One Nudge Can Be Enough:Reducing Cigarette ButtLittering in Public Areas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2024.2.01Keywords:
littering, cigarette butts, nudge, gamification, priming, salienceAbstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate how public administration can reduce cigarette butt littering in public areas. Cigarette butt littering is a problem for every local government unit; however, policy solutions are either very difficult to implement or expensive. This paper demonstrates the potential of behavioural science, namely nudges employing gamification, salience, and priming.
Design/Methodology/Approach: In collaboration with local public administration, two field quasi-experiments were conducted to explore the effectiveness of low-complexity behavioural measures to tackle cigarette butt littering in heterogeneous public spaces. The study tested both the effectiveness of a single behavioural measure and the follow-up effect of a combination of low-complexity measures. In the first quasi-experiment, a standalone intervention (priming stickers) and the follow-up combination of measures (priming stickers with gamified ballot bins) were tested. In the second quasi-experiment, a standalone salience nudge (crime scene) was first implemented, followed by a combination of the initial (crime scene) and follow-up salience (toxicity) nudges to nudge smokers from cigarette butt littering in public space. Both quasi-experiments used a before-and-after design.
Findings: The results suggest that a single behavioural intervention may be sufficient to achieve the desired behavioural change, and reinforcing its effects within a relatively short time period with a follow-up intervention may not deliver any additional statistically significant effects.
Originality/Value: This research contributes to public administration research, specifically by applying behavioural insights and experimental approaches to studying public policies. Although this approach is gaining popularity, there remains a lack of evidence from field (quasi-)experimental studies on the effects of behavioural interventions in reducing pollution in public spaces.
Downloads
References
Al-Mosa, Y., Parkinson, J. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2017). A socioecological examination of observing littering behavior. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 29(3), pp. 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2017.1326354
AlMarshedi, A. et al. (2017). Gamification and behaviour. In: S. Stieglitz et al., eds., Gamification: Using Game Elements in Serious Contexts, Progress in IS. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45557-0_2
Alpizar, F. et al. (2020). A framework for selecting and designing policies to reduce marine plastic pollution in developing countries. Environmental Science & Policy, 109, pp. 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.007
Araújo, M.C.B. and Costa, M.F. (2019). A critical review of the issue of cigarette butt pollution in coastal environments. Environmental Research, 172, pp. 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.005
Barak-Corren, N. and Kariv-Teitelbaum, Y. (2021). Behavioral responsive regulation: Bringing together responsive regulation and behavioral public policy. Regulation & Governance, 15(S1), pp. S163–S182. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12429
Bassanelli, S. et al. (2022). Gamification for behavior change: A scientometric review. Acta Psychologica, 228, p. 103657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103657
Bazerman, M.H. and Moore, D.A. (2012). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 8th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Byerly, H. et al. (2018). Nudging pro-environmental behavior: evidence and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(3), pp. 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1777
Carlsson, F. et al. (2021). The use of green nudges as an environmental policy instrument. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 15(2), pp. 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1086/715524
Cheng, J. et al. (2024). Leaflet: Create interactive web maps with the JavaScript ‘Leaflet’ library (Version 2.2.2). At <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=leaflet>, accessed 14 August 2024.
Chetty, R. (2015). Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective. American Economic Review, 105(5), pp. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151108
Dehdari, T. (2020). A qualitative exploration of Iranian smokers’ experiences in terms of cigarette butt littering behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 32, pp. 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2020.1769040
Delmas, M.A., Fischlein, M. and Asensio, O.I. (2013). Information strategies and energy conservation behavior: A meta-analysis of experimental studies from 1975 to 2012. Energy Policy, 61, pp. 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.109
Ghasemi, A. et al. (2022). Cigarette butts as a super challenge in solid waste management: A review of current knowledge. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, pp. 51269–51280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20893-9
Hall, D. and Campbell, R. (2020). Testing new behaviour change methods to tackle littered gum. Journal of Litter and Environmental Quality, 4(1), pp. 5–16.
Hassan, L. and Hamari, J. (2020). Gameful civic engagement: A review of the literature on gamification of e-participation. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), p. 101461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101461
Hassan, L. and Thibault, M. (2020). Critical playable cities. In A. Nijholt, ed., Making Smart Cities More Playable: Exploring Playable Cities, Gaming Media and Social Effects. Singapore: Springer, pp. 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9765-3_4
Haynes, L. et al. (2012). Test, learn, adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled trials. London: Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team.
Hertwig, R. and Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), pp. 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496
Houser, D. et al. (2021). Checking out temptation: A natural experiment with purchases at the grocery register. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 191, pp. 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.08.030
Huang, S. et al. (2019). AIM: An interactive ashtray to support behavior change through gamification. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1(1), pp. 3811–3820. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.388
Jager, W. (2003). Breaking ’bad habits’: A dynamical perspective on habit formation and change. In L. Hendrickx, W. Jager, and L. Steg, eds., Human decision making and environmental perception: Understanding and assisting human decision making in real-life settings: Liber Amicorum for Charles Vlek. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Johannes, H.P., Maulana, R. and Herdiansyah, H. (2021). Prevention of littering through improved visual design. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 77(4), pp. 86–98. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.77.4.25043
John, P. (2017). Field experiments in political science and public policy: Practical lessons in design and delivery. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773025
Kadir, A.A. and Sarani, N.A. (2015). Cigarette butts pollution and environmental impact – A review. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 773–774, pp. 1106– 1110. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.773-774.1106
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kaur, R. and Singh, J. (2022). Perceived determinants for modifying littering behavior – A study testing the influence of perceived behavioral control, environmental factors and intention. Social Responsibility Journal, 19, pp. 1348–1363. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2021-0385
Klamert, K. and Münster, S. (2017). Child’s play - A literature-based survey on gamified tools and methods for fostering public participation in urban planning. In P. Parycek et al., eds., Electronic participation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64322-9_3
Koivisto, J. and Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, pp. 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013
Kolodko, J. and Read, D. (2018). Using behavioural science to reduce littering: Understanding, addressing and solving the problem of litter using a commons dilemma approach. Journal of Litter and Environmental Quality, 2(1), pp. 21–36.
Krijnen, J., Tannenbaum, D. and Fox, C. (2018). Choice architecture 2.0: Behavioral policy as an implicit social interaction. Behavioral Science & Policy, 3, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2017.0010
Navarro-Martinez, D. et al. (2018). Boundedly rational expected utility theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 57, pp. 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-018-9293-3
Newcomb, E.T. and Newcomb, B.B. (2020). Comparative effects of “Do” versus “Don’t” formatted signage on littering. Behavior and Social Issues, 29, pp. 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-020-00039-7
Noggle, R. (2018). Manipulation, salience, and nudges. Bioethics, 32(3), pp. 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12421
Patel, V., Thomson, G.W. and Wilson, N. (2013). Cigarette butt littering in city streets: A new methodology for studying and results. Tobacco Control, 22, pp. 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050529
Pavlovský, P. et al. (2022). Not always an easy win: The effectiveness of a ballot bin experiment to prevent cigarette butt littering. Journal of Economics and Social Research, 23(1), pp. 32–49. https://doi.org/10.24040/eas.2022.23.1.32-49
Rath, J.M. et al. (2012). Cigarette litter: Smokers’ attitudes and behaviors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, pp. 2189–2203. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9062189
Reiter, S.M. and Samuel, W. (1980). Littering as a function of prior litter and the presence or absence of prohibitive signs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), pp. 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00692.x
Schultz, P.W. et al. (2013). Littering in context: Personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), pp. 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511412179
Selagea, V., Simeanu, C.-M. and Stancu, E. (2016). Nudge: Cigarette butts-not for littering but for voting. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3734.8886
Stanovich, K.E. (2009). The cognitive miser: Ways to avoid thinking. In K.E. Stanovich, ed., What Intelligence Tests Miss. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 70–85. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300142532-008
Tehan, R. et al. (2017). Beacons of litter: A social experiment to understand how the presence of certain littered items influences rates of littering. Journal of Litter and Environmental Quality, 1(1), pp. 5–15.
Torkashvand, J. et al. (2020). Littered cigarette butt as a well-known hazardous waste: A comprehensive systematic review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 383, p. 121242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121242
Turner, J. (2018). A component analysis of low-cost interventions to decrease cigarette butt litter in the natural environment. Culminating Projects in Community Psychology, Counseling and Family Therapy, 55. At , accessed 14 August 2024.
Wallace-Williams, D.M., Tiu Wright, L. and Dandis, A.O. (2023). Social norms, cues and improved communication to influence behaviour change of smokers. Journal of Marketing Communications, 29(3), pp. 288–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2021.2018621
Webler, T. and Jakubowski, K. (2022). Attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors about cigarette-butt littering among college-aged adults in the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), p. 8085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138085
Wilson, A.L. et al. (2016). Nudging healthier food and beverage choices through salience and priming: Evidence from a systematic review. Food Quality and Preference, 51, pp. 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.009
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Artsiom Klunin, Matúš Sloboda, Emília Sičáková-Beblavá, Patrik Pavlovský
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
