Balancing Tourism Development and Sustainability: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach in Tofino over 15 Years
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The narrow conceptualization of capitalism is increasingly challenged as destinations recognize the need to integrate equity and resilience into tourism development. Increasingly, destinations have been using tourism to move away from extractive industries and there is no shortage of literature outlining the need for a more inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach to ensure that sustainability is at the forefront of tourism development considerations. Whether destinations are actually moving towards the more sustainable development of tourism is not always evident and rarely are studies of destinations undertaken over time. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to examine qualitative research spanning 15 years using a multi-stakeholder approach to understand impacts, issues, and solutions relating to tourism development in Tofino, Canada. Tofino has achieved notable advancements in financial, natural, and social capital but continues to face gaps in addressing other dimensions of the Community Capitals Framework (CCF). Insights from this research to focus on social, human, and built capital earlier on in tourism planning and development may help other destinations who partially or fully depend on tourism for their livelihood. This paper addresses real-world tourism development challenges and encompasses multiple stakeholder views on sustainable development, socio-political responsibilities, governance, leadership, destination management, policies, and other practices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it