Indigenous Participation in Clean Energy Activities in Canada: Passive Participation or ‘Community Energy’?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The trend toward bottom-up energy action through community clean energy projects has important implications for climate change mitigation in both non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities. As a result of a literature review, this paper defines “community energy” as activities – including initiatives with a variety of functions such as generation, retail, distribution and demand – that involve a high degree of community participation, ownership and control, where collective benefits are shared throughout the community (Hoicka and MacArthur, 2018, pp. 6). Many clean energy projects involving Indigenous participation exist in Canada with various forms of ownership and structures (Indigenous Clean Energy Social Enterprise, 2019; Hoicka and MacArthur, 2018) and it is likely, that those projects that meet the threshold of CE will make the best vehicles for reconciliation because the principles of CE and reconciliation align. This paper uses two secondary datasets by Indigenous Clean Energy Social Enterprise (2019) and Hoicka and MacArthur (2018) (the latter has been updated in the present study) to explore the Indigenous models of ownership and control of clean energy projects that exist in Canada and their potential link to reconciliation. This is believed to be a complete dataset of >1MW clean energy projects in Canada with Indigenous participation. It also parallels the models present in Indigenous communities with non-Indigenous communities. Additionally, the paper explores the aforementioned two datasets on clean energy projects involving Indigenous participation and a third secondary dataset by Wyse and Hoicka (2019), which is focused on local energy plans, along with some primary data to analyze the number and location of both projects and plans, the Indigenous groups (First Nations, Inuit and Métis) involved as well as their corresponding community types (off-grid/remote vs. grid-connected). A total of 198 active clean energy projects in Canada with Indigenous participation and 167 Local Energy Plans for Indigenous communities were identified. The majority of the Indigenous communities involved with both projects and plans were First Nations, grid-connected communities, with few Inuit and mixed Indigenous communities, and 0 Métis communities. For the projects, forms of ownership and control and corresponding structures are difficult to determine without significant additional research and analysis. The majority of the projects explored in this study are partnerships between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous corporations, and there is a small number (6) that are fully Indigenous government-owned. Additionally, 1 energy co-operative was identified. The structures of these partnerships are largely unknown as this information was only available for 25 out of 198 projects in the datasets, but it is clear that structures can vary from majority Indigenous-ownership or 50/50 joint ventures, to minority Indigenous-ownership, for example. The inclusion or exclusion of all major Indigenous groups in Canada along with whether clean energy projects involving Indigenous communities reaches the off-grid, diesel-dependent communities that need it most also has important implications for reconciliation.
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) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».