National Cleanliness Benchmarking Report

Transcription

1 Clean and green, today and tomorrow National Cleanliness Benchmarking Report A Report by Keep Scotland Beautiful

2 Keep Scotland Beautiful is Scotland s leading force acting, campaigning and training others to clean up local environments and to change the behaviour which blights our urban and rural landscape; it is part of its work to help make Scotland clean and green, today and tomorrow. Acknowledgement Keep Scotland Beautiful wishes to thank Scottish local authorities, their elected members and employees for their co-operation and hard work in this tenth year of LEAMS as a performance indicator. Local Environment Quality Network Keep Scotland Beautiful T: F: E: leq@ksbscotland.org.uk

3 Contents Foreword 2 Keep Scotland Beautiful 3 Executive summary 4 Introduction 6 The survey 7 The Findings: cleanliness 9 The Findings: environmental quality 13 The Findings: land types 15 Conclusions 17 Recommendations 18 Appendices 1. Definition of terms Measuring results 21 Notes 23 The full technical appendix is online at 1

4 Foreword This report sets out the findings of the Keep Scotland Beautiful (KSB) 2012/2013 Local Environmental Audit and Management System (LEAMS) for Scotland. It is the tenth such audit to collect data on local environment quality and cleanliness from the Scottish Borders to Shetland. It involved 224 surveys of randomly selected sites across Scotland, using a combination of self and independent monitoring. KSB provides each authority with a full breakdown of its own results and this report provides a summarised overview. The picture it presents is one of modest but consistent improvement across Scotland over the years. It highlights the main litter problems which affect our neighbourhoods and environment. It also shows the variation across authority types, with urban authorities more likely to have problems with graffiti for example, and those with strategic roads more likely to have problems with litter thrown from vehicles onto verges. The quality of the environment directly affects the everyday lives of the people who live in it. So it is important to measure the trends, and find ways to respond to concerns. This report indicates that all the local authorities are achieving at least minimum standards, and many are exceeding them. It also highlights the importance of communities taking action themselves to influence individual behaviour through activities such as Clean Up Scotland Campaign. It is encouraging that this year s survey shows that much of Scotland is free of major litter issues. But many sites still have unacceptable levels of litter; there is an increase in weed growth, dog fouling and smoking waste persist to the detriment of us all. There is clearly still room for improvement. This audit in itself is a good example of the 32 Scottish local authorities working together to monitor the cleanliness of their own and partner authorities streets. Such collaboration is vital if we are to realise our vision of a clean, green sustainable Scotland. Derek A Robertson Chief Executive Keep Scotland Beautiful 2

5 Keep Scotland Beautiful Keep Scotland Beautiful (KSB) is the independent charity which campaigns, acts and educates on a range of local, national and global environmental issues which affect people s quality of life. It is committed to making Scotland clean and green, today and tomorrow. The environmental quality of Scotland is important to KSB and it undertakes to deliver many services, projects, programmes and initiatives across the country as it seeks to meet its charitable purposes. KSB is quite unique as it is the ONLY national charity in Scotland deliberately focused on environmental quality issues; and with a long history of success in doing so. This is evidenced by our activities. We operate in three main areas: sustainable development education, local environmental quality and sustainability and climate change. We are the leading provider of sustainable development education initiatives in schools, encouraging action and behavioural change by young people which will leave an enduring legacy for Scotland. The Eco-Schools Scotland programme empowers young people of all ages to take action on sustainable development issues. It is complemented by Young Reporters for the Environment which encourages investigative youth journalism into sustainable development issues. We enable action on sustainable development, by helping organisations and communities reduce their carbon emissions and environmental impact so that Scotland plays its part in tackling climate change. We are Scotland s leading force acting, campaigning and training others to clean up local environments and to change the behaviour which blights our urban and rural landscape. Clean Up Scotland aims to reduce litter in time for Scotland to host global events in 2014, and the Local Environmental Quality Network aims to achieve similar goals working with local partners; Beautiful Scotland and It s Your Neighbourhood reward success in improving communities; and the Blue Flag and Seaside Awards recognise quality in Scotland s beaches. KSB has established, over many years, a close working partnership with every local authority in Scotland, assisting Councils with the delivery of environmental campaigns and providing them with a range of environmental services and solutions. One such service is LEAMS Local Environment Auditing and Management Service which has been developed over time in partnership with councils. LEAMS is now regarded as the national benchmarking assessment tool for local authority performance in relation to street cleansing. The independent nature of LEAMS Reporting provides each council with a fair and accurate report of how it is performing and the steps it can take to make improvement. Essentially, KSB is trusted by Scotland s councils as a critical friend. As a consequence of providing this service to every council, KSB generates a unique data set which gives the national picture of street cleansing performance. This allows KSB to identify trends and also disseminate best practice. 3

6 Executive summary Background The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the associated Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2006 require local authorities and others to keep specified land clear of litter and refuse and to keep public roads clean. Given the responsibilities of local authorities for street cleansing and to achieve Best Value, KSB worked with partners to develop the Local Environmental Audit and Management System (LEAMS). Through this system, KSB measures different sources and types of litter, including smokingrelated litter, fast-food packaging, dog fouling and business waste. It uses the results to detect trends in litter deposits to help local authorities make efficient use of their resources, and to inform future litter policies and campaigns. The audit is conducted jointly by KSB and all 32 local authorities. Each authority audits a sample of its own and another authority s streets; KSB conducts an annual validation survey, and shares results and good practice. LEAMS is the statutory performance indicator of street cleanliness for local authorities in Scotland. The survey During the 2012/2013 financial year, 224 cleanliness surveys were conducted through LEAMS. Each survey represented a minimum 2% random sample of the streets in a local authority area. The 224 surveys involved assessing 17,469 individual sites for cleanliness grade, types and sources of litter, litter bins and environmental quality. Street cleanliness is measured using the KSB cleanliness index. Findings The main findings for 2012/13 are: The majority of streets in Scotland recorded litter (71.8%). One in twenty five sites recorded an unacceptable level of litter. The overall national cleanliness index remains the same as last year (75) Twenty one local authorities recorded a higher proportion of sites recording unacceptable litter standards than last year. There was some variation according to local authority grouping (urban, rural, mixed) and the type of zone assessed. Urban areas were disproportionately affected across most of the variables assessed (for example dog fouling; weed growth; fly-posting; graffiti). Town centres and high-density residential areas generally scored lower (worse) than lower-density residential areas, which continued to record a good standard of cleanliness. Scores along road-based land-types were mixed, with strategic routes having the lowest cleanliness standards, mainly due to fast food and drinks-related litter thrown from vehicles. The general public was the source of most of the litter. Authorities with a high-density population generally had lower scores and a higher percentage of sites assessed as unacceptable. Litter associated with smoking and food/drink items predominated, but there were also examples of people leaving litter beside, rather than inside, litter bins or throwing it from their vehicles along roadsides. There was a continuing (albeit slightly improving) and serious issue with dog fouling, also the responsibility of the general public. The survey provides evidence that litter bins were serviced well by local authorities and readily available in high priority areas. 4

7 There was not a significant problem with businessrelated litter. Most business litter was Royal Mail elastic bands. Domestic waste spillage, construction waste and accidentally-deposited litter were not significant nationally. The quality of the local environment continues to be adversely affected by weed growth and detritus. Of litter types; smoking related litter was visible on the majority of streets assessed, skewed towards high priority areas. Food and drink items were also highly visible but less widespread, impacting more intensely along strategic routes. Anti-social behaviour was more evident in urban centres (graffiti, vandalism and fly-posting) and less frequently recorded in other areas. Conclusions The results for 2012/2013 show that the cleanliness standards have been maintained since last year. More serious littering issues continue to be relatively infrequent but the majority of 50 metre samples recorded some form of litter. Overall, the audit shows that local authorities are achieving what is expected of them with regard to litter removal. However, the results show that weed growth and detritus (sweeping indicators) continue to affect a large portion of streets and lower the quality of the local environment. Although there is scope for further improvement, significant progress is unlikely unless (more) people drop less litter and clean up after their dogs, or local authorities allocate more resources to cleaning up. The former requires continued action on individual behaviour. The latter will be difficult for local authorities in the current economic climate. The experience of the past three years indicates that there is some disconnection between what local authorities do and the effectiveness of their regime, because individual behaviour is at the root of the problem. This is a continuing challenge. Given the impact of litter and refuse on longterm wellbeing and health, it is vital that KSB in partnership with the Scottish Government, their agents and local authorities continue to take action. This report sets out practical recommendations for all stakeholders. 5

8 Introduction About LEAMS LEAMS (Local Environmental Audit and Management System) has been the national performance indicator for street cleanliness since 2003/2004. It was originally developed to help local authorities meet their obligations under Best Value by: Establishing baseline information Establishing a self-monitoring system to assess continuous improvement Providing independent audits of the monitoring process by local authorities Providing an annual validation by an independent body (KSB) Making information on cleansing standards in each local authority publicly available Comparing results across local authorities Sharing good practice across local authorities For the past ten years, it has collected data on local environmental quality and cleanliness from the Shetland Islands to the Scottish Borders, providing an important national picture of Scotland s streets. It is a vital element of improving the health and wellbeing of Scotland s communities. A recent report from the Carnegie UK Trust 1 found that issues such as vandalism, graffiti, litter, dog mess and discared rubbish have a serious and long-lasting impact on people s wellbeing and quality of life. Moreover, those most affected are most likely to live in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK. It warns that in difficult economic times, with significant reductions in public spending, budgetary pressures are likely to lead to an increase in visible neglect in public spaces Against this backdrop, LEAMS is developing to show what is happening and the action needed Terminology See appendix 1. Methodology LEAMS uses a combination of self and independent monitoring. Each local authority conducts bi-monthly audits, four in its own area and two in another local authority area. These assess the cleanliness of a minimum random sample of 2% of streets (transects 2 ). In addition, KSB conducts an annual validation survey, also assessing a 2% sample of streets within each local authority. This ensures independent evaluation as recommended under Best Value. All assessors are regularly trained to ensure that monitoring is consistent across Scotland. Assessing cleanliness and environmental quality Each audit assesses the cleanliness grade; servicing and coverage of public-use litter bins; types of litter; sources of litter; and local environment quality (dog fouling, vandalism, graffiti, weed-growth, detritus and fly-posting) (see appendix 1). Allocating a score Each site 3 is graded according to the standards outlined in the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) This grading system is based on research into standards of cleanliness which most people regard as being acceptable or unacceptable. Each survey is given an overall score using the KSB cleanliness index. An area score of 67 is the minimum acceptable standard. See appendix 2 for more details about grading and scoring. Sharing good practice KSB provides a full report to each local authority. It also combines the results from all 32 local authorities to create a national picture of street cleanliness and environmental quality. This is provided in the report that follows. KSB also facilitates regular meetings to discuss the process, compare results and share good practice. For further information about LEAMS leams.ksb@ksbscotland.org.uk or see online at 1 Carnegie UK Trust (2012). Pride in Place: tackling environmental incivilities. Carnegie Trust UK 2 A path along which one counts and records occurrences of the phenomena of study (e.g. litter). See appendix 1 for a definition of terms. 3 For ease of reading, the rest of the report uses the word site for transect. 6

9 The survey This chapter describes the background to the 2012/2013 audit, what we audited and where. What counts as litter? The following sources of litter are recorded at each survey site: Pedestrian/individual: for example drinks cans, confectionery wrappers, fast food packaging, lottery tickets; cigarette ends Business waste: any waste which has clearly come directly from a business Domestic waste: any waste which has escaped from domestic refuse such as household packaging Construction waste: such as sand bags, builders rubble Animal faeces: any type of animal faeces (only dog faeces affects the cleanliness grade) Any other litter These sources of litter are either present (score of 1) or absent (score of 0). So, the statistics indicate the quantity of streets affected rather than severity. What affects environmental quality? As well as how free the streets are from litter, residents, visitors and investors form an impression of an area from: Dog fouling: many places are affected by owners not picking up the mess from their dogs Vandalism: wilful and senseless damage of property such as smashed bus shelter windows, broken street seating Graffiti: drawing or writing on buildings or benches, lamp posts and litter bins Weeds: the presence of weeds may indicate poor or infrequent street sweeping and can trap litter Detritus: debris from natural sources such as twigs, leaves, grass and sand. This can trap litter Fly-posting: such as stickers or posters in unauthorised places Number of surveys conducted The audit in 2012/2013 involved 224 cleanliness surveys: 128 self-surveys 64 surveys of partner authorities 32 surveys by KSB Each survey assessed a minimum 2% random sample of the streets in each of the 32 local authorities. This involved assessing a total of 17,469 sites. Each site was assessed for litter, and graded as A or B (acceptable), C or D (unacceptable). The grading standards are described in the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2006 at See also appendix 2. The range of grades recorded is then used to calculate the cleanliness index (score). A score of 67 is the minimum acceptable standard. See appendix 2 for details. All these aspects form part of the LEAMS assessment. 7

10 Type of sites surveyed Half of the sites assessed were in low-density residential areas (zone 4 3). Just over a quarter were in town centres and high-density residential areas of high priority (zones 1 and 2). Around a fifth were road-based (zones 4, 6 and 7), with zone 7 (B and C class roads) more prominent. A few sites were not zoned and were treated as mixed (NCA). Figure 1: National distribution of sites Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone Zone 4 Zone 6 Zone 7 NCA 49.2 Types of local authorities The distribution of sites varied across local authority family groups 5 (rural, urban and mixed), with rural and mixed authorities having a higher percentage of roadside (zones 4, 6 and 7) sites. Local authority family groups Rural Aberdeenshire Argyll and Bute Dumfries and Galloway The Highland Orkney Islands Perth and Kinross Scottish Borders Shetland Islands Western Isles Mixed Urban and Rural Angus Clackmannanshire East Ayrshire East Lothian East Renfrewshire Fife Inverclyde Midlothian The Moray North Ayrshire South Ayrshire South Lanarkshire Stirling West Lothian Urban Aberdeen City Dundee City East Dunbartonshire City of Edinburgh Falkirk Glasgow City North Lanarkshire Renfrewshire West Dunbartonshire 4 For explanation of zones see appendix 1. Zone 5 is beaches and is not included in this survey. 5 Audit Scotland term used to describe grouping by population dispersion. 8

11 Findings 6 : cleanliness This section provides some general findings about the cleanliness of Scotland s streets. Overall cleanliness has been maintained since last year. However, variance is observed in family groups with authorities of lower footfall generally recording improvements whereas most urban and around half of mixed authorities posted a lower index. The general public is the major source of litter with smoking along with drink and food related items causing the most concern. 1. Littering standards highlight a widespread problem The cleanliness index (CI) is calculated solely on the amount of litter that is observed on the site, irrespective of any issues with the local environmental quality. The overall CI is calculated based on the cleanliness grade awarded for each site. The littering standard (cleanliness grade) is taken over a 50 metre section of street (where the local authority has a cleansing responsibility), encompassing the channel, pedestrian paved areas and backstops. Roadsides are also assessed including the standards on the hard surface and grass verges. Figure 2: National distribution of cleanliness indices against % C/D grades 6 See technical appendix to this report online at 9

12 Unacceptable grade standards Overall, the national cleanliness index has remained the same as last year (75). Of the 17,469 sites that were assessed, 672 (one in twenty five or 3.9%) were flagged for having an unacceptable level of litter within the audit. Two thirds of the nation s streets recorded a small presence of litter (11,869). This shocking statistic (that over seven out of ten sites recorded litter) highlights that the offense of littering in Scotland is widespread and without local authorities on going cleansing regimes, the standards would be far worse (as has been highlighted by East Lothian Council when removing cleansing at a high profile area in Tranent for a short period). As expected, general littering standards changed depending on the local authority grouping type (figure 2). Those with a lower population density and higher dispersion (less footfall) were found to have a slightly less pronounced impact from litter (combined index of 78, 65.5% of sites recording litter). In contrast, more urban areas, with a greater footfall, generally recorded more frequent unacceptable littering issues and lower indices. Urban authorities combined recorded a higher percentage of littered sites (77.7%). This is reflected in the cleanliness index recorded (72), six points lower than the rural authorities. 2. General litter standards by local authority Despite the overall national and family grouping littering standard statistics remaining similar, this was a net effect of changes, improvement and decline, between the 32 local authorities in Scotland. Figure three illustrates the changes since last year for each authority, with more than half recording a higher percentage of sites with litter issues (21 authorities) although eight of these were by less than one percentage point. Fourteen authorities recorded a lower cleanliness index than last year, ranging from a drop of one index point (seven authorities) to five index points (one authority). Two thirds of the urban authorities recorded a lower index, the difference ranging between one and five index points. The other urban authorities recorded no change since last year. With seven authorities also returning an increase in unacceptable grades, the survey suggests that the most significant negative changes have occurred in these authority areas. 10

13 Figure 3: National distribution of change in cleanliness indices against percentage point change in C/D grades 3. Who creates litter? Every year since LEAMS monitoring has been adopted, the general public have been flagged as the main contributors to litter on the streets of Scotland. In over four of every five sites that recorded litter, the general public were the only source and contributing factor on 90% of the other littered sites. Animal faeces, (95% of which is dog fouling), continues to decrease nationally in sites assessed. Since 2010/2011, this has decreased from 7.4% to 5.6%. All family groupings show a similar trend although urban authorities still return statistics suggesting this issue was not uncommon (8.0%). Domestic (2.8%), construction (0.5%) and other (1.2%) litter sources were infrequently recorded for the third consequent survey year. Business sources of litter continue to be observed on around one in twenty sites nationally, with two thirds affected by post office elastic bands. This indicates that nationally, uncontained waste from business activity is not a frequently observed problem. 11

14 4. The main causes for concern Smoking This includes cigarette ends, matches, matchboxes, cigarette packaging and so on. There is little doubt that the most pervasive litter affecting the streets of Scotland is cigarette ends. To put it in context, of sites that recorded litter, two thirds recorded smoking related items (8234 sites). Further, in over one in six sites affected by litter, smoking related litter was the only type observed and contributed to most (84.5%) of the sites which were graded as unacceptable. Case study The Butt out of littering campaign was created to reduce the amount of cigarette litter on the streets within the Highland Council area. A radio advert, car stickers, campaign posters and portable ashtrays were just some of the methods used to promote the campaign to the public, resulting in an overall reduction in cigarette litter of 25%. Food and drink This includes cans, bottles, cups, straws and lids, sweet and chewing gum wrappers, crisp packets, fish and chip wrappers, polystyrene cartons, burger wrappers, plastic cutlery and so on. Around a third of sites recorded drinks and confectionery related litter in Scotland, followed by around one in ten sites affected by fast food litter. These statistics are mirrored over the last two auditing years. Of sites that recorded litter, almost three quarters recorded some form of food or drink related item (73.7%). The Scotland s Litter Problem report published by Zero Waste Scotland 7 highlights that there is a significant loss of resource in the types of litter that are being observed. The report states that the majority of litter (80%) could potentially have been recycled. 7 Zero Waste Scotland. Scotland s Litter Problem. Quantifying the scale and cost of litter and flytipping 12

15 Findings: environmental quality This section provides some general findings about environmental quality. It looks at dog fouling, vandalism, graffiti, weeds, detritus, fly-posting and litter bins. Dog fouling is a particular concern in populated areas; and weeds and detritus in rural areas. According to the 2012 Scottish Household Survey, environmental quality issues are the most prevalent problem in Scottish neighbourhoods. The presence or absence of litter is significant in this. The 2012/13 audit highlights the following environmental quality issues: Dog fouling It is not unexpected that the general public find dog fouling one of the main concerns above most other factors which affect the local environmental quality. Almost a third of respondents noted animal nuisance issues (including dog fouling) an issue in their neighbourhoods 8. In Scotland, over one in twenty sites recorded fouling (almost all a single incident along the site). This highlights that, despite national efforts to tackle this problem (incidents have been less frequent over the last three years, 6.9% in 2010/2011 to 5.4% in 2012/2013), dog fouling is still a significant issue affecting Scotland s streets. Case study Fife council rolled out a Wanted campaign to tackle dog owners who do not pick up. The onus was to move away from educating dog owners (previous campaigns using this tactic returning marginal success) to enabling communities to report offenders, or at least provide better information to find the culprits, to the council. Wanted signs were placed in hot spot areas over a short time to encourage reporting but also let dog owners aware the council were encouraging the public to report incidents. The campaign proved a success and has subsequently been requested by a growing number of stakeholders within communities. The same trend is observed for all family groupings, returning improvements over the last three years. Urban authorities were more frequently impacted, around one in thirteen sites assessed, compared to rural authorities where one in twenty five sites were affected. 8 The Scottish Government (2013). Scotland s People: Annual Report: results from 2012: Scottish Household Survey. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government 13

16 Anti-social behaviour Even the most minor forms of anti-social behavior can, if not tackled quickly, take hold and adversely affect the appearance of our street scene. Nationally, incidents of vandalism (0.6%), graffiti (2.0%) and fly-posting (0.6%) were infrequently observed. The majority were recorded as minor which suggests that, out with local problem areas, these types of anti-social behavior are either not a societal problem or are being managed. All family groupings observed a low overall return on significant or severe incidents of anti-social behavior, including urban authorities where these types of antisocial behavior are more commonly associated. Sweeping The effectiveness of manual and mechanical sweeping are indicated in the weed growth and detritus statistics collected. Over a half of streets recorded detritus and a third, weed growth. Whilst the majority was deemed to be minor, it was not uncommon to observe more invasive incidents (4.5% weed growth, 7.4% detritus). These statistics suggest that a significant percentage of sites, whether or not they are at an acceptable standard for litter presence, may look poorly serviced. Litter bins The statistics highlight that generally, public use litter bins were well serviced. However, one in twenty four bins were found to be overflowing. 14

17 Findings: land types Litter problems vary according to location. We assessed sites in six different zones and compared the results. Zone 1: town centres Also including transport hubs and large secondary schools. These areas account for a significant level of local authority street cleansing resources to manage the issues associated with high footfall. The majority of sites assessed recorded a presence of litter (83.2%), with one in twenty four assessed as unacceptable. All land types had the general public as the main contributor. However, domestic refuse sources of litter were flagged for urban authorities, with one in twenty sites recording a presence. The majority was found to be minor spillage from refuse containers with 8.1% of unacceptable littering standards showing domestic waste a factor. Case study A number of local authorities have used the new craze of flash mob (group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and sometimes seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse) to get their message across. Flash mobs have taken place in zone 1 areas in Stirling (bin your gum) and Falkirk (trashdance). Over half of the business sources of litter were Royal Mail elastic bands. However, in urban authorities, spillage from trade waste containers was more prevalent. 11.1% of unacceptable littering standards included litter from business sources out with elastic bands. Going against most trends, smoking related litter affected a higher percentage of rural zone 1 streets (77.0%) compared to other family groupings (67.0% mixed, 61.8% urban). Nationally, smoking related litter, primarily cigarette ends, continues to be a widespread and consistent issue in high priority zone 1 areas showing that there has been little success in tackling this problem. Urban authority dog fouling and graffiti statistics highlight a growing concern with the local environmental quality in these town centre areas. Over one in ten sites recorded an incident of fouling and graffiti was observed on 7.4% of samples taken. A third of sites had at least one public use litter bin with most of these well serviced highlighting that the general public have the means to dispose of their litter legally. 15

18 Zone 2: High density residential Also including primary schools, busy retail parks and industrial sites. Similar to town centre statistics, 83.9% of sites assessed nationally recorded litter, with 6.9% (skewed towards urban authorities at 8.8%) at an unacceptable standard for litter presence, the highest of all land types. The majority of business sources of litter were found to be post office elastic bands, a practice which needs to be addressed by Royal Mail. Spillage from refuse containers were also flagged as an issue. For urban authorities, one in fifteen sites assessed recorded spillage and more concerning, contributed to one in six of the unacceptable grades observed in these areas. Food and drink items were commonly recorded but it is smoking litter that is shown to be the main litter problem associated with these areas. In sites that recorded litter, one in six were affected only by smoking related items. Dog fouling is shown to be a significant problem on zone 2 streets, 7.7% nationally and one in ten for urban authorities. Whether it be issues with elements within the street hindering sweeping or lack of resources available, weed growth and detritus were found to be widespread in these areas (40.8% and 52.1% respectively). Zone 4: Semi-rural roads Almost all the sites in rural authorities along zone 4 sites were at an acceptable standard, only 0.3% were found to be unacceptable for litter. Mixed and urban authorities returned significantly different statistics, where 7.8% and 9.0% of sites had litter issues. Along road sides, food and drink packaging were the most prevalent items observed. Almost half of the sites assessed recorded drinks items, followed by confectionery (37.0%) and fast food (26.8%). Zone 6: Strategic routes These areas provide a particular financial and logistical burden on local authorities to cleanse. The usual procedure for cleansing a dual carriageway is to provide traffic management. Under these circumstances, cleansing schedules are usually infrequent but are by means of a deep cleanse. The statistics show that most sites recorded litter (87.8%), with the most of this litter likely to be either windblown and trapped in the verges from elsewhere or directly deposited by motorists. As expected, food and drink packaging was frequently observed along with cigarette ends, items motorists commonly need to dispose on in their vehicles. Interestingly, almost one in ten urban authority sites recorded graffiti, with many incidents on barriers and overpasses. Zone 3: Low density residential As expected, with community awareness and spirit tending to be more prevalent in low density residential settings, the littering standards were generally better than other land types assessed. Despite this, seven out of ten transects recorded litter, the main difference is that only a small proportion were found to be at an unacceptable standard. Zone 7: Rural roads In contrast, generally quieter back roads linking towns and villages recorded four out of every ten sites completely free from litter. Again, motorists are the likely reason litter was observed in 60% of sites in these areas as there are generally few B or C roads with pedestrian sections. Smoking items were still the most frequently recorded litter (half of sites) but it is dog fouling that again, is the main concern, with 7.5% of sites in urban authorities recording a presence. As with zone 2 areas, weed growth and detritus were widespread suggesting that excellent sweeping standards are providing a significant challenge to achieve for local authorities. 16

19 Conclusions Over the ten years LEAMS has been used as an aid to manage street cleanliness standards in Scotland, there is little doubt that the volume of litter observed has been decreasing. Where there has been success in this area, it is tempered by two main issues. Firstly, there are still a staggering ratio of streets in Scotland recording litter, whether it be a few items or more invasive. This shows that the public are still not engaging with the message that dropping litter is an offence and that there is a need to find a way to change this mind set. This is highlighted in town centre areas where the results show public litter bins are readily available to use and are well serviced by local authorities yet are not being used by everyone. Secondly, cleanliness is not just the frequency and volume of litter observed but is also the quality of the local environment. One of the main findings of this report is that the public may be inclined to feel their areas aren t well serviced due to the overall look of the area, this takes into account primarily weed growth and detritus which are recorded on a significant proportion of streets assessed. As with any national report, the findings hide more localised issues. Invariably, individual local authorities will be having success with dealing with some of the national issues raised while finding others a more significant challenge. The general public has caused worrying levels of smoking related litter in town centre and high density residential areas which end up not just as an unsightly issue but an environmental and wildlife health problem. Food and drink packaging was also widespread and was increasingly lowering the littering standards along strategic routes, highlighting the need for a national campaign aimed at motorists. Post office elastic bands continue to be observed on streets even with this problem being highlighted to Royal Mail and their staff. Despite significant efforts to reduce the impact from dog fouling in Scotland, this issue is still commonly recorded on the streets. Anti-social behaviour was not flagged as a major concern on the local environmental quality nationally however, urban centres did show some localised problems highlighting that there is still work to be done here. Overall, there has been success in bringing littering standards to acceptable levels but this is primarily due to the significant efforts by local authorities to remove it. This in turn negatively impacts on the resources available for beautification projects, deep cleansing and sweeping which can turn a slightly grubby looking street into a well serviced enjoyable environment for residents, visitors and tourists. Given the impact of litter and refuse on long-term wellbeing and health, it is vital that KSB in partnership with the Scottish Government, Zero Waste Scotland and local authorities continue to take action. The following section sets out practical recommendations for all stakeholders. 17

20 Recommendations For KSB Consider how the lower scoring authorities might improve and how partner authorities might help them achieve that Provide opportunities for sharing good practice across local authorities, for example through seminars or online forums/resources Develop the LEAMS methodology to match current local and national reporting needs Investigate the potential for tackling litter thrown from vehicles Liaise with the Royal Mail to reduce business litter Continue to promote community action and influence individual behaviour through initiatives such as Clean Up Scotland For local authorities Invest in road sweeping to remove detritus and weeds to reduce litter being trapped and improve aesthetics Examine individual scores to identify where improvements might be achievable For the Scottish Government KSB welcomes the commitment from the Scottish Government to produce a National Litter Strategy for Scotland. To realise the strategy, the government should produce an accompanying National Litter Action Plan which includes education, enforcement and services, and allocates specific actions to all stakeholders. For all stakeholders Increased awareness of personal responsibility is vital to increasing cleanliness standards overall. The Scottish Government and other stakeholders should support the Clean Up Scotland campaign as an effective method of convincing people to preserve the cleanliness and the quality of the environment. Clean Up Scotland aims to engage one million Scots to free our country of litter so that Scotland can shine. It aims to gradually adjust attitudes to prevent the behaviour of all Scots so that littering, dog fouling, flytipping and other incivilities become as socially unacceptable as drink driving. 18

21 Appendix 1: Definition of terms Transect: A path along which one counts and records occurrences of the phenomena of study (e.g. litter). Sources of litter: The following sources of litter are recorded for each transect surveyed: Pedestrian/individual: for example drinks cans, confectionery wrappers, fast food packaging, lottery tickets Business waste: any waste which has clearly come directly from a business such as several pieces of headed paper, elastic bands and advertising flyers. This category does not include fast food; this is included in the pedestrian/individual category Domestic waste: any waste which has escaped from domestic refuse such as household packaging Construction waste: waste from construction work such as sand bags, builders rubble Animal faeces: any type of animal faeces (only dog faeces affects the cleanliness grade) Other: any other litter, which does not fit into the above categories such as vehicle parts, tyre rims and so on Types of litter: UK surveys indicate that, of the above litter sources, pedestrian/individual is the most common, frequently associated with eating, drinking and smoking. The litter types recorded are therefore: Smoking-related: including cigarette ends, matches, matchboxes, cigarette packaging Drinks-related: including cans, bottles, cups, straws and lids Confectionery: including sweet wrappers, chewing gum wrappers and crisp packets Fast food-related: including fish & chip wrappers, polystyrene cartons, burger wrappers, plastic cutlery Royal Mail elastic bands Other: any litter not covered by the above, such as newspaper and pieces of plastic These litter types are recorded as either present (1) or absent (0). These sources of litter are either present (1) or absent (0). Therefore, the statistics indicate the quantity of streets affected rather than the volume of litter. 19

22 Adverse environmental quality indicators (AEQIs): In addition to the cleanliness of streets, absence or presence of the following AEQIs are important for residents, visitors and investors in forming an impression of an area: Dog fouling: the only AEQI considered alongside other litter and refuse when determining the cleanliness grade Vandalism: defined as wilful and senseless damage of property which adversely affects the quality of life and the environment, for example smashed bus shelter windows, broken street seating Graffiti: defined as unauthorised drawing or writing on surrounding buildings or street furniture such as benches, lamp posts and litter bins Weeds: the presence of weeds may indicate poor/infrequent street sweeping and can trap litter Detritus: debris from natural sources such as twigs, leaves, grass and sand. Such detritus can trap litter Fly-posting: defined as stickers or posters placed in unauthorised places and not on billboards. Unauthorised places refers to buildings, bus shelters, fence posts and so on within the site Litter bins: The number of litter bins within each site is recorded during the survey. If a litter bin is overflowing, this is also noted. Overflowing litter bins are defined as those which are beyond their maximum serviceable limit of 75%, perhaps resulting in litter escaping onto the surrounding area. The site is graded taking into account the escaped litter from the bin. Zones: For a full explanation of zone types see Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2006 at LEAMS assesses sites in: Zone 1: town centre Zone 2: high-density residential Zone 3: low-density residential Zone 4: roads not falling into zones 1-3 Zone 6: motorways and strategic routes Zone 7: rural roads Of the above AEQIs, only dog fouling influences the grade awarded (A to D) to the site. The presence of these indicators is recorded on a scale of 1 to 4: 1 = no presence 2 = small presence 3 = significant presence 4 = severe presence 20

23 Appendix 2: Measuring results Grades of cleanliness Each area of study (site) was graded according to the standards outlined in the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2006, which relates to Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) There are four grades of cleanliness, which are defined as: Grade A No litter or refuse Grade B Predominantly free of litter and refuse apart from small items Grade C Widespread distribution of litter and refuse with minor accumulations Grade D Heavily littered with significant accumulations This grading system is based on research into standards of cleanliness which most people regard as being acceptable or unacceptable. Under this system, grades C and D are unacceptable and must be cleaned (in most cases to grade A condition) within a specified time (see opposite). Grade A is the standard which a thorough conventional sweeping/litter-picking should achieve. The overall aim, however, should be to operate a management system where acceptable standards of cleanliness (grades A and B) are maintained at all relevant times. Cleanliness indices The method of measurement for monitoring litter in this survey is the Cleanliness Index Measurement System, developed by KSB and used widely by local authorities throughout the UK to monitor their performance and set targets for improving services. The Cleanliness Index (CI) indicates the standards of cleanliness achieved in an area. Total counts of grades A, B, C, and D sites achieved throughout an area are used to calculate a CI between 0 and 100. An area with a CI of 0 would consist of all heavily littered (grade D) sites, whereas a CI of 100 would represent an area completely free of litter or refuse (all grade A sites). Points are awarded as follows for each cleanliness grade: A=3; B=2; C=1; D=0 Calculate the actual points scored: (Count of grade A) x3 + (Count of grade B) x2 + (Count of grade C) x1+ (Count of grade D) x 0 Calculate the maximum score possible (i.e. if all sites are grade A): (Number of sites surveyed) x3 C1 = x 100 Actual score Maximum score Given that a CI of 100 (all grade A sites) would be very difficult to achieve, it is important to set a target which indicates an acceptable result. The methodology used is a numerical calculation based on a notional result of a grade B in every site surveyed within an area to create an acceptable result. This means that an area score of 67 is the acceptable standard. In reality, not all sites assessed will record a grade B standard, therefore the Cleanliness Index reflects the range of grades awarded. 21

24 Cleanliness standards The Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2006, issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, defines maximum response times when a litter problem is reported within or to a local authority. For example, when a grade D in Zone 1 is reported to the relevant officer in a local authority, that local authority has one hour to respond and to return the grade D to a grade A. Category Zone 1 Town Centres 2 High Density Residential 3 Low Density Residential 4 Roads Not Falling Into Zones 1-3 Cleanliness Standard A B C D 6hrs 3hrs 12hrs 12hrs 6hrs 3hrs 2 weeks 12hrs 6hrs 2 weeks 1 week 60hrs 6 Motorways & Strategic Routes 7 Local Roads 4 weeks 2 weeks 1 week 5 days These maximum response times only ensure minimum standards as defined by The Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland)

25 Notes 23

26 Working in Partnership Keep Scotland Beautiful T: F: E: Keep Scotland Beautiful is a registered Scottish charity. Number SC