Healthy Parks and Philanthropy Opportunities

by Stanley Omotor

Stanley Omotor is part of a team of CPCIL Research and Knowledge Gatherers producing content and compiling resources on themes such as inclusion, ecosocial justice, partnerships, conservation, organizational sustainability, climate change and biodiversity, connection to nature, conservation financing, and ecotourism, to support effective and equitable leadership and inclusion in parks and protected areas across Canada.

Rachel DeGreef currently works as a Partnerships and Philanthropy Assistant at Ontario Parks. Her skills and interest in customer service and relationship-based communications led her to the current role of Partnerships and Philanthropy Assistant, where she is responsible for promoting and accepting donations on behalf of Ontario Parks. In addition to this, her interest and passion for ecological integrity has built a foundation for this role where she is able share the importance of leaving a legacy in the name of sustainability and future visitor enjoyment in Ontario Parks.

Evidence shows that parks and green and outdoor spaces are beneficial for our overall health and well-being.  Park prescriptions (PaRx) now also form part of the medical and health prescription tool kit. The emerging concept of palliative parks is based on the impact of time in nature for end-of-life care, even if it’s just finding peace in oneself or finding understanding for grief and loss. While park agencies recognize the value of nature for health, most of these organizations are not directly in the business of offering wellbeing or palliative care services. This case study highlights practical ways of growing capacity for new parks initiatives through philanthropic and volunteer practices in parks. 

Ontario Parks is committed to promoting healthy parks, healthy people programs, and philanthropy and volunteering are crucial for them to provide these benefits to park lovers while still achieving parks’ mandates. Philanthropy and volunteering can even accomplish more than just providing funds and time. 

A collaboration story by Park People on “The Role of Philanthropy in Parks” notes that philanthropy in parks also presents an opportunity to promote racial equality and support priority /underrepresented groups like Black and Indigenous communities. According to Park People, there is value “beyond the dollars and cents” which arises from park philanthropy. Another important aspect of philanthropy is its “community capacity and stewardship-building element… Philanthropic projects can also help bring people together. While solely city-funded park projects include community engagement elements, the quality of that engagement can be different when community members are more directly involved in raising funds, conceiving of a project themselves, or both.”  

One set of philanthropic opportunities available in parks is being a donor. There are lots of opportunities to donate toward parks, often indirectly through non-profit agencies. Ontario Parks, in listing some of the notable accomplishments of Friends of Ontario Parks (some independent, not-for-profit charitable organizations that are “dedicated to supplementing and enhancing the unique educational, recreational, research and resource protection mandates” of parks), listed their involvement in the boardwalk and observatory at Presqu’ile Provincial Park, an accessible trail at Mashkinonje Provincial Park, Huron Fringe Birding Festival at MacGregor Point Provincial Park, Art in the Park at Bon Echo Provincial Park and Footprints In Time Trail (FITT trail) at Bonnechere Provincial Park. Some donation opportunities listed by Ontario Parks also include the Turtle protection project (aimed at helping “All 8 of Ontario’s turtle species are now ‘at risk’”), the discovery program (aimed at supporting educational programs offered in Ontario Parks and in-school program), the trails & recreation (aimed at trail maintenance and restoration and developing new recreation spaces), and so on.  

Legacy gifts, or planned donations given as part of your estate or will, also form an important part of philanthropic opportunities in Ontario Parks. In seeking to promote legacy giving, Ontario Parks has made it easy for interested donors to leave a legacy to Ontario Parks by providing all information that is necessary and required to leave an effective legacy gift.  Despite the challenges of not having an online donation platform, Ontario Parks is taking advantage of secondary online charity profiles, such as CanadaHelps, and receiving donations over the phone in order to boost more philanthropy opportunities.  

Another set of opportunities that are available is volunteering with parks. BC Parks, in listing some of the numerous ways in which volunteers may participate and share their knowledge and skills with parks, noted these as including supporting conservation and recreation projects, trail maintenance, learning new skills and sharing valuable skills and knowledge while making a positive impact, building friendships and community; helping conserve biodiversity, taking part in environmental restoration, long term ecological monitoring & ecological inventories, invasive plant control, ecological reserve warden program; park management and planning; as well as facility restoration. 

Image by: DuPreez (2019)

Interested in volunteering?

Here are some volunteer opportunities associated with Parks Canada in Nova Scotia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. Additional numerous opportunities also exist in each provincial park agency, a simple online search of the term “Volunteer Opportunities (with the name of a park agency)” reveals some of these opportunities for example “Volunteer opportunities BC Parks”. We encourage you to share links to volunteer programs in the comments below or on the CPCIL opportunities board.

The goal of parks includes to create access for all and to make sure that everyone, regardless of their individual situation or socioeconomic status, has access to whatever park, they desire to visit. Philanthropic opportunities in parks can help in achieving this goal. 

References: 

BC Parks. (n.d.). Volunteer in BC Parks. Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://bcparks.ca/volunteers/ 

Park People. (2021). The Role of Philanthropy in Parks. Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://ccpr.parkpeople.ca/2021/sections/collaboration/stories/the-role-of-philanthropy-in-parks 

PaRx. (2022). A Prescription for Nature. Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://www.parkprescriptions.ca/

Ontario Parks. (2022). Friends of Ontario Parks. Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://www.ontarioparks.com/friends 

Ontario Parks. (2022). Ontario Parks Donations. Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://www.ontarioparks.com/donate  

Ontario Parks. (2022). Legacy Giving. Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://www.ontarioparks.com/donate/legacygiving 

Parks Canada. (n.d.). Volunteer Opportunities. Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/benevolat-volunteering/vol-ben07 

 

Photos:

Benna, M. (2018). Stanley Park. [image]. Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://unsplash.com/photos/SBiVq9eWEtQ  

DuPreez, P. (2019). Friends. [image] Retrieved March 25, 2022 from https://unsplash.com/photos/gYdjZzXNWlg 

The Future of the Campfire

by Nathaniel Rose

Nathaniel Rose is part of a team of CPCIL Research and Knowledge Gatherers producing content and compiling resources on themes such as inclusion, ecosocial justice, partnerships, conservation, organizational sustainability, climate change and biodiversity, connection to nature, conservation financing, and ecotourism, to support effective and equitable leadership and inclusion in parks and protected areas across Canada.

 

“I went camping with my family when I was growing up. And I still love campfire marshmallows. For me, it’s very important. They have to be burnt. Like, I want the flaming ball that I get to blow out. And then I eat it. A lot of people like it just to be lightly toasted and brown on the outside. And soft. Nope, it’s got to be charred. And so that’s how I eat a marshmallow.”

  – Dani Money

 

If you have a conversation about campfires, roasting marshmallows is bound to come up. As was the case with Dani Money, the Planning Section Head at BC Parks, when I sat down with her to discuss the future of the campfire. I’m sure after that introduction, you’re dying to know how I, Nathaniel Rose, Knowledge Gatherer for Canadian Parks Collective for Innovation eat a marshmallow, but I’m not going to tell you.

Okay I will. I actually prefer to roast them slowly, down near the embers, so that they cook evenly through. So you can imagine my disappointment with Dani, when I heard she likes to burn hers to a crisp. Okay, kidding again. But I think this brings to light one of the beautiful things about a campfire – it allows for people to have experiences that they wouldn’t have anywhere else. And a lot of these experiences are social and provide a feeling of happiness or contentment.

That’s why the future of the campfire is such an important issue. So I was thrilled to get to talk about this Dani Money about it. After conducting some research, here’s a bit of what we came up with:

Fires have been used by the human population for millennia. Not only did the discovery of fire allow us to cook our food increasing brain function, but fires gave us a space to socialize and build community. When fires first became popular with our (human) species, they added four hours to our working day (1). Cooking and eating didn’t take up the whole extra four hours so it opened up a time slot that could only be used for conversation and storytelling (1). There wasn’t enough light to forage for food and make tools but there was enough light to interact socially (1). Having fires therefore was essential to community building.

Today, campfires are still prevalent, especially in the park setting. Campfires in parks have been used to keep warm, cook and socialize for generations. I bet a park leader today would not be able to argue with the fact that campfires are a key component of the camping experience.

However, as park leaders, we have a responsibility to ensure the health of visitors. Do the benefits of campfires outweigh the negative aspects? Let’s take a look:

 

Negative Impacts

Campfires have many health impacts and are also a cause of air pollution. According to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency in the United States), fine particles from woodsmoke can trigger asthma attacks, make asthma symptoms worse, make you more susceptible to lung infections including that from Co-vid 19, and trigger heart attacks, strokes, and irregular heart conditions, especially in those already prone to these conditions (6).

Campfires can also cause noise disturbances as people stay up late into the night socializing around the fire.

It is also possible that campfire wood that visitors bring in could hold invasive species within the wood. This could introduce the species into the park area, that could have a potentially damaging effect on the local tree population or ecosystem. One example of invasive species that was brought into parts of BC, and widespread in Eastern Canada is the Gypsy moth (3). This insect eats the leaves of trees to an alarming effect, making it hard for the trees to survive.

Female Gypsy Moth

Another invasive species that has been recently affecting large parts of Southern Ontario is the Emerald Ash Borer. It is a wood-boring beetle, that “bores” through Ash tree trunks, eating through and inhabiting the wood. It is native to China and the Russian Far East and arrived in Canada in the 1990s, most likely on wood packaging material (4). According to the Government of Canada, millions of trees have been killed due to this Beetle’s infestation. (4)

Author’s Note: 

“The Emerald Ash Borer affected the area around my cottage on Southern Georgian Bay. We had to take more than eleven ash trees down on my property as the insect had chewed its way through their trunks. You can actually see the little pathways in the wood where the Ash Borer drilled its way through, eating the wood. A good tip would be to check your firewood for signs of insect infestation before use”

After a quick summary of these negative impacts, one might want to go running as far away from a campfire as possible. But there are also many positive impacts to campfires.

 

Positive Uses

Campfires have many social and cultural uses that the average person may not have thought of. Shawn Davis, a professor at Slippery Rock University in Pennslvania notes that because campfires are built in a circular fashion, people face one another, which provides more opportunity for connection than say watching the television would, where people sit in a linear fashion (2). Jennifer Willford, associate professor of psychology notes that being around a fire creates “comfortable emotions” of happiness, tranquility, and connection. It can elicit positive emotions that allow us to be more open and also allow us to be more present without the daily distractions of cellphones (2). Campfires also have a therapeutic effect: the sound of fire crackling can have a calming affect on humans and act as a de-stressor (2), just as the trickling of water in streams or the sound of the breeze through leaves of a tree would do the same.

Campfires are also used in Indigenous communities for healing ceremonies and learning opportunities. The Anishnabeg, native to Turtle Island, concentrated around the Great Lakes, use fires for healing ceremonies and as a gathering place for workshops. Fires hold a space to meet as a community and learn traditional knowledge (5). For example, one workshop offered by Anishnabeg Outreach, a not-for-profit organization with locations in different parts of Ontario, is a “spirit building workshop” that focuses on creating resilience for you and your family as well as “growing the ability to deal with change, stresses and uncertainties in life” (5). The workshop begins with circle questions and is intended to “light the fire within you” (5). The traditional knowledge learned around the fire includes learning a “deep sense of self and belonging and ways to integrate Indigenous culture into your daily life” (5).

If one were to ban or take away campfire use, it could be a potential barrier to the Anishanabeg as they wouldn’t be able to have healing and spiritual experiences around the fire. Fires are also used as a gathering place for Anishnaabe families and a ban on fires would take that opportunity away.

 

Author’s Note: 

“One memory I have around the campfire, was from a Grade 9 trip to Camp Walden (a camp in Southern Ontario) that I took with my arts high school. While I was there, I connected with several dance majors, and I remember one night we sang songs by the fire. I remember it as such a beautiful experience of bonding, and I was friends with these people for the rest of my high school career. If it wasn’t for that campfire, we wouldn’t have had the opportunity to sing with each other”

Solutions

Given that there are so many benefits to campfires maybe it is worthwhile to look at potential solutions to the negative impacts of fires. 

When I went camping as a child there were regulations in place to deal with campfire use in parks – regulating the time they could be used and placing a ban on campfires after a certain time at night. This dealt with noise pollution and air quality at night. These regulations still exist and offer a partial solution to visitor complaints.

In response to the invasive species problem, one solution could be to only allow firewood to be bought from the local area or park itself, while ensuring that the wood is sourced locally from healthy trees. However, this may create an economic barrier to some, who planned on taking wood from crown land, rather than purchasing it.

Park Operators can also offer an alternative to burning wood. Propane Rings available at a rental price from the park could be a viable alternative. They consist of a metal bowl, lava rocks, and a connection for a propane tank that acts as the fuel for the fire. They provide both a gathering place and a place to cook food. Group campfires could be an option if they are housed in a specific part of the park so that noise pollution and campfire smoke would be isolated to that area. This could help meet the needs of neighbours and campers that worry about noise and pollution. However, it would be important to take into account the level of comfort zone that certain people would have with sharing the fire and cooking with others.

Park Leaders could also provide education on campfires – looking at ensuring people are respectful to other campers, looking at the pros and cons of campfires and keeping them mindful of the air pollution caused by fires that can lead to climate and health impacts.

After a quick look, it looks like campfires have many positive impacts and uses, from building communities, providing a space for connection, de-stressing and relaxing, and providing a space for Indigenous workshops and healing ceremonies. Whether or not these benefits outweigh the negative impacts to human health and the environment seems more like something to be decided by each individual that visits an overnight camping site. Maybe, as park leaders, we can only try to mitigate the negative impacts by providing solutions that ensure that visitors can enjoy campfires in parks with a clearer conscience and a healthier body.

Call to Action

What do you think? Do the positive outcomes of campfires outweigh the negative outcomes? How have campfires been treated in your park? Do you have an experience with campfires in parks? Please leave a comment below.

Sources

1) Dunbar, Robin I. M. “How Conversations around Campfires Came to Be.” PNAS, National Academy of Sciences, 30 Sept. 2014, https://www.pnas.org/content/111/39/14013.full. Accessed 13 Dec. 2021

2) Zackal, Justin. “SRU Professors Spark Conversation about Campfire Day.” Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock University, 2 Aug. 2019, http://www.sru.edu/news/080219b. Accessed 13 Dec. 2021

3) “Buy local, Burn Local: Play your Part.” Invasive Species Council of BC, Invasive Species Council of BC, https://bcinvasives.ca/play-your-part/buy-local-burn-local/#:~:text=Two%20examples%20of%20introduced%20insects,established%20and%20damage%20local%20trees Accessed 3 Feb. 2022

4) “Emerald Ash Borer.” Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, 13 July 2021, https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/forests/wildland-fires-insects-disturbances/top-forest-insects-and-diseases-canada/emerald-ash-borer/13377. Accessed 3 Feb. 2022

5) “Wellness and Healing.” Anishnabeg Outreach, 2021, https://aocan.org/wellness-and-healing/. Accessed 13 Dec. 2021

6) “Wood Smoke and Your Health.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health#health Accessed 2 Mar. 2022

Photos

Gypsy Moth Photo sourced from “Creative Commons”

How the History of Segregation Impacts Recreation

Colorized photo of the pool at Cave and Basin in the 1920s. Parks Canada. Photo courtesy of Niche Canada.

By Ebany Carratt

Ebany Carratt is part of a team of CPCIL Research and Knowledge Gatherers producing content and compiling resources on themes such as inclusion, ecosocial justice, partnerships, conservation, organizational sustainability, climate change and biodiversity, and connection to nature to support effective and equitable leadership and inclusion in parks and protected areas across Canada. 

Today I want to talk about stereotypes. I am sure we have all heard of them, or maybe have even believed one at some point in our lives. Stereotypes are a constant thing in society, but perhaps there is something more insidious hiding beneath the surface. Growing up, I had very few chances to visit a national park unless it was during my family summer tradition to experience the Rockies once a year. Of course, we would go to the small municipal parks around my neighbourhood, whether for birthday celebrations or to feed ducks, but overall partaking in the typical forms of recreation that I think of when talking about the “great outdoors” were few and far between. So in those rare opportunities to go camping or take a hike, I noticed something I found strange at a young age: my brothers and I were usually the only non-white, or even, the only Black people on the trails. When I would ask why this was to my white family members, I never got any significant answers. Maybe there were more people of colour visiting on the days that I was not there? Maybe hiking in the mountains just was not their thing? After receiving answers like this, I just stopped asking these questions and moved on. However, the stereotypes did not end at hiking or going to national parks. By the time I was in university, I had heard it all. Stereotypes like “Black people can’t swim”, “people of colour do not play hockey”, “people of colour don’t like the wilderness” and so on, are just some to name a few. 

Thinking of these stereotypes at first, they might seem relatively harmless or even played off as a joke at times, but this hides the fact that they might have real implications. The first time I went camping in a remote area with a few of my friends who are also POCs, I noticed that we were treated differently than how I am treated when I go camping with my white family members. One morning, we talked with an older couple while collecting firewood, and they told us that they had never seen people like us camping before in the area. So they were pleasantly surprised to meet us there and thought others in the area would be just as equally shocked as they were. I don’t blame the couple for their reaction in any way. Like myself, many of my POC friends have also joked about how the great outdoors is not really “our thing” and have struggled to convince others in our communities to do more than just shop in national parks. Yet, letting this stereotype go and not thinking about it on a deeper level does not feel right. The fact remains that I still rarely see people who look like me participating in or being represented in nature recreation, let alone working in parks. So, where do these stereotypes come from

The Roots in Oppression

Nature and recreation are wonderful things. It often shapes who we are as human beings and should be for everyone, so why would a stereotype or a narrative like this exist? Well, as I have learnt through time, there is always a historical explanation. Anti-Black racism and other forms of racial discrimination towards ethnic minorities in recreation have been growing in discussion over the last few years in the United States. For example, the common stereotype that “Black people can’t swim” is linked to segregation and the sometimes violent exclusion of Black people from pools and beaches.[1] However, just like the U.S., Canada also supported segregation against Black, Asian, and Indigenous peoples at places like beaches, hockey rinks, swimming pools, and theatres.[2] Yet, the issue of racism and segregation plays a central role in the history of parks too. According to historians, there have been plenty of instances where Canadian parks would bar people of colour from enjoying recreational facilities,[3] refer to Jewish people and other POCs as “restricted clientele”,[4] or even remove a Black church wanting to enjoy a picnic in nature from park premises entirely.[5] Even worse, one of the most important and internationally revered figures for championing civil rights, Martin Luther King Jr., was also turned away from spending a holiday with his wife and their friends at Fundy National Park in 1960.[6] When MLK looked to Canada as a more welcoming country to take a short respite in, our parks turned him away and lost the chance to host one of the greatest icons of the 20th century

Letter to L. Harold DeWolf, Friend Martin Luther King Jr., declining MLK’s entry into Fundy National Park
Letter to L. Harold DeWolf, Friend Martin Luther King Jr., declining MLK’s entry into Fundy National Park. Photo Courtesy of Canadiana Heritage.

Today, despite all these horrific occurrences in our history, some might wonder why Black people and other POCs do not just go out and take advantage of these recreational activities or enjoy parks now that segregation has long been over. Although I understand where questions like this are coming from to an extent, the issue of this lack of representation or participation is far more difficult than it seems. According to research, there is a generational effect from segregation, even when it comes to recreation or enjoying parks.[7] So, think of it this way — if you grew up during segregation and were not allowed to enjoy nature recreation and access to parks was non-existent in your community, you would not participate in those activities and would find other things to do that were available to you. From there on, you would likely pass on the activities you did enjoy to your children and that cycle of exclusion would continue throughout the next couple of generations. Importantly, even after laws were put in place to make segregation illegal, it technically has continued for years after, as many racialized communities still have less access to parks, are often subject to overt and casual racism within outdoor spaces, and have had to adjust to the generational trauma left behind or the general distrust towards recreational activities that have been traditionally barred to them for so long. 

Another systemic barrier of what makes outdoor spaces inaccessible to BIPOC communities is within the very nature of white-washing the history of parks. The National Health Foundation notes that “in history books and even in the naming of outdoor spaces, there has been a deliberate and intentional erasure of Indigenous history and ownership of outdoor lands”.[8] This rhetoric has often led to the conceptualization that park spaces are reserved for and owned by European/Christian communities to preserve what we consider as “wilderness” in western society. At this time, we have yet to acknowledge that this thinking, which is still embedded in many environmental movements, was executed at the expense of Indigenous and other POC communities. All of this, combined with a general lack of BIPOC representation in media or at decision making tables, continues to feed these harmful stereotypes and perpetuates the exclusion of many BIPOC communities to this day. 

What Can Parks Do to Address Racism in Outdoor Spaces?

Photo courtesy of Getty Images.

Given this idea that BIPOC individuals do not enjoy outdoor recreation, it is especially important to note that many communities of colour do engage in plenty of outdoor activities. For example, activities like barbecues or picnics in city parks are something that many communities of colour participate in and are represented in. However, while outdoor recreation in municipal parks is used where it is accessible, the experience from visiting a national park and being surrounded by nature holds immeasurable value for our mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual health and should be accessible for anyone, regardless of race or economic background. So, while many may say that “the outdoors do not discriminate” or that “parks are for everyone”, it is apparent that this sentiment does not apply to everyone at this time, no matter how well-intentioned this belief is. Currently, our parks and outdoor recreational systems are built upon the same underlying structures of oppression that have historically governed our society. Knowing this fact means that parks agencies also have a moral responsibility to help dismantle these systems and to encourage true diversity throughout every aspect of parks. Now is the time to push for policies and practices that prioritize racial justice or inclusion and spreads awareness of the many subtle barriers, like stereotypes, that have historical ties to systems of discrimination.

So if you are reading this, I hope next time you hear some strange stereotypes that you will also want to dig a little deeper to figure out where they come from. I know for me as a park leader and as a Biracial Black Woman, I want to make sure that others who look like me or who can relate to my story know that being in nature has always been “our thing”.

Citations

  1. Wiltse, Jeff. “The Black–White Swimming Disparity in America: A Deadly Legacy of Swimming Pool Discrimination.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 38, no. 4 (August 2014): 366–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723513520553.
  2. Cheryl Thompson. “Viola Desmond’s Canada: A History of Blacks and Racial Segregation in the Promised Land.” Canadian Journal of History 52, no. 1 (April 1, 2017).
  3.  Loo, Meg Stanley and Tina. “Getting into Hot WATER: Racism and Exclusion at Banff National Park,”.https://niche-canada.org/2020/08/26/getting-into-hot-water-racism-and-exclusion-at-banff-national-park/
  4. MacEachern, Alan. “Restricted Clientele! Everyday Racism in Canadian National Parks.” https://niche-canada.org/2020/09/09/race-revisited-in-canadian-national-parks/ 
  5. “Racial Segregation of Black People in Canada.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/racial-segregation-of-black-people-in-canada#:~:text=In%20the%20early%201840s%2C%20when,particularly%20where%20there%20were%20high. 
  6. MacEachern, Alan https://niche-canada.org/2020/09/09/race-revisited-in-canadian-national-parks/  
  7. Wiltse, Jeff. “The Black–White Swimming Disparity in America: A Deadly Legacy of Swimming Pool Discrimination.”
  8. “Breaking Down the Lack of Diversity in Outdoor Spaces.” National Health Foundation, July 20, 2020. https://nationalhealthfoundation.org/breaking-down-lack-diversity-outdoor-spaces/.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: What Is It?

by Sky Jarvis

Sky Jarvis is part of a team of CPCIL Research and Knowledge Gatherers producing content and compiling resources on themes such as inclusion, ecosocial justice, partnerships, conservation, organizational sustainability, climate change and biodiversity, connection to nature, conservation financing, and ecotourism, to support effective and equitable leadership and inclusion in parks and protected areas across Canada.

Adap·​tive (adjective): arising as the result of adaptation

Ad·​ap·​ta·​tion (noun): the process of changing to fit some purpose or situation; the process of adapting

https://sustainablymotivated.com/2019/02/01/climate-action-now-greta-thunberg/

#FridaysForFuture

There is an inherent need for urgency when dealing with the challenges facing my generation namely the biodiversity crisis, the climate crisis, plastic pollution, and extreme poverty. Right now, British Columbia is an example for the rest of  Canada on the far-reaching impacts which climate change and seemingly more frequent weather events have on parks and societies from never-before-seen wildfire seasons to atmospheric rivers and polar vortexes. The impacts of climate change are staring residents right in the face: from declining pacific salmon numbers to the heatwaves, fires, and landslides. And who else can forget, the global COVID-19 pandemic? The leaders of today don’t only need to come up with new and creative solutions to these complex and wicked problems, but they also need to start implementing actions and approaches to mitigate the potential negative effects of these complex socio-ecological dilemmas.

Salafsky and Margoulis (1998; 2003) have defined adaptive management as an approach where managers can systematically test assumptions and take the knowledge gained from this experimental process to adapt future designs and management actions based on the information gained through monitoring to guide learning. This may be very beneficial when considering field conservation which is situated within a complex socio-ecological system (Figure 1) containing many different interactions, feedback loops, and tipping points; all of which occur across an array of different spatial and temporal scales. Adaptive management frameworks can assist with creating a flexible approach to dealing with the complex environmental problems seen today.

Image from Virapongse et al. 2016: Depiction of an SES (adapted from SNRE, University of Florida, (2015)).

Figure 1: Multidisciplinary approaches that integrate social and ecological sciences could be one such way to address some of the pressing environmental issues faced by today’s generations (Virapongse et al. 2016). Socio-Ecological systems are a product of human economies, culture, and policies as well as larger-scale biogeochemical processes which have shaped not only Earth’s physical environment but also the evolution of species for billions of years.

The World is Changing - So Must We

For much of the past 100-200 years, dominant worldviews have considered natural resources to be limitless, the bounty of the new world. However, 200 years of utilitarian management paradigms, coupled with overexploitation, have finally begun to reveal the scarcity of many of these resources. The need to sustainably manage resources such as biodiversity, old-growth forests, clean air, and fresh water has become more apparent than ever. This desire for sustainable management which not only provides for today’s society but also for future generations and the needs of other species has led to increasing conflict and social pressures for politicians and practitioners. New theoretical perspectives and approaches are now starting to view ecosystems as complex and highly dynamic systems and have begun to acknowledge that we may have to start shifting towards more holistic and flexible management tactics (Virapongse et al. 2016).

There may be inherent risks when implementing management actions without a full comprehension of the system and how it may react. However, this uncertainty shouldn’t be a reason not to implement actions when we know that something must be done. We need to act now, and adaptive management frameworks (Figure 2) may provide one way for resource managers, park leaders, and decision-makers to proceed with taking actions in the face of complexity and uncertainty. Through the experimental implementation of an array of alternative approaches, each with its own consequences and potential effects, we can begin to build knowledge of the system, its components, and its behavior. At first, we may not truly understand how the system may respond, but hopefully over time and with monitoring and re-evaluation resource managers can reassess their assumptions and incorporate local knowledge sources to develop site-specific approaches that are reflective of the uniqueness of that system and the human communities who interact and rely on it.

Figures sourced from Salafsky & Margoulis (2003). (Click figures to enlarge)

Figure 2: The adaptive management framework can be broken down into 5 basic steps where resource managers, stakeholders, and decision-makers can work together to design, develop, and implement experimental approaches to addressing social and environmental issues (Salafsky & Margoulis, 2003). This is a cycle, so iteration is part of the process- if at first you don’t succeed take that information, make some changes and try again.

Holistic and Flexible Approaches may be Better Suited for Adaptation

Although project design, management, and monitoring are high-cost activities it is believed that current investments can save resources in the future through increased effectiveness of projects (Salafsky and Margoulis, 1998). It has recently been thought that inadequate monitoring and evaluation is one of the main challenges associated with adaptive management of complex systems and that it’s a hindrance to the successful implementation of this type of approach (Waylen et al. 2019). According to Virapongse et al. (2016), robust and clearly defined monitoring plans can address other known challenges to adaptive management, such as the need to manage at broader landscape-level scales, accommodating abrupt changes/shocks, and addressing empirical data needs. I personally also feel that another main hindrance is the lack of including the perspectives and values of local and indigenous communities within the design phase. Local communities should be consulted before a main objective and goal are established so that their values are considered and hopefully reflected in the project before different alternatives are selected for implementation. This may help with public acceptance and support of the project as important stakeholders. Furthermore, local peoples have invaluable sources of knowledge about the system with which they and their ancestors have interacted with for generations and can assist with evaluation as different approaches are implemented. One example of how local and indigenous communities have been engaged within park planning and resource management can be seen in the Land-Sea-People Plan for Gwaii Haanas National Park, where Indigenous knowledge systems and Haida Laws have been acknowledged and incorporated with scientific principles (Figure 3) to generate a zoning plan that attempts to accommodate recreation, economic, and cultural land-uses.

 

Table sourced from: Parks Canada; Gwaii Haanas (Click photo to enlarge)

Figure 3: Together traditional knowledge and scientific information can intertwine to provide placed-based responses to the drivers of social and environmental change. Gwaii Haanas also known as the Islands of Beauty, is in an oceanic upwelling region in the North Pacific. This provides cold nutrient-rich waters that have supported high levels of biological productivity, endemic species, migratory birds, and the Haida people for thousands of years. This National Park has intrinsic conservation potential for an array of environmental and social values.

It is vital to the success of the project that design, management, and monitoring are not separated, but rather that a holistic approach is taken to integrate these components. Systematic use of the cycle and steps listed above can allow practitioners to learn more about the system they are working in and can lead to increased effectiveness and efficiency over time (Salafsky and Margoulis, 2003).

Image sourced from: Waylen et al 2019

Testing Assumptions: The process of experimentally implementing different actions in attempts to achieve a desirable outcome based on knowledge of the problem, the objectives, the operational environment, management alternatives, and potential consequences. This is not a random process and post-implementation monitoring will be needed to evaluate (1) the ability of the different approaches to meet the desired outcome and (2) how they compare to the assumptions. This will allow managers to see which actions worked as well as develop a better understanding of why some approaches performed better than others (Salafsky and Margoulis, 2003)

Adapting: The ability to incorporate newly gained knowledge, different perspectives, and values into the project. This may also involve critically assessing the validity of the results, the assumptions, and the implementation and monitoring of the project. This may include changing assumptions, tweaking the study design, and/or considering different approaches.

Learning: Documenting the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the project so that others may review the processes taken to achieve the outcomes. Knowledge sharing will allow for others to benefit from these experiences and build upon the successes or failures of the project (Salafsky and Margoulis, 2003).

The realist approach which acknowledges that many of our environmental issues are a result of an off-balance within the socio-ecological systems that we eat, breath, and sleep in, may in fact get us much closer to the actual problem. There is no simple solution. More than ever, we need to find ways to balance our social needs (livelihoods, culture, economics, equity) within the means of nature to provide these goods and services. As with many other organisms, we humans may have to adapt, evolve, or die as we continue further into the Anthropocene.

Adaptive management is only of several frameworks which attempt to provide leaders and managers with the ability to start implementing actions in the face of uncertainty. Together we can be the change we want to see. Together we can build a better planet for future generations by addressing some of the issues seen today and creating more diverse and equitable management approaches to conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. I would love to hear and share any success stories where (1) adaptive management approaches have been implemented in parks and/or resource management or (2) examples on how local and indigenous ideas, values, and perspectives have been incorporated into strategic plans, policies, and projects.

Share your story with me at: skyejarvis333@live.com

REFERENCES:

Salafsky, N. and R. Margoluis. 1998. Measures of Success: Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects. Island Press Washington DC.

Salafsky, N. & Margoluis, R. (2003). Adaptive management: An Approach for Evaluating Management Effectiveness. (PDF).

Virapongse, A., Brooks, S., Metcalf, E. C., Zedalis, M., Gosz, J., Kliskey, A., and L. Alessa. 2016. A social-ecological systems approach for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 178: 83-91.

Waylen, K. A., Blackstock, K. L., Van Hulst, F. J., Damian, C., Horváth, F., Johnson, R. K., … & J. Van Uytvanck. 2019. Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? Science of the Total Environment 662: 373-384.

Case Spotlight: The Right to Dismantle Encampments in Parks and Public Spaces

by Stanley Omotor

Stanley Omotor is part of a team of CPCIL Research and Knowledge Gatherers producing content and compiling resources on themes such as inclusion, ecosocial justice, partnerships, conservation, organizational sustainability, climate change and biodiversity, connection to nature, conservation financing, and ecotourism, to support effective and equitable leadership and inclusion in parks and protected areas across Canada.

In a number of judicial cases, now known as “encampment cases”, courts in British Columbia (BC) have prohibited government authorities and park agencies from dismantling encampments set up in parks by persons experiencing homelessness, in the absence of shelter alternatives. However, in a recent decision in Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice refused an application that would have restrained the City of Hamilton from dismantling similar encampments set up in Hamilton’s parks. Following the Ontario’s court decision, the City of Hamilton was swift in moving to enforce its bylaw prohibiting encampments in the city’s parks.

These decisions and their outcome should matter to park leaders, park agencies, and all members of the public, especially persons who make use of the services of parks and public spaces 

There is little difference between leisure camping and necessity camping (the latter of which this blog post associates with encampments set up by persons experiencing homelessness). Imagine tents in a forest, people socializing, getting through their day, then sleeping in the forest. This is what happens in both leisure and necessity camping, but unlike the former which involve a voluntary choice to sleep in the forest, the latter is made to sleep out because of the necessity of it, as there is nowhere else to call home. However, as park officials are quick to argue in encampment cases, necessity camping restricts other members of the public from accessing park services. In pointing out that government and park agencies need to do more than simply dismantling encampments in parks and public places, this blog post points out some differences in the above two judicial decisions which deal with the power of the park agencies to dismantle encampments. Although the judicial decisions were based on municipal parks, it is not unlikely that similar principles will apply to provincial and national parks.

BC courts have consistently held that persons experiencing homelessness be allowed to remain at encampments set up in parks, public spaces, vacant lands, or city’s properties, in the absence of suitable alternative housing and daytime facilities. In a recent 2021 case (Prince George (City) v. Stewart), the City of Prince George in seeking a court order that would allow the city to remove structures set up in parks by persons experiencing homelessness, the City had argued, amongst others, that the encampments caused harm to residents and businesses in surrounding neighbourhood, led to increase in criminal activities and drug use, and deprived members of the public of walking at or near the encampments due to garbage, smell and safety concerns. In partly refusing the City’s application, the BC Supreme Court considered the evidence presented by the city in support of the above allegations as hearsay and inadmissible evidence. Also, the court found that there was insufficient alternate housing for the persons experiencing homelessness to enable the court grant the city’s application. 

The opposite conclusion was reached by the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario in the case of Poff v. City of Hamilton (2021)which was decided less than two weeks after the decision in the above Stewart’s case. In Poff’s case, the applicants who resided at different encampments in Hamilton parks, sought a court order to restrain the city from enacting and enforcing a bylaw that prohibited camping and the erection of structures in the city’s parks. In this case, the court accepted the evidence presented by city staff based on documented evidence, personal observation and other sources as credible and reliable evidence linking criminal activities, violence, drug use, health concerns, nuisance and indecency associated with some of the encampments in the parks, thereby preventing city residents from using the parks. Despite noting that Hamilton, like other parts of Canada, is experiencing an affordable housing crisis, the court held that the city has taken reasonable steps to provide alternative safe shelter and accommodation to persons experiencing homelessness, but the applicants rejected these alternatives for personal reasons and preference, and that this does not “give rise to aright to live in encampments in (the City’s park)”. Consequently, in refusing to restrain the City from enforcing the bylaw in question, the court noted the right of other members of the public to make use of parks and concluded that the bylaw was a valid exercise of the City’s power.

Although the decision from Ontario is only an interim decision (being an interlocutory injunction application) at the moment, it provides government at all levels (from federal to municipal) with more options to enable sustainable, healthy and inclusive parks and public spaces. Notably, in arriving at its decision, the Superior Court in Ontario referred to, but distinguished, the preceding encampment cases in BC, including the recent Stewart’s case. This may therefore be an emerging judicial trend. To prevent the erection of tents, structures and shelter in public spaces, government and park agencies need to do more than rely on hearsay evidence on the impacts of these encampments in parks and public places. There are usually no concerns when other leisure-seeking members of society camp in parks and public spaces, but concerns are raised when persons experiencing homelessness seek similar opportunities. Persons experiencing homelessness are often deprived of these opportunities. The court in Poff’s case rightly noted the affordable housing crisis being experienced by many Canadian cities. For instance, the Vancouver Homeless Count 2019 shows the increasing number of persons experiencing homelessness in Metro Vancouver, compared to previous years. As of 2019, a total number of 2,223 individuals were counted as experiencing homelessness in Vancouver, the highest number since 2015 when the count began. Increasing cost of affordable housing with less comparative increase in income may mean that many individuals and families are just one life-changing and unforeseen event away from becoming homeless. Encampment cases and the plight of persons experiencing homelessness, therefore, need to be of concern to all park leaders. Persons experiencing homelessness are as human as other members of the society not experiencing homelessness – the former only does camping out of necessity and for a longer-term than the latter. Encampments in parks and public places is one of the unintended consequences of the high cost of affordable housing in many Canadian cities, hence the need to take an approach that considers both crisis – housing and encampment crisis. In one of the encampment cases (Abbotsford v. Shantz (2015)), the court had therefore recommended designating certain public parks for use by persons experiencing homelessness Also, a previous study had linked how restricting access and use of public facilities may result in human rights concern in land use planning.

Finally, as rightly noted by the court in Poff’s case, cities may need to show sufficient alternate housing options if persons experiencing homelessness are to be prevented from camping in parks. If sufficient alternate housing is in place, courts will be more willing to uphold relevant bylaws allowing the city to prevent and dismantle encampments in parks and public spaces.

References: 

HSABC, BCNPHA & Urban Matters CCC. (2019). Vancouver Homeless Count.  

Omotor, S. (2021). Understanding the Intersection of Land Use Planning and Human Rights: A Scoping Study for the City of Vancouver.

Cases: Prince George (City) v. Stewart (2021 BCSC 2089); Abbotsford v. Shantz (2015 BCSC 1909); Poff v. City of Hamilton 2021 ONSC 7224 (CanLII).

Parks, Representation and Black History Leadership Primer – A Participant Review

by Nathaniel Rose

Nathaniel Rose is part of a team of CPCIL Research and Knowledge Gatherers producing content and compiling resources on themes such as inclusion, ecosocial justice, partnerships, conservation, organizational sustainability, climate change and biodiversity, connection to nature, conservation financing, and ecotourism, to support effective and equitable leadership and inclusion in parks and protected areas across Canada.

This past week I had the opportunity to participate in the online Leadership Primer, “Parks, Representation and Black History” created by Jaqueline L. Scott. The goal of this unique online course is to explore equity and diversity in Canadian Parks and find ways to make Black Canadians feel more welcome in natural places. You can find the course on the website for the Canadian Parks Collective for Innovation and Leadership (instructions are at the bottom of this article) and it is free!

As a Knowledge Gatherer for CPCIL, rather than a Parks Leader, I did not have a specific park or protected area that I was connecting to through the Primer, but I still was able to connect with the teachings the Primer had to offer.

            The Primer was mainly focused on Black Representation in Canadian Parks, and through a series of exercises, got me to think about how to make parks a more welcoming experience for Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour. The Primer also included a series of case studies outlining Black history in areas that you might not have known Black people played a role in. By the end of the primer I felt I was definitely in the process of questioning Black people’s representation in natural spaces, and the images and contexts used to promote them.

Here’s a bit of what I learned:

People of colour make up about 25% of Canada’s population, and in cities like Toronto and Vancouver, make up the majority of residents, but they don’t often travel to and spend time in natural areas (1). This is because there are barriers they come across, in the way parks are promoted and represented. Many of them are actually frustrated, as they feel the outdoor sector doesn’t include them (1).

            People interact with parks in a variety of ways: names of trails, social media, brochures, newsletters, maps and historical and informative plaques. But many times these ways of interacting become “white spaces” as Black people and people of colour are not shown in the images used, the history shown, or the names given to these places.

            For example: when you think about a park brochure, sometimes only white people are shown in the photos used, or if Black people are shown, they may not be doing the same thing that there white counterparts are. One of the exercises in the Primer asks you to question:

1) Whether Black people are the main subject of the photo, or if they remain in the background

2) Whether they are alone, pictured as a couple, or in a group

3) If it’s a couple or a group, are all the people Black?

4) What are the Black People doing in the photo?  

                  -Scott

These questions help you to think and reflect on the way Black people are portrayed. Interestingly enough, people are less likely to try an activity if they don’t see people of their race or culture participating in that activity. So a lot of how you promote a place does a lot to determine who feels eager and welcome to go to it.

Image by Keira Burton

The end of each exercise in the primer, asks you to question what opportunities you can think of for changing the landscape of black representation in your park. For example, one question is: “ What opportunities are there to add new plaques in your park to reflect the multicultural history of the park or areas around it?” (Scott). Another question was: “Who could you reach out to find these stories?” (Scott). I found that this second question was a really helpful step, in getting you to actually start making change in your park.

 

The second section of the Primer focused on different case studies of Black people in history. Notably many of the examples were new to me, and not something I had been taught in school. Scott smartly notes that “Appealing to Black history is a way to get Black people to visit National and Provincial Parks”. It locates Black people in the space in the past, so they feel they can visit in the present. It sends the message that if they were there in the past, why not come now? Including Black history in plaques or park brochures would then be a good step in ensuring the Black population feels welcome in that space.

One interesting fact I learned was that Black people were involved in the Fur Trade. I learned this through a case study of George Bonga, who held a trading post at Leech Lake, which is now in Minnesota, and was an important cultural delegate between the Ojibwe and Europeans (2). He signed two treaties between them, one in 1820 and one in 1867 (2). Another fact that I learned was that Black people had a lot to do with the Ranching Industry and the Calgary Stampede in Western Canada (1).  I found it particularly interesting that a cowboy, named John Ware, was said to be gentle with horses, almost a “horse whisperer” (3). When I learned this, I remember thinking: “Huh, this is the first time I had thought of Black people being sensitive with animals”. Not that I didn’t think that was possible, but I had never learned about a specific person who was Black and who also worked closely and intuitively with animals.  This changed my perspective on the breadth of humans interacting with the animal kingdom.

Image by Peter Starcevic

 The Primer ended with a great question: Why are we not taught about these notable Black people in the school system?. In a video interview about John Ware, author and playwright Cheryl Fogo notes that she is hopeful and optimistic that we (Albertans) are getting there (3). Fogo notes that she has been involved in talks about updating Alberta’s school curriculum (this was back in 2017). I wonder what progress we have made so far…

I definitely recommend taking this Leadership Primer on Black Representation in Parks. I learned a lot about Black history and grew a lot in terms of my own awareness of how to transform parks to make them more welcoming to Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour. I also found I could apply this knowledge to other areas of my work – including my work in the theatre sector. 

You can find the Primer at https://cpcil.ca/leadership-primers/ or by going to the CPCIL Home Page and selecting “Leadership Programs” in the top menu banner and then selecting “Leadership Primers”. This Primer is called “Parks, Representation and Black History” and was created by Jaqueline L. Scott. There are a handful of other Leadership Primers to take there as well.

Works Cited

1) Scott, Jaqueline L. “Parks, Representation and Black History.” Canadian Parks Collective for Innovation and Leadership., www.cpcil.ca/courses/2021-representation/. Accessed 13 Dec. 2021.

2) TPT Originals. “Voyageur. Entrepreneu. Diplomat. Meet MN Black Pioneer George Bonga.” Youtube, 18 February, 2019. www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUTzqxZH2D0. Accessed 14 Dec. 2021.

3) Breakfast Television. “Black History Month: The Story of John Ware.” Youtube, 15 February, 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DaeyxtgkSM. Accessed 14 Dec. 2021.

Photos Sourced from: pexels.com  

Peaks and Valleys: Nothing is More Natural than Grief

By Karly Upshall is part of a team of CPCIL Research and Knowledge Gatherers producing content and compiling resources on themes such as inclusion, ecosocial justice, partnerships, conservation, organizational sustainability, climate change and biodiversity, connection to nature, conservation financing, and ecotourism, to support effective and equitable leadership and inclusion in parks and protected areas across Canada.

Continue reading

MPA Showcase Across Canada’s Three Oceans: The Atlantic

The intricate deep-sea ecosystem of the Laurentian Channel, housing species such as cold-water corals, sea anemones, sea pens, fish species and larger aquatic life

With the longest coastline in the world and a motto of A Mari Usque Ad Mare or “From Sea to Sea,” Canada has a vested interest in protecting its marine resources. 14 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and 4 National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCAs) have been implemented to preserve a healthy marine environment, support cultural and socioeconomic facets of local communities and the nation as a whole.

Continue reading

MPA Showcase Across Canada’s Three Oceans: The Pacific

Sedmond Creek, Gwaii Haanas National Park

Set afloat 130 km north of Vancouver Island in the Pacific Ocean is the ethereal and rain-forested Haida Gwaii, or “Islands of the People,” (1) – an archipelago consisting of 200 small islands and islets that are the ancestral home of the Haida People. In the southernmost portion and consisting 15% of the islands lies the Gwaii Haanas (“Islands of Beauty”) (2) National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site (Figure 1), an NMCA protected under Canada’s National Marine Conservation Areas Act (3).

Continue reading

MPA Showcase Across Canada’s Three Oceans: The Arctic

Pair of walruses on an ice floe in the Canadian Arctic

In the remote, Artic tundra of Canada’s far north lies the country’s largest and northernmost protected area (both marine and terrestrial) in terms of surface area – Tuvaijuittuq, or “the place where the ice never melts” in Inuktut (1). Designated in August 2019, it encompasses a surface area of 319,411 km2 (larger than the entire land area of Italy) and is located on the northwest coast of Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, above the boundary of the Arctic Circle and just below the Geographic North Pole.

Continue reading