CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Promoting public engagement with household waste separation through government social media: A case study of Shanghai

Huang, Fangnan, Chen, Qiang, Ma, Wenjie, Evans, Richard·2022·Journal of Environmental Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115825
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115825

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Ai, 2021, Adolescents' social media use and their voluntary garbage sorting intention: a sequential mediation model, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health, 18, 8119, 10.3390/ijerph18158119 · DOI
  2. Arturo, 2017, Facebook as a dialogic strategic tool for European local governments, Transylvanian Rev. Admini. Sci., 13, 73
  3. Awasthi, 2021, Zero waste approach towards a sustainable waste management, Res, Environ. Sustain., 3
  4. Bolaane, 2006, Constraints to promoting people centred approaches in recycling, Habitat Int., 30, 731, 10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.10.002 · DOI
  5. Chen, 2021, Why do citizens share COVID-19 fact-checks posted by Chinese government social media accounts? The elaboration likelihood model, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health, 18, 10.3390/ijerph181910058 · DOI
  6. Chen, 2021, Factors driving citizen engagement with government TikTok accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic: model development and analysis, J. Med. Internet Res., 23, 10.2196/21463 · DOI
  7. Chen, 2016, Social media policies as responses for social media affordances: the case of China, Govern. Inf. Q., 33, 313, 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.008 · DOI
  8. Daft, 1986, Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design, Manag. Sci., 32, 554, 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Daft, 1987, Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems, MIS Q., 355, 10.2307/248682 · DOI
  10. De Fano, 2022, Empowering plastic recycling: empirical investigation on the influence of social media on consumer behavior, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 182, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106269 · DOI
  11. De Veirman, 2017, Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude, Int. J. Advert., 36, 798, 10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035 · DOI · Paper page
  12. del Mar Gálvez-Rodríguez, 2018, Exploring dialogic strategies in social media for fostering citizens' interactions with Latin American local governments, Publ. Relat. Rev., 44, 265, 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.03.003 · DOI
  13. Denktaş-Şakar, 2020, Stakeholder engagement via social media: an analysis of third-party logistics companies, Serv. Ind. J., 40, 866, 10.1080/02642069.2018.1561874 · DOI
  14. Ghani, 2013, An application of the theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source separation of food waste, Waste Manag., 33, 1276, 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.019 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hellwig, 2019, Household waste sorting and engagement in everyday life occupations after migration—a scoping review, Sustainability, 11, 4701, 10.3390/su11174701 · DOI
  16. Jiang, 2021, Data analytics of social media publicity to enhance household waste management, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 164, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105146 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Ji, 2019, Functional and emotional traits of corporate social media message strategies: behavioral insights from S&P 500 Facebook data, Publ. Relat. Rev., 45, 88, 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.12.001 · DOI
  18. Kent, 1998, Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web, Publ. Relat. Rev., 24, 321, 10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X · DOI
  19. Kent, 2002, Toward a dialogic theory of public relations, Publ. Relat. Rev., 28, 21, 10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X · DOI
  20. Knickmeyer, 2020, Social factors influencing household waste separation: a literature review on good practices to improve the recycling performance of urban areas, J. Clean. Prod., 245, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118605 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Ling, 2021, Social-contextual influences on public participation in incentive programs of household waste separation, J. Environ. Manag., 281, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111914 · DOI
  22. Mavrodieva, 2019, Role of social media as a soft power tool in raising public awareness and engagement in addressing climate change, Climate, 7, 122, 10.3390/cli7100122 · DOI
  23. Sáez Martín, 2015, Using twitter for dialogic communication: local government strategies in the European Union, Local Govern. Stud., 41, 421, 10.1080/03003930.2014.991866 · DOI
  24. Saxton, 2020, Social media capital: conceptualizing the nature, acquisition, and expenditure of social media-based organizational resources, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst., 36, 10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100443 · DOI
  25. Sujata, 2019, The role of social media on recycling behaviour, Sustain. Prod. Consum., 20, 365, 10.1016/j.spc.2019.08.005 · DOI
  26. Vargo, 2016, Toward a tweet typology: contributory consumer engagement with brand messages by content type, J. Interact. Advert., 16, 157, 10.1080/15252019.2016.1208125 · DOI
  27. Xiao, 2020, An overview of the municipal solid waste management modes and innovations in Shanghai, China, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser., 27, 29943, 10.1007/s11356-020-09398-5 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Xiao, 2017, Promoting public participation in household waste management: a survey based method and case study in Xiamen city, China, J. Clean. Prod., 144, 313, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.022 · DOI
  29. Xu, 2021, Influence of role models on public participation in household waste separation: an examination of local contextual moderators, Sustain. Prod. Consum., 27, 1934, 10.1016/j.spc.2021.04.032 · DOI
  30. Xu, 2018, Sentiment, richness, authority, and relevance model of information sharing during social Crises—the case of# MH370 tweets, Comput. Hum. Behav., 89, 199, 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.041 · DOI
  31. Ye, 2020, The effect of emotion on prosocial tendency: the moderating effect of epidemic severity under the outbreak of COVID-19, Front. Psychol., 11, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.588701 · DOI
  32. Yue, 2019, How do CEOs communicate on twitter? A comparative study between Fortune 200 companies and top startup companies, Corp. Commun. Int. J., 24, 532, 10.1108/CCIJ-03-2019-0031 · DOI
  33. Zafar, 2021, Social media and sustainable purchasing attitude: role of trust in social media and environmental effectiveness, J. Retailing Consum. Serv., 63, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102751 · DOI
  34. Zhang, 2016, Mentalizing and information propagation through social network: evidence from a resting-state-fMRI study, Front. Psychol., 7, 1716, 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01716 · DOI
  35. Zhang, 2022, Does citizen engagement with government social media accounts differ during the different stages of public health crises? An empirical examination of the COVID-19 pandemic, Front. Public Health, 10
  36. Zhou, 2019, New policy and implementation of municipal solid waste classification in Shanghai, China, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health, 16, 3099, 10.3390/ijerph16173099 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 21

Metadata

Authors
Huang, F., Chen, Q., Ma, W., & Evans, R.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
320
Pages
115825
ISSN
0301-4797
DOI
10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115825
Cited by
21
References
3
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
  • Social Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (2021ZXWT03)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (2022JM-418)
  • National Social Science Fund Youth Project (17CXW026)

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.

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