Governmental intervention
As this problem is a tragedy of the commons, if unmanaged, people do not have the incentive to stop using the common pool. That is to say, people do not feel any personal responsibility to reduce the amount of waste generated. Thus, the Singapore government has to step in to resolve this issue, by altering the cost-benefit ratio. This can be done by providing incentives, or providing disincentives, or both. My suggestion is to improve on what already is in place: the refuse collection fee. Instead of paying a standard, fixed fee for everyone, why not alter the cost-benefit ratio by introducing payment tiers just like in taxes? Monthly refuse collection fee for each household increases according to the averaged amount of waste generated in the household. The table below is my own sample idea of how the tiered refuse collection fee will look like:
| Refuse collection fee (per month per household) | Amount of waste generated (per month per person living in the same household) |
| $7.25 | 0 kg – 5 kg inclusive |
| $8.00 | 5.1 kg – 10 kg inclusive |
| $9.35 | 10.1 kg – 15 kg inclusive |
| $10.85 | 15.1 kg – 20 kg inclusive |
| $12.85 | 20.1 kg and up |
Furthermore, to aid in waste reduction behaviors, governments can remove external barriers to action by providing a high-tech general recycling bag and a general waste bag capable of telling the weight of its contents. This would provide immediate feedback to households on how much waste is being generated, and help them meet their own tier goals. As this may result in increased labor cost to record the amount of waste generated for each household, the weighing component of the high-tech waste bags can perhaps be developed such that information is synced to a computer software daily, and at the end of the month the total weight of general waste produced is calculated and the respective refuse collection fee billed.
Community management
Seeing as to how the movement for reduction for single-use plastic straws have been so effective, my proposed solution mainly focuses on leveraging on this cooperativity and conformity of the Singapore society. The desired type of trash is to be identified, and raise enough awareness such that this issue becomes a social concern. Proposed behavioral actions, such as switching out plastic straws for metal straws, is encouraged. The goal is to make the initiative a social norm so that the effectiveness and reach of the initiative will be more widespread. This will likely have to start from organisations or companies that champions for the target item. For example, if we look at leather since it is a type of trash with one of the lowest recycling rates in Singapore, British leather company ELeather could champion the use of environmentally-responsible leather such as their product instead. This example is quite a stretch but the main idea is there, to create a social norm and from there, enact intended behavioral changes.
Education
A commonly cited reason for not recycling even when there is an abundance of recycling bins in the near vicinity is because people are not sure exactly what can be recycled. They know that plastic should be recycled, and they also know that things contaminated with food should not be recycled, but what about this near-empty plastic bottle of soda? The safest option then, will be to just dispose of it as general waste. This puts them in a cognitive dissonance, which is a psychological discomfort that one feels when one’s thoughts and behaviors are incompatible. Education can change beliefs and attitudes, but many barriers, both within individuals and in their social and economic environments, for example financial expense and serious inconvenience, can keep pro-environmental attitudes from being expressed in action. Thus, based on my own experiences, I propose to place recycling bins near general waste bins, and put up signs and posters indicating what types of waste can or cannot be recycled, and how to recycle them. More importantly is to include a source of water supply near the recycling bins specifically for people to empty out and wash the content of the item they wish to recycle. However, there may be problems of abuse of the water supply and also problems of implementing this idea especially in outdoor areas, hence perhaps this can be done as a preliminary test in schools first.
Morals and ethics
Most, if not all, of the religious organisations are non-profit and obtain capital purely from donations to help them sustain operations. This thus leaves little to no financial capital to support or even develop a new initiative program to focus on aspects like recycling. In response to this, the Singapore government can set aside a small amount of fund for these non-profit organisations to carry out new initiatives to bring their followers together and engage the community in pro-environmental behaviors. If given the right support, such organisations will likely observe positive effects and is beneficial to the society as a whole, as seen from Tzu Chi Singapore. This is because religion is a family affair; families go to the places of worship together, and if these organisations initiatives pro-environmental programs, they don’t just target individuals, they target multi-generations within families.