Work-in-Progress
Waste Management 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Waste Management 2017_Research
Beatrice Costa Politecnico di Torino, Master in Eco-Design, Torino, Italia bea13_91@hotmail.it
Raquel Villa Monedero ETSAM - Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spagna raquelvillamc@gmail.com
Leon Hollander University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands leon-hollander@hotmail.com
Max Mallon Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands maxmallon@hotmail.com
Abstract Not enough citizens of Amsterdam are visiting the waste collecting points. A research was conducted on the theory of planned behavior in order to determine which factors influence this behavior the most. It was found that the aspects of one’s subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and current behavior are all significant predictors of the act of throwing away bulky waste at the waste points. A modern, eco-friendly and cost-efficient system was created, named ‘Tag It!’. In this system one has to tag their waste with geolocated stickers. The stickers have a minimalistic design and vary on the variables type of bulky waste, time priority and size of the bulky waste. Moreover, a mockup of the online platform was created.
Kazumitsu Yoshida Neuromagic Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands kazumitsu.yoshida@neuromagic.com
Key Words
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the authors. Copyright is held by the authors. Waste Management, Amsterdam 2017, The Netherlands
The municipality of Amsterdam, waste management, theory of planned behavior, minimalistic design, mockup, bulky waste, societal issue; sustainable; Eco System
1
Work-in-Progress
Waste Management 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Introduction Nowadays, the importance of waste prevention is fully recognized within the EU. The waste management hierarchy is globally deployed and is part of the legislative waste framework of the EU (‘EU Waste Framework Directive’, 2008)[3]. The waste management hierarchy consists of five steps (from bottom to top): disposal, recovery, recycling, re-use and prevention. Each step is considered more sustainable, with prevention being the most sustainable. The goal of the management hierarchy is to maximize the life cycle and the use of products and consequently generate a minimal amount of waste (Zunft & Fröhlig, 2009). Dutch citizens produce on average 522 kg of waste per year (‘Afvalmonitor’, 2010)[7], which is more than the average waste produced by Europeans, that of 502 kg (‘Eurostat’, 2010)[4]. Many efforts still need to be made. The municipality of Amsterdam stated that they are facing a problem concerning their waste management programme: the problem that too few of the citizens of Amsterdam use the bulky waste system in the desired way. The desired way would be citizens throwing their bulky waste away at the designated waste points of Amsterdam. Bulky waste is all the domestic waste that is too big to be collected in regular waste bins and/or need special processing. Right now, most of the citizens use the waste system in which garbage collectors pick up the waste every other day. This pick up system however costs the municipality a lot of money and can be considered outdated. We developed a sticker system that is more cost-efficient, eco-friendly and modern while preserving the user-friendly character of the current system.
Problem perception The current system costs too much and can be more sustainable: inefficient routes driven by waste pick-up trucks. Not enough citizens visit the waste points.
MUNICIPALITY OF AMSTERDAM
Do not want to do extra effort for the act of throwing away waste. The current waste points are inaccessible and inconvenient, no perceived benefit for bringing your waste there.
CITIZERS OF AMSTERDAM
Design process BUSINESS ANALYSIS
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS
IMPROVING
CONCEPTUALIZING
SURVEY
TESTING
4
2
6
1
5
3
COUNTRY ANALYSIS The Netherlands Germany
DESIGNING
Japan
PROTOTYPING
Sweden
*Scheme of the process
2
Work-in-Progress
Waste Management 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Primary Research
8 PERSONAS
Qualitative research was done in order to get a better understanding of how the citizens of amsterdam perceive the problem. We used different methods, for example interviews and games. Quantitative research based on the theory of planned behavior was conducted in order to determine which factors influence the desired behavior of throwing away the bulky waste at the waste points the most. A survey was done (n = 254).
Initial research was done to get a better understanding of how the citizens of Amsterdam perceive the current system. The first research embodied in-depth interviews with randomly selected people on the streets. Designed was a ‘confession bin’, a confession booth in which people could confess their bulky waste ‘secrets’. The confession bin was designed as an object to attract the attention of the people passing by. The results of this research taught us that most citizens did not perceive the current system as problematic. In the follow-up quantitative research a survey was created based on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985)[1],[2]. This was done in order to determine which factors influence the desired behavior of throwing away the bulky waste at the waste points the most. The theory of planned behavior states that behavior is determined by intention[1]; the intention in turn is determined by the variables attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. Attitude embodies one’s beliefs over the evaluation of the outcome of doing the behavior in question. Subjective norm constitutes the beliefs one has over the evaluation of the behavior by people important to them. Finally, the perceived behavioral control consists of two dimensions: someone’s estimated self-efficacy and perceived external impediments. Previous research has shown that the three subcomponents can be effective explanatory variables of the behavioral intention in different behavioral contexts – for example the context of recycling (Goden & Kok, 1996)[5]. For recruiting participants quota sampling was used (Patton, 2002)[6]. This method of sampling was chosen in order to represent the different demographic qualities of the citizens of Amsterdam. The qualities on which the participants were differentiated are nationality (Dutch, Western immigrants, Non-Western immigrants and Middle Eastern and North-African immigrants), age (adults younger than 27, adults and adults over 65) and income (low/middle income and high income). In the research a minimum of 20 participants were required per sub-population. The survey was distributed online and participants were personally encountered to fill out the survey. In total 254 people filled out the survey completely
(response ratio: N/A; drop-out ratio: 8%). The mean average of participants is 36.42 (SD = 15.24) with 53.0% being male. The different components of the theory of planned behavior were measured with a five point Likert scale. Each component was measured using two statements, the statements being based on the ‘constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire’ (Ajzen, 2006)[2]. An additional variable was added; the variable of knowledge about the waste points. The statistics program, SPSS, a multiple regression analysis was executed to analyze the data. The results showed that the multiple regression model with attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and knowledge as independent variables and behavioral intention as dependent variable was significant, F (7, 235) = 35,82 , p < 0.001. The model predicted for 50% the variance of the dependent variable (adjusted R² = 0.50). Age is no significant predictor of the behavioral intention, b* = -.07, t = -1.52, p = .130, 95% CI [-.01, .00]. Attitude was composed of attitudeI, b* =.15, t = 2.59, p = .010, 95% CI [.04, .28], and attitudeII, b* = -.01, t = -.21, p = .837, 95% CI [-.13, .11], neither of them prove to be significant predictors of the behavioral intention. AttitudeI however showed a fairly strong positive correlation with the behavioral intention. The subjective norm did prove to be a significant predictor of the behavioral intention, b* = .22, t = .18, p = .001, 95% CI [.09, .36]. The perceived behavioral control partially predicts the behavioral intention of throwing away waste at the waste points. One’s self-efficacy prove to be significant, b* = .52, t = 8.70, p = < .001, 95% CI [.39, .63], whereas a sense of having responsibility was not, b* = -.03, t = -.71, p = .480, 95% CI [-.12, .06]. To have knowledge of the waste points was not a significant predictor of the dependent variable, b* = .02, t = .36, p = .719, 95% CI [-.22, .31]. Finally, the behavioral intention correlates positively and strongly with the actual behavior of throwing away waste at the waste points, r = .54, p <.001.
3
Work-in-Progress
29% of the citizens of Amsterdam know where the waste points are
KNOWLEDGE * based on our data
1 Year
502 Kg
Europe
Netherlands
522 Kg
Waste Management 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
In light of the results, the determinants with the strongest correlation were reformulated into different conceptual qualities (feeling of the experience, role of the community, feasible experience and education). The bulky waste systems of several cities of Japan, Germany and Sweden were analyzed based on these conceptual qualities. These countries were selected due their high worldwide reputation in waste management. After the country analyses we started conceptualizing. We combined aspects of the different countries and adjusted them to the unique context of Amsterdam. This lead to the creation of the sticker system ‘Tag It!’.
Functional Design Application A piece of software was created to accompany our system ‘Tag it!’. First a list was made of all the functionality the software would need to have, which was followed by checking if it was viable to make this system in real life. With merely one programmer, about a month and half worth of time, and other tasks at hand too, it was not going to be possible to make the full system. It would need some GUI for the users, it would need a server to connect to, a system to scan stickers and send their data to said server. Moreover, it would need a system to calculate the routes of all the trucks, which in turn would need the full map of Amsterdam. To actually implement it, another GUI for the people on the municipality’s side is needed. Therefore, it was concluded that the full-scale system was far beyond the scope. Instead it was decided to create a mock-up. A program that would simulate the end-user’s experience. The most important step in this case was deciding on how to ‘scan’ the sticker. It was decided that QR codes would offer the solution in this case.
per Citizen
0
BULKY WASTE * based on data of the EU Framework
SCAN
Intention to throw away bulky waste 0
TAG IT!
Responsibility of the citizens
RESPONSIBILITY
* based on our data
*Graphs of results of our research
*Scanner in the application
Reasoning that most people do not have a QR scanner on their smartphone, it was decided to integrate a QR scanner in the application ‘Tag It!’.
4
Work-in-Progress
Waste Management 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The platform of choice to make the app in, was Unity. The programmer of the project had the most experience with C#, the language used in Unity. Another consideration was the exporting ability of Unity.
REGISTRATION
Initially it was decided to not make the application scalable as it was only going to function as a mockup in a product pitch. The application was developed at a resolution of 1920x1200. However, during the creating it was found that making the app scalable within this 16:10 aspect ratio, would not require any alteration to the design. Hence it was decided to make it so. One of the teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s designers and the programmer worked together, the programmer telling what graphical assets were needed, and the designer creating them.
*Login screen from the application
A login functionality was included in the mockup. The user can create an account and add personal details to it. User data was only stored internally as plain text for as long as the app is turned on. All data that should persist between screens is stored in the controller object, which does not unload upon loading into a new scene. Examples of such data are the current user, activation of the stickers, the previous pages the user visited and selecting or purchasing stickers from the visual catalogue.â&#x20AC;¨ *Home screen from the application
5
Work-in-Progress
TYPE
SIZE
TIME PRIORITY
PRICE
STEPS ON THE BACK
*Stickers, front and back
Waste Management 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The new bulky waste system: ‘Tag It!’ The design part includes, not only web design and graphic design, but also the design of the entire system. With regard to the system, all the research (interviews, surveys, questionnaires and feedback collected from games tested on potential users) were analyzed and studied particularly efficient systems in other states to reach the final concept, tag sticker system ! " In the new waste system ‘Tag It’ bulky waste is tagged with geolocated stickers. The stickers vary on prices based on three variables: time priority (high or low time priority), size (small or large) and type of waste (regular/other or electronic waste). The stickers contain a QR code, which needs to be scanned to activate. The web and graphic design part was taken care of by creating a coordinated image of the whole system, starting from sticker graphics leading to the entire design of the application. For the stickers we used minimalistic graphics. The colours used, are characteristic for sustainability. On the back of the stickers information is depicted about how the system works. The aim was to make the stickers understanable for everyone. There are in total eight stickers, four for each type of waste. To activate the stickers an application was developed. This application is also necessary to select a time frame to know when one can put their bulky waste out. In addition one can create a profile, check which sticker one need, see how one’s district is performing, use a responsive map to see where one can go with the bulky waste and order the stickers online. Besides online, stickers can be bought at any selling points spread throughout Amsterdam. Due the integration of geolocated software in the sticker once the stickers are scanned and an appointment is set, the municipality receives information about what kind of waste there is and where it is located. Moreover, by having different time priorities the municipality can plan the routes ahead and drive more cost-efficient when picking up the bulky waste. The prices are kept relatively low for several reasons. In the current bulky waste system of Amsterdam, citizens do not have
to pay any money to make use of the service besides the annual waste tax. Resistance and refusal is expected when the prices are initially high for the stickers. Secondly, it is important that citizens think about the costs of waste procession. By having a price for the stickers a sustainable mindset is reinforced. Finally, due the fact that it costs money the free alternative becomes more attractive: the alternative to throw bulky waste away at the waste collecting points. At the end of each year citizens receive a tax benefit. This tax benefit is calculated per district and is based on the production of bulky waste. The more citizens use the new waste system correctly, the more tax benefits the citizens of that district earn. Community engagement is supported through the possibility to see how your district is performing at any given time. This reward system should motivate citizens to make use of the system.
5
Work-in-Progress
Waste Management 2017, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
References [1]Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp. 11-39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. [2]Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. [3]EUR-Lex. (2008). EU Waste Framework Directive. Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32008 L0098 [4]Eurostat. (2014). Waste generated by households by year and waste category. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/ten00110 [5]Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American journal of health promotion, 11(2), 87-98. [6]Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283. [7]Rijkswaterstaat. (2010). Afvalmonitor. Retrieved from https://afvalmonitor.databank.nl/jive [8]Zunft, J., & Fröhlig, B. (2009). Energy from Waste–Zukunftsmärkte Europa. Fachtag. Therm. Abfallbehandl, 14, 17.
5