In recent years, municipalities have been fighting street littering problems more aggressively, hiring “reputable” consulting companies to assess the situation. However, are these audit reports valuable tools or misleading obstacles on the path to litter-free cities? Some consulting companies perform audits of branded litter, but does it accurately reflect the sources of pollution, or does it oversimplify a complex issue?
Litter Audit: A Closer Look
The City of Vaughn 2023 Litter Audit report provides an interesting insight into the issue. The auditors recorded the brand name of any litter item where the brand was visible, resulting in 160 identifiable brands out of 656 individual large litter items. The most prevalent brand was Tim Hortons, with 33 items (20.6% of all branded litter found). However, this data alone does not tell the whole story.
Interpreting the Data: A Critical Analysis
Let’s think again about the data, provided in this report:
- 656 individual large litter items were recorded, but only 160 had identifiable brands.
- 33 items had a recognizable brand of Tim Hortons, while 11 items had a recognizable brand of McDonald’s.
The way this data was collected and analyzed has little practical meaning, as it does not answer crucial questions that make correct interpretation impossible. For example:
- What about the 496 items without recognizable brands? Why did only 160 items have identifiable brands? Possible explanations might include:
- The examined articles did not have branding because they were parts of disintegrated larger articles.
- The branding was damaged due to prolonged exposure to weather elements or mechanical damage.
- Do all 656 items belong to the same category of products? Are we comparing apples to oranges by including cups, lids, packaging, and napkins/paper towels in the same analysis?
- What is the original quality of Tim Hortons and McDonald’s branded items? Do they have higher-quality materials and paint that allows them to be preserved longer than identical categories of Starbucks items?
Alternative Interpretations
Without further analysis, we may interpret the collected data differently:
- Tim Hortons items have the highest quality, making them more durable and visible in litter audits.
- Tim Hortons has the largest market share, resulting in more waste generated by its customers.
- Customers of Tim Hortons have lower self-control when it comes to proper garbage disposal practices compared to Starbucks customers.
The Costly Reality of Litter Audits
Moreover, such audits come with a hefty price tag, which can be a significant burden on municipal budgets. The cost of conducting these audits can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the scope and complexity of the project.
In an era of fiscal constraint, it is essential to question whether these audits provide sufficient value to justify their cost. Could these funds be better allocated towards more effective waste management strategies, such as increasing recycling rates, improving public education campaigns, or enhancing waste infrastructure?
Conclusion
The value of “litter branding” audits is questionable, and their cost can be a significant drain on municipal budgets. We will explore this topic further in our next blog posts. In the meantime, we invite you to share your thoughts and ideas with us.
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay updated on the latest news and insights.