Current replication
Spearman rank correlation
Not measuredNo current measurement is available in this registry.
Environmental Policy · 2019
Determining the insurance value of ecosystems: A discrete choice study on natural hazard protection by forests
Mountain households chose forest management that cut their avalanche risk.
Read the paper ↗01 / Human finding
What the study found
Mountain households chose forest management that cut their avalanche risk.
Answer-key review: AI-reviewed
02 / Experiment design
Who chose, and what varied
- Country
- Switzerland
- Human respondents
- Not recorded
- Attributes
- 5
- Task
- discrete choice
03 / Synthetic replication
Registry replication results
Paper-era reference
2023 CLM mean Spearman ρ
0.37Historical results use their original estimator and reference. They are not a matched comparison with the current run.
Detailed replication evidence · 2026-11-03
Wrong direction on 6 of 10 significant effects, weak ranking (ρ = -0.30); sizes not comparable (the paper reports logit coefficients).
Use it to generate hypotheses to test with people; sizes need the paper's respondent data, and confirm the 6 reversed effects with people.
- direction
- fails
- rank
- fails
- size
- not comparable
Supported uses
- Nothing yet without human confirmation.
Limits to keep in view
- Ranking close levels against each other; the order diverges from humans.
- Decisions that hinge on the attributes whose direction flipped (listed below).
- Effect sizes in the paper's units; only direction, rank and shape are compared.
Effects on a common scale
Human effects: logit coefficient. Synthetic effects are multiplied by the record’s calibration factor, k = 8.9830. Calibration aligns magnitude; it does not establish agreement in unadjusted effect sizes.
| Attribute / level | Human | Human 95% half-width | Calibrated synthetic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard level: Red zone: people are endangered inside and outside of buildings, and the immediate destruction of buildings is possible. (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Hazard level: Blue zone: people are hardly endangered inside buildings but are endangered outside, and damage to buildings is possible. | 1.150 | 0.174 | -0.832 |
| Hazard level: White zone: there is no or negligible threat to people and buildings. | 1.280 | 0.182 | -1.330 |
| Protection extended to traffic infrastructure: Improved forest management leads to better protected rail and road infrastructure. | 0.510 | 0.074 | 1.528 |
| Protection extended to traffic infrastructure: Improved forest management does not lead to better protected rail and road infrastructure. (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Costing method: The costing method is risk based. | 0.090 | 0.057 | 0.201 |
| Costing method: The costing method is lump sum. (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Contribution mode: Contributions are voluntary. | 0.090 | 0.088 | 0.078 |
| Contribution mode: Contributions are mandatory. (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Price: There is no additional annual charge per household. (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Price: The additional annual charge per household is 100 Swiss Francs. | -0.200 | 0.020 | 1.258 |
| Price: The additional annual charge per household is 300 Swiss Francs. | -0.600 | 0.059 | 1.508 |
| Price: The additional annual charge per household is 500 Swiss Francs. | -1.000 | 0.098 | 0.597 |
| Price: The additional annual charge per household is 700 Swiss Francs. | -1.400 | 0.137 | 0.501 |
| Price: The additional annual charge per household is 900 Swiss Francs. | -1.800 | 0.176 | -0.287 |
Subgroups · screen, not a result
Split by gender: 0 of 1 significant differences keep their direction in the simulation (0% to 79%)
screen, not a result. Each row is the male group’s effect minus the female group’s, human in logit, simulated on the simulation’s own scale, so compare direction, not size. A Jev fast-small screen makes no comparison claim.
- Sign agreement
- 0/1, 0%
- 95% interval
- 0% to 79%
- Shuffle null
- 51%, p 0.56
- Shape ρ
- –
- Scale ratio
- –
| Group | Simulated n | People n | ρ vs paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| female | 103 | not given | – |
| male | 88 | not given | – |
| Attribute / level | People Δ (95%) | Significant | Simulated Δ (own scale) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard level: White zone: there is no or negligible threat to people and buildings. | -0.22 ±0.42 | no | -0.02 ±0.08 | not compared |
| Hazard level: Blue zone: people are hardly endangered inside buildings but are endangered outside, and damage to buildings is possible. | -0.34 ±0.40 | no | -0.01 ±0.07 | not compared |
| Protection extended to traffic infrastructure: Improved forest management leads to better protected rail and road infrastructure. | -0.22 ±0.19 | yes | +0.02 ±0.06 | opposite |
| Costing method: The costing method is risk based. | -0.01 ±0.14 | no | +0.01 ±0.05 | not compared |
| Contribution mode: Contributions are voluntary. | +0.16 ±0.20 | no | -0.02 ±0.06 | not compared |
04 / Evidence and limitations
Follow the evidence
Missing results mean unmeasured, not zero agreement.