Leave no trace: Finland removes litter bins from national parks

The last few times I went to a state/national park, the trash cans were overflowing. There was trash piling up around them, getting blown off into the distance.

If they are not going to be serviced on a regular basis to prevent this outcome, then I think they are absolutely doing the right thing by removing them entirely.

From personal experience, when the expectation is that you pack it in, and pack it out. You bring less, waste less, and more consciously collect your litter. For likely a number of reasons not explored in depth in the article, it reduced the amount of trash laying around on trails. Not sure people are purposely throwing trash on the ground. It's more likely people are bringing less and taking better care to store away their trash instead of leaving it loose in a pocket to fall out later. Not having to maintain bins in nature areas is a big win for many conservation reasons. This move is a general win the eyes of conservation (reduce and reuse).

The article also didn't go into detail about the specific bathroom changes. They may have changed to a different type of toilet. Again, conservation being the goal. Spending more money is a solution, but better efficiency is likely a better one.

> What’s the goal? People transport garbage somewhere else, and put it in a bin that goes to the same place?

Assuming it works, and that's a big assumption (fans of the hitchBOT saga probably live in Finland), there could be some several goals.

Others in the thread have pointed out the reduced costs benefits I'm sure.

That's surface level.

Pack it in, pack it out probably also increases a sense of shared ownership or responsibility for public goods and resources. It could make you feel part of a "good" community if your park is clean and others aren't, especially if it's the responsibility of hikers to handle their own trash.

This translates to increased belief in environmental sustainability values and other social values.

Like all things, I'm sure it's a balancing act and putting too much burden on citizens probably has harmful effects. The effect of this might be good, and alignment to existing practices (pack it in, pack it out) makes it a fit. But I could see it sparking a "pride" competition between different social services that puts more burden on citizens, enforced with peer shaming behavior. E.g. "what if we remove snow removal from sidewalks." That's a bad example, given it's true in a lot of places, but you get the point.

Someone should inform Ron Swanson and Leslie Knope that their park is not getting any money

Some random bits about Japan:

Litter bins were removed from public spaces after the 1995 sarin attacks.

Litter has actually been a notorious problem in natural preserves. There was an account of hiking up Mount Fuji by some famous travel writer, who went on about the great deal of rubbish strewn all the way up.

Litter is less common in urban areas because there is less opportunity for it. When you see litter, what does it consist of? It's mostly the remains of food packaging. Japanese rarely eat away from designated eating areas. You don't see people snacking while walking down the street.

So the contract in the US is "I will litter, just to spite not having litter bins"

It's a good thing Finland isn't full of New Yorkers!

In my usage, 'litter' is trash that has been improperly disposed of. If you bag and carry it, that isn't the case.

In the US, leave no trace means pack out everything... Including even used toilet paper. For wilderness areas biodegradable isn't enough to avoid causing damage to the ecosystem, creating wildlife used to feeding off humans, etc.