Littering in Context: Personal and Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior. Environment and Behavior

“Littering in Context: Personal and Environmental Predictors of Littering Behavior. Environment and Behavior” Excerpt

“One approach to understanding littering focuses on the demographic and personal qualities of the type of person who litters—the “litter bug.” Although much of these data come from surveys in which people self-report littering rates, a few studies have conducted observations (e.g., distributing a marked flyer or handbill under varying conditions and monitoring to see which accumulate as litter). The widely accepted conclusions from these studies are that littering is more common among males, younger adults, and individuals living in rural communities more than cities. However, the research results on these characteristics of the “litter bug” are far from conclusive and many studies have failed to find significant demographic predictors (Beck, 2007; Finnie, 1973; Geller, Witmer, & Tuso, 1977). As a result, there is little consistent evidence for demographic characteristics of the “litter bug.”

How often do people litter?

Given the volume of litter that accumulates nationally and worldwide, it is important to understand the littering behavior of individuals. One way to address this question is by watching the behavior of individuals in public spaces (Geller et al., 1977; Heberlein, 1971). Although only a handful of studies have utilized observational methods, the results are instructive. An early study by Finnie (1973) reported observations of individuals in four outdoor spaces in Philadelphia as they ate hot dogs purchased from street vendors. Of the 272 observed individuals, 91 littered the wrapper (33%). Littering was more common in sites that were already littered and in sites without trash receptacles. Similarly, Cialdini, Kallgren, and Reno (1991) and Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren (1990) placed flyers on the windshields of parked cars and observed the percentage of individuals who littered. In one illustrative finding, they found that 14% of the individuals littered when the environment was litter free, whereas 32% littered into an already-littered environment. In an interesting extension of these findings, Keizer et al. (2008) found that participants were more likely to litter into “disordered” settings (those with graffiti or fireworks or shopping carts left unreturned). These findings illustrate the importance of understanding the role of the physical context in facilitating or discouraging littering behavior, and similar results have been reported in other studies (Williams, Curnow, & Streker, 1997).

At the individual level, the results did show a consistent and statistically significant effect for age, with young adults (18-29) more likely to litter than older adults. The results show that of all the disposals that took place in these locations, 17% resulted in litter. For disposals of cigarette butts, the littering rate was even higher, at on observed rate of 65%. Statistical analyses are reported that utilize the multilevel framework and simultaneously examine both the contextual and personal predictors of littering behavior. The findings show that littering results from both personal and contextual factors and that both are critical in understanding littering behavior. This perspective is consistent with the traditional approach utilized by environmental psychologists and can be particularly instructive in efforts to reduce littering rates.” (Schultz et.al. 2013).