Litter and flytipping: scale and cost
This report updates data referenced in the previous National Litter Strategy (2014) on the scale and cost of litter and flytipping in Scotland to inform the national litter and flytipping strategy (2023).
2 Scale and Cost of Litter and Flytipping in Scotland
2.1.1 Challenges and Impacts
This section explores the research challenges faced during the project that had a direct impact on the data that was able to be collected from both LAs, and other public and private bodies. This section investigates the potential causes of these, and outlines the complications, limitations, and impacts that they elicited. The challenges faced allowed us to provide recommendations, outlined in the conclusion (section 6) of the report, that Scottish Government may wish to consider should they decide to revisit or repeat this research exercise in the future, further extended in the conclusion of this report. The section primarily focuses on challenges encountered when engaging with LAs as their reporting practices and obligations align closer with those of the Scottish Government than private bodies or smaller public bodies. However, challenges and impacts affected other public and private bodies as well.
It should be noted that the data requests were made during a period of intense demands on LAs – in addition to the process of recovering from the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on services, many LAs were undergoing significant changes in organisational structures, personnel, and practices. This meant that there were instances where the officials contacted, and the organisational structures encountered, were different from those that contributed to the original report nearly 10 years ago. This may have impacted the ability of LAs to provide the data requested.
2.1.2 Challenges
Updating the figures for the estimated scale and cost of litter and flytipping in Scotland requires recent data gathered from a range of sources (e.g., LAs, other public bodies, private bodies). Recognising that time and resource for the study was finite, it was made clear from the outset that it would not be possible to include data from all potential stakeholders. Instead, the objective was to identify enough data points in each stakeholder category to representatively scale the findings to cover all of Scotland. For LAs, this meant initially selecting a subset of the 32 Scottish LAs to target. For private organisations, stakeholders were grouped around relevant themes (e.g., stadiums, festivals, theme parks, and golf clubs were grouped into outdoor recreation), and minimum data requirements established.
Despite concerted efforts to obtain sufficient data from each of these stakeholder groupings, significantly fewer data points were received than was anticipated. It is acknowledged that reaching out to a subset of LAs will have contributed to the limited data collection. An attempt to address this was made by broadening the pool of stakeholders contacted and contacting all LAs instead. Despite this effort, the data received remained fragmented. The availability and quality of this data formed the heart of the challenges faced in pursuit of the study’s research aims.
The methodology used for obtaining data typically followed the process flow outlined in Figure 2‑1.
Figure 2‑1. General process for obtaining data
- Identify best-places stakeholder contact
- Circulate the data request template (and call to follow-up)
- Receive data (and ask follow-up questions where required
There were challenges at each stage of this process. The following sections provide an overview of the challenges and potential underpinning reasons for their occurrence. This assessment is primarily judgement-based although in some instances the suggestions have been corroborated by stakeholders.
1. Low Response Rate - The most prevalent challenge encountered was the widespread low engagement rate from the stakeholders contacted. This challenge was faced when contacting LAs, other public bodies, and private bodies.
Several of the LAs contacted did not respond, and only two full and six partial data responses were received. Despite attaching a Letter of Support to all stakeholders, the number of responses from contacts with regards to the provision of the data requested was low. Where responses were received but data were not, reasons included:
- Lack of available time for LA representatives to extract the data required. This was likely exacerbated by the timing of the research, which occurred during the pandemic recovery and therefore at a point where LA resources were already stretched;
- Inability to locate all the required data given the disparate nature of where or how it was recorded and stored; and
- Different department structures as well as differing responsibilities both amongst and between LAs, other public bodies, and private organisations meant that it was difficult to identify the most suitable stakeholder to provide data. In addition, contact information was not often readily available, and sourcing contact details was a time-consuming process. Furthermore, where individuals were identified through online research, reaching the correct person first time was rare. Therefore, the request was often passed on internally, sometimes multiple times, which further delayed the response.
- Lack of available time for LA representatives to extract the data required (likely exacerbated by the timing of the research occurring during the pandemic recovery, which stretched LA resources).
This low response rate was also experienced when reaching out to other public and private bodies – for instance, no responses were received from stakeholders responsible for litter and flytipping in woodlands or farmlands, roads or canals, nurseries, or private schools.
2. Availability of the Data - A significant proportion of the stakeholders that did respond expressed that they did not, as standard, collect the data that was requested. For many bodies, there is no requirement to gather and record these data and is therefore not common practice. Additionally, if similar data were recorded, they did not always fit the questions that were asked. For LAs, more specific reasons were given. Some stated that they did not apportion costs into individual services and instead tracked expenditure at a less granular level. Here, they deemed the quantity and detail of the data requested to be overly complex to interpret, translate, and align with the spend categories they maintained oversight of. Others stated that the data requested was cross-departmental and therefore could not be compiled easily (and was not the responsibility of one individual, which also complicated accessing the data).
In general, quantitative data on costs relating to litter and flytipping were scarce – the partial responses from LAs only contained data relating to certain areas (budget, expenditure, staff, education, enforcement, disposal). Other LAs provided only high-level figures for overarching services that included litter and flytipping, or qualitative observations on scale. This was also encountered when reaching out to other public and private bodies, as the costs for litter and flytipping were mostly encompassed within an overall spend on cleansing the premises of the organisation, and data on the scale of litter and flytipping mostly consisted of high-level qualitative observations.
3. Inconsistencies in Data Collection – There does not appear to be a standard data collection format for information pertaining to litter and flytipping. This appears to be true even within organisations with a statutory responsibility to collect litter and flytipping. The variation in structures of LA departments meant that the collection methods and format of data received varied widely between LAs (for instance, in where different costs are apportioned). This meant that breaking down these high0level costs was challenging, and often deemed impossible within the project timeframe. Similarly, many other public and private bodies referred to different and sometimes incomparable units (e.g., minutes, shifts, percentages, tonnages, quarters, volunteer hours, GBP spent). As a result, comparing, compiling, and extrapolating the data had to be built on assumptions to convert into common units (e.g., the tonnage of flytipped waste within ‘one truckload’).
2.1.3 Impacts
The lack of usable data restricted the analysis by limiting the extent to which the data could be scaled to represent all of Scotland in the model. Consequently, the applicability of any conclusions and the degree to which the data could be used to shape evidence-driven and impactful policy decisions were limited.
2.1.3.1 Modelling and Analysis
The lack of comprehensive and representative quantitative data meant that the modelling was dependent on assumptions from former research to split out broad costs into litter and flytipping. Population data were also relied upon as a proxy to scale up (mostly incomplete) costs from the 6 contributing LAs to be representative of Scotland. Though population is suitable as a broad indicator of litter and flytipped waste generated, this extrapolation limited the robustness of the final cost figures as they were not directly calculated. The scaling of the 6 LAs to represent national data was also less robust than desired as it obscured any trends in litter and flytipping between urban and rural LAs, which would have been a valuable outcome of the research.
2.1.3.2 Robustness of Results and Conclusions
The limited data received and analysed for this research fundamentally restricted the conclusions that could be drawn. Though the figures calculated were evidence-based, they are unable to capture the heterogeneity of the scale and cost of litter and flytipping experienced around Scotland. The total figures are drawn from too small a sample of results, which render the results unrepresentative and make the degree of error larger than can be considered acceptable for conclusions to be drawn.
The limited data received also restricted the analysis that could be completed across other research questions:
- Indirect costs. The calculation of the indirect costs was reliant on receiving qualitative data from stakeholders on the indirect impacts of litter and flytipping. Due to the difficulty in getting stakeholders to respond, the information received regarding this was limited.
- Impact on highlands and islands. This research also included specific consideration on how litter and flytipping are experienced in Scotland’s remote highlands and islands. As with the other LAs, little quantitative data was received from the relevant LAs to these regions, though some qualitative observations were shared.
2.2 Scale of Litter and Flytipping and Cost to Local Authorities
Due to the challenges with collecting data outlined in section 2.1.1, the methodology that was initially planned to carry out the study and calculate the scale and cost of litter and flytipping to LAs in Scotland unfortunately had to be changed. This section of the report is structured as follows: section 2.2.1 outlines the methodology that was initially planned to conduct the study, section 2.2.2 points to the challenges faced in the data collection process, section 2.2.3 then outlines the low response rate, and finally section 0 outlines the final methodology that had to be used instead, and the respective results.
2.2.1 Methodology
The first stage of the initial methodology involved collecting primary data from a selection of LA representatives. These representatives were asked questions, through both surveys and interviews, pertaining to a variety of cost, spend, scale, and composition components related to litter and flytipping. Then, the data obtained would be used as a basis to extrapolate to a national level through population and geographic (i.e., rural, urban, mixed) data, to calculate the national cost of litter and flytipping to LAs in Scotland.
2.2.1.1 Local Authority Selection
Initially, a subset of LAs was selected to collect data on scale and cost of litter and flytipping for this study. Data from these Authorities would then be used to extrapolate to Scotland as a whole, using a series of assumptions outlined below. This list featured the 13 LAs who had provided complete datasets in the 2013 study. These LAs, shown in Table 2‑1, were determined to be significantly diverse based on their geographic spread (including Highlands and islands) and urban/rural classification.[2] The Highlands and Scottish Islands were selected for their distinct topographical characteristic that are expected to leave them facing specific and unique challenges in relation to littering and flytipping compared to other regions, including the distribution of these activities and the costs to address them.
Finally, population data for the LAs, in combination with the classifications in Table 2‑1, were to be used as a scaling method to extrapolate the data gathered from the LAs to Scotland at a national level. [3] It was to be assumed that LAs of the same classification would have tonnages and costs related to litter and flytipping which scaled with their overall population.
Table 2‑1: A list of Local Authorities contacted for data collection.
Urban
- City of Edinburgh
- Falkirk
- North Lanarkshire
Rural
- Aberdeenshire
- Argyll & Bute
- Dumfries and Galloway
Mixed
- East Renfrewshire
- East Lothian
- Fife
- Stirling
- West Lothian
Highlands/Islands
- Council of the Western Isles
- Highlands
2.2.1.2 Expansion to All Local Authorities
Both a low response rate and difficulties in collecting enough robust data from the 13 LAs contacted (outlined in section 2.2.1.2) led to only 1 set of full data and 5 sets of partial data being collected. Given this outcome, the decision was made to expand the scope of the study and contact the remaining LAs in Scotland with the hope of improving the response rate and collecting a fuller set of data that could be used to calculate the overall cost and scale of litter and flytipping (still with the respective assumptions and extrapolation methods). The following section 2.2.1.3 outlines the survey that was sent to all 32 LAs in Scotland. It is important to note that following an initial round of data collection, the survey was simplified to a less complex survey with less detailed cost splits with the aim of increasing the response rate and data coverage.
2.2.1.3 Survey
A survey with a combination of quantitative and qualitative questions was developed and sent to appropriate contacts at the Scottish LAs. The primary data received was used as a basis for the data analysis. To make the study as representative as possible, the requested costs were for the 2019 financial year, eliminating the potentially significant variations in costs as a result of changes and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The survey was split into three sections. The first section sought to determine the direct costs associated with littering and flytipping incurred by LAs. This section was further split into the following categories, which were considered the scope of the direct costs to LAs in this study:
- Clearing and disposing of litter and flytipped materials. Including;
- Personnel costs – The cost associated with human resources directly involved in clearance, as well as administrative and management personnel;
- Equipment costs – The cost associated with equipment used and required for clearing purposes, including uniforms and non-mechanical equipment such as bags, orderly carts and litter pickers;
- Fleet costs – The costs associated with vehicles involved in collecting litter and flytipping, including for staff supervision, and fuel and maintenance costs;
- Facilities – The costs associated with depots, park-ups and vehicle maintenance workshops used for vehicles utilised in litter and flytipping services;
- Disposal – The cost associated with the disposal of flytipped material (the cost of disposal of ground litter is not deemed additional for the LA); and
- Other – The cost associated with miscellaneous items or services provided by LAs.
- Indirect costs with an internal impact – The costs indirectly related to littering and flytipping that are incurred by the LAs. For example, a member of the local waste collection service injuring themselves whilst carrying out their duties and subsequently unable to work;
The second section asked a series of questions regarding the most commonly littered and flytipped items. Finally, the third section focused on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the scale, composition, and distribution of litter and flytipping.
2.2.1.4 Interviews
Interviews were used to supplement the data received through the questionnaires. This approach afforded LAs the opportunity to provide further details surrounding the narrative and contextual understanding of some of the specific challenges they faced. This was particularly important when considering the Highlands and Islands authorities, as this study sought to gain insight into the unique challenges faced by these areas.
2.2.1.5 Costs of Littering and Flytipping
The costs associated with addressing instances of littering and flytipping were split into five categories:
1. Personnel - Personnel costs were divided into frontline staff, management resources, administrative resources, and central resources. LAs either provided full-time equivalent (FTE) hours spent, full cost of resources including pensions and insurance, or both. Where available, the full cost of resources was used. Some LAs also provided an estimate of the percentage of FTE time spent addressing flytipping instances, carrying out litter picking, or conducting other litter-related activities. Where available, this information was used to calculate the personnel costs for addressing littering and flytipping more accurately:
Littering & flytipping personnel costs = FTE cost * percentage time spent addressing littering & flytipping
It should be noted that, as not all authorities provided full personnel data relating to the four main requested categories, not all data provided is comparable on a per LA basis.
2. Equipment - Surveyed authorities were requested to provide details of equipment costs relating to the clean-up of litter and flytipping. This included costs relating to uniforms, personal protective equipment (PPE) and other non-mechanical equipment, etc. Authorities were asked to exclude bin costs from this data as this were considered out of scope (bins are considered external to the cost of littering). Authorities who provided a response to this category generally did not have this degree of granularity and grouped uniforms and PPE into one revenue cost.
3. Fleet - Each surveyed authority was asked for their fleet costs (including fuel and maintenance) relating to clean-up and excluding street-sweeping vehicles which were determined to be primarily used for non-litter purposes. Additionally, each LA was asked to allocate the split between litter and flytipping that each vehicle was used for. This was used to apportion total costs.
Most authorities were unable to provide this information, and those who did typically provided broader costs regarding their entire waste management fleet. Here, cost was apportioned based on the vehicles known to be used to address litter and flytipping as a percentage of the overall number of vehicles. If possible, this was then broken down into the proportion of time spent addressing litter vs. flytipping.
4. Facilities - Information regarding waste related facilities and the ongoing costs of running these facilities was also requested. Facility costs include the costs associated with depots, park-ups and vehicle maintenance workshops used for vehicles utilised in litter and flytipping services. These are either authority owned facilities or more commonly, facilities leased by the LA. Most authorities were unable to provide facility costs citing difficulties in gathering these costs from other departments.
5. Other - In addition to being asked questions related to the aforementioned categories, LAs were also asked to consider ‘other’ costs they may incur. In general, where councils provided costs for non-primary departments, as these were not further defined, they were included within the ‘other’ category. This included:
- Costs associated with litter reporting. These were accounted for under the ‘other’ category, namely Local Environmental Audit and Management System (LEAMS) and the Cleanliness Index Monitoring System (CIMS). The LEAMs approach standardises the recording of the presence of litter. Whilst it takes other environmental indicators (e.g., flytipping) into account, its primary focus is on litter, therefore all LEAMS related costs were apportioned entirely to litter.
- Additionally, the Highlands Local Authority funds a Ranger service who provided information regarding the resources they spend on removing litter in a typical 6-month period. This was included in the ‘other’ category as it was supplied separately to the response from the Highlands Local Authority with respect to their personnel costs.
2.2.2 Challenges
The challenges faced in the data collection process include a low response rate, poor data availability and inconsistencies in data collection. Section 2.1.2 outlines these challenges in detail, as well as the impacts these had on the study.
2.2.3 Response rate
Overall, only two LAs (City of Edinburgh and Inverclyde Councils) provided a full set of cost data, covering all the requested categories. A further six authorities provided partial data, and the remaining 24 provided none or minimal data. The reason cited by most LAs as to why they were not able to provide substantial data was that the data was not readily available, cross-departmental, and/or would take considerable efforts to source. Others had difficulty in apportioning departmental costs as their council did not record flytipping, litter, and street sweeping costs as separate expenditures. Some authorities provided brief responses and mentioned that they did not have the data or resources needed to acquire the data requested. Table 2‑2 below summarises the state of play with data availability in Scottish LAs.
Table 2‑2: A summary of the data received by contacted Local Authorities
Full data[4]
- The City of Edinburgh
- Inverclyde
Partial data[5]
- East Lothian
- Fife
- Highland
- Orkney Island
- South Lanarkshire
- West Lothian
None/minimal data[6]
- Aberdeen City
- Aberdeenshire
- Angus
- Argyll & Bute
- Clackmannanshire
- Council of Western Isles
- Dumfries and Galloway
- Dundee City
- East Ayrshire
- East Dunbartonshire
- East Renfrewshire
- Falkirk
- Glasgow City
- Midlothian
- Moray
- North Ayrshire
- North Lanarkshire
- Perth & Kinross
- Renfrewshire
- Scottish Borders
- Shetland Islands
- South Ayrshire
- Stirling
- West Dunbartonshire Council
2.2.4 Summary of Collected Data
Table 2‑3 and Table 2‑4 presents a summary of the data collected on litter and flytipping costs from the eight LAs who provided either partial or full data. The data has not been attributed to specific LAs for the purposes of anonymity but is intended to give an idea of the costs being faced by different LAs, and the data coverage achieved.
| Total | People | Education | Enforcement | Equipment | Fleet | Facilities | Other Costs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA 1 | £4,910,347 | £236,500 | £343,200 | £58,617 | £625,081 | £406,122 | £42,018 | |
| LA 2 | £2,743,243 | |||||||
| LA 3 | £2,070,000 | £50,000 | £470,000 | £100,000 | ||||
| LA 4 | £906,000 | £41,164 | ||||||
| LA 5 | £131,876 | £0 | £0 | £3,216 | £131,876 | £54,680 | ||
| LA 6 | £340,079 | |||||||
| LA 7 | £4,758,267 | £121,130 | £1,545,110 | |||||
| LA 8 | £2,117,105 |
| Total | People | Education | Enforcement | Equipment | Fleet | Facilities | Other Costs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA 1 | £846,612 | £172,500 | £800,800 | £10,106 | £149,853 | £339,368 | £5,882 | |
| LA 2 | £783,784 | £5,094 | ||||||
| LA 3 | £517,500 | £20,000 | £20,000 | £5,000 | ||||
| LA 4 | £120,800 | |||||||
| LA 5 | £3,435 | |||||||
| LA 6 | £203,321 |
2.2.5 Final methodology and results
2.2.5.1 Final methodology
Due to the data collection challenges outlined in 2.1.2, unfortunately both the number of responses received, and the amount of data collected (outlined in section 2.2.4), was not enough to be able to scale this data to update the total cost of litter and flytipping in Scotland for the year 2019/2020.
Instead, as a temporary solution, before better and more widespread data is able to be collected, the total cost of litter and flytipping for 2019/2020 was calculated by taking the 2012/2013 costs as a basis, and then doing the following adjustments:
1. Adjusting these upwards for the seven years of inflation between 2012/2013 and 2019/2020. The inflation figures were taken from the ONS[7] and are outlined in Table 2‑5 below:
| Year | Annual inflation |
|---|---|
| 2013 | 2.30% |
| 2014 | 1.50% |
| 2015 | 0.40% |
| 2016 | 1.00% |
| 2017 | 2.60% |
| 2018 | 2.30% |
| 2019 | 1.70% |
| Compounded inflation over 7 years (2013-2019) | 12.39% |
The compounded (aggregate) inflation rate of 12.39% means that the cost of £1 in 2012/2013 would cost £1.12 in 2019/2020.
2. Following the adjustment for inflation, adjusting this figure upwards further by factoring in the population growth in Scotland between 2012/2013 and 2019/2020, which according to ONS[8], is 2.82%.
2.2.5.2 Overall Cost of Litter
With the 2012/2013 costs adjusted upwards for inflation and population, the total cost of litter across all Scottish LAs in 2019/2020 is estimated to be £48,033,069 per year and are summarised in Table 2‑6. The direct costs accounted for £41,869,595 and the additional costs accounted for £6,163,474. The total cost of litter was split into the categories outlined in section 2.2.1.3 using the same splits as in the 2013 study, given that the 2019/2020 data gathered from the select few LAs was not enough to support a different split of costs between the different components. Therefore, as in the previous study, personnel costs are the largest contributor to overall costs (£32,240,582, 67%). Enforcement costs were the second largest cost component (£5,224,629, 11%), followed by fleet costs (£5,016,674, 10%), equipment costs (£2,680,210, 6%), other costs (£1,242,915, 3%), education costs (£938,845, 2%), and facilities costs (£689,214, 1%).
It is important to note using these figures carry a large degree of uncertainty as they assume the costs have remained the same when compared to 7 years ago, except for the adjustment for inflation and population growth in the 7 years period.
| Cost Type | Component | Cost (£) | Percentage of total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Cost | Personnel | £32,240,582 | 67% |
| Equipment | £2,680,210 | 6% | |
| Fleet | £5,016,674 | 10% | |
| Facilities | £689,214 | 1% | |
| Disposal | N/A | N/A | |
| Other Costs | £1,242,915 | 3% | |
| Additional Cost | Education | £938,845 | 2% |
| Enforcement | £5,224,629 | 11% | |
| Total | £48,033,069 | ||
The cost of disposal was excluded from the total cost of littering as it is expected that Authorities would incur this cost regardless of whether it was gathered from bins or as litter on the ground.
The additional costs with an internal impact were not quantified as LAs had limited knowledge of the number and severity of such incidents and did not have a way of evaluating these. It is likely that at least some of this cost will be accounted for in the overall indirect costs section (see Section 2.4).
2.2.5.3 Overall Cost of Flytipping
With the 2012/2013 costs adjusted upwards for inflation and population, the total costs of flytipping incurred by Scottish LAs in 2019/2020 is estimated to be £12,331,616 and is summarised in Table 2‑7. The total cost of flytipping was split into the categories outlined in section 2.2.1.3 using the same splits as in the 2013 study, given that the 2019/2020 data gathered from the select few LAs was not enough to support a different split of costs between the different components. Therefore, as in the previous study, the largest contributor was found to be personnel costs (£6,019,907, 47%). The second largest was related to enforcement (£2,355,413, 19%), followed by disposal (£2,281,575, 18%), fleet (£1,067,446, 8%), equipment (£538,842, 5%), facilities (£240,392, 2%), other costs (£69,780, 1%) and education (£60,679, 0.5%).
| Cost Type | Component | Cost (£) | Percentage of total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Cost | Personnel | £6,019,907 | 47% |
| Equipment | £583,842 | 5% | |
| Fleet | £1,067,446 | 8% | |
| Facilities | £240,392 | 2% | |
| Disposal | £2,281,575 | 18% | |
| Other Costs | £69,780 | 1% | |
| Additional Cost | Education | £60,679 | 0.5% |
| Enforcement | £2,355,413 | 19% | |
| Total | £12,679,034 | ||
2.2.5.4 Scale of Litter
As was the case in the 2013 study, LAs generally did not have clear indications of the tonnages of litter or flytipped material which they disposed of. Only one LA (North Lanarkshire) provided data for their estimated litter tonnage. Therefore, ground litter tonnages have been estimated using data from Waste Data Flow (WDF) for the year 2019, where 27 of the 32 LAs provided data under “Street Cleaning”. This data was used as a proxy as it is likely an underrepresentation of overall litter tonnages. Therefore, it has been considered a conservative estimate. For the five authorities who did not report this data for 2019, the values were estimated by extrapolating based on authority classification (urban/rural and mixed) and their respective population. For example, the ground litter tonnage of a rural LA with a population of 85,430 that did not provide data under Street Cleaning would be calculated by multiplying 85,430 by 0.008 (which is the per capita average for a rural LA).
To calculate litter tonnages, the same methodology implemented in the 2013 ZWS study[9] was used, with the starting point being the “Street Cleaning” tonnage, as provided in the WDF database. To account for the fact that LAs aggregate several data categories into one overall “Street Cleaning” tonnage figure (which is what they report), and to exclude certain data categories that are not considered litter in this study, the following data points were subtracted from this overall Street Cleaning figure to find the true litter tonnage figure:
- Flytipping – Several LAs highlighted that a significant proportion of flytipped waste was aggregated with the Street Cleaning data reported in WDF. Where this was the case, the estimated tonnage of flytipping was subtracted from the Street Cleaning data point.
- Bin litter – a percentage of reported tonnage was also removed to account for the bin litter. For the authorities who did not participate in the survey or interview process, the percentage of ground litter was again assumed to be the same as in the previous study.[10]
- Mechanical sweeping – Mechanical sweeping collects organic materials (e.g., leaves) alongside litter. To calculate the overall litter tonnage, any materials recovered during sweeping that are not litter must be excluded from the total. Due to the limited data received from LAs through the survey, the values used in the 2013 report have been used. There, non-recyclable (i.e., non-litter) materials were assumed to account for 60% of the overall material gathered.
The equation in Figure 2‑2 represents the method used to calculate the litter tonnages for each authority, which were then summed to calculate a total litter tonnage for Scotland.
Figure 2‑2: Methodology for the calculation of litter tonnage
Litter (tonnage) = Street Cleaning (tonnage), as provided in the WDF database - Flytipping (tonnage) - Bin litter (tonnage) - Mechanical Sweeping non-litter (tonnage)
A summary of the results is shown in Table 2‑8. Using the equation above, the total litter tonnage was calculated to be 22,246 tonnes at a recycling rate of 40% for mechanical street sweeping, and 15,176 tonnes assuming no mechanical street sweeping material was recycled. This equates to an average of 18,711 tonnes.
| Litter tonnage at 0% mechanical street sweeping recycled | Litter tonnage at 40% mechanical street sweeping recycled | Average litter tonnage |
|---|---|---|
| 15,176 | 22,246 | 18,711 |
2.2.5.5 Scale of Flytipping
An average weight per flytipping incident was calculated using data from the WDF database, data from Flymapper, and survey responses. Where survey responses were available, the inclusion of these data were prioritised. Where survey responses were not available, the data were supplemented with Flymapper and WDF. The results are shown in Table 2‑9. The figure calculated, 0.404 tonnes per incident, is comparable to the 0.437 tonnes calculated in the previous study.[11] However, the significant variation on a per authority average must be noted. The figures ranged from 0.053 to 1.264 tonnes per incident. This indicates significant uncertainty in the data provided by LAs both through WDF and interviews. Whilst in most cases LAs only provided the number of flytipping incidents, several also had total tonnages which were reported in the WDF database.
The number of flytipping incidents for each LA were compiled from the following data sources in order of priority (based on availability) for consistency:
1. Waste Data Flow (WDF) 2019 data;
2. Data provided by LAs through surveys and interviews;
3. Extrapolation of data on a per capita basis through LA groupings of urban, rural and mixed.
Using the method above the total number of incidents for all authorities was estimated to be at 66,159 incidents, an increase of 8.0% relative to the figure of 61,277 in 2011.
| Number of flytipping incidents in Scotland | Tonnage per flytipping Incident | Tonnage of all flytipping incidents |
|---|---|---|
| 66,159 | 0.404 | 26,739 |
2.2.6 Considerations for Islands and Remote Locations
Due to their rurality relative to the other authorities within Scotland – with corresponding variations in population density and availability of waste management services, which impact litter and flytipping – this study included specific consideration of the litter and flytipping challenges experienced by Highland and island areas of Scotland.
The Highlands and Islands is a broad term for the regions in northern Scotland encompassing the Scottish Highlands and the Western Isles. The Highlands Council is the administrative body for much of the Highlands, with the respective councils of Orkney, Shetland and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles) governing Scotland’s main islands. Some other LAs also include Highlands areas.[12]
Though the data collected from these Authorities was limited, it is nevertheless evident that the scale and cost of litter and flytipping varies compared to within other locales in Scotland. Evidence from island Authorities suggested that litter and flytipping are not overly prevalent. Orkney Council stated that they do have a small budget for litter (relative to their other areas of spend), but that the Council do not generally perceive it to be a problem. Shetland Council reported that litter is insignificant and that, with only six incidents of fly-tipping reported in 2021, flytipping is not a notable drain of council resources nor a noteworthy environmental issue.
Volunteers on the Isle of Skye observed that the quantity of litter experienced on the island appeared to vary according to the volume of tourists visiting. This trend was also noted by the Highland Council, who stated that an increase in visitor numbers – though welcomed in bringing tourism to the region – led to additional challenges regarding increased instances of littering and flytipping. Whilst these observations were largely anecdotal and cannot be considered conclusive, it should be noted that the location of the worst affected areas (popular walking spots, car parks) suggests that littering tends to occur during recreational activities. Specific types of littering that were identified as challenges by Highlands and islands include:
- Litter being thrown out of cars and into roadsides and lay-bys;
- Campers and caravan waste disposal;
- Flytipping of camping equipment; and
- Left food and drink waste and barbecues.
Beach litter was also mentioned by research participants as a persistent issue along coastlines of island authorities. Though beach and marine litter are out of scope of this research, it is worth noting that beaches tend to be hotspots of litter and flytipping in island authorities.
Members of the Highland Council and of volunteer groups across the Highlands outlined that the rurality of the council area renders frequent clearing services uneconomic to run. Despite covering some of the largest areas of any LA, population density is extremely low. The distance from operational depots to littering incidents in rural Highland locations means that council monitoring and clearing of litter and flytipping is expensive, as travelling to these locations is time-consuming and there is little opportunity to implement operational efficiencies.
Moreover, schemes to prevent or prosecute fly-tippers do not have the required resources (in terms of persons and vehicles required to clear flytipped waste) to cover the whole area. Orkney Council outlined how when flytipping is reported on outer islands, it is challenging to arrange the necessary travel to clear it, as many of these very remote locations are difficult to access and require travel by boat.
2.3 Scale and Cost of Litter and Flytipping to Public and Private Bodies
This section outlines the scale and cost of litter and flytipping to public and private bodies. The focus of the section has been on the cost of litter, rather than flytipping, as the majority of the bodies contacted experienced issues with, and therefore incurred costs from, litter but not flytipping. Section 2.3.1 outlines the methodology used to estimate the cost of litter, including how the public and private bodies were selected, how they were contacted (through surveys and direct calls), what assumptions were used, and how the individual data points collected were scaled up to estimate overall national figures. Section 2.3.2 then outlines the results of the direct cost of littering, and section 2.3.3 outlines the results of the scale and direct cost of flytipping, for those few bodies who did report issues with flytipping.
2.3.1 Methodology
2.3.1.1 Public and Private Bodies Selection
Outside of LAs, the tender identified three categories of organisations to be included in the study, each with different obligations and impacts from litter and flytipping:
- Public bodies with a statutory requirement to address litter;
- Public bodies without a statutory requirement to address litter; and
- Private bodies.
Public Bodies with a statutory requirement are obligated to address litter and flytipping around their premises. It was therefore expected that these organisations would have information and data on the scale and cost of litter and flytipping. Public bodies without a statutory requirement to address litter and flytipping, on the other hand, were less likely to collect data as they were expected to be more heavily reliant on LA services to clear any litter and flytipped items outside their premises. However, some may take it upon themselves to clear it.
Littering and flytipping that occurs on private land is the responsibility of the landowner to clear. Therefore, it can be assumed that these private bodies would incur costs in clearing litter and flytipping. However, if the litter and flytipping occurs outside their premises, they may either deal with it themselves or leave it for the LA to clear as part of their street cleansing services.
Whilst it was acknowledged that these three groups were distinct from one another (and could therefore incur different costs and have different access to data), the chosen approach to primary data gathering was consistent across all (see section 2.3.1.2).
The selection of organisations started with an internal brainstorming session at Eunomia to work out the different categories and sub-categories of organisations who may both be 1) impacted by litter and flytipping, and 2) likely to collect data on litter and flytipping. Task 1 of the brainstorming session involved brainstorming the types of organisations likely to experience litter and flytipping. Task 2 involved grouping these organisations together into similar groups. Task 3 involved plotting these groups on a matrix of expected relative scale of litter/flytipping vs. expected availability of data. Organisations who were deemed to be extremely unlikely to hold any data or information on litter and flytipping, or who were likely not affected by litter, were removed. From this exercise, 9 main categories and 31 sub-categories of stakeholders were identified (see Table 2‑10).
| Category | Sub-Category |
|---|---|
| Food | Take away and fast food |
| Nature based attractions | National parks |
| Holiday parks | |
| Country parks | |
| Woodlands | |
| Farmlands | |
| The Crown Estate | |
| Night-time economy | Nightclubs |
| Pubs and bars | |
| Retail/ commercial | Supermarkets |
| Shopping malls/ retail parks | |
| Business parks | |
| Transport hubs | Ports |
| Train and coach stations | |
| Airport | |
| Transport infrastructure | Railways |
| Roads | |
| Waterways | |
| Education facilities | Universities |
| Primary Schools | |
| Secondary Schools | |
| Indoor recreation | Cinemas |
| Theatres | |
| Aquariums & zoos | |
| Museums & historical sites | |
| Outdoor recreation | Stadiums |
| Sports grounds | |
| Golf courses | |
| Car parks | |
| Theme parks | |
| Music Festivals | |
| 9 categories | 31 sub-categories |
Following this and as required, many of the 31 sub-categories of stakeholders were further divided into groupings to ensure more representative and adequate coverage of data. For example, for fast food restaurants, the aim was to collect data from one fast food restaurant located in a town centre with a high footfall, from one in a rural setting, from one with outdoor seating, and from one with a drive through. For country parks, the aim was to collect one for a country park with facilities, one with no facilities, one which charges an entrance fee, and one that does not. This exercise was undertaken to reflect the expected variation within sub-categories, such as differences in footfall, area covered, and urban vs. rural differences. The urban vs rural distinction is particularly important because rural areas have much lower footfalls and population densities and are likely to have different consumption patterns and behavioural habits compared to urban areas. This further sub-division yielded a list of 56 data points to be collected, as can be seen in section 7.3 of the Appendix.
2.3.1.2 Survey and Direct Calls
To collect the necessary data from other public and private bodies, a survey questionnaire containing a series of questions was developed (which can be found in section 0 of the Appendix). This was based on the survey developed for LAs but modified and simplified to reflect the lower level of detail expected from these bodies. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative questions, the aim of the survey was to determine:
1. The scale of litter and flytipping experienced,
2. The direct costs of litter and flytipping incurred,
3. The composition of litter and flytipped items collected, and
4. Any impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had on numbers 1-3.
Following a low survey response rate[13], a decision was made to make direct calls to organisations within the stakeholder sub-categories with the aim of improving the overall response rate and increasing the amount of data collected. The organisations were selected using a semi-random process, using a web search and sector knowledge to select different organisations that fit within each stakeholder sub-category.
The questions asked during the phone calls were similar in nature to the survey but were further simplified. The full interview guide used can be found in section 0 of the Appendix, but some of the questions included the following: “Does your organisation experience any issues with litter around your premises/the premises that you are responsible for?”, “Does your organisation clean up this litter? Either directly using employee time or through an additional, purchased service?”, “How much time do you spend collecting it?”.
The aim was, in a best-case scenario, to collect at least one data point for each of the 56 sub-divisions identified. However, if this was not possible, the aim was to collect data from at least one organisation belonging to each of the sub-categories of stakeholder (total of 31 sub-categories).
2.3.1.3 Assumptions used
To calculate the cost of clearing litter by sub-category, various assumptions specific to each sub-category were used, these are outlined under each sub-category in section 2.3.2. However, the following general assumptions were applied to all sub-categories:
- Unless specifically stated otherwise, the minimum wage used to convert labour time spent clearing litter into a cost was the National Minimum Wage for those aged 25 and over. For the period April 2019 to March 2020 this was £8.21 per hour.[14]
- Population statistics used to scale figures were ONS population figures for 2020.[15]
2.3.1.4 Scaling Up
Once the data was collected using a combination of surveys and direct calls, a method was devised to scale up each data point collected to find a national figure for every stakeholder sub-category. Different scaling up methods were used for each sub-category, and these are outlined in further detail below. However, the method most commonly adopted was scaling up the data point based on the number of organisations of that sub-category in the country. Others included the area of land covered and the number of visitors (or footfall).
2.3.1.5 Response rate
In total, 29 out of 31 stakeholder categories were successfully contacted (94% response rate). The two for which it was not possible to speak to a relevant contact were Stadiums and Music Festivals. Of the 29 sub-categories contacted, 24 yielded data on either the scale of litter, the cost of litter, or both. While five sub-categories did not provide data, only two (the Crown Estate, train and coach stations) noted that they did not collect data. The other three (Farmlands, Railways, Roads) reported that they could provide data. However, at the time of writing, this data had still not been received. For those sub-categories for which primary data was not collected, secondary data gathered through desk-based web research was used instead, where available.
2.3.2 Direct Cost of Littering
This section presents the direct costs of littering incurred by different stakeholder sub-groups. For each sub-group, the data collected is outlined, the methodology used to scale up the data point collected is explained, and the total cost given. More details for each individual responses are in tables in section 7.6 of the Annex.
2.3.2.1 Food
For the food stakeholder group, only take away and fast-food chains was included:
Table 2‑11: Direct costs to take-away and fast-food chains
Data points used
Two fast food restaurants indicated their annual cost of clearing litter was £250
Methodology for scaling
In 2018, there were more than 3,500 food-to-go outlets in Scotland. This figure was multiplied by the annual cost.[16]
Cost of clean-up - £874,023
2.3.2.2 Nature based attractions
For the nature based attractions stakeholder group, six sub-groups were included: national Parks (Table 2‑12), holiday parks (Table 2‑13), country parks (Table 2‑14), woodlands (Table 2‑15), farmlands, and the Crown Estate.
There was no reliable data (primary or secondary) available to define the costs incurred by the entities responsible for farmlands in Scotland. It is expected that these entities are likely to incur costs due to anecdotal reports of flytipping on farmland. However, lack of data prevented this category from contributing to overall costs. In addition, Crown Estate Scotland could not provide quantitative data. However, representatives were able to provide qualitative commentary, shown in section 7.6.2 of the Annex.
Table 2‑12: Direct costs to national parks
Data points used The annual cost of clearing litter for one national park was reported as £17,980
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost incurred by one national park was scaled up using the number of annual visitors to the two national parks in Scotland. In 2009, the two national parks revied 5.9 million visitors collectively.[17]
Cost of clean-up - £26,520
In addition to staff dedicated to litter picking, the national park consulted highlighted that they also have a ranger service that conducts litter picking across land that they do not formally own or manage. They also support a significant amount of volunteering hours for litter picking: over 500 hours in the 2021 season alone.
Table 2‑13: Direct costs to holiday parks
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for one holiday park was reported as £1,498
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost incurred by one holiday park was scaled up using data from Visit Scotland.[18] The total number of camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks, and trailer parks in Scotland is 312.[19]
Cost of clean-up - £467,367
Table 2‑14: Direct costs to country parks
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for one country park was reported as £35,960
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost incurred by one country park was scaled up using a blended approach taking into account the number of country parks in Scotland and the average number of visitors at each. There are 48 country parks in Scotland. Using data from the Association of Scottish Visitor Attractions (ASVA), the average number of visits to the ten parks for which data was available was 981,175 per annum.[20], [21], [22]
Cost of clean-up - £1,604,364
Table 2‑15: Direct costs to woodlands
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter incurred by one entity responsible for woodlands is £60,000.
Methodology for scaling
It was not possible to determine the percentage of overall woodland (open to the public) covered by the entity that provided data. Therefore, it was not possible to scale the data.
Cost of clean-up - > £60,000
2.3.2.3 Night-time economy
For the night-time economy stakeholder group, two sub-groups were included: pubs and bars (Table 2‑16), and nightclubs (Table 2‑17).
Table 2‑16: Direct costs to pubs and bars
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for one pub is £375.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost for one pub was scaled up using an estimated figure for the number of pubs and bars in Scotland. There were found to be 1,045 pubs and bars in Scotland’s four largest cities.[23] Using the population of other urban and rural areas in Scotland, a country-wide total of 3,933 was calculated.[24]
Cost of clean-up - £1,473,310
Table 2‑17: Direct costs to nightclubs
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for one nightclub is £370.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost for one nightclub was scaled up using an estimated figure for the number of nightclubs in Scotland. There were found to be 150 nightclubs in Scotland’s four largest cities.[25] This scales up to a total of 307 taking the population of other urban areas into account. It was assumed that rural areas had no nightclubs, which is likely to be a conservative estimate.
Cost of clean-up - £113,636
2.3.2.4 Retail/commercial
For retail/commercial, three sub-groups were included: supermarkets (Table 2‑18), shopping malls and retail parks (Table 2‑19), and business parks (Table 2‑20)
Table 2‑18: Direct costs to supermarkets
Data points used
The estimate for time spent clearing litter from supermarkets was 10 minutes per day, equating to £499 spent annually.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost was scaled up by the estimated number of supermarket stores in Scotland. According to estimates, the top 17 supermarket chains have a total of 14,753 supermarkets in the UK.[26] Scaling this by population gives an estimated 1,202 supermarkets in Scotland.
Cost of clean-up - £600,392
This is likely an underestimate, only including stores from the 17 largest supermarket chains and excluding stores from smaller chains (e.g., Londis, Spar) and other grocery & convenience stores. Data on these was not available within the project constraints.
Table 2‑19: Direct costs to shopping malls and retail parks
Data points used
When contacting shopping malls and retail parks, most responded that they had their own dedicated cleaning service to deal with litter. One data point was collected for a Glasgow shopping mall, who said their annual cost is £180,000.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost given by the shopping mall covered all “litter clearing”, which likely covers both bin litter and ground litter removal. Bin litter is excluded. Using the findings of a previous study conducted by Eunomia for WRAP, it was assumed that it was likely that only 50% of this time was spent removing ground litter (i.e., £90,000).[27] This was scaled up by a blended approach of the estimated number of shopping malls and the average footfall per mall. There were found to be an estimated 550 shopping malls in the UK.[28] Scaled down by population leaves 45 malls in Scotland. The average annual footfall for the malls and shopping malls was found to be 11.2 million, and 14.5 million respectively.[29], [30]
Cost of clean-up - £3,113,952
Table 2‑20: Direct costs to business parks
Data points used
The annual cost for clearing litter at one business park is £1,284.
Methodology for scaling
As business parks are difficult to define, data were not found for the number of business parks in Scotland. As such, data were not scaled up.
Cost of clean-up - < £1,284
2.3.2.5 Transport hubs
For the transport hubs stakeholder group, three sub-groups were included: ports (Table 2‑21), train and coach stations, and airports (Table 2‑22). No quantitative data were received for train and coach stations. Therefore, no annual cost has been calculated. However, qualitative commentary was provided by one coach station and one train station – this is shown in Section 7.6.5 of the Annex
Table 2‑21: Direct costs to ports
Data points used
Data points were collected for two ports. The average annual cost was £849.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost was scaled up by the estimated number of ports in Scotland. According to Marine Scotland, there are 16 major ports in Scotland and a total of 128 smaller LA ports, taking the total to 144 ports.[31]
Cost of clean-up - £122,279
Table 2‑22: Direct costs to airports
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for one airport is £13,699.
Methodology for scaling
Annual cost was scaled using total number of passengers flying through Scotland's 4 major commercial airports and the 11 smaller airports operated by Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL). In 2019, a combined 30.7 million passengers flew through all 15 airports. [32], [33], [34]
Cost of clean-up - £28,496
2.3.2.6 Transport infrastructure
For the transport infrastructure stakeholder group, three sub-groups were included: waterways (Table 2‑23), roads (Table 2‑24), and railways (Table 2‑25).
Table 2‑23: Direct costs to waterways
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for Scottish Canals is £187,760
Methodology for scaling
There was no scaling up involved for this sub-category of stakeholder as Scottish Canals are assumed to be the sole public body responsible for managing inland waterways.
Cost of clean-up - £187,760
Table 2‑24: Direct costs to roads
Data points used
No primary data were collected on the cost of littering on roads. However, secondary data were found. In 2012, Zero Waste Scotland reported that Amey plc spend over 14,000 hours annually collecting rubbish from motorway verges through their Scottish Trunk Roads Unit (STRU) contract.[35] This amounts to £114,940 in labour.
Methodology for scaling
N/A
Cost of clean-up £114,940
This is the estimated cost for litter clean-up for major roads and highways. Smaller roads are under the jurisdiction and responsibility of LAs. This is the cost of one Amey plc contract, but others are likely in place. As such, this is likely an underestimate.
Table 2‑25: Direct costs to railways
Data points used
No primary data were collected on the cost of littering on railways. However, secondary data were found. Network Rail Scotland report that they remove over 1,000 tonnes of rubbish from Scotland’s Railways each year.[36]
Methodology for scaling
To convert tonnage into costs, the rate of litter removal used for the Amey report (14,000 hours for 160 tonnes) was applied. Using these figures, it would cost an estimated £718,375 to remove 1,000 tonnes of rubbish.
Cost of clean-up - £718,375
2.3.2.7 Education facilities
For the education facilities stakeholder group, three sub-groups were included: primary schools (Table 2‑26), secondary schools (Table 2‑27), and universities (Table 2‑28).
Table 2‑26: Direct costs to primary schools
Data points used
Annual cost of clearing litter for a primary school is £1,249.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost was scaled up using the total number of students in primary school in Scotland. The primary school that provided data has a total of 240 students, and there were 398,794 primary school students in Scotland in 2019.[37]
Cost of clean-up - £2,074,733
Table 2‑27: Direct costs to secondary schools
Data points used
Annual cost of clearing litter for a secondary school is £7,492.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost was scaled using the total number of students in secondary education in Scotland. The secondary school that provided data has a total of 960 students, and there were 292,063 secondary students in Scotland in 2019.[38]
Cost of clean-up - £2,279,194
Table 2‑28: Direct costs to universities
Data points used
Two major Scottish universities provided data points for the annual cost of clearing litter: £100,000 and £12,843
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost given by the first university covered all aspects of outside cleaning. It was estimated that 50% of this time was spent removing ground litter (i.e., £50,000).
The figures from the two data points were then combined (£62,843). There are 67,497 students between these two institutions. This annual cost was then scaled up to a national total by the total number of students in higher education in. According to the Scottish Funding Council, there were 307,215 higher education students in Scotland in 2019/20.[39]
Cost of clean-up - £284,137
2.3.2.8 Indoor recreation
For the indoor recreation stakeholder group, four sub-groups were included: cinemas (Table 2‑29), theatres (Table 2‑30), aquariums and zoos (Table 2‑31), and museums and historical sites (Table 2‑32).
Table 2‑29: Direct costs to cinemas
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for a cinema is £1,209.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost was scaled up by the total number of cinemas in Scotland, found to be 101.[40]
Cost of clean-up - £122,146
Table 2‑30: Direct costs to theatres
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for two theatres belonging to a chain theatre is £5,565, and the annual cost for an independent theatre is £67.
Methodology for scaling
There are an estimated 1,100 active theatres in the UK. Scaling this using population data gives an estimate of 90 theatres in Scotland.[41] It was assumed that 25% of these share similar characteristics to the chain theatre (i.e., similar capacity, frequency of shows, and level of littering), while the remaining 75% were more similar to the independent theatre. These assumptions were used to calculate an overall annual cost of addressing instances of litter in Scottish theatres.
Cost of clean-up - £67,128.75
Table 2‑31: Direct costs to aquariums and zoos
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for an aquarium is £5,993.
Methodology for scaling
It was assumed that the cost of clearing litter will be similar between aquariums and zoos. There are more than 300 licensed zoos and aquariums across the UK. Scaling this using population data provides an estimate of 25 in Scotland. The annual cost of clearing litter from zoos and aquariums was scaled up using this figure.[42]
Cost of clean-up - £149,825
Table 2‑32: Direct costs to museums and historical sites
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for a museum is £250.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost was scaled up by the number of museums & historical sites in Scotland, estimated to be 380.[43]
Cost of clean-up - £94,894
2.3.2.9 Outdoor recreation
For the outdoor recreation stakeholder group, six sub-groups were included: stadiums (Table 2‑33), sports grounds (Table 2‑34), golf courses (Table 2‑35), car parks (Table 2‑36), theme parks (Table 2‑37), and music festivals (Table 2‑38).
Table 2‑33: Direct costs to stadiums
Data points used
No primary data were collected. However, secondary data were found. The response to an FOI submitted by Online Gambling revealed that Premier League clubs spend a combined £599,518 on cleaning up each season.[44]
Methodology for scaling
The total aggregated capacity of the 20 UK Premier League stadiums amounts to 853,212. To find an equivalent figure (and thus cost) in Scotland, the aggregated capacity of the 94 football stadiums in Scotland was used 596,455.[45]
Cost of clean-up - £419,105
This is the estimated cost for litter clean-up in Scottish football stadiums only. However, there are many more stadiums for other sports in Scotland (e.g., rugby stadiums), each of which will attract thousands. As such, estimated costs are likely an under-estimate.
Table 2‑34: Direct costs to sports grounds
Data points used
Annual cost of clearing litter for a sports ground is £15,379.
Methodology for scaling
Annual cost was multiplied by the number of sports grounds in Scotland (763).[46] The data collected were for a national sports centre - assumed to be larger than a typical sports ground. As such, the figure was reduced by a factor of 10.
Cost of clean-up - £1,173,386
Table 2‑35: Direct costs to golf courses
Data points used
Data was collected for three different golf courses, all said they had no issues with litter and spent no time clearing it. As a result, it was assumed that golf courses do not spend money clearing up litter.
Methodology for scaling
N/A
Cost of clean-up - £0
Table 2‑36: Direct costs to car parks
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for a car park is £428.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost of cleaning up litter in car parks was scaled using the estimated number of car parks in the country. According to the RAC Foundation, there are between 17,000 and 20,000 non-residential car parks in Great Britain.[47] The mid-point was selected (18,500) and subsequently scaled using population data for Scotland.
It is expected that many of the 1,551 car parks in Scotland are run by LAs. Therefore, costs incurred whilst addressing litter would be accounted for in Section 2.1.1. Identifying exactly how many car parks are privately owner proved complex. However, the RAC Foundation report noted that 8% of carparks are multistorey – these are unlikely to be council-run. A conservative estimate of 10% has been assumed for non-residential, privately owned car parks (i.e., approximately 155 car parks). The actual proportion may be much higher.
Cost of clean-up - £66,409
Table 2‑37: Direct costs to theme parks
Data points used
The annual cost of clearing litter for a theme park is £3,000.
Methodology for scaling
The annual cost was scaled up to by the number of “theme parks and amusement parks” in Scotland, reported to be 25 by Visit Scotland.[48]
Cost of clean-up - £75,000
Table 2‑38: Direct costs to music festivals
Data points used
It was not possible to obtain data on the cost of addressing litter at music festivals through primary research (calls or emails). As a result, the figure that has been used is scaled from estimates gathered through secondary research.
It has been reported that in 2017, it cost Glastonbury Festival £785,000 to clean-up and remove rubbish from the site.
Methodology for scaling
Glastonbury Festival attracts 200,000 festival goers every year. This means that the cost per person of litter removal is estimated at £3.93 per person. According to Statista, in 2018, nearly 30 million people attended live music events in the United Kingdom. This figure was scaled down by population, to an estimated 2.44 million festival goers in Scotland, and then multiplied by the cost per person to give an estimated total cost of £9,594,691.
Given the varied nature of music festivals, it is difficult to ascertain whether the cost per person would be equal across festivals. The figure of £9.6 million appears to be disproportionately high, and this may be because Glastonbury festival covers a very large area of land, and therefore the cost per person would be higher as more land would need to be covered by litter pickers. Given this, a assumption has been taken that the average cost per person for music festivals in Scotland is 50% of the cost per person at Glastonbury festival, and therefore this figure has been revised down accordingly.
Cost of clean-up - £4,797,346
2.3.2.10 Summary of direct costs
The direct costs to private bodies calculated and presented in the above tables are estimates derived using primary data, averages, and population/geographic information. Therefore, all figures are subject to a level of uncertainty. However, at all points deemed appropriate, lower bounds and/or diminishing scaling factors have been used to mitigate for this uncertainty.
Table 2‑39 provides an overview of the direct costs incurred by each of the sub-groups of private organisations, as calculated using the above methodologies.
| Category | Sub-Category | Annual direct cost (£) |
|---|---|---|
| Food | Take away and fast food | 874,023 |
| Nature based attractions | National parks | 26,520 |
| Holiday parks | 467,477 | |
| Country parks | 1,604,364 | |
| Woodlands | 60,000 | |
| Farmlands | Unknown | |
| The Crown Estate | Unknown | |
| Night-time economy | Nightclubs | 113,636 |
| Pubs and bars | 1,473,310 | |
| Retail/ commercial | Supermarkets | 600,392 |
| Shopping malls/ retail parks | 3,113,952 | |
| Business parks | Unknown | |
| Transport hubs | Ports | 122,279 |
| Train and coach stations | Unknown | |
| Airport | 28,496 | |
| Transport infrastructure | Railways | 718,375 |
| Roads | 114,940 | |
| Waterways | 187,760 | |
| Education facilities | Universities | 284,137 |
| Primary Schools | 2,074,733 | |
| Secondary Schools | 2,279,194 | |
| Indoor recreation | Cinemas | 122,146 |
| Theatres | 67,129 | |
| Aquariums & zoos | 149,825 | |
| Museums & historical sites | 94,894 | |
| Outdoor recreation | Stadiums | 419,105 |
| Sports grounds | 1,173,386 | |
| Golf courses | 0 | |
| Car parks | 66,409 | |
| Theme parks | 75,000 | |
| Music Festivals | 4,797,346 | |
| Total | £20,461,749 |
2.3.3 Scale and Direct Cost of Flytipping
Most of the public and private bodies contacted for this study had litter issues and therefore incurred a cost to clear up litter. However, very few reported issues with flytipping and therefore very few reported data on the cost of clearing up flytipped waste. Table 2-41 shows the data responses received from individual survey responses on both the scale and cost of flytipping experienced.
| Category | Sub-Category | Scale | Direct Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature based attractions | One Country Park | 15 incidents of significant littering/fly tipping in incident log from the last 12 months (not all incidents reflected in the log) | No data |
| Nature based attractions | ANONYMISED | No data | Cost per individual incident of clearing a large flytipped item: - The cost for removal and disposal (from an outside contractor): £550+VAT. - Workforce time involved: £275 (3 members of staff). - Total cost per incident = £935 |
| Nature based attractions | ANONYMISED | For the 2019/2020 financial year, 5 incidents of flytipping were recorded. | Costs associated with managing flytipping that is borne by the organisation include the cost of managing agents, spending time monitoring and recording, cost of disposal as required and if the LA are not willing to remove items. 1 incident had a direct disposal cost of £286 + VAT. 3 incidents were garden waste, which were likely not removed. No action for the last case was recorded. |
| Retail/ commercial | One supermarket | In 2020, there were 13 reported incidents (excluding overflowing charity banks), and in 2021 there were 22 | In 2020, uplift costs (call out, collection and disposal costs) amounted to £3,509 and in 2021 it amounted to £3,916. |
| Retail/ commercial | One shopping mall | 900kg of flytipped items. | An estimated £25,200 |
| Transport infrastructure | Waterways | In 2019/20 an estimated 117 tonnes of waste (litter and flytipped items) was uplifted via skips - 90% of this litter, 10% flytipping. | |
| Outdoor recreation | One large sports ground | Flytipping incidents occur 2 or 3 times a year. Estates team use tractors to clear this up and dispose of into skips. 10 tonnes per year, 5 of which is flytipped waste. | For both litter and flytipped waste, cost of clearing amounts to £15,379 a year. |
Estimating a national figure for the cost of flytipping to other public and private bodies was not possible for the following reasons:
- Most organisations contacted did not experience flytipping on their premises.
- Flytipping tends to be experienced by organisations who own or manage larger areas of land, this only applies to a small subset of the sub-categories in this study.
- Attributing responsibility is difficult.
Challenges with data collection the aim of this project was to update the figures for the estimated scale and cost of litter and flytipping in Scotland. The agreed methodology in pursuant of this aim was heavily reliant on stakeholder engagement. A low response rate was experienced when reaching out to public and private bodies – for instance, no responses were received from stakeholders responsible for litter and flytipping in woodlands or farmlands, roads or canals, nurseries, or private schools. A significant proportion of the stakeholders that did respond expressed that they did not, as standard, collect the data that was requested. For many bodies, there is no requirement to gather and record these data and is therefore not common practice. Additionally, if similar data were recorded, they did not always fit the questions that were asked. The costs for litter and flytipping were mostly encompassed within an overall spend on cleansing the premises of the organisation, and data on the scale of litter and flytipping mostly consisted of high-level qualitative observations. There does not appear to be a standard data collection format, even in organisations with statutory responsibilities to collect litter and flytipping which caused inconsistencies in the data collected.
The lack of usable data restricted the analysis by limiting the extent to which the data could be scaled to represent all of Scotland in the model. Consequently, the applicability of any conclusions and the degree to which the data could be used to shape evidence-driven and impactful policy decisions were limited. Population data were also relied upon as a proxy to scale up (mostly incomplete) costs from the 6 contributing LAs to be representative of Scotland. Though population is suitable as a broad indicator of litter and flytipped waste generated, this extrapolation limited the robustness of the final cost figures as they were not directly calculated.
2.4 Indirect Cost of Littering
The direct costs associated with littering and flytipping, explored in earlier sections, are those incurred by LAs and other duty bodies when addressing immediate impacts – i.e., the costs of clean-up, clearance, treatment, and disposal. In contrast, indirect costs are here considered to be costs that are incurred by individuals or organisations as a result of littering and flytipping, but not due to directly removing or processing them. For example, a cyclist coming into contact with certain ground litter may experience a puncture. The cost they experience to fix their puncture would be an indirect cost of littering.
Indirect costs can be further split between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ costs. Internal costs are those which are experienced through a market transaction (e.g., the previously mentioned bicycle puncture example). An external cost, however, is a cost that is not ‘internalised’ by a market transaction. An example of an external cost could be the sense of welfare loss associated with the visual disamenity of a park being strewn with litter.
The following section builds on the methodology used to calculate the indirect costs in the 2013 study “Exploring the Indirect Costs of Littering”.[49] This methodology saw industry experts identify connections between activities that were likely to result in littering and the potential consequences on amenity, residents, economic sectors, and wildlife. This exercise was undertaken for litter only, and for each of the urban, rural, and marine contexts. The objective of this task was to identify the more distal impacts of litter in order to highlight where potential costs may be incurred. The scope of this section was to updates the 2013 report. Therefore, only the indirect costs of litter have been included – i.e., indirect costs of flytipping were considered out of scope.
Throughout this study, the methodologies established in the 2013 study were used as an initial starting point.[50] The was supplemented by desk-based research to update figures, identify any costs that were no longer deemed relevant or useful, and calculate the potential impacts and costs for 2019. Value of materials lost, and the costs of volunteering are discussed in Section 3 and Section 4 respectively and so have not been included here. Additionally, beach and marine litter was identified as out of scope for this report.
2.4.1 Litter as a Causal Factor in Crime
In 2013, the costs of crime associated with litter was between £225,000 and £22.5 million.[51] It was estimated that the contribution of litter lies in the upper half of this range. A report presented by the Scottish Government during the Crime and Justice Statistics User Day 2012 attempted to breakdown the costs of crime on a wider scale. Only 39% of costs were attributed to the criminal justice system in Scotland (around 50% of the 39% or costs were attributed to police costs). As such, it was assumed that 20% of the total cost of crime was police costs.
To update the cost of litter as a causal factor in crime, a 2019 figure for the total cost of policing was used. According to the Scottish Police Authority 2019/20 annual report, the total cost of policing was £1.7 billion.[52] Assuming the cost of policing is 20% of the total cost of crime, the overall figure for crime would be £8.55 billion. Using the same assumption (based on the studies in Massachusetts), it is estimated that 4.6% of crime can be attributed to the local environment condition, which provides a figure of £393 million.[53] If litter contributed to between 0.1% and 10% of this impact, the cost would be between £393,392 and £39,339,200. Assuming a conservative mid-point for this range, the likely contribution of litter lies is £19.7 million.
2.4.2 The Impacts of Litter on Mental Wellbeing
Research shows that there are links (both direct and indirect) between the cleanliness of one’s physical environment and the status of one’s mental wellbeing.[54] Factors that impact the cleanliness of a physical environment include graffiti, abandoned buildings, vandalism and – of particular relevance to this study – litter. Each of these are known predictors of distress and depression amongst residents. The following section explores the potential indirect costs of litter on mental wellbeing.
2.4.2.1 Costs of Anti-Depressants
The previous report identified litter as a likely causal factor in 5% of anti-depressant prescriptions.[55] In 2013, this resulted in a total indirect cost of litter on anti-depressant dispensing of £1.57 million.
In 2019, the overall cost of dispensing anti-depressant drugs was £42 million.[56] Assuming the same causal factor (5%), the indirect cost of litter of litter on anti-depressant dispensing was £2.1 million.
2.4.2.2 Poor Mental Health
The previous report monetised the impact of litter on poor mental health using a 2011 study undertaken by the Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH).[57] The study estimated the total cost of mental health in Scotland to be £10.7 billion. This was differentiation by ‘human costs’ (52%), ‘output losses’ (30.1%), and ‘health and social care’ (17.9%). The previous report determined litter to be a likely contributing factor to 0.5% of these costs, resulting in a total of £53 million per annum.[58]
Neither an update of the SAMH report nor more recent figures on the total cost of mental health spending in Scotland could be found. However, a 2019 report by the Scottish Health Services concluded human costs (staff) were £5.9 billion.[59] Assuming the same ratio of costs as was included in the SAMH study (i.e., human costs are 52%), the total cost of mental health in Scotland in 2019 was calculated to be £11.3 billion. Attributing 0.5% of this to litter, the cost of litter on poor mental health is £56.7 million per annum.
2.4.3 Indirect Costs of Drug-related Litter
From the evidence presented in the 2013 report, there appears to be minimal medical costs to society from needle related drug use.[60] The larger issue potentially rests with public perception, and according to Defra, the belief that drug litter is a signifier of other, more problematic issues[61]. There were no costs associated in Scotland from drug-related litter, therefore there are no updated figures.
2.4.4 Cost of litter related Injuries
Whilst there were several calculations and figures in the previous report around litter related injuries, it was not possible to state, with confidence, either the extent of litter related injuries in Scotland, or the associated costs. Therefore, there have been no associated costs in Scotland to update.
2.4.5 Costs of Injuries to Duty Body Staff
Injuries to duty body staff are defined as crew injury during litter picking There was no figure given in the previous report for the associated costs of injuries to duty body staff in Scotland. The data found suggests that the cost would be very small and not significant.[62] Therefore, no updated figure has been provided.
2.4.6 Costs of litter-related Road Traffic Accidents
The previous report derived estimates for the cost of litter-related road traffic accidents ranging from £1.03m to £4.8m.[63]
In 2019, there were 306,316 road traffic accidents across the UK, and the cost of all accidents amounted to £33 billion per year. [64] This results in an average figure of £107,732 per accident. In 2019, UK Government reported 50 accidents in Scotland that were caused by objects in the carriageway.[65] According to a study by American Automobile Association (AAA), on average, 24% of accidents are due to debris (including litter).[66] The 2013 report assumed that half of these accidents could be directly attributed to litter – i.e., 12% of all accidents caused by objects in the carriageway. Using these assumptions, the total cost of accidents in Scotland directly linked to litter is £646,400 per annum.
2.4.7 Costs to Repair Punctures Caused by Litter
Certain ground litter can cause vehicle tyre punctures. Whilst Section 2.4.6 includes the cost of road traffic accidents caused by litter-related punctures, the following section explores the costs incurred when carrying out puncture repairs for both cars and bicycles.
2.4.7.1 Cars
The 2013 report stated that a third of drivers experience a puncture or a flat tyre every year, and on average these cost £34.[67] The cost for a tyre repair was approximately £30 in 2019.[68] Whilst a figure could not be found on the total number of drivers in Scotland, it was assumed that this is proportional to the number of licenced vehicles. In 2013 there were 2.8 million licenced vehicles and 3.2 million drivers. In 2019 there were 2.99 million licensed vehicles, equating to 3.4 million drivers.
If a third of these drivers pay £30 each year to repair a tyre, the total cost would be £34 million. Again, assuming that between 0.1% and 10% were caused by littered glass items, the associated cost of repair would be between £34,000 and £3.4 million per annum. A reasonable estimate of 5% has been used, equating to £1.7 million.
2.4.7.2 Bicycles
It is estimated that 35% of Scottish households have at least one bicycle.[69] Based on the household figure for 2019, this would be 875,000 households. Using the same assumption as was used in the 2013 report, each household can be expected to experience one puncture per year.[70] Based on 30 minutes of work at the national living waste (£8.21 an hour) and the cost of a puncture repair kit (£1), each puncture repair costs approximately £5.10.[71] If it is assumed that between 0.1% and 10% can be caused by litter such as broken glass, the cost of bike repairs due to litter were between £4,500 and £450,000. Again, using an estimate of 5% results in a total of £225,000.
2.4.8 Indirect Costs of Litter to the Rail Networks
The 2013 report found that the cost of litter to the Rail Network in Scotland was directly related to damage caused by rats.[72] This was based on Battersby’s 2004 research exploring the cost of rat treatments, delays to passengers, and penalties faced each year.[73] More recent figures were not available. Network Rail does have a breakdown of spend by Scotland’s Railways for maintenance, which is £164 million.[74] However, it was not possible to estimate the proportion of this spend directly caused by litter.
2.4.9 Litter-related Costs of Vermin
The presence of litter and the associated organic matter (i.e., food) can attract vermin. These vermin cause damage to infrastructure, require paid for services to be managed, and result in the need for clean-ups of public and private spaces. The following section explores these costs.
2.4.9.1 Cost of Rat Damage
In 2019, there were an estimated 120 million rats in the UK.[75] Assuming the rat population is proportional to the human population, this equates to around 10 million rats in Scotland. According to the 2013 report, each rat can cause approximately £10.45 worth of damage.[76] For Scotland in 2019, the cost of damages caused by rats to all infrastructure equates to circa £104.5 million. Assuming between 0.1% and 10% can be attributed to edible litter, this would provide an annual range of £104,500 and £10,450,000. Taking uncertainty into account, it is recommended that the lower end of this range is used. Using a value of 1% provides an estimate of £1.1 million.
2.4.9.2 Cost of Rat Control
There are 2.5 million households in Scotland.[77] On average, 3% of households have a rat infestation and 75% of these are treated.[78] Treatment and removal of rat infestations can cost between £90 and £240.[79] Conservatively using the lower figure provides an annual cost of £5 million in rat control.
If litter can be said to directly contribute to between 0.1% and 10%, the costs incurred due to rat control as a result of litter are between £5,000 and £500,000. Again, using a reasonable midpoint provides an estimate of £250,000.
2.4.9.3 Cost of Pigeon Deposit Clean-up
Pigeons are attracted to litter and the associated organic matter (i.e., food). Where pigeons are present, there are pigeon deposits, which have an associated clean-up cost. It can be assumed that more litter results in more pigeons, resulting in more pigeon deposits and therefore a higher clean-up cost.
The 2013 report referenced the cost of removing pigeon deposits to be £20 million.[80] This was calculated using inflation rates and a previous cost of £15 million from a 1999 BBC news article.[81] This was then used to assume a per-pigeon cost and an associated figure attributable to litter.
To update this figure requires a more recent cost for cleaning up pigeon deposits. However, there are no more recent figures available. Using inflation rates to further increase the cost associated with addressing pigeon deposits was deemed likely inaccurate, and as such no 2019 figure has been established.
2.4.10 Litter Related Business Losses
The presence of litter may prevent potential customers from entering businesses. As a result, those businesses will experience a loss/incur costs. Whilst the costs businesses face when addressing instances of litter have been explored in Section 2.3, this does not include the indirect costs incurred due to loss of customers. A 2011 Keep Britain Tidy study explored the indirect costs faced by McDonalds as a result of the presence of unaddressed litter around their premises. Whilst the study attempted to quantify these indirect costs, the figures it presented incorporated the costs associated with clean-up. As Section 2.3 accounts for this, any attempt to disaggregate the KBT data was likely to result in double counting. Therefore, this figure has not been updated.
2.4.11 Litter as a Cause of Wildfires
According to the Scottish Fire and Rescue service, there were 4,385 grassland fires in Scotland in 2019.[82] Around 84% of these can be assumed to be caused by humans. [83] Most human-caused fires are one day incidents which covering an average of 15ha.[84] A 2019 study found that the average cost of a small fire was €1,706 per hectare (ha), equivalent to £1,474 in 2019.[85] Using this cost, it was calculated that each one-day fire cost £22,110. Estimating that between 0.1% and 10% of these are caused by litter, the cost to Scotland is between £84,349 and £8.4 million. Using a reasonable midpoint results in an estimate cost of litter as a cause of wildfires to be £4.2 million.
2.4.12 Cost of Dealing with Impacts of Litter on Wildlife and Livestock
Primarily due to ingestion, wildlife and livestock can be negatively impacted by the presence of unaddressed litter. Veterinary bills and loss of animals represent an indirect loss due to littering. The 2013 report stated that the indirect cost of dealing with impacts of litter on wildlife and livestock was equivalent to 0.6% of SSPCA annual income.[86] In 2019, SSPCA’s annual income was £15.4 million.[87] Using the 0.6% assumption results in an annual cost of £92,400.
2.4.13 Costs of Litter Related Flooding
Whilst the presence of litter can cause drain blockages leading to localised flooding, research suggests that there is no indication that littered or flytipped waste has any greater a contribution than incidental. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to attribute costs, therefore there is no figures to update.
2.4.14 Effects of Litter on House Prices
The reduction in cleanliness and sense of place caused by the presence of litter can negatively impact the property values. Instances of littering or flytipping can reduce the desirability of a neighbourhood or street, thus reducing house prices. The 2013 report found that the presence of litter can devalue a property by between 2.7% and 11.8%.[88]
In 2019, the average house price in Scotland was £163,248.[89] Conservatively using the lower end (2.7%) of the devaluation impact results in a reduction in property value of £4,409 per house. If just 1% of the 2.5 million households in Scotland were devalued by £4,408 due to the presence of litter, the potential devaluation of the Scottish housing stock would be £110 million.
2.4.15 Impacts of Litter on Tourism
Due to unreliable evidence in the previous report, there were no costs provided for the impact of litter on tourism in Scotland. Therefore, no costs have been updated.
2.4.16 Summary
The indirect costs of litter can be difficult to identify and often require a number of assumptions to be combined to enable any quantitative calculations. The above section updates the calculations and values derived in the 2013 report undertaken for Zero Waste Scotland.[90] In general, conservative figures for the total cost have been used to account for the uncertainty. The total indirect costs due to litter are listed in Table 2‑41.
| 2013 annual cost | 2019 annual cost | |
|---|---|---|
| Litter as a causal factor in crime | £225,000 - £22.5 million | £19.7 million |
| Litter related anti-depressants | £1.57 million | £2.1 million |
| Poor mental health | £53 million | £56.7 million |
| Drug-related litter | - | - |
| Litter related injuries | - | - |
| Injuries to duty body staff | - | - |
| Litter-related traffic accidents | £1.03 - £4.8 million | £646,400 |
| Car tyre puncture repairs | £40,000 - £4 million | £1.7 million |
| Bike tyre puncture repairs | £6,500 - £650,000 | £225,000 |
| Rat damage repairs | £1 million | £1.1 million |
| Rat control | £250,000 | £250,000 |
| Pigeon deposit clean-up | £1,680 - £168,000 | - |
| Litter related business losses | < £500,000 | - |
| Litter as a cause of wildfires | £66,000 - £6.6 million | £4.2 million |
| Impacts of litter on wildlife and livestock | £315,000* | £92,400 |
| Litter related flooding | - | - |
| Effects on house prices | £100 million | £110 million |
| Impact on tourism | - | - |
| TOTAL | N/A** | £196.7 million |
* This includes cost to marine wildlife, which was out of scope for this study. ** It is not possible to calculate an overall total for 2013 given the ranges used.
2.5 Commonly Littered and Flytipped Items
2.5.1 Background and Context
An important step in tackling litter and flytipping is understanding trends in the types of items that are most frequently discarded. This can facilitate identification of likely sources and responsible individuals. Currently, exact data on the proportion of waste that falls into different categories is rarely regularly collected in significant detail, as most clearers of litter are more focused on clearing the waste rather than documenting its composition (this was flagged by both LAs and volunteer groups). However, LAs do report types of litter in their council areas through the annual LEAMS survey (run by Keep Scotland Beautiful), which involves local environment quality surveys at randomly selected sites. Assuming representativeness, this can provide a detailed breakdown of commonly littered items for each LA.
2.5.2 Results
This section has compiled the quantitative data received from stakeholders (from all the different groups within scope of this research) to ascertain which items are the most frequently littered and flytipped across Scotland. This breakdown of commonly littered and flytipped items represents the frequency at which these wastes were noted relative to other categories. A quantitative breakdown of waste composition and the consequent value of materials lost is found in Section 3.
Figure 2‑3 shows the items that are frequently flytipped, from most to least common. The findings from the stakeholder engagement on commonly flytipped items have been combined with Flymapper data for 2019/20 to cover all areas of Scotland in this analysis. In addition to the items listed in Figure 2‑3, various other items were mentioned and reported as flytipped waste by various stakeholders. These include traffic cones, pallet boxes, wheelie bins and mattresses. The reported loads of flytipped waste varied in size: the Flymapper data showed that the most frequently experienced size is a small van or transit van load of waste, with tipper lorry loads or small carloads being the next frequent.
Likewise, Figure 2‑4 indicates the most frequently littered items. The findings from the stakeholder engagement on commonly littered items has been combined with results of KSB’s first annual Scottish Litter Survey[91] and the LEAMS survey from 2020/21[92] in order to gain a holistic perspective from all stakeholders on this issue. In addition, other types of litter mentioned during data collection included: nitrous oxide cannisters, oil drums, paint pots, wood chippings, sanitary waste (needles and syringes, cotton buds, pills, tampons, and wet wipes), expanded polystyrene, clothes, aerosols, toys and balloons. It is difficult to ascertain the prevalence of these items as they were mentioned by only a few stakeholders.
Figure 2‑3. Commonly Flytipped Items
- Bulky Household Waste / White Goods
- Black Bags of Mixed Waste
- Construction & Demolition Waste
- Electrical Waste
- Tyres
- Hazardous Waste
- Supermarket Trolleys
- Green Waste
- End of Life Vehicles / Parts
Figure 2‑4. Commonly Littered Items
- Food containers, wrappers and packaging
- Drinks bottles and cans
- Smoking-related litter
- Dog fouling
- Cardboard boxes
- Food waste
- Plastic bags
- Chewing gum
Stakeholders also provided contextual information regarding locations that appeared to be particularly susceptible to litter and flytipped waste. Almost every stakeholder stated that roadsides are the most frequently littered areas. Specifically, major roads, grass lay-bys, and motorway slip roads. Respondents noted that this waste was likely being thrown out of vehicles or left behind by visitors whilst travelling. Similarly, car parks also appeared to be hotspots (although perhaps more so for flytipping than littering).
Stakeholders also noted that nature sites that were frequently visited by wild campers or people picnicking are common spots for litter. Several specifically highlighted that both urban and rural rivers are regularly littered. Whilst some found that secluded regions are most at risk of flytipping (presumably due to the lower likelihood of perpetrators being apprehended), others found that waste is often flytipped in obvious locations so that it is impossible for the Council to ignore.
The sources and perpetrators of litter and flytipping varied too. Some issues are localised, such as debris blown from a local landfill site, litter accumulating at tourist destinations, or the number of flytipping instances increasing following the introduction of charges for bulky waste collections by some councils (these incidents were all reported qualitatively). Others are prevalent across all areas – multiple stakeholders pointed out that the volume of litter increases significantly near schools and is a persistent issue despite efforts to increase education regarding the topic.
Litter and flytipping (as Figure 2‑3 and Figure 2‑4 indicate) comprise a mixture of household and commercial/industrial waste. Stakeholders highlighted that the age of these items varies significantly – some collected items are recently littered or flytipped, whereas some collected waste has been in the environment for considerable lengths of time. Stakeholders also commented that the distribution of waste varies temporally. In some cases, this is a relatively predictable change (for example, the composition and scale of waste may change from winter to summer), whilst in others, it is not (for instance, the composition of waste changed during COVID-19, which is discussed in section 5 – “Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic”).
The sources and perpetrators of litter and flytipping varied too. Some issues are localised, such as debris blown from a local landfill site, or litter accumulating at tourist destinations, or flytipping increasing since councils started charging for bulky waste collections. Others are prevalent across all areas – multiple stakeholders pointed out that the volume of litter increases significantly near schools and is a persistent issue despite efforts to increase education regarding this topic. Litter and flytipping (as Figure 2‑3 and Figure 2‑4 indicate) comprise a mixture of household and commercial / industrial waste. Stakeholders highlighted that the age of these items varies significantly – some collected items are recently littered or flytipped, whereas some collected waste has been in the environment for long lengths of time.
2.6 Summary
2.6.1 Direct Costs
2.6.1.1 Local Authorities
Overall, accounting for both direct and indirect costs, LAs incurred a total cost of £52.6 million in dealing with litter and a total of £16.1 million to deal with flytipping in FY2019. Both values represent a significant increase in comparison to 2011, where total litter and flytipping costs were £41,638,234 (26% increase) and £8,892,247 (80% increase) respectively. For both litter and flytipping, personnel costs were the most significant contributor to overall costs, and in the case of flytipping it appears that there has also been a significant increase in enforcement costs.
With regards to scale, for both litter and flytipping, this does not appear to have changed significantly over the period between 2011 and 2019. For litter, the latest estimated litter tonnage is 18,711 tonnes. The number of flytipping incidents has increased by 8.0% from 61,277 in 2011 to 66,159 cases in 2019. Due to the low level of participation from LAs in this study, it must be noted that the estimated costs include significant levels of uncertainty.
The scale and cost of litter varies according to the context of each area. Stakeholders in Highland and Island regions stated that litter and flytipping are not major issues, primarily due to the low population density. However, this rurality also means that addressing the few instances of flytipping that do occur is more costly. Additionally, these locations tend to be tourist hotspots and consequently suffer from seasonal litter from visitors.
2.6.1.2 Other Public and Private Bodies
The direct litter costs incurred by other public and private bodies amount to £21 million annually. This is the estimated figure for litter costs incurred by organisations from the following nine categories: food outlets, nature-based attractions, night-time economy (pubs, bars, nightclubs), retail/commercial, transport hubs, transport infrastructure, education facilities, indoor recreation, and outdoor recreation. Notably it excludes costs incurred by farmlands, The Crown Estate, business parks, and train and coach stations, as figures for these were not available. The figure was largely determined by multiplying the time spent clearing litter with labour costs calculated based on the National Minimum Wage. For some sub-categories the costs were estimated using direct cost figures reported or other methods.
The cost of litter varies according to category of stakeholder. In terms of cost breakdown, the types of bodies that incurred the highest costs of dealing with litter were music festivals (£4.8 million, though this figure is estimated form secondary data and thus should be used with caution), shopping malls and retail parks (£3.1 million), secondary schools (£2.3 million) and primary schools (£2.1 million).
Estimating a national figure for the scale of litter, the scale of flytipping, and the cost of flytipping to other public and private bodies was not possible as a very limited number of data points were collected.
2.6.2 Indirect Costs
Overall, the indirect costs of litter have increased since the previous report, as can be seen in detail in Anex 7.1. Occasionally it was not possible to update indirect cost categories as more recent data was not available, such as in the case of Indirect Costs of Litter to the Rail Networks, or to Business. The methodologies used to calculate the indirect costs have been kept consistent with those which were used in the previous indirect costs report[93]. Whilst the relevance of the methodologies was interrogated prior to any updates, it was not possible to account for any technological changes that may impact certain aspects of the costs. The total Indirect Costs are somewhere between £176,223,421 and £228,854,454 per year.
2.6.3 Commonly Littered and Flytipped Items
The research also compiled evidence from stakeholders on the types of items that are most commonly littered and flytipped. The prevalence of different categories of littered items broadly correlated with the findings of the LEAMS surveys undertaken annually by LAs, with food packaging, drinks bottles and cans, cigarette butts and dog fouling found to be the most frequently littered waste streams. Bulky household waste, electrical items and C&D waste were the most commonly flytipped items
Contact
Email: NLFS@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback