1 2

______Borders in Globalization Research Project 54

A Biocultural Planning Approach for Managing the Cultural and Natural Resources of the Niagra

Scott Cafarella Article draft Powerpower presentation University of Guelp Supervised by Joel Konrad A Biocultural Planning Approach for Managing the Cultural and Natural Resources of the

Prepared by: Scott Cafarella, Summer 2015 Supervised by: Joel Konrad and Rebecca Sciarra ______

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Policy Review 4. A Bioregional Approach to Cultural Heritage Management in a. Methodology b. Case Study c. Results and Discussion 5. Conclusion 6. Works Consulted

Appendix A: Maps 1. A1: Policy Map 2. B1: Archaeology 3. B2: Archaeology Value Output Map 4. C1: Ecology and Hydrology 5. C2: Ecology and Hydrology Value Output Map 6. D1: Landscape Units 7. D2: Landscape Units Value Output Map 8. D3: Landscape Unit Areas 9. E1: Heritage Features 10. E2: Heritage Features Value Output Map 11. F1: Community Values 12. F2: Community Values Value Output Map 13. G1: Viewsheds 14. G2: Viewsheds Output Map 15. H1: Cultural Landscape Values Map 16. H2: Bioregional Planning Zones ______

Introduction

The task of this research paper is to develop a specialized methodology tailored to the assessment and evaluation of heritage resources that reflects the cultural use of a natural resource or outstanding natural feature. For the purpose of this paper, the cultural use of a natural resource will be referred to as a biocultural resource, and a geographical area that is characterized by a specific cultural use of a resource will form a biocultural landscape. As a main theoretical lens, I will employ the theory of borders and boundaries to explore the interactions between various

1 jurisdictions, public agencies and planning frameworks that oversee the management of biocultural resources. Natural resources and landforms often transcend political boundaries; just as often, landscape features such as rivers, mountain ranges, or lakes become political boundaries. In both cases, the management of biocultural resources becomes complex. Nonetheless, it is often this intersection of people and landscape along political and naturally occurring boundaries and borders that create a unique or outstanding cultural landscape: consider the rich cultural history of Istanbul, which straddles the European and Asian continents (Batuman 2015). The transfer of cultural practices and knowledge along borders creates new regional identities, thereby affirming the importance of regions and sense-of-place in a globalizing world. In this way, the border becomes a resource, functioning as an economic and cultural driver in the region (Sohn 2014a, 2014b).

The Niagara Escarpment will be used as a case study to explore these concepts. The Niagara Escarpment is an ideal case study to explore transboundary bioregions as it transcends international boundaries, creates a dramatic natural boundary through an often exposed scarp face and dramatic change in elevation, and functions in-part as an international border along the Gorge. Through the establishment of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area has become a distinct political entity that regulates mineral extraction, agricultural production that exploits unique microclimates in the Niagara Fruit Belt, and other regional agriculture such as apple production in the Grey and regions. Furthermore, there is a notable time-depth of cultural use of the Niagara Escarpment, as habitat, refuge, corridor, source of raw material, outlook, landmark, and international attraction. There is a long history of human use associated with the Niagara Escarpment, and its future in the landscape will depend on the sustainable and careful use of its natural resources.

In this paper, I will use the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area as a baseline to investigate how cultural uses of the Escarpment relate to and extend beyond the planning area, and as such are given different levels of municipal, provincial, federal and international protection. It is intended that a strategy for assessing and evaluating cultural resources that represents the cultural use of a distinct natural environment will also be applicable to other bioregions such as the , , and Carolinian Life Zone. This investigation is in response to a lack of legislation and policy that effectively integrates the conservation of significant cultural and natural resources in a holistic manner, as well as the difficulty of using current planning tools to scale-up the conservation of cultural resources that extend beyond regional boundaries.

This objective prompts the question: how can cross-jurisdictional biocultural landscapes be assessed, evaluated and managed to ensure that cultural heritage is accessible, sustainable, and contributes to overall quality of life? To explore this question, it is proposed that a bioregional planning approach, through which a system of core, buffer, and transition zones enables a range of levels of protection and planning controls, offers a novel and useful approach for managing biocultural landscapes (See Figure 1 for a conceptual illustration of a biocultural planning system). Biocultural planning is a tool to conserve and manage important cultural and natural resources within their contextual environment, so that the contemporary forces of culture, change and development can co-exist to a mutually beneficial end.

2

Figure 1: Conceptual Biocultural Planning System. Literature Review

The origin of biosphere planning dates to the environmental movement of the 1970's and 1980's, which saw the development of innovative planning and conservation strategies and legal instruments, in addition to the advancement of landscape planning theory (Forman & Godron 1986, Lyle 1985, McHarg 1969, Steiner 1990). UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB), established in 1971, is a key example of the environmental movement. The most lasting feature of the programme was the establishment in 1977 of a World Network of Biosphere Reserves. Although initial nominees for the network have been criticized for not fully representing the intention of the plan, in that they were simply previously existing protected areas and not truly functioning biospheres (Brunckhorst 2001), later editions, and the evolution of the program's mandate at the 1995 Seville World Congress of Biosphere Reserves, saw the growth and maturity of the biosphere concept through new conflict-resolution methodologies, the creation of cluster and transboundary reserves, and a greater integration of conservation with development (UNESCO 1995).

David Brunckhorst succinctly defines the bioregion in Bioregional Planning: Resource Management Beyond the New Millennium as an area, "made up of similar landscape ecosystems with which local human communities identify because of how they see it, use it, and what it produces for them" (2000, pg.33). Implicit in Brunckhorst's argument is that bioregions are multi-jurisdictional. The US- border provides many strong examples of cross-border bioregional communities, such as the Cascadia Bioregion, or the Bioregion (Alper 1996, Canada 2006, Konrad 2012, Riley 2013). The ecological history of the Great Lakes Bioregion is extensively covered in The Once and Future Great Lakes Country by John Riley (2013). Recent scholarship has also drawn attention to the social and cultural impact of modern Great Lakes borders on First Nation communities (Hele 2008). Research conducted by the Government of Canada concludes that the Great Lakes Bioregion is characterized by mature economic relations, a strong emphasis on single-purpose cross-border organizations such as the , but no overarching cross-border organization provides leadership in the region. The economic legacy of manufacturing and inter-regional competition also contributes strongly to this region's identity (Canada 2006).

3

UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Programme and Bioregional Planning Theory have developed in conjunction with each other to provide a framework and strategic guidance for ecological-based landscape conservation at the national and international scale. UNESCO's mandate regarding biosphere reserves is to enable three interconnected functions: the conservation of biodiversity and cultural diversity, the promotion of sustainable and culturally appropriate development, and the facilitation of logistic support for education, training, research and monitoring (UNESCO 2015a). The key planning instrument used to accomplish these goals is the use of a consistent zoning scheme. This scheme allows for flexibility in planning the reserve, and enables the combination of sustainable land use and landscape conservation. The zones consist of core areas, buffer areas, and transition areas (also referred to as the zone of cooperation). Core areas are protected sites designed to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. The core requires a strict monitoring and management strategy. Buffer areas usually surround core areas; compatible practices such as education, recreation, ecotourism and research may exist here. Buffer areas may also preserve cultural diversity through the protection of the traditional cultural use of environmental services. The zone of cooperation is reserved for the sustainable development of resources, and may host more intensive land uses such as industrial agriculture and mineral extraction, in addition to traditional land uses (Brunckhorst 2000, 2001, UNESCO 2015a).

Applying Brunckhorst's framework for ecological units, the may in fact function as an ecoregion, operating at the sub-continental scale. Within this ecoregion, smaller bioregions may be identified. The Niagara Escarpment may be considered one of these regions, but the Escarpment can also be categorized as a landscape typology that interacts with various bioregions, including the Carolinian region of southwestern Ontario, the Huron region, and the region (Nelson 2012). Gordon Nelson et al. (2012) consider the economic and environment legacies of these regions in Beyond the Global City. An important question for this research project is raised when considering the Niagara Escarpment Bioregion, notably whether or not the bioregion functionally extends beyond international boundaries. Can the areas of the Niagara Escarpment in , Michigan, and be considered part of this bioregion and, if so, is it sensible to manage them through a joint commission that would develop regional strategies and objectives? Nelson and Porter (2002) attempted to answer this question in The Great Arc: An International Heritage Corridor in the Great Lakes Region. Due to the lack of research and cultural attention on the landform in New York and Wisconsin, it is difficult to make this argument at this time; however, recent planning guidelines and reports have contributed to the protection of the American Escarpment (Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission 2010, Ecology and the Environment 2014).

One of the first examples of bioregional planning in Ontario was the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area. In its current form, the Escarpment is divided into a number of distinct planning areas, consisting of Natural Areas, Protection Areas, Rural Areas, Mineral Resource Extraction Areas, Recreation Areas, Urban Areas, and Minor Urban Centres. Over this system is the Parks and Open Space System, which affords public access to the Escarpment. The designation areas roughly conform to Brunckhorst's bioregional planning framework: Natural and Protection Areas form the "core", Rural Areas are the "buffer", and Extraction, Recreation, and Urban Areas form the "zone of cooperation" (UNESCO 2012). Due to the political realities of creating a planning

4 border, buffer areas are occasionally narrow to non-existent in areas along the Escarpment, and the "zone of cooperation" does not extend as far as the literature may suggest (Brunckhorst 2000). Figure 2 illustrates the bioregional approach as applied to the Niagara Escarpment in the Biosphere self-study (UNESCO 2012).

Figure 2: Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve Designations (UNESCO 2012).

Much of the literature on bioregional planning is focused on the ecological aspects of planning. However, Brunckhorst and Pungetti clearly recognize a strong socio-cultural and spiritual dimension to bioregions. Brunckhorst argues that bioregions are in fact 'biocultural landscapes', in which human governance is integrated within ecological law (Brunckhorst 2000). Citing Lewis Mumford (1938), Brunckhorst notes that regions are human constructs, regardless of rigorous quantitative methodologies: the act of delineating bioregional boundaries is a "collective work of art" (Brunckhorst 2000, pg. 32). Biocultural landscapes are areas characterized by a distinctive historical and ecological connection, which form holistic systems based on land tenure, land use patterns, production, and cultural identity (Pungetti 2013). There is a clear trend towards holistic land-management strategies that recognize that planning for human activities and understanding the role of regional boundaries is essential for ecological land management. The science of ecological land management is well developed, but what about cultural landscape management for cultural heritage resources?

The literature on cultural landscapes suggests a range of different interpretations of the term 'cultural landscape,' and many different approaches to conserving landscapes across various cultural agencies and conventions. In Cecilia Paine and James Taylor's report Cultural Landscape Assessment, prepared for the Niagara Escarpment Commission in 1995, a working

5 definition of cultural landscape is proposed: a geographical area that exhibits characteristics of, or represents, the values of a society as a result of human interaction with the environment (Paine and Taylor 1995). Ontario's definition is largely dependent on UNESCO's operational definition, and UNESCO's definition has been paraphrased and amended to fit Ontario policy (Ontario 2014). Under the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO recognized that cultural landscapes represent the combined work of nature and humans. Furthermore, cultural landscapes typically reflect "techniques of sustainable land-use" and consider the "characteristics and limits of the physical constraints of the natural environment" (UNESCO 2015). The Convention recognized three main categories of cultural landscapes: Clearly Defined Landscapes, Organically Evolved Landscapes, and Associative Cultural Landscapes. Clearly Defined Landscapes created and designed intentionally by people include gardens and parks, and often have aesthetic or religious associations. Organically Evolved Landscapes form through the cultural response to the environment over time. UNESCO also identifies two subcategories: relict landscapes, where the evolutionary process came to a halt, and continuing landscapes, in which the landscape retains a continuing social relevance. Associative Cultural Landscapes are significant for their religious or cultural associations rather than material cultural evidence (UNESCO 2015). UNESCO's definition strongly suggests that traditional forms of land-use support cultural and biological diversity. In Canada, research has been completed on defining Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes, which draws heavily on UNESCO's framework (Buggey 1999).

The National Park Service in the US takes a more historical and event-based approach to cultural landscapes, which it defines as a "geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with an historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values" (National Park Service 2015). In the UK, there is less focus on cultural landscapes as a strictly defined concept; rather, landscape character units are used as an integrative framework for managing different cultural and biotic resources in the landscape (Peak District 2012, Natural England 2014). Neither the US nor the UK model necessarily follow a biocultural approach: the event-based model of preservation generally focuses on individual properties far smaller than the bioregion. The landscape unit model tends to break the landscape into individual sections, and therefore opportunities for protecting multi- scalar systems (such as waterways or regional microclimates) may be missed.

The international differences in cultural landscape management seen in the US, UK and Ontario may be attributed to contextual differences between their environments. The UK is mostly barren of tree cover, and has likely been so since before Roman occupation (Schama 1996). Cultural landscape preservation in the US is divided by an event and site-based approach in the Eastern region, and an ecological and scenic public lands management approach in the West Coast (National Park Service 2014). In , 19th century settlers, who left the most visible and tangible imprint on the current cultural landscape, would have encountered a depopulated and overgrown landscape as disease and migration had decimated the First Nations population 200 years earlier (Riley 2013). The ecological legacy of this wilderness is still present, valued, and increasingly protected in Ontario's landscape (Riley and Mohr 1994). In Ontario, the influence of landscape ecology-based planning practices is seen through the creation of regional Natural Heritage Systems, and through the protection of biocultural features such as the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment. Nonetheless, Ontario still lacks an overarching legislative and policy framework that properly integrates cultural and ecological

6 landscape systems. Traditionally, landscape management has been isolated, with cultural landscape management aligned with history, people, and intentional design, and natural landscapes recognized by science-based strategies in conservation authority management plans, the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan, and the Greenbelt Plan. With rare exceptions, such as the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, there are few opportunities for meaningfully integrated landscape planning.

Landscape design theory has made a number of contributions to bioregional planning, and has been at the forefront of the movement a stronger integration of cultural and ecological land management (Brunckhorst 2000). Ian McHarg's Design with Nature (1969) was a precursor to bioregional planning. McHarg employed an overlay methodology, in which biotic, cultural and physical features were given values based on compatibility or incompatibility with various cultural uses. The overlay maps are layered to create a final map that sums all the different values, so that areas with high value are preserved, and areas with low conservation value may be more intensively developed. The integration of Landscape Ecology principles (Forman and Gordon 1986) with landscape design (Dramstad et al. 1995) has been a significant advancement in bioregional landscape planning and design, as it ties cultural landforms to ecological concepts such as core areas, patches and corridors, and allows for the continued monitoring of the ecological performance of cultural landscapes. Landscape researchers have developed theory on the ecological aesthetic, and a preference for visual cues of landscape stewardship (Nassauer 1995, Gobster et al. 2007). Nassauer and Gobster have argued that aesthetic values are necessary for achieving bottom-up cultural acceptance for ecologically-based land management.

The take away from landscape and bioregional planning theory is that the theoretical work on bioregions, biocultural landscapes and cultural landscapes all share a common lineage of thought in which a more holistic approach to land management is adopted that recognizes a culturally inclusive, bottom-up approach is necessary to preserve ecological resources, and that ecologically sustainable practices are required to support cultural traditions and institutions (Antrop 2006). Academic and policy trends suggest a growing convergence between holistic cultural-natural landscape management systems that are community-driven and regionally focused. In the UK, there is growing support for the psychological, social and environmental benefits of 'rewilding' the landscape (Fraser 2009). In the US and Canada, agencies are increasingly using integrated community-driven, bottom-up approaches to landscape management, as evidenced by the Rouge Park Management Plan in Ontario (Ontario 2001). A renewed interest in scaling-up land management strategies to the regional scale has been made by the National Park Service, which had traditionally been concerned with individual parks or sites (National Park Service 2015).

To scale-up land management means to provide directives for regional landscape plans, engage multiple stakeholders, and to establish new linkages between various land management systems (such as private land trusts, public parks, and ecological reserves). The Niagara Escarpment Plan already offers a strong framework for bioregional planning; however, a stronger integration of the importance of cultural resources in the Escarpment's natural areas, as well as the establishment of a transboundary evaluation methodology that considers the relationship between landscape within and outside of the planning area, will help establish a true bioregional plan for the Escarpment.

7

Policy Review

Cultural heritage conservation in Ontario has traditionally been focused on the preservation of old or distinct structures. Tangible cultural objects are where culture is clearly recognized and more easily conserved: a house or a bridge is a tangible object of culture that can be preserved and repurposed. However, this approach can miss the environmental context of heritage, or how culture and landscape interplay and interrelate to create meaning. The more difficult task of cultural resource management comes with managing intangible heritage, heritage with fuzzy borders, and heritage that is not necessarily scenic or even visible. The introduction of the Heritage Conservation District toolkit in 1975 under the Ontario Heritage Act attempted to address the issue of context and regional character. Although this tool can be used at a variety of scales and contexts, it is almost exclusively used in urban areas to preserve built features. The first rural example in Buxton, Ontario, is still under review (Pollock-Ellwand 2006).

The Ontario Heritage Toolkit advises that boundary delineation of Heritage Conservation Districts should be based on the presence of historic features, factors that contribute to visual character, physical features of natural and cultural origin, and legal or planning boundaries. Boundaries are to be drawn so that entire properties, complementary buildings, and even vacant lots are included (Ontario 2006c). The process is geared towards the street or neighbourhood scale, and is difficult to apply to large rural districts or wilderness areas.

Additionally, the amendment of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2005 to include criteria for identifying the contextual value of a property in Reg. 9/06 helped to address this gap; however, this instrument is property-based, and enables full protection to properties that may only require partial protection (Ontario 2006a). A more nuanced and landscape-focused instrument is needed to protect the heritage value of the contextual environment.

The Ontario Heritage Act uses Part IV Heritage Designation, and Heritage Conservation Districts to preserve tangible heritage. Heritage resources that are located on public land will also be preserved, under various degrees of management (Ontario 1990c). However, many aspects of the cultural landscape may not merit individual designation, but nonetheless are important contextually to the cultural fabric of the landscape. Limitations of designation are the prescriptive nature of the tool, opposition from landowners, and the lack of integration with natural resources. The public may be more receptive to a planning tool that offers a range of compatible uses depending on the context and character of the region. The most significant gap in the Ontario Heritage Act is that it does not address the relationship between natural environments and cultural sustainability. This absence does not conform with contemporary policy being developed in the UK and by UNESCO (Brown et al. 2005, Natural England 2014, UNESCO 2015a), and as a result the unique character of rural areas such as the Niagara Fruit Belt, or the unique cultural landscape of regional trails, canals, or rivers, may not be given adequate protection to ensure these resources are conserved for future generations.

Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act (1990a) is notable for its focus on the total environment, but is mostly reactive rather than proactive. Additionally, it is rather limited in its scope due to the number of public and private projects that are exempt from the Environmental Assessment process (Lindgren and Dunn 2010). Ontario's Planning Act (1990d) also offers

8 avenues for municipal heritage strategies: municipalities can be more sophisticated in the development of secondary plans within an Official Plan, and other tools in the Planning Act such as community improvement plans, zoning, holding provisions, site plan control, conveyance, and plans of subdivision may be employed to protect a range of tangible and intangible heritage resources. Furthermore, regional municipalities can coordinate watershed plans with social agendas, as the Toronto Region Conservation Authority has been successful in implementing (TRCA 2015).

Regarding the Planning Act, Ontario's Provincial Policy Statement (2014) (PPS) gives further direction to municipalities regarding land-use planning policies. The PPS gives direction on cultural heritage, though strongly-worded statements such as "cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved". It advocates the conservation of features that define regional character, including built resources and landscapes. A notable addition is the direction that abandoned corridors (such as abandoned railways) should be preserved and reused in order to maintain the corridor's integrity as a continuous linear system (Ontario 2014). This strategy enables cross-jurisdictional heritage planning (corridors often link regions), and also ties into current thinking on Natural Heritage Systems. Similar policy statements that give clear direction to municipal governments to work collaboratively to create new recreational, cultural and natural resources are needed to leverage cross-jurisdictional landscapes (such as railway corridors, shorelines, or valleys) for cultural and natural heritage conservation and community development.

The PPS is also a unifying document for terminology and planning language. Under the current coordinated review of land-use plans in Ontario, agencies are being directed to make their definitions conform to the PPS. Unfortunately, the definition of cultural heritage landscapes in the PPS is somewhat restrictive, and interprets cultural heritage landscapes as discrete, contained areas. Examples such as cemeteries, parks, and other property types are given. Landscapes with less clear boundaries, such as viewsheds and natural areas, are also listed. However, this definition does not describe the importance of context in defining and managing heritage landscapes. Furthermore, cultural landscapes may not necessarily function as 'defined geographical areas,' and their boundaries may be gradual or change with time. These challenges make cultural heritage landscapes more difficult to identify and manage than built heritage resources.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission, created to implement the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, is in the process of updating the definitions used in the Niagara Escarpment Plan to conform with the PPS and other relevant legislation and as part of the 10 year coordinated plan review. One key component of this review is the changing of terminology for cultural landscape. The NEC's definition of cultural landscape does not conform with the PPS, and the discussion paper on Cultural Heritage Resources in the Niagara suggests the term be replaced by Community Character, defined as

"the combination of natural and human-made elements that contribute to a an Escarpment community’s history, sense of place and its visual appearance. These elements include the architectural style, density, height, mass, scale, pattern and type of built form, as well as transportation-related features, Escarpment-related natural heritage features, parks, open

9

space, Escarpment viewsheds, streetscapes and pedestrian corridors within a community" (NEC 2015b).

The definition of Community Character is a new addition to the 2015 Niagara Escarpment Plan review, and would be unique to the NEP if the definition is adopted. Additionally, a new, Escarpment-specific definition of Cultural Heritage Resources is proposed in the Cultural Heritage Discussion Paper. The definition states that

"structures, buildings, sites, artifacts, and traditions that are indicative of the Escarpment’s history, and are valued by a community. These include, but are not limited to cultural heritage landscapes, archaeological resources, scenic resources, built heritage resources, monuments, heritage cemeteries, and heritage traditions (e.g., food, celebrations, art). Examples include lime kilns, mills, and brickworks" (NEC 2015b).

The definition of Cultural Heritage Resource would also be unique to the NEP if adopted. The definition appears to be a combination of the PPS's definition of Archaeological Resources, Built Heritage Resource, in addition to the inclusion of intangible cultural resources. These definitions suggest an alignment with the UK's system of landscape character assessment, discussed elsewhere in this report. These definitions are necessary because the current definition of cultural heritage landscapes offered by the PPS is not inclusive, and does not adequately connect natural and cultural resources.

In 1968, two reports formed the framework for what would become the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area. One report studied opportunities of conservation and recreation along the Escarpment; the other was solely focused on the Fruit Belt production region in the (Niagara Escarpment Study Group 1968a, 1968b). In subsequent plans, the recreational and ecological components of the conservation and recreation study became firmly entrenched in the language of the plan, but the Fruit Belt study was abandoned as the planning area shrunk under political pressure. This was unfortunate, because the Fruit Belt is essential to understanding the cultural use of the Escarpment as an economic resource, in addition to a recreational and ecological resource. Recently, the Greenbelt has enabled the planning and protection of the Fruit Belt within a regional context.

The ecological and recreational/scenic components of the NEP grew stronger over time. The Ecological Survey of the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve by John Riley et al. (1996) is a significant study that collected ecological knowledge of the Niagara Escarpment's important ecological resources. In contrast, recreational and scenic potential was codified through language concerned with maintaining the Open Landscape Character of the Niagara Escarpment, and through the Landscape Evaluation Study, which identified areas of scenic value in the planning area (Niagara Escarpment Commission 1976).

The term "Open Landscape Character" was introduced in the 1972 Niagara Escarpment Task Force Report. The NEC's objective to "maintain and enhance the open landscape character of the Escarpment" is somewhat problematic as it implies that the character of the Escarpment is predominantly open; this is not necessarily the case, as much of the is forested, and many important segments of the Escarpment, such as the Hamilton Escarpment, are mostly

10 closed, forested, and surrounded by urban development. Nonetheless, both of these landscapes are considered to be highly scenic and are valued for their recreational amenities. To exclusively emphasise the scenic value of 'open landscape' potentially devalues other important segments of the Escarpment. The NEC addressed the shortcomings of the LES by supplementing it with a series of visual guideline studies in the 1980s. A series of studies were performed for key scenic areas along the Escarpment. Still, a more detailed and complete methodology is needed to evaluate the scenic character of the Niagara Escarpment's open space system.

Regarding the 'open' character of landscape, there appear to be two distinct philosophies of landscape management. The UK model of landscape character assessment relates open landscape character to a cultivated, deforested landscape that is literally open, thus affording an open view of one's surroundings. Many landscape character reports in the UK refer to 'open landscape character', although it is not a legally-defined term. In contrast, landscape management practices in the US refer to 'open space', which is defined as land that is, "valued for natural processes and wildlife, agricultural and forest production, aesthetic beauty, active and passive recreation" and may include, "working and natural forests, rangelands and grasslands, farms, ranches, parks, stream and river corridors, and other natural lands within rural, suburban, and urban areas" (USDA 2015). This definition suggests a more liberal interpretation of the meaning of 'open', which could be interpreted as any space that is vegetated and not 'closed in' by urban or industrial development. The Landscape Character Assessment document prepared by Natural England provides an example of how this type of scenic resource management is employed in other jurisdictions (Natural England 2014).

The report by Paine and Taylor (1997), discussed above in the Literature Review, attempted to introduce an implementable, community driven cultural land management system; however, the only working study produced from this report was the Study. The barriers to implementing community-driven strategies are a lack of clear, replicable methodology, and time and budget constraints. However, advances in participatory Geographic Information Systems, and a growing resource of community-driven data (discussed in the report methodology below), provide new tools for understanding community values.

The development permit system practiced by the NEC has not been replicated in Ontario: neither the Greenbelt nor the Oak Ridges Moraine has a commission to oversee the implementation of their land-use plans. Other agencies such as the , or the federal National Capital Commission in Ottawa have a much narrower focus and mandate. In the US, the Columbia River Gorge Commission, which regulates development along the Columbia River at the Washington and Oregon border, functions similarly to the NEC. These types of agencies are rare: the Columbia River Gorge Commission was created by federal legislation in the USA, and the NEC saw strong opposition and a dramatic reduction in plan size from the original vision (Ratter 2001). Another interesting international example is England's National Park system, exemplified by the Peak District Management Plan, which functions in a similar manner to a biosphere reserve (Peak District National Park Authority 2012). It is worth considering the alternatives to this approach.

An in-depth comparative analysis of the Oak Ridges Moraine, Greenbelt, Niagara Escarpment, Rouge Park, and Carolinian Zone regarding how well they function as bioregions would be

11 helpful in determining best practices. A collaborative, multi-jurisdictional, and multi-agency approach where core areas are held by a system of public agencies and private land trusts seems a likely future approach; however, a strong management plan, collaboration between groups, community involvement, and a rigorous monitoring strategy are all necessary components. A joint-commission between Ontario and the Great Lake states outlining a strategy for the bioregion is a logical next step. As a first step to establishing a recognized biocultural landscape in the Niagara Escarpment, a framework and methodology are needed to better understand the role of cultural resources in the region, leading to a bioregional approach to cultural heritage management.

A Bioregional Approach to Cultural Heritage Management in Ontario

Based on the information gathered in the literature review and policy review, it is determined that a Geographic Information System-based method for assessing and evaluating biocultural landscapes will help to advance the practice of cultural landscape conservation in Ontario. Such a methodology will combine the spatial-based evaluation methods utilized for Landscape Character Assessment in the UK (Natural England 2014), with time-depth GIS analysis tools that reveal how historic land use patterns still persist in the landscape (Palang 2005). The development of new participatory GIS tools enable community-driven and values-based data to be analyzed alongside traditional spatial data (Dunn 2007, Young 2013).

Methodologically, this approach is based in Ian McHarg's (1969) overlay analysis method developed in Design with Nature. This process has advantages and drawbacks, however was selected for its ease of application, replicability, and customizability. Using GIS as an organizing tool, geographical information is collected from existing spatial data and through primary fieldwork investigation. This data is cleaned and thematically organized. Each thematic cultural map is then processed by assigning values to each feature, and layering these values to create a thematic values map. A final biocultural landscape analysis is performed by layering the value results from each thematic map. This raw product is then refined by identifying core and buffer areas based on aggregate value. The zone of cooperation then becomes a unifying matrix for the core and buffer system within the bioregion. The bioregional approach is highly suited towards cross-jurisdictional landscapes because the zone of cooperation is designed to function at multiple scales and facilitate cooperation across regional and international borders.

Methodology

Cultural resources will be identified, buffered, and layered using GIS processing tools to create a bioregional planning framework for cultural resources associated with the Niagara Escarpment. Through the process of layering multiple resources and summing the values associated with each resource, a system of core areas, buffers, and zones of cooperation will be drawn according to an area's aggregate value. Areas with the highest aggregate value will be designated as core areas. These areas should be given the greatest amount of protection and incompatible development or activity should not occur here. Buffer areas score moderately on the ranking system, and are closely related to core areas. Activity in these areas should be closely monitored, and increasingly stricter regulations should be placed on development as it nears the core area. Moderate to low ranking areas that are not close to core areas become the zone of cooperation.

12

Development restrictions are lowest here, and it is expected that industry, government and private citizens will work towards mutually-beneficial solutions regarding the stewardship of cultural resources. Finally, all other areas in the study area become the zone of transition.

A simple typology of cultural features is developed. Cultural resources are classified as corridors (road, railways, historic trails, canals), point features (designated heritage buildings, archaeological sites), and cultural areas (Niagara Escarpment, archaeological clusters). A set of criteria for buffering and ranking corridors, areas, and important cultural sites is as follows:

Table 1: Feature Typology

Feature Type Buffer Points Major Corridor 250m each side 3 Minor Corridor 250m each side 2 Other Corridor 100m each side 1 Major Point Feature 250m radius 3 Minor Point Feature 250m radius 2 Other Point Feature 100m radius 1 Major Cultural Area No buffer 3 Minor Cultural Area No buffer 2 Other Area No buffer 1

A more detailed rationale as to why certain point values were assigned to each feature is given in Table 2 below. Generally, the process involved trial and error to ensure that points awarded to similar landscape features (such as historic roads and pre-contact trails) did not over-state the significance of certain feature in the landscape. A feature ranked highest if a persuasive argument could be presented as to why the given feature represented a unique cultural use of the regional environment. The cultural resource inventory and analysis will be divided into 6 maps:

1. Archaeology 2. Hydrology and Landscape Ecology 3. Landscape Character Units and Landscape Character Unit Areas 4. Heritage Features 5. Community Value 6. Viewsheds

An additional Policy Context map will be created; however, the content of this map will not be analyzed using the same methodology. Outlined in Table 2 below is an inventory of all the feature layers in each map. The typology of each feature is labelled (corridor, point, area), and the process for buffering each feature is described, if applicable. Finally, the ranking system for each feature is described, following from the system outlined in Table 1. By returning to the definition of biocultural landscapes as distinctive historical and ecological regions that form holistic systems of land tenure, land use, production, and cultural identity (Pungetti 2013), a rationale for ranking biocultural features may be developed. Significant points, corridors and areas that strongly reveal a specific land tenure, land use, production system, or aspect of a

13 regions cultural identity will rank higher, whereas cultural features that are less regionally- specific, or do not relate to a culture use of the regional environment, will rank lower.

Table 2: Thematic map analysis process and inventory.

Map Layers Feature Buffering Ranking System Type Parameters B1: Archaeological Major * All sites within * 1 Point (Trails are Archaeology Sites along Corridor 500m buffer of trail often associated with Historic Trails * Each site given a the cultural use of 250m radius buffer natural pathways or * Trail has 250m features) buffer on each side Archaeological Minor * All sites within * 1 Point for Site and 1 Sites along the Cultural 250m south of Brow Point for Escarpment Niagara Area + and 250m north of Area = 2 Points total Escarpment Corridor Toe Archaeological Major * Identify Cluster if * 3 Points (Clusters Clusters Cultural there are at least 5 indicate a small (cultural area) Area + sites in 500m radius settlement or village, Corridor * 500m radius which suggests a high becomes buffer alignment of people and their environment) Archaeological Minor * All sites within * 1 Point for Site and 1 Sites along Corridor 250m of stream or Point for Shoreline Streams and shoreline Area = 2 Points total Shorelines * Each site given a 250m radius buffer * Stream given 250m buffer Known Neutral Minor * 250m radius buffer * 2 Points (See Villages Point around site rationale for Clusters) (points) Feature All Minor * 250m radius buffer * 1 Point Archaeological Point Sites (points) Feature C1: Hydrology Permeable Minor * 1 Point and Landscape Land in an Cultural Ecology Urban Area Area Streams, Minor * All features given a * 2 Points (Source of Rivers, Corridor 500m buffer water for irrigation, Shorelines and and mode of Canals transportation)

14

Important Major * All corridors given * 2 Points (Habitat for Ecological Corridor a 500m buffer animals, and food for Connections human settlers) Wooded Areas Minor * 1 Point Cultural Area Conservation Minor * 1 Point (These areas Areas and Cultural are typically wooded, Parks Area or contain important Commission ecological features; Lands therefore, an additional point is given to indicate a culture use of this resource) D1: Landscape Regionally- Major * 3 Points (Tender Fruit Character Units Definitive Cultural Agriculture relies on Agricultural Area the unique Uses microclimate of the Fruit Belt) General Minor * 1 Point Agriculture Cultural Area E1: Heritage Historic Roads Major * All roads given a * 2 Point (In the Features Corridor 250m buffer Niagara Region, roads are directly tied to the cultural use of the environment. The and Shoreline Road allow access to the shoreline. East-West Road establishes the baseline grid for the agricultural use of the flat lowlands. Four Mile Creek Road follows Four Mile Creek, an important water source in the Niagara Fruit Belt)

15

Designated Minor * Structures given a * 1 Point Structures and Point 250m radius buffer Heritage Feature Conservation Districts Non- Minor * All feature points * 1 Point designated Point given a 250m radius Cultural Feature buffer Features based on Field Work and Niagara Open Data Cemeteries Minor * All feature points * 1 Point Point given a 250m radius Feature buffer Canal Major * Canal given a * 2 Points, ranked - Abandoned Corridor 250m buffer equally (A recreational and and commercial Operational resource) Rail - Minor * Rail given a 250m * 1 Point, ranked Abandoned Corridor buffer equally and Operational F1: Community Recreational Major * All feature points * 3 Points (Recreation Values Amenities Point given a 250m radius is a cultural use Feature buffer strongly tied to the Escarpment, and Niagara River, and contributes significantly to tourism and the region's economy. Without these natural resources, there would be a dramatically attraction for recreation in the region) Major * Bruce trail given a * 3 Points Corridor 250m buffer Other Trails Minor * Trails given a 100m * 1 Point Corridor buffer

16

Community Minor * All feature points * 1 Point Centres Corridor given a 250m radius buffer Wineries Major * Full parcel drawn, * 3 Points (Wineries Corridor not point data depend on the unique microclimate of the Fruit Belt; therefore, they represent the cultural use of the Escarpment landform) Festivals Minor * All feature points * 1 Point Corridor given a 250m radius buffer G1: Viewsheds Viewpoints: Major * All feature points * 3 Points (Viewpoints High visibility Point given a 250m radius are situated at places and buffer associated with accessibility cultural use of a landform (such as an outcrop or valley) Viewpoints: Minor * All feature points * 1 Point Low visibility Point given a 250m radius and buffer accessibility Important Major * 3 Points (Viewsheds Viewsheds Cultural are created by the Area cultural use of natural landforms)

The sum of the values maps for maps B2 through G2 were layered in GIS to create a final "Cultural Landscape Value" map (Appendix A, Map H1). Each value map is weighted equally when layered together. Using this map as a base, a system of cores, buffers, and transition zones were created and displayed on the Bioregional Planning Zones map using the process outlined below (Appendix A, Map H2).

Areas that ranked Very High, High, or Moderately High became the core zones. Areas ranked Average, Moderately Low, or other areas in close proximity to the core areas became the buffer zones. Low or Very Low Lands, and other areas associated with the core and buffer zones became the zone of transition. The end result identifies a coarse planning system for managing the cultural resources of the Niagara Escarpment.

This methodology is flexible and can be replicated at a variety of scales and levels of detail. A similar approach can be taken for the entire Niagara Escarpment Bioregion. Similarly, a heritage planning study of other bioregions could be performed throughout the Escarpment's length. However, Brunckhorst's model (2000) is specifically for bioregional scale planning; therefore, it

17 would not be advisable to apply the methodology to a scale that is smaller than an Ontario municipality.

Case Study

The case study of the north-east corner of the Niagara Peninsula, encompassing Niagara-on-the Lake, St. Catharines, and , was chosen for its fulfillment of a number of criteria. This region includes a cross-jurisdictional landscape, and the presence of an international border is closely linked to the economic prosperity, cultural identity, and history of the region. It is a landscape of production, featuring regionally specialized tender fruit agriculture as well as good general agricultural lands. It contains both urban and rural areas, allowing for the methodology to be tested on multiple landscape types. It contains highly scenic and also less scenic resources. There is historic settlement, as well as growth pressure from the municipalities of St. Catharines and Niagara Falls. The cultural influence of a highly channelized, managed and exploited watershed is a dominant feature in the landscape, and the influence of the Niagara Escarpment on culture and climate extends far beyond the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area boundary.

Background research on the Niagara region produced a wealth of research and planning documents. A key resource is Niagara's Changing Landscapes edited by Hugh Gayler (1994); this work is a regional study of the Niagara Peninsula, interpreting social, historical, geological and natural trends. Other useful research has been conducted on Niagara's history of place names, the development of road networks, history of railways, and the history of the Welland Canal (Burghardt 1969, Jackson 1989, 1997, and Jackson and Burtniak 1978). Important planning and research has been undertaken by , which maintains an extensive online map and GIS library and has conducted research on land management of the Niagara Parks Commission (Brock University 2007, 2015). An archaeological master plan completed for the Town of Niagara-on-the Lake, and watershed studies of the subwatershed in Niagara-on-the- Lake are also important precedents for this research (ASI 2001, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 2008).

Information gathered from these sources, in addition to GIS data available through the Ministry of Natural Resources, Land Information Ontario, ASI Heritage, and the Niagara Escarpment Commission (see Data Resources listed in works cited) were compiled into a series of inventory maps. Fieldwork to identify cultural landscape resources, viewpoints, viewsheds, recreational amenities and ecological services was also conducted in July 2015 and translated into the Geographic Information System.

The study area and policy context is communicated in the Study Area Boundaries and Policy Context Map in Figure 3 below:

18

Figure 3: Study Area Boundaries and Policy Context Map.

The full collection of inventory and value maps is available for reference in Appendix A. The Study Area Boundaries and Policy Context Map (A1) above shows layers of local, provincial, federal and international joint management. Key political entities that regulate land management in the region are the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Greenbelt, Niagara Park Commission, Welland Canal, and Niagara River Board of Control.

Known archaeological resources were digitized and mapped in Map B1. Resources included historic trails, known Neutral Villages, archaeological sites and clusters (identified as 5 or more sites within a 205m radius), and archaeological potential, which was identified by buffering waterways, soil drainage patterns, and archaeological resources. The value map produced from this inventory (Map B2) shows a high concentration of cultural resource value in Niagara-on-the- Lake, as well as along Four Mile Creek, the Niagara River and Shoreline, and at key sites along the Niagara Escarpment. Ecological and hydrological systems were mapped in Map C1. A network of corridors that follow the Escarpment, in addition to shorelines and creeks, are the most prominent features identified. The value analysis (Map C2) shows the Welland Canal corridor, Four Mile Creek Corridor, Niagara River Corridor and Niagara Escarpment as the most valuable resources.

Landscape units were compiled using the 1983 Agriculture Resource Inventory. Key features identified were regionally-specific agriculture, including tender fruit, orchards and vineyards. Additionally, the mosaic of land tenure and development also contributed to the identification of landscape character units. The value map (D2) rates regionally-specific agriculture highly and general-agriculture systems moderately. An additional Unit Area Map (D3) was created to

19 summarize the findings of Map D1. This map approximates the process used for Landscape Character Assessment in the UK.

Tangible Cultural Heritage resources are communicated in map E1. Resources mapped include Heritage Districts, historic sites and structures, cemeteries, historic roads, abandoned and operation railways, and abandoned and operational portions of the Welland Canal. Additionally, the survey grid system illustrates changes in regional governance over time. The value map (E2) shows a system of valuable networks and sites closely associated with those networks. The community values map employed community-driven data to understand how community values are expressed in the landscape. These included recreational facilities, community centres, festivals, trails, and wineries. The value maps identified a strong cluster along Niagara Stone Road and the Niagara Parkway, as well as a high valuing of the Niagara Escarpment and Welland Canal. Finally, the Viewsheds map (G1) identified primary and secondary viewpoints and key viewshed. Viewsheds identified include the Niagara , the Niagara River, and the Lake Ontario shoreline. Secondary viewsheds are also labelled, including central Niagara-on-the- Lake, St. Catharines, and the New York shoreline.

Results and Discussion

The value maps discussed above were layered to create a Final Landscape Value Map. Individual units were assigned values from 0 (the lowest value given) to 28 (highest value given). The numerical rankings were classified into values categories: very low, low, moderately low, average, moderately high, high and very high. This map represents the raw output of the testing methodology, and needs further interpretation to create a functional biocultural landscape planning system. Based on these values, highly ranked areas were buffered and exported to create the core areas, moderately ranked areas became the buffer, and low ranked areas became the zone of cooperation.

The final analysis map identifying Biocultural Planning Zones is presented in Figure 4. The dark green areas are the core areas, which are surrounded by a light green buffer. The yellow-green areas are the zones of cooperation. A system of core areas is formed along the Niagara Escarpment and the Niagara River, with additional core zones. These zones are surrounded by buffer areas. Additional buffer areas give protection to important regional roads such as Niagara Stone Road and Four Mile Creek, as well as the entire length of the Welland Canal. Select rural zones of high agricultural or community value are all given buffer status. The zones of cooperation encompass nearly all of Niagara-on-the-Lake, and much of Niagara Falls and St. Catharines.

20

Figure 4: Biocultural Planning Zones, Map H2.

Clearly, the Niagara River and Niagara Escarpment are highly valuable biocultural resources; however, according to this study the Welland Canal and Lake Ontario Shoreline are less so. This may be due to the singular focus of the Welland Canal, and the relative inaccessibility of the shoreline, respectively. If it is desirable that these resources be conserved, individual site-specific heritage strategies may help identify more detailed connections to local heritage, and how to exploit these connections for community gain.

The map in Figure 4 is the final product of the testing methodology. What is the utility of this map, and how is this map to be used? First, this map may be used as a discussion piece between heritage stakeholders in the region. From a development perspective, regional municipalities can use this map to direct heritage studies as necessary; for example, a proposed development in a core or buffer region may require a more extensive heritage study and stricter protection methods than a similar proposal in the zone of cooperation. Stricter visual guidelines may also be enforced by the municipality in core and buffer zones. The integration of this map into an Official Plan could be easily achieved by using a zoning overlay system as employed in Wisconsin (Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission 2010). This map may also be used to advocate for the expansion of the NEPA to cover key heritage resources associated with the Escarpment, such as archaeological clusters south of the cuesta, and the Niagara River corridor that extends south and north of the planning area.

21

Conclusion

The bioregional planning framework of cores, buffers and zones of cooperation outlined by Brunckhorst (2000, 2001) is a highly adaptable strategy for the management of cultural and natural resources. While commonly employed under an ecological agenda, it can also be applied from a cultural landscape perspective. The strategy addresses many continuing issues in landscape management, specifically how to manage large-scale cultural resources that extend beyond regional borders. The emphasis on holistic planning approaches that study the interaction between nature and culture, rather than studying them independently, is in line with current trends in land management planning that is community-driven and values-based.

Opportunities for future research include the refinement of the methodology through additional case studies along the Escarpment. The end product of the methodology is highly dependent on how the input layers are valued at the outset of the study; therefore, testing different value rankings and consulting with stakeholders is vital to refine the ranking system and to establish a more defensible methodology.

Furthermore, there are opportunities for Borderland Theory to contribute to a greater understanding of how international and regional borders are a resource and contribute to the cultural diversity of the Niagara Escarpment Bioregion. If viewed through the lens of Borderlands Theory, international borders are significant cultural and historical resources. The Canada-US border is a site of human migration, shared industrial history, an ecological corridor, and an area of international cooperation and trade. The role of heritage conservation and cultural landscape planning is to illustrate this shared tangible and intangible history, and to create new regional identities (Leibenath et al. 2010, Soyez 2009).

The regional municipal borders along the Niagara Escarpment are also resources, although less clearly defined than an international border. One of the consequences of municipal borders is a notable change in land use as a result of a different planning regime, such as a change from rural to urban. The transboundary nature of the Escarpment means that it is both urban and rural, however it is primarily conceived of as a rural landscape: the 1976 Landscape Evaluation Study did not even attempt to evaluate urban landscapes. However, the cultural use of the Escarpment in urban areas is just as important as in rural areas. In this context, municipal borders are a resource because they promote cultural diversity (a mandate of the Man and the Biosphere Programme) along the Escarpment. The different municipal policies on land use, density, intensity of development and character of industry are the main drivers for these regional differences. Further study is needed to understand the complex relationships between cultural use, municipal planning policy, and cultural diversity in the Niagara Escarpment Bioregion.

22

Works Consulted

Alper, Donald K. 1996 'The Idea of Cascadia: Emergent Transborder Regionalisms in the Pacific Northwest- Western Canada.' Journal of Borderlands Studies, 11(2):1-22.

Antrop, Mark 2006 ‘Sustainable Landscapes: Contradiction, Fiction, or Utopia?' Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(3):187-197.

Archaeological Services Inc. & Cuesta Systems Inc. 2001a A Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake: Planning Report. Virgil, ON: The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

2001b The Archaeological Master Plan of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake: Technical Report. Virgil, ON: The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Batuman, Elif 2015 'The Big Dig: Istanbul's city planners have a problem: too much history.' The New Yorker, August 31, 2015 Issue.

Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission 2010 Niagara Escarpment Overlay Zoning Guide. Electronic copy available at: http://www.escarpmentnetwork.org/niagara-escarpment-overlay-zoning-guide/

Brock University Tourism and Environment 2007 Environmental Land Management Plan for the Niagara Parks Commission: Stage 1. Electronic copy available at: http://www.niagaraknowledgeexchange.com/

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell and Michael Beresford, Eds. 2005 The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community. Electronic copy available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2005-006.pdf

Brunckhorst, David 2000 Bioregional Planning: Resource Management Beyond the New Millennium. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.

2001 'Building Capital Through Bioregional Planning and Biosphere Reserves.' Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2001:19-32.

Buggey, Susan 1999 An Approach to Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes. Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Electronic copy available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/r/pca-acl/index_e.asp

Burghardt, Andrew F. 1969 'The Origin and Development of the Road Network of the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, 1770-1851.' Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 59(3):417-440.

23

California Coastal Commission [----] California Coastal Commission Strategic Plan 2013-2018. Electronic copy available at: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/strategicplan/CCC_Final_StrategicPlan_2013-2018.pdf

[----] LCP Update Guide Section 7. Scenic and Visual Resources. Electronic copy available at: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcp/LUPUpdate/LUPGuidePartI_7_ScenicRes_July2013.pdf

Canada 2006 The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions Between Canada and the : Roundtable Synthesis Report. Electronic copy available at: http://www.thetbwg.org/downloads/The_Emergence_of_CrossBorder_Regions.pdf

Carruthers, Peter 1976 An Archaeological Transect Through Ontario. Historical Planning and Research Branch Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putman 1984 The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Second Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Columbia River Gorge Commission [-----] Columbia River Gorge Management Plan. Electronic copy available at: http://www.gorgecommission.org/managementplan.cfm?CFID=130180782&CFTOKEN =42bdecd91da0a295-C418DF4C-E7AB-C491- 96253E0F5AFD49EE&jsessionid=c43096d4369bf27fb7ae59571b4673366562

[-----] Chapter 350, Division 81, Land Use Ordinance. Electronic copy available at: http://www.gorgecommission.org/client/Rule%20350-81%2020120601.pdf

2005 Building in the Scenic Area: Scenic Resources Implementation Handbook. Electronic copy available at: http://www.gorgecommission.org/client/FINAL_scenichandbook.pdf

Dramstad, W.E., J.D. Olson and R.T.T. Forman. 1996 Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Graduate School of Design.

Dunn, Christine E. 2007 'Participatory GIS - a people's GIS?' Progress in Human Geography, 31(5):616-637.

Ecology and Environment Inc. 2014 Niagara Escarpment Legacy Project. Electronic copy available at: http://wnylc.org/land-protection/current-projects/niagara-escarpment-legacy- project/

Forman, Richard T.T. & Godron, Michel. 1986 Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley.

Fraser, Caroline 2009 Rewilding the world: dispatches from the conservation revolution. New York: Metropolitan Books.

24

Gayler, Hugh J. Ed. 1994 Niagara's Changing Landscapes. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University Press.

Gobster, Paul H., Joan I. Nasssauer, Terry C. Daniel, and Gary Fry 2007 ‘The Shared Landscape: What does Aesthetics Have to do with Ecology?’ Landscape Ecology, 22(7):959-972.

Grigoriew, Paul, Gordon Nelson, and John Theberge. 1985 Park Boundary Delineation Manual, The ABC Resource Survey Approach. Available at University of Waterloo Heritage Resource Centre.

Hele, Karl S. 2008 Lines drawn upon the water: First Nations and the Great Lakes borders and borderlands. Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Historical Planning and Research Branch Ministry of Culture and Recreation 1976 Historical Resources in the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area. Historical Planning and Research Branch Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Jackson, John N. 1989 Names Across Niagara. St. Catharines, ON: Vanwell Publishing Limited.

1997 The Welland Canals and Their Communities: Engineering, Industrial and Urban Transformation. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Jackson, John N. and John Burtniak 1978 Railways in the Niagara Peninsula: Their Development, Progress and Community Significance. Belleville, ON: Mika Publishing Company.

Konrad, Victor 2012 'Conflating Imagination, Identity and Affinity in the Social Construction of Borderlands Culture Between Canada and the United States.' American Review of Canadian Studies, 42(4):530-548.

Konrad, Victor and Heather N. Nicol 2011 'Border Culture, the Boundary Between Canada and the United States of America, and the Advancement of Borderlands Theory.' Geopolitics, 16:70-90.

Leibenath, Markus, Andreas Blum, & Sylke Stutzriemer 2010 'Transboundary cooperation in establishing ecological networks: The case of Germany's external borders.' Landscape and Urban Planning, 94:84-93.

Lindgren, Richard D. and Burgandy Dunn 2010 'Environmental Assessment in Ontario: Rhetoric vs. Reality.' Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, 766:279-303.

Lyle, John Tillman 1985 Design for human ecosystems: landscape, land use, and natural resources. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

25

MacDonald, Sara and Roger Keil 2012 ‘The Ontario Greenbelt: Shifting Scales of the Sustainability Fix?’ The Professional Geographer, 640(1):125-145.

McIlwraith, Thomas F. 1999 Looking for Old Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

McHarg, Ian L. 1969 Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.

McLellan, A.G. 1991 Massive Landscape Change in Ontario: Integrating Geomorphology, Landscape Changes, Resources Management, and Human Activity. In 'Ontario: Geographical Perspectives on Economy and Environment' Ed. Bruce Mitchell. Department of Geography Publication Series No. 34, University of Waterloo.

Melnick, Robert Z. 1983 'Protecting Rural Cultural Landscapes: Finding Value in the Countryside.' Landscape Journal, 2(2):85-96.

Moriyama & Teshima Planners Limited 1988 Ontario's Niagara Parks: Planning the Second Century. Toronto, ON: Prepared for The Niagara Parks Commission.

Mumford, Lewis 1938 The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

National Parks Service 2014 Scaling Up: Collaborative Approaches to Large Landscape Conservation. Electronic copy on file at ASI.

2015 Park Cultural Landscapes. Electronic copy available at: http://www.nps.gov/cultural_landscapes/

Natural England 2014 An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment. Electronic copy available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396192/lan dscape-character-assessment.pdf

Nelson, Gordon 2012 Beyond the Global City : Understanding and Planning for the Diversity of Ontario. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Nelson, Gordon and James Porter 2002 The Great Arc: An International Heritage Corridor in the Great Lakes Region. Available at University of Waterloo Heritage Resource Centre.

Newman, David 2003 'On borders and power: A theoretical framework.' Journal of Borderlands Studies, 18(1):13-25.

26

Niagara Escarpment Commission 1975 Features and Conditions Survey. Compiled by S. Shaw. Ontario: Niagara Escarpment Commission.

1976 Landscape Evaluation Study: Niagara Escarpment Planning Area. Ontario: Ministry of Natural Resources.

1978 Niagara Escarpment Heritage Resource Study: Volumes 1 & 2. Ontario: Historical Planning and Research Branch, Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

1985a Beaver Valley Viewshed Analysis: Townships of Euphrasia and Artemesia, County of Grey. Georgetown, ON: Niagara Escarpment Commission.

1985b Pretty River Viewshed Analysis: Townships of Collingwood, Osprey and Nottawasaga, Counties of Grey and Simcoe. Georgetown, ON: Niagara Escarpment Commission.

1986 Mad River Valley Viewshed Analysis: Nottawasaga Township, Simcoe County. Georgetown, ON: Niagara Escarpment Commission.

1987 Craigleith-Camperdown Viewshed Analysis: Collingwood Township, . Georgetown, ON: Niagara Escarpment Commission.

2003 Castle Glen Viewshed Analysis: Town of the Blue Mountains. Prepared by David Wells. Georgetown, ON: Niagara Escarpment Commission.

2014a Niagara Escarpment Plan Review2015: Discussion Paper: Scenic Resources. Electronic copy available at: http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=fileLSNmXJGgjv&filename=file_2_P3 _Final_Topic_8_Discussion_Paper_May_5__2014___Web_Version.pdf

2014b Niagara Escarpment Plan Review2015: Discussion Paper: Addendum 1: Scenic Resources. Electronic copy available at: http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=fileuYADLLjbIp&filename=file_Adden dum_Fill_Paper_August_2013_FINAL.pdf

2014c Niagara Escarpment Plan Review2015: Discussion Paper: Cultural Heritage Policies in the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Electronic copy available at: http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=fileMHyOlyVVhE&filename=file_2_P R4_Cultural_Heritage_Paper_FINAL_Nov_12_2014___Web_Version.pdf

2015a Niagara Escarpment Plan Review 2015: Discussion Paper: Addendum 1: Cultural Heritage Policies in the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Electronic copy available at: http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=fileMkNLxicJYX&filename=file_2_PR 2_Add_1_Cultural_Heritage_Feb_19_15_FINAL___Web_Version.pdf

2015b Niagara Escarpment Plan Review 2015: Discussion Paper: Addendum 2: Cultural Heritage Policies in the Niagara Escarpment Plan. Electronic copy available at: http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=filerQsJNrhyyg&filename=file_2_PR2_ Add_2_Cultural_Heritage_Apr_15_15_FINAL_web.pdf

27

Niagara Escarpment Study Group 1968a The Niagara Escarpment Study: Conservation and Recreation Report. Toronto, ON: Regional Development Branch, Treasury Department - Finance & Economics.

1968b Niagara Escarpment Study Fruit Belt Report. Toronto, ON: Regional Development Branch, Treasury Department - Finance & Economics.

Niagara Parks Commission 2015 Niagara Parks Commission 2015-17 Strategic Focus Chart. Electronic copy available at: http://corporate.niagaraparks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Niagara-Parks- Commission-Strategic-Focus-2015-17.pdf

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority 2005 One Mile Creek Watershed Strategy Report. Prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited and LURA Consulting Limited. Electronic copy available at: https://npca.ca/watershed-plans

2008 Niagara-on-the-Lake Watershed Study. Prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited. Electronic copy available at: https://npca.ca/watershed-plans

Niagara Region 2015 Regional Official Plan. Electronic copy available at: https://www.niagararegion.ca/living/icp/policy-plan.aspx

Niagara-on-the-Lake [----] Properties Designated Under Park IV in the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Electronic copy available at: http://notl.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=5044

2014 Official Plan Review: Heritage, Arts and Culture. Electronic copy available at: http://notl.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=5053

Ontario 1990a Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18. Electronic copy available at: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e18

1990b Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2. Electronic copy available at: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90n02

1990c Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Electronic copy available at: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18

1990d Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Electronic copy available at: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13

1994 Rouge Park Management Plan. Electronic copy available at: http://www.rougepark.com/about/plans/mgmt_plans.php

2001 Rouge North Management Plan: A strategy to Guide the Realization of the Rouge Park from to Oak Ridges Moraine. Electronic copy available at: http://www.rougepark.com/about/plans/mgmt_plans.php

28

2006a Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Electronic copy available at: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009

2006b Ontario Heritage Act, Ontario Regulation 10/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. Electronic copy available at: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010

2006c Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Heritage Conservation Districts: A Guide to District Designation Under the Ontario Heritage Act. Electronic copy available at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Heritage_Tool_Kit_HCD_English.pdf

2014 2014 Provincial Policy Statement Under the Planning Act. Electronic copy available at: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10463

Ontario Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs 1973 Development Planning in Ontario: The Niagara Escarpment. Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Paine, C and J. Taylor 1995 Cultural Landscape Assessment: A Comparison of Current Methods and their Potential for Application within the Niagara Escarpment; October 1995. Available at Niagara Escarpment Commission or University of Guelph.

1997 Cultural Landscape Assessment in the Niagara Escarpment; Application of Expert and Informant Methods in the Beaver Valley; Landscape Research Group at University of Guelph; December 1997. Available at Niagara Escarpment Commission or University of Guelph.

Palang, Hannes, Staffan Helmfrid, Marc Antrop, Helen Alumäe 2005 'Rural Landscapes: past processes and future strategies.' Landscape and Urban Planning, 70:3-8.

Patano, Sandra and Anders Sandberg 2005 ‘Winning Back More than Words? Power, Discourse and Quarrying on the Niagara Escarpment’. Canadian Geographer, 49(1):25-41.

Peak District National Park Authority [----] Peak District National Park Management Plan 2012-2017. Electronic copy available at: http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/npmp

Pollock-Ellwand, Nancy 2006 'Travelling the Route from Designation to Local Action: The Case of the Underground Railroad Settlement in Buxton, Ontario, Canada.' International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(4):372-288.

Preston, Susan M. 2003 Landscape Values and Planning: The Case of Ontario's Niagara Escarpment. PhD Diss. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo.

29

Pungetti, Gloria 2013 'Biocultural Diversity for Sustainable Ecological, Cultural and Sacred Landscapes: The Biocultural Landscape Approach.' In B. Fu and K.B. Jones (eds.) Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture. Dordrecht: Springer.

Ratter, Beate 2001 Natur, Kultur und Komplexitat. Berlin: Springer.

Richards, Robert N. 1991 Abuses and Improprieties of the Niagara Escarpment Commission: A Regulatory Agency Experience and Review. Toronto, ON: Medric Ltd.

Riley, John 2013 The Once And Future Great Lakes Country: An Ecological History. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Riley, John, J.V Javala and S. Varga 1996 Ecological Survey of the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve, 2 vol., OMNR

Riley, John and P. Mohr 1994 The Natural Heritage of Southern Ontario’s Settled Landscapes, OMNR, Technical Report TR-001.

Schama, Simon 1996 Landscape and Memory. New York: Vintage Books.

Soyez, Dietrich 2009 'Europeanizing Industrial Heritage in Europe: Addressing its Transboundary and Dark Sides.' Geographische Zeitschrift, 97(1):43-55.

Steiner, Frederick R. 1990 The living landscape: an ecological approach to landscape planning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Storck, Peter L. 2004 Journey to the Ice Age: Discovering an Ancient World. Vancouver, ON: UBC Press in association with the Royal Ontario Museum.

Toronto Region Conservation Authority 2015 The Living City Project. Electronic copy available at: http://www.trca.on.ca/the-living- city/index.dot

UNESCO 1995 The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves. Electronic copy available at: www..org/mab/doc/brs/Strategy.pdf

2002 World Heritage Papers 7 – Cultural Landscapes: the Challenge of Conservation. UNESCO.

2009 World Heritage Papers 26– World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management. UNESCO.

30

2012 Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve: Periodic Review, 2012. Electronic copy available at: http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=fileISqAsEuQlT&filename=file_Self_St udy_Nov.2012_updated_May_2013.pdf

2015a Main Characteristics of Biosphere Reserves. Electronic copy available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological- sciences/biosphere-reserves/main-characteristics/

2015b World Heritage Centre: Cultural Landscapes. Electronic copy available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/

United States Department of Agriculture 2015 Open Space Conservation. USDA Forest Service. Electronic copy available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/

School of Environmental Design & Rural Planning, University of Guelph 2006 Landscape and Visual Assessment Guidance for Wind Energy Farm Development. Prepared for the Municipality of Grey-Highlands.

Sewell, John 1999 Shape of the Suburbs: Understanding Toronto’s Sprawl. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Sohn, Christophe 2014a 'The Border as a Resource in the Global Urban Space: A Contribution to the Cross- Border Metropolis Hypothesis.' International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(5):1697-1711.

2014b 'Modelling Cross-Border Integration: The Role of Borders as a Resource.' Geopolitics, 9:587-608.

Varangu, Anne Maret 2006 Exploring Usage of the Word "Values": Implications and Opportunities for Planning. PhD Diss. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo.

Ya'ari, Elizabeth 2010 'Promoting Understanding of Shared Heritage (PUSH).' UNESCO: Museum International, 62(1-2):9-13.

Young, Jason C. & Michael P. Gilmore 2013 'The Spatial Politics of Affect and Emotion in Participatory GIS.' Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(4):808-823.

Geographical Information and Data Sources

Brock University [----] The Historic Welland Canals: A Virtual Tour. Electronic copy available at: http://brocku.ca/library/collections/maplibrary/welland-canals-exhibit

31

2007 Niagara Parks Commission Properties. Digitized by author from Environmental Land Management Plan for the Niagara Parks Commission: Stage 1. Electronic copy available at: http://www.niagaraknowledgeexchange.com/

2015 Historical Maps of Niagara. Electronic copy available at: http://www.brocku.ca/maplibrary/digital/MAPzoom/maplist.php

Burghardt, Andrew F. 1969 Pre-Contact Trails. Digitized by author from 'The Origin and Development of the Road Network of the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, 1770-1851. ' Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 59(3):417-440.

Cafarella, Scott 2015a Archaeological Clusters.

2015b Archaeological Potential.

2015c Biocultural Planning Zones.

2015d Community Centres.

2015e Cultural Landscape Value.

2015f Ecological Corridors.

2015g Festivals.

2015h Key Viewsheds. Field work completed on July 16, 2015 and July 27, 2015.

2015i Landscape Character Unit Areas.

2015j Primary and secondary viewpoints. Field work completed on July 16, 2015 and July 27, 2015.

2015k Recreational Amenities. Field work completed on July 16, 2015 and July 27, 2015.

2015l Wineries.

DTMI Spatial Inc. 2014a Major Water Regions (MJWTR). Markham, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2014b Rail and Transit Lines (RLL). Markham, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2014c Route File (RTE). Markham, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

Ecology and Environment Inc. 2014 Niagara Escarpment Tow and Brow, New York. Digitized by author from Niagara Escarpment Legacy Project. Electronic copy available at: http://wnylc.org/land- protection/current-projects/niagara-escarpment-legacy-project/

32

Gayler, Hugh J. Ed. 1994 Known Neutral Villages. Digitized by author from Niagara's Changing Landscapes. Ottawa, ON: Carleton University Press.

McGill University 2001 The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project: 1880 Map of Ontario Counties. Electronic copy available at: http://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/searchmapframes.php

Niagara Escarpment Commission 2005a Niagara Escarpment Minor Urban Centre. Georgetown, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Land Information Ontario.

2005b Niagara Escarpment Plan Designation. Georgetown, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Land Information Ontario.

2015 Niagara Escarpment Toe and Brow. Georgetown, ON. Accessed 2015 from Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Niagara-on-the-Lake [----] Properties Designated Under Park IV in the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Digitized by author from Properties Designated Under Park IV in the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Electronic copy available at: http://notl.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=5044

2014a National Heritage District. Digitized by author from Official Plan Review: Heritage, Arts and Culture. Electronic copy available at: http://notl.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=5053

2014b Queen-Picton Heritage Conservation District. Digitized by author from Official Plan Review: Heritage, Arts and Culture. Electronic copy available at: http://notl.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=5053

Niagara Region 2015a Cemeteries. Thorold, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Niagara Region Open Data.

2015b Historical Sites. Thorold, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Niagara Region Open Data.

2015c Heritage Properties. Thorold, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Niagara Region Open Data.

2015d Welland Canal. Thorold, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Niagara Region Open Data.

Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport 2015 Archaeological Sites. Toronto, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2002 Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS). Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2005a Conservation Areas. Digitized by author from Niagara Esarpment Parks and Open Space System (NEPOSS). Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Land Information Ontario.

33

2005b Greenbelt Natural Heritage System. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Land Information Ontario.

2005c Greenbelt Specialty Crop. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Land Information Ontario.

2006 Built-Up Area. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2008a Provincial Park Regulated. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2008b Lot Fabric Improved. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2010 Watershed, Quaternary. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2011 Ontario Hydro Network (OHN) - Watercourse. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2012a Agricultural Operation Inventory. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2012b Municipal Boundary - Lower and Single Tier. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2012c Municipal Boundary - Upper Tier and District. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Scholars Geoportal.

2013a Greenbelt Designation. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Land Information Ontario.

2013b Wetland. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Land Information Ontario.

2013c Wooded Area. Peterborough, ON. Retrieved 2015 from Land Information Ontario.

Ontario Trails Project 2013 Ontario Trails Map v0.83. Electronic copy available at: http://trailmaps.torontogeocaching.com/node/3

VQA Ontario [----] Wine Appellations of the Niagara Peninsula. Electronic copy available at: http://www.vqaontario.ca/Appellations/NiagaraPeninsula

Zadro, Eric and Delamere, Paul 2009 Southern Ontario Railways Map. Guelph, ON and Mississauga, ON. Electronic copy available at: http://individual.utoronto.ca/sorailmap/

34

Appendix A: Maps

35

Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Lake Ontario Niagara Region Fort Niagara Lower Municipal Boundary State Park Greenbelt Natural Heritage System Niagara-on-the-Lake Greenbelt Tender Fruit Specialty Crop Greenbelt Protected Fort George Countryside () Niagara Parks Commission Properties Niagara Escarpment Plan Designation Escarpment Natural Area Escarpment Protection Area Escarpment Recreation Area Escarpment Rural Area Virgil Mineral Resource Extraction Area Urban Area Niagara-on-the-Lake Niagara Escarpment Minor Urban Centre New York, USA

Welland Canal (Saint Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation) Greenbelt Tender Fruit Niagara River (International Niagara Board of Control) St. Catharines

Greenbelt Protected Niagara Peninsula Countryside Conservation Authority Ontario Power Generation

Niagara Parks Policy and Niagara Escarpment Commission Commission Properties Jurisdictional Boundaries Kilometers Thorold Niagara Falls 0 1 2 4 A1 Legend Escarpment Toe Escarpment Brow Lakes and Waterbodies

Known Neutral Villages

All Archaeological Sites Pre-Contact Trails Arterial Major Minor Archaeological Clusters Archaeological Potential

Portage Trail

Iroquois Trail

Kelly

St. David's Archaeological Resources Kilometers Mohawk Trail 0 1 2 4 B1 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Archaeological Resources Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Archaeological Resources Value Kilometers 0 1 2 4 B2 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Quaternary Watershed Escarpment Toe Escarpment Brow Ecological Corridors Provincial Park Paradise Grove Conservation Area Patch Restoration Two Mile Creek Wetland Corridor Woodland Welland Canal Spit Urban Pervious Area Wildlife Patch Niagara Parks Commission Properties Urban Areas Streams Minor Stream Medium Stream Major Stream Eight Mile Four Mile Creek Niagara River Transportation Creek Corridor Corridor Corridor Minor Arterial Highway West Niagara Falls Brown’s Point and St. Catharines East Niagara Falls and Subwatershed Niagara-on-the-Lake Welland Canal Urban and Moderately Subwatershed Pervious Corridor Rural and Pervious

Twelve Mile Creek Corridor

Woodend CA Patch Escarpment Corridor

Landscape Niagara Escarpment Corridor Ecology and Hydrology Kilometers 0 1 2 4 C1 Legend

Lakes and Waterbodies Ecology and Hydrology Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Landscape Ecology and Hydrology Value Kilometers 0 1 2 4 C2 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Landscape Character Units Rural Landscape Character Regional Agriculture - Tender Fruit and Orchards Regional Agriculture - Vineyards and Wineries General Agriculture Idle or Abandoned Woodland Recreation Industrial Developed Area Wetland Water Feature

Landscape Character Units Kilometers 0 1 2 4 D1 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Landscape Character Units Value 1 3

Landscape Character Units Value Kilometers 0 1 2 4 D2 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Landscape Character Units Ecological Corridor Unit Historic Settlement Unit Ecological Corridor Unit Industrial Unit Historic Settlement Unit Rural Unit Shoreline Unit Tender Fruit Unit Shoreline Unit Urban Unit Vineyard Unit Tender Fruit Unit Welland Canal

Tender Fruit Unit Tender Fruit Unit Vineyard Unit

Vineyard Unit

Shoreline Unit Tender Fruit Unit

Tender Fruit Unit

Rural Unit Urban Unit Historic Settlement Unit Vineyard Unit Rural Unit

Ecological Corridor Unit

Rural Unit

Vineyard Unit Industrial Unit

Industrial Unit Landscape Ecological Corridor Unit Character Unit Urban Unit Areas Ecological Corridor Unit Kilometers

Rural Unit 0 1 2 4 Welland Canal D3 Small Large

Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Escarpment Toe Queen-Picton Heritage Escarpment Brow Conservation District Queen Picton Heritage Conservation District Shoreline Road National Heritage District All Historic Sites and Structures Cemeteries Historic Roads Abandoned Railway East West Line Operational Railway Welland Canal: Operational Abandoned Welland Canal Surveyed Lots

Historic Niagara Township Survey Welland Canal Operational Niagara Parkway Historic Grantham

Township Survey Niagara Stone Road

Four Mile Creek Road

Welland Canal Abandoned

Queenston Road

York Road Queenston-Lewiston Bridge Highway 405

CN Railway Operational - Constructed 1853

Heritage Historic Stamford Features Township Survey Kilometers 0 1 2 4 E1 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Heritage Features Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Heritage Features Value Kilometers 0 1 2 4 E2 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Recreational Amenities Community Centres Festivals Bruce Trail Other Trails Wineries Appellation Niagara Lakeshore Four Mile Creek Appellation Niagara Lakeshore Niagara River St. David's Bench Transportation Minor Arterial Highway

Four Mile Creek Appellation Niagara River Appellation

St. David’s Bench Appellation

Bruce Trail

Community Services Kilometers 0 1 2 4 F1 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Community Service Value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Community Services Value Kilometers 0 1 2 4 F2 Legend

Lakes and Waterbodies Escarpment Toe Escarpment Brow

Primary Views

Secondary Views

Key Viewsheds Welland Spit Niagara-on-the-Lake Primary View Primary View

Lake Ontario Shoreline, Visible from Welland Spit and North-Western Shore of Lake Ontario Niagara River Shoreline, Visible from New York River Shoreline and Queenston Heights

New York Shoreline Secondary Viewshed

Central Niagara-on-the-Lake Secondary Viewshed

US Niagara Cuesta, Partially Visible from Ontario River Shoreline St. Catharines and Skyway Secondary Viewshed Queenston Heights Primary View

Woodend Conservation Authority Primary View

Niagara Cuesta Frontslope, Visible Throughout Niagara-on-the-Lake Viewsheds Kilometers 0 1 2 4 G1 Legend

Lakes and Waterbodies Viewshed Value 1 3 4 6 7

Viewsheds Value Kilometers 0 1 2 4 G2 Legend Lakes and Waterbodies Cultural Landscape Value Very Low Low Moderately Low Average Moderately High High Very High

Cultural Landscape Value Kilometers 0 1 2 4 H1 Legend - Biocultural Planning Zones

Core Buffer Zone of Cooperation Escarpment Toe Escarpment Brow Lakes and Waterbodies Transportation Minor Arterial Highway

Biocultural Planning Zones Kilometers 0 1 2 4 H2 A Biocultural Planning Approach for Managing the Cultural and Natural Resources of the Niagara Escarpment

Prepared by: Project Supervisors: Scott Cafarella Joel Konrad and Rebecca Sciarra Executive Summary

Bioregional planning is a highly adaptable strategy for the management of cultural and natural resources. While commonly used to protect biodiversity, this planning framework can also be applied for the purpose of cultural landscape conservation. The cultural landscape of the Niagara Escarpment is examined through a biocultural planning framework. A biocultural resource is defined as the cultural product of a natural resource, and the geographical area that is characterized by the cultural use of that resource forms a biocultural landscape.

This research project proposes a strategy for assessing and managing cultural landscapes that transcend borders, with particular attention to the cultural use of the escarpment in the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. The biocultural planning model developed in this project identifies a system of core, buffer, and transition zones that will enable a range of levels of protection and planning controls to protect the cultural resources of the Niagara Escarpment.

Literature Review Summary

Bioregional Planning History

o UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme established in 1971

o 1977 establishment of World Network of Biosphere Reserves

o 1995 Seville World Congress of Biosphere Reserves: conflict-resolution methods, cluster and transboundary reserves

o David Brunckhorst Bioregional Planning: Resource Management Beyond the New Millennium a practical and theoretical guideline for bioregional planning

Literature Review Summary

Bioregional Planning

The key planning instrument used to accomplish these goals is the use of a consistent zoning scheme.

The zones consist of core areas, buffer areas, and transition areas (also referred to as the zone of cooperation).

Core areas are protected sites designed to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. The core requires a strict monitoring and management strategy.

Buffer areas usually surround core areas; compatible practices such as education, recreation, ecotourism and research may exist here. Buffer areas may also preserve cultural diversity through the protection of the traditional cultural use of environmental services.

The Zone of Cooperation is reserved for the sustainable development of resources, and may host more intensive land uses such as industrial agriculture and mineral extraction, in addition to traditional land uses (Brunckhorst 2000, 2001, UNESCO 2015a)

Literature Review Summary

Biocultural Planning

Brunckhorst: Bioregions are in fact 'biocultural Pungetti: Biocultural landscapes are areas landscapes', in which human governance is integrated characterized by a distinctive historical and ecological within ecological law (2000). connection, which form holistic systems based on land tenure, land use patterns, production, and cultural identity (2013).

Literature Review Summary

Biocultural Planning Examples

o Great Lakes Bioregion, as described in The Once and Future Great Lakes Country Riley 2013

o The Great Arc: An International Heritage Corridor in the Great Lakes Region (Nelson and Porter 2002)

o Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve

o Rouge Park Management Plan

Literature Review Summary

Research Question

Research Question: How can cross-jurisdictional biocultural landscapes be assessed, evaluated and managed to ensure that cultural heritage is accessible, sustainable, and contributes to overall quality of life?

To explore this question, it is proposed that a bioregional planning approach, through which a system of core, buffer, and transition zones enables a range of levels of protection and planning controls, offers a novel and useful approach for managing biocultural landscapes.

Biocultural Landscape Assessment

Precedents:

Landscape Character Assessment (Natural England)

Park Boundary Delineation Manual, The ABC Resource Survey Approach (Waterloo Heritage Centre)

Ian McHarg – Design with Nature (1969)

Methodology

Through the process of layering multiple resources and summing the values associated with each resource, a system of core areas, buffers, and zones of cooperation will be drawn according to an area's aggregate value. Areas with the highest aggregate value will be designated as core areas. These areas should be given the greatest amount of protection and incompatible development or activity should not occur here. Buffer areas score moderately on the ranking system, and are closely related to core areas. Activity in these areas should be closely monitored, and increasingly stricter regulations should be placed on development as it nears the core area. Moderate to low ranking areas that are not close to core areas become the zone of cooperation.

Development restrictions are lowest here, and it is expected that industry, government and private citizens will work towards mutually-beneficial solutions regarding the stewardship of cultural resources. Finally, all other areas in the study area become the zone of transition. A simple typology of cultural features is developed. Cultural resources are classified as corridors (road, railways, historic trails, canals), point features (designated heritage buildings, archaeological sites), and cultural areas (Niagara Escarpment, archaeological clusters).

Feature Type Buffer Points Major Corridor 250m each side 3 Minor Corridor 250m each side 2 Other Corridor 100m each side 1 Major Point Feature 250m radius 3 Minor Point Feature 250m radius 2 Other Point Feature 100m radius 1 Major Cultural Area No buffer 3 Minor Cultural Area No buffer 2 Other Area No buffer 1 Methodology

A feature ranked highest if a persuasive argument could be presented as to why the given feature represented a unique cultural use of the regional environment. The cultural resource inventory and analysis will be divided into 6 maps:

1. Archaeology 2. Hydrology and Landscape Ecology 3. Landscape Character Units and Landscape Character Unit Areas 4. Heritage Features 5. Community Value 6. Viewsheds

Outlined in Table 2 below is an inventory of all the feature layers in each map. The typology of each feature is labelled (corridor, point, area), and the process for buffering each feature is described. The ranking system for each feature is described, following from the system outlined in Table 1.

By returning to the definition of biocultural landscapes as distinctive historical and ecological regions that form holistic systems of land tenure, land use, production, and cultural identity (Pungetti 2013), a rationale for ranking biocultural features may be developed.

Significant points, corridors and areas that strongly reveal a specific land tenure, land use, production system, or aspect of a region’s cultural identity will rank higher, whereas cultural features that are less regionally specific, or do not relate to a culture use of the regional environment, will rank lower. Map Layers Feature Type Buffering Parameters Ranking System B1: Archaeology Archaeological Sites along Historic Trails Major Corridor * All sites within 500m buffer of trail * 1 Point (Trails are often associated with the cultural use of natural pathways or features) * Each site given a 250m radius buffer * Trail has 250m buffer on each side Archaeological Sites along the Niagara Minor Cultural Area + Corridor * All sites within 250m south of Brow and 250m * 1 Point for Site and 1 Point for Escarpment Area = 2 Points total Escarpment north of Toe Archaeological Clusters (cultural area) Major Cultural Area + Corridor * Identify Cluster if there are at least 5 sites in * 3 Points (Clusters indicate a small settlement or village, which suggests a high alignment 500m radius of people and their environment) * 500m radius becomes buffer Archaeological Sites along Streams and Minor Corridor * All sites within 250m of stream or shoreline * 1 Point for Site and 1 Point for Shoreline Area = 2 Points total Shorelines * Each site given a 250m radius buffer * Stream given 250m buffer Known Neutral Villages (points) Minor Point Feature * 250m radius buffer around site * 2 Points (See rationale for Clusters) All Archaeological Sites (points) Minor Point Feature * 250m radius buffer * 1 Point C1: Hydrology and Permeable Land in an Urban Area Minor Cultural Area * 1 Point Landscape Ecology Streams, Rivers, Shorelines and Canals Minor Corridor * All features given a 500m buffer * 2 Points (Source of water for irrigation, and mode of transportation) Important Ecological Connections Major Corridor * All corridors given a 500m buffer * 2 Points (Habitat for animals, and food for human settlers) Wooded Areas Minor Cultural Area * 1 Point Conservation Areas and Parks Commission Minor Cultural Area * 1 Point (These areas are typically wooded, or contain important ecological features; Lands therefore, an additional point is given to indicate a culture use of this resource)

D1: Landscape Regionally-Definitive Agricultural Uses Major Cultural Area * 3 Points (Tender Fruit Agriculture relies on the unique microclimate of the Fruit Belt) Character Units General Agriculture Minor Cultural Area * 1 Point E1: Heritage Historic Roads Major Corridor * All roads given a 250m buffer * 2 Point (In the Niagara Region, roads are directly tied to the cultural use of the Features environment. The Niagara Parkway and Shoreline Road allow access to the shoreline. East- West Road establishes the baseline grid for the agricultural use of the flat lowlands. Four Mile Creek Road follows Four Mile Creek, an important water source in the Niagara Fruit Belt)

Designated Structures and Heritage Minor Point Feature * Structures given a 250m radius buffer * 1 Point Conservation Districts Non-designated Cultural Features based on Minor Point Feature * All feature points given a 250m radius buffer * 1 Point Field Work and Niagara Open Data Cemeteries Minor Point Feature * All feature points given a 250m radius buffer * 1 Point Welland Canal - Abandoned and Major Corridor * Canal given a 250m buffer * 2 Points, ranked equally (A recreational and commercial resource) Operational Rail - Abandoned and Operational Minor Corridor * Rail given a 250m buffer * 1 Point, ranked equally F1: Community Recreational Amenities Major Point Feature * All feature points given a 250m radius buffer * 3 Points (Recreation is a cultural use strongly tied to the Escarpment, Welland Canal and Values Niagara River, and contributes significantly to tourism and the region's economy. Without these natural resources, there would be a dramatically attraction for recreation in the region) Bruce Trail Major Corridor * Bruce trail given a 250m buffer * 3 Points Other Trails Minor Corridor * Trails given a 100m buffer * 1 Point

Community Centres Minor Corridor * All feature points given a 250m radius buffer * 1 Point Wineries Major Corridor * Full parcel drawn, not point data * 3 Points (Wineries depend on the unique microclimate of the Fruit Belt; therefore, they represent the cultural use of the Escarpment landform)

Festivals Minor Corridor * All feature points given a 250m radius buffer * 1 Point G1: Viewsheds Viewpoints: High visibility and accessibility Major Point * All feature points given a 250m radius buffer * 3 Points (Viewpoints are situated at places associated with cultural use of a landform (such as an outcrop or valley) Viewpoints: Low visibility and accessibility Minor Point * All feature points given a 250m radius buffer * 1 Point Important Viewsheds Major Cultural Area * 3 Points (Viewsheds are created by the cultural use of natural landforms) Case Study Results

Final Synthesis Maps

Discussion

The landscape analysis show that the Niagara River and Niagara Escarpment are highly valuable biocultural resources; however, according to this study the Welland Canal and Lake Ontario Shoreline are less so. This may be due to the singular focus of the Welland Canal, and the relative inaccessibility of the shoreline, respectively. If it is desirable that these resources be conserved, individual site-specific heritage strategies may help identify more detailed connections to local heritage, and how to exploit these connections for community gain.

Map H2 is the final product of the testing methodology. What is the utility of this map, and how is this map to be used? First, this map may be used as a discussion piece between heritage stakeholders in the region. From a development perspective, regional municipalities can use this map to direct heritage studies as necessary; for example, a proposed development in a core or buffer region may require a more extensive heritage study and stricter protection methods than a similar proposal in the zone of cooperation.

Stricter visual guidelines may also be enforced by the municipality in core and buffer zones. The integration of this map into an Official Plan could be easily achieved by using a zoning overlay system as employed in Wisconsin (Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission 2010). This map may also be used to advocate for the expansion of the NEPA to cover key heritage resources associated with the Escarpment, such as archaeological clusters south of the cuesta, and the Niagara River corridor that extends south and north of the planning area.

Future Research

Opportunities for future research include the refinement of the methodology through additional case studies along the Escarpment. The end product of the methodology is highly dependent on how the input layers are valued at the outset of the study; therefore, testing different value rankings and consulting with stakeholders is vital to refine the ranking system and to establish a more defensible methodology.

The regional municipal borders along the Niagara Escarpment are also resources, although less clearly defined than an international border. One of the consequences of municipal borders is a notable change in land use as a result of a different planning regime, such as a change from rural to urban. The transboundary nature of the Escarpment means that it is both urban and rural, however it is primarily conceived of as a rural landscape: the 1976 Landscape Evaluation Study did not even attempt to evaluate urban landscapes. However, the cultural use of the Escarpment in urban areas is just as important as in rural areas.

Municipal borders are a resource because they promote cultural diversity (a mandate of the Man and the Biosphere Programme) along the Escarpment. The different municipal policies on land use, density, intensity of development and character of industry are the main drivers for these regional differences. Further study is needed to understand the complex relationships between cultural use, municipal planning policy, and cultural diversity in the Niagara Escarpment Bioregion.