Integrating Street Vendors in City Planning: The Case of Vadodara

Clicks: 47
ID: 311708
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #1 of 3 articles by views in Street Vendors in the Global Urban Economy

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
R Soc Open Sci. 2025 May 21;12(5):250290. doi: 10.1098/rsos.250290. eCollection 2025 May. Factors impacting effective altruism: revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extension registered report of Baron and Szymanska (2011). Chan M, Feldman G(1).Individuals who donate to charity may be affected by various biases and donate inefficiently. In a replication and extension registered report with a US Amazon Mechanical Turk sample using CloudResearch (N = 1403), we replicated studies 1 to 4 in Baron & Szymanska (Baron & Szymanska 2011 In The science of giving: experimental approaches to the study of charity (eds DM Oppenheimer, CY Olivola), pp. 215-235 (doi:10.4324/9780203865972-24)) with extensions on reputation and overhead funding. We found support for the effects of a preference for lower perceived waste (d = 0.70, 95% CI [0.41, 0.99]), lower past costs (d = 0.59, 95% CI [0.16, 1.02]), for the ingroup (d = 0.52, 95% CI [0.47, 0.58]), for having some diversification between charities (d = 0.63, 95% CI [0.47, 0.78] for single projects; d = 1.18, 95% CI [1.00, 1.36] for several projects versus one) and against forced charity (d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.21, 0.37]; nominally replicated, but has caveats regarding validity); as at least four of our five hypotheses were found to replicate, we conclude this as being a successful replication. Extending the replication, we found support for an unexpected preference for anonymity on donation allocation (opposite to our predictions; d = 0.54, 95% CI [0.46, 0.61]), and support for a preference towards paid-for overhead costs on donation allocation (d = 0.60, 95% CI [0.52, 0.68]). We discuss the implications and validity of these findings. All materials, data and code were made available on: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BEP78. This registered report has been officially endorsed by Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100775. © 2025 The Authors. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.250290 PMCID: PMC12092110 PMID: 40400516 Conflict of interest statement: We declare we have no competing interests.
Reference Key
unknown2012integratingstreetven Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal Street Vendors in the Global Urban Economy
Year 2012
DOI
10.4324/9780203150542-12
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.