The enforceability of conservation easement agreements in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conservation easement agreements may be granted by landowners for the purpose of conserving, protecting and enhancing the environment including biological diversity, natural scenic and esthetic values on privately owned land as authorized by clauses 22(2)(a)(b) and (c) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. The goal of this thesis is to analyze whether conservation easements registered on the certificates of title to land in Alberta will be enforceable against the original grantors and subsequent owners of the land. Some of the purposes of the conservation easement agreements collected may not fall within the statutory purposes. An analysis of the terms of the conservation easements collected shows that there are restrictions on the uses of land; however, there are exemptions to those restrictions. Some essential terms in the restrictions and exemptions are undefined and may be void for uncertainty. Because conservation easements are similar to restrictive covenants they may be strictly construed. Challenges to the enforceability of conservation easement agreements may be reduced by including provisions that deal with third party impacts including resource development and access easements, interpretation, severability, amendment, modification, baseline reports, and general restructions and residual rights. There may be remedies, such as severance and modification pursuant to subsection 48( 4) of the Land Titles Act or clauses 22(7)( a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and amendment by agreement which a court might use to save an otherwise unenforceable conservation easement agreement. There are dispute resolution mechanisms including arbitration available to the parties to reduce the time, effort and expense of resolving disputes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".