Regional strategic environmental assessment roles and stakes in Arctic oil and gas development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canada’s Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta Basin possesses significant energy resource potential. Decisions about energy development, however, are largely project-based and do not always provide an opportunity for more efficient and more effective regional and strategic approaches to development impact assessment and management. As such, there are constant messages about the need for a more regional and strategic form of environmental assessment, practiced above the project level and focused on broader planning-based assessment as a means to sustainability assurance. The problem, however, is that there is no formal system of regional or strategic assessment (R-SEA) in northern Canada, and considerations as to what R-SEA is and what it should deliver are far from consolidated. The role of R-SEA must be better understood and a means found to make it a meaningful component and accepted and worthwhile part of planning, regulation and development decision-making. The purpose of this thesis is to identify stakeholder understandings and expectations about R-SEA, and its potential roles and opportunities in Arctic energy planning and assessment. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders in Arctic oil and gas initiatives, including energy regulators, industry, and energy interest groups, as well as Inuvialuit governments and community boards. Four key themes are identified and discussed: the efficacy of the current approach to environmental assessment for offshore energy development; knowledge of R-SEA; RSEA benefits and risks; and opportunities and challenges to advancing R-SEA in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR). Only consultation and engagement was seen by most participants as working well within the current EA system in the study area. Many challenges were raised, however, which would indicate a need for a new or revised approach to EA in the study area. There was agreement on the need for a more regional and strategic approach to EA in the ISR, but there was no consensus amongst participants as to the nature and scope of R-SEA and what it is intended to deliver. Though there continues to be much confusion regarding the terminology used, it appears that participants are identifying the same deliverables and advantages, suggesting that they are looking for similar benefits. Challenges to moving such a process forward include leadership, coordination of interests, financial resources, legislated versus voluntary approaches, and human capacity in the ISR region. Future research is needed to address the perceived risks and challenges raised by participants for R SEA to be a worthwhile and effective process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».