The challenge of city cleanliness: a sensitive topic

← Back to Clean City Lab

Keeping a city clean is a very complex task. It is a politically sensitive, emotional subject, where criticism is often more virulent than constructive and the actors are rarely praised. The COVID-19 crisis raised awareness in relation to the importance of the highway authority's work and the level of commitment of the personnel. This fieldwork is at the heart of many issues, which are all the more difficult to manage as they involve numerous stakeholders: the population (whose attitude and perception of cleanliness have a decisive influence), the political authorities (which, by using incentives and disincentives, can limit undesirable acts and encourage civil behaviour), municipalities (which set the targets and provide the means, resources and processes to achieve them), etc.

The attractiveness of the city, both in economic and tourism terms, as well as its image in the eyes of its population, is dependent on its management of cleanliness. Managing the environmental impact of urban cleanliness becomes all the more important as the population of cities is increasing (as of today, 72% of the European population lives in cities) and sustainability will have to be taken into account in the development of our societies.

Therefore, it is essential to provide cities with effective tools, in economic, ecological and social terms, to manage their cleaning processes, through the sharing of good practices and common reflections.

How are cities currently managing cleanliness?

A city has a multitude of 'levers' or 'points of action' available to tackle its cleanliness needs. The first is its citizens' behaviour. From a prevention perspective, the city can invest in street furniture: street bins and ashtrays can, for example, reduce the amount of waste to be collected from the ground. Pressure from citizens or neighbourhood committees, as well as election promises, normally result in an increase in the number of street bins. However, the experience from several cities shows that by reducing their number, but by making them more 'comprehensible' (visibility of function and positioning), it is possible to significantly improve their effectiveness.

Awareness campaigns, customisation of the living space of the neighbourhood by reintroducing the relationship with the street cleaner — these 'nudges' are experimental initiatives taking place in many cities. The challenge is making sure that these behaviours evolve in a sustainable way, making people become more responsible. It is about providing the means to distance oneself from an individualistic logic of "I pay enough taxes, therefore I can pollute, the city just has to clean up". Coercion and verbalisation are other means of action. Some cities fine people littering and throwing their cigarette stubs on the ground, as well as disrespectful dog owners.

The main point for action, however, remains cleaning. Cities employ substantial human and machinery resources, which generate costs borne by taxpayers. Paradoxically, despite standardization efforts and the new public management movement, cleaning costs are not identified as such in public accounts. It is therefore very difficult to measure the effectiveness of the resources committed. Cleaning management is becoming an opaque, unpopular process which removes responsibility from citizens, who develop the harmful feeling that it is enough to pay to benefit from a 'right to cleanliness'. Actually, according to our data, the cities spending the most are not the cleanest, but in fact the opposite.

Moreover, the increase in the resources deployed for cleaning not only has an economic impact. Highway vehicles consume energy, are heavy on emissions of CO2 and dust, in addition to being noisy. Some cities rely heavily on washing, making use of considerable quantities of the precious resource that is water. Just as with costs, the environmental impact of city cleanliness is not measured today due to the lack of sufficient awareness and transparent, objective indicators.

A new approach to urban cleanliness

At the latest European meetings organised by the Association des Villes pour la Propreté Urbaine (Association of Cities for Urban Cleanliness, AVPU), the city of Zurich highlighted a similarity between 'cleanliness production' and industrial production systems. Just like the production of an electric bike, for example, the level of cleanliness 'produced' by the highway authority must be well-managed and constant.

Despite appearing somewhat simplistic, this analogy has potential for considerable improvements.

The current organization of most highway authorities is based on the management of the resources involved. The necessary resources (both in terms of people and machinery) and investments are defined by an annual cleanliness plan or by the city budget. Such resources are committed according to long-established schedules, based on experience and custom. Afterward, a check takes place, to make sure the work has been done in a compliant manner. This is a top-down approach, where the highway authority reports on the resources implemented, as opposed to an improvement loop approach, where the city commits itself to results, i.e., in this case, the level of cleanliness.

Loop systems are the foundation of the theories of quality in industrial settings (the well-known plan-do-check-act). This implies the use of objective quality measurement indicators, in order to adjust and guide the allocation of resources. In order to 'produce cleanliness', therefore, it is essential to measure its level.

The city of New York was the first, in 1973, to introduce an objective measure for cleanliness, in order to inform the population and commit resources as accurately as needed. This objective measure is the most predictive indicator of the population's perception of cleanliness (regardless of other factors such as age, income, race or gender). The city of Zürich was the pioneer in Europe (the second city in the world), introducing a cleanliness index in 2000. Its indicator, more detailed than the one used in New York, permits the tracing back of waste categories, thus providing the opportunity to act at source and address causes of deterioration.

The costs of a quality system are a fraction of the operational costs. With no objective measurement, increases in resources allocated to cleaning rarely lead to any actual improved cleanliness. This often results in a sense of inevitability, shared by the governing bodies as well as by the personnel working in the field and the population, considering the difficulty in having any impact on the outcome. On the other hand, a controlled process using transparent indicators makes it possible to involve all employees in the quality of the results, and to involve citizens, as well. Most of all, this approach enables the involvement of all the players in the search for pragmatic improvements and to make them accountable in relation to the quality of services on their area. The work of the highway officers is thus valued, made visible and becomes part of an approach in partnership with the population, whose awareness is correspondingly increased.

Geneva, Basel and Zurich: models of commitment in favour of the environment

Highway offices in Zurich and Basel continuously measure cleanliness and communicate their results to the authorities, which, in turn, can inform the public in complete transparency and objectivity — which is greatly appreciated and also promotes greater involvement. Thanks to its quality approach, the city of Zurich is regularly ranked among the cleanest in Europe¹ and optimises the use of its resources by 10% each year. As for the city of Basel, its measured levels of cleanliness have allowed it to reduce the number of sweepers per sector and pool a fleet of reserve vehicles. These two cities are also able to control their environmental indicators: their water consumption is very low compared to other cities. The city of Basel has also set the ambitious target to switch to "Zero Carbon", with 95% electric vehicles by 2025. With the Clean City Lab, the city of Geneva highway office is experimenting with different points for action which will be useful to other cities, and quantifies the return in terms of cleanliness, saving of resources and preserving the environment.

Join the Clean City Lab community

The aim of these Clean City Lab articles is to promote reflection and share experiences on the management of city cleanliness in its widest sense. This first article shows the potential for continuous improvement of a quality approach focused on objective indicators. In further articles, we will look at how these indicators can be assessed, such as according to their environmental impact and costs. We will also consider how to concretely structure the improvement process, so that cities can use it successfully, providing practical examples of points for action, along with the measurable returns they have produced.