Sustainable Tourism: A Hope or a Necessity? The Case of Tofino, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With many communities now dependent on tourism for their economic livelihood, long-term sustainability through a local, multi-stakeholder process is becoming key for destination management. Tofino, which was originally a remote, fishing village, has repositioned itself as an international tourism destination. Home to approximately 1,655 full-time residents, the town now attracts over 750,000 tourists per year. With the contentious Clayoquot Sound Land Use Decision in 1995 that aimed to disrupt the logging industry, this saw the beginning of a major increase in tourism demand in the area. Businesses developed focusing on adventure and ecotourism and restaurants, coffee shops, retail opportunities and accommodations are now plentiful. Although tourism has brought many benefits, challenges such as infrastructure, resource management, cost of living and social issues have now come to the forefront. The purpose of this research, therefore, was to assess different stakeholders in Tofino to understand impacts of tourism development in Tofino as well as to identify possible solutions for long-term sustainable development through a multi-stakeholder assessment. Research was conducted with 38 key stakeholders in the summer of 2009 to help the community understand key issues facing their future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".