Mobility Compass

Discover mobility and transportation research. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Mobility Compass is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within mobility and transport research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

To Graph

7.909 Topics available

To Map

770 Locations available

380.250 PEOPLE
380.250 People People

380.250 People

Show results for 380.250 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 15210

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Tekkaya, A. Erman
  • 4
  • 17
  • 97
  • 2024
Förster, Peter
  • 3
  • 11
  • 13
  • 2024
Mudimu, George T.
  • 3
  • 4
  • 0
  • 2024
Shibata, Lillian Marie
  • 1
  • 7
  • 0
  • 2024
Talabbeydokhti, Nasser
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
  • 2024
Laffite, Ernesto Dante Rodriguez
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 2024
Schöpke, Benito
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
  • 2024
Gobis, Anna
  • 4
  • 38
  • 18
  • 2024
Alfares, Hesham K.
  • 4
  • 4
  • 148
  • 2024
Münzel, Thomas
  • 30
  • 243
  • 1k
  • 2024
Joy, Gemini Velleringatt
  • 1
  • 3
  • 1
  • 2024
Oubahman, Laila
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2024
Filali, Youssef
  • 2
  • 8
  • 4
  • 2024
Philippi, Paula
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2024
George, Alinda
  • 3
  • 4
  • 10
  • 2024
Lucia, Caterina De
  • 1
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2024
Avril, Ludovic
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
  • 2024
Belachew, Zigyalew Gashaw
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2024
Kassens-Noor, EvaDarmstadt
  • 43
  • 54
  • 410
  • 2024
Cho, Seongchul
  • 1
  • 7
  • 1
  • 2024
Tonne, Cathryn
  • 13
  • 145
  • 1k
  • 2024
Hosseinlou, Farhad
  • 4
  • 12
  • 3
  • 2024
Ganvit, Harsh
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
  • 2024
Schmitt, Konrad Erich Kork
  • 2
  • 6
  • 41
  • 2024
Grimm, Daniel
  • 7
  • 21
  • 63
  • 2024

Lait, Michael

  • Google
  • 13
  • 0
  • 0

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (13/13 displayed)

  • 2021Conclusioncitations
  • 2021Introductioncitations
  • 2021The McInnis Scarecitations
  • 2021Protecting the Park’s Status Quocitations
  • 2021Planning, Expropriations, Planning…citations
  • 2021Park Governance Under the Federal District Commissioncitations
  • 2021The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversycitations
  • 2021Sparking the Private Lands Issuecitations
  • 2021An Activist Chair Governscitations
  • 2021National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capitalcitations
  • 2021The Creation of “Gatineau Park”citations
  • 2021Park Governance Under the National Capital Commissioncitations
  • 2021Ongoing Campaign for Legislation and Issue Flare-Upscitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Chart of publication period
2021

Co-Authors (by relevance)

    OrganizationsLocationPeople

    document

    Conclusion

    • Lait, Michael
    Abstract

    This study of Gatineau Park governance documented the planning and management issues that have been introduced by private land ownership in a near-urban protected area. Ironically the history of Gatineau Park could have been otherwise: it was supposed to be the first near-urban national park in Canada and the first in a nation-wide system. When championing the Gatineau Park proposal, the Commissioner of the Dominion Parks Branch, JB Harkin (1913), claimed that the system of near-urban national parks would have brought Canada to the “forefront of civilization.” Instead, Canada has one near-urban national park, the Rouge National Park near Toronto, Ontario. Further, Parks Canada has not published any details about a future systematization of near-urban national parks, nor are there active discussions around the next Rouge. Nonetheless, as national parks and protected areas will be critical tools with which to address the climate and biodiversity crises, it is not an either/or with respect to how closely they are situated to cities. Today, in North America, national parks and protected areas tend to be located far away from urban centers. Yet it remains key that governments give the public controlled access to nature, with the attendant recreational, education, and psychological benefits that are derived from people's experience of natural places. The Conclusion reviews the historical creation of Gatineau Park by and for the cottage communities at Kingsmere and Meech Lake, and how cottagers worked behind the scenes with the federal government in order to ensure that their communities were maintained. As cottagers were making progress towards this goal, planners were conceiving of Gatineau Park as the capital's national park. The status quo of private ownership at Kingsmere and Meech Lake was the defining issue of the Federal District Commission's Gatineau Park Advisory Committee which ultimately dissolved over the issue. Previous chapters revealed that the transistion from the FDC to the park's current governing body, the National Capital Commission did not result in any substantive change to the park's governance and overall development policy, such that the NCC continued the piecemeal land acquisition program that relies on negotiated purchase. This research reveals the numerous expropriations that the NCC has carried out in order to prevent incompatible developments on privately-owned lands, including hotels, marinas, and subdivisions. Despite NCC officials being aware, early on, of the inherent problems with the land acquisition policy, they failed to persuade leadership to take decisive action. In light of this remarkable continuity in the governance history, three lessons are drawn concerning the establishment and protection of near-urban wilderness areas: (1) sort jurisdiction early – by introducing multiple layers of jurisdiction, private land ownership complicates park management and territorial control, and is intimately linked to the interests of local government, including the quasi-local governments of the Kingsmere Property Owners' Association and Meech Lake Association; (2) give clearly defined boundaries and land acquisition mechanisms – legislators failed to give Gatineau Park adequate protection not only by neglecting to include a park mandate statement in the National Capital Act , they also failed to codify the park boundaries in law and the NCC subsequently took advantage of this through a boundary rationalization exercise, completed without public consultation; and (3) the need for timely action on land acquisitions through a well-funded Property Acquisitions department that is provided with specific goals and timeframes, acquisition priorities, and scientific guidance on ecological corridors and other areas of ecological significance. In addition to the lessons that can be drawn from the case study, the Conclusion endorses the consensus view on Gatineau Park legislation specifically in mandating the NCC to complete the land acquisition program while giving it the right of first refusal. Following the phronetic approach, it also outlines what a National Conservation Agency dedicated to the protection of near-urban ecological areas could look like. 

    Topics
    • case study
    • city planning
    • city planning
    • geography
    • law
    • law
    • legislation
    • ownership
    • education
    • federal government
    • education
    • history
    • climate
    • protection
    • lake
    • consensus
    • hotel
    • time window
    • public administration
    • conservation
    • politics
    • committee
    • biodiversity
    • local government
    • governance
    • eminent domain
    • national park
    • subdivision
    • no build
    • landowner
    • private property
    • advisory group
    • property acquisition
    • marina
    • wilderness area

    Search in FID move catalog