MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Coastal SEES Collaborative Research: Non-Market Value Meta-Data on Willingness to Pay for Coastal Marsh Habitat Change

2020· dataset· en· W6902085246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarshHabitatValuation (finance)WetlandWildlifeMetadataWillingness to payGuild

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These data represent a meta-dataset of observations on per household economic value - represented by per household willingness-to-pay (WTP) - for improvements in coastal marsh habitat, drawn from stated-preference studies in the research literature. The metadata allow estimation of benefit transfer functions via meta-regression modeling. Within these econometric functions, the dependent variable is a comparable estimate of economic value (e.g., WTP) drawn from extant primary valuation studies. Independent variables represent observable factors hypothesized to explain variation in this value measure across observations. These functions can be used to produce out-of-sample predictions of WTP for coastal marsh habitat improvements at sites for which no primary valuation studies have been conducted. They can also be used to understand the factors associated with systematic variations in marsh habitat values across different sites and studies. These data are described in Vedogbeton, H. and R.J. Johnston. 2020. Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat. Environmental and Resource Economics 75(4), 835-865, and allow replication of the results presented therein. The metadata are extracted from primary studies that estimate total (use and nonuse) per household WTP for changes in the quantity or quality of coastal marsh wildlife habitats or their services, in US and Canada. These studies were identified via a systematic review of the literature. The metadata combine information provided by these primary non-market valuation studies with publicly available external data extracted from sources such as the US Census, US National Historical GIS (https://www.nhgis.org/), and US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html). Studies included in the metadata are restricted to those that estimate total per household WTP for coastal wetland habitat changes using generally accepted stated preference methods, report theoretically comparable and quantifiable measures of economic value, and provide sufficient information to enable inclusion in the metadata. The data are further restricted to observations from studies conducted in the US or Canada, and published between 1990 and 2016, inclusive. The resulting metadata include 141 total observations of WTP per household from 23 studies published from 1990 to 2016, with all values adjusted to 2016 USD. These 141 habitat-value observations are identified by the variable changsize = 0 within the data. Because the meta-analysis is restricted to WTP in the positive domain, two negative-WTP observations were subsequently dropped, leading to the 139 habitat-value observations reported in Vedogbeton and Johnston (2020). An additional 18 metadata observations are drawn from similar primary stated preference studies that estimate total WTP for changes in coastal marsh area (or size), where these area increases provide habitat combined with other wetland services such as flood control, water filtration, aesthetics, recreation, and habitat. These additional observations are used for the habitat-and-area value models in the paper, and are identified by the variable changsize = 1 within the data. The combined data include 159 total observations (141 habitat-value and 18 habitat-and-area value observations). The metadata compile variables characterizing (1) the scope [magnitude] of the valued habitat change and the spatial scale of the wetland area affected by the change, (2) the type of habitat, marsh and uses affected, (3) regions sampled by the primary study, and (4) original study methodology used to measure the value(s), sample size from these studies, and year. The categorical variable "code" identifies how each of these observations are used within the data analysis of Vedogbeton and Johnston (2020). The attached pdf file, "Stata Code_Marsh Meta", provides illustrative Stata (v16) code used to generate some of the primary model results in this article, using the data. Note that some variable labels in the Stata code differ slightly from those used in the published paper. This project was supported by National Science Foundation grant 1427105.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.223
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.223
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.014
Bibliometrics0.0140.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

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 head0.367
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→