SOUTH OKANAGAN - LOWER SIMILKAMEEN - UBC SCARP · PDF filerepresenting the Sylix speaking...
Transcript of SOUTH OKANAGAN - LOWER SIMILKAMEEN - UBC SCARP · PDF filerepresenting the Sylix speaking...
SOUTH OKANAGAN -
LOWER SIMILKAMEEN
NATIONAL PARK RESERVE PROPOSAL
POLICY ANALYSIS, NOVEMBER 2015 - PREPARED FOR TIM MCDANIELS, PLAN 525
EMILY GRAY, JESSICA HAYES, PAUL HILLSDON, ALLISON LASOCHA, DUSTIN LUPICK
ABSTRACT THE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY ANALYSIS IS TO IDENTIFY LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SOUTH
OKANAGAN REGION. SINCE 2002, A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN CREATED, INCLUDING
SOME THAT WISH TO DESIGNATE PARTS OF THE AREA AS NATIONAL PARK. THIS HAS BEEN A CON-
TROVERSIAL PROCESS, INVOLVING MANY STAKEHOLDERS WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITIES. CURRENT-
LY IN A STALEMATE, A FORMAL PROCESS IS NEEDED TO CREATE A STRUCTURED DECISION FRAME-
WORK. THIS CASE USES STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING TO OUTLINE HOW THIS QUESTION MIGHT
BE ANSWERED. STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS INVOLVING FRAMING
THE DECISION CONTEXT AND CREATING OBJECTIVES; THEN FORMULATING ACTIONS AND ALTER-
NATIVES. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY EXAMINING CONSEQUENCES AND TRADEOFFS, LEADING TO A
RECOMMENDATION BEING MADE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE PROCESS. FIVE FUNDAMENTAL
OBJECTIVES ARE IDENTIFIED AND THE CASE EXAMINES FOUR ALTERNATIVES, RANGING FROM CRE-
ATING A NATIONAL PARK, TO MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO. THE ALTERNATIVES ARE EXAMINED IN
RELATION TO HOW THEY INFLUENCE THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES. WITH THIS INFORMATION,
A RECOMMENDATION CAN BE PUT FORWARD. BASED ON THE RESEARCH, A SMALLER NATIONAL
PARK IS VIEWED AS THE ALTERNATIVE THAT BEST MEETS THE OBJECTIVES.
WHAT IS THE BEST LAND
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
FOR THE SOUTH OKANAGAN?
PLAN 525 - South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve Proposal2
Introduction and History
Stakeholder Table (Figure 1)
Draft Park Concept 2006, 2010 (Figures 2, 3)
Influences
Influence Diagram (Figure 4)
Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
Means-Ends Diagram (Figure 5)
Actions and Alternatives
Strategy Table (Figure 6)
Consequences
Consequence Table (Figure 7)
Conclusions and Reflections
Bibliography
Content
4 - 5
5
12 - 13
6
6
7 - 9
8
10 - 11
11
12 - 13
13
14
15
INTRODUCTION & HISTORY As Parks Canada states: “identifying, selecting,
and establishing new national parks can be a long and
complex process” (2009., Introduction). The action of set-
ting aside a large tract of land for conservation involves
not only environmental considerations, but also those
within the economic, social, and cultural spheres (Kopas,
2007). Restricting development, recreation, agricultural,
and other such uses significantly impacts the economy,
society, and identity of a region. Further, as with any com-
plex planning problem, it stimulates both public support
and opposition. There are “landscapes, species, ecosys-
tems, livelihoods, and communities at stake” (Kreitzman,
2015). For these reasons, the proposal for establishment
of a national park in the South Okanagan-Lower Similka-
meen (SOLS) region of British Columbia (BC) can be con-
sidered an important planning problem, highly relevant
to planning and policy analysis in contemporary contexts.
In a Canadian context, national parks have a
prominent and important place in history. Parks Canada,
previously the Dominion Parks Branch, is considered the
world’s first national park service and has been instrumen-
tal in shaping the place of nature within Canadian identity
(Campbell, 2011). Additionally, contemporary concerns
for environmental conservation lend themselves to sup-
port the setting aside of land through park establishment
for such purposes (Kopas, 2007, p. 30). Yet, as mentioned
above, park establishment impacts not only the environ-
ment but also the society, economy, culture, and identity
of a region. This warrants the use of a decision making
process with the capacity to actively and equally consid-
er the impacts to all parties involved. Thus, based on the
structured decision making (SDM) framework proposed
by Gregory et al. in their book, Structured Decision Mak-
ing, and online through www.strucutreddecisionmaking.
org, this project sought to address the question: What
is the best alternative regarding the South Okanagan -
Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve proposal?
This policy analysis paper summarizes that process.
The SOLS is located within the Interior Dry Pla-
teau, one of 39 landscapes designated by Parks Canada
to guide park development goals in Canada (Parks Can-
ada, n.d., Introduction). It is one of Canada’s richest areas
of biodiversity, hosting 55 endangered and threatened
species, and acting as an important wildlife conduit be-
tween the northern grasslands and the American deserts
(Echeverri, McGlenn, Mill, and Wong, 2015; Environment
Canada, 2000). The need for formal conservation of this
region was first articulated by local community members
and the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) in response to
their perception of “encroachment by people who have
a different view of utilizing the land and the resources”
(Sylix Working Group, 2012, Foreword). The ONA is a gov-
ernment body comprised of eight member communities
representing the Sylix speaking peoples of the Okana-
gan, and is one of the key stakeholders in this issue (see
Figure 1).
In 2002, the ONA and some local concern was
enough to convince then Prime Minister, Jean Chretien,
of the need for a national park. Consequently, in 2004,
Parks Canada initiated an “iterative process of con-
sultation, design, evaluation, and refinement of a park
concept” to assess the feasibility of creating a national
park in the SOLS (Parks Canada, 2011, p.6). In 2006, this
feasibility report released the first draft national park
concept for the SOLS. The concept included 650 km2
of parkland contained in three distinct areas, centered
in the north around Vaseux Lake, the east around the
South Okanagan Grasslands, and in the west, encom-
passing and expanding upon Cathedral Lakes Provincial
Park, termed the Snowy Protected Area (see Figure 2,
p.12). Resoundingly, this draft was rejected by the locals
concerned about the impacts on sheep and wilderness
hunting in the Snowy Protected Area. The Lower Similka-
meen Indian Band also opposed the draft boundaries
citing inadequate consultation, fears of increased traffic
through reserve lands for park access, and restrictions
on their traditional use of the lands (Echeverri, McGlenn,
Mill, and Wong, 2015; Parks Canada, 2011). Following this,
PLAN 525 - South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve Proposal4
Parks Canada initiated a socio-economic assessment
and committed to more intensive collaboration with the
ONA and with local communities hoping to resolve the
boundary issue (Kreitzman, Kaplan-Hallam, Cohen and
Cyr, 2015). In 2010, a new park concept was released,
scaled down to 284 km2 by entirely eliminating the con-
troversial Snowy Protected Area to the west (see Figure
3, p.13). The Parks Canada Feasibility Assessment was re-
leased in 2011, endorsing this revised concept alongside
a commitment to continuing collaboration with the ONA
and an adaptive management plan for ranching in the
park, which included provisions for some continued graz-
ing within the new boundaries. This was followed in 2012
by the release of the ONA’s own feasibility assessment,
which reached conclusions in favour of the revised na-
tional park, finding that the establishment contributed to
the protection of lands and cultural values, would not di-
minish Sylix title and rights, and supported collaborative
and consensus-based management by the Sylix people
and Parks Canada (Sylix Working Group).
Since the release of these assessments, there
has been much advocacy both for the establishment of a
national park and against it. Citing concerns over poten-
tial negative impacts on agriculture, hunting, and off-road
vehicle access, local resistance to the park has been out-
spoken, resulting in the perception that the majority of lo-
cals in the SOLS region oppose the park (Kreitzman, Ka-
plan-Hallam, Cohen and Cyr, 2015). Despite the fact that
opinion polls indicate that this is not the case (surveys
conducted in 2008, 2010, and 2015 indicate that support
has grown from 2:1 to 3:1 since 2008), Parks Canada has
been forced to postpone the park pending a provincial
review (Kreitzman, Kaplan-Hallam, Cohen and Cyr, 2015).
Currently, the issue is in the hands of B.C. Parks, who are
reviewing public input and will be posting a Consultation
Report in early 2016 (B.C. Ministry of Environment, 2015).
The provincial government has thus been charged with
the responsibility of deciding whether the park will pro-
ceed, as Parks Canada will not continue without the sup-
port of the province (Kreitzman, Kaplan-Hallam, Cohen
and Cyr, 2015). Notably, local newspapers have also been
reporting that Premier Christy Clark will not support the
park unless local Members of the Legislative Assembly,
Linda Larson and Dan Ashton, do so (see Figure 1, Stake-
holders) (McGuire, 2015).
Figure 1. South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen Park proposal stakeholders.
Pro-Park Anti-Park Undeclared
Parks Canada Ranching community (South-ern Interior Stockmen’s As-sociation)
B.C. government
Okanagan Nation Alliance Hunting community MLAs (Linda Larson and Dan Ashton)
Mayor of Osoyoos Mayor of Penticton Towns of Oliver, Kere-meos, Cawston
Local majority (3:1)* (led by the “SOLS National Park Network”)
Local minority (led by the “Grassland and Park Review Coalition”)
Canadian Parks and Wilder-ness Society
Thompson Okanagan Tour-ism Association
*Source: McAllister Opinion Research Poll 2015
To assist in defining the objectives for the
decision in question and to better understand the
possible effects of a South Okanagan Lower Si-
milkameen national park, an influence diagram has
been created (see Figure 4). The influence diagram
shows the expected relationships, causes, and ef-
fects (Gregory, Failing, Harstone, Long, McDaniels,
& Ohlson, 2012) of the introduction of a national
park. As shown in the above diagram, a national
park has the potential to create new land uses, af-
fect existing land uses, as well as impact the natural
habitat and traditional Aboriginal uses of the land,
including activities such as fishing, hunting and
preservation of cultural sites.
In terms of new land uses, a national park
would likely affect permitted recreational use of the
area as well as create new related developments,
such as an educational centre or commercial land
uses. These might, in turn, boost the local tourism
industry and create new local jobs. The creation of
a national park may also affect existing land uses,
including ranches and the helicopter training facil-
ity. Changes to these existing land uses would also
affect local jobs and thus, the local and regional
economy.
Further, the creation of a national park
would be expected to have a significant effect on
the region’s natural habitat and ecosystem, pro-
tecting it from development. This would likely
increase biodiversity and protect endangered
species. However, it is worth noting that climate
change, an outside influence, may also significantly
affect these dynamics. Lastly, the creation of a na-
tional park may influence traditional Aboriginal uses
of the land, which is tied to the natural habitat and
Aboriginal rights.
The influence diagram results in four key is-
sues being identified for consideration in the next
step, identifying objectives. These considerations
include the desire to expand recreational activities,
promote economic benefits, protect ecosystem
health, and promote Aboriginal values.
INFLUENCES
Figure 4. Influence Diagram
PLAN 525 - South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve Proposal6
OBJECTIVES & EVALUATION Based on the influence diagram shown in the previous section, five main objectives are
outlined regarding the proposed South Okanagan Similkameen National Park. Objectives are used
to outline what is considered salient in the decision process, therefore these should not be ambigu-
ous. Objectives are the foundation for the formulation of strong alternatives and recommendations
(Gregory, Failing, Harstone, Long, McDaniels, & Ohlson, 2012). Without the inclusion of defined objec-
tives, the decision may ignore aspects of the question, which will cause concerns in the future. The
objectives and evaluating criteria are as follows:
1. Promote Aboriginal Values:
Maintaining a collaborative relationship with the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) and First
Nations communities is a key objective regarding the park proposal. The ONA were the first group to
bring forward a proposal regarding protection of the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area, and
their involvement as well as the promotion of their values, is crucial to a successful recommendation.
The evaluation criteria for Aboriginal values are defined as protecting Aboriginal cultural sites and
traditional activities, as well as respecting the land title rights in the area, along with future title rights.
This protection of future title rights remains integral in regards to promoting Aboriginal values. With-
out confirmation regarding the respect of future title rights, the ONA will not move forward with any
proposal. Parks Canada has stated that “traditional activities and the use of traditional knowledge will
be included in park planning and management” (Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee for
Ministerial Approval, 2011, 4). This objective has been separated from ‘Promote Community well-be-
ing’, because under this decision context the ONA community will have different interests and values
than the larger community which composes the entire region.
2. EnhanceEconomicBenefits:
For a majority of the stakeholders, with the possible exception of environmental groups, enhancing economic
benefits is a foundational objective. The economic benefits will be evaluated in terms of GDP projections,
as well as jobs created. The below diagram (Figure 5) outlines the means and ends for economic benefit.
A means- ends diagram is used to demonstrate how a fundamental objective is decided (Gregory, Failing,
Harstone, Long, McDaniels, & Ohlson, 2012, 73). One way to enhance economic benefits will be to build new
tourist infrastructure. When new infrastructure is built, construction projects will have to be initiated, leading to
an increase in job opportunities in the area. The increase in job opportunities corresponds with the evaluation
criteria for enhancing economic benefit. Moreover, by increasing tourist infrastructure, more tourists will be
drawn to the area and become users of the new infrastructure, providing greater economic benefits. Increas-
ing tourist infrastructure would be considered a ‘means objective’, because it is the action taken to reach the
‘fundamental objective’, which in this case is the overall increase of economic benefit.
3. Preserve Ecosystem Health:
Part of Parks Canada’s mandate when proposing a new National Park is to protect biodiversity, and conserve land
(Canada Heritage, 1997). To differing degrees, this belief is held by all stakeholders involved in the decision process.
The health of the ecosystem will be evaluated by the hectares of land that will be placed under federal protec-
tion, as well as the number of species protected therein. Ecosystem health is a challenging objective because it
depends on the uncertainties of larger climate change issues. Going forward, the evaluation criteria may change as
the effects of climate change become more discernable and prevalent. Regardless of this, a fundamental concern
regarding the protection of the ecosystem is maintained in this context.
Figure 5. Means-Ends Diagram
PLAN 525 - South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve Proposal8
4. Enhance Recreational Activity:
Presently, recreational opportunities in the region include hiking, camping, hunting, ATVing, and horseback riding,
among others. Depending on which alternative for land management is chosen, certain activities may be prohibited
in this area, while others may become more heavily promoted. Evaluation criteria that will be suggestive of a change
in recreational activity include the increase or decrease of trail networks inside the proposed park land, and future
potential for added recreation opportunities not currently offered in the region. Although the measurement of fu-
ture recreational activity is vague, with further examination of recreational trends at the regional and national level,
different activities that fit the geography and culture of the area may be introduced. Over the long term, these ac-
tivities will increase recreational activity as a whole. The recreational activities which will be introduced or removed
from the area is dependent upon which recommendation is chosen, because each alternative will have different
regulations regarding which recreational activities can take place in the area.
5. Promote Community Well Being:
Though difficult to measure, promoting community well-being is an essential independent objective. This is a sepa-
rate objective because there is the possibility for all other objectives to be met, while the community as a whole
remains unsatisfied. The communities affected by the proposed park are comparably small, and whichever decision
is made will change the community’s overall identity and makeup. For example, if economic benefits are observed,
but the community’s opinions are fragmented regarding how the economy is being affected, then this objective
will not be met. Community well-being could be quantified through a poll, asking citizens to vote on whether they
are happy with the decision that has been made. As well, post hoc, a second survey can be conducted to evaluate
whether the community has had positive lasting effects as a result of the chosen alternative. However, it is impor-
tant to recognize that community well-being will always remain difficult to evaluate, due to the fact that certain
community members will always be the most vocal in regards to their position, and that solicitation of an entire
community’s ‘well-being’ is difficult to quantify.
The Okanagan-Similkameen is a varied,
fascinating landscape. It holds 30 percent of
Canada’s endangered species, from burrowing
owls to badgers, as well as endangered desert
plants. The area around Vaseux Lake is the
farthest north extension of the Great Basin
Desert, a “pocket desert” unique to Canada.
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer
These actions were then grouped into four alternatives through the use of a strategy table: Largest
National Park (2006 Proposal), Smaller National Park (2011 Proposal), Ecological Policies, and Status Quo.
The third alternative, Ecological Policies, strives to achieve the main ecological goals of the national park
proposal through alternative legislative or policy tools.
As demonstrated in the strategy table below (see Figure 6), some alternatives, such as the status
quo or ecological policies, do not include actions to meet some of the objectives. For example, Ecological
Policies does not include any actions regarding aboriginal values, economic benefits, or recreational activi-
ties, as those are beyond the scope of the alternative and help indicate that while this alternative would
meet ecological objectives, it would not meet the other goals as outlined.
ACTIONS & ALTERNATIVES From the five main objectives, a variety of potential actions that could be taken to achieve these
objectives were defined. The list of potential actions was initially broad in scope, and narrowed down with a
focus on actions within the context of a national park. The final list is as follows: 1. Promote Aboriginal values
a. Expansion of Aboriginal tourismb. Co-management of landc. Avoid impacts to traditional uses
2. Enhanceeconomicbenefitsa. New tourism infrastructureb. Promotion of areac. Support resource industriesd. Support residential or commercial development
3. Preserve ecosystem healtha. Preservation of landb. Research on ecologyc. Raise community awarenessd. Restoration or enhancement projects
4. Enhance recreational activitiesa. Expand trailsb. Establish winter recreation opportunitiesc. Create new campgrounds
5. Promote community well-being a. Nurture community identity and prideb. Support community cohesion
c. Build a legacy for future generations
PLAN 525 - South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve Proposal10
Strategy Table Aboriginal val-ues
Economic benefits
Ecosystem health
Recreational activities
Community well-being
Largest National Park
Expansion of Ab-original tourism
Co-management of land
Avoid impacts to traditional uses
New tourism infrastructure
Promotion of area
Support resource industries
Support residen-tial or commer-cial development
Preservation of land
Research on ecology
Raise community awareness
Restoration or enhancement projects
Expand trails
Establish winter recreation op-tions
Create new campgrounds
Nurture commu-nity identity and pride
Support commu-nity cohesion
Build a legacy for future genera-tions
Smaller National Park
Expansion of Ab-original tourism
Co-management of land
Avoid impacts to traditional uses
New tourism infrastructure
Promotion of area
Support resource industries
Support residen-tial or commer-cial development
Preservation of land
Research on ecology
Raise community awareness
Restoration or enhancement projects
Expand trails
Establish winter recreation op-tions
Create new campgrounds
Nurture commu-nity identity and pride
Support commu-nity cohesion
Build a legacy for future genera-tions
Ecological Policies
Expansion of Ab-original tourism
Co-management of land
Avoid impacts to traditional uses
New tourism infrastructure
Promotion of area
Support resource industries
Support residen-tial or commer-cial development
Preservation of land
Research on ecology
Raise community awareness
Restoration or enhancement projects
Expand trails
Establish winter recreation op-tions
Create new campgrounds
Nurture commu-nity identity and pride
Support commu-nity cohesion
Build a legacy for future genera-tions
Status Quo Expansion of Ab-original tourism
Co-management of land
Avoid impacts to traditional uses
New tourism infrastructure
Promotion of area
Support resource industries
Support residen-tial or commer-cial development
Preservation of land
Research on ecology
Raise community awareness
Restoration or enhancement projects
Expand trails
Establish winter recreation op-tions
Create new campgrounds
Nurture commu-nity identity and pride
Support commu-nity cohesion
Build a legacy for future genera-tions
Figure 6. Strategy Table
Figure 2. Draft Park Concept Boundaries, 2006
The next step of the decision making process involves estimating the consequences of the
alternatives proposed in the previous section. This analytical step is important as it outlines how each
alternative is expected to influence the stated objectives; it is not a value-based judgement but one
of fact (Gregory et al., 2012). A simple consequence table is shown below (Figure 7), to provide a quick
overview of the expected trade-offs between the four proposed alternatives.
According to the consequence table, the smaller national park alternative is expected to be
the most positive in terms of the five stated objectives. The originally proposed larger national park
is the second most positive alternative, though it is expected to decrease community well-being and
Aboriginal values. Even though research has shown that the regional community is largely in favour
of a national park, the original proposal was poorly received by First Nations communities as well as
ranchers and thus would likely decrease the general “community well-being” category. On the other
hand, the smaller national park proposal is actively supported by First Nations communities as well as
the majority of the local community and thus would be expected to increase community well-being
(Kreitzman, Kaplan-Hallam, Cohen & Cyr, 2015).
Going forward, a more detailed consequence table with numerical or scaling evaluations
would be useful. This would assist in differentiating the scale to which each alternative works towards
the stated objectives. For instance, both the smaller and larger national park alternative are expected
to increase economic benefits, ecosystem health and recreational activities, but the larger national
park may improve these objectives to a much greater extent than the smaller proposed park. Never-
theless, according to the consequence table, the smaller national park alternative is the most benefi-
cial in terms of the objectives.
CONSEQUENCES
PLAN 525 - South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve Proposal12
Consequence Table
Aboriginal values
Economic benefits
Ecosystem health
Recreational activities
Community well-being
Larger Nation-al Park
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
Smaller Na-tional Park
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
Ecological Policies
IncreaseMaintainDecrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintain
Decrease
IncreaseMaintainDecrease
IncreaseMaintainDecrease
Status Quo IncreaseMaintainDecrease
IncreaseMaintainDecrease
IncreaseMaintainDecrease
IncreaseMaintainDecrease
IncreaseMaintainDecrease
Figure 7. Consequence Table
Figure 3. Draft Park Concept
Boundaries, 2010
CONCLUSIONS & REFLECTIONS
What is the best alternative regarding the South Okanagan – Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve
proposal?
The recommended next steps in the planning process based on the results and findings of this study sug-
gests that the draft park concept proposed in 2011 with the smaller park boundaries appears to be the most
favourable option. This recommendation isl based on the fact that this alternative has best met each criterion
when evaluated through a Structured Decision Making (SDM) framework.
Though this case study has provided sufficient information to gain insight into the tradeoffs and decisions to
be made, there remains the need for analysts and stakeholder to carry things further in the next round of work.
For example, although the smaller national park option appears to be more suitable in comparison to the other
three alternatives, there remains the possibility for boundaries to be negotiated and revised if ever the national
park option were to move forward.
Given time and information constraints, this analysis offers a responsible overview of the key issues at stake in
this decision. However, due to the highly contentious nature of the numerous proposals and reports brought
forward over the years, it is of utmost importance and consideration that future decision makers take into
account the interdependencies of the human inhabitants of this land, their culture and histories, the area’s
resident wildlife and species at risk, as well as the sensitive and unique grassland ecosystem that these com-
munities occupy. The resulting complexity that arises from the interactions between each of these important
facets of the land will require further analysis, perhaps through a formalized SDM process.
Future decision-makers should remember that certain voices are often heard the loudest when it comes to
public consultation, and in many ways this has been the South Okanagan – Lower Similkameen National Park
Reserve’s greatest challenge to date. One must consider whether the costs of putting restrictions on certain
hunting and recreation activities through the establishment of a national park would necessarily outweigh
the other benefits brought to the region as a result of park implementation, such as jobs, tourism, community
pride, and ecological protection.
PLAN 525 - South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen National Park Reserve Proposal14
B.C. Ministry of Environment. (2015). Public comment invited on South Okanagan protected areas. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/
releases/2015ENV0052-001276
Campbell, C. (2011). A century of Parks Canada, 1911-2011. Retrieved from http://deslibris.ca/ID/443719
Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee for Ministerial Approval. (2011) Proposed National Park Reserve for the Okanagan-Lower Si-
milkameen: Overview of Findings and Outcomes (Feasibility Assessment). Parks Canada
Canada Heritage. (1997) The National Parks System Plan, 3rd Edition. Parks Canada
Echeverri, A., McGlenn, S., Mill, S., and J. Wong. (2015). Ecosystem services in the proposed National Park Reserve for the South Okanagan-
Lower Similkameen region. Retrieved from http://conciseresearch.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2015/07/ES-in-SOLS-NPR-final-version-1.pdf
Environment Canada. (2000). South Okanagan-Similkameen conservation program: A prospectus. Retrieved from http://www.soscp.org/
wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ SOSCP-Prospectus-Final2.pdf
Gregory, R., Failing, I., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., & Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental
management choices. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kopas, P. (2007). Taking the air: Ideas and change in Canada’s National Parks. Vancouver, B.C.: UBC Press.
Kreitzman, M. (2015). Not a walk in the park: Understanding parks, impacts, and creation process. Retrieved from http://chanslabviews.
blogspot.ca/2015/06/not-walk-in-park-we-learn-about.html
Kreitzman, M., Kaplan-Hallam, M., Cohen, Y., and A. Cyr. (2015). The South Okanagan-Similkameen Park proposal through an SES lens. Re-
trieved from http://concisere search.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2015/06/SOS-report-MM.pdf
McAllister Opinion Research. (2015). Public opinion study: Support for a National Park in the South Okanagan-Similkameen 2015. Retrieved
November 10 from https:// sosnationalpark.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/poll-briefing-note-final-2015-study.pdf
McGuire, R. (2015, June 24). Premier Clark gets earful on national park. Osoyoos Times. Retrieved from http://www.osoyoostimes.com/
premier-clark-gets-earful-on-national-park/
Parks Canada. (2009). Introduction. In National Parks System Plan. (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/v-g/nation/
nation1.aspx
Parks Canada. (2011). Proposed National Park Reserve for the Southern Okanagan-Lower Similkameen feasibility assessment: Overview
of findings and outcomes. Retrieved from http://cpawsbc.org/upload/South_Okanagan Similkameen_National_Park_Feasibility_Study.pdf
Sylix Working Group. (2012). Building a Sylix vision for protection: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.soscp.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2013/02/Assessing-Feasibility-Syilx-Final-Report.pdf
BIBLIOGRAPHY