Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Science and PolicyRemove filter
- FACETSRemove filter
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Cooke, Steven J8
- Bennett, Joseph R4
- Jacob, Aerin L2
- Lapointe, Nicolas W R2
- Murray, Stuart J2
- Nguyen, Vivian M2
- Roche, Dominique G2
- Abrams, Alice E I1
- Adamson, S1
- Aiken, Alice1
- Aitken, Sally1
- Algera, Dirk A1
- Alook, Sharlene1
- Amirfazli, Alidad1
- Anagnostou, Michelle1
- Anastakis, Dimitry1
- Anctil, François1
- Ansari, Daniel1
- Antle, Alissa N1
- Armitage, D1
- Auld, G1
- Austin, Claire C1
- Babel, Molly1
- Bagshaw, Sean M1
- Bailey, Jane1
Access Type
1 - 20of28
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSContemporary conservation problems are typically positioned at the interface of complex ecological and human systems. Traditional approaches aiming to compartmentalize a phenomenon within the confines of a single discipline and failing to engage non-science partners are outmoded and cannot identify solutions that have traction in the social, economic, and political arenas in which conservation actions must operate. As a result, conservation science teams must adopt multiple disciplinary approaches that bridge not only academic disciplines but also the political and social realms and engage relevant partners. Five reasons are presented that outline why conservation problems demand multiple disciplinary approaches in order to move forward because: (i) socio-ecological systems are complex, (ii) multiple perspectives are better than one, (iii) the results of research must influence practice, (iv) the heterogeneity of scale necessitates it, and (v) conservation involves compromise. Presenting reasons that support multiple disciplinarity demands a review of the barriers that impede this process, as we are far from attaining a model or framework that is applicable in all contexts. Two challenges that impede multiple disciplinarity are discussed, in addition to pragmatic solutions that conservation scientists and practitioners can adopt in their work. Overall, conservation researchers and practitioners are encouraged to explore the multiple disciplinary dimensions of their respective realms to more effectively solve problems in biodiversity and sustainability.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Catherine Potvin,
- Divya Sharma,
- Irena Creed,
- Sally Aitken,
- François Anctil,
- Elena Bennett,
- Fikret Berkes,
- Steven Bernstein,
- Nathalie Bleau,
- Alain Bourque,
- Bryson Brown,
- Sarah Burch,
- James Byrne,
- Ashlee Cunsolo,
- Ann Dale,
- Deborah de Lange,
- Bruno Dyck,
- Martin Entz,
- José Etcheverry,
- Rosine Faucher,
- Adam Fenech,
- Lauchlan Fraser,
- Irene Henriques,
- Andreas Heyland,
- Matthew Hoffmann,
- George Hoberg,
- Meg Holden,
- Gordon Huang,
- Aerin L. Jacob,
- Sebastien Jodoin,
- Alison Kemper,
- Marc Lucotte,
- Roxane Maranger,
- Liat Margolis,
- Ian Mauro,
- Jeffrey McDonnell,
- James Meadowcroft,
- Christian Messier,
- Martin Mkandawire,
- Catherine Morency,
- Normand Mousseau,
- Ken Oakes,
- Sarah Otto,
- Pamela Palmater,
- Taysha Sharlene Palmer,
- Dominique Paquin,
- Anthony Perl,
- André Potvin,
- Howard Ramos,
- Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne,
- Natalie Richards,
- John Robinson,
- Stephen Sheppard,
- Suzanne Simard,
- Brent J. Sinclair,
- Natalie Slawinski,
- Mark Stoddart,
- Marc-André Villard,
- Claude Villeneuve, and
- Tarah Wright
This perspective documents current thinking around climate actions in Canada by synthesizing scholarly proposals made by Sustainable Canada Dialogues (SCD), an informal network of scholars from all 10 provinces, and by reviewing responses from civil society representatives to the scholars’ proposals. Motivated by Canada’s recent history of repeatedly missing its emissions reduction targets and failing to produce a coherent plan to address climate change, SCD mobilized more than 60 scholars to identify possible pathways towards a low-carbon economy and sustainable society and invited civil society to comment on the proposed solutions. This perspective illustrates a range of Canadian ideas coming from many sectors of society and a wealth of existing inspiring initiatives. Solutions discussed include climate change governance, low-carbon transition, energy production, and consumption. This process of knowledge synthesis/creation is novel and important because it provides a working model for making connections across academic fields as well as between academia and civil society. The process produces a holistic set of insights and recommendations for climate change actions and a unique model of engagement. The different voices reported here enrich the scope of possible solutions, showing that Canada is brimming with ideas, possibilities, and the will to act. - OPEN ACCESSAspects of Canada’s health regulatory system are currently being reviewed. This is timely, as the regulation and definition of drugs, foods, and natural health products (NHPs) is in need of revision to facilitate greater transparency and less ambiguity. A number of studies have illustrated the importance of a nutritious diet to prevent and manage chronic disease. Therefore, legislation surrounding food health claims needs to be adjusted so that it is more informative for disease prevention and, in some cases, treatment. Canada is modernizing the regulation of self-care products, under which NHPs, including probiotic products, are listed. With the growing appreciation for the role that microbes play in human health and the recognition that many foods, including those containing probiotic organisms, can prevent or mitigate disease, this provides an opportunity to reassess regulatory categories.
- OPEN ACCESSPolicy-makers are confronted with complex problems that require evaluating multiple streams of evidence and weighing competing interests to develop and implement solutions. However, the policy interventions available to resolve these problems have different levels of supporting scientific evidence. Decision-makers, who are not necessarily scientifically trained, may favour policies with limited scientific backing to obtain public support. We illustrate these tensions with two case studies where the scientific consensus went up against the governing parties’ chosen policy. What mechanisms exist to keep the weight of scientific evidence at the forefront of decision-making at the highest levels of government? In this paper, we propose that Canada create “Departmental Chief Science Advisors” (DCSAs), based on a program in the UK, to help complement and extend the reach of the newly created Chief Science Advisor position. DCSAs would provide advice to ministers and senior civil servants, critically evaluate scientific work in their host department, and provide public outreach for the department’s science. We show how the DCSAs could be integrated into their departments and illustrate their potential benefits to the policy making process and the scientific community.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Eleanor Haine-Bennett,
- Hilary B. Bergsieker,
- Imogen R. Coe,
- Andrea Koch-Kraft,
- Eve Langelier,
- Suzanne Morrison,
- Katrin Nikoleyczik,
- Toni Schmader,
- Olga Trivailo,
- Sue Twine, and
- Jennifer E. Decker
Science and engineering research excellence can be maximized if the selection of researchers is made from 100% of the pool of human talent. This requires policies and approaches that encourage broad sections of society, including women and other underrepresented groups, to participate in research. Institutional policies, interpersonal interactions, and individuals’ attitudes are drivers of workplace culture. Here, some new evidence-based and systematic approaches with a focus on culture are proposed to foster women’s inclusion and success in science and engineering. - OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Dimitry Anastakis,
- Shannon D. Scott,
- Merritt R. Turetsky,
- Alidad Amirfazli,
- Alison Hearn,
- Cynthia E. Milton,
- Laura Loewen,
- Eric E. Smith,
- D. Ryan Norris,
- Kim L. Lavoie,
- Alice Aiken,
- Daniel Ansari,
- Alissa N. Antle,
- Molly Babel,
- Jane Bailey,
- Daniel M. Bernstein,
- Rachel Birnbaum,
- Carrie Bourassa,
- Antonio Calcagno,
- Aurélie Campana,
- Bing Chen,
- Karen Collins,
- Catherine E. Connelly,
- Myriam Denov,
- Benoît Dupont,
- Eric George,
- Irene Gregory-Eaves,
- Steven High,
- Josephine M. Hill,
- Philip L. Jackson,
- Nathalie Jette,
- Mark Jurdjevic,
- Anita Kothari,
- Paul Khairy,
- Sylvie A. Lamoureux,
- Kiera Ladner,
- Christian R. Landry,
- François Légaré,
- Nadia Lehoux,
- Christian Leuprecht,
- Angela R. Lieverse,
- Artur Luczak,
- Mark L. Mallory,
- Erin Manning,
- Ali Mazalek,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Lenore L. Newman,
- Valerie Oosterveld,
- Patrice Potvin,
- Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham,
- Jennifer Rowsell,
- Dawn Stacey,
- Susan L. Tighe,
- David J. Vocadlo,
- Anne E. Wilson, and
- Andrew Woolford
Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues. - OPEN ACCESS
- Dominique G. Roche,
- Monica Granados,
- Claire C. Austin,
- Scott Wilson,
- Gregory M. Mitchell,
- Paul A. Smith,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Governments worldwide are releasing data into the public domain via open government data initiatives. Many such data sets are directly relevant to environmental science and complement data collected by academic researchers to address complex and challenging environmental problems. The Government of Canada is a leader in open data among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, generating and releasing troves of valuable research data. However, achieving comprehensive and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) open government data is not without its challenges. For example, identifying and understanding Canada’s international commitments, policies, and guidelines on open data can be daunting. Similarly, open data sets within the Government of Canada are spread across a diversity of repositories and portals, which may hinder their discoverability. We describe Canada’s federal initiatives promoting open government data, and outline where data sets of relevance to environmental science can be found. We summarize research data management challenges identified by the Government of Canada, plans to modernize the approach to open data for environmental science and best practices for data discoverability, access, and reuse. - OPEN ACCESSThe Canadian Genomics Partnership for Rare Diseases, spearheaded by Genome Canada, will integrate genome-wide sequencing to rare disease clinical care in Canada. Centralized and tiered models of data stewardship are proposed to ensure that the data generated can be shared for secondary clinical, research, and quality assurance purposes in compliance with ethics and law. The principal ethico-legal obligations of clinicians, researchers, and institutions are synthesized. Governance infrastructures such as registered access platforms, data access compliance offices, and Beacon systems are proposed as potential organizational and technical foundations of responsible rare disease data sharing. The appropriate delegation of responsibilities, the transparent communication of rights and duties, and the integration of data privacy safeguards into infrastructure design are proposed as the cornerstones of rare disease data stewardship.
- OPEN ACCESSAlthough a diversity of approaches to wildlife management persists in Canada and the United States of America, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM) is a prevailing model for state, provincial, and federal agencies. The success of the NAM is both celebrated and refuted amongst scholars, with most arguing that a more holistic approach is needed. Colonial rhetoric permeates each of the NAM’s constituent tenets—yet, beyond these cultural and historical problems are the NAM’s underlying conservation values. In many ways, these values share common ground with various Indigenous worldviews. For example, the idea of safeguarding wildlife for future generations, utilizing best available knowledge to solve problems, prioritizing collaboration between nations, and democratizing the process of conserving wildlife all overlap in the many ways that the NAM and common models of Indigenous-led conservation are operationalized. Working to identify shared visions and address necessary amendments of the NAM will advance reconciliation, both in the interest of nature and society. Here, we identify the gaps and linkages between the NAM and Indigenous-led conservation efforts across Canada. We impart a revised NAM—the Indigenizing North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (I-NAM)—that interweaves various Indigenous worldviews and conservation practice from across Canada. We emphasize that the I-NAM should be a continuous learning process that seeks to update and coexist with the NAM, but not replace Indigenous-led conservation.
- OPEN ACCESSAccounting for ecosystem services (ES)—the ways in which society and people directly benefit from ecological processes and functions—is crucial for developing sustainable landscape management approaches that consider the interrelationship between people and nature. Previous research has produced models that estimate the provision of potential ES by landscapes to help inform policy and stakeholder decision-making. However, most modelling efforts do not consider the delivery of ES to specific human populations or communities, making it difficult to evaluate any possible human welfare implications from alternative land use planning scenarios. In this paper, we first explore the recent state of science of ES modelling from the perspective of ES provision and delivery to the people that benefit from them. Second, we propose the addition of some essential aspects of complexity using the classic social–ecological system framework, crucial for developing models to inform pragmatic decision-making. Our propositions are illustrated using simplified examples inspired by sea otter conservation in the seascapes of British Columbia. Integrating these concepts in future ES models should serve as a baseline for future management approaches that more adequately capture the important implications of landscape scenarios on human well-being.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Connor H. Reid,
- Emma J. Hudgins,
- Jessika D. Guay,
- Sean Patterson,
- Alec M. Medd,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Invasive alien species (IAS) pose threats to native biodiversity globally and are linked to numerous negative biodiversity impacts throughout Canada. Considering the Canadian federal government’s commitments to environmental stewardship (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity), the successful management of IAS requires an understanding of how federal infrastructure, strategies, and decisions have contributed to previous outcomes. Here, we present an analysis of current efforts by the federal government to prevent IAS establishment in Canadian ecosystems and the unique challenges associated with Canadian IAS management. We then examine historical and current case studies of IAS in Canada with variable outcomes. By drawing comparisons with IAS management in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, we discuss how the Canadian government may refine its policies and practices to enable more effective responses to IAS threats. We conclude by considering how future interacting stressors (e.g., climate change) will shape how we address IAS threats, and list six lessons for successful management. Most importantly, Canada must regard biodiversity impacts from IAS with as much urgency as direct economic impacts that have historically garnered more attention. Although we focus on Canada, our findings may also be useful in other jurisdictions facing similar challenges with IAS management. - OPEN ACCESS
- Dirk A. Algera,
- Kate L. Neigel,
- Kerri Kosziwka,
- Alice E.I. Abrams,
- Daniel M. Glassman,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Nicolas W.R. Lapointe
American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) were used as a case study to assess whether Ontario’s Endangered Species Act proponent-driven regulatory approach resulted in successful imperilled species management outcomes. American Eel observation databases and proponent-prepared mitigation plans and monitoring data were used to assess whether: (i) facilities within the distribution range were registered, (ii) effects monitoring protocols were adequate to evaluate adverse effects of facilities, (iii) proponents implemented mitigation actions that followed best management practices (BMPs), and (iv) effectiveness monitoring designs were adequate to evaluate effectiveness of mitigation actions. Less than half of the facilities (8 of 17) within the extant species range were registered. Few eels were observed at each facility, precluding proponents from effectively evaluating the facilities’ effects. Mitigation actions following BMPs were only implemented for eel out-migration at three facilities. Half of the registered facilities implemented effectiveness monitoring, but experimental designs did not follow best practices and standards. To improve this proponent-driven approach, regulators could reduce ambiguity in regulation language and provide clearer, quantitative requirements for facility registration, effects monitoring, mitigation actions, and effectiveness monitoring. Proponents could improve monitoring efforts to establish species occurrence and generate baseline data to measure facility effects and mitigation action effectiveness. - OPEN ACCESS
- Kira M. Hoffman,
- Amy Cardinal Christianson,
- Sarah Dickson-Hoyle,
- Kelsey Copes-Gerbitz,
- William Nikolakis,
- David A. Diabo,
- Robin McLeod,
- Herman J. Michell,
- Abdullah Al Mamun,
- Alex Zahara,
- Nicholas Mauro,
- Joe Gilchrist,
- Russell Myers Ross, and
- Lori D. Daniels
Indigenous fire stewardship enhances ecosystem diversity, assists with the management of complex resources, and reduces wildfire risk by lessening fuel loads. Although Indigenous Peoples have maintained fire stewardship practices for millennia and continue to be keepers of fire knowledge, significant barriers exist for re-engaging in cultural burning. Indigenous communities in Canada have unique vulnerabilities to large and high-intensity wildfires as they are predominately located in remote, forested regions and lack financial support at federal and provincial levels to mitigate wildfire risk. Therefore, it is critical to uphold Indigenous expertise in leading effective and socially just fire stewardship. In this perspective, we demonstrate the benefits of cultural burning and identify five key barriers to advancing Indigenous fire stewardship in Canada. We also provide calls to action to assist with reducing preconceptions and misinformation and focus on creating space and respect for different knowledges and experiences. Despite growing concerns over wildfire risk and agency-stated intentions to establish Indigenous Peoples as partners in wildfire management, power imbalances still exist. The future and coexistence with fire in Canada needs to be a shared responsibility and led by Indigenous Peoples within their territories. - OPEN ACCESS
- Morgan L. Piczak,
- Jill L. Brooks,
- Brittany Bard,
- Christian J. Bihun,
- Andrew Howarth,
- Amanda L. Jeanson,
- Luc LaRochelle,
- Joseph R. Bennett,
- Nicolas W. R. Lapointe,
- Nicholas E. Mandrak, and
- Steven J. Cooke
A seminal report by Peter H. Pearse (1988; Rising to the Challenge: A New Policy for Canada’s Freshwater Fisheries, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ottawa) outlined 62 policy recommendations focused on the management of Canada’s inland fisheries. Over three decades later, freshwater ecosystems and inland fisheries in Canada are still facing similar challenges with many emerging ones that could not have been foreseen. Here, we reflect on the contemporary relevance of the Pearse Report and propose recommendations that policy makers should consider. Broadly, our recommendations are: (1) manage fishes, fisheries, and habitat using a holistic co-management framework, with clearly defined fishery jurisdictions and partnerships with Indigenous governments; (2) engage in transparent, inclusive, and agile research to support decision-making; (3) facilitate knowledge co-production, involving interdisciplinary projects with diverse groups of actors and sectors including Indigenous Peoples, anglers, policy makers, scientists/researchers, governments, and the public; (4) embrace technological advances to support freshwater fisheries stock assessment and management; and (5) align policy and management activities in Canada with global initiatives related to increasing the sustainability of inland fisheries. We advocate for an updated comprehensive report such as the Pearse Report to ensure that we embrace robust, inclusive, and sustainable management strategies and policies for Canada’s inland fisheries for the next 30 years. It is time to again rise to the challenge. - OPEN ACCESSShortcomings in the rigour and reproducibility of research have become well-known issues and persist despite repeated calls for improvement. A coordinated effort among researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies, and regulators may be the most effective way of tackling these issues. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) has fostered collaboration across various stakeholders in research and are creating the infrastructure necessary to advance rigorous and reproducible research practices across the United Kingdom. Other Reproducibility Networks, modelled on UKRN, are now emerging in other countries. Canada could benefit from a comparable network to unify the voices around research quality and maximize the value of Canadian research.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Christopher J. Lemieux,
- Karen F. Beazley,
- David MacKinnon,
- Pamela Wright,
- Daniel Kraus,
- Richard Pither,
- Lindsay Crawford,
- Aerin L. Jacob, and
- Jodi Hilty
The first draft of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) includes an unprecedented call for states that have ratified the treaty (Parties) to implement measures to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity as urgent actions to abate further biodiversity loss and ecosystem decline. Considering the challenges that lie ahead for Parties to the CBD, we highlight the ways in which effective and equitable connectivity conservation can be achieved through four transformative changes, including: (1) mainstreaming connectivity retention and restoration within biodiversity conservation sector and influencing sectors (e.g., transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry); (2) mainstreaming financial resources and incentives to support effective implementation; (3) fostering collaboration with a focus on cross-sector collective action; and (4) investing in diverse forms of knowledge (co-)production and management in support of adaptive governance. We detail 15 key actions that can be used to support the implementation of these transformative changes. While ambitious, the transformative changes and associated key actions recommended in this perspective will need to be put in place with unprecedented urgency, coherency, and coordination if Parties to the CBD truly aspire to achieve the goals and targets of the forthcoming Post-2020 GBF in this new decade of biodiversity. - OPEN ACCESSThis perspective essay examines the role of conservation law in contributing to biodiversity decline by exploring how current conservation laws exacerbate the challenges Canada faces. We contend that there are three intertwined foundation-setting functions of conservation law: they codify priorities and values, define and influence acceptable conservation behaviour, and drive the establishment of the institutions, programs, and governance arrangements of today’s conservation regime. We describe these functions and then assess whether conservation laws in Canada are adequately fulfilling the functions. We find that the federal conservation law regime is sub-optimal and likely incapable of halting and reversing the negative biodiversity trends. Based on this, we suggest a set of conservation legislative principles capable of catalyzing change and supporting the transition to a more sustainable conservation future.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Nicolas Mansuy,
- Diana Staley,
- Sharlene Alook,
- Brenda Parlee,
- Alexandra Thomson,
- Danika Billie Littlechild,
- Matthew Munson, and
- Fred Didzena
Wilderness and national parks play a fundamental role in defining Canadian identity, yet Indigenous Peoples have historically been excluded from conservation decisions, resulting in systematic dispossession and oppression. In this article, we collaborate with Dene Tha'First Nation to discuss the recent paradigm shift towards Indigenous-led conservation and propose guiding principles to advance and assert the critical role of Indigenous Peoples in conservation. We begin with a brief history of Indigenous Peoples in conservation, followed by the concept of Indigenous protected and conserved areas (IPCAs). Our analyses show that IPCAs have gained momentum recently, driven by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Canada's commitment to global conservation goals. With one of the largest landmasses and Indigenous populations in the world, IPCAs in Canada have the potential to make immense contributions to environmental and cultural conservation rooted in an intrinsic relationship to the land. Despite this biocultural diversity, as of 2022, less than 1% of Canada's landmass is declared as Indigenous-led protected areas. However, more than 50 Indigenous communities across the country have currently received funding to establish IPCAs or to undertake early planning and engagement that could position Canada as a global leader in Indigenous-led conservation. As the Government of Canada aims to designate 25% of the territory as protected space by 2025 and 30% by 2030, embedding Indigenous rights, knowledge, and values in the national conservation strategy will be essential to simultaneously honoring the commitments to reconciliation and meeting the ambitious targets stipulated in the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. - OPEN ACCESSThere is a global focus by governments on retrofitting buildings, as well as incorporating energy efficiency into new construction, as a means to address climate change. Initiatives to reduce energy use, source renewable electricity, and use low-carbon materials are aimed at leading by example, where governments attempt to showcase innovation through green building strategies. Greening government initiatives are promoted to reduce operating costs, improve energy system resilience, grow the “green” economy, support clean energy development, and encourage sustainable building practices. Here, we outline the benefits of greening government initiatives by examining Canada's Greening Government Strategy as a case study approach for transitioning to a low-carbon building portfolio. We focus our review on initiatives that outline how public institutions can transition buildings to reduce their carbon footprint by (1) pairing greening government mandates with adequate support structures for public agencies, (2) using an integrated energy management process for the planning and development of carbon-neutral portfolios, and (3) overcoming barriers to low-carbon project implementation with procurement standards, financial instruments, and staff training. These approaches are defined to offer leadership in the green building industry, strategically identify carbon reduction projects, and reduce barriers to a low-carbon building portfolio.
- OPEN ACCESSHabitat sensitivity is a consideration for decision-making under environmental laws in many jurisdictions. However, habitat sensitivity has been variously defined and there is no consistent approach to its quantification, which limits our understanding of how habitat sensitivity varies among systems and in response to different pressures. We review various definitions offered in the scientific literature and policy documents before suggesting a universal framework for habitat sensitivity as (i) a habitat trait that defines the ecological impacts from a given pressure, (ii) which is composed of three components (habitat resistance, resilience, and recoverability), and (iii) which is quantified by measuring the change and recovery in the state of key habitat attributes in response to pressures. In addition, we provide guidance toward a consistent approach to assessing habitat sensitivity, which includes the use of pressure benchmarks and standardized metrics of change in key habitat attributes to create a common scale for comparison among habitat attributes and pressures. Our framework and recommendations should help to standardize the way in which habitat sensitivity is defined and assessed, and could be integrated into decision-making processes to improve ecosystem management in different jurisdictions.