sustainability victoria/media/resource… · web viewthis is a ten-year plan to reduce waste in...

The Victorian Litter ReportISSN 1838-4137

Contact DetailsNick ChrisantProject ManagerSustainability Victoria(03) 8626 8700

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

Published by Sustainability VictoriaLevel 28 Urban Workshop50 Lonsdale StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000Australia.October 2012

Victorian Litter Report 2011 © Sustainability Victoria 2012

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 2011 should be attributed to Sustainability Victoria.

The Victorian Litter Report 2011 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 2011i

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

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 4TOWARDS LITTER PREVENTION...........................................................................................................6

LITTERING BEHAVIOUR AND THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................6COMPONENTS OF LITTER PREVENTION.......................................................................................................6LITTER PREVENTION: STATEWIDE..............................................................................................................7COMPONENTS OF LITTER PREVENTION: STATEWIDE....................................................................................8LITTER PREVENTION: SITE TYPES..............................................................................................................9COMPONENTS OF LITTER PREVENTION: SITE TYPES..................................................................................10

LITTER COUNTS.................................................................................................................................... 11LITTER LEVELS: STATEWIDE.................................................................................................................... 11SITE TYPES AND LITTER..........................................................................................................................14

THE LITTER STREAM............................................................................................................................ 17LITTER COMPOSITION: STATEWIDE..........................................................................................................17SITE TYPES AND LITTER COMPOSITION.....................................................................................................19

TOWARDS BEHAVIOUR CHANGE........................................................................................................20LITTERING BEHAVIOURS IN VICTORIA.......................................................................................................20LITTERING AND SITE TYPES..................................................................................................................... 23

WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT LITTER...................................................................................................24COMMUNITY SATISFACTION WITH LITTER MANAGEMENT.............................................................................27

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................30BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................ 30TOOLS USED IN THE VICTORIAN LITTER REPORT......................................................................................30VICTORIAN LITTER REPORT 2011 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................32

APPENDIX B: SITE TYPES.................................................................................................................... 33REVIEW OF SITE CLASSIFICATION AND SELECTION....................................................................................33

APPENDIX C: LOCATIONS.................................................................................................................... 35APPENDIX D: LITTERED ITEMS CLASSIFICATION.............................................................................49APPENDIX E: CCAT SUMMARY SCORES AND NOTIONAL TARGETS.............................................50Appendix F: Historical compositional data of littered items......................................................................55

The Victorian Litter Report 2011ii

Tables

Table 1 Interpretation of high and low CCAT summary (litter prevention performance) scores.................6Table 2 Site type by CCAT summary, factor and sub-factor scores 2011................................................10Table 3 Statewide litter counts 2003 – 2011............................................................................................11Table 4 Statewide average litter counts with upper and lower confidence intervals 2003 – 2011...........13Table 5 Average litter counts by site types with upper and lower confidence intervals 2011..................15Table 6 Comparisons of littering in Victoria 2003 – 2011.........................................................................20Table 7 Statewide littering rate, confidence intervals 2003 – 2011..........................................................22Table 8 Gender profile, survey participants 2011.....................................................................................24Table 9 CCAT rating guides.....................................................................................................................32Table 10 Site type and sample size by LGA 2011....................................................................................33Table 11 Site type and sample size by urban / rural classification...........................................................34Table 12 Site type definitions...................................................................................................................34Table 13 Location by CCAT summary score 2011...................................................................................35Table 14 Littered items classification.......................................................................................................49

Figures

Figure 1 VLR litter prevention performance (CCAT summary scores) 2003 – 2011..................................7Figure 2 VLR litter prevention performance (CCAT scores percentage change) 2003 – 2011...................7Figure 3 Statewide litter prevention (CCAT primary and sub-factor scores) 2003 – 2011..........................8Figure 4 Litter prevention by site types (CCAT summary score) 2003 – 2011...........................................9Figure 5 Statewide average litter counts 2003 – 2011.............................................................................12Figure 6 Statewide average litter counts, confidence intervals 2003 – 2011............................................12Figure 7 Average litter counts by site types 2003 – 2011.........................................................................14Figure 8 Average litter count by site types, confidence intervals 2011.....................................................15Figure 9 Average litter count by site types, confidence intervals 2003 – 2011.........................................16Figure 10 Composition of littered items 2011 and 2010...........................................................................17Figure 11 Composition of beverage littered items 2011...........................................................................18Figure 12 Composition* of littered items by site types 2011.....................................................................19Figure 13 Statewide littering rate 2003 – 2011.........................................................................................21Figure 14 Statewide littering rate, confidence intervals 2003 – 2011.......................................................21Figure 15 Littering rates by site types 2003 – 2011..................................................................................23Figure 16 Age profile, survey participants 2011.......................................................................................24Figure 17 Education profile*, survey participants 2011............................................................................25Figure 18 Employment profile*, survey participants 2011........................................................................25Figure 19 Place of residence profile*, survey participants 2011...............................................................26Figure 20 Community satisfaction with public places and litter 2003 – 2011............................................27Figure 21 Community satisfaction with location litter management 2011.................................................28Figure 22 Community assessments* of disposal facilities features 2011.................................................28

The Victorian Litter Report 2011iii

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 that need more effort.

The main purpose of the Victorian Litter Report is to monitor the state’s progress against ‘Towards Zero Waste’ (outlined in Sustainability in Action: Towards Zero Waste). This is a ten-year plan to reduce waste in Victoria, increase recycling and reduce the environmental impact of waste disposal.

A key target of Towards Zero Waste (TZW) is to improve littering behaviour by 25% by 2014, compared to the baseline levels established when litter assessment first began. Progress towards the 2014 target is reported in the Victorian Litter Report.

Please note that only state data has been reported in this year’s publication because small survey samples prevented robust comparisons between urban and rural locations. Urban and regional comparisons are available on request from Sustainability Victoria.

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 against TZW.

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

The Victorian Litter Report research was conducted in 216 public place locations divided into 13 site types, including beaches, public building and transport sites, across urban and rural Victoria from September to early December 2011.

The 2011 Victorian Litter Report is supported by the 2009 Victorian litter strategy, Creating Cleaner, Safer Places, which outlines next steps in litter prevention and litter management for the state to achieve its TZW target.

FindingsThe key findings of the 2011 Victorian Litter Report (VLR) are:

1 Litter prevention performanceLitter prevention performance is scored out of 100 and tracks improvements to public places – design and maintenance, for example – that influence public littering and bin use. The higher the litter prevention score, the better the performance. In 2011, Victoria scored 79/100 (up from 77/100 in 2010). This year’s litter prevention

performance score exceeded the notional TZW target set for 2011 (76/100) and represents a 23.4% statewide improvement since litter assessment began in 2003.

The 2011 findings reflect improved scores for general cleanliness of public places, including less illegal dumping and graffiti, as well as improved bin design, position and servicing, better landscaping, maintenance and cleanliness of street furniture.

1 Notional TZW 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 E for the derived state notional targets for each of the CCAT factors and sub-factors

The Victorian Litter Report 2011 4

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 slightly to 35 items in 2011 (down from 36 items in

2010). This is well below the worst litter count average of 54 items per location in 2007 and better than the notional TZW target of 41 items for 2011.

3 Litter hot spots The worst location for litter on the ground is easements2 (the public space immediately outside

railway stations), with an average of 94 items per location in 2011. Easements have continued to be the biggest litter hot spot challenge since 2003.

4 Problem litter types Cigarette butts prevail as the most common type of litter, accounting for at least half of all

items counted in all locations, followed by beverage items and then paper. Cigarette litter increased to 54% in 2011 (up from 47% in 2009 and 50% in 2010). The highest

proportion of cigarette litter was found in waterfront precincts (83%), as compared with smoking sites (74%) and shops (71%).

Beverage litter has continued to increase steadily from 16% in 2005 to 29% in 2011, although the 2011 figure represents a slight decrease on last year. Most beverage litter is in the form of glass bits, which made up 55%. Plastic caps and plastic bits made up 21% and metal caps 22%.

Paper litter has continued to decrease since 2005 (from 11% to 6% in 2011).

5 Rate of public littering Littering behaviour in 2011 was assessed by monitoring 1,080 litter disposals in 216 locations to calculate the percentage of litter not disposed of into a bin (or the littering behaviour rate).

The 2011 results reveal that 77% of Victorians dispose of waste into bins in public places. This is an improvement on the 2010 disposal rate of 65%.

The 2011 public littering rate of 23%, although higher than the notional TZW target of 20%, shows a downward trend for the first time since 2003, when the littering rate was 25% (with the exception of 2009 when the sample size was small). Although not a significant decrease, this improvement comes after years of the public littering rate trending upwards.

Despite decreased rates of public littering in 2011 compared with 2010, littering increased significantly in landmark locations to 41% in 2011, well above the 11% reported in 2010. Major decreases in public littering rates were also evident in waterfront locations (7% in 2011, significantly below 43% in 2010) and public buildings (19% in 2011, considerably below 87% in 2010).

ConclusionVictoria is a cleaner place and public littering behaviour is on the decline.Although litter counts may 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.

Considerable effort has been put into improving bin design, position, adequacy, signage and cleaning regimes, and 2011 is the first year where these efforts would appear to be paying off. Improvements, however, still need to be made to overall community satisfaction with litter management, which will ultimately encourage Victorians to dispose of litter appropriately.

2 Refer to Appendix B, Table 12 Site type definitions for a more detailed explanation


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. In contrast, public places that are poorly maintained often attract not only litter but graffiti and displays of anti-social behaviour that make them appear unsafe3.

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 meeting needs of community

Community sees a need to improve facilities

* Abbreviated as Perceptions in the 2011 VLR** Referred to as Adequacy of facilities in the 2011 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 towards the TZW target 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.

Litter prevention: Statewide3 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


Figure 1 shows the statewide CCAT summary score for litter prevention performance in all 216 locations assessed throughout Victoria since 2003. Figure 2 shows the state’s performance relative to the TZW notional target for litter prevention, expressed as a percentage change since 2003.

Figure 1 VLR litter prevention performance (CCAT summary scores) 2003 – 2011

6468

69

75 77 7980

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

Figure 2 VLR litter prevention performance (CCAT scores percentage change) 2003 – 2011

0.0

6.37.8

17.2

20.3

23.4 25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

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

Per

cent

(%)


Observations


A CCAT summary score of 79/100 for Victoria in 2011 indicates an improvement in litter prevention performance in public places, compared to the 2010 level of 77/100 (Figure 1), and is 3 points above the notional target for 2011 of 76/100 (this is comparable to the improvement seen in 2010).

Figure 2 shows the 2011 CCAT summary score has increased by 23.4% since the base year of 2003 and exceeded the notional 2011 TZW target of 18.2% by 5.2 percentage points, an increase of 3.1 percentage points from 2010.

Components of litter prevention: StatewideFigure 34 scores each of the litter prevention components that make up the CCAT summary score and compares the 2011 results against the previous survey year’s scores.

Figure 3 Statewide litter prevention (CCAT primary and sub-factor scores) 2003 – 2011

71 62 60 57 58 63 4869 71 69 67 59 66 4674 69 65 68 62 68 5477 78 78 75 60 66 5378 81 84 76 62 67 5578 84 88 79 63 71 530

20

40

60

80

100

CONTEXT FACILITIES Infrastructure BINfrastructure PERCEPTIONS Attitude To Place Adequacy ofFacilities

Litte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011

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 remained consistent in 2011, indicating that public places have maintained their general cleanliness, sense of community belonging and safety, and were reasonably free of graffiti and dumping.

Facilities scores have continued to increase in 2011, continuing a trend beginning in 2009. This upward trend since 2009 followed an overall decrease between 2005 and 2007. The Infrastructure score increase indicates better maintenance, presentation and cleanliness of street furniture and landscaping. The BINfrastructure score increase reflects local improvements in bin design, positioning and servicing.

Community attitudes and views – measured by the perceptions score – have changed only marginally, with slight improvements since litter assessment began in 2003. After a slight decrease in 2009, perception scores regained in 2010 and have continued to improve in 2011.

4 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.


Litter prevention: Site types Figure 4 shows CCAT summary scores for litter prevention performance in different site types throughout Victoria.

Figure 4 Litter prevention by site types (CCAT summary score) 2003 – 2011

66 66 68 70 66 6667 69 71 72 69 7469 70 72 72 69 6675 77 76 76 77 7776 77 80 78 77 8179 77 82 81 79 830

20

40

60

80

100

Shops Mall Park Waterfront Public Building MarketLitte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011

64 63 59 67 63 56 7276 68 63 73 66 56 7575 69 63 70 65 59 7581 73 69 76 76 64 8283 79 72 80 77 65 7984 82 74 77 78 68 790

20

40

60

80

100

Beach Event Transport Landmark Smoking Easement WaterfrontPrecinct

Litte

r Pre

vent

ion

(CC

AT

scor

e)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011

Observations Litter prevention improvements, ranging from 1 to 3 points, can be seen across all site types

since 2010, with the exceptions of mall areas, which remained constant in 2011 at 77, waterfront precincts, which remained constant at 79, and landmarks, which decreased by 3 points from 80 in 2010 to 77 in 2011.

The highest 2011 litter prevention scores were at beach sites (84) and market locations (83). These two site types were also highest in 2010. Mall, transport, smoking, landmark and easement site types were all below the state CCAT average score of 79.

The most notable litter prevention improvements in 2011 were seen in shops, waterfront, event and easement locations, all with increases of 3 points. The biggest site improvements since 2003 were seen in event and beach sites, increasing 19 and 20 points respectively.


Components of litter prevention: Site typesTable 2 shows the CCAT summary scores for each CCAT factors and sub-factors for the different site types.

Table 2 Site type by CCAT summary, factor and sub-factor scores 2011

Sitetype

CCAT summary

score5

CONTEXT

FACILITIES Infrastructur

eBINfrastructur

e

PERCEPTIONS Attitud

e to place

Adequacy of

facilitiesShops 79 78 85 86 85 64 72 53

Mall 77 74 86 86 85 60 67 51

Park 82 82 86 91 81 70 75 65

Waterfront 81 80 85 91 75 67 75 58

Public building 79 83 83 90 68 67 74 57

Market 83 87 87 94 85 67 77 55

Beach 84 90 88 94 85 68 75 59

Event 82 83 88 89 88 65 70 58

Transport 74 69 84 80 85 55 66 40

Landmark 77 80 82 90 64 64 72 52

Smoking 78 74 86 89 80 57 66 46

Easement 68 64 77 79 68 50 61 35

Waterfront precinct 79 80 84 90 82 62 76 45

State average 79 78 84 88 79 63 71 53

Observations The two site types demonstrating the highest CCAT summary scores – market and beach sites –

showed higher than average scores for context and facilities (both infrastructure and BINfrastructure).

As noted, the biggest improvements in 2011 came from shops, waterfront, event and easement locations, much of which can be attributed to improvements to facilities, including improvements to bin numbers, adequacy, cleanliness, proximity and design. Consistent with the 2010 findings, however, there remains minimal improvement in 2011 in respondents’ perception of the adequacy of the facilities. This shows that the subjective perceptions of consumers do not necessarily reflect objective improvements.

5 Please note that the CCAT summary score is not a simple averaging of the factors and sub-factors but an averaging of all 87 variables used in the construct of the score.


Litter countsLitter counts measure the number of littered items in public places in Victoria. 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. In 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011, the litter count methodology was refined to enable improved comparison of litter prevention factors that councils have direct influence on and to provide meaningful comparisons against earlier benchmarks. Refinements 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 are a useful, but not reliable, outcome measure as they can be influenced by a range of factors, 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 that litter counts may vary with the adequacy of litter containment, timing of the survey litter counts (in particular in relation to clean-up schedules) and weather conditions such as wind and rain.

For this reason, the litter count results have been shown within 95% upper and lower confidence intervals, indicated in Figure 6 with a bar either side of the survey’s average litter count. The true litter count average lies somewhere within this range.

Effective litter prevention is 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, littering behaviour rates are considered a more accurate measure of litter prevention success (covered in more detail in ‘Towards behaviour change’ on p 21). Litter counts in the Victorian Litter Report are compared to notional targets that represent the level of expected change required to achieve the TZW equivalent of 25% improvement by 2014.

Litter levels: StatewideTable 3 and Figure 5 show the total number of littered items and average litter items found in locations audited throughout Victoria in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The notional TZW litter count reduction targets for 2011 are also included in Figure 5.

Table 3 Statewide litter counts 2003 – 2011

Year

Number

LocationsItemsTotal

ItemsAverage

2003 209 10,408 50

2005 247 9,535 39

2007 215 11,496 54

2009 215 6,835 32

2010 216 7,692 36

2011 216 7,573 35

Notional TZW 2011 target 8,516 41


Figure 5 Statewide average litter counts 2003 – 2011

50

39

54

3236 35

38

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)


Figure 6 and Table 4 display the upper and lower confidence intervals for the statewide average litter counts for each of the survey periods.

Figure 6 Statewide average litter counts, confidence intervals 2003 – 2011

50

39

54

3236 35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)


Table 4 Statewide average litter counts with upper and lower confidence intervals 2003 – 2011

95% Confidence interval6

Year Littering average 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

Observations Litter count levels throughout Victoria in 2011 averaged 35 items per location, down from 36

items in 2010 and well below the 2011 notional TZW target of 41 items per location. The average litter counts levels have been slowly trending downwards since 2003.

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


Site types and litterLitter counts were also examined according to site type, as summarised in Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7 Average litter counts by site types 2003 – 2011

51 44 41 34 28 3138 41 30 42 31 1645 56 44 54 48 4128 22 38 30 20 1033 32 31 39 23 1129 18 33 37 15 150

20

40

60

80

100

120

Shops Mall Park Waterfront Public Building Market

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011

44 34 65 33 58 101 1323 37 64 24 47 64 2435 22 84 45 60 104 2010 53 68 23 16 58 917 28 53 20 24 118 2317 13 61 30 43 94 570

20

40

60

80

100

120


Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011

Figure 8 shows the confidence intervals for the different site types for the 2011 Victorian Litter Report survey. Because of the wide variation in the number of littered items recorded and the relatively small sample size, the smoking, easement and waterfront precinct locations show much larger margins of error (reflected in the wider confidence intervals), compared to other site types surveyed.

Figure 8 Average litter count by site types, confidence intervals 2011

2918

33 37

15 15 17 13

61

3043

94

57

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Shops

Mall

Park

Waterfront

Public B

uilding

Market

Beach

Event

Transport

Landmark

Sm

oking

Easem

ent

Waterfront P

recinctLi

tter (

aver

age

Item

s)

Table 5 Average litter counts by site types with upper and lower confidence intervals 2011


LocationLitter

average items Lower CI Upper CI

Shops 29 19 39

Mall 18 7 29

Park 33 20 46

Waterfront 37 17 57

Public building 15 10 19

Market 15 4 26

Beach 17 5 29

Event 13 7 19

Transport 61 19 102

Landmark 30 7 53

Smoking 43 0 90

Easement 94 49 140

Waterfront precinct 57 0 154

Figure 9 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.

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

Figure 9 Average litter count by site types, confidence intervals 2003 – 2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2003

2005

2007

2009

2010

2011

2003

2005

2007

2009

2010

2011

2003

2005

2007

2009

2010

2011

2003

2005

2007

2009

2010

2011

2003

2005

2007

2009

2010

2011

2003

2005

2007

2009

2010

2011

Shop Mall Park Waterfront Public building Market

Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

200320052007200920102011200320052007200920102011200320052007200920102011200320052007200920102011200320052007200920102011200320052007200920102011200320052007200920102011


Litte

r (av

erag

e ite

ms)

Observations In 2011, there was a reduction in average amounts of litter found in many sites. These include

shops (4 items less than in 2010), mall locations (14 items less), waterfront (2 items less), public building (8 items less), event (15 items less) and easement locations (24 items less).

Increases in average amounts of litter were seen in market locations (4 items more than in 2010), transport (8 items more), landmark (10 items more), smoking (19 items more) and waterfront precinct locations (34 items more).

Once again, transport and easement were the most littered site types in 2011. Transport and easement sites have been the most littered site types in every Victorian Litter Report since 2003.

Although easement sites showed one of the largest decreases in average litter counts (24 items less than in 2010), the littering rate increased from 43% in 2010 to 53% in 2011 (Figure 15). This suggests that even though there is less litter at easement sites, people still choose to litter rather than use bins.

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 D.

Litter composition: StatewideFigures 10 illustrates littered items found in locations throughout Victoria in 2011 and 20108. Cigarette litter9 continues to be the most common item in litter count totals. In 2011, the percentage of cigarette litter increased by 4 percentage points compared with 2010.

Figure 10 Composition of littered items 2011 and 2010

Beverage29%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes54%

Confection wraps

2%

Organics5%

Other1%

Paper6%

Plastic film3%

2011Beverage

31%Cardboard

<1%

Cigarettes50%

Confection wraps

3%

Organics4%

Other1%

Paper7%

Plastic film4%

2010

In 2011, the most common item evident in litter counts was cigarette litter (54%), followed by beverage litter (29%) and then paper (6%). Compared with 2010, increases were seen in cigarettes (up 4%) and organics (up 1%) and decreases were observed in beverage (down 2%), paper (down 1%) and confection wraps (down 1%).

It should be noted that cigarettes remain the biggest litter type challenge, representing 54% of the litter stream in 2011, an increase of 7 percentage points since 2009.

The composition of beverage items found littered in 2011 is summarised in Figure 11. It shows that over half (55%) of all beverage items found littered were broken pieces of glass. A total of 21% of beverage litter items were plastic caps and bits and 22% were metal caps. This has changed very little from 2010.

8 Historical data of littered items is included in Appendix F9 In the 2011 VLR, 98.9% of all cigarette litter is composed of cigarette butts.

Figure 11 Composition of beverage littered items 2011

Glass bottles<1%

Glass bits55%

Plastic bottles<1%

Plastic cups1%

Plastic bits, caps21%

Paper cups1%

Metal cans<1%

Metal caps22%

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 29% in 2011. The majority of this increase has come from glass bits, which have increased from 46% in 2007 to 55% in 2011.

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 type totals, and highlights some of the difficulties of litter count methods.

Site types and litter compositionFigure 12 summarises the broad composition of the different types of litter found on the ground at different site types audited throughout Victoria in 2011.

Figure 12 Composition* of littered items by site types 2011

11%

16%

50%

50%

25%

10%

18%

19%

19%

28%

7%

48%

9%

71%

54%

30%

31%

54%

20%

61%

58%

68%

56%

74%

46%

83%

6%

11%

5%

8%

6%

8%

4%

13%

5%

6%

5%

3%

4%

12%

19%

14%

11%

15%

61%

17%

11%

8%

9%

14%

3%

4%

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

Shops

Mall

Park

Waterfront

Public Building

Market

Beach

Event

Transport

Landmark

Smoking

Easement

Waterfront Precinct

Beverage Cigarettes 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 cigarettes and beverage items.

Increases in cigarette litter since 2010 have been seen in waterfront precincts (from 72% in 2010 to 83% in 2011), easements (from 32% to 46%), landmarks (49% to 56%) and transport sites (57% to 68%). The largest decrease in cigarette litter is seen in market sites, which decreased from 55% in 2010 to 20% in 2011. This has come at the expense of a large increase in litter classified as other items (from 14% in 2010 to 61% in 2011), which includes organics, plastic film, confectionery wraps and cardboard. This large increase in other items at market sites is largely due to increases in organic waste.

Increases in beverage items since 2010 have been seen in landmark sites (up from 21% in 2010 to 28% in 2011), waterfront sites (up from 44% to 50%) and parks (up from 39% to 50%). Decreases in beverage items were much more prevalent in easements (down from 58% in 2010 to 48% in 2011), smoking locations (down from 10% to 7%), transport areas (down from 24% to 19%), beaches (down from 28% to 18%), markets (down from 17% to 10%) and malls (down from 27% to 16%).

Towards behaviour changeObservation of ‘disposal actions’, that is, data gained through direct observation of what people do with unwanted items, is the most effective indicator of community littering and bin use. This offers hard evidence, 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. A comparison between the community littering behaviour rate and the TZW target of 25% improvement by 2014 is one way to find out how community littering behaviour is tracking.

Littering behaviours in VictoriaIn 2011, 1,080 observations of disposal actions recorded in 216 locations throughout Victoria showed that 23% of people littered and 77% disposed of used items appropriately by using bins. Table 6 and Figure 13 illustrate the littering rate for all survey years.

Table 6 Comparisons of littering in Victoria 2003 – 2011

Number Behaviour rate

Year Locations Observations Bin use Littering rate

2003 263 685 75% 25%

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

2009 215 40610 84% 16%

2010 216 734 65% 35%

2011 216 1,080 77% 23%

2

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

Figure 13 Statewide littering rate 2003 – 2011

25

3031

16

35

23

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

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

Litte

ring

rate

(%)

Littering rate Notional target

Reliability of littering behaviour estimatesLittering behaviour in 2011 was assessed by monitoring 1,080 litter disposals at 216 locations to calculate the percentage of litter not disposed of into a bin (or the littering behaviour rate).

Figure 14 shows the littering rate trend within 95% upper and lower confidence intervals that reflect the margin of error associated with the collected data. With the exception of 2009, when a smaller sample size led to a wider margin of error, the littering rate has until 2010 consistently trended upwards. In 2011, however, the littering rate dropped to 23%, and for the first time fell below the initial 2003 benchmark of 25%.

This drop in the littering rate is in line with an increased CCAT score seen earlier and for the first time may indicate that the combined improvement in public attitudes and littering facilities is translating to improved littering behaviour.

Figure 14 Statewide littering rate, confidence intervals 2003 – 2011

25%

30% 31%

16%

35%

23%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Litte

ring

rate

(%)

Table 7 Statewide littering rate, confidence intervals 2003 – 2011


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%

Observations In 2011, 77% of Victorians disposed of waste appropriately in public places, representing an

increase of 12 percentage points since 2010 (Table 6). The 2011 result is an improvement on the original 2003 baseline of 75% and is the first time that littering behaviour has trended downwards (with the exception of 2009, when the sample size was low and the margin of error high).

Littering behaviour throughout Victoria in 2011 was only 3 percentage points higher than the notional TZW 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 heading in the right direction.

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

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

Littering and site types Littering behaviour and bin use at site types are summarised in Figure 15.

Littering rates are not reported for sites where the total number of litter disposals (both positive and negative) observed was less than 30. For this reason beach and event sites are not shown in the 2011 data presented in Figure 15.

Figure 15 Littering rates by site types 2003 – 2011

27 21 19 1530 26 22 19 22 3633 41 25 19 22 319 27 4 33 16 022 25 19 43 87 1418 28 18 7 19 230

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Shops Mall Park Waterfront Public Buidling Market

Litte

ring

rate

(%)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011

47 1740 9 3743 26 31 36 2717 12 20 32 031 11 27 43 1735 41 29 53 260

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Transport Landmark Smoking Easement Waterfront Precinct

Litte

ring

rate

(%)

2003 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011

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

2010 rates. Increases in littering rates since 2010 were seen in mall, market, transport, smoking, easement and waterfront precinct sites. The largest increase, however, was observed in landmark sites, where the littering rate increased by 30 percentage points from 11% in 2010 to 41% in 2011.

Decreases in littering rates were seen in shops and park sites, with significant decreases seen in waterfront sites (down from 43% in 2010 to 7% in 2011) and a very large decrease in public building sites (down from 87% in 2010 to 19% in 2011).

What people say about litterAs part of the 2011 Victorian Litter Report, 508 members of the public in 216 locations agreed to be surveyed about their views on litter.

Survey sample sizes were robust enough to enable demographic comparisons between urban and rural locations as shown in Table 8.

Demographic profile of survey respondents

Gender and ageThe gender of respondents participating in the 2011 survey is shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8 Gender profile, survey participants 2011

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

Urban 150 202 352 57 43

Rural 60 96 156 62 38

The age group of respondents participating in the 2011 survey is illustrated in Figure 16 below.

Figure 16 Age profile, survey participants 2011

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

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

Urban Rural Statewide

Observations

The 2011 survey represents a good distribution of ages12 between 18 and 65 or older. However, in 2011 only 35% of respondents aged 45 or over (compared with 49% in 2010).

This represents a lower proportion of respondents aged over 45 in rural areas (49% in 2011, compared with 63% in 2010) and a higher proportion of respondents aged less than 45 in urban areas (71% in 2011, compared with 59% in 2010).

12 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 2011, the highest level of education achieved by respondents is shown in Figure 17, with employment categories included in Figure 18.

Figure 17 Education profile*, survey participants 2011

36%50%

41%

51%39%

48%

9% 9% 9%

3% 3% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Secondary Tertiary TAFE Refused & n/a


Figure 18 Employment profile*, survey participants 2011

58%49% 55%

8%11%

9%

17%16% 17%

2%

1%2%

12%21% 15%

3% 3% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Working Not working Student Homemaker Retired Refused & n/a


Observations The statewide education and employment profiles showed that 48% of respondents had some

form of tertiary education and were in paid employment.

As in 2007, 2009 and 2010, urban survey respondents were more likely than rural respondents to be tertiary educated.

The number of respondents working was slightly higher in urban areas (58%), compared with (49%) in rural areas and this was similar to 2010.

The Victorian Litter Report 201125

Place of residence The 2011 survey respondents’ place of residence is shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19 Place of residence profile*, survey participants 2011

79% 79% 79%

14% 16% 15%2% 1% 2%

2% 1% 1%3% 3% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Local Out of town Interstate Overseas n/a


Observations Similar to previous years, the majority of those surveyed considered themselves local to the area

where the interview was conducted (79%), followed by those from out of town (15%).

In summary, the 2011 Victorian Litter Report demographic profile indicates that the largest proportion of those interviewed were local to the area, employed, tertiary 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 20 summarises overall community satisfaction with litter management in Victoria since 2003 as either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘extremely satisfied’. Notional TZW targets for 2011 community satisfaction with litter management are also shown.

Figure 20 Community satisfaction with public places and litter 2003 – 2011

36 37

4851

55

63

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Ver

y an

d ex

trem

ely

satis

fied

(%)


Observations Community satisfaction with litter management in public places has increased steadily since

2003, with 63% of those interviewed in public places in 2011 indicating they were very satisfied or extremely satisfied with litter management in their local area.

The 2011 community satisfaction level exceeds the notional TZW target by 21 percentage points and has increased by 8 percentage points since 2010. 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 21 to get a picture of how well the community perceives litter management in Victoria as a whole, and in urban and rural locations in particular.

Figure 21 Community satisfaction with location litter management 2011

5% 4% 5%6% 7% 6%

27% 22% 26%

43% 46% 44%

17% 19% 17%

3% 3% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Don't know


Observations Statewide respondents were moderately satisfied (26%), very satisfied (44%) or extremely

satisfied (17%) with litter management in their local area. Fewer people were very satisfied or extremely satisfied in urban areas (60%) than in rural areas (65%), although this is not significantly different.

Community assessment of location featuresCommunity surveys also investigated community assessments of location features, cleaning and BINfrastructure (servicing and position). Responses from urban and rural respondents are shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22 Community assessments* of disposal facilities features 2011

48%39% 45%

61%54% 59%

35%26% 32%

15%

14%15%

9%9%

9%

13%

8%12%

37%48%

40%30%

37% 32%

52%66%

56%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total

Cleaning seems good Bins seem well serviced Bins are close enough

Not at all Moderate Very



Observations 40% of all respondents in Victoria reported cleaning to be very good in the location where they

were interviewed. Rural respondents were more likely than their urban counterparts to assess cleaning as very good. However, 48% of respondents in urban and 39% in rural locations commented that cleaning was not at all good.

Community assessments of bin servicing were less favourable, with only 32% of respondents reporting that bins were very well serviced. A relatively high 59% of all respondents reported that bins were not well serviced.

Community assessments for proximity of bins were more favourable, with 56% of all respondents agreeing that the bins were close enough. Proximity was even more favourable in rural areas, with 66% agreeing the bins were very close to where needed, compared with 52% agreement in urban areas.


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 and 2011, Sustainability Victoria used the CCAT to establish statewide benchmarks and assess the state’s progress against TZW targets.

Tools used in the Victorian Litter ReportThe Victorian Litter Report 2011 (VLR) contains the outcomes of this benchmarking exercise based on the following CCAT measures:

1. Littering behaviour rate. The primary outcome measure for behaviour change progress against TZW targets.

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. However, caution is required when using litter counts to represent littering behaviour because the indirect measure is susceptible to variability not directly related to littering, including the influence of cleaning routines, containment of litter, animal scavenging and weather conditions, and therefore provides only 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 are likely to have 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 litter 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 for determining 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 2011 methodologyThe Victorian Litter Report research was conducted from September to early December 2011 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 and 2010 data. The 2011 Victorian Litter Report sample consisted of 216 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 which 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. A total of 5 locations had inter-rater assessments completed by staff members operating in teams of two and comparisons were made by calculating the concordance rate. The concordance rating showed that in a many instances, the two raters agreed exactly on the rating. If adjacent values are included in the concordance rating, then in 100% of instances, raters agreed within one ranking difference on either side.

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

Table 9 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 (MSD) 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 2011 largely matched those in 2010, 2009 and 2007, to increase comparability of outcomes and build a clear picture of progress toward TZW 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.

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

Table 10 Site type and sample size by LGA 2011

Site types BallaratCase

y Dandenong GeelongHum

e Manningham MelbourneMt

AlexanderPort

PhillipYarraCity Total

Beach — — — 4 — — — — 3 — 7

Easement — 2 2 3 1 — 1 1 1 1 12

Event — — — 1 — — 4 — — — 5

Landmark 1 — — 4 1 — 9 3 — — 18

Mall 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 — — — 15

Market — — 1 1 — — 3 — 1 — 6

Park 4 2 3 4 2 3 6 1 2 3 30Public building 1 4 2 6 2 2 2 1 — 2 22

Shops 5 4 4 6 3 2 6 3 2 3 38

Smoking 2 2 1 2 2 1 6 — — — 16

Transport 2 4 3 4 2 3 — — — 1 19Waterfront 1 3 1 2 2 2 7 1 3 2 24Waterfront precinct — — — 1 — — 2 — 1 — 4

Total 19 22 18 41 17 15 49 10 13 12 216


Table 11 Site type and sample size by urban / rural classification

Site type Urban Rural TotalBeach 3 4 7Easement 8 4 12Event 4 1 5Landmark 10 8 18Mall 9 6 15Market 5 1 6Park 21 9 30Public building 14 8 22Shops 24 14 38Smoking 12 4 16Transport 13 6 19Waterfront 20 4 24Waterfront precinct 3 1 4Total 146 70 216

Table 12 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, eg, 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: LocationsThe CCAT summary scores for each location audited for the 2011 Victorian Litter Report are presented in Table 13 in alphabetical order of LGA13 by site type. Maps are also included to show the distribution of locations in each LGA.

Table 13 Location by CCAT summary score 2011

City Site Location Area

CCAT summary

scoreBallarat Shops Sturt St book city Book City 81Ballarat Transport Central Square Myer Entrance 80Ballarat Shops Central Square Target Entrance 75Ballarat Mall Phoenix Mall Eastern Side 80Ballarat Waterfront Wendouree Parade Gnarr St 87Ballarat Park Botanic Gardens, Ballarat Morey Gate 93Ballarat Smoking Phoenix Mall West Side 74Ballarat Mall Bridge Mall Sturt St End 76Ballarat Mall Bridge Mall Near McDonalds 77Ballarat Landmark Camp St Precinct 79Ballarat Transport Lt Bridge St Bus Stop 76Ballarat Park Windmill Drive Precinct Adventure Playground 91Ballarat Park Victoria Pk Between Sturt & Oak Avenue 79Ballarat Smoking Wendouree Village 85Ballarat Shops Howitt St 1219B-1225D 84Ballarat Public Building Ballarat Miner Dome 81Ballarat Shops Sebastopol Shops Cnr Rubicon 82Ballarat Shops Bunninyong Shops Cnr Learmonth & Warrenheip 79Ballarat Park DeSoza Park 77Casey Easement Cranbourne Railway Station 73Casey Shops High St Shops, Cranbourne 85Casey Mall Clydesdale Mall Cranbourne Park SC 72Casey Smoking Clydesdale Mall Cranbourne Park SC 63Casey Transport Lyall St 72Casey Public Building Cranbourne Library 70Casey Park Lawson Poole Reserve 91Casey Waterfront Banjo Paterson Park 83Casey Shops Webb St, Narre Warren 81Casey Public Building Narre Warren Library 70Casey Transport Webb St, Narre Warren 67Casey Transport Fountain Gate Bus Stops 72

13 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 2011. 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 C 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 Easement Narre Warren Train Station Car Park Side 62Casey Park Wilson Botanic Park Playground 89Casey Waterfront Buchanan Park 75Casey Shops Berwick Village 82Casey Smoking Cranbourne Park Car park Safeway 78Casey Public Building Family Resource Centre 81Casey Shops Hampton Park Shopping Square 80Casey Public Building Hampton Park Library 72Casey Transport Hampton Bus Terminal 68Casey Waterfront Akoonah Park, Berwick 80Dandenong Shops Walker St 82Dandenong Easement Dandenong Train Station 65Dandenong Transport Dandenong Train Station 57Dandenong Mall Palm Plaza 74Dandenong Public Building Post office on Langhorne St 83Dandenong Transport McCrae St 73Dandenong Waterfront Dandenong Park Near footbridge 77Dandenong Park Dandenong Park Lonsdale St End 78Dandenong Smoking ATO, Mason St 66Dandenong Market Dandenong Market 84Dandenong Shops Douglas St, Noble Park 76Dandenong Transport Bus Stop 303-321 Springvale Rd 75Dandenong Shops Springvale Shops Safeway 76Dandenong Easement Springvale Station Lightwood Rd side 50Dandenong Public Building Springvale Library Back entrance 80Dandenong Shops Athol St shop Plaza 85Dandenong Park Burden Park 86Dandenong Park Fotheringham Reserve 83Geelong Shops Geelong Train Station 70Geelong Park Rippleside Playground 82Geelong Beach Rippleside 83Geelong Easement North Shore Station 63Geelong Mall Labuan Square 76Geelong Landmark City Hall Geelong Entrance 71Geelong Landmark City Hall Geelong North Side 84Geelong Smoking State Government Offices 82Geelong Transport Moorabool St Bus Stops 84Geelong Smoking Aust. Taxation Office 87Geelong Mall Highton Shopping Village 79Geelong Public Building Information Centre 90Geelong Landmark Waterworld 69Geelong Shops Separation St Corner Thompson Rd 63Geelong Landmark Boer War Memorial Park 61Geelong Shops Ocean Grove 89Geelong Public Building Ocean Grove P.O. 89Geelong Beach Ocean Grove Hodgson St 84Geelong Beach Ocean Grove SLSC 85Geelong Mall Lt Malop St Mall 74Geelong Shops Moorabool St Coner Malop St 86Geelong Shops Market Square 77



CCAT summary

scoreGeelong Public Building Centrelink Geelong 71Geelong Public Building Wool Museum 84Geelong Transport Malop St Bus Stops 83Geelong Park Johnstone Park 81Geelong Public Building Geelong Library 82Geelong Public Building GPAC 73Geelong Park Eastern Beach Reserve 83Geelong Beach Eastern Beach 85Geelong Waterfront Precinct Carousel 83Geelong Easement Lara Train Station 66Geelong Easement North Geelong Station 72Geelong Transport Geelong Train Station 76Geelong Park Cameron Pk 82Geelong Waterfront Barwon Valley Park 86Geelong Waterfront Balyang Sanctuary 82Geelong Transport High St Bus Stops 78Geelong Shops High St shops Belmont 84Geelong Market Corio Markets 82Geelong Event Skilled Stadium Graham 'Polly' Farmer Gate 72Hume Shops Mahoney's Plaza Shopping Cntr 73Hume Transport Broadmeadows Station Bus Stops 67Hume Park Broadmeadows Town Park 67Hume Smoking Meadow Heights Shopping Centre 75Hume Easement Broadmeadows Train Station 61Hume Public Building Broadmeadows Library 88Hume Public Building Council Offices, Broadmeadows 84Hume Smoking Centrelink Broadmeadows 76Hume Shops Sunbury Shops Evans cnr Brook 77Hume Transport Sunbury Train Station Bus stop 74Hume Mall Link Arcade, Sunbury 74Hume Park Sunbury Recreation Reserve 81Hume Landmark George Evans Museum 87Hume Waterfront Apex Park, Sunbury Rd 83Hume Waterfront Jack Roper Reserve 75Hume Shops Roxburgh Park Shopping Centre 84Hume Mall Dallas Square 82Manningham Park Birrarrung Park Playground 78Manningham Park Koonung Reserve 82Manningham Mall Macedon Square 84Manningham Smoking Westfield Doncaster 87Manningham Transport Westfield Bus Terminal Bus Terminal 80Manningham Park Ruffey Lake Park 83Manningham Public Building The Pines Branch Library 74Manningham Transport The Pines Shopping Centre 68Manningham Shops Blackburn Rd 77Manningham Shops Templestowe Village 79Manningham Waterfront Westerfolds Park Swamp Gum Car park 77Manningham Mall Goldfields Plaza 86Manningham Transport Goldfields Plaza Bus Stop 80


CCAT Summary

ScoreManningham Waterfront Banksia Park BBQ 75


Manningham Public Building Doncaster library 83Melbourne Public Building Melbourne Town Hall 66Melbourne Shops Swanston St Btw Collins & Lt Collins St 80Melbourne Shops Collins St Centreway 80Melbourne Landmark City Square 89Melbourne Smoking Collins Place 35- 55 Collins St 80Melbourne Park Treasury Gardens 87Melbourne Park Gordon Reserve 70Melbourne Mall Bourke St Mall Swanston St 76Melbourne Public Building State Library 77Melbourne Smoking Melbourne Central 360 Elizabeth St 79Melbourne Mall Bourke St Mall Elizabeth St 80Melbourne Smoking William St Corner Bourke St 81Melbourne Easement Southern Cross Station Collins St end 78Melbourne Smoking Defence Plaza 73Melbourne Landmark Rialto Towers 70Melbourne Shops Galleria Plaza Elizabeth St 78Melbourne Park Queen Victoria Gardens 79Melbourne Waterfront Alexandra Gardens Boat sheds 82Melbourne Landmark St Kilda Rd Front of Hamer Hall 83Melbourne Landmark Btw Hamer Hall and Arts Centre 79Melbourne Landmark Myer Music Bowl Near George V Statue 79Melbourne Landmark Victorian College of the Arts Opposite George V Statue 80Melbourne Park Kings Domain 73Melbourne Park Fitzroy Gardens 84Melbourne Smoking 222 Exhibition St 77Melbourne Smoking 242 Exhibition St 80Melbourne Landmark Exhibition Building Fountain 81Melbourne Shops Target Centre, Bourke St 81Melbourne Shops Lt Collins St 78Melbourne Shops Elizabeth St Near Coles 77Melbourne Landmark Flinders St Station 58Melbourne Waterfront Precinct Southbank Southgate Entrance 85Melbourne Waterfront Precinct Southbank 76Melbourne Mall Hardware Lane Lonsdale St End 70Melbourne Waterfront Birrarrung Park Near Federation Square 85Melbourne Waterfront Birrarung Marr Tollway End 86Melbourne Waterfront Royal Bot Gardens Melbourne Central Lakes 89Melbourne Waterfront Yarra Park BBQ 84Melbourne Waterfront Yarra River North Side 68Melbourne Market Queen Victoria Market 86Melbourne Market Queen Victoria Market Peel St Side 78Melbourne Event MCG Tower 2 82



CCAT Summary

ScoreMelbourne Market Southbank Sunday Market 88Melbourne Landmark Exhibition Centre 78Melbourne Park Flagstaff Gardens 81Melbourne Waterfront Docklands New Quay 87Melbourne Event MCG Tower 4 89Melbourne Event MCG Footbridge Vodafone Arena End 87Mt Alexander Park Victory Park 85Mt Alexander Shops Mostyn Street Shops Cnr Frederick 75Mt Alexander Easement Castlemaine Train Station 79Mt Alexander Shops Barker Street Shops Cnr Lyttleton St 83Mt Alexander Public Building Castlemaine Post Office 82Mt Alexander Landmark Burke and Wills Monument 76Mt Alexander Waterfront Castlemaine Botanical Gardens 86Mt Alexander Shops Main Street Shops Maldon, Dolphin St to Garage 80Mt Alexander Landmark Maldon War Memorial 85Mt Alexander Landmark Mt. Tarrangower Lookout 80Port Phillip Market The Esplanade Opposite Footbridge 78Port Phillip Waterfront Albert Park Playground 90Port Phillip Waterfront Acland St Safeway 75Port Phillip Park Alma Park East 83Port Phillip Beach Elwood Beach 85Port Phillip Park Elwood Park 82Port Phillip Waterfront Pt Ormond Reserve 78Port Phillip Shops Carlisle St Corner Woodstock Street 80Port Phillip Easement Ripponlea Station 75Port Phillip Beach Port Melbourne Beach 85Port Phillip Shops Bay St Shops Outside Coles 72Port Phillip Waterfront Precinct Beacon Cove 71Port Phillip Beach Sandridge Beach 80Yarra City Transport Bridge Rd & Church St Tram Stop 78Yarra City Shops Bridge Road - Richmond Plaza 75Yarra City Park Citizens Park 79Yarra City Waterfront Flockhart Reserve 80Yarra City Park Edinburgh Gardens Rowe St entrance 83Yarra City Park Darling Gardens Hoddle St entrance 82Yarra City Shops Queen's Parade Micheal St -cafes 80Yarra City Waterfront Dight Falls 79Yarra City Shops Victoria St, Richmond 176-214 78Yarra City Easement Richmond Station Brunton Ave 68Yarra City Public Building Collingwood Town Hall 85Yarra City Public Building Carlton Library 82


Ballarat City Council


Casey City Council


Greater Dandenong City Council


Greater Geelong City Council


Hume City Council


Manningham City Council


Melbourne City Council


Mount Alexander Shire Council

Port Philip City Council

Appendix D: Littered items classificationTable 14 Littered items classification

200514 Littered item type Items Included 2011 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

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

Appendix E: CCAT summary scores and notional targets

CCAT summary score

YearActual CCAT

summary scoreNotional CCAT summary target

2003 64 642004 652005 68 672006 682007 69 702008 712009 75 732010 77 742011 79 762012 772013 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 22.72014 25.0

6468

69

75 77 7980

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

CC

AT S

umm

ary

Scor

eActual CCAT summary score

Notional CCAT summary target

0.0

6.3

7.8

17.2

20.3

23.4 25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

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

Perc

ent (

%)

Actual CCAT summary score

Notional CCAT summary target

Context score

YearActual CCAT context score

Notional CCAT context target

2003 71 712004 732005 69 742006 762007 74 772008 792009 77 812010 78 822011 78 842012 862013 872014 89

71 6974 77 78 78

89

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

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

CO

NTE

XT S

core

Actual CCAT CONTEXT score

Notional CCAT CONTEXT target

Facilities score

YearActual CCAT

facilities scoreNotional CCAT facilities target

2003 62 622004 632005 71 652006 662007 69 682008 692009 78 702010 81 722011 84 732012 752013 762014 78

Facilities – Infrastructure score

62

71 69

7881 84

78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

FAC

ILIT

IES

Scor

e

Actual CCAT FACILITIES score

Notional CCAT FACILITIES target

Year

Actual CCAT infrastructure

score

Notional CCAT infrastructure

target2003 60 602004 612005 69 632006 642007 65 652008 672009 78 682010 84 702011 88 712012 722013 742014 75

60

6965

7884

88

75

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

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 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 712014 73

57

67 68

75 7679

71

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

BIN

fras

truc

ture

Sco

re

Actual CCAT BINfrastrucure score

Notional CCAT BINfrastructure target

58 5962 60 62 63

73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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

PER

CEP

TIO

NS

Scor

e

Actual CCAT PERCEPTIONS score

Notional CCAT PERCEPTIONS target

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 772014 79

6366 68 66 67

71

79

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

Atti

tude

to P

lace

Scor

e

Actual CCAT Attitute to Place score

Notional CCAT Attitude to Place target

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 592014 60

48 46

54

53 55 53

60

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 score

Notional CCAT Adequacy of Facilities target

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 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 8,0432014 7,806

25

30 31

16

35

23

19

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

10,4089,535

11,496

6,8357,692 7,573 7,806

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

Average littered items

YearAverage littered

items

Notional average littered items

target2003 50 502004 492005 39 482006 472007 54 452008 442009 32 432010 36 422011 35 412012 402013 392014 38

50

39

54

3236 35

38

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

Appendix F: 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%

Cardboard0%

Cigarettes62%

Confection wraps

4%

Organics3%

Other1%

Paper11%

Plastic film3%

2007 Littered items

Beverage24% Cardboard

0%

Cigarettes54%

Confection wraps

4%

Organics4%

Other2%

Paper10%

Plastic film2%

2009 Littered items

Beverage29%

Cardboard<1%

Cigarettes46%

Confection wraps

5%

Organics4%

Other3%

Paper9%

Plastic film3%

For further information visitsustainability.vic.gov.au

sustainability victoria/media/resource… · web viewthis is a ten-year plan to reduce waste in...

Documents