-AWAY AWAY Romklao Chai-ariras
THROWAWAY AWAY Romklao Chai-ariras
CURRENT SITUATION – BANGKOK
CHAPTER 1 WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 7
Germany Japan Thailand
CHAPTER 2 LITTER 13
What is litter? How does something become litter? What causes littering? What do they think of their own city? Why do they litter? Who's involved?
SEEKING SOLUTIONS 17
Educational institutions Work environment Community residence Law enforcement Consumers Designer's role
Persuading people to change behaviour What is Litter Lotto?
CASE STUDIES 29
Let’s Clean Up Slovenia in a Day Poo Wi-Fi Piano Staircase Japan Tour- All Inclusive
Bangkok is the capital city of and largest urban area in Thailand. The city hosts the most prominent historical and cultural landmarks, attracting millions of visitors from around the globe. Moreover, it is home to the monarchy’s official residence. Yet, in this sprawling megalopolis, litter is a pervasive problem. The name Bangkok means “city of angels”, and it seems the angels are living on an enormous pile of garbage. Bangkok is the most densely populated city in Thailand with approximately 12 million people and is also dumping ground to an annual total of more than 3.28 million tonnes of garbage. Bangkok houses 19% of the nation’s population, yet generates 21% of the country’s total garbage volume. According to the Pollution Control Department (PCD), Bangkok generated 9,000 tonnes of garbage per day in 2011. Man-hours required for garbage collection was 11 hours per day, from 4 am to 3 pm. Garbage largely consists of plastic, food scraps and paper. Plastic accounts for 21% of total garbage volume, and only 22% of it is recyclable. The rest is diverted to landfills (88%) and incineration plants (12%). Each Bangkok resident generates an average 2 kilogrammes of garbage per day, twice as much as in other regions in Thailand. If the problem persists with no improvement, Bangkok will be generating 13,000 tonnes per year by 2016. Tackling a problem of this magnitude requires intervention at every level of society. However, this project intentionally zooms in on a very specific subset of waste, the sizeable portion of it that never reaches the process-
ing plants but ends up scattered in public areas – litter. Doing so gives us a practical point of entry into the larger waste problem. Because litter often starts with the individual, it is a critical launching point on which to engage people on the issue. For Bangkokians, there has been little comprehensive ‘citizen training’ on how to manage their own garbage, in contrast to many European countries where the average citizen’s relatively heightened awareness and sense of personal responsibility in relation to garbage has been more socially conditioned and developed over time. Geographically, Bangkok is located on the low flat area of the Chao Praya River which leads to the Gulf of Thailand. Litter ends up in one of numerous pipelines and channels leading to the river and eventually the ocean, contaminating drinking water, harming marine life and detracting from the visual appeal of the seaside. Litter also affects the appearance of Bangkok, while posing hazards to city dwellers. Unkempt places invite other social ills like graffiti (of the nonartistic variety) and even theft. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) spent 650 million THB or 16.15 million Euros on garbage collection 2010.¹ A big chunk of that money could have gone to other projects designed to improve quality of life if people would simply drop litter where it belongs in the first place. According to the litter survey I conducted, 83% of respondents agreed that Bangkok was heavily littered and they believed it was everyone’s responsibility; yet when it comes to personal actions, Bangkok essentially is treated as a large garbage bin. The prevailing mindset is that someone, somewhere will pick it up and deal with it – not me. Taken collectively, our actions can either continue to harm the city we live in or heal it. As a Bangkokian, I feel a certain responsibility to heal my city by reducing the volume of litter. There are no easy answers, but a vital starting point is for individuals to change their thinking and eventually their behaviour. In this study, I look at the waste system in Thailand, compared to other countries that have achieved significant improvements through well-developed programmes. I analyse a few case studies to identify how solutions are organised, their objectives, duration, strengths and weaknesses, and the results. Finally, I apply Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour to develop a practical design solution to Bangkok’s litter problem.
¹ “Plastic disaster and Global Warming.” Thairath Online, 28th, April, 2010. < http://www.thairath.co.th/today/view/79568 >
“YOU MUST BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD.” Ghandi
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
No system is perfect, but learning from the best examples is a good approach. Germany is one such example which provides some useful lessons. Waste management in Germany was not instituted overnight; rather it has been developing for almost five decades. Generation to generation, people adapted their way of life to comply with new laws concerning the environment. This is not to say that waste problems no longer exist, but the government has taken bold initiatives to steer the country in the right direction. In 1991, a packaging ordinance was implemented requiring manufacturers to pay for the types and volume of packaging they use. This created an economic incentive to use less packaging as well as more environmentally benign materials. Participating companies mark their packages with a green dot, which subsequently gave the “Green Dot” program its name. While we tend to think of waste management as an end-of-the-line reaction to a problem, this ordinance proactively targets waste before it is created. This is an example of extended producer responsibility, which places the burden of waste on the producers’ shoulders. To coordinate the logistics of this new responsibility, participating formed the Duales System Deutschland (DSD), which uses the fees paid by the companies to collect and manage Green Dot packaging waste, whether by safe disposal, reuse or recycling. The system proved to be one of the most successful waste management
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
INTERNAL RECYCLE PRODUCTION
PRODUCT WASTE RECYCLE MATERIALS PRODUCTION WASTE MUNICIPAL WASTE RESIDUALS
initiatives in place. Once producers were required to consider the environmental impacts of each product during its entire lifecycle, packaging waste in Germany during the first four years of this program declined by a total of 14%.² This also significantly minimises the volume of raw materials used in production. In parallel, residents are required to separate waste according to the waste containers provided. This helps to increase the volume of waste recycling, which encourages local authorities to collect waste in a timely manner so that piles are not left to accumulate, attracting rats and other pests that can spread disease.
L eonard, Annie, 2010. The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession with Stuff is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, And Our Health - And a Vision for Change. Constable & Robinson Ltd, London, 2010: 252
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
PRODUCTION GREEN PROCESS CONSUMERS
LANDFILL PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE REUSE RECYCLE
Japan is well known for its effective recycling systems. The Ministry of the Environment introduced the Law for the Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of Containers and Packaging in 1997, to reduce the amount of solid waste and to increase the rate of recycled waste. These recycling systems are fairly complex, requiring citizens to follow rather precise sorting guidelines. Recyclable waste is divided into 4 different material types: glass bottles, PET bottles, paper, and plastic. The trade sector, consumers, municipalities and recyclers all participate. Business entities involved in producing, merchandising and importing containers and wrapping are responsible for recycling these materials according to the volume. They are required to pay â€œrecycling feesâ€? if they are unable to meet this obligation. Generally, waste bins are not easily found in Japan. That is, residents are trained to consider the packaging material as well as size before making a purchasing decision. They also have to bear in mind that the product and its packaging have to be taken apart according to recycling sorting guidelines.
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
RESIDUALS PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE RECYCLE
The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration is responsible for the separation, disposal, recovery and recycling of waste generated within Bangkok. In other words, it is neither the responsibility of the producer nor the consumer to separate and dispose of waste in an environmentally sound manner. Evidently, Thailandâ€™s waste management systems are far behind those of Japan and Germany which are based on law enforcement, business cooperation and resident compliance. In Thailand, the only enforcement imposed directly on consumers is a fine of 2,000 THB (50 Euros) if an offender is caught dropping litter in public. The amount of litter in Bangkok proves that this fine remains largely unenforced, and that it has not improved the situation or raised awareness about the garbage problem. Some garbage separation bins are available in Bangkok in highly trafficked areas, but a quick glance reveals how ineffective they are. The bins generally come in sets of three and are labelled Dry Garbage, Wet Garbage
and Hazardous Waste; or Hazardous Waste, General Trash and Recyclable Waste – neither set distinguishes between paper, plastic or glass, and each bin inevitably winds up with a confused mix of all of the above, defeating the entire purpose. This may suggest that Bangkokians are not sufficiently prepared for the sophisticated waste management systems of Germany and Japan. However, it is not the citizen’s fault that the bins are so ineffectively labelled. All is not lost – Bangkok’s neighbourhoods are regularly traversed by individual ‘trash collectors’ who buy recyclable waste to sell on to recycling companies. Many households collect paper and plastic waste in their homes for this purpose. This method is inherently inconsistent and disorganised, but it is better than nothing. At least it indicates a certain level of consciousness regarding waste. Waste management in Bangkok also needs to take into account existing bureaucratic constraints, which often prove too tough to overcome for many a well-meaning project. Unless government takes a bold, across-theboard initiative as in Germany and Japan – societies whose citizens are more socially-conditioned to conform to these kinds of rules and regulations in the first place – the litter problem in Bangkok may best be approached from another, more consumer-friendly angle. Hence, the Litter Lotto project, which I will discuss further on.
“IT IS THE GREATEST OF ALL MISTAKES TO DO NOTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY DO LITTLE DO WHAT YOU CAN” Sydney Smith (1771-1845)
What is litter?
The Oxford dictionary defines litter as rubbish such as paper, tins, and bottles left lying in an open or public place³; in other words, litter is any garbage that is out of place.
How does something become litter?
any times waste and litter are mistaken to be the same thing. However, M waste is defined as unwanted or unusable materials, substances, or byproducts while litter is not necessarily unwanted or unusable, but is left in an open or public place. Most of the litter in Bangkok’s public areas is a consequence of individual action, both intentional and unintentional.
What causes littering?
I designed a litter survey and found respondents on the Internet. The findings accumulated from 46 responses show that most participants acknowledge that it is wrong to drop litter, yet nearly half of them do so “unintentionally”. 7% of respondents do not bother to put used toothpicks, cigarette butts and soda can rings into a bin because they see them as negligible bits and pieces. 27% say they have littered because there was no garbage bin nearby or existing bins were already overflowing and dirty. A whopping 83% admit to having purposefully littered in the past and nearly a quarter admit to dropping litter purposefully as often as once daily to 1-3 times per month. ³
Definition of Litter. Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved on Jul 1, 2012
What do they think of their own city?
81% agree that Bangkok is heavily littered 81% think it’s “everyone’s” responsibility to keep Bangkok clean 84% think littering is inappropriate 5% don’t care because it’s not their concern
Why do they litter when they know that it’s morally and legally wrong?
The answer is simple: we live in a world of convenient disposal. No one wants to carry something around once they are finished with it, whether it is a coffee cup or a take-out container. The lack of adequate systems and infrastructure to handle garbage and litter does not help either.
Result of a litter survey conducted in February 2012 45% said it was unintentional 19% couldn’t find a bin 5% said the bin was dirty 5% said nobody was around 5% didn’t think it was litter 25% think littering is not illegal in Bangkok 33% believe there is no litter fine in Bangkok
The throw-away mindset is so habitual that nearly half of respondents admitted to having dropped litter “unintentionally”. How could that happen? If we were continually reminded to consider the consequences of our own actions, we would choose to put garbage where it belongs and thereby prevent litter. Littering is socially unacceptable and this needs to be integrated in our mindsets.
There are three main parties involved in the creation of litter: Producers Trade Consumers
Producers include factories, manufacturers or any source that produces goods that will eventually become waste or litter.
Trade refers to businesses, restaurants, bars, retailers like convenience stores, supermarkets and markets, street food vendors, and others.
Consumers are all of us – everyone uses products, purchases goods, eats food, and drinks beverages. Once we are done with the food packaging, shopping bags, or chewing gum, we dispose of it. It can become litter if carelessly tossed, or general waste if properly disposed of in a bin.
The word consumer is central to this project. Although business owners and manufacturers should commit to higher environmental standards, what we need first is to alter our collective mindset regarding waste. At the end of the day, business owners and manufacturers themselves are consumers. We all are. Since this kind of change takes time, we need a proactive way to jumpstart this gradual evolution in how we see and treat garbage. This is where the Litter Lotto can step in to make a positive impact.
GOODS TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY RESIDENTS/ WORK ENVIRONMENT
SALE & MARKETING
“NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL, COMMITTED CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD. INDEED IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT EVER HAS.” Margaret Mead
Keeping our environment clean is not one group’s responsibility. We must all contribute. Positive social change can happen if each individual internalizes the fact that every person has his/her part to play in improving the litter situation.
What can be done?
These places hold the city’s future generations. Young people’s aspirations can be positively influenced by what they learn in school. If schools do the following:
Teach students about the far-reaching impacts of litter and waste Place containers for clearly delineated types of waste around school Initiate environmental changes and activities including campaigns such as: reduce-reuse-recycle programmes a cleaning day in and outside the school to raise awareness a litter-free school campaign bring your own mug practice
What will happen? These
activities and campaigns will raise awareness of littering and the greater envi ronmental issues stemming from it. Students will likely adopt practices they learn in school and apply it at home,
thereby setting a good example in the household. Students will likely adopt practices they learn in school and apply it at home, thereby setting a good example in the household. Being encouraged to develop an environmentally-conscious mind set from a young age increases the likelihood that students will grow up to have a healthy concern for the environment and, there fore, be less likely to litter.
WORK ENVIRONMENT People who live in the same environment can create a positive ripple effect by setting good examples for others to see and emulate. If the following are carried out in a work environment: Set
up a litter-free office where one always drops litter in the bin and picks up after others Provide information on a bulletin board on how to keep the office tidy Employees regularly remind each other of the consequences of their actions on the environment Encourage everyone to bring their own mug or cup when they purchase beve ages Reduce paper use by using both sides and printing only when necessary
What will happen?
More offices enjoying a tidier work environment with fewer disposable items and loose papers that could wind up as litter.
COMMUNITY RESIDENCE If the following are carried out in a community residence: The leader of the community organises the following: Inform
residents on how their quality of life can improve if they stop dropping litter Cleaning days where litter is removed from public areas in the community, and public bins are cleaned Encourage residents to bring their own bags when shopping, refuse plastic bags from stores and avoid excessively-packaged products Set up a neighbour watch campaign so people can help to remind each other not to litter, and to remove litter if they see it Ask residents to always keep bin lids closed to prevent garbage from falling out and becoming litter that could be carried away by winds or animals Educational gatherings on how to keep the neighbourhood clean including, for example, instruction on waste separation and home composting
What will happen? People People
will enjoy a cleaner environment, which attracts fewer rats and pests. will be proud of their neighbourhood and encouraged to keep it clean.
LAW ENFORCEMENT Even though a litter fine does exist in Bangkok, it is inconsistently enforced. Litter fine officers are often criticised for singling out tourists, who are unaware of the fine and see that there is already litter on the street. Locals are rarely fined. More than a third of questionnaire respondents believe no such fine exists and that littering has nothing to do with the law. Enforcement is clearly neither effective nor meaningfully acknowledged by the general public. Moreover, most respondents cite the lack of bins, or bins that are full, overflowing and dirty, as part of the reason they littered. Thailand also does not have many ordinances or acts requiring trade entities and consumers to be responsible for the products they or produce or consume. If:
ensures people are aware that dropping litter is illegal and that the litter fine officers carry out the enforcement strictly; The government drafts ordinances or acts to ensure the following: Minimise the quantity of solid waste in production and packaging processes Increase reuse and recycling rates Require producers to take responsibility for a product’s entire lifecycle Effectively separate waste by type or material Collect as close to 100% of waste as possible Increase the litter fine, publicise it more vigorously, and require offenders to remove litter from public areas Impose a tax on plastic bag production so that they are no longer thoughtlessly handed out with every single transaction Show the public just how much waste we all help to generate so people will see the bigger picture of how waste impacts the environment, erasing the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality
What will happen? People
will respectfully acknowledge the litter fine and act to avoid the fine, or being caught as an offender in public. In the long-term, people will be able to appreciate a cleaner city and better quality of life. This will help to positively reinforce good behaviour which will eventually become the socially-accepted norm. It will significantly improve the appearance of Bangkok.
CONSUMERS Consumer is a role we all share in society. As long as we buy food, drink beverages and purchase goods, we create waste. Consumers make the crucial decision whether an item becomes waste in the bin or litter on the ground. Thus, it is vital to focus on consumers in any attempt to combat litter.
If consumers do the following: Be
aware of the impact litter has on human beings, animals and the environment products that do not come with excessive packaging Keep litter with themselves until they find a bin Treat public areas the way they treat their own house Clean up after others Be a good influence on people around them Support
What will happen? The
all-important mental shift will occur, from not my problem wastefulness to one of personal accountability and responsibility. With this shift in mentality come eventual improvements in behaviour as people be come conscious of the waste they generate, often needlessly, throughout the day. Informed consumers can use their purchasing power to support ‘green’ companies The more environmentally-sound companies there are, the better.
Designer’s role Back in 1999 as a young University art student, I created artwork based largely on my own interests. I was interested in expressing my thoughts or feelings through artwork which often did criticise negative aspects in society but never sought any solutions. At present, I consider myself a web designer with an extensive fine arts background who occasionally creates commercial graphic design. As a commercial web designer for over 10 years, I was a messenger between my clients and their targets. I was sometimes involved in the conceptual process, but the client usually had the final word. The message behind that work was never my own and it was difficult to do anything that might go against the grain. On a brighter note, designing for digital applications automatically reduces the need to cut trees down for paper. As an increasingly environmentallyminded designer, I became more mindful to generate as little waste as possible.
David Berman once said, “Designers and other professionals need to choose what their still-young professions will be about: creating visual lies to help sell stuff, or helping repair the world...”4 I could not agree more. It is simply not a priority for most designers to acknowledge how their work impacts the environment. Perhaps this reflects the indulgent nature of art and design. We are taught to value prolific creativity – which usually translates to making things – while overlooking that perhaps we are merely encouraging excess or using flashy materials that only end up fouling the environment. 4
Berman David B. Do Good: How Designers Can Change the Word, Peachpit Press, 2009.
More than ever, I want to design something that can give back to the community. My aim is to improve the litter situation in Bangkok, and my tool of choice is good design. Good design engages people, and that is exactly what we need. This Litter Lotto project uses the entertainment value of design to encourage a change in attitude and behaviour towards littering. Not only that but its very format â€“ a lotto â€“ taps into something that has proven mass appeal for the majority of citizens in Bangkok. Persuasion to do good is all about psychology, which I look into in the next chapter.
“DESIGNERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS NEED TO CHOOSE WHAT THEIR STILL-YOUNG PROFESSIONS will BE ABOUT: CREATING VISUAL LIES TO HELP SELL STUFF, OR HELPING REPAIR THE WORLD...” David Berman
Persuading People to Change their Behaviour Litter is mostly the result of individual behaviour. The fundamental question is, what can persuade people to change their behaviour? The majority of Bangkokians are aware of litter’s impact on the environment and even view dropping litter as unacceptable, yet many of them still do it. Perhaps they would change their behaviour given the right stimuli. The case studies I have analysed demonstrate that incentives and fun can persuade people to adopt a given behaviour. A massively popular incentive scheme is the lottery. A 2007 survey found that 73% of Thai people have gambled in one way or another, regardless of personal financial status; people with higher incomes sometimes gamble more than those with lower incomes.5 According to the Thailand Information Centre for Civil Rights and Investigative Journalism, 90% of Thai people admitted to having bought lottery tickets. On average, a pair of lottery tickets costs 120 THB (3 Euros). Every month Thais spend approximately 13,642 million THB (341 million Euros) on lottery tickets! Millions consistently try their luck, knowing only a handful actually win. Part of the appeal is the sense of anticipation. People get excited when the winning numbers are released, even if they know the odds are against them. Many well-earning Thais gamble on football matches, not for money's 5
Dr. Sangkit Piriyarangsan.“Lottery and the Reality in Thai Society”. Research Project. < http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=478002>
sake, but because it adds to the fun compared to just watching the game. This being the case, there is no doubt that an incentive scheme can serve as a motivational influence in my project. The reward-plus-fun factor will assuredly attract people to the Litter Lotto.
What is Litter Lotto? What would happen if suddenly a candy wrapper has a value, but only when it is dropped in the right place where it belongs? Will people start picking up after others? Will people make an effort to keep a stray wrapper in their pocket until they find a bin to drop it in? The answer is highly likely to be yes.
HOW DOES LITTER LOTTO WORK?
Each person generates 2 kg. of waste/day
is the spent on cleaning
We use the big chunk of th and give it to people who d in the bin?
= Drop litter in the bin
Litter equals Lotto
eaning up our mess Take your lottory ticket
k of this money who dropp litter
L IT T ER L OTTO
Lucky people who help cleaning up the city can win the Litter Lotto money
Keep Bangkok Fun & Clean
I also apply the theory of planned behaviour to predict how someone might go about adopting a suggested behaviour.
ATTITUDE TO BEHAVIOUR
PERCEIVED BEHAVIOURAL CONTROL
The theory of planned behaviour predicts deliberate behaviour, because behaviour can often be deliberative and planned. Attitude of behaviour is what one thinks about a behaviour. If positive, the person will likely perform the given behaviour. Subjective norms refers to beliefs about how family, friends and other people in one’s circle will view a given behaviour. Perceived behaviour control is what one thinks of his/her ability to perform the given behaviour. If perceived as easy, that behaviour is more likely to be performed. These predictors inform the intent that controls behaviour. To predict someone’s intentions, knowing these beliefs can be as important as knowing the person’s attitudes. According to the 46 respondents of my online survey, 78% of Bangkokians were aware of the impacts of litter on human and environmental wellbeing, and 81% believe it is everyone’s responsibility to keep Bangkok clean. These numbers suggest that Bang-kokians are ready to take responsibility in keeping the city clean. With the reward-plusfun factor that the Litter Lotto offers, participation is likely to be high.
I also apply the theory of planned behaviour to predict how someone might go about adopting a suggested behaviour. Below is a prediction, based on the theory of planned behaviour, of how the reward-plus-fun factor is perceived by Bangkokians and how the Litter Lotto could persuade them to drop litter in the bin.
I’M FOR THE MONEY
LITTER IS A LOTTO TICKET WHEN DROPPED IN THE BIN
MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY ARE DOING IT.
I WANT TO WIN THE LOTTO
DROP LITTER TO THE BIN
I COULD WIN THE LOTTO. IT’S EASY, FREE.
On average, it requires 66 days for a habit to form.6 The more difficult the behaviour, the more time required. The Litter Lotto will, therefore, be implemented for a minimum of 66 days so Bangkokians could engage with the project on a repeated basis and allow the given behaviour to become a habit. The good news is the research does not suggest that the new behaviour has to be repeated every day; failing to practice it for a couple of days does not negatively affect the outcome.
Lally, Phillippa, van Jaarsveld, H., Potts, H., & Wardle, J. How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology. John Willey & Sons, Chichester. 2010
“TO CREATE MORE POSITIVE RESULTS IN YOUR LIFE, REPLACE IF ONLY WITH NEXT TIME.” Unknown Author
CASE STUDY #1
LET’S CLEAN UP SLOVENIA IN A DAY (NON-PROFIT AND NON-POLITICAL PROJECT)ไ
Type: Environmental campaign Date: 17 April 2010 (with over 13 months of preparation) Location: Slovenia Organiser: Ecologists Without Borders Association Objectives:
To be the largest environmental event in Slovenia To gather at least 200,000 volunteers to participate in the action on 17 April, 2010 To create a digital map to identify illegal dumpsite locations To remove at least 20,000 tonnes of illegally dumped waste To raise awareness, educate people and improve their attitude towards waste
Solution: The project was modelled on Let’s do it, Estonia (2008).
Slovenia holds approximately 2 million cubic metres of illegally dumped waste. This not only detracts from the landscape but threatens residents’ health, especially in relation to contaminated water supplies. Let’s Clean up Slovenia in a Day aimed to raise awareness of this problem.
A website was created to promote the event and communicate with all concerned parties, including organisers, sponsors and participants. The project managed to reach out to 99% of the Slovenian population, the majority of whom heard of the project through television.7 As the number of organisers, participants and sponsors grew, communication became difficult and confusing. Google groups, Google Docs and Gmail were then used to streamline communication; each group had its own email address to simplify things. A weekly group report was sent out to the entire team to keep everyone informed of progress made. Target audiences included the local public, partners, patrons, ambassadors, sponsors and media. Acquiring financial support was not easy within the given time constraints. They contacted a thousand potential sponsors via email, phone and meetings. Some potential sponsors were actually the main polluters; some were mainly interested in self-promotion. Some doubted the project would achieve its goals, but this came to rest once the national campaign began. The project eventually raised 11,010,503 Euros in financial support. More than 270,166 volunteers or 13.2% of the total population gathered and managed to clean up 14,800 tonnes of illegally dumped waste in one day.8 7 Petrovi N., Ecologists Without Borders Association, Final Report of The Project, Let’s Clean up Slovenia in One Day!, Ecologists Without Borders Association, 2011, pp. 16 8 Petrovi N., Ecologists Without Borders Association, Final Report of The Project, Let’s Clean up Slovenia in One Day!, Ecologists Without Borders Association, 2011. pp.59-60
Media coverage gave the project substantial credibility, and helped in acquiring sponsors and recruiting participants. Streamlined communication kept the project running smoothly, with groups and tasks clearly assigned over 13 months of planning. Organisers of similar projects should be careful to select sponsors who are aligned with their goals. Businesses that inherently work against the projectâ€™s aims are better avoided, despite the financial support offered. Though a great achievement, more permanent mechanisms should have been installed to prevent waste from being illegally dumped in the first place. On the plus side, it was striking to see what could be accomplishedwhen individuals unite under a common goal, if only for a day.
CASE STUDY #2
Type: Advocacy campaign Date: 23 April, 2012 Location: Mexico (10 parks in Mexico City) Organiser: Local internet portal Terra Agency: DDB Advertising Agency (Mexico) Client: Terra Objectives:
To encourage pet owners to clean up after their dog To keep the parks of Mexico City clean
Solution: Pet owners pick up their pet’s waste, place it in a bag and drop
the bag in a tank that weighs it. It then calculates the number of free WiFi minutes the owners can then access in the area. The greater the weight, the more minutes earned.
This campaign taps into the smartphone phenomenon, and the desire to constantly be online. Rewarding people for a good deed is a great selling point. However, its reach was limited to smartphone owners and, of those, only the ones without internet on their monthly phone plan.
The well-designed contraption easily attracted park-goersâ€™ attention. At the same time, its size and display screen intimidated some. To overcome any difficulties, a hostess was assigned at each tank to ensure it was used properly. The campaign was ultimately discontinued in all 10 Mexico City parks, with no official result tallied. This campaign demonstrates that a reward only works if it is wanted or needed. Moreover, the given task should be simple enough that no assistance is required. Otherwise, it risks being misused, which can lead to device malfunction and unexpected maintenance costs.
CASE STUDY #3
Type: Brand advertising Date: 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Agency: Advertising agency DDB Client: Volkswagen Objectives:
To encourage people to use the staircase instead of the escalator To reward people with “fun” when they do what they should do To create a video that goes viral in order to run a brand campaign
Solution: People know escalators are energy consuming but often they
choose to take them anyway. DDB turned a staircase in a Stockholm subway station into a piano keyboard that produced sound when stepped upon. The event was filmed and uploaded to Youtube. During the experiment the rate of stair use increased 66%. The piano staircase was only in place for a few days due to restrictions from the subway authority. So far, the video has garnered more than 17 million views. The piano staircase was part of Volkswagen’s series of experiments under The Fun Theory campaign. The Volkswagen logo appears at
the end of the video, which creates a positive association with the brand.
This campaign was a clever way to encourage people to take the stairs by turning it into a fun activity. The idea is simple yet exciting. Novelty and amusement attracted people and spurred a behaviour change. It shows that fun can persuade people to perform a given behaviour if it is easy to do and free to try. Using a viral video through Youtube to leverage positive brand attributes is a good example of how to use the right tool to achieve a goal. The video has been copied, shared globally and virtually talked about over several weeks. To achieve similar coverage through traditional media like television, radio and newspapers – that is, over 17 million views – would have cost a fortune. However, it is important to keep in mind that this type of project took an experimental approach that was meant to last only a few days – at which point the sense of novelty wanes. Moreover, what is fun for some could just be an annoyance for regular pedestrians, especially during rush hour when the piano staircase is used not by choice but because the escalator is full. Because my project aims to change people’s behaviour over the long term, novelty alone is not enough; but fun remains an important factor in persuasion. This case study also shows that for people to perform a given behaviour, it should be easy and free, without becoming a nuisance toother passersby.
CASE STUDY #4
JAPAN TOUR - ALL INCLUSIVE
Type: National marketing campaign Duration: 1 March-28 May, 2008 (3 months) Location: Thailand Organiser: Oishi Group PLC (OGP) Product: Bottled flavoured green tea Objectives: To increase the sales volume of green tea drinks and become the leader in the green tea beverage market with a well-recognised brand nationwide.
Strategy: In 2008 OGP group introduced a promising marketing cam-
paign called “Japan Tour” that offered unbeatable prizes to 90 people through a friendly marketing strategy. Participation process: Send in the bottle cap of any flavoured Oishi green tea drink with your name, address and phone number written on a piece of paper (folded into the hole under the cap) or drop it in boxes provided at convenience stores throughout Thailand.
Prizes: A package tour to Japan, all-inclusive with pocket money of
20,000 THB (500 Euros). Each of the 30 winners could invite 3 others to join the trip, enabling the invitees to receive the prize under the same
condition. OGP covered all expenses incurred by the prize, such as passport and visa fees, transportation to get the passport and to the airport.
This campaign was the most successful marketing campaign in Thailand to date with proven rising sales on record. A major portion of the 100 million THB budget went to publicity, through all kinds of media outlets, from newspapers, TV, radio, outdoor advertising (OOH) and the Internet. Heavy media coverage quickly garnered attention which then snowballed through word-of-mouth (WOM). Usually, winners must pay the requisite tax on whatever prize they have won. This tax can be so substantial that some winners have had to forego the prize. OGP, however, generously shouldered all costs incurred, winning the hearts of many consumers. As a result, Oishi succeeded in reinforcing strong public perception of the company as being generous and sincere. More than 20 million Oishi green tea bottle caps were sent in, boosting sales by 30% in 3 months. The number of new customers grew during and after the campaign, and Oishi today retains its leading market position in Thailand. However, OGP could have garnered even more participants if the process had been easier. I gathered from interviews that many people did not participate for this reason. Some did not want to spend money on the product (25 THB, average hourly wage for many) in exchange for the highly unlikely probability of winning. How this differs from buying lottery tickets I donâ€™t know, but it is all a matter of perception. In any case, my project does not have a huge media budget, but I can rely on other freely available tools. This includes bartering with other businesses, seeking sponsorship or using social media to generate WOM, which has always been the most effective marketing tool as people tend to trust friendsâ€™ opinions. It can also be said that even without flashy prizes, people tend to buy products that have a positive image or good, honest intentions.
“HOW WONDERFUL THAT NO ONE NEED WAIT A SINGLE MOMENT TO IMPROVE THE WORLD.” Anne Frank (1929-1945)
When it comes to solutions to such problems as waste management, the first trick most people reach for comes in the form of laws and policies. However, as demonstrated, a law that goes un-enforced is as good as not having one at all. To inspire change and involvement on the necessary scale, we need to bring other tricks to the design table. One also needs to take into account the social climate of a city or country. How much are the citizens already willing to act accordingly? One can only speak in generalisations when it comes to human behaviour, but in a developed country such as Germany or Japan, one could argue that this kind of socially responsible behaviour has had decades to be reinforced. In contrast, the social climate in Bangkok may not be at the same level as in many European nations, but environmental consciousness has been gaining considerable momentum in recent years. Numerous television ads and public service spots attest to this, and countless grassroots movements are bringing the message to schools and rural areas. It is only a matter of time until this consciousness – with the proper infrastructure in place– translates into a new set of positive behaviours. This is where the designer steps in. This is our opportunity to create a fun but practical solution that will engage people’s attention, with built-in incentives and quantifiable results. As I have discussed, people are more likely to take a particular action when given the proper incentive – even better if there is an element of fun. No one wants to be beaten over the
head with statistics and reports of doom and gloom, however much one might want to impress upon the general public the urgency for change. The Litter Lotto answers all of the above demands, in both the short and long terms. The lotto format offers fun and anticipation. When people are engaged in a way that feels effortless, doing good for the environment no longer feels like a chore. Even as the novelty wears off, the monetary prize offered on a regular, on-going basis will keep people engaged â€“ just like a lottery, without even having to buy a ticket. This approach is also open to anyone and everyone so inclined, which was not always true in some of the case studies analysed. If a sophisticated recycling scheme like Japanâ€™s were to miraculously appear in Bangkok tomorrow, little would come of it if society still lacks a sense of personal accountability. Instead of throwing our hands up at the gargantuan waste problem in Bangkok, we could start (relatively) small by focusing on consumers and litter. The strength of the Litter Lotto is that the incentive on offer never loses its desirability. This will encourage repeat participation, eventually leading to long-term behaviour changes. Indeed, this all-important mental shift is the projectâ€™s ultimate goal. With a citizenry prepared and willing to play their part, infrastructure-intensive systems to tackle the greater waste problem are much more likely to succeed.
APPENDIX Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Andrew, M., 2008. Social Campaigns, Art of Visual Persuation. Its psychology, its semiotics, its rthetoric. Master of Arts Thesis. Bangkok Broadcasting & TV Co.. (2010). Scoop: City with over-wasted problem. [Online Video]. 2010. Available from: http://www.ch7com/news/news_scoop7see _detail.aspx?c=5&p=542&d=146078. [Accessed: 04 June 2012] Berman D., Do Good: How Designers Can Change the World, Peachpit Press, 2009. Butt Free. 2009. Butt Littering Fact Sheet. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.buttfree.org.au. [Accessed 21 May 12]. Creativity Online. 2012. Terra: Poo WiFi. [ONLINE] Available at: http://creativity-online.com/work/terrapoo-wifi/27321. [Accessed 2012]. Federal ministry for the Environment. Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Public Relation Division , (2012). Closed-loop waste management, recovering wastes- conserving resources. Global Advertising. Consumers Trust Real Friends and Virtual Strangers the Most. (2009). Nielsenwire. Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey. [ONLINE] Available at: http://blog.nielsen.com/ nielsenwire/consumer/global-advertising-consumers-trust-real-friends-and-virtual-strangers-the-most. [Accessed: 2012]. Government Lottery Office. 2012. Government Lottery Office. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.glo.or.th. [Accessed 2012]. Positioning Magazine.Green. 31 March, 2008. Green Tea Japan Tour. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.positioningmag.com/magazine/details.aspx?id=68391 [Accessed 2012]. JPCRA. 2012. Japan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.jcpra.or.jp/eng/jcpra/03.html. Lally, Phillippa, van Jaarsveld, H., Potts, H., & Wardle, J. How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology. John Willey & Sons, Chichester. 2010 Lara Blue, Time Magazine Online. 2008. Lessons from Germany. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www. time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1734222_1734213,00.html. [Accessed 01 July 12]. Lottery and the Reality in Thai Society. Research Project. Dr. Sangkit Piriyarangsan [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.oknation.net/blog/print.php?id=478002. Marketeer. 2008. Cover Story: Welcome to the Real Truth. Maketeer, [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.marketeer.co.th/inside_detail.php?inside_id=6513 [Accessed 2012]. Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan . 2012. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.env.go.jp/ en/. [Accessed 21 May 12]. Municipal waste management, Berlin Senate Department for Health, the Environment and Consumer Protection Environmental Policy, Section III B – Waste Management - Brückenstr. 6 • 10179 Berlin • Germany Number and Proportion of Students in the Formal School System in Public and Private Institutions by Level and Type of Education in Bangkok Metropolis and other Provinces: Academic Year 2008. [ONLINE] Available at: http://eis.moe.go.th/eis/stat51/T0004.htm. [Accessed 2012]. Oxford Dictionaries Online. 2012. Littering. [ONLINE] Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/litter?q=littering#litter__12. [Accessed 2012].
Petrovic, N., (2011). Ecologists Without Borders Association, Final Report of The Project, Let’s Clean Slovenia in One Day! In Ecologists Without Borders Association. Plastic disaster and Global Warming. Thairath Online. 28 April, 2010. Available at: http://www.thairath. co.th/today/view/79568. [Accesses 2011] Pollution Control Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. 2009. Thailand State of Pollution Report 2009. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.pcd.go.th. [Accessed 2012]. Prachat Business News. 2012. Oishi: In the battle of England’s real tour counter. Prachat Business News, [Online]. Available at: http:// w ww.marketeer.co.th/ inside_detail.php?inside_id=6513. [Accessed 2012]. Romklao Chai-ariras. 2012. Online Questionnaire. [ONLINE] Available at: https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheet/gform?key=0AuNsj99WB3rCdF9rdWRhWThtZ3hCN0tQR25UenhTMlE&gridId=0#chart. [Accessed 2012]. Štembal, M.M. (May 2010). http://www.slovenia.si/en/slovenia/country/ environment/the-biggest-voluntary-environmental-action-project-in-slovenian-history. Sutter, J.D. CNN Online. 2012. Swapping dog poop for free WiFi. [ON LINE] Available at: http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/07/swapping-dog-poop-for-free-wi-fi. [Accessed 2012]. Taylor, L.C. 2009. The story behind the Web’s No. 1 video. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.thestar. com/news/sciencetech/ article/713588--the-story-behind-the-web-s-no-1-video. [Accessed 2012]. Thailand information Center for Civil rights and Investigative Journalism. (2011). Scoop: Gamble. [Online Video]. 21 May 2011. Available at: http://www.tcijthai.com/TCIJ/view.php?ids=616. [Accessed: 2012]. The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment . 2010. Litter. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.incpen.org/displayarticle.asp?a=9&c=2. [Accessed 2012].
ผลการว จิ ยั ของเร ือ่ งเศรษฐก จิ การพนัน: ทางเล อื กเช งิ นโยบาย, ศ นู ย์ศ กึ ษาเศรษฐศาสตร์การเม อื ง คณะเศรษฐศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาว ทิ ยาลัย 2012. The Wall Street Journal, South East Asia, 23 May.
COLOPHON Throw -away Away ÂŠRomklao Chai-ariras 2012 firstname.lastname@example.org www.litterlotto.com Print run 10 Photography Michael de Kooter Illustration Romklao Chai-ariras Graphic design Romklao Chai-ariras Jonathan Roorda Text Romklao Chai-ariras Printing Oranje Van Loon Bookingbinding Mosmans www.mosmans.nl
This book is made and printed on 100% recycled paper.
“I DON’T CLAIM TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRUSADER WITH A LIFESTYLE TO MATCH, BUT WE ALL NEED TO MAKE CHANGES WHERE WHERE WE CAN.”” WE CAN.” David Berman Romklao Chai-ariras
A research by Romklao Chai-ariras, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Arts programmes in Desgin, pathway...