what should protected areas managers do in the face of climate change? · impacts of re cent...

Recent climate change. While rapidin terms of geological time scales, thesechanges were, well, geological in pace. Overthe past 100 years, however, global averagetemperature has risen approximately 0.6°C,and the rate of warming has greatly acceler-a ted since the 1970s (Figure 2). T h i schange is ascribed mainly to rapid and largereleases of greenhouse gases from the burn-ing of fossil fuels for power generation andt ransportation (IPCC 2001a). It is eve npossible that we re it not for incre a s e d

releases of CO2 and CH4 due to the burn-ing of forests to clear land for agriculture,starting around 8,000 years ago, and theinvention of rice paddy cultivation about6,000 ye a rs ago , the Earth would havea l re a dy ente red the next glacial inte r va l(Ruddiman 2003).

Impacts of re cent climate change .There is ample evidence of the physical andecological impacts of recent climate change.Walther et al. (2002) summarize many ofthese observed changes, such as increased

Volume 22 • Number 1 (2005) 75

What Should Protected Areas Managers Do in theFace of Climate Change?

David Welch

The face and pace of change, past and futureClimate change across geological time. Climate has always been changing, is chang-

ing, and will continue to change. Throughout geological deep time the Earth witnessed longwarm phases interspersed with ice ages, with perhaps even a “snowball Earth” occurring asmany as four times between 750 million and 580 million years ago (Hoffman and Schrag2000). Surface temperatures across all latitudes rose by 6°C to 8°C at the start of the Eoceneepoch 55 million years ago, corresponding to massive increases in atmospheric carbon trig-gered by large-scale igneous activity and hydrate melting under what is now the NorwegianSea (Svensen et al. 2004). Over the past 4 million years, the Earth has gone from global sur-face temperatures about 3°C warmer than today, with smaller ice sheets and higher sea lev-els, to the current cooler conditions (Ravelo et al. 2004). The 1.8 million years of thePleistocene and Holocene epochs were characterized by roller-coaster swings of manydegrees Celsius, corresponding to glacial intervals and abrupt warming at the onset of inter-glacials (Folland et al. 2001; Figure 1). While driven by 100,000-year cycles in the shape ofEarth’s elliptical orbit and 40,000-year cycles in its rotational tilt, there has also been a closeassociation between climate and greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane,over as much as the last 740,000 years (EPICA 2004). Within historical times, our planetexperienced several temperature shifts, such as the Medieval Warm Period and the late 19thcentury Little Ice Age (Figure 2). During the last century, average annual precipitationchanged up to 50% in some regions (Figure 3).

The George Wright Forum76

Figure 1. 400,000 years of temperature history. Source: Folland et al. 2001, Figure 2.22, page 137. Reproduced courtesy ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Figure 2. 1,000 years of temperature history. Source: Folland et al. 2001, Figure 2.20, page 134. Reproduced courtesy of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

temperatures in North America and Europeleading to northward range shifts in 39 but-terfly species of up to 200 km over 27 years.In a meta-analysis of over 1,700 speciesParmesan and Yohe (2003) find averagerange shifts of 6.1 km/decade poleward andm e te rs per decade upwa rd , and springe vent adva n ces of 2.3 days / d e c a d e . I nanother meta-analysis of 143 studies of1,473 species, Root et al. (2003, 57) saythat “the balance of evidence from thesestudies strongly suggests that a significantimpact of global warming is already dis-cernible in animal and plant populations.”McCarty (2001) cites numerous specificstudies, and observes that in recent decadesglobal change is apparent at all levels of eco-logical organization, and that this can bel i n ked to climate change , among otherstresses. The Geological Survey of Canadahas compiled pollen, m a c ro f o s s i l , a n d

buried mammal data to produce 1,000-yearinterval maps of the biomes of glaciatedNorth America since 18,000 years beforethe present (Art Dyke, personal communi-cation). The boreal forest, for example, firstappeared in southern Iowa and Ohio andhas since sought re f u ge in Canada. I t ssouthern limit is now 1,000 km north of itsformer northern limit. O ve rland et al.(2004) conducted an integrated analysis of86 time-series data types for the Arctic,including atmosphere, ocean, terrestrial, seai ce , f i s h e r i e s , and other biological data.Their first three principal co m p o n e n t sshow that the Arctic acts as a coherent sys-tem, tying the atmosphere to fisheries andother biota.

Fu t u re climate . Geological prox yrecords and historical and contemporarydirect measures all show a strong correla-tion between global climate and the atmos-


Figure 3. 100 years of precipitation history. Source: Folland et al. 2001, Figure 2.25(ii), page 144, and presentationgraphic 2-6a. Reproduced courtesy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

phere’s concentration of greenhouse gases.Our understanding of atmospheric physicsalso bears witness to this link. This connec-tion is recognized by the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Changeand the Kyoto Protocol. The Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC2001a) proposes seve ral scenarios foranthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide,methane, and other greenhouse gases overthe next century. These have been factoredi n to various ge n e ral circulation models,yielding the alarming result that the annualave ra ge global te m p e ra t u re may riseb e t ween about 2°C and 6°C by 2100( F i g u re 4). The ra n ge of projections ismostly related to the range of emission sce-narios; that is to say, they are dependentupon the policies that humankind choosesto follow. Global averages, of course, hideregional trends, several of which show up in

most models. Warming will be greater incontinental interiors. Areas of high precipi-tation will get wetter. Arid zones will getdryer. Warming will increase towards thepoles and will be greater in winter. Forex a m p l e , F i g u re 5 shows the scatter ofannual temperature and precipitation pro-jections for two Canadian national parks,Waterton Lakes on the Alberta–Montanaborder at 49°N and Quttinirpaaq at thenorth end of Ellesmere Island, 82°N.

Some caveats apply. While all modelsa g ree on a warmer planet, some showregional cooling, e.g., over the LabradorSea. As well, the monthly pattern of warm-ing varies considerably. In the example ofWapusk National Pa rk , at 58°N on theshores of Hudson Bay in Manitoba, sixmodel–emission scenario co m b i n a t i o n sg ive the peak warming month as eitherJanuary or February, a secondary peak in


Figure 4. Global temperature projections for different emission scenarios. Source: Cubasch et al. 2001, Figure 9.13b, p.554, and presentation graphic TS22. Reproduced courtesy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

April or June, and a range of up 2°C to 7°Cin the month-to-month degree of warming(Figure 6).

I m p a c t s . Such climate changes willdrive physical and biological changes on theEarth’s surface at least as great as has beenseen throughout the Holocene epoch, dur-ing which large parts of North America wit-nessed wholesale biome changes. A recentstudy for Parks Canada (Scott et al. 2002;Scott 2003) examined several vegetationchange models matched to climate models.In five of six vegetation scenarios, the biomewould change in more than half of Canadiannational parks in a 2xCO2 world (i.e., onewith doubled carbon dioxide concentra-

tions). Of course, biomes won’t actuallymove intact and in concert with climate.Most plants, many habitats, and all ecosys-tems cannot migrate in step with the region-al shifts of climate patterns. Instead, weshould expect many novel biomes and anincreasing dominance of pioneer species.Ecosystems will develop into early succes-sional stages and be net emitters of carbondioxide (Walker and Steffen 1997). Thedistribution of eco s ys tem change s , a sexpressed through biome, biomass, net pri-mary productivity, and leaf area index, willresult primarily from changes in the hydro-logical cycle (Higgins and Vellinga 2004).T h e re will be enormous hyd ro l o g i c a l


Figure 5. Temperature and precipitation ensembles for two Canadian national parks. Source: Scott 2003.

changes in areas currently dominated bysnowfall and minimal evaporation or runoffduring winter months. More precipitationwill fall as rain rather than snow. Runoff willshift from spring peaks to a more even year-round flow, so that less water will be avail-able during summer irrigation and naviga-tion seasons. Warmer summers will evapo-rate more water. Even if total precipitationwere to increase, the resulting combinationwill probably mean lower lake levels, dryerwetlands, and greater shortages of availablewater (Schindler 2001). These changes willbe particularly acute in mountain regions(Beniston 2003).

Other potential impacts include thefollowing:

• Increases in the frequency and magni-tude of extreme events such as stormsand floods.

• Rising global sea levels and the acceler-ated retreat of low-lying coastlines.

• Declining Arctic sea ice ex tent andduration, leading to changes in marinemammal distributions and nav i ga t i o nand greatly increased coastal erosion.

• A cce l e ra ted melting of permafro s t ,reducing trafficability and soil stability.

• The loss of glaciers in middle and equa-torial latitudes. The ex p e c ted disap-p e a ra n ce of glaciers from GlacierNational Park, Montana, has become awe l l - k n own poster child for climatechange impacts (Hall and Fagre 2003).

As well as these immediate phys i c a lchanges, new environmental conditions willfoster profound changes in the biotic com-position of eco s ys te m s , not just due tochanges of temperature and water regimesbut also, for example, due to the increasedability for invasive pests, pathogens, andweeds to migrate into new regions.

In sum, the weight of scientific evi-dence shows that climate change anticipat-ed in the 21st century will result in new veg-etation successions, water regimes, wildlifehabitat and survival conditions, permafrostand surface ice conditions, coastal erosionand sea-level change, and human responses,including tourism opportunities (IPCC2001a; Hansen et al. 2003). Many countriesrecognize these threats through their ratifi-


Figure 6. Monthly temperature scenarios for Wapusk National Park. Source: Scott 2003.

cation of the Kyoto Protocol on climatechange and through their national actionplans and government pro g rams thataddress the impacts of climate change andhow their peoples may play a part in miti-gating and adapting to it.

Why and when to adapt?“Human and natural systems will to

some degree adapt autonomously to climatec h a n ge . Planned adaptation can supple-ment autonomous adaptation, t h o u g hoptions and incentives are greater for adap-tation of human systems than for adaptationto protect natural systems” (IPCC 2001b,8). Protected areas will be affected by cli-mate change at least as much as other landsand waters in their natural regions. Indeed,the impacts may be greater. Fewer mitiga-tion and adaptation options exist than forlands and waters that are actively manipu-lated. Protected area custodians must there-fore seek ways to adapt their managementpractices to help maintain biodiversity andnatural processes, to assist nature throughits inevitable transitions, and to participatefully in programs aimed at reducing green-house gas emissions.

Adaptation means adjustments in prac-tices, processes, and structures. It can bespontaneous or planned, and can be carriedout in response to or in anticipation ofchanges in conditions (Smit et al. 2001).Protected area agencies should plan theiradaptation in anticipation of greater rates ofc h a n ge than have pre v i o u s ly occ u r re d .When something wicked this way comes, itis better to be prepared than to be sur-prised. Early adaptation is encouraged for anumber of reasons:

• Climate change is already occurring andfurther changes cannot be prevented, so

there is no justification for a wait-and-see policy.

• No regrets. Benefits can be obtained byremoving or halting maladaptive poli-cies and practices that may increase vul-nerability.

• Risk manage m e n t . Benefits can beobtained by adapting in anticipation,rather than re a c t ive ly, p a r t i c u l a rly ifother stressors are mitigated.

• Investment. Visitor activities are tied tothe timing and duration of annual cli-matic cycles and phases. L o n g - te r minvestment in infrastructure and market-ing, by concessionaires and park man-agement agencies alike, must take futureclimate into account.

• House in order. Effective government isabetted by leadership by example, par-ticularly in free-market societies. In thep resent co n tex t , this means earlyachievement of greenhouse gas emissionreductions from park operations and theadoption of adaptation policies.

How to adapt ... maybeSocial and policy adaptation. So what

should protected area managers do in theface of climate change? A great deal hasbeen written about vulnerability and adap-t a t i o n . The Inte r governmental Panel onClimate Change provides a comprehensivesummary organized around global-scaleecosystems and societal and governmentalresponses (IPCC 2001b). M a ny journalpapers address this subject, but, again, froman economic, infrastructure, and social pol-icy standpoint. One example is by Kelly andAdger (2000), who focus on reduction ofvulnerability to climate change, economice q u i t y, and well-being achieved thro u g hp overty reduction and spreading riskt h rough income dive rs i f i c a t i o n . M o re


recently, Easterling et al. (2004) focus onthe United States and responses in areassuch as disaster management, regional ande co n o m i c - s e c tor disparities, and institu-tional re f o r m . While very little can begleaned for pro te c ted areas from suchreports, two lessons stand out. One is thatpossibly the best tack for park managers isto reduce vulnerability to the effects of cli-m a te change by maintaining as manyoptions as possible for resilience—the abili-ty to recover quickly after a disturbance.The other lesson is the need to customizeadaptation stra tegies to specific inte re s tareas. For readers of this journal, this meanparks, reserves, and other managed naturallandscapes.

P ro te c ted areas adaptation. S o m epapers do address conservation and biodi-ve rs i t y. Considering the co n s e r vation ofbiodiversity in a changing climate, Hannahet al. (2002) call for conservation strategiesre s p o n s ive to the changes that areinevitable. In their view, these conservationstrategies require the following.

• Regional modeling of biodive rs i t yresponse to climate change.

• Incorporation of climate change as a fac-tor in the selection of protected areas.

• Regional management of biodive rs i t y,including core protected areas and land-scape connectivity.

• Local to international coordination ofprotected area management.

This theme was also taken up by Noss(2001). Although targeting forest managers,many of his recommendations can be adapt-ed to all types of protected ecosystems.Here are examples.

• Represent vegetation types and diverse

gene pools across environmental gradi-ents in reserves.

• Protect climatic refugia at all scales.• Avoid fragmentation and provide con-

nectivity.• Provide buffer zones for the adjustment

of reserve boundaries.• Maintain natural processes and succes-

sional regimes.• Conduct research to identify sensitive

biomes.• Conduct long-term monitoring to seek

causality between climate and biodiver-sity responses at several levels of organi-zation (Noss 2001, 586).

Protection strategies for parks were specifi-cally addressed in 1990 by Wein et al. Theirmanagement recommendations include thefollowing.

• I n ternational exc h a n ges of ideasbetween researchers and managers.

• S t rengthen the re s e a rch capacity ofparks personnel.

• Involve local communities.• Use parks as benchmarks for long-term

monitoring.• Determine the necessity to transplant

species, or to control rapidly increasingspecies.

• L o c a te parks with climate change inm i n d , d e velop co n t i n gency plans toexpand conservation areas, and protector establish connecting corridors.

The World Wildlife Fund has pub-lished an on-line guide for natural area man-agers to build resistance and resilience toc l i m a te change (Hansen et al. 2 0 0 3 ) . I turges natural resource managers to buildclimate change adaptation strategies intotheir preservation philosophies and plans.


Most of its chapters are organized aroundenvironments such as forests, the Arctic,and tropical marine ecosystems. Its eighthchapter addresses protected areas. Somepertinent suggestions are contained in thatand the overview chapter.

• Use active adaptive management andstrategy testing.

• I n te g ra te climate change threats intoconservation plans.

• Plan protected areas with disaster miti-gation in mind.

In sum, the limited literature on protectedareas and climate change provides strongarguments as to why parks and reservesshould be given enhanced protection, whythere should be more of them, how theymight be selected and what ecological serv-ices they may provide to society. However, itprovides little guidance to the managers ofalready established protected areas.

What to do?Parks Canada has completed a science

assessment of climate change impacts andscenarios specific to each national park, andthe time is now right to consider a climatechange adaptation strategy. Parks Canadahas received many recommendations foractions, in print, at workshops, at confer-e n ce s , and informally. This documentdraws from this dialogue, and the opera-tions and policy context of Parks Canada, tolay out a slate of actions that could reason-ably be undertaken in relation to climatechange. Clearly, not all will apply in all cir-cumstances, but they may be of value else-where. At the time of writing these ideas donot constitute Parks Canada policy. Theyare, nevertheless, assembled along the linesof stra tegy documents such as Pa rk s

Canada’s Env i ronmental Manage m e n tSystem framework (unpublished) and theClimate Change Action Plan of the NewEngland Governors and Eastern CanadianPremiers (NEG/ECP 2001).

Core principles. The development ofa policy or strategy is best founded on a setof core principles or values. I offer the fol-lowing.

• House in order and public communica -tions. A protected area agency cannotmitigate global climate change by itself,but it can contribute to mitigations byputting its own house in order withrespect to Kyoto targets, and can use itsoutreach and presentation activities tod e m o n s t ra te leadership by ex a m p l e .People who visit parks and reserves aregenerally ready to soak up informationand listen to sound arguments. T h eindirect role of protected areas, throughinterpretation, education, and outreachcan be far greater than its direct contri-bution to emission reduction, but credi-bility depends on such reductions.

• Risk management. Climate change willbring enormous changes to the environ-ments and processes bearing upon natu-ral organisms and ecosystems. To vari-ous degrees they have their own degreeof resilience and in many cases may beable to accommodate climate change bym i g ration or in situ adaptation.However, there are many other stressesimpinging on the ecological integrity ofnatural systems, so I recommend a riskm a n a gement approach where bytractable stresses are reduced or elimi-nated through the collaborative effortsof park agencies and their inte re s tgroups and neighbors.

• Focus on mandate, complement with


p a r t n e rs h i p s . Pa rks and historic site sincreasingly emphasize ecological andcommemorative integrity as their primem a n d a te s , s u p e rseding co n s i d e ra t i o n sof tourism development, park infrastruc-ture, and regional economic develop-ment. The latter aspects are importantto the success of heritage are a s , b u tshould not be put ahead of restoring andprotecting natural and cultural heritage.As well, priority should be accorded toactions within the direct responsibilityof the agency and its staff. A park agencyshould leave to others the leadership onactivities that are the responsibility ofother age n c i e s , l e vels of gove r n m e n t ,academia, and industry. However, to theextent that internal resources allow, andto the extent that its prime mandate isfavored, a park agency should cooperatein such activities. Education, emissionreduction, and national climate changescience programs are good examples.

• Porous landscapes. Parks should be partof networks of ecological areas withinwhich biodiversity can survive, move,and be appre c i a te d . Pa rk age n c i e sshould pro m o te the importance ofregional eco s ys tems chara c terized byconnectivity and porosity for wildlifemovement. This means more than defin-ing wildlife co r r i d o rs , but re m ov i n gphysical and non-physical impedimentsto movement across all lands. Examplesinclude policies to develop and maintainhedgerows and wood lots in the agricul-tural domain, to eliminate the cosmeticuse of pesticides in urban areas, to fosterd a rk sky pre s e r ve s , and to installingwildlife crossing alert lights on majorhighways, as in a Newfoundland pilotproject.

Goals. Action plans need time-boundand measurable targets against which toassess progress, and to redefine schedulesand activities as appro p r i a te . I pro p o s ethree time frames.

• Short-term. The appropriate level ofclimate change information is availableto all aspects of ecosystem and assetmanagement.

• Mid-term. Climate change is factoredinto all aspects of ecosystem and assetm a n a ge m e n t , and duly re f l e c ted inpark management plans.

• Long-term. N a t u ral areas are neste dwithin regional landscapes that arep o rous for the movement of nativespecies, and which are free of signifi-cant threats to ecological integrity.

“Short-term” means fewer than five years,covering annual work and budget planningcycles. “Mid-term” means spanning one ortwo management planning cycles, i.e., fiveto ten years. “Long-term” means beyond adecade and encompassing the time framesof most climate change scenarios.

Alarming actions. An extensive suiteof specific actions can be conceived to helpreach these goals in accordance with thep roposed principles. To provide somestructure, and to help see linkages betweencomplementary activ i t i e s , they can begrouped under five categories that form theacronym ALARM.

• Awareness, including staff, stakeholderand general public awareness.

• Leading by ex a m p l e , or “house inorder” actions such as reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions.

• Active management, such as minimiz-ing other stresses to fa c i l i t a te


autonomous adaptation.• Research, such as assessment of values

most at risk under a radically changedclimate.

• Monitoring, such as reporting on indi-cators of the impacts of climate change.

AwarenessStaff awareness. Full engagement in

any action depends on the knowledge andwill of an agency’s own staff. It is importantthat all staff have a level of understanding ofc l i m a te change impacts and adaptationa p p ro p r i a te to their mission. A c t i o n sinclude disseminating information in sum-mary documents, newsletters, and technicalreports; giving seminar and workshop pre-sentations; and including climate changeoverviews in basic training components.

Stakeholder awareness. Even in largeNorth American parks, environmental pro-tection depends heavily on the presence of amore extensive ecosystem, or buffer zone.Therefore the effectiveness of adaptationdepends in like measure on the manage-ment of surrounding natural areas. A parkshould urge its regional ecosystem partnersto respond to the need for climate changeadaptations in their resource managementplans. In particular this requires that theyunderstand how climate change will influ-ence the evolution and migration of biomesand habitats. Ideas can include promotinge cological co n n e c t ivity and poro s i t ybetween and around protected areas, coop-erating to mitigate or eliminate all local andregional threats to ecological integrity, andcommunicating climate change impacts andadaptation strategies, particularly in relationto potential boundary changes.

General public awareness. Regionaladaptations and national and internationalmitigation actions and policies ultimately

depend on public support, ex p re s s e dthrough politicians. Fortunately, most parkagencies are well regarded by the public.They can use this esteem to promote andlobby for climate change mitigation andadaptation policies and actions, both byinstitutions and priva te indiv i d u a l s . T h epublic should be made aware of the poten-tial impacts of climate change upon parkspecies, ecosystems, and features, and whatadaptations may be re q u i re d . Vi s i to rsshould learn what they can do, in parks, athome, and at work, to assist in the mitiga-tion of climate change through dire c tactions or by spreading the word to theirfriends and family. Actions by park agenciescan encompass the inclusion of climatec h a n ge messages in inte r p retation pro-grams, posting a climate change summarydocument on Internet sites, and workingwith education authorities, other depart-ments, governments, and non-governmentalg roups to develop and deliver climatechange and protected area information tochildren and adults alike. Parks should col-laborate with intergovernmental, non-gov-ernmental, and international bodies to pro-mote national and global strategies for pro-tected areas to adapt to climate change.

Leading by exampleR e d u ce greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs), including car-bon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane,are generated primarily by the consumptionof fossil fuels in the operation of vehiclesand the heating of buildings. Many coun-t r i e s , including Canada, h ave agreed tore d u ce their GHG emissions under theKyoto Protocol. Park agencies can use theirfavorable public presence to lead the way inminimizing building energy consumptionthrough design and operational practices,


reducing their fleet and switching to moreenergy efficient vehicles, fuel switching andtaking advantage of emerging technologies.

P ro m o te personal action plans forstaff. Employees and volunteers can play avital role in the community through theirpersonal actions at home and in their neigh-borhoods. Employers can help by provid-ing public transit passes rather than subsi-dizing parking; extending incentives for carp o o l i n g , c ycle co m m u t i n g , and te l e co m-muting; and promoting energy use reduc-tions in homes and lifestyle choices.

Adapt natural region representations t ra te gy. M a ny countries have followe dPa rks Canada’s lead in using a natura lregion re p resentation approach to thedevelopment of a network of national parks.Natural regions are typically based on acombination of physiography and domi-nant ve ge t a t i o n . While phys i o g ra p hyremains largely constant in anything lessthen geological time, vegetation is dynamicand successions and pro cesses havechanged significantly even in living memo-r y. C l i m a te change will acce l e ra te thisprocess to the extent that natural succes-sions at most parks will evolve over decadesat most. Parks will no longer be able to trulyrepresent a past biology.

Nevertheless, there is great value in aregion-based approach to park establish-m e n t . It assures a distribution of park sacross many landscapes and ecotones, itselfone of the best ways to protect biodiversityunder climate change. A rational networkbasis for a park system also deflects thestrains of short- and mid-term demands forland protection when there is already a parkre p resenting a specific are a . T h e re f o re ,existing polygons or map entities of naturalregions should be re t a i n e d , but theirdescriptions may have to be changed to

reflect the dynamics of present and futureclimate. New park locations and boundariesshould be established in ways that maxi-mize site diversity and landscape porosity.

Address climate change adaptationin park management plans. Managementplans encapsulate park objectives and theactivities that help to achieve them. Theseplans are also an accountability tool for per-formance reporting. What is not in a plantends to be considered unimportant. Giventhe enduring nature of parks and the long-term implications of climate change, adap-tation should be addressed in managementplans. For example, park purposes can bemodified to protect processes and biodiver-sity rather than specific biomes and species,and management planning guidelines candirect that park purpose statements be tol-erant of biotic changes resulting from natu-ral and anthro p o genic climate change .Boundaries can be reviewed to seek oppor-tunities for changes that would favor theprotection and maintenance of ecologicalintegrity. An example might include seekingh i g h e r - e l e vation lands to pro tect Alpinetundra species. Management plans shouldendorse research and monitoring of ecosys-tem indicators sensitive to climate change.E co s ys tem re s to ration projects can bedirected to take future climates and vegeta-tion successions into account.

Report on natural and managementadaptations to climate change. Whetherreactive or adaptive, an integral part of man-a gement is the monitoring of pro g re s stowards a goal, and then to assess resultsand modify future actions acco rd i n g ly.Documenting these processes is essential tofull debate and on-going support, be it bylegislators, policy analysts, or the generalpublic. The use of a regular report series isthe best guarantee of systematic publishing,


dissemination, and readership. This doesnot have to be in a scientific journal ors e r i e s . Annual re p o r t s , q u i n tennial ordecennial state-of-park reports, or in-houseoccasional papers are often more appropri-ate to the audience and purpose. Ecosystemmanagers should select indicators of climatechange impact for their park and its naturalregion, develop protocols and implementmonitoring, and collaborate with regionalpartners to report the ecological impacts ofclimate change to the public and to policy-makers.

Active ecosystem managementEliminate or mitigate non-climate in

situ threats. The growing body of researchon interactions between climate and non-climate stresses suggests that responses aresynergistic (e.g., Schindler 2001). To main-tain or rebuild ecosystem resilience, onemust therefore reduce the number and/ormagnitude of insults faced by an ecosystem.Fortunately, many stressors are more locallyand re g i o n a l ly co n t rollable than climatechange. In a marine system, this may meanestablishing no-take zones to reduce fishingpressure and associated habitat destruction.In a freshwater system, this may require lim-iting the concentration of toxic substancesin effluent from an upstream industry. In aforest ecosystem, it may mean preventingfragmentation by access roads. It may meanp ro tecting alpine tundra from ski re s o r tdevelopment. It may mean limiting harmfulgrazing practices in grasslands. None ofthese tasks are easy, but they are approach-able on a local level and they can increasethe overall resilience of ecosystems (Hansenet al. 2003, 11). Many protected areas arealready pursuing threat reduction and sus-tainable regional ecosystems through con-servation partnerships with land manage-

ment agencies. This is also the right thing todo to blunt the edge of climate change. Asnoted above under stakeholder awareness,parks should promote regional ecosystemco n s e r vation measures and partners h i p sthat maintain or build porous landscapesthrough which assemblages of species canmigrate in response to climate change. Agood network of large protected areas at thecore of biosphere reserves may be wildn a t u re’s best climate change “shockabsorber.”

Use adaptive manage m e n t . G ive nu n certainty about the exact nature ofecosystem impacts of and responses to cli-m a te change , e f f e c t ive management willrequire a responsive and flexible approach.Adaptive management is a methodology inwhich one can proceed with only limited oru n certain know l e d ge . It is an appro a c hwhereby an intervention is conducted as if itwere a scientific experiment (Nudds 1998),with measurable, time-bound targets set ina dva n ce (policy = hy p o t h e s e s ) , c a re f u lmeasurement of results as things happen(intervention = experiment), and approach-es adjusted as new information becomesavailable (re p o r t i n g , a n a lys i s , re - s e t t i n ghypotheses). Park agencies should followadaptive management guidelines for impacta b a tements such as species pro te c t i o n ,translocation of slow-spreading key species,or retardation of fast-spreading pioneers.An adaptive management approach is par-ticularly important in ecosystem restorationin an uncertain, changeable climate.

Use climate change research results.T h e re are many climate and ve ge t a t i o nchange models, and many of their resultsare available on the web or in journals andgovernment re p o r t s . H owe ve r, most areglobal or national in scale. As well, there is asteep learning curve required to properly


interpret ensembles of climate change sce-narios and the assumptions and uncertain-ties involved. It is not enough to have goodprimary science. There must be secondary,or derived, products that digest and cus-tomize this knowledge for interdisciplinaryprofessionals. Without these, good sciencecollects dust. P ro te c ted area age n c i e sshould commission secondary studies thattranslate this vast body of science to region-al and park-specific data sets that place-rel-e va n t , u s e r - f r i e n d ly information into thehands of eco s ys tem manage rs . Pa rk sCanada has done this through the work ofS cott (2003), which re s u l ted in spre a d-sheets of annual, s e a s o n a l , and monthlyte m p e ra t u re and precipitation data fortwelve general circulation model–emissionscenario combinations for three periods inthe 21st century for each Canadian nationalpark. The work is accompanied by narrativeprojections of physical and biotic changes,again for each park. By having access to cus-tomized climate change and impacts infor-mation, park managers now recognize cli-mate change as a major ecosystem stressor,and can build monitoring frameworks withclimate change indicators in mind.

As well as providing scientific synthe-ses, park managers need the tools to use cli-mate change information in their decision-making processes. Climate change guide-lines for environmental assessment are nowavailable in Canada, covering projects thateither have the potential to emit greenhousegases, or projects that will be impacted byc l i m a te change (CEAA 2003). S i m i l a rly,there is probably a need for guidelines formodeling ecosystem restorations and infra-structure development.

Adjust park boundaries as needed forclimate change adaptation. Changes in cli-mate will lead to changes in habitat and

species survival. Some vegetation specieswould have to migrate hundreds of kilome-te rs to follow climate , although this isunlikely to happen depending on factorssuch as seed dispersal method, topography,soil type, and fragmentation by land uses.Other species might find a new home ashort distance away. For the latter it may bepossible to adjust park boundaries to cap-ture the anticipated movement of criticalhabitats and species. Park boundaries couldbe aligned to accommodate transition zoneswhere large changes of climate, habitat, andspecies distribution are expected to occurover small distances in relation to park size.

ResearchUnderstand the impact of past and

f u t u re climate change . D e c i s i o n - m a ke rsand park visitors alike will benefit from thelessons to be learned from a comprehensiveknowledge of Holocene landscape changes.Such knowledge helps to provide an under-standing of the changeable nature of climateeven in historical times, and will providesome measure of nature’s ability to adapta u to n o m o u s ly. The impacts of climatec h a n ge on natural pro cesses and visito ractivities should also be researched thor-oughly before committing to expensive andirreversible ecosystem restorations or visi-tor infrastructure development. Each parkshould be ra ted for its sensitivity to a3xCO2 world. Of course, the developmentof a re s e a rch agenda should not be anexcuse for postponing early action onawareness, leadership, and active ecosystemmanagement where the “no regrets” princi-ple applies.

Identify values at risk of being signif-i c a n t ly impacted by climate change .Ecosystems have too many components tounderstand and track them all, considering


our poor understanding of most ecosys-tems, budget constraints and the short timeframes typically imposed on analysts andmanagers. The concept of valued ecosystemcomponent (VEC) provides a means to setm a n a gement goals without beco m i n gbogged down in the minutiae of all species,all minerals, and so forth. A VEC is definedas an “environmental attribute consideredto be important for decision-making”(Munn 2002). VECs are usually tangiblethings, like a keystone species or iconicvista, to which indicators for monitoring areclosely tied.

Each park should identify a limitedsuite of VECs that are sensitive to climatechange, such as species at the margins oftheir climatic range, species with limited orexcessive abilities to migrate, and physicalfeatures such as permafrost environmentsand ombro t rophic we t l a n d s . B a r r i e rs tomigration should be identified, such as frag-m e n ted habitats and re s t r i c ted ve r t i c a lmigration paths.

Support downscaled climate model-ing. Current climate change scenarios useglobal models with very coarse resolution ofmajor topographic features. Much researchis in progress to develop climate changemodels that fit regional scales and take intoaccount, for example, great lakes and bays.Ecosystem managers should be prepared tosupport such research where it would leadto more detailed scenarios for their region,and hopefully to scenarios that reflect localtopography and vegetation with more cer-tainty and precision.

MonitoringPromote parks as long-term integrat-

ed monitoring sites. Climate change willbring unexpected combinations of directimpacts, secondary effects, and new associ-

ations of processes, features, and species.Hence national parks should be managed asintegrated ecosystems, not for one particu-lar VEC. Integrated monitoring is a comple-mentary management and reporting toolthat can re veal unex p e c ted linkage sb e t ween eco s ys tem components and thedrivers of environmental change. The primeattraction of integrated monitoring is itsability to mine existing data to spot emerg-ing influences and explain responses. Eachstress does not need its own unique set ofindicators. Often, several stresses can bet ra c ked from a limited but we l l - s e l e c te densemble of indicators. Integrated monitor-ing also fosters partnerships in which manyagencies share costs while receiving benefitsgreater than the sum of the inputs.

Data gathering and reporting ac-tions. Each park should have long-term cli-mate and climate change indicator data.These data should be reported at the parklevel and regional or national levels.

What not to do?Do not move parks to anticipate d

biomes. While some parks might benefitfrom local boundary adjustments to protectecosystems and habitats at risk from climatechange, as noted above the general notion ofdynamic parks must be rejected on policygrounds, as opening the door to any otherreason to move a park, e.g., to extract min-erals or fiber. The notion must also berejected on the pragmatic basis that few nat-ural areas remain for new park establish-ment within existing or future regions thatalready have national park representation.Rather, the present parks are often all that isleft to provide a haven for nature during atime of great change. Thirdly, park estab-lishment is a lengthy process with no guar-antee of success. In sum, the presence of a


well-distributed system of protected areas isone of society’s best adaptations to climatechange. Even if one protected area loses cer-tain species and associations, species willh ave their best chance of finding newhomes in a well-managed, well-distributed,we l l - co n n e c te d , and pro p e rly sized net-work.

Do not use parks to buffer or mitigateother impacts. Parks are not an insurancepolicy against neglige n ce or mismanage-ment of natural hazards and natura lresource supply. The restoration, protec-tion, and maintenance of natural systemsprecludes the manipulation of an ecosystemto an artificial condition in order to counteran artificial threat. Some of these ecosystemservices may come about with the mainte-nance and restoration of ecological integri-ty, but parks should not be manipulated forflood protection, water supply, or carbonsequestration, for example. As with the ideaof moving parks, this would open the doorto the co m m e rcialization of natural re-sources in parks.

Do not modify natural region bound-aries to fit future biomes. Many nationsuse, or are considering the use of, a naturalregion re p resentation approach to parke s t a b l i s h m e n t . This sys tem has serve dCanada well since its adoption by the feder-al cabinet in 1976. The constancy of thenumber of regions and their boundaries hasbeen a cornerstone of the park system plansince that time. It has allowed Parks Canadato pursue a consistent course towards com-pleting a pan-Canadian system of nationalparks without being sidetracked by interestg roups or ministerial lobbying to addanother park here or there to satisfy vestedlocal interests. Upon the publication of theecozone map of Canada in the early 1980s,the issue of natural region boundary change

was addressed and rejected. Even thoughthe ecozone map is a later product, is scien-tifically more defensible and was the prod-uct of federa l , p rov i n c i a l , and te r r i to r i a lagreement, if the precedent were to be setthat the natural regions policy could bechanged, then there could be no end to fur-ther pragmatic modifications of regions.

All climate scenarios are based on aseries of assumptions about future emis-s i o n s , the physics and chemistry of thea t m o s p h e re , and ge o g raphical simplifica-tions to allow world models to operate onto d ay’s superco m p u te rs . Ve getation re-sponse is likewise based on a series of mod-eling and plant succession assumptions.While these collectively represent the bestscience today, and show a great deal of con-vergence in their general findings, the place-ment of region boundaries is by definitionnotional and subject to change as climateand vegetation models improve, and as thewo rld moves forwa rd into updated re a lemission inventories rather than scenarios.To change natural region boundaries onthis basis would open up a never-endingprocess, and create a unrealistic setting forpark feasibility studies and establishmentnegotiations that already can take years ordecades.

ConclusionsHowever well protected areas are man-

aged, they cannot by themselves have muchd i rect effect on greenhouse gas leve l s .Rather, a good network of protected areasfree of other stresses is one of society’s andnature’s best adaptations to climate change.They can also play a vital communicationsrole in influencing visitors and the con-cerned public. These two—good parks andgood communications—in turn re q u i rewe l l - re s e a rched and -monito red climate


change impact indicators as the basis foradaptive ecosystem management, accounta-bility, and reporting systems, and for inter-pretive, outreach, and education programs.House-in-order programs complement themessages that governments should be send-ing to their peoples. Research on the syner-gy between climate change and other stres-sors, such as habitat fragmentation and airpollution, can provide the knowledge toguide the mitigation of local and regionalstressors, thereby restoring some of the nat-u ral re s i l i e n ce of eco s ys tems and wildspecies.

Regardless of the debate over climate-forcing mechanisms and who does what towhom, we are more aware than ever that weare entering an era of rapid climate change,recent and future, and we had better getused to it. Protected areas should play a

leadership role to ensure that wild naturealso enjoys the ride.

AcknowledgmentsThanks to Daniel Scott, University of

Waterloo, for his long-term collaboration onclimate change and ecosystem responses,and to Neil Munro , f o r m e rly of Pa rk sC a n a d a , for his support and leaders h i prelated to a broad suite of air issues. Thanksto the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange for granting permission to repro-duce the material in Figures 1 through 4.

Many of the proposed recommenda-tions are drawn from my Canadian andParks Canada experience. While I thankParks Canada for the opportunity to devel-op these recommendations, they remain myown opinions at the time of writing.


ReferencesBeniston, M. 2003. Climatic change in mountain regions: a review of possible impacts.

Climatic Change 59: 5–31.CEEA [Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]. 2003. Incorporating climate change

considerations in environmental assessment: general guidance for practitioners. Ottawa:Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Cubasch, U., G.A. Meehl, G.J. Boer, R.J. Stouffer, M. Dix, A. Noda, C.A. Senior, S. Raper,and K.S. Yap. 2001. Projections of future climate change. Chapter 9 in IPCC 2001a.

Easterling, W.E., III, B.H. Hurd, and J.B. Smith, 2004. Coping with global climate change:the role of adaptation in the United States. On-line at Pew Center website.

EPICA [European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica]. 2004. Eight glacial cycles from anAntarctic ice core. Nature 429: 623–628.

Folland, C.K., T.R. Karl, J.R. Christy, R.A. Clarke, G.V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, M.E. Mann, J.Oerlemans, M.J. Salinger, and S.-W. Wang. 2001a. Observed climate variability andchange. Chapter 2 in IPCC 2001a.

Hall, M.H.P., and D.B. Fagre. 2003. Modeled climate-induced glacier change in GlacierNational Park, 1850–2100. BioScience 53(2): 131–140.

Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J.C. Lovett, D. Scott, and F.I.Woodward. 2002. Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate. ConservationBiology 16: 264–268.

Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer, and J.R. Hoffman. 2003. Buying time: a user’s manual for build-ing resistance and resilience to climate change in natural systems. On-line at World

Wildlife Fund website.Hoffman P.F., and D.P. Schrag. 2000. Snowball Earth. Scientific American (January): 68–75.Higgins, P.A.T., and M. Vellinga, 2004. Ecosystem responses to abrupt climate change: tele-

connections, scale and the hydrological cycle. Climatic Change 64(1): 127–142.IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ]. 2001a. Climate Change 2001: The

Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs,M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson, eds. Cambridge,U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2001b. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contributionof Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S.White, eds. Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, P.M., and W.N. Adger. 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climatechange and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change 47: 325–352.

McCarty, J.P. 2001. Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conservation Biology15: 320–331.

Munn, R.E. 2002. Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change—Vol. 4: Responding toGlobal Environmental Change. New York: John Wiley.

NEG/ECP [New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers]. 2001. New EnglandGovernors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan 2001. Boston: NewEngland Governors’ Conference, Inc.

Noss, R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate change.Conservation Biology 15: 578-590.

Nudds, T.D. 1998. Adaptive management and the conservation of biodiversity. Pp. 179–193in Practical Approaches to the Conservation of Biodiversity. R.K. Baydack, H. Campa III,and J.B. Haufler, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Overland, J.E., M.C. Spillane, and N.N. Soreide. 2004. Integrated analysis of physical andbiological pan-Arctic change. Climatic Change 63: 291–322.

Parmesan, C., and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impactsacross natural systems. Nature 421: 37–42.

Ravelo, A.C., D.H. Andreason, M. Lyle, A. Ollvarez Lyle, and M.W. Wara. 2004. Regionalclimate shifts caused by gradual global cooling in the Pliocene epoch. Nature 429:263–267.

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and J.A. Pounds. 2003.Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421: 57–60.

Ruddiman, W.F. 2003. The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago.Climatic Change 61: 261–293.

Schindler, D.W. 2001. The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresseson Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 58: 18–29.

Scott, D. 2003. Climate change and Canada’s national park system: scenarios and impacts.Parks Canada Ecosystem Science and Review Reports 19 (CD-ROM).


Scott, D., J.R. Malcolm, and C. Lemieux. 2002. Climate change and modelled biome repre-sentation in Canada’s national park system: implications for system planning and parkmandates. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11: 475–484.

Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, B. Challenger, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein, and G. Yohe. 2001.Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity.Chapter 18 in IPCC 2001b.

Svenssen, H., S. Planke, A. Malthe-S_renssen, B. Jamtveit, R. Myklebust, T. RasmussenEidem, and S. Rey. 2004. Release of methane from a volcanic basin as a mechanism forinitial Eocene global warming. Nature 429: 542–545.

Walker, B., and W. Steffen. 1997. An overview of the implications of global change for natu-ral and managed ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1(2): 2. [On-line.]

Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J.-M. Fromentin,O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climatechange. Nature 416: 389–395.

Wein, R.W., J.C. Hogenbirk, B.L. McFarlane, A.G. Schwartz, and R.A. Wright. 1990.Protection strategies for parks under predicted climate change. Parks 1: 17–22.

David Welch, Ecological Integrity Branch, Parks Canada, 25 Eddy Street, Gatineau,Québec K1A 0M5, Canada; [email protected]


what should protected areas managers do in the face of climate change? · impacts of re cent...

Documents