Institutional theory - Assessing longitudinal change towards sustainability in Tofino, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainability efforts are often examined at a firm or organizational level, however, examining multiple organizations under a broader destination level provides insight into how organizations interact within an institutional field. Undertaking a qualitative approach of multi-stakeholder interviews and content analysis, this study used institutional theory to determine which pressures have affected the move toward sustainability in Tofino, Canada. Findings show that coercive pressures have mainly forwarded movements toward sustainability. Mimetic and normative behaviours also affect change, and often, one isomorphic pressure affects another. Although there are still issues in the destination, the findings from this research provide many practical examples for other destinations to duplicate to achieve more sustainable development, which benefits all stakeholders and addresses the broader issue of equity, inclusion, conservation and planning. • Mimetic, coercive and normative pressures that affect a destination are often interrelated and intertwined. • Institutional Theory is a useful framework to understanding isomorphic pressures for sustainable development at a destination level. • The understanding of what sustainability means has broadened to include environmental, social, equity, justice and economic issues. • The inclusion of indigenous and nonprofit sectors are imperative for tourism destination management. • Longitudinal exploration is beneficial in understanding how stakeholders interact and how pressures shift.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".