Evaluating Participative Capacity-building in Environmental Policy: Provincial Fish Protection and Parks Management in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For provincial fish protection and parks policy in British Columbia, the provincial government has recently experimented with the devolution of environmental management design through a range of participatory instruments. This paper examines this 'participative capacity-building' according to key criteria adopted by the provincial environmental bureaucracy. The corporate rationale for the use of participatory policy instruments is outlined, uncovering the shared causal assumptions of public agency officials about the linkages of these tools to general goals of procedural fairness and ecological competence. While the formative stage of the two environmental decision areas precludes any evaluation related to substantive policy outcomes, comparative findings on the appropriateness of the capacity-building are offered on the basis of internal staff appraisals and the views of key stakeholders. For parks management, the 1997-99 Park Legacy consultation process successfully adopted a variety of community-based participatory tools to discover shared values and interests on management issues. The process is widely acknowledged as having been inclusive, and its policy recommendations have reaffirmed the ecological role of provincial parks as well as endorsing the institutionalization of stakeholder participation in parks management. In the case of provincial fish protection, bureaucratic and political power-trading led to fragmented and skewed participative capacity-building. Negotiations on the critical regulatory area of streamside protection exposed key jurisdictional tensions between the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
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 | 0.030 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".