Risk perceptions, importance ranking and a contingency valuation analysis: results from a survey of Quebec producers on farm environmental management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research studied Quebec producers’ environmental attitudes and perceptions on environmentally friendly practices on farm, such as an environmental management system (EMS), using a survey. The contingency valuation method (CVM) was applied to elicit producers’ mean willingness to accept compensation (WTA) of adopting an EMS on farm, in terms of the percentage of direct costs of implementation. Factors affecting the mean WTA were studied to examine their influences. The results show that Quebec producers adopt environmental practices extensively and face many challenges in agro-environmental management. The results also show that producers have mixed perceptions in the benefits and difficulties of environmentally friendly practices and a negative attitude towards environmental regulations. The mean WTA of Quebec producers is estimated at 79.73%. French speaking and English speaking farmers have the mean WTA of 79.91% and 71.75%, respectively. The regression analysis identifies that producers’ knowledge level on EMS, their attitudes towards the benefits and difficulties, internet access and the use of a computer in farm management are significant variables with respect to the mean WTA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".