measuring environmentally desirable behaviour · littering behaviour is the world’s most...

Littering Behaviour Studies III

EnvironmentallyDesirable Behaviour

Measuring

Community Change Pty Ltd Acn 056 600 581

Littering Behaviour Study III Measuring Environmentally Desirable Change In AustraliaJUNE 2001

Community Change Pty Ltd Acn 056 600 581

2

Contents

Executive Summary _______________________________________________________8

Objectives________________________________________________________________________8

Methodology _____________________________________________________________________8

Project Summary Lift-out__________________________________________________9

Objective Tools __________________________________________________________________10

Achievement from LBS - The Disposal Behaviour Index ________________________________11

Comparisons Between Capital Cities and Regions ___________________________________12

City trends over time ____________________________________________________________12

Rural centres ___________________________________________________________________12

Demographic Variations in Disposal Behaviour ______________________________________13

Conclusions and Recommendations _______________________________________________15

Actions to reduce litter at the source________________________________________________15

Evaluation of interventions ________________________________________________________16

Litter As An Environmental Issue _________________________________________17Better understanding of littering behaviour___________________________________________18

Setting New Directions ___________________________________________________________19

Littering behaviour is site specific __________________________________________________20

Objective Measures Are Required __________________________________________________21

Disposal Behaviour is Complex ___________________________________________22Ways people litter _______________________________________________________________22

Litterers use bins and recycle in public ______________________________________________24

Disposal Behaviour Continuum ____________________________________________________25

Litter and resource recovery_______________________________________________________26

Litter and pro-environmental spill over ______________________________________________26

Methodology____________________________________________________________29

The Observational Approach ______________________________________________________30

Observers______________________________________________________________________30

Observing locations______________________________________________________________31

Assessing bins and litter __________________________________________________________32Litter counts __________________________________________________________________32Bin status ____________________________________________________________________32

Surveying the public _____________________________________________________________32Bias in surveys ________________________________________________________________32

Context of disposals _____________________________________________________________33

MEASURING ENVIRONMENTALLY DESIRABLE CHANGE IN AUSTRALIA:

Littering Behaviour Study III - Understanding Littering, Binning and Recycling

3

Contents (cont.)

Measuring Disposal Behaviour ___________________________________________34Calculating a DBI________________________________________________________________34

Levels of the DBI _______________________________________________________________35

Littering Behaviour Index _________________________________________________________41

Other information recorded in the OA ______________________________________________42

Database Components ___________________________________________________________42Setting an objective baseline ____________________________________________________43Comparing cities using core sites_________________________________________________43Comparing special sites ________________________________________________________44

DBI Findings ____________________________________________________________45

Capital City Behaviour ____________________________________________________________45Environmentally Desirable Behaviour in Core Sites __________________________________46Disposal Behaviour in City and Regional Centres ____________________________________47Differences in core sites ________________________________________________________48Explaining results ______________________________________________________________50Behavioural extremes __________________________________________________________50

DBI in Special Sites ______________________________________________________________51Events_______________________________________________________________________52Festivals _____________________________________________________________________52Tourist Spots__________________________________________________________________52

National Observational Profiles 2000 _____________________________________53Survey response rates____________________________________________________________53

Self - awareness and frankness about Littering______________________________________53Attitudes to the environment ____________________________________________________55Where people litter ____________________________________________________________56Why people litter ______________________________________________________________56Bin distance and effects on disposal behaviour _____________________________________57Status of bins _________________________________________________________________60Effectiveness of bins - community assessments_____________________________________61

Characterising disposal behaviour __________________________________________________62Items littered and binned _______________________________________________________62Consumer behaviour patterns ___________________________________________________64People in the sites_____________________________________________________________65Groups and disposal behaviour __________________________________________________67Education, employment status and disposal behaviour _______________________________68Place of residence and littering___________________________________________________70

4

Contents (cont.)

Current Projects and Future DBI Applications ______________________________71Disposal patterns around Australia ________________________________________________71The DBI _____________________________________________________________________71

Best Practice - Validation of DBI Measures __________________________________________72Sydney Olympic Games ________________________________________________________72Observational Audits ___________________________________________________________73Validation of What Works _______________________________________________________74Evaluation of Community Awareness Activities ______________________________________74

Projects in Progress ______________________________________________________________75Summer in the City ____________________________________________________________75Non Residential Recovery of Beverage Containers ___________________________________75Public Place Recycling Trial ______________________________________________________76Familiarisation with Measurement Tools ___________________________________________76

Recommendations_______________________________________________________77

Short term ______________________________________________________________________77

Longer term_____________________________________________________________________77

References ______________________________________________________________78

Appendices _____________________________________________________________79

Appendix A: Definitions and terms _________________________________________________79

Appendix B: Site classification _____________________________________________________81

Appendix C: Glossary of acronyms _________________________________________________83

Appendix D: Places studied _______________________________________________________84

Appendix E: Baseline DBI for capital city locations ___________________________________90

Appendix F: Environmentally desirable core sites ____________________________________93



5

List of Figures

Figure 1 Examples of Categories of Litterers _________________________________________23Figure 2 Public Place Disposal Behaviour Continuum _________________________________25Figure 3 Processes Followed in the Observational Approach ___________________________33Figure 4 Relationships Between DBI and LBI ________________________________________41Figure 5 Capital City Disposal Behaviour ____________________________________________45Figure 6 Annual DBI Measures for Core Sites________________________________________46Figure 7 Average Disposal Behaviour in Capital Cities Compared to Regional Centres_______47Figure 8 Regional Centres Disposal Behaviour _______________________________________48Figure 9 DBI in Malls in 1997 and 2000 ___________________________________________48Figure 10 DBI in Parks 1997 and 2000 ____________________________________________49Figure 11 Variations in DBI at Events_______________________________________________52Figure 12 Variations in DBI at Festivals _____________________________________________52Figure 13 Proportion of People Acknowledging They Just Littered _______________________54Figure 14 Awareness of Littering Behaviour. _________________________________________54Figure 15 Community Support for Environmentally Desirable Disposal Behaviours. _________55Figure 16 Places Where People Say They Litter ______________________________________56Figure 17 Reasons for Littering____________________________________________________56Figure 18 Reasons Given for Littering ______________________________________________57Figure 19 Bin Distance and Patterns of Disposal Behaviour ____________________________58Figure 20 Average Distances to a Bin for Levels of DBI________________________________58Figure 21 Levels of the DBI and Bin Distance in Core Sites ____________________________59Figure 22 Disposal Behaviour and Bin Distance for Special Sites ________________________59Figure 23 Statuses of Bins in Core Sites and DBI Levels_______________________________60Figure 24 Core Sites Average Number of Litterbins and the DBI ________________________61Figure 25 Public Assessments of Infrastructure and Disposal Behaviour __________________61Figure 26 Public Rating of Bin Effectiveness and Litter Levels___________________________62Figure 27 Top 10 Littered and Binned Items Nationally________________________________63Figure 28 Groups of Items Binned in Different Sites __________________________________64Figure 29 Groups of Items Frequently Littered in Different Sites ________________________64Figure 30 Eating, Drinking and Smoking in Sites _____________________________________65Figure 31 Gender and Disposal Behaviour __________________________________________66Figure 32 Age Groups Present in Sites _____________________________________________66Figure 33 Age and Disposal Behaviour _____________________________________________66Figure 34 Age of People in Groups ________________________________________________67Figure 35 Binning and Groups ____________________________________________________67Figure 36 Groups and Littering Behaviour___________________________________________68Figure 37 Employment of People in Public Places____________________________________68Figure 38 Employment Status and Disposal Behaviour ________________________________69Figure 39 Education and Disposal Behaviour ________________________________________69Figure 40 Place of Residence and Disposal Behaviour ________________________________70Figure 41 Observational Audit of Recycling Stream at Sydney Olympic Games_____________73Figure 42 Observational Audit of Recycling Recovery Rate at Sydney Olympic Games_______74

6

List of Photographs

Photograph 1 Graffiti in Site Where Littering Occurs ___________________________________18

Photograph 2 Litter Left for Others to Clean Up ______________________________________18

Photograph 3 Some People Only Litter in Stadiums ___________________________________19

Photograph 4 Littering When There are No Nearby Bins________________________________19

Photograph 5 Out of Sight Littering Behaviour________________________________________19

Photograph 6 Some Smokers Throw Butts into Drains _________________________________19

Photograph 7 Littering Around Full Bins is the Outcome But Was Not the Intention _________21

Photograph 8 Wedging Litter into a Light ____________________________________________23

Photograph 9 Wedging Litter in Gaps in Seats________________________________________23

Photograph 10 Cigarette Butts and Other Litter Wedged into An Empty Bin Stand __________24

Photograph 11 Bins and Recycling Facilities in Area Around Sydney Town Hall _____________24

Photograph 12 Potentially Recoverable Resources ____________________________________26

Photograph 13 Despite Environmentally Desirable Attitudes Littering Continues ____________27

Photograph 14 Older Infrastructures for Reducing Litter and Recovering Resources _________27

Photograph 15 Modern Infrastructure Used in the Sydney Olympic Games________________27

Photograph 16 Observer - ‘Litter Spy’ in Action _______________________________________31

Photograph 17 Fish and Chip Shop in Constitution Dock _______________________________32

Photograph 18 Peak Level DBI at a Market in Canberra ________________________________36

Photograph 19 Reading Signs Before Using Bins______________________________________36

Photograph 20 Herd Behaviour with Empty Bins Nearby ______________________________36

Photograph 21 People Sitting in Highly Littered Areas _________________________________37

Photograph 22 Location with a Low Level 1 DBI Score ________________________________37

Photograph 23 Location with a Base Level 2 DBI Score________________________________38

Photograph 24 Level 2 DBI - Transport and Waiting Areas Around Public Buildings _________38

Photograph 25 Herd Behaviour Littering Around Bin___________________________________38

Photograph 26 Level 3 DBI Sites __________________________________________________39

Photograph 27 Attempts to Contain Litter ___________________________________________39

Photograph 28 Locations with a Mid Range Level 4 DBI Score __________________________39

Photograph 29 Locations with a High Mid Level 5 DBI Score ___________________________40

Photograph 30 Locations with a High Level 6 DBI Score _______________________________41

Photograph 31 Cigarette Butts the Most Littered Item _________________________________62

Photograph 32 Peak Performance on DBI at Sydney Olympic Games Athletes’ Village_______73

Photograph 33 Conversations About Litter in the City of Banyule ________________________74

Photograph 34 Beach Litter Patrols Talking with People About Litter in the City of Port Phillip _75

Photograph 35 Non Residential Recovery of Used Beverage Containers __________________75

Photograph 36 Gold Coast City Council Public Place Recycling Trial ______________________76



7

List of Tables

Table 1 LBS Areas Studied Using the OA ____________________________________________30

Table 2 Levels of DBI ____________________________________________________________35

Table 3 Details of LBS Projects in the Database ______________________________________42

Table 4 Core Sites in the Database _________________________________________________44

Table 5 Special Sites in Database __________________________________________________44

Table 6 Core Sites where Low DBI Levels were Recorded.______________________________50

Table 7 Core Sites where Peak s DBI Levels were Recorded ____________________________51

Table 8 DBI Levels Recorded in Special Sites_________________________________________52

Table 9 Levels of the DBI_________________________________________________________71

Acknowledgements

This research report, along with the preceding LBS reports in the series, was made possible withfunding from the Beverage Industry Environment Council (BIEC) which, directed by it’s members, hassupported the development of this ongoing research since 1997.

This report could not have been prepared without the contributions of Harvey Baker, Henry Pepper andMaree McCaskill of BIEC, who have provided much creative and editional support.

Over 15 Community Change staff members have worked on the LBS series of studies over the pastfew years, however particular contributions have been made by Jean Rook, Ursula Noye and DianneComber.

Professor Trauer, Dr Peter Wright and Mary Marsh have provided specialist statistical expertise andinvaluable advice in the development of the Disposal Behaviour Index.

The authors also gratefully acknowledge the valuable input of BIEC staff during the compilation ofmaterial for this Littering Behaviour Studies III report.

Numerous people around Australia have assisted in the development and refinement of the DBI, andwe gratefully acknowledge their contributions.

In particular:

Local government officers from councils in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland; staff fromthe Environment Protection Authority in NSW and Victoria; EcoRecycle Victoria; the OlympicCoordinating Authority (OCA) and the Sydney Olympic Organising Committee for the OlympicGames (SOCOG).

Rob Curnow and Karen Spehr

Project Managers Community Change Pty Ltd

For more Information on the Littering Behaviour Studies, please contact Beverage Industry Environment Council (BIEC)PO Box 176, Pyrmont NSW 2009, Australia.Fax: (61) 02 9518 6577 Email: [email protected]

This report is © 2001 copyright the Beverage Industry Environment Council and Community Change Pty Ltdall rights reserved. Local Government is welcome to reproduce material from this research, providing they receivewritten permission from the copyright holders.

All sections of the Australian community viewlitter prevention and recycling as important

environmental issues - 94% of people feel thatlitter is an important environmental issue - yetthe fact remains that many people litter.

Objectives

One of the biggest problems with developing moreeffective litter prevention strategies has beendevelopment of objective measures of all types ofdisposal behaviour - positive and negative.

In 1997, the Beverage Industry Environment Councilcommissioned the social research company,Community Change, to research people’s disposalbehaviour and increase our understanding of theinfluences on littering behaviour.

This report, the third in the Littering BehaviourStudy (LBS) series, was aimed at the systematicdevelopment of valid and reliable methods tomeasure the impact of litter prevention and relatedwaste minimisation initiatives on public placedisposal behaviour.

The LBS series of national studies of Australianlittering behaviour is the world’s mostcomprehensive study of disposal behaviour. It is thefirst major study in any country to compare whatpeople say about their littering behaviour with whatthey actually do.

The LBS series has been aimed at greater recoveryof drink and food packaging, and other reusableresources from public spaces, as well as litterreduction. Outcomes from the LBS projects havehelped measure the effectiveness of a range ofanti-littering and pro-environmental initiatives inchanging people’s behaviour.

Methodology

To ensure the LBS series produced valid andreliable outcomes, specially trained staffsystematically observed the actual disposalbehaviour of people in a range of public placesincluding shops, parks, beaches and special events.When a person was observed disposing of rubbish -either by littering or placing the item in a bin - the

observer contacted a nearby interviewer viaminiature two-way radio and described the person’sappearance and location.

To reduce interviewer bias, interviewers were nottold whether the person had littered or used a bin.

Observers were trained to record a number ofbehavioural elements related to both the disposaland the location, which are included as part ofsubsequent behavioural analysis.

As a result of the LBS approach, the research hasgenerated the world’s largest database on littering,which contains over 52,000 behaviouralobservations and more than 10,000 attitudesurveys. It includes information from the 1997 firstnational study; a cooperative 1998 projectconducted with the NSW Government; a 2000program designed to improve waste minimisationoutcomes at the Sydney Olympic Games and, thesecond national Littering Behaviour Study.

This report summarises and compares people’scurrent littering behaviour and attitudes across awide range of locations. The sample involved nearly20,000 observations and 4,500 surveys collectedfrom every Australian State and Territory and - forthe first time - some regional locations.

The most important outcome from the LBS serieshas been the development of the world’s firstdisposal behaviour benchmark, the DisposalBehaviour Index (DBI). The DBI is a mathematicalmeans of reflecting both littering behaviour and binuse. It provides both a practical and accuraterepresentation of actual disposal behaviour in publicplaces, and an effective method of assessing theefficacy of interventions designed to reduce litterand promote environmentally desirable behaviours,such as recycling and composting.

This report summarises outcomes from currentresearch and previous stages of the LBS project. Ittakes a broad perspective on public place disposalbehaviour, and describes the progress made onimplementing recommendations from the first LBSreport. It also provides a snapshot of work currentlyin progress, which builds on existing LBS outcomes,and recommends a number of systematicapproaches to reduce litter at source.

Executive Summary

LITTERING BEHAVIOUR STUDY III

Measuring Environmentally Desirable Change in Australia

8

9

The information in this section has been provided as a broad summaryof project outcomes and assumes some knowledge of the developments

that have occurred as part of the LBS series. It does not contain detailedinformation or explanation of specific outcomes.

The profile of litter as an important environmental issue in the Australian community hasundergone a recent resurgence. Stakeholders - including individual members of the

community, industry and governments - agree that litter is an environmental issue that shouldbe regarded as more than just a simple problem that reduces the aesthetic appeal and socialvalue of an area.

The Beverage Industry Environment Council (BIEC) and Community Change Pty Ltd (CC) have beenengaged in a long-term series of projects, including the series of Littering Behaviour Studies (LBS), tobetter understand and positively change public place littering. This synopsis has been provided toidentify the key points in the development of knowledge through the LBS, up to and including the2000 national study of littering behaviour.

Littering Behaviour Studies

The Littering Behaviour Studies (LBS) have aimed at greater recovery of drink and food packaging, andother reusable resources from public spaces, as well as litter reduction. Outcomes from the LBS projectshave helped identify the effectiveness of a range of anti-littering and behaviour change initiatives.

In 1997, the LBS series began with the world’s first national study of littering behaviour, and hasincluded an Australasian award winning study supported by the New South Wales Government’s WasteReduction Grants program.

The projects in the LBS series are unique in the field of litter research because of the systematicapproach used to combine survey information on attitudes, with field observations of actual behaviour.

Direct Behavioural Observation

The methods that characterise LBS projects involve undercover observers, who are placed in parks andshopping malls, at special events, and other outdoor public locations to watch people dispose of usedproducts. When a subject is observed disposing of rubbish - either by littering, or placing the items in abin - the observer was contacted by an interviewer via miniature two-way radios and informed of theperson’s appearance and location. To reduce interviewer bias, interviewers were not told whether theperson had littered or used a bin.

While the interviewer conducted a survey with the person on their attitude to the environment and theirown behaviours, the undercover observer remained inconspicuous and recorded as much as possibleabout the disposal incident including location, time and context. Information from interviews andobservations was linked and used to compare what people said they did and what they actually did.

The LBS series has led to the development of the world’s largest database on littering, which nowcontains over 52,000 behavioural observations and over 10,000 attitude surveys. It includes informationfrom the first national study conducted in 1997; a cooperative project conducted in 1998 with the NSWGovernment; a project to help improve waste minimisation outcomes during the Sydney OlympicGames; and this report, the second national study of littering behaviour.

Project Summary Lift-out

The 2000 update of the national LitteringBehaviour Study summarises people’s currentdisposal behaviour and attitudes. The sampleinvolved nearly 20,000 observations and 4,500surveys collected from every Australian Stateand Territory, and (for the first time) some regional locations.

This report summarises the third stage in thedevelopment of the LBS project. It alsodescribes the progress made on implementingrecommendations from the first report, takes abroad perspective on public place disposalbehaviour, and recommends a number ofactions to reduce litter at source.

Typical Litterers

Outcomes from the LBS series have shown thatthere is no such thing as a ‘typical’ litterer.People can no longer simply be thought of aseither a ‘litterer’ or ‘bin user’. Many peopleexhibit a range of behaviours, which may varyaccording to contextual features of the particularenvironment they are in.

Some of the littering behaviour types identifiedduring the LBS project include:

• Wedging - pieces of litter are stuffed intogaps between seats and other places.

• Flagrant flinging - used materials arethrown through the air.

• Inching - material is littered and the personslowly moves away from it.

• Foul shooting - litter is thrown at a bin, itmisses the bin, and the litterer walks away.

• Undertaking - litter is buried, often undersand at the beach.

• Clean sweeping - on arriving at a tablewhere others have littered, the waste isswept onto the ground.

• 90%ing - most of the rubbish is put intobin, but some is left behind, or smalleritems are dropped

• Herd behaviour - the tendency to followthe lead of other people and behave in anunusual manner, going past an empty bin tolitter next to an overflowing bin, for example.

People can use more than one behaviouralstyle when disposing of items and often aperson’s disposal behaviours vary according tothe situation, environment, or type of item.Some people consistently litter some items, forexample, cigarette butts or apple cores, whilethe same person may bin all other items andmay genuinely feel they are Doing The RightThing with their waste.

Reasons People Litter

Disposal behaviour is complex. In public places,some people may use a bin, litter, recycle, andcompost, all during one observational session.For example, one lunchtime a middle agedSydney business woman was seen to litter twocigarette butts, recycle her beverage container inan appropriate bin, pocket her plastic bag(presumably for reuse) and finally, to fling herapple core at the bin. She then retrieved theapple core and placed it in the rubbish bin withthe other unwanted items from her lunch.

Measures of disposal behaviour need to be ableto accurately reflect such complexities.

Objective Tools

The naturalistic behaviour observation andrecording method - the Observational Approach(OA) - was used throughout LBS projects tocollect information to summarise thecomplexities of disposal behaviours in publicplaces.

The Observational Approach (OA) has beenapplied across a broad range of pro-environment activities and anti-litterinterventions in public places. The OA wasvalidated at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Gamesand has been adapted to operate in food-halls,entertainment centres, and indoor venues withseating. It has been used to provideperformance indicators and objectiveassessment for a number of studies.



10

11

Achievement from LBS - The Disposal Behaviour Index

The most important achievement of the LBS has been the development of the world’s first litteringbehaviour benchmark index, the Disposal Behaviour Index (DBI). The DBI is a mathematical tool thatreflects both littering behaviour and bin use. It provides a practical and accurate summary of disposalbehaviour in public places.

A number of key outcomes have been realised with the introduction of the DBI:

• Strategies to control litter at the source can, for the first time, be objectively measured, withouthaving to rely on outcome measures (like litter counts) as estimates of public disposal behaviour.

• A reliable performance indicator is now available to record positive achievements such as increasedbin use, litter reduction, and increased recovery of resources from public places. This indicator willassist stakeholders, particularly industry and government, to monitor the effectiveness of actionsaimed at increasing environmentally desirable outcomes.

• The DBI measure has provided a conceptual leap in terms of understanding the complexity involvedin disposal behaviours, particularly the relationships between littering and bin use.

• A mechanism exists for reliably comparing differences in disposal behaviour around Australia.Realistic comparisons can be made against newly established benchmarks in disposal behaviour incities, sites, and locations within a venue or event.

• Comparisons can be made between the effects of a range of bin facilities commonly found inAustralia, and the public place recycling stations used for the Sydney Olympic Games.

• There is now increased focus on accurately assessing, acknowledging, and reinforcing theenvironmentally desirable disposal behaviour and attitudes shown by the majority of Australians.

• Future planning of anti-litter interventions and predictions of people’s disposal behaviour will beimproved, because the links between reported attitudes and actual observable behaviour are able tobe accurately tested.

Despite good intentions, people do not always dispose of used materials in an appropriate manner inpublic places. Therefore, the DBI provides an objective means for determining if interventions aimed atchanging public behaviour are effective in assisting people to Do The Right Thing.

Levels of Disposal Behaviour

Seven levels of the DBI have been established that measure the extent to which people Do the RightThing. The higher the DBI level, the more positive the disposal behaviour observed in an area. Lowerlevel DBI’s involve littering behaviour whereas higher-level DBI’s indicate more appropriate use of bins.

DBI scores calculated for a particular area can be used to predict disposal behaviour and the effects ofthe introduction of public place recycling facilities in different locations, for example, in tourist spots,shopping malls, and parks. DBI scores also allow event organisers to accurately predict the likelydisposal behaviour of people at sports events and arts festivals, and to estimate quantities of litter,recyclate and waste material likely to be generated by people.

During the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, the DBI was used to measure the effects on public behaviourof litter management and resource recovery initiatives.

Overall DBI levels achieved during the Sydney Olympic Games were in the high mid range. These levelswere higher than those found at similar events around Australia in 2000, and represented a betteroutcome when compared to the levels recorded during Sydney Olympic Games Test Events wheresimilar waste management systems were in place.

Comparisons Between CapitalCities and Regions

During 1997, baseline DBI measures were recordedfor all Australian capital cities.

Four capital cities had DBI levels in the appropriaterange of disposal behaviours - where people weremostly Doing The Right Thing - and littering rateswere well below binning levels. The behaviour ofpeople in Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin and Perth wasobserved to be at the higher DBI levels. In thesecities people showed positive disposal behaviour,were more likely to use bins and less likely to litterthan those in other cities.

Canberra, Hobart, and Melbourne were found tohave less positive disposal behaviours with baselineresults at high base DBI levels, which indicatedlower levels of bin use than other capital cities.People in these cities were more likely to beobserved littering in these cities than in similar siteselsewhere.

Sydney was the only capital city to record a midrange DBI level in 1997, which placed its baselinedisposal behaviours between the groups of citiesdescribed above.

City Trends Over Time

The level of disposal behaviour observed in sitesaround Sydney in 2000 remained stable at the midrange level of the DBI, when comparisons weremade with results from 1997.

Disposal behaviour levels in Canberra and Hobartalso remained stable with no improvements fromthe high baseline DBI recorded in 1997.

The level of disposal behaviour recorded for Darwinremained stable and continued to be at the highmid range level of the DBI.

The only capital city to show an improvement fromits 1997 baseline levels of disposal behaviour wasMelbourne. Behaviour in the sites visited improvedto the DBI mid range level.

In 2000, Melbourne and Sydney were the only twocities with mid range DBI’s.

Decreases in the DBI were recorded for Adelaide,Brisbane and Perth, indicating that littering rates hadincreased by 2000.

The change in frequency of littering was greatest forthe sites studied in Brisbane, which moved from ahigh mid DBI level to a high base DBI level. Thereappeared to be a sharp increase in the amount oflittering occurring in and around the sites studied inBrisbane during 2000.

Rural Centres

Information on disposal behaviour and attitudestoward littering associated with rural centres inTasmania (Tas), Victoria (Vic), New South Wales(NSW) and Queensland (Qld) has been included inthe national study for the first time in 2000.

While many of the attitudinal patterns were similarbetween people surveyed in metropolitan andregional centres, there were some differences indisposal behaviours.

The Blue Mountains (NSW), the Gold Coast (Qld)and the Victorian cities of Ballarat and Traralgon allhad DBI levels of mid range - indicating that peoplewere twice as likely to bin as to litter in theseregional centres.

In Launceston (Tas) and Morwell (Vic), people weremore inclined to litter than to use bins with anaverage DBI at the base level. The disposalbehaviour in these regional centres was of concernand interventions are required to reduce the highrates of littering.

Disposal behaviour observed in Cairns (Qld) wasbetween the two extremes described above at ahigh base DBI level - which indicates room forimprovement.

None of the regional centres recorded high disposalbehaviour levels. More information is required todetermine if the differences that appear betweendisposal behaviour in urban and rural settings willremain consistently strong. If these differencescontinue to be found, specific regionally basedintervention strategies to prevent littering will needto be developed and matched to local behaviours.



12

13

Demographic Variations in Disposal Behaviour

Systematic records of the characteristics of people using public places have meant that the accuracy ofcommon folklore about littering behaviour can be tested. Some of the key demographic characteristicsassociated with people’s disposal behaviour in Australia in 2000 are listed below.

Gender in Public Places

• People of all ages and social backgrounds were seen to litter.

• The majority of people using public places were male - 56%.

• Men litter slightly more than women, and women use bins slightly more than men, but thedifferences are not great.

Groups in Public Places Littering

• Over half of the older people, more than 45 years, were likely to be unaccompanied in publicplaces.

• Young people were more often in groups than older people. Over three quarters (86%) of theyounger people - less than 18 years - were observed using public places in groups of two or morepeople.

• Littering was more common for people of all ages when they were in groups of four or morepeople. This was true for everyone except those more than 65 years who littered more frequentlywhen they were alone.

Age Groups and Littering in Public Places

• Younger people were commonly found in public places. Just over one third (35%) of peopleobserved in public places were less than 24 years and 63% were less than 35 years.

• Littering rates vary with age.

• Young people littered more than older people when in groups.

• However, when young people were alone their littering rates were equal to those of older people.

Age Groups and Awareness of Littering

• Young people are much more likely to admit littering than older people.

• Older people are much less aware of their littering behaviour. Less than one third acknowledgedthat they littered when they had just been observed doing so.

Age Groups and Bin Use

• Young people used bins as often as older people.

• Most age groups used the bin less when they were in a group.

Education, Employment and Littering

• The majority (55%) of people surveyed were working, full or part time, with the next biggest groupbeing students (22%).

• People who were not working tended to litter more than other groups in the workforce.

• Students littered and used bins in almost equal proportions whereas most other groups used binsmore than they littered.

• Home-makers and people who had retired usedthe bins much more than they littered.

• There were equal proportions of people withsecondary and tertiary education in the areassurveyed. People with tertiary level educationlittered slightly less, and used bins more, thanpeople with secondary level education.

Place of Residence and Littering

• Two thirds of the people surveyed were locals.

• Locals littered more than people from outsidethe area or from overseas.

Reasons People Litter

The most common reasons for littering were given as:

• Too lazy - 24%

• No ashtray - 23%

• No bin - 21%

• It’s a habit or don’t know - 12%.

Some differences were apparent in the attitudes oflitterers and binners, particularly in their perceptionsabout adequacy of facilities and the amount of litteralready present in an area.

• Litterers want bins to stand out more.

• Litterers want more bins and ashtrays.

• Litterers want bins to be closer to where theyare needed.

• Litterers are more likely to perceive areas asalready extremely littered than bin users.

• Litterers are less likely to view public placefacilities as effective in preventing litter orfacilitating the recovery of recyclable materials.

If litterers perceive an area as already littered (theLBS series clearly shows that litter attracts litter),they are more likely to litter. Furthermore, the viewthat facilities were inadequate and were notpositioned where needed may also influencelittering behaviour.

Three quarters of the people surveyed recognisedthe Do The Right Thing messages and promotionalcampaigns. There were no differences inrecognition between litterers and binners, althoughlitterers were less convinced that its message alonewould change people’s behaviour.

There is a need to help people perceive theirenvironment as clean, and to recognise that theirrole in maintaining a clean environment isworthwhile.

Distance to Bins

Distance from the bin was recorded for those wholittered and (for the first time) for people whowalked over to use the bins.

Bin distances were significantly different for peoplelittering and those using bins. Most littering (51%)occurred within 8 metres of a bin, and 40%occurred within 6 metres of a bin. Providing morebins has often been suggested as the answer toreducing litter. However, littering continues to occurclose to bins. Nevertheless, there may be somemerit in the notion of providing more bins closer towhere people are likely to need them.

The average bin distance for a litterer was 12metres, which indicated that many litterers had tomove considerable distance if they were to use abin.

The average bin distance for a bin user was 7metres. In addition, the majority of people usinglitter or recycling bins (55%) were within 3 metresof a bin.

One explanation for this disparity is that peoplewho used a bin found that it was close andconveniently located to them when they needed it.Alternatively, people who used bins could havebeen more aware of the need to dispose of useditems and intentionally positioned themselvescloser to bins than the people who littered.



14

15

Conclusions and Recommendations

All sections of the community view litter prevention and recycling as important environmental issues, yetthe fact remains that many people litter.

Additionally, few venues have public-place-recycling facilities available to support the disposal of items inan environmentally desirable manner. However, simply providing recycling facilities does not guaranteeimprovements in disposal behaviour, so local government and other agencies seeking to reduce the rateof littering behaviour need to be cautious about seeking simple solutions.

Actions to Reduce Litter at the Source

Littering and bin use are complex behaviours, influenced by the level of individual awareness,perception and responsibility, the types of ‘habitual’ or ‘automatic’ disposal practices used by the person,and by many other factors such as the placement, colour, size and types of street litter and recyclingbins, as well as the use of signage, and external sanctions.

No single anti-litter action that was studied in the LBS series of projects was able to address all of theissues involved in positively changing littering behaviour.

While some interventions may have an immediate impact, the gains may not last.

In some situations, a planned approach for continued evolution and substitution of signage might bethe most appropriate way to engage the public.

Other initiatives may produce inconsistent outcomes that are influenced by local factors that need to beunderstood using a number of measures included in the disposal behaviour hierarchy that range fromlitter counts to the DBI.

Outcomes from four years of littering behaviour studies in Australia provide some practical insights intothe implementation of anti-littering initiatives aimed at attacking litter at its source. These are described below:

Bins and Signs

• Installing public place recycling facilities in some situations leads to reductions in littering andincreased recovery of resources, but more consistent information is required across a range of sites.

• Signage that raises awareness has an immediate impact on behaviour, but the most effectivemessages for signs have yet to be determined.

• As the distance to bins increases so the DBI level recorded for a site decreases. However, simplyinstalling more bins may not be the best approach to litter prevention.

• The DBI database on the effects of bin placement needs to be further extended before solidprinciples for good practice can be developed.

• Best practice for attaining environmentally desirable disposal behaviour outcomes must alsodetermine the social, environmental, and economic benefits of recovery of resources fromcommunity precincts. The DBI can contribute to the prediction of outcomes of community precinctinterventions.

Broad Community AwarenessCampaigns

• Education and behaviour change programsshould applaud the majority of people whodisplay environmentally desirable disposalbehaviours in public places.

• A national litter prevention campaign is neededto provide a strong awareness background tosupport local litter reduction initiatives.

• A co-ordinated multi-media litter preventioncampaign should be based on positive rolemodels, rather than focusing on inappropriatelittering behaviour types.

• Behaviour change campaigns shouldacknowledge that people from all demographicslitter or use bins.

• Education programs need to include positivelitter prevention peer models wherever possible.

• The foundation established by the Do The RightThing campaign should be used as aspringboard for new campaigns.

• The DBI should be used to evaluate the impactof awareness raising campaigns.

Testing Enforcement and Education Strategies

• The effectiveness of the enforcement ofsanctions (fines) needs to be investigated.

• Community based education and involvementstrategies need to be examined, particularly inrelation to the efficacy of personal contactthrough activities like beach litter patrols, streettheatre and community-based conversationsabout litter prevention.

• The DBI can be used to help stakeholdersdetermine which combinations and types ofeducation and enforcement programs work bestand under what conditions.

Cigarettes Most Frequently Littered Item

• Effective strategies to reduce the occurrence ofthe most frequently littered item - cigarette butts- need to be developed and implemented as anenvironmental and community priority.

• The best combinations of installing bins withashtrays and stand alone cigarette butt binsneed to be determined in relation to identifyingwhich combinations work best and under whatcircumstances.

• The effectiveness of strategies aimed atpreventing cigarette butt littering need to beestablished in terms of changes to publicattitudes and behaviours.

Evaluation of Interventions

The LBS investigations have focused attention onthe importance of evaluation in determining costeffective strategies for preventing litter, andmaximising recycling in public places.

• Stakeholders need to be familiar with the use ofthe OA and DBI as methods for measuring theeffects of their anti-litter programs.

• A national database on disposal behaviourneeds to be maintained as a means ofproviding an ongoing record of progress.



16

17

The Beverage Industry Environment Council (BIEC) and Community Change Pty Ltd (CC)have been engaged in a long-term series of projects to better understand and positively

change public littering behaviour.

This report is the third in the Littering Behaviour Studies (LBS) research series, which focus upon litterreduction, and greater recovery of drink and food packaging and other reusable resources from publicspaces.

Outcomes from the LBS projects have been used to objectively measure the effectiveness of a range ofanti-littering and pro-environmental initiatives in changing people’s behaviour.

BIEC has supported innovative programs for litter prevention and reduction for many years, as well assponsoring objective research and community awareness campaigns such as Do the Right Thing. TheLBS series began in 1997 with the world’s first national study of littering behaviour, and included anAustralasian award winning study, What Works: NSW Littering Behaviour Interventions (1999),which was supported by the New South Wales Government’s Waste Reduction Grants Program.

In 1992, litter control only rated a single paragraph in the Report on the Establishment andImplementation of a National Kerbside Recycling Strategy (ANZECC, p34). Litter1 was onlymentioned as a related issue that needed a ...”coordinated program... as part of the National effort.”

Since then, strong community support for anti-littering programs has been evident in both Australia andabroad. Community surveys on people’s environmentally responsible behaviours in Australia, Europe,and North America today consistently show people claim they deliberately avoid dropping litter.However, litter remains a problem in many areas and there is some doubt regarding whether Australianlittering rates are actually declining.

“Litter has gone from being viewed as an aesthetic issue to an environmental one...it isan environmental priority.” 2

“Litter is the place where we can all begin to demonstrate our commitment to theEnvironment.” 3

The Federal Government’s National Packaging Covenant (NPC4) has established litter management asimportant issue. Under the NPC, government and industry have clearly identified the link betweenwaste reduction and litter prevention.

Additionally, under the NPC, BIEC’s commitments on behalf of its member companies include helpingvarious stakeholders to better manage public places. The methods used in the LBS research series willprovide concise information on litter reduction campaigns, prevention strategies and infrastructure andlocation management - as well as optimal resource recovery through recycling.

Ch

ap

te

r1 Litter As An

Environmental Issue

1 See Appendix A for key definition of terms.

2 According to the Environment Protection Authority New South Wales (2000) Litter It’s In Your Hands.

3 Stack, 1999.

4 National Packaging Covenant. is a self-regulatory agreement between industries in the packaging chain and all spheres of government. It allows packaging suppliers and users to lead the way in packaging waste reduction. Information can be obtained fromwww.environment.gov.au/epg/covenant.

Better Understanding of LitteringBehaviour

One of the primary drivers for an increased focuson litter management and prevention is theopportunity to leverage desirable environmentalchange through the community having successfulexperiences with changing an activity or behaviourunder their control. Such success experiences maythen have positive effects for other environmentallydesirable behaviours.

“If programs designed to change oneconservation behaviour can be shown to

have the ‘spill over’ effect of encouragingthe simultaneous adoption of other pro

environmental behaviours, then thattechnique would allow important

leveraging of scarce public resources(De Young, 1993).” 5

Our understanding of the amount and type of litterpresent in the environment has been improving asthe result of a number of Australian organisationsworking to systematically upgrade approaches tolitter measurement and the recording of litterstatistics. 6 These approaches to measurement havebeen part of a broader strategy to coordinatecommunication campaigns, enforcement, clean up,and prevention programs. 7

However, there are still some major shortfalls in themethods currently available to measure litter, and toeffectively monitor medium and long term trends.

These data gaps have implications for theanswers to central questions like:

Is littering behaviour getting better or worse?

What causes people to litter?

Has community disposal behaviour changed?

What are the most effective methods for reducingand preventing litter?

Substantial resources have been committed tobetter understand the links between social, cultural,psychological, and educational factors underlyinglittering and disposal behaviour.

Recent investigative litter management research hastaken a ‘holistic’ view of the complex dynamics of

people and their behaviours, reactions and theinfluences of different contexts on disposalbehaviours.

“Some researchers have found that littering, likevandalism, is contagious, and that the presence oflitter, trash and debris in an area encourages crime.It has also been shown that when wastereceptacles are conveniently located, littering isreduced. Researchers suggest that a nearbyreceptacle catches a person’s attention, and thatwhen people become aware of that option, theyare more likely to Do The Right Thing.” 8

However, many important issues remain to beresolved, such as explaining why, for example, anindividual recycles at home, but litters when theyare away from home? Furthermore, some peoplelitter only in specific environments, eg, when seatedin a stadium, or under particular circumstances, eg,when there is no easy access to a bin. Thephotographs below illustrate littering behaviour thatrequires greater understanding and explanation if itis to be effectively changed.



18

Photograph 1 Graffiti in Site Where Littering Occurs

Photograph 2 Litter Left for Others to Clean Up

5 Cited in Reams et al., 1996.

6 Curnow et al., 1995

7 Common examples of organisations working together are the NSW EPA Litter Reference Group, Eco Recycle Victoria and Regional Waste ManagementGroups supporting Litter Taskforces and the Victorian Litter Action Alliance.

8 Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste 1997, 1998.

19

Setting New Directions

In the last few years, the Littering Behaviour Studies research methods have received internationalrecognition for setting the direction for better understanding disposal behaviour.9 The method involveslinking individual behaviour to attitudes and intentions.

BIEC has published a number of progress reports that have helped to develop and refine strategicdirections for assisting agencies involved with litter prevention, reduction and control.

The report Understanding Littering Behaviour (1997), recommended systematic actions to improveAustralian disposal practices in public places including:

• Making people more aware of the specific actions and processes involved in littering, for example,‘wedging’ ( the squeezing of objects into a small spaces such as slats on a park bench, or ‘foulshooting’ ( throwing objects at a bin;

• Examining the impact of design and placement of bins with ashtrays by installing them in a varietyof sites;

• Piloting public place recycling programs and monitoring them for the increased effectiveness offacilities in association with street bins;

• Investigating the littering behaviour of people in rural areas and regional centres; and,

• Evaluating litter prevention and reduction programs using a combination of approaches, includingmonitoring behaviour by observing disposals as well as monitoring changes in attitudes.

9 Interest has been expressed from Asia, Europe, and North America, Keep America Beautiful , the US Conference of Mayors 1999 and Tidy TownsUK 2000; the BBC filmed “litter spies” during the Sydney Olympic Games.

Photograph 3 Some People Only Litter in Stadiums

Photograph 5 Out of Sight Littering Behaviour

Photograph 4 Littering When There are No Nearby Bins

Photograph 6 Some Smokers Throw Butts into Drains

In partnership with the New South WalesGovernment through the Waste Reduction GrantsProgram administered by the EnvironmentProtection Authority, BIEC implemented a projectthat followed up on the 1997 recommendations.The consequent LBS report, What Works: NSWLittering Behaviour Interventions (1999a)indicated the importance of two key variables:

1. Being able to accurately characterise an area orlocation; and,

2. Being able to effectively measure disposalbehaviour occurring in those locations by usinga combination of measurement techniques.

The project evaluated methods for changingpeople’s disposal behaviour across a range ofvenues in urban environments and received anAustralasian Evaluation Society Award for Excellencein Social Research in 2000.

Littering Behaviour is Site Specific

The 1997 recommendations have been actioned inother projects aimed at determining effectivemethods of recovering beverage containers fromnon-residential environments. Recent projectsinvestigated preferred public-place-recyclingpractices at the Sydney Olympic Games and afeasibility study into the ‘precinct’ approach to wasteminimisation activities, litter management andpublic place recycling.

These studies highlight the importance ofunderstanding the motivational drivers within a localprecinct, to enable locally coordinated programs tolead to desirable changes in disposal behaviour.

Local precinct approaches can improve recovery ofbeverage containers and litter management,however they need to be supported within a largercommunity campaign or framework. Multi-levelstrategies for counteracting or changing litteringbehaviour at the national, state, regional, municipaland local levels have also been supported.10

“Littering is a behavioural problem whichrequires the development and initiation ofappropriate education campaigns to effect

changes in attitude and behaviour...Littering is essentially a problem of

community behaviour and its solutiondepends on changing current behavioural

patterns in those sections of thecommunity which do not consider littering

to be anti-social.” 11

There is clearly a need to better understand andaddress changes in disposal behaviour using a setof strategies tailored to the area under review,consistent with an overall framework. As can beseen from the photographs below - outcomes frompeople’s disposal actions are not always asintended. Some of the people would report thatthey were Doing The Right Thing and leaving theirrubbish next to a bin. However leaving it behindwas not environmentally desirable.



20

10 Reeve et al., (2000).

11 Australian Environment Council (1982) Report on Litter Control.

21

Objective Measures Are Required

Finding a method to accurately assess the impact of interventions on changing littering behaviour hasbeen a problematic issue. In 1982, the Australian Environment Council identified that “there is a paucityof up to date information on the composition of litter.” Since then, a number of attempts have beenmade to systematically measure litter by counting and classifying materials found on the ground.

However those measurement techniques have encountered a number of problems, including a lack ofconsistency of outcomes and inability to directly link results to littering behaviour or to accuratelymeasure the effects of interventions targeted at disposal behaviour and attitudes.12 Such difficulties,inherent in the use of measures of litter on the ground, have been apparent for some time.

The aim of this most recent project in the LBS series is to systematically address some of the difficultiesin accurately assessing litter and littering behaviour, in order to more effectively measure the impact oflitter reduction programs.

Photograph 7 Littering around full bins is the outcome but was not the Intention

12 Australian Environment Council (1982) Report on Litter Control and author’s communication with EPA NSW, VLAA, EcoRecycle Victoria, KAB NSWand Victoria 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001; see also Community Change 1999 a b & c.

Prior to the publication of Understanding Australian Littering Behaviour (BIEC, 1997), whichsummarised the findings from the first national Littering Behaviour Study, the identification of

the characteristics associated with littering included the following:13

• Young adolescent males were reported to litter more - for example, estimates indicated that 60% oftotal litter was deliberately discarded by young males who tended not to participate in recycling;

• Males in general were also reported to litter more than females in many studies (although in somestudies there was no significant difference between male and female littering behaviour);

• Men were reported to litter twice as much as women;

• Younger adults were much more likely to litter than older adults;

• One or two person households littered less than 5 person households; and,

• Farmers and residents of small communities littered more than residents of large cities.

The LBS Series demonstrates that there is a need for more accurate understanding of the dynamics oflittering beyond simple stereotypes. Solid information is required for the most effective policy directions tobe adopted.

“Traditional quantitative and qualitative market research should be augmented with othermethods which do not rely on what people say...most of market research rests upon a false

belief: that what people say is a good predictor of what they will do.” 14

Organisations interested in reducing litter have faced the challenge of trying to manage the issue withoutfully understanding the complexity involved, particularly in relation to the problems in categorising peopleand their disposal behaviours. Littering behaviour is a complex phenomenon and results show that peopledo not simply fall into categories of being either litterers or non-litterers.

Ways People Litter

There has been a tendency for those involved in trying to understand littering behaviour to categorisepeople as particular types of litterers. These categories have been based on stereotypes, anecdotes,experience, attitudinal surveys, and focus groups.

Some market researchers have segmented the community into groups based on expressed attitudestoward litter and littering. Some categories that have been defined elsewhere include:15

• Inconvenients

• Ignorants

• Wilful arrogants

• The careless

• The young self confessed litterer

• Infrequent (guilty) litterer



22

Ch

ap

te

r2

13 The Florida Litter Study (1997, 1998) and Rudolph (1979) An Assessment of Litter Abatement Programs.

14 Wilcox (1998).

15 EPA NSW (2000) Litter Its In Your Hands, Attitudes to Litter: Segmentation Study (1996).

Disposal Behaviour isComplex

In 1997, through observational information, BIECand CC identified a number of key behavioursthat a broad cross section of people exhibitedwhen littering. These were used to ‘group’ litterers.

Examples of one type of littering behaviour -wedging have been presented in the photographsbelow. Some of the littering behaviours identifiedduring the LBS project were:

Wedging - pieces of litter are stuffed into gapsbetween seats and other places.

Flagrant flinging - used materials are thrownthrough the air.

Inching - material is littered and the person slowly moves away from it.

Foul shooting - litter is thrown at a bin, it misses the bin, and the litterer walks away.

Undertaking - litter is buried, often in the sand at the beach.

Clean sweeping - on arriving at a table where others have littered, litter is swept onto the ground.

90%ing - most of the rubbish is put into bin, but some is left behind, or smaller items are dropped.

Herd behaviour - the tendency to follow the lead of other people and behave in an unusualmanner, often going past an empty bin to litter next to an overflowing bin.

Some councils have also used these categories to raise community awareness of littering issues. A fewexamples are illustrated in Figure 1.16

23

16 Cartoons provided by Logan City Council who have given approval for BIEC to reproduce.

Photograph 8 LitterWedged Into a Light

Photograph 9 Litter Wedgedin Gaps in Seats

The 90%er.The Foul Shooter The Clean Sweeper.

The Flagrant Flinger.The Wedger. The Undertaker.

Figure 1 Examples of Categories of Litterers

These categories can help establish proportions inthe community who may hold particular attitudesand behave in a particular manner. However, theyfall somewhat short of illustrating realisticbehaviours where outcomes do not do matchintentions.

The photograph illustrates some unusual litteringbehaviour and it is unclear whether the lack of abin in the bin stand was a significant influence onthe littering that occurred or whether it was simplymore convenient to leave rubbish on the standthan to take it away.

LBS outcomes show that people may exhibitdifferent disposal behaviours under a range ofdifferent circumstances, and that littering behaviouris a dynamic process.

Litterers Use Bins and Recycle in Public

The following case study was observed in the 2000national study of disposal behaviour. Itdemonstrates the importance of using accuratetechniques to identify and label behaviour, notpeople.

A 30 year old woman was eating, drinking andsmoking whilst sitting alone on a bench outside apublic building - the Sydney Town Hall. There werepublic place recycling facilities as well as binsavailable for disposal of used items. After eating herlunch, the woman folded and pocketed her plasticlunch bag, presumably to reuse it on anotheroccasion. She threw an apple core at a bin, missed,and left it on the ground. She smoked twocigarettes and littered the butts under her seat.

However, when she finished drinking from a PETbottle, she stood up, walked a few metres to thebin, picked up her apple core, and spent twoseconds working out which bin was the right onefor recycling the PET bottle and for disposing thefruit. She correctly disposed of both items using thelitter and recycling bins. When she was approachedto give an interview she declined.

Simply labelling her behaviour as a litterer would beinaccurate. However, determining an appropriateway to describe all of her disposal actions isproblematic. She displayed appropriate disposals byreuse of plastic bags, recovery of the beveragecontainers by correctly recycling (withoutcontamination), and placing some waste into thebin. Although she had a foul shot at the bin, shedid pick up the apple core, and would not thereforebe classed as a litterer. However, she did litter byleaving the crushed cigarette butts under the seat.



24

Photograph 10 Cigarette Butts and Other Litter Wedged into An Empty Bin Stand

Photograph 11 Bins and Recycling Facilities in Area Around Sydney Town Hall

25

Typically, people like this woman report that they never litter and that they are very concerned about theenvironment. Probably, she would think of herself as having gone to some trouble for the environmentby reusing and recycling in a public place.

The woman may not consider cigarette butts as litter, or that she had not disposed of it appropriately.Consequently, campaigns aimed at changing littering behaviour need to engage people who would notregard themselves as litterers, and who Do The Right Thing most of the time.

At interview, most people report that they consider litter prevention to be an extremely importantenvironmental issue. Yet they will also say that they have littered at some time in their lives. Like manyhuman activities, littering behaviour is complex, and various aspects need to be understood if it is to beappropriately modified.

Furthermore, littering in public places is minority behaviour. Most Australians Do The Right Thing withtheir waste material in public places.

In the past, many measures have focused on the negative outcomes of litter on the ground, anddisposal practices of the responsible majority of Australians have not been recognised. This neglect hasoften resulted in an overemphasis on the negative aspects of littering at the expense of attending toappropriate behaviour.

Disposal behaviours ( binning, recycling and litter prevention - are related activities that occur in publicplaces and represent ways an individual can contribute to the recycling of resources and environmentalmanagement in away-from-home settings.

Disposal Behaviour Continuum

There is growing recognition that individual disposal actions in public places have effectsbeyond simply influencing the aesthetic appeal of an area. Appropriate disposal of materials

is part of the public’s contribution to the environment on a much broader scale. Currently,there is a recognition that disposal activities operate on a continuum of actual and potentialcontributions to the environment.

The continuum ranges (at one end) from appropriate disposals through to inappropriate actions (at theother end) that are not in the long-term interests of the environment, as shown in Figure 2.

Anti-environmental action Pro-environmental actionEnvironmentally desirable behaviour

Illegal dumpingLittering and incorrect use of bins

Use of bins, recyclingand litter prevention

Figure 2 Public Place Disposal Behaviour Continuum

The approach adopted in this report is that publicplace disposal behaviour should be viewed as partof a continuous set of actions that an individual cantake to reduce waste going to landfill and to recoverresources for recycling and reuse.

Used beverage containers that are not thrown awayas litter or into a bin, but are recycled at home, atwork, or in public places, represent a positivedisposal action and illustrate people Doing TheRight Thing.

“Insights into the relationship betweenlitter and recycling should help

policymakers attempting to design moreeffective waste-management policies;

(and those)... interested in recycling andlittering behaviour.”17

The following pictures illustrate the level ofcommunity support for containing litter and keepingpotentially recoverable resources separate fromgeneral waste. The problem for event organisersand other stakeholders is finding cost effectivecollection methods.

Litter and Resource Recovery

Individuals in public places are faced with a widearray of choices about how they dispose of usedmaterials. In the past, there has been a tendency tofocus only on littering, which was seen as aseparate activity unrelated to the way the publicuses bins or other disposal opportunities such asusing a recycling or compost bin.

Despite very strong and consistent communitysupport for broadening the disposal optionsavailable in public places, there is relatively littleopportunity to recycle in public places aroundAustralia.

“... Litter is linked automatically to theissue of recycling.” 18

There is strong evidence that people in publicplaces support litter prevention and the recovery ofused materials or resources through recycling. In arecent BIEC project on a precinct approach torecycling, members of the NSW community fromthree urban and rural precincts indicated they werewilling to work together with local government toestablish precinct approaches to common issues,such as the recovery of resources from public andwork places, as well as litter prevention andmanagement.19

Litter and Pro-Environmental Spill over

The links between disposal behaviours at home,and attitudes or intentions for public behaviour areweak. Pro-environmental actions at home do notalways seem to spill over into public life.

“Indeed, although pro-environmentalattitudes in the 1990s have found to be attheir highest level ever recorded, this has

not translated into greater pro-environmental behaviours.”20

Public place disposal actions are influenced by theinfrastructure made available for the recovery ofresources, the level of community awareness ofdisposal choices, the type of context or climateassociated with a public venue, and the individual’smotivation to reduce waste and control litter.



26

Photograph 12Potentially

RecoverableResources

17 Reams et al., (1996).

18 According to the NSW EPA (2000) Litter Its In Your Hands.

19 Non Residential Beverage Container Recovery Feasibility Study (2001).

20 Tarrant and Cordell (1997).

27

An integrated approach to waste managementsystems in public places like that used duringthe Olympic Games in Sydney ensuresmethods for recovering resources are available,and are coordinated in order to have thegreatest impact on reducing waste going tolandfill and preventing litter.

Methods for measuring littering behaviourneed to accurately reflect the many disposalactivities executed by an individual in publicplaces as they respond to a variety of types ofinfrastructure, whereby:

• Any one person may engage in a variety ofdisposal behaviours (pocketing, littering,binning, recycling and composting) in an area;

• Different areas are associated with differentpatterns of disposal behaviour, for example,picnicking versus attending a festival;

Photograph 13 Despite Environmentally Desirable Attitudes, Littering Continues

Photograph 14 Older Infrastructures for Reducing Litter and Recovering Resources

Photograph 15 Modern Infrastructure Used for the SydneyOlympic Games

• One person may dispose of used materialsdifferently under different circumstances, forexample, some people litter used beveragecontainers while sitting in a football stadiumwhile always binning them when sitting on abeach;

• Littering is relatively rare, and most litter is theresult of the behaviour of a comparatively smallproportion of people in an area; and,

• Public place recycling facilities are associatedwith reduced littering and increased awarenessof Doing the Right Thing.

Previously, most approaches to measuring litteringhave involved some estimation and guess work(often inaccurately described as statisticalinferences) that work backwards from litter countedon the ground to derive an estimate of the litteringassumed to have led to those materials beingfound in a particular area.

Litter count methods provide end-of-pipe estimatesof the outcomes of littering behaviour. Someresearchers suggest that collection of sufficient dataover a long enough period of time, using consistentmethods under similar circumstances, will provideestimates that can be assumed to reflect somethingclose to actual littering rates.

Many of these assumptions are difficult to sustainand harder to verify. Many variables can affect littercount data in public places, for example, the effectsof bin scavenging, the impact of weather, andchanges to cleaning routines and practices.

A new method for accurately recording litteringbehaviour has been required for some time, whichaccurately represents disposal behaviour as itoccurs.



28

29

The current project reports the development of a reliable method for measuring disposalbehaviour in public places. This method can also be used to determine the effects of

strategies to reduce littering and to increase the recovery of resources.

It enables comparison of the impact of interventions from one situation to another, as well as in thesame type of situation under different conditions.

BIEC has funded observational studies since 1997, with support from government authorities, localgovernment agencies, and other organisations, groups and industry bodies. The studies have all beenbuilt on a new approach to observing behaviour in public places that links what people say they do withtheir waste, to what they actually do with it.

Data from those studies have been combined to form the world’s largest national database on disposalbehaviour, with over 52,000 observations of people in public places and at special events. Appendix Ddescribes the data sources from projects undertaken by BIEC, CC and partners.

Included in the total, 12,000 observations collected during the Sydney Olympic Games were used tovalidate the methodology and measures under similar conditions. The data clearly shows how themeasure systematically identifies characteristics of disposal behaviour in different venues.

The combined information from national studies has been used to establish Australian baselines andbenchmarks for disposal behaviour. This project report analyses that database and comprehensivelydescribes public place disposal behaviour in a wide range of urban, regional, and outdoor and indoorvenues.

In particular, this report includes detailed comparisons of behaviour in similar environments in citiesaround Australia, for example, Melbourne and Sydney. It also examines behaviour at the same site typein different locations, for example, a number of different parks have been studied in Sydney.

Disposal behaviour at special sites and events including the Melbourne Grand Prix and the SydneyOlympic Games have also been contrasted.

The project report:

1. Describes the development of a new measure of public disposal behaviour;

2. Provides details of national performance on pro-environmental behaviour and attitudes and litterprevention initiatives on public behaviour;

3. Compares historical trends in disposal behaviours in the same public places between 1997 and theyear 2000;

4. Identifies specific attributes of disposal behaviour associated with different locations or venues;

5. Examines potential triggers for Australians to behave in an environmentally desirable manner andreasons for littering;

6. Compares outcomes of projects attempting to change littering behaviour using the DBI as aperformance indicator; and,

7. Sets the direction and identifies strategies for future use of the measures by stakeholders.

A key feature of this new method for evaluating disposal behaviour is the use of the ObservationalApproach - a naturalistic approach to behaviour measurement.C

ha

pt

er

3 Methodology

The Observational Approach

The Observational Approach (OA) has receivedinternational recognition for setting new directionsin social research and understanding of public placedisposal behaviour. The OA gathers details ondisposal behaviour as it happens and aidsunderstanding of disposal behaviour and attitudesas they operate in public places.

The key features of the approach are described indetail in the methodology section ofWhat Works: Understanding LitteringBehaviour in Australia (1999a).

The OA links an individual’s actual behaviour totheir reported attitudes and intentions. This enablescomparisons between what people say they dowith their waste to what they actually do with it,thereby controlling some of the social desirabilityand subjectivity associated with self-report surveysand other judgements about litter.

This approach can be used in a variety of locationsto gather details on disposal behaviour as theyoccur. The OA takes account of factors such as usesof a site type, weather, frequency of cleaning, theeffects of time, and changes to infrastructure andcommunity sentiments.

Typically, local councils, event organisers or otherstakeholders identify places where littering is likelyto occur, and observations are then conducted atthose locations. Other places that are beingconsidered for installation or future upgrading ofpublic place recycling facilities have also beenobserved. Target locations where observations havebeen conducted are described in Table 1.

The overall aim of the OA is to provide solidinformation for effective decision-making in litterabatement and prevention programs. The OAmethod consists primarily of tasks performed byteams of two people, one an observer and theother an interviewer.

Table 1 LBS Areas Studied Using the OA

AREAS AND VENUES OBSERVED

Beaches Parks

Cafes outdoor Public buildings(indoor and outdoor)

Car parks Roadside stops

Concerts Shopping strips

Entertainment areas Sporting grounds(indoor and outdoor)

Events Stadiums (indoor and outdoor)

Festivals Staff break areas

Food courts Take away foodconcessions(indoor and outdoor)

Kitchens and food Tourist areaspreparation areas

Shopping malls Transport areas (indoor and outdoor)

Markets Waterfronts

The teams used copyrighted instruments capable ofdistinguishing hundreds of combinations ofvariables related to public place disposal behaviourand attitudes. Community views were gatheredthrough interviews. Most interviews were conductedwith people who had already been observed eitherlittering or using a bin.

Observers

People in public places are sensitive to beingobserved and alter their disposal behaviour if theybecome aware of people studying them.Consequently, observers are trained in theinconspicuous observation of people as theydispose of items in public.



30

31

Following the guidelines laid down in 199721, systematic information about disposal behaviour andfactors associated with littering, bin use, recycling, and in some cases composting, were objectivelygathered and recorded during observations.

Observers were intensively trained over a four-week period in becoming part of the natural context ofthe situation and follow standardised approaches to directly record disposal behaviour. To ensure thelinks between what people said, and what they actually did about littering and other disposal behaviourcould be measured accurately, observer teams were trained in ethnographic data gathering techniques.

Training helped the observers to:

• Be unobtrusive;

• Reduce personal influences and subjective bias; and,

• Enhance representativeness of data and maximise objectivity.

The OA is intended to gather information to help understand current attitudes and disposal behaviourswithout impacting or influencing the usual circumstances. This is achieved by:

1. Noting the number, age, gender, and main activities of people in the site type;

2. Recording the ways people dispose of materials either by littering, or using a bin and recycling station; and,

3. Describing the number, type and configurations of bins and other important features includingseating arrangements, planters and play equipment in the area.

Observing Locations

After entering a site, the observers select a location that is suitable for that particular public space. Theyfollow sampling protocols and adapt their observational approach to suit differences in the intensity ofpedestrian traffic and the use of a site, which can vary from a busy crowd to a few isolated individuals.Observers select a vantage point for discretely watching representative areas or traffic zones within thelocations.

The methodology and training ensures they become part of the situation, and blend with the contextand people using that location. Consequently, the public can continue to dispose of objects ‘naturally’,without becoming aware that they are being observed.

21 Understanding Littering Behaviour (1997).

Photograph 16 Observer - ‘Litter Spy’ in Action

If observers felt that their ‘cover’ was exposed andpeople seemed to be aware that they were beingwatched, then they would stop observing, changevantage points, and even move locations ifnecessary.

Assessing Bins and Litter

Litter Counts

The observers initially enter a site together. Onecounts the litter and the other counts the bins. Themethod used for litter counting has beendeveloped from the guidelines for consistent andstandardised approaches to ‘visible litter counts’described in the report Designing RepresentativeLitter Survey Strategies (Curnow et al., 1995 forKeep Australia Beautiful).

Measuring litter on the ground involves using asystematic approach to counting clearly visiblepieces of waste material and resources, forexample, containers left outside of a bin in a 48square metre area. The area will be scanned anditems identified using ‘visible litter’ survey forms torecord items of litter. Litter surveying is conductedas unobtrusively as possible to maintain the‘naturalness’ of the sites. Consequently, observersdo not clean or remove any litter present at a siteduring observation sessions.

Bin Status

Using the OA, the observer records the status ofbins within an observational area by noting anumber of factors associated with bin use.Observers record the number, location, design,opening, permanency, and size of the bins.

Systematic recording of information about the statusof litter and recycling bins helps to gather asubstantial database for all sites. Once the databaseis large enough it will assist in developing the mostappropriate approach for local agencies to use toreduce littering.

BIEC and CC records of bins and litter are in theearly stage of development. This data set has yet toestablish a strong statistical foundation for soliddetermination of the impact of the factorsassociated with bin use. However, some emergingrelationships and educated speculations areexamined in this report.

Surveying the Public

Surveys assessed community expectations of themanagement of disposal activities in public placesand community interest in resource recovery. Afterobserving a person completing a disposal behavioureither by littering or using a bin, the observerdirected the interviewer to that person using a two-way radio.

Interviewers were deliberately not informed aboutthe person’s disposal behaviour. Surveys are carriedout in a ‘blind’ manner, which means theinterviewers do not know whether respondentshave littered or used a bin. Consequently, they areless likely to be influenced by stereotypes, orbiased.

Bias in Surveys

A case study illustrates the importance of thisprocess and the reason for extensive training tocontrol interviewer bias. In the 1997 study, aninterviewer was asked to survey a young man withlong dreadlock hair, wearing dirty jeans, aflannelette shirt and desert boots. He was smokinga cigarette as he approached a fish and chip take-away shop near Constitution Dock in Tasmania.

The interviewer did not know the young man’sbehaviour and dutifully recorded his responseswhen he stated emphatically that he never littered.When the interviewer pointed toward the cigarettethe young man was smoking, he said he alwaystook his butts home to protect the environment.



32

Photograph 17 Constitution Dock

33

He then butted his cigarette on the ground and proceeded to place it into the rolled up cuff of his jeanswith six other cigarette butts ready for deposit in a bin. This environmentally desirable behaviour wasthe action that had attracted the attention of the observer and was the reason for the interview.

Trained and experienced interviewers administer a standard survey, which lasts up to seven minutes and provides information on people’s awareness of their own behaviour, as well as their attitudes about litter, recycling, anti-littering measures, and other waste minimisation initiatives designed for public places.

At special events, the goal is also to ensure minimal disruption and inconvenience to those agreeing to do surveys. Therefore, modifications have been developed and used in the methodology.

In all cases, where possible, survey responses are linked to observations of behaviour from theindividual in order to provide a connection between what people said they did and how they actually behaved.

The Context of Disposals

The OA enables the features of locations to be described in terms of the factors associated with actualdisposal behaviours, the use of bins, control of litter, and people’s attitudes in that setting.22

A summary of the steps involved in applying the OA to gather information is provided in Figure 3.

The overall aim of the Observational Approach is to provide solid information for effective decision-making in litter abatement and prevention programs by studying each type of location and site type.

This information is then statistically analysed to determine the characteristic disposal behavioursassociated with different sites and locations, as well as an understanding of community attitudes andintentions in relation to disposal behaviour.

22 The linking of intentions and actions provides an effective approach for understanding disposal behaviour as it occurs in ‘natural settings’ asdescribed in Understanding Littering Behaviour, (1997).

Stages in Observational Approaches

Observer and interviewSelect are within site

InterviewerCounts litter

Observer• Selects zone• Gathers information

on bins• Collects

observational data• Directs interviewer

to conduct linkedsurveys

• Measures crowddensity

Guidelines for litter count• Measure 48 square metre grid• Move through grid with

systematic sweeps• Use same procedure for all sites• Counters are trained and checked

for reliability• Record the day, time,

temperature, wind, and anyobvious effects: eg. site recently cleaned

InterviewerConducts surveys

Observational ApproachEstablishes links between attitudes, subjective and

objective ratings of litter, recycling and disposal behaviour

Figure 3 Processes Followed in the Observational Approach

The systematic use of OA information has led to the development of a specific measure ofdisposal behaviour which reliably reflects disposal patterns in a location. The measure - the

Disposal Behaviour Index (DBI) - reflects the amount of littering, binning, recycling andcomposting observed in an area.

The DBI operates from the premise that, in the overall assessment of behaviour patterns, the measurementof positive behaviour (bin use) should be as important as identifying littering.

The DBI measures both positive (binning and recycling) and negative (littering) aspects of public disposalbehaviour. It can monitor positive improvements in behaviour as well as changes in littering. It can alsodetermine the effectiveness of interventions for reducing litter and increasing recovery of used containersand other recyclables.

The higher the numeric level recorded for the DBI in a location, the more positive the disposal behavioursthat are occurring (where more people use bins, litter less, and place the right items into the correct bins).In contrast, the lower the DBI, the greater the amount of littering, the lower the level of bin use, and thehigher the contamination of bins for that area.

The DBI has undergone some modifications since its initial conception and reporting in What Works(1999a) where it represented a simple relationship between bin use and littering. However, even at thatbasic level, it was able to more effectively measure the immediate effects of introducing signs, new bins,and recycling facilities on public place behaviour than previous measures (which it was assessed against).Since that time, the DBI database has grown substantially and independent statisticians have reviewed thecalculation of the measure. 23 Academic input helped redesign the measure to account for all possibledisposal behaviours in a location. The measure continues, however, to demonstrate the relationshipwhereby positive disposal behaviour (where more people use bins and litter less) is reflected in a higherDBI level.

DBI measures can track and contrast changes in disposal behaviour in the same location, and for differentlocations and site types, over time. The DBI has also been used to estimate (based on the existingconditions) the expected level of public response to the introduction of precinct based litter prevention andrecovery of beverage container programs.

Calculating a DBI

DBI values are calculated for all observation sessions. Therefore, the measure is always linked to aparticular site type and location. This proportionally summarises the disposal information that has beenrecorded through the OA. The DBI has been designed to allow for comparisons of current practices (withjust bins present in a site), future developments, and best practice management of public places witheffective programs for litter prevention, recycling, and recovery of resources.

Calculating DBI measures on a sessional basis allows results for all the sessions in that particular site typeand for different locations, to be combined and an average worked out to represent the behaviourstypically seen in that site type and locations over a number of observation sessions. Once sufficientnumbers of observations have been made in a location and site type, information representing the disposalbehaviours typical of that site type can be discussed.



34

Ch

ap

te

r4 Measuring Disposal

Behaviour

23 Statistical staff from Monash University were employed as independent consultants during the development of the DBI.

35

Average DBI measures for different locations of a particular site type can characterise disposalbehaviours typically found in each site type. Collecting observational information in exactly the samemanner enables the same site type to be compared under different conditions. For example, typicaldisposal behaviour observed at a festival in St. Kilda in 2001 may be compared to that observed atother festivals or events, on an individual basis or on a combined basis, either across the state or at anational level. Specifically, the DBI for the St. Kilda Festival could be compared to the Grand Prix, eitherof which could also be compared to typical behaviour at the Sydney Olympic Games.

Similarly, analyses of the impact of community awareness raising campaigns on disposal behaviour,such as the NSW EPA’s Litter Its In Your Hands campaign, could be determined by examining DBIrecords collected in the same sites before, during and after the campaign.

Levels of the DBI

Seven levels of the DBI have been established to allow for ease of comparison between sites indifferent locations. Table 2 summarises the descriptions of disposal behaviours typically found at eachlevel of the DBI.

Table 2 Levels of DBI

DBI LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF DISPOSAL BEHAVIOURS IN A SITE FOR EACH LEVEL OF DBI

1 Low Little use of bins, clear majority of people littering. Area is a litter ‘hot spot’ requiringurgent attention and is a priority for clean up.

2 Base High proportion of people littering with base level of bin use. Prompt action isrequired to bring litter rates down and to increase binning.

3 High Base Binning is greater than littering. Action is needed to create opportunities for effectiverecycling and to reduce expected littering behaviours.

4 Mid Range Bins used twice as much as people litter but there is potential for improved behaviouras littering can be reduced and bin use improved.

5 High Mid Sites where people clearly were Doing The Right Thing but where littering orinappropriate use of bins remains an issue to be addressed.

6 High Binning greatly exceeds littering and appropriate bin use occurs most of the time.Minimal action required to fully recover resources and prevent litter.

7 Peak Minimal littering with prominent and appropriate bin use and good potential to recover resources. Maintenance required for clean and largely litter free area.

Both littering and binning occur in almost all sites studied around Australia, and these seven levels ofthe DBI reflect the differences in those comparative levels of disposal behaviours.

Locations with peak DBI scores are usually clean and are well maintained, although some littering stilloccurs. People seem to respond to clean locations by taking more care with their disposal actions thanin other areas.

One market in Canberra has been found to represent optimal disposal behaviour with peak DBI levelsrecorded in 1997 and 2000. The people attending this market consistently control their littering anduse the bins to dispose of garbage.

In clean sites where public place recycling facilitiesare also provided, people will often spend a fewseconds standing at a bin station sorting their wasteto ensure that they help reduce contamination andrecovery of resources, and that they do not litter. 24

People respond to recycling stations by attemptingto work out which bin to use in an endeavour toDo The Right Thing.

At the other extreme of the disposal behaviourcontinuum, low level DBI scores are evident. Suchlocations may contain some people who Do theRight Thing with their waste and try to find a bin.However, the low level DBI locations are highlylittered. Many people who typically would not littermay find themselves doing so because they seemto get caught up in following herd behaviour, asshown below.

Waste management systems in these locations tendnot to have the desired effect and fail to controllitter.

These locations become litter hot spots, and litterappears to attract further littering. Low-level DBIlocations require immediate clean up operations tooccur either while the site is in use or as soon asthe public leave the area.



36

Photograph 18 Peak Level DBI at a Market in Canberra

Photograph 19 Reading Signs Before Using Bins

Photograph 20 Herd Behaviour with Empty Bins Nearby

24 People standing at bin apparently working out what items go into which bin are referred to as ‘dwelling’ - see glossary for full definition. Thisbehaviour was first noted during the Sydney Olympic Games Test Events

Unused bin

37

Typically, there is a greatdeal of room for improveddisposal behaviour in theselocations as shown inPhotograph 22.

Locations with a base levelDBI score often have somelitter control proceduresand infrastructure in placebut they are frequentlyinstalled in positions awayfrom convenient accessand are not usedeffectively. Encouragementfor people to use bins is often ignored.

Base level locations tend tooperate with basic ratherthan strategic approachesto litter prevention.

However these locations represent starting points for building effective litter reduction programsalthough they are not consistently successful in reducing litter or recycling resources.

Littering occurs frequently and if public recycling is offered, getting people involved is often a challenge.If people do use a recycling bin then reducing contamination is usually an issue.

Photograph 21 People Sitting in Highly Littered Areas

Photograph 22 Location with a Low Level 1 DBI Score

Herd behaviour is prominent in the base DBI levellocations where people will ‘follow the leader’ anddispose of materials in various types of availablereceptacles in much the same way as low DBI levelsites. As the photographs (which are extremeexamples) below illustrate once a surface is usedas a litter receptacle it attracts other litter frompeople who follow the leader.

On the positive side, base DBI level locations havethe foundations and a motivational base on whichto build improvements for people to Do The Right Thing.



38

Photograph 24 Level 2 DBI - Transport and Waiting Areas Around Public Buildings

Photograph 25 Herd Behaviour LitteringAround Bin

Photograph 23 Location with a Base Level 2 DBI Score

39

High-base level locations are typicallycharacterised by improvements in disposalbehaviour where people gather their wastematerial together and leave it on top or next tobins.

At the high base to mid range DBI levellocations, people go to some limited effort touse bins but are still following herd behaviouralthough there is an attempt to contain litter.Material is left in anything resembling a bin, ona bin, next to overflowing bins andcontamination of recyclables is a problem.

Mid range DBI locations represent the average type of location found throughout Australia wherearound one third of disposals involve some form of littering and most people are Doing The RightThing. Mid range DBI locations tend not to become highly littered despite the presence of litter at fairlyconstant but moderate levels.

Photograph 26 Level 3 DBI Sites

Photograph 27 Attempts to Contain Litter

Photograph 28 Locations with a Mid Range Level 4 DBI Score

High mid level 5 DBI sites are characterised bypeople Doing The Right Thing where litter may bea minor issue where appropriate bin use could beimproved. The average DBI for observationscollected over all Sydney Olympic Games venueswas at the high mid level (level 5). Some of thesites found with level 5 DBI are shown below.

Level 5 sites have litter controlled to a large extent -people have gone to some effort to try to Do TheRight Thing and have disposed of material in a bin.If public recycling is offered then it is likely to betaken up and used reasonably correctly, howevercontamination can still be an issue. This level oftendemonstrates minimal litter as the public try to DoThe Right Thing and bin waste into a full recyclingstation, however if bins aren’t emptied, it can spillover onto the ground.

In the typical high level locations, correct bin use ishigh and minimal litter is present in these relativelyclean locations, which often include easy access tobins placed in close proximity to tables, chairs andtakeaway food vendors. However, contaminationmay still be an issue, particularly if features such assignage have poor visibility or the message isunclear.

In high and peak sites, people may be seen tocompress recyclables and waste into bins if they arefull by stuffing items as securely as they can intothe bin. In peak sites however, people are morelikely to carry material away when faced with a fullor over flowing bin.

The overall pattern of DBI’s is used to characterisethe behaviours seen in a location and site type.These groupings represent different levels ofachievement in the prevention of litter, theminimising of waste and the recovery of resourcesin public places. They provide a basis for comparingdisposal behaviours in different locations, sites, andcities.



40

Photograph 29 Locations with a High Mid Level 5 DBI Score

41

Littering Behaviour Index

An additional measure provided through the OA is the Littering Behaviour Index (LBI). This is apercentage of the total amount of disposal activities in a site and represents the proportion of people ina session observed to litter. High levels of the LBI are associated with inappropriate disposal behaviourand greater amounts of littering than low LBI scores.

Obviously the DBI and the LBI areclosely related, and the LBI can be usedas a proxy for the DBI, but theyrepresent different measures. Much ofthe variability in the relationshipbetween the two is reduced whencategories of the DBI are compared toaverage LBI scores as is shown inFigure 4 below where the dotsrepresent the LBI score (for the amountof littering) for each level of the DBI.

Generally, as DBI’s increase and disposalbehaviour becomes more pro-environment, the LBI decreases. Peaklevels of the DBI are associated with lowlevels of the LBI indicating that notmuch littering is occurring in a site.

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 4 Relationships Between DBI and LBI

Per

cen

t Li

tter

ing

(LB

I)

DBI

Photograph 30 Locations with a High Level 6 DBI Score

The current relationship between these measuresmay be the outcome of the way in which publicplaces around Australia operate with a general lackof public place facilities. Future implementation andtesting of sites where best practice public placefacilities are installed will strengthen the databaseand allow greater testing of this relationship. TheDBI includes allowances for positive practices whilethe LBI simply focuses on the littering seen in asite. Both measures provide a means for comparinglocations, sites and cities. The DBI however, enablestracking of the positive outcomes associated withchanges in a location, site or city.

Other Information Recorded in the OA

The Disposal Behaviour Index allows forcomparisons between sites, however additionalsupplementary information is also generated withthe OA. The OA enables a range of key issues tobe addressed which include:

• Where people litter and use bins as well aswhere they are likely to adopt public placerecycling and, in the future, public placecomposting;

• Who litters and/or who uses bins with cleardemographic features and attitudinalcharacteristics linked to measures of actuallittering and binning behaviour;

• What people tend to litter, recycle and put intobins - this type of information is similar to typicalbin audit information that describes the contentsof bins including levels of contamination andperformance indicators for successful recycling;

• Why people litter, recycle and use bins; and,

• Identifying the conditions (infrastructure, bintypes, bin position, crowd density) that promotepeak DBI scores and appropriate disposalbehaviour.

The additional information generated by the OAenables greater insight into ways to respond tothese questions for those involved with managingpublic place disposal behaviour.

Database Components

The LBS database information has been collectedfrom around Australia using the ObservationalApproach and is the world’s most comprehensivesummary of public place littering, binning andrecycling behaviours. Since 1997, observations havebeen conducted in public places in every capital cityand some regional areas, spread across differentsite types. The numbers of observations andinterviews in the LBS database have beensummarised in Table 3 according to their project origin.

Table 3 Details of LBS Projects in the Database

LBS PROJECTS YEAR OBSERVATIONS 25 SURVEYS

National Study of 1997 8,900 2,700Littering Behaviour - One

What Works: NSW Littering 1997 - 1998 8,500 3,000Behaviour Interventions

Feasibility of Recovery of 2000 1,000 400Non Residential Beverage Containers

Sydney Olympic Games & 1999 - 2000 15,000 1,500Sydney Olympic Games Test Events

‘Community Conversations’ to 2000 900 150Change Littering Behaviour

National Study of 2000 18,300 2,850Littering Behaviour - Two

TOTAL 52,600 10,600



42

25 Numbers rounded for ease of comparisons actual total is 52,631

43

Over all LBS projects, more than two thirds (70%) of people observed to have disposed of an item andasked to complete a survey, agreed to do so. It was not possible to link every observation in the LBSdatabase to survey responses as some people declined to be interviewed. Each survey took someminutes to complete, preventing interviewers from approaching all persons observed. Overall, aroundone in five observations have been linked to a completed survey.

The LBS database was analysed to determine links between environmentally desirable behaviour andattitudes displayed by people using Australian public places. A systematic approach to the comparisonprocess ensured accurate conclusions were drawn from the LBS findings.

The first section of findings relates to observational information about disposal behaviour, settingbaselines and examining behavioural change.

Setting An Objective Baseline

A National baseline of disposal behaviour has been established using DBI results from the first nationalstudy in 1997. These outcomes provide objective information that establishes a starting point formonitoring and comparison of environmentally desirable and/or undesirable behaviour change inAustralia over time.

Currently, the LBS database enables comparisons to be drawn between the results of the nationalstudies conducted in 1997 and in 2000. As the LBS database increases through continued collection ofnational statistics, then a clearer picture of the annual trends in disposal behaviour will becomeapparent.

DBI baselines can be used as a basis for comparison of behaviours in the same locations over time orafter interventions have been implemented - for example, when new signs or new bins are installed inpublic places.

Throughout the LBS research series, information was collected in the same manner in each site type, toincrease the reliability of comparisons. Site types where data was collected have been categorised intoone core grouping of sites and another group of ‘special’ sites.

Comparing Cities Using Core Sites

Core sites were identified for most major regional and urban centres. They were used as the basis forsetting baselines, and making accurate comparisons between both rural and urban centres.

In order for meaningful comparisons to be made between disposal behaviours observed in differentlocations, DBI results for a number of core site types were combined for each city. DBI measures foreach of the core site types found in a city or a regional centre were averaged to establish a standardmeasure.

Combining and averaging the standard measures of disposal behaviour from core sites enabled anational performance measure of disposal behaviour to be determined.

The information included in the database for core sites has been summarised in Table 4.

Table 4 Core Sites in the Database

CORE SITE TYPES NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

Beach 3,564

Mall 9,632

Market 1,053

Park 5,584

Public Building 1,435

Shop 5,277

Outdoor Transport Terminal 2,518

Waterfront 1,960

TOTAL 31,023

Comparing Special Sites

Special sites were also identified for most largecentres. Special sites included events, festivals,tourist spots, roadside stops, and indoor centres.These site types could not be identified orsystematically accessed in every city within thepractical constraints of project planning.

The data collected in sites types classified as specialhas been summarised in Table 5.

Table 5 Special Sites in Database

SPECIAL SITE TYPES NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS

Event 3,126

Sydney Olympic Games 14,929

Festival 1,662

Indoor Transport Terminal 1,346

Tourist Spot 353

Indoor Centre 176

Roadside Stop26 16

TOTAL 21,608



44

26 * This is a new site with only a very small sample size and results should be treated with appropriate caution.

45

In 1997, the National measure of disposal behaviour recorded from core sites had a DBIlevel of 4 (mid range). This level remained relatively stable between 1997 and 2000.

The consistent finding of a mid range level 4 DBI is strong evidence that most Australians visiting publicplaces behave in an environmentally desirable manner.

Most of the disposals in the cores sites showed people used the bin at least twice as often as they hadlittered, forming a strong foundation of positive community disposal behaviour.

While consistent levels of the DBI indicate a solid foundation of environmentally desirable behaviour,there is room for improvement.

A national campaign that synergises good intentions and current positive behaviours of Australianpeople, working with organisations and government, could assist in moving towards peak DBI levels andincreasing litter prevention and recycling of resources.

Capital City Behaviour

Although the National measure for behaviour remained relatively stable over the period studied, therewere some strong variations in disposal behaviour in identified core sites in capital cities between 1997and 2000.

Figure 5 shows the trends for disposal behaviour in each capital city in 1997 and 2000.

At baseline in 1997, the highest levels of environmentally desirable disposal behaviours were identifiedin Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, and Perth. These results were all above the national average of a midrange DBI of 4.

DBI levels for Canberra, Hobart and Melbourne were lower than the national average. These cities werecharacterised by higher littering rates.

The average DBI for core sites in Sydney during 1997 was 4, between the high and low levelsdescribed above and at the same level as the national average.

Ch

ap

te

r5 DBI Findings

Adelaide Brisbane Canberra Darwin Hobart Melbourne Perth Sydney

200019977

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

DB

I

Figure 5 Capital City Disposal Behaviour

Between 1997 and 2000, there was relativestability in the average DBI levels recorded for coresites in Canberra, Sydney, Darwin, and Hobart,despite observed levels of behaviour varying greatlyfrom baseline for each city.

Darwin was the only capital city where the highlevels of disposal behaviour observed in baselinewere found again in 2000. However the 2000results for Darwin may have been influenced bywet weather and small sample sizes, which meantthe number of observations included in the annualdatabase was significantly lower than other capitalcities.

There was no change in disposal behaviour seen incore sites in Sydney in 2000, which remained thesame as the national average with a mid range DBI.

Over time, the stability of lower DBI levels for coresites in Canberra and Hobart in 1997 and 2000may mean that changing disposal behaviour wouldbe more difficult compared to other capital cities,which had higher levels of DBI at baseline.

The decline in the DBI for Adelaide and Perth in2000 is a reflection of higher levels of litteringbehaviour observed in core sites. However, DBIlevels for Adelaide and Perth remain positiveoverall.

The size of the decline in DBI levels for Brisbane’score sites was the largest for any capital city.

Melbourne was the only capital city to showimprovement in desirable behaviour in its core sitescompared to 1997 baseline. However despite theimproved disposal behaviours, Melbourne’s DBIremains below the high levels observed in anumber of other cities at baseline.

Environmentally Desirable Behaviourin Core Sites

One of the explanations for the changes in DBIlevels for capital cities between 1997 and 2000could be that there were systematic variations inpeople’s behaviour according to site type. Analysisof DBI levels observed around Australia enabled theidentification of trends in people’s behaviour withinparticular settings.

Disposal behaviour recorded at core sites in 1997and 2000 have been summarised in Figure 6.

In 1997, environmentally desirable disposalbehaviour in markets was the highest for all coresites with a high mid range DBI of 5.

In contrast, the lowest levels of disposal behaviourswere found in sites around public buildings duringbaseline. People’s behaviour around publicbuildings was at a very low level whereby largeproportions of people were seen to be littering andrelatively few observed to be using a bin. Typicallypeople used these sites during breaks from workand were observed eating, drinking and smoking athigher levels than in other sites.

Figure 6 Annual DBI Measures for Core Sites



46

PublicBuilding

Beach TransportOutdoor

Shops Mall Waterfront Market Park

20001997

012

3456

DB

I

7

47

In 1997, all the remaining core sites demonstrated mid range DBI levels where most people were seento be Doing The Right Thing, most of the time.

By 2000, though, high level disposal behaviours observed in markets had declined. In contrast, the levelof disposal behaviour around public buildings improved, although the DBI remained below the nationalaverage.

Of those site types with a mid range DBI in 1997, positive disposal behaviours declined for beachesand in outdoor transport terminals by 2000. Successful litter prevention initiatives for theseenvironments would need to specifically address factors associated with these changes.

There was no change in the average level of environmentally desirable disposal behaviour recorded inthe core site categories of shops, malls, or waterfronts. Disposal behaviour for these sites remainedrelatively stable at mid range.

Parks were the only mid range site to show an improvement. Environmentally desirable disposalbehaviour in parks across Australia was above the national average with those people using parks in2000 being much more likely to use bins than to litter.

Disposal Behaviour in City and Regional Centres

Insufficient data is available to enable a comprehensive review of outcomes for regional areas. Whereinformation has been collected it has conformed to standard methodology and has focussed on coresites. Data for the regional centres have been compiled from information collected during LBS projectssince 1997.

Some preliminary comparisons have been made between behaviour in regional centres and capitalcities. Initial examination of the disposal behaviour found in rural centres and urban capital cities hasshowed some significant and consistent differences as shown in Figure 7.

Currently, data suggests lower levels ofenvironmentally desirable disposalbehaviour are found in regional areascompared to capital cities. Althoughmore systematic information needs tobe collected across a broader range ofregional centres, the early trendindications are that specific programsmay be required to improve disposalbehaviour in regional areas.

Figure 8 presents the baseline levelsof DBI across core sites in regionalcentres up to the year 2000. The levelof environmentally desirable behaviourobserved in Traralgon Blue MountainsGold Coast and Ballarat was similar tothat found for Sydney, Adelaide, Perthand Melbourne in 2000.

In contrast, disposal behaviour in core sites in some regional centres - in Morwell, Launceston, Cairns - was at a lower DBI level than baseline measures in core sites in other cities except Canberraand Hobart.

Urban

DB

I

Rural

4.03.0

Figure 7 Average Disposal Behaviour in Capital Cities Compared to Regional Centres

Observations of disposal behaviour for core sites inthe regional centres of Launceston and Morwellwere at a base level of the DBI. These regionalcentres recorded the lowest levels ofenvironmentally desirable disposal behaviour forany of the cities or centres observed.

Differences in Core Sites

Movements in behavioural trends in cities andregional centres can be tracked by examination ofDBI changes in core site types. Results can then beused to help particular stakeholders focus their litterprevention initiatives and structure nationaleducational campaigns.

For example, the average DBI recorded for Brisbanedeclined in 2000 compared to baseline and thisdeterioration was linked to increased littering beingobserved in most of the core sites in Brisbane2000. Consequently, interventions would need tobe broadly based and target behaviour in all areas.

The pattern of change in disposal behaviourobserved in shops in each city illustrated thevariability that was found in behaviour in similar sitetypes in different parts of Australia. Disposalbehaviour in shopping malls has been summarisedbelow in Figure 9 DBI in Malls in 1997 and 2000.Generally the pattern of changes for the DBIobtained for malls for each city was very similar tothe pattern of change in overall DBI’s.

In relation to malls, Melbourne was the only city toshow an improved DBI. Similar improvement in itsoverall DBI was also evident in 2000. In contrast,disposal behaviour in malls got significantly worsein Perth, Adelaide, and Brisbane, which matchedthe pattern of decline in the overall DBI for thosecities.

Factors underlying improvements observed indisposal behaviour in Melbourne malls included therecent introduction of new street bins and publicplace recycling facilities. Such infrastructureinitiatives are known to have a positive impact ondisposal behaviour in malls.27

Figure 9 also illustrates the variability in the levelsof disposal behaviour found in different mallsaround Australia. The low levels of disposalbehaviour in Hobart malls were in stark contrast tothe consistently high levels found in Darwin malls.



48

DBI

Traralgon

Morwell

Launceston

Gold Coast

Cairns

Blue Mountains

Ballarat

1 2 3 4 5


Malls 2000Malls 1997

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DB

I

27 What Works NSW Littering Behaviour Interventions, 1999

Figure 8 Regional Centres Disposal Behaviour

Figure 9 DBI in Malls in 1997 and 2000

49

Comparisons of changes in disposal behaviour found in parks in capital cities around Australia in 1997and 2000 are shown in Figure 10 to provide further illustrations of the variability of behaviour in sitesthat underlie the changes in overall changes in DBI for each city. No data was collected for Darwin2000 due to restrictions with weather.

Park sites observed in Melbourne showed a significant improvement in disposal behaviour, which was inline with the overall DBI findings as were the results for Brisbane Parks. However, the patterns ofchanges in parks in other cities were not in line with the changes in overall DBI’s. For example, disposalbehaviour in Perth parks improved while overall disposal behaviour in Perth had declined. In contrast, inSydney and Hobart where overall DBI levels remained relatively stable, there was an improvement indisposal behaviour in parks.

The decline in the average DBI recorded for Adelaide in 2000 was associated with more littering beingobserved in malls, beaches, and public buildings in 2000. In contrast, improvements in behaviour werefound in Adelaide markets. In Adelaide then, changes in litter prevention initiatives would benefit froman increased focus on beaches and malls in particular.

One of the greatest changes in disposal behaviour measured between 1997 and 2000 wasimprovement associated with market sites in Adelaide. The East End market was observed and surveyedon both occasions and the improvement in disposal behaviour may have been due to specificalterations that occurred at the market between 1997 and 2000.

In contrast, market sites in Brisbane and Melbourne seemed to have a relatively large decline indisposal behaviour.

At a national level, increased focus on littering behaviour on beaches could reverse the negative trendsthat were found for disposal behaviour on Adelaide, Hobart, and Perth beaches. The sharp decline inDBIs indicated that attention needed to be directed at stopping litter hot spots from developing toprevent littering behaviour becoming the norm for people using these sites.

Significant improvements in disposal behaviour were recorded around the Sydney Town Hall (publicbuilding) where environmentally desirable disposal behaviour increased greatly between 1997 and2000. Positive improvements were also noted around public buildings in Perth. However no realchanges were found around public building sites in other cities where the low level DBI indicated areasin need of constant attention and cleansing.

Figure 10 DBI in Parks 1997 and 2000


Parks 2000Parks 1997

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

DB

I

Explaining Results

Changes in disposal behaviour over time are relatedto a number of factors, some of which can beidentified through information collected by theObservational Approach, eg, differences in binsystems. Other factors influencing disposalbehaviour over the last four years in the sitesstudied have included changes to cleaning policyand budgets, community education programs, andpromotional activities.

One example where the OA has identified anexplanation for improvement in the DBI can bedrawn from the changes made in Bourke StreetMall in Melbourne. In this site, the improvement indisposal behaviour was associated with a change inbin systems and setting up of bins stations. Thenew bin stations provided an opportunity to recoverresources through recycling in public places, whichalso improves litter management.

At the opposite end of the continuum, the disposalbehaviour observed in Queen Street Mall inBrisbane had deteriorated over time, despite newbins being installed in the mall. However somecommunity members mistook the new bins for airducts. Design may have influenced theireffectiveness.

Changes in litter prevention practices are routinelyrecorded using the OA and combined with data onsubsequent outcomes provide useful information tostakeholders planning or modifying future litterprevention initiatives.

Behavioural Extremes

Examination of baseline results for particularlocations within all core sites across Australia,provided some useful indicators of areas wheredisposal behaviour has been consistently either verypositive or very negative.

Locations of core sites in cities where the lowestlevel of disposal behaviours were observed havebeen summarised in Table 6. In these sites,littering was at very high levels and litter hot spotswere likely to develop. These sites werecharacterised by relatively rare instances ofappropriate disposal behaviour or use of bins.

DBI levels for Darwin and Sydney indicated disposalbehaviour was generally positive. Though therewere areas within each city that were litter traps orhot spots, which required urgent attention.

City bus stops in Sydney, for example, wereobserved to be consistently associated with litteringbehaviour. Likewise city bus stops in Hobart,Canberra and Brisbane also had DBI’s at the lowerend of the scale. These were sites where litteringwas very common and where litter hot spots werelikely to develop and attract more litter ifinterventions were not implemented.



50

Table 6 Core Sites where Low DBI Levels were Recorded.

CITY SITE TYPE LOCATION LOW DBI YEAR

Melbourne Outdoor Transport Terminals Grand Prix Tram Stop 1 2000

Hobart Beach Clifton Beach 1 2000

Darwin Shops Casuarina Centre 1 2000

Darwin Waterfront Stokes Hill Wharf 1 1997 + 2000

Hobart Park Franklin Square 1 1997 + 2000

Sydney Public Building Town Hall (Improved in 2000) 1 1997 only

Canberra Outdoor Transport Terminals Woden Transit Centre 1 1997 + 2000

Sydney Outdoor Transport Terminals City Bus Stops 1 1997 + 2000

51

In contrast, there were core sites across Australia where the highest level of environmentally desirablebehaviours were recorded as can be seen in Table 7.

Included in those core site types where peak DBI levels occurred, were those found in cities such asMelbourne and Canberra which, overall, had lower levels of environmentally desirable behaviour thansome other cities.

The extremes in DBI levels recorded for core site types in cities demonstrate the importance ofconsidering the variations in behaviour associated with the different environmental characteristics ofindividual sites.

Details of the baseline indicators that have been established for core sites in each capital city have beenprovided in full in Appendices E and F. These baseline results for all the core locations studied in eachcity provide the benchmark for comparing future changes in environmentally desirable disposalbehaviour.

DBI in Special Sites

Special site types have not yet been consistently included in sites studied as part of the national LBSprojects. Where information has been collected, though, it has enabled some comparisons to be madebetween behaviour in special sites with similar characteristics, whether they are located in regionalcentres, or urban environments.

Baseline measures for the special sites have been developed from information collected during differentLBS projects since 1997. Initial examination of average disposal behaviour found in special sites hasshown some significant and consistent differences as shown in Table 8.

To date, lower levels of environmentally desirable disposal behaviour have been found at events, indoorcentres and roadside stops compared to other special site types. There is enough data on disposalbehaviour at events to show that they are in need of particular attention and that there is ampleopportunity for improvements in behaviour.

Table 7 Core Sites where Peak s DBI Levels were Recorded

CITY SITE TYPE LOCATION PEAK DBI YEAR

Melbourne Park Treasury Gardens 7 2000

Perth Waterfront Swan River Ferry Terminal 7 2000

Perth Market Fremantle Market 7 1997

Perth Beach Cottesloe Beach 7 1997

Canberra Market Gorman House 7 1997 + 2000

Table 8 DBI Levels Recorded in Special Sites

In contrast, high mid range DBI levels wereconsistently recorded at festivals and indoortransport areas between 1997 and 2000.

Future work in examining the characteristics ofspecial site types, and their relationship to variationsin DBI levels, would be useful in litter preventionplanning.

Events

A range of DBI levels have been observed atspecial events since 1997 where a significantnumber of observations have been recorded.However, the majority of disposal behavioursrecorded at events such as the Grand Prix inMelbourne, and outside the Melbourne CricketGround during football finals, representenvironmentally undesirable disposal behaviour ascan be seen in Figure 11.

Only at the Mardi Gras Fair - 2000 in Sydney, andthe 1997 Indi 500 in Queensland, was morebinning than littering observed.

Festivals

A substantial database also exists for disposalbehaviour at festivals, which have tended to bemore consistent and have demonstrated higher DBIlevels than for other special sites. As can be seen inFigure 12, almost all festivals showedenvironmentally desirable behaviour patterns, withthe exception of the Food and Wine Festival(Wellington Square 2000).

Tourist Spots

Tourist spots showed a high level of variation inindividual DBI levels. Given the insufficient amountof data currently available, it would be premature todraw preliminary conclusions about characteristicbehaviours for this site type.



52

SPECIAL BASELINE DBISITES DBI LEVEL

Event Base 2

Indoor Centre Base 2

Roadside Base 2

Tourist Spot Mid Range 4

Festival High Mid Range 5

Transport Indoor High Mid Range 5

Football Park SA Outside-2000

Football Finals Outside MCG-2000

Football Park SA Outside-1997

Grand Prix Inside-2000

Mardi Gras Fair Victoria Park-2000

Indi 500 Gold Coast-1997

0 1 2 3 4 5 6DBI

Figure 11 Variations in DBI at Events

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Food & WineWelligton Sqre 2000

Food & WineEsplanade Pk WA 2000

Sth Bank BuddhaWelligton Sqre 2000

Balloon FestivalACT 2000

Food & WineLake B Griffin ACT 1997

Folk Festival Port Fairy Vic 2000

Food & WineSunbury Vic 2000

Food & WineMordillac Vic 2000

Alive and NavyDay ACT 2000

Food & WineGlebe Pk SA 1997

Food & WineTraralgon Food Fair

Balloon FestivalACT 1997

DBI

Figure 12 Variations in DBI at Festivals

53

National ObservationalProfiles 2000In the following section the attitudinal outcomes from the LBSIII national study in 2000 have beenexplored. The information has been analysed to determine the links between environmentally desirablebehaviour and attitudes evident in public places around Australia. Outcomes from surveys have beenpresented to contrast results where the greatest variations were found. Consequently comparisons havebeen made with outcomes for site types selected, to illustrate the range of responses in the database.Results from the Sydney Olympic Games database have also been presented.

Survey Response Rates

The national observational study of littering behaviour (2000) collected over 18,000 observations and2,850 surveys. Overall, more than two thirds of the people who were observed to have disposed of anitem, and who were asked to complete a survey, agreed to do so. In the first national LBS survey in1997, the average national response rate was 80%, whereas the response rate for the Sydney OlympicGames in 2000 was very high at 94%.

Littering behaviour did not appear to be a major factor in subjects granting, or refusing, an interview. Theproportion of people observed littering, or using bins, and then agreeing to do an interview was almostidentical across studies.

The responses to interviews are therefore likely to represent a wide range of attitudes in relation todisposal behaviour, and do not appear biased towards the views of any particular group. Importantly, asthe interviewers did not know whether the respondents had littered or not, the effect of interviewer biason survey results was minimal.

Self - Awareness and Frankness about Littering

“Littering behaviour is not something that people would openly admit, given its socialundesirability and illegality. Asking people if they litter is akin to asking them if they

park in handicapped spaces, shoplift and cheat on their taxes. Encouraging respondentsto provide honest answers posed a significant research challenge ...Techniques

(were used) that were non-accusatory and non-threatening (and were) able to elicithonest answers ... “ 28

Objective comparisons between what people say, with what they actually do vis a vis littering behaviour,have only been possible since the OA was first applied. Outcomes to date show the need to use sitespecific observational information to accurately understand people’s behaviour in public places.

Of the people observed littering immediately prior to agreeing to do an interview, less than half (41%)admitted that they had just littered.

Three in every five people (60%) who had littered in public places were not aware that they hadlittered, were unable to remember what they had just done, or unwilling to admit it.

Most of those who did not admit to littering, said that they had not littered in the last 24 hours, or thatthey ‘didn’t know’ when they had last littered. Clearly, when examining environmental issues, simplytalking to people about their views and relying solely on self-report is likely to lead to inaccurateoutcomes.

Ch

ap

te

r6

28 Texas Dept of Transport (2000).

Many people are either unaware of their ownbehaviour or deliberately misrepresent it. Figure 13illustrates differences in characteristics associatedwith people’s willingness to admit they litteredwhen they were just observed to have done so.

Young people and adolescents were much morelikely to honestly admit to littering than other agegroups. People aged 35 years and over showed adefinite reluctance to acknowledge or admit litteringbehaviour - only one third of people in this agegroup admitted littering.

There were no differences in all sites studiednationally compared to core sites, nor were theregender based differences, in self-reports of litteringbehaviour.

Differences between what people say they do andwhat they actually do may account for somefindings from previous research based on self-report, which suggested some groups littered muchmore than others. Such findings now need to beconsidered in light of the potential lack of reliabilityof relying solely on self-report methods.

For example the Sydney Olympic Games werepromoted as the ‘Green Games’ and there was agreat deal of popular support, with people showingenvironmentally desirable disposal behaviourpatterns. However, this support also translated intopressure on people not to admit when they hadnot done the right thing, or to report that they had

littered. The results for people who were surveyedat the Sydney Olympic Games have beencontrasted with outcomes from the LBSIII nationalstudy in Figure 14. The results show people whoattended other special events around Australia in2000 were more likely to admit littering behaviourthan those at the Sydney Olympic Games.



54

Figure 13 Proportion of People Acknowledging They Just Littered

National CoreSites

SEX AGE IN YEARS

Male Female <18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >65

41% 42% 43%39%

55%49%

38%

26%34%

22%26%

National(all sites)

Special Events Sydney Olympic Games

UnawareAware

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

DB

I

Figure 14 Awareness of Littering Behaviour.

55

The social stigma attached to littering behaviour has increased the difficulty of leveragingenvironmentally desirable change in peoples’ disposal behaviour. Programs aimed at improvingbehaviour need to assist people to become aware that others mostly use bins, but also sometimeslitter. Large-scale changes in disposal behaviour will be most effective when people are more vigilantand aware of their own disposal behaviour.

The interviews conducted as part of LBSIII were used to reveal people’s awareness of their owndisposal behaviour and the reasons they gave for their actions.

“ ... Policies for litter abatement need to be guided by recognition ... of the underlyingreasons for the behaviour of litterers.” 29

Responses to the interviews provided an indication of peoples’ general attitudes towards theenvironment, littering and a range of potential solutions to littering problems.

Attitudes to the Environment

Survey respondents felt that littering was an extremely important environmental issue, even moreimportant than recycling.

Almost all of the respondents to the survey (94%) said litter was a ‘very important’ issue. There was aconsistent level of support for litter prevention as an issue across all sites in the LBSIII as shown inFigure 15 where less strong and consistent support was evident for recycling issues from peoplesurveyed in malls and in outdoor transport areas.

There was a higher level of support though for public place recycling initiatives from the peopleattending the Sydney Olympic Games than at other LBSIII sites around Australia.

Despite believing litter prevention and anti-littering activities to be important, 79% of all respondentsadmitted that they had littered at some point in their life; 26% said they had done so within thepreceding 24 hours.

Figure 15 Community Support for Environmentally Desirable Disposal Behaviours.

Sydney Olympic GamesMallsNational Study

Recycling in General Litter Prevention Public Place Recycling

Environmentally Desirable Actions

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Perc

ent s

uppo

rtin

g

29 Australian Environment Council (1982).

Where People Litter

Most often, people indicated that when they litteredit was in the site where they were beinginterviewed.30 Figure 16 shows the proportion ofpeople in each site who indicated they had litteredin that site. Other places where people said theycommonly littered were ‘on the street’ (21%), ‘fromcars’ (8%), and ‘at school’ (4%).

There appeared to be links between places wherepeople said they littered and the DBI 2000 levelsrecorded for some site types. For example, publicbuildings and events were both site types wherethe average DBI is at a base level, and peopleindicated they commonly littered there.

In contrast, DBI’s typical for festivals were in thehigh mid range and people surveyed at festivalswere the least likely to say they had littered thatsite.

Why People Litter

“ ... People often give the reason as ‘lackof appropriate disposal facilities’ but could

well follow behavioural alternatives suchas storage and removal ... we need to

examine factors leading to choice ofdisposal in greater detail.” 31

The reasons given for littering have beensummarised in Figure 17. There are very fewvariants in the explanations offered by people forwhy they littered.

Most often they will indicate that they were ‘lazy’, or‘there was no bin or ashtray nearby’.

Other reasons included lack of awareness ofhabitual behaviours, or a lack of awareness of theirdisposal choices.

Very few people indicated that they littered byaccident, indicating deliberate decision making formost respondents.



56

Mall

Public Building

Event

Park

Shops

Market

Beach

Waterfront

Transport

Festival

52%

51%

48%

47%

44%

43%

40%

40%

39%

33%

It's Only Small

Accident

No Recycling Bin

Too Busy

It's Compostable

Not Thinking

I Forgot

Don't Care

It's a Habit

Don't Know

No Litter Bin

No Ashtray

I'm Too Lazy

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

6%

6%

21%

23%

24%

30 Percentages may not add to 100 as low frequency responses and “Other” category of responses have been omitted from figures presented in the report.

31 Rudolph (1979).

Figure 16 Places Where People Say They Litter

Figure 17 Reasons for Littering

57

Figure 18 summarises themain reasons for litteringbehaviour, given by peoplesurveyed according to sitetype.32 It shows aconsiderable degree ofvariation with no specifictrends, though the absence ofashtrays was most frequentlygiven as the main reason forlittering at waterfront, market,event and outdoor transportsite types.

Laziness as the key reason forlittering was more likely forpeople in malls, shops, and parks.

As in previous surveys, somepeople who littered indicatedthey had done so becausethere was no bin or ashtraynearby. People at events, onbeaches and in shoppingareas most commonlyreported this reason forlittering. However for thesesite types, the averagedistance to a bin was not the same.

Bin Distance and Effects on Disposal Behaviour

Figure 19 summarises the pattern of binning and littering behaviour for all sites, according to thedistance the person was from a bin. Trend lines have been inserted to more clearly illustrate thebehavioural trends over increasing bin distance.

The patterns of binning and littering according to bin distance revealed that:

• People within 1 metre of a bin were highly likely to walk to, and use a bin, and very unlikely to litter;

• People who were between 2 - 3 metres from a bin were more likely to walk to and use a bin, than to litter;

• People who were between 4 and 5 metres from a bin were equally likely to either use a bin or litter; and,

• As the distance to a bin exceeded 6 metres, people were much more likely to litter than to use a bin.

32 Percentages will not add to 100 as only the main reasons were reviewed. In some sites other reasons for people littering were identified. Forexample, on beaches 14% of people said they littered because they ‘did not care’.

Beach

Shops

Mall

Festival

Public Building

Park

Waterfront

Event

Transport

Market

No Litter orrecycling bin

Not thinking,habit, forgot

Too Lazy

No ashtray

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Figure 18 Reasons Given for Littering

At first glance, these findings tend to support theview that ‘putting in more bins will solve the litterproblem.’ Indeed, if distance to a bin were the onlything influencing disposal behaviour, the closer thebin, the less litter would occur.

However, the relationship between disposalbehaviour and bin distance appears more complexwhen considering DBI levels and bin distance fordifferent types of core and special sites.

Congruent with the findings above, in core andspecial sites, there is a clear association betweenbin distance and DBI measures. As distance to abin decreases, disposal behaviour improves.Alternatively as distance to a bin increases in a site -whether it be a core site or a special site - so doesthe likelihood that someone will litter.

Figure 20 illustrates the relationship between theseven levels of the DBI and distance to a bin forcore and special sites.

Whilst this relationship continues to hold true acrosssite type groupings, the physical distance from abin, and whether the person is more likely to bin orlitter at that distance, does vary across site type.

For example, when considering core sites (asshown in Figure 21), binners in malls were, onaverage, 4 metres from a bin. At beaches, however,binners were, on average, 21 metres from a bin. Inother words, people at beaches walked 17 metresextra to bin items, compared with those at malls.Conversely, people who littered in malls were muchcloser to bins than their beach counterparts (onaverage 8 metres vs 31 metres).



58

Littering TrendBinning Trend

Nearest Bin (metres)

BinnedLittered

1 2 3 4 5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-40 41 plus

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 19 Bin Distance and Patterns of Disposal Behaviour

Average Bin Distance

Metres

Leve

ls o

f D

BI

Peak

High

High Mid

Mid Range

High Base

Base

Low

0 5 10 15

Figure 20 Average Distances to a Bin for Levels of DBI

59

So, whilst it is accurate to say that, overall, greater bin distances are associated with an increasedtendency to litter, the actual distance itself varies according to individual site type as shown in Figure 21.

Special sites demonstrate even higher levels of variation with respect to actual bin distance in metresand how far people will travel to bin an item for each particular site type.

For example, Figure 22 shows that, for events, binners were, on average, 6 metres from a bin. Attourist spots, however, binners were 20 metres from a bin. Also, people who littered were, on average,further from a bin at tourist spots than at events.

These relative distances were much more variable for special sites than for core sites whichdemonstrates that manipulating bin distance to prevent litter needs to occur with a specific knowledgeof characteristics of sites - special sites in particular.

It should be noted, however, that other previously mentioned factors influencing littering behaviour, e.g.stadium and herd behaviour, undermine the effectiveness of simply providing more bins.

Binner Litterer

TransportOutdoor

PublicBuilding

Mall Shops Market Waterfront Beach Park

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Met

res

Figure 21 Levels of the DBI and Bin Distance in Core Sites

Binner Litterer

IndoorCentre

Event Roadside TouristSpot

TransportIndoor

Festival

25

20

15

10

5

0

Met

res

Figure 22 Disposal Behaviour and Bin Distance for Special Sites

There is not a simple blanket formula that can beapplied to all sites in relation to numbers or spacingof bins. The OA, however, has significantlyimproved understanding of the complex interactionof littering and binning behaviour in relation to thedistance to bins. In particular, site specificinformation on the effects of bin distance providesuseful indicators for litter prevention planning.

Status of Bins

New variables relating to the status of bins wereintroduced during the 2000 national study oflittering behaviour. These include details of materialscollected (e.g. litter, recycled and compostedmaterials), and the number, design, type of openingand position of bins.

Only preliminary data has been collected to datebut there are some emerging associations betweenDBI levels and aspects of disposal infrastructure.

These findings have been presented to illustrate thedevelopment of this detailed database and toprovide further insights into the various factorsinfluencing disposal behaviour.

With respect to the number of bins provided in asite, effects on disposal behaviour are more robustfor core sites than special sites, where variability inthe data is much greater. Similarly, the associationbetween disposal behaviour and the number of240 litre Mobile Garbage Bins (MGB’s) in a site isalso consistent enough in core sites to be reviewed.

Figure 23 shows the association between the DBIand the number of bins and 240-litre MGB’s incore sites. Trends lines have been added to thefigure to illustrate the broad association betweenthe bin status records and different levels of the DBI.

At this early stage, there appears to be an emergingtrend showing higher DBI levels are associated withmore bins in a site. On average, once the numberof bins exceeds seven in a typical observation site,then people consistently Do The Right Thing, ratherthan litter.

A similar picture in relation to the number of 240litre bins in a site and DBI levels has also beenshown in Figure 23. That is, more environmentallydesirable disposal behaviours were evident in siteswhere greater numbers of 240 litre bins werepresent.

Investigation of the interaction between the level ofthe DBI and the number of bins in each core sitetype yielded inconsistent results, with no clearassociation emerging. For example, as shown inFigure 24, transport terminals demonstrated lowDBI levels - 3 and low numbers of bins - average of3.5. In contrast, low DBI levels at beaches wereevident with high average bin numbers.

Future opportunities exist for the interrelationshipsbetween bin numbers and other factors to be morethoroughly examined.



60

No. of LitterbinsTrend (No. of Litterbins)

240 lt MGBTrend (240 lt MGB)

Low Base High Base Mid Range High Mid High Peak

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 23 Status of bins in core sites and DBI Levels

61

Effectiveness of Bins - Community Assessments

People in public places whose behaviour had been observed were asked about the disposalinfrastructure provided in each of the sites. Figure 25 summarises interview responses in relation to binissues.

Presented as averages over all sites, results show the proportion of people who expressed very strongor extreme support for each issue associated with litter management or litter prevention activities relatedto where they were surveyed.

Respondents generally saw bins as easy to use, close to where they were needed and people wereclear about what waste went into them.

The majority of people surveyed indicated that more ashtrays were needed across all public areaswhere surveys were conducted.

There was less support for theother changes to infrastructurewith only 40% of respondentssupporting the need for morebins, and 44% for bins thatstood out from theirsurroundings.

People were also surveyedabout the effectiveness offacilities for controlling litter andwere asked to assess how muchlitter they saw in the area, asshown in Figure 26.

DBI No. of Litterbins

Park Shops Mall Waterfront Market PublicBuilding

Beach Transport

109876543210

Figure 24 Core Sites Average Number of Litterbins and the DBI

Bins are easy to use

Bins are clear

Signs helped me

Bins are close

Ashtrays are needed

Bins could stand out more

More bins needed

84%

56%

22%

69%

62%

44%

40%

Figure 25 Public assessments of infrastructure and disposal behaviour

On a national basis, almost one third of peoplebelieved public place bins were not effective inpreventing and managing litter. However, only 15%indicated that the area in which they were surveyedwas highly littered. There was, therefore, someinconsistency between people’s ratings of litter onthe ground and the perceived effectiveness of bins.

The investigation of site type in relation to publicperception of litter control facilities also showedsome inconsistency. For example, public buildingshave been measured as areas where a lot oflittering occurs, with low DBI levels usuallyassociated with these sites. Just under half thepeople surveyed in these areas perceived the binsystem as not very effective. However, there werelow numbers of people who saw the area as beinghighly littered.

In outdoor transport areas, e.g. city bus stops, whichhad similar DBI levels to public buildings, around

one third of people viewed facilities as not veryeffective. People interviewed in these areas weremore likely to view the area as highly littered -more so than for any other site type.

Further work needs to be done to explore therelationship between subjective ratings of litter insites, ratings of infrastructure effectiveness, andobjective measures of disposal behaviour.

Characterising DisposalBehaviour

Items Littered and Binned

The single most important factor associated withlittering behaviour was the type of object used anddiscarded by the person.

Other factors, such as attitudes toward theenvironment, gender, age, social background,effectiveness of facilities and distance from a binappear to have much less influence on disposalbehaviour.

Figure 27 summarises the disposal patterns fordifferent types of objects as a proportion of thetotal items littered and binned. Percentages do notadd to 100%, as other types of objects wereincluded in observations.



62

Verylittered

Noteffective

National

Transport Outdoor

Beach

Market

Public Building

Waterfront

Park

Mall

Shops

29%15%

36%24%

21%14%

25%7%

44%12%

26%6%

35%16%

23%13%

28%15%

Figure 26 Public rating of bin effectiveness and litter levels

Photograph 31 Cigarette Butts are the most littered item

63

Information on cigarette buttlitter - which comprised aclear majority of 58% of alllittered items - has not beenpresented in Figure 27 topreserve readability of thenumbers, however theproportion of peopleobserved using bins andashtrays to appropriatelydispose of cigarette butts hasbeen included in the figure.

Plastic cups and cigarettebutts were the only items tobe littered more thanbinned. With respect tobinned items in publicplaces, paper productsclearly made up the largestproportion (35% of the total).

To enable easiercomparisons of thedifferences in disposalpatterns across sites, theitems most commonlydisposed of in public places- paper products, beveragecontainers and cigarettebutts - were grouped. Otherdisposable items have notbeen presented.

In Figure 28, the percentageof binned items in each site

that belonged to these three groupings of item types have been presented. Information for festivals,tourist spots and roadside stops has not been presented as other types of items made up the majorityof materials binned.

Paper products were the most binned group of items in all sites. Beverage containers were the nextmost common items binned at the beach, waterfront and at shops. These latter sites could providespecific targets for the recovery of beverage containers through public place recycling programs, as thepublic are already binning beverage containers at a significant level.

Littered Binned

Cigarette butts, 58% of all littered items - not shown

0% 5% 10% 15%

Glass Bottle

Cardboard Box

Plastic Cup

Straw

Plastic Bag

Plastic Container

Milk Cup

Utensil

Can

Plastic Bottle

Paper Wrapper

Serviette

Cigarette Butt

Paper Bag

Figure 27 Top 10 Littered and binned items nationally

The three groups of items that were mostlittered across different sites have beensummarised in Figure 29. Cigarette buttscomprised the highest proportion of littereditems, consistently, across all site types.

Paper product litter was most commonly litteredin tourist spots and in roadside stops, whereasbeverage containers were most likely to belittered at festivals, events and waterfront sites.

Consumer Behaviour Patterns

Characteristic patterns of consumption activitywere associated with each site type. Thesepatterns were examined in different sites todetermine if there were an association betweenconsumption activities and littering and binninghabits. The three main activities included wereeating, drinking and smoking with any individualable to be observed when engaged in morethan one of these activities.

Consumption activity associated with each typehas been summarised in Figure 30.

Percentages add to more than 100% in each site,which reflects the fact that people may have beenengaged in more than one activity.

Eating and drinking were prominent activities inparks, waterfront areas, festivals, and events.Events were the only site type where drinkingwas the most prominent activity. Events werealso characterised by low DBI levels andbeverage containers were littered at higher levelsat events than other sites.

Smoking was the most common activity in areasaround public buildings, malls, transport areasand shops with cigarette butt litter a major issuein these sites.

Smoking was the activity most likely to beassociated with littering, while eating and drinkingwere more likely to be associated with bin use.Overall, it appears that eating behaviours areassociated with higher levels of people DoingThe Right Thing with eating being the mostprominent consumer activity for people at parks,waterfronts and markets which all have DBI’s atmid range or above.



64

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Event

Public Building

Beach

Transport

Mall

Shops

Waterfront

Park

Market

CigaretteButts

BeverageContainers

PaperProducts

Figure 28 Frequently binned items across sites (grouped)

Tourist spot

Transport

Festival

Event

Beach

Market

Public Building

Waterfront

Park

Mall

Shops

CigaretteButts

BeverageContainers

PaperProducts

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Figure 29 Frequently littered items across sites (grouped)

65

Understanding the consumption activity of people in different sites provides a means for establishinghow disposal systems could be tailored to the characteristic ways people use sites, e.g. the use ofcomposting or recycling facilities.

People in the Sites

A significant influence in characterising disposal behaviour in a site involves who is using the site. Menwere in the majority (56%) of those observed in the national study sites. The sites with the highestproportion of men were at events (74%), outdoor and indoor transport areas (60%) and around publicbuildings (58%). Women were in the majority (51%) in market sites.

Men were more highly represented in areas which had relatively low DBI scores. Figure 31summarises the disposal behaviours of men and women across all national sites (percentages will addto more than 100% as a single person can display more than one disposal behaviour).

Festival

Waterfront

Event

Beach

Park

Market

Tourist Spot

Shops

Transport

Mall

Public Building

Smoking Drinking Eating

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 30 Eating, drinking and smoking in sites

The results show slightly more littering by men thanwomen, with women slightly more likely to usebins. In contrast, men were slightly more likely thanwomen to recycle.

Age has often been thought to be associated withlittering behaviour with young people oftenidentified as major litterers. This perception has, inpart, probably been influenced by the prominenceof young people in public places.

Figure 32 illustrates the relative proportions ofvarious age groups found in public places aroundAustralia.

Younger people comprised a high proportion ofthose in public places. Just over one third (35%) of

people observed in public places were less than 24years, increasing to around two-thirds (63%) beingless than 35 years.

The relationship between age and disposalbehaviour is shown in Figure 33.

Looking at the extreme ends of the age continuum,littering behaviour was somewhat more common inpeople aged less than 24 years (approximately44%) than those aged more than 65 years (35%).However, it should be noted that around one thirdof the total disposals observed for people 45 yearsand older involved littering. Littering, therefore, isnot just a young person’s issue.



66

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%Littered Binned Pocketed Recycled

Male Female

Figure 31 Gender and disposal behaviour

10%

25%28%

17%

11%

6%4%

<18yr 18-24yr

25-34yr

35-44yr

45-54yr

55-64yr

>65yr

Figure 32 Age groups present in sites

Age group in years

<18yr 18-24yr 25-34yr 35-44yr 45-54yr 55-64yr >65yr

LitteredRecycled

BinnedTrend in Littering

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 33 Age and disposal behaviour

67

At least half of the observations for each age group involved people using bins. For all age groups,people were more likely to bin than litter. Recycling did not comprise a high proportion of disposals dueto an overall absence of public place recycling facilities.

Groups and Disposal Behaviour

One factor contributing to the prominence of young people in public places involved differences in theway that people gathered together. Young people tended to congregate in groups, whilst older peoplewere more likely to be unaccompanied.

Figure 34 summarises the proportions of people from different age groups who were either in groupsor unaccompanied.

Over three quarters (86%) of the youngest age group (less than 18 years) were observed using publicplaces in groups of two or more people. In contrast, just over half of the older age groups (over 45years) were observed to be unaccompanied in public places.

Whether people from different age groups were more likely to bin items when part of a group is shownin Figure 35. Generally, people of all ages were less likely to use bins when in a group, with theexception of older people where being in a group made no difference to bin use.

The fact that most people use bins less when in groups may be indicative of the extent to whichpeople in groups rely on others to ‘take the lead’ and to put their waste into a bin.

<18yr 18-24yr 25-34yr 35-44yr 45-54yr 55-64yr >65yr

Alone Two - Three Four or more

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 34 Age of people in groups

<18yr 18-24yr 25-34yr 35-44yr 45-54yr 55-64yr >65yr

Binned alone Binned in group > 470%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

Figure 35 Binning and groups

As shown in Figure 36, people of all ages weremore likely to litter when in a group of four ormore, with the exception of those more than 65years who littered more frequently when they wereon their own. Again, this could be indicative of herdbehaviour or may be the result of distractibility dueto the competing demands on people’s attentionwhen they are part of a group.

The absolute proportion of young people litteringwhen on their own was equal to those of olderpeople (approximately 35%). Younger people werealso much more likely to admit littering than olderpeople who appeared much less aware of theirlittering behaviour.

Education, Employment Status andDisposal Behaviour

Level of education and employment status areother factors which may influence disposalbehaviour. With regard to employment status,Figure 37 shows the majority of people surveyed(55%) were working (either on a full or part timebasis), with the next largest group being students(22%). Smaller numbers were either not working,homemakers, retired, or self employed.

Some differences were apparent in some of thesite types in terms of employment status. Figure 37 summarises the two extremes inemployment status for shops and event sites aspart of the national database.



68

<18yr 18-24yr 25-34yr 35-44yr 45-54yr 55-64yr >65yr

Littered AloneLittering Trend (Alone)

Littered in group > 4Littering Trend (group > 4)

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 36 Groups and littering behaviour

ShopsEventsNational

Full Time Part time Not working

HomeMaker

Student Retired SelfEmployed

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 37 Employment of people in public places

69

The data was appropriately weighted to enable comparisons of the disposal behaviour of people withdifferent employment status as shown in Figure 38.

Students littered and used bins in almost equal proportions, whereas those working, homemakers, andretired people used bins more than they littered. Those people not working were more likely to litterthan bin.

With regard to education, there were equal proportions (45%) of people with secondary and tertiaryeducation surveyed across sites. There were also small numbers of TAFE educated people (10%).

In relation to disposal behaviour as shown in Figure 39, those with tertiary level education litteredslightly less, and used bins more, than people with secondary level or TAFE education.

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Littered Binned Recycled

Any work Not working

HomeMaker

Student Retired

Figure 38 Employment status and disposal behaviour

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


Secondary Tertiary TAFE

Figure 39 Education and disposal behaviour

Place of Residence and Littering

Two thirds of the people surveyed were from thelocal area with small number from elsewhere in thestate, interstate and overseas. Appropriate weightingof this information was undertaken to enable faircomparisons between the disposal behaviour ofpeople for different localities.

Figure 40 summarises disposal behaviouraccording to place of residence.

Local people were slightly more likely to litter thanbin (68% vs 64%) whereas people residingelsewhere in the state, interstate or overseas wereslightly more likely to bin than litter. The differencesfor these ‘out of towners’ were extremely small,however. So, although place of residence was afactor in how people disposed of items, it was not alarge influence compared to other factors.



70

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


Local In State Interstate Overseas

Figure 40 Place of residence and disposal behaviour

71

Current Projects andFuture DBI ApplicationsIncreasingly, disposal behaviour in public places is being viewed as an opportunity for peopleto “Do The Right Thing” and to act in environmentally desirable ways by preventing litter and

recycling resources.

Disposal Patterns Around Australia

The most important outcome from the extensive database of littering behaviour observations andinterviews collected through the LBS series has been the development of the world’s first litteringbehaviour benchmark, the Disposal Behaviour Index (DBI).

This index is based on systematic observation methods and provides a means for understanding litteringbehaviour patterns, problem areas and system requirements. These processes will assist withsustainable recovery of solid waste resources as well as effective litter prevention in public placesaround the world.

The DBI

The DBI of a site is a statistical representation of the amount of binning, recycling, composting andlittering observed in an area.

It provides a predictive mathematical model that allows stakeholders to compare disposal behaviours indifferent locations and accurately predict expected behaviours in a range of site types, for example,sports events and food and wine festivals.

DBI levels monitor and reflect positive improvements in behaviour as well as changes in littering. Sevenlevels of the DBI have been used to discriminate differences in binning and littering behaviour and aredescribed in Table 9.

The higher the DBI level, the more positive the disposal behaviours occurring as a result of litterprevention practices. In contrast, lower DBI levels reflect more littering, less bin use, and morecontamination of recycling and compost bins.

Table 9 Levels of the DBI

DBI LEVEL CHARACTERISTICS

1 Low Highly littered hot spots - urgent attention required.

2 Base Large proportions of people littering with a base level of bin use.

3 High Base Binning exceeds littering but action is required to raise binning levels.

4 Mid Range Binning is twice as frequent as littering for all items.

5 High Mid Littering still has to be addressed but most ‘Do the Right Thing’.

6 High Binning greatly exceeds littering - some refinements of bin use required.

7 Peak Minimal littering and appropriate use of bins.Ch

ap

te

r7

Accurate comparisons have been made betweendisposal behaviour in cities and regional centresbased on DBI analysis of behaviour in core sites -places typically found in any large city such asmalls, parks, markets, and waterfront and transportareas. It provides a means for predicting expectedlittering, bin use and recycling rates in a range ofsituations. The DBI also enables comparison of theimpact of interventions from one event or venue toanother, as well as comparisons of areas within thesame venue.

DBI outcomes have reinforced the message thatprograms for changing behaviour need to betailored to different locations. A single litter strategyis not applicable to all locations in a city.

The DBI is part of a long-term commitment toaccurate measurement of disposal behaviour inAustralia. It provides stakeholders with a reliable andreadily accessible means of following trends inlittering, binning and recycling behaviour.

The following section illustrates the use of the DBIin some major projects to evaluate outcomes,including best practice waste minimisation systemsand planned interventions to reduce litteringbehaviour.

Best Practice - Validation ofDBI Measures

Sydney Olympic Games

Using the Observational Approach (OA) at theSydney Olympic Games enabled the method andmeasures of public disposal behaviour to beobjectively validated with a very large sample ofpeople asked to minimise waste under the samesystem.

The DBI was used to assess the public impact ofthe waste minimisation system adopted at allOlympic venues. Differences in disposal behaviourwere found to be the result of venue and areaspecific factors.

Feedback from the OA was used to:

• Shape the education and training plans toengage the public and staff in improvements inwaste minimisation

• Help establish systems for the public and staffto use bins quickly, avoiding delays andcrowding at bin stations

• Adapt the waste minimisation system to suit thecharacteristic disposal behaviours at differentevents and venues

• Improve visibility and interpretation of signs forbins

• Indicate bin locations and positioning to ensureconsistency within a venue and to reducecontamination

• Measure effects of pre-event training for staff toensure disposal habits help reducecontamination levels by appropriate bin use

• Identified and targeted problems with litter hotspots, and waste, cleaning and recyclingpractices.

The disposal behaviours observed during theSydney Olympic Games were compared to the totaldatabase collected from around Australia since1997. Comparisons were made for:

• The Games as a whole

• Individual venues and areas within those venues

• Sydney Olympic Games Test Events

• Sites and large events across Australia in 2000.

DBI’s recorded during the Sydney Olympic Gameswere at higher levels than had been observed atTest Events or at any other comparable events inAustralia in 2000.

DBI levels achieved at the Olympic games were atLevel 5 (the High Mid range)

Level 5 sites have good litter control - people havegone to some effort to try to Do The Right Thingand have generally disposed of material in a bin.Recycling and composting have been taken upreasonably well, however contamination may still bean issue.

To place this finding in a broader perspective, theaverage DBI recorded in Australia during 2000 forevents other than the Sydney Olympic Games wasa Level 2 - Base indicator DBI. This level indicateslarge proportions of people littering with a generallylow level of bin use.



72

73

DBI measures were validated at the Sydney Olympic Games as consistent discriminators of a range ofdisposal behaviours. There was clear evidence that different disposal behaviour ‘cultures’ applied todifferent venues.

The best performance was in the Olympic Village where Level 7 - Peak DBI levels were found, asillustrated in Photographs 32. This DBI level indicates minimal littering and highly appropriate use of bins.

The effectiveness of the Sydney Olympic Games waste minimisation system appeared to be the resultof effectively engaging the public and staff through communication, education and training, togetherwith solid support for programs and ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the wasteminimisation system.

Observational Audits

The OA has been used to produce observational audits that characterise the total waste steam includingthe contents of bins at Sydney Olympic Games venues. Observational audits describe materials inwaste, recycling, compost and litter streams. Figure 41 shows results of an observational audit of therecycling stream.

Photograph 32 Peak performance on DBI at Sydney Olympic Games Athletes’ Village

Residual Garbage31.1%

Compostables16.7%

Recyclables52.2%

Figure 41 Observational audit of recycling stream at Sydney Olympic Games

Observational audits also provide detailed data onthe outcomes of preferred practice public placerecycling at events, as well as indications of recoveryrates and contamination levels in bins. Recyclingrecovery rates for the Sydney Olympic Games areshown in Figure 42.

Validation of What Works

DBI outcomes were obtained from the 1999 NSWGovernment and BIEC study, What Works: NSWLittering Behaviour Interventions. The study testedthe effectiveness of a number of interventions forreducing litter and recovering used beveragecontainers from public places in Sydney in 1998.

The findings, which were DBI verified, showed thatimmediate improvements in littering behaviour wereevident after the introduction of new signsencouraging people not to litter. However, no furtherimprovements in DBI levels were found after theintroduction of new bins or public place recyclingfacilities.

Higher DBI levels though, were evident during thefollow up phase, after all three interventions hadbeen operating for some months.

Reductions in littering behaviour were maintained inthe locations where all of the anti-littering initiativeshad been undertaken. These reductions comparedfavourably to littering rates found in baseline andcomparison areas that had not received the litterreduction initiatives.

Evaluation of Community AwarenessActivities

In the City of Banyule in Victoria, a communityparticipation project was undertaken late in 2000. Itpromoted active involvement in ‘conversations aboutlitter’ in public places with live performance, streettheatre and interactive discussions.

For the first time, the immediate impact of personalcontact could be assessed in terms of its effects ondisposal behaviour using the Observational Approachand DBI outcomes.

Overall, DBI results showed that there was a directand immediate effect on people’s disposal behaviourwhen they were engaged in awareness raisingactivities.

The effects were obvious at a Little Athletics sportingevent where peak levels of the DBI were recorded.This was a significant improvement in disposalbehaviour compared to baseline measures. Theseeffects, however, were not maintained at follow upone week later.



74

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

83%

66%75%

80%74%

Can PlasticBottle

PETContainer

PETCup

RecyclablesRecovered

Photograph 33 Conversations about litter in the City of Banyule

Figure 42 Observational audit of recycling recoveryrate at Sydney Olympic Games

75

The objective assessment of the effects of street theatre will enable the City of Banyule to better targetits use of awareness raising strategies in relation to the type of intervention used, follow up strategiesand links to other initiatives, and adaptation of interventions to suit various local sites.

Projects in Progress

Summer in the City

Greater understanding of people’s behaviour within integrated waste management systems is beingfurther developed through a number of projects. After successfully assessing the effects of the personalcontact approach used in the City of Banyule, the DBI is now being used in the City of Port Phillip totest the impact of a broader program approach to raising community awareness of litter as anenvironmental issue.

The City of Port Phillip’s Summer-in-the-City program has been aimed at improving disposal and otherenvironmentally responsible behaviours through a range of coordinated multimedia and localcommunication strategies. These include Beach Litter Patrols, which have involved engaging communitymembers in discussion and activities about environmentally desirable disposal behaviours, in particular,litter prevention.

The DBI is being used to assess changes incommunity awareness and littering behaviour as theresult of personal contact via Beach Litter Patrols.

Non Residential Recovery of BeverageContainers

The City of Waverley and Blue Mountains CityCouncil are involved in examining the social,environmental and economic factors involved in therecovery of beverage containers from non-residential settings.

The program involves a ‘precinct’ approach. Localinterests work though a council based facilitator tocoordinate activities to recycle beverage containersand to manage costs for collection, education,storage, etc.

Photograph 34 Beach litter patrols talking with peopleabout litter in the City of Port Phillip

Photograph 35 Non residential recovery of used beverage containers

The DBI has been used as a basis for predicting thelikely success of improvement in infrastructure andsupport programs aimed at recovering beveragecontainers from precincts and changing people’sdisposal behaviours.

Public Place Recycling Trial

Currently, Gold Coast City Council is undertaking apublic place recycling trial that examines acommingled recovery program that matches thematerials collected at kerbside as far as is practical,with 240 litre Mobile Garbage Bins and signage.

The emphasis for the project is on cost effectivedecisions being made by council officers aboutresource recovery systems for public places -particularly in foreshore, park and mall areas. DBIdata will provide an objective evaluation of theimpact of public place facilities on disposalbehaviour in the short and medium term.

Familiarisation with MeasurementTools

Training for stakeholders will assist them in the useof systematic approaches to litter management andto become familiar with the application ofinformation using the new assessment tools.

Training will enable participants to:

1. Understand basic concepts in disposalbehaviour, including the use of theObservational Approach and the importance oflinking attitudes and behaviour.

2. Understand the basic features of the DisposalBehaviour Index (DBI) and its application at abroad and local level.

3. Use the Littering Behaviour Index (LBI) toassess the likely outcomes of localinterventions designed to improve disposalbehaviour in a specified area and in relation tolocal issues.

The training program will help local governmentmake use of the general findings of the OA and toapply the DBI to local issues.



76

Photograph 36 Gold Coast City Council public placerecycling trial.

77

RecommendationsArange of recommendations for immediate action and longer term follow up have been

suggested as a means for facilitating the use of systematic approaches to understandingand changing disposal behaviour in public places:

Short Term

1. The systematic collection of observational information and DBI data is required to maintain thenational database on disposal and littering behaviour. It provides an annual record of Australia’sprogress toward environmentally desirable disposal behaviours and litter prevention. The adoption ofthe DBI as a national measure of littering behaviour ought to be encouraged.

2. The results from the Littering Behaviour Studies should be shared and distributed widely. Thedistribution should include opportunities for stakeholders, particularly local government, to befamiliarised with the OA and the DBI. Training in systematic approaches to measurement shouldbegin following the release of this report.

3. A process for more extensive training for people in disposal behaviour observation needs to beestablished within the next 12 months of release of the report so that accredited observers cancontribute to the monitoring of behaviour across Australia. Training at this level would include allrelevant skill competencies and would require comprehensive field practice in data collection as wellas information on how to interpret a DBI.

4. Regional centres need to be more systematically investigated. The specific needs of regional centresfor litter prevention ought to be determined, particularly if initial outcomes in this report are verifiedas the database expands.

5. Activities should be undertaken to improve information about the best way to recycle, recoverresources and reduce litter in public places and at events where beverage containers are prominent.

6. Development of the OA to suit a wider group of site types and problem areas (such as roadsidestops and food courts) should be undertaken. The inclusion of illegal dumpsites is an area for urgentconsideration.

Longer Term

1. Outcomes from local use of the OA, LBI and DBI ought to be recorded, collated, and presented ascase studies to ensure a comprehensive legacy from specific programs and associated changes inenvironmentally desirable behaviour can exist in a concrete, easy to use format.

2. Efforts should be made to have the methodology and DBI adopted as a means for comparingenvironmentally desirable disposal behaviour on an international basis. Specifically, the currentinternational interest in this Australian innovation should be used as a foundation to establishinternationally agreed methods for measuring and comparing disposal behaviour.

3. The OA and DBI should be used to provide meaningful cross-cultural comparisons in producingenvironmentally desirable outcomes in a more global effort to promote change.C

ha

pt

er

8

Australian Environment Council. (1982). Report onLitter Control, AEC Report No. 8. Canberra:Australian Government Publishing Service.

Community Change. (1999a). What Works: NSWLittering Behaviour Interventions. A NSWGovernment Waste Reduction Grants Program -NSW EPA and Beverage Industry EnvironmentCouncil report Pyrmont, Sydney.

Community Change. (1999b). Strategic Approachesto Understanding and Changing Littering Behaviour.Keynote address and follow up paper presented atNational Summit: Building Clean Liveable Cities theUnited States Conference of Mayors and KeepAmerica Beautiful. Tampa, Florida.

Community Change. (1999c). Incongruities InEnvironmental Attitudes and Behaviour A NationalStudy Of Australian Littering Behaviour. Cofacilitated Australian Psychological Society AnnualConference symposium on Predicting and ChangingEnvironmental Behaviour, Tasmania.

Community Change. (1997). UnderstandingLittering Behaviour In Australia. Beverage IndustryEnvironment Council, Leichhardt, Sydney.

Curnow, R.C., Streker, P., Canterbury, A., Hinchy, J &Dimongiannis, T, (1995). Designing representativelitter survey strategies. A Keep Australia Beautiful-Victoria Report to the Recycling and ResourceRecovery Council. Melbourne.

Environment Protection Authority (2000). LitterPrevention Program: Litter It’s In Your Hands.Training and Information Manual. NSW.

Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous WasteManagement (1997). The Florida Litter 1997 Study.Florida Legislature and Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection.

Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous WasteManagement (1998). The Florida Litter Study:1998. Florida Legislature and Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection.

Reams, M.A., Geaghan, J.P. & Gendron, R.C. (1996).The link between recycling and litter. Environmentand Behavior, 28, 92-110.

Reeve, I., Ramasubramanian, L., McNeil, J. (2000).Lessons from the Litter-ature: A Review of NSW andOverseas Litter Research. Armidale: University ofNew England.

Rudolph, M., (1979). An Assessment of LitterAbatement Programs. Canada: Source SeparationCommittee of the Waste Management AdvisoryBoard, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Stack, G. E. (1998). Back by popular neglect.Beverage World, 117, 106.

Tarrant, M.A. & Cordell, H.K. (1997). The effect ofrespondent characteristics on general environmentalattitude-behaviour correspondence. Environmentand Behaviour, 29(5), 618-637.

Texas Department of Transportation. (2000). LitterResearch Don’t Mess with Texas: Litter Attitudes andBehaviors Study. Texas: EnviroMedia.www.dontmesswithtexas.org/res1998.htm

Wilcox, S.B. (1998). Trust, but verify. ApplianceManufacturer, 46, 8-9.



78

References

79

AppendicesAppendix A: Definitions and TermsWords and terms used throughout the report are defined according to their ordinary meanings. The followingdefinitions are provided to clarify the terms used in the Observational Approach and in determining the measuresof environmentally desirable behaviour, the DBI and LBI.

Litter Any solid waste object (disposable item or resource) left behind or placed in a location other than a bin or ashtray. Any material disposed of in an inappropriate manner would generally be regardedas litter - the end outcome of an environmentally undesirable disposal action.

Common sense was used to determine size of objects to be included as litter. For example, where a few crumbs were left behind they were not considered litter. Cigarette butts were identified as litter.

Litter Hot Areas where litter is trapped or accumulates. These highly littered areas become litter magnets Spots and attract more littering through herd behaviour.

Litter Counts Systematic method for counting all types of visible litter on the ground in a 48 square metrequadrant (including areas around a bin and seating if possible) within an observation zone.

Disposal Infrastructure

Commingled Recyclable objects of all types are collected together in a single recycling bin designed to accept Bins newspapers as well as bottles, cans and cartons.

Source Recyclable objects made from different materials are sorted by the consumer into different bins Separated for recycling - paper, glass, aluminium and plastic.

Contamination Objects are incorrectly placed in bins shown by signage to accept recyclable or compostablematerial, leading to a reduction in the amount of material available for processing in either stream.

Bin Status A description of bin characteristics including the number, type, placement and permanency of bins,including presence of ashtrays.

Bin Station A bin area where bins and resource recovery facilities (recycling and compost bins) were housedtogether.

Dwell Time The length of time (in seconds) a person spends deciding how to dispose of an object, from theirarrival at a bin station until their first use of the bins.

Disposal ActionsBinning People observed disposing of an object by placing it securely inside a bin.

Objects piled on top of full bins that remained in place until the end of the observation sessionwere recorded as binned. If the object fell out, it was counted as litter.

Littering Discarding or misplacing an object in an inappropriate disposal location.

Littering was recorded when observer determined that the object had been in the person’spossession, or they interacted with it in some way, before disposal.

Littering was also identified when the inappropriate disposal of an object appeared to be accidental(eg, a serviette falling off a plate being carried to a bin).

Indoor littering occurred in settings where, even though someone in the area was paid to clean up,there was an expectation that people would Do the Right Thing and clean up their litter, eg, peoplesitting in a stadium who left objects under their seats or people leaving objects on tables in selfservice food courts.

Recycling Correct use of a recycling bin, wherepeople put items marked as acceptablefor recovery and reprocessing in therecycling bin.

Composting Correct use of a compost bin, wherepeople put items marked as acceptablefor composting in the compost bin.

Multiple People using a bin and/or a recyclingDisposer bin and/or a compost bin and/or littering

during disposal. One person’s behaviourmay be classed as littering, binning,recycling, and composting within the onesession.

Pocketing Placing a disposable object in a bag orpocket presumably for later disposal or re-use. The person had finished with theobject which, potentially, could later bereused or recycled when taken away fromthe site, eg, an empty bottle or plastic lunch bag.

Measures of Disposal

LBI Littering Behaviour Index. A measure ofthe amount of littering in a specified sitefor an observation session; focused onnegative behaviour and used as a proxymeasure for DBI.

DBI Disposable Behaviour Index. An objectivemathematical measure of all theenvironmentally desirable disposalbehaviours found for a specified site foran observation session.

Traffic Zone Areas within sites where the density(number) of people using a site weredetermined including pedestrian trafficcharacteristics and crowd activities.

Baseline Initial level of information recorded asMeasure a basis for comparing the effects of

interventions and identifying changes andtrends over time in a range of actions, eg,littering.

Combined Data from all Littering Behaviour Database Studies have been combined, as

information was collected through the setobservation procedures for systematicrecording using the OA.

Attitude Structured questions were adapted forSurveys use in different projects to examine

people’s underlying beliefs, attitudes, andissues related to environmentallydesirable behaviour.

Interventions Strategies and programs implemented toincrease environmentally desirablebehaviour, eg, improved bin use and/orreduction of littering.

Standard Systematic assessment of attitudes to Measures littering and littering behaviour, to allow

for valid comparisons over time andplace.

Demographic Social characteristics of people using an Profile area, identified using observations and

surveys.

Features of Observations

Structured Observers are trained to systematically Observation adhere to standardised methods for

observing and recording disposalbehaviour in the field.

Field Research conducted in natural settings Observation with minimal interference to everyday life

without external influence or intervention.Information on behaviour is recorded as ithappens.

Observation Set period for observing behaviour where Session disposal behaviours and traffic density

were recorded, attitudes sampled, andlitter counted.

Observation People within a observation zone were Targeting randomly scanned and those carrying

disposable objects were targeted forongoing observations while in the site.

Observation The number of times a disposal Frequency behaviour pattern occurred or was

detected in an observation session.

Observation Record sheet used to catalogue Ethogram descriptions of discrete disposal

behaviour patterns that form the basicdisposal behavioural repertoire during asession.

Observational A count of all objects (garbage andAudit recyclables) observed to be disposed of

into litter, recycling and compost bins, andin the litter stream, during an observationsession.



80

81

Appendix B: Site Classification

Site Types

Site types were labels used to summarise the characteristics of public places where people congregated. LBS sitesusually contained a bin, seating areas, pedestrian access, and an expectation of personal responsibility for disposingof used objects in an environmentally desirable manner.

Two types of sites were used for gathering information to identify characteristics of disposal behaviour associatedwith different environments - ‘core’ and ‘special’ sites.

Location The place or geographical position where the observation site was situated includes sub-sites withina particular site type, referred to as locations.

Areas Labels used to highlight differences within in a location, which vary significantly because of bins,seating, activities and crowd flow characteristics.

Precinct A local geographic area defined in close consultation with stakeholders, which provided a focal pointfor integrating waste minimisation efforts and public place recycling.

Core Sites

Core sites were commonly found in most major regional and urban centres and have been systematically assessedin an annual Littering Behaviour Study conducted in capital cities and centres. Core sites provide the basis forsetting baselines, benchmarking and making fair comparisons between centres, both rural and urban.

Beaches The sandy area between the water and a boundary or border that clearly marks areas for recreation.

Mall A pedestrian thoroughfare (or sometimes sheltered promenade) with merchandise and foodvendors lining the walkway or street, often with limitations on vehicular access.

Markets Open spaces or covered buildings where merchandise and food stalls provide fresh produce and arange of goods to the public, which often included seating and eating areas.

Parks Grassy sites with shrubbery or garden beds, children’s play equipment, and seats and tables usedfor picnicking and recreation.

Public An area around a building open to the public, which often includes places for people to sit and eat,building as areas were within walking distance of food vendors.

Shops Areas for selling goods or services, often with a vehicular thoroughfare in the middle of a shoppingstrip lined with merchandise and food vendors, with wide footpaths and places for people to sit.

Outdoor Transport terminals or waiting and transit areas with pedestrian traffic going to and from public Transport transport and often with space for parking and manoeuvring vehicles.

Waterfront Areas next to bodies of water (eg. river, lake or pond) often with seats or a grassy area used by thepublic for recreation and picnicking.

Special Sites

Special Sites were identified for most large centres and involved a number of special activities in various rural andurban locations. Practical constraints of project planning meant that these site types could not be systematicallyaccessed in every city. Currently there is insufficient data to provide a basis for solid comparisons on a city orregional basis. Some special sites, eg, roadside stops and indoor centres, are in the early stages of investigation.

Events Special occasions often involving people attending a venue for a significant activity involving leisure,recreation, or sport eg, Sydney Olympic Games, Football Grand Final.

Festivals Areas where people gather for a celebration of special importance and often associated withfeasting of some sort.

Tourist Spots Areas of symbolic interest that attracted the public as part of an organised tour or special outing tovisit the site.

Roadside Public wayside and recreational areas thatStops border roads, used for rest breaks and

often included toilets, barbecue areas,seating, gardens and take away foodvendors.

Indoor Centre Indoor leisure, recreation, or shoppingareas, often with takeaway concessions orfood courts, where customers wereexpected to dispose of waste but tableswere cleaned by staff.

Indoor Indoor transport terminals usually large, Transport often covered, but are not enclosed

public spaces or buildings, eg CentralRailway Station in Sydney.

Event Areas

Large scale sporting and entertainment events involvedactivities specifically related to the event. These activitiesoccurred in identifiable areas. Apart from the SydneyOlympic Games and the Grand Prix, large amounts ofdata have not been consistently collected for thefollowing areas within large events.

Stands Indoor & outdoor stadium or seating bowlthat provided large areas of compactseating for viewing events. Patrons oftenhad allocated seats where they remainedfor the event, performance or session.

Transit Zone A large area with high numbers of peoplemoving to and from seating to viewleisure or sporting activities, providingopportunities for disposal of objects intobins.

Concessions Indoor and outdoor take away vendorsprovided the public with food, drink andmerchandise in these areas. No seatingwas provided.

Cafè Indoor and outdoor take away vendorsprovided the public with food, drink andmerchandise with seating and tablesprovided. Expectation for patrons to cleanup objects.

Queue People in lines waited to buy tickets,goods or gain entry where both the timein the queue and the space for binstations provided opportunities fordisposal of objects into bins.

Entertainment Outdoor area with a performing arena,stage or large screen that provided freeentertainment to the public during transit,or as a additional space for beingentertained.

Smoking area A designated area for non-smokingvenues, where smoking was allowed, andoften facilities were provided to collectsmokers’ waste.

Trackside An area beside the track or course, oftencharacterised by large grassy sectionswhere spectators sit or stand to view thecompetition or event.

Front of Areas of unrestricted public access for House people who have gained entry into an

event or area. Often included areas withrestricted and ticket based entry, eg seatsin a stadium.

Back of Areas with restricted public access, usually House open to staff of a venue or special

individuals such as sponsors, celebrities,volunteers, competitors and media.

Staff Break An on-site meeting place before, during Area and after work, where complimentary

meals and snacks were served buffetstyle. Tables and chairs were providedand patrons were responsible for thedisposal of their waste items.

Outdoor staff break areas also allowedcigarette smoking and ashtrays wereprovided.

Kitchen A commercial area where food wasprepared for the public, staff meals, andspecial functions. Expectation was for staffto effectively sort waste into different binsat source.

Competitor Indoor and outdoor take away vendors Cafè with food, drink and merchandise

available only for sporting competitors,near seats and tables where patrons wereto dispose of used objects.



82

83

Appendix C: Glossary of Acronyms

BoH Back of House

BIEC Beverage Industry Environment Council

CC Community Change Pty Ltd

DBC Disposal Behaviour Continuum

DBI Disposal Behaviour Index

ERV Eco Recycle Victoria

FoH Front of House

KAB Keep Australia Beautiful

KAmB Keep America Beautiful

IWRP Beer & Soft Drink (NSW) Industry Waste Reduction Plan

LBS Littering Behaviour Study

LBI Littering Behaviour Index

LGA Local Government Area

MGB Mobile Garbage Bin

NSW New South Wales

OCA Olympic Coordination Authority

OA Observational Approach

PET Polyethylene Terephthalate

SOCOG Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games

VIC Victoria

Appendix D: Places Studied

The Littering Behaviour Studies have investigated disposal behaviour in the following states, cities, sites,locations, and years, using the Observational Approach.

New South Wales



84

CITY SITE TYPE LOCATION YEARCITY SITE TYPE LOCATION YEAR

Sydney Shops Alfred St - Pitt & Loftus Sts 1997, 2000

Shops Manly Mall 2000

Shops Bondi Mall 1999

Shops Bronte Shops 1999

Mall Bondi Junction Mall 1998, 2000

Mall Pitt St Mall 1997, 1998, 2000

Mall Martin Place 1997, 1998, 2000

Park Bondi Beach Park 1998, 1999, 2000

Park Hyde Park 1997, 1998, 2000

Park Centennial Park 1997, 2000

Park Bicentennial Park 2000

Park Darling Harbour 2000

Park Circular Quay 2000

Park North Park 1999

Park Bronte Park 1999

Waterfront Darling Harbour 1997, 2000

Public Building Town Hall 1997, 2000

Market Paddington Markets 1997

Beach Bondi Beach 1997, 1998, 2000

Beach Coogee Beach 2000

Beach Manly Beach 2000

Event Mardis Gras Fair Vict. Park 2000

Transport Outdoor Central Station Outside 1998, 2000

Transport Outdoor Circular Quay 1997, 1998, 2000

Transport Outdoor City Bus Stop 1998

Transport indoor Central Station Inside 1998, 2000

Blue Mountains Shopping Precinct Katoomba 1999

Mall Leura 1999

Park Echo Point Katoomba 1999

Transport Echo Point Katoomba 1999

Tourist Spot Echo Point Katoomba 1999

85

Test Events and Sydney Olympic Games

Australian Capital Territory

CITY SITE TYPE LOCATION YEAR

SOCOG Event Aquatic Centre 1999, 2000

Event Centennial Park 2000

Event Darling Harbour 2000

Event Circular Quay 2000

Event Pyrmont Park 2000

Event Martin Place 2000

Event Central Park 2000

Event Domain 1999, 2000

Event Sydney International Archery Park 2000

Event Olympic Stadium 1999, 2000

Event Dome and Pavilions 2000

Event Super dome 1999, 2000

Event State Hockey Centre 2000

Event State Sports Centre 2000

Event NSW Tennis Centre 2000

Event Convention Centre & Exhn Halls 2000

Event International Rowing Centre 1999, 2000

Event White Water Stadiums 2000

Event Equestrian Centre, Horsley Park 1999, 2000

Event Village 2000

Event Baseball Stadium 1999, 2000

Event City Domain 2000

Event Bondi Beach Volleyball 2000

Event Entertainment Centre 2000


Canberra Shops Garema Place 1997, 2000

Shops Petrie Plaza 1997, 2000

Shops Dickson Shop Centre 1997, 2000

Mall City Walk 1997, 2000

Park Glebe Park 1997, 2000

Park Nat. Botanic Gardens 1997

Waterfront Lake Burley Griffin 1997, 2000

Market Gorman House 1997, 2000

Festival Alive & Navy Day 2000

Festival Balloon Festival 1997, 2000

Festival Food & Wine Glebe Pk 2000

Festival Food & Wine Lake B Griffin 1997

Transport Outdoor Woden Transit Centre 1997, 2000

Transport Outdoor City Bus Stops 2000



86

Victoria

CITY SITE TYPE LOCATION YEARCITY SITE TYPE LOCATION YEAR

Melbourne Shops Cnr Eliz & Lt Bourke Sts 1997, 2000

Shops Latrobe St - Museum 1997, 2000

Shops Southgate 1997, 2000

Shops Burgundy St, Banyule 2000

Mall Bourke St Mall 1997, 2000

Mall Bell St Mall, Banyule 2000

Park Treasury Gardens 2000

Park Alexandra Gardens 1997, 2000

Waterfront Yarra River 1997, 2000

Public Building City Square 1997

Market Victoria Market 1997, 2000

Beach St Kilda Beach 2000

Event Grand Prix 2000

Event MCG 2000

Event Little Athls at Willinda Prk, 2000

Event\ GP Parade Lygon St 1997

Festival Food & Wine Mordialloc 2000

Festival Folk Festival Port Fairy 2000

Festival Food & Wine Sunbury 2000

Transport Outdoor Grand Prix 2000

Transport Outdoor Flinders St Station 1997, 2000

Indoor Centre Shopping Plaza, Banyule 2000

Morwell Shops Morwell shops 1998

Mall Morwell Mall 1998

Transport Outdoor Bus Stops 1998

Ballarat Shops Shops 1998

Mall Central Square 1998

Park Ballarat Rotunda 1998

Waterfront Ballarat River 1998

Market Ballarat Market 1998

Tourist Spot Sovereign Hill 1998

Traralgon Shops Shops 1998

Mall Traralgon Mall 1998

Park Traralgon Park 1998

Festival Traralgon Food Fair 1998

87

Tasmania

South Australia


Hobart Shops Murray St 1997, 2000

Shops Liverpool St 1997, 2000

Mall Elizabeth St Mall 1997, 2000

Park Parliament Square 2000

Park Richmond picnic area 2000

Park St. David’s Park 1997

Park Franklin Square 1997

Park Mt Nelson Lookout 1997

Waterfront Constitution Docks 1997, 2000

Public Building GPO 1997, 2000

Market Salamanca Markets 1997, 2000

Beach Clifton Beach 2000

Beach Kingston Beach 1997

Transport Outdoor City bus stops 2000

Tourist Spot Port Arthur 2000

Tourist Spot Mt Nelson Lookout 1997

Indoor Centre Aquatic Centre 2000

Launceston Shops Brisbane St 2000

Mall Brisbane St Mall 2000

Park Royal Park 2000

Park Gorge Park 2000


Roadside St. Peter’s Pass 2000


Adelaide Shops Glenelg Shops 1997, 2000

Mall Rundle St Mall 1997, 2000

Mall Rundle Mall King William St 1997, 2000

Park Hindmarsh Square 1997, 2000

Park Glenelg Foreshore Park 2000

Waterfront Glenelg Shops 1997

Waterfront Torrens River 1997

Public Building War Memorial 1997, 2000

Market East End Market 1997, 2000

Beach Glenelg Beach 1997, 2000

Event Derby Football Park 1997, 2000

Festival Food & Wine Wellington Sqre 2000



88

Western Australia


Perth Shops Murray & Barrack Sts 1997, 2000

Shops William & Hay St 1997, 2000

Shops Barrack St & Hay St 2000

Mall Murray St Mall 1997, 2000

Mall Rottnest Island 1997, 2000

Park Central Park 2000

Park Esplanade Park 1997, 2000

Waterfront Swan River Ferry Terminal 2000

Public Building GPO 1997, 2000

Market Fremantle Market 1997

Beach Scarborough Park 1997, 2000

Beach Cottesloe Beach 1997, 2000

Festival Food & Wine Esplade Park 2000

Northern Territory


Darwin Shops Casuarina Centre 2000

Shops Parap Market 1997, 2000

Mall Darwin Plaza 2000

Mall Smith St Mall 1997

Mall Darwin Plaza 1997

Park Tamarind Market 1997

Park Esplanade Park 1997

Waterfront Stokes Hill Wharf 1997

Public Building State Library 1997

Market Nightcliff Market 2000

Market Rapid Creek Market 1997

Beach Wandil Beach 1997

89

Queensland


Brisbane Shops cnr Albert & Elizabeth Sts 1997, 2000

Shops cnr Albert & Queen Sts 1997, 2000

Mall Queen St Mall 1997, 2000

Park PO Square 1997, 2000

Waterfront South Bank Parklands 1997, 2000

Public Building GPO 2000

Market Brunswick St Market 2000

Market Riverside Market 1997

Festival Sth Bank B Festival 2000

Event Indi 500 1997


Tourist Spot Mount Coot-Tha 1997

Cairns Shops Cnr Grafton & Shields Sts 2000

Mall Cairns Mall 2000

Park The Esplanade 2000

Gold Coast Shops Orchid Ave Surfers 2000

Mall Cavill Ave - Surfers 2000

Mall Broadbeach 2000

Park Hamilton Park Surfers 2000

Park Broadbeach 2000

Market Broadbeach 2000

Beach Main Beach - Surfers 2000

Beach Broadbeach 1997, 2000

Appendix E: Baseline DBI for Capital City LocationsThe LBS data collected in 1997 and 2000 has been used to set baseline measures for core sites in capital cities.Baselines DBI were calculated for core sites observed in 1997, and for those sites added to the database in 2000where no previous 1997 baseline measure was available.



90

CITY SITE TYPE LOCATION BASELINE

Sydney

Shops Alfred St - Pitt & Loftus Sts 5

Shops Manly Mall 5

Shops Bondi Beach Mall 3

Mall Bondi Junction Mall 4

Mall Pitt St Mall 3

Mall Martin Place 4

Park Bondi Beach Park 3

Park Hyde Park 4

Park Centennial Park 5

Park Bicentennial Park 6

Park Circular Quay 5

Park Bondi Beach North Park 3

Park Bronte Park 6

Waterfront Darling Harbour 5

Public Building Town Hall 1

Market Paddington Markets 5

Beach Bondi Beach 4

Beach Coogee Beach 4

Beach Manly Beach 5

Transport Outdoor Central Station Outside 2

Transport Outdoor Circular Quay 5


Canberra

Shops Garema Place 3

Shops Petrie Plaza 3

Shops Dickson Shop Ctr 3

Mall City Walk 4

Park Glebe Park 4

Park Nat. Botanic Gardens 3

Waterfront Lake Burley Griffin 3

Market Gorman House 7

Transport Outdoor Woden Transit Centre 1


3

91


Melbourne

Shops Cnr Eliz & Lt Bke Sts 4

Shops Latrobe St - Museum 3

Shops Southgate 4

Mall Bourke St Mall 2

Park Treasury Gardens 7

Park Alexandra Gardens 5

Waterfront Yarra River 6

Public Building City Square 2

Market Victoria Market 4

Beach St Kilda Beach 3

Transport Outdoor Tram Stop Grand Prix 1

Transport Outdoor Flinders St Station 3

Hobart

Shops Murray St 2

Shops Liverpool St 3

Mall Elizabeth St Mall 2

Park St. David's Park 4

Park Parliament Square 5

Park Richmond Picnic Area 3

Park Franklin Square 1

Waterfront Constitution Dock 3


Market Salamanca Markets 4

Beach Clifton Beach 1

Beach Kingston Beach 4


Adelaide

Shops Glenelg Shops 6

Mall Rundle St Mall 6

Mall Rundle Mall - King William St 5

Park Hindmarsh Square 5

Park Glenelg Foreshore Park 6

Waterfront Torrens River 5

Public Building War Memorial 5

Market East End Market 3

Beach Glenelg Beach 5



92


Perth

Shops Murray & Barrack Sts 3

Shops William & Hay St 5

Shops Barrack St & Hay St 4

Mall Murray St Mall 5

Mall Rottnest Island 6

Park Central Park 6


Waterfront Swan River Ferry Terminal 7


Market Fremantle Market 7

Beach Scarborough Park 5

Beach Cottesloe Beach 7

Darwin

Shops Casuarina Centre 1

Shops Parap Market 5

Mall Smith St Mall 5

Mall Darwin Plaza 5

Park Tamarind Market 2


Waterfront Stokes Hill Wharf 1

Public Building State Library 2

Market Nightcliff Market 5

Market Rapid Creek Market 6

Beach Wandil Beach 6

Brisbane

Shops cnr Albert & Queen Sts 4

Shops cnr Albert & Elizabeth Sts 3

Mall Queen St Mall 4

Park PO Square 5

Waterfront South Bank Parklands 5


Market Riverside Market 5

Market Brunswick St Market 3


93

Appendix F: Environmentally Desirable Core Sites Baseline DBI measures collected in sites have been presented in descending order from those where the most environmentally desirable behaviour was observed, to those sites where less appropriate behaviour was more evident.


DBI LEVEL 7 - PEAK

Melbourne Park Treasury Gardens 7

Perth Waterfront Swan River Ferry Terminal 7

Perth Market Fremantle Market 7

Canberra Market Gorman House 7

Perth Beach Cottesloe Beach 7

DBI LEVEL 6 - HIGH

Adelaide Park Glenelg Foreshore Park 6

Perth Park Central Park 6

Sydney Park Bronte Park 6

Sydney Park Bicentennial Park 6

Darwin Beach Wandil Beach 6

Darwin Market Rapid Creek Market 6

Melbourne Waterfront Yarra River 6

Adelaide Shops Glenelg Shops 6

Adelaide Mall Rundle St Mall 6

Perth Mall Rottnest Island 6

DBI LEVEL 5 - HIGH MID

Hobart Park Parliament Square 5

Darwin Market Nightcliff Market 5

Sydney Mall Manly Mall 5

Sydney Beach Manly Beach 5

Sydney Park Circular Quay 5

Adelaide Waterfront Torrens River 5

Darwin Mall Smith St Mall 5

Brisbane Market Riverside Market 5

Sydney Market Paddington Markets 5

Darwin Park Esplanade Park 5

Darwin Shops Parap Market 5

Perth Park Esplanade Park 5

Melbourne Park Alexandra Gardens 5

Adelaide Park Hindmarsh Square 5

Darwin Mall Darwin Plaza 5

Sydney Transport Outdoor Circular Quay 5

Perth Shops William & Hay St 5

Adelaide Public Building War Memorial 5



94


DBI LEVEL 5 - HIGH MID

Brisbane Waterfront South Bank Parklands 5

Adelaide Mall Rundle Mall - King William St 5

Brisbane Park PO Square 5

Sydney Waterfront Darling Harbour 5

Sydney Shops Alfred St - Pitt & Loftus Sts 5

Perth Beach Scarborough Park 5

Perth Mall Murray St Mall 5

Adelaide Beach Glenelg Beach 5

Sydney Park Centennial Park 5

DBI LEVEL 4 - MID

Sydney Beach Coogee Beach 4

Perth Shops Barrack St & Hay St 4

Hobart Park St. David's Park 4

Hobart Beach Kingston Beach 4

Melbourne Shops Southgate 4

Sydney Mall Martin Place 4

Hobart Market Salamanca Markets 4

Sydney Park Hyde Park 4

Melbourne Market Victoria Market 4

Brisbane Mall Queen St Mall 4

Canberra Park Glebe Park 4

Melbourne Shops Cnr Eliz & Lt Bke Sts 4

Brisbane Shops cnr Albert & Queen Sts 4

Canberra Mall City Walk 4

Sydney Mall Bondi Junction Mall 4

Sydney Beach Bondi Beach 4

DBI LEVEL 3 - HIGH BASE

Melbourne Beach St Kilda Beach 3

Hobart Park Richmond picnic area 3

Brisbane Public Building GPO 3

Brisbane Market Brunswick St Market 3

Sydney Park BB North Park 3

Sydney Mall BB Mall 3

Canberra Park Nat. Botanic Gardens 3

Adelaide Market East End Market 3

Hobart Shops Liverpool St 3

Hobart Waterfront Constitution Docks 3

Sydney Mall Pitt St Mall 3

95


DBI LEVEL 3 - HIGH BASE

Perth Shops Murray & Barrack Sts 3

Sydney Park Bondi Beach Park 3

Canberra Shops Petrie Plaza 3

Melbourne Shops Latrobe St - Museum 3

Canberra Waterfront Lake Burley Griffin 3

Canberra Shops Garema Place 3

Canberra Shops Dickson Shop Ctr 3

Brisbane Shops cnr Albert & Elizabeth Sts 3

Melbourne Transport Outdoor Flinders St Station 3

DBI LEVEL 2 - BASE

Hobart Transport Outdoor City bus stops 2

Canberra Transport Outdoor City Bus Stops 2

Brisbane Transport Outdoor City Bus Stops 2

Darwin Park Tamarind Market 2

Darwin Public Building State Library 2

Melbourne Public Building City Square 2

Sydney Transport Outdoor Central Station Outside 2

Hobart Shops Murray St 2

Perth Public Building GPO 2

Melbourne Mall Bourke St Mall 2

Hobart Public Building GPO 2

Hobart Mall Elizabeth St Mall 2

DBI LEVEL 1 - LOW

Melbourne Transport Outdoor Grand Prix 1

Hobart Beach Clifton Beach 1

Darwin Shops Casuarina Centre 1

Darwin Waterfront Stokes Hill Wharf 1

Hobart Park Franklin Square 1

Sydney Transport Outdoor City Bus Stops 1

Sydney Public Building Town Hall 1

Canberra Transport Outdoor Woden Transit Centre 1

measuring environmentally desirable behaviour · littering behaviour is the world’s most...

Documents