MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392908748 · doi:10.1080/09669582.2024.2331228

How climate change and population growth will shape attendance and human-wildlife interactions at British Columbia parks

2024· article· en· W4392908748 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Dayna K. Weststrate, Aimee Chhen, Stefano Mezzini, Kirk Safford, Michael Noonan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Tourism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsMinistry of EnvironmentUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWildlifeAttendanceClimate changePopulation growthGeographyPopulationWildlife managementEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEcologyEconomic growthEnvironmental scienceDemographyEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protected areas are important for ecological conservation while simultaneously supporting culturally and economically valuable tourism.However, excessive visitor pressure strain operations and risk human-wildlife conflict, threatening the sustainability of nature-based tourism.Thus, park managers need to know what factors underpin attendance and how these might interact to shape future attendance.Using a decade of attendance records from 249 provincial parks in British Columbia (BC), Canada, as well as 12 years of human-wildlife interactions (HWI) records at five national parks in BC, we modelled the impacts of weather conditions and population growth on park attendance and HWIs.We paired these models with climate change and population growth scenarios to generate projections of how attendance and HWIs will change throughout the century.Climate change is projected to result in more precipitation and higher temperatures, and, over this same time span, BC's population is expected to grow substantially.Based on the observed relationship between attendance and weather, parks should anticipate a marked rise in visitors and HWIs, especially during their respective peak seasons.These projections provide park managers with the information required for proactive management, ultimately contributing to the sustainability of recreation and tourism in protected areas.

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)0.002
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable TourismSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207