CLOSE
Advanced searchCitation search
Suggested Terms:
Skip main navigation

Search Result

141 - 145of145
per page:
Relevance
Filters

You do not have any saved searches

  • OPEN ACCESS
    The challenge of meaningful knowledge mobilization of climate change research in the Canadian Arctic for early-career researchers
    FACETS • Vol. 10 • pp. 1 - 12
    Communication of research related to climate change in a way that is meaningful and respectful to Indigenous Peoples is challenging. While engagement with Indigenous communities is now increasingly incorporated into the expected standard of research processes in academia, early career researchers face challenges such as funding limitations, extensive regulatory processes, and timeframes that exceed the duration of a normal graduate-level degree. To better understand the obstacles that early career researchers are faced with, and subsequently provide some guidance on how these barriers can be mitigated, six interviews with practitioners of knowledge mobilization in the Canadian Arctic were conducted. Participants suggested that, while communicating knowledge purposefully depends largely on the research context and communities involved, researchers are encouraged to be well-informed, resourceful, and flexible in their research approaches. By applying these recommendations outlined by experienced practitioners, and reviewing academic literature, early career researchers can mitigate logistical and cultural barriers and communicate knowledge in a more culturally sensitive manner. More community-based research is needed to continue to enhance the understanding of how to mobilize knowledge on climate change in a meaningful way, to create more informed guidelines and support systems, and to make them widely accessible to researchers at all stages of their careers.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Does regulation delay mines? A timeline and economic benefit audit of British Columbia mines
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 12
    Seeking to capitalize on a surge in global demand for critical minerals, the Canadian mining sector claims that regulatory processes like Environmental Assessment (EA) impede and delay mining’s economic benefits. This paper investigates whether regulation has delayed mining projects and how much economic benefit mines have delivered in British Columbia (BC), focusing the mines’ performance post-EA. We audit the 27 mines granted an EA certificate in BC since 1995 and projected to open by 2022, comparing each mine’s forecasted and actual timelines and economic benefits (production, employment, and taxes), and identifying publicly-stated reasons for any mine delays. Seven of the 27 mines opened on time: 13 remain non-operational, and of the 14 mines that have operated, seven were delayed. Regulation was cited as a factor in only three of the 20 delayed projects; economic factors like commodity prices were the most common cause of delay. Lack of data and transparency on economic benefits significantly constrained our benefit audit, but BC mines for which data are available are underperforming across production (−77%), employment (−82%), and tax revenue (−100%). These findings suggest economic underperformance and mine delays post-EA are common, with delays typically resulting from economic factors, not government regulations.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Hopeful insights from wildlife recoveries in Canada
    FACETS • Vol. 10 • pp. 1 - 17
    Facing the global biodiversity crisis, conservation practitioners and decision-makers seek to catalyze wildlife recoveries in their region. Here we examined social-ecological attributes related to threatened species recovery in Canada. First, we used a retrospective approach to compare the trajectories of the original species assessed by Canada’s species-at-risk committee and found that only eight of 36 species now have decreased extinction risk relative to the past. There were no significant differences in human or financial capacity provided for recovery across species doing better, the same, or worse; the only significant difference was whether the primary cause of decline was alleviated or not. Second, when looking at species assessed at least twice between 2000 and 2019 we found that only eight of 422 (1.9%) experienced both increasing abundance and decreasing extinction risk. The defining characteristic of successful recoveries was first alleviating the original cause of decline, which was most often accomplished through strong regulatory intervention. Once declines were halted, practical interventions were highly species-specific. It is instructive to learn from conservation successes to scale resources appropriately and our results emphasize the importance of threat-specific intervention as a fundamental precursor to the successful restoration of biodiversity in Canada.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    Ratchet effects revisited: power effects and systematic bias in natural resource management
    FACETS • Vol. 10 • pp. 1 - 10
    Regulatory ratchets arise when governance appears to be effective, but actually masks a steady loss of natural capital. This occurs when biases in environmental impact assessment (EIA) systematically underestimate the true impact of large developments, generated by statistical convention fixing α at 0.05 (Type 1 error or false positive rate; i.e., the probability of concluding that a development will have an impact when there is none) while β, the false negative rate (failing to detect a true impact, or Type 2 error), is often fixed at 0.2. This asymmetry (β > α) generates a higher likelihood of mistakenly permitting development than mistakenly preventing it. Beyond statistical bias in EIA, routine environmental regulations are often ineffective due to low compliance, inadequate thresholds, and broad exemptions, which tend to cryptically institutionalize net loss. Measuring bias and inefficiency of environmental regulation is foundational to correcting regulatory ratchets and identifying pathways towards no net loss. Like net loss from major developments, cumulative net loss from inadequate routine environmental protections also needs to be estimated and offset by active habitat restoration; this should be delivered as a core program of resource management agencies, with the goal of fully integrating the mitigation hierarchy into routine natural resource governance.
  • OPEN ACCESS
    A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections
    FACETS • Vol. 9 • pp. 1 - 14
    This candid perspective written by scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is intended to advance conversations about the realities of peer review and its inherent limitations. Trust in a process or institution is built slowly and can be destroyed quickly. Trust in the peer review process for scholarly outputs (i.e., journal articles) is being eroded by high-profile scandals, exaggerated news stories, exposés, corrections, retractions, and anecdotes about poor practices. Diminished trust in the peer review process has real-world consequences and threatens the uptake of critical scientific advances. The literature on “crises of trust” tells us that rebuilding diminished trust takes time and requires frank admission and discussion of problems, creative thinking that addresses rather than dismisses criticisms, and planning and enacting short- and long-term reforms to address the root causes of problems. This article takes steps in this direction by presenting eight peer review reality checks and summarizing efforts to address their weaknesses using a harm reduction approach, though we recognize that reforms take time and some problems may never be fully rectified. While some forms of harm reduction will require structural and procedural changes, we emphasize the vital role that training editors, reviewers, and authors has in harm reduction. Additionally, consumers of science need training about how the peer review process works and how to critically evaluate research findings. No amount of self-policing, transparency, or reform to peer review will eliminate all bad actors, unscrupulous publishers, perverse incentives that reward cutting corners, intentional deception, or bias. However, the scientific community can act to minimize the harms from these activities, while simultaneously (re)building the peer review process. A peer review system is needed, even if it is imperfect.