DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysing Data on Protected Areas Work in Progress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysing Data on Protected Areas Work in Progress The OECD is developing a method to report a more detailed and harmonised account of countries’ terrestrial and marine protected areas. It applies a harmonised methodology to data from the World Database on Protected Areas. Analysing data on protected areas WORK IN PROGRESS CONTACT Head of Division Nathalie Girouard [email protected] Senior Economist Ivan Haščič [email protected] Statisticians Alexander Mackie [email protected] and Sarah Sentier [email protected] Communications Clara Tomasini [email protected] Image credits: Dormitor Park by Thomas Maluck, Flickr/CC licence. UNSDG. Perereca de folhagem Moisés Silva Lima Flickr/CC Licence. Icon TheNounProject.com http://oe.cd/env-data 2 December 2016 International goals Methodology THE WORLD DATABASE ON PROTECTED AREAS The OECD is developing an improved method to The OECD’s indicators are based on data Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) generate more detailed indicators on protected from the World Database on Protected Areas and its World Commission on Protected areas, both terrestrial and marine, for countries (WDPA), which is a geospatial database of Areas (WCPA). across the world. terrestrial and marine protected areas. The WDPA is updated monthly. It contains The WDPA is managed by the United information on more than 200 000 It applies a harmonised methodology to data Nations Environment Programme’s World protected areas. from the World Database on Protected Areas. Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- WCMC) with support from the International CATEGORIES OF MANAGEMENT By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and The World Database on Protected Areas lists z Ia Strict Nature Reserve marine areas, consistent with national and international protected areas designated at national (IUCN z Ib Wilderness Area law and based on best available scientific information. categories I-VI), regional (e.g. the European z II National Park Natura 2000 networks) or international Sustainable development goal 14.5 (e.g. biosphere reserves) levels. The first z III Natural Monument United Nations Development Programme IUCN categories are more motivated by the z IV Habitat/Species Management Area preservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, z V Protected Landscape/Seascape and the latter are more intended as live-in z VI Protected area with sustainable use areas. Importantly, these categories only of natural resources. Take urgent and significant action to reduce the inform on management objectives, not on z No IUCN category degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of how effective the management actually is. biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent z Regional or international designation. the extinction of threatened species. ACCOUNTING FOR OVERLAPS Sustainable development goal 15.5 Some protected areas are reported under The OECD followed the same method, with United Nations Development Programme several management categories. For example, three refinements: areas of a national park can be reported as z It also includes protected areas smaller both Ia - Strict Nature Reserve and II - National than 100 km2. Park. Simply adding up the categories could z It reports separately on nationally and By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland make protected areas seem larger. water areas and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, regionally or internationally designated The Digital Observatory for Protected Areas protected areas. especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity (DOPA), a project funded by the European z Protected areas reported less precisely and ecosystem services, are conserved [...] Commission’s Joint Research Center, reports as points (for example, estimated as a areas exclusive of any overlapping more Aichi Target 11 of the Convention of Biological Diversity 50 km2 buffer around a specific point) strictly protected areas. are accounted for separately. 2 3 PRELIMINARY RESULTS PRELIMINARY RESULTS 54% Slovenia 88% Terrestrial Poland Marine Germany 45% protected Slovak Rep* protected Greece areas New Zealand areas Brazil Pristine wilderness or lived-in UK Marine protected areas are charted natural parks? This chart Austria* as a share of each country’s gives a synoptic view of how Spain exclusive economic zone (EEZ). protected areas are used France The figures presented here in different countries. Belgium summarise protection only within Hungary* national jurisdictions (EEZ). Countries are ranked by the Globally, about 4% of oceans are terrestrial area protected in Portugal protected (UNEP-WCMC). categories Ia to IV. Such analysis Czech Rep* by IUCN category was not Chile The variation is striking between previously available. Italy Iceland, Norway, India and Saudi Arabia, where less than 1% of the EEZ In countries like Poland, Germany, Costa Rica Israel are designated as protected areas, Slovenia and the United Kingdom, and Australia, Germany and New Estonia the majority of protected areas are Zealand on the other, with more than Japan nationally designated under IUCN 25% of their EEZ. category V, which is primarily Luxembourg* Some countries, such as the United concerned with landscape Latvia States, France, Australia and the conservation, whereas Estonia, Iceland United Kingdom, have extensive Finland, Sweden and the United Norway small-island overseas territories, that States have a notable amount Australia 40% of near-pristine wilderness. are often rich in marine biodiversity. Lithuania Other countries, like Ireland, use They are reported separately (and not mainly regional and international Denmark included in this graph). designations such as Natura 2000. Finland Sweden Ia - Strict natural reserve Ireland Nationally designated Ib - Wilderness area Colombia marine protected area II - National park China Additional area with III - Natural monument United States regional or international designation IV Habitat/Species Netherlands management area * Landlocked country V, VI or no category Indonesia Additional area with regional South Africa or international designation Mexico Source: OECD calculations based Aichi target Argentina on April 2016 version of WDPA. Canada 4 Russia 5 Korea Switzerland* India Saudi Arabia Turkey 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Historical patterns Interpretation and limitations Between 1970 and 2010, new terrestrial protected areas were The World Database on Protected Areas is the most comprehensive designated at a consistently high rate. Designation of marine protected global database on protected areas. However, it is neither complete nor areas was slow until 2000. Since then, they increased by more than perfectly accurate, depending on country submissions. 10 million square kilometres, which is approximately the size of Canada. 14 z z Marine protected areas IUCN categories are not intended as a Occasionally, large areas are recorded Designation of protected areas Regional or 2 ) 12 hierarchical system. They do indicate, as points (for example, 50 km around 2 in OECD and G20 countries international designation No IUCN category to some extent, what activities are specific GPS coordinates) or are not permitted in the area, the likely associated with an IUCN category. 10 VI - Protected area with sustainable use of pristineness of the ecosystem and natural resources z Results may not fully align with 8 the likely motivation for biodiversity V - Protected landscape summaries published elsewhere, or seascape protection. because there are often differences 6 IV - Habitat/Species z Some of the “no-category” may meet in country coverage, in how country management area III - Natural monument the definition of a specific IUCN, even territories are defined, and in what Protected area coverage (millions of km area Protected 4 though they are not recorded as such. types of protected areas designations II - National park are included in these analyses. z Categories do not give any indication 2 of the actual level of protection and Ib - Wilderness area Ia - Strict natural reserve management effectiveness of these areas. 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 Historical data can also give an overview of individual countries’ approaches. Brazil, for example, designated protected areas quite recently. Relatively little of this very biodiverse country is strictly protected. The United States figure shows the recent expansion of its national marine protected areas. Next steps Designation of protected areas Designation of protected areas 30 in Brazil in the United States The method for analysing protected areas data presented here has recently been used in 25 some OECD Environmental Performance Reviews and other environmental policy research. 20 The indicator and related working paper will be published in 2017, on OECD.Stat and OECD 15 iLibrary. They will be included in the forthcoming Green Growth Indicators report. 10 Combining the information on protected areas with other geospatial datasets will allow to % land area or EEZ area % land area 5 refine these indicators, to show sub-national summaries (by state or region); indicators by 0 land cover or ecosystem type. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 Source: OECD calculations based on April 2016 version of WDPA. 6 PRELIMINARY RESULTS 7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 11 the Natural Ecological Value of Wilderness
    204 h The Multiple Values of Wilderness USDA Forest Service. (2002).National and regional project results: 2002 National Chapter 11 Forest Visitor Use Report. Retrieved February 1,2005. from http:Nwww.fs.fed.usl recreation/pmgrams/nvum/ The Natural Ecological Value USDA Forest Service. (200 1). National und regional project results: FY2001 National Foresr ViorUse Report. Retrieved February 1,2005, from http:llwww.fs.fed.usI of Wilderness recreation/pmgrams/nvum/ USDA Forest Service. (2000).National and regional project results: CY20a) Notional Fowst Visitor Use Repor?. Retrieved February 1,2005, from http://www.fs.fed.usl recreation/programs/nvud H. Ken Cordell Senior Research Scientist and Project Leader Vias. A.C. (1999). Jobs folIow people in the nual Rocky Mountain west. Rural Devel- opmenr Perspectives, 14(2), 14-23. USDA Forest Service, Athens, Georgia Danielle Murphy j Research Coordinator, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia Kurt Riitters Research Scientist USDA Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina J. E, Harvard Ill former University of Georgia employee Authors' Note: Deepest appreciation is extended to Peter Landres of the Leopold Wilderness Research Institute for initial ideas for approach, data. and analysis and for a thorough and very helpful review of this chapter. Chapter I I-The Natural Ecological Value of Wilderness & 207 The most important characteristic of an organism is that capacity modem broad-scale external influences, such as nonpoint source pollutants. for self-renewal known QS hcaltk There are two organisms whose - processes of self-renewal have been subjected to human interfer- altered distribution of species, and global climate change (Landres, Morgan ence and control.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Wilderness Within IUCN
    Article for the International Journal of Wilderness, to be published in 2009 Defining wilderness in IUCN Nigel Dudley, Cyril F. Kormos, Harvey Locke and Vance G. Martin The IUCN protected area classification system describes and defines a suite of protected area categories and management approaches suitable for each category, ranging from strictly protected “no-go” reserves to landscape protection and non-industrial sustainable use areas. Wilderness has its own protected area category under IUCN’s classification system, Category Ib, which describes the key objectives of wilderness protection and, more importantly, identifies the limits of what is and is not acceptable in such areas. At the 2008 World Conservation Congress, a new edition of management guidelines for the IUCN categories (Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, Dudley 2008) was published following long consultation. Guidance for wilderness protection is now more detailed and precise than in the previous 1994 edition, and as a result will help further the application of this category around the world. We describe the revisions to the new guidelines generally, and some of the implications for wilderness protected areas specifically. Wilderness areas and protected areas The term “wilderness” has several dimensions: a biological dimension, because wilderness refers to mainly ecologically intact areas, and a social dimension, because many people – from urban dwellers to indigenous groups – interact with wild nature, and all humans depend on our planet’s wilderness resource to varying degrees. A wilderness protected area is therefore an area that is mainly biologically intact, is free of modern, industrial infrastructure, and has been set aside so that humans may continue to have a relationship with wild nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctica's Wilderness Has Declined to the Exclusion of Biodiversity
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/527010; this version posted January 22, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Antarctica’s wilderness has declined to the exclusion of biodiversity Rachel I. Leihy1, Bernard W.T. Coetzee2, Fraser Morgan3, Ben Raymond4, Justine D. Shaw5, Aleks Terauds4, and Steven L. Chown1 1School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia. 2Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3Landcare Research New Zealand, Private Bag 92170, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. 4Australian Antarctic Division, Department of the Environment and Energy, 203 Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania 7050, Australia. 5School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Queensland 4072, Australia. Recent assessments of the biodiversity value of Earth’s dwindling wilderness areas1,2 have emphasized the whole of Antarctica as a crucial wilderness in need of urgent protection3. Whole-of-continent designations for Antarctic conservation remain controversial, however, because of widespread human impacts and frequently used provisions in Antarctic law for the designation of specially protected areas to conserve wilderness values, species and ecosystems4,5. Here we investigate the extent to which Antarctica’s wilderness encompasses its biodiversity. We assembled a comprehensive record of human activity on the continent (~ 2.7 million localities) and used it to identify unvisited areas ≥ 10 000 km2 (1,6-8) (i.e. Antarctica’s wilderness areas) and their representation of biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Kaibab National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Kaibab National Forest Forest Service Southwestern Potential Wilderness Area Region September 2013 Evaluation Report The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo: Kanab Creek Wilderness Kaibab National Forest Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas .................................................................................................. 2 Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Histories of Protected Areas: Internationalisation of Conservationist Values and Their Adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia)
    Histories of Protected Areas: Internationalisation of Conservationist Values and their Adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia) PAUL JEPSON* AND ROBERT J. WHITTAKER School of Geography and the Environment University of Oxford Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TB, UK *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT National parks and wildlife sanctuaries are under threat both physically and as a social ideal in Indonesia following the collapse of the Suharto New Order regime (1967–1998). Opinion-makers perceive parks as representing elite special interest, constraining economic development and/or indigenous rights. We asked what was the original intention and who were the players behind the Netherlands Indies colonial government policy of establishing nature ‘monu- ments’ and wildlife sanctuaries. Based on a review of international conservation literature, three inter-related themes are explored: a) the emergence in the 1860– 1910 period of new worldviews on the human-nature relationship in western culture; b) the emergence of new conservation values and the translation of these into public policy goals, namely designation of protected areas and enforcement of wildlife legislation, by international lobbying networks of prominent men; and 3) the adoption of these policies by the Netherlands Indies government. This paper provides evidence that the root motivations of protected area policy are noble, namely: 1) a desire to preserve sites with special meaning for intellectual and aesthetic contemplation of nature; and 2) acceptance that the human conquest of nature carries with it a moral responsibility to ensure the survival of threatened life forms. Although these perspectives derive from elite society of the American East Coast and Western Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, they are international values to which civilised nations and societies aspire.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World
    STEWARDSHIP Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World BY CAROL MILLER everal strategies are available for reducing accumu- results from either human or natural causes, and the man- lated forest fuels and their associated risks, including agement objective is to stop the spread of the fire and S naturally or accidentally ignited wildland fires, man- extinguish it at the least cost (USDA and USDI 2001). In agement ignited prescribed fires, and a variety of mechanical some cases, concerns about firefighter safety and suppres- and chemical methods (Omi 1996). However, a combina- sion costs will result in a less aggressive suppression tion of policy, law, philosophy, and logistics suggest there is response to a wildfire, with features of the landscape being a more limited set of fuels man- used to allow fire to burn within a designated area. WFU is agement activities that are the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to pro- appropriate in wilderness (Bryan tect, maintain, and enhance resources in predefined areas 1997; Parsons and Landres 1998; outlined in fire management plans (USDA and USDI 2001). Nickas 1998). Naturally ignited The management objective is to allow fire, as nearly as pos- wildland fires is the commonly sible, to function in its natural ecological role. In some cases, preferred fuels management strat- certain suppression tactics might be used with WFU to pro- egy in wilderness (Miller 2003), tect life, property, or specific values of concern. Recently, with management-ignited pre- there has been discussion about effectively dissolving the scribed fire being considered in distinction between wildfire and WFU, and managing all some cases (Landres et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Protection at Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Open Access Master's Theses 2020 STEALTH SANCTUARY: THE CHALLENGE OF PROTECTION AT STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY Clea Harrelson University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses Recommended Citation Harrelson, Clea, "STEALTH SANCTUARY: THE CHALLENGE OF PROTECTION AT STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY" (2020). Open Access Master's Theses. Paper 1834. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/1834 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STEALTH SANCTUARY: THE CHALLENGE OF PROTECTION AT STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY BY CLEA HARRELSON A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF THE ARTS IN MARINE AFFAIRS UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 2020 MASTER OF ARTS IN MARINE AFFAIRS THESIS OF CLEA HARRELSON APPROVED: Thesis Committee: Major Professor Amelia Moore Tracey Dalton Rod Mather Nasser H. Zawia DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 2020 ABSTRACT Centuries of exploitation in marine areas have negatively impacted the biomass, diversity, and function of marine habitats and life on a global scale. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly relied upon as a conservation strategy to address the degradation of marine resources in the U.S., but research on the social context that shapes protection of these marine spaces remains sparse. This study explores protection through the evolution of the people and groups who use the marine resources within MPAs and those who manage MPAs over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan for the Shoshone National Forest
    Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan Shoshone National Forest Clocktower Creek and Wapiti Ridge, Washakie Wilderness Prepared by: /s/ Greg Bevenger __________________________________ Greg Bevenger, Air Program Manager Recommended by: /s/ Bryan Armel ______________________________________________ Bryan Armel, Resources Staff Officer Recommended by: /s/ Loren Poppert ______________________________________________ Loren Poppert, Recreation Staff Officer Approved by: /s/ Rebecca Aus ______________________________________________ Rebecca Aus, Forest Supervisor May 2010 Wilderness Air Quality Value Plan Introduction Background As part of the USDA Forest Service effort to better understand and monitor wilderness areas, the agency has adopted the 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge (Forest Service 2005). The 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship Challenge was developed by the Chief’s Wilderness Advisory Group (WAG) as a quantifiable measurement of the Forest Service’s success in wilderness stewardship. The goal identified by the Wilderness Advisory Group, and endorsed by the Chief, is to bring each wilderness under Forest Service management to a minimum stewardship level by the year 2014, the fiftieth anniversary of the Wilderness Act. The Challenge was initiated in fiscal year 2005. The Challenge contains ten items that highlight elements of wilderness stewardship. These elements are 1) the natural role of fire, 2) invasive plants, 3) air quality, 4) education, 5) protection of recreational opportunities, 6) recreational site inventory, 7) outfitters
    [Show full text]
  • The International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation
    PARKS The International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation Developing capacity for a protected planet Issue 19.1: March 2013 2 IUCN PROTECTED AREA DEFINITION, MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES AND GOVERNANCE TYPES IUCN DEFINES A PROTECTED AREA AS: A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. The definition is expanded by six management categories VI Protected areas with sustainable use of natural (one with a sub-division), summarized below. resources: Areas which conserve ecosystems, together Ia Strict nature reserve: Strictly protected for biodiversity with associated cultural values and traditional natural and also possibly geological/ geomorphological features, resource management systems. Generally large, mainly in where human visitation, use and impacts are controlled a natural condition, with a proportion under sustainable and limited to ensure protection of the conservation natural resource management and where low-level non- values. industrial natural resource use compatible with nature Ib Wilderness area: Usually large unmodified or slightly conservation is seen as one of the main aims. modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human The category should be based around the primary habitation, protected and managed to preserve their management objective(s), which should apply to at least natural condition. three-quarters of the protected area – the 75 per cent rule. II National park: Large natural or near-natural areas protecting large-scale ecological processes with characteristic species and ecosystems, which also have The management categories are applied with a typology of environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, governance types – a description of who holds authority and scientific, educational, recreational and visitor responsibility for the protected area.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of International Commitments in Central and Eastern European Countries
    ‘On the Road to Kyiv’ Implementation of international commitments in Central and Eastern European countries CEEWEB May 2003 Contributors Bulgaria Green Balkans Croatia Jagoda Munic, Green Action Irma Popovic Tomislav Tomasevic Czech Republic Mojmir Vlasin, Ecological Institute Veronica of Czech Union for Nature Conservation Hungary Eszter Bokodi CEEWEB Klára Hajdu CEEWEB Anna Iványi CEEWEB András Krolopp CEEWEB Latvia Latvian Fund for Nature Lithuania Rūta Vaičiūnaitė, Lithuanian Fund for Nature Poland Andrzej Kepel, The Polish Society for Nature Protection "Salamandra" Przemysław Wylegała, The Polish Society for Nature Protection "Salamandra" Romania Márton Kelemen, Milvus Group Tamás Papp, Milvus Group Slovakia Dr. Jaromír Šíbl, BROZ (Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development) Slovenia Anamarija Slabe, Institute for Sustainable Development Ariana Lucija Tratar Supan, Institute for Sustainable Development Katja Poboljsaj, Herpetological Society Nejc Jogan, Biological Society The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the policies or opinions of the REC. The REC assumes no liability, expressed or implied, arising out of the activities of any of its grantees. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................... 6 BULGARIA.................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Planning and Perceptions Of
    WILDERNESS PLANNING AND PERCEPTIONS OF WILDERNESS IN NEW SOUTH WALES ALISON JEAN RAMSAY Master of Town Planning University of New South Wales 1994 UNIVERSITY OF N.S.W. 2 4 MAR 1335 LIBRARIES CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement is made in the text. (Signed) ABSTRACT Wilderness is still a controversial issue in New South Wales, despite the enactment of the NSW Wilderness Act in 1987 which gave a legislative basis to wilderness as a land use in New South Wales. Although there have been many studies of attitudes to wilderness and wilderness users in United States, there have been few such studies in Australia and none which have questioned the public's perception of what is wilderness and how it should be managed. The aim of this study was to review the history of wilderness planning in New South Wales, to examine how closely public perceptions of wilderness coincide with wilderness legislation, and to determine whether perceptions of wilderness are influenced by factors such as age, education, previous bushwalking experience or place of residence. Surveys were undertaken of almost 200 visitors to four wilderness areas in Kosciusko and Morton National Parks in New South Wales and to two areas in national parks which were not wilderness, one in Kosciusko National Park and one in Sydney Harbour National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in Australia
    TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN AUSTRALIA 2002 SUMMARY STATISTICS FROM THE COLLABORATIVE AUSTRALIAN PROTECTED AREAS DATABASE (CAPAD) Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2003 Published by: Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Citation: Environment Australia, 2003. Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in Australia: 2002 Summary Statistics from the Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD), The Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from Department of the Environment and Heritage. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Assistant Secretary Parks Australia South Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601. The views and opinions expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Minister for Environment and Heritage, or the Director of National Parks. Copies of this publication are available from: National Reserve System National Reserve System Section Department of the Environment and Heritage GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 or online at http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/capad/index.html For further information: Phone: (02) 6274 1111 Acknowledgments: The editors would like to thank all those officers from State, Territory and Commonwealth agencies who assisted to help compile and action our requests for information and help. This assistance is highly appreciated and without it and the cooperation and help of policy, program and GIS staff from all agencies this publication would not have been possible. An additional huge thank you to Jason Passioura (ERIN, Department of the Environment and Heritage) for his assistance through the whole compilation process.
    [Show full text]