The Big Scoop - Dogs Trust · The Big Scoop December 2017 Keep Britain Tidy is an independent...
40
The Big Scoop December 2017
Transcript of The Big Scoop - Dogs Trust · The Big Scoop December 2017 Keep Britain Tidy is an independent...
The Big Scoop
December 2017
Keep Britain Tidy is an independent
environmental charity with three goals
– to eliminate litter, improve local
places and prevent waste.
We understand that we cannot reach
our goals by working alone, so we work
with businesses, schools, communities,
individuals, government - local and
national – and other charities and
voluntary organisations.
We know that if people care for the
environment on their own doorstep –
the local park, the street in which they
live, the river that runs through their
area – then the environment, the
community and the individual will all
benefit.
How can we expect people to
understand and care about global
environmental issues if they don’t
understand the importance of, or care
about, their own local environment?
Keep Britain Tidy is a charity with a
wealth of experience and expertise. We
have been working and campaigning to
eliminate litter, improve local places
and prevent waste for many years. We
want to share that experience and
expertise with others, supporting
businesses, communities, schools and
government.
We fund our work by offering services
and expertise to those who can benefit
from them, by delivering accreditation
schemes for parks, beaches, schools
and public spaces and by developing
relationships with partners in the
corporate sector to support our
research and campaign activities.
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Dogs Trust and Keep Britain Tidy worked in partnership with six local authorities and
park managers to establish dog walking routes in six parks and coastal walking
routes across the UK using signage, maps, and colour-coded route markers. A map
placed at the site entrance displays the walking routes and suggests different route
options for different purposes – for example, based on the dog’s age, fitness level or
size, or the owner’s sense of adventure. Bin stickers transformed bins into directional
route markers and acted as a reminder to dog owners that any bin can be used to
dispose of their dog’s waste. The intervention aims to encourage dog owners to
dispose of their dog’s waste by nudging them along specific routes where bins are
provided.
1.2 Aim and Objectives
The aim of the intervention was to test the effectiveness of dog walking routes in
reducing instances of dog fouling in public parks and green spaces across the UK.
The objectives of the intervention were to identify:
1. The impacts of the intervention on dog fouling levels
2. The impacts on awareness and attitudes around dog fouling and the intervention
3. Ways of improving the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the intervention for
any extension or further roll out
1.3 Methodology
The monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention was conducted
through the following methods:
Dog fouling monitoring – Land manager partners counted all instances of dog
poo in their parks over a baseline and intervention period. The collected data was
uploaded onto a spreadsheet and analysed by Keep Britain Tidy.
Public perception surveys – Face-to-face surveys were conducted with 643
park users across all six partner sites to identify their perceptions of the initiative,
and their attitudes and behaviours around dog fouling. The surveys also aimed to
identify ways of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the intervention for
any extension or further roll out. The surveys were designed and analysed by
Keep Britain Tidy and conducted by an external fieldwork agency, Feedback
Market Research.
Partner interviews – 30 minute telephone interviews with partners were
conducted by Dogs Trust and analysed by Keep Britain Tidy to identify what
worked well during the initiative, what could be improved for any future roll out.
1.4 Results
Dog Fouling Monitoring
Results show that on average, the dog walking routes initiative reduced dog fouling
instances by 38% across all target sites, with all six partners seeing a reduction in
dog fouling. The results vary from a 15% reduction, to one site finding an 89%
reduction in dog fouling as a result of the dog walking routes initiative.
Awareness of the dog walking routes
Feedback from dog walkers and other park users across all six partner sites
indicated a high level of awareness of the dog walking routes, with 40% of the 642
park users surveyed saying that they had noticed the new dog walking routes.
Use of the dog walking routes
20% of all park users surveyed said that they had used the dog walking routes and
of these, 80% said that they had had a positive experience using the dog walking
routes and around half said that they would use the dog walking routes again in the
future.
Perceptions of the impacts of the dog walking routes
Of the 643 park users surveyed, 63% agreed that the park is a more fun and
enjoyable place to be, 51% agreed that they are more aware of the bins in the park,
36% agreed that the amount of dog fouling in the park had reduced and 35% agreed
that the amount of littered bagged dog poo had reduced.
Feedback from partners
The feedback from partners was largely positive, with partners happy with the
quality, design and salience of materials provided by Dogs Trust. Partners felt the
ordering and delivery process worked well.
Partners saw a noticeable reduction in instances of dog fouling when the intervention
and materials were in place. Partners also received positive feedback from park
users, who stated that they had noticed a difference in the levels of dog fouling at the
site.
Partners predominantly used social media to promote the dog walking routes with
some securing local press coverage.
Overall, partners felt that the intervention was cost effective, and was well received
by the public, particularly on social media. Some partners felt that the intervention
exceeded their expectations and partners already have plans to roll the dog walking
routes out across their borough.
1.5 Conclusion and Recommendations
All in all the intervention can be considered a great success, having positive impacts
both on the ground and on public perception of the issue of dog-fouling in parks.
There are possible areas for improvement for any future scaling or roll out as follows:
Improvements to the maps to include additional localised information and other
elements such as start and finish lines to make them more user-friendly and
recommendations about how they could be displayed in parks.
Minor changes to the design of the intervention materials, such as including
directional arrows and improved wooden stakes
Provision of additional communications materials such as sample tweets and
other communications assets such as posters which can be used to reach those
who do not engage with social media.
We recommend strong consideration is given to how the intervention could be scaled
nationally for further benefit.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
There are approximately 8 million dogs in the UK (PFMA, 2012) which produce an
estimated 1,000 tons of faeces each day in the UK (Campbell, 2007); much of this
waste is deposited in public spaces (Wells, 2006).
Keep Britain Tidy’s previous research tells us that dog fouling is the most
unacceptable and offensive type of litter for the UK public. A survey of 2000 UK dog
owners in 2016 found that 47% of adults think dog fouling is one of the most
annoying things they experience in public places, and they find instances of dog
fouling more annoying than litter, pollution, traffic and smoking. Nearly a quarter of
UK residents (24%) find dog fouling in their local city, town or village at least once a
day, and 72% experience this once a week, with only 2% of UK adults said they
never find dog fouling in their local area.
An additional survey of 2,000 UK dog owners in 2017 found that 13% of dog owners
admitted to leaving bagged dog poo behind, either accidentally or deliberately. Of
those, 54% said that they had done so because there were no bins nearby. 40% of
those said they forgot to collect it on the way back, and 26% said the bins nearby
were too full.
To address this issue, Dogs Trust partnered with Keep Britain Tidy’s Centre for
Social Innovation to design and pilot a behavioural intervention which aimed to
reduce instances of dog fouling by changing the behaviour of dog walkers. With a
perceived lack of bins appearing to be a leading factor in dog owners not correctly
disposing of their dog’s waste, the chosen intervention was one which made it easier
for dog walkers to find and use bins. The intervention aimed to encourage dog
owners to dispose of their dog’s waste by nudging them along specific routes where
bins are provided. The project was carried out during Summer/Autumn 2017 and
was undertaken in partnership with six local authorities across the UK.
Each local authority selected a park which suffered from high levels of dog fouling.
Dogs Trust and Keep Britain Tidy worked in partnership with the local authorities to
establish dog walking routes using signage, maps, and colour-coded route markers
for each park. A map placed at the park entrance displays the walking routes and
suggests different route options for different purposes – for example, based on the
dog’s age, fitness level or size, or the owner’s sense of adventure. Bin stickers
transformed the bins along routes into directional markers and acted as a reminder
to dog owners that any bin can be used to dispose of their dog’s waste.
Keep Britain Tidy released a call for partners and local authorities and land
managers were shortlisted according to their suitability to the intervention. Table 1
displays the six selected partners.
Table 1Selected partners
Local authority/Land manager Land type
Ashfield District Council Park
Bassetlaw District Council Country park
Bridgend County Borough Council Coastal walk/bay
Middlesbrough Council Park
Newark and Sherwood District Council Country park
Rochdale Borough Council Park
2.2 Aim and objectives
The aim of the intervention was to test the effectiveness of dog walking routes in
reducing instances of dog fouling in public parks and spaces across the UK.
The objectives of the intervention were to identify:
1. The impacts of the intervention on dog fouling levels
2. The impact on awareness and attitudes around dog fouling and the intervention
3. Ways of improving the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the intervention for
any extension or further roll out
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Site selection
Each partner put forward one site with a significant level of dog fouling where the
intervention was to be piloted through an expression of interest, as outlined in Table 2
below. The sites were similar area types, such as parks, and are popular sites with
dog walkers. The intervention was trialled in country parks, linear coastal routes and
smaller forest parks.
Table 2 Pilot sites
Local authority/Land manager Location Number of
dog walking
routes
Ashfield District Council Brierley Forest Park 2
Bassetlaw District Council Langold Country Park 3
Bridgend County Borough Council Rest Bay 1
Middlesbrough Council Hemlington Lake 1
Newark and Sherwood District
Council
Vicar Water Country
Park
1
Rochdale Borough Council Queens Park 1
3.2 Design and installation
Each partner displayed a route map at the entrance of the park, as per the example
shown in Error! Reference source not found. The map identified a starting point
and displays up to three different walking routes for park users to choose from. The
route markers (Figure 2) were placed at 200m intervals (approximately two minutes’
walk) in the parks to direct park users along the routes. The maps were installed in
pre-existing, weather-proof display cabinets, while the route markers were nailed to
small wooden posts specifically installed for the intervention pilot, and on existing
posts and fences along the routes where appropriate (for example, Figure 2 at right).
Finally, the bin stickers (Figure 3) were applied to bins placed at 1km intervals
(approximately 10 minutes’ walk) along the routes. The purpose of these stickers
was to highlight that dog walkers can use any general waste bin to dispose of
bagged dog poo waste, and to increase the salience of the bins by using bright
yellow colouring to draw attention to them.
Figure 1: Route Map
Figure 2: Route markers artwork (left) and route markers in situ (right)
Figure 3:
3.3 Communications and publicity
In order to raise awareness of the walking routes to the public without identifying the
pilot as a dog fouling intervention, partners were asked to promote the dog walking
routes for its health and wellbeing benefits. The partnering local authorities used
social media such as Twitter and Facebook to promote the dog walking routes to the
public, as shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4 Social Media Promotion
3.4 Monitoring and evaluation
The monitoring of instances of dog fouling at the target sites was integral to
measuring the impact of the intervention. Partners used tools provided by Keep
Britain Tidy to monitor and record all instances of dog fouling within a defined area
as selected by the partner for a total of two months. The partner was asked to record
instances of dog fouling at least twice a week, on the same days each week, to
ensure the data is consistent.
The intervention was also evaluated through public perception surveys and in-depth
interviews with the project manager within each of the partner organisations. The full
methodology is outlined in Table 3 below.
Table 3 Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology
Data
collection
method
Methodology
Site
monitoring
– dog
fouling
counts
Aim
To identify the impact of the intervention on levels of dog fouling across
the UK
Data collection and analysis
Instances of dog fouling (bagged and un-bagged) were counted and
recorded (in number of instances) for two months. The data was collected
in two phases:
Baseline monitoring (pre-initiative)
Intervention monitoring (during initiative)
Quantitative data analysis using Microsoft Excel. The findings of the
analysis were reviewed internally by Keep Britain Tidy.
Public
perception
surveys
Aim
- To identify public perceptions of the initiative and impacts to claimed
awareness, attitudes and behaviours around dog fouling.
- To identify ways of improving the effectiveness, efficiency and impact
of the intervention for any extension or further roll out.
Data collection and analysis
On site public perception surveys at six target sites, conducted by
independent market research agency during the intervention phase
Conducted at all six partner locations on varying days of the week to
capture a range of location users, both park users and dog owners
Respondents were randomly approached at the site to participate in
the survey until the target number of completed surveys was reached.
The questionnaire used is included at Appendix A.
Target of 100 respondents per location (643 achieved in total).
Qualitative data was analysed using Microsoft Excel and the findings
of the analysis were reviewed internally by Keep Britain Tidy.
Data
collection
method
Methodology
Partner
interviews
Aim
To identify partners’ views on what worked well in the initiative, what could
be improved and their observations of the impacts of the initiative.
Data collection and analysis
A short semi-structured telephone interview (30 minutes) with six
respondents in total
Qualitative data analysis. The findings were reviewed through internal
workshops. The discussion guide used for the interviews is included at
Appendix B.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Objective 1: The impacts of the intervention on dog fouling
levels
This section of the report discusses the impacts of the dog walking routes initiative
on levels of dog fouling at the six target sites. The results show the change in the
number of dog fouling instances during the intervention, compared to the number of
instances found during the baseline month, across six partner locations. The number
of dog fouling instances across the two phases proves an accurate measure of the
impact of the initiative.
Results show that on average, the dog walking routes initiative reduced dog fouling
instances by 38% across all target sites, with all six partners seeing a reduction in
dog fouling. The results vary, with one site finding an 89% reduction in dog fouling as
a result of the dog walking routes initiative, as shown in
Table 4 below.
Table 4 Overall dog fouling monitoring results
Local authority/Land manager Location Percentage
change (%)
Overall
reduction
Ashfield District Council Brierley Forest Park -22%
-38%
Bassetlaw District Council Langold Country Park -33%
Bridgend County Borough
Council
Rest Bay -41%
Middlesbrough Council Hemlington Lake -15%
Newark and Sherwood District
Council
Vicar Water Country
Park
-28%
Rochdale Borough Council Queens Park -89%
4.1.1 Overall impact on dog fouling per partner location
Monitoring results for each individual location are outlined in the tables below, along
with feedback from the partner and perception surveys where relevant to support the
results.
4.1.2 Ashfield District Council – Brierley Forest Park
Results in Brierley Forest Park were positive overall, with an overall 22% reduction in
dog fouling at this site. The partner felt that the yellow design of the signage was
highly visible to park users, as supported by the public perception survey where 69%
of park users noticed the dog walking routes. Whilst the partner did not receive any
local press coverage during the intervention, they promoted the health and wellbeing
aspects of the dog walking routes actively on social media. They felt that they could
have varied their communications approach to reach those who do not use social
media. The partner received positive feedback about the intervention from local
residents and since the pilot, has considered a further roll out of the intervention in
other areas in the district. Their overall results are presented in
Table 5 below.
Table 5 Ashfield District Council results
Total
count -
bagged
Total count -
unbagged
Average
weekly
count -
bagged
Average
weekly
count -
unbagged
Overall
total
count
Overall
reduction
Baseline 19 688 4.8 172.0 707 -22%
Intervention 16 537 4.0 134.3 553
4.1.3 Bassetlaw District Council – Langold Country Park
Langold Country Park saw a 33% reduction in dog fouling. The partner was active on
social media and some residents uploaded pictures of their dogs using the walking
routes in response. They received positive online feedback and positive feedback
from park users. This finding is supported by the public perception survey results,
which found 74% of park users who had used the dog walking routes reacting
positively to them. The partner also utilised their website and the local press to
promote the walking routes, and also hosted a launch, which involved speaking to
over 70 dog walkers and providing park users with a map of the walking routes.
Maps were also placed in key hotspots such as the park café to promote the walking
routes on site. The partner felt the distance of 1km between bins on the walking
routes worked well, and may have contributed to the success of the trial.
Table 6 Bassetlaw District Council results
Total
count -
bagged
Total count -
unbagged
Average
weekly
count -
bagged
Average
weekly
count -
unbagged
Overall
total
count
Overall
reduction
Baseline 4 122 1.0 30.5 126 -33%
Intervention 0 85 0.0 21.3 85
4.1.4 Bridgend County Borough Council – Rest Bay
Bridgend County Borough Council achieved positive results at Rest Bay, with an
overall reduction of 41% at the site. The walking route received a lot of public interest
and as a high footfall area, the public reported that they had noticed a visible
reduction in dog fouling at the site. This is supported by the public perception survey,
which found that 24% of park users had noticed a reduction in unbagged dog fouling
at the site. The partner promoted the route on social media and on their website, and
the local press also promoted the route. The partner is keen to scale up the
intervention in the borough, at different land types.
Table 7 Bridgend County Borough Council results
Total
count -
bagged
Total count -
unbagged
Average
weekly
count -
bagged
Average
weekly
count -
unbagged
Overall
total
count
Overall
reduction
Baseline 14 49 3.5 12.3 63 -41%
Intervention 10 27 2.5 6.8 37
4.1.5 Middlesbrough Council – Hemlington Lake
There was less positive feedback from the partner who felt that the intervention didn’t
address the dog fouling issue. However, Hemlington Lake did see a 15% reduction
in instances of dog fouling. The partner promoted the dog walking routes on social
media and on the council website. Park users felt the artwork was engaging and fun,
as supported by the public perception survey, which found that 76% of park users
who had used the dog walking routes reacted positively to them.
Table 8 Middlesbrough Council results
Total count
- bagged
Total count -
unbagged
Average
weekly
count -
bagged
Average
weekly
count -
unbagged
Overall
total
count
Overall
reduction
Baseline 19 173 4.8 43.3 192 -15%
Intervention 0 164 0.0 41.0 164
4.1.6 Newark and Sherwood District Council – Vicar Water Country Park
As shown in Table 9 below, Vicar Water Country Park saw a reduction in dog fouling
incidents of 28%. The partner felt the artwork used on the walking routes was visible
and engaging, and this was supported by the public perception survey which found
that 32% of park users had noticed the dog walking routes. The partner was active
on social media, worked closely with their communications team to promote the
routes using a health and wellbeing approach, and speak to park users onsite about
the new dog walking routes. Although the partner felt they could have advertised the
initiative earlier, the dog walking routes initiative proved to be highly successful at the
site.
Table 9 Newark and Sherwood District Council results
Total
count -
bagged
Total count -
unbagged
Average
weekly
count -
bagged
Average
weekly
count -
unbagged
Overall
total
count
Overall
reduction
Baseline 7 224 1.8 56.0 231 -28%
Intervention 2 164 0.5 41.0 166
4.1.7 Rochdale Borough Council – Queens Park
The dog walking routes intervention appears to have been highly successful in
Queens Park, with an overall reduction of 89% in instances of dog fouling. The
partners felt there was a visible reduction in dog fouling at the site and this was
supported by the public perception survey which saw 35% of park users finding less
instances of unbagged dog fouling on the site. The partner was active on social
media and promoted the walking routes as a health and wellbeing campaign, as to
not compromise the ‘nudge’ approach. The local press also picked up on the dog
walking routes and the partner found that the public were reacting positively on
social media and there were high levels of online engagement.
Table 10 Rochdale Borough Council results
Total
count -
bagged
Total count -
unbagged
Average
weekly
count -
bagged
Average
weekly
count -
unbagged
Overall
total
count
Overall
reduction
Baseline 2 44 0.5 11.0 46 -89%
Intervention 1 4 0.3 1.0 5
4.2 Objective 2: The impact on awareness and attitudes around
dog fouling and the intervention
This section discusses the impacts of the dog walking routes pilot on the awareness
and attitudes around dog fouling and the intervention.
A total of 643 public perception surveys were carried out across all six partner
locations during the intervention phase of the pilot. Public perception surveys help to
identify the impacts of the dog walking routes initiative on people’s awareness and
attitudes of dog fouling and the initiative itself. The findings are outlined below. Of
643 park users surveyed, 56% were park users walking their dog, and 44% were
general park users. The research aimed to obtain an even mix of park users and dog
walkers.
4.2.1 Awareness of the dog walking routes
Feedback from dog walkers and other park users across all six partner sites
indicated a high level of awareness of the dog walking routes, with 40% (n=257) of
the 642 park users surveyed saying that they had noticed the new dog walking
routes. Of the respondents who had noticed the new dog walking routes, 76% said
that they had noticed the route markers on posts, 19% said that they had noticed the
stickers on bins, 16% said that they had noticed the walking routes map placed on
site, and 8% said that they had noticed additional bins in the park. From this, it could
be said that park users are unlikely to notice additional bins, however they are more
likely to notice salient materials such as the brightly coloured route markers. It must
be noted that, depending on the placement of the route map, park users may not
have walked past the map or may have used a different entrance to the park. To
address this, multiple maps could be placed around the park.
A small proportion (7%) of surveyed park users said that they had heard of the dog
walking routes from other sources, other than seeing the materials on site. Of these,
20% had heard about the dog walking routes directly from their local council’s social
media pages and websites. 15% of park users who said they had heard of the dog
walking routes from other sources said they had heard through word of mouth.
Whilst this relates to a relatively small sample, it could be seen as another indication
that routes were positively received by the public with people talking about the routes
with their friends and family.
When asking park users who they believe is responsible for the dog walking routes,
64% of all 643 respondents thought the council was responsible for the installation of
the routes, and a small proportion (9%) believed Dogs Trust was responsible for the
routes.
4.2.2 Use and perceptions of the dog walking routes
Of 643 park users surveyed, 20% (n=129) said they had used the dog walking
routes. Of these, 80% (n=103) said they had a positive experience using them and
48% said they would be likely to use the dog walking routes again in the future.
When asking park users to describe what they thought the purpose of the dog
walking route was, of all 643 respondents, the majority (28%) said that the routes
were to encourage dog walkers to use a designated route in the park. As the pilot
was intended to reduce dog fouling through a ‘nudge’ style approach, it can be said
the intervention was successful in reducing dog fouling without promoting the routes
as a preventative project to reduce dog fouling incidents.
Interestingly, 15% of park users thought the purpose of the dog walking routes was
to reduce dog fouling in the park, 8% thought it was to reduce instances of bagged
dog poo littering and 2% thought it was to highlight that ‘any bin will do’ for dog poo.
It could be said that, despite the ‘nudge’ approach, the intervention was successful in
additionally highlighting the issue of dog fouling to park users.
Figure 5 Public Perceptions of the Intervention
Base: 643
28%
19%
15%
9% 8% 7% 7% 5%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%to
en
co
ura
ge
do
g w
alk
ers
to
use
a d
esig
na
ted r
ou
te in
th
ep
ark
to a
ttra
ct
more
dog
walk
ers
to
the
park
to r
edu
ce
do
g f
oulin
g in
th
ep
ark
to a
ttra
ct
more
use
rs t
o th
ep
ark
to r
edu
ce
ba
gg
ed d
og
poo
litte
rin
g
to e
nco
ura
ge
pe
op
le to
use
bin
s in
th
e p
ark
to e
nco
ura
ge
pe
op
le to
ge
to
utd
oo
rs a
nd
/or
exe
rcis
em
ore
to e
nco
ura
ge
pe
op
le to
ge
tth
eir d
og
s o
utd
oo
rs a
nd
/or
exe
rcis
e
to h
igh
ligh
t th
at ‘a
ny b
in w
ill
do
’ fo
r d
og
po
o
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f re
sp
on
de
nts
(%
)
Perceived purpose
Perceived purpose of dog walking route
4.2.3 Perceived impacts of the dog walking routes
Park users were also asked about what they felt had changed since the installation
of the dog walking routes. The results are displayed in Figure 6 below.
Base: 643
The findings show that, since the installation of the dog walking routes, the majority
of park users agreed the park was a more fun and enjoyable place to be (63%)
(n=406).
Overall, park users agreed that there were a range of positive social and
environmental impacts since the installation of the intervention, including that the
intervention has made park users aware of how their local council is trying to
improve the park and an increased awareness of the bins in the park. As well as this,
just under half of park users said that there appeared to be less general litter, around
over a third said that they felt the incidents of both dog fouling and left bagged dog
poo had reduced.
4.2.4 Perceptions of and attitudes towards dog fouling
Park users were asked to rate how acceptable or unacceptable they find different
types of littering behaviours. Of 634 respondents, 83% said that not picking up after
63% 60%
56% 56% 51% 49%
36% 35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Th
e p
ark
is a
more
fu
na
nd
en
joya
ble
pla
ce
to
be
I am
mo
re a
wa
re o
fh
ow
my loca
l co
un
cil
istr
yin
g to
im
pro
ve
the
park
Th
e p
ark
lo
oks m
ore
attra
ctive
Mo
re p
eo
ple
are
wa
lkin
g in
th
e p
ark
I am
mo
re a
wa
re o
f th
eb
ins in
th
e p
ark
Th
e a
mo
un
t of
gen
era
llit
ter
in t
he
pa
rk h
as
red
uce
d
Th
e a
mo
un
t of
dog
fou
ling
in
the
pa
rk h
as
red
uce
d
Th
e a
mo
un
t of
litte
red
bag
ged
do
g p
oo
has
red
uce
d
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f re
sp
on
de
nts
ag
ree
(%
)
Perceived impacts
Perceived impacts of dog walking routes
Figure 6 Perceived impacts of dog walking routes
a dog was completely unacceptable, along with general littering. 83% of
respondents stated that litter in the park, left behind after a picnic is also completely
unacceptable. 79% of park users surveyed said that chewing gum littered on the
ground is completely unacceptable, and 76% said that cigarette butts left on the
ground is completely unacceptable. From this, we can interpret that the majority of
park users surveyed find all littering behaviours completely unacceptable, but in
particular, dog fouling and general litter are less accepted by park users, further
highlighting dog fouling as an environmental issue and the importance of anti-dog
fouling campaigns.
Parks users were also asked about what people should do to dispose of dog poo in
parks. 36% said ‘bag and bin it – in any litter bin’ and 58% of said ‘bag and bin it – in
dog poo specific bins only’. This suggests a continued need to increase awareness
of where litter bins can be used to dispose of dog waste.
4.3 Objective 3: Ways of improving the effectiveness, efficiency
and impact of the intervention for any extension or further roll
out
This section of the report presents findings and direct quotes from the partner
interviews. Dogs Trust conducted 30 minute interviews with all six partners to
establish what worked well about the intervention, what could be improved and their
observations of the impacts. This section, along with will the overall findings and
public perception surveys, will inform the recommendations to successfully roll out
the intervention.
4.3.1 What worked well?
Overall, partners found the intervention to be well received by the public, particularly
on social media. Partners felt that, as well as reductions in dog fouling, the routes
were beneficial to the health and wellbeing of parks users and their dogs:
“Whilst I was out [at the site] one afternoon, one lady told me she was
using the walks not only to get her dog fit, but to also get herself fit. Her
friend is also doing the same.”
Some partners felt that the intervention exceeded their expectations and even
attracted new park users, such as dog walking groups to the park:
“The intervention exceeded my expectations as we had a lot of positives
and think it would improve the area.”
“We have the greyhound walking group coming to us, who have heard
about the routes and are writing a blog about it, they are travelling quite far
out for it.”
The intervention was perceived as cost effective and some partners already have
plans to replicate the dog walking routes in other locations within the borough:
“The intervention was very cost effective and we have an area already in
mind for upscale, which has been welcomed by local residents.”
“We’re already thinking about running it in another area and seeing if it
would work in different areas.”
“Yes it was cost effective and I found it very useful. I have a meeting next
week with an estates manager and a farmer and a nature
reserve [about it].”
“I talk to a lot of other parks in our district and they were very interested in
what we were doing so it would be something I want to take to other parks
and public access places.”
“We would be interested in running it in more locations because we have
seen such a good reduction.”
“I think for us it’s been a really positive experience and positive result so
thank you for your involvement and hopefully we can be involved in a
bigger roll out next year”
Materials and design
Partners felt that the materials designed and provided by Dogs Trust were of high
quality, very visible and were salient to park users. The signage was well made and
professional, and reliable to withstand all weather conditions. The materials were
well received by park users and partners felt that the ordering and delivery process
was efficient:
“We received very positive comments about the markers at the site.
People loved them and people were happy about it.”
“The materials were very good quality, and hard, reliable materials that
worked well with the elements. I was very taken aback with the quality.”
“We received the materials on time and the quality was
to a high standard.”
Promotion and communications
Partners predominantly used social media to promote the dog walking routes, using
Facebook and Twitter, and felt satisfied with their level of activity. Partners felt the
communication between Dogs Trust was effective, and felt they could contact them
with any questions – which would be answered quickly and efficiently. Partners
looked forward to working with Dogs Trust communications officers to launch the
intervention.
“We used social media and our own website, got a press release into the
local paper and also did a Sunday morning launch. The launch was
absolutely amazing and we spoke to probably 60-70 dog walkers and
everyone we spoke to, we provided them with a map and it worked really
well. We were surprised at how busy the launch was that morning.”
“We sent out a press release that was picked up in local media and
social media”
“On Facebook, people were saying what a great idea it was and uploading
photos of their dogs and saying which walk they completed.”
Monitoring
Partners felt that the monitoring process was simple and easy to follow, and could be
easily replicated elsewhere. Successful monitoring worked best when handled by a
small team, as part of a regular routine.
“[The monitoring framework] was very user friendly. It was so simple which
I think on things like this, it should be simple.”
“It was such a simple system, and that was the selling point. It’s so easy.”
“I had a team of staff go around doing it first thing in the morning and late
in the afternoon so it was a regular pattern.”
Impact on dog fouling
Some partners saw a noticeable reduction in levels of dog fouling at their site, with
the intervention and materials in place. Partners fed back comments from park
users, who had also noticed a reduction in dog fouling.
“The positive comments we received was on the promenade walk. People
said they had noticed a difference and it was nice to have some signs to
follow because some of the people visiting the area aren’t regular sea front
walkers so that was a positive.”
4.3.2 Opportunities for improvement
Placement and design of materials
Some partners felt the placement of the dog walking route materials within the park
and how they are designed could be improved. Partners felt the wooden stakes
provided were not robust enough to withstand the weather conditions and could be
easily removed by members of the public. Most partners fixed the route markers to
existing, more robust posts to ensure they stayed in place. Some partners also
reported that having the bins, as well as park landmarks (such as the café, fountain
or bandstand) placed on the maps would be useful to park users. One partner also
felt the maps would benefit from a ‘start’ and ‘finish’ signs, so users know where to
begin and end. To improve the efficiency of the dog walking routes, some partners
felt that the route markers should display the number of metres to the next nearest
bin, and should use directional arrows to make them easier to use and navigate.
“The map was placed at the main entrance to the park and we put it on the
notice board. I wonder if it would have been better as a bigger, stand
alone unit that people could see as soon as they came in to the park.”
“No problems with quality at all [except] with the wooden stakes, I don’t
think our Ranger who was doing the installation was too inclined. He did
use them but I think he wasn’t taken with the quality of stakes so we used
a lot of what we had already and existing posts.”
“We ended up attaching the markers high up to existing posts such as
lamp posts so they couldn’t be torn down.”
I think it may have been more beneficial to have the length of the distance
on the markers. It would also be good to also have a directional arrow on
the marker and also saying how far the next bin is on the marker.”
“I think an arrow on the discs for directions would be good. We tried to paw
prints facing different direction but it just didn’t look right. We tried to point
them in the direction we wanted but it just didn’t look right.”
4.3.3 Communications
One partner felt they could have benefited from social media assets, such as photos
to attach to social media posts, to support their communications to promote the
campaign. Many partners felt that social media was an effective way to promote the
dog walking routes, therefore providing social media templates, assets and
guidelines to support future partners in promoting the campaign is recommended.
One partner commented that focusing their promotion of the campaign on social
media avenues meant that they were likely to have missed certain target audiences:
“We promoted the routes predominantly on social media by using the
council Facebook and Twitter pages. We could have diversified to cater to
those who are not on social media”.
Future iterations of the project could support partners in promoting the project to a
broader range of local media types, for example by provide ideas, guidelines and
templates for engaging harder-to-reach communities.
5. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
There are a number of small improvements which could be made to the intervention
based on our findings:
Placement and design of materials
Re-design of maps with the addition of park landmarks and start/finish lines to
make them more user-friendly – this could be offered to larger parks such as
country parks and may not be applicable to smaller parks
Re-design of maps with location of added bins
Re-design of route markers to add a directional arrow, to make the routes easier
to navigate and more user friendly
Design of a stand-alone unit to display park map for permanent dog walking
routes
Addition of distance (in time or metres) to the next nearest bin on the route
markers. It may be more beneficial to use time, as this may be more easily
understood by park users
Better quality stakes/posts for future roll out or encouraging use of existing
infrastructure for placement of markers.
Communications
Increased effort to gain local press interest during the intervention
Provision of social media assets – this could include some sample tweets or
Facebook posts that are easily amendable, as well as standard photos for
partners to attach to their social media posts to gain more attention
Provision of additional communication assets to reach those who are not on
social media, for example, posters which could be displayed in local shops and
ideas, guidelines and templates for engaging harder-to-reach communities.
All in all the intervention can be considered a great success, having positive impacts
both on the ground and on public perception of the issue of dog-fouling in parks.
We recommend strong consideration is given to how the intervention could be scaled
nationally for further benefit.
APPENDIX A
‘The Big Scoop’ 2017
Public Perception Survey (week 5 of dog fouling intervention)
INTERVIEWER, PLEASE SPEAK TO 50 DOG WALKERS AND 50 PARK USERS
AT EACH SITE.
Hello, my name is xxx from xxx an independent research company. We are currently
carrying out some research on the views of people in xxx (insert location from below)
today. We would be grateful if you could spare 5 minutes to answer some questions.
All of your responses will be confidential and no individual comments will be
attributed to you.
Location Day Date
Queens Park, Rochdale (1 route)
Langold Country Park, Bassetlaw
(3 routes)
Brierley Forest Park, Ashfield (2
routes)
Vicar Water Country Park,
Newark & Sherwood (1 route)
Hemlington Lake, Middlesbrough
(1 route)
Rest Bay, Bridgend (1 route)
1. Approximately how many times have you visited this park over the past
month?
1. interviewer: SINGLE CODE – don’t read out
Number of visits over past
month
Once or more 1 Continue to next
question
Hasn’t visited in past month 2 Thank and close
2. How often do you walk a dog (either yours or someone else’s) in this park?
Never
Rarely –
Once or
twice per
year
Sometimes
– Every
couple of
months
Often –
every
month
Always –
every
week
n/a – I
don’t
walk any
dogs
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Have you noticed anything new about the park? If so, can you tell me what
you’ve noticed?
INTERVIEWER: PLEASE RECORD VERBATIM COMMENTS IN FULL
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
4. Have you noticed the new dog walking routes in the park?
Yes Continue to next question
No Skip to Q6
Don’t know Skip to Q6
5. What have you noticed about the dog walking routes?
INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ OUT – CODE RESPONSES BELOW (ALL THAT
APPLY)
The dog walking routes map 1
The routes markers on posts around the
park
2
Additional bins around the park 3
Stickers on bins around the park 4
Less dog poo in the park 5
Less bagged dog poo littered in the park 6
Other, please:
6. Have you seen or heard about the bin stickers from anywhere else?
Yes 1 Continue to next
question
No 2 Skip to Q8
Don’t know 3 Skip to Q8
7. Where else have you seen or heard about the dog walking routes?
interviewer: MUTLI-CODE – don’t read out
Article in newspaper or magazine 1
Advertisement in newspaper or magazine 2
Newsletter or email from local council 3
Poster in library, leisure centre or other public building 4
Poster in local shop/business 5
Word of mouth – from friends/relatives/member of public 6
Word of mouth – from a charity involved in the initiative 7
Word of mouth – from someone at the local council 8
Word of mouth – other 9
On the council’s website or their Facebook/Twitter page 10
Other website 12
Other social media 13
Other – please specify:
_________________________________________________
14
8. Who do you think was responsible for installing the dog walking routes in
the park?
OPEN ENDED. INTERVIEWER: PLEASE RECORD VERBATIM COMMENTS IN
FULL
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
9. Have you used the dog walking route(s) yourself?
Yes Continue to next question
No Skip to Q11
Don’t know Skip to Q11
10. How was your experience when using the dog walking route(s)? Do you
have any feedback about the routes?
INTERVIEWER: PLEASE RECORD VERBATIM COMMENTS IN FULL
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
All respondents
INTERVIEWER SHOW CARD WITH IMAGES AND READ OUT: These dog walking
routes were installed in this park at the beginning of the month. I am now going to
ask you some questions about them.
11. What do you think is the purpose of the dog walking route(s)?
2. INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ OUT LIST – CODE RESPONSES
BELOW (ALL THAT APPLY)
To attract more users to the park 1
To attract more dog walkers to the park 2
To encourage people to use bins in the park 3
To encourage dog walkers to use a designated route in the park 4
To encourage people to get outdoors/keep fit/walk more/health 5
To encourage people to get their dog’s outdoor/keep fit/walk more/health 6
To reduce dog fouling 7
To reduce bagged dog poo littering 8
To highlight that ‘any bin will do’ for dog poo 9
Don’t know 10
Other, please specify:
12. How likely are you to use the dog walking routes in the future?
Not at all
likely
Fairly
unlikely
Neither
likely nor
unlikely
Fairly likely Very likely
Don’t know
1 2 3 4 5 6
13. Thinking about each time you visit this park, on average, approximately
how many instances of dog fouling (that is, dog poo that someone has not
cleaned up, but has left on the ground un-bagged) do you tend to see
throughout the park?
Number: ____________
14. Thinking again about each time you visit this park, on average,
approximately how many instances of littered bagged dog poo do you tend
to see throughout the park (i.e. when someone leaves bagged dog poo on
the ground, in trees, on fence posts, etc.)?
Number: ____________
15. What should people do to dispose of dog poo when in a park like this?
3. INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ OUT LIST – CODE RESPONSES
BELOW (ALL THAT APPLY)
4.
Leave it there to biodegrade 1
Leave it there for the park ranger, cleaner or someone else to pick up 2
Flick it into a bush/ditch or somewhere else out of the way to biodegrade 3
Bag the poo a leave it somewhere where it can easily be collected by the
park range, cleaner or someone else 4
Bag to poo and leave it somewhere out of the way (e.g. in a tree or on a
fence) 5
Bag and bin the poo – in any litter bin 6
Bag and bin the poo – in dog poo specific bins only 7
Bag and bin the poo – in a recycling bin 8
Other – please specify:
16. On a scale of zero to ten, whereby zero is ‘not at all acceptable’ and 10 is
‘totally acceptable’, to what extent do you find each of the following
situations acceptable?
Not
at all
acce
ptabl
e
Neut
ral
Extr
emel
y
acce
ptabl
e
a Dog poo
on the
ground
that has
not been
picked
up
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
b Bagged
dog poo
left on
the
ground,
in trees,
on
lamppost
s etc.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
c Chewing
gum
littered
on the
ground
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cigarette
butts
littered
on the
ground
d Litter in
the park
that
someone
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
has left
behind
after a
picnic
STATEMENT – READ TO ALL
INTERVIEWER: PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING
In order to encourage dog walkers to put their dogs waste in a bin, additional bin
have been installed along the dog walking route(s).
17. I am going to read out some statements about the dog walking route(s) and
I’d like you to tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.
Since the dog walking route(s) was/were installed….
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Slightly
agree
Strongly
agree
Don’t
know /
n/a
…the park looks
more attractive
1 2 3 4 5 6
…the amount of
dog fouling in the
park has reduced
1 2 3 4 5 6
…the amount of
littered bagged
dog poo in the
park has reduced
1 2 3 4 5 6
…the amount of
general litter in the
park has reduced
1 2 3 4 5 6
…more people are
walking in the park
1 2 3 4 5 6
…I am more
aware of how the
local council is
trying to improve
the park
1 2 3 4 5 6
…I am more
aware of bins in
the park
1 2 3 4 5 6
…the park is a
more fun and
enjoyable place to
be overall
1 2 3 4 5 6
Are there any other comments that you would like to make about the dog
walking routes that we haven’t already discussed? OPEN ENDED.
INTERVIEWER: PLEASE RECORD VERBATIM COMMENTS IN FULL.
General classifications:
Gender (record)
Male 1
Female 2
Age group:
16 - 24 1
25 - 34 2
35 - 44 3
45 - 54 4
55 - 64 5
65+ 6
Interviewer name:
Interviewer signature:
I confirm that this survey has been undertaken in accordance with the Market
Research Society Code of Conduct.
Date:
Thank respondent and close
APPENDIX B
Partner Interview - Post Intervention Questions
Materials
When you received your materials, what were your thoughts on the quality of the
stock?
Was everything delivered on time/were there any issues with delivery?
Were there any problems during the installation of the materials? Did the materials
stay up?
Did any of your markers go missing? If so, what do you think happened to them? Do
you have any suggestions for preventing this from occurring again?
When ordering materials for your routes, did you find the ordering process easy to
understand?
Was there any other material you would have hoped that we could have offered?
Design
Did you receive any negative/positive comments regarding the designs of the
markers, stickers or map?
Do you think that the artwork was engaging?
Were the maps clear and concise? Is there anything else you would have liked to
have on the map?
‘Binfrastructure’ and dog fouling
Did you find that the new positioning of your bins helped tackle dog fouling in the
area? Are you planning on keeping the bins in their new positon?
Would you consider changing the placement of bins for the wider area?
Do you feel the intervention helped address the problem of dog fouling in your area?
Did any comments regarding dog fouling come up by visitors on social media or in
person? Any positive/negative comments received?
Promotion and Communications
What methods of promotion did you use i.e. social media, press release?
How do you feel about the media coverage that was generated around the Big
Scoop experiment?
During the intervention, did you feel you could contact Dogs Trust at any time and
have any questions answered? Do you feel you received enough information from us
and were kept up to date?
Did you work with our Communications Officer?
Baseline Monitoring
With regards to baseline monitoring, did you find it easy to complete?
Were there any problems that arose when carrying out the monitoring?
Did you find the spreadsheet user friendly?
What changes/impacts/outcomes (positive and/or negative) are you and/or your
organisation aware of as a result of the Big Scoop? How do you know about them
(what is the evidence)?
How did you feel about the deadlines during the intervention? Did you have any
problems with meeting them?
Improvements
What worked well about the Big Scoop experiment? Probe for feedback on the
design of the map, markers and bin stickers, design and delivery of the experiment
itself and the design and delivery of ‘on the ground’ monitoring.
What, if anything, could be improved about the Big Scoop experiment? Probe for
feedback on the design of the map, markers and bin stickers, design and delivery of
the experiment itself and the design and delivery of ‘on the ground’ monitoring.
Probe for what Dogs Trust/Keep Britain Tidy should do differently next time, any
challenges encountered, etc.
If the Big Scoop was to be rolled out beyond the trial phase, do you think other local
authorities/land managers would be willing to fund their participation in the
initiative? (E.g. via a toolkit/pack that included the bin stickers, posters, guidance for
running it). Probe for: What about your organisation? Do you plan on keeping the
material up?
How useful did you find it? Was it cost effective? Would you be interested in running
it in another location? Why/why not? Probe for: do they envisage the initiative
making savings on cleansing costs?
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the Big Scoop
experiment? Thinking back to what made you want to apply for the intervention, do
you feel it met your expectations?
Any final comments about the Big Scoop experiment that you would like to share as
part of the evaluation?
REFERENCES
Campbell, F (2007) People Who Litter: ENCAMS Research Report, ENCAMS,
Wigan, UK.
Keep Britain Tidy (2016) The Big Scoop
Keep Britain Tidy (2017) The Big Scoop
Pet Food Manufacturers Association (PFMA) (2012) UK Pet Population Statistics
[online] http://www.pmfa.org.uk/pet-population/ (accessed 30 Oct 2017).
Wells, D. (2006) ‘Factors influencing owners’ reactions to their dogs’ fouling,
Environmental and Behaviour, Vol 38. No. 5, pp. 707-714
