Sustainable management of backcountry trail networks in British Columbia: Tourism, technology and climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensitive backcountry environments are more accessible than ever before due to technological innovation, the effects of climate change, continued resource extraction and a growing tourism sector in Western Canada. Current regulations and management practices must be adapted to protect these ecologically sensitive areas. While existing academic literature discusses the ecological impacts of nature based tourism, there are limited resources available that provide insight into holistic land management solutions specific to remote backcountry trails in British Columbia (B.C.). This research examines the relevance of current industry standards, best practices and policies of trail management, design, construction and access and in their application to backcountry environments. A community-based participatory research (CPBR) methodology provided the foundation for this study. Twenty-one semi-structured interviews were completed between September 1st and December 13th, 2018 with key industry stakeholders who currently use or manage trails in backcountry environments. The interviews identified gaps in existing knowledge and assisted in the creation of an online survey tool used to gain insight from trail user communities. The survey was sent out using Survey Monkey to various social media platforms, primarily targeting backcountry recreation media outlets. In total, there were 400 survey respondents from across B.C. This research provides insight into the contemporary challenges trail managers face related to technological innovation and shifting environmental conditions. This study identifies opportunities for further trail user education and encourages a more collaborative land management strategy for summer use of sensitive backcountry environments. The multiple overlapping interests that compete for control of public land in B.C. adds a layer of complexity that is a critical aspect in discussions of backcountry recreation management. While focusing on sustainable management of a growing industry, this research provides additional insight to better understand the effects that climate change is having on tourism economies in Western Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".