<< Previous Page | Page 3 of 6 | Next Page >>
Setting A Context
One of the greatest pitfalls when addressing an audience on any subject is that it is very easy to overlook the fact that they will not be looking at it with the same eyes as those who are expert in the field. It is the nature of expertise that it can easily lead to an assumption that those who are being communicated with share a similar interest in and understanding of the subject. In truth, it is often the case that what seems to be the most simple and trivial of facts need to be explained in detail before the larger issues can ever be broached.
Similarly, it is all too easy to assume that the subject being addressed exists in a vacuum, that there is nothing else that can affect comprehension of and reaction to the issues raised within a campaign. This is clearly not the case - there are myriad other influences and motivations that will affect how a message is received, and as such it is essential that the basics of communication are revisited.
Understanding the audience is crucial when it comes to communicating with them about any subject, especially when the message involves a change in actions. Putting a waste awareness message in the context of everyday life in Britain highlights certain key areas that are essential for conveying an appropriate message, shattering a few myths in the process.
There are 2 two areas that would seem to have the most importance in this area:
Understanding Contemporary Discourse:
What language does the general public use?
Clearly, one of the most fundamental aspects of communication is language - to ensure a message is conveyed accurately and intelligibly it has to be presented in a common tongue. An obvious point maybe, but when it comes to putting a message out to a nationwide audience about what might be unfamiliar concepts, it must be a priority to guarantee that a contemporary, easily understandable language is used.
It is plain that when consumers refer to the subject of waste they are not going to use the same language as those involved with the industry. However, it is very interesting to note the gap between contemporary discourse within the consumer world and that of the waste industry, especially when it is considered that there have been many attempts to communicate with the public about these issues over the years. The gulf between language used and comprehension becomes all the more alarming in the light of recent campaigns, the majority of which have been using language that would seem to be largely irrelevant to the consumers.
Referring To 'Waste'…
One of the most important and wide-reaching findings of this research is in the terminology used to refer to what is known to the industry as 'waste'. Of all the terms used to describe what ends up in the average wheelie-bin, 'waste' is regarded as the least meaningful and 'user-friendly' of all.
Figure 4: Consumer Use of Terminology
What Is 'Waste?'
The biggest problem for consumers is the intangibility of waste. It is a word that has immediate associations with industry, in particular nuclear power, and as such a concept that is not recognisable as being a remotely personal issue. Instead it feels far bigger than a single person's responsibility, probably being the sort of matter that large companies would produce and sink to the bottom of the ocean in huge barrels.
The word conjures up notions of toxicity, of dank, smelly fluids that need to be disposed of by major manufacturers, power companies and even sewage works. On top of all this sludgy imagery, other interpretations of the word might lead to the term 'wasted' meaning either 'killed' or 'drunk', neither of which have the required associations.
Ultimately, what we have is an industry using an industry-accepted word that has very different connotations when extracted from its technical context. Not only is it construed differently, the public understanding of waste is as such an intangible, large concept, that they automatically remove it from their immediate concerns - it is just an industrial issue.
In an industry that has a plethora of waste-oriented and monikered bodies (including even the group funding this research) and slogans (such as War on Waste), this is clearly of the greatest importance - the word of choice within the industry is more or less irrelevant to the vast majority of consumers.
Which Terminology is Most Meaningful?
Three other words show themselves to be more relevant than 'waste':
Refuse
Although more meaningful than waste, this is probably mostly due to communication with the council rather than the word refuse having taken any meaningful place in the average lexicon. It has very official connotations and is imagined to be the 'formal' way of describing household waste. Used mostly in connection with either 'bin day' or the civic amenity facilities, this has very little personal relevance, especially in terms of personal contribution. There is little in the way of an emotional connection, and it is practically a neutral description.
Trash
A term that has clearly been borrowed from American English, this has slightly pejorative associations, with the feeling that it can be used as an insult. There is also the feeling that it is a rather childish word, most probably because of its inveiglement into children's discourse through cartoons and other American children's programmes. However, despite the fact that it is not part of the everyday vocabulary of most people, the important aspect of 'trash' is its household connections. There is a definite belief that 'trash' is the sort of stuff that the average household throws away, which puts it ahead of other, more industrial or governmental terms.
Rubbish
'Rubbish' stands above all other descriptors in terms of its broad-reaching recognition and understanding. It is the only word mentioned that is completely accessible and tangible - everyone knows what rubbish is and what it looks like. Loosely, it translates as 'stuff' that's thrown away, especially when considering packaging and wrapping. However, it is not exclusive, and there is no real difference between, for instance, a Mars bar wrapper or an apple core when it comes to being 'rubbish'. In other words it is a very 'household' word - nobody would ever deny having rubbish in their kitchen bin whilst they might be quite upset at the idea of having waste there.
Adding to its accessibility is the fact that it is a non-offensive pejorative term, widely used about everything from football to food. In that sense it is an easily recognisable term that has prospects for some humour within the execution of a campaign.
Developing a Meaningful Dialogue with Consumers
Ultimately, waste is an almost alien topic to many, with almost exclusively negative connotations to battle with, whilst rubbish is a very everyday descriptor that is manageable by the average consumer. Put quite simply - the majority of British consumers would more commonly have a 'rubbish bin' in their kitchen than a 'waste bin'.
Thus it would be recommended to use the term 'rubbish' as opposed to 'waste' in any campaign due to the fact that it is ownable, easy to visualise, unambiguous and, above all, widely understood.
Referring to the Disposal Options
A key aspect of educating the public about waste reduction is the explanation of what happens to their rubbish once it has been carted off by the bin-men. If they are forced to consider the issue, most consumers can identify that there are two methods of dealing with their rubbish once the local authorities have got it. Those options are 'landfill' and 'incineration'.
However, these take time to be arrived at as they are very rarely, if ever, thought about, especially in those terms. Aside from the naïveté of the consumer as to what exactly occurs once their wheelie-bin has been emptied, landfill and incineration are deemed as somewhat unpleasant options - they are neither understood nor welcome anywhere remotely regarded as 'on my doorstep'.
Incineration
A term that is understood, but only insofar as its perceived negative impacts on the environment. Effectively, incineration is regarded as having a detrimental effect on the air that we breathe and as such is believed to be a problem on the doorstep of more individuals than those in the immediate neighbourhood of an incinerator.
Air pollution is a high-profile environmental concern, regardless of the 'greenness' of the individual. Whilst many other environmental issues, such as deforestation, are regarded as both sad and serious, they do little to affect the standard of living of the average British citizen, lending them a rather indefinable and unreal quality. However, air pollution is considered to be a high-risk problem for the majority of people in this country, and a menacing one at that as we are breathing it in continuously whether we like it or not. Connected strongly with the increase in traffic congestion and unsavoury industry practices, incinerators have the reputation for being ugly, smelly and dirty.
A few of the more pragmatic respondents believe that there is a positive side to incinerators in that they could be used as a sustainable source of energy. However, this viewpoint is more often than not swamped by knee-jerk fears about air purity and also the concerns of toxic fumes being released irrespective of any benefits. There is growing awareness of a number of communities that are opposing local incinerator plans.
It should be noted that the younger respondents frequently have very little understanding of what incineration is and how it could possibly be of use.
Landfill
The word 'landfill' frequently leaves individuals looking rather nonplussed. It is a word that is rarely heard in everyday parlance, and is similarly less than popular in official terms. Whilst it might be expected of the council to mention the 'civic amenity sites' in official circulars, the most commonly used descriptors are 'The Dump' or 'The Tip' - both of which are familiar to the majority. Whilst adults are able to discern the implication of 'landfill' after some consideration, younger respondents are likely to have no idea to what the term refers. There is also a considerable amount of confusion as regards the distinction between landfill sites and the civic amenity sites that act as a staging post for the majority of bulky household waste. Many would be familiar with civic amenity sites but might assume it to be a landfill site. To add to the confusion, the former is often referred to as 'the tip' or 'the dump' even when located in an urban setting. This would imply a massive gulf in understanding when it comes to comprehension of the term 'landfill'.
Most people have visited 'the dump' at some point - the usual imagery that is associated with it is piles of rubbish, bulldozers moving it around and compacting it into unrecognisable piles of matter, seagulls circling endlessly overhead and the expectation of rats to be around every corner, skulking behind every abandoned piece of junk. Associated with all this is the all-pervasive smell of a multitude of items that are slowly but inexorably decomposing in the piles they see before them.
Coupled with this less than positive imagery are the reasons for being there in the first place - many report of being forced to go there when 'bin-men wouldn't do their job' (i.e. when they refused to take particular items of household rubbish) or at the end of a particularly unsavoury domestic task.
The Dump holds a certain element of mystery for respondents as well (though not necessarily the sort that arouses curiosity and interest) - many people have very little idea what happens there, what the bulldozer is doing, what happens after they have gone. All are certain they would not want one anywhere near them, however.
It is fairly straightforward to conclude that the term landfill is not appropriate or motivating enough to communicate meaningfully with the public.
Communicating with Consumers
The most important aspect of this is that neither of these two methods of waste disposal are considered or discussed unless they happen to directly impinge on a lifestyle. Otherwise they are merely vague and unpleasant concepts that need not be thought of at all. It would be impossible to establish whether one or the other method is preferred by the general public as people do not feel equipped with enough information to know how to evaluate them - indeed many do not even understand the terms being used.
Also it should be remembered that there is NO such thing as 'better' if it's 'on my doorstep'.
So it seems that another tack would be appropriate when confronting the issues of waste disposal. Instead of exploring the locations and the terminology involved, it may be wisest to focus on the methodology of waste disposal in the simplest terms. Thus it can be seen that there are two ways of dealing with rubbish: burning it and burying it.
A basic explanation and discussion of where rubbish goes and how it goes there with reference to the simplest essence of the procedure, i.e. the burning and the burying, will have far more meaning than 'landfill' and 'incineration' and could help circumnavigate feelings of negativity or even hostility towards either option.
The conclusion here is that it is essential to talk about where rubbish goes and how it gets there as currently 'landfill' and 'incineration' lack meaning to most people.
Understanding the culture, and the individual within it:
Why do/don't people take action?
To truly understand any group's beliefs, attitudes, motivations and ultimately their actions, it is important to examine the environment that has contributed to moulding their perceptions of and reactions to the world around them. No matter how we think an individual should act, there are many cultural influences that will play a part in determining whether they do.
Taking every single contributing factor into account would be a monumental task and more suitable for an anthropological study. However, there are several recurring themes that are clearly influencing how waste-related messages are responded to within today's society.
Figure 5: Cultural Forces Directly Affecting Actions
As can be seen in Figure 5, there are 3 key forces at work in the UK currently which are having direct effects on the propensity to act of the average individual. Whilst none can be considered as a completely separate concept, uninfluenced by all the other forces at work, it is very useful to consider each of them individually.
A Culture of Convenience
One of the greatest influences on today's society is time-starvation. When asked what it is like living in the year 2000, the most popular response from those of working age and above is 'busy!' We live in a high-pressure, high-stress world in which nothing can ever be done fast enough, with myriad sources of information vying for our attention and advances in technology meaning that everyone expects everyone else to be able to keep up with the times.
Of course this might paint a rather frantic nightmare scenario, but this does not show the whole picture. Whilst the classic response might well be 'busy!', it is usually provided with a wry smile and an air of amusement. We accept that we're working hard, but a vast number have embraced such hectic ways of business and incorporated them into their own lifestyles, so adopting a 'work hard, play hard' attitude. A cliché it may be, but to look at the frenetic pace at which so many seem to live their lives, it is hard to disagree with.
As the amount of free time available decreases and the pace of change and developments accelerates exponentially there is an ever-increasing desire to find ways and means of making life as easy and hassle-free as possible. Instead of wasting time waiting for things, people expect things now, be it 'fast' food, next-day delivery or increased processor speed on their PC. Flying in the face of the old 'patience is a virtue' adage, there is ever more demand for instantaneous, simple solutions.
Thus, as the lack of time and lack of desire to wait increases, a yearning for short cuts and instant gratification increases with it. This is a breeding ground for the Culture of Convenience, with every service, good or activity expected to be simple, easy and immediate.
Towards A Disposable Culture
As this quest for the instant gratification of all needs picks up speed, so too does the expectation of disposability. Indeed, this is not so much an expectation as a requirement for many items. To match the hectic pace of life it is deemed necessary to be able to use items once and throw them away, as opposed to having to go through the inconvenience of cleaning and reusing. Whether it's nappies, cameras or coffee-cups, anything that requires forethought or aftercare is finding itself increasingly prone to sitting on the shelves.
And with the increase in technology having such a major effect on society, it is unsurprising that there is a burgeoning upgrade mentality adding to this culture of disposability. As it is now expected that a new computer will be practically an antique within a couple of years, this expectation of obsolescence is starting to spread to other aspects of life. Although it could be seen as a familiar moan from a preceding generation, the truth is that very little is built to last nowadays, as there is the anticipation that it will have to be upgraded at some point.
Built-in obsolescence is becoming a norm, and convenience and disposability, instead of being reviled as environmentally unsound concepts are celebrated by the masses as furthering lifestyles and increasing comfort. Awareness that an individual's time should not be compromised is demanded from manufacturers and retailers by consumers, and the increasing reluctance to sacrifice precious moments for the sake of the environment is becoming an ever-growing obstacle.
Barriers against Change
The greatest barrier faced when it comes to attempting to change consumer attitudes to their pursuit of convenience is the fact that it is firmly entrenched in society as a way of life. Indeed, it is often celebrated as opposed to condemned. Despite the widespread knowledge that convenience has a social cost, it is felt that the general public's hands are tied - we have to drive our own cars as public services simply aren't good enough, we would rather there wasn't so much food packaging but we have to eat something. And if something actually makes an individual life far more easy, then that has to be applauded. Whilst the problem does not go unrecognised, it tends to be ignored as blame is not accepted by the individual.
With this lack of vocal condemnation of the throw-away lifestyle, it appears that the cultures of convenience and disposability are continually gathering momentum. Once certain lifestyles are adopted, it is very hard to go back to less convenient ways of life - in much the same way as the majority of the western world finds the concept of having to leave the house to fetch water is archaic and unthinkable in today's context, environmentally aware waste practices such as recycling (in its current, perceived guise as a slow and difficult process) are fast becoming an outdated inconvenience.
There is also awareness of this tendency to ignore the negative effects of actions, but it is felt that there is little that can be done by the average person. Whilst most individuals are aware that many of their everyday actions have serious environmental effects it is believed that there is no 'Power of One' - one person can make little positive difference. It is this reasoning that is used to rationalise inactivity - a feeling of disempowerment tends to lead to the belief that one person cannot change the world and it would be foolish to cause inconvenience to oneself when everyone else's negative actions are negating the benefit caused by the single positive action.
Turning The Tide
The most obvious message from this is that the reduction of waste to disposal in today's climate has to fit in with the lifestyle that the majority of individuals are leading, ie. waste reduction and recycling must be above all else convenient.
Currently, most aspects of reducing waste and recycling are considered to be outside the framework of everyday existence - the bottle bank is 500 metres down the road; all the brands I want to buy are packaged in layers of plastic wrapping. There are very few aspects of waste reduction and recycling that have managed to fit snugly into this world of convenience - those most obviously a part of life are the paper recycling bins at work and the rubbish separation and kerbside collection operations currently operating in various parts of the country. These have successfully become a part of many daily routines, and as such no more of a conscious effort than one's morning routine. Whilst they may have initially been regarded as an inconvenience, they have become normalised in much the same way as the morning shave might be by many men. Just as many men unthinkingly go through the process of removing unwanted facial hair each morning and wouldn't ever think of turning up to work unshaven, many office workers would now not consider putting paper into a normal bin if they have a paper recycling bin at their convenience. However, despite these successes there is clearly a long way to go before the reduction of waste to disposal has successfully incorporated itself into the current way of living.
The key elements for any methods for the reduction of waste to landfill to fit into the 21st century lifestyle are as follows:
Quick: It has to be an action that can be carried out as fast as possible, thus freeing up time for carrying out other, more interesting, activities.
Easy: It needs to be achievable with the minimum of effort, requiring very little in the way of thought and concentration.
Available: It has to be performed when it is convenient for the individual - their time cannot be dictated by this action in any way. Thus it must be possible to achieve 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Personally Beneficial: The more it is understood why this is being done, and how an individual will reap the rewards of carrying out an action, the more popular it will be.
For those involved in the provision of recycling services, or in communication with the public, the above are essential issues to both provide and stress.
Ideally, any waste reduction activities have to ultimately become so normalised and convenient that it is actually easier and more convenient to carry them out than not to do so.
A Blind Faith In Technology
We live in an age of astonishing levels of change, with technology being one of the key purveyors and facilitators of new ways of life for many people. As the pace of technological advancement quickens, resistance to the changes that are occurring lessens - we are all adapting to a world that now sees monumental revolutions as a matter of course. Young people growing up are no longer surprised by what computers can do for them, or by the wealth of information they can tap into almost instantaneously simply by getting an internet connection.
And with the reduction in surprise and wonder, expectations become ever higher and a faith in technology to overcome all barriers builds. As the world witnesses the cloning of animals, sci-fi style voice-operated gadgets and the ability to communicate with anyone no matter where in the world they may be becomes a growing reality, it seems that no obstacle is insurmountable - technology shall prevail.
A Vision For The Future
Clearly the issues of technology and convenience are closely related - after all much of the advances made enable us to access more of the world from our living rooms, and allow us to save time on slow, arduous tasks. Thus, as already mentioned, there is a tendency to rejoice in the scientists' advances and, indeed, to have such faith in them that expectations for the future would suggest a solution to every perceivable problem.
The landfill argument is met with just such a reaction - there is a widespread belief that alternatives will necessarily become available. Interestingly the alternatives are imagined to take place without any effort or participation on the part of the general public. Thus it is imagined that in the near future there will almost certainly be, amongst other amazing innovations, biodegradable plastics, waste-powered cars and an entire energy industry based on waste.
An interesting by-product of this blind faith in the ability of technology is the belief that much of this advancement is already here - speculation about the future has already seeped into a public perception of reality and as a result it is not uncommon to discover those who believe that there is already some sort of automatic separation process going on at landfill sites:
...Possibly automated metal-detectors seek out cans that have been thrown away with the rest of the rubbish, maybe there are machines able to pluck out bottles from amid the detritus. They must be doing that already, or it would all just be a huge waste of the earth's resources, wouldn't it…?
Unfortunately, there is very little understanding of exactly who is or will be providing this new eco-technology. The only certainty is that the responsibility does not lie with the general public - after all what do most people know about waste technology? Thus if it's not their responsibility, the majority of people are not prepared to think about it at all.
"I thought it all got separated out when they took it to the dump…"
The Culture Of Deferred Responsibility
"It's not my fault!"
This effectively describes the current situation when it comes to taking responsibility for practically any issue one may care to name. In a society where it is practically a sport within the upper echelons of Parliament to try and avoid as much contact as possible with the finger of blame, those less involved in the running of the country are just as swift to ensure that they do not have 'ownership' of any situation for which they might be accountable.
Consumers live in a world where they see corruption and incompetence ignored regularly - rail companies failing to provide the basic service that has necessitated their existence, politicians arguing over which party is responsible for today's economic situation, a dome built in Greenwich which no-one seemed to want. The UK is slowly adopting the American fondness for litigation, a culture of blame that is so forceful that at times it can seem that there is always someone else to blame, and if there isn't then you can just blame your parents.
In short there is a growing aversion to the concept of taking responsibility for anything. This is especially true of consumers who tend to resent the fact that they are asked to be ethical and responsible whilst victim to a plethora of scandalous iniquities from all sides be they commercial, legal, governmental or industrial.
Responsibility For Waste Issues
Clearly this means that there is very little likelihood of consumers taking responsibility for waste issues. Not only do they see 'waste' as something to do with industry, there is also a belief that someone, somewhere will invent something to help us out of the current situation. On top of this is the fact that the majority of people really do believe that it's not their fault.
No matter how much rubbish is being burned or buried on a regular basis, the average consumer feels that they have had very little to do with it ending up where it does. The consumer view of the world of waste is very different from that perceived by those within the industry.
To consumers, the process is as shown in Figure 6:
Figure 6 : Consumer Perceptions Of Waste Disposal
As can be seen - the consumer regards himself or herself as being at the mercy of the manufacturers and retailers. The average consumer does not make their own products, therefore they have to rely upon what is available for them to buy in the shops. People generally believe that their hands are tied, that there is nothing they can do to change the waste creation in this country. It is not their responsibility.
The Hot Potato Of Responsibility
But if it is not the responsibility of the consumer, then who does need to be held accountable for the situation, who needs to take action to prevent the increase in waste to disposal? The perception is that there is no-one prepared to do this. Indeed, the only group that is ostensibly doing anything at all is the consumers themselves - after all, they pay their taxes and they presume that has to fund the disposal of waste in some way.
Figure 7: The Hot Potato Of Responsibility
The belief is that there are a number of groups who are passing the responsibility from one to another without actually making a difference. There also seems to be a lack of understanding as to why other groups aren't being more pro-active, and a genuine bewilderment about how to proceed in any other fashion: What are the council doing with my taxes? Why are the consumers buying the product if they think its over-packaged? Why would consumers buy our product if it wasn't visually highlighted through its packaging?
Grasping The Potato
How do we get any of these groups to actually hold the responsibility, to take 'ownership' of the problem as opposed to pushing it away and leaving it to others? The obvious, almost trite answer is co-operation. And even in this utopian ideal, there still has to be a reason for each of the parties to co-operate. However, the truth of the matter is that consumers will have little or no incentive to take part if they are witness to large corporations and governments failing to participate in a manner proportionate to their size and responsibility.
As has been mentioned previously, consumers are aware that there are certain issues of importance when it comes to their rubbish, yet they will feel not only unfairly treated but also powerless if they do not see larger organisations with far more influence and money putting a great deal of effort into resolving the situation. A growing anti-business, anti-'fat-cat' sentiment exists, and whilst it is not strong enough to cause direct action in the main (although this is certainly changing), it certainly affects perceptions of what business and governments should be doing for people. What this means in terms of waste is that consumers will not be doing anything they perceive should be done by other, more liable bodies. Not only this, but there is also an acute sensitivity when it comes to blame - if consumers feel they are being blamed for an issue that they feel is not their responsibility, outrage will lead to stubbornness and, ultimately, inaction.
The key message to take from this is that the majority of people are going to expect a great deal of action from other organisations and those they consider to be authorities before they will start adding to the action themselves.
Reducing Waste To Landfill And Incineration In The Current Climate
It may be tempting to believe that the outlook is very poor indeed from this brief tour through the cultural and epistemological obstacles that are present in the UK today. However, there is a great deal of positive information there as well - reading between the lines there is clearly an understanding that a problem is there to be solved, and there is at least one key concept which is very much part of the consumer lexicon.
Recycling
Essentially this is the only form of action that is recognisable to the majority of individuals, in that they are made aware of it through the existence of bottle banks and through their children's education. Often it is the children who explain to their parents the importance of recycling.
It is also a popular concept, especially if there is a system in place that will allow it to occur easily. The more solid the infrastructure, the faster the normalisation and take-up of the process. Support is essential though - because it does not naturally fall into daily behaviour, certain aspects such as the storage of recyclable matter can cause stress for recycling novices.
The obvious way forward here is to provide more ways of recycling at home, in the office, and even in the street so that it becomes as normalised and simple to carry out as possible. Additionally, it seems that there is often an assumption with regards to recycling that it is a positive action without ever explaining exactly why it is a positive action. Because the phrase 'recycling' is now commonplace, as is the belief that it is desirable, there is a tendency to assume that the public have already bought into the concept and don't need educating.
However, this is clearly not the case - the term 'recycling' is effectively the sum of the public understanding of waste reduction, covering everything from donating old clothes to charity to reusing carrier bags as bin-bags. With the non-information that appears on cans confusing individuals (there is a certain assumption that simply having the 'recycling' logo on a can one has bought is a positive step) there is a need for the public to understand how recycling works, who carries it out and what its effects are.
The ubiquity of the word 'recycle' is of exceptional importance to the mission to reduce waste to disposal. Although it is a word that is not completely understood, the basic concept of recycling is familiar to everyone, and it is universally accepted as a 'good thing.' Not only is it a positive social action, but it can allow a parent to take significant steps towards affecting their children's future. Irrespective of any understanding of what is entailed by recycling it is, to a certain degree, aspirational: the majority of people would like to be able to do it if they could.
Of course obstacles to carrying out the action come in all shapes and forms, from the complete inability (eg. no recycling facilities anywhere in the area) through lack of understanding (faith in the waste companies to separate it out) to time constraints (the nearest recycling banks aren't convenient enough for me). However, this implies that given the infrastructure, along with a simple yet comprehensive reason for action, a large number of people would happily get involved with a recycling scheme. Even those who find the separation of rubbish for kerbside collections a chore still get involved because they are aware it is important and because of a latent feeling of social duty.
With the knowledge that an increase in kerbside collection schemes and other recycling infrastructure would ensure a healthy increase in household recycling, the future of waste reduction initiatives does not seem so bleak. Awareness of recycling is high - infrastructure needs to match that spread.
As a direct result of this finding, it should be noted that recycling is the key to realising a greater national awareness of waste issues. Therefore this report focuses on recycling more than any other methods. This is not to the detriment of other areas, but simply because this is the most 'user-friendly' form of reduction of waste to disposal.
Reusing
Consumer definitions of reuse are at odds with industry definitions. There is an element of confusion with recycling, such as donation of clothing to charity being considered as 'charity recycling'. Confusion also reigns over the possible avenues available for reuse - these are widely regarded as being very limited, with few areas beyond the reuse of plastic bags (as bin bags usually), ice cream cartons and bottles being explored at all. The most popular reuse tends to be fuelled by the potential financial savings involved, and as such an air of snobbery pervades the whole subject. Indeed, many actively seek to highlight the fact that they would not, and have no need to, reuse items.
Thus the first issue that must be tackled is that of the 'use and replace' mentality encouraged by manufacturers and retailers. As this subsides and waste awareness increases there will be more acceptance of reuse as a valuable action. Similarly in need of attention is the perceived inconvenience of having to scrub out old containers so that they can be reused. Many feel that they simply don't have the time to do so - and could possibly use hygiene issues to bolster the argument. All these issues must be tackled through communications with the consumers.
Additionally to this contact with the public, it is necessary to actively increase the perceived reuse possibilities available, as imagination is quite limited in this area. In communicating this topic to the audience, there is a tendency to believe that the general public is being condemned for their lack of reuse. With few arguments against retailers and manufacturers, the onus is more pointedly on the consumer and the obvious reaction is one of defence.
Responsible Shopping
In this context, 'Responsible Shopping' is intended to include:
However, the first of these categories is concentrated on the most intensely.
This is regarded as a very complex and rather vague area that is far too much of an effort to fit into the average person's routine. There are perceived to be very few blatant reasons for attempting to shop responsibly, and even if there were it is felt that retailers do not help the consumer at all. In a culture which is constantly having to adapt its shopping trends due to food-scares and GM-phobia, avoiding products with excess packaging is regarded as too much like making one's life hard for no real reason.
The basic fact of the matter is that there is little in the way of incentive to spend that much time in consideration of one's purchases. Whilst other methods aimed at reducing waste to landfill have very obvious, concrete effects, such as a van taking away a fortnight's worth of tins, responsible shopping has a slightly more inadequate, wishy-washy feel to it. Consumers imagine going to a supermarket and leaving with only half the items they originally wanted, as well as a dubious selection of over-priced, second-hand toilet rolls.
A certain sense of indignation takes place here: why should we be having to suffer because manufacturers and retailers have encased their products in plastic, because the government has not seen fit to prevent these people stocking the shelves with over-packaged wares? It seems unfair to consumers that they should be the ones suffering, feeling as though they should not be buying certain brands, because of something as simple as its packaging.
On top of this is the belief that there are so many people in the country, and so many over-packaged products in so many shops that their own contribution would be negligible. As the consumer activity in this country is known to be massive (who doesn't shop?) there is little faith in this being a collective action - everyone does have to eat, after all.
Thus, currently only 'dark green' individuals would attempt to shop responsibly, and there is still confusion surrounding the issue. With the lack of faith in the 'Power of One' adding fuel to the 'why bother?' argument, it seems that responsible shopping is regarded as ineffectual and inconvenient - a combination that will lead to very little response.
Shopping responsibly needs to be portrayed as an empowering action, consumers being made aware of the fact that without their money manufacturers cannot even attempt to over-package food. Instead of this coming across as some politically-correct attempt to dictate to the masses it must be seen as an issue of choice that celebrates consumer sovereignty.
It is essential for this to be known as an issue of choice and empowerment.
How is this achieved? Although there is resistance to having to make more health and ethical decisions within supermarkets, the Organic food market has gone from strength to strength. What this implies is that people are becoming increasingly adept at and appreciative of being able to make their own decisions. The choice available is fundamental: an ideal situation would be 'Minimal Packaging Aisles' in supermarkets in which consumers could have access to ranges of products that conform to the responsible shopping ethos. Useful to this end would be major brand backing: maybe a series of household names in 'simple' packaging, accompanied with an advertising campaign which would act to highlight efforts made by the brands to minimise packaging used.
However, before this can be achieved it is necessary to persuade the audience that too much packaging is detrimental to society and the environment at large - waste, especially household rubbish must be an obvious, interesting issue.
Composting
For many this does not even enter into the realms of seriousness. Consistently associated with images of wizened old men in corduroy slacks, flat caps and wellies gingerly tending piles of rotting cabbages, it is very hard for many to approach the subject with any degree of understanding or awareness of its importance.
In urban areas, composting is often seen as impractical due to space confinements, the lack of a decent garden and the belief that a compost heap is inextricably linked with the countryside. Additionally the idea that it would be a smelly pursuit, probably involving far too much work tend to render the idea less inviting still, even for those living in more rural areas.
It seems that in many ways this is the hardest of all forms of waste reduction to raise positively, due not only to the inconvenience associated with it, but the unpleasantness surrounding it as well. Interestingly there is very little awareness of any options beyond the negatively received idea of piles of decomposing organic matter, thus a useful starting point is the introduction of modern alternatives. Building on this it would be useful to attack the lack of understanding about what possible benefit can be obtained from storing one's own vegetable waste as opposed to leaving it to the relevant authorities.
Calls To Action
There is little perceived need, either personal, environmental or social, for carrying out the above waste-saving activities. Calls to action are currently very low, with little in the way of incentive or penalisation to encourage more activity.
Consumer reflex to recycle, reuse, shop responsibly and compost is currently the exception rather than the norm.
The social forces that have been documented here culminate in a decrease in a desire and perceived ability to do anything with regards to waste matters. The dynamics of the cultures of convenience, deferred responsibility and a blind faith in technology effectively feed consumer apathy.
However this apathy is not as static as the term might imply - it is infectious to a certain extent. As individuals conclude that they are up against too much to make any sort of action worthwhile, they can comfort themselves with the knowledge that no-one else is doing anything else either. Other individuals, perceiving this inaction come to much the same conclusion - if they're not doing anything then what good am I going to be? And thus contagious apathy is born, fuelled further by the perceived apathy of government and commercial interests. In essence, a chicken and egg situation exists - many people don't care because it seems safer that way, as no-one else seems to care.
Of course this oversimplifies matters. The same apathy spurs some individuals into further action, these people refusing to become a part of the general malaise. Because of widespread inaction with regard to waste and other matters, people wishing to take part in direct action do so whilst others join like-minded organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.
However, with such individuals in the minority the net result, despite attempts at positive action, is an overall reduction in waste-aware activities.