2 ms·
A) They haven't been taught that it's anti-social to do so. B) The local infrastructure is such that there is no frequent servicing of a conveniently-placed tr
by simonblack 2y ago
A) They haven't been taught that it's anti-social to do so.
B) The local infrastructure is such that there is no frequent servicing of a conveniently-placed trash receptacle.
This morning while walking my dog, I saw a wide-spread large amount of trash surrounding our local bus-stop. That location would be the perfect place for a trash bin of some kind. But no, no bin. That means nowhere to put that trash (McDonalds*, as it turned out). So on the ground it was scattered.
* Maybe McDonalds could sponsor a trash bin for us.
- bradly 2y ago> B) The local infrastructure is such that there is no frequent servicing of a conveniently-placed trash receptacle. I don't think it is as easy as Disney's idea of just adding more trash cans. A public bin is only as useful if it isn't full. You need an infrastructure for emptying and maintaining each bin you add. A lot of litter in our city is around full public trash cans as these areas have been identified as being high trash areas, but if they aren't being emptied regularly enough, they become litter magnets and make the problem worse. Japan has virtually no public trash cans and very little litter. Playground and parks in Japan have no trash bins, so they are never overflowing and you never expect there to be one and it isn't or it is full.