Questioning the credibility and capacity of community‐based resource management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews and critiques a potential innovation in resource and environmental management as a means of stimulating further research and refinement. Given the perceived limitations of top‐down, centralized management of natural resources, calls for the devolution of authority for local resources to local communities have increasingly been expressed. Proponents of community‐based resource management argue that, situating decision‐making closer to the place of resource use and subjecting decision‐makers to the repercussions of their decisions creates the potential for more flexible and prudent resource management. Further, by empowering communities to develop their own strategies for local economic development, greater community stability may be achieved. However, neither of these potentials will be realized if the credibility and capacity of communities are assumed rather than interrogated . These hypothesized contingent conditions of effective community‐based resource management are described and illustrated based on two examples in western Canada in which communities have been empowered to determine the use of local resources: the siting of a hazardous‐waste treatment facility near the town of Swan Hills, Alberta; and the development of the Community Forest Pilot Project in British Columbia. These examples raise a series of concerns and questions that suggest a need for further, in‐depth investigation. Ultimately, by identifying barriers to effective community‐based resource management, a more refined model of this potentially innovative approach can be fostered . Cette dissertation étudie et critique une innovation potentielle quant à la gestion de l’environnement et des ressources dans le but de stimuler des recherches plus approfondies et d’affiner les résultats. Étant donné les limitations perçues d’une gestion centralisée et descendante des ressources naturelles, on demande de plus en plus fréquemment que les collectivités locales soient responsables de la gestion des ressources locales. Les partisans d’une gestion des ressources par les collectivités avancent qu’en rapprochant la prise de décision du lieu d’utilisation des ressources et en soumettant les décideurs aux répercussions de leurs décisions, on favorise potentiellement une gestion plus souple et plus prudente des ressources. De plus, en habilitant les collectivités à déterminer leurs propres stratégies de développement économique local, une plus grande stabilité des collectivités est possible. Toutefois, ni l’un ni l’autre de ces potentiels ne seront réalisés si l’on admet sans les mettre en question la crédibilité et la capacité de gestion de ces collectivités . Ces conditions contingentes d’une gestion efficace des ressources par les collectivités sont décrites et illustrées par deux exemples provenant de l’Ouest du Canada, où les communautés ont toute discrétion quant à l’utilisation des ressources locales : l’implantation d’un centre de traitement des déchets dangereux près de la ville de Swan Hills, dans l’Alberta, et l’exécution du Community Forest Pilot Project (projet pilote de forêt domaniale) en Colombie britannique. Ces exemples soulèvent une série de questions et de préoccupations qui suggèrent le besoin de nouvelles recherches plus approfondies. En fin de compte, en identifiant ce qui s’oppose à une gestion efficace des ressources par les collectivités, on pourra stimuler l’élaboration d’un modèle plus perfectionné de cette démarche potentiellement innovante.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it