2013 Report
52762
ISBN 978-1-4606-3252-9 (PDF)

Ces publication très spécialisées ne sont disponsibles qu’en anglais en vertu du Règlement 671/92 qui exempte l’application de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir de l’aide en français, veuillez communiquer avec Parcs Ontario, au 1-888-668-7275 - ministère des Richesses naturelles.

Executive summary

One of the objectives of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 (PPCRA) is to “facilitate scientific research and provide points of reference to support monitoring of ecological change on the broader landscape”.

With this emphasis on scientific research as a key part of the protected areas mandate, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) conducted the 2010 Protected Areas Research Needs Survey of its protected area management and staff to identify what scientific research is necessary to fulfill this PPCRA objective. The results of the survey may also guide the academic community and other scientists outside MNR in identifying provincial protected area research priorities.

The survey was designed to differentiate between research that was “nice to know” from the research that was “needed to know” in order to achieve the commitments made in the PPCRA. It elicited this by carefully leading the respondents through a series of questions beginning with previously identified research needs, followed by detailed questions asking respondents what research was needed to support each of the objectives within the Act, and concluded with the respondents’ description of their top five perceived research needs. Most of the questions in the survey were open-ended so the respondents had the latitude to make any comment they felt appropriate.

Since scientific research needs for provincial protected areas could include many different subject areas, the survey sought the opinions of a broad spectrum of MNR employees associated with the Ontario provincial protected area system. These included park superintendents, planners, marketing and natural heritage education specialists, information experts and both natural and social scientists.

The top research needs most frequently discussed by respondents included monitoring and inventory of protected areas, human use impacts, invasive species, examining protected areas in a landscape context (including adjacent uses), and research into the representation of ecosystems across the protected areas system. This report, and its associated lists of top identified research needs, is intended to help MNR to focus its efforts, and to provide information to the academic community on areas of research that would be of greatest benefit to Ontario’s protected area system.

The results from this report will be summarized in other forms such as listings of research needs that are also intended to help inform and guide future research within Ontario’s provincial parks and conservation reserves.

1.0 Introduction

In 2007, the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 (PPCRA) came into effect with one of its objectives being “to facilitate scientific research and provide points of reference to support monitoring of ecological change on the broader landscape”.

With this emphasis on scientific research as a key part of the protected area mandate, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) conducted the 2010 Ontario Protected Areas Research Needs Survey of its protected area management and research staff to identify what scientific research is necessary to fulfill this PPCRA objective.

The results of the survey are intended to be made publicly available so that the academic community and other scientists outside MNR may easily identify provincial research priorities for Ontario’s system of provincial parks and conservation reserves.

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Scope

The survey was designed to differentiate between research that was “nice to know” and research that was “needed to know” in order to achieve the commitments made in the PPCRA. It elicited this by carefully leading the respondents through a series of questions beginning with previously identified research needs, followed by detailed questions asking respondents what research was needed to support each of the objectives within the Act, and concluded with the respondents’ description of their top 5 perceived research needs. Most of the questions in the survey were open-ended so the respondent had the latitude to make any comment they felt appropriate. (See Appendix C for a copy of the survey).

2.2 Target population

Since scientific research needs for provincial protected areas could include many different subject areas, the survey sought the opinions of a broad spectrum of persons associated with the Ontario provincial protected area system. These included park superintendents, planners, marketing and natural heritage education specialists, informatics experts and both natural and social scientists.

The survey was developed and implemented on line through SurveyMonkey®. Links to the survey were sent to managers within the MNR who dealt with protected areas, along with a request that they complete the survey and also distribute it to their staff and other appropriate individuals for completion. Respondents had two months in which to fill out the survey and two reminders were sent during the survey period.

2.3 Questionnaire design

Three types of question formats were employed in the survey:

  • Closed-ended Questions: In which the respondent had to choose an option from a series of fixed responses (Q2, Q32).
  • Ranking Questions: In which the respondent was asked to list one research need in the comment box in rank order (e.g. from “most” to “least” important (Q33- Q37)).
  • Open-ended Questions: In which the respondent could discuss as many research needs in the comment box as they felt appropriate (Q3-Q31). Most of the questions were open- ended in order to identify a broad array of research needs and not to constrain the respondents.

The survey instrument consisted of 39 questions, of which one question collected demographic information about the respondents; 2 questions were about survey feedback and the remaining 36 questions requested input about research needs relative to the PPCRA objectives.

The first objective of the PPCRA is: “To permanently protect representative ecosystems, biodiversity and provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage and to manage these areas to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained.” This is a very complex objective as it deals with all aspects of biodiversity. In order to probe the research needs associated with such a complex objective, a total of 19 questions was developed. Six questions (Q3-Q8) asked about the research needs associated with different species groups (mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, fish, invertebrates, plants) to cover issues related to within-community diversity (alpha diversity). Four questions (Q9-Q12) asked about research needs associated with vegetation communities and geologic features (terrestrial communities, wetland communities, aquatic communities, geologic features) to deal with between-community diversity (beta diversity). Questions Q13-Q16 dealt with the diversity of habitats associated with the total landscape or geographical area (gamma diversity) and representation of ecosystems within the protected area system. This was done to examine the functional linkages between different levels of biodiversity.

The next five questions (Q17-Q21) dealt with the respondents’ perceived research needs with respect to the protection of cultural heritage features in protected areas. The next question (Q22) examined the second objective of the PPCRA, slightly modified to address the different objectives for provincial parks and conservation reserves: “To provide opportunities for ecologically sustainable outdoor recreation, including traditional outdoor heritage activities in conservation reserves, and encourage associated economic benefits”. Hence, Q22 set out to identify research needs relating to the need for ecologically sustainable land uses – including ecologically sustainable outdoor recreation and traditional outdoor heritage activities – in Ontario.

The next five questions (Q23-Q27) looked at the research needs associated with the second PPCRA objective which related to the economic benefits arising from protected areas.

Questions 28 and 29 focused on the third objective for provincial parks under the Act, which is: “To provide opportunities for residents of Ontario and visitors to increase their knowledge and appreciation of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage.”

Questions 30 and 31 dealt with the fourth and final objective for provincial parks, and the third and final objective for conservation reserves: “To facilitate scientific research and to provide points of reference to support monitoring of ecological change on the broader landscape”.

Question Q32 provided the respondent with a summary of all the previous questions and topics (Q3-Q31) and asked respondents to select and rank the five question topics which they felt were in most need of research.

The final five questions (Q33-Q37) were open-ended questions that asked respondents to indicate their 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and most important research need, respectively. It was hoped that after having systematically gone through the survey in relation to the mandated objectives of the PPCRA, the respondents would be better able to articulate what they believed to be the most important research needs in order to fulfill the PPCRA objectives, rather than those research needs that – for whatever reason – were simply “top of mind”.

3.0 Analysis

3.1 Analysis of open ended questions

The following steps were taken in the analysis of the open ended questions:

  1. The question response within the comment box for each question was downloaded from SurveyMonkey® into Excel®.
  2. The analyst read the responses to a question completely before starting to code the responses into research need
  3. The contents of the comment box were coded into as many research topics as There was no limit on the number of topics. In order for a topic to be created, it had to be mentioned by at least two survey respondents. If a topic was only mentioned once, it was grouped into a broader associated topic, or into the research topic “other” if its contents did not relate to anything else stated by respondents.
    1. For example, if a respondent wrote: “Research is needed into the impacts of recreation on parks” - the response would be coded to “recrimp” which represented general concerns about the impacts of Alternatively, if a respondent wrote: “Research is needed into the impact of ATVs and hiking use on parks”, the response was coded as “atvimp” and “hikeimp” as it was clear which kinds of recreation were a concern. Therefore, a survey response could be identified as having many different topics.
    2. Coding of the natural science based questions was done by an ecologist while coding of the social science based questions was done by socio-economic analyst. A master list of research topics was created and used throughout the coding process to insure consistency in the coding of comments (Appendix A).
  4. Once all of the comments had been coded (See Appendix A for a listing of the Research Topics) the data were transferred into Microsoft Access® for further Analysis consisted mostly of counting the number of times topics were observed.
  5. In order to facilitate discussion of inter-related topics, the topics were then combined into research themes (Appendix B).
    1. For example, the research theme “Hyperabundant Native Species” includes the research topics “cormorant” “coyote”, “deer”, “raccoons” because the responses which mentioned these species did so from the point of view of the impacts of their high population levels or This research theme also included the general request for research on hyperabundant species (“hyperabu”). By combining all of the responses about hyper-abundant species with the general request for research on hyper-abundant species (hyperabu) a clearer idea of the interest in hyper-abundance could be seen while still retaining the ability to examine the level of interest in the individual more detailed research topics.
  6. The number of times a topic was observed (topic observations) were then calculated for each group of questions and rolled up into their associated theme (See Figure 1 for an example).

An example of the analysis for the Species Question Group may look like this:

Figure 1 - Example of open ended question response analysis

  • Respondent answers species question group
    • Question group: Q3 Mammals
      • Response: 1 Response e.g. “More monitoring of Caribou and Wolverine is needed”
        • Research need topics: Total of 4 Responses- 8 topics identified, e.g. Caribou, Wolverine, Monitoring, Road Impacts, Wood Turtles, SAR, Sturgeon, Motorboat Impacts
          • Research need themes grouped into 3 Themes:
            • Monitoring Inventory: Monitoring
            • Species at Risk: Caribou, Wolverine, Wood Turtle, SAR, Sturgeon
            • Human use impacts: Road imapacts, Motorboar impacts
              • Topic observations: Q3-3 topic observations. E.g. Caribou, Monitoring, Wolverine
  • Question group: Q4 Birds
    • Response: 1 Response e.g. “Need to look at road impacts on woods turtles”
      • Research need topics: Total of 4 responses- 8 topics identified, e.g. Caribou, Wolverine, Monitoring, Road Impacts, Wood Turtles, SAR, Sturgeon, Motorboat Impacts
        • Research need themes grouped into 3 Themes:
          • Monitoring Inventory: Monitoring
          • Species at Risk: Caribou, Wolverine, Wood Turtle, SAR, Sturgeon
          • Human use impacts: Road impacts, Motorboar impacts
            • Topic observations: Q4: 2 topic observations. E.g. Road impacts, Wood turtles.
  • Question group: Q5 Reptiles/Amphibians
    • Response: 1 Response e.g. “More monitoring of SAR
      • Research need topics: Total of 4 responses- 8 topics identified, e.g. Caribou, Wolverine, Monitoring, Road Impacts, Wood Turtles, SAR, Sturgeon, Motorboat Impacts
        • Research need themes grouped into 3 Themes:
          • Monitoring inventory: Monitoring
          • Species at Risk: Caribou, Wolverine, Wood Turtle, SAR, Sturgeon
          • Human use impacts: Road impacts, Motorboar impacts
            • Topic observations: Q5: 2 topic observations. E.g. Monitoring, SAR
  • Question group: Q6 Fish
    • Response: 1 Response e.g. “Impacts of sturgeon need to be examined. Look at motorboat impacts.”
      • Research need topics: Total of 4 responses- 8 topics identified, e.g. Caribou, Wolverine, Monitoring, Road Impacts, Wood Turtles, SAR, Sturgeon, Motorboat Impacts
        • Research need themes grouped into 3 Themes:
          • Monitoring inventory: Monitoring
          • Species at Risk: Caribou, Wolverine, Wood Turtle, SAR, Sturgeon
          • Human use impacts: Road impacts, Motorboar impacts
            • Topic observations: E.g. Sturgeon, Motorboat impacts
  • Question group: Q7 Invertebrates
    • No response
  • Question group: Q8 Plants
    • No response

3.2 Analysis of ranked questions

Analysis of these questions (Q33-Q37) was identical to the analysis of the open-ended questions. In order to identify the top 5 research needs, as well as maintain the expressed rankings, the number of topic responses to each question was multiplied by the corresponding rank score. For example, the number of topic responses for Q33 (most important) was multiplied by 5, for Q34 (second most important) was multiplied by 4, for Q35 (3rd most important) was multiplied by 3, etc. This way scores could be added across the five questions while retaining the indicated importance rank for each topic.

3.3 Reporting

In order to report on these findings in a concise and efficient manner, questions were reported on a Question Group basis. Grouping of questions was based on the objective of the PPCRA with which they were associated along with the topic or scale of the question. The survey questions were combined into eight groups:

  1. Species Question Group (Q3-Q8):
    • Questions about different species groupings (mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, plants) associated with PPCRA objective
  2. Vegetation Communities and Geology Question Group (Q9-Q12):
    • Questions about different vegetation communities (terrestrial, wetland, aquatic) and geology associated with PPCRA objective
  3. Representation, Ecosystem Processes and Functions Question Group: (Q13-Q16):
    • Questions about representation, ecosystem processes and functions associated with PPCRA objective
  4. Cultural Heritage Question Group (Q17-Q21):
    • Questions regarding cultural heritage associated with PPCRA objective
  5. Socio-Economics Question Group (Q22-Q27):
    • Questions pertaining to societal values for protected areas associated with PPCRA objective
  6. Educational Services Question Group (Q28-Q29):
    • Questions looking at the education services offered in protected areas associated with PPCRA objective
  7. Question Group (Q30-Q31):
    • Questions looking at the use protected areas as benchmarks for science associated with PPCRA objective
  8. Perceived Top Five Research Needs (Q33-Q37):
    • Questions which asked respondents to list and rank their top five research needs (all PPCRA objectives).

The results for each question group are presented in two tables. The first table provides the number of topic observations by research theme, while the second table provides the number of topic observations for each identified topic within a theme across each question in the group. An example of the reporting of results to the open-ended questions is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Example of reporting of results

  • Report on group of questions, e.g. Species question group (Q3-Q8)
    • The most discussed themes within the group of questions were then identified. E.g. Top themes in species question group:
    • Research need themeTotal number of topic observations% of topic observations
      Species at risk556%
      Human use impacts222%
      Monitoring/inventory222%
      • Described each topic within each top theme and where they were observed across group of questions. E.g. Species at risk theme
      • Reseach need topicQ3- MammalsQ4 -BirdsQ5- AmphibiansQ6-FishQ7- InvertebratesQ8-PlantsTotal number of topic observations
        Caribou1-----1
        Wolverine1-----1
        Wood turtle-1----1
        SAR--1---1
        Sturgeon---1--1
        Total2111005 (50%)

4.0 Results

The results are presented by question group. Due to the length of the survey and large number of themes and related topics provided by survey respondents, within each question group, only the top 5 research need themes are discussed in this report.

Similarly, though there may be a number of topics presented within the table for a given theme, only the top 5 research topics are discussed for each theme in this report.

Although 182 surveys were completed, the results presented in this report are based on the cleaned dataset for 167 respondents. The invalid results came from respondents inadvertently doing the survey twice. In these cases, only the respondent’s most recent and/or most complete set of responses was retained for analysis.

4.1 Job categories of participants (Q1)

Although the survey was sent to a broad spectrum of MNR employees in order to receive diverse points of view, due to the nature of work done by the Ministry, the vast majority of the respondents had a natural science background (Figure 3). The limited number of respondents with backgrounds in natural heritage education/social sciences is reflected by the response rates to the questions pertaining to those subject areas.

Figure 3 - Breakdown of respondents by job category

64

Natural Science Specialists

29

Park Operations

16

Planners

12

Managers

11

Natural Heritage Education

9

Land Specialists

9

Other

6

Fire Management

5

Forestry

3

Socioeconomic Specialists

3

Resource Technicians

4.2 Ranking of historic research needs (Q2)

In 2007, a research needs assessment was conducted within the Northwest Zone of Ontario`s park system (Kingston and Mosley, 2007). That report, in combination with other reports suggesting research directions, were used to set out various research priorities that were previously identified as worthy of undertaking.

In order to gauge the relevance of those historic research needs to today’s management of protected areas, respondents were asked to select and rank which of these historic research needs they felt were still the most important relative to today’s research needs. Responses were then weighted according to their associated rank. For example, those ranked as the top most important need were scored a 5, while those ranked as fifth most important were scored a 1.

Table 1 - Ranked historic research needs
Historic research needTotal weighted response scores% of weighted scores
Ecosystem and Species Population Monitoring35715%
Species At Risk Research28912%
Habitat Connectivity23210%
Invasive Species Management2189%
Impacts of Recreation2129%

Table 1 shows the weighted results of the top 5 historic research needs noted by the survey respondents. The most highly rated historic research need was Ecosystem and Species Population Monitoring, representing 15% of the weighted scores (Table 1). The following highly ranked historic research need was Species at Risk research, representing 12% of the total weighted scores (Table 1). Habitat Connectivity (10%), Invasive Species Management (9%) and Impacts of Recreation (9%) also ranked highly in terms of historic research needs.

4.1 Questions related to objective 1 of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act

“To permanently protect representative ecosystems, biodiversity and provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage and to manage these areas to ensure ecological integrity is maintained”. (PPCRA, 2006).

4.3.1 Species question group (Q3-Q8)

The following question was asked for each type of flora or fauna: “For those species you are concerned about within your protected area/s, what scientific research is needed to resolve your concerns?”

The response level to this set of questions was relatively high with the response rate usually over 45% (Table 2). The highest rate of response was for “Mammals” (Q3) and the lowest was for “Invertebrates” Q7.

Table 2 - response rate to species question group (Q3-Q8)

Species question group response rate (n=167 respondents)

Question: % of respondents who answered this question
  • Q3: Mammals - 52%
  • Q4: Reptiles - 46%
  • Q5: Reptiles/Amphibians - 48%
  • Q6: Fish - 44%
  • Q7: Invertebrates - 34%
  • Q8: Plants - 46%

The 167 respondents provided a total of 451 responses to the 6 questions within this Species Question Group. Of these 451 responses, 151 research topics were identified. These 151 different topics were observed a total of 1,238 times across the 6 questions. The top five themes (Table 3) consisted of 55% of the 1,238 topic observations in this group of questions. Having such a significant proportion of topic observations associated with only 5 themes suggests considerable similarity among respondents regarding the research needs to address concerns regarding species of flora and fauna.

Table 3 - Response Rate by Research Theme to Species Question Group (Q3-Q8).
(n= 1,238 Topic Observations)
“Top 5” research themesTotal number of topics observations% of topic observations
Monitoring and Inventory21017%
Species at Risk18015%
Landscape Ecology12710%
Human Use Impacts1018%
Invasive Species665%
Total68455%
4.3.1.1 Monitoring and inventory theme

As indicated in Table 4, there were 210 topic observations for this research theme which represents about 17% of all topic observations in the species questions. The research topic with the greatest interest within the theme was also called “inventory and monitoring” (207 topic observations, Table 4) which was a general request for this activity. Responses within this topic included the need for long-term, standardized, multi-species, inventory/monitoring efforts; integration with other programs (such as the Inventory and Monitoring Section’s Wildlife Assessment Program), and the easy availability of resulting data to resource managers. This topic was also the top need expressed for all of the individual species groups. Whether talking about mammals or invertebrates, respondents felt that the lack of inventory and monitoring of species populations was the single most serious knowledge gap.

Table 4 - Species question group: monitoring and inventory theme topics (Q3-Q8). Question group: species
Theme rank: 1st
Research need topicQ3 MammalsQ4 BirdsQ5 Reptiles /AmphibiansQ6 FishQ7 InvertebratesQ8 PlantsTotal number of topics observations
Monitoring /Inventory313044363333207
Vegetation Mapping-----33

Total (% of Question group) 210 (17%)

4.3.1.2 Species at risk theme

The second greatest research need theme expressed within the Species Question Group was for research on “Species at Risk” (Table 3). This research theme includes general responses such as “we need more research on species at risk” to species, specific responses such as “we need an understanding of wood turtle habitat requirements”. The “top 5” noted research need topics within the Species At Risk theme risk made up about 15% of all of the topic observations to the questions about species (Table 5). The largest number of topic observations (81) was a general request for research on species at risk (Table 5).

When specific species were mentioned, wolf research (16 topic observations, Table 5) had the greatest level of interest with questions about denning sites, how big a protected area had to be to provide suitable habitat, how to minimize hybridization between eastern wolves and coyotes, and the potential impacts of climate change on predator-prey interactions (wolves with moose, white-tailed deer, and caribou). The third greatest interest was in research on Caribou (15 topic observations, Table 5).

Research on the seasonal movements and populations levels as well as the impacts of Far North infrastructure development and recreational activities on caribou were also requested. Lake Sturgeon and wood turtles, both with 7 topic observations, tied for the fourth and fifth greatest research need topic areas within this theme. Research needs for Lake Sturgeon focused on habitat use, the impacts of fragmentation and hardened shorelines, as well as the need for a better understanding of the size of spawning cohorts, juvenile habitat and recruitment. The research needs for Wood Turtle focused on population monitoring and the need to determine the effectiveness of actions already taken to help Wood Turtle populations. Concerns were also raised about the impacts of roads on Wood Turtles.

Table 5 - Species question group: Species at risk theme topics (Q3-Q8)

Research need topic: Responses

  • Species At Risk: 81
  • Eastern Wolf: 16
  • Woodland Caribou: 15
  • Blanding’s Turtle: 7
  • Lake Sturgeon: 7
  • Wood Turtle: 7
  • Eastern Whip-poor-will: 6
  • Eastern Hognosed Snake: 5
  • Common Five-lined Skink: 5
  • Polar Bear: 5
  • Total (% of Question group): 180 (15%)
4.3.1.3 Landscape ecology theme

Research associated with the theme “Landscape Ecology” (127 topic observations, Table 3) was the third greatest research theme expressed within the Species Question Group, representing about 10% of all topic observations to these questions (Table 3). The most frequently indicated research topic within this theme was focused on understanding the role of “Parks in a Landscape Context/Adjacent Uses” (41 topic observations, Table 6). This research need was expressed for all species groups.

Common responses indicating this research topic included the need to know the role that protected areas play within landscapes, as well as the impact that the surrounding landscape was having on protected areas.

The second most frequently mentioned research topic within the landscape ecology theme was for research to understand the impacts of landscape “fragmentation” within parks (34 topic observation, Table 3) by park infrastructure or by the loss of connection to the landscape around protected areas. This research need was expressed for both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This research topic was often mentioned in association with the need for research on species with large home ranges. Concerns about landscape fragmentation regarding fish species were noted in Q6 and focussed on the impact of dams and other barriers to aquatic species movement.

The third most noted research need topic within the Landscape Ecology Theme was research regarding the impacts of roads/vehicles (18 topic observations, Table 6), particularly on reptiles and amphibians (14 topic observations, Table 6). Often this topic was coupled with the need for Species At Risk (SAR) research, as many of Ontario’s reptiles and amphibians are species at risk.

The fourth most noted research topic within the Landscape Ecology Theme was the need for research regarding “large mammals with large home ranges” (10 topic observations, Table 6). The requests often centered on how to deal with the large home ranges associated with these species within protected areas, and within fragmented landscapes.

The fifth most cited greatest research topic within the Landscape Ecology Theme was the need for research regarding “Parks as refugia” (10 topic observations, Table 6).

Specifically, research into the extent of the role that parks play as “refugia” within the larger landscape was required.

Table 6 - Species Question Group: Landscape Ecology Theme Topics (Q3-Q8).
Research need topicQ3 MammalsQ4 BirdsQ5 Reptiles /amphibiansQ6 FishQ7 InvertebratesQ8 PlantsTotal number of topic observations
Parks in Landscape Context / Adjacent Uses248413141
Fragmentation165362234
Motor Vehicle / Road Impact3-14--118
Large Mammals with Large Home Ranges10-----10
Parks as Refugia2313-110
How Much Area is Enough?33-1--7
Ecopassages1-3---4
Vegetation Mapping-----33

Total (% of Question group) 127 (10%)

4.3.2.2 Human use impacts theme

As shown in Table 3, the fourth most important research theme in the Species Question Group (Q3-Q8) was “Human Use Impacts” which represented 8% of the research need topic observations for this question group. Within the Human Use Impact Theme, the most frequently expressed research topic was a general need to understand the impacts of recreation (type not specified) on species (44 topic observations, Table 7).

The need to understand the impacts on park species from motor vehicles and park roadways were of next greatest concern (18 topic observations, Table 7), followed by the need to research the impacts of recreational fishing (13 topic observations, Table 7) on fish populations within protected areas. The need to research the impacts of hunting on species which are hunted in parks (such as waterfowl) was the fourth most noted research topic within this theme. The fifth most noted research need was that of understanding the impacts of recreation type (swimming, boating etc.) on fish and other aquatic species.

Table 7 - Species question group: Human use impact theme topics (Q3-Q8).
Research need topicQ3 MammalsQ4 BirdsQ5 Reptiles /amphibiansQ6 FishQ7 InvertebratesQ8 PlantsTotal number of topic observations
Impacts of Recreation71113-3 1044
Motor Vehicle / Road Impact3-14-- 118
Fishing Impact3--13- -13
Hunting Impact-2--- -5
Recreation Impact on Fish (all kinds of recreation)1--5- -5
ATV Impact12--- 13
Hiking Trail Impact111-- -3
Camping Impact----- 22
Cottaging Impact--1-1 -2
Horseback Riding, Dog Trials, Dog Sledding Impact-1--- 12
Recreation Impact on Reptiles/Amphibians--2-- -2
Motorboat Impact-11-- -1
Snowmobile Impact1---- -1

Total (% of Question group) 101 (8%)

4.3.1.5 Invasive species theme

The fifth most important research theme within the Species Question Group was “Invasive Species”, which had 62 topic observations (Table 3) and made up 5% of all topics within the species questions. As shown in Table 8, most of the research need topics within the Invasive Species theme were identified within the fish (Q6) and plants (Q8) questions. This grouping of research topics includes both general expressions of the need for research on how to mitigate the impacts of invasive species (48 topic observations, Table 8) as well as topic requests for research on specific invasive species such as Phragmites (4 topic observations), garlic mustard (3 topic observations), giant hogweed (3 topic observations) and buckthorn (2 topic observations). In the case of Phragmites, along with the request for further research on the control of this species, there was a request for distribution of the results from field trials within protected areas to control this species.

Table 8 - Species question group: invasive species theme topics (Q3-Q8).
Research need topicQ3 MammalsQ4 BirdsQ5 Reptiles /amphibiansQ6 FishQ7 InvertebratesQ8 PlantsTotal number of topic observations
Invasive Species3311462148
Phragmites-11--46
Garlic Mustard-----33
Giant Hogweed-----33
Buckthorn-----22
Dog- strangling Vine-----22
Emerald Ash Borer----112

Total (% of Question group) 66 (5%)

4.3.2 Vegetation communities and geology question group (Q9-Q12)

Through its wording regarding the protection and maintenance of ecological integrity, Objective 1 of the PPCRA implies the protection of biodiversity at the community level as well as the protection of significant geologic features.

In order to determine what the perceived research needs were at the community level, the following question was asked of survey participants regarding terrestrial, wetland and aquatic communities: “(Q9-Q11).For those communities which you are concerned about within your protected area/s, what scientific research is required to address your concerns? To determine the needs for protecting geologic diversity, the following question (Q12) was asked “For those geologic features within your protected area/s you are concerned about, what scientific research is needed to address your concerns?”

As indicated in Table 9, the highest response rate was obtained for Q9: “terrestrial communities” (50% of respondents) and the least for Q12 “Geology” (31% of respondents).

Table 9 - Response rate to vegetation communities and geology question group (Q3-Q8)

Response rate (n=167 respondents)

Question: % of respondents who answered this question

  • Q9 Terrestrial Communities: 50%
  • Q10 Wetland Communities: 42%
  • Q11 Aquatic Communities: 47%
  • Q12 Geology: 31%

A total of 283 responses were provided for Q9-Q12. From these 283 responses, 105 research topics (Appendix A) were identified and 628 topic observations were made across the 4 questions. The top five research need themes within the Vegetation Communities and Geology Question Group comprise about 52% of topic observations in this group of questions. Since respondents could indicate any topic they wanted and were not constrained by the number of concerns they could express, having 52% of all topic observations associated with only 5 themes shows considerable consensus of need amongst the respondents. Discussion of the top five research themes can be found below.

Table 10 - Response rate by research theme to vegetation communities and geology question group (Q9-Q12).
(n = 628 Topics Discussed)
“Top 5” research themesTotal number of topics% of topics discussed
Monitoring and Inventory9014%
Human Use Impacts8013%
Landscape Ecology6610%
Fish Populations and Aquatic Ecosystems488%
Representation437%
Total32752%
4.3.2.1 Monitoring and inventory theme

As indicated in Table 10, “Monitoring and Inventory” was the most important research need theme within the Vegetation Communities and Geology Question Group (90 topic observations, Table 9). The research topic of the same name “Monitoring and Inventory” was also the most important topic within this theme (74 topic observations, Table 11).

The need for monitoring and inventory was expressed for all of the questions in this group (Q9-Q12) with the greatest research need expressed for terrestrial communities (Q9, 25 responses) and a similar need expressed for research regarding wetlands (Q10) and aquatic communities (Q11), both with 22 topic observations. Specific sub- topics of the research topic need for terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic community inventory and monitoring programs specified that they be long-term, standardized, integrated with other programs, routinely done, and the data be readily available to resource managers. It was also mentioned that rare ecosystem types and sensitive ecosystems (such as dunes) should be a research focus.

Understanding the impacts of climate change and the impacts of invasive species were other noted sub-topics in the research need topic for community level inventory and monitoring (Q9-Q11). Geology-related inventory and monitoring research needs (Q12) included the inventory of geologic features and monitoring the impacts of recreation upon them.

The second most noted research need topic within the Vegetation Communities and Geology Question Group (Q9-Q12) was “Vegetation Mapping” (16 topic observations, Figure 16). Most of these topic observations were for wetlands (Q10, 11 topic observations). The concerns expressed within Q10 were that many wetlands within protected areas have not been evaluated or mapped, so there is little information on them.

Table 11 - Vegetation communities and geology question group: monitoring and inventory theme topics (Q9-Q12).
Theme Rank: 1st
Research need topicQ9 Terrestrial communitiesQ10 WetlandsQ11 Aquatic communitiesQ12 GeologyTotal number of topic observations
Monitoring and Inventory252222574
Vegetation Mapping411-116

Total (% of Question group) 90 (14%)

4.3.2.2 Human use impacts theme

The second most important research theme within the Communities and Geology Question Group was the need to understand the impacts of human use (80 topic observations, Table 9). As was the case with the species question group, the first and second most noted research need topics were general ones about the “impacts of recreation” and “motor vehicle/road impacts” (Table 12). Specific research needs identified for wetland communities (Q10) included research on the impacts of roads on wetland hydrology and the impact of road development in the wetlands of the Far North. For terrestrial communities (Q9), expressed research needs included the study of habitat fragmentation caused by roads and impacts from vehicle emissions. The third most noted research need topic within the Human Use Impact Theme was for research on “recreation impacts on geologic features” (12 topic observations, Table 12). Specific topic observations included the general need for research to understand the impacts of recreation on geologic features, and the need for research on the impacts of recreation on dunes or other features which are sensitive to erosion. The research topic “hiking impacts” was the fourth most cited research need topic within this theme (10 topic observations, Table 12) and was expressed across questions in this group. The fifth most noted research need topic was for research on fishing impacts (7 topic observations, Table 12) with all of these mentions coming from Q11 on aquatic communities.

Table 12 - Vegetation Communities and Geology Question Group: Human Use Impacts Theme Topics (Q9-Q12).Theme rank: 2nd
Research need topicQ9 Terrestrial communitiesQ10 WetlandsQ11 Aquatic communitiesQ12 GeologyTotal number of topic observations
Impacts of Recreation1632-21
Motor Vehicle / Road Impact542314
Recreation Impact on Geologic Features---1212
Hiking Trail Impact521210
Fishing Impact--7-7
ATV Impact22--4
Motorboat Impact--3-3
Cottaging Impact1-1-2
Hunting Impact2---2
Rock Climbing Impact1--12
Camping Impact1---1
Horseback Riding, Dog Trials, Dog Sledding Impact1---1
Mountain Bike Impacts1---1

Total (% of Question group) 80 (13%)

4.3.2.3 Landscape ecology theme

The third most important research need theme in this question group was the “Landscape Ecology Theme” (66 topic observations, Table 9). Within this theme, the research need topic with the greatest mention was “Vegetation mapping” (16 topic observations, Table 13) with most of the responses arising from the need for vegetation mapping of wetlands (Q10). The second most cited research need topic was “Parks in the Landscape Context/Adjacent Uses” (15 topic observations, Table 13). Research need requests associated with this topic were quite diverse.

For terrestrial communities (Q9), the research requests included the need to determine whether trophic interactions are different inside and outside of protected areas and comparing the supply of different habitat types within and outside of protected areas. For the aquatic community question (Q11), the research needs were for research on the impacts of adjacent land use such as waterpower development. The third most noted research need topic within the Landscape Ecology Theme was “Roads and Motor Vehicle Impacts” (14 topic observations, Table 13, Figure 18). The requested research was a general call for an understanding of the impacts of roads on all of the listed community types. Responses to Q12, called for research regarding the impacts of roads on sensitive geologic features such as cliffs and dunes. The fourth most frequently mentioned research need topic within this theme was “Fragmentation” (13 topic observations, Table 13). Most of the responses within this topic were asking for general research into the impacts of habitat fragmentation – especially in southern Ontario protected areas. The fifth most popular research need topic in this theme was a request for research on “How much area is enough?” (5 topic observations). Responses to this research topic seemed to focus on the research needed to address the following questions: a) How much of any one community type or geologic feature is required to represent it in the protected area system? and b) How large does a protected area need to be in order to be ecologically viable (or have ecological integrity)?

Table 13 - Vegetation communities and geology question group: landscape ecology theme topics (Q9-Q12).
Theme rank: 3rd
Research need topicQ9 TerrestrialcommunitiesQ10 WetlandsQ11 AquaticcommunitiesQ12 GeologyTotal number of topic observations
Vegetation mapping411-116
Parks in landscape context/adjacent uses744-15
Motor vehicle / road impact542314
Fragmentation831113
How much area is enough?11125
Parks as refugia1-1-2
Large mammals and large home range1---1

Total (% of Question group): 66 (10%)

4.3.2.4 Fish populations and aquatic ecosystems theme

As indicated in Figure 15, the fourth most noted research need theme in the Vegetation Communities and Geology Question Group (Q9-Q12) was the “Fish Populations and Aquatic Ecosystems Theme”. The most popular research need topic within this theme was the need for research regarding “Watershed Change/Hydrologic Function” (14 topic observations, Table 14). The responses to this topic focussed on the need for research on the impacts of artificial fluctuations in water levels (i.e. flooding created through hydro development), and the need for research into the impacts of artificial water level fuctuations on terrestrial, wetland and aquatic communities and geologic features.

The second greatest research need topic within this theme was for research on “Aquatic Classification” (9 topic observations, Table 14). These responses indicated the need for an aquatic classification system for Ontario and the critical role it would play in representation assessment within the protected areas system. The research need topic “Aquatic Communities” was the third most cited research topic, and subtopics included the need for research about the impacts of hydro development on riverine and lentic communities. Research was also desired into practical management strategies for managing the ecological integrity of aquatic communities, particularly in light of climate change. Research on Brook Trout (5 topic observations, Table 14) was the fourth greatest research need topic identified within the Fish Populations and Aquatic Ecosystems Theme. Specific requests within this topic called for research that contrasts brook trout populations inside and outside of protected areas as compared with other species found in aquatic communities within protected areas. The research need topic within this theme with the fifth highest interest was “Cold Water”, which called for research on aquatic communities dominated by cold water fish species (4 topic observations, Table 14). Specific research requested within this topic included a comparison of the differences in community health between cold water and cool water communities, and for research into the impacts of climate change on cold water aquatic communities.

Table 14 - Vegetation communities and geology question group: Fish populations and aquatic ecosystems theme topics (Q9-Q12).
Theme Rank: 4th
Research need topicQ9 Terrestrial CommunitiesQ10 WetlandsQ11 Aquatic CommunitiesQ12 GeologyTotal number of topic observations
Watershed Change / Hydrologic Function192214
Aquatic Classification--9-9
Aquatic Communities-15-6
Brook Trout--5-5
Cold Water--4-4
Lake Trout--4-4
Riparian Areas21--3
Shoreline Processes---22
Lake Sturgeon---11

Total (% of Question group) 48 (8%)

4.3.2.5 Representation theme

As shown in Table 15, the fifth most noted research need theme in the Vegetation Communities and Geology Question Group (Q9-Q12) was the “Representation Theme” (43 topic observations). The most noted research need topic within this theme was the need to assess representation of aquatic communities in the protected area system (14 topic observations, Table 15). The second most popular research need topic was the need to include wetlands (9 responses) within the representation framework in protected areas. The third most expressed research need topic was for an aquatic classification system (9 topic observations, Table 15) followed by concerns about how geologic features were represented (8 topic observations, Table 15) and by how terrestrial ecosystems were represented (3 topic observations, Table 15).

Table 15 -vegetation communities and geology question group: Representation theme topics (Q9- Q12).Theme rank: 5th
Research need topicQ9 Terrestrial communitiesQ10 WetlandsQ11 Aquatic communitiesQ12 GeologyTotal number of topic observations
Representative Aquatic Ecosystems1-13-14
Wetland Representation in Protected Area System-9--9
Aquatic Classification--9-9
Geologic Feature Representation in Protected Area System---88
Representative Terrestrial Ecosystems3---3

Total (% of Question group) 43 (7%)

4.3.3 Ecosystem representation, processes and functions question group (Q13-Q16)

The PPCRA indicates that protected areas will be managed “to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained”. This commitment implies the need to maintain the diversity of ecosystems as well as maintenance of their ecological processes and functions. Survey questions Q13-Q16 were intended to extract the research needs identified by survey participants that would enable the ecological integrity imperative of the PPCRA to be attained.

In a manner similar to previous survey question groups, identified topics were categorized into multiple themes for analysis. There were 234 responses to the Ecosystem Representation and Processes Question Group (Q13-Q16). Of these 234 responses, 96 research need topics were identified (Appendix A). The response rate varied between 31 and 38% for this question group (Figure 26).

Table 16 - Response rate to ecosystem representation, processes and functions question group (Q13-Q16).
Response Rate (n=167 respondents)
Question% of respondents who answered this question
Q13 Landforms / Vegetation Types31%
Q14 Ecological Processes and Functions38%
Q15 Restoration36%
Q16 Landscape Role35%

The top five research need themes for this question group made up 193 of the 448 topic observations (43%) (Table 17).

Table 17 - Response rate by research theme to ecosystem representation, processes and functions question group (Q13-Q16).
(n = 448 Topics Observations)
“Top 5” research themesTotal number of topics% of topics discussed
Landscape Ecology5713%
Vegetation Management419%
Monitoring and Inventory419%
Restoration317%
Representation235%
Total19343%
4.3.3.1 Landscape ecology theme

As shown in Table 17, the most notable research theme within the Ecosystem Representation and Processes Question Group (Q13-Q16) s was the “Landscape Ecology Theme”. Table 18 shows that, within this theme, the most frequently mentioned research need topic was for research on “Parks in the landscape context/adjacent use” which had 15 topic observations, most of them from topics related to ecological processes and functions (Q14) and/or general park/landscape level concerns (Q16).

The second most common research need topic within the Landscape Ecology Theme was a request for research on “How much area is enough?” (14 topic observations, Table 18). The next most noted research need topics included: research on the impacts of park fragmentation (13 topic observations, Table 18), research on whether protected areas functioned as refugia ( 5 topic observations, Table 18) and the impact of motor vehicles and roads on protected areas (3 topic observations, Table 18).

Table 18 - Ecosystem representation, processes and functions question group: landscape ecology theme topics (Q13-Q16).
Theme Rank: 1st
Research need topicQ13 Land form/vegetationQ14 Ecological processes/functionsQ15 RestorationQ16 LandscapeTotal number of topic observations
Parks in Landscape Context /Adjacent Uses-61815
How Much Area Is Enough?24-814
Fragmentation141713
Parks as Refugia---55
Motor Vehicle / Road Impact-3--3
Vegetation Mapping3---3
Large Mammals and Large Home Range---22
Ecopassages--1-1
Linkage Choice---11

Total (% of Question group) 57 (13%)

4.3.3.2 Vegetation management theme

The second most frequently noted research need theme within the Ecosystem Representation and Processes Question Group (Q13-Q16) was the “Vegetation Management Theme” which had 41 topic observations (Table 17). The most noted research need topics within this theme (Table 19) were about the use of “prescribed burns/natural fires” (25 topic observations) in regard to ecological processes and functions (Q14) and ecosystem restoration (Q15). The second most important research need topic was for research on “succession and vegetation management” (15 topic observations) which had responses associated with all of the questions in this group.

The third most important research topic within the vegetation Management Theme was “Old Stand/Late Developmental Stage Dependent Species”. Responses under this topic called for research on late seral stage communities and those species associated with them.

Table 19 - Ecosystem representation, processes and functions question group: Vegetation management theme topics (Q13-Q16).
Theme Rank: 2nd
Research need topicQ13 Land form/vegetationQ14 Ecological processes/functionsQ15 RestorationQ16 LandscapeTotal number of topic observations
Prescribed Burns / Natural Fires-1310225
Succession and Vegetation Management265215
Old Stand / Late Developmental Stage Dependent Species--1-1

Total (% of Question group): 41 (9%)

4.3.3.3 Monitoring and inventory theme

As shown in Table 17, the third most mentioned research need theme expressed within the Ecosystem Representation and Processes Question Group (Q13-Q16) was the “Monitoring and Inventory Theme”. Within this theme, the most mentioned research need topic was a generic request for “Monitoring and Inventory” (38 topic observations, Table 20). The request was made for all questions in this question group. The next most noted research need topic in this theme was for vegetation mapping of select landforms (Q13).

Table 20 - Ecosystem representation, processes and functions question group: Monitoring and inventory theme topics (Q13-Q16).
Theme Rank: 3rd
Research need topicQ13 Land form/vegetationQ14 Ecological processes/functionsQ15 RestorationQ16 LandscapeTotal number of topic observations
Monitoring and Inventory314111038
Vegetation Mapping3---3

Total (% of Question group) 41 (9%)

4.3.3.4 Restoration theme

The fourth most important research theme within the Ecosystem Representation and Processes Question Group (Q13-Q16) was the “Restoration Theme” (Table 17). As shown in Table 21, within this theme, the most frequently expressed need topics were a general need for research on “ecosystem restoration” and the need for research into “restoration methodologies” (6 topic observations each, respectively). These topics were followed by the research need topics for research on restoration of roads (4 topic observations), restoration of aggregate sites (3 topic observations), and wetland restoration (3 topic observations).

Table 21 - Ecosystem representation, processes and functions question group: Restoration theme topics
(Q13-Q16).
Theme Rank: 4th
Research need topicQ13 Land form/vegetationQ14 Ecological processes/functionsQ15 RestorationQ16 LandscapeTotal number of topic observations
Ecosystem Restoration-4116
Restoration Methodologies--6-6
Restoration of Roads--4-4
Aggregate Site Restoration--3-3
Wetland Restoration--3-3
Campsite Restoration--2-2
Fauna Restoration--2-2
Restoration Genetics--2-2
Hiking Trail Restoration--2-2
Plantation Restoration--1-1

Total (% of Question group) 31 (7%)

4.3.3.5 Representation theme

The fifth most frequently mentioned research need theme within the Representation, Ecosystem Processes and Functions Question Group (Q12-Q16) was the “Representation Theme” (23 topic observations, Table 17). As indicated in Table 22, the most frequent research need topic expressed was about the scale at which representation is assessed (8 topic observations, Table 22). The second and third greatest research need topics focussed on the representation of terrestrial and wetland communities (6 topic observations and 3 topic observations, respectively). The fourth and fifth most noted research need topics were concerned with the lack of an aquatic classification (2 topic observations, Table 22) and the need to represent geologic features in the protected area system (2 topic observations, Table 22).

Table 22 - Ecosystem representation, processes and functions question group: Representation theme topics (Q13-Q16).
Theme rank: 5th
Research need topicQ13 Landform/vegetationQ14 Ecological processes/functionsQ15 RestorationQ16 LandscapeTotal number of topic observations
Representation Scale8---8
Representative Terrestrial Ecosystems32-16
Wetland Representation in Protected Area System3---3
Aquatic Classification---22
Geologic Feature Representation in Protected Area System2---2
Representative Aquatic Ecosystems---11
Soils Representation1---1

Total (% of Question group) 23 (5%)

4.3.4 Cultural heritage research questions (Q17-Q21)

The first objective of the PPCRA provides direction for the protection of cultural heritage values within Ontario’s protected area system. “To permanently protect representative ecosystems, biodiversity and provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage and to manage these areas to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained”. Questions 17 to 21 in the survey examined various issues relating to the need for cultural heritage research in Ontario protected areas. These included questions relating to built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, archaeological resources, traditional use sites, and an option for other related topics.

Between 26 and 39 of the 167 respondents chose to provide input to each of the questions. The response rates break down accordingly:

Cultural heritage question group
Response rate (n = 167 respondents)
Question% of Respondents who answered this question
Q17 Built Heritage22%
Q18 Cultural Heritage Landscapes19%
Q19 Archaeological Resources23%
Q20 Traditional Use Sites22%
Q21 Culture Other16%

A total of 47 research need topics were identified from the 289 topic observations for this group of questions. These 47 topics were grouped into 10 research themes. The “top five” research themes and topic observations within each theme pertaining to the protection of cultural heritage values in Ontario’s protected areas were as follows:

Cultural heritage question group themes
(n = 289 Topic Observations)
Top 5 research themesTotal number of topic observations% of Topic Observations
Monitoring and Inventory5017%
Aboriginal Communities4616%
Cultural Heritage Research3713%
Park Planning3412%
Cultural Heritage Planning3010%
Total19768%

Since a large proportion of these comments (62%) came from participants with a limited background in cultural heritage research (park staff, natural heritage specialists or planners), many of their responses regarding cultural heritage research needs were very general in nature. Additionally, the general nature of the cultural heritage research needs expressed throughout these responses is a reflection of the pressing need for any cultural heritage research to be conducted, since less than 5% of all research within Ontario’s protected areas focuses on the social sciences (State of Ontario’s Protected Areas Report, 2011).

4.3.4.1 Monitoring and inventory theme

The general call for “Monitoring and Inventory” was the dominant research need topic (17%) with respect to understanding cultural heritage values in Ontario provincial protected areas. The need to conduct more monitoring and inventory was most prevalent (16 observations) when participants were asked about research needs regarding archaeological resources (Q19).

Table 25 – Cultural heritage research group: Monitoring and inventory theme topics (Q17 – Q21).
Theme rank: 1st
Research need topicQ17 - Built heritageQ18 - Cultural heritage landscapesQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 - Traditional use sitesQ21 - Cultural heritage otherTotal number of topic observations
Monitoring /Inventory1261612450

Total (% of Question group): 50 (17%)

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has laid out the necessary requirements for researchers looking to conduct further monitoring and inventory of Ontario’s archaeological resources within their Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2001).

4.3.4.2 Aboriginal communities theme

As indicated in Table 24, the second highest research need theme within the cultural heritage questions was the need to focus more attention on issues related to Aboriginal Communities (16%).

Table 26 - Cultural heritage question group: Aboriginal Communities Theme Topics (Q17 – Q21).
Theme rank: 2nd
Research need topicQ17 - Built heritageQ18 - Cultural heritage landscapesQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 - Traditional use sitesQ21 - Cultural heritage otherTotal number of topic observations
Aboriginal community involvement12412120
Aboriginal community archaeological values--68-14
Aboriginal communities culture34-2-9
Pictographs-111-3

Total (% of Question group): 46 (16%)

There was a wide array of topics related to Aboriginal Communities that were discussed among these questions (Table 26). Participants identified the need to focus research on “Aboriginal Communities Involvement” (20 topic observations, Table 26), “Aboriginal Communities Archaeological Values” (14 topic observations, Table 26), “Aboriginal Communities Culture” (9 topic observations, Table 26), and “Pictographs” (3 topic observations, Table 26). The vast majority of these responses came in discussions around understanding traditional use sites within protected areas. Participants felt that a research need exists to understand how to involve Aboriginal Communities more fully in understanding traditional use sites within protected areas.

4.3.4.3 Cultural heritage research theme

The third most discussed research need theme within the cultural heritage questions was the need for more focused Cultural Heritage Research in protected areas (16%, Table 24).

Table 27 - Cultural heritage question group: Cultural heritage research theme topics (Q17 – Q21).
Theme rank: 3rd
Research need topicQ17 - Built heritageQ18 - Cultural heritage landscapesQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 - Traditional use sitesQ21 - Cultural heritage otherTotal number of topic observations
Cultural Heritage Research4967-26
Cultural Heritage Impacts312--6
Cultural heritage significance-2-1-3
Relation between natural heritage landscape and cultural heritage-1-1-2

Total (% of Question group): 37 (13%)

As mentioned, many of the comments regarding the need for cultural heritage research were general. Some of the topics mentioned within this theme were the need for “Cultural Heritage Research” in general (26 topic observations, Table 27), “Cultural Heritage Impacts” (6 topic observations, Table 27), “Cultural Heritage Significance” (3 topic observations, Table 27), and in understanding the “Relationship Between Natural and Cultural Heritage Landscapes” (2 topic observations, Table 27). The focus of the general comments regarding “Cultural Heritage Research” was with respect to looking at cultural heritage landscapes, archaeological resources, and traditional use sites. The need for research on “Cultural Heritage Impacts” was focused on existing built heritage and archaeological values within protected areas.

4.3.4.4 Parks planning theme

The next most frequently discussed research need theme (12%, Table 24) related to the need for cultural heritage research focused on park planning requirements to conserve cultural heritage values within protected areas.

Table 28 - Cultural heritage question group: Park planning research theme topics (Q17 – Q21).
Theme rank: 4th
Research need topicQ17 - Built heritageQ18 - Cultural heritage landscapesQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 - Traditional use sitesQ21 - Cultural heritage otherTotal number of topic observations
Park Funding for Research3531214
Park Staff Training1211-5
Policy and Administration211-15
Non- Operating Parks1-11-3
Far North Planning----22
Park Planning----22
Management Direction----11
Park Operations----11
Park Systems Planning----11

Total (% of Question group) 34 (12%)

The top topics mentioned within the theme of “Park Planning” included “Park Funding for Research” (14 topic observations, Table 28), “Park Staff Training” (5 topic observations, Table 28), “Policy and Administration (5 topic observations, Table 28), “Non-Operating” (3 topic observations, Table 28), and “Far North Planning” (2 topic observations, Table 28). The topic of “Park Funding” was primarily mentioned with respect to the need to protect built heritage, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources. Just as much as there is a need to conduct research on our cultural heritage values, there may be a fundamentally more important need in providing the right amount of resources, in the form of funding and training, to protect them.

4.3.4.1 Cultural heritage planning theme

The fifth most frequently mentioned research need theme (10%, Table 24) with respect to the need for cultural heritage research was the need for a better understanding of “Cultural Heritage Planning” within our protected area system.

Table 29 - Cultural heritage question group: Park planning research theme topics (Q17 – Q21).
Theme rank: 5th
Research need topicQ17 - Built heritageQ18 - Cultural heritage landscapesQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 - Traditional use sitesQ21 - Cultural heritage otherTotal number of topic observations
Cultural Heritage Planning4233113
Preservation and Maintenance2-52-9
Cultural Heritage Protection71---8

Total (% of Question group) 30 (10%)

Unlike the previous research theme that focused more on the operational needs to understanding cultural heritage resources in protected areas, this theme focuses more on the need to better understand the policies and guidelines for the protection, preservation and maintenance of these resources. The topics mentioned within this theme focused on “Cultural Heritage Planning” in general (13 topic observations, Table 29), “Preservation and Maintenance” (9 topic observations, Table 29), and “Cultural Heritage Protection” (8 topic observations, Table 29). The majority of the comments (43%) were focused on understanding how to best plan for the preservation, protection and maintenance of built heritage resources in our protected areas.

4.4 Questions related to objective 2 of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act

For Provincial Parks:

To provide opportunities for ecologically sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities and encourage associated economic benefits (PPCRA, 2006).

For Conservation Reserves:

To provide opportunities for ecologically sustainable land uses, including traditional outdoor heritage activities and associated economic benefits (PPCRA, 2006).

4.4.1 Ecologically sustainable recreation question (Q22)

The second PPCRA objective for provincial parks provides the direction for the protection of ecologically sustainable recreation within Ontario’s protected area system. “Question 22 set out to identify research needs relating to the need for ecologically sustainable outdoor recreation and traditional outdoor heritage activities in Ontario.

Out of the 167 respondents, 70 respondents chose to provide input to this question. Therefore the response rate for this question was 42%.

There were a total of 58 different topics identified throughout the 70 responses given for this question. These 58 topics were grouped into 10 research need themes. The “top five” themes and topic observations identified in Question 22 were as follows:

Table 30 - Top 5 themes represented throughout Q22, ecologically sustainable recreation question group themes (n = 181 Topic Observations)
Top 5 research themesTotal number of topics observations% of topic observations
Human use impacts9452%
Research/rehabilitation/monitoring2413%
Species158%
Broader park impacts127%
Invasive species127%
Total15787%
4.4.1.1 Recreation impacts theme

It is not surprising that the most frequently raised theme pertaining to ecologically sustainable recreation was impacts caused by the human use of protected areas. This theme included a total of 94 (52%) of topic observations (Table 30).

Table 31 – Ecologically sustainable recreation question group: Top 10 recreation impact theme topics (Q22).
Theme rank: 1st
Research need topicTotal number of topics observations% of Topics observations
General Impacts of Recreation2212%
ATV Impact116%
Fishing Impact95%
Hiking Trail Impact84%
Motor vehicle/road Impact84%
Horseback Riding/dog trials/ dog sled impact43%
Use of live bait42%
Camping Impact42%
Mountain bike Impacts42%
Motor boat impact3%

Total (% of Question group) 94 (52%)

While there was a variety of human uses discussed as deserving of further research on their impacts, Table 31 points only to the “top 5” that were discussed. Within this list, respondents most frequently (12%) requested, in general, research on recreational impacts (22 topic observations, Table 31). The next most frequently discussed research topic (6%) was the impacts of ATV use (11 topic observations), a prohibited use in protected areas but its impacts are still frequently seen. Most of the remaining human use impacts that respondents thought were deserving of further research focused on more permissible, yet still impacting activities occurring in protected areas. These included fishing impacts (9 topic observations) and the associated use of live bait (4 topic observations), hiking trail impacts (8 topic observations, Table 31) and motor vehicle/road impacts (8 topic observations).

4.4.1.2 Research/rehabilitation/monitoring theme

The second most frequently noted research need theme within the Ecologically Sustainable Recreation question (Q22) was the “Research/Rehabilitation/Monitoring Theme” which had a total of 24 topic observations (Table 32).

Table 32 - Ecologically sustainable recreation question group: Research/rehabilitation/monitoring theme topics (Q22).
Theme rank: 2nd
Research need topicTotal number of topics observations% of Topics observations
Monitoring and Inventory84%
Sustainability definition74%
Ecosystem Restoration21%
Ecopassages11%
How much Area is enough?11%
State of Resource Reporting111%
Assessment model by ecosite and recreation type11%
Succession and Vegetation Management11%
Dunes 2 1%21%

The most noted research need topic within this theme (Table 32) was the general need for more inventory and monitoring of recreation impacts (8 topic observations). The second most important research need topic was for research on defining what are sustainable levels of recreation (7 topic observations, table 32). The third most important research topic within the Research/Rehabilitation/Monitoring Theme focused on the need for more research into ecosystem restoration techniques (2 topic observations, Table 32). The fourth and fifth of the “top 5” research needs identified within this theme included the need for more research on “ecopassages” and determining how much area is needed in protected area status to sustain protected area values.

4.4.1.3 Species theme

Research associated with the theme “Species” (15 topic observations, Table 30) was the third greatest research theme expressed within the Ecologically Sustainable Recreation Question Group representing about 8% of all topic observations to these questions (Table 30).

Table 33 - Ecologically sustainable recreation question group: Species theme topics (Q22)
Research need topicTotal number of topics observations% of topics observations
Species at risk32%
Woodland caribou32%
Moose21%
Coyotes11%
Turtle nesting success11%
Wildlife disease11%
Wolves11%
Reasons for amphibian and reptile decline11%
Predator prey11%
Trout populations11%
Total (% of Question group) 15 (8%)

The majority of the research topics outlined within this “Species” Theme focused on the need to conduct further research on the impacts of recreational activities on specific species within a given protected area. The most frequently indicated species deserving of further research within this theme were Species at Risk (3 topic observations, Table 33). Tied with this research topic was the need to conduct further research on Woodland Caribou (3 topic observations, Table 33).

The following species were also mentioned as being deserving of further research into the impacts of recreation on the species. These included Moose (2 topic observations) and Coyotes and Wolves (both with 1 topic observation each, Table 33).

4.4.1.4 Broader park impacts theme

As indicated in Table 30, the fourth most noted research need theme in the Ecologically Sustainable Recreation Question Group (Q22) was the “Broader Park Impacts Theme”.

Table 34 - Ecologically sustainable recreation question group: Broader park theme topics (Q22).
Theme rank: 5th
Research need topicQ22 Ecologically sustainable recreationTotal number of topics observations
Invasive species95%
Emerald ash borer1<1%
Forest pests1<1%
Out of range introductions - fish1<1%
Total (% of Question group) 12 (7%)

The most popular research need topic within this theme was the need for research regarding “Parks in a Landscape Context/Adjacent Land Uses” (4 topic observations, Table 34). The responses to this topic focused on the need to better understand the impacts of recreational and other human uses occurring adjacent to parks. The second most frequently discussed research need topic within this theme was research on “Fragmentation” (3 topic observations). These responses indicated the need to understand and improve the functionality of protected areas existing as islands within a sea of development. The research need topic “Erosion” was the third most cited research topic (2 topic observations) including the need for research about the soil erosion impacts of recreational activities within protected areas. Other research need topics within this theme included research regarding how external/internal protected area activities affect a protected areas’ watershed/hydrological function (2 topic observations) and are a source of pollutants/contaminants (1 topic observation, Table 34).

4.4.1.5 Invasive species theme

The fifth most important research theme within the Ecologically Sustainable Recreation Question Group was “Invasive Species”, which had a total of 12 topic observations and made up 7% of topic observations within this question group (Table 30).. As shown in Table 35, this grouping of research topics includes both general expressions of the need for research on how to mitigate the impacts of invasive species (9 topic observations, Table 8) as well as requests for research on specific invasive species such as Emerald Ash Borer (1 topic observation), forest pests (1 topic observation), and out-of-range fish introductions (1 topic observation).

Table 35 - Ecologically sustainable recreation question group: Invasive species theme topics (Q22)
Research need topicQ22 Ecologically sustainable recreationTotal number of topics observations
Invasive Species95%
Emerald Ash borer1<1%
Forest Pests1<1%
Out of Range Introductions - fish1<1%

Total (% of Question group) 12 (7%)

4.4.2 Economic benefit question group (Q23-Q27)

The second objective of the PPCRA provides direction for the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities and generation of related economic benefits. Questions 23 to 27 of the survey examined the research necessary to help achieve this objective. These questions were specifically scoped to identify the research needed to better understand the economic benefits arising from protected areas. While Q23 asked a generalized question about the research needed to determine the economic benefits from protected areas, the remainder of the questions probed the research needed to yield specific types of economic benefits. For example, what research is needed to determine the economic benefits associated with the fresh air, clean water, climate regulation, and other “ecosystem goods and services” protected areas provide (Q24) and the research needed to better describe both visitor (Q25) and non-visitor (Q26) economic benefits.

The final question in this group (Q27) asked respondents to identify other concerns related to achieving PPCRA objective 2, and what scientific research would address these concerns.

As suggested by the response rates in Table 36, of the 167 respondents, between 10% and 30% of respondents chose to provide input to this question group.

Table 36 - Response rate to species question group (Q23-Q27).
Theme rank: 5th
Question% of Respondents who answered this question
Q23 Economic Benefits29%
Q24 Ecosystem Goods and Services22%
Q25 Visitor Preferences26%
Q26 Non-visitor Benefits19%
Q27 Other Concerns Related to Economic Benefits10%

In total, there were 177 responses to the 5 questions within this group. Out of these responses, 58 research need topics were identified which were then grouped into 20 representative themes. Table 37 shows that the “top 5” research need themes and “top 5” research need topics within each theme accounted for 67% of the topic observations to the Economic Benefit Question Group.

Table 37 - Response rate by research theme to economic benefit question group (Q23-Q27).
Themes (n= 373 Topics)
“Top 5” Research themesTotal number of topic observations% of Topic observations
Economic Valuation10328%
Visitor Characteristics5916%
Economic Impacts339%
Other318%
Landscape Ecology246%
Total25067%
4.4.2.1 Economic valuation theme

As shown in Table 37, the dominant research theme within the economic benefit questions was “Economic Valuation”, which is the translation of various benefits arising from protected areas into monetary terms (i.e. dollar values). This research theme accounted for more than one-quarter of all responses to the Economic Benefit Question Group (Q23- Q27).

Within the Economic Valuation Theme, the most frequently mentioned research need topic was for quantifying “Ecosystem Service Values” that are derived from protected areas (24 topic observations, Table 38). Specific responses within this topic included: the need to assess the contribution that protected areas make to broad regional ecoservice provision, the need to partner/build on ecosystem service studies from other jurisdictions, and the need for monetary estimates for the benefits associated with protected area carbon sequestration, watershed protection, biodiversity conservation and flood attenuation services.

The second most noted research need topic within the Economic Benefit Question Group was “Recreation Use Values” (22 topic observations, Table 38). Most of the topics were generated from the unspecified economic benefit question (Q23) and emphasized the need to articulate the expenditures and revenue generated by park visitors to local economies. Other mentions included the need for comparing of conventional and ecotourism benefits, and the need for “full-cost accounting” of recreational activities in protected areas to better include environmental costs.

The third most cited research need topic within this theme was the call for some type of cost and/or benefit appraisal to assess the “net worth” (i.e. difference between costs and benefits) of protected areas to Ontarians (18 topic observations, Table 38). This research topic need was mentioned in all questions within the Economic Benefit Question Group and most of the topic observations expressed the need to determine if the current stream of park visitor-related benefits is sustainable or desirable for protected area management goals.

The value of non-visitor benefits arising from protected areas was the fourth most noted research need topic within this theme. The need to quantify the “altruistic”, “existence”, “aesthetic”, “societal” and other non-use values was reported most frequently when respondents were asked what research was necessary to determine the non-visitor benefits of protected areas (9 topic observations, Table 38). Other specific mentions within this research need topic included the need to quantify the value of non- consumptive uses of protected areas, such as the value Ontarians hold for species at risk and rare ecosystems.

The fifth most notable research need topic within the Economic Valuation theme was the “commercial use value” arising from protected areas. Two-thirds of these topic responses arose from the unspecified economic benefit question (Q23) and most referred to the need to articulate the business revenues accruing to local outfitters, hoteliers, commercial camps and other direct suppliers of outdoor recreation goods and services that arise from protected area visitor expenditures.

Table 38 - Economic benefit question group: Economic valuation theme topics (Q23-Q27).
Theme rank: 1st
Research need topicQ23 Economic benefitsQ24 Ecological goods /servicesQ25 Visitor facilities / activitiesQ26 Non- visitor benefitsQ27 Other economic researchTotal number of topic observations
Ecosystem Service Values107-7-24
Recreation Use Values14-25122
Cost Benefit Analysis11221218
Non-Visitor Values3219116
Commercial Use Value10--5-15
Health Benefits121004
Hydrologic Service Value-211-4

Total (% of Question group) 103 (28%)

4.4.2.2 Visitor characteristics theme

As shown in Table 37, the second highest recurring research need theme within the economic benefit series of questions was the need to improve the understanding of the preferences, experiences and characteristics of park visitors. This theme accounted for about 16% of the total topic observations within the Economic Benefit Question Group (Q23- Q27).

Within the visitor characteristics theme (Table 39), about 40% (23 topic observations) referred to the research need topic “Visitor Preferences”. Hence, this was the dominant research need topic within this theme. The majority of the topic observations in this topic came from Q25 which asked respondents to articulate the research needed to determine which activities and facilities were desired by park visitors. Specific responses to Q25 were varied and included the need for: research regarding the activities and programs that visitors engaged in during their park visit, research exploring how to use new technologies to enhance visitor experience, research exploring the preferences of youth and non-visitors, research regarding the current and future role of natural heritage education programs, and research regarding current park visitor behaviour and attitudes.

The research need topic “Visitor Surveys” was the second most cited topic within the Visitor Research Theme. The perceived need to conduct visitor surveys to gauge visitor preferences was cited most frequently when respondents were asked to identify what research was necessary to help them identify which recreation activities and facilities are sought by park visitors (15 topic observations, Table 39).

The third most noted research need topic within this theme was “Visitor Experience Research” (6 topic observations, Table 39). The majority of the topic observations (5/6) were derived from Q25 which asked respondents to articulate the research needed to determine which activities and facilities were desired by park visitors. Specific responses included the need for research regarding: trip motivations, desired experiences, facility preferences, understanding of visitor utilization of park services/facilities, demographics and reasons for declining visitation.

To the extent possible, the type of survey research requested by respondents was categorized to enable more targeted research topics to be identified from survey responses. The call for a specific day visitor survey and a unique survey for conservation reserve visitors, were the fourth and fifth most noted research need topics within the Visitor Research Theme.

Table 39 - Economic benefit question group: Visitor research theme topics (Q23-Q27).
Research need topicQ23 Economic benefitsQ24 Ecological goods /servicesQ25 Visitor facilities / activitiesQ26 Non- visitor benefitsQ27 Other economic researchTotal number of topic observations
Visitor preferences3-181123
Visitor surveys3-15--18
Visitor experience research1-5--6
Day visitor survey1121-5
Conservation reserve visitor survey1-3--4
Redistribute visitation1---12
Comment cards--1--1

Total (% of Question group) 59 (16%)

4.4.2.3 Economic impact theme

The third most discussed research need theme (9%) within the Economic Benefit Question Group in Table 37 was the “Economic Impact Theme”. As shown in Table 40, the two most noted research need topics were the need to identify the economic impact of provincial protected areas on local (16 topic observations) and regional economies (10 topic observations). More than half of these responses came from the unspecified economic benefit question (Q23) and the remainder came from responses to better determine the non-visitor economic benefits of protected areas.

Specific mentions included the need to quantify the economic contribution of protected areas to local businesses and communities through visitor expenditures, tourism-related jobs and improved real estate values (i.e. hedonic realty impact). The need for this research was perceived by some to be especially important for protected areas adjacent to small and Northern communities.

The expressed need for research regarding the broader regional economic contribution of protected areas was dominated by responses to Q23 and Q26. Examples of responses to this research need topic include: the need to understand how economies from which park visits originate are influenced by protected areas, the need to compare economic benefits across park jurisdictions, and the need to understand the “full benefits” that protected areas contribute to the Ontario rural economy.

These comments suggest an overall research need for more comprehensive “business cases” to be made to build recognition of protected areas as important components of economic development strategies at all regional scales.

Table 40 - Economic benefit question group: Economic impact theme topics (Q23-Q27).
Theme rank: 3rd
Research need topicQ23 Economic BenefitsQ24 Ecological goods /servicesQ25 Visitor facilities / activitiesQ26 Non-visitor benefitsQ27 Other economic researchTotal number of topic observations
Local Economic Impact9--6116
Regional Economic Impact51-4-10
Local Survey212--5
Hedonic Realty Impact2----2

Total (% of Question group) 33 (9%)

4.4.2.5 “Other” theme

As shown in Table 37, the fourth most noted research theme within the Economic Benefit Question Group was the “Other” Theme which was a collection of general comments and/or unspecified research need topics. Since the Ministry of Natural Resources (including Ontario Parks) is largely a “natural” science-based organization, with emphasis on understanding ecosystem composition, structure and function rather than socio-economic drivers and outcomes, it was not surprising that this indeterminate research theme was so notable within this question group.

Many topic observations within this theme were unclear, repeated across questions in the group, or suggested respondents did not know what specific research need was warranted. However, some topic observations within this theme were more specific and acknowledged the need for more scientific research to demonstrate the economic and social contribution of protected areas to Ontarians. The majority of responses originated from the research need to determine the economic benefits associated with Ecological Goods and Services (8 topic observations, Table 41). Specific mentions within this topic included “anything” that would contribute to the improved understanding of ecosystem goods and services and the generalized need for economic, socio-economic and “any economic research” on protected areas (Q23). Other mentions within the “Unspecified” research need topic included the need for personal questionnaires and transparent, apolitical, qualitative research and social media marketing (Q25). Within the “Socio- Economic Impact” research need topic were mentions regarding the need for research about the impact of parks in terms of local jobs and tourism benefits (Q26), and the need to determine visitor demographic/trip preference data (Q25).

Table 41 - Economic benefit question group: “Other” theme topics (Q23-Q27).
Theme rank: 4th
Research need topicQ23 Economic benefitsQ24 Ecological goods /servicesQ25 Visitor facilities / activitiesQ26 Non- visitor benefitsQ27 Other economic researchTotal number of topic observations
Unspecified research4845-21
Socio- economic impact2242-10

Total (% of Question group) 31 (8%)

4.4.2.2 Landscape ecology theme

The fifth of the “top five” most noted research need themes with respect to the need for economic research was the “Landscape Ecology Theme”. The topics of this theme suggest a need to better understand the broader biophysical relationships within and across protected areas as a prerequisite for the estimation of the economic benefits. For example, most responses were focused on the need to better understand the ecological processes and functions from which ecological goods and service benefits arise (6 topic responses, Table 42). The second most noted research need topic within this theme was the need for research on “Parks as Refugia”. Observations within this topic included the need to determine to what extent protected areas function as a nursery for large mammals and their ability to protect ecological integrity despite their island biogeographic status – especially in southern Ontario.

The third most noted research need topic, “Natural Heritage Systems”, included observations regarding the need for area-specific research relating to the acquisition of new protected areas where the opportunity to do so still exists, and the need to examine how other protected area mechanisms and designations contribute to landscape ecosystem protection.

The fourth and fifth most noted research need topics called for research regarding the necessary size for protected areas to achieve mandated objectives and for research regarding the importance of headwater streams in maintaining productive park fisheries and potable water for urban communities.

Table 42 - Economic benefit question group: Landscape ecology theme topics (Q23-Q27).
Theme rank: 5th
Research need topicQ23 Economic benefitsQ24 Ecological goods /servicesQ25 Visitor facilities / activitiesQ26 Non- visitor benefitsQ27 Other economic researchTotal number of topic observations
Ecological processes and functions16-1-8
Parks as refugia-31-26
Natural heritage systems21--14
How much area is enough?11--13
Headwater research-1-1-2
Linkage choice-1---1

Total (% of Question group) 24 (6%)

4.5 Questions related to objective 3 of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act

“To provide opportunities for residents of Ontario and visitors to increase their knowledge and appreciation of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage” (PPCRA, 2006).

4.5.1 Interpretive program research questions (Q28-Q29)

The third PPCRA objective for provincial parks is to provide opportunities for education and appreciation of the values and features. Questions 28 and 29 of the survey examined various issues relating to the need for research on educational services in protected areas. These included questions relating to the research needs around interpretative tools and an option for other related topics surrounding interpretation needs in parks and protected areas.

Out of the 167 respondents, anywhere between 14 and 59 respondents chose to provide input on these questions. The response rates breakdown down accordingly:

Table 43 - Response Rate for Q28-Q29, Interpretative Program Question Group Response Rate
(n=167 respondents)
Question% of Respondents who answered this question
Q28 Interpretive Tools35%
Q29 Interpretive Other8%

A total of 28 different topics that were identified within the 73 total responses. These 28 topics were grouped into 12 themes. As shown in Table 44, the top five research themes pertaining to the research needs surrounding the education services offered in protected areas accounted for 86% of the topic observations and included the following:

Table 44 - Top 5 Themes represented throughout Q28-Q29.
Interpretative program question group themes (n = 114 Topics Observations)
“Top 5” research themesWithin theme “top 5” topic observation total% of topic observations
Natural heritage education (NHE) research4136%
NHE resources2522%
public outreach1311%
Visitors1110%
Aboriginal communities87%
Total9886%

Like the themes and topics discussed regarding the cultural heritage research needs questions, these too were rather general in nature. This may be due to a combination of the nature of the respondents’ background, since only 16% of the respondents of these questions were involved in Natural Heritage Education programs in protected areas, and the fact that there was only one question (and one “other” category) to focus on.

4.5.1.1. Natural heritage education research theme

The most discussed research need theme (36%) regarding educational services in protected areas surrounded the general need for more “Natural Heritage Education Research”.

Table 45 – Interpretive program group: Natural heritage education research theme topics (Q19 – Q20).
Theme rank: 1st
Research need topicQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 -Traditional use sitesTotal number of topic observations
Effectiveness of interpretation programs9514
Alternative methods of interpretation7310
Interpretation research729
Alternative educational markets516
Conservation reserve interpretation2-2

Total (% of Question group) 41 (36%)

The second most important research need topic within the theme of “Natural Heritage Education (NHE) Research” focused on the need to understand alternative methodologies for the delivery of educational services and the need to understand their effectiveness. The topics within this theme included “Effectiveness of Interpretation Programs (14 topic observations, Table 45), “Alternative Methods of Interpretation” (10 topic observations), broad-based “Interpretation Research” (9 topic observations), “Alternative Educational Markets” (6 topic observations), and “Conservation Reserve Interpretation” (2 topic observations).

4.5.1.1 Natural heritage education resources theme

The second most frequently discussed research need theme (22%, Table 44) regarding educational services in protected areas centered on the need to understand “Natural Heritage Education Resources”.

Table 46 - Interpretive program group: Natural heritage education resources theme topics (Q19 – Q20).
Theme rank: 2nd
Research need topicQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 - Traditional use sitesTotal number of topic observations
Interpretive Information10-10
Electronic Interpretation516
Interpretive Signage4-4
Interpretation Languages123
Experiential Learning Opportunities2-2

Total (% of Question group) 25 (22%)

The topics in this theme focused on the need to better understand the delivery methods for educational services in protected areas. Some of the most frequently discussed topics in this theme included “Interpretive Information” (10 topic observations, Table 46), “Electronic Interpretation” (6 topic observations), “Interpretive Signage” (4 topic observations), “Interpretive Language” (3 topic observations), and “Experiential Learning Opportunities” (2 topic observations).

4.5.1.3 Public outreach theme

The third most discussed research need theme (11%, Table 44) regarding educational services in protected areas focused on understanding effective “Public Outreach” methods.

Table 47 - Interpretive program group: Public outreach theme topics (Q19 – Q20).
Theme rank: 3rd
Research need topicQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 -Traditional use sitesTotal number of topic observations
School programming6-6
Public understanding of parks4-4
Public education213

Total (% of Question group) 13 (11%)

The topics covered within this theme expressed the need to examine the ways in which protected areas are being discussed within the public education system. The topics mentioned within this theme of “Public Outreach” included “School Programming” (6 topic observations, Table 47), “Public Understanding of Parks” (4 topic observations), and “Public Education” techniques (3 topic observations).

4.5.1.4 Visitors theme

The fourth most frequently discussed research need theme (10%, Table 44) regarding educational services in protected areas focused on a need to better understand protected area visitors.

Table 48 - Interpretive program group: Visitors theme topics (Q19 – Q20).
Research need topicQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 - Traditional use sitesTotal number of topic observations
Visitor preferences729
Group differential studies2-2

Total (% of Question group 11 (10%)

The “Visitors” research theme focused on discussing the need to better understand the differences and preferences of the various visitor groups throughout the provincial protected area system. The topics in this theme include “Visitor Preferences” (9 topic observations, Table 48) and “Group Differential Studies” (2 topic observations) that examine the between-group differences in providing educational programs.

4.5.1.4 Aboriginal communities theme

The fifth most frequently discussed research need theme regarding educational services in protected areas (7%, Table 44) focused on the need to better understand ways to incorporate “Aboriginal Communities” into protected area interpretive programs.

Table 49 - Interpretive rrogram group: Visitors theme topics (Q19 – Q20).
Aboriginal communities theme
Theme rank: 5th
Research need topicQ19 - Archaeological resourcesQ20 - Traditional use sitesTotal number of topic observations
Aboriginal community involvement314
Aboriginal community interpretive programs2-2
Aboriginal community harvest1-1
Traditional ecological knowledge1-1

Total (% of Question group) 8 (7%)

The most frequently discussed topic within this theme focused on the need for research on how to involve Aboriginal Communities within natural heritage educational services in protected areas. Topics discussed within this theme include “Aboriginal Communities Involvement” (4 topic observations, Table 49), “Aboriginal Communities Interpretive Programs” (2 topic observations), “Aboriginal Community Harvest” (1 topic observation) and “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” (1 topic observation).

4.6 Questions related to objective 4 of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act

“To facilitate scientific research and to provide points of reference to support monitoring of ecological change on the broader landscape” (PPCRA, 2006).

4.6.1 Parks as benchmarks research questions (Q30-Q31)

The fourth objective of the PPCRA directs protected areas to encourage scientific research throughout its system and for protected areas to serve as benchmarks in monitoring changes in ecological processes. Specifically, “”. Questions 30 and 31 of the survey examined the need for protected areas to act as a benchmark for scientific research.

Out of the 167 respondents, between 14 and 71 respondents provided input on these questions. The response rates breakdown down accordingly:

Table 50 - Response rate for Q30 - Q31
Parks as benchmarks question Group Response Rate (n=167 respondents)
Question% of respondents who answered this question
Q30 Parks as Benchmarks43%
Q31 Benchmarks Other8%

There was a total of 46 different topics that were identified throughout the 85 total responses. These 46 topics were grouped into 16 themes. As indicated in Table 51, the top five research themes identified for these questions pertaining to the research needs regarding protected areas as benchmarks for scientific research were as follows:

Table 51 - Top 5 Themes represented throughout Q30-Q31
Parks as benchmarks research question group themes (n = 143 Topics Observations)
Top 5 research themesTotal number of topic observations% of topic observations
Monitoring and Inventory4632%
Landscape Ecology2618%
Human Use Impacts1611%
Species At Risk86%
Invasive Species75%
Total10372%
4.6.1.1 Monitoring and inventory research theme

The most discussed research need theme (32%) regarding parks as benchmarks surrounded the need for “monitoring and inventory” in general (Table 52).

Table 52 - Parks as benchmarks question group: Monitoring and inventory research theme topics (Q30 – Q31).
Theme rank: 1st
Research need topicQ30 – Parks as benchmarksQ31 - OtherTotal number of topic observations
Monitoring and inventory38846

Total (% of Question group) 46 (32%)

Discussion around this theme (46 topic observations, Table 52) focused on the general need for continual monitoring of the status of protected areas to ensure that they remain ecological benchmarks for comparison with developed landscapes.

4.6.1.1 Landscape ecology research theme

The second most frequently noted research need theme within the Parks as Benchmarks Question Group (Q30-Q31) was the “Landscape Ecology Theme”, which had 26 topic observations (Table 53).

Table 53 - Parks as benchmarks question group: Landscape ecology research theme topics (Q30–Q31).
Theme rank: 2nd
Research need topicQ30 – Parks as benchmarksQ31 - OtherTotal number of topic observations
Parks in landscape context/adjacent uses5611
How much area is enough?6-6
Ecological processes and functions213
Ecological integrity123
Fragmentation3-3

Total (% of Question group) 26 (18%)

The most noted research need topics within this theme (Table 53) focused on further research looking into protected areas in a landscape context and their adjacent uses (11 topic observations, Table 53). The second most discussed research need topic was for research into “how much area is enough" (6 topic observations, Table 53) to best manage the ecological processes within a given protected area. The third most important research topic within the Landscape Ecology Theme was “Ecological processes and functions” (3 topic observation, Table 53). The other two topics discussed within this theme were observed 3 times throughout these questions. These included research focused on ecological integrity and fragmentation (3 topic observation, Table 53).

4.6.1.1 Human use impacts theme

The third most discussed research need theme (11%) regarding parks as benchmarks focused on understanding “Human Use Impacts” and their impacts on protected areas as benchmarks.

Table 54 - Parks as Benchmarks Question Group: Human Use Impact Research Theme Topics (Q30 – Q31).
Theme rank: 3rd
Research need topicQ30 – Parks as benchmarksQ31 - OtherTotal number of topic observations
Impacts of Recreation448
ATV Impact123
Forestry Impacts2-2
Angler effort1-1
Hiking Trail Impact1-1
Motor vehicle/road Impact1-1

Total (% of Question group) 16 (11%)

The most frequently noted (8 topic observations, Table 54) “Human Use Impact” research topic was a unspecified call for research into protected area recreation activities. Other mentions included research on the impacts of ATV use in and around protected areas (3 topic observations, Table 54). A few respondents (2 topic observations, Table 54) mentioned the need for research on the impacts of forestry operations in parks and their associated impacts on parks to act as benchmarks.

Remaining topics focused on other prolific permissible activities within protected areas that impact upon protected areas capacity to serve as benchmarks. These included “angling effort” and “hiking trail impact” (each receiving a single topic observation, Table 54).

4.6.1.1 Species at risk theme

The fourth most frequently raised theme within the “Parks as Benchmarks Question Group" was the “Species At Risk” Theme (6%) as shown in Table 50.

Table 55 - Parks as benchmarks question group: Species at risk research theme topics (Q30 – Q31).
Theme rank: 4th
Research need topicQ30 – Parks as benchmarksQ31 - OtherTotal number of topic observationsResearch need topic
Species at Risk21 3
Eastern Wolf2- 2
Woodland Caribou1- 1
Piping Plover Management-1 1
Wood Turtle-1 1

Total (% of Question group) 8 (6%)

Many of the topics discussed within this theme expressed the need to conduct further research on species at risk within a given protected area so that the area may better serve as a benchmark across the landscape. As shown in Table 55, the most discussed topic was Species at Risk (3 topic observations). Responses also included more specific discussions on specific species at risk, including Eastern Wolf (2 topic observations), Woodland Caribou (1 topic observation), Piping Plover (1 topic observations) and Wood Turtle (2 topic observations).

4.6.1.1 Invasive species theme

The fifth most frequently discussed research needs theme (7%, Table 50) regarding parks as benchmarks focused on the need to better understand the ways in which invasive species are impacting protected areas as benchmarks.

Table 56 - Parks as benchmarks question group: Invasive risk research theme topics (Q30 – Q31).
Theme rank: 5th
Research need topicQ30 – Parks as benchmarksQ31 - OtherTotal number of topic observations
Invasive Species6-6
Emerald Ash Borer-11

Total (% of Question group) 7 (5%)

Respondents commented on the general impacts of invasive species on the ability of protected areas to act as benchmarks (6 topic observations, Table 56). There was also a single mention of the impacts of Emerald Ash Borer on protected areas (Table 56).

4.7 Final ranking of PPCRA objective-based research needs (Q32)

After systematically separating each PPCRA objective into individual research need questions, the respondent was asked to identify the most important research needs identified by the survey questions. Specifically, respondents were asked to rank their top 5 research needs from a pick-list of the 27 potential research need subject areas covered by the survey questions.

In order to identify the top 5 research needs, as well as maintain the expressed rankings, the total number of times a rank was assigned was multiplied by a given weight. For example, the total number of “most important” assignments associated with a given research need was multiplied by 5, while the total number of “least important” assignments associated with a given research need was multiplied by one. In this way, scores could be added across the five questions, while still retaining the indicated importance rank for each topic.

A total of 108 respondents replied to Q32, providing a 65% response rate. Based on the total weighted scores for Q32, the top 5 research needs are presented below in Table 57 >Most notably, “Concerns about ecological processes/functions” was determined to be the dominant research need, receiving 31% of the weighted response scores.

Table 57 - Top 5 Ranked PPCRA objective research needs
Top 5 ranked PPCRA objective research needsTotal weighted response score% of weighted response scores
Concerns about ecological processes/functions5231%
Compromised ecological integrity of protected areas at the landscape level5130%
Unsustainable activities within protected areas4124%
Threats to protected areas’ ability to act as a benchmark for science3219%
Concerns about Wetland Communities3119%

4.8 Final ranking of top research needs (Q33 - Q37)

After having completed questions to cover all of the objectives of the PPCRA (Q3-Q33), respondents were finally asked to list their top five research needs (Q33-Q37).

Respondents was not constrained by any PPCRA objective or topic previously mentioned in the survey. They could freely choose any “top 5” research need topic they felt to be of primary importance. Each of their 5 responses was coded to one research topic. In order to maintain the priority expressed by the respondents, the number of topic observations for a research topic was multiplied by the importance score to create a weighted response score (See Section 2.0 for description of methodology).

The top 5 research topics make up 39% of the total weighted responses.

Perhaps due to “survey fatigue”, the responses provided by respondents to Q33-Q37 were typically shorter than those found in the rest of survey. Respondents used fewer words and usually did not provide any background/elaboration on the research topics they were indicating as being important.

Table 58 - Top 5 ranked research needs
Top 5 ranked research needsTotal weighted response score% of total weighted responses
Monitoring and inventory10214%
Human use impacts6710%
Invasive species406%
Parks in landscape context/adjacent uses396%
Representative ecosystems (all types)243%

Total (% of Question group) 7 (5%)

The highest ranked research need topic indicated by survey respondents was “Monitoring and Inventory” (14% of responses, Table 58). The majority of respondents who noted this topic asked for long-term, standardized, multi-species, integrated inventory and monitoring to take place within protected areas. Every species group was specifically mentioned by at least one respondent. When a reason for their choice was mentioned, the reasons included: the need to examine ecological integrity under the PPCRA, the PPCRA’s indication that protected areas were to act as benchmarks, and the need for monitoring to understand climate change impacts. Monitoring and inventory information were seen as fundamental information required for protected area management.

The “Impacts of Recreation” was the second highest ranked research need topic (10% of responses, Figure 58). Although there were research topics about specific types of recreation, the bulk of the concern within this topic was a generalized concern regarding the potential impacts of recreation use of protected areas. Respondents were very concerned that the allowable uses within protected areas may be adversely impacting ecological integrity. The concern about the potential impacts was expressed for ecosystems, species, functions and processes - indicating that respondents felt all aspects of ecological integrity might be being undesirably impacted by recreation activities.

“Invasive species” was the third highest ranked research need topic (6% of responses). Although concerns about specific invasive species were expressed, the emphasis in the responses was on the impact of invasive species on the ecological integrity/ecosystem health of protected areas. Respondents often mentioned that they were interested in research on how to mitigate the impacts of invasives, with aquatic types of invasive species being of particular concern.

“Parks in the Landscape Context/Adjacent Use” was the fourth highest ranked research topic (6% of responses, Figure 58). This research topic mention focused on the need to understand the unique roles that protected areas play within landscapes.

“Representative Ecosystems (of all types)” was the fifth highest ranked research need topic (3%, Figure 58). Respondents were concerned that not all types of ecosystems were being captured by the current methodology used to examine representation within protected areas. For example, aquatic, wetland, riparian/ecotone ecosystems were indicated as not being currently included. Respondents called for research to improve the representation selection in light of new knowledge, new data, and climate change.

5.0 Discussion

The purpose of this survey was to identify the specific scientific research needed for Ontario’s protected area system to support the mandated objectives of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 (PPCRA). A broad sample of persons associated with the provincial protected area system was selected to complete the on- line survey. A total of 167 persons volunteered to complete the survey, of which the majority (38%) were natural science specialists. Hence, the responses to the survey were somewhat biased toward natural science research needs relative to social science research priorities.

Given the limited information available regarding provincial protected area research priorities, the survey design used primarily open-ended questions that were grouped into 8 broad research categories. Perhaps because of the natural science bias of survey respondents, and because of the order in which questions appeared in the survey, the question groups pertaining to natural sciences such as species, vegetation communities, ecosystem functions and processes had a higher average response rate (41%) than those question groups pertaining to the social sciences (21%) such as economics, interpretive programs and cultural heritage.

The resultant dataset contained 3,444 observations from which 374 specific research need topics were identified. These topics were then grouped into 30 research need themes for further discussion and analysis by question group.

Although the most recent effort to gauge provincial protected area research needs for Ontario’s protected areas was conducted 6 years ago, and limited to the Northwest Zone of Ontario’s protected areas system (Kingston and Mosley, 2007), the results obtained were similar to those obtained by this survey. Despite differences in survey design and respondent population, the top 5 unprompted research needs (Q33-Q37) were very similar. The dominant research need called for by respondents to these surveys was for long-term, standardized, multi-species “monitoring/inventory”. As well, both surveys identified the need for better understanding of “invasive species”, the “impacts of human use”, and the “landscape ecology” role of protected areas within the broader Ontario landmass.

Based on the total number of topic responses across all question groups (see Tables 3, 10, 17, 24, 30, 37, 44, and 51), the “top 5” research need themes (and their percentage of total topic responses) were: “monitoring/inventory” (22%), “landscape ecology” (15%), “human use impacts” (14%), “species at risk”(9%) and “economic valuation”(5%).

However, the weighted analysis of the open-ended questions (Q3-Q31), which considered the number of questions per question group as well as the number of topic responses, changed the order of the unweighted themes somewhat, and replaced one of them with a different theme. Specifically, from this weighted analysis, the most frequently cited research need theme was the need to better understand the “human use impacts” on protected areas (26% of total topic responses). Examples of research topics pertaining to this theme included the impacts of: motor vehicles and roadways, hiking activities, fishing, ATVs, camping and cottaging.

The next most frequently discussed research need themes (and their percentages of total topic responses) within the weighted question group included the need for increased “monitoring / inventory” (22%) and more “landscape ecology” research (17%). Research topics identified within these themes included the need for enhanced/increased monitoring of species populations, improved vegetation mapping, better understanding of the impacts of roads, adjacent land uses and habitat fragmentation, and better appreciation for the role of parks in the broader landscape for providing ecological services such as habitat refugia, climate and water purification / regulation, etc.

The fourth most noted research need theme in the weighted question group analysis was the need for “representation research” (6%) such as the need to represent aquatic communities and wetlands within the protected area program. This theme category replaced “species at risk” as the 4th most cited research need theme in the unweighted analysis.

The fifth cited research need theme from the weighted question group analysis was the “species at risk” theme (5%) which called for more species at risk research (such as the need to improve knowledge of wolves, caribou, sturgeon and polar bears). This theme replaced the “economic valuation” theme from the unweighted question group analysis.

Within the “economic valuation” theme, the research need topics regarding valuing ecosystem services, valuing recreational and commercial use, and conducting a cost benefit analysis, were noted most frequently in the broad assessment of research needed to determine the economic benefits from protected areas (Q23). The need to quantify “altruistic”, “existence”, “aesthetic”, “societal” and other “non-use” values was reported most frequently when respondents were asked what research was necessary to determine the non-visitor benefits of protected areas (Q25). The significant acknowledgement by respondents of economic valuation research may be reflective of the current imperative to demonstrate program value for tax dollars spent. It may also reflect the relative scarcity of economic information pertaining to provincial protected areas, because less than 5% of all research within Ontario’s protected areas focuses on the social sciences (State of Ontario’s Protected Areas Report, 2011).

The analysis of the weighted question groups (Q3-Q31) and the analysis of the unprompted listing of the perceived top 5 research needs (Q33-Q37) identified “human use impacts” and “monitoring / inventory” as the top two most important research need themes. These themes are linked by the fact that monitoring and inventory data are prerequisites to determining the impacts of human use.

Further comparison between responses to the weighted question groups (Q3-Q31) and the unprompted listing of the perceived top 5 research needs (Q33-Q37) found the themes “landscape ecology” ranked 3rd or 4th and “representation” ranked 4th or 5th. “Invasive species” and “species at risk” themes were unique to the top 5 ranking of the grouped question analysis (Q3-Q31) and the questions that dealt with the unprompted top 5 research needs (Q33-Q37), respectively.

Regardless of the analytical approach, the importance of the “monitoring / inventory” research need theme suggests that respondents need these data to understand what they have within their protected areas (species occurrence, population changes, community changes, etc.) and require such information as a baseline to inform management decisions. This research need links directly to the PPCRA legislation regarding the protection of biodiversity (section 2.(10).1 of PPCRA), the maintenance of ecological integrity (section 2.(10).1 of PPCRA) and the monitoring of ecological change on the broader landscape (section 2.(10).4) of PPCRA). None of these PPCRA goals is attainable without rigorous inventory and monitoring efforts of protected area conditions, resources, pressures, and changes.

The primacy of the research need theme “human use impacts” suggests that respondents were also concerned that the human activities occurring within their protected areas may be compromising the features that they are mandated to protect. While the PPCRA indicates that protected areas are to “provide opportunities for ecologically sustainable outdoor recreation” (section 2.(10).2 of PPCRA), the respondents’ mention of recreation-related research need topics such as the impacts of hiking, fishing, camping, and cottaging suggests that the research has not yet been done to determine whether current outdoor activities occurring in protected areas are ecologically sustainable.

The high ranking of the “landscape ecology” research need theme suggests that respondents’ acknowledged the need to improve the understanding of the role that protected areas play within the Ontario landscape. This theme covered a broad array of landscape-level questions about the key roles that protected areas may, or may not be playing, such as the capacity to provide wildlife refugia for the larger landscape, the impacts of landscape fragmentation within protected areas, the loss of connection to landscapes outside protected areas, how to deal with species requiring large home ranges, and the impacts of roads on reptiles and amphibians.

Respondents also expressed concern that the current methods used to determine the lands included within protected areas were not adequately representing the diversity of species and communities found in the province. Responses within the “representation” theme centered around the fact that aquatic, wetland and ecotone ecosystems were not being considered when representation of landform-vegetation types was being assessed for inclusion of new areas for protection. This concern directly links to the PPCRA’s first objective to “permanently protect representative ecosystems, biodiversity and provincially significant elements of Ontario” (Section 2.(1).1 of the PPCRA).

The prominence of the “invasive species” research need theme, and the topics within it, demonstrated the respondents’ interest on how to mitigate the impacts of invasive species, and preferably, to remove them from protected areas. This theme included both general expressions of the need for research on how to mitigate the impacts of invasive species, out-of-range fish introductions and forest pests, as well as specific species mentions including Phragmites, Giant Hogweed and Emerald Ash Borer. The expressed concern regarding invasive species also directly links to Section 2.(1).1 of the PPCRA. Since invasive species have negative impacts on native species populations, their presence degrades ecological integrity and the ability of protected areas to “permanently protect representative ecosystems, biodiversity and provincially significant elements of Ontario”.

Lastly, the consistent mention of the research need theme “species at risk (SAR)” was usually phrased as a concern about having the required information to appropriately manage protected areas to support these species. The most direct source of this concern may be the Endangered Species Act (2007), but the PPCRA is also concerned with SAR, since SAR are part of the biodiversity that protected areas are supposed to be protecting as expressed in the PPCRA. Examples of research topics discussed within this theme included general calls for more research on species at risk as well as the need for research on specific species including: Woodland Caribou, Lake Sturgeon, Wood Turtle, Polar Bear, Common Five-lined Skink, Eastern Whip-poor-will and Eastern Hog-nosed Snake. When specific species were mentioned, respondents called for research regarding habitat requirements, population levels and movements, and impacts on the species arising from various human activities.

6.0 Conclusions

The PPCRA’s first planning and management principle is that “maintenance of ecological integrity shall be the first priority”. Respondents clearly felt that inventory and monitoring, human use impacts, representation, landscape ecology, invasive species, and species at risk are key research areas in which further work is required to allow them to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained within protected areas, and the other objectives of the PPCRA are met.

The similarity of the findings of this research needs survey with those from the combined 2007 effort suggest that many of the same research needs continue to persist today. These include the need for improved monitoring and inventory of protected area flora and fauna, and an improved understanding of invasive species, human use impacts, and the role of protected areas within the larger landscape context.

It is worth noting that the results of this survey are consistent not only with the PPCRA, and the 2007 survey effort, but with recent examinations of research needs for biodiversity protection internationally, nationally, and provincially. For example, when biodiversity protection was examined in Europe (Parr et al. 2010), it was felt that monitoring and inventory data were key biodiversity indicators for which information was lacking. Similarly, one of the key findings of both national and provincial ecosystem status and trends reporting in Canada (Federal, Provincial and Territorial Governments of Canada, 2010) and Ontario (Taylor et al. 2013, Abraham et al. 2011) was that long- term, spatially complete, readily available monitoring and inventory data were generally not available.

The concerns regarding “human use impacts” and “ecologically sustainable recreation opportunities” are also not unique to the results of this survey. Internationally, many iconic protected areas are showing signs of overuse, and many protected area managers consider tourism and recreation to be threats to sustainable management (Hadwen et al. 2007). Similarly, the need to consider freshwater ecosystems when planning protected areas has been indicated as a need internationally (Suski and Cooke 2007), as well as by the respondents to this research needs survey. While the protection of terrestrial biodiversity through the use of protected areas is well established internationally, nationally, and provincially, it has, however, not been widely used in the protection of freshwater biodiversity (Ibid, 2007).

Respondents’ concern regarding the “landscape ecology” role of provincial protected areas within the Ontario landmass is also echoed by other protected area jurisdictions. For example, assessing the role that protected areas play in landscapes, and the influence that adjacent land use has on protected areas, has been shown to be an important consideration for protected area managers (Svancara et al., 2009).

Lastly, the recognition by Ontario provincial protected area staff that more research is needed on both “invasive species” and “species at risk” is also found at the national level. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recognized invasive species as a leading threat to native species diversity and estimates that 25% of all endangered species, 31% of threatened species, and 16% of all species of special concern are in some way at risk due to the impact of invasive species (Lee, 2002).

In closing, it is clear from the results of this survey that there are many research gaps that need to be addressed to improve the opportunities for management consistency with the legislated objectives of the PPCRA. The implied assumption underpinning this statement is that protected area scientific research will be used to inform protected area decision-making. Addressing these research deficiencies can help improve the understanding of Ontario’s protected areas. In so doing, it can also help ensure that priorities can be set such that healthy ecosystems and appropriate human uses are conducted in a manner consistent with legislative obligations and evolving public expectations.

7.0 References

Abraham, K.F., McKinnon, L.M., Jumean,Z., Tully, S.M., Walton, L.R. and Stewart, H.M. (lead coordinating authors and compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone Status and Trends Assessment. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical Ecozone+Report. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi + 445 pp.

Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Governments of Canada. 2010. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers. Ottawa Ontario. Vi + 142 p.

Hadwen, W., W. Hill and C. Pickering. 2007. Icons under threat: Why monitoring visitors and their ecological impacts in protected areas matters. Ecological Management and Restoration Vol. 8 No. 3. Pgs. 177-181.

Lee, G. 2002. Alien Invasive Species: threat to Canada’s biodiversity. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

Kingston, S.R. and E. Mosley. 2007. Research Strategy, Ontario Parks, Northwest Zone (2007). A report prepared for the Northwest Zone Office, Ontario Parks, Thunder Bay.

Parr, T., R. Jongman, and M. Kulvick. 2010. EBONE European Biodiversity Observation Network: Design of a plan for an integrated biodiversity observing system in space and time. European Biodiversity Observation Network. 30 pgs.

Suski, C., and S. Cooke 2007. Conservation of aquatic resources through the use of freshwater protected areas: opportunities and challenges. Biodiversity Conservation Vol. 16. Pgs. 2015-2029.

Svancara, L., M. Scott, T. Loveland, and A. Pidgorna. 2009. Assessing the landscape context and conversion of risk of protected areas using satellite data products. Remote Sensing of Environment. Vol. 113 pgs. 1357-1369.

Taylor, K., W. Dunlop, A. Handyside, S. Hounsell, B. Pond, D. MacCorkindale, J. Thompson, M. MacMurtry and D. Krahn (lead authors) 2013. Mixedwood Plains Ecozone Status and Trends Assessment- with an emphasis on Ontario. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and trends 2010. Technical Ecozone+ Status and Trends Report. Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. 342 + XLVII pgs.

8.0 Appendix: Research themes

Table 59 - Research themes with research topics

  • Research theme: Research topic
    • Archaeology
      • Archaeological Assessment
      • Archaeological Resources
      • Biodiversity model
      • Biodiversity Measures
      • Correctness of Model
    • Climate change
      • Carbon Storage Value
      • Climate change
      • Carbon Sink
      • Cold Water
      • Permafrost and climate change
      • Permafrost Loss
      • Phenology
      • Trophic Mismatch
      • Winter Kill
      • Carbon Cycle
    • Cultural heritage planning
      • Cultural Heritage Planning
      • Cultural Heritage Protection
      • Preservation and Maintenance
    • Cultural heritage research
      • Cultural Heritage Impacts
      • Cultural Heritage Research
      • Cultural Heritage Significance
      • Relation Between Natural Heritage Landscape and Cultural Heritage
    • Cultural heritage resources
      • Built Heritage resources
      • Cultural Heritage Database
      • Fur Trade
      • Prisoner of War Camps
    • Data quality
      • Best Practices for Storing
      • Develop Evaluation Criteria
      • GIS
      • Conservation Reserve Inventory
      • Predictive Mapping
      • Ground Trothing
      • Layer Quality
    • Economic impacts
      • Economic impact (regional)
      • Local Economic Impact
      • Hedonic Realty Impact
      • Local Survey
    • Economic valuation
      • Health Benefits
      • Non-Use Value
      • Recreation Use Value
      • Cost Benefit Analysis
      • Use value (Commercial)
      • Ecosystem service values
      • Hydro Service value
    • Economics
      • Economic Benefit
    • Aboriginal Community Culture
      • Aboriginal community
      • ATV Usage
      • Aboriginal Community Archaeological Values
      • Aboriginal Community Involvement
      • Aboriginal Community Interpretative Programs
      • Aboriginal Community Harvest
      • Aboriginal Community Traditional Use
      • Aboriginal Community economic opportunities
      • Traditional Ecological Knowledge
      • Traditional Activities
      • Traditional use Potential
      • Pictographs
      • Cultural Heritage/Cultural landscapes/Aboriginal Communities Culture
    • Fish populations and aquatic ecosystems
      • Aquatic Classification
      • Aquatic Communities
      • Headwater Research
      • Brook Trout
      • Cold Water
      • Fish Populations
      • Lake Trout
      • Riparian Areas
      • Shoreline Processes
      • Smallmouth Bass
      • Stocking
      • Stream Evaluation
      • Lake Sturgeon
      • Walleye
      • Watershed Change/ Hydrologic Function
      • Winter Kill
    • Fishing
      • Angler effort
      • Use of live bait
      • Recreation impact on fish
      • Winter Fishing Pressure
      • Fishing Impact
    • Geologic research
      • Recreation impacts on geologic features
      • Representation of Geologic Features in PA System
      • Unique Geology Unique Ecosystem
      • Geological Interpretation
      • Geologic Dynamics
      • Geologic Mapping
      • Geologic Gap Analysis
      • Geologic Formation Process
    • Human use impacts
      • ATV Impact
      • Camping Impact
      • Cotticing Impact
      • Fishing Impact
      • Fuel wood cutting impacts
      • Geocaching/Orienteering Impacts
      • Hiking Trail Impact
      • Horseback Riding/dog trials/ dog sled impact
      • Hunting impacts
      • Mountain bike Impacts
      • Motor boat impact
      • Recreation impact on birds
      • Recreation impact on fish
      • Recreation impacts on geologic features
      • Impacts of Recreation
      • Recreation impact on reptiles and amphibians
      • Recreation impact on wildlife
      • Motor vehicle/road Impact
      • Rock climbing impact
      • Backcountry roofed accommodation impact
      • Snowmobile Impact
      • Tourism Impacts
      • Trapping Impacts
      • Collaborative Recreation Impacts
      • Reduce Vehicle Use
    • Hyperabundant native species
      • Cormorants
      • Coyotes
      • Deer
      • Hyperabundant species
      • Raccoons
    • Industrial impacts
      • Aggregate Impacts
      • Agriculture Impacts
      • Forestry Impacts
      • Mining Impacts
      • Wind turbine Impacts
      • Water power development
    • Invasive species
      • Buckthorn
      • Dog-strangling Vine
      • Emerald Ash borer
      • Garlic Mustard
      • Giant Hogweed
      • Invasive Species
      • Phragmites
      • Out-of-Range Introductions – fish
    • Landscape ecology
      • Eco-passages
      • Fragmentation
      • Large mammals and large home range
      • Parks in Landscape context/Adjacent Uses
      • Parks as refugia
      • How much Area is enough?
      • Motor vehicle/road Impact
      • Vegetation Mapping
      • Ecological Integrity
      • Ecological processes and functions
      • Linkage Choice
      • Headwater Research
      • Natural Heritage System
    • Marketing
      • Visitor Marketing
      • Marketing
    • Monitoring and inventory
      • Monitoring and Inventory
      • Parks as benchmarks
    • Natural heritage education research
      • Alternative Educational Markets
      • Alternative Methods of Interpretation
      • Conservation Reserve Interpretation
      • Conservation Reserve Interpretation
      • Effectiveness of Interpretation programs
      • Interpretation Research
    • Natural heritage education resources
      • Electronic Interpretation
      • Experiential Learning Opportunities
      • Interpretation Languages
      • Interpretive Information
      • Interpretive Signage
      • Education Programs
      • NHE Program
    • Other
      • Any Research
      • Socio-economic research
    • Park planning
      • Far North Planning
      • Management Direction
      • Non-Operating Parks
      • Park Operations
    • Park Planning
      • Park Staff Training
      • Park Systems Planning
      • Parks Funding
      • Policy and Administration
      • Risk Analysis
      • Ecologically Sustainable Recreation
    • Public outreach
      • Building External Partnerships
      • Public Education
      • Public understanding of parks
      • School Programming
      • Non Visitor Preferences
      • Public Survey
      • Non Visitor Preferences
      • Public Survey
    • Representation
      • ELC Gap Tool
      • Representative Aquatic Ecosystems
      • Aquatic Classification
      • Representation of Wetlands in PA system
      • Representative Ecosystems (all types)
      • Representative Cultural Features and Landscapes
      • Representation of Geologic Features in PA System
      • Representative Ecosystems
      • Representation Scale
      • Representative Ecosystems - Terrestrial
      • Soils in Representation
    • Research strategy
      • Incorporate Technology
      • Literature Review
      • Photo Galleries
      • Motion Cameras
      • Permissible Recreation Use
      • Support Initiatives
    • Restoration
      • Ecosystem Restoration
      • Restoration of Aggregate sites
      • Restoration of Camp sites
      • Restoration of fauna
      • Restoration Genetics
      • Restoration of Hiking Trail
      • Restoration Methodologies
      • Restoration of Plantations
      • Restoration of Roads
      • Wetland Restoration
    • Species at risk
      • Blanding’s Turtle
      • Bobolink
      • Woodland Caribou
      • Chimney Swift
      • Cougar
      • Common Five-lined Skink
      • Eastern Hog-nosed Snake
      • Karner Blue
      • Massasauga
      • Monarch
      • Olive-sided Flycatcher
      • American White Pelican
      • Peregrine Falcon
      • Piping Plover
      • Polar Bear
      • Rusty-patched Bumblebee
      • Species at Risk (general)
      • Snapping Turtle
      • Spotted Turtle
      • Lake Sturgeon
      • Whip-poor-will
      • Eastern Wolf
      • Wolverine
      • Wood Turtle
    • Tourism
      • Tourism Impacts
      • Ecotourism
    • Vegetation management
      • Succession and vegetation management
      • Prescribed burns/Natural Fires
      • Old stand/Late developmental stage dependent species
    • Visitors
      • Group Differential Studies
      • Visitor Preferences
      • Visitor Preferences
      • Comment Cards
      • PA Visitor Survey
      • Day Visitor Survey
      • Redistribute Visitation
      • Visitor Experience Research
      • Visitor Surveys