For purposes of the research from Haifa University \u2013 conducted with support from the JNF (Jewish National Fund, HaKeren HaKayemet LeYisrael<\/em>), and conducted by Naama Lev, a Ph.D. student at the department for management of natural and environmental resources, and a researcher at the center for education towards sustainability at the Kibbutzim College \u2013 teams of surveyors would sit at picnic areas at JNF parks (from April through November 2021), documenting over 2,200 visitors and 411 incidents of littering. Additionally, the visitors who littered were handed 627 questionnaires about their level of content from the picnic areas. The anonymous questionnaires asked the visitors for their demographics, their position about littering in nature, the frequency at which they have littered in nature (if at all), and their opinion on garbage collection on site.<\/p>\n This study is the third in a series of studies, and their results are to become Lev\u2019s doctoral thesis (advised by Prof. Ofira Ayalon, of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, and Dr. Maya Negev of the School of Public Health \u2013 both at the Haifa University). The results of this study uncover unawareness even of the act of littering, as well as other surprising conclusions \u2013 such as the fact that neither increasing the number of trashcans nor placing them next to the picnic areas prevents visitors from littering.<\/p>\n Lev says that she chose the subject of her research to create a true change. \u201cI have worked at the SPNI (The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, HaHevra LeHaganat HaTeva<\/em>) for years, and I\u2019m an avid hiker. It would always make me sick to see people littering, or go away while leaving garbage behind,\u201d she says. \u201cI would go up to people and ask them why they do it. When I began my studies for a Ph.D., I wanted that my research would have meaning outside of Academia.\u201d<\/p>\n Besides being unaesthetic, littering in nature is a dangerous phenomenon that causes wide ecological harm: wild animals might eat either pieces of plastic that smell like food, wipes, or plastic bags, and it is not rare for animals to get a bowel obstruction, or even to die. Soda cans might injure animals who try to chew on them or trap smaller animals in them. Organic waste, such as leftover food, also poses ecological dangers \u2013 species feeding on it (for example, wild boars or golden jackals) could reproduce to an extent that threatens other species.<\/p>\n In the first of the three studies, Lev examined the public conception of littering in nature. 401 participants, a representative sample of the Israeli public, who visited a nature reserve or a park at least once in 2020, answered a questionnaire about littering in nature. According to the study, many assume that some types of waste are less harmful and therefore they could throw them: toilet paper, wipes, organic waste, and cigarette butts. The results of the research show that though 98.5% of the people who answered the questionnaire view with great importance the cleanliness of the site they visit, 45% of them stated that they had littered at least once in the past year. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the respondents said that in contrast to their littering, which was either absent-minded or because there wasn\u2019t any trashcan around them, others (so they claim) litter because \u201cthey enjoy the act of littering\u201d. Some Israelis have such low opinions about their compatriots\u2026<\/p>\n In the second study (conducted with the help of the NAKI association and the SPNI), Lev interviewed people who are in charge of operating, cleaning, and enforcement in nature reserves. She talked to 50 office holders in environmental organizations (SPNI, JNF, and so on) and discovered dissatisfaction with the standards by which the sites are operated and with the level of information and education towards keeping nature unpolluted. She also found that many prefer to focus on the symptoms \u2013 namely the level of pollution at the sites \u2013 and not the actual problem, which is littering. According to Lev, that is one of the reasons the problem persists.<\/p>\n The third study, revealed here for the first time, was about what actually happens in reserves and parks, including real-time documentation of people littering and handing them questionnaires. With funding from the JNF, Lev trained teams of surveyors, who hid at various picnic areas, watched some 2,200 visitors, and documented 411 cases of littering. 627 questionnaires were filled in, collecting other information, such as demographics and positions regarding waste. \u201cWe went to talk to people whom we saw littering,\u201d explained Lev, \u201cand we said we were conducting a satisfaction survey and were interested in their opinion. Hidden between other questions in the survey, there were also questions about littering.\u201d<\/p>\n In the study, garbage disposal was split into three categories: one category was intentional littering \u2013 throwing garbage on the ground, leaving it behind, or hiding it (42% of the observed cases). Another category was improper disposal: throwing garbage into the trash and missing (and not picking it up afterward), putting garbage in a bag and leaving the bag outside of the trash, or failing to pick up garbage blown in the wind (41% of the cases). The third and final category was proper disposal: putting garbage into a closed trashcan or taking it out of the park (17% of the cases).<\/p>\n Additionally, the study examined three groups of factors that were found to be significant in littering. One group consists of environmental factors: the overall level of pollution at the site, whether the trashcans seemed well maintained or not, where they were positioned, etc. A second group consists of personal factors: how the person littering viewed nature as important and how responsible they felt for the cleanliness of the site. The third group is situation-related factors: who was with the person who littered, the type of garbage thrown away, and some types of behavior that might be linked with littering \u2013 the research found a positive correlation between littering and either smoking cigarettes and hookahs, having a barbeque (Mangal<\/em>) at the picnic, or using disposables and plastic bags.<\/p>\n According to the study, about 40% of the visitors who were found intentionally littering answered that they never litter in nature. \u201cIt might mean,\u201d says Lev, \u201cthat people don\u2019t think of themselves as littering or are ashamed of admitting it. Additionally, I was surprised by the fact that many people claim to love nature and to believe that littering is wrong and that it is the responsibility of visitors to keep nature unpolluted \u2013 yet still litter,\u201d adds Lev. This result might mean that even when wanting to avoid harming nature, people don\u2019t know enough about the proper disposal of garbage to do so.<\/p>\n Another surprising result of the study is that placing trashcans next to visitors did not help in reducing the number of people littering. \u201cThere are picnic areas with small trashcans next to the tables (Asphatonim<\/em>). We discovered that the closer the trashcan was to the tables, the less satisfied were the visitors. One of our recommendations is to place big trashcans or dumpsters at a reasonable distance away from the tables since people are willing to walk even 200 meters to a dumpster to throw away the garbage.\u201d<\/p>\n According to Lev, one conclusion from the results of the study is that there are no magic cures against littering in nature, and the \u201clittering type\u201d can\u2019t be clearly characterized; polluters come from a variety of ages, genders, social groups, and religions. \u201cIt\u2019s hard to point to one characteristic which might explain the phenomenon all on its own; the results show quite the opposite \u2013 the causes for this behavior are multiple, and therefore actions in several directions must be taken: education and information are necessary, but so are better facilities and enforcement.<\/p>\n Do you want to make sure that your behavior does not put nature at harm? Lev gives a few rules of thumb: \u201cmost importantly \u2013 do not leave waste behind in any way besides in the designated closed containers. A waste bag shouldn\u2019t be left tied to a tree or even next to the container if it\u2019s full. Rather, you should take the garbage with you \u2013 that includes organic waste; animals don\u2019t need to be fed. Even small pieces of waste \u2013 seed shells, cigarette butts, bottle caps, etc. \u2013 can be found in large quantities in nature, and pollute it. Generally, you should avoid using disposables (which are 20% of the total amount of littered waste), and notice that they don\u2019t blow away in the wind.<\/p>\n One last rule, which is very important: \u201cit should be clear that even when you have bowel movements,\u201d emphasizes Lev, \u201cnothing should be left behind, and that includes toilet paper and everything that goes with it \u2013 they should be put in a bag and thrown to the trash.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"Photo](\"https:\/\/www.zavit.org.il\/intl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Photo-by-Naama-Lev-scaled.jpg\")
How people believe they behave<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"Photo](\"https:\/\/www.zavit.org.il\/intl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Photo-by-Naama-Lev-3-scaled.jpg\")
How people actually behave<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Kings of denial<\/strong><\/h3>\n
![\"Photo](\"https:\/\/www.zavit.org.il\/intl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Photo-by-Naama-Lev-2-scaled.jpg\")