Two Hundred Green Bins and Forty Households
In a municipal colony of 400 households in Punjab, the sanitation committee distributed 200 green bins for wet waste and set a collection point 600 metres away. After three weeks, only 40 households separate waste; the rest use the green bins for ash, plastic and broken toys. A survey shows 82% agree that segregation is important. The resident welfare association proposes a ₹500 fine for mixed waste, and a compost pit is proposed next to the temple, which 60 residents have signed a petition against. Two lanes have begun segregating without any instruction, because a retired science teacher does it visibly each morning. The committee has a budget for 300 leaflets and one community meeting, and the municipal officer wants 'a number' in six weeks to show the scheme is working.
1. Explain the gap between 82% agreement and 40 separating households. Use the concepts of the attitude–behaviour gap and descriptive versus injunctive norms.
Read the worked answer
The survey measured an attitude, not a behaviour. Saying segregation is important is cheap and socially safe; separating waste every morning costs effort, knowledge and storage space. The gap is normal, not hypocrisy, and it is the design problem the committee must solve.
Injunctive norm - what people believe others approve of: here, strongly positive (82%). Descriptive norm - what people believe others actually do: here, strongly negative, since 360 of 400 households visibly mix their waste. In ambiguous situations, descriptive norms guide behaviour more than injunctive ones: a resident who sees every neighbour's bin full of ash concludes that segregation is not really what people here do, whatever they say in surveys.
Three further practical constraints are visible. Effort and convenience: a collection point 600 metres away penalises the correct behaviour, and the bin supply (200 for 400 households) creates a visible inequity. Knowledge: green bins containing ash means residents do not know what wet waste is, so part of the gap is a skill deficit, not a motivation deficit. Infrastructure mismatch: the bins were distributed before collection arrangements made separating worthwhile.
The two lanes that began spontaneously are the most useful fact in the case. They show the behaviour is achievable under existing conditions and they are being driven by a visible model - a descriptive norm operating at lane level. The intervention should work with that, not against it.
2. Evaluate the ₹500 fine proposal using intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and propose two alternatives that fit the budget.
Read the worked answer
What the fine would achieve: a clear injunctive signal, and probable short-term compliance in the lanes that are watched. It has three predictable costs. First, enforcement: 400 households cannot be inspected with the committee's resources, and selective enforcement produces perceived unfairness, which is itself a reason to resist. Second, it punishes people for a failure that is partly infrastructural - a 600-metre walk and ambiguous bin contents - and punishment under unfair conditions invites reactance rather than compliance. Third, the overjustification effect: where some residents already separate for reasons of civic pride or because a neighbour does, introducing payment or penalty reframes the act as compliance bought by the municipality. Once surveillance stops, the behaviour is likely to stop with it, and the intrinsic motive may not return.
Alternative 1 - prompts at the point of behaviour plus a visible demonstration. All 300 leaflets are wasted as general appeals; instead, a pictogram sticker showing what goes in the green bin is placed on each bin lid, and a doorstep demonstration with two bags (wet and dry) is run in the four lanes with the lowest compliance, using the retired teacher and the two self-starting lanes as demonstrators. This targets the knowledge deficit and builds a local descriptive norm at the same time.
Alternative 2 - weekly public feedback and lane-level recognition. Weigh or check one sample of bins per lane each week and post a simple chart at the collection point: percentage of bins correctly segregated by lane. This is a descriptive-norm intervention, it costs almost nothing, and it gives the municipal officer a real number that comes from behaviour rather than from a survey.
Keep a small penalty in reserve for persistent commercial-scale mixing, but do not lead with it.
3. Set out a six-week plan and specify exactly what should be measured, so that the officer's 'number' is not misleading.
Read the worked answer
Week 1 - baseline. Audit 60 randomly selected bins (not volunteers) across all lanes, recording wet/dry separation and contamination. Announce the audit openly so it is a norm-setting event, not a trap. Baseline is essential; without it, any end-line figure is uninterpretable.
Week 2 - knowledge and prompts. Bin-lid pictograms, doorstep demonstrations in the four weakest lanes, and the community meeting used for a practical demonstration rather than a lecture.
Week 3 - model and commitment. Recruit the retired teacher and the two self-starting lanes as visible models; ask households in two more lanes for a written or public commitment. Commitment made voluntarily and publicly tends to be honoured, and it is free.
Week 4 - feedback begins. Weekly lane-level compliance chart at the collection point; recognise the best lane with something small and social (a mention at the meeting, not cash, which would trigger overjustification).
Week 5 - fix the infrastructure objection. Relocate or redesign the compost pit away from the temple; meet the 60 petitioners, explain the siting criteria, and offer an alternative site. A facility people have signed against will otherwise contaminate every other message.
Week 6 - end-line audit. Re-audit 60 randomly selected bins using the same method and the same observers where possible.
What to measure - and what not to. Report (a) percentage of audited bins correctly segregated, (b) mean contamination rate by weight or volume, (c) number of households reached door-to-door, and (d) the change from baseline. Do not report leaflets distributed, meeting attendance, or survey agreement as evidence of success - all three can rise while bins stay mixed. State the sample size and margin of error, and note that three weeks of a new scheme is too short to claim a durable change.