HOW CLEAN IS ENGLANd?

Transcription

HOW CLEAN IS
ENGLAnd?
The Local Environmental Quality
Survey of England 2012/13
1 Keep Britain Tidy
Ministerial FOREWORD
I am delighted to introduce the latest Local
Environmental Quality Survey of England (LEQSE).
The quality of our local neighbourhoods affects us all
- as residents, visitors and business. A good quality
environment can enhance the quality of people’s lives
and their sense of well-being. It is something that, as
the new Minister responsible, I feel strongly about.
I’m impressed that the survey has been undertaken for
the last 12 years. During that period, it has told us much
about littering and local environment quality – the levels
and types of litter occurrence, and the prevalence of
fly-tipping and fly-posting, graffiti and other nuisances
that occur in neighbourhoods up and down the country.
It has told us about the trends that have occurred during
that time, and how our changing lifestyles and attitudes
have had a direct effect on the types of litter that blight
our streets. For example, the survey shows how litter
associated with eating and drinking on the go has
steadily increased over the years.
LEQSE provides an insight into the challenges faced
by local authorities and others when tackling local
environment quality. In the current economic climate the
determined efforts and achievements of street cleansing
teams should be applauded. And it is not all bad news
- it is highly encouraging that all the headline indicators
are still above an acceptable standard across England
as a whole. Of course, we should strive to build on
those successes, for example – through local authorities
and volunteers sharing best practice. Government
cannot – and should not – try to do it all. After all local
environmental quality is, by definition, a local issue which
is best tackled locally. But Government is taking target
action - through measures such as the 5p charge on
single use plastic carrier bags.
I congratulate Keep Britain Tidy for continuing to carry
out this annual survey, that should help all involved
in the management of local environment issues to
concentrate their efforts where they are most needed.
Working together – central and local government,
business, stakeholder organisations, volunteer
groups and individuals we can all make an impact.
As the Minister responsible, I will want to encourage
strengthening of those relationships for the future.
Dan Rogerson MP
Defra’s Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Resource Management
About
Keep BritaiN Tidy
Where we live matters
Cleaner streets, parks and beaches provide the backbone for strong communities.
How we live matters
By preserving scarce resources, wasting less and recycling more, we create
a healthier society and a healthier planet too.
Keep Britain Tidy campaigns to improve the environment
We are an independent charity, which fights for people’s right to live and work
in places of which they can be proud.
A single truth underpins our success – caring for the environment
is the first step to a better society
Sixty years ago, we started with litter. Today we do much more. We work at the
heart of business, government and the community to help people understand
that what’s good for the environment is also good for us.
But our future depends entirely on your support
If you care about the wellbeing of your family and you care about the world your
grandchildren will inherit, join us in taking greater responsibility. Respect for our
planet begins with respect for our neighbourhoods.
Love where you live. Keep Britain Tidy
CONTENTS
Ministerial foreword..................................................... 1
About Keep Britain Tidy............................................... 2
Contents........................................................................ 3
Introduction by Keep Britain Tidy’s Chief Executive.......5
Executive summary...................................................... 6
1. Introduction to the survey....................................... 7
1.1. What is the survey?................................................. 7
1.2. Survey design.......................................................... 8
1.3. Carrying out the survey........................................... 8
1.4. Why does it matter?................................................. 9
2. How clean is England?.......................................... 10
2.1. How ‘clean’ is measured....................................... 10
2.2. Standards for 2012/13........................................... 11
2.3. How does this compare?....................................... 12
3. How big is England’s litter problem?................... 15
3.1. What is happening with litter?............................... 15
3.2. Where is the litter coming from?............................ 16
3.3. What type of litter is found in England?................. 17
3.3.1. Six of the worst................................................... 18
3.3.1.1. Smokers’ materials.......................................... 18
3.3.1.2. Confectionery material
and snack-pack litter.................................................... 20
3.3.1.3. Drinks-related litter.......................................... 22
3.3.1.4. Fast-food litter.................................................. 23
3.3.2. Other issues....................................................... 26
3.3.2.1. Dog fouling...................................................... 26
3.3.2.2. Carrier bags.................................................... 29
4. Where is litter found?............................................. 31
4.1.Where is the litter?.................................................. 31
4.1.1. Housing areas.................................................... 34
4.1.2. Social housing.................................................... 36
4.1.3. Commercial areas.............................................. 37
4.1.4. Roads and other highways................................. 40
4.1.5. Industry, warehousing, retail sheds
and science parks........................................................ 42
4.1.6. Recreation areas................................................ 43
5. How much litter is recyclable?.............................. 44
5.1.1. What recyclable litter was found?...................... 44
5.1.2. Recycling provision............................................ 45
6. Taking responsibility.............................................. 47
6.1. Who is responsible?.............................................. 47
6.2. Businesses and branding..................................... 48
6.3. Commercial waste................................................. 49
6.4. Clinical waste........................................................ 50
6.5. Domestic waste..................................................... 51
6.6. Fly-tipping.............................................................. 52
7. Staining and chewing gum.................................... 54
7.1. Staining.................................................................. 54
7.2. Chewing gum........................................................ 57
8. Infrastructure.......................................................... 58
8.1.1. Bin provision....................................................... 58
8.1.2. Bin cleanliness, condition and fill....................... 59
8.1.3. Bin use................................................................ 60
8.1.4. Cigarette bin use................................................ 60
9. How well is England being cleaned?.................... 61
9.1.1. Detritus............................................................... 61
9.1.2. Blocked gullies................................................... 63
9.1.3. Weed growth...................................................... 64
9.1.4. Recent leaf and blossom fall.............................. 65
10. Links between local environmental
quality issues and crime............................................ 66
10.1.1. Graffiti............................................................... 66
10.1.2. Fly-posting........................................................ 68
11. Green spaces – how well are they managed?... 69
11.1.1. Landscaped areas........................................... 69
11.1.2. Green Flag Award parks.................................. 71
Appendix 1:
Definitions of terms used in the report.................... 73
Appendix 2: Land use definitions............................. 75
Main retail and commercial areas................................ 75
Other retail and commercial areas............................... 75
High-obstruction housing areas................................... 75
Medium-obstruction housing areas.............................. 75
Low-obstruction housing areas.................................... 75
Industry, warehousing, retail sheds
and science parks........................................................ 76
Main roads.................................................................... 76
Rural roads................................................................... 76
Other highways............................................................ 76
Recreation areas.......................................................... 76
Appendix 3: Additional data tables........................... 77
How clean is England? 3
HOW CLEAN IS
ENGLAnd?
The Local Environmental Quality
Survey of England 2012/13
5 Keep Britain Tidy
introduction
by Keep Britain Tidy’s Chief Exectutive, Phil Barton
The Local Environmental Quality Survey for England (LEQSE) is critical to
understanding the state of cleanliness across England. Evidence shows that poor
quality local environments have a significant impact on the wider environment,
health and wellbeing and the economy. Therefore, it is vital that government,
businesses and people, play their part to ensure we improve and maintain good
local places that enable everyone to love where they live.
This year, the twelfth successive year of LEQSE, shows some positive results, but
also things we need to improve. In 2012-13 all headline indicators performed at or
above an acceptable standard. This is good news and demonstrates the resilience
of local authorities during difficult times. Overall, improvements in detritus, staining
and graffiti which all saw a reduction in site falling below an acceptable standard,
are all to be welcomed.
Sadly, when it comes to litter, it is clear that litter has remained stubbornly persistent
throughout the country and that determined efforts by local authorities and others
who manage our public spaces have been unable to bring about significant
improvements for more than a decade. Cigarette litter remains a ubiquitous
problem across England, with over four sites in five with cigarette litter present,
and levels of fast-food litter continue to increase so that it is now found on more
than a third of all the sites we surveyed.
It is important to remember LEQSE measures the presence of litter on our streets
and not the amount of litter dropped. This suggests littering over the past 12 years
may, in fact, have been increasing in parallel with the ever-increasing cost and
effort to clean it up. Now, for the first time in over 10 years, this bill is shrinking, at
least for local authorities, as local streetscene managers set out to do more with
less. This is potentially putting cleanliness at risk and Keep Britain Tidy will be
watching future developments closely.
Luckily there is a simple solution available – to prevent littering in the first place.
Because not only is it a blight on neighbourhoods, it is a wasted resource which is
not being re-used or recycled. This is why we have been calling for government,
businesses and civil society to do more to prevent litter through our new Which
Side of the Fence Campaign – we want people to join us on the right side of the
fence and to be part of the solution.
We must all play our part, working together to provide the right mix of incentives,
enforcement, better design, education, infrastructure and cleansing to influence
the general public not to drop litter and to create a new culture of local pride
throughout society. The LEQSE survey is a key indicator of how well we are doing
– and we must all do better; together.
Executive summary
This is the 12th annual report of the Local
Environmental Quality Survey of England (LEQSE),
carried out between April 2012 and March 2013 and
covering a total of 10,682 sites in 54 local authority
areas. The purpose of the survey is to measure
standards of cleanliness and record information about
the things that people encounter when they use their
local area and which collectively have an impact on
the quality of our local environments. There are seven
headline indicators, namely litter, detritus, graffiti, flyposting, recent leaf and blossom fall, weed growth and
staining, which are used to give an overall picture of
how clean England is.
The good news…
This year’s LEQSE shows that, overall, in the past
12 months England has got cleaner. All headline
indicators have improved or stayed the same, with less
of the places surveyed falling below an acceptable
cleanliness standard.
The improvement is testament to the hard work and
innovation of local authorities, which are raising
standards despite significant cuts in funding. The
indicators that have shown the greatest improvement
– detritus and staining - are directly linked to street
cleansing activity and suggest that councils are finding
ways to do more with less. Detritus – the natural grit,
sand and soil found on streets and pavements –
and staining – caused by things like chewing gum
and oil from vehicles – make streets look dirty and
adversely impact on the public’s perception of an area.
The improvement in these two indicators has been
significant in 2012-13, with a year on year 13% increase
in the number of sites meeting the required standard for
detritus and 8% for staining.
One of the most visible manifestations of poor local
environmental quality is graffiti. The presence of
graffiti makes an area look untidy and unloved and
can increase the fear of crime, so it is good to see a
50% decrease in the number of sites falling below an
acceptable standard. Today only 3% of the places
surveyed have an unacceptable level of graffiti.
The bad news…
Despite an overall increase in cleanliness, there are
some causes for concern.
Litter is an issue which, as a nation, we care about and,
unfortunately, there has been no statistically significant
improvement in the number of places meeting the
required standard in 2012-13.
Since 2004, when the LEQSE started looking at levels
of fast-food litter, there has been a marked increase in
the number of places blighted by fast-food litter and
that increase has continued this year with 32% of sites
having fast-food litter on them, up 3% on 2011/12.
This type of litter is a particular problem on rural and
main roads, with 48% of rural roads and 46% of main
roads affected. The most obvious explanation for this is
people using ‘drive-thru’ restaurants and then throwing
the packaging from their vehicles.
Mirroring the societal shift that has seen more and more
people eating on the go and has led to the increase
in fast-food litter, there has also been an increase in
the amount of confectionery packaging (e.g. sweet
and chocolate wrappers) and snack packaging (e.g.
crisp packets) seen on our streets. The number of sites
affected by confectionery packaging has risen by 3%
to 68% and snack packaging is also now found on 3%
more sites, rising to 23%.
The perennial problem of smoking-related litter
continues to give cause for concern and cigarette butts
are still to be found on 82% of sites, rising to 99% of
sites in main retail areas.
1
Introduction to the survey
1.1. What is the survey?
The Local Environmental Quality Survey of England
(LEQSE) is carried out by Keep Britain Tidy on behalf of
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra). This is the 12th annual LEQSE report and the
continuity and longitudinal nature of the report provides
insight into the trends and patterns of a consistent set
of indicators over that time and helps in understanding
the extent of local environmental quality issues across
England. The survey has evolved over the years to
adapt to changing times, keeping the key indicators
at its core, but broadening out to focus on some of
the newer, or more prominent, challenges facing
our country’s street scenes and public spaces. The
fieldwork for this report was carried out between April
2012 and March 2013 and covered a total of 10,682
sites across 54 local authority areas.
The survey examines various indicators to assess
England’s overall environmental quality. It not only looks
at the levels and types of litter found in England, but
also considers other indicators of cleanliness, including
chewing gum staining and unruly weeds. There are
seven headline indicators used to measure the overall
standard of the local environmental quality of an area:
litter; detritus; recent leaf and blossom fall; weed growth;
staining; graffiti and fly-posting. These were chosen as
headline indicators due to the impact they have on the
look and feel of an area if they become a problem and
the effect they have on people’s quality of life.1
1. Keep Britain Tidy, The Economic Value of Local Environmental Quality, 2012
As well as the headline indicators, the survey also
measures the quality and cleanliness of infrastructure,
such as bins, as these can directly affect litter levels. The
survey also includes data, such as the type of litter or the
location of problems, from a variety of land uses across
England and can help to provide context and insight for
land managers. The results not only give an indication
of the job local authorities are doing to keep our streets
clean, but also other land managers and businesses.
The survey provides information that may be used as
a benchmark or indicator. The data collected over the
years using a consistent methodology, can help identify
past and emerging trends. It is also a good tool to
measure the impact of legislation. Despite the use of
a consistent methodology, LEQSE does have some
limitations, as set out in section 1.3. The survey is split
across ten land uses, and these are not proportionate
to the presence of these land uses across England.
The survey also grades the sites and then indicates the
presence of a litter type, but it does not provide a figure
on how much of each litter type there was.
The main aim of the survey is to provide relevant
information on the overall environmental cleanliness of
the country. This information can then be used to inform
strategy. This is crucial to ensure government, local
authorities, land managers, businesses, Keep Britain Tidy
and others have the information they need in order to act.
1.3. Carrying out the survey
1.2. Survey design
The Local Environmental Quality Survey of England
was originally developed with support and guidance
from a number of organisations including the Audit
Commission and the Office for National Statistics
(ONS). The survey is based on a sample of sites
across England. This sample is taken using a variety
of data sources. It covers a variety of different types of
local authorities. To do this, the classification of local
authorities published by the ONS is used.
To ensure the sample took into account the range of
economic, social and housing issues within England,
the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) published by
the Office for National Statistics was used. This is an
indicator that covers income deprivation, employment
deprivation, health deprivation and disability, education,
skills and training deprivation, barriers to housing and
services, living environment deprivation and crime.
The sample is also split across ten land uses to ensure
that a range of different uses of land across England
are captured. The ten land uses are listed below:
•Main retail and commercial areas
The survey collected data in 54 local authority areas.
Within each local authority area up to 200 sites were
surveyed. These are split equally across the ten land
uses, i.e. 20 per land use. If 20 sites were not available
then the maximum available number of sites were
used. This is the case for land uses that are rare in
some areas, such as rural roads in inner-city London.
The data was consistently collected at each site in a
systematic manner, by Keep Britain Tidy surveyors.
They are trained in carrying out local environmental
quality surveys in accordance with the strict quality
assurance policy in place. They also have a vast
amount of experience carrying out local environmental
quality surveys and, in particular, the LEQSE survey.
To measure an issue such as litter, a grading system is
used. The grading system follows the same principles
as the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse, which
identifies four grades of cleanliness: A, B, C and D. This
survey uses these, plus an additional three intermediate
grades, giving a total of seven. The order of the seven
grades is shown in the table below. The intermediate
grades are not individually defined. Put simply, if
cleansing at any given site is not at an A standard,
but is performing better than a B standard, it would be
identified as a B+.
Grade
A
None of the issues present
B+
Not formally defined
B
Predominantly free with some minor
instances of the issue
B-
C
Widespread with some accumulations
of the issue
C-
D
Heavily affected by the issue
•Other retail and commercial areas
•High-obstruction housing areas
Description
•Medium-obstruction housing areas
•Low-obstruction housing areas
•Industry, warehousing, retail sheds and science parks
•Main roads
•Rural roads
•Other highways
•Recreation areas
9 Keep Britain Tidy
1.4. Why does it matter?
With more than 30 million tonnes of litter collected from
England’s streets each year2 and street cleansing in
2012/13 costing taxpayers £885 million3, the standard
of local environment in England matters. These
costs can be further broken down to show that local
authorities on average are spending £20,000 each
year to clean chewing gum from a town or city centre4,
amounting to nearly £20,000,000 in total if extrapolated
to all of England’s 987 towns and cities. While these
costs already seem high, the overall costs of clearing
litter from England’s public places are predicted to rise
even further in coming years. Therefore, it is vital to
understand the extent of the problem to enable change
to happen.
Fly-tipping costs Network Rail more than £2.3 million
per year5, while the Highways Agency clear more
than 180,000 sacks of litter from motorways and major
roads6 per year. As well as the effect on taxpayers and
organisations that are part-funded by government,
private companies can lose money when roads are
closed or obstructed during litter removal operations.
The cost of England’s litter problem is not only that of
cleaning up. There are many other associated costs
of litter. These include the cost of enforcement to try to
deter people from littering, the cost of educating people
to try to do the right thing and the cost of campaigning.
This is of course on top of providing bins and other
litter infrastructure.
A survey of land managers in England suggested
that environmental standards may be getting worse
in particular areas, such as local neighbourhoods. In
the past three years, 38% said litter had become a
larger issue, with 49% saying that costs would have
increased in that time if every street had been cleaned
to an acceptable standard7. The results of the 2012/13
LEQSE survey, however, show that the percentage of
sites below an acceptable standard across six of the
seven headline indicators has actually fallen (while
the seventh remained the same). This means local
authorities and land managers have achieved an
improvement despite their well-publicised struggles
with budget cuts.
The quality of our local environmental not only matters
because of the direct and indirect costs to the public
and private sectors, but also because it impacts on
social, economic and environmental issues.
Litter is one of the first signs of social decay8 and can be a
highly provocative subject. Research has shown that how
an area looks can affect feelings of safety, as people who
are satisfied with the look of their area are significantly
more likely to feel safe where they live9. Research by the
Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds) and
the Transport Studies Group (Loughborough University)
for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
affairs assessed the importance to citizens of the local
environment. It found that members of the public ranked
the level of dog fouling as important to quality of life as the
quality of local schools10.
Litter is not the only measure of local environment
quality. There are others, such as staining on a road
and weed growth in an area, that also affect the quality
of environments and how people feel about them.
Graffiti and fly-posting are two measures that when they
are present, can have a huge impact on an area and
can influence people’s actions. Kelling and Wilson’s
‘broken windows’ theory11 looked at how small levels of
crime in an area could lead to further, and often bigger,
crimes being committed. The theory proposes that
neighbourhoods which suffer crime and deterioration
attract further crime, as social standards decline and
the appearance of the local environment suffers from
graffiti, boarded-up houses and vandalism. The general
feeling is that no one cares, there is disorganisation
and a lack of authority, so further crime breaks out.
Conversely, therefore, high local environmental
standards encourage members of the community to
preserve these high standards.
Evidence suggests that people feel it is more
acceptable to drop litter if an area is already dirty and
run down, while more would be inclined to take litter
home with them or bin it if the area is presentable and
tidy12. Eight out of ten land managers think that fighting
minor crimes such as litter and graffiti would help to
reduce more significant crimes and improve safety13. It
is therefore essential that areas and resources remain
clean and tidy in order to create and maintain good
environmental quality.
2. Keep Britain Tidy, Which Side Of The Fence Are You On? 2013
3. Keep Britain Tidy, The Little book of Litter, published 2012
7. Keep Britain Tidy, View from the Street, 2012
9. Keep Britain Tidy, View from the Street, 2013
10.DEFRA, Local environment quality: economic analysis, 2013
11.The Atlantic, Broken windows, Kelling and Wilson 1982
12.Science, The Spreading of Disorder, Keizer, Lindenberg & Steg, 2008
13.Keep Britain Tidy, Which Side Of The Fence Are You On? 2013
2
How clean is England?
2.1. How ‘clean’ is measured
The cleanliness of England matters, and to most people
‘clean’ is more than just the absence of litter. Keep
Britain Tidy look at a number of measures that affect
the quality of people’s local environments. Each of
the seven headline indicators has a significant impact
on local environmental quality. Litter is obviously a
headline indicator, but there are an additional six that
make up the survey. Detritus is general mud, grime,
soil and grit that has been allowed to build up, and is
measured alongside staining, which looks at how clean
the footpaths and roads are in England; if both of these
are of a low standard an area can feel unclean.
Graffiti and fly-posting are headline indicators that are
significant as they can lead to an area looking rundown and can increase the feelings of fear of crime.
Recent leaf and blossom fall and weed growth are
used as they are good indicators of how well-managed
places are, high levels of leaves that have not been
cleaned up and unruly weeds can very quickly make a
local area look neglected.
The headline indicators are used to give an overall
national picture of how clean England is. Every site
surveyed is given a grade for each of these headline
indicators, with the data for each headline indicator
then being analysed in two ways:
1) The average grade is calculated using the grade
of all the sites surveyed. Grades are assigned to each
site surveyed for each of the seven headline indicators.
These individual grades are then converted to a
number, added up and divided by the number of sites
surveyed, with this average being converted back to
a grade (as shown in appendix 3). This grade is the
average grade of all sites surveyed.
2) The percentage of sites that fell below a grade B
standard14 is calculated from all the sites surveyed. It
is recognised that an A grade cannot be maintained
across all sites at all times and that the presence of a few
small items of litter is generally deemed acceptable for
short periods of time. Sites are graded A-D (as detailed
in section 1.3) with any site falling below a grade B being
deemed to be below an acceptable standard.
14.According to the Code of Practice for Litter and Refuse, any site falling below a grade B for litter and detritus is deemed to be an unacceptable standard.
This standard is adopted for all indicators measured in the survey.
11 Keep Britain Tidy
2.2. Standards for 2012/13
Figure 1. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard and the average grade for each headline indicator in 2012/13
Detritu s
Graf fiti
B
15%
B
26 %
A
3%
af and bloss
B+
10%
o
fa ll
Rec
e
t le
m
n
Lit ter
F ly -
A
1%
ed growth
We
Sta ining
B
16%
B
12%
In 2012/13, all the headline indicators performed above
or at an acceptable standard (an average of a grade B)
across England. This is good news. Despite the difficult
situation local authorities have had to face, standards
of cleanliness have improved in 2012/13. This is not to
say England is free of issues, and when looking at the
percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for
each headline indicator, it becomes apparent that there
are issues to be tackled.
The key indicator with the largest percentage of sites
below an acceptable standard is detritus, followed by
weed growth, litter and staining. Although detritus is at
an acceptable average standard, there were areas that
suffered from high levels of detritus, with just over one in
four (26%) sites falling below an acceptable standard.
Weed growth is the second most widespread problem
with 16% of sites surveyed being below an acceptable
standard, but it is graded a B overall. This infers that it is
not an issue that is present everywhere, and it is important
to remember that there has been an improvement.
However it is still regarded as being below the expected
standard on almost one in six sites in England.
pos ti ng
Litter and staining complete the four worst performing
headline indicators with 15% of sites falling below
the expected standard for litter and staining at 12%.
Equally, this means that 85% of sites were at or
above an acceptable standard for litter and 88% for
staining. This is positive, and allows focused action
to take place in the areas that are performing poorly.
If land managers and authorities focus on the key
issues identified in this report it could lead to a huge
improvement over the coming years.
Fly-posting and graffiti are not widespread issues,
and both on average were at a grade A standard in
2012/13, with very few sites below an acceptable
level. This makes them the best performing indicators.
Recent leaf and blossom fall was the third best
performing indicator in 2012/13, tracking at an average
grade of B+.
2.3. How does this compare?
Figure 2a. Average grade for headline indicators over time
A
Litter
Detritus
Weed growth
Recent leaf and blossom fall
B+
GRADE
Staining
Fly-posting
Graffiti
B
B2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
2011/12 2012/13
PERCENTAGE OF SITES BELOW AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD
Figure 2b. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for headline indicators over time
100%
Litter
90%
Detritus
80%
Weed growth
70%
Staining
60%
Fly-posting
50%
Graffiti
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
2011/12 2012/13
While it is important to know the state of our headline
indicators now, it is also essential to compare these
with previous years, in order to establish how our past
efforts have shaped our current environment.
Figure 2a and 2b show that, while the headline
indicators have fluctuated little in their relationship to
each other in the past 12 years, it can be seen that
there have been some changes in recent years. All
indicators have seen statistically tested significant
signs of improvement in 2012/13, as all show fewer
sites falling below an acceptable standard compared to
2011/12. Even the most prevalent problem, detritus, is
now at a decade low and only recent leaf/blossom fall is
higher now than it was when the survey first took place
in 2001/02. Of all the indicators over the past 12 years,
there are none that have been at an unacceptable level
on more than 40% of sites.
Detritus has always been the worst performing
indicator. When looking at average grade it has stayed
consistently around a grade B, a satisfactory standard.
However, over the years there have been a large
number of sites falling below an acceptable standard
for detritus, and since 2009/10 it had been at an alltime high, with 39% of sites falling below an acceptable
standard last year. Encouragingly, 2012/13 shows
great improvements with 13% fewer sites falling below
an acceptable standard for detritus, a statistically
significant difference, leaving this percentage much
lower, at 26%.
* at the 95% confidence level
Detritus has improved so much in 2012/13 that it has
seen its best result in the 12 years of surveying. Despite
this record performance in 2012/13, the average
standard for detritus across all sites actually fell slightly
but significantly*. This means that the sites that were
performing very well (at or above a grade B) have fallen
in standard slightly, but are still above an acceptable
standard. This implies that resource has been shifted
to greatly improve very poor performing areas. This
shows that local authorities are working more efficiently
with smaller budgets. Keep Britain Tidy has witnessed
a number of local authorities doing this first hand
through the Keep Britain Tidy Network. Members have
demonstrated how they are reorganising cleansing
schedules to maximise the resource they have, with the
aim to keep all sites at an acceptable standard.
Weed growth still has the second highest number of
sites falling below an acceptable standard. Although
there has been an improvement, with the number of
sites falling below an acceptable standard dropping
significantly* from 22% in 2011/12 to 16% in 2012/13,
it has seen the average standard of sites decline
significantly*. On average, sites are now of a lower
standard for weed growth than in 2011/12. In 2012/13,
it has also dropped below litter and staining when
looking at the average standard in figure 2a, whereas,
in the previous 11 years on average weed growth
had performed better. Again, this indicates that
local authorities are working more efficiently and are
maximising their resources by prioritising them.
Litter has shown improvements in 2012/13, with 3%
fewer sites falling below an acceptable standard,
decreasing from 18% in 2011/12 to 15% in 2012/13,
although the change in the number of sites below an
acceptable standard has not been significant*. There
was a small but significant* improvement in the average
standard of all sites, showing that sites are less littered
than in 2011/12. This is great news, and shows that local
authorities are working hard to improve litter standards.
Although it is now the third most widespread problem
when looking at sites that fall below an acceptable
standard, this is largely due to the significantly
enhanced performance of staining in 2012/13. Staining
saw a huge improvement with 8% fewer sites falling
below an acceptable standard, tumbling significantly*
from 20% in 2011/12 to 12% in 2012/13. This is the
lowest percentage since the survey began. This has
also resulted in the average standard for staining
increasing across all sites in 2012/13.
Staining is caused by general day-to-day activity in
the area. It can consist of mud and grime, staining left
from construction works, staining from vehicles, such
as oil spillage, and staining from food and drink and
chewing gum. Considering the definition, staining can
see improvements from either improved or increased
cleansing by local authorities, but also weather can
have an impact. Heavy rain can naturally remove many
forms of staining.
Recent leaf and blossom fall remained constant
in 2012/13, retaining its position as the third best
performing indicator, with only 10% of sites falling
below an acceptable standard - no change from
2011/12 - and an insignificant* change in the
average standard.
Graffiti and fly-posting have remained the least
problematic indicators in 2012/13, as they have
over time. Both have seen improvements in average
standard and in the number of sites falling below an
acceptable standard in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12.
2012/13 has seen improvements across the headline
indicators. It is evident from the analysis that local
authorities are shifting resource effectively to ensure
that the priority is bringing all sites to an acceptable
standard across all headline indicators as budgets
get tighter. local authorities are doing a great job of
this, but it is also evident that as budgets are reduced
and local authorities have to prioritise, standards are
slipping slightly in sites that are above an
acceptable standard.
3
How big is England’s litter problem?
Although there is not an official legal definition of litter, it is generally defined as ‘waste that
has been unlawfully abandoned or scattered in a public place’. In the survey, litter includes
materials that are often associated with smoking, eating and drinking, which have been
improperly discarded by members of the public or items that have been spilt during waste
management operations. Litter can also include faeces such as that from a dog or bird.
3.1. What is happening with litter?
Litter is one of the first signs of social decay15 and is
a subject that affects everyone in some way. People
don’t want to live, work or play in heavily littered areas
and local authorities and other land managers have
the difficult task of trying to keep England clean, often
dealing with daily complaints about litter-related issues.
Many are working to improve the litter problem and
there is a small improvement of 3% fewer sites falling
below an acceptable standard in 2012/13 compared to
2011/12, although this change was not significant. What
is evident, however, is that despite the ever-increasing
cleansing bill, litter has remained at a similar standard
for the past 12 years, as shown in figure 3.
Figure 3. Variations in litter standards overtime
2001/02
2002/03
18%
21%
B
2004/05
2003/04
B
2005/06
11%
B
2007/08
14%
B
2010/11
B
2011/12
15%
B
B
16%
B
15%
B
2012/13
18%
Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard and litter grade
21%
2009/10
13%
B
B
2006/07
2008/09
17%
13%
B
Figure 4. Percentage of sites affected by each litter source in 2012/13
General - 96%
Domestic - 20%
Clinical - 20%
Commercial - 14%
Faeces - 8%
3.2. Where is the litter coming from?
To assist in the fight against litter it is important to
understand where the litter comes from. To do this, the
survey measures the different potential sources of the
litter. On all the sites surveyed, the presence of litter is
assigned to one of the following sources:
General - this is anything that has been dropped by
members of the public.
Domestic -this is litter that has come from a domestic
source, such as an overflowing bin or from a home.
Clinical - any litter from a clinical source or litter that
has come into contact with bodily fluid, including
discarded tissues.
Commercial - anything that has come directly
from a commercial source.
Faeces - any faeces from an animal,
including dogs, birds and
horses, etc.
Figure 4 shows the percentage of sites where these
forms of litter were present. In comparison to 2011/12
there have been only slight changes in the sources
of litter present. General litter has increased by
1% from 95% to 96% in 2012/13, a small change.
Commercial litter has reduced from 15% to 14%.
Faeces has decreased from 10% to 8%, while clinical
and domestic waste have both increased from 17% to
20%. Construction waste and waste arising from dead
animals, etc., were witnessed on less than 1% of sites.
3.3. What type of litter is found in England?
To improve litter levels, it is very important to
understand what types of litter are present in England.
Identifying the litter types can assist in a number of
ways. Firstly, it may indicate the source, and can assist
in identifying the manufacturers and retail outlets
from where this litter could be coming. It also assists
in understanding people’s littering behaviours and
identifying possible gaps where infrastructure, such as
bins or other solutions are not in place. It can also help
focus activity and campaigns.
Figure 5 shows the litter types that appeared on the most
sites surveyed. Figure 5 shows that once again smokers’
materials is most prevalent form of litter; some form of
smokers’ materials were found on a huge 82% of sites in
2012/13. Smokers’ materials not only affect the highest
number of sites, but are considerably* more widespread
than all the other litter types, beating confectionery
(found on 68% of sites) by 14%. Once again, litter related
to non-alcoholic drinks was the third most prevalent litter
type, appearing on 52% of sites in 2012/13, a significant*
reduction from the 54% of 2011/12.
From the top three, there is then a steady decrease
in the percentage of sites affected by the other litter
types, making it clear that the top three are the areas
of priority. From 52% of sites affected by litter from
non-alcoholic drinks, the number of sites affected
by fast food-related litter, the fourth most frequent
litter type, was 32% in 2012/13; this is 20% less than
the third worst litter type. Fast food-related litter has
seen a significant* increase from 29% of sites being
affected in 2011/12 to 32% of sites in 2012/13. The fifth
most frequent litter type, alcoholic drinks-related litter,
increased from 21% in 2011/12 to 22% in 2012/13, a
significant change*. The sixth most prevalent form of
litter was snack packs, which increased significantly*
by 3% from 20% in 2011/12 to 23% in 2012/13.There
were many types of litter within the survey that were
not present on the sites surveyed, the full list of all litter
types can be found in appendix 1.
Figure 5. Top 24 litter types present in 2012/13
Smokers’ materials - 82%
Vehicle parts - 12%
Newspaper/magazines - 6%
Confectionery material - 68%
Till Receipts - 11%
Travel-related - 5%
Non-alcoholic drinks-related - 52%
Discarded food/drink - 10%
Pens - 5%
Fast food related - 32%
Solid Gum - 9%
Lottery-related - 4%
Snack packs - 23%
Clothing - 8%
Industry related - 4%
Alcoholic drinks-related - 22%
Dog-related - 7%
ATM slips - 4%
Packaging - 21%
Royal Mail-related - 7%
Supermarket bags - 3%
Paper tissues - 16%
Other retail bags - 6%
Clinical packaging - 3%
Figure 6. Percentage of sites affected by smokers’ materials in 2012/13
2001/02
2002/03
20 03/04
2004/05
63%
60%
79%
79%
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
79%
78%
78%
76%
2009/10
201 0/11
2011/12
2012 /13
81%
83%
82%
82%
3.3.1. Six of the worst
3.3.1.1.Smokers’ materials
The litter type that affected the most sites in 2012/13
was smokers’ materials. For the second year running,
82% of sites surveyed were affected by smokers’
materials, which consist of cigarettes, cigarette butts,
cigars, matchsticks/boxes, cigarette and cigar boxes,
wrappers and disposable lighters.
Research has found that many smokers don’t actually
consider cigarette butts as litter, dropping them
subconsciously16. We can conclude that there is
work to be done to make people aware that these
16.Keep Britain Tidy, The Little book of Litter, 2012
smokers’ materials are in fact “litter”. As the prevalence
of smokers’ materials is very high, it also raises the
question of whether the appropriate infrastructure,
such as bins, and solutions are in place. It is clear that
there is a need for work to be done to change people’s
behaviour in the way they dispose of cigarettes, and
solutions also need to be put in place, to make it easy for
people to do the right thing with a cigarette butt, rather
than littering it.
Figure 7. Percentage of land uses affected by
smokers’ materials in 2012/13
Figure 8. Cigarette butt count on each land use in
2012/13
Main retail and commercial - 99.15%
Main retail and commercial - 49,096
Other retail and commercial - 98.33%
Other retail and commercial - 43,526
Industry and warehousing - 93.02%
Industry and warehousing - 16,565
High-obstruction housing - 90.56%
High-obstruction housing - 14,070
Main roads - 86.76%
Main roads - 11,607
Medium-obstruction housing - 85.57%
Medium-obstruction housing - 10,147
Low-obstruction housing - 77.4%
Low-obstruction housing - 5,577
Other highways - 76.13%
Other highways - 9,404
Rural roads - 68.6%
Rural roads - 3,262
Recreation areas - 43.98%
Recreation areas - 3,469
Not surprisingly, when the presence of smokers’
materials is assessed by land use, results show that
in 2012/13, 99% of main retail and commercial areas
surveyed had some presence of smokers’ materials
and 98% of other retail and commercial areas were
also affected, as shown in figure 7. The results show
it is not just areas of high footfall that suffer; housing
areas were also heavily affected. The least affected
land use was recreation areas, although 44% of these
areas (which include parks) did show the presence of
smokers’ materials.
In 2012/13, the total number of cigarette butts
encountered on each survey site was counted.
Cigarette butts are a huge issue, as they can take up to
12 years to biodegrade.
In the 2012/13 count, 166,723 cigarette butts were
recorded across all sites surveyed. Figure 8 shows
how these cigarette butts were distributed across the
different land uses, and that more than half (56%) were
found in retail areas. Retail areas are areas of high
footfall and so it is unsurprising these are the land uses
with the highest number of cigarette butts. According to
observations by surveyors, in retail areas cigarette butts
were particularly concentrated around doorways. This
indicates that people are disposing of cigarettes quickly
before entering shops, office buildings, etc., and that
there isn’t provision in the most appropriate place for
them to use. It also suggests that attitudes of smokers
may need to be targeted and encouraged to use the
nearest bin, rather than just throwing their cigarette on
the ground when they have finished smoking it.
3.3.1.2. Confectionery material and snack-pack litter
Confectionery material and snack food packaging,
alongside fast food litter, were the litter types that saw
the biggest increases in presence, all appearing on
a significantly higher* 3% more sites than in 2011/12.
Confectionery material was the second most prevalent
litter type in 2012/13, appearing on 68% of sites. This
category includes any packaging of confectionery; it
tends to be small, for example sweet and chocolate
wrappers, and can be linked to people snacking on the
go. This is also the case with snack food packaging,
which is packaging related to pre-prepared food from
shops, such as crisp packets and biscuit wrappers.
Snack packaging was present on 23% of sites.
Looking at the presence over time of these litter types,
figure 9 shows a similar trend has been observed,
although confectionery material has always been much
higher. Both have seen a significant increase* since
the inception of the survey, although the patterns do
differ slightly.
When assessing confectionery material (figure 10) and
snack packaging (figure 11) by land use, it can be seen
that confectionery material has increased in six of the
ten land uses, with the exceptions being roads and
recreation areas, where it has decreased slightly. Snack
packaging has increased in all land uses apart from
rural roads (although this remains the most affected
land use) and recreation areas.
Retail areas are the worst affected by confectionery
material, however, snack food packaging was observed
most on rural roads, other highways and main roads.
This shows that snack food is often taken away from the
point of purchase and littered, whereas confectionery
is more likely to be dropped close to its source. It is
important to note that there are far more sites affected
by confectionery litter than by snack packaging.
Figure 9. Percentage of sites affected by confectionery and snack pack litter over time
Confectionery material
Snack packs
20 01/02
2002/03
2003/0 4
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
47%
53%
66%
9%
19%
29%
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
67%
68%
67%
26%
30%
23%
20 07/08
2008/09
2009/10
20 07/08
2008/09
20 09/10
64%
64%
68%
25%
22%
22%
2010 /11
2011/ 1 2
201 2 / 13
2010 /11
2011/1 2
201 2 /13
69%
65%
68%
21%
20%
23%
Figure 10. Percentage of sites affected by confectionery material by land use over time
100%
High-obstruction housing
90%
Medium-obstruction housing
80%
Low-obstruction housing
Industry and warehousing
% OF SITES
70%
Main retail and commercial
60%
Other retail and commercial
50%
Main roads
40%
Other highways
30%
Rural roads
20%
Recreation areas
10%
0%
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Figure 11. Percentage of sites affected by snack packs by land use over time
100%
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
Main roads
40%
Other highways
30%
Rural roads
20%
Recreation areas
10%
0%
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
3.3.1.3.Drinks-related litter
In the 2012/13 survey, non-alcoholic drinks litter was
the third most prevalent litter type, appearing on 52% of
sites and remaining the same as in 2011/12. Alcoholic
drinks-related litter were the sixth most prevalent litter
type at 22%, falling from fifth place in 2011/12.
In 2012/13, non-alcoholic drinks litter has reduced,
being present on 2% fewer sites in 2012/13 than in
2011/12, a significant change*. Alcoholic drinks litter
has seen a small but significant* increase, with 1%
more sites affected in 2012/13 than in 2011/12.
Figure 12. Percentage of sites affected by alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks litter in 2012/13
2 0 0 3/ 0 4
47%
2 00 6/07
52%
2 0 09/1 0
53%
Non-alcoholic drinks related
Alcoholic drinks related
2 0 0 4/ 0 5
2 0 0 4/ 0 5
47%
2 0 07/0 8
52%
2 010 / 11
54%
2 012/13
2 0 0 5/ 0 6
20 0 3/0 4
50%
15%
2 00 8/0 9
2 00 6/07
51%
21%
2 011/1 2
20 09/1 0
54%
19%
18%
2 0 07/0 8
24%
2010/11
20%
2 0 12 / 1 3
2 00 5/0 6
19%
200 8/09
22%
2 011/1 2
21%
52%
22%
Figure 12 shows a similar pattern was followed by these
two litter types between 2003/04 and 2007/08 where
they slowly increased. Non-alcoholic drinks related
has always been significantly higher since 2003/04.
It is only since 2010/11 that the pattern has started to
change, where alcoholic drinks-related litter has been
increasing, while non-alcoholic drinks-related has
been decreasing. Although overall sales of alcohol by
volume have fallen17, the recession has seen a switch
in the balance of purchases made from pubs and clubs
(on-trade) to a greater proportion of purchases being
made from supermarkets and local shops (off-trade).
This is in an effort to save money, as people are put off
by the cost of going out and where multi-buy deals in
supermarkets encourage people to buy there. As such,
a comparative increase in out-of-venue consumption
can be linked with the increase in litter.
17.Wines and Spirits Trade Association Market Report, 2013
When assessing where drinks litter occurs most
frequently, it is apparent that alcoholic and non-alcoholic
drinks litter follow a similar trend with non-alcoholic litter
being present at a higher percentage across all land
uses. Industry and warehousing, main roads and rural
roads are the most likely types of land on which to find
either non-alcoholic or alcohol drinks. Recreational areas
and low obstruction housing are least likely to be affected.
Figure 13. Percentage of sites affected by alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks litter in 2012/13 by land use
52%
33%
43%
64%
47%
58%
64%
53%
64%
43%
18%
13%
15%
25%
17%
26%
25%
31%
31%
18%
Highobstruction
housing
Lowobstruction
housing
Mediumobstruction
housing
Industry
and
warehousing
Main
retail and
commercial
Other
retail and
commercial
Main roads
Other
highways
Rural roads
Recreation
areas
KEY
3.3.1.4.Fast food litter
Fast food litter can be defined as packaging and
paraphernalia related to ready-to-eat food and drinks
purchased from both the larger high street chain
food outlets, national coffee chains and from smaller
independent and regional chains and pizza/kebab/fish
and chip shops. This includes wrappings, boxes, drinks
containers, plastic straws, plastic cutlery, branded
paper napkins, all sandwich cartons, salt sachets etc.
Fast food litter was the fourth most prevalent form
of litter in England in 2012/13, with a significant* 3%
increase on the previous year, meaning 32% of sites are
now affected. This follows on from the trend of 2011/12,
where it was the litter type that saw the largest increase
in prevalence. Ten percent more sites are affected by
fast food litter than they were 10 years ago.
Research carried out by market research consultants
NPD in 2011 showed that fast food now accounts for
just over 50% of all meals eaten outside the home,
which includes meals eaten in work/supermarket
canteens, pubs, restaurants and coffee/sandwich
shops. Given the pressure placed on people’s budgets,
fast food has become a convenient way for people to
eat outside the home and provides a consistent eating
experience that is viewed as a safe bet by consumers.
Although fast food outlets have increased in number over
the years, there is a particular correlation between the
density of outlets and the socio-economic deprivation
of an area. In areas of high deprivation there is often a
higher concentration of takeaway food premises.
Figure 14. Percentage of sites affected by fast food litter over time
200 4/05
20 0 5/0 6
20 0 6/07
2 0 0 7/0 8
200 8/09
22%
24%
24%
25%
21%
2 0 0 9/ 1 0
2 010/11
2 011/ 1 2
201 2/ 13
24%
24%
29%
32%
Figure 15. Percentage of sites affected by fast food litter by land use over time
100%
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
Main roads
40%
Other highways
30%
Rural roads
20%
Recreation areas
10%
0%
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
As in previous years, rural roads are the type of land
use affected most by fast food litter, shown in figure 15,
with the percentage of sites affected increasing from
45% in 2011/12 to 48% in 2012/13. Main roads have
remained the second most affected land use type,
increasing from 39% to 46% in 2012/13. Industry and
warehousing produced the sharpest increase from 36%
in 2011/12 to 46% in 2012/13.
Knight Frank’s Out-of-Town Retail and Leisure Report
(Summer 2013) shows that traditional fast food outlets,
as well as coffee shops, are increasing in number year
on year in out-of-town retail parks and this correlates
with the increase in litter in these areas.
The only land use that has shown a reduction in fast
food litter is recreation areas, dropping from 19% to
17% of sites being affected, after a steep increase in
2011/12.
The fact that nearly half of rural roads and main roads
surveyed were affected by fast food litter shows that
fast food litter is travelling from the point of purchase
before being discarded, and is a major issue in
such areas. Keep Britain Tidy’s research into vehicle
littering found that 67% of commercial drivers and
77% of individuals admitted to dropping litter in the
week before the survey took place18. It may be that
better provision for disposal is required in such areas,
or that attention needs to be directed towards the
manufacturers, vendors and consumers of these types
of products in changing the behaviour of people who
dispose of their litter on England’s road network. As
purchasers of fast food seemingly want to eat in their
vehicles then discard the packaging at the point they
have finished, it suggests that efforts to reduce litter
from vehicles should be targeted at fast food retailers,
vendors and consumers.
Figure 16. Percentage of sites affected by dog fouling in 2012/13
2 0 01/0 2
2 0 0 2 /0 3
2 0 0 3/0 4
20 0 4/05
10%
8%
9%
6%
2 0 05/0 6
20 0 6/07
20 07/0 8
2 0 0 8/0 9
8%
7%
6%
8%
2 0 0 9/1 0
2010/11
2011/12
2012 /13
7%
7%
9%
7%
3.3.2. Other issues
3.3.2.1. Dog fouling
With dog fouling listed as one of the public’s top three
priorities to improve on from national perception surveys
(’The View From The Street’, published by Keep Britain
Tidy in 2012), it is important that the problem is closely
monitored and observed in the LEQSE.
In reality, dog faeces is fairly rare in 2012/13; only 7% of
sites had dog fouling present. In fact, it has never been
found on more than 11% of sites in the 12-year history
of LEQSE. It remains a principle concern, however,
18.Keep Britain Tidy, Vehicle Litter Research, 2009
19.Keep Britain Tidy, The Little book of Litter, 2012
as 64% of people class it as the most offensive litter
item19. Where it is present it can be very noticeable, and
very unpleasant, and, in turn any presence can have a
significant detrimental effect on people’s local areas and
quality of life. Research has shown that an individual local
authority received on average 213 complaints during
2011/12 regarding dog fouling, indicating how important
this subject is to people.
Figure 16 shows the trend in dog faeces since 2001. In
2012/13, the number of sites affected fell by 2 percentage
points from 9% in 2011/12 to 7%.
Figure 17. Percentage of sites affected by different numbers of instances of dog fouling for 2011/12 and 2012/13
2011/12
91%
6%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
No dog fouling
1 instance
2 instances
3 instances
4 instances
5 instances
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
8 instances
9 instances
10 instances
10+ instances
<1%
6 instances
<1%
7 instances
2012/13
93%
5%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
No dog fouling
1 instance
2 instances
3 instances
4 instances
5 instances
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
8 instances
9 instances
10 instances
10+ instances
<1%
6 instances
<1%
7 instances
The survey also counts the individual number of instances
of dog fouling found on a site, which gives a better
indication of the scale of the problem. The survey started
to measure this in 2011/12 and comparisons can be made
to the 2012/13 data, as shown in figure 17. In 2012/13,
93% of sites surveyed in England had no dog fouling
present, a 2% improvement from 2011/12. 5% had one
instance of dog fouling in 2012/13, 1% had two instances
and less than 1% of sites displayed three or more
instances of dog fouling. Only five sites out of over 10,600
surveyed had more than ten instances of dog fouling.
Breaking down the types of sites affected by dog fouling
into land uses can really assist in helping to target
solutions to this problem. Other highways was the worst
affected, with 16% of sites displaying the presence of
dog fouling. This is likely to be because many other
highways are often hidden between houses or out of
sight, which means people are less likely to be seen if
they fail to pick up after their dogs. 11% of recreation
areas were affected by dog fouling. These are expected
to be places visited by a high number of dog walkers so
are most likely to be affected.
Assessing the location of most frequent dog fouling is
also important as it shows where provisions need to
be put in place. Research shows that dog walking can
often be a social activity and the correct behaviour by
one group of dog walkers can heavily influence others.
It also suggests that communication (e.g. signage) is
most powerful when it relates to their dog, for example
creating a safer, healthier environment for them. It has
been calculated that emptying a specialised dog poo
bin can cost councils twice as much as emptying a
normal general waste bin, resulting in some councils
removing dog waste bins or deciding not to install any
more. It is important to encourage dog walkers to take
plastic bags with them to clear up after their dog and for
local authorities to ensure that dog walkers are aware
that bagged dog faeces can be disposed of in a normal
general waste bin (where this is applicable).
The relationship between bins and dog fouling was
analysed. 1,311 sites had some form of bin appropriate
for dog poo disposal; either a general litter bin or a
dedicated dog poo bin. 108 of these sites had dog poo
(including bagged) present. This means that 8% of sites
with a bin were affected by dog poo.
1,175 sites had a general litter bin, not dedicated to dog
fouling, and out of these sites 84 had dog poo on them
(including bagged dog poo), this is 7% of sites. Research
collected for Keep Britain Tidy’s ‘There’s no such thing as
the dog poo fairy’ campaign showed that 83% of people
who regularly walked their dog thought they could not
use a general litter bin to dispose of dog poo19.
Figure 18. Percentage of sites affected by dog fouling by land use in 2012/13
9%
High obstruction housing
6%
6%
Low obstruction housing
4%
Main roads
7%
Medium obstruction housing
16%
Other highways
4%
5%
Rural roads
2%
11%
Recreation areas
3.3.2.2.Carrier bags
Plastic bags can take up to 20 years to biodegrade
and since they are a form of litter that is easily blown
between locations, they can easily get trapped
in hedges and trees. The Government recently
announced that a 5p charge will be implemented on
single-use carrier bags in England in 2015, after the
next election. A coalition, made up of Keep Britain
Tidy, Surfers Against Sewage, the Marine Conservation
Society and Campaign to Protect Rural England, along
with Thames 21 and Greener Upon Thames, had been
campaigning to introduce the bag charge. A Break The
Bag Habit coalition poll commissioned in September
2012 showed well over half of English adults (56 per
cent) think it is not unreasonable to charge for carrier
bags. Only 25 per cent of respondents disagreed. The
poll also found that, if people were asked to pay just 5p
for new carrier bags, three quarters of those surveyed
(75 per cent) would try to cut down the number of
new bags they used. It is now important that the
implementation of the charge is a success and that as
well as monitoring the potential reduction in carrier bag
use, which in itself will have a significant environmental
impact, it is also important to monitor the impact it has
on the amount of carrier bags ending up as litter.
The presence of other retail bags has reduced
slightly from 7% in 2011/12 to 6.5% in 2012/13, not
a significant change*. However, supermarket bags
have seen an increase from 3% in 2011/12 to 3.5%
in 2012/13, although, again this was an insignificant
change*. It will be important to keep tracking this
before and after the implementation of the new bag
charge in 2015.
Although not one of the most prevalent litter types
overall, when looking at the percentage of sites affected
by both supermarket bags and other retail bags at
land use level, it is apparent that some land uses are
particularly heavily affected. Figure 19 shows that both
supermarket bags and other retail bags tend to be
found on similar types of land-uses. Other retail bags
were found mostly in industry and warehouse areas,
closely followed by other highways and on rural roads.
Supermarket bags were most commonly found on rural
roads, but were also high in number on other highways.
Figure 19. Percentages affected by supermarket plastic bags and other retail bags over time
Supermarket plastic bags
Other retail bags
2 0 0 8/ 0 9
2 0 0 9/ 1 0
2 0 0 8/ 0 9
2 0 0 9/ 1 0
5%
4%
10%
8%
2 010 / 11
2 010 / 11
4%
6%
2 011/1 2
2 0 12 / 1 3
2 011/1 2
2 0 12 / 1 3
3%
3.5%
7%
6.5%
Figure 20. Percentage of sites affected by supermarket bags and other retails bags by land use in 2012/13
1.57%
0.85%
1.02%
5.75%
1.99%
2.87%
5.09%
6.11%
7%
2.69%
4.35%
1.69%
3.61%
10.66%
4.26%
5.46%
8.89%
10.92%
9.60%
5.46%
High
obstruction
housing
Low
obstruction
housing
Medium
obstruction
housing
Industry
and
warehousing
Main
retail and
commercial
Other
retail and
commercial
Main roads
Other
highways
Rural roads
Recreation
areas
KEY
Other retail bags
4
Where is litter found?
Understanding the types of litter present in England is very important, but it is also
important to know where the litter was found. Understanding this can assist in
explaining littering behaviours and whether the litter has travelled from where the item
was bought. Looking at the types of litter and where it was found can help build up a
picture of what is happening on the ground.
4.1. Where is the litter?
The survey categorises data into different land uses.
Here we can see the types of land that are suffering
most from litter and this can assist in understanding the
problem and help focus activity and resource.
Looking at where the litter is found makes interesting
reading. Some residential areas are affected minimally
by litter. Low obstruction housing was the least
affected land use with only 2% of sites falling below
an acceptable standard for litter. Medium-obstruction
housing had the third lowest with 7% of sites falling
below an acceptable standard. Both of these housing
types will be areas with space to park cars on
driveways and with relatively low overcrowding rates on
housing estates. It would seem apparent that people
don’t want to litter directly outside their front door so
don’t drop it in these areas and may also pick up any
that has been dropped by others. These areas will
also have relatively low footfall and, given the lower
rates of obstruction, will be easier for local authorities
to clean. Recreation areas were the second best
performing locations with only 6% of sites falling below
an acceptable standard. This could be due to the
higher level of bin provision in such areas or the greater
likelihood of being seen dropping litter by other people.
In the case of parks, many will have wardens or teams
who are responsible for the upkeep of the park and this
will help to keep the space clean and to increase the
likelihood that anyone seen littering will be challenged.
Other retail and commercial areas were the worst
performing with nearly one third of sites falling below
an acceptable standard. Other retail and commercial
areas tend to be made up of main roads with lots of
small shops (e.g. takeaways, newsagents, etc.), many
of which sell the top five or six most littered items.
They tend to have high footfall and will often have cars
parked along the roads, so do not experience the
quality and intensity of cleansing activity as that of a
main retail and commercial area, which would usually
be a town centre with national chain retailers, large
banks and the majority of cars parked in dedicated car
parks. Industry and warehousing and other highways
also fared badly, with 25% of sites falling below an
acceptable standard in these areas.
r al r o a d s
Ma
in ro a d s
re a
13%
ti o n a r e
a
ob
s tr u
c ti o n h
o
2%
in g
6%
-
ec
14%
Lo w
hH ig
O
st
In d u
R
O t h er re
er hig h w a y
us
iu
14%
th
25%
Ru
s
M ed
ta
M ain re
s tr u c ti o n h o
h
sin g
7%
in g
structio n
25%
in g
-o b
ou
m
ob
ho
us
r
w a re
us
17%
are a s
n d co m m e
and
ry
r
29%
a
l are s
c ia
il a
n d co m m e
s
il a
l
cia
ta
Figure 21. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for litter by land use 2012/13
Figure 22. Percentage of sites falling below an acceptable standard for litter by land use over time
100%
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
Main roads
40%
Other highways
30%
Rural roads
20%
Recreation areas
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
2011/12 2012/13
While there has been a reduction in litter on most land uses,
litter levels in other retail and commercial and main retail and
commercial areas are on the increase.
Other highways has for a long time been the type of land use
most affected by litter. However, in 2012/13 an improvement in
the percentage of sites falling below an acceptable standard has
resulted in other highways now being cleaner than either other retail
and commercial and industry and warehousing. In 2012/13, 25% of
other highways were below an acceptable standard for litter.
Furthermore, while industry and warehousing has consistently
remained badly affected by litter, in 2012/13 it has levelled
off at 25% of sites being below an acceptable standard, the
same value as last year.
As in previous years, main retail and commercial areas follow a
similar trend to other retail and commercial areas, being the only
other land use increasing in the percentage of sites affected by
litter; in 2012/13, it made a 1% increase to 17%.
After a steep increase in 2011/12, the percentage of rural roads
falling below an acceptable standard has decreased in 2012/13,
by 10%.
The number of recreation areas falling below an acceptable
standard also fell from 13% in 2011/12 to 6% in 2012/13.
4.1.1. Housing areas
In the survey there are three housing land use
categories, high-obstruction housing, mediumobstruction housing and low-obstruction housing.
Housing areas are classified as high obstruction
housing if the proportion of dwellings with purposebuilt off-street parking facilities is less than or equal to
50%. In these areas, there is a high risk of obstruction
to mechanical channel sweeping operations (e.g.
obstruction from parked cars). High-obstruction
housing areas are often areas of high footfall.
Housing areas are classified as medium-obstruction
housing if more than 50% of homes have purposemade off-street parking/garages for up to 2 modernday family cars. Finally, housing areas are classed as
low obstruction housing if more than 50% of properties
have purpose-made off-road garaging/parking within
the property boundary for three or more cars. In these
areas, there is generally a low risk of obstruction to
mechanical channel-sweeping.
Two of the three housing categories were in the top
three best performing land uses. The results in figure 23
confirm that high-obstruction housing suffers the most
and has more of a problem with litter than the other
two categories - it also shows that the three housing
areas have followed similar trends since 2001/02. The
lower standard of litter can be put down to the lack of
available off-road parking. Cars parked on the road can
obstruct cleansing operations. These areas also have
higher levels of footfall and are often made up of flats
and shared housing. These are places that often suffer
from waste being put out in the wrong place, which can
lead to local environmental quality issues.
Figure 23. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for litter in high, medium, and low obstruction housing over time
100%
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
2011/12 2012/13
Looking at the types of litter found in housing areas,
figure 24 shows that it follows a similar pattern to the litter
types found across all land uses. Smokers’ materials are
found on 91% of sites in high-obstruction housing areas
but only 77% of low obstruction housing areas.
Figure 24. Percentage of sites affected by types of litter found in housing areas in 2012/13
count and percentage
Smokers’ materials
979 / 90.56%
925 / 85.57%
822 / 77.40%
Confectionery packs
777 / 71.88%
Confectionery packs
694 / 64.20%
Confectionery packs
556 / 52.35%
562 / 51.99%
459 / 42.46%
358 / 33.71%
Fast food related
306 / 28.31%
Fast food related
199 / 18.41%
Fast food related
162 / 15.25%
Packaging
219 / 20.26%
163 / 15.08%
Packaging
148 / 13.94%
Snack packs
210 / 19.43%
Packaging
160 / 14.80%
140 / 13.18%
197 / 18.22%
Snack packs
145 / 13.41%
Vehicle parts
132 / 12.43%
Vehicle parts
146 / 13.51%
Vehicle parts
139 / 12.86%
Snack packs
92 / 8.66%
Discarded food/drink
117 / 10.82%
Clothing
86 / 7.96%
Till receipts
61 / 5.74%
Till receipts
112 / 10.36%
85 / 7.86%
Clothing
54 / 5.08%
4.1.2. Social housing
As well as indicating the type of land use the site
surveyed is situated in, within the three housing land
uses it is also noted whether the housing site is being
managed by a social housing provider. Often in housing
areas managed by a social housing provider, a lot more
work is carried out with residents and in communal
spaces to improve the local environmental quality. To
understand the impact of this work, a comparison was
carried out between housing areas that were flagged as
social housing and those that were not.
Figure 25 shows that housing land uses marked as
social housing performed marginally better than nonsocial housing areas for litter, although both had a
low number of sites (less than 10%) falling below an
acceptable standard. Litter was found to be below an
acceptable standard on 2% fewer sites in social housing
areas, indicating that social housing areas are possibly
benefiting from being managed by a provider that is
working to improve and maintain the area. There is little
difference between social and non-social housing across
the majority of headline indicators, with the two widest
gaps being for detritus and weed growth.
Keep Britain Tidy’s Perceptions of Place20 research
shows that there are some key differences between
more deprived and less deprived communities, in terms
of residents’ perceptions and how they are formed.
We identified a number of factors that appear to be
correlated with levels of deprivation. The Scale of
Deprivation within the research is a tool that analyses
the research findings against deprivation and provides
insight as to how to use this information. The primary
objective of the tool is to help encourage communities
to enable them to take more personal responsibility. It
enhances our understanding of how best to engage
different communities, why these differences matter and
what impact levels of deprivation have on feelings of
influence and people’s likelihood to get involved.
Figure 25. Percentage of headline indicators below an acceptable standard by housing type in 2012/13
6.28%
38.65%
23.19%
5.31%
6.76%
0.97%
1.45%
8.02%
23.52%
17.63%
7.46%
7.19%
0.17%
0.30%
Detritus
Weed growth
Recent leaf and
blossom fall
Staining
Litter
KEY
Social housing
Non-social housing
20.Whose Reality is it Anyway? Understanding the Impact of Deprivation
on Perceptions of Place, Keep Britain Tidy, 2011.
Fly-posting
Graffiti
The research shows that in more deprived communities:
- People are more likely to prioritise talking to one
another about issues affecting their local area rather
than reporting them to the appropriate authorities and
that they have a general distrust of the authorities
- Perceptions travel inside the boundaries of a
neighbourhood causing an increased intensity and
having considerable impact on the culture of that
neighbourhood
- People are less likely to feel that their ability to
influence local decisions is important and that they
experience decreased feelings of empowerment.
The research makes recommendations for dealing with
the consequences of the different levels of deprivation.
For instance, the research advises to ‘localise,
emotionalise and personalise’ any calls to social action
and to target more deprived areas it cautions that a lack
of complaints does not mean there are no problems,
because people in deprived communities prefer to share
their problems with each other instead of reporting them
to officials. The research also recommends normalising
positive behaviours; people are more likely to do
something if other people are doing it too.
As such, this research may go some way to explain the
differences seen on the ground between litter levels in
social housing and non-social housing areas.
Social housing providers historically have a strong
focus on identifying and understanding their residents’
perceptions, through the standardised tenant
satisfaction survey (STATUS) which was part of a
national process to understand tenants’ views of their
social housing providers. The STATUS surveys were
abolished in 2010, but many social housing providers
now adopt the STAR survey21 (Survey of Tenants
and Residents) and/or bespoke localised surveys to
assess customer satisfaction. As such, it is likely that
the results will inform hyper-local activities to improve
areas, which partially explains why litter affects a lower
percentage of sites in social housing areas than it does
in non-social housing areas.
4.1.3. Commercial areas
Other retail and commercial areas was the worst
performing land use in 2012/13, with 29% of sites
falling below an acceptable standard for litter. 17%
of main retail and commercial areas fell below an
acceptable standard for litter. Figure 26 shows that
these two land uses have followed a similar trend
since 2001/02, however, in the past few years other
retail and commercial areas has seen a sharper rise
in the percentage of sites falling below an acceptable
standard for litter.
Figure 26. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for litter trends in retail and commercial areas in 2012/13
100%
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
21.HouseMark Ltd
2011/12 2012/13
Figure 27. Litter type for other retail and commercial and main retail and commercial in 2012/13
1048 / 99.15%
1062 / 98.33%
Confectionery packs
823 / 77.86%
Confectionery packs
852 / 78.89%
498 / 47.11%
625 / 57.87%
Fast food related
423 / 40.02%
Fast food related
371 / 34.35%
Solid gum
339 / 32.07%
285 / 26.39%
Till receipts
335 / 31.69%
Packaging
258 / 23.89%
Packaging
246 / 23.27%
Till receipts
252 / 23.33%
211 / 19.96%
Snack packs
244 / 22.59%
184 / 17.41%
Solid gum
214 / 19.81%
ATM slips
184 / 17.41%
173 / 16.02%
Looking at the litter types found on other retail and
commercial sites and main retail and commercial sites,
it is clear that there are some differences between these
land uses and the litter types across England as a
whole. Smokers’ materials affect commercial areas very
heavily with 98% of ‘other retail and commercial’ areas
and 99% of ‘main retail and commercial’ areas showing
evidence of this type of litter. Confectionery packs are
also more common on these land uses, with both around
10% higher in commercial areas when compared to the
national average. Unsurprisingly, till receipts are also
considerably more frequent in both types of commercial
areas, with main retail and commercial being 20% higher
than the average of all land uses combined. Solid gum
is also much more frequent in retail areas, registering on
20% of sites in other retail and commercial areas and
32% in main retail and commercial areas, compared to
an average of 9% of sites across all land uses.
Figure 28 shows a litter composition analysis between the
two types of commercial area, and the average across all
land uses in 2012/13. Notably, lottery tickets were higher
in ’other retail and commercial’ areas, affecting 14% of
sites within this particular land use while only being visible
on 4% of sites on average across England.
Figure 28. Percentage of sites affected by litter types in other retail and commercial, main retail and commercial,
and all areas in 2012/13
All land uses 2012/13
81.98%
99.15%
98.33%
Confectionery packs
68.44%
77.86%
78.89%
51.93%
47.11%
57.87%
Snack packs
22.9%
16.37%
22.59%
Fast food related
32.15%
40.02%
34.35%
22.1%
17.41%
26.39%
ATM slips
3.8%
17.41%
8.15%
Bagged dog faeces
1.49%
0.09%
0.46%
Balloons
2.44%
3.03%
2.5%
Clothing
8.21%
8.23%
9.81%
9.96%
19.96%
16.02%
Fireworks
0.72%
0%
0.09%
Lottery related
4.46%
4.92%
14.35%
Media storage
0.77%
0.38%
0.37%
Newspaper
6.15%
6.24%
6.2%
Other retail bags
6.49%
4.26%
5.46%
Packaging
20.66%
23.27%
23.89%
Pens
4.52%
8.42%
8.33%
Solid gum
9.34%
32.07%
19.81%
Supermarket bags
3.46%
1.99%
2.87%
Telephone cards
0.58%
1.14%
0.93%
Till receipts
11.26%
31.69%
23.33%
Travel related
4.58%
7.76%
6.48%
Vehicle parts
11.66%
3.88%
9.91%
Other
2.75%
2.37%
3.43%
4.1.4. Roads and other highways
Rural roads and main roads are the two road categories
surveyed within LEQSE. Other highways are also
surveyed. Other highways can be formal lay-bys,
informal lay-bys, stub roads, underpasses, footbridges,
un-metalled bridleways, metalled bridleways, narrow
routes and cycleways. All three types of these land
uses have shown an improved performance for litter
in 2012/13, with a decline in the number of sites falling
below an acceptable standard. Other highways and
main roads have both seen their best results since
2004/05, while ‘rural roads’ had their second best results
in the past seven years and saw a 10% decrease in sites
falling below an acceptable standard.
The improvement on ‘other highways’ was particularly
important as it moved from being the worst performing
land use (a position it had occupied in every previous
year of the survey), to being the third worst performer.
It is now crucial to ensure they continue to follow the
trend shown in figure 29 and to understand the key
areas to focus on. Figure 30 shows that the main litter
types found on England’s roads follow the main litter
types found across the country, with the top five most
prevalent on the roads matching the top five as an
average across all land uses. Many other highways
survey sites consist of lay-bys connected to the road
network. These are areas where people will often stop
to eat, drink or smoke, and are therefore, known to be
prone to litter. Keep Britain Tidy’s research into vehicle
littering found that 67% of commercial drivers and
77% of individuals admitted to dropping litter in the
week before the survey took place22. It may be that
dispose of their litter on England’s road network.
It is now crucial to ensure they continue to follow the
trend shown in figure 29 and to understand the key
areas to focus on. Figure 30 shows that the main litter
types found on England’s roads follow the main litter
types found across the country, with the top five most
prevalent on the roads matching the top five as an
average across all land uses. Many ‘other highway’
survey sites consist of lay-bys connected to the road
network. These are areas where people will often
stop to eat, drink or smoke, and are therefore, known
to be prone to litter. Keep Britain Tidy’s research into
vehicle littering found that 67% of commercial drivers
and 77% of individuals admitted to dropping litter in
the week before the survey took place. It may be that
dispose of their litter on England’s road network.
Figure 29. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for litter on main roads, other highways and rural roads
in 2012/13
100%
Main roads
90%
Other highways
80%
Rural roads
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
22.Keep Britain Tidy, Vehicle Litter Report, 2009
2011/12
2012/13
Figure 30. Most frequent litter types found on main roads, rural roads and other highways in 2012/13
Main roads
Rural roads
Other highways
937 / 86.76%
686 / 68.60%
823 / 76.13%
Confectionery packs
760 / 70.37%
Confectionery packs
639 / 63.90%
Confectionery packs
786 / 72.71%
682 / 63.15%
636 / 63.60%
571 / 52.82%
Fast food related
497 / 46.02%
Fast food related
480 / 48%
Snack packs
366 / 33.86%
Snack packs
336 / 31.11%
Snack packs
365 / 36.50%
337 / 31.17%
Vehicle parts
282 / 26.11%
318 / 31.80%
Fast food related
325 / 30.06%
Packaging
276 / 25.56%
Packaging
248 / 24.80%
Packaging
234 / 21.65%
272 / 25.19%
Vehicle parts
127 / 12.70%
Other retail bags
118 / 10.92%
112 / 10.37%
Other retail bags
96 / 9.60%
101 / 9.34%
Newspaper
104 / 9.63%
Newspaper
81 / 8.10%
Newspaper
92 / 8.51%
Smokers’ materials, confectionery packs, non-alcoholic
drinks related and fast food-related litter were the
top four most prevalent litter types on roads, they
were also present at a higher percentage of sites
in these land uses than the average across all sites
in England. Given the high percentage of the three
road categories where the main types of litter are still
found, there remains much work to be done despite
the encouraging signs shown in this year’s survey. This
is supported by the fact that 86% of motorists have
witnessed smokers’ materials and confectionery packs
being littered from a vehicle23.
23.Keep Britain Tidy, Conducted by Toluna, 2012
4.1.5. Industry, warehousing, retail sheds and science parks
Industry and warehousing areas, which include retail
parks, had the second highest number of sites falling
below an acceptable standard, with 1 in 4 sites not
meeting the required standard. Figure 31 shows that
over the past 12 years this land use has seen some
large fluctuations, but from 2011/12 to 2012/13
has remained the same.
It is important to understand the types of litter found
on this land use to try to understand the problem.
Figure 31. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for litter in industry and warehousing in 2012/13
100%
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
2011/12 2012/13
Figure 32. Most frequent litter types found in industry and warehousing in 2012/13
Industry and warehousing count and percentage
986 / 93.02%
266 / 25.09%
Confectionery packs
727 / 68.58%
Packaging
260 / 24.53%
681 / 64.25%
Vehicle parts
201 / 18.96%
Fast food related
488 / 46.04%
Clothing
135 / 12.74%
Snack packs
318 / 30%
115 / 10.85%
Figure 32 shows that smokers’ materials, non-alcoholic drinks-related litter and fast food litter are all more of a
problem in industry and warehousing areas compared to the average across England.
Figure 33. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for litter in recreation areas in 2012/13
100%
Recreation areas
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
4.1.6. Recreation areas
Recreation areas have seen an improvement in 2012/13.
Figure 33 shows that the number of sites falling below
an acceptable standard for litter fell by more than 50% in
recreation areas, from 13% in 2011/12 to 6% in 2012/13.
Unusually, on this type of land use, smokers’ materials
were not the most prevalent form of litter in 2012/13.
Although still prominent on this land use, the figure
is nearly 50% lower than the average for smokers’
materials across England. Confectionery packs were
the litter type affecting the most recreation sites,
being noted on 63% of those surveyed. Clothing also
appeared on 6% of sites and made the top ten most
frequently littered items.
Figure 34. Most frequent litter types found in recreation areas in 2012/13
Recreation areas count and percentage
Confectionery packs
684 / 63.33%
Fast food related
182 / 16.85%
Smokers materials
475 / 43.98%
Packaging
156 / 14.44%
468 / 43.33%
Clothing
70 / 6.48%
199 / 18.43%
Other retail bags
59 / 5.46%
Snack packs
196 / 18.15%
51 / 4.72%
5
How much litter is recyclable?
The ability to recycle litter contributes towards a more circular economy and
reduces pressure on natural resources and biodiversity, while, at the same time,
reducing greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. When looking at litter
it is interesting to note how much of the litter could have been recycled and to
consider the provisions in place of on-street recycling.
5.1.1. What recyclable litter was found?
In 2012/13, 79% of sites had recyclable material present.
Of sites where litter was found, an average of 40% of the
litter present was recyclable. On 445 sites, 100% of the
litter could have been recycled.
While there is a variety of recyclable materials,
surveyors recorded the four most common - paper,
glass, plastic and metal – in order to provide a good
indication of their frequency; this is displayed in figure
35. Across all sites surveyed in 2012/13, paper was the
recyclable material that occurred most, being present
on 60% of sites. Plastic also had a high presence,
featuring on more than half of the sites surveyed (52%).
Metal and glass were less common, being recorded on
31% and 8% of sites respectively.
Figure 35. Percentage of site where each recyclable material occurs in 2012/13
51.7%
59.6%
30.8%
7.5%
KEY
Paper
Glass
Plastic
Metal
Figure 36. Average percentage of recyclable litter by land use in 2012/13
30%
28%
26%
34%
19%
25%
19%
35%
45%
33%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
Recreational areas
Recycling has become common practice for many households, but
recycling on-the-go is something that has been less successful.
Ministers set out a proposal in the Government Review of Waste Policy
in England 201124 to look at the potential ways that waste would end
up in the correct place and could then be re-used. The review set out
goals for manufacturers to improve and reduce packaging, increasing
its recyclability and using recycled content within the packaging where
possible. The review also considered how local authorities could work
differently and enforce powers and even explored methods such as
deposit schemes used in a number of other countries.
In addition, the review looked at recycling on the go, identifying that
initiatives such as the BSI standard on sustainable event management
and local partnerships on litter and recycling had helped to raise
performance in certain areas, but had not taken off nationwide. It also
quoted that ‘if people cannot recycle when out and about, it breaks
the link in the behaviours they practice at home and undermines our
wider ambition to make full use of the resources we produce’. The
Government stated that business, local authorities, central government,
consumers and other related organisations, such as WRAP and Keep
Britain Tidy, need to work together to improve this facility.
24.Waste Review, www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-review-of-waste-policy-in-england-2011
With a recycle bin
5.1.2.Recycling provision
Figure 37. Percentage of recyclable
litter found on sites with and without
recycling facilities in 2012/13
26%
Without recycle bin
When viewing where recyclable material occurs most, it appears that
on average rural roads have the highest volume, with 45% of litter
found here being recyclable. At the other end of the scale, main
roads and main retail and commercial areas have the lowest
percentage of recyclable material on average, at 19% of litter
recorded being recyclable.
31%
Of the 2,989 bins observed on sites
surveyed, only 131 – just 4% - had
recycling facilities. This is a low number
and, although many local authorities will
work to remove recyclable litter from the
general waste stream in their bins, that
doesn’t influence people’s behaviour. On
the sites featuring recycling amenities,
there was 5% less recyclable litter present
than on sites that did not carry any provision
for recycling (figure 37). Although this is not a
huge difference, it does suggest that people are
more willing to recycle their litter if the facilities are
available to them.
When looking at where the recycling provision was
present, as expected it was mainly in commercial areas,
as shown in figure 38. However, most recyclable litter was
found on rural roads and industry and warehousing areas, where
provision was either very low or non-existent. This does not suggest
provision is added on ‘rural roads’ and ‘industry and warehousing’ areas,
but tells us that when provision is there, it is used.
Figure 38. Proportion of sites with recyclable facilities by land use in 2012/13
0%
0%
0%
1.53%
53.44%
37.40%
2.29%
1.53%
0%
3.82%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
Recreation areas
6
Taking responsibility
6.1. Who is responsible?
There are many parties involved in ensuring that
the litter problem improves, including government,
local authorities, other land managers, businesses,
manufacturers and, most importantly, the public.
local authorities, businesses and the general public work
together to preserve our local environment.
While 72% of people think the government should do
more to tackle litter and 82% of people think businesses
should do more25, it is still the responsibility of everyone
to protect the quality of our local environment.
Without businesses there would be considerably less
litter to drop, so it is important that they contribute to
efforts to prevent and reduce litter. The 2012/13 report
shows that fast food litter is still a major problem across
England, continuing trends from previous years, and
businesses need to assist in tackling this issue by
working with land managers and organisations such as
Keep Britain Tidy to reduce their products being littered.
While local authorities have a legal obligation to provide
litter bins and keep streets, parks and public spaces
clean, this is proving extremely difficult. In the current
economic climate local authorities have seen budgets
cut. In some areas they have made a 50% reduction in
street cleansing frequencies, 30% reduction in chewing
gum removal activity, 20% reduction in levels of weed
spraying and 45% reduction in planting/bedding26. Local
authorities are however working hard to deal with these
budget cuts and, as the headline results show, many
are shifting resource around to ensure a good standard
is delivered. So, it is now more important than ever that
The Government, local authorities and businesses can
all do their bit for our environment, but these efforts will
be to no avail unless the general public contributes
too. With 78% of people feeling an obligation to keep
their immediate area clean, people do feel a sense of
responsibility towards where they live. 33% of people
are even willing to work together to make a difference to
the way an area looks, while 26% of people already feel
that they play an active role in their community to help
others27. This means more needs to be done to enable
these people to help, by expanding existing community
participation programmes and creating new ones.
26.Keep Britain Tidy, View from the Street, 2012
27.Keep Britain Tidy, View from the Street, 2012
6.2. Business and branding
As well as this annual survey, Keep Britain Tidy have
carried out a number of independent branded litter
surveys to help identify which brands are most frequently
littered. The first of these was carried out in 2009/10 with
a subsequent survey in 2011.
The findings from the branded litter surveys were not
intended to give an in-depth account of branded litter.
They were used to assess which brands were present
and from this the top 11 were identified. These brands
were then assessed in the 2012/13 LEQSE survey to
provide an indication of the extent they are littered
across England.
The brand found most often on sites in 2012/13 was
McDonald’s, found on 12% of sites. As fast food-related
litter has seen an increase in 2012/13, it is probably
no surprise that McDonald’s, the biggest fast food
chain (by profit) in England and the world, was the
most littered brand. The second largest littered brand
was Coca-Cola, also dominant in their market; this
tallies with non-alcoholic drinks-related litter being
in the top three most frequently littered types. Some
manufacturers are starting to take responsibilities, the
branded litter surveys enabled Keep Britain Tidy to
approach these manufacturers and are now working
hard to decrease branded litter with a number of these.
Figure 39. Percentage of sites with different brands of litter present 2012/13
1%
1%
7%
1%
8%
9%
12%
3%
KEY
Greggs
Subway
KFC
Cadbury
Wrigley
Mars
3%
4%
4%
Marlboro
Lambert and Butler
Mayfair
Coca-Cola
McDonald’s
6.3. Commercial waste
Commercial waste can derive from all types of businesses, including retail, catering, commercial industry and
transport. In 2012/13, 14% of sites were affected by waste of this sort. Most commercial waste occurred in industry
and warehousing areas, with more than 50% of these sites having commercial waste present. This is more than
double the next highest land use, which is ‘other retail and commercial’ areas with 18% of sites affected. Recreation
areas and rural roads were barely affected by commercial waste. Most strikingly, the main retail and commercial
areas did not contain as much commercial waste as housing areas.
Figure 40. Percentage of sites affected by commercial waste by land use in 2012/13
16%
15%
15%
52%
12%
18%
5%
5%
2%
1%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
Recreational areas
Figure 41. Industry and warehousing vs all sites combined for commercial waste composition in 2012/13
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
40%
50%
40%
0.1%
0.09%
1.4%
11.98%
0.43%
1.42%
2%
1.23%
4.36%
0.41%
5%
10%
2.83%
20%
6.77%
30%
0%
Royal Mail-Related
KEY
Office
Industry
All 2012/13 sites
Retail
Utilities
Warehousing
Other
6.4. Clinical waste
As industry and warehousing was by far the most
affected land use for commercial waste in 2012/13,
it is useful to understand the breakdown of the waste
found here in order to try to reduce the issue. Looking
at the types of commercial waste found in figure 41,
unsurprisingly, 40% of industry and warehousing sites
had a presence of industry waste; this is the highest
percentage and compares to just 4% of all sites
combined being affected by industry waste across
England. Warehousing waste is also unsurprisingly
higher with 12% of sites having a presence in industry
and warehousing land uses, whereas the average
frequency of warehousing waste across all sites
combined is below 2%.
Clinical waste includes human faeces and materials
that have, or could have, come in contact with human
or animal bodily fluids. They are associated with
medical, dental, pharmaceutical or veterinary activities
and are generally hazardous to a person coming into
contact with them. It includes paper tissues, cotton
buds, discarded nappies, condoms and materials
associated with drug users. In 2012/13, 20% of sites
had clinical waste present. High-obstruction housing
had the highest amount of clinical waste, as shown in
figure 42, with 25% of sites being affected. This was
closely followed by industry and warehousing, other
highways and other retail and commercial, all at 24%
of sites affected. Recreation areas are least affected by
clinical waste. With clinical waste, it is also important that
manufacturers ensure businesses and end users of the
products dispose of clinical waste correctly by providing
instructions for the disposal and by making people more
aware that discarded tissues and cotton buds could
carry health risks to others.
Figure 42. Percentage of sites affected by clinical waste by land use in 2012/13
52%
25%
52%
24%
52%
15%
52%
21%
52%
24%
52%
19%
52%
20%
52%
24%
52%
16%
52%
13%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
Recreation areas
6.5. Domestic waste
Bin collection and wheeled bins are always a key
point of discussion across England. Issues with bin
collections often hit the headlines and there have been
many changes in the frequency and implementation of
domestic waste and recycling collections around the
country. In 2012, Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles MP,
announced that he was creating a £250 million fund for
waste and recycling collections, aiming to reverse the
trend of councils switching to fortnightly waste pickups. Although 85 councils successfully won funding,
a government research paper released in February
2013 suggested that it would not significantly reverse
the trend where councils have already moved away
from weekly collections28. Only five councils applied to
reinstate weekly rounds, with the expectation being that
the majority of applicants would spend the money on
protecting existing weekly collections, or to fund service
additions such as food waste recycling.
20% of sites surveyed in 2012/13 were affected by
domestic litter. This consists of any litter that has come
from a domestic source and is often created by overflow
from waste containers or caused when litter is spilt on
waste collection days. This figure was an increase of
three percentage points from 2011/12 to 2012/13.
There is very little evidence to suggest that fortnightly
waste collections have significantly increased litter in
England. In fact, at the end of 2012 Defra announced
that the majority of councils in the top ten for most
improved recycling rates had moved to fortnightly
refuse collections and food waste recycling, and
therefore fortnightly waste collections were actively
encouraged over weekly rounds to boost recycling29.
When looking at the different ways people store and put
out their waste, it was evident in 2012/13 that there was
a much higher proportion of sites below an acceptable
standard for litter when waste was placed out in,
formal plastic bags, cardboard boxes or when it was
uncontained, as opposed to using wheeled bins.
Figure 43 shows that housing areas are the worst
affected by domestic litter, as would be expected.
Interestingly, when waste is placed out for collection it
does appear to have an impact on litter levels and not
only that, but that the type of waste collection method
also has an impact.
Figure 44 shows that when waste is placed out for
collection, the percentage of sites falling below an
acceptable standard for litter increases. This suggests
that waste is overflowing, waste collection staff are
spilling waste or the method by which waste is put out
for collection is causing spillages.
Figure 43. Percentage of sites affected by domestic waste by land use in 2012/13
60.65%
4.44%
49.12%
60.87%
0.37%
0.66%
4.63%
15.54%
1.00%
3.34%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
Recreation areas
28.10 February 2013 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9860414/No-return-for-weekly-bin-collections-despite-250m-Government-fund.html
29.31 December 2012 www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9772896/Fortnightly-rubbish-collections-better-then-weekly-bin-rounds-says-Defra.html
Figure 44. Housing below an acceptable standard for litter on waste placed out days vs waste not placed out days in 2012/13
Waste in
Waste placed out
7.6%
9.4%
6.6. Fly-tipping
The absence or presence of fly-tipping can strongly
influence people’s views on the cleanliness of an area,
as well as their perceptions of crime and fear of crime.
Fly-tipping comprises quantities of dumped materials
where there is evidence of attempted abandonment or
concealment of the materials in question.
Looking at the results for 2012/13, 99% of sites were of
an acceptable standard in regard to fly-tipping, with only
1% of sites being below an acceptable standard.
Fly-tipping tends to be a localised issue rather than
being widespread. Where fly-tipping is present it can
have a detrimental effect on the local environmental
quality of an area. The majority of fly-tipping witnessed
in 2012/13 comprised of domestic waste, shown in
figure 45, making up half of all fly tipping observed.
Commercial waste accounted for 23.21% of fly tipping,
while the bulky household items that people usually
associate with fly-tipping, such as mattresses or white
goods, only made up 8% of the total viewed.
Figure 45. Fly tipping composition percentage in 2012/13
49.50%
m m ercia
Co
l
23.21%
La
n d sc a pin g
5.59%
n s tr u c ti o n
8.66%
Tr a
v el relate d
4.38%
y
ulk
h ouse h o
l
7.85%
O th er
0.81%
d
Co
B
D o me stic
Figure 46. Fly tipping composition by land use in 2012/13
Highobstruction
housing
Lowobstruction
housing
Mediumobstruction
housing
Industry and
warehousing
Main
retail and
commercial
Domestic60%
Domestic59%
Commercial6%
Commercial23%
Construction8%
Bulky household 10%
Landscape8%
Other
retail and
commercial
Construction4%
Bulky household 14%
Landscape0%
Travel8%
Travel0%
Other0%
Other0%
Domestic60%
Domestic57%
Commercial0%
Commercial7%
Construction0%
Bulky household 40%
Landscape0%
Main
roads
Construction17%
Bulky household 0%
Landscape6%
Travel0%
Travel13%
Other0%
Other0%
Domestic59%
Domestic42%
Commercial4%
Commercial17%
Construction9%
Bulky household 21%
Landscape3%
Other
highways
Construction12%
Bulky household 10%
Landscape14%
Travel4%
Travel2%
Other0%
Other3%
Domestic33%
Domestic53%
Commercial48%
Commercial17%
Construction7%
Bulky household 7%
Landscape2%
Rural
roads
Construction13%
Bulky household 1%
Landscape8%
Travel3%
Travel6%
Other0%
Other2%
Domestic26%
Domestic86%
Commercial71%
Commercial8%
Construction0%
Bulky household 3%
Landscape0%
Recreation
areas
Construction0%
Bulky household 0%
Landscape0%
Travel0%
Travel6%
Other0%
Other0%
7
Staining and Chewing Gum
7.1. Staining
Staining can be used to measure how clean the streets
are as it is an indication of how well cleansing activity
is being performed. Staining is caused by general dayto-day activity in the area, but also includes littering that
has left staining, such as food and drink or compressed
chewing gum. 12% of sites had a level of staining that
was below acceptable.
Looking at trends over time, staining has seen a significant
improvement* in standards in 2012/13 with 8% more
sites at an acceptable standard compared to 2011/12.
Figure 47 shows that staining has achieved by far its best
performance since the survey began in 2001/02.
Figure 47. Variations in staining standards over time
2002/03
2001/02
24%
B
2004/05
2003/04
24%
B
2005/06
19%
2007/08
B
2008/09
24%
B
2010/11
B
23%
B
B
23%
B
12%
B
2012/13
20%
Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard and staining grade
27%
2009/10
2011/12
20%
B
2006/07
21%
B
21%
B
Figure 48. Types of staining found from 2009/10 to 2012/13
Percentage of sites affected
Construction
7%
9%
3%
8%
Food and drink
7%
7%
1%
3%
69%
Gum
70%
68%
64%
Mud/grime
59%
73%
84%
89%
62%
Vehicle
61%
64%
51%
KEY
Staining type
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Figure 49. Percentage of sites falling below an acceptable standard for staining by land use over time
100%
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
Main roads
40%
Other highways
30%
Rural roads
20%
Recreation areas
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Reviewing the type of staining found on England’s streets can
help establish the best way to tackle this issue. Mud and grime
is still the most common type of staining and has shown
a steady growth over the past four years; this year
it has increased to 89%. Gum has decreased
significantly* to 64% from 68% in 2011/12,
and vehicle staining has reduced to 51%
from 64%, a significant* reduction.
Construction staining, has risen
significantly* to 8%, following a
drop to 3% last year and food
and drink also rose slightly
to 3%, from 1% in 2011/12.
Figure 49 shows that all
land uses experienced a
reduction in staining in
2012/13.
2011/12 2012/13
7.2. Chewing gum staining
Out of the sites surveyed in 2012/13, 64% of sites had
gum staining present and though this is a reduction
from 68% in 2011/12, gum staining is still a major issue
on England’s streets. As the vast majority of chewing
gum is not biodegradable and adheres to hard
surfaces, it remains on the landscape for long periods
of time and is very difficult and costly to remove.
Main retail and commercial and other retail and
commercial have the highest percentages for
gum presence, at 99% and 94% of sites affected
respectively. This links with them being the two land
uses that are most affected by staining overall, as
shown in figure 51. While there is a large difference
in the amount of overall staining between retail and
commercial sites and the other land uses, for chewing
gum staining a number of other land uses are also
badly affected. Recreation areas and rural roads had
the lowest amount of gum staining and the amount in
housing areas reduced with the degree of obstruction;
this is likely to be linked to footfall, as high-obstruction
housing areas have higher levels of footfall.
Figure 50. Percentage of sites affected by gum staining from 2009/10 to 2012/13
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
69%
70%
68%
64%
Figure 51. Percentage of sites affected by gum staining by land use in 2012/13
74%
60%
67%
66%
99%
94%
67%
49%
40%
24%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
Recreation areas
8
Infrastructure
When looking at infrastructure related to litter it is obvious to look at hard infrastructure, bins.
Bins are often the first measure put in place to deal with litter. However, for local authorities they can be
expensive to install, empty and maintain. This is especially true if they are situated in areas away from
other bins and beyond the usual bin collection routes.
8.1.1. Bin provision
Whether bins have a positive or negative effect on litter is often debated, particularly among local authorities. 27%
of the general public feel there is often litter left near to, or surrounding bins30. Of the 10,682 sites surveyed in
2012/13, 2,989 bins were observed. 1,893 sites surveyed had one or more bin, meaning 82% of sites did not have
any form of bin. Of the sites observed with bin provision, 35% of these had more than one bin, with 30 sites having
as many as six bins, as shown in figure 52.
Figure 52. Number of sites with a bin in 2012/13
Number of
sites with no bin
8789
Number of
sites with 1 bin
1233
Number of
sites with 2 bins
422
Number of
sites with 3 bins
128
Number of
sites with 4 bins
52
Number of
sites with 5 bins
28
Figure 53. Types of bin observed in 2012/13
Cigarette bin - 52
Standard bin - 1580
Cigarette/chewing gum bin - 26
Dog bin - 137
Ashtray bin - 310
Chewing gum bin - 2
Stub plate - 582
Private litter bin - 67
Recycle bin - 131
Other - 2
Recycle bank - 100
30.Keep Britain Tidy, Omnibus Survey conducted by ICM Research, 2013
Number of
sites with 6 bins
30
8.1.2. Bin cleanliness, condition and fill
Having a bin in place is only the first step. It is also
important to keep litter bins serviced regularly so that
members of the public can deposit their litter. Bins that
are dirty or not in a good condition can deter people
from using them. Also, if bins are too full litter can spill
from them, undoing the good work of people who have
done the right thing. All bins observed as part of the
survey were checked for their level of cleanliness, the
condition of the bin and how full the bin was.
Bins come in many shapes and sizes and different bins
can be used in different situations. Occasionally, too
many standard litter bins can be an obstruction and
when an area has a major problem with cigarette litter,
sometimes, it is more cost effective to add a number
of wall or lamppost-mounted cigarette bins. Looking
at the make-up of bins shown in figure 53, of the 2,989
bins observed in 2012/13, over half of these (52%) were
classed as standard litter bins. Additionally, 19% were
classed as a standard litter bin with the ability to stub
and dispose of cigarette litter. Only 4% of bins were
classed as an on-street recycling bin.
Figure 54. Bin cleanliness in 2012/13
92% of bins were of a good standard, with 1% classed
as new and 91% showing just the usual signs of wear
and tear. No bins were no longer functioning, but 8% had
significant wear and tear that could lead to spillage from
the bin or deter people from using them.
Figure 56 indicates how full each bin surveyed in
2012/13 was. If a bin is overfull, people cannot use
it and litter from the bins can start to fall and litter
the streets. Worryingly, 4% of bins were observed to
be overfull, which is twice as many as last year. This
means 4% of bins could not be used by the public and
were overflowing onto the street, contributing to the
litter problem. 8% of bins were also nearly full.
Figure 55. Bin condition in 2012/13
Heavy
amounts
0%
No longer
functioning
0%
Build up
of dirt or
grime 13%
Significantly
damaged
8%
Light
amounts dirt
or grime
86%
Normal
wear and
tear 91%
Clean
1%
Near-new
1%
Figure 56. Bin full percentage 2012/13
Under 50% full
75%
50-75% full
13%
76-100% full
Over full
8%
4%
8.1.3. Bin use
8.1.4.
As bins are the main form of infrastructure that aim
to reduce or discourage littering, it is interesting to
understand a bin’s relationship with litter.
Cigarette litter is a huge problem across England, in
particular in main retail and commercial areas where
smokers’ materials affect 99% of sites. Many local
authorities and land managers are exploring the use
of dedicated cigarette bins to combat this issue.
Looking at main retail and commercial areas, 100% of
sites without a bin had some form of smokers’ material
present. When looking at main retail and commercial
sites with a dedicated cigarette bin, it was not evident
that this was having a huge impact on the ground,
as every site still had some form of smokers’ material
present. This would indicate that perhaps bins are not
the way to solve smoking-related litter and that more
focus may need to be placed on behavioural change.
Alternatively, it may mean that bins are not currently
positioned in appropriate places, or designed in a way
that makes them easy to use.
Looking at all bins observed and the corresponding
standards of litter on the same site reveals that, of sites
with a bin, the level of litter was worse, as 20% of sites
were classed as being below an acceptable standard.
This compared to only 14% of sites without a bin being
classed as below an acceptable standard. This raises
the question of whether the bin is actually working.
What we do know is that bins are often deliberately
placed in areas where they are needed, so litter
standards in general are poor, and this could account
for this unexpected result.
Cigarette bin use
Figure 57. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for sites with bins of some form and no bins in 2012/13
Bin
No Bin
9
How well is England being cleaned?
Litter as an indicator cannot be used alone to measure
how well local authorities, in particular, are performing,
as litter is heavily influenced by people’s behaviour.
However, the headline indicators of detritus, recent
leaf and blossom fall and weed growth provide good
indications of how well local authorities and other land
managers are managing streets and public places. All
can be useful indicators of the presence and quality of
cleansing activity, which can be very expensive.
not been swept, as weeds often grow in a build-up
of detritus on the street. Excessive weed growth can
make an area feel uncared for and can start to cause
obstruction on footpaths and also become a litter trap.
Excessive weeds can also be an indication that the
local authority’s weed management is ineffective.
9.1.1. Detritus
Detritus consists of natural grit, sands and soil, and
tends to build up in the channel at the side of the road.
It is usually cleaned using street sweepers. Recent
leaf and blossom fall, in large quantities, can pose
many problems. If not cleared away, it can build up
and become a litter trap and can also become a slip
hazard when wet. If left for too long it will turn into
detritus and therefore, it is essential that it is dealt with
quickly. Weed growth can be a sign that an area has
Detritus has always been the headline indicator that is
the worst performing, despite starting off at relatively
low levels in 2001/02 when compared to subsequent
years. Figure 58 shows that detritus has remained high
during the course of the surveys. Encouragingly, there
has been a marked improvement in the standards of
detritus this year, with 13% fewer sites falling below an
acceptable standard in 2012/13 compared to 2011/12,
the lowest it has been in 11 years an a significant
decrease* after 11 years.
Figure 58. Variations in detritus standards trends over time
2002/03
2001/02
17%
B
2004/05
2003/04
32%
B
2005/06
28%
B
2007/08
31%
B
2010/11
B
2011/12
39%
B
B
39%
B
26%
B
2012/13
39%
Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard and detritus grade
33%
2009/10
32%
B
B
2006/07
2008/09
31%
32%
B
Figure 59. Percentage of sites falling below an acceptable standard for detritus by land use over time
100%
90%
80%
70%
% OF SITES
60%
50%
Main roads
40%
Other highways
30%
Rural roads
20%
Recreation areas
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
2011/12 2012/13
Figure 60. Percentage of sites falling below an acceptable standard for detritus by land use over time
100%
70%
60%
72%
58%
73%
80%
70%
90%
40%
4%
10%
2%
6%
20%
0.35%
30%
24%
28%
50%
0%
Misc fragments
Grit and sand
KEY
2011/12
Mud and soil
Old grass cuttings
Old leaf and blossom fall
2012/13
Although an improvement has been made, detritus is still a notable problem. In particular, other highways and rural
roads were the worst affected land use types in 2012/13, and have been consistently poor performers over the past
12 years. These types of land use can be areas that are hard to cleanse, as ‘other highways’ are often small pathways
where it is hard to get large equipment to service the areas. Rural roads are located in areas where there tends to be
more of a natural build-up of detritus and where it can easily be blown onto the carriageway. Figure 59 has evidence
of this with the two types of retail areas consistently being the best performing land uses with regard to detritus; this is
due to these areas having less vegetation and higher cleansing frequencies.
Understanding the source of the problem can assist in
informing appropriate techniques and strategy to use to
combat the issue. Grit and sand and mud and soil were
found on 73% and 71% of sites respectively, compared
to 70% and 58% last year. This is a particularly big rise
in the presence of mud and soil. Although sites are
more heavily affected by both of these detritus types, as
general standards have improved, it is still unlikely to be
present in large quantities. However, it is still important
for local authorities to be aware of these changes. Old
leaf and blossom fall has reduced from 28% to 24%,
which is a good sign and indicates that leaf and blossom
fall is being cleaned up before it turns into detritus.
Miscellaneous fragments, which can be made up of
broken-up litter such as plastic fragments, has reduced
to 0% in 2012/13 from 6% in 2011/12. This is very
positive as it means litter is not being left long enough to
break up into tiny pieces. Old grass cuttings have risen
from 2% in 2011/12 to 4% in 2012/13, which indicates
that grass is not being cleaned up from paths after the
cutting has taken place.
9.1.2.Blocked gullies
Gullies are important when reviewing the condition of
the local environment, as when detritus is not cleaned
effectively, it can build up and block the gullies and
prevent excess rain water draining into the sewerage
system. In 2011/12, a 294% rise in blocked gullies was
observed, which was of grave concern, as the flood
risk in a local area becomes much higher. There has
been a negligible drop in the number of blocked gullies
observed, from 444 in 2011/12 to 437 in 2012/13. This
really is a minimal change and the number of blocked
gulleys is still worryingly high.
Figure 61. Total number of blocked gillies since 2009/10
2012/13
2011/12
2010/11
2009/10
437 444 151 163
Figure 62. Variations in weed growth standards over time
2001/02
2002/03
19%
B
2004/05
2003/04
16%
B
2005/06
15%
B
2007/08
17%
B
2010/11
B
B
16%
B
15%
B
16%
B
2009/10
11%
B
2011/12
16%
B
2006/07
2008/09
12%
17%
2012/13
22%
Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard and weed growth grade
B
9.1.3. Weed growth
Weed growth saw a relatively large increase in 2011/12, with 6% more sites falling below an acceptable standard
compared to the previous year. 2012/13 has seen this figure decrease again to 16% of sites falling below an
acceptable standard, a significant change*, with an average of a grade B across England.
Figure 63. Percentage of sites falling below an acceptable standard for weed growth over time
100%
90%
80%
% OF SITES
70%
60%
50%
Main roads
40%
Other highways
30%
Rural roads
20%
Recreation areas
10%
0%
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
The overall fall in the percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for
weed growth is reflected across all land use types. Other highways is still
the area suffering the most and this could be linked to the problems
they have with detritus. Other highways has always been the worst
affected land use for weed growth and figure 63 shows how
this has increased over the years. In 2012/13, however, it
did fall from 43% to 37%, achieving its first reduction
since 2008/9. High-obstruction housing and mediumobstruction housing also both feature in the top
four worst affected land use types for weed
growth, which indicates that housing areas
perhaps need to be focused on.
2011/12 2012/13
Figure 64. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for weed growth and detritus by land use in 2012/13
30.60%
20.85%
21.97%
34.06%
3.22%
23.17%
13.10%
17.61%
18.54%
2.56%
16.49%
28.24%
45.26%
42.98%
22.99%
9.84%
15.28%
37.07%
14.20%
13.35%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
KEY
Detritus
Recreation areas
Weed Growth
Looking at the correlation between detritus and weed
growth, there is a strong relationship between the
two across all land types. Figure 64 shows how areas
affected by detritus also tend to be heavily affected by
weeds. In 2012/13, 59% of sites had weeds growing in
detritus - this is a slight reduction of 1% from last year.
9.1.4. Recent leaf and blossom fall
Positively, there was a decrease in the amount of detritus
caused by the breakdown of leaf and blossom fall in
2012/13, which indicates that recent leaf and blossom
fall is being removed before it decays. In 2012/13,
overall levels of recent leaf and blossom fall have stayed
steady, and generally standards across England are
good and are tracking at an average grade of B+.
Figure 65. Variations in recent leaf and blossom fall standards over time
2001/02
2002/03
2%
A
2004/05
2003/04
6%
B+
2005/06
5%
B+
2007/08
13%
B+
2010/11
B+
B+
9%
B+
12%
B+
10%
B+
2009/10
12%
B+
2011/12
11%
B+
2006/07
2008/09
10%
6%
2012/13
10%
B+
Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard and recent leaf and blossom fall grade
10
Links between local environmental
quality issues and crime
10.1.1. Graffiti
Graffiti and fly-posting are the best performing headline
indicators and have been for the past 12 years, with
both being awarded an average grade of an A in
2012/13. This is extremely positive as the presence
of either graffiti or fly-posting can have a detrimental
effect on the local environmental quality of an area and
people’s quality of life. Both of these can be linked to
anti-social behaviour and can escalate into areas being
affected by more serious crime, indicated in the ‘broken
window’ theory31. This is a criminology theory that looks
at how a few small instances of low-level crime and
anti-social behaviour can then lead to further instances
of low-level crime which, in turn, can lead to more
31.The Atlantic, Broken Windows, Kelling and Wilson, 1982
serious crimes. Therefore, it is essential that graffiti
and fly-posting are dealt with effectively to avoid them
giving rise to more serious problems.
Standards across England for graffiti are very good,
tracking at a grade A, but as figure 66 shows, it is
not a non-existent problem. 3% of sites still had an
unacceptable amount of graffiti in 2012/13, and
although this was a 50% decrease from 2011/12, it is
still present. There was not a significant* change in the
number of sites below an acceptable standard. Given
the very negative effects it can have, it is important to
continue to raise awareness of the issue.
Figure 66. Variations in graffiti standards over time
2002/03
2001/02
6%
B+
2004/05
2003/04
4%
A
2005/06
4%
A
2007/08
7%
B+
2010/11
A+
8%
A
7%
B+
8%
B+
3%
A
2009/10
B+
2011/12
6%
A
2006/07
2008/09
7%
4%
2012/13
6%
A
Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard and graffiti grade
Figure 67. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for graffiti by land use in 2012/13
1%
0%
0%
2%
3%
2%
12%
1%
7%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
Recreation areas
3%
Twelve per cent of other highways in England are affected by graffiti, which is a concern as other highways
tend to be small paths and if graffiti is present it can leave people feeling scared to use them. 7% of recreation
areas contained examples of graffiti, this is also disappointing as it can deter people from using the recreation
spaces available to them. This has knock-on effects for people’s health and wellbeing, with consequent costs to
the health service and other support services. Often, both of these land uses can be secluded at night time and
people writing graffiti probably feel they can ‘get away’ with this type of enviro-crime under the cover of darkness.
It is essential that local authorities and land managers are aware of this, so they can work to tackle the problem,
possibly with the help of other authorities, such as the police.
10.1.2. Fly-posting
Only 1% of sites overall were below an acceptable standard for fly-posting, which is a very positive result. When
fly-posting is present it can be very unsightly. Although this will be a small and localised issue, a particular focus is
needed in commercial areas. Main retail and commercial areas had the most sites below an acceptable standard
at 4% (figure 69), closely followed by ‘other retail and commercial’ areas where 3% of sites experienced a high
amount of fly-posting. This indicates that more work may be needed to raise awareness among people and
businesses that fly-posting is, in fact, an illegal activity.
Figure 68. Variations in fly-posting standards over time
2001/02
2002/03
1%
1%
A
2004/05
2003/04
A
2005/06
1%
A
1%
2%
A
2010/11
A
2011/12
1%
A
1%
A
2%
A
1%
A
2009/10
1%
A
A
2006/07
2008/09
2007/08
1%
2012/13
2%
A
Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard and fly-posting grade
Figure 69. Percentage of sites falling below an acceptable standard for fly posting by land use in 2012/13
0%
0%
0%
1%
4%
3%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Main roads
Other highways
Rural roads
Recreation areas
11
Green spaces –
how well are they managed?
Landscaped areas and particularly green spaces can
have a very positive impact on people’s quality of life
and well-being. 90% of adults say green spaces are very
important to them32. Research shows there is a clear link
between our proximity to high-quality green spaces and
our mental and physical wellbeing, even in urban areas.
Many sites surveyed in 2012/13 had some form of
landscaping or recreation areas present. If a landscaped
area was present on a site, whether this be a flower bed
in a retail area or a shrubbed area in a housing location,
the maintenance of the landscaped area was observed.
This related to the level of expectation, for example, if
a grassed area was cut and not overgrowing, it would
be deemed to be acceptable. The litter present on the
landscaped area was also monitored. Mown litter was
found at only 4% of sites in 2012/13, as opposed to 7%
of sites in 2011/12.
11.1.1.Landscaped areas
Landscaped areas present on a site are categorised into
five main groups, and they are as follows:
32.Groundwork, undertaken by Ipos Movi, 2011
1. High maintenance landscaping - any areas of
landscaping that require high levels of maintenance to
keep them in the desired condition, such as horticultural
flower beds, ornamental shrubs, bowling greens, etc.
2. Grassland - any landscaped area consisting solely
of grass (with the exclusion of bowling greens and
rural verges).
3. Medium maintenance landscaping- this usually
comprises either mixed areas of shrubs and grass or
solely shrubbed areas that are subject to periodic, but
lower levels of maintenance, such as relatively rough
cutting with a grass mower and simple shaping and
trimming of shrubs.
4. Low maintenance landscaping - areas of landscaping
that are subject to low levels of maintenance. This
includes rural verges, rough common land, wooded
areas, etc.
5. Hard landscaping - areas constructed from hard
materials, such as stone, concrete, brick, etc., which
serves no purpose other than purely ornamental and
which have some kind of relief designed into them.
Figure 70. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for maintenance in 2012/13
High maintenance - 9.16%
Grassland - 12.23%
Medium maintenance - 23.83%
Low maintenance - 28.54%
Hard landscaping - 23.61%
Total - 18.07%
When looking at how well maintained the different landscaped areas were, figure 70 shows that low-maintenance
areas had the highest number of sites that were not classed as well-maintained. High-maintenance sites where the
best performing and were being maintained to a much better standard. This indicates that when an area is classed a
high-maintenance, more care and attention is focused on these areas to keep them up to the expected standard; for
example, ensuring flower beds are well-maintained and look attractive. However, in areas classed as low-maintenance
It is often apparent that they are not being managed as effectively - such as simply cutting the grass on a verge.
Figure 71. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for litter by landscaping in 2012/13
High maintenance - 41.67%
Grassland - 29.19%
Medium maintenance - 52.40%
Low maintenance - 55.06%
Hard landscaping - 35.29%
Total - 44.22%
Figure 71 shows a correlation between medium-and low-maintenance landscaped areas; as well as being the most
infrequently maintained, they also had the most sites that suffered from an unacceptable amount of litter being on them.
this is to be ecpected, as the lack of maintenance results in a build-up of weeds and overgrown vegetation which in turn
will trap litter. Low-maintenance areas just indicates that less maintenance is required. For example, a flower bed needs
more maintenance and attention than a verge. Landscaped areas that are less actively maintained and perhaps look
less attractive, will often attract litter, particularly as it can get caught in overgrown plants and shrubs.
11.1.2.Green Flag Award parks
The Green Flag Award recognises and rewards the best
green spaces. Through this award, Keep Britain Tidy
strives to ensure that everyone has access to a safe,
clean and pleasant space where they can relax, meet,
play or exercise. Green spaces are assessed every
year and, in 2012, a record number of awards were
made. A Green Flag Award is the benchmark of a quality
park or green space. Not only does a Green Flag flying
overhead guarantee that a public space is welcoming,
clean, well-maintained, safe and secure, it also ensures
it is managed sustainably and pays attention to the
conservation of the natural and built environment.
Of the recreation areas surveyed in 2012/13, sites which
were in a Green Flag Award park were recorded. This
enables us to look at the impact of the Green Flag Award
on the local environmental quality of England. Figure
72 took all the recreation areas and compared Green
Flag Award areas to non-Green Flag Award areas. It
is evident that, across most of the headline indicators,
Green Flag Award parks achieved a higher standard.
No sites within a Green Flag Award park were assessed
as being below an acceptable standard, compared to
6% of sites in non-Green Flag Award parks. Detritus,
weed growth and graffiti were also much more effectively
managed in Green Flag Award parks.
Figure 72. Percentage of sites below an acceptable standard for Green Flag Award park sites vs non green flag park
sites in recreation areas in 2012/13
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
6.90%
2.78%
0%
0%
1.82%
2.78%
12.98%
19.89%
13.71%
0%
10%
7.69%
20%
5.94%
30%
19.23%
40%
23.28%
50%
0%
Litter
KEY
Detritus
Weed Growth
Sites within a Green Flag Award park
Recent leaf and
blossom fall
Staining
Sites not in a Green Flag Award park
Fly-posting
Graffiti
Appendices
Appendix 1: Definition of terms used in the report
Alcoholic drinks related – all items associated with
alcoholic drinks - this includes cans, bottles, wine
cartons, identifiable bottle tops and ring pulls, labels
from bottles, beer/spirit/shot glasses etc.
ATM slips – financial receipts associated with
automated cash machines.
Bagged dog faeces – dog faeces that is placed in a
bag, whether the bag is on the ground or in a shrub/
tree etc.
Balloons – full or in part, inflated or deflated, including
the stick or ribbon.
Clinical wastes – any material that could have come
into contact with human or bodily fluids. This includes
excrement or material associated with medical, dental
or veterinary activities, and materials of similar kinds
that may have emanated from domestic or other
residential properties, e.g. cotton buds, plasters,
discarded nappies and other sanitary products, pill
packets, condoms and needles used by drug abusers.
Commercial wastes – materials discarded by all
types of business, such as retail, catering, commercial,
industrial and transport enterprises. Some premises,
such as restaurants and hotels, can discard wastes
that are similar to domestic refuse, but which are
treated differently because of their source and the large
quantities that are usually involved.
Confectionery material – all types of confectionery
material, such as sweet wrappers, chocolate wrappers,
lollipop/iced lollipop sticks, chewing gum wrappers
etc., but not the confectionery itself.
Construction wastes – includes all materials that appear
to have originated directly from construction works (e.g.
building and civil engineering projects). However, if
materials appear to have been intentionally dumped or
abandoned, they should be recorded as ‘fly-tipping’.
Detritus – comprises dust, mud, soil, grit, gravel,
stones, rotted leaf and vegetable residues and
fragments of twigs, glass, plastic and other finely
divided materials. Detritus includes leaf and blossom
fall which has substantially lost its structure and has
become mushy or fragmented (i.e. it can no longer be
considered as recent leaf and blossom fall).
Discarded food and drink – small amounts of
dropped/spilt food and drink. If there is evidence
that it has been discarded from a food outlet or retail
premises, it is classified as commercial waste.
Domestic waste – all materials normally found in
domestic (household) waste containers; this can
include waste stored in bags and wheeled bins.
Domestic refuse can be spillage from a collection
vehicle or waste arising from a residential property.
Drugs-related – any materials associated with the use
of drug and/or solvent abuse, e.g. syringes/needles,
swabs, aerosol/solvent containers etc.
Fast food-related – any printed material that is
unauthorised and either informally or illegally fixed
to any structure. It includes all sizes of material from
small self-adhesive stickers to large posters – often
advertising popular music recordings, concerts
and other events. It excludes formally managed
and approved advertising hoardings and any other
authorised legally placed signs and notices (unless
they are out-of-date).
Fly-tipping – comprises quantities of dumped
materials, where there is evidence of attempted
abandonment or concealment of the materials in
question. The sources may vary, for example domestic
refuse, bulky household goods, commercial or
construction wastes, or travel/vehicle related wastes
(old tyres, abandoned/burnt out cars).
General litter – items dropped or discarded by people
(e.g. pedestrians, cyclists or drivers and passengers in
vehicles) in public spaces. This category includes the
types of materials that most people regard as litter –
smokers’ materials, sweet papers, fast-food packaging,
drinks containers, etc.
Graffiti – any informal or illegal marks, scratchings,
carvings, drawings or paintings that have been
deliberately made by a person or persons on any
physical element comprising public space.
Industry-related – waste that appears to have
originated directly from commercial production,
assembly or repair of goods and/or materials. Found
most frequently on industrial estates, this often includes
nuts, bolts, metal/plastic/wood fragments and vehicle
parts outside commercial garages.
Lottery-related – scratch cards, lottery tickets and receipts.
Media storage – all aspects of physical media storage,
e.g. cassette/video tapes, CDs, DVDs and external
storage devices (such as USB sticks).
Newspaper/magazines – part or whole newspapers
and/or magazines including those that have been
purchased, those which are available free of charge,
supplements and inserts.
Non-alcoholic drinks-related – all items associated
with non-alcoholic drinks including cans, bottles,
cartons, identifiable bottle tops and ring-pulls,
straws, labels from bottles, etc. This excludes those
items arising from fast food outlets, which should be
classified as fast food litter.
Office-related – waste that appears to have originated
directly from offices.
Other general litter – this option is used when coming
across things that do not fall into any other litter category
but appear to have been dropped by a member of the
general public using or passing through an area. This
would include children’s toys, dummies, etc.
Other retail bags – all plastic (carrier) or paper bags
that do not carry supermarket branding.
Packaging – any packaging material that is deemed to
have been dropped by a member of the public rather
than originating from a commercial or domestic source,
e.g. cellophane wrapping from CDs, or cardboard,
polystyrene and blister packaging from toys.
Paper tissues – paper tissues or toilet paper that
appears to have come into contact with bodily fluids;
this would be regarded as clinical waste. Branded
paper napkins from fast food outlets that are deemed
not to have come into contact with bodily fluids would
be classified as fast food litter.
Recent leaf and blossom fall – defined as ‘recent leaf
and blossom fall, which is loose and not compacted
or decayed’. If it has substantially lost its structure and
become mushy or fragmented, then it should be classed
as detritus.
Retail litter (all types) – waste that appears to have
originated from all types of retail premises, for example,
from fast food outlets, bakeries, cafés, fruit and veg.
stores, butchers, convenience stores, clothing and
electrical stores.
Royal Mail related litter– small, thick elastic bands
used by Royal Mail to fasten groups of mail together,
which are often discarded by postal workers.
Smokers’ materials – all types of items discarded by
people using tobacco products, including cigarettes and
cigarette ends, cigars, matchsticks/boxes, cigarette and
cigar boxes/wrappers, disposable lighters, etc.
Snack packs – all items of packaging litter (excluding
the contents) that are associated with pre-baked/
pre-prepared snack foods, e.g. crisp packets, biscuit
packaging, cake wrappers or containers, etc.
Solid gum – discarded, chewed chewing gum that has
not been squashed into the pavement. This could include
gum stuck to litter bins, posts or other street furniture.
Staining – any material that discolours surfaces
comprising public spaces in an unplanned way,
including chewing gum after it has been trodden into
a paved surface, and general mud and grime that can
build up in the absence of rainfall or street washing.
Supermarket plastic bags – supermarket chainbranded plastic carrier bags, generally given to
customers free of charge.
Telephone cards – mobile phone pre-pay cards,
international calling cards, etc.
Till receipts – receipts from any retail outlet.
Travel-related – bus, train, tram and other public
transport tickets, car parking pay-and-display stickers
and fixed penalty tickets or sleeves.
Utilities-related – waste that appears to have
originated from work being undertaken by any of
the utility companies, e.g. water, gas, broadband,
telephone, electricity, etc.
Vehicle parts – these include any part of a motorised
vehicle, including bodywork, engine parts, numberplates, wheel trims, exhaust (or part(s) of), and light or
window glass, which appear to have originated from
a vehicle. They may have been displaced by either
wear and tear (i.e. falling off), roadside repairs or due
to accidents. However, if the vehicle parts appear
to have been deliberately dumped then they should
be assessed as ‘fly-tipping’. If they appear to have
originated from a commercial garage, they should be
classified as ‘industry’ under commercial waste.
Warehousing-related – waste that appears to have
originated directly from storage and/or transport of
goods and materials. Found most often in industrial
estates, it can include polystyrene, cardboard, strapping
bands, delivery notes, wooden pallet chips, etc.
Wastes placed out – waste either contained or
uncontained that is judged to have been placed out for
an expected collection. If there is any evidence that the
waste has been intentionally dumped or abandoned,
then it is recorded as fly-tipping.
Weed growth – any plant that is growing in a location
where it is not intended, including where plants or grass
are encroaching on paved areas in an unplanned way –
usually in colonising accumulations of detritus or along
cracks and joints in paving. ‘Weed growth’ includes
weeds that have been sprayed with weed killer and
may be dead, but have not yet been removed.
Appendix 2: Land use definitions
All land uses include publicly accessible land that can
be managed by either local authorities or private land
owners.
Main retail and commercial areas
This land use consists of the main town and city retail
and commercial centres. Urban tourist ‘hot spots’ that
are wholly or partially separated from a main town or
city retail and commercial centre are also included in
this land use.
Main retail and commercial areas contain a choice of
outlets in a range of different retail and commercial
sectors (such as fashion clothing, financial services,
restaurants, bars and entertainment), and will include
national and international brand names. Normally, there
is also a range of public facilities, including libraries,
museums, law courts and places of worship.
Other retail and commercial areas
This land use class covers retail and commercial areas
that are primarily located outside main city and town
retail and commercial centres (but excludes out-of-town
or edge-of-town ‘retail park/retail shed’ developments,
which are included with industry, warehousing and
science parks).
Other retail and commercial areas usually contain a
range of facilities that mainly meet the needs of local
residents. Most premises contain individual private
businesses, sometimes branches of regional chains
(such as bakers), and occasionally national brand
names. They can also be home to civic facilities, areas
of office/hotel development and areas of mixed retail,
office, hotel and entertainment uses.
High-obstruction housing areas
Housing areas should be classified as high-obstruction
housing if the proportion of dwellings with purposebuilt off-street parking facilities is less than or equal to
50%. In these areas, there is a high risk of obstruction
to mechanical channel sweeping operations (e.g.
obstruction from parked cars). High-obstruction housing
areas can also include occasional small retail premises,
offices, manufacturing and warehousing sites.
This land use class includes various housing types,
such as:
•terraced housing
•alleyways behind and between housing areas where
there is direct access to properties
•flats and maisonettes with only limited off-street
parking
•semi-detached and short terraced dwellings with
limited or no purpose made off-street vehicle parking,
or parking provision that is not large enough for the
use of modern vehicles.
Medium-obstruction housing areas
Housing areas should be classified as mediumobstruction housing if more than 50% of dwellings have
purpose-made off-street parking/garaging facilities for
up to 2 modern-day family cars.
This land use includes housing types such as:
•private housing, often where passageways at the side
of houses are too narrow for most current-day cars
•council housing originally built with no off-street
parking, where limited off-street parking has since
been provided for some properties
•modern developments with limited off-street parking
•modern developments of flats with parking
underneath
•terraced housing with garage facilities or rear access
parking for up to 2 cars.
Low-obstruction housing areas
This land use includes all types of housing where more
than 50% of properties have purpose-made off-road
garaging/parking within the property boundary for three
or more cars. In these areas, there is generally a low
risk of obstruction to mechanical channel sweeping
operations.
The space available should be capable of
accommodating all the parking requirements of residents
(including, where applicable, boats and caravans etc.)
and most of the demand from visitors to the premises.
This category includes maisonettes and flats, as long as
the parking is contained within the property boundary.
In low-obstruction housing areas, it is likely that there will
be few or no vehicles parked on-street, and significant
on-street parking is the exception rather than the rule.
Industry, warehousing, retail sheds and science parks
This class includes industrial and warehousing
developments, out-of-town retail parks (including food and
non-food developments), and science parks (containing
offices, laboratories and manufacturing processes).
The following sub-types would be classified as ‘industry,
warehousing, retail sheds and science parks’ sites:
classic estates primarily dedicated to heavy industry and
warehousing, retail sheds and areas with large retail units,
hospitals, business/science parks and campus (such as
university or college properties).
Other highways
Other highways are made up of the following:
•Formal lay-bys, informal lay-bys, stub roads,
underpasses, footbridges, un-metalled bridleways,
metalled bridleways, narrow routes, cycleways and
‘other’ - this includes any other highway which is not
listed above.
Recreation areas
This land use is a combination of public open space
and watersides.
Main roads
Main roads are all ‘A’ roads. However, if a main road is
situated within main retail and commercial, other retail and
commercial, or high obstruction housing area, then that
transect should be recorded as that land use and not as a
main road, due to the potential obstruction caused.
‘Public open space’ includes parks, recreation areas,
grassed areas, picnic sites, and paved areas (which
are not classed as either main or other retail or
commercial locations). Officially signed and/or marked
public footpaths and deconsecrated cemeteries should
also be included in this land use category.
Rural roads
This class comprises of all highways that are located
outside built up areas and are not included in the main
roads or other highways land use classes, whether
‘rural’ in character or not.
‘Watersides’ includes all publicly accessible areas
adjacent to ponds, lakes, reservoirs, canals, rivers and
estuaries.
•Other - this includes all other publicly accessible
areas on relevant watersides
Appendix 3: Additional data tables
Table 1: Headline indicators of standards 2012/13
2012/13
Average grade
2012/13
Average score
2012/13 Percentage of sites
below an acceptable standard
Litter
B
2.816514
15%.15%
Detritus
B
3.117391
26%.26%
Graffiti
A
1.349186
3%.3%
Fly-posting
A
1.353398
1%.1%
B+
2.325769
10%.10%
Weed growth
B
2.677494
16%.16%
Staining
B
2.84722
12%.12%
Table 2: Average score related to grade standard
Grade
Score
A
1
B+
2
B
3
B-
4
C
5
C-
6
D
7
To calculate the average score of all sites in order
to assign an average grade, each site’s grade is
converted to a number. These numbers are then used
to calculate an average score which is related back to
a grade.
Table 3: Percentage of sites falling below an acceptable standard for headline indicators over time
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
/02
/03
/04
/05
/06
/07
/08
/09
/10
/11
/12
/13
Litter
18
21
13
11
14
21
17
13
16
15
18
15
Detritus
38
32
33
28
32
34
31
32
39
39
39
26
Graffiti
6
4
4
4
7
7
7
8
6
6
6
16
Fly-posting
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
6
6
5
13
9
10
12
12
11
10
10
Weed growth
19
16
17
15
17
16
12
11
15
16
22
16
Staining
24
24
21
19
21
27
24
23
23
20
20
12
Table 5. National Cleansing Index
Litter type present
Litter type present
81.98%
Retail litter (All types)
Confectionery material
68.44%
Cotton budstypes)
1.58%
51.93%
Bagged dog faeces
1.49%
Fast food related
32.15%
Warehousing related
1.40%
Snack packs
22.90%
Plaster/dressing
1.03%
22.10%
Media Storage
<1%
Packaging
20.66%
Fireworks
<1%
Paper tissues
15.78%
Telephone cards
<1%
Vehicle parts
11.66%
Horse faeces
<1%
Till receipts
11.26%
Utilities related
<1%
9.96%
Office related
<1%
Solid gum
9.34%
Bird faeces
<1%
Clothing
8.21%
Phlegm
<1%
Dog related
7.06%
Condom
<1%
Royal Mail related
6.77%
Drugs related
<1%
Other retail bags
6.49%
Vomit
<1%
Newspaper/magazines
6.15%
Other commercial
<1%
Travel related
4.58%
Nappies
<1%
Pens
4.52%
Other clinical
<1%
Lottery related
4.46%
Sanitary towels
<1%
Industry related
4.36%
Human faeces
<1%
ATM slips
3.80%
Carrion
<1%
3.46%
Food
<1%
Clinical packaging
2.94%
Other putrescibles
<1%
Other general litter
2.75%
Train toilet waste
<1%
Balloons
2.44%
In order to test if differences between years were
significantly different, statistical tests were performed.
Independent t-tests were conducted to compare the
means of two years’ of data and analysis of variance
tests have been conducted when comparing more than
two years’ of data.
2%
Printed on 100% recycled material
This report was first published in 2013 by Keep Britain Tidy
Copyright © 2013 Keep Britain Tidy
No part of this report may be reproduced in any form whatsoever without prior permission in
writing from the publisher. Permission will normally be given free of charge to charitable and
other non-profit making organisations.
Keep Britain Tidy is a registered charity. No. 1071737.
Designed by www.carboncreative.net
Love where you live and get involved
Keep Britain Tidy
Elizabeth House
The Pier
Wigan WN3 4EX
Development House
56-64 Leonard Street
London EC2A 4LT
T 01942 612621
T 020 7549 0300
enquiries@keepbritaintidy.org
www.keepbritaintidy.org
facebook.com/keepbritaintidy
@keepbritaintidy

HOW CLEAN IS ENGLANd?

Transcription

Similar documents

Spring Island Litter Sweep

Create a Warm Welcome for a New Cat or Kitten

LitterBoss - Industry Surplus Australia

Getting a grip on litter: a charity`s perspective

hampden happenings - Hampden Park Public School

the brochure

Dry house - high performance” “

ASPERGILLOSIS (BROODER PNEUMONIA)

Jul-Aug - Tangens Hounds

the family brochure