Project Management and Community Participation within Small Island States: An Examination of Stakeholder Engagement in Belize in an Era of the Sustainable Development Goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to understand how Local Community Development and Conservation Organisations manage their relationship with their key stakeholders, which in the context of our paper are the donors, local partner communities and the government. The study ascertains how organisations pursue the quest to achieve their goals/mission, in an era of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by using the stakeholder accountability framework. The paper further examines how Local NGOs manage the relationship between such missions and project implementation and whether they reflect stakeholder needs and expectation. The authors use qualitative methodologies involving interviews, focus group discussions/meetings and participants’ observations to address the research objectives and questions. The study observes some (dis)connection between community participation in projects that are being implemented, organisational goals and local needs. The study further reveals that there is a potential disconnect between organisation mission and the pursuit of participatory sustainable development. The study underscores the fact that effective stakeholder participation is critical for achieving local sustainable development targets. The authors conclude that upward accountability to donors and governments seems to be a stronger incentive for Local NGOs compared to downward accountability. We argue that such patterns must to be addressed to ensure the attainment of the critical local targets of the Sustainable Development Goals. The paper recommends the need to formalise both downward and inward accountability mechanisms in order to ensure that community development values are being integrated into project implementation that are aimed at addressing local development needs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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".