No, the contract is “I will do the right thing, presuming it does not require more than the smallest bit of personal sacrifice of any kind.” This generalizes to most facets of American life.
This was a major plot point to my trip to SF. My nephew, from the Midwest, could not believe someone would throw trash on the ground within close proximity to a trash can.
He found out he was wrong after bringing it to their attention.
I've seen people throw litter on the ground next to a bin, here in the UK, with the mindset apparently being 'someone will have to pickup the shit that falls out of the bin when it's emptied anyway, so...'
I'd go even further, and add "...presuming you don't frame 'the right thing' in a way that I perceive as being lectured to. If you indeed do this, I will respond by going out of my way to do the wrong thing, just to spite you."
We have a chain of stores here, Alidi and Lidl, that require a US quarter to get a cart. Surprisingly effective, and also funny that walking your cart all the way back to the store is worth the 25 cents, but walking 15 steps to a cart return is too much of a burden.
We also have aldi/lidl here. I think the lidl mechanism is identical in the US though, since the quarter works in it. (try a €2 some time, if you have one)
Really you only have to walk to any other cart to get your coin back, and I think it being a loss aversion thing makes it feel like more than just paying 25 cents. Also, anyone parking up is likely to grab abandoned carts with the coin in them for their own shopping.
Litter bins were removed from public spaces after the 1995 sarin attacks.
Litter has actually been a notorious problem in natural preserves. There was an account of hiking up Mount Fuji by some famous travel writer, who went on about the great deal of rubbish strewn all the way up.
Litter is less common in urban areas because there is less opportunity for it. When you see litter, what does it consist of? It's mostly the remains of food packaging. Japanese rarely eat away from designated eating areas. You don't see people snacking while walking down the street.
What’s the goal? People transport garbage somewhere else, and put it in a bin that goes to the same place?
Also, the article says they sell people individual use plastic trash bags, and those are very popular. So, in addition to being inconvenient, they are adding plastic trash to the waste people produce.
This sounds suspiciously like the “environmental win” California got by getting rid of all most all its school busses, reducing the school districts’ direct emissions, but increasing their indirect emissions by at least 10x.
Why doesn’t Finland just increase park funding enough to clean the bathrooms and empty the trash? The bathroom win in the article can’t be more than a 50% reduction of cleaning imbalance.
From personal experience, when the expectation is that you pack it in, and pack it out. You bring less, waste less, and more consciously collect your litter. For likely a number of reasons not explored in depth in the article, it reduced the amount of trash laying around on trails. Not sure people are purposely throwing trash on the ground. It's more likely people are bringing less and taking better care to store away their trash instead of leaving it loose in a pocket to fall out later. Not having to maintain bins in nature areas is a big win for many conservation reasons. This move is a general win the eyes of conservation (reduce and reuse).
The article also didn't go into detail about the specific bathroom changes. They may have changed to a different type of toilet. Again, conservation being the goal. Spending more money is a solution, but better efficiency is likely a better one.
Too many people here (in the US) are just assholes when it comes to this sort of thing. Leave no trace doesn’t apply to them, their trash, their “neat” rock cairns, or their pet’s droppings.
Yeah, it's pretty bad. Go to New Zealand and check out how they operate over there. A world of difference. The nature preserves are pristine. Being an island, waste is expensive. Their culture seems to embody self-sufficiency and conservation.
Where I used to live, there was a lake with naturist & 'textile' areas. Trash cans all around. During the summer, a cleaning crew would go round early morning.
After a hot summer day, the 'textile' area would be littered with candy wrappers, chips bags, beer cans, bottles (+tops), small trash bags, forgotten children's toys, the odd piece of clothing or towel, cigarette buds, etc.
On the nudist area: practically nothing. Despite often more crowded than textile area. A world of difference yet same lake & same day.
It's just different mentality of people visiting an area.
Parts of some USA trails (and presumably others) are marked only by rock cairns, typic'ly when the ground is entirely rock. Downside is, since they don't look like any kind of official trailmarker, people keep having to be told not to knock them over, not to move them, not to make more…and there are never enough watchers.
> What’s the goal? People transport garbage somewhere else, and put it in a bin that goes to the same place?
Assuming it works, and that's a big assumption (fans of the hitchBOT saga probably live in Finland), there could be some several goals.
Others in the thread have pointed out the reduced costs benefits I'm sure.
That's surface level.
Pack it in, pack it out probably also increases a sense of shared ownership or responsibility for public goods and resources. It could make you feel part of a "good" community if your park is clean and others aren't, especially if it's the responsibility of hikers to handle their own trash.
This translates to increased belief in environmental sustainability values and other social values.
Like all things, I'm sure it's a balancing act and putting too much burden on citizens probably has harmful effects. The effect of this might be good, and alignment to existing practices (pack it in, pack it out) makes it a fit. But I could see it sparking a "pride" competition between different social services that puts more burden on citizens, enforced with peer shaming behavior. E.g. "what if we remove snow removal from sidewalks." That's a bad example, given it's true in a lot of places, but you get the point.
I'm sorry for bringing up hitchBOT. I've brought it up a couple times lately.
These stories change how we view the world, our fellow humans and others in it, and how much protection we need. It honestly isn't meant to be an attack on any group. Call it exhausted caution.
I'm confused by the repeated use of the phrase "litter-free hiking". Is this a common phrase in Finnish?
If it means "don't produce any litter", as in only take biodegradable things with you, then that sort of makes sense. If it means make litter but you just have to carry it around that's another matter...
In the US, leave no trace means pack out everything... Including even used toilet paper. For wilderness areas biodegradable isn't enough to avoid causing damage to the ecosystem, creating wildlife used to feeding off humans, etc.
In practice, backcountry hikers in the US do commonly bury toilet paper. There’s definitely a growing contingent arguing they shouldn’t, though. Portable bidets (like the culoclean brand) and pee cloths (like the kula brand) can reduce toilet paper use and make packing it out easier.
> ...transitioning from traditional outdoor restrooms to ones that are more cost-effective...
Sounds like they're doing it to save money, framing it in a pseudo environmental light to distract from that, and depending on Finns' sense of social responsibility for it to go well.
• People shouldn't litter. They shouldn't litter anywhere, but especially while hiking.
• A lack of trash cans is not an excuse to drop litter on the ground. Carry your trash with you until you find a trash can, wherever that is.
However—why get rid of trash cans? They're a very nice convenience, especially in logical places like rest areas. Visitors who use them are able to carry a lighter load for the remainder of their journey.
They mention the rest areas have bathrooms. Are there really no trash cans there either? I guess women with tampons have to carry those out of the park? I don't see how that helps anyone.
The last few times I went to a state/national park, the trash cans were overflowing. There was trash piling up around them, getting blown off into the distance.
If they are not going to be serviced on a regular basis to prevent this outcome, then I think they are absolutely doing the right thing by removing them entirely.
It's mostly a cost saving measure. For each bin out there, you need someone + vehicle to empty it regularly. Which costs money (also deposing the trash collected).
In some situations, bins may be 'adopted' by individuals or (commercial?) organisations active in the area. But there's few situations where that works.
Put bin & not empty often enough, and it'll just serve as a trash magnet, spreading lightweight plastic everywhere.
No bins simply scales better. More visitors = more people taking litter as well as their own trash out.
But this relies on mentality. In general, I think people have become more appreciative of nature that still is. And more willing to keep places clean.
But there's always those who don't care. In my country, what surprises/annoys me most about litter, is how near the closest bin it often is. How hard is it, to toss beer can in bin 20m down the path?
So, in these areas in Finland, take-your-own works. In many other locales, it would not & just lead to more litter.
40 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 69.7 ms ] threadFrom a US UX perspective though; I've been taught, if you don't want people to litter, then make bins readily available, emptied often.
He found out he was wrong after bringing it to their attention.
See "rolling coal" as an example. [1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
Really you only have to walk to any other cart to get your coin back, and I think it being a loss aversion thing makes it feel like more than just paying 25 cents. Also, anyone parking up is likely to grab abandoned carts with the coin in them for their own shopping.
Litter bins were removed from public spaces after the 1995 sarin attacks.
Litter has actually been a notorious problem in natural preserves. There was an account of hiking up Mount Fuji by some famous travel writer, who went on about the great deal of rubbish strewn all the way up.
Litter is less common in urban areas because there is less opportunity for it. When you see litter, what does it consist of? It's mostly the remains of food packaging. Japanese rarely eat away from designated eating areas. You don't see people snacking while walking down the street.
Also, the article says they sell people individual use plastic trash bags, and those are very popular. So, in addition to being inconvenient, they are adding plastic trash to the waste people produce.
This sounds suspiciously like the “environmental win” California got by getting rid of all most all its school busses, reducing the school districts’ direct emissions, but increasing their indirect emissions by at least 10x.
Why doesn’t Finland just increase park funding enough to clean the bathrooms and empty the trash? The bathroom win in the article can’t be more than a 50% reduction of cleaning imbalance.
The article also didn't go into detail about the specific bathroom changes. They may have changed to a different type of toilet. Again, conservation being the goal. Spending more money is a solution, but better efficiency is likely a better one.
After a hot summer day, the 'textile' area would be littered with candy wrappers, chips bags, beer cans, bottles (+tops), small trash bags, forgotten children's toys, the odd piece of clothing or towel, cigarette buds, etc.
On the nudist area: practically nothing. Despite often more crowded than textile area. A world of difference yet same lake & same day.
It's just different mentality of people visiting an area.
Assuming it works, and that's a big assumption (fans of the hitchBOT saga probably live in Finland), there could be some several goals.
Others in the thread have pointed out the reduced costs benefits I'm sure.
That's surface level.
Pack it in, pack it out probably also increases a sense of shared ownership or responsibility for public goods and resources. It could make you feel part of a "good" community if your park is clean and others aren't, especially if it's the responsibility of hikers to handle their own trash.
This translates to increased belief in environmental sustainability values and other social values.
Like all things, I'm sure it's a balancing act and putting too much burden on citizens probably has harmful effects. The effect of this might be good, and alignment to existing practices (pack it in, pack it out) makes it a fit. But I could see it sparking a "pride" competition between different social services that puts more burden on citizens, enforced with peer shaming behavior. E.g. "what if we remove snow removal from sidewalks." That's a bad example, given it's true in a lot of places, but you get the point.
These stories change how we view the world, our fellow humans and others in it, and how much protection we need. It honestly isn't meant to be an attack on any group. Call it exhausted caution.
If it means "don't produce any litter", as in only take biodegradable things with you, then that sort of makes sense. If it means make litter but you just have to carry it around that's another matter...
Visiting some US national parks is high on my bucket list so I should know this... thanks!
Sounds like they're doing it to save money, framing it in a pseudo environmental light to distract from that, and depending on Finns' sense of social responsibility for it to go well.
I wholeheartedly acknowledge the following:
• People shouldn't litter. They shouldn't litter anywhere, but especially while hiking.
• A lack of trash cans is not an excuse to drop litter on the ground. Carry your trash with you until you find a trash can, wherever that is.
However—why get rid of trash cans? They're a very nice convenience, especially in logical places like rest areas. Visitors who use them are able to carry a lighter load for the remainder of their journey.
They mention the rest areas have bathrooms. Are there really no trash cans there either? I guess women with tampons have to carry those out of the park? I don't see how that helps anyone.
If they are not going to be serviced on a regular basis to prevent this outcome, then I think they are absolutely doing the right thing by removing them entirely.
In some situations, bins may be 'adopted' by individuals or (commercial?) organisations active in the area. But there's few situations where that works.
Put bin & not empty often enough, and it'll just serve as a trash magnet, spreading lightweight plastic everywhere.
No bins simply scales better. More visitors = more people taking litter as well as their own trash out.
But this relies on mentality. In general, I think people have become more appreciative of nature that still is. And more willing to keep places clean.
But there's always those who don't care. In my country, what surprises/annoys me most about litter, is how near the closest bin it often is. How hard is it, to toss beer can in bin 20m down the path?
So, in these areas in Finland, take-your-own works. In many other locales, it would not & just lead to more litter.
Good show for the nature-loving Fins, btw. :-)