Institutional requirements for watershed cumulative effects assessment in the south Saskatchewan watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Watersheds in Canada are under increasing threats due to the cumulative environmental effects from natural and anthropogenic sources. Cumulative effect assessment (CEA), however, if done at all is typically done on a project-by-project basis. This project-based approach to CEA is not sufficient to address the cumulative effects of multiple stressors in a watershed or a region. As a result, there is now a general consensus that CEA must extend from the project to the more regional scale. The problem, however, is that while the science of how to do watershed CEA (W-CEA) is progressing, the appropriate institutional arrangements to sustain W-CEA have not been addressed. Based on a case study of the South Saskatchewan Watershed (SSW), this research is aimed to identify the institutional requirements necessary to support and sustain W-CEA. The research methods include document reviews and semi-structured interviews with regulators, administrators, watershed coordinators, practitioners, and academics knowledgeable on cumulative effect assessment and project-based environmental assessments (EAs). The findings from this research are presented thematically. First, participants’ perspectives on cumulative effects, the current state of CEA practice, and general challenges to project-based approaches to CEA are presented. The concept of WCEA is then examined, with a discussion on the need for linking project-based CEA and W-CEA. This is followed by the institutional requirements for W-CEA. The Chapter concludes with foreseeable challenges to implementing W-CEA, as identified by research participants. The key findings include that cumulative effect assessments under project-based EAs are rarely undertaken in the SSW, and the project-based EA approach is faced with considerable challenges. The project-based EA challenges suggested by interview participants are similar to the ones discussed in the literature, and are primarily related to the lack of guidance to proponents regarding boundaries of assessments and thresholds, the lack of data from other project EAs, and the lack of capacity of both proponents and regulators to achieve a good CEA under project EA. These challenges could be addressed by establishing regional objectives at a broader scale, which could provide better context to project-based approaches. Further, interview results revealed several opportunities for the government to take the lead in implementing and sustaining W-CEA, but a multistakeholder approach is essential to W-CEA success. The results also suggest that the establishments of thresholds and data management are necessary components of W-CEA, but that the need for legislation concerning such thresholds and W-CEA initiatives is not agreed upon. At the same time, research results emphasize that the coordination and education among various stakeholders will be difficult to achieve. The lack of financial commitment, political will, and difficulties in establishing cause-effect relationships currently impede the implementation of W-CEA.
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 | 0.078 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".