Littering and Recycling
One common focus throughout the literature on trash and garbage is the idea of littering
and recycling. This theme can be broken down into four subcategories, which include: what
constitutes trash, and the different types of litter; why people litter; how the problem can or has
been fixed; and who recycles and why they do it. Each of these subcategories will be further
explained below.
Different types of litter
One of the biggest problems with researching trash and garbage is that the definitions of
what actually constitutes litter and trash are inconsistent. In Sibley and Liu (2003), for example,
they look at the idea of size when deciding what is and is not considered trash. They believe that
littering smaller items is less noticeable than someone who drops a larger item. For instance, they
argue: “There may be substantial normative differences in dropping a cigarette on the ground (a
common practice) and dropping larger pieces of more obvious litter (a practice with better
established social and legal proscriptions)” (Sibley & Liu, 2003, p. 419). In this sense, it is
suggested that cigarette butts are not commonly perceived as trash and therefore, are commonly
found littering the ground. In the fieldnotes we collected, there were very few, if any, references
to finding cigarette butts, which could be explained in two ways: first, we do not consider
cigarette ends as being trash; or, secondly, because of the changing stereotypes surrounding
smoking, and the increase in designated smoking areas, cigarette butts are now confined to those
areas.
Another study that looked at the different definitions of trash is Huffman et al. (1995)
who used the example of a hamburger bag versus an abandoned car. They argue: “Although both
are unsightly, studies in this review focused more on individual pieces of litter that can be
handheld, thus eliminating materials such as abandoned automobiles, washer/dryers, ranges, and
other machinery and appliances” (p. 154). In other words, they limit litter as constituting an item
that can fit in one’s hand. This is a rather interesting limitation to set, especially in relation to our
fieldnotes. Many items that we found were much larger than would fit into one’s hand, including
a lot of furniture items like mattresses or chairs. These are just a few of the examples of the
varying definitions of litter that are present throughout the literature on trash and garbage.
Why do people litter?
Another common theme present in the literature is the idea of investigating the
behavioural aspect of why people litter, and can be seen in several studies (Hansmann & Scholz,
2003; Knussen & Yule, 2008; Sibley & Liu, 2003). These articles look at various reasons as to
why people litter, including out of habit or because of social norms. They also argue that there is
more than one type of littering. First, Sibley & Liu (2003) explore the idea of ‘table littering’
which refers to the idea of littering that “occurs when patrons leave food or beverage-related
material on the table surface where it was consumed” (p. 418). This type of littering is relatively
predominant around campus (or so we can assume from various observations around campus
where trash has been left on tables).
A further idea explored by Sibley and Liu (2003) is that of active and passive littering
and non-littering. According to this idea, active littering refers to cases where “litter is kept in
hand while occupying an area; when leaving, litter is placed in the area (e.g. persons drop some
packaging on the ground and continue walking along a path)” (p. 417). Passive littering occurs
when “litter is placed in an area that is occupied; when leaving the area, litter is left behind” (p.
417). An example of passive littering is the idea of table littering which was described above.
Active non-littering takes place “when litter is kept in hand while occupying an area; when
leaving the area, litter is taken” (p. 417). And lastly, passive non-littering occurs when “litter is
placed in an area that is occupied; when leaving the area, litter is retrieved (e.g., persons place
their packaging on the park bench where they are sitting; later, when they vacate the bench, they
pick their litter up and take it with them)” (p. 417). Each of these different forms of littering and
non-littering help to show that not only is it difficult to define garbage or litter, but it is also
difficult to specify what actually constitutes littering. These are also just a few examples of the
habitual reasons as to why people litter.
In terms of littering as a social norm, there have been studies including Hansmann &
Scholz (2003) and de Kort, McCalley & Midden (2008). Both of these articles explore
descriptive norms and injunctive norms. A descriptive norm, according to de Kort et al. (2008)
“refers to what most people do in a particular situation, or what is, and motivation for action
come from seeing what other people do” (p. 872). In other words, a descriptive norm is almost
like public consensus on what is considered ‘normal’ or what is generally done in a social
setting. An injunctive norm, however, “is defined as what the particular culture approves or
disapproves of and can be described as an ought norm. An injunctive norm motivates action
through the threat or promise of social sanction” (de Kort et al, 2008, p. 872). More specifically,
an injunctive norm is what is considered an approved behaviour for a social setting.
In relation to littering norms, if most people actually do put their garbage in trash bins,
then the act of putting the trash in the bin would be a descriptive norm. There’s no one present to
enforce this practice, however, it is something that is commonly done. The injunctive norm, in
this situation then, would be the idea that people do not litter not just because of it is better for
the environment, but they throw out their trash out of respect for those around them. These are
just a few of the examples of the behavioural and social aspects of littering.
How can we fix the problem?
There are two different ways of solving littering problems that are present throughout
trash and garbage literature: attempts to deter littering behaviour, and attempts to start as well as
enforce recycling programs. In regards to changing people’s littering behaviour, one way to get
people to use garbage bins is through the use of signs or prompts. As Sibley & Liu (2003) argue,
there are two ways of changing littering behaviour: “first, by changing the antecedent conditions
of littering behaviour using interventions such as prompts or the presence or absence of prior
litter and second, by changing the consequences of littering behaviour through interventions such
as rewards or penalties” (p. 416).
Therefore, one way of attempting to halt littering is to use prompts or signs near garbage
cans to encourage people to use them. Huffman et al. (1995) believer that these prompts should
have these four characteristics: “(1) The prompt should be administered in close proximity with
the opportunity to provide the associated response, (2) the prompt should specifically state the
desired response, (3) the desired response should be relatively convenient, and (4) the prompt
should be conveyed in polite non-demanding language” (p. 155). In other words, signs should be
placed close to garbage cans, kindly suggesting that people throw their trash into the bin, which
is so conveniently placed right beside the sign. In addition, de Kort et al. (2008) suggest that the
use of signs or prompts help “to focus individuals on already existing social and/or personal
antilittering norms” (p. 887).
The use of prompts is one way that reduces the frequency of littering behaviour by
encouraging individuals to place their trash in the closely accessible garbage can. However,
another issue to consider is that of recycling. In most public places now, rather than simply
having a garbage can, there may be two or three different cans, much like what was observed in
James Dunn Hall (one for garbage, one for cans/bottles, and one for paper). Therefore, now there
is a need to also encourage recycling, not just anti-littering behaviours. One such way to do so, as
suggested by Huffman et al. (1995) is to reward those who recycle, and have consequences for
those who do not. As they suggest, “adding or giving a consequence to increase the likelihood
that behaviour will occur is called positive reinforcement. For example, giving 5 cents for the
return of a soda bottle is a positive reinforcer” (p. 173). This shows us how recycling also now
needs to be reinforced, especially since several provinces in Canada now have programs aimed at
reducing the amount of waste they produce.
One such example is that of Nova Scotia. According to Wagner (2007), when Nova
Scotia realized that they were running out of places to serve as a dump, they decided to attempt
to reduce the amount of waste that they were producing. The author believed that the new
recycling program should be accessible to everyone if it were to be effective. As Wagner argues,
“every Nova Scotian generates solid waste and therefore has a direct connection and familiarity
with the issue. It is not an abstract or arcane environmental concern, but something one touches,
sees, and smells on a daily basis” (p. 461). In this sense, because every member of the public, on
some level or another, produces waste, we should all have the chance to participate in recycling
programs.
Who recycles and why?
One of the biggest issues surrounding recycling involves availability and access. As
Knussen and Yule (2008) propose, those who do not recycle have given these three reasons:
“‘Recycling facilities are not easily available,’ ‘There are no local [curbside] collections’ and ‘I
do not have a car (which I would need to do this)’” (p. 686-687). This is similar to what we
discovered during out field research, in that many of us did not recycle in our apartments,
because it was not available to us. With Nova Scotia’s recycling program, however, they made
recycling accessible to the majority of their residents. As Wagner (2007) suggests,
“approximately 99 percent of the province’s population is served by weekly curbside recycling,
76 percent of the population is served by curbside organics collection, and 53 of the 55
municipalities offer centralized composting to the business sector” (p. 471). There may be
several reasons why a person chooses to recycle (depending on their behavioural habits, or based
on their environmental awareness), however, making it accessible is key to reducing waste
levels.
References
de Kort, Y.A.W., McCalley, L.T., & Midden, C.J.H. (2008). Persuasive trash cans: Activation of
littering norms by design. Environment and Behaviour, 40(6), 870-891.
Hansmann, R., & Scholz, R.W. (2003). A two-step informational strategy for reducing littering
behaviour in a cinema. Environment and Behaviour, 35(6), 752-762.
Huffman, K.T., Grossnickle, W.F., Cope, J.G., & Huffman, K.P. (1995). Litter reduction: A
review and integration of the literature. Environment and Behaviour, 27(2), 153-183.
Knussen, C., & Yule, F. (2008). “I’m not in the habit of recycling”: The role of habitual
behaviour in the disposal of household waste. Environment and Behaviour, 40(5), 683702.
Sibley, C.G., & Liu, J.H. (2003). Differentiating active and passive littering: A two-stage process
model of littering behaviour in public spaces. Environment and Behaviour, 35(3), 415433.
Wagner, T. (2007). Reframing garbage: Solid waste policy formulation in Nova Scotia.
Canadian Public Policy, 33(4), 459-475.