual parks, most of the recommendations now have applicability to Banff National Park.

Communication in BNP 6-5

communicated by Banff National Park or Parks Canada in general. These are reviewed in Appendix F, and include:

A Study of Canadian Attitudes Towanl Canada's National Parks (Angus Reid 1993) the environmental education Baseline Survey Results (The Advisory Group 1995) lmproving internai and Extemal Warden Service Effectiveness (Sa ndfo rd 1995) Protecting Places and People: Consenling Canada's Natural Heritage (Senate 1996) Canadian Heritage - Parks Canada: Preserving Canada 's Na tur al Heritage. ~ e p o a of the Auditor General (Ruthnum 1996) Transition Communications Workshop (1 997)

The Angus Reid survey (1 993) showed Parks Canada that their staff are well respected. and the information they provide is considered most credible to Canadians. This reputation has been built from a face-to-face service that park visitors are familiar with, and from that reputation being spread by word of mouth to friends and family (Whatley 1993). Much of the future success of EM in Banff National Park will likely depend on that reputation being maintained and improved.

The review of the Warden Service (Sandford 1995) focused on one area of Parks Canada's operation where communication skills were lacking. Since that review, several of its major concerns have been addressed. Though this is still an area for improvement, great strides have been made. The separation between Heritage Communications and the Warden Service has been removed to a large degree by putting communication specialists whose primary role is coordinating their communication efforts directly into the Warden Service office. There is still a need for the better training regarding communication skills which the review called for, but this does not apply to the Warden Service alone.

The Senate Cornmittee's (Senate 1996) suggestion that public awareness campaigns be CO-ordinated across jurisdictions and across the country highlights what should be a major concern for Parks Canada in the Alberta Region. There is no outreach being coordinated even regionally. Neither Banff National Park nor any other national park in this region is in a position to offer anything to suc a cross-jurisdictional effort. The Transition Communications Workshop (1 997) addressed to some degree the issue of outreach, but little has corne of their recommendations yet. The loss of the outreach function in the Regional Office making this problem acute.

The Auditor General's report (Ruthnum 1996) was a stinging rebuke. It quite simply and eloquently notes that Parks Canada policy requires broad communication, that such communication helps facilitate protection of ecological integrity (i.e., Parks Canada's primary mandate), and that Parks Canada is doing

Communication in BNP 6-6

a poor job of communicating ecological messages and raising ecological awareness (3 1.49).

The Transition Communications Wotkshop (1997) was intended to mark a new focusing of attention on communication issues in the Alberta Region. The commitment made by senior managers to attend and take part. and their cornmitment to accomplish specific tasks are excellent indicators of a new management approach to communications. However, the hitherto lack of attention, and the virulence with which communication programs were cut in this region (compared with other regions) will require a sustained management commitment before the perception by comrnunicators of inadequate management support is changed.

Senior management has made some admissions of problems, and have committed to address these (Transition Communications Workshop 1997). The lack of clear goals and objectives for communication specialists and communication programs, have been identified as problems which will hopefully soon be resolved (Transition Communications Workshop 1997). However, there is considerable variation from manager to manager both in understanding of communication issues and in commitment to their importance. The final comment by the superintendents that 'communication is more than just heritage presentation" is very positive. Some communicators have the perception that there have been a number of key managers who were unaware of the diversity of communication products and services available through communication specialists (Transition Communications Workshop 1997).

Potentially contradictory visions of communication have exacerbated problems. The views that 'we are al1 communicators' and that 'communication specialists are trained professionals' can be confused without a clear understanding of communication theory, tools, impacts, etc. Everybody is a communicator, but not everybody is a good communicator. Sandford's (1 995) review, in fact, suggests some key people are poor communicators. A dependence on specialists ignores an amy of potential communicators; a dependence on untrained communicators creates concerns for the integrity of messages. A balance is needed.

It is difficult for a manager with limited communications training to decide at what point a message has or has not been effectively communicated. Ultimately, however, that manager's budget or poiicy direction must reflects that decision. providing support for effective communication initiatives and not for ineffective ones.

Another positive to corne out of the Workshop is the commitment to concentration on national messages, and to Parks Canada as a national organization. Issue-specific, park-specific, interest-specific communication has, in the past, led Parks Canada communications away from the basic messages of

Communication in BNP 6- 7

why a national park is important. Hopefully this will facilitate a rernedy to that problern.

A key comment in the final remarks made on behalf of the superintendents was that 'our clients are more than just our visitors." The depth of that statement may be lost on some. I believe park visiton are costomers; Parks Canada provides them wlh goods and services which they buy. The people of Canada are clients. The implication in the word 'client' is of a more professional relationship; Parks Canada has been retained by the people of Canada to manage the national parks on their behalf. Each group is important in their own way, though the client is more important than the customer. And each group requires a different cornrnoniwtion approach in order to enlist their support.

Finally, the Transition Communications Workshop highlighted a major area of contention between managers and communicators which will have to be addressed. For most communicators, inadequate funding (or the perception of inadequate funding) illustrates a lack of management support. The widespread belief that better communication can improve protection and visitor management has not been accompanied by corresponding levels of communication resources There is a requirement for communication specialists to prioritire, and that is understood, however, at some point there has to be recognition that communications programs were cut too far (and in this region only). This coming to ternis will likely happen only after managers and communicators are made more aware of each other's worlds. The workshop was an excellent initial step in that regard.

1 Plans

The Tounsm, Recreation and Communication (TRAC) Plan (%NP 1993) and the Parks Canada National Business Plan (Parks Canada 1995) have provided significant direction for communications planning, but are external to the management plan. They are reviewed in Appendix F.

There are two s hortcornings of the Tounsm, Recreation and Communication (TRAC) Plan in term of its application today: 1) it is out of date; and 2) it is not park wide. Ultimately, however, a plan like the TRAC Plan is what is needed in Banff National Park. The park-wide con strategy currently being created is being written by the same author who did the TRAC plan. However, creating another such plan without implementing it is would be a waste of resources.

Since 1 993, BNP has faced considerable changes (reorganization, less funding , new Heritage Tourism Strategy focus, loss of regional office activities, etc.). Thus the TRAC Plan, with its very detailed communication strategies, is very much out of date, and it is difficult to detennine which portions were or were not enacted.

Communication in BNP 6-8

The thinking and the vision, however, are very appropriate for BNP today. The chief strength of the plan is that it is integrative. Recreation, tourism and communication are seen as inseparable parts of the same human use management process. The new park wide communication strategy will hopefully also take this view.

The new communication strategy should also adopt these views of the TRAC plan:

the need for partners: other agencies, co-operating associations, community groups. NGO's. businesses and partners beyond the park boundaries a need to re-establish environmental education within Parks Canada coordination on a reg ional basis for providing ecosystem level messages a vision of staff as better trained people, who also know where to go for the most knowledgeable source

At the Transition Communications Workshop (1 997), it was recognized that a new communication strategy would also have to be carefully tied to the business plan. However, there are several contradictions in the National Business Plan (Parks Canada 1995; see Plans. above) related to communication and protection. This will make it difficult to tie communication programs effectively to the business plan.

The financial perspective in the national business plan suggests that CD-ROMs and virtual reality could be ernbraced as they provide an experience without the nomally attendant ecological impact (Parks Canada 199535). However, the hands-on experience has long been one of the most solid ways for creating undentanding of and support for the national park system (Grumbine 1988). And despite their cost effectiveness, such technological communication media may misrepresent the complexity of the park ecosysterns - you cannot push a button and start again with al1 the wolves alive in a real ecosystem.

Reference to communications programs are spread through the Business Plan, and the fact that different regions in Parks Canada chose to interpret the guidelines relative to communication (Oxman, pers. corn.) in different ways is testament to their ambiguity. Basic message delivery is covered under the Personal Use Fee, and more personal programming is under various levels of cost recovery. Investrnents in communication programs can corne under annual investments under several streams (see Appendix F, Box F-9). However, there is considerable room for variation in that those investments which contribute more directly to the core mandate - and more productively - may be judged more important (Parks Canada 1995:54). Given this rating system, it is vital that all involved understand the full contribution of communication activities.

A core concern with the Business Plan is the perception of client awareness and satisfaction. Until increased ecological awareness is achieved, protection efforts may in fact decrease visitor satisfaction (crowding, overuse of trails, degraded

Communication in BNP 6-9

scenic vistas, etc.). As well, the focus on 'raising awareness' is not on 'ecological awareness,' but rather awareness of national parks as 'icons of Canadian tourism'. and of the products and services that are for sale.

The marketing strategy is very clearly a revenue generation tool. There is no accounting for a potential decrease in management costs incurred by a more aware local and regional audience. The focus is on the new revenue created by the various welldetailed increases in visitation. This raises (at least) two concems. Fint, the plan assumes that new tourism will create new revenue for Parks Canada. In Banff. the current structure sees a very small percentage of current tourist expenditure make its way into protection and ecological awareness programs (BBVS 1996b:316). Thus a small increase in revenue will require a great increase in visitation, impacts and management costs.

Secondly, even if the greater numbers of visitors were more ecologically aware, BNP will have to weigh the ecological impact of 5 million unaware tourists versus that of even 1 O million aware eco-tourists.

1 tmptementation I

Park Canada has been undergoing a significant amount of organizational change that has coincided with the decrease in appropriations coming from the federal government. These changes have had an immense impact on how communication programs are delivered, especially in the Alberta Region.

The reorganization has significant accomplishments. Foremost among these has been the creation of the Ecosystem Secretariat, which has fostered foresight and coordination of park level strategy across disciplines. As well, the creation of Communication Specialists, and their attachment to specific departments has improved the general understanding among staff of the role of communications in park management.

However, there were problems with the organizational concept. Senior managers at the Transition Communications Workshop noted that, and recog nized that adjustments would have to made. They also noted that this recognition had been made at the national level, and that initiatives are underway to address thern (Transition Communications Workshop 1997).

ln the Western (now Alberta) Reg ion, this has been very apparent for communications. The focus was on down-sizing, and there was little direction given as to what communication programs were core, and which were not (see Parks Canada 1995). Outreach (including urban outreach) is now considered the role of the individual parks (Transition Communications Workshop 1997), but no new resources were assigned to the parks when this new area of responsibility was transferred. The loss of staff, without an attendant loss of workload, caused

Communication in B NP 6- 7 O

sig nificant morale problems (Coopers and Lybrand 1 995a:34). People with insuffcient time to think about current tasks are likely to devote no time to thinking about the big picture and future directions.

Though one is currently being developed, the lack of a comprehensive communication strategy for the park has left people unclear about what the areas of responsibility were. According to several BNP communication staff with whom I spoke, when new communications tasks are identified at the executive level, they are handed out with no direction from an overall strategy. This has made coordination very difficult. These diffculties have been aggravated by a continuous drain through staff reductions.

One of the most problematic characteristics of the reorganization has been that communication responsibilities were given to managers who had inadequate understanding of the role of communication, few spare moments to learn, and budgets that were already overburdened by other 'core' responsibilities.

Interna1 communication Intemal communication in the Mountain Parks district can be considered in the context of this study in three areas (reviewed briefiy in Appendix F):

staff training communication with and between communicators - within park communication with and between communicators - bebveen parks

The required staff training related to communication would include the following: negotiation and business skills training5 for Communication Specialist's; training for al1 staff about the role of communications (topics could include current park approach to communication, what is value of communication, who are the communication people. how to contact subject experts, etc.); communication training for staff to become better communicators (topics could include presentation skills, audience identification, determining messages, etc.); training for communicators about other staffs roles (topics could include ecosystem management, current research. public relations, etc.). As Communication Specialists become communication facilitators, they would benefit from regular training in these areas; and information updates for al1 staff on current issues.

With communicators' allegiances spread throughout several departrnents within the park, and without a coordinating body, even the most basic coordination of efforts has been difficult. A recent example saw two departments identifying the need for a new elk warning poster, and independently moving to create one. The

This type of training was a noted deficiency by the Coopers and Lybrand (1 995a) report on govemance, and was also called for by participants at the Transition Communications Workshop (1 997).

Communication In BNP 6-1 1

confusion that ensued when each became aware of the other has resulted in the old poster being reprinted for another year.

The ad hoc communications group created in the park will help address such problems. This CO-operation is certainly what is needed, and exists at the level it should. However, the process would likely have been faster and smoother if a fornal coordination mechanism had been created during the administrative reorganization. The imminent park-wide communication strategy will hopefully address this concern.

The issue of between-park communication was dealt with at the Transition Communications Workshop (1 997). The success of Banff s bulletin board6 will depend on several factors related to people's ability and willingness to access it:

availability of time is a major factor; non-personal communication interactions are not as effective as personal ones; electronic bulletin boards assume that people are consistently accessing them, which they are not. This may require a parallel reminder message system; Usen of interna1 electronic mail face 'junk-mail fatigue' from receiving non- applicable mail; for example, while working in BNP, I received numerous invitations to retirement parties. etc. in Ottawa.

Several atternpts have been made in the past to address the between- communicator communication problem (Kerr pers. com.). Efforts have generally been personality-driven, but died from lack of cornmitment from policy or management, or when that personality left the position. This effort (with techniques in addition to the bulletin board medium) may succeed if management endorsement continues.

communication strategy

The direction Banff National Park is taking in creating a park wide communication strategy is an excellent one7. it is important that communicators derive direction from the park management plan, but that cannot provide the coordination required, nor sufficient detail for prioritizing. Even simply collecting the responses to the questionnaire8 has been extremely valuable already in that they contain a list of what staff currently see as their communication responsibilities.

Hopefully the strategy will aid BNP communicators in determining what needs to be done for communication, that is: 1) what are the core services; 2) what

6

7 To be used as a between-park communication tool (see Appendix F). See Appendix F for a review of a previous draft communication strategy. Distributed prior to the creation of the draft park-wide communication strategy (see Appendix F

for discussion).

Communication in BNP 672

additional communication tasks will improve management and how; 3) what are the 'wish list" communication initiatives; and finally 4) what monitoring must be done.

The key task to follow the communication strategy will be prioritizing. This communication plan rnust be directed by the park management plan, but it must also tie into the business plan. The reality is that immediate priorities will be set in the business plan. The management plan is a long-terni planning document, and it can be argued that Banff National Park currently does not have the resources needed to accornplish al1 the communication tasks 1 is required to by the plan.

The new strategy will have to have full management support. This means agreement with the prioritizing, as well as agreement to fund and staff to the extent needed to satisfy the objectives (and monitoring) of the plan.

Messages The concern for Banff National Park (and Parks Canada Alberta Region) has not been so much the creation of messages as the distribution. Anything which the park should be communicating is contained in a message set somewhere. However, a lack of both detailed and 'big picture' direction has led to them being delivered inconsistently.

According to the workshop which followed the environmental education baseline suwey (The Advisory Group). there has been a tendency to jump straight to issue-specific messages. without ensuring basic ecosystem principles and national park messages have been communicated and are clear. This has likely been a result of the current focus on local audiences: specific local audiences = specific local messages. Hopefully the Heritage Tourism Strategy (Heritage Tourism Working Group 1997). with its need for a focus on very basic messages, will help address this problem.

Considerable effort has been made toward delivering the messages, but more needs to be done to monitor for their effectiveness.

Message sets are ideal tools for non-communication specialists. Those people who are repeatedly asked to speak on their area of expertise need a simple list of what are the key park messages which should be a part of everything anybody says to the community (e-g., the role and importance of national parks). Communicators know these messages. but not al1 staff do.

Non-communication specialists whose work will require some coordinated public communication also need to be thinking in terms of "what are the key messages I want delivered; who are my key audiences". This level of strategic communication is not the sole domain of the communication specialist.

Commun ication in B NP 6-13

F inally, I have appended a set of messages ansing specifically out of ecosystem management to this report (see Appendix Q: Ecosystem management messages). More important than the messages in this k t , however, is the grouping. This grouping has been used from the beginning of this research to define the broad areas in which a person must have knowledge if they are to undentand ecosystem management:

an understanding of the ecosystems, ecosystem components and ecological processes in the park an understanding of how BNP manages the park. Specificaliy: - management principles - rationale behind those management actions related to ensuring the long-

term sustainability of the park ecosystems - the role of protected areas in maintaining the long-term sustainability of ecosystems;

an understanding of direct human impacts on ecosystems (especially negative impacts), and ways to minimise those impacts; and an understanding of the opportunities to participate in the management process (both formal and informal).

Techniques

Up to this point, the discussion of communication in this document has given little consideration to individual techniques used to deliver messages. However, an analysis of how communication must be approached strategically and how it must be coordinated, should start with what is being currently offered and by whorn. An inventory (and individualized analysis) of the current communication techniques is included in Appendix F.

It is clear from that list that few if any media are devoted solely to the delivery of ecological or EM messages. Nor should there be - EM messages by their nature are integrated (ecological. cultural, human safety, etc.). This, however, is where problems arise from lack of coordination. The lines between responsibility for the messages are inherently blurred. but the responsibility for the media have been newly (and necessarily) assigned to various departments. For example, the Ecosystem Secretariat has primary responsibility for delivery of ecological messages. but Frontcountry coordinates the Visitor Guide. The degree to which ecological messages are included in that critical publication is not in the hands of those responsible for ensuring ecological messages are delivered. Thus content decisions cannot be made in isolation.

The diminishing resources in the region suggest that regional cooperation is an obvious route. There have been some successful efforts on this account. The Visitor Guide is a four mountain park publication now. coordinated this year out of Banff. Likewise the fishing regulations brochure was created out of Banff and used in al1 the mountain parks. However, the coordination has been covered out of BNP communicator salaries, and there appears to be no plan in place to rationalize that imbalance for future years and projects.

Communication in BNP 6-74

Again, not al1 of these are media exclusively for ecosystem management messages, but most include - or should include - EM messages. Therefore, the completion of a communication strategy and the coordination of in- and between- park efforts are crucial to the effective delivery of EM messages.

Private sector communication The survey of recreation and leisure business operators in the park showed that despite a 98% or 100% belief in the importance of providing educational material on the Park's history and wildlife, only 61% indicated they are willing andlor able to do so (Ritchie et al 1995b).

There are four areas about which BNP should be aware in examining the delivery of EM messages by al1 groups in the park. First, there will be a great variety in the depth and quality of information presented. Providing information on 'wildlife' is not the same as providing information on protected areas management and the role of national parks.

Second, as might be expected (at this stage), currently only the large organizations and high end facilities appear able to offer a quality of interpretation approaching that of Parks Canada (see Appendix F: Review of ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park; Private sector communication). BNP will need to assess not only the amount, but also the accessibility for al1 Canadians of high quality interpretation.

Third, BNP needs to examine what the impedirnents are that result in a 100% desire and a 61 % ability to provide ecological information on the part of operators.

Fourth, the North American Tour Association survey showed that over half (55%) do not provide educational material about the Park to their clients (Ritchie et al 1995a). Despite the efforts and coordination of in-park businesses in delivering educational messages, most tour companies passing through do not make that effort.

When (if) the Heritage Tourisrn Strategy (Heritage Tourism Working Group 1997, see Appendix H: Hentage Tourism Strategy) begins to focus on ecolog ical messages, these will be key areas to address. The HTS provides an opportunity for Park businesses and organizations to coordinate, monitor and irnprove their message delivery, hopefully providing an 'economies of scale' effect for smaller businesses who want to provide high quality interpretive material.

As well, the growing popularity of eco-tourism (BBVS 1996b) will likely make it more attractive and profitable for smaller (or currently uninterested) businesses to provide interpretive material about the Park.

Communication in BNP 6- 7 5

1 l n t e ~ e w Research Resulu 1 Approximately half the questions in the various questionnairesg were intended to extract information regarding management or communication techniques, suggestions for irnprovements in communication. etc. That information is represented in the descriptions and analyses of BNP's current approach to EM and communication (Chs. 5 and 6), and in the conclusions (Ch. 8) and recommendations (Chs. 9 and 10).

The other questions were aimed at detennining opinions on the current management and communication styles of Banff National Park. The responses to those questions are represented in Appendix G (Interview msearch results), in a matrix designed to respect the need for anonymity.

What follows is an aggregation of those r e ~ ~ o n s e s ' ~ .

There is an obvious limitation with how this portion of the interview information was compiled - one which should be kept in mind while reading the following summary. The interview responses were not analyzed quantitatively or exhaustively, nor were they intended to be. This information is presented as a snapshot of attitudes and understanding amongst the representative" people chosen. To a great degree. this information directed my investigation in these topic areas, and is therefore important to present.

Aggregation of responses

Question 2(a): Does BNP effectivelv communicate to the various publics information about the ecosvstems of the ~ a r k ?

Getting basic ecological information to the public was seen as an area of significantly poor accomplishment for BNP's communication programs by virtually al1 respondents.

However, there was also a mix of opinions as to whether providing this sort of information is a necessary requirement for effective EM. The context of the question made it obvious that I was looking for a link to EM, but it appeared for some that this was a new thought. For some who did see this as a role of BNP. there was a perception that this is the role of interpretation and is 'touchy-feely' stuff, rather than a strategic concern for EM.

The responses suggested that some people were getting some of this information. It was felt that people involved in indepth participation processes

- - - - - - --

9 The questionnaires and list of interviewees are contained in Appendix A: Intentiew details. 10 Question 1 ("Does BNP practice ecosystern management?") is discussed in Chapter 5: Ecosystem Management in Banff National Park.

See the criteria for selection in Ch. 2: Methodology.

Communication in BNP 6-1 6

were getting up-to-date ecological information. Some felt this kind of information 'hadn't changed in 30 yearsn, so was of little use to people who 'knewJ the park.

Several commented on the complexity of the topic and suggested that this was likely a barrier to people's understanding of it.

It was rewgnized that information being given was relative to specific issues. However. the strategic importance of proactively providing broad background information was not noted.

Question 2(b): Does BNP effectivelv communicate to the va rious publics information about how manaaement actions are related to ecolociical protection?

Respondents in general felt that connections between management actions and the primary mandate of maintaining ecological integrity are not being made for the public.

The cornplexity of park management is no doubt a major cause of the lack of understanding of it on the part of citizens (and the lack of information being provided). A split of opinion existed among interviewees with some seeing BNP as having a handle on the complexity and the public incapable of doing so, and others seeing the complexity as a problem for both. Some saw the reason for the poor performance here as structural problems in the organization, others as a lack of connection of the two (management and ecological integrity) by people at upper levels in Parks Canada.

The consensus was that the public want to know, uwhyn, and feel that if there is an action, there must be a reason for it, and that that reason must relate to the park's mandate. There was a near consensus that BNP is not doing enough to make these connections apparent to people.

Question 2(c): Does BNP effectively communicate to the various publics information about the im~acts people have on Park ecosvstems ?

As is common for al1 resource management agencies. there is a serious lack of connection by citizens between wanting (in this case) national parks and personal sacrifice. This was commented on by virtually al1 interviewees.

It was believed that this situation could be improved by better provision of information by BNP about personal impacts. It was perceived that this information is currently very site-specific, and that little is provided about large scale or cumulative impacts. As well, what information does appear is not corning from Parks Canada. but from other sources.

There is perceived inconsistency from source to source here that one interviewee noted often leads to non-compliance (see Appendix G).

Communication in BNP 6-77

Question 2(d): Does BNP effectivelv wmmunicate to the various publics information about how people can partici~ate in Park manaaement?

This rnay have been a poorly phrased question because interviewees have a sense that input is important, a sense that there are opportunities, but they are not clear on whether there are tme opportunities for participation.

Respondents identified several barriers to participation: a feeling that formal input isn't acknowledged no clear explanation of how input is incorporated, or perhaps more importantly, what kinds of input can be incorporated problem of getting input only from the extremes (of the developrnent vs. protection de bate) feeling that opportunities to participate are not realistic for the average citizen (time, cost, etc.)

Question 3: 1s communication of these concepts important to effective ecosvstem manaiqement ?

There was, as suspected, unanimity on this topic with both Park Canada and non-Parks people.

Amongst interviewed Parks employees, there was variance about whether communication was simply to inforrn people about what will happen, or to create understanding and acceptance.

There is an explicit belief amongst the interviewees that the community needs information of the sort described in Question 2 above. However, for some there appears to be little sense of how this communication is, or should be, coordinated. For exarnple, most recognized that basic ecology is given in brochures, fact sheets and evening prograrns for visitors, but did not note how local and regional audiences (generaliy not a party to those media) received sucb information.

There is an assumption on the part of most interviewees that EM communication from BNP will focus on issue-specific messages (e.g., there is a new ski run going in, it will remove X area of trees, it will contribute Y dollars to the economy. its ecological impact will be mitigated, etc.). There were few comrnents that suggested a view of communication providing broad ecological or conservation biology information, as a proactive, strategic initiative (e-g., this is a subalpine fir, BNP is one player in a landscape of protected and intensive-use lands, this is why habitat fragmentation is a problem, etc.). There appears to be an assumption that the needed background information is in place.

Communication in BNP 6-18

Question 4: Does the ~ubi ic aet the infomation thev need to assess park manaaement ?

The prevalent opinion amongst interviewees was that people are not getting the connection between park management actions and ecological rationsle. That suggests that BNP is not making the connection clear.

As well, most felt that BNP is not making clear its underlying principles. Pa rk Canada has spent more and more time understanding other interest's background situations and values, but appears to spend a disproportionately small amount of time explaining their own background.

~ i n a l l ~ , some non-Parks Canada respondents expressed frustration with the dtfficulty of getting and distilling infomation from Parks Canada.

Question 5: Are values important to effective EM ?

The questionnaire responses reflect a popular feeling that values are important, but the stumbling block is trying to incorporate values into decision-making. The rise of ecosystem management is seen as a welcome move from management based to some degree on political whirn. to management based on an identifiable rationale - ecosystem science.

Some respondents, in other parts of the interviews, focused on how hard BNP was working to incorporate good science into decision-making. Others focused on how goal-setting is, and should bel a value-driven process. There is some avoidance, however, of how these two could be integrated into a single effective decision-ma king model.

I inferred a generally unspoken fear - expressed by only one interviewee - about the trust we must place in public values. This person wondered if public values change such that parks are no longer desirable, will we still be so adamant that values play a critical role? This is something that some are leery of likely because of the long (and continuing) struggle to move management decisions out of the hands of a privileged few, and into the public eye. The tools for doing that has. of late, largely been science-driven.

Question 6: Did the recent TCH twinning proiect have an effective public communication process?

This question was included because several people du ring their interviews pointed to this process as an example. However, some pointed to it as a good process, some as a bad process.

In gmeral, Parks Canada interviewees felt that it was a good process because there was a great deal of consultation. For a period of two years before, Parks Canada consulted with several specific interests and groups. They believed that

Communication in &NP 6-1 9

involving people al1 the way through would engender a high degree of satisfaction.

For non-Parks Canada interviewees, even those who participated, the process was considered uite poor. They fett that the 'public' consultation was extensive 19 for those invited , but some participants felt unwmfortable with an expectation that they were representing more than their organization. Some felt that the 'public' was not included.

There was a widely felt belief that this project was indefensible ecologically. The connection between ecological integrity and the twinning of the TCH was not there; this was a transportation issue to most. Despite Parks Canada protestations to the contrary, those non-Parks Canada respondents interviewed believed that the public did not affect the process.

In summary, the credibility of the process appeared to face three major problems:

no positive connection between the project and ecological integrity feeling that despite any invitation to comment, the project was going ahead no matter what a great deal of participation by special interests, but not a great 'public' profile.

Parks Canada's credibility appears to have been seriously hurt with the twinning of the Trans Canada Highway. Several interviewees stated they believed that any other proponent could not hope to have a project of that scale and impact accepted in a national park (but the arbiter and proponent were one in the same). They felt this makes it difficult for Parks Canada to Say with conviction to other proponents that ecological integrity will be the first priority when considering human use.

l2 Parks Canada hired a consultant which went to hundreds of individuals and organizations. and asked them to identify if they were a stakeholder and how they should be involved (Roulet pers. corn.).

Communication in BNP 6-20

7. Case Studies

As mentioned in the methodology (Chapter 2), 1 exarnined a series of case studies to see what lessons could be learned and applied to the EM communication issues which BNP is currently grappling with. The case studies chosen were:

Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. Acadia National Park, U-SA. the Fraser Basin Management Program, B.C.

Yellowstone was approached as a major case study. I spent a significant amount of time comparing the evolution and management of the tvvo parks to set the stage for the case study. The case itself focused on a major regional planning exercise Yellowstone National Park was involved in (see Appendix K).

Acadia National Park and the Fraser Basin Management Program were chosen as minor case studies. In these cases, I also examined background information (see Appendices L and N). However, I did not do an elaborate comparison, but simply extracted the problems, successes, and communication and management techniques which I felt had relevance for BNP1s EM communication issues.

- 1 ~ellowstone National Park, U.S.A. 1 Though Yellowstone National Park, USA, is of prime interest for this case study, geographically the analysis considers the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) - an area centred around the park, but about 9 times the size. As well, there are innumerable facets of the park and surround which could be compared to BNP. This case study is focused on a 1990 planning exercise and document called Vision for the Future: A Framework for Coordination in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYCC 1990) produced by the United States Forest Service and the National Park Semice in the GYE.

Summary

The background information for this case study is included in Appendix K (Background to the Yellowstone National Park case study), but a brief summary provides some context for the following analysis. As mentioned, Yellowstone National Park is the centrepiece of the GYE, and currently embraces an ecosystem management approach (GAO 1994). There are several major similarities (and differences) between Yellowstone National Park and Banff National Park.

The National Park Service and the United States Forest Service in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem conducted a major regional planning exercise in 1990 which produced the document, Vision for the Future: a Framework for Coordination in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYCC 1 990).

Case Studies 7- 1

There was a severe public backlash to the release of the document. In the wake of the failure of the Vision. there have been several major 'post-mortems' done on the exercise. Most of those have ernphasized communication related causes for the backlash.

Analysis In this section, I will briefly analyze the accomplishments and core problems of the Vision exercise. The next section will discuss the applicability of the case to BNP.

It is important to note the considerable accomplishments of the Vision exercise. The most obvious is the degree of CO-operation between the two major land management agencies. Although they had been CO-operating at a field level for some time. the most significant obstacle they faced in managing at an ecosystern level was the rivalry between the two agencies which was "an institution" (Barbee et al 1991). When they got together they "discovered that they disagreed about practically nothingn (Barbee et al 1991). The rnove ahead which that represents cannot be overstated.

These two agencies also came up with a very cornprehensive plan for ecosystem management, despite some core problerns. For those few who have actually read the document, there is much to help guide other EM initiatives. The fact that the Vision document lives today and is widely circulated and analyzed is a testament to the impact it has had.

When the process started, the literature and the discussion referred to the greater Yellowstone area, and the public had only a vague idea of why there might be coordination of management in the region. When it was done. the expression Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (and the ecological criteria that phrase implies) were in cornmon usage. This is not to Say that it was universally accepted as the way to which the region should be referred, but everyone was farniliar with the term. and introduced to some of the implications of considering it an ecosystern.

There were also some improvements in the Framework over the Vision. The change from referring to the three primary messages in the document as 'goals" to 'principles" was a more honest and clear term. Goals suggested an action- oriented plan. a characteristic which the agencies repeatedly tried to refute. Pnnciples is a more vision-oriented term, and suggests that this is a presentation of agency ideals - which is what it was. As well. the change in name got a lot of press for the loss of the terni Vision, but the sub-title was an improvement. The original title, Vision for the Future: A Framework for Coordination in the Greater Yellowstone Area, suggested that the plan was for al1 lands in the GYE. Again.

Case Studies 7-2

this was something the agencies tried to refute, but the very title of the document contradicted them. The new title, A Framework for Coordination of National Parks and National Forests in the Greater Yellowsfone Area, made it clear that this Vision applied only to National Park Service and United States Forest Service in the GYE.

Core ~roblems However, as suggested by the post-rnortems described in Appendix K. there was a handful of core problems which caused the process to false-start.

The first of these was the lack of cornmitment at the upper levels of NPS and USFS management. Regardless of whether the rumours of punishment for supporters of the Vision are true, the agencies - and the American federal government - blinked very quickly. then removed more of the content of the Vision document than was necessary. They also did not focus on the positives of the process, and defend their employees attempts to satisfy a Congressional- req uested process.

Secondly, there can be no question that the conservationist groups misjudged the effort that the WUM groups put into attacking the Vision. It is true that the conservation groups took "measures that usually are sufficient" (NPCA Rocky Mountain Regional Director quoted in Stapleton 1993b), but this was a major watershed process, and they needed to step up their efforts from the normal offer.

Third, the repeated criticisms that the goals were too vague are correct. The set of principles that were created by a srnall collection of high-level managers. were defended as being a sort of wish list. and not a document "of sorne record and authorityn (Barbee et al 1991). But the Vision document stated that the next step in the process was to use the principles to arnend forest and park management plans as necessary. The title said the plan was for the GYA - an area which was 25% private land - but the authors protested that ail who saw it should know it applied only to NPS and USFS lands. And, as mentioned above, the original Vision professed to be a vision-style document, but the goals were very action- oriented.

The fourth core problem is actually a collection of problems, grouped together because they al1 stem from a certain arrogance on the part of the agencies. They arrived at the conclusion that ecosystem management was a solution to the problems of the GY€, but they were loathe to (or thought it was unnecessary to) wait for others - or encourage othen - to make the same conclusion.

No doubt the agencies, and especially the Forest Service were used to dictating to a large degree the economy of the region. Yellowstone National Park was getting quite adamant that they would have a hand in management outside the park ("Where decisions are being made that affect Yellowstone, we want a seat

Case Studies 7-3

at the table ... any responsible administrator of Yellowstone National Park must play an aggressive role in non-park decision-making;" Barbee 1990). However. it did not recognize that that would mean providing seats at their own table. Both agencies seemed to get caught up in the miracle of NPS - USFS CO-operation, and forgot to consider the need for co-operation with others.'

There was an extensive public information carnpaign, but it focused on providing information on how the two agencies thought the entire ecosystem should be managed. Little effort was put into CO-operating with the other landowners to create ecosystem-wide principles. Barbee et al (1 991) described some of the process:

Repeated meetings were held with mining interest and other cornmodity extraction groups. Briefings with other agencies were frequent and lengthy. The point is, you c m meet forever with opponents, and if they tmly disagree with your position, you will not change their position. It came down to this in many cases. The briefing approach is not designed to achieve consensus. It can only hope to achieve a uniform level of knowtedge.

The second last sentence is patently obvious, but indicates that it was assumed that the 'announce and defend' method would be suffcient to convince the people of the GY€.

At the same tirne, the agencies assumed that the conservationist forces were on side. They complained that "nurnerous briefings or offers to bief ' conservation organizations were unsuccessful, but did not appear to appreciate that those groups wanted to be involved, not simply have privileged spectator status. There appears to be a phobia - especially in this fiscally-efficient world - of 'preaching to the converted.' The reasons for the lack of support were debated, but are irrelevant - if the 'allies' were not on side, and the agencies did not know it, there was a serious inattention and a communication break-down.

Perhaps the most telling expression of arrogance came in the conclusions drawn in the face of these problems:

"the consenration community in general was not there for the fight. preferring instead to focus their energies on more narrow issues."

'Most of this sort of second-guessing is predictable to the point where each special interest groupes reaction simply supports their longstanding positions. Much of the second-guessing is too easily said and too hard to prove - good headlines, worthless advice."

"You cannot overestirnate the anxious reader's capacity for alarmist reading." 'The lesson here may be that you can accomplish as much, perhaps more, by simply

proceeding with routine memoranda of understanding and other mechanisms." "there is a limit to what can be accomplished through communicationn (Barbee et al 1991).

The explanations were, in short: the reason the conservationists were not there was their lack of vision; the third-party analysis was useless; the readers were alarmist; we should have just kept to ourselves; communication doesn't work. There was no inward analysis that might have produced these reactions: we did not provide opportunities for conservationists to participate; an outside view is

' Even then, as Gnimbine (1992:164) points out. co-operation by itself will not automatically lead to ecosystem management.

Case Studies 7-4

needed; the readers were confused; we did not include enough groups in the visioning; we did our communicating poorly.

Having said this, it should be noted that the article by Varley and Schullery in 1996 has a much more enlightened view of how Yellowstone should approach public communication. Its assumptions are more in line with the second list above.

Conclusion The unfortunate result was that the conditions were excellent for WUM to move in. The agencies appeared not to see a need to directly refute WUM's lies (Greater Yellowstone Coalition director in Stapleton 1993b). The 'grassroots' organization (WUM) triumphed over the big organizations (the agencies and the big conservation organizations). And the defeated 'allies' were left pointing fingers at each other.

For the future, Yellowstone National Park needs to ask itself, "If the Vision process started today. would its outcorne be any different?" If so, what needs to be different? Perhaps Yellowstone should turn to a third-party and commission an outside study of what happened. Lichtman and Clark (1994) suggest that any future Vision-style process should be led by a "national-level task force with specialized problem-solving skills." Such a task force might have "an appropriate problem-solving heuristic, more formal standing, broader support, more intensive and extensive coverage of the issues, and less political intewention." Such a task force is very reminiscent of the Banff Bow Valley Study (see BBVS 1996b).

Monte Hummel (1 995a) of World Wildiife Fund Canada's words regarding countering the Wise Use Movement hit the heart of the appropriate approach:

... those of us trying to defend wild Canada would do better by demonstrating real sensitivity to those at the local levels who may feel threatened by our cause ...

Note that this must be taken to refer to the 'miners' not the 'mining companies.'

Application to Banff National Park There are lessons in the Yellowstone Vision exercise both for ecosystem management and EM communication in Banff National Park.

Banff National Park and the managers of the Central Rockies Ecosystem (CRE) are not yet at the stage where they can consider integrated management on a greater ecosystem basis. However, when they are, the Vision document would make an excellent blueprint. The breadth of issues considered, and the amount of work that went into integrating those issues across the ecosystem would be truly instructive for BNP and the CRE.

Were BNP and the other CRE managers to approach such an exercise, they would need to heed the Yellowstone National Park warning to ensure support for the process existed as far up the management ladder as possible. One of the

Case Studies 7-5

tragedies of the Vision exercise was that the politically motivated 'darnage control' forced the agencies to abandon the good with the perceived bad.

However. one aspect that managers in the CRE will need to avoid is the tendency apparent in the Vision to create a vision for the entire greater ecosystem (when the two agencies involved accounted for only about two thirds of the land base).

In ternis of communication, there are several lessons BNP can take frorn this case study. And though these may flow directly from the Vision process, they are equally as applicable to srnall-scale communication activities, and to general communications about management rationale.

First, all seemed to agree that the purpose and the goals of the exercise were unclear, and that caused resentment. As a comparison, interview respondents in this study expressed a similar confusion and resentment regarding the Trans Canada Highway (TCH) twinning project in BNP. It was unclear for most how the project satisfied the parks policy's (Parks Canada 1994c) commitrnent that ecological integrity would be the first consideration in park planning.

Again, the TCH twinning project is an excellent example of the problematic process Yellowstone National Park used. In both cases, there was a perceived failure to 'engage' the public. The same was said by interviewees of the TCH process as was said of the Vision, that it appeared the agency was trying to convince the public of the way it should go, not solicit their input into the process. There was never any chance that the highway would not be twinned, though that was an option favoured by many.

BNP should be sure not to confuse 'consultation' with simply 'providing information'. When the perception arises that there is no opportunity for significant input into the process from the beginning, the public can feel deceived. One conclusion in the Vision post-mortems was that public values should have been solicited earlier, and in fact should have driven the process (Lichtman and Clark 1994).

Parks Canada and BNP should also heed the warnings in the post-mortems that a considerable amount of the grief Yellowstone National Park suffered could have been avoided with more education of the public proactively to ensure widespread understanding of the need for new policies. A corollary to this was the suggestion that Yellowstone National Park needed more interna1 training to ensure staff were up to speed and supportive.

There were a series of miscalculations made by those creating the Vision, which BNP is arguably also making. Yellowstone National Park was making it clear that they felt that, in the spirit of EM. it was their right and duty to be involved in other agencies' planning exercises (Barbee 1990). However, there is a reciprocal need

Case Studies 7-6

Although the seminar program is the main focus, in the course of the research several other specific communication initiatives were observed which could be instructive for Banff National Park.

-- --

Applications to Banff National Park

Resource Acadia seminars This type of seminar series would likely work very well for Banff National Park. BNP has a similar need to establish this sort of dialogue with local residents. This format allows issues to be discussed, discussed on a regular basis. and discussed before they get too 'hot'. It also allows park management to provide their perspective directly to residents without having it necessarily 'filtered' and 'sound-bited' by the media.

Super (1995) points out the advantages of the seminar approach: More control over how the information is presented and spread; More complete presentation of the issues; Forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions; Do something for the community; An event to bring attention to a resource issue.

There is no question that there are other, less expensive methods to get information out, but their success is less certain, and the old saw 'you get what you pay for' is inevitably upheld.

Other communication initiatives In the course of researching the Resource Acadia program, it was perhaps inevitable that other communication and participation efforts with potential for Banff National Park would be discovered. They are only briefly mentioned here.

Ne wspaper insert Both Yellowstone and Acadia National Parks have used newspaper inserts. Both parks chose the technique to address a problem which BNP has as well. It IS difficult to get 'unfiltered' information into the hands of local and regional audiences. Newspaper inserts allow one to use the machinery of the print media to circumvent the media.

The subject and headings of the Acadia National Park insert (Stewardship Behind the Scenery, see Appendix L) represent basic EM topics of the sort noted to be critical to EM communication (see Ch. 4: The lmporfance of Communication in Ecosystem Management).

Web page A park's web page is an ideal spot to present 'unfiltered' information. Acadia's well-organized web page offers an example of how BNP could improve its

Case Studies 7-8

presentation of park management information. Categories of information on the Acadia page include press releases, resource management. documents for public revie w and comment, and the advisory commission.

Acadia Park Advisory Commission Acadia's Advisory Commission is likely a good example for Banff National Park to examine as it seeks to replace the now-defunct Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table process. In particular, BNP should note how one of only four standing cornmittees under the commission is the Education Committee.

1 Fraser Basin Management Program, B.C. 1

The Fraser Basin in southern British Columbia represents one quarter of the province's area, 65% of its population, and 80% of its Gross Provincial Product. It is experiencing significant sustainability issues (see Appendix N: Background fo the Fraser Basin Management Program case study).

The Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP) offered an ideal non-park case study based on its ecosystem approach, and its focus on communication to achieve its mandate. The FBMP, begun in 1992, was a five-year program to" advance the environmental, economic and social sustainability" of the Fraser River Basin (FBMP 1994). The Board was comprised of representatives from federal, provincial and local governments, business, labour, non-government organizations, First Nations and others. Their approach favoured facilitation and multi-faceted communication, and sig nificant public involvement.

Application to Banff National Park Though not a protected area, there are some definite lessons in the Fraser Basin Management Program experience for Banff National Park.

Top-Up and Bottom-Down Many of the problems that both sustainability efforts in the Fraser Basin and protection efforts in BNP face corne from a tension between bottom-up approaches and top-down approaches. The legal mandate and responsibilities of BNP make it leery of moving toward a bottom-up approach, but the perceived lack of accountability in a top-down approach make citizens leery. The FBMP existed in a different political environment, but its successful cornmitment to using both approaches. and work toward blending them is instructive.

Consultation There was an obvious awareness of the difference between information and consultation. The FBMP used open houses, not solely as forums where they would provide their decisions and rationale, but as places where input was solicited. They went beyond comment forms, to workshops and workbooks.

---- -

case Studies 7-9

People were made to feel that their input truly was wanted and needed. And it appean that it was. lronically - or predictably - in the end, people were deferring to their decisions anyway.

Facjlitators The role of an ecosystem manager is becoming more and more one of a facilitator. The FBMP approach in this area could be instructive for BNP's ecosystem managers. It did not try to run al1 the sustainability projects in the Basin. It identified a number that were already working and provided support (technical expertise, direction to funding sources, etc.). This required a basic trust in the ability of people to design solutions, and a recognition that solutions would not be enduring if those affected were not sincerely involved in designing the solution.

The FBMP throughout its life evolved into an organization with an ability and reputation for facilitating sustainability projects and CO-operation. It did this by focusing on the small scale first. It recognized that it must establish some success before it couid move to a broader scale. BNP does not have the luxury of managing only 'part of the park', but it can identify areas or projects to apply these facilitation techniques. A steep learning curve is less traumatic on a smaller scale. I

Focus on understanding The discussion in Chapter 4 of communication in EM showed 'Improving Understanding' as one of four communication objectives for an ecosystem manager. One of the primary directions for sustainability in the FBMB's plans was "Understanding Sustainability." In fact, it was the first of the four. AH 'challenge groups' (individuals, government, business and industry, non- governrnent organizations, and educators) were targeted. The creation of an Education Steering Cornmittee, an "Individuals Guide for Sustainability" in the BasinPlan, the

There was an understanding that in order to act appropriately, people needed information - "not necessarily more information, but the right information presented in a concise, readable, accessible format" (FBMP I994:Z). Perhaps more importantly, there was a commitrnent to this principle at the highest levels of the Program. As the FBMP went out to the cornmunities and listened, they heard from people what they wanted and responded to that. The education initiatives increased and evolved as the Program continued.

Success stories The FBMP utilized success stories extremely well. The Fraser Basin is not different from BNP in that it has success stories, the Program was just very able to capitalize on them. It chose to actively seek out the 'good news', aggressively promote it, and learn from it.

-- -

Case Studies 7-70

The 'success story' was everywhere - in the BasinPlan, the Navigating for Susfainabiiity manual, the Community Stewanlship manual, the Newsletters, the 2nd Anniversay Report. The demonstration projects allowed the FBMP to draw explicit lessons from these successes, and also to bolster the success with advice.

Publica fions The array of publications were a strong element of the FBMP's ability to get the right information out to its audiences. Though no figures were given in any reports, there can be no question that this was a well-funded publication program. However, the approach taken is as instructive as the actual publications:

There were short documents for new news and busy people (profiles and newsletters), but there was also the longer reports Anything that was available was offered - even working drafts. All documents were easily accessible. One did not have to know they existed in order to ask for them (as was perceived to be the case by some of my study's intewiewees). Order foms were in several documents. AH publications were well-written and attractive, especially the 'sound-bite' type. There was a clear recognition that they were going to have to make people want to read these publications. Potentially more expensive documents, like the manuals, were created with partners. These partners had the same goals as the FBMP. They were usually other governrnent agencies, government programs or foundations.

Reporf Cards The Report Cards were the technique used by the FBMP which are potentially the most useful for BNP. They are a clear understandable description of what needs to be done, and how we are doing at it. These report cards must be well- conceived and have solid grading-rationale, but they can distil a great deal of cornplicated information down to something understandable and useful.

This is a double-edged sword in that if an agency produces a report card without providing a visible effort to bring the grades up, they may lose rather than gain credibility.

Case Studies 7-1 1

8. Conclusions

This chapter represents my consideration of ail the material presented, the literature review, the interviews, the case studies, and my persona1 observations'. From this material, I drew 10 general conclusions regarding ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park.

The first two conclusions are focused on EM; the last eight on communication. However, this is perhaps an artificial separation given that communication of the principles that underlie EM is based on how the concept is interpreted by the organization.

1. Banff National Park is not yet practising cornprehensive ecosystem management

There was general consensus in the interviews that BNP - though devoting considerable effort to doing so - is not currently practising EM. Similar conclusions were reached in reports which dealt with the subject (Coopers and Lybrand 1995b, BBVS 1996b).

This is not as damning as it sounds, as my literature review came up with no example which could be said to be practising comprehensive ecosystem management (as described in Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management). Looking at Grumbine's 10 themes, reasons for this perspective become apparent:

the Park has not yet coordinated management across boundaries on more than a few issues (e.g., fire management, wildlife corridors, etc.); CO-operation is at the field level and incidental, rather than at political and strategic levels (see Analysis of EM in BNP; lnteragency cooperation at page 5-3 and Appendix E).; ecological integrity is too often sacrificed for social needs (Ruthnum 1996); there are inadequate funds for data collection and a dearth of social science research (BBVS 1996b, Ruthnum 1996); organizational structure does not promote ecosystem management (see Analysis of EM in BNP; Administrative boundaries at page 5-2).

However, since the Banff Bow Valley Study, Banff National Park has definitely been moving toward rather than away from €M. The new park management plan (Parks Canada 1997a) is very much an EM-style document.

This conclusion has implications for management, obviously, but also for communication. BNP needs to differentiate between communication of their management efforts, and education about what EM is.

1 See Ch. 2: Methodology for a description of how the conclusions were arrived at.

Conclusions 8- 1

12. Poliy direction regarding ecoiogiul integtity is ambiguous I The National Parks Act (Government of Canada 1988) states that. "Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use ..." (Sec. 3(1)). The Park Canada Guiding Pnnciples and Operational Policies (Parks Canada 1994c) further states that, 'Protecting ecological integrity and ensuring commemorative integrity take precedence in acquiring, managing, and administering heritage places and programs. In every application of policy, this guiding principle is paramountn (1 6).

The Banff Bow Valley Study (BBVS 1996b) concluded that "the current rates of growth in visitor numbers and development, if allowed to continue, will cause serious, and irreversible, harm to Banff National Park's ecological integrity" (1 l), a sentiment echoed by the Auditor General's report: "Increasing visitor trafic in national parks could compromise ecological integrity. Parks Canada's marketing strategy is expected to attract more Canadian and international visitors for longer stays in national parksn (Ruthnum 1996:31.31).

The National Business Plan represents how a park's management plan will be implemented (Ruthnum 1996). However, the National Business Plan is based on the premise that "significant amounts of revenue will be obtained from expenditures made by the greater volume of customers who will purchase Parks Canada goods and services." It goes on to hopefully predict that visits by Canadians. Americans, Europeans, and Asians will increase. that average lengths of stay will increase, and that non-peak season use will increase (Parks Canada 1995:92-3).

The Business Plan represents Parks Canada's first effort at having a business plan of this type. It was born out of the need to deal with a dramatic decrease in appropriations (see Appendix E at page E-7). and represents a revenue generation plan. In theory it is subordinate to the management plan. However. those fiscal realities it was created to address have not gone away, nor has the need to generate revenue. Thus. this ambiguity remains for al1 staff and interested organizations regarding the de facto relative importance between ecological integrity and revenue generation.

The new BNP Management Plan (Parks Canada 1997a) does much to reduce the ambiguity, as its focus is very clearly more on ecological integrity. To the extent that it can be implernented, Parks Canada will move more toward ecosystem management. Places where this ambiguity will rise again or be dispelled in the future are the next National Business Plan and the fiscal approach adopted by the impending Parks Canada Agency.

- . . - - - - . - . -

Conclusions 8-2

13. The d e of cornmmiution aeeds to be better understood 1 In discussions of ecosystem management, there is a continued recognition of. and cal1 for, communication as a critical tool for implementing EM (Grumbine 1992. Hodgins et al 1995. Christensen et al 1996; see Ch. 4: The Importance of Communication in EM) .

!-!wever. a lack of clarity exists in Parks Canada and BNP about this role of communication. Most Parks Canada communications personnel I interviewed or who attended the Transition Communications Workshop (TCW 1997) felt that the range of communication functions was not recognized (i.e., other staff equated communication with 'PR' or with 'Summer interpretative programs'. but not the whole range). As well, they felt some managers whose departrnents included communications functions were inadequately aware of the role of communication (see Ch. 6: Communication of Ecosystem Management Messages in BNP at page 6-7). Several examples in the literature review also noted that the connection between communication and protection objectives is poorly made (Sandford 1995, BBVS 1996b. Ruthnum 1996).

In times of cut-backs, functions which cannot produce measurable evidence of their contribution are in danger. The National Business Plan (Parks Canada 1995) lays this out clearly in its first of five criteria for assessing proposals:

Any expenditure directly related to the mandate imperatives of protecting and presenting the national heritage; the more productive such proposals the higher the priority. Those addressing significant threats and resource loss and those reaching the widest client base in the most cost- etfective manner will be most critical for financing; ... (54)

Such measurement needs explicit goals to be rated against. Monitoring of communication in BNP has been intermittent and uncoordinated likely due to the lack of a coordinating mechanism (department or strategy) which would produce clear communication goals. Several impending developments will likely address this problem significantly. The newly created park-wide communication strategy will likely provide an explicit statement of communication goals. The Fall 1997 Heritage Tourism Action Plan calls for the establishment of benchmarks for interpretation (Sandford 1997). Ideally, the benchmark survey on environmental education (The Advisory Group 1995; see Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP at page F-14) could be repeated to note changes, and a survey on ecological concepts and EM undertaken to help establish what are the key areas of poor understanding.

The lack of awareness of the role of communication, and the dearth of effectiveness assessrnents, predictably coincide with a lack of needed training related to communication. The principal areas to be addressed are training for cornmunicators (who are adopting new roles as facilitators rather than doers). training for other staff about the role of communication, and training for non- communications personnel who will becorne members of the 'community of

Conclusions 8-3

communicators' (see training discussion under lntemal communication at pages 6-1 1 and F-26)

14. Four Core message a r w need to be addressed I I identified four core message groups (see Messages at page 6-14) which represent the areas in which a member of the public must have knowledge if they are to understand ecosystern management in national parks:

an understanding of the ecosystems, ecosystem components and ecological processes in the park an understanding of how BNP manages the park. Specifically: - management principles - rationale behind those management actions related to ensuring the long-

terni sustainability of the park ecosystems - the role of protected areas in maintaining the long-term sustainability of ecosystems;

an understanding of direct human impacts on ecosystems (especially negative impacts), and ways to minimise those impacts; and an understanding of the opportunities to participate in the management process (both formal and informal).

I concluded that each of these areas needs to be better addressed.

Background information regarding ecosystern management

There are some important basic elements of EM which are not broadly understood. The environmental education baseline survey (The Advisory Group 1995) determined that "few people appeared to understand the ideas of 'ecosystem' and 'ecological integrity'" (1 56). My interviews suggested that even for people with a high level understanding of EM, there were noteworthy biases. All mentioned the idea of managing across ecosystems boundaries, but what that implies was usually not noted (i.e., Grumbine's other themes. see Ch. 3 at page 3-12). Values were seen as impedirnents to be overcome. not an indicator of diversity that would need to be embraced (see Appendix G: Interview research results). The value of 'science' was often cited, but almost exclusively in reference to ecological science. And there is a lingering perception that EM is a protected areas management strategy (see Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management; Ecosystem management's appIicabiIity) .

As described in Chapter 4 (The Importance of Communicafion in Ecosystem Management), receiving background information on EM issues is necessary for a variety of reasons (influencing behaviour, generating support, informing public participation, etc.). A report on research management prepared for the BBVS noted that "communication of results of research in a timely and unbiased manner is essential to building trust, credibility and accountability" (Hodgins et a l 1995:35). The provision of such information was a factor in the success of the

Conclusions 8-4

Fraser Basin Management Program and the Resource Acadia seminars (see Ch. 7: Case Studies and Appendices L and N).

Most interviewees felt BNP's communication of these messages to the public was important but inadequate. Comments included that it was too issues-based, too technical, over-focused on stressors. They also expressed the feeling that the need is urgent. that not even basics were being covered, and that questions as basic as what are ecosystems were not being covered. Several Parks Canada communications personnel in interviews and at the Transition Communications Workshop (TCW 1997) suggested that current strategies move too quickly to the details before the broad messages are understood (e.g., what is an ecosystem. why are national parks important). Finally, the Auditor General's report (Ruthnum 1996) concluded, "Parks Canada should strengthen public education programs to better communicate ecological information" (31.49).

A contributing factor to these concerns could be the lack of a dedicated environmental education position in BNP. Few aspects of conservation are as widely agreed upon and clearly understood as the need for environmental education of school-age citizens (Orr 1989, Caro et a l 194, Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Jacobson 1995). As well, interviewees noted the concentration on the 'extreme' audiences, and a lack of attention to the 'luke warm' audiences (see Appendix F at page F-10).

- - - - -- - - -

connections between management actions and rationale

There was agreement in the interviews I conducted that this linkage was not being made adequately for the public. In particular, the Trans Canada Highway twinning was regularly cited as an example of the connection between Parks Canada's paramount principle of ecological integrity and its practice (see Ch. 6 at page 6-1 9). The Auditor General (Ruthnum 1996), speaking of Parks Canada generally, concluded "the management plans .. . did not provide a clear link between ecological integrity objectives and initiatives" (31 -27).

This problem likely follows, to some degree, from the point above: if one does not have a grasp of the elementary concepts, one is unlikely to understand something as complicated as EM. Without these connections being clearly made, ecosystem managers may face public cynicism, lack of support and a loss of credibility (see Ch. 4: The Importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management).

Crucial to the public's acceptance of the ecosystem management actions taken and rationale given is an understanding of the role of uncertainty. A key characteristic of an ecosystem-based approach to management is uncertainty (see Appendix B and Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management). Adaptive management, inadequate data collection. and the potential unknowability of ecosystems dictate a precautionary approach. The Arnerican Ecological Society's forum on ecosystem management stated, "Public understanding and

Conclusions 8-5

acceptance of the experimental nature of al1 resource management are critical to the implementation of ecosystem management protocols" (Christensen et al 1996:670). This was also stressed by several reports and workshops specific to BNP and the mountain parks (Hodgins et a l 1995, BBVS 1996b, Transition Communications Workshop 1997).

Connections between personal actions and impacts Without this type of information, people are not able to pursue more ecologically appropriate behaviour. This information tells people how they negatively or positively affect the ecosystems in which they exist, and provides direction for adapting-their behaviour (see Ch. 4: Communication in Ecosystem Management at page 4-9).

All interviewees in my study felt this information was important, but was not reaching the people using BNP. The interviewees noted the lack of connection between ecological integrity and personal sacrifice. that any such information was generally too site-specific, and that the critical concept of cumulative effects was not adequately understood. This is a real challenge for BNP given that day users (who may make up as much as 60% of the park use; BBVS 1996b) rarely stop at the gate or go to interpretive programs.

Again, it likely follows from the dearth of basic information noted above: if one does not understand how one may have an impact. one is unlikely to change behavjour (see Appendix D: Linkages behveen infonnation, attitudes and behaviour). It also speaks to Grumbine's EM theme, 'Humans embedded in nature' (see Ch. 3 at page 3-16). It is important that hurnan impacts are not portrayed as corn pletely bad and unnatural, but rather as traditional players in the ecosystems who also have the capacity to ovewhelm them.

Opportunities for public participation

The dive by the public to be involved in the management and protection of parks has been steadily increasing (Eagles 1993). It is important for citizens to be aware of the spectrum of opportunities to participate, or else they may feel alienated and cynical (see Ch. 4 at 4-16). Advertising these opportunities broadly also helps an agency rninimize the risk of receiving input only from the 'extremes' and not the 'luke wam' (see Appendix F at page F-10, Varley and Schullery 1996).

Interviewees, as expected, felt that they were aware of the opportunities to participate. however, several expressed concern that the average citizen did not. Interviewees were much more concerned about the quality and sincerity of the participation opportunities. Thus, the lack of communication about opportunities to participate may have more to do with concerns such as a lack of coordination of participation efforts. A report created for the Banff Bow Valley Study noted that there were several good opportunities to participate but that they were infrequent

Conclusions 8-6

and generally for high level plans (Coopers and Lybrand 1995a). This understandably affects communication about opportunities. Though the Media Services department provides information about up-coming open houses, etc.. there is linle pro-active information provided to citizens about the spectrum of opportunities available, and direction as to finding one's niche in that spectrum.

1 5. Communication requires greacer support I The lack of support for the role of communication is not a universal problem, but occurs at key areas. In fact, there are areas of great strength of commitment. The National Parks policy (Parks Canada 1994c) is very supportive of the role of communication, and several individuals in BNP are very supportive and able.

However, there is a perception among BNP (and Parks Canada Mountain District) comrnunicators that communication is not well-supported at upper levels (Transition Communications Workshop 1997). According to several communications (and non-communications) personnel with whom I spoke, with the major corporate reorganization (see Organization at page 6-10) saw several long-standing communication functions added to the portfolios of managers with no prior experience in - and a lack of understanding of - communication. Managers with more tasks than resources naturally cut what was poorly understood.

Factors likely contributing to this perception include: the lack of a dedicated body to coordinate and champion communication2; the lack of park-wide communication strategy (though one is now being d rafted) ; that communication initiatives were apparently cut more dramatically in the Alberta region than others (see Appendix F at page F-24) that personnel resources are inadequate to handle communication tasks (a point recognized by the superintendents at the Transition Communications Workshop 1997); that the 1988 BNP Management Plan (CPS 1988a) devotes an entire section to communication, while the 1997 plan (Parks Canada 1997a) contains only sporadic mentions with some notable omissions (see Ch. 6 at 6-1; Appendix F at page F-1 and F-3).

The fact that ail Mountain Park superintendents and chief park wardens attended the Transition Communications Workshop is an indication that this lack of support is perhaps being addressed. However, the commitment indicated at the workshop will have to implemented and sustained for sorne time before perceptions are likely to change.

Since 1995.

A key measure of a manager's support for a function is the dollars assigned to it. However, it could be argued that every function in P a r k Canada is currently underfunded. Thus the allocation of the scarce resources will depend on perceived contribution of the function. There is growing agreement that communication can help managers avoid some of the costly impacts of unaware users, over-anxious opponents, nervous politicians, etc. (see Gnimbine 1992, Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Christensen et al 1996, and discussion in Ch. 4). However. communication functions in the Alberta Region have been dramatically cut, at the same t h e that other management functions are looking to sophisticated communication actions to help improve the eficiency of their jobs. An improved cornmitment, measured in budget allocations, will likely first require that the importance of communication for improving the management process be better measured and recognized (see The role of communication needs to be better understood, above).

1 6. Communication needs better organization and coordination 1

AH BNP communication media are multi-purpose, delivering many different types of messages. This makes it important for there to be excellent coordination between those individuals/departments responsible for the media and those responsible for the various message areas (see Techniques at page 6-14). As well, the move from communicators being 'doers' to being 'facilitators' will necessitate better coordination of activities to be efficient.

BNP has already made some notable efforts in this direction. The placement of communication specialists in various departments has made communication expertise directly available to more staff. The new Ecosystem Secretariat coordinates planning in the entire park and includes a communication specialist (see Organization at page 6-1 0). And the Heritage Tourism Strategy is an effort to coordinate the communication efforts of ail organizations in the Park (see page F-4).

However, there are significant problems in this area. Since 1995, there has been no coordinating body for communications - no one coordinating general messages for al1 those attached to various departments. Heritage Tourism and the Ecosystem Secretariat (for example) are part of the same organization and need to ensure they do not provide contradictory messages. The outreach function has recently been downloaded from the regional offices to the individual parks, there is a Jack of regional coordination (see Ch. 6 at page 649, and diffwlties exist for between-comrnunicator communication (page 6-1 1).

The impending park-wide communication strategy will hopefully address some of these coordination concerns, but it is unclear whether this strategy can function to monitor and champion communication in the Park. There will need to be a mechanism which can facilitate such things as coordination of the goals and activities of (for example) 'Media Relations' and the interpretation program, etc.

(include basic park messages in communication about 'hot issues'); or the flow of 'social value' infornation from front-line staff to ecosystern managers.

A final organizational concern is that the down-sizing strategy in Parks Canada may create what Miller (1 992) calls the 'Icarus paradox.' Westley (1 995) describes this succinctly:

Studies of highly successful fims that create intensive focus and unified cultures indicate they do so at the expense of responsiveness. The singlemindedness that initially gives them an edge over cornpetition and results in success, over time reduces intemal diversity. Certain functions are cut, as they are not seen as cure or central; disconfirming information is neither sought. not fuliy entertained. Deviants are expelled as extraneous, and suuessful routines are rigidly maintained (Miller 1992). The result is that the highly focused organization over time ceases to pick up stimuli signalling fundamental changes in the environment and gradually reduces intemal diversity until it is insufficient to respond to new demands from the environment (397).

One key to responsiveness is redundancy, the assumed dread enemy of efficiency :

Redundancies, as long as they represent multiple sensitivities and the ability to explore 'environments' for opportunities, may be as important for social systems as for organisms. Disorder in problem domains may be as valuable as order, diversity as important as consensus (Westley 1 99541 9-20).

In the area of communication in BNP, this scenario will likely manifest itself in this way: a broad (redundant) interpretation and communication department has provided training and mentoring and experience to a few key individuals who excelled. These people have survived the down-sizing because of their abilities. However, when these people leave the organization there will be no person to replace them, and more importantly no systern to create people like them.

Loss of corporate rnernory (BBVS 1996b), mentoring and career development were identified as concerns at the Transition Communications Workshop (TCW 1997). but little or no effort has yet been made to address them.

17. Communication should be more pro-active 1 Chapter 4 (The Importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management) discusses many reasons why information should be provided and solicited proactively to achieve the communication objectives of an ecosystem manager. lnadequate attention to this was thought to be a contributing factor to the Yellowstone Vision failure and the success of the Fraser Basin Management Program (see Ch. 7: Case Studies at pages 7-3 and 7-9).

Issue-based communication is the latest major irnprovement to natural resource management communication (Whatley 1993). This approach uses communication to douse spot fires of concern. However, issue-based communication is a complement to (rather than replacement for) traditional broad communication (see Background information above at page 84). There can also be an unintended tendency to make 'issue-based' communication

Conclusions 8-9

'reactive'. This does not have to be the case, as the Resource Acadia seminars illustrate (see page 7-8).

Several interviewees noted that this was the case for BNP, as did the communications personnel at the Transition Communications Workshop (TCW 1997) and the participants in the workshop following the environmental education Baseline Survey (The Advisory Group 1995). Their wncems, specifically, were that BNP communication focuses its limited resources (understandably) on arising issues. However, the basic concepts which concemed citizens would need to put the issues in context (why are national parks important, what is an ecosystem) were not adequately provided - Le., communication was too issue- based. Further, the background information is too often provided only after the issue is on the table - Le., communication was too reactive.

Replying directly to arising issues, while important, can be a self-fulfilling prop hesy . For example, the concentration on local audiences (whence corne the majority of issues) has likely reduced the awareness that living in a national park is a pnvilege (see protest card reprinted in BBVS 1996b:302).

At the same time, interviewees also noted there is a decreasing cal1 for Parks Canada and BNP staff to be advocates for conservation and protected areas - the very messages required for providing 'context.' The cal1 for advocacy was rife in Parks Canada Western Region's early 90's reports, etc., and nearly absent in reports, etc. since that time (see Appendix F at page F- 5 and Ch. 6 at page 6-4). Such efforts would likely be very effective as the Angus Reid (1 993) survey on attitudes toward national parks showed that when staff do speak on these issues, they are extremely credible.

The context which is provided for the public by issue-based and broad communication, and reactive and pro-active communication is a key element which was missing in the Yellowstone Vision exercise and likely contributed to its failure. If BNP were to try and engage in a regional planning exercise such as the Vision, this and other factors (see Ch. 7: Case studies at page 7-5) could lead it to face a similar public response.

18. The ~ u b k needs to be involved more effeahrehr 1

As discussed in Chapter 4 (The Importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management), some audiences will simply need improved information to satisfy their desire to be 'involved.' However, 'providing information' cannot be mistaken for 'consultation.' Some audiences desire a greater degree of input, especially as they acquire more information (FBMP 1995b, Roberts and Marshall 1995). Confusing these two was cited as a contributing factor to the Vision exercise in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (see Ch. 7 Case Studies at page 7-5).

Conclusions 8-f0

BNP and Parks Canada have made significant moves away from an 'announce and defend' style of public communication. The public involvement process for the Four Mountain Park planning process (Parks Canada 1994a) was very well done (see discussion at pages 5-2 and E-6). And the Banff Bow Valley Study (1 996b) included the rnost comprehensive public involvement process ever in Parks Canada. However, the lack of distinction between 'infomation provision' and 'consultation' was still a concem which was raised by al1 non-Parks Canada interviewees and several Parks Canada interviewees.

Most of the concern expressed by interviewees centred around BNP's process for receiving infomation frorn the public. They felt that infonation provided to BNP by the public. for the rnost part, went into a "black hole." There was no acceptable explanation of what was done with the infonation. which created feelings of cynicism and a sense of limited efficacy. The public response summaries done in conjunction with the Four Mountain Park planning process are an example of a tool BNP has already used which can help address these concerns.

Some interviewees also expressed a feeling that BNP was not willing to change its management actions based on public input. The Trans Canada Highway twinning process was regulariy cited as an example of this. As well, I came across no mechanisms for receiving 'little science' (see Ch. 4 at page 4-12).

A report on governance prepared for the Banff Bow Valley Study noted that BNP had had some excellent examples of participation (like those listed above). but that it was intermittent and generally at a high level (Coopers and Lybrand 1995a). Attention needs to be paid to the whole range of participation types. from simply increasing understanding to establishing Advisory Boards (see Ch. 4).

As well, increased participation will take forms that require ecosystern managers' increasing facilitation abilities (Selin and Chavez 1995). The report on governance prepared for the BBVS noted that suspicion between the environmental and business cornmunities was due to lack of a proper forum to bring these groups together (Coopers and Lybrand 1995a).

19. Partnerina should be a~proached with more caution 1

Given the fiscal constraints (see page E-7) under which Parks Canada and BNP will likely operate for some time, partnering is a necessary and potentially very positive tool for delivering communication services. However, it can be problematic if not approached with caution and attention to the overall objectives of the organization. The cal1 for partnering has been made for a number of years. However, in the Parks Canada (Western Region) task force reports of the early go's, the focus was on partnering with organizations whose vision was aligned with the conservation principles of P a r k Canada; now it is on those groups providing services in the park. This has led to a greater focus on tourism partners

Conclusions 8-7 7

(see discussion at pages 6-4 and F-5). There is little official direction for pursuing partnerships outside of the business plan (Parks Canada 1995).

An example is the Heritage Tourism Strategy (see Ch. 6 at page 6-3). This is a very positive initiative, which brings together the organizations and businesses in the park who are currently providing messages to visitors so as to coordinate and assess their delivery (Heritage Tourkm Working Group 1997). This strategy is a cornerstone of the new BNP Management Plan (Parks Canada 1997a). However. there is the potential that it will:

focus on cultural messages to the exclusion of ecological messages; be allowed to replace the park-specific communication goals; andfor alienate researchers who need to be involved in the communication process (see discussion at page 6-2).

110. 'Communication' should be added to Grurnbine's E M themes 1 Finally, 1 strongly believe that communication should be added as an 1 l t h theme to Grumbine's list of themes in ecosystem management. The discussion in this study has made a strong case for that already (see Ch. 4: The Importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management).

Communication is a necessary element of every other EM theme. and is simply assumed to exist. However. it rarely does in adequate measure. and deserves explicit attention. Communication is to ecosystem management as eating is to the human system: a presumed pre-requisite to function, causing acute crisis when it stops.

Conclusions 8-72

9. Recommendations Regarding Ecosystem Management Communication in Banff National Park

Ecosystem management and communications are two well-analyzed , but poorly integrated areas of study. Ultimately, the success of ecosystem management in an area such as Banff National Park will require that both fields be better understood, and that the relationship between the two be better understood.

The goal of this study is to help BNP improve its ecosystem management communication efforts. This chapter details my recommendations for doing so (see Ch. 2: Methodology for creation criteria).

Though 'ecosystem management' is the responsibility of managers, it falls to the communicators to operationalize EM principles in a practical communications framework. Because managers and communicators are partners in the task of 'ecosystern management communication,' these recommendations - taken as a whole - are for both groups. While it may be up to managers to take the lead on individual recommendations, it is necessary that communicators be advocates for the proposed changes.

The recommendations are collected under the categories of: ecosystem management CO-operation attitudinal cautions administrative techniques

Within each category they are listed in order of relative importance. The most important recommendations (for communication) are those under the headings A ftifudinal and Administrative.

The number in brackets following the recommendation heading corresponds to the conclusion in Chapter 8 which the recommendation addresses. In most cases, the tools for achieving these recommendations are described in the following chapter (Ch. 1 0: Action Items for Effecting the Recommendations).

Ecosystem management

Embracin~ uncertaintv (4) It is becoming increasingly more important for ecosystem managers to Say, "We don? know," and more importantly, "Perhaps, we can't know." This relates to the role of uncertainty and chaos theory in ecological management (see Appendix B). Managers are increasingly asked to 'predict' to unreasonable degrees the effect on ecosystems of various courses of action (witness the current debate on

Recommendations 9- 1

global warming). The various publics need to become aware of the inherent uncertainty in ecological management, and the effect that has on predictability.

This is a very long-term recomrnendation because of the time required to change society's belief in our knowledge and 'knowability' of al1 things. However. work on this task must begin immediately, pervading to the greatest degree possible every message put out by BNP.

Ambiguitv reaardinq ecological intearity and entrepeneurship (2) The National Business Plan (Parks Canada 1995) expresses the laudable goal of providing Canadians with 'experiences in line with their expectationsn (3). However, the focus does not appear to be on ensuring that the expectations are appropriate. Rather, it is on tailoring the offer to the existing expectations. This is indicative of the ambiguity which exists for BNP staff as they try and reconcile their mandate with the need to generate revenue (see Ch. 8: Conclusion #2).

Banff National Park must strive to alleviate this ambiguity. Work has already begun here. The new park management plan is very focused on ecological integrity. It will be important that the new business plan (national or park) be more sensitive to the primary mandate of Parks Canada - maintaining use within the limits of ecological integrity.

Power-sharina (1 1 One of the key problems faced by Yellowstone National Park in pursuing regional management was the expectation that seats would be provided at other management tables, before Yellowstone had provided seats at their own. Ecosystem management (or ecosystem-based management) is, at its roots. a regional management paradigm. Thus, BNP must ultimately pursue a broad regional management approach. Before that kind of cross-boundary management can exist at any effective level, CO-operation and communication channels must be open and cornfortable. The first step to achieving that is a show of faith - providing seats at your own management table. This is an indication of the understanding that regional management is a power-sharing relationship - that increased reach is offset by decreased local pervasiveness.

Local knowledqe (8) The Bow Valley is very lucky to have a well-educated, very motivated conservation and natural history community. There is a considerable amount of expertise in various areas represented by the citizens of the Valley. This provides several opportunities which BNP should attempt to capitalize on. Such action:

extends the limited reach of employees (greater numbers with considerable awareness of boundary issues and community concerns); helps address the loss of personnel and rapid turnover by providing a connection to a longer-term knowledge of the area; and

Recommendations 9-2

provides a show of good faith, which increases trust in the organization by the community.

Shared positions (6) Banff National Park should explore the possibility of sharing certain positions across parks andior agencies. There are financial benefits in that the cost of the position is shared. There are benefits from an EM perspective. as well, in that such positions facilitate better regional information sharing and continue the move toward cross-boundary management. The American National Park Service and United States Forest Service in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have had some limited success with sharing positions such as a soi1 scientist (Schullery, pers. corn.). The Central Rockies Ecosystem lnteragency Liaison Group would seem the most likely urnbrella under which to create such positions.

Attitudinal

Committina to communication (5) The Transition Communications Works hop (TCW 1997) saw a recognition by al1 levels of management (including the national level) that communication activities in Parks Canada have suffered from a lack of attention during the reorganization. A new comrnitment by management to addressing that concern appeared to be emerging. However, the problems are deep and systemic. so management commitment must be enduring. It must also recognize not just the current problems, but the long-term role which communication plays in the management process (see Staf training in Ch. 1 0).

Personal programs (4.5) Parks Canada is looked to as an organization that sets the standards in personal programs (carnpground talks. guided hikes. etc.). For most people this is where they encounter the people of Parks Canada. This consistent. non-confrontational provision of basic ecological information is likely where the organization developed its reputation as being more trustworthy than even academics and scientists (Angus Reid 1993). BNP should maintain - and augment - its commitment to personal programs as a key pillar of Parks Canada communication. In doing so, it must recognize that coordinating and facilitating such programs by others requires a continued interna1 expertise. and that the interpretation program provides both infonation dissemination and a training ground for future communication specialists.

Broaden audience focus (7) In the short tem. it is in BNP's best interest to focus both delivery and reception of communication on local audiences. This is where the 'squeakiest wheels' are. and these are the people most directly affected by BNP management decisions. However, in the long-term, this may be a self-fulfilling and self-defeating strategy.

Recommendations 9-3

Viewing the Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table, it became clear to me that a history of acceding to the demands of narrow local interests has created a perception that living and doing business in a national park is a hardship. A suggestion by the BBVS to fence off the Town of Banff to ensure the integrity of wildlife movements through the valley led to t-shirts showing people behind bars under the words 'Stalag Banff.' The prescribed burning program led to bumper sticken reading 'Save the Forest, Fire a Warden.'

Despite repeated national direction from Canadians to focus on protection (Angus Reid 1993, Parks Canada 1994b), local interests have forged ahead with a staggering amount of development. This is not to say that BNP should not focus on local concerns, but that an exclusive focus on local concerns can over- legitimize their narrow concerns. BNP must be careful in addressing the seemingly more immediate local worries that it does not lose sight of the fact that this is a national park, and no single Canadian's concerns are more important than another's.

Promotinci advocacy (7) For an agency such as Parks Canada with a clear conservation mandate, communications must focus on both education and advocacy. It is as important to promote 'ecological pride' as it is to encourage 'ecological Iiteracy' (Orr 1989). BNP (and Parks Canada) management should be actively encouraging advocacy within the agency. Staff, managers, policies and plans should not be apologetic about the conservation role of parks, which is hugely supported by Canadians (Angus Reid 1993, The Advisory Group 1995). 'Advocacy' is not meant in the confrontational sense that it often has today, but rather in the sense of active promotion of national park ideals.

Extra-park conservation activities (7) BNP must continue to be active in conservation efforts outside of the park. Pursuing EM necessarily requires BNP to play an active role in situations outside the park which have a direct impact on the ecological integrity of the park. However, BN P should also approach extra-park conservation pro-actively. Supporting conservation initiatives outside the park helps achieve the park's conservation objectives - no matter where that conservation takes place.

Because conservation is not sirnply promoting protected areas, in some cases these initiatives might best be led by an independent conservation or education group supported by BNP and/or Parks Canada. Pauley's (1996) research on conservation easements in Alberta showed that land owners preferred to deal with private organizations over government agencies.

Counterinq anti-conservation messacies (7) Human nature abhors an informational vacuum. When issues (and questions) are raised, especially by the media, someone will answer, and others will listen.

Recommendations 9-4

A great deal of anti-conservation sensationalism appears which tries to capture public attention I support. BNP appears to have a policy of not responding directly to anti-conservation rhetoric and criticism. The sound motivation for this is to avoid the loss of credibility that results from a 'mud-slinging' battle. This rneans that BNP must work to establish itself as a credible information source without going to head-to-head with anti-conservation interests. It must raise its profile and maintain (or increase) its credibility in non-combative ways.

This will require the production of proactive broad-based and issue-based information. BNP must seek out opportunities to provide this information at non- crisis times as well so that the various publics are less swayed by anti- conservation rhetoric.

Connecting business and ecologicat health (4) Several Park businesses are very aware of the role that the ecological health plays in their economic health (see Private sector communication at page 6-1 5). For many others, this connection needs to be illustrated. One of the primary causes of a poor conservation ethic in people is the lack of direct experience with, and understanding of, natural systems (Grumbine 1988). As BNP pursues members of the business community for their help in decreasing ecological stressors, increasing heritage communication, etc., the Park must also devote energy to ensuring these partners (and al1 local citizens) have a clear understanding of how ecologically healthy national park ecosystems sustain them physically and economically.

Administrative

Virtual communications department (6) One of the most significant problems that communication in BNP is constantly faced with is a lack of CO-ordination of communication efforts. The disbanding of the Heritage Communications department has had some positive and some negative results. Chief among the positives is the placement of dedicated communication specialists in various departrnents. Chief among the negatives has been the loss of CO-ordination of communication people and prograrns.

The fiscal path that Parks Canada has chosen will not allow the re-creation of a Heritage Communications department (nor perhaps should it). However, the issues of CO-ordination of, and commitment to, communication must be resolved. It is possible that a sort of 'virtual communications department' could address these.

A coordinating body responsible for the creation and supen/ision of communication strategies could be created mostly out of the existing communication specialists. These people would still be attached to their 'departments of origin,' and thus still represent their department to the new communications body, and also continue to represent communications to their

- - - -

Recommendations 9-5

department. Such a 'virtual department' should not be under another department. but should have at least one dedicated person whose job is to facilitate the CO-ordination of communication, and champion the cause of communication within BNP.

Unlike the former Heritage Communications department, this 'virtual department' should have ties to ali communications functions, such as:

communication policy technical communication services in-house (staff) training (audio, AV. publishing) - this could community relations simply be a liaison person with ecosystem secretariat Calgary Service Centre communication resident communication and warden communication education interpretation outreach . visiter centre counter staff historic sites communications staff interna1 communication environmental education VIP tours etc.

This is not dissimilar to the Parks and People Task Force (1990) cal1 for a regional Community Affairs directorate which would have responsibility for:

Educational services (e-g. edukits, school programming, in-park educational programs, liaison with provincial departments of education); public relations; media relations, VIP visits; public consultation; pre-trip planning services; advocacy programs; publications; advertising; creative serviceshedia development; ceremonies; internal communications; and regional communications planning and evaluation

Environmental education (4.7) A defining characteristic of the evolution of natural resource management. has been moving to deal with problerns pro-actively - to address the problem. and not just the symptoms. For natural resource management. a key to this approach is the recognition that if you instil an environmental ethic in people when they are in their formative years, you have much less work in ensuring they do not contribute to ecologicai problems in their adult years.

There has been a recurring concern that education is a provincial jurisdiction, and that a federal agency such as Parks Canada should not become involved in education. This is political obfuscation as there are few if any teachers and curriculum coordinators who care where their support is coming from. and environmental education reduces the stress for parks managers an immeasurable amount in intangible ways.

AI1 national parks in the Alberta Region have eliminated their dedicated environmental education positions. These positions have now been eliminated at the regional office as well. BNP needs to renew its cornmitment to environmental education in a formal way. As it is unlikely that a dedicated environmental

Recomrnendations 9-6

education position will be created in each park. BNP and the other mountain parks should pursue the creation of a shared Environmental Education position.

Continuitv of positions (6) Like al1 other areas in Parks Canada, communications suffers from a lack of mentoring. A number of circumstances work against mentoring:

A large proportion of staff are close to retirement age (Parks Canada 1995). and the recent rounds of down-sizing have only exacerbated that situation; The rnajority of communications personnel in BNP are the only communications person in their department, and therefore there is no active effort !O ensure expertise and 'corporate memory' are passed on; Federal student work experience programs encourage students to work in the in the organization for successive years. However, unlike its predecessor (Career Oriented Student Experience Program), the current Federal Student Work Experience Program allows students to apply only on 'open competitions'.' A hiring freeze (only recently ended) and the number of displaced civil servants in the Public Service has limited these to a handful of mostly unskilled positions.

Banff National Park needs to address these circumstances if they hope to maintain the expertise they currently have. Programs such as the management training program for the Department of Canadian Heritage offer only a small amount of relief. Encouraging the creation of CO- and assistant positions, developing CO-op programs for students, allowing FSWEP students to apply for 'closed' competitions, and reversing the trend towards reducing entire department communication workloads ont0 a single employee would help address this problem.

As well, a great deal of the communication between communications personnel within BNP, and between them and outside contacts, is based on personal relationships (Le. it is personality driven). When these people leave their position. or their duties are transferred to another person, those contacts and communication channels disintegrate, and the successor is starting at square one. As much as is possible without quashing personal initiative, it is important to formalize these channels such that they can endure beyond a single person's tenure.

Rationalization of workloads (6) Workloads for a given position Vary considerably between the Field Units represented in the Mountain Parks District, despite the attempt to create one position for each job in each Unit. The greater number of visitors and public scrutiny im ply that the Banff Field Unit will have broader communication challenges than other areas of the District. Thus, BNP should not hesitate to create CO- or assistant communication positions to help deal with these tremendous workloads. A benefit - aside from the increased ability to address

1 'Closed Competitions' are those available only to current employees of the Public Service.

Recommendations 9- 7

mandated tasks - is the possibility to create rnentoring relationships and avoid the horrendous learning curves for successors when a penon leaves a single- body job.

Personnel increase (5) Parks Canada managers have recognized that the delivery of ecosystem management messages cannot be done with current staffing levels (Transition Communications Workshop 1997). Efforts to address budget cuts led to less cost-intensive and more labour-intensive initiatives; then staffing decreased. After the creation of a park-wide communication strategy, there should be a clear assessrnent of the staffhg needs to accomplish that plan. Then there should be a commitment on the part of management to address what will be a shortfaII.

There are several staffing methods that can complement the traditional ones. For example, positions could be shared among District parks, or among regional agencies, or created by CO-operating and non-profit associations which have access to funding that BNP does not.

Business plan and communication strateqies (5.6) Despite the Park Management Plan dictating what will happen in the park. fiscal realities necessitate that the business plan sets the priorities. A rneasure of the management commitment to communication will be its recognition in the business plan. Therefore, communication objectives should be explicitly recognized in the business plan. As well, the park-wide communication strategy should be organized such that it can tie directly into the business plan.

Communications audit (61 BNP has recently undergone a significant administrative reorganization. There has also been considerable down-sizing. Whether internal communications were effective before that time is irrelevant as the situation has changed entirely. BNP at this time has little concrete understanding of the effectiveness and problem areas of its internal communications. A communications audit should be perforrned on BNP (or the entire Alberta Region) to detenine the current effectiveness of internal organizational communication.

Communication strategies for the EM plaver relationships (6.7) As mentioned in Chapter 3 (8ackground to Ecosystem Management), there are three essential ecosystem management players: the public, scientists and managers. Ideally, there should be a communicator or communication strategy to provide guidelines for cooperative interaction between the three. There are often communication strategies for the relationship between managers and the public (which is what this study has concentrated on). However, the neglected and important communication channels between managers and scientists, for example. require formal attention as well.

Recommendations 9-8

Front-line to manasement connections (6) As has been discussed in Chapter 8 (Conclusions), an ability to respond to its environment is critical to the long-terni success of an organization. A key factor in that responsiveness is the communication connection between front-line staff and policy-makers. In the same way that upper management tries to stay in touch with the relevant interest groups, it should stay in touch with its front-line people. Monthly meetings with interpreters, gate staff, andlor visitor centre staff. for example, would help upper managers stay in touch with those people who talk to the Canadian public on a daily basis.

Cooperation

participation coordinator (6,8) There is increasing demand on the part of the community to be involved in the operation of the park. This demand can be satisfied in a number of ways from volunteering to sitting on the Strategic Planning Board. There should be a dedicated position in BNP which coordinates al1 of these opportunities. and ensures that both citizens and staff are aware of these participation opportunities.

Public participation strateqv (6,8) Foliowing from the recommendation above, is the need for a coordinated participation strategy which lays out the goals of public participation. the opportunities. the responsibilities, and the awareness plan. Such a strategy is needed in BNP - regardless of whether a Participation Coordinator position is created or not.

Strateqic Advisorv Board (8) The BBVS recommended a Strategic Planning Board as "an excellent first step" in beginning "to share decision-making and improve its accountability to the public" (BBVS lW6b:3Iï) . This report reiterates that recommendation, and emphasizes these suggestions:

do not rely on a Development Review Board to serve this function ensure that there are several representatives from the community. reflecting as broadly as possible the varied interests of the comrnunity ensure chair is independent parks expert (BBVS 1996b:317) ask for 1 year commitments to encourage turn over, and avoid 'consultation fatigue' examine the Acadia Nafional Park Advisory Commission in Acadia National Park (see Ch. 7: Case Studies). in particular. its Education Sub-Cornmittee recognize the need this Board would have for on-going, and easy access to information establish an issue-assessrnent function; allow citizens to bring issues to the Board, and have the Board report back to person bringing issue forward about what was done to address the issue

Recommendations 9-9

Choosing partners (9 ) Communication partnerships must not be seen as a 'free lunch.' The idea of someone else providing financial backing is very attractive when resources are scarce. However, partnerships are an exchange, and not simply a case of someone else footing the bill to deliver BNP messages.

Parks Canada and BNP have certain things they bnng to partnerships: expertise. reputation, infrastructure. One of the greatest is reputation. Therefore they must be careful not to enter into partnerships where their 'reputation' capital depreciates. This could occur if messages are contradictory, poorly delivered. inaccurate, or not true to the nationally accepted ideal of a national park. With little money. and diminishing personnel and infrastructure, BNP must invest its 'reputation capital' carefully.

Traditionally, Parks Canada looked to conservation organizations for partners in message delivery (see Ch. 6: Communication of Ecosystem Management Messages in BNP; Task force reports). However, the recent fiscal climate has led to a shift in focus towards organizations that could provide dollars as well as assistance. There is a danger here in losing the 'ecological integrity' of those messages, as conservation is not the driving principle behind most of these partners. BNP should look again for research. education, advocacy, etc. partnerships with non-profit, park value organizations.

Coordinatinq communication with reqional aaencies (6) With BNPts intention to pursue regional management, regional communication is a good, non-combative place to start. Already groups like Central Rockies Ecosystem lnteragency Liaison Group (see Appendix E at page E-2) are working together in creating and delivering ecosystern-level messages.

BNP will have to be aware and ready. This will require designing a communication strategy with an eye to eventually blending it with communication strategies of the region. The Fraser Basin Management Program (see Ch. 7: Case Studies) may have lessons for BNP in coordinating communication across a wide, multi-jurisdictional region.

Creative fundinq (5) One of the motivations for creating the new Agency structure for Parks Canada was "special budgeting and re-investment authorityn (Parks Canada 1997). This could be a very positive developrnent if it allows more Rexibility to acquire grants and donations. The American national parks examined in this study relied on grants for several major initiatives (Paul Super pers. corn., Paul Schullery, pers. com .):

the Resource Acadia Seminar start-up money both the Yellowstone and Acadia National Park newspaper inserts, and

Recommendations 9- 1 O

the start-up money for the local journal Yellowstone Science (see Ch. 7: Case Studies)

If BNP were able to acquire dedicated donations and grants for specific communication programs. that would provide access to normally inaccessible funds, and would be a much-needed infusion for an anaemic communication budget. BNP should also try to channel funds from donors to needy projects possibly led by non-park individuals and organizations.

Balancinq environmental and business special interests (8 ) During the Vision exercise in Yellowstone National Park in 1990 (see Ch. 7: Case Studies), park managers learned the hard way what might happen if the conservation 'allies' - those with a comparable national park ideal - were not tended to. Banff National Park has worked very hard in recent yean to pro- actively engage the park businesses. Foremost arnongst these tools is a monthly 'business breakfast' with the superintendent. Until recently, the corollary to this special interest group attention was the quarterly State of the Park meetings2 in Calgary which attracted mostly environmental interests.

Without a balancing invitation to the 'environmentalists' this will be seen as a throwback to the days when influence was solely a backroom affair. A possible countermeasure might be an 'environmentalist hike'. led by the superintendent (see Superintendent field trips in the next chapter). Both the 'business breakfast' and the 'environmentalist hike' should seek to educate as well as solicit attitudes

Techniques

Maintain connections between scientists and cornmunicators (9) The vision of the Heritage Tourism Strategy (see Appendix F at page F-4) as first espoused by the Banff Bow Valley Study was of a CO-operative venture between BNP and the various tourism businesses in the Park that were already delivering messages to visitor audiences. The BBVS saw BNP's role as helping the tourism industry to promote visitor education by developing "a comprehensive set of standards for al1 education and awareness programs provided to visitors" and "a series of programs to assist industry in implementing the Tourism Destination Modeln (BBVS l996b:ZZ4).

The implication was that the communication and scientific expertise which BNP already had could be used to assist the tourism industry. This is an ideal conduit for communication between the EM players. However. several communication specialists have noted that no ecological scientists nor communication specialists from BNP have been involved thus far in the development of the Heritage Tourism Strategy. Banff National Park will have to work at reversing this

Those meetings have since become defunct (for about 18 months so far). but may reappear in the future.

situation in order to maintain the national parks communication ideal of connecting people with the best possible information.

Establish policv and mandate as fallbacks (2.4) The reality of managing national park ecosystems is that uncertainty will rule the day. As the BBVS (1 996b) noted, uncertainty ' c m be managed, not relieved" (299). This uncertainty makes 1 difficult to provide the 'yeslno' messages and answers that society desires. This can create confusion, and even hostility.

Communication responsibilities in BNP are divided among several departments (Ecosystem Secretariat, the Warden Service, Frontcountry, Heritage Programs, Client Services, Media Relations). Co-ordination and consistency in message delivery is difficult, especially in the absence of a park-wide communication strategy.

These two circumstances make for a variety of conflicting messages. Each department has its audiences (and the desires of its audiences) to contend with, and each tends to provide a different spin. The Banff Bow Valley Study (BBVS 1996b) suggests that increasing visitation is a danger; the Business Plan (Parks Canada 1995) suggests it is a saviour.

It is therefore important for management to stress to al1 communicators that the officia1 fallback position for al1 communication should be the National Parks Policy (Parks Canada 1994c) and the mandate it reflects. It is important that al1 messages be based on promoting the national park ideal, and that ideal is stated in the policy better than anywhere else.

Use interpreters for broad communication 15,7) The language of science is different from the language of economics. which is different frorn the language of recreation, etc. We tend to forget why we called national park public communicators 'interpreters.' Unlike other corporate entities. BNP (and Parks Canada) has a long tradition, and large pool, of people with the training and aptitude for the task of translating the various ' ~ a n ~ u a g e s ' ~ between groups.

As people becorne more aware of the need to understand each other's 'languages' to resolve issues, the role of the interpreter should be expanded. The Discover Banff program - where interpreters speak to park business staff - is based on this recognition. BNP will need to support this interpretation tradition and training, and will need to ensure this pool is maintained at levels large enough to foster mentoring and synergy.

-- - - - - - - - -

3 See Techniques in the next chapter for more discussion of these 'languages.'

Recommendations 9-12

Facilitate fund-raisinci for proiects (5,8) As a government agency, there are several avenues for fund-raising to which the agency does not have access. However, BNP is acquainted with several non- profit conservation organizations which do have access to that funding. In somewhat of a reversal of traditional roles, BNP should not hesitate to approach those organizations with proposais for education and communication projects. In the process, BNP can help those organizations identify potential sources of funding .

lnstitute consistent corporate look (6) Parks Canada and BNP have recently begun to try and standardize their corporate image. In particular, there is a move to replace the various logos which individual parks have created, and the variations on the national logo. with the standard national logo (known to some as 'Boomer the Beaver'). This is an effort which BNP should continue to embrace.

As initiatives like the Heritage Tourism Strategy encourage more 'comrnunicators' to appear, it will become increasingly important to have a standard look such that people will know what is truly BNP-produced information and what is not. Changes to fact sheet ternplates, mailing labels, Park Magazine format. posters, letterhead, etc. should al1 be scrutinized as to whether a change. - even an aesthetic improvement - is desirable given the confusion it creates in the minds of the various publics. This may become more important if the change to an agency structure (Parks Canada 1997b) produces yet another name change for the organization.

Recommendations 9-13

10. Action ltems for Effecting the Recommendations

1 Introduction 1

The discussion in the bulk of this document has tended more to the management side. The concerns with regard to improving EM communication in BNP have been less practical, and more theoretical - addressing 'the way we do business' type problems.

I anticipate that the communicators reading this document will be looking for practical, -implementable, stand-alone recommendations. I therefore aimed to create recomrnendations that make practical suggestions, but which are inforrned by (and in the spirit of) the theoretical discussion.

The result is this chapter, which details proposed 'action items' for effecting the recommendations in the previous chapter. As with the previous chapter. the number in brackets following the recomrnended action's heading corresponds to the conclusion in Chapter 8 which the action item addresses.

Action items are collected under the following categories: Techniques Public participation Partnerships Facilitation Publications Staff training Non-print media Researcher involvement in Personal communication communication Outreach l nternal communication Education

The final two sections in this chapter are Whai to communicate, which are recomrnendations related to messages, and Monitoring, which has been separated out due to its importance and traditional neglect.

Within each category items are listed in order of relative importance. However. the more complete description of prioritization cornes in their placement in the lmplementation Sfrategy (Chapter 11). A note on the dilemma of prioritizing this type of communication recommendations is included below under the heading Redundancy.

Implementaüon notes

I felt it was important to give sorne direction for implementing each action item. After the description of each item (except the Techniques) is a collection of relevant implernentation notes - suggestions for how to achieve that recommendation. The intention was to provide the following information for each:

lead - who in BNP should take the lead on the initiative, who should provide support, etc.;

audience - who is the target audience(s);

Action Items 70-7

timing - where in a planning framework this effort should anse, or at least how long it might be expected to take to irnplement;

cost - very few action items have specific price tags, so this note focuses more on whether it generates revenue, who should pay for it, how it could be paid for, etc.;

monitohng - suggestions for how the implementation of the recommendation could be monitored for effectiveness.

Despite the belief in integration, the reality is that not al1 suggestions in this chapter are likely to be implemented. Th'us, I intend that each action can stand on its own; Le., a given initiative will not depend on the implementation of another. This causes a sort of chaos effect with regard to prioritization in that acceptance of some recommendations will affect the relative priority of other recommendations.

The starting point in creating this chapter has been to identify suggestions which are costlrevenue-neutral. Though some recommended actions carry the potential to generate revenue, for the most part this is not the case. In some cases where initiatives do have a cost, I have made suggestions as to where external funding could corne from. There are several recommendations that simply have a price tag .

In the end, three things (mentioned in Ch. 8: Conclusions) must be recognized: 1) Park Canada - especially the Alberta Region and BNP - are currently not

investing enough resources in communication to meet even their basic rnandated commitments;

2) communication is an investment in the management process. The costs are minimal, compared to the positive returns. and ability to avoid catastrophes such as Yellowstone National Park experienced with the Vision (see Ch. 7 : Case Studies); and

3) there is an increasing cal1 among ecological scientists with diminishing budgets to use communication and education to increase the efficiency of protection efforts.

Redundancy

It is important to prioritize the action items, and I have endeavoured to do so. However, prioritization of individual communication initiatives can proceed only to a point given that the key to communication effectiveness is redundancy.

No single information source is adequate to relay a given message. One instance or method of message delivery combines with several others to create awareness in the mind of a message recipient. A pamphlet, for example. might

Action Items 7 0-2

provide a person with a reat deal of information about ecosystems, but will not P instil a sense of wonder .

For complex messages such as the nature of ecosysterns or management systems. determining the role that a given medium played in placing that collection of messages in a person's awareness rneans sorting through an infinite number of learning pathways. This 'infinity' is what makes measurement of the effectiveness of communication efforts so difficult. Assessing the effectiveness of a given medium to firmly establish that message in the minds of people is elusive2.

This is not to Say that this sort of work is not done, nor cannot be done. Successful efforts have been made to track this relationship (see Reading et al 1993, Valente 1993, Zhu et a l 1993, Care et a l 1994, Gigliotti 1994, Reading et al 1994, Hornig Priest 1995, Leeming et a l 1 995). Such work provides valuable infornation in determining what are more or less effective ways of delivering messages. However, in most cases, these experiments are very focused: a single communication effort with a pre-test and a post-test, atternpting to control for al1 other factors. Communication, conversely, seeks very intentionally to build on other efforts, producing an effect that is augrnented exponentially, not arithmetically. Controlling for other efforts can miss this multiplying effect of this synergy.

A well-known tenet of EM is that management actions must be devised and implemented in the absence of perfect knowledge. The very same urgency requires that communication initiatives must also be devised and implemented in the absence of perfect knowledge. It is important to rank communication efforts to some degree - some are ineffective, and we should be vigilant about finding those. However, given the need to affect many areas of perception, and that our current methods for effectiveness measurement are crude, the key to EM communication appears to be redundancy.

- -

1 General action items 1

Techniques Rather than specific action items, the recommendations in this section are attitudes and approaches to mind when applying the other recommendations (or any communication initiative).

t Much literature exists regarding the need to instil 'a sense of wonder or affinity for the natural world" (Orr 1 989:334) in creating ecological literacy. This 'Wonder' is what E.O. Wilson calls eiophilia (Wilson 1984).

Currently. we are best able to detemine: 1) if the message has or has not been received by the public, and 2) if a given medium was noted by the public.

Action Items 10-3

Celebrate successes (3.8) The task of conservation is a daunting one. and for some an overwhelming one. The sense of hopelessness can discourage potential supporters. Several agencies and programs reviewed for this study used 'success stories' very effectively to promote their protection efforts (see for example Dombeck 1996; Dovetail 1995).

Banff National Park has achieved a lot in ternis of protecting the park ecosystems. It needs to celebrate those successes, and advertise them. The technique involves building small successes, and then pointing to them as encouragement for other efforts. As well as helping to alleviate efficacy concerns, success stories aiso provide a very effective leaming tool (Westley 1995).

Favour personal contact (8) As much as possible, BNP should strive to have people dealt with personally. There is a loss of sensitivity - and more importantly a perceived lack of concern - when people cannot establish a two-way flow of communication. Phone calls that are handled entireiy by machines. and letters that are answered by curt form letters reflect poorly on the attitude of the organization towards its clients. Few businesses that do not respond to their clients in a meaningful and respectful way survive in the long-term.

What is perhaps even more problematic is that the loss in credibility may not be perceived by the organization, as they have no way of receiving feedback.

Declare long-ten goal (6) As well as creating goals and objectives against which to measure progress, it would be helpful to identify an explicit long-term goal. A suitable one would be 'a consistent increase in awareness of the ecological issues in the park.' This would be set on a 10 or 12 year time frame, indicators of improvement identified, and a plan for regular measurement created. Such a goal is implicitly on the rninds of most (or al[) communicators in BNP, but it needs to be stated as an explicit goal. The goal can them be worked into a comprehensive communication strategy. coordinated with the business plan, and measured repeatedly in a consistent way.

Appeal to the heart as well as the head (4) The current focus on infusing decision-making with quality scientific information is long overdue and necessary. However, communication that is intended to generate support for national park ideals should appeal to the heart as well as the head (Jacobson 1995; see also Communication and behaviour, attitudes, and values at page 4-2, and Appendix F).

There is a great degree of affection for Banff National Park, and a great deal of spiritual connection. While pushing the science and the economics. communicators must not forget that the reason many people value BNP is not rational nor economic.

Be intemreters of science (4) As mentioned before (and discussed in greater detail in Appendix P: Selling the importance of communication), for some people, science is a foreign language. Communicators need to be interpreters and ambassadors of that sub-culture.

The steps in this communication process are quite similar to introducing a person to any foreign, non-English-speaking place:

start with the language; start with the nouns, key phrases (just like a travel phrase book) introduce them to the culture. the way things are done, etc. correlate it to their culture whenever possible

Piciciy-back issue communication (6.7) The majority of communication recommendations in this chapter could as easily apply to any communication objective in BNP as to EM communication. This suggests that opportunities for CO-operative issue communication should be identified wherever possible.

For example, it can be very important to piggy-back critical resource issue communication with public safety communication. When a trail is closed for wildlife activity that might pose a danger to humans (a 'Bear in Area' warning, for example). take the opportunity to post information telling how this is for the b e a h safety. too. As well as reducing the frustration a person might feel in being denied access. it provides a golden opportunity to increase understanding of the situation.

Borrow risk feedback ciathering techniques (8) The field of nsk communication is much more developed than 'environmental communication' or 'ecosystern management communication'. As noted below (see Outrage factors), many of the challenges in communicating ecosystem management messages are based on identifying how citizens perceive a management decision will have a personal impact (or risk). Thus. many communication techniques can be borrowed.

For example, examination of one aspect of the risk communication cycle, nsk feedback, can be helpful. One paper (Benjamin and Belluck 1990) suggests gathering risk feedback in the following ways:

Nominal group - small group (12 to 15). are each asked by a facilitator to write down their views on a given issue; each contributes the idea they consider most important; a list is made, and then discussed; a prioritized list

Action Items 10-5

can be made by the group; this guides future discussion. research and agency actions

Responsiveness summary - "lists al1 public comrnents and agency actions" (see below at page 10-27)

Personal interview - 'People concemed about an issue are more likely to be reasonable and less likely to take a polarized stance during a private conversation than during a public discussion."

Content analysis - "careful reading of newspapers [etc. to] identify areas of conflict and misinfomationn

Workbook survey - series of issues or questions is presented in a short workbook format, with plenty of space for people to write their ideas and reactionsn

Several of the techniques above have been, or are being. used by BNP. However. they need to be consistently applied.

Consider 'outraqe factors' (8) For both newly-arisen issues, and long-standing concerns, communicators should consider sandman's3 'outrage factors' when assessing the intensity of concern on the part of an audience. Sandman defines outrage factors as "everything about a risk except how Iikely it is to cause h a n " (Santos 1990). Though the original reference is to environmental risk, the public's reaction to ecosystem management actions - and what they perceive as a negative impact

their life - is comparable: Voluntary risks are accepted more readily than those that are imposed; Risks under individual control are accepted more readily than those under government control; Risks that seem fair are more acceptable than those that seem unfair; Risk information that cornes from trustworthy sources is more readily believed than information from untrustworthy sources; Risks that seem ethically objectionable will seem more risky than those that do not; Natural risks seem more acceptable than artificial risks; Exotic risks seem more risky than familiar risks; Risks that are dreaded seem less acceptable to people than those that carry less dread; Risks that are undetectable create more fear than detectable risks; and Risks that are well understood by science are more acceptable than those that are not (Benjamin and Belluck 1990)

Seize opportunities (7) Banff National Park has been very good at seizing unexpected communication opportunities when they have arisen. Such excellent communication vehicles as

3 As quoted in Santos (1 990) and Benjamin and Belluck (1990).

Action ltems 70-6

the television shows Great Canadian Parks and The Nature of Things have provided an extent of message delivery that BNP could not dream of on its own.

The Park should be on guard for these fortuitous happenstances, but should also actively seek thern out. There are news magazine shows and special interest channels that would likely respond to a well-crafted proposal for an interesting show on Banff National Park. It is important to find these opportunities to have media exposure at times other than during 'crises'.

List contact people (4) Every publication should include phone numbers and titles of the individuals within the park who are in charge of andlor involved with the research and issues described. A single park phone nurnber, or a phone number for a media relations person works against the transparency and accountability that are needed to create trust and respect between the agency and the community.

Partnerships

Use incentives (9) Banff National Park needs to continue to work at employing as much 'carrot' as 'stick.' Even the most basic 'communication partnership' requires that something be given in return for a well-delivered national park message. Apparently BNP once offered awards to members of the tourist industry for recognition of "superior delivery of key environmental messages to the public'' (Whatley 1993). Such contributions to the Park's conservation efforts should continue to be recognized. For example, the Park Magazine could be used as the basis for an incentives program:

awards to members of the tourist industry for recognition of excellence in message delivery could be recognized with free-advertising in the Magazine: create section in Park Magazine show-casing Park-Friendly Businesses.

Lead - Frontcountry (as current coordinators of the Park Magazine); al1 other departments in support

Audience - local businesses, local residents Timing - advertise program coming up in 1998 Magazine, begin recognition in

1999 Magazine Cosf - staff time of departments; included in Magazine costs Monitoring - poll businesses (fomally or infomally after first edition with

recognition cornes out as to whether they would like that recognition)

Action Items 1 O- 7

Information packaaes for ~artners (91 Provide a package of al1 current fact sheets to message delivery partners4

provided in a small folder with room to insert new fact sheets as they are created; create a 'subscription list' so as new Fact Sheets are created. they can be mailed out

include a list of documents available for purchase; available for loan provide for key individuals. libraries, politicians, media, etc. with deluxe

package including Research Links. Report Cards (see Report cards. at page 10-9). Management Plan summary. etc.

Lead --Ecosystern Secretariat take lead and provide staff tirne, but other departments share the production and mailing costs

Audience - these partners would include conservation groups, local schools and libraries, university departrnents and libraries. guides and tour companies, local hotels and businesses

Timing - immediate Cost - initial outlay for folders and fact sheet sets; recurring print-offs; initial

mail costs; recurring mail costs; staff (or consultant) time to create mailing lists and document lists

Monitoring - feedback card included with initial mail-out; occasional repeat of the card with new fact sheets mailed out

Handbills for outfitters, rental companies (9) Create information handbills in CO-operation with ouffitters, sales and rental companies about how to use specific equipment in an ecologically sustainable way.

small. low-cost handbills could then be attached to every outgoing piece of equipment

Lead - Client Services, with support from resource management specialists and Ecosystern Secretariat

Audience - outfitting, sales and rental companies in Bow Valley and Calgary Timing - in time for 1998 winter season Cost - production costs could be covered by businesses, with CO-ordination

covered by BNP Monitoring - prepare to change information on handbills. and focus on different

handbills according to rental companies read on the need

4 Such a booklet already exists, but does not allow for new information to be inserted. Such an 'augmentable' format was used successfully by the Fraser Basin Management Program (see Appendix N).

Action Items 10-8

Publications

Report cards (4) The Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP) had a great deal of success with 'report cards' as reporting and communication tools (FBMP 1996b; see Chapter 7: Case Studies). This tool would likely work ver= well for BNP.

the format should be a report card on 'biological diversity' or 'ecological integrity' or 'ecosystern management' a number of measures (indicators) are listed; not huge nor exhaustive; aim for around 20 indicators try to include measures of economic and social influences on EM begin with simply a BNP created report card, but eventually design a co- operative grading procedure like the FBMP used

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat; with support frorn al1 departments especially Media Relations

Audience - the media, special interests Timing - try to produce them annually, or biannually; aim to being in fall 2000 Cost - it would be best if this was a high-gloss, two-colour publication so as to

attract more media attention; costs shared between natural resource wardens and media relations

Monitoring - this is a monitoring tool for EM; its effectiveness as a communication tool will be apparent by the media coverage of it and the references to it by special interests in their comments on various management actions

Newspa~er inserts (4) Both Yellowstone and Acadia National Parks have had success with newspaper inserts (see Ch. 7: Case Studies). These devices allow park management to use the tools of the media to get past the filters of the media (Paul Schullery. pers. corn.). The topics have been stewardship (Acadia), fire management (Yellowstone) and natural regulation (Yellowstone). Such an insert would have been very good immediately following the BBVS. However. the potential applications are still numerous.

a key topic might be 'ecosystem management' this allows BNP to create a big media impression without the usual pre- requisite crisis

Lead - the affected department (e.g., Ecosystem Secretariat for 'ecosystem management') with support from Media Relations

Audience - local and regional newspaper readers (Crag and Canyon, Canmore Leader, Calgav Herald); extra copies of insert can be distributed in other ways, too

Timing - as major issues arise (and funding permits)

Action Items 10-9

Cost - depending on how broadly the insert is distributed. the cost could be considerable; both Acadia and Yellowstone used grants to create their inserts. BNP should explore this possibility under the agency structure

Monitoring - media exposure of the particular issue, change in comments at public participation processes and open houses

Ecosvstem management report (4) An 'Ecosystern management report' could be created each year which summarizes al1 the research being done in the park, and the management actions taken as a result.

each researcher (staff or not) with funding, support or CO-operation from BNP would be required to write a brief summary of their research for the report format for each researcher report: 1) brief description of research, 2) how it works to rnaintain biodiversity. 3) how it informs (goals) management actions. or what management actions have occurred based on it. or what future management actions will be based on it also have a short "Ecological Issues We Face" section by way of introduction; would change very little each year; would talk about the major ecological integrity issues that the park faces, such as: - representativeness - connectivity - maintaining viable populations - maintaining ecosystem processes - spatial and temporal scales - see Atlas of the Central Rockies Ecosystem

(Komex International Ltd. 1995) - the role of indicators - cumulative effects - etc.

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat. with support from resource management wardens, and al1 researchers in the park

Audience - other researchers. upper management, universities (a similar audience to that of the regional publication Research Links)

Timing - report would be produced annually, released each spring (as the summer park media season begins); aim for first release in 2000

Cost - depending on the quality of the production, the costs will Vary; prudent to start with a low budget, black and white, cerlox-bound report, until usefulness is established: a logical source to fund it would be the Friends of Banff, who could even take full credit for it ('The Friends of Banff Ecosystem Management Report'); consider not charging. but asking for donation instead

Monitoring - this document is in and of itself a monitoring tool; comparison of successive years would provide a picture of the progress toward EM in BNP

Action ltems 10-10

Visitor's Guide (park maqazine) (4) Because of the very broad and diffuse reach of a park magazine, it is extrernely difficult to rnonitor the effectiveness of including ecological messages for infoming or changing behaviour. However, this is an obvious place for ecological messages because it reaches virtually every person coming into the park. Staff and residents refer to it for information such as campground opening and closing dates. Creating a low quality park magazine makes monitoring very easy - no one reads an unattractive or poorly conceived publication. BNP has been fortunate in that its park magazine has of late been of very high quality. The 1997 edition, however, removed the 'magazine'-style articles, and reduced it to little more than rnaps and advertising. An incredible opportunity is lost when this is the case.

BNP should return the magazine articles, and the focus on providing messages as well as vacation information to the coming editions of the park magazine a park magazine with primarily recreation opportunities gives the impression that national parks are primarily about recreation opportunities consider making an ecosystem section where articles are collected. or an insert so that each park can have their own articles while still sharing the production of the magazine; inserts could also have broader distribution (see Newspaper inserts. a bove) consider a winter insert with appropriately different messages BNP should expand distribution creatively to capture local audiences and others where they sit and read, for example: r> doctors offices c> lunch coünters r> breakfast restaurants r> public washroom stalls (mounted laminated copies of select articles)

Lead - Frontcountry Audience - visitors, locals Timing - content recommendations - 1999 edition; distribution

recommendations - 7 998 edition Cost - staff time to create articles; incremental increase in production cost

based on extra pageslinserts; Monitoring - (see discussion above)

'How We're Manaqina' fact sheets (4) One of the most promising aspects of the BNP fact sheet program is the proposed 'How We're Managing' series. This should becorne a priority publication.

Topics are slated to include Introduction10verview. Aspen, Elk, Hig hways, Visitor Use, Bears, Wolves, Wildlife Corridors, Fire and Vegetation, Cultural Resources, Exotic Species, Aquatics, Management Plan Summaries

Action Items 10-7 1

format is longer (6-10 pages) than standard fact sheets. and is more in-depth. merit a higher quality production than standard fact sheets will require recognition that this is a ver- large task to create so many high- quality fact sheets; additional, dedicated support may be required can be provided to key audiences, VIPs. etc.; also sold through Friends of Banff, at Research Updates presentations distributed individually or as a collection or in a binder should be sure to identify 'information gaps' as well make clear connections to 'management' or will become a 'what we're studying' series

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat Audience - special interests, politicians, local tourism operators, local guides,

staff, management, general public (on demand). local and regional schools, regional recreation groups, regional libraries

Timing - a contract or additional staff person could produce these fact sheets relatively quickly; left to the already overfull schedule of the communication specialist, will iikely see at most one per year; budgeting should begin for the next business plan

Cost - this should be a hig h priority communication expense for the Ecosystem Secretariat

Monitodng - similar to Fact sheets below

Fact sheets (aeneral) (4) Fact sheets represent the most economical publications technique available to BNP. This is an initiative which has greater potential and should be expanded.

as mentioned in the previous chapter (under lnstitute consistent corporate look), it is important for there to be a standard look for ail fact sheets, which also ties into standard look for al1 publications economics fact sheet; a financial breakdown of the costs/revenues in BNP and the business sector of the park; wiil aid in the desired government transparency. as well as showing how little money goes from tourist wallets into park coffers consider selling subscriptions to fact sheets, ensuring people get new fact sheets as they are produced; commit to creating a certain number of new ones each year; this could be coordinated through the Permit and Tour Bus liaison people the Touch Source touch screen in the Visitor Centres could be set up to print out fact sheets for people who want them; charge 25 cents; a printer could print out behind the counter, requiring people to go to the counter to get their fact sheets make them al1 available on the web

Action Items 10-12

the original idea in the creation of the fact sheets was that they be stored on the common drive giving access to al1 staff to print them out as needed; this should be re-adopted as a guiding concept encourage people to create their own fact sheets (Le., provide training), but have fact sheets channelled through a coordinator so that subscription lists could be updated, formats standardized, etc.

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat is currently providing CO-ordination, but Frontcountry is probably a more appropriate choice; researchers and al1 other communicators as writers;

Audience - multiple; researchers, visitors, web browsen, locals, students. special interests, media, politicians

Timing - the program as it exists currently is moving forward, though slowly and with little CO-ordination; change will require a cornmitment to a common look (not every department for themselves), selection of a coordinator, creation of subscription lists, then training for users

Cost - minimal reproduction costs; staff time to create, staff time to coordinate; given that this is a tool for al1 communicators, there should be some compensation for the coordinator

Monitoring - measures would include staff desire to create fact sheets, popularity of subscriptions, numbers created and distributed, media uselcall for, web hits

'Individual's Guide for Ecological Inteqritv' (4) The Fraser Basin Management Program created an 'Individual's Guide for Sustainability' (see Box 10-1). BNP could create an 'Individual's Guide for Ecolog ical Integrity.'

a booklet, or even a Fact Sheet outlining actions that individuals can take to help maintain and promote the ecological integrity of Banff National Park

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat Audience - local residents; regional publics Timing - fall of 1999; timed to arrive in the off-season when residents are not

as distracted by tourism responsibilities Cost - there are likely many local businesses that would support the cost of the

creation of such a booklet in return for recognition on the publication Monitoring - a similar section asking for the addition of practical ideas could be

in the f o m of a mail-back card; tracking calls to a phone number in the booklet of where to get more copies

Action ltems 10-73

Box fO-1: FBMP 'lndividual's Guide for Sustainability' UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABILIN

Read, listen and learn about sustainability. Encourage debate among your friends and family.

CARING FOR ECOSYSTEMS Be careful what you put down the sink. toilet and stom drain. use less water. Repair household leaks.

8 Dispose of al1 hazardous waste safely at designated sites. Use environmental-safe household products. Recycle used motor oil and car batteries. Use natural products to fertilize gardens and control weeds and pests.

8 Want less and buy less. Consider packaging when making consumer choices. Heat your body, not your home. Make sure your home is energy-efficient. Reduce your car use: carpool, take transit, bicycle or walk.

STRENGTHENING COMMUNlTtES Get to know your neighbours Get involved in community projects and groups. Buy local products, when possible. Accept and help promote denser communities.

IMPROVED DECISION MAKING Support individuals in government who support sustainability. Oemand more involvement in decision making and less duplication of effort. Encourage 'town halln style reporting by governrnents. Lobby your government representatives about sustainability.

Please add your practical ideas to this /;sr!

(FBMP 1996a)

'Your impact' brochure (4) Create an "Are you aware of your impact (or footprint)?" brochure which outlines the myriad ways that we affect the park ecosystems, and ways that individuals can reduce that impact.

the usefulness of this publication will depend heavily on the quality of it; however, the need to connect people to the impact they are having is vital, and every little bit helps

Lead - Frontcountry; with support from Client Services Audience - al1 who buy a park pass, or stop at the gates; tour companies for

distribution; hotels and restaurants; Discover Banff audiences Timing - aim for 1999 release Cost - it is unlikely that this would work in the much-less-expensive format of a

Fact Sheet Monitoring - the usefulness of this publication will be very difficult to monitor;

one method would be to ask participants at campground programs (etc.) to

Action Items 10-14

name some ways that we have an impact on ecosystems, and correlate that to the points made in the brochure

Ecosystem primer (4) A sizeable part of the conflict in Banff National Park surrounding development and protection issues cornes from a lack of understanding of the ecological issues in the park. As a step toward addressing that, BNP should create an 'Ecosystern Primer.' This booklet would follow a similar format to that of Append ix B (Ecosystems, biodiversity, threab and ecological realities) of th is report.

should be relatively issue-neutral; just the background information one needs to understand the basic ecology and dificulty in decision-making in BNP

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat, with support from resource management wardens and other communication staff

Audience - schools and clubs, special interests (businesses and conservation groups), recreation groups, park management. advisory committee members, Iibraries, media, local politicians

Timing - this should be created at the same time as the introductory sections of the 'How We're Managing' fact sheet series so as to avoid duplication and foster CO-ordination of messages; aim for distribution in 1999

Cost - staff time; production cost would depend on format; could also be sold to non-key audiences (by Friends of Banff, local bookstores) to attempt to recover some costs

Monitoring - increase in awareness apparent in surveys; tear-out comment card; sales and requests

Ecosystem manasement media kit (4) The media is always a target audience. It would be wise to prepare a media kit on ecosystem management. This is a package which could be given out pro- actively to reporters and columnists who report regulariy on park management events.

list contact people for the various ecological disciplines provide several of the key publications (ecosystem management report. report card, management plan summary) this could be the basis of a 'politician kit' as well

Lead - Media Relations; with support from Ecosystem Secretariat Audience - local and reg ional media; local politicians Timing - aim for availability in 1999 Cost - CO-ordination costs; this would use mostly existing materials, and would

be for a limited number of individuals, so production costs would be modest

Action Items 10-15

Monitonng - cornparison of issue content analyses of media reports before and after, media exposure of specific items (report cards. for example)

Post cards (4) Whatley (1993) describes the very successful use of post cards in Cape Hatteras and Fire Island national seashores to target specific local audiences with critical resource management messages. This technique targets very specific resource management issues where change in local resident behaviour can have a sig nificant effect.

would help keep foremost in residents' minds that BNP is monitoring and protecting park resources

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat (or other department with appropriate issue) Audience - local residents Timing - ideally create and send one per year; high-impact pictures could

make them collectable as well as informational Cost - creation and co-ordination staff time; printing (-1 000); distribution cost Monitoring - change in status of the resource issue

Conflict maps (4) Using GIS technology, BNP could create large readable conflict rnaps which show graphically the competition for park (and regional) landscapes.

maps are very compelling tools, especially ones which could show the layers of uses; impress upon audiences that BNP landscapes are already "multiple use" (humans, wolves, bears, ungulates, outwash plains, aspen forests. etc.) the data used for the Atlas of the Central Rockies Ecosystem (Komex International 1995) would be used

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat; with support from resource management wardens, GIS specialists, frontcountry, media relations

Audience - open house audiences, school groups and clubs, campground theatre audiences, special interest groups5

Timing - given the cost of producing such maps, it would be best to create these as issues arise (e.g ., for the Cascade wildlife corridor)

Cost - audiences include open house attendees and special interest groups which contact the superintendent's office, frontcountry interpreters, etc. - the costs of such a multi-use tool should be covered jointly by those departrnents

Special interests would include the 'business' groups (park businesspeople, BanfflLake Louise Chamber of Commerce, Association for Mountain Park Protection and Enjoyrnent, etc.) and the 'conservation' groups (Bow Valley Naturalists. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Alberta Wilderness Association, Bear Society, etc.).

Monitoring - begin by creating one or two; monitor how many communicators seek to use them, and require feedback from them as to the impact the rnaps had on audiences

Bookmarks (4) Bookmarks are an effective, inexpensive way to present non-threatening basic ecological information to a variety of audiences

BNP should look at creating bookmarks with brief ecological messages ('why are national parks important' 'what are cumulative effects' 'what do griulies need to survive' etc.). - these-can be distributed to Friends of Banff stores and al1 other bookstores in the local area; conservation-minded bookstores in the regional area (Le.. CaWY) can be given out to school kids at programs

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat (or other departments with other messages) Audience - local and regional bookstores Timing - as funding permits; ideally a new one for each Christmas season Cost - staff time to create and coordinate; print runs at the discretion of the

coordinator; explore funding from agencies or organizations that might fund environmental education programs (such as Friends of Banff)

Monitoring - requests for more from bookstores, popularity with school kids. requests for new ones with different messages

Maintain BNP documents availabilitv (7) Making a list of the documents related to management and ecosystem research is an inexpensive way to make ecosystern management information available.

documents that are available for sale - such as the BBVS documents - could be promoted (e.g.. through the Friends of Banff) key documents that are stored in the Banff Warden Office library could be iisted, with instructions for borrowing items include Iist with responses to requests for information CO-operate with Banff and Canmore libraries to establish a park management section, and agree to donate copies of several key documents

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - Banff Warden Office communication specialist and librarian Audience - special interest groups, locals, media Timing - finalize for 1999; update annually Cost - librarian time; coordination tirne; there is a potential to generate some

cost-covering revenue by selling library 'memberships' Monitoring - document purchases; document borrowing; memberships sales

Action Items 10-7 7

Non-print media

Park rnanacaernent interpretive trail (4) BNP should watch for an interpretive trail due for an overhaul and reconceptualize it as a 'park management' interpretive trail (see Clark 1993).

short trait, close in to the population centre, with signs sponsored by businesses have a series of signs which outline dilemmas visually apparent in the area, each new one add a complicating factor, and ask the trait user to think about ways to resolve the dilemma

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - ~ c o s ~ s t e m Secretariat, Frontcountry Audience - park visitors who do not stray far from the town Timing - sponsors could be lined up in the spring and fall of 1998, with

construction in spring 1999 Cost - staff time to create concept and signs; cost of signs, trail counter; have

signs sponsored by park businesses Monitoing - install trait counters before overhaul so that a comparison can be

made; monitor trail counters

Parks Dav (4) Parks Day is the opportunity to showcase what Parks Canada and BNP are al1 about. In past years. there has been limited success in planning Parks Day events in the Town of Banff (Field, Lake Louise, and Jasper apparently have not experienced the same lack of success). This is an opportunity to establish connections with the community in a festival type setting.

make it big and attractive for residents and visitors; have props that are major draws which showcase what BNP does (bear traps, fire trucks. drip torches. boats, a helicopter, etc. in the middle of the school yard) many businesses want to get involved (a hotel in Lake Louise organized a staff litter collection project and other events themselves in 1997); opportunities should be provided confer with Friends of Banff on what has worked and what has not in the past (as they have organized many Parks Day events) have Parks Day advertisements and national park messages on grocery store bags in days leading up to event (see if they want to help sponsor event)

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - Heritage Programs; with support from al1 communicators, and park

businesses Audience - local residents Timing - annual event in July; begin modest version of new format in 1999;

expand as desired in later years Cost - staff time for CO-ordination; staff time from a variety of sources on the

day; refreshments for numerous people

Action Items 10-18

Monitoring - numbers attending; postevent interviews with participants to determine effectiveness

Internet (4) There are few communication tools available to an organization with the reach and the costeffectiveness of a web page on the Intemet. Banff National Park uses its page very effectively for campground, reservation, travel information, but not as effectively as they could as a management communication tool. The introductory page should link to park management infomation. Again, if travel information is primarily what BNP provides. people will think that that is primarily what BNP does.

there-should be separate sections for natural history (birds, bears, wolves) and conservation issues (BNPSs 'evil seven'; see White et a l 1993)) include links to other protected areas management sites detail major management actions such as development decisions. and the rationale advertise this as the primary place for people to receive infomation put out by BNP as required by the Canadian Environmental Assessrnent Act include bibliographies and contacts for various topics include the document lists suggested above (see p. 10-1 7) include the 'report card' suggested above. ideally in PDF (portable document format) include research links (used to be available in PDF) list al1 closures - especially new or temporary ones. and alternate locations (less used ones prefera bly) which provide a similar experience; recreationalists leaving Calgary at 6:00 am cannot stop in at the visitor centre. but can check the web anytime; hotels can print them off for their guests include al1 press releases include al1 Advisory Cornmittee reports (see Strategic Advisory Board in previous chapter) be very clear what information c m be sent out by mail. and that responses will not be corning via e-mail in order to maintain such a service in the responsive and on-going manner necessary to be effective, the lnternet would have to become a primary communication tool; this would require extra personnel to maintain the site. and training for people creating documents so they know how to make it 'web-friend ly'

Lead - Frontcountry, Media Relations and Ecosystem Secretariat Audience - special interest groups. local and regionai audiences, researchers,

recreationalists Timing - training and conceptualizing could begin irnmediately, with the aim to

have expanded web site available in 1999

Action Rems IU-79

Cost - once people are in the mode of creating information that adapts easily to the web, the main cost will be the extra person(s) to maintain the site

Monitoring - hits to the site

Trailhead information (41 A great deal of animosity toward park management actions by recreationalists is focused on trail access. Closure frustration and paranoia are very high (Andreef and Lunman 1996). so this should be a high priority communication initiative6.

examine messages aithe trailhead kiosks to explore opportunities; consider adding more ecological information; use question format on posters ('Would a bear be on this trail?' written in big letters attracts attention) always suggest alternate site, especially one that provides a similar experience, but which is less well used "Carnivore Research in Area" closure signs need considerably more description and infornation; provide closure rationale with signage that is interesting and thorough get closure information on the web (see lntemet above)

Lead - Warden Service communication specialist Audience - regional recreationalists Timing - immediate Cost - staff time to create information and signs; portable signs; reproduction

and lamination of signs and maps Monitoring - change in numbers of trail closure infractions; feedback from

organized recreation groups

Outdoor trade shows (4) Staff from Banff National Park have operated booths at outdoor trade shows. Those are key audiences to target with conservation as well as recreation messages.

should approach trade shows not as a promoter of recreation but as an organization that promotes conservation to sustain recreation (rnuch like Ducks Unlimited) provide tourism and regulatory information, but also ecological messages and literature (e-g., report cards) staff booths with interpreters

Lead - Heritage Tourism; with support from Ecosystem Secretariat. Frontcountry

Audience - outdoor trade show audiences (outdoor recreationalists) Timing - as they occur

6 At the tirne of this writing, BNP was beginning a revamping of their trailhead kiosks

Action Items 10-20

Cost - creation of an appropriate display; staff time to operate booth Monitonhg - written report by booth operator as to what were the major

concems, misconceptions, and attitudes toward the organization and its presence at the show; create standard report form

Temporarv hiqhwav - informational signs (4) In the 1950's. the makers of B u n a Shave created advertisements that consisted of a series of signs along the road, each sign giving you another line in the jingle. Recently, the City of Calgary has used the same technique to encourage etiquette at merge lanes. Portable signs appear temporarily at merges around the city. asking in succession, 'Did you merge properly?', 'Did you know that both drivers have equal rights?', etc. Such signs could very effective in a variety of instances in BNP.

possibilities include a series of signs explaining why the speed limit is 90 kph. the impact of highways on wildlife, wildlife mortality statistics, prescribed burning, bear jams signs are portable and are therefore not permanent landscape detractors audiences who rarely get out of their cars can be targeted non-permanent signs get the attention of regular road users. and remind thern of things they might know but which are not in the front of their minds contact City of Calgary and determine their success with the technique

Lead - Frontcountry; with support/initiation of Ecosystem Secretariat (or other department with a desired theme for the signs) and highways crew

Audience - locals, visitors and throug h traffic Timing - this is a relatively straightfoiward program to implement. so a set

could be initiated for summer of 1998; others would be dependent on the initiation of departments wishing to use the technique

Cost - staff time for creation of messages; creation of signs; crew time to placefmove signs

Monitoring - varied depending on messages; may involve monitoring speeding infractions, bear jams, wildiife highway mortality. etc.

Games (4) At a conference of the International Association of Public Participation Practitioners in Washington. DC, delegates discussed the use of garnes as learning activities (IAP3 1994). Currently the only game available in Banff with a local flavour appears to be Banfopoly - a variation on the board game Monopoly.

BNP should explore the possibility of creating or partnering to create a game based on park management. There already exists a CD-ROM computer game based on designing a park or wilderness area. As the game player changes elements (such as adding more deer) there is a corresponding effect on other elements (such as declines in food source vegetation). BNP should

Action Items 10-21

look at a deal with the makers where the second oldest national park in the world would endorse and prornote the game the interactive grizzly bear game on display at the Calgary Zoo (and CO-

sponsored by Parks Canada) is an excellent example of a fun, attractive, and very educational video game for children

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat Audience - visitors; local, regional and national youth audiences; local schools Timing - this is not a priority item, and could corne at any point in a planning

framework; in the case of partnering, implementation would depend on the willingness of identified partners to become involved

Cost - start-up costs, as well as any products, should be shared with the national office of Parks Canada; there is potential for revenue here as well

Monitoring - game sales

Personal communication

Face-to-face communication (7,101 There currently appears to be an attitude among local residents that the management of BNP cornes frorn the 'Kremlin' (a popular and telling nickname for the Park Administration Building) in the form of impersonal directives. To address this. a greater focus should be put on non-confrontational. non-issue- based, face-to-face interactions with the people working in Banff National Park.

BNP could arrange for park staff to go in pairs (ideally a communicator and a warden) to small businesses for hour long face-to-face chats this will help establish BNP staff as corporate rnembers of the community provides an opportunity to solicit issues. but at the sarne time present how BNP approaches management (the idea is not to acquire a gripe list and then return it to management) provides management with opportunity to dig the issues out and deal with them at the root, before they grow into something unmanageable will require training for al1 participants this program will be difficult with fiscal restraints, but the returns on such a program can be substantial (see practical examples in Jacobson 1995; Agency Effectiveness 1993)

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - Coordination by Client Services; with support of Ecosystem Secretariat

and Warden Service, and all appropriate involvees Audience - local residents, especially small business operators Timing - fall 1999 Cost - staff time to coordinate; training of involvees; considerable staff time to

execute Monitoring - number of 'out-of-the-blue' issues arising in the form of concerned

phone calls, issues raised at business breakfasts; feedback from

Action ltems 10-22

participants; have participants fiIl out a standard report form when they are done

Resource Acadia (7) The Resource Acadia program offered in Acadia National Park, Maine, U.S.A. would likely be very effective in Banff National Park (see Ch. 7: Case Studies; Resource Acadia seminarprogram at page 7-8). BNP has a similar need to establish a dialogue with local residents. This format allows issues to be discussed, discussed on a regular basis, and discussed before they get too 'hot'. It also allows park management to provide their perspective directly to residents without having it necessarily 'filtered' and 'sound-bited' by the media.

Resource Acadia Coordinator, Paul Super has written a comprehensive manual, and will provide one to any who request it

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat communication specialist Audience - local residents Timing - a program would ideally run in the spring and fall; planning and

advertising could airn at a seminar program beginning in the spring of 1999 Cost - a grant from Friends of Banff, or another funding agency for start up

could be pursued; donations could also be requested, or fees charged to help cover costs (though the latter is likely to make the program significantly less successful)

Monitoing - Acadia National Park has monitored their program through comment cards completed by participants as before they leave, reports are created and filed with collected feedback; popularity; repeat attendance; new attendance

Town hall meetinqs (7,8) BNP has open houses and meetings whenever an important issue arises. The Park also tries to address many of these issues in smaller groups which are less emotional and usually more productive. However, the community as a whole must have (and perceive themselves to have) the opportunity to be heard. The Park shouid hold regularly scheduled town hall meetings7.

advertise these to both local audiences, and regional (i.e., Calgary) audiences through club newsletters, newspapers, etc. ensure people know that if they miss one, they will be able to attend the next one, and will know the dates use opportunity to have displays set up around the room

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - superintendent's office; with support from al1 communicators Audience - local (and regional) residents

- - - -

7 Banff National Park is currently working on creating a community forum that may have some of these characteristics.

Action Items 7 0-23

Timing - explore having four to six meetings per year, starting fall of 1998 Cost - staff time to coordinate; staff tirne for monitoring, facilitating, presenting,

assisting, etc. Monitonng - attendance (though this is tricky - poor attendance could mean

issues are being dealt with to community satisfaction, or comrnunity feels meetings are not worthwhile); comment cards at meetings

Superintendent field trips (7,8) For several years now, Waterton Lakes National Park has been conducting a very successful Superintendent's Hike program. Key community members are invited for a weekend hike lead by the park Superintendent

provides backcountry experience for people who work in and around the park, but who never get the chance to go into the backcountry allows community decision-makers to engage in a discussion about the park while in a natural national park setting former Waterton superintendent Bernie Lieff, responsible for establishing the program in Waterton, noted that the relations between the park and its residents and neighbours became considerably more CO-operative after the program was im plemented (Bernie Lieff, pers. com .) talk to Waterton about their program P discussion questions were prepared I> by invitation only; intentionally mixing the 'environmentalists' with the

'business people.' D the labour intensive approach used by Waterton is expensive8, but it is the

high-quality of the event that continues to attract people

Lead - Superintendent; with support of Frontcountry, Warden Service Audience - local commun ity decision-makers Timing - once per year; could begin as early as summer 1998 Cost - the program is labour (cost) intensive; costs include planning,

equipment, food, pre-hike trail suwey, staff time of hike escorts Monitoring - Waterton noted changes in the way problems were brought to the

attention of management (better communication channels opened by face- to-face meetings on the hike), community members applying to be included, high-quality discussions between formerly-uncommunicative opponents

Protected area store-fronts (4) The Standing Senate Cornmittee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources discussed the establishment of Protected Area Storefronts - "information centres in key rural areas to assist landowners to understand

- -

a The Waterton program featured a weekend hike where the trails were patrolled the day before, cook tents were set up in advance of the hiking party, hikers carried nothing but rain gear and water, etc.

Action Items 70-24

conservation options" (Senate 1996:49). This is slightly different than the visitor service centres which currently exist in BNP, and would be a resource centre for local study.

if BNP goes ahead with creating a new visitor reception centre. it should consider dedicating space in that facility to a similar style of office makes information accessible to local citizens without having to crack the defences of the Warden O f k e an excellent mode1 exists in the store front office which the BBVS operated during their study needs to be well-advertised to locals from the beginning; start by encouraging school groups to come to the centre, and include trip through store front office as part of trip potential for new Biosphere lnstitute (Watt 1997) to be housed in visitor centre, and serve this function

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat and Warden Service communicators. warden office librarian

Audience - locals interested in park management, special interests. local and regional schools

Timing - include with planning for new visitor centre Cost - creation incorporated with creation of new visitor centre Monitoring - amount of usage (walk-in visits, materials checked out, requests

for information received, etc.)

Outreach

Outreach coordination (6) The regional offices traditionally handled outreach (especially urban outreach and curriculum-level environmental education). However, with the cessation of those activities, a huge hole exists in communication. Though day use statistics are poorly known, it is estimated that Calgary residents account for about 60% of BNP users (BBVS 1996a:51). Focus on local audiences addresses the majority of the complaints, but over half of the impacting population in the park is not being targeted specifically with messages. This is a grave concern.

This situation is only exacerbated by the unplanned expectation that understaffed parks would take over the outreach responsibilities abandoned by the regional offices.

This dilemma exists for every park in the region. It would be helpful, as a first step, to CO-operate on creating an outreach position(s) for the district and coordinating outreach at that level.

each Field Unit in the mountain parks could contribute to the creation of 1 or 2 outreach positions, and sorne project money

Action Items 10-25

steering cornmittee could be created which included a communication specialist(s) from each unit to provide strategic direction it is unrealistic to expect one or two people to coordinate message provision to the entire province of Alberta, but it is a start and is better than none

Lead - al1 communication specialists should promote idea to holder of the communications portfolio at the executive level

Audience - regional (urban) audiences of the mountain parks Timing - immediate Cost - al1 departments with communication responsibilities would benefit from

outreach, and should contribute to the creation of this position

Audiolvisual (5.61 Despite the demise of the audiofvisual unit in Banff National Park. the legacy of that work still exists. The video collection contains award-winning films, and the photographs are publication quality (though those of BNP's resource management activities are sornewhat outdated). Exploiting these resources would both spread BNP messages further, and offer an opportunity to generate some revenue

video tapes coufd be added to the BNP libraries and be catalogued; memberships for the library could be sold the natural and historical pictures in BNP's collection are first-rate; consider selling limited rights for non-Parks Canada people to use them natural and historical pictures could be used for products such as calendars. slide strips, post cards. posters, etc. (e.g., the annual Kananaskis Country poster is anticipated by many) products can be accompanied by brief national park messages; even a break-even project that got park messages out would be a success

Lead - Jasper National parkg; Frontcountry; with assistance from Client Services

Audience - rental products for local audiences (schools. clubs, etc.); sale products prirnarily for visitor audiences, but also for general local audiences

Timing - a study of the feasibility of marketing such items could be contracted out ai in 1999;

Cost - the rental of items will not generate significant arnounts of revenue, and would have to be preceded by a sizeable (but needed) organization job; product sales would benefit from feasibility study; product sales would require coordination. production. marketing and sales

Monitodng - sales and rental rates

- ---

9 At'the Transition Communications Workshop (TCW 1997), Jasper accepted responsibility to coordinate planning for the various audio/visual collections in the District.

Action Items 10-26

School at Banff National Park (4) Currently, advanced education in Banff means learning about fine arts or management. Though both noble pursuits, they hardly typify the national park ideal. The existing School for Environmental Management focuses on topics such as environmental impact assessment, environmental mediation. etc. These are important courses, but they are management courses, not aimed at the average owner or user of BNP. There is a great econornic and educational opportunity in providing very direct experience with the non-human components of BNP ecosystems.

In keeping with the theme of creating BNP as a 'centre for excellence in ecological science,' BNP should explrjre the possibility of creating a school at Banff along the lines of the Yellowstone Institute, Jasper Institute, University of the Wilderness (Grumbine 1988), or the Watershed Stewardship Training Prograrn (FBMP 1996d).

courses could range from wilderness skills, to ecology, to guide training, to environmental ethics, etc. success of the Banff Centre indicates that an advanced education facility works well in BNP has the benefit of a larger (closer) regional audience than either Jasper or Yellowstone - it would be nice to have that work forthe ecological protection of BNP rather than against it.

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat Audience - regional interested audiences, university ecological science

programs, continuing education programs, outdoor recreation clubs Timing - ideally begin with a few, wide-rang hg courses to establish reputation

and potential for program; increase as required: aim to begin planning in 1998, with courses offered the summer of 1999

. Cost - significant revenue generation potential Monifoing - pre-planning surveys to determine potential interest; then

enrolment, regular feedback from participants for continued improvement

Public Participation

Responsiveness summaries (8) One of the major cornplaints arising from the interview research (see Ch. 6 at page 6-16) was that input, once solicited andlor received, disappeared "into a black hole." It is important that participating citizens understand how their input has been used. Responsiveness summaries are an excellent tool for addressing this concem. A responsiveness summary "lists al1 public comments and resulting agency actions" (Benjamin and Belluck 1990).

also shows the public what kind of comments are being received

Action items 10-27

should be a required part of major projects and CEAA processes there should also be an overall annual responsiveness summary the Summary of Public lnvolvement and Parks Canada's Comments (Parks Canada 1994b) done for the Four Mountain Parks Five Year Plan Update process is an excellent exarnple of a 'responsiveness summary' already done by Parks Canada

Lead - Media Relations; w lh support from department initiating project Audience - local and regional residents, special interest groups. upper

management Timing - project-specific surnrnaries to be created after ever major public

involvement process; annual summary could be created for 2000 using data which is already being collected

Cost - project-specific sumrnaries budgeted as part of each major project; annual summary

Monitoring - feedback cards included in each summary

'How to Participate' booklet1° (4)

A key to understanding the ways in which a person can participate is to have a ready publication which explains the opportunities. Many potential volunteers and participants are turned off when their offers to help are met with confusion. A booklet should be created outlining the opportunities to participate. some details. and the appropriate people to contact. Potential sections include:

learning open houses volunteering commenting Advisory Boards etc. management plan reviews

Lead - Heritage Programs. Media Relations (or participation coordinator; see recommendation in previous chapter at page 9-9)

Audience - potential participants expressing interest; locallregional interest groups; locallregional clubs

Timing - for 1999 Cost - al1 departments are likely to benefit from the booklet; those expressing

interest in having one should help conceive and pay for the booklet; staff time tu coordinate, write; booklet printing

Monitoring - requests for booklet; increased participation in advertised areas

Volunteers (8) There are people asking about volunteer opportunities in Banff National Park who are being turned away because of a lack of coordination of volunteer

1 O This recommendation could as easily be put under Publications, but contextually fits here.

Action Items 10-28

opportunities on the part of BNP (Heather Dempsey. pers. corn.). BNP needs to devote more resources to this area. The return comes in both increased number of hands to do tasks, but also increased feelings of ownership and stewardship amongst participants.

this would be a primary task of the proposed participation coordinator develop a list of projects that would beneft from volunteer assistance much volunteer data collection is already going on, and simply needs coordination examine possibility of establishing a Research ~dventures" program in BNP begin with finding opportunities for Second Century club12 'meeting and greeting' at the visitor centre (done by the Young Canada Works youth work crew in the surnmer of 1997) is an excellent volunteer opportunity program for local residents r> for residents volunteering, this could be expanded to other sites. and to

roving (a bright red t-shirt which says, "If you have a question about the Parks, ask me!" would catch the attention of visitors on the street)

D such a program is a vote of confidence in the residents' ability to help, and prornotes mutual respect

note that volunteer clubs may have access to funding which the park will not. but for which the park can be a facilitator ensure that staff know about opportunities ahead of tirne; then they can plan and expect volunteer help to be there provide training for staff so that they understand there is a time cornmitment involved in planning volunteer time. and that recurring projects require less coordination time reward volunteers (volunteer t-shirts; 'recognized volunteer' park passes)

Lead - Heritage Programs andlor Ecosystem Secretariat (or Participation coordinator; see recommendation in previous chapter at page 9-9)

Audience - local residents, clubs, and people inquiring about volunteering Timing - there are volunteers calling in on a regular basis to be involved;

putting them off can only harm long-term efforts to include them; thus this should be a relatively high priority initiative, ideally fully in place for the summer of 1999

Cost - there is a cost in staff time for coordinating such efforts; but there is a return in tasks getting done that would not otherwise

Monitoing - staff interest in and comrnitment to providing volunteer opportunities; general survey questions on attitudes toward opportunities to participate in park operations

11 Research Adventures is a very successful program running in Yoho National Park and the Lake Louise area of BNP which sells research 'vacations.' l2 A group of retired Parks Canada employees who represent a wealth of experience and ability.

Action Items 70-29

Adopt-a-(. ..) Proarams (8 ) Several existing Adopt-a-(bear, wolf, etc.) programs are currently up and running. BNP can provide unique details on the lives of certain animals that are being tracked, and use that information as the basis of an 'Adopt-a- ...' program. The time and materials put into the program are more than out-weighed by the revenue generated frorn this support program.

provides an ideal way to get locals, citizens who live far away, and even visitors to feel they have a tangible connection to the park and its wilderness features

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat; with support from Warden Service

communication specialist Audience - locals, regional citizens, visitors Timing - planning, coordinating with researchers, and advertising can be

considerable tasks; begin conceptualization in fall 1999, and have program available in surnmer 2000

Cost - revenue generating when done effectively Monitoring - numbers participating in the program; revenue generated

Facilitation

Communitv leader and researcher meetinqs (4.7) Decision-makers in a community often must make decisions without benefit of a deep understanding of the ecological considerations and consequences. These decision-makers have very few opportunities to receive the focused concise information they might at some point need, and little time to look for such opportunities. BNP communicators should schedule 1 - 2 hour long presentations/Q&A's between researchers and selected community decision- makers to help address this informational deficit.

appropriate researchers, wardens, communicators would meet with srnall groups of community decision-makers (politicians. business leaders, etc.) focus of presentations would be on management aspects of ecological issues should occur especially when a major ecosystem management issue arises especially encourage the 'luke warrn~'~ to attend ensure that these are known to be information sessions to help decision- makers get a handle on the ecological issues will require that communication specialists who facilitate such meetings receive training in professional facilitation

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat communication specialist Audience - community leaders and decision-makers

13 See Importance of communicating to the public; Generate support (Chapter 4 at page 4-9) for a description of what Varley and SchulIery (1996) refer to as the 'luke warm' audiences.

Action Rems 10-30

Timing - as major issues arise; program available no later than 2000 Cost - staff time to organize and facilitate; facilitation training Monitoring - change to more positive response to ecological rationale for park

management decisions (number of calls from those leaders, content of those calls)

Special interest aroup workshops (8) For sorne participants, the Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table represented the first time that they worked cooperatively with representatives from groups with differing views on ecological protection. A first step to resolving the many issues that continue to plague co-operation between these groups is their understanding just what it is the other group believes to be true. This information usually cornes in the form of filtered sound-bites in the media. BNP could do much to assist this dialogue through on-going workshops and forums.

hire a professional facilitator have a clear agenda with well-conceived exercised4 keep them relatively short (half day); leave them wanting to corne back for more. not fatigued and dreading a repeat operate by invitation only, with a few spots left open for people that inviteeç feel shoufd be included do not expect these dialogues to resolve issues; focus on allowing each group to better understand the issue. and to hopefully identify areas of cornmon ground

Lead - Superintendent's office; with support frorn Client Services, and Ecosystem Secretariat

Audience - invited members of special interest groups (especially 'business' and 'environmental' groups)

Timing - operate in the shoulder seasons; dialogues could begin in fall 1998 Cost - staff time to coordinate; meeting expenses Monitoring - feedback from participants on whether appropriate issues were

raised, suggestions for how to improve future meetings, etc.; such feedback solicited through a brief session at the end of the workshop, or through comment cards

14 A recent Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAP?) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) workshop included presentations, then exercises including one where the 'industry' and 'environmentalists' were crudely divided in two, then asked Wo questions: 1) what do you think is true of oil and gas developrnent in protected areas, 2) what do you think the other group thinks is true of oii and gas development in protected areas. The first point on the 'industry' list was that "al1 activities are mitigable;" the first point on the senvironmentalist' tist two was that "industry thinks that al1 developrnent is mitigable, and it's not." This caused genuine surprise amongst the industry representatives, but an issue that was thought by many to be clear was now explicit.

- -

Action Items 10-31

Staff training

Kev message sets 13) If BNP is to truly achieve a vision of 'everyone is a communicator' they must provide individuals (especially key individuals) with the tools they need to be effective communicators. One of the most important tools is succinct message sets. These can be created by communication specialists and focus on areas such as 'ecosystern management', 'national parks', or 'ecological integrity.' These message sets are then distributed to all people who in the course of their work enter situations where they are communicating with the public. Regardless of the specific topic, there are basic messages that every communication should try to incorporate (for example, 'Why are national parks important?').

I MPLEMENTATION NOTES

Lead - various communication specialist (based on message set) Audience - park staff Timing - immediate; as message sets are created or refined Cost - staff time to create; minimal printing costs Monitoring - actively solicit feedback from recipients about number of times

used, sense of helpfulness. etc.

Role of communication in ecosystem protection (3) That there is an efficiency in using effective communication programs needs to be explicitly recognized. In the current fiscal climate, operations and programs are judged primarily on their financial efficiency and their contribution to the core mandate of protection. Communication programs receive their funding primarily through Stream 1 - Annual investments in operations (Parks Canada 1995). However, the role that communication plays in protection is taken for granted. S trearn 2 investments (lnvestments in non-depreciable heritage assets15) tend not to consider the contributions of communication in their assessrnents. The Ecosystern Secretariat, in particular, should publicize and champion this unrecog nized efficiency .

Lead - Ecosystern Secretariat communication specialist to promote to executive

Audience - park, regional and national managers Timing - for next business plan Monitoring - considerations of contribution of communication to protection

objectives included in business plans

1s A "non-depreciable heritage assetn is a national park. lnvestments here are in "the protection and restoration of ecosystems ..." (Parks Canada 1995).

Action Items 10-32

'Sellinci' communication to manaqers (3) A push to have scientifically rigorous data included in resource management decision-making is winning some significant battles. A similar battle now needs to be waged to have the importance of multi-faceted commonication forrnally considered in al1 resource management decision-making. It is very difficult for a manager with inadequate communications training to decide at what point a message has or has not been effectively communicated. Ultimately. a manager's budget or policy direction will make that decision. Therefore BNP communication specialists need to direct efforts toward educating managers about the role and benefits of effective communication.

As well, there was a general sentiment expressed by interviewees that field staff in BNP understood the role of uncertainty and adaptive management. but that some senior managers do not. Upper management of BNP and Parks Canada should be a targeted audience for several initiatives:

'role of communication' seminars for ail managers provide copies of recommended 'Communication Primer' to al1 managers (see below) provide copies of recommended page 10-1 5) provide a copy of recommended 15) provide a copy of recommended (see page 10-37)

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES

'Ecosystem Primer' to al1 managers (see

EM media kit to ail managers (see page 10-

'communication skills' list to al1 managers

Lead - al1 communication specialists Audience - senior managers Timing - immediate and on-going Cost - see cost notes for each recommendation suggested above; seminar

would require staff time to prepare

Communications primer (3) A primer should be created focused on the role of communications in the management process, and aimed specifically at upper management. It would follow a similar format to Chapter 4 (The Importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management) of this report. This would be an important part of the 'sell-job' which communicators must do for communications.

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat; support from Frontcountry Audience - upper management; resource management wardens; researchers Timing - ASAP; this is a relatively inexpensive production as it is not high-run.

and does not need to be of a high-production quality, so the primary dictator of timing is the availability of a staff person (or contract dollars) to do it

Cost - staff time; limited-run production costs

Action Items 10-33

Monitoring - feedback from managers on the usefulness; changes in cornmitment to communication

Ecosvstem manaqement trainino (3) People involved in ecosystem-based management need some formal training in EM (both BNP's version, and generally). This will help ensure that they 1) are clear on concept. 2) can look for innovations in the process. and 3) ail have a common vernacular. In an organisation with the nurnber and diversity of jobs as in BNP, it is imperative that al1 staff have training in EM.

a single course buried in a course catalogue on the 'training' computer bulletin board is not suffcient on November 7, 1995. the park planner and a communication specialist delivered a half-day seminar on ecosystem management; this should be an annual occurrence make training attractive; consider a guided hike as the basis for staff training on ecosystem management reward 'contributions to ecosystem management'; providing such awards especially to departments without obvious connections to EM helps staff understand that everybody is involved in EM

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat Audience - al1 staff Timing - annual; during the early summer to catch the seasonal staff as well;

airn to begin in 1999 Cost - staff time to coordinate; staff time to participate Monitoring - begin and end training sessions with a brief exam on ecosystem

management; monitor improvernent in test scores from year to year

Current initiatives traininq (31 It is very difficult for staff to keep abreast of the many things that go on in a national park. Currently, many staff receive information about how the park is being managed through rumours and the media'! BNP should make a concerted and forrnal effort to foster an environment of continued education for staff about the various efforts going on al1 around them to operate a national park.

As discussed in the main body of this report (see page 6-1 1). there are opportunities for comrnunicators both to learn about others, and to inform others about communication.

suggested active staff training would include:

16 In December of 1997, BNP began a monthly staff newsletter - an excellent initiative which hopefully will go a long ways to addressing these concerns.

Action Items 7 0-34

P negotiation and business skills training for comrnunicaton (as partnering and facilitation become more a part of the communication speciaiist's job);

B training for al1 staff about communications (topics could include current park approach to communication. what is value of communication. who are the communication people, how to contact subject experts. etc.);

B communication training for staff (topics could include presentation skills. audience identification, determining messages, public speaking. public relations, advocacy, etc.);

D training for cornrnunicators about everybody else (topics wuld include ecosystern management, current research, public relations. etc.).

most training could be done 'in-service' style r, training sessions of an hour or less offered by staff for other staff D staff presenters could focus individual talks on 'what I do'. 'new things we're

trying', 'new research'. etc. D offer them at 8:00 in the morning before people have got involved in their

day's work r, consider a points system. that requires staff to attend a certain number of

in-services each year r, identify incentives for staff to produce in-services have one department take the lead for coordination of al1 training, by establishing a training officer

Lead - Frontcountry or Client Services Audience - al1 staff Timing - begin planning and aim to have 'in-services' beginning when seasonal

staff are coming on in the spring; aim to begin in 1999 Cost - some courses will have to be contracted out (e-g.. negotiation, conflict

resolution); most can be done with 'in-services'; coordinating a park-wide program is a considerable task so will likely require a dedicated piece of a staff rnember's time

Monitoing - prepare feedback cards for people to take at the end; provide results to presenters, as well as collating for an effectiveness measure

Statement of principles (21 The creation of a Vision for the Banff Bow Valley was a significant and enduring contribution to the way the Valley will evolve as a whole over the coming decades. As one participant in that process and that Vision, Banff National Park made its views. goals and limitations well known to the people involved in that visioning process. However, BNP needs to also be clear about their own role. goals and operating parameten. BNP should create a statement of principles

Action Items 10-35

which is more specific to BNP than the Parks Canada guiding principles (though not contrary to it)17.

involve staff in the creation of a staternent of principles for BNP post these in visitor centres. and in work places, and print it in the Park Magazine this would guide staff in the tricky route-finding they now do through budget cuts, revenue generation. increased usage. and evolving societal attitudes this would also help potential partners be clear before any negotiations start about what BNPYs primary goals are (Le., ecological integrity and others) is a necessary precursor to meaningful involvement in regional ecosystem management

Lead - Superintendent; with support from Ecosystem Secretariat Audience - prirnarily staff; also partners and special interests Timing - consultation can begin in the spring of 1998, with final draft available

in early surnmer Cost - coordinator time in consulting staff; coordinator time to create Monitokg - will be on-going during the process of consulting with staff

Availabilitv of information (3) As important as receiving training is knowing where to go to find the answers to questions. Those answers must also be accessible. There are several initiatives which BNP can pursue to foster such staff understanding.

create a list (available to staff) of al1 ecosystem management information resources - both print materials and personal contacts ensure that the staff 'community of communicators' has interesting information to communicate; anecdotes are one of the best tools to catch people's interest D consider e-mailing a biodiversity fact-of-the-week ('Did you know that we

wouldn't have DNA finger-printing without national parks?"'. etc.) D The Nature of Canada: A Primer on Spaces and Species (Environment

Canada 1993) is filled with biodiversity anecdotes create a set of basic 'national park messages' available to every staff member, but especially to those who are invited to talk to public audiences; possibly include appropriate slide set as well maintain the new BNP staff newsletter (begun December 1997)

Lead - Ecosystern Secretariat communication specialist Audience - ail park staff

t 7 The adaptation of the Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table's Vision for the Banff-Bow Valley which appears in the BNP Management Plan would be a good start to creating a more

articipatory staff vision. Pa See Varley 1993b for story about connection here.

Action Rems 10-36

Timing - begin work in summer of 1998, and have available for spring 1999 Cost - staff time to create resources list; staff time to maintain fact-of-the-week Monitoring - feedback on messages via e-mail; popularity of (Le., requests for)

resources k t and messages list

Communication skills list (3) There are misconceptions about what communication in national parks really means. For some it means persona1 programs, for others it means public relations. There is an opportunity to both educate staff and 'sell' the importance of communication to CO-workers. A 'communication skills' list should be created, and circulated to staff. Such a list would briefly outline what communication functions are provided by BNP communicators, and who the contact people are for such functions.

this would encourage the 'facilitator' function of communication specialists if each park in the District were to create such a list, this would help identify areas of expertise which could be 'swapped' between parks the exercise of creating such a list also helps communication specialists to coordinate and assig n communication tas ks such a list should be provided to the Heritage Tourism Strategy Working Group so that they are aware of the communication tasks that park staff could assist with

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES

Lead - ali communication specialists Audience - park staff; senior management; HTS working group Timing - immediate; this should be done as a precursor to operationalizing a

park-wide communication strategy Cost - staff time Monitoring - irnproved understanding of what communication staff do will be

reflected in general feedback from staff and more focused requests from non-communication staff for communication services

Researcher involvement in communication

Communication worksheet (6) As communication specialists become more communication facilitators, they will need appropriate tools to help them in that function. One such tool would be a communication worksheet. This worksheet, to be given to other staff who need communication services, would help communications people to determine needed information such as key messages and audiences. However, the primary role of this worksheet is to help non-communications people make the connections between issues, audience, techniques, objectives, messages. etc.

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - to be used by any communication specialist Audience - CO-workers needing communication services

Action Items 10-3 7

Timing - immediate Cost - none Monitoring - communication specialists can assess if the worksheet provides

them with the information they need in a more focused format; individuals should monitor whether the nature of questions and comments about communication change significantly

Action Items 10-38

Communication worksheet - what issue is the project addressing - why is it an issue

- what do you want to be the outcome of this project

- how do you want communication to contribute to these goals

- what are people going to like - what are people going to dislike - how do you know that

- to understand the issue, what concepts do people need to understand (e.g., aspen ecology. habitat fragmentation, legal mandate, etc.)

- do you believe people understand them

- what are your concerns about the project

--

Action Items 10-39

- what do you wish you knew about the issue (scientifically or socially)

- how will these actions 1 this data relate to maintaining ecological integrity

- what do you want from senior managers (and from whom specifically)

- what do you want from communication specialists (and from whom specifically)

- what are the opportunities for citizens to participate (Le.. opportunities for hands-on experience, advisory input, commenting, learning , etc.)

- who are potential allies

Action Items 10-40

- who are likely opponents - why

- who are the general audiences (e-g., local residents, regional residents, staff, visitors, etc.)

- who are the key specific audiences

- how will feedback be solicited

- how will feedback be incorporated

- how will the impact of communication on your goals be assessed

Action Items 70-4 7

Researcher questionnaire (6) Most researchers have been using communication vehicles of various sorts. and communicating various messages. They also have the best idea of where uncertainty exists, where public knowledge gaps may exist, etc. BNP communicators should actively solicit this kind of information through a questionnaire.

questions would include: b what they feel are / have been I should be the key national park messages B what they feel have been the most successful communication vehicles P where communication tools have failed them D how significant a role they feel communication plays in natural resource

mariagement

Lead - Warden Setvice communication specialist, and Ecosystem Secretariat communication specialist

Audience - BNP researchers, resource management wardens Timing - immediate Cost - staff tirne tu create and distribute questionnaires, and collate data Monitoring - the quality of responses will indicate both the usefulness of the

information, and the attitude of researchers to being involved in this way

Researcher communication requirements (4) Most researchers need little prompting to break into a discussion of their research. Most researchers working in BNP (both non-park and park staff) already donate significant personal time to cornmunicating the results of their studies to lay audiences (schools, clubs, etc.). However, BNP should formally recognize this vital link between research and public communication. It should become a condition for every research project funded by BNP that the researcher provide some sort of public communication.

public communication efforts should be of their specific research or just their field of expertise topic and audience should be of the researcher's own choosing, and at their discretion regarding timing (though approved by the funder)

Lead - Executive direction to al1 departments involved in funding research (especially Ecosystern Secretariat and Warden Service)

Audience - any public audience Timing - relative to the specific research project Cost - none Monitoring - general survey would have question asking if they saw a

presentation by a park researcher; successive years will compare that, and also assess increase in understanding of park issues

Action Items 10-42

Ecoloaical intesritv index 14) It is very convenient and very popular to distil a large number of measures down into one index for quick cornparison and digestion. especially in econornics (Gross Domestic Product, Consumer Price Index, Toronto Stock Exchange 500, Grade Point Average, etc.). Most lay audiences do not have time to search out al1 the facts of an issue (or collection of issues), but use these indices quite confidently regardless of their degree of understanding of the underlying theory. These indices generally provide popular audiences with two crude measures: things are good or bad; and things are getting better or worse. In reality, there is very little beyond that that society wants to know. This is the simple genius behind Leopold's Land ~ t h i c ' ~ .

It would likely provide a very effective communication tool if BNP's scientific and communication staff worked together to create an 'Ecological lntegrity Index.' This would not be for scientific audiences as much as for popular audiences. In a glance it tells how things are, and how that compares to before.

a selection of current ecosystem research areas. key relationships. etc. would be the keys to the index (explore using current indicators) could also include a single glance image that does not sacrifice the individual measures; would look like a stereo's equalizer with a set of sliders representing each indicator; bottom is 100% impaired and top is 0% impaired; shows that one slider may be up, but most down little scientific value, potentially, but must be scientifically defensible as an example see Karr's lndex of Biotic lntegrity (1992) developed for quality of aquatic resources such an index could be tied into the 'report cards' (see recomrnendation at page 10-9 above) release of the index would be a media event that would bring attention to ecolog ical concerns

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat communication specialist; with support from

Warden Service communication specialist, Media Relations and others Audience - local and regional, special interests, media, senior management Timing - such an index would take a great deal of clear conceptualization and

refinement to be defensible. however it can refined from year to year in the beginning; begin (with Report Cards) in fall 2000

Cost - staff time Monitoring - see 'Report Cards', above

Science and communication workshop (3) One initiative which would foster undentanding about integratir i g scie communication would be a workshop on the topic. The obvious body

nce and to host

l g 'A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity. stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends othewise" (Leopold 1949).

Action Items 1 û-43

such an event would be the Central Rockies Ecosystem lnteragency Liaison Group (CREILG). This group could bring together regional communications and ecological sciences personnel to explore opportunities and techniques for enhancing the symbiotic relationship between science and communication.

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat to promote the idea Audience - CREILG members Timing - faIl 1999

Encouraae publications (4) Popular publications on scientific topics are a very effective way of getting esoteric topics in a form that general audiences will digest. The ability to do so is an advanced skill which is certainly not possessed by all. Still there are some within Parks Canada who are very good at it, and BNP should encourage their researchers to publish in popular formats.

BNP should encourage its employees to produce guide books which include ecological messages, and books which cover detailed topics in very readable ways; examples include Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance (Herrero 1985), Atlas of the Central Rockies Ecosystem (Komex International 1995), and various publications by Waterton Lakes National Park Conservation Biologist Kevin Van Tighem (Van Tig hem 1 991 ,1997) BNP should encourage its researchers to publish in al1 manner of periodicals (e.g., Game Warden, Encompass, Alternatives. Equinox, Canadian Geographic, travel magazines, Explore, Outdoor. etc.) BNP should encourage CO-operative efforts by researchers and park cornmunicators BNP should also explore incentives for in-park authors who do create such publications which spread national park messages

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - District and Park Executive; al1 communication specialists Audience - in-park staff with writing ability Timing - on-going Cost - none

Interna1 communication

Communicator communication (6) In Fundy National Park, interpretation staff made up mugs with the park name and sorne national park messages. These were filled with hot chocolate and given to people attending the campground programs. In Pacific Rirn National Park Reserve, beach walks included using natural objects to make impressions on t-shirts provided by the walk's guide. Visitors at these programs got to keep the souvenirs, which made the new fee for the programs much less hard to take (Heather Oxman, pers. corn.). These are the sorts of ideas that need to be

Action Items 70-44

passed between communications personnel in Parks Canada. There are a number of ways to encourage this sort of exchange which BNP should investigate.

the national office's On-Site Presentation Specialist operates a chat line to share ideas; BNP communications personnel should become a part of that exchange creation of a national newsletter for Parks Canada communications personnel r> for this to be effective, it could not be a task added to the workload of a

current employee i> must have support from senior management; previous efforts to foster

communication between communicators have been personality driven and have collapsed when those people have moved on

D begin by scoping communications staff in Parks Canada to see if there is support for such an idea

Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat to promote idea to holder of communications portfolio on the district executive and national office

Audience - Parks Canada communications staff Timing - feasibility scoping could begin immediately; production would have to

be worked into national office's business plan framework Cost - creation and distribution costs would be similar to those for Research

Links Monitoring - pre-project scoping ; comment card, etc. encourag ing readers to

send in opinions, suggestions; comprehensive survey after about six issues

1 What to Communicate 1

Relative to other parts of the recomrnendations sections, this section is quite small, especially when one considers how vital a part of the communication process the design of messages is. However, as mentioned earlier in this report. BNP has traditionally done an excellent job of message creation - it is in the distribution where the majority of the concerns arise. Having said this. there are some points to be made which are specific to ecosystem management messages.

Ecosvstem management messages (4) There are four areas in which general audiences must have an understanding and awareness to understand - and help effect - ecosystem management. These are:

the ecosystems of the Park how management actions are related to ecological protection the impacts people have on Park ecosystems how people can parücipate in Park management

Action Items 70-45

A more detailed description of what these messages might be is located in the last part of Appendix A: Interview details.

A concept that would lend itself well to a dedicated education campaign is cumulative effects. The concept is one of the most important in identifying regional stressors on the ecosystems. However. it has the advantage of not requiring fingers to be pointed at any one individual or development. while at the same time implicating every person and every activity.

Encouraqe conservation broadly (4) The Green Plan (Governrnent of Canada 1990). and several interna1 studies (see Task force reports in Appendix F) have recognized this, but it is worth stating again: BNP communications should encourage people to engage in conservation activities wherever they are. The Environmental Education survey (The Advisory Group 1993) found that the majority of people still feel that conservation goals can be accomplished simply by declaring protected areas.

Messages should include a description of the role of BNP (and national parks) in context, explaining that BNP is one protected area. and that protected areas are one part of the landscape, and that protecting biodiversity is a landscape scale endeavour (as per Figure 10-1, for example).

Figure 10-1: The role of BNP in a landscape context

-

Diverse Areas cc b protec>

Leqislation and oolicv (4) Parks Canada has remarkably unambiguous legislation (National Parks Act. Government of Canada 1988) and policy (Guiding Pnnciples and Operational Policies, Parks Canada 1994~). The early stages of the Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table made it clear to me that most residents of the Banff Bow Valley are unaware of even the basic elernents of these guiding documents. That ecological integrity was the paramount consideration in BNP zoning and visitor management appeared to come as a surprise to several key players in the valley.

Banff National Park communications should ensure that basic national park messages include the primary features of these important documents.

Action ltems 70-46

Misconceptions (4,8) A critical and obvious place to begin developing communication goals and strategies is by looking at the public misconceptions about ecosystems. management, impacts, etc. This is a key starting point for creating message sets and programs.

The best and easiest place to start is the news media. especially letters to the editor, as they are the least filtered public comment. The Media Relations department already tracks this information and has sophisticated software to help the process. One suggestion might be to focus on misconceptions about the Banff Bow Valley Study, as there was a great deal reported about the study by several publications and shows.

For virtually every practical recommendation described above, there is some description of how the success of that initiative should be monitored. Perhaps this reflects the most important recommendation related to monitoring: think about how the objectives of that program/initiativesletc. will be assessed for effectiveness.

However, there rnust also be some coordinated and over-arching view of communication monitoring. Below are several recommendations for approaching that task.

Desipn post-presentation assessrnent (3) Many BNP staff are called on to go out into the community and give presentations and talks on various aspects of park ecology and management. This is an excellent opportunity to assess audience receptivity to park messages.

after staff go out to give talks, they should (depending on the appropriateness of the audience): 1) distribute to the audience a short questionnaire 1 comment card about the

effectiveness of the presentation; andlor 2) fiIl out a standardized report on how well the talk was received reports and comments should be collated, then developed into an annual report; successive reports could plot improvements, show areas of concern. etc.

Lead - Warden Service Communication Specialist and Ecosystem Secretariat Communication Specialist; with support from al1 communications staff

Audience - communicating staff

Action Items 10-47

Timing - creation of standardized commentlreport forms could begin immediately; creation of annual report each Fall would inform programs being created for the coming summer; could be created immediately

Cost - staff time to create standardized foms; annual cornmitment by communication specialist to create reports

Monitoring - usefulness of reports in identifying emerging issues

Use 'Enquiries' database to monitor post-visa impressions (3) Frontcountry maintains a database of al1 people who request information on the park. This represents some 6000 enquiries each year. The database is pre- existing, constantly updated, and set up to create mailing labels at the push of a button. This would be an excellent tool for distributing a post-trip questionnaire.

ask if the information received assisted the visitor in planning their trip, and created appropriate expectations about what opportunities would be found this should provide BNP with a better idea of what information people have found useful, what others information they need. and the nature of the gap between expectations and existing opportunities

Lead - Frontcountry Audience - park visitors (those who request information before coming) Timing - the bulk of the requests for information corne in the spring and early

surnmer, with many people requesting information a year in advance; thus a fall mailing to the requesters of the previous year would be appropriate: could beg in immediately

Cost - creation of questionnaire; mailing costs of distribution and return Monitoring - response rate

Staff survey (3) Collectively. the staff members in BNP likely have an excellent idea of how various communication tools are being used. BNP should create and administer a survey to the staff asking them to provide their views on how they use (and see others use) such things as fact sheets, booklets. primers, brochures. etc.

the park electronic mail system is an obvious vehicle for such a survey

Lead - Frontcountry Audience - al1 staff Timing - aim to conduct first bi-annual survey in the fall of 1998 so that

decisions on the usefulness of various communication tools can be informed by this information and available for surnmer 1999

Cost - staff time to design questionnaire, and collate information Monitoring - response rate

Action Items 10-48

Coordinate monitorina with other mountain ~ a r k s (3.6) As with the delivery of communication projects and programs, BNP should work to coordinate monitoring of communication effectiveness with the other field units in the Mountain Parks District.

recognize also that there are subtle, but important differences between a regional message / audience and a local message I audience. The concerns. cultural context, etc. are somewhat different, and therefore a 'regional' approach is not simply doing what a park is doing but simply multiplying it times five. CO-operate on as many aspects of monitoring as possible (e-g.. surveys, focus groups, etc.)

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES Lead - Ecosystem Secretariat Communication Specialist to promote concept to

District Executive through holder of communications portfolio at executive level

Timing - the potential savings and increased reach suggest that work on this action should begin immediately

Cost - staff time to coordinate; coordination would work best being handled by shared regional outreach person(s) (see Practical Recommendations; Partnerships; Shared positions, above)

Encourage partners to monitor communication (3.9) If the partners whom BNP seeks out to help deliver national park messages are committed to doing so, they should also be comrnitted to monitoring the success of their efforts. BNP should encourage their communication partners to engage in monitoring activities - ideally in cooperation with BNP.

the willingness to monitor and assess the effectiveness of communication efforts may, in fact, be a good way to assess the true intentions of partners if BNP hopes that their partners will commit to monitoring communication, BNP themselves will have to show a sincere cornmitment first

IMPLEMENTATION NOTES

Lead - ail persons engaged in CO-operative communication activities; BNP members of the Heritage Tourism Strategy Working Group

Timing - on-going - pp

Survey

One of the original goals of this study was to design and administer a questionnaire for assessing the level of understanding of ecosystem management. It became apparent during the initial stages of the study that it would be more fundamentally important to fint draw connections between communication and ecosystern management. However, that does not mean that this study concluded that a baseline survey was not cntical for assessing the success of BNP's various communication efforts.

Action ltems f 0-49

BNP's Ecosystem Secretariat should undertake to adrninister such a survey. Below are several suggestions for creating and administering a questionnaire for this purpose.

O biectives It is very important that a broad, direction-setting survey have clear objectives to guide it. Otherwise, the survey may gather interesting information, but not information which will assess current communication efforts, and guide future ones. An example set of objectives for this survey is to detenine: Understanding

P determine level of understanding of ecosystem management rz determine origin of understanding of ecosystem management

Attifudes r> determine attitudes toward EM principles and concepts r> detenine attitudes toward BNP as a park manager r, determine perceptions of the connections between management actions

and ecological integrity Behaviour

r> detenine current ecologically-friendly behaviour D detenine willingness to change to more ecologically-friendly behaviour r> determine participation in public participation processes

Solutions r> identify opportunities for better informingleducating community about EM P identify partners for better informing/educating community about EM

Design Questions will need to assess understanding andlor awareness of:

r> the natural history and ecology of BNP r> what are 'ecological integrity' and 'ecosystem management' r, threats to the ecosystems in BNP r> the connections between management actions and ecological integrity

Chapter 3 in the main body of the report (Background to Ecosystem Management), as well as Appendix B (Ecosystems, biodiversity, threats, and ecological realities) were created with the expectation that they could inform the design of these survey questions.

Poll ecological researchers and interpreters to ask what areas of potential misconception they are most curiouç about, and use that information to help create survey questions.

Action Items 10-50

Examine other recent Parks Canada surveys for potential questions and formats. If questions from these studies can be used, it creates that much more continuous data. Some examples are:

A Study of Canadian Attitudes Toward Canada's National Parks (Angus Reid Group, Inc. 1993)

Environmental Education Baseline Survey Results (The Advisory G roup 1995)

ldentiwng Appropriate Activities for Banff National Park: Views of Calgary Residents (Angus Reid Group, Inc. 1996)

Assessment of knowledae, attitudes and behaviour Ensure the suwey can separately assess understanding, attitudes and behaviour. Again. the resources listed below c m provide guidance, but some guidelines are offered in this section

Attitudes Creation of simple attitude scales is cornmon and ~trai~htfonvard*~. however, effective and accurate attitude scales require significant time and ability to create. Take care in surveying attitudes toward 'ecosystem management' that that term is not used in a pivotal way as most people do not know what EM is. Determine a way to analyze results which divides respondents into value set groupings (see Kellert 1996; Reading, Clark and Kellert 1994; Reading and Kellert 1993).

Kno wledge 'Knowledge Scales' created for the survey could focus on any one or group of the following: biodiversity. sustainable development, ecosystem management, ecosystem theory. how park is rnanaged, opportunities for involvement, ecological integrity. ecosystem health. Target some questions specifically at assessing the understanding of the role of 'uncertainty' in park management. Ask some general 'ecosystem management' knowledge questions, but also tie some questions directly to current communication initiatives (e.g., questions on topics which occur frequently in the Research Update programs).

Behaviour Question areas which help assess 'behaviour' could include: D recycling D membership in 1 donations to conservation organizations D membership in 1 donations to Wise Use organizations

20 The most comrnon is the Likert scale, which in its simplest form gives a statement and asks the respondent whether they 'agree very much', 'agree', are 'neutral', 'disagree'. or 'disagree very rnuch'.

Action Items 10-51

D recreation activities D conservation activities (bird counts, community clean ups, etc.) D attendance at open houses D letters written to politicians, etc. D volunteering activities D read consewation-oriented book D discussed park issues in last weeidmonthfyear D read park management document D fed animals or picked fiowers in the park D sped on park roads D attended park interpretive program

Adrninisterinq the survev Sarnpling for a survey can be very tricky, but there are several resources tu help with this task (see Resources, below). Some extra considerations for this survey, however, are: D Rernember that Calgarians can account for as much as 60% of park use

(BBVS 1996b). Find a way to include day users in the survey (e.g., trailhead surveyors or survey dispenser boxes, hig hway surveyors)

D Distinguish between local residents, regional residents, other Canadians and non-Canadians, and determine if al1 are to be surveyed. Note that deterrnining what different information is needed from each is a similar exercise to determining which messages are targeted at each.

Plan to repeat the suwey every six years (every second business plan cycle).

Repetitions of the surveys should be administered at saine of year. as attitudes change with the seasons (people are more biocentric in the spring (Caro et al 1 994)).

Consider administering two surveys: a simple survey and a longer workbook survey. The distribution could be 5 simple surveys for every 1 workbook suwey

Resources There are a number of resources which are particularly appropriate for someone creating a survey of this kind for an organization like Banff National Park. The list below includes the sorne of the most appropriate and most easy-to-use resources available:

Sage Publications, a leader in the publication of advanced and basic resources for social research, has created a collection called 'The Survey Kit.' A series of nine short books (averaging about 155 pp.), which provide step-by-step

Action items 7 0-52

instructions on how to conceive, design, administer, analyze and report on a survey. The kit has been available for about CDN$l3O.OO. Volumes include:

D The Survey Handbook (Fink 19950 D How to Ask Survey Questions (Fink 1995b) D How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail Surveys (Bourque and Fielder

1995) D How to Conduct Intentiews by Telephone and in Person (Frey and Oishi

1995) D How to Design Surveys (Fink 1995~) D How to Sample in Surveys (Fink 1995e) D Ho w to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity (Litwin 1 99 5) D How to Analyze Survey Data (Fink 1995a) D How to Report on Suweys (Fink 1995d)

Colin Robson's book, Real Wodd Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchem ( 1 993) provides a description of survey practice which is briefer, somewhat more theoretical. but still very practical.

There are several articles with direct applicability to the BNP situation. for example:

Reading et al. 1994. "Attitudes and Knowiedge of People Living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystern ."

Reading et al. 1993. "Attitudes toward a Proposed Reintroduction of Black- Footed Ferrets (Mustela nignpes)." Brunson et al. 1996. "Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners and Ecosystem Management: Can They Work Together?" Staats et al. 1996. "Communicating the Greenhouse Effect to the Public: Evaluation of a Mass Media Campaign from a Social Dilemma Perspective." Caro et al. 1994. "Effects of Conservation Biology Education on Attitudes Toward Nature." Gigliotti. 1994. "Environmental Issues: Cornell Students' Willingness to Take Action, 1990." Leeming et al. 1995. "Children's Environmental Attitude and Knowledge Scale: Construction and Validation."

Execution look at having the survey created and administered professionally the first year. It can be repeated by BNP in subsequent years for less cost.

Explore the possibility of offering the experience to a graduate student from the University of Calgary or Alberta who specializes in social science surveys.

Action Items 70-53

11. lmplementation Strategy -- - - -

1 Introduction 1

The list of action items in Chapter 10 is organized by subject. This provided a comprehensive view of the proposed changes, but not a strategic one. The purpose of this chapter is to prioritize the actions into a coordinated implementation strategy.

I have divided the suggested action items among the relevant BNP departments (the exception being those recommendations directed at the Mountain Parks District Iëvel). These sections are:

District Media Relations Superintendent Client Services Ecosystem Secretariat Heritage Tourism Warden Service Heritage Programs Frontcountry All communication specialists

Given that these are recommendations for the delivery of EM messages, the emphasis is on the Ecosystem Secretariat and the Superintendent.

For each department, the recomrnendations are spread divided into the following categories (though for some departments. some categories are absent):

immediate (1 998) as needed 1-2 years (1 999) on-going 2-3 years (2000 )

Within each sub-list, items are more or less listed in order of importance. However, in some cases ease of implementation promoted items to a higher spot on their respective list.

There is some duplication between the 'Superintendent' and the 'District' lists. This is because policies can be made at the District level, but it wili depend on the superintendent to ensure they are implemented in an individuai park.

The Superintendent category is used as a surrogate for ail senior managers in the park. It is also used in the absence of a formai body responsible for coordinating communications. I did not use the phrase 'Superintendent's Office' because I wanted to separate the Superintendent from Media Relations, which is attached to the Superintendent's office.

lmplementation Strategy 11-1

1 Prioritization I

District

lmmediate conduct feasibility study into virtual communications department (p. 9-5) address conflicting directions re: ecological integrity and increased visitation (P. 9-21 create district outreach coordination positions (p. 10-25) create district environmental education positions (p. 9-6) initiate mentoring programs in communication (p. 9-7) augment commitment to personal programming (p. 9-3) establish policy and mandate as communication 'fallbacks' (p. 9-12' 10-46) beg in feasibility study on va rious between-communicator communication techniques (p. 10-44)

1 -2 years establish virtual communications departments (p. 9-5) assess communication staffing needs, and adjust accordingly (p. 9-7) begin to expand role of interpreters into broader public communication (p. 9- 12) conduct District-wide interna1 communications audit (p. 9-8) investigate possibilities for shared positions (p. 9-3) investigate feasibility for Agency to pursue creative funding avenues (p. 9- 1 O), and to facilitate fund-raising for projects (p. 9-1 3)

2-3 years rationalize workloads between field units (p. 9-7) coordinate regional communication efforts with those of regional agencies (p. 9-10) establish shared positions (p. 9-3)

On-aoinq explicitly recognize role of communication in ecosystem protection (p. 10- 32). and continue Transition Communications Workshop commitment to communication (p. 9-3. and Appendix 4 encourage provision of EM messages at non-crisis times to counter anti- conservation messages (p. 9-4) emphasize the inability of national parks to single-handedly accomplish broad conservation goals (p. 10-46) encourage staff to be advocates for protected areas (p. 9-4) foster and support extra-park conservation activities (p. 9-4) encourage staff publications (p. 10-44) encourage regional power-sharing by providing adjacent agencies with opportunities for input into P a r k Canada management (p. 9-2)

lmplementation Strategy 7 7-2

Superintendent

fmmediate conduct feasibility study into virtual communications department (p. 9-5) address conflicting directions re: ecological integrity and increased visitation (P. 9-21 initiate mentoring programs in communication (p. 9-7) ensure the connections between scientists, comrnunicators and the public are not severed (p. 9-1 1) establish policy and mandate as communication 'fallbacks' (p. 9-12, 10-46) conduct Park-wide, and promote District-wide, interna1 communications audit (p. 9-8) hold regular town hall meetings (p. 10-23)

establis h virtual communications departments (p. 9-5) assess communication staffing needs, and adjust accordingly (p. 9-7) begin to expand role of interpreters into broader public communication (p. 9- 12) create comprehensive public participation strategy (p. 9-9) and participation coordinator position (p. 9-9) facilitate coordination of dedicated volunteer program (p. 10-29) begin program of facilitating special interest group workshops (p. 10-31) statement of principles (p. 1 0-36) lead Superintendent hikes (p. 10-24)

2-3 years establish Strategic Advisory Boards (p. 9-9)

On-qoinq explicitly recognize role of communication in ecosystem protection (p. 1 0- 32), and continue Transition Communications Workshop cornmitment to communication (p. 9-3. and Appendix J) encourage provision of EM messages at noncrisis times to counter anti- conservation messages (p. 9-4) encourage staff to be advocates for protected areas (p. 9-4) foster and support extra-park conservation activities (p. 9-4) encourage staff publications (p. 10-44) encourage efforts to highlight uncertainty as an integral part of EM (p. 9-1) encourage communicators to seize unforeseen communication opportunities (p. 1 0-6) encourage input from knowledgeable locals (p. 9-2) balance deference to business and environmental special interests (p. 9-1 1) provide encouragement for communication specialists to be discerning in partnerships (p. 9-1 0) encourage regional power-sharing by providing adjacent agencies with opportunities for input into BNP management (p. 9-2)

lmplementation Strategy 7 1 -3

identify and effect methods for direct management-to-frontline staff communication (p. 9-9) institute consistent corporate look (p.9-13)

Ecosystem Secretariat

l mmediate declare a long-term communication goal (p. 10-4) continue with 'How We're Managing' fact sheets (p. 10-1 1 ) create 'Communications Primer' (p. 10-34) design key EM message sets for al1 staff who are part of the 'community of communicators' (p. 10-32) institute researcher communication requirements (p. 1 2-42) create information packages for partners (p. 10-8) design and distribute post-presentation assessment forms (p. 1047) begin design of comprehensive survey on ecological messages (p. 12-62) begin process of coordinating monitoring with other mountain parks (p. 10- 49) promote various between-communicator communication techniques to District executive (p. 10-44) support Warden Service communication specialist with researcher questionnaires (p. 1042)

1-2 years create 'Ecosystem Management' Primer (p. 10-1 5) create ' 1 ndividual's Guide for Ecological Integrity' (p. 1 0-1 3) begin 'Resource Acadia' style seminar prograrns (p. 10-23) administer first baseline survey on public understanding of EM (p. 10-49) convene science and communication workshop (p. 10-43) bookmarks (hereafter once per year) (p. 10-1 7) implement EM training for staff (p. 10-34) use techniques to ensure access for al1 staff to EM information (p. 10-36) begin small-scale, ecologically focused school at BNP (p. 10-27) create communication strategies for other EM player relationships (p. 9-8)

Heritage Programs with creation of 'How to Participate' booklet (p. support 10-28) support 29) support support 10-19) support support support 21 support

Heritage Programs in creating dedicated volunteer program (p. 10-

Frontcountry in expanding role of web site (p. 10-1 9) Frontcountry in creation of 'park management interpretive trail' (p.

Media Relations with Ecosystem Management media kit (p. 1 0-1 5) Client Services with 'face-to-face contact' program (p. 1 0-22) for Frontcountry with temporary highway informational signs (p. 10-

Superintendent program of facilitating special interest group workshops (p. 10-31)

- - -

lmplementation Strategy 7 7-4

support Superintendent creation of statement of principles (p. 10-36) 2-3 years

release first annual or biannual Report Card (p. 10-9) release first annual or biannual 'Ecosystem Management' report (p. 10-1 0) finalize 'ecological integrity' index (p. 1043) begin prograrn of facilitating community leader / researcher meetings (p. 10- 30) establish Adopt-A- programs (p. 10-30) investigate feasibility of creation of games (p. 10-21)

As needed conflict maps (p. 10-16) post cards (recommend once per year) (p. 10-1 6) champion store front information office for proposed visitor centre (p. 10-25)

On-aoinq ensure al1 4 areas of the 'EM messages' are addressed in public communication (p. 1045) promote explicit management recognition of the role of communication in ecosystem protection (p. 10-32) emphasize national parks policy (p. 10-46)' and the inability of national parks to single-handedly accomplish broad conservation goals (p. 10-46) encourage input from knowledgeable locals (p. 9-2) provide Heritage Tourism with ecological integrity messages for outdoor trade shows (p. 10-20)

Warden Service

lmrnediate develop and distribute researcher questionnaires (p. 1 0-42) institute researcher communication requirements (p. 10-42) design and distribute post-presentation assessrnent forms (p. 10-47) create comprehensive trailhead information (p. 10-20)

1 -2 vears create documents availability list (p. 10-1 7) support Client Services with 'face-to-face contact' program (p. 10-22)

2-3 vears support Ecosystem Secretariat in establishing 'Adopt-A- ' programs (p. 10- 30)

As needed champion store front information office for proposed visitor centre (p. 10-25)

Frontcountry

lmrnediate re-vision Park Magazine more broadly (p. 10-1 1 )

. - --

lmplementation Strategy 11-5

take over fact sheet coordination (p. 10-12) use mail enquiries database to monitor post-visit impressions (p. 10-48) advertise incentives program (p. 10-7) to begin in 1999 line up sponsors for 'park management interpretive trail' (p. 10-1 8) complete first bi-annual staff survey (p. 1048)

1-2 vears create 'Your Impact' brochure (p. 10-14) release 1999 issue (and later issues) of Park Magazine as reexpanded (p. 10-1 1) use ad space in Park Magazine as incentive for 'park-friendly' operations (p 10-7) expand role of web site (p. 10-1 9) expand role of fact sheets (p. 10-12) create 'park management interpretive trail' (p. 10-1 8) create comprehensive strategy for audio and visual resources (p. 10-20) explore use of temporary highway informational signs (p. 10-21) support Client Services with staff continuing education program (p. 10-35)

As needed support Ecosystem Secretariat in creation of conflict maps (p. 10-1 6)

Media Relations

1-2 years create and distribute Ecosystem Management media kit (p. 10-1 5) support Frontcountry in expanding role of web site (p. 10-19)

2-3 vears begin publication of annual collation of responsiveness summaries (p. 10- 28)

As needed responsiveness summaries (p. 10-28) support Ecosystem Secretariat in creation of conflict maps (p. 10-1 6)

Client Services

lmmediate handbills for outfitters and rental companies (p. 10-8)

1-2 years coordinate staff continuing education program (p. 10-35) begin 'face-to-face contact' program (p. 10-22) support Frontcountry with creation of 'Your Impact' brochure (p. 10-14) support Superintendent program of facilitating special interest group workshops (p. 10-3 1 )

lmplementation Strategy 11-6

Heritage Tourisrn

t mmediate ensure connections between scientists. communicators and the public are not severed (p. 9-1 1)

On-aoinq present ecological integrity messages at outdoor trade shows (p. 10-20)

Heritage Programs

1-2 vears create 'How to Participate' booklet (p. 10-28) create participation coordinator position, as per direction from Superintendent (p. 9-1 3) create dedicated volunteer program, as per direction from Superintendent (p. 10-29) offer new format for Parks Day (p. 1 0-1 8)

All communication specialists

lmmediate 'sell' communication to park managers (p. 10-33, Appendix P) promote the creation of district outreach coordination positions (p. 10-25) develop and use 'communication worksheet' (p. 10-38) ensure communication strategies integrate easily into Business Plan (p. 9-8)

1-2 vears design key message sets for al1 staff who are part of the 'community of comrnunicators' (p. 10-32) create senior management training program (p. 10-32) as far as Agency structure permits. identify opportunities for facilitating fund- raising for projects (p. 9-1 3). and opportunities for creative funding of programs (p. 9-10) create and distribute communication skills lists (p. 10-37)

As needed post cards (p. 10-16) newspaper inserts (p. 10-9) bookmarks (p. 10-1 7)

On-qoinq highlight uncertainty as an integral part of EM (p. 9-1) wean communications strategies off of local focus (p. 9-3) provide EM messages at non-crisis times to counter anti-consewation messages (p. 9-4) identify and target misconceptions for communication initiatives (p. 10-47) celebrate successes (p. 10-4) favour personal contact (p. 10-4)

lmplementa tion Strategy 17-7

be disceming in choosing partnerships (p. 9-10) recognize that science is a foreign culture to most. and interpret it that way (p. 10-5) adopt Sandman's 'outrage factors' as a communications planning tool (p. 10-6)' and borrow risk feedback gathering techniques (p. 10-5) make connections between business and ecological health explicit (p. 9-5) emphasize national parks policy (p. 10-46)' and the inability of national parks to sing le-handed ly accomplish broad conservation goals (p. 1 0-46) 'piggy-back' issue communication on other communication initiatives (p. 10- 5) use incentives to encourage communication partnerships (p. 10-7) encourage partners to monitor communication (p. 1049) encourage staff publications (p. 10-44) identify and effect methods for direct management-to-frontline staff communication (p. 9-9) be prepared to seize unforeseen communication opportunities (p.10-6) attach contact person to every publication (p. 10-7) use consistent corporate look (p. 9-1 3) appeal to the heart as well as the head (p. 10-4)

lmplementation Strategy 11-8

12. Further Research

1 Introduction 1

There are several areas of further research which would provide valuable insight into the concerns raised in this study. Several important ones are listed below under the categories:

Ecosystem management Communication Other EM communication models EM communication in Banff National Park

- - - 1 cosys stem management I Ecosvstem manaaement in qeneral Ecosystem management is still a relatively unknown, and hotly debated, style of resource management. There needs to be further study on al1 aspects of the field to assist it as it continues to evolve.

Ecosvstern manaaement for the reqion It should go without saying that ecosystem management, by any definition. cannot be practised within a single park. And, as the participants in the Vision exercise in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem discovered, it cannot even be practised jiist by the major land management agencies (see Ch. 7: Case Studies, and Appendix K).

A study which would benefit the entire region is one that would investigate ways in which a// land owners and managers could be broug ht together in a co- operative process to decide on ecosystem management principles for the entire region. This process would be as difficult as it is necessary. therefore a proactive and considered study of how to begin approaching it would be very helpful.

Ecosvstem management and 'landless' agencies Most discussion about ecosystem management focuses on government agencies with stewardship responsibility over specific geographical areas. When that vision of EM is expanded, it tends to move ouhnrard to include private landowners. However, there are various government agencies with a regulatory role, and little or no land base, but which have a tremendous influence on the success of ecosystem management. This is particularly true in Canada, where the provinces have control of their natural resources, but there are still federal agencies responsible for environmental protection, forest practices, international treaties, etc.

Further Research 12- 7

A focused study should be conducted on identifying and enhancing the role of these 'landless' agencies in fostering an ecosystem-based approach to management.

l Cornmuniution 1

Effects of communication and understandina on supportive behaviour The main body of the study (Ch. 4: The importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management, and Appendix D: Linkages beWeen information. attitudes and behaviouf) provide a cursory sketch of how increased understanding and awareness can affect (and effect) supportive behaviour. There has been considerable study on this topic (referenced in those sections), but the connections. and the specific role of various communication techniques, are still relatively poorly understood. It would be helpful to the communication efforts of BNP to further investigate how to establish these connections in Banff National Park.

As well, it appears that support for management activities has been declining through the same period as declining financial support for communication programs. This apparent link should be examined.

Communication and ecosvstem mananement This study has been an attempt to bring together two subject areas which are inextricably linked, but which traditionally have not been very well tied together in either theory or practice. The results of this study represent a very bare skeleton, and there are numerous areas where further research would help add flesh. Examples might include:

a similar style study on another national park public participation in ecosystem management economic impact for managers of under-supporting communication a similar questionnaire, but applied more broadly to include 'business'

interests; also a better content analysis using software available for this purpose (e.g.. Sonar)

The importance of communication to other EM plavers Chapter 3 (Background to Ecosystem Management) included a discussion of the ecosystem management players. Chapter 4 (The importance of Communication in Ecosystem Management) included a discussion of the importance of communication to ecosystem managers.

It would be worthwhile to further elaborate on: importance of communication for the public (interest groups. etc.) importance of communication for scientists (how will better communication help them to do a better job)

Further Research 12-2

importance of environmental communication for other ecosystem manager types (industry, private woodlot. private landowner, politicians, etc.)

Monitorinq communication efforts There is very little research devoted to methods for monitoring the effectiveness of communication initiatives. This should be a high priority area for further research.

Alternate service providers As mentioned in the main body of the report. the rnove to using alternate service providers for delivering national park messages has been embraced whole- heartedly by Parks Canada and BNP administration. However, the implications of "asking others to provide experiences and services previously offered by Parks Canada, are not well known" (BBVS 1996a).

Given the considerable push these initiatives are getting, this is an area of study which demands immediate attention.

1 Other EU communication models 1

Models from the developinq world The developing world is often seen as a collection of areas that could learn something from countries like Canada. However, there is a great deal to be learned from resource management (and resource management communication) models developed for these areas.

Case studies in less ornate bureaucraties c m provide a simplified view of the communication pressure points in a political / resource management bureaucracy. Dealing with petty bureaucrats, local constituencies, distant politicians, etc. are characteristics of both 'developed' and 'developing' decision- making systems.

It would be a worthwhile study to examine the various models for using communication as a conservation tool in developing countries. Jacobson (1 995) has collected several excellent examples of this role of communication in various parts of the globe.

Conservation marketing There are valuable lessons to be learned from a cross-disciplinary investigation of conservation marketing. This is the use of the simple and sophisticated tools created for marketing to market the conservation message. This is a complement to conservation education. but relies more heavily on tying into less conscious consumer patterns than on instilling a sense of responsibility. For an example. see Butler (1 995).

Further Research 72-3

Assess communication in other regions of Park Canada Communication efforts in one region of Parks Canada appear to operate in isolation from efforts in other regions. As well, the resources devoted to communication appear to Vary dramatically from one region to another. It would be a worthwhile study to examine both communication techniques and communication support in the other regions of Parks Canada. Some areas to start with would include:

the sophisticated outreach program in Pukaskwa National Park (Heron Promaine 1997) the infornation management system in Kejimkujik National Park (Drysdale 1997)-

Additional case studies There were a number of case studies which would have provided very interesting lessons for BNP's ecosystem management communication, but which were not incorporated for time and logistical reasons. It would still be instructive to pursue them. These included:

Siskiyou Educafion Project - educational project in Oregon, U.S.A. which was connected with the Wildlands Project (Noss 1992, Vance-Borland et al 1995) there. Maligne River Collaboration Process - as a part of this process the role of basic ecological education was examined (Murray 1997) Chesapeake Bay, VA, MD, U.S.A. - this is the largest and one of the most heavily used estuaries in North America. It is also the site of what is likely the oldest community-based ecosystem management in North America (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 1994, Haire 1994, Schwartz 1994, Costanza and Greer 1995). Colorado Ecosystem Project - a government-led ecosystem management initiative which relies heavily on a public participation approach State of Flonda - Florida recently enacted an Ecosystem Management Act; along with that came a cornmitment to state-wide public education regarding ecosystem management

Volunteer models One of the most effective ways to get people reconnected to ecosystems, get people involved in park operation, and deal with diminishing staff is a well- coordinated volunteer program. Such a program requires considerable front-end work before it can be established and become successful. This is contrary to a popular belief that using volunteers is always a time and personnel resource saver. A pre-step to establishing such a program in BNP is to look at other successful - and unsuccessful - volunteer models, and identify keys for success.

Further Research 12-4

Advisory committees It seems likely that the need and cal1 for advisory committees in BNP will increase in corning years. It would be wise to examine other advisory committee models which currently exist, and guidelines for implementing thern, to ensure such committees in BNP are effective and supported (both by the community and park management).

1 Ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park 1

Reaional CO-operation on communication Ideally. at some point, Banff National Park will be able to fully integrate its regional communication activities with its neighbours in the Central Rockies Ecosystem. It would be wise to begin exploring the ways in which that CO-

operation could be effected. An examination of regional communication rnodels could begin with a deeper study of the Fraser Basin Management Program. and its current non-profit reincarnation, the Fraser Basin Council.

Virtual communications department The recommendation of creating a new, potentially 'virtual' communications department (see Methodological recommendations; Administrative; Virtual communications departmen t , above) requires a feasibility study . At the same time, this study should examine the feasibility (and need) for a more traditional communications department in each of the national parks.

Parks Canada staff awareness One topic which this study has bumped against repeatedly. but never dealt with in any depth. is the need to foster and irnprove awareness and understanding of ecosystem management (ecology. ecological stressors. management action rationale, public participation. etc.) among the staff of the park. As BNP (and Parks Canada) moves to an 'everybody is a communicator' model of communication. it becomes even more important that ail members of the agency are aware of those national park ideals they represent.

Communication in Calgarv The BBVS estirnated that as much as 60% of park users come from Calgarians (1996a:51). Banff National Park is in a relatively unique situation in its close proximity to such a major population base. This population has a huge impact, is very concerned, and is being largely ignored primarily due to budget cuts. BNP needs to engage in, or support, research into how better to target this audience - especially with messages about appropriate use and activities.

Feasibilitv of alternate fundinq One of the reasons for Parks Canada pursuing its new persona of Parks Canada Agency was to allow more flexibility in budgeting and revenue generation (Parks

Further Research 12-5

Canada 1997b). Traditionally, Parks Canada funding has come from appropriations. Currently, Parks Canada is adding revenue generation and alternate service providers to address the budget shortfalls. However, Parks Canada needs to investigate the other ways besicles these to generate funding. Some examples are:

donations from private individuals (see the Senate report (1996) for a discussion of the refusal of Revenue Canada to remove disincentives to such donations) accessing money from funding agencies and organizations a commercial user fee on in-park commercial beneficiaries of park resources (see Tapping into existing tourism revenues, below)

Tamina into existin~ tourism revenues One of the great arguments for maintaining a booming tourism trade in Banff National Park is the awesome economic contribution it makes to the economy of the area. The Banff Bow Valley Study reported that in 1995, visitors spent an estimated $709 million in the park (BBVS 1996a), and that is estimated to increase to about $2 billion by AD 2005 (BBVS 1996b). However, of the money coming into the park, only 1.8% (user fees) goes into the coffers of the organization which is responsible for maintaining the scenic vistas and wilderness charms that are the primary reason people come to the park. This inequity must be addressed.

There needs to be active investigation into ways of tapping into those revenues. The BBVS has already made recornmendations to this effect, including "a special ecological and visitor experience enhancement fee based on the gross revenues" of park businesses which should not exceed 5% (BBVS 1996b:317).

Further Research 72-6

13. References

Acadia National Park Service. 1997. "Acadia National Park - Official Home Page." http: /~ .nps.gov/acad/ . October 21.

Acadia National Park. 1996. "Stewardship Behind the Scenery." (Newspaper insert). National Park Service, U .S. Department of Interior.

Agee, James K. and Dariyll R. Johnson (Eds.). 1988. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wildemess. University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA.

Agency Effectiveness. 1993. Transactions of the 58th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conferences. Wildlife Management Institute.

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1994. Bay Journal .Chesapeake Bay Program Septem ber.

Alper, Joseph. 1992. 'Yellowstone Ecosystem: 'Win-Win' Solution." Science. V01.255. 685-686.

Alpert. Peter. 1995. "lncarnating Ecosystem Manegement." Conservation Biology. Vol. 9, NO. 4 (August). 952-955.

Andreef, M. and K. Lunman. 1996. "Hiker dislike limited tail access." Calgary Herald. 9 Oct. : A1 0.

Angermeier, Paul L. 1994. "Does Biodiversity lnclude Artificial Diversity?" Conservation Biology. Vol. 8, No. 2 (June). 600-602.

Angus Reid Group, Inc. 1993. A Study of Canadian Attitudes Toward Canada's National Parks. Prepared for Canadian Parks Service, Western Region.

Angus Reid Grou p. Inc. 1 996. ldentifying Appropriate Acfivities for Banff National Pa& Views of Calgary Residents. Prepared for the Banff Bow Valley Study Task Force.

Backes, David. 1995. "The Biosocial Perspective and Environmental Communication Research." Journal of Communication. Vol. 45(3). 147-1 63.

Baker, D. James. 1996. 'What do Ecosystem Management and the Current Budget Mean for Federally Supported Environmental Research?" Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 71 2-7 1 5.

Baldwin, Rob. 1995. "Changes in Attitude Not Enough." Conservation Biology. Vol. 9, No. 2 (April). 240-241.

Banff National Park. 1993. Tourism, Recreation and Communication (TRAC) Plan. Canadian Parks Service, Western Region.

Banff National Park. 1995. Terrestrial Ecosystern Management Proposal: Banff National Park (DRAFT). Heritage Resource Conservation, Natural Resources Section.

Banff-Bow Valley Study. 1996a. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads. Summary Report of Banff-Bow Valley Study Task Force (Robert Page, Suzanne Bayley, J. Douglas Cook, Jeffrey E. Green, and J.R. Brent Ritchie). Prep. for the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage. Ottawa, ON.

Banff-Bow Valley Study. 1996b. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads. Technical Report of Banff-Bow Valley Study Task Force (Robert Page, Suzanne Bayley. J. Douglas Cook, Jeffrey E. Green, and J.R. Brent Ritchie). Prep. for the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa. ON.

Barbee, Robert D, Paul Schullery and John D. Varley. 1991. 'The Yellowstone Vision: An Experirnent that Failed or a Vote for Posterity." Partnerships in Parks and Presewation. 81 -85.

Barbee. Robert. 1990. "Casting a Vote for Posterity." Courier. January. 12-1 3.

Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Barry, Dwight and Max Oelschlaeger. 1996. "A Science for Suivival: Values and Conservation Biology." Conservation Biology. Special Section on "Conservation Biology, Values and Advocacy." Vol. lO(3). 905-91 1.

BBVS - see Banff-Bow Valley Study

Beattie, Mollie. 1996. "An Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 696-699.

Bell, Anne. 1994. "Non-Human Nature and the Ecosystem Approach: The Limits of Anthropocentrism in Great Lakes Management." Alternatives. Vo1.20, No.3. 20-25.

Bella, Leslie. 1987. Parks for Protif. Montreal: Harvest House Ltd.

Benjamin, Sally L. and David A. Belluck. 1990. "Risk Feedback: An Important Step in Risk Communication." Journal of the Amencan Water W o k s Association (A WWA). November. 50-55.

References 13-2

Berle, Peter A.A. 1988. "Managing the Future. If We Want To." in Crossroads: Environmental Pnorities for the Future. Ed. Peter Borrelli. Washington, DC: Island Press. 207-21 0.

Blomqvist. Ake. Paul Wonnacott and Ronald Wonnacott. 1983. Economics. First Canadian Edition. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.

BNP - see Banff National Park

Bocking, Stephen. 1994. "Visions of Nature and Society: A History of the Ecosystem Concept." Alternatives. Vo1.20, No.3. 12-1 8.

Booth, Anthony. 1986. Communications Audits: A UK Survey . London: Taylor Graham

Bormann. F. Herbert. and Stephen R. Kellert (eds.). 1991. Ecology, Economics. Ethics: The Broken Circle. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bourque, Linda B. and Eve P. Fielder. 1995. How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail Surveys. The Suwey Kit, Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brown, R. Steven and Karen Marshall. 1996. "Ecosystem Management in State Governments." Ecological Applications. Vo 1. 6(3). 72 1 -723.

Brunson, Mark W., Deborah T. Yarrow, Scott D. Roberts, David C. Guynn Jr., and Michael R. Kuhns. 1996. "Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners and Ecosystem Management: Can They Work Together?" Journal of Forestv. Vol. 94(6). 14-21.

Brussard. P.F., D.D. Murphy, and R.F. Noss. 1992. "Strategy and tactics for conserving biological diversity in the United States." Conservation Biology. Vol. 6. 157-1 59.

Buechner, Marybeth. Christine Schonewald-Cox, Raymond Sauvajot and Bruce A. Wilcox. 1992. "Cross-Boundary Issues for National Parks: What Works 'on the Ground'." Environmental Management. Vol. 16. No.6. 799-809.

Bumpers, Dale (Senator). 1991. "Profit from the Parks." National Parks. MarchJApril 1991. 16-1 7.

Burroughs, Richard H.. and Tim W. Clark. 1995. "Ecosystem Management: A Cornparison of Greater Yellowstone and Georges Bank." Environmental Management. Vol. 19, No. 5. 649-663.

References 13-3

Butler, Paul J. 1995. "Marketing the Conservation Message: Using Parrots to Promote Protection and Pride in the Caribbean." Conserving Wildlife: International Education and Communication Appmaches. Ed. Suçan K. Jacobson. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 87-102.

Callicott, J. Baird and Karen Murnford. 1997. "Ecological Sustainability as a Conservation Concept." Conservation Biology. Vol. 1 1 ( 1 ) . 3240.

Campbell, Susan M., and David B. Kittridge. 1996. "Ecosystem-based Management on Multiple NlPF Ownerships." Journal of Forestv. Vol. 94(2). 24-29.

Canadian Parks Service. 1988a. Banff National Park Management Plan 7988. Environment Canada.

Canadian Parks Service. 1988b. Getting Started: A Guide to Service Planning Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada.

Canadian Parks Service. 1992. Environmental Citkenship Discussion Paper. Calgary, AB: Environment Canada - Parks Service, Western Region.

Cannon, John R. 1996. "Whooping Crane Recovery: A Case Study in Public and Private Cooperation in the Conservation of Endangered Species." Conservation Biology. Vol. 1 O(3). 8 1 3-82 1 .

Caro, T.M., N. Pelkey. and M. Grigione. 1994. "Effects of Conservation Biology Education on Attitudes Toward Nature." Conservation Biology. 8(3). 846-852.

Carson, Rachel Louise. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston : Houghton Mimin.

Cawley, R. McGreggor, and John Freemuth. 1993. "Tree Farms, Mother Earth. and Other Dilemmas: The Politics of Ecosystem Management in Greater Yellowstone." Society and Naturai Resources. Vol. 6(l). 41 -53.

CEAC (Canadian Environmental Advisory Council). 1997. A Protected Areas Vision for Canada. Ottawa, ON: Submitted to the Honourable Jean Charest, Minister of the Environment.

Chase, Alston. 1 986. Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America's First National Park. Boston, MA: The Atlantic Monthly Press.

References 13-4

Christensen, Norman L. (chair)'. 1996. "Report of the Ecological Society of America Cornmittee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 665-69 1 .

City of Vancouver. 1997. "Regular Council Meeting Minutes." 27 Feb. 1997.

Clark. Dave. 1993. "lnterpreting Resource Management On a Self-Guiding Trail." Park Science. Vol. 13(3). 8.

Clark. R.N and G.H. Stankey. 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectmm: A Framework for Planning Management and Research. General Technical ReportPNW-98, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Seattle, WA: U.S. Deprtment of Agriculture.

Cole, David N. and Peter B. Landers. 1996. "Threats to Wilderness Ecosystems: Impacts and Research Needs." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(1). 168-1 84.

Community Forum. 1997. "Fraser Basin Council launched." Taking Action: Growth Strategies in B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Cooperrider, Allen Y. 1996. "Science as a Model for Ecosystem Management: Panacea or Problem?" Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 736-737.

Coopers and Lybrand Consulting. 1995a. A Review of the Govemance Model of the Banff-Bow Valley. Prepared for the Banff Bow Valley Task Force.

Coopen and Lybrand Consulting. 1995b. A Review of the Govemance Model of the Banff-Bow Valley: Phase 2A. Prepared for the Banff Bow Valley Task Force.

Corbett, Bill. 1990. "Free at last: The town of Banff gains independence." Canadian Geographic. FeblMar. 32-39.

Corn, M. Lynne. 1994. "Yellowstone: A Brief History of Management." Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential. Summary of a workshop convened by the Congressional Research Service. March 24 and 25, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 159-161.

Cortner, Hanna J. 1994. "Trends and Issues in Land and Water Resources Management: Setting the Agenda for Change." Environmental Management. Vol. 18, NO. 2. 167-173.

- - --

1 Other authors are Ann M. Bartuska, James H. Brown, Stephen Carpenter, Caria D'Antonio, Robert Francis, Jerry F. Franklin, James A. MacMahon, Reed F. Noss, David J. Parsons, Charles H. Peterson, Monica G. Turner, and Robert G. Woodmansee.

References 13-5

Costanza, Robert, and Jack Greer. 1995. ''The Chesapeake Bay and Its Watershed: A Model for Sustainable Ecosystem Management?" Barners and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Eds. Lance H. Gunderson. C.S. Holling, and Stephen S. Light. New York: Columbia University Press. 169-21 3.

Costanza, Robert. Bryan G. Norton and Benjamin D. Haskell (Eds.). 1992. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Washington . DC: Island Press.

Costanza, Robert. 1992. "Toward an Operational Definition of Ecosystem Health." Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Eds . R. Costanza, B.G. Norton and B.D. Haskell. Washington, DC: Island Press. 239-256.

CPS - see Canadian Parks Service

Craig , G. 1986. "Peregrine falcon." Audubon Wildlife Report, 1986. Edited by R.L. DiSilvestro. New York, NY: The National Audubon Society. 806-824.

Crance. Colin. and Dianne Draper. 1996. "Socially Cooperative Choices: An Approach to Achieving Resource Sustainability in the Coastal Zone." Environmental Management. Vol. 20, No. 2. 175-1 84.

Dearden, Philip and Rick Rollins (Eds.). 1993. Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Dearden, P hilip. 1 991 . "Parks and Protected Areas." Resource Management and Development. Ed. Bruce Mitchell. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 130- 152.

Disinger, John F. and Charles E. Roth. 1996. "Environmental Literacy." Connections. Vol 20, No. 3, Spring. 6-7.

Dodge, D.P. and R.M. Biette. 1992. "River Protection in Ontario. Canada: A Case for Holistic Catchment Management." River Conservation and Management. P.J. Boon, P. Callow and G.E. Petts. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 443-451.

Dombeck, Michael. 1996. "Thinking Like A Mountain: BLMts Approach to Ecosystem Management." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 699-702.

Doppelt, Bob. Mary Scurlock. Chris FrisseIl, James Karr. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Save America 3 River Ecosystems. Washington, DC: The Pacific Rivers Council, Inc.

Re ferences 73-6

Doucette, Joeseph E. and David N. Cole. 1993. Wildemess Visifor Education: Information About Alternative Techniques. Ogden, UT : US. Forest Service general technical report INT-295.

Dovetail Consultants and John Talbot and Associates Inc. 1995. Navigating for Sustainability: A Guide for Local Govemment Decision-Makers. Prepared for the Fraser Basin Management Program.

Dovetail Consultants. 1995. Community Stewardship: A Guide to Establishing Your Own Group. Prepared for the Fraser Basin Management Program and others.

Drysdale. Cliff. 1997. "Ecological Research and Monitoring in Kejimkujik National Park: From Theory to Practice." Paperpresented at the Science and Management of Protected Areas (SA MPA 111) Conference. May 1 2-1 6. 1 997, Calgary, AB. .

Eagles. Paul F. J. 1993. "Parks Legislation in Canada." Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. Eds. Philip Dearden and Rick Rollins. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 57-74.

Ecosystem Management Task Force. 1992. Toward Sustainable Ecosystems: A Canadian Parks Service strategy fo enhance ecological integnty. Prepared for Environment Canada, Parks Service, Western Reg ion.

Editorial. 1996. "1s the Natural Resource Discipline Flourishing?" Park Science. Vol 16(1). 24-28.

Editorial. 1 997. "Too many questions surround costly club." Richmond Review 26 Mar. 1997.

Ehrenfeld, David. 1991. "The Management of Diversity: A Conservation Paradox." Ecology, Economics, Ethics: The Broken Circle. Eds. Herbert F . Bormann and Stephen R. Kellert. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 26- 39.

Ehrenfeld, David. 1 992. "Ecosystem Health and Ecolog ical Theories." Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Eds. R. Costanza, B.G. Norton and B.D. Haskell. Washington, DC: Island Press. 135- 143.

Ehrlich, A.H. and E. R. Ehrlich. 1 981. Extinction: The Causes and Consequenees of the Disappearance of Species. New York, NY: Random House.

Re ferences 73- 7

Eidsvik, Hal. 1993. "Canada, Conservation and Protected Areas: The International Context." Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. Eds. Philip Dearden and Rick Rollins. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 273-290.

Ellis. Cathy. 1997. 'Residents want end to commercial growth." Calgav Herald. Friday. 19 Dec. C7.

Environment Canada. 1993. The Nature of Canada: A Frimer on Spaces and Species. The Environmental Citizenship Series. Ottawa, ON: Supply and Services Canada.

Fellmann, Jerome, Arthur Getis and Judith Getis. 1990. Human Geography: Landscapes of Human Activities. 3rd Ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publist~ers.

"Field Unit Superintendents in Western Canada." Research Links, Vol. 5 , No. 2 (Fall 1997). Parks Canada. Western Canada. 9.

Fink, Arlene. 1995a. How to Analyze Suwey Data. The Survey Kit, Vol. 8. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.

Fink. Arlene. 1995b. How to Ask Survey Questions. The Survey Kit. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fink. Arlene. 199%. How to Design Surveys. The Survey Kit, Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.

Fink, Arlene. 19954. How to Report on Surveys. The Survey Kit, Vol. 9. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fink, Arlene. 1995e. How to Sample in Surveys. The Survey Kit, Vol. 6. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.

Fink. Arlene. 1995f. The Survey Handbook. The Survey Kit. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Forman. R.T. and M.G. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Francis, George R. and Henry A. Regier. 1995. "Barriers and Bridges to the Restoration of the Great Lakes." Banfers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Eds. Lance H . Gunderson, CS. Holling. and Stephen S. Light. New York: Columbia University Press. 239-291.

References 7 3-8

Franklin. I.R. 1980. "Evolutionary Change in Small Populations." Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Ed S. M. E. Soulé and B.A. Wilcox. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 1 3549.

Franklin, Je rry et al. 1 98 1 . Ecological Characteristics of Old-Gmwth Douglas-fir Forests. Portland: U.S. Forest Service general technical report PNW-118.

Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). 1993a. Profile 7 - The Fraser Basin: Heartland and Lifeblood.

Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). 1993b. Profile 2 - The Fraser Basin: lts People and Productivity.

Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). 1994. 2nd Anniversary Report. May 26.

Fraser Basin Management Prograrn (FBMP). 1996a. BasinPlan Workbook.

Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). 1996b. Board Report Card.

Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). 1996~. currentNEWS - December.

Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). 19964. curenfNEWS - Spring.

Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). 1996e. Fraser Basin Management Program Home Page (http://www. fraserbasin. bc. c@. Octo ber 9.

Frey, James H. and Sabine Mertens Oishi. 1995. How to Conduct lnterviews by Telephone and ln Person. The Survey Kit, Vol. 4. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

GAO - see General Accounting Offce

Gauthier, David A. 1991. "The Sustainability of Wildlife." Resource Management and Developmenf. Ed. Bruce Mitchell. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 1 10-1 29.

General Accounting Office. 1 994. Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Prornising Approach. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office. GAOIRCED-94-111.

Gibbs, W. Wayt. 1 994. "Software's Chronic Crisis." Scientific Amencan. September. 86-95.

Gigliotti, Larry M. 1994. "Envrionrnental Issues: Cornell Students' Willingness to Take Action, 1 990." Journal of Environmental Education. Vol. 26, No. 1 . 34-42.

References 13-9

GME - see Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia

Goldhaber, Gerald and Donald P. Rogers. 1979. Auditing Organizational Communication Systems: The ICA Communication Audit. Du buque, IA : KendalVHunt Publishing Company.

Goldstein, Bruce. 1992. "Roundtable: The struggle over ecosystem management at Yellowstone." BioScience. Vol. 42(3). 183-1 87.

Golledge, Reginald G. and Robert J. Stimson. 1987. Analytical Behavioural Geography. Beckenham. Kent, UK: Croom Helm Ltd.

Goodman, Sherri W. 1996. "Ecosystem Management at the Department of Defense." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 706-707.

GORP - see Great Outdoor Recreation Pages

Government of Canada. 1988. An Act to Amend the National Parks Act. R.S., c.N-13, s.1.

Government of Canada. 1 990. Canada's Green Plan: Canada's Green Plan for a healthy environment. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Supply and Services.

Government of Canada. 1 992. Canadian Environmental Assessrnent Act. Statutes of Canada, Chapter 37.

Graefe, A.R., F.R. Kuss. and J.J. Vaske. 1990. Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research, Vols 7 and 2. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.

Great Outdoor Recreation Pages. 1997. "Acadia National Park." h ttp://çvww. gorp. com/gorp/resource/US_Nationa~ ParWme-acadi. HTM. October 21.

Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 1992. "Mintzmeyer Addresses Greater Yellowstone Coalition." lnside Greater Yellowstone. Greater Yellowstone Coalition . 9.

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Cornmittee. 1990. Vision for the Future: A Framework for Coordination in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Draft). United States Forest Service and National Park Sewice.

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. 1991. A Framework for Coordination of National Parks and National Forests in the Greafer Yellowstone Area. United States Forest Service and National Park Service.

References 13-10

Gresswell, Robert E. and William J. Liss. 1995. "Values Associated with the Management of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Yellowstone National Park." Conservation Biology. Vol. 9. No. 1 (February). 1 59-1 65.

Griffis, Roger B., and Katharine W. Kimball. 1996. "Ecosystem Approaches to Coastal and Ocean Stewardship." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 708-71 2.

Grolier Multmedia Encyclopedia (GME). 1 995. "Entry: Acadia National Park." . Grol ier Incorporated.

Grumbine, R-Edward. 1988. ''The university of the wilderness." Journal of Environmental Education. Vol. 1 9(4). 3-7.

Grumbine, R. Edward. 1990. "Viable Populations, Reserve Size. and Federal Lands Management: A Critique." Consewation Biology. Vo1.4, No.2. 127-1 34.

Grurnbine, R. Edward. 1992. Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Cnsis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Grumbine, R. Edward. 1994a. "What is ecosystem management?" Conservation Biology. Vo1.8, No. 1, March. 27-38.

Grurn bine, R. Edward. 1 994b. "Wildness, Wise Use, and Sustainable Development." Environmental Ethics. Vol. l6(3) Fall. 227-249.

Grumbine, R. Edward (Ed.). 1994c. Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Grurnbine, R. Edward. 1996. "Ecosystern Managament: Evolving Concepts. Emerging Practices." Workshop at Camp Chief Hector, AB, Feb. 27 to 29, 7996.

Grumbine, R. Edward. 1997. "Reflections on 'What is Ecosystem Management?"' Conservation Biology. Vol. 1 l(1). 41 -47.

Gunderson, Lance H., CS. Holling and Stephen S. Light (eds.). 1995a. BaMers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gunderson, Lance H., CS. Holling and Stephen S. Light. 1995b. "Barriers Broken and Bridges Built: A Synthesis." Bamers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Eds. Lance H . Gunderson, C .S. Holling . and Stephen S. Light. New York: Columbia University Press. 489-532.

GYC - see Greater Yellowstone Coalition

GYCC - see Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Cornmittee

Haeuber, Richard and Jerry Franklin. 1996. "Perspectives on Ecosystern Management." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 692-693.

Haire, Michael. 1994. "Chesapeake Bay: Lessons from Maryland." Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential. Summary of a workshop convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 25, 1 994. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. 185-1 87.

Hamilton, Seymour. 1987. A Communication Audit Handbook: Helping Organizations Communicate. London, UK: Pitman Publishing.

Hanson, Lorelei. 1995. "Turning Rivals into Allies: Understanding the Wise Use Movement." Alternatives. Vol. 2 1 (3). 26-3 1 .

Harkin, James Bernard. 1957. The Histofy and Meaning of the National Parks of Canada. Compiled by Mabel B. Williams. Saskatoon, SA: H.R. Larsen Publishing Company.

Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragemented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. Chicago, I L: University of Chicago Press.

Haskell. B.D., B.G. Norton and R. Costanza. 1992. "Introduction: What is Ecosystem Health and Why S hould We Worry About It?" Ecosysfem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Eds. R. Costanza, B.G. Norton and B.D. Haskell. Washington, DC: Island Press. 3-20.

Haufler, Jonathan B., Carolyn A. Mehl, and Gary J. Roloff. 1996. "Using a coarse-filter approach with species assessrnent for ecosystem management." Wildlife Society Bulletin. Vol. 24(2). 200-208.

Henderson, Gavin. 1994. "James Bernard Harkin: The Father of Canadian National Parks." Borealis. Vol. 5(2), Issue 16. 28-30, 32-33.

Heritage Tourism Working Grou p. 1997. The Banf7 Bo w Valley Hentage Tourism Strategy. Coordinated by Bob Sandford. Draft Six, February 18.

Heron Promaine, Robin. 1997. "Applying Ecosystem Management Principles to Public Education: A Case Study of Pukaskwa National Park, Ontario.'' Paper presented at the Science and Management of Protected Areas (SAMPA 111) Conference. May 12-1 6 , 1997, Calgary, AB.

Herrero, Stephen. 1985. Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. Edmonton. AB: Hurtig Publishers.

References 73-12

Herrero. Stephen, David Poll, Mike Gibeau, John Kansas, Barry Worbets. In press. The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project: Origins, Organization and Direction." Proceedings of the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA), Anjual Meeting. Calgary, November, 1995.

Hodgins, Doug, Gail Harrison and Paul Griss. 1995. Review of Management Frameworù. Prepared for the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force.

Hodgins, Doug. 1997. "Changes in Parks Canada: What is an Ecosystem Secretariat?" Research Links. Vol. 5(2). 8.

Holling, C.S. (Ed. ) . 1978. Adaptive Environmental Management. New York. NY: John WiIey and Sons.

Holling, C.S. 1995. "What Barriers? What Bridges?" Bamers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Eds. Lance H . Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and Stephen S. Light. New York: Columbia University Press. 3-34.

Holling. C.S. 1996. "Surprise for Science, Resilience for Ecosystems, and l ncentives for People." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 733-735.

Holling. C.S. and Gary K. Meffe. 1996. "Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management." Conservation Biology. Vol. 1 O(2). 328-337.

Hornig Priest. Susanna. 1 995. "Information Equity, Public U nderstanding of Science, and the Biotechnology Debate." Journal of Communication. Vol. 45(1). 39-54.

Houston. Douglas B. 1971. "Ecosystems of National Parks." Science. Vol. 172. 648-651.

Huff, D. 1995. "Ecosystem management: Panacea or panic button?" Sustainable Society and Protected Areas. Ed. R. Linn. Hancock, MI: The George Wright Society. 93-97.

Hummel, Monte (Ed.). 1989. Endangered Spaces: The Future for Canada's Wildemess. Toronto, ON: Key Porter Books.

Hummel, Monte (Ed.). 1 995b. Protecting Canada's Endangered Spaces: An Owner's Manual. Toronto, ON: Key Porter Books.

Hummel, Monte. 1995a. "Business, Economics, and the Wise-Use Movement." Protecting Canada's Endangered Spaces: An Owner's Manual. Ed. Monte Hummel. Toronto, ON: Key Porter Books. 27-33.

References 13-13

Hyman. Jeffrey B. and Kris Wernstedt. 1995. "A Value-lnformed Framework for lnterdisciplinary Analysis: Application to Recovery Planning for Snake River Salmon." Conservation Biology. Vol. 9, No. 3 (June). 625-635.

lacobelii, Tony, Kevin Kavanagh and Stan Rowe. 1994. A Protected Areas Gap Analysis Methodology: Planning for the Consemation of Biodiversity . Toronto, ON: World Wildlife Fund.

lAP3. 1 994. "Con fer ence Hig hlig hts." Conference of the lntemational Association of Public Participation Practitioners. Washington, DC. Sept. 1 1-1 4, 1994. From notes taken by Judy Otton.

Jacobson, Susan K. (Ed.). 1995. Conserving Wildlie: lntemational Education and Communication Approaches. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Johns. David and M.E. Soulé. 1995. "Getting from Here to There: An Outline of the Wildlands Reserve Design Process." Wild Earth. Winter. 32-36.

Johnson, Jerry D. and David J. Snepenger. 1993. "Application of the Tourism Life Cycle Concept in the Greater Yellowstone Region." Society and Natural Resources. Vol. 6(2). 127-148.

Karr, James R. 1992. "Ecological Integrity: Protecting Earth's Life Support Systems." Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Eds. R. Costanza. B.G. Norton and B.D. Haskell. Washington, DC: Island Press. 223-238.

Kavanagh, Kevin, Reed Noss, and Tony lacobelli. 1995. "Building the Ark: The Science Behind the Selection of Protected Areas." Protecting Canada's Endangered Spaces: An Ownefs Manual. Ed. Monte Hummel. Toronto, ON: Key Porter Books Limited.

Kay, Charles E.. Brian Patton and Cliff A. White. 1994. Assessrnent of Long-tem Terrestrial Ecosystem States and Processes in Banff National Park. 2 volumes. Prepared for Banff National Park.

Kay, James J. 1993. "On the Nature of Ecological Integrity: Some Closing Corn ments ." Ecological lntegrity and the Management of Ecosystems. Eds. Stephen Woodley, James Kay and George Francis. Waterloo, ON: St. Lucie Press. 201-212.

Kay, James J., and Eric Schneider. 1994. "Embracing Complexity: The Challenge of the Ecosystem Approach." Alternatives. Vo1.20, No.3. 32-39.

References 13-74

Keiter, Robert B. 1996. "Toward Legitimizing Ecosystem Management on the Public Domain." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 727-730.

Keiter, Robert B. and Mark S. Boyce. 1991. "Greater Yellowstone's Future: Ecosystem Management in a Wildemess Environment." The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America 's Wildemess Heritage. Ed S.

Robert B. Keiter and Mark S. Boyce. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 149-1 62.

Kellert, Stephen R. 1996. The Value of M e : Biological Diversify and Human Society. Washington, DC: Island Press / Shearwater Books. .

Keystone Center. 1991. "Final Consensus Report of the Keystone Policy Dialogue on Biological Diversity on Federal Lands." Keystone, CO.

Kim, Min-Sun, and John E. Hunter. 1993. "Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Meta- Analysis of Attitudinal Relevance and Topic." Joumal of Communication. Vol. 43(1). 101-142.

King, Anthony W. 1993. "Considerations of Scale and Hierarchy." Ecological lntegrity and the Management of Ecosystems. Eds. Stephen Woodley, James Kay and George Francis. Waterloo, ON: St. Lucie Press. 19-45.

Komex International Ltd. 1995. Atlas of the Centrai Rockies Ecosystem: Towards an Ecologically Sustainable Landscape. Prepared for the Central Rockies Ecosystern lnteragency Liaison Group (CREILG).

Lacy, Robert. 1992. "The effect of inbreeding on isolated populations: are minimum viable populations predicatable?" Conservation Biology: the theov and practice of nature consemation, preservation and management. Eds. Peggy L. Fiedler and Subodh K. Jain. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall. 277- 296.

Langner, Linda L. and Curtis H. Flather. 1994. Biological Diversity: Status and Trends in the United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service. GTM RM- 244.

Leeming, Frank C., William O. Dwyer, and Bruce A. Bracken. 1995. "Children's Environmental Attitude and Knowledge Scale: Construction and Validation." Journal of Environmental Education. Vol. 26, No.3. 22-3 1.

Lélé, S. and R.B. Norgaard. 1996. "Sustainability and the Scientist's Burden." Conservation Biology. Vol. 1 0. 354-365.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand Counfy Almanac (And Sketches Here and There). New York: Oxford Univeristy Press.

References 13-15

Lesly. E. 1991. "Focus on 'Vision' papers." Montana Standard. Butte, MT. October 4.

Lichtman, Pamela and Tim W. Clark. 1994. "Rethinking the 'Vision' Exercise in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystern ." Society and Natural Resources. Vol. 7(5). 459-478.

Litwin, Mark S. 1995. How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. The Survey Kit, Vol. 7. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lothian, W. F. 1976. A History of Canada's national parks. Ottawa : P a r k Canada.

Lovelock, James E. 1987. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lovelock, James E. 1991. "Geophysiology - The Science of Gaia." Scientists on Gaia. Eds. Stephen Schneider and Penelope Boston. Cambridge. MA: The MIT Press. 3-1 O.

Lovelock, James E. 1988. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

MacArthur. RH. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of lsland Biogeography. Princeton. N J: Princeton University Press.

Machlis, Gary E., Deborah J. Forester and J.E. McKendry. 1994. "Gap Analysis and National Parks: Adding the Socioeconomic Dimension." Park Science. Vol 14(1). 6-7.10.

Maguire. Lynn A. 1994. "Science, Values and Uncertainty: A Critique of the Wildlands Project." Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Ed. R. Edward Grumbine. Washington. DC: Island Press. 267-272.

Maguire. Lynn A. 1996. "Making the Role of Values in Conservation Explicit: Values and Conservation Biology." Conservation Biology. Special Section on "Conservation Biology, Values and Advocacy." Vol. 1 Op). 914-91 6.

Mangel. Marc et al. 1996. "FORUM: Principles for the Conservation of Wild Living Resources." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(2). 338-362.

Mann, Peter H. 1985. Methods of Social Investigation. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Re ferences 73-76

Marty. Sid. 1 984. A Grand and Fabulous Notion: The first century of Canada's paks. Toronto, ON: NC Press.

McCoy, Earle D. 1996. "Advocacy as Part of Conservation Biology." Conservation Biology. Special Section on "Conservation Biology. Values and Advocacy." Vol. 1 O(3). 91 9-920.

Mclntosh, Robert P. 1980. "The Relationship between Succession and Recovery Process in Ecosystems." The Recovery Process in Damaged Ecosystems. Ed. 3 . Cairns. Ann Arbor MI: Ann Arbor Science. 11-62.

McNamee. Kevin. 1993. "From Wild Places to Endangered Spaces: A History of Canada's National Parks." Pa& and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management Eds. Philip Dearden and Rick Rollins. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 17-44.

Meine, Curt and Gery K. Meffe. 1996. "Conservation Values, Conservation Science: A Healthy Tension." Conservation Biology. Special Section on "Conservation Biology, Values and Advocacy." Vol. 1 O(3). 91 6-91 7.

Meredith, Thomas. 1991. "Environmental Impact Assessrnent and Monitoring." Resource Managemenf and Development. Ed. Bruce Mitchell. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 224-245.

Michael. Donald N. 1995. "Barriers and Bridges to Learning in a Turbulent Human Ecology." Bamers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Eds. Lance H. Gunderson. C.S. Holling. and Stephen S. Light. New York: Columbia University Press. 461 -485.

Miller. D. 1992. "The Icarus paradox: how exceptional companies bring their own downfall." Business Horizons. Jan ./Feb. 24-35.

Mitchell, Bruce (ed.). 1991. R ~ S O U ~ C ~ Management and Development. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Montgomery, David R. 1995. "lnput- and Output-Oriented Approaches to lmplementing Ecosystem Management." Environmental Management. Vol. 1 9. NO. 2. 183-188.

More, Thomas A. 1996. "Forestry's Fuzzy Concepts: An Examination of Ecosystem Management." Journal of Forestry. Vol. 94(8). 1 9-23.

Morford, Mark P.O. and Robert J. Lenardon. 1985. Classical Mythology. 3rd Ed. New York. NY: Longman Inc.

References 13-1 7

Morrissey, Wayne A. 1996. "Science Policy and Federal Ecosystem-Based Managament." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 71 7-720.

Mount, John R. 1996. "Southern California Edison: lncorporating Social Values into Forest Management." Journal of Forestry. Vol. 94(2). 21 -23.

Mugica. Marta and Jose Vincente De Lucio. 1996. "The Role of On-Site Experience on Landscape Preferences. A Case Study at Donana National Park (Spain)." Joumal of Environmental Management. Vol. 47(3). 229-239.

Mullins, Gary W. and Gregg Peine. 1987. lnterpreting Man and the Bioshpere Concepts in US. Nafional Parks. Washington. DC: U.S. National Parks Service.

Murray, Carol. 1997. "'And then we got reliable science and they threw it out the door!': Mediating Environmental Confiict in Jasper National Park." Paper presented at the Science and Management of Protected Areas (SA MPA 111) Conference. Calgary, AB, May 12-1 6, 1 997.

Myers, Norman. 1991. "Biological Diversity and Global Security." Ecology, Economics, Ethics: The Broken Circle. Eds. Herbert F. Bormann and Stephen R. Kellert. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 11-25.

Napier, Ted. 1994. "The Potential for Public-Private Partnerships in Ecosystern Management." Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential. Summary of a workshop convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 25, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 243-249.

Nash, Roderick. 1969. "Wilderness and Man in North Arnerica." The Canadian National Parks: Today and Tomorrow. Eds. J.G. Nelson and R.C. ScaceUniversity of Calgary PressCalgary, AB . .

Nash. Roderick. 1994. "Historical and Philosophical Considerations of Ecosystem Management." Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential. Summary of a workshop convened by the Congressional Research Semice, March 24 and 25, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 25- 32.

Nelson, J.G. 1993. "Beyond Parks and Protected Areas: From Public Lands and Private Stewardship to Landscape Planning and Management." Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. Eds. Philip Dearden and Rick Rollins. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 45-56.

Nepstad, Elaine and Per Nilsen. 1993. Towards a Better Understanding of HumanEn vironment Relationships in Canadian National Parks. Occas iona l Paper No. 5. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Parks Service.

References 73-78

Newman, Peter C. 1995. The Canadian Revolution, 1985 - 7995: from deference to defiance. Toronto: Viking.

Newmark. William D. 1985. "Legal and Biotic Boundaries of Western North American National Parks: A Problem of Congruence." Biological Conservation. V01.33. 197-208.

Norton, Bryan G. 1992. "A New Paradigm for Environmental Management." Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Eds. R. Costanza. B.G. Norton and B.D. Haskell. Washington, DC: Island Press. 2341.

Noss, Reed F. 1992. "The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy." Wild Earth. Special Issue. 10-25.

Noss. Reed F. 1996. "Conservation Biology, Values and Advocacy." Conservation Biology. Vol. 1 O(3). 904.

Noss. Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider (Eds.). 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd Ed. W.B. Philadelphia: Saunders Company.

Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power, and Society. New York: Wiley- Interscience.

Orr, David W. 1989. "Ecolog ical Literacy." Conservation Biology. 3(4). 334-335.

Orr, David W. 1996. "Slow Knowledge." Conservation Biology. Vol. 1 O(3). 699-

Oxford English Dictionary (Compact Edition). 1 987. Corn plete Text Reproduced Micrograp hically. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 26th printing .

Paine, R.T. 1995. "A Conversation on Refining the Concept of Keystone Species." Conservation Biology. Vol. 9, No. 4 (Aug ust). 962-964.

Paquet, Paul and Arlin Hackman. 1995. Large Carnivore Conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Toronto: World Wildlife Fund.

Parks and People Task Force. 1990. Final Report of the Parks and People Task Force. Prepared for the Canadian Parks Service, Western Region.

Parks Canada. 1994a. Four Mountain Parks Five Year Plan Update. Calgary. AB: Department of Canadian Heritage.

References 13- 19

Parùs Canada. 1 994b. Four Mountain Parks Five Year Plan Update: Summary of Public lnvolvement and Parks Canada's Comments. Prepared by Praxis Inc. for Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada. 1994c. Guiding Pnnciples and Operational Policies. Ottawa. ON: Departrnent of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada. 1994d. One Piece of the Puzzle. Calgary, AB: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada. 1995. Parks Canada Nafional Business Plan: lWVI996 - 1999/2000. Ottawa, ON: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada. 1996. Parks Canda's Mandate for Change. Ottawa, ON: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada. 1997a. Banff National Park Management Plan 7997. Ottawa. ON: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Parks Canada. 1 997b. Parks Canada Agency Progress Repod, July 7997. Ottawa, ON: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Patten, Duncan T. 1991. "Defining the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem." The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Eds. Robert B. Keiter and Mark S. Boyce. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 19-26.

Pauley, Glenn H. 1 996. Landowners' attitudes toward the use of conservation easements to preserve wildlife habitat and agricultural land. Thesis (M . E . Des.) - University of Calgary.

Payne, R.J. and R. Graham. 1993. "Visitor Planning and Management in Parks and Protected Areas." Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. Eds. Philip Dearden and Rick Rollins. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 185-210.

Perry, David A. 1993. "Biodiversity and Wildlife Are Not Synonyrnous." Conservation Biology. Vol. 7 , No. 1 (March). 204-205.

Prescott-Allen, C. and R. Prescott-Allen. 1 986. The First Resource. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Prescott-Allen, R. and C. Prescott-Allen. 1983. Genes fmm the Wild. London, UK: Earthscan.

References 13-20

Rapport, D. J, H.A. Regier and T.C. Hutchinson. 1985. "Ecosystem behaviour under stress ." American Naturalist. 1 25. 6 1 7-640.

Rasker. R., N. Tirrell, and D. Kloepfer. 1992. The wealth of nature: New economic realities in the Yellowstone region. Washington, DC: The Wilderness Society.

Rasker, Raymond. 1993. "Rural Development. Conservation, and Public Policy in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem." Society and Natural Resources. Vol. 6(2). 109-1 26.

Read, Ken. 1994. "Banff Park: Developers are not out to pave paradise." Calgary Herald. Wednesday, July 20, 1994. A5.

Reading, Richard P. and Stephen R. Kellert. 1993. "Attitudes toward a Proposed Reintroduction of Black-Footed Ferrets (Mustela nigripes)." Conservation Biology. Vol. 7 , No. 3 (September). 569-580.

Reading, Richard P., Tim W. Clark, and Stephen R. Kellert. 1994. "Attitudes and Knowledge of People Living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem." Society and Natural Resources. Vol. 7(4). 349-365.

Reckhow, Kenneth H. 1994. "Importance of Scientific Uncertainty in Decision Making." Environmental Management. Vol. 18, No. 2. 161 -1 66.

Redelsheimer, Carol L. 1996. "Enhancing Forest Management through Public Involvement: An Industrial Landowner's Experience." Journal of Forestry. Vol. 94(5). 24-27.

Reese, R. 1984. "Greater Yellowstone, the national park and adjacent wildlands." Montana Geographic. Helena.

Regier. Henry A. 1993. "The Notion of Natural and Cultural Integrity." Ecological lntegrity and the Management of Ecosystems. Eds. Stephen Woodley, James Kay and George Francis. Waterloo. ON: St. Lucie Press. 3-1 8.

Risser. Paul G. 1995. "Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function." Conservation Biology. Vol. 9, No. 4 (August). 742-746.

Ritchie, J.R. Brent, Eva Katic, and Bev Darbyshire. 1995a. Banff Tourism Indusfy Survey. Prepared for the Banff-Bow Valey Study Task Force. Banff, AB. In progress.

Ritchie, J.R. Brent, Eva Katic, and Bev Darbyshire. 1995b. National Tour Associafion Survey. Prepared for the Banff-Bow Valey Study Task Force. Banff, AB. In progress.

References 13-2 1

Roberts, Richard and Nancy Marshall. 1995. "'Overload' in Public Involvement." lnteract: The Journal of Public Participation. Vol. l(1). 53-63.

Robson, Colin. 1993. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers . Blackwell PublishersOxford, UK.

Rodda, Gordon H. 1993. "How to Lie with Biodiversity." Conservation Biology. Vol. 7, No. 4 (Decernber). 959-960.

Roe, Ernery. 1996. 'Why Ecosystem Management Can't Work Without Social Science: An Example from the California Northern Spotted Owl Controveny." Environmental Management. Vol. 20(5). 667-674.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W. and Deborah L. Berrier. 1982. "A cornparison of the effectiveness of two communication strategies in dispersing wilderness campers." Joumal of Leisure Research. Vol. 14. 77-89.

Rosch, E. 1978. "Principles of Categorization." Cognition and categonzation. Eds. E. Rosch and B. Lloyd. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 27- 48.

Ruthnum, Harry A. 1 996. Canadian Hentage - Parks Canada: Preserving Canada's Natural Hentage. Report of the Auditor General. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.

Saferstein, Barry. 1 994. "lnterpretation Activities and Public Opinion Processes." Critical Studies in Mass Communication. Vol. 1 1 (3). 298-3 14.

Sandford, R.W. 1995. lmproving lntemal and Extemal Warden Service Effectiveness. Prepared for Parks Canada, Alberta Reg ion.

Sandford, R.W. 1997. "Heritage Tourism Working Group Progress Summary." 15 December. 6 pp.

Santos, Susan L. 1990. "Developing a Risk Communication Strategy." Journal of the Amencan Water Works Association (A WWA). November. 45-49.

Schullery, Paul. 1992. "Editorial: Welcome to Yellowstone Science." Yellowstone Science. Yellowstone National Park Vol. l(1). i.

Schullery, Paul. 1994. "The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem." lnterior West - Our Living Resources. 31 2-31 4.

References 13-22

Schwartz, Paul. 1994. "Pennsylvania Agriculture and the Chesapeake Bay Program: Ecosystem Management or Good Old Self Interest?" Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential. Summary of a workshop convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 25. 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Govemment Printing Office. 189-1 92.

Science and Protection Task Force. 1990. Report of the Science and Protection Task Force. Prepared for the Canadian Parks Service, Western Region.

Sedjo. Roger A. 1996. "Toward an Operational Approach to Public Forest Management." Journal of Forestry. Vol. 94(8). 24-27.

Select Standing Cornmittee on Aboriginal Affairs. 1997. "Transcripts of Proceedings (H ansard) ." 7996 Legislative Session: 7 si Session, 36th Parliament. Government of British Columbia. 24 Feb. 1997.

Selin, Steve. and Deborah Chavez. 1995. "Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management." Environmental Management. Vol. 19, NO. 2. 189-1 95.

Senate - see Standing Senate Cornmittee on Energy, the Environment. and Natural Resources

Servheen, Christopher. 1994. "Ecosystem Management in the Yellowstone Ecosystem: The Grizzly Bear as a Lead Species." Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential. Summary of a workshop convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 25, 1994. Washington, DC: U S . Government Printing Office. 163-1 68.

Shaffer. M. 1981. "Minimum population sizes for species conservation." BioScience. Vo1.31. 131 -34.

Shaffer, M. 1987. "Minimum Viable Population: Coping with Uncertainty." Viable Populations for Conservation. Ed. M. E . Soulé. Cambridge, U. K: Cambridge University Press.

Shelton, Napier, Robert Miller, Karen Ballentine and V. Gary Henry. 1994. "Public Education Pays Off At Great Smokies In Smooth Sailing For Red Wolf Release." Park Science. Vol 14(3). 1 8-1 9.

Shindler, Bruce, Brent Steel, and Peter List. 1996. "Public Judgements of Adaptive Management: A Response From Forest Comrnunities." Journal of Forestry. Vol. 94(6). 4-1 2.

References 13-23

Shovlin, Ma jorie G. and Sandra S. Tanaka. 1990. "Risk Communication in Los Angeles: A Case Study." Journal of the Amencan Water Works Association (AWWA). November. 40-44.

Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 1996. Throwing out the Bathwater of Positivism, Keeping the Baby of Objectivity: Relativism and Advocacy in Conservation Biology." Conservation Biology. Special Section on "Conservation Biology, Values and Advocacy." Vol. 1 O@). 91 2-914.

Soulé, M.E. 1980. Thresholds for Survival: Maintaining Fitness and Evolutionary Potential." Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Eds. M.E. Soulé and B.A. Wilcox. Sunderland. MA: Sinauer Associates. 1 51 -69.

Soulé, M.E. 1 987. Viable Population for Conservation. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge Univesity Press.

Soulé, M.E. 1 992. "Foreword." Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis. By R. Edward Grumbine. Washington, DC: Island Press. xi-xvi.

Soulé, Michael. 1994. "What is Conservation Biology?" Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Ed. R. Edward Grurnbine Washington, DC: Island Press. 35-53.

Staats, H.J., A.P. Wit and C.Y.H. Midden. 1996. "Communicating the Greenhouse Effect to the Public: Evaluation of a Mass Media Campaign from a Social Dilemma Perspective." Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 46(2). 189-203.

Standing Senate Cornmittee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources. 1996. Protecting Places and People: Conserving Canada's Natural Heritage. Ottawa. ON: The Senate of Canada.

Stankey. G.H., D.N. Cole, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Petersen. and S.S. Frissell. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Sysfem for Wildemess Planning. lntermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden. UT: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Stanley, Thomas R. Jr. 1995. "Ecosystem Management and the Arrogance of Humanism." Consemation Biology. Vol. 9, No. 2 (April). 255-262.

Stapleton, Richard. 1993a. "A Call to Action." National Parks. March/April. 37-40.

Stapleton, Richard. 1993b. "On the Western Front: Dispatches from the war with the Wise Use Movement." National Parks. JanIFeb. 32-36.

-- --

References 13-24

Steel, Brent S. 1996. "Thinking Globally and Acting Locally?: Environrnental Attitudes, Behavior and Activism." Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 47(1). 27-36.

Super, Paul E. 1995. Coonlinating a Resources Issues Field Seminar Senes: A Manual. Acadia National Park, ME, U.S.A.

Swanson. Ann P. 1994. "Chesapeake Bay: Managing An Ecosystem." Ecosystem Management: Status And Potential. Summary of a workshop convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 25, 1994. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Offce. 177-184.

Taiga Environmental. 1995a. "Review of Banff National Park's Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Proposal." Unpublished review for the Banff National Park Warden Service, Decernber 1995.

Taiga Environmental. 1995b. The Development of an Ecosystem Management Process for Banf f National Park. Prepared for the Banff National Park Warden Service and Faculty of Environrnental Design (EVDS 701.1 1), University of Calgary.

Tansley, Arthur G. 1935. "The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms." Ecology. 16. 284-307.

Task Force on Environmental Education. 'i99l. Reaching Beyond Regulafions - Communicat!on and lnterpretation as Keys to Environrnental Citizenship. Prepared for the Canadian Parks Service, Western Reg ion.

Taylor, Jonathan and Nina Burkardt. 1993. "Introduction: The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem - Biosphere Reserves and Economics." Society and Natural Resources. Vol. 6(2). 105-1 08.

TCW - see Transition Communications Workshop

The Advisory Group. 1995. Baseline Survey Results. Prepared for Environmental Education Section of Heritage Communications. Parks Canada. Western Reg ion.

Theberge, John B. 1 993. "Ecology . Conservation, and Protected Areas in Canada." Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. Eds. Philip Dearden and Rick Rollins. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. 137-1 53.

Tracy, C. Richard and Peter F. Brussard. 1996. "The Importance of Science in Conservation Biology." Conservation Biology. Special Section on "Conservation Biology, Values and Advocacy." Vol. 1 O(3). 91 8-91 9.

"Transition Communications Workshop." Minutes of a P a r k Canada Mountain Park workshop. Nakoda Lodge, June 11-12, 1997.

Tremblay, Marc-Adelard. 1982. "The Key Informant Technique: A Non- Ethnograp hic Application." Field Research: A Sourcebook and Field Manual. Ed. Robert G. Burgess. London, UK: George Allen and Unwin. 98-104.

Trombulak, Steve. Reed Noss. and Jim Strittholt. 1995. "Obstacles to lmplementing the Wildlands Project." Wild Earth. Winter. 84-89.

Truett. Joe. 1996. "Bison and Elk in the American Southwest: In Search of the Pristine." Environmental Management. Vol. 20, No. 2. 1 95-206.

Turner, R.O., and W.E. Rees. 1973. "A comparative study of parks policy in Canada and the United States." Nature Canada. 2(1). 31-36.

Valente. Thomas. 1993. "Diffusion of Innovations and Policy Decision-Making" Journal of Communication 43(1).

Van Tighem, Kevin. 1991. "Throlugh a Grizzly's Eyes: Ecosystem Thinking in a Fragmented World ." Environment Views. Summer. 5-1 2.

Van Tighem. Kevin. 1997. Coming West: A Natural Histov of Home. Canmore. AB: Altitude Publishing Canada Ltd.

Vance-Borland, Ken. Reed Noss, Jim Strittholt, Pam Frost, Carlos Carroll. Rick Nawa. 1995. "A Biodiversity Conservation Plan for the Klamath I Siskiyou Reg ion." Wild Earth. Winter I9W96. 52-59.

Varley, John D. and Paul Schullery. 1996. "Reaching the Real Public in the Public Involvement Process." George Wright Forum. Vol. 13(4). 68-75.

Varley. John. 1993a. "Research in Yellowstone." BioScience. Vol. 43(3). 3-4.

Varley, John. 1993b. "Saving the Parts: Why Yellowstone and the research it fosters matter so much." Yellowstone Science Forum. Summer. 1 3-1 6.

Wagner, Frederic H. 1996. "Principles for the Conservation of Wild Living Resources: Another Perspective." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(2). 365-367.

Walker, B.H. 1981. "1s succession a viable concept in African savanna ecosystems?" Forest Succession: Concepts and Applications. Eds. D.C. West, H.H. Shugart and D.B. Botkin. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 431447.

References 73-26

Walters, Carl. 1986. Adapiive Management of Renewable Resources. MacMillan Publishing Company. New York, NY

Watt, Melanie. 1 997. "Digest: New non-profit Bioshpere Institute." Encompass: Alberta's Magazine on the Environment. Vol. Z(1). 23.

Welcomme, R.L. 1992. "River conservation." River Conservation and Management. Eds. P.J. Boon, P. Callow and GE. Petts. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 453462.

Westley. Frances. 1995. "Goveming Design: The Management of Social Systems and Ecosystems Management." Baniers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and institutions. Eds. Lance H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and Stephen S. Lig ht. New York: Columbia University Press. 391 -427.

Whatley, Michael S. 1993. "lnterpreting Critical Natural Resource Issues in Canadian and United States National Park Service Areas (DRAFT)." Prepared as part of a CO-operative exchange between the US. and Canadian Park Services.

Whipple, Dan. 1991. "All sides fault final Vision' document." Casper Star Tribune. Sept. 12: A l , A1 0.

White, C.A., Tom Hurd, Michael L. Gibeau, lan R. Pengelly. and Charles Pacas. 1993. "Show-Down with the Evil Seven: Banff National Park Ecosystem Focus (1 994-1 998) ." Research Links. 1 (3) . 9.

White, Cliff A. 1993. Ecosystem Conservation Plan (Draft). Banff National Park.

White, Cliff. 1 985. Wildland Fires in Banff National Park, 7 880 - 7 980. Occasional Paper No. 3. Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada, Parks Canada.

White, Clifford A., Paul C. Paquet, and Helen D. Purves. 1992. "Nursing Humpty's syndrome." Ecological Restoration of National Parks. Ed. N . Lopoukhine. Proceedings of a symposium at the fourth annual conference of the Society for Ecological Resotration, Waterloo, ON. 31 -44.

Whittaker, R.H. 1960. 'Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California." Ecological Monographs. Vol. 30. 279-338.

Whittaker, R.H. 1972. "Evolution and measurement of species diversity." Taxon. V01.21. 231-251.

Whittaker, R.H. 1977. "Evolution of species diversity in land communities." Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 70. Eds. M.K. Hecht, E.C. Steere and B. Wallace. New York, NY: Plenum Press. 1-67.

Re ferences 13-2 7

Wiant. Harry V. Jr. 1995. "Ecosystem Management: Retreat from reality." Forest Fanner. Sep./Oct. 1995. 20-23.

Wilcove. David S. and Robert B. Blair. 1995. "The Ecosystem Management Bandwagon." Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 1 O(8). 345.

Wilcox, B. 1986. "Extinction Models and Conservation." Tree. Vol. 1 (2). 47.

Wilcox, 1. 1994. "Sustaining Wilderness. Panelist Presentation." Cinnabar Symposium, March 25. Museum of the Rockies. Bozeman. MT. Unpublished.

Wilson. €.O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson. E.O. 1988. "The current state of biological diversity." Biodiversity. Ed. E.O. Wilson. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 3-18.

Wilson. E.O. 1991. "Biodiversity. Prosperity. and Value." Ecology, Economics, Ethics: The Broken Circle. Eds. Herbert F . Bormann and Stephen R. Kellert. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press. 3-1 0.

Winter, Lois. 1993. "Bridging the Communication Gap: Linking Interpreters, Resource Managers, and Researchers." Park Science. Vol. 13(3). 9-1 0.

Wittgenstein, L. 1 958. Philosophical investigations. 3rd ed. Translated by G. Anscombe. New York. NY: MacMillan.

Woodley. Stephen. James Kay and George Francis (Eds.). 1993. Ecological lntegrity and the Management of Ecosystems. Waterloo, ON: St. Lucie Press.

Woodley. Step hen. 1 99 1 . Monitoring for Ecosystem lntegrity in Canadian National Parks. Heritage Resources Centre. University of Waterloo. Waterloo. ON.

World Wildlife Fund - World Wide Fund for Nature. 1991. The Impodance of Biological Diversity. New Haven, CT: Yale Press.

Wyant. James G., Richard A. Meganck, and Sam H. Ham. 1995. "A Planning and Decision-Making Framework for Ecological Restoration." Environmental Management. Vol. 19, No. 6. 789-796.

Yaffee. Steven L. 1996. "Ecosystem Management in Practice: The Importance of Human Institutions." Ecological Applications. Vol. 6(3). 724-727.

References 13-28

Zhu, Jian-Hua, James H. Watt, Leslie B. Snyder, Jiangtao Yan, and Yansong Jiang. 1993. "Public Issue Priority Formation: Media Agenda-Setting and Social Interaction." Journal of Communication 43(1).

Zinn, Jeffrey and M. Lynne Corn. 1994. "Executive Summary ." Ecosystem Management: Status and Potential. Summary of a workshop convened by the Congressional Research Service, March 24 and 25, 1994. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office. 1-14.

Re ferences 73-29

14. Personal communications

Lisa Casselman, Heritage Education Officer, Parks Canada, Alberta Regional Ofke (Dec. 9, 1996; Feb. 21, 1997)

Heather Dempsey. Communication Specialist, Ecosystem Secretariat. BNP (Oct. 8, 1996; Oct. 8. 1997)

Wendy Francis, Conservation Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (Feb. 4, 1997)

Steve ~er rero , Professor of Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Design; Chair, Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (Nov. 13, 1996)

Andre Kerkovius, Chair, Park User Sector, Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table (Jan. 30, 1997)

Mike Kerr, Communication Specialist, Ecosystem Secretariat. BNP (Oct. 8, 1996; Dec. 2, 1996; Apr. 30, 1997)

Bernie Lieff, Chief of Ecosystern Management, Parks Canada, Alberta Regional Office (Nov. 12, 1996; Feb. 18, 1997)

Sheila Luey, Manager, Executive and Media Services, BNP (Nov. 6, 1996; Feb. 11, 1997; Feb. 12, 1997)

Mike Mclvor, President, Bow Valley Naturalists; Chair, Environmentai (Local) Sector, Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table (Feb. 6, 1997)

Judy Otton, Planner, Ecosystem Secretariat, BNP (Nov. 4, 1996)

Heather Oxman, On-Site Presentation Specialist, Heritage Presentation an Education, Parks Canada (Nov. 14, 1996)

Bob Page, Dean, Faculty of Environmental Design; Professor of Environmental Science; Chair, Banff Bow Valley Study (Nov. 19, 1996)

Jillian Roulet, Manager, Ecosystem Secretariat, BNP (Nov. 6, 1996)

Paul Schullery, Resource Naturalist, Editor Yellowstone Science, Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. (Jan. 15, 1997; Jan. 28, 1997; Apr. 7, 1997)

Paul Super, Training Instructor, Resource Acadia Co-ordinator, Acadia National Park, ME, U.S.A. (Feb. 18, 1997; Mar. 1 1, 1997)

Cliff White, Conservation Biologist, Ecosystem Secretariat, BNP (Mar. 13, 1997)

Personal communications 14-7

Appendices

A. Interview details

B. Ecosystems, biodiversity, threats, and ecological realities

C. Ecological integrity definitions

D. Linkages between information, attitudes and behaviour

E. The evolution of ecosystem management in Parks Canada, emphasizing Banff National Park

F. Review of ecosystem management communication in Banff National Park

G. Interview research results

H. Heritage Tourism Strategy

I. Environmental education survey indicators

J. Transition Communications Workshop issues

K. Background for Yellowstone National Park case study

L. Background to Acadia National Park case study

M. Coordinating a Resource Issues Seminar Series

N. Background to Fraser Basin Management Program case study

O. Fraser Basin Management Board

P. Selling the importance of communication

Q. Ecosystem management messages

1 Amendix A: Interview details 1

Interviewees (not including case study intervie wees)

Lisa Casselman, Heritage Education Officer, Parks Canada, Alberta Regional Office

Heather Dempsey, Communication Specialist, Ecosystem Secretariat, BNP

Wendy Francis, Conservation Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Steve Herrero, Professor of Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Design; Chair, Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project

Andre Kerkovius, Chair, Park User Sector, Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table

Mike Kerr, Communication Specialist, Ecosystem Secretariat, BNP

Bernie Lieff, Chief of Ecosystem Management, Parks Canada, Alberta Reg ional Office

Sheila Luey, Manager, Executive and Media Services, BNP

Mike Mclvor, President, Bow Valley Naturalists; Chair, Environmental (Local) Sector, Banff Bow Valley Study Round Table

Judy Otton, Planner, Ecosystem Secretariat, BNP

Heather Oxman, On-Site Presentation Specialist, Heritage Presentation and Education, Parks Canada

Bob Page, Dean, Faculty of Environmental Design; Professor of Environmental Science; Chair, Banff Bow Valley Study

Jillian Roulet, Manager, Ecosystem Secretariat, BNP

Cliff White, Conservation Biologist, Ecosystem Secretariat, BNP

Appendix A: Interview details A- 7

Interview package materials The following pages represent the interview package that was given to each interviewee. As well, as a cover letter. the package included:

a brief set of common interview instructions; a consent form; the questions (note that each person was given a set of questions targeted at al1 members of their segment); a list of potential communication initiatives (this was a primer to help people consider the ways in which they receivedldelivered communication); and a list of EM messages (the phrase 'ecosystem management messages' was used in the interview, so this list was included to help interviewees understand what was meant by that).

Appendix A: Interview details A-2

Interview Question Instructions These questions are intended to stimulate our discussion. 1 have given them to you prior to Our meeting so that you can get an idea of what sort of information I am looking for. Therefore, if these questions give nse in your mind to an issue that is related, but not covered here, please feel free to raise it. The questions are somewhat generic (intentionally so). This means that some people will be able to answer some questions in greater depth. However, please rernernber when answering the questions that they al1 relate to you in some way.

Communication initiatives usually involve several people/departments. If you have been involved with. or know about a multi-person initiative. please don? assume that someone else has mentioned it to me.

When questions ask about specific communication initiatives or rnechanisms. this can be past. current/continuing, or future ones.

Appendix A: Interview details A-3

THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALGARY Faculty of ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

Consent for Interview

Research Project: An Ecosystem Management Communication Strategy for Banff National Park

Investigator: Guy Greenaway, Graduate Student Faculty of Environmental Design. University of Calgary

This consent fom, a copy of which has been given to you, is only part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like more detail about something mentioned here, or information not included here. please ask. Please take the time to read this form carefully and to understand any accornpanying information.

The purpose of this project is: to research the current methods for delivering ecosystem management messages used by Banff National Park and several case studies; recommend methods for improving the delivery of those messages.

You have been chosen to participate because of your knowledge of, interest in. or association with, Banff National Park.

The interview questions and instructions are enclosed.

After the initial interview, I may contact you to follow up. clarify information. or ask your insight on new information. This does not commit you to further interviews, and in the event there is further cmtact requested, it will be scheduled to your convenience. If you wish to review a draft copy of the final report, please contact me.

The benefit to you of participating in this study is that you can provide input into this communication strategy as it evolves. The greater benefit will be that Banff National Park will be better able, in the future, to provide interested and affected parties with information regarding ecosystem management in a manner that is sensitive. proactive, and interactive.

Appendix A: ln tervie w details A-#

The information and views that you provide will be portrayed in the study, for the most part. in aggregated form along with those of the other interviewees. In each specific instance where it would be beneficial to quote you directly or attribute views or information to you, you will be consulted and your consent obtained.

The notes taken during interviews are the sole property of the investigator (Guy Greenaway), and will not be available to anyone, unless both you and the investigator agree to it.

Your signature on this f o m indicates that you have understood to your satisfaction the information regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate as a subject. In no way does this waive your legal rights, nor release the investigators, sponsors or involved institutions from their legal and professional responsibilities. You are free to withdraw from the study at any tirne. Your continued participation should be as informed as your initial consent. so you should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation. If you have further questions concerning matters related to this research, please contact:

Guy Greenaway (403) 282-3460

If you have any questions concerning your participation in this project. you may also contact the Office of the Vice-President (Research) at the University of Calgary, and ask for Karen McDemid, (403) 220-3381.

Participant (please PRINT)

Signature

Date

A copy of this consent form has been given to you to keep for your records and reference.

Appendix A: interview details A-5

Park User Questions:

Are you familiar with the concept of ecosystern management, or an ecosystem- based approach to management? Do you believe that BNP practices an ecosystem-based approach to management? Why or why not?

Does BNP effectively communicate (please explain): D information about how the ecosystems in the BNP area function? D how BNP's management actions are related to maintaining the parts and

functions of those ecosystems? D information about both the impact that people have on those ecosystems,

and the opportunities people have to participate in the management of BNP? Do you believe that communication of the above information is important to effective ecosystem management? Why. or why not?

In what specific ways do you receive the above information? Do you feel you receive - from BNP - the information you need to understand and assess how BNP manages the park. If not, what is missing. or what could be irnproved? Who should be receiving this information (note especially audiences who you feel are not currently getting this information)?

How could communication of this information be improved (please be specific. if possible)?

Do you feel the recent TCH twinning project had a good public communication and participation process?

Is understanding people's values important to effective ecosystem management? Why or why not? D If yes, how does one go about determining people's values? r> How should this knowledge of values be incorporated into the decision-

making process?

Finally, what does the public need to understand to understand ecosystem management?

Appendix A: Interview details A-6

Academic Questions:

Do you believe that BNP practices an ecosystem-based approach to management? Why or why not?

Does BN P effectively comrnunicate (please explain): D information about how the ecosystems in the BNP area function? D how BNP's management actions are related to maintaining the parts and

functions of those ecosystems? o information about both the impact that people have on those ecosystems,

and the opportunities people have to participate in the management of BNP?

Do you believe that communication of the above information is important to effective ecosystern management? Why, or why not?

Do you feel the general public receives - from BNP - the infonation they need to understand and assess how BNP manages the park? If not. what is missing. or what could be improved? D Who should be receiving this information (note especially audiences who you

feel are not currently getting this infonation)?

How could the delivery of this information be improved (please be specific, if possible)?

Is understanding people's values important to effective ecosystem management? Why or why not? D If yes. how does one go about determining people's values? r> How should this knowledge of values be incorporated into the decision-

making process?

Do you feel the recent TCH twinning project had a good public communication and participation process?

Finally, what does the public need to understand to understand ecosystem management?

Appendix A: In temie w details A-7

Communicators Questions:

Is comrnunicating to the public important for effective ecosystem management? Why or why not?

What rnechanisms do you use to: D provide to the public understanding of the ecosystems. ecosystem

cornponents and ecological processes in the park? D explain to the public how BNP manages the park? Specifically: - management principles; - rationaie behind those management actions related to ensuring the long-

terrn sustainability of the park ecosystems; and - the role of protected areas in maintaining the long-term sustainability of ecosystems.

r> inform the public about direct hurnan impacts on ecosystems (especially negative impacts), and ways to minimise those impacts?

i> inform the public about opportunities to participate in the management process (both forma1 and informal)?

For each communication initiative described above, please explain i, at whom it is directed (Le., who is the target audience)? D what you hope will be accomplished (i.e.. what are the objectives)? P whether you know if these initiatives are effective? (Le., what monitoring is

done) r> Do you segment your audience? If sol how?

If you did not have limitations in terms of time. funds. personnel (within reason). D What other initiatives would you like to pursue? r, What, specifically. are the limitations that you face?

Which communication initiatives (past, current or future) do you feel have been, or could be. the most important or successful?

Are partnerships used in the implernentation of any communication initiatives? D Will their role grow? Why or why not?

Are volunteers used in the implementation of any communication initiatives? D Will their role grow? Why or why not?

Appendix A: Interview details A-8

What mechanisms exist (past, current or future) for soliciting public input? Please note for each: D if these target certain audiences within the public D how that information is incorporated into the decision-making process r, if there was an informational component tied to this (if so. please describe it

unless it is described in a response to a questions above)

I s understanding people's values important to effective ecosystern management? Why or why not? D If yes, how does one go about detenining people's values? P How should this knowledge of values be incorporated into the decision-

rnaking process?

Finally, what does the public need to understand to understand ecosystem management?

Appendix A: Intewie w de tails A-9

Park Ecosvstem People Questions:

1s communicating to the public important for effective ecosystem management? Why or why not?

What mechanisms do you use to: provide (to the public) understanding of the ecosystems, ecosystem components and ecological processes in the park?

i> explain to the public how BNP manages the park? Specifically: - management principles; - therationale behind management actions which are reiated to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the park ecosysterns; and - the role of protected areas in maintaining the long-terrn sustainability of ecosysterns.

r> inform the public about direct human impacts on ecosystems (especially negative impacts), and ways to minimise those impacts?

r> inform the public about opportunities to participate in the management process (both fona l and informai)?

For each communication initiative describeci above, please explain D at whom it is directed (i-e., who is the target audience)? D what you hope will be accomplished (i.e., what are the objectives)? D whether you know if these initiatives are effective? (Le., what monitoring is

done)

If you did not have limitations in terms of time, funds, personnel (within reason). D What other initiatives would you like to pursue? D What, specifically, are the limitations that you face?

Which communication initiatives (past, current or future) do you feel have been, or could bel the most important or successful?

Are partnerships used in the implementation of any communication initiatives? D Will their role grow? Why or why not?

Are volunteers used in the implementation of any communication initiatives? r> Will their role grow? Why or why not?

. --

Appendix A: interview details A-IO

What mechanisms exist (past, current or future) for soliciting public input? Please note for each: D if these target certain audiences within the public B how that information is incorporated into the decision-making process O if there was an informational component tied to this (if sol please describe it

unless it is described in a response to a questions above)

Is understanding people's values important to effective ecosystem management? Why or why not? D If yes, how does one go about determining people's values? O How should this knowledge of values be incorporated into the decision-

making process?

Finally, what does the public need to understand to understand ecosystem management?

.. -

Appendix A: Interview details A-1 7

Park Media Relations Questions:

Is communicating to the public important for effective ecosystem management (ecosystem-based approach to management)? Why or why not

Is it important to: D provide (to the public) an understanding of the ecosystems, ecosystem

components and ecological processes in the park? D explain to the public how PC manages a park? Specifically: - management principles; - the rationale behind management actions which are related to ensuring the

long-term sustainability of park ecosystems; and - the role of protected areas in maintaining the long-ten sustainability of ecosystems.

r> inform the public about direct human impacts on ecosystems (especially negative impacts), and ways to minimise those impacts?

D inform the public regarding opportunities to participate in the management process (both f o n a l and informal)?

If you feel any/all of the 4 points above are important, D who do you think should receive this information (i-e., who are the target

audiences)? I> what do you hope such communication wiil accomplish (Le., what are the

objectives)? r> how do you know if these initiatives are effective (Le., what monitoring is

done)?

If you did not have limitations in terms of time, funds, personnel (within reason), r> What other communication initiatives would you like to pursue? r> What, specifically. are the limitations that you face?

Which communication initiatives (past. current or future) do you feel have been, or could be, rnost successful?

Are partnerships used in the implementation of any communication initiatives? r> Will their role grow? Why or why not?

Are volunteers used in the implementation of any communication initiatives? r, Will their role grow? Why or why not?

-- --

Appendix A: interview detaiis A-12

What mechanisms exist (past, cuvent or future) for soliciting public input? Please note for each: I> if these target certain audiences within the public D how that information is incorporated into the decision-making process B if there was an infornational component tied to this (if so, please describe it)

Is undentanding people's values important to effective ecosystem management? Why or why not? I If yes, how does one go about detemining people's values? D How should this knowledge of values be incorporated into the decision-

rnaking process?

Do you feel the recent TCH twinning project had a good public communication and participation process?

Finally, what does the public need to understand to understand ecosystem management?

Appendix A: /nietvie w details A-13

Communication Initiatives There are many different types of communication initiatives/mechanisms. In order to help you rernember specific examples of communication initiatives used to deliver ecosystem management messages, I have made a list of some of categones that specific communication initiatives might fall under.

This is not intended to be exclusive nor exhaustive; it is just intended to jog memories (adapted mostly from Whatley 1993; Mike Kerr BNP, pers. corn.).

Traditional Programmes Fact Sheets Site Bulletins Message Exhibits Calendars Interactive Video Cassette Packages Community TV Educational Group Programs Educational Support materials Video Presentations Partnerships and Volunteers Feat u re Articles National Parks Policy updates Books. broadly available publications lnteragency CO-operative initiat Educational holidays Conference talks Research update materials Travel trade shows Open houses Staff training Corres~ondence

Handouts and Brochures Park Newspapers Message Panels Bulletin Boards Portable Exhibits Explorer Kits Direct Mail Films, Popular television Teacher, Group Leader Workshops Radio Technology Press Releases Management Plan updates, Other planning processes Academic connections, publications Regulatory information campaigns Phone contacts (1 -800 or otherwise) Programs for businesses Research day field trips VIP tours Stakeholder meetings Public information sessions lnternet, virtual visits Posters

Appendix A: Interview details A-74

Ecosystem Management Messages There are three basic foci to ecosystem management messages:

1) The Ecosystems (basics of ecology. threats) 2) Ecosystem-based Management (management challenges. responses) 3) The Role of the Individual (public responsibility, participation)

The Ecosystems BASIC ECOLOGY

that ecosystems are vastly complex. and pooriy understood the basic needs and activities of native species the basic ecosystem processes (e.g., natural disturbance regimes) relationships in ecosystems (e-g.. , importance of connectivity) ecological integrity or health

THREATS (what the threats are. and how they affect ecological integrity) endangered species direct mortality loss of habitat displacement habituation habitat fragmentation impairment of ecological processes cumulative effects invaderlexotics species pollution poaching

Ecosystem-based Management MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

goal is the long-term sustainability of ecosystems parks face both interna1 and external threats to the ecosystems conservation must focus not just on species. but also on spaces conservation rnust focus not just on elements of the ecosystem, but also on the

processes and relationships decisions rnust be made with ever-improving , but always incomplete knowledge protection of ecological heritage is a regional management effort:

B transboundary nature of ecosystems, species and processes D the fallacy of the 12% solution D relationships between protected and working landscapes

MANAGEMENT RESPONSES that parks and protected areas play a role in conservation

B parks are representative of ecosystems D individual parks are one part of a protected areas system

that park management is aimed firstly at achieving unimpaired ecosystem processes and elements, secondly at facilitating appropriate uses of the parks

CO-operation with other agencies, publics, scientists in goal-setting and decision- ma king

Appendix A: Intewiew details A-15

how Parks Canada/ BNP manages to respond to these challenges (macro) D decision-making process D principles of BNP management D role of uncertainty in decision-making

how specific management actions are related to maintaining ecological integrity (rn icro) 0 individual management action rationale D how this action relates to the overall goal of maintaining the long-terrn

sustainability of ecosystems D how does research in the various areas inforrn decision-making

The Role of the lndividual RESPONSIBILIN

there is a personal responsibility for individual actions understanding of impact of individual actions on the ecosystem

P how we contribute to the threats Iisted above (currently and historically) b changes in behaviour required to alleviate threats

everyone is involved in the problem, everyone is involved in the solution (the park, its visitors, al1 Canadians)

PARTICIPATION clear understanding of the various capacities in which one can participate o reader (receiving printed material such as management plan review documents) B writer (where to address written concems, how to have written input into

management plan reviews, etc.) D observer (attending open houses, meetings) D participant (addressing meetings, attending workshops, sitting on boards)

learning about the park and its ecosystems D learning means everyone from the researcher to the visitor r> understanding the information above helps individuals r> education and understanding are part of the park's mandate

conservation actions individuals can take to help the park andlor its ecosystems D how to reduce your impact P how to help mitigate previous impacts t> specific programs of which individuals can become a part

options for participating in the management process t> goal-setting o decision-making process design - including the communication process design r> decision-making (e.g., management plan reviews, area management plans,

advisory boards)

Appendix A: Interview details A- 16

- - -- 1 ~ ~ ~ e n d = B: Ecosystems, biodivenity, tbreaG, and ecological reaiities 1 This report is not primarily a science and conservation study. Therefore, the discussion of the ecosystem concept. biodiversity and the ecological realities which conservation efforts face will be relatively brief. However, these concepts describe why an ecosystem-based approach to management is necessary, and a consideration of ecosystem management without them would be incomplete.

This appendix is the 'short courset in ecological concepts. The information collected here is not new. It is even collected in similar fashion by much better ecologists and writers (see Grumbine 1 992, Noss and Cooperrider 1 994). However. the information is presented here in a different manner, with different goals.

First, though not written to exclude any perçons, this information is targeted at resource management comrnunicators. Those cornmunicators may be people designing communication strategies, people delivering interpretive programs, managers expressing these ideas to the various publics they encounter. etc. This appendix is intended to be a summary of the vital concepts in ecology that must be expressed to the public to help thern understand the ecological rationale for ecosystem management.

Second. this is very much a trimmed down version of these theories and concepts. As mentioned earlier, fuller descriptions of these topics exist elsewhere. This is intended to be an outline which has been fleshed-out somewhat.

Finally, for the rnost part there is very little that is pejorative or scientifically controversial here. This is in keeping with a strategy to focus on areas of agreement first. Of course, it is unlikely to avoid such controversy entirely.

There are four sections. The Ecosystems section outlines sorne of the basic characteristics of ecosystems, with elements grouped into three levels of detail. To which level a communicator should go would depend on the knowledge and background of the audience.

The Biodivemity section focuses on diversity, extinction, evolution and the values of biodiversity - why we should care about biodiversity. Like the previous section, there is little attempt made to argue for or against certain activities based on how those activities affect ecosystems or biodiversity. This is simply a primer on what one needs to know to undentand the debate.

Two final sections provide a brief tie-in from these ecological concepts into management. Ecological realities and challenges for management relates how those characteristics described in the first three sub-sections pose challenges for managing ecosystems.

Appendix B: Ecosystems 8- 1

The T h a t s section briefly describes the major threats to ecosystems and biodiversity (mostly relative to areas like the Central Rockies Ecosystem). Again. an effort has been made to simply outline how these problems affect biodiversity. For exarnple, rather than detailing which activities cause habitat fragmentation, the discussion focuses on how habitat fragmentation affects biological diversity.

Ecosystems

BASIC THEORY

What is an ecosystem ? Though the concept had been around for sorne time previously (Bocking 1994), it was in 1935, in an article in the journal Ecology, that Arthur Tansley presented his new t e n : the uecosystem" (Tansley 1935). Though it is common parlance today, it still defies to some degree attempts to define it.

Understanding some of the history of the terni helps to understand some of the difficulty in establishing a definition for it.

Short for ecological system, Tansley used 'ecosystem' to describe his belief that "the plants and fauna at any location ... together with soi1 and climate, form an interacting system, tending to equilibrium, resisting. to some extent. disintegrative forces." (Bocking 1994).

Tansley's concept of an ecosystem being characterized by predictability and equilibrium has been modified conçiderably in the intervening years. However, the concept signified a shift to viewing nature as a collection of complex interacting systems, rather than a collection of unique parts with simple linear relationships.

A marked turning point in this process also appeared in Ecology, in 1942. Raymond Lindeman's "The Trophic-Dynamic Aspect of Ecology" discussed the relationship between succession and trop hic structure. He explained the relationship in terms of energy flow, and showed for the first time how short-term events could effect long-terrn changes in the entire systems. The science of ecology could be seen turning from simple, descriptive natural history, to studying complex ecosystem interactions.

Still, a half century later, there are some quite different views on what an ecosystern is, as well as many misconceptions. When the scientific comrnunity appears to Vary so greatly about what an ecosystem is, the task of explaining it to the lay comrnunity becomes that much more difficult.

There is, in fact, a considerable consensus on the subject, especially in recent years. To examine the question of what is an ecosystem, I will first look at several existing definitions. Then, rather than propose yet another definition, I will

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 8-2

create a list of the vital characteristics which those definitions collectively suggest.

DEFINITIONS A number of definitions of an ecosystem can be found. The following are some of those, selected because they span 23 yean of research on the topic, some are well-accepted, and each has something specific to offer. Taken together they represent a relatively cohesive vision of what constitutes an ecosystem.

'... any unit that includes al1 of the organisms in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy teads to clearly defined trophic structure. biotic diversity, and material cycles." (E.P. Odurn 1971)

"Any part of the universe chosen as an area of interest, with the line around that area being the ecosystem boundary and anything crossing the boundary being input or output." (Agee and Johnson 1988)

"A community of species and its physical environment. When defined at different levels, it often involves arbitrary boundaries. An ecosystern may refer to anything from a fallen log to an entire watenhed." (Grumbine 1992)

"A dynamic complex of plant, animal, fungal and microorganism communities and their associated non-living environment interacting as an ecological unit." (Noss and Cooperrider 1994)

"Because the world is made of living and non-living stuff with multitudes of interrelationships, any one defined ecosystem is just one package of stuff and relations." (Kay and Schneider 1994)

CHARACTERISTICS Drawing from these definitions, I suggest that any definition of an ecosystem should make reference to the following points:

BIOTIC ELEMENTS - An ecosystem includes biotic elements: plants, animals, micro- organisms, fungi.

ABIOTIC ELEMENTS - An ecosystem includes abiotic elements: air, water. soil, Sun. rock.

BOUNDARIES - An ecosystem has a spatial boundary. That boundary is somewhat arbitrary, but the key point is that it is detenined by ecological criteria (e-g., watenhed, home range. height of land, tall grass prairie). The boundary is likely to be ambiguous, as nature does not share parliament's affinity for crisp lines of demarcation.

SCALE INDEPENDENCE - NO interacting ecological unit is too small nor too large to be considered an ecosystem. Kay and Schneider (1994) put it neatly: "An ecosystem can refer to what's happening on our eyelashes, in our gut, in

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 8-3

Lake Ontario. or in the boreal forest." James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis even suggests that the entire biosphere is an ecosystem (Lovelock 1987, 1988, 1991).

INTERACTION - An ecosystem is not just the parts, but also the interrelationships between those parts. spatially and hierarchically. Plotting processes such as the hydrolog ical or n utrient cycle maps these interactions.

DYNAMIC - An ecosystern is not static. Like any other part of the natural world. it responds to the forces of evolution with continual change and adaptation.

ENERGY FLOW - AS Lindeman described over 50 years ago, the life's biood of an ecosystem is the energy that flows through it. The energy of the Sun is captured by p hotosynthesizing plants, which are eaten by herbivores. which sustain carnivores, etc.

MISCONCEPTIONS "Ecosystem means different things to different people. now that the term has

becorne politicized. " (Grumbine 1992) In trying to define an ecosystem, it should be made clear that some characteristics put foward are not legitimate traits of an ecosystern. Older definitions, in particular. suffer from these mistakes.

In Ed Grumbine's Ghost Bears (1992). he recounts the misconceptions that arose in a meeting with scientists and managers from the American National Parks Service. Forest Service, and academic institutions. He notes that 24 of 33 participants had Ph.Ds. Still to various people there. ecosystem meant:

"the balance of nature" "a euphemism for Parks Service land grab" "a minoriiy felt that ecosystems simply did not exist outside the national

parks" "the process of nature unencumbered by humans"

Some definitions still maintain the outdated belief that nature is in balance. rather than dynamic. The political view of an ecosystem mistakenly attaches it only to certain lands, based on the management regime that governs those lands. Finally. looking at the characteristics listed above, it is hard to understand a belief that ecosystems do not include humans, given the ubiquitous impacts we have.

The use of the teml ecosystem in the hierarchical description of nature further muddies the water. When looking at biodiversity, the following hierarchy is generally used:

genetic species cornmunity/ecosystem landscapelreg ional

Appendix B: Ecosystems 8-4

Given that the term ecosystem can describe the interacting ecological unit at both the community and the landscape levels, it would be best to reserve the term only for general use. The terni communityl is much more useful in this context, and avoids confusion.

GRENER ECOSYSTEM

A phrase that is appearing with increasing regularity is the Greater Ecosystem (Keiter and Boyce 1991. Grumbine 1992). This term has arisen for two reasons. First, there was a need for a term that recognized a iandscape level ecological unit. With the confusion surrounding the terni ecosystem. and that fact that it is scale-independent, it is difficult to portray a landscape of rnany thousands of square kilornetres with the word 'ecosystern."

However. there was also a political need for the tenn. As mentioned above, the word "ecosystem" appeared to some to be synonymous with a protected area. The Greater Ecosystem concept helps convey the message that that core area is inextricably linked with its surrounding neighbours.

The renowned biologist Frank Craighead apparently created the t e n in 1979 when he called for a greater ecosystem around Yellowstone National Park (Grumbine 1992). His and his brother's research with grizzly bears had shown him that the park itself was too small to sustain a healthy grizzly population over the long term.

Grumbine (1 992) gives a comprehensive defhition of the Greater Ecosystem: "a regional complex of ecosystems with common landscape level characteristics such as the presence of wide-ranging mamrnal populations and periodic, large, natural disturbances such as wildfres. The concept of the greater ecosystem allows for integrated land management . . .

Basic concepts This is a collection of some of the concepts that are crucial to a basic understanding of ecology - which is a pre-requisite to understanding ecosystem management. These notions are straighfforward2 and are listed here more as a checklist for communicators. than an exhaustive elaboration.

COMPOSITION, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION

Moving beyond a simple definition, ecosystems are generally accepted to have three main attributes: composition, stnicture and function (Franklin 1981, Grumbine 1992. Noss and Cooperrider 1994). To describe a particular ecosystem, one would refer to these.

1 Noss and Cooperrider (1 994) define a community as: 'Al/ the organisms - plants, animals and microbes - that /ive in a particular habitat and affect one another as part of the food web or through their vanous influences on the physical environment.'

at least at the level of detail most lay audiences require

Appendix B: Ecosystems 8-5

COMPOSI~ON - Noting the composition of an ecosystem means identifying and describing the parts. the components. This is a description of the ecosystem without reference to the spatial or functional relationships of those parts (e.g.. what species are present, what is their relative abundance, what habitat types exist, etc.)

STRUCTURE - Structure describes how the parts are laid out. Grumbine (1 992) calls this "the physical patterns of life foms." Like an ecosystem. there are no size limits on the ecological unit described. Examples are the vertical layers of vegetation in a forest stand (from the mosses on the forest floor, to the small shrubs. to the canopy of the largest trees). or a broad landscape's vegetational patchiness (a grassy meadow, surrounded by an aspen forest, which is bisected by a stream. and within which are several stands of coniferous trees).

FUNC~ON - Ecosystem functions describe how the parts interrelate. and how life is sustained within the ecosystem. "Function includes the ciimatic. geological. hydrological, and evolutionary processes that generate and maintain biodiversity in ever-changing patterns over tirne" (Noss and Cooperrider 1994).

SPATIAL SCALES OF ECOSYSTEMS

Two spatial properties of ecosystems must be understood: first, that ecosystems are extensive, and second that they Vary across that space.

As discussed above in relation to the Greater Ecosystem concept. ecosystems may cover vast amounts of land. depending on the ecological interaction that one is interested in. Far-ranging mammalian species are the study subjects which most often illustrate this. The grizzly bears of Yellowstone National Park range well beyond the park, connecting with the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. and existing within the massive Yellowstone to Yukon system.

Ecosystems Vary across space depending on numerous factors that affect the landscape in a non-uniforrn fashion (climate, microclimate. human influence. disturbance regimes, successional stage, etc.). This creates the patches of varied species composition that characterize. in particular, mature landscapes. This also means that a given species (or problem) rnay thrive in one area, but not so in a similar area.

TEMPORAL SCALES OF ECOSYSTEMS

Most people don't think in time scales much beyond their own lifespan. Even the oftquoted phrase, "our children's childrenn really only spans about 150 to 200 years. Thinking on a scale of 10,000 years would be very unfamiliar to most people.

The role of time in the development of an ecosystem is one of its most awesome features. Lay audiences need to understand the role that time plays in the

Appendix B: Ecosystems 6-6

evolution of the ecosystem and its species, and the tirneline of human-caused impacts.

That lodgepole pine in the area of Banff National Park has adapted to fire is a good example for explaining this. Over thousands of years, these trees have adapted to depend on fire in stimulating new growth. A change in that relationship can upset a association that has taken miilennia to evolve. And the full impact of such a change would take some time to appreciate fully.

This is a concept that has appeared frequently already in this report (and will continue-to do so), so it is listed here at a risk of repeating it ad nasuem. However, a thread that weaves through the entire discussion bears explicit identification.

lnterrelationship and interconnectivity are key features of any ecological unit. This must be understood by a lay audience to be the hallmark of an ecosystem. However, some of the more detailed descriptions of those interactions rnay overwhelm an audience new to ecology. The details of the carbon cycle or the hydrological cycle may provide too great a level of detail, but one can still explain some of the basic structures of interconnection. Predator-prey relationships. for example, or trophic structures more broadly, can provide an accessible start to a basic understanding of connectivity in ecosystems.

Ecological in tegr@ and ecosystem health Given the increasing use of the terrns 'ecological integrity' and 'ecosystem heaith' (Woodley 1991. Costanza et al 1992. Woodley et al 1993, Parks Canada 1994c), 1 would consider that these terms are fast becorning basic theory - though perhaps poorly understood theory by many who use the terms.

Ed Grumbine (1 994aJ997) lists the goal of ecological integrity as one of his ten themes of ecosystem management. A full discussion of the two terms is given in the main body of the report (Ch. 3: Background to ecosystem management, Themes).

The final element of the basic ecological concepts necessary for understanding ecosystem management is complexity. This will only be briefly noted here, as complexity will be the essential focus of the entire Advanced section below.

Agee and Johnson (1988) quote H.T. Odum as saying, 'The study of nature and man is a study of systemsn (1971). Systems by their nature are complex; i.e. they involve a set of relationships that are not linear.

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 8- 7

Lay audiences need to know that the forces that affect a single elernent in an ecosystem do not do not line up along a single direct path, nor act in a predictable sequence. Those forces are many, distinct, and dispersed. That is, if you want to solve the mystery of why an ecosystem element (e.g., a bear, a stream, a flower) behaves the way it does, you do not backtrack dong one trail of clues, but along many, many trails.

One of the better ways of illustrating our inability to fully understand a system as cornplex as an ecosystem, is to look at how we handle vastly more simple systems - systems we have created.

The Denver, Colorado airport that was scheduled to open in 1993 is a useful example (Gibbs 1994). The airport is twice the sire of Manhattan - large by comparison to other airports. but tiny compared to a greater ecosystem. Their baggage handling system was a human-created, computer controlled web that included: 4000 luggage on subterranean "coal-cars", 21 miles of track, 100 cornputers networked together, 5000 electric eyzs, 4 C V radio receivers, 56 bar- code scanners. Again, in comparison to other baggage systems, very complex - in ecosystem ternis, it has the cornplexity of a shovel full of dirt from a beech forest in Norway (Noss and Cooperrider 1994:6).

When completed. the baggage system did not work. Opening of the airport was delayed for months because no one could make this systern work. This was a systern where al1 the parts were known and understood - a system created by humans. This does not speak well of our ability to 'manage' the much more complex ecosystems.

INTERMEDIATE THEORY

Ecological processes An ecosystem is characterized by a variety of ecological processes. These are the major operations that define and sustain the system. Understanding and protecting an ecosystem requires understanding and protecting its processes.

The ecological processes within an ecosystem represent the means by which the system operates within (and responds to changes in) its environment. This can mean adapting to long-ten changes such as climate change (both natural and human-driven), erosion, etc. It can also mean a long-term change in a species so that it responds better to a long-standing ecological reality.

Noss and Cooperrider (1 994) list six categories or ecological processes that must be understood to understand the management or protection of ecosystems. These are energy flows, nutrient cycles, hydrological cycles, disturbance regimes, equilibrium processes, and feedback effects.

Appendix B: Ecosystems B-8

ENERGY FLOWS

Energy cornes into an ecosystem, and can be stored, passed on, and/or released. Virtually al1 energy of use to organisms cornes from the Sun (Noss and Cooperrider 1994:42). The primary way the sun's energy is captured is by plants through photosynthesis. This energy is passed on to herbivorous animals, which in turn rnay be the prey of predators, and so on.

A more detailed description of the role of energy in an ecosystem is given in the Advanced theory section.

NUTRIENT CYCLES

"Nutrient cycles are the processes by which elements such as nitrogen and carbon move through the biotic and abiotic components of an ecosystem" (Noss and Cooperrider 1994:42).

A nutrient such as phosphorus may be ingested by land anirnals, or fiow with erosion into the ocean. The phosphorus can then be absorbed by fish, and returned to the land by fish-eating animals. The excrement of such animals returns that nutrient into the soil.

The key players in this cycle are the micro-organisms that decompose the dead plant or animal matter, thereby making the nutrients available again.

Like the energy flow above, those nutrients may be passed along when one animal is eaten by another. Some compounds not natural to the ecosystem, however, do not cycle through, but instead are stored in the fat cells of animals, potentially accumulating in toxic amounts in animals high in the food chain (Noss and Cooperrider 1994:43). The pesticide DDT is one such example, which caused a severe decline in peregrine falcons in North America (Craig 1986 quoted in Noss and Cooperrider 1994:43).

HYDROLOGICAL CYCLES

Water is a key component of al1 ecosysterns. and the viability of those ecosysterns depends on maintaining the process by which it moves through those systems. Terrestrial plants and animals need it to survive, it is crucial to erosion, it can spread plant seeds, it Rushes by-products from a systern, etc.

Most people do not think of water as a finite, renewable resource. It seems to corne in endless amounts from the sky, and collect in endless amounts in the oceans. The hydrological cycle is the "process through which water moves from ocean to atmosphere to land and back to the oceann (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). As it is critical to the functioning of ecosystems, understanding it and the problems created by disrupting it are also critical to the protection of ecosystems.

Appendix 6: Ecosystems 8-9

DISTURBANCE REGIMES

This category of ecological processes represents perhaps the most misunderstood of the ecological processes. Scientists and land managers have only recently come to understand their importance. thus it is reasonable to expect that the lay public would lag behind.

Most ecosystems face disturbances, periodic events which push the ecosystem away from the temporary state of equilibrium it has acquired. This results in a change to the ecosystem's composition or structure. These disturbances include fires. floods. windstorms, avalanches and landslides. They also include human- caused events such as clearcutting, water or air pollution, predator control. etc.

Natural disturbances, though we consider them 'natural disasters', are actually events which have occurred repeatedly over time, and are in some cases critical to the functioning of the ecosystem.

Fire, for example, has been vigorously controlled by humans in the Central Rockies Ecosystem for over a century (White 1985). Since the start of that policy, it has become clear that periodic return of fire was necessary for the survival of some species. Grasslands that supported grazing animais have been taken over by woody, less palatable vegetation. Dangerously large fuel loads (deadfall, underbrush) have accumulated increasing the risk of an uncommonly destructive fire.

EQUILIBRIUM PROCESSES AND FEEDBACK EFFECTS

Another concept that is viewed in a much different way today by scientists and managers is that of 'equilibrium' in ecosystems. This is the sense that certain forces of nature are balancing others to create stability in the system.

This leads to the concept of feedback effects, particularly negative feedback loops. On certain scales in an ecosystem, there are factors that control the system near that point of equilibrium. Noss and Cooperrider (1 994) give the example of a herd of mule deer. The continued births of the species increase the population, but the available food supply limits the population. As the numbers increase, the food supply is oveiwhelmed, causing a negative feedback loop which sees numbers reduced due to starvation, and poor health (thus birth rates).

The process is not so simple as this, and the notions of equilibrium and stability are subject to considerable debate in the literature. Therefore, these ideas are covered more completely in the advanced theory section.

Landscape ecology Woodley (1 991 :38) calls landscape ecology "the study of ecological processes in terms of spatial patterns." Woodley goes on to quote Forman and Godron (1 986)

Appendix 6: Ecosystems B-70

as saying, "... the broad field of ecology has tended to focus on vertical relationships; that is the relationships between plants, animals, air, water and soi1 in a relatively homogeneous spatial unit. They argue that landscape ecology differs frorn conventional ecology in its concentration on the horizontal."

Landscape ecology recognizes that a broad landscape3 has a discontinuous or 'patchy' collection of vegetation and animal cornrnunities, and that the interrelationships between patches are as important as the relationships within patches to the functioning of the greater ecosystem.

Even though there is great debate surrounding succession (Mclntosh 1980). the basics of the concept are a pre-requisite to understanding landscape ecology. However, a great deal of detail should not be required.

The environmental conditions of an area predispose it to containing certain vegetational species. Conditions of climate such as rainfall, snow, wind, temperature, and sun combined with other environmental factors such as altitude, slope, and aspect determine to a large degree what plants will grow in those areas. Areas of more or less homogenous conditions are identified by their dominant or climax vegetation. Examples are the Mountain Hemlock, Engelmann Spmce-Subalpine Fir zones.

An area that is disturbed (for example, by a fire) follows a predictable establishment/replacement path through a series of plant species until it reaches a final or 'climax' species. It then maintains that species until affected by a major disturbance again.

The caveats here are that the system may not necessarily return to the same stable or 'climax' species. Thus, the stability exists only within a certain time scale. This will be discussed further in the Advanced Theory section.

PATCHES AND THE VEGETATION MOSAIC

As mentioned above, a landscape will have a series of 'patches' created in the process of the landscape's development. These are created in a variety of ways.

In the Central Rockies Ecosystem, fire is one of the prirnary creators of these patches. Even when a large fire burns an area, it does not do so completely. Within the sarne burn, one may see areas where the fire was so intense that mineral soi1 has been bumed, and vegetation rnay take a century to re-establish; areas where the many trees were burned, but are still alive; and even instances where the fire missed the trees altogether, though they are surrounded by blackened timber.

3 Forman and Godron (1986) define a landscape as "a heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems that is repeated in similar form throughout."

Appendix 6: Ecosystems B-7 7

In sorne cases a tree may simply have fallen over in the wind, creating a whole in the canopy that allows sunlight. New trees may take advantage of the available sun and the nutrients released from the dying tree.

The environmental conditions may be different on neighbouring sites. Examples rnight be an upwelling of nutrient rich water which favours certain plants, a north- versus south-facing slope. a valley bottom venus the immediate slopes, etc.

Any of these conditions would create a series of different patches of vegetation. Even though there are patches, the area is still dorninated by certain vegetation types or associations. The overall effect is a quilt or mosaic of vegetation types. ~ssociated with each vegetation group would be certain anirnals that feed off of those plant species. and the associated predators, etc.

This type of landscape patchiness should be considered distinct from that which occurs when intensive human use of the area is interspersed with natural areas, eventually to the point that patches are functionally disconnected ecologically. This is 'habitat fragmentation' (mentioned below in the Threats section).

As is apparent in following sections, patch shape, size, and proximity are al1 factors in the health of the landscape.

EDGE EFFECT

'Edge' refers to the area where "two different plant communities or successional stages rneetn (Grumbine 1992:49). These areas tend to be species rich because they include species associated with both types of plant communities, as well as species that specialize in edge areas.

Until recently. a great deal of edge was considered an ecologically good thing. contributing to the species richness and diversity of an ecosystem. However, there are several deleterious effects related to edge, especially when the contrast between the two plant communities is especially severe (Noss and Cooperrider 1994).

Some effects are an increase in nest predation and parasitism. Birds may be attracted to the edge to nest because it affords them direct access to another habitat type. However, they can be more susceptible to predation from racoons, skunks, etc. Edge effects include a change in the microclimate. Different conditions of sunlight, humidity, soi1 and air temperature, wind intensity, etc. can affect regeneration, growth, density, mortality of trees in a forest edge (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). As well, trees in the edge of a forest are more susceptible to blow down.

Human-caused edge effects can be very severe, exacerbating these effects and destablizing the system 'un-naturally.' In a particularly fragmented ecosystern,

Appendix B: Ecosystems 8-72

the chunks of habitat that remain are functionally much smaller than they seem. Though a 'protected area' can be adjacent to a clearcut, the edge effects penetrate 140m to 240m (Grurnbine 1992, Noss and Cooperrider 1994) into the interior. Grumbine (1 992) likens the difference behnreen the apparently and the functionally protected areas to the difference between gross and net income.

Perhaps the most important concept that has emerged from landscape ecology is that of connectivity. Species need to be able to move between patches within the vegetation mosaic of the landscape for a variety of reasons. The research being done on reserve design in particular has led to an increase in understanding of the need for and role of connections within the landscape. Noss and Cooperrider (1994) give four roles that these linkages perfom.

1. Linkages for movements within home ranges An animal's home range is the area it traverses in its normal life activities. This area must provide food, shelter and protective cover. Animais must travel to different parts of the home range to satisfy these needs, for example to access summer and winter range. Elk, for example, tend to favour low valley bottoms in the winter where the snow covering the grasses is not so deep. and the higher slopes in the summer.

Given the dispersed nature of an animal's home range. the area can be quite large (a male grizzly bear which can require 2000 km2). Only parts of that large area are critical to the animal. but without the necessary linkages between ranges they are inaccessible.

2. Linkages as habitat A corridor which is uninhibited. but which provides no suitable habitat for the species in question is not useful. These migrations can be lengthy and must provide animals with the things they need to survive.

3. Linkages for dispersai Young animals need to be able to move out of the area where they were born to find their own 'home range.' Linkages to other potential home ranges are needed.

4. Linkages for long-distance range shifts This role is not generally considered as cften as the others. The vegetation in an ecosystem is ever-changing, likely more quickly now with global warming. Plants need to be able to 'migrate' to areas of more suitable conditions.

ADVANCED THEORY It may seem an overambitious and ultimately futile endeavour to try and explain concepts such as self-organization, chaos and catastrophe to lay audiences. There is no doub! that in some cases it is.

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 8-73

However, a great deal of misunderstanding about the nature of ecosystems can be traced to the ideas of "equilibriumn and "the balance of nature." These phrases pepper both the historical discussions of ecology and the current lay discussions of ecosystems. They lead to sense that al1 is known or knowable. and therefore predictable; that points of balance, and thresholds are measurable. This is a management dream, but unfortunately, it is not reality.

There is no easy way to explain why ecosystems are cornplex and in many ways unpredictable. At some point, sorne lay audiences (those who continue to question the inability on the part of management agencies to predicf) will have to be educated about these concepts.

Resilience Holling and Meffe (1996) give an excellent brief description of the evolution of the concept of resilience in ecosystems.

The traditional conception of ecosystern resilience is based the outdated notion of static stability. Resilience measures here are the extent to which an ecological system can resist a move away from an equilibrium point, and the speed with which it can return after (natural or human-induced) disturbance.

The more evolved definition recognizes that instabilities in ecosystems can cause it to 'flip' to another (stable) behaviour regime. Here, resilience is a measure of how much disturbance the system can absorb before it makes such a fiip.

By either definition, Holling and Meffe (1 996:33O) conclude that "when the range of natural variation in a system is reduced, the system loses resiliency."

For many lay audiences, the level of detail required to explain the concept of self-organization may simply be this: when high quality energy (sunlight) enters an open system (an ecosystem), the systern responds with spontaneous organization. The energy is dissipated when the system uses it to rnaintain its structure, converting it, for example, into biornass. This property of self- organization is emergent, that is, it occurs spontaneously. A simple example of emergent self-organizing behaviour is the vortex that is created without prompting when the plug is pulled in a sink full of water (Kay 1993).

For most audiences, more explanation will be required.

Birth, Gro wth, Death, Rene wal cycle4

AI1 of the information contained in this section is adapted from Holling (1995) unless otherwise noted.

Appendix B: Ecosystems 8-74

It can be very important for lay audiences to understand the concept of the birth, growth, death, renewal cycle. When speaking of ecological integrity, threats to ecological integrity. and the impacts that we may have on ecosysterns. it can be very useful to have this framework against which to place such ideas. In short, explaining the process in general aids in explaining how specific actions can affect that process.

Holling (1995) describes four stages in the ecosystem cycle (see Figure B-1, below): exploitation, conservation, release, and reorganization. Exploitation refers to the stage immediately after a disturbance, when ecosystem elements rnove in to take advantage of newly released energy and nutrients. For example. this stage wouid see a lodgepole pine seed ready to begin its life after a fire. The process of burning has released nutrients into the soi1 that were previously stored in standing timber. These are now available for the incoming 'exploiters' like the seed.

Figure 8-1: The four ecosystem functions and the ffow of events between them (from Holiing 1995)

K - strategy k ~ 4 Accessible carbon Consolidation

3 Release

Weak Strong Connectedness

The arrows show the speed of that fiow in the ecosystem cycle, where arrows close to each other indicate a rapidly changing situation and arrows far from each other indicate a slowly changing situation. The cycle refiects changes in two attributes; that is (1) the Y axis - the amount of accumulated capital (nutrients, carbon) stored in variables that are the dominant keystone variables at the moment - and (2) the Xaxis - the degree of connectedness among variables. The exit from the cycle indicated at the left of the figure suggests the stage where a flip is most likely into a less or more productive and organized systern (Le., devolution or evolution as revolution!).

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 6-15

The second stage is Conservation. This is the slow process by which ecosystem elements accumulate and conserve the energy that flows into the system. The process of photosynthesis sees leaves on the trees take the incoming sunlight. combine it with soil nutrients and water, and produce tree growth. As some elements accumulate the available 'capital' of nutrients and biomass. less is available for other elernents, and they are out-competed.

After a long process of conservation cornes the relatively rapid process of Release. When the ecosystem becomes brittle and rigid, or 'overconnected'. it becomes particularly vulnerable to disturbances such as fire. flood, insect infestation, grazing. wind, etc. For example. in the Central Rockies Ecosystem a forest which has collected a great deal of fuel, and which is more tightly spaced. increases its odds of succurnbing to a lightning strike. Likewise, the increase in leaf area (Le., food for defoliating insects) and tight proximity increase the susceptibility to infestation. By processes such as fire and infestation, the 'natural capital' stored in the vegetation is released to becorne available for other ecosystem elements.

Reorganization is the process by which the ecosystem makes the released energy and nutrients available for exploiters. The soil processes of mobilization and immobilization minimize nutrient loss, and ensure nutrients are available for the exploiters in the next phase when the cycle begins again.

Ecosystem change over time One of the key elements to understanding how ecosystems develop is understanding how the ecosystem changes through time. As a previous section has noted. development of an ecosystern takes place over huge spans of time - a tree growing for hundreds of years; the adaptation of species over millennia.

However. it must also be understood that change can also take place very rapidly. This means an ecosystem will develop at a lurching. discontinuous pace.

The cycle above is characterized by periods of rapid and gradua1 change. The release phase can be very fast relative to the others. For example, a fire can dramatically alter an entire ecosystern in a matter of days. The conservation phase is quite slow comparatively, and can lurch from one ternporary steady state to another (Kay 1993). Succession is an example of this, where each sera1 stage is a ternporary steady state. followed by a lurch to the next.

Instances of this cycle will also be nested within each other ternporally. Holling (1995) gives the example of the boreal forest where "fresh needles cycle yearly; the crown of foliage cycles with a decadal period; and trees, gaps, and stands cycle at a period of about a century or more."

Appendix B: Ecosystems B-16

Equilibrïum and stabiliiy Stability and equilibrium in ecosystems are concepts with a long history in ecology. They also have a history of misconception. Agee and Johnson (1 988) point out, '[Ecosystems] are envisioned as having a natural balance or static equilibrium that in fad does not exist."

Ecology, thermodynamics, and systems science have found several characteristics of nature that could lead to a view of ecosysterns as 'in balance.' Indeed, nature does resist movement away from an equilibrium? And nature is full of exarnples of negative feedback - processes that move a system back to its original state. For example (as described above), as a population of deer grows, Î t is controlled by factors such as predation. limits of food supply, and social behaviour - al1 of which tend to return it to its 'original' state (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). Such processes rnaintain a certain degree of stability in the system over a period of time.

That balance, or stability, exists only on short scales of tirne. In the long term, the system requires that there be an alternation between stability and instability. The exploitation and conservation phases of Holling 's model (above) are characterised by stability, which is necessary for an ecosystem element to grow. The release and reorganization phases represent instability in the system. which makes energy and nutrients available for new ecosystem elements. thereby ensuring the continuation of the birth, growth, death. renewal cycle of the ecosystem.

The concept of equilibrium is still applicable for ecosystems, but this is not (as Agee and Johnson termed it) a 'static equilibriurn.' Holling and Meffe (1 996:332) sum up: "Ecosystems do not have single equilibria, with functions controlled to remain near them. Rather, multiple equilibria, destabilizing forces far from equilibria, and absence of equilibria define functionally different stable states. and movement between states maintains an overall structure and diversity."

Catastrophe theory and chaos theory Holling 's ecosystem cycle, and the brief discussion of ecosystem change over time contain the essential elements of what is known as Catastrophe Theory. This more or less says that "systems will undergo dramatic, sudden changes in a discontinuous wayn (Kay and Schneider 1994:34). Kay and Schneider note this can apply to systems such as the circulatory system (a heartbeat is the heart emptying in a sudden, discontinuous way), or the excretory system (the bladder empties suddenly, discontinuously).

An ecosystem is subject to this sort of catastrophe, too. A sudden change in a species' population such as a crash or an eruption, or a massive change to an

5 'This is the second law of thermodynamics restated for non-equilibrium situationsn (Kay and Schneider 1994:note15).

Appendix 6: Ecosystems 8-7 7

entire ecosystem by a fire or flood are examples of these catastrophes (Theberge 1993). They are sudden, dramatic and do not happen on a continuous basis.

Catastrophe theory also says that at the point of catastrophic change. several scenarios of change are possible. but no one of those is certain. "Chaos theory takes this one step further by noting that change in any dynarnic system is ultirnately not predictable, because individually small interactions between components accumulate" (Kay and Schneider 1994:34).

The example of billiard balls is often used to illustrate how Newtonian mechanics can explain motion and interaction. Classic analysis ignores such things as friction, potential for non-spherical balls, etc. These are considered 'noise' in the experiment. However, Chaos Theory notes that in time, the accumulation of these minor interactions can actually detemine the behaviour of the system. This leads to an inability to predict the behaviour of the system. The fact that weather predictions cannot go past 5 days - some would Say 5 minutes - is an example of this inability (Kay and Schneider 1994).

For an ecosystem, small disturbances can radically affect the entire ecosystem. especially at the release and exploitation stage. As noted before, a brief occurrence like a fire (release) can dramatically alter the structure of ecosystem which had taken hundreds of years to establish. And at the underconnected and vulnerable exploitation phase, the species which establish themselves can alter or determine the path of succession in that ecosystem (Holling 1995).

Consider this example: an area of grassland is repeatedly overgrazed (by domestic or wild animals). This is a major disturbance that leaves the system vulnerable to exploiters. The classic model of succession would suggest that the area will pass through the same progression of seral stages, eventually returning to the climax vegetation. However, a horse may walk past with the seed of a new plant species stuck in its hoof. unintentionally drop the seed, and fertilize it with rich horse manure. The native grass species may be out-cornpeted by a vigorous new exploiter, and the system could be on its way to a new climax state.

As Noss and Cooperrider (1994:47) note, "Early plant ecologists described plant succession as an orderly process by which one plant community replaces another in a predictable sequence that eventually reverts to a 'climax' community." The tendency was to think of ecosystems responding to disturbance with negative feedback. When considering the importance of destabilizing forces (positive feedback), "[tlhe implication is that if a new disturbance is strong enough or recurs frequently enough, the system may lose the ability to return to its original staten (Noss and Cooperrider 1994:49). For example, an ecosystem which was once savannah. can respond by becoming a shrub-dorninated semi- desert - a new 'climax' or equilibrium state (Walker 1981).

Appendix B: Ecosystems 8-18

Biodiversity

The definition debate The concept of biodiversity is often given as the goal or the rationale for conservation efforts. Thus, an adequate understanding of the t e n is essential for understanding any conservation discussion.

However, the terni suffers from misconceptions, some contrary discussion on the part of scientists. and a potentially fatal blandness that comes from political misuse. Some of these problerns are easily cleared to the degree necessary for lay audiences, and there is an emerging consensus on a definition.

~iodiversi t~ is commonly confused with the simple measure of species richness6 (Grumbine 1992). Angermeier (1 994) points out that some "conceptions of biodiversity ... fail to distinguish between native (naturally evolved) and artificial (human generated) biotic diversity," thus ignoring the impact of invader or non- native species. In order to make the concept easier for the general public to understand, the suggestion has been made to simply equate wildlife with biodiversity (Brussard et al 1992), though that idea has met with deserved disapproval (Perry 1993).

Rodda (1 993:959) has suggested that the cornplexity of the topic means "almost any population biology study, with almost any conclusion, can be framed as an effort to measure or conseme biodiversity." He illustrates this with an example from "a U.S. public land agency." A congressional directive to maintain diversity on forested lands led the agency to choose stand age as the measure of diversity. They harvest one tenth of their area every 5 years and reforested with a monoculture. Voila - diversity.

However, there is a basic point of agreement. Langner and Flather (1 994: 1) assert," Despite the problems of semantics, there is no disagreement that reducing the number of biological entities in a systern or making some of them less abundant reduces diversity." Further, discussions at the Keystone Center (1991) produced a definition for biodiversity which has become quite common:

"the variety of life and its processes; including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolufionary processes that keep them functioning, yet ever changing and adapting. "

The biodiversity hierarchv It is now well accepted in describing biodiversity to refer to a hierarchy of four levels of diversity7: genetic, specieslpopulation. communitylecosystem and regionalllandscape. In t e n s of conservation. these mean keep the genes, keep

6 species richness is defined by Noss and Cooperrider (1994) as 'The number of species within a defined area." 7 see for example Grumbine 1992, Noss Cooperrider 1994, Langner and Flather 1994.

Appendix 0: Ecosystems B-79

all the species, keep the individual habitats, and keep the landscape in which those habitats occur. Of course, it is slightly more complicated than this. However, these are relatively straightforward to explain to a lay audience. and help avoid the misconceptions listed above.

Genetic diversity The ability of a species to persist depends on it having sufficient genetic material to maintain its immediate fitness and its adaptability (Soulé 1980).

Small populations of species lose some genetic resources as a matter of chance (genetic drift). When populations get particularly low or isolated. the diversity of genetic material decreases. In these situations. the likelihood of inbreeding (mating with relatives) increases. which has a direct impact on the fitness of individ uals. ln breeding can lead to "increased rnortality rates. reduced fecundity. increased incidence of birth defects. and reduced resistance to disease, a pattern referred to collectively as inbreeding depression" (Lacy 1992).

This lack of diversity in genetic material also affects the ability of the species to adapt to the constant changes in environmental conditions. A change in the availability of a favoured food source may mean genotypes8 which are more successful reproducers than others. or which better adapt to new food sources will survive, while other genotypes do not. A variety of genotypes means the population as a whole has a better chance of surviving.

Species diversity For most lay (and some technical and professional) audiences, this level of diversity is mistaken to be the whole of biodiversity. Measures of diversity at this level include both the number of different species in a given area, and the relative abundance of each species (Langner and Flather 1994).

Measurements of diversity at this scale must consider the identity of those species, too. The addition of numerous non-native species does not increase true diversity. As well, the loss of a critical or "keystone" species has a greater impact than the loss of another species might.

Within any discussion of species diversity there should also be consideration of the fact that we have described about 1.4 million of the perhaps three to thirty million (or more) species that are thought to inhabit Our planet (Wilson 1991).

Community/ecosystem diversiy A community refers to the interacting collection of plants and animals that exist in a given habitat. An ecosystem is that, plus the abiotic elements such as air, water, soil, etc., and interactions with those. An ecosystem or community is

a An individual with a particular set of genes.

Appendix 8: Ecosystems B-20

usually identified by its dominant vegetation type, for example an old-growth Douglas-fir forest. But within that forest. there rnay be areas where a tree has fallen and opened the canopy to allow light that speeds second growth; a fen has been created by an upwelling spring; a fire has burned some areas to the ground. scorched others, and ignored yet others.

These groupings are delineated and mapped - and their diversity measured - based on a variety of characteristics. Though the separations rnay appear somewhat arbitrary, as Grurnbine (1 992:24) points out, '... it is easy to recognize the difference between ancient forest. subalpine meadow and sagebrush."

This level of diversity considers the variety of al1 parts and the structure created. but also considers the variety of interrelationships and processes in the given a rea .

Again, diversity measures are considered within the native limits of variation. By the broadest definition of diversity, adding a small town, a garbage dump and a golf course to a wilderness area would increase the diversity of ecosystems, but this does not irnprove the biodiversity.

Regional / landscape diversity Diversity at this scale refers to the heterogeneous pattern of habitats and s ecies

1 8 assemblages (Noss and Cooperrider 1994) across a landscapeg or region .

One of the best ways to understand the need for diversity at this level is to look at the far-ranging grizzly bear. A male grizzly may have a home range of 2000 km2. In that space, he visits several different habitat types that are crucial to his survival, and distributes seeds along the way.

Measures of the functional diversity at this level include degree of fragmentation, connectedness, patch shape. edge complexity, and average patch size (Langner and Flather 1994).

Alpha, beta and gamma diversity One will often see these levels of diversity described in a slightly different way based on a typology developed by Whittaker (1 960. 1972, 1977). Alpha diversity, or within-habitat diversity, is similar to species diversity as described above. It refers to the collection of species within an area of relatively homogeneous habitat.

9 Landscape: again, Forman and Godron (1 986) define a landscape as "a heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosysterns that is repeated in sirnilar form throughout." 1 O Region (bioregion, ecoregion): Noss and Coopemder (1 994:11) define a region as referring to 'large landscapes that can be distinguished from other regions on the basis of climate, physiography, soils, species composition patterns (biogeography). and other variables."

Appendix B: Ecosystems 5 2 1

Movernent along environmental gradients" across the landscape, sees a change to species that are more adapted to those new environmental conditions. The diversity of species that this represents is beta divemity, or between-habitat diversity.

The collection of various environmental gradients makes for a series of different habitat types. The diversity of species within these habitat types across the landscape is gamma divemity.

The importance of distinguishing between these types of diversity is summed up well by Noss and Cooperrider (1 994:lO):

Two regions of roughly equivalent gamma divemity may differ greatly in alpha and beta diversity. For exampk, Region A is mostly Io wland forest with high alpha diversity but little habitat diversity. Thus, any site in the region is likely to contain roughly the same set of species. In contrast, Region B is mountainous, with trernendous differences in species composition behveen habitats but lower diversity within any single habitat.

Extinction

Though simply counting the number of species in a given area is not an adequate method for measuring the quality of biodiversity, monitoring the loss of species is a good measure of the degradation of biodiversity. This is because the existence of al1 the parts does not guarantee that they are interacting and functioning without impairment. However, if the parts are gone, the interactions between them, of course, cease.

The main task of conservation science and management is to understand how extinctions occur and to try to prevent an abnormal extinction pattern (Grumbine 1992). The advanced science involved in this inquiry is beyond what a lay audience needs to understand, but the basics of what causes extinctions are not.

What causes extinction Extinctions are caused by a combination of deterministic and stochastic (random) processes (S haffer 1981 , Soulé 1 987). Deterministic causes are straightforward to predict. Grumbine (1 992) gives the example of how introducing a cat into a backyard ecosystern will likely cause avian populations to decline. There are a variety of natural and human-caused (see Threats section below) deterministic forces.

All species populations fluctuate naturally over time (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). But when we get species populations down to small numbers, or fragment them so that they are effectively small, stochastic forces can take over and lead to extinction (Shaffer 1987, Grumbine 1992, Noss and Cooperrider 1994).

11 Defined in Noss and Cooperrider (1994) a s "The change in ecological or environmental features across space, such as c h a n g e s in elevation, moisture, temperature, or soi1 chemistry."

Appendix 6: Ecosystems 8-22

Stochasticitv 12

There are commonly four types of stochastic processes that can lead a small population to extinction (Grurnbine 1992): genetic, demographic, environmental and catastrophic.

Genetic uncertainty The processes of inbreeding and genetic drift (described above) will cause changes in the genetic makeup of a population that will affect its adaptability and fitness. For a small population, this will eventually lead to extinction (see Box B- 1)-

Box B-1: Measures of how many individuals are needed to counter genetic uncertain ty

Using empirical results from the work of animal breeders with captive populations and from laboratory expenments with fruit flies, biologists have determined that a population of about fifty individuals will not be harmed by inbreeding over the short term (Soulé 1980, Franklin 1980). .. Populations of this size lose 25 percent of their genetic variation over a span of twenty to thirty generations. . . .

Five hundred has been used as the number of individuals needed for long-term population viability. This is problematic. Over generations, genetic drift ... tends to reduce variation in a population, while random mutations may increase genetic diversity. Based on known average rates or mutation of 0.1 percent per generation, biologists have picked 50,000 generations as a long-term period for population viability. The result is that a deme of 500 should have enough staying power to cope with genetic uncertainty over time. ... [Franklin 1980, Soulé 19801

[However], the numbers 50-500 refer to effective population (Ne) size. not the census numbers farniliar to managers and laypeople ... The Ne will almost always be lower than the census size because not al1 individuals contribute equally to reproduction. A good guess is that census counts will be on average about four times higher than effective populations (Wilcox 1986)

- adapted from Grurnbine 1992

Demographic uncedainty The demographic makeup of the population can affect its viability in the long- term. If there are more males than females, the reproductive rate will be lower. In small populations. if the death rate outpaces the birth rate. extinction will occur quickly (Noss and Cooperrider 1994).

Environmental uncertainty Randorn changes in the species' environment such as a drought, loss of a food source, changes in climate, etc. can cause extinction in a small population.

l2 Grumbine (1992) defines Stochasticity as 'uncertainty due to random events." or random environmental change.

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 8-23

cafasfmphic uncertainty This brand of random force is often grouped with the environmental uncertainty. and is in effect an extreme fom of it. Fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes. landslides, etc. are al1 large scale natural forces that can in one pass eliminate a small population of a species.

It must be remembered that these forces do not act singly but in concert. and often compound each other. Grurnbine (1992) surnmarizes this nicely with an example:

A disease (en vironmental uncertainty) could reduce the grizzly population in the North Cascades to six males and one female, the resulting unbalanced sex ratio (demographic uncertainty) could contnb ute to in breeding (genetic uncertainty), and this could lead to few viable offspring and. eventually, extinction.

13 Population viability analvsis There have been attempts to establish extinction thresholds for various species in order to guide ecosystern managers. Using an understanding of the uncertainty described above, and empirical data. biologists have attempted to corne up with a numerical figure for a minimum viable population (MVP). Though a worthwhile endeavour, there have been problerns.

First. there is a tendency to assume that the MVP number is certain. and that populations can be managed down to that number. However, even with a well- researched species like the grizzly bear, we rarely if ever know with accuracy how many inhabit a given ecosystem, let alone how many could. These numbers were only ever intended as a guideline.

Second, the combination of genetic, dernographic, environmental and catastrophic uncertainty, plus the fact that species exist in meta-populations'4. has required a different view of viability. Conservation biologists tend now to look at population viability analysis, a more comprehensive consideration of viability looking at al1 types of stochasticity, and the variables added with meta- populations (Grumbine 1992).

Island bioaeoarap hy In 1967. R.H. MacArthur and €.O. Wilson looked at extinction rates on islands. and determined a correlation with island site, and proximity to sources of new species. Extinction rates were a function of the balance between extinction and immigration.

13 "A viable population is one that maintains vigour (health) and the potential for future yolutionary adaptation." (Soul4 1987)

A rneta-population is a 'set of partially isolated populations belonging to the same species. The populations are able to exchange individuals and recolonize sites in which the species has recently become extinct" (Noss and Cooperrider 1994).

Appendix 8: Ecosystems B-24

Their conclusions were that - al1 other things equal - large islands tended to have a greater array of ecosystems. and therefore more species. They also had more area, and therefore greater populations. These were factors that tended to mitigate extinction forces. Secondly. they determined that islands that were closer to the mainland (a source for new species), enjoyed a greater rate of colonization by new species. Finally, islands that were once connected (land- bridge islands), when disconnected eventually settled to a diversity of species lower than they had when connected to the mainland.

The experiments and research on this topic, island biogeography, has had a great influence on conservation biology and environmental reserve design. It has led to an undentanding that "islands" of biodiversity within a terrestrial landscape that have been disconnected face a similar extinction rate. dependent on their size and connection to other sources of biodiversity.

Values of Biodivenity There are many ways in which humans derive value from biological diversity. It is important for communicators and managers to understand these differences. Noss and Cooperrider 1994 have pointed out that there are several texts that I ) have studied this topic' . Kellert (1996) provides perhaps one of the most complete and knowledgeable discussions, identiwing nine basic values of nature and living diversity. For the purpose of this section, it will be adequate to group them into three major categories: utilitarian, ecological, and non-physical.

It must be added, however, that to a large degree these separations are artificial (Myers 1991). What contributes to the longevity of an ecosystem. sustains its ability to provide products for humans. for example.

Utilitarian values Most discussions of the value of biodiversity are likely to either start with utilitarian values. or contain only these values. It is a good place to start as people can readily identify with how their life is affected by (dependent on) biological diversity.

However. there are dangers in the anthropocentric view being the sole approach. Ehrenfeld (1 978,1988, quoted in Noss and Cooperrider 1994:20) describes the dilemma thus: "Conservationists often faIl into a trap of justifying species preservation for utilitarian purposes, thereby sanctioning the humanistic attitude that is responsible for the biodiversity crisis."

There is also a tendency to adopt economic valuation of biodiversity as the only valuation method. What is not economically justifiable is not of value. Aldo

l5 They give as examples Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981. Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen 1983. 1986. Norton 1986, Wilson 1988, World Wildlife Fund 1 991.

Appendix B: Ecosystems 5-25

Leopold recognized the problem here almost 50 years ago, '... one basic weakness in a conse~ation system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic valuen (194921 0).

The utilitarian values can be divided into 'ecosystem goods' and 'ecosystem services' (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981). The goods are familiar to most audiences. but the services are more intuitive and risk being ignored. Some examples are:

Ecosystem goods Food Construction materials

- Medicinal plants Wild genes for domestic plants and animals Potential new phanaceuticals, fibres, petroleum substitutes. and other products.

Ecosystem services Maintaining hydrological cycles Regulating clirnate Cleansing water and air Maintaining the gaseous composition of the atmosphere Pollinating crops and other important plants Generating and maintaining soils Storing and cycling essential nutrients Absorbing and detoxifying pollutants

(adapted from Wilson 1991, Christensen et al 1996)

One particularly effective example for illustrating to the need to keep al1 the parts for anthropocentric reasons is the Taq polymerase molecule (Varley 1993b). This key to the well-known 'DNA fingerprinting' procedure was extracted from a bacterium found in the hotsprings of Yellowstone National Park.

Ecolocjcal values In one sense, this section summarizes what the previous sections have implied: evolution depends on biod iversity. Diversity is important for a biolog ical system for two primary reasons: redundancy and information storage. Two better writers than I have surnmed these two concepts very well:

Redundancy "...Redundancy - duplication or repetition of the elements of a system - provides alternative functional channels in case of a failure. Each ecosystem contains built-in redundancies that give it the resilience to resist change or to bounce back after disturbance" (Masser quoted in Winter 1993).

Appendix 8: Ecosystems B-26

lnforma tion storage "Biodiversity is the information database for ecosystem organization. The ability of an ecosystem to regenerate. as part of the birth. growth. death and renewal cycle, is a function of the species available for the regeneration process. This, of course, is related to the biodiversity of the larger landscape that the ecosystem is part of. Thus preservation of biodivenity is important because we are in effect preserving the library used for regeneration of landscapes" (Kay and Schneider 1 994: 36).

Non-phvsical values There are functions that are valuable to the physical functioning of both human beings and entire ecosystems. There are also a number of non-physical values often gathered under the various headings of aesthetic. intrinsic, ethical. etc.

These can be dismissed as 'intangible'. but they are most likely the motivations behind why people enjoy or defend areas of exceptional biological diversity (Noss and Cooperrider 1994:21). They are therefore important to understand and consider.

Non-physical values can be crudely divided into intrinsiclethical and aesthetic values:

Great debates can erupt around the word 'intrinsic' and whether humans can truly step outside of themselves in this way. 'Intrinsic value' seems to be an oxymoron. However, the basic ethical argument for protecting biodiversity is that "al1 forms of life on earth enjoy equal rights to existence" and "conversely, humankind has no right to exterminate a species ... no right to precipitate. through the elimination of large numbers of species. a fundamental and permanent shift in the course of evolution" (Myers 1991:16). The World Charter for Nature - adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1982 - pledged a sirnilar thingA6.

A esthetic The aesthetic values of biodiversity can range from physical beauty. to value due to the fact humans cannot truly create biodiversity (Angermeier 1994). to the mental health reasons. These are well described by J.B. Harkin, Canada's first commissioner of national parks, here in relation to national parks:

'Natjonal Parks are maintained for al1 the people - for the il/, that they may be restored, for the well that they may fortified and inspired by the sunshine, the fresh air, the beauty, and al1 other healing, ennobling, and inspiring agencies of nature. They exist in order that every citizen of Canada may salis?. his craving for Nature

l6 Tvery form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to [humans], and, to accord other organisms such recognition, [humans] must be guided by a moral code of action" (quoted in Noss and Cooperrider 1994, p.23)

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 6-2 7

and Nature's beauty; that he rnay abso& the poise and restfulness of the forests; that he rnay steep his sou1 in the brilliance of the wild flowers and the sublimity of the mountain peaks; that he rnay develop in himself the buoyancy, the joy, and the activity he sees in the wild animals; that he rnay stock his mind with the ra w ma terial of intelligent optimism, great thoughts, noble ideals; that he rnay be made better. happier, and healthief (Harkin 1957).

It should be noted that these values can be measured in some fashion with econometrics, but are exclusive of economics. This is similar to measuring the value of loved ones by their annual income.

Ecological realities and challenges for management

Looking at the threats to ecosystems listed above, it is relatively straig htfoward to draw connections to the challenges they would pose for a person or organization charged with the stewardship of a land base or ecological resource. However, quite apart from the threats, the very behaviour of those ecosystems creates significant management challenges, which rnay not - but should be - clear in the minds of the lay audience.

Again. there are several texts that deal with these 'ecological realities' in detail. The purpose here is to provide a simple list as a starting point for communicators and communicating managers.

Uncertaintv Virtually al1 of these challenges are the result of the vast complexity of ecosystems (as described briefly above). The complexity leads to a great deal of uncertainty about how to manage our interaction with an ecosystem (Holling & Meffe 1996, Kay & Schneider 1994, Grumbine 1992). In particular, the complexity implies: 1) a lack of predictability of ecosystem behaviour (Holling & Meffe 1996, Risser 1995, Bocking 1994, Kay & Schneider 1994); and 2) a lack of controllability of ecosysterns (Angermeier 1994. Kay & Schneider 1994; see also Gibbs 1994)

lnadeauate knowledqe lnadequate knowledge about how ecosystems behave is a constant barrier for ecosystern scientists and managers (Grumbine 1992. Holling 8 Meffe 1996, Lagner & Flather 1994, Agee & Johnson 1988, Christensen et al 1996). Often a particular species or process is selected for study as a surrogate for complete knowiedge because it represents - or indicates - some aspect of ecosystem vigour (Theberge 1993. Noss & Cooperrider 1994). In some cases an indicator species rnay be a keystone17 or umbrel~a'~ species (Grumbine 1992, Noss 8 Cooperrider 1994, Holling & Meffe 1996, Myers 1991).

17 Keystone species: "A species that plays a pivotal role in an ecosystem and upon which a large part of the community depends" (Noss 8 Cooperrider 1994).

Appendix 0: Ecosystems 8-28

Ecoloqical scale of space and time Management time scales are often a matter years (5 year management plans, 4 year election ternis, annual reports, etc.). Management spatial scales do not extend to limits of an ecosystem, and are artificially truncated because of legal jurisdiction, etc. Ecosystems, on the other hand, can spread across several administrative jurisdictions, and operate on time scales that range into rnillennia.

Constant change -

uEcosystems are moving targetsn (Holling & Meffe 1996). Ecosystems are constantfy evotving. adapting and changing. As well as adapting to new knowledge, management policies must be flexible and adaptable to this constant change in the ecosystems themselves. This creates two problems in particular: 1) management mandates that require some degree of 'naturalness' must provide a definition of natural that slides as the conditions of the ecosystem change (Grumbine 1992. Holling & Meffe 1996, Agee & Johnson 1988). and 2) management mandates that require restoration to a historical state must account for the 'natural' changes and the irreversible adaptations that have occurred in the ecosystem since the historical point in time (Holling & Meffe 1996, Kay & Schneider 1994, Agee 8 Johnson 1988).

lnadequacy of nature reserves The answers to the questions posed in facing these challenges are hoped to come from areas of undisturbed nature which act as benchmarks. However existing nature reserves are increasingly being seen as inadequate to the task (Grumbine 1992, Souk 1992. Theberge 1993). Their boundaries are not designed to accommodate biotic needs (Newmark 1985). they are generally too small to provide the minimum dynamic aredg required (Grumbine 1 W2), and they are not extensive enough nor well enough connected to other areas of biodiversity to ensure their persistence (Noss and Cooperrider 1994).

--

Threats

Once an audience understands the role of. and need for, properly functioning ecosystems and biological diversity, the next step is an understanding of the threats that are faced by ecosysterns. Though sorne threats are global, or cornmon to every ecosystem on the planet, each ecosystem has a unique set of threats. Lay audiences must acquire knowledge both of the local threats and the broader or global threats. Information on local threats allows them a 'connection point' which they can readiiy understand, while some understanding of the

l8 Umbrella species: 'Species that require large areas to maintain viable populations and by which protection of their habitat rnay protect the habitat and populations of many other more restricted or (gss wide-ranging speciesn (Noss 8 Cooperrider 1994).

Minimum Dynamic Area: "the smallest area subject to a pattern of natural disturbance that retains an interna1 recolonization sourcen (Grumbine 1992).

Appendix B: Ecosystems 8-29

broader threats allows them to place the local situation into the broadest possible context.

There is a tremendous amount of literature on the threats that face ecosystems (Mo of the most readable examples are Grumbine 1992. and Noss & Cooperrider 1994). It is not necessary nor appropriate to detail them here. However, there are two points to consider when compiling such a list.

First. there are several levels at which one can describe threats. For example. if one lists 'road building' as a threat, are habitat fragmentation and direct mortality sub-threats under this point? Or do the latter points stand on their own. It is important to distil the list of threats down to a set that consists of points that are as explicit and distinct as possible. One must also be clear about where on the cause-effect continuum information should be. Should 'loss of species' be stated as a threat to biodiversity. or should the factors that cause a loss of species be stated?

Second, the set of threats which one arrives at will likely be extensive. This can be an ovewhelming amount of information to try to disseminate to any audience. It is best to pare that list down to the handful of major ecological threats that best serve one's information purposes. Two methods that can be used are. 1) choose a few issues which each represent several of the threats (e-g.. the road building example given above), or 2) or select a few threats that are the most critical, and focus efforts there. An exarnple Banff National Park's evil seven (White et a l 1993).

As an example, here is a compiled list of the major threats that might be appropriate for Banff National Park.

direct mortality b roadkill r> poaching D predator control D overharvest (fish) D direct human impacts on vegetation (trampling, flower picking)

habitat degradation D habitat loss o habitat fragmentation (insularization, islandization. loss of connectivity) D wildlife displacement

invaderlexotic species D vegetation i> aquatic fauna D terrestrial fauna

impairment of ecolog icall evolutionary processes r> fire suppression

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 6-30

D upset predator-prey relationships D pest infestation suppression D overgrazing t> wildlife habituation D interruption hydrologie cycle (dams, channelization. erosion, pollution) D air pollution

cumulative effects global threats

D overpopulation r> abnorrnal clirnate change r> global extinction rates

Appendix 8: Ecosystems 8-3 1

1 Appendix C: Ecologlcai iategrity definitions I Water Quality Act Amendments of 1972 refer to "the physical, chernical and

biological integnty. " Karr (1 992) suggests that their sum is ecological integrity.

'A biological system. whe ther individual or ecological, can be considered healthy when its in heren t potential is realized. its condition is stable, its capacity for self-repair when pertuhed is preserved, and minimal extemal support for management is needed. YKarr 1992)

"IntegtQ, fmom a namw human perspective, rnight be defined as the continued provision of the 'ecological goods and servicesJ that we depend on for survival." (Grumbine 1992)

"An ecological system has maintained its integrity . . . if it retains (1) the total divemity of the system - the sum total of the species and

associations tha t have held sway historically - and (2) the systematic organiza tion tha t main tains tha t diversity, including,

especialiy, the system 's multiple layers of complexity through time. " (Norton 1992)

'A living system exhibits integrïty if, when subjected to distu&ance, it sustains an organizing, self-correcting capability to recover to ward an endsta te tha t is normal and 'goodJ for that system. " (Regier 1 993)

"To have ecological integnty, ecosystems ,rnust be unimpaired by stresses. have naturally functioning ecological processes and contain a full complement of native species that can maintain their populations. " (Parks Canada 19944)

"A condition where the structure and function of an ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human activity and are likely to persist. " (Parks Canada 1994c)

... completeness of evolved elements and processes over a broad range of organizational levels and temporospatial scales. " (An g ermeier 1 994)

"A geographic site exhibits a higher quality of ecological integrity when natural processes and disturbance regimes can be expected to continue over long periods of time, thereby maintaining the natural regionJs compliment of biodivemity. (lacobelli et al 1 994)

Appendix C: Ecological integnty definitions C- 7

- - -- - - - - - . . - - - -- - -

l ~ p ~ e n d i x D: Linkages between information, attitudes and behaviour 1 A comrnon criticism of communication strategies. and a common area of social investigation is whether there is a connection between information presented and a change in behaviour. Grumbine (1994~) notes that a common mistake of biologists. managers and policy-makers is 'tacitly assuming that a science-based strategy is sufficiently compelling to change human behaviour."

Theoretical connections The theoretical arguments are not found in ecological science:

The key pychobgical variables intewening between environmen t and human beha viour with~n it are a mixture of cognitive and affective attitudes, emotions or affective responses, perception and cognition, and ieaming. (Golledge and Stimson 1987: 13)'.

It begins with perception. This is the "immediate apprehension of the environment. ... It is closely connected with events in the immediate surroundings and is, in general, linked with immediate behaviour." Cognition refers to "the way information, once received. is stored and organised in the brain so that it fits in with already accumulated knowledge that a person has ... The end product of perception and cognition is a mental image of the objective environment. ... Thus, people respond not directly to their reai environment. but to their mental image of it."

Cognitive components mix with affective components and conative components to make up attitudes (see Table D-1). "Attitude ... can be regarded as a learned predisposition to respond to a situation in a consistent way. ... Attitude contains the notion that it is learned. that it predisposes to action, and that it is relatively invariant over time."

Table Di: The componenfs of attitudes

1 Cognitive 1 involving perceiving, knowing and thinking 1 1 1 processes by which the individual knows their 1

1 1 environment. motivated by desires and values that 1 Affective

environment involving feelings and emotions about the

Perhaps the best way to summarise this is diagramrnatically (see Figure D-1).

Conative (or Behavioural)

1 The theoretical information in this section, unless otherwise noted, is derived from Golledge and Stimson, 1987: 35-51.

are embodied in the image of the environment involving acting, doing, striving and thus having an effect on the environment in response to (a) and (b).

Appendix D: Information, attitudes and beha viour D- 7

(aiier Fishbein as quoted in Golledge and Stimson 1987)

Figure D-7: A W d e Componenl as lnfervening Variables Between Stimuli and Behaviour

(adapted from Golledge and Stimson 1987)

Despite the relative invariance of attitudes, Golledge and Stimson go on to point out that learning plays a role, 'as al1 the components of attitude may change with experience. . . . Attitudes are evolutionary through the learning process . . ." Saferstein (1 994) adds that through the "moment-to-rnornent interaction and communication that comprise daily life," we "both shape and respond to preferences, attitudes, and opinions."

--

Practical connections

Considerable study has been devoted to the connection between communication and behaviour change in conservation efforts. Kim and Hunter (1993) re- examined 138 attitude-behaviour correlations (with a sample size of over 90.000), and found "a strong overall attitude-behaviour relationship (r = .79) when methodological artifacts were eliminated." After conducting his own study. Steel (1 996) concluded that "attitude intensity is indeed [positively] correlated with self-reported environmental behaviour and political activism in environmental issues."

Perhaps more compelling are the connections shown in practical situations. For example. Jacobson (1995) collected 15 case studies from around the vrorld airned at providing practical information on (and real world examples of) the successful use of communication techniques to foster wildlife conservation.

- -- -

Potential problems

There are, of course, many examples which appear to refute the connection between communication and behaviour change, as well. However, there are several possible flaws in the study and execution of such programs.

There is a great deal of debate on the attitude and behaviour links in the social science literature. Steel (1 996) summarizes the methodological aspects to the

Appendix O: Information, attitudes and behaviour 0-2

debate well, then goes on to question the wording of questions as well as theoretically different measures for attitudes and for behaviour.

In execution, people can be told that changes must be made, "but are provided little support or direction for making changes in ways that can also rnaintain economic vitality. Hence, local citizens often oppose conservation efforts" (Doppelt et al 1993). The net result is that information which could have changed behaviour did not.

Hornig Priest (1995) found that people were less influenced by narrow media than assumed, and in fact responded best to news "addressing full range of ethical, social, econornic and policy issues." Thus, a lack of complete information rnay lead to no change in behaviour.

Many other possible problems will exist in both research design. and program execution.

~ommunicat io~canchan~e behaviour Referring to the literature on the topic, there are several ways that communication and education can aid in effecting desired behaviour changes.

Caro et a1 (1 994), using prelpost-course surveys and a Kellert attitudinal scale. found that conservation biology education gave direction to less well-formed attitudes. For example, students came away with a greater appreciation for 'pests' and stronger attitudes against wildlife exploitation, but perhaps more importantly they were also better able to articulate existing pro-conservation attitudes.

Mugica and de Lucio (1996) determined that for Doiiana National Park, Spain, on-site experience with lesser known features of the park led to a change in attitudes towards the landscape. In al1 likelihood, people were not moved to change their values about protecting the area, but instead became aware of these new features, and 'drew them into' the realm of what they considered beautiful and worth protecting.

Finally, understanding and becoming comfortable with the complexity and uncertainty which are inherent in complex systerns and issues rnay influence attitudes and behaviour related to ecological management. Golledge and Stimson (1987) describe this relationship in this way:

In general. if we perceive a stmcture to be complex, it is possible that ouf behaviour. with respect to that structure. rnay also be complex: similady, the perception of simplicity in a structure rnay influence the type of reactions toward it.

For example: An individual who daiiy experiences ... life in the downtown area rnay becorne so famiiiar with those activities that it appears to be quite uncomplicated. The newcomer to the same place ... rnay regard it as so complex an environment as to be almost impossible to negotiate.

Appendix D: Information. attitudes and behaviour 0-3

If people can become comfortable with the uncertainty and the complexity, they will have a different perception of a situation, and might more easily accept actions in favour of a collective goal. Staats et al (1 996) concluded that "it is unlikely that individuals are willing to forfeit some of their personal comfort in favour of long-ten collective interests if ... the desired collective goal ... [is] surrounded by much uncertainty."

Conclusion The secret to connecting communication and desired changes in ecological attitudes and behaviour appean to lie in tying into existing attitudes - rnake a connection between what the person already values, and what is being proposed. For example, most people will value their health; thus one needs to draw connections between human and environmental health. Another example is that people value economic well-being. Again, a connection is made between economic well-being and ecological well-being. The values do not change. but the attitude does as newly perceived information is connected to previous knowledge (cognition) and emotions (affect).

In conclusion, there is no guarantee that increased information will lead to behaviour change. However, there is a guarantee that if new information is not communicated (and then perceived), attitudes cannot change. In other words, new information is a necessary, but perhaps not suffcient requirement for behaviour change.

Appendix D: Information, attitudes and behaviour 0-4

Appendlx E: The evolutlon of ecosystem management in Parks Canada, emphasidng Banff Nationai Park

As with its appearance elsewhere, EM did not occur suddenly in Parks Canada but rather evolved (see Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management; History of resource management). The Park Canada policy of 1979 had a vague sense of EMt speaking of managing in a regional context (BBVS 1996b).

In this same year, Waterton Lakes National Park was designated as a Biosphere Reserve. The core-buffer mode1 used in biosphere reserves (which has had many incarnations; see Noss and Cooperrider 1994) provided a structure for implementing a CO-operative approach to regional management.

A major turning point for Parks Canada was the Act to amend the National Parks Act in 1988 (Government of Canada 1988). Several significant amendments enshrined EM concerns directly in the legislation (as opposed to regulations). "Ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources" was declared to be the "first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use." Public participation requirements were also added. New reporting rules required that park management plans be tabled every five years, and State of the Parks reports be given every two years. Finally, a paragraph was added which allowed for the declaration of wilderness areas within parks, in recognition of the need for higher levels of protection within some parks.

That same year (1988). BNP tabled its Park Management Plan (CPS 1988), which was intended to provide direction for the park for the next 15 years'. Section 7.0, entitled "Regional Integrationn laid out one of the primary concerns of EM:

"As park boundanes do not directly coincide with ecosystem boundaries, many species depend on habitats both within and adjacent to the park. Close co-operation with the other three contiguous national parks, adjacent provincial agencies, private organizations and regional residents is required to ensure that Environment Canada, Parks achieves its mandate for resource protection and visitor use. "

On January 1,1990, pursuant to the Town of Banff incorporation Agreement between the governments of Canada and Alberta, the Town of Banff became an autonomous town (Corbett 1990). The town within Banff National Park became like every other town in Alberta in most aspects, except that the Minister responsible for Parks Canada retained ultimate authority in key areas. For exarnple, al1 management plans and changes to by-laws are subject to approval by the Minister, and al1 developrnents are subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessrnent Act (CEAA) (Coopers and Lybrand 1995a).

Scientists had long seen the need for good scientific data in their studies. Managers had likewise believed in the need for a clear set of management

1 It has since been superseded by the 1997 Banff National Park Management Plan.

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E- 7

guidelines. Dumg the next few years, a growing belief in the need for clear scientific justification for management decisions began to perrneate the management process. In 1990. the Canadian Parks Service Western Region Management Cornmittee received the Report of the Science and Protection Task Force. In looking at future trends, they noted that "An information explosion has begun and will continue into the future" (Science and Protection Task Force 1990:17). They concluded that 'park management decisions must be based on the acquisition and application of credible scientific fact" (Science and Protection Task Force 'iWO:33).

The year 1990 also saw the release of the federal government's Green Pian. A total of $3 billion was committed to various programs under the plan, including $175 million for Special Spaces and Species initiatives (Governrnent of Canada 1990). This was an effort to attach financial resources to protected area commitments , and the impact of this program has been immensely beneficial to ecological research and increased awareness of threats. Unfortunately. the plan's 5 year lifespan left it to sunset in a fiscal era where there was no chance for renewal.

The Green Plan had some very EM-style qualities. One key aspect of this plan was that it had a government-wide focus, intending to permeate every aspect of every department. The plan launched the Canadian Environmental Citizenship Program which aimed to "enable Canadians to move from awareness to understanding and responsible actionn (Governrnent of Canada 1990: 145). Most importantly for EM, one of the Green Plan's seven stated principles was "We Must Think, Plan and Act in Terms of Ecosystems" (1 8).

The 1991 Canadian Environmental Advisory Council (CEAC) report. A Protected Areas Vision for Canada, concluded that "the ecosystern approach should form the core of protected area management strategiesn (CEAC 1991 :39). Their recommendations with regard to EM included revising boundaries with regard to ecological criteria, ensuring clear mandates and appropriate budgets for agencies, identifying appropriate goals, adopting an EM philosophy, increasing ecological research, adopting core-buffer models, and improving CO-operation within and between agencies. These are in essence the agreed upon characteristics of EM today (Grumbine 1994a, Christensen ef a l 1996).

A significant start towards the theme Grumbine identified as 'Interagency CO-

operation' was begun in the Central Rockies Ecosystem (CRE) in 1991. CREILG, the Central Rockies Ecosystem lnteragency Liaison Group, was established that year. Composed of senior field people from the various government agencies with jurisdiction in the CRE~, the group adopted this mandate:

These agencies are Provincial Parks, Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Services of Alberta Environmental Protection; BC Ministry of Forests; the BC Fish and Wildlife Branch, Provincial Parks, and Lands Divisions of BC Environment, Lands and Parks; Park Canada in Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks.

. ... - -

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E-2

To recognize and understand the ecological continuums that cross jun'sdictional boundaries; To liaise with land and resource management agencies and private groups that have an effect on the Central Rockies Ecosystem; To encourage links between databases for the collection, recording and sharing of ecological information; To use existing planning systems, management efforts, and organizations; and To encourage govemments at the federai, provincial, and local levels to take an ecological approach to land management (Komex 1995).

To date, they have pooled a signiftcant amount of data for the area. developed several joint initiatives. sponsored workshops and courses. and commissioned the publication of the Atlas of the Central Rockies Ecosystem (Komex International 1995).

The phrase "ecological integrityn or "ecosystem integrity" was coming to be considered a fundamental concern in ecosystem management. Stephen Woodley's 1991 research in this area provided considerable direction for establishing ways to assess and monitor that elusive concept in Canadian national parks. Woodley formulated a two-pronged approach. based on threat- specific monitoring and more general assessments of ecosystem health wh ich integrated stress ecology, landscape ecology, conservation biology, and biological indicators.

In June of 1992. the final report of the Canadian Parks Service's (Western Region) Ecosystem Management Task Force, Toward SustainaSle Ecosystems, was approved in principle by the Western Reg ional Management Cornmittee (Ecosystem Management Task Force 1992). This was a major step toward customizing ecosystem management to the Canadian Parks Service (now Parks Canada) situation.

The Task Force's objectives were based on the Regional Strategic Plan, Choosing Our Destiny, which had identified as a strategic objective: "Ensure effective decision-making that achieves the protection of park ecosystems ..." The Task Force's specific objectives were to:

7 . Describe visions of protected ecosystems and ecosystem management which are appropriate for the Canadian Parks Service.

2. ldentiv critical elements and issues related to ecosystem management. Recommend actions or initiatives that are essential in striving for protected ecosystems.

3. ldentify strategies or indicators to measure changes in ecosystems and our management of fhem. (Ecosystem Management Task Force 1 992: 1 )

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E-3

The report intentionally avoided a 'prescriptive approach' but rather created a set of principles and proposed organizational changes that could be effected within

During this period, practical efforts were taking place to operationalize these theoretical EM concepts, and to provide a rnethodology for managing for the

the existing planning structure. They identified eight principles "upon which to

- -

increasingly elusive 'ecological integrity.' This speaks-to the third objective of the Ecosystem Management Task Force (see above). The Task Force rightly observed that this was a task that could only be accomplished at the park (or ecosystem) level (Ecosystem Management Task Force 1992).

base al1 actions" (7) in order to achieve an effective ecosystem-based management approach (Box E-1). They developed a list of detailed actions under the headings Leadership, Kno wledge, Communication, Managing Ecosystem Stress, and Organiza tion. They also recommended the creation of an Ecosystern Management Working Group in each park (later created as the Ecosystem Secretariats) to ensure management strategies would be in line with an

In BNP, an Ecosystem Group was created within the Natural Resource area of Heritage Resource Conservation (a.k.a. the Warden Service) to bring about a more CO-ordinated approach to ecosystem research. At this tirne. a simple model was created to map the interactions between humans, wolves. elk and aspen in the Bow Valley ecosystern3. This model was designed to aid in the process of identifying indicators for assessing ecological integrity (White et al 1992), to assess cumulative effects, and to guide management approaches for dealing with the identified issues (White 1993). This model helped CO-ordinate previous research and put it into the context of on-going complex issues such as fire reintroduction, wolf re-colonization, and the Trans Canada Highway twinning.

Box E4: P"n~i'ï* of Ecosmem- Based Management in the CPS 1. Practice and promote

environmental stewardship 2. Treat cause and manage

symptorns 3. Take the holistic approach 4. Take an ecosystem perspective 5. Consider spheres of influence

for al1 issues 6. Base actions on knowledge 7. Get involved with others now! 8. Practice adaptive management

In 1993, a draft Ecosystem Conservation Plan (White 1993) for Banff National Park was created. This draft plan proposed a modelling approach to ecosystem management. Drawing on the emerging scientific fields of conservation biology and restoration ecology, this plan suggested BNP punue an active, goals- oriented approach to EM. It proposed creating a quantitative vision for the Bow Valley (e.g., setting goals for how many grizzly bears should be in the valley. etc.).

ecosystem-based approach.

' The model was intentionally restricted to terrestrial montane ecosystem elements of the Banff Bow Valley to help deal with the overwhetming complexity of the systems and the problems.

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E-4

One key aspect of the plan was the identification of the 'Evil Seven.' The Ecosystem Group distilled the threats facing the park and surrounding (terrestrial) ecosystems into seven cumulative stressors. These are:

1) lack of representivity of important eco-regions in protected area status, 2) vegetation and habitat alterations due to fire suppression and logging, 3) habitat fragmentation due to human developments, 4) human caused wildlife mortality, 5) wildlife displacement by high human use levels, 6) wildlife habituation to high human presence, and 7) introduction of exotic species and stocks.

An argument will likely exist as to whether these are in fact the most evil seven, but more irnportantly this exercise allows managers to target goals at clearly identified issues.

The Banff Montane Ecosystem Model was elaborated on further in a hnro volume document called Assessrnent of Long-Tem Temestrial Ecosystem States and Processes in Banff National Park and the Central Rockies Ecosystem (Kay et al 1994). Using archaeological evidence, early explorer journals, fire histories and repeat photographs, the authors determined how the Banff montane ecosystern rnight have appeared 100 years ago, and how it may have evolved. The aim was to provide a clear historical/evolutionary picture that could inforrn current management actions. This effort was continued and further elaborated in the Temestrial Ecosystem Management Proposal (BNP 1 995) of the Natural Resource Section of the Warden Service. This information and these documents were used extensively by the Banff Bow Valley Study which in effect CO-opted this planning process.

On the policy side, 1994 was a very busy year for Parks Canada and Banff National Park. The new Parks Canada Guiding Pnnciples and Operational Policies (Parks Canada 1994c) replaced the 1979 Parks Canada policy, and erased any doubt that Parks Canada might not be (in policy, at least) intending to pursue EM.

Section 3.1 of the Policy laid out what was meant by 'Ecosystem-Based Management." Various paragraphs listed the characteristics of EM as the setting of measurable goals, adherence to principles of conservation biology, the precedence of natural regulation, monitoring, data collection. and interagency CO- operation. This section also addressed several specific items related to potential species re-introductions, exotic invasions, aquatic ecosystem restoration, management of extractive activities, commitment to the environmental impact assessrnent process. and commitment to being involved in management outside park boundaries.

. At a regional level, in an attempt to manage more on an ecosystem basis, the four contiguous mountain parks (Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay National

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E-5

Parks) were brought together as one district. Parks Canada began a joint management plan review process, co-ordinated by BNP's superintendent. The review was committed to irnplementing an EM approach.

The first newsletter of the Four Mountain Parks Planning Program, released in March of 1994, was devoted in large part to ecosystem-based management (Parks Canada 1994a). It restated the Parks Canada principles of EM (see Box E-1 above), and listed 'Initiating ecosystem-based management" as one of the primary foci of the update. The subsequent summary of public involvement noted that "Respondents ovemhelmingly supported Parks Canada's ecosystem based management approachn (Parks Canada 1994b:5).

A critical development also occurred in July, 1994, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage announcing the start of Banff Bow Valley Study. The study was to address the growing fear that the ecological integrity of the Bow River valley was at risk of permanent impairment (BBVS 1996b). The process of reviewing the management plans for Banff National Park (and al1 the mountain parks) was supplanted by the much more comprehensive examination done by the Banff Bow Valley Task Force. The objectives of the two year study were:

to develop a vision and goals for the Banff-Bow Valley that will integrafe ecological, social and economic values;

to complete a comprehensive analysis of existing infonnation, and to provide direction for future collection and analysis of data to achieve ongoing goals; and

to provide direction on the management of human use and development in a manner that will maintain and provide sustainable tounsm (BB VS 1 9966).

The results were to become the basis of the next BNP management plan.

The EM perspective was gaining popularity in both Canada and the United States (though more agencies have adopted it formally in the United states4). As the concept matured from an academic discussion to a potentially viable management scheme, there was a growing need for direction in implementing EM. Several authors had begun to work on this challenge, most notably Agee and Johnson (1988) whose book reports on a workshop on this topic.

However, it was Ed Grurnbine's keystone essay, "What is Ecosystem Management?" (Grumbine 1994a) which helped to crystalize for al1 people interested in EM what might be involved in applying the concept. Grumbine reviewed the literature already produced on topics related to EM. then melted that down to ten thernes (those themes are the basis for the description of EM in Ch. 3: Background to Ecosystem Management). Grurnbine added very little 'new' information, instead providing the first clear framework for EM.

As a part of this research. the land management agencies in ail provinces were contacted. Only Ontario Parks claimed to be practising an EM approach, and only 8.C. appeared to be close to doing so. For the Arnerican perspective, see the Ecological Society of America's forum on ecosystem management (Ecological Applications. Aug. 1996).

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E-6

Another important event in 1994 was Banff National Park's support for a 5-year intensive research project on grizzly bears. The grizzly bear is an 'ambassador" for EM because of its wide-ranging movements which cut across jurisdictional boundanes. They study, the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, is multi- stakeholder and multi-jurisdictional, with funding coming from over 25 of the stakeholders. Parks Canada is a prirnary supporter (Herrero et al, In press). The interirn results of this project resulted in many concrete changes in management incorporated in the 1997 BNP Park Management Plan.

In 1995, BNP began its involvement in the Bow Corridor Ecosystem Advisory Group. This body consists of representatives from Town of Canmore. Municipal District of Bighorn, Banff National Park and the Environmental Resource Committee of the Province. The group has worked cooperatively on several ecosystem level issues such as fire management and the creation of a process for identifying and protecting wildlife corridors in the Canmore area (Roulet pers. com .).

The most significant event for EM in Parks Canada in recent years (and indeed al1 areas of Parks Canada) has been the reductions to the appropriations received as the federal government struggles to deal with its financial debt and deficit. Several major changes have occurred within Parks Canada and BNP as a result.

In an effort to address the federal deficit, annual funding for Parks Canada is slated to be reduced by $98 million (a 25% reduction) in the period from 1994195 to 1998/99. Parks Canada hopes to double revenues during that period from $35 million to $70 million (Parks Canada 1996). This has resulted in a significant loss of personnel and program funding.

In order to address these budgetary challenges, Parks Canada developed a National Business Plan for the period 1995196 to 199912000 (Parks Canada 1995). The plan focuses on making Parks Canada and its employees "more entrepreneurial" (1 1). This represented a significant change of course for how Parks will do business in the future, and one that could potentially move management away from EM (see discussion in Chapter 5: Ecosystem Management in Banff National Park at page 5-12).

The plan appears to balance maintenance of ecological integrity and promotion of tourism and revenue generation. The objectives of the plan seem sound:

ensuring the ecological and cornmernorative integnfy of the parks and sites; providing services to clients; and expending public funds wisely and efkiently (Parks Canada 1995).

Along with this change to an entrepreneurial style of management came several major re-organizations. Thus far. they have resulted in a major devolution of administrative powers from the national and regional offces to the parks (or Field Units). The previously-combined four mountain parks were re-divided into 3 Field

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E-7

Unitç which more or less correspond to Kootenay NPlYoho NPlLake Louise, Jasper, and Banff. And the former regional office in Calgary has been dramatically reduced and re-born as a 'service centre'.

The release of the 1996 federal budget introduced the final goal of the reorganization: the re-creation of Parks Canada as an Agency of the federal government. The rationale behind this move is as follows:

In order to continue to provide an eficient, high level of service, Parks Canada has been asked to identijr specific measures, tools and powers which it needs to meet the challenges it faces. These would not have to fit the general model of admînistration required of federal govemment departments, hence the need to establish an organization with specific powers (Parks Canada 1997b).

The major implications of this new structure would be: a change in legislation, but no change to the mandate, direct executive relationship between the Agency and the Minister, special budgeting and re-investment authority, and the agency as a separate employer able to hire and deploy staff with greater fiexibility (from Parks Canada 1997b).

Consultations are still on-going between Parks Canada and staff, union representatives, federal central agencies (Treasury Board, Public Service Commission, etc.), and other stakeholders (Parks Canada 1997b). Therefore, it is difficult to Say yet what exactly will be the impact of this change on Parks Canada's efforts toward ecosystem management, but it is almost a certainty that there will be an impact.

In the same year - 1996 - that it was announced that Parks Canada would becorne an agency, the Banff Bow Valley Study Task Force released its report of 500+ recommendations, Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads (BBVSa,b). This was the most comprehensive look at what difficulties exist in trying to approach decision-making with an EM perspective that Parks Canada has ever undertaken. The study had very much an EM style, in that it:

was holistic and cross-disciplinary; examined governance, societal trends, and attitudes and opinions of the

public; involved the most extensive public participation process BNP had ever seen; examined human use, social and cultural issues, and ecological integrity -

together (Le., a social/political/economic/eculogical cumulative effects assessment);

brought together the great volume of data created over the years into one place in the form of the State o f the Bow-Valley report;

created a great deal of new information to fiIl identified gaps; and created a long-term vision for the area.

Perhaps the most significant accomplishrnent of the study was that it charted a course for moving decision-making in BNP away from a more politicized decision-making model, towards a participatory and science-based model.

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E-8

In 1997, Banff National Park released its Park Management Plan (Parks Canada 1997a), a plan which was based extensively on the Banff Bow Valley Study. Though, the plan did not incorporate al1 of the recommendations of the BBVS, it did accept the vision inherent in those recommendations. The re-establishment of the Cascade wildlife corridor involved the removal of several established developrnents, and the large block of montane along the Fairholme Range received special protection as an Environmentally Sensitive Site.

Though the 1988 Management Plan had many actions designed to restore ecological integrity in the park, it was not accompanied by the political will necessary to do so. That will apparently accornpanies the 1997 Plan. lmmediately prior to the release of the plan, the Prime Minister stood at the World Conservation Congress and said, "We are determined to protect the ecological integrity of Ban ff..." That promise was quoted in the opening pages of the new Management Plan.

Appendix E: Evolution of EM in Parks Canada E-9

Appendix F: Review of easystern management communication in Banff National Park

Legislation, policies, and management plans

Starting with the changes to the National Parks Act in 1988 (Govemment of Canada 1988). Parks Canada began to actively embrace ecosystem management. Since that time, there has been no lack of awareness of the need for communication to effect EM, nor lack of apparent cornmitment to do so at the policy level.

Banff National Park Management Plan (1 988) The 1988 Banff National Park Management Plan - a plan originally intended to guide park management for 15 yean' - devotes an entire chapter to Communication Services (CPS 1988a). The chapter is ver- clear on the importance of communication in the management process, and reflects many of the communication themes discussed in thk document: creating support for management action, encouraging appropriate behaviour, CO-ordination, public involvement , two-way dialogue, etc. This is illustrated by an excerpt from the plan (see Box F-1).

Box F-1: Excerpt from 1988 BNP Management Plan Chapter 5.0 Communication Services (PP. 149-1 50) ... Not only do effective communication services assist the visitor, but they also help managers to safeguard park resources by encouraging appropriate visitor use and behaviour. Support for park management practices and operations is also gained by actively involving the public in CO-operative activities and in a communication exchange. Four objectives should be met by the park's communication program:

1. to ensure that visitors and potential visitors have realistic expectations for their park experience and are aware of the park opportunities and sewices offered;

2. to assist park visitors in having safe, well-planned and enjoyable experiences; 3. to educate the public in general, and park visitors in particular, about the heritage

resources protected in the park so that they have a better understanding and appreciation of these resource values and a greater awareness of man's relationship with the natural environment; and

4. to instil a sense of public respect, responsibility and support for the protection and wise use of the park.

Communication services for Banff National Park are provided at the following four levels: - park awareness and pre-trip planning - orientation to and information about park resources, opportunities, senrices and facitities,

park fees, regulations and visitor safety; - interprebtion of park heritage resources; and - public involvement in park management, planning and operations through participation in

public consultation programs, volunteer prograrns and other co-operative activities. To achieve these communication objectives, coordination of the following is required: - the senden of messages (e-g. the sections within the Canadian paris Service and also

outside agencies and commercial interests who provide park information and

1 It was replaced by the 1997 BNP Management Plan (Parks Canada 1997a).

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F- 1

messages); - the messaqes to be communicated and their presentation at each stage of the visiter's

park experience; and - the receivers of the messages (the identification of various visitor and interest groups

and their specific information needs).

Parks Canada Policv The subsequent Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (Parks Canada 1994c) also recognised and comrnitted to communication in the management process. Of the ten guiding principles. number four is Education and Presentaiion :

The long-terrn success of efforts to comrnernorate, protect, and present Canada 3 natual and cultural heritage depend on the ability of al1 Canadians to undeetand and appreciate this heritage, and to personally adopt practices which are sensitive to hentage and the envimnment (1 7).

The provision of accurate, comprehensive and timely information is important in fosteniig a wareness, appreciation, appropria te use and understanding, and in encouraging public involvement and stewardship ( 7 7).

Principle number eight is Public Involvement Public involvement is a comerstone of policy, planning and management practices to help

ensure sound decision making, build public understanding, and provide opportunities for Canadians to con tribute their kno wledge, expertise and suggestions (7 8).

The policy itself, under both the headings of Protecting and Managing Park Ecosystems. and Public Understanding, Appreciation and Enjoymen t identifies very clearly the role which communication and understanding play in facilitating ecosystem management:

3.0 Protectinq and Manaqinq Park Ecosvsterns To be effective, ecosystem management must be far-reaching and have a broad base of support. In particular, it requires understanding and collaboration among al1 those whose activities influence the ecological integrity of the park (33).

4.0 Public Understandinq, Appreciation and Eniovment From ... direct and indirect experiences has grown an increased level of understanding and appreciation of the natural values for which the parks are established and protected. This has. in turn, led to strong public support for rnaintaining the ecological, educational and cultural values of the parks by people of widely varied interests and capabilities. Maintaining this support is essential to completing the national parks systern as well as for protecting the existing parks (36).

The policy makes several commitments to continue and improve the communication strategies:

The public will be consulted in the development of park regulations and visitors will be made aware of the rationale for such regulations (Sec. 3.1.6 Ecosystem Protection). Parks Canada will continue to develop and enhance it's information, interpretation and extension programs and services as a principle meails of achieving its protection and presentation objectives, building constituencies and fostering national identity (4.2.1 lnterpretation and Public Education). Information will be made available to al1 Canadians, as well as to park visitors, to encourage and assist them in understanding, appreciating, enjoying and protecting their national parks (4.2.2 lnterpretation and Public Education).

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-2

Particular efforts will be made to ... ensure that visitors understand the purpose of national parks and their role in protecting them ... (4.2.3 Interpretation and Public Education). Parks Canada will relate park themes and messages to broader environmental issues to provide the public with opportuniües to acquire the knowledge and skills to make environmentally responsible decisions (4.2.5 lnterpretation and Public Education). Parks Canada will provide interpretation programs on challenges to maintaining the ecological integrity of national parks in order to foster greater public understanding of the role that protected spaces play in a healthy environment (4.2.6 interpretation and Public Education).

Banff National Park Manaoement Plan (1997) The commitment to cornmunication in the 1997 Banff National Park Management Plan (Parks Canada 1997a) is more spread through the document than in the 1988 plan, but the commitment does still appear to be there.

The section entitled Vision for the Future (see Box F-2) states that support for management action comes from a process that is fair and well understood. The key themes emphasize the importance of education and awareness of visitors. And the key components show that BNP foresees a participatory style of management, residents who are a 'community of communicators', and a Heritage Tourism Strategy which will integrate business and park objectives.

1 Box F-2: 2.5 Vision for the Future (1 997 BNP Management plan)' 2.5.1 Cornerstones of Success

(5 of 5) The public will only support decisions that are fair and arrived at through a process they understand

2.5.2 A Vision for Banff National Park Key Themes

(4 of 8) Understanding the value of Our national parks is a part of being Canadian. Education and awareness about national park values, ethics, natural and cultural heritage and services are provided both within and beyond the boundaries of the park. Introduction to this knowledge is a fundamental part of each visiter's experiences.

2.5.3 Key Components of the Park's Vision (2 of 18) The Park's Heritage Tourism Strategy will serve as a mode1 of integrated management. It wiil help visitors appreciate the park while keeping their impact on the park's resources to a minimum. (4 of 18) People who live and work in the park will be a "cornmunity of cornrnunicatorsn, welcoming visitors and enhancing their understanding of the nature, culture and history of the park. (18 of 18) The public will be engaged in an open, participatory and informative manner in achieving the objectives of this plan.

A section is devoted to the task of communicating the need for ecological integrity (see Box F-3). The emphasis in the goals is on targeting audiences and using outside entities to deliver messages. The objectives accurately identify the need to use communication to increase support by infoming the participation of locals, and acquainting the visitors with the issues that face the park.

The numbers which precede some of the points indicate how many points were actually under that heading, and where that point ranked on the list. E.g.. (3 of 8) indicates a section with eight points, of which this was listed third.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-3

Box F-3: 3.5 Communicating the need for ecological infegrity

-

(1997 BNP Management Plan) 3.5.1 Strategic Goals

To use communication, orientation and education programs as a means for achieving ecological integ rity. To work with others, outside Parks Canada, on the delivery of key ecosystem management messages. To focus on key 'multiplier' audiences including local businesses, pivate interpretive operators and the media.

3.5.2 Objectives to use communications, orientation and education to improve the understanding that park visitors and local residents have of the park's ecological and cultural heritage and the issues surrounding its long-terni protection; to use education and communication to help resolve issues associated with the ecosystems; and to provide the information local residents need to make irformed decisions. This will encourage public support for Parks Canada's management programs.

3.5.3 Key Actions 1. Co-ordinate a communications program about the ecosystern.

target key audiences involve park staff, researchers, residents and park businesses in the program; offer an annual lecture senes, and a series of publications; and include information about the ecosystem in training programs for the staff of businesses and for private guides.

2. Emphasize opportunities to see and learn about ecosystems in areas adjacent to the Town of Banff, the Hamlet of Lake Louise and the Bow Valley Parkway.

Subsequent ecologically focused sections build on this theme sornewhat. ~owever, of the ecological sections - Aquatic Ecosystems, Vegetation, Wildlife. The Cascade Wildlife Comaor, Establishment of the Fairhoime - Can-ot Creek Benchlands Environmentally Sensitive Site, and Vermilion Lakes Wetlands - only the first two include communication-oriented objectives or actions.

A great deal of communication responsibility is left to the new Heritage Tourism Strategy for the Banff and Bow Valley area (see Appendix H: Hentage Tounsm Strategy). The objectives of the strategy are:

1. To make al1 visitors aware that they are in a national park by fostering visitor appreciation and understanding of the nature, history and culture of the area.

2. To encourage and develop opportunities. products and services consistent with heritage values.

3. To encourage environmental stewardship initiatives upon which sustainable tourism depends. 4. To strengthen employee orientation. training and accreditation programming as it relates to

sharing heritage understanding with visitors. There appears to be a belief that, with dwindling resources in Banff National Park, this strategy will ensure involvement of al1 businesses in delivering park messages as widely as possible. Banff National Park's prirnary role would be as a facilitator, educating and encouraging the industry comrnunicators.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-4

Banff National Park still expects to retain some direct responsibility for fostering 'awareness and education", but its first three key actions in this section show they plan on a leadership and coordination rolein creating a "community of communicators" (see Box F-4).

1 Box F-4: 5.4 Awareness and Education (f997 BNP Management Plan) ' 5.4.3 Key Actions 1. Continue to provide leadership in offering visitors opportunities to leam about the park. 2. Work with partners and park communities to create a 'community of cornmunicators';

this will ensure park messages are widely available. 3. Ca-ordinate communications to ensure visitors have realistic expectations about what

the park is able to offer. use-communication tools such as the Internet, mass media, park publications and existing tourism ventures.

4. Retain a Parks Canada interpretive program. focus on key locations, audiences and issues; and work with the private sector to encourage their participation in educational programs for visitors and residents.

5. Work closely with the tourism industry to ensure park visitors receive appropriate messages before they arrive in the park.

6. Study the feasibility of building a high quality interpretive centre. identify potential locations (e-g., in the highway median near the east gate, other locations near the east gate, in or near the Town of Banff); and complete the feasibility study within two years.

Task force reports

In the early 1990's there was a series of task forces struck to examine various aspects of Parks Canada's. Western Region operations. Several of those focused on, or were related to. the communication functions of the organization. Despite the dates, some of the recommendations are even more appropriate for today's management and communication environment.

Parks and People Task Force The 1990 Final Report of the Parks and People Task Force made several strategic recommendations for how Parks Canada (then the Canadian Parks Service) should approach its relationship with the people who are affected by Canadian national parks (Parks and People Task Force 1990). Their recommendations were gathered under the broad categories of Managing visitor impacts, Service excellence, Fostering environmental Ste wardship, Our tourism d e , Our mie in outdoor recreafion, and Organizational effectiveness.

Two areas are of particular significance were the emphasis on the Advocacy role of Parks Canada, and the function of the Community Affairs directorate.

Under the aegis of Fostenng environmentai stewardship, the Task Force foresaw Parks Canada providing heritage education, but also augmenting its advocacy role. Its vision was:

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-5

A New Role for Advocacy - The Canadian Parks Service, Western Region will be recognized and acknowledged as an important advocate for environmental stewardship, sustainable use, and the CPS mandate. We will have established strong and consistent relationships with advocacy groups and advocacy minded individuals having similar aims. We will advocate environmental stewardship and the principles of sustainable developrnent on lands adjacent to park boundaries (Parks and People Task Force 1990:29)

The goal was to 'project the social value of the national parks concept into the public mind wlh such intensity that it becomes real and relevant not only for park visitors but for those who will never visit parks" (26). The fve-year vision was improved public attitudes toward the environment, and coalitions built in anticipation of threats or opportunities. To do this, they recomrnended:

a regional policy and long-term strategy for environmental advocacy; the.establishrnent of an advocacy network which would assist current advocacy groups (e.g., CPAWS, AWA, CNF, CWF~) 'in the development and delivery of their advocacy programs"; and actively recruit "public opinion leaders to speak out on behalf of environmental stewardship" (32).

In assessing the organizational effectiveness of the CPS, the Task Force stated that "communication to the public is fragmented among a nurnber of different departments, which impedes the developrnent and presentation of a CO-

ordinated program and corporate imagen (59). To address this probiem, they suggested that a single body (in this case, the Community Affairs directorate) be responsible for "al1 outreach and public affairs activities. including environmental education and advocacy" (60).

This expanded communication body's roles would be: To CO-ordinate. direct and manage al1 external and interna1 communication for the purposes of educating, informing and influencing targeted publics. To solicit and monitor public opinion on CPS policies and plans.

The activities it would be responsible for would include: Educational services (e.g. edukits, school programming, in-park educational programs, liaison with provincial departments of education); public relations; media relations, VIP visits; public consultation; pre-trip planning services; advocacy prograrns; publications; advertising; creative services/media devetopment; ceremonies; intemal communications; and regional communications planning and evaluation (61).

Science and Protection Task Force The final report of the Science and Protection Task Force, which was struck to provide strategic direction for the application of science in the management process, was released in the same year (Science and Protection Task Force 1990). It included recommendations and analysis regarding the role of 'public interface'.

3 Canadian Parks and Wildemess Society, Alberta Wilderness Association, Canadian Nature Federation, Canadian Wildlife Foundation

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-6

From their perspective of trying to incorporate science into management. they saw communication as 'a powerful tool in achieving the CPS mandate of resource protection," and one which would "require a pro-active approach both inside and outside of national parks" (44).

The task force made note of trends which they perceived would affect public interface:

socio-economic (growth of tourîsm, greying of the baby-boomers, more foreign-born Canadians); increased ca-operation (lower finances leading to pooling of resources for initiatives); and environmental consciousness (increased awareness and interest in environmental issues, increased desire for participation) (24-6).

Based on these trends. they made the following conclusions: "communicating the values of protecting natural and cultural resourcesn (44) was key to rnaintaining and increasing public support for protection (my italics); the increase in environmental consciousness, and increase in media attention provided an opportunit' for "rnaintaining and increasing the public profile of CPS protection activitiesn (44), potential for the use of volunteers was under-realired, and this would require changes in attitudes, specifically: D recognition that the role of staff is evolving to facilitators rather than 'doners, P recognition that use of volunteers is more than the responsibility of Interpretation, and D recognition of the resources required for supporting, supervising, and coordinating volunteer

efforts (46).

The Task Force recommended a continued effort to communicate the role of the park in resource protection to park residents and the private sector. However. it also noted that there should be particular attention paid to two other audiences (one smaller and one broader):

promote stewardship in al1 CPS staff "In the past. the emphasis of most resource related interpretation ... has been on park visitors and audiences in areas adjacent to individual parks. The trends to less Canadians [in proportion to other visitors] visiting parks and the increasing recognition of the value to Canadians of protecting resources suggest that the focus of communication programs change to include more emphasis on the general Canadian public" (44).

Reachinq Bevond Regulations The 1991 Task Force on Environmental Education report, Reaching Beyond Regulations: Communication and interpretation as Keys to Environmental Citizenship, summarized their vision for the future of CPS communication in its "Call to Action." This required a launch on three fronts: 1. Earn a reputation as an advocacy agency committed to protecting and

presenting nationally-significant heritage; promoting environmental citizenship; working in partnership with others; and pursuing national and international conservation and presentation goals.

2. Expand and improve the effectiveness and impact of existing interpretation and communication programs which. throug h personal services approaches,

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP

are most effective at inciting behavioural change and leadership in support of environmental citizenship.

3. Based on the principles of marketing, use mass media and other communication methods to project awareness of our heritage protection mandate and the importance of parks and sites among Western Canadian and prospective visitors (Task Force on Environmental Education 1991 :2).

The Task Force concentrated heavily on environmentai citizenship and advocacy. It saw the vision for Parks Canada's duties in environmental citizenship as:

lead the way in advocating environmental citizenship; foster leaming for life; promote awareness and appreciation of Our Canadian identity; ernpower its team of staff and volunteers to communicate environmental and heritage protection mandates; actively engage partners in fostering environmental citizenship on a broad regional scale; and includes extensive guidelines for encouraging parks staff as advocates (Task Force on Environmental Education 1991 : 1 1-2).

Its view of advocacy in Parks Canada was quite blunt: "Environmental advocacy is not just a role or a task that can be assigned. Rather, it is the very business we

-

are in" (Task Force on Environmental Education 1991 : 1 3).

Toward Sustainable Ecosvstems In their report, Toward Sustainable Ecosysfems, the CPS (Western Region) Ecosystem Management Task Force indicated the implementation of EM would require tapping into the consciousness of the Canadian public:

The Canadian Parks Service cannot operate in isolation from local and national socio-political consensus. Our mandate, budgets, and future options depend on how well we can monitor, adapt to and influence this consensus. This is particularly important with the expansion of our traditional stewardship role into broad ecosystem-based management. . . . The establishment and maintenance of strong public support, particularly at the local level, is essential (Ecosystem Management Task Force l992:4).

Figure F-1: Categories of Actions Arising from the Principles of Ecosystem Management (from EM Task Force 7992)

Principles of

Management

Thus, communication was seen as a critical action area for ecosystern management. After identifying their principles of ecosystem management, the Task Force laid out the actions needed to effect EM, grouping them into five categories (see Figure F-1). One of the five was communication.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-8

For the Task Force, the two necessary communication actions were: Communicate requirements for, and results of, scientific research and ecosystern management initiatives.

The reason given was 'To keep staff, other management agencies, and spheres of influence inforrned of ecosystem research and management initiatives, encourage information exchange and involvement by others."

Communicate knowledge of ecological integrity and ecosystem management to Canadian citizens. r> This was to "establish and maintain an understanding of CPS ecosystem-

based initiatives." i> This action was rated as having a high urgency and a high complexity

(Ecosystem Management Task Force 1992: 16)

It was also considered important to "ensure that communication reaches the majority of Canadians," and to "develop and maintain good relations with media and politicians" (1 6).

The Kno wledge actions focused on acquiring a holistic ecosystem perspective through research. One specific action relevant to communication was to "determine public values and interests that support ecosystem-based management" (1 4).

Environmental Citizenship The Task Force which created the Environmental Citizenship Discussion Paper in 1992 admitted immediately that "the working premise of this report is that the Canadian Parks Service is not doing enough to achieve the vision of a sustainable world through environmental citizenship" (CPS l992:4). The Task Force proposed 18 principles (grouped into seven categories) to guide efforts to promote environmental citizenship (see Box F-5).

1 Box F-5: Principles of environm enta1 citizenship 1 A. Recognize that we are participants in the Earth's ecosystems, not masters of it

1. Reinforce the unity of humanity and the natural world B. Take individual responsibility and action

2. Use the environmental advocacy guidelines [listed as an Appendix in the original report] 3. Ernbrace environmental citizenship within our corporate culture

C. Take collective action 4. Focus co-operative activities on environmental citizenship, environmental stewardship and

ecologkal integrity 5. Share the environmental citizenship vision with partners 6. Integrate local, regional, and global action 7. F acilitate and promote CO-operative research 8. Develop communication strategies for research results 9. Join environmental citizenship networks

D. lntegrate environmental, economic, and social values 10. Present the big picture

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-9

1 1. Emphasize links between environment and hurnan history E. Promote the roles of parks and sites

12. Promote the use of parks and sites as ecological and cultural benchmarks 13. We are the good news!

F. Ensure that park experience opportunities and practices are consistent with environmental citizenship 14 Use sustainability objectives to judge activities 15. Encourage the development of personalized codes of environmental citizenship

G. Lead by example, practice environmentai stewardship 17. Ensure environmentally friendly practices 18. Make environmental citkenship a basic skill for al1 staff (CPS 1992:4-8)

(1 have bolded several representative words to help illustrate the overali vision for environmental citizenship espoused here)

Aside from the obvious and expected concentration on environmental citizenship, there is again a concentration on the Canadian Parks Service as an advocacy organization. The Task Force proposed this comrnitment be made by the CPS to its staff: "The Canadian Parks Service will communicate with you and support your action in advocating environmental citizenship" (1 8). This was further clarified:

Management will clearly identify the advocacy causes and the related legislation and policy. Management will provide you with feedback on your advocacy efforts and help you judge appropriateness. Management will provide the necessary training and financial support. Management also recognizes that any advocacy programme contains an element of risk and will adopt an attitude of rewarding success and using failure as a learning experience.

One part of providing support for environmental advocacy. as the Task Force saw it, was to provide staff with clear guidelines for environmental advocacy. Briefly, the suggested guidelines were:

Be sure of your cause Be professional, recognize other points of view Work with and through others Get the facts straight; deal with uncertainty Communicate with management Be prepared for the consequences of advocacy (CPS l992:18-I 9)

The Task Force even laid out what it thought were the causes which staff should be promoting:

Environmental sustainability - global Environmental sustainability - park Ecosystem thinking Environmental citizenship Cultural heritage preservation as a cause (CPS 1992:19-20)

Banff Bow Vallev Studv The most extensive task force study in the history of Banff National Park, the Banff Bow Valley Study (BBVS 1996b) was completed in 1996. The Task Force

Appendix F: Revie w of EM communication in BNP F-1 O

had the very tricky task of creating recommendations for balancing the wants and needs of people and ecosystems in the Banff Bow Valley. The final report was entitled Banff-Bow Valley: At the Cmssmads,.

Recommendations related to communication (and the structure needed for communication) were made under several headings in the Technical Report's Ch. 6: Issues and Recommendations.

The first batch of recommendations made by the task force related to the key issue (and responsibility) of Maintenance and Restoration of Ecological Integnty. Under this heading, the task force identified this strategic goal:

lmprove Communication with the public about the Park's ecosystem and the need for restoration and maintenance of ecological integrity (BBVS l996b:Zl3)

The rationale they gave for this goal was this: The successful implementation of measures to restore and maintain ecological integrity in Banff National Park will require substantial public support. l t is essential that the public understands:

the basic concepts of ecological integrity; how hurnan use and developrnent affect ecological integrity; the types of mitigation and human use management measures that will be required to restore and maintain ecological integrity; and the effects of these rneasures and changes on existing human use and behaviour (BBVS 1996 b:2 12).

They also explicitly noted that such communication required government support and funding.

The BBVS also addressed the issue of BNP as a national and international tourism destination. They identified many opportunities where Parks Canada, using communication tools, could potentially use tourism to help satisfy their mandate. Directly related to the above strategic goal was the suggestion to encourage respect for ecological integrity through the tourism industry. Recommended actions included:

Help members of the tourism industry understand the concept of ecological integrity and how visitor activities affect ecological integrity; and Through promotional advertising and interpretive services, reorient visitor expectations to better reflect the importance of ecological integrity and the need for restoration and protection (222).

A key function of the Tourism Destination Model, which the task force created. is education of visitors. The BBVS saw Parks Canada helping the tourism industry to promote visitor education by adding in the creation of standards and prog rams:

Parks Canada and the toun'sm sector should develop a comprehensive set of standards for al1 education and awareness programs provided to visitors. Parks Canada should develop a series of programs to assist industry in implementing the Tourism Destination Model. This includes, but is not limited to employee selection criteria, awareness and skills training, and message development props. and products (BBVS 1996b:224).

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-7 7

In looking at the cornplex problem of Human Use, the BBVS came to sirnilar conclusions about communication:

Prograrns that foster awareness of the threats to ecalogical integrity in national parks will also help people understand the need for human use management (BBVS 1996b:246).

The report listed three objectives which looked at ways 'public education can support human use management in the park":

To promote a better understanding and appreciation of the Park's ecological and cultural heritage and of the value of safeguarding the Park. To promote a better understanding of the benefits of rnanaging human use, particulariy its role in protecting ecological integrity and the quality of the visitor experience. To provide visitors with infornation about the Park that is complete and easily accessible." (BBVS 1 996b:246).

They concluded, however, that Parks Canada's existing programs were inadequate for this task.

The BBVS report devoted a section in the recommendations chapter to Organization, Structure and Culture. They identified in particular that a key objective of Parks Canada should be to "ensure that Parks Canada's organizational structure equips it to fulfil its mandaten (BBVS 1996b:305). With regard to that, it comrnented on Pnvatization, Employee Takeovers and Partnerships; Core Knowledge; and Parks Canada as an Agency.

The Task Force endorsed the direction of Parks Canada in pursuing privatization, employee takeoven and partnerships. However, it cautioned that 'Other individuals or organizations should only provide those services that are not fundamental to Parks Canada's core mandate." Such core services include "enforcement, resource protection, environmental management, land-use planning and disposition, leasehold administration, heritage communication. and science-based research" (BBVS 1996b:305) (my bolding).

The importance of "core knowledge" was discussed by the BBVS: ... [Long-terrn staw with their knowledge and experience, keep the corporate memory and embody the organization's values. Disruptions in this "memoryn strain relationships, both internally and externally (BBVS 1 996b:305).

The Task Force had concerns about Parks Canada's corporate memory and recommended that:

Parks Canada should identify the aspects of its organization ... that depend on corporate rnernory for their success. The key people and sources of information within these functions must be accommodated in any reorganization to ensure their knowledge and experience are not lost (BBVS 1996b:305).

In examining the cuvent transformation of Parks Canada into an Agency. the BBVS discussion reflects a concem that the organization could stray from its mandate and accountability. To avoid this, the Task Force recommended that Parks Canada should:

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-12

(1 of 12)~ clearly identify its core mandate and solicit public endonement for that mandate; ( 2 of 12) ensure that its prime function is to maintain its regulatory role, not generate revenue; (5 of 'l2) include presentation and interpretation as part of its core mandate; (12 of 12) recognize that advisory bodies are important mechanisms to guide the Agency, but that they should not supplant its mandated role and responsibilities (BBVS 1996b:305-6).

To aid them in their research, the BBVS Task Force commissioned several accompanying studies. One of these was A Review of the Govemance Mode1 of the Banff-Bow Valley (Coopers and Lybrand 1995a). In looking at the various groups that influence govemance in the valley. the report by default looked at communication between these groups and Parks Canada.

With specific reference to communication with environmental groups, the study found a need for improvements. Some of their conclusions were:

there is still a lack of effective forums for environmental groups and other citiens to express their views: on an on-going basis; to work on a specific area or ecosystem on an on-going basis; There is a certain level of suspicion and distrust between the environmental groups and many Banff Park businesses. Much of this is based on poor communications and a lack of a proper forum to bn'ng the groups together; and many environmental groups do not believe that Parks is protection-oriented enough (Coopers and Lybrand l995a:24).

Another cornpanion study, Review of the Research Management Framework (Hodgins et al, 1995), investigated how research was conducted and directed. In its section on Communications, it concluded that "Communication of the results of research in a timely and unbiased manner is essential to building trust, credibility and accountability" (35).

Assessments There have been a number of surveys, reviews and workshops which have focused on, or touched on, an assessrnent of how ecological messages are communicated by Banff National Park or Parks Canada in general.

Anqus Reid Survev The 1993 Angus Reid survey on Canadians' attitudes toward national parks provided a picture of who understood and supported Parks Canada, and why. Although it did not focus on assessing communication initiatives, it did shed some light on how people received information about Canadian national parks. Briefly:

Two main sources of information about national parks, are used when planning a trip: Provincial Tourism Office (33%) and friends and family (21 %). People in Western Canada are more likely to turn to friends and family than those in Eastern Canada. Just over one-third of Canadians recall seeing an ad, poster or publication for the National Parks. Television dominates this recall(34%), followed by magazines (1 8%), brochures

4 Recall: The numbers which precede some of the points indicate how many points were actually under that heading, and where that point ranked on the list. E.g., (3 of 8) indicates a section with eight points, of which this was listed third.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-13

(14%). and newspaperç (1 1%). Although the Parks Service has not recently advertised on television, it is commonly recalled due to either past ads, confusion with non-park environmental programming andor television ad clutter." Over half of Canadians believe what the Canadian Parks Service has to say about the environment rnost of the tirne (52%). Staff in the national parks are also seen as very credible on environmental issues (51%), well ahead of scientists and professors (45%), magazines (40%), environmental groups (38%), provincial departments responsible for the environment (34%), of the Federal Department of the Environment (32%)" (Angus Reid 1993).

Environmental Education Baseline Survey In 1995, a more focused survey was conducted on behalf of the Environmental Education section of Heritage Communications. The environmental education Baseline Survey Results (The Advisory Group 1995) sought to measure understanding and awareness of national parks and national historic sites in the Alberta Region. As well as providing understanding of the current situation, the intention was to establish a baseline. Subsequent repetitions of the survey would measure the effectiveness of communication initiatives in the interim.

The survey contacted people in Alberta and south-eastern B.C. Results were distilled down into 10 indicators (see Box F-6).

Box F-6: Environmental education baseline survey indicators lndicator 1: Why National Parks and National Historic Sites were Set Aside lndicator 2: Why National Parks and National Historic Sites are Important: The Benefits and

Values They Represent Indicator 3: What Protecting Natural and Cultural Heritage Means to Them in Terms of Their

Own Actions and For the future lndicator 4: The Role Parks Play as a Symbol Of Canadian ldentity and Their Importance in

Contributing to the Image Of Canada lndicator 5: The Names and Locations of National Parks and National Histonc Sites in the

Alberta Region lndicator 6: The Types of Experiences Parks and Sites Offer in the Alberta Region Indicator 7: Parks Canada is Responsible for Managing National Parks and National Historic

Sites lndicator 8: Why National Parks and National Historic Sites in the Alberta Region are Part of a

National System and Part of an International Program of Protected Heritage lndicator 9: Major Challenges Facing Natural and Cultural Heritage in National Parks and

National Historic Sites lndicator 10: Communications Effectiveness (from The Advisory Group 1995)

The surveyors' conclusions were that people generally lacked awareness and understanding of national parks and national historic sites. People were also unclear on the concepts of 'ecosystem' or 'ecological integrity', and did not understand that national parks were not sufficient to protect ecosystems over time (The Advisory Group 1995: 156).

Shortly after the survey was cornpleted, a workshop was held to analyze the results and plot a strategy. The Alberta Regional Office of Parks Canada examined the indicators, and created a list of what should be maintained or

~ppendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F- 74

impmved for each, as well as actions proposed (see Appendix 1: Environmental education survey indicators). Some of the key issues (relevant to this study) which the workshop participants identified were:

the public views parks as a static resource, like art; Le.. once deciared a NP, it will ahvays be protected. We need to consider how we would change mis attitude. we should work more proactively with the media, Le. TV and pnnt folks. must avoid functionalisation - let's not put actions, sttategies into promotion, orientation, outreach, education boxes. We have too much of a tendency to dispute territory and ignore the work that needs to be done, regardless of who does it.

In the end, their conclusions were that they wanted to invest in a media relations strategy, wanted to focus on indicators 1/2/4 (which they combined) and 9 (see Box F-6); and wanted Business Units to indicate support by providing funding for a CO-ordinator to work on the media initiatives identified. This was never done (Heather Dempsey, pers. corn.).

Warden Service Review Also in 1995, a review of the Warden Service was conducted by an external consultant, with several recommendations made related to communications. Overall, the consultant felt that wardens received extensive law enforcement training, "at the exclusion of communication and public relations skills" (Sandford 1995:11). He asserted that needs of modern resource management require the ability to "articulate and communicate complex ecological realities," and this inability was contributing to damage of the Warden Service reputation.

To address these concerns, Sandford gave recommendations suggesting a communication strategy for EM, recognizing the need for communication specialists, and better integrating heritage communications and the Warden Service:

The warden service needs to develop, implement and sustain a consistent communications strategy to ensure that local businesses and important inside and outside others know what ecosystem management means in local and expanded contexts in which the concept is being employed. lt must be realized that communications specialists are requited to deal with complex, evolving ecosystem management themes. Though there are many cosperative ventures in other parks, no fully integrated strategy seems to exist for reconciling the communications needs of the warden service with the function of the heritage communications group. It may be time to review the independence of these two functions to ensure that the warden service acquires a much needed strong interpretive capacity (Sandford 1995: 15)

It was also recommended that wardens in resource management receive training separate from those in public safety and law enforcement. This training would combine scientific training with communication, public relations and conflict resolution. The rationale was:

Training in the sociology of moving people toward commonly held environmental interests is essential to the on-going success of the warden service and Our capacity to sustain Canada's protected areas program (1 7).

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-15

Standing Senate Committee In 1996, the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources released Îts report Protecting Places and People: Conserving Canada's Natural Hentage (Senate 1996). Though the report was focused on the challenge of expanding Canada's national park system, one of their twenty recommendations is applicable here:

Recommendation X i 1: Al1 govemrnents in Canada, in concert with non-govemment organizations, should jointly coordinate and support a public awareness program for protected areas.

If anything, the task of generating public support is even more critical for creating new parks than it is for maintaining the ecological integrity of existing ones, and again there is recognition that improved public awareness is a first step.

Auditor General Report Later in 1996, the Auditor General released its report Canadian Hentage - Parks Canada : Preserving Canada 's Natural Hentage (Ruthnurn 1 996). The report commented on the deficiencies in communication in Parks Canada, and the fact that addressing this would help the organization in its protection, environmental education and stewardship goals.

Their conclusion was: "Given the potential for benefiting ecological integrity. Parks Canada should strengthen public education programs to better communicate ecological information to park visitors and Canadians in general" (31 -49).

Transition Communications Workshop The concern that has been emerging about the state of Parks Canada's communications abilities in the Alberta Region gave rise to a Transition Communications workshopS held in June of 1997. The workshop brought together senior managers (e.g., superintendents and chief park wardens from al1 mountain parks attended) and senior communicators to discuss the future of communication in the Alberta region.

The superintendent of Jasper National Park (who holds the communications portfolio at the executive level in the district), laid out the mountain parks future direction for communication at the start of the workshop. He identified two areas requiring immediate attention:

1. Senior management expectations of communication (especially heritage presentation) are unclear; what are priority messages, resources to be put toward communication

2. Communication prograrnming must be agreed to be towards desired goals, rnust articulate desired ends

He went on to lay out a set of communication management guidelines:

- --

5 Extensive minutes of the workshop were created and circulated to al1 participants (Transition Communications Workshop 1997). AI1 direct references in this section are from the minutes. The issues which were identified and grouped by participants are listed in Appendix G: Transition Communications Workshop issues.

--

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-16

1. Management responsibility to clearly articulate expectations; accountable for their being understood and acted upon

2. Parks Canada is going to operate again as a national organization, focus on national messages

3. Organizational ambiguity of roles and responsibilities rnust be resolved 4. Effectiveness must be leveraged by actively engaging a wide range of partners 5. Employees (communication specialists) must be given every opportunity for success:

training, recruitment, career development are necessary management responses 6. Essential mat success in achieving this is predicated on the support of al1 of us 7. Must be mindful that we have more work than we c m do, must direct resources at those

things we Say are of recognised significance Finally he noted that going from these guidelines to implementing a comprehensive communication program would require attention in the individual park business plans. This means explicit identification of requirements for messages, resources, partners, and for expected results.

The acting Mountain Parks Director identified three transitional issues that communication planning will have to face:

1. Budget realities - there is less money (a 24% reduction) and therefore new resources for programs could only corne from making other things more efficient or generating revenue

2. Dealing with a National Program - move is toward a less park-specific and more national image for Parks Canada.

3. Organizational stability - 'stability' will never mean an unchanging organizational chart; there is no one focus for communication because communication is everybody's job.

The superintendent for YoholKootenaylLake Louise spoke about the nature of communication specialists. He noted that communication specialists are qualified professionals - not something that "anybody could jump in and do." The roles of a communication specialist are:

facilitate delivery of communication programs/messages provide support to the entire park ensure communication programming is collaborative work within a team

He also made reference to the business plan and stated that it must outline: 1 . priorities for communication specialists 2. required resources 3. expected results and performances

The bulk of the workshop was spent identifying the issues that face communications in the national parks today. These were collected and grouped by the facilitator into five categories: respect morale, organizational issues, skills/capability, message development, programming efecfiveness. audiences, and miscellaneous. As a group exercise, individual issues were then assigned to one of four areas of responsibility: National, Park, Collective or Reminder (issues which need no resolution, but need to be kept in mind). The grouped issues are listed in Appendix J.

A final stage of the workshop had al1 of the superintendents meeting to create a list of commitments that they would take from the workshop back to their parks. Briefly, these were:

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-7 7

1. It was agreed that each field unit will identify one portfolio manager representative for communications.

2. We also agreed that [the Jasper National Park Superintendent] would continue to serve as the Mountain Parks communications portfolio manager. [His] role is to coordinate communications on behalf of and with assistance from the other superintendents.

3. Within a month a meeting will be held with the various field unit portfolio representatives. ... Each field unit will provide an assessment of skills, gaps and training requirements.

4. We al1 agreed that communications between parks on a number of items was required. Banff will develop, therefore, a bulletin board mat can be used ta access information from the skills inventory that we discussed, and information on the current state of personal programming etc.

5. In response to concerns about the disposition of AV material, collections and so forth, we al1 agreed that a coordinate Mountain Park assessment is required. Jasper will coordinate that assessrnent . .;

6. We al[ agreed that an analysis of the urban outreach initiatives currently being carried out by the Calgary office was required immediately ... the Calgary office will carry out that assessment and provide their assessment for the communications portfolio working group.

7. Finally. the superintendents al1 agreed that they are both responsible and accountable for the development of effectively functioning and integrated communications programmes in their respective field units. .. . We also agreed to work within a nationally focused communications context.

The Jasper Park superintendent closed with these final comments on behalf of al1 the superintendents, summarizing their attitudes toward communication and its future in the parks:

need to remind ourselves that our clients are more than just our visitors need to remind ourselves that communication is much more than heritage presentation innovation and creativity is what will allow us to accomplish what we need to; there is no new money; we're rebuilding but not rebuilding the past need to highlight the participation of al1 the managers and communication specialists at the workshop; demonstrates more than anything that we are using communication in a very integrated way have trernendous opportunity to set new directions; up to us to write the blue print to have al1 these managers together for two days is strong message about management commitrnent to communication Carol Sheedy's [Director, Heritage Presentation and Public Education, National Offce] presence speaks to the commitrnent to strengthen national elements of communication everyone's participation, not just attendance, made this workshop successful

Plans

The Tourism, Recreation and Communication (TRAC) Plan ( B N P 1993) and the Parks Canada National Business Plan (Parks Canada 1995) have provided significant direction for communications planning, but are external to the management plan.

Tourisrn, Recreation and Communication (TRAC) Plan Of the two, the TRAC Plan (Banff National Park 1993) was more specifically focused on communication. It was created to:

... identib a course of action for managing Banffs tourism and recreation legacy within the context of the current national park mandate and perceived realities of tomorrow's world. An effective communications prograrn is recog nized as the key mechanism for meeting this challenge (1 ).

Appendk F: Review of EM communication in 8 NP F-18

This was a very clear and detailed plan, intended to be a sub-plan below the park management plan. It laid out both general objectives and specific implementable actions.

The guiding principles and assumptions showed a recognition of the Iink between visitor awareness and actions, and degree of ecological impact:

1. (of 8) A fundamental goal of the park is to achieve and demonstrate environmental susbinability. Visitors are encouraged - however. their impact must be managed and environmental citizenship must be promoted so that the park's ecological integrity is susbined.

6. (of 8) One of the fundamental, and increasingly important, values protected within Banff National Park is wilderness. Public awareness and appreciation of the value of wilderness must be enhanced if the park's resource protection mandate is to be upheld (5).

The plan also recognized from the outset that communication beyond park boundaries was needed "in order to rneet the park's ecosystem management, environmental stewardship and environmental citizenship goalsn (3).

In its overall view, it identified the current situation and trends in communication, a vision of what BNP's communication program should be like, and a set of general objectives (see Box F-8). The plan also segmented target audiences based on marketing principles (see Box F-7)' then created action plans for each segment. Each audience segment's action plan included a specific communication strategy.

Box F-7: Ten Key Market Segments General touring visitor Image makers Education groupstsystem Local residents and neighbours Park staff Other government agencies Park visitors - organized groups Al bertd6.C. residents Park visitors - outdoor adventure Park visitors - facility-based recreation

Box F-8: TRAC Plan - Current trends, Vision, and General objectives Our Situation Today and Some Important Trends (Communications)

park not using information technology to its greatest advantage people want more sophisticated information and have increased desire to learn '(BNP's] widespread recognition offers tremendous opportunities for extension/outreach programs, in which the park currently has little involvement" regional population feels park 'overly developed, too restrictive and expensive." many visitors unaware they are in a national park, and others unaware of CPS facilities and services personal programs reaching 'convertedn but some see these programs (especially guided hikes) as 'the Canadian Parks Service's greatest strength". "We are seen to provide a vital role by connecting people to the land. This is a role that few, if any, other agencies are able to provide." no connection between the town and the park (or the environment around the town) must rely on partners to help with information and educational services (Fnends of Banff, private sector) "The CPS has little knowledge or control over the messages being presented to visitors by the private sector." 'Our contact with and programming for local schools has been variable over the years."

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-19

1 A Vision For the Future of Banff National Park's Communications Program General Dimction - 'Outside the park, the highest priority will be placed on building support for national parks

among Canadian visitors and Albertans/British Columbians - "A secondary role will be placed on reaching international visitors with park messages." - "Park messages will be communicated through multipliers ... wherever possible to rnaximize the effective use of Iimited park resources.' - 'Non-personal methods and media will be used to a far greater extent to provide predictable, frequently requested infornation ..."

Regional Coordination - 'The range of opportunities available in the greater region will be promoted, while ensunng that the 8anff National Park image and experience is clearly presented."

AmPval and Orientation - 'The- will be an obvious sense of amval and welcome to Banff National Park and orientation facilities will be provided at each park entrante, with an emphasis on the East Gate."

Interpretation - General Direction - 'The park will be reaching audiences we have not dealt with in any consistent manner (e.g. schools, local residents and neighbours, the media) and will play more of an advocacy role in expressing the park's heritage protection mandate."

Interpretation - Personal Services - 'Personal programs will continue to be a recognized strength of the Banff National Park communications program. ... The CPS will be actively seeking out and facilitating the provision of high quality interpretation programs by private sector ..."

ln terpretation - Non-Personal Services - "Non-personal services ... will continue to be important, and will become more sophisticated." They will not always be free, and co-operation will be enwuraged here too.

Staff as Ambassadors for the Park - "Al1 park staff, private sector staff and other partners will be aware of and carrying out their responsibility to seme as ambassadors and advocates for the park." - 'CPS staff will be better trained, more knowledgeable and will have more diverse work experience to enable them to fulfil this role effectively." - 'lt will also be easier for staff to refer specific questions to the rnost knowledgeable source."

Public Consultation - "Public consultation will offer more meaningful opportunities for the average Canadian to be involved in determining the future of Banff National Park." - '... wiIl form an on-going part of the park's management program, seming as a barorneter of public sentiment, perceptions, concerns and ideas rather than being a reactive and issue- driven process dorninated by a few local groups or individuais." - "Effcient, low-cost systems will be in place to collect, store and analyze this information so that it can be used for effective decision making."

Overall Objectives and Action Pians (Communications Program) (discussed under these headings)

Establish a Framework for the Park Communications Program Promoting Awareness and Support for Banff National Park Promoting a Consistent Park Image Coordinating Information Distribution and Marketing Involvement in Environmental Education Trip Planning Information Arrival and Orientation Facilities In-Park lnterpretation and Information Staff as Ambassadors for the Park Public Consultation

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-20

National Business Plan One of the most significant plans created for Parks Canada as it goes through this period of considerable change was the National Business Plan (Parks Canada 1995). An agency that wants to improve service and expand its park system while facing a 25% cut in appropriations must be guided by an innovative business plan.

The Business Plan provides a great deal of guidance for communication in Parks Canada (especially wlh regard to paying for it). One of the identified strategic issues is Sending the Right Message: Client Satisfaction and A wareness. U nder this heading, the plan notes that education and recreation experiences will have to be maintained or enhanced; such services will increasingly be provided by partners; heritage presentation products and infrastructure are ageing and dated; promising new technologies need to be embraced; and Parks Canada must reach the large number of Canadians not supportive of. nor knowledgeable about, the significance of protected areas (35).

The identified objectives here are: Define and clearly communicate a corporate image based on high quality experiences and outreach programs; maintain high presentation standards and enhance the quality of heritage experiences; communicate to Canadians and the international community the key roles of Canada's heritage places; and increase the awareness and support for national parks and national historic sites (35)

As Parks Canada moved toward cost recovery. the Business Plan provided the direction for how communication (and al1 other) items should be paid for. There are four levels of cost recovery (see Box F-9). Non-personal message delivery is considered to be a core service and is provided under the PUF! Message delivery beyond that is considered to be of personal benefit and is therefore fully cost-recovera ble.

Box F-9: Categories of Cost Recovery 1 ) Personal Use - The Parks Canada revenue approach is based on a defined level or personal

use for which, when this level of service is provided at a protected heritage areas, a nominal fee will be charged. This level of service includes the following: - access to designated areas within a protected heritage area; - communication and presentation of information on protected heritage area themes through

non-persona1 rneans, e.g. plaques, monuments; - response to requests for information; - regulatory services; - basic and personal safety services;

- - - -

6 The PUF or Personal Use Fee is the fee that al1 visitors to the park pay at the gate.

Appendix F: Review of EAU communication in BNP F-2 7

- basic services such as garbage receptacies, picnic tables, washrooms; - interpretation and information related to areas of national significance. static display panels,

artifact displays, and related pamphlets; and - use of low-cost extemal facilities such as cleared trails to overlook sites p.47

2) Partial Cost-Recoverv - Services such as trails, beaches, boat lackages, and cross-country ski trails provide a mix of public good and personal benefit, therefore a portion of the cost of pmviding these services is recovered through fees.

3) Full Cost-Recoverv - Services such as camping, golfing, moonng, and the delivery of messages beyond those covered by the personal use fee, are of personal benefit and should therefore be fully cost recovered through fees.

4) Cost-Recoverv Plus - Rights and privileges such as use of Parks Canada images, logos, products, and realty and concession agreements will be priced to recover a fair return to the Crown and to reflect market prices (47).

Further direction on the costing of communication items is provided in the discussion of investment streams. There is overall guidelines for the evaluation of investment proposals. the first of five points being the following:

Any expenditure directly related to the mandate imperatives of protecting and presenting the national heritage; the more productive such proposals the higher the priority. Those addressing significant threats and resource loss and those reaching the widest client base in the most cost- effective rnanner will be most critical for financing; ... (54)

Stream 1, the Annual lnvestments in Operations, includes annual operation of park programs, for example:

visitor reception and orientation sewices, including production and distribution of information such as signs, brochures, and radio broadcasts; and delivery of heritage messages on site and through outreach or extension programs (56)

Stream 2, lnvestments in Non-Depreciable Hentage ~ssets' , refers to (in the case of national parks) investments in "the protection and restoration of ecosystems for which the responsibility for protection in perpetuity has been entrusted to Parks Canadan (62). The criteria for assessing investment proposals include:

Ecosysterns: lnvestments will relate to significant intewentions that are required to ensure the continuation or restoration of the ecosystem (or components of the ecosystem) in the park Research or studies: lnvestments will define the specific intervention for a specific heritage asset ... More general studies that only confirrn the condition of an asset or resource, and describe intewention techniques only in a general way, will be funded from lnvestment Stream 1. (W

Given the discussion in the chapters above, it could be argued that communication programs for awareness and support fall in this stream.

Stream 4, New Investments in Existing Parks and Sites, mig ht include these communication products:

construction of a new building such as a visitor centre in an existing park; ... a new awareness or presentation product, such as adding a new exhibit in an existing park or site; a promotional or awareness campaign at a regional or national level; (69)

7 A national park is a nondepreciable heritage asset.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-22

The Business Plan concludes with a marketing strategy. The strategy is focused on irnproving awareness of the Parks Canada product and generating revenue. The strategy begins with a cornmitment to sustainability, which would be accomplished by matching its offerhg with appropriate (e.g., eco-tourist) markets, and by rnanaging tourism impacts. However, the aim is to reach existing and potential tourist markets and make ?hem increasingly aware of the 'heritage tourism experience opportunities" in Canadian national parks (89).

Specific actions focus on contacting potential tourism clients: Travel Markets - focus on long-haul and international travellers, particulariy 'high yield. high

economic impact segments" (90); lndustry - 'Actions will be taken to enhance the sector's knowledge of Parks Canada's activities

and services and the sectofs capabilities in the area of product development and operations" (91 1;

Off-Site Clients - 'Prograrns aimed at reaching those who do not visit national parks and national histonc sites are key to the delivery of public good benefits and to positioning the Program and its activities and services in the minds of key stakeholders. In this context, heritage extension programming will contribute to the achievement of the Business Plan by:

Continuing to reach those Canadians who do not visit national parks and national histonc sites but who do seek a better understanding of their natural and cultural heritage; and taking action to heighten the position of Parks Canada's activities and services in the conservation and education sectors (92).

Communities - 'Increased community awareness and understanding of Parks Canada activities and programs would bolster support for the agency's mandate and promote citizen involvernent in achieving broad protected area objectivesn (92).

The business plan makes earlier mention of awareness as a tool to increase support for protection actions. The 'expected results,' however, focus more on increasing visitation:

New Markets - visits by domestic long-haul and international travellers will increase Use PatternsExisting Markets - 'Use across the system will be distributed more evenly

between higher-use and lower-use parkslsites." Revenues from Additional Visitors - "Significant amounts of revenue will be obtained from

expenditures made by the greater volume of customers who will purchase Parks Canada goods and services."

Economic Impact - spending in Canada by long-haul domestic and international travellers will increase, helping to improve Canada's travel balance of payment.

lncrease A wareness and Support Corporate identifiers (brandsAogos) will be in place and easily recognized by clients (targets to be set). Paks Canada will experience increased participation rates from communities Iocated in the regions where it operates parks/sites. Players in the tourism sector will take action in recognition of national parks and historic sites as icons of Canadian tounsm.

Partnerships - 'Co-operative investments in promotion will be an established way of doing business, with private-sector and community partners playing a major role in building client awareness and attracting visitors."

SustainabMy - 'Specific rneasures of sustainable use practices will have been developed and implemented for various programs and activities in parks and sites (92-94).

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-23

Implementation

Orclankation Parks Canada has been undergoing a significant amount of organizational change that has wincided with the decrease in appropriations coming from the federal govemment. These changes have had an immense impact on how communication programs are delivered, especially in the Alberta Region.

Parks Canada in the Alberta Region has been going through a period of successive inter-park organizational changes for the past several years. The four contiguous rnountain parks (Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay) began efforts to plan as a-single district, The Four Mountain Park District. Issues identified for these parks were similar to those for Glacier, Mount Revelstoke and Waterton Lakes National Parks, so the district expanded and became the Mountain Parks District.

Shortly after that time (circa 1995), the sharp decrease in funding - and the necessary changes to adapt to that - began. The four mountain parks were re- divided into districts North, West and East. corresponding roughly to Jasper, YoholKootenaylLake Louise, and Banff, respectively. The effort was based on attempts to rationalize administrative loads.

The hitherto Western Region (encompassing al1 parks in the Alberta Rockies, B.C. and the Yukon) was divided into an Alberta Region and a B.C.Nukon Region. The regional offices are in the process of being disbanded and recreated as much smaller regional Service Centres. Al1 parks and historic sites rnanaged by Parks Canada have now been grouped together into Field Units. For the four contiguous mountain parks, those field units are roughly the same as what the districts North, West and East were. Nationally, the levels of the management structure have been pared down considerably. The national office functions also as a national service centre, and al1 the field units in the western provinces and the territories have been grouped under one directorate ("Field Unit Superintendents in Western Canada" 1997).

infra-park organizational changes accompanied these inter-organizational changes. The decrease in funding led directly to a decrease in personnel, and a decrease in program offerings. Although direction came from a national strategy and a national business plan, those directives were interpreted differently in the different regions. For example, some saw personal programs as a core service, others as a function subject to full cost recovery (Oxman, pers. corn.).

The Alberta Region took a more intensive cutting approach than other regions. The Heritage Communications section was dispersed, personal programs were subjected to cost recovery, environmental education positions were deleted. and al1 in-house AN and print services were eliminated. At the former regional ofFice,

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-24

al1 outreach activities ceased. The decrease in service provision is to be replaced by partnenhips especially with businesses in the park.

At the same time, Ecosystem Secretanafs were set up, and the new departments of Heritage Tourism and Client Services were created. The Ecosystem Secretariats are intended to provide a long-terni strategic view of the park's future, one which spans disciplines and departments. The Secretariats are small groups which can consist of a Manager, a Land Use Specialist, Conservation Biologist, Data Management Specialist, Communication ~ ~ e c i a l i s t ~ , and a Library and Collections Technician (Hodgins 1997). Client Services sections were established to better satisfy visitor and business satisfaction objectives, and Heritage Tourism was created to focus each unit's tourism initiatives and partnerships.

To replace the disbanded Heritage Communications group, new positions called Corn mun ication Specialists were created and attached to several departments in the park. These positions were intended to serve as communication facilitators. rather than communication practitioners. The various communication programs and responsibilities were spread around to the Ecosystem Secretariat, Warden Service, Client Services, Heritage ~ r o ~ r a m s ~ , Frontcountry, Heritage Tourism, and Media ~elations".

At the executive level in the Mountain Parks District, the superintendent of Jasper National Park is currently the portfolio manager for communications. After the Transition Communication Workshop in June 1997 (see Assessments, above), each park identified a portfolio representative for communications . It is up to the individual park to decide if that representative should be a manager or a Communication Specialist.

At the park level, now that communication responsibilities are spread through several departments (and in the absence of a clear park communication strategy), decisions on communication policies are made at executive meetings and responsibility for them assigned to Communication Specialists. To coordinate efforts, a park-wide communication strategy is currently being developed.

The major reorganizing has settled down in the mountain national parks, but there are still rnany adjustments being made, and the communications context changes almost constantly. The next major change on the horizon is the move to being an Agency (see Chapter 5: Ecosystem Management in BNP; Parks Canada as an agency).

8 The Ecosystem Secretariat communication specialist is responsible for ecosystem level research and management messages (both strategic and implementation aspects).

Who have responsibility for historic sites. 'O Attached to the superintendent's office.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-25

Interna1 communication Interna1 communication in the Mountain Parks district can be considered in the context of this study in three areas:

staff training communication with and between communicators - within park communication with and between communicators - between parks

Staff training was a recognized issue at the Transition Communications Workshop (1 997; see Appendix J : Transition Communications Workshop issues). The role of communicators (and ail park staff) has changed, and continues to change, dramatically. There is a constant barrage of new infonation and data regarding ecosystems and ecosystem management. As well, the park communicators' job description is becoming more focused on facilitation and partnering. However, currently there is little training for staff about these topics. Nor is there committed training for al1 staff about how the park is managed in general, Le., ecosystem management.

The new organizational structure has created inter-personal communication challenges for Communication Specialists within the same park. The former centralized communications model, with a specific communications department. has been replaced with a decentralized model. An ad-hoc communicators group created in Banff National Park out of frustration for this situation, has recently been formalized by management (Dempsey. pers. corn.).

With the difficulties of getting people within a park to communicate, it is understandable that efforts to communicate between parks about communication programs and initiatives has been minimal. In the past, efforts have been made to foster this sort of exchange. Some have been successful. A conference cal1 chat line coordinated by the national office's On-Site Presentation and Heritage Presentation Specialist. and Parks Canada's western region publication, Research Links, are exarn ples.

Again, this was recognized at the Transition Communication Workshop (1997) as a major issue. In response. Banff National Park left the workshop with the task to set up an electronic bulletin board to be used by al1 communications people in the Mountain District. The bulletin board is intended to show the current state of personal programming and the results of the skills inventory each park was to perform.

Communication strategv Frorn the above discussion. it is apparent that a significant problern which Banff National Park has faced is the lack of a comprehensive communication strategy - a plan that would guide communication both in principle and in specific action. Currently, the Ecosystem Secretariat communication specialist is guided primarily by the new park management plan (Dempsey. pers. com.). This

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-26

provides direction on principle, but is too general to adequately guide and assist in prioritizing communication specifically.

This process of creating a parkwide communication strategy has begun. The communication specialists from the Ecosystem Secretariat in BNP created a draft communication strategy which addressed issues and messages which related to them. They added to that the others in the park who would be involved in delivering the identified messages. The section of the draft communication strategy related to ecosystem-based management and research is contained in Box F-10, below.

Box F-10: Draft Communication Strategy: Section 7: Ecosystem-Based Management and Research

Issue: Parks Canada is basing its future management plans and activities on ecosystem based research. Ecosystem research and management takes a holistic view, assessing the ecological, socio-economic and cultural rotes of different decisions and park activities. Ecosystem-based management also recognises the role Banff and the mountain parks play within the larger Central Rockies Ecosystern. For local residents and the public to be supportive of certain management decisions, they must first understand the basis for the decisions.

Objective: To raise awareness of the principles involved in ecosystem management, and the role national parks, like Banff, play in protecting a larger ecosystem. To inform interested parties of the progress and status of parks natural, cultural and sociosconomic research programs.

Cunent Offer: Research updates, interpretive programs, Visitor Guide, Crag and Canyon. local presentat

Audience Park Staff

Locals:

- guides - residents

Visitors

97198 Actions Research updates Include summaries in staff orientation"

Distribute fact sheets to staff

lnclude staff in field trips

Encourage volunteer opportunities among staff

~esearch update lecture series

Field trips for key locals (media, business managers, park managers, guides, school teachers, etc.)

"How We're Managing Series" fact sheets (6-8 PP)

Messages in Park Updates

Messages in Discover Banff

Feature articles in Visitor Guide

Messages and fact sheets in guides training

Messages in sumrner interpretive program

11 Bolding indicates initiatives already underway

Lead 8 Support Ecosystem Comm. Client Services

Ecosystem Comrn.

Ecosystem Comm.

Ecosystem Comm. Warden Resource Mng.

Ecosystem Comm.

Ecosystem Comm. Warden Resource Mng.

Ecosystem Comm. Warden Resource Mng.

Resource Mng.

Client Services

Client Services

Client Services

Frontcountry

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-2 7

Banff National Park has just completed a workshop set up to direct the creation of a park wide Communication Strategy. The workshop was facilitated by an outside consultant, who has also been contracted to draft the strategy. As a first step to the process, key staff in the park were given a questionnaire asking them to identify their priorities and responsibilities, role in implementing the park management plan (PMP), key audiences, key messages, current activities, gaps in offer, joint initiatives, and key issues for their function and for the park in general. They were also asked to comment on their resources, strengths and weaknesses.

This strategy should be in place by the end of 1997, and will hopefully help to alleviate many of the problems related to prioritization and coordination.

Messages One task which has received a lot of attention over the years is the creation of high quality messages sets. Even the chapter titles of the 1997 Park Management Plan's chapters are essentially message themes. The messages are that the management plan is trying to deliver are that the park is a place for nature, a place for people, a place for open management, etc. (Parks Canada 1 997a).

Every good communication strategy or initiative lists its intended messages. These messages have been created at several levels, for example:

general (e-g., the significance of national parks); audience-targeted (e.g.. environmental education messages in schools); issue-specific (e-g., messages for Cascade wildlife corridor establishment).

Messages have been created in several places. Most of the Parks Canada communicators intewiewed had their own set of messages to which they referred. The Green Plan sub-document, The Nature of Canada: A Primer on Spaces and Species (Environment Canada 1993) is a very readable yet very dense collection of the messages that need to be understood to understand environmental citizenship in protected areas. The TRAC Plan (BNP 1993) lists very detailed messages for each part of the various communication strategies contained within. The workshop which followed the Environmental Education Benchmark Survey (The Advisory Group 1995) established the key messages that participants wanted communicated. The recent questionnaire done in preparation for the new park-wide communication strategy had participants list their key messages.

Techniques The following is based on an inventory of communications media created by a past Ecosystem Secretariat Communication Specialist in 1996, and updated by the current one just prior to the release of this document. The list includes the

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-28

intended audience, the department of the park who is responsible, and what the current status is. The messages for ail media listed are parlddepartment wide messages.

It should be noted that communications in the Alberta Region of Parks Canada are changing very quickly right now - what was true then may not be as you read this. That being said, the inventory gives a very good snapshot of communications in Banff National Park as of October 1997. It should also be noted that between the time of the original inventory and the one printed below. much of the uncertainty of roles and status was eliminated. The up-coming park- wide communication strategy should eliminate that even further.

Personal programming

Guide training is coordinated by Client Services, but Frontcountry provides the trainers. This has been offered for a few years now, and is recognized as an important function, especially with the advent of the Heritage Tourism Strategy. However, diminished resources mean that it is being advertised subtly by word of

Audience Who's Role Status

mouth to avoid numbers which could not be accommodated.

GuidedTour training programs

1 Visitor centre personal 1 Visitor 1 Frontcountry 1 ongoing 1

Local

Discover Banff business programs

1 contact I Contact by visitor centre personnel is considered a core semice.

Client Services

Discover Banff is a program in which a park interpreter provides a presentation on the national park to staff of local businesses (primarily hotels). Its is being approached in a similar rnanner to the guide training, for the same reasons. Additionally, since the personnel provided by Frontcountry to do the training are seasonal or sumrner term employees, there is no one to provide these services year round.

Local

[ Summer lnterpretive program ( Visitor 1 Frontcountry 1 ongoing The sumrner interpretive program is somewhat pared down, and has been operating as a partial cost-recovery program. However, it is considered a core offering and will continue.

ongoing

1 Conference .qroups 1 Visitor 1 Frontcountry 1 Conference groups are an increasing segment of park visitors. They represent a

Client Services

potential source of income, as most organizers want a unifoned park interpreter to present to their delegates. However, limited resources mean requests are currently referred to private companies in the park.

ongoing J

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-29

1 Historie Sites presentations 1 Visitor 1 Heritage 1 ongoing 1 I 1 Pmgrams I I Tours are still offered once a day at the Cave and Basin and the Banff Park Museum. The cost is covered by the entrance fee to these sites. Employees also staff the cash desk, and make front-line contact with visitors there. Recently two of these positions have been made into seasonal positions, offering a small, but increased amount of security for staff.

[ School programming/groups / Local 1 Ecosystem ? 1 uncertain 1 In recent years, classroom based environmental education has been a vew low priority. ~ h e environmental education position was deleted, and those responsibilities have fallen mostly to the Ecosystem Secretariat communication specialist. This person acts more as a resource and networking person, with actual presentations being done by various staff after specific requests. What little is done here is focused on Bow Valley schools.

[ Research updates 1 Local 1 Ecosystem 1 ongoing 1 This is a promising initiative where researchers make well-advertised public presentations at an evening venue. The program has plans to try and attract more of the 'influencers' (business people, teachers, guides, staff, etc.) in the valley to presentations, and to possibly extend into field trips andfor continuing education courses. All of these excellent ideas for expansion are lirnited by the time and resources available.

1 Research day field trips 1 Local 1 Ecosystem 1 ongoing 1 A similar initiative is the research day field trips. They are much less well developed than the research updates presentations, and again are stalled mostly because of resource limitations.

1 Familiarisation tours 1 Tour 1 Tourism 1 ongoing 'Fam' tours are aimed at travel trade people, with the intention of familiarising them with Parks Canada messages and attractions. These focus mostly on the historic sites. The main limitation here is that the Heritage Tourism person for the Banff Field Unit is currently filling the leave of the YohofKootenayILake Louise Field Unit Superintendent. When a person is in this position, hislher time is limited.

[ Travel trade shows 1 Tour 1 Tounsm 1 ongoing 1 There is a conscious effort to increase the presence of Parks Canada at trade shows (e-g., the Edmonton Outdoor sports Show). This is a tricky area for promoting awareness because the end result is to encourage increased visitation. The park must be clear if they want to promote that (and the attendant increase in ecological impact).

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-30

1 Stakeholder meetings 1 Local 1 Al1 1 as needed 1 BNP is currently trying to improve this public participation mechanisrn (effectively moving its status from 'as needed' to 'ongoing'). Cuvent efforts include the Elk Advisory Cornmittee. the monthly superintendent's business breakfast and the more casually scheduled meetings with environmental groups. Planning is underway to move small scale, intermittent efforts to a larger scale. annual State of the Park meeting fomat. The details of this mechanism have yet to be worked out. Ideally, the audience for this communication effort should include interested 'regional' parties.

1 Public lnfomation sessions 1 Local 1 Al1 1 as needed 1 Initiatives in this category are likely to increase in number. and expand in scope. Some impending management initiatives such as the re-establishment of the Cascade wildlife corridor, enforcement of the Middle Springs wildlife corridor, and the part time closure the Bow Valley Parkway will necessitate comprehensive communication campaigns if they are to be effected as smoothly as possible. These will be litmus tests for the park's overall communication approach, showing if the public understands the issues. and feels a part of the solutions.

1 Open Houses 1 Local 1 AI1 1 as needed Open houses are scheduled as needed for major issues, but they are also becoming more frequent as forums for presenting 'what we do.' The Warden Service holds open houses at their offices for the public for this purpose.

1 VIF groups 1 VIP 1 Supt's office 1 as needed 1 Personalized tours for visiting VIP's are coordinated through the superintendent's office. For the past eight or so years, the vast majority have been handled by one of two communication specialists (one of whom has now left Parks Canada). There is a great deal more scrutiny applied now as to who truly is a VIP, as they can be very tirne consuming procedures. They are generally conducted ad-hoc. with no set format.

1 Local events 1 Local 1 Several 1 ongoing The various local events which take place are coordinated by different groups. sometirnes with little advance planning. Client Services coordinates the Parks Canada involvement in One Hot Summer; Parks Day activities have been coordinated out of Heritage Programs and the Friends of Banff; Environment Week activities appear in al1 areas of the park. BNP misses some excellent opportunities here to provide basic messages to the local public about national parks (Parks Day in particular). A jack of specific direction as to whose responsibility it is, and a lack of personnel limits the use and effectiveness of these offerings.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-3 1

Non-personal media

Park Staff training/orientation

8 I 1 I 1

BNP has made huge leaps in its dealings with the media in recent years. In particular, contact with local media has helped to improve their coverage of park issues, creating more focus on community journalism than on 'dirt-digging'

Some staff training is offered by Frontcountry and Client Services, but the degree of irai n ing req u i red (see ln temal communication: staff training a bove) is not be i ng provided.

Audience Who's Role Status

(unfortunately, the same cannot be said of regional urban media). Media relations would definitely benefit from greater coordination of internai communicators to better connect official comments with in-house experts.

lack of coonlina tion

Staff

Ne wspaper articleu'mass media

Frontcountry, Client Services

travel industry. This booklet includes fee information, fact sheets on a variety of ecological topics, etc. As the Heritage Tourism Strategy gets closer to implementation, products such as these will likely be even more in demand.

Local

Travel trade rnanuals

1 FM radio 1 Visitor 1 Frontcountry 1 ongoing A low power FM transmitter is set up in the park to broadcast park information on a repeating 15 to 20 minute broadcast. ~he - idea is to present-a visitor semice information, mixed with some special features highlighting park messages. The FM radio service suffered a brief death, and its reincarnation is somewhat slow to revive due to limited staff availability. It is as yet not well advertised, but until the bugs are worked out, this may be an advantage. However, its success will depend on proper advertising and quality messages.

Media relations

BNP has created a booklet called The lnside Scoop aimed at members of the

Tour

1 lntemet 1 Visitor 1 Frontcountry 1 ongoing 1 Banff National Park has an excellent website in place, managed by a webrnaster

ongoing

in the Frontcountry department. This person had been managing websites for other parks, but will now focus on Banff solely. The lnternet suffers from being both an under-utilized tool, and an over-hyped one. A great variety of information related to development reviews, current research. opportunities for participation. etc. could and should be added to the site. However, there is a belief that it can replace more communication services than it can. A static display cannot answer all questions that people might have, for Canadians (who get a majority of information from friends and family; see The Advisory Group 1995), it may be important to have attractive brochures. As well, the speed of sending electronic

Frontcountry, CIien t Services

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-32

ongoing

mail leads visitors to assume that 1) they will receive requested information immediately, and 2) there is someone on the other end who is dedicated to answering the thousands of requests.

1 On-site media 1 Al1 1 Several 1 ongoing 1 Frontcountry has responsibility for road side displays. Heritage Programs also maintains on-site media at their historic sites. Though very good, there are some looming issues for on-site media. Areas such as the Fenland Trail and Bankhead which are brochure based are likely rnoving to display based interpretation. Areas like the Bow Valley Parkway are in need of some attention as well. As there is little or no money for such efforts, partnerships with local organizations will likely-be the future of on-site media

[ Park correspondence 1 Visitor 1 Frontcountry 1 ongoing Responding to requests for information is considered a core service. BNP receives in excess of 6000 requests each year. Currently Banff provides a semi- tailored response by matching the request with appropriate brochures (hiking. cycling, backpacking, etc.). The result is a personalized response without a great deal of time invested. The future of this service is complicated by the fact that packages are expensive to mail. the lnternet is expected (hoped") to defer some of the volume, and pre-trip planning is becorning a priority. Possibilities include coordination with the BanfflLake Louise Tourisrn Bureau, and a greatly scaled down offering.

1 3rd party pub.Aechnica1 1 hntcountry, 1 ad-hoc 1 revie w 1 AI1 1 Many park staff with particular expertise are approached to review publications . etc. (most often guide books). This is coordinated through Frontcountry, but is handled ad-hoc. There is no proactive effort to ensure that information reaching the public frorn these sources is correct. This, again, is simply a personnel resource issue.

1 Visitor Guide 1 Visitor 1 Client Services 1 ? 1 Over the past year, the Visitor Guide (a.k.a. Mountain Guide, Park Magazine) has undergone significant change. In 1994, Banff's visitor guide recently switched to a magazine format with longer features. Budget restraints in 1997 led to a single booklet for the four mountain parks, significantly increased advertising and the loss of in-depth features. Though this is still a very well done and useful product, its current format no longer provides an opportunity for introducing the 'unconvertedn to issues in a somewhat significant way.

l2 In fact, the volume of mail requests for information has increased since the advent of BNP's web site. This is no doubt due simply to an increase in visitation.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-33

[ Banff Newcomefs guide 1 Locals 1 Client Services ( ongoing 1 The 'Local Lowdownn is a locally produced guide booklet of services and information for the younger Town of Banff residents. Banff National Park had the opportunity to contribute and sorne park messages are scattered throughout. This will likely be given out by ernployers. As well, the Town of Banff has just completed a guide for new and long-time residents. Parks Canada people also had the opportunity to contribute to that.

1 Fact Sheets 1 Locals 1 Al1 1 no coordination ] In response to the cost and time involved in creating glossy brochures, BNP began a Fact Sheet program. The idea was to create small (14 pp) fact sheets which could be stored on a shared cornputer drive, and printed off by anyone needing one. A cornmon template contributes to the Parks Canada goal of consistent corporate image, and allows anyone to create a fact sheet. The program has suffered from a loss of in-house expertise and poor coordination. but has continued due to the popularity and cost-effectiveness of the approach. Requests for research information, updates of fast-changing information, staff training, etc. are al1 potential uses of fact sheets. A promising new initiative by the Ecosystem Secretariat communication specialists is a series called "How We're Managingn which will have editions focused on elk, aspen, highways, visitor use. bears, wolves, wildlife corridors, fire and vegetation, cultural resources, exotic species, aquatics, and the management plan.

( Videos 1 LocalsNis. 1 Al1 1 no coordination 1 Banff National Park has recently deleted al1 in-house expertise related to audio/visual services. In its wake remain an impressive collection of videos, slides and equipment, but no one and no time to properly coordinate them. As an example, the person with the one key for the slide collection has moved to a different building than the one in which the collection is housed. There are several apparently simple solutions to that problern, but the lack of direction for the collections makes al1 involved leery of investing time in addressing the problems. In the interim, numerous small personal collections are appearing at desks throughout the park. The Transition Communications Workshop identified this as a major issue, and Jasper National Park is spearheading the effort to address it.

1 Brochures/Publica tions 1 VMLocals 1 Al1 1 lack of 1 1 ( coordinafion 1 The day has past when large run. fancy brochures could be produced in any nurnbers. This responsibili@ has been downloaded from the now-defunct

-

regional offices to the parks, but without any increase in funding. Combined with no communication strategy at the park level, and no communication strategy at the regional level, the result is predictable. Within BNP, there is confusion about responsibilities similar to those discussed above regarding the visitor guide. For example, is a brochure on rnountain-biking a Frontcountry or Backcountry

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-34

responsibility? Between parks. CO-operative efforts have arisen ad-hoc. but not without problems: the four mountain park Visitor Guide was coordinated by Banff without compensation. as was the fishing regulations brochure. A communication strategy and improved coordination will hopefully lead to more efficient and prioritized efforts, as well as a rationalization of the workloads.

1 1 Al1 1 Coordinated by Media Relations, media storylines include contributions by people in al1 departments. These may arise out of the various smaller scale communication strategies in the park. and are demand driven. Media Relations is a smafl department and has more than enough to do with reacting to the public. Ideally. this department. in CO-operation with other park staff. could create a coordinated effort to ensure al1 messages make it into media storylines.

Media storylines

1 posters 1 Locals 1 Al1 1 lack of 1 1 1 coordination 1

The posters produced by the park. not surprisingly. face the same challenges as

Locals

the brochures. Client Services has made some effort to coordinate the initiatives. As high quality posters can be relatively expensive to produce, partnering with others has become more common (Watchable Wildife poster and hotel tent cards are two examples). With the loss of in-house design capability and no formal coordination, there has been repetition (the case described in Interna1 Communication: Analysis. above. of two groups separately creating the same poster is an example). Regionally. the same issues exist. People perusing the display of communication products at the Transition Communications Workshop often made comments Iike. "we need something like that in our park." and "why didn't we do this together."

Private sector communication

Media Relations,

There are numerous organizations working inside Banff National Park apart from the Park itself who deliver messages. Though they are not the focus of this study, they are an important component of overall message delivery and should be noted.

on demand

Providing educational information about the Park's history is seen to be important to over 98% of recreation and leisure business operators. A full 100% see providing information about the Park's wildlife as important. However. only 61 % indicated they do actually provide such information (Ritchie et al 1995b).

Some organizations provide exernplary interpretation to the visiting public. Moraine Lake Lodge has full time naturalists to provide programs for guests. Canadian Pacific Hotels provides programs and is reviving its Swiss Guide program to provide a personalized expert service. Brewster Transportation and Tours uses interpretive literature and video tapes on the national parks for its

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-35

riders, and elaborate interpretation for guests at the Columbia Icefields. And Lake Minnewanka Tours presents information about the Lake and the park on its boat tours (BBVS 1996b:266). As well. there are numerous other guides, outfitters and tour operators in the Park who provide interpretive information to their clients.

Appendix F: Review of EM communication in BNP F-36

1 Amendix G: Interview research results 1

Approximately half the questions in the various questionnaires' were intended to extract information regarding management or communication techniques, suggestions for improvements in communication, etc. That information is represented in the descriptions and analyses of BNP's current approach to EM and communication, and in the conclusions and recommendations.

The other questions were airned at detemining opinions on the current management and communication styles of Banff National Park. In order to present this data, a simple matrix (Robson 1993) was created. The goals of this matrix .aie:

to provide a concise view of the variety of opinions presented; to briefly illustrate the views and perspectives which helped inform the project's analyses and conclusions; to represent the difference in opinion (where it exists) between those interviewees within Parks Canada, and those outside of it; to provide a representation of the opinions of each person interviewed; and to maintain the anonymity of the interviewees2.

For each question. the rnatrix shows a separation between Parks Canada and non-Parks Canada intewiewees. Only one representative comment is given for any interviewee, but not al1 interviewees are represented for each question. The criteria for determining a 'yes' or 'no' answer were straightfoward:

must have been a solicited or unsolicited comment on the topic arising during the interview; the selected comment were judged to represent the tone of the entire interview; ambivalent answers were not listed; and contradictory statements in the same interview precluded any being included.

What this matrix is not intended to do is to convert qualitative data into a form which will lead to quantitative statistical comparison. The sample size and anonymity requirernents make this unfeasible.

Two notes need to be made regarding questions #2 and #4. There is a slight difference in tone between Parks Canada and non-Parks Canada people for question #2, reflecting a difference in the way the question was asked. Parks Canada interviewees were asked about communication techniques, and non- Parks Canada interviewees were asked about the effectiveness. However, the semi-structured style of the interviews resulted in al1 Parks Canada interviewee responses including a comment on effectiveness. Alsol question #4 was

1 The questionnaires and list of interviewees are contained in Appendix A: Interview details 2 Some of the responses were altered if the wording was suspected to indicate the person's affiliation.

Appendix G: lntervie w research results G- 1

originally asked as "what does the public need to know to understand ecosystem management?" Again, due to the interviewing style, al1 responses came from the perspective of answering whether people received the information they needed to assess BNP management.

Finally, the list of interviewees are al1 Parks Canada staff, ecological science academics, and representatives from environmental organizations and local recreation groups. There is no representation from the tourism, commercial setvices, social/cultural, or infrastructure organizations I communities. This was not the intention originally. However, due to the unavailability of several key potential interviewees in this group, I decided to focus the sample, rather than stretch arid dilute it.

I concluded that there is an advantage in this approach in that al1 people interviewed might be assumed to have similar ideals related to protection of national parks. Divergences and identified deficiencies arising out of this cornparison should illuminate potential problem areas. This study should ideally be followed later by a similar exercise using tourism and business representatives affected by BNP protection issues.

Appendix G: Interview research results G-2

Questionnaire response matrix

Question

7. Does BNP practice ecosystem management?

Parks Canada Interviewees "BNP continues to take part in actions based

on ecosystem principles." "park management in general has been

doing nothing [regarding EMJ .. we're moving toward more cornplex management."

"even if we achieve the goal of protecting 12%, we still won't be able to achieve ecosystem management ."

"park planning reflects ecosystem based management values, but in reality, decision-making is a mix of this and politics."

- - . --

Non-Parks Canada Interviewees "BNP has incorporated some ecosystem- based management approaches, but I wouldn't say they practice a holistic approach to managing the park."

"BNP has never really managed on an ecosystern basis."

"management is crisis driven . .. there is a lack of understanding on the part of managers as to what [EM] means, what it is."

"they are trying to move that direction ... could do more, but there is a reluctance on the part of the provinces and the private sector."

"very little if any coordination - or communication - between inside the park and outside the park."

Appendix G: lnten~iew research resulls G-3

Question

2(b). Does BNP e ffectively communicate fo the various publics information about:

how management actions are related to ecological protection ?

Parks Canada Interviewees "people don? see the complexity involved in managing a national park."

"there is not a good public justification of decisions."

"trying to" "while people would never presume to tell

their doctor about the intricacies of how to perform surgery, they do think they know a lot about how to manage national parks."

Non-Parks Canada Interviewees "fundamental failure of the organization that

those who are in a position to speak for the job they are doing simply won't or can't speak for it."

" I have been given information about specific management actions but I don? have a strong sense that they are connected to EM or rnaintaining ecological integrity."

"my impression is that there is almost no attempt to do this."

"that relationship is not yet evident." "very difficult to find out what the rules are ...

the rules tend to be al1 jumbled up [and] change rapidly."

Appendix G: lntervie w research results G-5

Question

2(c). Does BNP e ffectively communicate to the V ~ ~ O U S publics information about:

the impacts people have on Park ecosystems ?

Parks Canada Interviewees "have messages that don't try to make

people feel real guilty, but just try to make them aware of what people do to landscapes."

"people need to take more seriously the concept of cumulative effects."

"people really want national parks to be wonderfut places, and they want them to be here forever, but most do not want to make any personal sacrifice to do that."

"they get this information from interpretive programs, some park information but mainly from outside studies (e.g. BBVS), environmental organizations, media"

Non-Parks Canada Interviewees "do give some information related to impacts

. . . but unclear if this is for public safety or to protect wildlife."

"groping towards that, but no practical way of doing that yet."

"information is inconsistent from place to place, from time to time [sol it's very easy to Say, "if we're causing them grief I'm sure they'll come out and tell us so we're just going to go and do whatever."

"need to Say what is the role of people in ecosystems and how we behave, both individually and collectively, to give natural systems a chance ... a lot of people haven't made the connection yet."

"no information about impacts that people have, other than in a very site-specific way like areas that are being rehabilitated, for example. where there'd be a sign saying 'don't walk on this traif."'

Appendix G: Interview research results G-6

Question

3. Is cornmunicafion of these concepts imporiant to effective EM ?

Parks Canada lnterviewees

"a realistic goal is not 100% support or 100% buy-in ... a realistic goal is informing people about why we need to do what we do."

"if people don't understand ecosystem principles, they will not accept those land- use decisions for the park based on those principles."

"increasing awareness of ecosysterns, what they are. what some of the challenges are, what kind of land base is required for management of an ecosystem - it's al1 critical to people understanding what's involved in EM"

"obviously it's critical . . . the public is an entity that's never at the decision-making table ... you have to have ways in which the public is either felt to be represented at the table or is somehow brought to the people that are at the table."

"we're in our infancy about this. We have to rernind ourselves to provide the full picture (e.g., define "what is an elk" before we launch into how we manage the ecosystem they are part of)"

"yes because people ultimately rnake the difference in ecological integrity."

Non-Parks Canada lnterviewees

"can't understand al1 the permutations and combinations of the ecosystem without dealing with users."

"fundamental ... without public buy-in, ultimately we have no constituency."

"make people aware about why particular management actions are being taken so they'll understand it and by understanding it be supportive of it."

"[otherwise there is a] tendency to think that you put a fence around protected areas and you go like hell everywhere else."

Appendix G: Inlen~iew research resulls G-8

Question - - -

6. Did the ment TC/? twinning project have an effective public communication process?

3 Trans Canada Highway

Parks Canada lnterviewees "probably Banff s most extensively consulted

project .. was a negotiated process throug hout ."

"[tricky] topic because it's a two-edged sword -- good news and bad news al1 rolled into one"

"very successful, because people saw the process step by step."

- -- - . . .- - -

Non-Parks Canada lnterviewees "dreadful ... a jqggernaut that knew where it wanted to go, and whatever was said was irrelevant."

"one thing to pull representatives of interest groups off the street and ask what they think; another to ask the people . . . if they were listening to us, they wouldn't have twinned the highway."

"question whether people contacted were statistically representative."

"some groups had a high degree of participation, but the general public did not ... the whole process was so skewed to it going ahead that I can't Say I thought it was impartial."

Appendix G: Interview research results G-17

( ~ ~ p e n d i x H: Herluge Tourism Strategy 1 (from Heritage Tourism Working Group 1997)

- - .-. . . . - . - . . . - -- --

Objectives:

1. to rnake al1 visitors aware they are in a national park by actively fostering visitor appreciation and understanding of the nature. history and culture of Banff National Park and the Banff-Bow Valley area;

2. to encourage and develop opportunities, products and services consistent with heritage values;

3. to encourage environmental stewardship initiatives upon which sustainable heritage tourism depends;

4. to strengthen employee orientation, training and accreditation program as it relates to sharing heritage understanding with visitors.

p p p p p

Guiding Piinciples and Values (sample cornments)

The Banff Bow Valley Heritage Tourism Working Group defines k r i tage Tourism as the act of fostering of visitor appreciation of the nature, history and culture of Banff National Park and the Banff Bow Valley area. A primary aim of this strategy is to preserve the beauty and ecological integrity of Banff National Park as a sustainable tourism destination.

Adopting a Code of Ethics and Guidelines

In Our policies. plans, decisions and actions, we will: 1. commit to excellence in the quality of tourism and hospitality experiences

provided to Our clients in the Banff Bow Valley through a motivating and caring staff.

2. encourage an appreciation and respect for the natural. cultural and aesthetic heritage of the Banff Bow Valley and surrounding protected areas among our customers. staff. shareholders. suppliers and communities.

3. respect values and goals of our host cornmunities and work to provide services and facilities in a way which contributes to community identity, pride. aesthetiw and the quality of life.

4. achieve tourism development which will help our economic objectives to work in harmony with the protection and enhancement of the natural, cultural and aesthetic heritage of the Banff Bow Valley and surrounding areas.

5. be efficient in the use of al1 natural resources, manage waste in an environmentaliy responsible manner and strive to minimize or eliminate pollution in al1 its forms.

6. CO-operate with other colleagues within the tourism industry and other industries, towards the goal of sustainable development and an improved quality of life for al1 Canadians.

7. support tourists in their search for greater understanding and appreciation of nature. Work with national and international organizations to build a better world throug h tourism.

Appendix H: Heritage TOU& Strategy H- 7

Framework for the lmplementation of the Heritage Tourism Strategy Step One: ldentification of Opportunities Step Two: Measurement of the Market Potential Step Three: Developing an Action Plan - The goal of the Banff Bow Valley tourism community is to generate regional

economic vitality, national pride and unity without diminishing the ecological integrity of Banff National Park and surrounding areas.

Step Four: Packaging of Heritage Products Step Five: Orientation Training and Accreditation - Heritage communication and employee training will focus on at least the following themes: 1. The origins, extent and duration of native use of the BanfffBow Valley area

prior to. and at the time of European contact. 2. Early European frontier exploration from the fur trade through to the railway

surveys. The impact of exploration on local nature and culture. 3. Nation building, the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the

railway's impact on mountain nature, history and culture. 4. The creation of Canada's first national park and its immediate and

downstream impact on evolving conservation values. 5. The birth of mountain tourism and its evolving influence on a uniquely

Canadian landscape aesthetic. 6. The influence of art and artists on the perception of our mountain

landscapes. 7. Horse travel, packing, guiding and western culture in the Rockies. The

contribution of hiking, climbing and skiing to the evolution of a uniquely Canadian mountain culture.

8. The origins, nature and development of the cornmunities of Banff, Canmore and Lake Louise.

9. A brief history of mountain national park management theory and practice from 1885 to the present. The role of the national park system in tourism. the preservation of ecological integrity and biodiversity, and what these mean to planetary ecological health.

1 O. The crucial role of individual and collective local and regional stewardship in the perpetuation of Banff National Park. Identification of individual and corporate responsibilities and opportunities.

Step Six: Comrnunicating the Strategy Step Seven: Evaluation

Action Plan: Parks Canada (brief)

Our Heritage Tourism Program wili strive to achieve the following: i. An increased awareness. and support for services, programs and activities

related to the park's natural, cultural and historic heritage resulting in increased visitor participation in such activities and in higher revenues to support Parks Canada and the tourism industry

Appendix H: Heritage Tourism Strategy H-2

ii. The travel industry in partnership with Parks Canada will demonstrate the importance of conserving, presenting and celebrating the Park's heritage.

iii. Visitors will dernonstrate increased satisfaction with leisure, leaming and recreation experiences offered by Parks Canada and its tourism partners.

iv. Parks Canada and the tourism industry will manage by demand by shifting use patterns to non-peak seasons and to increased use of heritage programs and activities.

v. Building partnerships with the tounsrn sector that successfully package the heritage tourisrn experience in the park.

vi. Parks Canada, with the tourism industry. will match heritage tourism offerings to markets and manage impacts.

To achieve the results and market position we desire, action is required in four strategic areas: 1. Developing and marketing high quality Heritage Experiences. 2. Partnership with Industry and Travel Trade 3. Communicate and Prornote Heritage To Travellers - (1) Ensure "consumer carnpaignsn incorporate park messages and highlight

heritage experiences. (2) Encourage the development and promotion of tourism products and publicize tour operators which have met certification and accreditation criteria for parks messages and heritage experiences.

4. Understanding and Managing Visitors

Appendk H: Heritage Tounsm Strategy H-3

1 ~ppendix 1: Environmental education suwey indiutors 1

After the environmental education suwey (The Advisory Group 1995) was completed, the Alberta Regional Office examined and grouped the indicaton, and created this list of what should be maintained and Nnproved for each, as well as the actions pmposed.

Indicators 1,2.4: why parks and sites were set aside, their benefits and values. their importance to Canadian identity and the image of Canada

MAINTAIN - 50% awareness of protection role - 10% association with parks as recreation places - 95% adults believe parks and sites critical to Canada's image IMPROVE: - undentanding of national system context - undentanding of ecosystem-based management concept and sustainable

environments concept with purpose of parks beyond protecting wildlife - awareness of parks as learning environments - awareness of historic sites/plaqued places other than 4 primo ACTIONS PROPOSED: - becorne more supportive of existing channels' efforts to connect with

audiences = partnerships - people move beyond thinking of parks as places that protect wildlife

lndicator 3: what natural and cultural heritage means (to the public) in terms of their own actions and for the future

MAINTAIN: - NPs and NHSs as influencing people's actions IMPROVE: - understanding that parks and sites are only part of the solution - stewardship effects on people who do not live in or near a park or site - level of public's sophistication in articulating the actions they can do or take ACTIONS: - define what we want to change in people's behaviour - provide more sophisticated range of action choices for people to take home

Indicator 5: names and locations of parks and sites

MAI NTAIN - IMPROVE - low awareness of parks and sites outside the mountain block - the link that parks and sites are part of a national system

Appendix I: Environmental education survey indicators 1- 7

ACTIONS - build on the awareness of provincial parks and municipal sites as part of a

larger system of PHA'S' - we need a conveniently descriptive package of Alberta Region offers that

fits between the depth of the local and the breadth of the national brochure

lndicator 6: types of experiences parks and sites offer

MAlNTAlN - NHSs seen as places with learning opportunities IMPROVE: - NP'5 visibility as places with learning opportunities - lack of awareness of appropriate activities in NPs ACTIONS: - more positive "what you can do" messages for NPs - provide a more specific understanding of the benefits of recreating in a NP

area

lndicator 7: Parks Canada is responsible for managing NPs and NHSs

MAlNTAlN - awareness that "national" means federal government IMPROVE: - awareness of Parks Canada as the agency responsible for managing parks

and sites - awareness that Parks Canada is part of the federal government ACTIONS: - emphasize representation of people. places and events of national

significance in federal system

lndicator 8: NPs and NHSs are part of a national system and an international program of protected heritage areas

MAlNTAlN - build on the "should ben that people identified IMPROVE: - low awareness that there is a national system role in protecting heritage

areas ACTIONS: - reinforce that PC is part of national system and international program of

P HA'S

' Protected Heritage Areas

Appendix I: Environmental education survey indicators 1-2

-- - ---

lndicator 9: major challenges facing natural andcultural heritage in NPs and NHSs

MAINTAIN - understand that lack of funding and threat of development for NPs and lack

of awareness for NHSs are challenges IMPROVE: - unsophisticated understanding of the threat of development >> people are

assuming that setting aside a park where things appear pristine is enough - sets up false sense of security

ACTIONS: - need to define and communicate correct beliefs and behaviours - link with

indicator #3 - provide more sophisticated info on controlled burns. air-borne pollution.

roadkills vs. poaching, habitat loss, and how personal behaviours affect an ecosystem

lndicator I O : how to access info on ~ ~ ~ a n d NHSs

MAINTAIN: - effectiveness of written materials for kids IMPROVE: - what current vehicles are saying (more proactive with media) ACTIONS: - de-emphasize exhibits, displays and brochures as tools for adults - pro-active use of media channels

Appendix 1: En vironmental education survey indicaiors 1-3

1 AppendIx 1: Transition Communications Worksho~ issues 1

National lssues

Res~ect Morale - perceptions of lack of support from management for communication

> national message need to come down about this, but if people are perceiving they are not supported, needs to be dealt with at the park level

- perception that some managers believe that anyone can do communication Orqanizational lssues - need-to revisit resourcing priorities and find revenue sources if we are to

deliver on expectations in document - need to understand and meet standards (FIP, Access, Official Languages)

> finalizing is National; when done is Park - need to recruit non-WASPs; i.e. reflecting our clients - need to find out if there are authority related issues

> standards are set - need coordination to avoid duplication

Messaae ûevelo~ment - need to develop clear tourism communication whenfwhere to visit and what

activities appropriate - need better definition of broad park messagesi national messages - need department level messages included (citizenship, pride)

>development is a National issue; doing it is Park issue Prociramminq Effectiveness - need expertise and investment to evaluate communication effectiveness - need to know what's happening elsewhere - forum for best practices

Park lssues

Respect Morale - perceptions of lack of support from management for communication

> national message need to corne down about this, but if people are perceiving they are not supported, needs to be dealt with at the park level

- need to get the workload right - be happy to come to work - perception that some managers believe that anyone can do communication

Orqanizational lssues - need communication voice at management table - need heritage interpretation person in Client Services to respond to third

parties - need to revisit resourcing priorities and find revenue sources if we are to

deliver on expectations in document - lack cohesion and direction in new organization structure - need to understand and meet standards (FIP, Access. Official Languages)

> finalizing is National; when done is Park

Appendix J: Transition Communications Workshop J- 1

- need to set communication priorities not spread too thin - need to find out if there are authority related issues

> e.g. at the table does person have authority to be there and deal - need coordination to avoid duplication

SkillsICapabilitv - partnerships need negotiation - we need to learn about negotiation 1

contracting - need to set priorities for limited training dollars; concentrate on results/skills-

oriented - need to use in-house expertise to do training

Messaae Development - need t o develop clear tourism communication whenlwhere to visit and what

activities appropriate - need better definition of broad park messages1 national messages - need to develop individual park stories (interpretation themes)

Prociramminq Effectiveness - need expertise and investment to evaluate communication effectiveness - need to focus communication also on first nations issues and audiences - need to focus on community involvement - create chances for participation

Miscellaneous - need to communicate through Our actions

Collective lssues

Orqanizational lssues - need to ensure that communication specialists collaborate and communicate - need consistency between parks in responding, priority and delivery (?) - lack cohesion and direction in new organization structure - loss of corporate knowledge as most experience staff move on - need coordination to avoid duplication

Skills/Capabilit~ - partnerships need negotiation - we need to learn about negotiation 1

contracting - need to use in-house expertise to do training

Message Development - need to develop clear tourism communication whenlwhere to visit and what

activities appropriate Proqramminq Effectiveness - need to manage AN equipment and collections - need effective service support (service centre status in Calgary. for A N ,

media relations, etc.) - need to determine how to make long-term commitment to partners and use

consistent vocabulary - need to know what's happening elsewhere - forum for best practices

Appendk J: Transition Communications Workshop J-2

Audiences - Client Services and Frontcountry need to understand tourism industry and

their networks - how will we handle urban outreach - are we delivering heritage interpretation programs

- .

Reminder

R ~ s D ~ c ~ Morale - old stereotypes

Orcianizational Issues - need to realize that job descriptions are a moving target

Message Development - need to share our pride and sense of wonder

Pro~ramminq Effectiveness - need to respect value of persona1 programming

Audiences - need to understand that "te converted" don? exist; Le., no one stays

converted - clients are not just visitors - residents are not named specifically as clients (comment on paper)

Miscellaneous - we need to learn from others, we are not always leaders - need to be flexible enough to take advantage of priorities - need to communicate through our actions

(from Workshop minutes)

Appendk J: Transition Communications Workshop J-3

States Forest Service (USFS) and the National Park Service (NPS). When these services were created. they had slightly different foci. The NPS b a s originally given the task of providing opportunities for the public to enjoy natural places, while preventing destruction and overuseln while the USFS mandate "was to use scientific principles to mediate amclng competing uses and maximize a sustained yield of natural resourcesn (Goldstein 1992).

The area has been recognized intemationally by the United Nations Educational. Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a Biosphere Reserve (in 1 974) and as a World Heritage Site (in 1978; Barbee 1990).

Political /. manaaernent context The National Park Service (and therefore, Yellowstone National Park) and the United States Forest Service have forrnally embraced ecosystem management as their management paradigm. Although the NPS appears to have a more idealistic version of EM. they appear to have a much less significant commitment to it in terms of allocating dollars and ecosystem-based restructuring (GAO 1994).

Yellowstone National Park (and the NPS) has recently undergone a significant and lengthy reorganization. but this was due to budget concerns. not a move toward more effective EM. However, the park does have a considerable science and research program (Varley 1993a) which helps ensure management is science-based.

The need to manage as an entire ecosystem is not one which was only recently identified. A pivotal paper by Douglas Houston in 1971 on national park ecosystems noted even then, "Recognition of this problem [lack of ecological completeness] is by no means new; putting it into the context of the ecosystem and trying to evaluate and compensate for incompleteness is comparatively new." In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. there are a variety of circumstances which have created an adversarial political climate and which make such ecosystem-wide management a challenge.

Co-operation in the GYE has been both successful and unsuccessful. At the field level, there have been several effective initiatives for migrating fauna including the lnteragency Grizzly Bear Cornmittee and the Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group (Barbee et al 1991, Johnson and Snepenger 1993). However. at the higher political level, there has been less so. The NPS and USFS have "made rivalry an institution" (Barbee et al 1991), and the state governments and congressional delegations have provided 'the greatest opposition to proposais that would foster ecosystem managementn (Goldstein 1992).

Government agencies have traditionally appeared to succumb to political interference and environmental, tourism and resource lobbies, and found it convenient to avoid making active decisions. The results have included forest

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-3

plans in al1 seven of the national forests maintaining below-cost timber cutting. and half the national forest lands being under lease for oil and gas development (Goldstein 1992).

In recent decades the GYE has corne under a great deal of scnitiny by national and international publics interested in how use and conservation would be balanced for the 300,000 residents (Goldstein 1992) and 10 million annual visitors (Lichtman and Clark 1994) in the area. This scrutiny has been accompanied by both an increase in local support of conservation for the area (Goldstein 1992), and an increase in negative and volatile attitudes toward the federal government (Schullery, pers. corn.).

This duality is based on the diverse and evolving economy of the area. The traditionai economic backbone of the GYE has been timber production, grazing and mining. Of the various towns in the area, some are more dependent on tourism, some on timber, etc. Communities dependent on timber have fought decreases in allowable cut; those dependent on tourism have supported inappropriate facilities in protected areas; etc. (Goldstein 1992).

In recent years there has been a significant shift in the economy toward the service sector. Tourism has obviously increased, but so too have industries which could locate anywhere, but chose the scenic GY€ (Rasker 1993). As the traditional industries have waned, those companies, communities, politicians and individuals dependent on them have resisted the change. At the same time, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of healthy ecosystems both ecolog ically and economically.

This turbulent situation has led to the rise of several Wise Use groups.' A long- standing lovelhate relationship in the area (love the land; hate the land managers), has been exacerbated by this decrease in extractive industry. Several groups such as the Multiple Use Coalition, the Wyoming Heritage Society, and People for the West! f oned or collected to defend resource development on public lands (Goldstein 1992).

Again, there is a duality in these groups. The leadership is well-funded and well- organized by the major extractive industries in the area (Stapleton 1993b3, but the membership are citizens whose jobs are in these industries. Hanson (1995) sums this up very well:

On one level WUM's agenda is an attempt to secure the hegemony of private commodity interests on publicly owned lands by stripping away al1 environmental "impediments" to development. At another level, it is concemed about the govemment's role in distributing resources, opportunity and wealth, and the need to preserve a livelihood that many feel is based on honest labour, industriousness and an enduring love of the land.

1 The Wise Use concept itself is not new, and dates back to Gifford Pinchot and the creation of the Forest Service.

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-4

It is significant to note that several people have memberships in both Wise Use Movement (WUM) groups and conservation groups (Stapleton 1993a. Hanson 1995).

Similarities Yellowstone National Park and the GYE were chosen as a case study based on the criteria listed in the methodology (see Ch. 2), but it is worth elucidating some of the more specific similarities between BNP and Yellowstone National Park.

Limeligh t first national park in the country; flagship of their respective systems; iike Yellowstone National Park, Banff National Park is well known and well stud ied ; a great deal of newspaper coverage; local coverage can be more community based for both, but regional coverage can focus on the bad news; and a considerable amount of popular and academic debate regarding park management.

Budget for both parks a great deal of money cornes into the area for tourism, but relatively little makes its way into park coffers (Bumpers 1991. BBVS 199613) a decrease in appropriations has led to considerable partnering, but both parks recognize a need for better business skills on the part of employees involved in negotiating such arrangements (Bumpers 1991. Parks Canada 1995); and new resource management programs are increasingly assessed based on the savings, simplification. or improved cornpetition they can provide (Ed. Park Science 1996, Parks Canada 1995).

Reorganization both parks have recently gone through a significant reorganization based the need to cut costs (Ed. Park Science 1996, Parks Canada 1996) both parks face the dual challenge in reorganization of trying to re-establish administration aiong ecological lines, and trying re-establish administration in a more efficient pared down incarnation; and both parks have received such significant cuts in their operating budgets that it is questionable whether they can provide effective resource management or communication programs.

Comrn mica [ion both park systems have identified that communication has been neglected under the new structure, and that a "mid-course correctionn is required (Ed. Park Science 1996. Transition Communications Workshop 1997).

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-5

Federal govemment relations there is a similar animosity between federal and state I provincial governments at the political level; and there is a similar broad distrust of the federal govemment by locals residents.

Wise Use Movement (WUM) a well-establishec! Wise Use Movement exists in the GY E (see Political / management context above); Banff National Park has recently seen the n'se of a well-organized Wise Use Movement type of organization (Association for Mountain Park Protection and Enjoyrnent or AMPPE); and BNP1s WUM group (AMPPE) is well-backed by large business interests in the reg ion fig hting to resist a more ecological integrity focused management perspective.

Differences Despite the many similarities, there are also several significant differences between Yellowstone and Banff. As these parks were the first in their respective countries, some of these important differences date back to the creation of each country's park system. It is important to be aware of these contrasts as they contribute to the case study's value as much as the similarities.

Reason for establishment

American national parks (Yellowstone) were created primarily for conservation. Canadian national parks (Banff) were created primarily for tourism development and secondarily for conservation (Bella 1987): D American National Park Service Act 191 6 stated the purpose of national

parks was "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects therein" (Turner and Rees 1973);

r> the first national parks in Canada were established to attract tourist dollars to help pay off the transcontinental railway (Lothian 1976)' and were a direct extension of the nation-building effort.

dedication clauses of the two park systems are slightly, but tellingly different: D the Act of 1887 which declared Rocky Mountains National Park (Le.. BNP)

borrowed liberally from American legislation but said parks were for "the benefit, advantage, and enjoyment of the people of Canada." (my italics) The 'advantage' referred to financial advantage (Turner and Rees 1973);

r> in the American legislation from which the phrase was borrowed the word 'advantage' was not used (Turner and Rees 1973).

education has been a mainstay of American parks. but not so in Canadian parks: D though education has been important, it was not until the 1930 National Park

Act that the dedication clause was reworded to Say parks were set aside for

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K- 6

the 'benefit, education, and enjoyment of the people of Canadan (my italics; Turner and Rees 1973);

D the 1918 policy directive which became the basis of NPS policy was the first to state the importance of education. As well, the ranger-naturalist has long been an institution in the American parks system. Yellowstone National Park today has an aggressive environmental education and outreach program (Schullery pers. corn.), whereas BNP has recently eliminated their environmental education position.

Conservation movement given that the history of national parks in the United States is based prirnarily on conservation, and in Canada primariiy on development, it is not surprising that the conservation movement developed more slowly in Canada: r> in the US, "the broader value of the parks as wilderness preserves was

already appreciated by the 18901s," while in Canada "no conception of the parks as wilderness preserves was evident at this stage ... Indeed, there was no popular movement for wilderness and national park protection in Canada" (Turner and Rees 1973);

D however, Canadians have benefited greatly from the legacy of the first commissioner of national parks, J.B. Harkin. Harkin was a dedicated conservationist and a spirited writer on the topic of national parks (Williams 1957). He shepherded a conservation ideal through the critical formative years of Canadian national parks (Henderson 1994).

the American park system has had conservation watchdogs al1 along: D the Sierra Club began in 1892 and the National Parks Association in 191 8;

Canada's first such organization was the National and Provincial Parks Association formed in 1963;

Americans have had big controversies early on which attracted great public attention and thrust conservation ont0 the national public stage: r, the Hetch Hetchy Valley flooding in Yosemite National Park just prior to

World War 1. "Although the valley was eventually flooded. the much publicized controversy resulted in the proponents of wilderness and undisturbed parks gaining nationwide recognition and support" (Turner and Rees 1973).

the United States was further along on the evolution from 'islands of civilization in a sea of wilderness' to 'islands of wilderness in a sea of civilization' in the 1890's - and still is: P Roderick Nash on this topic: "The Canadian wilderness rnovement lags

behind the American for the reason that Canadians (in general, the typical Canadian) still regard themselves as a pioneering people with an over- abundance of wild country ..." (Nash 1969).

Development Pace easy access was vital to Canadian parks, and discouraged in American parks:

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K- 7

ri uAll of the early Canadian parks. in contrast to those in the United States. were established along, or near. the railways where access was easy and comfortablen (Turner and Rees 1973).

Post-War period US (Turner and Rees 1973): D made extensions to park systern; additions narned to reflect recreation

expectation (National Recreation Area. National Seashore. Wilderness Area); ri specific recognition of wildemess as legitimate and appropriate use of federal

conservation lands with Wdemess Act 1964; D Mission 66 (1 956): ten year plan intended to meet projected visitor growth;

r h e visitor centres, which emphasize the educational aspects of the parks. are perhaps the most outstanding aspect of this program."; "major effort was devoted to diverting people away from national parks proper. to these recreationally attractive areas."

Post-War period Canada (Turner and Rees 1973); D little expansion of national parks; D "development of the existing parks for recreational activities proceeded

rapid lyn; o willingness to have a significant community develop within park boundaries; ri Trans Canada Highway built through the mountain parks in the late 50's early

60's; ri "public concern for the value of national parks as natural area preserves

developed but slowly in Canada."

Federal presence regional landscape around Yellowstone National Park consists of considerable federal lands, whereas BNP (and other rnountain parks) has the only federal lands in the greater ecosystem; in Canada an individual is elected to represent a party whereas in the United States an individual is elected to represent a state; this creates significant differences in the amount of political interference a park manager can expect from local elected officiais.

Regional planning BNP is in closer proximity to major urban centre2; the major planning exercise in BNP in recent years was the Banff Bow Valley Study, which was very successful in cornparison to the Vision exercise; however, it was focused only on the Bow Valley lands inside the park and was therefore less successful as a regional planning exercise.

2 About 800,000 people live in the city of Calgary (an hour away by four-lane highway) versus 300,000 in the entire GYE (Goldstein 1992).

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-8

- - - - - -

The Vision for the Future Exercise

Backqround In the early 1 9601s, the United States Forest Service and the National Park Service created a cornmittee to address the need for better CO-operation on management issues in the greater Yellowstone area (GYA). The Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Cornmittee (GYCC) was fomed consisting of the Regional Foresters of the three forest service regions represented in the area, the Regional Director of the NPS in the area, the forest supervisors of the seven national forests in the GYA, and the superintendents of the two national parks. It was not intended to be a decision-making body, but rather to identify cornmon management problems and foster better co-operation and communication between the two agencies (GYCC 1990). Despite regular meetings, it lay somewhat dormant since that time.

In 1985, the American Congress held oversight hearings which criticized the federal agencies in the area for their poor coordination of management of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Spurred by a fear that Congress mig ht take a more active role in the management of the area (Lichtman and Clark 1994), the United States Forest Service and the National Park Service created a Memorandum of Understanding in 1986 outlining their principles for coordination (GYCC 1990). In 1987, they released a document called The Greater Yellowstone Area: An Aggregation of National Parks and National Forest Management Plans. The 'Aggregation' described "for the first time, existing natural resource and human use patterns in the Greater Yellowstone Area ... to the extent they were knownn (Lichtman and Clark 1994).

In 1988, they also began work on what would become the Vision for the Future: A Framework for Coordination in the Greater Yellowstone Area. The initial stages of the process were as follows:

the Park and Forest Sewices comrnitted to establishing goals which would 'describe desired future conditions and would be the centerpiece of the Vision that defined management philosophy for both agencies"; in May 1989, a public participation plan was created, which began with "Federal Register notices, personal and telephone contacts, open houses, Congressional briefings, listening sessions, mailings, interna1 agency briefings and talks to various groups;" between May and August 1989 "about twelve groups and numerous individuals were contacted." 'Broad, somewhat philosophical discussions ... mainly involved special interest groups, state and local agencies, and members of the publicn (GYCC 1990).

The public meetings have been descnbed as 'perfunctory" and "largely ignored" (Goldstein 1992).

In September 1989, the forest supervisors and park superintendents met and drafted fourteen goals "and substantial accompanying philosophy." In December,

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-9

these draft goals were released for a second round of public comment. Accompanying communication initiatives included '1 5 public meetings and open houses. more than 20 public speaking engagements. 6 press releases. 20 briefings with state and federal agencies, and numerous persona1 and telephone contacts." There were also articles in 11 regional or local newspapers and "several special interest publications." Comments were collected until mid-April 1990 (GYCC 1990).

Comments were combined with 'scientific data. laws. regulations and other information." The result was the fourteen goals were combined into three primary goals. and several sub-goals (a detailed description of this process was included in the Vision). The Vision's three goals were:

Conserve the Sense of Naturalness and Maintain Ecological lntegrity Encourage Opportunities that are Biologically and Economically Sustainable lmprove Coordination

Following guidelines provided by the GYCC. a team of authors consisting of four specialists each from the Forest Service and the Park Service was assigned to draft the Vision (Barbee et al 1991). Despite the different mandates of their respective agencies. the eight authors found they had very similar goals (Schullery, pers. corn.). The 74-page draft Vision was released in August of 1990. The intention was to receive comment until October, then have a final Vision ready for %inter 1990-1 991 " (GYCC 1990).

The initial reaction to the process was perhaps predictable. The environmental groups were optimistic and for the most part approved (though perhaps not actively enough; see Backlash below). In the Greater Yellowstone Coalition's Fall 1990 Newsletter, Executive Director Ed Lewis wrote:

It is rewarding to see the Forest Service and the Park Service so openjy and enthusiastically embracing the ecosystem approach to managing this wondrous land we know as Greater Yellowstone. Indeed, there cari and will be no tuming back (quoted in Stapleton 1993b).

However. the focus on a 'sense of naturalness'. and the open embracement of the reorientation of the regional economy made the commodities interests anxious.

The backlash that followed led to the Vision becoming an 1 1-page document called A Framework for Coordination of National Parks and National Forests in the Greater Yellowstone ~ r e a ~ (GYCC 1991). The new document was not released until September of 199 1. It was not written by the original team of authors, the word 'Vision' was conspicuously absent from the title, and obviously rnost of the detail was missing. lnstead of three goals. there were the following three principles:

Maintain Functional Ecosystems Encourage Opportunities that are Economically and Environmentally Sustaina ble

Henceforth called the Framework to differentiate it from the Vision.

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-10

lmprove Coordination

Backlash A local newspaper described the public reaction as "nearly rabid" (Goldstein 1992). However. it is perhaps inaccurate to talk of the 'public' backlash to the Vision. At one packed hearing in Montana, an environmentalist asked for a show of hands as to who had actually read the Vision - almost no one had (Grumbine 1992). The highly publicized negative response was, for the most part, driven by a few organized groups (Barbee et al 1991).

People for the West! (PFW) led the handful of Wise Use groups opposing the Vision. This group was fomed by the CE0 of Pegasus Gold, and filled its board of directors with mining company executives. Annual corporate donations were in the $1 5,OOO. $30,000, and $1 00,000 range (Stapleton 1993b). The next most active group was the band new Yellowstone Regional Citizens Coalition, led by non-local hired WUM gun, Charles Cushman.

Feeding on the fears created by the changing economy and traditional distrust of federal land management, these groups were very successful. They combined the political clout of a grass-roots movement with the financial clout of big business. Stapleton (1 993b) describes their efforts:

The Wise Use people organized. They worked the phones; they worked the media; they worked the politicians. They passed out preprinted '1 oppose the 'Yellowstone Vision for the Future'" letters, which thousands of people signed and mailed to the Park Service, the Forest Service. and other agencies. They blanketed the Yellowstone area with letters and handouts.

The true nature of the Vision was an early casualty in the battle: the plan 'creates a 19-million-acre de facto wilderness around Yellowstone Park,' a PFW letter warned. 'What is being proposed is a national park 8.5 times the size of Yellowstone National Park,' claimed the Wyoming Heritage Society. 'You will lose many of your existing rights,' Charles Cushman wrote, 'for exampte tourism, access, snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, off- highway vehicle use, and other forms of recreation will be reduced as well as substantial losses in mining, grazing, and timber harvesting ... [The plan] will govern your life'" (Stapleton 1993b).

The Vision contained no such proposals, but as mentioned before, suspicious and nervous people who had not read the document were easily convinced. The Wyoming Multiple-Use Coalition demanded that al1 mention of biodiversity be deleted from the plan because, "left totally unchecked, the ravages of nature would leave far more environmental destruction than management" (quoted in Grumbine 1992).

Rallies "where emotions are whipped and issues clouded" (Stapleton 1993b) were the secret to the WUM success. Before each Vision hearing, WUM groups scheduled a rally:

A newspaper reporter described WUM hired gun Dennis Winter as he worked lumbermen in Livingston. Montana: 'He shouted at, pleaded with, and stroked his audience, using an evangelical style more cornmon to the pulpit than to wood pulp. He made his audience stand. He made them sit. He made them shout in unison, and when it wasn't loud enough he made them do it again (quoted in Stapleton 1993b).

~ppendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K - l 1

People were bussed from hundreds of kilometres away, given yellow armbands. dropped off at a rally ("where they shouted and stood and sat and sat and stood and shouted until al1 reason vanished"; Stapleton 1993b), then sent into the hearings. Children walked around with 'Save my daddy's job' placards (Goldstein 1992). The results were effective. Yellowstone National Park superintendent Robert Barbee described his experience at one rally:

There were 700 people there. You canlt imagine the virulence of the outcry. ... One lady got up there, jaw quivenng, used her time ta say the Pledge of Allegiance, then looked at me and called me a Nazi ... They loaded the hall. It represented the very worst of the public participation process. lt was grim ... revolting ... a rout (quoted in Stapleton 1993b).

Local politicians were quick to pick up on the outcry - and on the misinformation. The governors of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho wrote a joint letter criticizing the Vision exercise (Barbee et al 1991). And the Wyoming legislature passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the Vision document, as it was believed the Vision would 'create a de facto Yellowstone National Park management philosophy on adjacent forests, diminishing or totally excluding multiple-use activitiesn (House Joint Resolution #16, Wyoming Legislature, 1991, p. 1 ; quoted in Cawley and Freemuth 1993).

Federal politicians perceived the process to have been a failure, too. with Former Presidential Chief of Staff John Sununu reported to have told a high ranking lnterior Department appointee that the document was a 'disaster' and must be rewritten (Lesly 1991 quoted in Goldstein 1992, Lichtman and Clark 1 994).

The environmental movement was widely perceived to have been in poor attendance for the Vision exercise (Barbee et al 1991, Goldstein 1992, Stapleton 1993b. Lichtman and Clark 1994). The possible reasons Vary. Those in Yellowstone National Park administration felt the conservation organizations were sceptical and were taking a wait and see approach - which was self- fulfilling; that they were too focused on individual battles to pay attention to an overall planning exercise; and that local groups who did participate were not supported by national groups. Said superintendent Barbee, "To this day, we don't really know what the largest conservation groups, at their national offÏces, thought of the Visionn (Barbee et a i 1991).

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) Rocky Mountain Regional Director Terri Martin noted that they did al1 the usual things. including alerting their membership, preparing testimony and attending public hearings, and that it was more a case of the unusually large offensive mounted by WUM (quoted in Stapleton 1993b).

Despite the extensive public information carnpaign, Ed Lewis of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition felt that the agencies did not draw anyone else into the process leaving people unaware as well as uninvolved (quoted in Stapleton 1993b).

Appendix KI Background on Yellowstone National Park K-72

One author went so far as to Say that, in fact, the conservation organizations were abandoned to fight the battle alone when the agencies backed away from the Vision (Stapleton 1993b).

The National Park Service and United States Forest Service did get frightened off of the Vision when the virulence of the reaction was realized. The rnuch- reduced Framework (GYCC 1 99 1 ) represents a significant backing-away from the Vision process and from ecosystern management. It has been noted that rnuch of the deleted material was usuggestions and ideas to which no one had objectes (Barbee et a l l99l).

However. it is important to distinguish between the staff of the agencies, the authors of the Vision. the GYCC, and the national offices of the two agencies. It seems likely that the direction to abandon the Vision came from high levels. and the rumours and allegations of punishment based on the Vision are also at that level.

The field staff in the two agencies continue to CO-operate on cross-boundary issues in very rnuch the same fashion (Schullery, pers. corn.). The authors, rather than being punished, seem to have moved on well, with three of the four USFS authors having been promoted to forest supervisors (Schullery, pers. corn.). Former Yellowstone Superintendent Robert Barbee is now in charge of the national parks in Alaska (Schullery, pers. corn.).

Lorraine Mintzmeyer, the regional director of the National Park Service at the time of the Vision exercise was the most vocal apparent example of a post- Vision punishment. She clairned the Vision was 'gutted' because of political interference, and that she retired from the NPS "to avoid further punishment and humiliation" (GYC 1992). Her claims were compelling enough to produce a 1991 U.S. House of Representatives sub-committee hearing (Goldstein 1992). Her daim has not yet been settled.

The final product created barely a ripple, and that was no doubt the intention. The passages that stated grazing, logging, and oil and gas were to be subordinate to the goal of maintaining ecosystern health were removed (Goldstein 1992). AI1 the "explanations, information and operational proposais" were removed (Barbee et a l 1991). The final perception was of a document that simply supported the status quo (Lichtman and Clark 1 994).

Post-Mortems As can be expected, there was a great deal of analysis after the death of the Vision as to what had happened and why. Some of the analysis was gleeful and shrill, but some was considered and very enlightening. This section will highlight some of the conclusions of four such 'post-mortems.' The title for each is the

Appendjx KI Background on Yellowstone National Park K-13

name of the author(s). and any reference not otherwise attributed is from that author.

Robert Bahee, Paul Schullery and John Vatiey (1991) This is perhaps the most interesting analysis because the authors are al1 members of Yellowstone National Park administration. Barbee was the Superintendent at the time, Schullery was one of the NPS authors of the Vision, and Varley is the park's chief of research.

Their analysis includes sorne areas in which they admit failure or miscalculation. some areas beyond their control, and some items which they would (and will) do differently.

CONSERVATIONIST SUPPORT

The conclusion of the authors was that this sort of process did not interest conservationists. They felt that, not being a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) document, it should not "quantify things like acceptable levels of change or how timber harvests might be affected." This perspective led the document to speak in generalities, and they suspect that this created a lack of understanding and faith in the document. Conservationists took a "wait and see" stance," while the WUM dove right in.

VAGUENESS REGARDING AUTHORITY

These authors admit that there was repeated criticism that the document was too vague. and that to some extent that was true. In particular, though the Vision maintained it was a staternent of principles, the fact that the intention was to incorporate those principles into national forest and national park management plans made it "seem to be a document of some authority or record."

REPEAT THE IMPORTANT CONCEPTS

The Vision stated that it was a set of principles for coordination, not a prescription for changes to management. However, the authors conclude, that that was not said enough times to be clear to the average reader. "You cannot overestimate the anxious reader' capacity for alamiist reading."

STAFF TRAINING

Upper levels of national park and national forest staff were understanding and supportive of the Vision and the spirit of CO-operation it implied. However, the authors noted that the average employee of either agency was not made aware enough to support the plan. "... many staff members weren't or had not been adequately introduced to the idea or simply could not imagine what they had in cornmon with other agency personnel a hundred miles away on the other side of the ecosystem. These things are still true."

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-14

THE BIG GESTURE

The authors suspect that the failure of the Vision could be in part due to the fanfare the agencies fostered in creating the document. Opposition groups formed to oppose initiatives that had been in place for some time. The lesson here may be that you can accomplish as much, perhaps more, by simply proceeding with routine memoranda of understanding and other rnechanisrns."

LIMITS TO COMMUNICATION

'Another important lesson, one that I think many planners will be reluctant to leam, is that there is a limit to what can be accomplished through communication." Barbee et al felt the agencies' staff had done considerable work to meet with groups, 'especially those most hostile to the process. Repeated meetings were held with rnining interests and other commodity extraction groups. Briefings with other agencies were frequent and lengthy." They concluded that "you can meet forever with opponents, and if they truly disagree with your position, you will not change their position."

FAILURE TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC

This point is perhaps more connected to the previous one than the authors realized, but there was a feeling that the 'public' were not reached because of the filtering done by the interest groups and the media. T h e Arnerican public, the owners of the parks and forests of greater Yellowstone, played virtually no role at ail."

MOBILIZATION OF PRO-VISION FORCES

The authors sensed that the agencies were inadequate in their efforts to encourage those groups who they suspected were in favour of the Vision, or at least what the Vision implied (i.e., ecosystem management).

FAILURE TO FORESEE OPPOSlTlON

There was a failure to foresee the kind of opposition - and more importantly the virulence of the opposition - that arose. The authors do not elaborate on how they might have done better at that.

PROTECTING THE DRAFT

The authors recognize that as the opposition mounted, the agencies backed away too far and too fast from the Vision document. The extent to which the Framework was watered was unnecessary, as there was a great deal rernoved which had not generated any opposition.

UPPER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

"Perhaps the foremost lesson we learned, at least so far, is this: before you undertake a project of this magnitude, be absolutely certain that your own

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-15

leadership is prepared to give you support, as far up the chain of command as imaginable." The GYCC and the authors of the Vision believed they were appeasing Congress's criticism in the 1985 hearings that they were not doing enough to coordinate management in the GYE. However, a change of administration in 1989 brought new people into the government at national levels. These people did not see a long-term management planning process, just a "disaster." The administration thus wanted the Vision to go away very quickly.

Bruce Goldstein (7992) Bruce Goldstein begins his assessrnent at a more basic level than the Vision. He asserts that fundamental change is required and that there are several obstacles to such change. These obstacles to the change he sees as necessary are. by extension, obstacles to the implementation of the Vision.

CONTRARY USFS AND hfPS MANDATE AND MISSIONS

the NPS mandate is to "[provide] opportunities for the public to enjoy natural places, while preventing destruction and overuse;" that of the USFS is "to use scientific principles to mediate among competing uses and maximize a sustained yield of natural resources."

AMBIGUOUS LEGAL SUPPORT

'the network of laws controlling land use resembles land ownership in GYE, in that many key statutes were created with no conception of ecosystems or natural processes ... Small Business Administration loans, federal insurance programs, and federal grants for rural development are examples of programs that often lead to the degradation of ecosystems." "the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal managers to assess a project's cumulative environmental impact, [but] the act neither obligates them to CO-operate to protect shared resources nor gives thern the right to affect decisions outside of their jurisdiction."

RUTHLESS POLITICS

"... the vocal and adversarial political climate of the region has imposed a web of constraints around the agencies." "Caught among the environmental, tourism, and resource lobbies, managers have leamed to avoid making controversial decisions." (sound familiar)

Goldstein felt that the Vision "fiasco" highlighted these problems, and that ecosystern management for the area was impossible until the problems of "the different mandates and missions of the agencies and private landholders within GYE. the weak legal support for systems planning, and intense political oppositionn were addressed. He also agreed with University of Wyoming law professor Bob Keiter that instead of implementation guidelines, there were "a lot of weasel words that could let the agencies go ahead with business as usual."

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K- 16

On the positive side, he noted that 'By bringing attention to the region. the agencies may have provided national and local environmentai groups the opportunity to get through some fundamental change."

In order for this change to corne about. he suggests: LYhere has to be widespread understanding of why new policies are required and what outcornes are anticipated, as well as the ethical reorientation that is required;" 7 h e dismal state of science in GYE needs particular attention? "Making NPS an independent agencyn so as to ud'distance it from the intense politics of the Department of lnterior and reduce pressure and interference from dected ofkials."

R. McGreggor Ca wley and John Freemuth (1 993) Cawley and Freemuth are included in this collection of post-mortems not so much for what they Say about the impact of the Vision on management in the GYE, but for how they perceive this to be a major (and unsuccessful) trial run of 'ecosystem management'. The primary problems identified relate to the failure to recognize tension, the use of certain language, and the lack of public involvement.

The authors contend that the document and the Vision process did not adequately account for the tension between three forces: the environmentalists desire to have EM; the commodity interests desire to have multiple-use, and the agencies' desire to have control over management of the area. Rather than defuse this tension, the document inflamed it.

In particular, the language used made the goals of the process unclear and misleading. The use of the ternis ecosystem and the statement that the document was to "pioneer ecosystem management" were "obvious concessions to the environmental community." But the assurances that "Opportunities for recreation and commodity development .. will be provided on appropriate lands." created suspicion among people unfamiliar with EM.

The authors point out that: the broad definition of ecosystem. in combination with the suggestion that a measure of naturalness is the 'extent to which natural processes ... are functioning without major disruptions by humans" (Vision, 1990, p. 3-9). created room for suspicions regarding the actual outcome of ecosystem management. Stated directly, this language could have been interpreted as a subtle (pehaps even covert) cal1 for excluding increasing portions of the GYA from taditional multiple- use activities.

As they point out, regardless of whether this is true, this perception was believed to be true.

4 In a subsequent issue of BioScience, Variey (1993a) eloquently refutes Goldstein's daim that research in Yellowstone is in a 'dismal state."

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-17

At the core of this problem is what Cawley and Freemuth saw as a public participation process which did not properly involve the public. Given statements Iike, the Vision "introduces principles and processes that will help ensure that no matter what the resource use ... ecosystern values are considered first in how the resource is used. (Vision, 1990. p. 4-l)", that authors posed this question:

was the process initiated by the Vision document intended to solicit the public's perspective on the future of the GYA, or, rather, intended to convince the public that the management professionals' view should determine the GYA's future?

They suggest that a fatal flaw of the Vision was that it assumed a consensus that did not yet exist.

The potential for political interference and the influence of the commodities interestsare not discounted, but the authon suggest that perhaps even without the organized opposition by WUM, the Vision would not have been successful- and maybe that is as it should be:

This change in direction [in the Framework] might bel as one disgruntled environmentalist suggested, 'another example of the industry-controlled politicians affecting the outcome from the agency' (Whipple, 1991, p. A i O). But it also might suggest that the political process is functioning as it should. Indeed, one purpose of participatory politics is to make 'preferences and opinions earn legitirnacy by forcing them to run the gauntlet of public defiberation and public judgement' (Barber, 1984, p. 136). Vision II, then, simply acknowledged that ecosystem management has not yet earned legitimacy

Pamela Lichtman and Tim W. Clah (1 994) Lichtman and Clark provide probably the most considered and thorough analysis of the Vision exercise. Based on an extensive review of the literature, and interviews with participants. they looked at what were the commonly identified causes of 'failure', and grouped these into four general explanations. They then provided six 'lessons for the future.'

FOUR EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FAILURE OF THE VISION PROCESS L'nclear objectives

"Much of the case material assigned blame for the failure to an unclear set of goals to be accomplished by the Vision ... Many readers of the Vision and Framework were confused about the problem the GYCC sought to fix. ... Because the problem was not made abundantly clear, the proposed solutions were unacceptable to just about everyone." "The agencies addressed public confusion by repeating - over and over - their objectives, rather than actually clarifying them or educating the public about the need for interagency coordination in the first place."

A Politicized Environment 'It was suggested that the writers of the Vision, regardless of their good intentions or professional conduct, were merely going through the motions because real FS and NPS policy was set by the commodity extraction industries and other provincial interests." "It is clear that the GYCC framers quickly lost their ability to control the direction and outcome of the overall Vision exercise. The Framework.

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K- 78

removed from the hands of the original drafters, was, in the end, the product of influential politicians and special interests. Its content little resembled the d raft Vision. "

Miscalculations of Public Respome "A third explanation for the failure revealed by our analysis was the agencies' failure to analyze and understand public sentiment - including special interests, elected offïcials, and the agencies themselves - before trying to carry out the Vision exercise." r h e suggestion is that the agencies did not fully comprehend the concerns. needs, and character of their varied constituencies and failed to carry out proper 'forecasting' as a basis for appropriate education, public relations, and advocacy (support building) to avoid foreseeable problems. . . . Without detailed prior knowledge of the regional concerns that strongly shaped and influenced local values and attitudes, the agencies failed to predict the vehemence of the opposition."

The Sinister Agency Conspiracy "The final explanation that we drew from the case material held that the cause of the failure was the agencies' 'Machiavellian' use of deliberately vague language in the Vision, an obfuscation intended to preserve administrators' discretion and minimize their accountability. The vagueness of the documents was widely noted by both supporters and detractors." "People at first wondered and then decided for themselves how the Vision's proposals would be implernented. Such confusion and speculation exacerbated the polarization of public reaction to the draft."

LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE Firsr - Statements ofpurpose

"First, an issue as controversial as land management, particularly when shifting emphasis away from century-old traditional uses (see Rasker et al., 1 992)' requires explicit, understandable statements of purposes and clear objectives for implementing change." "The agencies need to explore, among themselves and with the national public, definitions of the current problems in the GYE. Only on that basis can management and policy goals be clearly set."

Second - Practical solutio~s- "Second, the agencies need to address practical solutions once the problems are understood." "To this day, it remains unclear to many people exactly what the Vision and Framework were supposed to be or do. Such ambiguity robbed the Vision of its standing and legitimacy."

Third - Socio-political analysis "Third, given the enomous scope and the implications of the Vision exercise. there needs to be extensive analysis of social, organizational, political, and economic impacts as well as analysis of how people and organizations might

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-79

respond to these real or - more irnportantly - perceived changes pnor to carrying out the process." "The agencies underestimated their opposition and overestimated their support."

Fourth - Public values 'Fourth, the public needs to initiate a partnership with the agencies so that public values (despite their broad range and ofien conflicting nature) will not only be incorporated but help drive the process." 'One hindrance to such an alliance is the specialized knowledge holdings of the agencies. such as cumulative effects models of human impacts on natural resources or regulatory concems, which need to be communicated to the public, perhaps through a large-scale educational campaign."

F@h - Education 'Fifth, education - public, intra-agency, and interagency - would have greatly benefited the Vision process by informing everyone about the issues and enabling them to participate in decision making. "Education helps prevent misinformed myths from becoming reality." "Educating agency staffs is critical because a well-informed and active public is limited by the agencies' capacity to internalize public interests and integrate thern with scientific knowledge and reg ulatory mandates."

Skrh - Best muilable informarion "Sixth, the biologists, foresters, rangers, and naturalists charged with carrying out the Vision exercise could have benefited from additional professional knowledge and expertise in addressing complex decision and policy processes in environmental management issues." 'Whether it is in the form of consultants, task forces, or new staff, the best qualified people must be brought to an issue of this significance to integrate rigorous and reliable science. societal values. and agency structures and diverse mandates into responsive and practical management schemes."

Des pite the negative assessments these authors reviewed, and their own negative criticisms, they concluded that "we are in no way convinced that the Vision exercise was a complete failure."

It is important to remember that the process itself continues and the principles it articulated suwive in both their original and modified forms. Despite its inadequacies and the controversy it engendered, the Vision was widely distributed and remains a valuable framework from which to move forward in planning natural resource management in the GYE.

- --p. ... . .. . .

Communication after the Vision The Vision made several sweeping comments on communication in the GYE, also several grand recommendations. For example:

'heighten public awareness of research findingsn "expanded and intensifiedn interpretation programs 'develop CO-operative publication programs" "increase national awareness of the GYA" 'more opportunities for special public involvement"

-- - - - - - - - - -

Appendix K: ~ a c k ~ m u n d on Yellowstone ~ a s n a l Park K-20

"acquaint agency personnel with GYA issues and perspectives" "foster improved communications among interest groupsn (GYCC 1990: p. 3- 43)

Since the demise of the Vision there have been significant changes in Yellowstone communication; not al1 of it good, not al1 of it bad, not al1 of it as a result of the Vision.

The most obvious immediate change came in the Framework, where virtually al1 of the coordinating criteria listed that related to communication and education were removed. Perhaps more importantly. there has been a great downsizing and reorganizing which came about as a result of a decrease in appropriations. This has reached a point where it is diff~cult to offer the level of communication sewices prior to the Vision. At a recent meeting of high-level NPS managers it was recognized that a "mid-course correction" is needed for the entire NPS to address communication problems (Ed. Park Science 1 996).

The overall result has been a return to delivering communication messages on an issue-by-issue basis, and managing (and communicating) on a species-by- species basis. As a result, the people of the GYE still do not see issues and messages as ecosystem-scale issues, but rather see the discussion as "cross- boundary bickering" (Schullery, pers. com.).

The news is not ail bad. There have been new and very successful communication initiatives as well. In 1992, Yellowstone National Park released the first issue of Yellowstone Science: A quadeerly publication devoted to the natural and cultural sciences. The intention was to 'provide those widely scattered investigators an opportunity to communicate with each other," and "to give the public a previously unavailable look at al1 this exciting science" (Schullery 1992).

A handful of newspaper inserts have been created to provide detailed, broadly available information to the 'general public' (see below for more detail). As well, a web page has been created (though it tends to attract people wanting basic visitor information; Schullery, pers. corn.).

What is more notable is the change in attitudes. An article written by then- Superintendent Robert Barbee just prior to the release of the Vision showed an aggressive attitude toward 'taking' authority in the GYE:

Where decisions are king made that affect Yellowstone, we want a seat at the table. We have a public trust. We will not be shrinking violets. We do not have bunker mentality (Barbee 1990).

The article written by Yellowstone National Park administrators Barbee, John Varley and Paul Schullery immediately after the Vision exercise (which is described above in the Post-Mortems section) seemed almost bitter. The authors felt abandoned by their conservationist 'allies' and obviously frustrated at the unwilling ness in the GY E communities to accept ecosystem management.

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-2 1

Though they admitted to a failure to uengage the public," they concluded there was a 'limit to what can be accomplished through communication" because the considerable time spent trying to convert hostile forces was in vain.

A 1996 article by two of these authors (Varley and Schullery) reflects on the public participation process in Yellowstone National Park. It is based on experience from several major management initiatives, and attendant communication campaigns (Le., the fires of 1988, the Vision, wolf restoration, bison management). The article appears to show that the attitude toward public communication and participation has improved considerably, especially the recognition of the need to involve as much as the public as possible in as much of the pracess as possible:

Our definition of accomplishing something has two parts: 1) doing good for the resource, and 2) doing justice to the public's right to take part in doing good for the resource, both in deciding what is good, and in deciding how that good will be achieved.

The authors summarize their experiences and conclusions under five categories. The following is a summary of that.

7) Recognizing and accepting the "reachability" of a given public, which is in part a matter of accepting the non-reachability of those portions of the public on the extreme edges

need to remember the people of "lukewarmn opinion, who are 'the high rniddle of the bel1 curve" (see Appendix F at page F-1 O for a description of this discussion). "There are going to be people out there who are simply unaffected by your needs, your reasoning, or the best interest of your resource, but you cannot ignore these people. In fact, ail too often the are pivotal in the process because of their political position or influence. ... The carollary to this important realization is that if you aren't careful, you can waste time on them that would be infinitely better spent elsewhere."

2) Breaking through the "information banief by producinq or sponsoring enough credible scientific information to actually affect and heighten public understanding of an issue

'How do you make a dent in that illdefined mass of general, diffident public opinion? ... One of the best ways is with information." '... when we speak of public education, we refer specifically to concerted, well-airned, blasts of high-density information - knowledge so ovetwhelrning, persuasive, or even just startling, that it has what publishers looking for bestsellers refer to as 'breakout potential.' This isn't just infomation: it's news."

3) Developing communication devices to reach past the special interest fiters and commercial media, to get your message direcfiy into the hands of the public

"... most of the time, in our experience, even with Vie best information, managers may fail just because it isn't dramatic enough, or accessible enough, or even interesting enough for the media to share it with the public to the extent that it rnust be shared." 'You need to be able to talk directly to your entire constituency, and neither the broadcast media nor the print media can accommodate the kind of detail you need to share." [For the release of ouf new post-1988 fires Fire Management Plan], "Our approach was to write, design, and fund a four-page, newsprint insert, complete with maps, summaries of important elements of the plan, and even a section entitled "Are any of these questions

-- -

Appendix Kr Background on Yellowstone National Park K-22

yours?" The last page was a blank tearoff comment sheet. ... we placed more than 150,000 of these inserts in every newspaper in the Greater Yellowstone region." 'This was amazingly and surprisingly cheap. The public response was favorable. and the new plan was put into effect."

4) Keeping sight of the measurable, even pmfound, contribution a concemed public can make to a planning pmcess

"It is simply arnazing the difference that a concemed public can make it given half a chance." '... a singularly diverse group of landowners. conservationists, cattlemen, and other special interest representatives - al1 close neighbors to Yellowstone - actually got together on their own and presented the management agencies with a tolerably middle-of-the-road bison management proposal." "What oally needs to happen, however. is for those of us in charge to find ways to activate this sort of effort rather than to wait and h o p that it will happen by spontaneous combustion." 'Cleariy we need to develop more and better ways of involving the public in non- confrontational forums."

5) Persisfing in attempts fo advance a cause through a variety of other devices, such as "changing the messenger, " "empathy exercises, " and other ways of reassuhg a public that you really do have their interests in mind

"... though it would have been very easy to disregard ignorant public opinion because it was erroneous, we went through the long and costly exercise of fomally addressing these and many other questions. In the process we learned much ourselves, and greatly improved Our ability to esbblish a credible wolf management proposal." "Again and again, it has k e n proven better to start from what the public knows mther than from what we (either rightly, wrongly, or arrogantly) are sure we know. Again and again, addressing the public's concems head-on has kept the heat a little lower."

Appendix K: Background on Yellowstone National Park K-23

IAppendix L: Backgromid to Acadia National Park case nu& 1

Acadia National Park is located on eastern coast of the state of Maine, U.S.A. It makes an excellent case study for several reasons:

is a national park has very high visitation rates (the highest number of visitors per unit area of al1 American national parks; GORP 1997); has a high concentration of settlement in the area immediately surrounding the park regional efforts to reconcile long-standing multiple-use activities and preservation education prograrns are a priority aspect of natural resource management

The focus for this minor case study is a public seminar program called Resource Acadia which has been running with considerable success at Acadia National Park since 1993. Although the seminar program is the main focus, in the course of the research several other specific initiatives were observed which could instructive for Banff National Park.

Located about 6 hours north of Boston, Massachusetts, Acadia National Park is one of the few stretches of New England's coast which is publicly owned. undeveloped and still natural (GORP 1997).

The park is approximately 170 sq. km. in area (GME 1995). It exists primarily on part of Mount Desert Island - just off the coast of Maine - but also on eleven other islands and part of the mainland's Schoodic Peninsula. Mount Desert Island is a mountainous (with one 466m peak). forested island which meets the water primarily with rocky beaches and cliffs. It also includes a large fjord called Somes Sound (GME 1995).

Both the natural and cultural history of the park are very interesting, refiecting a mix of conservation and use. The earliest inhabitants were the Abnaki natives, whose ancestors used the island as far back as 6000 BP (GORP 1997). Europeans began arriving at least as far back as 1604 with the arriva1 of French explorer Samuel Champlain (GORP 1997).

By the early 1800's a well settled community was in place on the island, making their livelihoods on fishing, farming, lumbering, shipbuilding. A cottage tourism industry began, with locals renting space to a group of mainlanders who returned annually for a rustic, peaceful vacation. By 1880, the popularity had grown - as had the industry - and the srnall island was home to 30 hotels (GORP 1997). The 1890's saw an influx of the exceptionally wealthy (e.g., Rockefellers. Fords.

1 As this is an American national park, much of the comparative history of the National Park Service given in the Yellowstone National Park case study is applicable here as well.

Appendix L: Background on Acadia National Park L- l

VanderbiRs, Cameg ies) who built luxurious surnmer home estates. This trend halted with the Depression of the 1930's. the Second World War, and finally a massive fire in 1947 which destroyed many of the buildings.

These same development forces were the preservationist forces, especially one George B. Dorr. In response to what he saw as an alaming increase in development (i.e., timber. tourism. etc.) he devoted much effort and money to creating the Hancock County Trustees of Public Reservations in 1901. He and the other members of this corporation aimed 30 collect land for the perpetual use of the public." By 191 3, they had 6000 acres (2400 ha). Dorr gave the land to the federal govemrnent. and in 1916 the President created Sieur de Monts National Monument. Dorr continued to acquire land and lobby for park status. In 191 9, the reserve was designated Lafayette National Park. with Dorr as the superintendent. In 1929, the name was changed to Acadia National Park (GORP 1 997).

The cornrnunities in the area continue to reflect a diversity of use, each with a certain economic specialization. Northeast Harbor focuses on large and srnall sailboats; Bar Harbor (the largest with 4.443 people in 1990; GME 1995) on tourism; and Bass Harbor, Southwest Harbor and Winter Harbor on the more traditional lobstering, fishing, and ship building (GORP 1997).

--

Resource Acadia serninar prograrn Resource Acadia is "an outreach program of field seminars targeted primarily at residents of Acadia National Park's neighboring comrnunitiesn (Super 1995).

According to the program coordinator, Paul Super, Resource Acadia is Acadia National Park's effort to "reach Our neighbours primarily with cutting edge information about resources and resource issues that are affecting the park, but also affecting our neighbours" (Paul Super, pers. corn.). The goal is to ensure that "the people who share the resources with us understand why we are taking certain management actions. what we are doing, what the research has told us, and [to get] some feedback from themn (Paul Super. pers. corn.). In this way Acadia National Park hopes to build "a constituency of understanding and hopefully support, or at least agreement to disagreen (Paul Super, pers. corn.).

Unlike other information and communication efforts, Resource Acadia is aimed at the general local resident:

Park neighbors generally do not attend more traditional park interpretive programs or hikes. ... Resource Acadia attempts to ... [involve] local community people by choosing topics that might be controversial or otherwise stir interest, directing publicity at residents, emphasizing the special event nature of the seminars and offering rnost seminars during the non-tounst season and on weekends (Super 1995).

Although the program has attempted to attract local decision-makers and town leaders (Super pers. corn.), the audience has been interested locals, newspaper writers, and teachers - very much the multiplier audiences.

Appendix LI Background on Acadia National Park L-2

The seminars are advertised in a variety of ways, but their statistics indicate that the newspapers. both weekly and daily, have been the "most productive way to reach first-time registrants." However, Super (1 995) points out that "the simplest and most effective way to keep people corning to your seminars is to develop a reputation for presenting quality programs."

The goals of the program are: To improve dialogue over resource issues between Acadia and its neighbours by targeting an interpretive program to the local community; To disseminate current resource information generated by park researchers and managers to Acadia's neighbours To serve as a management tool for increasing the level of awareness and understanding among community members who share park resources and park boundaries; To provide experiences to teachers that will aid them in bringing resource issues into their classrooms; To explore with participants the value of resource monitoring and mitigation actions in relation to Acadia, the scientific community, and the environment; To impart an ethic of stewardship for cultural and natural resources. Acadia National Park, and the NPS (Super 1995).

Seminar desiqn After two years of the program, the program coordinator wrote a manual for others interested in setting up a similar style seminar series (see Super 1995). It is an excellent how-to manual with a great deal of explicit detail and lessons from Acadia National Park's experience. The manual breaks down the design of the individual seminars into these eight categories (see Appendix M: Coordinating a resource issues seminar sedes for more detail):

Choosing a topic Scheduling Choosing and Working with a Guest Speaker Publicity Registration The Seminar Room Your Role During the Seminar Various and Sundry

Super willingly provides the manual, and has already distributed about 200 copies of the manual.

The basic seminar set up involves a 'variety of experiences (slideshow, lecture, question and answer, demonstraüon, field trip. and discussion) ..." (Super 1995). Serninars are on weekends during the non-tourist season so that they are as accessible as possible for locals involved in the tourism industry. They run from 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM (a duration Resource Acadia has found is optimal). They will have a guest speaker (someone from the park, an academic, other

Appendix L: Background on Acadia National Park L-3

government official, NGO representative, etc.) who speaks for a portion of the morning, then a hands-on field trip in the afternoon.

Serninars topics are deliberately set up around issues: Our aim is to share with participants the information and insights used to generate management decisions and to encourage a dialogue about these decisions and the factors affecting these resources (Super 1995).

The seminar topics covered in the first three years of the program at Acadia National Park are listed in Table L-1 .

Table L-1: Resource Management projects and functions covered during Resource Acadia field seminars, 1993-94 [sic; ? 993-951

air quality Acid fog study Lake mercury study Air quality monitoring Visibility study

carriage roads Native plant ozone pathology study Native plant revegetation

endangered species

fire management

non-native plants

wetlands

Coyote-deer interaction study River Otter habitat associations study Beaver management

Camage road rehabilitation project Carriage road visitor use management Rare and endangered plant inventory Bald eagle contaminant study Peregrine falcon recovery project Fire history study of Mount Desert Island F ire management pian Purple loosestnfe control project Exotic plant survey Historic plant survey

Wetlands inventory Nutrient cycling study of Bass Harbor Marsh

wildlife management

The rnanual notes that getting participants as involved as possible has been a key. This rneans hands on activities like the field trip, but it also means engaging them in the discussion:

Most Resource Acadia seminars start with participants answering a few questions (e.g., 'How would you define the terni 'wetland'?") to be answered in small groups, or sirnply by asking them why they are interested in the day's topic.

Spruce grouse habitat use study White-tailed deer mortality study

Appendix L: Background on Acadia National Park L-4

As well. as much pmt information as possible is provided in the seminar room: Resources on the tables indude books. scientific articles (especially about research conducted at your park or reviews), magazine articles, cumcula, and brochures related to the them of each seminar. As rnuch as possible, the material should be available for participants to take with them (Super 1995).

Proqram management The Resource Acadia program has been operating since 1993, and was set in motion by Acadia National Park's Chief of Interpretation. There was a need identified to have a more proactive approach to issues communication for the public. Guidance documents such as the lnterpretive Challenge of 1988 and the Vail Agenda 1991 identified the need to 1) concentrate on programs outside the park, and 2) set up local forums to provide information and foster discussion about issues on a regular and formal basis. Resource Acadia was one of Acadia National Park's responses (Super pers. corn.)

Acadia offers eight seminars a year; four in the spring, four in the fall. Grouping them into fours allows for decreased advertising costs. but still allows a change in the fall agenda if an important issue arises (Super pers. corn.). The coordinator for Resource Acadia spends about sixty houn over three and a half weeks preparing for each seminar.

Participation of resource management staff has increased in-park support for the program. "Universally they think this is worthwhile as soon as theyJve given a program even if they've had doubts to begin with. because of the level of interest, the level of questions, the level of feedback that they get" (Super pers. corn .).

The costs for the first three years of the program were covered by gants from the Environmental Protection Agency. In the last year, they have requested a $10 donation from participants, which has been enough to cover the bulk of the non-personnel costs (Super pers. com.). It does not appear that the program will seek to recover al1 costs, though a change in management could. of course. change that. The concept of sponsors has been considered. but Super notes that that would require finding a "neutrai" sponsor, and that the time required to hunt for sponsors is a significant cost.

Results Acadia National Park does not have a formal quantitative method for evaluating the program, but the evidence they have compiled is compelling. In some cases, it is difficult to separate the effects of the Resource Acadia program from other communication efforts. but Super says in his experience speaking to organizations (Boy Scouts, Rotary, etc.) that he gets 'a lot of feedback that the relationship between the park and the community has been improved tremendously in the last ten to twenty years."

Appendix L: Background on Acadia National Park L-5

The popularity of the program is another indicators, with waiting lists and a third of participants being repeat attendees "and many of these people bring friends" (Super 1995). One excellent result has been a local nature columnist "who is often at odds with what the park does," but who has since come out with several statements in her column in support of what the park has done. She has become a regular at these programs (Super pers. corn.).

The Resource Acadia program does have an evaluation which they ask participants to fiIl out as they leave. This solicits information such as what people's concerns were, what they felt the seminar provided. what it did not provide, who attended, and any feedback. This is kept on file and is compiled in anecdwl form for such things as reports for the superintendent. Guest speakers are olso asked to provide an evaluation.

Other communication initiatives

In the course of researching the Resource Acadia program, it was perhaps inevitable that other communication and participation efforts with potential for Banff National Park would be discovered. They are briefly mentioned here.

Newspaper insert A newspaper insert cal!ed Ste wardship Behind the Scenery (Acadia National Park 1996) was produced by Acadia National Park with a grant from the American Environmental Protection Agency. The insert is two 1 1 x17 size pages folded in half. It is printed on glossy paper, with a full colour photograph on the front.

The insert contains several brief sections, each describing an element of the park's practice of "stewardship," and each with a black and white photograph. The elements of stewardship described are: lnventov, Monitoring. Scientific Research, Management, Resource Protection, Evaluation, and Co-operating with Others. The back page is titled "Be a Partner for Protection" and lists ways which citizens can help protect the park.

The park produced about 14.000 of the inserts to cover the island and its immediate environs (Super pers. corn.). They are currently working on a second one (also grant supported), and would like to do more if funds are available.

Web Daae The Acadia National Park Official Web Site (Acadia National Park 1997) is actually a rather simple, straightfonvard web page. However, it has excellent access to information on park management. Links cmnect to

Press Releases (displaying current press releases); Resource Management (currently with the text and background information for Climbing Management Plan);

Appendix L: Background on Acadia National Park L-6

Documents for Public Review and Comment (which has a link to the text and sumrnaries of an environmental impact assessrnent for a land exchange proposal, and instructions for commenting); and Advisory Commission (see below).

Again, the page is not elaborate, but the current information on, and opportunities for involvement in, park management are very accessible.

Acadia National Park Advisorv Commission Acadia National Park has established an advisory commission with four standing committees whose purpose is to provide consultation with the su perintendent on management and development of the park:

The purpose of the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission is to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through his designee the Supen'ntendent, Acadia National Park. The superintendent consults with the commission regarding the management and development of the park. The commission was established by the 1986 park boundary legislation (Public Law 99-420) and terminates in 2006. The Bylaws describe the commission in more detail. Meetings are open to the public; meeting notices appear in the Federal Register (Acadia National Park 1997).

There are four standing committees which "make recommendations for action to the commission." They are described as follows:

The Education Cornmittee deals with the orientation and education of visitors to Acadia National Park and education of the regional public. The Land Conservation Commitfee considers issues related to the acquisition of land within the park boundary and conservation easements, and about regional land consenration issues. The Park Use Committee makes recommendations related to use of and access to Acadia National Park. The Science Committee works with issues related to conducting science at the park (Acadia National Park 1997).

The web page provides lists of the current members on the various standing committees, the meeting notices, and the by-laws of the Commission. It is encouraging to note that Acadia National Park found it useful to have a standing advisory cornmittee on education, and that the Committee ranks with Land Conservation, Park Use, and Science. The format and success of these committees merits further investigation.

Appendrii L: Background on Acadia National Park L- 7

l~ppendix M: Coordinating a Resource issues Seminar Series 1 - from Coordinafing a Resoume h u e s Seminar series: A Manual (Super 1 995)

Choosing a topic

ldentify an issue from: management plans ongoing research projects consulting local and state agencies consulting local media reports

Write out theme. goals and objectives Incorporate other topics as needed to fiIl out a theme and attract more interest Consider re-offering a topic from previous seasons with a different focus Choose an attentiongrabbing yet understandable title

Scheduling

Pick a date, after considering al1 factors and potential conflicts Pick an ending and a starting time lnclude demonstrations and field trips Plan on time for introductions, questions, and conclusions Factor in travel time after having carefully timed the route Don't forget lunch and restroorn stops Consider accessibility of your facilities and field trip destinations Have a foul-weather plan Pick a mode of transportation (car-pool, bus. walk, etc.) Decide on a fee for the seminar

Choosing and Working with a Guest Speaker

Choose speakers who are experts in your topic, have persona1 experience to draw upon and, if possible, are familiar with your facility Look first for speaken among your park staff or research associates Look also at colleges, universities, governrnent agencies, and non-government organizations for speakers Check on a person's public speaking ability before you ask them to serve as a guest speaker Keep your speaken infomed:

send them outlines, themes, goals. objectives; let them know if reporters will attend and what type of audience to expect; walk through the field trip with them if possible

Ask for an outline of their presentation Set a svstem of sti~end. honoraria. or other reimbursement

Appendix M: Resource issues seminars M- 1

Publicity

Provide newspapers with press releases, calendar listings, or paid advertising Choose a title that both attracts attention and infoms the reader Invite reporters and provide thern with press packets Provide radio and TV stations with PSA's and press releases Post simple but eye-catching and informative fiyers Send flyers to universities, schools, clubs, libraries, and interested individuals Be a guest speaker for service organizations, retirement communities, etc. Let the quality of your prograrns generate publicity by word of mouth

Registration

List your phone number or a receptionist's number on al1 publicity materials Think about getting an answering machine Let your receptionist and CO-workers know how to register someone and how answer simple questions Send out a confirmation letter the week of the seminar or cal1 registrants back Develop a wait-list policy Develop a fee-payment policy, if fees are charged

The Seminar Room

Design the room to encourage discussion, meet participants needs, and help participants relax Provide coffee, tea, and other refreshments Position a sign-in table at the door Determine what audio-visual equipment is needed in advance Post the day's schedule Put out a table of resource, articles, etc. Put together a teacher's pack Decorate the room with posters and displays

Your Role During the Seminar

Decide what your role will be for the seminar and how actively you will be involved during the program itself; how much are you going to speak End and start on time leave time for a conclusion Save tirne for questions Don't cut into your lunch or bathroom breaks Arrange a signal with your speakers to let them know if they are running late Read about the seminar topics and prepare your own questions Prepare background, and introduction, and a conclusion - you should be helping to interpret the information to the participants Work with an assistant if possible

Appendix M: Resource issues seminars M-2

- - - - -

Various and Sundry

Avoid asking uyes or non questions on evaluation forms Don't feel obliged to make every change suggested in the evaluations Keep complete files and notes on your seminars and on their preparations Videotape, audiotape, or at least take careful notes of al1 presentations Take photographs and slides The significant costs are: coordinator, stipends. transportation, and supplies Prearrange teacher credit if this is possible in your state [province]

- --

Appendix M. ~esource~ssues seminam M-3

[Appendix N: Background to Fraser Basin Management Program case study 1 In one sense, American national parks offer the only suitable cornparison for Banff National Park because no Canadian national park is facing the same kind of visitation pressures as BNP. However, the American case studies have limitations in that the legisfative environment is different, and the political involvement in resource management by citizens is often more adversarial.'

Thus, I felt it was necessary to find a Canadian. non-park exarnple of successful ecosystem management that would provide lessons for BNP - in particular one with a solid communication aspect. Based on the criteria in the rnethodology, British Columbia's Fraser Basin Management Pmgram (FBMP) was chosen.

Setting The Fraser Basin in southern British Columbia is the fifth longest river in Canada. and has the fifth largest drainage basin. From its origins in the east central part of the province, the river flows briefly northwest, then down through the centre of the province. eventually meeting the ocean at Vancouver. That drainage basin covers 240,000 square km, about one quarter of the province's area (FBMP 1 993a).

From that quarter of the province drained by the Fraser cornes: 80% of Gross Provincial Product 66% of total household incorne 65% of the provincial population 48% of B.C.'s net operable forest area 60% of rnetal mine production 44% of farrnland 44% of sport fishery catch 60% of sockeye 67% of tourism revenues (FBMP 1993b)

The Basin has been divided into four regions: the Upper Region, Middle Region, Thompson Region and Lower Region. About 2.4 million people live in those regions, in some 65 communities and over 90 aboriginal bands. Eighty-five percent of those are in the Lower Region (Select Standing Cornmittee 1997, FBMP 1993b).

1 Ed Grurnbine (1996), in facititating a workshop on Ecosystem Management in Alberta in the Spring of 1996, noted the wide cross-section of interests represented by participants (federal and provincial governrnent. industry, academics, environmental groups, private individuals). He comrnented to the effect that such a group is unlikely to corne together in such a co-operative way in the United States.

Appendix N: Background to FBMP IV- 1

The major industries are Lower Region - sewice industries, tourism, trade, manufacturing, farming, some forestry, commercial fishing, and marine, air, road and rail transportation; Thornpson Region - forest industries. highway and rail services, mining, agriculture, regional trade, services, manufacturing, tourisrn and recreation; Middle Region - forestry, mining, agriculture, ranching and tourism; Upper Region - forest industry, mining, some agriculture, and increasingly tourism (FBMP 1993b).

Some of the major issues that the Basin faces are: decrease in salmon fisheries (al1 six species of salmon have declined since the 1950's; FBMP 1993a) population growth (population in the Basin is anticipated to increase by 50% in the next 25 years) economic diversification (the previous two issues, combined with the growing service sector of the economy. make diversification a major issue, especially for some communities).

FBMP structure We are a neutral body at am's length from the govemment but ïnformed by al1 levels of govemment.

- Fraser Basin Management Board Chair lona Campagnolo

On May 26,1992 the Fraser Basin Management Program, a five-year program to "advance the environmental, economic and social sustainabilityn (FBMP 1994) of the Fraser River Basin, was inaugurated. A 19 member board was established with representation from 'government, First Nations, business, labour, non- government organizations, and other stakeholders" (see Appendix O: Fraser Basin Management Board. for a list of the 1996 Board rnernbers and their affiliations). Assisting the Board is 17 full time staff and special project staff. The program is funded by federal, provincial and local governments (FBMP 1994).

The FBMB's mandate "is to bnng together al1 interests to work toward sustainability of the Basinn (FBMP 1994). More specifically, this means:

facilitate coordination provide leadership in developing improved institutional arrangements foster public attitudes, perceptions and behaviour that support sustainability audit progress towards sustainability of the Basin make recornmendations on priorities for programs and budgets (FBMP

1 996e)

The FBMP has been clear to point out from the beginning that their primary role is 'not to fund, implement, legislate, regulate, enforce or administer." They are "a network builder and helper rather than an overseef (FBMP lW6e).

Appendix N: Backgniund to FBMP N-2

Approach The FBMBoard wisely recognized that it was not the case that nothing was being done for the sustainability of the Fraser Basin. A great deal was being done by both government and non-government groups. However, these activities were poorly coordinated (FBMP 1994:2).

As well, the old approach had created a legacy of barriers that had to be addressed. These included uoverlapping administrative boundaries. topdown decision-making, jurisdictional turf wars and poor communicationsn (FBMP 1994:6). The focus was on creating and facilitating partnerships which "go a long way towards reducing duplication and contradiction, increasing productivity and streamlining programsn (FBMP 1994:6).

The new approach was to be a facilitator between govemment and grassroots: In our experience, such inclusion in a process where top-down and bottom-up are melded at some point is the preferred means of gaining assent to move ahead in society. It goes without saying that decisions made without participation by al1 those whose interests are vested in the outcomes will Iikely be rejected (FBMB Chair lona Campagnolo to Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs 1997).

The theme of Campagnolo's second statement above was repeatedly put foward by Basin residents during the many initial consultations (FBMP 1994).

The Board also recognized that there was a great number of issue areas to be addressed and so began small. They chose four issue areas for their first year (water resources management, fisheries and aquatic habitat management, pollution prevention and waste minimization, and community deveiopment) and set up sub-cornmittees to address thern (FBMP 1994:6).

By the fourth year, the FBMP had become involved in the full range of sustainability issues in the Basin (see Report Cards below). As the program progressed and became more accepted throughout the five-year term, they increased their role a coordinator, and began to take on more of a role as faci litator, too.

One of the primary methods the Program used to bring the parties together was the focus on success stories. In their first year, during extensive consultation with the people in the Basin, the Board noted that there were several successful small-scale sustainability projects that worked very well. and which could inform other projects. The Board asked for proposals for 'Demonstration Projects.'

The projects showcase practicai solutions to a wide vanety of concems: environmental conservation, recreation and tourism, restorau'on of fish habitat, community economic development and comprehensive management of complete watersheds (FBMP 1994:8).

The intention was not to 'run' the projects, but to help them secure the technical and financial support needed to achieve their own goals" (FBMP l994:8). In 1994, these were the demonstration projects:

O Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership Nahatlatch fntegrated Resource Management Plan

Appendix N: Background to FBMP N-3

Nicola Watershed Community Round Table Prince George Riverfront Traits Project Salmon River Watershed Round Table Williams Lake River Valley Comdor Project

The FBMP also sponsored a number of other activities such as an inter- govemmental workshop (Integration of Govemment Program Delivery and Shared Responsibility), a major conference (Sustainability - It's Time for Action), and numerous open houses and workshops in various parts of the Basin.

Communication The aspect of the Fraser Basin Management Program that made it most attractive to this study was the comprehensive and committed efforts toward keeping everybody infomed about al1 aspects of sustainability in the Fraser Basin.

One of the initial tasks of the Board was to hold a series of open houses throughout communities in the Basin. Their foremost conclusion was that people knew very little above the Basin "beyond their stretch of the river" (FBMP 1994:2). They also found that people had definite feelings on what were the strengths and weaknesses of current sustainability efforts.

The second year saw another round of consultation. The Board was clear that they wanted to give information, but they also wanted to get it:

The Board wanted to inform Basin residents about progress in implementing the strategic plan, but more importantly. it wanted to hear what Basin residents identified as key issues and priorities with respect to the management strategies it was developing so it could take immediate action on them (FBMP 19942).

This time. there was also a two-day workshop preceding the open house.

From the various consultations, the Board got a clear message that people wanted information:

Arnong the many consistent messages heard throughout the Basin was one which entered virtually every discussion: people need information on sustainability of the Basin. Not necessarily more information, but the right information presented in a concise, readable, accessible format. Communications and Education were cited as key elements in moving towards sustainability (F BMP 199422).

During the second year, the Board established an Education Steering Cornmittee to look at "the role of education in advancing sustainability, particularly at the local level." The Cornmittee included members from education institutions, but also from labour, trade, industry, tribal and environmental organizations (FBMP 1 994:Z).

Appendix N: Background to FBMP N-4

One of the responsibilities of this Comrnittee - and one which it did extremely well - was to produce a variety of publications. Some of these include:

the "Source Book: The Short Answef i> 'a resource binder of information on the environmental, economic and social

sustainability of the Fraser Basin. ... While al1 full length reports produced by the Board are available upon request, materials produced for the Source Book are concise. readable and accessible - just rig ht for busy, but concemed peoplen (FBMP l994:ZZ)

Newsletiers and Profles i> the Program produced several newsletters (called 'currentNEWS1)

throughout its five years. These were high quality. two-colour updates featuAng the latest for the program, regional news, and a coming events section (ca lled 'downSTREAM').

r> the Program also produced several 'Profiles' on the Basin: "The first profile introduces the Basin's general biophysical characteristics; the second, its social and economic fabric; and the third, its structure of governance" (FBMP 1994:22).

D newsletters and Profiles were also part of the Source Book Reports P several in-depth reports were produced and distributed by the Program such

as: - "a report outlining existing and potential mechanisms for preserving wetlands." - "a report outlining the state of solid and liquid waste management plans by communities and/or regional districts." - Review of the Fraser River Flood Contfol Program

Manuals D the two rnost popular publications were manuals for local communities

pursuing sustainability. These were well written and very practical. The two manuals Iisted below were based on the lessons from local success stories. - Navigating for Sustainability: A Guide for Local Govemment Decision

Makers (Dovetail and Talbot 1995) - Community Stewardship: A Guide to Establishing Your Own Group (Dovetail 1995)

Most significant. perhaps, was the ease with which people were able to get these publications. Al1 publications were free (even those as long as 90 pp.; some with full-colour maps). One did not have to know that a publication existed before they could get it, as there was an order form on the back of the newsletters, as well as on some reports. Even those süII in working draft f o m were available. The order form the 2nd Anniversav Report is reproduced in Box N-1 for illustration.

Appendix N: Background to FBMP N-5

Box Nol: Publications order form included with the 2nd Anniversary Report (FBMP 1994) The Source Book Program Sumrnary / Strategic Plan D Backgrounder on Board & Program D Surnmary: Plan for the Fraser Basin Management Program 1993-98 D Second Anniversary Report 1 Strategic Plan Update 8 Action Plans 1994195 o Vision Statement / SustainabiIity Together the New Vision P lntegrating Frarnework (Working Drafi of Document Available) Newsletters Basin Profiles Review d the Fraser Basin Flood Control Prugram D Summary Report D Full Report Workshop Reports D What People in the Communities Told Us: (April 1993) A Report on the Open House

Discussion P What Basin-Wide Stakeholders Told Us: Compendium of Submissions (April 1993) D 1993 Fall Consultation Series Workshop Report D inter-Govemmental Workshop Report: lntegrating Govemment Program Delivery and Sharing

Responsibility in the Fraser Basin (March 4, 1994) 1994-95 Action Plans D Action Plan Overview r> Water Resources Management D Pollution Prevention and Waste Minirnization D Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Management Reports D Community Development in Watersheds D Sustainability lndicators Methodology Report (June 1993) D Report on Assessing Effects of Institutional Systems on Sustainability and Format for

Reporting on State-of-Institutions Reporting (Working Draft of Document Available) Board Briefs P Kemano Completion Project Brief

- - -

~ e ~ 0 r - t cards They have been a very effective way of bringing the many issues affect~ng the long-terni health of the basin to the affention of the vast majority of its 2.4 miltion residents

- Brian Wilson, Fraser Basin Management ~oard'

There is no question that the most important, and most successful, of the Fraser Basin Management Program publications were their Report Cards. Based on the principle of ÿvhat gets measured gets done," the Board created Report Cards for the sustainability efforts in the Fraser Basin. The Board felt "the report card

2 Wilson is Director, Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada; comment made to the Select Standing Cornmittee on Aboriginal Affairs, 1997.

Appendix N: Background to FBMP N-6

process begins to develop that understanding of what is really expected of outcornes of al1 of these programs3.n

Report Cards were produced in 1995 and 1996. The 1996 Report Card describes itself as '... a 'snap shot' assessrnent of the progress being made towards sustainability of the Fraser Basin by its 2.4 million residentsn (FBMP 1996b). The 1996 Report Card assessed 29 issues, and for each listed a grade. the previous year's grade, 'Responses', 'Good News' and Bad News.' There was also a brief fold-out Report Card that summarized the grades.

The document also listed, where possible, Responses, Good News, and Bad News for-that issue for each region. A description was provided of how the grades were detemined, and an appendix showed some of the indicators of sustainability.

It is interesting to note that grades were not voted upon. Like most every other decision the Board faced, it assigned grades by consensus. Only four of the 29 issues were not graded. The grading was based on a mixture of the Board's indicators of sustainability, and input from people at the various open houses. etc. "They may not be scientists, but they speak very eloquentiy about how they feel about the basin and how healthy it may be4

The release of the Report Cards generated considerable attention and press: Over 65 pnnt articles, 23 radio interviews and 14 television spots covered the release of the Fraser Basin Management Board's two Report Cards. ... Not everyone agreed with the grades assigned by the Board, but everyone recognized the importance of monitoring and reporting on progress towards sustainability. This kind of reporting keeps the public informed, decision makers on task and everyone involved (FBMP 1 996c).

BasinPlan The culmination of the Fraser Basin Management Program's five years of work was a strategic plan called BasinPlan [FBMP 1996a). The Board had collected 4 years of input by the time it sat down to create the BasinPlan, but it started formal development of the plan more or less as it had everything else in the program - with a workshop.

In January 1996, the FBMP hosted a two-day workshop with 70 'Basin partners.' The format included workshop, plenary and breakout sessions. After the workshop, the Board used the collected information to draft the BasinPlan (FBMP 19964).

3 Roy Mussell, President B.C. Aboriginal Employment and Training Association, 5-year member of the FBMB; comment made to the Select Standing Cornmittee on Abonginal Affairs, 1997. 4 Wilson; comment made to the Select Standing Cornmittee on Aboriginal Affairs, 1997.

Appendix N: Background to FBMP N- 7

Sorne of the central directions they received during the workshop were printed in the next newsletter. These included:

The individuals, communities, industries and governments in the Fraser Basin will al1 be responsible for implementing BasinPlan actions. BasinPlan must take into account the planning processes already undeway in the Basin, and must find a clear fit with local, regional, provincial and federal initiatives. BasinPlan must focus on action. There was general support at the strategic planning workshop for an independent body to oversee irnplementation of the BasinPlan (FBMP lW6d).

The draft BasinPlan was released as a workbook, providing considerable space for comment throughout the document. The plan was aimed at five "challenge groups" to whom the challenge of achieving sustainability is put:

Every individual Governments Business and industry Non-government organizations Educators;

structured around four "directions that must be taken in order to work towards the goal:"

Understanding Sustainability Caring for Ecosystems Strengthening Communities lmproving Decision Making;

and based on two principles for sustainability: Everything is connected We are al1 responsible and accountable

Under "Understanding Sustainability," they include an 'Individual's Guide for Sustainability" which lists actions individual can take for each direction.

Each of the four 'Directions' in the plan is broken down further into its underlying issues. For each issue, there is a brief discussion, then a statement of targets and strategies. At the end of each issue section, there is a place in the workbook to add "Your ideas for other strategies." At the end of each of the four main sections is a brief description of some of the success stones, and a request for the reader to "Please share your success story."

The second to last section deals with implementation. It includes a five-year plan wial actions grouped under the four 'Directions.' The action categories are based on the issues in the Board's Report Cards. Individual actions are targeted at specific 'Challenge Groups'.

Appendix N: Background to FBMP N-8

The final section "Oveneeing lmplementation of the BasinPlann lays the groundwork for the transition from the 5-year FBMP to a more ensuring body - what would become the Fraser Basin Council. The functions foreseen for his body are:

Promoting education and awareness of sustainability of the Fraser Basin. Negotiating additional Co-operative Agreements for Action. Reporting on progress in implementing the BasinPlan and working towards sustainability. Fostering coordination and integration of regional activities. Facilitating resolution of inter-jurisdictional problems and conflicts.

Fraser Basin Council Though the intention of this case study is to focus on the finite (five-year) Fraser Basin Management Program, a measure of its success is that it has outstripped its original mandate, and been reincarnated as a not-for-profit society.

The Fraser Basin Council was forrnally announced on February 27,1997 by the Federal Environment Minister, the B.C. Minister for Environrnent, Lands and Parks, the Mayor of Richmond and a representative for B.C.'s First Nations (Community Forum 1997).

The mandate is essentially the same as that for the Fraser Basin Management Program:

to promote the health of the Fraser River system and monitor implementation of the Charter for Sustainability for the Fraser Basin (Community Forum 1997)

The BasinPlan in its final f o n became the Charter for Sustainability. lt is described as being "designed to protect and enhance the social. economic and environmental sustainability of the Fraser Basin (Community Forum 1997).

Representation on the new 33-member Council is the familiar rnix of local, provincial and federal governments, First Nations, and non-government interests (FBMP 1996~). Funding for the society will corne from the local, provincial and federal governments, but project costs will be recovered on a fee-per-service basis (FBMP 1996~).

The Fraser Basin Council (FBC) is 'Yhe first legally constituted not-for-profit society with representation from al1 orders of government, in addition to non- government, private sector representation.5"

Support and confidence for the new Council seem solid. The Vancouver city council voted to continue support despite a report on how much would be saved by not doing so (City of Vancouver 1997). As well a member of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, after hearing an informational presentation by Board chair lona Campagnolo on the yet-to-be announced

FBMB member Chanaine Murray to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs 1997.

Appendix N: Background to FBMP N- 9

Fraser Basin Council (FBC). asked if the FBC would help them facilitate a Basin- wide agreement on salmon fishing (Select Standing Cornmittee on Aboriginal Affairs 1997).

Appendix N: Background to FBMP N-70

1 Appendix 0: Fraser Basin Management Board 1 lona Campagnolo

Susan Anderson

Trevor Chandler

Bob Ellis

Al Lill

Ken MacLeod

Ruth Madsen

Marie Mervyn

Andy Motherwell

Charmaine Murray

Roy Mussell

Jon O'Riordan

Bob Pasco

Lynda Prince

Horst Sander

[an Waddell

Brian Wilson

Don Wright

Chair, Fraser Basin Management Board

Director, Aboriginal & Environmental Issues, BC Federation of Labour, Vancouver

President, Landscope Consulting Corporation, Lilooet

Director, Thompson-Nicola Regional District, Savona

Director, Green Plan Initiatives, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Assistant Deputy Minister, Local Government Services, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Director, Thompson Institute, Kamloops

Rancher, Alkali Lake Ranch, Akali Lake

Director, Cariboo Regional District. Quesnel

Councillor, City of New Westminster

President, BC Aboriginal Training & Employment Association, Vancouver

Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Regional Operations, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

Chief, Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council, Lytton

Tribal Chief, Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, Prince George

Retired, former President & CE0 of an integrated forest products Company, Prince George

Former Chair, Fraser Basin Management Board

Director, Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Planning, Ministry of Forests

- -

Appendix O: Fraser Basin Management Board 0- 1

[klppendix P: Selling the importance of communication 1 Since it is practically an institution in conservation writing to steal the title of Aldo Leopold's famous chapter "Thinking like a mountain" (Leopold 1949) and bend it out of shape, I have only slight pangs of guilt in doing so. The point of Leopold's essay was to encourage us to look at what we were doing on the landscape from a different perspective - the long-tem view that only a mountain might have.

The thoughts collected here are intended to advise the 'communication seIl job' that I have recommended repeatedly in this report. Like the lesson in Leopold's essay suggests, this task requires stepping outside of oneself. The fight to have the importance of communication recognized should be put into other terms for other audiences: in the first section it is in 'ecosystem' ternis, in the second in Yang uage' terms.

Communicating like an ecosystem

In the same way scientists tell people, 'Ecological processes work very slowly". point out communication and change in attitudeslactivities is very slow process. This means expecting certain and overnight results is equally unreasonable in communication science as ecolog ical science.

People ask. "1s diverting this one stream channel really going to affect the ecological integrity of BNP?" Scientists understand why the answer is 'yes'. So tell them same thing is true of communication. '1s pulling the ecological messages out of the Park Magazine really going to affect your whole strategy that rnuch? You've got interpreters and outreach and environmental education and FM radio, etc. How much impact can it have?" The answer is, "lots." and the key concept is cumulative effects. The question is which broken communication thread will be the one that causes the system to collapse.

A wide-spread lack of understanding of the role of communication in natural resource management dogs communicators in Banff National Park. Parts of the communication whole identified as 'nonessential' are pared away without solid knowledge and rationale. In short, communication in BNP is where natural resource management was about 25 years ago - we're still shooting the wolves.

Most BNP managers now know that if you suppress and ignore fire for an extended period, you don? return to the same situation later: fuel loads have built, fire breaks have grown over, canopy more closed, etc. Communication is like that, too. Problems fester as you ignore them. People with diametrically opposed opinions have had more time to sway opinions, practice techniques. During that period, a poorly placed lightning strike could cause a conflagration you are ill-prepared, ill-equipped to control.

--- - -

Appendix P: Selling communication P- 1

In resource management we have realized the problems of single-species research. This is not to Say that we don7 want to continue to study elk, blue weed, snails, etc. But we know that the Iives of each are linked to the others. The same is true of communication. You can't have several communication initiatives that al1 have the same goal firing in al1 directions without co- ordination. You get inefficiency, duplication, re-inventing wheel, multiple contracts going out.

'Science' is Iike a foreign language

We laugh at people who go to a non-English-speaking foreign country and speak English. When natives don? undentand them, they speak louder and enunciate. The problem is, the person they are talking to does not speak English.

The same goes for science. If you Say, "Our data indicates the impacts of the proposed activity will have a detrimental effect on the ecological integrity of the area," and people Say, "huh." there is a tendency to throw more data at them. This is the equivalent of yelling and enunciating, "DID STUDY ... IMPACTS ARE DETRIMENTAL TO ECOLOGJCAL INTEGRITY ..." It doesn't matter because they still don7 understand the language.

Further, you can't wait to teach a person to say "Help, police !" until after they are mugged. The explanation cannot bel "they haven't been mugged yet." Waiting until an issue arises or for a round table process before teaching people about the fundamentals of ecology or EM is the nom, but is generally too late in the process. This is the danger of having only issue-based communication or having issue-based communication which is too reactive. People need to have the skills and understand the language beforehand to be truly effective participants.

Appendix P: Selling communication P-2

[Appendlx Q: Ecosystem management messages 1 There are three basic foci to ecosystem management messages:

1) The Ecosystems (basics of ecology, threats) 2) Ecosystem-based Management (management challenges, responses) 3) The Role of the Individual (public responsibility, participation)

The Ecosysterns BASIC ECOLOGY

that ecosystems are vastly cornplex, and poorly understood the basic needs and activities of native species the basic ecosystem processes (e.g., natural disturbance regimes) relationships in ecosystems (e.g . , importance of connectivity) ecological integrity or health

THREATS (what the threats are, and how they affect ecological integrity) endangered species direct mortality loss of habitat displacement habituation habitat fragmentation impairment of ecological processes cumulative effects invader/exotics species pollution poaching

Ecosystem-based Management MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

goal is the long-terrn sustainability of ecosystems parks face both interna1 and external threats to the ecosystems conservation must focus not just on species, but also on spaces consewation must focus not just on elements of the ecosystem, but also on the

processes and relationships decisions must be made with ever-improving, but always incomplete knowledge protection of ecological heritage is a regional management effort:

D transboundary nature of ecosystems, species and processes D the fallacy of the 12% solution r> relationships between protected and working landscapes

Appendix Q: Ecosystem management messages Q- 1

that parks and protected areas play a role in conservation P parks are representative of ecosystems P individual parks are one part of a protected areas system

that park management is aimed firstly at achieving unimpaired ecosystem processes and elements, secondly at facilitating appropriate uses of the parks

CO-operation with other agencies, publics, scientists in goal-setting and decision-making

how Parks Canada/ BNP manages to respond to these challenges (macro) P decision-making process i> principles of BNP management P role of uncertainty in decision-making

how specific management actions are related to maintaining ecological integrity (micro) P individual management action rationale rz how this action relates to the overall goal of maintaining the long-term

sustainability of ecosystems P how does research in the various areas i n f o n decision-making

The Role of the Individual RESPONSIBILITY

there is a personal responsibility for individual actions understanding of impact of individual actions on the ecosystem

B how we contribute to the threats listed above (currently and historically) P changes in behaviour required to alleviate threats

everyone is involved in the problem, everyone is involved in the solution (the park. its visitors, al1 Canadians)

PARTICIPATION clear understanding of the various capacities in which one can participate

i> reader (receiving printed material such as management plan review documents)

I> writer (where to address written concerns, how to have written input into management plan reviews. etc.)

i> observer (attending open houses, meetings) D participant (addressing meetings, attending workshops, sitting on boards)

learning about the park and its ecosystems rz learning means everyone from the researcher to the visitor D understanding the information above helps individuals D education and understanding are part of the park's mandate

Appendix Q: Ecosystem management messages (2-2

conservation actions individua!~ can take to help the park andlor its ecosysterns D how to reduce your impact D how to help mitigate previous impacts D specific programs of which individuals can become a part

options for participating in the management process r> goal-setting D decision-making process design - including the communication process design D decision-making (e.g., management plan reviews, area management plans,

advisory boards)

Appendix Q: Ecosysfem management messages Q-3

TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIEO A. IMAGE. lnc - = 1653 East Main Street - ,--A Rochester. NY 14609 USA I --= Phone: 71 61482-0300 -- -- - - f a ~ : 7161288-5989

0 1993. Applied Image. Inc.. All Rightç Reserved