Agenda item

The Committee received a presentation from Rose Tehan, Research and Innovation Development Manager for Keep Britain Tidy (KBT).

 

An evidence led approach

 

Ms Tehan first set out KBT’s framework, which was developed by the charity’s Centre for Social Innovation which conducted research to understand litter, waste and local environmental issues, before using the insights from this research to design and pilot interventions to change behaviour.

 

An example of the Centre’s work was to address dog fouling was cited, which found the following:

 

•      Dog walkers knew they should pick up dog litter

•      Dog fouling was worse at night/in winter and in areas not overlooked

•      Some people did not pick up when they felt they were safe from being watched

 

As a result of these findings, the Centre attempted to make dog walkers feel that were being watched. This resulted in the ‘We’re Watching You’ campaign, which involved 17 local government / land manager partners across England installing glow in the dark posters, showing images of eyes, at 128 target sites. Each poster was tested in isolation, at a range of land use types, e.g. housing areas, parks, alleyways, retail areas, etc. Dog refuse was then monitored, with the result that dog fouling was found to have reduced at the sites by 46% overall.

 

National campaigns were then launched in November 2014 and March 2015, with 219 partners across England taking part. The campaigns subsequently won a number of awards, including Silver Nudge Award, the Guardian Best Ads of 2015, Charity Awards 2016.

 

Litter

 

Following research conducted, the charity had found that litter was often a result of a lack of personal obligation towards putting extra time and effort into finding a bin, an unwillingness to deal with ‘messy’ rubbish, and a lack of understanding of the broader consequences of littering.

 

It had been found that litter bred litter, with the public adding to existing piles of refuse at litter hotspots. There was a perception that someone else would ‘deal with it’, exacerbated by a culture of single-use packaging, and bad packaging design. It had also been found that the presence of litter bins could act as magnets for more litter.

 

KBT’s interventions included the ‘It’s Still Littering’ campaign, which aimed to address the issue of people littering by placing or leaving their rubbish behind, such as on a bench where they have been sitting or on a surface they are walking past, like a window sill.  It was believed that people littered in this way as it was seen as a more ‘acceptable’ way to do so. The campaign aimed to address this perception and highlight that ‘leaving it is littering it’.

 

The ‘Walk This Way’ campaign aimed to address the issue of people littering bagged dog refuse in parks and green spaces. Following a national survey (with 2,000 respondents), it was found that 13% (260) admitted to the behaviour. Of those, just over half (54%) said that they had done so because there were no bins nearby. The intervention involved creating dog-walking routes in parks and green spaces. Clearly marked bins and route markers then defined the walking route, with bins placed at regular intervals along the routes. The promotion of the dog walking routes focused on the health and wellbeing benefits for dogs and humans, rather than specifically mentioning litter or dog fouling.

 

The charity had experimented with removing litter bins from parks, with mixed results. Within the three parks tested, waste left in the parks was seen to have decreased by 68%. Park manager feedback suggested a visible reduction in litter on the ground, though monitoring showed that litter had increased in two of the three parks. The tests had been seen to have reduced fly-tipping (particularly at locations of bins).

 

Roadside beautification aimed to promote flower planting as a method of reducing littering on roadsides. In the first year, KBT partnered with North West Leicestershire District Council to trial roadside beautification on two 100m stretches of roadside verge. Daffodils and bluebells were planted, though the flowers died off soon into the intervention month. In the second year, KBT partnered with Braintree District Council to trial native wildflower planting on 4 stretches of the A131 – a hotspot for roadside litter. As a result, litter was seen to have reduced at two sites and increased at two; results were therefore inconclusive. However, feedback from local residents and visitors was extremely positive, with many highlighting a perceived reduction in litter due to the planting.

 

Fly-Tipping

 

Research showed that there was a lack of awareness as to what constituted fly-tipping. Upon canvassing the public, 91% said that they understood the term ‘fly-tipping’, but only 1% were able to correctly identify all 10 examples of fly-tipping. The term itself was also at times a source of confusion, with London research showing that 20% of non-UK nations had not heard the term ‘fly-tipping’.

 

The speedy response of Councils to collect fly-tipped waste had been seen to legitimise and incentivise the act of fly-tipping, and public perceptions were that fly-tipping was low impact and socially acceptable. Research showed that a key driver for fly-tipping behaviour was the expectation that fly-tips would be collected quickly and without repercussions.

 

As a way to combat this, it was piloted that fly-tips be wrapped in ‘crime scene investigation’ tape and left in place for up to three days to allow the perpetrator and other residents to see it. Results showed a 78% reduction in fly-tipping at one pilot site over 17 weeks, (63% reduction after one month). Doorstop surveys conducted showed that 67% said that the CSI intervention made them ‘realise that dumping waste on streets is illegal’, while 49% said that the CSI intervention would make them think twice about what they did with their unwanted items in the future. Further upcoming pilots were to take place in Havering, Islington and Merton.

 

Contributing factors to fly-tipping were anything that increased the ‘hassle factor’ for residents, including being fussy about what will be collected / accepted; requiring measurements; onerous booking systems, etc.

 

There was a high level of awareness of the legal consequences of fly-tipping (80% of survey respondents said that offenders could receive a fine, 59% said that they could go to court and 52% said that they could get a criminal record).  However, the perceived threat of enforcement was very low, with only 11% of respondents saying that it was likely that a person who fly-tipped would be caught.

 

The research suggested that many residents did not feel personally responsible for their unwanted items and waste once it was 'off their hands'. This was largely seen as the Council's responsibility and often linked with paying Council Tax.

 

It was recommended that solutions to these issues should focus on getting the basics right: communications/awareness, ease of using services, infrastructure etc., increasing the visibility of enforcement / provide direct feedback, and use of targeted interventions to tackle problematic behaviours,

 

Further potential actions included informing people of the cost implication of clearing up after them, and particularly how the money spent is taken from other services such as healthcare, education etc. Other actions included working with schools to reinforce messaging at an early age, providing welcome packs for new residents and businesses, and using ghost stencils to highlight waste on the street, among others.

 

Hillingdon could also choose to sign up to the KBT network which, for a fee, provided access to digital campaigns, legal, litter and waste expertise, annual conferences and meetings, discounted services, the Keep Britain Tidy Litter App, and opportunities to work with the charity on new intervention and campaign trials.

 

The Committee requested further information on a number of points, including:

 

Was KBT doing anything to address fly-tipping by landlords and tenants of rented accommodation?

 

The issue was common across many authorities. A pilot was being undertaken in Hounslow to provide a pack for landlords and tenants that would signpost them towards waste services and best practice actions.

 

What campaigns were being held nationally?

 

KBT held the Great Britain Spring Clean each year. The next scheduled event was in March 2020, and it was hoped that 60,000 people would take part. Local authorities were encouraged to get involved, with more information to be found via the KBT website.

 

Were local resident groups consulted before changes, such as the removal of bins, were carried out?

 

Previous pilots had made changes without highlighting the changes in advance, in an effort to test in isolation. However, experiences showed that this was a mistake, and it was recommended that local groups should be engaged prior to any changes being made.

 

How did KBT address the issue of roads falling under the responsibility of multiple authorities when beautifying roadsides?

 

At times, it was challenging to engage with all appropriate responsible parties. Recommendations to address such challenges including bringing decision makers together through joint meetings and robust scheduling of communications.

 

The ‘Don’t be A Tosser’ campaign was a preventative campaign aimed at reducing roadside littering, and a new campaign due for launch in 2020 was aiming to further address littering and its impact on wildlife.

 

How involved was KBT with schools?

 

KBT was involved with the Eco Schools programme, which aimed to empower children to drive change and improve their environmental awareness. KBT engaged with schools to run workshops and provide structure to campaigns. It was hoped that by embedding an awareness of environmental issues and best practice at a young age, the programme would have long-term benefits for the environment.

 

Did KBT engage with transport and utility companies regarding the management of driver litter?

 

Councils such as North West Leicestershire District Council, with support from KBT, were running campaigns focussed on engaging haulage and distribution companies to implement a process of litter disposal for drivers.

 

Had KBT run any cost analysis exercises to determine return on investment for local authorities?

 

Cost analysis was difficult, due to the way in which local authorities combined costs within services and service areas.