edmonton litter audit 2010

8/8/2019 Edmonton Litter Audit 2010

1/13

The City of Edmonton

LITTER AUDIT

2010PREPARED FOR

The City of EdmontonCommunity Services Department

PREPARED BY

MGM Management

Osoyoos, BC250-495-4592

FINAL REPORTSeptember 18, 2010

1


2/13

Executive Summary

The City of Edmonton contracted MGM Management, a British Columbia based environmentalconsulting firm to conduct a baseline litter audit throughout the city in 2007. The 2007 litter auditwas followed-up with litter audits in 2009 and repeated again in 2010.

MGM Management has conducted 18 litter audits for North American municipalities and

provincial authorities since 2002, prior to this litter audit for Edmonton in 2010. MGMManagement has accumulated a litter database of over 75,000 litter observations from thesecombined litter audits.

In June 2010, the City conducted its third litter audit, using the services of MGM Management.Within this study litter is classified as large for those items over 4 square inches in size or assmall litter for items less than 26 sq. cm. (4 sq. in.). Eighty-four sub-categories of large andsixteen sub-categories for small litter were examined.

A total of 2,378 items of large litter were observed by auditors on Edmonton streets during theJune 2010 litter audit. The same one hundred and twenty-three sites that were audited in 2009were examined during this audit, from June 7 16, 2010. The 2010 litter audit averaged 19

large litter items per site compared to 27 items per site in 2009 and 25 items of large litter persite observed in 2007 .

Table ES 1 2010 Litter vs. Previous Audits

Summary of Large Litter Results (2010, 2009 & 2007)

2010 2009 2007Total Large Litter 2,378 3,361 2,650

Number of sites audited 123 123 106

Average items / site 19.3 27.3 25.0

Examining large litter rates in Edmonton it was apparent that the streets were cleaner when the2010 audit was conducted as compared to the 2009 audit. The results presented above confirmthis with a 29% reduction in large litter in the 2010 results compared to the previous year, and23% decrease in litter compared to 2007.

Figure ES-1, below illustrates how the results in the Edmonton litter audit compared with otherjurisdictions where audits have been conducted using the same methodology. Litter inEdmonton in 2010 was observed to be at the lower end of litter rates for all cities where litter

audits have been conducted using this method of audit.

City of Edmonton Litter Audit Report Executive Summary September 18, 2010 1


3/13

Figure ES1 Edmonton vs. Other Litter Audit Results

Items

perSite

21Items/site

20Items/site

2002 2004 2005

Large Litter Edmonton 2010vs. Other Litter Audits

2003 2006

15Items

28Items/site

25Items/site

GTARegionA-28Items

GTARegionC23

persite

GTARegionB-42Items

/site

20011997199619951994

CityofToronto

inBlue

GreaterToronto

AreaAudits

42Items/site

36Items/site

32Items/site

35Items/site

FloridaAudits

10

20

30

40

2007

36Items/site

SanFrancisco

2008

30Items/site

2009

33Items/site

2007

25Items/site

Edmonton

27Items/site

2009 2009

34Items/site

Alberta

Highways

2010

31Items/site

SanJose

19Items/site

Tobacco packaging was the largest identifiable sub-category of large litter observed at 248items or 10.4% of total large litter, compared to 9.2% in 2009, and 7.4% in 2007. Non-brandednapkins were the next most significant sub-category observed at 232 items, or 9.8% of totallarge litter, compared to 11.6% in 2009, and 8.2% in 2007. Printed paper followed as the thirdmost significant subcategory of large litter at 172 items, or 7.2% of total large litter, compared to6.5% in 2009, and 5.2% in 2007. The fourth sub-category of note was miscellaneous plasticlitter which was observed at 164 litter pieces, or 6.9% of total large litter, compared to 9.7% in2009, and 14.1% in 2007.

These four sub-categories combined to represent over 1/3 of all large litter observed inEdmonton during the audit (34%).

City of Edmonton Litter Audit Report Executive Summary September 18, 20102


4/13


3

Table ES 2 Top 20 Subcategories of Litter

Top 20 Litter Categories Equal 81% of Litter in 2010

2010 2009 2007Results Results Baseline

2010

Top 20 Large Litter

Items /

Site

Items /

Site

Items /

Site1 Tobacco packaging 248.5 310 197

2 No Brand Name Towels / Napkins 232.5 389.5 217

3 Printed material (newspapers etc.) 171.5 220 137.5

4 Misc. Plastic 164.5 326 374

5 Candy bar wraps 161 160 106

6 Misc. Paper 137.5 337.5 296

7 Home Articles 105 135 91.5

8 Construction debris 82 69 111.5

9 Paper Cups (Hot) 73.5 79.5 59.5

10 Misc. Cardboard 73.5 76 50

11 Plastic packaging other 69.5 125 53.5

12 Vehicle & Metal Road Debris 61.513 Cup Lids, Pieces lids 60.5 86.5 97.5

14 Receipts (forms, bus tickets etc.) 55.5 60.5 84

15 Condiment packaging 46 66 47.5

16 Foil materials / foil pieces 44.5 77 45.5

17 Plastic bags - not retail 42.5 53.5 26

18 Misc. Paperboard 42 88.5 63.5

19 Other Paperboard packaging 42

20 Gum wrappers 38 76 44

Plastic drink cups (part 2009 Top 20) 62.5

Paper cups (cold) (part 2009 Top 20) 51

Items in Top 20 Sub-categories 1,952 2,849 2,102

% of Total Large Litter (Top 20) 82% 85% 84%

In Table ES3 & ES-4 and Figure ES-2 & ES-3 below, we describe the make up of both fibreand plastic litter. Together fibre and plastic material litter account for 84% of the large litterobserved.

As we first reported in the 2009 litter audit, fibre litter is comprised of miscellaneous paper,paper packaging, printed paper, paperboard, cardboard, newspapers and advertisement flyerswhich all combine to make fibre litter a significant contributor to the litter on Edmonton streets.

Twenty-four sub-categories of fibre litter account for 53% of the total large litter observed in2010, compared to 55% in 2009.

Plastic litter is also a significant material type of large litter observed in Edmonton. Thesematerials include, candy bar wrappers, other plastic packaging, condiment packaging, plasticcups and plastic bags.


5/13

Table ES 3 - Composition of Fibre Litter

2010 Total Fibre Materials

2010

Items

2010 -

% of

Fibre

Litter

2009

Items

2009 -

% of

Fibre

Litter

Tobacco other (packaging) 248.5 19.9% 310 16.7%

No Brand Name Towels / Napkins 232.5 18.6% 389.5 21.0%

Printed material (newspapers,flyersetc.) 171.5 13.7% 220 11.9%

Misc. Paper 137.5 11.0% 337.5 18.2%

Paper Cups (Hot) 73.5 5.9% 79.5 4.3%

Misc. Cardboard 73.5 5.9% 76 4.1%

Receipts (forms, bus transfers, etc.) 55.5 4.4% 60.5 3.3%

Paperboard (cereal type) 42 3.4% 40 2.2%

Misc. Paperboard 42 3.4% 88.5 4.8%

Gum wrappers 38 3.0% 76 4.1%

Paper Food Wrap 35 2.8% 27 1.5%

Paper Cups (cold) 32.5 2.6% 51 2.8%

Paper packaging other 24 1.9% 15.5 0.8%Paper bags - fast food 23.5 1.9% 30.5 1.6%

Paper bags - not retail 8 0.6% 5.5 0.3%

Stationary (school, business etc.) 6 0.5% 8 0.4%

Name Brand Napkins / Serviettes 2.5 0.2% 7 0.4%

Paper retail bags 2 0.2% 10.5 0.6%

Paper / foil composite wrap 1 0.1% 7.5 0.4%

Paper clamshells 1 0.1% 2.5 0.1%

Cardboard boxes/ box mat'l 1 0.1% 1 0.1%

Paper / foil composite wrap 7.5 0.4%

Cardboard boxes/ box mat'l 1.0 0.1%

Total Fibre large litter 1,251 100% 1,852 100%

% of total large litter 53% 55%



6/13

Figure ES 2 Make-up of Fibre Litter

Table ES 3 - Composition of Plastic Litter

2010 Composition of Plastic Litter

Items

% of

Plastic

LitterMisc. Plastic 164.5 22%

Candy bar wraps 161 22%

Plastic packaging other 69.5 9%

Cup Lids, Pieces lids 60.5 8%

Condiment pckg (ketchup, vinegar etc.) 46 6%

Plastic bags - not retail 42.5 6%

Plastic drink cups 35 5% 78%

Sweet packaging 28.5 4%

All remaining plastic litter 139 19%

Total plastic large litter 746.5

% of total large litter 31%( 2009 plastic = 27% of total large litter)



7/13

Figure ES 3 - Composition of Plastic Litter

Table ES 4: Edmonton Large Litter vs. 18 Audits

Edmonton 2010 vs. Other Jurisdictions (2002 - 2010) 1.

Observations

-2002

to

2010

(18l

itteraudits)

%

ofTotal

Litter

2002

to

2010

(18

audits)

Edmonton

June2010

Edmonton

June2009

Edmonton

June2007

% of total

large litter

% of total

large litter

% of total

large litter

% of total

large litter

Average all

Audits

Other Miscellaneous 25,925 33.2%14,476 18.7%

5,817 7.2%6,682 8.8%4,165 5.6%5,624 6.2%4,119 7.4%2,351 2.7%1,914 2.3%1,700 2.4%

949 1.0%1,006 1.3%1,015 3.2%

145 0.2%

75,885 100%

28.4% 33.1% 39.9%Printed & Fiber Mat'l 19.6% 20.3% 17.4%

Cups 9.0% 8.4% 9.8%Confectionary 10.2% 9.1% 8.0%

Other Packaging 6.4% 6.7% 4.6%Bags 4.4% 3.5% 2.7%Tobacco Products 10.4% 9.2% 7.4%

Take-Out Extras 2.3% 2.4% 2.4%Beverage Containers 2.5% 1.8% 3.8%

Wraps 1.9% 1.3% 1.3%Other Containers 1.3% 1.3% 0.7%

Boxes 1.9% 1.4% 1.0%Textiles 1.4% 1.3% 0.8%Trays 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

100% 100% 100%

1. Aggregated litter data, Litter audits by MGM Management including:

City of Toronto, Canada (2002, 2003, 2004 (2 audits), 2005, 2006

Regional Municipality of Peel, Canada (2003)

Regional Municipality of York, Canada (2003)

Regional Municipality of Durham, Canada (2003) and

San Francisco (2007, 2008, 2009)

San Jose (2008)

Edmonton (2007, 2009, 2010)

Alberta Transportation (2009)

2. Other miscellaneous sub-category includes: Miscellaneous paper, Miscellaneous plastic,

Construction debris, Home articles, Vehicle & Metal Road debris,

Miscellaneous Paperboard, Miscellaneous cardboard, Miscellaneous Glass and Tire & Rubber debris.



8/13


7

As Table ES 4 above shows that for the most part the litter composition in Edmonton is similarto that observed in 18 other litter audits in various jurisdictions in North America. Whereas theoverall litter rate in Edmonton has decreased since the 2009 audit, there are some interestingexceptions such as tobacco products which have continually risen in their proportion of totallitter from the average of 7.4% in 2007, to 9.2% in 2009, and 10.4% in 2010. Confectionary litteris showing a similar upward trend from 8% of total large litter in 2007, 9.1% in 2009 and 10.2%in 2010. Bag litter has also risen from 2.7% of total large litter in 2007, 3.5% in 2009 and 4.4% in

2010. These three categories of litter may warrant special attention in the Citys efforts to reducelarge litter in the future.


9/13

Small Litter Observations

Observations of small litter made during the Edmonton audit continue to reveal a relatively lowoccurrence of small litter on city streets, as compared to audits performed by the consultant inother cities. In the 2010 audit we observed 1,220 small litter items, considerably fewer than the2,114 small litter items counted in the 2009 audit, and 1,341 items observed at 106 sites in2007. The average of small litter of 10 items per site in 2010 has dropped from 17 items per sitein 2009, compared to 13 items per site in 2007.

When contrasted against the 21 small litter items / site observed for the City of Toronto, Ontario,Canada in 2006, or the 23 items per site reported in San Francisco in 2007; the small litteroccurrence in Edmonton is not excessive.

Small litter is difficult to control, in that it is manufactured by a combination of degradation(weather) and man-made activities (vehicle traffic, mowing, etc.).

The small litter results for the Edmonton audit sites are described in the chart below, and TableES-5 Small Litter Summary on the following page.



10/13

Table ES 5 - Small Litter Summary

2010 Edmonton Small Litter Summary

2010

Edmonton

Small

ItemsObservedDescription of Sub-Category

2009

Edmonton

Small

ItemsObserved

2007

Edmonton

Small

ItemsObserved

Cigarette Butts 572 961 479

Small Paper 164 383 279

Hard Plastic 104 232 103

Chewing Gum 76 40 61

Plastic Film Small 67 108 107

Other Polystyrene Pieces 49 113 108

Alum Pieces Small 47 72 17

Candy Pack. < 4 sq. In. 42 31 6

Other Materials 19 33 24Small Glass 16 90 101

Metal (not Aluminium) 13 7 8

Polyfoam Peanuts 13 7 2

Bottle Caps 12 9 4

Straws 11 16 11

Other Tobacco Small 10 2 24

Rubber 5 10 7

Small litter items observed 1,220 2,114 1,341

Average small litter per site 10 17 13

Sites audited 123 123 106



11/13

Additional Observations 2010 Litter Audit

The results of the 2010 Edmonton Litter audit are encouraging in the Citys efforts to reducelitter.

We noted that the downtown areas were visibly cleaner than in the 2009 and 2007 litter audits.An example is Jasper Avenue where less litter was noted around bus shelters.

During the litter audit the field team noted more street cleaning activities than previouslyobserved in 2009 and 2007. Some of the cleaning work was being carried out by city workers,but in several instances the consultant observed private business owners sweeping up in frontof their establishments. Some of the areas of particular note were the 82nd Avenue (WhyteAvenue) area where automobile dealerships appear to be cleaning up the sidewalk and curbarea. We also noted the area on Gateway Blvd. near the Koch Ford Dealership and in thevicinity of Rexall Place, as noticeably less littered than the 2009 and 2007 litter audits.

It appears that efforts by the Capital City Clean Up program are having a positive effect on

reducing litter in the city. That being said however, there are areas that we noted that may assistthe City in reducing the litter even further.

We noted on several occasions where grass mowing operations were underway on cityproperty. In one instance the mower operator was observed shredding fibre litter (cardboard andnewspaper litter) in the normal operation of the equipment. Whether litter is picked up prior tomowing is an operational matter, and one that does impart costs for cleaning prior to mowing.During the 2010 audit the consultant had a discussion with a private contractor that was mowingfor a trailer park development. The site was very clean and the comment of the contractor was



12/13

that they always pick up litter before mowing, because their clients would react negatively fromthem shredding litter and leaving a larger problem behind after mowing is completed. This isrevealing and was also evident on Anthony Henday Drive, which was the most littered site in the2010 litter audit and the 7th most littered in 2009. This site was mowed just prior to the auditteam arriving, and mowers were still on site. Shredding of large litter makes the litter situationworse and if possible should be avoided.

During the June litter audit the consultant also noted that considerable litter was present alongthe fence line of the Fleet Services Branch Westwood Facility bordering on 107 St. and theYellowhead Trail. This site was not an audit site, but the consultant made this observationwhile walking to a site on the Yellowhead Trail. The point of this observation is that Cityfacilities have the capability and a responsibility to be as free of litter as possible. Efforts shouldbe considered with various departments / branches to conduct regular litter clean-up activities attheir sites. The consultant has observed this problem in other cities (Toronto, San Francisco,San Jose) where City facilities may often be overlooked and not maintained to a high standardof litter clean-up. Areas of particular concern are: bus workshops / parking; vehicle maintenanceareas, waste transfer stations, recycling centres. It has been our experience that waste waterand drinking water treatment plants are usually maintained to a high standard.



13/13

The Yellowhead Trail is a main arterial highway running through north Edmonton. Due to theunique nature of this corridor and its link to landfill locations at both the east and west ends ofthe City, the consultant will be reporting on the occurrence of large litter in a section of theYellowhead Trail in a separate audit. However, as the photographs below illustrate there is ahigh occurrence of large litter deposited adjacent to this roadway. This may provide asignificant opportunity for public education and outreach to have drivers realize their litteringbehaviour is not acceptable in Edmonton and should be curtailed.

The consultant noted that trash bins in 2010 appeared to be well serviced, with few overflowingtrash bins noted. Some new and highly visible trash and recycling receptacles were observed,as were cigarette butt receptacles on lamp posts in the downtown area. Some of thesereceptacles are due to the direct efforts of the City of Edmonton and Capital City Clean Up inlocal business revitalization zones and the support of program partners like Health Canada.These efforts to promote proper handling of items that would otherwise become litter appear to

be part of the reason why the litter rates have dropped in Edmonton in 2010.

We note that cigarette butt and tobacco packaging litter remains a significant issue inEdmonton. Cigarette butts (small litter) and tobacco packaging (large litter) have increasedproportionately since the 2007 base line audit. However, actual counts in both cigarette butts(from 961 to 572) and tobacco packaging (from 310 to 248.5) have decreased since the 2009litter audit. This may be due in part to CCCU's 2009 Cigarette Butt Litter Reduction Campaignwhich saw street ashtrays introduced into some commercial areas combined with a city-widepublic education program.


edmonton litter audit 2010

Documents