Nudging student recycling behaviour: An experimental study in Kazakhstan and UK higher education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study how to influence the recycling decisions of young people in the UK and Kazakhstan Universities using a public good experiment with an information nudge (through a video) and a peer effect nudge. Kazakhstan recycles approximately 15% of its municipal waste, compared to almost half in the UK; however, surprisingly, overall contributions are significantly higher from Kazakh students compared to those from UK students. An information video on recycling prompts Kazakh students to contribute more while no such effect is found with the UK students. This suggests that Kazakh students may perceive themselves to be more capable of recycling despite a less sophisticated recycling system compared to the UK. A strong peer effect is seen across both countries. The study highlights the importance of subjective norms through peer nudge and the likelihood of higher contributions from students with siblings. A wider implication is that emerging economies’ educational institutions may have latent positive environmental and recycling practices that developed nations could learn from. The study has implications for educational development as well as national recycling policy frameworks.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".