3 ms·

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

by hedora 3y ago

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.

xinayder 3y ago
Someone should inform Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope that their park is not getting any money
LazyMans 3y ago
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.
- jdechko 3y ago
  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.
  - LazyMans 3y ago
    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.
    - RetroTechie 3y ago
      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.
  - IIsi50MHz 3y ago
    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.
jgerrish 3y ago
> 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.
- jgerrish 3y ago
  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.

by hedora 3y ago

xinayder 3y ago

Someone should inform Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope that their park is not getting any money

LazyMans 3y ago

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.

jdechko 3y ago
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.
- LazyMans 3y ago
  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.
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    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.
- IIsi50MHz 3y ago
  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.

jgerrish 3y ago

> 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.

jgerrish 3y ago
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.