Be a tidy kiwi

Littering Education > Infrastructure Issues > Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Deficiencies in disposal infrastructure are often cited by people as something that would cause them to litter. They are primarily referring to the number and location of litter bins. Research has been undertaken examining whether the presence of bins makes a difference to the amount of litter, and also whether the design of litter bins would encourage their use. These ideas have been extended more recently to issues of urban design, and the effect that the design of public places can have on littering and other behaviour.

Although ‘no bin nearby’ is frequently given as a reason for littering, Williams et al (1997) observed that in the Australian context a lack of bins was ‘not a major factor in littering; most littering occurred within five metres of a bin’. This was particularly the case for cigarettes. However, ‘no bins nearby’ has been given as a reason in numerous other studies, for example panel discussions conducted for the New Zealand Anti-Litter Council, and other research has shown that the presence of bins does make a difference to the incidence of litter. For example, Finnie (1973) reported research undertaken in Philadelphia, and used this to calculate the probabilities of a person littering in certain environments. He found the following probabilities:

 

Clean Area

Dirty (already littered) Area

Area with litter bins

Area with no litter bins

15% chance of littering

33% chance of littering

34% chance of littering

52% chance of littering

 

From this table it can be seen that the presence of litter bins can generate a substantial reduction in littering. This research also indicates that people are much less likely to litter in a clean area than in one which is already littered. The regression co-efficient calculated by Finnie in this experiment show that these two factors are of the same importance in preventing litter.

Other factors that were identified in the Williams el (1997) study associated with infrastructure included the design of bins. The researchers observed people struggling with one particular bin design that had only a small aperture in the lid.

Slepnikoff (1974) reports on the results of a survey he undertook which showed that the more attractive the litter bin, the more likely people were to use the bin. He undertook a survey of outdoor litter bins in recreation areas of medium to high density use (including private, city, state and federal parks, picnic areas, campgrounds and roadside rest areas) in California.

He also found that bins located nearer to the flow of traffic were used more than those placed further away, the maintenance of the bin and the surrounding area was important, and bins that were clearly identified as such were used more than those that were not clearly marked.

Many receptacles used in National Park areas were made deliberately ugly so as to prevent theft, however these were more poorly used than those that had been designed to be attractive, for example in the Tilden Park Nature Area of the West Bay Regional Park District (California) scenes are painted on litter bins to make them more appealing.

There are silos and farm animals on bins in the little farm area and marsh scenes on bins near the lake. Park users like the bins and have been seen pushing down the litter inside to prevent the area becoming littered, and vandalism has not been a problem.

A follow up survey asking people what they would like a litter bin to look like found that 93% of people surveyed wanted the bin to be easy to spot. Green was the preferred colour choice, and people wanted the bin to have a swinging opening and for it to resemble a plant or animal in form.

Geller, Brasted and Mann (1980) cited in Huffman et al (1995) examined the effectiveness of ‘highly decorated trash receptacles’ compared to normal receptacles in an indoor shopping area. Both of the decorated cans used in this study looked like birds and were brightly coloured and had anti-litter slogans on them. The results of this study suggested that the two decorated bird cans were more effective in encouraging litter deposits than were the normal containers.

More recently, Curnow and Spehr (2005) found that it is the ‘characteristics of public place
locations themselves’ that are important. This includes more than just bins or no bins, or clean or dirty locations, but instead the researchers found that:

‘public places that are clean, safe and user friendly promote participation of the community (and visitors) in efforts to care for and maintain the location, as well as engendering a sense of ownership and community pride. In contrast, public places that are dirty and poorly cared for attract not only litter, but are more likely to contain graffiti and to increase the likelihood of anti-social behaviour and threaten community safety’. (p.4)

This includes elements of urban design such as well sited and designed bins, clean and well maintained street furniture, attractive landscaping and clear boundary markers. This is supported by research by the University of Groningen (The Netherlands) reported by Aggelen and Hesselmans (2004), which showed that clean areas with a confusing layout attracted litter. These researchers also found that street litter makes people feel unsafe, and that cleaning activity in a clean area helps prevent litter. They report an example of complaints received about dirty underground stations in Rotterdam.

Traditionally, platforms were cleaned and dustbins emptied after rush hour. However, this was changed so that cleaning was done during the rush hour. Passengers saw people sweeping, emptying bins and removing paper. ‘They felt the pride present, they saw the stations were cleaner and the improvement in behaviour was striking’.