The Trashy Story of Lethbridge

As the human population continues to grow at an exponential rate, the accumulation of garbage will undoubtedly follow. Garbage has been one of the greatest contributors of land, air and water pollution in the world today, and will only continue to degrade our planet if measures are not taken (Allison, 2014). Anthropogenic* litter has notable impacts on the urban environments, as it destroys the natural aesthetics, has the potential to reduce the plant and animal biodiversity while only further contaminating our precious soil and water supplies (Schultz et al., 2013).

*Anthropogenic: Originated by human activity.

Studies have shown that Canada is one of the leading generators of garbage in the world, as the average individual throws away approximately 673 kg of waste per year (Sevunts, 2019). If not managed, Canada may one day struggle to keep up with proper disposal methods and find itself in a similar position to other countries, where vast amounts of waste end up in both the natural and urban environments. In other parts of the world like the Philippines, poor management of its waste materials has been a major issue for this country, which becomes evident within the communities, local environments, and oceans. It has been implied that around 15-60% of its waste has been improperly disposed of or littered as a result of their poor waste management (Castillo, et al., 2013). 

In Lethbridge, garbage accumulation is frequently noticed within the coulees that run throughout the City limits. Wind is a major contributor to this accumulation of garbage, as Southern Alberta’s winds can transport materials across landscapes until they are either stopped by certain features, or protected from these winds. The coulees are a common place for garbage to accumulate, as there is often vegetation that can trap these materials and they provide some protection from the wind. Although wind can affect its dispersal, the main issue ultimately stems from the carelessness of people who continue to litter.

This story map was developed to showcase the common litter areas in the City of Lethbridge, while further highlighting past case studies to demonstrate how other places have tried to manage their litter in urban environments. Lastly, this story map will provide suggestions to help prevent unintentional littering and better waste management that can be applied to Lethbridge.

In 2013 Schultz et al, discussed the impact that an individual person vs an organizations willingness to litter. He found that in the study areas, litter was generally attributes to a single person. What Schultz also found is that location plays a role on an individual's behaviour to litter. The percentage of individuals who littered increased when changing locations. Places classified as transition points such as: bus stops and parking lots saw an increase from 70% to 90% individually caused litter. There was no specific answer given but it was thought to relate to the presence of litter.

The second case study from O’Neill et al, (1980), suggested that litter increases were influenced by the type of trash receptacle being used. His hypothesis was tested by using a standard oil drum as a trash can, and found that it reduced litter by approximately 3%. When comparing to an "aesthetically" pleasing and clearly worded such as “Clean City Square” receptacle, it was found to have reduced littering by up to 15%. This is an interesting discovery, as it really shows that people can be influenced by the appearance and signage of trash cans.

The third case study studied the effects of signage on littering. Horsely, (1988) found that wording such as “Litterbug” may be seen as ambiguous and not taken seriously. A study nearly three decades later by Hansmann and Steimer found when a sign that is witty and is environmentally-oriented was judged to be more effective (2015). These two researches found different results while attempting to study very similar topics. In a later study, Hansmann (2016) also found that there was a 25% increase between the effectiveness of the environmental signage versus the authoritarian signage. His reasoning was based on the reactance process and individuals feeling threatened. This leads to the interesting question of what should signage say? It may be possible that different geographic regions with different individuals may require tailored signage.

In review, there are many different case studies that differ in the age and relevance, but they all work towards the same goal of litter reduction. In one case study, it was found that using an attractive garbage can helped reduce litter. In addition, by using different types of signage litter can also be reduced. The Coulee cleanup collection data has provided beneficial insight on the most problematic areas in Lethbridge for this waste accumulation. With these factors taken into account, the City of Lethbridge should consider a number of options:

Recommendation 1: Update the trash cans throughout the most affected areas to something more aesthetically pleasing.

Recommendation 2: Use more positive signage and provide environmental reasoning.

Recommendation 3: Continue educating the public on the impacts of littering, and ways to further prevent unintentional littering from occurring in the city.

Recommendation 4: Conduct a review to determine if the current bylaws are effective. If not they could be changed under section 7 of the Municipal Government Act, which deals with local nuances (Province of Alberta, 2000).

Thank you to City of Lethbridge, Helen Schuler Nature Center and all the volunteers for their continued efforts in reducing the amount of waste that accumulate in these environments.