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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental Conservation
Main Authors: Gardner, J. E., Nelson, J. G.
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