Cited by 16Risk Perception and ManagementMedia Studies and CommunicationClimate Change Communication and Perception

News about Tap and Bottled Water: Can This Influence People’s Choices?

Open access
Queiroz, Josiane T. M.·2012·Journal of Environmental Protection

Abstract

The pursuit of alternative safe water has increased dramatically the world trade in bottled water.Events happened in Canada which changed the population's perception about the quality of tap water, despite all government efforts.Media has an important role to pass on information because there is value judgment in its reports.As a result, this study aims to present recent data from two Canadian newspapers of national circulation, which refer to tap water and bottled water.It used quantitative and qualitative data for this analysis.The study concludes that the media, taken into consideration, provides its readers with important information, but the information can also be ambiguous.Nevertheless, it arouses interest in further research about this subject matter and about protecting water resources.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4236/jep.2012.34041

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • 1 kg of PET results in emissions of 40 g hydrocarbons, 25 g sulfur oxides, 18 g carbon monoxide, 20 g nitrogen oxide, and 2.3 kg CO2.

    “A study from 2012 estimated that 1 kg of PET results in the emission of 40 g of hydrocarbons, 25 g of sulfur oxides, 18 g of carbon monoxide, 20 g of nitrogen oxide, and 2.3 kg of CO2 [1].”

    From Bottled Water: An Evidence-Based Overview of Economic Viability, Environmental Impact, and Social Equity (2023) · cites this paper as [1]

    Section 3.3.3 gives all five emission figures for producing 1 kg of PET. But the 2012 paper presents them in a discussion drawing on the Worldwatch Institute [56]; it does not describe them as its own estimate. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. K. Flecker, "Backlash Against Bottled Water," American Prospect, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2008, pp. 11-12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Queiroz, J. T. M.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
Corresponding author
Queiroz, Josiane T. M.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Protection
Published
2012
Volume
03
Issue
04
Pages
324-333
ISSN
  • 2152-2197 (ISSN-L)
  • 2152-2219
OpenAlex
W2170852536
Cited by
16
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Environmental Protection (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Queen's University
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
Keywords
tap water, bottled water, media coverage, newspaper reporting, water resources, consumer choice

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