Sustainable development decision making in China's Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis presents a conceptual model to define the decision making system for sustainable development of Biosphere Reserves and an analytical framework for the evaluation of the system. The analytical framework contains six criteria with related indicators: ecological, economic, and social goals; implementation instruments and strategies; systems-oriented analytical decision support; interactive participatory organization; rational decision maker; and adaptive strategy. An empirical analysis was conducted to test the analytical framework and to evaluate the decision making system (structure and process) for the management of Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve. China has chosen the Biosphere Reserve concept for the management of its Nature Reserves in order to address ecological, economic, and social goals, in accordance with the concept of sustainable development. The research provides a description of the decision making system, including a classification of three decision making processes and a model of the institutional structures in place. Strengths and weaknesses of the system were identified for improved management. The evaluation determined that: (1) sustainable development goals are weak and not integrated, even though the regulations are strong and many targets are explicit; (2) there are many tools in China's Nature Reserve management that can be used to implement sustainable development concepts; (3) the reserve managers are developing a GIS analytical decision support and there is much information about the reserve, however, the ease of availability and use of these by decision makers is still questionable; (4) the consensus style of decision making for the reserve will benefit tremendously from efforts to better co-ordinate government groups and enhance the standing of participants; (5) decision makers, advisors, and villagers who participate in decision, making need better sharing of information, better training, and education and need to be better motivated to achieve all three sustainable development goals; and (6) there are no adaptive strategies in place. The analytical framework was found to be a valid tool for the evaluation of decision making systems for sustainable development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".