Cultural Protection, Empowerment and Land Use Planning: Identification of Values in Support of Fort Albany First Nation, Ontario, Canada, Community Based Land Use Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractMembers of the Fort Albany First Nation, an Indigenous community in the far north of Ontario, Canada, recently started work on a community-based land use plan for their traditional territories. Through community partnership research with Fort Albany, we explored substantive and procedural values in support of community-based planning. Results indicate that the community desires a plan that works toward cultural preservation and empowerment through conservation of resources that support subsistence activities, and provides community benefits from future development. Implications are discussed in the context of the currently evolving Province of Ontario's far north land use planning process.ResumeLes membres de la Premiere Nation de Fort Albany, une communaute autochtone du nord de l'Ontario, ont recemment entrepris des travaux collectifs sur la gestion de leurs terres ancestrales.Au moyen de recherches aupres de la communaute de Fort Albany nous avons examine des valeurs de substance et de procedure favorisant la planification communautaire. Les resultats indiquent que la communaute desire un plan ayant pour but la conservation de la culture locale et la mise en valeur des ressources servant de bases aux activites individuelles, et ou la communaute profitera de travaux ulterieurs. On discute de ce que cela implique dans le contexte de la politique (fluctuante) ontarienne actuelle de processus de planification de mise en valeur des terres du nordIntroductionThe western James Bay region of northern Ontario, part of the Mushkegowuk Territory, is experiencing significant development pressure in the resource sector. Ontario Power Generation is considering further hydro-electric development on the Moose and Albany Rivers (Forum on Rights to Water, 2008), and mine development and exploration is increasing (Whitelaw et al., 2008; Koven, 2007; Larmour, 2007). At issue is the ability of First Nations (FNs) of the Mushkegowuk Territory to participate in and benefit from the resource development decisions that affect their traditional homeland territories.First Nation land use planning is emerging as a potential approach to inform resource development across Canada's north. A number of plans exist and many are under development (Schuk, 2010). The First Nations of the western James Bay (Moose Factory, Fort Albany, Kashechewan and Attawapiskat) are represented politically at the regional level by Mushkegowuk Council and at the supra-regional level (northern Ontario) by Nishnawbe-Aski Nation (NAN). Both political organizations are actively involved with regional land use planning in efforts to better manage impending resource extraction projects in the region (Mushkegowuk Council, 2011; Nishnawbe Aski Nation, 2011). Fort Albany First Nation (FAFN) is a remote community located near the mouth of the Albany River accessible only by air transportation year-round, barge during the ice-free season, and by ice road during the winter season (Figure 1).The FAFN Chief and Council approached our research team requesting research support for their community-based land use planning process. Our research explored FAFN community members' values related to the land and its management, both substantive and procedural. Substantive values are elements of the FAFN's natural and human environment deemed significant by the community for their well being and/or lifestyle, and that a land use plan should focus on protecting, enhancing, or managing. Substantive values are referred to in the environmental assessment literature as valued ecosystem components (VECs). Valued ecosystem components are defined as having scientific, social, cultural, economic, historical, archaeological or aesthetic importance and may be determined on the basis of cultural ideas or scientific concern (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2006). Procedural values and issues focus on elements pertinent to the planning process itself, such as objectives, scope (the extent of the plan) and methods (how planning takes place). …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".