Tactics to Engender Participation in Collaborative Environmental Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complexity, uncertainty and conflict characterize contemporary environmental challenges. Addressing these issues is beyond the purview of any one actor. A collaborative approach to environmental management is required; participation in collaboration is needed. However, participation in collaborative environmental management is a persistent challenge in practice. This thesis examines tactics used to engender participation in collaborations. Tactics constitute a strategy for communications with an intended goal and encompass the framing (i.e., wording, imagery) and platform of dissemination. Two complementary studies were undertaken. Study One sought to gain insights about tactics used by organizations to foster participation in various environmental management collaborations. A multiple case study method was employed with five organizations investigated including Niagara Parks Commission, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, City of St. Catharines, City of Richmond Hill, and Landscape Ontario. Data was primarily collected through semi-structured interviews with key informants, with websites, reports, and shared documents providing additional information. Qualitative analysis revealed that the organizations use an array of tactics to effectively reach various audiences, employ tactics targeted for specific audiences, and stress the importance of using multiple tactics across a media mix. Study Two examined the influence of tactics on an intention to participate in an environmental management collaboration. Eight tactics were empirically tested on 300 individuals aged 18-29. Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis was undertaken. Results uncovered the effectiveness of contextual and personal framings in engendering participation and deepened the understanding about past participation, tactics and an individual's intention to participate. In concert, the two studies emphasize the need for greater attention to tactics in environmental management. The thesis contributes to a greater understanding of tactics, identifying effective practices for engendering participation and broad dissemination. Opportunities to engender participation in collaborations using tactics are abundant. The findings from the research indicate a need to allocate greater resources to the creation of tactics including the imagery and wording used; additionally, findings indicate the importance of the platform on which tactics are disseminated and the effectiveness of employing multiple tactics across multiple platforms for maximum audience reach. Recommendations close the thesis and are offered for environmental management practice and future research.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".