Socioeconomic Characteristics, Social Norms and Acceptability of Littering

Littering remains a problem for the quality of life of urban and suburban neighborhoods. By definition, littering is the dumping is small quantities of waste materials at the wrong place and without permission or consent (Bacon‐Prue et al., 1980). In most cases, littering is a crime under local government ordinance. However, the sheer volume of the problem has limited the ability for supervision, hence breeding an element of impunity (de Kort, Macalley & Midden, 2008; Hsieh, 2011). The vagaries of littering include acting as a nuisance as both solid and liquid waste are distasteful to see and it might lead to health conditions. Further, littering contributes to the larger problem of land and water pollution. Littering also limits the ability to recycle leading to waste disposal solutions such as incineration that further drives environmental pollution. However, there has been encouraging progress in efforts to understand this behavior (Baltes & Hayward, 1976). This progress least in part stems from the efforts of the scholarly community. Researchers continue to conduct studies aimed at shedding light on the factors that encourage littering and the steps taken to reduce or eliminate this problem (Hartley et al, 2018; Bateson et al., 2013; Almosa et al., 2017). As part of this research project, there was a review of the literature on littering. Among the themes that emerged from the review is that societal norms play a critical role in defining littering behavior.

Littering as a Problem

For this project, the purpose of the literature review was to understand the problem of littering and analyze various reduction strategies in the literature. For data collection, the research project employed the survey method. One of the questions posed to respondents concerned their views on the perceptions of littering and its problematic nature in Staten Island. The idea behind the research process is to understand how people view littering. Schultz, Bator, Large, Bruni, and Tabanico (2013) conducted observations of littering behavior among 9,757 individuals located in 130 outdoor public locations in the United States. Statistical analysis of the results was done to understand the relationship between age and littering. The results revealed that age was negatively predictive of the littering of an individual. This means that younger individuals were more predisposed to littering compared to the elderly. An implication of this study towards the fight against littering demands that the youth play a leading role in the campaign against littering.

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Littering

While littering is a problem for society in general, individuals in specific socioeconomic groups have been found to take part in more littering compared to those of other groups. A study by Al-Khatib, Arafat Daoud, and Shwahneh, (2009) examined socioeconomic characteristics of gender, income, marital status, and religious convictions on street littering. The study was conducted by interviewing different participants on their perceptions of littering. The results by Al-Khatib (2009) identified that the four characteristics had a direct effect on littering. It was found that males litter more than females. Conversely, individuals that identified themselves as strongly religious littered less than those who identify as non-religious Further, married individuals littered less than those who were single. Finally, people of higher socioeconomic status also littered less. The implication for the study is that anti- littering campaigns would perhaps be more effective if they are directed to people with specific profiles.

Perhaps the socioeconomic perspective of littering above stems from the common forms of litter, which are plastics as outlined in Shimazu (2018). The research study sought to establish the common forms of litter in public places by asking the general population. Based on the responses, most littering involves packaging and the remains of consumer goods such as cigarettes and goods.

Social Norms and Acceptability of Littering

Another key purpose of the current research project is to establish the association between social norms and littering behavior. This research aims to determine whether social norms that prohibit littering have any effect in promoting responsible waste disposal behavior. Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren, (1990) performed a study that aimed to establish the association between social norms and social behavior. The study investigated the norm against littering by analyzing social norms and personal norms in both public and private settings. The conclusion from the study was that there were personal factors that would affect the way an individual subscribed to certain norms. Further, as outlined in Geller & Fowler, Raymond (1992) and Geller et al., (2016) it is necessary for behavioral experts and social scientists to assist in the development of modalities for mitigation of social vices such as littering. Similarly, Weaver (2015) joins issue by arguing that environmental factors bear on propensity to litter.

Bator, Bryan, and Schultz (2010) explored the effect that social norms have on littering. For their study, they sought to determine whether social norms that establish littering as an unacceptable behavior would deter littering. The study investigated 14 different outdoor settings in 8 states and interviewed 102 disposers to examine the environmental factors, social norms, demographic characteristics, and self-reported motivations of littering behavior. The study identified that social norms played a significant role in determining littering behavior. The study noted that individuals would refrain from littering in sites that were more crowded because there was an increased chance of being caught and being embarrassed. Social norms should be made clear to all members of society that all forms of littering are unacceptable.

From a different perspective, according to Lange et al., (2012), the tendency to litter to some extent depends on the nature of the environment. People tend to litter less when they consider themselves to be in a clean environment. Indeed, perception alone makes a big impression even when no accompanied by reality. For example, as indicated in Lange et al., (2012), in an area that carried the scent of a detergent that carries a strong smell, pedestrians are less likely to litter than when the same place has no detergent smell. It is evident that the smell of detergent led to the assumption that the place was clean, hence reducing the propensity for littering. From the perspective of application, keeping the environment visibly clean and smelling fresh can reduce littering. Finally, not all littering is intentional as outlined in the article Sibley & Liu (2003). As indicated in the said article, there should be a distinction between active and passive littering. Active littering stems from negligence while passive littering stems from carelessness. For example, a negligent person may through a cigarette filter on the street. On the other hand, a negligent person will place a food wrapper on a bench with the intention of leaving with it but forget. From the perspective of application, two different approaches are necessary to combat the two types of littering.

From the perspective of a solution to the overall problem of littering, according to Kohlenberg & Phillips (1973), reinforcement is more effective than reward in ensuring compliance. The research process compared the effects of providing rewards for people not to litter in the one and punitive measures for littering on the other. Based on the results, it was evident that providing punitive measures was more effective than rewards. Littering is wrong and those who do wrong are deserving of punishment. Rewarding people for not doing wrong encourages impunity, which is counterproductive. However, it might not be possible to catch the wrongdoers all the time. Further, punitive measures may be expensive to implement due to the need for constant monitoring to solve this problem, Keizer, Lindenberg & Steg (2013) suggest leading by example. According to the article, most people will take steps to honor a practice that they find adherents taking seriously. In this manner, those who support environmental protection can lead by example and make followers out of those who love littering. For example, if a person drops a cigarette butt and observes another person collecting it and placing it in the right disposal bean, the person who littered might be embarrassed to do it again.

Overview of the Research Study

In this current study, college students filled out a survey online. This was done to expand upon findings from previous research on littering and to shed light on some factors that may contribute as to why littering remains a problem in society and to precede on how to reduce littering on Staten Island. Some aspects covered by the survey, such as; age- might play a factor in how people litter. This insight can give researchers an idea of what population should be targeted when working on experiments. Another research question is taking a stance as to whether businesses should be accountable for the litter they produce. This would allow researchers to expand on more interventions to reduce littering. Lastly, analyzing how sense of belonging plays a role in littering will allow researchers to target specific environments for experimental purposes.