Environmental Communication at Festivals: A Scoping Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental communication, a sub-category of sustainability communication, has been increasingly adopted in festival settings to promote pro-environmental behaviours among stakeholders, shape a green image, and enhance a festival’s reputation. This study reviewed 37 articles published in English to identify dominant trends in this area of research. This scoping review revealed that music festivals received the most research attention compared to other types of festivals. Attendees are often the primary audience for environmental communication, with their perspectives and responses the most frequently documented. Festivals serve as an educational platform for communicating a variety of environmental topics, with waste management and climate change receiving significant attention. While some studies explored the effectiveness of different message frames (e.g., gain and loss frame) on attendees’ pro-environmental intentions, this area remains under-researched. Future studies are encouraged to test a broader range of theory-informed environmental communication interventions to advance the efficacy of environmental communications at festivals.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it