public place. The Fire Service does not record <strong>the</strong> source of outdoor fires because <strong>the</strong>yare mostly secondary fires, as opposed to primary fires 74 .In dwellings, cigarettes, cigars and pipes were <strong>the</strong> source of ignition for an average of4,200 fires per year in <strong>the</strong> UK between 1999 - 2003. The majority of <strong>the</strong>se fires werecaused by <strong>the</strong> careless d<strong>is</strong>posal of cigarettes 75 . Lit cigarette butts were a contributingfactor to two of <strong>Britain</strong>’s worst d<strong>is</strong>asters: <strong>the</strong> Bradford City Football fire in which 40 peopledied in 1985, and <strong>the</strong> King’s Cross Underground station fire in 1987 when 31 peopledied 76 .While <strong>the</strong>se are very serious impacts, <strong>the</strong> management of cigarette consumption wasteinside private dwellings and commercial buildings <strong>is</strong> outside of <strong>the</strong> scope of th<strong>is</strong> project,which <strong>is</strong> focusing on outdoor litter in public places.5.4.2 Economic impacts<strong>Cigarette</strong> related litter <strong>is</strong> costly to clean-up. Much of th<strong>is</strong> cost <strong>is</strong> absorbed by LocalAuthorities in <strong>the</strong> form of dedicated cleaning staff (eg answering calls on a telephonehotline, street cleaners). Some indication of th<strong>is</strong> cost <strong>is</strong> reflected in recent research,which shows that <strong>the</strong> clean-up of all types of litter (not just cigarette related litter) costsLocal Authorities an average of £124,155 (2004). It <strong>is</strong> estimated that <strong>the</strong> clean up costs oflitter incurred across all regions in England <strong>is</strong> over £340 million per year 77 .In Australia, most Local Councils spend less than AU$5,000 (approximately £2,080) onspecific cigarette littering initiatives per year 78 .Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, cigarette butts can also contribute to blocking and flooding drainagesystems, which can be costly to repair.5.4.3 Social impactsHuman health and aes<strong>the</strong>tics can be affected by cigarette related litter.5.4.3.1 Ingestion of cigarette butts by childrenIf cigarette butts are ingested by children, vomiting, gagging and lethargy are likely tooccur as a result of nicotine present in tobacco. More severe symptoms (such as limbjerking and unresponsiveness) occur when larger amounts of nicotine are ingested (i.e byingesting ei<strong>the</strong>r a whole cigarette or three cigarette butts) 79 . It should be noted,however, that in most cases, children are more likely to be exposed to <strong>the</strong>se dangersthrough cigarette consumption waste left around <strong>the</strong> home of smokers (which <strong>is</strong> outside<strong>the</strong> scope of th<strong>is</strong> project) ra<strong>the</strong>r than littered cigarette butts in outdoor settings 80 , so <strong>the</strong>seimpacts should be viewed in that context.74 Pers comm., 10 th February 2005, Lyndsey Avery, Office of <strong>the</strong> Deputy Prime Min<strong>is</strong>ter75 Office of <strong>the</strong> Deputy Prime Min<strong>is</strong>ter (March 2005) Fire Stat<strong>is</strong>tics United Kingdom, 2003, London76 ENCAMS, Cig Bans Tipped to Cause <strong>Litter</strong> Cr<strong>is</strong><strong>is</strong> (Nov 2005)77 ENCAMS, (2004) Local Environment Quality, A Local Authority Perspective78 Butt <strong>Litter</strong>ing Trust (2003) Local Government Butt <strong>Litter</strong>ing Survey, http://www.buttlitteringtrust.org/79 Smolinske SC, Spoerke DG, Spiller SK, Wruk KM, Kulig K, Rumack BH <strong>Cigarette</strong> and nicotine toxicity in childrenHum Toxicol. 1988 Jan;7(1):27-31 Rocky Mountain Po<strong>is</strong>on and Drug Centre80 Novotny, T and Zhao, F (1999) Consumption and Tobacco Waste: ano<strong>the</strong>r externality of tobacco use Tob.Control 8; 75-80<strong>Situation</strong> Report - Final 16
5.4.3.2 Social d<strong>is</strong>amenitySmokers agree that littered cigarette butts do not look good 81 . Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, as ENCAMShas documented, litter not only lowers <strong>the</strong> aes<strong>the</strong>tics of a locality. The prevalence oflitter, toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>with</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r environmental crimes, and <strong>the</strong> maintenance of streetinfrastructure, also contributes to our quality of life 82 . Essentially, ‘litter attracts litter’,which can attract o<strong>the</strong>r environmental crimes, sending out a message that people donot care for <strong>the</strong> environment and that it <strong>is</strong> acceptable to litter.5.5 <strong>Cigarette</strong> <strong>Litter</strong> MonitoringMeasuring <strong>the</strong> extent of cigarette litter in <strong>the</strong> environment <strong>is</strong> important in order tounderstand whe<strong>the</strong>r interventions have successfully reduced cigarette related litter.Several monitoring methodologies are described below.5.5.1 The Local Environment Quality Survey of England (LEQSE)Since 2001, <strong>the</strong> extent of cigarette related litter (i.e including cigarette butts, cigarettepackaging and ignition source – <strong>the</strong> majority of which <strong>is</strong> cigarette butts) has beenestimated in England through <strong>the</strong> annual ENCAMS Local Environment Quality Survey ofEngland (LEQSE).The LEQSE measures <strong>the</strong> presence or absence of litter in transects at over 12,000 sitesacross England. It also measures <strong>the</strong> impact of litter and o<strong>the</strong>r anti-social behaviouractivity that affects <strong>the</strong> physical local environment.The latest report showed that cigarette related litter <strong>is</strong> present on 79% of England’sstreets 83 . Th<strong>is</strong> has increased by 16% since measurement began in 2001/02 (Table 2).ENCAMS suspect that th<strong>is</strong> increase <strong>is</strong> related to a noted r<strong>is</strong>e in cigarette butts littered in<strong>the</strong> transects monitored outside of industrial/warehouse/retail sheds. (Which canprobably be attributed to an increase in workplace smoking bans, forcing smokersoutside where <strong>the</strong>re <strong>is</strong> insufficient butt d<strong>is</strong>posal infrastructure).Table 2: Proportion of transects where cigarette related litter <strong>is</strong> presentYearCRLpresent(%)Increasesince 2001/02(%)2004/05 79 162003/04 79 162002/03 60 -32001/02 63 -81 ENCAMS (Sept 2005) <strong>Cigarette</strong> related litter, Stage 2 Debrief82 ENCAMS (2003-04) LEQSE83, ENCAMS (2005) LEQSE 2004-05<strong>Situation</strong> Report - Final 17