LAWR

STREET SCENE 14 Local Authority Waste & Recycling July 2015 litter is to have more bins (60%), but this wasn't linked directly to council costs. In fact, just 18% said that increased spending by their local authority would help to discourage litter. Perhaps more needs to be done to explain the costs of anti-litter services, both in terms of clean-up and campaigning? Councils can't be accused of not trying to change behaviour. There has been plenty of innovation – the 40-foot banners spelling out the cost of litter in Swansea spring to mind. However, communications campaigns are expensive, which means there's a natural – and understandable – reticence to try new things. But help is at hand. Keep Britain Tidy officially opens its Centre for Social Innovation this month (see page 16). The idea is take a different approach to changing behaviour, through observation and showing that people don't like litterbugs, including the one in Scotland mentioned above. The study confirmed that littering is a social taboo, but also revealed that more people are litterers than they might admit – and many people see littering behaviour on a sliding scale of acceptability. Some are even prepared to justify it in certain circumstances, for example if there aren't 'enough' bins or if it's 'accidental'. It doesn't end there. The people ZWS interviewed want to see litter in their area being quickly cleaned up – however, when litter is left 'on their doorstep' or is spoiling their local area, or leisure time, people are far more likely to get upset by it. Indeed, a Populus survey last month for the charity Hubbub found that 50% of people are more likely to drop litter outside their own neighbourhood. These findings may well make the blood boil. Local authorities have received criticism for, amongst other things, the lack of bins available and not emptying bins frequently enough. Some have invested significant sums in new software to better manage their on-street services (see page 25), but not all of them can afford to. Those surveyed by Populus felt the most effective way to discourage application. Danielle Charman is the group's business services manager. "We know budgets are squeezed, and we know it's difficult for local authorities to test new things individually. [What we want to do through the hub] is to show the schemes that can work," she explains. In Rochford, for example, 22 street bins were labelled with a sticker explaining that one of three local charities would benefit if people put their litter in the bin – the more rubbish in the bin, the more the charities would benefit. On average, litter on the ground was reduced by over 41%, reaching a high of 53% in one month. This kind of trial can then be scaled up, repeated elsewhere and adapted. As Charman highlights, there are opportunities to not only share best practice, but also materials, slogans and, critically, results. Hubbub is another organisation trying to approach behaviour change from a new direction. The charity, formed only last year, has just launched its 'NeatStreets' campaign with Westminster City Council (see page 13). CEO Trewin Restorick has scoured the Earth for innovative approaches to littering and brought them to London. " There's only so much we can get manufacturers to do " As LAWR went to press, Scotland's environment secretary was in London meeting UK environment secretary Liz Truss to push for a deposit return scheme across the country. Richard Lochhead says the initiative "has the potential to be very beneficial for the environment – reducing litter and boosting the recycling of these materials and their economic value to our communities. As we have seen with carrier bag charging, attaching a value to something can be very effective in helping us make small but important changes." Germany, Sweden and Norway all have schemes in place and Scotland's government clearly wants one too. And so do Scots. According to a survey by the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, almost 80% of people would welcome a DRS. A report published by Zero Waste Scotland and Eunomia last month also showed how a 10p or 20p depos- it paid when buying a bottle or can of drink could save local authorities £13m in collection and disposal costs. ZWS has launched a further 'call for evidence' on how a scheme could work effectively. Not so keen on the idea are the packaging firms. "We need to develop and improve existing initiatives, rather than creating new ones, such as a deposit return system, which will be more costly for consumers and business, less convenient, address only a small proportion of litter and likely to undermine existing systems," says Packaging Recycling Group Scotland's Jane Bickerstaffe. Can a deposit scheme work?

• Cover