Implementing Integrated Water Resources Management: The Importance of Cross-Scale Considerations and Local Conditions in Ontario and Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Integrated water resources management (IWRM) is advocated by international and expert communities as the most viable approach to achieving sustainable freshwater management. Watersheds are often viewed as the preferred management units. There is increasing recognition, however, that socio-political and watershed boundaries do not coincide, and where they are used for management purposes, these boundaries are constructed through processes of political contestation. Key informants from various agencies and sectors associated with water resources management in Ontario (where watershed-based management has been in place for decades), Nova Scotia (currently developing a comprehensive water resources management strategy), and the Government of Canada were interviewed: to explore the links between IWRM and watershed management; barriers to IWRM; elements essential for IWRM to work effectively; the appropriate scale of watershed management units; and the degree of cross-scale interactions between agencies and stakeholders. Four main themes emerged around capacity, coordination and participation, scale of implementation, and education. To achieve IWRM, particular attention must be paid to existing local circumstances and resources, situated within formalized provincial and national frameworks. La gestion intégrée des ressources hydriques (GIRH) est préconisée par les communautés internationaux et expertes comme étant l'approche la plus viable pour atteindre la gestion soutenable de l'eau douce. Les bassins hydrographiques sont fréquemment considérés comme les unités de gestion favorisées. Mais il y a une augmentation de reconnaissance que les frontières sociopolitiques et hydrographiques ne coïncident pas, et là où employées pour la gestion, les frontières hydrographiques sont construites à travers des processus de contestation politique. Des informateurs principaux de divers agences et secteurs associés avec la gestion des ressources hydriques en Ontario (où la gestion basée sur les bassins hydrographiques est en place depuis des décennies), la Nouvelle-Écosse (développe actuellement une stratégie compréhensive pour la gestion des ressources hydriques), et le gouvernement du Canada ont été interviewés pour obtenir une compréhension : des liens entre la GIRH et la gestion des bassins hydrographiques; les obstacles à la GIRH, les éléments essentiels pour le fonctionnement efficace de la GIRH, l'échelle convenable pour la gestion par bassin hydrographique; et l'étendue des interactions entre les agences et les parties prenantes. Quatre thèmes principaux ont fait surface sur la capacité, la coordination et la participation, l'échelle de la mise en oeuvre, et l'éducation. Pour atteindre la GIRH, une attention particulière doit être portée sur les circonstances locales existantes et les ressources, situé parmi des cadres formels provinciaux et nationaux.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".