Alternative governance models for managing rapid growth: An exploration of how alternative governance models may help Albertan communities adapt to rapid growth
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many communities in Alberta face challenges with unpredictable patterns of rapid growth and subsequent downturn. This research paper examines whether a given governance model is better for adapting to rapid growth. The study was done using a case study approach. The paper looks at four case study areas: Grande Prairie, the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Edmonton and Calgary. Grande Prairie exemplifies the urban-rural segregation model. The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo illustrates the specialized municipality model. Edmonton is an example of the regional planning model. Calgary demonstrates the single-tier metropolitan model. The study focuses on three areas: the history of municipal boundary changes, land development patterns and tax base distribution. Most of the literature on the subject indicates that rapid growth can have a negative impact on a community ranging from increased crime rates to an inability to keep up with infrastructure demand. Several sources recommend using impact assessment models to predict the effects of rapid growth and using this as a basis for planning. However, the same sources warn that impact assessment models are flawed in numerous ways. Various sources hint at the potential of alternative governance models, but none explore this approach in depth. The examination of municipal boundary changes indicated that the specialized municipality is the most stable model. The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo has not had boundary change since the 1995 amalgamation; whereas Grande Prairie, Edmonton and Calgary have each had numerous boundary changes and attempted boundary changes. The analysis of land development patterns indicate that the specialized municipality system provided for a more concentrated pattern of development. In the Edmonton-Calgary comparison, Calgary's single-tier model was slightly more successful at containing urban development. However, Calgary continuously annexes land to accommodate its sprawl. The examination of tax base distribution indicated that the specialized municipality model had the most equal distribution. The specialized municipality model allows rural areas to share their large non-residential assessment bases with the associated urban areas. Calgary had an equal tax distribution, because it covered the metropolitan area, but it lacked a significant non-residential tax base. This is likely due to the incompatibility of large-scale industrial projects with densely populated urban areas. Overall, the study results indicate that the specialized municipality model has the most potential for improving a municipality's ability to manage rapid growth. The challenge is that the specialized municipality model would be difficult to apply to cities that are as large as Edmonton and Calgary. Encompassing the surrounding rural areas would create an excessively large municipality. The model is well suited to areas with smaller cities, such as Grande Prairie or Fort McMurray, that are surrounded by rural municipalities. This study provides a broad look at the potential of different governance models, but choosing the appropriate governance model for a region requires a focused study that considers its unique circumstances.
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 | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| 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 | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».