Estimating the Tourism Volume and Value Page 1 of 24 Estimating the Tourism Volume and Value in Protected Areas in Canada and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visitation to the parks and protected areas of the United States of America and Canada is an important part of the outdoor recreation industry in these countries. The social, economic and environmental impacts of this visitation are related to its volume. This paper contains the first ever estimation of the overall park and protected area visitation for the Canada and the US. It contains data from all the national and provincial/state programs, including state, provincial, and national parks and other forms of protected areas such as wildlife refuges, national forests and national historic sites. In 1996 there was an estimated 2,626,275,241 visitor days of recreation activity in the parks and protected areas of Canada and the US. This use level is an underestimate, due to structural and financial limitations within the park agencies. The associated economic impact was calculated to be between US $236 billion and $370 billion for that year. The US has many more protected areas, and higher levels of land area in parks, than does Canada, even thought Canada is a slightly larger country. The recreation use density per hectare of parkland in the US is 11 times higher than in Canada. The
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".