Promoting planting in front gardens: a systematic approach to intervention development.

Planting in front gardens is associated with a range of human and environmental health benefits. Effective interventions aimed at cultivating this practice are, however, hampered by the paucity of theory- and evidence-based behavioural research in this context. This study aims to systematically determine a set of behaviour change interventions likely to be effective at promoting planting in front gardens amongst UK householders. The Behaviour Change Wheel framework was applied. Behavioural systems mapping was used to identify community actors relevant to front gardening. Potential behavioural influences on householders' front gardening were identified using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model. Using peer-reviewed scientific findings as evidence, behavioural influences were systematically linked to potential intervention strategies, behaviour change techniques and real-world implementation options. Finally, intervention recommendations were refined through expert evaluations and local councillor and public stakeholder feedback, evaluating them against the Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side effects and Equity criteria in a UK implementation context. This study formulated 12 intervention recommendations, implementable at a community level, to promote front gardening. Stakeholder feedback revealed a preference for educational and supportive (social and practical) strategies (e.g., community gardening workshops, front gardening 'starter kits') over persuasive and motivational approaches (e.g., social marketing, motivational letters from the council to householders). Householders' front gardening behaviour is complex and influenced by the behaviour of many other community actors. It also needs to be understood as a step in a continuum of other behaviours (e.g., clearing land, gardening, waste disposal). This study demonstrates the application of behavioural science to an understudied implementation context, that is, front gardening promotion, drawing on a rigorous development process promoting a transparent approach to intervention design. Stakeholder consultation allowed relevance, feasibility and practical issues to be considered. These improve the likely effectiveness of interventions in practice. The next steps include evaluating the proposed interventions in practice.

Barriers and Enablers to Food Waste Recycling: A Mixed Methods Study amongst UK Citizens.

We aim to identify influences on UK citizens' household food waste recycling as a basis for designing strategies to increase household food waste collection rates via local services. Using a UK dataset (n = 1801) and the COM-B (Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour) model as a theoretical framework, we conduct quantitative regression and supporting thematic analyses to investigate influences on citizens' recycling of food waste. Results show that automatic motivation (e.g., emotions and habit) and psychological capability (e.g., knowledge) predict household food waste recycling. Physical opportunity (i.e., dealing with food waste in other ways such as home-composting or feeding pets/strays, time and financial costs) was the main barrier to recycling food waste identified in thematic analyses. Participants also reported automatic motivation-related barriers such as concerns over pests, odour, hygiene and local authorities' food waste collection capabilities. Based on findings we recommend the development of clear, consistent communications aimed at creating positive social norms relating to recycling and increasing knowledge of what can and cannot be put in food waste bins. Improved functional design and free distribution of bins and compostable caddy liners developed according to user-centred needs for cleanliness, convenience and hygiene are also needed. These will not be sufficient without a nationally uniform, efficient and reliable system of household food waste collection.

Influences on single-use and reusable cup use: a multidisciplinary mixed-methods approach to designing interventions reducing plastic waste.

An estimated 2.5-5 billion single-use coffee cups are disposed of annually in the UK, most of which consist of paper with a plastic lining. Due to the difficulty of recycling poly-coated material, most of these cups end up incinerated or put in landfills. As drinking (take-away) hot beverages is a behaviour, behaviour change interventions are necessary to reduce the environmental impacts of single-use coffee cup waste. Basing the design of interventions on a theoretical understanding of behaviour increases the transparency of the development process, the likelihood that the desired changes in behaviour will occur and the potential to synthesise findings across studies. The present paper presents a methodology for identifying influences on using single-use and reusable cups as a basis for designing intervention strategies. Two behaviour change frameworks: The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COMB) model of behaviour, were used to develop an online survey and follow-up interviews. Research findings can inform the selection of intervention strategies using a third framework, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). The application of the methodology is illustrated in relation to understanding barriers and enablers to single-use and reusable cup use across the setting of a London university campus. We have developed a detailed method for identifying behavioural influences relevant to pro-environmental behaviours, together with practical guidance for each step and a worked example. Benefits of this work include it providing guidance on developing study materials and collecting and analysing data. We offer this methodology to the intervention development and implementation community to assist in the application of behaviour change theory to interventions.

The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks.

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK government mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommended the use of reusable masks to combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing factor, the University College London (UCL) Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental impact and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material flow analysis (MFA), life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use mask each day for a year, it will create a total of 124,000 tonnes of waste, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste (the masks), with the rest being the recyclable packaging typically used for transportation and distribution of masks. Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use; and how these practices affect mask effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and minimise environmental and economic costs.