MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178695184 · doi:10.3390/su71115548

Evaluation of Tourism Water Capacity in Agricultural Heritage Sites

2015· article· en· W2178695184 on OpenAlexaff
Mi Tian, Qingwen Min, Fei Lun, Zheng Yuan, Anthony M. Fuller, Lun Yang, Yongxun Zhang, Jie Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsTourismWater useSustainabilityFootprintAgricultureWater resourcesWater resource managementEnvironmental scienceSustainable tourismEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agricultural heritage sites have been gaining popularity as tourism destinations. The arrival of large numbers of tourists, however, has created serious challenges to these vulnerable ecosystems. In particular, water resources are facing tremendous pressure. Thus, an assessment of tourism water footprint is suggested before promoting sustainable tourism. This paper uses the bottom-up approach to construct a framework on the tourism water footprint of agricultural heritage sites. The tourism water footprint consists of four components, namely accommodation water footprint, diet water footprint, transportation water footprint and sewage dilution water footprint. Yuanyang County, a representative of the Honghe Hani rice terraces, was selected as the study area. Field surveys including questionnaires, interviews and participant observation approaches were undertaken to study the tourism water footprint and water capacity of the heritage site. Based on the results, measures to improve the tourism water capacity have been put forward, which should provide references for making policies that aim to maintain a sustainable water system and promote tourism development without hampering the sustainability of the heritage system. The sewage dilution water footprint and the diet water footprint were top contributors to the tourism water footprint of the subject area, taking up 38.33% and 36.15% of the tourism water footprint, respectively, followed by the transportation water footprint (21.47%). The accommodation water footprint had the smallest proportion (4.05%). The tourism water capacity of the heritage site was 14,500 tourists per day. The water pressure index was 97%, indicating that the water footprint was still within the water capacity, but there is a danger that the water footprint may soon exceed the water capacity. As a consequence, we suggest that macro and micro approaches, including appropriate technologies, awareness enhancement and diversified tourism product development throughout the whole year that can alleviate the water pressure at critical times, could be taken to optimize the water management of the heritage sites.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207