Canada and aichi biodiversity target 11: Understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target.

Canada and Aichi biodiversity target 11: Understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader targets

MacKinnon, D., Lemieux, C. J., Beazley, K., Woodley, S., Helie, R., Perron, J., Elliott, J., Haas, C., Langlois, J., Lazaruk, H., Beechey, T., & Gray, P.

First Published Mar, 2021

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1018-1

A renewed global agenda to address biodiversity loss was sanctioned by adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2010 by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 contained a significant policy and reporting challenge, conceding that both protected areas (PAs) and ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OEABCMs) could be used to meet national targets of protecting 17 and 10 % of terrestrial and marine areas, respectively. We report on a consensus-based approach used to (1) operationalize OEABCMs in the Canadian context and (2) develop a decision-screening tool to assess sites for inclusion in Canada’s Aichi Target 11 commitment. Participants in workshops determined that for OEABCMs to be effective, they must share a core set of traits with PAs, consistent with the intent of Target 11. (1) Criteria for inclusion of OEABCMs in the Target 11 commitment should be consistent with the overall intent of PAs, with the exception that they may be governed by regimes not previously recognized by reporting agencies. (2) These areas should have an expressed objective to conserve nature, be long-term, generate effective nature conservation outcomes, and have governance regimes that ensure effective management. A decision-screening tool was developed that can reduce the risk that areas with limited conservation value are included in national accounting. The findings are relevant to jurisdictions where the debate on what can count is distracting Parties to the Convention from reaching conservation goals.

Citation Details

MacKinnon, D., Lemieux, C. J., Beazley, K., Woodley, S., Helie, R., Perron, J., Elliott, J., Haas, C., Langlois, J., Lazaruk, H., Beechey, T., & Gray, P. (2015). Canada and aichi biodiversity target 11: Understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(14), 3559-3581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1018-1

d10030254

About Open Access Peer Reviewed Resources

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the original published site.

Towards mobilizing knowledge for effective decision-making in parks and protected areas.

Towards mobilizing knowledge for effective decision-making in parks and protected areas.

Hvenegaard, G. T., Halpenny, E. A., & Bueddefeld, J. N. H. 

First Published Mar, 2021

doi.org/10.3390/land10030254

In November 2017, over 15,000 scientists issued a second letter to humanity that outlines how we are “jeopardizing our future” by failing to protect key ecological systems. Catastrophic climate change, our planet’s sixth major species extinction crisis, diminishing fresh water resources, deforestation, and a host of other “alarming trends” were highlighted [1] Parks and protected areas are one of the most effective means for protecting ecological health [2]. However, parks have many other important roles. Parks and protected areas provide essential services and resources for a wide variety of purposes and groups, including nature conservation, visitor recreation, local economic opportunities, Indigenous cultures, human wellbeing, and the provision of ecosystems services such as flood mitigation and access to drinking water [3]. […]

Key words: protected areas, conserved areas, human health, well-being, promotion, policy, equity, inclusion, nature

Citation Details

Hvenegaard, G. T., Halpenny, E. A., & Bueddefeld, J. N. H. (2021). Towards mobilizing knowledge for effective decision-making in parks and protected areas. Land (Basel), 10(3), 254.https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030254

About Open Access Peer Reviewed Resources

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the original published site.

The ‘healthy parks–healthy people’ movement in Canada: progress, challenges, and an emerging knowledge and action agenda

The ‘healthy parks–healthy people’ movement in Canada: progress, challenges, and an emerging knowledge and action agenda

Christopher J. Lemieux, Mark W. Groulx, Rachel T. Buxton, Catherine E. Reining, Clara-Jane (C.J.) Blye, Nadha Hassen, Sara-Lynn (Penina) Harding, Elizabeth A. Halpenny, Melissa Lem, Sonya L. Jakubec, Pamela Wright, Tonya Makletzoff, Mara Kerry, Karen Keenleyside, Pascale Salah van der Leest, Jill Bueddefeld, Raynald (Harvey) Lemelin, Don Carruthers Den Hoed, Brad Steinberg, Rike Moon, Jacqueline Scott, Jennifer Grant, Zahrah Khan, Dawn Carr, Lisa McLaughlin and Richard Krehbiel

First Published May, 2022

DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2022.PARKS‐28‐1CJL.en

In this article, we outline progress and challenges in establishing effective health promotion tied to visitor experiences provided by protected and conserved areas in Canada. Despite an expanding global evidence base, case studies focused on aspects of health and well-being within Canada’s protected and conserved areas remain limited. Data pertaining to motivations, barriers and experiences of visitors are often not collected by governing agencies and, if collected, are not made generally available or reported on. There is an obvious, large gap in research and action focused on the needs and rights of groups facing systemic barriers related to a variety of issues including, but not limited to, access, nature experiences, and needs with respect to health and well-being outcomes. Activation of programmes at the site level continue to grow, and Park Prescription programmes, as well as changes to the Accessible Canada Act, represent significant, positive examples of recent cross-sector policy integration. Evaluations of outcomes associated with HPHP programmes have not yet occurred but will be important to adapting interventions and informing cross-sector capacity building. We conclude by providing an overview of gaps in evidence and practice that, if addressed, can lead to more effective human health promotion vis-à-vis nature contact in protected and conserved areas in Canada.


Key words: protected areas, conserved areas, human health, well-being, promotion, policy, equity, inclusion, nature

Citation Details

Lemieux, C. et al. (2022). The ‘healthy parks–healthy people’ movement in Canada: progress, challenges, and an emerging knowledge and action agenda. International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation. 21 (1) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12654

About Open Access Peer Reviewed Resources

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the original published site.