MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036738766

Can States Convince People to Recycle?

2017· article· en· W7036738766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTonneGallon (US)Principal (computer security)Quarter (Canadian coin)BottleMeaning (existential)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Last year, Americans drank 12.8 billion gallons of bottled water—the equivalent of nearly 1.9 billion half-liter bottles every week. But people only recycled about a fourth of these disposable plastic bottles, meaning that some 70 billion bottles likely ended up in landfills—or worse, became part of the 8 million metric tons of plastic waste that winds up in the ocean each year. Low recycling rates are no small problem, considering the enormous amounts of greenhouse gases that recycling can keep out of the atmosphere. Fortunately, a study shows that states are far from powerless to change this situation. Indeed, survey data from a team of researchers at Vanderbilt University and Duke University suggest that by strengthening their recycling laws, states can increase recycling rates by a substantial degree. According to the study, “there are two principal policy instruments” that states use to encourage water bottle recycling. The first is a “bottle deposit,” a law that requires distributors to charge a deposit, usually 5 or 10 cents, for recyclable beverage containers. Bottle deposits give consumers a “direct financial incentive” to recycle: if they return empty containers, usually to a supermarket or other retailer, they can get the deposit refunded. Ten states currently have bottle deposit laws for certain beverages, but only five of those states include deposits for water bottles. The second common recycling policy instrument is a law that encourages recycling by, for instance, requiring cities to provide recycling services. Many states have some version of a recycling law, but as the study explains, the legal regimes range widely in their strictness. The strength of a state’s recycling law matters a lot, according to the study. The percentage of non-recyclers drops from 46 percent in states without recycling laws to 31 percent in states with strong recycling laws. The rate drops again to less than 13 percent non-recyclers in states with water bottle deposit laws. To determine whether recycling laws cause people to recycle more, the research team also examined two states—Oregon and Connecticut—that recently added bottle deposits for water bottles. The researchers interviewed individuals before and after the enactment of the laws. They found that after the states enacted water bottle deposits, people recycled 15 percent more water bottles and “over 20 percent more people became diligent recyclers.” Recycling policies do not have the same effect on everyone, according to the study. Recycling laws reportedly have the greatest effect on people who would not already recycle. On the other hand, incentives like bottle deposits have less impact on high-income individuals—who do not benefit much from taking the time to return bottles—and environmentally conscious people, who are more likely to recycle already. But states get a large return from the individuals who do respond to recycling laws. As the researchers note, recycling laws tend to have “a transformative effect” on recycling habits. Rather than moderately increasing people’s recycling habits, they turn people who did not recycle at all into “committed recyclers.” This study is valuable ammunition for recycling advocates in an era when there are growing calls for fact-based regulation. The survey results are also useful for state legislatures that may be considering changes to their recycling regimes. Some states, like Oregon, are already toying with increased incentives to recycle. The Oregon state legislature recently reportedly increased its bottle deposit—which applies to water bottles—from five cents to ten cents in response to lagging return rates. Other states are more ambivalent about their recycling incentives. In the Iowa legislature, there is a bill pending that would repeal the state’s five-cent bottle deposit, which does not currently apply to water bottles. The bill’s backers reportedly say they want to replace it with a new recycling program. Meanwhile, in Connecticut, there are competing efforts to either increase the five-cent deposit to ten cents or to replace it with a simple four-cent fee on containers. The public is more certain about bottle deposits, at least in Iowa: 77 percent of Iowans surveyed reportedly said they support “retaining or expanding” the state’s deposit law. A poll from Pew Research Center also shows strong support for recycling among Americans overall. Over 90 percent of respondents reported recycling at least “occasionally,” and a third of Americans “say it bothers them ‘a lot’ when others throw away” recyclable items. Although these survey results suggest that a substantial number of Americans are committed to recycling, the results do not quite jibe with the data on recycling. In reality, Americans only recycled 34 percent of recyclable materials in 2013. Based on this number, it seems likely that some of the poll respondents exaggerated their recycling habits. Regardless of survey respondents’ truthfulness about their own behavior, the polls suggest that on the whole, Americans like the idea of recycling. That may explain why, with a couple of simple policies, states have succeeded in inducing large numbers of people to become committed recyclers.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207