ITE Eco-Conference 2012

1. A/P Paulin Straughan
Sociology Department
National University Singapore

2.  Research Aims & Methodology
 Key Findings
 Litter as social construct
 Contextual meaning of littering
 Rationalizing anti-social behaviour
 Strategies for promoting pro-social behaviour

3.  To obtain empirical evidence on public
perception towards littering
 To identify the social, cultural and
environment triggers that contribute to
littering behaviour
 To derive effective interventions for public
campaigns to promote a clean & green
Singapore

4.  Survey conducted January – March 2010
 Target population
 Adults in the community
 Youths in the community
 School students
 Response rate
Public Youth Schools
Effective 1521 1482 1500
Sample size
Response rate 75% 70% 78%

5.  YES – 62.6% do NOT litter (vs 1.2% who litter
regardless)
 Norms on littering embraced by majority

6.  YES
 Norms change – people re-negotiate
boundaries for acceptable behaviour
 New cohorts entering population
 City more densely populated now – new
challenges for NEA
 Key Focus – Relevance of Messaging

7.  What constitutes litter?
 NEA – anything discarded outside of bins
 Public –
 strong consensus (above 95%) that tissue, cigarette
butts, flyers, receipts, unfinished food items,
disposable utensils, empty drink containers, small
plastic bags & candy wrappers = litter
 Leaving unwanted items at lift landing, disposal of
parking coupon tabs & small pieces of paper NOT
litter
 Implication for policy: set norms for what
constitutes litter

8. 1. The litter bin is full so John leaves his empty coke bottle by
the side of the bin.
2. The street is very dirty, and trash is everywhere. Jane throws
her used tissue by the side of the street.
3. John is running to catch the bus and drops his empty coke
bottle. He just leaves it on the ground and runs off.
4. As Jane is walking out from the cafe, the wind blows her
stack of napkins all over. She does not pick them up.
5. John buries his cigarette bud in the flowerpot by the side of
the road.
6. John and Jane are taking a snack break on the public bench
and leaves a small piece of food wrapper behind because
the bin is too far away.
7. Jane is visiting the shopping centre with her son and he
drops a sweet wrapper on the floor. She does not pick them
up.
8. John and Jane are having a barbeque party with their friends
at East Coast Park. They leave their trash neatly piled up on

9. ◦ Finding 1 - Many do not perceive the act of
leaving trash by the side of overflowing bins as
littering
Implication for policy: NEA will have to ensure
that bins are regularly emptied.
◦ Finding 2 - 40% of students believe that if they
left their trash on the tables after a barbeque
party at the ECP, it was not wrong as cleaners are
expected to take care of it.
Implication for policy: public messages to
address misconceptions.

10. ◦ Finding 3 - the notion of intent. If there is not
intent to litter, then even if litter is generated, a
significant portion of respondents felt that they
did not have to actively rectify the situation.
Implication for policy: public education to set
norms that promote active citizenry which does
not converge on attributing cause (ie, it is not my
responsibility if I did not throw the litter
intentionally).

11. ◦ They were more likely to –
 Agree that it was alright to discard trash
wherever convenient
 Agreed that it was alright to throw trash
around a full bin
 Agreed that it was alright to litter in a dirty
place
 Disagreed that they would carry trash with
them until they came to an empty bin
 Agreed that they would litter if others around
them were littering

12. RELEVANCE OF MESSAGING

13.  Toeffect normative change, messages have
to be very specific and reinforced
consistently.
“It only takes 3minutes or 100 steps
before you reach the next bin ”

14. Ensure environmental support
Bins should be assessable and functional – especially
in public spaces with high utilization rates
Provide contact number that members of the public
can invoke to provide feedback on binning conditions
We must empower Singaporeans to place a more
active role in helping to keeping our shared spaces
clean.

16.  Those who litter were more likely to have
significant others who approved of littering &
who were perceived to litter as well
 Peer influence much stronger than family
influence
 Implication for policy: NEA to leverage on this
invaluable asset & design interventions that
work through informal social support
 Community involvement
– invoke WoMen PoWer

17.  Litterer as rebels
 Anti-establishment
a. The government only looks after the interest
of the rich and influential people in our
society
b. Laws and rules are meant to protect the rich
and influential, not the ordinary man on the
street
c. Rules are made for a good reason*
d. It is important for us to obey the rules set by
the authorities*

18.  Students perceived they have low control
 Top-down approach with students may not be as
effective
 To motivate them to take ownership of programs,
we have to empower them with decision-making
tools & designs that facilitate measurable outcomes
 Implication for policy: encourage self-policing with
peer mentoring

19.  Relevance of the messaging
 Frame the message through socially
significant others
 Environmental support
– accessibility of bins
- consistency of enforcement