MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324096972 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16030193

Carbon Tax and Tourism Employment: Is There An Interplay?

2023· article· en· W4324096972 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Južnik Rotar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon taxTourismIncentiveEconomicsRevenueRobustness (evolution)Panel dataLabour supplyLabour economicsClimate changeMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of the climate change response on the labour market is an important question for policymakers, while the net positive effect of green policies on the labour market is seen as one of the arguments in favour of a green transition. This is particularly important for the tourism labour market, which was severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined the effect of carbon taxes on tourism employment for European countries that have levied a carbon tax over the past thirty years. A macroeconomic panel data regression model ex-post study was applied by contrasting the obtained results via a robustness check. The estimation results indicate a slightly positive and significant association between the carbon tax and tourism employment, which was additionally tested by considering revenue recycling, early adopters of the carbon tax, and a higher carbon tax compared to countries with a lower carbon tax. We cannot conclude that these factors matter for tourism employment, proving the robustness of the results. Revenue-neutral carbon taxation, policies to address the skills gap, push and pull incentives, and active labour market policies to facilitate the quick re-integration of jobseekers into employment are viewed as pivotal to ensure a smoother transition toward a sustainable tourism labour market.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207