Indigenous perspectives on ecotourism development: a British Columbia case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to examine Gitga'at First Nation approaches and objectives concerning the use of local biological and cultural resources through the lens of a locally‐driven proposal to establish an eco‐cultural tourism enterprise. Design/methodology/approach This project was developed in collaboration with the Gitga'at First Nation and employed a qualitative case study approach. Primary data gathering techniques were active participation, semi‐structured interviews, focus group discussions and work with key informants. Findings Participant responses highlight the interconnectivity and importance of social, ecological and cultural integrity in local economic development. Three major principles for resource use were widely expressed: control and management by Gitga'at; equitable distribution of any benefits; and the imperative of environmental and cultural sustainability. Research limitations/implications Gitga'at band members living within the Gitga'at traditional territory played a central part in this research. Future work could include non‐resident band members. Furthermore, if the Gitga'at decide to move forward with this proposal, further research could examine how the resource use principles discussed here may be applied. Practical implications This research provided a forum to explicitly identify research participants' hopes and concerns surrounding eco‐cultural tourism and the possible outcomes of this potential project. Social implications This research may be beneficial to other communities interested in eco‐cultural tourism development or other development activities dependent on local resources use. Originality/value Although essential to creating economic opportunities that reflect local goals and interests, socio‐cultural dimensions are often overlooked in local economic development. This research explicitly sought to unpack these domains.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".