Rural‐Urban Differences in Environmental Concern in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Distinctions between rural and urban populations are well documented in environmental sociology literature. Rural and urban places may exert different influences on participation in environmentally supportive behavior (ESB) as well as on other forms of environmental concern (EC). The influence of these distinct geographies may be due to present circumstances or because of childhood socialization in these places. Using data from a national survey in Canada (n=51 664), we use cognitive (basic values, environmental worldview, and environmental attitude) and behavioral indicators (public and private sphere) of EC to explore differences among rural and urban populations and we include analyses accounting for place of socialization. We extend the conventional private sphere category of ESB by including stewardship behaviors. Results showed few differences between rural and urban residents on indicators of EC. Rural residents, however, scored higher on altruistic values, placed a higher priority on the environment, and reported higher participation in recycling and stewardship behaviors. Analysis that included place of socialization showed differences on environmental worldview, basic values, and some ESB. In terms of ESB, we conclude that residence and place of socialization may be less of a factor than opportunity and highlight the importance of providing services and facilities. We recommend future research on residence and ESB include a variety of behaviors that reflect opportunities for both rural and urban residents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".