Residents’ Assessment of an Urban Outdoor Water Conservation Program in Guelph, Ontario<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Many municipalities have implemented demand management of outdoor water use. Measures such as restrictions on lawn watering and promotion of xeriscaping are effective in reducing water demand during summer months, especially during dry spells. However, little research examines a key factor shaping the success of these programs: residents’ perceptions of and satisfaction with such conservation measures. This article describes an urban outdoor water conservation program in Guelph, Ontario, assesses that program from the perspective of residents, and explores socio‐economic, attitudinal and other factors associated with residents’ assessment of the program. A survey of Guelph residents revealed broad support for the program, which includes restrictions on various outdoor water uses and, under certain circumstances, a ban on lawn watering. However, there was much uncertainty among residents about the effectiveness of the program in reducing water use and the effectiveness of program enforcement. Key factors influencing residents’ assessment of the program were neighborhood, gender and environmental attitude. Implications for the design and implementation of outdoor water conservation programs are discussed, including the importance of better communication of information on program effectiveness and enforcement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".