Click for next page ( 16

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 15
5 concern with litter. State DOTs that are visibly active in the the prevention and removal of roadside litter, and identifies prevention of roadside litter include Texas (Don't Mess With unfulfilled needs, knowledge gaps, and underperforming Texas), California (Don't Trash California), Tennessee (Stop activities. The primary audience for this synthesis is DOT Litter: Tennessee's Had Enough), and Mississippi (Pick It Up personnel involved in roadside litter prevention. As road- Mississippi, I'm Not Your Mama!). These states and many side litter prevention is a multiple stakeholder activity, how- others have AAH, Sponsor-A-Highway, and inmate collec- ever, policymakers and practitioners from other government tion programs in place. These programs are costly, however, agencies and environmental organizations, as well as inter- and often divert funding from other DOT programs for con- est groups and volunteers may be interested. gestion mitigation, roadway maintenance and preservation, and road safety. SYNTHESIS SCOPE Roadside litter is a subset of litter prevention in all public spaces and waterways, and although the DOT is responsible The scope of this research was limited specifically to road- for litter removal, it is not always the lead agency in road- side litter, and therefore focused primarily on DOTs and side litter prevention programs. Programs such as Washing- their contractors who conduct litter prevention and removal ton State's "Litter and It Will Hurt" and Georgia's "Litter. programs. It does not include the broader topic of litter pre- It Costs You" address roadside litter but are spearheaded vention in all public spaces and waterways. The research by the Departments of Ecology and Community Affairs, was concerned with enforcement, education, awareness, respectively and not the DOT. and engineering methods for both litter prevention and litter collection. Furthermore, stakeholder involvement, volunteer Although it is clear that North America has a roadside efforts, and other cooperative and collaborative organiza- litter problem, and that DOTs have developed programs tional structures were investigated. to address the problem, it is unclear what programs are in effect, what organizational structures work, what resources A 46-question survey was distributed to maintenance are required, and which programs are producing results. A personnel in the United States and Canada. Survey questions July 2007 report from KAB (Beck 2007b) documents that were related to litter prevention and abatement measures, lit- programs such as AAH are effective but that more research ter collection methods, program evaluation and performance is required for DOTs and other agencies to make informed measures, legislation and enforcement, and promotional decisions regarding roadside litter reduction. material for litter prevention efforts. The response rate was 63%. A literature search was also undertaken. Together, the The lack of program evaluations in particular is a con- North American survey and the literature review provide a cern, because this has resulted in the successes and limita- comprehensive snapshot of the state of the practice in road- tions of programs going undocumented. This in turn limits side litter abatement. From this snapshot, trends and patterns the ability to achieve the following: concerning successful practices and knowledge gaps may be identified for practitioners. Confidently replicate successful programs. Adapt and test litter prevention programs with poten- tial for success. REPORT ORGANIZATION Eliminate programs or program elements that do not (appear to) work. This first chapter of this synthesis report contains introductory information, including background, objectives, and scope. Despite the commitment demonstrated by most DOTs Chapter two includes a review of the literature, which was and community members to develop solutions, the current conducted to determine whether relevant information was situation has resulted in a piecemeal approach to roadside available that addressed roadside litter activities performed litter prevention. by state DOTs, as well information collected on roadside litter attitudes and behaviors. Chapter three documents the survey process and results obtained. Chapter four provides four case SYNTHESIS OBJECTIVES studies from DOT litter prevention programs that are consid- ered leaders in the field. Chapter five summarizes the synthe- This synthesis is a state-of-the-practice report on reducing sis findings and conclusions, including future research that litter on roadsides. The synthesis involves state DOTs and may be considered to understand the extent and usefulness of provides information on the state of the practice concerning litter reduction strategies performed by state DOTs.