This is a constrained behavioral design problem
It’s similar, but not identical to, a tragedy of the commons problem where participants are able to use and potentially exhause a common resource (in this case, free disposal for garden waste).
This is not a problem a UX can solve without broader systemic design, but UX can make a difference.
You are constrained by laws, business rules, and resources so typical solutions like inspecting each car may not be available to you.
If you really care about this problem and want to do some research, it may help to read about typical approaches for dealing with commons problems. Then you can brainstorm specifically about each approach. I will try to do this in the answer here.
In short, these are the typical approaches (non-exclusive):
- These include approaches like inspecting and fining cars in violation. This can also be automated…for example you are already registering payment cards so you can track usage by payment card and issue an inspection warning if the same card is used repeatedly for many “garden waste” disposals.
- These approaches attempt to encourage the correct behavior by using implicit or explicit incentives.
- For example, an explicit incentive might be to print a lottery number every time users pay for disposal. Users are automatically entered into a lottery for some reward. This may provide extra incentive for users to pay, and the system might “pay for itself” because a small increase in the number of paying users can cover the cost of the reward. Other approaches might be to print a coupon for users to download free music, etc.
- An implicit incentive might be something like moral suasion. This is close to your desire to promote more “honest” behavior through stimulating the civic and moral instincts with users.
Implicit incentive approaches might include:
- Use pictures instead of text with buttons. This makes the content more relatable to users, so it can encourage honesty because it’s easier to lie when clicking a button with just text than when clicking a button with a picture of garden waste that clearly looks nothing like what you are carrying.
- Communicate the benefits of making the right selection. e.g.
- Your payments help Norway recycle 99% of its waste every year (civic pride)
- We operate on a trust code because we believe in our citizens (moral obligation)
- Your payments help us turn waste into clean, renewable energy and resources (environmental stewardship)
- Your payments help eliminate landfill and preserve the beauty of Norway (national pride)
- These approaches involve erecting barriers to dissuade bad behavior or guide users towards good behavior.
- Confirmation dialog for free disposal. e.g. if user selects garden waste, a confirmation dialog with a picture of garden waste pops up with a message (e.g. “Please confirm that your trash is at least 50% garden waste”). This is deliberate UX friction introduced in order to provide the user a second chance to reconsider lying.
- Placing the garden waste button last. This can help encourage users to read the other options before they see the garden waste options.
- Diminishing the indication of what is paid versus free. This helps focus user attention correctly on the content of the waste rather than the price. In some similar interfaces, companies have even controversially eliminated the price altogether until the next page.
- This approach promotes cooperation between users themselves and/or between users and the vendor.
- Some examples might be:
- Place the garden waste bin in a highly visible location where other users in the facility will be able to see what is being dumped, so there is better cooperative transparency and accountability. A Garden waste only sign may help.
- When the user makes a selection in the UX, flash it prominently on a screen so the car(s) behind the user can also see the content. Knowing that other users are aware of what you’ve declared can help guide behavior. I don’t personally like this option, but am including it because you may be able to brainstorm less drastic variants on this behavioral pattern.
- Communicate the cooperation between your facility and the user. For example, you may want to humanize the team at the facility, have them stop by to say hi to users, etc. Users are less likely to lie when they feel they have a relationship with the facility.
Some of these suggestions are UX related, and some are more general.
My goal here is not only to provide some specific UX suggestions for you, but also to provide a framework and behavioral themes you can use to brainstorm more specific UX solutions tailored for your facility, since you know the legal, resource, and business constraints far better than any of us.
Good luck, I’m a huge fan of your country’s approach to waste.
The point with these kinds of things, where you rely on customer honesty, is twofold. First to make the honest route easy. Second to make the easiest route as honest as possible.
I would radically change the process and divide it in to two steps.
Are you delivering:
☑ Chemicals . . . . . . . . ☑ Construction waste
☐ (Scrap) Metal . . . . . . ☑ Garden materials
Show them a simple bar chart:
which by default shows an even spread of delivered. This could use different algorithms;
- simplest – divide by payment categories (my example)
- medium complex – divide by type of waste (in this case it’d be 2,3,2 so 29%, 42%,
- most complex – also take in to account how much of a type usually
gets brought (batteries = little, leaves = lots) you could base this
on average statistics from
And then show either categories ticked and have users specify what types of waste they have, or (like in the example) just have an organized list of all types and have every type of each category ticked and users can untick them.
At any rate, users can then modify this to what they actually deliver. They still CAN cheat by saying they´re dropping 95% leaves, but it adds a physical and a mental hurdle. If they’re honest and modify, all the better. If they’re lazy, you should still get (on average over all visitors) get a decent balance of what has been delivered.
This is just a rough sketch, of course, and there are a bunch of other varieties you can try, too. For example, first choose paid things + [none of these], then free stuff, so they’re less inclined to say just leaves when they have both leaves and paint. Or you could have the first page just be an organized list on which the user ticks all the items they have and then the system sorts that into categories and uses ‘medium complex’ algorithm.
I’ve gone back and forth in my mind on which is better; ask categories and then specialize (more open to abuse?) or ask types and then categorize (might overlook something and can be confusing), but the rough concept is this:
– obfuscate difference between paid/free items
– make dishonesty cost more effort than average
– get the most ‘accuracy’ in the least possible interaction.
Could a video camera feed of the car be included in the UI? This may encourage users to think that they are being watched, even if no footage is actually kept and inspected.