Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy in Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia
This is a comparative study of national park and related reserve policies and institutional arrangements in three hinterland areas undergoing rising pressure from mineral projects. The areas are the Canadian Northern Territories and Alaska (where interest lies in oil and gas exploitation) and the Au...
Published in: | Environmental Conservation |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
1980
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892900006743 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0376892900006743 |
id |
crcambridgeupr:10.1017/s0376892900006743 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
crcambridgeupr:10.1017/s0376892900006743 2024-03-03T08:49:25+00:00 Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy in Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia Gardner, J. E. Nelson, J. G. 1980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892900006743 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0376892900006743 en eng Cambridge University Press (CUP) https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Environmental Conservation volume 7, issue 1, page 43-50 ISSN 0376-8929 1469-4387 Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law Nature and Landscape Conservation Pollution Water Science and Technology journal-article 1980 crcambridgeupr https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892900006743 2024-02-08T08:38:55Z This is a comparative study of national park and related reserve policies and institutional arrangements in three hinterland areas undergoing rising pressure from mineral projects. The areas are the Canadian Northern Territories and Alaska (where interest lies in oil and gas exploitation) and the Australian Northern Territory (where the focus is on uranium extraction). Five elements of policy and institutional arrangements—management field, comprehensive planning and management, system planning, public inquiries, and uses—have been closely studied, with the following conclusions: 1. With respect to the management field, a major problem has been division of responsibility among federal and state or territorial agencies. 2. Overall comprehensive planning has not been seriously attempted in Canada and Australia, and has not yet met with success in Alaska. 3. A system planning approach provides rationale in Alaska and Canada, but is lacking in Australia. 4. Local comprehensive planning has been undertaken in the Kakadu National Park area of Australia, and a start has been made in this direction in Canada's northern Yukon. 5. Two uses, mining and native activities, pose special problems for national parks and related reserve policy, which is ambiguous on these issues in all cases. 6. All three systems represented by these parks in different countries are changing rapidly, and more suitable adaptive arrangements may be made for them in the coming years. Article in Journal/Newspaper Alaska Yukon Cambridge University Press Yukon Canada Environmental Conservation 7 1 43 50 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Cambridge University Press |
op_collection_id |
crcambridgeupr |
language |
English |
topic |
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law Nature and Landscape Conservation Pollution Water Science and Technology |
spellingShingle |
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law Nature and Landscape Conservation Pollution Water Science and Technology Gardner, J. E. Nelson, J. G. Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy in Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia |
topic_facet |
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law Nature and Landscape Conservation Pollution Water Science and Technology |
description |
This is a comparative study of national park and related reserve policies and institutional arrangements in three hinterland areas undergoing rising pressure from mineral projects. The areas are the Canadian Northern Territories and Alaska (where interest lies in oil and gas exploitation) and the Australian Northern Territory (where the focus is on uranium extraction). Five elements of policy and institutional arrangements—management field, comprehensive planning and management, system planning, public inquiries, and uses—have been closely studied, with the following conclusions: 1. With respect to the management field, a major problem has been division of responsibility among federal and state or territorial agencies. 2. Overall comprehensive planning has not been seriously attempted in Canada and Australia, and has not yet met with success in Alaska. 3. A system planning approach provides rationale in Alaska and Canada, but is lacking in Australia. 4. Local comprehensive planning has been undertaken in the Kakadu National Park area of Australia, and a start has been made in this direction in Canada's northern Yukon. 5. Two uses, mining and native activities, pose special problems for national parks and related reserve policy, which is ambiguous on these issues in all cases. 6. All three systems represented by these parks in different countries are changing rapidly, and more suitable adaptive arrangements may be made for them in the coming years. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Gardner, J. E. Nelson, J. G. |
author_facet |
Gardner, J. E. Nelson, J. G. |
author_sort |
Gardner, J. E. |
title |
Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy in Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia |
title_short |
Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy in Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia |
title_full |
Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy in Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia |
title_fullStr |
Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy in Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparing National Park and Related Reserve Policy in Hinterland Areas: Alaska, Northern Canada, and Northern Australia |
title_sort |
comparing national park and related reserve policy in hinterland areas: alaska, northern canada, and northern australia |
publisher |
Cambridge University Press (CUP) |
publishDate |
1980 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892900006743 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0376892900006743 |
geographic |
Yukon Canada |
geographic_facet |
Yukon Canada |
genre |
Alaska Yukon |
genre_facet |
Alaska Yukon |
op_source |
Environmental Conservation volume 7, issue 1, page 43-50 ISSN 0376-8929 1469-4387 |
op_rights |
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892900006743 |
container_title |
Environmental Conservation |
container_volume |
7 |
container_issue |
1 |
container_start_page |
43 |
op_container_end_page |
50 |
_version_ |
1792506628520542208 |