• The way many cities are currently designed makes sustainable behavior difficult, but reducing friction through smarter urban design can make eco-friendly choices the easy, automatic default.
• By integrating sustainability into city design through transit-oriented development, congestion pricing, and reallocated road space, cities can make public transit and active transport the effortless alternative to driving.
• Smart bins, visible infrastructure, and circular city design make sustainable waste disposal a no-brainer, closing resource loops and turning recycling and reuse into automatic urban behaviors.

Although we like to think of ourselves as autonomous beings, our choices aren’t made in a vacuum. The way that we behave is heavily influenced by the physical and social environments that we live in. Sustainable behaviors are often the hardest habits to develop: it’s easier (and seen as safer) to drive your car, difficult to properly dispose of waste, and often “too expensive” to buy sustainably. 

This friction leads to an intention-action gap in sustainable behaviors—the gap between what we say we will do and what behaviors we actually exhibit. According to a 2020 GlobeScan survey across 27 countries, 50% of people have a strong desire to change their lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly, but only 25% reported that they had actually modified their consumption behavior.¹ 

Often, sustainability initiatives focus on individual actions, requiring people to exert enough willpower to make the right choice. While individual motivation is crucial, the intention-action gap shows us that it’s not enough. Sustainable campaigns must be paired with intelligently designed cities that make sustainable behavior effortless. By building infrastructure that encourages pro-environmental behaviors, friction is reduced, and these behaviors become automatically ingrained in our daily routines.

The way that many cities are currently designed makes cars the most convenient mode of transportation. They are often faster and more comfortable, as cities have prioritized building highways, sometimes even running through neighborhoods or ripping up tram lines. 

Compared to public transportation, cars allow people to get from point A to point B without much extra time spent reaching their destination. Alternatively, public transportation has been reported to involve a fixed time cost of approximately 16-20 minutes, regardless of the length of someone’s journey. That’s because of the time spent walking to the pickup point, waiting, and walking from your stop to your final destination.² This fixed time increases in some cities where there are limited public transit options, or where stops are few and far between. However, cars may just be perceived as a faster method due to the illusion of control, even though traffic jams, accidents, and limited parking spots can all increase travel time.

Driving is often safer than cycling in cities that lack sufficient cycling infrastructure. In many metropolitan cities, bikes must share the road with cars, which can result in collisions. Some cities have even removed bike lanes as a means to reduce congestion, prompting backlash. Data shows why this move is a mistake: while a single lane of private motor-vehicle traffic has a capacity of between 600 and 900 vehicles per hour, representing between 600 and 1,800 people, a two-way protected bike lane has a capacity of 7,500 people per hour. Cycling could be a faster way to travel if cities designed infrastructure accordingly.³

Our overreliance on personal vehicles results in greenhouse gas emissions that harm the planet. According to a report from the European Environment Agency, transport was responsible for 25% of the EU’s total CO2 emissions in 2019, of which 60.6% came from cars. Similar statistics that show the cost of convenience can be found worldwide.⁴

Many countries are starting to implement mandates to eliminate cars that use petrol in favor of electric cars. While this has caused electric vehicle sales to triple between 2017 and 2020, electric cars still have an environmental impact.⁵ The production, operation, maintenance, and end-of-life of a vehicle contribute to carbon emissions, while tire wear leads to microplastic pollution. For greater impact, governments should focus on promoting more pro-social transport modes, such as public transit, biking, or walking. 

However, current campaigns focus on motivating people through pro-environmental messages, ignoring the many barriers that prevent people from using public transit or cycling. Insufficient infrastructure results in driving being the default, as it requires the least amount of effort. Once a habit is formed, it’s very difficult to break due to status quo bias. To actually change the way people move through cities, other modes of transportation must become easy and rewarding to choose.

To reduce the use of personal vehicles and promote other forms of behavior, cities and policies must be designed in a way that makes them the easy, default choice.

Reducing Friction for Sustainable Options

One of the barriers to regularly using public transit is the extra time it takes to travel from your home to a station or stop, and from the arrival station to your final destination. Urban planners should prioritize transit-oriented development to ensure that housing, offices, and services are clustered near stations to reduce trip distance. Instead of trying to extend transit options after an area is developed, building a station first can drive development. For example, in 2004, Washington, D.C. built a new transit station on an existing metro line. Although this cost the city more than 100 million dollars, it led to commercial office space development, residential towers, hotels, and retail spaces—all told, over 3 billion dollars in private investment.⁶

Cities can also create policies mandating that any new developments abide by “green design” guidelines, such as having to create dedicated bus and cycling lanes, incorporate electric vehicle charging in parking spaces, or designate urban growth boundaries. Policies like these place geographic limitations on urban development, forcing density and mixed-use development. In turn, these boundaries make public transit, cycling, or walking easier and faster forms of transit. 

While integrating sustainability in urban planning from the get-go is the most effective way to make alternate forms of transport the default, there are still ways to shift defaults in existing urban developments. Many people rely on navigation apps like Google Maps or Apple Maps to find the best route. In 2024, Google Maps designed a new feature that prompts users to consider an alternative form of transport, such as walking or taking public transit, if the travel time is comparable to driving. This small prompt breaks the flow of someone’s habitual decision-making, compelling them to consider something out of the norm at the point of decision. Urban planners can work with tech companies like Google to find other ways to nudge people away from driving and towards more sustainable forms of transport.⁷

Introducing Frictions for Personal Vehicle Use

Sometimes, it’s easier and/or cheaper for cities to introduce frictions for unsustainable options. While electric vehicle policies or green design guidelines are useful, it can take years to shift behavior. Alternatively, introducing costs related to personal vehicle use can have an immediate effect. Due to loss aversion, people are resistant to behaviors that result in a loss, especially when it comes to money. 

Congestion pricing, which charges personal vehicle users when they drive through busy areas during peak hours, makes driving less appealing. Congestion pricing can also improve the public transit and cycling experience. When roads are less busy, buses can travel faster and are less likely to encounter delays, while cyclists are safer on less congested roads. 

Stockholm implemented congestion pricing in 2007, leading to a 22% reduction in traffic over the next decade even as the population grew. The city allocated the revenue generated through congestion pricing towards public transit improvements, simultaneously making more sustainable modes of transport more appealing.⁸ Milan has similarly introduced congestion pricing in 2012, as well as higher on-street parking fees, to promote sustainable transport options. When congestion pricing was extended to early evenings, it led to a 12% increase in bike-sharing use.⁹ 

However, some people argue that congestion pricing can create inequalities in transportation, allowing wealthier people to absorb the extra cost while low-income individuals are forced to shift their behavior.¹⁰ To prevent exacerbating inequalities, it’s important that congestion pricing is paired with investment in other modes of transportation to ensure that sustainable alternatives are accessible, affordable, and efficient for everyone. 

Reallocating Road Space 

The design of most city infrastructure makes driving the more convenient option, as most road space is allocated to vehicles. If more space were provided for cycling and walking, we would see these options grow in popularity. 

St. Denis Street in Montreal initially allocated 70% of the space for drivers and 30% for people who walk or bike. In 2020, the road was changed to provide walkers and cyclists with 69% of the road, and drivers only 31%. This increased pedestrian traffic by 9%, and bicycle traffic by a staggering 248% between 2018 and 2021.¹¹

Not only did this help reduce the number of vehicles on the road, but it also had a positive impact on the economy. While many people argue that motorized traffic is a driving force of economic activity, the redesign led to a 10% increase in commercial occupancy on the street, which was vital to boosting the economy following the COVID-19 pandemic.¹¹

It’s important, however, that people don’t feel that governments and authorities are punishing drivers, as this can lead them to rebel against other forms of transportation. Moreover, avoiding a punitive tone can help people feel more comfortable with the money governments are investing in bicycle infrastructure. Copenhagen provides a strong case study for how to effectively communicate change. Instead of focusing on the environmental impact of cars, it focused on the benefits of cycling, including health benefits, speed, and the net benefit to society for each kilometer cycled.¹² 

When cities make public transit, cycling, and walking the most convenient, affordable, and rewarding options, behavior follows naturally. By combining forward-looking infrastructure (like transit-oriented development) with smart policy levers (like congestion pricing) and equitable design (like reallocated road space), cities can turn sustainability from an effort into an instinct. 

Modern society is built around consumption. It is a primary driver of the economy, where consumerism has become a symbol of identity, status, and happiness. The more you own, the richer and happier you are perceived to be. Industrial and tech advancements, as well as international trade, have turned things that were once considered “luxuries,” such as electronics, into everyday products. Consumption has also become effortless—while previously, you had to physically visit a store to buy groceries, get take-out, or purchase a product, all of that can now be done online.

Our consumer society has led to a continuous cycle of production, consumption, and waste. Since 2016, cities worldwide have generated over 2 billion tons of solid waste per year. As the population grows and urbanization increases, this figure is estimated to reach 3.4 billion tons annually by 2050.¹³ Waste is responsible for 20% of human-caused methane emissions, which has disastrous consequences on our environment.¹⁴ 

Cities are designed around the consumption of products that are meant to be replaced, not reused, which makes disposal the default. While some businesses are trying to do their part to offer consumers more sustainable options—such as cafes using compostable cups—cities aren’t designed to make proper disposal seamless. There are limited, or poorly designed, recycling and compost bins. While in rural areas, people are used to bringing waste to a depot or collection point, urban dwellers are not accustomed to this behavior.¹⁵ Small inconveniences like having to walk further or spend time determining which bin to throw their waste in are enough to deter people from proper disposal. 

In part, this is due to present bias and salience bias. People tend to give stronger weight to visible, immediate benefits, like convenience, than the long-term, invisible benefits of sustainable waste management. Additionally, the effects of improper waste management are often invisible, making it difficult for people to understand how their behavior is linked to environmental degradation. After people throw something away, they rarely see where their waste ends up. Trash ends up in landfills that are often on city outskirts. This psychological distance is an obstacle to sustainable behaviors, leading to an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. Moreover, the transport of waste has significant costs for cities. For example, it costs more than $1,000 a ton to collect, transport, and dispose of organic waste. As trucks are using fuel to complete these journeys, even proper collection is harmful for the environment.¹⁶ 

While some cities have tried to introduce unit pricing on waste disposal to encourage people to minimize their waste, this often indirectly encourages illegal dumping.¹⁵ There are perceived access barriers to proper waste disposal. In a survey in Ontario, 48% of urban respondents said they “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with the statement that they know where to take waste that is not collected as part of their city’s recycling or garbage service. Additionally, only 40% of respondents said they “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that there are an adequate number of drop-off or collection points for waste in their city.¹⁵ 

Amazon Prime delivery is a staggering example of how our prioritization of convenience is increasing waste. Members can take advantage of same- or next-day delivery for most items at no extra cost. This often means that items are packaged individually, so that available items arrive quickly. Moreover, the packaging is often larger than it needs to be. This is because warehouses prioritize speed. If they are out of a smaller size, they package the item in the next size up. When people shop in stores, there’s no need to package items. E-commerce produces 4.5 times more packaging than brick-and-mortar purchases.¹⁷ Amazon alone generated 599 million pounds of plastic packaging waste in 2020, a 29% increase from the previous year. Amazon’s plastic film packaging is often difficult to recycle and not accepted at most curbside recycling programs, which means this waste ends up in landfills, contributing to pollution on land and in our oceans.¹⁸ 

Despite widespread awareness of these impacts, the benefits of convenience remain a powerful temptation, even for eco-conscious consumers. Real change requires designing cities and systems that make sustainable behavior the easy, default choice. Proper infrastructure, strategic nudges, and circular system design can shift behavior, making reuse and proper waste disposal the norm rather than the exception.

As our physical environment strongly shapes behavior, if sustainable waste disposal management options are made visible, accessible, and frictionless, sustainable behavior becomes automatic. 

Accessible and Well-Designed Disposal Points

Recycling, compost, and general waste bins must be abundant, clearly marked, and located where people naturally pass. When we are at home, we’re more likely to properly dispose of waste, as most buildings have designated rooms or chute systems that make it easy. These same principles should be applied in public spaces as well as workplaces. A UK study found that only 17% of people recycle at their workplace, compared to 53% who recycle at home.¹⁹ Bins should be placed at regular intervals along high-traffic areas, such as sidewalks, transit stations, parks, and office buildings. To make them highly visible, bright color-coded bins can be used (for example, green for compost and blue for recycling), which will also help to make disposal intuitive and reduce cognitive effort. 

Even with proper infrastructure, people often lack the knowledge of how to categorize their waste. In a U.S. Survey, 62% of respondents said they worry that a lack of knowledge causes them to recycle incorrectly.²⁰ Technology can be leveraged to make it easy for people to sort their waste. In Toronto, the TOwaste app has been designed that provides users with a “waste wizard.” People can type in the name of their product and get information on what kind of waste it is and which bin it should be placed in. This reduces the cognitive effort required, which makes the behavior easier.

Even better, cities can take the responsibility of waste sorting away from the consumer. Smart bins, which are equipped with sensors and AI tools, can improve waste management and recycling efforts. Instead of requiring multiple bins for waste, recycling, and compost, a smart bin combines them all into one. When an item is disposed of, its sensors help to analyze the type of waste and sort it accordingly. If it’s unable to identify an item, it can prompt the user to select it on a touchscreen.²¹ 

Other forms of smart bins use cameras to help people identify the waste category. People hold their item up to the camera, and a screen informs them of which bin to place it in. While this does involve an extra step, it provides people with knowledge on how to properly dispose of their waste even when this type of technology is not available. 

Circular Cities

Beyond making waste disposal easier, it’s also possible to design cities in ways that will reduce waste. Currently, most urban systems follow a linear system where we produce, use, and dispose. In a circular economy model, materials, energy, and resources are reused, recycled, or repurposed.

To reduce consumption, cities can introduce resource-sharing or product-as-a-service models. For example, Piiroinen, a company from Finland, offers subcontracting services for corporations. Clients can lease furniture and other equipment tailored to their needs instead of purchasing it. The equipment is returned when no longer needed and can then be leased to a new customer.²²

To improve waste management, a closed-loop system can redirect waste for another purpose. For example, instead of driving organic waste to faraway processing facilities, food scraps can be turned into compost and used for community gardens and parks. Or, it can be incinerated in high-efficiency facilities to produce energy. In Copenhagen, food waste is converted into biogas, a natural gas that can be used for electricity and heat production.²³

In a contest for architects, designers, and engineers to propose innovative skyscraper designs that encourage sustainability, an entry called Architrash suggested using built-in public transportation infrastructure to better dispose of waste and reduce the use of garbage trucks. In their proposal, they outlined that waste could be brought to vertical structures using subway freight cars. They also suggested that building residents could be employed at studios to create new products from the collected materials, encouraging repurposing.²⁴ 

When cities integrate smart infrastructure, behavioral nudges, and circular design, sustainability stops being a choice and becomes a built-in part of daily life. By making waste disposal effortless, reusing materials locally, and designing systems that close resource loops, urban environments can automatically guide residents toward environmentally responsible behavior.

Many opportunities highlighted in this article require deep collaboration and cooperation from governments, city designers, and urban residents. When each stakeholder has different priorities, it can be challenging to align on an approach, even when moving towards a more sustainable society is of the utmost importance. At the same time, it’s crucial that any efforts to shape urban choice environments respect individual autonomy—ensuring that nudges or design interventions genuinely serve the public good, rather than limiting choice.

Additionally, infrastructure changes and improvements, such as concentrating developments around public transit stations or installing smart bins, can often represent a high upfront cost. Other opportunities, like designing circular cities, can be expensive to maintain. However, we’ve also shown that many of these opportunities can drive economic growth. 

Despite these challenges, the potential benefits—environmental, social, and economic—make investing in sustainable urban systems a necessary and worthwhile endeavor.

Throughout this article, we’ve explored how flaws in urban city design often cause unsustainable behaviors—like driving personal vehicles, overconsumption, or improper waste management—to be the default. Humans tend to follow the path of least resistance, and behavioral barriers make sustainable options more difficult to choose. In order to shift behavior towards sustainability, it must become the automatic choice. 

Some of the opportunities explored are easy and quick to implement, such as reallocating road space to encourage bike use or leveraging tech to improve waste disposal. However, others require sustainability to be at the forefront of city design. Thankfully, most countries and authorities acknowledge the need to build more sustainable cities, and by leveraging behavioral science, they can find ways to reduce the frictions that prevent sustainable behavior and nudge people towards pro-environmental actions. 

At The Decision Lab, we specialize in applying behavioral science to complex urban challenges to help bring a sustainable future. Partner with us to transform your project into a model of sustainable innovation, where smart design drives pro-environmental behavior.

Consumer Perception of a Company’s Sustainable Practice Initiatives

The needle has shifted, and many consumers want to align their behavior, including their spending, with pro-environmental actions. In this study, we show how corporations that invest in renewable forms of energy appeal to the consumer. By demonstrating their sustainable intentions, consumers are more likely to think of the corporation positively. 

Fostering Sustainable Public Procurement

While consumers must do their part to adopt sustainable behaviors, they often take the lead from governments and other authorities. Governments spend billions of dollars on procuring goods and services as part of their operations. In this article, Maria Gheorghe explores the impact that affective commitment can have on sustainable public procurement for governments worldwide.

1. Smith, M. E. (2021, October 1). Bridging the sustainability intention-action gap: Overcoming barriers to adoption of greener products and services. Kogan Page. https://www.koganpage.com/bridging-the-sustainability-intention-action-gap-overcoming-barriers-to-adoption-of-greener-products-and-services
2. Caplan, B. (2023, July 24). Cars could be even more convenient. Bet On It. https://www.betonit.ai/p/cars-could-be-even-more-convenient
3. Noakes, T. C. (2023, May 24). Debunking three big myths about bike lanes. TVO. https://www.tvo.org/article/debunking-three-big-myths-about-bike-lanes
4. European Parliament. (2019, March 13). CO₂ emissions from cars: Facts and figures (infographics). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20190313STO31218/co2-emissions-from-cars-facts-and-figures-infographics
5. Miner, P., Smith, B. M., Jani, A., McNeill, G., & Gathorne-Hardy, A. (2024). Car harm: A global review of automobility's harm to people and the environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 115, 103817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.103817
6. MacCleery, R., & Tarr, J. (2012, February 29). NoMa: The neighborhood that transit built. Urban Land Magazine. https://urbanland.uli.org/infrastructure‑transit/noma‑the‑neighborhood‑that‑transit‑built/
7. Byers, J. (2024, April 17). Find more sustainable ways to get around, with new Maps and Search updates. Google Blog. https://blog.google/products/search/find-more-sustainable-ways-to-get-around-with-new-maps-and-search-updates/
8. San Francisco County Transportation Authority. (2020, February 13). Congestion pricing case studies [PDF]. https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Congestion-Pricing-Case-Studies_2020-02-13.pdf
9. Cornago, E., A. Dimitropoulos and W. Oueslati (2019), “Evaluating the Impact of Urban Road Pricing on the Use of Green Transport Modes: The Case of Milan”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 143, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddaa6b25-en.
10. Fayyad, A. (2025, March 2). Congestion pricing is good for low-income residents. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy/401265/trump-ends-congestion-pricing-low-income-commuters-public-transit
11. Chapalain, R. (2023, March 27). Saint-Denis Street Redevelopment: Stimulating the local economy through cycling and walking in Montreal, QC. Eco-Counter. https://www.eco-counter.com/blog/saint-denis-street-stimulating-local-economy-cycling-walking-montreal
12. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) & International Transport Forum (ITF). (2022). Urban planning and travel behaviour. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/af8fba1c-en
13. Anuardo, R. G., Espuny, M., Costa, A. C. F., & Oliveira, O. J. (2022). Toward a cleaner and more sustainable world: A framework to develop and improve waste management through organizations, governments, and academia. Heliyon, 8(4), e09225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09225
14. International Finance Corporation. (2024, April 26). The world has a waste problem. Here's how to fix it. IFC. https://www.ifc.org/en/blogs/2024/the-world-has-a-waste-problem
15. Lakhan, C. (2024). Understanding illegal dumping in Ontario: Drivers, barriers, and policy recommendations. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 20(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2024.20.3.0347
16. Quirk, V. (2018, November 16). How to design a city for waste: A Sidewalk Talk Q&A with historian and recycling guru Benjamin Miller on New York City’s “wasteful” past — and potential future. Sidewalk Talk. https://medium.com/sidewalk-talk/how-to-design-a-city-for-waste-6b87897649a1
17. Lindsay, K. (2024, April 23). Why your small goods come in gigantic boxes. BBC Worklife. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240415-why-your-small-goods-come-in-gigantic-boxes
18. Oceana. (2021, December 15). Exposed: Amazon’s enormous and rapidly growing plastic pollution problem. https://oceana.org/reports/amazon-report-2021/
19. Parsons, F. (2025, February 18). Nearly half of Brits have no idea how to recycle and 25% dread the testing chore – do you know the rules? The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/33432810/recyling-rules-brits-rubbish-waste
20. Waste360 Staff. (2019, April 23). Covanta survey: “Americans don’t know how to recycle.” Waste360. https://www.waste360.com/waste-recycling/covanta-survey-americans-dont-know-how-to-recycle
21. Lettieri, G. (2023, September 18). What are smart waste bins and how are they changing recycling? RTS. https://www.rts.com/blog/what-is-a-smart-waste-bin/
22. Sinervo, R. (Ed.). (2022). Sustainable growth with circular economy business models: A playbook for businesses. Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra. https://www.sitra.fi/app/uploads/2022/12/sitra_sustainable_growth_with_circular_economy_business_models.pdf
23. State of Green. (2022, October 7). Biogas from Copenhageners' food waste can now replace imported natural gas. https://stateofgreen.com/en/news/biogas-from-copenhageners-food-waste-can-now-replace-imported-natural-gas
24. Rosengren, C. (2016, November 21). 6 futuristic design concepts that could create a 'wasteless' society. Waste Dive. https://www.wastedive.com/news/6-futuristic-design-concepts-that-could-create-a-wasteless-society/430806/