Engagement from the Community Perspective: Understanding the Role Community Associations Play in Planning and Development in Calgary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Change, through urban planning, is inevitable and necessary because it responds to growth, community needs, and the ever-changing economy. To steer change, planning projects benefit when effective community engagement programs are applied. Community associations have long been advocating on behalf of their communities, however the level of influence they have on decision-making is unclear in part to their level of authority being unclear. Interviews helped answer two connected research questions. The first question focuses on community associations by asking: What is the role community associations play when an urban planning project is proposed within their community? The second question focuses on authority: Should the level of engagement vary based on the level of impact the planning project may have on the community, as identified by the community association? Community voices from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, shared their experiences with engagement on planning and development projects. Three overarching themes emerged through inductive and deductive analysis of the interview data: constraints community associations experience with community engagement; opportunities of community engagement; and frustrations felt by community associations in regard to community engagement opportunities. The study results suggest that community associations are limited to instill change through engagement, despite their perceived role. Based on the research data, three recommendations to support community associations are proposed: extending timelines and enforcing engagement on complex planning projects, redefining the role of a community association, and developing community engagement profiles. The impact of these recommendations presents three opportunities to evolve community engagement in planning at a community level.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".