The first households pay in full

In a compound on the north side of Riyadh, a handful of households have started separating their recycling.

It costs them more than anyone admits. The collector comes rarely, so the bags pile up on balconies. Twice a month someone loads the car and drives across the district to a drop-off point that is sometimes full. Their neighbours watch with polite interest and keep throwing everything into one bin.

The hope behind most new habits and new products is that they will beat the old way on price and convenience from the first day, and everyone will simply switch. That almost never happens. New things are usually dearer and more awkward at the start, and they improve only because enough people tolerate the awkward version long enough for it to get better.

So those few households are paying for something the whole city will benefit from. Their bags are what convince the collector the route is worth running weekly. Their complaints show him where the drop-off fails. When the rest of the compound finally joins, it will be easier, partly because a few families went first and paid in full, in time and petrol and patience.

Said plainly, it is an odd arrangement. The people with the least proof carry most of the cost, and everyone else collects the benefit later.

When those first adopters tire of carrying it, the new thing stalls, and people decide nobody wanted it. Often plenty of people did want it. They just did not want to pay for everybody.

Getting from now to later means treating the cost as shared rather than leaving it with whoever moved first. A street, a city or a market that wants the better version has to help pay for the early one. The bridge is built by more than the few who cross it first.