See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262873229

Street litter reduction programs in the Netherlands: Reflections on the

implementation of the Dutch litter reduction program for 2007 - 2009.
Lessons from a public private partners...

Article in Environmental Engineering and Management Journal · December 2013

DOI: 10.30638/eemj.2013.201

CITATIONS READS

3 3,565

4 authors, including:

T. Hoppe Hans Bressers

Delft University of Technology University of Twente
106 PUBLICATIONS 1,087 CITATIONS 377 PUBLICATIONS 3,344 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Laura Franco-Garcia
University of Twente
33 PUBLICATIONS 148 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EU Horizon 2020 'REScoop Plus'. View project

Assessment of the wastewater treatment plant policy in Mexico View project

All content following this page was uploaded by T. Hoppe on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Engineering and Management Journal August 2013, Vol.12, No. 8, 1657-1668
http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/

“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Romania

STREET LITTER REDUCTION PROGRAMS IN THE NETHERLANDS:

REFLECTIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTCH LITTER
REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR 2007 – 2009. LESSONS FROM A PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Thomas Hoppe1, Hans Bressers1, Theo de Bruijn2, Laura Franco - Garcia1

1
CSTM, Twente Centre for Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development, School of Management and Governance,
Institute for Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
2
Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, The Netherlands

Abstract

On a daily basis one is confronted with litter. Most forms of litter are, however, of no concern to people. Nonetheless, litter
accounts for serious economic costs, and causes negative effects to health, safety and biodiversity. Most countries implement
litter reduction policy programs, often in the form of litter collection and penalties for littering. Litter reduction does not
necessarily have to be a government initiative as grassroots and business initiatives have shown; for instance, citizens may adopt
a road to collect litter, or to prevent others from littering. In this paper we focus on a comprehensive three year €48 Million litter
reduction program which was set up in the Netherlands, by a consortium that involved actors from both the public and private
sectors. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the design and implementation of this program. The key results are that although the
program was not directly effective in meeting predetermined policy goals in terms of observed litter reductions, the program did
succeed in laying the foundations on which future programs can prosper. Tensions between public and private actors in the
program consortium led to delays and setbacks, but in the end most struggles were overcome, in large part to a mutual learning
process. Our case is useful for policymakers and academic scholars seeking to learn from policy practices in waste management,
and public-private partnerships for environmental programs.

Key words: governance, litter reduction, program evaluation, policy instrument, public - private partnership, waste management

Received: March 2013; Revised final: July, 2013; Accepted: July, 2013

1. Introduction also situations in which litter density is much higher.

On a daily basis one is confronted with litter.
Common forms of litter are empty small - sized
plastic beverage bottles, tin cans, wrapping disposal
residues, and cigarette butts. These phenomena have
in common that they are small waste units which
have ended up in the wrong place - not in the trash
can – and have started a wandering existence. Most
forms of litter are of no concern to people.
Although presence of litter is usually limited
to a few (visible) units in (public) spaces, there are
Although litter is not considered a significant
problem in Western countries, this cannot be said for
Third World countries, which are increasingly
becoming littered with plastics disposal materials.
Litter accumulates in waterways and streams
into the ocean, where the problem accumulates in
‘plastic soup islands’, breaks down into
environmentally harmful particles and becomes a life
threatening problem to marine biodiversity.
Even in Western countries consequences of
litter, in terms of economic impact, can hardly be


Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: j.t.a.bressers@utwente.nl
 Hoppe et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 12 (2013), 8, 1657-1668
neglected. In the Netherlands, costs for litter
collection accumulate to €250 Million per Annum.
77% of these costs are made by municipalities (so,
indirectly it is tax payers who pay the bill; Deloitte,
2010). Furthermore, litter is in the top three of
perceived environmental problems among its
populace (VNO - NCW, 2007).
Accepting litter is a wrong signal in the
environmental education of the people that can make
less visible environmental issues taken even less
seriously. Next to conventionallitter reduction
measures – placement of trash cans and litter
collection – there are many other ways to address the
problem. This includes littering prevention
campaigns, law enforcement (e.g., fines for littering),
subsidized innovative local litter reduction and
prevention projects, and deposit money systems for
PET bottles.
In this paper we reflect on the design and
implementation of the Dutch litter reduction program
for the period between 2007 and 2009. Theoretically,
we focus on policy programs and implementation of
policy instruments. For litter reduction programs to
be effective we claim that governance arrangements
are developed and used in which actors from the
public and private sectors act jointly. The Dutch litter
reduction program that is central to this paper, forms
an example of such a public-private partnership.
This paper is structured as follows. In section
two we introduce litter as a societal problem, litter
reduction strategies and programs. In section three
we introduce theoretical aspects on public-pivate
collaboration in environmental ‘governance’ settings.
In section four we address agenda-setting and policy-
making on litter reduction in the Netherlands. In
section five we present reflections on the
implementation of the Dutch litter reduction program
2007 - 2009. We address seven different sub -
programs, and judge whether the program succeeded
in meeting pre - determined goals. In the concluding
section, we discuss our main findings and give
recommendations for policy makers.
This paper is based on the program evaluation
the authors conducted on the ‘Impulsprogramma
zwerfafval 2007 - 2009’ (further addressed in this
paper as ‘incentive program’), commissioned by a
public - private consortium consisting of
‘SenterNovem’ (agency on behalf of central
government), ‘Nederland Schoon’ (association on
behalf of business enterprises), and VNG (association
of Dutch local governments). It was partly published
previously in Dutch (Bressers et al., 2010; Hoppe,
2010).
The program evaluation project involved a
mixed method design, with a comprehensive data
collection and analysis, including 49 qualitative
stakeholder interviews, three stakeholder surveys
(among different stakeholder target groups) for
quantitative analysis, and an expert panel session.
1658
2. Litter as a societal problem
In this section we conceptualize and define
litter. We also discuss reasons for litter generation,
and negative effects of littering.
2.1. Definition and conceptualization
Many definitions and conceptualizations exist
for litter. The Australian South Wales Environment
Protection Authority, for instance, defines it as “any
solid waste object (disposable item or resource) that
can be held or carried in a person’s hand, which is
left behind or placed in an inappropriate location.
Any such material or item disposed of in an
inappropriate manner is to be regarded as litter - the
end outcome of an environmentally undesirable
disposal action” (NSWEPA, 2004).
In the Netherlands litter is defined as: “Waste
which is consciously or non - consciously disposed
and left at places which are not for use of waste, or
waste which has ended - up at such locations by
direct acting or negligence by people” (Oranjewoud,
2009:6). Litter shows up in a variety of forms, such
as cigarette butts, disposed plastic bottles, and other
wrappings of consumption goods. In the Netherlands
a differentiation is made between ‘large’ forms of
litter (larger than 10 cm in size) and ‘small’ forms of
litter (less than 10 cm in size). Litter stems from
different sets of sources. Dutch research on litter
creation factors (Oranjewoud, 2009) identifies three
reasons for littering: (i) lack of effective waste
management – for instance by having a poor waste
collection infrastructure (e.g., trash bins) on the
streets, (ii) indifferent behaviour by citizens, and (iii)
a lack of knowledge that people have about the
potential consequences of their behaviour and acting.
When looking to the composition of litter in
the Netherlands a difference can be made in counting
total volumes of litter streams or number of litter
units. When applying the latter method to ‘small -
sized forms of litter’ (less than 10 cm), it is cigarette
butts that conform the most frequent form of litter
occurring. This is followed by litter from take away
restaurants materials, and beverage holding plastic
bottles and tin cans (Fig. 1).
There is a difference in the ‘cleanliness’
between different types of areas. By ‘cleanliness’ we
mean the absence of litter by measuring the presence
of litter items per square metre. Fig. 2 shows how
that recreation areas are typically perceived as
‘clean’, whereas high way service/parking areas,
downtown shopping areas, hotels, restaurants, cafes,
and disco areas, and public transport sites are
typically considered as “less clean’ or even ‘dirty”
(Fig. 2) (Oranjewoud, 2009). Next to direct
measurement of litter, perception of litter presence
and cleanliness of particular public places matters a
great deal to people.
 Street litter reduction programs in the Netherlands
Fig. 1. Litter composition in the Netherlands (in relative figures)
Parking areas, railway stations and bus stops
are considered as the most ‘dirty’ (littered) areas.
This is in line with results of objective litter
measurement (Tauw, 2009).
2.2. Negative impacts of litter
Litter is potentially harmful to people and
animals. It causes unwanted effects and has negative
social, economic, and environmental impacts.
Firstly, litter is harmful to human beings in
various forms, particularly as health problems due to
inflicting causing physical injuries (for instance, to
people tasked to collect litter, when unintentionally
hurting themselves in the process). Roadside litter is
a significant source for injuries and car damage. In
Liverpool, England, 5% of all car - related injuries
were caused by roadside glass particles (Martin,
1998). In Utah, U.S., 8% of highway collisions
resulted from road debris (Transportation Research
Board, 2009). Cigarette butts are known to cause
serious safety risks. They (and other smoker’s
materials) are held responsible for causing over 4,500
fires annually. In Australia 7 Billion cigarette butts
are littered every year (Keep Australia Beautiful
Queensland, 2012).
Litter also has serious negative economic
impacts. On the one hand, littering inflicts high costs
that government have to make for its collection and
disposal. Approximately $11.5 billion per Annum is
spent on litter clean-up activities (Keep America
Beautiful Inc., 2010). Another negative consequence
of littering is loss of aesthetical landscape
appreciation, which indirectly hinders efforts to
attract visitors and business investments (Michael,
2005). Especially in the summer season litter
densities are high (and most prominent on well -
visited locations, such as beach shores; Oranjewoud,
2009).
Litter is considered a serious social and
behavioural problem. A survey in Florida showed
Fig. 2. Appreciation of 'cleanness' of particular
areas on a 5 point Likert scale (5 = clean, 0 =
dirty) (Oranjewoud, 2009)
that a person on average generates 190 pounds of
litter per Annum from daily lives’ activities. The
survey revealed that most people are hardly inclined
to stop littering, although a large majority of them
(94%) sees litter as a serious problem. Reasons for
their littering activities vary from one person to
another. However, it is particular males in the age
group below 35 that tend to litter (as compared to
other groups of people, classified on the basis of age
and gender (Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management, 1998). Littering behaviours can
be perceived as: (i) active littering and (ii) passive
littering (Sibley and Liu, 2003). Active littering
concerns deliberate antisocial behaviour in dumping
waste(s) in places where littering is simply not
allowed. In comparison, passive littering indicates
litter left behind due to the person’s latent anti -
social behaviour. The person is not aware of either
littering at all (as a physical act), or is not aware of a
restrictive regulation on littering on a particular site.
Passive littering occurs more often and is more
resistant to control and enforcement than active
littering. Passive littering is therefore less likely to be
observed. As there is no (negative) feedback by other
people, littering offenders are not made aware about
this type of unwanted behaviour (Sibley and Liu,
2003). Surveys indicate that two-thirds of all litter
belongs to such non-deliberate category. In sum,
peoples’ negligence is one of the important factors
that account for littering.
It is quite difficult to change people’s littering
habits. What is more, presence of litter lowers
behavioural thresholds, and as a consequence people
tend to find it more acceptable to start littering
themselves. Studies show that people are more likely
to litter in areas with high densities of litter, for the
reason that littering is apparently considered socially
acceptable in those places. Thus, a vicious cycle is
formed, which enhances the stubbornness of litter
problem in certain areas (Forbes, 2009). Not
surpsingly, litter is associated with social deprivation
1659
 Hoppe et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 12 (2013), 8, 1657-1668
and low-income urban neighbourhoods. It is in
heavily urbanized areas that litter-related problems
occur more often than in other areas (Bressers et al.,
2010). Sometimes it is even associated to serious
social unwanted phenomena. A US study, for
instance, showed a significant and positive
correlation between the presence of litter in dense
urban residential areas and the number of crime
offenses (Ligget, et al., 2001). It is in this context that
sociologists hypothesize that when ‘small’ antisocial
behaviours – like littering – do not get sufficient
attention, and are not corrected in timely fashion –
more intense antisocial behavioural activities will
follow. This will occur for the reason that not
preventing small antisocial behaviour means
antisocial behaviour is in fact accepted within a
social community (Kelling and Coles, 1996).
2.3. Litter reduction policy programs
Most countries in the World have established
anti - littering policy programs. Policy programs on
littering across countries and jurisdictions are
however little alike. While some countries, like the
Netherlands, implement broad, well - equipped
programs, others stick to an emphasis on corporate
responsibility and citizen initiatives. In the U.S., for
instance, ‘adopt a road’ actions are well
disseminated, but large state littering programs are
not common. This means that citizens’ collectives
‘adopt’ a (part of a) road, and are responsible for
keeping the road free from litter. Next to roads these
citizens’ initiatives may also apply to other areas,
such as school premises or shopping malls.
Litter reduction programs employ different
problem perspectives and instruments. One key
problem perspective assumes that creation of litter
should be prevented at all times, and when littering
occurs the person responsible should remove litter
immediately, or face a penalty (most likely a fine).
3. Governance and public private partnerships
Environmental problems, like littering, are
often characterized by high degrees of uncertainty,
can be interpreted from multi - disciplinary
perspectives, and involve multiple actors. These
issues are surrounded by sets of interconnected actors
who share knowledge and exchange resources. These
clusters of actors can be seen as policy networks, and
are either loosely coupled issue networks or more
stable and powerful policy communities (Marsh and
Rhodes, 1992)
Mutual relations and dependencies between
actors in policy networks are seen as important
factors in policy making and implementation
(Bressers and Kuks, 2003). Government can adopt a
position that is central and dominant, but it can also
state willingness to adapt a more equal role as
compared to other actors in the policy network, and
develop policy strategies and policy instruments
likewise.
1660
This change in view represents a shift in
accent from traditional government (‘top down’)
policy, or from ‘government’, to ‘governance’, in
which policies are designed and implemented in co-
creation with actors in the policy networks. The
essence of governance is its focus on governing
mechanisms – grants, contracts, agreements – that do
not rest solely on the authority and sanctions of
government (Milward and Provan, 2000).
Policy implementation involves multi - actor
network activation, which requires the model of
governance to concentrate not only on the objectives
and indicators of achievement, but also the resources
and organization of implementation (Bressers and
Kuks, 2003). Besides the emphasis on policy
networks, the ‘blending of public and private
resources’ and ‘the use of multiple instruments’ are
typical features of ‘governance’ (Peters and Pierre,
1998).
Governments, however, are tempted not to use
the term governance, but rather stick to public private
partnerships (PPP’s). The appeal to use the term
‘partnerships’ is understandable as it connotes two or
more equal public and private actors working
together to jointly achieve some kind of goals. They
need the resources from the other partner to achieve
their goal(s). Theoretically speaking, one side does
not dominate the other side (Regeczi, 2008). Even
when mostly applied in cases in which large
investments are made (for instance in infrastructures
such as highways), PPP’s are typically used in
complex situations characterized by high degrees of
inter-actor dependencies and high uncertainty.
When ‘governance’ - and PPP - strategies are
deployed, partners jointly formulate policy programs,
implementation strategies, and sets of present policy
instruments. The litter issue in the Netherlands can be
considered a case in which a PPP was developed, and
a policy program was accordingly designed and
implemented.
In this paper we focus on the design and
implementation of a policy program, its sub -
programs and the policy instruments which are
subject to the latter (see Table 1 for an overview of
the program). This type of research follows an
approach to understand policy by taking instruments
as ‘units of analysis’.
In our analysis we will describe the
implementation of sub - programs’ instruments and
describe the impacts they achieved, based on
multiple sources of evidence, such as secondary
literatures, surveys, interviews, and an expert panel
session. More in general, this paper describes a
policy evaluation, which seeks to understand policy
goal achievement, and underlying reasons for success
and failure (Dunn, 2008). Due to the complexity and
comprehensiveness of the Dutch litter reduction
program, we first analyse the implementation of the
sub - programs and its policy instruments, before we
answer the question whether the program at large
was effective in terms of litter reduction.
 Street litter reduction programs in the Netherlands
4. Litter reduction on the Dutch policy agenda
In the Netherlands litter is seen as an
unwanted side - effect from industry packing
consumption goods (Bressers et al., 2010). This
encompasses a (value) chain-wide perspective on the
industries that need packaging of their products. In
1998 policy attention to litter was restricted to plastic
bottles for beverages and water. In 2002, central
government, industry, and municipalities collectively
decided upon agreements to deal with litter - related
problems in an integrated manner. Within the so-
called ‘packaging covenant’, a sub - covenant on
litter reduction was adopted. Responsibilities were
allocated to the partners who signed the covenant.
When the covenant was terminated in 2005, its goal -
attainment was assessed.
The amount of large-sized litter elements (>
10 cm) had decreased by 29%, while the amount of
small - sized litter (< 10 cm; e.g., cigarette butts or
chewing hum) had decreased by 40%
(Evaluatiecommissie deelconvenant zwerfafval,
2004). Although this looked satisficing at first sight,
it did not indicate full achievement of the intended
policy goals. The intended goals were not achieved.
According to the evaluation committee factors for not
achieving the intended goals were related to: i) the
long period it takes before behavioural change takes
place among citizens, and ii) lack of insights into
mutual dependencies between business and
government. Based on these results the covenant
partners decided to jointly start an incentive program
to find out whether a broader strategy and
instrumentation would lead to better results.
Underneath the discussion to start an incentive
program was the debate on finance and
implementation of ‘hard’ policy instruments to
effectively solve litter problems. This meant an
expansion of the deposit money system to small and
medium - sized PET bottles.
Not surprisingly, the beverage industry
opposed implementation of this instrument as it
feared drastic costs increases. The debate on the
matter goes back to the 1990’s when the Left - Wing
Minister for Environmental Affairs, Jan Pronk, used
the argument of producers’ responsibility for disposal
of litter; in particular PET bottles for beverage(s) and
water. Point of departure was municipalities, who
were financially responsible for litter collection and
disposal. As a consequence, they had (and have) the
largest financial burden of litter collection.
As a consequence the municipalities’
representative association (VNG) lobbied with
central government whether the burden could be
shifted to those responsible for litter: the producers of
beverage and water holding small and medium -
sized PET bottles. Convinced by the municipalities’
claim Minister Pronk proposed introduction of the
expansion of the deposit money system in case the
first litter reduction program would fail (i.c., the 2004
sub - covenant on litter’; ‘deelconvenant zwerfafval
2004’ in Dutch). If implemented the deposit money
expansion would mean shifting a financial burden of
up to €130 Million per Annum from the
municipalities (or, actually the tax paying citizens) to
industry. The beverage industry, by means of the
national employers’ representative organisation VNO
- NCW, opposed introduction of the expanded
deposit money system. In typical Dutch fashion,
public and private partners decided to negotiate an
agreement that would be acceptable to all three key
actors. The outcome was, framed as an ‘incentive
program’ (which can be seen as a predecessor or
lightweight form of a covenant) to find out whether
litter reduction goals could also be achieved by
implementation of alternative policy instruments.
The key idea behind the program was that if the
‘incentive program’ would fail to achieve its targets,
than the expanded deposit money system was to be
implemented. Therefore, the national employers’
representative organisation (on behalf of the
beverage industry) had a significant interest in the
incentive program being successful (this time). It was
in this situation that VNO-NCW decided that the
association ‘Nederland Schoon’ (‘Netherlands
clean’) would participate officially in the future litter
reduction programs.
‘Nederland Schoon’ was to show that industry
can be held socially responsible, and cares about
about a clean – ‘litter free’ - environment. In order to
show commitment ‘Nederland Schoon’ would
organize campaigns and other activities for reduction
of litter (in particular prevention campaigns).
‘Nederland Schoon’ would act in close collaboration
with municipalities and the national government
agency SenterNovem (later renamed as “Agency
NL”) from 2007 onward in the joint implementation
of the litter reduction incentive program. In 2006 the
Ministry of the Environment, VNO-NCW, and VNG
jointly decided upon the goals, strategies and
instrumentation of the incentive program. The
starting point was that the litter problem could only
be successfully governed if the three partners would
be collaborating in this effort. This meant a public
private partnership was to be put in place. The goal
was to achieve a ‘visible’ and ‘measurable’ cleaner
Netherlands over the three year program period
between 2007 and 2009. Policy goals were not
quantified.
In order to achieve a ‘cleaner Netherlands’ the
incentive program set three sub-goals. First, by
preventing origination of litter by developing
innovative products (and packaging innovations), and
by stimulating behavioural change; second, by
intensifying enforcement of regulations; third, by
collecting and disposing litter in ‘smart’ and effective
ways. The incentive program was characterized by a
comprehensive approach. The strategy encompassed
seven sub - programs: (1) areas, (2) stimulation, (3)
innovation, (4) measurement and research, (5)
communication, (6) enforcement of regulations, and
(7) target groups. Each of this sub - programs was
characterized by a comprehensive set of policy
instruments of its own.
1661
 Hoppe et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 12 (2013), 8, 1657-1668

Table 1. Overview of policy instruments within the Dutch litter reduction program 2007 - 2009, sub - divided by thematic policy
sub – fields (Bressers et al., 2010)

Policy sub - Sub - field

Policy instrument
field component
Areas Railway stations  Research on problems and solutions.
and other public  Design and implementation of pilot projects in 4 types of public transport areas.
transport areas
Highly urbanized  Development of 4 pilot projects, including a ‘neighbourhood show’.
neighbourhoods  Development of a ‘toolbox’.
 Development and implementation of a ‘litter scan’ and ‘neighbourhood creator’.
City centres and  Development of an action plan for shopping areas.
shopping areas  Benchmarks for inner - city areas and neighbourhood shopping áreas.
 Quick scans for audit and action plan for shopping areas.
 Research on the development of an argumentation map concerning the benefits of
shopping areas management systems.
Stimulation Subsidy scheme  Development of a subsidy scheme for three types of projects: ‘pilot projects’, ‘plus -
projects’, and ‘basic projects’.
 Marketing of the subsidy scheme: implementation and management .
Policy instruments  Design of a policy instruments mix.
mix  Courses and workshops for municipal civil servants (and employees from other
organisations responsible for managing areas).
Knowledge  Provision of best practice examples for storage in the data archive.
extraction from  Projects evaluation and selection; analysis and description of best practices from the
‘best practices’ project data base.
Program  Program website www.samenwerkenaaneenschonernederland.nl.
communication  Magazine ‘Litter informative’.
 Electronic newsletter.
 Annual national litter conference.
Innovation Packaging  Development of a checklist on wrappings.
innovations  Call for innovations.
Category - /  Research and measures regarding implementation of the smoking ban for hotels,
product specific restaurants and cafes.
solutions  Chewing gum pilot project in Rotterdam.
 Bank receipts discussion.
 Newspapers / flyers discussion; fast - food wrappings.
Cleaning  Optimization of methods and innovations for litter collection equipment.
innovations  Optimization methods and innovations for cleaning machines and materials.
 Optimization methods and stimulation of innovations for effective labour force
systems.
 Research on the ‘saw - tooth’ model.
 Research on the relation between spatial arrangements and management.
 Development of costs key figures.
 Best practices based on the ‘image - focused cleaning’ guideline.
Innovation funds  Innovation funds.
Program Program  National tool for objective litter performance measurement.
performance performance  National measurement tool on litter experiences.
measurement measurement  Involvement of intermediates.
and research
Research  Research on the conceptual ’chasm’ between measurement of litter and experience
(perception) of litter.
 Research on causes for litter.
 Research on costs for litter (reduction).
International  International literature review.
 Cross - national knowledge exchange.
Communication Local campaigns  Pilot projects ‘youth campaign’ (in The Hague and Bladel).
 Creating understanding for national campaigns at the local level.
 Making campaign materials available for local use via the web shop.
National campaigns  Fireworks campaign.
 National ‘Schoon Nederland’ week.
 National clean - up day.
 Summer campaign.

1662
 Street litter reduction programs in the Netherlands

Law Administrative fine  Administrative fine and prosecution payment.

enforcement and punitive
assignment
Manuals, fact  Increasing priority for litter enforcement at the Ministry of Justice and the Prosecution
sheets, and training Ministry.
of law enforcement  Integration of enforcement target group focused – and area - focus - projects.
agents and policy Stimulation and facilitation of enforcement by information on provisional methods,
support staff best practices and making components available like communication means,
guidelines, fact sheets and the education and training of enforcement personnel.
Target groups Juveniles  Research and pilot projects on juveniles’ behaviours and effective incentives for this
target group.
 Design and dissemination of educational curriculums for (primary and secondary)
schools.
 ‘Cleanest school’ box for secondary schools.
 ‘Candy routes’ action plans.
 Action plan for juvenile ‘hang about’ – sites.
Recreation  ‘Cleanest beach’ competition.
 Pilot projects on - , design and implementation of action plan for local recreation sites.
 Recreational events action plan.
 Benchmark for recreational events.
Transport / mobility  Research on problems and behaviour.
 Action plan for high way service - / parking areas.
 Exploration of problems nearby provincial roads.
Business firms  Shopkeepers’ responsibility for 25 metre area surrounding their shops, and renewal of
waste disposal bins at the shop’s front doors.
 Actions focused at fast food restaurants.
 Actions focused at super markets.

This involved a large subsidy scheme for
innovative local litter reduction projects, a national
awareness campaign, information materials, a
program website, advertisements, research projects,
the set up and implementation of performance
measurement tools, benchmarking, audits, workshops
for practitioners, an annual conference, professional
publications, fact sheets, educational packages for
use at secondary schools, several competitions, and
physical placement of trash cans. An overview of all
sub - programs and policy instruments of the
incentive program is presented in Table 1.
The incentive program primarily targeted at
reaching intermediate organisations (in particular
municipalities), and not so much the usual target
group for littering (citizens). The program intended
to make officers at intermediate organizations (area
managers) aware about the nature and significance of
litter reduction, and to show them which strategies
and instruments are available, and to have those
implemented by them. Intermediate organisations
where the program aimed at, apart from
municipalities, were area managers such as public
road - and highway managers, public transport area
managers, nature conservation associations,
recreational area managers, secondary schools,
business park managers, and owners of shops and
restaurants. The program office used several business
sector representative associations to get in touch with
key producers of product wrappings, consumption
goods, beverages, and cigarettes.
All in all, the incentive program strategy was
characterized by a broad scope, targeting instruments
at many different actors from both the public and
private sectors. The program was allocated €48
Million Euros, from which (amongst others) €16.5
Million was allocated for the subsidy scheme, €9
Million for innovations, €8.5 Million for
Communications and campaigns, and €6 Million for
the program office (Tweede Kamer der Staten
Generaal, 2008).
5. Reflection on the implementation of the litter
reduction incentive program
In this section we reflect on the
implementation of the sub - programs.
5.1. Sub - program on area specific policies
Specific policies were developed for three
types of areas: (1) railway stations and other public
transport areas, (2) highly urbanized neighbourhoods,
and (3) city centres and shopping areas.
Intermediate organizations in the first area
(public transport) turned out to be difficult to engage.
This especially applied to the National Railways
(NS) which turned out to have responsibilities
divided among multiple organizations . Although the
program office succeeded in developing useful
network relationships, this did not lead to
improvement of the ‘cleanliness’ of public transport
areas. In line with section 2 these areas can be
considered ‘litter hotspots’, and are considered
extremely difficult to target for litter prevention
activities.
Activities aimed at highly urbanized
neighbourhoods consisted of the development of
tools and instruments which can be deployed by
municipalities and other local area managers. In this

1663
 Hoppe et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 12 (2013), 8, 1657-1668
regard ten municipalities adopted ‘neighbourhood
scans’, and three others developed litter action plans
by using the so - called ‘neighbourhood creator’ tool.
They succeeded in having the action plans adopted in
covenants with local stakeholders. Activities in the
two types of shopping areas and downtown city
centres followed a comparable approach..
This included having 32 “neighbourhood
scans” conducted in fifteen municipalities. The scans
were considered successful as there were indications
that municipalities had adopted litter action plans
following the scans’ results. Some of the identified
‘frontrunner’ projects were considered promising by
the program office, which considered dissemination
of these approaches promising for future programs.
5.2. Sub - program on stimulation
The ‘stimulation’ sub - program had four
components: a subsidy scheme, an instruments mix,
dissemination of best practices, and program
communication. From these measures the subsidy
scheme drew the most attention (in particular due to
its €16.5 Million budget; a substantial budget
allocation within the incentive program). The scheme
was intended for municipalities, which involved
mandatory local litter audits (for municipalities to be
eligible to request a subsidy grant). However,
municipalities were free to suggest the intension,
strategy and scope of their local litter reduction
action plans.. The subsidy scheme’s goal was
assurance and anchoring of litter reduction programs
by local governments. Months before the offcicial
termination of the project the scheme’s budget was
already exhausted due to the large amount of grant
requests by municipalities. The program office
considered this a success. In the policy evaluation
municipalities participating in the subsidy scheme
considered the subsidy scheme one of the measures
that enabled them most to develop litter reduction
action plans. The subsidy scheme was also used to
support on - going societal, grassroots initiatives.
This included budget allocation to long standing
initiatives like SVZO (association for volunteers
collecting litter, which operates throughout the
country) and ‘Deventer Schoon familie’ (a grass
roots movement in the city of Deventer, involved
with activities for the unemployed, keeping the city
clean and tidy).
The instruments’ mix was targeted at making
municipalities aware about the availability of the
incentive programs policy instruments. Furthermore,
much of newly developed knowledge (from ‘best
practices’ projects) for litter reduction following the
subsidized projects in municipalities was deployed
by the program office to stimulate development of
new instruments (e.g., guidelines). Knowledge about
these new instruments was, in turn, disseminated to
the municipalities. A data base was set up and was
used extensively throughout the program
implementation period. Products stored in the data
base were requested (and downloaded) many times
1664
by municipalities and other program target group
area managers.
5.3. Sub - program on innovation
The sub - program on ‘Innovation’ was sub -
divided in four components: product specific
innovations, cleaning innovations, packaging
innovations, and an Innovation funds. The first
component, product specific innovations, factually
only meant catching up on - going initiatives by
business enterprises (e.g. producers of wrappings,
food, beverages, and cigarettes). Another part of the
sub - program was to run a set of local demonstration
projects with deployment of innovations, such as the
‘seagull resistant garbage bag’ in the city of Leiden.
All in all, few innovations were developed (let alone
marketed), but for some innovations the program
provided protected ‘breeding space’ for market niche
development. The program component ‘cleaning
innovations’ involved research on innovative
cleaning methods and technologies, such as ‘dealing
with litter peak loads’, the ‘saw tooth model’, and
‘demand - side cleaning’. Furthermore, it involved
experimentation with ‘ashtray tiles’, a solar power
fuelled trash can called ‘Big Belly’, and a high tech
‘litter collection robot’. Some innovations, like the
ashtray tiles and the ‘Big Belly’ were periodically
demonstrated and tested in a limited number of
Dutch railway stations.
The program component ‘wrapping
innovations’ was coordinated with industrial
companies. Together with the industrial sector
representative body, ‘Nederland Schoon’ developed a
checklist on well - designed wrappings (to prevent
littering) and did an audit on wrappings of different
consumption goods (c.f., food, candy and beverages)
. Insights on innovations were disseminated by the
program office via (professional) publications,
workshops, the program website and the annual
conference. The diffusion of the ‘demand - side
cleaning’ method was considered successful by
representatives from municipalities. Whereas only
22% of municipalities used this method in 2007, 53%
had started to use it by 2009. The innovation funds’
implementation was seriously delayed. In the end it
was only implemented just before termination of the
program in 2009.
5.4. Sub - program on monitoring and research
The program office succeeded in developing a
uniform performance measurement method.
Objective performance measurement was carried out
periodically. Both the measurement method itself and
measurements results were actively disseminated
across Dutch municipalities. Although development
of a uniform measurement method initially met a lot
of barriers (due to differing insights between
different participating stakeholders), and was
seriously delayed, in the end the program office
succeeded to develop a uniform method.
 Street litter reduction programs in the Netherlands
Performance measurement involved both
measurement of actual litter volumes, and
measurement of perceptions about the presence of
litter, and cleanness of a set of pre - determined area
types.
Objective measurement showed that no
significant improvement occurred in the program
period (2007-2009) throughout the country. The
objective measurement method expresses cleanness
of areas in ten-point Likert scales, as if they represent
Dutch high school grades (where “10” is excellent,
and “1” is the lowest mark available). Following
measurement, results showed that (Oranjewoud,
2009) country - wide cleanness was awarded a 7.5
grade (“very satisfactory”). This said, the policy
program concluded that the country could be
considered relatively “clean”. Throughout the
incentive program implementation period this grade
did not change, indicating a sustained level of
‘cleanness’. Next to objective measurement,
experiential measurement was also conducted. Like
the results of objective measurement, little change
was observed between the start and termination of
the program, except for the final quarter of 2009,
when a small increase in (positive) appreciation for
cleanness was observed.
A longitudinal study on awareness of litter
presence showed a slight improvement during the
observed program period (Motivaction, 2009).
Analysis of the results from both objective
measurement and experiential measurement showed
a significant difference between the two. It appears
that there is a difference between objective
observation and experience of the cleanness of areas:
the more a location appears to be nearby a given
person’s home, the cleaner it is perceived.
The research component of the sub-program
involved a lot of research projects, especially as parts
of the sub - programs ‘areas’, ‘target groups’, and
‘innovations’. This led to the development of new
insights and bundling of existing knowledge. One of
the most striking findings was that litter turns out to
be a social construct which is hard to define.
Although many research projects were conducted,
three key research projects were either started just
before the termination of the project (on the costs of
litter reduction, and on the causes for the litter
problem), or were not implemented at all (on
effectiveness of particular measures and policy
instruments).
We consider these three projects critical for
furthering research and development of future litter
reduction programs. The delays were most likely due
to internal discussions between the partners within
the incentive program (i.c. ‘Nederland Schoon’ on
behalf of the industry, SenterNovem on behalf of
central government, and VNG on behalf of the
municipalities), and addressed issues about
definitions and research designs, which could
consequently result in re - distribution of financial
burdens if forthcoming litter reduction
implementation strategies were to be implemented.
5.5. Sub - program on communication
This sub - program basically encompassed
two sets of policy instruments: (i) campaigns
targeting behavioural change among citizens, and (ii)
program communication.
The campaigns included a yearly Summer
Campaign, the ‘Nederland Schoon’ Week campaign
(“Netherlands Clean Week”) campaign, and
Fireworks Campaign (for collection of fireworks
residual wastes on New Year’s Day). The intention
of the program office was to organize a nation - wide
campaign quarterly. Except for Fall, the program
office succeeded in organizing these campaigns,
when the Yearly Cleaning Day is included. The
campaigns received a lot of attention, and contributed
to raising awareness on litter reduction. Next to
getting citizens involved, the campaigns mobilized
municipalities’ support at the local level.
The program office supported the
municipalities by providing campaign material, and
advertisements. During the running period of the
program participation of municipalities and other
area managers increased annually. For the Fireworks
Campaign this was: 20 in 2007; 82 in 2009. For the
Summer Campaign this was: 130 in 2008; 186 in
2009. The Yearly Cleaning Day attracted 98
municipalities in 2008 and 249 in 2009 (on a total of
431 Dutch municipalities in 2009; that is 57.8 %).
The campaigns also attracted attention from the
Ministry of Internal Affairs, which connected them to
its own campaigns on better social cohesion. In the
survey among municipalities, the campaigns were
mentioned as the policy instruments most likely to
return in future programs.
The program office employed several
instruments for communication purposes: a program
website, a program journal ‘Zwerfafval Informatief’
(‘Litter Informative’), and a digital newsletter. The
program office used them to disseminate knowledge
to municipalities and other area managers. The
website also featured a web shop to enable
municipalities to order campaign materials (such as
posters, tabards, trash cans, and other equipment).
For the ‘Yearly Cleaning Day’ no less than 200
municipalities ordered campaign materials at the web
shop. The customer satisfaction survey showed that
clients in general were satisfied with the service
provision by the program office.
A help desk was opened by SenterNovem to
assist municipalities’ civil servants who needed tailor
- made guidance and support on the litter program.
Furthermore, topical workshops were organized for
employees of intermediate organizations (in
particular municipalities’ civil servants). The
workshops were generally well attended: with
between 25 and 50 personss. The survey showed that
the communications sub - program had helped them
to improve their abilities to reduce litter in their
localities. The “communication” sub - program
succeeded in achieving the target of frequently
creating more attention to litter issues, increasing
1665
 Hoppe et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 12 (2013), 8, 1657-1668
awareness among the populace, and increasing
municipalities’ capacities to anchor wishful
behaviour at the local level.
5.6. Sub - program on law enforcement
The sub - program on ‘law enforcement’
intentionally involved two policy instruments: the
administrative fine and dissemination of best
practices. The approach on intensifying law
enforcement practices changed during the
implementation of the incentive program.
Experiences in meetings with representatives from
municipalities led to insights that the intended mode
for law enforcement was not feasible. Municipalities
shared the opinion that law enforcement on littering
would cost them more than they would benefit from
it. Although the administrative fine was (formally)
implemented, it was not implemented in an effective
manner. A few municipalities applied the (previously
mentioned) subsidy scheme to hire special
investigation officers who were tasked with special
litter law enforcement duties.
Law enforcement experiences were collected,
analysed, reported and dissimeninated to
municipalities’ law enforcers. This, however, can
only be seen as a consolation in relation to the
instruments that were poorly implemented and the
goals that were not achieved: structural improvement
and intensification of actual law enforcement.
5.7. Sub – program on target group policies
Five groups were targeted: juveniles,
recreation participants, events visitors, transport
participants, and business firms.
Juveniles were engaged two ways: first, by
providing elementary and secondary schools with
educational packages to address littering as social
and environmental problems. In total, nation-wide
over 500 schools were provided with these materials.
It turned out difficult to convince teenagers. They
were reluctant to participate in the litter reduction
target group strategy. Second, by juveniles were
approached by addressing the so - called “candy
routes”’ (typical routes where school children
commute from their homes to school, while littering
candy wrappings on the pavement in the meanwhile).
The approach involved group - wise litter collecting
activities, with the aim to increase environmental
awareness among, and group cohesion between
school children. The impact on the “cleanness” of
‘candy route’ areas was, however, small as the litter
collection activities were infrequent in nature. The
holistic “candy route” approach turned out to be
especially successful among participating
municipalities, many of them adopting the approach
in their local waste management programs.
Third, action research was conducted among
groups of juveniles to learn about their lifestyles in
relation to littering. Results were reported.
1666
Results of the action plan on recreation areas
vary in size of impact. The clean beach shores action
plan can be considered effective (indicated by
objective measurements; an increase from a 3.8 -
grade in the 2003 - 2005 period to a 4.1 - grade in the
2006 - 2008 period). Part of the reason was the so -
called “Cleanest beach of the Netherlands”
competition, which drew special attention in the
media. A positive side-effect was that the
competition helped to increase collaboration between
coastal municipalities. Additional performance
measurements and research projects were also set up.
One of these showed that there was a substantial inter
- provincial variation in terms of –beaches being
clean.
Actions addressing other recreational areas
than beach shores were less intensive. Measures
aimed at nature and recreation area managers led to
increased awareness for litter problems among target
group members, and resulted in improved
collaboration ties. It was concluded, however, that
litter was considered of little concern by those
organisations (in contrast to dumping of large - sized
pieces of waste – like old tyres - in nature
conservation parks). Nonetheless, the program office
succeeded in getting access to more than 1,000 new
professional contact persons.
The ‘events’ approach within the areas sub -
program concerned large sports events. Two events
were used to raise awareness on prevention of
littering. This included a large racing cyclists’ event
in the Limburg region (‘Limburgs mooiste’).
Experiences were positive and were used to develop
a fact sheet for knowledge dissemination on how to
address litter prevention at large - scale sports events.
The traffic participants’ action plan involved
competitions both the cleanest and dirtiest highway
parking areas in the country. The latter created a lot
of fuss, and hence raised a lot of public attention.
This was little surprising as research conducted on
behalf of the program office already found that
parking places are considered the most dirty public
spaces. Furthermore, a sample of 248 of those areas
was used for measurement of litter intensity.
Nonetheless, in the program evaluation it was
observed that car drivers, who can be considered a
key target group for litter reduction, remain under -
serviced, and need more attention in future litter
reduction programs.
The action plan addressing business
enterprises was set up in a rather comprehensive
manner. The program office actively collaborated
and negotiated with different industrial sector
representatives in order to get their members (firms)
involved. For the ‘fast service’ (e.g. snack bars)
sector this involved the set - up of a promotion team,
which succeeded in engaging 1,200 fast service
entrepreneurs. This was supported by a producer of
plastic disposable items which are used by fast food
restaurants, and included imprints of some key
program slogans in disposable plastic trays.
 Street litter reduction programs in the Netherlands
Among super markets the action plan ‘Super
clean’ was executed, which addressed the degree of
cleanness in and nearby super markets, and included
provision of new trash cans with program slogans.
Most super market entrepreneurs, however, shared
the opinion that super market areas will only have
lower degrees of litter intensity when neighbourhood
stakeholders participate in joint efforts to address
littering. They state that super markets’ personnel
cannot do this on their own. Although most of the
policy instruments of the business enterprises’ action
plan were implemented relatively late in the program
period, they turned out to be well known across the
different target groups. Accordingly, program
materials and equipment were well used.
Furthermore, industrial sector representatives were
positive and engaged actively in program
negotiations. Although not officially part of the sub -
program on target groups, we think it is necessary to
address how the incentive program’s main target
group – municipalities - has been activated by the
program.
In 2010 a survey among municipalities (n =
162; 37.6% of all Dutch municipalities) showed a
relatively positive image of the program held
bymunicipalities. 70% stated that litter policy was at
least well embedded within their own organisation.
Policy attention to litter in 2009, however, had not
increased (nor decreased) since 2007. It was mostly
large municipalities (> 50,000 inhabitants) that
possessed specific local litter reduction programs
(68% within this group), which is little surprising
considering the above average degree of litter -
related problems in dense urban areas. A value of
41% of all surveyed municipalities stated to have
used at least any of the programs, products or
services offered by the incentive program.
The instruments most used were the subsidy
scheme, the SenterNovem program helpdesk, the
web shop, the national campaigns and the program
website. 75% of all surveyed municipalities claimed
that litter problems in 2009 had at least become better
manageable as compared to 2007. Municipalities’
officers feel that if they are to continue local litter
programs, future national litter reduction programs
should continue to support them with a set of key
policy instruments, including the subsidy scheme, the
national campaigns, and a support help desk.
6. Conclusions
In this paper we reflected on the design and
implementation of the Dutch litter reduction program
for the 2007-2009 period. Based on objective
measurements no improvement or worsening of litter
intensity was observed during the program
implementation period. The same can be said for
measurement of perception on the intensity of litter.
Although these results look rather disappointing, they
are not necessarily negative. One can claim that litter
intensity at least did not increase. A reason for not
realising a significant improvement during the
implementation program period could be the time lag
before the policy program became was actually
implemented. A plausible reason for this is that part
of the budget allocated to the program only became
available when the program implementation had
already started. Moreover, like other policy
programs, the program office needed to prepare their
strategies, and policy instruments for
implementation, and raise awareness among the
intended target groups.
Although the time lag reason applies to most
policy programs, we do want to stress that it is not
just time delay which caused the incentive program
to not achieve its key targets. In-depth analysis of the
sub-programs reveals other factors. Although some
sub-programs were generally well-executed
(stimulation, communication, target groups,
performance measurement), others were clearly not
(innovation, enforcement). On the latter cases,
serious delays occurred as a result of hotly disputed
debates between the project partners. Nonetheless, in
the end many of these struggles were overcome, in
large part due to a mutual learning process between
the public and private sector parties of program
partnership.
As the industrial partners feared that research
and policy instruments would shift the financial
burden to them, they demanded more research and
experimentation be conducted, as a means to delay
implementation. In literature this ‘phenomenon is
also known as ‘to participate and slow down
negotiations, a tactic often applied by incumbent,
powerful actors who fear loss of influence, and
potential financial loss in environmental policy issues
(Rotmans, 2011). Although key program outcome
indicators showed little signs of improvement on
‘policy outcome’ indicators (and no sign of
worsening), we view the program achieved positive
results in many categories that can be seen as ‘policy
output’ variables, intermediate or first order effects.
More positive effects on ‘outcome‘ indicators are
likely to be expected in the future.
Positive effects on output variables that were
achieved during the incentive program’s 2007-2009
implementation concern awareness raising,
organisational embedding of litter strategies and
practices among different intermediates’ groups (area
managers), and activation of issue networks. Without
the incentive programs these initiatives and practices
would have been lower in number, lower in structure
and lower in impact. Whether all of this will continue
without program support remains to be seen, though.
Whether intermediate organizations – the key target
group of the incentive program- are well enough
equipped to carry on litter reduction activities is most
uncertain. Development of organizational and
institutional capacities required substantial resources
(budget, knowledge, experience, contacts, and skills)
and will likely continue to do so (in terms of subsidy,
knowledge dissemination and support of stakeholder
networks by organizing activities).
1667
 Hoppe et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 12 (2013), 8, 1657-1668
A future program should at least provide the
intermediate organizations with some form of
‘aftercare’ to continue running litter reduction
strategies. We also feel that the precious
collaboration that was developed between public and
private partners in the program consortium (and later:
office) needs to be cherished, although collaboration
did not always prove to be without problems. This,
we see as part of a mutual learning process.
In 2010 the incentive program was succeeded
by the so-called ‘focus-program’. So, semantically
speaking, a program which featured incentives to
start litter reduction in broad sense was succeeded by
a program which was more focused on a selective set
of target groups, and hence policy sub-programs and
instruments. The focus program did, however, not
include the expansion of the deposit money system
(although key goals on outcome indicators were not
achieved by the incentive program). Lobbyists from
industry and politicians (again) succeeded in having
the deposit money expansion postponed with another
policy program. In fact, the discussion is still
controversial, as the liberal political party (on behalf
of the industry) strives to get rid of deposit money
altogether, while left-wing parties (in support of
municipalities and tax payers) still strive to expand
the current deposit money system, and shift the
financial burden to industry.
Acknowledgements
We like to express our thanks to the litter reduction
program support staff at SenterNovem (currently
Agentschap NL), Nederland Schoon, and VNG. We also
like to thank 49 interviewees for their precious time and
valued opinions.
References
Bressers H., Hoppe T., Bruijn T., Franco L., (2010),
Evaluation Impulse Programme Litter (in Dutch),
2007-2009, CSTM, CSTM-SR 361, ISSN 1381-6357,
Enschede.
Bressers H.Th.A., Kuks S.M.M. (2003), What Does
"Governance" Mean? From Conception to
Elaboration, In: Achieving Sustainable Development;
The Challenge of Governance Across Social Scales,
Bressers H., Rosenbaum W. (Eds.), Praeger, London,
65-89.
Deloitte, (2010), Report on Research Cost of Litter (in
Dutch), The Hague, Netherlands.
Dunn W.N., (2008), Public Policy Analysis. An
Introduction, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, USA.
Evaluatiecommissie deelconvenant zwerfafval, (2004),
Evaluation covenant packaging III – sub-covenant
packaging (in Dutch), The Hague, Netherlands.
Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, (1998), The Florida Litter Study: 1998,
Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, Gainesville, Florida, USA, On line at:
http://litterinfo.org/98_florida_litter_study.pdf.
Forbes G.R., (2009), Reducing Litter on Roadsides, A
Synthesis of Highway Practice, NCHRP Synthesis,
Transportation Research Board of The National
Academies, Washington D.C., On line at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_
394.pdf
1668
View publication stats
Hoppe T., (2010), Litter a large source of annoyance;
nature, size and policy approach, Milieu Dossier, 16,
27-30.
Keep America Beautiful Inc., (2010), Key findings: the
costs of Americans littering. Results from the nation’s
largest litter study, CT: KAB, Stamford, On line at:
http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/LitterFactSheet_LI
TTER.pdf?docID=5184.
Keep Australia Beautiful Queensland, (2012), Cigarette
Butt Littering, Fact sheet, Brisbane, On line at:
http://www.keepqueenslandbeautiful.org.au/resources/
fact%20sheets/Cigarette%20Butt%20Litter.pdf.
Kelling G., Coles C.M., (1996), Fixing Broken Windows:
Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our
Communities, Free Press, New York.
Liggett R., Loukaitou-Sideris A., Iseki H., (2001), Bus stop
– environment connection: do characteristics of the
built environment correlate with bus stop crime?
Transportation Research Record, No. 1760, 20-27, On
line at: http://www.uctc.net/papers/613.pdf.
Marsh D., Rhodes R.A.W., (1992), Policy Communities
and Issue Networks: Beyond Typology, In: Policy
Networks in the British Government, Marsch D.
Rhodes R. A. W. (Eds.), Clarendon Press.
Martin M., (1998), Reported incidence of injuries caused
by street glass among urban children in Philadelphia,
Injury Prevention, 4, 136-148.
Michael N., (2005), The impacts of the california beverage
container recycling and litter reduction act on
consumers, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24, 190–220.
Milward H. B., Provan K.G., (2000), How Networks are
Governed, In: Governance and Performance: New
Perspectives, Lynn L.E., Heinrich C., Hill C.J. (Eds.),
Georgetown University Press, 316-317.
Motivaction, (2009), Is the Netherlands getting cleaner?
Perception of litter by citizens; 3-measurement (in
Dutch), Project reference M1624, Amsterdam.
NSWEPA, (2004), New South Wales Litter Report, New
South Wales Environment Protection Authority,
Australia.
Oranjewoud, (2009), Annual report on national litter
measurement, Project Reference 183376, On line at:
http://www.oranjewoud.nl/projecten.
Peters B.G., Pierre J. (1998), Governance without
government? Rethinking public administration.
Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 8, 223-243.
Regeczi D., (2008), Private equity; public principle;
Evaluating the legitimacy and sustainability of public-
private partnerships, PhD Thesis, University of
Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Rotmans J., (2011), Status of the energy transition in the
Netherlands, Rotterdam: DRIFT, Erasmus Universiteit
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sibley C., Liu J., (2003), Differentiating active and passive
littering: a two-stage process model of littering
behavior in public spaces, Environment and Behavior,
35, 415- 433.
Tauw, (2009), Litter: measured and seen, Tauw
consultants, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, (2008), Progress and
Results of Impulse Programme Litter, 9 December
2008, The Hague, Netherlands.
VNO-NCW, (2007), Fighting Litter, News Magazine
Forum, 1-2-2007, Online at: http://www.vno-
ncw.nl/publicaties/Forum/Pages/Vechten_tegen_zwerf
vuil_7726.aspx. Website retrieved on 5 March 2013.