Examining the reintroduction of Indigenous cultivation and management practices in state-led parks and protected areas in BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In British Columbia, like many places in Canada and beyond, environmental agencies, organizations, and conservation practitioners are grappling with how to address Indigenous dispossession and decolonize conservation. One approach gaining traction is to initiate projects that partner with Indigenous communities to reintroduce cultivation and management practices within the boundaries of parks and protected areas. This research assesses if and how such initiatives may help state-led conservation to move beyond ‘fortress conservation’ in the province. Specifically, it examines the institutional and budgetary structures of Parks Canada and BC Parks and explores how they shape the planning, implementation, and outcomes of actual projects that reintroduce Indigenous cultivation and management practices inside state-led protected areas. Data includes key informant interviews with Parks Canada and BC Parks staff, participant observation notes, and relevant legislation, policy, and public documents. Results show that several projects are underway in BC, most occurring within newer types of protected areas designations. Interviewees stated that these projects help their agencies meet ecological and social mandates and catalyze opportunities for Indigenous communities to utilize lands, waters, and resources within park boundaries. However, data and analysis also suggest that institutional policy, legislative, and budgetary structures are limiting the ongoing potential of projects. Structural changes at the highest level should be considered to institutionalize and adequately resource these practices as a formal mandate of state-led conservation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".