Police power and fettered freedom: regulating coastal freedom camping in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freedom camping is a form of tourism entailing overnight stays in public open spaces, rather than formal campgrounds. It presents varied challenges for local governments charged with maintaining safe and orderly public spaces. This article provides empirical and conceptual insights into the regulation of coastal freedom camping in New Zealand, drawing on the notion of police power. This form of law is centrally concerned with preventing disruption and disorder in public space, and seeks to advance collective welfare rather than individual rights. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we consider why and how local governments in New Zealand regulate coastal freedom camping, focusing on a case study of the Coromandel district. Second, we consider how freedom campers understand and experience the regulation of their activities, drawing on a survey of 61 campers in three North Island coastal areas. We find that the policing of freedom camping proceeds through regulation of space, objects and behaviours. Underpinning this approach is an understanding of the activity as inherently problematic. Freedom campers themselves were generally aware of local regulations, but had little experience of enforcement. Most sought to perform camping responsibly, whilst noting that some others required policing.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".