THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY The Value of Ecosystem Services in British Columbia’s Parks and Protected Areas By Pete Hrkac A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Masters of Science in Environmental Economics & Management (MScEEM) KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA AUGUST, 2021 Supervisor: Dr. Joel Wood & Second Reader: Dr. Peter Tsigaris Pete Hrkac, 2021 1 Abstract BC Parks manages the third largest parks system in North America and the sixth largest in the world. The BC Parks network includes 1,036 unique protected areas comprising 14.1 million hectares of natural land in British Columbia (BC). These areas are protected by the provincial government of BC and include a variety of protected parks, conservancies, ecological reserves, protected areas, and recreation areas. Although direct economic impacts have been estimated for BC Parks, the natural capital within their portfolio produces a variety of other direct and indirect benefits, more commonly known as ecosystem services. This study estimates the value of ecosystem services stemming from BC’s parks and protected areas to be approximately $132 billion per year, or $3.77 trillion in total current value. The benefit transfer method was used to estimate the value within each unique area and incorporated mean global values for ecosystem services from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD). Land cover raster data was supplied by the Government of Canada while BC Parks provided geospatial shapefiles representing the borders of the protected areas within their jurisdiction. This study is intended on serving as a first step in estimating the value of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas, with hopes of raising public awareness regarding the immense benefits that natural capital provides to societies. Translating their benefits into this monetary figure also helps contextualize their contributions and assist decision-makers in managing these areas. Keywords: congestion, natural capital, ecosystem services, biodiversity, benefit transfer method, valuation 1 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 List of Figures & Tables ................................................................................................................................. 3 Part 1 – Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Part 2 – BC Parks: History & Current Challenges .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 BC Parks: Facts and History ........................................................................................................... 6 2.2 BC Parks: Current challenges ........................................................................................................ 8 Part 3 - Natural Capital & Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................ 11 3.1 What are natural capital and ecosystem services? .................................................................... 11 3.2 Characteristics of ecosystem services......................................................................................... 12 3.3 Trade-offs & nature as a missing variable................................................................................... 14 3.4 Integrating natural capital and ecosystem services.................................................................... 16 Part 4 - Literature Review ........................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Global assessments of natural capital, biodiversity, and ecosystem services ............................ 17 4.2 Research and applications of ecosystem services valuation ...................................................... 18 4.3 Biodiversity loss, natural capital depletion & climate change .................................................... 22 Part 5 - Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 24 5.1 Geospatial analysis using R ......................................................................................................... 24 5.2 Derivation of ecosystem services values .................................................................................... 26 5.3 Benefit transfer method ............................................................................................................. 29 Part 6 - Results ............................................................................................................................................ 30 Part 7 – Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 37 7.1 Caveats and sources of error ...................................................................................................... 37 7.2 Comparing estimates and findings ............................................................................................. 39 7.3 Stakeholder implications............................................................................................................. 41 7.3.1 Government of BC............................................................................................................... 41 7.3.2 BC Parks............................................................................................................................... 42 7.3.3 Park users and the public .................................................................................................... 43 Part 8 - Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 44 References .................................................................................................................................................. 45 Appendix 1 – Classification of BC Parks’ Protected Areas .......................................................................... 50 Appendix 2 – ESVD standardized values, June 2020 update (Int$/hectare/year; 2020 price levels) ......... 53 Appendix 3 – BC Parks Protected Areas with Tidal Waters ........................................................................ 54 Appendix 4 –Protected Areas, Ecosystem Services (2020 CDN$/year) ...................................................... 56 2 List of Figures & Tables Table 1: BC Parks Protected Areas………………………………………………………………………………….……..…………………7 Table 2: ESVD Ecosystem Services………………………………….……………………………………………….………………………13 Table 3: Land Classification by Protected Area Type (hectares)……………………………………………………………….26 Table 4: Converted ESVD global values……………………………………………………………………………………..….………..27 Table 5: Land cover & ESVD biome descriptions adjustment, values…………………………………………………….…29 Table 6: Protected Areas, ES values (2020 $CDN per year)……………………………………………………………………...30 Figure 1: Biome Categories, ES values (2020 $CDN)……………………………………………………………………………….31 Table 7: Land classification categories, protected areas, ES values (2020 $CDN per year)………….…………….32 Table 8: Top 25 Protected Areas by Ecosystem Services Value (2020 CDN$)……………………………..…………...33 Figure 2: Tweedsmuir Provincial Park……………………………………………………………………………….…………………….34 Figure 3: Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park…………………………………………………………………………………………..35 Figure 4: Wells Gray Provincial Park……………………………………………………………………….……………………………...35 Figure 5: Duu Guusd Conservancy………………………………………………………………………………………………………....36 Table 9: Comparison of Ecosystem Services Estimates…………………..……………………………………………………….40 3 Part 1 – Introduction The study at hand estimates the total value of ecosystem services stemming from natural areas in British Columbia’s parks and protected areas. The provincial government of British Columbia (BC) has mandated BC Parks with the protection and conservation of one of the largest park systems in the world (BC Parks, 2021A). BC’s parks and protected areas hold significant cultural importance for domestic residents and are a driving force behind tourism within the province (Government of BC, 2021A). Although the direct economic impacts of BC Parks have been previously estimated, there are numerous ways that the natural resources found in BC’s parks and protected areas provide additional benefits to society. These benefits are known as ecosystem services, and include aspects such as the production of clean air, climate regulation, the provision of raw materials, spiritual benefits, etc. Unlike traditional goods and services that are sold in open markets, the benefits of ecosystem services are freely given and will continue to manifest so long as ecosystems are healthy and functioning. For the past several years, BC Parks has been facing challenges related to rising demand, and subsequent congestion and environmental degradation (Chan, 2018). Environmental degradation implies damage to certain biomes, such as plant-life that borders trails, which in turn reduces ecosystem services that stem from these biomes. Perhaps more importantly, congestion is known to negatively affect the experience of recreational users (Nelson and Hotte, 2018). This diminishes the benefits generated from cultural ecosystem services, including recreational and spiritual benefits. Furthermore, many Canadians have actually reported a loss in psychological or spiritual-related ecosystem services benefits (Biodivcanada, 2014). This provides a direct link between ecosystem services losses and BC Parks, as a certain portion of these recreationalists would have presumably been referring to losses they were experiencing within BC’s provincial parks. The mental health benefits from nature are also a growing area of research, and one that may prove to hold significant connections to human wellbeing. For instance, researchers in Australia recently estimated that national parks in Australia contribute $98 billion in mental health benefits per year to those who frequent them (Buckley et al, 2019). Therefore, the detrimental effects from trail congestion and losses of related ecosystem services for those who visit BC’s parks could be significant. They may also be compounded by increasing wildfires due to climate change that prevent or lower the ability for users to safely visit parks and natural areas. Estimating the value of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas is important for several reasons. Although direct economic impacts have been estimated, incorporating the value of ecosystem services would provide a more holistic and accurate measurement of the benefits that these 4 areas produce. This in turn would help decision-makers make better informed decisions with regards to future funding and conservation considerations in BC’s parks and protected areas. Moreover, although all areas in BC Parks have at least some forms of protection, there are allowances in place that could enable economic activity to be permitted in certain protected areas (BC Parks, 2021A). Providing a sense of value in a context that is understandable may help guide decision makers when facing these trade-off scenarios (SEEA, 2021). This research may also be useful for other provincial governments who manage their own park systems and provide a sense of how valuable the ecosystem services stemming from their own parks and protected areas could be. Furthermore, the results from this study may help raise general awareness regarding the important role that healthy, functioning ecosystems have in contributing to our overall wellbeing. Lastly, protecting natural capital and preventing further biodiversity loss across all areas of the world is important for mitigating climate change effects and helping to ensure the future sustainability of our planet is maintained (Costanza et al, 2017). These factors illustrate the key objective of the research study at hand: To provide an initial estimate of the value of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas, thereby allowing a more holistic depiction of their value to be discerned. This will enable policymakers to make better informed decisions with regards to managing these areas, and raise public awareness regarding the significant contributions that ecosystem services provide toward human wellbeing. In order to estimate the value of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas, the benefit transfer method was administered. This is synchronous to similar studies that estimate the value of ecosystem services in larger and diverse areas. The methodology for the study at hand involved geospatial analysis using land cover data and geospatial borders in order to extract the amount of biomes from within each of BC’s parks and protected areas. Value estimates were taken from the June 2020 update of the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD). Some adjustments and matching processes were required. The end result was producing an estimated value of $132 billion per year in 2020 $CDN for ecosystem services stemming from BC’s parks and protected areas. This figure is substantial and comparable to provincial GDP in BC and the total value of BC’s real estate properties (Statistics Canada, 2021; BC Assessment, 2021). It is also similar in scale and magnitude to other applications of the benefit transfer method within large geographic areas. 5 Although valuing large, diverse protected areas using the benefit transfer method is admittedly a lower accuracy method, the key motive is to provide an initial estimate that is reasonable and can be easily integrated into sustainable resource management practices. It’s more about the magnitude than the precise value itself and providing a sense of just how valuable the contributions of ecosystem services may be. The objective is not to provide refined estimates for any individual parks and areas. Any decisions or projects requiring an assessment in a particular park or area should utilize more robust valuation techniques and expert opinions. Nor is the objective to price or commodify BC’s parks and protected areas for commercial or market purposes. If anything, valuing these areas will add weight and reason for them to be further protected. Ultimately, ecosystem services play a large role in influencing human wellbeing and in mitigating climate change’s detrimental effects. They also provide a direct link between the natural world and human societies, illustrating the interconnection and dependence that humans have upon natural capital. Research that estimates the value of ecosystem services increases our knowledge of their important role in society and creates a context in which they can be more easily integrated into sustainable resource management. Estimating the value of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas provides important knowledge for BC Parks, the provincial government, and all Canadians who benefit from their various contributions. Part 2 – BC Parks: History & Current Challenges 2.1 BC Parks: Facts and History BC Parks is a subsidiary of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, one of the branches of the provincial government of British Columbia (BC), the westernmost province in Canada. Under various acts and regulations, including the Protected Areas of British Columba Act, BC Parks is responsible for the management and conservation of a vast network of provincial parks, ecological reserves, protected areas, recreation areas, and conservancies located throughout the province (BC Parks, 2021A). In total, there are 1,036 unique areas consisting of approximately 14.1 million hectares of natural land. This coverage translates to 14.4% of all land within the province and 0.9% of all marine areas, with provincial targets aimed to increase the proportions of both protected land and marine areas over time (Government of BC, 2016). BC Parks’ portfolio also includes 10,700 vehicle accessible campsites, over 2,000 walk-in/backcountry campsites, and over 6,000 kilometres of hiking trails (BC 6 Parks, 2021B). Furthermore, BC’s parks and protected areas are home to highest diversity of life in all of North America, with species such as bears, elk, salmon, whales, lynx, etc. (BC Parks Foundation, 2021). The history of BC Parks began with the establishment of Strathcona Provincial Park on Vancouver Island in 1911, which today is BC’s seventh largest provincial park. The number of protected parks and areas in BC expanded significantly in the later portion of the 20th century, with the park system more than doubling in size from 1988 to 2011 (BC Parks, 2021C). Today, BC has the third largest parks system in North America and the sixth largest in the world (BC Parks Foundation, 2021). As such, BC is known for its world-wide reputation for pristine natural areas and superb recreational opportunities (Government of BC, 2021A). This reputation plays an important role in fueling international and domestic tourism within the province, and parks and natural areas are considered by many to be the backbone of BC’s growing tourism sector. With regards to tourism growth within the province, there were 6.4 million international travellers who visited BC in 2019, which represents a 5year increase of nearly 40% (Destination BC, 2021). Furthermore, six in ten BC residents visit at least one provincial park each year and there were over 26 million individual recorded park visits in 2018-19, illustrating the high demand and implicit value that BC’s parks and protected areas hold for BC residents, Canadians visiting from other provinces, and international visitors (BC Parks, 2021B). The protected areas within the BC Parks network include a wide variety of forests, freshwater bodies, glaciated regions, grasslands, wetlands, and many other biomes. The majority of these areas are composed of Class A Parks (629 unique areas totalling 10.5 million hectares), which are protected and preserved for the enjoyment and pleasure of the public (BC Parks, 2021A). All three classifications of Parks (A, B, and C) have strong levels of protection, and intensive activities including Table 1 – BC Parks Protected Areas Classification Number Class A Parks 629 Area (hectares) 10,548,410 Class B Parks 2 3,778 Class C Parks 13 484 Recreation Areas 2 5,929 significance for indigenous communities within Conservancies 158 3,008,733 BC. Notably, Conservancies allow for a wider Protected Areas 84 384,808 range of low-impact economic activities Ecological Reserves 148 160,292 compared to Parks, although intensive Total 1,036 14,112,434 activities are still prohibited. The area with the Source: BC Parks, 2021(A) mining and logging are prohibited. The next largest group is Conservancies (158 unique areas totalling 3 million hectares), which recognize the cultural and ceremonial highest level of protection is Ecological Reserves; the only suitable activity allowed within these areas 7 are those relating to scientific or academic research. Table 1 details the different classifications of protected areas under BC Parks, including the number of areas and total size. A more detailed description of the various protected areas as defined under the Park Act or Protected Areas of British Columbia Act can be found in Appendix 1. 2.2 BC Parks: Current challenges The aforementioned rise in tourism and domestic usage of provincial parks and recreational areas poses many challenges for BC Parks. In 2011, parking fees were eliminated by the BC Government under former premier Christy Clark, resulting in a $826,000 (93%) decline per year in revenues generated by BC Parks’ operations (BC Parks, 2012). This change was successful in attracting more visitors to parks in the following years. In simple economic terms, reducing the cost to enjoy these public goods subsequently increased interest and demand by users. Although cost reduction plays an important role, other compounding factors such as growing international tourism and income levels also likely contributed in increasing recorded provincial park visits from 21.3 million in 2014-15 to 26.3 million in 2018-19, which represents an increase of 24% (BC Parks, 2021B). However, the years following the elimination of parking fees in 2011 also saw public expenditures on parks decrease by 2% per year, leading to inadequate infrastructure and personnel issues given the high levels of demand (Nelson & Hotte, 2018). This is turn leads to a state of congestion on popular trails and loss of consumer surplus as users experience negative effects that diminish the benefit they gain from spending time in parks and outdoor areas. Although international tourism has strongly risen over the same period, the increase in demand may also be partially fueled by the role that social media plays in influencing people, including domestic residents, to visit parks and other popular tourist destinations (Simmons et al, 2018). Beyond the issues of potential congestion, the promotion of outdoor recreation on social media may also be leading to more instances of accidents and rescues occurring in parks and recreation areas, as many of these adventure-seekers appear to be unprepared and ill-equipped for unpredictable mountain conditions. Notably, search and rescue incidents in BC have steadily increased over the past several years and are likely to continue to rise in the future (BC Search & Rescue, 2020). This is particularly true for North Shore Rescue (NSR), which serves several popular provincial parks in the mountains north of Vancouver, BC. Early projections for NSR rescue incidents in 2021 look likely to be record-setting (North Shore Rescue, 2021A). Ultimately, rising search and rescue incidents translate to more costs for tax-payers, 8 and also induce social and opportunity costs for rescue volunteers who often sacrifice employment hours and economic contributions in order to partake in rescue operations (Coquitlam Search and Rescue, 2021). Many of BC’s parks also appear to be under-equipped with regards to the infrastructure and resources needed to accommodate and manage the rising demand. This seems to be particularly true for areas that are easily accessible and near Vancouver, which is the largest metropolitan area and the major tourism hub within the province. A prime example of this phenomenon is Joffre Lake Provincial Park, which is located just a couple hours outside of Vancouver and is easily accessed off the Sea-to-Sky highway. Joffre Lakes has witnessed tremendous visitation growth and reached 183,000 visitations in 2018, which represents an 168% increase since 2010 (BC Parks, 2019). The high level of demand in Joffre Lakes has led to the creation of an action plan to address issues of trail congestion, environmental degradation, and inadequate parking spaces that prompt visitors to park dangerously alongside the highway (Chan, 2018). Joffre Lakes is an extreme case showcasing what can happen when high demand overpowers the available infrastructure within a popular park. As a response to heightened demand, BC Parks introduced a pilot project in the summer of 2020 that required users to obtain free day-use passes for six popular provincial parks (five of which are located near Vancouver) (Government of BC, 2020). Although these passes were free, they were limited in quantity and offered on a first-come-first-served basis. Thus, they represented an attempt in establishing a carrying capacity for certain parks and controlling the maximum amount of visitors per day. The pilot project received mixed results; although initially supported by organizations such as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), others such as the BC Mountaineering Club and Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia (FMCBC) raised concerns over demand displacement and a possible connection to the growing number of search and rescue callouts (Uguen-Csenge, 2021; FMCBC 2020). They also questioned the efficacy and ethics of using an online platform to reserve day passes on a first-come-first-served basis (Kelly, 2021). High demand for popular trails still exists, and BC Parks recently reintroduced the free day-use pass system for five popular parks in 2021 (Watson, 2021). In response to criticism regarding tripplanning, the system was altered to allow a one-week advance in acquiring day passes. However, critics once again questioned why certain parks were chosen over others, and whether the province considered alternative strategies such as building new trails as a means to increase overall supply and alleviate demand (Noel, 2021). Despite the frustration felt by certain groups over the day pass system, some researchers do support the idea of utilizing user fees to mitigate demand, recognizing that a 9 negative experience due to congestion can be just as deterring as paying a fee (Nelson & Hotte, 2018). Ultimately, the issue of growing demand and subsequent congestion is a complicated matter. Simply increasing supply by building new trails may not be effective in displacing demand, as users clearly value accessibility and may also be influenced by external factors like social media in prioritizing which parks they decide to visit. Another area of concern brought forth by many groups has been the overall funding allocated to BC Parks by the provincial government of British Columbia. In 2020, BC Parks ranked last among all provinces on expenditure per hectare for provincial parks, with a rate of $2.80 per hectare (Dawn, 2020). For comparison, Alberta was spending $30 per hectare; however, Alberta Parks’ portfolio is considerably smaller compared to BC Parks (4.4 million versus 14.1 million hectares) (Alberta Parks, 2021). The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) also cites a funding crisis resulting in a shortage of park rangers, inadequate infrastructure, and threats to ecosystem health (CPAWSBC, 2021). CPAWS advocates for a solution consisting of increasing the base funding for BC Parks to $60 million per year, with continual increases to eventually equal funding levels of other leading park agencies, and the subsequent employment of more park rangers. For context, BC Parks funding reached just over $40 million in 2019-20 (CBC News, 2021). However, the provincial government has recently responded to these concerns with two significant developments. In 2018, the BC Parks Foundation was established with the goal of preserving and enhancing BC’s parks and protected areas (BC Parks Foundation, 2021). This was through help from the provincial government, who provided an initial $5 million injection to create the foundation (Dawn, 2020). The BC Parks Foundation operates independently from BC Parks, and explicitly recognizes the need for conservation given rising demand in parks. In fact, the BC Parks Foundation recently worked alongside other groups, including the Nature Conservancy of Canada, to create a new 3,500 hectare conservancy located in northwestern BC, adjacent to Mount Edziza Provincial Park (FMCBC, 2021). The second major announcement was a recent significant increase to the BC Parks budget - $83 million over three years (CBC News, 2021). This boost in funding will temporarily increase the capital budget by 57%, the operating budget by 22%, and add 185 camping sites. Although undoubtedly positive news, it remains to be seen if the additional funding will enable BC Parks to address all of the aforementioned issues, including trail congestion and environmental degradation in popular parks. 10 Part 3 - Natural Capital & Ecosystem Services 3.1 What are natural capital and ecosystem services? BC’s provincial parks and protected areas are a form of natural capital, a term that economists use to define the global stock of natural assets, including forests, water, soils, plants, and all other living things (Natural Capital Forum, 2021). Natural capital can be either renewable, like the production of the clean air that we breath, or non-renewable, like freshwater aquifer sources or old growth forests (SEEA, 2021). Nearly all the goods and services we consume are connected to natural capital in some way, from the input materials used to manufacture goods to the food we eat from agricultural operations. There are numerous societal benefits that stem from natural areas, including the forests and other biomes found in BC’s parks and protected areas. The most commonly reported benefits from parks in particular are direct economic impacts, such as visitor spending and jobs created within the tourism sector. These have been regularly estimated and provide a sense of economic value for these public and common goods. For example, in 2010 BC Parks worked with the Canadian Parks Council to estimate the direct economic benefits of BC Parks (CPCIL, 2020). This research estimated that $47 million in capital expenditures in BC Parks led to a $392 million contribution to national GDP and the creation of over 5,200 full-time jobs in 2009. These figures were also recently updated by Zimmer (2021), who estimated the economic impact of BC Parks in fiscal year 2019-20 to be a $808 million contribution to national GDP (including direct, indirect, and induced impacts) and the support of 17,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs across Canada. However, the true value of these protected areas includes more than just their direct economic impacts. There are numerous ways that natural areas provide additional benefits to society, both directly and indirectly, and many of which are global in scale and reach. These benefits are commonly known as ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are defined as “the ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to human wellbeing: that is, the benefits that people derive from functioning ecosystems” (Costanza et al, 2017). Ecosystem services are commonly divided into four main categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural (MEA, 2005). For example, healthy ecosystems provide nutrient-rich soils (provisioning), clean air (supporting), carbon sequestration (regulating), and mental health benefits (cultural). Notably, ecosystem services supplement and enhance our wellbeing and productivity, and are crucial to sustaining life around the globe (Natural Capital Forum, 2021). 11 Assessing the value of parks and natural capital based solely on direct economic impact studies fails to capture the important benefits that come from ecosystem services. Total economic value includes many other aspects, including usage, option, and non-use values, many of which are not visible within market transactions and statistics. As such, recent decades have witnessed a rising global effort in increasing public awareness with regards to the immense value that nature and ecosystems contribute to human wellbeing (Constanza et al, 2017). These efforts were largely initiated in response to observations regarding global biodiversity loss and the increasing threats from climate change and rising average global temperatures (more on this in Section 3.3). There was also growing recognition that natural capital stocks are often disregarded or not included in popular financial metrics, like Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Thus, the depletion of natural capital, including ecosystems services, went largely underreported during most of the 20th century. It is these revelations that helped spur many of the recent developments focused on researching the connection of natural capital to human wellbeing. 3.2 Characteristics of ecosystem services In order for ecosystem services to benefit human societies, they must interact with other forms of capital, including built, social, and human capital (Costanza et al, 1997). For example, clean air (ecosystem service) produced by forests (natural capital) interacts with humans (human capital) and improves our health, productivity and wellbeing. If there were no humans, or if we somehow could not access clean air, then there would be no interaction and therefore no flow of benefits. This may sound like a simple and obvious notion, but it is important to mention as it highlights our interdependence and connection to nature. Ecosystem services were originally divided into four categories by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). However, a few years later The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB) study reclassified these categories, which are more commonly used in valuation studies today (TEEB, 2010). They include: provisioning, regulating, habitat, and cultural. Furthermore, there are 23 unique ecosystem services categorized within these four service groups. For example, the regulating service group includes air quality regulation, climate regulation, pollination, etc. These are implemented in the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD), which was created alongside the TEEB study (de Groot et al, 2012). Table 2 illustrates the four service categories and 23 ecosystem services that fall within 12 these categories. Notably, the ESVD breaks the 23 Table 2 – ESVD Ecosystem Services ecosystem services into further subcategories, which can be viewed on the ESVD website. Ecosystem services are produced by different forms of natural capital, which are commonly deemed as ‘biomes’. Examples of biomes include forests, grasslands, shrublands, freshwater, etc. Biomes can produce just a few or several different ecosystem services, based on their characteristics and the amount of research that has been done for that biome. For example, in the ESVD rivers and lakes produce ecosystem services from all four service groups, while deserts have no attached ecosystem services from any group. This is not to say the deserts have no value or produce no ecosystem services; rather, it is a reflection that there have not been enough studies yet conducted on deserts to warrant any Source: de Groot, Brander, and Solomonides, 2020 inclusions in the ESVD (de Groot, Brander, and Solomonides, 2020). Despite their inherent contributions to society, ecosystem service benefits are not necessarily perceived by those who benefit from their existence (Costanza et al, 2014). For example, the Canadian boreal forest covers approximately 300 million acres of land across Canada, and produces many ecosystem services, including air quality regulation and climate regulation in the form of carbon sequestration (Duggan, G. (n.d.)). The combined total value of the aforementioned services is estimated to be as high as $700 billion. This estimate infers that significant positive benefits are distributed across the national population (and globally) based on the production of these ecosystem services, regardless of whether or not we are cognisant of their existence and our consumption of their services. Furthermore, unlike traditional goods and services that are manufactured and sold in established markets, ecosystem services benefits are freely given, meaning that we do not have to pay to incur their benefits. This is true of most public goods, which are non-rival and non-excludable. Therefore, since ecosystem services are both difficult to perceive and freely given, they can easily be taken for granted 13 and potentially ignored within public and government institutions. After all, they are something that natures provides us for free, without the need for human intervention. 3.3 Trade-offs & nature as a missing variable The fact that ecosystem services are both difficult to perceive and freely given poses two significant problems with regards to public policy and the management of natural resources. Firstly, decision and policy-makers may not be aware of ecosystem services, or they may not fully understand just how important of a role they play in contributing to human wellbeing. In fact, studies in Australia suggest that those employed in the business and financial paradigm exhibit lower levels of ecological literacy than those employed in other sectors, such as education and sciences (Pitman, Daniels, and Sutton, 2016). Moreover, even if decision makers are aware of and adequately comprehend the ecological contributions of natural capital, they still need to make trade-off decisions that alter or affect the stock of natural capital within their jurisdiction. Trade-offs are an essential component within economics, and the general idea is that manufacturing any type of product or service requires using and subsequently decreasing a stock of input materials. Input materials are often composed of natural resources, such as lumber, minerals, freshwater, etc. There can even be trade-offs between different types of ecosystem services. Examples of these types of trade-offs include depleting water sources to produce agricultural crop output (Zhang et al, 2007), and decreasing biodiversity and carbon sequestration levels through forestry activities and lumber production (Nelson et al, 2008). It is also not uncommon for conflicts to arise within ecosystem services trade-off decisions (King et al, 2015). A timely and polarizing example of this within British Columbia is the ongoing Fairy Creek blockade, in which activists are protesting the logging of old-growth forests near Port Renfrew, resulting in an ongoing standoff between activists and RCMP (Oudshoorn, K. and Pawson, C., 2021). In this case, the conflict is between the value of ecosystem services that result from old-growth forests left standing versus their contributions in lumber output. Nonetheless, trade-offs are a core component of global resource management, and using natural capital to create other forms of capital may be considered sustainable as long it doesn’t compromise future generations’ ability to meet their own needs (Bruntland Commission, 1987; Arrow et al, 2012). Moreover, achieving future sustainable resource management may be largely dependent upon navigating the trade-offs between different types of ecosystem services (Cavendar-Bares et al, 2015). This brings up the second issue: how do decision-makers know if they’re making sustainable trade-offs 14 when managing natural resources? In other words, how can they determine whether or not trade-offs are net positive, in which the value of built, human, or societal capital created equals or exceeds the loss of natural capital and ecosystem services? This notion hints at the core motivation of the study at hand: the need to translate ecosystem services into monetary terms in order to create a context in which their value can be properly understood by policy and decision-makers. Another aspect to consider is that natural capital is typically not included in common financial and national growth metrics. A good example of this can be seen in the examination of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the most commonly used metric for reporting economic growth. Natural capital and ecosystem service benefits are largely neglected in the computation of GDP, which is widely considered to be a poor or incomplete measure of wellbeing (OECD, 2021A). GDP does not consider aspects of equality and equity, or who is benefitting from the growth (defined in terms of the total amount spent on production of goods and services within a nation). For example, GDP growth may be positive in a given timeframe, but only the wealthiest segments of society may have actually become better off with regards to income or purchasing power, while the poorer segments of society may have become worse off, widening the income gap and distribution of wealth. As long as the net or aggregated sum of GDP is positive, it is largely interpreted as a shared benefit for the entire society, which clearly may not be the case. Furthermore, GDP also positively accounts for spending on negative or destructive events, such as oil spills or wildfires. Not only do these events require public spending (and an opportunity cost with regards to other areas that this spending could have been used), they often entail severe negative externalities that are also not included within GDP’s measurement, including ecological damages and detrimental effects on human health (Andester, 2019). Moreover, the depletion of natural capital from economic activities such as over-fishing or deforestation are also largely unaccounted for and exempt from the calculation of GDP (WorldBank, 2021A). In other words, using up natural capital has no attached cost or consequence within this format. Although GDP continues to reign as the dominant macro measurement of economic growth, the above fallacies have spurred research into new ways to more adequately measure total assets and the comprehensive wellbeing of societies, which often include natural capital as assets on balance sheets. Alternative measurements include the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI), the Human Development Index (HDI), Gross National Happiness (GNH), the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and Genuine Wealth (Andester, 2019; Anielski, 2021). Overall, this subsection has illustrated the fact that natural capital is often not integrated into decision-making and reporting structures. One reason for this is because decision-makers often more 15 easily understand and make decisions on the premise of monetary values. It is difficult to compare the potential negative effects of natural capital depletion with monetary economic benefits when the unit values are different (i.e. net revenue in dollars versus hectares of natural resources lost). Natural capital is also often not included in national growth measures like GDP; therefore, the depletion of natural capital may go unaccounted for. The consequences of these factors have largely manifested in the form of substantial losses in biodiversity, natural capital depletion, and growing concerns regarding humanity’s ability to exist sustainably in a future riddled with climate change threats. 3.4 Integrating natural capital and ecosystem services Given the alarming levels of biodiversity loss and the growing threat of climate change, integrating natural capital and ecosystem services into global resource management and sustainable development strategies has become an increasingly important area of academic and scientific research. This includes examining the connections between healthy, functioning ecosystems and human wellbeing. From an economics perspective, translating the non-market benefits of natural capital and ecosystem services into monetary units has become increasingly popular area of research. These efforts help to mitigate and solve some of the issues described in the previous subsection. There are now hundreds of studies pertaining to valuing ecosystem services, which can vary greatly in scope, method and detail. Some of these studies value specific ecosystem services from a particular biome within an area or region. Others value all ecosystem services that stem from a particular biome within an area or region. For example, aquatic ecosystems of BC’s Lower Mainland region were valued between $30 and $60 billion CDN per year (Molnar, Kocian, and Batker, 2012). And others attempt to value all ecosystems services coming from all biomes within an area or region. For example, the value of all ecosystem services in US National Parks was estimated to be $98 billion USD per year (Sutton, Duncan, and Anderson, 2019). A more detailed history of ecosystem services valuation is provided in Part 4 - Literature Review. There has been some criticism toward the merits of valuing natural capital and ecosystem services, mainly the ethics of putting a ‘price’ on nature (Costanza et al, 2017; Sutton, Duncan, and Anderson, 2017). However, most studies that place a value on ecosystem services stress that valuation does not support or encourage commodification, and that nature should never be treated like an open market good or service. As highlighted in Section 3.3, monetizing ecosystem services simply creates a context in which their inherent value can more properly be understood and integrated by decision- 16 makers. Furthermore, it can be argued that studies that value natural capital are extremely important in today’s global environment, given the alarming rates of biodiversity loss, natural capital depletion, and the threats of climate change (see Section 4.3 for details). Part 4 - Literature Review The following literature review begins with an overview of major global assessments of natural capital, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. The history and relevant applications of ecosystem services valuation will then be detailed, including macro applications of the benefit transfer method, individual applications within North America, and the development of global mean estimates for ecosystem services. Finally, biodiversity loss, natural capital depletion, ecosystem services losses, and climate change implications are examined. 4.1 Global assessments of natural capital, biodiversity, and ecosystem services The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), published in 2005, was one of the first major global collaborations that assessed the overall impact of human activity on ecosystems and biodiversity. The MEA was initiated by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2001 and coordinated by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The report described the important role that ecosystem services have in influencing human wellbeing, and in turn raised awareness regarding their contributions. The MEA introduced four broad categories for classifying ecosystem services: provisioning services, regulating services, cultural services, and supporting services. Notably, the MEA concluded that human economic activity is causing a decline in natural capital stocks and biodiversity, potentially threatening the planet’s ability to sustain future generations. Following the MEA, the United Nations commissioned The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study, which was undertaken from 2007 to 2011. The study was successful in its goal to raise awareness concerning the global benefits of biodiversity and nature. Similar to the MEA, the TEEB study highlighted a concerning loss of global biodiversity linked to agricultural and commodity pressures, and advised urgent action based on the notion that species loss and environmental degradation is linked to negative effects on human wellbeing. The TEEB project also helped further advance ‘green accounting’ standards that integrate the value of natural capital into traditional accounting metrics like balance sheets. Notably, the TEEB study adopted but then reclassified the 17 original four classifications of ecosystem services developed by the MEA, introducing Habitat as a classification while removing the Supporting category. Furthermore, TEEB has played a large role in guiding the development of the most comprehensive database of ecosystem service values to date: the Ecosystem Service Valuation Database (ESVD). The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) represents yet another effort by the United Nations to further advance natural capital accounting frameworks. As of 2020, over 90 countries have compiled SEEA accounts, including Canada. Beyond providing green accounting methodological recommendations, the SEEA also provides many detailed and clear explanations of environmental economics concepts such as natural capital, ecosystem services, and a discussion regarding the merit of monetizing natural capital. With regards to the latter, the SEEA concludes that monetary valuation may not always be necessary and there is some criticism regarding the pricing of natural capital due to market failures and ethical concerns. However, they highlight that estimating a monetary value for natural capital can be useful in raising awareness and contextualizing the preservation of nature in a way that decision-makers can more clearly comprehend. 4.2 Research and applications of ecosystem services valuation There is great variety in the types of methods that have been employed to value ecosystem services. These methods have recently been summarized and categorized by Brander et al (2018), and include methods such as revealed preference, stated preference, travel cost, contingent valuation, simple benefit transfer, etc. For studies that estimate the value of all ecosystem services in larger regions or areas, the benefit transfer method is often selected. These studies are usually intended on serving as a first step in valuing ecosystem services within that region and aim to raise public awareness regarding their contributions to wellbeing and sustainability. They are admittedly lower accuracy estimates, as they use global average values to estimate the benefits in specific regions. Any real-world decisions and analyses in specific sites should use more accurate methods of estimating ecosystem services, such as expert modified value transfer, statistical value transfer, or spatial explicit functional modelling (Costanza et al, 2017). However, for the study at hand that estimates the value of ecosystem services in all of BC’s parks and protected areas, the benefit transfer method is appropriate, and relevant applications of this method are of particular interest. Public interest in valuing ecosystem services was first invigorated when a group of researchers led by Robert Costanza, ecological economist and professor at the Australian National University, 18 estimated in 1997 that the global value of ecosystem services was $33 trillion per year on average, exceeding global GDP (Costanza et al, 1997). In order to create global aggregated values to use in a simple benefit transfer method, they synthesized a wide range of individual studies, each of which estimated the value of at least one ecosystem service for an individual or set of biomes. After selecting appropriate value points to be included, average mean estimates for 17 distinct ecosystem services across 16 different biomes were produced. These were admittedly rough estimates designed to serve as a starting point for valuing ecosystem services on a macro level with the overall objective of raising awareness. This study was novel in estimating the value of ecosystem services for the entire globe via a simple benefit transfer method. It also spurred high levels of public and academic interest in the area of valuing ecosystem services. Years later, de Groot et al (2012) also calculated global average value estimates of ecosystem services as a contribution to The Economics of Environmental Biodiversity (TEEB) study. Their estimates were based on many more additional studies that materialized following Costanza et al’s initial estimates from 1997. In total, 320 publications, 1350 data points and 665 value estimates were utilized in order to estimate the value of ecosystem services for 10 different biomes. These estimates we’re stored in the newly-created Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD), which is available for public use. The original ESVD was the most comprehensive database for storing and aggregating ecosystem services values, and provided updated mean values that could be used in benefit transfer applications. Shortly after, Constanza et al (2014) updated their original estimate of the global value of ecosystem services from 1997. They utilized the ESVD values produced by de Groot et al (2012) and supplemented some of their own additional values. For example, the authors included additional ecosystem services benefits for the Lakes & Rivers biome in the water regulation and waste treatment parameters. Thus, their aggregated mean estimate for this biome was higher than that of the 2012 ESVD ($12,512 vs. $4,267 in 2007 $USD). Overall, they estimated the global value of ecosystem services to be between $125 and $145 trillion per year, which was considerably higher than the original $47 trillion estimate (both adjusted to 2007 $USD). The sharp rise in value was mainly due to the flurry of new research pertaining to ecosystem services that followed the original study in 1997, and the subsequent availability of many more data points in which to calculate aggregated mean values (de Groot et al, 2012). This can be viewed as a refinement of the original estimate, rather than a growth in global ecosystem services. In fact, the study estimated that between $4 to $20 trillion in ecosystem services were lost between 1997 and 2011 due to land use changes and deforestation. The authors also included guidance on appropriate ways to utilize their value estimates. They advised that using a simple benefit 19 transfer method would be appropriate to produce rough initial estimates for raising public awareness, and caution that their estimates include many caveats, as they are based on global aggregated values. Twenty years after their original global publication, Costanza et al (2017) reviewed the overall progress made within ecosystem services research thus far and provided recommendations for further research. They determined that although the concept of natural capital and ecosystem services has broadly been accepted within public sectors, the methods and practical applications in valuing ecosystem services were inconsistent and required a more unified and integrated methodology. They also once again summarized the potential uses for ecosystem service valuation, ranging from raising awareness and interest using macro aggregate values to full cost accounting, which would require more precise measurements and detailed methodological approaches. Ultimately, they advised that a ‘new economic paradigm’ with a foundation of natural capital is needed for the world, and recommended fully integrating natural capital and ecosystem services into balance sheets, economic policies, and public decision-making processes. Anderson, Ankor, and Sutton derived the value of ecosystem services in South Africa in 2017. The authors used three different datasets for land cover data: a 1km global resolution set, and two 30m resolution sets pertaining exclusively to South Africa (one for 1990 and one for 2013/14). Total ecosystem service values were computed using all three land cover data sets within the benefit transfer method with the original TEEB/ESVD biome estimates. Their estimates ranged from $497 to $675 billion USD per year. Notably, comparing the two more-detailed 30m spatial resolutions revealed a 10% loss ($65 billion) in ecosystem service values over 24 years, while GDP rose by roughly 3% per year during the same time frame. The loss in ecosystem service value was entirely attributed to changes in land cover. This study illustrates the error component imbedded within geospatial data and highlights the potential weakness in continuing to rely on GDP as an accurate measurement of a society’s wealth and progress. In 2019, Sutton, Duncan, and Anderson estimated the value of ecosystem services for US National Parks to be $98 billion per year. They utilized land cover raster data with several different land type categories. However, these land type categories varied from the biome types listed in Costanza et al’s 2014 study, which they based their values from (adjusted to 2016 $USD). Consequently, they reclassified the land cover variables based on best fit in terms of the biome descriptions. For example, the Barren Land category was classified as the Desert category, and had a value of $0 due to lack of studies available. Their study provides an excellent template for the study at hand in terms of conducting ecosystem services valuation for a broad system of parks using a simple benefit transfer 20 method. The objective of their study was to raise public awareness with regards to the immense value of ecosystem services in US National Parks and advocate for additional funding in order to preserve these natural areas. In 2020, de Groot, Brander and Solomonides updated the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD), which was originally created in unison with the TEEB study. The UK Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Areas (DEFRA) commissioned the project. Whereas the original TEEB database contained 1,300 data points, the updated version contained 4,042 data points based on 693 studies. 2,159 of these data points were deemed usable (including removing the top and bottom 2.5% of values as potential outliers). Over 3,500 publications were collected for the update, although at the time of the publication only 18% were analyzed. Nonetheless, considerable more information is now included in the ESVD, making it the most comprehensive and accurate set of mean or average ecosystem service value estimates currently available (see Appendix 2 for these values). Many site-specific studies have also been conducted for ecosystem service valuation within North America. Some of these studies used methods other than benefit transfer, including revealed preference and stated preference approaches. Since the study at hand utilizes the benefit transfer method, these are not explored in detail. However, some notable ones that were conducted in parks and those using the benefit transfer method in some form are included below. Central Park in New York City was recently valued at $500 billion USD, or $25 billion per year, which was based on ecosystem services using a holistic approach (Sutton & Anderson, 2016). This finding alludes to how significant green spaces and parks can be for those living in larger metropolitan areas. In British Columbia, the David Suzuki Foundation has coordinated multiple studies directed at estimating the value of ecosystem services within regions in the province, all of which incorporate the benefit transfer method within their methodology. These studies include: the Lower Mainland’s forests, fields, wetland, and waterways were valued at $5.4 billion per year (Wilson, 2010); the Lower Mainland’s aquatic ecosystems were valued between $30 and $60 billion per year (Molnar, Kocian, and Batker, 2012); the Peace River region’s ecological services for carbon sequestration were valued at $7.9 to $8.6 billion per year (all other services were valued between $897.4 million to $1.74 billion per year) (Wilson, 2014); and the Howe Sound’s ecosystem services were estimated to be between $800 million to $4.7 billion per year (Molnar, 2015). Ecosystem services were also incorporated via benefit transfer in a study that discerned the economic value of old-growth forests near Port Renfrew, BC. The overall effect was that full protection of old-growth forests would create $40 million more in additional benefits compared to the business-as-usual scenario that allows for some logging (ESSA, 2021). 21 4.3 Biodiversity loss, natural capital depletion & climate change Biodiversity and ecosystem services losses are at the forefront of reasons to integrate natural capital into mainstream accounting and estimate monetary values for aspects like ecosystem services. Not only are these losses often directly attributed to human economic activity, like deforestation and over-fishing, they are also being compounded by climate change and rising global average temperatures. Biodiversity can be defined as “the variety of life on Earth in all its forms. It comprises the number of species, their genetic variation and the interaction of these lifeforms within complex ecosystem” (European Parliament, 2021). Declining levels of biodiversity have been directly attributed to the rapid escalation of human economic activity and the pressures of a fast-growing human population (World Wildlife Fund, 2020). A recent report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) cites that one million plant and animal species are now threatened by extinction, which is the greatest amount ever witnessed within human history (IPBES, 2019). In 2017, Chaudhary, Cassarco, and Kastner determined that global wood consumption is projected to directly cause 485 extinctions. They also estimated that the timber trade is contributing to a global loss of ecosystem services valued at $1.5 trillion/year. Their study is important in not only highlighting ecosystem services losses, but also advocating for sustainable resource management and mitigating biodiversity damages in the face of economic activities such as forestry. Furthermore, the aforementioned study by Costanza et al (2014) estimated that a global loss of ecosystem services in the magnitude of $4-20 trillion between 1997 and 2011, and Anderson, Ankor, and Sutton (2017) also noted a $65 billion loss within South Africa between 1990 and 2014. In both cases, the losses were mainly due to changes in land use, including deforestation. In 2014, Biodivcanada reported findings from the 2012 Canadian Nature Survey, which analyzed the ways in which Canada’s natural areas contribute to the national economy and the wellbeing of Canadians. 76% of Canadians were aware of the term “biodiversity”. Sixty-nine percent were aware of the term “ecosystem services”, although many more were aware of specific services, like the production of clean air and keeping soils fertile. 89% of Canadians reported partaking in some form of nature-based activity, such as picnicking or hiking. In terms of cultural ecosystem services, like recreation and spiritual services, 15% of Canadians reported experiencing some form of ecosystem services loss. Residents in British Columbia reported exhibited a slightly higher rate of 18%. The most common type of ecosystem services loss reported was “emotional, psychological, or spiritual well-being”, which was selected by 44% or nearly 1.75 million Canadians. It can be inferred that a significant proportion of these instances 22 are likely occurring within BC’s provincial parks and protected areas, where 26 million visitations occur each year (BC Parks, 2021A). These losses may also be related to the issues of trail congestion and environmental degradation highlighted in Section 2.2. This survey was important in illustrating how much Canadians value natural areas, and how many are witnessing the loss of certain ecosystem services, particularly in the cultural service group. Climate change is also playing a major role in altering the state of global ecosystem services. In Spain, the melting of glaciers from climate change, combined with increasing human water usage, is projected to cause a significant loss in the ecosystem services and biodiversity within freshwater biomes (Grima and Campos, 2020). In British Columbia, 80% of glaciers are forecasted to disappear within the next 50 years, which could transform forest and grassland biomes into barren or arid land (Alam, 2018). In fact, glaciers in British Columbia and the western edge of North America are melting faster than anywhere else in the world (Hugonnet et al, 2021). This is particularly concerning, as one of the ecosystem services associated with glaciers is regulating average global temperatures by reflecting sunlight back into the atmosphere (EPA, 2021). As glaciers continue to melt, a positive and detrimental feedback loop is propagated: the more glaciers melt, the less sunlight is reflected out of the atmosphere, which increases temperatures and results in even more glacial thinning. Increasing rates of wildfires are also an area of concern, especially for heavily-forested areas like British Columbia. Rising global temperatures have resulted in increasingly drier conditions and more frequent droughts, with the average wildfire season lasting three and a half months longer compared to decades ago (Environmental Defense Fund, 2021). In 2017, wildfires in BC destroyed a record-breaking 1.2 million hectares of forests and are likely to become worse in the future, a direct cause of climate change (Lewis, 2019). Wildfires not only incur public costs and create health problems for society, they also destroy forests and their ecosystem services (Lecina-Diaz et al, 2021). Another negative feedback loop is again created: as the carbon stored in trees is released into the atmosphere, it further proliferates rising temperatures which spur even more wildfires (Harris, Munroe, and Levin, 2020). These factors reduce cultural ecosystem services. 23 Part 5 - Methodology The study at hand utilizes the benefit transfer method in order to estimate the value of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas. Based on the findings from Part 4 - Literature Review, this method is considered to be appropriate given the intended objectives of this study (serving as a first step in ecosystem service valuation and raising public awareness regarding the contributions of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas). The methodology closely follows the careful work done by previous researchers in this endeavor, including the recent estimation of ecosystem services in US National Parks (Sutton, Duncan, and Anderson, 2019). The benefit transfer method requires the assembly of different aspects in order to be conducted. First, the amount of geographic area of specific biomes or land types in the area of investigation needs to be determined. This typically requires some form of geospatial analysis using land cover data. The next step involves selecting appropriate value estimates for ecosystem services stemming from those biomes. These values are often in monetary units and based on different biomes, meaning the denominator is price per hectare per year of specific land, such as forests or water. Depending on the area of interest, these values can be converted to more appropriate currencies. Afterward, adjustments are sometimes required, as land type categories may differ in description between those listed in the land cover data and the biome descriptions. Finally, a simple benefit transfer is conducted, in which the global average values are multiplied by the amount of each land type within each area. The aggregated sum of these areas represents the total value of ecosystem services within the overall area that is being investigated. The following section will detail how this process was undertaken for BC’s parks and protected areas. 5.1 Geospatial analysis using R The study at hand utilized R, an open-access statistical computing software that includes a strong portfolio of geospatial tools. Guidance and recommendations were provided via online training workbooks, including “R for Data Science” by Wickham and Grolemund, and “Geocomputation with R” by Lovelace, Nowosad, and Muenchow. The latter was particularly instrumental in providing examples and exercises specifically aimed at extracting land cover data from geospatial shape files. The purpose of using R was to extract the amount of various land category types from within each of BC’s parks and protected areas. This was done because global ecosystem services mean estimates are compiled based 24 on hectares of specific biomes; therefore, the amount of each biome within each protected area is required to administer the benefit transfer method. There are two key sources of land information available that made this endeavor feasible. BC Parks provides shapefiles for all the protected area boundaries within their jurisdiction (1,035 unique areas). There are two open-access datasets available online for these shapefiles: one for all Parks, Ecological Reserves, Protected Areas and Recreation Areas, and one specifically for Conservancies (Government of BC, 2021B; Government of BC, 2021C). The Government of Canada also provides openaccess land cover raster data, which divides Canada’s geography into 30x30m pixels, each of which are classified into a specific type of land cover category (Government of Canada, 2015). The land cover dataset was produced via the Operational Land Imager (OLI) Landsat sensor and there are 16 different classifications of land cover type within this dataset. Notably, the Government of Canada cites that an accuracy test was administered within the land cover dataset, which achieved 80% accuracy with “no marked spatial disparities”. Using R’s geospatial tools, the borders or shapes from all 1,035 unique areas were combined with and essentially overlayed on top of the land cover raster data. For simplicity purposes and to match what is commonly reported by BC Parks, some sites were combined based on common “ORC Primary” designations. For example, there are three marine sites within Adams Lake Marine Park, all of which have the same ORC Primary code. These were combined into one record to simplify overall reporting. The analysis then extracted the amount of land cover data from all 1,035 unique areas. Unfortunately, there was some information lost within the extraction process, amounting to approximately 3.3% or 463,000 hectares of the 14.1 million hectares. This may be due to several factors, including extracting from within the geospatial polygon borders but not including the area within the actual borders themselves. Nonetheless, 96.7% of the area within BC’s parks and protected areas was successfully converted into various land cover types. This represents the vast majority of the total area and makes the overall estimate of ecosystem services slightly more conservative. Table 3 displays the results of this extraction for each type of protected area. 25 Table 3 – Land Classification by Protected Area Type (hectares) Land Cover Classification 1. Barren lands 2. Cropland Class A Park Class B Park Class C Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Area Recreation Area Total 1,890,542 277 2 303,985 25,499 15,178 650 2,236,134 0 11 104 344 53 126,378 4,848 29,981 674 568,532 718 1,178 3. Mixed forest 406,181 416 4. Snow and Ice 771,095 31 150,090 2,114 238 10 923,577 56,460 1 4,723 1,089 1,005 7 63,284 13,798 0 2,047 443 97 7 16,392 72,192 1 622 428 1,335 1 74,579 267 547 48 5. Sub-polar or polar grassland-lichen-moss 6. Sub-polar or polar shrubland-lichen-moss 7. Sub-polar taiga needleleaf forest 8. Sub-polar or polar barren lichen-moss 9. Temperate or sub-polar broadleaf deciduous forest 10. Temperate or subpolar grassland 11. Temperate or subpolar needleleaf forest 12. Temperate or subpolar shrubland 803 1,016 204,155 45 8 44,229 1,899 16,078 139 266,554 734,847 265 14 132,316 6,702 43,298 356 917,798 4,744,876 2,024 286 1,494,588 49,890 233,104 2,889 6,527,658 876,485 303 22 239,893 11,687 27,712 1,084 1,157,187 13. Urban 3,841 28 29 120 61 364 43 4,486 14. Water 415,174 129 13 406,497 52,686 16,141 50 453,712 15. Wetland 9,374 0 2,982 309 1,628 428 2,908,747 158,307 386,550 Total 5.2 10,200,542 3,522 14,294 5,911 13,664,007 Derivation of ecosystem services values The next step is assembling appropriate values to be used within the benefit transfer process. As the literature review described, the June 2020 update of the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD) is the most comprehensive repository of global ecosystem service mean estimates at the time of this study. The June 2020 update incorporated 2,159 value estimates that were used to calculate mean or average values for all ecosystem services stemming from each biome (see Appendix 2 for a table displaying the composition of ESVD values). They were also standardized to 2020 International dollars per hectare per year. International dollars (Int$) represent the value of US dollars in terms of purchasing power. Converting International dollars to other forms of currency, or vice versa, requires the use of purchasing power parity adjusted exchange rates, which are available online. 26 As a side note, purchasing power parities (PPP) are used due to differences in price levels across nations or locations (OECD, 2021B). Prices may differ for across nations for several reasons, including the costs of production and local demand, and they tend to be higher in places where these factors are higher. In other words, the exact same basket of goods can cost more or less in another country (or city) even when both are priced in the same common currency. For example, The Economist has created a ‘Big Mac Index’ to illustrate the fact that the cost of Big Mac hamburgers from McDonalds differs according to price levels in different locations, and not just due to normal exchange rates (Callen, 2020). A Big Mac may cost $5 CDN in Toronto, Canada, and £2 in London, England, in which the PPP exchange rate would be 2.5. This exchange rate reflects purchasing power for real goods and services, and is often more appropriate than standard exchange rates when comparing the welfare derived from goods and services that originate from different locations, including ecosystem services (de Groot, Brander, and Solomonides, 2020). Therefore, since the ESVD is composed of many studies from around the world, all of which are reported using different currencies, it was necessary to standardize and equalize these values in order to avoid over or understating the benefits from each study. However, since research findings from the study at hand may be of particular interest to decision-makers and researchers within Canada, ecosystem service values were converted to Canadian dollars in order to create a more relevant context. For Canada, the appropriate conversion rate is 1.21 for 2020 (World Bank, 2021B). Table 4 displays the results of converting the ecosystem services values for each biome from the ESVD into 2020 $CDN. Table 4 – Converted ESVD global values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ESVD values (2020 $Int/hectare/year) $ 30,794 $ 158,560 $ 84,163 $ 78,052 $ 48,647 $ 108,361 $ 119,076 $ 5,383 $ 769 $ 1,597 $ $ 818 $ 3,822 $ 337 $ 8,026 $ 11,759 ESVD biome categories Open ocean/sea Coral reefs Coastal systems Mangroves Inland wetlands Rivers and lakes Tropical forests Temperate forests Woodlands and shrubland Grassland Desert Tundra High mountain & polar systems Inland Un- or sparsely vegetated Cultivated areas Urban green-blue 27 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2020 CDN $ (factor of 1.21*) 37,261 191,858 101,837 94,443 58,863 131,117 144,082 6,513 930 1,932 990 4,625 408 9,711 14,228 The next step is matching and adjusting the values from Table 4 to best fit the descriptions of the land cover categories used within the extraction process in Section 5.1. One important adjustment was made during this process. Since British Columbia is a coastal province that borders the Pacific Ocean and contains numerous islands, many of its parks and protected areas include portions of open ocean and tidal waters. However, the land cover raster data classifies all water bodies as simply ‘Water’, regardless of whether or not they stem from freshwater or open ocean sources. Table 4 displays three different values for water sources, including Rivers and lakes, Open ocean/sea, and Coastal systems. Rivers and lakes are substantially higher in value than the latter, meaning that valuing all water sources in BC’s parks and protected areas using this parameter would result in overestimating the value of ecosystem services stemming from aquatic sources. On the other hand, using an average value could significantly underestimate the value from freshwater sources, especially since Canada is known for its endowment of freshwater resources (Fraser Institute, 2018). In order to overcome this potential problem, 139 parks and protected areas were identified that have at least some open ocean or tidal waters (See Appendix 3 for a list of these areas). These areas are presumably comprised of either Open ocean/sea and/or Coastal systems. Coastal systems are defined as the area near where land and tidal waters meet, including the land terrain up to 50m of elevation aboveground (up to 100km inland) and ocean waters up to 50m of elevation below sea level (MEA, 2005). Notably, all 139 areas designated as having tidal waters must have coastal systems, as they all are centered around on some form of land base that meets tidal waters. In fact, some may only have coastal systems, as they tend to just include a small portion of water along the shoreline. However, some larger areas have significant proportions of open ocean that vastly outweigh coastal systems in all likelihood. To overcome this issue and avoid the risk of overestimating values, the lower value for Open ocean/sea ($37,261) was used to value all water sources from the 139 areas identified as having at least some tidal waters. This means that Coastal systems, which have an estimated value that is nearly three times higher than Open ocean/sea ($100,154 versus $36,645), is not used. Furthermore, all freshwater bodies in these 139 areas are valued using the Open oceans/sea value, which is much lower in value compared to Rivers and lakers ($36,645 versus $128,950). Thus, the value of aquatic ecosystem services in these areas is quite conservative to avoid the risk of overestimating value. Table 5 summarizes the ESVD biome descriptions that were matched to the Canada Land Cover classifications; Open ocean was added to the bottom of the list. 28 Table 5 – Land cover & ESVD biome descriptions adjustment, values 1 Land Cover Classification Temperate or sub-polar needleleaf forest Best Fit of ESVD Biome Categories Temperate forests ES Value per Hectare (2020 $CDN) $ 6,513 2 Sub-polar taiga needleleaf forest Temperate forests $ 6,513 3 Temperate or sub-polar broadleaf deciduous forest Temperate forests $ 6,513 4 Mixed forest Temperate forests $ 6,513 5 Temperate or sub-polar shrubland Woodlands and shrubland $ 930 6 Temperate or sub-polar grassland Grassland $ 1,932 7 Sub-polar or polar shrubland-lichen-moss Woodlands and shrubland $ 930 8 Sub-polar or polar grassland-lichen-moss Grassland $ 1,932 9 Sub-polar or polar barren-lichen-moss Desert $ - 10 Wetland Inland wetlands $ 58,863 11 Cropland Cultivated areas $ 9,711 12 Urban Urban green-blue $ 14,228 13 Barren lands Desert 14 Water Rivers and lakes $ 131,117 15 Snow and Ice High mountain & polar systems $ 4,625 16 *Open ocean Open ocean/sea $ 37,261 5.3 $ - Benefit transfer method The final step is conducting the benefit transfer method for estimating the value of ecosystem services in each of BC’s parks and protected areas. As previously mentioned, this method is considered appropriate and suitable given the objectives and scope of this study. It has been selected in many similar studies mentioned in the above sections, including the recent valuation of ecosystem services in US National Parks (Sutton, Duncan, and Anderson, 2019). It is commonly chosen for in its relative ease of use and low-cost and time considerations (Plummer, 2009). However, there are some caveats to note within the benefit transfer method. Benefit transfer essentially involves taking the values derived from one location or study area and applying those same values somewhere else. Therefore, this method is prone to errors, as it assumes that that study site and policy site have similar characteristics (Plummer, 2009). Adjustments are also often necessary to make the application more representative and accurate. Within this study, ecosystem services values are based on ESVD global mean values, which are based on studies from all around the world. The implicit assumption is that the global values are applicable to the characteristics of biomes in BC’s parks and protected areas. This clearly may not be the case, as every ecosystem around the world is unique and 29 embodies distinctive characteristics. However, the point is not to be produce a high-accuracy valuation for each park. Rather, the objective is to provide an initial and admittedly lower accuracy estimate of value for all the ecosystem services that stem from all of BC’s parks and protected areas. It’s more about the magnitude itself than the precise number, and gaining insight into just how valuable these resources may be. For the study at hand, the benefit transfer method was implemented using the land extraction results from Table 3 and the ecosystem services values derived in Table 4. To illustrate how this process was conducted, the extraction process revealed that Wells Gray Provincial Park, BC’s fifth largest park, has approximately 285,000 hectares of Temperate or sub-polar needleleaf forest. These hectares have an estimate value of $6,513 per hectare, resulting in an aggregated value of $1.86 billion per year. This process was repeated for each biome within each park or protected area, and then aggregated into various dimensions and categories. The following section reveals the results of this process. Part 6 - Results Table 6 summarizes the results of the analysis and shows the aggregated value of each type of protected area. The estimated total value of ecosystem Table 6 – Protected Areas, Ecosystem Services Values (2020 $CDN per year) BC Parks Protected Areas Total ES values Protected Parks 90,749,853,565 $132,389,495,646, or $132 billion, per year. Not Class A 90,711,030,954 surprisingly, the majority of the total estimated value Class B 34,429,495 ($90.7 billion) is situated within Class A Parks, which Class C 4,393,115 services in BC’s parks and protected areas is comprise approximately 74% of all protected areas. The Conservancies 34,846,119,923 next highest group is Conservancies at $34.8 billion, Ecological Reserves 2,614,696,651 which comprise approximately 21% of all protected Protected Areas 4,145,721,987 areas. Class B and C Parks, Ecological Reserves, Protected Recreation Areas 33,103,521 Areas, and Recreation Areas are much smaller in value Total compared to the previous two categories. 30 132,389,495,646 Figure 1 illustrates the aggregated ecosystem services values that match the biome categories from the ESVD. For example, all four forest categories from the land classification data are combined into the Temperate forest biome (similar to the matching process Section 5.2). The biome with the highest value of aggregated ecosystem services is Rivers and lakes, with an estimated value of $59.5 billion per year. The second highest-valued biome is Temperate forests, with an estimated value of $48.8 billion per year, followed by Open ocean, with an estimated value of $16.3 billion per year. These three biomes encompass the vast majority of ecosystem services benefits that stem from BC’s parks and protected areas. Table 7 provides a more detailed matrix of estimated value according to protected areas and the land cover classifications provided by the Government of Canada. The total value of each classification of forest type can be viewed in this table, for example. Figure 1 – Biome Categories, ES values (2020 $CDN) As previously emphasized, total ecosystem services values for individual protected areas should be avoided or used very cautiously for evaluating real-world decisions in these specific parks. However, they provide fascinating context for the purposes of this study, and highlight some interesting results from using the ESVD global mean values. Table 8 lists the Top 25 valued parks and protected areas. The list includes 17 Parks, 7 Conservancies, and 1 Ecological Reserves. 31 Table 7 – Land classification categories, protected areas, ES values (2020 $CDN per year) 32 Table 8 – Top 25 Protected Areas by Ecosystem Services Value (2020 CDN$ per year) Park Name Classification Hectares Total ES Value 1. TWEEDSMUIR PARK Protected Park 961,391 11,972,360,445 2. WELLS GRAY PARK Protected Park 528,094 6,044,542,092 Protected Park 895,578 5,497,289,327 Protected Park 217,678 4,650,778,236 Conservancy 221,812 4,082,563,056 Protected Park 231,658 3,343,192,248 Protected Park 662,942 3,209,451,621 Protected Park 633,073 3,107,822,261 Conservancy 118,649 2,933,765,774 10. STRATHCONA PARK Protected Park 247,478 2,516,576,028 11. STIKINE RIVER PARK Protected Park 244,855 2,156,499,606 Conservancy 113,079 2,129,107,531 Conservancy 313,669 2,083,936,296 14. NE'AH' CONSERVANCY Conservancy 220,114 1,960,679,065 15. DUNE ZA KEYIH PARK [A.K.A. FROG-GATAGA PARK] Protected Park 314,931 1,950,004,243 16. BOWRON LAKE PARK Protected Park 135,863 1,880,391,770 17. MOUNT EDZIZA PARK Protected Park 252,919 1,527,964,259 18. MORICE LAKE PARK Protected Park 50,802 1,443,655,087 19. KITASOO SPIRIT BEAR CONSERVANCY Conservancy 100,113 1,349,362,304 20. MOUNT ROBSON PARK Protected Park 219,904 1,323,992,687 21. OMINECA PARK Protected Park 126,898 1,208,121,319 22. CHECLESET BAY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Ecological Reserve 33,108 1,203,148,927 23. GARIBALDI PARK Protected Park 187,325 1,140,468,433 24. NAKINA-INKLIN RIVERS/YAWU YAA CONSERVANCY Conservancy 158,515 1,120,497,596 25. CARP LAKE PARK Protected Park 36,828 1,114,637,084 3. TATSHENSHINI-ALSEK PARK 4. ATLIN/A TEIX'GI AAN TLEIN PARK 5. DUU GUUSD CONSERVANCY 6. TS'IL?OS PARK 7. SPATSIZI PLATEAU WILDERNESS PARK 8. NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS PARK 9. HAKAI LUXVBALIS CONSERVANCY 12. DAAWUUXUSDA CONSERVANCY 13. HUCHSDUWACHSDU NUYEM JEES/KITLOPE HERITAGE CONSERV 33 Tweedsmuir Park, the largest protected area Figure 2 – Tweedsmuir Provincial Park within BC Parks’ portfolio, is also the most valuable in terms of ecosystem services benefits with an estimated value of approximately $12 billion per year. Figure 2 showcases the geospatial border of Tweedsmuir Park and the various forms of land categories based on the land cover raster data from the Government of Canada. The majority of value comes from Water ($7.4 billion) followed by Temperate or sub-polar needleleaf forest ($3.9 billion). Tatshenshini-Alsek Park has the third highest value ($5.5 billion per year) despite being the second largest park by a large margin. For comparison, Wells Gray Park is much smaller (528,094 versus 895,578 hectares), yet is valued higher ($6.0 billion per year). This is due to differences in the amount of biomes in these areas, and the values used to estimate the ecosystem services that they produce. For example, Tatshenshini-Alsek has 353,000 acres of Snow and ice, which is the most prevalent land type in the park. This land type was matched to the High mountain and polar systems biome, which has a relatively moderate value of $4,625 per hectare. The next highest amount of land is Barren Land, which was matched to Deserts and has no current value in the ESVD. This is not to say that barren lands and deserts produce no ecosystem services; rather, it is a reflection that there have been a limited number of studies done within these land types (Sutton, Duncan, and Anderson, 2019). It also emphasizes the imperfect practice of matching biome and land cover categories. Deserts were simply the best match for Barren land at the time of this study. 34 On the other hand, Wells Gray is dominated by forests and freshwater, which have attached ecosystem services values of $6,513 and $131,117 per hectare, respectively. Water in particular is strongly valued in the ESVD, making areas with an abundance of this resource have high estimates. Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park and Northern Rocky Mountains Park are also two examples of larger parks that are located in northern British Columbia with high volumes of Barren Land that make their rank in Table 8 slightly lower compared to their size. Figures 3 and 4 showcase the visual comparison of Tatshenshini-Alsek Park and Wells Gray Park. Figure 3 – Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park Figure 4 – Wells Gray Provincial Park 35 Figure 5 – Duu Guusd Conservancy The Duu Guusd Conservancy is the highest valued Conservancy and also provides an interesting example. Figure 5 illustrates that the area’s border encompasses a large quantity of tidal waters, which generates the vast majority of its total estimated value ($4.1 billion per year). This helps illustrate the reasoning of applying the lower Open ocean/sea parameter to the 139 areas identified as having some form of tidal waters in Section 5.2. Different aquatic sources could not be differentiated, and in the case of Duu Guusd, it is very likely that the majority of water appears to be Open ocean/sea. Using the Open ocean/sea parameter in these instances may be conservative, it is also likely more accurate than using an arbitrary or weighted average value. The Duu Guusd Conservancy’s derived value from tidal waters is also interesting in that it may add reason to further protect tidal waters on BC’s coast, seeing as they are capable of producing high levels of ecosystem services benefits. Although only four areas were showcased above, a complete list of all 1,035 areas and their estimated values for ecosystem services can be found in Appendix 4. Ultimately, the results of the analysis demonstrate the significant value that ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas have in contributing to societal wellbeing. They are also useful in serving as a first step in estimating the value of ecosystem services that stem from BC’s parks and protected areas. Thus, they bring us closer to deriving a more holistic and accurate economic value for these natural areas. The results also help raise awareness to the important role that BC Parks plays in preserving these areas for our future wellbeing and enjoyment. Moreover, they add context to our connection to natural areas as a species and illustrate how much value and benefits we gain from their presence and preservation. 36 Part 7 – Discussion The following section will discuss the results of the study and revisit many of the concepts and topics explored in the beginning of this report. First, potential caveats and sources of error will be reviewed, as it is important to emphasize the limitations of the study at hand. The results will then be compared with similar studies in North America and the Pacific Northwest in order to gain insight regarding the validity and accuracy of the research findings. Finally, implications for various stakeholders will be discussed. 7.1 Caveats and limitations There are many caveats and potential sources of error within the analysis of this study. First, the spatial resolution from the land cover raster data (30 x 30m pixels) is prone to error, and had an 80% accuracy rating when tested by the Government of Canada. It is impossible to capture all the variance in the biomes and biodiversity within BC’s parks and protected areas using these techniques. Biomes may also be constantly changing or prone to natural alterations throughout the year. For example, there may be more snow and ice in certain parks during the winter months, glaciers are in a state of constant thinning, wildfires reduce the amount of forests each year, etc. The matching of land categories from the land cover raster data and biome descriptions in the ESVD is also an imperfect practice. Neither subset of classifications is able to capture the diversity and range of all biomes within British Columbia. Within the matching process itself, many of the land classifications were grouped into one biome in the ESVD. For example, all four forest categories were matched to Temperate forests biome. In actuality, all four forest types would produce distinct levels of ecosystem services. All freshwater sources in the 139 areas identified as having at least some tidal waters were also valued using the lower Open ocean/sea parameter, which likely underestimates their value. Moreover, some biomes, like Deserts, were not valued at all and Coastal Systems were not incorporated for reasons previously discussed. It is worth noting again that the values themselves from the ESVD are based on global mean estimates. Inputting them into the benefit transfer method is a admittedly a lower accuracy technique. There are also some issues with aggregating all the unique ecosystem services from a particular biome into an average value, including blind-spots and double-counting services (Gunton et al, 2017). The production of certain ecosystem services, particularly those relating to resources used for raw materials, cancels or negates the availability of others. In the case of forests and trees, if left standing they produce 37 carbon sequestration and air regulation benefits. On the other hand, they can be cultivated for lumber as a resource. All of these are examples of ecosystem services. Yet, summing these benefits together to produce an average value fails to capture this inherent exclusivity. Forests can’t create air and be used for lumber at the same time. However, again the point isn’t to produce a high accuracy estimate with these values. The point really is to derive a plausible and reasonable estimate for each biome. Although the overall estimate of $132 billion per year is prone to certain sources of error, there are many reasons to assume it is conservative and may actually underestimate the value of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas. Some of these factors were mentioned above, including the tidal waters adjustment and the absence of certain biomes like Coastal Systems. Adding to these considerations, only 96.7% of the total geospatial data was included, and BC Parks is regularly adding more inventory to their portfolio of protected areas. Furthermore, some ecosystem services value estimates tend to increase over time as more individual studies discover and depict their various contributions. This is exactly what Constanza et al witnessed when they updated their original global value estimate in 2014. Another example can be seen in the original release of the ESVD in 2012, which had no value attached to High mountain and polar systems. The June 2020 update, however, includes a value for this biome, presumably because there are now enough studies available that have been analyzed with the ESVD. High mountain and polar systems obviously produced ecosystem services prior to the June 2020 update, such as reflecting sunlight as a means of regulating climate change affects. Their absence simply reflects the challenge in building and maintaining a database like the ESVD. It is hoped that over time further studies will allow more accurate and wholistic estimations for all biomes to be discerned in the ESVD. This in turn would enable more accurate applications of the benefit transfer method to be administered with regards to estimating the value of ecosystem services. Furthermore, many recent studies are producing very high results. For example, Central Park in New York City was recently valued at a staggering $70 million per hectare, and aquatic sources in BC’s Lower Mainland region were valued between $30 - $60 billion per year (Sutton and Anderson, 2016; Molnar, Kucian, and Bakner, 2012). It is unclear if the ESVD has incorporated these studies into their mean estimates, as the June 2020 update had only analyzed 18% of all studies at the time of its release. In time, it is quite possible that mean estimates will increase as more knowledge regarding the contributions of ecosystem services is discovered and distributed. 38 7.2 Comparing estimates and findings The overall estimate of $132 billion per year is a substantial figure. It is roughly equivalent in size to half of provincial GDP for 2020, which was approximately $242 billion in 2012 chained dollars (Statistics Canada, 2021). The estimate of $132 billion per year translates to a value of approximately $26,500 per capita per year based on the population of British Columbia in 2020 (Government of BC, 2020). Moreover, assuming the $132 billion per year ecosystem services continue into the indefinite future and using a social discount rate of 3.5%, the value of this natural capital can be estimated at $3.77 trillion CDN using the perpetuity valuation model of V = ES/r. Notably, this exceeds the value of BC’s real estate properties (built capital), which are valued at $2 trillion CDN (BC Assessment, 2021). Comparing the results to specific studies conducted in BC and North America is also a useful way to gain insight into the potential validity of the study, although it should be noted that there will of course be variance in the types of ecosystems and biomes within each study. Nonetheless, it is a simple way to check and see if the results are within reasonable proximity to the results of similar studies. First, recall that US National Parks were valued at $98 billion USD per year. This figure is comparable to the $132 billion CDN derived in this study and is actually based on much less hectares of land (7.76 million versus 13.66 million). When adjusted to 2020 $CDN, the value is actually higher, at approximately $144 billion per year. To be fair, some parks in the study we’re valued very highly, due to presence of certain biomes. For instance, over half of the estimated value comes from a single national park: Everglades. Everglades National Park is dominated by marshes, wetlands, and water, all of which have very high estimated values within the study (it should be noted that the study used the global values from Costanza et al in 2014, while the study at hand used the June 2020 ESVD values). At a more granular level, the study contains three parks in Washington state that presumably have similar geographical characteristics to many of the areas in British Columba. All three of these parks have large amounts of barren land and ice, which had no value in the study, and the estimations are in 2016 $USD: ● Olympic National Park is comprised of approximately 370,000 hectares and was valued at $2.7 billion per year, or $7,351 per hectare ● Mount Rainer National Park is comprised of 95,000 hectares and was valued at $530.7 million per year, or $5,586 per hectare ● North Cascades National Park is comprised of approximately 202,000 hectares and was valued at $870 million per year, or $1,632 per hectare 39 The David Suzuki Foundation has also conducted four large area studies in British Columbia that utilize the benefit transfer method as well as other sources in order to estimate the value of ecosystem services and natural capital. Their methodology was more intricate than the study at hand, incorporating and adjusting values specifically from within North America in order to compute representative values for the benefit transfer method. The results from these studies are as follows: ● The Lower Mainland’s ecosystem benefits were valued at $5.4 billion per year or approximately $4,000 per hectare (Wilson, 2010). ● The Lower Mainland’s aquatic ecosystems were valued between $30 and $60 billion per year (Molnar, Kocian, and Batker, 2012). The exact amount of hectares analyzed in this calculation is unclear, although a total area amounting to 435,000 hectares is cited. This would translate to roughly $69,000 to $138,000 per hectare per year. ● The Peace River region’s ecological services for carbon sequestration were valued at $7.9 to $8.6 billion per year; all other services were valued between $897.4 million to $1.74 billion per year (Wilson, 2014) ● The Howe Sound region, encompassing approximately 200,000 hectares, was estimated to produce between $800 million to $4.7 billion in ecosystem services per year (Molnar, 2015). On a per hectare basis, this translates to between $4,000 and $23,500 per hectare. Table 9 – Comparison of Ecosystem Services Estimates Name Average value per hectare Hectares Total Value in 2020 $CDN BC’s Parks and Protected Areas 13.7 million $132.4 billion US National Parks 7.8 million $141.8 billion $18,176 Olympic NP 370,000 $3.9 billion $10,635 Mount Rainier NP 95,000 $768 million $8,082 North Cascades NP 202,000 $1.3 billion $2,361 435,000 $6.1 billion $4,460 *435,000 $34.8 to $69.7 billion *$80,062 to $160,114 5.6 million $8.5 to $10.3 billion $1,523 to $1,837 200,000 $888 million to $5.2 billion $4,438 to $26,075 Lower Mainland (all ecosystem services) Lower Mainland – aquatic sources (based on 435,000 acres) Peace River (all ecosystem services) Howe Sound region 40 $9,635 Notably, all of the aforementioned studies produce similar results to the estimated value for BC’s parks and protected areas. Table 9 depicts the results of all the above studies and translates their value into 2020 $CDN for comparison purposes, including on a per hectare basis. To be fair, reporting the overall findings on a per hectare basis is a loose comparison, as the composition of each area differs in terms of biomes. However, the comparison does seem to suggest that the results from the study at hand are reasonable compared to the other similar studies. 7.3 Stakeholder implications The distributed effects of ecosystem services are often global in scope and reach. For example, the climate regulation services that are produced in BC’s parks and protected areas help to mitigate the overall global trajectory of climate change’s effects. This mitigation is beneficial for all humans around the world and can be considered a sort of positive externality. From that perspective, everyone is in some way connected to the ecosystem services produced in BC. However, the organizations directly involved in the management of these areas, and the people living in closest proximity to them, stand to benefit the most from their existence. The implications for three different groups are discussed in the following subsection: the Government of BC, BC Parks, and park visitors and the public. 7.3.1 Government of BC The management of natural capital and ecosystem services is particularly important for countries that rely heavily on their natural resources for economic wealth. Canada is one of these countries, having the third highest-valued stock of natural resources in the world (est. $33 trillion) and capturing the second-highest market share of global wood exports at 12.3% (Anthony, 2021; Government of Canada, 2020B). Nations with high economic dependence on natural resources implicitly have to make more trade-off decisions that alter the stock of natural capital in their jurisdiction. The provincial government of BC has a high degree of authority to manage natural resources within the province, while the Federal government has power over ocean and inland fisheries and federal lands like National Parks (Field & Olewiler, 2015; Government of Canada, 2020B). For the provincial government, the research findings of this study are useful in translating the benefits of ecosystem services into a monetary form that can be easily understood by decision and policy makers. This type of context is useful in raising awareness within government bodies regarding just how 41 important natural resources are for our wellbeing, and may influence future decisions regarding resource management and sustainability initiatives. The study may also influence future funding considerations that the BC government makes with regards to BC Parks. The recent $83 million injection to BC Parks is only for the next three years, and it is uncertain what funding levels will reach beyond these three years. There are many media articles and studies citing the need to enhance the infrastructure and resources within BC Parks, and this type of research adds evidence toward why investing in conservation and recreational management may pay dividends when it comes to sustaining the wellbeing and health of Canadians. Another consideration is rising search and rescue costs, which are supported by tax-payers and induce losses in other forms of economic activity. Furthermore, creating more protected areas will further empower the ability of natural capital to provide us benefits and is a viable strategy for mitigating climate change effects. The trade-off between ecosystem services is also a timely and interesting debate. Balancing the preservation of natural areas versus generating immediate economic gains is a fundamental component of the provincial government, and one that requires careful consideration of all aspects. One polarizing example is the balance between supporting the forestry industry, one of BC’s economic keystones, versus the protection of old-growth forests. For context, British Columbia once had the highest proportion of protected areas in Canada, but have only added 1% to this inventory since 2010 (Bulowski, 2021). In the meantime, BC logs up to 200,000 hectares per year, much of which is old-growth, with some scientists believing that old-growth forests will actually disappear entirely within 5-10 years at that rate (Catanoso, 2021). This may have significant adverse effects towards accelerating biodiversity loss, climate change effects, and losses to spiritual and cultural ecosystem services that many gain from presence of centuries-old western red cedar and hemlock trees (Price, Holt, and Daust, 2020). Although political leaders undoubtably feel pressure to support economic activities like forestry in the short-term, it is important that they also realize the potential negative effects that these activities may produce over time. Doing so would help ensure that the famous definition of sustainability from the Bruntland Report of 1987 is met: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” 7.3.2 BC Parks For BC Parks, the findings are of particular interest as the benefits are generated directly within the areas they serve to preserve and protect. Although there have been studies done that calculate the direct economic impacts of BC Parks, the estimated value of ecosystem services provides a more holistic 42 picture of the important role that BC Parks has in promoting societal wellbeing and mitigating the effects of climate change. This type of information could generate more public attention and interest to the conservation efforts of both BC Parks and the BC Parks Foundation. High demand and trail congestion are also implicitly diminishing the ecosystem services benefits related to user experience, including mental health and spiritual benefits. Falling consumer surplus and mental health benefits increase health care and related medical costs for society and induce losses in productivity at the workplace. In fact, early research suggest that mental health and recreational related ecosystem services may prove to be substantial in magnitude. Aesthetic and recreation ecosystem services were also the highest valued group ($23 to $44 billion per year) within aquatic benefits in BC’s Lower Mainland (Molnar, Kocian, and Batker, 2012). Therefore, losses in these values and experiences may be of particular concern to BC Parks and potentially influence their future strategies and management plans. The findings are also interesting when compared with the recent day-pass strategies that BC Parks have implemented. These systems represent an attempt to create carrying capacities in popular parks and minimize congestion and trail degradation. Both of these negative effects are directly linked to ecosystem services. Therefore, the results of this study seem to support the necessity of developing and enhancing strategies designed to manage high demand in popular parks. 7.3.3 Park users and the public The results of the study may also be of interest to park visitors and recreation areas, and to all citizens living in British Columbia. For park visitors, cultural ecosystem services include aspects like opportunities for recreational experience and spiritual experiences. Visitors gain health benefits from spending time in natural areas, both physically and mentally. Furthermore, although the 2012 Canadian Nature Survey reported that 69% of survey respondents were aware of the term “ecosystem services”, presumably many may not be aware of just how valuable these services are. Reporting the benefits from BC’s parks and protected areas will hopefully raise both interest and appreciation regarding ecosystem services for those who frequent them. The same conclusion applies for all citizens of British Columbia. Many ecosystem services benefits are naturally distributed across the whole province (and globally), including the production of clean air, climate regulations, etc. Although 89% of Canadians reported partaking in some form of nature-based activity in 2012, such as picnicking or hiking, it is likely that not all of them visited BC’s parks. In fact, only six in ten residents do visit a provincial park each year. Nonetheless, the ecosystem services benefits stemming from BC’s parks and protected areas are freely given to all of us and have significant impacts on our health and wellbeing. 43 Part 8 - Conclusion The study at hand utilized the benefit transfer method to estimate the value of ecosystem services in BC’s parks and protected areas. In total, the overall value was estimated to be approximately $132 billion per year, which is comparable to the findings of similar studies. This is important and novel research for BC Parks, and helps depict a more holistic and accurate representation of the value that natural capital in these areas produces. It is also timely and relevant given the challenges of high demand and subsequent negative effects occurring with BC’s parks and recreation areas. Given that international tourism is rising and social media may be influencing higher rates of domestic usage (and potentially fueling rises in search and rescue incidents), it is possible that demand will continue to rise in the future. This may increase the trajectory of losses in ecosystem services, particularly those in the cultural service group that directly pertain to the benefits of spending time in nature. Moreover, climate change implications also make the research findings relevant, as many ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, have direct impacts on mitigating the negative effects of climate change. Wildfires are also an area of concern, as they invoke public costs, damages to health, and losses in ecosystem services. Notably, none of these factors are considered negative in traditional accounting metrics like Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Translating the benefits of ecosystems into monetary values is important and useful, so long as it is clear that the purpose of doing so is to aid policy and decision makers in managing natural resources and to raise public awareness and interest regarding the numerous benefits that ecosystem services generate. This in turn enables decision makers to make better informed decisions regarding potential trade-offs that affect the stock of natural capital within their jurisdiction. The objective is not to commodify natural capital or ecosystem services or put a price on nature. Rather, it is simply to create a context in which their value can be clearly understood and integrated into sustainable resource management considerations, including the funding allocated toward conservation groups like BC Parks. Providing a reasonable and plausible estimate of these services accomplishes that objective. Ultimately, estimating the value of ecosystem services in large, diverse areas is more about providing a sense of magnitude for these benefits, rather than producing a high accurate estimate. It is hoped that the results of this research will be useful all stakeholders that are impacted by or are connected to BC’s parks and protected areas, and aid in the overall movement of conserving these areas for the benefit of future generations and overall global sustainability. 44 References 1. Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L. H., Mumford, K. J., & Oleson, K. (2012). Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment and development economics, 17(3), 317-353. 2. Andester, N. (2019, June 10). GDP Alternatives: 7 Ways to Measure a Country’s Wealth | Ethical.net. Retrieved May 20, 2021 from https://ethical.net/politics/gdp-alternatives-7-ways-to-measure-countries-wealth/ 3. Anielski, M. (2021). Time for Start Measuring Genuine Wealth. Retrieved July 26, 2021 from https://anielski.com/time-genuinewealth/ 4. Alam, H. (2018, Dec. 27). 80% of mountain glaciers in Alberta, B.C. and Yukon will disappear within 50 years: report. CBC News. Retrieved July 7, 2021 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/western-glaciers-disappear-50-years-1.4959663 5. Alberta Parks. (2021). Parks System. Retrieved July 26, 2021 from http://albertaparks.ca/albertaparksca/management-landuse/parks-system/ 6. Anderson, S.; Ankor, B.; and Sutton, P. (2017). Ecosystem service valuations of South Africa using a variety of land cover data sources and resolutions. Retrieved July 3, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318302541_Ecosystem_service_valuations_of_South_Africa_using_a_variety_of_land_c over_data_sources_and_resolutions 7. Anthony, C. (2021, April 25). 10 Countries with the most natural resources. Investopedia. Retrieved July 1, 2021 from: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090516/10-countries-most-natural-resources.asp 8. BC Assessment. (2021). Property Information & Trends. Retrieved Aug 5, 2021 from https://info.bcassessment.ca/propertyinformation-trends 9. BC Parks. (2021A). Summary of the Parks and Protected Areas System. Retrieved April 19, 2021 from https://bcparks.ca/about/parkdesignations.html#Conservancy 10. BC Parks. (2021B). Facts and Figures. Retrieved April 19, 2021 from https://bcparks.ca/about/facts-figures.html 11. BC Parks. (2021C). A History of BC Parks. Retrieved April 19, 2021 from https://bcparks.ca/about/history/#:~:text=B.C.%20was%20the%20first%20western,and%20recreation%20of%20the%20public. 12. BC Parks (2019). Joffre Lakes Provincial Park, 2019 Visitor Use Management Action Plan. Retrieved March 21, 2020 from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/joffre_lks/docs/6881-joffre-visitor-use-management-action-planreport.pdf?v=1562184364095 13. BC Parks. (2012). 2011/12 Statistics Report. Retrieved June 22, 2021 from https://bcparks.ca/research/statistic_report/statistic_report_2012.pdf?v=1526888744894 14. BC Parks Foundation. (2021). Why we do it. Retrieved May 30, 2021 from https://bcparksfoundation.ca/why/ 15. BC Search & Rescue. (2020). Highest number of searches and rescues recorded for July. Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.bcsara.com/2020/08/highest-number-of-searches-and-rescues-recorded-for-july/ 16. Biodivcanada. (2014). 2012 Canadian Nature Survey: Awareness, participation, and expenditures in nature-based recreation, conservation, and subsistence activities. Retrieved April 19, 2021 from https://biodivcanada.chm-cbd.net/documents/canadiannature-survey 17. Brander, L; Van Beukering, P.J.H; Balzan, M.; and others. (2018). Report on Economic Mapping and Assessment Methods for Ecosystem Services Deliverable. Retrieved July 8, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328191623_Report_on_Economic_Mapping_and_Assessment_Methods_for_Ecosystem _Services_Deliverable_D32_-_EU_Horizon_2020_ESMERALDA_Project_Grant_agreement_No_642007 18. Bruntland Commission. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrieved July 1, 2021 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf 19. Buckley, R., Brough, P., Hague, L. et al. (2019). Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health. Nat Commun 10, 5005 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12631-6 45 20. Bulowski, N. (2021, June 22). Quebec and feds lead Canada’s conservation efforts. National Observer. Retrieved July 15, 2021 from https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/06/22/news/quebec-feds-lead-canadas-conservation 21. Callen, T. (2020, Feb. 24). Purchasing Power Parity: Weights Matter. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved July 10, 2021 from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/ppp.htm 22. Catanoso, J. (2021, April 20). With British Columbia’s last old-growth at risk, government falters: Critics. Mongabay. Retrieved July 15, 2021 from https://news.mongabay.com/2021/04/with-british-columbias-last-old-growth-at-risk-government-falters-critics/ 23. Cavender-Bares, J., P. Balvanera, E. King, and S. Polasky. 2015. Ecosystem service trade-offs across global contexts and scales. Ecology and Society 20(1): 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07137-200122 24. CBC News. (2021, April 16). B.C. Parks budget to increase by $83 million over three years following summer of record demand. Retrieved June 23, 2021 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-parks-budget-to-increase-by-83-million-overthree-years-following-summer-of-record-demand-1.5991370 25. Chan, C. (2018, May 24). B.C. Parks needs more funding to keep up with demand. Retrieved March 21, 2020 from: https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-parks-needs-more-funding-to-keep-up-with-demand/ 26. Chaudhary, A; Carrasco, R.; and Kastner, T. (2017). Linking national wood consumption with global biodiversity and ecosystem service losses. Retrieved July 1, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313902110_Linking_national_wood_consumption_with_global_biodiversity_and_ecosys tem_service_losses 27. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.; Paruelo, J.; Raskin, R.; Sutton, P.; and van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Retrieved May 1, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229086194_The_Value_of_the_World's_Ecosystem_Services_and_Natural_Capital 28. Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P; and Van der Ploeg, S. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Retrieved April 19, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378014000685?via%3Dihub 29. Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Farber, S.; and Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?. Retrieved April 25, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212041617304060?via%3Dihub 30. Coquitlam Search and Rescue. Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved June 10, 2021 from https://www.coquitlam-sar.bc.ca/aboutus/faq-frequently-asked-questions/ 31. CPAWSBC. (2021). Protecting BC’s Provincial Parks. Retrieved June 21, 2021 from https://cpawsbc.org/bc-provincial-parks/ 32. CPCIL (2020). Economic Impact of Canadian Parks and Protected Areas (2009). Retrieved April 23, 2021 from https://cpcil.ca/knowledge-base/economic-impact-of-canadian-parks-and-protected-areas-2009/ 33. Dawn, N. (2020, August 5). Parks Problem: The Underfunding of BC Parks. Mountain Life Media. Retrieved June 21, 2021 from https://www.mountainlifemedia.ca/2020/08/parks-problem-the-underfunding-of-b-c-parks/ 34. De Groot, R.; Brander, L.; van der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat; L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Hein, L.; Hussain, S.; Kumar, P.; McVittie, A.; Portela, R.; Rodriguez, L.; ten Brink, P.; and van Beukering, P. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Retrieved May 1, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000101 35. De Groot, R.; Brander, L.; and Solomonides, S. (2020). Update of global ecosystem service valuation database (ESVD). FSD report No 2020-06 Wageningen, The Netherlands (58 pp). 36. Destination BC. (2021). Tourism Industry Dashboard. Retrieved April 19, 2021 from https://www.destinationbc.ca/tourism-industrydashboard/ 37. Duggan, G. (n.d.). The world’s biggest forest is in our own backyard and we need to protect it. CBC News. Retrieved April 24, 2021 from https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/features/the-worlds-biggest-forest-is-our-own-backyard-and-we-need-to-protect-it 38. Environmental Defense Fund. (2021). Here’s how climate change affects wildfires. Retrieved July 1, 2021 from https://www.edf.org/climate/heres-how-climate-change-affects-wildfires 39. EPA. (2021). Climate Change Indicators: Snow and Ice. Retrieved July 7, 2021 from https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/snow-ice 46 40. European Parliament. (2021). Biodiversity loss: what is causing it and why is it a concern? Retrieved July 3, 2021 from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200109STO69929/biodiversity-loss-what-is-causing-it-and-why-is-ita-concern 41. Field, Barry C. & Olewiler, Nancy. Environmental Economics, Fourth Canadian Edition. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2015. 42. FMCBC. (2020). A Review of the Day-use Pass system at BC Parks from the FMCBC. Retrieved June 21, 2021 from https://mountainclubs.org/a-review-of-the-day-use-pass-system-at-bc-parks-from-the-fmcbc/ 43. FMCBC. (2021). BC Parks Foundation works with Tahltan and other parties to create BC’s newest Conservancy. Retrieved June 23, 2021 from https://mountainclubs.org/bc-parks-foundation-works-with-tahltan-and-other-parties-to-create-bcs-newestconservancy/ 44. Fraser Institute. (2018). Canada is richly endowed with freshwater resources. Retrieved July 10, 2021 from https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/canada-is-richly-endowed-with-freshwater-resources 45. Government of BC. (2016). Protected Land & Forests in BC. Retrieved May 29, 2021 from https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/land/protected-lands-and-waters.html 46. Government of BC. (2020A). B.C. introduces free day-use passes for six provincial parks. Retrieved June 21, 2021 from https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2020ENV0037-001343 47. Government of BC. (2020B). 2020 Sub-Provincial Population Estimates Highlights. Retrieved July 26, 2020 from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/data/statistics/people-populationcommunity/population/pop_subprovincial_population_highlights.pdf 48. Government of BC. (2021A). Travelling in BC. Retrieved April 19, 2021 from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/tourismimmigration/travel 49. Government of BC. (2021B). BC Parks, Ecological Reserves, and Protected Areas. Retrieved April 1, 2021 from https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bc-parks-ecological-reserves-and-protected-areas 50. Government of BC. (2021C). TANTALIS – Conservancy Areas. Retrieved April 1, 2021 from https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/tantalis-conservancy-areas 51. Government of Canada. (2015). 2015 Land Cover of Canada. Retrieved April 1, 2021 from https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/4e615eae-b90c-420b-adee-2ca35896caf6 52. Government of Canada. (2020B). Constitution Act, 1867. Retrieved July 20, 2020 from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page1.html 53. Grima, N. and Campos, N. (2020). A farewell to glaciers: Ecosystem services loss in the Spanish Pyrenees. Retrieved July 3, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720307209?via%3Dihub 54. Gunton, R.; Asperen, E.; Basden, A.; et al. Beyond Ecosystem Services: Valuing the Invaluable. Retrieved July 15, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312551932_Beyond_Ecosystem_Services_Valuing_the_Invaluable 55. Harris, N.; Munroe, T.; and Levin, K. (2020, Sept. 16). 6 Graphics Explain the Climate Feedback Loop Fueling US Fires. World Resources Institute. Retrieved June 10, 2021 from https://www.wri.org/insights/6-graphics-explain-climate-feedback-loop-fuelingus-fires 56. Hugonnet, R., McNabb, R., Berthier, E. et al. Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century. Nature 592, 726– 731 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03436-z 57. IPBES. (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Retrieved July 7, 2021 from https://ipbes.net/global-assessment 58. Kelly, A. (2020, February 29). BC Parks funding takes hit despite pleas of outdoor advocates. CityNews. Retrieved June 21, 2021 from https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/02/29/bc-parks-funding-hit-despite-pleas-of-outdoor-advocates/ 59. King, E., J. Cavender-Bares, P. Balvanera, T. H. Mwampamba, and S. Polasky. 2015. Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecology and Society 20(3): 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07822-200325 60. Lecina-Diaz, J.; Vilalta, J.; Alvarez, A.; and Retana, J. (2021). Assessing the risk of losing forest ecosystem services due to wildfires. Retrieved July 15, 2021 from 47 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349832804_Assessing_the_Risk_of_Losing_Forest_Ecosystem_Services_Due_to_Wildfire s 61. Lewis, J. (2019, Jan. 8). B.C. wildfires stoked by climate change, likely to become worse: study. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved July 7, 2021 from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-bc-wildfires-stoked-by-climate-change-likely-to-become-worse-study/ 62. Lovelace, R.; Nowosad, J. and Muenchow, J. (2021). Geocomputation with R. Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://geocompr.robinlovelace.net/ 63. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Retrieved May 20, 2021 from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf 64. Molnar, M. (2015). Sound Investment: Measuring the return on Howe Sound’s ecosystem assets | The David Suzuki Foundation. Retrieved May 24, 2021 from https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learning-centre-article/sound-investment-measuring-return-howesounds-ecosystem-assets/ 65. Molnar, M.; Kocian, M.; and Batker, D. (2012). Nearshore Natural Capital Valuation: Valuing the Aquatic Benefits of British Columbia’s Lower Mainland | The David Suzuki Foundation. Retrieved May 24, 2021 from https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learningcentre-article/nearshore-natural-capital-valuation-valuing-aquatic-benefits-british-columbias-lower-mainland/ 66. Natural Capital Forum. (2021). What is natural capital? Retrieved May 24, 2021 from https://naturalcapitalforum.com/about/#:~:text=Natural%20capital%20can%20be%20defined,which%20make%20human%20life%2 0possible 67. Nelson, E., S. Polasky, D. J. Lewis, A. J. Plantinga, E. Lonsdorf, D. White, D. Bael, and J. J. Lawler. 2008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Retrieved July 1, 2021 from https://www.pnas.org/content/105/28/9471 68. Nelson, H., and Hotte, N. (2018, May 23). Harry Nelson and Ngaio Hotte: B.C. parks need more funding to keep up with demand. The Province. Retrieved June 21, 2021 from: https://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/harry-nelson-and-ngaio-hotte-b-c-parks-needmore-funding-to-keep-up-with-demand 69. Noel, A. (2021, June 22). Critics question BC Parks day pass decision. North Shore News. Retrieved June 23, 2021 from https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/critics-question-bc-parks-day-pass-decision-3896089 70. North Shore Rescue (NSR). (2021A). From Facebook [NSR Annual Callouts). Retrieved June 15, 2021 from https://www.facebook.com/NorthShoreRescue/photos/a.10151809704401351/10158971910896351/ 71. OECD. (2021A). Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Retrieved May 20, 2021 from https://data.oecd.org/gdp/gross-domestic-productgdp.htm#:~:text=Gross%20domestic%20product%20(GDP)%20is,and%20services%20(less%20imports). 72. OECD. (2021B). Purchasing power parities (PPP). Retrieved July 10, 2021 from https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-powerparities-ppp.htm#:~:text=Purchasing%20power%20parities%20(PPPs)%20are,in%20price%20levels%20between%20countries. 73. Oudshoorn, K. and Pawson, C. (2021, May 31). Hundreds of protesters flood back into old-growth blockade camps cleared by RCMP. CBC News. Retrieved July 1, 2021 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fairy-creek-activists-return-to-oldgrowth-area-already-cleared-by-rcmp-1.6046475 74. Pitman, S; Daniels, C.; and Sutton, P. (2016). Ecological literacy and socio-demographics: who are the most eco-literate in our community, and why? Retrieved July 1, 2021 from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504509.2016.1263689 75. Plummer, M. (2009). Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Retrieved July 10, 2021 from https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1890/080091#:~:text=Benefit%20transfer%20is%20a%20procedure,been%2 0studied%20in%20some%20way. 76. Price, K.; Holt, F.; and Daust, D. (2020). BC’s old growth forest: a last stand for biodiversity. Retrieved July 15, 2021 from https://sierraclub.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/bcs-old-growth-forest-a-last-stand-for-biodiversity-report-2020.pdf 77. Simmonds, C., MgGivney, A., Reilly, P., Maffly, B., Wilkonson, T., Canon, G., Wright, M., and Whaley, M. (2018, Nov. 20). Crisis in our national parks: how tourists are loving nature to death. Retrieved March 21, 2020 from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/20/national-parks-america-overcrowding-crisis-tourism-visitation-solutions 78. Statistics Canada. (2021). Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by industry, provinces and territories, growth rates (x 1,000,000). Retrieved July 14, 2021 from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610040202 48 79. SEEA. (2021). Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services FAQ. Retrieved June 20, 2021 from https://seea.un.org/content/naturalcapital-and-ecosystem-services-faq 80. Sutton, P. and Anderson, S. (2016). Holistic valuation of urban ecosystem services in New York City’s Central Park. Retrieved May 20, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303296147_Holistic_valuation_of_urban_ecosystem_services_in_New_York_City's_Cent ral_Park 81. Sutton, P.; Duncan, S.; and Anderson, J. (2019). Valuing Our National Parks: An Ecological Economics Perspective. Land, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, March. 82. TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan: London and Washington. Retrieved May 20, 2021 from http://teebweb.org/publications/teeb-for/research-andacademia/ 83. Uguen-Csenge, E. (2021, April 30). Recreation groups call on B.C. Parks to scrap day-pass system ahead of summer 2021. CBC News. Retrieved June 22, 2021 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/call-to-scrap-day-pass-system-bc-parks-1.6007944 84. United Nations. (2021). Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved July 3, 2021 from https://sdgs.un.org/ 85. Watson, B. (2021, June 15). Day passes will be mandatory to explore these 5 BC parks this summer. CBC News. Retrieved July 8, 2021 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-park-passes-1.6066499 86. World Bank. (2021A). Natural Capital. Retrieved May 24, 2021 from http://worldbank.org/en/topic/naturalcapital 87. World Bank. (2021B). PPP conversion factor, GDP (LCU per international $). Retrieved July 10, 2021 from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP 88. World Wildlife Fund. (2020). Living Planet Report 2020. Retrieved July 15, 2020 from https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/LPR%202020%20Full%20report.pdf 89. Wickham, H. and Grolemund, G. (2021). R for Data Science. Retrieved March 1, 2021 from https://r4ds.had.co.nz/index.html 90. Wilson, S. (2010). Natural Capital in BC’s Lower Mainland: Valuing the benefits from nature | The David Suzuki Foundation. Retrieved May 24, 2021 from https://davidsuzuki.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/natural-capital-bc-lower-mainland-valuing-benefitsnature.pdf 91. Wilson, S. (2014). The Peace Dividend: Assessing the economic value of ecosystems in B.C.’s Peace River watershed | The David Suzuki Foundation. Retrieved May 24, 2021 from https://davidsuzuki.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/peace-dividend-assessingeconomic-value-ecosystems-bc-peace-river-watershed.pdf 92. Zhang, W., T. H. Ricketts, C. Kremen, K. Carney, and S. M. Swinton. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Retrieved July 1, 2021 from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800907001462?via%3Dihub 93. Zimmer, J. (2021). The Economic Value of BC Protected Parks. Retrieved directly via email from the author (Janelle Zimmer). 49 Appendix 1 - Classification of BC Parks’ Protected Areas Type Description Management & Protection Class A Park “Class A parks are dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. A Class A park is Crown land designated under the Park Act or by the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act whose management and development are constrained by the Park Act. Sections 8 and 9 of the Park Act are the most pertinent in this regard, and direct that a park use permit must not be issued respecting an interest in land or natural resources “unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved.” “In a Class A park, no interest in land may be granted or sold and no natural resource may be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited unless authorized by a valid park use permit. The Minister may not issue a park use permit unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is necessary to preserve or maintain the recreational values of the park involved.” Class B Park Class C Park Class A parks can be established by two means. Class A parks can be established by either order in council under the Park Act or by inclusion in a schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.” “A Class B park is Crown land designated under the Park Act whose management and development are constrained by the Park Act. They differ from Class A parks only with respect to the "test" that must be met in order to issue a park use permit. Sections 8 and 9 of the Park Act are the most pertinent in this regard, and direct that a park use permit must not be issued respecting an interest in land or natural resources “unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park concerned.” Accordingly, Class B parks may permit a broader range of activities and uses provided that such uses are not detrimental to the recreational values of the park. Class B parks are established by order in council.” “A Class C park is Crown land designated under the Park Act whose management and development is constrained by the Park Act. The requirements for the management of Class C parks with respect to restricting the alienation of interests and protecting natural resources is identical to those for Class A parks. Class C parks are established by order in council. A Class C park must be managed by a local board appointed by the minister.” 50 Any activities other than commercial logging, mining or hydro electric development that were authorized by the Crown on the date a park is established may be allowed to continue in a park if the park is named and described in Schedule D of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.” “In a Class B park, the Minister must not issue a park use permit respecting an interest in land or use of natural resources unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park involved. Accordingly, Class B parks may permit a broader range of activities and uses than a Class A park.” “A Class C park must be managed by a Board appointed by the Minister. The Board is responsible for determining allowable uses in a Class C park. The Board must adhere to the requirements of the Park Act in doing so, which are identical to those for Class A parks with respect to restricting the alienation of interests and protecting natural resources.” Conservancy “A conservancy is Crown land, designated under the Park Act or by the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, whose management and development is constrained by the Park Act. The conservancy designation explicitly recognizes the importance of these areas to First Nations for social, ceremonial and cultural uses. Commercial logging, mining and hydroelectric power generation, other than local run-of-the-river projects, are prohibited in a conservancy. Conservancies provide for a wider range of low impact, compatible economic opportunities than a Class A park. These economic opportunities must still not restrict, prevent or hinder the conservancy from meeting its intended purpose with respect to maintaining biological diversity, natural environments, First Nation’s social, ceremonial and cultural uses, and recreational values. Recreation Area Conservancies can be designated by two means. Conservancies can be established by order in council under the Park Act or by inclusion in a schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act. Presently, all conservancies are established by inclusion in schedules to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.” “A recreation area is defined as Crown land reserved or set aside for public recreational use. Recreation areas differ from parks in that the minister has greater discretion in authorizing uses and activities. The recreation area designation has evolved over time. In the past, prior to consideration for designation as Class A parks, lands had to be open for a minimum interim period of ten years to permit mineral resource evaluation. During this time, primacy was given to conservation and recreation values as no other industrial activities were permitted. With the introduction of the Protected Areas Strategy and strategic land use planning processes, all recreation areas are being evaluated from both a protected area value and an economic opportunity perspective to determine whether the area should be “upgraded” to full protected area status (e.g. Class A park) or returned to integrated resource management lands. Recreation areas are established by order in council.” 51 “Commercial logging, mining and hydroelectric power generation, other than local run-of-the river projects, are prohibited in a conservancy. Other activities must be assessed to determine whether they would hinder, restrict prevent or inhibit the development, improvement or use of the conservancy for: a) the protection and maintenance of its biological diversity and natural environments; b) the preservation and maintenance of social, ceremonial and cultural uses of first nations; c) the protection and maintenance of its recreational values; and d) development and use of natural resources in a manner consistent with the purposes of (a), (b) and (c) above.” “A recreation area is land reserved or set aside for public recreational use. Recreation areas are reserved absolutely from sale, lease or disposal under the Land Act unless approved by the Minister responsible for the Park Act. Natural resources in a recreation area may not be granted, sold, removed, destroyed, damaged, disturbed or exploited except as may be approved by the Minister.” Ecological Reserve “The purpose of the Ecological Reserve Act is to reserve Crown land for ecological purposes, including the following areas: ● ● ● ● ● Areas suitable for scientific research and educational purposes associated with studies in productivity and other aspects of the natural environment; Areas that are representative examples of natural ecosystems in British Columbia; Areas that serve as examples of ecosystems that have been modified by human beings and offer an opportunity to study the recovery of the natural ecosystem from modification; Areas where rare or endangered native plants and animals in their natural habitat may be preserved; Areas that contain unique and rare examples of botanical, zoological or geological phenomena. The legislation guiding the program is very restrictive and all extractive activities are prohibited. As such, ecological reserves are considered to be the areas most highly protected and least subject to human influence. Ecological reserves can be established by two means: (i) by order in council under the Ecological Reserve Act or (ii) by inclusion in schedules to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act.” “All extractive activities are prohibited in ecological reserves. Ecological reserves are areas: • suitable for scientific research and educational purposes associated with studies in productivity and other aspects of the natural environment; • that are representative examples of natural ecosystems in British Columbia; • that serve as examples of ecosystems that have been modified by human beings and offer an opportunity to study the recovery of the natural ecosystem from modification; • where rare or endangered native plants and animals in their natural habitat may be preserved; or • that contain unique and rare examples of botanical, zoological or geological phenomena. Scientific research and educational activities are the principle uses of ecological reserves. Most ecological reserves are open to the public for non-consumptive uses compatible with the ecological reserve purpose.” Source: BC Parks, 2021(D). https://bcparks.ca/about/docs/summary-of-pa-designations-activities.pdf?v=1616352654419 52 Appendix 2 – ESVD standardized values, June 2020 update (Int$/hectare/year; 2020 price levels) Source: de Groot et al, (2020). Table is taken directly from Page 26 of the ‘ESVD - Update of global ecosystem service valuation data -Final report (June 2020)’ 53 Appendix 3 – BC Parks Protected Areas with Tidal Waters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Name MUQQIWN/BROOKS PENINSULA PARK CAPE SCOTT PARK BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO PARK DESOLATION SOUND MARINE PARK HESQUIAT PENINSULA PARK FLORES ISLAND PARK VARGAS ISLAND PARK LANZ AND COX ISLANDS PARK BLIGH ISLAND MARINE PARK HELLIWELL PARK SYDNEY INLET PARK MAQUINNA MARINE PARK SABINE CHANNEL MARINE PARK SULPHUR PASSAGE PARK NUCHATLITZ PARK GOD'S POCKET MARINE PARK PENROSE ISLAND MARINE PARK KLEWNUGGIT INLET MARINE PARK JUAN DE FUCA PARK UNION PASSAGE MARINE PARK MARBLE RIVER PARK HATHAYIM MARINE PARK [A.K.A. VON DONOP MARINE PARK GOWLLAND TOD PARK CATALA ISLAND MARINE PARK SMALL INLET MARINE PARK CODVILLE LAGOON MARINE PARK OCTOPUS ISLANDS MARINE PARK RAFT COVE PARK CORMORANT CHANNEL MARINE PARK LOWE INLET MARINE PARK BRACKENDALE EAGLES PARK QUATSINO PARK BIG BUNSBY MARINE PARK JEDEDIAH ISLAND MARINE PARK MALASPINA PARK THURSTON BAY MARINE PARK SURGE NARROWS PARK SIMSON PARK ROCK BAY MARINE PARK HOMATHKO ESTUARY PARK HALKETT BAY MARINE PARK SANTA GERTRUDIS-BOCA DEL INFIERNO PARK COPELAND ISLANDS MARINE PARK BODEGA RIDGE PARK NEWCASTLE ISLAND MARINE PARK RUGGED POINT MARINE PARK RATHTREVOR BEACH PARK EPPER PASSAGE PARK ROSCOE BAY PARK WAKES COVE PARK SMUGGLER COVE MARINE PARK REBECCA SPIT MARINE PARK RENDEZVOUS ISLAND SOUTH PARK DIXIE COVE MARINE PARK MITLENATCH ISLAND NATURE PARK DAWLEY PASSAGE PARK GARDEN BAY MARINE PARK SARGEANT BAY PARK TEAKERNE ARM PARK MIRACLE BEACH PARK MANSONS LANDING PARK MONTAGUE HARBOUR MARINE PARK TRIBUNE BAY PARK FRANCIS POINT PARK PLUMPER COVE MARINE PARK SALTERY BAY PARK PORTEAU COVE PARK DRUMBEG PARK HARMONY ISLANDS MARINE PARK BUCCANEER BAY PARK Classification Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park 54 Water biome (hectares) 4214.61 5455.17 9940.32 3108.06 1296.63 3065.94 4280.67 3622.32 3066.75 2726.19 717.75 1409.67 2107.26 1000.62 1619.37 1483.83 1094.4 499.05 241.65 425.88 404.91 316.8 344.52 714.69 176.85 349.38 460.98 344.97 543.51 205.83 143.46 50.13 358.56 324.36 15.66 212.67 318.24 21.15 475.2 215.28 156.33 83.88 281.07 78.03 46.26 193.95 232.2 273.6 57.6 75.42 20.7 147.24 52.74 53.46 120.33 93.78 5.04 3.33 36.63 27.9 55.8 32.58 22.86 11.97 34.2 25.56 54.63 35.19 36.18 44.55 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 KITSON ISLAND MARINE PARK PIRATES COVE MARINE PARK SMELT BAY PARK CHECLESET BAY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BYERS/CONROY/HARVEY/SINNETT ISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RES VLADIMIR J. KRAJINA (PORT CHANAL) ECOLOGICAL RESER ROBSON BIGHT (MICHAEL BIGG) ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SARTINE ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ANNE VALLEE (TRIANGLE ISLAND) ECOLOGICAL RESERVE DUKE OF EDINBURGH (PINE/STORM/TREE ISLETS) ECOLOGI BERESFORD ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SATELLITE CHANNEL ECOLOGICAL RESERVE OAK BAY ISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE RACE ROCKS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BAERIA ROCKS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HUDSON ROCKS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BAYNES ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MAHONEY LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FRANCIS POINT ECOLOGICAL RESERVE TEN MILE POINT ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CLELAND ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HAKAI CONSERVATION STUDY AREA DUU GUUSD CONSERVANCY HAKAI LUXVBALIS CONSERVANCY DAAWUUXUSDA CONSERVANCY FIORDLAND CONSERVANCY KSI X' ANMAAS CONSERVANCY LAX KWAXL/DUNDAS AND MELVILLE ISLANDS CONSERVANCY GITXAALA NII LUUTIKSM/KITKATLA CONSERVANCY MOKSGM'OL/CHAPPLE - CORNWALL CONSERVANCY UGWIWA'/CAPE CAUTION CONSERVANCY MONCKTON NII LUUTIKSM CONSERVANCY LAX KA'GAAS/CAMPANIA CONSERVANCY BANKS NII LUUTIKSM CONSERVANCY NANG XALDANGAAS CONSERVANCY KUNXALAS CONSERVANCY K'UUNA GWAAY CONSERVANCY KSGAXL/STEPHENS ISLAND CONSERVANCY KHUTZEYMATEEN INLET CONSERVANCY KSI XTS'AT'KW/STAGOO CONSERVANCY ECSTALL-SPOKSUUT CONSERVANCY MAHPAHKUM-AHKWUNA/DESERTERS-WALKER CONSERVANCY KENNEDY ISLAND CONSERVANCY BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO CONSERVANCY BISHOP BAY - MONKEY BEACH CONSERVANCY YAAGUUN GANDLAAY CONSERVANCY KAMDIS CONSERVANCY SKEENA BANK CONSERVANCY MAXTAKTSM'AA/UNION PASSAGE CONSERVANCY LAX KWIL DZIIDZ/FIN CONSERVANCY LAX KUL NII LUUTIKSM/BONILLA CONSERVANCY QWIQUALLAAQ/BOAT BAY CONSERVANCY SHEEMAHANT CONSERVANCY STAIR CREEK CONSERVANCY DZAWADI/KLINAKLINI ESTUARY CONSERVANCY WALES HARBOUR CONSERVANCY XWAKWE?NAXDE?MA/STAFFORD ESTUARY CONSERVANCY KTISGAIDZ/MACDONALD BAY CONSERVANCY NEGIY/NEKITE ESTUARY CONSERVANCY CARTER BAY CONSERVANCY KHUTZEYMATEEN INLET WEST CONSERVANCY UGWIWA'/CAPE CAUTION - BLUNDEN BAY CONSERVANCY WAKEMAN ESTUARY CONSERVANCY LUCY ISLANDS CONSERVANCY POLKINGHORNE ISLANDS CONSERVANCY K'DISTSAUSK/TURTLE POINT CONSERVANCY ZUMTELA BAY CONSERVANCY WINTER INLET CONSERVANCY BISHOP BAY - MONKEY BEACH CORRIDOR CONSERVANCY Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Area Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy 55 30.33 7.11 2.52 32227.47 11490.21 1425.51 1315.17 1058.94 872.1 466.92 414.27 341.01 224.82 227.52 139.14 49.5 6.57 18.54 9.63 14.67 0.99 155.43 84165.03 70308.27 46107 10174.5 545.31 10048.23 16026.57 1678.86 15625.62 3804.12 4073.4 4573.98 9521.55 12068.46 12857.58 4941.27 2678.13 235.62 542.52 6418.89 577.26 171.45 554.76 264.69 815.85 2457.54 705.6 666 867.33 737.01 280.8 66.24 558.45 322.02 146.43 68.4 167.31 166.77 171.54 98.82 162.45 175.59 17.37 42.3 29.88 18.72 7.74 Appendix 4 –Protected Areas, Ecosystem Services (2020 CDN$/year) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Park Name TWEEDSMUIR PARK WELLS GRAY PARK TATSHENSHINI-ALSEK PARK ATLIN/A TEIX'GI AAN TLEIN PARK DUU GUUSD CONSERVANCY TS'IL?OS PARK SPATSIZI PLATEAU WILDERNESS PARK NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS PARK HAKAI LUXVBALIS CONSERVANCY STRATHCONA PARK STIKINE RIVER PARK DAAWUUXUSDA CONSERVANCY HUCHSDUWACHSDU NUYEM JEES/KITLOPE HERITAGE CONSERV NE'AH' CONSERVANCY DUNE ZA KEYIH PARK [A.K.A. FROG-GATAGA PARK] BOWRON LAKE PARK MOUNT EDZIZA PARK MORICE LAKE PARK KITASOO SPIRIT BEAR CONSERVANCY MOUNT ROBSON PARK OMINECA PARK CHECLESET BAY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE GARIBALDI PARK NAKINA-INKLIN RIVERS/YAWU YAA CONSERVANCY CARP LAKE PARK KAKWA PARK NAIKOON PARK LIARD RIVER CORRIDOR PARK TATLATUI PARK CARIBOO MOUNTAINS PARK PURCELL WILDERNESS CONSERVANCY PARK ENTIAKO PARK OWIKENO CONSERVANCY KWADACHA WILDERNESS PARK CASCADE-SUTSLEM CONSERVANCY MAXHAMISH LAKE PROTECTED AREA SWAN LAKE KISPIOX RIVER PARK TAKU RIVER/T'AKU TEIX' CONSERVANCY ELLERSLIE-ROSCOE CONSERVANCY FOCH-GILTTOYEES PARK FINLAY-RUSSEL PARK GITXAALA NII LUUTIKSM/KITKATLA CONSERVANCY FIORDLAND CONSERVANCY UGWIWA'/CAPE CAUTION CONSERVANCY DENETIAH PARK MUNCHO LAKE PARK INDIAN LAKE - HITCHCOCK CREEK/AT CH INI SHA CONSER TSA-LATL/SMOKEHOUSE CONSERVANCY STEIN VALLEY NLAKA'PAMUX HERITAGE PARK E.C. MANNING PARK GRAHAM-LAURIER PARK LAX KWAXL/DUNDAS AND MELVILLE ISLANDS CONSERVANCY FINGER-TATUK PARK RUBYROCK LAKE PARK K'UUNA GWAAY CONSERVANCY MONKMAN PARK KUNXALAS CONSERVANCY NATION LAKES PARK ECSTALL-SPARKLING CONSERVANCY TUTSHI LAKE/T'OOCH' AAYI CONSERVANCY REDFERN-KEILY PARK DZAWADI/UPPER KLINAKLINI RIVER CONSERVANCY BYERS/CONROY/HARVEY/SINNETT ISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RES GOLDEN EARS PARK SUSTUT PARK UPPER GLADYS RIVER/WATSIX DEIYI CONSERVANCY NANG XALDANGAAS CONSERVANCY Classification Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy 56 Hectares 961,391 528,094 895,578 217,678 221,812 231,658 662,942 633,073 118,649 247,478 244,855 113,079 313,669 220,114 314,931 135,863 252,919 50,802 100,113 219,904 126,898 33,108 Ecosystem Services Value 11,972,360,445 6,044,542,092 5,497,289,327 4,650,794,090 4,082,563,056 3,343,192,248 3,209,451,621 3,107,822,261 2,933,765,774 2,516,576,028 2,156,499,606 2,129,107,531 2,083,936,296 1,960,679,065 1,950,004,243 1,880,391,770 1,527,964,259 1,443,655,087 1,349,362,304 1,323,992,687 1,208,121,319 1,203,356,095 187,325 158,515 36,828 166,346 66,818 76,811 98,482 110,444 200,212 122,451 69,241 123,945 118,517 25,436 59,715 76,333 48,962 59,183 104,005 28,754 82,297 25,285 85,798 81,665 57,321 37,271 107,439 83,698 95,533 31,920 16,634 39,765 14,858 60,891 15,282 18,129 39,317 18,572 76,957 38,500 11,642 1,140,468,433 1,120,497,596 1,114,637,084 1,077,629,851 1,048,333,587 1,021,389,785 990,589,688 977,460,523 935,315,008 892,250,817 828,753,466 804,782,807 793,997,383 774,674,145 769,205,757 763,929,691 739,546,692 738,662,877 703,981,619 682,903,253 654,193,550 645,440,981 626,133,691 624,964,614 614,542,973 521,836,601 519,715,449 518,649,408 515,255,469 513,206,842 494,742,393 492,263,725 491,836,934 478,569,881 470,889,889 470,661,587 451,526,513 445,236,247 440,063,424 429,775,017 429,015,228 61,397 72,402 53,304 16,151 427,765,468 427,003,018 426,967,823 399,982,990 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 MUQQIWN/BROOKS PENINSULA PARK GOAT RANGE PARK BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO PARK KLUA LAKES PROTECTED AREA K'MOODA/LOWE-GAMBLE CONSERVANCY GITNADOIKS RIVER PARK VALHALLA PARK ITCHA ILGACHUZ PARK THINAHTEA SOUTH PROTECTED AREA GWILLIM LAKE PARK BIG CREEK PARK HOMATHKO RIVER-TATLAYOKO PROTECTED AREA STUART RIVER PARK - LOWER SITE CAPE SCOTT PARK BURNIE-SHEA PARK HUNWADI/AHNUHATI - BALD CONSERVANCY KHUTZEYMATEEN PARK [A.K.A. KHUTZEYMATEEN/K'TZIM-APINECONE BURKE PARK WILLISON CREEK - NELSON LAKE/SIT' HEENI CONSERVANC CHASE PARK MONCKTON NII LUUTIKSM CONSERVANCY NENEIKEKH/NANIKA-KIDPRICE PARK DEAN RIVER CONSERVANCY PINE LE MORAY PARK BANKS NII LUUTIKSM CONSERVANCY GOLDEN GATE/XAAT YADI AANI CONSERVANCY NAKINA-INKLIN RIVERS (KUTHAI AREA)/YAWU YAA CONSER GRANBY PARK HEIGHT OF THE ROCKIES PARK MAHPAHKUM-AHKWUNA/DESERTERS-WALKER CONSERVANCY GLADSTONE PARK KSGAXL/STEPHENS ISLAND CONSERVANCY OUTER CENTRAL COAST ISLANDS CONSERVANCY KHYEX CONSERVANCY LAX KA'GAAS/CAMPANIA CONSERVANCY CHUKACHIDA PROTECTED AREA MOKSGM'OL/CHAPPLE - CORNWALL CONSERVANCY KOEYE CONSERVANCY BONAPARTE PARK K'LGAAN/KLEKANE CONSERVANCY SOUTH CHILCOTIN MOUNTAINS PARK GREAT GLACIER PARK KLUSKOIL LAKE PARK HAMBER PARK CHILLIWACK LAKE PARK SKAGIT VALLEY PARK MOUNT BLANCHET PARK K'OOTZ/KHUTZE CONSERVANCY MOUNT ASSINIBOINE PARK ATNA RIVER PARK CATHEDRAL PARK KSI X' ANMAAS CONSERVANCY CALVERT ISLAND CONSERVANCY LOCKHART-GORDON CONSERVANCY CLENDINNING PARK LADY DOUGLAS - DON PENINSULA CONSERVANCY FLAT LAKE PARK BABINE RIVER CORRIDOR PARK VARGAS ISLAND PARK NAZKO LAKE PARK JUMP ACROSS CONSERVANCY NAMU CONSERVANCY HANNA-TINTINA CONSERVANCY KOKANEE GLACIER PARK WEST ARM PARK UPPER ADAMS RIVER PARK CHURN CREEK PROTECTED AREA YAAGUUN SUU CONSERVANCY KHUTZEYMATEEN INLET CONSERVANCY SUGARBOWL-GRIZZLY DEN PARK DUNN PEAK PARK PITMAN RIVER PROTECTED AREA MONASHEE PARK ANHLUUT'UKWSIM LAXMIHL ANWINGA'ASANAKWHL NISGA'A CRAB LAKE CONSERVANCY Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Protected Area Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Area Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy 57 39,522 78,345 11,824 26,639 14,030 55,819 49,501 105,744 15,800 31,175 66,850 34,951 20,328 22,017 33,373 54,647 43,550 37,035 9,757 34,595 24,077 16,467 54,690 41,589 18,558 5,660 24,662 40,936 53,598 7,269 39,421 13,614 14,485 40,010 19,958 18,678 28,334 18,374 11,651 17,859 55,959 8,891 15,256 24,567 9,284 27,955 23,451 33,239 38,487 20,423 32,994 32,324 18,233 24,062 30,036 10,964 4,199 14,752 5,797 11,767 36,529 10,113 22,688 31,717 26,221 5,771 36,454 7,741 12,482 19,678 19,101 15,554 22,405 17,122 12,412 382,863,910 382,685,659 382,653,027 374,174,805 371,146,677 369,421,967 354,499,283 352,155,588 347,863,602 347,234,307 338,161,289 328,432,885 316,828,949 311,352,186 310,017,110 306,597,090 296,812,741 284,424,371 283,265,998 271,793,621 271,171,768 267,650,678 267,421,443 261,692,782 258,476,224 252,837,293 250,143,420 249,669,523 248,736,656 244,699,599 244,515,599 241,733,769 234,032,365 233,041,626 231,829,394 231,580,153 229,537,638 225,524,175 220,426,983 213,590,428 213,074,415 210,173,834 209,153,972 208,702,286 206,539,117 204,945,949 202,147,001 200,150,395 196,489,211 192,934,718 191,173,997 186,416,111 184,176,216 180,851,014 176,691,944 173,853,626 173,657,129 173,004,150 170,436,744 169,772,895 168,603,363 167,614,408 165,701,037 164,625,915 164,427,625 161,254,506 156,739,365 155,950,637 154,325,609 154,294,876 151,904,803 151,688,400 151,226,148 150,864,987 150,312,432 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 BABINE MOUNTAINS PARK WAPITI LAKE PARK DESOLATION SOUND MARINE PARK LANZ AND COX ISLANDS PARK TUYA MOUNTAINS PARK CLAYOQUOT ARM PARK KLIN-SE-ZA PARK ADDITION KHTADA LAKE CONSERVANCY SNOWY PROTECTED AREA FLORES ISLAND PARK EUROPA LAKE CONSERVANCY SEVEN SISTERS PARK NUNTSI PARK ANSTEY HUNAKWA PARK MEHATL CREEK PARK Q'ALTANAAS/AALTANHASH CONSERVANCY CUMMINS LAKES PARK WHITE PELICAN PARK BLIGH ISLAND MARINE PARK HEATHER-DINA LAKES PARK CARMANAH WALBRAN PARK ED BIRD - ESTELLA LAKES PARK UPPER LILLOOET PARK SUTHERLAND RIVER PARK TA CH'ILA PARK [A.K.A. BOYA LAKE PARK] BEARHOLE LAKE PARK FINLAY-RUSSEL PROTECTED AREA UNCHA MOUNTAIN RED HILLS PARK TLALL CONSERVANCY MARBLE RANGE PARK ALTY CONSERVANCY WOSS LAKE PARK ARCTIC PACIFIC LAKES PARK DUNE ZA KEYIH PROTECTED AREA (A.K.A. FROG-GATAGA P DENETIAH CORRIDOR PROTECTED AREA WILKINSON-WRIGHT BAY CONSERVANCY BISHOP RIVER PARK MUSCOVITE LAKES PARK WEST TWIN PARK PALEMIN/ESTERO BASIN CONSERVANCY VLADIMIR J. KRAJINA (PORT CHANAL) ECOLOGICAL RESER HELLIWELL PARK BIRKENHEAD LAKE PARK HOTSPRINGS-NO NAME CREEK CONSERVANCY DEAN RIVER CORRIDOR CONSERVANCY TAHSISH-KWOIS PARK SCHOOLHOUSE LAKE PARK GRAYSTOKES PARK MAIN LAKE PARK ESKERS PARK SEVEN SISTERS PROTECTED AREA SCHOEN LAKE PARK LAC DU BOIS GRASSLANDS PROTECTED AREA MILLIGAN HILLS PARK SKEENA BANK CONSERVANCY TAWEEL PARK HESQUIAT PENINSULA PARK ELK LAKES PARK CARIBOO RIVER PARK ST. MARY'S ALPINE PARK STONE MOUNTAIN PARK GLADYS LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE WEST TWIN PROTECTED AREA FRANCOIS LAKE PARK TANTALUS PARK CRAIG HEADWATERS PROTECTED AREA MOOSE VALLEY PARK DALA-KILDALA RIVERS ESTUARIES PARK NAHATLATCH PARK ELEVEN SISTERS PARK KTS'MKTA'ANI/UNION LAKE CONSERVANCY SABINE CHANNEL MARINE PARK ANCIENT FOREST/CHUN T'OH WHUDUJUT PARK Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park 58 30,308 16,246 8,074 5,487 17,055 3,552 30,417 13,199 25,627 6,890 8,688 26,127 20,187 6,749 25,557 18,261 21,354 3,935 4,657 5,591 16,409 5,332 19,283 13,136 4,474 12,229 12,928 9,117 15,757 18,934 8,211 6,476 13,418 15,262 7,060 1,603 19,482 5,472 21,674 2,931 8,902 149,531,291 149,456,914 147,990,930 146,825,438 146,646,491 145,174,441 141,504,788 141,491,496 140,140,442 139,132,752 134,788,240 134,574,466 134,210,610 133,483,846 133,480,435 128,308,780 127,923,071 126,359,663 124,558,625 124,541,905 119,758,541 118,882,331 117,920,743 117,485,743 117,433,141 117,015,945 115,174,102 114,591,983 113,106,891 111,927,487 109,441,719 109,176,149 108,308,497 106,846,650 105,556,875 105,175,262 104,873,025 104,538,219 103,789,216 102,862,989 102,201,370 2,803 10,326 22,260 3,474 10,897 4,949 11,875 3,497 3,914 11,571 8,703 15,472 7,454 2,509 4,295 7,764 17,813 3,064 9,270 23,883 40,990 102,016,142 101,383,317 100,969,122 100,759,793 98,976,955 98,689,174 98,193,845 96,925,948 96,746,823 96,363,044 96,228,511 96,145,953 92,084,446 91,969,278 91,331,568 90,660,830 90,255,997 90,022,038 88,612,157 88,207,610 87,268,319 8,860 6,983 11,353 7,235 2,453 719 2,003 2,859 6,116 2,247 10,837 87,113,431 86,585,986 83,562,049 83,373,408 81,748,392 81,710,845 81,616,633 80,826,435 80,757,480 79,165,144 79,110,544 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 PEACE RIVER CORRIDOR PARK UPPER SEYMOUR RIVER PARK KLEWNUGGIT CONSERVANCY EDGE HILLS PARK WHITESWAN LAKE PARK PHILLIPS ESTUARY/?NACINUXW CONSERVANCY NINGUNSAW PARK ECSTALL-SPOKSUUT CONSERVANCY INLAND LAKE PARK DAMDOCHAX PROTECTED AREA UPPER ELAHO VALLEY CONSERVANCY DUFFEY LAKE PARK BUGABOO PARK KSI XTS'AT'KW/STAGOO CONSERVANCY KIANUKO PARK NUCHATLITZ PARK WOODWORTH LAKE CONSERVANCY UPPER KIMSQUIT RIVER CONSERVANCY MAQUINNA MARINE PARK PURDEN LAKE PARK ECSTALL HEADWATERS CONSERVANCY SANCTUARY BAY CONSERVANCY GOD'S POCKET MARINE PARK TUNKWA PARK DEWDNEY AND GLIDE ISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ROCHE LAKE PARK UPPER SOO CONSERVANCY LONG ISLAND CONSERVANCY FRASER RIVER PARK LIARD RIVER WEST CORRIDOR PARK MACHMELL CONSERVANCY OKANAGAN MOUNTAIN PARK AKAMINA-KISHINENA PARK ROBSON BIGHT (MICHAEL BIGG) ECOLOGICAL RESERVE DAHL LAKE PARK LAVA FORKS PARK THINAHTEA NORTH PROTECTED AREA TETRAHEDRON PARK K'WAAL CONSERVANCY SAY NUTH KHAW YUM PARK [A.K.A. INDIAN ARM PARK] TROUP PASSAGE CONSERVANCY PENROSE ISLAND MARINE PARK KENNEDY ISLAND CONSERVANCY NARCOSLI LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE TOP OF THE WORLD PARK LOWER SKEENA RIVER PARK MOMICH LAKES PARK SULPHUR PASSAGE PARK EAST REDONDA ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FRED ANTOINE PARK SIKANNI CHIEF CANYON PARK BUTLER RIDGE PARK SHUSWAP LAKE MARINE PARK - MARA POINT SITE PA-AAT CONSERVANCY CULTUS LAKE PARK EMAR LAKES PARK SCATTER RIVER OLD GROWTH PARK KAMDIS CONSERVANCY MARBLE CANYON PARK SYDNEY INLET PARK SARTINE ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MYRA - BELLEVUE PARK EKWAN LAKE PROTECTED AREA MOUNT MINTO/K'IYAN CONSERVANCY HAY RIVER PROTECTED AREA YALAKOM PARK K'NABIYAAXL/ASHDOWN CONSERVANCY CLAYTON FALLS CONSERVANCY SUTHERLAND RIVER PROTECTED AREA BISHOP BAY - MONKEY BEACH CONSERVANCY Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Area Conservancy 59 1,930 10,426 6,580 11,623 2,236 1,443 15,001 9,784 2,738 7,784 10,151 4,008 13,636 11,004 11,619 2,092 4,287 10,299 2,548 3,111 12,698 789 2,010 5,103 3,599 78,302,114 76,566,593 74,211,779 73,289,065 73,021,660 71,903,587 71,242,908 69,882,635 68,757,621 68,546,116 67,329,535 66,336,853 65,713,478 63,889,796 63,504,019 63,415,915 61,225,667 60,208,685 59,921,117 59,880,434 59,360,202 58,997,629 58,714,407 58,493,594 57,294,647 2,004 11,207 818 4,756 2,831 1,780 11,235 10,748 1,822 56,998,347 55,984,748 54,790,068 54,235,157 54,176,600 53,504,233 53,139,598 52,646,260 52,293,212 1,534 7,140 3,474 6,027 3,204 6,671 2,559 1,990 4,811 1,059 49,889,744 49,646,262 49,612,192 49,419,912 48,852,252 48,306,784 47,435,680 46,601,596 46,552,755 46,474,415 8,692 562 1,578 2,226 6,129 46,232,850 46,189,694 45,959,177 45,255,146 44,815,009 8,118 4,484 6,552 927 4,624 2,730 1,589 1,114 2,637 2,509 2,699 1,077 44,742,737 44,128,468 43,935,505 43,746,297 43,629,204 43,528,892 43,390,783 43,100,308 43,007,274 41,837,039 39,624,157 39,508,558 7,783 1,653 5,347 2,204 8,806 708 4,934 4,669 3,274 39,301,916 38,918,723 38,847,184 38,439,562 38,377,878 38,312,624 38,254,875 38,222,977 38,057,182 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 KINASKAN LAKE PARK LIARD RIVER CORRIDOR PROTECTED AREA LAX KUL NII LUUTIKSM/BONILLA CONSERVANCY MAXTAKTSM'AA/UNION PASSAGE CONSERVANCY SILVER STAR PARK TSAA NUNA CONSERVANCY GREENBUSH LAKE PROTECTED AREA THUNDERBIRD'S NEST (T'IITSK'IN PAAWATS) PROTECTED PATTERSON LAKE PARK BEARHOLE LAKE PROTECTED AREA THORSEN CREEK CONSERVANCY KALAMALKA LAKE PARK ARROWSTONE PARK SASQUATCH PARK JUNCTION SHEEP RANGE PARK ANNE VALLEE (TRIANGLE ISLAND) ECOLOGICAL RESERVE LAX KWIL DZIIDZ/FIN CONSERVANCY PENROSE - RIPON CONSERVANCY COQUIHALLA SUMMIT RECREATION AREA TAKLA LAKE MARINE PARK CALLAGHAN LAKE PARK KILBELLA ESTUARY CONSERVANCY QWIQUALLAAQ/BOAT BAY CONSERVANCY BROUGHTON ARCHIPELAGO CONSERVANCY CALLAGHAN CONSERVANCY STRATHCONA - WESTMIN PARK NOOSESECK CONSERVANCY SYRINGA PARK MCDONALD CREEK PARK CATTO CREEK CONSERVANCY CATALA ISLAND MARINE PARK MKWAL'TS CONSERVANCY KWATNA ESTUARY CONSERVANCY BRENT MOUNTAIN PROTECTED AREA BRIDGE RIVER DELTA PARK SOUTH OKANAGAN GRASSLANDS PROTECTED AREA KLEWNUGGIT INLET MARINE PARK SKEENA RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SPIPIYUS PARK LOWER TSITIKA RIVER PARK CODVILLE LAGOON CONSERVANCY MOUNT SEYMOUR PARK YAAGUUN GANDLAAY CONSERVANCY UPPER RAUSH PROTECTED AREA CLAYOQUOT PLATEAU PARK BORDER LAKE PARK POOLEY CONSERVANCY NIMPKISH LAKE PARK TITETOWN PARK CYPRESS PARK LOCKHART CREEK PARK KT'II/RACEY CONSERVANCY EMILY LAKE CONSERVANCY BELLA COOLA ESTUARY CONSERVANCY LAKELSE LAKE WETLANDS PARK COWICHAN RIVER PARK TREPANIER PARK UNION PASSAGE MARINE PARK ELK FALLS PARK PORCUPINE MEADOWS PARK DRIZZLE LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CORMORANT CHANNEL MARINE PARK MARBLE RIVER PARK DZAWADI/KLINAKLINI ESTUARY CONSERVANCY NINGUNSAW RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HISNIT RIVER WATERSHED PROTECTED AREA NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS PROTECTED AREA CROOKED RIVER PARK EXCHAMSIKS RIVER PROTECTED AREA SIKANNI OLD GROWTH PARK CONKLE LAKE PARK Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Area Protected Area Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Conservancy Conservancy Recreation Area Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Area Protected Area Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park 60 1,774 4,536 1,539 2,447 5,517 5,074 2,781 2,336 1,555 4,864 8,311 3,190 6,071 1,229 4,683 967 37,889,868 37,755,146 37,701,095 37,602,087 37,225,944 36,999,922 36,049,081 36,022,442 35,819,750 35,761,923 35,527,704 35,387,171 34,357,301 32,987,034 32,969,500 32,713,979 1,849 2,188 5,734 528 2,672 408 1,360 4,037 8,018 3,069 1,566 4,521 455 7,123 949 3,825 323 4,334 979 9,324 1,745 320 32,488,950 32,215,164 32,116,675 32,002,866 31,810,556 31,552,842 31,515,255 31,500,562 31,474,670 30,830,303 30,811,388 29,929,685 29,492,701 28,950,425 28,160,556 27,799,073 27,147,782 27,029,097 26,896,911 26,780,510 26,628,961 26,547,208 2,967 3,570 1,193 3,541 2,642 5,431 3,127 779 3,182 3,884 1,040 2,854 3,720 1,220 1,202 263 1,174 1,409 2,867 1,403 1,048 2,679 787 26,315,942 25,988,371 25,981,186 25,463,194 25,005,820 24,208,693 24,035,451 23,871,666 23,868,241 23,805,060 23,481,909 23,219,274 22,821,138 22,811,865 22,713,875 22,696,041 22,522,694 22,406,457 22,159,151 22,127,604 22,057,364 21,878,980 21,801,778 766 1,411 791 2,265 21,699,520 21,673,271 21,515,378 21,456,937 1,666 724 936 1,507 1,368 723 21,296,947 21,259,657 21,192,524 20,702,477 20,312,576 20,095,948 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 PTARMIGAN CREEK PARK PURCELL WILDERNESS CONSERVANCY PARK CORRIDOR PROTE QWALIMAK/UPPER BIRKENHEAD CONSERVANCY OCTOPUS ISLANDS MARINE PARK FINTRY PROTECTED AREA MOUNT POPE PARK CINNEMOUSUN NARROWS PARK DUCK LAKE PROTECTED AREA GOWLLAND TOD PARK BURNIE RIVER PROTECTED AREA BEAR ISLAND CONSERVANCY HATHAYIM MARINE PARK [A.K.A. VON DONOP MARINE PARK JUAN DE FUCA PARK DUKE OF EDINBURGH (PINE/STORM/TREE ISLETS) ECOLOGI GILNOCKIE PARK ROCK BAY MARINE PARK BLANKET CREEK PARK PORTAGE BRULE RAPIDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE DONNELY LAKE PARK UPPER ROGERS KOLII7 CONSERVANCY SUE CHANNEL PARK MOUNT GRIFFIN PARK LIARD RIVER HOT SPRINGS PARK KIKOMUN CREEK PARK KITSUMKALUM LAKE NORTH PROTECTED AREA CODVILLE LAGOON MARINE PARK SUSTUT PROTECTED AREA TOW HILL ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SGAAY TAW SIIWAAY K'ADJUU CONSERVANCY CHAMPION LAKES PARK RAFT COVE PARK BABINE LAKE MARINE PARK - PENDLETON BAY SITE BERESFORD ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CHASM PARK TSUTSWECW PARK CLYAK ESTUARY CONSERVANCY BIG BUNSBY MARINE PARK KENNEDY LAKE PARK STUART LAKE MARINE PARK SHEEMAHANT CONSERVANCY I7LOQAW7/100 LAKES PLATEAU CONSERVANCY CLAYHURST ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ENDERBY CLIFFS PARK PAUL LAKE PARK WALES HARBOUR CONSERVANCY SUGARBOWL-GRIZZLY DEN PROTECTED AREA HIGH LAKES BASIN PARK LIUMCHEN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE JEDEDIAH ISLAND MARINE PARK QUESNEL LAKE PARK TODAGIN SOUTH SLOPE PARK OMINECA PROTECTED AREA LAWN POINT PARK FRASER RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SURGE NARROWS PARK GOOSEGRASS CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FOSTER ARM PROTECTED AREA LARCOM LAGOON CONSERVANCY NADINA MOUNTAIN PARK BEATTON RIVER PARK SATELLITE CHANNEL ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BLUE/DEASE RIVERS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE DARKE LAKE PARK WHITE LAKE GRASSLANDS PROTECTED AREA BEAVER VALLEY PARK Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Area Ecological Reserve Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park 61 3,206 1,971 4,833 854 3,059 1,957 570 763 1,286 2,268 305 1,280 1,592 543 20,008,820 20,006,932 19,953,493 19,709,650 19,058,406 19,048,498 18,985,399 18,985,230 18,957,881 18,748,333 18,278,670 18,064,828 17,969,742 17,860,683 2,814 477 314 685 17,814,834 17,721,219 17,559,675 17,525,865 798 3,573 203 1,736 1,024 770 381 849 2,143 502 17,427,481 17,316,842 16,934,557 16,613,065 16,595,982 16,402,783 16,350,974 16,271,616 16,165,709 15,917,946 582 1,451 777 501 420 15,750,903 15,688,785 15,667,923 15,479,321 15,471,765 3,098 879 349 615 239 219 997 1,019 383 15,452,276 15,144,074 15,124,843 15,027,975 14,815,533 14,793,849 14,593,808 14,555,623 14,497,547 2,302 719 642 2,159 560 2,162 14,363,832 14,143,373 14,084,434 14,027,939 13,854,689 13,807,991 601 968 3,389 1,984 589 177 13,754,892 13,699,731 13,692,576 13,670,870 13,524,398 13,386,120 511 2,643 13,111,758 13,085,303 997 299 2,698 185 341 13,025,825 13,015,904 12,712,710 12,710,877 12,706,285 913 12,644,271 1,496 3,736 749 12,548,891 12,436,486 12,213,613 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 BURNT BRIDGE CREEK CONSERVANCY DRAGON MOUNTAIN PARK ENEAS LAKES PARK COPPER JOHNNY PARK CLAUD ELLIOTT LAKE PARK ADAMS LAKE MARINE PARK - SPILLMAN BEACH SITE GINGIETL CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HARBOUR-DUDGEON LAKES PARK PREMIER LAKE PARK JOFFRE LAKES PARK GOGUKA CREEK PROTECTED AREA COPELAND ISLANDS MARINE PARK PUKEASHUN PARK SMALL INLET MARINE PARK NECHAKO CANYON PROTECTED AREA WHITE LAKE PARK KLIN-SE-ZA PARK LOWE INLET MARINE PARK GOOSE BAY CONSERVANCY K'ZUZALT/TWIN TWO CONSERVANCY THREE SISTERS LAKES PARK EPPER PASSAGE PARK MOUNT RICHARDSON PARK SUKUNKA FALLS PARK MUD LAKE DELTA PARK KOOTENAY LAKE PARK - CAMPBELL BAY SITE OLD MAN LAKE PARK NLHAXTEN/CERISE CREEK CONSERVANCY THURSTON BAY MARINE PARK BRIDGE LAKE PARK EAGLE BAY PARK ESTE-TIWILH/SIGURD CREEK CONSERVANCY NORTH THOMPSON OXBOWS MANTEAU PARK WAWLEY/SEYMOUR ESTUARY CONSERVANCY TSINTSUNKO LAKES PARK OWYACUMISH RIVER PARK TAHSISH RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE RATHTREVOR BEACH PARK HOMATHKO ESTUARY PARK CHU CHUA COTTONWOOD PARK GRAYLING RIVER HOT SPRINGS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE RED BLUFF PARK BEAR GLACIER PARK BRACKENDALE EAGLES PARK LAC LE JEUNE PARK DALL RIVER OLD GROWTH PARK NORTH THOMPSON OXBOWS EAST PARK LOWER RAUSH PROTECTED AREA OSPIKA CONES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MUDZENCHOOT PARK EAGLE RIVER PARK LAKELSE LAKE PARK MOUNT GRIFFIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE READ ISLAND PARK PORT ARTHUR CONSERVANCY ANCIENT FOREST/CHUN T'OH WHUDUJUT PROTECTED AREA KIMSQUIT ESTUARY CONSERVANCY WHITE RIDGE PARK SMITH RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE REDBRUSH PARK PENNASK CREEK PARK RACE ROCKS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE KOKANEE CREEK PARK FINN CREEK PARK OAK BAY ISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BOBTAIL MOUNTAIN PARK XWAKWE?NAXDE?MA/STAFFORD ESTUARY CONSERVANCY Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy 62 1,663 1,727 1,030 644 325 274 2,587 12,210,315 12,187,430 11,995,555 11,951,957 11,898,798 11,723,653 11,558,569 349 830 1,473 413 407 1,751 871 1,172 263 2,561 743 952 2,077 941 328 996 406 426 364 316 2,251 520 415 254 1,132 502 320 347 781 86 11,502,958 11,492,515 11,281,706 11,275,358 11,272,078 11,131,641 11,072,055 11,041,905 11,022,088 10,910,526 10,883,173 10,865,906 10,741,410 10,617,874 10,546,850 10,247,846 10,234,783 10,183,871 10,175,620 9,968,393 9,959,376 9,916,552 9,828,959 9,815,363 9,784,023 9,752,710 9,696,710 9,673,540 9,624,348 9,552,529 349 450 106 1,344 9,488,287 9,447,152 9,429,493 9,403,910 150 514 761 185 611 282 1,244 1,225 9,390,286 9,380,543 9,335,435 9,128,754 9,086,573 9,082,916 9,027,626 8,865,477 620 449 341 1,235 8,848,381 8,802,495 8,785,518 8,779,568 632 330 668 123 1,373 1,314 8,727,058 8,723,106 8,643,130 8,638,281 8,596,135 8,560,406 1,138 1,234 229 8,551,285 8,520,712 8,477,564 217 368 233 8,433,467 8,410,098 8,380,766 1,319 606 8,376,848 8,365,618 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 KINGFISHER CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE PENNASK LAKE PARK SPATSIZI HEADWATERS PARK HAKAI CONSERVATION STUDY AREA SOUTH TEXADA ISLAND PARK RUGGED POINT MARINE PARK NEGIY/NEKITE ESTUARY CONSERVANCY BIG BAR LAKE PARK PRINCESS LOUISA MARINE PARK CARTER BAY CONSERVANCY LOWER NIMPKISH PARK FORT GEORGE CANYON PARK HALKETT BAY MARINE PARK BIG BASIN PARK KHUTZEYMATEEN INLET WEST CONSERVANCY SIKANNI CHIEF FALLS PROTECTED AREA RESTORATION BAY CONSERVANCY PTARMIGAN PROTECTED AREA KENTUCKY-ALLEYNE PARK KISKATINAW RIVER PARK STAIR CREEK CONSERVANCY VASEUX PROTECTED AREA EVANOFF PARK TRANQUIL CREEK PARK BURGES JAMES GADSDEN PARK WAKEMAN ESTUARY CONSERVANCY ALLISON HARBOUR MARINE PARK STAGLEAP PARK WALSH COVE PARK MOUNT TERRY FOX PARK ARROW LAKES PARK - BURTON SITE LUCY ISLANDS CONSERVANCY PILOT BAY PARK BIG WHITE MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HALEY LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ERG MOUNTAIN PARK SOAP LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BULKLEY JUNCTION PARK ROSS LAKE PARK MACKINNON ESKER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BLUE EARTH LAKE PARK MOORE/MCKENNY/WHITMORE ISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AMBROSE LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE GOLDSTREAM PARK ALICE LAKE PARK DOWNING PARK SILVER LAKE PARK NORTH THOMPSON ISLANDS PARK DAMAXYAA CONSERVANCY BOCOCK PEAK PARK SILVER BEACH PARK KICKININEE PARK STUART LAKE PARK PURE LAKE PARK GAMBLE CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE GOLD MUCHALAT PARK DAVIS LAKE PARK QUATSINO PARK MOUNT ELLIOTT ECOLOGICAL RESERVE REBECCA SPIT MARINE PARK SHUSWAP RIVER ISLANDS PARK BLUE RIVER BLACK SPRUCE PARK SHUSWAP LAKE PARK ADAMS LAKE PARK - BUSH CREEK SITE GREEN LAKE PARK - ARROWHEAD SITE WAP CREEK PARK Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Area Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park 63 1,476 8,345,523 238 408 534 1,091 347 473 362 960 450 235 172 447 980 350 762 807 1,268 190 190 834 1,990 1,425 297 395 299 130 1,202 90 1,879 93 198 336 951 8,344,762 8,265,182 8,254,557 8,237,736 8,216,331 8,189,938 8,078,987 8,069,747 8,056,460 8,036,227 7,727,261 7,712,445 7,674,488 7,555,332 7,532,411 7,471,560 7,385,096 7,203,780 7,164,763 7,097,711 7,066,527 7,023,798 7,018,374 7,007,192 6,929,144 6,877,436 6,864,079 6,845,549 6,822,690 6,703,184 6,689,752 6,669,286 6,603,619 893 6,600,673 982 927 6,415,528 6,410,778 161 326 517 6,407,178 6,227,533 6,209,325 681 202 6,172,084 6,156,423 293 6,154,265 482 409 137 111 74 807 1,095 147 51 331 138 937 6,094,052 6,074,039 6,040,605 5,978,888 5,934,335 5,922,233 5,915,804 5,858,571 5,787,455 5,763,587 5,738,762 5,725,447 640 222 633 326 5,681,584 5,650,438 5,647,922 5,647,797 165 183 169 152 99 325 324 5,628,635 5,626,693 5,518,144 5,517,483 5,481,460 5,479,262 5,463,921 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 SANTA GERTRUDIS-BOCA DEL INFIERNO PARK FORT NELSON RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE WEST LAKE PARK DENISON-BONNEAU PARK KLASKISH RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE PINE RIVER BREAKS PARK NANCY GREENE PARK TSITIKA MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FRASER RIVER BREAKS PARK GITNADOIKS RIVER PROTECTED AREA MISTY LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE PARKER LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BAERIA ROCKS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE KTISGAIDZ/MACDONALD BAY CONSERVANCY MAXHAMISH LAKE PARK UGWIWA'/CAPE CAUTION - BLUNDEN BAY CONSERVANCY SLIM CREEK PARK COUGAR CANYON ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BODEGA RIDGE PARK CORNWALL HILLS PARK TEN MILE LAKE PARK FRENCH BAR CREEK PARK DENMAN ISLAND PARK MCCONNELL LAKE PARK SMALL RIVER CAVES PARK HORSEFLY LAKE PARK LEW CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BUSE LAKE PROTECTED AREA MANZANITA COVE CONSERVANCY RUCKLE PARK PROPHET RIVER WAYSIDE PARK ELLISON PARK MITLENATCH ISLAND NATURE PARK BEATTON PARK SKWAHA LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE swiws PARK NISKONLITH LAKE PARK KITWANGA MOUNTAIN PARK SAN JUAN RIVER ESTUARY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SIKANNI CHIEF RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE STAMP RIVER PARK BRIM RIVER HOT SPRINGS PROTECTED AREA MABEL LAKE PARK RAINBOW/Q'IWENTEM PARK SIMPSON LAKE EAST CONSERVANCY BRANDYWINE FALLS PARK MOYIE LAKE PARK ILGACHUZ RANGE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FORWARD HARBOUR/YEXEWEYEM CONSERVANCY MALASPINA PARK WILLIAMS CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BURNT CABIN BOG ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BEAVER CREEK PARK TACHEEDA LAKES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HAI LAKE - MOUNT HERMAN PARK GILPIN GRASSLANDS PARK JACKSON NARROWS MARINE PARK LITTLE ANDREWS BAY MARINE PARK HEATHER LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Area Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Conservancy Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve 64 439 149 5,440,955 5,384,104 251 374 147 5,352,518 5,305,682 5,257,116 589 196 591 5,255,922 5,231,357 5,230,381 864 140 73 5,213,793 5,210,539 5,186,920 203 5,186,696 140 5,184,459 470 572 326 489 548 5,162,539 5,115,970 5,104,299 5,076,663 5,049,130 397 1,221 333 1,141 559 108 1,759 181 887 5,027,896 4,916,278 4,866,260 4,823,434 4,810,690 4,783,969 4,770,996 4,758,181 4,735,801 225 60 534 108 219 161 315 841 4,696,442 4,685,494 4,647,020 4,622,656 4,621,568 4,510,286 4,480,500 4,448,974 43 271 690 146 4,419,925 4,404,196 4,401,753 4,398,686 2,074 4,360,068 345 196 191 378 53 413 104 2,676 4,348,800 4,302,341 4,246,364 4,243,392 4,234,296 4,229,262 4,226,229 4,222,364 302 571 675 4,211,111 4,199,934 4,152,171 648 4,151,414 89 485 4,128,775 4,107,455 312 911 65 99 272 4,084,209 4,062,420 4,047,222 4,045,170 3,950,629 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 ROSE SPIT ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BURGOYNE BAY PARK STAWAMUS CHIEF PARK DAWLEY PASSAGE PARK TOAD RIVER HOT SPRINGS PARK MORICE RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE GWYNETH LAKE PARK MOUNT DERBY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE JACKMAN FLATS PARK NEWCASTLE ISLAND MARINE PARK COSTE ROCKS PARK OLIVER COVE MARINE PARK SIMSON PARK WHISKERS POINT PARK WAKES COVE PARK MORTON LAKE PARK SOOKE MOUNTAIN PARK SKOOKUMCHUCK NARROWS PARK MOUNT ROBSON CORRIDOR PROTECTED AREA BEAUMONT PARK SMITH RIVER FALLS - FORT HALKETT PARK BURDWOOD GROUP CONSERVANCY MONCK PARK ROLLEY LAKE PARK COLUMBIA LAKE PARK BEDARD ASPEN PARK KINGFISHER CREEK PARK BURNS LAKE PARK OKANAGAN LAKE PARK ENGLISH LAKE PARK ARTLISH CAVES PARK PATSUK CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ROSCOE BAY PARK LITTLE QUALICUM FALLS PARK NORTH THOMPSON OXBOWS JENSEN ISLAND PARK GOAT COVE CONSERVANCY YARD CREEK PARK NITINAT RIVER PARK BULL CANYON PARK KINGCOME RIVER/ATLATZI RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE KENNEDY RIVER BOG PARK NORBURY LAKE PARK MOUNT MAXWELL ECOLOGICAL RESERVE PORTAGE BRULE RAPIDS PROTECTED AREA NAIRN FALLS PARK OREGANA CREEK PARK COQUIHALLA RIVER PARK ALEZA LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ANDERSON FLATS PARK UPPER KLINAKLINI PROTECTED AREA GREEN INLET MARINE PARK MARTHA CREEK PARK KAKWA PROTECTED AREA SWAN LAKE PARK DIXIE COVE MARINE PARK WASA LAKE PARK CHICKENS NECK MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BECHER'S PRAIRIE PARK RENDEZVOUS ISLAND SOUTH PARK HEMER PARK BOWEN ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BEDNESTI LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE THULME FALLS CONSERVANCY KLEANZA CREEK PARK WIRE CACHE PARK Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park 65 195 3,942,523 501 528 158 392 344 3,918,683 3,907,413 3,905,998 3,901,580 3,887,707 131 587 3,855,488 3,823,104 596 364 28 60 481 92 204 73 453 140 465 172 241 117 117 116 283 180 434 63 84 333 279 516 3,800,702 3,733,668 3,728,962 3,689,765 3,671,487 3,668,104 3,642,434 3,641,192 3,599,192 3,581,731 3,549,138 3,498,717 3,482,731 3,478,278 3,476,916 3,466,665 3,464,628 3,448,771 3,430,014 3,429,925 3,421,231 3,414,538 3,409,678 3,361,803 239 457 27 93 173 161 336 378 3,327,429 3,281,968 3,252,105 3,227,356 3,187,846 3,177,480 3,121,383 3,111,835 36 103 419 3,010,439 2,987,295 2,963,491 405 177 280 102 260 2,942,000 2,910,578 2,897,817 2,869,249 2,848,370 92 62 34 51 443 78 163 148 471 2,847,263 2,809,530 2,770,165 2,769,063 2,729,267 2,727,024 2,702,612 2,698,459 2,686,004 119 162 109 399 2,680,781 2,675,616 2,624,547 2,595,732 136 2,562,417 61 212 56 2,554,685 2,547,537 2,537,487 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 HOLE-IN-THE-WALL PARK DREWRY POINT PARK PROPHET RIVER HOT SPRINGS PARK MANSONS LANDING PARK MOUNT TUAM ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CHILLIWACK RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MOUNT TINSDALE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE NORTH THOMPSON RIVER PARK SKIHIST PARK WENDLE PARK K'DISTSAUSK/TURTLE POINT CONSERVANCY CHARLIE LAKE PARK CHUNAMON CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE UPPER SHUSWAP RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MACMILLAN PARK CETAN/THURSTON BAY CONSERVANCY PORTEAU COVE PARK SHEARWATER HOT SPRINGS CONSERVANCY BROMLEY ROCK PARK MOUNT SAVONA PARK WHITE RIVER PARK CRANSTOWN POINT CONSERVANCY DANTE'S INFERNO PARK TREMBLEUR LAKE PARK SANDWELL PARK TEAKERNE ARM PARK WEYMER CREEK PARK SECHELT INLETS MARINE PARK - HALFWAY BEACH SITE KLANAWA RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE WAHKASH POINT CONSERVANCY MONARCH MOUNTAIN/A XEEGI DEIYI CONSERVANCY HERALD PARK EMORY CREEK PARK WESTWICK LAKES ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HUDSON ROCKS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CLOSE-TO-THE-EDGE PARK SMUGGLER COVE MARINE PARK ELEPHANT HILL PARK WEEWANIE HOT SPRINGS PARK MEZIADIN LAKE PARK MIRACLE BEACH PARK NETALZUL MEADOWS PARK HARRY LAKE ASPEN PARK DIANA LAKE PARK RESCUE BAY CONSERVANCY SKAGIT RIVER COTTONWOODS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE WALLACE ISLAND MARINE PARK CHEMAINUS RIVER PARK JESSE FALLS PROTECTED AREA MEGIN RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MONTAGUE HARBOUR MARINE PARK PAARENS BEACH PARK BLACKWATER CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SKAHA BLUFFS PARK FINTRY PARK YELLOW POINT BOG ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SWAN CREEK PROTECTED AREA BUCCANEER BAY PARK CUMMINS RIVER PROTECTED AREA MERIDIAN ROAD (VANDERHOOF) ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MOUNT FERNIE PARK CLOSE-TO-THE-EDGE PROTECTED AREA Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Conservancy Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Area Protected Park Protected Area Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Area 66 132 25 176 103 362 2,482,099 2,443,932 2,438,083 2,434,146 2,395,411 86 2,374,352 426 2,328,478 134 382 202 143 169 329 2,308,863 2,301,739 2,247,459 2,233,855 2,229,769 2,127,770 89 2,127,225 301 228 58 33 150 377 71 94 368 55 17 137 303 139 99 2,105,945 2,093,092 2,077,488 2,075,541 2,058,258 2,048,228 2,030,144 2,007,039 2,003,460 1,994,290 1,983,690 1,981,983 1,969,294 1,966,529 1,964,523 186 402 79 29 38 1,951,095 1,941,583 1,937,505 1,916,247 1,857,547 50 1,844,407 400 184 956 34 210 136 281 323 244 217 101 1,837,827 1,833,529 1,825,927 1,815,777 1,815,609 1,804,019 1,775,116 1,763,338 1,747,518 1,745,628 1,741,261 89 118 31 53 1,734,248 1,732,364 1,729,146 1,728,230 102 50 280 1,710,793 1,695,207 1,679,854 487 353 138 1,673,016 1,670,873 1,666,499 257 45 254 254 1,662,859 1,659,966 1,659,856 1,647,259 252 278 1,638,853 1,613,028 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 RAINBOW ALLEY PARK PRITCHARD PARK MOUNT MAXWELL PARK CALL LAKE PARK LASQUETI ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SLEEPING BEAUTY MOUNTAIN PARK MARL CREEK PARK ECHO LAKE PARK HITCHIE CREEK PARK TYHEE LAKE PARK POLKINGHORNE ISLANDS CONSERVANCY BOYLE POINT PARK CLAUD ELLIOTT CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SKOOKUMCHUCK RAPIDS PARK PLUMPER COVE MARINE PARK KOTCHO LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE TAKLA LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HOLLIDAY CREEK ARCH PROTECTED AREA OTTER LAKE PARK BEAR CREEK PARK DRUMBEG PARK KOKSILAH RIVER PARK KISKATINAW PARK HARMONY ISLANDS MARINE PARK MARA MEADOWS PARK MARA MEADOWS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE LILY PAD LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE WINDERMERE LAKE PARK CARIBOO NATURE PARK TRIBUNE BAY PARK DISCOVERY ISLAND MARINE PARK MOUNT GEOFFREY ESCARPMENT PARK OREGON JACK PARK NITINAT LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HORNELINE CREEK PARK NORTH SPIT CONSERVANCY SOWCHEA BAY PARK DIONISIO POINT PARK TUDYAH LAKE PARK ALLISON LAKE PARK COQUIHALLA CANYON PARK BIG CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CRATER LAKE PARK ENGLISHMAN RIVER FALLS PARK WALLOPER LAKE PARK CATHEDRAL PROTECTED AREA ZUMTELA BAY CONSERVANCY SUN-OKA BEACH PARK CHASM ECOLOGICAL RESERVE KITSON ISLAND MARINE PARK VASEUX LAKE PARK SALTERY BAY PARK TSITIKA RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE LAU,WELNEW/JOHN DEAN PARK WISTARIA PARK GARDEN BAY MARINE PARK FOCH-GILTTOYEES PROTECTED AREA REARGUARD FALLS PARK BOOTHMAN'S OXBOW PARK SARGEANT BAY PARK GIBSON MARINE PARK HORNE LAKE CAVES PARK EPSOM PARK CALIGATA LAKE PARK ANARCHIST PROTECTED AREA Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Conservancy Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area 67 106 49 235 58 217 1,602,287 1,596,495 1,580,404 1,545,002 1,539,223 287 166 151 238 38 149 188 230 1,537,839 1,536,735 1,536,085 1,530,088 1,525,360 1,504,842 1,504,738 1,497,345 70 66 30 1,487,786 1,484,243 1,473,281 230 1,464,581 383 58 158 55 208 52 45 209 175 1,438,924 1,437,863 1,434,264 1,431,116 1,416,678 1,406,510 1,406,128 1,394,962 1,382,883 100 1,378,621 205 86 95 68 187 222 77 1,376,299 1,372,440 1,336,010 1,321,617 1,315,648 1,313,132 1,311,569 282 18 15 140 51 21 143 252 1,309,234 1,286,460 1,282,391 1,281,627 1,281,342 1,268,763 1,262,704 1,262,600 59 97 56 346 47 31 194 1,245,238 1,240,290 1,233,143 1,230,313 1,227,075 1,222,822 1,219,576 42 17 59 123 1,208,670 1,208,146 1,206,785 1,206,235 174 40 156 91 45 43 146 143 157 74 147 444 1,186,868 1,177,202 1,174,260 1,154,118 1,138,228 1,130,905 1,117,920 1,103,996 1,099,110 1,091,450 1,090,627 1,085,984 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 MOBERLY LAKE PARK NICKEL PLATE PARK GREENSTONE MOUNTAIN PARK ETHELDA BAY - TENNANT ISLAND CONSERVANCY MARA PARK KING GEORGE VI PARK CHARLIE COLE CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE WOODLEY RANGE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE NALBEELAH CREEK WETLANDS PARK WHALEBOAT ISLAND MARINE PARK KETTLE RIVER RECREATION AREA ELK VALLEY PARK WALHACHIN OXBOWS PARK CARDIFF MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SPECTACLE LAKE PARK TORKELSEN LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE GISCOME PORTAGE TRAIL PROTECTED AREA HENYEMDZI MEKOLA/YORKE ISLAND CONSERVANCY SMALL INLET PROTECTED AREA MOUNT ELPHINSTONE PARK CHOQUETTE HOT SPRINGS PARK FRANCIS POINT PARK PAINTED BLUFFS PARK JACKPINE REMNANT PROTECTED AREA ETHEL F. WILSON MEMORIAL PARK ELLIS ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE QUDES/GILLARD-JIMMY JUDD ISLAND CONSERVANCY SPIDER LAKE PARK RASPBERRY HARBOUR ECOLOGICAL RESERVE RYAN PARK NECHAKO RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SQUITTY BAY PARK NAMU CORRIDOR CONSERVANCY JAJI7EM and KW'ULH MARINE PARK [a.k.a Sandy Island SAND POINT CONSERVANCY RAM CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE UPPER VIOLET CREEK PARK CLANNINICK CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HYLAND RIVER PARK MAHONEY LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE WINTER INLET CONSERVANCY GORDON BAY PARK KOTCHO LAKE VILLAGE SITE PARK LAC LA HACHE PARK BANANA ISLAND PARK NIMPKISH RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE LONG CREEK PARK SMITHERS ISLAND CONSERVANCY BOWSER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BROWNE LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE JUNIPER BEACH PARK KEKULI BAY PARK EAKIN CREEK FLOODPLAIN PARK MOUNT ERSKINE PARK PINNACLES PARK HAYNE'S LEASE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SUNBEAM CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE COTTONWOOD RIVER PARK LOCKHART BEACH PARK Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Recreation Area Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Area Conservancy Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Ecological Reserve Conservancy Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy Protected Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Conservancy Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park 68 95 117 116 60 12 162 188 1,085,557 1,073,141 1,063,163 1,062,687 1,052,703 1,050,214 1,045,487 158 1,026,788 167 11 178 78 43 71 1,009,451 999,960 986,846 963,671 962,752 960,584 67 152 936,121 932,553 144 38 159 140 51 83 96 140 32 6 932,533 922,583 913,248 912,727 910,797 888,458 878,370 877,303 841,768 837,836 43 57 116 835,518 834,070 826,283 58 127 822,576 822,283 50 81 31 11 121 817,156 816,010 815,248 811,662 805,208 122 58 788,632 783,578 28 39 782,021 779,441 30 104 32 28 8 18 769,625 762,947 758,497 754,044 749,043 744,070 153 55 112 740,494 739,460 736,341 113 730,074 245 59 121 108 121 93 728,284 718,458 709,109 702,864 702,840 696,026 493 685,229 62 8 682,326 673,450 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 ROLLA CANYON ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SHANNON FALLS PARK KITIMAT RIVER PARK TRIAL ISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SKIHIST ECOLOGICAL RESERVE F.H. BARBER PARK SAN JUAN RIDGE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE TAYLOR ARM PARK WOOD MOUNTAIN SKI PARK FRANCOIS LAKE PROTECTED AREA NAHATLATCH PROTECTED AREA DRYWILLIAM LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE PUNTI ISLAND PARK GOLDPAN PARK CANIM BEACH PARK COMOX LAKE BLUFFS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE GABRIOLA SANDS PARK TEN MILE POINT ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FRENCH BEACH PARK PRUDHOMME LAKE PARK HESQUIAT LAKE PARK FOSSLI PARK BLACKCOMB GLACIER PARK APODACA PARK CECIL LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SKAGIT RIVER FOREST ECOLOGICAL RESERVE COLDWATER RIVER PARK JAMES CHABOT PARK SKAGIT RIVER RHODODENDRONS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE STOYOMA CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE LUNDMARK BOG PROTECTED AREA FERRY ISLAND PARK ONE ISLAND LAKE PARK ROSEWALL CREEK PARK PORPOISE BAY PARK BAYNES ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE GERALD ISLAND PARK NILKITKWA LAKE PARK PUNTCHESAKUT LAKE PARK MURRIN PARK SPROAT LAKE PARK GUNBOAT HARBOUR CONSERVANCY CINEMA BOG ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ALEXANDRA BRIDGE PARK PIRATES COVE MARINE PARK ROSS LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE JEWEL LAKE PARK SOLANDER ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FRANCIS POINT ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MAQUINNA PROTECTED AREA PITT POLDER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE LOVELAND BAY PARK KITSUMKALUM PARK ELK FALLS PROTECTED AREA EVANS LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE TRANQUILLE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Area Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Conservancy Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Area Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve 69 41 669,068 90 52 9 664,157 652,435 651,618 39 650,036 8 97 638,464 620,460 73 101 27 65 91 615,503 611,208 593,786 591,457 590,420 12 6 8 43 585,350 580,486 579,248 571,695 6 15 564,747 546,615 55 9 57 52 219 12 124 544,926 539,988 538,112 531,230 527,831 525,366 513,118 79 512,346 68 14 76 502,672 502,337 492,415 75 491,243 75 31 53 65 58 45 487,774 476,043 472,758 470,029 469,930 464,528 12 10 36 32 40 28 70 458,953 456,984 447,084 440,185 436,537 431,957 426,505 51 32 64 425,751 425,545 419,725 50 10 410,398 409,973 17 409,821 52 100 405,696 405,547 27 40 16 163 393,850 392,769 388,916 386,313 230 377,750 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 CHILLIWACK RIVER PARK CAMPBELL BROWN (KALAMALKA LAKE) ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FILLONGLEY PARK NISGA'A MEMORIAL LAVA BED CORRIDOR PROTECTED AREA GILNOCKIE CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ANDERSON BAY PARK BOULDER CREEK PARK JOHNSTONE CREEK PARK JIMSMITH LAKE PARK VANCE CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CHILAKO RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CODY CAVES PARK DOC ENGLISH BLUFF ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BISHOP BAY - MONKEY BEACH CORRIDOR CONSERVANCY INONOAKLIN PARK SIX MILE HILL PROTECTED AREA THUNDER HILL PARK CATHERINE CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CROWSNEST PARK BROWNE LAKE PARK PINK MOUNTAIN PARK TOPLEY LANDING PARK TWEEDSMUIR CORRIDOR PROTECTED AREA ROBERTS CREEK PARK WRINKLY FACE PARK COLUMBIA LAKE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BLUE RIVER PINE PARK STEELHEAD PARK KILBY PARK SEELEY LAKE PARK SMELT BAY PARK MYRA - BELLEVUE PROTECTED AREA BRIDAL VEIL FALLS PARK RUTH LAKE PARK HARDY ISLAND MARINE PARK BIJOUX FALLS PARK MONTE CREEK PARK YAHK PARK INKANEEP PARK BAMBERTON PARK ROSE ISLETS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE EXCHAMSIKS RIVER PARK ERIE CREEK PARK NICOLUM RIVER PARK DRY GULCH PARK KITTY COLEMAN BEACH PARK DENMAN ISLAND PROTECTED AREA CHRISTINA LAKE PARK COLLINSON POINT PARK DRIFTWOOD CANYON PARK ROSEBERY PARK WHIPSAW CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ELKO PARK GALIANO ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ARBUTUS GROVE PARK TROUT CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CANOE ISLETS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ROBERTS MEMORIAL PARK GROHMAN NARROWS PARK BUCKINGHORSE RIVER WAYSIDE PARK BABINE MOUNTAINS TRAILS (Park Act Section 6) EVES PARK SUMMIT LAKE PARK Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Area Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Conservancy Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park 70 28 104 365,308 358,084 27 64 54 349,787 347,010 338,944 35 51 45 14 47 332,474 329,449 328,384 321,516 321,123 64 316,719 49 34 315,219 313,926 12 9 147 37 43 313,605 308,497 293,693 287,164 279,622 45 43 93 11 15 39 43 42 278,617 278,617 276,817 275,461 274,981 273,029 263,787 247,380 27 39 3 25 20 49 34 26 14 34 3 11 16 27 1 235,731 235,164 233,027 232,183 223,567 222,925 222,281 211,766 211,338 200,891 200,232 199,295 199,182 192,635 188,808 19 14 23 28 9 92 6 23 22 21 32 185,641 185,502 183,768 179,947 162,327 161,331 160,872 158,939 157,330 154,385 152,259 25 26 149,558 146,394 22 83 144,794 142,546 1 141,606 14 10 34 25 19 6 139,945 139,835 133,999 130,518 127,319 126,806 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 MOUNT TZUHALEM ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BEAVER POINT PARK ISKUT RIVER HOT SPRINGS PARK MCQUEEN CREEK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE BUCK HILLS ROAD ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CASTLE ROCK HOODOOS PARK SUTTON PASS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE MORRISSEY PARK KEREMEOS COLUMNS PARK YALE GARRY OAK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE ECHO BAY MARINE PARK PYRAMID CREEK FALLS PARK CEDAR POINT PARK WEST SHAWNIGAN LAKE PARK TAYLOR LANDING PARK BOYLE POINT PROTECTED AREA SOOKE POTHOLES PARK MOUNT ROBSON PROTECTED AREA VICTOR LAKE PARK BALLINGALL ISLETS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE DEAD MAN'S ISLAND PARK NISGA'A MEMORIAL LAVA BED PROTECTED AREA EAST PINE PARK LEPAS BAY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE HONEYMOON BAY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE EAKIN CREEK CANYON PARK MONTE LAKE PARK MOUNT SABINE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE CLELAND ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE SIR ALEXANDER MACKENZIE PARK PEACE ARCH PARK LOON LAKE PARK BELLHOUSE PARK WARDNER PARK KIN BEACH PARK MEMORY ISLAND PARK DET SAN ECOLOGICAL RESERVE OKEOVER ARM PARK STEMWINDER PARK MORDEN COLLIERY HISTORIC PARK sxwexwnitkw PARK PETROGLYPH PARK KATHERINE TYE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE TARAHNE PARK PILLAR PARK BOUNDARY CREEK PARK STAWAMUS CHIEF PROTECTED AREA FIELD'S LEASE ECOLOGICAL RESERVE FINN CREEK PROTECTED AREA ROCK CREEK PARK SETON PORTAGE HISTORIC PARK OTTER LAKE PROTECTED AREA Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Area Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Ecological Reserve Protected Park Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area Ecological Reserve Protected Area Protected Park Protected Park Protected Area 71 18 122,294 16 6 35 115,779 114,845 110,783 16 103,759 16 5 102,716 101,003 5 20 11 98,139 96,543 94,532 2 11 8 10 1 10 6 13 12 0 90,224 74,449 74,388 73,618 73,148 72,553 71,687 68,689 65,602 59,003 0 10 14 1 59,003 56,444 56,132 53,064 7 52,451 9 5 8 51,921 50,832 50,414 7 46,854 5 7 5 3 4 4 1 6 45,214 44,424 41,530 30,859 30,298 30,193 30,049 29,813 3 4 4 2 2 3 26,721 25,575 24,837 23,920 23,050 21,320 3 2 1 2 5 20,356 15,828 15,628 15,241 14,631 2 1 1 0 11,138 10,984 9,226 1,867