The politics of coastal policy, planning and governance in Canada and Australia : business as usual, at a distance, or collaborative?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and Australia are countries with substantial coastal zones which provide significant economic, social and environmental benefits and opportunities. The coastal zones of Canada and Australia also share significant threats such as, pollution, loss of biodiversity, and climate change, while also facing different challenges that are unique to their particular contexts. Effective management of such zones therefore represents a considerable challenge because of the: complexity of biophysical processes; multiple threats faced; uncertainties associated with understandings of such processes and threats, and the multiple jurisdictions and stakeholder viewpoints as to how such environments should be managed. Further, coasts and the sustainability of coastal resources and ecosystems have been argued to represent 'wicked problems' such that their governability is called into question. Therefore drawing on recent experiences in coastal policy, planning and governance in Newfoundland, Canada, and Victoria, Australia, this paper assesses the adequacy of current approaches to coastal governance in the two jurisdictions. In doing so we draw on recent policy and governance literature to consider whether coastal policy, planning and governance in Newfoundland and Victoria, reflect a collaborative, neoliberal, or business as usual (ad hoc, top down) approach. Based on such an assessment we consider the prospects for more integrated coastal zone management in each jurisdiction, as well as broader implications for governance and the resilience of coastal systems. It is argued that while both jurisdictions would benefit from a more collaborative approach, the mechanisms for bringing about such an approach would vary and will not come easily in light of institutional and historic barriers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".