Marine Planning in British Columbia: An Evaluation of Haida Gwaii's Marine Plans and Marine Protected Area Management Plans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haida Gwaii, formerly known as Queen Charlotte Islands, is an archipelago of approximately 150 islands located in the Pacific North Coast of British Columbia. Increasing interest in marine spatial planning has led to marine plans and marine protected area management plans being developed to guide the sustainable management of marine areas in the region. Marine Spatial Planning is an iterative public process that analyzes and allocates the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities within marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives identified during the planning and political process. Marine Spatial Planning processes have led to the development of the following marine plans and marine protected area management plans in and around Haida Gwaii: the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) Plan; the Haida Gwaii Marine Plan; the Gwaii Haanas Land-Sea-People Management Plan; and the SGaan Kinghlas–Bowie Seamount Marine Protected Area Management Plan. The research presented in this report is guided by the following research objectives in order to evaluate the aforementioned plans: i. Develop a set of marine plan evaluation criteria based on academic and grey literature suitable for the evaluation of the marine plans and protected area management plans’ effectiveness; ii. Use the evaluation criteria developed in Research Objective i to evaluate the four plans that influence marine resource management and conservation in the Haida Gwaii marine sub-region discussed above; iii. Based on the evaluation, make recommendations for improvement to marine management in the Haida Gwaii marine sub-region, and in the marine spatial planning process in general. In addition to highlighting the limitations of this research, which include the lack of Indigenous perspectives and input, the lack of existing research on assessing marine plans and marine protected area management plans in academic and grey literature, as well as the overall limitations in existing management systems to implement the marine plans/marine protected area management plan, the main research recommendations for this report include the following: i. Indigenous leadership should be encompassed in all marine spatial planning processes and in the equitable co-management of marine areas, which will reinforce Canada’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples across the coasts; ii. That the assessment of the effectiveness of marine plans and marine protected area management plans expand from the identification of necessary requirements based off the set of criteria and sub-criteria developed in this research report; iii. That marine plans and marine protected area management plans provide a timeframe from when it is endorsed to when the identified goals and objectives can be realized in order to provide a quantifiable analysis prior to conducting revisions of the plans; iv. The interdependence of land and offshore ecosystems also drives the need for more integration between land and marine use planning, as well as transboundary interactions beyond the scope of an identified marine area; and lastly, v. That a set of planning tools be identified that can legally support and enforce marine spatial plans in 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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".