Provincial and Territorial Interests in Land Use Planning and Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land use planning in Canada is in the process of undergoing a radical shift as legislation, much of which dates from the 1980s or even the 1970s, is less and less able to cope with the increasing complexity of land use issues faced in every region of the country.Growing metropolitan regions, mechanization and intensification of farming practices and a growing concern over environmental issues have radically altered the context within which planning takes place.Concerns with water quality, particularly in light of the Walkerton tragedy, as well as the advent of Intensive Livestock Operations and rapidly expanding urban fringes are at the fore of land use issues facing planners in Canada today.hinterland.In other regions, such as the Prairies, intensive livestock operations present the greatest challenges at present.Without adequate planning, this relatively new form of large-scale livestock production has the potential to seriously compromise the environment and rural residents' quality of life.In many cases, current policy is recognized as being inadequate to accommodate this type of development, and provinces are moving rapidly to develop an appropriate policy response.Urban Areas: Many respondents, noting the difficulties in formulating uniform legislation that accommodates both small rural communities and large metropolitan areas, believe current policy statements do not adequately detail provincial interests in urban areas, particularly in large urban centres.Many fringe and ex-urban developments have been highlighted as major concerns, and often result in inter-municipal friction.Clearly, municipal jurisdictions alone cannot plan for metropolitan areas, and more regional approaches are required.A number of provinces have important regional governance structures in place around their major urban centres (i.e. the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and the new Montreal Metropolitan Community).However, there is no clear consensus as to the policies and roles provincial governments should adopt vis vis their largest cities.Many governments have indicated that strengthening urban planning policy is a priority, but few have a clear strategy of how to go about it.Environment: Environmental protection and "sustainable development" ranked high on the list of priorities in all jurisdictions.The issues ranged from sustainable resource management and improvement of air quality to the protection of ecologically sensitive areas such as coastal regions and habitat preserves, and sustainable management of parks and recreation areas.Many provinces and territories indicated a need to incorporate the concept of sustainability into their legislation, and that there was a need to better integrate land use planning and environmental protection.3 Municipalities were selected to represent a range in size, location, type and demographics.See appendix F for more detailed information.8 ObjectivesThe study on provincial and territorial interests in land use planning and development has three principal objectives: To identify the various policy approaches the provinces and territories have adopted, or are considering, to express and protect their interests in land use development; To evaluate the effectiveness of the different approaches; and To determine what lessons have been learned in the adoption and administration of land use policies in each jurisdiction that might be transferrable to other jurisdictions. MethodsResearch for this study involved three main components: a literature review of legislation and recent government documents, and other academic and non-academic documents; telephone and personal interviews with key informants at the provincial and territorial level; a written mail-out survey of select local governments across the country, including cities, municipalities, rural municipalities, counties and regional county municipalities. 3
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 | 0.000 | 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".