Consumer Willingness to Pay for a Naturally Decay-Resistant Wood Product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) is the most widely used chemical wood preservative in the United States. Concerns about the safety of CCA led to an agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the wood treatment industry to withdraw CCA for nonindustrial uses by the end of 2003. In light of the publicity surrounding the withdrawal of CCA, this article evaluates consumers' willingness to pay a premium for products manufactured from naturally decay-resistant wood as opposed to chemically treated wood. We use a national contingent valuation survey to quantify consumer willingness to pay for a children's play structure made from Alaska yellow-cedar, as opposed to an identical play structure made from southern pine treated with ammonial copper quaternary, the likely replacement for CCA. Respondents' estimated mean willingness to pay for the Alaska yellow-cedar play structure is $2,013, compared to $1,000 for the treated southern pine structure. This study shows that manufacturers of products made from naturally decay-resistant wood may be able to capture a substantial premium for their products. West. J. Appl. For. 19(3):160–164.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".