MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161943986 · doi:10.82308/19789

Estimating willingness to pay for the preservation of the Alfred bog wetland in Ontario : a multiple bounded discrete choice approach

2002· dissertation· en· W7161943986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer May Tkac

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBogWillingness to payContingent valuationWetlandValue (mathematics)Endangered speciesHabitatWillingness to acceptNatural resource

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alfred Bog wetland is the largest high quality bog ecosystem and one of the most important natural areas in southern Ontario. The 4,200 hectare bog provides habitat to a large number of rare and endangered species and plays an integral role as a natural water filter. This study used the contingent valuation survey method to estimate respondents' willingness to pay for the preservation of the Alfred Bog wetland, which is threatened by the competing activities of drainage, burning, and the extraction of peat. A multiple bounded discrete choice model was used to analyze the survey results. Results indicated that respondents were willing to pay an average of $79.22, in the form of a one-time voluntary contribution to a hypothetical preservation fund, for the preservation of the Alfred Bog wetland. Conservation club membership, visits to the bog, donations to wetland preservation programs, attitudes, distance from the bog, household income, and education level were found to be important predictors of willingness to pay. Aggregate willingness to pay to preserve the bog was estimated to be between $2.2 million to $663,000 depending upon the inclusion or exclusion of protest bids. The survey results suggested that most of this value was nonuse value attributed to option, bequest, and altruistic values. Thus, the failure of policy makers and resource managers to consider nonuse values in decision making processes can understate the value of preserving the Alfred Bog.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEconomic and Environmental Valuation→French-language works237,207→