The implementation of urban sustainability strategies: Theoretical and methodological implications for researching behaviour change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implementing urban sustainability strategies has proven to be difficult.This paper aims at developing a holistic understanding of the urban sustainability concept with the help of a conceptual model, as well as offering a framework for understanding and researching the implementation of urban sustainability strategies.Here, individual behaviour change is understood as one of the main objectives of such strategies.Through a conceptual model, four types of opposing and sometimes contradictory relationships are identified: (1) between global aims and local implementation, (2) between institutional pressure and the behaviour of individuals, (3) between strategic measures and personal consequences and (4) between attitudes and behaviour.These relationships are discussed in order to illustrate stalling factors in urban sustainability implementation.Looking at behaviour change as a major goal of urban sustainability implementation, several social and individual behavioural theories are reviewed in order to construct a holistic and a compound model of the dynamics of behavioural change.By revealing a dual implementation process, consisting of provision on one side and choice on the other, we demarcate several important aspects for realising and researching urban sustainability strategies and their effectiveness.A more holistic way of assessing and monitoring the implementation of urban sustainability strategies is also proposed.The paper argues that rather than looking at the changes in the urban population's behaviour as a result, we must view them as an internal and essential sub-concept of urban sustainability.
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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".