MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991204790 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v12n6p62

Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting US Residents’ Willingness to Pay to Restore Degraded Tropical Rainforest Watersheds

2019· article· en· W2991204790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Asantewaa Obeng, Kwame Antwi Oduro, Beatrice Darko Obiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MissouriU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsWillingness to payRainforestTheory of planned behaviorTropical rainforestLogistic regressionSocioeconomicsSample (material)PsychologyEconomicsGeographyControl (management)EcologyMathematicsStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed US residents’ willingness to pay (WTP) to restore degraded tropical rainforest watersheds using predictors from the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in an experimental approach. Responses from a random sample of over 1000 US respondents were analyzed using a logistic regression with willingness to pay as the intended behavior predicted by attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and complementary explanatory variables. Subjective norm was the strongest of all the variables and the strongest TPB predictor of WTP. Other statistically significant variables predicting WTP included direct experience with the resource and support for environmental groups. Age, gender and education also significantly predicted WTP. Overall, 22 percent of respondents were willing to make an annual monetary contribution ranging from US$ 30.00 to US$ 150.00 through increase in income tax for five years. The economic value for the restored tropical rainforest watershed was estimated at US$ 146.32 per household per year.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207