Change, Controversy, & Compromise: Public Reaction to New Facilities in Vancouver's Parks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objective of this report was to examine change, controversy, and compromise in the site selection process for new activities in Vancouver’s parks. The research questions for the study were: What elements of the three proposals for new facilities in Vancouver parks generated controversy? What are the similarities and differences between the controversy generated by the three projects examined, and how were these concerns addressed? ● What are the implications for future projects? The scope of the report was limited to facilities within the City of Vancouver as the report was being written to inform site selection processes undertaken by the Vancouver Park Board. The following three facilities were examined: ● Downtown Skateboard Park ● Beach Volleyball Tournament Facility ● Stanley Park Community Garden A two-part methodology was utilized. First, two precedents were studied via on-line literature including Park Board reports and minutes, and media files from the websites of the Vancouver Courier Newspaper and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Second, a detailed case study was undertaken of the Stanley Park Community Garden, a joint project of the West End Residents’ Association and the Stanley Park Ecology Society. This case study included a review of Garden-related on-line Park Board documents and indepth interviews with various stakeholders involved in its creation. Information gathered on the precedents and case studies was organized into the following areas: ● Background and stakeholders ● Project development process ● Controversy and project outcome Areas of controversy identified by the general public in the research were organized by how commonly they occurred in the three processes – from most common to least common. They were then discussed in terms of how the controversy was managed. Parallels were drawn between the precedents and the case study, and the following controversial themes emerged: ● Consultation ● Change ● Noise ● Traffic and parking ● Private use of public space ● Loss of green space ● Design and appearance ● Attitude ● Dust and illegal activities ● Undocumented concerns Overall, the causes of controversy can be grouped into two broad categories – process issues and liveability impacts. There are a number of steps the Park Board could take to address these issues and increase dialogue in future planning processes. Issues that could be addressed to improve process concerns and liveability impacts are: ● Proactive communication ● Use of precedents ● Facilitating partnerships, education, and stewardship ● Better record keeping ● Good neighbour agreements In conclusion, this study examined the causes of controversy in three projects proposed for Vancouver’s parks, and how well that controversy was managed. In two of the three cases the controversy was addressed sufficiently that the projects were approved, and are now open and actively used. In the third case, the controversy proved insurmountable. It is hoped that this study will give the Park Board a clearer understanding of the controversies inherent in managing change, and the role of constructive dialogue when introducing new recreation activities to Vancouver’s parks.
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 | 0,014 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,030 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».