Illegal Dumping Survey 2008 PDF

Strategies, Marketing and Social Research Head Office: 259 Glen Osmond Rd, Frewville SA 5063 research@mcgregor.com.au www.mcgregor.com.
au Tel: 08 8433 0200 Fax: 08 8338 2360
KESAB
Illegal Dumping Survey 2008
Prepared for: Grace Barila On behalf of: KESAB Project No: 8501 Date: July 2008
CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................. 2 Methodology............................................................................................................ 2 Section 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Section 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 Executive Summary.................................................................................. 3 Overview ...................................................................................................... 4 Illegal Dumping ............................................................................................ 4 Hard Waste Collection Services .................................................................. 7 Littering ........................................................................................................ 7 Analysis ..................................................................................................... 9 The Problem of Illegal Dumping................................................................. 10 Main Illegal Dumping Locations ................................................................. 13 Main Types of Illegally Dumped Material................................................... 17
Main Types of Material ..................................................................................... 17 Material Type by Percentage ............................................................................ 18
3.4 3.5 3.6
Recycling of Illegal Dumped Materials....................................................... 23 Hazardous Waste ...................................................................................... 26 Pursuing Illegal Dumping Activities............................................................ 29
Frequency......................................................................................................... 29 Legislation ........................................................................................................ 30
3.7 3.8 3.9
Illegal Dumping Instances.......................................................................... 33 Weight of Illegally Dumped Material .......................................................... 38 Disposal Cost of Illegally Dumped Material ............................................... 43
Cost .................................................................................................................. 43 tems Used in Cost Calculations ........................................................................ 45
3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14
Cost of Enforcement Activities Relating to Illegal Dumping....................... 51 Expiation Notices Served for Illegal Dumping............................................ 55 Prosecutions for Illegal Dumping ............................................................... 60 Clean Up Orders Served for Illegal Dumping ............................................ 62 Prevention of Illegal Dumping Activities..................................................... 64
Prevention Methods.......................................................................................... 64 Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 66
3.15 3.16 3.17
Barriers to Responding Effectively to Illegal Dumping............................... 70 Response to Illegal Dumping ..................................................................... 73 Hard Waste Collection ............................................................................... 76
Waste Collection Services Offered ................................................................... 76 Frequency......................................................................................................... 77
3.18 3.19
Disposal Facilities ...................................................................................... 81 Main Litter Locations.................................................................................. 84

2 of 126 Saved on:9/09/2008 3:25:00 PM
T:\! FINAL REPORTS 2008\8501 KESAB Illegal Dumping Final Report.doc Created: 1/08/2008 10:38:00 AM
3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25
Street Litter Bins......................................................................................... 87 Litter Strategy............................................................................................. 89 Pursuing Littering Incidents........................................................................ 91 Expiation Notices Served for Littering........................................................ 94 Prosecutions Pursued for Littering............................................................. 98 Interest in Further Participation................................................................ 100
Appendix 1: About The Research..................................................................................... 102

How We Did The Research ............................................................................ 103 Who was involved........................................................................................... 103 Councils Location ........................................................................................... 103 Councils .......................................................................................................... 104
Appendix 2: Additional Comments .................................................................................. 106 Appendix 3: Sampling Tolerance ..................................................................................... 110 Appendix 4: Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 112 Appendix 5: How To Read The Computer Tabulations .................................................. 122 For enquiries on this report please contact Zing Hai or David ODea.
T:\! FINAL REPORTS 2008\8501 KESAB Illegal Dumping Final Report.doc Created: 1/08/2008 10:38:00 AM
3 of 126 Saved on:9/09/2008 3:25:00 PM
Section 1 Introduction
-1-
This document has been prepared by McGregor Tan Research as a study to report on illegal dumping amongst South Australian councils
Background
1.1 The 'Future Direction of Waste Management' report commissioned by the LGA recommended the improvement of data collection relating to the nature, extent and cost to Councils of illegal dumping.
1.2
The LGA, Zero Waste SA and KESAB are interested in obtaining information from South Australian local councils about the extent and nature of illegal dumping in their council areas.
1.3
The LGA, Zero Waste SA and KESAB were also interested in information from councils about hard waste collection and litter management practices.
1.4
The LGA, Zero Waste SA and KESAB were also interested in understanding of the costs to councils to enforce laws, clean up and dispose of illegally dumped material.
Methodology
1.5 The Local Government Association of South Australia sent a circular to South Australia Councils on Thursday 29th May 2008, to inform and encourage them to participate in the online survey for illegal dumping.
1.6
South Australian councils were invited to participate in the online survey on Monday 2nd June 2008. They were also reminders urging them to complete the survey on Thursday 12th and Monday 16th June 2008.
1.7
40 South Australian councils participated in the online illegal dumping survey conducted between the 2nd and 24th June 2008. There were 13 metropolitan councils and 27 rural councils in this group.
-2-
Section 2 Executive Summary
-3-
2.1
Overview
The LGA, Zero Waste SA and KESAB commissioned McGregor Tan Research to conduct the survey among South Australian councils to gather information about the extent and nature of illegal dumping. Primarily the study was to gather facts about illegal dumping but it also covers hard waste collection and litter management practices in South Australia. The research covers the findings from the information provided by the 13 metropolitan and 27 rural councils which completed the survey, giving an insight into the types and proportions of illegally dumped material and the financial costs to councils to clean up and dispose of this material during 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.
2.2
Illegal Dumping
The vast majority (93%) of councils stated that they had a problem with illegal dumping in their council area. The problem appears to be greater in metropolitan council areas, where 85% of councils indicated that it was either a significant problem or quite a problem, compared to 26% of rural councils. The top locations that were identified by councils where illegal dumping takes place were roadside (rural) (65%), council litter bins (38%), public parks (28%), roadside rest areas (23%) and roadside (multi unit dwellings) (20%). Not surprisingly, metropolitan councils were more likely to name roadside (multi-unit dwellings) (62%), public parks (38%), roadside (single residence) (38%) and roadside (industrial) (31%) as the top locations, while rural councils identified roadside (rural) (85%), council litter bins (44%), roadside rest areas (30%), private land (rural) (22%), public parks (22%) and watercourses (19%). Councils identified the main types of material illegally dumped in their areas as household items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) (82%), domestic waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) (69%), garden waste (38%), tyres (38%), demolition waste (31%) and hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) (13%).
-4-
The breakdown of the total amount of illegally dumped materials by weight (tons) reported by councils in their areas in 2006/ 2007 were household items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) (34%), domestic waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) (28%), garden waste (17%), demolition waste (14%), tyres (8%), hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) (7%), industrial waste (4%) and commercial waste (from shops) (3%). Recycling of illegally dumped material was carried out by two thirds (67%) of councils to some degree. Metropolitan councils were more likely to recycle at least some of the material (85%), compared to rural councils (62%). A service for hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) to be collected was provided by almost two fifths (38%) of councils, while three fifths (59%) did not provide a service at all. The types of services councils reported that they used to collect hazardous waste included a drop off service (60%), services supplied by contractors (40%) and scheduled services (40%). More than one third (35%) of councils pursued illegal dumping activities often, while half (51%) of the councils did not pursue them very often and 13% never pursued them. The Local Government Act 1999 was used by the majority (79%) of councils to address illegal dumping activities. The other pieces of legislation councils also used by councils included the Environmental Protection Act (33%) and the Public Environmental Health Act 1987 (18%). The number of occurrences of illegal dumping in council areas on average was 216 in 2005/06 and 218 in 2006/07. Occurrences were higher in metropolitan council areas (524 in 2005/06 and 545 in 2006/07), compared to those reported by rural councils (44 in 2005/06 and 46 in 2006/07) The total estimated weight (tons) of material from illegal dumping recorded by councils was on average 182 tons in 2005/06 and 177 tons in 2006/07. The weight of material was higher in metropolitan councils areas (449 in 2005/06 and 443 in 2006/07), compared to the weight reported by rural councils (18 in 2005/06 and 27 in 2006/07) The cost to councils for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material on average was $39,807 in 2005/06 and $39,096 in 2006/07. These costs were higher for metropolitan councils ($93,432 in 2005/06 and $96,976 in 2006/07), compared to those incurred by rural councils ($4,063
-5-
in 2005/06 and $5,980 in 2006/07) Councils identified the main costs for removal and disposal as labour costs (87%), equipment costs (76%), waste to landfill costs (63%) and contractor costs (32%). Councils spent on average $3,287 in 2005/06 and $3,018 in 2006/07 on enforcement activities related to illegal dumping. Metropolitan councils spent more on enforcement ($8,510 in 2005/06 and $8,408 in 2006/07), compared to that spent by rural councils ($675 in 2005/06 and $622 in 2006/07) The reported average number of expiation notices served for illegal dumping by councils was 4.9 in 2005/06 and 4.8 in 2006/07. Metropolitan councils served more notices (6.8 in 2005/06 and 6.5 in 2006/07), compared to the number served by rural councils (3.8 in 2005/06 and 4.0 in 2006/07) Councils pursued, on average, 0.5 prosecutions for illegal dumping in both 2005/06 and 2006/07. Rural councils were more likely to pursue prosecutions (0.7 in 2005/06 and 0.7 in 2006/07), compared to those pursued by metropolitan councils (0.1 in 2005/06 and none in 2006/07) The majority of councils did not served any clean up orders for illegal dumping in 2005/06 (96%) or in 2006/07 (87%). The average number of clean up orders that had been served was 0.9 in 2005/06 and 0.6 in 2006/07. Metropolitan councils served a greater number of clean up orders (1.5 in 2005/06 and 1.3 in 2006/07), compared to those served by rural councils (0.5 in 2005/06 and 0.2 in 2006/07) Three tenths (29%) of councils did nothing to prevent illegal dumping activities, with rural councils were more likely to do nothing (33%), compared to metropolitan councils (17%). The methods that councils had used to prevent illegal dumping included establishing signage (49%), prevention programs (26%), undertaking surveillance (23%), education/ information through media and mail outs (23%) and employed inspections (3%). One in five (20%) councils stated that the methods they had used to had some effectiveness in preventing illegal dumping activities. In responding effectively to illegal dumping incidents councils had faced particular barriers, these included the difficulty in identifying offenders (46%), lack of resources/ funds (43%), prosecution difficulties/ lack of evidence/ witnesses (31%), large areas to cover (23%) and the public perception that its OK to do it (11%).
-6-
Initiatives councils would like to see introduced in response to illegal dumping included, an education campaign (71%), change legislation (43%), standardised reporting and data collection (34%) and the provision of legal advice on enforcement (31%).
2.3
Hard Waste Collection Services

Three quarters (74%) of councils offered a hard waste collection service, this was higher among metropolitan councils (100%). The types of hard waste collection services offered included, a scheduled service (31%), a drop off service (29%) and an at call service (14%). The provision of hard waste collection services offered by councils varied from once a year (45%), to twice a year (30%) and to more than twice a year (10%). The majority (86%) of councils also provided alternative methods for residents to dispose of unwanted materials. The main alternatives that were named by councils were transfer stations (49%), land fill (46%) and skips (6%).
2.4
Littering
The main litter locations identified by councils were the roadside (91%), public parks (74%), building sites (34%), beaches (39%) and off truck or trailer (29%). To assist in reducing litter almost two thirds (63%) of councils had increased the number of street bins in public places for disposing of rubbish. Three tenths (31%) of councils however, had not changed the number of bins that they provided. Three in ten (29%) councils had a litter strategy in place, while half (51%) reported that they did not. A further one fifth (20%) of councils were unsure if they had a strategy in place. Littering incidents were pursued by more than one third (35%) of councils often, while one third (34%) stated that they did not pursue them very often. The remaining one third (34%) of councils did not pursue littering incidents at all.
-7-
The average number of expiation notices pursued by councils for persons littering was 4.4 in 2005/06 and 4.5 in 2006/07. Metropolitan councils were more likely to pursue expiation notices (10.1 in 2005/06 and 10.2 in 2006/07), compared to the number pursued by rural councils (1.4 in 2005/06 and 1.6 in 2006/07). The average number of prosecutions pursued by councils for persons littering was 1.2 in 2005/06 and 1.5 in 2006/07. Again, metropolitan councils pursued a greater number of prosecutions (2.9 in 2005/06 and 4.1 in 2006/07), compared to the number pursued by rural councils (0.4 in both 2005/06 and 2006/07).
-8-
Section 3 Analysis
-9-
This section outlines the key findings of the June 2008 illegal dumping research conducted with South Australia councils.
3.1
3.1.1
The Problem of Illegal Dumping

The first question we asked those surveyed was how much of a problem illegal dumping was within their council area.
3.1.2
The majority (93%) of respondents indicated that it was a problem in their council area. The scaled responses were: Not a problem (8%) A slight problem (48%) Quite a problem (25%) A significant problem (20%)
Q3. How much of a problem is illegal dumping within your council area?
20
Total
8 11
25 48
Rural
11
15 63
38
Metropolitan
46 15
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% of respondents Not a problem A slight problem Quite a problem A significant problem
- 10 -
3.1.3
Survey participants responses by location indicated that illegal dumping is more of a problem in metropolitan council areas, compared to rural council areas. The responses for the two groups were: Not a problem (0% Metropolitan and 11% Rural) A slight problem (15% Metropolitan and 63% Rural) Quite a problem (46% Metropolitan and 15% Rural) A significant problem (38% Metropolitan and 11% Rural)
- 11 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 3. How much of a problem is illegal dumping within your council area? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 3 0 3 8% 0% 11% 19 48% 10 25% 8 20% 0 0% 40 100% 2 15% 6 46% 5 38% 0 0% 13 100% 17 63% 4 15% 3 11% 0 0% 27 100%
Not a problem
A slight problem
Quite a problem
A significant problem
Dont know/ not sure
No. of Respondents
Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)
- 12 -
3.2
3.2.1
Main Illegal Dumping Locations

Respondents were then asked to indicate the 3 top locations where illegal dumping takes place in their council area.
3.2.2
The main top locations that were identified by those surveyed included: Roadside (rural) (65%) Council litter bins (38%) Public Parks (28%) Roadside rest areas (23%) Roadside multi unit dwellings (20%)
3.2.3
The other top locations that were named by smaller proportions of those surveyed included: Private Land (rural) (15%) Watercourses (15%) Charity Collection Bins (13%) Private Land (undeveloped) (13%) Roadside (industrial) (13%) Roadside (single residence) (13%) Beach (8%) Roadside (commercial) (5%) Private Land (industrial) (3%)
- 13 -
Q4. Please indicate which are the top 3 locations where illegal dumping takes place in your council area.
90 80 70 % of respondents 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Private Land (rural) Roadside (rural) Private Land (undeveloped) Council Litter Bins Roadside (single residence) Roadside Rest Areas Roadside (multiunit dwellings) Charity Collection Bins Watercourses Roadside (commercial) Private Land (industrial) Roadside (industrial) Public Park Beach
8 23 38 28 23 22 23 44 38 30 20 15 22 15 8 23 19 13 7 13 15 11 13 4 13 8 8 7 5 8 4 3 4 31 38 65 85
62
Total
Metropolitan
Rural
3.2.4
Not surprisingly, survey participants responses varied based on whether the council they worked for was located in metropolitan or rural South Australia. The scaled responses for metropolitan council participants included: Roadside (multi-unit dwellings) (62%) Public Park (38%) Roadside (single residence) (38%) Roadside (industrial) (31%) Charity Collection Bins (23%) Council Litter Bins (23%) Roadside (rural) (23%) Private Land (undeveloped) (15%) Beach (8%) Roadside (commercial) (8%) Roadside Rest Areas (8%) Watercourses (8%)
- 14 -
3.2.5
The scaled responses for rural council participants of where illegal dumping takes place in their council area included: Roadside (rural) (85%) Council Litter Bins (44%) Roadside Rest Areas (30%) Private Land (rural) (22%) Public Park (22%) Watercourses (19%) Private Land (undeveloped) (11%) Beach (7%) Charity Collection Bins (7%) Private Land (industrial) (4%) Roadside (commercial) (4%) Roadside (industrial) (4%)
- 15 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 4. Please indicate which are the top 3 locations where illegal dumping takes place in your council area. LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 26 3 23 65% 23% 85% 15 38% 11 28% 9 23% 8 20% 6 15% 6 15% 5 13% 5 13% 5 13% 5 13% 3 8% 2 5% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 2 5% 40 110 2.75 100% 3 23% 5 38% 1 8% 8 62% 0 0% 1 8% 3 23% 2 15% 4 31% 5 38% 1 8% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 13 37 2.85 100% 12 44% 6 22% 8 30% 0 0% 6 22% 5 19% 2 7% 3 11% 1 4% 0 0% 2 7% 1 4% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% 2 7% 27 73 2.7 100%
Roadside (rural) Council Litter Bins Public Park Roadside Rest Areas Roadside (multi-unit dwellings) Private Land (rural) Watercourses Charity Collection Bins Private Land (undeveloped) Roadside (industrial) Roadside (single residence) Beach Roadside (commercial) Private Land (industrial) Private Land (commercial) Private Land (residential) Other Dont know/ not sure No. of Respondents No. of Responses
Mean No. of mentions
- 16 -
3.3
Main Types of Illegally Dumped Material
Main Types of Material

3.3.1 Those surveyed were asked to indicate which were the three main types of material illegally dumped in their council area. 3.3.2 The two types of material most frequently named by respondents were household items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) (82%) and domestic waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) (69%). 3.3.3 The other types of illegally dumped materials identified by those surveyed included: Garden Waste (38%) Tyres (38%) Demolition Waste (31%) Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) (13%) Commercial waste (from shops) (3%) Industrial Waste (3%)
3.3.4
Again, survey participants responses varied based on whether the council they represented was located in metropolitan or rural South Australia. The responses for metropolitan council participants included: Household items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) (92%) Domestic waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) (77%). Tyres (46%) Demolition Waste (38%) Garden Waste (31%) Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) (8%) Commercial waste (from shops) (8%)
- 17 -
3.3.5
The responses for rural council participants for the main types of material illegally dumped included: Household items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) (77%) Domestic waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) (65%) Garden Waste (42%) Tyres (35%) Demolition Waste (27%) Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) (15%) Industrial Waste (4%)
Q5. Please indicate which are the 3 main types of materials illegally dumped in your council area.
100 90 80 % of respondents 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Household items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) Domestic Waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) Garden Waste Tyres Demolition Waste Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) Commercial waste (from shops) Industrial Waste 38 31 42 46 38 35 38 31 27 13 15 8 3 8 3 4 82 92 77 69 77 65
Total
Metropolitan
Rural
Material Type by Percentage

3.3.6 Respondents were then asked what percentages of items make up the total amount of illegally dumped materials by weight (tons) in their council area in 2006/ 2007. 3.3.7 Overall, respondents named household items as the item that represented the largest amount of illegally dumped material by weight (34%), this was
- 18 -
higher among metropolitan councils (52%), compared to rural councils (24%). Rural council participants were more likely to nominate domestic waste as the largest illegally dumped item by weight in their council area (31%). 3.3.8 Those surveyed identified the following main types of illegally dumped materials by weight: Household Items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) (34%) Domestic Waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) (27%) Garden Waste (17%) Demolition Waste (14%) Tyres (8%) Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) (7%) Industrial Waste (4%) Commercial Waste (from shops) (3%)
3.3.9
There were some variances in the responses recorded by the metropolitan and rural council participants. The main types of illegally dumped material by weight, that were named by metropolitan council participants included: Household Items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) (52%) Domestic Waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) (19%) Garden Waste (16%) Demolition Waste (14%) Tyres (7%) Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) (7%) Commercial Waste (from shops) (6%) Industrial Waste (5%)
- 19 -
3.3.10
Rural council participants identified the following main types of material illegally dumped by weight: Domestic Waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) (31%) Household Items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) (24%) Garden Waste (18%) Demolition Waste (14%) Tyres (9%) Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) (7%) Industrial Waste (3%) Commercial Waste (from shops) (1%)
Q6. What percentages of the following items makes up the total amount of illegally dumped materials by weight (tons) in your council area in 2006/ 2007? (These need to total 100%).
60 52 50 40 Mean 30 20 10 0 Household Items (eg furniture, mattress, appliances) Domestic Waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) Garden Waste Demolition Waste Tyres Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) Industrial Waste Commercial Waste (from shops) Other
34 28 24 20
31
`
17 16 18 14 14 14 8 7 9 7 8 7 4 5 3 6 3 1 5 7 4
Total
Metropolitan
Rural
- 20 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 5. Please indicate which are the 3 main types of materials illegally dumped in your council area. LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... Household items (eg 32 12 20 furniture, mattress, 82% 92% 77% appliances) Domestic Waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) Garden Waste Tyres Demolition Waste Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) Commercial waste (from shops) Industrial Waste Other Dont know/ not sure No Response No. of Respondents No. of Responses
27 69% 15 38% 15 38% 12 31% 5 13% 1 3% 1 3% 0 0% 2 5% 1 40 110 2.75 100%
10 77% 4 31% 6 46% 5 38% 1 8% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 13 39 3. 100%
17 65% 11 42% 9 35% 7 27% 4 15% 0 0% 1 4% 0 0% 2 8% 1 27 71 2.63 100%
- 21 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 6. What percentages of the following items makes up the total amount of illegally dumped materials by weight (tons) in your council area in 2006/ 2007? (These need to total 100%). Please use your most accurate records or estimates to answer to the best of your ability. LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... Household Items (eg 34.4 52.4 24.1 furniture, mattress, 33 12 21 appliances) Domestic Waste (eg garbage bags, packaging) Garden Waste Demolition Waste Tyres Hazardous Waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) Other Industrial Waste Commercial Waste (from shops) TOTAL 27.8 36 17.2 29 14.1 21 8.2 25 7.3 20 4.7 10 3.8 13 2.7 13 .0 19.6 11 15.7 9 14.3 4 7.0 6 7.5 6 6.6 3 5.1 4 6.0 5 .0 0 31.4 25 17.9 20 14.1 17 8.5 19 7.1 14 3.9 7 3.2 9 .6 8 .0 0
- 22 -
3.4
3.4.1
Recycling of Illegal Dumped Materials

We asked those surveyed how much of the illegally dumped material was recycled by their organisation.
3.4.2
Two thirds (67%) of respondents indicated that recycled material to varying degrees. The scaled responses were: Most of it (3%) Some of it (38%) Very little of it (26%) None (31%)
Q7. How much of the illegally dumped material does your organisation recycle?
3 Total 3 4 Rural 4
27 27 26 31
38
38
Metropolitan
15
23
62
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% of respondents Dont know/ not sure None Very little of it Some of it Most of it
3.4.3
The majority (85%) of metropolitan council participants indicated that they recycled illegally dumped material, the scaled responses of the different amounts they recycled were: Most of it (0%) Some of it (62%) Very little of it (23%) None (15%)
- 23 -
3.4.4
Almost three fifths (58%) of rural council participants recycled varied levels of material. The scaled responses were: Most of it (4%) Some of it (27%) Very little of it (27%) None (38%)
- 24 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 7. How much of the illegally dumped material does your organisation recycle? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 1 0 1 3% 0% 4% 15 38% 10 26% 12 31% 1 3% 1 40 100% 8 62% 3 23% 2 15% 0 0% 0 13 100% 7 27% 7 27% 10 38% 1 4% 1 27 100%
Most of it Some of it Very little of it None Dont know/ not sure No Response No. of Respondents
- 25 -
3.5
3.5.1
Hazardous Waste
Respondents were asked if their council provided a service for hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) to be collected.
3.5.2
Almost two fifths (38%) of those surveyed did provide a service, while three fifths (59%) indicated that they did not. The responses were generally consistent across both the metropolitan and rural groups surveyed.
8. Does your council provide a service for hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) to be collected?
Don't know/ not sure 3%
Yes 38%
No 59%
MTR (Ref: 8501)
3.5.3
Respondents who indicated that they provide a service were then asked what type of service their council used to collect hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals).
3.5.4
A drop off service was the service most frequently named by survey participants, the scaled responses included: Drop off (60%) Contractors (40%) Scheduled ( 40%)
- 26 -
Q9. What type of service does your council use to collect hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals)? BASE: Council provides a service for hazardous waste (N=15)
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Drop off Scheduled Total Contractors Rural Other
20 10 40 40 40 40 60 60 60 50
% of responses
Metropolitan
3.5.5
The types of services to collect hazardous waste that were named by metropolitan council respondents included: Drop off (60%) Scheduled ( 40%) Contractors (20%)
3.5.6
Rural council respondents were more likely to use contractors than metropolitan councils, they identified the following types of services that they provided: Drop off (60%) Contractors (50%) Scheduled ( 40%)
- 27 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 8. Does your council provide a service for hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals) to be collected? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 15 5 10 38% 38% 38% 23 59% 1 3% 1 40 100% 8 62% 0 0% 0 13 100% 15 58% 1 4% 1 27 100%
Yes No Don't know/ not sure No Response No. of Respondents
9. What type of service does your council use to collect hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals)? Please select as many as applicable BASE: Council provides a service for hazardous waste LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 9 3 6 60% 60% 60% 6 40% 6 40% 0 0% 1 7% 0 0% 15 22 1.47 100% 1 20% 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 6 1.2 100% 5 50% 4 40% 0 0% 1 10% 0 0% 10 16 1.6 100%
Drop off Contractors Scheduled At call service Other Dont know/ not sure No. of Respondents No. of Responses
- 28 -
3.6
Frequency
3.6.1
Pursuing Illegal Dumping Activities
We asked those surveyed how often their organisation pursued illegal dumping activities.
3.6.2
More than one third (35%) of councils surveyed pursued them often, while half (51%) of councils did not pursue them very often and 13% never pursue illegal dumping activities. The scaled responses were: Very often (10%) Quite often (10%) Often (15% ) Not very often (51%) Not at all (13% )
3.6.3
Three in ten (30%) of the metropolitan council participants indicated that they pursued illegal dumping activities often. Their scaled responses were: Very often (15%) Quite often (0%) Often (15%) Not very often (69%) Not at all (0%)
3.6.4
Almost four tenths (38%) of rural council participants stated that they pursued illegal dumping activities often. Their scaled responses were: Very often (8%) Quite often (15%) Often (15%) Not very often (42%) Not at all (19%)
- 29 -
Q10. How often does your organisation pursue illegal dumping incidents?
10 10 15 51 13 8
Total
Rural
15 15 42 19 15
Metropolitan
15 69
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% of respondents Not at all Not very often Often Quite often Very Often
Legislation
3.6.5 We then asked respondents which pieces of legislation their organisation used to address illegal dumping activities. 3.6.6 The Local Government Act 1999 was identified by the majority (79%) of those surveyed, as the piece of legislation they used. A marginally higher proportion of rural council participants (81%) stated that they used the Act, compared to metropolitan council participants (77%) 3.6.7 The other two pieces of legislation identified by respondents were the Environmental Protection Act (33) and the Public Environmental Health Act 1987 (18%). Metropolitan council surveyed were more likely to use both the Environmental Protection Act (54%, compared to 23% of rural councils surveyed) and the Public Environmental Health Act (31%, compared to 12% of rural councils surveyed).
- 30 -
Q11. Which of the following pieces of legislation does your organisation use to address illegal dumping activities?
90 80 70 % of responses 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Local Government Environment Act 1999 Protection Act 1993 Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 Rural Dont know/ not sure
33 23 18 12 31 18 15 19 54
79
77
81
Total
Metropolitan
- 31 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 10. How often does your organisation pursue illegal dumping incidents? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 20 9 11 51% 69% 42% 6 15% 5 13% 4 10% 4 10% 0 0% 1 40 100% 2.5 2 15% 0 0% 0 0% 2 15% 0 0% 0 13 100% 2.6 4 15% 5 19% 4 15% 2 8% 0 0% 1 27 100% 2.5
Not very often Often Not at all Quite often Very Often Dont know/ not sure No Response No. of Respondents
Mean
11. Which of the following pieces of legislation does your organisation use to address illegal dumping activities? Please select as many as applicable LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 31 10 21 79% 77% 81% 13 33% 7 18% 0 0% 7 18% 1 40 58 1.45 100% 7 54% 4 31% 0 0% 2 15% 0 13 23 1.77 100% 6 23% 3 12% 0 0% 5 19% 1 27 35 1.3 100%
Local Government Act 1999 Environment Protection Act 1993 Public and Environmental Health Act 1987 Other Dont know/ not sure No Response No. of Respondents No. of Responses
- 32 -
3.7
3.7.1
Illegal Dumping Instances

Respondents were asked how many occurrences of illegal dumping were there in their council area in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.7.2
The number of occurrences on average was 216 in 2005/06 and 218 in 2006/07. These averages reported were higher among metropolitan councils (524 in 2005/06 and 545 in 2006/07), compared to those reported by rural councils (44 in 2005/06 and 46 in 2006/07)
3.7.3
There were ranges of occurrences of illegal dumping identified by respondents for 2005/06 and 2006/07. In 2005/06 the range was from 0 to 1515 occurrences (26 to 1515 metropolitan and 0 to 418 rural) and in 2006/07 the range was from 0 to 1425 occurrences (30 to 1425 metropolitan and 0 to 400 rural).
Q12. How many occurrences or instances of illegal dumping were there in your council area in...
216
2005 / 2006
45 525
219
2006 / 2007
46 546
100
200
300
400
500
600
Average number of illegal dumping instances Metropolitan Rural Total
- 33 -
3.7.4
The occurrences or instances of illegal dumping identified by individual metropolitan councils are represented in the following table.
Metropolitan Councils City of Port Adelaide Enfield City of Onkaparinga City of Charles Sturt City of West Torrens City of Marion The City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Campbelltown City Council City of Holdfast Bay City of Unley Corporation of the Town of Walkerville 2005 / 2006 1515 1200 1032 571 465 250 87 70 30 26 2006 / 2007 1425 1250 1114 408 475 350 274 80 30 50
3.7.5
Similarly, the occurrences or instances of illegal dumping identified by individual rural councils are represented in the following table.
Rural Councils District Council of Mallala Adelaide Hills Council District Council of Grant The Barossa Council The Rural City of Murray Bridge Alexandrina Council District Council of the Copper Coast Kingston Regional Council District Council of Yankalilla City of Mt Gambier District Council of Elliston District Council of Renmark Paringa District Council of Tumby Bay District Council of Coober Pedy District Council of Karoonda East Murray Wakefield Regional Council District Council of Kimba 2005 / 2006 418 115 100 68 32 12 12 10 8 6 5 5 4 3 3 2006 / 2007 400 160 120 62 36 15 9 10 5 6 5 4 5 5 5 29 5
- 34 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 12. How many occurrences or instances of illegal dumping were there in your council area in... LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 218.5 545.6 46.4 29 10 19 216.0 28 524.6 10 44.5 18
2006 / 2007 2005 / 2006
- 35 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 12. How many occurrences or instances of illegal dumping were there in your council area in... 2005 / 2006 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 3 0 3 11% 0% 17% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 0 1 4% 0% 6% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 1 1 0 4% 10% 0% 12 3 9 40 100% 13 100% 27 100%
0 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 26 30 32 68 70 87 100 115 250 418 465 571 1032 1200 1515 No Response No. of Respondent
- 36 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 12. How many occurrences or instances of illegal dumping were there in your council area in... 2006 / 2007 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 6 0 6 21% 0% 32% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 1 1 0 3% 10% 0% 11 3 8 40 100% 13 100% 27 100%
0 4 5 6 9 10 15 29 30 36 50 62 80 120 160 274 350 400 408 475 1114 1250 1425 No Response No. of Respondent
- 37 -
3.8
3.8.1
Weight of Illegally Dumped Material

Those surveyed were then asked what the total estimated weight (tons) of material from illegal dumping was, that their organisation had disposed of in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.8.2
The total estimated weight (tons) on average was 182 tons in 2005/06 and 177 tons in 2006/07. These estimated weight of material reported by metropolitan councils was were higher (449 in 2005/06 and 443 in 2006/07), compared to those reported by rural councils (18 in 2005/06 and 23 in 2006/07)
3.8.3
The total estimated weights (tons) identified by respondents ranged from 0 to 2000 tons (1 to 2000 metropolitan and 0 to 157 rural) and in 2006/07 the estimated weight also ranged from 0 to 2000 tons (1 to 2000 metropolitan and 0 to 152 rural).
Q13. What was the total estimated weight (tons) of material disposed of from illegal dumping by your organisation in
182
2005 / 2006
18 449
177
2006 / 2007
23 443
100
200
300
400
500
Average estimated weight (tons) of material disposed Metropolitan Rural Total
- 38 -
3.8.4
The total estimated weight (tons) of material disposed of from illegal dumping recorded by individual metropolitan councils is represented in the following table.
Metropolitan Councils City of Port Adelaide Enfield City of Playford City of Onkaparinga City of West Torrens Campbelltown City Council City of Tea Tree Gully City of Charles Sturt The City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Corporation of the Town of Walkerville City of Holdfast Bay City of Unley 2005 / 2006 2000 1249 1000 315 152 134 51 25 10 1 1 2006 / 2007 2000 778 1100 329 420 130 56 35 25 1 1
3.8.5
Individual rural councils recorded the following total estimated weight (tons) of material disposed of from illegal dumping in their council areas.
Rural Councils District Council of Mallala Adelaide Hills Council City of Mt Gambier District Council of Grant The Barossa Council The Rural City of Murray Bridge District Council of Elliston District Council of Karoonda East Murray District Council of the Copper Coast Alexandrina Council District Council of Renmark Paringa Kingston Regional Council District Council of Coober Pedy District Council of Yankalilla District Council of Tumby Bay Wakefield Regional Council 2005 / 2006 157 58 30 25 25 15 5 3 3 2 2 1 <1 <1 <1 2006 / 2007 152 96 30 40 25 18 5 5 2 2 1 1 4 <1 <1 50
- 39 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 13. What was the total estimated weight (tons) of material disposed of from illegal dumping by your organisation in LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 181.5 448.9 18.1 29 11 18 176.8 30 443.2 11 22.6 19
2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
- 40 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 13. What was the total estimated weight (tons) of material disposed of from illegal dumping by your organisation in 2005 / 2006 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 3 0 3 10% 0% 17% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 3 2 1 10% 18% 6% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 3 1 2 10% 9% 11% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 11 2 9 40 100% 13 100% 27 100%
0 0.2 0.25 1 1.5 2 3 5 10 15 25 30 51 57.5 134 152 157 315 1000 1248.78 2000 No Response No. of Respondent
- 41 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 13. What was the total estimated weight (tons) of material disposed of from illegal dumping by your organisation in 2006 / 2007 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 4 2 2 13% 18% 11% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 2 1 1 7% 9% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 1 1 0 3% 9% 0% 10 2 8 40 100% 13 100% 27 100%
-1 0 0.2 0.25 1 2 3.5 5 18 25 30 35 40 50 56 96 130 152 329 420 778.25 1100 2000 No Response No. of Respondent
- 42 -
3.9
Cost
3.9.1
Disposal Cost of Illegally Dumped Material
We asked those surveyed how much they estimated the cost was for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by their organisation in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.9.2
The total cost identified by councils surveyed for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material on average was $39,807 in 2005/06 and $39,096 in 2006/07. The costs reported by metropolitan council surveyed were higher ($93,432 in 2005/06 and $96,976 in 2006/07), compared to those reported by rural councils surveyed ($4,063 in 2005/06 and $5,980 in 2006/07)
3.9.3
There were ranges of estimated costs for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material identified by respondents for 2005/06 and 2006/07. In 2005/06 the range reported was from 0 to $260,000 ($0 to $260,000 metropolitan and $0 to $25,000 rural) and in 2006/07 the range reported was from 0 to $280,000 ($0 to $280,000 metropolitan and $0 to $30,000 rural).
Q14. How much would you estimate the cost was for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by your organisation in
$39,807 2005 / 2006 $4,063 $93,423
$38,096 2006 / 2007 $5,980 $96,976
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000 Average $ cost
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Metropolitan
Rural
Total
- 43 -
3.9.4
The estimated cost for the removal and disposal of illegal dumped material incurred by metropolitan councils is recorded in the following table.
Rural Councils City of Port Adelaide Enfield City of Onkaparinga City of Playford City of West Torrens City of Charles Sturt City of Tea Tree Gully City of Mitcham The City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters City of Holdfast Bay City of Unley Corporation of the Town of Walkerville 2005 / 2006 $260,000 $210,000 $180,000 $177,300 $118,500 $80,000 $70,000 $18,750 $2,500 $2,500 $1,500 2006 / 2007 $280,000 $220,000 $170,000 $175,960 $128,000 $80,000 $75,000 $26,250 $3,000 $3,000 $2,500
3.9.5
Similarly, rural councils recorded the following estimated cost for the removal and disposal of illegal dumped material.
Rural Councils District Council of Grant The Barossa Council Adelaide Hills Council The Rural City of Murray Bridge District Council of Renmark Paringa Alexandrina Council City of Mt Gambier District Council of Elliston Kingston Regional Council District Council of Yankalilla District Council of Tumby Bay District Council of the Copper Coast District Council of Coober Pedy District Council of Karoonda East Murray District Council of Mallala The Corporation of the City of Whyalla Wakefield Regional Council District Council Ceduna District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula District Council of Kimba 2005 / 2006 25000 20000 9690 6000 3000 3000 2000 1000 1000 1000 550 500 200 150 90 2006 / 2007 30000 20000 16320 8500 4500 3300 2000 1500 1000 600 550 400 700 250 90 30000 6600 3000 2000 250
- 44 -
tems Used in Cost Calculations

3.9.6 We also asked respondents to specify the items that they had included to calculate the estimated cost for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by their organisation. 3.9.7 The main costs identified by councils surveyed for removal and disposal included: Labour costs (87%) Equipment costs (76%) Waste to landfill costs (63%) Contractor costs (32%)
3.9.8
Metropolitan councils surveyed reported the following estimated costs for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped materials: Labour costs (92%) Waste to landfill costs (92%) Equipment costs (77%) Contractor costs (31%)
3.9.9
The estimated main costs identified by rural councils surveyed for removal and disposal included: Labour costs (84%) Equipment costs (76%) Waste to landfill costs (48%) Contractor costs (32%)
3.9.10
One of the rural councils stated that they did not incur any costs, as they did not have any problems with illegally dumped materials in their council area (3%).
- 45 -
Q15. Please specify the items you have included to calculate the estimated cost for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by your organisation.
100 90 80 % of responses 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Labour costs Equipment costs Waste to landfill costs Contractor costs Other No costs, no problem with illegally dumped material Dont know/ not sure
3 8 3 4 8 12 87 92 84 76 77 76 63 48 32 31 32 92
Total
Metropolitan
Rural
- 46 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 14. How much would you estimate the cost was for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by your organisation in LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 39807.0 93423.3 4062.8 30 12 18 38096.2 34 96975.8 12 5980.0 22
2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
- 47 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 14. How much would you estimate the cost was for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by your organisation in 2005 / 2006 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 4 1 3 13% 8% 17% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 3 0 3 10% 0% 17% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 2 2 0 7% 17% 0% 2 0 2 7% 0% 11% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 0 1 3% 0% 6% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 10 1 9 40 100% 13 100% 27 100%
0 90 150 200 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 6000 9690 18750 20000 25000 70000 80000 118500 177330 180000 210000 260000 No Response No. of Respondent
- 48 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 14. How much would you estimate the cost was for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by your organisation in 2006 / 2007 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 3 1 2 9% 8% 9% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 2 0 2 6% 0% 9% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 2 0 2 6% 0% 9% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 3 2 1 9% 17% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 0 1 3% 0% 5% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 2 0 2 6% 0% 9% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 1 1 0 3% 8% 0% 6 1 5 40 100% 13 100% 27 100%
0 90 250 400 550 600 700 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3300 4500 6600 8500 16320 20000 26250 30000 75000 80000 128000 170000 175960 220000 280000 No Response No. of Respondent
- 49 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 15. Please specify the items you have included to calculate the estimated cost for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by your organisation. Please select as many as applicable LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 33 12 21 87% 92% 84% 29 76% 24 63% 12 32% 1 3% 1 3% 10 77% 12 92% 4 31% 1 8% 0 0% 19 76% 12 48% 8 32% 0 0% 1 4%
Labour costs
Equipment costs
Waste to landfill costs Contractor costs
Other
No costs as we do not have a problem with illegally dumped material in our council area Dont know/ not sure
3 8% 2 40 103 2.58 100%
0 0% 0 13 39 3. 100%
3 12% 2 27 64 2.37 100%
No Response No. of Respondents No. of Responses

- 50 -
3.10
3.10.1
Cost of Enforcement Activities Relating to Illegal Dumping

Those surveyed were asked how much their organisation spent on enforcement activities related to illegal dumping in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.10.2
The total spent on average by councils surveyed was $3,287 in 2005/06 and $3,018 in 2006/07. Metropolitan councils surveyed spent more on enforcement ($8,510 in 2005/06 and $8,408 in 2006/07), compared to that spent by rural councils surveyed ($675 in 2005/06 and $622 in 2006/07)
3.10.3
The amount that was reported by councils surveyed, that they spent on enforcement activities ranged in 2005/06 and 2006/07. In 2005/06 the amount spent ranged from 0 to $60,000 ($0 to $60,000 metropolitan and $0 to $3,000 rural) and in 2006/07 the amount spent ranged from 0 to $60,000 ($0 to $60,000 metropolitan and $0 to $3,000 rural).
Q16. How much did your organisation spend on enforcement activities related to illegal dumping in...
$3,287 2005 / 2006 $675 $8,510
$3,018 2006 / 2007 $622 $8,408
$0
$1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 Cost $ of enforcement Metropolitan Rural Total
3.10.4
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield spent $60,000 per annum on enforcement activities, this was significantly more than most other metropolitan councils, which spent at the most $3,000 per annum.
3.10.5
The regional councils that spent the most on enforcement activities were the Barossa Council, Adelaide Hills Council and the District Council of Mallala, each spending between $2,000 and $3,000 per annum.
- 51 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 16. How much did your organisation spend on enforcement activities related to illegal dumping in... LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 3286.7 8510.0 675.0 24 8 16 3017.7 26 8407.5 8 622.2 18
2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
- 52 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 16. How much did your organisation spend on enforcement activities related to illegal dumping in... 2005 / 2006 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 8 1 7 33% 13% 44% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 2 8% 1 4% 3 13% 4 17% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 16 40 100% 0 0% 1 13% 0 0% 1 13% 0 0% 1 13% 2 25% 1 13% 0 0% 1 13% 5 13 100% 1 6% 0 0% 1 6% 1 6% 1 6% 2 13% 2 13% 0 0% 1 6% 0 0% 11 27 100%
0 200 250 300 500 800 1000 2000 2330 3000 60000 No Response No. of Respondent
- 53 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 16. How much did your organisation spend on enforcement activities related to illegal dumping in... 2006 / 2007 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 9 1 8 35% 13% 44% 2 8% 1 4% 1 4% 2 8% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 2 8% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 2 8% 1 4% 14 40 100% 0 0% 1 13% 0 0% 1 13% 0 0% 0 0% 1 13% 1 13% 1 13% 0 0% 0 0% 1 13% 1 13% 5 13 100% 2 11% 0 0% 1 6% 1 6% 1 6% 1 6% 0 0% 1 6% 0 0% 1 6% 1 6% 1 6% 0 0% 9 27 100%
0 200 300 400 500 600 800 960 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 60000 No Response No. of Respondent
- 54 -
3.11
3.11.1
Expiation Notices Served for Illegal Dumping

Respondents were asked to specify the number of expiation notices that their organisation served for illegal dumping in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.11.2
The average number of expiation notices that councils surveyed reported that they served were 4.9 in 2005/06 and 4.8 in 2006/07. Metropolitan councils reported that they served more notices (6.8 in 2005/06 and 6.5 in 2006/07), compared to the number reported by rural councils (3.8 in 2005/06 and 4.0 in 2006/07)
3.11.3
There were ranges in the number of expiation notices served by councils surveyed for 2005/06 and 2006/07. In 2005/06 the range was from 0 to 43 (0 to 43 metropolitan and 0 to 20 rural) and in 2006/07 the range was from 0 to 31 (0 to 31 metropolitan and 0 to 14 rural).
Q17. Please specify the number of expiation notices served for illegal dumping by your organisation in...
4.9 2005 / 2006 3.8 6.8
4.8 2006 / 2007 4.0 6.5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Average number of expiation notices Metropolitan Rural Total
3.11.4
The metropolitan councils that were more likely to serve expiation notices were the City of West Torrens (43 in 2005/06 and 31 in 2006/07), the City of Mitcham (10 in both 2005/06 and 2006/07) and the City of Port Adelaide Enfield (8 in 2005/06 and 7 in 2006/07).
- 55 -
3.11.5
The regional councils that served a greater number of expiation notices included the District Council of Mallala (20 in 2005/06 and 14 in 2006/07), the Adelaide Hills Council (13 in 2005/06 and 14 in 2006/07), the District Council of Grant (10 in both 2005/06 and 2006/07), the District Council of the Copper Coast (9 in 2005/06 and 7 in 2006/07) and the Alexandrina Council (5 in 2005/06 and 7 in 2006/07).
- 56 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 17. Please specify the number of expiation notices served for illegal dumping by your organisation in... LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 4.9 6.8 3.8 29 10 19 4.8 32 6.5 10 4.0 22
2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007
- 57 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 17. Please specify the number of expiation notices served for illegal dumping by your organisation in... 2005 / 2006 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 10 3 7 34% 30% 37% 4 14% 2 7% 5 17% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 2 7% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 11 40 100% 2 20% 1 10% 1 10% 0 0% 1 10% 0 0% 1 10% 0 0% 0 0% 1 10% 3 13 100% 2 11% 1 5% 4 21% 1 5% 0 0% 1 5% 1 5% 1 5% 1 5% 0 0% 8 27 100%
0 1 2 3 5 8 9 10 13 20 43 No Response No. of Respondent
- 58 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 17. Please specify the number of expiation notices served for illegal dumping by your organisation in... 2006 / 2007 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 9 2 7 28% 20% 32% 3 9% 4 13% 2 6% 5 16% 3 9% 1 3% 2 6% 2 6% 1 3% 8 40 100% 2 20% 0 0% 0 0% 3 30% 1 10% 0 0% 1 10% 0 0% 1 10% 3 13 100% 1 5% 4 18% 2 9% 2 9% 2 9% 1 5% 1 5% 2 9% 0 0% 5 27 100%
0 1 2 4 5 7 9 10 14 31 No Response No. of Respondent
- 59 -
3.12
3.12.1
Prosecutions for Illegal Dumping

We asked respondents to specify the number of prosecutions their organisation pursued for illegal dumping in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.12.2
Councils surveyed reported that on average they pursued 0.5 prosecutions for illegal dumping in both 2005/06 and 2006/07. Rural councils were more likely to pursue prosecutions (0.7 in 2005/06 and 0.7 in 2006/07), compared to those pursued by metropolitan councils (0.1 in 2005/06 and none in 2006/07)
Q18. Please specify the number of prosecutions that were pursued by your organisation for illegal dumping in...
0.5 2005 / 2006 0.7
0.5 2006 / 2007 0.1 0.7
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Average number of prosecutions Metropolitan Rural Total
- 60 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 18. Please specify the number of prosecutions that were pursued by your organisation for illegal dumping in... LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... .5 .1 .7 31 9 22 .5 27 .0 9 .7 18
2006 / 2007 2005 / 2006
- 61 -
3.13
3.13.1
Clean Up Orders Served for Illegal Dumping

Those surveyed were also asked to specify the number of clean up orders that their organisation served for illegal dumping in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.13.2
The majority of respondents indicated that their organisation had not served any clean up orders in 2005/06 (85%) or in 2006/07 (79%).
3.13.3
The average number of clean up orders that had been served was 0.9 in 2005/06 and 0.6 in 2006/07. Metropolitan councils surveyed reported that they served a greater number of clean up orders (1.5 in 2005/06 and 1.3 in 2006/07), compared to those reported that were by rural councils surveyed (0.5 in 2005/06 and 0.2 in 2006/07)
Q19. Please specify the number of clean up orders that were served by your organisation for illegal dumping in...
0.6 2005 / 2006 0.2 1.3
0.9 2006 / 2007 0.5 1.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
Average number of clean up orders Metropolitan Rural Total
- 62 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 19. Please specify the number of clean up orders that were served by your organisation for illegal dumping in... LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... .9 1.5 .5 29 10 19 .6 27 1.3 10 .2 17
2006 / 2007 2005 / 2006
19. Please specify the number of clean up orders that were served by your organisation for illegal dumping in... 2005 / 2006 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 23 8 15 85% 80% 88% 2 7% 1 4% 1 4% 13 40 100% 0 0% 1 10% 1 10% 3 13 100% 2 12% 0 0% 0 0% 10 27 100%
0 2 3 10 No Response No. of Respondent
19. Please specify the number of clean up orders that were served by your organisation for illegal dumping in... 2006 / 2007 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 23 8 15 79% 80% 79% 2 7% 2 7% 1 3% 1 3% 11 40 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 10% 1 10% 3 13 100% 2 11% 2 11% 0 0% 0 0% 8 27 100%
0 2 3 5 10 No Response No. of Respondent
- 63 -
3.14
Prevention of Illegal Dumping Activities
Prevention Methods
3.14.1 We asked those surveyed which methods their organisations had made use of to prevent illegal dumping activities. 3.14.2 Three tenths (29%) of respondents stated that their councils had done nothing to prevent illegal dumping activities. It was more likely that rural councils did nothing (35%), compared to metropolitan councils (17%). 3.14.3 Almost half (49%) of those surveyed stated that the main method used by their council was established signage The other methods identified by respondents included: 3.14.4 Prevention programs (26%) Undertaken surveillance (23%) Education/ information through media and mail outs (23%) Employed inspections (3%)
There were some variances among the responses recorded by metropolitan council participants and rural council participants. The methods metropolitan council participants named that they used to prevent illegal dumping activities included: Established signage (50%) Education/ information through media and mail outs (50%) Prevention programs (33%) Undertaken surveillance (42%)
3.14.5
The methods that were identified by rural council that they used to prevent illegal dumping included: Established signage (48%) Prevention programs (22%) Undertaken surveillance (13%) Education/ information through media and mail outs (9%) Employed inspections (4%)
- 64 -
Q20. Which of the following has your organisation made use of to prevent illegal dumping activities?
60 50 % of responses 40 30 20 10 0 Established signage Prevention program Undertaken Education / surveillance information through media, mailouts advertising Total
26 22 49 50 48 42 33 29 23 13 9 3 4 0 6 8 4 6 8 4 23 17 35 50
Employed inspectors
Other
Nothing
Don't know / not sure
Metropolitan
Rural
3.14.6
The metropolitan councils that under took surveillance to prevent illegal dumping included: City of Mitcham City of Onkaparinga City of Port Adelaide Enfield City of Tea Tree Gully City of West Torrens
3.14.7
The three rural councils which undertook surveillance to prevent illegal dumping were: Adelaide Hills Council District Council of Grant District Council of Renmark Paringa
- 65 -
Effectiveness
3.14.8 We then asked respondents how effective these methods had been in reducing the incidents of illegal dumping. 3.14.9 One fifth (20%) of councils surveyed indicated that the methods had some effectiveness. The scaled responses recorded were: 3.14.10 Very effective (3%) Quite effective (17%) Neither effective nor ineffective (20%) Quite ineffective (9%) Not at all effective (14%)
A greater proportion of metropolitan councils stated that the methods had some effectiveness (25%), compared to rural councils (17%). The scaled responses among metropolitan councils were: Very effective (0%) Quite effective (25%) Neither effective nor ineffective (17%) Quite ineffective (8%) Not at all effective (8%)
3.14.11
The scaled responses among rural councils of the effectiveness of the methods that they used in reducing the incidents of illegal dumping were: Very effective (4%) Quite effective (13%) Neither effective nor ineffective (22%) Quite ineffective (9%) Not at all effective (17%)
- 66 -
Q21. How effective have these methods been in reducing the incidents of illegal dumping?
3 17 Total 20 9 14 37 4 13 Rural 22 9 17 35
25 Metropolitan 17 8 8 42 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
% of respondents Dont know/ not sure Neither effective nor ineffective Not at all effective Quite effective Quite ineffective Very effective
3.14.12
The City of Mitcham, the City of Onkaparinga and the City of Port Adelaide Enfield were the three metropolitan councils out of the five that had undertaken surveillance to prevent illegal dumping that stated it had been quite effective. The remaining two councils indicated that the surveillance had been neither effective nor ineffective or they were unsure how effective it had been.
3.14.13
All three rural councils which under took surveillance to prevent illegal dumping activities indicated that it had been neither effective nor ineffective as a prevention method.
- 67 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 20. Which of the following has your organisation made use of to prevent illegal dumping activities? Please select as many as applicable LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 17 6 11 49% 50% 48% 9 26% 8 23% 11 31% 2 6% 8 23% 4 33% 5 42% 7 58% 1 8% 6 50% 5 22% 3 13% 4 17% 1 4% 2 9%
Established signage
Prevention program
Undertaken surveillance TOTAL OTHER
Other
Education / information - through media, mail outs advertising Employed inspectors
1 3% 10 29% 2 6% 5 40 57 1.43 100%
0 0% 2 17% 1 8% 1 13 25 1.92 100%
1 4% 8 35% 1 4% 4 27 32 1.19 100%
Nothing
Don't know / not sure No Response No. of Respondents No. of Responses

- 68 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 21. How effective have these methods been in reducing the incidents of illegal dumping? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 13 5 8 37% 42% 35% 7 20% 6 17% 5 14% 3 9% 1 3% 5 40 100% 2.8 2 17% 3 25% 1 8% 1 8% 0 0% 1 13 100% 3.0 5 22% 3 13% 4 17% 2 9% 1 4% 4 27 100% 2.7
Dont know/ not sure
Neither effective nor ineffective Quite effective
Not at all effective
Quite ineffective
Very effective
No Response No. of Respondents
Mean
- 69 -
3.15
3.15.1
Barriers to Responding Effectively to Illegal Dumping

Those surveyed were asked what barriers their organisation faced in responding effectively to illegal dumping incidents.
3.15.2
There was a range of barriers named by respondents, these included: Difficulty in identifying offenders (46%) Lack of resources/ funds (43%) Prosecution difficulties/ lack of evidence/ witnesses (31%) Large areas to cover (23%) Public perception that its OK to do it (11%)
Q22. What barriers does your organisation face in responding effectively to illegal dumping incidences?
70 60 50 % of responses 40 30 22 20 10 0 Difficulty in identifying offenders Lack of resources / funds Prosecution difficulties/ lack of evidence / witnesses Total Large areas to cover Public perception that it's Ok to do it Other (not coded) 8 11 13 8 23 14 8 17 46 39 35 31 30 58 58 50 43
Metropolitan
Rural
- 70 -
3.15.3
Survey participants responses varied based on whether the council they represented was located in metropolitan or rural South Australia. The barriers identified by metropolitan council participants that their organisation faced in responding effectively to illegal dumping incidents included: Difficulty in identifying offenders (58%) Lack of resources/ funds (58%) Prosecution difficulties/ lack of evidence/ witnesses (50%) Large areas to cover (8%) Public perception that its OK to do it (8%)
3.15.4
The barriers named by rural council participants that their organisation faced included: Difficulty in identifying offenders (39%) Lack of resources/ funds (35%) Large areas to cover (30%) Prosecution difficulties/ lack of evidence/ witnesses (22%) Public perception that its OK to do it (13% )
- 71 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 22. What barriers does your organisation face in responding effectively to illegal dumping incidences? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 16 7 9 46% 58% 39% 15 43% 11 31% 8 23% 4 11% 5 14% 5 40 59 1.48 100% 7 58% 6 50% 1 8% 1 8% 1 8% 1 13 23 1.77 100% 8 35% 5 22% 7 30% 3 13% 4 17% 4 27 36 1.33 100%
Difficulty in identifying offenders Lack of resources / funds Prosecution difficulties 0 lack of evidence /; witnesses Large areas to cover
Public perception that it's Ok to do it Other (not coded)

- 72 -
3.16
3.16.1
Response to Illegal Dumping

We asked those councils surveyed what their organisation would like to see done in response to illegal dumping.
3.16.2
An education campaign was main initiative named by the majority (71%) of council participants.
3.16.3
Other initiatives that were identified by councils surveyed, that they would like to see done included: Change legislation (43%) Standardised reporting and data collection (34%) Provision of legal advice on enforcement (31%)
Q23. What would your organisation like to see done in response to illegal dumping ?
90 80 70 % of responses 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Education campaign Change to Legislation Standardised Provision of Reporting and legal advice on Data Collection enforcement Total Metropolitan Rural Other 9 8 9 30 50 43 34 26 31 33 30 17 11 0 Dont know/ not sure 71 65 83
67
- 73 -
3.16.4
There were some variances among the responses recorded by metropolitan council and rural council participants. The initiatives metropolitan council participants named, that they would like to see in response to illegal dumping included: An education campaign (83%) Change legislation (67%) Standardised reporting and data collection (50%) Provision of legal advice on enforcement (33%)
3.16.5
The initiatives that were identified by rural council participants, that they that they would like to see in response to illegal dumping included: An education campaign (65%) Change legislation (30%) Standardised reporting and data collection (26%) Provision of legal advice on enforcement (30%)
- 74 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 23. What would your organisation like to see done in response to illegal dumping ? Please select as many as applicable LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 25 10 15 71% 83% 65% 15 43% 12 34% 11 31% 3 9% 0 0% 4 11% 5 40 70 1.75 100% 8 67% 6 50% 4 33% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 1 13 29 2.23 100% 7 30% 6 26% 7 30% 2 9% 0 0% 4 17% 4 27 41 1.52 100%
Education campaign
Change to Legislation Standardised Reporting and Data Collection Provision of legal advice on enforcement Other
Nothing
Dont know/ not sure

- 75 -
3.17
Hard Waste Collection
Waste Collection Services Offered

3.17.1 We asked respondents if their organisation offered a hard waste collection service. 3.17.2 Three quarters (74%) of respondents indicated that their council offered a collection service, while one quarter (26%) did not. 3.17.3 The types of hard waste collection services identified by councils surveyed included: 3.17.4 Scheduled (31%) Drop off (29%) At call service (14%)
All (100%) metropolitan councils surveyed offered a hard waste collection service, compared to just over half (57%) of rural councils surveyed. The metropolitan councils surveyed identified the following collection services that they offered: Scheduled (58%) At call service (42%) Drop off (8%)
3.17.5
Rural councils surveyed identified that they offered drop off (39%) and scheduled hard waste collection services (17%)
- 76 -
Q24. Does your organisation offer a hard waste collection service?

70 60 50 % of responses 40 31 30 20 10 0 Scheduled Drop off At call service No Dont know/ not sure 17 8 3 4 29 39 42 39 58
26
14
Total
Metropolitan
Rural
Frequency
3.17.6 We then asked those surveyed, who indicated that their organisation had a hard waste collection service, how often the scheduled service was provided. 3.17.7 The most common frequencies identified by respondents were once a year, twice a year or more than twice a year. The scaled responses included: 3.17.8 Once a year (45%) Twice a year (30%) More than twice a year (10%)
There were some variances among the responses recorded between metropolitan councils and rural councils surveyed. Metropolitan councils indicated that their scheduled services were either once a year (70%) or twice a year (30%).
- 77 -
3.17.9
Rural councils surveyed stated that hard waste collection services were scheduled either once a year (20%), twice a year (30%) or more than twice a year (20%).
Q25. How often is the scheduled hard waste collection service provided? BASE: Organisation offer a hard waste collection service (N=20)
45 Once a year 20 70 30 30 30 10 More than twice a year 20
Twice a year
15 Other (not coded) 30
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% of respondents Metropolitan Rural Total
- 78 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 24. Does your organisation offer a hard waste collection service? Please select as many as applicable LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 11 7 4 31% 58% 17% 10 29% 5 14% 0 0% 9 26% 1 3% 5 40 36 0.9 100% 1 8% 5 42% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 13 13 1. 100% 9 39% 0 0% 0 0% 9 39% 1 4% 4 27 23 0.85 100%
Scheduled
Drop off
At call service
Other
No
Dont know/ not sure

- 79 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 25. How often is the scheduled hard waste collection service provided ? BASE: Organisation offer a hard waste collection service LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 9 7 2 45% 70% 20% 6 30% 2 10% 3 15% 3 15% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 30% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 30% 2 20% 3 30% 3 30% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Once a year
Twice a year
More than twice a year TOTAL OTHER
Other (not coded)
At call service provided No collection service is provided Don't know / not sure Don't know/ not sure
No. of Respondents
20 100%
10 100%
10 100%
- 80 -
3.18
3.18.1
Disposal Facilities
Respondents were asked if their organisation provided facilities for persons to dispose of unwanted materials in ways other than by kerbside collection or hard waste collection.
3.18.2
The majority (86%) of councils surveyed stated that their council provided other ways for residents to dispose of unwanted materials.
3.18.3
The main alternative methods provided to dispose of unwanted materials that were identified by respondents included: Transfer station (49%) Land fill (46% ) Skips (6%)
Q26. Does your organisation provide facilities for persons to dispose of unwanted materials in ways other than the kerbside collection or hard waste collection?
49 42 46
Transfer station
52
Land fill
6 8 23 42
70
Skips
Other
13
No
14 25
10
20
30
40 % of responses
50
60
70
80
Metropolitan
Rural
Total
3.18.4
Metropolitan councils surveyed identified transfer stations (42%) and skips (8%) as the main alternative methods provided to dispose of unwanted materials.
- 81 -
3.18.5
Rural councils surveyed were more likely (91%) to provide alternative methods to dispose of unwanted materials, compared to metropolitan councils surveyed (75%). The main alternative methods for disposal named by rural councils surveyed included land fill (70%), transfer stations (52%), and skips (4%).
- 82 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 26. Does your organisation provide facilities for persons to dispose of unwanted materials in ways other than the kerbside collection or hard waste collection? Please select as many as applicable LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 17 5 12 49% 42% 52% 16 46% 2 6% 8 23% 5 14% 0 0% 5 40 48 1.2 100% 0 0% 1 8% 5 42% 3 25% 0 0% 1 13 14 1.08 100% 16 70% 1 4% 3 13% 2 9% 0 0% 4 27 34 1.26 100%
Transfer station
Land fill
Skips
Other
No
Dont know/ not sure

- 83 -
3.19
3.19.1
Main Litter Locations

Those surveyed were asked to indicate which were the top three locations where littering incidents occurred in their council area.
3.19.2
The two main litter locations identified by respondents were the roadside (91%) and public parks (74%). The other locations named by those surveyed included: Building sites (34%) Beaches (29%) Off truck or trailer (29%)
Q27. Please indicate which are the top 3 locations where littering incidents occur in your council area?
120
100 91 92 91
100
% of responses
80
74 61
60
42
40
34
30
29
33 26
35 29 17 17 17 17 3 4
20
0 Roadside Public Park Building Site Beach Off Truck or Trailer Rural Other Dont know/ not sure
Total
Metropolitan
3.19.3
Survey participants responses varied based on whether the council they represented was located in metropolitan or rural South Australia. The main locations where littering incidents occurred that were identified by metropolitan council participants included: Public parks (100%) The roadside (92%)
- 84 -
3.19.4
Building sites (42%) Beaches (33%) Off truck or trailer (17%)
The main locations where littering incidents occurred that were named by rural council participants included: Roadside (91%) Public parks (61%) Off truck or trailer (35%) Building sites (30%) Beaches (26%)
- 85 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 27. Please indicate which are the top 3 locations where littering incidents occur in your council area? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 32 11 21 91% 92% 91% 26 74% 12 34% 10 29% 10 29% 6 17% 1 3% 5 40 97 2.43 100% 12 100% 5 42% 4 33% 2 17% 2 17% 0 0% 1 13 36 2.77 100% 14 61% 7 30% 6 26% 8 35% 4 17% 1 4% 4 27 61 2.26 100%
Roadside
Public Park
Building Site
Beach
Off Truck or Trailer
Other
Dont know/ not sure

- 86 -
3.20
3.20.1
Street Litter Bins

Respondents were asked if their organisation increased or reduced the number of street litter bins in public places for disposing of rubbish to reduce litter.
3.20.2
Just under two thirds (63%) of those surveyed indicated that their council had increased the number of street litter bins, while three tenths (31%) stated that there had been no change in the number of street litter bins they had in public places. A further 6% were unsure of whether their council had increased the number of bins.
Q28. Has your organisation increased or reduced the number of street litter bins in public places for disposing of rubbish to reduce litter?
63
Total
6
31
65
Rural
9
26
58
Metropolitan
42
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% of respondents Dont know/ not sure No change Increased
3.20.3
There were some variances among the responses recorded between metropolitan councils and rural councils surveyed. Just under three fifths (58%) of metropolitan councils surveyed indicated that they had increased the number of street litter bins in public places for disposing of rubbish to reduce litter, while two fifths (42%) stated that there had been no change in the number of street litter bins in public places.
3.20.4
Two thirds (65%) of rural councils surveyed indicated that they had increased the number of street litter bins in public places, while one quarter (26%) stated that there had been no change in the number of street litter bins in public places.
- 87 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 28. Has your organisation increased or reduced the number of street litter bins in public places for disposing of rubbish to reduce litter? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 22 7 15 63% 58% 65% 0 0% 11 31% 2 6% 5 40 100% 0 0% 5 42% 0 0% 1 13 100% 0 0% 6 26% 2 9% 4 27 100%
Increased
Decreased
No change
Dont know/ not sure
- 88 -
3.21
3.21.1 3.21.2
Litter Strategy
We asked those surveyed if their organisation had a litter strategy in place. Three tenths (29%) of respondents stated that their council had a strategy in place, while half (51%) did not. A further 20% were unsure whether their organisation had a litter strategy in place.
3.21.3
Metropolitan councils surveyed were more likely to indicate that they had a litter strategy in place (33%), compared to rural councils surveyed (26%).
Q29. Does your organisation have a litter strategy in place?
29
Total
20
51
26
Rural
22
52
33
Metropolitan
17
50
10
20
30 % of respondents
40
50
60
Dont know/ not sure
No
Yes
- 89 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 29. Does your organisation have a litter strategy in place? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 10 4 6 29% 33% 26% 18 51% 7 20% 5 40 100% 6 50% 2 17% 1 13 100% 12 52% 5 22% 4 27 100%
Yes
No
Dont know/ not sure
- 90 -
3.22
3.22.1
Pursuing Littering Incidents

Respondents were asked how often their organisation pursued littering incidents.
3.22.2
Littering incidents were pursued by more than one third (35%) of councils surveyed often, while one third (34%) stated that they did not pursued them very often. The remaining one third (34%) of councils did not pursue littering incidents at all.
3.22.3
The scaled responses of how often councils surveyed pursued littering incidents were: Very often (9%) Quite often (9%) Often (17%) Not very often (34% - 50% metropolitan and 26% rural Not at all (26% - 25% metropolitan and 26% rural)
Q30. How often does your organisation pursue littering incidents ?
9 9 Total 17 34 26 9 9 Rural 22 26 26 8 8 8 50 25 0 10 20 30 % of respondents Not at all Not very often Often Quite often Very Often 40 50 60
Metropolitan
- 91 -
3.22.4
A greater proportion of rural councils surveyed indicated that they pursued littering incidents often (40%), compared to metropolitan councils surveyed (26%).
3.22.5
The scaled responses among metropolitan councils surveyed of how often they pursued littering incidents were: Very often (8%) Quite often (8%) Often (8%) Not very often (50%) Not at all (25%)
3.22.6
The scaled responses among rural councils surveyed of the frequency they pursued littering incidents were: Very often (9%) Quite often (9%) Often (22%) Not very often (26%) Not at all (26%)
- 92 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 30. How often does your organisation pursue littering incidents ? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 12 6 6 34% 50% 26% 9 26% 6 17% 3 9% 3 9% 2 6% 5 40 100% 2.4 3 25% 1 8% 1 8% 1 8% 0 0% 1 13 100% 2.3 6 26% 5 22% 2 9% 2 9% 2 9% 4 27 100% 2.4
Not very often
Not at all
Often
Quite often
Very Often
Dont know/ not sure
Mean
- 93 -
3.23
3.23.1
Expiation Notices Served for Littering

We asked those surveyed to specify the number of expiation notices pursued by their organisation for persons littering in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.23.2
The average number of expiation notices pursued by the councils surveyed was 4.4 in 2005/06 and 4.5 in 2006/07. Metropolitan councils surveyed were more likely to pursue expiation notices (10.1 in 2005/06 and 10.2 in 2006/07), compared to the number pursued by rural councils surveyed (1.4 in 2005/06 and 1.6 in 2006/07).
3.23.3
There were ranges of the number of expiation notices pursued by respondents for 2005/06 and 2006/07. In 2005/06 the range was from 0 to 43 (0 to 43 metropolitan and 0 to 10 rural) and in 2006/07 the range was from 0 to 31 (0 to 31 metropolitan and 0 to 12 rural).
Q31. Please specify the number of expiation notices pursued by your organisation for persons littering in...
4.4 2005 / 2006 1.4 10.1
4.5 2006 / 2007 1.6 10.2
6 % of respondents
10
12
Metropolitan
Rural
Total
3.23.4
The metropolitan councils that were more likely to pursue expiation notices were the City of West Torrens (43 in 2005/06 and 31 in 2006/07), the City of Charles Sturt (24 in both 2005/06 and 2006/07), the City of Holdfast Bay (21 in 2005/06 and 29 in 2006/07) and the City of Mitcham (10 in both 2005/06 and 2006/07).
- 94 -
3.23.5
The regional councils that pursued a greater number of expiation notices included the Adelaide Hills Council (10 in 2005/06 and 12 in 2006/07), the District Council of Ceduna (8 in 2005/06 and 7 in 2006/07) and the Alexandrina Council (4 in 2005/06 and 5 in 2006/07).
- 95 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 31. Please specify the number of expiation notices pursued by your organisation for persons littering in... LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 4.5 10.2 1.6 30 10 20 4.4 29 10.1 10 1.4 19
2006 / 2007 2005 / 2006
31. Please specify the number of expiation notices pursued by your organisation for persons littering in... 2005 / 2006 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 18 4 14 62% 40% 74% 1 3% 2 7% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 2 7% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 11 40 100% 1 10% 1 10% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 10% 1 10% 1 10% 1 10% 3 13 100% 0 0% 1 5% 1 5% 1 5% 1 5% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 27 100%
- 96 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 31. Please specify the number of expiation notices pursued by your organisation for persons littering in... 2006 / 2007 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 19 4 15 63% 40% 75% 1 3% 2 7% 2 7% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 10 40 100% 1 10% 0 0% 1 10% 0 0% 1 10% 0 0% 1 10% 1 10% 1 10% 3 13 100% 0 0% 2 10% 1 5% 1 5% 0 0% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 27 100%
- 97 -
3.24
3.24.1
Prosecutions Pursued for Littering

We also asked respondents to specify the number of prosecutions pursued by their organisation for persons littering in 2005/06 and 2006/07.
3.24.2
The average number of prosecutions pursued were 1.2 in 2005/06 and 1.5 in 2006/07. These averages were higher among responses by metropolitan councils (2.9 in 2005/06 and 4.1 in 2006/07), compared to those reported by rural councils (0.4 in both 2005/06 and 2006/07).
3.24.3
There were ranges of the number of prosecutions pursued identified by respondents for 2005/06 and 2006/07. In 2005/06 the range was from 0 to 21 (0 to 21 metropolitan and 0 to 8 rural) and in 2006/07 the range was from 0 to 29 (0 to 29 metropolitan and 0 to 7 rural).
Q32. Please specify the number of prosecutions pursued by your organisation for persons littering in
1.2 2005 / 2006 0.4 2.9
1.5 2006 / 2007 0.4 4.1
0.5
1.5
2.5 Rural
3 Total
3.5
4.5
Metropolitan
- 98 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 32. Please specify the number of prosecutions pursued by your organisation for persons littering in LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 1.5 4.1 .4 29 9 20 1.2 28 2.9 9 .4 19
2006 / 2007 2005 / 2006
32. Please specify the number of prosecutions pursued by your organisation for persons littering in 2005 / 2006 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 25 7 18 89% 78% 95% 1 4% 1 4% 1 4% 12 40 100% 1 11% 0 0% 1 11% 4 13 100% 0 0% 1 5% 0 0% 8 27 100%
32. Please specify the number of prosecutions pursued by your organisation for persons littering in 2006 / 2007 LOCATION .......................................... TOTAL Metropolitan Rural ................... ................... ................... 26 7 19 90% 78% 95% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 11 40 100% 0 0% 1 11% 1 11% 4 13 100% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 7 27 100%
- 99 -
3.25
3.25.1
Interest in Further Participation

Finally we asked those surveyed if their organisation would be interested in assisting with the collection of further data on illegal dumping incidents.
3.25.2
Almost half (49%) of the respondents stated that they would be interested, while one quarter (26%) indicated that they would not be interested in assisting. A further one quarter (26%) were unsure.
3.25.3
Survey participants from metropolitan councils were more likely to be interested in assisting (83%), compared to those from rural councils (30%).
36. Would your organisation be interested in assisting with the collection of further data on illegal dumping incidents?
Dont know/ not sure 26%
Yes 49%
No 26%
MTR (Ref: 8501)
- 100 -
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008 36. Would your organisation be interested in assisting with the collection of further data on illegal dumping incidents? LOCATION .......................................... Metropolitan Rural TOTAL ................... ................... ................... 17 10 7 49% 83% 30% 9 26% 9 26% 5 40 100% 0 0% 2 17% 1 13 100% 9 39% 7 30% 4 27 100%
Yes
No
Dont know/ not sure
- 101 -
Appendix 1:
About The Research
- 102 -
How We Did The Research

40 local South Australian councils participated in an online survey conducted between the 2nd and 24th June 2008.
Who was involved

Councils Location
From the 40 councils that participated there were 13 located in metropolitan South Australia and 27 located in rural South Australia.
1. Is the organisation that you represent located in metropolitan or rural South Australia?
Metropolitan 32%
Rural 68%
MTR (Ref: 8501)
- 103 -
Councils
The following councils participated in the research: Adelaide Hills Council Alexandrina Council The Barossa Council Campbelltown City Council District Council Ceduna City of Charles Sturt District Council of Cleve District Council of Coober Pedy District Council of the Copper Coast District Council of Elliston Regional Council of Goyder District Council of Grant City of Holdfast Bay District Council of Karoonda East Murray District Council of Kimba Kingston Regional Council District Council of Wudinna Light Regional Council District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula District Council of Mallala City of Marion City of Mitcham City of Mt Gambier The Rural City of Murray Bridge The City Of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters City of Onkaparinga
- 104 -

District Council of Orroroo Carrieton City of Playford City of Port Adelaide Enfield Port Pirie Regional Council District Council of Renmark Paringa District Council of Streaky Bay City of Tea Tree Gully District Council of Tumby Bay City of Unley Wakefield Regional Council Corporation of the Town of Walkerville City of West Torrens The Corporation of the City of Whyalla District Council of Yankalilla
- 105 -
Appendix 2:
Additional Comments
- 106 -
This section lists a selection of responses, made by individual interviewees, which did not fit within the coded responses. These comments are included for completeness, but always remember they are minor responses, negligible in relation to the main, coded data. In other words, remember that these are generally isolated comments, providing flavour but not constituting the main ingredients.
KESAB - ILLEGAL DUMPING CENSUS SURVEY - JUNE 2008
4.
Please indicate which are the top 3 locations where illegal dumping takes place in your council area.
Filter:
Other
Roadside reserves; bitumen and dirt roads.
9.
What type of service does your council use to collect hazardous waste (eg asbestos, chemicals)?
Filter:
Other
Zero Waste Chemical Collection
15.
Please specify the items you have included to calculate the estimated cost for the removal and disposal of illegally dumped material incurred by your organisation.
Filter:
Other
includes overhead costs
20.
Which of the following has your organisation made use of to prevent illegal dumping activities?
Filter:
Other
Free disposal of compostable green organic waste at landfill reducing rubbish dumped on roadside Mounding to prevent access to roadsides Tree pruning to make sites more VISIBLE
- 107 -
22.
What barriers does your organisation face in responding effectively to illegal dumping incidences?
Filter:
Other (not coded)
difficulty in communication of information with some groups (language or social barriers) limited time on inspections available, and limited ability to compile evidence Identifying offenders, safe removal of hazardous waste. N/A N/A Nothing worth noting issue is NEGLIGIBLE
23.
What would your organisation like to see done in response to illegal dumping ?
Filter:
Other
1. Increased funding to assist with IMPLEMENTATION of LEGISLATIVE requirements 2. Education programs in the Schools and community organisations to set Recycling and Littering protocols Access to SURVEILLANCE equipment etc. cct cameras Provision of more funds to proactively fight problem - hidden cameras; dedicated personnel; more lighting in industrial streets and parklands; Reduce/remove waste levy for disposal of illegally dumped materials.
25.
Filter:
How often is the scheduled hard waste collection service provided ?

Other (not coded)
Drop off to landfill - open 10 hours/week Hard waste accepted at TRANSFER stations Ratepayers have access to landfills when recycled free of charge Recycling of Steel, Green waste cardboard/paper etc
26.
Does your organisation provide facilities for persons to dispose of unwanted materials in ways other than the kerbside collection or hard waste collection?
Filter:
Other
1 Free dump pass for hard waste or vegetation. Bulk garden organics drop-off program offered to all residents - unlimited trailer loads 8 x 5 size allowed - 7 days a week - drop off at IWS for free - receive $10 gift voucher from Jefferies as incentive.
- 108 -
Community drop off (once a year) for hazardous waste. Community drop off facility at council depot for oil, batteries, mobile phones at all times. Trialled an electronic waste drop off this year as a once off with neighbouring councils. Drop-off facility for green organic material only. E Waste Days Hazardous Waste Days Mobile Phones Landfill and public recycling bins for the disposal of containers (CDL and non CDL) Not directly, but transfers stations are located within 5km of the Council area. The Council does provide drop off services for car batteries, old oil, etc. The Council hosts a Zero Waste SA hazardous waste collection annually. There is a privately owned second hand goods shop as well as an "Op Shop" for some items, Council is part of the drumMuster scheme for the receival of chemical drums (agriculture),
27.
Please indicate which are the top 3 locations where littering incidents occur in your council area?
Filter:
Other
Bus stop areas & strip shopping areas Forest dumping, Littering is increasingly OCCURRING at public bins located at Coastal camping areas and scenic areas by tourists and travellers. This group will collect their waste in their mobile home or RV and deposit a weeks worth or more in or along side of public bins or at roadside bins. Most serious littering problems are associated with take away food ie McDonalds ,Kentucky Fried Chicken etc. Parklands Vacant railway land Reserves
- 109 -
Appendix 3:
Sampling Tolerance
- 110 -
It should be borne in mind throughout this report that all data based on sample surveys are subject to a sampling tolerance. That is, where a sample is used to represent an entire population, the resulting figures should not be regarded as absolute values, but rather as the mid-point of a range plus or minus x% (see sampling tolerance table below). Only variations clearly designated as significantly different are statistically valid differences and these are clearly pointed out in the Key Findings section of this report. Other divergences are within the normal range of fluctuation at a 95% confidence level; they should be viewed with some caution and not treated as statistically reliable changes.
MARGIN OF ERROR TABLE (95% confidence level) Percentages giving a particular answer 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 9 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 10 7 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 11 8 7 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 12 9 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 13 9 8 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 14 10 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 14 10 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2
SAMPLE SIZE 50 100 150 200 250 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1500 2000 3000
5% 95% 6 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
45% 55% 14 10 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2
50% 50% 14 10 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2
Optimum Sample Sizes to Ensure the Given Maximum Variation

450 400 350
Sample Size
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 6750 7000 7250 7500 7750 8000 8250 8500 8750 9000 9250 9500 9750 10000
Population
Sample Size @ 5% Variation Sample Size @ 8% Variation Sample Size @ 6% Variation Sample Size @ 9% Variation Sample Size @ 7% Variation Sample Size @ 10% Variation
- 111 -
Appendix 4:
Questionnaire
- 112 -
- 113 -
- 114 -
- 115 -
- 116 -
- 117 -
- 118 -
- 119 -
- 120 -
- 121 -
Appendix 5:
How To Read The Computer Tabulations
- 122 -
The computer tabulations in the report show the comparisons between [1] the answers given by the total number of respondents and [2] those given by the various subgroups. This is done in the form of percentages. Under certain data, you may notice the presence of + or signs. These indicate where there is a statistically significant difference between the responses of the subgroup (eg. males, people over 65, etc) and the group as a whole. When the responses of the subgroup are significantly less than the group as a whole, this is shown by a minus (-) sign. If, on the other hand, there is a significantly higher response by the subgroup, then a plus (+) sign appears. The degree of significance of difference is also indicated. Where a single (- or +), double (-- or ++) or triple (--- or +++) sign occurs, you can be, respectively, 90%, 95% or 99% sure that the subgroup is in fact answering differently to the group as a whole, and that it is not just a random fluctuation in the data. (See example below) Please note that, because of rounding, answers in single response questions will not always sum precisely to 100%. In addition, as the base for percentages is the number of respondents answering a particular question (rather than the number of responses) multiple response questions sum to more than 100%.
Example:
How would you describe yourself?

GENDER
AGE GROUP
TOTAL Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Complete non-smoker

298 148 150 72% 70% 74%
59 56 55 78 50 67% 63% 69% 76% 89% +++
No. of respondents
416 212 204 100% 100% 100%
88 89 80 103 56 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
89% of all 55+ year olds said that they are complete non-smokers. We are 99% sure that this age groups response is significantly higher than the total of 72% (triple plus (+++) sign)
72% of all respondents said that they were complete non-smokers
74% of all females surveyed said that they were complete nonsmokers. This is not a significantly different proportion to the total of 72% (no plus or minus signs)
63% of all 25-34 year olds said that they were complete non-smokers. We are 90% sure that this age groups response is significantly fewer that the total of 72% (single minus (-) sign)
- 123 -

Illegal Dumping Survey 2008 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Illegal Dumping Survey 2008 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Strategies, Marketing and Social Research Head Office: 259 Glen Osmond Rd, Frewville SA 5063 research@mcgregor.com.au www.mcgregor.com.

au Tel: 08 8433 0200 Fax: 08 8338 2360

Illegal Dumping Survey 2008

3.4 3.5 3.6

3.7 3.8 3.9

3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14

3.15 3.16 3.17

Disposal Facilities ...................................................................................... 81 Main Litter Locations.................................................................................. 84

3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25

Appendix 1: About The Research..................................................................................... 102

3 of 126 Saved on:9/09/2008 3:25:00 PM

Section 2 Executive Summary

Hard Waste Collection Services

The Problem of Illegal Dumping

% of respondents Not a problem A slight problem Quite a problem A significant problem

Dont know/ not sure

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Main Illegal Dumping Locations

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Main Types of Illegally Dumped Material

Main Types of Material

Material Type by Percentage

27 69% 15 38% 15 38% 12 31% 5 13% 1 3% 1 3% 0 0% 2 5% 1 40 110 2.75 100%

10 77% 4 31% 6 46% 5 38% 1 8% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 13 39 3. 100%

17 65% 11 42% 9 35% 7 27% 4 15% 0 0% 1 4% 0 0% 2 8% 1 27 71 2.63 100%

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Recycling of Illegal Dumped Materials

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Don't know/ not sure 3%

MTR (Ref: 8501)

Yes No Don't know/ not sure No Response No. of Respondents

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Pursuing Illegal Dumping Activities

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Illegal Dumping Instances

Average number of illegal dumping instances Metropolitan Rural Total

2006 / 2007 2005 / 2006

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Weight of Illegally Dumped Material

Average estimated weight (tons) of material disposed Metropolitan Rural Total

2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Disposal Cost of Illegally Dumped Material

$39,807 2005 / 2006 $4,063 $93,423

$38,096 2006 / 2007 $5,980 $96,976

$60,000 Average $ cost

tems Used in Cost Calculations

2005 / 2006 2006 / 2007

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Waste to landfill costs Contractor costs

3 8% 2 40 103 2.58 100%

3 12% 2 27 64 2.37 100%

No Response No. of Respondents No. of Responses

Prepared by McGregor Tan Research (Ref: 8501)

Cost of Enforcement Activities Relating to Illegal Dumping

$3,287 2005 / 2006 $675 $8,510