Prepared For: Belfast City Council Health and Environmental

Services Department

Prepared By: Millward Brown Ulster

Table of Contents

1. Background And Objectives

Belfast City Council has undertaken an advertising campaign over the past three years aimed at changing attitudes and behaviours in relation to littering.

Belfast City Council commissioned Millward Brown Ulster to conduct the latest (4th) wave of research with residents of the Council area to measure the impact of the advertising campaign. MORI Ireland conducted the previous waves of the research. A baseline study was undertaken prior to the launch of the Council's first Anti-Litter campaign wave in February 2004 to measure attitudes and behaviours towards littering. A second stage study was undertaken at the end of 2004 to measure progress after the first year of advertising. A further third stage of surveying was undertaken in November 2005. This latest wave of the research was carried out from 29 January to 9 February 2007.

The main objective of this programme of research therefore was to:

“Undertake an independent assessment of people's stated littering behaviour and attitudes to the most recent anti-litter campaign in order to determine its effectiveness and to measure any changes in attitudes and behaviours since the baseline study was undertaken.”

The following table summarises the amount of exposure the campaign had in each of the three years. The advertising budget for year 3 was the same as for year 2.

This report presents the findings of Stage 4 of the research conducted by Millward Brown Ulster on behalf of Belfast City Council and makes comparisons between the four waves.

2. Methodology

In this section we detail the approach to conducting the programme of research.

Stage 1

Fieldwork for this stage was completed by the end of January 2004 to provide a baseline prior to the initial wave of the advertising campaign. This phase of the research was therefore carried out before the commencement of any anti-litter campaign intervention.

Stage 2

Research at this stage was conducted on completion of the first phase of the anti-litter advertising campaign in mid November 2004. This stage focused primarily on attitudes towards the campaign itself, attitudes to littering after the campaign, with a final analysis on the effectiveness of the campaign.

Stage 3

Research at this stage was conducted two thirds of the way through the second phase of the campaign, which ended in January 2005. This phase introduced new media concepts with a new TV campaign and out door advertisement graphics. This stage provides a comparison to the first phase of the campaign and focuses primarily on changes in attitudes to and behaviours in relation to littering to measure the overall effectiveness of the campaign.

Stage 4

Research at this stage was conducted in January/ February 2007. This stage again provides a comparison to the previous waves and focuses primarily on changes in attitudes to and behaviours in relation to littering to measure the overall effectiveness of the campaign.

2.1 Methodology

In February 2007, 528 interviews, representative of the Belfast City Council resident population aged 16 plus in terms of age, gender and working status, were carried out across the Belfast City Council Area. All interviews were carried out on a face-to-face basis by Millward Brown Ulster's team of specialist, experienced interviewers. We are founder members of the Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS), the definitive UK-wide standard for interviewing and also of MRQSA (Market Research Quality Standards Authority). All Millward Brown Ulster survey research is subject to a minimum of 10% “back-checking” amongst respondents to validate details of their interview; supervisory inspection of all questionnaires; and a double-entry validation procedure during data-entry.

The approach to sampling was the same for Stage 4 of the research as for Stages 2 and 3.

2.2 Sampling Structure

In order to achieve a representative sample of residents within the Belfast City Council area, Millward Brown Ulster used a quota sampling methodology. To ensure that a representative sample of the population was achieved, a two-stage approach to sampling was conducted:

In the first instance, Millward Brown Ulster used the network of electoral wards to create a list of primary sampling units. Because of the variation in size of electoral divisions in Northern Ireland, Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) with approximately equal numbers of electors were created. Not to do so would increase the likelihood of selection of the largest wards only. In numerous cases, it was necessary to combine several wards to create a single PSU and where this has been done the combined wards are contiguous and grouped within a single electoral district.

Within each stratum, PSUs were further classified by population density. PSUs with less than one elector per square hectare are defined as rural, whereas a density greater than one is regarded as urban (as was the case for Belfast City Council). This extends the geographical stratification to fifteen bands. The next stage was the ordering of the PSUs according to the exact number of electors resident in each. Finally, within each geographical stratum, random start points and varying sampling intervals were applied to select the PSUs with probability proportional to the electoral population.

Millward Brown Ulster's sampling frame covered the Belfast City Council area where there are approximately 217,000 individuals aged 16 or over. There are 51 sampling points in the Council area (based on Electoral Wards) in the Millward Brown Ulster sampling frame and we ensured that proportionate interviews were conducted within a carefully chosen selection of sample points (32 were chosen in total).

When the geographical points were selected, quotas were set to ensure age (three breaks), gender and working status (two breaks) profiles matched those in the population of the Council area as per the Census data.

2.3 Section 75

We are aware that Belfast City Council is committed to the Equality agenda through Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act (1998). These categories are: (1) religious belief (2) political opinion (3) racial group (4) age (5) marital status (6) sexual orientation (7) men and women (8) persons with a disability (and without) and (9) persons with dependents (and without). Our sample design ensured that the results from the exercise were a fair reflection of the views of all the citizens of the Belfast City Council area, including the nine categories identified above. The `profile of respondents' section of this report outlines the number of respondents in each category.

3. Questionnaire Design

Stage 1 - Questionnaire:

MORI Ireland developed the final questionnaire in close conjunction with Belfast City Council. Each interview lasted an average of 8-10 minutes and included the following areas:

Stage 2 - Questionnaire:

The questionnaire was reviewed for the Stage 2 study and additional questions added in relation to:

Stage 3 - Questionnaire:

The questionnaire for Stage 3 was similar to that used for Stage 2 although the following changes were made to reflect the new advertsing campaign:

Stage 4 - Questionnaire:

The questionnaire used by Millward Brown Ulster for Stage 4 was similar to that used for Stage 3 although the following changes were made:

A copy of all four questionnaires is appended.

4. Summary Of Key Findings

4.1 Littering behaviour

Awareness of what constitutes littering behaviour is high with between 79% and 94% of the population regarding each aspect tested in the research as littering behaviour. The aspects most likely to be considered as littering were throwing anything away in a public place (94%) a dumping a large item in a public place (90%).

The percentage of people who have engaged in littering behaviours has decreased since the commencement of the advertising campaign. It appears, from the results, that the population has gone through some form of heightened awareness of what constitutes littering before starting to alter their behaviours in this regard. At Stage 1 of the research and prior to the commencement of the advertising campaign 52% of respondents stated that they engaged in littering behaviour. This rose to 57% at Stage 2 of the research, after Year 1 of the advertising campaign, possibly due to heightened awareness of littering because of the campaign. At Stage 3 the percentage that reported littering decreased to 48% and at Stage 4 this figure has now decreased to 45%, suggesting that people are continuing to modify their behaviours.

Throwing a piece of paper on the ground was the type of littering behaviour that the highest percentage of people engaged in at Stage 1 (30%). This is still in joint first position at Stage 4 in the research, however the percentage of people now reporting that they have engaged in this behaviour over the last 6 months has dropped to 18%. The percentage of people who report that they have discarded fruit and other food has decreased compared to Stage 3 of the research, from 22% to 18%. It is worth noting that the percentage of smokers who report having thrown a cigarette butt on the ground has decreased from 53% at Stage 2 to 46% at Stage 3 and to 43% at Stage 4 of the research.

As in Stage 3 of the research, those who are most likely to engage in littering behaviours are those who smoke, young people, those in larger households and men.

Littering behaviours appear to be related - if a person engages in one type of littering behaviour then they are also likely to engage in other types of littering behaviour. The one exception to this is in relation to discarding fruit or other food which is more widespread within the population as a whole.

The main reasons given for littering were laziness, lack of facilities, carelessness, ignorance and that it was done accidentally.

While the vast majority consider it is up to each individual to take responsibility for litter, over a quarter believe that it is not unreasonable for people to throw litter if bins are not available. There is a high level of support for stronger penalties for throwing litter.

4.2 Advertising awareness

The percentage of people that recall advertising relating to littering has changed over the course of the research programme. At Stage 1, prior to any specific Belfast City Council advertising, 57% reported that they could recall litter related advertising; this increased to 84% after the first year of advertising, but has decreased to 76% after Year 2. However, the advertising budget in Year 2 was a third less than in Year 1 and therefore this means that there was less advertising undertaken in Year 2. This may, in part account for the decreased levels of recall. At Stage 4 of the research, the level of recall regarding litter related advertising has remained steady compared to Stage 3, at 75%.

When asked to provide details of the litter related advertising that they recall it is clear that respondents were recalling a number of different campaigns. In particular there appears to be some confusion between recycling and litter. Also, the residual impact of the Year 1 advertising has still remained quite high with nearly a quarter of those who recall litter advertising mentioning the `little girl' advertising in Stage 4 of the research.

Spontaneous recall of the slogans from the most recent advertising campaign has increased substantially. 1 in 5 (20%) spontaneously recalled “Don't drop it, stop it” and this increased to 61% for prompted awareness. Spontaneous awareness of `So why do you do it here' slogan was lower at 12%. Prompted awareness of this slogan increased to 46%.

Almost 1 in 5 spontaneously recalled that there is a £50 fine for dropping litter. Of those who did not mention a fine spontaneously and were asked if there was a fine for littering, 9 in 10 (90%) stated correctly that there was. Of these, 65% were aware that the fine was £50.

Over 6 in 10 (61%) of those who recall the advertising consider it to be effective.

5. Profile of Respondents

During the Stage 4 wave of research 528 interviews were undertaken on a face-to-face basis. All respondents lived in the Belfast City Council area. The following charts outline the profile of respondents.

6. Littering Behaviour

6.1. What do you consider to be littering?

Respondents were given a list of scenarios and asked what they considered to be littering behaviour. At Stage 1, the majority of respondents (over 92%) felt that all the actions mentioned were, in fact, littering. However, at Stage 2 respondents were less likely to consider each aspect as littering (between 81% and 96%) apart from allowing a dog to foul. The results for Stage 3 were very similar to those of Stage 1 with little variation in relation to the behaviours that people consider are littering. At Stage 4 there was some variation concerning the aspects that people considered to constitute littering behaviour.

6.2. Reported Littering - Overall Level

Given that there are lots of different reasons as to why people litter and situations where people feel they have no alternative but to litter, respondents were asked at Stage 1 if they would ever engage in the activities detailed above as outlined in the following question.

Q. Please tell me the extent to which you would ever engage in any of these activities.

Using this question as the basis for littering behaviour, we can define `Stated/Reported Littering Behaviour' as follows:

Stated/Reported Littering = would engage in one of the activities above either `Occasionally' or on a `Regular Basis'.

The results of Stage 1 show that 52% of respondents would engage in some kind of littering behaviour, on an occasional or regular basis.

The question was changed, at the request of Belfast City Council for the following stages as follows:

Q. Please tell me the extent to which you have engaged in any of these activities in the last 6 months.

The results show that 57% of respondents admit to engaging in these littering activities in the last 6 months at Stage 2. This decreased to 48% at Stage 3 and has further decreased to 45% at Stage 4. Therefore there appears to a decrease in littering behaviour since the advertising campaign commenced.

5c. Reported Littering - Specifics

The following section compares those behaviours which respondents `have engaged in' (in the last six months) at Stages 2, 3 and 4 against those that respondents at Stage 1 said they `would' engage in.

At Stage 1 the most common form of stated littering was `throwing a piece of paper on the ground' with 30% of respondents stating that they had done so either occasionally or regularly in the past. At Stage 2, 28% stated that they had engaged in this type of behaviour in the past 6 months. This decreased to 17% for the Stage 3 survey. For Stage 4 of the research the figure has remained relatively steady at 18%.

The second most common form of stated littering, at Stage 1, was throwing a cigarette butt on the ground (21%). This rose to 22% at Stage 2 but decreased to 18% at Stage 3, further decreasing to 15% at Stage 4. Focusing only on those who smoke the corresponding figure at Stage 2 is 53%, 46% at Stage 3 and 43% at Stage 4. This question was not asked in Stage 1. There has been little change between Stage 1 and Stage 4 in relation to throwing a cigarette butt out of a car window. Few admitted to emptying an ashtray from the car onto the road. It is likely that littering in relation to cigarette butts will increase when the smoking ban in public places is introduced in April 2007 and it will be interesting to monitor if behaviours in relation to this type of littering change at that time.

Approximately one fifth (19%) reported dropping a bus or train ticket at Stage 1. There was little change at Stage 2 with 20% stating that they had done this in the past six months. Following the trend of the first and second most common littering behaviours, this decreased to 17% at Stage 3 and has further decreased to 13% at Stage 4.

Regarding discarding a piece of fruit or other food, following an increase in reported behaviour in Stages 2 and 3 of the research, the percentage admitting to this has decreased to 18%, the same level as at Stage 1 of the research. This increased to 20% at Stage 2 and 22% at Stage 3.

The proportion of those reporting that they throw anything away in public has remained steady compared to Stage 3 of the research. 17% reported that they did this at Stage 1, 19% at Stage 2, 14% at Stage 3 and 15% at Stage 4.

11% of respondents have spat out chewing gum in a public place. 8% have left an item behind in a public place, 5% have dropped fast food packaging and 1% said they have dumped a large item in a public place.

Behaviours in relation to dog fouling, which attracts a lot of comment from the public, have shown little change over time. However, the number of people admitting to allowing this behaviour is low overall (3%).

5d. Reported Littering - Differences by key demographics

The following chart shows the extent to which sub-groups of the population report that they litter.

Those most likely to engage in littering behaviours are smokers (64%) and younger people (67% of 25 to 34 year olds and 61% of 16 to 24 year olds). Those who live in larger households are more likely to litter but this may be reflected by the fact that larger households tend to have younger people and they are also more likely to litter. Men are more likely than women to litter (49% versus 43%) as are those who work compared to those who are not working (52% versus 40%).

5d.1 Gender Differences

Men are more likely to report engaging in littering behaviour than women, with 49% of men stating that they do so compared to 43% of women.

Analysis of the five most common forms of litter by gender since Stage 1 of the research indicates that, apart from discarding fruit, the percentage of women engaging in each of the littering behaviours has decreased. This is most marked for throwing paper on the ground (-5 points), throwing a cigarette butt on the ground (-4 points) and dropping a train or bus ticket (-4 points).

The behaviour of men with respect to littering has also changed over the course of the programme of research, more dramatically in some cases compared to women. The percentage of men throwing litter on the ground has decreased by 21%, the percentage throwing a cigarette butt on the ground has decreased by 7% and the percentage dropping a train or bus ticket. The proportion discarding a piece of fruit (22%) has remained steady compared to Stage 1 of the research (23%) and the percentage dropping anything in a public place has decreased by 3%.

5d.2 Age Differences

Again, by analysing the five most common forms of litter by age, it appears that, in general, littering is more common in the younger age groups. However, for those aged 16 - 24, the frequency of engaging in all of the top 5 littering behaviours decreased compared to the Stage 3 of the research.

5d.3 Working Status Differences

When we look at the profile of those who report littering, we can see 52% of those who work litter while the corresponding figure for those who do not work is 40%. This is correlated with age. The percentage of those that work who engage in littering behaviour appears to be decreasing apart from in apart from in relation to throwing a piece of paper on the ground, which has shown an increase. A similar pattern has emerged for those not working except that there has been a small increase in the percentage admitting to throwing anything away in a public place.

5d.3 No. In Household Differences

Those respondents with more than 3 members in the household are more likely to litter. 55% of those with 3+ in the household report some form of littering behaviour compared to 35% of those with 1 or 2 members in the household. Again, this is correlated with age. For those people with 3 or more members in their household there has been a decrease in the following types of littering behaviour compared to Stage 3 of the research: throwing a cigarette butt on the ground, dropping a train or bus ticket and throwing anything away in a public place.

6. Related Littering Behaviour

Upon closer inspection, certain behaviours are linked. By looking at each in turn, a clearer picture emerges of interrelated littering behaviour.

6a. Throwing a piece of paper on the ground

Those people who report that they have thrown a piece of paper on the ground in the last six month are more likely than the general population to engage in all types of littering behaviour. They are also more likely to engage in all other littering behaviours than those who report that they engage in any type of littering. The full range of responses is shown below.

6b. Throwing a cigarette butt on the ground

Those people who have thrown a cigarette butt on the ground are more likely to throw a cigarette butt out of a car window, throw a piece of paper on the ground, to throw anything away in public, to spit chewing gum on the ground and to drop fast food packaging when compared to the overall public. The full range of responses is shown below.

6c. Dropping a bus/train ticket

Those people who would drop a bus or train ticket are most likely to throw a piece of paper on the ground, to throw anything away in public, to leave an item behind in a public place and to spit chewing gum to the ground.

6d. Discarding a piece of fruit or other food

Those people who would discard a piece of fruit or other food are more likely to spit chewing gum in a public place and to throw a piece of paper on the ground.

6e. Throwing anything away in a public place

Those people who would throw anything away in a public place are most likely to engage in all types of specified littering behaviours when compared to the general public except discard a piece of fruit or other food.

7. Reasons For Littering

The main reason for littering was laziness, cited by 37% of all respondents and 40% of those who reported littering behaviour. The next most common reason was a lack of bins or facilities, stated by 16% of all respondents, and this figure rose to 27% of those who reported littering. Carelessness was provided as a reason for littering by 15% of all respondents and 17% of those who reported littering. The full range of responses is shown below.

8. Attitudes towards Littering

A list of attitudinal statements was read out and respondents were asked to state the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each. Almost all agree that `it is up to each individual to take responsibility for litter' (98% of respondents, of which most agreed strongly). This has not changed significantly throughout each stage of the research (99% of respondents for the first three waves of the research).

77% of respondents consider there should be stronger penalties for throwing litter. The percentage of people who believe it to be reasonable to litter if bins are not available decreased from 81% at Stage 1 to 75% at Stage 2 and to 71% at Stage 3. The figure for Stage 4 of the research has remained steady at 72%.

There is little difference between those who report littering and the population in relation to who is responsible for litter. They less likely to say that there should be stronger penalties for throwing litter (65% compared to 77% for the population as a whole).

9. Advertising Awareness - General

9a. Advertising Recall

The percentage who stated that they recalled advertising on littering has changed over the three stages of research. As might be expected recall was low at the Stage 1 baseline study (57%) as the campaign had not yet got underway. After the first year campaign 84% of all respondents could recall some form of advertising relating to litter. However, recall decreased to 76% for the Stage 3 study. This may be accounted for, in part, by the decrease in advertising spending in the last year and that the research was undertaken two thirds through Stage 2 of the campaign and not at its completion. For Stage 4 of the research, the proportion that was aware of advertising on the subject of litter remained steady at 75%. For Stage 4, those who report littering were slightly more likely to recall advertising (80%).

9b. Aspects Recalled - General

There appears to be a mix of advertising recalled in relation to littering and it is clear that some respondents still make a close association between littering and recycling.

Recall of the `Little Girl' advertising, which formed part of the year 1 campaign, remained relatively high considering the amount of time since it has been used. At Stage 2, 56% of respondents who could recall any littering advertising made reference to this advertisement. At Stage 3, just over a third (34%) recalled the same advertisement. At Stage 4 this figure dropped to 23%.

In relation to the most recent littering advertisements recall of the specific aspects of the campaign increased significantly compared to Stage 3 of the research. Spontaneous recall of the slogan “Don't drop it, stop it” increased from 13% for Stage 3 of the research to 19% for this wave of the research. Spontaneous recall of the discarded apple increased from 5% for Stage 3 to 16% for Stage 4. 12% mentioned the discarded cigarette in Stage 4 of the research compared to 5% in Stage 3.

Spontaneous recall of the £50 fine for dropping litter was 15% while a further 9% mentioned non-specific amounts of fines. “So why do you do it here” was mentioned spontaneously by 11% of respondents.

10. Advertising Awareness - BCC Anti-Litter Campaign

10a. Advertising Recall - BCC Anti-Litter Campaign

Almost two thirds (65%) reported that they had heard or seen advertising for the Belfast City Council anti-litter campaign. This figure increased to almost three quarters (74%) when prompted with a picture. Those who report littering were slightly more likely than the general population to have seen the advertising; 68% spontaneously recalled the campaign while, when prompted with a picture, this figure increased to 77%.

These recall figures have increased when compared to the results for Stage 3 of the research, especially among those who report littering. In Stage 3, 56% of those who reported littering spontaneously recalled the advertising; this figure has increased 12% to 68%. Among the general population spontaneous recall has increased from 59% in Stage 3 to 65% in this wave.

In Stage 3, prompted recall was lower than spontaneous recall of the advertising; when respondents saw stills from the campaign they realized that they were not familiar with the campaign. For Stage 4 of the research, this trend reversed and prompted recall was higher than spontaneous recall.

10b. Advertising Media - BCC Anti-Litter Advertisement

Those who reported spontaneously having seen the BCC anti-litter campaign are most likely to report that they had seen it on television (86%); a further 14% had seen it on billboards and 13% at bus shelters.

10c. Specific Aspects Recalled - BCC Anti-Litter Advertisement

10c.1 Television

The main aspects recalled for those who reported having seen Belfast City Council anti-litter ad on television was the stop littering message (30%) and the little girl pointing to or picking up a discarded apple (29%). 17% recalled a keep Belfast tidy message while 3 in 20 (14%) recalled a message to not discard items. 3 in 20 recalled the “So why do you do it here” message. Over 1 in 10 (11%) recalled “Don't drop it, stop it” and 8% recalled the £50 fine for dropping litter.

10c.2 Billboards

Recall of advertising on billboards was low with only 47 respondents reporting that they had seen advertising there. Of this group 17% reported seeing the £50 fine for dropping litter and 13% “Don't drop it, stop it”. The other responses are outlined below.

10c.3 Bus Shelters

Only 45 respondents recall seeing advertising on bus shelters. Of them 40% recall the £50 fine.

10d. Awareness of slogans

A much higher level of awareness of the slogans associated with the BCC anti-litter campaign was found in this wave of the research.

Spontaneous awareness of “Don't drop it, stop it” has increased from 6% in Stage 3 of the research to 20% in Stage 4. A further 6 in 10 (61%) recalled the phrase when prompted. Over 8 in 10 (81%) therefore recalled the phrase overall. This compares to 57% for Stage 3 and 60% for Stage 2.

Spontaneous awareness of the slogan “So why do you do it here?” increased from 2% in Stage 3 of the research to 12% in Stage 4. Prompted awareness increased from 27% in Stage 3 to 46% in Stage 4 producing an overall level of awareness of 58%. This compares to 29% for Stage 3.

Almost 1 in 5 (18%) spontaneously recalled that there was a £50 fine for dropping litter. When those who did not spontaneously mention the £50 fine were asked if there was a fine for dropping litter 9 in 10 (90%) correctly stated that there was. Of these, two thirds (65%) were able to recall that the fine was £50.

10e. Perceived messages - Brighter Belfast Ad - `So why do you do it here?'

Almost half the respondents (47%) who recalled the ad perceive the main message to be to stop littering. Almost a quarter (23%) believed that the message was to encourage people to think about the consequences of their littering; if they wouldn't litter in their own home, why would they litter outside or in someone else's home. 22% believe the campaign aims to keep Belfast tidy and 17% stated that the aim of the campaign was to stop people discarding items or leaving them lying around the place.

10f. Effectiveness of Advertising Campaign - Brighter Belfast Ad - `So why do you do it here?'

At the Stage 2 survey, six in ten respondents (60%) who recalled the ad felt it was effective in delivering the message it was trying to portray. At Stage 3 the corresponding figure was 55%. For Stage 4, over 6 in 10 (61%) of those who recalled the advert felt that it was effective in delivering its message. Of these, almost a quarter (23%) felt that the advertising was very effective in delivering its message. In comparison, at Stage 3, 15% considered the advertising to be very effective.

Of those who reported littering and recalled the advertising a slightly higher proportion (63%) considered the advertising to be effective. Of these over a quarter (26%) considered the advertising to be very effective.

Appendix 1

Belfast City Council - Assessment of People's Stated Littering Behaviour - Final Questionnaire -

STAGE 1

Good morning/afternoon/evening. My name is….. and we are conducting a short survey on behalf of Belfast City Council. I would like to ask you a few questions which will take no more than 10 minutes.

Show Card `2'

SHOWCARD `3'

Q3 There are lots of different reasons as to why people litter and situations where people feel that they have no alternative but to litter. Taking your answer from this card for each item I read out please tell me the extent to which you would ever engage in any of these activities. ROTATE & TICK START. READ OUT EACH ACTIVITY IN TURN. SINGLE CODE PER ROW.

SHOWCARD `3' AGAIN

Q7 Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

READ OUT EACH STATEMENT IN TURN.

SINGLE CODE ACROSS EACH ROW

Demographics

SHOWCARD `13'

SHOWCARD `14'

SHOWCARD `18'

SHOWCARD `19'

SHOWCARD `20'

Appendix 2

Belfast City Council - Assessment of People's Stated Littering Behaviour - Final Questionnaire - STAGE 2

Good morning/afternoon/evening. My name is….. and we are conducting a short survey on behalf of Belfast City Council. I would like to ask you a few questions which will take no more than 10 minutes.

Show Card `2'

SHOWCARD `3'

Q3 There are lots of different reasons as to why people litter and situations where people feel that they have no alternative but to litter. Taking your answer from this card for each item I read out please tell me the extent to which you have engaged in any of these activities in the last 6 months. ROTATE & TICK START. READ OUT EACH ACTIVITY IN TURN. SINGLE CODE PER ROW.

SHOWCARD `3' AGAIN

Q7 Please tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

READ OUT EACH STATEMENT IN TURN.

SINGLE CODE ACROSS EACH ROW

Q8b What specifically do you recall about the advertising? MULTICODE DO NOT PROMPT “What else?”

INTERVIEWER CODE IF MENTIONED ABOVE

ASK THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW CAMPAIGN (CODES 2 & 0 AT Q9a) AND THOSE WHO HAVE NOT ALREADY MENTIONED `DON'T DROP IT, STOP IT' ABOVE

ASK THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW CAMPAIGN (CODES 2 & 0 AT Q9a) AND THOSE WHO HAVE NOT ALREADY MENTIONED `WE ALL SHARE BELFAST, WE ALL SHARE THE MESS' ABOVE

SHOW CARD `11a' WITH AD

ASK ALL

Q.12 What do you think were the purposes/messages of the advertising?

DO NOT PROMPT

ASK ALL

Demographics

SHOWCARD `16'

SHOWCARD `17'

SHOWCARD `20'

SHOWCARD `21'

SHOWCARD `22'