Local perspectives on marine ecotourism development in a water-insecure island region: the case of Bocas del Toro, Panama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a dimension of a blue economy, marine ecotourism should, in theory, not only increase economic viability and environmental sustainability but, most importantly, pursue socially equitable outcomes. In tropical and sub-tropical island regions, where substantial tourism development is often coupled with widespread strains on public infrastructure and services, including water access, there exists a need to better understand the expansion of this industry is felt at the community level; more importantly by individuals who are reliant on these infrastructures and services. Through a case study of the Bocas del Toro Archipelago, where water insecurity is becoming acute, we draw on and mobilize stories from local community members, alongside non-participant observations and document collection, to 1) document the experience of some community members with water insecurity and shortages, including how they perceive the roles played by the central government and marine ecotourism sector, and 2) examine how community members feel about how communities feel about policies and investment priorities of the central government regarding water insecurity, including the extent to which they view marine ecotourism development as undermining or promoting local needs. Our results underline the complex nature of marine ecotourism governance and infrastructure development outcomes in a resource-insecure island region, demonstrating that current issues are greatly impacted by historical and social underpinnings of neo-colonialism and systemic racism, misalignments of community vs. government development priorities, and eroded political trust, that shape local experiences with sustainable development and local residents’ perceptions of the ability of marine ecotourism to address issues of water insecurity. Moreover, while our focus is on the marine ecotourism industry, the significance of these findings contributes to a growing body of literature that places local experiences at the forefront of research into the implications of sustainable development in island regions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".