MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982344389 · doi:10.1177/1524500419883288

Community-Based Social Marketing—Creating Lasting, Sustainable, Environmental Change: Case Study of a Household Stormwater Management Program in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario

2019· article· en· W2982344389 on OpenAlex
Lauren Keira Marie Smith, Jennifer Lynes, S. E. Wolfe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Marketing Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormwaterSocial marketingIncentiveEnvironmental planningBusinessSustainabilityIncentive programFlooding (psychology)Behavior changeEnvironmental resource managementMarketingPsychologySurface runoffEconomicsGeographySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With increased frequency of extreme weather events due to climate change, there is growing need for urban, small-scale adaptation and preventative measures such as stormwater management to reduce the risk of flooding. Homeowners are often reluctant to adopt preventative stormwater measures without tangible benefits or direct experience with the flooding risks or other negative externalities. Using community-based social marketing (CBSM) as a framework, we investigated how to more effectively encourage stormwater management at the household level. In collaboration with the Canadian non-profit organization, Reep Green Solutions (Region of Waterloo, Ontario), we focused on an existing program, the RAIN Home Visit (RHV), which was designed to increase engagement in pro-environmental stormwater management behaviors. Reports from the RHV were assessed, and past program participants were interviewed using a semi-structured question set to identify barriers encountered in enacting these behaviors and to assess the program for inclusion of CBSM principles and tools. Surveys were used to collect demographic data from participants. We found that while preferred behaviors were explained and incentives were provided, more thorough, clear explanation was needed for homeowners as well as incentives of suitable size and value to effectively motivate homeowners to change. Key features that should be included in future RHV programs are public commitments, follow-up, and reminders. Further research should consider risk perception impacts with CBSM, to determine how these can work together and, perhaps, which precedes the other. Some people may be more influenced by social norms to act and others by risk perception.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it