Exploring Institutions, Governance and Collaboration for Regional Integration of Protected Areas in Québec
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract\nThe concept of protected areas (PAs) has undergone important changes. The goals and purposes of PAs are to conserve animal and plant species, landscapes and ecological processes and to provide for outdoor recreation opportunities. PA management approaches have also undergone important changes. The once widely accepted doctrines of top-down management have been replaced by management models that include a diversity of actors. In some instances, actors are now sharing governing responsibilities with state representatives while in other instances central government has transferred rights, responsibilities and authority to lower levels of government and non-state actors for the planning and management of PAs.\nIt is generally accepted that PAs should not be viewed as separate entities or ‘islands’ within their region. PAs are connected to their region through ecological processes, social interactions and economic activities. The process of regional integration is heavily influenced by contextual factors such as history, economy, governance and biophysical environments and individual actors’ ability to listen, respect others and compromise. In this study, regional integration is defined as a complex process that incorporates PA staff and regional actors through formal and informal institutional mechanisms in order to synchronize and address planning and management opportunities through the sharing of individual and shared goals.\nApproaches to PA management focus on understanding the institutions, both formal and informal, and governance processes that guide relationships between PAs and regional actors. These were examined with the goals to improve management practices and to contribute to the theory of regional integration of PAs. This qualitative study adopted a social constructivist epistemology, case study methodology and triangulated research methods (interviews, document analysis, participant observations and journaling). Three case studies located in the Province of Québec were selected: Mauricie Region, Saguenay Region, and Gaspésie Region. Additional site visits were also scheduled in Québec City and Montreal with large environmental non-government organizations and government officials. A total of 96 semi-structured interviews were completed with 99 actors from provincial and federal park and protected area agencies, provincial ministries, First Nations, resource industries, ENGOs and individual citizens.\nEach case study had both formal and informal institutions shaped by the regional contexts for integration and communication between PA staff and regional actors. The Mauricie region demonstrated a strong link between different regional actors in the PA planning process. Many participants indicated that there was almost no integration between the La Mauricie National Park and regional actors. The Gaspésie region had multiple perspectives regarding regional integration. Many participants indicated a positive shift regarding the way in which Forillon National Park staff interact with regional actors and attribute this to new mechanisms implemented by park staff to communicate with them. Gaspésie National Park faces challenges regarding information sharing and regional perspectives towards the park. The Saguenay region demonstrated positive long-standing regional integration mechanisms, mostly focused around the marine park, but participants also indicate a change for the better regarding the SEPAQ parks and the forestry industry.\nThe conceptual framework developed to conduct this study allowed for the examination and explanation of the complex process of regional integration. Regional integration for PAs changes over time and is heavily influenced by individual actors and contextual factors such as institutional histories. Regional integration requires both formal and informal institutions that are capable of operating simultaneously at different scales in order to provide or increase resilience and adaptability of management and planning exercises. Trust between actors is a pre-requisite for successful regional integration. Since most decision-making occurs through compromises between actors, trust building ensures that there are no perceived ulterior hidden motivations, allowing for a redistribution of decision making powers between actors. Successful regional integration requires that actors participate in decision-making processes from a strategic-level as this ensures that decisions regarding what should be done and how to proceed can properly be reached.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».