MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504180625 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v11-n3-385-395

Recreational uses and motivations of visitors in seaside wetlands of costa brava (Spain)

2016· article· en· W2504180625 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCruise Tourism Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationWetlandGeographyRecreational useEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seaside wetlands bring together a huge quantity of services and functions, especially ecological and social. All of them depend on the ecological quality of ecosystems and on the equipment and service that allow them to be enjoyed. Tourism is an economic segment, carrying an important weight in most coastal regions around the world. Hence a complete environmental management of seaside wetlands should include the touristic perspective. In this communication, we analyse usage and motivation in three seaside wetlands of the Costa Brava (Spain) through a survey realized in the months of the highest occurrence of visitors (from June to September 2015). From the results, we highlight the high number of visitors who use the sites for recreational purposes (49%), such as running or cycling, in comparison with visitors who stated aesthetic motivations (16%). Many visitors also stated no motivation for visiting the sites (31%); they use them as car parks to go to the beach or as a byway to other sites. On the other hand, most visitors stressed the landscape (30%) or the degree of naturalness (29%) as a positive element of seaside wetlands, while the majority of negative elements are linked to bad management of the site (36%). When we requested a landscape valuation in a five-point scale, a significant number of high values were shown. Furthermore, we found a link between evaluation and tourism typology (local, national or foreign, lodged or excursionist) and motivation for visit (recreational, aesthetic or without). The principal conclusion is that, despite the fact that the main uses of the seaside wetlands are recreational, tourists appreciate landscape quality and degree of naturalness in sites where they develop their activities. This assigns to tourism, especially seaside tourism, an active role in conservation of seaside wetlands.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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