Research shows many people have trouble noticing rubbish, even when it is prominent. Convenience of public bins, as well as reminding people about social norms, public funding , and novelty of design decreases littering.

Littering behaviours

A study of 10,000 unobstrusive observations of people littering in the USA shows that there are many different types of littering behaviours, from dropping rubbish with intent (wilfully littering), flicking and missing the bin (especialy cigarette butts), to dropping without intent.

Some rubbish items act as ‘beacons’ of littering. This means if people already see certain items on the ground, especially cigarette butts and recognisable branded or bright packaging (such as drink cans), they are more likely to toss their own rubbish outside of a bin.

Convenient placing of bins makes a difference, but many other behavioural cues equally matter. This includes whether a lot of rubbish already exists (‘beautification’), instructions and design of bins, such as built-in ash trays (behavioural opportunity).

This is true in many parts of the world. For example a study of 362 individuals in Saudi Arabia, finds that half of the people observed over a two-week period had littered. The amount of litter on the ground, beautification, and distance to rubbish bins had the biggest impact on littering in parks and neighbourhoods. The researchers conclude:

The greater availability of bins supports beautified parks, which in turn will deliver decreases in littering behaviour.’

– Yara Al-mosa, Joy Parkinson & Sharyn Rundle-Thiele (2017)

Of course class plays a role here: the richer the area, the more likely it is that councils will spend more money to maintain clean spaces. This leads to less littering.

It is not that poorer people are more pre-disposed to littering. Instead, it matters whether we have the means and opportunity to live in places where policy-makers create an environment where littering is not tolerated.

Social norms

Research shows that social norms (the unwritten rules of how we should behave) impact on littering. For example, a South Australian study shows the belief that other people will pick up rubbish leads people to litter.

When people can see evidence that others have littered before them, they see this as normal and permissible (such as seeing flyers that had been left on their dashboard, which had been tossed on the ground by other drivers). Physical reminders correcting pro-social norms can conversely reduce littering for sighted people. For example, placing stickers of green footsteps leading to the bin reduced littering by 46% in Copenhagen, Sweden.

Other ‘fun’ or novel designs have been successful in reducing littering around the world. This includes having a bin where locals can vote on their favourite players by placing their cigarette butts in one of two bins that visibly shows which vote is winning. Other examples are making the opening of the bin look like a shark’s opened mouth, a hopscotch on the ground that leads to the bin, and basketball backboards placed over recycling bins.

Smart bin

When a public bin is visibly almost full, even if it is not actually overflowing, people are more likely to throw litter on the ground, rather than in the bin.

And so, while walking with my family in the city, I was intrigued by these smart bins in the City of Melbourne, which compress recycling. This is behavioural insights intervention.

The research I’ve discused above shows how the ease of use, availability, and novel design of these bins are effective in reducing littering.

References

Dunstone Director Rikki-Lee Schmitt Senior Account Manager Madeleine Hayter Research Assistant, J., & Phillips, J. (n.d.). KESAB Litter disposal behaviour The Square Holes Team. Retrieved June 24, 2021, from http://www.squareholes.com

Ideas42. (2017). Consuming differently, consuming sustainably: behavioural insights for policy.

Kolodko, J., Read, D., & Taj, U. (2016). Using behavioural insivghts to reduce littering in the UK.
Al-mosa, Y., Parkinson, J., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2017). A Socioecological Examination of Observing Littering Behavior. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 29(3), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2017.1326354

Roper, S., & Parker, C. (2008). The rubbish of marketing. Article in Journal of Marketing Management. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725708X381948

Tehan, R., Jackson, L., Jeffers, H., Burns, T., & Monck, G. (2017). Beacons of litter: A social experiment to understand how the presence of certain littered items influences rates of littering. http://www.keepbritaintidy.org

Wesley Schultz, P., Bator, R. J., Brown Large, L., Bruni, C. M., & Tabanico, J. J. (2013). Littering in Context: Personal and Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511412179