1. Agenda Parks for London Recruitment, training & dev
Good parks for London 2018
Amenity Forum Membership
Action Groups
Benchmarking: pitch & events fees
GLA
GS Commission survey/workshop
Greener City Fund
KBT: Litter & fountains
Roundtable hot topics
AOB

4. Action Groups Benchmarking group meetings 7/12/18 in Islington
Park Trusts 12/10/18, City Hall
Outdoor events policy & 2018/19 fees: deadline 26/10
2018/19 Pitch fees: deadline 9/11

7. Piloting a behavioural intervention to prevent ‘abandoned picnics’ litter

8. LITTER GAUGE
POSTER

9. LITTER GAUGE
POSTER

10. METHODOLOGY Litter monitoring Behavioural observations
Before and during intervention for a total of eight weeks
Behavioural observations
Total of 2,101 park users observed handling waste items before and during intervention
Public perception surveys
Total of 210 park users surveyed at the sites

11. OVERALL REDUCTION
Overall, litter was reduced by 18 % across all parks.
Hampstead Heath saw an increase in litter of 24%.
Park
Litter reduction (%)
Overall litter reduction (%)
Northala Fields, Ealing
-48%
-18%
Finsbury Park, Haringey
-32%
Oak Hill Park, Barnet
-16%
Hampstead Heath, CoL
+24

12. Percentage reduction (%)
LITTER BEHAVIOUR
The number of park-users observed littering reduced by 28% during the intervention phase
Observed littering of food packaging reduced by 61% during the intervention phase
Percentage reduction (%)
Food packaging (take away/picnic food packaging, cellophane wrapping, utensils)
-62%
Paper (travel tickets/receipts/cardboard)
-48%
Cigarette related litter (butts, papers, packaging, etc.
-35%
Plastic bags (loose bags/bags of rubbish)
-32%
Drinks packaging (plastic/glass bottles, cans, hot drinks cups/sleeves)
-21%
Baseline (n=219), base: 1046 respondents; intervention (n=157), base: 1055 respondents
Food packaging: baseline (n=55), intervention (n=21)
Baseline base: 1046, intervention base: 1055

13. DEMOGRAPHICS
Park-users aged 70+ engaged most with the intervention, followed by under 12’s. The least engaged group were those aged between 16 to 24.
35% of couples observed had engaged with the intervention
30% of females and 28% of males observed engaged with the intervention
36% of those exercising in the park engaged with the intervention
(n=303), base: 1055
70+ (n=8), base: 14; U12 (n=41), base: 113; (n=18), base 176.
Female (n=139), base: 462; male (n=164), base: 593.
Park users exercising (n=217), base:611.

14. AWARENESS OF INTERVENTION
13% (n=27) of all respondents had noticed the litter gauge
14% (n=28) of all respondents had noticed posters
Awareness of the intervention was highest amongst those aged 65+
Awareness of the intervention was highest in Hampstead Heath, with 24% of all respondents reported to have noticed the litter gauge
17% of females surveyed had noticed the intervention, opposed to 10% of males surveyed
(n=27), base: 204
(n=28), base: 206
65+ (n=3), base: 11
(n=52), base: 13
Female (n=100), base: 17; male (104), base 10.

15. AWARENESS OF INTERVENTION
Bases: “money spent on cleaning litter could be spent…” = 194; “how much money is being spent on cleaning up litter…” = 197; “the costs of littering” = 194.

16. ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE INTERVENTION
Bases: “should be used in other parks…” = 195; “will result in less litter…” = 189; “makes me want to put my litter in the bin” = 199; “makes me want to tell others not to litter” = 193; “will encourage more people to put their litter in the bin” = 200.

17. BIN REMOVAL
AN EXPERIMENT TO TEST WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF BINS FROM PARKS HAS A POSITIVE EFFECT ON LITTER LEVELS

18. BACKGROUND
Anecdotal evidence that removing bins has a positive effect on litter levels
Global interest in the impact of bin removal on litter levels
We have a range of anecdotal evidence to suggest that removing public litter bins from certain locations (i.e. parks) has a positive effect on litter levels. For example, land managers have told us that when removing litter bins, which can often attract the wrong types of waste, they have subsequently observed an overall reduction in the amount of litter at the sites.
To our knowledge, no robust evidence currently exists globally regarding the impacts of bin removal on litter levels in parks, or the perceptions of people who use the parks. With funding from DEFRA, Keep Britain Tidy robustly monitored and evaluated the impacts of bin removal in parks, with a view to identify whether bin removal is an appropriate intervention for reducing litter.
The experiment was conducted in three London parks, (Maytrees Rest Garden, North Acton Playing Field and Wandle Park) and consisted of a four week bassline monitoring phase before the removal of the bins, a four week intervention monitoring phase after the removal of the bins, and a final longer term impact monitoring three months after the removal of the bins. Perception surveys were also undertaken at each of the three phases of the experiment, to gauge park user’s perceptions of the litter levels at the site.

19. RESULTS
Litter levels
There was an increase in litter levels in the month immediately following the removal of bins (191% increase on average across the )
Litter levels began to decrease at two sites, two months after removal (litter levels were 169% higher than baseline levels)
Across the three phases of the pilot, there was an increase in levels of litter found at each site, however litter levels started to decrease again at two of the parks.

20. RESULTS Maytrees Rest Garden, Ealing
Initial impact: 21% increase in litter on baseline levels
Longer term impact: 1% increase in litter on baseline levels
Perceptions of cleanliness and litter – average scale ratings from 50 park users:
Here are the results for Maytrees Rest Garden in Ealing, showing changes to litter levels and perceptions of park users that we surveyed at the sites.
Interestingly, park users’ perceptions of the park’s cleanliness and litter levels started to improve in the longer term monitoring phase, which is in line with actual litter levels in the park.
How would you rate the cleanliness of this park? (1 = very poor, 10 - excellent)
Baseline
1 month after removal
2 months after removal
6.4
5.7
6.2
How much of a problem is litter in the park? (1 = a major problem, 10 = no problem)
Baseline
1 month after removal
2 months after removal
5.3
4.3
5.1

21. RESULTS North Acton Playing Fields, Ealing
Initial impact: 140% increase in litter on baseline levels
Longer term impact: 173% increase in litter on baseline levels
Perceptions of cleanliness and litter – average scale ratings from 50 park users:
At the North Acton Playing Fields, we saw quite a significant increase in litter levels, and this continued in the longer term monitoring.
Despite this, perceptions of cleanliness and litter in the park actually improved in the first month after bin removal, however these started to become less positive in the longer term monitoring.
How would you rate the cleanliness of this park? (1 = very poor, 10 - excellent)
Baseline
1 month after removal
2 months after removal
7.2
7.3
How much of a problem is litter in the park? (1 = a major problem, 10 = no problem)
Baseline
1 month after removal
2 months after removal
6.0
6.2
5.4

22. RESULTS Wandle Park, Merton
Initial impact: 411% increase in litter on baseline levels
Longer term impact: 332% increase in litter on baseline levels
Perceptions of cleanliness and litter – average scale ratings from 50 park users:
In Wandle Park, Merton, which is a large country park, we saw a significant increase in litter levels and a corresponding worsening of perceptions of cleanliness and litter levels in the park. We are still conducting our analysis to understand why this particular park was so affected by the removal and will discuss our findings in our report.
How would you rate the cleanliness of this park? (1 = very poor, 10 - excellent)
Baseline
1 month after removal
2 months after removal
7.9
7.4
4.4
How much of a problem is litter in the park? (1 = a major problem, 10 = no problem)
Baseline
1 month after removal
2 months after removal
6.2
4.6
3.1

23. LEARNINGS Liaising with key stakeholders is key
Handling enquiries from the general public
An extended pilot would be beneficial to measure longer term impact
A key learning has been that community engagement is key to the success of bin removal.
This includes liaising with local residents who may use the park regularly, particularly for routine dog walking, about the project and intended outcomes. Some park users at North Acton Playing Fields placed bagged dog poo on the ground where bins had been situated, we think as a sort of protest. Engaging with key, local stakeholders may prevent this from happening again.
Ensure the partnering local authority has an appropriate lines to take document to handle enquiries from the general public, particularly enquiries through social media (e.g. Twitter and Facebook)
Extending the pilot is recommended, as the litter levels at two sites began to decrease after the initial impact (Phase Two), therefore it would be beneficial to test bin removal as a longer-term project. However we would recommend that future experiments incorporate communications and community engagement. Our experiments deliberately did not communicate about the bin removal in advance as we wanted to test the effectiveness of the approach without drawing attention to it in a way that might influence the results.

24. Round table