Ben Caldecott: Councils spend £500 million a year cleaning up litter, so what should be done to reduce it?

Ben Caldecott is Head of Policy Exchange’s Environment and Energy Unit and here he previews Litterbugs: How to deal with the Problem of Littering, which is being launched today and is now available to download as a pdf.

Littering is probably the most widespread form of anti-social behaviour in the UK. Since the 1960s the amount of litter dropped annually has increased by approximately 500% and littering has become one of the most important local issues for the public. Town centres suffer from the plight of cigarette butts, chewing gum and free newspapers, rural areas face the challenge of drive-by litter, and the litter on our beaches has increased by 97% since 1994.

Quite apart from the very obvious impact litter has on the beauty of our cities, towns and countryside, the direct costs of managing litter are large: councils spend an estimated £500 million a year on cleaning. The indirect costs are also considerable: companies in heavily littered areas lose business, and such areas are linked to increasing crime rates and anti-social behaviour. In both town and country, wildlife also risks ingesting litter and pollutants.

In order to help improve this dire situation, Policy Exchange’s new report, Litterbugs: How to deal with the Problem of Littering, has investigated who litters, why they litter and the options available to prevent people from littering. From our study it’s obvious that there is much more we can and should do.

Through the polling and in-depth interviews with local authorities we conducted for the report, we found that littering is symptomatic of social and individual attitudes towards both public space and waste. We found that the most common reasons for littering are that an area is already littered; cleaning up is perceived to be the responsibility of someone else; there are no bins or ashtrays nearby; or when there is no incentive to dispose of litter properly. Efforts to tackle litter should target each one of these causes in turn. In the UK this has not been done in a sufficiently determined or coordinated way. Our anti-littering strategy is failing.

Of the many things we can do to reduce littering, there are two in particular that should be brought to the fore. First, we should create virtuous cycles of behaviour through the introduction of a national deposit scheme and second, we should apply fines with greater consistency across the country.

The principles of behavioural and social psychology underpin the design of deposit schemes. By rewarding “good” or desirable behaviour, in this case not littering, we can help to perpetuate it. We have a number of tools available to begin these virtuous circles. In the case of a deposit scheme, creating a financial incentive can help to outweigh the costs of good behaviour, such as inconvenience, which result in people choosing a less socially desirable option. In addition to financial reward, “good” behaviour can also be encouraged by integrating positive behaviour into an individual’s sense of identity and utilising social norms, or the perception of what is normal behaviour.

The success of deposit schemes in well illustrated by the New York State deposit scheme that started in 1983. This example provides us with good long term information about the viability and success of deposit schemes in an area comparable to large parts of the UK. The law was an immediate success: litter in New York State declined by 30% and over the past 25 years, the act has reduced container litter by 70-80% and roadside litter by 70%. In 2004, 84% of New Yorkers supported the act and 78% agreed that it had made their state much cleaner. With this level of public support, it is perhaps unsurprising that New York State is looking to extend the scheme.

In addition to a missing deposit scheme, an inconsistent view across local authorities of what constitutes littering and when fines should be applied is undermining our anti-littering strategy. Only a small minority of local authorities make use of the powers to fine available to them. As a result, our research found that there was no significant correlation across the country between the use of fines and improvements in UK littering rates. This does not mean that fines cannot act as a deterrent, only that they currently fail to do so because most people do not consider fines a credible or probable sanction.

To improve the efficacy of fining as a deterrent, there should be greater consistency in the application of fines across local authorities. The tendency not to fine the worst offenders, such as young urban males, because wardens perceive them to be threatening and dangerous should also end. This has resulted in less threatening members of the public being fined and public trust in the system being eroded. Consistency in the application of penalties would improve this situation, but will require investment in enforcement capabilities and in training, so that the worst offenders can be caught and punished.

Litter is both more important and more complex an issue than is generally perceived. Its ability to impact on our fundamental quality of life has been underestimated for too long. Hundreds of millions of pounds are now being spent tackling a problem that only seems to be getting worse.

There is hope though. Our research has shown how the situation can be improved. Litter can be reduced if we develop and implement a new national strategy consistently and draw more effectively on mechanisms that can change people’s behaviour for the better.