Preventing Littering

The effects of excessive marine litter on marine life have been increasing significantly, with 557 species affected in 2015, including entanglement, smothering, and ingestion of plastic (Kuhn et al, 2015). Marine littering is a cultural phenomenon driven by micro (individual) factors and macro (social) factors, according to Research on anti-littering behaviour.

Micro factors are closely related to individual behaviour associated with awareness, perception, attitude, and concern; while macro factors are related to policies and legislation influence. At the micro level, many people lack awareness of the environmental impacts of marine littering, and some regard marine debris as an insignificant environmental and economic problem; while some believe the oceans can absorb any amount of marine debris.

At the macro level, social authorities are important in preventing marine litter because they are responsible for planning, monitoring, evaluating, and implementing corrective actions. Micro and macro factors are intertwined, and encouraging anti-littering behaviour at the micro level can eventually influence behavioural changes at the macro level. Social and policy changes can greatly influence perceptions at the micro level (Beeharry et al, 2017).

However, there are mechanisms that can help change individual behaviour from the micro to the macro level.

Awareness-raising programmes

Following Indonesia’s National Action Plan for Marine Debris Management 2018–2025, the government of Denpasar, Bali, in collaboration with the Technical Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries held underwater clean-up activities in collaboration with the Technical Implementation Unit of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Held in Semawang Beach on Earth Day 2017, the goal was to raise social awareness of the importance of a clean and healthy marine environment. As a result, 260 kilogrammes of marine waste was collected.

The Singapore government believes better public cleanlinessis not enough if people are not responsible. A National Environment Agency of Singapore report cited several educational campaigns to encourage participation in cleaning efforts, starting with Keep Singapore Clean, introduced in 1968 to prevent littering in streets, drains, and other public areas. This was followed by a relentless stream of documentaries, short films, posters, banners, and pamphlets about the importance of not littering. The campaign’s positive impacts were evident in 1988, when the country was much cleaner and more people were aware of the negative impacts of littering. Singapore employs micro- and macro-level mechanisms against littering in an aggressive campaign through Keep Singapore Clean.

Japan is famous for its cleanliness. However, until the early 1960s littering was common. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government launched a campaign in 1964 to prevent littering before the Tokyo Olympics, raising public awareness by encouraging citizens to show a clean version of Tokyo to foreigners visiting the city (Asahi Shimbun, 2018).

Penalties for littering

South Tangerang in Indonesia took a bold step in 2013 by enacting Regulation No. 3/2014 on Waste Management, under which waste must be utilised, managed, and properly disposed of. It prohibits littering on roads and in green open spaces, rivers, drainage systems, and public facilities. Every citizen is required to dispose of waste in transfer points with recycling for municipal solid waste (TPS-3Rs) or transfer points for municipal solid waste (TPSs). Violation of the regulation lead to penalties.

Manila in the Philippines implemented Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Regulation No. 96-009 or the Anti-Littering Law on 16 September 2010, which prohibits littering; illegal dumping; illegal garbage disposal; improper and untimely piling up of garbage outside buildings; and spilling, scattering, and littering of waste by public utility vehicles. Fines or community service are imposed for violations.

Singapore has the most stringent law focusing on violators, based on a sociological study of littering. The Corrective Work Order, which came into force on 1 November 1992 as an amendment to the anti-littering law, requires violators to clean public areas such as parks or beaches for up to 12 hours instead of paying fines. The aim is to show offenders the impact of their actions and the challenges facing cleaners.

Buy-back programme

The buy-back programme exchanges delivered recyclable waste for money, and has been implemented in several ASEAN+3 countries.

In Indonesia, the programme is popularly known as Bank Sampah or waste bank. Bank Sampah in Malang city is handled by the local government and is designed to show waste is a source of money, not problems. Locals can earn by providing clean or washed recyclable waste. However, it only deals with high-value recyclable waste that can be sold to buy-back centres.

For low-value waste, the government can enforce extended producer responsibility (EPR), which requires producers to bear the cost of recycling or to achieve a set recycling rate (OECD, 2014). Some non-governmental organisations raise funds from industries or individuals to support the collection of plastic waste by informal workers (Ahsan et al, 2012).

Installing or removing waste bins

Singapore has made a massive effort to transform itself from being a litter-messy country into one of the cleanest in the world. The government provides adequate garbage bins (every 5–25 metres) throughout the country, which are emptied at least once a day to avoid overflowing garbage (Straughan et al, 2011).

The opposite strategy was implemented in Japan in 1964, when the Tokyo metropolitan government removed half a million public waste bins from the streets before the Tokyo Olympics as the bins could no longer accommodate the huge amount of waste, exacerbated by the wind blowing waste out of the bins. Waste collection was also infrequent. The government urged people to dispose of their waste in their own waste bins and put them out for collection before 8:00am. Waste bins can still be found today in railway stations or in front of convenience stores, managed not by local governments but by the railway companies or convenience stores (Asahi Shimbun, 2018).

Although their approaches differ, both Singapore and Japan have demonstrated proper waste collection.

Proper waste collection

Rural areas in many developing countries are more exposed to environmental impacts, including those caused by improper waste collection. Factors causing this include: low population density, poor socio-economic conditions, geographical segregation, dispersed waste collection points, low collection frequency, and poor accessibility to landfills and recycling and waste treatment facilities. These lead to open burning and river dumping (Mihai and Grozavu, 2019).

Waste collection services in Japan started in urban areas because mismanaged waste caused sanitation issues, such as the spread of cholera and typhoid. To prevent and minimise these diseases, the government promoted urban waste collection services (Ministry of Environment of Japan, 2014).