Household-Level Strategies to Tackle Plastic Waste Pollution in a Transitional Country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, Vietnam is tackling environmental pollution, particularly plastic waste. This study contributes to the literature on environmental culture and practical solutions by better understanding households’ behaviours and motivations for (i) sorting waste, (ii) contributing to the environmental fund and (iii) relocating. The questionnaire-based interview method was used to randomly collect information from 730 households in 25 provinces in Vietnam during February 2022. Bayesian regression models, coupled with the mindsponge mechanism, were applied to analyse the data. The results showed that people’s strategies and responses to plastic waste pollution vary: 38.63% of respondents were sorting waste at home, 74.25% of households agreed to contribute to the environmental fund, and 23.56% had a plan to relocate for a better living place. The households’ strategies and intentions were driven by several structural and contextual factors such as age of household head, income, care about the environment, and the perceived effects of polluted waste. More importantly, communication was a robust variable in sorting waste decisions, which suggested that better communication would help increase people’s awareness and real actions in reducing plastic waste and ultimately improving the environment. These findings will benefit the ongoing green economy, circular economy, and green growth transition toward more sustainable development, particularly in developing and fast-population-growing countries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".