Littering, or the abandonment of waste, is a widespread phenomenon with consequences for the ecosystem and the economy. A social analysis reveals the profile of the so-called “slob”.
The English term littering, which cannot be translated into Italian except through a circumlocution, refers to the abandonment – deliberate or inadvertent – of small items of waste in public spaces or spaces open to public use, such as roads, squares, parks, beaches and woodlands.
Littering is not only a widespread phenomenon, but its consequences are becoming increasingly well known and alarming. Since the discovery of the first plastic island in the Pacific (the Plastic vortex), followed by another in the Atlantic Ocean, it has become common knowledge that around 80 per cent of waste found at sea originates from inland, and that the pollution caused by littering has extremely serious impacts on the ecosystem, on human health, and on public finances. In recent years, several studies have focused on assessing the types of waste that are discarded, and on promoting awareness-raising initiatives and prevention measures, including extraordinary clean-up operations across the territory. Very few studies, however, have addressed the root of the problem: what is the profile of the litterer? Who litters, and why?
To answer this question, Aica, supported by the Ministry of the Environment, the Consorzio nazionale imballaggi (Conai) and the six sector consortia, conducted an analysis aimed at investigating the phenomenon of littering in partnership with the Department of Cultures, Politics and Society at the Università degli studi di Torino. The study sought, on the one hand, to outline the profile of the "litterer" with greater precision, and on the other, to provide an interpretative framework useful for mitigating the problem. The findings of this analysis were presented at a conference dedicated to the subject of littering organised by the Ministry of the Environment on 22 November.
Although it is a widespread phenomenon, the practice of littering risks going unnoticed because the act that defines it – the discarding of a piece of waste – is limited in spatial terms, but above all in temporal terms, and can be carried out covertly or by trying to conceal the gesture. Moreover, it is a stigmatised behaviour that is socially difficult to justify. It is therefore hard to investigate a behaviour that people are reluctant to display or to admit to.
For this reason, after weighing up all the pros and cons of the methods available in social research, a mix of two approaches was chosen: naturalistic observation of the littering behaviours and actions of the subjects (a non-intrusive technique that requires no cooperation from those being studied and minimises the risk of influencing their behaviour) and semi-structured interviews. The interviews made it possible to explore in depth the perception that individuals have, as citizens, of the phenomenon, as well as the habits and inclinations of those interviewed with regard to the practice of littering.
In practice, the researchers, having selected suitable locations for observation, spent a set period of time there, focusing their attention on the individuals present and in particular on those who were carrying items that could fairly quickly become litter. The subjects observed were therefore primarily in possession of small objects such as packaging, food, cigarettes and other types identified on a case-by-case basis. Another of the observation variables was the type of location, characterised by different levels of crowding, varying numbers of street bins, and so on. The aim was to verify whether a correlation between type of location and type of behaviour could be identified. Observations were therefore carried out in urban public parks, in city centres, in tourist resorts, at outdoor festivals, in schools and universities, outside ice-cream parlours, in areas with a predominantly natural setting, in semi-peripheral urban neighbourhoods, in evening and night-time leisure venues, at stations, and outside tobacconists.
The interviews yielded a number of observations of a general nature. For example, littering is generally perceived as a serious phenomenon by almost all those interviewed, even if the connection between littering and environmental or ecological concerns is not always apparent. Littering does indeed appear to be more closely associated with concerns about failure to comply with civic norms and urban decorum. For this reason too, littering seems to generate, particularly among older people, a general sense of degradation and insecurity that often appears to coincide with a lack of trust in municipal institutions.
Many of those interviewed also believe that the phenomenon can be countered through the monitoring of public spaces by the relevant authorities (with particular reference to local police); education on the subject within the family and in schools; the use of incentives to encourage correct behaviour; and a greater presence of street bins.
Potentially anyone can be a litterer, regardless of age, gender, occupation, social background or personal opinion on the phenomenon. As defined in the study, a litterer is an individual who, for various possible reasons (inclination, disregard for public spaces, opportunity, the absence of nearby bins, or other factors), decides to discard a piece of waste without placing it in the appropriate container. The fact that a litterer behaves in this way in one particular circumstance does not mean they will do the same in another situation where the environmental conditions or context are different. The study therefore focused on identifying the drivers that appear to influence subjects' behaviour, increasing the likelihood that they will discard their waste.
On average, one third of people in possession of a potential piece of waste became a litterer, while two thirds behaved correctly. Looking more closely at the correlation between certain drivers and behaviour, a number of interesting points emerged. For example, the percentage of women observed who engaged in correct behaviour was higher than the corresponding figure for men (69.4 versus 60 per cent). The data therefore suggests a greater male propensity towards littering.
It was also found that the groups that appear to behave least correctly with regard to littering are those aged over 50, followed by young people between the ages of 20 and 24. Another interesting result emerges from the analysis of the relationship between correct behaviour and the size of the observed groups. As can be noted, the tendency to behave correctly increases up to groups of two people, then falls again once groups exceed two members. These percentages confirm the hypothesis that the presence of others increases the social control that encourages individuals to respect the social norms surrounding the abandonment of waste. However, as the number of people in a group grows, the social control that had previously manifested itself also tends to diminish.
The research also showed a correlation between types of observation locations and behaviour. The semi-peripheral areas of cities, where a higher level of degradation and abandonment is often found compared with other observed locations, are those where littering occurs most frequently, followed by schools and universities. By contrast, littering behaviour tends to decrease when people are in a predominantly natural environment.
But perhaps the most interesting finding of the entire research concerns the relationship between correct behaviour and types of objects: namely, the overwhelming predominance of cigarettes as the most frequently discarded item in the environment. The numbers make this abundantly clear: whereas for all other categories of objects the percentage of correct behaviour observed is always above 80 per cent, in the case of cigarettes this figure drops dramatically, reaching a negative peak of 34.6 per cent. This means that out of 100 smokers observed, more than 70 discarded their cigarette butt in the environment. The trend emerging from the quantitative analysis is strongly corroborated by the information gathered through interviews: the majority of people interviewed demonstrated a general and widespread tolerance towards this type of littering, in some cases going so far as to justify it or to regard it as less serious than littering involving other types of waste discarded in the environment.
Why are cigarette butts so often not considered littering? Nearly two thirds of people holding a cigarette butt threw it or let it fall (more or less nonchalantly) to the ground. Through interviews, it became clear just how deeply internalised the tolerance towards littering behaviour involving cigarettes is. A sort of self-absolution phenomenon appears to emerge, reaching its peak when interviewees justified themselves by claiming that dropping a cigarette on the asphalt is not a polluting act. Only in rare cases did interviewees excuse themselves by citing the lack of ashtrays and bins. It would therefore seem that dropping and throwing cigarette butts on the ground is a behaviour that has been strongly internalised by smokers and to which non-smokers have also grown accustomed. The motivations may be linked, in addition to habit, to the small size of the object. On the one hand, this makes it very easy to discard them while concealing the action; on the other, there is a tendency to assume that a small object can be less harmful to the environment.
Several measures can be taken to tackle the phenomenon. For example, the idea of enforcement that appears in the statements of some interviewees, if adequately implemented, is potentially a good deterrent against littering. Improving the cleaning and collection system can certainly make the places where it is applied cleaner, but regardless of the costs associated with this approach, it could have the unintended effect of reinforcing the belief that "someone will clean up anyway," further reducing citizens' sense of responsibility. Increasing the number of street bins and waste containers would also help to counter the phenomenon, especially in areas that are currently without them or poorly served relative to needs, but on its own this would not be sufficient to change behaviour.
The probably most important action to take remains that of awareness-raising and education campaigns. It is of course important to direct these at young people, in order to educate them from childhood in civic and environmental responsibility. However, the research data would suggest it is even more important to focus on adults, and in particular on smokers. Moreover, the environmental provisions act (law of 28 December 2015, no. 221, published in the Official Gazette of 18 January 2016, no. 13) specifically states that 50 per cent of the sums derived from the proceeds of administrative financial penalties for the abandonment of waste must be allocated to dedicated information campaigns by local authorities. In this regard, at the conference held on 22 November in Rome, Aica presented and distributed free of charge to all participants the guidelines for local anti-littering communication campaigns, which offer a starting point from which to build targeted and effective campaigns.