Hi all, 

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Americans generated 292 million tons of municipal solid waste in 2018, which is nearly 5 pounds per person per day. Although recycling and composting have increased significantly since the 1960s, there is still a need to divert more waste from landfills. Cities present unique challenges for waste diversion in that there are more multi-family buildings, where residents do not recycle as much as in single-family homes. Research suggests that the main hurdle to recycling more in multi-family buildings is structural, not behavioral (DiGiacomo et al., 2018; Rhodes et al., 2014; Wagner, 2011). In other words, more bins, convenient access, and clear signage are needed. However, once these structural provisions are in place, behavioral interventions need to take it a step further. 

A 2023 study by researchers in the United States conducted 12 weeks of interventions in two multi-family buildings in New York City. In one building (n=372), residents received weekly comparative feedback in which their recycling habits were compared with those of their neighbors. In another building (n=602), residents received weekly non-comparative feedback with data about their building alone. The feedback was provided through graphic posters placed in the waste collection rooms on each floor in both buildings. Each poster included a combination of graphics and text, and they were designed to be almost identical to one another, except for the specific data. This facilitated the assessment of two different social norm intervention types.

Results? The study’s authors analyzed the volume of recycling per week, which was a total count of bags (plastic, glass, and metal) and bales (paper and cardboard) of recycling per building. They found that although modest, there was a statistically significant increase in recycling within the social comparative feedback building. In other words, comparing residents’ recycling habits to those of their neighbours increased their recycling rates. This study points to social norms as one avenue for closing the gap between intentions and behavior. Specifically, group norms may be an effective way to increase recycling in multi-family buildings. When individuals perceive themselves as being part of a group, this leads to higher levels of conformity in terms of group behavior (Constantino et al., 2022; Schultz, 2022; Vander Linden et al., 2015). For building managers, this might mean creating programs that encourage social cohesion. For example, organizing social events, gatherings, and community building activities, as well as engaging motivated residents who can serve as recycling leaders on their floor.

To read the full study, click here.

Hi all, 

Many people believe that technology will solve the climate crisis. The World Economic Forum, for example, asserts that “we must invent our way out of climate change”. While technological innovation is critical, this line of thinking suffers from a blind spot as it ignores the social and political landscape surrounding the problem. Jared Furuta and Patricia Bromley outline three myths that underpin this tech-first way of thinking.

Myth #1: Environmental solutions emerge as a natural response to environmental problems.

It is common to think that as environmental problems worsen, ambitious action automatically arises to counter them. As we see more severe droughts and wildfires globally, we might expect more support for climate change policies. But research in sociology and political science suggests that this is not the case (McAdam, 2017). The “London Fog” of the 19th and 20th centuries is a great example of an environmental problem that existed for a long time without reform. During that time, smog blanketed the entire city, and that was normalized, a part of everyday urban life. It wasn’t until 1956, when political conditions became favourable, that action was taken, and the Clean Air Act was passed in the United Kingdom.

As is the case with individual behaviors, the presence of the climate crisis alone is not sufficient to mobilize people. Reforms require organization, political opportunities, and compelling narratives to succeed. 

Myth #2: When policy appears, meaningful change will follow.

Countries and organizations often adopt policies for reasons that are misaligned with the underlying problem. It is frequently the case that these policies are adopted to follow established social norms, which provides legitimacy. But this too often means that policies are adopted symbolically, creating the appearance of a solution without any real change happening. This phenomenon is known as “loose coupling”. Sometimes, loose coupling involves intentional “greenwashing,” but other times, actors may simply not be able to implement or enforce policies. A good example of loose coupling is airline carbon offsets. Companies frequently allow passengers to “offset” the carbon emissions from their flights, but there is limited evidence that these policies actually reduce carbon emissions. 

Myth #3: Scale is a silver bullet. 

There is a prevalent belief that solutions will be more effective when scaled. If the problem is global, as is the case with climate change, then the solution must be to apply new technologies and policies to everyone, everywhere. However, solutions that work in one local context do not necessarily work in another, even when they exist in the same country. Further, research suggests that large-scale reforms can cause backlash when they interfere with people’s values or ways of life (Furuta & Bromley, 2025). Examples of this include the Yellow Vest protests in France that responded to a proposed fuel tax hike in 2018 and a strong push against carbon pricing taxes in Canada that resulted in their partial repeal in 2025. 

Policies and technologies spark resistance if they disrupt current practices, challenge identities, or are mismatched with local conditions. Scale can amplify all of this.

To read more about these myths, including what can be done to address them, click on the Behavioral Scientist’s article here. 

Hi all,

Understanding and lowering pesticide-related risks is critical to safeguarding human health, conserving ecosystems, and maintaining long-term food security. Although it is commonly thought that high pesticide use is attributed to a lack of knowledge, there is plenty of research suggesting that awareness of pesticide risks is already high (Sabran and Abas, 2021; Wang et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2014; Macharia et al., 2013). Unfortunately, unsafe practices continue, indicating that knowledge alone is not enough to drive change.

The Ukulima True campaign in Kenya promoted safer farming practices within the agricultural community. More specifically, the campaign aimed to mitigate pesticide-related risks by not only disseminating behaviorally-informed messages but also by providing practical training on responsible pesticide use. Peer-to-peer training sessions were conducted and led by trusted community members, such as lead farmers. They taught practical, interpersonal sessions that were particularly useful for farmers who lacked access to mass media. Over 6 months, 30 trained lead farmers delivered 217 peer sessions, each lasting at least 1 hour and covering core topics, such as pest prevention, safe pesticide use and handling, and post-spraying practices. In total, 1194 farmers participated in these interactive sessions.

In addition to the training sessions and use of mass media, the campaign also analyzed prevailing social norms and beliefs around pesticide use. The campaign organizers identified culturally embedded behaviors and attitudes that either impeded or supported safe practices. To change these norms, Ukulima True organized and led field days and large-scale community gatherings that created open spaces for dialogue and learning about pesticide safety. The campaign organizers also considered the broader regulatory environment that shapes pesticide access, use, and monitoring. They engaged with policymakers, county food safety committees, and regulatory bodies to push for stronger enforcement of pesticide regulations, more support for training programs, and increased access to safer alternatives such as biopesticides. These efforts facilitated a more supportive environment for lasting behavior change.

Results? Nearly 70% of farmers became aware of the campaign, with peer-to-peer learning and radio being the most influential communication channels. The campaign also led to significant behavior changes, with 86.4% of farmers engaging in at least three Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices and 85.7% consistently monitoring their fields for pests and diseases. Awareness of approved pesticides increased to 70%, and the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while pesticides were being applied also improved, which reduced farmers' direct exposure to pesticides.

Though this campaign took place in Kenya, the behavior change strategies used apply to a Western context.

To read the full study, click here. 

Hi all, 

Conservation policy is ambitious. Marine protected areas now cover almost 10% of the world’s oceans, and protected lands account for almost one-fifth of Earth’s terrestrial surface. On paper, this progress is impressive. 

Yet there is a phenomenon called “paper parks” that has been known by conservationists for a long time. These are protected areas that exist in law but not in practice. After the legislation passes, government announcements are made, and rules are changed, but the wildlife, fish, and forests remain unprotected because the behaviors those rules depend on do not shift. Conservationists have learned over time that structural change in the form of policy and legislation is important, but not enough. 

There’s an interesting debate around this in a recent book, It’s On You: How Corporations and Behavioral Scientists Have Convinced Us That We’re to Blame for Society’s Deepest Problems. The authors are leading behavioral scientists, and focus their central argument on the “i-frame” vs. the “s-frame”. The “i-frame” is an intervention that aims to change behavior within existing systems, such as reminder messages, information campaigns, and default settings. The authors argue that corporations and policymakers prefer this approach because it draws attention away from structural changes that might threaten powerful institutions. Carbon footprint calculators promoted by the oil giant BP are a great example. The alternative, the “s-frame”, centres around changing the system itself through laws and regulation. The authors make the point that many nudges are not large or significant enough for the problems they target. Transforming energy, food and financial systems requires more than behavioral tweaks. While this may be true, the field of conservation demonstrates that for many complex situations, both structural reforms and behavioral interventions are required.

Consider that a fisher might be aware of the areas she cannot fish, a farmer might know the forest boundary, and a community living next to a wildlife corridor might understand the laws against poaching. Yet all of these people might break the rules because the incentives favor extraction, enforcement is weak, or the social norms signal non-compliance. There is no question that legislation and regulation matter, but the expectations people form about whether others will comply, and the social infrastructure built around those expectations, will ultimately determine whether a law or policy changes real-world outcomes. In practice, this might mean clear boundary markers, community monitoring systems, and shared commitments that make breaking the rules both visible and socially costly. 

Durable conservation occurs when people trust the regulations, expect their community to follow them, and participate in the social systems that make compliance real. When those behavioral foundations are absent, even the best policies become paper promises.

To read the full op-ed by Kevin Green, click here.

Hi all,

As you develop your programs, you may be looking for online educational tools that impart knowledge on waste prevention and recycling. Waste games are one way to do just that. They are an intriguing approach, as they provide an engaging way to transmit information, they are cost-effective and efficient compared to in-person presentations, and there is evidence demonstrating that waste games are effective at disseminating waste-sorting knowledge (Luo, Zelenika and Zhao, 2018; Soma, Li and Maclaren, 2020). 

I have two waste games to introduce you to. The first one is from the Region of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. It is a simple waste-sorting game called Rethink Waste that involves five levels of waste sorting. Participants receive immediate feedback in the form of gold stars when they correctly sort a waste item. After each level, participants are rewarded with a fountain, play structure, or other fun feature that they add to a local park. At the end of the game, you type your name on a certificate of achievement that is authorized by the Region of Waterloo. The Rethink Waste game takes about 5-7 minutes to complete. Click here to play the game. 

The second one is called The Waste Game. This one was developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Irish Universities’ Association (IUA). Prior to developing the game, research was conducted to identify barriers to proper recycling behavior. They found that waste contamination was often caused by individuals not knowing how to sort waste properly, a lack of care for the environment, and beliefs that most other like-minded individuals do not sort their waste, which then discouraged them from sorting as well. The game aims to address these barriers through a quiz-like experience that incorporates gamification and behavioral techniques, such as:
-       An overarching narrative that frames the game as a journey or quest, which provides meaning to waste prevention and recycling

-       An interactive experience that includes a dialogue between the player and a fictional mentor, making the experience more engaging

-       Social norms that allow players to compare themselves to others

-       Points and badges that are rewarded to players as they complete the levels, which impart a sense of accomplishment

-       Immediate feedback that is given to players, which facilitates learning throughout the game

-       Commitments to reduce waste and recycle that are encouraged at the end of each level

The Waste Game is played in two levels with multiple-choice questions. Level 1 teaches participants about waste prevention, while Level 2 involves waste sorting. The Waste Game takes about 15-20 minutes to complete. Click here to play the game. 

Hi all, 

Last week, I shared a few of the recycling and reuse initiatives that Colorado is engaged in. This week, I’m sharing their 9th annual State of Recycling and Composting in Colorado report.

The report features some of the improvements they’ve made on their circular system journey, including: 

-       The City of Aspen introduced an Organic Waste Ordinance in October 2023, requiring all establishments with a retail food license to register with an organics hauler. As a result, compost increased from 804 tons of food scraps diverted in 2023 to 2,600 tons in 2024. That represents a nearly 350% increase! This ordinance is successful due to the City’s support, which includes providing compost bins, centralized drop-off locations, educational materials, and wildlife-resistant outdoor bins (p.14).

-       In 2024, following Colorado’s Producer Responsibility programs for paint, packaging, and paper, the State enacted a new battery stewardship law (SB25-163). As of 2028, battery producers will pay for the collection, recycling, and proper disposal of small- and medium-format batteries, including button, AAA, D-cell, rechargeable power-tool batteries, and e-bike batteries (p.5).
-       The Glenwood Springs City Council voted to ban yard trimmings from the South Canyon Landfill beginning in the summer of 2025. Although most residents and businesses are complying by diverting yard trimmings for composting, some are taking yard clippings to nearby landfills instead. The diversion requirement is definitely a success, as it lengthens the landfill’s lifespan and avoids methane emissions by keeping yard clippings out of the landfill. The fact that some people are evading the requirement by taking their clippings to other landfills underscores the need for coordinated behaviour change programs and statewide policies (p.14).

The report includes highlights of actions Colorado is taking in the areas of organics diversion, expanded recycling systems, deconstruction and recycling, and reducing, repairing, and reusing. It also includes local and state-level policy recommendations. 

To access the full report, click here. 

Hi all, 

As you work on your own recycling and reuse initiatives, you might find it useful to know what is going on in other jurisdictions. As you may know, Colorado is doing some interesting work in recycling and reuse. This week and next, I will share with you some of the work that they are doing. 

One of their most interesting initiatives is the Eco-Cycle/City of Boulder Center for Hard-to-Recycle Materials (CHaRM), which diverts twenty-five categories of hard-to-recycle materials from landfill. These include, but are not limited to:

-electronics

-small appliances

-printer cartridges

-smoke detectors

-solar panels

-mattresses and box springs

-ceramics and concrete

-bikes and bike tires

-fire extinguishers

These items can be dropped off for recycling at a central depot in Boulder, Colorado. Note that there are facility fees and item fees that are charged when recycling some of these items. It may be tempting to complain about the fees, but they do make sense. One of the reasons why these materials are difficult to recycle is the cost associated with recycling them. The cost to recycle them exceeds their value in the secondary materials market once they’ve been processed. An old mattress, for example, takes a lot of time to dismantle into separate materials (metal, wood, and textiles) for recycling. There is a cost to process these materials and to ship them to the nearest end markets, which can sometimes be far away.

Another initiative is an online Reuse Hub where residents in the City of Boulder (and beyond) can find an interactive map showing them where to find local businesses involved in reuse and repair. This includes refill and bulk grocery stores, repair services (e.g. vacuums and sewing machines), thrift shops, used furniture stores, and restaurants that use reusable to-go containers. 

And finally, for a list of reuse resources such as Facebook marketplace, The Buy Nothing Project, and ThredUP, click here. 

Hi Johneria,

Great questions. I've asked my colleague Jon Rausseo who is Sustainability Manager at the University of Ottawa what he thinks about metrics and evaluation methods. Here is his response: 

"For me, it is really a question of what resources you have available and how accurate do you want to be.
For your total recycling efforts, you can use your total diversion rate (total waste + total recycling / total recycling) but it really is an imperfect measure. Positive efforts to increase reuse or reduction actually end up hurting your diversion number. 
You can simply look over your total waste numbers from year to year to give you an idea of if you are reducing your materials sent to landfill, but that doesn't capture your efforts to reduce and reuse.
Ideally you could use a third party company to come in and do an evaluation for you every year but it is very expensive.
Obtaining participation or engagement rates can also be a bit misleading because they don't always give you a sense of how well a participant understands the recycling system and is actually putting the proper items into the correct bins. Someone may be a very engaged recycler but not actually be recycling properly. And of course there is also a bias if you use a survey. People tend to exaggerate their understanding of properly recycling. In tests we did years ago we found that people tended to overestimate how much recycling they actually did.
So all this to say that the best metric is usually the one you can track easiest and brings the most value to your institution. If that is total waste over time, then use that. If it is diversion rate, then use that. Or even a combination of a few techniques if the information is easy to capture."

I can also answer your question about tools and frameworks. Tableau is a software platform for data visualization that you might consider using. It is known to be user friendly. If you're just looking to make infographics, Canva or Piktochart will work. And don't forget about a good old-fashioned PowerPoint presentation to convey results simply and easily. In terms of frameworks, one that is often used in sustainability is the traffic light system. For each behavior you are measuring, you can illustrate whether or not the behavior is on track (green light), in progress (yellow light), or off track (red light).

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Julie

Definitely. You're quite welcome! 

Hi again Mary,

I have an answer for you regarding the bin stickers. My apologies for the delay. The Region of Waterloo was busy with their new bin launch. The stickers they use stick on well, but can also be removed without too much effort. 

Here are the printing specs:

6" x 2.5" with bleeds
Single-side, black plus PMS ink
Gloss UV coating ( FZ-111 stock) permanent adhesive white stock provided

The contact for these stickers is Halton Labels and Stamps in Georgetown, Ontario. Their email is [email protected]

I hope this helps.

Kind regards,
Julie