Chapter Three. Nature Conservation Planning in South-Central Ontario: A Flashpoint

2013 ◽  
pp. 58-90
2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-98
Author(s):  
Esra Yazici Gökmen ◽  
Nuran Zeren Gülersoy

Abstract Protected areas can be parts of larger ecosystems, and land use changes in the unprotected part of the ecosystems may threaten the biological diversity by affecting the ecological processes. The relationship between protected areas and their surroundings has been influential in understanding the role of spatial planning in nature conservation. This article focuses on the problem that Turkey’s protected areas are vulnerable to pressure and threats caused by land use changes. Spatial planning serving as a bridge between nature conservation and land use is the solution for effective nature conservation in Turkey. Thereby, the aim of this article is to develop a conceptual framework which offers spatial planning as an effective tool to bridge the gap between land use change and nature conservation. In this context, first literature review is conducted, and systematic conservation planning, evidence-based conservation planning, bioregional planning and national system planning are presented as effective planning methods in nature conservation. In addition to literature review, official national statistics and Convention on Biological Diversity’s country reports are utilized to shed light on Turkey’s current state. Finally, a conceptual framework is defined, the main differences with the current situation are revealed. The results indicate that an effective planning system for Turkey’s protected areas incorporates a holistic, target-oriented system defining the spatial planning process for protected areas. The spatial planning system to be developed in this context is also used by decision-makers in evaluating the ecological effectiveness of existing plans.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Cheyne

Public and stakeholder involvement in nature conservation through conservation boards has been a distinctive feature of New Zealand’s statutory framework for conservation, put in place in 1987. Since their inception, effective boards established for the purpose of ensuring that conservation stakeholders’ voices inform conservation planning have been regarded, at least in official discourse, as a key mechanism for achieving conservation outcomes. They replaced the existing national parks boards and, like their parent body, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, were intended to focus on the entire conservation estate. 


Terra ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 133 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Tukiainen ◽  
Jan Hjort

The diversity of nature consists of two complementary components: biological diversity (biodiversity) and abiotic diversity (geodiversity). Biodiversity is widely acknowledged in both research, and conservation and management practices, whereas geodiversity (the variety of abiotic features and processes of the land surface and subsurface) is just emerging as a research and practical issue. In this study, we introduce the geodiversity concept in Finnish context and explore how landscape-scale geodiversity varies in Finland and between Finnish municipalities. In addition, we study how geodiversity varies between nature areas and human impacted areas and how Finnish strict nature reserves and national parks succeed in capturing geodiversity. According to the results, there is distinct geographical variation in geodiversity in Finland. The geodiversity of municipalities varies through the country but, on average, municipalities in the southern and northern parts of the country have especially high geodiversity values. Interestingly, human impacted areas have slightly higher geodiversity than nature areas. Nature conservation areas manage especially well in capturing geomorphological richness. This study emphasizes the need for the investigation of geodiversity on a national and sub-national level. Study of geodiversity provides information on nature beyond current biodiversity-focused perspectives, which can be further utilized in e.g., land-use and nature conservation planning.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document