Content uploaded by Matus Sloboda
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matus Sloboda on Jul 20, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
32
Vedecký príspevok/ Scientific Article
Recenzované/ Review: 25. 02. 2022
https://doi.org/10.24040/eas.2022.23.1.32-49
Not Always an Easy Win:
The Effectiveness of a Ballot Bin Experiment to Prevent Cigarette Butt
Littering
Neľahká úloha: Účinnosť experimentu s hlasovacou nádobou ako prevencia voči
cigaretovým ohorkom
Patrik Pavlovský, Matúš Sloboda, Emília Sičaková-Beblavá, Artsiom Klunin
Abstract: This paper presents the results of two behavioural interventions aimed at reducing
cigarette butt littering which is a significant environmental pollutant. The interventions were
priming – spraying shoeprints on the pavement leading to the nearest bin – and gamification –
replacing two litter bins with two ballot bins. This experiment used a before-and-after
uncontrolled experimental design and was conducted at a Bratislava transportation hub. Our
results show that two interventions did not prove to be effective. The possible reasons are highly
heterogeneous intervention group at the transportation hub, the effects of the pandemic and
lockdown during which the experiment took place.
Key words: Cigarette butt littering. Nudge. Ballot bin. Gamification. Shoeprints.
JEL Classification: D91. Q50.
Introduction
One of the challenges faced by local governments is cigarette butt littering that pollutes the
environment. Researchers and public policy makers try to address this issue by testing
behavioural interventions focused on changing the smokers' behaviour. They build on the body
of knowledge of social psychology and cognitive sciences indicating that smoking and cigarette
butt littering is a habitual, automatic behaviour. Existing litter is also a strong predictor of future
littering behaviour (Huang et al., 2019; Kolodko & Read, 2018).
Various local governments in Slovakia (Bernatová et al., 2019; City of Senec, 2020;
Mareková, 2020) have decided to use gamification to decrease butt littering, but did not measure
the results.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
33
Our goal was to test whether this type of intervention can be effective in decreasing
cigarette butt littering.
We tested two behavioural interventions at the transportation hub of Račianske mýto,
working together with the local government in Bratislava. The first was priming - sprayed
shoeprints on the pavement leading to a standard litter bin. The second was a gamification tool
– a special ballot bin. The experiment took place between September and November 2020.
1. Behavioural insights and cigarette butt littering
Cigarette butt littering has been investigated from several perspectives. Researchers look
at the social effects of this behaviour and how it is perceived by the various stakeholders,
including smokers themselves. In order to change their habits, behavioural scientists develop
models explaining this behaviour as well as the factors influencing its scale.
The research suggests several problematic societal effects of cigarette butt littering such as
environmental pollution (e.g., air, water, soil) (Srbinoska et al., 2018) meaning that littering has
a negative effect on public health (Kolodko & Read, 2018). At a minimum, cigarettes contain
150 highly toxic compounds, which have the potential to cause cancer or other changes in genes
of human’s organism (Araújo & Costa, 2019). After smoking the cigarette, the toxicity
increases and cancerogenic and mutagenic compounds are concentrated in the remaining
cigarette butt (Slaughter et al., 2011). About 80% of people are angry or frustrated by visible
litter and individuals do not want to spend time in littered areas (ibid.). One research on a sample
of 1,000 respondents demonstrated that 8% of smokers in the US do not consider cigarette butt
litter and 75.8% of smokers agree with the statement that cigarette butt litter is toxic (Rath et
al., 2012). Nevertheless, different studies at different times proved that three quarters of
smokers still threw cigarette butts on the ground at least once in the US (ibid.) and similarly
(75.5%) in the UK (Attitudes Towards Cigarette Disposal Outdoors, 1996). These findings have
been the basis of several attempts to change the smokers' behavioural patterns.
Behavioural interventions related to cigarette butt littering are based on defining smoking
as a strong habit and an automated process – people often light up a cigarette unintentionally,
they do not remember their decision-making process (Jager, 2003) and do not consider it to be
inappropriate behaviour (Kolodko & Read, 2018). Automatic system of thinking is known for
its laziness and effortlessness (Kahneman, 2013), smokers do not want to make an effort to find
the bin, therefore they drop the cigarette butt on the ground (Dehdari, 2020). They do not
consider this behaviour as littering (Srbinoska et al., 2018). On the other hand, in a qualitative
study based on interviews with smokers related to cigarette butt littering, respondents perceived
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
34
cigarette butts as dangerous trash (Kolodko & Read, 2018). The research shows that during the
interview, the smokers used a reflective thinking system. They analysed the positives and the
negatives, evaluated and concluded that cigarette butts were dangerous pollutants (ibid.). Using
an automatic system of thinking, smokers intuitively do not see the danger in a single butt
because of its small size (Torkashvand et al., 2020).
Another explanation of this behaviour is provided by Kolodko and Read (2018). The
authors present smokers’ behaviour as a cost-benefit analysis. According to the smoker’s logic,
the cost of finding the bin does not justify the benefit of a clean site. One cigarette butt is
insignificant, the smoker does not consider the possible accumulation of litter over time (ibid.).
This means policy-makers have to decrease the cost by making bins more visible, available,
attractive, etc.
Researchers also examine the variables that affect the probability of littering with
cigarettes. Smokers encounter difficulties such as access to the bin and the distance and effort
to find the bin (Huang et al., 2019). In addition, the area's level of cleanness is directly correlated
with littering: the more butts are in the area, the higher the likelihood of additional litter. The
same applies if the situation is reversed, the fewer butts in an area, the lower the chance of
littering (Tehan et al., 2017). The presence of cigarette butts is a marker of a social acceptability
level in relation to littering at certain locations (ibid.). Tehan et al. (2017) also suggest that size,
brightness, and branding affect the level of attractiveness of a litter. The authors define the
larger, brighter and branded pieces as 'beacons of litter'. There are also other variables that affect
cigarette butt littering, for example, age – young people litter more frequently than older people
(Kolodko & Read, 2018; Krauss et al., 1978), or gender – men litter more frequently than
women (Huang et al., 2019; Krauss et al., 1978).
1.1. Behavioural interventions to reduce cigarette butt littering
In addition to the above-mentioned variables that increase butt littering behaviour,
behavioural sciences provide insights on how to achieve behavioural change. Jones et al. (2013)
discuss three approaches – nudge, think, and steer. A hard paternalism approach has been tested
as well.
As for the libertarian paternalism – nudging – it relates to the automatic system of thinking.
Nudging refers to a choice architecture which predictably affects people’s behaviour (Thaler &
Sunstein, 2008) by a minimal degree of coercion (Pavlovský, 2020). Based on the definition of
smoking as an automatic activity, many researchers tested nudging as a possible tool for
changing the smokers’ behaviour. Policy makers expect to subconsciously affect the behaviour
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
35
of smokers (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Nudging has been tested in various forms, including
gamification and priming. Gamification is an intervention with elements of game design in a
non-gaming context (AlMarshedi et al., 2017; Deterding et al., 2011). This approach uses
involvement as a social factor, however, an intervention with elements of game design has only
a low level of interaction complexity (Huang et al., 2019). Ballot bins (see Appendix A) aimed
at reducing cigarette butt littering have been tested mostly in the condition of homogenous
intervention group (students). A ballot bin near student halls of residents in Sibiu, Romania
reduced cigarette but littering on site by 60% (Selagea et al., 2016). On one campus in Milano,
Italy, an interactive ashtray design inspired by the darts game reduced cigarette butts by 41%
in one location and by 14% in another. The difference between two locations was most likely
caused by the cleanness level of the sites (Huang et al., 2019). Taking into account that both
aforementioned experiments were conducted on campus, both results could be affected by the
smokers’ age (Kolodko & Read, 2018; Krauss et al., 1978).
In addition to gamification, priming is also used to nudge smokers to socially responsible
behaviour and represents a certain type of stimulation for people to better visualise common
goals (Molden, 2014). It is usually conducted by drawing shoeprints that lead to the bins on the
pavement. Priming through shoeprints is also an example of a low level interaction (Huang et
al., 2019). Priming in the form of posters and floor stickers has been applied in an experiment
conducted in Bristol and Cardiff where the researchers achieved a 41.8% reduction of cigarette
butt litter. However, the results varied on different sites due to other variables such as pedestrian
traffic, unplanned cleaning (changing the level of cleanliness), heavy rains, construction works,
etc. (Hall & Campbell, 2020). Shoeprint priming has been used in an intervention to deal with
littering at the Bratislava Railway Station. The green shoe prints led to two smoking areas which
were also highlighted by green tape. This priming contributed to reducing the number of
smokers in non-smoking areas from 16.80 % to 4.44% (Bobčíková, 2016).
However, certain researchers criticise changing people's behaviour by nudging (Gellard et
al., 2019; Jones et al., 2013; Leggett, 2014). They consider nudging as a short-term decision
where long-term effects are in question (Gellard et al., 2019). Gellard et al. (2019) suggest that
the problem of littering is the result of socioeconomic status. Therefore, policy-makers should
focus on changing the socioeconomic status of individuals, which is a marker of ecological
attitude and behaviour (ibid.).
The researchers from Milano analysed numerous behavioural interventions to reduce
littering and classified them according to two criteria: social factor and interaction complexity.
Social factors were divided into two categories – the pressure and involvement. The former
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
36
means that smokers’ behaviour could be noticed and judged by other people. The latter
represents the use of interactive elements and certain incentives for smokers who behave in the
desired way. The Authors defined the levels of interaction complexity as low, medium and high
(Huang et al., 2019). Ballot bins use involvement as a social factor with low interaction
complexity. Shoe prints leading to the bin are also an example of a low-level interaction, but
authors do not classify it by neither the pressure, nor the involvement social factor (ibid.).
In contrast to nudge, think focuses on the reflective system, changing not only the context
but also attitudes of people toward littering. The main idea of ‘think’ is that deliberation –
discussion of possible solutions of behavioural failure with citizens - counters the irrationality
of people (Jones et al., 2013). Some experiments have used this approach. For example, in 2013
Keep Britain Tidy organized The Big Litter Inquiry, when they took a representative sample of
the British society and organised discussions and workshops about littering with policy-makers.
They collectively proposed solutions on how to reduce littering (The Big Litter Inquiry. The
Public’s Voice on Litter, 2013).
The third approach is steering. It focuses on both systems of thinking (Grist, 2010) and it
proposes deliberation and discussion as an effective behavioural intervention. It includes a
greater understanding of how our brain works and what are the physiological and biological
reasons for irrationality (Jones et al., 2013).
The hard paternalism approach to reduce littering has also been tested. Lee, Ranney and
Goldstein (2011) compared the effectiveness of low, medium and high strength policies towards
reducing cigarette butt littering on campuses in the US. The high strength policy meant creating
a 100% tobacco free zone indoor and outdoor. The low and medium strength policies meant
prohibition of indoor smoking and 15-foot perimeters outdoor with smoking restriction,
respectively. All three implemented policies reduced the number of cigarette butt littering near
the building entrances. The high strength policy was more effective than the others and
recommended by authors to be used on student campuses (ibid.).
2. Research questions and experiment design
This section deals with the experimental design. It presents the objective of the experiment,
the research question, the description of the interventions, experimental site (Račianske mýto
in Bratislava, Slovakia), and procedures in data collection and analysis.
The main objective of this experiment was to reduce cigarette butt littering in the area of
Račianske mýto in Bratislava. The research question is as follows: What is the effectiveness of
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
37
two different nudges - shoe prints, ballot bin – in reducing cigarette butt littering at Račianske
mýto?
Bratislava travel hubs are places where cigarette butt littering occurs frequently. One of
them, Račianské mýto, is where we conducted our experiment (see Figure 1). Račianske mýto
is an important connection point between the eastern and western part of Bratislava. There are
four public transportation stops, a public park and residential blocks in its immediate vicinity.
According to the municipal public transport company, Račianske mýto serves 16 intra-city lines
and 8 suburban lines. That means almost 2,300 connections per day, 200 connections per hour
at peak times, which adds up to 35,000 passengers at Račianske mýto per day (Municipality of
Bratislava, 2021).
Smokers passing through the experimental were not specifically notified of ongoing
experiment before, during or after the study.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
38
Figure 1 Experimental site: Račianské mýto in Bratislava
Source: authors’ overlay of photo from Google Maps
Note: Račianske mýto is an important transportation hub in Bratislava. There are four public transportation stops,
a public park (Park Račianské mýto) and residential blocks in this area. Highlighted yellow area - part of the
sidewalk in the park - is the area in which experiment took place.
Since we were not able to identify areas that would be comparable to Račianske mýto
elsewhere in the city, we decided to use a before-and-after uncontrolled design. The
effectiveness of selected interventions was determined by comparing measurements before
(baseline) and after interventions. Table 1 summarises how we measured the effect of the
selected interventions on the total volume of discarded cigarette butts at the experimental site.
Table 1 Variables overview
Type of variable
Name of variable
Unit of measurement
Dependent variable
amount of cigarette butts
number of cigarette butts per day (Discrete)
Independent variable 1
presence of intervention 1
present / not present (Binary)
Independent variable 2
presence of intervention 2
present / not present (Binary)
Control variable 1
weather conditions –
temperature
mean temperature during the measurement period (FRI-
SUN, MON-THU)
Control variable 2
weather conditions –
rainfall
mean rainfall during the measurement period (FRI-
SUN, MON-THU)
Source: authors
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
39
Table 2 illustrates the three phases of the experiment (baseline, post intervention #1, post
intervention #2). A total of 20 measurements have been completed by the local government's
technical services during their routine cleaning of the experimental site, i.e., every Monday and
Friday. The technical services personnel were instructed to separate cigarette butts from other
types of trash during routine bin emptying. The cigarette butts were marked according to their
date of collection and stored in separate plastic bags. We collected the bags every Friday and
manually counted how many cigarette butts were inside. The three experimental phases ran one
after another without any interruptions.
Table 2 Timeline and experiment phases
Measurement timeline
Phase 1: Baseline measurement
14.9.2020 – 2.10.2020
(3 weeks)
Phase 2: Measurement after the installation of
intervention #1 (shoeprints on pavement)
3.10.2020 – 23.10.2020
(3 weeks)
Phase 3: Measurement after the installation of
intervention #2 (gamified litter bins – ballot bin)
24.10.2020 – 20.11.2020
(4 weeks)
Source: authors
Prior to the experiment, the area contained 7 litter bins (see Figure 1). During the third
phase of the experiment, two of the bins were replaced by gamified bins. The experiment was
very budget-friendly. The total costs of both interventions did not exceed 800 EUR. The
installation of shoeprints costs 20 EUR, two ballot bins cost 500 EUR. The cost of cigarette
butt collection was approximately 280 EUR (2 workers paid 7 EUR/hour, 2 hours a week during
a 10-week period).
Interventions
Prior research in the field suggests that:
- cigarette butts are small objects and as such people often do not consider them trash, which
is why they are more likely to throw them on the ground;
- part of the society perceives throwing cigarette butts on the ground as an acceptable form
of pollution;
- smokers do not realise the serious environmental impact of not properly removing cigarette
butts;
- Račianske mýto might not contain sufficient number of bins or the present bins are
inefficiently placed.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
40
Based on these findings, we have decided to develop two interventions. The first
intervention contains shoe prints – navigation to the nearest bin. The second intervention
includes gamification – ballot bins.
The resulting efficiency of individual interventions was derived from the comparison of
mean volume of discarded cigarette butts observed during the baseline measurement with the
mean observed volume of the butts after implementing interventions. Given the relatively small
number of observations and the non-RCT design, we furthermore computed Pearson´s
correlation coefficient (table 4) between mean cigarette butts (per day) and temperature and
mean cigarette butts (per day) and rainfall in order to determine significance of possible
correlative relationship between these variables.
Intervention 1: Shoe prints sprayed on the pavement, leading to the nearest bin
Our first intervention was spraying shoeprints on the pavement. Every third shoeprint also
contained a fuming cigarette icon within it. We used a bright orange exterior spray paint to
prolong durability. The size of the shoeprints was lifelike. The shoeprints led to the nearest bin,
starting approximately 2 meters from the bin. If there was a path crossing near the bin (in an
approximately 2 meters radius), we also sprayed the shoeprints leading to the nearest bin at the
crossing.
Intervention 2: Ballot bins
The second intervention we applied was to replace two standard municipal litter bins with
two gamified ballot bins for cigarette butts. The ballot bins display a question and two answers.
Smokers are able to vote by inserting the cigarette butt through a slot that represents the answer
they want to select. The bins have a transparent front which means people can see which answer
is more popular. The question we asked the smokers was 'Do you plan to quit smoking in the
New Year?' Our reasons for choosing this question were as follows.
- the experiment was taking place from late October to November, towards the end of the
year;
- the question was specifically addressed to smokers.
Passing smokers could answer the question by inserting/dropping their cigarette butt into
a slot representing the answer with which they identified with. The slots were clearly labelled
as 'yes' and 'no'. The bright yellow colour of the bin was also designed to draw the attention of
smokers.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
41
3. Results
This paper tests the effectiveness of two interventions aimed to mitigate cigarette butt
littering. We investigated how the interventions affected the behaviour of smokers discarding
cigarette butts at the experimental area. The first intervention was priming in the form of
sprayed shoeprints which led pedestrians to litter bins (Hall & Campbell, 2020). The second
intervention – changing the behaviour with gamified ballot bins – was tested by several authors
(Huang et al., 2019; Kolodko & Read, 2018; Krauss et al., 1978). However, these experiments
were conducted in a very specific environment of student dormitories and on campuses. This
experiment was conducted at Račianske mýto, an area that serves as a local transportation hub
(public transport) and a place where people from the neighbourhood gather in the local park.
Table 3 Cigarette butt volume by treatment
Mean cigarette butts (per day)
Mean cigarette butts (per measurement)
Baseline (3 weeks)
33.35 (SD=14.41)
115.83 (SD=48.41)
Steps (3 weeks)
40.44 (SD=30.64)
148 (SD=130.05)
Gamification (4 weeks)
69.76 (SD=41.78)
260.12 (SD=177.72)
Source: authors
Note: Mean cigarette butts per day was calculated as the amount of cigarette butts from the measurement divided
by the number of days – Measurement 1 on Monday (measured FRI – SUN, 3 days), Measurement 2 on Friday,
early morning (MON – THU, 4 days). Calculations made in R program.
During the three phases of the experiment (baseline, intervention 1 – shoe prints,
intervention 2 - gamification) the Bratislava – Nové mesto technical services also collected
cigarette butts from the ground in the selected area twice a week (Monday, Friday). Table 3
shows the mean cigarette butts per day for each phase of the intervention. The mean amount of
cigarette butts is the lowest in the baseline, suggesting that the interventions - shoe prints and
gamification - did not improve the smokers' littering behaviour. At first glance, the situation
seems to have gotten even worse, the mean cigarette butts per day increased after both
interventions. This increase is from 33.4 cigarette butts in baseline to 44.4 cigarette butts in
intervention 1 – shoe prints, 69.8 cigarette butts in intervention 2 – gamification (ballot bin),
respectively.
The standard deviation measures how concentrated the data points are around the mean. A
small standard deviation means that the values in a statistical data set are close to the mean, and
a large standard deviation means that the values in the data set are farther away from the mean.
The mean values for both interventions have large standard deviations. The standard deviation
of the mean cigarette butts (per day) in intervention 1 is twice as large as in the baseline. This
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
42
difference is even more severe when comparing the standard deviation of the mean cigarette
butts (per day) in intervention 2 (41.8) and the standard deviation of the mean cigarette butts in
the baseline (14.4). Larger values of standard deviations in both interventions indicate a large
amount of variation in the amount of cigarette butts (per day as well as per measurement). In
other words, we observe a larger variance (extreme values) in both intervention phases than in
the baseline phase. This difference in variance could one of the reasons why interventions did
not reduce cigarette butts in the area. We discuss more about the possible reasons for this in the
next section.
We have collected data on rainfall and temperature from the Slovak Hydrometeorological
Institute to control the weather conditions. The data indicate that cigarette butt littering is not
significantly associated with temperature or rainfall. The correlation of mean cigarette butts and
temperature is -0.31, which indicates a weak negative correlation of cigarette butt littering
behaviour and temperature – the lower the temperature, the more cigarette butts. It is important
to note, that we would expect the opposite (positive) direction of the relationship – warmer
weather can lead to more people (and also smokers) in the park and therefore more cigarete
butts. The correlation between mean cigarette butts and rainfall is -0.23, the higher the rainfall,
the less cigarette butts. However, neither of the two correlations are statistically significant (p-
value > 0.1).
Table 4 Correlation matrix – mean cigarette butts and temperature/rainfall
Mean cigarette butts
(per day)
Temperature
Rainfall
Mean cigarette butts
(per day)
-
– 0.31
– 0.23
Temperature
– 0.31
-
0.01
Rainfall
– 0.23
0.01
-
Source: authors
Note: Correlations (Pearson) between mean cigarette butts (per day) and temperature and mean cigarette butts (per
day) and rainfall are not statistically significant when p-value is larger than 0.1. Calculations made in R program.
Conclusion – lessons learned
Although gamification and priming interventions have been conducted in several places to
reduce butt littering, the testing of their effectiveness was usually limited. Our experiment
consists of two interventions – shoe prints and gamification (ballot bin). The results indicate
that both interventions have not been effective.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
43
Field experiments in areas such as streets or public parks are difficult to measure due to the
numerous variables that are difficult to control. Hall and Campbell (2020) state that the results
can vary on different sites because of other variables such as pedestrian traffic, unplanned
cleaning (changing the cleanness level), heavy rains, construction works, etc. In the following
section we provide other possible reasons behind our results that should be considered before
further experiments are conducted.
The first possible explanation is the heterogeneity of the people at the experimental site. In
general, field experiments with a very limited possibility to control the characteristics of
participants are difficult to measure. Our experimental site was a busy transportation hub (see
Figure 1), used by thousands of commuters every day. This implies a very heterogeneous group
of people, from students to workers and homeless people. Similar gamification interventions
aimed at altering cigarette butt littering behaviour have been conducted among a more
homogenous group of undergraduate students around halls of residence and on campuses
(Huang et al., 2019; Kolodko & Read, 2018; Krauss et al., 1978). The heterogeneity of the
intervention group suggests limited effectiveness for such an intervention design. Additionally,
2020 and 2021 were the years of the COVID-19 pandemic. The situation in Bratislava began to
deteriorate in late October. Bratislava entered the lockdown on October 24, only a few days
after the ballot bins (gamification bins) were installed. A soft lockdown lasted until the end of
the experiment. The specific situation caused by the lockdown and the pandemic could also
have an effect on the people in this transportation hub and therefore affect the results.
The second possible explanation for the results can be the skewed baseline data. Our
baseline measurement may have been too short to allow us to identify the true magnitude of the
cigarette butt pollution problem as well as the variation in butt littering at the site. The baseline
measurements may also have been skewed by changes in the target group's behaviour due to
the ongoing pandemic.
The experiment was conducted approximately 6 months after the first officially confirmed
COVID-19 case and at a time of government imposed anti-epidemic measures. Restrictions
related to this disease had been in place since the beginning of the pandemic. At the time of this
experiment, the pandemic was publicly discussed and that might have been related to pandemic
fatigue (WHO, 2020) among Slovak inhabitants and changed mobility patterns.
The third potential factor could be the limited ability of our research team to control the
data collection. Although we have drafted the protocol and agreed on the time schedule with
the local government, the cigarette butts could only be collected and measured by the local
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
44
government's technical services employees. Therefore, our control over the accuracy of the
measurement was restricted.
Last but not least, increasing the number of interventions could boost their effectiveness in
future experiments. The two interventions we used may have been insufficient to overcome the
convenience of dropping the cigarette butt on the ground. Our interventions tried to nudge
smokers travelling across a 130-meter-long stretch of sidewalk. As the map of the experimental
site explains (Figure 1), the gamified bins were placed at the periphery of the selected area. The
experiment participants entered or exited the area by walking past these bins.
Although, according to our baseline measurements they were installed at the places with
the most cigarette litter and although their colour made them relatively easy to spot, the
convenience of using them may have been diminished by the increasing distance between the
bin and the smoker or by the closer proximity of other trash bins. Nevertheless, dropping a
cigarette butt on the ground may have been more convenient than the priming effect of the
shoeprints, even though they were sprayed not only in the direct vicinity of the bins but also in
the surrounding area. Moreover, in both ballot bins we asked the question about the intention
to quit smoking from the New Year. Even though this question was targeted at smokers, it could
be perceived as irritating for the target group.
Therefore, further experiments are recommended to (1) focus on more homogeneous
group of people (e.g., undergraduate students, drivers etc.), (2) ensure long period of baseline
measurement, (3) directly control the measurement of the intervention results and (4) combine
different behavioural interventions to increase its effectiveness (e.g., installation of ballot bin
within convenient reach).
Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the The Slovak Research and Development
Agency under the grant (APVV-18-0435) Behavioural Interventions in Local Government:
Increasing the Efficiency of Local Public Policies.
Author contribution statement: Patrik Pavlovsky, Emilia Sicakova-Beblava, and Matus
Sloboda conceived and planned the experiments. Patrik Pavlovsky carried out the experiment
at the experimental site. Matus Sloboda analyzed and interpreted data. Artsiom Klunin
developed the theoretical background of the study. All authors verified the theory, methodology
and results and provided critical feedback which thus helped shape the research, analysis and
the final manuscript.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
45
Author disclosure statement: We, Patrik Pavlovsky, Emilia Sicakova-Beblava, Matus
Sloboda and Artsiom Klunin, declare no conflict of interest regarding the subject of the study.
No competing financial interests exist.
References
[1] Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence in library: environment, situational norm,
and social behaviour. [Ticho v knižniciach: prostredie, situačné normy a sociálne
správanie]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 18-28. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.18
[2] AlMarshedi, A., Wanick, V., Wills, G. B., & Ranchhod, A. (2017). Gamification and
Behaviour. In S. Stieglitz, C. Lattemann, S. Robra-Bissantz, R. Zarnekow, & T.
Brockmann (Eds.), Gamification: Using Game Elements in Serious Contexts (pp. 19–29).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45557-0_2
[3] Araújo, M. C. B., & Costa, M. F. (2019). A critical review of the issue of cigarette butt
pollution in coastal environments. Environmental Research, 172, 137–149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.02.005
[4] Attitudes Towards Cigarette Disposal Outdoors (No. N403; Issue N403, p. 38). (1996).
Tidy Britain Group. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=nffy0090
[5] Bernatová, N., Šucha, M., & Plevka, M. (2019). Pollution of Public Spaces (Impact of
"Nudges" Using Game Design and Social Approval to Reduce Cigarette Butt Littering in
Public Places) (Behavioural Public Policy for a City Taking Care of its Citizens, p. 25).
[6] Bobčíková, N. (2016). Nudge and behaviour change: Smoking experiment on Bratislava
main station [Institute of Public Policy, FSES UK in Bratislava].
https://opac.crzp.sk/?fn=detailBiblioForm&sid=FB82D27E75BFB74B60EA5FCD15D7
&seo=CRZP-detail-kniha
[7] City of Senec. (2020, October 14). Cigarette Bin on Lichnerova Street also with Voting
[Information Portal of the City of Senec]. News. https://www.senec.sk/sk/aktualita/kos-na-
ohorky-na-lichnerovej-aj-s-hlasovanim
[8] Dehdari, T. (2020). A qualitative exploration of Iranian smokers’ experiences in terms of
cigarette butt littering behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Health Research,
0(0), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2020.1769040
[9] Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011, May 7). Gamification:
Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
46
[10] Gellard, C., Dickins, T. E., & Coulson, M. (2019). The Ecology of Cooperation:
Considerations For Litter Research (No. 1). 3(1), 38–50.
[11] Grist, M. (2010). Steer. Mastering our behaviour through instinct, environment and reason
(RSA Projects, p. 106).
[12] Hall, D., & Campbell, R. (2020). Testing New Behaviour Change Methods To Tackle
Littered Gum. Journal Of Litter And Environmental Quality, 4(1), 5–16.
[13] Huang, S., Scurati, G. W., Elzeney, M., Li, Y., Lin, X., Ferrise, F., & Bordegoni, M. (2019).
Aim: An Interactive Ashtray to Support Behavior Change Through Gamification.
Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19),
3811–3820. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.388
[14] Jager, W. (2003). Breaking ’bad habits’: A dynamical perspective on habit formation and
change. In Human decision making and environmental perception: Understanding and
assisting human decision making in real-life settings: Liber amicorum for Charles Vlek.
University of Groningen.
[15] Jones, R., Pykett, J., & Whitehead, M. (2013). Changing Behaviours. On the Rise of the
Psychological State. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
[16] Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, Fast and Slow (1st ed.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[17] Kolodko, J., & Read, D. (2018). Using Behavioural Science To Reduce Littering:
Understanding, Addressing And Solving The Problem Of Litter Using A Commons
Dilemma Approach. Journal Of Litter And Environmental Quality, 2(1), 21–36.
[18] Krauss, R. M., Freedman, J. L., & Whitcup, M. (1978). Field and laboratory studies of
littering. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(1), 109–122.
[19] Lee, J. G. L., Ranney, L. M., & Goldstein, A. O. (2011). Cigarette butts near building
entrances: What is the impact of smoke-free college campus policies? Tobacco Control,
107–112.
[20] Leggett, W. (2014). The politics of behaviour change: Nudge, neoliberalism and the state.
Policy & Politics, 42(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655576
[21] Mareková, L. (2020, November 10). Ballot Bin for Cigarette Butts [City of Nitra]. News
Publishing and Information Service. https://www.nitra.sk/zobraz/obsah/32986
[22] Molden, D. C. (2014). Understanding Priming Effects in Social Psychology: What is
“Social Priming” and How does it Occur? Social Cognition, 32(Supplement), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.1
[23] Municipality of Bratislava. (2021, March 11). Municipality of Bratislava and the Transport
Company Bratislava will Expand the Tram Platforms at Račianske Mýto. Bratislava.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
47
https://bratislava.sk/sk/sprava/magistrat-s-dopravnym-podnikom-bratislava-rozsiri-
elektrickove-nastupistia-na-racianskom-myte
[24] Pavlovský, P. (2020). Nudging Theory in the Concepts of Public Policy and Governance
(and Examples of its Application within the Slovak Municipalities) (1st ed.). Břeclav City
Library.
[25] Rath, J. M., Rubenstein, R. A., Curry, L. E., Shank, S. E., & Cartwright, J. C. (2012).
Cigarette Litter: Smokers’ Attitudes and Behaviors. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 2189–2203.
[26] Selagea, V. I., Simeanu, C.-M., & Stancu, E. A. (2016). Nudge: Cigarette butts—Not for
littering but for voting. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3734.8886
[27] Slaughter, E., Gersberg, R. M., Watanabe, K., Rudolph, J., Stransky, C., & Novotny, T. E.
(2011). Toxicity of cigarette butts, and their chemical components, to marine and
freshwater fish. Tobacco Control, 20(Suppl 1), i25–i29.
https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2010.040170.
[28] Srbinoska, M., Radojičić, V., Đulančić, N., & Kirkova, S. (2018). Possibilities for
Managing the Cigarette Butts Waste. The 26th International Conference Ecological Truth
and Environmental Research, 349–354.
[29] Tehan, R., Jackson, L., Jeffers, H., & Burns, T. (2017). Beacons of litter: A social
experiment to understand how the presence of certain littered items influences rates of
littering (No. 1). 1(1), 5–15.
[30] Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth,
and happiness (1st ed.). Yale University Press.
[31] The Big Litter Inquiry. The public’s voice on litter (When It Comes to Litter: Which Side
of the Fence Are You On). (2013). Keep Britain Tidy.
https://www.keepbritaintidy.org/sites/default/files/resources/KBT_CFSI_The_Big_Litter
_Inquiry_Report_2013.pdf
[32] Torkashvand, J., Farzadkia, M., Sobhi, H. R., & Esrafili, A. (2020). Littered cigarette butt
as a well-known hazardous waste: A comprehensive systematic review. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 383, 121242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121242
[33] WHO. (2020). Pandemic Fatigue: Reinvigorating the public to prevent COVID-19 (Policy
Framework for Supporting Pandemic Prevention and Management, p. 27). WHO Regional
Office for Europe.
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
48
Authors' addresses:
Patrik Pavlovsky, MA, candidate at the Institute of Public Policy, Faculty of Social and
Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynské luhy 2893/4, 821 05,
Bratislava, Slovakia. Email: patrik.pavlovsky@fses.uniba.sk
Mgr. Matus Sloboda, PhD., researcher at the Institute of Public Policy, Faculty of Social and
Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynské luhy 2893/4, 821 05,
Bratislava, Slovakia. Email: matus.sloboda@uniba.sk
Prof. Ing. Emilia Sicakova-Beblava, PhD., the director of the Institute of Public Policy, Faculty
of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynské luhy 2893/4,
821 05, Bratislava, Slovakia. Email: emilia.beblava@fses.uniba.sk
Mgr. Artsiom Klunin,. candidate at the Institute of Public Policy, Faculty of Social and
Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynské luhy 2893/4, 821 05,
Bratislava, Slovakia. Email: artsiom.klunin@fses.uniba.sk
Appendix A
Figure 2 Gamified ballot bin
Source: authors
Ekonomika a spoločnosť, roč. 23, 2022, č. 1 / Journal of Economics and Social Research, vol. 23, 2022, no. 1
49
Appendix B
Figure 3: Sprayed footsteps
Source: authors
