Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacific Coast: Engagement and communication with stakeholders and the public
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a governance approach to managing the multitude of pressures currently being exerted on marine ecosystems. A key component to this approach is acknowledgement that stakeholder engagement is essential for success. During the planning phase of the Marine Plan Partnership (MaPP) initiative, the Partners (the B.C. provincial and 18 First Nations governments) employed, what was termed, an advisory approach to engagement. This advisory approach committed the Partners to engage meaningfully with stakeholders and the public, consider their feedback, work towards balanced solutions, and incorporate what was found to be agreeable. However, it did not require a consensus among participants in order for advice to be accepted or acted upon. Planning occurred over a three-year period in four sub-regions encompassing 102,000 square kilometers of coastal and marine waters on the North Pacific Coast of Canada. Engagement spanned more than 10 sectors of special interest and 22 coastal communities throughout the planning area and included interested members of the general public. Upon plan completion, there was broad stakeholder support for the final sub-regional plans and the Regional Action Framework. The purpose of this paper is to describe from the MaPP governance partners’ perspective, the components of the MaPP advisory-based stakeholder engagement policy and key lessons learned about the factors contributing to the success of its approach. The paper draws upon analysis of MaPP Partner discussions and reflections during and after the planning process, and includes the results of an internal evaluation of stakeholder engagement by independent consultants who surveyed the MaPP team, stakeholders, and the public.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".