Click for next page ( 27


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 26
16 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS SURVEY PROCEDURES lated survey results are in Appendix B. The survey exam- ined the following issues and questions: The survey was designed to focus on state DOTs and their Scope of the roadside litter problem practices and principles as they relate to litter prevention and General program parameters abatement programs. The questionnaire included 46 ques- Legislation tions and is included in this report as Appendix A. Enforcement Education and encouragement The survey was circulated digitally by means of elec- Performance measures. tronic mail as a PDF file. The survey questionnaire was transmitted to the AAH coordinators or the state mainte- The following sections present the survey results orga- nance engineers for each state and Puerto Rico in late May nized into these six areas. 2008. Additionally, the survey questionnaire was circulated to maintenance personnel in the 10 provinces and three territories of Canada. Potential respondents were given a SURVEY RESPONSES 2-week period to respond. After the initial circulation of the survey, and 2 days before the deadline for responses, a Scope of Roadside Litter Problem reminder was sent to jurisdictions that had not responded to the first contact. Subsequent to the deadline for responses, Each jurisdiction was asked several questions concerning telephone contact was made with all nonresponding juris- the magnitude of the litter problem on their roadsides. The dictions in an effort to obtain a survey response. Therefore, questions concerned expenditures on litter collection and although participants were initially given a 2-week period disposal, litter citations issued, convictions, and the amount to respond, deadline extensions were permitted to increase of litter collected. The results are shown in Table 7. the response rate. Many of the respondents did not provide an answer or did The responses are summarized by the number or percent- not know how many citations were issued for roadside litter- age of respondents who selected the different answers for ing, how many convictions were made, or how many workers each question. The percentages were calculated as the num- or volunteers may have been injured while collecting roadside ber of answers to each question divided by the number of litter. The low response rate to the citations and convictions responses for that question (i.e., the percentages for different questions may be expected because the survey was sent to questions may be based on a different number of respon- DOT employees who may not be aware of enforcement sta- dents). Also, several questions permitted multiple responses, tistics. With respect to injuries that result from roadside litter in which case the sum of the percentages in the question may collection, it is likely that workplace injuries are well docu- be more than 100%. Responses of "Not sure/do not know" mented but not easily parsed to the level of detail that permits were removed from the total number of responses. For exam- identifying injuries that result from litter collection. ple, if 37 responses were received to a question, but four of the responses were "do not know," then the total number The average number of citations for littering appears to of responses used to calculate the percentage of responses be dropping over time. The drastic drop in citations from was 33. 2006 to 2007 is not reflective of the actual data, because two of the jurisdictions that reported a relatively high number of Thirty-nine responses were received from 32 states, six citations in 2005 and 2006 did not report their citations in provinces, and one territory for a 58% overall response rate. 2007. Nonetheless, the number of citations dropped by 10% The response rate from American jurisdictions (63%) was from 2005 to 2006, which may be a result of decreasing litter higher than that for Canadian jurisdictions (54%). The tabu- rates or a decrease in enforcement.

OCR for page 26
17 Table 7 MAGNITUDE OF THE LITTER PROBLEM IN RESPONDING JURISDICTIONS Year Question 2007 2006 2005 a. How many citations were issued for littering Range: Range: Range: and illegal dumping on roadways and road- 0 to 10,294 1 to 1,746 0 to 9,655 sides in your jurisdiction? Avg: Avg: Avg: (N = 7a for 2007, N = 9 for 2006, N = 8 for 2,067 418 1,857 2005) b. How many of the citations indicated above Range: Range: Range: resulted in convictions? 1 to 1,519 0 to 1,603 0 to 1,097 (N = 5 for 2007, N = 5 for 2006, N = 5 for Avg: Avg: Avg: 2005) 320 338 234 How many centerline-miles of road are under Range: Range: Range: your jurisdiction? c. 1,366 to 148,216 1,366 to 57,483 1,366 to 57,867 (N = 34 for 2007, N = 29 for 2006, N = 29 for Avg: 20,512 Avg: 14,012 Avg: 14,050 2005) How much litter was collected from the road- ways and roadsides in your jurisdiction? Responses varied in Responses varied in Responses varied in d. reporting number of bags, reporting number of bags, reporting number of bags, (N = 18 for 2007, N = 16 for 2006, N = 16 for pounds, cubic yards, etc. pounds, cubic yards, etc. pounds, cubic yards, etc. 2005) What is the DOT's annual expense for litter Range: Range: collection on roadways and roadsides in your Range: $30,000 to $30,000 to e. jurisdictionb? $35,000 to $62,000,000 $55,000,000 $42,000,000 (N = 26 for 2007, N = 25 for 2006, N = 23 for Avg: $6,048,841 Avg: $5,841,701 Avg: $5,143,111 2005) What is the DOT's annual expense for dis- Range: Range: Range: posal of litter that was collected on roadways $5,000 to $400,000 $5,000 to $400,000 $5,000 to $335,410 f. and roadsides in your jurisdiction? Avg: Avg: Avg: (N = 6 for 2007, N = 5 for 2006, N = 5 for $159,695 $221,192 $215,922 2005) How many workers or volunteers have been injured while collecting roadside trash (e.g., g. struck by vehicle, cut by broken glass, etc.)? Range: 0 to 2 Range: 0 to 6 Range: 0 to 4 (N = 8 for 2007, N = 7 for 2006, N = 7 for 2005) aN = the number of jurisdictions that responded to the question. bFor responses from Canadian jurisdictions, one Canadian dollar was assumed to equal one U.S. dollar. The average number of convictions for littering offenses weight (tons or pounds), volume (cubic yards), area (acres), remained relatively stable in 2006 and 2007 (about 320 to truckloads, and bags. This makes for a difficult comparison 340 convictions). Only five jurisdictions provided both cita- among jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the data were collected tion and conviction data, permitting an analysis of conviction for 3 consecutive years, so some short-term time trends can rates for roadside littering offenses. For 2005, 2006, and 2007, be ascertained. For example, in 60% of the responding juris- the average conviction rates for responding jurisdictions dictions, the amount of collected litter increased from 2005 are 70%, 71%, and 77%, respectively. It appears from the to 2006. A decrease in the amount of collected litter was responses that the ability of the legal system to convert cita- observed in this same period for only 20% of the respon- tions to convictions for litter-related crimes is improving. dents. From 2006 to 2007, only 31% of respondents experi- enced an increase in the amount of litter collected, whereas The amount of litter that is collected from North Ameri- 46% of respondents experienced a decrease in the amount can roadsides is highly variable from jurisdiction to jurisdic- of litter collected. The number of jurisdictions on which tion, and is not measured in any industry-standard metric. these percentages are based is relatively small; therefore, the Jurisdictions reported the amount of litter collected using results should not be extrapolated.

OCR for page 26
18 Several respondents indicated that the annual expense for Table 8 disposal of collected litter (Question 8f) was included in the ENTITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ROADSIDE LITTER annual expense they reported for the collection of roadside REMOVAL litter (Question 8e). Therefore, discussion on annual expen- No. of diture will concern expenditures for collection and disposal Entity Responses Percentage (i.e., total costs reported in Questions 8e and 8f). The annual DOT 35 90 cost of collecting and disposing of roadside litter in the responding jurisdictions in 2007 ranged from $12,000 to $62 State police 4 10 million, with an average of $6,070,886. Normalizing these Private contractor 18 46 data across jurisdictions through centerline-miles yields the averages shown in Figure 4. Other agencies under contract (i.e., Conservation Corps, Division of 10 26 Forestry) The number of injured workers or volunteers performing roadside litter collection was not reported by most respond- Volunteer groups 36 92 ing jurisdictions. Those that did respond indicated that the Prison work crews 25 64 annual number of injuries was less than 10 for all years. Individuals conducting community 23 59 service Most jurisdictions provide multiple modes of roadside litter collection, with DOT maintenance staff and volunteer Other 7 18 groups being the most prevalent modes (see Table 8). Note: N = 39. FIGURE 4 Annual cost of litter collection and disposal for responding jurisdictions.

OCR for page 26
19 Seven jurisdictions (N = 35) have completed studies that In their continuing antilitter efforts, 19 of the 37 respon- examine the impact of roadside litter on tourism, economic dents (51%) employ an antilittering slogan, and three respon- development, or other social and community features. An dents (8%) are considering one at this time. The in-service additional jurisdiction has one such study in development slogans are listed here: and another is planning to conduct a study. Details were pro- vided on only a few of the studies conducted to date. Arizona: Don't Trash AZ! California: Don't Trash California As an example, Mansfield University in Pennsylvania Delaware: Keep Delaware Beautiful. Don't Be A conducted one of the impact studies. It was a statewide Litterbug telephone survey of 1,102 randomly selected Pennsylvania Kentucky: Adopt-A-Highway . . . Make It Yours adults who are proportionally representative with respect to Minnesota: Don't Waste Our State geographic region, sex, and political affiliation. The mar- Maryland: Keep Maryland Beautiful gin of error for the survey is 3%. The survey reveals the Montana: No More Trash! following: Mississippi: Pick It Up Mississippi, I'm Not Your Mama New Mexico: Toss No Mas and Don't Trash NM Eighty-five percent of people notice litter and trash Ohio: A Scenic View Depends on You along the roadside in Pennsylvania. Tennessee: Stop Litter: Tennessee's Had Enough More than 90% of people are bothered by roadside lit- Texas: Don't Mess With Texas ter, with almost 70% indicating that they are bothered Utah: Litter Hurts! "a lot" by roadside litter. Virginia: Littering Is Illegal More than 53% of people believed that beautifying the Vermont: Green Up roadsides would help attract businesses and tourists to Washington State: Litter and It Will Hurt the state. Wyoming: Wyoming's View Is Up To You Puerto Rico: Keep The Island Clean! Put Litter In Its In a follow-up survey conducted 2 years later, Mansfield Place. University asked people about the biggest trash problem in their community: roadside litter was cited as the largest trash Antilittering websites are used by 59% of respondents (23 problem. of 39), with another two respondents considering the imple- mentation of a website for antilittering. General Program Parameters Funding for roadside litter programs is primarily secured The literature review and general knowledge on social mar- from the state budgets, most likely the DOT highway mainte- keting indicate that interagency cooperation is an important nance budget. One or two respondents receive program fund- component of a successful litter abatement strategy. The ing from highway user revenue funds, general funds, motor responding jurisdictions indicated that the DOT cooper- vehicle registrations, Environmental Protection Agency trust ates with many different agencies and groups, including the funds, gas taxes, and taxes of beverage containers. Jurisdic- following that were specifically mentioned by one or more tions that have implemented a Sponsor-A-Highway program respondents: also receive funding from private corporations or organiza- tions and individuals who become sponsors. Keep [Insert State Name Here] Beautiful International Adopt-a-Highway Association A surprising low number of DOT respondents (11 of the Department of Corrections 34 states) indicated that they are affiliated with KAB. This is Department of Natural Resources likely because the DOT is not directly affiliated with KAB, Department of Environment (or similar) although many of the states have state KAB affiliates. Four- Tourism board teen of the respondents indicated that they were affiliated with State police other national antilittering groups. The national antilittering Outdoor Advertising Association organization most often cited was the International Adopt- Soft Drink Association and Malt Beverage Association A-Highway Association. Several of the "yes" responses to Local governments this question referred to participation in the "Keep [Insert Maintenance contractors State Name Here] Beautiful" affiliates of KAB. 4-H clubs Multimaterial Stewardship Board (the group respon- Legislation sible for recycling in the jurisdiction) Volunteers, local groups, and private companies that Definitions of littering were provided by respondents; may participate in AAH or similar programs. sometimes in a relatively simple sentence, and sometimes

OCR for page 26
20 as a lengthy explanation. Simple definitions included the Table 9 following: COURT ATTENDING TO LITTER CASES No. of Leaving any trash or discarded item on any public or Responses Percentage of Excl. DK private land or waterway. Court (N = 39) All (N = 39) (N = 31) Anything unnaturally lying on the road or roadsides, Civil offence only 13 33 42 including paper, glass, metals (including bumpers and car hoods), tobacco products, furniture, and so on. Criminal offence only 6 15 19 Carelessly discarded refuse, such as wastepaper. Both civil and crimi- 12 31 39 nal offence An example of a more lengthy definition comes from the Not sure/do not know 8 21 -- California Litter Abatement Plan: DK = don't know; -- = not applicable. Litter is... All trash, cigarette butts, refuse, junk, garbage and scrap. Any articles of material deposited within the right of way, Respondents were asked whether littering within their intentionally or unintentionally. Any article or material jurisdiction is a strict liability offense. Strict liability, also abandoned by the owner or the person in possession thereof, not including dust, smoke, or other like products known as absolute liability, is liability without regard to fault emitted or produced during the normal operations of any or negligence. Strict liability as it applies to littering means mining, extractive, primary or manufacturing industry. that, under the law, the sole question is whether littering For the purpose of the Plan, litter is deposited on land or occurred--there is no relief from guilt or liability by argu- in waterways if it is placed, put, left, dropped, thrown; ing the littering was unintentional or the littering could not or, is allowed to fall there or be blown from a moving have been prevented by exercising reasonable care. Littering motorized vehicle or trailer. Only clear water or feathers is a strict liability offense in 67% of the responding jurisdic- from live birds may escape a vehicle. Illegal dumping is a substantial component of the overall litter issue in tions (N = 18). California. While the term "litter" is often used to refer to acts of a spontaneous or unintentional nature that involve Another legislative tool available to jurisdictions is "pre- items of a smaller size and quantity, illegal dumping is sumptive evidentiary rules," which refer to the ability to issue generally premeditated and includes items of a larger size and quantity (Caltrans 2007). a citation to an individual or entity for littering without any- one witnessing the act of littering. Most often, the offender is inferred from either contact information on correspondence One jurisdiction provided a definition for littering and in the litter, or is assumed to be the operator or owner of a a subsequent definition for "criminal littering," which is motor vehicle from which litter has been discharged. Sixty- differentiated by the offender's intent (criminal littering is eight percent of respondents use presumptive evidentiary intentional or reckless). Yet another respondent differenti- rules in placing litter charges (N = 21). ated littering from illegal dumping where discarding trash that weighs more than 5 pounds is considered illegal dump- The penalties for roadside littering in responding juris- ing and is subject to steeper fines. dictions are shown in Figure 5. Monetary fines are by far the most prevalent method of penalizing those who litter, Table 9 includes the responses for which court attends followed by community service (usually performed by col- to littering cases. Littering is a criminal offense in 18 of the lecting roadside litter), imprisonment, and restitution or res- 31 responding jurisdictions (58%). The principal differences titution costs. Restitution doesn't have to be money it can between a civil and criminal offense are as follows: be to clean up the litter that was deposited without it count- ing as community service. The amounts of fines or hours of Criminal matters generally involve breaking a law, community service vary considerably across jurisdictions result in the state prosecuting a defendant, and carry a and in many cases are at the discretion of the trial judge. burden of proof "beyond reasonable doubt." The penal- ties for criminal offenses are fines and imprisonment, Littering in some jurisdictions is subject to a straight- as well as other noncustodial punishments. forward monetary fine, which prescribes the minimum and Civil maters are usually between two private entities, maximum fine, but allows the judge to set the fine within resulting from one party damaging or causing injury the permissible range. For example, one respondent listed to the other party, with the burden of proof being "the the penalty for roadside littering as $26 to $1,176 with a balance of probability" or a "preponderance of the evi- standard "waiver" penalty of $141; another reported a $50 dence" (which is much lower than for criminal matters). to $500 fine. In other jurisdictions that penalty system is The penalties for civil matters are monetary restitution, much more complex. As an example of the variability and including the loser paying the winner's court costs. complexity of state laws concerning roadside littering,

OCR for page 26
21 Pennsylvania can cite people for roadside littering under Respondents were asked about taxes that have been the Vehicle Code (covers litter dropped or thrown from a implemented in their jurisdictions to curb littering. Bever- vehicle), the Crimes Code (covers litter that lands on public age container deposits (i.e., "bottle bills") are used in 12 of property without consent), or the Environmental Protection 34 jurisdictions (35%), with another jurisdiction consider- Code (touches on waste management and transportation). If ing the implementation of a beverage container law. A small charged under the Vehicle Code, the penalty is $300 for a percentage of jurisdictions (30%) place a tax on hard-to-dis- violation and a requirement to remove the litter; if charged pose of materials and products. Tires were the only product under the Crimes Code, the penalty is a $50 to $300 fine specifically mentioned by respondents who use the hard- or up to 90 days' imprisonment; and if charged under the to-dispose-of tax. Finally, based on the survey results, 11% Environmental Protection Code, the penalty is $100 to of jurisdictions place additional taxes on litter-generating $1000 per incident, and as a civil penalty a fine as high as industries. Other litter laws that respondents mentioned are $25,000 per incident. applicable to roadside littering include environmental acts, solid waste regulations, and load securement laws. In many jurisdictions, that penalty works on a sliding scale, with each subsequent offense garnering a harsher pen- Enforcement alty (i.e., a higher fine, more demerit points, or more hours of community service). Penalties for serious littering offenses Figure 7 shows that the enforcement of litter laws in the (as determined primarily by the magnitude of the offense responding jurisdictions is carried out mainly by the state and the intent of the offender) involve imprisonment for up and local police (N = 38). In the states and provinces where to 12 months. The litter laws and penalties for littering and designated government officials also provide enforcement, illegal dumping in Texas are shown in Figure 6. the officials included wardens from the Department of Nat- ural Resources, Conservation Officers, and Environment The processing of litter citations through the legal sys- and Fisheries Officers. The "other" personnel carrying out tem is typically undertaken in the normal court system (67% enforcement activities concerning litter are the county sher- of respondents). Twenty-five percent of respondents have a iff, local law enforcement personnel, and the Royal Canadian special docket or environmental court to facilitate the pro- Mounted Police (the federal police force of Canada who are cessing of littering citations, and 8% of jurisdictions are con- sometimes contracted to provide provincial and territorial sidering implementing a special docket. policing in lieu of maintaining a provincial police force). FIGURE 5 Penalties for roadside littering.

OCR for page 26
22

OCR for page 26
23 FIGURE 6 Litter laws and penalties in Texas. (Source: Texas Department of Transportation).

OCR for page 26
24 FIGURE 7 Enforcement of litter laws. The listed enforcement personnel carry out campaigns Only 11 and 9 of the respondents (N = 38) provide regular that are specific to littering and illegal dumping in 35% of enforcement of specific vehicles and hot spots, respectively. responding jurisdictions (N = 37), with frequent campaigns Three jurisdictions mentioned regular targeted enforcement (twice a year or more frequently) being completed in only other than those previously listed. However, these three 14% of jurisdictions (see Table 10). responses actually were litter hot spots, but differed only in the entity that identified the hot spot (i.e., Department of When an arrest is made for a littering offense, most juris- Fisheries, maintenance personnel working with the police, dictions (67%, N = 18) do not require a warrant. and local agencies). Table 10 Litter hotlines that allow citizens to report roadside litter- FREQUENCY OF LITTER ENFORCEMENT AND ILLEGAL ing are being used or are being considered by 46% of respon- DUMPING CAMPAIGNS dents (N = 35). Incentive and reward programs to encourage citizens to report roadside littering are less common, with Frequency No. of Responses Percentage only 24% of respondents (N = 34) using or considering this technique. Never 24 65 Less than once a year 4 11 Education and Encouragement Once a year 4 11 Well-placed trash receptacles encourage individuals to dis- Twice a year 3 8 pose of unwanted items properly. Seventy-six percent of respondents use trash receptacles for this purpose. Recep- Three times a year 1 3 tacles are normally placed at rest stops, truck parking areas, More than three times a year 1 3 welcome centers, waiting areas, carpool lots, ferry areas, Note: N = 37. waysides and pullouts, vistas or scenic lookouts, and picnic areas. At least two jurisdictions indicated that they discon- tinued their trash receptacle program because of abuse (i.e., Respondents were asked whether they provided targeted residents disposing of household garbage in the roadside enforcement of litter-prone vehicle types or litter "hot spots." receptacles).

OCR for page 26
25 In 9 of the 28 jurisdictions (32%) that provide roadside trash receptacles, an embellished or enhanced receptacle Litter Pledge is used. The enhancements included bear-proof containers, I promise to do my part to make and exposed aggregate concrete to match the attractive setting, keep Missouri litter free. I promise to memorial images of DOT workers, and blue bins and the keep my house, my yard, and my town international recycling symbol for minirecycling centers. None of the embellishments were used to make the contain- clean and free of trash. I will throw my ers more noticeable. trash away and pick up trash when I see it. I will tell my family and friends Eleven of the 28 respondents providing trash receptacles about No More Trash! have policies or laws that require the receptacles to be emp- tied on a regular basis. Respondents require containers to be FIGURE 9 Litter prevention pledge card (Source: No More Trash! http://mdc.mo.gov/nomoretrash). emptied daily or more often, or require that there is "no over- flowing trash" or that the containers be emptied "as often as necessary." Jurisdictions were asked about the mediums that are used to communicate the antilittering messages, and respondents Promotional materials used to promote awareness and to provided the answers shown in Table 11. Roadside signs con- educate people on litter abatement employed by respondents cerning litter fines are by far the most used medium with 84% are shown in Figure 8. Posters and litterbags are the most of respondents using this medium. Public service announce- prevalent promotion material, followed by billboards, bum- ments on radio and television are the next most prevalent per stickers, and education videos. Promotional items in the mediums, followed by billboards and Internet advertising. "other" category include key chains, pens, pencils, rulers, One state mentioned the use of messaging on trash cans at clips, notepads, magnets, and temporary tattoos. A sample the state fair, and dynamic message boards at the roadside as of a pledge card message is shown in Figure 9. other mediums that are used for the antilittering effort. FIGURE 8 Antilitter promotional materials used by respondents.

OCR for page 26
26 Table 11 MEDIUMS USED TO COMMUNICATE LITTER PREVENTION MESSAGES Considering Developed Not Sure/ Do Not Know Being Yes No Medium a. Public service announcements on television (N = 38) 14 23 0 0 1 b. Public service announcements on radio (N = 38) 16 21 0 0 1 c. Newspaper and/or magazine advertisements (N = 35) 8 26 0 0 1 d. Advertisements on websites other than state/provincial DOT (N = 37) 10 25 0 0 2 e. Billboards (N = 36) 11 24 0 1 0 f. Roadside signs concerning littering fines (N = 38) 32 6 0 0 0 g. Direct mail of flyers or brochures (N = 36) 6 27 1 0 2 Including litter law information on state/provincial forms (i.e., motor h. 2 28 0 3 3 vehicle registration or driver license renewals) (N = 36) i. Other mediums Table 12 GROUPS TO WHICH EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT CAMPAIGNS ARE DIRECTED Considering Developed Not Sure/ Do Not Know Being Yes No Groups a. Elementary school children (N = 34) 14 18 0 1 1 b. High school students (N = 33) 12 19 0 0 2 c. College and/or university students (N = 33) 8 22 0 0 3 d. Trucking associations (N = 34) 2 28 0 1 3 e. Waste haulers (N = 35) 5 26 0 1 3 f. Others 0 0 0 0 0 Responding DOTs apparently are producing education Cargo securement and covered load and spill prevention materials and encouragement messages and products for measures for private vehicles are employed, are being devel- the general population. A small percentage of DOTs direct oped, or are under consideration by the majority of DOT their antilittering efforts at students of any age, trucking respondents (see Figure 10). associations, or waste haulers (see Table 12). Two juris- dictions mentioned that the general driving public was the In the responding jurisdictions, roadside litter collection is specific target audience. Nonetheless, those efforts that conducted by various groups (other than state DOT mainte- are directed at students are directed mostly at elementary nance personnel or their contractors) with AAH volunteers, school children--ideally to educate impressionable school prison work crews, and individuals conducting community children early in life, who also will take the antilitter mes- service being the most common (see Figure 11). Two of the sage home to their parents. Reflecting the trend to educate respondents also indicated that they have Sponsor-A-High- the general public rather than students, few DOT respon- way programs currently in development. dents offer antilitter scholarships or grants to individuals or groups (11%, N = 36). Conducting mowing operations before collecting road- side litter can take a single piece of litter and shred it into Significant contributions to roadside litter reduction are multiple pieces that become more visible and widespread. recognized through an award or similar program by 23% of DOTs were asked if they routinely collect litter before mow- DOT respondents (N = 35), with another 3% of respondents ing to minimize this occurrence, and 74% of respondents currently developing such a program. indicated that they did (N = 35).

OCR for page 26
27 FIGURE 10 Does your DOT have "cover your load" measures? FIGURE 11 Roadside litter collection programs.

OCR for page 26
28 When queried about their most successful antilitter prac- partnering with the state patrol and the legislature tices (based on either experience or research), respondents and court system to raise fines; define "dangerous lit- stated that AAH and Sponsor-A-Highway programs, litter ter," which is subject to higher fines, and then actively collection (particularly before mowing), education, fines and implement those fines. enforcement, and public awareness and media campaigns are Education, training, public involvement, public aware- all successful practices. Some specific comments follow: ness, measuring success, and setting standards. Communication--using various type of mediums to Spring litter collection by paid staff and volunteers. educate and increase awareness of litter prevention. Education, outreach, and enforcement all play a part. This includes all elements we have in place to reach all However, the most successful [practice] is just to go different ages and have available all different means pick it up. of communication, meaning having information avail- Keep the highway clean and litter picked up and it will able visually (billboards, signs), electronically (e-mail discourage littering. blasts, viral marketing, website, online advertising on Don't Mess [With] Texas is an excellent model for success- other websites where our target audience goes too), ful antilitter practices that actually do change behaviors. radio and television (spreading the litter prevention Establishing an antilitter slogan as a statewide nonprofit messaging while the public is driving or at home organization goes a long way toward paving the way for while they are relaxing), and outreach (events, music corporate funding and the implementation of creative venues, games, theaters, etc.; having the one-on-one ideas without the political bickering and hesitancy that communication with the public, interacting with them so often bogs down state and local governments. with games and give-aways; going where they go to Seeing other people conduct litter-cleanups seems to reach them). have the best effect at reducing littering. Motivated volunteers, community partners, creating School educational programs, publicized litter events awareness. (with T-shirts, caps, and meals typically provided). Funding. Our DMV campaign with free car litterbags was well Strong, repeated messages with real people and real received and therefore successful, as are articles that images. The program must be well-budgeted and ongo- are placed in local newspapers or magazines. ing. There must be buy-in from law enforcement, as Having a strong, hard-hitting antilitter media campaign. well as an effort by the courts to convict those who receive citations. Similarly, when asked to give their opinion on the key ele- A strong penalty system, recycling programs, and ments of a successful roadside antilittering program, respon- education. dents mentioned education, advertising, public awareness, and enforcement (not necessarily in order of importance). Performance Measures Unordered examples of some specific detailed comments are as follows: Three questions were posed to jurisdictions concerning measuring the performance of their roadside litter preven- Every element contributes. Just one element cannot tion programs. Specifically, respondents were asked whether make a significant impact by itself. they conducted roadside litter studies, behavioral, or attitude Consistent and regular messages aimed at all age- surveys concerning roadside litter, or whether they con- groups, enforcement, educational advertisments using ducted any other research or studies to evaluate their litter animals as victims of litter, and strategically placed prevention programs. The responses indicate that 39% of disposal options. respondents (N = 38) have never conducted a roadside litter Community pride is necessary. survey, 53% of respondents (N = 36) have never conducted Deposits on all bottles and cans. an attitudes or behavioral study, and 60% have not and are Partnering is key. Also, active implementation of lit- not planning on conducting any other evaluation study for tering fines. Washington State is a great example of their roadside litter program (see Figure 12).

OCR for page 26
29 (a ) (b ) (c ) FIGURE 12 Measuring performance: (a ) Frequency of roadside litter surveys; (b ) Frequency of behavior and/or attitudes surveys; (c ) Conducted other measures of effectiveness. Note: Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding errors.