The Influence of Stakeholder Values on the Acceptance of Water Reallocation Policy in Southern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, a great deal of water has been allocated to the agricultural sector in Alberta to support economic development and to contribute to food security. However, demand from other areas has increased in recent years, notably from the environment. Meeting new demands while still satisfying existing users has become a significant challenge. The combination of increased water use efficiency and productivity combined with reallocating water from agriculture to other sectors has emerged globally as a solution to this challenge. Thus, new policies regarding water reallocation need to be developed. Designing policies that are acceptable to the various stakeholders involved poses a considerable challenge. The values held by individuals determine how they will react to new public policies. Hence, to support effective policy making, a better understanding of how the non-irrigator population perceives water reallocation issues is necessary. Using mail-out surveys to collect data from the populations of Lethbridge, Alberta, and the surrounding smaller communities, this research aimed to identify the values regarding water allocation held by domestic, non-irrigator water users, and to determine how these values influence their acceptance of water allocation policies. Findings from the survey reveal how non-irrigators’ values influence their opinion of water transfers from the irrigation sector to the urban and environment sectors, and the conditions under which they should take place. A pro-environment value orientation was most prominent amongst the urban sample, while the rural sample was mainly moderate in their value orientation. The large moderate value cluster within the rural sample represented both pro-economic and pro-environment values depending on the focus of the survey item. Statements that would affect the community (irrigation sector) were met with pro-economic values while statements that involved making a personal sacrifice in order to protect the aquatic environment were strongly supported. Value orientation was found to greatly influence the respondents’ perception of water reallocation policy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".