victorian litter report sept 2013 final.doc€¦ · web viewyear number locations littered items...

The Victorian Litter ReportISSN 1838-4137

Contact DetailsNick ChrisantData AnalystSustainability Victoria(03) 8626 8700

The original CCAT methodology was designed in 2003 by Robert Curnow and Karen Spehr, Community Change Pty Ltd.

Audits for the Victorian Litter Report September 2013 were undertaken byMike Ritchie & Associates Pty Ltd.

Published by Sustainability VictoriaLevel 28 Urban Workshop50 Lonsdale StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000Australia.July 2014

Victorian Litter Report September 2013 © Sustainability Victoria 2014

While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, Sustainability Victoria gives no warranty regarding its accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose and to the extent permitted by law, does not accept any liability for loss or damages incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the content of this publication. This publication is provided on the basis that all persons accessing it undertake responsibility for assessing the relevance and accuracy of its content.

The Victorian Litter Report September 2013 should be attributed to Sustainability Victoria.

The Victorian Litter Report September 2013 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work and abide by the other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, visit: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

The Victorian Litter Report Sept. 2013i

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 4TOWARDS LITTER PREVENTION...........................................................................................................7

LITTERING BEHAVIOUR AND THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................7COMPONENTS OF LITTER PREVENTION.......................................................................................................7LITTER PREVENTION................................................................................................................................. 8COMPONENTS OF LITTER PREVENTION.......................................................................................................9LITTER PREVENTION: SITE TYPES............................................................................................................12COMPONENTS OF LITTER PREVENTION: SITE TYPES..................................................................................14

LITTER COUNTS.................................................................................................................................... 15LITTER LEVELS....................................................................................................................................... 15SITE TYPES AND LITTER..........................................................................................................................17

THE LITTER STREAM............................................................................................................................ 19LITTER COMPOSITION.............................................................................................................................. 19SITE TYPES AND LITTER COMPOSITION.....................................................................................................21

TOWARDS BEHAVIOUR CHANGE........................................................................................................22LITTERING BEHAVIOURS IN VICTORIA.......................................................................................................22LITTERING AND SITE TYPES..................................................................................................................... 24

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT LITTER...................................................................................................25COMMUNITY SATISFACTION WITH LITTER MANAGEMENT.............................................................................28

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................31BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................ 31TOOLS USED IN THE VICTORIAN LITTER REPORT......................................................................................31VICTORIAN LITTER REPORT 2013-SEPT. METHODOLOGY..........................................................................33

APPENDIX B: SITE TYPES.................................................................................................................... 34REVIEW OF SITE CLASSIFICATION AND SELECTION....................................................................................34

APPENDIX C – CONFIDENCE INTERVALS..........................................................................................36APPENDIX D: LOCATIONS.................................................................................................................... 40APPENDIX E: LITTERED ITEMS CLASSIFICATION.............................................................................46APPENDIX F: CCAT SUMMARY SCORES AND NOTIONAL TARGETS..............................................47APPENDIX G: HISTORICAL COMPOSITIONAL DATA OF LITTERED ITEMS.....................................52Appendix H: Trend Data........................................................................................................................... 54

The Victorian Litter Report Sept. 2013ii

Tables

Table 1 Interpretation of high and low CCAT summary (litter prevention performance) scores.................7Table 2 Site type by CCAT summary, factor and sub-factor scores 2013-Sept.......................................14Table 3 Statewide litter counts 2003 – 2013-Sept....................................................................................15Table 4 Comparisons of littering in Victoria 2003 – 2013-Sept.................................................................22Table 5 Littering rates by site types 2003 – 2013-Sept............................................................................24Table 6 Gender profile, survey participants’ 2013-Sept...........................................................................25Table 7 CCAT rating guides.....................................................................................................................33Table 8 Site type and sample size by LGA 2013-Sept.............................................................................34Table 9 Site type definitions..................................................................................................................... 35Table 10 Statewide average litter counts with upper and lower confidence

intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept............................................................................................................36Table 11 Average litter counts by site types with upper and lower confidence intervals 2013-Sept.........37Table 12 Statewide littering rate, confidence intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept................................................39Table 13 Location by CCAT summary score 2013-Sept..........................................................................40Table 14 Littered items classification.......................................................................................................46

Figures

Figure 1 VLR litter prevention performance (CCAT summary scores) 2003 – 2013..................................8Figure 2 VLR litter prevention performance (CCAT scores percentage change) 2003 – 2013...................8Figure 3 Statewide litter prevention (CCAT primary and sub-factor scores) 2003 – 2013-Sept.................9Figure 4 Per cent change in the CCAT score and CCAT factor and sub-factor scores since 2003..........10Figure 5 Litter prevention by site types (CCAT summary score) 2003 – 2013-Sept.................................12Figure 6 Change in 2013-Sept. CCAT score by site type compared to 2011 levels.................................13Figure 7 Change in 2013-Sept CCAT score by site type compared to 2003 levels..................................13Figure 8 Statewide average litter counts 2003 – 2013-Sept.....................................................................16Figure 9 Average litter counts by site types 2003 – 2013-Sept................................................................17Figure 10 Change in 2013-Sept. average littered items by site type compared to 2011 levels................18Figure 11 Change in 2013-Sept. average littered items by site type compared to 2003 levels................18Figure 12 Composition of littered items 2011 and 2013-Sept...................................................................19Figure 13 Composition of beverage littered items 2013-Sept...................................................................20Figure 14 Composition of littered items by site types 2013-Sept..............................................................21Figure 15 Statewide littering rate 2003 – 2013-Sept................................................................................23Figure 16 Change in littering rate since 2011 levels by site types, 2013-Sept.........................................24Figure 17 Age profile, survey participants’ 2013-Sept..............................................................................25Figure 18 Education profile, survey participants 2013-Sept.....................................................................26Figure 19 Employment profile, survey participants 2013-Sept.................................................................26Figure 20 Place of residence profile, survey participants 2013-Sept........................................................27Figure 21 Community satisfaction with public places and litter 2003 – 2013-Sept...................................28Figure 22 Community satisfaction with location litter management 2013-Sept........................................29Figure 23 Community assessments of disposal facilities features 2013-Sept..........................................29Figure 24 Statewide average litter counts, confidence intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept.................................36Figure 25 Average litter count by site types, confidence intervals 2013-Sept..........................................37Figure 26 Average litter count by site types, with upper and lower confidence intervals

2003 – 2013-Sept..........................................................................................................................38Figure 27 Statewide littering rate, confidence intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept...............................................39

The Victorian Litter Report Sept. 2013iii

Executive summaryObjectivesThe Victorian Litter Report is the state’s annual report card to assess public littering behaviour and litter levels in public places, including problem litter types and litter hot spots.

The Victorian Litter Report monitors the state’s progress against directions set in ‘Getting full value: Victoria’s Waste and Resource Recovery Policy’ to reduce illegal dumping and littering.

The Victorian Litter Report is funded by the Victorian Government as part of the Victorian Litter Strategy 2012-14, Love your Victoria. The September 2013 VLR is the final report being delivered under the Victorian Litter Strategy. This strategy outlines the programs and actions that will be undertaken in Victoria to prevent and manage litter to achieve a targeted 25% improvement in littering behaviours by 2014, from 2003 levels. Progress towards this target is reported in the Victorian Litter Report.

Please note that only statewide data has been reported in this publication because small survey samples prevent robust comparisons between urban and rural locations.

MethodologyPublic litter levels and behaviour are assessed using a standardised Clean Communities Assessment Tool (CCAT) to establish annual benchmark scores and to monitor the state’s progress in litter reduction.

The 2013 Victorian Litter Report compares the 2013 CCAT outcomes against the: 2011, 2010, 2009, 2007 and 2005 benchmarks 2003 baseline levels (the year litter assessment first started) Notional targets1 set for 2013

The Victorian Litter Report research was conducted in 242 public place locations (26 more than in previous periods) divided into 122 site types, including beaches, public building and transport sites, across Victoria. The research was undertaken from September to December in 2013. In order to avoid confusion, this publication will be referred to as the 2013-Sept. VLR as opposed to the 2013-May VLR undertaken from May to June in 2013 to measure the impact of seasonality on the figures. Both the 2013-Sept. and 2013-May VLR results will be shown in the findings. Comparisons with the previous 2011 VLR will be made against the 2013-Sept. results as these align with the same period of the methodology.

FindingsThe key findings of the 2013-Sept. Victorian Litter Report are:

1 Litter prevention performanceLitter prevention performance is scored out of 100 and tracks improvements to public places such as design and maintenance, for example that influence public littering and bin use. The higher the litter prevention score, the better the performance. In 2013-Sept., Victoria scored 76/100 and represents an 18.8% statewide improvement since

litter assessments began in 2003. Although the 25% improvement target for littering behaviour was not achieved, it still represents an overall improvement in littering behaviours since 2003 levels. This year’s litter prevention performance score fell short of the notional target set for 2013 (79/100) by three percentage points and was three percentage points lower than the 2011 score of 79/100.

Improvements were seen in the litter prevention performance score for all sites types since 2003 with the largest improvements shown for transport (bus and tram stops) and easements (the public space immediately outside railway stations) with 15 and 17 percentage point increases. Smoking sites were also much cleaner showing a 13 percentage point increase. Compared to 2011 levels, most sites showed a decrease however easement sites displayed a 5 point increase.

1 Notional targets represent an incremental linear annual improvement in the derived CCAT scores compared to the baseline established in 2003 to achieve a 25% improvement by 2014. Refer to Appendix F for the derived state notional targets for each of the CCAT factors and sub-factors2 Event locations were excluded from this year’s survey because of timing issues where events did not coincide with the survey.

The Victorian Litter Report Sept. 20134

The largest influence on the litter prevention performance score is the FACILITIES score which summarises the improvements for bin and street furniture and shows a 19 percentage point increase since 2003 but 3 points lower than the 2011 score. The FACILITY score is made up of the Infrastructure and BINfrastructure scores. The Infrastructure score assess the cleanliness and condition of all furniture, streetscape and landscape in the sites audited and shows a 16 percentage point increase from 2003 levels and a 12 point decrease from 2011 scores.

The 2013-Sept. findings reflect improved scores for bin design, position and servicing (BINfrastructure score) since 2003 with a large increase of 23 percentage points indicating that the continual improvement of bins and cleaning regimes by local governments to encourage the community to dispose of litter appropriately is having a significant impact. The scores for bin design, position and servicing was also one percentage point better compared with the 2011 score of 79.

The findings also show a two percentage point increase in the CONTEXT score which indicates that public places were better maintained in terms of their general cleanliness, sense of community belonging and safety, with decreased levels of graffiti and dumping observed compared to 2003 levels. Although an increase was observed from 2003 levels, the CONTEXT score decreased by five percentage points (78 to 73) compared to the 2011 score.

The PERCEPTIONS score summarises community attitudes and views has reached an all-time high with a score of 65; 7 percentage points better than in 2003 when the baseline was first established and 2 points better than 2011 levels. The PERCEPTIONS score is made up of the Adequacy to facilities and Attitude to place scores. The Adequacy of facilities score indicates that communities are more satisfied with the appropriateness and number of bins and cleaning regimes as indicated by the large 18 percentage point increase since 2003 and 13 point increase from 20011. In contrast, the Attitude to place score increased by only two percentage since 2003 (and decreased by 6 points since 2011), indicating that although people are more satisfied that bin numbers were appropriate to meet community needs, their higher expectations of overall cleanliness of locations (i.e. landscaping, streetscape and street furniture) remain unsatisfied.

2 Ground litter counts Ground litter counts record the number of littered items found in a 48-square-metre area of a

public location. The average ground litter count decreased by 4 items, down from 35 in 2011 to 31 in 2013-Sept.

The 2013-May results show an increase of 10 items since 2011 indicating that the impact of the colder weather may affect disposal behaviours. This is well below the highest litter count average of 54 items per location in 2007 and eight items less than the notional target of 39 items for 2013. The average litter count data is showing a downward trend since 2003 levels where the state average litter count decreased from 50 items per location in 2003 to 31 items in September 2013, a 19 percentage point decrease indicating that local governments have significantly improved the cleaning regimes of litter on the ground.

3 Litter hot spots The worst locations for litter on the ground are transport locations (bus and tram stops) and

easements3 (the public space immediately outside railway stations), with an average of 65 and 64 items per location in 2013-Sept. Easements have continued to be the biggest litter hot spot challenge since 2003.

4 Problem litter types Cigarette litter4 prevail as the most common type of litter (48%), accounting for nearly half of

all items counted in all locations, followed by beverage items (31%) and then paper (9%). Cigarette litter decreased to 48% in 2013-Sept. (down from 54% in 2011). The highest

proportion of cigarette litter was found in waterfront precincts (85%), smoking (84%) and public building sites (82%). The lowest levels of cigarette litter were found in waterfront sites (34%).

Beverage litter has continued to increase from 16% in 2005 to 31% in 2013-Sept. and has increased by 2 percentage points since 2011. Most beverage litter is in the form of glass bits, which made up 65% of the beverage total. Plastic caps and plastic bits made up 18% and metal caps 11%.

3 Refer to Appendix B, Table 9 Site type definitions for a more detailed explanation4 97% of all cigarette litter is comprised of cigarette butts


Paper litter contributed 9% to total litter counted on the ground in 2013-Sept., up from 6% in 2011.

5 Rate of public littering Littering behaviour in 2013-Sept. was assessed by monitoring 670 litter disposals5 in 242 locations to calculate the percentage of litter not disposed of into a bin (or the littering behaviour rate).

The 2013-Sept. results reveal that 80% of Victorians dispose of their waste into bins in public places. This result is three percentage point better than the 2011 disposal rate of 77% and five percentage points better than the benchmark established in 2003 with 75%.

The 2013-Sept. public littering rate of 20%, although higher than the notional target of 19%, shows a weak downward trend since 2003, when the littering rate was 25% (with the exception of 2009 where it was 16%). Although not a significant decrease, this improvement comes after years of public littering rates trending upwards.

ConclusionAlthough litter counts help to build a picture of litter accumulation in public places, it is what people do with unwanted items that remains the most effective indicator of public littering and the most accurate measure of success in prevention efforts. This is evident in the example of easements, for example, where the decline in public litter rates clearly points to an improvement in the success of prevention efforts even though litter counts indicate easements remain a litter hotspot.

Considerable effort has been put into improving bin design, position, adequacy, signage and cleaning regimes and those improvements are reflected in the percentage point increases in the scores for bin improvements since 2003 (23 percentage point improvement) and community satisfaction with litter management in public places (up by 13 percentage points since 2011 and 18 points from 2003).

While bin numbers met community needs and were cleaner and better maintained than in previous years, higher expectations of overall cleanliness remain unsatisfied. The combined outcome of those higher expectations and less community satisfaction about people’s disposal actions is reflected in the lower overall CCAT score for 2013-Sept. compared to 2011.

Since its beginnings in 2003, Victorian Litter Report findings have consistently demonstrated that when public places are well maintained, safe and offer appropriate litter disposal, a sense of community ownership and care will follow.

The 2013-Sept results indicate that improvements remain to be made if overall community satisfaction with litter management is to be lifted which will, in turn, ultimately encourage more Victorians to dispose of litter appropriately.

5 Litter disposals refer to observations of negative and positive disposals at the sites audited.


Towards litter prevention

Littering behaviour and the local environmentLittering behaviour is influenced by many factors, including where littering occurs. Public places that are well maintained, safe and offer appropriate litter disposal encourage a sense of community ownership and care and have high expectations of this continuing. In contrast, public places that are poorly maintained often attract not only litter but graffiti and displays of anti-social behaviour that make these locations appear unsafe6.

Components of litter preventionThe CCAT summary, or litter prevention performance score, tracks improvements to public places that contribute to reductions in littering. The factors – ‘Context’, ‘Facilities’ and ‘Perceptions’ – are described in Table 1 and in more detail in Appendix A.

Table 1 Interpretation of high and low CCAT summary (litter prevention performance) scores

Factor / sub-factor

Description High score Low score

CCAT summary score

Features combined in a summary rating

Area likely to be extremely clean and resource recovery successful

Area is highly littered, with contamination of recyclables

Context Community identity and involvement

Strong sense of pride, ownership over the space

Poor sense of ownership and area is not clean

Facilities Summarises results for bins and street furniture (i.e. public seating, tables, shelters, etc.)

Extremely well maintained, litter-free facilities that are easily used and well positioned

Inadequate facilities, poorly maintained

Infrastructure Condition and cleanliness of all street furniture, streetscape and landscaping

Street furniture is extremely well maintained, clean and appropriate

Poorly maintained and surrounded by litter

BINfrastructure Features and cleanliness of all litter, recycling and butt bins

Bin design, position and maintenance is highly appropriate to area and usage patterns

Inadequate number, configuration, positioning or servicing of bins

Public perceptions & attitudes*

Summary of community views on area

Area is perceived as extremely well looked after and serviced

Area is seen as inadequately presented

Attitudes to place Views on the area and expected actions

Strong expectation exists for people to do the right thing with used items

No expectation to do the right thing

Attitudes towards disposal facilities**

Perceptions of appropriateness of bins and furniture

Facilities are viewed as highly appropriate and meet the needs of community

Community sees a need to improve facilities

* Abbreviated as Perceptions in the 2013 VLR** Referred to as Adequacy of facilities in the 2013 VLR

Local efforts at litter prevention are measured by rating landscaping, bin design, maintenance and servicing, as well as other features within the control of owners or caretakers that influence littering, bin use and litter accumulation.

The CCAT methodology converts these ratings to a ‘summary’ or litter prevention performance score out of 100. This is the primary measure used to track the state’s progress against Victorian Litter Strategy 2012-14, Love your Victoria to improve littering behaviour by 25% by 2014. A higher CCAT summary score indicates these elements are working well, encouraging users to keep areas clean and facilitating community ownership and engagement. Lower CCAT scores indicate the need for improvement, such as repairing and cleaning damaged or poorly maintained bins and infrastructure, or adjusting maintenance routines and servicing schedules to reduce overflowing bins.

6 Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities by George L. Kelling and Catharine Coles;Gladwell M. 2000. The Tipping Point, USA: Little Brown and Company


Litter preventionFigure 1 shows the statewide CCAT summary score for litter prevention performance in all 242 locations assessed throughout Victoria since 2003. Figure 2 shows the state’s performance relative to the notional target for litter prevention, expressed as a percentage change since 2003.

Figure 1 VLR litter prevention performance (CCAT summary scores) 2003 – 2013

6468

69

75 7779

8077

76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CC

AT

Sum

mar

y S

core

Actual Notional target May. 2013 Sept. 2013

Figure 2 VLR litter prevention performance (CCAT scores percentage change) 2003 – 2013

6.37.8

17.2

20.3

23.4 25

20.318.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Per

cent

(%)

Actual Notional target May. 2013 Sept. 2013


Observations Although a CCAT summary score of 76 / 100 for Victoria in 2013-Sept. indicates an

improvement in litter prevention performance in public places, compared to the 2003 level of 64 / 100 (Figure 1) the CCAT score was three percentage points lower than 2011, and is three percentage points lower than the notional target for 2013 of 79 / 100.

The main purpose of the Victorian Litter Report is to monitor the state’s progress against directions set in the previous government’s Towards Zero Waste (TZW) strategy to achieve a 25% improvement in littering behaviours by 2014, from 2003 levels. Figure 2 shows that the 2013 CCAT summary score has increased by 18.8% since the base year of 2003 but falls short of the 25% target set in TZW strategy.

Components of litter preventionFigure 37 scores each of the litter prevention components that make up the CCAT summary score and compares the 2013 results against the previous survey scores.

Figure 3 Statewide litter prevention (CCAT primary and sub-factor scores) 2003 – 2013-Sept.

71 62 5869 71 5974 69 6277 78 6078 81 6278 84 6376 82 6273 81 650

20

40

60

80

100

CONTEXT FACILITIES PERCEPTIONS

Litte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

62 60 5771 69 6769 65 6878 78 7581 84 7684 88 7982 80 8081 76 800

20

40

60

80

100

FACILITIES Infrastructure BINfrastructure

Litte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

7 CCAT scores have been presented on a 100-point scale. Note that primary factors (in upper case) comprise the sub-factor scores (shown in lower case) but do not represent an average of the two sub-factor scores. For example, the PERCEPTIONS score comprises all ratings items for sub-factors Attitude to place and Attitude to facilities but does not represent a numerical average of the two sub-factor total scores.


58 63 4859 66 4662 68 5460 66 5362 67 5563 71 5362 65 5865 65 660

20

40

60

80

100

PERCEPTIONS Attitude to place Adequacy of facilities

Litte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

Figure 4 shows a summary of the improvements achieved since 2003 levels. The CCAT score is made up of three main factors, namely CONTEXT, FACILITIES and PERCEPTIONS. The sub-factors that contribute to the FACTORS scores are shown in lower case such as the Infrastructure and BINfrastructure scores. All components of the CCAT score have shown increases since 2003 with the largest increases evident for Binfrastructure and Adequacy of facilities scores.

Figure 4 Per cent change in the CCAT score and CCAT factor and sub-factor scores since 2003

18.8%

2.7%

31.1%

27.4%

40.5%

12.9%

3.0%

37.9%

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

CCAT

CONTEXT

FACILITIES

Infrastructure

BINfrastructure

PERCEPTIONS

Attitude to place

Adequacy of facilities

Per cent change (%)

ObservationsAll three CCAT score factors – Context, Facilities and Perceptions – show improvement since the 2003 baseline that laid the foundations for measuring improved littering behaviour in Victoria. The largest long-term improvement is evident in Facilities.

The Context score decreased in 2013-Sept. by three percentage points compared to 2011. This indicates that public places were not as well maintained in terms of their general cleanliness, sense of community belonging and safety, with slightly increased levels of graffiti and dumping observed.


The Facilities score has also decreased in 2013-Sept. by three percentage points. The 12 percentage point decrease in the Infrastructure score indicates that improvements to maintenance, presentation and cleanliness of street furniture and landscaping gained in previous years has dropped off. The 1 percentage point improvement in the BINfrastructure score on the other hand, reflects local improvements in bin design, positioning and servicing. The BINfrastructure score and is the only indicator to show continuous improvement every year since 2003.

Community attitudes and views – measured by the Perceptions score have reached an all-time high with a score of 65; 3 percentage points better than in 2011. Adequacy of facilities reached its highest score of 66 since 2003 with a 13 percentage point increase over 2011 - indicating that the community is more satisfied with the facilities than in previous surveys. In contrast, the Attitude to place score decreased by six percentage points in an almost inverse reaction to Adequacy of facilities, indicating that although people are more satisfied with the facilities they are less satisfied with the disposal actions of people in the area.


Litter prevention: Site types Figure 5 shows CCAT summary scores for litter prevention performance in different site types throughout Victoria.

Figure 5 Litter prevention by site types (CCAT summary score) 2003 – 2013-Sept.

66 66 68 7067 69 71 7269 70 72 7275 77 76 7676 77 80 7879 77 82 8175 77 79 8177 76 76 770

20

40

60

80

100

Shops Mall Park Waterfront

Litte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

66 66 64 6369 74 76 6869 66 75 6977 77 81 7377 81 83 7979 83 84 8278 73 82 8378 79 790

20

40

60

80

100

Public Building Market Beach Event

Litte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

59 67 63 56 7263 73 66 56 7563 70 65 59 7569 76 76 64 8272 80 77 65 7974 77 78 68 7972 79 74 69 8074 77 76 73 800

20

40

60

80

100

Transport Landmark Smoking Easement Waterfront Precinct

Litte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

Figures 6 and 7 show the change in the litter prevention (CCAT score) of 2013-Sept. since 2011 levels and from the base year established in 2003.


Figure 6 Change in 2013-Sept. CCAT score by site type compared to 2011 levels

-2

-1

-6

-4

-1

-4

-5

0

0

-2

5

1

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Shops

Mall

Park

Waterfront

Public Building

Market

Beach

Transport

Landmark

Smoking

Easement

Waterfront Precinct

Change in CCAT score

Figure 7 Change in 2013-Sept CCAT score by site type compared to 2003 levels

11

10

8

7

12

13

15

15

10

13

17

8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Shops

Mall

Park

Waterfront

Public Building

Market

Beach

Transport

Landmark

Smoking

Easement

Waterfront Precinct

Change in CCAT score

Observations Since 2011, only two of the 13 site types (easement and waterfront precincts) have shown an

improvement in the litter prevention improvement score ranging from one to five percentage points. Landmark areas and transport sites remained unchanged.

The highest 2013-Sept. litter prevention scores were found at waterfront precinct sites (80), beach (79) and market locations (79).

Litter prevention scores at Easement and transport locations were below the state CCAT average score of 76, with 73 and 74 respectively.


This year, park locations showed a 6 percentage point decrease in a significant change compared to 2011, while easements showed a 5 percentage point improvement.

The biggest site improvement since 2003 was seen in easement sites where litter prevention scores increased by 17 percentage points, indicating local litter managers’ efforts to tackle difficult and highly littered locations.

Components of litter prevention: Site typesTable 2 shows the CCAT summary scores for each CCAT factor and sub-factors for the different site types8 (or locations).

Table 2 Site type by CCAT summary, factor and sub-factor scores 2013-Sept.

Sitetype

CCAT summary

score9

CONTEXT FACILITIESInfra-

structureBIN-

frastructure

PERCEPTIONSAttitude to place

Adequacy of facilities

Shops 77 73 83 75 85 65 63 67Mall 76 72 82 74 84 62 64 60Park 76 71 83 80 82 61 62 60Waterfront 77 74 82 80 75 66 65 66Public building 78 77 81 77 78 67 68 67Market 79 81 82 78 84 72 69 75Beach 79 75 86 82 87 65 63 69Transport 74 71 79 70 83 65 63 67Landmark 77 72 82 80 74 69 68 70Smoking 76 73 80 77 78 66 66 65Easement 73 69 73 68 68 71 69 74Waterfront precinct 80 68 87 81 89 67 64 71State average 77 73 81 76 80 66 65 66

Observations The biggest improvements in 2013-Sept. came from waterfront precinct locations, much of which

can be attributed to improvements in facilities, especially BINinfrastucture (bin numbers, adequacy, cleanliness, proximity and design) which achieved a score of 89 compared to the state average of 80.

The two other site types to demonstrate the highest CCAT summary scores – market and beach sites – showed higher than average scores for Context, Facilities and Perceptions.

8 Historical trend data since 2003 is provided in table format in Appendix H.9 Please note that the CCAT summary score is not a simple averaging of the factors and sub-factors but an averaging of all 86 variables used in the construct of the score.


Litter countsLitter counts measure the number of littered items in public places. Using a standardised approach, the amount of litter in each location is assessed over a 48-square-metre area including, ideally, a bin and furniture or other infrastructure. Since 2007, the litter count methodology has been refined to enable improved comparison of litter prevention factors that councils have direct influence on and to provide meaningful comparisons against earlier benchmarks. Refinements have included: (1) removal of animal faeces and chewing gum and (2) ‘other’ now includes hazardous litter, such as syringes, medical litter, such as band aids, and commercial litter, such as trolleys. Data from 2003 and 2005 has been adjusted to reflect these changes.

Litter counts, although useful, are not a reliable measure of litter prevention outcomes as they can be influenced by a range of factors unrelated to individual disposal behaviours, including the number of people in public places at given times, the number of people littering and levels of maintenance and clean-up schedules. It is important to note, therefore, that litter counts may vary according to variables including the adequacy of litter containment, the timing of survey litter counts (particularly in relation to clean-up schedules) and weather conditions such as wind and rain.

For this reason, Appendix C shows litter count results with a 95% confidence interval – indicated by upper and lower confidence intervals on either side of the survey’s average litter count. The true litter count average lies somewhere within this range.

Effective litter prevention is inevitably associated with reductions in litter items found on the ground. Although litter counts may help to build a picture of litter accumulation in public places, it is littering behaviour rates that are considered a more accurate measure of litter prevention success (covered in more detail in ‘Towards behaviour change’ on p 21). For this reason litter counts in the Victorian Litter Report are compared to notional targets that represent the level of expected change required to achieve the equivalent of 25% improvement by 2014.

Litter levelsTable 3 and Figure 8 show the total number of littered items and average litter items found in locations audited throughout Victoria since 2003. The notional litter count reduction targets for 2013-Sept. are also included in Table 3 and Figure 8.

Table 3 Statewide litter counts 2003 – 2013-Sept.

Year

Number

Locations Littered items

Notional target for littered

items

Average littered items

Notional target for average

littered items2003 209 10,408 10,408 50 50

2005 247 9,535 9,935 39 48

2007 215 11,496 9,462 54 45

2009 215 6,835 8,989 32 43

2010 216 7,692 8,752 36 42

2011 216 7,573 8,516 35 41

2013-May 216 9,760 8,043 45 39

2013-Sept. 242 7,461 8,043 31 39


Figure 8 Statewide average litter counts 2003 – 2013-Sept.

50

39

54

32

36 3539

45

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

Actual Notional target 2013-May 2013-Sept.

The upper and lower confidence intervals for the statewide average litter counts for each of the survey periods is shown in Appendix C.

Observations Litter count levels throughout Victoria in 2013-Sept. averaged 31 items per location, down from

35 items in 2011 and well below the 2013 notional target of 39 items per location.

The average litter count data shows a downward trend since 2003 levels.


Site types and litterLitter counts were also examined according to site type, as summarised in Figures 9, 10 and 11.

Figure 9 Average litter counts by site types 2003 – 2013-Sept.

51 44 41 3438 41 30 4245 56 44 5428 22 38 3033 32 31 3929 18 33 3733 30 47 5428 21 27 260

20

40

60

80

100

120

Shops Mall Park Waterfront

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

28 31 44 3431 16 23 3748 41 35 2220 10 10 5323 11 17 2815 15 17 1327 25 23 2825 8 180

20

40

60

80

100

120

Public Building Market Beach Event

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

65 33 58 101 1364 24 47 64 2484 45 60 104 2068 23 16 58 953 20 24 118 2361 30 43 94 5784 37 31 120 2365 21 27 64 200

20

40

60

80

100

120


Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013-May 2013-Sept.

The 95% confidence interval for average littering rates by site types is detailed in Table 11 in Appendix C.

Figure 10 Change in 2013-Sept. average littered items by site type compared to 2011 levels

-1

3

-6

-11

10

-7

1

4

-9

-16

-30

-37

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

Shops

Mall

Park

Waterfront

Public Building

Market

Beach

Transport

Landmark

Smoking

Easement

Waterfront Precinct

Change in average littered items

Figure 11 Change in 2013-Sept. average littered items by site type compared to 2003 levels

-23

-23

-14

-8

-3

-23

-26

0

-12

-31

-37

7

-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Shops

Mall

Park

Waterfront

Public Building

Market

Beach

Transport

Landmark

Smoking

Easement

Waterfront Precinct

Change in average littered items

Observations Once again, transport and easement locations were the most littered locations in 2013-Sept. and

showed much higher levels than all other locations (Figure 9). Transport and easement sites have been the most littered site types in every Victorian Litter Report since 2003.

In 2013-Sept., there was a reduction in the average amounts of litter found on the ground in eight site types. Waterfront precinct and easements locations showed significant changes with 37 and 30 items less than in 2011.

Increases in average amounts of litter were seen in the remaining four site types with a large increase reported for public building with 10 more items compared to 2011.

The litter streamDuring litter counts, individual litter items found on the ground are identified and tallied to measure their relative contribution to the litter stream. The higher the contribution to the litter stream, the more likely the litter type will be targeted for litter reduction efforts. A full list of items assigned to each litter type is shown in Appendix E.

Litter compositionFigure 12 illustrates littered items found in locations throughout Victoria in 2013-Sept. and 201110. Cigarette litter11 continues to be the most common item in litter count totals. In 2013-Sept., the percentage of cigarette litter decreased by 6 percentage points compared to 2011.

Figure 12 Composition of littered items 2011 and 2013-Sept.

Beverage31%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes48%

Confection wraps

2%Organics

5%

Other1%

Paper9%

Plastic film2%

2013 - Sept.

Beverage29%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes54%

Confection wraps

2%

Organics5%

Other1%

Paper6%

Plastic film3%

2011

*Rounding of figures may cause totals not to sum to 100 per cent.

In 2013-Sept., the most common item evident in litter counts was cigarette litter (48%), followed by beverage litter (31%) and then paper (9%).

The data clearly indicates that cigarettes remain the biggest litter challenge, representing nearly half of the litter stream in 2013-Sept.

The composition of beverage items found littered in 2013-Sept. is summarised in Figure 13. It shows that 65% of all beverage items found littered were broken pieces of glass. A total of 18% of beverage litter items were plastic caps and bits and 11% were metal caps.

10 Historical data of littered items is included in Appendix G11 In the 2013 VLR, 96.5% of all cigarette litter is composed of cigarette butts.

Figure 13 Composition of beverage littered items 2013-Sept.

Glass bottles2%

Glass bits65%

Plastic bottles1%

Plastic cups1%

Plastic bits, caps18%

Paper cups1%

Metal cans1%

Metal caps11%

Observations All Victorian Litter Reports have found a relative consistency in the composition of items found

littered on the ground.

Beverage litter has increased steadily from 22% in 2003 to 31% in 2013-Sept. The majority of this increase has come from glass bits, which have increased from 46% in 2007 to 65%.

It should be noted that larger item types, such as bottles and cans, are more visible for clean-up, whereas cigarette butts may be excluded from regular cleaning programs. This build-up of old and new cigarette butt litter impacts litter count item totals, and highlights some of the difficulties of litter count methods.

Site types and litter compositionFigure 14 summarises the broad composition of the different types of litter found on the ground at different site types audited throughout Victoria in 2013-Sept.

Figure 14 Composition* of littered items by site types 2013-Sept.

15%

10%

32%

40%

7%

6%

31%

51%

32%

6%

45%

9%

63%

59%

35%

29%

71%

28%

47%

36%

48%

81%

41%

81%

11%

9%

17%

14%

8%

10%

13%

6%

12%

9%

7%

4%

11%

22%

16%

18%

15%

56%

9%

7%

8%

4%

7%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Shops

Mall

Park

Waterfront

Public Building

Market

Beach

Transport

Landmark

Smoking

Easement

Waterfront Precinct

Beverage Tobacco Paper All other items

* Rounding of figures may cause totals not to sum to 100 per cent.

Observations As previously noted, the largest proportion of litter is cigarette litter and beverage items.

The largest increase in cigarette litter was seen in public building sites, increasing from 54% in 2011 to 71% in 2013-Sept. Other site types that showed increases in cigarette litter since 2011 were smoking (up from 74% in 2011 to 81% in 2013-Sept.), market (up from 20% to 28%), park (up 5 percentage points from 30% to 35%) and mall (up 4 percentage points).

The largest decrease in cigarette litter is seen in transport sites, with a 32 percentage point decrease from 68% in 2011 to 36% in 2013-Sept.

The largest increases in beverage items since 2011 was observed in transport sites, with a 32 percentage point increase (up from 19% in 2011 to 51% in 2013-Sept.) and beach sites (up from 18% to 31%).

Decreases in beverage items were much more prevalent in seven of the site types, with large decreases seen in park (down from 50% in 2011 to 32% in 2013-Sept.) and public buildings sites (down from 25% to 7%).

Towards behaviour changeObservation of ‘disposal actions’, that is what people do with unwanted items, is the most effective indicator of community littering and bin use. This offers hard evidence of behaviour, and avoids reliance on self-reported measures and the mismatch between what people say they do and what they actually do.

Given adequate sample sizes, indicators of littering (and bin use) can be calculated and expressed as a percentage, representing littering behaviours as a proportion of overall disposals (positive and negative). This is called the community littering behaviour rate. A higher rate indicates more people are littering than using bins.

The aim of litter prevention is to change behaviour. Actual observations of what people do with unwanted items is therefore one way to find out how community littering behaviour is tracking towards the target of 25% improvement by 2014.

Littering behaviours in VictoriaIn 2013-Sept., 670 observations of disposal actions recorded in 242 locations throughout Victoria showed that 20% of people littered and 80% disposed of used items appropriately by using bins. Table 4 and Figure 15 illustrate the littering rate for all survey years.

Table 4 Comparisons of littering in Victoria 2003 – 2013-Sept.

Number Behaviour rate

Year Locations Observations Bin useLittering

rate

Notional littering

rate target

2003 263 685 75% 25% 25%

2005 247 858 70% 30% 24%2007 215 1,692 69% 31% 23%

2009 215 40612 84% 16% 22%

2010 216 734 65% 35% 21%

2011 216 1,080 77% 23% 20%

2013-May 216 870 77% 23% 19%

2013–Sept. 242 670 80% 20% 20%

2

12 Because of the small number of observations for this survey period, the margin of error is larger than other survey periods

Figure 15 Statewide littering rate 2003 – 2013-Sept.

25

3031

16

35

23

19

23

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Litte

ring

Rat

e (%

)


Reliability of littering behaviour estimatesLittering behaviour in 2013-Sept. was assessed by monitoring 670 litter disposals at 242 locations to calculate the percentage of litter not disposed into a bin (i.e. the littering behaviour rate).

The littering rate for 2013-Sept. is an improvement (decrease) of 3 percentage points from the 2011 levels of 23%; one percentage point higher than the notional target of 19%. Although the CCAT score decreased from 79 in 2011 to 76 in 2013-Sept., the improved littering rate reflects improved community attitudes towards the adequacy of littering facilities and consequently littering behaviours have not increased as would be expected.

Observations In 2013-Sept., 80% of Victorians disposed of waste appropriately in public places, representing

an increase of 3 percentage points since 2011 (Table 4). The 2013-Sept. result is an improvement of 5 percentage points on the original 2003 baseline of 75%.

Littering behaviour throughout Victoria in 2013-Sept. was only one percentage point higher than the notional target (compared with 14 percentage points in 2010). This shows a large improvement on previous years (except for 2009), and potentially shows that littering behaviour is gradually trending down.

These results indicate that efforts to improve bin design, positioning, adequacy, signage and cleaning regimes, as well as overall community satisfaction with litter management, may play a role in influencing Victorians to dispose of litter more appropriately.

Littering and site types Littering behaviour and bin use at different site types is summarised in Figure 16.

Littering rates are not reported for sites where the total number of litter disposals (both positive and negative) observed was less than 30 because of the reliability of such low levels of data. For this reason beach sites are not shown in the data presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Littering rates by site types 2003 – 2013-Sept.

Site type 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 20112013-

May2013-Sept.

Easement — — 41% — 40% 46% 26% 14%Event 57% 32% 14% — 48% 24% 15% —Landmark — 18% 26% 12% 11% 41% 20% 27%Mall 21% 26% 38% 27% 25% 28% 28% 19%Market 15% 36% 31% — — 23% 19% —Park 21% 22% 24% — 19% 18% 10% 29%Public building 35% 20% — — 87% 20% 23% 29%Shops 27% 30% 33% 9% 22% 18% 21% 13%Smoking 18% 37% 32% 20% 27% 28% 25% 8%Transport 44% 41% 42% 17% 32% 36% 43% 13%Waterfront — 19% 23% — — 6% 21% 35%Waterfront precinct — — 28% — — — — — State 25% 30% 31% 16% 35% 23% 23% 20%

Figure 16 Change in littering rate since 2011 levels by site types, 2013-Sept.

-5

-9

11

29

9

-23

-14

-20

-32

-50 -30 -10 10 30 50

Shops

Mall

Park

Waterfront

Public Building

Transport

Landmark

Smoking

Easement

Change in littering rate (percentage points)

Observations Littering rates varied between site types and there were a number of changes from the 2011

rates. Increases in littering rates since 2011 were observed in three sites types, namely waterfront, park and public building sites with increases of 29, 11 and 9 percentage points.

Decreases in littering rates were observed in all other site types with large decreases seen in easement sites (down from 46% in 2011 to 14% in 2013-Sept), transport, landmark and smoking sites decreased by 23, 14 and 20 percentage point respectively.

What people say about litterAs part of the 2013-Sept Victorian Litter Report, 624 members of the public in 242 locations agreed to be surveyed about their views on litter.

Demographic profile of survey respondents

Gender and ageThe gender of respondents participating in the 2013 survey is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Gender profile, survey participants’ 2013-Sept.

Year Men Women TotalFemale

(%)Male(%)

2003 343 402 745 54 46

2005 491 507 998 51 49

2007 240 281 521 54 46

2009 140 143 283 51 49

2010 204 298 502 59 41

2011 210 298 508 59 41

2013-May 229 237 466 51 49

2013-Sept. 338 286 624 46 44

The age group of respondents participating in the 2013 survey is illustrated in Figure 17.

Figure 17 Age profile, survey participants’ 2013-Sept.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ n/a

VLR 2013-Sept proportions ABS population proportions

Observations The 2013-Sept. survey represents a good distribution of ages13 between 18 and 65 or older

which is consistent with Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) proportions of the population from the 2011 Census. The proportion of the number of people aged less than 18 years is less than that reported by the ABS because the survey methodology does not include children.

13 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011 Census QuickStats: Victoria shows that of the 5,354,042 people living in Victoria, 49.2% were male and 50.8% female. People aged 0-19 represented 25.1% of the population; 20-24 years 7.0%; 25-34 years 14.3%; 35-44 years 14.5%; 45-54 years 13.6%; 55-64 years 11.4% and 65 years and older 14.2%

Education and employmentIn 2013-Sept., the highest level of education achieved by respondents is shown in Figure 18, with employment categories included in Figure 19.

Figure 18 Education profile*, survey participants 2013-Sept.

Secondary47%

Tertiary42%

TAFE10%

Refused & n/a1%


Figure 19 Employment profile*, survey participants 2013-Sept.

Working66%

Not working<1%

Homemaker4%

Student10%

Retired19%

Refused & n/a1%


Observations The statewide education and employment profiles showed that 42% of respondents had some

form of tertiary education.

The number of respondents working was 66% and retirees represented 19% of the sample population interviewed.

Place of residence The 2013-Sept. survey respondents’ place of residence is shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20 Place of residence profile*, survey participants 2013-Sept.

Local71%

Out of town20%

Interstate5%

Overseas3% n/a

1%


Observations Similar to previous years, the majority of those surveyed were local to the area where the

interview was conducted (71%), followed by those from out of town (20%).

In summary, the 2013-Sept. Victorian Litter Report demographic profile indicates that the largest proportion of those interviewed were local to the area, employed, secondary school educated and under 45 years of age.

Community satisfaction with litter management

Satisfaction with litter management was measured by survey respondents’ attitudes towards the public place itself, the adequacy of bins and their overall satisfaction with litter management at the location.

Satisfaction with litter management indicates the degree of community alignment with managers of public places.

Figure 21 summarises overall community satisfaction with litter management in Victoria since 2003 as either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘extremely satisfied’. The notional targets for community satisfaction with litter management are also shown.

Figure 21 Community satisfaction with public places and litter 2003 – 2013-Sept.

36 37

4851

55

63

44

54

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Ver

y an

d ex

trem

ely

satis

fied

(%)


Observations Community satisfaction with litter management in public places in 2013-Sept. has decreased by

22 percentage points since 2011, and against trends of an increase in community satisfaction displayed since 2003. Interestingly though, the 2013-May result, which was conducted during colder weather conditions, shows a much higher level of community satisfaction (13 percentage points) than the warmer survey period of 2013-Sept.

Forty one percent of all respondents interviewed in public places in 2013-Sept. indicated they were very satisfied or extremely satisfied with litter management in their local area.

Although community satisfaction levels are down compared to 2011 levels, it remains under the notional target of 44 by 3 percentage points and has increased by 5 percentage points since the baseline was established in 2003. Satisfaction levels have continued to rise since 2003, indicating efforts at litter prevention have not gone unnoticed.

Responses to community satisfaction with location litter management were combined in Figure 22 to get a picture of how well the community perceives litter management in Victoria.

Figure 22 Community satisfaction with location litter management 2013-Sept.

Not at all7%

Slightly9%

Moderately43%

Very31%

Extremely9%

Don't know1%


Observations Statewide respondents were moderately satisfied (43%), very satisfied (31%) or extremely

satisfied (9%) with litter management in their local area while only 7% of those interviewed were not at all satisfied.

Community assessment of location featuresCommunity surveys also investigated community assessments (i.e. views) of location features, cleaning and BINfrastructure (servicing and position). Responses are shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23 Community assessments* of disposal facilities features 2013-Sept.

28% 27% 33%

14% 11%11%

58% 62% 56%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cleaning seems good Bins seem well serviced Bins are close enough

Not at all Moderate Very


Observations 58% of all respondents in Victoria reported cleaning to be very good in the location where they

were interviewed, an improvement of 18 percentage points over the 2011 survey.

Community assessments of bin servicing were favourable, with 62% of respondents reporting that bins were very well serviced, compared to only 32% in 2011.

Community assessments for proximity of bins were also favourable, with 56% of all respondents agreeing that the bins were close enough, which was unchanged from the 2011 findings.

Appendix A: Methodology

BackgroundThe original Clean Communities Assessment Tool (CCAT) methodology was designed in 2003 by Community Change P/L. The CCAT provides a systematic assessment of littering behaviour, litter and key features of public places. In 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013, Sustainability Victoria used the CCAT to establish statewide benchmarks and assess the state’s progress against targets. Up to 2007, Community Change P/L conducted the VLR surveys. From 2009 till 2011, a new service provider, EC Sustainable P/L undertook the audits. The 2013-May and 2013-Sept. audits were undertaken by Mike Ritchie & Associates (MRA). Some variation in the results is evident when a new provider is appointed – particularly in disposal (littering) observations were the experience of the provider is still being established with the methodology.

Tools used in the Victorian Litter ReportThe 2013-Sept. Victorian Litter Report contains the outcomes of this benchmarking exercise based on the following CCAT measures:

1. Littering behaviour rate. The primary outcome measure for behaviour change.

Observations of disposal actions are the most effective indicator of community littering and bin use, avoiding reliance on self-reporting measures that are often influenced by social desirability, and where there is a frequent mismatch between what people say they do with what they actually do.

People’s littering behaviour is influenced by numerous factors, including the characteristics of public place locations. Public places that are clean, safe and user friendly promote participation of the community (and visitors) in efforts to care for and maintain the location, as well as engendering a sense of ownership and community pride. In contrast, public places that are dirty and poorly cared for attract not only litter, but are more likely to contain graffiti and other characteristics promoting the likelihood of anti-social behaviour and threatening community safety.

The CCAT categorises disposal acts as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ according to whether items have been effectively contained.

Negative acts include dropping, throwing and leaving items on the ground, leaving items on top of full, overflowing or closed bins and brimming on bin edges. It also includes items swept or kicked into the gutter.

Positive acts include bin use (an object disposed of into a bin regardless of its recycling status); cigarette butts put into personal ashtrays (often used beverage containers); and returning a shopping trolley to a collection bay.

When sample sizes are large enough to provide robust indicators of littering (and, conversely, bin use), a littering behaviour rate can be calculated and expressed as a percentage, representing littering behaviours as a proportion of overall disposals (positive and negative).

2. Litter counts. The number of littered items present in a 48-square-metre area of a location.

Litter counts provide information about litter ‘on the ground,’ indicating clean areas, litter hot spots, effectiveness of litter containment and litter management practices (including clean up) by relevant authorities, as well as consistent assessment of the composition of materials littered (when sample sizes are large enough to provide robust indicators).

Using the CCAT, litter counts can be used to provide a proxy or an indirect assessment of littering behaviour, particularly when behavioural information is not available or when the observation sample size is too small. Caution is required, however, when using litter counts to represent littering behaviour because these figures may be impacted by variables not directly related to littering, including the influence of cleaning routines, containment of litter, animal scavenging and weather conditions. The outcomes measured therefore can only provide limited information on actual community behaviour.

To reduce some of the variability associated with litter counts, a standardised approach to counting items is used in a 48-square-metre zone that includes, ideally, a bin and furniture or other infrastructure. In the 2007 Victorian Litter Report, reporting of litter count item totals and composition categories were adjusted and previous results recalculated to focus attention on those items where litter prevention efforts were likely to have had a behavioural impact and to ensure the most accurate comparison between reports.

3. CCAT factor ratings. Assessment of Victoria’s progress in litter prevention is based on systematic assessment of the features of public place locations that influence littering, bin use, litter accumulation and litter management.

Trained assessors rate the features of a location and conduct community surveys to provide information about attitudes towards litter, its prevention and perceptions about the location. Three primary CCAT factors (‘Context’, ‘Facilities’ and ‘Community Attitudes and Perceptions’) are comprised of the following sub-factors:

1. Context (combines assessor ratings and community surveys) - Sense of community- Feeling of safety - Graffiti- Commercial and domestic dumping - Overall cleanliness of the location

2. Facilities (using assessor ratings) Infrastructure (street furniture, landscaping, open space, entrances)

- Condition- Cleanliness, including presence of old and new litter- Maintenance

BINfrastructure (litter, recycling and butt bins)- Number- Presentation (design, consistency, signage, colour)- Position (prominence, proximity, configuration and placement)- Performance (ease of use, size of openings, containment of litter, ability to manage

weather)- Cleanliness

3. Community attitudes and perceptions (using community surveys) - Attitudes towards the place itself- Adequacy of disposal facilities

Each primary factor consists of assessor ratings of sub-factors based on a five-point scale with assessments ranging from ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ to ‘very high’. The higher the CCAT rating for a sub-factor, the cleaner it is likely to be and the greater the likelihood it will remain clean.

Using sub-factor ratings (from CCAT assessor ratings and community survey data), a score from 0 to 100 is calculated for each of the three factors – ‘Context’, ‘Facilities’ and ‘Community Attitudes and Perceptions’. A summary CCAT score is also calculated to represent the location’s overall litter prevention performance averaged over the 87 variables that make up the factors and sub-factors of CCAT.

In summary, the Victorian Litter Report uses the CCAT methodology to provide a method for benchmarking litter prevention performance at location, local government, rural and statewide levels. The report summarises information from a range of performance indicators to determine effective litter prevention programs:

1. Littering behaviour rate (littering actions as a proportion of both positive and negative disposals)2. Litter counts (average number of items) 3. Type of items found in locations (composition percentage)4. CCAT summary score indicating overall litter prevention performance (0-100)5. CCAT primary factor scores identifying strengths and weaknesses of location features (0-100)6. An indication of community satisfaction and support for litter prevention programs.

Victorian Litter Report 2013-Sept. methodologyThe Victorian Litter Report research was conducted from September to early December 2013 and followed standardised CCAT data collection procedures used in previous years.

Sampling procedures followed the protocols established in the 2003 benchmark study and used a sample frame determined by Sustainability Victoria to represent urban population areas in the Melbourne Statistical District and major rural centres. As many locations as possible were reassessed to provide comparability with 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 data. The 2013-Sept. Victorian Litter Report sample consisted of 242 locations.

A more detailed description of CCAT site types, sample selection procedures and summaries of CCAT outcomes for each location is contained in Appendix B.

Inter-rater agreementThe level of agreement between two independent CCAT raters in a location is determined using an inter-rater reliability protocol. This involves two raters assessing the same location at the same time with no discussion of ratings until after data has been entered into the database.

Interpreting CCAT scoresLocation features are rated on a scale from 1 to 5. The higher the score, the cleaner the feature being assessed. For analysis purposes, the ratings are converted to scores on a scale from 0 to 100 points.

Table 7 provides a description of CCAT factors at the extreme high and low ends of the scale.

Table 7 CCAT rating guides

Key Indicator Factor High Low

CCAT summary Features combined in a summary rating

Area likely to be extremely clean and resource recovery successful

Area is highly littered, with contamination of recyclables

Context Community identity and involvement

Strong sense of pride, ownership over the space

Poor sense of ownership & area is not clean

Facilities Summarises results for bins and street furniture

Extremely well maintained, litter-free facilities that are easily used and well positioned

Inadequate facilities, poorly maintained

Infrastructure Condition & cleanliness of all furniture, streetscape and landscaping

Furniture is extremely well maintained, clean and appropriate

Poorly maintained & surrounded by litter

BINfrastructure Features and cleanliness of all litter, recycling and butt bins

Bin design, position and maintenance is highly appropriate to area and usage patterns

Inadequate number, configuration, positioning or servicing of bins

Public perceptions & attitudes

Summary of community views on area

Area is perceived as extremely well looked after and serviced

Area is seen as inadequately presented

Attitudes to place Views on the area and expected actions

Strong expectation exists for people to do the right thing with used items

No expectation to do the right thing

Attitudes towards disposal facilities

Perceptions of appropriateness of bins and furniture

Facilities are viewed as highly appropriate and meeting needs of community

Community sees a need to improve facilities

Appendix B: Site typesSustainability Victoria selected a representative sample of locations for the Victorian Litter Report survey using a sample frame of all Local Government Authorities (LGAs). LGAs were assigned strata based on population size groupings for urban and rural LGAs. One LGA was selected from each stratum for sampling. The Melbourne Statistical District and Greater Geelong City Council were included as separate strata and included in the sample selected. A total of 10 LGAs were included in the survey; three from rural LGAs and seven from urban.

The selection of LGAs for the Victorian Litter Report was based predominately on precedents set in 2003 using geography and population.

Review of site classification and selectionSustainability Victoria updated the site classification and sample selection system in 2005 to ensure that the sample of site types selected for assessment and monitoring were appropriate for representing public places in Victoria. Locations used in 2013-Sept. largely matched those in 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2007, to increase comparability of outcomes and build a clear picture of progress against targets.

Selection of sites to be assessed was made to reflect information requirements for particular site types and locations within regions. Some site types were selected more often than others, for example shopping centres, due to their more frequent occurrence in the local government areas selected.

The random sample of sites selected in an LGA was influenced by the availability of each site type within the chosen locations. For example, a beach site type might have been randomly selected to be assessed in Hume but because there are no beaches in that LGA, random selection was replaced by the next available site type in Hume.

The definitions of site types, sample characteristics and the location of sites are presented in the tables below.

Table 8 Site type and sample size by LGA 2013-Sept.

LGA Bea

ch

Eas

emen

t

Land

mar

k

Mal

l

Mar

ket

Par

k

Pub

lic

build

ing

Sho

ps

Sm

okin

g

Tran

spor

t

Wat

erfro

nt

Wat

erfro

nt

prec

inct

Tota

lBallarat — — 1 3 4 1 5 2 2 1 — 19Beechworth — — 1 1 2 1 1 1 — — 1 — 8Casey — 2 — 1 3 4 4 2 4 2 — 22Dandenong — 2 — 1 1 4 2 4 1 3 — — 18Darebin — 2 — — — — — — — — — — 2Geelong 4 4 4 3 1 4 5 5 3 4 2 1 40Horsham — — 1 1 1 1 1 2 — — 1 — 8Hume — 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 — 17Kingston — 3 — — — — — — — — — — 3Manningham — — — 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 — 15Melbourne — 1 9 3 3 6 2 6 6 — 6 3 45Moonee Ponds — 1 — — — — — — — — — — 1Mt. Alexander — 1 3 — — 1 1 3 — — 1 — 10Port Phillip 3 1 — — 1 2 3 — — 2 1 13Wangaratta — 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 — — 1 — 9Yarra City — 1 — — — 3 2 3 — 1 2 — 12Total 7 20 21 18 10 34 24 43 17 20 23 5 242

Table 9 Site type definitions

Site type Definition

Beach The sandy area between the water and a boundary or border that clearly marks areas for recreation. This includes boardwalks and grassy areas adjoining the beach, such as St. Kilda beach, but excludes parks that are adjacent to the beach, such as Brighton beach parkland (included in Parks).

Event A special occasion often involving large crowds of people attending a venue for a significant activity involving leisure, recreation, or sport. e.g., AFL and local VFL football, cricket, Grand Prix, Melbourne Cup, etc.

Landmark A place (usually a building) characterised as having some significance in terms of the history or culture of the city, and by sightseeing or tourist activity although not designated as such. The Victorian Parliament building in Melbourne offers sightseeing to visitors but its main activity is government. This site type also includes Federation Square and Myer Music Bowl.

Mall A pedestrian thoroughfare or sheltered promenade with merchandise and food vendors lining the walkway or street, often with limitations on vehicle access, e.g., Bourke Street Mall.

Market An open or covered space where merchandise and food stalls provide fresh produce and / or a range of goods to the public, which often include seating and eating areas, e.g., Queen Victoria Market.

Park Grassy site with shrubbery or garden beds, children’s play equipment, seats and tables, often with barbecue facilities used for picnicking and recreation.

Public building An area around a building open to the public, which often includes places for people to sit and eat within walking distance of food vendors, e.g., library, post office, council building, museum, court, cinema, hospital, etc.

Easement The public space or area immediately outside or leading up to a ticketed area of a railway station which provides access to the public. An actual or implied fence line extending to a point of unauthorised entry is the limit of the easement.

Shops Areas for selling goods or services, often with a vehicular thoroughfare down the middle of a street lined with merchandise and food vendors with wide footpaths and places for people to sit, e.g., Chapel Street, Lygon Street, Elizabeth Street, etc. Restaurants and cafes are included in this definition where they have outdoor seating for patrons.

Smoking area Places outside a building where cigarette smoking is prevalent. Smokers may be catered for (officially or unofficially) by the placement of permanent or temporary ashtrays.

Transport Outdoor transport terminal or waiting and transit area with pedestrian traffic going to and from public transport stops, e.g., all bus stops and tram stops are outdoor transport terminals.

Waterfront Area next to a body of water, e.g., river, lake or pond, often with seats or grassy areas used by the community for recreation and picnicking, e.g., Lake Wendouree in Ballarat, Lake Weeroona in Bendigo, Albert Park lake in Melbourne, Yarra river bank Melbourne. Generally, no significant retail activity takes place in these areas.

Waterfront precinct

Area next to a body of water with cafes and shops, catering for a mix of tourist and significant retail activity, e.g., Southbank and the Docklands area in Melbourne.

APPENDIX C – Confidence intervalsFigure 24 Statewide average litter counts, confidence intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept.

50

39

54

3236 35

45

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

Table 10 Statewide average litter counts with upperand lower confidence intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept.

95% Confidence interval14

Year Average

litter items Lower CI Upper CI

2003 50 44 56

2005 39 34 44

2007 54 47 60

2009 32 25 39

2010 36 29 42

2011 35 28 42

2013-May 45 36 54

2013-Sept. 31 24 38

14 The confidence intervals for the Exact Binomial Distribution method are not symmetrical

Figure 25 and Table 11 show the confidence intervals for the different site types for the 2013-Sept. Victorian Litter Report survey. Because of the wide variation in the number of littered items recorded and the relatively small sample size, some site types show a much larger margin of error in 2013 (reflected in the wider confidence intervals).

Figure 25 Average litter count by site types, confidence intervals 2013-Sept.

2821

27 26 25

8

18

65

2127

64

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

Table 11 Average litter counts by site types with upperand lower confidence intervals 2013-Sept.


LocationAverage

litter items Lower CI Upper CI

Shops 28 15 40

Mall 21 8 35

Park 27 19 35

Waterfront 26 14 37

Public building 25 11 38

Market 8 3 13

Beach 18 9 27

Transport 65 15 114

Landmark 21 11 31

Smoking 27 12 42

Easement 64 22 105

Waterfront precinct 20 12 28

15 The confidence intervals for the Exact Binomial Distribution method are not symmetrical.

Figure 26 shows the confidence intervals by site type across all the survey years. For most site types, the margin of error (or confidence interval) is relatively consistent. The confidence intervals for the transport and easement site types, however, indicate significant variation in the reliability of estimates, something which is also reflected in the 2011 results for smoking and waterfront precincts.

Figure 26 Average litter count by site types, with upper and lower confidence intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.

Shop Mall Park Waterfront Public building Market

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.2003200520072009201020112013-M

ay2013-S

ept.


Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

Figure 27 and Table 12 show the confidence interval for the littering rate for each of the survey periods.

Figure 27 Statewide littering rate, confidence intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept.

25%

30% 31%

16%

35%

23% 23%

20%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Litte

ring

rate

(%)

Table 12 Statewide littering rate, confidence intervals 2003 – 2013-Sept.


Year Littering rate Lower CI Upper CI

2003 25% 22% 28%

2005 30% 27% 33%

2007 31% 29% 33%

2009 16% 12% 20%

2010 35% 32% 38%

2011 23% 20% 26%

2013-May 23% 20% 26%

2013-Sept. 20% 17% 23%

16 The confidence intervals for the Exact Binomial Distribution method are not symmetrical

Appendix D: LocationsThe CCAT summary scores for each location audited for the 2013-Sept. Victorian Litter Report are presented in Table 13 in alphabetical order of LGA17 by site type.

Table 13 Location by CCAT summary score 2013-Sept.

City Site Location Area

CCAT summary

scoreBallarat Landmark Camp St Precinct 78Ballarat Mall Bridge Mall 73Ballarat Mall Phoenix Mall 83Ballarat Park Botanic Gardens 85Ballarat Park DeSoza Pk 78Ballarat Park Victoria Pk Between Sturt & Oak Avenue 76Ballarat Park Windmill Drive Precinct 82Ballarat Public Building Ballarat Miner Dome 76Ballarat Shops Bunninyong Shops cnr Learmonth &

Warrenheip 78

Ballarat Shops Central Sq 79Ballarat Shops Howitt St 1219B-1225D 76Ballarat Shops Sebastopol Shops cnr Rubicon 74Ballarat Shops Sturt St book city 80Ballarat Smoking Phoenix Mall 75Ballarat Smoking Wendouree Village 76Ballarat Transport Central Square 80Ballarat Transport Lt Bridge St Bus Stop 74Ballarat Waterfront Wendouree Parade 75Beechworth Landmark Old Court House 94 Ford Street 66Beechworth Mall Ford Street 75Beechworth Market Beechworth Farmers Market 87Beechworth Market Queen Victoria Park 73Beechworth Park Queen Victoria Park 74Beechworth Public Building Council Offices Sydney Road 81Beechworth Shops Ford Street 80Beechworth Waterfront Lake Sambell 77Casey Easement Cranbourne Railway Station 71Casey Easement Narre Warren Train Station 73Casey Mall Clydesdale Mall/Cranbourne Park

Shopping Centre 72

Casey Park Buchanan Park 73

17 Please note that the local governments selected as part of this survey are a representative sample based on population size and the geographic boundary they fall within, i.e. metro or non-metro councils. A sample of 7 metropolitan and 3 non-metro local governments was selected for the VLR 2013. It is not the intent of this report to rank or highlight the overall scores associated with each of the local governments selected as part of this survey but to highlight the overall summary CCAT scores associated with each of the locations and site types. Appendix D does not represent a ranking of local governments but rather a list sorted by local governments by site type locations for easy reference to the sites selected.


CCAT summary

scoreCasey Park Lawson Poole Reserve 70Casey Park Wilson Botanic Park 81Casey Public Building Cranbourne Library 70Casey Public Building Family Resource Centre 76Casey Public Building Hampton Park Library 70Casey Public Building Narre Warren Library 78Casey Shops Berwick Village 77Casey Shops Hampton Park Shopping Square 76Casey Shops High St Shops, Cranbourne 71Casey Shops Webb St, Narre Warren 76Casey Smoking Clydesdale Mall/Cranbourne Park

Shopping Centre 71

Casey Smoking Cranbourne Park Car park 83Casey Transport Fountain Gate Bus Stops 68Casey Transport Hallam Station Bus Stop 70Casey Transport Lyall St 65Casey Transport Webb St, Narre Warren 69Casey Waterfront Akoonah Park, Berwick 73Casey Waterfront Banjo Paterson Park 78Dandenong Easement Dandenong Train Station 72Dandenong Easement Springvale Station Lightwood rd side 59Dandenong Mall Palm Plaza 76Dandenong Market Dandenong Market 82Dandenong Park Burden Park 74Dandenong Park Dandenong Park 73Dandenong Park Fotheringham Reserve 76Dandenong Public Building Post office on Langhorne St 77Dandenong Public Building Springvale Library Back ent 73Dandenong Shops Athol St. 72Dandenong Shops Douglas St, Noble Park 74Dandenong Shops Springvale Shops 82Dandenong Shops Walker St. 76Dandenong Smoking ATO (Australian Taxation Office) 82Dandenong Transport Bus Stop 303-321 Springvale rd 79Dandenong Transport Dandenong Train Station 60Dandenong Transport McCrae St. 76Darebin Easement Fairefield Railway Station 69Darebin Easement Merri Railway Station 73Geelong Beach Eastern Beach 83Geelong Beach Ocean Grove 81Geelong Beach Rippleside 80Geelong Easement Lara Train Station 77Geelong Easement North Geelong Station 77Geelong Easement North Shore Station 69Geelong Easement South Geelong Train Station 81Geelong Landmark Boer War Memorial Park 67Geelong Landmark City Hall Geelong 81Geelong Landmark Waterworld 74Geelong Mall Highton Shopping Village 78Geelong Mall Labuan Sq 75Geelong Mall Lt Malop St Mall 73


CCAT summary

scoreGeelong Market Corio Markets 83Geelong Park Cameron Pk 71Geelong Park Eastern Beach 78Geelong Park Johnstone Park 86Geelong Park Rippleside 77Geelong Public Building Geelong Law Courts 76Geelong Public Building GPAC (Geelong Preforming Arts

Centre) 81

Geelong Public Building Information Centre 86Geelong Public Building Ocean Grove 81Geelong Public Building Wool Museum 79Geelong Shops High St shops Belmont 81Geelong Shops Market Square 82Geelong Shops Moorabool St 88Geelong Shops Ocean Grove 82Geelong Shops Separation St, Corner Thompson Rd 65Geelong Smoking ATO (Australian Taxation Office) 81Geelong Smoking Centrelink Geelong 67Geelong Smoking State Government Offices 71Geelong Transport Geelong Train Station 81Geelong Transport High St Bus Stops 77Geelong Transport Malop St Bus Stops 88Geelong Transport Moorabool St Bus Stops 87Geelong Waterfront Balyang Sanctuary 74Geelong Waterfront Barwon Valley Park 76Geelong Waterfront Precinct Carousel 89Horsham Landmark Horsham Aquatic Centre 81Horsham Mall Horsham Plaza 78Horsham Market Jung Market 73Horsham Park Central Park - Baillie Street 79Horsham Public Building Horsham Art Gallery 80 Wilson

Street 81

Horsham Shops Firebrace Street 76Horsham Shops Horsham Gateway Centre 79Horsham Waterfront Wimmera River 71Hume Easement Broadmeadows Train Station 59Hume Landmark George Evans Museum 84Hume Mall Dallas Square 78Hume Mall Link Arcade, Sunbury 79Hume Park Sunbury Recreation Reserve 78Hume Public Building Broadmeadows Library 80Hume Public Building Council Offices, Broadmeadows 81Hume Shops Mahoney's Plaza Shopping Centre 80Hume Shops Roxburgh Park Shopping Centre 74Hume Shops Sunbury Shops, Evans cnr Brook 83Hume Smoking Centrelink Broadmeadows 73Hume Smoking Meadow Heights Shopping Centre 72Hume Transport Broadmeadows Station Bus Stops 72Hume Transport Broadmeadows Town Park 73Hume Transport Sunbury Train Station Bus stop 76Hume Waterfront Apex Park, Sunbury Rd 77


CCAT Summary

Score

Hume Waterfront Jack Roper Reserve 78Kingston Easement Bonbeach railway station 64Kingston Easement Chelsea railway station 78Kingston Easement Mentone Railway station 78Manningham Mall Goldfields Plaza 74Manningham Mall Macedon Sq 81Manningham Park Birrarung Park 59Manningham Park Koonung Reserve 69Manningham Park Ruffey Lake Park 70Manningham Public Building Doncaster library 89Manningham Public Building The Pines Branch Library 67Manningham Shops Blackburn Rd 74Manningham Shops Templestowe Village 72Manningham Smoking Westfield Doncaster 76Manningham Transport Goldfields Plaza Bus Stop 75Manningham Transport The Pines Shopping Centre 68Manningham Transport Westfield Bus Terminal 75Manningham Waterfront Banksia Park 70Manningham Waterfront Westerfolds Park, Swamp Gum Car

park 67

Melbourne Easement Southern Cross Station 79Melbourne Landmark Between Hamer Hall and Arts

Centre 79

Melbourne Landmark City Square 83Melbourne Landmark Exhibition Building 82Melbourne Landmark Exhibition Centre 82Melbourne Landmark Flinders St Station 78Melbourne Landmark Myer Music Bowl 87Melbourne Landmark Rialto Towers 60Melbourne Landmark St Kilda Rd in front of Hamer Hall 81Melbourne Landmark VCA (Victorian College of the Arts) 78Melbourne Mall Bourke St Mall 83Melbourne Mall Hardware Lane 57Melbourne Market Queen Victoria Market 76Melbourne Market Southbank 79Melbourne Park Fitzroy Gardens 78Melbourne Park Flagstaff Gardens 87Melbourne Park Gordon Reserve 71Melbourne Park Kings Domain 76Melbourne Park Queen Victoria Gardens 79Melbourne Park Treasury Gardens 83Melbourne Public Building Melbourne Town Hall 86Melbourne Public Building State Library 78Melbourne Shops Collins St 85Melbourne Shops Elizabeth St 79Melbourne Shops Galleria Plaza, Elizabeth St 81


CCAT Summary

ScoreMelbourne Shops Lt Collins St 77Melbourne Shops Swanston St 80Melbourne Shops Target Centre, Bourke St 77Melbourne Smoking 222 Exhibition St 77Melbourne Smoking 242 Exhibition St 77Melbourne Smoking Collins St 80Melbourne Smoking Defence Plaza 78Melbourne Smoking Melbourne Central, 360 Elizabeth St 70Melbourne Smoking William St 79Melbourne Waterfront Alexandra Gardens 81Melbourne Waterfront Birrarung Marr 82Melbourne Waterfront Royal Bot Gardens Melbourne 90Melbourne Waterfront Yarra Park 85Melbourne Waterfront Yarra River 77Melbourne Waterfront Precinct Docklands 88Melbourne Waterfront Precinct Southbank 72Moonee Ponds

Easement Newmarket railway station 67

Mt Alexander Easement Castlemaine Train Station 79Mt Alexander Landmark Burke and Wills Monument 71Mt Alexander Landmark Maldon War Memorial 82Mt Alexander Landmark Mt. Tarrangower Lookout 67Mt Alexander Park Victory Park 77Mt Alexander Public Building Castlemaine Post Office 68Mt Alexander Shops Barker Street Shops, cnr Lyttleton St 77Mt Alexander Shops Main Street Shops Maldon, Dolphin

St to Garage 76

Mt Alexander Shops Mostyn Street Shops, cnr Frederick 74Mt Alexander Waterfront Castlemaine Botanical Gardens 83Port Phillip Beach Elwood Beach 81Port Phillip Beach Port Melbourne Beach 75Port Phillip Beach Sandridge Beach 74Port Phillip Easement Ripponlea Station 76Port Phillip Market The Esplanade 76Port Phillip Park Alma Park East 77Port Phillip Park Elwood Park 81Port Phillip Shops Acland St 75Port Phillip Shops Bay St Shops 75Port Phillip Shops Carlisle St 85Port Phillip Waterfront Albert Park 81Port Phillip Waterfront Pt Ormond Reserve 77Port Phillip Waterfront Precinct Beacon Cove 78Wangaratta Easement Wangaratta Railway Norton Street 79Wangaratta Landmark Hotel Pinsent 81Wangaratta Mall Docker Street 70Wangaratta Market Mrytleford Farmers Market 87


CCAT Summary

ScoreWangaratta Park Apex Park 80Wangaratta Public Building Wangaratta Library 79Wangaratta Shops Ford Street 71Wangaratta Shops Reid Street 82Wangaratta Waterfront Ovens River (opp. Apex park) 82Yarra Easement Richmond Station - Brunton Ave 75Yarra Park Citizens Park 78Yarra Park Darling Gardens - Hoddle St. ent. 69Yarra Park Edinburgh Gardens - Rowe St. ent. 64Yarra Public Building Carlton Library 68Yarra Public Building Collingwood Town Hall 86Yarra Shops Bridge Road - Richmond Plaza 67Yarra Shops Queen's Parade Micheal St cafes 75Yarra Shops Victoria St, Richmond 176-214 72Yarra Transport Bridge Rd & Church St. Tram Stop 77Yarra Waterfront Dight Falls 70Yarra Waterfront Flockhart Reserve 74

Appendix E: Littered items classificationTable 14 Littered items classification

200518 Littered item type Items Included 2013 Littered item type Items Included

Confectionery Chewing gum Confection wraps Confectionery wrappersConfectionery wrappers Ice cream wrappersIce cream wrappers

Paper Paper bags Paper Paper bagsServiettes and tissues Serviettes and tissuesReceipts and tickets Receipts and ticketsPaper pieces, newspaper, advertising material

Paper pieces, newspaper, advertising material

Takeaway boxes, cardboard boxes, cardboard pieces

Paper cups

Cardboard Takeaway boxes, cardboard boxes, cardboard pieces

Beverage Glass bottles and pieces BeverageComponent items of beverages are reported separately

Glass bottles and piecesPlastic bottles and cups Plastic bottles and cupsPlastic caps, straws and utensils Plastic bits, caps, straws and

utensilsPaper cups and tetra boxes Aluminium cans, metal caps,

ring pulls and pieces

Aluminium cans, metal caps, ring pulls and pieces

Cigarette Cigarette butts Cigarettes Cigarette buttsCigarette packets, wrappers, foil and matches

Cigarette packets, wrappers, foil and matches

Organic Animal poo Organics FoodFood Wooden utensilsWooden utensils

Plastic film Plastic film, bags and wrappers Plastic film Plastic film, bags and wrappersOther Packaging straps Other Packaging straps

Shopping trolleys Shopping trolleysSyringes SyringesOther items not listed above Other items not listed above

Not reported Dog pooChewing gum

18 Up until the 2005 VLR, the classification used for littered items is shown above. The 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013 VLR used the modified version which excluded animal faeces and chewing gum as littered items.

Appendix F: CCAT summary scores and notional targets

CCAT summary score

Year

Actual CCAT summary

scoreNotional CCAT summary target

2003 64 642004 652005 68 672006 682007 69 702008 712009 75 732010 77 742011 79 762012 772013 May 77 792013 Sept. 76 792014 80

Percent change in CCAT summary score

Year

Actual CCAT summary score % change

Target CCAT summary score

% change2003 0.0 0.02004 2.32005 6.3 4.52006 6.82007 7.8 9.12008 11.42009 17.2 13.62010 20.3 15.92011 23.4 18.22012 20.52013 May 20.3 22.72013 Sept. 18.8 22.72014 25.0

6468

69

75 77 7980

7776

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CCA

T Su

mm

ary

Scor

e

Actual CCAT summary score Notional CCAT summary target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

0.0

6.37.8

17.2

20.3

23.4 25

20.318.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Per c

ent (

%)

Actual CCAT summary score Notional CCAT summary target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

Context score

Year

Actual CCAT context score

Notional CCAT context target

2003 71 712004 732005 69 742006 762007 74 772008 792009 77 812010 78 822011 78 842012 862013 May 76 872013 Sept. 73 872014 89

71 6974 77 78 78

89

7673

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CON

TEXT

Sco

reActual CCAT CONTEXT score Notional CCAT CONTEXT target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

Facilities score

Year

Actual CCAT facilities

scoreNotional CCAT facilities target

2003 62 622004 632005 71 652006 662007 69 682008 692009 78 702010 81 722011 84 732012 752013 May 82 762013 Sept.2014 78

Facilities – Infrastructure score

62

71 69

7881 84

78

8281

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FACI

LITI

ES S

core

Actual CCAT FACILITIES score Notional CCAT FACILITIES target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

Year

Actual CCAT infrastructure

score

Notional CCAT

infrastructure target

2003 60 602004 612005 69 632006 642007 65 652008 672009 78 682010 84 702011 88 712012 722013 May 80 742013 Sept. 76 742014 75

60

6965

7884

88

75

8076

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Infr

astr

uctu

re S

core

Actual CCAT Infrastrucure score Notional CCAT Infrastructure target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

Facilities – BINfrastructure score

Year

Actual CCAT BINfrastrucure

score

Notional CCAT BINfrastructure

target2003 57 572004 582005 67 602006 612007 68 622008 632009 75 652010 76 662011 79 672012 692013 May 80 702013 Sept. 80 702014 71

Perceptions score

Year

Actual CCAT perceptions

score

Notional CCAT perceptions

target2003 58 582004 592005 59 612006 622007 62 632008 652009 60 662010 62 672011 63 692012 702013 May 62 712013 Sept. 65 712014 73

57

67 68

75 7679

71

8080

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

BINf

rast

ruct

ure

Scor

e

Actual CCAT BINfrastrucure score Notional CCAT BINfrastructure target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

58 5962 60 62 63

73

6265

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

PER

CEPT

IONS

Sco

re

Actual CCAT PERCEPTIONS score Notional CCAT PERCEPTIONS target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

Perceptions – Attitude to place score

Year

Actual CCAT attitute to

place score

Notional CCAT attitude to place

target2003 63 632004 642005 66 662006 672007 68 692008 702009 66 722010 67 732011 71 742012 762013 May 65 772013 Sept. 65 772014 79

6366 68 66 67

71

79

6565

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Attit

ude

to P

lace

Scor

e

Actual CCAT Attitute to Place score Notional CCAT Attitude to Place target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

Perceptions – Adequacy of facilities score

Year

Actual CCAT adequacy of

facilities score

Notional CCAT adequacy of

facilities target2003 48 482004 492005 46 502006 512007 54 522008 532009 53 552010 55 562011 53 572012 582013 May 58 592013 Sept. 66 592014 60

48 46

54

53 55 53

60

58

66

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adeq

uacy

of F

acili

ties

Scor

e

Actual CCAT Adequacy of Facilities scoreNotional CCAT Adequacy of Facilities target2013-May2013-Sept.

Littering rate (negative disposals)

YearObserved

littering rateNotional littering

rate target2003 25 252004 242005 30 242006 232007 31 232008 222009 16 222010 35 212011 23 202012 202013 May 23 192013 Sept. 20 192014 19

Litter count

YearTotal litter

countNotional litter count target

2003 10,408 10,4082004 10,1712005 9,535 9,9352006 9,6982007 11,496 9,4622008 9,2252009 6,835 8,9892010 7,692 8,7522011 7,573 8,5162012 8,2792013 May 9,760 8,0432013 Sept. 7,4612014 7,806

25

30 31

16

35

23

19

23

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Litte

ring

rate

(neg

ativ

e di

spos

als)

Observed littering rate Notional littering rate target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

10,4089,535

11,496

6,835

7,692 7,573 7,806

9,760

7,461

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Litte

r (to

tal i

tem

s)

Total litter count Notional litter count target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

Average littered items

50

39

54

32

36 35

38

45

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

Average littered items Notional average littered items target

2013-May 2013-Sept.

YearAverage

littered items

Notional average littered items

target2003 50 502004 492005 39 482006 472007 54 452008 442009 32 432010 36 422011 35 412012 402013 May 45 392013 Sept. 31 392014 38

Appendix G: Historical compositional data of littered items

2003 Littered items

Beverage22%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes55%

Confection wraps

8%

Organics5%

Other1%

Paper7%

Plastic film2%

2005 Littered items

Beverage16%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes62%

Confection wraps

4%

Organics3%

Other1%

Paper11%

Plastic film3%

2007 Littered items

Beverage24%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes54%

Confection wraps

4%

Organics4%

Other2%

Paper10%

Plastic film2%

2009 Littered items

Beverage29%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes46%

Confection wraps

5%

Organics4%

Other3%

Paper9%

Plastic film3%

2010 Littered items

Beverage31%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes50%

Confection wraps

3%

Organics4%

Other1%

Paper7%

Plastic film4%

2011 Littered items

Beverage29%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes54%

Confection wraps

2%

Organics5%

Other1%

Paper6%

Plastic film3%

2013 May Littered items

Beverage25%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes53%

Confection wraps

4%

Organics4%

Other1%

Paper9%

Plastic film2%

Appendix H: Trend DataState CCAT scoresValues 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 Sept

CCAT Summary Score 64 68 69 75 77 79 77 76

CONTEXT 71 69 74 77 78 78 76 73

FACILITIES 64 71 69 78 81 84 82 81

Infrastructure 60 69 65 78 84 88 80 76

BINfrastructure 62 67 67 75 76 79 80 80

PERCEPTIONS 58 59 62 60 62 63 62 65

Attitudes to place 63 66 68 66 67 71 65 65

Adequacy of facilities 49 46 54 53 55 53 58 66

State CCAT score - change year on year

Values 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 20112013 May

2013 Sept to 2013 May

2013 Sept to

2011CCAT Summary Score 4 1 6 2 2 -2 -1 -3

CONTEXT -2 5 3 1 0 -2 -3 -5

FACILITIES 7 -2 9 3 3 -2 -1 -3

Infrastructure 9 -4 13 6 4 -8 -4 -12


PERCEPTIONS 1 3 -2 2 1 -1 3 2

Attitudes to place 3 2 -2 1 4 -6 0 -6

Adequacy of facilities -3 8 -1 2 -2 5 8 13

State CCAT score - change from base year 2003Values 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 SeptCCAT Summary Score 0 4 5 11 13 15 13 12

CONTEXT 0 -2 3 6 7 7 5 2

FACILITIES 0 7 5 14 17 20 18 17

Infrastructure 0 9 5 18 24 28 20 16


PERCEPTIONS 0 1 4 2 4 5 4 7

Attitudes to place 0 3 5 3 4 8 2 2

Adequacy of facilities 0 -3 5 4 6 4 9 17

State CCAT Scores - Per cent change year on yearValues 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 2013 Sept 2013

May to 2013 MaySept to

2011CCAT Summary Score 0.0% 6.3% 1.5% 8.7% 2.7% 2.6% -2.5% -1.3% -3.8%

CONTEXT 0.0% -2.8% 7.2% 4.1% 1.3% 0.0% -2.6% -3.9% -6.4%

FACILITIES 0.0% 10.9% -2.8% 13.0% 3.8% 3.7% -2.4% -1.2% -3.6%

Infrastructure 0.0% 15.0% -5.8% 20.0% 7.7% 4.8% -9.1% -5.0% -13.6%

BINfrastructure 0.0% 8.1% 0.0% 11.9% 1.3% 3.9% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%

PERCEPTIONS 0.0% 1.7% 5.1% -3.2% 3.3% 1.6% -1.6% 4.8% 3.2%

Attitudes to place 0.0% 4.8% 3.0% -2.9% 1.5% 6.0% -8.5% 0.0% -8.5%

Adequacy of facilities 0.0% -6.1% 17.4% -1.9% 3.8% -3.6% 9.4% 13.8% 24.5%

State CCAT Scores - Per cent change from base year 2003Values 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 SeptCCAT Summary Score 0.0% 6.3% 7.8% 17.2% 20.3% 23.4% 20.3% 18.8%

CONTEXT 0.0% -2.8% 4.2% 8.5% 9.9% 9.9% 7.0% 2.8%

FACILITIES 0.0% 10.9% 7.8% 21.9% 26.6% 31.3% 28.1% 26.6%

Infrastructure 0.0% 15.0% 8.3% 30.0% 40.0% 46.7% 33.3% 26.7%

BINfrastructure 0.0% 8.1% 8.1% 21.0% 22.6% 27.4% 29.0% 29.0%

PERCEPTIONS 0.0% 1.7% 6.9% 3.4% 6.9% 8.6% 6.9% 12.1%

Attitudes to place 0.0% 4.8% 7.9% 4.8% 6.3% 12.7% 3.2% 3.2%

Adequacy of facilities 0.0% -6.1% 10.2% 8.2% 12.2% 8.2% 18.4% 34.7%

CCAT Scores by Site TypeSite 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 Sept

Beach 64 76 75 81 83 84 82 79

Easement 56 56 59 64 66 69 69 73

Event 63 67 69 73 79 82 83 n.a.

Landmark 67 71 70 76 80 77 79 77

Mall 66 69 70 77 77 77 77 76

Market 66 74 66 77 81 83 73 79

Park 68 71 72 76 80 82 79 76

Public Building 66 70 69 77 77 80 78 78

Shops 66 67 69 75 76 79 75 77

Smoking 62 66 65 76 76 77 74 76

Transport 59 63 63 69 72 74 72 74

Waterfront 70 72 72 76 78 81 81 77

Waterfront Precinct 72 75 75 82 82 82 80 80

CCAT Scores by Site Type – change year on yearSite 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 SeptBeach 0 13 -1 7 2 1 -1 -3

Easement 0 -1 4 5 2 3 0 4

Event 0 4 2 3 6 3 1 n.a.

Landmark 0 4 -1 7 4 -3 2 -2

Mall 0 3 1 7 0 1 0 -2

Market 0 8 -7 10 4 1 -9 6

Park 0 3 2 4 4 2 -3 -3

Public Building 0 4 -1 8 0 3 -2 0

Shops 0 2 2 6 1 3 -4 2

Smoking 0 4 -1 10 1 1 -3 2

Transport 0 4 0 6 4 2 -2 2

Waterfront 0 2 0 4 1 3 0 -3

Waterfront Precinct 0 3 0 7 1 -1 -1 -1

CCAT Scores by Site Type - change from base year 2003Site 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 SeptBeach 0 13 -1 7 2 1 -1 -3

Easement 0 -1 4 5 2 3 0 4

Event 0 4 2 3 6 3 1 n.a.

Landmark 0 4 -1 7 4 -3 2 -2

Mall 0 3 1 7 0 1 0 -2

Market 0 8 -7 10 4 1 -9 6

Park 0 3 2 4 4 2 -3 -3

Public Building 0 4 -1 8 0 3 -2 0

Shops 0 2 2 6 1 3 -4 2

Smoking 0 4 -1 10 1 1 -3 2

Transport 0 4 0 6 4 2 -2 2

Waterfront 0 2 0 4 1 3 0 -3

Waterfront Precinct 0 3 0 7 1 -1 -1 -1

CCAT Scores by Site Type - Per cent change year on year

Site 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May2013 Sept to

2013 May

2013 Sept to

2011Beach 0 19.7% -1.6% 8.8% 2.1% 0.6% -1.7% -3.4% -5.0%

Easement 0 -1.2% 6.5% 8.3% 2.7% 4.0% 0.3% 5.8% 6.2%

Event 0 6.0% 3.4% 4.7% 8.3% 4.1% 1.1% n.a. n.a.

Landmark 0 5.9% -1.9% 9.5% 5.1% -3.6% 2.2% -2.1% 0.1%

Mall 0 4.9% 0.9% 10.2% -0.1% 0.7% -0.2% -2.1% -2.2%

Market 0 11.6% -9.9% 15.4% 5.8% 1.7% -11.3% 8.3% -3.9%

Park 0 3.9% 2.4% 5.5% 5.3% 1.9% -3.1% -4.2% -7.2%

Public Building 0 6.7% -1.6% 11.5% 0.0% 3.8% -2.3% -0.2% -2.5%

Shops 0 2.3% 2.4% 9.4% 1.1% 4.2% -5.1% 2.4% -2.8%

Smoking 0 6.9% -1.8% 16.1% 0.7% 1.2% -4.2% 2.7% -1.7%

Transport 0 7.2% -0.2% 9.1% 5.3% 2.3% -2.6% 3.2% 0.6%

Waterfront 0 3.5% -0.1% 5.5% 1.7% 4.4% -0.5% -4.1% -4.5%

Waterfront Precinct 0 4.5% 0.0% 8.9% 1.0% -1.0% -1.5% -0.7% -2.2%

CCAT Scores by Site Type - Per cent change from base year 2003Site 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 SeptBeach 0 19.7% 17.8% 28.2% 30.8% 31.6% 29.5% 25.0%

Easement 0 -1.2% 5.2% 14.0% 17.1% 21.7% 22.1% 29.2%

Event 0 6.0% 9.7% 14.9% 24.5% 29.6% 31.1% n.a.

Landmark 0 5.9% 3.8% 13.7% 19.5% 15.2% 17.7% 15.3%

Mall 0 4.9% 5.9% 16.7% 16.6% 17.4% 17.2% 14.8%

Market 0 11.6% 0.6% 16.1% 22.8% 25.0% 10.9% 20.1%

Park 0 3.9% 6.5% 12.4% 18.4% 20.6% 16.9% 12.0%

Public Building 0 6.7% 5.0% 17.1% 17.2% 21.6% 18.8% 18.6%

Shops 0 2.3% 4.8% 14.6% 15.9% 20.8% 14.6% 17.4%

Smoking 0 6.9% 4.9% 21.8% 22.6% 24.1% 18.9% 22.0%

Transport 0 7.2% 7.0% 16.7% 22.9% 25.7% 22.5% 26.4%

Waterfront 0 3.5% 3.4% 9.2% 11.0% 15.9% 15.4% 10.7%

Waterfront Precinct 0 4.5% 4.5% 13.8% 14.9% 13.8% 12.0% 11.3%

Average Litter Counts by Site TypeSite 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 SeptBeach 44 23 35 10 17 17 23 18

Easement 101 64 104 58 107 86 120 64

Event 34 37 22 53 28 13 28 n.a.

Landmark 33 24 45 23 20 30 37 21

Mall 44 41 56 22 32 18 30 21

Market 31 16 41 10 11 15 25 8

Park 41 31 44 38 31 33 47 27

Public Building 28 31 48 20 22 15 27 25

Shops 51 38 45 28 32 28 33 28

Smoking 58 47 60 16 26 43 31 27

Transport 65 64 84 71 53 60 84 65

Waterfront 34 40 54 30 40 39 54 26

Waterfront Precinct 13 24 20 9 19 54 23 20

State Total 50 39 54 32 36 35 45 31

Average Litter Counts by Site Type – Change, year on year

Site 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 20112013 May 2013 Sept

2013 Sept to

2011Beach 0 -21 12 -25 7 0 7 -5 1

Easement 0 -37 40 -46 49 -21 34 -57 -22

Event 0 3 -16 31 -24 -16 15 n.a. n.a.

Landmark 0 -10 22 -22 -4 10 7 -17 -9

Mall 0 -4 15 -34 10 -14 12 -9 4

Market 0 -14 25 -31 0 4 11 -17 -7

Park 0 -11 13 -5 -7 2 14 -19 -6

Public Building 0 3 16 -28 2 -7 12 -2 10

Shops 0 -13 7 -18 5 -4 4 -5 0

Smoking 0 -12 14 -44 10 17 -12 -4 -16

Transport 0 -1 20 -13 -17 6 24 -19 5

Waterfront 0 6 14 -24 10 -1 15 -28 -13

Waterfront Precinct 0 11 -4 -12 11 34 -31 -2 -33

State Total 0 -11 15 -22 4 -1 10 -14 -4

Average Litter Counts by Site Type - Change from base year 2003

Site 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 SeptBeach 0 -21 -8 -34 -26 -27 -20 -26

Easement 0 -37 3 -43 6 -15 20 -37

Event 0 3 -12 19 -6 -21 -6 n.a.

Landmark 0 -10 12 -10 -14 -3 4 -13

Mall 0 -4 11 -22 -13 -27 -14 -23

Market 0 -14 10 -20 -20 -16 -5 -23

Park 0 -11 2 -3 -10 -8 5 -14

Public Building 0 3 20 -8 -6 -14 -2 -4

Shops 0 -13 -5 -23 -19 -23 -18 -23

Smoking 0 -12 2 -42 -33 -15 -28 -31

Transport 0 -1 19 6 -12 -5 19 0

Waterfront 0 6 19 -5 5 4 20 -8

Waterfront Precinct 0 11 7 -4 6 40 9 7

State Total 0 -11 4 -18 -14 -15 -5 -19

Average Litter Counts by Site Type - Per cent change, year on year

Site 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 20112013 May 2013 Sept

2013 Sept to

2011

Beach 0-47.5% 54.3% -72.1% 73.9% -1.7% 39.0% -23.2% 6.8%

Easement 0-36.7% 63.2% -44.4% 84.7% -19.6% 40.2% -47.0% -25.7%

Event 0 9.0% -41.6%142.0% -46.2% -54.9% 120.3% n.a. n.a.

Landmark 0-28.8% 90.5% -48.5% -15.5% 52.7% 23.8% -44.4% -31.2%

Mall 0 -8.7% 37.2% -60.2% 44.0% -44.1% 69.3% -29.0% 20.2%

Market 0-47.0%

152.7% -74.8% 3.2% 37.5% 71.6% -68.6% -46.1%

Park 0-25.6% 42.5% -12.2% -18.6% 5.4% 41.4% -41.6% -17.5%

Public Building 0 11.2% 52.1% -58.3% 10.5% -33.7% 82.4% -8.0% 67.9%

Shops 0-25.0% 19.1% -39.3% 17.0% -12.4% 15.6% -15.0% -1.8%

Smoking 0-20.3% 29.2% -73.5% 62.0% 66.3% -28.1% -12.2% -36.8%

Transport 0 -1.2% 30.4% -15.6% -24.6% 12.1% 40.9% -22.9% 8.6%

Waterfront 0 16.2% 34.3% -44.5% 33.2% -2.5% 39.9% -52.2% -33.1%

Waterfront Precinct 0 84.2% -16.5% -56.8%120.0%

177.9% -57.8% -10.6% -62.2%

State Total 0-22.5% 39.3% -40.9% 12.0% -1.5% 28.9% -31.8% -12.1%

Litter Counts by Site Types - Per cent change from base year 2003Site 2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 May 2013 SeptBeach 0 -47.5% -19.0% -77.4% -60.7% -61.3% -46.2% -58.7%

Easement 0 -36.7% 3.2% -42.6% 6.0% -14.8% 19.4% -36.7%

Event 0 9.0% -36.4% 54.0% -17.1% -62.6% -17.7% n.a.

Landmark 0 -28.8% 35.6% -30.1% -40.9% -9.8% 11.7% -38.0%

Mall 0 -8.7% 25.2% -50.2% -28.3% -60.0% -32.2% -51.9%

Market 0 -47.0% 34.1% -66.2% -65.1% -52.0% -17.7% -74.2%

Park 0 -25.6% 5.9% -7.0% -24.3% -20.1% 12.9% -34.1%

Public Building 0 11.2% 69.1% -29.4% -22.0% -48.3% -5.7% -13.2%

Shops 0 -25.0% -10.8% -45.8% -36.6% -44.4% -35.7% -45.4%

Smoking 0 -20.3% 2.9% -72.7% -55.8% -26.5% -47.1% -53.6%

Transport 0 -1.2% 28.9% 8.8% -17.9% -8.0% 29.7% 0.0%

Waterfront 0 16.2% 56.1% -13.4% 15.3% 12.4% 57.3% -24.8%

Waterfront Precinct 0 84.2% 53.8% -33.5% 46.2% 306.3% 71.6% 53.4%

State Total 0 -22.5% 8.0% -36.2% -28.5% -29.6% -9.3% -38.1%

For further information visitsustainability.vic.gov.au

victorian litter report sept 2013 final.doc€¦ · web viewyear number locations littered items...

Documents