Conducting a Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory on the Northern Forest Canoe Trail in New Hampshire
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 1999, the National Recreation Lakes Study Commission reported that the nation’s nearly 1,800 lakes hosted some 900 million visits (each with one or more visitors) a year and generated more than $44 billion in economic impacts (National Recreation Lakes Study Commission, 1999). This is an all-time high for visitation and has been coupled with increased pressures for shoreline development, and managers are faced with the difficult task of making robust and defensible management decisions that can be understood and supported by the public (Haas & Aukerman, 2006). New Hampshire is among those states that have seen dramatic increases in both popularity and use of water recreation areas and is in need of more information to make sound management decisions for its water resources (New Hampshire SCORP, 2007). One unique water resource within the state is the Northern Forest Canoe Trail (NFCT). This is an historic 740-mile stretch of connected waterways that pass through New York, Vermont, Quebec, New Hampshire, and Maine, and offer many recreation opportunities for boating, angling, sight seeing, swimming, and camping. Along with this diversity of use and increased popularity, the managers of the NFCT now seek information that will help to them understand and classify the recreation settings and subsequent opportunities. In order to improve management of water resources, the Bureau of Reclamation, with support of the Federal Lakes Recreation Leadership Council and hundreds of lake managers across the Nation, has recently completed the development of a Water Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS) system (Haas & Aukerman, 2006). This paper describes how a WROS inventory was completed on the 75- mile long NH section of the NFCT and how water recreation managers can use a WROS inventory to help them to: (a) better understand their own resource and facilitate communication with visitors by improving maps and information regarding the type of recreation experiences to be offered at different locations; (b) develop future management direction and justify actions based on regional planning and understandable information; (c) provide a visual understanding of how proposed development or adjacent changes may affect the recreation opportunities available; and (d) explain rules and regulations more clearly as 109 to why certain actions are desirable to protect the integrity of specific recreation opportunities. Additional uses and benefits of WROS to water recreation management are also discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».