Local governments with recycling campaigns are toying with enforcement and compliance actions. However, recent considerations of a three-strikes rule on households that contaminate their recycling bins is tosh.
A three-strikes approach seeks to confiscate bins after three warnings to curb contamination, but it overlooks key issues:
- A big stick hurts some more than others. Punitive measures disproportionately affect households with limited capacity—such as low-income or elderly residents—who may struggle to interpret guidelines, especially if inspections are inconsistent.
- Don’t assume everyone is a bad actor. Making recycling easier (via convenient bin placement and user-friendly prompts) yields better outcomes than threatening bin removal. The three-strikes model assumes deliberate non-compliance and overlooks system design flaws that can contribute to errors.
- It costs money. Enforcement is costly. Southland’s pilot required extensive staff time for inspections and follow-ups. These programs can incur substantial overheads without clear long-term benefits. Redirecting those resources toward education or more innovative sorting technology would be more efficient.
- Unexpected things can happen. The threat of confiscation may trigger unintended behaviours—such as illegal dumping or abandoning recycling—thereby increasing landfill loads and eroding trust.
- Context and opportunities are missed. Uniform penalties ignore contextual nuances. Rural areas can face higher contamination due to limited infrastructure and travel distances; language and cultural barriers may hamper compliance. Without ensuring equal access to support, punitive measures risk penalising those least able to adapt.
A balanced strategy combining proactive education, optimised bin design, and targeted support would address root causes more effectively than strict enforcement.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360709818/three-strikes-and-you-lose-your-bin
Lytton Advisory 