Last resort: the promise and problem of tourism in rural Atlantic Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines community attitudes toward tourism as a rural economic development strategy in four small towns in rural regions of the Atlantic Provinces. We view rural tourism through a political economy lens, asking: by what relations of power and historical precedents do communities find themselves with tourism as the best or most obvious local development option? Whose interests are served, and in what ways, when tourism is used to bring economic activity to rural communities? Does tourism bring local communities more or less control over their economic affairs? We find that rural residents’ views toward tourism contain three themes: first, the key to unlocking tourism potential is simply to “market the place,” inclusive of its natural beauty, lifestyle and friendly people, to tourists elsewhere. Secondly, research participants emphasized the centrality of volunteers—and their dwindling numbers and energies—to extant tourism efforts, signalling that the current mode of tourism development is unsustainable, and casting doubt on tourism’s job promises. Finally, tourism is understood not as the best choice, but as the last resort for communities where primary industry is believed to be dead and impossible to revive. We conclude by connecting these community views back into the political economy framework outlined at the beginning, in an effort to understand the historical and socio-political contingencies that bring rural communities to a place where investing in tourism seems to be the best way forward. Keywords: tourism, sustainable rural development, Maritimes, Atlantic Canada, political economy
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".