national cleanliness benchmarking report - west lothian€¦ · audit and management system...

www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org 1

Your charity for Scotland’s environment

National Cleanliness Benchmarking Report

2017 – 2018

2 www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org

Keep Scotland Beautiful

ContentsForeword ...........................................................................................................................................................................3

Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................................4

Section 1: Background ..............................................................................................................................................6

Section 2: Sampling approach ............................................................................................................................8

Section 3: Results – core street cleansing services ................................................................................12

Litter performance indicator ...............................................................................................................................12 Distribution of litter grades ..................................................................................................................................16 Who creates litter? ....................................................................................................................................................18 Common litter types .................................................................................................................................................19 Dog fouling ....................................................................................................................................................................22 Litter bins .......................................................................................................................................................................24 Weed growth ................................................................................................................................................................25 Detritus ............................................................................................................................................................................27

Section 4: Results – the wider local environmental quality ...........................................................30

Graffiti ..............................................................................................................................................................................30 Vandalism .......................................................................................................................................................................32 Flyposting .......................................................................................................................................................................32 Flytipping .......................................................................................................................................................................33 Staining ...........................................................................................................................................................................34

Section 5: Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................35

Section 6: Moving forward ...................................................................................................................................36

Appendix 1: Key stats ..............................................................................................................................................37

Appendix 1: Benchmarking tables ..................................................................................................................38

Appendix 3: Further reading .............................................................................................................................45

Acknowledgement

Keep Scotland Beautiful wishes to thank Scottish local authorities, their elected members and employees for their co-operation and hard work in this fifteenth year of LEAMS as a performance indicator.

www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org

National Cleanliness Benchmarking Report: 2017 – 2018

3

ForewordFor fifteen years, Keep Scotland Beautiful has been collecting data on the state of local environment quality in Scotland through our management of the Local Environment Audit and Management System (LEAMS). Using a combination of self and independent monitoring, these audits provide valuable data which reveal trends about the quality of our urban and rural spaces. This benchmarking report sets out the findings of the 2017/18 LEAMS audits which involved more than 90 surveys of over 13,600 sites across Scotland.

The results of the 2017/18 audits clearly show that the challenge to improve local environmental quality is increasing each year. This includes levels of litter, dog fouling, flytipping, graffiti, vandalism, weeds and detritus.

But the picture is complicated. The evidence suggests that the issues are worse in communities of most need – increasing more severely, at a faster rate and affecting life outcomes for those living in these areas.

The decline in local environmental quality in Scotland is not a simple problem to solve. Everyone, national and local government, industry, the third sector and communities, have a collaborative part to play to tackle this decline. And it is a shared goal worth fighting for.

Collaboration is at the heart of our vision for a clean, green, sustainable Scotland. And our work supporting local authorities across Scotland to improve the quality of our local environments is central to that vision.

At a time of economic challenge, local authorities are faced with difficult choices about how to deliver services with continually reducing budgets. Some local authorities have managed to maintain standards in spite of this, and there is much that can be learned from sharing best practice with each other. As the government’s Open Data Strategy becomes a reality, it will become easier to share this wealth of information more openly for our mutual benefit.

At a higher level, Scotland’s National Litter Strategy1 promotes a new approach to litter, focusing on prevention instead of clean up. This echoes the recommendations of the Christie Commission Report2. The strategy also encourages collaborative efforts to drive change. Similarly, the new EU policy3 adopted this year outlines a joined-up policy on litter prevention emphasising shared responsibility – from governments to producers and from organisations to citizens. This is encouraging as we know that this shared problem can only be successfully tackled through shared action.

Set against a backdrop of broader environmental issues – such as climate change, which is worsened by our unsustainable levels of consumption, particularly of single-use items, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals4 which encourage us to work at a local level to tackle global issues – this report highlights where we are doing well, and where we need to make a difference.

Derek A Robertson,

Chief Executive,


1 https://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/litter-flytipping/national-strategy 2 https://www.gov.scot/publications/commission-future-delivery-public-services/ 3 https://www.cleaneuropenetwork.eu/en/blog/eu-adopts-historic-litter-prevention-policy/anm/4 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/



Executive summary Background

Clean streets, towns, cities, parks and open spaces are important to all of us. They make the places where we live, work and travel more pleasant and ultimately improve our quality of life. Issues such as litter and dog fouling spoil our environment. They give the appearance of places being uncared for and spoilt and devalue neighbourhoods as locations to live and work. Not only this, these issues cost Scotland more than £50 million to deal with each year5.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the associated Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2018 requires local authorities and others to keep specified land and public roads clean and litter-free. To enable local authorities to meet these targets, we have worked with partners to develop the Local Environmental Audit and Management System (LEAMS) and continue to do so to keep the programme relevant. This audit takes place annually and provides information on both the types of littered items as well as their source.

LEAMS records the most common litter types, including cigarette litter, food and drinks packaging and dog fouling. It also provides information on other adverse environmental quality indicators such as flytipping, weed growth, vandalism and graffiti. This information supports local authorities to be efficient with their cleansing responsibilities, monitors continuous improvement, shows trends for different types of litter and informs campaigns to tackle negative environmental issues.

The audit

LEAMS audits are completed by each local authority6 and Keep Scotland Beautiful. Every authority audits a sample of its own streets and Keep Scotland Beautiful conducts an annual validation audit to ensure consistency between authorities.

During the 2017/18 financial year, 93 audits took place, three in each local authority area. For each audit, 5% of streets were randomly chosen and in total, 13,606 individual sites were assessed for litter and local environmental quality.

5 Zero Waste Scotland (2013). Scotland’s Litter Problem: Quantifying the scale and cost of litter and flytipping.6 In 2017/18 The Moray Council did not submit a full set of data. The incomplete results have not been included in this year’s overall findings.

Total audits

Yearly audits

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f st

reet

s au

dit

ed

Figure 1: Number of sites audited since 2003/04

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000



5

2017/18 findings

The results continue to show that littering is widespread and increasing in impact over the years, currently affecting five out of six sites on average. This proportion increases in predominately urban local authority areas to nine out of ten sites on average.

The current year shows the highest proportion of sites with a significant presence of litter over the last ten-year period – currently one in thirteen sites on average affected. However, this increases to over one in nine on average for predominately urban local authority areas.

As expected, high footfall/traffic increases the likelihood of significant litter, with one in eight town/city centre areas, high density residential areas and strategic roads (motorway and A class) on average affected by high levels of litter.

More than half of local authorities have seen an increase in significantly littered sites since last year.

The types of litter recorded show that the public continues to be the main source of litter in Scotland with other sources, such as businesses or commercial waste, making less of a contribution.

Smoking related materials continue to affect the majority of sites in Scotland, affecting three out of four high footfall town/city centre and high density residential areas. However, local authorities are, in most cases, keeping the number of these litter items to a minor impact.

Food and drink packaging is also a common observation, particularly along high traffic roadside verges, with almost nine out of ten locations observing a presence, and in high footfall areas where four out of five sites are affected.

The impact of dog fouling continues to increase. Currently, one in nine sites on average nationally are affected. This increases significantly to one in six high density footpaths or in adjacent verges.

The trends indicate that weed growth and detritus are more commonly observed, approaching three out of five sites on average in areas with footpaths. While the majority continue to be low impact at site, significant and severe presence levels are also on the increase, now affecting one in ten sites nationally, skewed to residential areas.

Staining, particularly gum adhered to the hard-standing footpath, is more commonplace than previous years. In town/city centre areas, the issue affects over one in four sites assessed.

As expected, graffiti is more common in urban town/city centre areas, affecting one in six sites audited, a three percentage point increase compared to the previous two years. Most observations are minor tags on street furniture.

Similarly, flyposting is predominately an urban town/city centre issue, affecting one in eight locations, a five percentage point increase on last year.

Vandalism and flytipping remain infrequently observed, mainly within isolated hotspot locations.

While the majority of litter bins are well serviced, the LEAMS results suggest that a significant proportion (11%) were over three quarters full. This obviously increases the likelihood of litter in the surrounding area.



Section 1: Background Litter in Scotland Clean and safe local environments are a vital element of improving the health and wellbeing of Scotland’s communities. The Carnegie UK Trust found that issues such as vandalism, graffiti, litter, dog fouling and discarded rubbish have a serious and long-lasting impact on people’s quality of life7. Moreover, those most affected are most likely to live in the UK’s most deprived neighbourhoods where high litter levels directly contribute to increased health inequalities8.

At a time when public spending is being considerably reduced, areas affected by high levels of litter may be increasingly neglected. It is against this backdrop that LEAMS is able to provide a clear picture of the state of Scotland’s streets and identify the actions needed to address local environmental quality.

About LEAMS

For the past fifteen years, LEAMS has been used by Keep Scotland Beautiful to collect data on local environmental quality and cleanliness from the Shetland Islands to the Scottish Borders, providing an important national picture of Scotland’s streets. LEAMS has been the national performance indicator for street cleanliness since 2003/4. It was originally developed to help local authorities meet their obligations under Best Value by:

Establishing baseline information.

Establishing a self-monitoring system to assess continuous improvement.

Providing independent audits of the monitoring process by local authorities.

Providing an annual validation by an independent body.

Making information on cleansing standards in each local authority publicly available.

Comparing results across local authorities.

Sharing good practice across local authorities.

Weed growth, detritus and litter impacting cleansing perception

7 Carnegie UK Trust (2012). Pride in Place: tackling environmental incivilities. Carnegie Trust UK.8 Rich Mitchell (2015). Reducing health inequalities: can green space do what politics can’t?



7

Keep Scotland Beautiful provides LEAMS training to all local authorities which addresses relevant legislation, survey methodology and techniques for processing data and evaluating results. Following this training, each local authority is fully competent to carry out LEAMS surveys in their area. A full report is provided to each local authority based on the data collected. An annual validation survey is undertaken every year by Keep Scotland Beautiful to provide an independent verification of local authorities’ results.

LEAMS partners are also invited to attend an annual national seminar. Speakers present on current and new ideas in monitoring local environmental quality and initiatives that have shown to be effective in generating improvement. The event also acts as a networking opportunity and a vehicle for developing the programme and sharing good practice.

The future of LEAMS

In June 2018, a new Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse was issued replacing the 2006 Code. As LEAMS has used the Code of Practice as a framework for measuring litter standards, the methodology will need to be updated to fall in line.

Currently, a revised methodology is being trialled with six local authorities. It is expected that the review of this trial will be published for consultation in 2019 with recommendations on next steps.



Litter cleanliness grades

Each area of study (site11) is graded for overall litter presence according to the standards outlined in the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 200612, which relates to Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990. An additional grade not defined within the code (B+) has been included for reporting quality.

There are five grades of litter cleanliness, which are defined as:

Section 2: Sampling approachThe LEAMS process uses a combination of monitoring carried out by local authorities and Keep Scotland Beautiful. Each local authority conducts two LEAMS audits during each financial year and Keep Scotland Beautiful carries out a third audit to provide independent verification. Each audit assesses a randomly selected 5% sample of streets.

The audits are carried out along transects9 and auditors record information on the presence, types and sources of litter, local environmental quality indicators as well as the servicing and number of litter bins10. A subjective perception rating for litter presence is also recorded for each site which takes into consideration the full visible streetscape in context, including nearby open spaces where present. This provides a robust litter standard result for each site audited.

9 A path along which one records occurrences of the phenomena of study (e.g. litter).10 Data for sources of litter and litter bins are collected during the Keep Scotland Beautiful validation audits only.11 Location within the selected street/road where transect(s) are assessed.12 In June 2018, a revised Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse was issued.

Grade A No litter or refuse.

Grade B Predominantly free of litter and refuse – up to three small items.

Grade B+ Predominantly free of litter and refuse.

Grade CWidespread distribution of litter and refuse with minor accumulations.

Grade D Heavily littered with significant accumulations.

This grading system is based on research into standards of cleanliness which most people regard as being acceptable or unacceptable. Under this system, grades C and D are unacceptable and must be cleaned (in most cases to grade A condition) within a specified time. Grade A is the standard which a thorough conventional sweeping/litter-picking should achieve. The overall aim, however, should be to operate a management system where acceptable standards of cleanliness (grades A, B+ and B) are maintained at all relevant times.

Grade A Grade B Grade B+

2 x cigarette ends

Grade C Grade D



9

Presence grading

Individual litter types, sources and adverse indicators of local environmental quality are assessed using the following scale:

The following types of litter are audited:

Dog fouling: including those that have been bagged but not binned.

Smoking-related: including cigarette ends, matches, matchboxes and cigarette packaging.

Drinks-related: including cans, bottles, cups, straws and lids.

Confectionery: including sweet wrappers, chewing gum wrappers and crisp packets.

Fast food-related: including fish and chip wrappers, polystyrene cartons, burger wrappers and plastic cutlery.

Royal Mail elastic bands.

Plastic bags.

Coffee cups.

Other: any litter not covered by the above, such as newspaper, plastic fragments and chewing gum.

The following sources of litter are audited:

Pedestrian waste: including drink cans, confectionary wrappers, fast food packaging and cigarette butts.

Business waste: any waste that has come directly from a business.

Domestic waste: for example, household packaging or spillage from refuse collection.

Construction waste: such as sand bags and builders’ rubble.

Animal faeces: this covers any type of animal faeces.

The following other adverse environmental indicators are audited:

Weeds: the presence of weeds may indicate poor/infrequent street sweeping and can trap litter.

Detritus: debris from natural sources such as twigs, leaves, grass and sand which can trap other items of litter.

Vandalism: defined as wilful and senseless damage of property which adversely affects the quality of life and the environment, for example smashed bus shelter windows and broken or damaged street furniture.

Graffiti: defined as unauthorised drawing or writing on surrounding buildings or street furniture such as benches, lamp posts and litter bins.

Fly-posting: defined as stickers or posters placed in unauthorised places such as buildings, bus shelters and fence posts within the site.

Flytipping: defined as illegally dumped waste.

Staining: defined as a substance or material that has marked or changed the surface, not easily removed, including graffiti and chewing gum.

1 No presence 3 Significant presence

2 Minor presence 4 Severe presence



Litter bins

At each audited site, the number of litter bins is recorded, along with whether or not the bin is over flowing. An overflowing bin is one which is over three quarters full.

Type of local authorities

Local authorities have been grouped together into four clubs, based on their population size and the distribution of their population, to enable easier comparison13. For example, urban classed local authorities (club 4), have a lower proportion of road networks above 40mph (zones 4, 6 and 7) in comparison to rural and mixed (urban and rural) local authorities (clubs 1, 2 and 3).

Type of site audited

The following shows the range of different land types local authorities have a direct cleansing responsibility for.

13 Improvement Service term used to describe grouping by population dispersion.

Club 1 Eilean Siar, Argyll and Bute, Shetland Islands, The Highland, Orkney Islands, Scottish Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Aberdeenshire

Club 2 Perth and Kinross, Stirling, Moray, South Ayrshire, East Ayrshire, East Lothian, North Ayrshire, Fife

Club 3 Angus, Clackmannanshire, Midlothian, South Lanarkshire, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire, West Lothian, East Renfrewshire

Club 4 North Lanarkshire, Falkirk, East Dunbartonshire, Aberdeen City, City of Edinburgh, West Dunbartonshire, Dundee City, Glasgow City

Zone 1 Town/city centre

Zone 2 High-density residential

Zone 3 Low-density residential

Zone 4 Roads not falling into zones 1-3

Zone 6 Motorways and strategic routes

Zone 7 Rural roads



11

Performance indicator measurement

The National Benchmarking Overview Report published by the Improvement Service14 presents information on how much local authorities spend on services, performance of the service and how satisfied people are with the service provided. LEAMS has been adopted as the measure for street cleansing performance. The three indicators for street cleansing are:

Street Cleanliness Score (% streets at an acceptable A or B grade standard from LEAMS assessments).

Net cost of street cleaning per 1,000 population (£).

Percentage of adults satisfied with waste collection and street cleaning.

The Street Cleanliness Score is the percentage of sites audited (footpaths, adjacent verges and channels within local authority ownership) achieving an acceptable standard for litter presence.

Type of site audited

Most sites in Scotland are defined as zone 3 (predominately low density residential) which is why these areas contribute over half of the overall statistics outlined in LEAMS results. Almost a third of sites were in city/town centres and high-density residential areas, which are generally given high priority within a cleansing service (zones 1 and 2). Just over one in ten sites were generally non-pedestrian (zones 4, 6 and 7), with zone 7 (B and C class and unclassified roads) more prominent. A small number of sites were not zoned and were treated as a non-classified area (NCA).

14 www.improvementservice.org.uk

Figure 2: % of sites sampled per land type (zone).

Littering on areas that require manual removal

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 6

Zone 7

NCA



Club average 2017/18


National average 2017/18


Aberdeenshire Argyll and Bute

Dumfries and Galloway

Eilean Siar Highland Orkney Islands

Scottish Borders

Shetland Islands

2015/16

2015/16

2016/17

2016/17

2017/18

2017/18

Section 3: Results – core street cleansing servicesLitter performance indicators

Club 2

Club 1

East Ayrshire

East Lothian

Fife North Ayrshire

Perth and Kinross

South Ayrshire

Stirling

Figure 3: Street cleanliness scores (%)15 for each local authority by benchmarking club (last three years)

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

15 % of sites achieving a A or B litter grade standard.



13





2015/16

2015/16

2016/17

2016/17

2017/18

2017/18

Club 3

Club 4

Since last year, the overall Scotland-wide street cleanliness score has fallen by almost two percentage points, from 93.9% in 2016/17 to 92.2% in 2017/2018. This is the lowest average score Scotland has had in more than ten years.

Angus

Aberdeen City

Clackmannan-shire

Dundee City

East Renfrewshire

East Dunbartonshire

Inverclyde

City of Edinburgh

Midlothian

Falkirk

South Lanarkshire

Glasgow City

West Lothian

Renfrewshire

West Dunbartonshire

North Lanarkshire

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%



As expected, the more urban local authorities with higher populations (those in club 4) score lower, on average, for street cleanliness than those which are more rural or mixed urban and rural. Urban local authorities have also seen the greatest reduction in their cleanliness score since 2016/17, dropping almost four percentage points compared to a fall of less than one percentage point for the other benchmarking clubs.

Overall, the cleanliness results from the audits carried out by each local authority were on average three and a half percentage points higher than those from the independent audits (90.1% for the independent audits compared to 93.6% from the local authority audits). There are many factors that can contribute to this. For example, changing service priorities, weather conditions, the random nature of sampling and consistency across a large number of auditors. This is why only the overall figure for the year is used for performance reporting.

96 - 100%

92 - 96%

88 - 92%

84 - 88%

80 - 84%

Below 80%

No Information

Figure 4: Range of street cleanliness scores (%) in Scotland



15

For 17 local authorities in Scotland, the overall street cleanliness score has fallen by more than one percentage point since 2016/17, and for four local authorities, this is for the second consecutive year that a drop of this size has been recorded. For nine authorities, the fall in overall cleanliness result remains within a single percentage point from the previous year and for four authorities, an improvement of more than one percentage point has been observed. Only one authority has posted successive improvements of more than one percentage point since 2015/16.

Rise of more than 5%

3 to 5%

1 to 3%

-1 to 1%

-3 to -1%

-5 to -3%

Decrease of more than 5%

No information

Figure 5: Change in street cleanliness score (%) per local authority since last year



Table 1 reflects on the difference in grades of litter distribution over the last three years both nationally and between benchmarking clubs. Since last year, the proportion of sites with no litter (grade A) has fallen, and for clubs 1 (rural) and 2 (mixed urban and rural) this has been by over ten percentage points.

The number of sites which are almost litter free (grade B+) has also decreased, although not to the same extent as for grade A. Most of these grade A and B+ sites are dropping to grade B – a grade which has a significantly larger percentage of sites in 2017/18 than in 2016/17. Across all clubs, consistent or accumulating litter has increased, with an almost four percentage point increase in the highest population areas (club 4).

Distribution of litter grades

Footpaths, channels and verges

Figure 6 shows that 7.8% of footpaths, channels and verges were found to have a significant amount of litter (grade C and grade D). Most sites were grade B, which means that they were predominantly free of litter. Only one in six sites audited were found to be free from litter.

Grade A 17.4%

Grade B+ 15.9%

Grade B 58.9%

Grade C 7.1%

Grade D 0.7%

Club 1 Club 2 Club 3 Club 4 National average

Grade A 2017/18 25.6% (10.2%) 17.2% (10.9%) 17.9% (5%) 10.9% (6.9%) 17.4% (7.7%)

2016/17 35.8% (2.7%) 28.1% (1.6%) 22.9% (1.7%) 17.8% (3.1%) 25.1% (1.6%)

2015/16 33.1% 29.7% 24.6% 20.9% 26.7%

Grade B+2017/18 16.9% (0.6%) 19.4% (1.4%) 15.9% (5.2%) 12.7% (2.6%) 15.9% (2.3%)

2016/17 17.5% (0.2%) 20.8% (0.3%) 21.1% (0.3%) 15.3% (2.5%) 18.2% (0.7%)

2015/16 17.7% 20.5% 20.8% 17.8% 18.9%

Grade B 2017/18 52.4% (10.1%) 57.5% (11.4%) 59.4% (9.2%) 64.7% (5.8%) 58.9% (8.3%)

2016/17 42.3% (0.4%) 46.1% (0.7%) 50.2% (1.1%) 58.9% (6.3%) 50.6% (2.8%)

2015/16 42.7% 45.4% 49.1% 52.6% 47.8%

Grade C2017/18 4.9% (0.8%) 5.5% (0.8%) 6.4% (1%) 10.4% (3.4%) 7.1% (1.6%)

2016/17 4.1% (2%) 4.7% (0.5%) 5.4% (0.2%) 7% (0.7%) 5.5% (0.5%)

2015/16 6.1% 4.2% 5.2% 7.7% 6%

Grade D2017/18 0.2% (0.2%) 0.4% (0.1%) 0.5% (0.1%) 1.3% (0.3%) 0.7% (0.1%)

2016/17 0.4% (0.1%) 0.3% (0.1%) 0.4% (0.1%) 1% (0%) 0.6% (0%)

2015/16 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 1% 0.6%

Grade A

Grade B

Grade B+

Grade C Grade D Figure 6. Range of cleanliness grades (%) awarded nationally

Table 1: Grade distribution comparison (%), last three years nationally and between benchmarking clubs

2 x cigarette ends



17

While the results show that there is more significant litter issues in urban local authorities (club 4), the results also show that litter occurs more frequently across Scotland in areas in which the public tend to:

Congregate, 11% (zone 1)

Live in higher density, 13.5% (zone 2)

Travel in high numbers on road networks, 13% (zone 6)

Compared to areas the public tend to:

Live in lower density, 5.4% (zone 3)

Travel in lower numbers on road networks, 5% (zone 7)

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 6 Zone 7

Grade A 9.5% 10.1% 18.3% 25.1% 10.9% 35.4%

Grade B+ 12.6% 10.6% 17.2% 13.0% 17.4% 23.4%

Grade B 66.9% 65.9% 59.1% 49.7% 58.7% 36.2%

Grade C 9.8% 11.9% 5.1% 11.1% 13.0% 4.7%

Grade D 1.2% 1.6% 0.3% 1.1% 0% 0.3%

Open spaces

Of the 4,751 open spaces audited, 279 (5.9%) were found to be significantly littered (grades C and D). Encouragingly, 1,962 (41.3%) recorded no visible litter and just over half had a small presence which did not impact greatly on the appearance of the area. These figures show a continuing marginal decline over the last two years, with a slightly higher proportion of significantly littered areas (an increase of 1.2 percentage points since 2015/16) and a drop in the proportion of litter free areas (a decrease of 4.4 percentage points since 2015/16).

Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 show the range of open space sites by local authority assessed as acceptable (A and B grade standards) compared to hard standing areas. For many authorities, these do not correlate closely which can either be a result of the random nature of the sampling within this methodology or a suggestion that cleansing is split for these areas between departments resulting in different levels of resources or varying cleansing schedules.

Table 3: Acceptable open space observations against acceptable footpath observations for club 1


Table 2: Grade distribution comparison (%) between different land types (zones)

Club 1

CouncilHard

standingOpen space

Aberdeenshire 92.8% 92.0%

Argyll and Bute 93.5% 98.0%

Dumfries and Galloway 96.5% 96.9%

Eilean Siar 97.7% 100.0%

Highland 93.9% 95.8%

Orkney Islands 98.2% 100.0%

Scottish Borders 97.5% 96.4%

Shetland Islands 94.0% 96.6%

Club 2

CouncilHard

standingOpen space

East Ayrshire 91.7% 93.0%

East Lothian 94.5% 97.7%

Fife 95.1% 96.6%

North Ayrshire 92.2% 93.3%

Perth and Kinross 94.0% 95.2%

South Ayrshire 94.8% 92.7%

Stirling 95.2% 93.8%



Who creates litter?

LEAMS surveys over the last 15 years show that the main cause of litter is the public. Of sites with litter, 99.3% is recorded with the general public as the contributor.

However, this does not mean that the public are the only source of litter. Infrastructure, such as the provision and maintenance of bins and business waste management, can also contribute to the problem. Business waste escaping from containers contributed to the litter presence on 2% of zone 1 sites. Similarly, poor presentation or spillage from domestic bins contributed to 2% of littered residential sites.

% sites pedestrian source of litter (Overall)

% sites with business source of litter (Zone 1)

% sites with domestic source of litter (Zone 2)

% sites with a domestic source of litter (Zone 3)

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18

Club 3

CouncilHard

standingOpen space

Angus 91.1% 86.1%

Clackmannanshire 93.5% 73.7%

East Renfrewshire 94.4% 90.9%

Inverclyde 87.1% 93.3%

Midlothian 96.0% 98.9%

Renfrewshire 90.5% 99.4%

South Lanarkshire 95.5% 98.4%

West Lothian 93.4% 92.0%

Club 4

CouncilHard

standingOpen space

Aberdeen City 85.8% 90.8%

City of Edinburgh 88.7% 85.0%

Dundee City 89.3% 88.5%

East Dunbartonshire 92.2% 95.8%

Falkirk 89.5% 83.5%

Glasgow City 87.5% 95.6%

North Lanarkshire 88.3% 86.5%

West Dunbartonshire 86.5% 97.2%



Figure 7: Litter source statistics (%) since 2007/8

Year



19

Common litter types

As mentioned in the sampling approach section, there are several different common types of litter. Cigarette litter, whilst not the most noticeable issue, is by far the most commonly deposited and frequently occurring litter item in Scotland. 60.1% of the sites audited recorded cigarette litter, and this was particularly significant in zone 1 and 2 areas where there is a high footfall of people; 78.2% and 72.9% of sites respectively. While most observations were found to be minor, 6% of zone 1 areas recorded either consistent or accumulating cigarette litter and 3.5% in zone 2 areas.

0 - 2%

2 - 5%

5 - 10%

10 - 20%

Above 20%

No Information

Figure 8: Significant smoking litter statistics (%) for zone 1 by local authority in 2017/18



When comparing cigarette litter across the four benchmarking clubs, there was a significant difference between the amount recorded in rural local authorities and urban local authorities – 48.8% found in rural authorities and 67.9% found in urban local authorities. This is in part due to rural authorities auditing a larger number of roadside verges where smoking litter is either less of an issue or harder to see in vegetation. The reality is that smoking litter is endemic across Scotland (74.4% for rural zone 1 areas, 80.8% urban). Further, the issue is commonly observed even in lower footfall zone 3 locations and affecting 60.3% of sites across Scotland. The results also show that for a second consecutive year the proportion of sites with smoking related litter has increased both nationally and for benchmarking clubs 3 and 4. While smoking related litter was found at most sites, the majority had only a small amount, with only 2.3% of locations presenting a significant or severe presence during the 2017/18 audits. However, in high density footfall areas, this number increases to 6% in zone 1 sites and 3.5% in zone 2. Encouragingly, for town/city centre locations, these figures represent a second consecutive marginal improvement on the previous year. While there are positive national figures, for fourteen local authorities significant smoking related litter has increased since last year by more than three percentage points and a number of authorities have more than one in five zone 1 sites affected. Litter items that are generally more visible, but less widespread, include food and drink packaging. These items were commonly observed across Scotland (drinks 41.6%, confectionery 49.4% and fast food 17.3%). As expected, in areas with higher footfall or busy roads these items are more common. Food and drink packaging was found between 78.2% and 87.1% of sites audited in these areas (zones 1, 2 and 6).


Overall2017/18 48.8% (7.2%) 63.3% (13.4%) 58.4% (4.6%) 67.9% (4.1%) 60.1% (6.5%)

2016/17 41.6% (2.4%) 49.9% (0.9%) 53.8% (2%) 63.8% (5.1%) 53.6% (1.7%)

2015/16 44.0% 50.8% 51.8% 58.7% 51.9%

Zone 12017/18 74.4% (0.6%) 79.7% (6.2%) 75.7% (1.2%) 80.8% (0.6%) 78.2% (0.9%)

2016/17 75.0% (8.6%) 73.5% (1.4%) 74.5% (8.5%) 81.4% (6.9%) 77.3% (0.5%)

2015/16 83.6% 72.1% 83.0% 74.5% 77.8%

Zone 22017/18 69.9% (8%) 76.8% (11.3%) 66.2% (1.4%) 75.1% (5.6%) 72.9% (6.1%)

2016/17 61.9% (0.4%) 65.5% (0.8%) 64.8 (0.6%) 69.5% (0.7%) 66.8% (0.3%)

2015/16 62.3% 66.3% 64.2% 68.8% 66.5%

Zone 32017/18 58.3% (12.5%) 60.0% (16.1%) 59.0% (5.8%) 63.1% (3.9%) 60.3% (9%)

2016/17 45.8% (3.6%) 43.9% (2.4%) 53.2% (5.5%) 59.2% (5.6%) 51.3% (1.7%)

2015/16 49.4% 46.3% 47.7% 53.6% 49.6%

Table 7: Comparison of smoking related results (%) overall, by land type, national and benchmarking club



21

Significant / severe

Drinks Confectionery Fast foodFood and drink

packaging

Overall2017/18 4.5% (1.1%) 2.4% (0.5%) 1.2% (0.1%) 6% (1.8%)

2016/17 3.4% (1.4%) 1.9% (0.8%) 1.1% (0.3%) 4.2% (1.7%)

2015/16 2% 1.1% 0.8% 2.5%

Zone 12017/18 5.9% (0.9%) 4.4% (1.8%) 2.8% (1.2%) 8.7% (2.7%)

2016/17 5% (1.9%) 2.6% (0.7%) 1.6% (0.1%) 6% (1.1%)

2015/16 3.1% 1.9% 1.7% 4.9%

Zone 22017/18 8.6% (3.1%) 4.3% (0.9%) 2.1% (0.1%) 11.2% (3.5%)

2016/17 5.5% (0.8%) 3.4% (1.2%) 2% (0.1%) 7.7% (2%)

2015/16 4.7% 2.2% 1.9% 5.7%

Zone 62017/18 0% (10.5%) 3.2% (0.6%) 0% (0%) 3.2% (7.3%)

2016/17 10.5% (3.8%) 2.6% (2.6%) 0% (9.5%) 10.5% (3.8%)

2015/16 14.3% 0% 9.5% 14.3%

The results suggest that for the second consecutive year, food and drink packaging litter has become more widespread, overall by almost 13 percentage points since 2016/17. There are also indications that these types of litter are more visible, with significant presence increasing by almost two percentage points since last year, from 4.2% to 6%. This is replicated in high footfall zone 1 and 2 locations but the opposite is observed along zone 6 roadside verges, with significant presence levels dropping for the second consecutive year, from 14.3% in 2015/16 to 3.2% in the current audit year.

Overall

Drinks Confectionery Fast foodFood and drink

packaging

Overall2017/18 41.6% (3.2%) 49.4% (12.2%) 17.3% (8.4%) 65.7% (12.9%)

2016/17 38.4% (6.1%) 37.2% (7%) 8.9% (1.2%) 52.8% (7.1%)

2015/16 32.3% 30.2% 7.7% 45.7%

Zone 12017/18 50.6% (6.4%) 64.4% (19.6%) 25.3% (10.4%) 79.9% (20%)

2016/17 44.2% (7.9%) 44.8% (7.5%) 14.9% (5.2%) 59.9% (7.5%)

2015/16 36.3% 37.3% 9.7% 52.4%

Zone 22017/18 53.2% (2%) 62.2% (8.5%) 24.7% (9.2%) 78.2% (5.9%)

2016/17 51.2% (5.2%) 53.7% (10.2%) 15.5% (2.7%) 72.3% (10%)

2015/16 46.0% 43.5% 12.8% 62.3%

Zone 62017/18 83.9% (10.2%) 48.4% (6.9%) 32.3% (3.4%) 87.1% (8.2%)

2016/17 73.7% (2.5%) 55.3% (2.9%) 28.9% (0.3%) 78.9% (2.7%)

2015/16 76.2% 52.4% 28.6% 76.2%

Table 8: Comparison of food and drink packaging litter (%), overall for the last three yearsfor past three years

Table 9: Comparison of food and drink packaging litter (%), significant / severe for the last three years



% sites with smoking litter (Overall)

% sites with drink litter (Overall)

% sites with confectionery litter (Overall)

% sites with fast food litter (Overall)

% sites with smoking litter (Zone 1)

% sites with drink litter (Zone 6)

% sites with confectionery litter (Zone 6)

% sites with fast food litter (Zone 6)

Figure 9: Litter type statistics (%) since 2007/8

Dog fouling2017/18 has seen the highest proportion of sites affected by dog fouling recorded for the last ten years. With 11% of sites audited recording a presence, this is more than a three percentage point increase on last year. This is a trend which is continuing from previous years, and the issue appears to be more acute within urban authorities, affecting around one in seven sites compared to around one in twelve for club 2 (mixed urban and rural).

A high proportion of sites with dog fouling continues to be within high density residential footpaths and adjacent verges (zone 2), with almost one in six sites recording a presence. Town/city centre locations in urban authorities areas recorded almost one in five sites with dog fouling, which is significantly higher than for other clubs with this land type.

Table 10: Comparison of sites affected by dog fouling (%) for past three years


Overall2017/18 9.3% (3.2%) 8.4% (2.7%) 11.5% (2.5%) 13.9% (4.4%) 11.0% (3.2%)

2016/17 6.1% (0.3%) 5.7% (0.9%) 9.0% (0.6%) 9.5% (1.5%) 7.8% (0.7%)

2015/16 5.8% 6.6% 9.6% 11.0% 8.5%

Zone 12017/18 7.6% (2.7%) 11.3% (6.2%) 11.3% (3.7%) 19.0% (7%) 13.4% (5%)

2016/17 4.9% (2.2%) 5.1% (6%) 7.6% (2%) 12.0% (2.1%) 8.4% (2.7%)

2015/16 7.1% 11.1% 9.6% 14.1% 11.1%

Zone 22017/18 15.1% (1.2%) 11.3% (3.5%) 15.0% (3.8%) 18.1% (4.3%) 15.9% (3.7%)

2016/17 13.9% (4.2%) 7.8% (1.6%) 11.2% (5.6%) 13.8% (1.2%) 12.2% (1.6%)

2015/16 9.7% 9.4% 16.8% 15.0% 13.8%

Zone 32017/18 11.3% (4.5%) 7.8% (2.2%) 11.6% (2.2%) 11.1% (3.7%) 10.4% (3.1%)

2016/17 6.8% (0.4%) 5.6% (0.1%) 9.4% (1.2%) 7.4% (1.9%) 7.3% (0.4%)

2015/16 7.2% 5.7% 8.2% 9.3% 7.7%

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18

Year



23

For eighteen authorities, in residential areas (zones 2 and 3), the proportion of sites affected by dog fouling has increased by more than three percentage points since last year, with six other authorities showing a marginal increase. Of concern, sixteen authorities recorded dog fouling on average at more than one in ten sites, ranging from 10.5% to 31.1% of sites.

0

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18

Figure 10: Dog fouling statistics (%) since 2007/8

% sites with dog fouling (Overall)

% sites with dog fouling (Zone 2)



Year



0 - 2%

2 - 5%

5 - 10%

10 - 20%

Above 20%

No Information

Figure 11: Dog fouling statistics (%) for residential areas (zones 2 and 3) by local authority in 2017/18

Litter binsWhile the majority of the litter bins audited were found to be well serviced, the results suggest improvements could be made in how often they are emptied, with over one in ten bins deemed to be either at capacity or overflowing.



25

0 - 2%

2 - 5%

5 - 10%

10 - 20%

Above 20%

No Information

Figure 12: Significant weed growth statistics by local authority in 2017/18

Weed growth

Overall, almost half of all sites had weed growth (45.3%). This issue is becoming more widespread, with 35.6% of sites affected in 2015/16 and 38.4% in 2016/17. Generally, the weed growth had a minimal impact on the area. However, almost one in ten sites were significantly impacted (9.4%) and this has increased from 6.1% in 2015/16 and 7.1% in 2016/17.



Discounting roadside areas, weed growth is a much more common issue where people live, with 56.8% of sites affected in high density residential areas, and almost one in five sites (18.9%) significantly affected. 56.3% of low density residential sites are also affected with 16.2% affected significantly. In high priority town centre locations, where mechanical sweeping is more frequent, weed growth is less of an issue - 32.1% of sites had weed growth and 8% had a significant amount.

Figure 13 shows that there are a substantial number of pedestrian sites (zones 1 to 3) affected by weed growth across local authorities in Scotland. Between 23.3% and 82.6% had weed growth and between 1.3% and 23% with significant observations.

For 22 authorities, significant weed growth has increased in pedestrianised areas since 2016/17, with 15 by more than three percentage points. For ten local authorities, this represents a second year with a consecutive increase.


Overall2017/18 42.5% (3.2%) 53.8% (12%) 38.5% (3.6%) 46.6% (8.7%) 45.3% (6.9%)

2016/17 39.3% (3.2%) 41.8% (12.6%) 34.9% (6.3%) 37.9% (5.5%) 38.4% (2.8%)

2015/16 36.1% 29.2% 28.6% 43.4% 35.6%


2017/18 10.0% (1.4%) 7.8% (2.2%) 8.4% (4%) 10.5% (1.8%) 9.4% (2.3%)

2016/17 8.6% (0.2%) 5.6% (2.2%) 4.4% (0.6%) 8.7% (1.1%) 7.1% (1%)

2015/16 8.4% 3.4% 3.8% 7.6% 6.1%

Table 11: Comparison of sites affected by weed growth (%) by benchmarking club and nationally for past three years

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% sites with weed growth (Club 1)




% sites with weed growth (Severe)

Figure 13: Range of authority results for overall presence vs significant weed growth



27

0 - 2%

2 - 5%

5 - 10%

10 - 20%

Above 20%

No Information

Figure 14: Significant detritus statistics by local authority in 2015/16

Detritus

Overall, half of all sites had detritus (50.3%). Mirroring weed growth results, this represents a continuing increase which shows that the issue is becoming more widespread (45% of sites were affected in 2015/16 and 47.3% in 2016/17). While the majority were deemed to have a low impact on the area, one in ten sites were significantly impacted (9.9%) and this is a continuing marginal impact increase, from 8.9% in 2015/16 and 9.1% last year.

Discounting roadside areas, detritus is a much more common issue where people live, with 57.6% of the sites affected in high density residential areas, and 12.5% with a significant amount. 53.2% of low density residential areas were also affected, with 10.3% affected significantly. In town centre locations, where mechanical sweeping is more frequent, detritus is less of an issue, with 43.8% affected sites and 6.4% significantly.




Overall2017/18 45.7% (1.7%) 60.5% (9.4%) 42.8% (0.1%) 52.4% (2.6%) 50.3% (3%)

2016/17 44% (1.8%) 51.1% (8.9%) 42.7% (4.6%) 49.8% (0.5%) 47.3% (2.3%)

2015/16 45.8% 42.2% 38.1% 50.3% 45.0%


2017/18 11.4% (0.2%) 9.1% (3.5%) 6.7% (0.8%) 11.4% (0.6%) 9.9% (0.8%)

2016/17 11.2% (0.5%) 5.6% (0.6%) 5.9% (1.1%) 12% (2.5%) 9.1% (0.2%)

2015/16 11.7% 6.2% 7% 9.5% 8.9%

Table 12: Comparison of sites affected by detritus (%) by benchmarking club and nationally for past three years

Figure 15 shows that there are a substantial number of pedestrian sites (zones 1 to 3) affected by detritus across local authorities in Scotland. Affected sites ranged from 19.5% to 80.2% for overall presence and from 1.1% to 19.5% for significant amounts.

For 21 authorities, significant detritus has increased in pedestrianised areas since last year, with ten by more than three percentage points. For nine local authorities, this represents a second consecutive increase.

% sites with detritus (Club 1)


% sites with detritus (Club 3) %


sites with detritus (Significant/severe)

Figure 15: Range of authority results for overall presence vs significant detritus

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



29

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18

% sites with weed growth (Overall)

% sites with detritus (Overall)

% sites with weed growth (Significant/severe)

% sites with detritus (Significant/severe)

Figure 16: Statistics for sweeping indicators since 2007/8

Detritus obscuring road markings

Year



Section 4: Results – the wider local environmental qualityGraffitiThe results indicate that over the last three years, the proportion of sites affected by graffiti has risen. However, it is not a widespread issue and continues to be a localised problem, mostly affecting urban centres.

To highlight this, graffiti was recorded at 5% of all sites audited, but at 9% of zone 1 sites. This increases to one in six (16.6%) in urban authority zone 1 areas, where it is a much more noticeable problem. In most cases, the graffiti is tags on utility boxes and street furniture. Only a small proportion of recorded graffiti was more widespread at the site (only 1% of all sites audited) but again, more in zone 1 urban authority areas, with 6.9% of sites affected more significantly.


Overall2017/18 1.9% (1.2%) 2.7% (2.7%) 4.1% (1.2%) 9.7% (3.3%) 5% (1.6%)

2016/17 0.7% (1.3%) 5.4% (3.8%) 2.9% (1.4%) 6.4% (0.5%) 3.4% (0.3%)

2015/16 2.0% 1.6% 1.5% 5.9% 3.1%


2017/18 0.2% (0.1%) 0.8% (0.5%) 0.6% (0.2%) 1.9% (1.1%) 1% (0.6%)

2016/17 0.1% (0%) 0.3% (0.1%) 0.4% (0.1%) 0.8% (0%) 0.4% (0%)

2015/16 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.4%

Zone 12017/18 3.5% (2.4%) 4.1% (1.7%) 5.6% (1.4%) 16.6% (3.6%) 9.0% (1.4%)

2016/17 1.1% (6.3%) 2.4% (3.6%) 4.2% (0.9%) 13.0% (0.5%) 7.6% (1.2%)

2015/16 7.4% 6.0% 3.3% 13.5% 8.8%


2017/18 0.3% (0.3%) 2.1% (1.9%) 1.4% (0.3%) 6.9% (5.3%) 3.4% (2.4%)

2016/17 0% (0.3%) 0.2% (1.9%) 1.1% (0.7%) 1.6% (0.3%) 1.0% (0.3%)

2015/16 0.3% 2.1% 0.4% 1.9% 1.3%

Zone 22017/18 4.4% (2.4%) 4.9% (3.9%) 8.3% (3.7%) 14.3% (3.9%) 10.2% (3.4%)

2016/17 2.0% (1.2%) 1.0% (0.5%) 4.6% (0.9%) 10.4% (0.8%) 6.8% (0.8%)

2015/16 3.2% 0.5% 3.7% 9.6% 6.0%


2017/18 0.8% (0.8%) 0.9% (0.9%) 1.2% (0.4%) 1.9% (0.3%) 1.4% (0.4%)

2016/17 0% (0.5%) 0% (0%) 0.8% (0.4%) 1.6% (0.2%) 1.0% (0.1%)

2015/16 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 1.4% 0.9%

Table 13: Comparison of sites affected by graffiti (%) by benchmarking club and nationally for past three years



31

0 - 2%

2 - 5%

5 - 10%

10 - 20%

Above 20%

No Information

Figure 17: Graffiti statistics for high priority zone 1 areas by local authority in 2017/18



VandalismVandalism continues to be a minor issue across Scotland. Only 1.4% of sites recorded any indication of vandalism and most of these were found to be minor and with little impact on the area. Etching on street furniture (particularly bus shelters) is the most common form of vandalism.

FlypostingAs expected, illegal advertising is mainly seen in urbanised town/city centre areas. While nationally, only 3% of sites had flyposting (an increase from 1.6% in 2016/17), this rose to 12.2% in urban zone 1 areas (an increase from 7.3% last year).

In most cases, the flyposting was deemed not to be overly noticeable in the area, mainly stickers and single A4 size advertising on street furniture and walls. Only 0.3% of sites (and 2.2% of urban zone 1 sites), recorded a significant visible issue.

Table 14: Comparison of sites affected by vandalism (%) by benchmarking club and nationally for past three years

Table 15: Comparison of sites affected by flyposting (%) by benchmarking club and nationally for past three years


Overall2017/18 0.8% (0.3%) 1.3% (0.6%) 1.9% (0.9%) 1.6% (0.7%) 1.4% (0.6%)

2016/17 0.5% (0.3%) 0.7% (0.1%) 1% (0.4%) 0.9% (0.2%) 0.8% (0%)

2015/16 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% 0.8%


2017/18 0.1% (0%) 0.5% (0.3%) 0.4% (0.2%) 0.3% (0.2%) 0.3% (0.1%)

2016/17 0.1% (0%) 0.2% (0.1%) 0.2% (0.1%) 0.1% (0%) 0.2% (0.1%)

2015/16 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%


Overall2017/18 1.7% (0.5%) 1.5% (0.8%) 2.5% (0.9%) 5.4% (2.7%) 3.0% (1.4%)

2016/17 1.2% (0.1%) 0.7% (0.2%) 1.6% (0.7%) 2.7% (1%) 1.6% (0.6%)

2015/16 1.1% 0.5% 0.9% 1.7% 1.0%


2017/18 0.1% (0.1%) 0.2% (0.2%) 0.2% (0.2%) 0.5% (0.4%) 0.3% (0.2%)

2016/17 0.2% (0.1%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0.1% (0.1%) 0.1% (0.1%)

2015/16 0.1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Zone 12017/18 7.3% (5.8%) 3.8% (1.8%) 7.7% (4.3%) 12.2% (4.9%) 8.6% (4.3%)

2016/17 1.5% (0.3%) 2.0% (0.8%) 3.4% (0.1%) 7.3% (2.2%) 4.3% (0.8%)

2015/16 1.2% 2.8% 3.3% 5.1% 3.5%


2017/18 0.6% (0.6%) 0.3% (0.3%) 2.1% (2.1%) 2.2% (2%) 1.5% (1.4%)

2016/17 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0.2% (0.2%) 0.1% (0.1%)

2015/16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%



33

FlytippingOnly a small proportion of sites recorded flytipping in 2017/18, with 3.2% of sites recording flytipping, which is an increase from 2.3% last year. Most were found to be single items or bags and only 0.5% of sites with flytipping were more extensively affecting the area.

Table 16: Comparison of sites affected by flytipping (%) by benchmarking club and nationally for past three years


Overall2017/18 1.9% (0.7%) 1.3% (0.3%) 5.3% (2.2%) 4.1% (0.7%) 3.2% (0.9%)

2016/17 1.2% (0.1%) 1.0% (0.2%) 3.1% (1%) 3.4% (0.4%) 2.3% (0.1%)

2015/16 1.1% 1.2% 2.1% 3.8% 2.2%


2017/18 0.4% (0.2%) 0.3% (0.1%) 0.6% (0.4%) 0.6% (0.1%) 0.5% (0.2%)

2016/17 0.2% (0.1%) 0.2% (0%) 0.2% (0.1%) 0.7% (0.1%) 0.3% (0.1%)

2015/16 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.8% 0.4%

Zones 1 to 3

2017/18 2.1% (1%) 1.2% (0.3%) 4.9% (3.2%) 4.1% (0.8%) 3.2% (1%)

2016/17 1.1% (0.3%) 0.9% (0.2%) 1.7% (0%) 3.3% (0.3%) 2.2% (0.2%)

2015/16 0.8% 1.1% 1.7% 3.6% 2.0%


2017/18 0.3% (0.1%) 0.2% (0.1%) 0.4% (0.4%) 0.6% (0%) 0.4% (0.1%)

2016/17 0.2% (0.1%) 0.1% (0.1%) 0% (0.2%) 0.6% (0.1%) 0.3% (0.1%)

2015/16 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.4%

Zones 4,6 and 7

2017/18 1.8% (0.3%) 3.3% (0.6%) 9.3% (0.1%) 5.0% (0.3%) 3.7% (0.1%)

2016/17 1.5% (0.4%) 2.7% (0.3%) 9.4% (3.3%) 5.3% (2%) 3.8% (0.4%)

2015/16 1.9% 2.4% 6.1% 7.3% 3.4%


2017/18 0.7% (0.7%) 1.1% (1.1%) 2.2% (1.2%) 1.7% (0.5%) 1.1% (0.6%)

2016/17 0% (0.2%) 0% (0%) 1.0% (0.1%) 2.2% (1.5%) 0.5% (0.3%)

2015/16 0.2% 0% 1.1% 3.7% 0.8%

There is very little difference between flytipping in pedestrian areas (3.2% in zones 1 to 3) in comparison to roadside verges (3.7% in zones 4, 6 and 7) with the exception that on roadside verges, significant illegally dumped waste was slightly more common (0.4% compared to 1.1%).

Household waste flytipped at street end



StainingSince 2016/17, sites with staining on footpaths has increased. Most staining was from chewing gum that had adhered to the hard standing areas. In Scotland, one in ten sites had footpath staining, with most found to have only a small impact on the quality of the local area. However, in town centre locations, as expected, staining was more commonly observed, at 27.6% of sites, with 8.9% of locations having a more visible impact.

Table 17: Comparison of sites affected by staining (%) by benchmarking club and nationally for past three years

Gum staining, commonly observed in high priority zone 1 locations

Going against the general trend of the wider local environmental quality issues having a higher impact in urban authority areas, staining was more evenly distributed across all benchmarking club groups. Twenty five local authorities saw an increase in the amount of staining in high priority zone 1 areas (over three percentage points since last year).


Overall2017/18 12.6% (4.8%) 6.9% (1.4%) 11.0% (3.4%) 10.0% (3.7%) 10.2% (3.4%)

2016/17 7.8% (4.8%) 5.5% (0.9%) 7.6% (3.2%) 6.3% (1.1%) 6.8% (1.1%)

2015/16 12.6% 6.4% 4.4% 7.4% 7.9%


2017/18 2.0% (1%) 1.2% (0.7%) 1.4% (1.2%) 1.8% (1%) 1.6% (0.9%)

2016/17 1.0% (0.3%) 0.5% (0.2%) 0.2% (0.3%) 0.8% (0.1%) 0.7% (0.2%)

2015/16 1.3% 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9%

Zone 12017/18 29.7% (9.9%) 25.8% (6.1%) 28.9% (6.8%) 26.6% (9.9%) 27.6% (8.7%)

2016/17 19.8% (11.4%) 19.7% (0.8%) 22.1% (5.1%) 16.7% (3.5%) 18.9% (16.1%)

2015/16 31.2% 20.5% 17.0% 20.2% 2.8%


2017/18 8.2% (5.6%) 7.9% (5.5%) 10.6% (7.6%) 9.0% (6.2%) 8.9% (6.2%)

2016/17 2.6% (3.3%) 2.4% (1.1%) 3.0% (0.8%) 2.8% (0.4%) 2.7% (1.9%)

2015/16 5.9% 3.5% 2.2% 3.2% %0.8



35

Section 5: ConclusionThis LEAMS Benchmarking report 2017/18 highlights that, once again, the environmental quality of the places where we live, work and travel has declined. The reasons for this decline are complex and there are many factors which play a part in the issue. Local authority budget cuts are obviously one aspect of the problem, and one which is not likely to change in the immediate future. However, there are other factors which are also having an impact – an increase in packaging, particularly single-use disposable food and drinks items, population dense communities and challenges associated with community cohesion.

Encouragingly, this report also shows that some local authorities are managing to maintain or improve standards from 2016/17 into 2017/18, so the sharing of best practice and benchmarking is clearly of benefit to all and provides opportunities for learning and improvements to be made.

Alongside these, our 2016 report, Scotland’s Local Environmental Quality in Decline, and our update report in 2017, both show that local environmental quality is declining more severely and at a faster rate in our most deprived communities. This, in turn, effects health and well-being, fear of crime and has a detrimental impact upon the local economy.

So, in the light of these results and the complex nature of all the factors involved, the question is, how do we stop this decline in our environmental quality standards with less resources?

There is no easy answer to this problem. The litter prevention approach, as set out in Scotland’s National Litter Strategy, will only be effective if we all work together – local authorities, communities and businesses – to develop a strategic, realistic and achievable approach to break this downwards trend.

With this in mind, Keep Scotland Beautiful will make every effort to develop programmes that can support all stakeholders in achieving clean, green and sustainable local environments.

This year’s LEAMS audit highlights some expected and continuing trends:

Urban areas tend to observe the highest proportion of issues.

Cigarette ends are the most common litter type.

Food and drink packaging litter is common, particularly along roadside verges.

Weed growth and detritus are becoming a more visible detractor from good environmental quality.

Graffiti, flyposting and gum staining are not uncommon in town/city centre areas.

The general public are the main source of litter in the environment.

Dog fouling is an issue in high density residential areas.



Section 6: Moving forward

For Keep Scotland BeautifulContinue to work with Zero Waste Scotland, APSE, CoSLA, SOLACE, the Improvement Service and local authorities to ensure the LEAMS programme aligns with the new Code of Practice and helps achieve the ambitions set out in the Scottish Government’s National Litter Strategy: Towards a Litter Free Scotland.

Develop and grow the LEQ Network for all stakeholders as a place to raise awareness of local issues, share good practice and find practical solutions in partnership.

Develop and deliver national campaigns and materials to support local authorities and other stakeholders in their litter prevention activities.

Develop additional training modules covering changes in the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (2018) Scotland.

Develop a support programme for local authorities, communities and other stakeholders in developing their Litter Prevention Action Plans.

Engage with Scottish Government to encourage a strategic focus on LEQ and continue prioritising the national litter strategy: Towards a Litter Free Scotland, and its prevention focus which will require investment in longer term actions to sustain behaviour change. Given the decline in standards in recent years it will be important to monitor the effectiveness of the strategy over the coming months and years.

For local authoritiesWhile the national results depict general decline in local environmental quality, there is also evidence that some incivilities are being successfully managed at a local level. Therefore, it is of value to examine the results in this report and seek to engage with those authorities that are consistently scoring above the benchmarking club average to share best practice.

Take the opportunity to attend the LEAMS seminar for networking with local authorities and other stakeholders in local environmental quality. The theme for 2018 is showcasing successful partnership working for practical solutions to common LEQ issues.

Engage with the Clean Up Scotland and Roadside Litter campaigns as an effective method of convincing local communities to preserve the cleanliness and the quality of the environment.



37

Appendix 1: Key Stats

99%of sites with litter, the general public are a

contributor.

87%of main roads have food

and drink packaging litter.

83% of all sites audited are

affected by litter.

3 out of 4 town/city centres have smoking-related litter.

Over halfof local authorities

see increase in significantly littered

sites.

1 in 6footpaths and verges in high density areas have

dog fouling.



Appendix 2: Benchmarking tables

Local authority 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16

Aberdeenshire 92.8% (3.9%) 96.6% (2.3%) 94.3%

Argyll and Bute 93.5% (1.7%) 95.2% (6.9%) 88.3%

Dumfries and Galloway 96.5% (0.4%) 96.1% (1%) 97.1%

Eilean Siar 97.7% (2.8%) 94.9% (2.1%) 97.0%

Highland 93.9% (0.9%) 94.8% (1.9%) 92.9%

Orkney Islands 98.2% (1.2%) 99.4% (0.7%) 98.7%

Scottish Borders 97.5% (7.3%) 90.3% (2.8%) 93.1%

Shetland Islands 94.0% (2.3%) 96.3% (0.5%) 95.8%

Club 1 94.9% (0.6%) 95.5% (2%) 93.5%%

East Ayrshire 91.7% (4.2%) 95.9% (0.7%) 95.2%

East Lothian 94.5% (3.4%) 91.1% (5.3%) 85.8%

Fife 95.1% (1%) 96.1% (1.8%) 97.9%

North Ayrshire 92.2% (1.6%) 90.6% (5.2%) 95.8%

Perth and Kinross 94.0% (4.2%) 98.2% (1.1%) 97.1%

South Ayrshire 94.8% (0.2%) 95.0% (0.7%) 94.3%

Stirling 95.2% (0.5%) 95.7% (1.7%) 94.0%

Club 2 94.1% (0.9%) 95% (0.6%) 95.6%

Angus 91.1% (3.3%) 94.4% (1.1%) 95.5%

Clackmannanshire 93.5% (1.2%) 94.7% (1.9%) 96.6%

East Renfrewshire 94.4% (0.5%) 94.9% (3.3%) 91.6%

Inverclyde 87.1% (7.2%) 94.3% (0.1%) 94.4%

Midlothian 96.0% (2.7%) 98.7% (0%) 98.7%

Renfrewshire 90.5% (0.8%) 91.3% (3.4%) 87.9%

South Lanarkshire 95.5% (0.8%) 96.3% (1.6%) 97.9%

West Lothian 93.4% (1.9%) 91.5% (1.6%) 93.1%

Club 3 93.2% (0.9%) 94.1% (0.4%) 94.5%

Aberdeen City 85.8% (2.2%) 88.0% (7%) 81.0%

Dundee City 89.3% (3%) 92.3% (4.1%) 96.4%

East Dunbartonshire 92.2% (0.1%) 92.3% (4.1%) 88.2%

City of Edinburgh 88.7% (3.7%) 92.4% (2.3%) 90.1%

Falkirk 89.5% (5%) 94.5% (0.7%) 95.2%

Glasgow City 87.5% (3.2%) 90.7% (1%) 91.7%

North Lanarkshire 88.3% (4.9%) 93.2% (0.4%) 92.8%

West Dunbartonshire 86.5% (6.5%) 93.0% (0.6%) 92.4%

Club 4 88.3% (3.7%) 92.0% (0.7%) 91.3%

National 92.2% (1.7%) 93.9% (0.5%) 93.4%

Street cleanliness scores (%) for each local authority for previous three years



39

Comparison of significant smoking related litter (%) in zone 1 areas for past three years

Local authority 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16

Aberdeenshire 5.1% (0.2%) 5.3% (2.4%) 7.7%

Argyll and Bute 4.8% (2.5%) 7.3% (9.5%) 16.8%

Dumfries and Galloway 17.6% (11.7%) 5.9% (8.4%) 14.3%

Eilean Siar 10.0% (6.9%) 3.1% (3.4%) 6.5%

Highland 9.7% (6.0%) 3.7% (34.2%) 37.9%

Orkney Islands 3.1% (3.1%) 0.0% (3%) 3.0%

Scottish Borders 0.0% (3%) 3.0% (8.1%) 11.1%

Shetland Islands 12.1% (8.8%) 3.3% (10%) 13.3%

Club 1 7.3% (3.2%) 4.1% (10.1%) 14.2%

East Ayrshire 3.3% (16.1%) 19.4% (3.9%) 23.3%

East Lothian 3.3% (3.3%) 0.0% (0%) 0.0%

Fife 2.7% (1.5%) 4.2% (3.2%) 1.0%

North Ayrshire 10.0% (6.6%) 3.4% (6.9%) 10.3%


South Ayrshire 19.0% (16.1%) 2.9% (0.4%) 3.3%

Stirling 5.0% (5%) 0.0% (8.1%) 8.1%

Club 2 5.5% (0.6%) 4.4% (2.5%) 6.9%

Angus 8.6% (9.3%) 17.9% (5.4%) 12.5%

Clackmannanshire 9.7% (0.9%) 8.8% (5%) 13.8%

East Renfrewshire 3.3% (7%) 10.3% (10.4%) 20.7%

Inverclyde 22.9% (16.4%) 6.5% (6.4%) 12.9%

Midlothian 10.0% (2.3%) 7.7% (7.7%) 0.0%

Renfrewshire 2.0% (4.9%) 6.9% (2.4%) 9.3%


West Lothian 4.4% (9.6%) 14.0% (14%) 0

Club 3 7.7% (1.4%) 9.1% (0.2%) 8.9%

Aberdeen City 10.5% (6.6%) 17.1% (0.4%) 16.7%

Dundee City 2.9% (6.5%) 9.4% (9.4%) 0

East Dunbartonshire 9.1% (22.6%) 31.7% (9%) 22.7%


Falkirk 5.0% (1.6%) 3.4% (0.5%) 2.9%

Glasgow City 0.8% (5.8%) 6.6% (0.5%) 6.1%



Club 4 4.6% (2.2%) 6.8% (0.9%) 7.7%

National 6.0% (1%) 7.0% (2.3%) 9.3%



Comparison of dog fouling (%) in residential areas (zones 2 and 3) for past three years

Local authority 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16

Aberdeenshire 9.8% (5.5%) 4.3% (0.5%) 3.8%

Argyll and Bute 12.5% (3.3%) 9.2% (0.8%) 10.0%

Dumfries and Galloway 10.9% (2.3%) 8.6% (4%) 12.6%

Eilean Siar 6.3% (2.3%) 8.6% (8.6%) 0.0%

Highland 10.5% (2%) 8.5% (5.9%) 2.6%

Orkney Islands 1.2% (1.2%) 0% (0%) 0.0%


Shetland Islands 7% (4%) 3% (4.8%) 7.8%

Club 1 12% (4.1%) 7.9% (0.3%) 7.6%

East Ayrshire 31.1% (5.3%) 25.8% (1.2%) 24.6%

East Lothian 9.4% (3.7%) 5.7% (0.4%) 6.1%

Fife 5.2% (2.8%) 2.4% (0.4%) 2.8%

North Ayrshire 4.2% (4%) 8.2% (2%) 6.2%

Perth and Kinross 3.8% (0.6%) 3.2% (1%) 2.2%

South Ayrshire 13.4% (11.1%) 2.3% (0%) 2.3%

Stirling 2.9% (1.5%) 1.4% (3.4%) 4.8%

Club 2 8.4% (2.5%) 5.9% (0.3%) 6.2%

Angus 15.2% (4.2%) 11% (3.2%) 14.2%

Clackmannanshire 7.1% (2%) 5.1% (2.2%) 2.9%

East Renfrewshire 9.9% (4.1%) 5.8% (2.9%) 2.9%

Inverclyde 10.8% (9.6%) 1.2% (3.4%) 4.6%

Midlothian 11.4% (8.5%) 2.9% (5.6%) 8.5%

Renfrewshire 14.9% (5.7%) 9.2% (7.6%) 16.8%


West Lothian 5.3% (3.7%) 1.6% (0.3%) 1.3%

Club 3 12.3% (2.5%) 9.8% (0.1%) 9.9%

Aberdeen City 15.2% (6.3%) 8.9% (3.7%) 12.6%

Dundee City 14.1% (1.6%) 12.5% (1.2%) 13.7%

East Dunbartonshire 2.3% (2%) 4.3% (0.6%) 4.9%


Falkirk 4.1% (5.5%) 9.6% (7.4%) 2.2%

Glasgow City 26.4% (4.6%) 21.8% (2%) 19.8%



Club 4 13.7% (4.4%) 9.3% (1%) 11.2%

National 11.8% (3.4%) 8.4% (0.6%) 9%



41

Comparison of significant weed growth on footpaths (zones 1, 2 and 3) for past three years

Local authority 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16

Aberdeenshire 14% (9.0%) 5% (1.6%) 6.6%

Argyll and Bute 12.9% (9.2%) 3.7% (5.3%) 9.0%

Dumfries and Galloway 23% (10.1%) 12.9% (0.7%) 12.2%

Eilean Siar 5.3% (1.4%) 3.9% (0%) 3.9%

Highland 12.6% (1.2%) 13.8% (4.8%) 9.0%

Orkney Islands 1.8% (0%) 1.8% (2.7%) 4.5%



Club 1 12.7% (3.2%) 9.5% (0.8%) 10.3%

East Ayrshire 1.3% (0.4%) 1.7% (0%) 1.7%

East Lothian 4.8% (3.7%) 1.1% (3.7%) 4.8%

Fife 9.6% (0.3%) 9.3% (7.5%) 1.8%

North Ayrshire 7.2% (0.9%) 6.3% (0.1%) 6.2%


South Ayrshire 7.3% (5.3%) 2% (0%) 2%

Stirling 5.7% (1.7%) 4% (0.9%) 4.9%

Club 2 8% (2.3%) 5.7% (2.5%) 3.2%

Angus 7.3% (5.3%) 2% (1.6%) 3.6%


East Renfrewshire 6.5% (5%) 1.5% (1%) 0.5%

Inverclyde 14.4% (10.3%) 4.1% (0.3%) 3.8%

Midlothian 7.8% (0.9%) 8.7% (7.1%) 1.6%

Renfrewshire 8.8% (3%) 5.8% (1.1%) 4.7%


West Lothian 7.9% (5.6%) 2.3% (4.2%) 6.5%

Club 3 9% (4.3%) 4.7% (0.9%) 3.8%

Aberdeen City 8.1% (1.4%) 9.5% (3.9%) 5.6%

Dundee City 10.3% (5.2%) 5.1% (3.1%) 2.0%

East Dunbartonshire 14% (6.9%) 20.9% (0.4%) 21.3%

City of Edinburgh 8.5% (2.5%) 6% (0.9%) 6.9%

Falkirk 8.1% (0.3%) 8.4% (5.5%) 2.9%

Glasgow City 7% (3.6%) 10.6% (1.4%) 9.2%

North Lanarkshire 22% (12.3%) 9.7% (0.7%) 9.0%


Club 4 10.8% (2%) 8.8% (1.1%) 7.7%

National 10.1% (2.8%) 7.3% (0.9%) 6.4%



Comparison of significant weed detritus on footpaths (zones 1, 2 and 3) for past three years

Local authority 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16

Aberdeenshire 13.6% (3.5%) 10.1% (0%) 10.1%

Argyll and Bute 8.9% (6.9%) 2% (6.3%) 8.3%


Eilean Siar 1.1% (1.1%) 0% (1%) 1.0%

Highland 14.8% (1.8%) 16.6% (1.2%) 15.4%

Orkney Islands 2.7% (0.9%) 1.8% (1.8%) 3.6%

Scottish Borders 18% (16.4%) 34.4% (0.5%) 34.9%


Club 1 13.2% (0.8%) 12.4% (0.1%) 12.3%

East Ayrshire 4.7% (1.4%) 3.3% (2.3%) 1.0%

East Lothian 3.8% (0.3%) 3.5% (6.1%) 9.6%

Fife 8.2% (3%) 5.2% (1.1%) 6.3%

North Ayrshire 7.8% (1.2%) 6.6% (2.4%) 4.2%


South Ayrshire 9.6% (6.9%) 2.7% (3.3%) 6.0%

Stirling 11.8% (6.3%) 5.5% (10%) 15.5%

Club 2 9.4% (3.8%) 5.6% (0.6%) 6.0%

Angus 8.5% (4.4%) 4.1% (3.5%) 7.6%


East Renfrewshire 10% (2.5%) 7.5% (2%) 9.5%

Inverclyde 10.9% (3.6%) 7.3% (4%) 3.3%

Midlothian 4.4% (4.3%) 8.7% (6.1%) 2.6%

Renfrewshire 7.2% (2.1%) 9.3% (2.4%) 11.7%


West Lothian 4.1% (1.8%) 2.3% (11.7%) 14.0%

Club 3 6.9% (1.1%) 5.8% (1.1%) 6.9%

Aberdeen City 17.8% (2%) 15.8% (1.8%) 14.0%

Dundee City 17.4% (1.5%) 15.9% (6.2%) 9.7%


City of Edinburgh 6% (2.4%) 8.4% (1.1%) 7.3%

Falkirk 14.5% (0.9%) 15.4% (12.3%) 3.1%

Glasgow City 6.7% (0.8%) 7.5% (1.7%) 5.8%



Club 4 11.5% (0.6%) 12.1% (2.4%) 9.7%

National 10.3% (1%) 9.3% (0.5%) 8.8%



43

Comparison of graffiti in city/town centre areas for past three years

Local authority 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16

Aberdeenshire 7.7% (5.1%) 2.6% (0%) 2.6%

Argyll and Bute 2.4% (2.4%) 0% (14%) 14%

Dumfries and Galloway 8.8% (8.8%) 0% (10.7%) 10.7%

Eilean Siar 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0%

Highland 0% (3.7%) 3.7% (3.2%) 6.9%

Orkney Islands 3.1% (3.1%) 0% (3%) 3.0%

Scottish Borders 3% (3%) 0% (0%) 0%

Shetland Islands 3% (0.3%) 3.3% (3.4%) 6.7%

Club 1 3.5% (2.4%) 1.1% (6.3%) 7.4%

East Ayrshire 3.3% (3.2%) 6.5% (3.5%) 10%

East Lothian 6.7% (1.2%) 7.9% (4.6%) 3.3%

Fife 0.9% (1.2%) 2.1% (0.9%) 3.0%

North Ayrshire 3.3% (3.6%) 6.9% (6.9%) 13.8%


South Ayrshire 4.8% (1.9%) 2.9% (0.4%) 3.3%

Stirling 2.5% (0.6%) 3.1% (3.1%) 0%

Club 2 4.1% (1.3%) 5.4% (0.6%) 6%

Angus 11.4% (0.7%) 10.7% (4.4%) 6.3%

Clackmannanshire 3.2% (0.3%) 2.9% (2.9%) 0%

East Renfrewshire 6.7% (6.7%) 0% (3.4%) 3.4%

Inverclyde 2.9% (2.9%) 0% (0%) 0%

Midlothian 0% (7.7%) 7.7% (4%) 3.7%

Renfrewshire 7.8% (7.8%) 0% (4.7%) 4.7%


West Lothian 2.2% (2.5%) 4.7% (2.6%) 2.1%

Club 3 5.6% (1.4%) 4.2% (0.9%) 3.3%

Aberdeen City 23.7% (11.5%) 12.2% (4.5%) 16.7%

Dundee City 8.8% (0.6%) 9.4% (3.8%) 5.6%


City of Edinburgh 47.6% (26.2%) 21.4% (10%) 31.4%

Falkirk 10% (6.6%) 3.4% (3.4%) 0%

Glasgow City 8.9% (2.6%) 11.5% (3.4%) 14.9%


West Dunbartonshire 7.7% (7.7%) 0% (6.1%) 6.1%

Club 4 16.6% (3.6%) 13% (0.5%) 13.5%

National 9% (1.4%) 7.6% (1.2%) 8.8%



Comparison of significant staining in city/town centre areas (zone 1) for past three years

Local authority 2017/18 2016/17 2015/16

Aberdeenshire 5.1% (5.1%) 0% (0%) 0%

Argyll and Bute 0% (0%) 0% (4.7%) 4.7%


Eilean Siar 16.7% (7.3%) 9.4% (0.3%) 9.7%

Highland 6.5% (6.5%) 0% (6.9%) 6.9%

Orkney Islands 3.1% (3.1%) 0% (0%) 0%

Scottish Borders 6.1% (6.1%) 0% (0%) 0%

Shetland Islands 15.2% (11.9%) 3.3% (16.7%) 20%

Club 1 8.2% (5.6%) 2.6% (3.3%) 5.9%

East Ayrshire 13.3% (3.6%) 9.7% (0.3%) 10%

East Lothian 10% (7.4%) 2.6% (2.6%) 0%

Fife 3.6% (1.5%) 2.1% (1.1%) 1%

North Ayrshire 3.3% (3.3%) 0% (10.3%) 10.3%

Perth and Kinross 10% (7%) 3% (3%) 0%

South Ayrshire 23.8% (23.8%) 0% (10%) 10%

Stirling 7.5% (7.5%) 0% (0%) 0%

Club 2 7.9% (5.5%) 2.4% (1.1%) 3.5%

Angus 14.3% (10.7%) 3.6% (2.7%) 6.3%

Clackmannanshire 19.4% (10.6%) 8.8% (8.8%) 0%

East Renfrewshire 6.7% (0.2%) 6.9% (6.9%) 0%

Inverclyde 14.3% (7.8%) 6.5% (6.5%) 0%

Midlothian 0% (0%) 0% (0%) 0%

Renfrewshire 5.9% (5.9%) 0% (4.7%) 4.7%

South Lanarkshire 11.1% (11.1%) 0% (3.2%) 3.2%

West Lothian 13.3% (13.3%) 0% (2.1%) 2.1%

Club 3 10.6% (7.6%) 3% (0.8%) 2.2%

Aberdeen City 31.6% (19.4%) 12.2% (7.8%) 20%

Dundee City 17.6% (14.5%) 3.1% (3.1%) 0%

East Dunbartonshire 4.5% (2.8%) 7.3% (5%) 2.3%


Falkirk 30% (30%) 0% (2.9%) 2.9%

Glasgow City 0.4% (0%) 0.4% (1%) 1.4%

North Lanarkshire 29.4% (18%) 11.4% (4.5%) 6.9%

West Dunbartonshire 5.8% (5.8%) 0% (2%) 2.0%

Club 4 9% (6.2%) 2.8% (0.4%) 3.2%

National 8.9% (6.2%) 2.7% (1%) 3.7%



45

Appendix 3: Further reading

Christie Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services (June 2011)https://www.gov.scot/publications/commission-future-delivery-public-services/

Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2018 (June 2018)https://www.gov.scot/publications/code-practice-litter-refuse-scotland-2018/

Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (Scotland) 2006 (October 2006)https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2006/12/13125718/0

Towards a Litter Free Scotland: A Strategic Approach to Higher Quality Local Environments (June 2014)

https://www.gov.scot/publications/towards-litter-free-scotland-strategic-approach-higher-quality-local-environments/

Scotland’s Local Environmental Quality in Decline (January 2016)https://www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org/about-us/our-reports-and-publications/

Scotland’s Local Environmental Quality in Decline: Update (October 2017)https://www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org/about-us/our-reports-and-publications

Environmental Protection Act 1990: Section 89https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/89

NEAT Streets: Grassmarket Summary Report (January 2017)https://www.keepscotlandbeautiful.org/about-us/our-reports-and-publications/

Scotland’s Litter Problem: Quantifying the Scale and Cost of Litter and Flytipping (July 2013)https://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/litter-flytipping/scotlands-problem

Pride in Place: Tackling Environmental Incivilities (2012)https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/pride-in-place-tackling-incivilities-desk-based-research-report/

National Benchmarking Overview Report 2016/2017 (2017)http://www.improvementservice.org.uk/benchmarking/reports.html

Keep Scotland Beautiful is the charity that provides bespoke environmental services such as audits, surveys and training to help businesses, public bodies and community groups to meet their environmental commitments and responsibilities. It’s part of our work to make Scotland clean, green and sustainable.

T: 01786 471333 E: [email protected]

facebook.com/KSBScotland @KSBScotland


Keep Scotland Beautiful is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO): Number SC030332. Copyright © Keep Scotland Beautiful 2018. All rights reserved.

We support the Sustainable Development Goals.

national cleanliness benchmarking report - west lothian€¦ · audit and management system...

Documents