Hegemonic and emerging concepts of conservation: a critical examination of barriers to incorporating Indigenous perspectives in protected area conservation policies and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The establishment of Canada’s protected areas mirrored their development throughout the New World, using an exclusionary model of conservation reflecting the hegemonic nature/culture dichotomy. There has been increasing criticism of the colonial and postcolonial impacts resulting from this exclusionary model: new concepts developed to better link Indigenous peoples and conservation lands (e.g. cultural landscapes, socio-ecological systems, resilience and bio-cultural conservation) have thus been developed. But the existing paradigms and dichotomies that buttress the exclusionary model – including a linear, static view of nature, a deep seated discourse equating human presence with ecosystem destruction, the concept of wilderness, differing concepts of recreation/work and the nature/culture split – have proved more difficult to supplant that anticipated, and have restricted progress in moving these new concepts from theory to practice. This paper reviews these concepts and barriers and buttresses these theoretical critiques with practical insights from a study in a co-managed park in the Yukon Territory, Canada. The existing role of outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in protected areas is a particular focus in examining the barriers to developing new conservation discourses which allow for a more meaningful engagement from Indigenous peoples. A pyramid of potential changes is suggested to encourage future incremental change.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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".