Many key stakeholders locally, nationally and internationally, have recognised the value of reliable information about littering in improving litter prevention and management practices. Valid performance measurement of littering is essential to efficient planning of services and for monitoring the impact of campaigns designed to reduce litter.
Strong community support for anti-littering programs has been evident for many years.
However in many areas litter remains a problem and in the main, Australian littering rates do not appear to be declining. Our understanding of litter in the environment has improved through a commitment to developing a long term approach to building an information base, the use of systematic approaches to data gathering, and the development of objective measures to provide effective indicators of how used consumer items are disposed of to become litter.
Historically, the method for assessing progress toward sustainable litter prevention programs involved visual litter surveys, which counted items on the ground. Although quick, cheap and easy to use, litter counts did not provide information on how the litter got there in the first place or on positive disposal actions such as binning or recycling.
The Beverage Industry Environment Council 1 and Community Change have been engaged in a series of long-term projects to better understand littering behaviour. What began as an emerging body of knowledge has developed into an annual benchmarking program contributing to a database now exceeding 90,000 observations. The measurement and reporting of disposal behaviour in all Australian capital cities has been occurring since 1997 as part of the Littering Behaviour Studies (LBS) series.
Australia leads the world in the development of a well established national database demonstrating that the Australian public is largely committed to doing the right thing with heir used items 2 .
One recent outcome of the LBS series has been the development of an objective measure of littering behaviour, the Disposal Behaviour Index ( DBI ). This measure enables highly accurate assessment of disposal behaviour in public places, identifying short, medium and long-term trends in both littering and positive behaviours such as binning and recycling. The measure is also valuable for evaluating the effectiveness of different litter management strategies and education and promotion programs.
1 On behalf of its member companies, Beverage Industry Environment Council has sponsored a series of Littering Behaviour
Studies (LBS) to focus national attention on litter reduction and improvements in the recovery of drink and food packaging and other reusable resources from public places
2 Community Change (1997-2003). Littering Behaviour Studies Series. Beverage Industry Environment Council. Pyrmont. See www.biec.com.au
or www.communitychange.com.au.

The annual LBS report is the only objective measure available for tracking levels of littering around Australia and progress toward effective recovery of resources from public places, as well as providing a monitor of the effectiveness of a range of government and related agencies’ anti-littering and pro–environmental initiatives in changing people’s behaviour.
A naturalistic approach to behaviour measurement - the Observational Approach ( OA ) - is used to gather information by recording details of disposal behaviour in public places as it happens. The overall aim of the OA is to provide a systematic and direct method of measuring behaviour in the actual context in which it occurs. The information it generates may then be used as a firm basis for effective decision-making in litter abatement and prevention programs.
Using the OA, annual benchmarks of littering behaviour are collected in a consistent and standardised way in a variety of sites within a location. The OA links an individual’s actual behaviour to their reported attitudes and intentions. This enables comparisons between what people say they do with their waste to what they actually do with it, thereby controlling some of the social desirability associated with self-report surveys and other judgements about littering behaviour.
The OA method uses teams of two people, one an observer and the other an interviewer.
Observers are trained in ethnographic data gathering techniques and the inconspicuous observation of people as they dispose of items in public places.
After observing a person completing a disposal behaviour - either by littering or using a bin - observers direct an interviewer to that person using a two-way radio. Interviewers are deliberately not informed about the person’s disposal behaviour and so do not know whether respondents have littered or used a bin. They are therefore less likely to be influenced by their own stereotypes or biases.
Interviewers administer a standard survey that provides information on people’s awareness of their own behaviour, as well as their attitudes about litter, anti-littering measures, and other waste minimisation initiatives designed for public places. Survey responses are linked to behavioural observations of that individual in order to examine the connection between what people said they did and how they actually behaved.
The OA is intended to gather information to help understand current attitudes and disposal behaviours without impacting or influencing the characteristics of a site.
The information obtained from observations is then statistically analysed to determine the characteristic disposal behaviours associated with various sites and is used to improve understanding of disposal behaviour patterns.
Collecting observational information in exactly the same manner enables the DBI levels for the same site type to be compared under different conditions. Once sufficient numbers of observations have been made in a site type, information representing the disposal behaviours typical of that site type can be interpreted.
The DBI level for a site summarises information recorded through the OA and reflects the amount of littering, binning, recycling and composting observed in that site. It is a

numerical representation of environmentally undesirable behaviours such as littering as well as the positive behaviours such as bin use and recycling that occurs in a site.
Table 2 summarises the descriptions of disposal behaviours typically found at each of seven levels of the DBI .
Table 1 Levels of DBI
1
DBI
Low Little use of bins, clear majority of people littering. Area is a litter “hot spot” requiring urgent attention and a priority for clean up.
2 Base High proportion of people littering with base level of bin use. Prompt action is required to bring litter rates down and to increase binning.
3
4
5
6
High
Base
Binning is greater than littering. Action is needed to create opportunities for effective recycling and to reduce littering expected behaviours.
Mid
Range
Bins used twice as much as people litter but there is potential for improved behaviour as littering can be reduced and bin use improved.
High
Mid
Sites where people clearly were Doing the Right Thing but where littering or inappropriate use of bins remains an issue to be addressed.
High Binning greatly exceeds littering and appropriate bin use occurs most of the time. Minimal action required to recover resources and prevent litter.
7 Peak Minimal littering with prominent and appropriate bin use and good potential to recover resources. Maintenance required for clean & largely litter free area.
The higher the numeric level recorded for the DBI in a location, the more positive the behaviours - people litter less, use bins more, and place the right items into the correct bins. In contrast, the lower the DBI , the greater the amount of littering, the lower the level of bin use, and the higher the contamination of bins for that site.
In sites with peak DBI levels, people seem to respond to the cleanliness of the location by taking more care with their disposal actions compared to other areas. In these peak level sites where public place recycling facilities are also provided, people will often spend a few seconds standing at bins sorting their waste to ensure that they help reduce contamination and maximise the recovery of resources .
In contrast, low-level DBI scores are found in sites that are highly littered. Many people who typically do not litter may find themselves doing so in low DBI sites because they seem to get caught up in ‘following the herd’ or herd behaviour . Low-level DBI sites often become litter accumulation points that appear to attract further littering. In these sites, immediate clean up operations are required as a priority action.
DBI scores characterise the behaviours seen in a location or site and represent different levels of achievement in the prevention of litter, the minimising of waste and the recovery of resources. They provide a basis for comparing disposal behaviour in different locations, sites, and cities.

The DBI has shown the sustained behavioural effectiveness of public place recycling facilities in areas such as Manly beach in Sydney and Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne where data has been collected since 1997. It also been used to improve the accuracy of litter hot spot analyses in many councils, particularly in Queensland, and in metropolitan
Melbourne. In addition, the DBI has improved the assessment of key performance indicators for behaviour change programs - for example, the City of Banyule’s use of street theatre to educate the community about litter. It has also been used to evaluate the effectiveness of litter management and recycling at various events including the
Grand Prix, the Sydney Olympic Games, and the Goodwill Games in Brisbane.
The use of the DBI to analyse tends in littering has been extended in recent times with:

Stakeholders adding sites to the annual LBS DBI benchmarking with separate reporting of outcomes for specific agency use if required.
Councils are looking at having best practice sites included in the annual benchmarking study.

Provision of more detailed analyses of existing information held in this comprehensive littering behaviour national database.
While the DBI is widely recognised as an informative and robust tool, particularly useful both as a national benchmark and in projects where definitive answers about littering behaviour are required, the high level of skill and resources required to implement the methodology on a consistent basis has made it prohibitive as a mass data collection method. Also, although the Observational Approach provides the most accurate assessment of behaviour, many stakeholders require systematic assessment of site and user characteristics affecting littering behaviour, as well as a basic indication of littering and binning actions. In response, a modified method has been developed as a more cost-competitive, widely available strategy.
Using this strategy, littering is considered as a product of the types of items people are using, the location in which they use them (context), location specific factors (eg, cleanliness) the individual’s motivation to control their disposal actions, the type of
BINfrastructure 3 made available for the containment of litter and recovery of resources, as well as the level of community awareness about disposal choices and the approach taken by packaging manufacturers to encourage environmentally desirable behaviour and responsible disposal of used materials.
In order to include the impact of these various factors, The Clean Communities
Assessment Tool (CCAT) was designed to provide a more holistic account of key factors in the public place environment contributing to people’s littering behaviour.
The CCAT provides a widely adaptable assessment method. It has been used in a range of sites types as the basis for a long-term evaluation of public place recycling in alpine environments, as well as being the tool selected for best practice monitoring of the effectiveness of a stormwater education program. The Victorian Litter Action Alliance
(VLAA), the Association of Bayside Municipalities, and the NSW Department of
Environment and Conservation have adopted the CCAT as a benchmarking tool for tracking improvements in littering over time.
3 BINfrastructure is a term coined by Community Change in Melbourne (2002) to describe the characteristics of public place infrastructure applying to litter, recycling and butt bins.

Local litter management information from CCAT ratings assists regional coordinators and location managers with the efficient planning of services and in charting the impact of strategies and programs designed to reduce litter at the local level. In areas where litter prevention and resource recovery programs are not working well, the CCAT can also identify highest leverage points – that is, those areas with the greatest likelihood of behaviour change and reduction of litter on the ground if improved.
The CCAT comprises assessments of a number of features of public spaces contributing to a clean environment. It reflects what happens in a location and identifies the effectiveness of facilities and community attitudes and perceptions in promoting clean, sustainable outcomes. The CCAT incorporates an array of factors associated with disposal actions and follows a positive approach to assessment, identifying locations where appropriate disposal actions are occurring, as well as those where littering is more of a problem.
The CCAT monitors changes in disposal actions using a systematic rating of key factors in the location under investigation, including: i. Context (sense of community and cleanness of the location)
The context rating provides an indication of levels of community identity and support for responsible management of the environment, resource recovery and litter prevention. It takes into account the level of comfort in a location, the prevalence of graffiti and the overall ‘cleanness’ of the location. The context rating scale identifies the foundations for building education programs with successful interventions based on demonstrated community competencies and use of resources. ii. Facilities (quality of infrastructure and BINfrastructure)
The maintenance and provision of facilities (comprised of ratings of infrastructure and
BINfrastructure) in a location has an impact on disposal actions. ‘Facilities’ incorporates assessments of the effects of streetscape, public space infrastructure and bins
(recycling, litter and cigarette butt bins) on disposal actions. iii. Attitudes and Perceptions (opinions, knowledge and attitudes)
Community perceptions, awareness, knowledge and attitudes about the locations, including the perceived importance of keeping it litter free, also influences actions. This factor also includes community assessments of the adequacy of facilities in the location. iv. Actions (indications of disposal activities in area)
Observations of people’s actual practices in a location provide a means for checking assumptions and self report against actual actions and activities. Ongoing monitoring of actions in an area enables assessment of the type of items consumed by people in the public space and the typical disposal actions associated with using items.
Each factor consists of ratings based on a fivepoint scale of ‘cleanness’. The higher the
CCAT rating for an aspect of the situation, the cleaner it is likely to be and the greater the likelihood it will remain clean.
A composite rating for key factors i-iii in a location provides a summary of the factors that influence actions in an area and is referred to as the CCAT summary rating. The contribution of the individual factors to the CCAT summary ratings can be distilled from the composite rating, enabling comparison of changes in specific factors such as improved BINfrastructure, improved use of fines, and better targeted education campaigns focusing on community disposal actions.

As tools for assessing public place locations and disposal behaviour, both the
Observational Approach (using the DBI ) and the Clean Communities Assessment Tool provide unique contributions to the systematic assessment of litter issues and the effectiveness of attempts to address it. They also provide methods for tackling longstanding problems in the levels of subjectivity previously involved in litter assessment. Finally, both approaches share a focus on identifying positive features of locations and the people using them, a crucial piece of the puzzle in understanding what is working as well as what isn’t.