The Water Refill Trial
A coastal town of 30,000 people has a single-use plastic bottle problem: 1.2 million bottles are sold locally each year, and about 40% end up in kerbside bins, with the rest littered or landfilled. The council proposes installing 25 public water refill stations at a cost of $1.1 million over five years. Local retailers oppose the plan, arguing it will reduce drink sales and that the stations will be vandalised. A youth group supports it and offers to run a campaign. The council has a climate action target and a separate waste levy that funds recycling infrastructure. A nearby beach is a nesting site for a threatened bird species, and plastic fragments have been found in local stormwater.
1. Assess the refill station proposal using a determinants and sustainability lens.
Read the worked answer
Health and environmental rationale: reducing single-use plastic lowers contamination of stormwater and the beach nesting habitat, and supports hydration and reduced sugary-drink consumption if stations are accessible and free.
Determinants:
- Physical environment: station placement matters; stations near schools, transport and the beach will change behaviour more than distant ones.
- Economic/commercial: retailers' concerns are real but partial; some may benefit from refillable product sales.
- Social/cultural: a youth-led campaign can shift norms, which is often more powerful than infrastructure alone.
Sustainability: $1.1m over five years is about $44,000 per station per year including maintenance. That is high relative to the estimated avoided waste. Cost-effectiveness depends on use rates; without a campaign and convenient placement, use may be low.
Equity: free water benefits people who cannot afford bottled drinks, a clear positive.
Verdict: worthwhile but not sufficient. Infrastructure without norm change and without addressing packaging at source will underperform.
2. Recommend how the council should proceed, including how to handle retailer opposition and measure success.
Read the worked answer
Proceed with a phased, co-designed approach:
- Phase 1: install 8 stations in highest-traffic, highest-litter locations near schools, transport and the beach; monitor use and vandalism for six months.
- Pair with the youth campaign and a business engagement plan: offer retailers a refill-partner scheme, signage and a listing, so they gain foot traffic. Address vandalism with robust design and maintenance contracts.
- Complementary policy: use the waste levy to fund a container refund scheme and work with suppliers on packaging, since stations alone do not stop bottles being sold.
- Phase 2: scale to 25 if use and litter data justify it.
Success measures:
- Counts of bottles in kerbside bins and litter surveys on the beach.
- Station usage logs and maintenance costs per station.
- Retailer participation and reported sales.
- Stormwater plastic fragment monitoring.
Trade-offs to state: retailer opposition is a legitimate economic concern, but the council's climate and biodiversity targets and the threatened species give a strong public-interest case. Transparency about cost per station and a willingness to adjust placement builds trust. Report results publicly so the decision is evidence-based, not symbolic.