MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417051101 · doi:10.1007/s10980-025-02268-w

Integrated species distribution models predict motorized and non-motorized outdoor recreation across seasons

2025· article· en· W4417051101 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anne E. Loosen, Angela Brennan, Andrew J. Maguire, Brynn A. McLellan, Talia Vilalta Capdevila, Anne Forshner, Karine E. Pigeon, Aerin L. Jacob, Libby Ehlers, Pamela Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsNature Conservancy of CanadaSmiths Detection (Canada)Wildlife Conservation Society CanadaParks CanadaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersHabitat Conservation Trust FoundationVolgenau FoundationDonner Canadian FoundationAnimal Welfare InstituteWilburforce Foundation
KeywordsRecreationDistribution (mathematics)BiodiversityClimate changeHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outdoor recreation is occurring at unprecedented levels, yet our knowledge of how to best monitor and analyse outdoor recreation is outdated. Inaccurate and unreliable recreation information affects everything from designing sustainable recreation plans to developing conservation strategies for sensitive or migratory species. We asked: (1) what are patterns of recreation intensity and how do they differ by activity type (motorized, non-motorized) and season; and (2) which variables best explain recreation intensity across space and time and how do relationships with variables differ by activity type and season. In western Canada, a hub for outdoor recreation in all seasons, we collected five unique datasets on recreation use and occurrence (Strava, systematic and incidental aerial surveys, trail counters, cameras) to predict motorized and non-motorized recreation intensity across six seasons. We fit integrated species distribution models (iSDM) to multiple data types including count, presence/absence, and presence-only data to predict the distribution of recreation. We assessed the effects of terrain, vegetation, accessibility, infrastructure, and snow and climate to understand patterns and predict recreation intensity across six seasons: early winter (Nov–Dec), mid-winter (Jan–Feb), late winter (Mar–Apr), spring (May–Jun), summer (Jul–Aug), and fall (Sep–Oct). We found substantial variation of recreation intensity across the study area and seasons, for both activity types. We also found human access (e.g., trails) explained patterns in recreation activities across seasons. Winter recreation occurred at higher elevation relative to non-snow seasons, whereas summer recreation occurred in more steep terrain. By using iSDMs we were able to leverage multiple datasets with disparate spatial or temporal coverages. This work fills important research and knowledge gaps for people managing land-use, conservation and recreation, specifically those working beyond protected and conserved areas where few open data sources exist. Our research suggests recreation intensity is dynamic and static proxies for recreation commonly used in research and monitoring may be insufficient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandscape EcologySame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207