Pilot project deploying cameras to tackle fly-tipping

Research design and measurement data 

To gain as much knowledge as possible about what works and what doesn't, the projects were very diverse in their approach to camera surveillance: 

• both fixed and movable cameras 
• both clearly visible and less visible cameras 
• the use of fake cameras 
• the (potential) use of peripheral measures 
• etc.

As part of this project, each inter-communal or municipality collected five types of data: 

• fly-tipping: counting illicit fly-tipping in the territory in a consistent and systematic manner 
• cameras: registering the precise use and placement of the cameras 
• recording: registering the recording of offences by the cameras 
• sanctions: monitoring follow-up actions after being caught 
• registering supportive actions such as communication impulses, awareness actions and the like

The study identifies the fly-tipping problem in three ways: 

• the number of items  
• the number of perpetrators 
• the number of units

As the project progressed, some inter-communals and municipalities experimented with additional incentives to enhance the impact of a camera. Three different experiments took place: 

• dummy cameras: where fake cameras are installed to replace real cameras, thus keeping the perception of the risk of being caught artificially high 
• additional communication push: highlighting the existence and placement of the cameras in the local press  
• awareness-raising actions: using targeted actions at sensitive sites - stickers, signs, panels - to discourage fly-tipping and also provide a warning about camera surveillance.

Research questions 

The experiences from the pilot projects were intended to answer a series of research questions about the use of cameras to combat fly-tipping. This report answers each of the following questions: 

Impact cameras 

• Does the deployment of (mobile) fixed cameras: 
  • Help to reduce fly-tipping? If so, in what time frame? 
  • No effect?
• Does the deployment of dummy cameras have the same effect as the deployment of working cameras? 
• Has the use of cameras resulted in the identification and punishment of offenders? In what % of recordings? 

Location 

• Does the effect of camera deployment on the amount of fly-tipping depend on the type of location (glass recycling locations, car parks, roadside, etc.) where the camera is set up? 
• If so, at what target sites does camera deployment lead to positive results? 
• Which environmental factors should be considered when deploying cameras? 

Camera type 

• Does the effect of camera deployment depend on the type of camera deployed? Clearly visible and less visible cameras? 
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of the type of camera used? 
• What are the features that make a surveillance camera successful in dealing with fly-tipping (fixed, movable, battery autonomy, motion detection, etc.)? 

Deployment of cameras as the final piece of an integrated fly-tipping policy: 

• Does the deployment of (mobile) cameras lead to less fly-tipping? 
• Does the use of (mobile) cameras lead to better results if this measure is the final part of an integrated fly-tipping policy? 
• Which additional measures enhance the effect of cameras? Which additional measures have no effect? 
  • Supporting communication 
  • Communication about recordings/fines 
  • Installation of camera surveillance signage (at the site itself or on the outskirts of the municipality) 

Success factors and bottlenecks 

• What are the bottlenecks in implementing camera surveillance in the context of fly-tipping? 
• Which additional measures/collaborations enhance the effect of cameras? 

Cost report 

• What is the effect of camera deployment (by type/approach) on the cost of municipal waste management? 

Research findings 

From the ten pilot projects, we drew the following conclusions: 

1. Cameras reduce fly-tipping 

Municipalities that use cameras to catch fly-tippers notice one clear effect: the volume of fly-tipping on their territory decreases. The deterrent effect of cameras is undeniable. 

How much less fly-tipping is harder to say. The reduction ranges from 5% to 56%. That's a big difference. Much depends on local circumstances such as the extent of the fly-tipping problem, local policies, the effective deployment of cameras, what other efforts are made, and so on. 

One thing to remember: camera surveillance helps reduce fly-tipping. Informed citizens adjust their behaviour and leave less rubbish behind.

2. More financial costs than revenues 

A municipality invests about 1,300 euros in wages and equipment to catch each fly-tipper. This is an average across ten municipalities. The exact figures vary considerably by municipality: from about 400 to 3,600 euros. One constant: the fines are not enough to cover the costs. 

In reality, the financial outcome of camera surveillance is even worse. By no means every recording leads to a fine being issued. Often the images are not clear enough to identify the perpetrator. Only one-third of the recordings lead to an identified citizen finding a fly-tipping fine in the mailbox. 

Camera surveillance is a loss-making business for a municipality. The fines issued definitely do not offset the investments needed to purchase and use the cameras.* 

^{*This does not take into account any reduction in operational costs due to a reduction in fly-tipping (less staff, less waste) and the added value of a cleaner environment if the tipping location disappears thanks to cameras}

3. Cameras catch very few fly-tippers 

On average, a camera catches a fly-tipper every 6 days. That's a surprisingly low rate. Especially since cameras usually monitor hot-spots, where there is a lot of fly-tipping. The moderate result is partly down to technical reasons. A camera's angle of view only captures good images across a limited area. A fly-tipper outside the camera focus remains unrecognisable. The night vision of many cameras is also poor. Images may become unusable when it is dusk or during a rainstorm. 

Another reason for the limited number of registrations is that the cameras are not always in use. Cameras with batteries must be charged every three days or so. Once the batteries run out, the cameras are out of service. Also, the redeployment process does not always fit into the work schedule. In truth, the cameras spend a lot of time in a municipal warehouse*.  

^{*Since this study, major technological advances have been made in camera manufacturing. Some of the findings are therefore outdated.} 

4. Cameras are most effective at known hot-spots.  

Cameras obtain better results when they are set up at known fly-tipping locations. This is a precise area where fly-tipping is common. Examples include a glass recycling centre or a concealed street corner. Since this type of location is commonly used for fly-tipping, it makes sense that there would be more subsequent recordings. But there is also a technical reason: the quality of images improves when the camera is set up with a clear focus. The chance of an offender or his registration number being clearly visible increases and with it the likelihood of identification. 

Cameras that cover a wider area lack that focus. Remote car parks and rural roads are sometimes used for fly-tipping but the chances of this taking place within the focus of a camera are slim. 

5. Cameras catch 'minor' fly-tippers 

Cameras generally catch 'minor' fly-tippers, i.e. people who leave behind a small and easily portable volume of rubbish. This might be a small grocery bag of rubbish, for example. Sometimes the registered offender is an 'opportunist fly-tipper'. A typical example is a pane of glass left beside a glass recycling bin. Although this does not detract from the fact that the citizen caught is at fault, 

the cameras almost always miss fly-tippers who dump large volumes. First, the number of large fly-tipping events only equates to 4% of the total number. Moreover, those fly-tippers look for remote locations, i.e. anonymous locations. Municipalities will not have installed cameras at these places as there is no fly-tipping problem. And even if they had, the chances remain slim that the offender will be recognisable in the pictures. Thus, 'major' fly-tippers still get away with it. 

6. There are more registrations with less visible cameras, but these also require greater effort. 

There is a good reason for choosing less visible cameras: they catch more fly-tippers. In municipalities that deploy both highly visible and less visible cameras, less visible cameras catch nearly twice as many fly-tippers.* 

This is an important issue because most municipalities use their cameras as a sanctioning tool. Stubborn fly-tippers may think twice when they find a fine in their mailbox. 

However, choosing a less visible camera comes with an organisational problem: less visible cameras require more staff time. This has a technical cause.** Less visible cameras are usually easily portable models, which use battery power. The batteries provide power for about three days. After that, the camera simply dies. This means that in a period of up to three days, municipal workers must go out twice: first for installation and then for collection. That labour time is thus the biggest cost in relation to camera surveillance. A less visible camera deployed twice a week requires four trips. That takes time and organisation. 

^{*But, don't forget that covert camera surveillance is prohibited. So, when using less visible cameras, it is important to communicate this information and affix the camera icon to the location under camera surveillance.} 

^{**Since this study, major technological advances have been made in camera manufacturing. Some of the findings are therefore outdated.} 

7. Clearly visible cameras are not necessarily better, but work differently. 

Clearly visible cameras come with two major advantages. They generally place less of a burden on municipal services. Clearly visible cameras are usually placed at a certain height, with a connection to mains power. A clearly visible camera remains active at a location for much longer, without the intervention of municipal services. 

Another advantage of clearly visible cameras is their communicative power. Any citizen who notices the camera is immediately reminded of the municipal fight against fly-tipping and the possibility of a fine. 

One flaw of clearly visible cameras is that they catch only half as many fly-tippers as less visible cameras. But this reduced result is not as bad as it seems. Less visible cameras may catch more people but the difference is not that significant. And those extra recordings require a lot more effort. 

The advantages and disadvantages of clearly visible and less visible cameras partly cancel each other out. Overall, the advice seems to be don't go straight for the less visible camera. 

8. Too little focus on collaboration 

A camera must record images of an identifiable perpetrator and the illicit act. Identification is realised using a photo of the offender, but can also be done with a car registration number. 

When the camera makes the recording, the offender is unknown. The work of the municipality ends with a description of the recording. The subsequent identification and sanctioning of the offender is the job of the police or sanctioning officer. 

Therefore, any recordings of illicit acts require cooperation with the local police or sanctioning officer. They identify the offender and must actively cooperate in locating the perpetrators. 

Not every police department can give equal priority to offender files. Sometimes, police departments record the offences without really looking for the name and address of the offender. In such cases, camera surveillance quickly degenerates into a pointless exercise: any recordings are simply classified as fly-tipping by an unknown offender. The perpetrator goes unpunished and does not even know they have been caught on camera. 

Municipalities initiating camera surveillance are best to ensure that local police are convinced of the usefulness and priority of a camera project. This is demonstrated by clear agreements - whether in a concrete cooperation protocol or not - fixed contacts and frequent mutual contacts. These are essential conditions for effective sanctioning. 

9. It is important to inform citizens about camera deployment.  

Municipalities tend to deploy cameras somewhat 'quietly'. After all, when citizens are unaware of the cameras, the chance of being caught increases. There is often very little communication about the deployment of less visible cameras, whereby a municipality is focussing on issuing fines. 

But this logic does not always hold water. The cameras lead to too few fines. Municipalities are, in fact, missing out on awareness-raising opportunities, without balancing this out with a decent rate of fines. 

Therefore, the advice is to communicate about the deployment of cameras - both clearly visible and less visible devices. And to make sure this communication is effective. This could include an announcement of camera installations in municipal publications, follow-up publications mentioning recorded activity, awareness signs, stickers at hot-spots warning about the possible camera surveillance, and so on. Any reminder of the cameras' existence is beneficial. 

Camera surveillance aims to reduce the amount of fly-tipping. This is mainly achieved by repeatedly pointing out the use of cameras. When citizens know about camera surveillance, they are likely to engage in fly-tipping less frequently. Recordings of illicit activities are useful but are just one method for reducing fly-tipping in general. Above all, clear and frequent communication about the cameras and the possibility of being caught should be provided. 

10. The implementation of a camera project requires significant staff resources. 

The exact amount of work required for camera surveillance varies according to the number of cameras a municipality deploys, but also the type of cameras used. One constant is that a well-run camera project requires frequent efforts by various staff members. This doesn't equate to a full-time job but all the required time certainly adds up. In some municipalities, the required working time added up to half a full-time equivalent. 

Usually, the time required is divided among several staff members. Technical staff install the cameras, while other people view the images or prepare the files. It is preferable to involve multiple employees as this prevents the absence of one staff member leading to a camera being out of action.