MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292371042 · doi:10.1080/09669582.2022.2112204

Impacts of climate change on mountain tourism: a review

2022· review· en· W4292371042 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Steiger, Natalie Knowles, Katharina Pöll, Michelle Rutty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Tourism · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismClimate changeGeographyEnvironmental resource managementMultidisciplinary approachEconomic impact analysisNatural resourceEnvironmental planningEcologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mountain landscapes and communities are highly sensitive and vulnerable to climate change. Tourism in mountain regions is highly dependent on natural resources and attractions which are very sensitive to climatic changes. This systematic review analyzing 276 papers, provides a comprehensive analysis of scientific literature dealing with climate change impacts on mountain tourism. While the impacts on the snow season are predominantly negative, impacts to summer season activities range from positive to negative. Contradictory results and lack of research in some regions and tourism activities means the overall impact is far from clear. We identified seven key knowledge gaps: underrepresentation of studies for South America and Africa, lack of appropriate data and indicators, an all-season perspective and investigation of opportunities, economic and socio-political consequences for mountain communities, the need for better science communication, and a lack of studies addressing liability and regulatory risks. Increasing our multidisciplinary understanding of potential climate impacts on mountain tourism and engaging stakeholders to prepare for the projected changes will help local populations in mountain communities create applicable and effective climate adaptation strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations192
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable TourismSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207