limit-login-attempts-reloaded domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/enabling/public_html/blog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121The\u00a0NSW EPA has\u00a0just published the results of\u00a0phone interviews with 1200 NSW residents about waste and recycling.
\nAlthough primarily designed as a benchmark study, it has some interesting insights.
\nWhat\u2019s surprising and what\u2019s in it for program designers?<\/p>\n
The outstanding finding is just how thoroughly normalised kerbside recycling has become in Australia.<\/p>\n
97% said\u00a0they recycle<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 94% said\u00a0it\u2019s important<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 89% said\u00a0they\u2019re concerned about the amount of waste society produces<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 88% said\u00a0they\u2019re confident they know what to recycle<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Note that just because 97% said\u00a0they recycle, it doesn’t mean that 97% do recycle, or that they do it well. This kind of survey has a big “social desirability bias”, which means that people report what they think is socially acceptable. The real value of this research is to track changing social norms, which are big drivers of behaviour. And it’s clear from this figure that not<\/em> recycling is about as socially acceptable as having a methamphetamine habit. In fact far more people (12%)\u00a0admit to drink driving<\/a>. 43% said\u00a0they compost their garden waste. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The home composting rate has\u00a0been around that level for a decade so no surprises there. It\u2019s likely that further growth is mainly constrained by context (small yards, apartments, no gardens etc), so it\u2019s OK that it\u2019s just 43%. The slack has been taken up by green waste collection services, with 59% participation, which are also thoroughly normalised:<\/p>\n 88% said\u00a0that food and garden organics collection is a good idea.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n However a surprising finding about home composting is that, although 43% said they composted:<\/p>\n only 28% composted their food waste as well. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s a 15% \u201cfood composting gap\u201d! I\u2019ll wager that \u2018yuck factor\u2019 fears about rats, flies and smells are the big barriers here. This is likely to be tacklable by communication efforts: let people hear from those who love their compost bins, and aren\u2019t worried about bugs and flies (but keep the methods super-simple).<\/p>\n 72% were concerned about how much food they throw away (but 60% said they threw away very little\u2026what a lovely example of social desirability bias!) 64% thought that food waste was the largest type of waste in the average household bin.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The researchers concluded \u201cThere is a lack of knowledge around the issue or problem of food waste being the largest waste item in NSW; this suggests that an opportunity for a broad-reach message exists.\u201d Sorry, that doesn\u2019t follow. It\u2019s circular reasoning. Just because people don\u2019t know something doesn\u2019t automatically mean that knowing it will change their behaviour. The researchers asked a lot of questions about people\u2019s general waste knowledge (beliefs). They adopted a KAB (Knowledge \u2013 Attitudes \u2013 Behaviour) model for their project, so they had to. They found, for example, that:<\/p>\n 59% of people didn\u2019t know that recycling saves water, energy and fuel.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n But this finding is only useful if we think specific bits of knowledge change behaviour. Who believes that any more? Even the researchers have doubts, prefacing their findings by admitting that\u00a0\u201cThere is no consensus in the environmental and recycling behaviour literature about the linear relationship between recycling attitudes or beliefs and recycling behaviours.\u201d 20% of people believed that mixing incorrect items into recycling doesn\u2019t matter.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n That finding might possibly be more useful, but it\u2019s very hard to interpret. People so often adopt beliefs to justify their behaviours, so even we could change a belief, people might just adopt a different belief to keep on doing what they are driven to do by their context of infrastructure, social norms, and economics.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not surprising that people have trouble disposing of these wastes. The very concept \u201cproblem wastes\u201d is brand new and the systems are only just being introduced \u2013 notably the Community Recycling Centres. 94% of people thought some items were harmful to the environment and needed special disposal.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Surprisingly:<\/p>\n 81% of people said\u00a0they would travel to dispose of problem wastes.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n But beware of the wording of this question. I too, in theory, \u201cwould\u201d travel to correctly dispose my old paint, batteries and smoke alarms, but they\u2019re currently piled up in my laundry and are likely to remain there for the foreseeable future because the free half day it would take to drive them somewhere does not exist. 91% said\u00a0it was NOT OK to put small amounts of asbestos in the waste bin. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n That just goes to show how fear creates attention.<\/span><\/p>\n Most people like their old clothes and furniture to be reused.<\/p>\n 70% had used a charity shop or bin<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 13% of thought that the kerb is a fine place to put stuff for impromptu community recycling.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n No one likes a dumper.<\/p>\n 76% said they\u2019d report a dumper<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Only 1% admitted doing it.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Interestingly:<\/p>\n 22% of people thought that charities could find a use for everything, regardless of condition; <\/span><\/strong>and<\/span><\/p>\n 16% thought it was OK to dump unwanted goods outside charity shops and bins.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Those two misconceptions would make a nice excuse for a marketing campaign to remind the whole community about illegal dumping generally. Even though everyone knows dumping is illegal, it\u2019s in such ambiguous\u00a0territory where social standards start to slip and everyone can do with a reminder.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, apartment dwellers and renters score somewhat lower on every measure. They know a little less and do the right thing a little less. It\u2019s hard to manage waste in a small space, where the bin bay is six flights of stairs away. Again, when inconvenience is the cause, convenience is the solution, and systems and infrastructure are the answer. Also, we know that self-appointed apartment champs make a big difference to the culture of the block. How could we support champs? The researchers defined two population segments which are the inevitable targets of waste and recycling efforts: The study made findings about CALD respondents. Generally, they do somewhat worse on most scores. Which is not surprising. There is, of course, no such thing as a \u2018CALD\u2019. These people are a fantastically diverse, from high socio-economic apartment dwellers in Chatswood, to new arrivals in Merrylands, from wildly different cultures. Designing solutions for these groups requires sensitive, responsive, one-off projects that are willing to learn as they go.<\/p>\n The survey confirms the extraordinary degree to which recycling is normalised in NSW. That’s\u00a0an opportunity.\u00a0It\u00a0means people who recycle \u2018wrong\u2019 – practically all of us, at some\u00a0time – are teetering on the psychological \u2018discrepancy\u2019 between our\u00a0behaviours and the social norms we\u00a0accept. Psychological discrepancy creates discomfort and motivates people\u00a0to do something about it.\u00a0Apart from\u00a0the 10% \u2018hard to reach\u2019, everyone knows what\u2019s right and wants to do the right thing. That we\u00a0often fail is partly\u00a0about systems that are absent or hard to use, and\u00a0partly about\u00a0the complexities of life that sabotage the cognitive bandwidth we need to maintain or alter our daily practices. Reminders about just how normal recycling is\u00a0– sparking feelings of discrepancy – might just help us allocate just a little more bandwidth to these activities. IF convenient systems are in place;<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n AND people are reminded about what\u2019s socially normal;<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nThe survey also confirms the strong environmental values of Australians: 85% said\u00a0they are have \u2018a great deal\u2019 or \u2018a fair amount\u2019 of concern about environmental problems generally, the strongest framing being \u201cconcern for future generations\u201d (38%).<\/p>\nHome composting and worm farming are firmly normalised too<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Wasted food bothers people<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nImpressively:<\/p>\n
\nFood waste is almost certainly an example of \u2018busy people with a problem\u2019 that they don\u2019t have the cognitive bandwidth to solve. So solutions have to work in the context of time pressure and lots of distractions. Food over-purchasing is a fascinating challenge: how do we design solutions that are easy fits for people\u2019s food lives. Anthropological research anyone? Design thinkers? (A nice example: just getting people to colour code their fridge shelves<\/a> reduces food waste.) Consider use healthy vending machines for snacks, drinks and meals. Looking to hire vending machines Gold Coast<\/a> for your business or organisation? Contact Royal Vending for all your vending machine needs.<\/p>\nDo recycling misconceptions matter?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nDoes it matter that people don\u2019t correctly understand the environmental benefits of recycling? \u00a0For example, 30% say they only recycle \u2018because council tells them to\u2019. If they\u2019re doing the right thing does it matter what the reason is?<\/p>\nProblem wastes are \u2026a problem<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nUnsurprisingly:<\/p>\n
\nReflecting this, 36% of people thought it was inconvenient to dispose of problem wastes. But another 37% said it was \u2018fairly convenient\u2019 . I think we can safely hear this as \u2018faaaiiiirrrrrly convenient\u2019, meaning \u2018actually, fairly in<\/em>convenient\u2019, giving us a total figure of 73% who think it\u2019s inconvenient. 11% said \u2018don\u2019t know\u2019\u2026so that leaves just 16% who think it\u2019s easy to dispose of this stuff.
\nWhen we hear \u2018inconvenience\u2019 it\u2019s a call for service design. Community Recycling Centres are an experiment to test out what that kind of service might look like. It will be very interesting to look at the take-up of the CRC v1.0 to see what we learn about removing these wastes from the community.<\/p>\nScary stuff<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Old clothes<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Dumping<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Apartment dwellers and renters<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nDumping is strongly associated with unit blocks and people with plenty of other issues on their minds. That\u2019s a classic \u2018people with a problem\u2019 situation! On-site infrastructure, and better deployment of council pick-up services, will drive\u00a0improvement.<\/p>\nHard to reach<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n\u201cGood intentions\u201d (12%) <\/strong>\u201cthey do care about the environment and recycling, but they do not carry out the desired behaviours; there are some barriers stopping them from translating goodwill into action.\u201d They are mostly younger (16-29 years) and more likely to live in apartments or unit blocks.
\n\u201cThe hard to reach\u201d (10%) \u201c<\/strong>they do not care about the environment and recycling and do not carry out the desired behaviours, [and are] more likely to younger (aged 16\u201329 years), on lower incomes, working in a trade-based profession, and without access to a car.\u201d
\nThese groups are the targets\u00a0of the recycling challenge. This 22% is where all the work needs to be done, yet they are the classic \u201claggards\u201d in the recycling bell curve.
\nLaggards can\u2019t easily be categorised. Paraphrasing Dostoyevsky, \u201cAll good recyclers are alike, each bad recycler is bad in his own way.\u201d There are likely to be a tremendous diversity of life challenges and constraints affecting the ability of these people to \u201crecycle right.\u201d Practically the only general statement that\u2019s likely to be true is that many\u00a0will have low cognitive bandwidth for recycling, meaning that they are thinking about other things and will keep thinking about other things no matter what we do. If we want better results in these groups, then system innovation\u00a0to increase convenience will be an important part of the answer.<\/p>\nCALD<\/strong><\/h4>\n
The big picture<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nThis research actually suggests a generic Theory of Change for the Waste Less, Recycle More program:<\/p>\n