MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring the Net Economic Value of Recreational Boating as Water Levels Fluctuate<sup>1</sup>

2007· article· en· W2011265945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nancy A. Connelly, Tommy L. Brown, Jonathan W. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsRecreationTotal economic valueEnvironmental scienceEconomic impact analysisAgricultural economicsHydrology (agriculture)Value (mathematics)GeographySocioeconomicsFisheryEconomicsEngineeringMathematicsEcologyStatisticsEcosystem servicesEcosystemCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The purpose of this article was to show how the value of recreational boating can be assessed and how that value can be linked to water levels. Data were gathered via a survey of recreational boaters to determine days boated and willingness‐to‐pay (net economic value) for boating on Lake Ontario and on the St. Lawrence River in 2002. Depth measurements were taken at marinas and yacht clubs, boat launch ramps, and private docks. Stage‐damage curves were used to pinpoint at what water levels and to what extent boaters would be impacted. Boaters recreated an estimated 1.3 million days in 2002 and spent an estimated US$178 million in New York counties bordering Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The mean net economic value per day per boat (above current expenditures) was $69.36, with an estimated total net economic value of US$90 million. Using Lake Ontario as an example, the stage‐damage curves show that the overall negative impact would be small, between 245 and 248 ft. Maintaining water levels within that range for the entire boating season would be ideal for Lake Ontario boaters and associated businesses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207