Synthesizing the economist’s and the psychologist’s approaches to litter control for sustainable waste management
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.10(1).2019.01
-
Article InfoVolume 10 2019, Issue #1, pp. 1-11
- Cited by
- 1888 Views
-
170 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Littering has been a subject of inquiry by environmental economists, as well as social and environmental psychologists, each using a different theoretical and analytical toolkit. While economists see littering as an externality problem or a market failure, psychologists see it as a social behavior problem. Regardless of the discipline, both theories have a common goal: What factors affect littering behavior and how can it be curtailed? This paper, therefore, adopts theory-triangulation approach to review theories concerning littering. It concisely reviews the economist’s and the psychologist’s approaches to littering and their respective solutions. The finding from this review is that the psychological approaches to litter control are narrower in coverage than the economic approaches in that the former are applicable to smaller environmental settings or areas, such as school premises, office places, factories, and market places, as opposed to such lager settings as cities, states or the country at large to which economic instruments are usually applied. Despite the plethora of research extolling the virtues of economic approaches to litter control, their real-world application has not caught on. One of the factors responsible for this is the implementation costs and difficulty involved. The economic instruments are costlier than the psychological instruments, because the former cover a larger setting and entail a lot of bureaucracies. To better understand littering and find appropriate solutions to it, studies on littering should consider looking at littering holistically from this interdisciplinary perspective. Both the economist’s and the psychologist’s approaches to litter control should be synthesized for sustainable waste management. However, policymakers need to consider the available financial resources and the multifarious views of litter in policies relating to litter. An option for policymakers is to minimize those costs associated with implementing economic instruments.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)Q53, H23
-
References33
-
Tables0
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. A model of negative externalities
-
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
- Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behaviour (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.
- Andersen, M. S. (2001). Economic instruments and clean water: Why institutions and policy design matter (34 p.). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris.
- Calver, H. N. (1959). Litter and the public health. Public Health Reports (1896-1970), 74(5), 387-391.
- Carlson, A. E. (2001). Recycling norms. California Law Review, I89(5), 1231-1300.
- Case, K. E., Fair, R. C., Gartner, M., & Heather, K. (1999). Economics. London: Prentice-Hall.
- Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
- Dinan, T. M. (1993). Economic efficiency effects of alternative policies for reducing waste disposal. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(3), 242-256.
- Egunjobi, L. (2009). Our gasping cities. Inaugural Lectures 1998–2002 (Vol. 2) Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.
- Eugine, T. (2004). Environmental economics. New Delhi: Vrinda Publications (P) Ltd.
- Finnie, W. C. (1973). Field experiments in litter control. Environmental and Behaviour, 5(2), 123-144.
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- Fullerton, D., & Kinnaman, T. C. (1995). Garbage, recycling, and illicit burning or dumping. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(1), 78-91.
- Geller, E. S., Witmer, J. E., & Tuso, M. A. (1977). Environmental interventions for litter control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(3), 344-351.
- Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Kinsey, K. A. (1991). Embarrassment as deterrents to non-compliance with the law: The case of an anti-littering campaign. Environmental and Behaviour, 23(2), 233-251.
- Keep America Beautiful (KAB) (2009). Littering behaviour in America: Results of a national study.
- Keizer, K., Linderberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322, 1681-1685.
- Lehman, P. K., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection: Accomplishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13(1), 12-32.
- National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (2009). National Environmental (Sanitation and Wastes Control) Regulations, 2009. Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette, 96(60).
- Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan and Co.
- Rege, M., & Telle, K. (2001). An experimental investigation of social norms (Discussion Paper No 310). Statistics Norway, Research Department, October.
- Reiter, S. M., & 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), 45-55.
- Robinson, J., & Ryan, S. (2002). A review of economic instruments for environmental management in Queensland. CRS for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management.
- Selby, H. (2012, July 13). Indiscriminate littering contributes to flood disasters. The Chronicle.
- Sibley, C., & Liu, J. (2003). Differentiating active and passive littering: A two-stage process model of littering behaviour in public places. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 415-433.
- Solow, R. M. (1972). The economist’s approach to pollution and its control. Social Science, 47(1), 15-25.
- Stavins, R. N. (2001). Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments. In K-G. Maler & J. Vincent (Eds.), The Handbook of Environmental Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier Service.
- Tietenberg, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). Environmental and natural resource economics (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
- Thomas, J. M., & Callan, S. J. (2010). Environmental economics: Applications, policy, and theory (5th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.
- USEPA (2001). The United States experience with economic incentives for protecting the environment. National Centre for Environmental Economics. Washington, D.C.
- Walls, M. (2011). Deposit-refund systems in practice and theory (Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, 11-47).
- Wever, R., Gutter, N., & Silvester, S. (2006). Prevention of littering through packaging design: A support tool for concept generation. In Proceedings of TMCE (pp. 1391-1403).
- Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. E. (1982). The police and neighbourhood safety: Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29-38.