Action research and residential waste minimisation in Palmerston North, New Zealand
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Door-stepping campaigns that focus on face-to-face contact with residents may lead to meaningful behavioural changes.
“Finally, door-stepping campaigns that focus on face-to-face contact with residents may lead to meaningful behavioural changes (Fahy and Davies, 2007;Farrelly and Tucker, 2014;Rispo et al., 2015).”
From Food waste matters - A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications (2018) · cites this paper as Farrelly and Tucker, 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Farrelly, T., & Tucker, C.
- Affiliations
- Massey University (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Farrelly, Trisia
- Venue
- Resources, Conservation and Recycling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 91
- Pages
- 11-26
- ISSN
- 0921-3449 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2075050059
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 4.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Resources Conservation and Recycling (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Waste Management and Recycling
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
- Keywords
- action research, value-action gap, social support, accountability, Palmerston North
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
