Sounds to me like there ought to be a MOOP cleanup deposit charged upfront, that only gets returned after this inspection. If the cleanup crew has to clean your site, you forfeit part or all of your deposit. Repeat offenders get charged increased deposits each time. Repeat inoffenders(?) get their deposit reduced.

This would lead to less compliance.

There are lots of people out there who would happily pay fines or not get deposits back if they didn't have to do the less glamorous parts of the event. You have to take something away that they actually care about.

If a camp does a really bad job at moop cleanup, Burning Man organization talks to leads to understand what happened. Frequently what they will take away is the camp's placement in the event, or sometimes even the ability to attend the event as that camp at all.

For reference: I am one of the leads for a fairly large and famous Burning Man camp. We camp on Esplanade most years. We do exactly what you proposed: We have deposits, and the more people put into the camp before, during, and after the event, determines if we offer them a refund and an invitation to camp with us next year. One of the factors is if you help us during setup and strike.

An invitation to camp with us guarantees them a ticket at one of the cheaper tiers. We have plenty of campers that come in, pay the dues, do nothing for the camp, are generally useless during the event, and bail out leaving a huge mess.

Conversely, we have a very small (10-20%) team of highly dedicated individuals who stay past the event and pick every piece of string, fuzz, fluff, lag bolt, rebar, and debris out of the dust and take it out. These people get nearly their entire camp dues back. If they attend next year, the social capital that they've built doing so compounds into them becoming increasingly popular and famous on Playa.

If there's one thing that Burning Man has taught me, it is that very few people are motivated by financial incentive. If you really want to motivate someone, figure out what they genuinely desire. It's rarely money.

Your claim is backed by psychology research. The most well known study is the "Israeli Nursery" one where a fine was introduced based on how late you were to pick up your kid.

Parents started treating "x shekel fine for y minutes late" as "buy an extra y minutes for only x shekels!".

I don't think it would work here.

Some camp leaders spend famously x m$+ just to bring their art to the playa. They wouldn't care about some fine.

Similarly the fine would make it impossible for others to stay after.

This is one event that somehow resisted economic behavior IMO

I wonder how well that replicates between different cultures with different attitudes about money.

Would it though? It seems like it could work, even if people opt to "not comply" aka pay the fine.

Charge $1,000 fee per acre (eyeballing it, that seems reasonable). There are people who will clean an acre to be spotless for $500: not bad for a day of honest, actually contributing to the environment, outdoor work!

If I'm missing something and it actually costs more than I know, raise it to $2,000. If heavy trash needs to be removed also, charge that too, by weight.

And if you don't pay, you're banned.

It's worth a try if you ask me.

It wouldn't really work because BM is a highly dynamic system with multiple variables that resists simple solutions.

  - The site conditions and trends of the day changes amount of moop per year
  - Some people dump their trash on other people's campsites
  - Wind carries moop onto campsites that already cleaned
  - Complaints about "unfair" deposit revocation would cause strife in the community
  - 10k attendees make <$50k/yr but must pay full price; doubling the price is a huge burden, even if temporary
  - Everybody already cleans as much as they're willing to clean
  - Rich people will all moop if they think they can pay to be exempted.
    They don't mind being banned because the event doesn't matter to them, it's just a party
  - There aren't many people who can/will stay for weeks after the burn, even if you paid them
  - The risk of increased moop increases risk that the event becomes banned
So basically it would result in more moop, would make people angry, would make it harder for poor people to attend, and would risk the status of the burn. Current system is working, no need to introduce additional downsides.

Depends on the outcome you want. I'd easily pay $$ to not have to do shit at BM but I'd not really like what that would do to the event.

Probably the closest example is if you ever read freakonomics introducing a late fee for parents picking up their child late from daycare increase late pickups.

https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-t...

Like many other financially-backed initiatives, it's been investigated. Implementation is extremely hard, and would lead to an enormous shift in the very-established culture of volunteering.

> Would it though?

Rather than immediately shoot down your idea, let's talk about logistically implementing this:

1. Cleaning/non-compliance is already fined, if it's not cleaned properly or in a timely manner. This is serious waste like blackwater spills ($500+).

2. This would impact the the self-reliance, decommodification, and leave no trace principles. Burners don't need to be expected to clean up after themselves, they can pay someone else to do it. Yes, lots of wealthy burners would do this.

3. We'd need to set up a system of accountability. Sure, we can create a new department within the org, The Waste Accountability Department. Who do we charge for the bike graveyards (https://imgur.com/a/PolJDcI)? These are bikes that get abandoned in large clusters at the end of the event. Do they get assigned to whichever camp space they end up near? Do we start to add in plenty of surveillance (human or tech-based) to see which burner left their bike? Do we add in facial or other recognition to make sure we fine the right person? 3a. Currently bike graveyards are handled by nonprofits and volunteer orgs that take those bikes, fix them, and donate them to kids in Nevada. If we continue that program, do we pay them for taking the bikes? Do we need to appraise bikes based on their value, or do some other system of cost to repair vs value? Do we just sell blocks of "1000 lbs of bike"?

4. A core element of burning man, as mentioned in 2. is "Decommodification". This would commodify cleanup, and there are loads of first and second year burners who would absolutely pay someone $500/$1000 to clean their plot. Accountability here gets hard, as the people who are willing to pay are also the people who are unlikely to verify the quality of work. There are loads of people who would prey on burners in a rush to get out, pocket the $500, and walk off. Accountability and prosecution here, again, gets hard. The decommodification principle prevents this.

5. Who would issue the fine? Burning Man is a non-profit, the fine would require legal enforcement, collections or some other method to threaten people into paying. It would also require accounting for where that money goes and how it is used. Bureau of Land Management? They already do issue fines for blackwater spills and other serious environmental hazards (see 1).

6. Currently cleanup is handled by the Department of Public Works and Playa Resto. Both are volunteer-driven. Once we start paying people to clean up, why aren't we paying the people who deploy the porto-potties, make the streets, maintain the vehicles, and operate the core infrastructure? DPW spends 3-6 months before the event preparing the site for the event.

As I hope this demonstrates, it's not as simple as just having a group of people you can pay to clean up. There's a lot of logistical challenges, not to mention a pretty big shift in the culture.

I vote we stick with making people clean up after themselves, independent of their ability to pay.

This results in affluent people leaving all of their moop because they don't care about the deposit, which creates so much trash it requires a lot more staff and time to clean up. Existing system works: you clean up your moop because you're a good community member, shamed on Reddit if you don't, and if you're a problem multiple times, out you go.

> ...affluent people leaving all of their moop because they don't care about the deposit

This is why I suggested an increasing deposit for repeat offenders. Leave a huge pile of trash? Next year's deposit is $100k. Do it several years in a row? $10MM deposit.

This is how camps known as "Plug n Plays" work. Charge exorbitant camp dues, provide everything for your campers, and let them lead the most privileged lifestyle out there.

Many camps did this, and were actually turning a profit at Burning Man by taking advantage of the community of volunteers.

A few years ago the Burning Man organization put a stop to this by decreasing or eliminating camps considered to be Luxury or Plug N Play. Not just because they were antithetical to the event, but because they became famous for a slew of problems.

White Ocean is one of the more famous camps in this domain. A luxury camp that charged exorbitant fees for extremely wealthy individuals to come and party without any responsibility. They had loads of sexual assaults, dosing incidents, and campers generally being shitty people. The leads also refused to pay the hired help. This led to a now-infamous vandalism incident.

White Ocean basically has a permanent ban on attending now.

You cannot incentivize people out there with money. You have to take something away that they actually care about.

Seems likely this would result in a lot of disputes over windblown debris and neighbors dumping their stuff on your spot after you leave.

This is definitely a concern. We've pretty much always been green, but it's hard to police after you leave, and usually we're gone before Temple Burn. (One year two of our camp mates stayed for Temple Burn and they ended up having to pack out two extra bikes that got dumped, in addition to having to deal with multiple people trying to camp in our empty spot. Maybe those people would've been fine, but given that they didn't understand the open camping situation, I'm unsure they understood LNT either.)

If people pay for something, they feel entitled to take advantage of it. I've literally seen people fail to clean up after themselves and explain it as "that's what janitors are paid for".

Requiring a clean-up deposit up front will encourage people who were already inclined to clean up to do so, and encourage people disinclined to do so to leave trash behind.

The communal honor / shame culture that is in place is much more effective- people tend to care more about their reputation than they do money they've already spent.

This penalizes honest mistakes, or moop from prior years resurfacing, or wind blowing trash into camp, or any number of things that are outside of a given camp's control

The moop map, and community holding itself accountable, seems to be a decently functioning system.

Not to mention the administrative overhead, at the org level and at the camp level.

Frankly being a camp of 100+ people, not just taking dues but also handling this Deposit, and distributing the cost fairly?

Running a camp is enough of a pain in the ass without adding on this kind of thing.

Monetary incentive systems like what you're suggesting are just a way of enforcing culture. If culture spreads organically, why bother with the overhead of bringing money into the picture?

There's actually research that making people pay for noncompliance (either upfront or post-factum) leads to less compliance, because people that can afford it treat it as a service. And giving that these events are visited by literally billionaires and a lot of affluent SV tech folks, making it a pay service would bury the volunteers under the mountain of trash. If the rules are "you MUST clean up", you get some trash slipping by. But if the rules are changed to "you clean up, or you pay a small fee and don't worry about it" - the amount of things to clean up would raise exponentially, unless you make the deposit so high the vast majority of people can't afford it - which would kill the event completely.

[deleted]