MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168934631 · doi:10.5614/ajht.2021.19.1.01

Assessing Accommodation Suppliers’ Perceptions of Climate Change Adaptation Actions on Koh Phi Phi Island, Thailand

2021· article· en· W3168934631 on OpenAlexaff
Janto S. Hess, Rachel Dodds, Ilan Kelman

Bibliographic record

VenueAsean Journal on Hospitality and Tourism · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change, Adaptation, Migration
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationClimate changeTourismIncentiveDestinationsClimate change adaptationAdaptation (eye)BusinessPerceptionSustainable developmentEnvironmental planningSmall Island Developing StatesEnvironmental resource managementGeographyNatural resource economicsEconomicsPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Koh Phi Phi Don is among the most visited island tourism destinations in Thailand. Due to the island’s topography and development patterns, most accommodation suppliers on the island are likely to be exposed to a range of climate change impacts, particularly sea-level rise, which can pose a severe risk to the local tourism operations. This study aimed to explore perceptions of climate change adaptation actions in response to impacts typically associated with climate change. This study, furthermore, investigated possible obstacles, barriers, and incentives influencing decision-making processes of accommodation owner-managers (the private sector) to adapt to climate change. The investigation builds on 81 surveys and 12 in-depth interviews. The findings provide evidence that most of the sampled businesses already implemented (consciously or not) climate change adaptation measures, such as insurance coverage, water treatment appliances, and staff training on emergency responses. Through a concentration of power on the island, their action is hindered, which creates a barrier to a sustainable and climate risk-informed development pathway.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsean Journal on Hospitality and TourismSame topicClimate Change, Adaptation, MigrationFrench-language works237,207