Income Inequality, Distributive Justice, and Sustainable Development: Implications for Niagara Peninsula Aspiring Global Geopark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising inequalities across the world, including in Canada, present a challenge to achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Under the auspices of UNESCO, supporting the implementation of SDGs is one of the main missions of geoparks. It has been shown that geoparks can foster the implementation of SDG 10 (reducing inequalities), but there is a dearth of studies specifically exploring the means and channels through which a geopark can help reduce income inequality. This study aims to fill that gap by exploring income inequality in the Niagara region through the lens of distributive justice with a focus on the role of Niagara Peninsula Aspiring Global Geopark (NPAGG) in reducing income inequality in Niagara. This study employs a qualitative research approach to collect data via 16 semi-structured interviews with the NPAGG board of directors, people who are advocating for poverty alleviation and reduction of inequalities in Niagara, and local tourism-related business owners. Thematic analysis was conducted on the collected data to explore the role of the NPAGG in addressing income inequality in the Niagara region. All the participants agreed that the income inequality in Niagara is unfair and needs to be addressed. The results of the thematic analysis show that in the pursuit of more equitable distribution in Niagara, the NPAGG can present economic benefits – with a direct yet incremental impact on income inequality – and societal benefits – with indirect yet necessary implications for addressing income inequality. There are two main limiting factors identified for the NPAGG’s role in battling income disparities: 1) it is not the primary objective of the NPAGG, and 2) the problem of income inequality is much bigger than the NPAGG. Moreover, inflation, negative environmental impacts, and dependence on tourism were identified as minor risks associated with the NPAGG development. Although the findings of this study may not be generalized to other geoparks around the world, they offer understanding of what to expect from geoparks in addressing income disparities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".