MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601041739

The potential for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) affiliated with BC's Protected Area System

2010· dissertation· en· W1601041739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Rozwadowska

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural resource managementGeographyNatural resourceLivelihoodProtected areaResource management (computing)Environmental resource managementResource (disambiguation)Environmental planningAgriculturePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) related to protected areas (PAs) originated in the 1980’s in Zimbabwe, Africa, in the buffer zone communities of Africa’s National Parks. CBNRM attempted to address the problems associated with colonial, protectionist style ‘fence and guns’ conservation management approaches, which excluded resource-based communities from conservation areas. CBNRM attempts to meet the biodiversity conservation objectives of conservation areas, and the sustainable development and livelihood objectives of neighbouring communities. While CBNRM initiatives have been well documented internationally over the past decades, little is known about the status of CBNRM within Canada. In order to bridge this knowledge gap and to link trends in conservation and protected areas management internationally to Canada and to British Columbia (BC), this thesis examines the potential for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) affiliated with BC's Protected Area System. “Potential” is determined by comparing the situation in BC to the international CBNRM experience. The study draws on a sample of Conservancies from the categories of the BC Protected Area (PA) System, focusing particularly on the nine Sea-to-Sky Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Area Conservancies and neighbouring First Nations communities: Squamish, L’il’wat and In-SHUCK-ch. Information has been obtained through interviews (guided by semi-structured questionnaires) conducted with BC government informants and First Nations representatives, supplemented by key documents. The questionnaire examined the potential for CBNRM according to a.) the community's perspective: potential (costs and) benefits of the protected area, including goods and services, cultural and social benefits and sustainable economic development opportunities provided by the protected area; and benefits of community involvement in natural resource management and protected area governance; and b.) the conservation perspective: benefits through community cooperation in biodiversity conservation within the targeted protected area. Other factors that have been identified through the international experience to affect CBNRM initiatives, such as use regulation; tenure; policies and legislation; awareness of and support for the protected area; and community capacity were thoroughly examined across all sources of information. This study finds that there is potential for CBNRM affiliated with the BC PA system in protected area designations such as ‘Conservancies’. Potential relates to the role of CBNRM in biodiversity conservation, meeting the aspirations of BC’s First Nations communities, and in recognizing First Nations as legitimate stakeholders in protected areas and conservation management. As in the international experience, numerous social, political, economic and other factors present opportunities and challenges to the adoption of CBNRM in BC. This thesis concludes with key recommendations for protected areas and conservation management in BC and Canada and identifies opportunities to further explore key topic areas that arose from the research findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207