15,636 rated or chosen profiles from 2,606 respondents, in up to 6 tasks of 1 profile varying on 5 attributes.
| Description | Residents of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (online, n = 2,606) rated the acceptability (-5 to +5) of 6 of 54 one-sentence forest-management scenarios varying the managing agency, forest area type, disturbance type (wildfire, insects/disease, harvest), size and severity. |
|---|---|
| Reference | Parkins, J., Andison, D., Sponarski, C., & Nock, C. (2025). Forest disturbance preferences in the western forest regions of Canada [Data set]. Borealis. |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/0MHZOJ |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,606 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 15,636 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 6 |
| Profiles per task | 1 |
| Attributes | 5 |
| Topic | climate energy environment |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | scenario |
| Country | CA |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | yes (stated by the source): 54 fixed scenarios (a fraction of 3 agencies x 3 areas x 9 disturbance types x 3 sizes x 3 severities) in two fold-over blocks of 27; each respondent rated 6 drawn across them |
| Task order | inferred from row order |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead. Task order or profile position was rebuilt from row order; analyses of position or task order should leave it out.
Outcomes:
| rating | Please indicate how acceptable the following management scenario are to you based on the combination of the (1) management agency responsible, (2) forest area type, (3) disturbance types, (4) size and (5) severity given in each scenario indicate. Use the scale ranging from completely acceptable (+5) to completely unacceptable (-5). [rating, 1 (Completely unacceptable -5) to 11 (Completely acceptable +5)] |
|---|
attr_agencyattr_areaattr_disturbanceattr_severityattr_sizecov_age_groupcov_communitycov_duration_seccov_educationcov_forest_distancecov_gendercov_sampleidprofileratingtasktrial_foldover_blocktrial_scenario
The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.
Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):
# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("parkins_2025_forest_disturbance", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("parkins_2025_forest_disturbance", source="conj")
@misc{https://doi.org/10.5683/sp3/0mhzoj,
doi = {10.5683/SP3/0MHZOJ},
url = {https://borealisdata.ca/citation?persistentId=doi:10.5683/SP3/0MHZOJ},
author = {Parkins, John and Andison, David and Sponarski, Carly and Nock, Charles},
keywords = {Earth and Environmental Sciences, Social Sciences},
title = {Forest disturbance preferences in the western forest regions of Canada},
publisher = {Borealis},
year = {2025}
}
| IRW version | v584 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint v4.2 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/qkye-q530 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v4.2 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v44.0 |