An evaluation of the Manitoba Environmental Tax Credit program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999, a tax credit program offering a $1/acre incentive was provided by Ducks Unlimited and Canada's Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration to landowners undertaking conservation practices in agro-Manitoba. The program was offered as a pilot in the two rural municipalities of Strathcona and Mountain North. The intent of the program is to influence the development of policies aimed at making agriculture sustainable over the long-term. This study evaluated the program based on landowner feedback through mail-out questionnaires and interviews with the municipal reeve and administrator of both municipalities. Sixty-one thousand acres were eligible for the credit, representing 28% of the total privately-owned land base, with an average saving per landowner of $262. Landowners agreed that $1/acre was not adequate compensation for carrying out conservation practices however, many landowners participated or will participate in the program next year. Monetary compensation was cited as an important component of conservation programs, although landowners may be willing to accept less compensation in exchange for greater land use flexibility. The program will influence landowners to maintain grasslands and plant permanent forages on marginal cropland. Program participants agreed that the program would cause them to retain wetlands. The program raised participants awareness of the importance of conservation practices and their concern for the well-being of the environment. A tax credit of $1/acre appears to act more as recognition and an incentive for farmers to continue using conservation practices. There was a positive reaction and strong support from landowners and participating municipal staff for incorporating conservation goals into the property tax system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".