Mainstreaming the Yukon Ecological and Landscape Classification Program Amy Law, MPA candidate School of Public Administration University of Victoria March 2015 Client: Nadele Flynn, Ecological and Landscape Classification Coordinator Department of Environment, Government of Yukon Supervisor: Dr. Lynda Gagne, CPA (CGA) School of Public Administration, University of Victoria Second Reader: Dr. Lindsay Tedds School of Public Administration, University of Victoria Chair: Dr. Richard Marcy School of Public Administration, University of Victoria 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As with most things in my life, I would not have successfully completed this project or degree without the support of my parents, David and Carol Law. My academic supervisor, Lynda Gagne, provided excellent insights and guidance through this process. Finally, I would like to thank Nadele Flynn for proposing this project on our first ski trip together in the White Pass. It has been an invaluable process for me to learn about resource management in Yukon; because of this project I will be an advocate for mainstreaming ELC in all of my future endeavours. [1-ii] 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION Ecological and Landscape Classification (ELC) is an approach to describing and mapping landscapes based on the integration of vegetation, climate, and soil information. This information can support a range of applications including land use planning, environmental assessment, forest management, land and resource development, habitat management, and risk assessments, as it provides an understanding of ecosystem interactions. ELC has a long history of use across Canada, but is a fairly new development in Yukon. This research supports the Yukon Government’s ELC Program by providing insight into resource managers’ perceptions about ELC, and determining whether the current program is satisfying their needs. It offers recommendations for encouraging the use of ELC products by resource managers, a process referred to as mainstreaming. Broadly speaking, the research addresses whether the ELC Program is meeting the strategic goals set out in Yukon Environment’s 2013 document, Yukon Ecological and Landscape Classification (ELC) Program: Five-Year Strategic Plan. To make this determination, the specific questions addressed in this research are:  To what extent and in what way do resource managers use the ELC products offered by the Yukon Government (see Appendix A)?  Do resource managers see additional or future uses for ELC products in their field?  What do resource managers need in order to integrate (or further integrate) ELC products into their practice or policy?  Are there ways for the ELC Program to encourage the adoption of ELC products by resource managers? 2.2 METHODS A literature review of three areas—program evaluation, ELC use across Canada, and marketing—and interviews of Yukon resource managers provide information to answer the above research objectives. Program evaluation, i.e. methods to determine if a program is meeting the needs of its users, supports the broad intention of this research to see whether the ELC Program is meeting its strategic goals (Appendix B). Examining how ELC is integrated in other Canadian jurisdictions provides a comparison for the approach that Yukon’s ELC Program has taken. It can help to identify potential areas to integrate ELC products into policy or practice. Finally, reviewing marketing techniques for ecological products can identify ways to encourage the adoption of ELC products by resource managers. Key Yukon resource managers were interviewed in a semi-structured manner to provide opportunities for the interviewees to influence the course of the interview towards areas they feel are more important. Participants with experience and knowledge of ELC and who represent a varied and balanced perspective on the ELC Program were recruited. The ELC Coordinator played a valued part in this process by identifying 48 key stakeholders in a range of management areas and introducing the research to them. The ELC Supervisory Committee reviewed the selected interview participants and recommended further additions to ensure a varied, unbiased, and representative group. [2-iii] Of the 48 individuals that the ELC Coordinator contacted, 24 participated with 58% from Yukon Government, 21% from non-governmental organisations, 13% from First Nations governments, and 8% from industrial consulting firms. To maintain confidentiality, the interviewee data were coded for the analysis. The researcher used an excel sheet to track and group interview responses into categories or themes that emerged from the interviews. This research used an ecosystem approach to management model developed by Gray and Davidson (2000) and expanded upon by Gray (2012) as a conceptual framework. The framework allows an evaluation of the ELC Program through a sustainability lens, and focuses on three themes: place-based and time-based perspectives, community-empowered conditions, and knowledge-driven programs. Throughout this research paper, the three themes provide a structure for the discussion of ELC programming. 2.3 FINDINGS The 24 semi-structured interviews with Yukon resource managers were developed to answer the main objective of this research: to determine if the ELC Program is meeting the strategic goals set out in Yukon Environment’s 2013 document, Yukon Ecological and Landscape Classification (ELC) Program: Five- Year Strategic Plan. Generally, interviewees reported three different categories of use for ELC resources: planning activities, environmental assessments, and research. Additionally, some interviewees identified that they were current or potential contributors to ELC data. Variations between common views of interviewees occurred along management areas and the categories of use that interview participants had for the ELC Program and its resources. The key findings under each of the three themes from Gray’s (2012) ecosystem approach to management are presented below. Place-based and time-based perspectives:  The conceptual delineation of the ecoregion (the unit of ELC classification) is not necessarily meaningful for the management activities of the interview participants.  14 of 24 interviewees wished to incorporate ELC into their own spatial delineations such as planning regions or traditional territories.  Although ELC products are available on a local or regional scale, 10 out of the 24 interviewees reported that they require information at a territorial scale. All of the interview participants stated that it is ideal to have ELC products available across the territory.  There is uncertainty among respondents about where ELC products are available. Community-empowered conditions:  There was consensus that ELC provides an opportunity to work across management areas; 12 interview participants stated that ELC provides a common language for resource managers.  The institutional context of the ELC program could have an effect on its uptake in different management areas; three interviewees suggested moving the program from Environment Yukon.  Eight participants who represented every recruitment group noted that the program would benefit from top-down direction requiring its use in management and land-use planning. Knowledge-driven programs:  Interviewees are concerned about the ability of the ELC Program to be knowledge-driven due to a lack of ecological data across the territory. [2-iv]  75% of interview participants cited knowledge of ELC or ability to interpret ELC information as a barrier to its implementation in the territory.  There is high correlation between those with a high level of training and current integration of ELC into practice; however, 10 of 24 interviewees reported low or moderate training.  Contributors to ELC data are concerned with effectiveness (the time and money it takes to collect information), while users reported that accessibility, interpretation, and regulation of ELC are their main issues.  Despite its barriers, 23 of the 24 interviewees stated that they are interested in using ELC products if they do not already. The findings under each theme are related to outcomes from the Five-Year Strategic Plan (see Appendix B). While there is progress towards most outcomes, the ELC program has not met target dates for achieving these outcomes. 2.4 OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION This research determined that a marketing approach and a policy/best practice integration approach could help to mainstream ELC into research management. These options could be implemented simultaneously, in sequence, or individually, depending on the clients’ needs. 1. Focus on Accessibility and Interpretation A focus on accessibility and interpretation is an approach that uses marketing techniques to develop a strategy that reduces barriers to the behaviour to be promoted, while simultaneously increasing the behaviour’s perceived benefits. It addresses the fact that 96% of the interviewees in this research were interested in using ELC, but had difficulty accessing and understanding the information. By creating clarity in language and information on the ELC Program’s websites and publications, integrating ELC into popular data sites, and offering further training in concepts and application, the ELC Program can increase its mainstreaming potential. 2. Focus on Policy or Best Practice Development A focus on policy or best practice development could establish ELC as a ‘Yukon way of doing business’. Some of the interviewees identified strategic documents and programming in their areas that could immediately integrate ELC. These areas could be a starting place for mainstreaming the ELC program, because, as stated in the literature and throughout the interviews, the more that the program is used, the more it will be used. This strategy has the potential to advance all of the outcomes under goals three and four of the Five-Year Strategic Plan. [2-v] 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 1-ii 2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2-iii 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2-iii 2.2 Methods.................................................................................................................................... 2-iii 2.3 Findings..................................................................................................................................... 2-iv 2.4 Options for Consideration .......................................................................................................... 2-v 3 Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. 3-vi 4 List of Figures and Tables .............................................................................................................. 4-viii 4.1 Figures.................................................................................................................................... 4-viii 4.2 Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 4-viii 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 6 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 2 6.1 Project Client and Problem ........................................................................................................... 2 6.2 Overview of Ecological and Landscape Classification in Yukon ................................................. 2 6.3 Resource Management Decision-Makers ..................................................................................... 6 6.4 Land-Use Planning and Environmental Assessment in Yukon .................................................... 9 6.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 10 7 Conceptual framework ........................................................................................................................ 11 8 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 13 7.1 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 13 7.2 Semi-Structured Interviewing ..................................................................................................... 14 7.3 Recruitment Strategy .................................................................................................................. 15 7.4 Interview Process and Analysis .................................................................................................. 16 7.5 Limitations and Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 17 9 Literature review ................................................................................................................................. 18 8.1 Program Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 18 8.2 Mainstreaming ELC Programs .................................................................................................... 19 8.2.1 Theme 1: Place-Based and Time-Based Perspectives......................................................... 20 9.2.2 Theme 2: Community-Empowered Conditions .................................................................. 20 8.2.3 Theme 3: Knowledge-Driven Programs ............................................................................. 22 8.3 Marketing .................................................................................................................................... 23 8.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 25 10 Interview Findings and Discussion ................................................................................................. 27 [3-vi] 9.1 General Information .................................................................................................................... 27 9.2 Theme 1: Place-Based and Time-Based Perspectives ................................................................ 31 9.3 Theme 2: Community-Empowered Conditions .......................................................................... 34 9.4 Theme 3: Knowledge-Driven Programs ..................................................................................... 36 9.5 Findings Summary ...................................................................................................................... 40 11 Options for Consideration ............................................................................................................... 43 11.1 Focus on Accessibility and Interpretation ................................................................................... 43 11.2 Focus on Policy or Best Practice Development .......................................................................... 45 12 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 47 13 References ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 55 [3-vii] 4 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 4.1 FIGURES Figure 1. The 15 ecozones of Canada. .......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. The framework of bioclimate classification.. ................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. The hierarchical framework of ecoregion classification................................................................ 5 Figure 4. Status of land-use, forest resources, and official community planning processes in Yukon. ........ 6 Figure 5. An ecosystem approach to management framework. .................................................................. 12 Figure 6. The Marketing Mix. ..................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7. Management area of the interview participants. .......................................................................... 28 Figure 8. Number of participants interviewed from each recruitment group. ............................................. 29 Figure 9. Area of expertise of the interview participants from the Yukon Government. ........................... 29 Figure 10. Venn diagram illustrating how interviewees reported they interact with ELC resources. ........ 30 Figure 11. Current incorporation of ELC resources of the 24 interview participants. ................................ 31 Figure 12. Wordcloud illustrating where interview participants believe ELC resources are available. ..... 32 Figure 13. The scale of map information required by interview participants. ............................................ 33 Figure 14. Level of training in ELC correlated with those reporting that they incorporate ELC to a high extent. .......................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 15. Nested relationships between the classification systems that are integrated into the Yukon ELC. ............................................................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 16. Web site statistics for the three ELC webpages and Energy, Mines and Resources Lands Viewer. ........................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 17. Example of a potential web icon to show the availability of ELC products in Yukon. ............. 44 4.2 TABLES Table 1. Roles and responsibilities for resources of three levels of Yukon governance. .............................. 7 Table 2. Program evaluation summary against the ELC Program’s strategic goals and short- and medium-term outcomes………………………...……………………………………………………..41 [4-viii] 5 INTRODUCTION Ecological and Landscape Classification (ELC) is an approach to describing and mapping landscapes based on an integration of vegetation, climate, and soil information. It can support a range of applications including land use planning, environmental assessment, forest management, land and resource development, habitat management, and risk assessments (Yukon Environment, 2013, p. 4). ELC has a long history of use across Canada, but is a fairly new development in Yukon. Formal introduction of the program into the Yukon government occurred in 2002 with dedication of resources to the program in 2009; there is ongoing development of ELC information and resources (Yukon Environment, 2013, p. 7). This research serves to support the ELC Program by providing insight into the views that resource managers hold about ELC in general, and determining whether the current program is satisfying their needs. This research also offers recommendations for encouraging the use of ELC products by resource managers, a process referred to as mainstreaming. Broadly speaking, this research intends to address whether the ELC Program is meeting the strategic goals set out in Yukon Environment’s 2013 document, Yukon Ecological and Landscape Classification (ELC) Program: Five-Year Strategic Plan (see Appendix B). In order to reach that broad goal, the specific questions addressed in this research are:  To what extent and in what way do resource managers use the ELC products offered by the Yukon Government (see Appendix A)?  Do resource managers see additional or future uses for ELC products in their field?  What do resource managers need in order to integrate (or further integrate) ELC products into their practice or policy?  Are there ways for the ELC Program to encourage the adoption of ELC products by resource managers? The remainder of this report consists of the following seven sections: background, conceptual framework, methodology, literature review, interview findings and discussion, options for consideration and conclusion. The background section describes the project client, provides an overview of ELC in Yukon, and reviews the decision makers and main processes for resource management in Yukon. The conceptual framework describes Gray and Davidson’s (2010) and Gray’s (2012) idea of an ecosystem approach to management—a framework that provides a foundation for this research. The methodology section discusses this research’s method of conducting a literature review and the choice and process of semi- structured interviewing. The literature review reviews program evaluation, describes mainstreaming of ELC across Canada, and describes marketing for ecological products. The findings and discussion section analyses the results of the interviews and the findings from the literature review using the themes from the conceptual framework. The final sections of this research are a set of options for encouraging the uptake of the ELC Program by resource managers and a conclusion. [1] 6 BACKGROUND This section describes the project client and why the research is important and relevant to the client. It also provides a brief overview of the concepts of ELC and a history of its adoption across Canada and in Yukon. This section concludes with a review of the decision makers who have jurisdiction over resource management, and an overview of the land-use planning and environmental assessment processes in Yukon. 6.1 PROJECT CLIENT AND PROBLEM The client for this project is the Coordinator of the Yukon Government’s ELC Program. The ELC Program is in the Policy and Planning Branch of Environment Yukon and works to lead, manage, and implement ELC with support from the Fish and Wildlife Branch, the Information Management and Technology Branch, and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The ELC Program has four goals (below) and multiple objectives, written out in full in Appendix B. The goals of the program are to: 1. Input high quality, well-managed and accessible data. 2. Establish a classification and mapping framework and standards for Yukon landscapes. 3. Support and inform sustainable and integrated resource management. 4. Deliver a strong, supported program with the capacity to meet demands (Yukon Environment, 2013, pp. 14-17). The ELC Program strives to meet its goals while continuing to collect baseline input data needed for the creation of its resources;1 an ELC Technical Working group provides technical expertise to the Program in developing its products. Additionally, an ELC Supervisory Committee manages the program in cooperation between Environment Yukon and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (Yukon Environment, 2013, p. 12). The ELC Program Coordinator is looking to determine whether the Program is delivering ELC services and support in a manner consistent with its goals. This research is an independent study of the how well the ELC Program is meeting its third and fourth goals and how it can better meet them. It provides insight into the views of the targeted user groups in order to better position the ELC Program to deliver services and support. This research can also inform the ELC Coordinator’s annual report to the ELC Supervisory Committee on whether the program is meeting its goals. 6.2 OVERVIEW OF ECOLOGICAL AND LANDSCAPE CLASSIFICATION IN YUKON Depending on the jurisdiction and academic background of the practitioner, Ecological and Landscape Classification (ELC) can refer to different classification techniques. At a broad level, the Government of Canada supported a national initiative to develop and map ecoregions across the country (Jones et al., 2008, ch. 3, p. 4). They used Ontario’s Hierarchical Eco-regional Framework as the basis for the National Ecological Framework of Canada, which continues to provide high-level maps for strategic planning purposes (Flynn, 2014, p. 22). At the largest and most basic scale, Figure 1Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the ecozones of Canada. Because of the National Ecological Framework of Canada, all provinces and territories across Canada have some level of ELC system, but they use different 1 Appendix A provides descriptions of the resources and their current state of development. [2]