Click for next page ( 17


The National Academies | 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 16
6 CHAPTER two LITERATURE REVIEW Literature in the field of littering is generally plentiful, but not is for the consequence strategy effects to fade immediately necessarily specific to roadside litter, as littering may affect all after the intervention is removed. public spaces and waterways. Any reports in the field of litter prevention and abatement were reviewed and are included in The first appearance of a comprehensive review of exist- the synthesis if they were applicable to roadside litter preven- ing practices specific to roadside litter is a 1998 survey by tion or if they had the potential to provide useful information Washington State that was conducted to benchmark Wash- on roadside litter program development. The literature may be ington's litter abatement programs against other states and to broken down into the following broad categories: reports on identify methods of operation that would improve the quality existing practices, visible litter studies, behavior and attitude and efficiency of Washington's program (Bremer 1998). A studies, evaluation, and performance measurement studies. summary of the survey results is as follows: DOTs played the primary role in litter management in EXISTING PRACTICES 52% of the states. Remaining activities were coordinated by volunteer organizations and various state agencies. Bitgood et al. (1988) describe four major approaches to litter Twenty-six states had a state-run litter program; seven control: limited their involvement to grant management. Seventy-four percent of states participated in the KAB Environmental education: media and education cam- program. paigns to increase awareness and promote attitude/ Ninety-four percent of states used correctional work behavior change. crews for litter collection. Prompting: providing specific instructions of what to Forty-eight states had AAH programs (Maine and do or what not to do (e.g., "Do not litter"). Vermont did not have programs at the time). Environmental design: planning and designing facili- Only three states had state-sponsored youth litter ties to encourage appropriate behavior (e.g., providing programs. well-placed trash receptacles). Ten states had beverage container deposit legislation Consequence control: positive or negative feedback (i.e., a "bottle bill"). such as incentives for good behavior and fines or pen- alties for poor behavior. The AD Council (2006) contrasted the need for an infor- mation campaign on littering and pollution in the 19601980 Drawing on previous research in each of these approaches time period versus the needs of today. They noted that although to litter control, the authors determined that consequence con- the campaigns in the 19601980 period was directed at edu- trol is the most effective technique, but that it is not necessar- cating people about littering and raising awareness, today's ily the most cost-effective approach. Combining approaches campaigns must focus on behavior and attitude change. is the recommended strategy to improve litter control. A developing practice is the use of closed-circuit televi- A critical review of environmental behavior research by sion cameras (CCTV) to apprehend and fine illegal dump- Dwyer and colleagues (1993) examined both antecedent ers in some American jurisdictions (Virginia Department (preventative) and consequence (remedial) strategies for of Environmental Quality 2007). Whether the fines will be behavior modification for littering and other environmen- upheld in the court system is unknown at this time. CCTV tally related behaviors. With respect to antecedent strategies, enforcement of illegal dumping laws in Scotland has resulted commitment, modeling, and goal-setting resulted in consis- in convictions and is being expanded to enforce littering tent and significant changes in behavior. Furthermore, these from vehicles (Black 2006). Similarly, CCTVs have been strategies produced residual effects lasting 9 to 12 weeks fol- used to enforce illegal dumping laws in Ireland (Tobin Con- lowing intervention removal. With respect to consequence sulting Engineers 2008). Under the Irish rules, the registered strategies, almost all strategies produced beneficial effects owner of a littering vehicle is charged with the offense, and in the short term. The general trend in the research, however, the monitoring body is required to erect signs warning the

OCR for page 16
7 public that the area is under surveillance by CCTV. The Irish Table 1 system of video surveillance for illegal dumping is similar AMERICAN STATE LITTER SCORECARD to the video surveillance systems used to capture red light camera violations in the United States. Rank Objective Factors Subjective Factors 1 Vermont Minnesota Spacek (2008) has conducted a comprehensive examina- tion of littering in the United States leading to an American 2 New Jersey Iowa State Litter Scorecard, which ranks the states with respect 3 Connecticut New Hampshire to environmental quality indicators and litter abatement pro- 4 Minnesota Vermont grams. The examination and subsequent rankings are based on overall littering in each state and are not specific to road- 5 Wyoming Connecticut side litter. The rankings are based on eight objective factors: 6 Massachusetts Oregon state livability scores, litter taxation, beverage container laws, recycling laws, antilitter slogans, environmental spending, per 7 Maine Utah capita waste disposal, and percentage of litter-influenced fatal 8 Maryland Nebraska vehicle crashes. Spacek uses fatal crashes coded as "Object 9 New Hampshire Washington not fixed" under the first harmful event (i.e., the first injury or damage-producing event that characterizes the crash type, but 10 Virginia Virginia not necessarily the first event that causes the crash) from the 11 Iowa Maine "2005 National Traffic Safety Facts" to identify litter-related 12 Kansas Wyoming fatal crashes in each state. This approach is insufficient and may have produced misleading results, because several non- 13 Delaware Maryland fixed objects are not considered litter that are often struck by 14 South Dakota New Jersey motor vehicles. These objects can include, for example, traf- 15 Nebraska Massachusetts fic control devices used for road construction, trees and tree 16 Washington Colorado limbs that have fallen on the roadway during storms and high winds, animals, and accident debris. Additionally, four subjec- 17 Idaho Kansas tive factors (political culture, public corruption, government 18 Rhode Island Idaho performance, and highway/transportation performance) are 19 New York Wisconsin intended to get a sense of "what is going on" in litter abate- ment using supplementary public sector evaluations. 20 Utah Delaware 21 Wisconsin South Dakota The objective and subjective rankings for all states are 22 Alaska North Dakota reproduced in Table 1. The 10 best objective states all have above-average livability scores, and 9 of the 10 have average 23 Hawaii Rhode Island litter-influenced fatal vehicle crashes. The 10 worst-perform- 24 Oregon New York ing states on the objective ranking all have below-average 25 Ohio Missouri livability scores, and half of the states have normal to excep- tionally high litter-related fatal crashes. Antilitter slogans do 26 North Dakota Indiana not appear to be associated with objective performance, as 27 Missouri Ohio only 5 of the top 10 states adopted a slogan, and 7 of the bot- 28 Colorado Michigan tom 10 states also had adopted a slogan. 29 Illinois Arizona On the subjective ranking, the 10 best-performing states 30 Indiana Pennsylvania included nine non-Sunbelt states and seven states with 31 California Hawaii low public corruption convictions. The 10 worst subjec- 32 Pennsylvania Illinois tive performers included nine Sunbelt states. Spacek does not provide any reasons why the Sunbelt states generally 33 Florida Montana score worse than the non-Sunbelt states; however, previous 34 Georgia Alaska research (Bullard 2000; Boyce 2001) attributes poor envi- 35 Michigan Florida ronmental quality (which would include litter) in the Sunbelt to racial and income inequalities. Spacek indicated that his 36 Montana California analysis merely contributes to a poorly researched issue and 37 Arizona Georgia should not be seen as a definitive causation study. Spacek's 38 Texas Texas desire is that the scorecard will provide an incentive for other researchers to provide more attention to issue. 39 Oklahoma Oklahoma