Local littering down -10%


Find who, and what drives the behaviour of, ‘fizzy drinks’ litterers


Participants

• 245 observed disposals (includes both bin disposals and littering)

• 49 people stopped on the street

• 2 x 8 people qualitative group participants

Materials

• 2 street litter bins

Design

• The design was paired samples t test

Procedure

• Observing behaviour and on-street interviews over 6 days for 8 hours a day

Analysis

• We achieved 10% reduction in general littering

• We found it was younger generation littering fizzy drinks

• We found the amount of littering was small compared to impression


wide_shallow


1. Observe behaviour


Two sites were discretely observed for littering and wider (correct) disposal behaviours

• 6 hours a day

• For 3 days per week, for 2 weeks




We defined:

• Litter/item type

• and the disposal placement (‘Channel/gutter’, ‘Paving joints’, etc.) according LEQSE classification

• and the method of disposal (‘Drop: intentional’, ‘Flick/fling’, ‘Inch away’, etc.) according to Keep America Beautiful study (2009)

• added contextual factors such as speed of walking, with friends or alone, etc.

• And many more

Of 245 disposals only 1.2% of all littered items where coca cola products

2. Ask intentions


Two sites were sampled for on-street survey, totally 49 on-street interviews





3. Extract deep-seated views


2 x 8 people qualitative group participants







• Recognised: So visible! Over estimated fizzy drinks as most littered item after cigarettesnon-alcoholic drinks ‘beacons of litter’ (31% or 5 of 16 responses). In reality, non-alcoholic drinks littering was 1.2% (3 of 245) of all binning and littering combined – certainly nowhere near 31% that our group presented

• Revealed: Respondents were miming ‘dropping’ litter in bins or on floor whenever they said it –  shows a shared internal ‘script’, and that open drop bins match better most people


wide_shallow


4. Account for the effect of ‘the situation’

To test the impact of ‘beautification’ and ‘disposal convenience’ on littering/binning behaviours, we:

• In week 1, no changes to the site took place

• At the start of week 2, both sites were cleansed to a high level and extra litter bins were added










The litter trend shows a 10% reduction overall with added bins and extra cleaning



wide_shallow


5. Outcome & strategy

• Non-alcoholic drinks litterers We found that 100% of our non-alcoholic drinks litterers littered when in a group – no one littered alone. Also, in Australia in 1997 they found similar: “People under the age of 25 were most likely to litter if they were in a group; people over the age of 25 were most likely to litter when they were alone.”


• Non-alcoholic drinks littered may communicate that other less overt littering is more likely to be okay – they become ‘persuasion beacons’.


• And these ‘persuasion beacons’ are likely harming multiple levels of a brand’s evaluation as Roper and Parker (2013) concluded and quantified in their paper ‘Doing well by doing good: A quantitative investigation of the litter effect’.



There’s a switch-over mid 20’s where littering stops

Binned non-alcoholic drinks observed; base=15, Littered non-alcoholic drinks observed and declared; base=7, All observed littering; base=245

wide_shallow








Contact us


+44 (0)843 289 2901


london@thehuntingdynasty.com



Upload a file if you wish (5Mb limit, any format) :

 







<_!-- "facebook" => "facebook", "Twitter" => "twitter", "Linkedin" => "linkedin", -->