What are Canadians willing to pay for bird habitat conservation? A contingent valuation approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is an international agreement between the Governments of Canada, the United States, and Mexico to coordinate the conservation and restoration of wetlands, associated uplands, and other key habitats for waterfowl and other bird species. To understand public support of NAWMP goals, we conducted a survey of Canadians ( n = 2324) and asked about their willingness to make a one-time donation to NAWMP using the contingent valuation method (CVM). Results demonstrate that almost one-third were willing to donate to NAWMP to protect and conserve bird habitats. Parametric analysis of CVM responses provides a mean one-time donation estimate of roughly $33.00 per person. We found that participation in birdwatching is associated with higher willingness to donate to NAWMP, and that this association is stronger among people who participate in multiple outdoor recreation activities. Financial support is more likely to be captured by a variety of donation mechanisms. Fundraising communications that promote purchase of conservation lands, or conservation on public lands, science, and education/outreach programs are more likely to attract donors than conservation on private lands. These findings provide important insights that can assist conservation groups in Canada and beyond in formulating public engagement strategies to enhance revenues from voluntary donations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".