Dena McMartinDena McMartin, Joe Piwowar, Christina Canart, Joe Piwowar, Christina Canart

Environmental Systems EngineeringEnvironmental Systems EngineeringANDAND

Department of GeographyDepartment of GeographyUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Regina

Regina Litter AuditRegina Litter AuditRegina Litter AuditRegina Litter Audit

Litter AuditingLitter Auditing

Required elements:Required elements: Method development and testingMethod development and testing 2-year sampling period2-year sampling period Comparative analysis (uniqueness of 2005)Comparative analysis (uniqueness of 2005) Total count and volumetric analysesTotal count and volumetric analyses

Project Terms:Project Terms:

The City of Regina required information for The City of Regina required information for the possible development of a Litter Control the possible development of a Litter Control Strategy and Litter Control Program.Strategy and Litter Control Program.

One element of the problem is an assessment or One element of the problem is an assessment or audit of the current (baseline) litter situation audit of the current (baseline) litter situation for the City of Regina.for the City of Regina.

What is “Litter”?What is “Litter”?

According to City of Regina Bylaw #9881:According to City of Regina Bylaw #9881:

litter was defined as including “…the discard litter was defined as including “…the discard or deposit of garbage which creates or or deposit of garbage which creates or contributes to untidiness or unsightliness, contributes to untidiness or unsightliness, except in a proper garbage receptacle or except in a proper garbage receptacle or Landfill site”.Landfill site”.

Existing Data & MethodsExisting Data & MethodsCity of Toronto:City of Toronto: Big budget process to reduce visible litterBig budget process to reduce visible litter Multi-year, continuous projectMulti-year, continuous project Numerous samples throughout each yearNumerous samples throughout each year Key objective to reduce total litter Key objective to reduce total litter

through evaluation of campaign resultsthrough evaluation of campaign results

Sampling ProtocolsSampling Protocols

Accumulated litter countsAccumulated litter counts Same monthly period each year for comparisonSame monthly period each year for comparison GPS identification of sitesGPS identification of sites Sites selected within constraintsSites selected within constraints Grids at each site chosen randomlyGrids at each site chosen randomly

Site SelectionSite SelectionPublic perception, visual accessibility, and City Public perception, visual accessibility, and City property were key selection parameters for:property were key selection parameters for:

CommercialCommercial ResidentialResidential RecreationalRecreational EducationalEducational Commuter RoutesCommuter Routes Major EventsMajor Events

Site SelectionSite Selection

26 sites were chosen + 2 major events26 sites were chosen + 2 major events 2 sites were discarded due to safety 2 sites were discarded due to safety

concernsconcerns Major events were each sampled twice in Major events were each sampled twice in

both 2005 and 2006both 2005 and 2006

Grid Locations on SiteGrid Locations on Site

Pre-determined prior to site visit (blind)Pre-determined prior to site visit (blind)

Grid IdentificationGrid Identification

Street spray paint used to mark each Street spray paint used to mark each corner (helps with subsequent weeks’ corner (helps with subsequent weeks’ counting)counting)

Small traffic cones placed on each corner Small traffic cones placed on each corner during a surveyduring a survey

GPS Reference takenGPS Reference taken Photographs taken – litter, site, conditionsPhotographs taken – litter, site, conditions

Audit CategoriesAudit Categories

PaperPaper PlasticPlastic

ConfectionsConfections Tobacco ProductsTobacco Products

CupsCups Beverage ContainersBeverage Containers

TetraTetra GlassGlass

TinTin Hygienic WasteHygienic Waste

OtherOther

Sampling RegimeSampling Regime

Completed in mid- to late-summer both yearsCompleted in mid- to late-summer both years No post-snowmelt, spring countNo post-snowmelt, spring count

Each site audited 3 times during the summerEach site audited 3 times during the summer Permitted street sweeping between (fresh Permitted street sweeping between (fresh

litter counts)litter counts)

2005 in Saskatchewan2005 in Saskatchewan

Centennial Year:Centennial Year: Queen’s visitQueen’s visit Centennial Celebrations & EventsCentennial Celebrations & Events 2005 Canada Summer Games2005 Canada Summer Games Litter Awareness CampaignLitter Awareness Campaign

General Trends: 2005General Trends: 2005About 57 pieces of litter per site per audit About 57 pieces of litter per site per audit Primarily Tobacco Products and Gum (by count)Primarily Tobacco Products and Gum (by count)

Modifications for 2006Modifications for 2006

Count data PLUS volumetric estimations Count data PLUS volumetric estimations on siteon site

More sites added based on City of Regina More sites added based on City of Regina inputinput

2006 in Saskatchewan2006 in Saskatchewan

““Typical” year of events and climateTypical” year of events and climate Comparison (verification) yearComparison (verification) year

No marketing campaigns for litterNo marketing campaigns for litter

General Trends: 2006General Trends: 2006

About 85 pieces of litter per site per auditAbout 85 pieces of litter per site per audit 48% increase from 2005 counts48% increase from 2005 counts

Confections counts were slightly higher Confections counts were slightly higher than Tobacco and Tobacco Productsthan Tobacco and Tobacco Products 2005 Combined: ~ 61%2005 Combined: ~ 61% 2006 Combined: ~ 52%2006 Combined: ~ 52%

27.7%

24.2%15.5%

15.2%

11.4%

0.7%

0.2%

5.2%

Confections

Tobacco Products

Beverage Containers (Total)

Plastic

Paper

Hygienic Waste

Cups

Other

2006 Category Rank 2005 Category RankConfections 27.66% Tobacco Products 34.14%Tobacco Products 24.16% Confections 26.46%Beverage Containers 15.48% Paper 13.38%Plastic 15.21% Plastic 12.48%Paper 11.40% Beverage Containers 8.25%Other 5.19% Other 3.68%Hygienic Waste 0.72% Hygienic Waste 1.18%Cups 0.19% Cups 0.25%

Counts versus Counts versus VolumetricVolumetric

Tobacco products (primarily butts) & Tobacco products (primarily butts) & Confections (primarily gum)Confections (primarily gum) Very high counts in comparison to other Very high counts in comparison to other

categoriescategories Very low volumetric contributions to Very low volumetric contributions to

total littertotal litter Not highly visible contributions Not highly visible contributions

compared to other categoriescompared to other categories

Volumetric ConversionsVolumetric Conversions

In 2005, conversions were estimated from In 2005, conversions were estimated from standard chartsstandard charts

In 2006, observations and measurements In 2006, observations and measurements were taken to determine count vs. were taken to determine count vs. volumetric datavolumetric data

SummarySummaryThe Two-Year Study:The Two-Year Study:

Confirmed the sampling methodologyConfirmed the sampling methodology Identified that 2005 campaigns to reduce Identified that 2005 campaigns to reduce

did appear to workdid appear to work Showed that counts for Tobacco Showed that counts for Tobacco

Products are high, despite not being Products are high, despite not being highly visible litterhighly visible litter

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Thank you to:Thank you to: City of Regina, Engineering & Works Dept.City of Regina, Engineering & Works Dept. Dwight Mercer, former Waste Diversion Dwight Mercer, former Waste Diversion

Coordinator, City of ReginaCoordinator, City of Regina Janna McIntyre, Student AssistantJanna McIntyre, Student Assistant Jon Gillies, former Director, Centre for Jon Gillies, former Director, Centre for

Sustainable CommunitiesSustainable Communities