Skip to main content

How dodgy statistics can ruin a perfectly good message about recycling

I got a press release the other day which put across a sensible message that people often don't understand what recycling symbols on packaging mean. The sponsors of the survey SaveOnEnergy asked 2,300 people the meaning of various recycling symbols - the infographic shows their results. The percentages are interesting, though not really surprising, apart perhaps from 88% not able to understand the aluminium one. (I certainly had no clue about the financial contribution one.)

So far, so good. But the headline of the press release blares Brits Are Spending 54 Hours A YEAR Trying to Recycle. What? Where did that number come from? We are also told that 'Brits can spend up to 14.2 hours a year searching for a recycling symbol and its meaning, before deciding to give up'. Really?

The press release gives the following methodology (and full marks to them for telling us what it was - many don't):

1.      SaveOnEnergy averaged a ‘big shop’ every 2.5 weeks, with 60 items brought per shop, which worked out at 20.8 ‘big shops’ a year.

2.      SaveOnEnergy then timed a number of participants to find out how long it would take them to: look for the symbol and Google what the symbol meant, before giving up (average of 41 seconds) and looking for the symbol, Google what it means and keep searching until they found the correct method of recycling (average of 2 minutes, 37 seconds).

3.      SaveOnEnergy then used this to work out how much time was spent looking per item, per ‘big shop’.

I did have to clarify the second point - how they got stats for both giving up and continuing. It turns out just 100 of the 2,300 participants were timed and were asked 'to let us know how long they spend looking up symbols and if they were to give up (because it took too long) then to be honest and let us know - out of those (38) who did look and give up, it averaged at around 41 seconds, for those (62) who kept looking until they found the right instruction (checking local council website…etc), it took on average 2 minutes and 37 seconds.'

Okay. But there's one huge flaw here. Remember Brits Are Spending 54 Hours A YEAR Trying to Recycle - not a single person said they do this. And even if they did try to look up the symbols, who would do it for every item in their shop every time? Personally, I just follow my local authority guidance - I don't pay attention to the symbols at all, and I've never looked one up. Even if I did, say, look up four or five of them, we're talking ten minutes, not 54 hours.

So, yes, there's a sensible message here. Many of those symbols are pointless. Maybe we could come up with a more intuitive set. But for goodness sake, people, please don't use horribly distorted statistics to try to make the point. (Oh, and I'd rather not be called a 'Brit' - but that may be just me.)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more