Assessing Stakeholder Participation in Sub-Arctic Co-Management: Administrative Rulemaking and Private Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that participatory governance initiatives like co-management can be made effective through agency rulemaking. Using the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board as a case study, this paper affirms that it is possible for marginalized stakeholders to participate in co-management and alter decision-making. By using its formal authority to generate rules that reflect community perspectives, this board contextualized environmental assessment in community-based perspectives. The study of participation presented here illustrates: 1) that a high level of agency support for community participation in rule-making can lead to rules which reflect community perspectives; and 2) that agency implementation of community perspectives has led to the increased use of stakeholder collaboration through private agreement. Nonetheless, the paper also addresses limitations on the ability to translate social needs into privately negotiated agreements where negotiations depart from highly commoditized terms. Consequently, this paper questions the use of negotiated agreements to meet the goals of stakeholder participation, as conceived by deliberative democratic strands of new governance. Dans cet article, l’auteure soutient que le pouvoir de règlementation d’un organisme peut rendre plus efficace de nouvelles initiatives en matière de gouvernance telles que la cogestion. Prenant l’Office d’examen des répercussions environnementales de la vallée du Mackenzie comme exemple, elle affirme que des parties prenantes marginalisées ont la possibilité de participer à de nouvelles modalités de gouvernance comme la cogestion et d’influer sur la prise de décision. En exerçant son pouvoir d’adopter des règles inspirées des valeurs communautaires, l’Office a procédé à une évaluation environnementale en tenant compte du contexte communautaire. L’étude de participation présentée ici démontre: 1) que, lorsqu’un organisme appuie fortement la participation de la collectivité à l’élaboration des règles, les règles adoptées peuvent davantage refléter les valeurs communautaires; et 2) que l’adhésion de l’organisme aux valeurs communautaires favorise une plus grande collaboration entre les parties prenantes, grâce à la conclusion d’ententes privées. Quoi qu’il en soit, l’article révèle également que la capacité d’exprimer des besoins sociaux dans des ententes privées négociées est limitée. Lorsque les négociations dévient des termes hautement standardisés et tentent d’inclure différentes valeurs communautaires, la participation des parties prenantes est restreinte. L’article remet par conséquent en question l’utilisation d’ententes négociées pour atteindre les buts fixés en matière de participation des parties prenantes, telle que les conçoivent les courants de pensée s’appuyant sur la démocratie délibérative au regard de la nouvelle gouvernance
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 | 0.101 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".