Land Use Policy Frameworks in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand: Examining the Opportunities and Barriers of Indigenous-Led Conservation and Protected Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples throughout the world have been displaced from their ancestral territories through colonial land use management. Indigenous Peoples have pushed settler-colonial governments to shift their policy frameworks to better support Indigenous rights and leadership across land management, but particularly in conservation. In Canada, this has recently involved the development of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas. Combined with pressure from international organizations, Canada’s Federal Government has dedicated substantial funds to support the establishment of these areas and to achieve conservation and reconciliatory goals. In Aotearoa New Zealand, Māori groups have shaped new legislation that recognizes legal personality status for natural features, which contrasts with Western understandings of land ownership. Indigenous-led conservation in Canada faces many interrelated barriers grounded in colonial histories that complicate land jurisdictions, reconciliation, and protected area networks. This research reveals some of this complexity by examining how Indigenous-led conservation can contribute to more equitable and consensus-based decision-making frameworks in land use management. Policy and legal analyses of Canadian, Aotearoa New Zealand, and international conservation and human rights documents inform our results. We affirm that Indigenous-led conservation can foster relationships between Indigenous Nations and Crown governments. They can also provide steps towards reconciling colonial injustices, supporting Indigenous self-determination, and advancing more sustainable land use systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".