The Effects of Municipal Waste Disposal Method on Facility Support and Diversion Attitudes and Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently in Ontario there is an increasing amount of waste and a need for solutions other than landfills to deal with this waste, with diversion rates at 48% and landfills filling up more researched is needed to explore this topic (WDO. 2014). This study uses a survey of households in Ontario, Canada to better understand if people will divert less material if they knew their waste was going to a WtE facility, levels of support for WtE facilities and expressed diversion behaviours. Participants were randomly selected from communities with different end-of-stream waste solutions with and without WtE: London which has a commercial WtE Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facility, Brampton which has WtE Incinerator, which has operated for over two decades, Toronto which exports most of their waste and has a small AD facility without WtE, and Durham which has a recently opened WtE Incinerator. The main hypotheses are that people will intend to divert less of their waste if they know their waste will go to a WtE facility while at the same time that WtE facilities will be supported over other sorts of end-of-stream facilities. While significant predictors of expressed diversion behaviour were expected to be convenience to recycle/compost and motivation to recycle/compost. Health factors were expected to be better predictors for support for WtE. The results showed that between 12 and 33% of respondents would divert less while WtE facilities are favoured six times more than non-WtE facilities. While convenience did not predict expressed diversion behaviour as expected while health and environmental concern did predict support. Perhaps more importantly it was found that a significant portion of people would divert less material ranging from 12% to 33% depending on facility type as well support for WtE facilities is high especially WtE AD facilities. Despite the potential implication that WtE will encourage even less diversion into the future currently the results show that Courtice has the best expressed diversion behaviour, but the WtE incinerator there has been operational less than a year so this could change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".