Factors facilitating and constraining source water protection in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia: A political ecology perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores factors that facilitate and constrain source water protection. The theoretical approach of this research borrows from political ecology, a field of study gaining prominence in First World research that pays close attention to how relations of power operate between and among different actors to impact environmental conditions. The research findings are based on four local case studies from the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. The methodological approach for this research draws upon qualitative and quantitative data derived from semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Forty-two interviews were conducted with a wide range of participants throughout the Okanagan Valley and the provincial capital, Victoria, between August 2004 and August 2005. Additionally, over fifty documents from multiple sources was examined. The research reveals that factors facilitating source protection tend to concentrate at the local scale. Facilitating factors include formation of multi-purveyor joint water committees, relationship building between and among different watershed user groups, broad-based education and dissemination of watershed information to ratepayers, and the appointment of water purveyor staff to assist in coordination of watershed activities. Factors constraining source protection tend to concentrate at the provincial scale and include lack of jurisdictional capacity within community watersheds as well as fragmented roles and responsibility of senior agencies around watershed management generally and source protection specifically. De-regulation and re-regulation tendencies of government respecting broader provincial policy have been contradictory to specific safe drinking water policies adding to confusion among water purveyors and water resources professionals. In addition, evidence points to provincial inter-agency rivalry that operates to constrain source protection efforts. At both the local and provincial scale there appears to be an incomplete understanding of the meaning of source protection and the multi-barrier approach. Attention to power relations based on a research perspective from political ecology helped to reveal that local water purveyors within the Okanagan Valley remain limited in their capacity and frustrated in their efforts to advance source protection.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Political-ecology study of source-water protection in the Okanagan; environmental governance, not research governance.
This studies political and institutional factors in water protection, not the research system.
Political ecology of source-water protection in BC; water governance, not research or science studies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".