MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381149272 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/acd8d9

Environmental impacts of renting rangelands: integrating remote sensing and household surveys at the parcel level

2023· article· en· W4381149272 on OpenAlexaff
Luci Lu, Ping Li, Margaret Kalácska, Brian E. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesNatural Science Foundation of Inner MongoliaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRentingLand managementLand tenureBusinessEnvironmental resource managementSustainable land managementOccupancyLand useSurvey data collectionIncentiveRangeland managementEnvironmental planningRangelandGeographyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Land rental markets are growing worldwide and facilitate efficient utilization of land. However, the short duration of occupancy and limited property rights mean that rental contracts may discourage longer-term sustainable land management. Direct investigation into the relationship between land tenure and ecological outcomes has been hampered by scale-appropriate data on land tenure, resource management, and land outcomes. In this paper, we address these issues with a study design that combines participatory mapping, household surveys, and remote sensing. We analyzed these data in a multilevel statistical model, controlling for environmental and land management influences. Our results show that rented land parcels are associated with worse rangeland outcomes compared to privately held parcels. This study contributes to the literature by documenting important empirical effects of rental markets and presenting a replicable workflow for integrating earth observations and micro-level survey data, which can be adopted by researchers and practitioners in regions where land registry data is unavailable or inaccessible. The results have important implications for incentive and compensatory-based environmental policy.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207