Garbage, common goods, behavioral biases, and papers.
This article discusses a method I’ve developed to think about a product. I’ve created a series that will provide you with a set of models (simple systems to follow) that will help you get from an idea or concept to an MVP definition. You can find the first article here or you can go to https://www.behavioraldesignmodels.com/
Garbage disposal, littering, and domestic waste are common themes while discussing applied behavioral science, either in products or public policy. I’ve tried using a set of models, thought for product design, to solve this issue, which yielded interesting results.
The nature of these problems is that of “the tragedy of the commons” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). In this type of problem, there is one public resource and a set of actors who decide to exploit it. There is no individual pain on overexploiting the resource, and the behavior is private in nature. Yet, overexploitation of the resource leaves everybody worst.
For example, a landfill is a public space that will eventually fill up (so its resource is space for garbage), generating more waste (as an individual) does not get me a fine, and there is no tangible reward for not doing so. But, if everyone generates more waste, the landfill will grow, there will be more taxes for garbage collection, and the environment will suffer.
This yields an unstable system that tends to everyone misbehaving, acting in the easiest or greediest way, and causes depletion of the common use resource. Under the current conditions, only a few take the time and effort to be environmentally conscious (only those looking to solve their growth need (checkout “model 3 — Type of needs”) ). Unfortunately, we cannot afford to deplete our environment. This is not enough; there is no real change unless everyone or most of us change our ways.
I know this may sound obvious, but I think people who live without using plastics may not see it this way, so I want to state it: being environmentally friendly is HARD. I’ve seen this problem framed too often as a motivational problem; it is not. It is an ability problem; there is too much friction, doing the right thing is too damn hard.
If you frame it this way, using the tragedy of the commons, and centering the problem on getting end consumers to act, this is an unsolvable problem. There is no accountability or way to enact it so that most people won’t change, not until it’s too late. I don’t expect you to believe that this problem is not possible to solve, but it’s not solvable using this framework as a starting point.
The papers that should go to the trash can.
Whenever I come by an intervention trying to change people’s behavior around trash, they are usually structured in this way:
- The researchers will conduct talks and education with the local people.
- Measure something that will prove that education is effective. (this is optional sometimes)
The usual result? “There is no definite proof that this works, but we see a trend here. We will like to continue doing some education to further the advancement”.
These studies should be discarded in an environmentally friendly fashion, as they miss the main point. Littering, recycling, or misbehaving in any form around polluting it’s essentially an anonymous act. It is the act of measuring that gets the results, not education. People notice they are being studied and adjust their behavior, or the reports of their behavior, accordingly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect). The worst part? More education usually means more money for the research team to continue working on the same hypothesis furthering their confirmation bias.
As you can see in model 3, the researchers are motivated to find a change because of “existence” needs (more funding), but also “relationships” and “growth .” Confirming that education work is their best outcome. So, they are heavily biased. Even if the team is not biased, the subjects modify their, no longer private, behavior to fit in with the rest of the subject group and the researchers. When they eventually try to replicate the findings with the general population, they fail because we pollute in private.
Changing the axioms to make the problem solvable.
Trying to solve this problem with the end consumer as a lone actor is wrong. Others play a part in polluting. Think of a plastic bottle lifecycle.
Let’s use model 2 for this.
Who pays for it? The end consumer. But also a company that buys it to fill it with something, and the government (a collective form for the end consumer) has to pick it up and put it on a landfill; that’s also effort. Who decides that the bottle is used? Why is the pressure to recycle on the one who drinks the bottle’s content and not on the one who chose to use plastics in the first place?
The way to solve most of our environmental problems is not at the end consumer level, when polluting is private and hard to make it visible, it’s at a producer level. There’s no way for you to know if I’m classifying my trash. Still, we have the numbers of plastic bottles used by a particular company or, at a minimum, its profits. Count the number of plastic bottles and discount the recycled ones. You will get a new, reasonable estimation of how many plastics end up in landfills or the sea.
Right now, the motivation to change is at the consumer level. We need to push that up in the production change to producers or suppliers, who can be put in the spotlight for not doing anything.
A solution could be to make a company responsible for collecting the plastic it produces or imports into a country. This sort of solution is usually not considered because it hurts companies, compromise jobs, and fines will be transferred to the consumer at the end of the day.
However, the latter is not bad; companies that get better or innovate and avoid fines will provide a cheaper, environmentally friendly product. This would boost recycling companies that will be valuable not just for the material they produce, which is more affordable to make anew in current conditions. But for the act of recycling and therefore solving a problem for a producing company. Furthermore, polluting companies’ products could be tagged and make it easier for consumers to avoid them.
Another path to solving this is only to provide government aid to companies to collect and recycle their products. Fines should be in place for companies or products that use large amounts of resources to trick the buyer or use up shelf space and get more chances of being bought. Think of these toys with huge boxes and plastic for presentation or domestic products that could be sold concentered for the user to dilute. The relationship between price and packaging could be considered and taxed. Governments should have rules for this, as they are in charge of collecting all these packages and doing something with them. Can’t get to the producers? Regulate the importers. Use the money to encourage those who are trying to change the world.
There are many more solutions for this, and the ones here are not necessarily feasible. And I know that some of the proposed actions have already been implemented, and some people are looking at the problem under this lens.
The point is that exploring the problem as a system, recognizing all actors present, can help evade an unsolvable product and turn it into a new set of ideas.
I want to thank and ask for forgiveness to Cecilia Stagno (link), who contacted me about this problem. I ended up going in the opposite direction just because it allowed me to rant about lousy research. However, these tools can also help design a program for somebody looking to change their relationships with garbage.
Hi, I’m Nacho Parietti
I help design products that drive behavior at ingenious. Over the last 8 years, I have designed and optimized products, on adoption and retention, under a behavioral sciences lens.
I’ve learned and evolved some of these applied techniques during my time working for gambling and gaming industries, some while designing tens of products for different types of startups, and others while translating research into real products for researchers in leading universities.
If you are interested to learn more, go to behavioraldesingmodels.com or feel free to reach out! LinkedIn / Twitter
