Scoping Study for Research on Littering from...

DEFRA RESEARCH INTO LITTERING FROM VEHICLES M·E·L RESEARCH

Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services

Scoping Study for Research on Littering from Vehicles

Commissioned by Defra Project ID EQ0109 November 2015

Final Report



Contents

Project details and acknowledgements ...................................................................... i

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... ii

1) Introduction and Project Context ....................................................................... 1

1.1 Aims, context and project objectives ...................................................................... 1

1.2 Method of approach .................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Structure of report ....................................................................................................... 1

2) Review of approaches to tackling littering from vehicles ............................... 2

2.1 Scope and definitions ................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Research evidence on the nature and scale of the problem............................... 3

2.3 Enforcement options to address the problem ................................................................ 4

2.4 Current gaps in knowledge ............................................................................................. 6

3) Piloting of method for a survey of local authorities ........................................ 8

3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 8

3.2 Design of interview and audit schedules ................................................................ 8

3.3 Pilot survey purposive sampling.............................................................................. 8

3.4 Techniques for identifying respondents and documenting the evidence ........ 8

3.5 Field report ................................................................................................................... 8

4) Findings from the Pilot Survey ......................................................................... 10

4.1 Methodological findings – feasibility ..................................................................... 10

4.2 Methodological findings – scaleability .................................................................. 11

4.3 Minimising compliance burdens ............................................................................ 11

4.4 Further issues to be explored - current approaches to enforcement ............. 11

4.5 Further issues to be explored – perceptions of a PCN option for enforcement13

4.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 15

5) Environmental Monitoring of Littering from Vehicles ................................... 16

5.1 Review of options for compositional analysis and sources of littering.......... 16

5.2 An option for a specific compositional analysis methodology ........................ 16



5.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 22

6) Options and Draft Specification for a National Survey ................................. 23

6.1 Broad scoping summary for a national survey ............................................................ 23

6.2 Outline proposal for a survey of local authorities ....................................................... 23

7) Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................. 29

7.1 Summary of the project .................................................................................................... 29

7.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 29

Appendices ................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix A: Pilot survey interview and audit sheet .............................................. 31

Defra vehicle litter scoping study .......................................................................................... 31

Appendix B: References ............................................................................................ 34

Appendix C: Revised questionnaire ........................................................................ 35


Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page i

Project details and acknowledgements

The views and opinions in this report are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by

the commissioning agency.

M·E·L Research

8 Holt Court

Aston Science Park

Birmingham B7 4AX

Tel: 0121 604 4664

Fax: 0121 604 6776

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.m-e-l.co.uk

Title Scoping Study for Research into Littering from Vehicles

Client Defra LEQ Division

Project number Pr14.232

Defra Project ID EQO109

Authors Dr Robert Pocock, Dr Jill Jesson, Jack Harper, Phil Wells,

Sophi Dangerfield

Contract Manager Jack Harper

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.m-e-l.co.uk/


Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page II

Executive Summary

The problems associated with littering from vehicles have been highlighted through recent debates in the House of Lords and at the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee. There is little robust scientific evidence on the nature and scale of the problem. Littering is a criminal offence and enforcement action may be taken against offenders, through the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs). Consideration has been given during policy discussion, to the possibility of giving local authorities the discretion to use a new civil power of enforcement through the issuing of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Similar powers are already available to local authorities in London. There is little detailed scientific evidence however, about the ways local authorities may respond to this prospective option, and what extra merits they may or may not see in adding this new civil power. What is desirable would be a more robust scientific evidence base on the current scale of the problem as perceived by local authorities, the extent and degree of success in current FPN and PCN enforcement action, and the views of authorities currently not using the PCN approach, on the prospect of an additional civil penalty and PCN enforcement option. In the spring of 2015 Defra therefore commissioned a scoping research project, with the objectives of establishing the methods and research techniques through which such information and evidence could be gained. . M·E·L Research was appointed to undertake the study and the findings from it are presented in this report. The scoping study has reviewed current published research, and has identified the paucity of the existing scientific evidence on the nature and scale of littering from vehicles. Some attempts have been made within the published research evidence reviewed, to characterise the problem in terms of listing locations most affected (for example, noting the observed types of litter involved, and estimating the costs of clearing it up). However it is not possible on the basis of existing evidence to say with any certainly how much there is (for example in tonnage terms), or what proportion it comprises of the total problem of littering in general. The study has identified that there are analytical survey techniques involving compositional analysis of collected litter and street sweepings, that could feasibly be applied in a research survey to quantify the nature and scale of the problem nationally. The scoping study has also shown that it would be feasible to run a survey of local authority enforcement teams, the aims being to quantify the current level of FPN and PCN enforcement action being taken against littering from vehicles, to determine the degree of priority different authorities accord to this issue, and to elicit their views on what extra merits there might be in adding a PCN civil enforcement option as a means of acting against offenders. Most local authorities currently hold readily available information on enforcement action against littering from vehicles, and on average are positively disposed towards engaging in a survey of the issue. Current enforcement practice varies extensively however, from a handful (under 10) FPNs issued annually in some authorities, up to around 1,000 in others. This range does not appear to be correlated with local authority size but rather the respective contrasting policy priorities adopted by individual authorities. The current level of PCN enforcement appears to be very limited indeed. The nature of the issue and diverse range of approaches being taken across the country in addressing the issue, mean that a telephone based interview survey with the lead officer in the local authority enforcement team is the best practicable method for gathering the required information in a potential national survey. The compliance burden for gaining the survey data is estimated at an average of 0.5 staff days per participating authority, although this is likely to vary widely depending on the level of the authority’s enforcement activity. Given the uncertainties in obtaining a representative sample, a full survey of all authorities is recommended. A response rate of at least two-thirds is anticipated, giving a robust respondent group from which a definitive national picture could be obtained.


Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 1

1) Introduction and Project Context

1.1 Aims, context and project objectives

The aim of this project is to scope the possible specification for a national survey in England, on the extent of the problem of littering from vehicles, and the views of local authorities on current and potential future options for taking enforcement action on offenders. Littering is a criminal offence: those who do it face a fine and a possible criminal record. Littering which takes place from vehicles is particularly problematic, because it can be difficult to identify the offender who dropped the litter to the standard required to support a criminal conviction or issue a fixed penalty notice (FPN). The Anti-social Behavior, Crime and Policing Act 2014 allows the Secretary of State to make Regulations that would enable local councils to issue a civil fine (penalty charge notice or PCN) to the registered keeper of a vehicle from which a littering offence is committed. A civil conviction is determined ‘on the balance of probabilities’. The Government is committed to introducing new regulation only where necessary, in circumstances when it can be proven to be more effective than current or non-regulatory approaches, and where the proposed new regulation can be implemented in a way that is proportionate; accountable; consistent; transparent and targeted. Any new civil penalties regulations would need to deliver a real improvement on the current law. To inform its thinking, the Government wants to understand more about the problem of littering from vehicles and the issues that affect enforcement activity against it, including councils’ views on whether and how a civil penalties regime would help to reduce this type of littering. The project is a scoping study, exploring the possibilities for assembling a robust evidence base and this report presents the findings of this scoping study.

1.2 Method of approach

The scoping study was commissioned by Defra in early 2015 and undertaken by the national research and consultancy practice M·E·L Research. There were four main elements to the work:

A review of relevant literature to identify current sources of research evidence on the scale and nature of the problem of littering from vehicles in England.

A pilot survey of a selected sample of local authorities to identify the availability of data held on the scale of the problem locally; the extent and effectiveness of current enforcement actions taken against littering from vehicles; and the local authority’s perceptions on the potential for a PCN regime to assist in reducing the number of offences.

A description of current best practice on the physical analysis of roadside litter to quantify the size and nature of the problem;

Development of a possible specification for a national research survey that would generate a representative picture of the problem across England and the views of authorities on the possible merits of additional civil penalty (PCN) enforcement powers.

1.3 Structure of report

This report sets out the findings form the scoping study in five main sections. In section 2 we have summarised the evidence on the nature and scale of the problem as presented in research reports and evidence presented to Parliament on it. Section 3 describes the pilot survey design, and Section 4 sets out the findings from this pilot survey. Section 5 is a summary of the analytical methods currently used for measuring the quantities of street litter and the extent to which littering from vehicles contributes to this problem. Section 6 contains the recommended specification for an operational research project to generate a robust scientifically valid evidence base on the topic nationally, while Section 7 completes the report with a summary of conclusions and recommendations.



2) Review of approaches to tackling littering from vehicles

A scoping review sets the scene for a future research agenda. It documents what is already known at the review stage, and using a critical analysis of the gaps in knowledge, it helps refine the questions, concepts and theories that can then be taken through in a more extensive piece of research. This documentary review notes the lack of commonly-shared operational definitions which differentiate municipal waste / street litter / fly tipping and highlights the contested nature of the evidence base on the nature of litter and cost to public authorities of clearing litter up. While litter and flytipping are defined in legislation, the wider public and policy debate about the problem is often less clearly delineated. From documents and parliamentary reports it notes some ambiguity over where the responsibility for clearing up roadside waste lies and the practical limitations to date of enforcing anti-litter legislation. The policy options available for behaviour change are predominantly through legislation and educational campaigns. Finally, this section highlights gaps in current knowledge which might be addressed through a national survey. Key document search findings:

An online search has established that littering from vehicles is an under-researched aspect of the waste and environmental quality problem; there is very little published research about littering from vehicles in the UK. No academic journal articles were identified. This lack is confirmed by witnesses to the House of Commons Select Committee Enquiry.

Most of the research into littering in England has been carried out by the third sector agency Keep Britain Tidy (KBT).

There is a one-off a survey Vehicle Litter Research Report (KBT, 2009). In addition the Litter Composition Survey of England for INCPEN (KBT, 2013) and the annual How Clean is England, the Local Environment Quality Survey of England 2013-14 (KBT, 2014) shed more light on the prevalence and location of litter, with some reference to littering from vehicles.

Several local authorities have on-line press releases on vehicle littering problems. Finally there is government guidance describing the legislation on Fixed Penalty Notices

1.

2.1 Scope and definitions

To drop litter is a criminal offence. It is an offence to drop litter in any place open to the air, including private land and land covered by water. Any person prosecuted and found guilty of littering can be fined up to £2,500. As an alternative to prosecution, local authorities can issue a fine or fixed penalty notice (FPN) of between £50 and £80 to the offender. The local authority should be satisfied that, should the FPN be not paid, they have a realistic prospect of securing a successful criminal conviction for the original offence, (noting that the criminal standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ will be applied by the Courts). Scanning the literature listed above shows that there is a paucity of reliable information on litter from vehicles. There are a variety of means by which items of waste appear on roads and highways, describing a behavioural act:

litter dropped by pedestrians, litter thrown out of or falling from, moving vehicles, litter thrown out of stationary vehicles, for example at traffic lights, in a layby, or car park; and fly tipping, deliberately driving to a location with the intention of dumping unwanted materials.

The subject of litter is complicated by the range of definitions used in practice by the various agencies involved. For example the statutory Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse

2 defines litter (including roadside

litter):

1 Published by Government on 24 March 2015 at www.gov.uk/fixed-penalty-notices-issuing-

and-enforcement-by-councils

http://www.gov.uk/fixed-penalty-notices-issuing-and-enforcement-by-councils

http://www.gov.uk/fixed-penalty-notices-issuing-and-enforcement-by-councils



‘to include materials often associated with smoking, eating and drinking, that are inappropriately discarded and left by members of the public; or spilt during business operations as well as waste management operations’

The problem of litter and flytipping on England’s roads is not just about the visual environmental impact; it also has a negative social and economic impact on communities. Responsibility for clearing litter up is shared depending on the highway in question: it is either a Local Authority or the national Highways Agency.

2.2 Research evidence on the nature and scale of the problem

It is difficult to measure the precise amount of litter thrown from vehicles. KBT research shows that 23% of motorists have admitted dropping litter out of their car windows

3. Keep Britain Tidy, who have campaigned

for 60 years on promoting cleaner and greener places, are now acknowledged as notable experts on tackling the environmental problem of litter in Britain. KBT have for the past 13 years measured the levels and types of litter, prevalence of fly tipping and fly posting, graffiti published as the Local Environmental Quality Survey of England (LEQSE) This continuity allows for recording trends over time. Most local authorities operate their own internal LEQ environmental observations and track the trends in the prevalence of litter observations this way. It is not a quantitative measure of the amount of material, its type or origins however. KBT measure the presence of litter on streets and not the amount of litter dropped. The measure is based on the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse which consists of four grades of cleanliness ABCD, with three intermediate levels. The most recent annual survey (2014) draws on a sample of sites across England covering 10 categories of land use sites, across 45 local authority areas, covering around 160 sites in each authority area. This survey is the most relevant current source of quantitative research on littering, including littering potentially from or associated with vehicles. The Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended in 2005, gave authorities additional powers to deal with all elements of littering. Arising from this Act a series of performance indicators (NI 195/196) were set which measured councils on how they responded to the problems of litter, graffiti, fly tipping and detritus. This performance indicator showed who was doing what on the ground, it became a national indicator and data was collected three times a year. However, the difficulty of separating vehicle litter from other litter was noted, moreover there were inconsistencies in the ways councils were collecting their information and so the value of the indicator was called into question. The requirement to populate the national data subsystems was described as “a significant administrative burden on local councils”. So, from 31

st March

2011 government ceased to require this data4.

Consequently there is currently no national or local measure of the amounts of littering from vehicles at local area level. However, local authorities do have some data on the cost of street cleaning. The figure of £1billion is regularly quoted (e.g. by KBT, and the LGA) to estimate the cost to local authorities of clearing up dumped waste including litter, however the Government notes that the costs reported by local authorities

2 Defra (2006) Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-on-litter-and-refuse 3 LGA (2014) Submission to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee

Inquiry: Litter. www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/49956/161014+CLG+Committee+Litter+Submission+FINAL.pdf/3d537341-1938-4f7e-8588-c243f06028d2 and KBT’s published research kb.keepbritaintidy.org/litterv5/mediaandcomms/campaigning/kbt-litter-campaigns.pdf 4 House of Lords (2013) Littering from vehicles Bill [HL] Lord Marlesford, 19 July 2013 columns

982-1006. services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/litteringfromvehicles.html

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-on-litter-and-refuse

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/49956/161014+CLG+Committee+Litter+Submission+FINAL.pdf/3d537341-1938-4f7e-8588-c243f06028d2

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/49956/161014+CLG+Committee+Litter+Submission+FINAL.pdf/3d537341-1938-4f7e-8588-c243f06028d2

http://kb.keepbritaintidy.org/litterv5/mediaandcomms/campaigning/kbt-litter-campaigns.pdf

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/litteringfromvehicles.html



specifically for street cleansing are a little over £800 million5. The LGA point out that the £1billion figure

“includes street cleansing, cleaning parks, schools and other public buildings and the cost of closure of highways to collect litter”

6. Some of these additional costs such as cleaning schools and public buildings

have no direct link to littering, so while the costs of cleaning parks, and closing roads for cleaning, could add further to the £800 million for street cleansing, the best estimate for the overall costs of clearing up litter and dumped waste is still probably closer to £800 million than £1 billion. The Highways Agency (HA) publishes the cost of collecting litter from roadsides, the amount of litter bagged by collectors and they monitor changes over time. The 2014 figures suggest a cost of at least £6million a year for collecting more than 7,500 tons of litter, which equates to 150,000 sacks

7 .

It is the responsibility of local authorities to collect litter on most principal trunk roads as well as local roads. The HA has a duty to pick up litter on motorways and some designated A-roads. There is no duplication of litter cleansing activity however, because the HA deals with civil engineering matters such as road maintenance on all-purpose trunk roads, they change the lamps in the streetlights and wash the signs downs to make sure they are clear and visible, but do not collect the litter. The Highways Agency collaborate with local authorities when they close roads to allow for hedge cutting, repairs and litter collection to take place and in the current climate of an improved safety culture, the costs associated with doing litter-picking on those areas have just increased

8.

2.3 Enforcement options to address the problem

Littering (including littering from vehicles) is a behavioural problem and has been addressed through two principal levers: making it illegal; and persuading people not to do it. Legislation is therefore just one dimension of a comprehensive approach that includes public education the provision of litter collection infrastructure such as bins, and effective highways cleansing operations.

a) Issues surrounding enforcement Enforcement of the anti-litter legislation at the local level has proved to be a particularly difficult element in this mix, with authorities indicating in the evidence discussed earlier, this applies especially if enforcement is pursued by seeking a prosecution through the courts. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the law against littering offenders. Councils have the ability to issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for littering; the last year when data was collated show that over 30,000 FPNs were issued by councils in England in 2009

9. Flytipping incidents can be dealt with through

prosecution, for which 2,200 were carried out in 2012/13, 99% of which were successful10

. Fixed Penalty Notices for littering are made possible through the Environmental Protection Act 1990, where S87 states that a person dropping litter can be subject to a criminal prosecution and fined up to £2,500. Under S88 if an authorised officer of a litter authority has reason to believe that someone has committed

5 See evidence submitted by DCLG to the 2014 Select Committee inquiry in: data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communities-and-local-government-committee/litter/written/14321.html 6 LGA (2014) Submission to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee

Inquiry: Litter www.local.gov.uk/waste-management/-/journal_content/56/10180/6631721/ARTICLE 7 Gov.UK (2014) £6 million cost to collect litter on motorways – Bag and Bin it, Highways

Agency asks road users - Press releases - GOV.UK 8 House of Commons (2014/5) Communities and Local Government Committee, Oral

evidence : litter, HC607 9 data.gov.uk/dataset/fixed-penalty-notice-litter

10 LGA (2014) Submission to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee

Inquiry: Litter. www.local.gov.uk/waste-management/-/journal_content/56/10180/6631721/ARTICLE

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/87

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/88

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communities-and-local-government-committee/litter/written/14321.html


http://www.local.gov.uk/waste-management/-/journal_content/56/10180/6631721/ARTICLE


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6-million-cost-to-collect-litter-on-motorways-bag-and-bin-it-highways-agency-asks-road-users


http://data.gov.uk/dataset/fixed-penalty-notice-litter





an offence under S87, that person can be given the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction by payment of a fixed penalty notice (FPN). If the FPN is not paid the offender could be prosecuted through the courts and, if found guilty, they would have to pay a more substantial fine than the FPN and acquire a criminal record

11.

Legislation specifically for London in 2007

12 introduced the possibility of making littering from vehicles a civil

offence, rather than a criminal offence, through issuing a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) rather than a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) when the littering offence has been committed by somebody inside the vehicle. The two big changes are (a) that the registered vehicle keeper bears responsibility for the action of everyone inside the vehicle, and (b) that the standard of proof required for enforcement action is lowered to the civil ‘balance of probabilities’ standard. The civil offence does not apply to rental vehicles or to taxi cabs. If the registered keeper feels they are not liable they can appeal to the Borough and, if the appeal is rejected, they can appeal to a traffic adjudicator. If a charge goes unpaid the Borough can recover it as if it were payable under a county court order. The important point is that the registered keeper is not prosecuted under EPA S87 and cannot receive a criminal record for committing the offence; the offence is a civil one, for which the burden of proof is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Due to a drafting error this power was not enforceable until corrected in Section 17 of the London Local Authorities Act as amended in 2012. The London boroughs have been slow to enforce their ‘litter from vehicles powers’, but there is a lack of robust empirical evidence to help understand where the problems lie. To enable enforcement, where details of the driver’s vehicle are recorded, the registered keeper’s name and address including the registration number can be obtained from the DVLA. In 2013 the problems with enforcement were highlighted in a debate in the House of Lords (see below) when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the Lords that the new powers had been tried in two London boroughs but with limited success. At that time none of the London Boroughs could show whether the civil penalty for littering from vehicles in London had been effective in reducing littering behaviour, because none of the London boroughs had issued a single civil penalty notice (PCN) for littering using the new powers. Two boroughs, who were expecting to begin piloting the new approach, had faced some delays, particularly in setting up the new appeals system. Other boroughs had mentioned difficulties in identifying littering offences using CCTV cameras or the need to reorganise their back office functions to handle enforcement of both civil contraventions and criminal littering offences. Another borough mentioned the anomaly that the new powers create in that littering is a criminal offence if it occurs outside in the open air but it is decriminalised once it occurs from inside a vehicle

13.

Supporting this lack of progress, a witness from Wands worth Borough Council, giving oral and written evidence to the 2014/15 House of Commons Inquiry into Litter & Fly-tipping, reported that the early problems they experienced with administering the London PCN were associated with the appeals process and in enforcing payments, as there was no standard paperwork in place to enable bailiffs to obtain a warrant from the County court (as happens with parking and emission related PCN)

14 .

The legislation has not yet been applied outside London. So until such a regulation is made the keeper of a vehicle is not liable to pay a fixed penalty notice if litter is dropped from their vehicle outside London. In 2013 in an attempt to bring about this change Lord Marlesford, a former Chair of the CPRE, moved the second reading of his private member’s bill in the House of Lords to tackle the problem of littering from vehicles.

11

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents 12

London Local Authorities Act (2007) 13

House of Lords (2013) Littering from vehicles Bill [HL] Lord Marlesford, 19 July 2013 column s 982-1006. www.parliament.uk/bills2013-4/littering.l 14

House of Commons (2014/5) Communities and Local Government Committee, Oral evidence : litter, HC607

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents

http://www.parliament.uk/bills2013-4/littering



The Bill set out to introduce three changes, which would roll out the provision of the London LLA 201215

. a) to introduce a civil penalty for littering from vehicles; b) to make the registered keeper of a vehicle from which the litter has been thrown the automatic recipient of a penalty; and c) to require local authorities to publish details of all contracts relating to litter clearance, including the names of contractors and roads.

Lord Marlesford claimed that the aim of his Bill was to deliver a behavioural change through a deterrent; he was not expecting lots of penalty notices to be issued. Lord Marlesford subsequently tabled the substance of his Bill as an amendment to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, to which the government responded with a concessionary amendment which has now become S. 154 of the 2014 Act. This enables the power to make regulations to create the civil penalty regime The House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee held three sessions (November, 2014; January 6 & 27 2015) on litter. From the written and oral evidence we can confirm the paucity of evidence on littering from vehicles and some debate about the accuracy of the litter data. Most of the debate concentrated on littering and fly tipping, with little to add on littering from vehicles.

b) Educational initiatives that complement enforcement Education and anti-litter campaigns are often successful in the short term, but they are costly and need frequent repetition. Several organisations such as WRAP, KBT and INCPEN (the Industry Council for Research on Packaging and the Environment) promote education in schools and to the general public on the correct way to dispose of waste. INCPEN encourage their members to use the Tidyman logo, or an adaptation of the logo, on products likely to be used outdoors. Many local authorities in conjunction with KBT have undertaken anti- litter campaigns in local schools and communities, but it should be emphasised that these are not necessarily anti-litter from vehicles campaigns. Council campaigns are innovative and community focused to raise awareness and change attitudes and encourage pro-environmental behaviour. For example, there are litter picking days; inviting the public to ‘report the tosser’; campaigns on discarded cigarettes and chewing gum; fly tipping reduction campaigns

16 .

The Highways Agency has carried out regular anti-litter campaigns. For example, the national HA litter behaviour change marketing campaigns had the target message in August 2011 of “bag it and bin it” and “bin your litter other people do”. In February 2012 they used “help stop litter, bin it” slogans. Evaluation of the impact of the campaign is difficult, but the HA claim that on the M25, East Midlands and the North West following the first “bag it bin it” campaign there was a reduction of approximately 25% in littering waste.

2.4 Current gaps in knowledge

This brief overview of current evidence on littering form vehicles has scoped all the immediately identifiable sources of current knowledge on the topic.

The scoping literature review shows that there is a very limited range of information available on littering from vehicles.

There is ambiguity in documents and discussions whereby littering, fly tipping and littering from vehicles are often conflated.

There is a range of estimates on the costs of clearing up litter and the degree to which this cost is affected by littering specifically from vehicles.

15

House of Lords (2013) Littering from vehicles Bill [HL] Lord Marlesford, 19 July 2013 column s 982-1006. services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/litteringfromvehicles.html 16

LGA (2014) Submission to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee Inquiry: Litter. www.local.gov.uk/waste-management/-/journal_content/56/10180/6631721/ARTICLE

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/litteringfromvehicles.html





Some authorities appear unclear of their responsibility for clearing up litter on roads, and there is continuing discussion on whether local authorities or the Highways Agency are best placed to conduct litter clearance on trunk roads.

There is little known to date about the scale of activity or perceptions about the merits of implementation of the new civil penalty power on vehicle litter in the London Boroughs.

There is no explicit local framework for an overarching behaviour change strategy or ‘logic model’ which draws together the legal aspects on littering, the education / persuasion activities at local level, such as campaigns, and routine service provision of the ‘binfrastructure’ with the aim of achieving the intended outcome of a cleaner environment.

Neither is there a monitoring regime that specifically collates data on local environment quality in such a way as to measure the impact of the strategy in reducing vehicle-related litter.

In the light of these significant gaps, the primary field work undertaken within this current scoping study is designed to find out what information councils currently have about littering from vehicles and their attitudes to barriers to local enforcement. In a follow up to the House of Lords debates, local attitudes towards changes in the legislation which would enable the imposition of PCN for vehicle littering, are also explored. The key approach to investigating these knowledge gaps is through exploratory interviews with a selected sample of local authorities and the testing of an audit sheet which could be used for a larger sample. The findings from this approach are presented further in this report.



3) Piloting of method for a survey of local authorities

3.1 Methodology

The pilot survey of a sample of local authorities was carried out using a mixed method approach. This consisted of a self-completion audit sheet sent to enforcement officers within the sampled authority, followed by a semi-structured telephone interview conducted with respondent enforcement managers by research staff within M·E·L Research.

3.2 Design of interview and audit schedules

Appendix 1 contains a copy of the interview and audit schedule developed for this pilot survey.

3.3 Pilot survey purposive sampling

A purposive (structured) sample of 30 local authorities in England was selected for this project, with a target of achieving 20 completed interviews. The purposive sample was designed to include:

Authorities know to be active in seeking to tackle the problems of littering from vehicles. A spread of authorities across the English local authority regions. A geographical spread to include urban and rural authorities and seaside towns. A London sample where PCNs have already been used to deal with the issue.

The resulting list of authorities included in the sample, and those where a pilot survey was successfully completed, are listed in section 3.5 below. Of the 30 authorities sampled, 14 were picked due to their known activity of enforcement action against littering from vehicles, whilst the remainder were picked at random to enable us to speak with an even spread of type and location of local authority according to the criteria above.

3.4 Techniques for identifying respondents and documenting the evidence

The desired contact point for the telephone survey was the designated ‘head of environmental enforcement’. This functional role works to a range of job titles across local authorities but this common definition centring on the person who holds lead operational authority for enforcement, was chosen as a universal term for identifying the most appropriate individual with whom the survey should be carried out. In the section below on methodological findings, a description is given of the experience and degree of success in pursuing this contact point. The learning from this experience is presented in order to guide expectations and advised practice should a national survey of this sort be considered in future. Calls were recorded digitally through the in-house telephony system within M·E·L Research, with the verbal prior consent of the respondent officer to meet DPA requirements. The interviews were carried out by experienced research executives with a good knowledge of the context and background to the study and its research objectives. The research executives took manual notes during the conversation and then replayed the digital recordings, logging the key responses and themes arising from the interview, on a labelled electronic data extraction sheet, listing the key research questions. The electronic extraction sheets were then processed using thematic patterning, the preferred qualitative social research technique for distilling knowledge from qualitative research data.

3.5 Field report

Field interviews commenced on 26th February and were completed on 26

th March. In total 20 interviews

were completed, a list of Authorities who participated in the pilot study can be found in Table 3.1 overleaf.



Table 3.1 Listing of the local authorities that participated in the pilot interview survey

Authority Authority type Area

Arun District Council District South east

Bedford Borough Council Unitary East

Birmingham City Council Metropolitan West midlands

Braintree District Council District East

Cheshire West and Chester Council Unitary North West

Croydon London Borough Council London Borough London

Derby City Council Unitary East midlands

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Metropolitan Yorkshire and Humber

Dorset Waste Partnership County/Waste Partnership South west

Elmbridge Borough Council District South east

Hartlepool Borough Council Unitary North east

North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Metropolitan North east

North West Leicestershire District Council District East midlands

Nottingham City Council Unitary East midlands

Portsmouth City Council Unitary South east

Ribble Valley Borough Council District North west

Rugby Borough Council District West midlands

South Derbyshire District Council District East midlands

Telford and Wrekin borough council Unitary West midlands

Wandsworth London Borough Council London Borough London



4) Findings from the Pilot Survey

4.1 Methodological findings – feasibility

One of the main aims of the pilot study was to test whether it was feasible to gain the active participation and gather evidence about Local Authority enforcement action against littering from vehicles through a telephone survey undertaken with Local Authority officers. As discussed in detail below, this process has appeared to be a feasible way of gathering the required evidence from Local Authorities. Recruitment and engagement of desired contact officers

The recruitment process usually involved aiming to contact the person within a Local Authority with the responsibility over environmental enforcement; this was usually the Environmental Health Manager or Principal Environmental Enforcement Officer. This process was done first by telephone rather than email. It usually took multiple attempts (around 3 or 4) to eventually make direct contact with an officer within the environmental enforcement team. Due to M·E·L Research’s previous relationships with Local Authorities, in the case of 23 of the 30 Local Authorities we were able to establish initial contact through a known individual officer within the Local Authority as a starting point, and use further personal referrals to help gain access to the correct person to speak to. This had a mixed outcome in terms of success for getting through to the correct person, with some known contacts having left the authority. From experience when we finally successfully spoke with someone within the environmental enforcement team, they were then able to direct our enquiry very readily to the correct person. Seventeen of the 30 Authorities required us to either leave a message with a department or send an email to a department before we could speak with the required person at that department. This had a mixed response with seven Authorities then replying to us and undertaking an interview using this approach. Once the correct person within the Local Authority was found we either arranged a convenient time to call them or undertook the interview straight away. The only problems we found in undertaking interviews with the appropriate individuals were: the initial resource needed to get through to them; or finding a convenient time to speak with them. There was no resistance found in them wanting to participate in the survey. In fact the majority of respondents were very keen to participate in this type of research. It should however be noted that for one Authority it was their policy to put any surveys of this nature through a Freedom of Information request, due to the pilot study only lasting four weeks it is unknown how successful or arduous that process would be. While the above observations were true of the majority of authorities contacted, there did appear to be a greater challenge in the recruitment of London Authorities. After multiple attempts at calling, and sending emails to different people with the London Authorities, in many cases we were never informed of the correct person to speak to, with the majority appearing to be either unclear who has the responsibility for enforcement action on littering from vehicles, or unwilling to find out. On average the recruitment process for each interview took one hour each interview. In some cases the interview and audit sheet (Appendix 1) was sent prior to the interview being undertaken, while in other cases the opportunity was taken to run the interview directly with the officer there and then. Telephone interviews

The interviews took place over the phone with either the managers of environmental enforcement or principal / senior enforcement officers. On two occasions the interviews took place with respondents in a Director role; this was due to their authority’s particular policy priority in tackling enforcement against vehicle litter, which triggered an interest to participate in the survey. The interviews took between 15 to 45 minutes. Respondents were able to answer the majority of questions in the pilot study directly. The only questions where respondents had difficulty in being able to provide a ready response, were the questions around the number of FPNs issued for littering offences specifically from vehicles. Where Authorities had issued more than a handful of vehicle-related littering FPNs only five of the 20 respondents were able readily to give the exact number of responses; these respondents had systems designed especially for managing FPNs which had a flag in the database which showed them how many FPNs had been issued for littering from vehicles.



There was a mixed approach for how Local Authorities kept data on FPNs with the majority just recording them as litter offences. Where these exact figures were unknown respondents were able to provide a best guess to the nearest ten. Respondents stated during the interviews that if an exact figure was needed they would be able to provide it, however extra officer time would be needed to either go through electronic notes or to manually count the FPNs to separate out those that related to vehicle litter. This would roughly take an officer about half a day to sort through 50 – 60.

4.2 Methodological findings – scaleability

The pilot exercise has shown that a survey of this kind aimed at gathering responses from Local Authorities would be readily scaled up for national coverage. The process and associated protocols are replicable across authorities and could be standardised within an upscaled national survey. However we would suggest the following changes would need to take place if this method of approach were to be used on a national scale:

In the pilot questionnaire, due to the innovation of the research where the answers were unknown, the majority of questions were left open ended. These questions could now be re-framed as closed coded questions. This will help speed up the telephone interviews, and it would also help in the analysis stage by ensuring at the end of data collection the provider doesn’t have to code x amount of open ended responses, these would also reduce the cost of the project.

The quantitative element of the questionnaire should be reduced to a completion time of around 10 – 15 minutes; we believe it would be possible to gather the data needed to produce evidence on local authority enforcement with the shortened interview or self-completion survey illustrated in Appendix 3.

The quantitative survey questions could be run as an emailed / online survey, or by telephone. The respective merits of these approaches are assessed later in Section 6. Qualitative, attitudinal information and perceptions on the potential merits of a move to an additional PCN option, appear to generate a wide range of conditional and unpredictable responses, and this means that the personal interactive interview, either by telephone or through a face to face meeting, would be the most flexible and pragmatic channel for this aspect of a national survey. Again this is discussed further in Section 6.

4.3 Minimising compliance burdens

If this method of approach were to be scaled up the burden on Local Authorities officers in completing the quantitative audit survey would be an average 15 minute task. If it was decided to gain precise numbers of FPNs issued for each Local Authority where an electronic data management system is not already in place, there would be a requirement for extra officer time as they would need to manually count the FPNs. The requirement would be further accentuated if information was required on whether the littering was from a moving or stationary vehicle, as this would probably entail returning to examine the individual case record, if this data was recorded at all. As already indicated, we estimate the ancillary requirements over and above the completion of the quantitative survey, would take an officer about 2 to 3 hours to sort through 50 to 60 notices. Due to the high degree of variation in the numbers of FPNs issued at each Local Authority in pilot study, we are not in a position to make a precise estimate of the burden officers would face if a national survey required data for the exact number of FPNs issued, for an individual authority. The pilot survey has revealed the very high diversity across authorities, in the intensity of effort expended in addressing this issue. However as a broad, order-of-magnitude estimate, it could be inferred that an average of 0.5 staff days would be entailed, by the estimated 200 authorities that would be expected to take part if a comprehensive survey, rather than a sample survey, was undertaken. In summary therefore around 100 local authority staff days would be required for the data and survey responses to be supplied.

4.4 Further issues to be explored - current approaches to enforcement

The evidence from the pilot study has shown there are a number of different current approaches for enforcement action against littering from vehicles. Some examples of the range of opinions and practice



“We have ran a campaign called ‘no ifs not butts’, which is aimed specifically at cigarette litter; we did

posters and put them up in supermarket car parks. It gave us a massive increase on the amount of

calls we got in. You can fill in an online form for us where they agree that the statement is true. In

terms of FPNs previous years we served 10, recently we served 40 after that campaign.” - Elmbridge

Borough Council

identified are included below for illustrative purposes only. They are included to demonstrate the effectiveness of the methodology and to show the need for a more thorough and robust investigations. As these findings are indicative only, the following examples would need to be explored further in a more statistically robust study before any generalizable conclusions can be reached. The key findings in this Section have been summarised and illustrated with relevant quotations extracted from the interviews. Methods used for enforcement The indicative results from the pilot study have shown that there may not be a standard method used for enforcing against littering from vehicles, as a notable degree of variation was found between Local Authorities in how they approach enforcement action. The majority of Local Authorities interviewed approached enforcement in a reactive way, relying solely on Council officers reporting incidents of littering from vehicles to enforcement officers. Enforcement officers would then send a letter under caution to the registered keeper of the vehicle, and then after a response is received by the Council a FPN would be issued. The Local Authorities interviewed in the pilot study stated that they would typically receive a response back from about 60% - 90% of all the letters sent out. Two Local Authorities stated that if they did not receive a response and the registered keeper of the vehicle lived within their region they would send an officer to visit the property. Two other Local Authorities stated that they were proactively sending officers out in their own vehicles to look for incidents of littering from vehicles. There was a mixture of views on whether a Local Authority should accept reported offences from the general public, with half stating they would accept this. Two Local Authorities have in fact run specific campaigns which got members of the public to report incidents to them. Where Local Authorities did allow reports from the general public, they would either interview the reporting individuals first, or require them to sign a statement which also then meant they would be prepared to stand up in court to give evidence relating to the incident.

Local Authorities that did not allow reports from the general public stated this was because they felt unable to be sure of the validity of the complaint, or possibly whether a member of the public is reporting an incident due to a previous unrelated issue. There was also found to be a high degree of variation in the number of FPNs currently being issued, ranging from a couple issued a year, up to 600. These variations did not appear to correlate in any way with population or the geographical size of authorities. Only two Local Authorities interviewed stated that they were not currently undertaking any enforcement action against littering from vehicles. One was specifically due to the potential waste of resources occurring in cases where someone challenged the FPN issued, and their legal department then stated that they would not take further court action to recover the fine.



“The main barrier for us is proving the person has actually littered, our biggest areas of littering from

vehicles is in traffic jams at traffic lights. Someone will witness it, the vehicle will be moving, they can't

see who the driver is. The driver then hides behind “well I wasn’t driving”, and they don’t have to tell

us who was driving. We can't issue on the registered keeper, we have to issue on the person who

has been seen and evidenced to be littering. Issuing the fine on the registered keeper is a massive

positive step for us.” - Birmingham City Council

“The biggest barrier at the moment is gaining the evidence for it, particularly on the static ones. It’s

around resource” - North West Leicestershire District Council

Barriers to enforcement The barriers to enforcement found in the pilot study would need to be explored in a more statistically robust study to understand how representative they might be across the country. However the examples below sum up a range of the barriers mentioned in the pilot study. The main ones were: identifying who was responsible for the littering; and lack of resources to take enforcement action through the full process. One

of the main barriers was the concern that the registered keeper of the vehicle may not have been the offender. This means there is very little they can do if someone does not respond to the original letter that they send out, as no prosecution could be successfully brought without certainty of the identity of the offender. This also impacts on circumstances where a passenger throws the litter from the vehicle. Currently the registered keeper of the vehicle does not have to tell the council who that passenger was. This has meant that some Local Authorities will not take any enforcement action if the passenger of the vehicle causes the offence, as they would be reliant on the registered keeper telling them who their passenger was; some Local Authorities do not believe that evidence would hold up in court if they were to be challenged. Another barrier to enforcement mentioned in the pilot interviews was a lack of the resources needed to gather sufficient evidence to undertake enforcement action against littering from vehicles.

4.5 Further issues to be explored – perceptions of a PCN option for

enforcement

The evidence from the pilot study has shown there are differing opinions on the merits of using a civil penalty in enforcement against littering from vehicles. Once again, it should be noted that as these findings are indicative only; the following range of views would need to be explored further in a more statistically robust study. While the sample of Local Authorities interviewed were not intended to be statistically representative of the country as a whole, it is noteworthy that most were in favour of being able to issue a civil fine to the registered keeper of a vehicle from which a littering offence is committed. These included authorities that believed it would have a positive impact on their enforcement options, whereby they would be able to take action against offenders who had previously ignored communication. Others were supportive who have previously chosen not to issue a FPN due to the demanding level of evidence needed to be able to do so to the criminal conviction standards of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

“It can only be a good thing. It will stop people from getting away with it by ignoring us. Where we have

prosecuted cases before we have got PR out of that. Where you are ignored we can't do anything

towards those. 20% of what we issue are cancelled, it would stop that being cancelled. I would prefer it

if it wasn't a civil debt so they weren’t prosecuted for non-payment but rather prosecuted for the original

offence. Chasing for a civil debt I don't know how easy that is..” - Derby City Council



Five Authorities interviewed held reservations about how they would be able to chase a civil debt under a PCN regime. Three were also against moving to this type of system due to: (a) the burdensome nature of issuing such a fine; (b) the decriminalisation of the offence; or (c) they did not see the necessity for it. These Local Authorities stated that they would prefer an option to have the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the offence when issuing a FPN.

4.6 Conclusions

It should also be noted that two Local Authorities that were aware of this potential forthcoming regulation have already proactively started to put the measures in place in anticipation of it being introduced. The one authority has contacted the DVLA to put an easier administrative system in place, whilst the other is about to pass the legislation through their cabinet so they will be able to use the powers if they are introduced.

“I think it confuses the issue and causes problem. We are enforcement people, we understand

criminal enforcement, we are now creating a whole range of civil procedures which are different

which we need to train and re-learn. Civil parking would be dealt with at the county by a civil

parking service. They wouldn’t be interested in taking this on. We would need to train all the staff

to go through it for something we would use sparingly and to the point we wouldn’t bother due to

the burden that would come with it and the amount of times we would use it. There would be

around 12 to 20 people. I would want to know how to do this. The way I understood what

happened in London, you also need to really change how the parking tribunals work. In London

they found it's fine, however there isn't a proper mechanism in the civil penalty stuff for that to go

through.” - Rugby Borough Council

“For littering from vehicles I think a civil fine would be a better thing to use. It all comes down to the

burden of proof - rather than it be a criminal offence where it is beyond reasonable doubt, it would be

‘well we saw it come out of that vehicle’. I wouldn’t imagine enforcement would go up drastically. We

would be looking to do about 10 to 15 a year compared to the 2 to 3 a year we do now. Once people

realise there is a penalty sanction for doing it their behaviour would probably change dramatically.” –

Portsmouth City Council

“I’ve got permission from DVLA - to use a fee paying enquiry called Kadoo. What I do is log the

details of the offence with the evidence, the system goes away overnight pulls all the data into our

system and then we process it from the data pulled in and we don’t have to double data enter it.

I've used section 154 of ASB act to do a business case to DVLA and they have approved it. I have

gone to our software provider for a FPN system and they have integrated that into our system, we

just need those regulations on board now. I expect for every car littering incident it will save around

15 minutes, which I reckon will save 25 hours a month on processing. I think I could process

tickets for many councils through our system. If you are at a neighbouring authority witness an

offence I could run it through our system. I could issue a fixed penalty fine with another authority

logo on etc. I think our processing capacity, now we have this Kadoo link into the DVLA, would

make it very viable.” - Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council



London Boroughs As already indicated, there was reluctance amongst London Boroughs to participate in the pilot but two did eventually take part. The evidence from these two respondents does illustrate the implementation issues arising from the London Local Authorities Act 2012. Only one of these authorities had started to use PCNs to enforce against littering from vehicles. The other London Borough stated they had not started to use PCNs because they did not believe that littering from vehicles was a main problem within their borough, and had higher priorities then setting up a civil process to tackle littering from vehicles. In the case of the one London Borough that had started to use a PCN system, they had experienced a lot of problems in firstly processing this type of fine, and then subsequently recovering the fine as a civil debt.

4.6 Conclusions

This pilot survey of 20 enforcement teams within a sample of English local authorities has demonstrated that a survey approach is a feasible means of obtaining both quantitative data on the volume and extent of current FPN enforcement action on littering from vehicles, and also of eliciting perceptions of the problem and views on the possible merits of adding a civil penalty and PCN enforcement. It can be concluded that the approach adopted in the pilot survey could be scaled up to a national survey with relatively minor modifications. The burden of compliance with the survey is estimated to be on average 0.5 officer days per participant authority. The pilot survey has also revealed the existence of a very wide ranging level of enforcement activity across the sampled authorities. This does not appear to correlate with the authority’s size or geographical location, but is more associated with the policy priority given to littering from vehicles by the authority, relative to other environmental enforcement priorities such as dog fouling, graffiti and littering more generally. On balance, the authorities participating in the pilot survey felt there were positive merits to an additional civil penalty PCN option being available to them, although a minority disagreed and did not think it would be of any additional benefit.

“Only last year when we started issuing controlled numbers of PCNs as part of a trial did it

become apparent that no consideration had been given by the legislators to the fact that the

county court cannot process cases unless they also have allocated official contravention codes.

These codes are hard to come by as most are already taken for traffic contraventions. The codes

have now been allocated so theoretically we can now send unpaid cases to court however no-

one has yet to my knowledge and it is still unclear what paperwork will have to be completed and

how easy it will be to get the court to process it alongside all the other offences they already deal

with. I suggested we should have individualised paperwork as the processes involved for our

offences are different from parking offences but that has not happened (so far) due to red tape.” –

London Borough of Wandsworth

We haven't used a PCN yet, it’s a relatively new legislation we are building the process into ours; obviously the warning letters are a little different so we have to make sure we understand how it works. I don’t know when we will start issuing PCNs for littering from vehicles, we have a raft of offences we want to utilise these types of notices for. – Croydon Council



5) Environmental Monitoring of Littering from Vehicles

5.1 Review of options for compositional analysis and sources of littering

The quality and extent of scientific evidence on the scale and nature of vehicle related litter is poor. No nationally representative field survey of the problem has yet been carried out, nor is there a valid field survey method developed for this purpose. The visual inspection techniques used in the Local Environmental Quality assessment measures described earlier, give a broad descriptive picture of the presence of ‘litter and detritus’ on public street and pavements. The technique is sometimes supplemented by an itemisation of the types and source of specific pieces of litter, and this is the method used for the published research by KBT highlighted earlier. The technique does not give an indication of the absolute quantities involved, nor the fractions of different types of materials in the litter observed, nor any probabilistic apportionment of the total quantity of street litter to littering from moving or stationary vehicles. To do this requires a method of physical analysis and assay known as ‘waste compositional analysis’ (WCA). The observational techniques of the LEQ and the analytical techniques of WCA are the two available means of quantifying the extent of littering in general, and vehicle related littering in particular. However, the WCA approach is the only one offering a specific means of potentially apportioning quantified measures of littering to the vehicle-related source. Compositional analysis of waste from street cleansing operations is occasionally conducted by local authorities in England. This will usually be part of a wider WCA study of ‘household and municipal waste’, and may be used by authorities to determine the amounts of potentially recyclable waste that are still entering the residual waste stream. This sub-component of municipal waste is conventionally described as ‘street sweepings’ or ‘gulley sweepings’. The analytical technique usually entails the waste collected by street cleansing operatives being bulked up and then hand-sorted into material categories by refuse analyst technicians. Depending on the street cleaning operation, this could be a combination of:

Litter picked up by mechanical sweepers on pavements and / or roadsides. Litter physically collected manually by litter-pickers. Contents of litter bins collected along the way, sometimes bulked up with the above collections.

Some of this street cleaning waste analysed through these surveys will comprise of litter arising from moving or stationary vehicles. In addition to the bulk analysis of all street sweepings, specific surveys just confined to the contents of litter bins are occasionally carried out and again, some of this litter bin waste will comprise of vehicle related litter (i.e. waste items dropped on the ground not in a litter container) but then subsequently deposited in litter bins by the public or public cleansing operatives. Although there is no currently established field research protocol for the analysis of vehicle related litter, we have outlined below a hypothetical methodology that could potentially be developed for this purpose. It is in two parts:

An operational method for collecting waste for this purpose; and An analytical technique for fractionation and probabilistic apportionment of component categories

to vehicle related sources.

5.2 An option for a specific compositional analysis methodology

a) Operational collection of street litter for analysis This methodology outlines potential ways in which street litter can be collected, sorted and categorised in a way which may better predict the proportion which is disposed of from motor vehicles.



1) Identifying sampling areas and collecting the litter.

Stretches of highway should be identified that are contained within known physical boundaries (e.g. Council or street cleansing boundaries). A range of different road and street types (and possibly car parks) should be selected for analysis – see Section A.2 below. These could either be analysed separately or bulked and analysed to represent the wider area covered by the operations. Current litter clearing methods should be identified for each sample street. This may be a crew driven sweeper, hand operated sweeper or hand picking. It is likely that the easiest, and safest, way to obtain litter swept directly from streets would be to have regular collection vehicles deliver it directly to the sort site. This may also be the best option for handpicked verge litter; although on suitable roads it may be possible for our analysts to collect this waste. All litter waste samples brought to a central sorting and analysis site and first will be weighed and prepared for separate sorting.

2) Selecting streets for survey As indicated, a range of street types should be considered for surveying. The probability that litter waste has a motor vehicle as its origin will be linked, in the most part, to the footfall of pedestrians it is exposed to. Examples may include, but are not limited to, those shown in Table 5.1 below. Table 5.1: A potential categorisation of litter collection sites by probability of vehicle related litter

Sampling Category Pedestrian Footfall Probability of Litter having Motor Vehicle Origins

Motorway Very Low Very High

A-Road / Rural Lane Low High

Car Parks Medium Low Medium High

Suburban / Residential Medium Medium

High Street / Town Centre High Low

3) Sorting and physical assay of the Litter

All litter samples will be sorted separately using a sort sheet which contains a range of categories. There is a standard classification technique for the compositional analysis of municipal waste based on primary material type, and material sub-category that often relates to the functional waste item. These categories are to a degree flexible within the overall typology, and can be agreed upon prior to the commencement of any work. For the purposes of this scoping study a potential example is proposed in Table 5.2 below. For the purposes of sorting a litter delivery a team of 2 – 3 analysts will be used. It is envisaged that up to 1,000kg of litter waste could be sorted by one team in a single day. This may comprise of a single large load or, more ideally, smaller deliveries from more than one collection. It is preferable for 100% of a delivered sample to be sorted, however for bigger loads a representative sub-sample will be extracted using a coning and quartering process. The waste sample will then be weighed in its entirety and subsequently systematically sorted on standard wire screens. These screens have 10mm x 10mm apertures through which fine material will fall. The non-‘fines’ material will then be manually sorted into the prime and sub-categories of waste as indicated on the sort sheet. Any recyclable materials that are separated from the litter can be recovered at the sorting site for recycling.



Table 5.2: A potential categorisation of waste categories within samples of litter

PRIME CATEGORY

SUB-CATEGORY

NO LINK TO MOTOR VEHICLES ACTIVITY

PROBABLE LINK TO VEHICLES VEHICLE ACTIVITY

PAPER

Paper literature - magazines, comics, newspapers, map book etc

Food wrapping paper

Tissue, wipes, wet strong paper

Mail related paper waste - envelopes, junk, flyers etc

Transactional paper - receipts, invoices, statements etc

All other paper

CARD

Liquid cartons

Thick delivery cardboard

Thin packaging card - food related

Thin packaging card - non-food related

Cigarette packaging

All other card & cardboard

PLASTIC FILM

Food packaging film

Non food packaging film

Carrier bags

All other plastic film

DENSE PLASTIC

All plastic bottles - consumable liquids

All plastic bottles - motor related fluids

Polystyrene / packing foam

Plastic food tubs, pots & trays

Other plastic packaging

Other dense plastic

TEXTILES All clothing - domestic

All clothing - trade related including oiled rags

MISC COMBUSTIBLE

Disposable nappies & sanitary

Matchsticks, sticks from sweets

All other

MISC NON-COMBUSTIBLES

All

GLASS

Glass bottles jars whole - soft

Glass bottles jars whole - alcoholic

Shattered glass

Other non-packaging glass

METALS

Food tins & cans

Drink cans - soft

Drink cans - alcoholic

Aerosols

Aluminium foil

All other non-packaging metals

NON-FOOD ORGANICS

Garden clippings & prunings

FOOD WASTE

All packaged food

All loose partly eaten food

All food by products - inedible post consumption

Packaged liquid waste

FINES Cigarette ends

OTHER SWEEPINGS < 10mm

HHW List all

WEEE List all

Once the sorting is complete there are a number of options as to how the measure of litter waste is determined:-

% concentration by weight. % contribution by volume. % contribution by individual litter item count.



As the action of litter disposal will not be observed it is difficult to relate the amount of collected litter with the number of incidences of litter disposal. Some individuals may discard of litter from a vehicle as each item becomes available for disposal. Others may allow a build-up of waste within the vehicle and dispose of all items during a single incident. The process of street sweeping will inevitably collect a good deal of in situ materials such as soil, grit, stones vegetation etc. Whilst part of the collected litter load, these materials are not deposited by the action of littering as such. It is therefore recommended that the breakdown of litter based materials is given as both a proportion of the delivered load and (more indicatively) as a proportion of the part of the collected load deemed to be litter waste. There is likely to be a significant amount of this non-litter detritus, a high proportion of which will be in the form of ‘Fines’. Other materials which are classified as litter (cigarette ends, glass fragments etc.) will also be mixed into the Fines. It is not practical to manually sort fine material so the process is likely to assign a proportion of fine material that is due to litter based waste. b) Fractionation to determine individual components and their likelihood of arising from vehicles Some waste materials will be more commonly discarded from vehicles than others. For example cigarette packets, tissues and screen wipes within the street sweepings may well have been thrown from vehicles whereas it is unlikely that collected leaves, stones or animal waste have been. A number of assumptions will also be made from more specific materials within the litter. For example, where drink cans or bottles are observed in the litter it may be deemed rather more likely that a container containing alcohol will have been disposed of by a pedestrian, rather than a motorist or passenger. Disposal from a motor vehicle of a soft drink container will, however, be more likely. Additionally certain material may have a direct link with motor vehicle activities. For example fuel receipts and car accessory packaging will almost certainly have been discarded from a vehicle whilst retail receipts and packaging will have a lower probability. The likelihood that a piece of litter has originated from a motor vehicle will be linked to both the material type and the road type (seen table in section 2). All waste will be hand sorted and categorised in terms of either % composition by weight or % by individual item count. It will then be necessary to estimate what proportion of the litter may have been disposed of from motor vehicles. In a closed system, 100% of sorted litter could be assigned to motor vehicles. Motorway verges are essentially very nearly a closed system and therefore it may be sufficient to apply a factor of 0.9 to all materials collected from motorway verges not having a direct association with motor activities. All materials with a definite link will be applied with a factor of 1. For other road types there is likely to be an increasing impact of litter from pedestrians. As a result it will be more important to gauge which materials are more typical for vehicle litter (Table 5.3) and what proportion of this is liable to have come from other (largely pedestrian) sources (Table 5.4). Table 5.3 Illustrative weighting scheme for the likelihood of littering items being vehicle related

LIKELIHOOD OF ITEMS BEING VEHICLE RELATED LITTER

WEIGHTING EXAMPLE

VERY HIGH 100% CIGARETTE PACKETS, PLASTIC DRINK BOTTLES

HIGH 75% CARRIER BAGS, FOIL, PLASTIC FOOD POTS

MEDIUM 50% NEWSPAPERS, POLYSTYRENE, NAPPIES

LOW 25% CORRUGATED CARDBOARD, GLASS BOTTLES

NEGLIGIBLE 0% CLOTHING, VEGETATION



Table 5.4 Illustrative weighting scheme for the likelihood of littering items being vehicle related

STREET TYPE FACTOR FOR LITTER FROM MOTOR VEHICLE

RESULTING PROBABILISTIC WEIGHTING PER STREET TYPE

A) Closed System 100% 100%

B) Motorway Verges B = A * 0.9 90%

C) A-Road / Rural Lane C =B * 0.75 68%

D) Car Parks D =B * 0.50 34%

E) Suburban / Residential E =B * 0.50 17%

F) High Street / Town Centre

F =B * 0.50 8%

This double weighting provides an example of how levels of motor vehicle waste could be estimated. In Table 5.5 overleaf, there is an illustrative worked example based on the above logic. Further work would probably need to be done in the context of a full-scale national research survey, to adjust the sort categories, determine how typical the individual waste materials are for vehicle related litter, and the increasing input levels of litter from other sources relative to street type. In principle however, the method would allow an estimate to be made of the total quantity by material type and tonnage, of the annual quantity of vehicle related litter generated nationally across England. Various gross-up parameters could be selected for this, for example in terms of length of carriageway swept or land area cleared. This would need to be measured as part of the collection operation when samples were taken, and then applied as a multiplier according to the total sweepings area or carriageway length serviced by the local authority.



Table 5.5: Illustrative worked example for apportionment of analysed street sweepings into vehicle related litter

90% 68% 34% 17% 8%

(A) SORTED

LITTER

(B)

WEIGHTING

FOR LITTER

TYPE

(D)

WEIGHTING

FOR LITTER

TYPE

VERY HIGH - M'WAYHIGH - RURAL /

MAIN

MEDIUM HIGH - CAR

PARKS

MEDIUM -

SUBURBAN /

RESIDENTIAL

LOW - RETAIL /

CENTRE

# 2.00% 50% MAPS, MANUALS 0.80% 100% 2.60% 1.48% 1.14% 0.97% 0.88%

FOOD WRAPPING PAPER 3.10% 100% 100% 2.79% 2.09% 1.05% 0.52% 0.26%

TISSUE, WIPES, WET STRONG PAPER 1.00% 100% DASH, WINDOW WIPES 1.30% 100% 2.20% 1.98% 1.64% 1.47% 1.38%

MAIL RELATED PAPER WASTE - ENVELOPES, JUNK, FLYERS ETC 1.50% 75% 100% 1.35% 0.76% 0.38% 0.19% 0.09%

TRANSACTIONAL PAPER - RECEIPTS, INVOICES, STATEMENTS ETC 2.00% 75% FUEL RECEIPTS, TRADE PAPERWORK 1.10% 100% 2.90% 2.11% 1.61% 1.35% 1.23%

ALL OTHER PAPER 0.09% 50% 100% 0.08% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00%

LIQUID CARTONS 0.11% 100% 100% 0.10% 0.08% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01%

THICK DELIVERY CARDBOARD 6.89% 25% 100% 6.20% 1.16% 0.58% 0.29% 0.15%

THIN PACKAGING CARD - FOOD RELATED 2.90% 100% 100% 2.61% 1.96% 0.98% 0.49% 0.24%

THIN PACKAGING CARD - NON FOOD RELATED 2.00% 75% AUTO PARTS 0.90% 100% 2.70% 1.91% 1.41% 1.15% 1.03%

CIGARETTE PACKAGING 2.28% 100% 100% 2.05% 1.54% 0.77% 0.38% 0.19%

ALL OTHER CARD & CARDBOARD 2.91% 25% 100% 2.62% 0.49% 0.25% 0.12% 0.06%

FOOD PACKAGING FILM 1.58% 100% 100% 1.42% 1.06% 0.53% 0.27% 0.13%

NON FOOD PACKAGING FILM 2.81% 25% 100% 2.53% 0.47% 0.24% 0.12% 0.06%

CARRIER BAGS 3.00% 75% 100% 2.70% 1.52% 0.76% 0.38% 0.19%

ALL OTHER PLASTIC FILM 3.62% 25% 100% 3.26% 0.61% 0.31% 0.15% 0.08%

ALL PLASTIC BOTTLES - CONSUMABLE LIQUIDS 1.15% 100% 100% 1.03% 0.77% 0.39% 0.19% 0.10%

ALL PLASTIC BOTTLES - MOTOR RELATED FLUIDS 0.00% 100% OIL, SCREEN WASH 0.80% 100% 0.80% 0.80% 0.80% 0.80% 0.80%

POLYSTYRENE / PACKING FOAM 0.40% 50% AUTO PARTS 0.40% 100% 0.76% 0.54% 0.47% 0.43% 0.42%

PLASTIC FOOD TUBS, POTS & TRAYS 0.66% 75% 100% 0.60% 0.33% 0.17% 0.08% 0.04%

OTHER PLASTIC PACKAGING 1.00% 25% AUTO PARTS 1.34% 100% 2.24% 1.51% 1.42% 1.38% 1.36%

OTHER DENSE PLASTIC 0.75% 25% 100% 0.68% 0.13% 0.06% 0.03% 0.02%

ALL CLOTHING - DOMESTIC 0.65% 0% 100% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

ALL CLOTHING - TRADE RELATED INC OILED RAGS 0.00% 50% PPE, FUEL RAGS 2.23% 100% 2.23% 2.23% 2.23% 2.23% 2.23%

DISPOSABLE NAPPIES & SANITARY 4.40% 50% 100% 3.96% 1.49% 0.74% 0.37% 0.19%

MATCHSTICKS, STICKS FROM SWEETS 0.40% 100% 100% 0.36% 0.27% 0.13% 0.07% 0.03%

ALL OTHER 1.90% 25% 100% 1.71% 0.32% 0.16% 0.08% 0.04%

MISC NON-COMBUSTIBLES ALL 1.80% 25% 100% 1.62% 0.30% 0.15% 0.08% 0.04%

GLASS BOTTLES JARS WHOLE - SOFT 0.20% 25% 100% 0.18% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00%

GLASS BOTTLES JARS WHOLE - ALCOHOLIC 1.40% 25% 100% 1.26% 0.24% 0.12% 0.06% 0.03%

SHATTERED GLASS 1.95% 25% 100% 1.76% 0.33% 0.16% 0.08% 0.04%

OTHER NON PACKAGING GLASS 0.31% 0% 100% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

FOOD TINS & CANS 2.10% 25% 100% 1.89% 0.35% 0.18% 0.09% 0.04%

DRINK CANS - SOFT 8.70% 100% 100% 7.83% 5.87% 2.94% 1.47% 0.73%

DRINK CANS - ALCOHOLIC 3.07% 50% 100% 2.76% 1.03% 0.52% 0.26% 0.13%

AEROSOLS 0.50% 50% ANTI-FREEZE, DASH SPRAY 0.50% 100% 0.95% 0.67% 0.58% 0.54% 0.52%

ALUMINIUM FOIL 1.90% 75% 100% 1.71% 0.96% 0.48% 0.24% 0.12%

ALL OTHER NON-PACKAGING METALS 0.40% 25% AUTO PARTS 0.40% 100% 0.76% 0.47% 0.43% 0.42% 0.41%

NON-FOOD ORGANICS GARDEN CLIPPINGS & PRUNINGS 0.61% 0% 100% 0.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

ALL PACKAGED FOOD 1.10% 50% 100% 0.99% 0.37% 0.19% 0.09% 0.05%

ALL LOOSE PARTLY EATEN FOOD 5.06% 100% 100% 4.55% 3.41% 1.71% 0.85% 0.43%

ALL FOOD BY PRODUCTS - INEDIBLE POST CONSUMPTION 5.98% 100% 100% 5.38% 4.04% 2.02% 1.01% 0.50%

PACKAGED LIQUID WASTE 2.07% 50% 100% 1.86% 0.70% 0.35% 0.17% 0.09%

CIGARETTE ENDS 1.28% 100% 100% 1.16% 0.87% 0.43% 0.22% 0.11%

OTHER SWEEPINGS < 10mm 1.70% 0% 100% 1.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

HHW LIST ALL 0.50% 25% AUTO PARTS 0.25% 100% 0.70% 0.33% 0.29% 0.27% 0.26%

WEEE LIST ALL 0.25% 25% AUTO PARTS 100% 0.23% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01%

89.98% 10.02%91.00% 47.66% 28.84% 19.43% 14.73%

100.00%

PAPER

CARD

PLASTIC FILM

DENSE PLASTIC

TEXTILES

MISC COMBUSTIBLES

GLASS

METALS

FOOD WASTE

FINES

TOTAL

STANDARD WCA PRIME

MATERIAL CATEGORYMATERIAL SUB CATEGORY

WEIGHTING APPORTIONMENT OF COL (D) FOR VEHICLE RELATED LITTER

(C) MOTOR VEHICLE SPECIFIC LINK (TYPE AND

FRACTION)

PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF SAMPLED WASTE



c) Extraneous items and flytipping The method described above is best suited to the estimation of roadside waste from the casual, opportunistic littering by motorists using the road network in an everyday way. It is pretty likely to be the case that an amount of kerbside litter will also be due to wilful dumping and fly tipping. This is likely to be from larger commercial vehicles which will be carrying large quantities of often bulkier materials. For the physical analysis option to be of direct relevance to the littering enforcement focus of a potential future national survey, it would be necessary to avoid this material being counted as part of the field research analysis. To avoid this risk, it is suggested that where bulk dumped litter is collected then it can be designated as determined flytipped waste and either measured separately for comparative purposes or excluded altogether. Items potentially attributable to this category can be classified on a modified sorting sheet which will identify items such as DIY rubble, furniture, tyres, bulk garden waste etc. Where these items turn up in other roadside samples on an individual basis then they can be noted and assigned as flytipping derived waste accordingly.

5.3 Conclusions

This section has shown that two options are available for assessing the quantities of vehicle related litter in England:

The observational technique used in LEQ surveys; The physical analysis technique based on WCA of collected litter samples.

Currently, although a range of estimates for the costs of clearing litter from vehicles, and the numbers of items deposited, have been quoted by a range of agencies, there is no definitive statistic to indicate the extent of the problem, nor yet an accepted, definitive methodology to measure it. To meet the requirements of a national survey for a robust scientific method for quantifying the nature and scale of the problem, a litter and street cleansing WCA survey would need to be undertaken An illustrative method has been outlined to show how this might be done. The method is scaleable to the requirements of a national survey provided several important operational scoping and definitional boundaries are clearly established.



6) Options and Draft Specification for a National Survey

6.1 Broad scoping summary for a national survey

In this section we have outlined a draft specification and estimated delivery costs and timescales, for a national survey aimed at assessing the extent of the problem of littering from vehicles in England. Proposed objectives:

a) To quantify the nature and scale of the problem of littering from vehicles in England. b) To understand and quantify the extent to which enforcement action is taken to deal with the

problem. c) To elicit the views of local authorities on the possible benefits and disadvantages of making

available a civil PCN enforcement option, and the extent to which this might reduce the number of littering offences from vehicles.

Methodology It is recommended that the project be delivered through a multi-method quantitative and qualitative survey of local authority officers, and a physical sampling survey of littering to quantify nationally the amount of littering from vehicles. Timescales The project as specified here could be completed in a time span of around 6 to 8 months. Ideally this should cover the ‘window’ period September to March, as this would allow FPN / PCN activity to be reported consistently for the completed financial year ending 31

st March prior to the survey period.

6.2 Outline proposal for a survey of local authorities

Authorities in scope The primary survey unit is the relevant litter enforcement authority defined under the legislation. That is all unitary, metropolitan borough or second tier local authorities in England. In total that means n=327 authorities are in scope. From the exploratory interviews here, it is evident some district authorities run their vehicle related litter enforcement action in a collaboration often through a wider waste partnership. However the primary survey unit should be the unitary or lower tier authority, providing a comprehensive coverage of the total land area of England. Sample or comprehensive survey? We considered whether the survey should be administered to the comprehensive set of all 327 in-scope authorities or, to reduce costs, run as a selected sample survey. To provide a robust sample to represent England the total respondent sample should be in the range 50 – 100 authorities. 50 responses would give representative data to within +/-13% at 95% confidence, whilst 100 responses would give representative data to within +/-9%. At a 2/3 response rate this means sampling between 75 to 150 local authorities to reach the required respondent numbers. If the full survey option was pursued, with an expected two-thirds response rate this would generate about 220 responses, this would give representative data to within +/-4%. This level of expected response is based on our experience of running the pilot survey, with the added expectation that a formal letter or email could be sent from the research commissioning body to authenticate the contractors as having been commissioned for this purpose. It is not considered necessary to make compliance mandatory to achieve this level of response. The economies of scale in reducing the survey to a selected sub-sample are therefore relatively small.



Moreover, the rationale that might be used for drawing a representative sample of local authorities is unclear. From the pilot work undertaken in this project, we did not identify major systematic patterns in perceived scale of the problem, or intensity of enforcement work, that reflected predictable parameters such as urban / rural differences, unitary or second tier status, or geographical region. There were very wide ranges in approach and practice, but there seemed little logical basis to explaining this - the policy preferences and priorities of the authority were the driving factor and these did not appear to correlate with any identifiable predictor. This makes it hard to provide a structured stratification for any sampling. Equally, simple random sampling is potentially unsatisfactory as the quantity and nature of littering from vehicles may vary systematically across authorities for a wide range of reasons. If non-random sampling is to be considered then the options for doing this include sampling authorities with a differential probability of selection, proportional to either:

Population size Length of highway carriageway Land area.

In summary, there is little justification to scale back to a sample on the basis of resource savings; and no evident rationale to underpin a robust sampling strategy. On this basis it would seem sensible to pursue the survey of local authorities as essentially a comprehensive survey of all authorities, with an expected response rate of around two-thirds. One final consideration justifying the approach to all authorities is the informal consultative purpose of the project. The survey will seek the views of authorities on the potential merits of moving to a PCN enforcement option. To exclude authorities from a means of expressing their views on this policy issue, on whatever logical basis, may create more difficulties in terms of sensitive political reaction for example, than could be justified by any minor reduction in the survey resources. Methodological options for the local authority survey There are a range of methodological options for gathering information from local authority officers for the purposes of this survey. In Table 6.1 below we have outlined the range of options along with the strengths and weaknesses of each. Note that this range of options serves different types of information requirements. Table 6.1 Comparative analysis of social research methodology for the local authority survey

Survey option

Strengths / merits Weaknesses / drawbacks

Self-completion survey sheet: general features Self-completion features relating to routes of administration a) Postal -

paper & pencil

Can be completed by respondent at a time of choice

Allows time to compile data that might not be readily to hand

Favours closed questions, quick to complete

Paper copy can be passed around to locate the intended recipient

Recipient does not need to be IT literate

Survey can be completed over several sessions

Suitable for random samples

Need accurate prior knowledge of correct contact point

Easy for officers to ignore No interaction to explain or interpret any

ambiguities on part of respondent Conversational discussion not possible to

expand or explore attitudes Lack of personal interaction removes way to

encourage participation Not well suited to qualitative information

needs

Traditional method expensive, cost of printing, stuffing, posting

Time for postal responses to return, can take up to 6 weeks

Requires researcher to record response and follow up non responders

Requires researcher to manually enter data Needs 3 mailings to achieve good response

rate



b) Electronic – e-survey

Sending pre-notification and reminders

of survey cheaper Cost effective - cheaper than postal to

distribute Fast transmission - quick turnaround

time, quick delivery, easy return Can design in automatic routing, radio

buttons, drop down options Can use multiple question formats Increased response rates, returned

mainly in first 5 days, survey completed within 2 weeks

Can be automated on data entry Can programme internal consistency

validation checks

Needs a contact email address Can’t be sure that communication has been

delivered Cost and time for design /development May be automatically spam-filtered out Recipient may not act on the email Possibility of incompatible software Can have low response rates Lack of anonymity / confidentiality issues

because of e-mail identifier Can get survey break off / drop out if it takes

effort and time to compile data / complete Can be a negative relation between survey

length, complexity of data requested and response rate and response quality

Telephone survey

Allows interview rapport as motivator for engagement

Allows opportunity for prompts and probes

Allows opportunity for qualitative and exploratory lines of enquiry

Allows interviewer flexibility to speak to more than one respondent

More costly to administer, for both contractor and in participant compliance time

Needs to be set up at convenient time for contractor and participant

Slower to administer and complete to time line

May still need further quantitative data capture if info not readily available

May be quality issues from giving instant responses

May be problems / errors in recording Respondent may need to look up data, thus

requires a second interview

Face to face personal visit

Highest level of opportunity for in-depth qualitative exploration of issues, barriers, perceptions etc

Opportunity to view data capture and storage infrastructure

Opportunity to meet more than one officer / function in a visit

Option to have multi-party discussion with several officers

The most costly option to deliver for the main comprehensive survey

Demanding in terms of booking officer time; risk of on-the-day cancellations and consequent ‘dead visits’

More likely to generate refusals Long lapse time for completing survey Requires consistent qualitative method for

capturing and interpreting the more extensive qualitative data enabled by this method

Focus / discussion group

Maximum opportunity for deliberative discussion

Greatest benefit derived from co-working and creative generation of ideas and solutions

Greatest intensity of officer engagement on the issue

Costly and time consuming both for contractor and participants

Needs a venue that is appropriate and accessible to all

Needs participant availability at the same time, so hard to set up

Participants can become adversarial

The information requirements of the survey are wide ranging and there are aspects of information required that would best suit each of the options above. In developing an optimal experimental design, we would recommend that a mixed-method approach would be needed, as discussed below. Firstly, to gather statistics on enforcement activity and the volume of FPNs / PCNs issued annually, it is clear that a quantitative form of data capture is required that could be delivered comprehensively to all 327 in-scope authorities. This could either be through a self-completion audit sheet or a telephone interview with the appropriate individual enforcement officer. A face-to-face interview would also provide this information, but would entail an unnecessarily high cost for the information required if an attempt was made to contact all authorities. On balance we believe the most cost-effective approach would probably be to send out an email linked to an online survey form, and follow this up with a telephone reminder where the survey could alternatively be done there and then by the interviewer going through the questions.



Secondly the research objectives include establishing a qualitative insight into authorities’ approaches to litter enforcement and the ‘logic model’ they apply to their activities linking enforcement to a desired change in behaviour (output), leading to the intended final outcome of a cleaner environment. The pilot survey reported here established the need for this further, more in-depth research evidence to be gathered in order to better understand the reasoning why authorities may or may not favour the additional option of PCN civil enforcement. This intelligence would best be gathered through personal interview, either through a semi-structured telephone interview or a face to face site visit. The site visits provide the greatest opportunity to explore authorities’ views and to seek opinion from a range of officers, from director level to operational level, and to triangulate the data, noting that the aim is to capture the approach of the organisation as a whole, not just an individual officer. Qualitative data is not statistical in nature and so there is no need for a comprehensive coverage or large numbers. Some 20 – 30 interview sites would normally be seen as optimal for this qualitative purpose. Thirdly, the project has a ‘problem-solving’ element (e.g. determining the optimal balance between the FPN and PCN enforcement routes in the context of the wider objectives of behaviour change). This is best done as a collaborative deliberative workshop, involving a relevant mix of authorities and environmental quality / enforcement functions. A comprehensive experimental design might therefore be constructed consisting of:

A self-completion e-survey and follow up telephone survey of all participating authorities A set of 20 to 30 site visits consisting of one or more face to face interviews Case studies to illustrate key features of current practice One or more deliberative workshop groups to share views on implementation

A possible experimental design for delivering this is outlined in Figure 6.1 below. Figure 6.1: Illustrative schematic diagram for the optimal mixed-method experimental design

Litter enforcement authorities n=327 Upper tier Highways Authorities

Comprehensive survey using audit sheet

e-survey with online response

plus telephone follow-up

total expected response n=220

Select purposive sub-sample n= 20 - 30

In-depth qualitative data on policy and perceptions

face-to-face qualitative interviews

triangulate – policy / clearance / enforcement

add Upper tier Highways Authority option

Select 3 to 5 case detailed studies Deliberative workshops to consider implementation

First contact point and method of first contact The comprehensive survey should be carried out with the Head of Environmental Enforcement or such officer as may hold lead responsibility for enforcement policy and practice within the authority. Finding out the correct contact point is not always a simple task, and resources will need to be available to establish this by pre-contacting the authority to establish the primary point of contact for the comprehensive audit survey. Consultancy firms will have their own preferred methods for achieving completed audit sheets, but good practice would suggest that pre-notification of the interview is sent to the intended respondent in advance. This should include a confirmation letter from the research commissioning body to the individual or



departmental head, verifying the authenticity of the survey and purposes of the interview and assurances as to DPA and confidentiality, and an expected set of questions to follow in the quantitative survey audit, in order to allow the respondent to prepare to gather data from elsewhere in the authority if necessary. Content of the comprehensive survey The comprehensive quantitative survey audit should be carried out using a data collection instrument based on an abbreviated version of the interview survey schedule use in this pilot survey. From the piloting exercise reported in section 4, a shortened version can be recommended, with most open questions reduced to a pre-defined set of closed options. This could then be compiled into an online self-completing survey form. If completed through a follow-up telephone interview, the revised format is estimated to reduce the survey interview length to between 10 and 15 minutes if run as a telephone survey. In the pilot surveys reported here in section 4, we experimented between sending out the survey as a self-completion audit sheet (which could be channelled as an online survey with emailed hyperlink), and a personal interview survey. There are a number of lines of enquiry:

the form, content and locations in which vehicle related litter is perceived as a problem; the priority it has in relation to other issues such as dog fouling and flytipping;, the ways in which enforcement is used alongside other methods e.g. education campaigns, to

achieve an intended outcome of better local environmental quality; these vary very substantially on a case-by-case basis for reasons particular to the individual

authority. It is therefore difficult to pre-set the question schedule on perceptions and attitudes towards the move to PCN enforcement in a way that makes it easy for individual authorities to customise. The conversational method of a personal telephone or face-to-face survey is much more adaptable through the intelligent use of research staff interviews. For this reason we believe the most appropriate and practicable data capture vehicle for this kind of information is the personal interview. This is why we have recommended taking this information need forward in a further, separate survey based on a purposive sample selected in order to explore these issues in qualitative depth. Resource requirements and timescale Field research staff will need to be engaged to confirm initial contact details and prepare the online survey. Where non-response follow-up or clarification interviews are required, research staff could be expected to complete around 5 follow-up interviews per worked day, including setting appointments and re-contact time for non-availability. Provision for some 40 fieldworker days should be made to complete the expected two-thirds response from a comprehensive national survey. For the follow-up face to face semi-structured interviews, this work is best done by site visit, therefore say 25 field staff visit days plus a provision for telephone work so an estimate of 50 researcher days in total. Case studies would normally be expected to need around 2 days additional consultant time. Similarly a discussion workshop would account for around 2 consultant days to include preparation and analysis time. Finally, there would be professional consultant time to set up, design, analyse and report on the survey as a whole, including statistical work to gross up quantitative data to provide a national estimate. Chronologically, a start-to-finish field period of at least 4 weeks should be assumed for the comprehensive audit survey, as key staff may be on annual leave and we have noted that in many authorities, staff numbers are so small ( often 2 or 3 individuals) that key absences can make the survey impossible to carry out. The estimated 25 local authority visits would probably take a further 4 to 6 weeks depending on respondent availability, following the main comprehensive survey. With notification and set-up time, the total field operation would therefore be anticipated to be about 12 weeks in duration. There would also need to be a preparatory set-up and notification period in advance of this, of around 4 weeks.



Compositional analysis element This work is more speculative in nature, as no definitive methodology exists. However we have scoped a practicable WCA survey option based on the assumptions as set out below. Note that a sampling approach will necessarily be required as the costs of undertaking physical analysis work in each participating authority are likely to be prohibitive (certainly exceeding £500,000). Assumptions:

Select two authorities from each of the nine English regions = 18. Within each region the two authorities reflect a largely urban vs rural split. Note we do not know whether this in itself is a logical basis for structuring a sample, but the spectrum of other possible related factors is likely to correlate with this to some extent at least.

Within each authority, identify existing litter and street cleansing operations dominated by these main types of areas: 1. Motorway (if defined to be included within the overall context for the project) 2. Main arterial trunk road / primary route/dual carriage ways 3. Car parks 4. Rural roads – no pedestrian walkway 5. Residential streets 6. High Street/retail areas

Arrange for a normal sample of street litter to be collected from these designated rounds and taken to a local sorting site for physical compositional analysis

This should generate waste samples from between 4 and 5 location types depending on authority type; therefore between 72 and 90 bulked waste samples in total.

These bulk samples to be handsorted and analysed according to the methods summarised in section 5 above.

Each bulk sample would be expected to consist of approx. 0.5 tonnes of material, and would take a team of three technicians a day to complete the compositional analysis assay.

Compositional apportionment to be undertaken in line with the rationale of section 5 and grossed up to provide a national estimate of the total annual quantity and composition of suspected vehicle related litter in England.



7) Summary and Conclusions

7.1 Summary of the project

The aim of this scoping study has been to establish the extent of current scientific knowledge of the problem of littering from vehicles in England, and to set out the methods and research techniques through which a national survey of the issue might be undertaken. The scoping study has reviewed current published research, and has identified the paucity of the existing evidence on the nature and scale of littering from vehicles. Some attempts have been made to characterise the problem in terms of listing locations most affected (for example, noting the observed types of litter involved, and estimating the costs of clearing it up). However it is not possible on the basis of existing evidence to say with any certainly how much vehicle-related litter there is (for example in tonnage terms), or what proportion it comprises of the total problem of littering in general. The study has identified that there are analytical survey techniques involving compositional analysis of collected litter and street sweepings that could feasibly be applied in a research survey to quantify the nature and scale of the problem nationally. The scoping study has also shown that it would be feasible to run a survey of local authority enforcement teams, the aims being to quantify the current level of FPN and PCN enforcement action being taken against littering from vehicles, to determine the degree of priority different authorities accord to this issue. The local authority survey could also provide a means of eliciting the views of enforcement teams and other wider stakeholders, including officers at strategic level, on what extra merits there might be in adding a PCN civil enforcement option as a means of acting against offenders.

7.2 Conclusions

It can be concluded that a national survey of the extent of littering from vehicles in England is technically feasible and could be delivered using the methodologies outlined in this report. The data necessary to produce the research evidence is available within local authority environmental enforcement teams and can be practicably extracted. The local authority officers whose views on enforcement and the potential merits of an additional PCN enforcement option are relevant to the research needs, appear able and willing to provide their views through a survey instrument. The field research techniques that might be used to quantify and characterise the nature and extent of littering from vehicles, could potentially be adapted from existing techniques for litter compositional analysis.



Appendices

Appendix A: Pilot survey interview schedule and audit sheet

Appendix B: References

Appendix C: Potential future self-completion survey/interview schedule with closed options



Appendix A: Pilot survey interview and audit sheet

Defra vehicle litter scoping study

Introduction to scoping study

Littering is a criminal offence: those who do it face a fine and a possible criminal record. Littering which

takes place from vehicles is particularly problematic, because it can be difficult to identify the offender who

dropped the litter to the standard required to support a criminal conviction or issue a fixed penalty notice.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act allows the Secretary of State to make Regulations that

would enable local councils to issue a civil fine to the registered keeper of a vehicle from which a littering

offence is committed.

The Government is committed to introducing new regulation only where necessary, when it can be proven

to be more effective than current or non-regulatory approaches, and where the proposed new regulation

can be implemented in a way that is proportionate; accountable; consistent; transparent and targeted. Any

new civil penalties regulations would need to deliver a real improvement on the current law.

To inform its thinking, the Government wants to understand more about the problem of littering from vehicles and the issues that affect enforcement activity against it, including councils’ views on whether and how a civil penalties regime would help to reduce this type of littering. This study is designed to find out information about the scale of the problem of littering from vehicles in your area, your council’s approach to enforcement, and your views on whether a regime of civil penalties would be an effective way to reduce littering from vehicles in your area.

Background details of authority

Do you currently undertake enforcement action (issue FPNs) against littering from vehicles?

- Yes - No, why not [open end]

Who initiates the enforcement actions? [open end]

Do you have a litter enforcement strategy which covers littering from vehicles within your authority?

- Yes, what is that strategy? [open end] - No

Have you run any behavior change campaigns in the last year, aimed at reducing littering from vehicles?

- Yes, what were these? [open end] - No

How much does it cost the local authority to administer the enforcement actions on littering from vehicles? Answer as annual staff resource / time or as financial cost if determined. [open end] How much does it cost the local authority to clear up litter arising from vehicles? [open end]



Scale of enforcement

How many FPNs have you issued in the last 12 months covering any enforcement activity? [open end] Of those, how many FPNs have you issued for littering from vehicles in the last 12 months? [open end] Of those FPNs issued for littering from vehicles how many were:

- Paid [Open end] - Prosecuted [Open end] - Cancelled [Open end]

On what grounds were they Cancelled? [open end] Would you say littering from vehicles is caused predominately by

- Commercial vehicles - Private vehicles - Both equally - Unable to separate out type of vehicles - Other [open end]

What types of evidence do you collect to enforce littering from vehicles? [open end]

Problems with littering from vehicles

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all a problem, and 10 is an extreme problem, to what extent do you feel littering from vehicles is a problem within your authority? What types of roads / locations in your area are most affected by litter from vehicle? [open end] Are there any roads / locations within your authority area for which you do not currently undertake enforcement action against littering from vehicles? For example motorways, major trunk roads,

- Yes, which ones [open end] - No

Which is the biggest vehicle-litter problem in your area?

- Litter from stationary / parked vehicles - Litter from moving vehicles - About the same

How does this impact on enforcement action [open end] Would you say that the amount of enforcement activity against littering from vehicles in the past three years has:

- Increased – why is this [open end] - Stayed the same - Decreased – why is this [open end]

To what extent do you work with other authorities / bodies to help with enforcement against littering from vehicles? [open end] What is the biggest barrier your local authority has in enforcing littering from vehicles? [open end] What other barriers does your local authority have in enforcing littering from vehicles? [open end]



Views on civil enforcement

The Secretary of State is considering making Regulations that would enable local councils to issue a civil

fine to the registered keeper of a vehicle from which a littering offence is committed across England. Under

the new Regulations, it would still be possible to issue a criminal penalty if the litterer could be identified, but

the council would not be able to issue fines to both the registered keeper and the offender. If the civil

penalty weren’t paid, instead of prosecuting, the council would be able to recover the fine from the

registered keeper as a civil debt.

The new Regulations would address matters such as the size of the fine, the form and content of the

penalty notice, exceptions to the keeper’s liability (for example if the vehicle has been stolen) and matters

relating to appeals. Decisions on these matters would be informed by information and feedback from

councils.

Before introducing new regulations, the Government wants to be sure that any new regulations will work as

intended and will meet local authorities’ needs in a way that the current regime of criminal sanctions for

littering may not.

What are your opinions on moving to a PCN system? [open end] To what extent do you feel introducing a PCN system will remove the barriers in enforcing littering from vehicles discussed earlier? [open end] What impact do you think moving to a PCN system for enforcing action against littering from vehicles might have on the frequency of littering from vehicles? [open end] What extra resources would you need across the authority to introduce a PCN system for enforcing action against littering from vehicles? [open end]

Finally, do you consent to us to pass on your responses to Defra for the purposes of this study, or would you prefer your responses to remain confidential.

- Attributable - Confidential



Appendix B: References

KBT (2014) How Green is England. The Local Environmental Quality Survey of England 2013/14.

howcleanisengland.keepbritaintidy.org/report.pdf Accessed 6 February 2015.

Gov.UK (2014) £6 million cost to collect litter on motorways – Bag and Bin it, Highways Agency asks road

users - Press releases - GOV.UK Press Release 7 April 2014. Accessed 7 March 2015.

Highways Agency (2013) Litter Strategy. www.highways.gov.uk . Accessed 5 February 2015.

House of Lords (2013) Littering from vehicles Bill [HL] Lord Marlesford, 19 July 2013 columns 982-1006.

www.parliament.uk/bills2013-4/littering. Accessed 5 February 2015.

House of Commons (2014/5) Communities and Local Government Select Committee, Oral evidence: litter,

HC607 Session one Oral and written evidence 25 November 2014; Session two oral evidence 6 January

2015; Session 3 oral evidence 27 January 2015. www.parliament.uk/litter . Accessed 8 March 2015.

Insley, J. (2011) driving down motorists’ litter, The Guardian Monday 11 July. Accessed 12 March 2015,

Keep Britain Tidy (2009) Vehicle Litter Research Report. www.keepbritaintidy.org.uk Accessed 5 February

2015.

LGA (2014) Submission to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee Inquiry: Litter.

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communities-and-local-

government-committee/litter/written/14270.html Accessed 13 March 2015.

http://howcleanisengland.keepbritaintidy.org/report.pdf



http://www.highways.gov.uk/

http://www.parliament.uk/bills2013-4/littering

http://www.parliament.uk/litter

http://www.keepbritaintidy.org.uk/





Appendix C: Revised questionnaire

Introduction to scoping study

Littering is a criminal offence: those who do it face a fine and a possible criminal record. Littering which

takes place from vehicles is particularly problematic, because it can be difficult to identify the offender who

dropped the litter to the standard required to support a criminal conviction or issue a fixed penalty notice.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act allows the Secretary of State to make Regulations that

would enable local councils to issue a civil fine to the registered keeper of a vehicle from which a littering

offence is committed.

The Government is committed to introducing new regulation only where necessary, when it can be proven

to be more effective than current or non-regulatory approaches, and where the proposed new regulation

can be implemented in a way that is proportionate; accountable; consistent; transparent and targeted. Any

new civil penalties regulations would need to deliver a real improvement on the current law.

To inform its thinking, the Government wants to understand more about the problem of littering from vehicles and the issues that affect enforcement activity against it, including councils’ views on whether and how a civil penalties regime would help to reduce this type of littering. This study is designed to find out information about the scale of the problem of littering from vehicles in your area, your council’s approach to enforcement, and your views on whether a regime of civil penalties would be an effective way to reduce littering from vehicles in your area.

Background details of authority / scale of enforcement

Do you currently undertake enforcement action (issue FPNs) against littering from vehicles?

- Yes - No, why not [open end]

What method of approach do you currently use to enforce against littering from vehicles? [Probe around: proactively using officers, allow members of the public to report, enforce against passengers, response rates from letter sent out]

Have you run any behaviour change campaigns in the last year, aimed at reducing littering from vehicles?

- Yes, what were these? [open end] - No

Roughly how many FPNs have you issued in the last 12 months for littering ? [open end]

Of those, roughly how many FPNs have you issued for littering from vehicles in the last 12 months? [open end]

Of these, how many are

- Paid[open end] - Prosecuted [open end] - Cancelled [open end]



Problems with littering from vehicles

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all a problem, and 10 is an extreme problem, to what extent do you feel littering from vehicles is a problem within your authority?

Are there any other environmental issues are seen as more of a problem than littering from vehicles within your authority?

- Yes, what are these (OPEN END) - No

Which is the biggest vehicle-litter problem in your area?

- Litter from parked vehicles in lay-bys - Litter from stationary vehicles at junctions / traffic lights - Litter from moving vehicles on major roads - Litter from moving vehicles on minor roads - Other

What is the biggest barrier your local authority has in enforcing littering from vehicles? [open end]

What other barriers does your local authority have in enforcing littering from vehicles? [open end]

Views on civil enforcement

The Secretary of State is considering making Regulations that would enable local councils to issue a civil fine to the registered keeper of a vehicle from which a littering offence is committed across England. Under the new Regulations, it would still be possible to issue a criminal penalty if the litterer could be identified, but the council would not be able to issue fines to both the registered keeper and the offender. If the civil penalty weren’t paid, instead of prosecuting, the council would be able to recover the fine from the registered keeper as a civil debt. The new Regulations would address matters such as the size of the fine, the form and content of the penalty notice, exceptions to the keeper’s liability (for example if the vehicle has been stolen) and matters relating to appeals. Decisions on these matters would be informed by information and feedback from councils. Before introducing new regulations, the Government wants to be sure that any new regulations will work as intended and will meet local authorities’ needs in a way that the current regime of criminal sanctions for littering may not.

What are your opinions on moving to a PCN system?

- Support using a PCN [open end] - Disagree with using a PCN [open end] - Mixed opinion [open end]

To what extent do you feel introducing a PCN system will remove the barriers in enforcing littering from vehicles discussed earlier? [open end]

What impact do you think moving to a PCN system for enforcing action against littering from vehicles might have on the frequency of littering from vehicles? [open end]

What extra resources would you need across the authority to introduce a PCN system for enforcing action against littering from vehicles? [open end]

Finally, do you consent to us to pass on your responses to Defra for the purposes of this study, or would you prefer your responses to remain confidential.

- Attributable - Confidential

Scoping Study for Research on Littering from...

Documents

Transcript of Scoping Study for Research on Littering from...