Justifiability of Littering: An Empirical Investigation

Torgler, Benno; García-Valiñas, María Á.; Macintyre, Alison

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1165203

Cited by 47 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, gender was not a significant predictor of littering for cigarette butts. This second finding runs contrary to prior data showing that men are more likely to litter than women (Meeker, 1997; Torgler, García-Valiñas, & Macintyre, 2008) but is consistent with other observational studies showing no gender effects (Finnie, 1973; Geller et al, 1977; Williams et al, 1997).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Littering in Context

Schultz

Bator

Large

et al. 2011

Environment and Behavior

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports the results from a large-scale study of littering behavior. Findings are reported from coded observations of the littering behavior among 9,757 individuals at 130 outdoor public locations in the United States. The focus was on littering behavior of any item, but a separate sample is also reported on the littering behavior of only smokers. For smokers, the observed littering rate for cigarette butts was 65%.Results from the general littering observations showed that of all the disposal behaviors observed, 17% resulted in litter. Statistical analyses using multilevel modeling showed that age (negatively) was predictive of individual littering. At the level of the site, the presence of existing litter (positively) and the availability of trash receptacles (negatively) predicted littering. Supplemental analyses showed that among individuals who disposed of an item, distance to the receptacle was positively predictive of littering. Implications for litter prevention strategies are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Littering in Context

Schultz

Bator

Large

et al. 2011

Environment and Behavior

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…T-test results for each of the dimensions specified in the questionnaire revealed that males are susceptible to social pressure (t = 3.197, p = 0.001) and physical reasons (t = 2.687, p = 0.007) more than females, while for psychological reasons (t = 1.897, p = 0.058) no significant differences were concluded. Literature reports of differences between male and female littering shows two opposite results: males are more likely to litter than females [7,12] and there is no gender effect Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 on littering [9,24]. Results of this study may clear some of these differences in literature reporting.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…The researchers concluded that the main reason for littering is insufficient waste receptacles, followed by the dirtiness of the street, and then laziness. The bulk of studies on litter in literature have focused on giving behavior predictors based on profiling criteria (e.g., gender, age, or education) or physical description of the place (e.g., littered place vs. clean place) or the waste material itself (e.g., fliers or cans) [1,[8][9][10]; factors affecting littering such as persuasive trash cans, environmental awareness, or penalties [11][12][13][14]; interaction between littering people and society [2,[15][16][17].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Littering in Developing Countries: The Case of Jordan

Moqbel

El-tah

Haddad

2019

Pol. J. Environ. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Street litter mainly results from inappropriate disposal of waste by pedestrians and vehicle passengers, although some items fall off vehicles accidentally, for example unsecured loads or pieces of the vehicles themselves, and there may be leakage from poorly designed/managed waste receptacles (Schultz et al 2013 ). There are numerous studies of why people litter, with both intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting the propensity to litter (e.g., Williams et al 1997 ; Torgler et al 2012 ; Ojedokun 2013 ; Moqbel et al 2020 ). However, surprisingly little appears to have been reported on how litter loads correlate with human activity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Urban Street Litter in South Africa

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lockdowns instigated to slow the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic offered a unique opportunity to assess how restrictions on human activity affect street litter. We recorded daily litter arrival rates for 50 days in two South African cities from the time of strictest lockdown through two successive easings in regulations. The strict lockdown had no marked impact on litter composition, which was dominated by convenience foods and beverages (29% by number, 34% by mass) and tobacco products (33% by number, 3% by mass). The ban on the sale of tobacco products during the lockdown did not greatly reduce the number of cigarette butts and associated packaging. Vehicle parts accounted for <1% of litter items (2% by mass) whereas household waste spilled from bins prior to or during collection accounted for 3% of litter items (14% by mass). Street litter loads decreased roughly by a factor of three during the strict lockdown. The increase in litter was gradual, suggesting a reduction in compliance with regulations as the lockdown continued. Our results show a clear link between human activity levels and littering. Highlights • Street litter loads increased threefold in two cities as COVID lockdowns eased. • Cigarette butts made up 33% of litter by number despite a ban on tobacco sales. • There is a clear link between human activity levels and littering.

show abstract

Justifiability of Littering: An Empirical Investigation

Cited by 47 publications

References 74 publications

Littering in Context

Littering in Context

Littering in Developing Countries: The Case of Jordan

The Impact of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Urban Street Litter in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About