{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034688995215311005, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004784688995215311, 'mean_word_length': 5.488372093023256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“Good and Bad: I Defined These Terms, Quite Clear, No Doubt, Somehow”1 A Commentary on Stefan Claesson's “The Value and Valuation of Maritime Cultural Heritage”

In his article, “The Value and Valuation of Maritime Cultural Heritage”, Stefan Claesson discusses methods by which the relative or absolute value of submerged cultural sites like shipwrecks might be established, to provide rational bases for decisions about their management. He emphasizes systems used in ecosystem valuation, notably an average individual's projected “willingness to pay” (WTP) to preserve something and “willingness to accept” (WTA) its loss. He suggests that systems to apply such measurement devices be built into things like the procedures for addressing impacts on historic properties under Section 106 of the U.S. National Historic Preservation Act.