North American Ecotourists: Market Profile and Trip Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
this article see ** This article is the first in a two-part series that presents the results of comprehensive, practical, primary research on ecotourism markets. The assessment provides information on markets, trip characteristics, motivation, product preferences, and overall demand. This part focuses on market and trip characteristics, including party size, spending, preferred season, and trip length. Until recently, there has been little or no information on ecotourism market demand. The available information has related to travelers (often from one country of origin) visiting specific destinations (Boo 1990; Fennell 1990; Fennel and Smale 1992; Eagles 1992; Ballantine and Eagles 1994; Eagles and Cascagnette 1995) or has come from surveys of the travel trade (Yee 1992; Ingram and Durst 1989; HLA Consultants 1994). Cook, Stewart, and Repass (1992) presented the first survey of past and present ecotourism travelers, in place of origin. Recently, Alberta Economic Development and Tourism, together with the government of British Columbia and two Canadian federal departments, commissioned a major comprehensive ecotourism market demand assessment (HLA Consultants and ARA Consulting Group 1994). The challenge to the consultants was to assess demand for ecotourism, with particular focus on current and potential markets, in Alberta and British Columbia. Figure 1 encapsulates the challenge presented to the consultants. This global leadership study of markets was based on a range of valuable primary research. This article is the first of two attempting to relate some of the findings in the literature to the more recent and comprehensive findings of the study (hereafter referred to as HLA/ARA, or the Market Demand Study). It will present findings that relate to North American eco...
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".