Interplay and Cooperation in Environmental Conservation: Building Capacity and Responsive Institutions Within and Beyond the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although protected areas (PAs) have become pivotal components in the pursuit of environmental sustainability, they have had mixed success in achieving environmental goals, in part due to internal factors such as governance design and insufficient ability to operate within, and connect to, wider social, economic, and institutional frameworks. A growing body of scholarship reveals that there are fundamental mismatches between rhetoric and practice in state-driven “participatory” conservation, and that state–community cooperation is extremely challenging. This study draws on data from qualitative research on institutions and interactions in conservation planning and management to examine factors influencing collaboration between Parks Canada and Nuu-chah-nulth communities adjacent to the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. We consider the evolution of policies, institutional arrangements, state-community interactions, and socio-cultural and legal frameworks within which state-led conservation takes place to assess progress in multilevel cooperation. We found that despite differences in degrees of authority and decision-making power, and a land tenure framework that favors the state, there is a shift from domination toward negotiation in the interplay between the federal government and grassroots actors. That shift is linked to the recognition of First Nations’ ancestral tenure and custodianship, and the particularities of grassroots and state leadership. The findings suggest significant progress in sustaining the PA as a multilevel effort, and that cooperation in conservation helps all parties to build capacity for environmental stewardship beyond the PA and to fashion conservation institutions that are responsive to changing social–ecological conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".