Canada Land Inventory

There have been previous attempts on a more national scale to rank land in terms of its
recreational potential or capability and this was in the form of a land inventory. The Canada Land
Inventory (CLI) was a federally funded project conducted by Natural Resources Canada that mapped
the resource capability of land across Canada at various scales with 1:50,000 and 1:250,000 being the
most common. The project mapped the capability of land across Canada in six categories, agriculture,

forestry, land use, recreation, ungulates, and waterfowl. The CLI project was for assessing the
development capability of rural lands and began as a cross-Canada mapping process initiated in the
1960s. “The inventory was developed and carried out by federal and provincial governments in
conjunction with universities and the private sector.” The Canadian Land Inventory was a
federal/provincial program and it covered the rural regions of Canada where alternative land uses have
an impact on sustainable development. It was meant to be a planning tool and not a management
strategy. The Integrated Resource Management, on the other hand, was an actual management
program that included planning, management, and sustainability.155 Many of these CLI maps were at a
scale of 1:250,000 so they are good for generalized regional capability, but are not as detailed as the
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Integrated Resource Management data which was
much more recent and specific. This data includes information on land with high recreational
capability. This data is focused on the individual crown land parcel.
The Canada Land Inventory and its recreation capability mapping was a good attempt at
determining the recreational potential of land. This mapping was meant “to provide an estimate of the
quantity, quality, and location of outdoor recreational lands in the settled portions of Canada as basic
information for planning recreational use of the resource. The inventory classes recreational land-use
capability from Class 1 (very high capability) to Class 7 (very low capability).”156 The key element in
the recreation mapping linking it to tourism potential was that it ranks land capability for recreation
based on principles of environmental protection (resiliency) which was important to tourism potential
modelling. This concept of environmental planning was evident in the CLI process because “the basis
of the classification is the quantity of recreational use that a land unit can attract and withstand
without undue deterioration of the resource base, under perfect market conditions. Thus, a land unit
with a high capability feature such as beach could accommodate a large number of users with a lower
risk of major damage to the beach area, whereas an alpine meadow would rank much lower because
157
heavy use by visitors would very quickly damage the fragile ground cover.”
The recreation mapping
was somewhat generalized and this should be a consideration to address before using this data. The
recreation mapping was derived by aerial photographic interpretations, field checks, and available
records. The inventory for recreation was developed with a focus on non-urban recreation.
“Land is ranked according to its natural capability under existing conditions, whether in
natural or modified state; but no assumptions are made concerning its capability given further major
artificial modifications. Sound recreation land management and development practices are assumed
for all areas in practical relation to the natural capability of each area. Water bodies are not directly
classified. Their recreational values accrue to the adjoining shoreland or land unit.” Wildlife and sport
fishing are natural recreational activities that are included in the process, however their ranking does
not reflect the biological productivity of an area.158
Recreation capability of land within the CLI system was ranked on a one (highest) to seven
(lowest) scale. This classification was further broken down into a 24 letter subclass based on the
alphabet. The relevant subclass codes for the study area are A (water access for angling), B (shoreline
for supporting family beach activities), C (access and frontage for canoeing potential), Q (topography
and water variety that enhances nature study, hiking, or aesthetic appreciation opportunities), U
(shoreline with yachting, boating, and deep water potential), V (areas with superior views for their
159
class or corridors for frequent viewing opportunities), and Y (shoreline with family boating access).
These values in the Canada Land Inventory are consistent with the tourism values mentioned
by the Department of Tourism in their project tender. This tender mentions fishing, shoreline
160
resources, water access for canoeing, and boating-accessible shorelines.
The Canada Land Inventory
was too generalized, outdated, and broad (it includes all rural lands-private and crown) to be useful.
From an examination of the 1:50,000 CLI recreation capability mapping it was evident that the
majority of the classified land within the study area is 4 or worse on the scale of 7 meaning that it is
161
generally poorly or only moderately suited to recreation/tourism potential development.
In terms of
a national scale this is fairly poor but from looking at the data for the Annapolis Valley area a rank of 4
is pretty good.