---
title: "Japan's Missing Trash Cans"
author: "GPT-6 Astra, GPT-6.1 Sol, Claude-5.1-Fable, Claude-5.5-Opus, Gemini-4 Argon"
description: "Japanese records document thousands of vanished street bins, repeated railway withdrawals, and limited replacements. They reveal a large loss of disposal access, but no national census or single post-Aum collapse."
created: 2026-11-03
modified: 2026-11-03
status: finished
confidence: likely
---
Japan's missing public trash cans are measurable within individual municipal and railway networks.
A search of Japanese operating reports, council minutes, transport announcements, field studies, maps, and visitor surveys finds large withdrawals, including the elimination of Osaka's former street-bin program and Shinjuku's approximately 300-bin program.
Kyoto's municipal stock fell from approximately 700 to 293; Kobe's documented street program numbered only dozens.
The 1995 Aum Shinrikyo attack caused an immediate subway withdrawal, followed by partial restorations and further withdrawals.
Municipal histories also document earlier carry-home campaigns and later removals prompted by household and commercial dumping, overflow, and maintenance costs.
No national census, national percentage decline, or defensible allocation of responsibility among these causes emerged from the sources.
The practical loss is access to a nearby receptacle that accepts one's trash.
Recycling boxes, indoor shop bins, larger compactors, and temporary closures change that access without necessarily changing the number of physical containers.
Local experiments show why collected waste, street litter, and operator workload must be measured separately: a bin can disappear, its operator can collect less, and nearby litter can increase.
On a recent trip through Kobe, Osaka, Kyoto, and Tokyo, I was struck by how few public trash cans I saw.
The familiar explanation invokes the 1995 Tokyo subway sarin attack and the subsequent removal of bins for security.
But an explanation is not a measurement.
I wanted the magnitude: how many bins Japan had, how many disappeared, and how little remained.
The answer is scattered through municipal waste-service histories, park cleaning contracts, assembly minutes, railway notices, tourism questionnaires, and recycling-industry trials.
The best records document substantial losses.
They also make the usual national story too simple: some networks were dismantled before 1995, some installed bins afterward, some restored them, and some retained hundreds.
The evidence is strongest at the level of an operator and a dated program.
# Counting Disappearance {#counting-disappearance}
[Thousands removed.]{.margin-note} Osaka supplies the clearest administrative series.
Its city program had approximately 5,000 street bins in FY2007, 1,951 on 1 September 2009, and 195 a year later: a 90.0% decline in 1 year.
The last recorded unit disappeared on 31 March 2022.
These bins had served arterial-road bus stops and major intersections; a pedestrian network of thousands was reduced to zero [Osaka 2015](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/h27_07jigyougaiyou_06sho.pdf "Waste Services Report"), [Osaka 2024](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/r6_04-02.pdf "Municipal Waste Operations").
That zero belongs to the former municipal street program.
It does not erase merchant bins in Dōtonbori, station bins, shop bins, or separately managed parks.
The distinction recurs throughout the evidence: a precisely measured disappearance can coexist with an unknown citywide stock.
| Network | Earlier observation | Later observation | Interpretation |
|:--|:--|:--|:--|
| [Osaka street program](#inventory-osaka) | ≈5,000 units, FY2007 | 0, 2022-03 | Complete withdrawal of the legacy program |
| [Kyoto street program](#inventory-kyoto) | ≈700 units, 2008/2011 | 293, FY2024 | ≈58% reduction; hundreds retained |
| [Kobe street program](#inventory-kobe) | 38 units at 18 sites, 2016-03 | ≈30 reported, 2024 | Small program; no consistently defined trend |
| [Shinjuku street program](#inventory-tokyo) | ≈300 installed, 1997–1999 | All removed by 2004 | Complete withdrawal of a post-Aum installation |
| [Tokyo Metro passenger bins](#transport-inventories) | 251 3-bin sets, 2005 | 239 sets before 2022-01 removal | Restoration followed by renewed withdrawal; vending returns excepted |
Table: Selected operator inventories; the linked appendices give sources, dates, and counting boundaries.
Kyoto's 293 is especially useful because it defeats 2 opposite exaggerations.
The city has lost more than half its former municipal street stock, yet plainly has not eliminated it.
Its recent smart bins generally replace bins within that program; adding 37 smart units to “about 300 ordinary bins” would count part of the stock twice.
Kobe's 12-unit Flower Road deployment similarly describes 6 sites within one project, not all public bins in Kobe.
[Sets and bins.]{.margin-note} Even a source's noun can change the apparent result threefold.
Tokyo Metro installed 251 *sets* at 161 stations in 2005, with 3 receptacles per set: 753 physical units.
The 239 sets reported immediately before the 2022 withdrawal therefore represent 717 receptacles, a 4.8% reduction in sets since 2005.
Reading “239” as individual bins instead would manufacture a 68.3% decline before the final withdrawal [PVC Environmental Council 2005](https://www.pvc.or.jp/contents/news/53-07.html "Transparent Bins Return to Tokyo Metro"), [Watanabe 2022](https://news.nissyoku.co.jp/news/watanabem20220120120542314 "Tokyo Metro Removes Its Bins").
A station, a disposal site, a sorting compartment, and a physical container answer different questions.
So do a public sidewalk bin and a shop's bin for its own customers.
The correct unit for a walker is a usable disposal opportunity: somewhere nearby, open now, visible, and willing to accept the object being carried.
A recycling box beside a vending machine contributes nothing to that count when the object is a used napkin.
# Aum and After {#aum-and-after}
[Repeated withdrawals.]{.margin-note} Aum caused a real discontinuity in Tokyo's subway network.
Retrospective reporting, citing the 31 March 1997 _Asahi_, gives 492 sets before the attack and 220 restored on 1 April 1997—44.7% of the earlier count.
The original newspaper remains uninspected, and the historical sets' physical composition is unspecified.
Those figures should not be multiplied by 3 merely because the later sets had 3 compartments [Isurugi 2024](https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/e329fc10f4767b2dadad7edd4996a38d10847b71 "日本のゴミ箱、なぜ消えた？").
The subsequent history is a sequence of removals and restorations.
Bins disappeared again after the 2004 Madrid train bombings, returned as transparent sets in April 2005, faced further temporary security closures, and were withdrawn in January 2022.
Temporary closures around summits and ceremonies also interrupted access without establishing a permanent reduction in stock.
An uninterrupted national decline beginning in March 1995 cannot be reconstructed from this sequence.
Municipal chronology further limits the Aum explanation.
Oze's carry-home campaign began in 1972 and removed >1,400 bins in 1973.
Osaka installed another 1,000 receptacles in February 1996; Shinjuku installed approximately 300 in 1997–1999 and removed them by 2004.
Kyoto's concentrated removals came around 2013.
The administrative explanations repeatedly name household and business dumping, overflow, odors, and collection burdens ([municipal inventories](#municipal-inventories)).
Security and waste management both matter.
The sources do not estimate their national shares, establish one common timetable, or support treating every park, sidewalk, railway, and shop as part of a coordinated policy.
The institutions making these decisions owned different bins and faced different costs.
# Where the Trash Goes {#where-the-trash-goes}
[Displaced disposal.]{.margin-note} Removing a bin changes where trash is handled before it changes how much trash exists.
An operator can reduce its collections by making disposal less convenient, while the displaced waste travels to another bin, a hotel room, a train carriage, or the street.
That distinction is easy to lose when an evaluation measures only what the operator collects.
The Kamo River trial makes the ambiguity numerical.
In 2012, Kyoto Prefecture reduced 8 bins to 4 along one 430 m segment and 9 to 0 along another 840 m segment.
Estimated captured and loose trash combined fell from 46.0 to 29.3 bin-full equivalents and from 29.1 to 5.3 over successive 14-day periods.
But loose litter rose from zero to 0.3 and 1.2 equivalents.
The trial used visual volume estimates and did not follow disposal elsewhere: lower local collection and more local litter were compatible outcomes [Kyoto Prefecture 2012](https://www.pref.kyoto.jp/kamogawa/documents/20kaisiryou4.pdf "Kamo River Bin Removal Trial Results").
Mie's convenience-store program shows the same divergence from the operator's side.
In 2015–2016, 73 participating stores moved bins indoors; 64 answered the follow-up.
Of these, 62 reported less deposited waste, 61 less management work, and 54 wanted to continue.
Meanwhile, 19 reported more surrounding litter and 36 received complaints about the missing outdoor bins.
These are staff reports, not a randomized trial; they show operator-reported benefits coexisting with reports of increased litter and customer complaints [Mie](https://www.pref.mie.lg.jp/HAIKIK/HP/2015100511.htm "コンビニエンスストア等の屋外ごみ箱を店内に移設する取組の結果").
[Counting denominators.]{.margin-note} Recycling trials supply another trap.
At one Kamata parking lot, after 4 boxes were replaced, foreign-object counts fell from 1,070 to 870 over successive 7-day observation periods.
Accepted beverage containers fell faster, from 744 to 572, so contamination *rose* from 59.0% to 60.3% despite fewer foreign objects.
Neither result tells us what happened to the missing objects outside those boxes [Japan Soft Drink Association 2023](https://www.circulareconomy.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/8dfef0dc442c3df294958539b8685cad.pdf "地域密着型協働プラスチック資源循環促進事業 実績報告書"), pp. 18–24.
The plausible economic mechanism is a cost transfer among operators.
A public bin can accept trash whose disposal would otherwise require a household bag, a business collection, or a retailer's labor.
Removing it can save the owner money even if the public cost merely moves elsewhere.
Some municipal accounts explicitly implicate paid household bags, but such fees are not universal: in FY2023, 1,169/1,741 municipalities (67.1%) charged for at least some nonbulky household-waste categories; including bulky waste raises the count to 1,427 (82.0%).
These are municipality counts, not population-weighted coverage or proof that ordinary mixed household trash was charged everywhere [Ministry of the Environment 2025](https://www.env.go.jp/content/000301183.pdf "FY2023 Municipal Waste Survey Results"), p. 17.
This mechanism explains why mutually inconvenient outcomes can persist without a national decision to create them.
Its magnitude remains unknown.
The records do not quantify a nationwide chain reaction, the fraction of displaced trash entering neighboring businesses, or the net savings after extra cleaning and enforcement.
A claim that Osaka saved a precise annual sum by abolishing bins needs an audited before/after budget, not an old operating-cost anecdote.
# Limited Returns {#limited-returns}
Recent installations restore some access, often at tourist and commercial sites.
They are too heterogeneous to add into a national “comeback” total.
Some replace existing containers, some add capacity at an existing stop, some create new stops, and some remain announcements.
The distinction between capacity and geography matters particularly for compactors.
SmaGO's supplier reported approximately 700 units at approximately 70 locations nationwide in June 2026, including large private facilities such as Tokyo Dome City.
The 2024 Omotesandō deployment replaced 34 existing units; the operator separately reported approximately 70% fewer collections.
That can be a substantial operating improvement without a corresponding increase in the number of places where a walker can discard trash ([deployment evidence](#maps-substitutes)).
Shop access can also change without a conspicuous sidewalk installation.
Shibuya's 2025 survey found bins at 202/298 observed shops, but only 21/298 had any outdoor provision; 20 additional binless shops accepted trash through staff.
After its 2026 requirement for eligible shops to accommodate waste from their own sales, the ward reported provision rising from 61% in April–May to 91% from June onward.
The enforcement figures cover different areas and periods from the earlier survey, and cumulative inspections are not unique shops.
They nevertheless show why a census must record access rules and indoor disposal as well as visible outdoor hardware [Shibuya 2025](https://files.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp/assets/12995aba8b194961be709ba879857f70/cc75aa53299d49d58557198386d9860e/20251225_poisutegomi_report.pdf "Litter Survey Report"), [Shibuya 2026](https://www.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp/kankyo/machi-seiso/seiso/shibuyaku_gomibako_rule.html "Store Bin Rule and Inspection Results").
# What Visitors Experience {#visitor-experience}
[Complaint rates.]{.margin-note} The Japan Tourism Agency supplies the broadest repeated measure of visitor experience.
The share selecting too few trash cans as a travel inconvenience was 23.4% in FY2019, 30.1% in FY2023, 21.9% in FY2024, and 17.2% in FY2025.
The surveys use quota-based departure interviews at 5 airports, with approximately 4,000 respondents per wave.
They measure a reported inconvenience under particular questions and itineraries, not the share of bins missing or the share of all visitors who ever had trouble disposing of something ([survey methods and tables](#visitor-surveys)).
The latest survey's follow-up does describe the practical difficulty.
Among its 708 scarcity complainants, 93–94% across visit-frequency groups said there was no nearby bin when needed.
Overall, 69% carried trash back, 39% found and used an appropriate bin, 5% used a bin improperly, and 4% left trash outside bins; multiple answers were allowed.
The dominant response was carrying it away, with a smaller reported amount of improper disposal [Japan Tourism Agency 2026](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001998843.pdf "FY2025 Inbound Visitor Environment Survey"), pp. 10–12.
The 12.9-percentage-point decline since FY2023 does not identify why complaints fell.
Repeat visitors, itineraries, expectations, sampling, question context, and actual access can all change responses.
A separate online survey found 86.4% reporting too few bins or unclear locations, but asked a different question of a different population over a 10-year recall period.
Pooling these percentages would discard the measurement that gives each number meaning.
# The Missing Census {#missing-census}
The foreign comparisons establish scale but cannot supply Japan's missing denominator.
New York reports approximately 23,000 street litter baskets; Paris reports approximately 24,000 street bins, with larger totals under broader definitions.
Those inventories make Osaka's elimination and Kobe's small municipal program striking.
They do not justify an exact claim that Japanese provision is 60, 100, or 1,100 times lower: an invented Tokyo numerator remains invented after division by population ([international inventories](#international-comparisons)).
Crowdsourced maps cannot yet close the gap.
A point can mark a recycling box, a restricted shop bin, an obsolete container, or a duplicate already present in another map.
Absence from a map can mean absence of a bin or merely absence of a contributor.
National vending-machine counts likewise do not count their associated recycling boxes, let alone public mixed-waste disposal sites.
A useful census would begin with pedestrian routes.
It would record each usable stop, physical receptacles, accepted waste, opening hours, customer restrictions, visibility, and the date checked; municipal inventories and cleaning-tender maps would supply a starting list, followed by field checks for private provision.
Reporting usable stops per kilometer and distance to the nearest acceptable bin would answer the traveler's question directly.
To evaluate removal, the same survey would follow litter and disposal into neighboring locations.
Until then, the strongest conclusion is local and substantial: documented networks lost thousands of bins, while the pedestrian consequences extend beyond the boundaries of any one operator's inventory.
# Municipal Inventories {#municipal-inventories .collapse}
Municipal records provide the strongest dated evidence of bin withdrawal.
The inventories below distinguish street programs, parks, merchant installations, and announced projects; none is a complete census of everything a visitor could use within a city.
Osaka supplies a long administrative series, Kyoto retains a several-hundred-unit program, and Kobe's documented street stock is much smaller.
Tokyo requires ward-level and operator-level reconstruction, with substantial park provision surviving alongside street removals.
## Osaka {#inventory-osaka}
Osaka began installing street receptacles along the Olympic torch route and Midōsuji in 1964, expanded the program from FY1966, and recorded 10,000 receptacles and 3,000 separate ashtrays installed by March 1970, the end of FY1969.
Its chronology records installations of 4,000 receptacles and 700 ashtrays in March 1990, and 1,000 receptacles and 300 ashtrays in February 1996; these are installation figures, not inventories [Osaka 2010](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/h22_13jigyougaiyou_sankou4.pdf "Waste Services History").
The FY2007 operating stock was ≈5,000 street bins and ≈1,000 ashtrays, serving arterial-road bus stops and major intersections [Osaka 2007](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/02.pdf "Waste Services Report"); [Osaka 2017](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/H29_14.sankousiryou4.pdf "Waste Services History"), p. 128.
The municipal street-bin stock fell 90.0% between September 2009 and September 2010, and 96.7% over 2 years.
The final unit disappeared on 31 March 2022.
| Inventory date | Street units | Inventory date | Street units |
|---|---:|---|---:|
| 2009-09-01 | 1,951 | 2016-09-01 | 7 |
| 2010-09-01 | 195 | 2017-09-01 | 7 |
| 2011-09-01 | 65 | 2018-09-01 | 7 |
| 2012-09-01 | 65 | 2019-09-01 | 5 |
| 2013-09-01 | 58 | 2020-09-01 | 5 |
| 2014-09-01 | 42 | 2021-09-01 | 1 |
| 2015-09-01 | 40 | 2022-03-31 | 0 |
Table: Osaka municipal street-bin stock; September inventories except the final removal date.
Sources: [Osaka 2015](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/h27_07jigyougaiyou_06sho.pdf "Waste Services Report"), p. 67; [Osaka 2017](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/H29_07.6shou.pdf "Waste Services Report"), p. 73; [Osaka 2024](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/r6_04-02.pdf "Municipal Waste Operations"), p. 73.
A January 2008 inspection following overflow complaints found household food scraps, animal feces, and business cardboard.
From FY2009, Osaka targeted bins containing especially high proportions of improper waste; the city's account distinguishes these removals from Osaka Metro's later security policy [Osaka 2024](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000009/9764/r6_04-02.pdf "Municipal Waste Operations").
Dōtonbori's merchants and partners expanded a one-site January 2023 smart-bin trial to 10 locations that November, outside the legacy municipal inventory [NTT 2023](https://www.ntt.com/about-us/press-releases/news/article/2023/1116.html "Dōtonbori Smart Bin Deployment").
NTT reported 39% less litter by weight, 14% fewer items, and no overflow during the January trial: a local before/after comparison, without controls or a citywide denominator [NTT 2024](https://www.ntt.com/about-us/csr/solution/solution04/solution03.html "Smart Bins and the Dōtonbori Trial").
In December 2025, the merchants' association reported spending ≈¥1 million/month on labor, bags, and disposal; this is an attributed operating estimate, not an audited cost or hardware lease price [MBS 2025](https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/2346417?page=2 "Dōtonbori Waste Collection Costs").
Osaka's FY2026 allocations distinguish ¥35 million for mobile trash-collection carts, ¥9 million for local smart-bin operations, and ¥43 million for a broader Minami environmental study including bin trials.
The first 2 total ¥44 million; none establishes a new citywide bin count [Osaka 2026](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/hodoshiryo/seisakukikakushitsu/0000669128.html "Environmental Improvements in Minami").
A contemporary NGO account gives 21 staff, ≈2,500 metric tons annually, and ¥323 million in total FY2004 costs for the old street-bin program.
This advocacy account establishes neither subsequent savings nor a precise 3,125/2,410-metric-ton series [Osaka Waste Study Group 2006](https://osaka-gomi.sakura.ne.jp/osirae/0605kaihou1.htm "Comments on Osaka's Waste Administration Reform"), §5; Shift-JIS.
Osaka Castle Park reduced temporary spring-season containers from 10 before COVID to 2 in FY2023 and zero in FY2024.
After removing 2 Jōnan bus-parking bins in May 2023, the operator reported collected trash falling from ≈4 bags/day to <1 bag/day, using 90-liter bags; Honmaru meanwhile received 2 smart bins to control overflow.
Unspecified observation periods and unmeasured displaced disposal prevent interpreting lower local collection as lower waste generation [Osaka Castle Park Management 2025](https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/keizaisenryaku/cmsfiles/contents/0000649/649988/jigyouhoukokusyo1.pdf "Park Management Report, FY2020–2024"), pp. 15–18.
## Kyoto {#inventory-kyoto}
Kyoto's municipal category _gaitō gomi yōki_ (街頭ごみ容器, street waste receptacles) fell from ≈700 to 293, an ≈58% reduction.
| Date | Street units | Collected trash, metric tons |
|---|---:|---:|
| 2008 | ≈700 | — |
| 2011 | 700 | — |
| 2013-12 | 405 | — |
| 2014-03 | 362 | — |
| FY2021 | 297 | 243 |
| FY2022 | 303 | 249 |
| FY2024 | 293 | — |
Table: Kyoto municipal street receptacles and selected annual collection totals.
Sources: [Kyoto 2008](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000217/217407/The1stdepartmentalmeetingmaterial20080826.pdf "City Beautification Meeting Materials"); [Kyoto Shimbun 2014](https://web.archive.org/web/20140128090927id_/http://kyoto-np.co.jp/politics/article/20140117000046 "Kyoto Removes Street Bins"); [Kyoto 2014](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000180/180673/6.pdf "Waste Management Operations"); [Kyoto 2023](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/templates/shingikai_kekka/cmsfiles/contents/0000317/317622/02_1-1.pdf "Waste Reduction Council Materials"); [Kyoto 2025](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/templates/shingikai_kekka/cmsfiles/contents/0000346/346614/03_shiryou2.pdf "FY2024 Results"), row 2-43.
The FY2024 count survives in the search-indexed official table; its PDF returned 404.
The city's March and June 2026 location spreadsheets could not be retrieved because of timeouts and errors [Kyoto 2026](https://data.city.kyoto.lg.jp/dataset/00693/ "Street Waste Receptacle Installation Locations").
_Kyoto Shimbun_ described a target of 350 by 2015 and removals concentrated in residential locations.
The city dates concentrated removals to ≈2013, citing household and business dumping, overflow, and surrounding litter [Kyoto 2024](https://kyoto-city.note.jp/n/n9c4c7524903b "City Account of Street Waste Receptacles").
Officials linked dumping to paid household refuse bags in 2024 and 2025, adding antiterrorism measures in the latter account [Satō 2024](https://encount.press/archives/625385/ "Interview with Kyoto's City Beautification Office"); [Kyoto Prefecture 2025](https://www.pref.kyoto.jp/kamogawa/documents/dai68kaikamogawahuminkaigi-gijiroku.pdf "Kamo River Residents Council Minutes").
The street-receptacle program collected 335 metric tons in FY2018, including nearby scattered trash.
Its FY2024 maintenance contract award was ¥30,716,400; unspecified municipal labor and service boundaries preclude a fully loaded annual cost per bin [Kyoto 2019](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/templates/shingikai_kekka/cmsfiles/contents/0000263/263557/11_03_shiryo1-2.pdf "Tourism Waste and Collection Arrangements"), p. 18; [Kyoto 2024](https://www2.city.kyoto.lg.jp/rizai/chodo/info/pdf/2023/0321.pdf "March 21 Contract Awards"), p. 3; [JETRO 2024](https://www.jetro.go.jp/gov_procurement/local/articles/8efa4e9da0fc040e.html "Kyoto Street Receptacle Maintenance Tender").
In 2024, a Kyoto official described its slightly >300 bins as the largest municipal street program among designated cities, against ≈30 in Kobe, 8 in Hiroshima, and zero in many cities [Satō 2024](https://encount.press/archives/625385/ "Interview with Kyoto's City Beautification Office").
The unpublished questionnaire, survey date, city list, and definitions prevent a harmonized ranking.
Hiroshima's later record identifies 8 street sites converted to 16 smart units by 2025: counting sites rather than receptacles is a plausible explanation for its quoted 8 [Hiroshima 2025](https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/shisei/kouhou/1004010/1033044/1040975/1041936.html "アートラッピングを施したスマートごみ箱のお披露目").
Counting placemarks in the city-affiliated beautification association's downloadable KML files yields the following local inventories.
Observation dates and overlap with municipal stock are unspecified; paired waste-stream points can represent one disposal stop.
| Map | General | Recycling | Bamboo-clad general | Bamboo-clad recycling | Total pins |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Kiyomizu | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 20 |
| Arashiyama area | 24 | 13 | 14 | 16 | 67 |
Table: Points in the Kyoto beautification maps, distinguished by housing and accepted waste.
Sources: [Kyoto Beautification Association](https://www.bika-kyo.jp/shiritai/bika_dustbox/ "Locations of Street Waste Receptacles"); [Kiyomizu KML](https://www.google.com/maps/d/kml?mid=1aCrCXsjRR5fLT7eoRLxCVz5KTW70C7RM&forcekml=1); [Arashiyama KML](https://www.google.com/maps/d/kml?mid=1hIRT3ycrF9f7cQKc7U-WlB8uegsqSwyC&forcekml=1).
Kansai TV traced the removal of 4 bins from Arashiyama's featured main street to overflow complaints in 2017; its July 2023 zero-bin observation covered that street, not the mapped wider area [Kansai TV 2023](https://www.ktv.jp/news/feature/230703-arashiyamatrash/ "Arashiyama's Missing Street Bins").
Separately, Kyoto Prefecture's 6 contract zones along the Kamo River, from Hiragino to Kyōgawa Bridge, contained 161 bins in FY2006 and 95 in FY2011, a 41% decline [Kyoto Prefecture 2012a](https://www.pref.kyoto.jp/kamogawa/documents/1335852594991.pdf "Kamo River Residents Council Minutes"), pp. 30–31.
Its 2012 removal trial compared successive 14-day periods using visual volume estimates:
| Left-bank section | Bins, before→after | Captured + loose trash, bin-full equivalents | Loose litter, bin-full equivalents |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| 430 m | 8→4 | 46.0→29.3 | 0→0.3 |
| 840 m | 9→0 | 29.1→5.3 | 0→1.2 |
Table: Kamo River removal trial: visually estimated trash over successive observation periods.
Disposal elsewhere could explain part of the reduction [Kyoto Prefecture 2012b](https://www.pref.kyoto.jp/kamogawa/documents/20kaisiryou4.pdf "Kamo River Bin Removal Trial Results").
A separate 2012 intercept survey of 238 park users found >80% considered bins necessary and ≈60% opposed abolition [Kyoto Prefecture 2012c](https://www.pref.kyoto.jp/kamogawa/documents/1350455217646.pdf "Kamo River Park User Survey").
Kyoto reported 34 smart units at 17 sites in May 2026 and 37 at 18 sites in June [Kyoto 2026a](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/page/0000354131.html "May Smart Bin Deployment"); [Kyoto 2026b](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/page/0000355036.html "June Smart Bin Deployment").
Smart units generally belong within the ≈300 street units [Kyoto Prefecture 2025](https://www.pref.kyoto.jp/kamogawa/documents/dai68kaikamogawahuminkaigi-gijiroku.pdf "Kamo River Residents Council Minutes").
For Fushimi Inari, the city announced 2 donated units while the vendor reported 3 installed, both giving the same 37-unit citywide total; an additional unit beyond the donation is plausible but untraced [Force Tech 2026](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000115.000080115.html "Fushimi Inari Installation").
Kinoshita Kansei's 24-unit pledge runs 10 years through FY2031; its 14 units delivered at 7 sites by June 2026 are included in the 37 [Kyoto 2026](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/page/0000355036.html "Smart Bin Donation and Installed Donor Subtotal").
All city-installed street receptacles in Gion had become smart bins by February 2025 [Kyoto 2025](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/sogo/page/0000337194.html "Mayor's February Diary").
Gion Shopping Street's separate shared-disposal system, involving >20 businesses, began full operation on 1 November 2025 after a July trial; participating shops accept waste from shopping-street purchases [Kyoto 2025](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/page/0000346995.html "Autumn Tourist Season Litter Measures").
Kyoto promoted it again in autumn 2026, while increasing peak-season Gion smart-bin collection from twice to 3 times daily [Kyoto 2026](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/page/0000359696.html "Autumn Tourist Season Litter Measures").
## Kobe {#inventory-kobe}
Kobe's environmental bureau counted 38 municipal street receptacles at 18 locations at the end of March 2016: Kitano had 10 at 5 sites; Sannomiya/Yamate and other locations had 28 at 13.
The inventory distinguishes general trash from beverage-recycling receptacles [Kobe 2016](https://happylibus.com/doc/420873/ "Environmental Bureau Operations Report, mirrored"), p. 45.
The ≈30 quoted in 2024 has weaker sourcing and less precise scope; it cannot establish an 8-unit loss [Satō 2024](https://encount.press/archives/625385/ "Interview with Kyoto's City Beautification Office").
An October 2022 Flower Road trial replaced conventional receptacles with 12 smart bins at 6 locations, but did not publish the previous physical-unit count [Force Tech 2022](https://smago.jp/kobecity20221005/ "Kobe Smart Bin Trial Launch"); [KDDI Research 2023](https://www.kddi-research.jp/newsrelease/2023/032401.html "Sannomiya Smart Bin Field Trial").
Fujicco's 6 units at 3 sites were a sponsored subset [Fujicco 2022](https://www.fujicco.co.jp/corp/upload/pr_221006.pdf "神戸市初のスマートごみ箱の実証実験に協賛"), p. 2.
The September 2026 municipal map still shows 6 numbered sites, without physical-unit or citywide totals [Kobe 2026](https://www.city.kobe.lg.jp/images/3080/20260918091345.png "Sannomiya Street Bin Map").
A separate January–February 2022 Sankita Plaza experiment installed 4 bins spelling KOBE with changing visual and sound prompts; its announcement supplies neither measured litter outcomes nor permanent stock [Kobe Economic News 2022](https://news.kobekeizai.jp/?no=10316 "KOBE Bin Trial at Sankita Plaza").
Suma Rikyu Park's April 2007 account records removing ≈100 bins and larger refuse containers combined, linking removal to waste separation and paid bags; its current guide still asks visitors to take trash home [Suma Rikyu Park 2007](https://suma-rikyu.seesaa.net/article/39439276.html "We Removed the Bins"); [Suma Rikyu Park](https://www.kobe-park.or.jp/rikyu/summary/ "Visitor Information").
This mixed-container count is neither 100 pedestrian baskets nor a citywide park inventory.
Suma Seaside Park installed 2 smart bins in April 2024 and relocated them in February 2025, disproving universal bin removal from Kobe's parks [Suma Seaside Park 2025](https://kobesuma-seaside-park.jp/news/news-67/ "SmaGO Relocation Notice").
## Tokyo {#inventory-tokyo}
Tokyo's street inventories belong to wards, merchants, and other operators with different territories and counting rules.
The following observations describe those programs, not a total for Tokyo or its 23 wards.
### Streets
| Place | Date | Inventory and scope | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tokyo | 1964-03 | A contemporary newsreel reported 7,000 sidewalk bins being installed for the Olympics: a rollout count. | [Mainichi 1964](https://www.bpcj.or.jp/program/detail/N01769/ "For a Clean Olympics") |
| Shinjuku and Takadanobaba | 1997–2004 | ≈300 street bins installed in 1997–1999; all removed by 2004. The ward cites odors, scattered trash, and household and commercial dumping. | [Shinjuku 2024](https://www.city.shinjuku.lg.jp/content/000389738.pdf "Ward Plan Consultation Responses"), p. 135 |
| Omotesandō | 2020; 2025-04 | 34 smart units at 13 sidewalk sites: 21 burnable-trash and 13 recycling units. The operator still reported 34 in April 2025; a July 2022 study covered the same 13 sites. | [Force Tech 2020](https://smago.jp/omotesando20201008/ "Omotesandō Deployment"), [Force Tech 2025](https://smago.jp/omotesando20250416/ "Omotesandō Deployment Update"); [Wada et al 2024](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjsmcwm/35/0/35_83/_article/-char/ja/ "Waste Recovery Prediction Model") |
| Tokyo; Japan | 2024-07; 2026-06 | 70 SmaGO units in Tokyo and 400 nationwide in July 2024; ≈700 units at ≈70 locations nationwide in June 2026. One brand, mixed venues. | [Tokyo Updates 2024](https://www.tokyoupdates.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/post-1322/ "Smart Trash Cans in Tokyo"); [Force Tech 2026](https://smago.jp/20260607/ "SmaGO Deployment Figures") |
| Tsukiji Outer Market | 2024-12-04 | A local nonprofit and businesses introduced 8 units at 4 sites. | [Force Tech 2024](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000053.000080115.html "Tsukiji Outer Market Deployment") |
| Shimokitazawa | 2025-10-10–2025-10-26 | Shopping-association trial: 12 units at 4 sites. | [MeGo 2025](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000012.000137582.html "Shimokitazawa Bin Trial") |
| Aoyama taxi waiting area | 2026 | 8 sidewalk bins between Aoyama Park and Aoyama Cemetery, spanning both sides; emptied twice daily. The Tokyo Taxi Center foundation operates them under a road-occupancy permit. They are neither park nor ward-owned bins. | [Minato 2026](https://www.city.minato.tokyo.jp/kouchou/kuse/kocho/ikenshokai49/3966.html "青山公園南地区のゴミの散乱について") |
| Akihabara | Planned 2026-11 | February/March plans specified 20 units at 10 sites; 2026-07-30 minutes revised this to 22 at 10. The later opening target was early November. The FY2026 budget was ¥74.38 million for installation and waste disposal, not hardware alone; operation remained unconfirmed at the 2026-11-03 cutoff. | [Chiyoda 2026a](https://www.city.chiyoda.lg.jp/documents/11172/r8-yosanan-bessatsu_1.pdf "FY2026 Budget"); [Tokyo 2026](https://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/documents/d/kankyo/tokyo-1/ "TOKYOクリーンアップ推進協議会議事録"), p. 3; [Chiyoda 2026b](https://www.city.chiyoda.lg.jp/documents/33916/no1661.pdf "広報千代田 4月5日号"), p. 2; [Chiyoda 2026c](https://site-113000297287.gslb6.sakura.ne.jp/koho/machizukuri/sekatsu/jore/smart-gomibako.html "Smart Bin Installation Notice"); [Nippon TV 2026](https://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/32627497/ "October 21 Akihabara Bin Report") |
Table: Selected Tokyo street programs, trials, and announced installations.
Tokyo's pre-Olympic removal of fixed household-waste boxes was a separate change to scheduled collection in portable containers, compatible with installing sidewalk litter bins [Katsushika](https://www.city.katsushika.lg.jp/history/history/4-2-4-243.html "Katsushika Ward History"); [Environment Ministry 2015](https://www.env.go.jp/content/900498636.pdf "Waste Management and the Tokyo Olympics").
A July 1963 circular prescribed at least 300 m between public litter bins along a route, 600 m per side if staggered, and 5 m clearance from corners, crossings, and hydrants, targeting station plazas and busy sidewalks.
Hiratsuka reported 81 new street baskets in December 1963 [Construction Ministry 1963](https://www.mlit.go.jp/notice/noticedata/sgml/076/79000311/79000311.html "Installation of Public Waste Receptacles on Roads"); [Hiratsuka 1963](https://www.city.hiratsuka.kanagawa.jp/common/100046264.pdf "Municipal Newsletter").
A contemporary industry report counted 129 Shinjuku station-area locations: 93 east and 36 west, using predominantly donated combined litter-bin/ashtray designs with daily municipal collection.
Other articles date the issue to 2001; its reference to a 1996 ordinance does not date the inventory to 1996–1997.
No published conversion reconciles these sites with the ward's ≈300 physical units across Shinjuku and Takadanobaba [Steel Can Recycling Association 2001a](https://steelcan.jp/sca/v06_5/ "繁華街のクリーン大作戦「新宿駅周辺地区」"), [Steel Can Recycling Association 2001b](https://steelcan.jp/sca/v06_2/ "夏休み親子リサイクル・ウォッチング2001").
### Subsidies
Tokyo allocated ¥1.1 billion in FY2026 hotel-tax revenue to its broader Clean-Up Movement, including recycling-station support.
The assembly's 50-site target describes intended provision, not completed installations or a per-bin price [Tokyo Tax Bureau 2026](https://www.tax.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/kazei/leisure/shuk/%EF%BC%92 "Hotel Tax Allocations"); [Tokyo Assembly 2026](https://www.gikai.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/record/budget/2026/3-01.html "Budget Committee, Recycling Station Target").
The June 2026 announcement sets maximum subsidies per site against eligible costs, not guaranteed expenditure [Tokyo 2026](https://www.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/information/press/2026/06/2026062207 "Recycling Station and Cleanup Subsidies").
| Eligible item | Subsidy share | Cap per site |
|---|---:|---:|
| Smart or blast-resistant station | 4/5 | ¥8 million |
| Other station, exceptional category | 1/2 | ¥5 million |
| Operation and collection, year 1 | 2/3 | ¥1.5 million |
| Operation and collection, year 2 | 1/2 | ¥1.15 million |
| Operation and collection, year 3 | 1/3 | ¥0.75 million |
Table: Tokyo recycling-station subsidies: eligible shares and maximum awards per site.
### Shibuya
Shibuya's 2025 route-based shop survey found usable bins at 202/298 observed shops; 31/329 sampled shops were unobserved.
Indoor-only, outdoor-only, and both: 181, 17, and 4; outdoor provision: 21/298 (7.0%).
Another 20 binless shops accepted trash through staff.
| Area or shop type | With bins / observed |
|---|---:|
| Shibuya Station | 60/95 |
| Kōshū Kaidō | 24/33 |
| Harajuku | 46/80 |
| Ebisu | 49/57 |
| Yoyogi | 23/33 |
| Convenience stores, all areas | 78/100 |
Table: Shibuya route-based shop survey: observed bin provision by area and shop type.
The 26 May camera survey counted 9,526 litter items, including 3,224 tobacco items.
Its pooled densities are erroneous: table 4.2.1 adds route rates, producing Shibuya's 177.7 + 93.6 = 271.3 items/100 m.
A pooled rate must lie between its components; rounded route lengths cannot reliably repair the denominator.
The observations establish no causal bin–litter relationship.
A separate purposive June collection yielded 1,075 items, 306.8 L, and 16.377 kg.
Convenience stores supplied 240/383 source-identifiable items; 692 had unidentified sources.
This is not a wardwide litter-production estimate [Shibuya 2025](https://files.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp/assets/12995aba8b194961be709ba879857f70/cc75aa53299d49d58557198386d9860e/20251225_poisutegomi_report.pdf "Litter Survey Report"), pp. 15, 24, 32–33, 42–44.
An ordinance adopted in December 2025 requires eligible shops in designated parts of Shibuya, Harajuku, and Ebisu to accommodate trash from their own sales.
The requirement took effect on 1 April 2026; penalties followed on 1 June.
Through 1 October, ≈5,400 cumulative inspections and ≈600 guidance records accompanied reported provision of 61% in April–May and 91% from June onward: Shibuya 59→88%, Harajuku 58→93%, and Ebisu 64→92%.
Repeat visits prevent interpreting inspections as unique shops or bins; the areas and periods differ from the 2025 survey.
The public-bin rollout is a separate FY2026 program [Shibuya 2026a](https://www.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp/kankyo/machi-seiso/seiso/shibuyaku_gomibako_rule.html "Store Bin Rule and Inspection Results").
The ward provisionally recorded 1,547 administrative littering penalties in June–September 2026: 325, 183, 455, and 584 by month.
Its 1 October update described up to 60 patrol staff per day and round-the-clock coverage.
These enforcement counts depend on patrol intensity; they measure neither littering prevalence nor the effect of bins [Shibuya 2026b](https://www.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp/kankyo/machi-seiso/seiso/shibuyaku_poisute_rule.html "Littering Rule and Enforcement Results").
An October 2023 planning document records earlier ward road bins around Shibuya Station, withdrawn after overflow and fires.
It reports less collected road/planting trash after a removal trial, without dates, quantities, or a controlled comparison.
A 2017 interview claimed the narrower Halloween-affected streets had never had ward bins; the accounts' geographic and temporal scopes remain unreconciled [Shibuya 2023](https://files.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp/assets/12995aba8b194961be709ba879857f70/f8d494a5a5854a59b05cba9645f8d52c/dogenzaka2_machidukuri_genan_1.pdf "Dōgenzaka 2-chōme Planning Questions and Answers"), p. 14; [ITmedia 2017](https://nlab.itmedia.co.jp/cont/articles/3272714/ "Why Are There So Few Bins in Shibuya?").
In December 2025, the responsible department confirmed ward-installed outdoor bins at 3 locations—Ebisu Higashi, Nabeshima Shōtō, and Ebisu parks—and none at Hachikō Square.
These are confirmed locations, not 3 receptacles or an exhaustive all-operator inventory [Higuchi 2025](https://www.businessinsider.jp/article/2512-shibuya-littering-garbage-rule-change/?page=2 "渋谷区、飲食店「ゴミ箱」設置義務に賛否").
### Parks
Chiyoda's September 2014 advisory council recorded bins at 14 of ≈47 ward parks and playgrounds (≈30%): 9 urban parks and 5 playgrounds.
These are facilities with bins, not receptacles [Chiyoda 2014](https://paperzz.com/doc/5930742/ "General Waste Reduction Council Minutes, mirrored"), pp. 18–19.
Toshima's 2013 removal pilot covered 15/18 parks and playgrounds in 3 neighborhoods; the remaining 3 already lacked bins.
By November 2015, ≈50% of the ward's parks lacked bins; withdrawal of the remainder was scheduled from December, except busy parks with permanent cleaning staff.
An October 2015 neighboring-ward check found bins absent from >50% of Kita's parks and ≈50% of Bunkyō's, including >60% of its children's play parks; a 2013 Shinjuku check found ≈25% without bins.
Toshima collected 28.6% less trash year-on-year in pilot parks, against a 1.9% increase in 7 surrounding parks.
Changed collection pathways and extra cleaning prevent interpreting this as a litter reduction [Toshima 2013–2015](https://adeac.jp/viewitem/toshima-history/viewer/viewer/09_50_H250930/data/09_50_H250930.pdf "Park Bin Removal Pilot and Implementation Records").
Selected Metropolitan Park Association FY2026 tenders count service locations, not compartments:
| Park | Bin service locations | Source |
|---|---:|---|
| Kasai Rinkai | 47: 34 dustbox and 13 multi-compartment or similar sites; plus 1 separate ashtray site | [Park Association 2026a](https://www.tokyo-park.or.jp/association/assets/kasai_bid04.pdf "Kasai Cleaning Tender Map"), sheet 8 |
| Kiba | 17 | [Park Association 2026b](https://www.tokyo-park.or.jp/association/2026/kiba_bid04.pdf "Kiba Cleaning Tender Map") |
| Jōhoku Chūō | 18 | [Park Association 2026c](https://www.tokyo-park.or.jp/association/assets/itakuhattyuuyotei_r8_20251201-20251208.pdf "Jōhoku Chūō Cleaning Tender") |
| Toyama | 4 | [Park Association 2026d](https://www.tokyo-park.or.jp/association/itakuhattyuuyotei_2026_20251208-20251215.pdf "Toyama Cleaning Tender") |
Table: Bin service locations in selected metropolitan park cleaning tenders.
The association announced removal of all bins at Roka Kōshun-en from 1 June 2025; its Shiba Park FAQ reports none.
Metropolitan Shiba Park is distinct from the ward-managed park of the same name [Park Association 2025](https://www.tokyo-park.or.jp/park/rokakoshun-en/news/2025/2025_6.html "Roka Kōshun-en Bin Removal"), [Park Association](https://www.tokyo-park.or.jp/park/siba/faq/index.html "芝公園・よくあるご質問").
A spokesperson reported 27 bin locations at Toneri Park in March 2018 [J-CAST 2018](https://www.j-cast.com/2018/03/29324906.html?p=all "花見のあとの「無残なゴミ」写真 公園管理法人が「一部、心無い方」に注意喚起").
Nerima reported zero in its ward parks in 2018, citing dumping and a near fire [Nerima 2018](https://www.city.nerima.tokyo.jp/kusei/goiken/koeshokai/h30shokai/kouen.html "Public Comments on Parks").
A September 2025 submission to Minato's assembly found bins at 41/162 ward facilities (25.3%): 10/50 parks, 15/57 children's parks, 4/10 play areas, and 12/45 green spaces [Enomoto 2025](https://gikai2.city.minato.tokyo.jp/voices/GikaiDoc/attach/Nittei/Nt4720_06.pdf "Park Bin Survey Submitted to the Minato Ward Assembly").
The ward's 2026 response opposes new ordinary bins because of dumping, odors, pests, and small fires, while describing 2 park smart-bin trials [Minato 2026a](https://www.city.minato.tokyo.jp/kouchou/kuse/kocho/ikenshokai49/3289.html "Public Response on Bin Installation").
On 31 August 2026, it announced ¥19.78 million in supplemental funding for 9 smart units in 3 areas in December: 3 on Daimon Street, 4 near Shinagawa Station's Kōnan exit, and 2 at Higashi-Azabu playground.
These remained future additions at the 3 November cutoff [Minato 2026b](https://www.city.minato.tokyo.jp/documents/180072/20260831105541.pdf "August 31 Mayor’s Press Conference: Smart Bin Deployment Plan").
A councilor's reproduction of an earlier official answer describes a 1999 removal trial at 4 Minato parks: Sakurada, Shiogama, Minami-Sakura, and Nishi-Sakura.
It reports less collected trash without quantities or a comparison protocol; the original transcript remains unavailable [Kondō 2021](https://ameblo.jp/masako-kondo/entry-12714463792.html "公園にごみ箱が無いのは・・・").
A 2016 design study counted 3 standard bin types at Ueno Park, 11 including vending-associated designs, versus 5 at Taipei Expo Park.
These are designs, not units; Ueno's lower visual contrast and less explicit signage also affect visibility [Yu & Lo 2016](https://doi.org/10.11247/jssd.63.0_254 "Research for Setting Environment and Types of Park Trash Cans Between Taiwan and Japan").
## Other Municipalities {#inventory-other}
Bin removal predates Aum by decades.
Oze began its carry-home campaign in 1972 and removed bins in 1973: >1,400 were removed by Oze Ringyō alone, in a landscape where hauling trash out was itself a management problem.
The preservation foundation's chronology distinguishes the campaign from the withdrawal, correcting a prefectural summary that compresses both into 1972; the practice subsequently spread to other national parks [Oze Preservation Foundation 2022](https://www.oze-fnd.or.jp/wp4/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/74220c2d9ee5080e071cc709cafb1f67.pdf "Fifty Years of the Carry-Your-Rubbish-Home Campaign"); [Fukushima Prefecture](https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/w4/oze/column/column005.html "The Carry-Your-Rubbish-Home Campaign in Oze").
Kitakyūshū documents both installation and abolition.
Its August 1970 newsletter announced 3,000 public bins with ¥20 million in funding, and its chronology records installation on 1 October 1970; 10,000 was the planned total.
By FY2006, the municipal program had 467 containers, all removed alongside household-collection reform.
The city recorded a ¥35 million effect and cited street appearance and lower maintenance costs [Kitakyūshū 1970](https://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/page/dayori/backnumber/pdf/1970/700815_pageall.pdf "August 15 Municipal Newsletter"), p. 3; [Kitakyūshū Chronology](https://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/files/000863964.pdf "Municipal Chronology, 1963–1972"), p. 57; [Kitakyūshū 2007](https://www.city.kitakyushu.lg.jp/files/000017704.pdf "FY2006 Administrative Reform Results"), p. 36, item 12.
Elsewhere, local records describe withdrawals ranging from individual parks to entire municipal programs.
The counts retain their original units: losing a park's disposal point can remove several receptacles, while a policy announcement supplies no count of completed removals.
| Place | Withdrawal | Evidence and limits |
|---|---|---|
| Nagoya | 1,365 municipal containers in 1994; withdrawal began in 1999; zero by 2004 | The counts come from a councilmember. The city confirms abolition following overflow, poor sorting, household dumping, and complaints. The councilmember also reported ≈60% fewer observed litter items in FY2018 than FY2003; other policies and behavior changed over this interval. [Yokoi 2019](https://blog.livedoor.jp/minami758/archives/2454038.html "Are Public Waste Containers Necessary?"); [Nagoya 2023](https://voices.city.nagoya.jp/faq/detail.aspx?id=43602 "Municipal Response on Public Bins") |
| Sapporo parks | Removal began FY1999 | Household dumping and crows prompted removal, with Ōdōri and some other parks explicitly excepted. No unit count. [Sapporo 2022](https://www.city.sapporo.jp/kikaku/vision/vision2/documents/opinion2.pdf "Public and Children’s Comments on the City Vision"), p. 82 |
| Yokohama neighborhood parks | Removal in principle from 2003-09-01 | A majority of surveyed people favored withdrawal, but the city supplies neither the survey denominator nor the number removed. Its stated aims were beautification and waste reduction. [Yokohama](https://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/kurashi/machizukuri-kankyo/midori-koen/koen/qa/ijikanri/faqijikanri-7.html "Why Are There No Trash Cans in the Park?") |
| Yoshikawa, Saitama | All city park bins removed FY2004 | Household dumping cited; baseline stock absent. [Yoshikawa 2025](https://www.city.yoshikawa.saitama.jp/index.cfm/27.32363%2C108783%2C180%2C923%2Chtml "Public Comments and City Responses") |
| Akō, Hyōgo | Equipped neighborhood parks: 17/39 → 5/39 in 2024 | 12 fewer equipped parks, a 71% reduction; 50 managed parks overall. Bins remained where local associations wanted them. [Akō Minpō 2024](https://www.ako-minpo.jp/news/18090.html "City Generally Removes Bins from Its Parks") |
| Beppu, Ōita | Removed from all ≈70 city park locations by 2008-07 | Mayor's account, citing dumping and animal-scattered waste. [Beppu 2008](https://www.city.beppu.oita.jp/gikai/30child/pdf/2008/kaigiroku_08.pdf "Children's Assembly Transcript"), p. 46 |
| Nishinomiya, Hyōgo | 161 receptacles at 103 park locations | Councilmember's 2018-03 account of the preceding 7 years. [Hamaguchi 2018](https://h-hamaguchi.com/?p=4273 "Nishinomiya Council Report") |
| Kawanishi, Hyōgo | ≈340 park bins designated for complete removal in 2023-12 | Closure announced for late 2024-03, followed by removal, citing brought-in waste and illegal dumping. No completed-removal inventory located. [Kawanishi 2023](https://www.city.kawanishi.hyogo.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_page_/001/004/978/1222soumu.pdf "Standing Committee Report"), p. 7; [Kawanishi 2024](https://www.city.kawanishi.hyogo.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_page_/001/018/911/2024.01.12-13.pdf "January Municipal Newsletter") |
Table: Additional municipal withdrawals; each count retains its original program boundary.
Recent smart-bin announcements often describe replacement of surviving networks.
Their physical-unit totals overstate the change in access if read as new disposal sites:
| Program | Deployment | Net change |
|---|---|---|
| Hiroshima downtown | 16 smart units at 8 established street sites, 2025-07 | 2 sites converted in FY2022 and the remaining 6 in 2025: neither 16 net new bins nor 8 new sites. [Hiroshima 2025](https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/shisei/kouhou/1004010/1033044/1040975/1041936.html "アートラッピングを施したスマートごみ箱のお披露目"); [Dream Arts 2025](https://www.dreamarts.co.jp/news/press-release/pr250806/ "CLEAN FOR PEACE") |
| Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park | 12 smart units at 6 of 13 existing bin locations, 2025-12 | Replacements: 6 general-waste and 6 recycling units. [Hiroshima 2025](https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/shisei/kouhou/1004010/1033044/1044363/1046767.html "Smart Bin Donation to Peace Memorial Park") |
| Hakone, Lake Ashi | 5 replacement units donated 2026-03-24 | 1 compacting general-waste bin and 4 noncompacting recycling bins; town-managed collection. Not 5 sites. [Odakyu Hakone 2026](https://www.hakonenavi.jp/_wp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/c1611f94b198d090ffc4b0521e053b2e.pdf "芦ノ湖畔に設置するスマートごみ箱を寄贈") |
Table: Selected municipal installations and whether they establish net additions.
The older policies developed amid rapid growth in disposable packaging.
The Environment Agency's 1985 white paper records canned-drink production increasing from ≈800 million cans in 1970 to >10 billion in 1983, and an 11-ministry council on can litter beginning in January 1981.
Its national survey of 1,891 municipalities found 30.5% reporting less scattered-can litter and 6.1% reporting more.
Distribution of litter baskets, carry-home campaigns, and vending-machine return boxes coexisted at least a decade before Aum.
These are production figures and reported litter trends, not a bin census or an estimate of bin demand [Environment Agency 1985](https://www.env.go.jp/policy/hakusyo/s60/5525.html "Environmental White Paper, Empty Can Litter").
# Field Studies {#field-studies .collapse}
Japanese field studies distinguish waste collected from waste scattered.
Removing bins can reduce a site's collection burden while increasing loose litter; changing their placement, visibility, or signs can increase their use.
The strongest direct evidence comes from small sequential experiments, whose results do not account for waste carried home or displaced elsewhere.
Tourist trials and event programs add measurements of equipment, collection frequency, visitor behavior, and treated waste.
They show why a bin's effect depends on its waste streams and servicing: even compacting bins can require frequent emptying, and lower treated tonnage need not mean less litter.
The evidence supports local operational conclusions, not a national causal estimate.
## Placement and Signs
The Hiroshima studies varied provision, placement, and instructions within individual sites.
Their differing outcomes make the distinction between collected waste and scattered litter concrete:
| Study | Intervention and result | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Jang et al. 2002, Saijō Central Park, Higashihiroshima | In a 7,800 m² park with ≈300 visitors/day, litter fractions were 14% with evenly distributed bins, 18% at congregation points, and 20% at entrances. Removal reduced total deposited/remaining waste and household refuse. | Sequential conditions, 1999-09–1999-11; placement and removal answer different questions. |
| Hayase et al. 2002, Hiroshima University | 2 ≈100-liter bins plus 2 signs: littered cans/bottles fell 15.6→4.0/day; visitor-time-adjusted rates fell 0.07→0.03/person-hour. | Short before/after comparison; signs and bins changed together. |
| Jang et al. 2003, Saijō Central Park | Over 12 weeks, sorting bins plus signs reduced the overall litter fraction 17.2%→7.8% relative to sorting bins alone. Removal slightly increased loose litter; carry-home signs attenuated the increase. | Single-site sequential intervention; displaced waste unmeasured. |
Table: Field studies of bin placement, signage, and litter.
[Jang et al. 2002](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sesj1988/15/1/15_1_59/_article/-char/ja/ "市民公園におけるごみ箱の配置条件による散乱ごみの増減"); [Hayase et al. 2002](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jswme1990/13/4/13_4_193/_article/-char/ja/ "公共空間におけるごみ箱・灰皿・幟の設置による散乱ごみ・散乱吸い殻の低減効果"); [Jang et al. 2003](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jswme1990/14/2/14_2_83/_article/-char/ja/ "公共的市民公園における啓発板およびごみ箱の種別・有無によるごみ類のコントロール策").
Earlier work tested whether visitors would use conspicuous bins.
Okino's Kamikōchi observations of 6–10 August 1974 measured deposited volume and behavior:
| Intervention or observation | Result |
|---|---|
| 3 bin positions changed to conspicuously marked receptacles | Mean daily deposits: 40%→95% of capacity |
| 1 of 4 Kappa Bridge bins conspicuously repainted; 3 days before, 2 after | Daily deposits: 33%→68% of capacity; users: 15→27/day |
| Bench users | 111/160 (69%) used the adjacent bin |
| Waste deposited near a shop | 105/161 (65%) originated from that shop |
Table: Kamikōchi observations and interventions, August 1974.
These short sequential comparisons measured capture without randomization.
A separate 1974 bag-distribution survey reinterviewed 273 of 2,083 marked visitors: 48% had deposited a filled bag in a bin, and 5% still carried one.
A 1977 Nobeyama trail trial combined collection points with directional signs and reported 40–80% fewer scattered cans.
In the paper's 1972 Kirigamine survey, 78.7% of 254 tourists favored local disposal bins, compared with 47% of 183 local respondents; 20% and 49%, respectively, favored carrying waste home.
The locals answered a TV telephone poll, limiting comparability [Okino 1984](https://soar-ir.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/17093/files/06-21.pdf "観光地の散在性廃棄物—その対策と効果—"), pp. 116–121, recovered indexed original.
Wakayama University's 2021 experiments found clearer effects for voting ashtrays on street cigarette litter than for snack-wrapper collection boxes in 2 parks, where no clear overall effect emerged.
The prefectural summary identifies pandemic conditions, vegetation, and rebound as complications.
A related questionnaire, conducted 7–28 February 2022, received 15/30 municipal responses (50%): 5 had municipal park bins, Kimino had bins in some parks, and 9 had none.
Thus 6 respondents reported some provision and 9 none; the other 15 municipalities were unobserved, and no physical stock was counted.
Only 1/15 reported street ashtrays, a separate category.
The authors' discussion of terrorism and household fees is background rather than respondents' measured reasons for removal [Wakayama 2022](https://www.pref.wakayama.lg.jp/prefg/020100/data/archive/d00213444.html "ごみ散乱状況調査とごみ箱設置社会実験に基づくごみの散乱防止効果の分析"); [Yoshida et al. 2022](https://www.pref.wakayama.lg.jp/prefg/020100/data/archive/d00213444_d/fil/gomibako_R3_honbun.pdf "FY2021 Research Report"), pp. 18, 45, 47–48, recovered cached original text.
## Tourist Trials
Nara Park reintroduced 2 sets containing 6 units at its bus terminal for 10 January–14 February 2025, then extended the trial.
Before/after observations at ≈20 locations found 10% less litter; first-month collection was ≈250 kg burnable waste and 150 kg recyclables.
No deer-ingestion outcome was measured [Nara 2025a](https://www.pref.nara.lg.jp/documents/6515/02_dai3kaisiryou_1.pdf "Tourism Area Committee: Trial Results"), p. 2; [Nara 2025b](https://www.pref.nara.lg.jp/n002/69761.html "July 29 Governor’s Press Conference").
The original notice dates public park-bin removal to the latter 1980s (昭和60年代), citing coexistence with deer.
Its trial date is explicitly 2025 despite the filename's “20240110”; the limited public provision says nothing about citywide private-bin availability.
July's announcement moved an existing 3-bin set toward a toilet where litter concentrated, adding no units [Nara 2025](https://www.pref.nara.jp/secure/312751/20240110%EF%BC%88%E5%A5%88%E8%89%AF%E5%85%AC%E5%9C%92%E5%AE%9F%E8%A8%BC%E5%AE%9F%E9%A8%93%EF%BC%89%E5%A0%B1%E9%81%93%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99.pdf "Nara Park Smart-Bin Trial Announcement"); [Nara 2025](https://www.pref.nara.lg.jp/n002/69761.html "July 29 Governor’s Press Conference").
On 18 February 2026, the governor proposed permanently relocating both installations to the Daibutsuden prefectural parking area and considering expansion later.
His “2 installations” (2基) refers to the earlier report's 2 sets/6 units, not 6 additional units or an independently verified November 2026 stock [Nara 2026](https://www.pref.nara.lg.jp/n002/p151031.html "February 18 Governor’s Press Conference").
Yokohama's waterfront trial installed bins at 3 sites near Nippon Maru Memorial Park from 11 December 2025 to 8 January 2026.
Before/during/after video surveys found fewer discarded beverage containers while bins were present, but no clear change in overall litter apart from a New Year's Day anomaly.
Neither randomization nor a concurrent control site is established [FM Yokohama et al. 2026](https://kanagawa-mamorou.uminohi.jp/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/観光地における路上散乱ごみ対策実証調査2026年.pdf "観光地における路上散乱ごみ対策実証調査").
The Environment Ministry's 2025 casebook records further trials and event programs:
| Program | Equipment | Reported outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Miyajima area, 2024-08–2024-11 | 12 smart units at 2 sites, including the mainland gateway | Municipal follow-up below |
| Fujiyoshida, 2024-07–2024-10 | 3 3-bin sets at 3 sites: 9 units; 2 sites replaced existing bins | Raw litter initially fell, then exceeded baseline; visitor-adjusted counts fell in both phases |
| Kishiwada danjiri festival | ≈1,000 cardboard bins manufactured/distributed; installed stock unaudited | Treated waste: 15 metric tons in 2019 → 5.4 in 2023 |
| Gion festival | ≈50 eco-station sites, 07-15–07-16 | Burnable waste: 60 metric tons before the 2014 program → 28 in 2024; 487,000 cumulative visits in 2024 |
| Ōmagari fireworks | 100–1,000 temporary bins; not a growth series | 32.99 metric tons burnable + 3.16 recyclable/nonburnable, 2024 |
Table: Temporary event provision and tourist-site trials; quantities retain their original units.
Event programs also changed sorting, reuse, cleaning, and vendor behavior; their treated tonnage does not measure litter [Ministry of the Environment 2025](https://www.env.go.jp/content/000303370.pdf "観光地におけるごみのポイ捨て・発生抑制対策実績と改善の事例集"), pp. 10–14, 39, 41, 45.
Hatsukaichi's municipal follow-up shows how heavily used the Miyajima-area bins were.
The mainland terminal averaged 3.45 collections/unit/day using 60%-full alerts; the island's TOTO toilet site averaged 11.43, with half-hourly visual checks and frequent emptying below 60%.
Different sites and procedures prevent a controlled efficiency comparison.
At the toilet site, leftover drinks contributed 25.9 kg/day to 92.9 kg/day of total waste, normalized to the FY2024 average of 13,295 visitors/day.
A stamp-rally survey found 68% satisfied with local bin numbers and 86.7% reporting bin scarcity elsewhere in Japanese tourism, but supplies neither sample size nor representative recruitment [Hatsukaichi 2025](https://www.city.hatsukaichi.hiroshima.jp/uploaded/attachment/80973.pdf "SmaGOモデル事業の成果と課題"), pp. 1–3.
Fujiyoshida's implementer separately reported resident perceptions of frequent litter falling from ≈60% to 30%, without publishing the sample size.
This is not a measurement of 50% less litter.
Peak-season overflow also required increased collection: visibility, visitor pressure, and servicing continued to matter after installation [MS&AD InterRisk Research 2025](https://rm-navi.com/search/item/2131 "富士山観光のオーバーツーリズム対策 デジタル技術活用で地域の社会課題解決を目指す").
## Inventories and Workloads
Pirika's November 2015–April 2016 video survey covered 16 purposively selected future Olympic-venue areas in Tokyo, Kanagawa, Saitama, and Chiba.
Visible litter averaged 0.39 items/m, ranging from 0.12 to 1.06/m; tobacco accounted for 51.0%, paper 34.5%, and beverage containers 1.67% by item count.
Stuck chewing gum was counted separately.
Cleaning and detection affect these measurements, which neither represent the metropolis nor identify bins' effect [Pirika 2016](https://speakerdeck.com/pirika_info/tokyo2020-littering-research "東京オリンピック会場予定地におけるポイ捨て深刻度調査").
Takahashi and Suzuki's government-funded FY2015–17 project surveyed prefectural government buildings, baseball stadiums in 5 cities, and 7 fireworks venues serving 47,000–900,000 visitors.
Bin counts and capacity showed no strong association with area or potential users in these settings, yielding neither a universal optimum nor a national stock.
Fireworks venues used ≈1 m³ bins at 50–160 locations or 2–6 m³ containers/collection spaces at 12–21 locations.
Smaller containers overflowed more often; staffed large disposal spaces avoided overflow in the observed cases.
Estimated waste generation ranged from 0.024 to 0.26 kg/visitor.
These observational comparisons and published plots are not a reusable national location census [Takahashi & Suzuki 2018](https://www.erca.go.jp/suishinhi/seika/db/pdf/end_houkoku/3K153011.pdf "人とリサイクルシステムのインターフェース「ゴミ箱」の機能性とデザイン効果の分析"); [Takahashi & Suzuki 2018](https://www.erca.go.jp/suishinhi/seika/db/pdf/end_presentation/3K153011.pdf "Final Research Presentation").
Kurashiki's November 2020 interview records ¥1.14 million in annual FY2020 maintenance costs, with the Silver Human Resources Center servicing bins on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
No bin count accompanies the expense, so ¥1.14 million/bin is unsupported.
The same university study records Kōya's explanation that household waste in designated bags and tourist trash overflowed its bins and prompted removal; designated bags alone establish neither a new fee nor its causal effect [Yoshida et al. 2021](https://www.pref.wakayama.lg.jp/prefg/020100/data/archive/d00213444_d/fil/gomibako_R2.pdf "FY2020 Interim Report"), pp. 18–19, 74, recovered cached original text.
A separate Expo 2025 recycling project supplied 4 7-box installations: 28 physical boxes, not the exhibition's entire stock.
In January 2026, Shiga reported reusing 20 at 4 facilities: 16 at 2 schools, 1 at an environmental office, and 3 at Kibōgaoka Cultural Park.
Only the park's 3 are explicitly described as publicly accessible [TerraCycle 2025](https://www.terracycle.com/ja-JP/pages/recycle-together-bins "これからのごみ箱"); [Shiga 2026](https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/ca00/press-release/23714.html "万博会場のごみ箱が県立施設へ移設されました").
# Transport Inventories {#transport-inventories .collapse}
Railway records document repeated withdrawal, restoration, and consolidation of passenger trash bins.
Tokyo Metro provides the clearest sequence; other operators supply partial inventories, removal notices, and sorting trials.
These records count different things: receptacles, sets, locations, stations, and temporary closures.
Waste tonnage and collection costs provide operational context but cannot reconstruct bin inventories or isolate the effects of removal.
## Tokyo Subway
| Date | Operator and change | Quantity and scope |
|---|---|---|
| 1995-03-20 | Eidan withdrew bins after the sarin attack | 492 preattack sets; same-day withdrawal reported retrospectively |
| 1997-04-01 | Eidan restored bins within staff sight | 220 sets: 44.7% of the reported preattack count, calculated |
| 2004-03 | Eidan withdrew bins after the Madrid bombings | Systemwide; no separate prewithdrawal inventory reported |
| 2005-04-18 | Tokyo Metro restored transparent bins, mostly near gates | 251 locations across all 161 stations; 3 receptacles per set, hence 753 units |
| 2005-07 | London bombings prompted temporary withdrawals | Response documented without an inventory |
| 2022-01-17 | Tokyo Metro withdrew passenger trash bins | 239 3-bin sets, hence 717 receptacles; 4.8% fewer sets than 2005; vending returns and some jointly managed stations excepted |
| 2022-05-09 | Toei withdrew subway passenger bins and gate-area bins at 2 Nippori–Toneri Liner stations | No final inventory; a 2015 assembly member reported bins at 76/101 subway stations (75.2%); vending returns remained |
Table: Tokyo subway withdrawals and restorations, with sets, stations, and physical units distinguished.
The 492 and 220 counts come from [Isurugi 2024](https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/e329fc10f4767b2dadad7edd4996a38d10847b71 "日本のゴミ箱、なぜ消えた？"), citing the uninspected _Asahi_ morning edition of 31 March 1997; same-day withdrawal comes from [Hiruma 2025a](https://merkmal-biz.jp/post/89008/2 "Why Did Station Bins Disappear?").
The 1995 source does not specify receptacles per set.
The contemporary [PVC Environmental Council 2005](https://www.pvc.or.jp/contents/news/53-07.html "Transparent Bins Return to Tokyo Metro") interview corroborates restoration; its indexed text was accessible, but direct retrieval returned 403.
The July response appears in [National Diet Library 2006](https://dl.ndl.go.jp/view/download/digidepo_999829_po_066506.pdf?contentNo=1 "Transport Security after the London Bombings").
Toei's figures come from [Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly 2015](https://www.gikai.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/record/public-enterprise/2015-02.html "Public Enterprise Committee Record"), [Tokyo Transportation Bureau 2022](https://www.kotsu.metro.tokyo.jp/pickup_information/news/nippori_toneri/2022/ntl_i_2022041810427_h.html "Notice on Bin Removal"), and [Tokyo Metropolitan Government 2022](https://www.spt.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/tosei/hodohappyo/press/2022/10/27/01_06.html "Response on Subway Bin Removal").
[Ogawa 2022](https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14525349 "Take it with you, say Tokyo stations removing trash cans") calls Metro's 239 entries “spots”; [Watanabe 2022](https://news.nissyoku.co.jp/news/watanabem20220120120542314 "Tokyo Metro Removes Its Bins") explicitly identifies 3-bin sets.
[Imada 2022](https://www.timeout.jp/tokyo/ja/news/tokyo-to-remove-all-rubbish-bins-from-train-and-metro-stations-042622 "Toei Removes Station Bins") misrenders them as individual bins, exaggerating the decline from 2005.
About half the preattack set count returned in 1997; a similar count survived before the 2022 withdrawal, across a changed network and locations.
[Hiruma 2025b](https://merkmal-biz.jp/post/89008/3 "Why Did Station Bins Disappear?") also reports collected trash falling from ≈69 metric tons in March 1995 to 33 metric tons in April: a calculated 52.2% decline, without an original statistical citation.
March includes postattack days, while ridership, service, and disposal behavior changed together; this comparison measures neither an isolated removal effect nor total waste generated or displaced litter.
## Security Closures
[Hiruma 2025a](https://merkmal-biz.jp/post/89008/2 "Why Did Station Bins Disappear?"), citing contemporary _Asahi_ coverage, describes a 1988 incendiary device in a Nijūbashimae station bin and temporary closures in 1990 and 1991.
After Madrid, national guidance recommended closure or consolidation at major bus and ferry terminals; rail guidance also named these measures [MLIT 2004](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kisha/kisha04/15/150427_.html "Transport Counterterrorism Measures"), [MLIT 2005](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kisha/kisha05/01/010420_2/01.pdf "Transport Counterterrorism Measures").
This documents transport policy, not a nationwide inventory or blanket municipal-street order.
| Event | Temporary scope | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1999–2000 | ≈500 stations; bins and lockers reopened 2000-01-05 | [Japan Times 2000](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2000/01/05/national/jr-reopens-waste-bins-and-lockers-at-500-stations/ "JR Reopens Waste Bins and Lockers at 500 Stations") |
| Ise-Shima, 2016 | Tokyo Metro: 170 managed stations cleared by 2016-05-16; security measures through 2016-05-27 | [TV Asahi 2016](https://news.tv-asahi.co.jp/news_society/articles/000074861.html "サミット来週に控え 東京メトロ全駅でごみ箱撤去") |
| G20, 2019 | 11 named Kansai signatories: major stations, 2019-06-24–2019-06-29 | [Kansai Rail Operators 2019](https://www.westjr.co.jp/press/article/items/190523_00_G20-1.pdf "G20 Temporary Bin and Locker Closures") |
| G20, 2019 | JR East: 109 stations, 2019-06-28–2019-06-29; onboard bins in its Shinkansen services and Narita Express also closed | [JR East 2019](https://www.jreast.co.jp/press/2019/20190603_ho01.pdf "G20 Temporary Closures") |
| G20-related meetings, 2019 | Toei: 25 line-station entries, 21 distinct station names (calculated); 2019-06-05–2019-06-09, 2019-06-24–2019-06-29, 2019-11-19–2019-11-23 | [Tokyo Transportation Bureau 2019](https://www.kotsu.metro.tokyo.jp/pickup_information/news/subway/2019/sub_i_201905308596_h.html "G20 Security Measures") |
| Enthronement, 2019-10 | 53 Tokyo Metro stations; selected security perimeter, subject to changes after parade postponement | [Railway Channel 2019](https://tetsudo-ch.com/9833875.html "Temporary Bin and Locker Closures") |
| G7 Hiroshima, 2023 | JR East: 13 distinct stations across 3 rounds; 6 each during 2023-04-16–2023-04-18 and 2023-05-11–2023-05-13; 11 during 2023-05-19–2023-05-21 | [JR East 2023](https://www.jreast.co.jp/press/2023/20230414_ho01.pdf "G7 Summit Bin and Locker Closures") |
Table: Temporary security closures; affected stations do not constitute bin inventories.
Closure counts measure interrupted access, not permanent stock reductions; selected stations do not enumerate all stations equipped with bins.
## Railway Operators
| Operator | Dated evidence and limits |
|---|---|
| JR East | 2004-05 announcement: ≈800 transparent receptacles at 50 Shinkansen stations and ≈1,500 at ≈250 conventional-line stations; planned installation/replacement, consolidation, and relocation, with possible overlap between station categories [JR East 2004](https://www.jreast.co.jp/th/press/2004_1/20040502.pdf "Transparent Station Bins") |
| JR East, Chiyoda | 2014 local check: Kanda 3 bin locations, Akihabara 5, Tokyo 27; coverage depends on the station portions inspected [Chiyoda Waste Advisory Council 2014](https://paperzz.com/doc/5930742/ "General Waste Reduction Council Minutes, mirrored") |
| Osaka Metro | G20 in 2019-06 prompted consolidation from platforms to observable gate areas, retained after the summit; transparent bins; zero at and around Yumeshima Station in 2026-04 [Japan Transport Promotion Association 2019](https://www.transport-pf.or.jp/zaidan/riyou/pdf/riyou_r01.pdf "Public Feedback and Operator Responses"), [Osaka Metro](https://www.osakametro.co.jp/safety/safety_take/extraordinary/subway_terrorism/subway_tero_0.php "Subway Security"), [Osaka Metro 2026](https://www.osakametro.co.jp/news/news/other/20260406_expo1st_myaku_myaku.php "Yumeshima Station Notice") |
| Keihan | Planned removal from 30/60 bin-equipped stations by 2021-01 end: half the equipped stations, not half the network; household dumping cited [Asai 2021](https://maidonanews.jp/article/14092814?page=1 "Keihan Station Bin Removals") |
| JR West | 2021-08 notices: platform bins removed at 4 named Gakkentoshi Line stations; concourse bins retained [Hirakata Tsūshin 2021](https://www.hira2.jp/topic/jr-20210817.html "Gakkentoshi Line Bin Notices") |
| Kyoto Municipal Subway | FY2026 cleaning specifications cover passenger bins and vending returns at Karasuma Oike, Shijō, and Kyoto; no per-station counts [Kyoto Transportation Bureau 2026](https://www2.nyusatsu.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kotsu/ebid/buppin/2026/5083000097_12_02102031.pdf "Station Cleaning Specifications") |
| JR Hokkaido | 2020: bins removed at unstaffed stations, consolidated inside gates at staffed stations, and consolidated to 1/car on specified central Hokkaido local/rapid trains; crime, cigarette fires, and household dumping cited; onboard provision was not new [JR Hokkaido 2020](https://www.jrhokkaido.co.jp/CM/Info/press/pdf/20200131_KO_Gomibako.pdf "Review of Bin Locations") |
| Yurikamome | All-station withdrawal effective 2023-03-13; no physical inventory [Yurikamome 2023](https://www.yurikamome.co.jp/company/news/20230220_3083.html "Station Bin Withdrawal") |
Table: Selected railway operators: dated removal and installation records.
JR East's sorting pilots began at Kawasaki on 7 November 2022, Tokyo on 5 December, and Ōsaki on 16 December, replacing 3 streams with 5 [JR East 2022](https://www.jreast.co.jp/press/2022/20221222_ho01.pdf "リサイクルステーションを設置します"), pp. 2–3.
The March 2025 announcement identified 5 trial stations, targeted ≈30 stations in FY2025, and planned phased expansion to ≈80 [JR East 2025](https://www.jreast.co.jp/press/2024/20250304_ho01.pdf "豊かな地球環境の実現に向けた取り組み"), p. 1.
Its [resource-circulation page](https://www.jreast.co.jp/eco/resource/ "Resource Circulation at Stations") describes 5 named pilot stations followed by 3 additional locations.
These describe sorting-format rollout, not existing network bin inventories.
An operator-authored article reports plastic separation improving 31%→73% in the trials, without assigning the result exclusively to Tokyo [Nakagawa 2023](https://www.jwnet.or.jp/info/kikansi/assets/files/kikansi_202310_p31_32.pdf "鉄道利用に伴う廃棄物の処理と再資源化の取組みについて"), pp. 31–32.
In September 2026, [AFP 2026](https://courthousenews.com/japans-busiest-rail-station-tests-robot-bins/ "Japan's Busiest Rail Station Tests Robot Bins") reported 7 trash/recycling sets in JR East's portion of Shinjuku, emptied >10 times daily, alongside a 3-robot trial.
The accompanying 2.7-million-passenger figure covers the entire multi-operator complex and cannot supply a matched denominator.
The trial runs 8 September–20 November 2026; fixed bins remain available [JR East 2026](https://www.jreast.co.jp/press/2026/ueno_j/20260904_u01.pdf "Shinjuku Mobile Bin Trial").
[Watanabe 2022](https://news.nissyoku.co.jp/news/watanabem20220120120542314 "Tokyo Metro Removes Its Bins") reports 25/27 operators responding to its January survey, but lists 26 names and categories totaling 22: 7 already removed, 6 partly removed, 3 considering removal, and 6 without plans.
The categories cannot yield an exhaustive respondent distribution; the cost-saving explanation is an outside analyst's interpretation, not an operator audit.
On 20 January 2023, _Yomiuri_ reported removal by 10/11 selected major Greater Tokyo operators, JR East excepted; the [authorized English syndication](https://www.inkl.com/news/tokyo-s-railway-operators-removing-trash-cans-fed-up-with-home-garbage-brought-to-stations "Tokyo’s Railway Operators Removing Trash Cans") was accessible, the Japanese original inaccessible.
This is neither a Kantō census nor evidence that all 10 withdrawals occurred in 2021–2023.
Asked about outcomes in 2022, Seibu lacked quantitative litter data; Tokyo Metro could not separate lower collection from pandemic ridership changes; Tokyu reported less station litter but more trash inside trains; JR East did not compile the requested measures; Keikyu lacked historical records [Sugimoto 2022](https://www.businessinsider.jp/article/262744/ "駅のゴミ箱、どこ行った？ ポイ捨ては減ったのか鉄道各社に聞いてみると……").
These responses establish measurement gaps and possible displacement.
## Railway Waste
Station-and-train waste includes more than public-bin contents.
| Operator / fiscal year | Collected waste (metric tons) | Reported recycling | Source |
|---|---:|---:|---|
| JR East, 1999 | 53,000 | 33% | [JR East 2000](https://www.jreast.co.jp/eco/pdf/pdf_2000/4.pdf "Environmental Report"), pp. 19–20 |
| JR East, 2000 | 52,000 | 35% | [JR East 2001](https://www.jreast.co.jp/eco/pdf/pdf_2001/emission_j.pdf "Environmental Report"), pp. 19–20 |
| JR East, 2005 | 45,000 | 47% | [JR East 2006](https://www.jreast.co.jp/eco/pdf/pdf_2006/p.%2048-50.pdf "Social and Environmental Report"), p. 48 |
| JR East, 2009 | 38,000 | 86% | [JR East 2010](https://www.jreast.co.jp/eco/report/pdf_2010/p.%2033_35.pdf "Social and Environmental Report"), p. 33 |
| JR West, 2021 | 7,500 | Includes 2,700 metric tons of resource waste | [JR West](https://www.westjr.co.jp/company/action/env/eco/004/ "Contribution to a Circular Society") |
Table: Railway waste and reported recycling; definitions change across years.
JR East's endpoints imply 28.3% less collected waste over 10 years.
Thermal recovery entered its recycling definition in FY2007, followed by another revision in FY2009; the percentages do not measure comparable material recycling.
Its Yamanote Line 3-stream bins date to February 1994, before Aum [JR East 1998](https://www.jreast.co.jp/press/1998_2/19981004/index.html "Recycling Campaign").
## Expressway Rest Areas
The April 2004 policy covered 541 staffed service/parking areas, consolidating bins to 1 location in principle, and 266 unstaffed areas or similar facilities, removing or sealing bins.
Following inspections on 6–20 July, the 2 August implementation report recorded removal/consolidation across all 807 expressway areas.
These are facilities, not receptacles or permanent elimination of all bins; easily monitored receptacles, including staffed-shop waste and vending returns, were excepted [MLIT 2004a](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kisha/kisha04/15/150427_.html "Transport Counterterrorism Measures"), [MLIT 2004b](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kisha/kisha04/15/150802_.html "夏期テロ対策の点検・徹底の実施結果").
NEXCO Central removed bins from 12 parking areas in 2025 while retaining beverage returns; the reported 11-area count covers the narrower 3-prefecture Tōkai region [Tokai TV 2025](https://www.fnn.jp/articles/-/959186 "Bins Removed from Twelve Highway Parking Areas").
Neither counts receptacles.
| Operator / period | Waste (metric tons/year) | Disposal expenditure | Outside-origin share |
|---|---:|---:|---|
| NEXCO East, FY2006 | ≈7,500 | ¥1.4 billion | Separate 2007-05 survey: ≈60% from outside the expressway, including ≈30% of the whole from households and similar sources |
| NEXCO Central, 2006-09 release; reference year unspecified | 8,900 | ¥1.3 billion | ≈60%, or 5,300 metric tons / ¥0.8 billion, from outside, including household waste |
Table: Expressway waste handling and estimated outside-origin shares.
Outside-origin waste includes ordinary purchases discarded during travel, not merely illicit household dumping.
East's 30% is a subset of its 60%; annual totals and composition refer to different periods.
Neither release supplies composition sample size or a complete protocol.
These are historical operator-wide costs, not per-bin or national street-bin costs [NEXCO East 2007](https://www.e-nexco.co.jp/pressroom/head_office/2007/0628/00006167.html "休憩施設等のごみ対策に取り組みます"), [NEXCO Central 2006](https://www.c-nexco.co.jp/corporate/pressroom/news_old/index.php?id=623 "地球環境にやさしい「エコ・エリア」をめざします").
# Maps and Substitutes {#maps-substitutes .collapse}
National waste statistics provide no public-bin inventory.
Volunteer maps supply thousands of locations, but incomplete coverage, inconsistent access classifications, and overlapping records prevent a national stock estimate.
The municipal map tabulations below have lower verification confidence than administrative inventories: their source downloads could not be retrieved again during final checking.
Private facilities and beverage-return boxes extend disposal access, but their counts mix equipment, sites, replacements, and campaign activity.
Trials measure contamination, collection frequency, and displaced waste; these outcomes cannot establish how many general-purpose public bins exist.
## National Records
The statutory duty predates Aum and the 1970 waste law.
The 1954 Public Cleansing Act, Article 9, required municipalities to provide and maintain public-use trash receptacles where deemed necessary in designated special cleaning areas; Article 10 extended this to seasonal cleaning areas.
The current Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act, Article 5(6), likewise requires installation and hygienic maintenance where municipalities deem necessary; the 1970 act placed this provision in Article 5(5).
Neither law specifies a numerical minimum or spacing.
[National Diet 1954](https://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_housei.nsf/html/houritsu/01919540422072.htm "Original Public Cleansing Act") · [Diet 1970](https://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_housei.nsf/html/houritsu/06419701225137.htm "Original Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act") · [e-Gov](https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/345AC0000000137 "Current Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act").
All 1,741 municipalities answered the national FY2023 litter survey: 154 (8.8%) measured litter quantity, and 1,054 had litter ordinances.
Its tables cover surveys, recovery, bylaws, enforcement, and interventions, but omit a bin inventory.
The annual municipal solid-waste survey describes waste streams and processing infrastructure.
[Ministry of the Environment 2024](https://www.env.go.jp/content/000209464.pdf "Municipal Litter Survey") · [Ministry of the Environment 2026](https://www.env.go.jp/press/press_03502.html "FY2024 Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Disposal").
## Volunteer Maps
Pocket Map Japan's OpenStreetMap-based snapshot of 26 September 2026 classified 7,210 points as 4,364 visitor-usable and 2,846 resident-only; 3,860 usable points accepted general waste.
Only 541 usable points carried check dates within the preceding 18 months—a map classification, not an audited field-verification rate.
Conditional premises and nonrandom volunteer coverage prevent pedestrian-access comparisons: Kyoto's higher count than Osaka does not establish greater availability.
| Prefecture | Visitor-usable points | Recently checked |
|---|---:|---:|
| Tokyo | 743 | 133 |
| Osaka | 323 | 64 |
| Kyoto | 494 | 57 |
| Hyōgo, including Kobe | 193 | 9 |
| Japan | 4,364 | 541 |
Table: Pocket Map prefectural coverage and recent-check classifications.
Tokyo's 884 raw points include 141 residential points.
These are prefectural map counts, not municipal-program inventories.
[Pocket Map Japan 2026](https://pocketmapjapan.com/japan/ "Japan, by the Numbers") · [Pocket Map Japan 2026](https://pocketmapjapan.com/data/index.json "Machine-Readable Prefecture Index").
The municipal tabulation clips the 12 September point files, reclassified on 26 September, to a GeoJSON redistribution of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's N03 boundaries; Tokyo means its 23 special wards.
“Excluding resident-only” removes household sites and cemetery flower drops; the final columns additionally require public access and an explicit general-waste tag.
The map's confidence field flags recent or official records, neither of which establishes sidewalk access; indoor/outdoor information is largely absent.
Across the 4 prefecture files, 2,174/2,195 raw points came from OpenStreetMap and 21 from operators.
| Boundary | Raw | Excluding resident-only | Public, general waste | Of those, verified/official flag |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Tokyo special wards | 664 | 606 | 498 | 104 |
| Kyoto City | 335 | 318 | 300 | 36 |
| Osaka City | 218 | 133 | 129 | 40 |
| Kobe City | 47 | 36 | 33 | 2 |
Table: Pocket Map municipal clipping, with progressively narrower access classifications.
[Pocket Map Japan 2026](https://pocketmapjapan.com/data/index.json "Machine-Readable Prefecture Index") · [Administrative Boundaries of Japan 2026](https://geo.maderaojen.me/en/ "N03 Municipal Boundary Redistribution").
Kyoto's 300 tagged records coinciding with its ≈300 municipal units supplies no evidence of complete coverage.
The point downloads and boundary file could not be retrieved again during final checking, so this clipping remains an earlier calculation with lower verification confidence than the administrative counts.
Japan Trash Can Map's public layer on 3 November 2026 contained 5,605 records at 5,603 distinct coordinate pairs: 1,435 tagged burnable, 4,653 PET bottle, 4,579 can, and 2,337 glass.
Tags overlap; records lack dates and access/verification fields.
The site's loosely defined “central Tokyo” article gives ≈2,601 entries, including 638 accepting burnable waste; clipping the point file to the special wards gives different totals.
[Japan Trash Can Map 2026](https://japantrashmap.com/ja/chikaku-no-gomibako "Finding the Nearest Trash Can") · [Japan Trash Can Map 2026](https://japantrashmap.com/bins.json "Public Point Layer").
| Boundary | Records | Burnable | Exact coordinate matches to OSM-derived Pocket Map records |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Tokyo special wards | 2,411 | 584 | 314 |
| Kyoto City | 368 | 178 | 111 |
| Osaka City | 376 | 82 | 38 |
| Kobe City | 60 | 20 | 0 |
Table: Japan Trash Can Map municipal records and exact-coordinate overlap with Pocket Map.
Exact matches establish overlap; changed coordinates, duplicates, and missing records can conceal more.
Kobe's zero means only no exact matches in these inputs.
Different inclusion rules and unknown coverage rule out adding totals or using capture–recapture to estimate stock.
## Smart Bins
Force Tech reported ≈700 SmaGO units at ≈70 operating locations in June 2026, then ≈80 locations as of September without updating the unit count.
This one-brand estimate spans streets, stadiums, shopping complexes, and other facilities; “location” has no consistent address-level definition, and no complete reconciling roster was located.
[Force Tech 2026a](https://smago.jp/20260607/ "June National Deployment Estimate") · [Force Tech 2026b](https://smago.jp/20261006-2/ "Tokyo Tower Deployment and September Location Estimate").
| Facility | Deployment | Qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Tokyo Dome City | 118 units; 2025-03-15 | Joint owner/vendor announcement; SMFL first sponsor; largest simultaneous Japanese SmaGO rollout then. [Tokyo Dome & Force Tech 2025](https://www.tokyo-dome.jp/upload/2d20651d4fc135f58bd4df2ee2af648d.pdf "Tokyo Dome City Clean Action") |
| RAYARD MIYASHITA PARK | 21 units, 7 sites; from 2021-06-21 | Morinaga-sponsored; complex opened in 2020-07, before this installation. [Force Tech 2021](https://smago.jp/miyashitapark20220621/ "Miyashita Park Deployment") |
| JR Matsumoto Station | 10 units, 5 sites; 2025-10-21 | Previous count unstated; net addition unknown. [Force Tech 2025](https://smago.jp/20251028/ "Matsumoto Station Deployment") |
| JR Oyama Station | 9 units, 3 sites; 2025-12-09 | Replacements inside ticket gates; each set accepts general waste, bottles/cans, and PET separately. [Force Tech 2025](https://smago.jp/20251211/ "Oyama Station Deployment") |
| Tokyo Tower | 2 units; 2026-10-05 | One outdoor entrance; installed after June's national snapshot. [Force Tech 2026](https://smago.jp/20261006-2/ "Tokyo Tower Deployment") |
Table: Selected SmaGO deployments; installations are not necessarily net additions.
At Tokyo's cleanup council on 30 July 2026, JR East reported collection frequency at Matsumoto and Oyama falling to half or less, with heavier individual loads.
No baseline schedule, observation period, station-specific estimate, or control supports translating this into cost, labor, or litter savings.
[Tokyo 2026](https://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/documents/d/kankyo/tokyo-1/ "TOKYOクリーンアップ推進協議会議事録"), p. 6.
These deployments cannot be added into a reconciled June inventory: subtracting November-planned Chiyoda units and differently dated examples from a rounded June total cannot establish “440 other units”.
Comparing one brand's mixed venues with all municipal street bins in New York or Paris likewise cannot measure relative density.
Omotesandō's original 34 units began operating in October 2020; April 2023 brought a sponsorship/art project, and 2024 brought replacement of 34 units, not 34 additions.
Reported collections fell from 3 or 4 daily to one, ≈70% fewer collections—not 70% less litter or waste.
[Force Tech 2024](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000050.000080115.html "Omotesandō Replacement Installation") · [Force Tech 2026](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000128.000080115.html "Omotesandō Sponsorship and Collection Frequency").
A later vendor claim of ≈90% less Dōtonbori litter, excluding cigarette butts, supplies no comparable observation period, baseline, or detailed protocol.
It has lower confidence than NTT's separately specified pilot reductions of 39% by weight and 14% by item count; these results are not interchangeable.
[Force Tech 2026](https://smago.jp/20261006-2/ "Deployment Effect Examples").
## Grant Selections
Three 2024 Tourism Agency rounds selected 51 + 31 + 32 = 114 general projects under the FY2023 supplementary budget, separately from 26 pioneer-model regions.
Six titles explicitly mention bins: Yokohama Station west exit, Harajuku/Omotesandō, Osaka Minami/Dōtonbori, A・La・Date-na roadside station in Ōsaki, Tsukiji Outer Market, and Nagai Park.
Broader titles may conceal other bin components; 6 is not exhaustive.
These selection lists give neither equipment quantities, paid expenditure, nor completed installations.
[Japan Tourism Agency 2024a](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001733188.pdf "First-Round Selections") · [Japan Tourism Agency 2024b](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001756116.pdf "Second-Round Selections, Revised") · [Japan Tourism Agency 2024c](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001762067.pdf "Third-Round Selections").
## Beverage Returns
The industry reported ≈2.16 million beverage vending machines at year-end 2025; a Kawasaki committee paper says the vending-machine association did not track adjacent recycling-box stock.
A ministry-hosted presentation reported ≈65,000 standardized new-design boxes installed by October 2023.
An industry campaign applied 560,000 stickers in FY2019 around Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka, and another 1.18 million in FY2021–22: 1.74 million applications, some refreshing earlier stickers.
Applications count campaign activity; machines and boxes have no one-to-one relationship, and the boxes accept empty beverage containers.
[Japan Soft Drink Association 2026](https://www.j-sda.or.jp/learning/sustainability/pdf/keihatsu_09.pdf "Vending Machine and Recycling Box Fact Sheet") · [Kawasaki](https://www.city.kawasaki.jp/300/cmsfiles/contents/0000166/166126/5siryou2-3.pdf "Recycling Boxes beside Vending Machines") · [Ministry of the Environment 2023](https://www.env.go.jp/content/000184273.pdf "Beverage Industry Recycling Box Presentation") · [Japan Soft Drink Association 2025](https://www.j-sda.or.jp/about/activitiesreport/2025/2025.pdf "Activity Report"), pp. 9–10.
Kyodo, citing preliminary Beverage Research Institute figures, reported 1.95 million soft-drink vending machines at year-end 2025, down ≈90,000.
This is a different series from the association's ≈2.16 million; the firm's original methodology was not recovered.
Neither series counts recycling boxes.
[Kyodo 2026](https://www.oanda.jp/lab-education/market_news/kn_2026040601000980/ "清涼飲料の自販機200万台割れ").
## Composition Trials
Selected-site trials measured foreign objects as a share of counted items:
| Pilot | Before | After |
|---|---:|---:|
| Shibuya, FY2020 | 42.5% | 28.5% |
| Hamamatsu/Okazaki, FY2021 | 32.1% | 14.9% |
| Minamiashigara, FY2022 | 12.1% | 7.1% |
| Hiroshima, 16 locations, 2021 | 42% | 25% |
Table: Recycling-box foreign-object shares in selected trials, measured by item count.
These are count fractions, not weight fractions or national averages.
Design changed alongside other conditions; Hiroshima noted changing beverage-container quantities and possible diversion to other boxes.
The headline “≈30% contamination” cannot become a weighted national census from these pilots.
[Ishiguro 2022](https://www.3r-suishinkyogikai.jp/data/event/R04_3rce-002.pdf "Beverage Container Recovery: Current Issues and Responses"), pp. 20–21 · [Hiroshima 2022](https://www.pref.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/eco/recyclebox.html "New Recycling Box Trial Results").
A late-2022 ministry trial installed 309 new-design boxes at 241 sites: Chōfu 106/85 and Kawasaki 203/156 boxes/sites.
A route-sales questionnaire covering 92 boxes reported improvement in 76%; this was not independent measurement of every trial box.
Removing 10 boxes at 7 sites, with messages posted, reduced litter at 4 sites, increased it at 2, and left one unchanged.
This small uncontrolled arm establishes no general removal effect.
[Ministry of the Environment 2023](https://www.env.go.jp/content/000130143.pdf "FY2022 Recycling Box Field Trials") · [Japan Vending Association 2023](https://www.jama-vm.com/relays/download/54/348/61/517/?file=/files/libs/586/20230511090759893.pdf "New Recycling Box Installation and Evaluation"), p. 3.
Another 721 replacements in February–March 2023—Saitama 235, Osaka 353, Fukuoka 133—brought the program to 1,030 replacements across 5 cities.
A pooled staff questionnaire (n = 369) reported less contamination in 82.4%, no change in 16.8%, and more in 0.8%.
These are replacements and staff assessments, not net stock additions.
[Japan Vending Association 2023](https://www.jama-vm.com/relays/download/54/348/61/517/?file=/files/libs/586/20230511090759893.pdf "New Recycling Box Installation and Evaluation"), pp. 1–4.
Osaka Prefecture's FY2022 trial at 20 locations reported foreign matter falling from 26.6% to 20.2% by count: 6.4 percentage points, or 24% relative (calculated).
Separate fixed-point litter observations covered 5 sites.
[Japan Soft Drink Association 2023](https://www.pref.osaka.lg.jp/documents/806/1-4_r50322_1.pdf "Osaka Recycling-Box Trial"), pp. 6–8, 13.
Okayama's 25-site, 5-week crossover in February–March 2023 rotated old, new, and new-plus-sticker boxes weekly across 5 groups.
Foreign-matter shares were 44.1%, 36.1%, and 32.4%: reductions of 8.0 and 11.7 percentage points.
The report leaves mass versus item count unclear; “foreign matter” includes alcohol containers, and diversion to neighboring old boxes occurred.
The crossover controls site differences and some timing effects, but random assignment is unstated.
Its 400 planned replacements by May's end imply neither 400 new sites nor reduced neighborhood waste.
[Okayama 2023](https://www.city.okayama.jp/harmonia/cmsfiles/contents/0000049/49516/RBCAreport.pdf "自販機横新機能リサイクルボックス組成分析結果報告書"), pp. 11–12, 18.
The interim announcement of 30 March 2023 separately reported ≈30% contamination by weight, without establishing a national fraction or resolving every final-report denominator.
It recorded 400 boxes distributed to operators by 15 March, with exchange planned by May's end; distribution was not completed installation.
[Okayama 2023](https://www.city.okayama.jp/shisei/cmsfiles/contents/0000048/48630/kankyo.pdf "自動販売機横に設置する新機能リサイクルボックスの導入について"), pp. 1, 3.
Kamata observed 4 boxes at one selected parking lot for 7 days each before and after replacement in January 2023:
| Counted objects | Old boxes | New boxes |
|---|---:|---:|
| Accepted empty beverage containers | 744 | 572 |
| Foreign objects | 1,070 | 870 |
| Foreign-object fraction, calculated | 59.0% | 60.3% |
Table: Kamata before/after counts: fewer foreign objects but a higher contamination fraction.
Foreign objects fell 18.7%, but accepted containers fell 23.1%, increasing the fraction.
“Foreign” includes alcohol containers and bottles containing drink, not merely noncontainer litter.
This sequential single-site comparison cannot establish neighborhood waste reduction.
The broader project installed 40 redesigned boxes by 28 February 2023; only 4 entered the comparison.
[Japan Soft Drink Association 2023](https://www.circulareconomy.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/8dfef0dc442c3df294958539b8685cad.pdf "地域密着型協働プラスチック資源循環促進事業 実績報告書"), pp. 18–24.
## Retail Access
Mie's October 2015–May 2016 program moved bins indoors at 73/76 participating convenience stores in 4 Ise-Shima municipalities; 64/73 answered the follow-up.
| Staff-reported outcome | Stores |
|---|---:|
| Less waste in bins | 62/64 (96.9%) |
| Less management work | 61/64 (95.3%) |
| Better sorting | 45/63 (71.4%) |
| More surrounding litter | 19/64 (29.7%) |
| Complaints about missing outdoor bins | 36/64 (56.3%) |
| Wanted to continue | 54/64 (84.4%) |
Table: Mie convenience-store follow-up: staff-reported effects of moving bins indoors.
Operator savings and public disposal access diverged.
These are staff reports, not weighed waste or randomized comparisons; complaints count stores, not customers.
The page header predates its results, so the explicit implementation period is used.
[Mie](https://www.pref.mie.lg.jp/HAIKIK/HP/2015100511.htm "コンビニエンスストア等の屋外ごみ箱を店内に移設する取組の結果").
An April 2008 Jōetsu report, following paid household bags, quoted Seven-Eleven stores receiving 1.5 times as much combustible trash on average, some twice as much; moving bins indoors reportedly reduced waste to one-third.
The 35 stores were association members, not a measured intervention sample.
No weighing method, sample size, comparison window, or controls support these displacement observations.
[J-CAST 2008](https://www.j-cast.com/2008/04/18019168.html?p=all "家庭ごみ有料化でコンビニ悲鳴 店のごみ箱へ「投棄」急増").
On 28 April 2020, Lawson temporarily suspended customer bin use, while FamilyMart recommended suspension.
Neither pandemic notice counts receptacles or establishes restrictions persisting into 2025–26.
[Lawson 2020](https://www.lawson.co.jp/company/news/detail/1397490_2504.html "Temporary Suspension of Toilets, Bins and Ashtrays") · [FamilyMart 2020](https://www.family.co.jp/company/news_releases/2020/20200428_02.html "COVID-19 Response as of April 28").
# Visitor Surveys {#visitor-surveys .collapse}
The Japan Tourism Agency's airport series measures visitors selecting bin scarcity among multiple inconveniences: 17.2% in FY2025, down from 30.1% in FY2023.
Direct local questions yield much higher percentages, but different samples, wording, and recall periods prevent pooling them.
Follow-ups distinguish missing bins, sorting confusion, overflow, and responses such as carrying waste back or misusing a receptacle.
Resident and industry surveys add evidence of demand and disposal pressure; none measures national bin stock or identifies the effects of removals.
## Departure Surveys
| Japan Tourism Agency survey | Respondents | Selected “too few trash cans” |
|---|---:|---:|
| FY2019 | 4,006 | 23.4% |
| FY2023 | 4,012 | 30.1% |
| FY2024 | 4,189 | 21.9% |
| FY2025 | 4,110 | 17.2% (708 respondents) |
Table: Japan Tourism Agency departure surveys: reported bin scarcity.
These are quota-based departure interviews at 5 airports, allowing multiple answers, not random national samples.
FY2025 fieldwork ran from 18 November 2025 to 13 January 2026; 69.7% were repeat visitors.
The bin option began in FY2019; surveys paused in FY2020–22.
The FY2023–25 decline of 12.9 percentage points establishes neither stock growth nor visitor adaptation.
[Japan Tourism Agency 2026](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001998843.pdf "FY2025 Inbound Visitor Environment Survey"), pp. 1–6.
| Itinerary | FY2023 scarcity | FY2025 scarcity |
|---|---:|---:|
| Metropolitan and other prefectures | 36% | 18% |
| Metropolitan prefectures only | 27% | 17% |
| Other prefectures only | 26% | 17% |
Table: Reported scarcity by broad itinerary category.
The 8 metropolitan prefectures include Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, and Hyōgo.
These rounded prefectural-group figures describe neither literal urban/rural streets nor individual cities or stops.
[Japan Tourism Agency 2023](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001746227.pdf "FY2023 Inbound Visitor Environment Survey"), p. 6 · [Japan Tourism Agency 2026](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001998843.pdf "FY2025 Inbound Visitor Environment Survey"), pp. 6, 10–12.
## Reasons and Responses
Among FY2025's 708 scarcity complainants, difficulty occurred at attractions/information centers (70%), en route (46%), and stations/terminals (39%).
| Reason | First visit, n=219 | Visits 2–5, n=286 | Visit 6+, n=203 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| No nearby bin | 94% | 93% | 94% |
| Sorting unclear | 16% | 15% | 11% |
| Believed disposal impermissible | 13% | 10% | 6% |
| Overflowing | 5% | 7% | 10% |
Table: Reasons for scarcity complaints, by previous visits to Japan.
| Response, conditional on scarcity | All, n=708 | Metropolitan-only, n=251 | Nonmetropolitan-only, n=150 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Carried waste back | 69% | 67% | 72% |
| Found and used appropriate bin | 39% | 43% | 33% |
| Used bin improperly | 5% | 4% | 2% |
| Left waste outside bins | 4% | 2% | 5% |
Table: Self-reported coping among scarcity complainants; multiple responses allowed.
Multiple answers were allowed; these are self-reports, not observed behavior.
[Japan Tourism Agency 2026](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001998843.pdf "FY2025 Inbound Visitor Environment Survey"), pp. 10–12.
The supplementary Haneda survey of 24–25 April 2024 interviewed 411 visitors; its disposal-difficulty follow-up covered 148 (36.0%, calculated).
Among those 148, 91% cited no nearby bin, 14% unclear sorting, 10% prohibited/wrong waste type, and 9% overflow; locations were attractions (43%), routes to them (43%), and stations/bus terminals (16%).
These multiple-response results from one airport over 2 days cannot extend the annual 5-airport series.
[Japan Tourism Agency 2024](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001747174.pdf "FY2023 Visitor Environment Survey and April 2024 Supplement"), pp. 2, 16–17.
## Local Visitor Surveys
A May 2024 Shinjuku tourist-information-center intercept found 176/251 (70.1%) citing too few bins: 122/172 first-time visitors (70.9%) and 54/79 repeat visitors (68.4%).
The same sample gave 82/251 citing unclear locations and 63/251 full bins.
An August 2014 Hosei student survey in Asakusa found 51/56 (91.1%) intercepted foreign visitors considered street bins too few.
These convenience samples ask more directly about waste than the national survey.
An older JNTO information-center survey combined bins or benches: 64/456 respondents reporting any inconvenience selected it (14.0%).
[Yuan et al. 2024](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsmcwm/35/0/35_11/_pdf/-char/ja "Inbound Tourists' Waste Disposal Survey in Shinjuku"), table 3 · [Hosei University Student Team 2014](https://paperzz.com/doc/5922998/ "Omotenashi Box") · [JNTO 2009](https://www.jnto.go.jp/about_us/reports/gyouseki21.pdf "FY2009 Operations Report"), p. 108.
GOOD LUCK TRIP's December 2025 online survey found 1,005/1,163 (86.4%) selecting too few bins or unclear locations.
Eligibility included overseas residents visiting Japan anytime in the preceding 10 years; 809 (69.6%) used Traditional Chinese.
This composite question, population, and recall period prevent pooling with the airport survey's 17.2% or interpreting the difference as an increase.
[Gakken 2026](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000008637.000002535.html "訪日旅行の困りごと調査") · [GOOD LUCK TRIP 2026](https://static.gltjp.com/glt/pdf/survey_202601.pdf "Full Survey Report").
## Disposal Choices
Kyoto's February 2020 online survey asked 1,000 nonresident leisure visitors from 2018–19 where they discarded trash while sightseeing, allowing multiple answers: shops 31.3%, lodgings 28.3%, sidewalks/parks 21.0%, stations 20.7%, home 9.3%, and vending-machine collectors 8.4%.
Sidewalks/parks attracted 15.1% of 800 Japanese respondents, 63.0% of 100 Chinese respondents, and 26.0% of 100 US respondents.
Those quotas describe the sample, not all Kyoto visitors.
[Kyoto 2020](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/templates/shingikai_kekka/cmsfiles/contents/0000274/274056/0703_05_sankoshiryo1.pdf "Tourist Waste Survey"), pp. 5, 7.
Shibuya interviewed 27 observed litterers; 15 refused.
Sixteen cited no visible bin and, separately, sixteen no bin at their purchase shop; 25/27 said a shop bin would have prevented their littering.
These are hypothetical self-reports from a selected sample.
[Shibuya 2025](https://files.city.shibuya.tokyo.jp/assets/12995aba8b194961be709ba879857f70/cc75aa53299d49d58557198386d9860e/20251225_poisutegomi_report.pdf "Litter Survey Report"), printed pp. 54–56.
## Resident Surveys
Japanese beverage-association online surveys screen for outdoor bottled-drink consumption and ask whether public bins or recycling boxes are needed beyond vending-machine returns:
| Year | Respondents | Support |
|---|---:|---:|
| 2024 | 1,033 | 85.4% |
| 2025 | 1,037 | 87.2% (904) |
| 2026 | 1,037 | 88.6% |
Table: Beverage-industry consumer surveys: support for additional public bins or recycling boxes.
The question combines 2 receptacle types; in 2025, 82.1% of the 904 supporters named stations.
[Japan Soft Drink Association 2024](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000015.000130940.html "Consumer Survey on Beverage Container Recycling") · [Japan Soft Drink Association 2025](https://prtimes.jp/a/?c=130940&f=d130940-21-525ccdb71f0a85665c9ee41de1cf2d0d.pdf&r=21 "Consumer Survey on Beverage Container Recycling") · [Japan Soft Drink Association 2026](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000034.000130940.html "Consumer Survey on Beverage Container Recycling").
In September 2026, 29.9% of 1,037 eligible outdoor PET-drink consumers reported placing other material in a beverage-return box during the previous year.
Among that subgroup, 44.2% cited nowhere else to discard it and 31.6% reported plastic cups.
This supports disposal-access pressure without identifying public-bin removal as its cause.
[Japan Soft Drink Association 2026](https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000034.000130940.html "Consumer Survey on Beverage Container Recycling").
Sendai's September–October 2025 monitor survey received 356/399 responses: 177 sought a bin (reported as 49%), 165 carried trash home (46%), 16 returned it to the shop, and zero selected habitual littering.
These counts total 358, so they cannot partition 356 people.
Of 354 answering about ever littering, 43 admitted it; 25/43 cited no bin/ashtray or searching being bothersome—a combined option that cannot isolate scarcity.
The panel was 67% female, not nationally representative; carrying trash home does not establish opposition to more bins.
[Sendai 2026](https://www.city.sendai.jp/kochotoke-kocho/shise/koho/kocho/documents/02_gominopoisute.pdf "ごみのポイ捨てに関する意識調査"), questions 10–12.
Shiga's February 2016 monitor survey received 326/397 responses.
Asked how to reduce litter excluding cigarette butts, 173/326 (53.1%) selected cooperative bin placement at gas stations, convenience stores, and parking lots, the leading option; 154 (47.2%) selected shop take-back of takeout containers, and 147 (45.1%) carry-home promotion.
Multiple selections made support for bins and carry-home policies compatible.
The panel was 64.4% male and 44.4% aged 60 or older, not representative of Japan.
[Shiga 2016](https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/file/attachment/4003837.pdf "ポイ捨てごみについてのアンケート結果"), question 7, p. 7, recovered primary indexed table.
# International Comparisons {#international-comparisons .collapse}
Foreign administrative inventories put Kyoto's ≈300 municipal street bins and Kobe's few dozen in perspective: major overseas programs count thousands or tens of thousands.
The difference in scale survives close inspection, but a precise international scarcity ratio does not.
Inventories cover different territories, operators, waste streams, and combinations of streets and parks; Japanese volunteer maps add another source of unequal coverage.
Removal is also an international practice.
Seoul and Taipei cite household waste escaping paid-bag collection, Paris closed bins under Vigipirate, and New York tested whether removing subway bins would improve cleanliness.
The New York audit supplies the clearest warning: collecting fewer bags did not establish cleaner stations.
## Inventories
The following counts preserve each operator's scope.
They cannot be added or normalized into a common street-bin density without first reconciling those boundaries.
| Jurisdiction | Inventory | Scope and source |
|---|---:|---|
| New York City | ≈23,000 | Department of Sanitation litter baskets. [NYC Department of Sanitation](https://www.nyc.gov/site/dsny/collection/containerization/litter-basket-of-the-future.page "Better Bins") |
| Paris | ≈24,000 street baskets, 2026-09 | Municipal page also gives 28,000 public-space baskets/sorting devices and ≈100 m spacing; the 2024–2030 plan gives 30,000 street baskets. [Paris 2026](https://www.paris.fr/pages/la-proprete-239 "How the City Keeps Paris Clean"); [Paris 2025](https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2025/07/30/plpdma-paris-2024-2030-eTIh.pdf "Waste Prevention Plan"), p. 50 |
| Toronto | ≈11,000 street bins + 10,000 park bins, 2025-04 | Streets combine garbage/recycling; parks also include organics. [Toronto 2025](https://www.toronto.ca/news/spring-cleaning-and-ongoing-city-of-toronto-litter-operations-3/ "Spring Cleaning and Ongoing City of Toronto Litter Operations") |
| Madrid | >91,000, 2025-04 | Cleaning-service stock includes ≈89,000 Cibeles-model bins, with street/public-space and park/garden variants; no street-only subtotal. [Madrid 2025](https://diario.madrid.es/blog/notas-de-prensa/autorizado-el-contrato-de-mantenimiento-de-papeleras-por-38-millones-de-euros/ "Autorizado el contrato de mantenimiento de papeleras por 38 millones de euros") |
| Berlin | 24,195 street bins, 2023-Q1 | BSR-managed public street land; another 342 forest and 2,471 park bins bring these categories to 27,008. [Berlin Senate 2023](https://pardok.parlament-berlin.de/starweb/adis/citat/VT/19/SchrAnfr/S19-15593.pdf "Entwicklung der Anzahl von Papierkörben der BSR") |
| City of Sydney | >1,400 street bins, 2025-07 | Local council territory, not Greater Sydney. [City of Sydney 2025](https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/documents/s97279/Attachment%2520B%2520-%2520Engagement%2520Report%2520-%2520Managing%2520Waste%2520in%2520Public%2520Places%2520Local%2520Approvals%2520Policy.pdf "Public Places Waste Policy Engagement Report"), p. 5 |
| San Francisco | >2,800, current service page | Public Works maintains bins; Recology empties them daily, more often at busy sites. The older figure of 3,300 has a different observation date. [San Francisco Public Works](https://sfpublicworks.org/services/public-trash-cans "Public Trash Cans") |
| City of London | 65 Big Belly compactors, 2023-11 | One fleet in the Square Mile, not all receptacles or Greater London. [Kingston 2023](https://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s193272/Report%20-%20Street%20Cleansing%20Resources.pdf "Street Cleansing Resources"), paragraph 23 |
| Singapore | >11,000, 2023-12 | National Environment Agency public-area bins, particularly at busy sidewalks and bus stops. [Singapore NEA 2023](https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/readers-letters/index/there-are-more-than-10-000-trash-cans-across-the-island "There Are More Than 10,000 Trash Cans across the Island") |
| Hong Kong | ≈11,100, 2024 | Food and Environmental Hygiene Department containers in public places; its current street-cleaning page gives ≈10,500 street containers. [Hong Kong FEHD 2024](https://www.fehd.gov.hk/english/publications/annualrpt/2024/4.html "Annual Report"); [Hong Kong FEHD](https://www.fehd.gov.hk/english/pleasant_environment/cleansing/clean1.html "Street Cleansing") |
| Seoul | 6,851 rows; 4,098 accept general waste, 2025-11 | District-managed street equipment: also 2,240 recycling-only, 480 cigarette-only, 29 cigarette/recycling, and 4 unclassified entries. Excludes equipment outside district management, such as Han River park bins. [Seoul 2025](https://data.seoul.go.kr/dataList/OA-15069/F/1/datasetView.do "Street Waste Bin Inventory") |
| Taipei | 806 sets / 1,612 physical bins, 2026 | Pedestrian bin pairs. The location dataset distinguishes receptacles and a 130-site subset near attractions/shopping areas. [Taipei 2026](https://www.dep.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=CB6D5C560DE4D2DD&s=798A998A29BE46CD&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6 "Pedestrian Waste Bin Placement"); [Taipei Open Data 2026](https://data.taipei/dataset/detail?id=a835f3ba-7f50-4b0d-91a6-9df128632d1c "Pedestrian Waste Bin Locations") |
Table: International operator inventories; geography and equipment definitions differ.
Berlin supplies a consistent short series: 23,256, 23,504, 23,664, 23,859, and 24,195 street bins in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and the first quarter of 2023.
Street provision grew 4.0%; the larger increase across all categories may also reflect changes in BSR responsibility.
Paris's changing figures are less tractable: its September 2026 page gives 24,000/28,000, while an earlier cached version and the prevention plan use 30,000.
Without matched definitions and stock dates, these do not establish a 20% physical decline, just as Berlin's series cannot establish that Western cities generally maintained or expanded their networks.
Public street programs offer the closest comparison with Kyoto and Kobe.
Using an incomplete volunteer map as the Japanese numerator against an administrative foreign inventory would confound coverage with availability, even before accounting for ownership, geography, and accepted waste.
## Withdrawals and Returns
Taipei removed problematic residential bins because households used them to evade paid-bag collection; targeted removal nevertheless coexists with 806 bin pairs.
Seoul's 2013 release records 7,607 bins in 1995, 3,707 in 2007, and 4,724 in 2013, discussing paid-bag dumping, reduced cleaning staffing, and district costs.
Its inventory reached 6,543 by the end of 2024.
A June 2026 report attributed to Seoul gives 7,085 for 2026, compared with 4,956 in 2022; this unclassified update remains separate from the address-level November 2025 inventory [Seoul 2013](https://news.seoul.go.kr/env/archives/34963 "서울시-롯데리아․엔제리너스, 도심 가로휴지통 확대"); [Seoul 2025](https://data.seoul.go.kr/dataList/OA-15069/F/1/datasetView.do "Street Waste Bin Inventory"); [Lee 2026](https://news.tf.co.kr/read/life/2334751.htm "월드컵 응원전·여름 축제 여파…도심 쓰레기통 부족 몸살").
Paris supplies a security parallel.
France's Interior Ministry reported 8,004 receptacles sealed or removed under Vigipirate as of 16 July 1997, 44% of the stock.
Its answer of 25 August proposed 1,500 transparent replacements; it established neither completed installation nor full restoration [French Interior Ministry 1997](https://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/11/questions/QANR5L11QE1036.pdf "Réponse à la question écrite n°1036 de Martine Aurillac").
New York's subway removal pilot expanded from 2 stations in 2011 to 10 in 2012 and 39 in 2014.
Daily collected bags fell 39→13 and 6→3 at the first 2 stations; the next 8 averaged 6.2→2.1.
The independent state audit found no demonstrated improvement in cleanliness or rats, and inadequate measurement of the intended outcome: exposed refuse bags.
By August 2016, 7 pilot stations had received mezzanine bins again after increases in track fires and trash collected from stations and/or tracks.
The 2017 follow-up still found no firm evidence of effectiveness.
Collection declined, but cleaner stations did not follow as an established result; neither outcome estimates removal's effect in Japan [New York State Comptroller 2015](https://www.osc.ny.gov/press/releases/2015/09/dinapoli-mtas-plan-pull-trash-cans-didnt-make-stations-cleaner "MTA's Plan to Pull Trash Cans Didn't Make Stations Cleaner"); [New York State Comptroller 2017](https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/audits/2018-02/sga-2017-16f23.pdf "Trash Can Free Stations Pilot Program—Follow-Up").
# Methods and Corrections {#methods .collapse}
The search favors dated administrative inventories and contemporary operator records, retaining retrospective or indexed-only evidence with explicit attribution.
The cutoff is 3 November 2026.
Fiscal years, physical units, locations, access restrictions, and announced versus completed installations remain separate throughout.
Several attractive national estimates fail because their Japanese numerator is assumed, their component counts overlap, or their units differ.
The corrections below record those failures and the remaining source-access gaps so that later work can improve the inventory without inheriting its errors.
## Search and Scope
The search covered Japanese municipal operating reports and histories, ward assembly minutes, statutes and ministry documents, transport announcements, tourism survey PDFs, J-STAGE, institutional repositories, and English-language reports identifying operators or primary documents.
Useful search strings include 公衆用ごみ容器, 公共ごみ容器, 公衆ごみ容器, 街頭ごみ容器, 街頭ごみ容器設置数, くずかご, 公園 ごみ箱 撤去, 駅 ごみ箱 撤去, and ゴミ箱の少なさ.
ごみ also appears as ゴミ or, in older archives, 塵芥.
A failed search is not evidence that historical counts or Japanese experiments do not exist: this search recovered both.
The map tabulations use the [Pocket Map point files](https://pocketmapjapan.com/data/pref/13.json) at `/data/pref/{13,26,27,28}.json`, the [Japan Trash Can Map layer](https://japantrashmap.com/bins.json "Public Point Layer"), and [N03-derived municipal boundaries, release 2026-08-04.1](https://geo.maderaojen.me/datasets/jp-municipalities/releases/v1/2026-08-04.1/data.geojson).
The calculation clips longitude and latitude to each municipal polygon, excluding holes; Tokyo uses N03_007 codes beginning with 131.
Pocket Map columns use `accessRule`, `acceptedWaste`, and `confidence`; overlap uses exact coordinate pairs from records labeled OpenStreetMap in Pocket Map.
Live layers can change.
The national Japan Trash Can Map totals were independently retabulated from downloaded JSON, but the Pocket Map files and boundary file failed retrieval during the final check.
The municipal clipping tables therefore retain lower verification confidence than the administrative inventories.
Japanese fiscal years begin in April: the end of FY2021 is March 2022.
Currency amounts are nominal yen for the source's stated year, without inflation adjustment; they are not a comparable real-cost time series.
Budget appropriations, contract awards, operating costs, and realized savings describe different quantities.
Likewise, ashtrays, sanitary bins, supermarket recycling banks, packaging production, and onboard cleaning require separate definitions and inventories before they can contribute to a pedestrian-bin census.
Evidence falls into 4 broad tiers: dated administrative inventories; contemporary operator announcements; attributed retrospective or interview reports; and volunteered maps or convenience surveys.
Official provenance does not cure a unit error, and a launch announcement does not establish continued operation.
Repeated accounts derived from one source supply one observation, not independent corroboration.
## Rejected Totals
| Proposed estimate | Correction |
|:--|:--|
| Tokyo has 30–300 government sidewalk bins, best estimate 100; a separate calculation also yields ≈100 | Both lack an empirical citywide numerator or upper bound. One assumes counts in unobserved wards; another combines a vendor's mixed-venue 2024 stock with selected 2026 plans, including December installations. Chiyoda's 22 planned units were not an operating lower bound at the cutoff. |
| Japanese provision is 1/60–1/100 of Western provision per visitor, or overseas provision is 75–1,100 times greater | Derived ratios inherit the missing Japanese inventory and mix operator stocks, resident or visitor denominators, dates, and geography—including Paris versus Île-de-France. They cannot be repaired by greater arithmetic precision. |
| Japan has 0.65–1.3 million publicly accessible recycling boxes; losing 90,000 vending machines implies losing ≈75,000 boxes | A neighborhood box/machine ratio and assumed 40–80% access fraction cannot establish national coverage. The average stock ratio does not determine the marginal removal ratio: machines share boxes or have none. Neither vending-machine series counts boxes. |
| Kyoto has 50–300 bins, best estimate 100, or ≈300 ordinary bins plus 37 smart bins | The official FY2024 program count is 293. Smart replacements generally belong within that program; adding differently dated totals risks double-counting. “Best provided in Japan” remains an interview claim without a harmonized survey. |
| Kobe has fewer than 30 bins, only 12, or no park bins | The dated municipal record gives 38 units at 18 sites; the later ≈30 figure is an interview. Flower Road's 12 units at 6 sites are one project; 6 at 3 sites are its Fujicco-sponsored subset. Named-park removal policies cannot establish a citywide zero. |
| Shinjuku's 129 sites imply 310 units; removal followed a 10-year pledge | No site-to-unit conversion is published. The ≈2001 site report and official ≈300-unit program have different scopes; 1997–1999 installation does not reach 10 years by 2004. |
| Shibuya had 3 bins; Nara 2; Taipei 806 | Shibuya's report identifies 3 confirmed locations, not an exhaustive stock; Nara had 2 sets/6 units; Taipei 806 sets/1,612 units. Per-bin calculations using the smaller numerators fail. |
| Tokyo Metro's 239 means ≈1.3 bins per station; Eidan's 492 means 492 3-bin sets and a flat 45% stock for 25 years | The 2022 count is 239 3-bin sets and requires a same-year station denominator. The 1995 sets' composition is unspecified; later withdrawals and restorations rule out flat interpolation. Temporary closure of 53 Metro stations does not identify all bin-equipped stations. |
| Kawasaki had 21 public bins in 1992 and 23 in 1996 | The 2019 committee document concerns commercial refuse-collection containers on sidewalks. The counts are later observations; 1992/1996 are program-origin dates. |
| One national zero-bin regime began in 1995; no law requires public bins | Pre-1995 carry-home campaigns, later installations, surviving inventories, and the statutory provision for necessary public receptacles contradict this literal claim. The law specifies no universal bin density. |
| All foreign comparators count equivalent street-only receptacles | Madrid includes park models; Toronto includes recycling and separately counts parks; Seoul includes cigarette-only equipment; Taipei counts pairs. Paris's announced 1,500 transparent bins in 1997 were a future experiment, not completed restoration. |
Table: Rejected stock estimates and counting errors.
The Kawasaki record is [Kawasaki 2019](https://www.city.kawasaki.jp/980/cmsfiles/contents/0000107/107100/011120-4.pdf "環境委員会資料・事業系ごみ集積容器"), pp. 2–3.
The remaining inventory corrections are documented in the corresponding appendices.
## Rejected Outcome Claims
| Claim | Evidentiary limit |
|:--|:--|
| Shibuya's integrated litter densities establish a causal inverse bin–litter relationship | The pooled density adds component rates; 177.7 + 93.6 = 271.3 items/100 m is invalid pooling. Raw counts remain usable; the observational design cannot identify causality. Convenience stores supplied ≈63% of source-identifiable litter, not all litter. |
| Osaka saved ¥230 million/year; Shibuya spent ¥6 million/site/year | No comparable audited savings or cost series was recovered. Historical program expenses do not establish realized savings or a defensible per-site denominator. |
| A 5-bin installation cost ¥16 million | The cited Tourism Agency document is a fictional application example with placeholder names, including systems and related work. It is not an observed procurement. |
| Kobe's smart-bin trial demonstrably halved collection | Launch materials describe an intended twice-to-once-daily change, without a verified before/after outcome. Other operators' measured outcomes cannot substitute for Kobe's. |
| Vending-box contamination is ≈30% by weight nationwide | Several pilots count objects. Okayama separately reported ≈30% by weight in a local interim sample; neither establishes a representative national mass fraction. Setagaya repeats industry figures rather than supplying an independent local audit. |
| Kamata's 1,070→870 foreign objects prove a lower contamination share | Accepted containers fell faster; the calculated share rose 59.0%→60.3%. |
| Fujiyoshida installed 3 bins and halved litter from 60% to 30% | It installed 3 3-unit sets: 9 receptacles. The percentages describe resident perceptions; raw and visitor-adjusted litter measures differ. |
| Jōetsu evaluated 35 stores | Thirty-5 is association membership. The report gives no intervention sample size, weighing method, or comparison protocol. |
| The visitor survey found 74% versus 65% carry-back and 32% versus 46% search by visit frequency | These figures are absent from the cited report. Its metropolitan/nonmetropolitan coping figures were also reversed in a secondary account; the corrected table appears above. |
| Falling tourist complaints identify improved access, repeat-visitor adaptation, or a smart-bin effect | The series identifies changing sample responses. Random-sampling margins cannot eliminate changing quotas, itineraries, question lists, or other response effects. No recovered study separates the proposed causes. |
| 32–80% of tourist-food vendors lack bins | The underlying observations concern selected Shibuya shops and categories, not a national vendor census. |
| Japan has less street litter than Western peers despite fewer bins | No harmonized international litter survey was established. Bin inventories cannot test the litter premise. |
Table: Rejected causal claims, cost estimates, and outcome interpretations.
The hypothetical procurement appears in [Japan Tourism Agency 2025](https://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/content/001884218.pdf "ICTごみ箱事業・申請記入例"), p. 3; the repeated contamination claim in [Setagaya 2025](https://www.city.setagaya.lg.jp/01101/26750.html "自動販売機横のリサイクルボックスについて").
Other corrections are errors of attribution or timing: the May 2022 Nippori/Nishi-Nippori notice belongs to Toei's Nippori–Toneri Liner, not JR East; a donation pledge is not installed stock; a facility opening need not date its bins; and a smart-bin national residual assembled from mixed dates is not a census.
Tokyo's ¥1.1 billion appropriation covers a broader cleanup program, while Osaka's ¥35 million covers carts separately from its ¥9 million smart-bin operations allocation.
## Access and Discrepancies
Useful inaccessible records remain evidence gaps, not zeroes.
In particular, Arashiyama's alleged 71 bins at 32 sites and Zama's 59-machine/49-box inventory remain unverified rather than disproved.
The following table distinguishes unavailable originals from recovered indexed text, mirrors, or authorized republication.
| Source | Access limitation and treatment |
|---|---|
| Kyoto’s June 2026 street-bin XLSX | Dataset metadata accessible; file host timed out/errored. No fresh row count asserted. |
| Kyoto FY2024 results, 293 units | Official indexed table recovered, row 2-43; direct PDF returned 404. Independently corroborated only to approximately 300 by the city’s [innovation page](https://open-labo.city.kyoto.lg.jp/issue/issue-3100/ "ポイ捨てゼロ 美しいまちをつくる仕組みづくり"). |
| Osaka FY2023 operations PDF | Original URL returned 404; replaced by accessible FY2024 report. |
| Tokyo Metro’s 2005 restoration / 2022 figure | Contemporary PVC Council article recovered through indexed text; direct access returned 403. Asahi access was restricted, but accessible original Japanese trade reporting independently verifies 239 3-bin sets in January 2022. |
| Kobe’s 2016 bureau report; Chiyoda’s 2014 council minutes | Read from document mirrors; original publication identity and scopes retained. |
| Akihabara’s November 2026 rollout | The July 30 primary minutes were recovered at the URL with a trailing slash and verify the revised 22-unit plan. The April newsletter verifies ¥74.38 million. Announced timing remains separate from confirmed operation. |
| Yomiuri’s January 2023 11-operator comparison | Japanese original unavailable; authorized English syndication directly recovered. The selected-operator scope remains essential. |
| Historical cost anecdotes | Osaka’s exact 3,125/2,410-metric ton series and 600 annual replacements were not recovered. Shibuya’s often repeated 3-site/¥18 million cost was not verified against the original article or municipal accounts. |
| Arashiyama Golden Week 2024 inventory | The [cited Kyoto PDF](https://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/cmsfiles/contents/0000326/326235/hodo.pdf "Golden Week Litter Measures") returned fetch errors/403, and the inferred parent page returned 404; 71 units at 32 sites remains unverified. |
| Wakayama research reports | The [FY2021 PDF](https://www.pref.wakayama.lg.jp/prefg/020100/data/archive/d00213444_d/fil/gomibako_R3_honbun.pdf "FY2021 Research Report") and [FY2020 PDF](https://www.pref.wakayama.lg.jp/prefg/020100/data/archive/d00213444_d/fil/gomibako_R2.pdf "FY2020 Research Report") returned 404 directly, but cached complete original text was recovered. Municipal response counts and Kurashiki’s cost were verified there; no PDF binary was recovered. |
| Zama recycling-box inventory | The [cited DOCX](https://www.city.zama.kanagawa.jp/_res/projects/default_project/_page_/001/009/814/Coca-Cola_Report.docx "Zama Recycling Trial Report") returned 404. An independent [Coca-Cola launch notice](https://www.ccbji.co.jp/news/detail.php?id=1427 "Zama Recycling Trial Launch") concerns 9 Coca-Cola boxes scheduled for removal, not verification of the claimed later neighborhood census. |
| Shiga 2016 monitor survey | [Original PDF](https://www.pref.shiga.lg.jp/file/attachment/4003837.pdf "ポイ捨てごみについてのアンケート結果") still fails direct retrieval; the primary search index now exposes the full question 7 table, verifying 173/326 (53.1%) and its multiple-response wording. |
| Eidan's 492-set baseline | Isurugi's Yahoo article was retrieved directly despite search-tool restrictions; it cites the March 31, 1997 _Asahi_. The original newspaper remains unseen. |
| Kamikōchi 1974 experiments | Shinshu University's original PDF returned 429/503 directly, but its indexed full text recovered the tables and methods. |
| Paris July 1997 inventory | The parliamentary web tool failed; direct retrieval of the original 2-page PDF succeeded and its complete text was checked. |
| Pocket Map municipal point layers and boundary file | Published national/prefectural totals accessible; raw downloads failed on final recheck. City clipping results retain their snapshot status. |
Table: Source-access limitations and the evidence retained.
Two further counts should remain outside a merged time series.
A Kyoto collection contractor’s FY2013 report gives 549 locations at the beginning of the year and 364 at year-end, versus the municipal report’s 362 units in March 2014; timing or counting scope could explain the difference, but was not resolved.
A Chiba councilor’s December 2025 field report describes 65 bin sites at Kasai Rinkai Park, whereas its FY2026 cleaning tender lists 47 service locations.
Neither discrepancy establishes a subsequent removal.
[Kyoto Environmental Business Association 2014](https://keaa.or.jp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/business-report_h25.pdf "FY2013 Business Report"), p. 6 · [Ohira 2025](https://note.com/masahiroohira/n/nc8a2dc86588d "Park Bin Questions and Municipal Answers").