Music festivals in British Columbia: examining stakeholder relations to build effective partnerships and foster sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music festivals are increasing in both popularity and diversity around the globe, due at least in part to their economic potential. A well planned and marketed festival can be a driver of community tourism and business growth. They can also strengthen the artistic culture and provide attendees with a highly sought after and unique experience. However, festivals are also known for producing waste and pollution, causing rifts in communities, and commonly running deficits. Current literature on festivals outline environmental implications, the importance of providing benefits to all stakeholders, and the need to fulfill economic potentials. Yet environmental issues persist and many festivals are viewed as unsuccessful on multiple fronts. Presently there is a major gap in the research on sustainable practices of festivals in Canada, with a particularly scarcity in British Columbia. This research reviews existing practices of music festivals within British Columbia, draws comparisons to those covered in the literature and evaluates the barriers and drivers of environmentalism faced by festival management. The thesis also addresses issues of sustainability by exploring the relationships between stakeholders and festival management, and assessing the way they shape environmental decisions and foster strong partnerships. A community-based participatory framework guides the study, using qualitative research methods in the form of in-depth interviews and surveys at three separate festivals within the interior of BC. This research demonstrates that a thorough understanding of these relationships can lead to partnerships that will create attainable environmental, economic, and sustainability goals. With escalating international competition for resources and a growing need to protect our natural environment, it is even more important for events to have the support of all those directly and indirectly impacted. This research fills a significant gap in festival literature and makes sound recommendations to improve stakeholder management practices and related environmental policies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".