The imperative for policy makers to keep it simple
By Edward Langley, Group Account Director, Kantar Public New Zealand
Recycling is often seen as the touchstone environmental behaviour. When asked what they are doing to save the planet, more often than not, most people say, ‘I recycle’.
While the first recorded use of recycled paper dates back to 9th century Japan, kerbside recycling has been around for decades. In New Zealand, household recycling collections kicked off in the early 90s. But despite decades of practice, New Zealanders still have a long way to go to ensure they are recycling right, as revealed by recent research conducted by Kantar Public for WasteMINZ, a leading player in the waste sector. 1
In this paper, Edward Langley explores the drivers and barriers for New Zealanders to effective recycling, and shares some constructive and simple steps that policy makers can take to support householders to get it right.
A spectrum of commitment when it comes to recycling right
A first step in understanding the nature of the challenge is to explore how committed New Zealanders are to the idea of ‘recycling right’. This includes correctly sorting those items that are recyclable and those items that are not, as well as preparing items for recycling by rinsing them, or removing the lid, etc.
Kantar Public developed a segmentation based on our behavioural insight model to help understand New Zealanders’ behaviour and attitudes towards recycling. We identified five core segments, ranging from the ‘Advocates’ and ‘Attainers’, who comprise the one in four people who are highly committed to recycling right, to ‘Deniers’ consisting of the one in ten New Zealanders who reject the idea of recycling altogether. The majority (64%) sit in between, meaning they are broadly on board with the idea of recycling right, but there are barriers that get in the way of people actually doing it.
Source: Kantar Public study conducted for WasteMINZ
Identifying the barriers to recycling right
The complexity of recycling systems is one of the key barriers. New Zealand – a country of just five million people – has 67 local councils dealing with waste and recycling. There is little uniformity in what they collect, which makes it much more challenging for the householder to navigate the system(s). As a result, people often fall back on heuristics (or mental shortcuts) – some of which are helpful, while others lead to contamination and ‘wish-cycling’ i.e. placing items in the recycling that can’t be recycled.
These heuristics are clearly at play when we ask people to rapidly sort 30 household items into those they would typically recycle and those they wouldn’t. By using timed responses, it is possible to decode which items are hard-wired into their brain as recyclable (or not). This provides valuable insight into ‘System 1’ (fast, automatic) thinking. 2
On average, householders correctly sorted 21 out of 30 items. The ones which they were able to most rapidly sort are items that are universally accepted (paper, glass and cans), and that have historically been the mainstays of New Zealand’s recycling system.
In contrast, compostable items often trip up householders. Two in three people get it wrong, as they would typically recycle compostable bottles and cups. Indeed, our study revealed a general heuristic that compostable is recyclable, which leads householders astray in their choices.
Plastic is another key cause of confusion. This is where the disparities in the recycling systems really kick in, with some local councils only accepting plastic number 1; some numbers 1 and 2; some numbers 1, 2 and 5 etc. In general, key items which householders incorrectly sorted included plastic cutlery and meat trays.
Number of items (out of 30) corrected sorted for recycling
It is clear that New Zealanders struggle to navigate the numbers game.
Just over half (53%) say they look for a recycling number on plastic items. But amongst these respondents, only 24% correctly identified what to do with three plastic items with the recycling symbols 1 (universally accepted), 5 (accepted in most councils) and 8 (a fake).
The fact that so many people (54%) got our red herring number ‘8’ wrong, indicates that householders pay more attention to the recycling triangle than the numbers themselves.
As with so many behavioural problems, the key takeaway from this part of the research was that if policy makers want the public to recycle, they need to make it as easy as possible.
In the case of recycling, that may mean adopting a universal waste collection system.
Finding the right messaging to support people to recycle right
As part of this project, we conducted qualitative research with people sitting in the middle of our segmentation in terms of their commitment to recycling right (i.e. the ‘Fluctuators’ and ‘Followers’). The objective was to help WasteMINZ understand what could be done to bring these individuals fully on-board.
The first thing to note is that people want to be praised, not chastised . Respondents often articulate a sense of being a ‘good person’ when they recycle. This is key to their recycling psyche: even if they may not always do recycling well, they believe that their efforts in recycling mean they are good people. They want to be praised for their efforts, not criticised for any failures, and it is important that the messaging sits within this wider context.
We also tested multiple messages which had been developed following the survey, and asked respondents to rank their first and second choices. The message that stands head and shoulders above the rest, is the simple statement that “Plastics 1, 2 and 5 can be recycled here in Aotearoa". 3
This clearly links to a bugbear that people have in identifying what can be recycled (and their particular sensitivity to plastic). It also plays to the imperative of helping them to do the right thing.
The other statement which cuts through, points to some of the unknowns that people have around the recycling process: “If everyone in the same area puts the wrong things in their recycling bin, it can lead to whole trucks of what could have been recycled going to landfill instead.”
This message may also resonate in a COVID-19 age in New Zealand, where people don’t want to see their collective efforts undermined by the careless actions of a few individuals.
As their second choice, respondents often selected a message that puts a more human face on recycling; “Real people handle and sort recycling, so it makes their job safer, easier and more pleasant if the right items are included and all items are clean.”
This empathetic people-led approach was much more successful than the more practical people-led message suggested by the ‘essential workers’ statement.It also challenged some of the misconceptions expressed around the extent to which New Zealand’s recycling system is automated (and so householders don’t need to worry about doing the right thing).
Preference of impact of messages
It’s important to keep messaging upbeat
Many environmental challenges can be pretty hard going for people, and there is a call for positive vibes around any recycling campaign. Bearing in mind that deep down, people believe that recycling shows them to be a ‘good person’, it is not surprising that many want a campaign to be positive, even humorous.
Anything that contributes to making the process and moment of recycling seem more satisfying, is welcome.
Kantar Public’s research for WasteMINZ into rethinking recycling has highlighted three key insights for policy makers:
References
1. WasteMINZ is the largest representative body of the waste recovery and contaminated land sectors in New Zealand. To find out more: www.wasteminz.org.nz
2. In his book ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’, Daniel Kahneman delineates two different modes of thinking: “System 1” is fast and automatic, driven by habit and prior learning; “System 2” is slower, driven by deliberation.
3. Aotearoa is the Māori name for New Zealand.
