Governing sustainable coastal development: The promise and challenge of collaborative governance in Canadian coastal watersheds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past three centuries, the story of Canada's coasts has turned from one of resource abundance to depletion, and from the establishment of new settlements to declining populations, economies, and ways of life in many coastal communities. This article explores the potential of collaborative governance for rerouting coastal development onto a more sustainable path. A cross‐case analysis of three coastal watershed governance examples demonstrates that the primary outcomes of these efforts to date have been building governance capacity and slowing—rather than reversing—social‐ecological decline. Challenges include resistance and rigidity within existing policy systems, rivalries and differing perspectives among actors, and cultures that favour exploitation over stewardship and specialization over integration. Leadership and relationships are key factors in achieving sought after outcomes and overcoming resistance to new approaches. Culture and commitment to place can be significant enablers, often personified in a small number of instrumental leaders who link actors across and within multiple scales. Learning and adaptation, and willingness and capacity to share knowledge, resources, responsibilities, and accountability are required if collaborative governance models are to advance sustainable coastal development and foster significant change. Gouverner le développement durable du littoral : promesses et défis de la gouvernance collaborative dans les bassins hydrographiques côtiers canadiens L'histoire du littoral canadien a changé de perspective au cours des trois derniers siècles : allant de l'abondance des ressources à l’épuisement, et de l’établissement de nouvelles colonies au déclin des populations, des conditions économiques et des modes de vie dans de nombreuses communautés côtières. L'objet de cet article est de poursuivre une exploration du potentiel de la gouvernance collaborative pour remettre le développement côtier sur une voie durable. Une analyse croisée de trois exemples de gouvernance côtière de bassins hydrographiques montre que les efforts déployés jusqu'à ce jour ont permis de renforcer la capacité de gouvernance et de freiner – plutôt que d'inverser – le déclin social et écologique. Les défis à relever incluent la résistance et la rigidité propres aux systèmes politiques actuels, les rivalités et les points de vue divergents entre acteurs, et les cultures axées sur l'exploitation plutôt que l'intendance et sur la spécialisation plutôt que l'intégration. Le leadership et le réseautage constituent des éléments essentiels pour atteindre les résultats escomptés et surmonter la résistance face aux nouvelles approches. La culture et l'attachement local peuvent servir de catalyseurs importants souvent incarnés par un groupe restreint de meneurs qui nouent des relations entre acteurs sur de multiples échelles d'intervention. Autant l'apprentissage et l'adaptation que la volonté et la capacité de partager les connaissances, les ressources, les responsabilités et la reddition de comptes sont nécessaires afin que les modèles de gouvernance collaborative puissent promouvoir le développement durable des zones côtières et produire un changement en profondeur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".