The City of Edmonton

LITTER AUDIT
2010
PREPARED FOR

The City of Edmonton

Community Services Department

PREPARED BY

MGM Management
Osoyoos, BC
250-495-4592

FINAL REPORT
September 18, 2010

1
Executive Summary
The City of Edmonton contracted MGM Management, a British Columbia based environmental
consulting firm to conduct a baseline litter audit throughout the city in 2007. The 2007 litter audit
was followed-up with litter audits in 2009 and repeated again in 2010.

MGM Management has conducted 18 litter audits for North American municipalities and
provincial authorities since 2002, prior to this litter audit for Edmonton in 2010. MGM
Management has accumulated a litter database of over 75,000 litter observations from these
combined litter audits.

In June 2010, the City conducted its third litter audit, using the services of MGM Management.
Within this study litter is classified as “large” for those items over 4 square inches in size or as
“small” litter for items less than 26 sq. cm. (4 sq. in.). Eighty-four sub-categories of large and
sixteen sub-categories for small litter were examined.

A total of 2,378 items of large litter were observed by auditors on Edmonton streets during the
June 2010 litter audit. The same one hundred and twenty-three sites that were audited in 2009
were examined during this audit, from June 7 – 16, 2010. The 2010 litter audit averaged 19
large litter items per site compared to 27 items per site in 2009 and 25 items of large litter per
site observed in 2007 .

Table ES 1 – 2010 Litter vs. Previous Audits

Summary of Large Litter Results (2010, 2009 & 2007)

2010 2009 2007

Total Large Litter 2,378 3,361 2,650

Number of sites audited 123 123 106

Average items / site 19.3 27.3 25.0

Examining large litter rates in Edmonton it was apparent that the streets were cleaner when the
2010 audit was conducted as compared to the 2009 audit. The results presented above confirm
this with a 29% reduction in large litter in the 2010 results compared to the previous year, and
23% decrease in litter compared to 2007.

Figure ES-1, below illustrates how the results in the Edmonton litter audit compared with other
jurisdictions where audits have been conducted using the same methodology. Litter in
Edmonton in 2010 was observed to be at the lower end of litter rates for all cities where litter
audits have been conducted using this method of audit.

City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010 1
 Figure ES1 – Edmonton vs. Other Litter Audit Results

Large Litter – Edmonton 2010

vs. Other Litter Audits

Greater Toronto
Area Audits

San Francisco
Florida Audits

Highways
Alberta
San Jose
City of Toronto
Items per Site

in Blue
40

Edmonton
GTA – Region B - 42 Items / site

30
42 Items / site

36 Items / site

31 Items / site
GTA – RegionA - 28 Items

33 Items / site
35 Items / site

36 Items / site

20

34 Items / site
32 Items / site

30 Items / site

27 Items / site
28 Items / site

GTA – RegionC – 23

25 Items / site
25 Items / site

21 Items / site

20 Items / site

19 Items / site
per site

15 Items

10

1994 1995 1996 1997 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 2007 2009 2010

Tobacco packaging was the largest identifiable sub-category of large litter observed at 248
items or 10.4% of total large litter, compared to 9.2% in 2009, and 7.4% in 2007. Non-branded
napkins were the next most significant sub-category observed at 232 items, or 9.8% of total
large litter, compared to 11.6% in 2009, and 8.2% in 2007. Printed paper followed as the third
most significant subcategory of large litter at 172 items, or 7.2% of total large litter, compared to
6.5% in 2009, and 5.2% in 2007. The fourth sub-category of note was miscellaneous plastic
litter which was observed at 164 litter pieces, or 6.9% of total large litter, compared to 9.7% in
2009, and 14.1% in 2007.

These four sub-categories combined to represent over 1/3 of all large litter observed in
Edmonton during the audit (34%).

2
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
Table ES 2 – Top 20 Subcategories of Litter

Top 20 Litter Categories Equal 81% of Litter in 2010

2010 2009 2007
Results Results Baseline
2010 Items / Items / Items /
Top 20 Large Litter Site Site Site
1 Tobacco packaging 248.5 310 197
2 No Brand Name Towels / Napkins 232.5 389.5 217
3 Printed material (newspapers etc.) 171.5 220 137.5
4 Misc. Plastic 164.5 326 374
5 Candy bar wraps 161 160 106
6 Misc. Paper 137.5 337.5 296
7 Home Articles 105 135 91.5
8 Construction debris 82 69 111.5
9 Paper Cups (Hot) 73.5 79.5 59.5
10 Misc. Cardboard 73.5 76 50
11 Plastic packaging other 69.5 125 53.5
12 Vehicle & Metal Road Debris 61.5
13 Cup Lids, Pieces lids 60.5 86.5 97.5
14 Receipts (forms, bus tickets etc.) 55.5 60.5 84
15 Condiment packaging 46 66 47.5
16 Foil materials / foil pieces 44.5 77 45.5
17 Plastic bags - not retail 42.5 53.5 26
18 Misc. Paperboard 42 88.5 63.5
19 Other Paperboard packaging 42
20 Gum wrappers 38 76 44
Plastic drink cups (part 2009 Top 20) 62.5
Paper cups (cold) (part 2009 Top 20) 51

Items in Top 20 Sub-categories 1,952 2,849 2,102

% of Total Large Litter (Top 20) 82% 85% 84%

In Table ES–3 & ES-4 and Figure ES-2 & ES-3 below, we describe the make up of both fibre
and plastic litter. Together fibre and plastic material litter account for 84% of the large litter
observed.

As we first reported in the 2009 litter audit, fibre litter is comprised of miscellaneous paper,
paper packaging, printed paper, paperboard, cardboard, newspapers and advertisement flyers
which all combine to make fibre litter a significant contributor to the litter on Edmonton streets.
Twenty-four sub-categories of fibre litter account for 53% of the total large litter observed in
2010, compared to 55% in 2009.

Plastic litter is also a significant material type of large litter observed in Edmonton. These
materials include, candy bar wrappers, other plastic packaging, condiment packaging, plastic
cups and plastic bags.

3
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
Table ES – 3 - Composition of Fibre Litter

2010 Total Fibre Materials

2010 2010 - 2009 2009 -
Items % of Items % of
Fibre Fibre
Litter Litter
Tobacco other (packaging) 248.5 19.9% 310 16.7%
No Brand Name Towels / Napkins 232.5 18.6% 389.5 21.0%
Printed material (newspapers,flyersetc.) 171.5 13.7% 220 11.9%
Misc. Paper 137.5 11.0% 337.5 18.2%
Paper Cups (Hot) 73.5 5.9% 79.5 4.3%
Misc. Cardboard 73.5 5.9% 76 4.1%
Receipts (forms, bus transfers, etc.) 55.5 4.4% 60.5 3.3%
Paperboard (cereal type) 42 3.4% 40 2.2%
Misc. Paperboard 42 3.4% 88.5 4.8%
Gum wrappers 38 3.0% 76 4.1%
Paper Food Wrap 35 2.8% 27 1.5%
Paper Cups (cold) 32.5 2.6% 51 2.8%
Paper packaging other 24 1.9% 15.5 0.8%
Paper bags - fast food 23.5 1.9% 30.5 1.6%
Paper bags - not retail 8 0.6% 5.5 0.3%
Stationary (school, business etc.) 6 0.5% 8 0.4%
Name Brand Napkins / Serviettes 2.5 0.2% 7 0.4%
Paper retail bags 2 0.2% 10.5 0.6%
Paper / foil composite wrap 1 0.1% 7.5 0.4%
Paper clamshells 1 0.1% 2.5 0.1%
Cardboard boxes/ box mat'l 1 0.1% 1 0.1%
Paper / foil composite wrap 7.5 0.4%
Cardboard boxes/ box mat'l 1.0 0.1%

Total Fibre large litter 1,251 100% 1,852 100%

% of total large litter 53% 55%

4
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
Figure ES – 2 Make-up of Fibre Litter

Table ES – 3 - Composition of Plastic Litter

2010 Composition of Plastic Litter

% of
Plastic
Items Litter
Misc. Plastic 164.5 22%
Candy bar wraps 161 22%
Plastic packaging other 69.5 9%
Cup Lids, Pieces lids 60.5 8%
Condiment pckg (ketchup, vinegar etc.) 46 6%
Plastic bags - not retail 42.5 6%
Plastic drink cups 35 5% 78%
Sweet packaging 28.5 4%
All remaining plastic litter 139 19%

Total plastic large litter 746.5

% of total large litter 31%
( 2009 plastic = 27% of total large litter)

5
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
Figure ES – 3 - Composition of Plastic Litter

Table ES – 4: Edmonton Large Litter vs. 18 Audits

Edmonton 2010 vs. Other Jurisdictions (2002 - 2010) 1.

(18
2002
(18 litter audits)

June 2010

June 2009

June 2007
- 2002 to 2010
Observations

Edmonton

Edmonton

Edmonton
% of Total

to 2010
audits)
Litter

% of total % of total % of total % of total

large litter large litter large litter large litter

Average all
Audits

Other Miscellaneous 25,925 33.2% 28.4% 33.1% 39.9%

Printed & Fiber Mat'l 14,476 18.7% 19.6% 20.3% 17.4%
Cups 5,817 7.2% 9.0% 8.4% 9.8%
Confectionary 6,682 8.8% 10.2% 9.1% 8.0%
Other Packaging 4,165 5.6% 6.4% 6.7% 4.6%
Bags 5,624 6.2% 4.4% 3.5% 2.7%
Tobacco Products 4,119 7.4% 10.4% 9.2% 7.4%
Take-Out Extras 2,351 2.7% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4%
Beverage Containers 1,914 2.3% 2.5% 1.8% 3.8%
Wraps 1,700 2.4% 1.9% 1.3% 1.3%
Other Containers 949 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.7%
Boxes 1,006 1.3% 1.9% 1.4% 1.0%
Textiles 1,015 3.2% 1.4% 1.3% 0.8%
Trays 145 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

75,885 100% 100% 100% 100%

1. Aggregated litter data, Litter audits by MGM Management including:

City of Toronto, Canada (2002, 2003, 2004 (2 audits), 2005, 2006
Regional Municipality of Peel, Canada (2003)
Regional Municipality of York, Canada (2003)
Regional Municipality of Durham, Canada (2003) and
San Francisco (2007, 2008, 2009)
San Jose (2008)
Edmonton (2007, 2009, 2010)
Alberta Transportation (2009)

2. Other miscellaneous sub-category includes: Miscellaneous paper, Miscellaneous plastic,

Construction debris, Home articles, Vehicle & Metal Road debris,
Miscellaneous Paperboard, Miscellaneous cardboard, Miscellaneous Glass and Tire & Rubber debris.

6
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
As Table ES 4 above shows that for the most part the litter composition in Edmonton is similar
to that observed in 18 other litter audits in various jurisdictions in North America. Whereas the
overall litter rate in Edmonton has decreased since the 2009 audit, there are some interesting
exceptions such as tobacco products which have continually risen in their proportion of total
litter from the average of 7.4% in 2007, to 9.2% in 2009, and 10.4% in 2010. Confectionary litter
is showing a similar upward trend from 8% of total large litter in 2007, 9.1% in 2009 and 10.2%
in 2010. Bag litter has also risen from 2.7% of total large litter in 2007, 3.5% in 2009 and 4.4% in
2010. These three categories of litter may warrant special attention in the City’s efforts to reduce
large litter in the future.

7
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
Small Litter Observations
Observations of small litter made during the Edmonton audit continue to reveal a relatively low
occurrence of small litter on city streets, as compared to audits performed by the consultant in
other cities. In the 2010 audit we observed 1,220 small litter items, considerably fewer than the
2,114 small litter items counted in the 2009 audit, and 1,341 items observed at 106 sites in
2007. The average of small litter of 10 items per site in 2010 has dropped from 17 items per site
in 2009, compared to 13 items per site in 2007.

When contrasted against the 21 small litter items / site observed for the City of Toronto, Ontario,
Canada in 2006, or the 23 items per site reported in San Francisco in 2007; the small litter
occurrence in Edmonton is not excessive.

Small litter is difficult to control, in that it is “manufactured” by a combination of degradation

(weather) and man-made activities (vehicle traffic, mowing, etc.).

The small litter results for the Edmonton audit sites are described in the chart below, and Table
ES-5 – Small Litter Summary on the following page.

8
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
Table ES – 5 - Small Litter Summary

2010 Edmonton Small Litter Summary

2010 2009 2007

Edmonton Edmonton Edmonton
Small Small Small
Items Items Items
Description of Sub-Category Observed Observed Observed

Cigarette Butts 572 961 479

Small Paper 164 383 279
Hard Plastic 104 232 103
Chewing Gum 76 40 61
Plastic Film Small 67 108 107
Other Polystyrene Pieces 49 113 108
Alum Pieces Small 47 72 17
Candy Pack. < 4 sq. In. 42 31 6
Other Materials 19 33 24
Small Glass 16 90 101
Metal (not Aluminium) 13 7 8
Polyfoam Peanuts 13 7 2
Bottle Caps 12 9 4
Straws 11 16 11
Other Tobacco Small 10 2 24
Rubber 5 10 7

Small litter items observed 1,220 2,114 1,341

Average small litter per site 10 17 13
Sites audited 123 123 106

9
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
Additional Observations – 2010 Litter Audit

The results of the 2010 Edmonton Litter audit are encouraging in the City’s efforts to reduce
litter.

We noted that the downtown areas were visibly cleaner than in the 2009 and 2007 litter audits.
An example is Jasper Avenue where less litter was noted around bus shelters.

During the litter audit the field team noted more street cleaning activities than previously
observed in 2009 and 2007. Some of the cleaning work was being carried out by city workers,
but in several instances the consultant observed private business owners sweeping up in front
of their establishments. Some of the areas of particular note were the 82nd Avenue (Whyte
Avenue) area where automobile dealerships appear to be cleaning up the sidewalk and curb
area. We also noted the area on Gateway Blvd. near the Koch Ford Dealership and in the
vicinity of Rexall Place, as noticeably less littered than the 2009 and 2007 litter audits.

It appears that efforts by the Capital City Clean Up program are having a positive effect on
reducing litter in the city. That being said however, there are areas that we noted that may assist
the City in reducing the litter even further.

We noted on several occasions where grass mowing operations were underway on city
property. In one instance the mower operator was observed shredding fibre litter (cardboard and
newspaper litter) in the normal operation of the equipment. Whether litter is picked up prior to
mowing is an operational matter, and one that does impart costs for cleaning prior to mowing.
During the 2010 audit the consultant had a discussion with a private contractor that was mowing
for a trailer park development. The site was very clean and the comment of the contractor was
10
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
that they always pick up litter before mowing, because their clients would react negatively from
them shredding litter and leaving a larger problem behind after mowing is completed. This is
revealing and was also evident on Anthony Henday Drive, which was the most littered site in the
2010 litter audit and the 7th most littered in 2009. This site was mowed just prior to the audit
team arriving, and mowers were still on site. Shredding of large litter makes the litter situation
worse and if possible should be avoided.

During the June litter audit the consultant also noted that considerable litter was present along
the fence line of the Fleet Services Branch – Westwood Facility bordering on 107 St. and the
Yellowhead Trail. This site was not an audit site, but the consultant made this observation
while walking to a site on the Yellowhead Trail. The point of this observation is that City
facilities have the capability and a responsibility to be as free of litter as possible. Efforts should
be considered with various departments / branches to conduct regular litter clean-up activities at
their sites. The consultant has observed this problem in other cities (Toronto, San Francisco,
San Jose) where City facilities may often be overlooked and not maintained to a high standard
of litter clean-up. Areas of particular concern are: bus workshops / parking; vehicle maintenance
areas, waste transfer stations, recycling centres. It has been our experience that waste water
and drinking water treatment plants are usually maintained to a high standard.

11
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010
The Yellowhead Trail is a main arterial highway running through north Edmonton. Due to the
unique nature of this corridor and its link to landfill locations at both the east and west ends of
the City, the consultant will be reporting on the occurrence of large litter in a section of the
Yellowhead Trail in a separate audit. However, as the photographs below illustrate there is a
high occurrence of large litter deposited adjacent to this roadway. This may provide a
significant opportunity for public education and outreach to have drivers realize their littering
behaviour is not acceptable in Edmonton and should be curtailed.

The consultant noted that trash bins in 2010 appeared to be well serviced, with few overflowing
trash bins noted. Some new and highly visible trash and recycling receptacles were observed,
as were cigarette butt receptacles on lamp posts in the downtown area. Some of these
receptacles are due to the direct efforts of the City of Edmonton and Capital City Clean Up in
local business revitalization zones and the support of program partners like Health Canada.
These efforts to promote proper handling of items that would otherwise become litter appear to
be part of the reason why the litter rates have dropped in Edmonton in 2010.

We note that cigarette butt and tobacco packaging litter remains a significant issue in
Edmonton. Cigarette butts (small litter) and tobacco packaging (large litter) have increased
proportionately since the 2007 base line audit. However, actual counts in both cigarette butts
(from 961 to 572) and tobacco packaging (from 310 to 248.5) have decreased since the 2009
litter audit. This may be due in part to CCCU's 2009 Cigarette Butt Litter Reduction Campaign
which saw street ashtrays introduced into some commercial areas combined with a city-wide
public education program.

12
City of Edmonton – Litter Audit Report – Executive Summary – September 18, 2010