The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 59 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Untangling the critical success factors of the latest compulsory waste sorting initiative in Shanghai: The role of accountability governance
Open accessAbstract
Municipal solid waste sorting is an essential element of urban sustainability as cities transition to a circular economy. As a mega-city, Shanghai has achieved remarkable milestones in its latest compulsory waste sorting program. This success has garnered widespread attention, and most studies have primarily focused on policy interventions from either a macro perspective or micro-analysis of individual behaviours. However, these studies have often overlooked the intricacies of multi-stakeholder coordination and the division of responsibilities, which frequently contributed to the failure of waste sorting initiatives. Furthermore, existing research lacks a systematic theoretical framework to elucidate multi-stakeholder accountability mechanisms. Therefore, this research adopts a case study approach to untangle the factors that led to Shanghai’s success. Through the lens of accountability theory, this study systematically elaborates stakeholder accountability mechanisms and offers a distinctive multi-stakeholder perspective to explain Shanghai’s success across vertical, horizontal, and felt accountability dimensions. This informative exemplar provides crucial empirical insights for other cities, especially those grappling with challenges in promoting and managing waste sorting initiatives.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This case study uses accountability theory to explain Shanghai’s compulsory waste sorting success through vertical, horizontal, and felt accountability mechanisms. It argues that top-down legislation and enforcement, coordinated social/community actors, and residents’ internalized responsibility jointly produced sustained sorting performance.
Key findings
- Shanghai’s success is explained by three accountability types: vertical accountability (hierarchical government enforcement), horizontal accountability (voluntary/social coordination among salient stakeholders), and felt accountability (residents’ perceived responsibility and engagement).
- Vertical accountability included mandatory legislation implemented on 1 July 2019, fines of 200–50,000 RMB, and strict enforcement; one recycling-company CEO reported that after six months the government issued more than 30,000 tickets, of which more than 25,000 were issued to businesses.
- Reported performance figures include sorted dry waste reaching 15,518.24 tonnes per day, a reduction of almost 20% compared to previous years; nearly 83.62% of household food waste could be separated, with purity of 99.50%; and one NGO project manager cited food waste final disposal reaching 6,000 tons per day after legislation.
- Horizontal and felt accountability operated through community “triad” governance, policy toolkits such as the Green Account and “certain time and place,” agile policy adjustment, and resident norm formation; one recycling-company project manager said volunteers had been reduced from three to two, and now even only one volunteer.
Methods
- Single exploratory case study of Shanghai’s compulsory waste sorting programme, selected as an exemplar, using abductive theory elaboration guided by accountability theory.
- Data included 45 semi-structured interviews conducted between October 2021 and February 2022, plus two follow-up online interviews after February 2022; interviewees spanned government, society, community, and individual levels, with interviews ranging from 20 to 124 minutes, alongside field visits and secondary documents.
- Analysis followed iterative thematic coding: open coding by two authors produced 39 first-order categories, condensed into 12 second-order themes, then pattern-matched to vertical, horizontal, and felt accountability constructs.
Limitations
- The paper states that Shanghai’s success is unique to its context and may have its own ecological characteristics; the accountability perspective is only one possible explanation, and other perspectives such as government leadership, social organisations, agent-based approaches, or stakeholder views may yield additional findings.
- The paper calls for comparison with other municipalities, longitudinal studies of dynamic performance, and further work on smart waste management, other stakeholder roles, ecosystem perspectives, and interdisciplinary empirical verification.
- Evident from the text: the design is a single case and the authors explicitly aim for analytical rather than statistical generalisation; several quantitative performance figures are drawn from secondary sources or interviewee quotations rather than independently measured by the study.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 No basis given · 38 Own interpretation · 30 Own result · 27 No full text of the sources · 15 Not checked yet · 6 Sources not found · 4 Partly supported · 4 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“the exiting studies do not comprehensively consider the social dimension of accountability mechanisms.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Arantes et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “A Changing State Role” (p. 5), the paper says little has been written about competitive contracting’s impact on local mobilization and that evaluations of government service contracts rely mainly on financial and implementation data. This supports a gap concerning social effects in that setting, but not the broader claim about existing studies of accountability mechanisms generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, it suggests that the society level plays a double agency role between the governmental and individual levels (Wilhelm et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wilhelm et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.1 describes a double agency role for a first-tier supplier positioned between a lead firm and its suppliers. It does not establish that a society level plays that role between governmental and individual levels; the citing sentence transfers the concept to different actors. (LLM, conf=0.82)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and some communities placed cameras to record malpractices (ex-post moni toring).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the government established a roll-out performance for green accounts, i.e., to complete the registration of a targeted number of users.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, communities generally employ cleaners to help with sorting stations ' clean-up and secondary sorting”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant initiative was the removal of bin facilities on each floor, which led to resentment among many residents due to increased inconvenience.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while back-end processing companies are targeted for the dedicated waste transport.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One incentive-oriented policy, Green Account , aimed to attract residents to participate by of fering physical rewards (acquiring points recorded in digital accounts in exchange for daily necessities).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It worked as a crucial means of attracting participation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This top-down policy implementation is also extended to the com munity level:”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 53
- It may state two separate claims as one. 34
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Multiple studies confirmed the successful implementation of waste sorting in Shanghai, both in terms of timeliness and effective ness (Arantes et al., 2020; Govindan et al., 2022; Guo and Chen, 2022).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Arantes et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (p. 19) report increased daily recycling and improved understanding of Shanghai’s waste-sorting system under the green-account program, supporting effectiveness in the communities studied. The paper does not establish that waste sorting was successfully implemented across Shanghai or assess whether implementation was timely. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Govindan et al., 2022 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guo and Chen, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As explained by Arantes et al. (2020) sustainable practice requires a more resilient approach to linking relevant stakeholders, and key intermediary organisations are able to work effectively upwards or downwards in multi-organisational collaboration.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Arantes et al. (2020) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions (p. 18) describe Aifen as an intermediary between government and communities and link its collaboration and local flexibility to sustainable development results. The paper supports stakeholder engagement and intermediary work, but it does not establish that sustainable practice requires a more resilient approach or describe intermediaries working effectively ‘upwards or downwards’ in multi-organisational collaboration. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The government also conducted unprecedentedly strict enforcement. Municipalities have taken to enforcing strict fines of, 200-50,000 RMB for malpractice.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“City and district governments are primarily responsible for the legislation and monitoring, and practical implementations lie with street governments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As an incentive, the cleaners hold the ownership of re cyclables, which are available to re-sell for profit.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During several community activ ities, many residents reflected that they had long been accustomed to waste sorting:”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although it has gradually weakened due to the huge financial burden”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the government provided subsidies and purchases services to communities. For example, the government subsidises the back-end treatment facilities such as incineration stations and landfills. Social procurement and advisory services are paid to recycling com panies and NGOs.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These smart recycling systems helped to meet the regulatory needs, such as recording recycling data in real time, and keeping better track of recycling flows.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key players in community triad are the property committee, who undertake the task of coordinating community work.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and residents emulate proper waste sorting and even feel guilty about misbehaving.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, the community level conducts propaganda and coordinates the community triad.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this policy was initially controversial, it did change citizens ' behaviour, and it is confirmed that the monitoring costs were minimised.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most resi dents understand the importance of waste sorting and regard it as a beneficial social activity, even if people express complaints in the early stages.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Initially, some residents were resistant to following waste sorting because of cumbersome requirements or inconvenience.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, back-end disposals heavily rely on governmental subsidies to survive”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and these recycling processing plants lack sufficient incentives.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Autonomy governance mechanisms formed at the community level, including the reconciled community triad from the three key stakeholders”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, with the vigorous promotion, equipment deployment, and effective moni toring, more people are willing to participate and form conscious habits, i.e., forming responsiveness.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Financial support from government to upgrade equipment and build physical and institutional infrastructure”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As most waste service providers/third parties are involved through fair competitive bidding, they are dependent on the government for public service purchase.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Customised recycling chain life cycle governance for specific waste types”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MSW sorting has a solid legislative foundation based years of practical exploration.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Efficient implementation at the government level identifies stakeholder responsibilities and aligns co- ordination”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For community actors, e.g. the 'triad ' stakeholders, an innovative governance model has been developed -i.e., autonomy of grassroots organisations. This approach is effective to strengthen supervision and promote social norms.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flexible policy adjustments and innovative evaluation”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“coordinate with each other”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple policy toolkits designed at the government level rather than relying on a single policy”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latest compulsory mandatory waste sorting programme has explicit legal instrument.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, third-party organi sations with extensive grassroots experience can act as think tanks to provide timely feedback to the government.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multi-stakeholders fulfil their responsibilities and”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together, these stakeholders form the MSW recycling chain, connecting upstream community and street waste collection with downstream waste disposal.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As interviewees emphasised, legislative endorsement and policy innovations are strong enablers.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Nearly 83.62% of household food waste can be separated, with a purity of 99.50% (Wang et al., 2021b).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang et al., 2021b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implementation of these policy toolkits not only helps to increase awareness but also improves the incentive system to accu mulate social compliance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In other words, the vertical accountability government is power-driven or based on levitative regulations (Koppell, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Koppell, 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these studies have often overlooked the intricacies of multi-stakeholder coordination and the division of responsibilities, which frequently contributed to the failure of waste sorting initiatives.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interviews are efficient in obtaining rich empirical data and the subjective bias can be mitigated by means of multiple interviews (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“it requires broad community involvement, including relevant service providers, grassroots organisations, and the acceptance and participation of a broad base of the public (Guo and Chen, 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guo and Chen, 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“most studies have primarily focused on policy interventions from either a macro perspective or micro-analysis of individual behaviours.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Waste sorting initiatives need to be designed by higher levels of government that have legitimacy to supervise performance (Bian et al., 2022a).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bian et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Data collection was called off when it reached theoretical saturation -i.e., more data cannot generate additional un derstanding to answer the research question (Eisenhardt, 1989).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenhardt, 1989 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To enhance reliability, we triangulate these findings with other data sources, e.g., primary interviews with key stakeholders from Bei jing, secondary data such as news, waste sorting performance reports by social organisations to reduce the informant bias.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In addition to fulfilling vertical accountability, it still requires extensive stakeholder participation (Brummel, 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brummel, 2021 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“policy alone is not the sole driver of waste sorting performance, neces sitating comprehensive consideration of multi-stakeholder coordina tion.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the individual dimension places more emphasis on the psychological factors and ignores the multi-stakeholder perspective of waste sorting as a joint action (Guo and Chen, 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guo and Chen, 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Shanghai ' s success was hailed as a suc cess benchmark for other cities to emulate, particularly in contrast to many pilot cities which are in the stagnant stage.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditionally, waste sorting programmes involved intertwined leader ship departments, even with overlapping or contradictory re sponsibilities, which caused inefficiencies in making implementors to be accountable.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, mandatory legislation provides legal endorsement and gives the authorities the power to enforce and monitor practices.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The MSW sorting is a public management activity which requires accountability from multiple stakeholders.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To enhance research replication, we have taken several measures, including careful tran scription of all interviews, providing detailed case study protocols, and employing multiple data triangulations to enhance reliability and val idity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This research followed a purposeful sampling approach for case se lection (Eisenhardt, 1989).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenhardt, 1989 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the case of Shanghai meets the persuasive criteria of motivation, inspiration, and illustration identified by Siggelkow (2007).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Siggelkow, 2007 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With several rounds of publicity and extensive social practices -e.g., children ' s training, community rating competition -residents develop a strong sense of recognition, which encourages more people to enforce waste sorting requirements.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Consequently, this case study emphasises analytical generalisation from empirical phenomena to theory rather than statistical generalisa tion (Gibbert and Ruigrok, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gibbert and Ruigrok, 2010 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the coordinating role of communities is not isolated, and they depend on the involvement of other social organisations or waste segregation com panies (Arantes et al., 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arantes et al., 2020 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“participants often acquiesce to their waste sorting behaviour and the results do not reflect the actual situa tion”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Govindan et al., 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When residents see volunteers (usually also residents) actively advocating practices, residents will spontaneously meet their expectations and form social norms (Guo and Chen, 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Guo and Chen, 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the past, there is no dedicated recycling system for the disposal of lowervalue waste types, such as food waste, which still relies on incineration or landfill.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is where much of the literature highlights the positive role of community co-governance, advocacy by social organisations (Arantes et al., 2020; Lu and Sidortsov, 2019).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This research identifies the importance of resource allocation in public management, including recycling chain configuration, stakeholder engagement, and pluralistic co-governance by accentuating the role of accountability mechanisms.”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the Shanghai model suggests multiple policy toolkits for promoting resident participation, e.g., green accounts, certain time, certain place, social media propaganda (Bian et al., 2022b; Huang et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bian et al., 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Huang et al., 2022 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To maintain vertical accountability, the government set up strict liabilities -i.e., actors who fail to meet expectations are subject to consequences (Schillemans and Busuioc, 2015), such as severe fines and damage to reputation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schillemans and Busuioc, 2015 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“This monitoring approach is different from the mandatory legislation, with more emphasis on 'social influence ' (Hall et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hall et al., 2017 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, this study takes Shanghai as an exemplary benchmark and decodes how Shanghai achieved the phased success from a meso-level perspective by rigorous data collection and analysis procedures.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Negative performance can affect their ability to qualify for future tenders and even undermine original partnerships.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This double agency role echoes two 'consensual ' and 'confronta tional ' types espoused by Brummel (2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brummel (2021) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exposure to malpractices may undermine public confidence and weaken the power of vertical accountability.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This also echoes Schil lemans (2010) argument that autonomous agencies work in a redundant accountability regime can enhance the legitimacy of the accountability system.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schillemans (2010)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“attitudes, subject norms and perceived behaviour control are also the key enablers (Govindan et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Govindan et al., 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The success of Shanghai is unique to the context, which may have its own ecological characteristics.”
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recyclables collection was market-driven”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tong et al., 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“and fragmented recycling chains lacked government intervention (Tong et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tong et al., 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As explained by Arantes et al. (2020) sustainable practice requires a more resilient approach to linking relevant stakeholders, and key intermediary organisations are able to work effectively upwards or downwards in multi-organisational collaboration.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arantes et al. (2020) source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proposition 1 . Vertical accountability empowers the government to consolidate institutional and physical infrastructure , which is endorsed by legislation and maintained by strict liabilities .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This enriches Arantes et al. (2020) view that local government and NGO collaboration not only helps to increase public participation but also extends to the formation of horizontal accountable governance.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arantes et al. (2020) source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, vertical accountability offers legal endorsement to ensure that social actors and individuals are held accountable, which is shown by P1 in Fig. 5 with two arrows.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Shanghai's compulsory waste sorting initiative is successful.
“Select the exemplar case which is hailed as successful.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Shanghai compulsory waste sorting initiative was successful.
“The success is the result of the combined effect of multiple ac countabilities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Shanghai compulsory waste sorting programme achieved phased success.
“This study takes an exploratory case study approach to untangle the success of Shanghai ' s compulsory waste sorting programme.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 2.1. Waste sorting practice and management · p. 3
“All selected papers are published after 2019 (when the compulsory waste sorting programme began)”
§ 2.1. Waste sorting practice and management · p. 3
“| Lu and Sidortsov | 2019 | WM”
Citations
Cites
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,639
Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (1988) · Cited by 20,701
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 · Cited by 16,670
Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428112452151 · Cited by 13,227
What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050
Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., & Levine, D. (2018) · doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0 · Cited by 6,126
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259247 · Cited by 5,039
Siggelkow, N. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160882 · Cited by 3,472
Case research in operations management
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570210414329 · Cited by 2,963
Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework 1
Bovens, M. (2007) · European Law Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x · Cited by 2,667
Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · Cited by 2,383
Renaissance of case research as a scientific method
Ketokivi, M. A., & Choi, T. Y. (2014) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004 · Cited by 1,474
Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: the case of interviews with elite informants
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3015 · Cited by 791
Generating Theory by Abduction
Sætre, A. S., & de Ven, A. V. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0233 · Cited by 711
Using Theory Elaboration to Make Theoretical Advancements
Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428116689707 · Cited by 576
Wilhelm, M. M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., & Paulraj, A. (2016) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.001 · Cited by 539
The ‘‘what’’and ‘‘how’’of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work
Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109351319 · Cited by 506
Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”
Koppell, J. G. (2005) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x · Cited by 495
Knickmeyer, D. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118605 · Cited by 444
Barriers to smart waste management for a circular economy in China
Zhang, A., Venkatesh, V. G., Liu, Y., Wan, M., Qu, T., & Huisingh, D. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118198 · Cited by 431
Self-citationParmigiani, A., Klassen, R. D., & Russo, M. V. (2011) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2011.01.001 · Cited by 384
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2052 · Cited by 335
Gómez-Sanabria, A., Kiesewetter, G., Klimont, Z., Schoepp, W., & Haberl, H. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27624-7 · Cited by 306
Predicting Public Sector Accountability: From Agency Drift to Forum Drift
Schillemans, T., & Busuioc, M. (2015) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muu024 · Cited by 290
Wang, S., Wang, J., Zhao, S., & Yang, S. C. (2019) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.038 · Cited by 252
Timlett, R. E., & Williams, I. D. (2008) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.08.003 · Cited by 238
Policy impacts on Municipal Solid Waste management in Shanghai: A system dynamics model analysis
Xiao, S., Dong, H., Geng, Y., Tian, X., Liu, C., & Li, H. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121366 · Cited by 227
Zhang, A., Wang, J. X., Farooque, M., Wang, Y., & Choi, T.-M. (2021) · Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review · doi:10.1016/j.tre.2021.102509 · Cited by 224
Self-citationRigor With or Without Templates? The Pursuit of Methodological Rigor in Qualitative Research
Harley, B., & Cornelissen, J. (2020) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428120937786 · Cited by 199
Toward a Public Administration Theory of Felt Accountability
Overman, S., & Schillemans, T. (2021) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13417 · Cited by 185
Alpízar, F., Carlsson, F., Lanza, G., Almroth, B. C., Daniels, R. C., Jaime, M., Ho, T. Q., Nie, Z., Salazar, C., Tibesigwa, B., et al. (2020) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.007 · Cited by 166
Refsgaard, K., & Magnussen, K. (2008) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.018 · Cited by 156
Schillemans, T. (2011) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399711412931 · Cited by 137
Analysis of factors influencing residents' waste sorting behavior: A case study of Shanghai
Govindan, K., Zhuang, Y., & Chen, G. (2022) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131126 · Cited by 134
An overview of the municipal solid waste management modes and innovations in Shanghai, China
Xiao, S., Dong, H., Geng, Y., Francisco, M.-J., Pan, H., & Wu, F. (2020) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09398-5 · Cited by 133
Blockchain‐based recycling and its impact on recycling performance: A network theory perspective
Gong, Y., Xie, S., Arunachalam, D., Duan, J., & Luo, J. (2022) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3028 · Cited by 124
Self-citationImplementation effect of municipal solid waste mandatory sorting policy in Shanghai
Wang, Y., Shi, Y., Zhou, J., Zhao, J., Maraseni, T., & Qian, G. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113512 · Cited by 113
Sorting out a problem: a co-production approach to household waste management in Shanghai, China
Lu, H., & Sidortsov, R. (2019) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2019.06.020 · Cited by 105
Varieties of business models for post-consumer recycling in China
Tong, X., Tao, D., & Lifset, R. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.032 · Cited by 98
THEORIZING AND EXPLAINING VOLUNTARY ACCOUNTABILITY
Koop, C. E. (2014) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12058 · Cited by 92
Bernstad, A., Jansen, J. L. C., & Aspegren, A. (2013) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.012 · Cited by 92
Wang, B., Farooque, M., Zhong, R. Y., Zhang, A., & Liu, Y. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126773 · Cited by 70
Self-citationXie, S., Gong, Y., Kunc, M. H., Wen, Z., & Brown, S. (2022) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2022.2152506 · Cited by 66
Self-citationBruno, J. M., Bianchi, E. C., & Sánchez, C. (2022) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.010 · Cited by 63
Li, C. J., Huang, Y., & Harder, M. K. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.198 · Cited by 60
Self-citationImplications of organizational exchanges for accountability theory
Erdoğan, B., Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., & Dunegan, K. J. (2004) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.002 · Cited by 58
Barriers to compulsory waste sorting for a circular economy in China
Zhang, A., Xie, S., Gong, Y., Li, C., & Liu, Y. (2023) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118180 · Cited by 57
Self-citationCoping with waste: A government-NGO collaborative governance approach in Shanghai
Arantes, V., Zou, C., & Che, Y. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109653 · Cited by 55
Why is China struggling with waste classification? A stakeholder theory perspective
Guo, S., & Chen, L. (2022) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106312 · Cited by 55
Strategy formulation path towards zero-waste of municipal solid waste: A case study from Shanghai
Chu, Z., Li, Q., Zhou, A., Zhang, W., Huang, W., & Wang, J. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138091 · Cited by 44
Brummel, L. (2021) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399720988529 · Cited by 40
Sarra, A., Mazzocchitti, M., & Nissi, E. (2020) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.004 · Cited by 35
Towards a theory of informal supply networks: An exploratory case study of the Za'atari refugee camp
Abushaikha, I., Wu, Z., & Khoury, T. A. (2021) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1002/joom.1151 · Cited by 34
Distance is a barrier to recycling – or is it? Surprises from a clean test
Li, C., Zhang, Y., Nouvellet, P., Okoro, J. O., Wang, X., & Harder, M. K. (2020) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.022 · Cited by 30
Self-citationHousehold waste management in Shanghai and its implications for the second-tier cities in China
Li, W., & Wang, J. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128980 · Cited by 25
Wang, Y.-F., Lee, S. K., & Ye, Q. (2021) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105822 · Cited by 24
Wang, X., Tzeng, S.-Y., & Mardani, A. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121753 · Cited by 22
Huang, F., Chen, Q., Ma, W., & Evans, R. (2022) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115825 · Cited by 21
Liu, Y., Zou, C., Tai, J., & Che, Y. (2023) · Waste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x231155097 · Cited by 19
Self-citationBian, S., Xue, Y., Li, C., Wu, W., Ma, Z., Okoro, J. O., & Harder, M. K. (2021) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105935 · Cited by 17
Self-citationDrift in policy implementation: Incentives thwarted in a recycling programme
Bian, S., Nduneseokwu, C. K., Li, C., & Harder, M. K. (2021) · Waste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x211025193 · Cited by 9
Self-citationBozhikin, I., Gechev, R., & Dentchev, N. A. (2017) · Lirias · Cited by 3
(2010) · Public Administration Quarterly
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jampala, M. B., & Shivnani, T. (2024) · Cleaner Waste Systems · doi:10.1016/j.clwas.2024.100188 · Cited by 16
Al-Rashed, W. S. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-94525-w · Cited by 13
Hao, X., Tian, T., Li, K., Zhang, X., & Dong, L. (2025) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124319 · Cited by 7
Wang, Z., Wang, S., Zheng, X., Liu, W., & Shen, Z. (2025) · Water · doi:10.3390/w17233411 · Cited by 6
Liu, Y., & Cai, W. (2026) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2026.115404 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Xie, S., Gong, Y., Zhang, A., Liu, Y., & Li, C.
- Affiliations
- Nanjing Agricultural University (CN)
- University of Southampton (GB)
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Nankai University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Changjun
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-03
- Volume
- 444
- Pages
- 141268
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4391818728
- Semantic Scholar
- 4ba859cf2088a4d11759f01b41e3804d26a4fb24
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 4.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.gla.ac.uk
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (2016YFE0103100)
- University of Glasgow
- Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SKQY2023002)
- State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs (B17024)
- British Academy (SRG21\\211282)
- Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China
- Nanjing Agricultural University (804107)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (42371305)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Waste Management and Recycling
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Keywords
- Shanghai, multi-stakeholder coordination, vertical accountability, horizontal accountability, felt accountability, circular economy, urban sustainability, waste management policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
