by Emma Barnosky
Each year, humans produce a whopping 2.01 billion tons of waste, a number that is expected to dramatically increase by 2050 [1]. Much of that waste is recyclable, yet it is sent to landfills, burned, or otherwise removed from the working economy. This current linear take-make-use-dispose model is both inefficient and relies on the false assumption that virgin environmental materials are unlimited. As such, there has been a significant push over the past decades to transition our economic systems towards a more circular way of using and reusing goods.
While exact definitions vary, a circular economy is built on the foundation that goods at the end of their useful life are recycled or otherwise repurposed within the economic system rather than discarded. This presents a win-win solution for development—less stress on the environment, and the economy at large benefits from increased efficiencies throughout the production and manufacturing process, while still promoting job growth. In fact, one report estimated that “in the United States alone, remanufacturing would create approximately 500,000 [new] jobs”[2].
Though this global movement is an exciting progression towards a more sustainable growth model, there are still significant barriers to overcome before achieving a true circular economic system. Many of these barriers, such as technological feasibility and governance strategies, have been thoroughly addressed and strategies to improve are in development. However, there is a side of the equation that has been largely missed in the academic, governmental, and corporate conversation: individual behavior.
To understand how individual behavior plays into the circular economy, it is perhaps easiest to look at a small-scale example of a circular economy: recycling. California is reported to be one of the most environmentally friendly states in the United States, and it has a robust recycling infrastructure. However, recycling rates remain relatively low at 37% statewide [3]. Why are these rates so low, and how can the low rates be addressed at the individual level?
Researcher Nir Orion makes the argument that citizens are ill-prepared to contribute deeply to environmental issues without a clear understanding of the systems they are a part of [4]. Thus, one of the largest and most overlooked barriers to individual recycling is a lack of a clear mental model for how individual behavior fits into the system at large. This argument has been supported in other areas of pro-environmental behaviors too—one study, for example, found that people who don’t have clear mental models of how thermostats work tend to use them in less energy-efficient ways [5]. Think for a second: how does your thermostat interact with your heating system? Many assume that thermostats directly control the amount of heat in the house and turn up their thermostats to higher numbers in attempts to heat their homes faster. The thermostat works more as a regulator, turning the furnace on or off to maintain a stable, set temperature. As such, cranking the heat up to a higher setting is an energy-inefficient practice that doesn’t warm the house any faster than the lower, energy-efficient setting would.
Similar lack of complete mental models are likely to appear and prove detrimental with regards to the current recycling system, and by extension, the circular economy at large. To combat poor recycling habits and, eventually, facilitate smooth movement towards a widespread circular economy, academics, governments, and businesses must find ways to empower individuals with knowledge about the larger system of which they are a part.
In addition to a lack of systems-level knowledge, businesses and policymakers in favor of a transition to the circular economy must find ways to combat the status-quo bias, or peoples’ tendency to stick with their current situation. Researchers Thaler and Sunstein [6] affectionately refer to this as the “yeah, whatever” heuristic, as the choice to stick with the status quo is typically more “mindless” than something that requires a lot of thought. If you have ever watched a second episode on Netflix because of the autoplay feature, you’ve been victim to the status-quo bias! It’s much easier to let Netflix “decide” for you than to deliberate about whether you should stop watching or switch shows.
Understanding and planning new systems in a way that overcomes the status quo bias is a challenge whenever anyone is faced with a large-scale change. One of the best ways to overcome it is simply to ensure the ‘best’ choice is also the easiest. In the case of recycling, complicated sorting is often required to recycle properly. Thus, introducing an updated system in which waste sorting is straightforward and clear may be a useful path forward in thinking towards a circular economy.
Finally, highlighting the power of social norms may be a useful way to facilitate a move towards a circular economy. Studies have shown relationship norms to significantly affect GPA and choice of social group for university students [7], incidence of obesity, and even voting patterns of US Federal Judges [8]. In the case of GPA, students were influenced specifically by the work habits and GPAs of their roommates and chose which fraternities to join (and whether to join one at all) based on both the choices of their roommates and the choices of their entire dorm floor. Including and working with individuals already passionate about environmental issues in the planning, testing, and even decision-making processes could prove a useful strategy, as their enthusiasm will trickle out to others in their networks. “Sometimes massive social changes […],” Thaler and Sunstein note in their 2008 book Nudge, “start with a small social nudge” [9].
A photo of plastic bottles collected by Yoyo.eco, a French start-up company who is aiming to lower individual barriers to recycling.
References:
- https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317
- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tie.21764
- https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/disposalrate/mostrecent
- Orion, N. (2002). An Earth systems curriculum development model Global science literacy (pp. 159-168): Springer.
- Kempton, W. (1986), Two Theories of Home Heat Control*. Cognitive Science, 10: 75-90. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1001_3
- Thaler, Richard H., 1945- and Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York: Penguin Books, 2009.
- Sacerdote, Bruce. “Peer Effects With Random Assignment: Results For Dartmouth Roommates,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2001, v116(2,May), 681-704
- SUNSTEIN, CASS R., DAVID SCHKADE, LISA M. ELLMAN, and ANDRES SAWICKI. Are Judges Political?: An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt12879t7.
- A Christakis, Nicholas. (2007). The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years. New England Journal of Medicine. 357. 10.1056/NEJMsa066082.
Emma is part of the 2018-2019 INFEWS program cohort and a PhD candidate in the Institute for the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA. Her research focuses on developing a model for scientists, businesses, governments, and civil society to work together towards solutions to environmental issues.
This article is part of the INFEWS Social Media Series.