Farms or Freeways? Citizen Engagement and Municipal Governance in Edmonton's Food and Agriculture Strategy Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mid- to late 1990s, most provincial governments in Canada downloaded or devolved authority for land use planning to local levels of government. In Alberta, this shifted responsibility for the protection of farmland to municipalities. However, a strong oil and gas economy and rapid growth of Alberta's urban centers in recent decades has resulted in significant loss of prime farmland to urban and industrial development. In Edmonton, Alberta's capital city, citizens' concerns over food security and the protection of farmland within city boundaries shaped the 2010 municipal development plan, which links land use planning with food and agriculture, and also paved the way for an Edmonton agri-food strategy. In this exploratory case study we examine factors shaping Edmonton's food policy development and implementation, and the impact on prime farmland in the city's outer limits. Despite progressive changes in policy due to strong citizen support, municipal council's approval of a food and agriculture strategy lacking hard targets subsequently set the stage for continued urban sprawl and loss of prime farmland. This study illuminates the conflicts between citizens' demand for sustainable urban food systems and the development narrative still prevalent in many North American cities. We conclude the paper by discussing the key levers required to ensure the transformational context required to institute holistic food system strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".