Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment in the south Saskatchewan watershed
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Watersheds in Canada are under increasing threats due to the cumulative environmental effects from natural and anthropogenic sources. Cumulative effect assessment (CEA), however, if done at all is typically done on a project-by-project basis. This project-based approach to CEA is not sufficient to address the cumulative effects of multiple stressors in a watershed or a region. As a result, there is now a general consensus that CEA must extend from the project to the more regional scale. The problem, however, is that while the science of how to do watershed CEA (W-CEA) is progressing, the appropriate institutional arrangements to sustain W-CEA have not been addressed. Based on a case study of the South Saskatchewan Watershed (SSW), this research is aimed to identify the institutional requirements necessary to support and sustain W-CEA. The research methods include document reviews and semi-structured interviews with regulators, administrators, watershed coordinators, practitioners, and academics knowledgeable on cumulative effect assessment and project-based environmental assessments (EAs). The findings from this research are presented thematically. First, participants’ perspectives on cumulative effects, the current state of CEA practice, and general challenges to project-based approaches to CEA are presented. The concept of WCEA is then examined, with a discussion on the need for linking project-based CEA and W-CEA. This is followed by the institutional requirements for W-CEA. The Chapter concludes with foreseeable challenges to implementing W-CEA, as identified by research participants. The key findings include that cumulative effect assessments under project-based EAs are rarely undertaken in the SSW, and the project-based EA approach is faced with considerable challenges. The project-based EA challenges suggested by interview participants are similar to the ones discussed in the literature, and are primarily related to the lack of guidance to proponents regarding boundaries of assessments and thresholds, the lack of data from other project EAs, and the lack of capacity of both proponents and regulators to achieve a good CEA under project EA. These challenges could be addressed by establishing regional objectives at a broader scale, which could provide better context to project-based approaches. Further, interview results revealed several opportunities for the government to take the lead in implementing and sustaining W-CEA, but a multistakeholder approach is essential to W-CEA success. The results also suggest that the establishments of thresholds and data management are necessary components of W-CEA, but that the need for legislation concerning such thresholds and W-CEA initiatives is not agreed upon. At the same time, research results emphasize that the coordination and education among various stakeholders will be difficult to achieve. The lack of financial commitment, political will, and difficulties in establishing cause-effect relationships currently impede the implementation of W-CEA.
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 | 0,078 | 0,100 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».