Visitors’ willingness to pay for interpretive services in Alberta parks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpretive services provided at protected areas can add value to visitors’ experiences. They can also serve as conservation management tool in mitigating negative behaviours and inspiring pro-environmental action through educational and entertaining content and delivery. With shrinking investment in conservation from public coffers, protected area managers are increasingly forced to charge for specific services such as interpretation. While some research has examined visitor’s willingness to pay park fees, far fewer have examined WTP for interpretation. A sample of 730 visitors to four Alberta, Canada World Heritage sites was used to investigate visitors’ willingness to pay for park interpretation services. In-person delivery and specialized content garnered higher levels of WTP for park interpretation services. Wealthier visitors were more willing to pay fees, as were those who had already invested time (i.e., involvement) to learn about cultural and natural heritage (i.e., WH experts). Unexpectedly, education, travel with kids, and travel motives related to learning about cultural and natural heritage, were not significantly related to WTP for park interpretation services.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".