Data collation and analysis Following the collation of evidence, a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) was undertaken to enable an efficient and objective analysis, considering both the qualitative and quantitative data. An MCA rating framework (table 2) was designed to weight litter themes and score litter issues, to determine rankings for prioritisation. Table 2 MCA rating framework Rating System Impacts Rating Environmental impacts Social impacts Economic impacts Health and safety impacts Evidence of environmental harm Evidence of societal impacts Evidence of financial costs Evidence of safety hazards Damage to ecosystems through: - of safely Financial impacts from: - clean-up risks including sharps and community’s feelings - toxic chemicals polluting waterways affected - clean-up costs manual handling issues and soil - reduced amenity - reduced tourism and trade - fire hazards - harm to wildlife - of anxiety and pride of - program costs - graffiti undertaken at heights peoples’ level Description -harm to aquatic creatures. place affected - resource loss from lack of recycling - increased levels of anti-social - increased need for infrastructure behaviour. and signs. Very High 5 Multiple impacts and widespread Whole communities affected in Costs are known to be impacting Known to have caused severe harm across land and water. Impacts multiple ways, with significant greatly on community, land owners, incidents e.g. death, disability and may be non-reversible or long lasting. impacts. and local councils. significant fires. High 4 Multiple, and widespread harm Known to have caused health and across land or water. Whole communities affected with Costs are known and becoming a safety issues and concerns relating to Impacts may be non-reversible or significant single issue. growing issue. health, injuries and fire. long lasting. Moderate 3 Localised harm, not widespread. Reports of injuries and fire related Localised but significant impact to a Potential to rehabilitate and reverse Costs are known and considered low. issues, but reversible and without community damage within the medium term. longstanding impact. Low 2 Low level harm, easily reversed within Cost not known or not considered an Health and safety issues reported but Localised low level impacts a short timeframe. issue. easily rectified and reversible. Negligible 1 Impacts not really noticeable across Health and safely issues not reported Insignificant levels of harm. Costs are considered as insignificant. community. or insignificant.
Data collation and analysis Following the collation of evidence, a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) was undertaken to enable an efficient and objective analysis, considering both the qualitative and quantitative data. An MCA rating framework (table 2) was designed to weight litter themes and score litter issues, to determine rankings for prioritisation. Table 2 MCA rating framework Rating System Impacts Rating Environmental impacts Evidence of environmental harm Social impacts Evidence of societal impacts Economic impacts Evidence of financial costs Health and safety impacts Evidence of safety hazards Description Damage to ecosystems through: - toxic chemicals polluting waterways and soil - harm to wildlife -harm to aquatic creatures. - community’s feelings of safely affected - reduced amenity - peoples’ level of anxiety and pride of place affected - increased levels of anti-social behaviour. Financial impacts from: - clean-up costs - reduced tourism and trade - program costs - resource loss from lack of recycling - increased need for infrastructure and signs. - clean-up risks including sharps and manual handling issues - fire hazards - graffiti undertaken at heights Very High 5 Multiple impacts and widespread harm across land and water. Impacts may be non-reversible or long lasting. Whole communities affected in multiple ways, with significant impacts. Costs are known to be impacting greatly on community, land owners, and local councils. Known to have caused severe incidents e.g. death, disability and significant fires. High 4 Multiple, and widespread harm across land or water. Impacts may be non-reversible or long lasting. Whole communities affected with significant single issue. Costs are known and becoming a growing issue. Known to have caused health and safety issues and concerns relating to health, injuries and fire. Moderate 3 Localised harm, not widespread. Potential to rehabilitate and reverse damage within the medium term. Localised but significant impact to a community Costs are known and considered low. Reports of injuries and fire related issues, but reversible and without longstanding impact. Low 2 Low level harm, easily reversed within a short timeframe. Localised low level impacts Cost not known or not considered an issue. Health and safety issues reported but easily rectified and reversible. Negligible 1 Insignificant levels of harm. Impacts not really noticeable across community. Costs are considered as insignificant. Health and safely issues not reported or insignificant.
Supplement-to-Victorias-Litter-Report-Card-2016-WORD.docx