The politicization of protected areas establishment in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental issues and related policy instruments are becoming increasingly politicized in the Canadian context, but it is unclear whether biodiversity conservation and protected areas are similarly politicized. Here, we suggest that the political characteristics of protected areas do not lend themselves easily to politicization, but data from the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database indicate that at the federal level, and provincially in Alberta, the rate of protected areas establishment is becoming increasingly tied to electoral politics, suggesting some politicization. We situate these trends within federal electoral politics between 2006 and the present, outlining the differing approaches of the Harper Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals and showing how both administrations instrumentalized the environment and protected areas for their own electoral benefits. We find similar trends in Alberta with the Progressive Conservative, New Democratic Party, and United Conservative Party governments. However, while there is increasing polarization in practice, there has been less polarization of the electoral rhetoric surrounding protected areas. This politicization represents a barrier to conservation in Canada as it can lead to greenwashing, poor accountability, or the creation of an anti-conservation constituency. At the same time, politicization can raise the profile of conservation in public discourse, leading to greater public interest and engagement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".