MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407739443 · doi:10.1016/j.geosus.2025.100280

Evaluating the climate change robustness of Canadian protected area management plans

2025· article· en· W4407739443 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Barr, Christopher J. Lemieux, Jen Hoesen, Brooklyn Rushton, Pamela Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography and sustainability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Climate changeEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Climate change is increasingly affecting all aspects of protected area management. • How climate change is considered in protected area management plans in Canada is assessed. • Climate change is poorly integrated in protected area management plans. • Climate change needs to be integrated across protected area management planning processes. • Scenario planning should be used to support protected area management planning processes. Climate change is increasingly affecting all aspects of protected areas management from changes of species ranges to visitor experiences. Due to these impacts, there is a need for managers to take more robust approaches to considering the implications of climate change on the overall application and efficacy of protected areas management direction, including the achievement of the goals and objectives contained within management plans. Through a systematic and comprehensive content analysis approach, this study assesses the current extent to which climate change is considered in Canadian protected area management plans. Specifically, we evaluated 63 terrestrial protected area management plans against a set of climate robustness principles. Our content analysis revealed that climate change is currently not effectively factored into Canadian protected area management plans with an average climate robustness score of 18 %. Climate robustness score was not found to be correlated with protected area size, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) management classification, or jurisdictional authority. Certain climate robustness principles received higher scores across the management plans than others. For example, the principles of ‘diverse knowledge sources’ and ‘addresses climate change’ scored relatively highly whereas ‘climate change vulnerability’ and ‘ecosystem integrity’ received the lowest scores. The lack of integration of ecological integrity considerations in management plans was a particularly noteworthy deficiency considering that this guiding principle is the primary legislative objective of many national and sub-national protected areas in Canada. From this assessment, climate change needs to be more effectively and consistently integrated into protected area management plan development and coordinated across associated planning processes. We discuss the ways in which this can be achieved, for example, by integrating scenario planning into organizational management plan development processes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeography and sustainabilitySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207