National Academies Press: OpenBook

Reducing Litter on Roadsides (2009)

Chapter: Report Contents

« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Report Contents." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Reducing Litter on Roadsides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14250.
×
Page 55

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM SYNTHESIS 394 Reducing Litter on Roadsides A Synthesis of Highway Practice

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Vice Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. BARRY BARKER, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA WILLIAM A.V. CLARK, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles DAVID S. EKERN, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville JEFFREY W. HAMIEL, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN EDWARD A. (NED) HELME, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC WILL KEMPTON, Director, California DOT, Sacramento SUSAN MARTINOVICH, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City DEBRA L. MILLER, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka NEIL J. PEDERSEN, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore PETE K. RAHN, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City SANDRA ROSENBLOOM, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson TRACY L. ROSSER, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR ROSA CLAUSELL ROUNTREE, Consultant, Tyrone, GA STEVE T. SCALZO, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA HENRY G. (GERRY) SCHWARTZ, JR., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin LINDA S. WATSON, CEO, LYNX­Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando STEVE WILLIAMS, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR EX OFFICIO MEMBERS THAD ALLEN (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC JAMES E. CAPONITI, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT CYNTHIA DOUGLASS, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LEROY GISHI, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC ROSE A. MCMURRY, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT RONALD MEDFORD, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC LYNNE A. OSMUS, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT JEFFREY F. PANIATI, Acting Deputy Administrator and Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT STEVEN K. SMITH, Acting Deputy Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT JO STRANG, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC MATTHEW WELBES, Executive Director and Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT *Membership as of February 2009.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP Synthesis 394 Reducing Litter on Roadsides A Synthesis of Highway Practice Consultant GERRY J. FORBES Intus Road Safety Engineering, Inc. Milton, Ontario, Canada S ubject A reas Energy and Environment and Maintenance Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 394 Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 20-5 (Topic 39-07) approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administra- ISSN 0547-5570 tors and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and ISBN 978-0-309-09840-3 can best be studied by highway departments individually or in coop- Library of Congress Control No. 2009900729 eration with their state universities and others. However, the accelerat- ing growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are © 2009 Transportation Research Board best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials COPYRIGHT PERMISSION initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their manuscripts employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the used herein. Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Trans- Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to repro- portation. duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit pur- The Transportation Research Board of the National Research Coun- poses. Permission is given with the understanding that non of the mate- cil was requested by the Association to administer the research pro- rial will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMSCA, FTA, gram because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding or Transit development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropri- authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it ate acknowledgment of the source of any development or reproduced possesses avenues of communication and cooperation with federal, material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. state, and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objec- NOTICE tivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National directly to those who are in a position to use them. Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transpor- The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified tation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national impor- needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National tance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State of the National Research Council. Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, The needs for highway research are many, and the National Coop- and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical com- erative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions mittee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. research programs. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the tech- nical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office NOTE: The Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- 500 Fifth Street, NW emies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Adminis- Washington, DC 20001 tration, the American Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials, and the individual states participating in the National and can be ordered through the Internet at: Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Printed in the United States of America

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the ser- vices of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and prog- ress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board's varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

NCHRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 20-5 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Deputy Director, Cooperative CHAIR Research Programs NANDA SRINIVASAN, Senior Program Officer CATHERINE NELSON, Oregon DOT EILEEN DELANEY, Director of Publications NCHRP SYNTHESIS STAFF MEMBERS STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special KATHLEEN S. AMES, Illinois DOT Programs STUART D. ANDERSON, Texas A&M University JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis CYNTHIA J. BURBANK, PB Americas, Inc. Studies LISA FREESE, Scoot County (MN) Public Works Division GAIL STABA, Senior Program Officer MALCOLM T. KERLEY, Virginia DOT DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer RICHARD D. LAND, California DOT DON TIPPMAN, Editor JAMES W. MARCH, Federal Highway Administration CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant MARK A. MAREK, Texas DOT JOHN M. MASON, JR., Auburn University ANANTH PRASAD, HNTB Corporation TOPIC PANEL ROBERT L. SACK, New York State DOT TERRI BEBO, California Department of Transportation FRANCINE SHAW-WHITSON, Federal Highway RICHARD A. EBELING, Bureau of Maintenance & Administration Operations, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation LARRY VELASQUEZ, New Mexico DOT BRENDA FLORES-DOLLAR, Texas Department of Transportation TRACY D. LARKIN-THOMASON, Nevada Department of Transportation FHWA LIAISON STEPHEN LINER, Florida Department of Transportation WILLIAM ZACCAGNINO FRANK N. LISLE, Transportation Research Board BECKY LYONS, Keep America Beautiful, Inc. WILLIAM W. WITT, University of Kentucky KEVIN MOODY, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison) TRB LIAISON CHARLES E. MEYER, American Association of State Highway STEPHEN F. MAHER and Transportation Officials (Liaison)

FOREWORD Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor- mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac- tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat- ing the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engi- neers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials--through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program--authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Project 20-5, "Synthesis of Infor- mation Related to Highway Problems," searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis of Highway Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. PREFACE This synthesis reports on the state of the practice in reducing roadside litter as it involves By Donna Vlasak state departments of transportation (DOTs). The report provides information concerning the prevention and removal of roadside litter, unfulfilled needs, knowledge gaps, and under- Senior Program Officer performing activities. It covers enforcement, education, awareness, and engineering meth- Transportation ods for both litter prevention and collection. The synthesis focuses on state DOT personnel Research Board involved in roadside litter prevention and their contractors who conduct litter prevention and removal programs. Also, as roadside litter prevention appears to be a multiple stakeholder activity, policy makers and practitioners from other government agencies and environmental organizations, as well as groups and volunteers may be interested in this synthesis. A 46-question survey was distributed to maintenance personnel in all 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and 10 Canadian provinces. A literature search was also undertaken. Together, the North American survey and the literature review provide a comprehensive snapshot of the state of the practice in roadside litter abatement. Four case studies were undertaken highlighting DOT litter prevention programs considered leaders in the field. Gerry J. Forbes, Intus Road Safety Engineering, Milton, Ontario, Canada, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

Contents 1 SUMMARY 4 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background, 4 Synthesis Objectives, 5 Synthesis Scope, 5 Report Organization, 5 6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Existing Practices, 6 Visible Litter Studies, 8 Behaviors and Attitudes, 9 Evaluations of Strategies and Measures for Litter Prevention, 10 16 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS Survey Procedures, 16 Survey Responses, 16 30 CHAPTER Four CASE STUDIES Case Study Criteria and Development, 30 Case Study 1: Florida, 30 Case Study 2: Georgia, 32 Case Study 3: Texas, 33 Case Study 4: Washington State, 35 Summary of Lessons Learned, 37 38 CHAPTER Five CONCLUSIONS 41 REFERENCES 44 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 56 APPENDIX B SURVEY RESPONSES

REDUCING LITTER ON ROADSIDES SUMMARY The term "litter" is generally defined as misplaced solid waste, although different jurisdic- tions have their own definitions. Regardless of the definition used, litter has been a persis- tent problem in the United States since at least 1953 when Keep America Beautiful (KAB), a nationwide nonprofit organization, was formed with a mandate of litter prevention. As the number of vehicle-miles of travel increases, so too does the potential for roadside litter. At present, roadside litter appears to be omnipresent. The impacts of roadside litter and litter collection are staggering. The estimated cost of collecting roadside litter exceeds $130 million per year by state highways alone, and approaches $500 million by all levels of government. These figures are fairly dated at this time, as evidenced by the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT), which reported $14 million spent on litter collection in 2006, and a trend of increasing costs at a rate of 20% per year. A recent survey in Utah determined that 8% of drivers have been involved in a collision caused by road debris, and 47% of drivers have had their vehicles damaged by road debris. In 2003, Forbes 2003 in "The Safety Impacts of Vehicle-related Road Debris," estimated that vehicle-related road debris (i.e., litter on the road) is conservatively responsible for 80 to 90 fatalities and 25,000 crashes on North American roads each year. Australian data from 2005­2006 (Fire & Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia) indicated that 540 bush fires were caused by discarded cigarettes. Furthermore, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Great Britain dealt with 11,589 litter-related inci- dents in 2006. An Iowa survey of Adopt-A-Highway (AAH) volunteers and DOT mainte- nance garage employees noted 26 reports of injuries caused by debris/features (vegetation, uneven ground, etc.) along the roadside. An emergent roadside litter concern is the toxic litter from clandestine and portable crystal methamphetamine laboratories. The materials from these facilities frequently are discarded along the roadside, and the extremely toxic materials are a threat to the environment, and a hazard for maintenance personnel and volunteers. Roadside litter affects on loss of tourism and increased vehicle­animal crashes resulting from animals attracted to discarded food along the roadside are possible but have not been studied. In some states (e.g., Texas, Tennessee, and Mississippi), DOT staff have developed a multitude of enforcement, public education, and awareness strategies to address the grow- ing concern with litter. In other states (e.g., Georgia and Washington), state departments other than the DOT spearhead roadside litter prevention programs, considering roadside litter as a subset of all litter. In either case, these programs are costly and often divert funding from other DOT programs for congestion mitigation, roadway maintenance and preservation, and road safety. Although it is clear that North America has a roadside litter problem, and that DOTs have developed programs to address the problem, it is unclear what programs are in effect, what organizational structures work, what resources are required, and which programs are producing results. The lack of program evaluations in particular is troublesome because

2 this has resulted in undocumented program successes and limitations. As a result, despite the commitment demonstrated by most DOTs and community members to develop solutions, the approach to roadside litter prevention has been piecemeal. This synthesis is a state-of-the-practice report on reducing litter along roadsides as it involves state DOTs. The report provides information for state DOTs on the state of the practice concerning the prevention and removal of roadside litter, and identifies unfulfilled needs, knowledge gaps, and underperforming activities. The scope of this research was lim- ited specifically to roadside litter, and therefore focused primarily on DOTs and their con- tractors who conduct litter prevention and removal programs. It does not include the broader topic of litter prevention in all public spaces and waterways. The research was concerned with enforcement, education, awareness, and engineering methods for both litter prevention and litter collection. A 46-question survey was distributed to United States and Canadian maintenance per- sonnel. Questions included were related to litter prevention and abatement measures, lit- ter collection methods, program evaluation and performance measures, legislation and enforcement, and promotional material for litter prevention efforts. A literature search was also undertaken. Together, the North American survey and the literature review provide a comprehensive snapshot of the state-of-the-practice in roadside litter abatement. From this snapshot, trends and patterns concerning successful practices and knowledge gaps could be identified for practitioners. The literature is replete with research on the effects of messaging, trash can design and placement, and penalties leading to litter reduction. The majority of these studies, however, are not measures of success as they apply to roadside litter. Programs such as AAH and activities such as conducting litter collection before roadside mowing have been studied and found effective. Other measures such as container deposit laws and establishing local KAB affiliates have documented successes, but they are generally outside of the mandate of the DOT. Research purports that advertising and education materials reflect a social norm that littering is not commonplace (i.e., visual messages would show a clean environment as opposed to a littered environment). The survey was circulated to all 50 states and Puerto Rico, as well as to the 10 provinces and three territories in Canada. Each nonresponding jurisdiction was sent a reminder note 2 days before the specified deadline for responses. Subsequent to the deadline for submis- sions, all nonresponding jurisdictions were contacted by telephone in an effort to obtain a survey response. Although participants were initially given a specified period to respond, deadline extensions were permitted to increase the response rate. The response rate from the American jurisdictions was 63%. The survey of state DOTs reveals that the cost of roadside litter collection and disposal is about $430 to $505 per centerline-mile. Additionally, the selection of education and encour- agement strategies for roadside litter prevention share no cross-jurisdictional commonality. However, enforcement and litter collection trends are apparent, with monetary fines and community service being levied as typical penalties; AAH, prison work crews, and com- munity service are typical collection methods. The case studies clearly support the need for a multistakeholder approach that uses solid data to select and implement multiple, targeted antilitter strategies. Advertising campaigns (for education and encouragement) might benefit from being comparable to traditional private sector commercial advertising, with slogans and other advertising materials that deliver a straightforward, unapologetic message concerning the unacceptability of roadside littering.

3 Research that demonstrates a drop in overall litter rates over time may be an indication that litter prevention programs in the United States are working. Furthermore, a shift from intentional to accidental litter is significant and is a strong indicator that campaign efforts might now be better directed toward accidental litter prevention efforts. The national effort to address the roadside litter problem is at present largely fragmented and underresearched. Synergy that could be created by better coordination of roadside litter prevention efforts is lacking. One of the primary obstacles in developing effective litter prevention campaigns, and in attracting funding for these programs reported in sur- vey responses, is the lack of reliable data on the roadside litter problem. Evaluations are produced by only a few roadside litter prevention programs, and typically they use the frequency or density of visible roadside litter as the sole measure of success. Other per- formance measures could be considered, such as injuries to workers and volunteers, motor vehicle crashes, roadside fires, and so on, were reported lacking as well. The costs and impacts of roadside litter might be better documented and widely pub- licized. The cost of roadside litter and litter collection in the United States is staggering and likely would be surprising to the general public and decision makers. Publicizing the impacts of roadside litter likely would bring greater resources to bear on the roadside litter problem.

4 CHAPTER one INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND addition, in 2006, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Great Britain) (2007) dealt with 11,589 The word "litter" entered the mainstream in the 1950s by litter-related incidents. Iowa surveyed nearly 3,000 Adopt-A- means of the American Public Works Association and is Highway (AAH) volunteers and DOT maintenance garage generally defined as misplaced solid waste, although differ- employees to identify the potential safety hazards posed by ent jurisdictions have their own definitions. Regardless of debris and features along the roadside (Iowa Department of the definition used, litter has been a persistent problem in the Transportation 2000). Of the 1,180 respondents, 26 reported United States since at least 1953 when Keep America Beau- past injuries to themselves or to someone in their group. The tiful (KAB) was formed with a mandate of litter prevention. most serious injuries reported were a sprain, a cut requiring As the number of vehicle-miles of travel increases, so too stitches, and a snake bite. The most common injuries were does the potential for roadside litter. At present, roadside lit- small cuts, scratches, and rashes. ter appears to be omnipresent. Additionally, toxic litter from clandestine and portable The impacts of roadside litter and litter collection are crystal methamphetamine laboratories is an emergent con- staggering. In the mid-1990s, the estimated cost of collect- cern for road authorities. Operators of these facilities fre- ing roadside litter exceeded $130 million per year for state quently discard used laboratory equipment and paraphernalia highways alone (Andres and Andres 1995). An earlier study along the roadside, and the extremely toxic materials used (FHWA 1974) estimated that $500 million is spent annually to make the illegal drug are a threat to the environment, as by all levels of government on the collection of roadside litter well as a hazard for maintenance personnel and volunteers. from the 3.79 million miles of highways in the United States. To date, a limited number of people have been injured after More recently, the Georgia Department of Transportation coming across discarded materials from such laboratories (DOT) reported collecting about 2 million bags of litter from ("Meth-Lab Litter Poses Hazard . . ." 2006). their Interstate system each year (Haines 2006). This trans- lates to $14 million on litter collection in 2006, with costs Finally, roadside litter may be a determinant of crime increasing at a rate of 20% per year. rates in urban areas. In a study concerning the crime rate at bus stops in downtown Los Angeles and adjoining neighbor- A recent survey in Utah determined that almost 80% of hoods, Liggett et al. (2001) found that litter was positively drivers have encountered road debris causing them to swerve correlated with incidence of crime. This research supports from their intended path, 8% of drivers have been involved the "broken windows" theory, which posits that if small in an accident caused by road debris, and 47% of drivers antisocial issues (e.g., litter) are not addressed, then larger have had their vehicles damaged by road debris (Dan Jones antisocial issues will follow (e.g., increased crime) because & Associates 2008). Forbes (2003) estimated that vehicle- the existing smaller issues convey a message that antisocial related road debris (i.e., litter on the road) is conservatively behavior is tolerated (Kelling and Coles 1996). responsible for 80 to 90 fatalities and 25,000 crashes on North American roads each year. Perhaps the most tragic incident The impacts of roadside litter are serious but not always involving roadside litter occurred in the Mont Blanc Tunnel obvious. Apart from the previously noted impacts of road- connecting France and Italy through the Alps. A 1999 fire side litter and litter collection, the following impacts have in the tunnel resulted in 39 deaths and more than $1 billion not been studied: loss of tourism owing to littered roadsides, in losses to the region (Leistikow et al. 2000). The cause of and the increased potential for vehicle­animal collisions the fire was reported to be a discarded cigarette that entered resulting from animals attracted to discarded food at the the engine compartment of a truck and lit the paper air filter roadside. on fire. The tunnel was closed for repairs and upgrading for 3 years. Roadside litter is a serious problem in North America, and addressing the problem is a significant social cost. DOT Australian data from 2005­2006 indicated that 540 bush staff has developed a multitude of enforcement, public edu- fires were caused by discarded cigarettes (FESA 2006). In cation, and awareness strategies to address the growing

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.

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

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

8 · Fifty-five percent of all litter is deliberate, consisting Rank Objective Factors Subjective Factors mostly of convenience packaging and products. The 40 North Carolina New Mexico remaining litter is accidental, resulting from uncovered 41 trucks, unsecured loads, loss of vehicle parts, trash can Tennessee North Carolina spills, and human carelessness. 42 Kentucky Kentucky · The sources of roadside litter vary greatly depending on 43 Alabama Tennessee type of roadway. For example, 50% of the litter on urban freeways and 53% of litter on rural freeways appear to be 44 South Carolina Nevada accidental, whereas accidental litter on rural local roads 45 Louisiana West Virginia and rural state highways is 36% and 39%, respectively. · Past surveys have revealed that 97% of litter comes 46 New Mexico South Carolina from four sources: pedestrians (42%), vehicle occu- 47 Arkansas Arkansas pants (20%), uncovered or unsecured loads on trucks 48 West Virginia Alabama (21%), and open vehicle beds where items had been improperly stowed (14%). 49 Nevada Louisiana 50 Mississippi Mississippi The Institute for Applied Research (IAR), in an analysis Source: Spacek (2008). of 62 litter surveys using similar methodologies, has deter- mined that the average rate of litter has been decreasing at Litter abatement campaigns in America have been studied about 2% per year (IAR 2006). The analysis accounted for (Rai University 2008) and found to be unsuccessful because major factors that significantly affected litter rates (i.e., traf- of the following reasons: fic volumes, median income, number of vehicle occupants, rain-temperature index, population, distance from the city, · Littering is not important or of much interest to most and the duration of any litter programs in service). In this people. same research, the IAR evaluated the cost-effectiveness of · People generally had little previous involvement with five major methods or strategies for controlling litter. The the issue. cost-effectiveness of the five strategies is shown in Figure 1. · Antilittering behavior produces only slight personal benefits and does not lead to a personal efficacy because The two most expensive ways to remove or prevent litter litter cleanup depends on the collective action of many from streets and roadsides are paid litter pickup programs, people. which cost $1.29 to remove one item of litter, and beverage · Proper litter conduct may result in personal costs and container deposits, which only reduce beverage container inconvenience. litter at a cost of $4.24 per item. Paid litter pickup programs · The personal benefit-to-cost ratio is low. immediately reduce litter by 90%, but litter builds back · The demand for a litter-free environment is not strong up again to near precleaning levels within 7 to 31 weeks. or universal. Deposit programs immediately reduce fresh container litter, · The litter abatement message is difficult to develop as but they have no effect on the major components of litter, it must be tailored to each target group. such as takeout food packaging. VISIBLE LITTER STUDIES Visible litter composition studies are the most prevalent type of research that is documented. DOTs and their state col- leagues have been performing visible litter studies since at least the 1990s. Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Texas, and several large municipal centers have conducted litter com- position studies. The reasons for conducting these studies include determining the composition of litter, identifying the likely sources of litter (i.e., deliberate or accidental), identi- fying the locations and facilities where litter accumulates, as well as establishing baseline conditions against which to measure changes in litter rates over time. Stein and Syrek (2005) have synthesized the results from numerous visible litter surveys conducted in the United States and report the FIGURE 1 Cost-effectiveness of popular litter abatement following: strategies (Source : IAR 2002). Note: AAH = Adopt-A-Highway.

9 AAH programs and state-run comprehensive litter con- The Georgia Visible Litter Study (Beck 2007a) presents a trol programs are less expensive (about $0.18 to remove or novel way to frame the roadside litter issue in the context of prevent an item of litter) but have limitations. AAH programs establishing priorities for litter reduction efforts. The concept usually cover 35% or less of state maintained highways and is to determine that road users are most likely to be exposed do not touch most rural local roads or urban city streets. to litter by considering the amount of litter on a facility and Comprehensive programs have proven effective statewide, the likelihood of someone seeing it. Determining the poten- achieving statewide reductions in litter of more than 50%. It tial for exposure to litter was calculated by accounting for can take up to 15 years of aggressive and consistently well- roadway miles, vehicle and pedestrian daily traffic, and esti- funded litter prevention campaigns for a state to realize such mated traveling speeds. The exposure-adjusted litter rates significant results. show that urban freeways and residential streets present the greatest exposure to litter. Each type of facility contributes Paid advertising programs targeting the age groups about the same exposure to litter, and together they consti- identified as primarily responsible for causing litter are the tute 53% of all exposure to roadside litter. most cost-effective approaches. They prevent littering from occurring at a cost of $0.02 per item. They are flexible and The Ohio Litter Study (Davey Resource Group 2004) provide quick results (70% reductions in litter in 6 years), attempted to determine the magnitude of biohazardous road- but they need to be adequately supported and sustained side litter, including bottles filled with unknown liquids that to achieve good results. They are not as cost-effective for appeared to be human urine, plastic bags containing mate- smaller jurisdictions with fewer than 500,000 persons (Stein rial appearing to be human feces, syringes, needles, dead and Syrek 2005). animals, and diapers. Study participants observed but did not collect any biohazardous material. All of the previously A further synthesis of visible litter studies was prepared mentioned categories of hazardous material were identified by Beck (2007b) who summarized the key findings from 12 in the survey; only the urine-filled bottles were of sufficient visible litter surveys as follows: magnitude to permit reliable estimates of statewide quanti- ties (see Table 2). · Miscellaneous paper and plastics were ranked either the highest or second highest percentage of litter in five of 10 studies with these data available. BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES · Vehicle debris and packaging accounted for a large amount of the visible litter--vehicle debris was in the To develop targeted and effective litter prevention programs, top five for seven of the 10 studies. researchers have attempted to determine who litters and why · Beverage containers and related litter were ranked first they litter. Research conducted in 1968 for Keep America or second in only two studies. Beautiful, Inc. identified specific demographic variables · The proportion of litter that is considered deliberate related to littering. Among the findings was that twice as appears to be decreasing over time. many males litter as females, and that adults under the age Table 2 ESTIMATE OF URINE-FILLED BOTTLE LITTER IN OHIO IN 2004 Containers per Year Mean Low High Location Rural 374,429 205,004 543,854 Interstate and U.S. Routes Urban 65,535 33,877 97,194 Rural 425,140 162,807 687,474 State Routes Urban 55,070 762 109,378 Rural 0 0 0 County Roads Urban 47,179 16,021 78,338 Rural 1,212 0 2,742 Interchanges Urban 3,807 1,090 6,523 Sum 972,372 Source: Davey Resource Group (2004).

10 of 35 are twice as likely to litter as people ages 35­49 and littered. The researchers suggested that the threats of shame three times more likely to litter than people over the age of and embarrassment significantly reduce the reported incli- 50. Much of the research conducted during the past 30 years nation to litter. supports those conclusions. Torgler et al. (2008) investigated the relationship between Beck (2007b) assembled and compared eight litter atti- environmental participation and littering in Europe, and tude studies that were completed between 1968 and 2006. demonstrated that membership in an environmental orga- All of the studies were conducted between 1997 and 2006, nization increases the probability of stating that littering is except for the KAB survey conducted in 1968. The follow- never justifiable. The researchers suggest that it may be pos- ing trends and patterns can be noted in the review: sible that encouraging individuals to become active in envi- ronmental organizations could prevent littering. · Litter is considered a problem by the majority of respondents in all of the studies conducted since 1997. This may be an indication that litter awareness cam- EVALUATIONS OF STRATEGIES AND MEASURES FOR LITTER PREVENTION paigns have been effective in increasing the percentage of people who believe litter is a problem from 36% in 1968 to 57% and to 87% in the latter studies. Huffman and colleagues (1995) group litter prevention strat- · The majority of studies support the notion that young egies into two categories: people are more prone to litter. · Five studies indicated that males litter more than · Antecedent (preventative) strategies: external stimuli females, two studies reported no difference in the pro- that prompt people to dispose of waste items in a desir- pensity to litter by gender, and one study did not report able way, including prompts, written signs and verbal these data. appeals, community involvement and modeling and · The percentage of respondents who personally litter is environmental design. between 43% and 52%. This statistic must be used with · Consequence strategies: the rewards of desirable dis- caution because many of the attitude surveys focused posal behaviors or the negative penalties of littering. on the 18- to 45-year-old age cohort, and in four of the studies it was concluded that admissions to littering In a review of 40 articles and 59 studies concerning litter decreased with age. reduction strategies, Huffman and colleagues concluded that · The propensity to report someone who litters and the both types of strategies are generally effective in reducing belief that enforcement would stop littering are increas- litter. The consequence strategies generally outperformed ing with time. the preventative strategies. A study by Grasmick et al. (1991) examined a relationship Environmental Conditions between a sense of threat and the likelihood to litter. They hypothesized that There is a well-developed school of thought that the extent of littering in an area or society is largely based on perceived threats of shame and embarrassment function in much the same manner as the threat of legal sanctions in generating social norms. For example, people are more likely to litter compliance with the law. Shame, a self-imposed sanction, in areas that are already littered than in areas that are gener- and embarrassment, a socially imposed sanction, increase ally litter free (Finnie 1973; Krauss et al. 1978; Reiter and the subjective cost of the illegal behavior [littering] and, Samuel 1980). This is because a littered environment reflects thus, reduce the likelihood that the behavior [littering] will occur (p. 234). a social norm that littering is tolerated, whereas a clean envi- ronment reflects a society that is intolerant of littering. In this same research, Grasmick and colleagues (1991) Messaging surveyed independent samples of Oklahoma residents before and 2 years after the introduction of a litter preven- Reiter and Samuel (1980) compared the effect of two types tion campaign. The campaign stressed threats of shame and of litter prevention signs (threatening versus cooperation) on embarrassment for littering and included an AAH program the littering behavior of users of a public parking lot in Sac- and a Don't Lay That Trash on Oklahoma program. The lat- ramento, California. They hypothesized that the presence of ter program emphasized the moral obligations to keep the the sign would reduce the litter rate and that signs with a state clean. The researchers found that a higher proportion cooperative message would be more effective in reducing of respondents in the post-campaign group would not litter litter than signs bearing a threatening message. The threat- in the future, and said that they would feel guilty littering. ening message was "Littering Is Unlawful and Subject to a Also, a higher proportion of respondents in the post-cam- $10 Fine"; the cooperative sign showed a man placing trash paign group believed that they would not be respected if they into a receptacle, with the caption "Pitch In." The research-

11 ers found that both signs produced lower litter rates relative and the campaign has reduced the amount of visible litter to a no-sign condition. However, the cooperative sign was no on Texas highways by 72% in 6 years (Texas Department of more effective than the threatening sign. Transportation 2008). The DOT asserts that the success is the result of, at least in part, the use of athletes and musicians The results of the present report are consistent with stud- who are admired by the target audience. ies that have shown that polite formulations appealing for help can be effective in reducing littering behavior (Geller et There is no universally accepted pictogram or symbol for al. 1976; Reich and Robertson 1979; Durdan et al. 1985). litter prevention, but the "tidyman" symbol (see Figure 2) is used globally to remind people and entities to be thoughtful In a study concerning the effects of a newspaper media in disposing of their solid waste. The pictogram was first campaign on litter reduction, Schnelle and colleagues (1980) used by Budweiser in the 1950s to encourage people not to conducted an experiment in a small town in Tennessee. The litter. The tidyman pictogram is used by many companies on newspaper campaign consisted of a one-page feature article their product packaging, and has been adopted by Pitch-In appealing to citizens to clean up the town, followed by daily Canada and Keep Britain Tidy as their primary logos. The updates on progress. The researchers found that newspaper use of this symbol is not limited to one country, transcends advertising produced immediate reductions in the amount language barriers, and therefore makes it a good candidate of measured litter. One month subsequent to the cessation for inclusion in litter prevention materials. Also, it is a posi- of the advertising, however, measured litter approximated tive message depicting the act of proper trash disposal, as preexperimental conditions. opposed to a negative message (e.g., "don't litter), which some research suggests is more effective. Also with respect to messaging, Durdan and colleagues (1985) evaluated the effectiveness of various written lit- Indeed, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ter prevention prompts in a university cafeteria setting and (FHWA 2003) uses a similar symbol for the Litter Recep- found that: tacle sign (see Figure 3a). The Ontario Traffic Manual (Min- istry of Transportation 2000) proposes a different symbol to · Prompting resulted in a significant decrease in litter. advise motorists against littering (see Figure 3b). · Positively worded prompts ("please be helpful") were more effective than negatively worded prompts Roadside Advertising ("please don't litter"). · Specificity of the prompt had no reliable effect on lit- Roadside advertising is intended to educate drivers that lit- tering behaviors (e.g., "Clear your own table" versus tering is illegal, act as a deterrent to littering, and prompt "Place your tray and dishes in the tray holders along witnesses to report litterers to the appropriate authorities. the west hall"). Roadside signs also remind motorists that the commu- nity is addressing litter, and it promotes a sense of social The researchers also observed that the convenience of responsibility. disposal facilities contributed to a decrease in littering. The Victoria Litter Action Alliance (VLAA) in Australia Cialdini (2003) examined the effectiveness of environ- in conjunction with VicRoads and Victoria Environmental mental protection messaging in the context of the social Protection Agency developed a series of approved roadside norms presented. The researcher describes two kinds of litter prevention signs designed for permanent placement social norms: injunctive norms that outline behaviors that on roads with a speed limit up to 110 kilometers per hour are socially acceptable, and descriptive norms that outline (Victoria Litter Action Alliance 2006). Focus group testing behaviors that are typically performed. Cialdini posits that undertaken to develop the messages for roadside signs found messaging is most effective when the injunctive and social that the most effective signs: norms presented are complementary and not contradictory. For example, a television commercial showing an individual · Appear in a series where the message is built upon by being fined for littering (the injunction norm) would be more each sign viewed (signs could be repeated or varied in effective if the scene showed a clean environment rather than the series; a sign appearing once only on a stretch of an already littered environment (the descriptive norm). Field road was more likely to be missed). experiments conducted as part of the research supports the · Are used sparingly to avoid visual pollution and dilut- hypothesis. ing the impact. · Include signs that address littering and illegal dumping The Texas DOT's Don't Mess With Texas campaign is a separately, as research shows that people differentiate comprehensive litter campaign that employs several social between the acts of littering and illegal dumping. marketing methods and techniques. It is generally regarded · Include a phone number, such as a toll-free number, to as a best practices model for DOT litter prevention efforts, act as a deterrent against littering.

12 (a ) (b ) FIGURE 2 International Tidyman Pictograms: (a ) Traditional symbol; (b ) Modern variation. (a ) (b ) FIGURE 3 Official traffic control devices concerning litter: (a ) Litter receptacle sign; (b ) No littering sign. [Sources: (a ) FHWA 2003; (b ) Ministry of Transportation 2000]. · Have the clarity of an immediate and short message, a the good results not solely to the roadside advertising, but phone number, and applicable logos. also to the integration of multiple measures that engage the target audience in different ways. Dowling (2005) reported on the effectiveness of a short- term community roadside litter campaign in Australia, Trash Receptacles which included the following: a publicized launch of the campaign, mobile billboards installed for 3 weeks, six per- Research indicates that in some settings disposal-facility manent roadside signs, a litter-reporting hotline promoted by availability contributes to more use of the facility and less means of radio, newspaper advertisements, brochures, and litter (Finnie 1973; Baltes and Hayward 1976; O'Neill et al. distribution of free car litterbags. The campaign produced an 1980; Mielke 1985; Takahashi 1996). Finnie (1973) is the average litter reduction of about 65%. The authors attribute most relevant to the roadside litter problem, as part of this

13 experiment involved placing litter receptacles along high- value, which makes it less likely to be discarded, and pro- ways and city streets. Placing litter receptacles along the motes the collection of discarded containers by private inter- highway reduced litter an average of 28.6% and was effec- ests (who wish to redeem collected containers for the cash). tive for at least 6 miles along the highway. Curiously, when Both actions result in a reduction of containers in the litter signs preceded the litter receptacles, the average reduction stream. The success of CDL is a contested issue in litter pre- was only 25.2% compared with a 32% reduction when signs vention. While proponents tout the litter reduction effects, were not present. opponents are quick to posit that CDL is not cost effective and addresses only a portion of the litter stream. The most recent effort in this regard comes from the IAR, which evaluated the effectiveness of receptacles in reduc- The effects of CDL on litter reduction in seven states are ing litter and found that receptacles average a 40% reduction shown in Table 3. Beverage container litter reductions have in litter in both urban and rural settings. Nonetheless, litter consistently been between 70% and 84%, and total litter has receptacles do not by themselves prevent litter, as about 50% been reduced between 34% and 47%. An ancillary positive of littering occurs within 26 feet of a receptacle (Victoria impact of CDL was discovered by Baker et al. (1986) who Litter Action Alliance n.d.). studied the effect of CDL in Massachusetts on the incidence of lacerations in urban children. Records of emergency room Some studies have even investigated the impact of spe- visits for lacerations and fractures were reviewed before and cially designed waste receptacles (e.g., Geller et al. 1980; immediately after implementation of CDL. A case-control O'Neill et al. 1980). The research of O'Neill and colleagues study of children 18 years of age or younger who presented (1980) compared the effects on littering of a conventional to the Emergency Service of Children's Hospital, Boston, for waste receptacle and a specially designed receptacle, and the treatment of lacerations was undertaken. The incidence found that the experimental receptacles collected signifi- of total sutured lacerations did not change substantially cantly more waste than the conventional receptacles. The after the legislation; however, glass-related lacerations fell researchers concluded that the specially designed container by 60% as a result of the reduced incidence in lacerations most likely draws people's attention to desirable waste dis- occurring outside of the home. posal. The O'Neill et al. research was conducted in an Amer- ican football stadium, and the results may not be transferable Ireland implemented a plastic bag levy to reduce the inci- to other locations. dence of plastic bags in the litter stream. It is estimated that plastic bags formed 5% of litter in the Republic of Ireland In more recent research, de Kort et al. (2008) examined before the tax, and according to the national litter pollution the effects of trash can design on littering behavior. The monitoring system, the proportion of plastic bag litter had researchers understood that social and personal norms have fallen to 0.22% by August 2004 (a 95.6% reduction) (Keep the ability to affect behavior, but they contend that these Wales Tidy 2006). Taxes on plastic bags are also in effect in norms are effective only if they are a focus at the correct Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, and Taiwan (China). time. Therefore, experimental trash cans were designed to In North America, the province of Quebec is considering a activate a social or personal norm, which was expected to tax on plastic bags (CBC 2007). guide individuals toward antilittering behavior. Two experi- mental trash cans were tested: (1) a typical trash can supple- Table 3 mented with a sign conspicuously placed over the can with EFFECTS OF CONTAINER DEPOSIT LEGISLATION an antilittering message (an explicit message); and (2) a typi- ON LITTER REDUCTION cal trash can with a mirror mounted over the can (an implicit Beverage Container Total Litter message). (Individuals who see their reflection in a mir- State Litter Reduction Reduction ror experience increased self-awareness, including greater New York 70%­80% 30% attention to personal norms.) The field study indicated that both trash can designs effectively activated personal norms Oregon 83% 47% and reduced litter by about 50%. Vermont 76% 35% Deposits on High Litter Items Maine 69%­¬77% 34%­64% Michigan 84% 41% Container deposit legislation (CDL), also known as a "bot- tle bill," is a law that requires sellers of plastic bottles and Iowa 76% 39% beverage containers to charge a refundable deposit on drink Massachusetts N/A 30%­35% containers, such as aluminum cans and plastic bottles. This Source: Container Recycling Institute (2007). results in an empty beverage container retaining some cash Note: N/A = not available.

14 Adopt-a-Highway Programs Keep America Beautiful Communities The results from the studies in Florida provide evidence The results for 272 combined small and large county sam- of the strong connection between volunteer-adopted road ples showed that KAB sites are 8.5% cleaner than non-KAB programs and reductions in litter (Florida Center for Solid sites (IAR 2006). When split into freeway/rural and urban and Hazardous Waste Management 1997). In 1995, the lit- street categories, the urban KAB sites had a 10.3% lower ter density for large litter items on adopted sites was 36% rate, compared with the freeway/rural sites, which were less than on nonadopted sites, and the adopted sites had 33% 7.4% lower. Similarly, Beck (2007b) reviewed six visible lit- fewer items per site than nonadopted sites. In 1996, the litter ter surveys conducted since 1990 that provided the data to density for large litter items was 20% less on adopted sites measure the litter rates in KAB versus non-KAB communi- than on nonadopted sites, and adopted sites had 19% fewer ties. The results are shown in Table 5 and indicate that KAB items per site than nonadopted sites. The data for 1997 did communities have a 12% lower visible litter rate per mile not show a statistically significant difference between the than non-KAB communities. amount of litter on adopted and nonadopted sites. Table 5 Consecutive state litter surveys from New Jersey indicate EFFECT OF KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL SITES that AAH is an effective litter reduction strategy (Stein and ON LITTER RATES Syrek 2005). AAH sites were 9% cleaner than non-AAH sites from February through April, and 15% cleaner than Visible Litter per Mile non-AAH sites during June and July, when pickup activities KAB vs. Percent are more prevalent. State Year non-KAB Difference Louisiana 1990 No data provided 24% lower A more comprehensive analysis by KAB (Beck 2007b) examined data from seven visible litter surveys. They deter- Kentucky 1998 1,413 vs. 1,707 17% lower mined that AAH programs are effective at reducing lit- Pennsylvania 1999 2,751 vs. 1,980 39% higher ter rates (see Table 4) by about 13%. Only the Mississippi AAH program was ineffective in reducing the prevalence Mississippi 2000 1,800 vs. 2,100 14% lower of roadside litter; if this result is considered an outlier and is North Carolina 2001 950 vs. 1,450 35% lower removed from the data set, AAH programs provide an aver- age reduction of 31% of visible litter items. Tennessee 2006 1,124 vs. 1,389 19% lower Average 12% lower Table 4 Source: Modified from KAB (2007). EFFECT OF ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY PROGRAMS Note: KAB = Keep America Beautiful. ON LITTER RATES Visible Litter per Mile In a 2006 survey in Victoria, Australia, 83% of respon- AAH vs. Percent dents had evaluated their litter management programs, up State Year non-AAH Difference from around 70% in the 2004 survey. However, the majority Hawaii 1993 No data provided 54% lower of respondents undertook the evaluation themselves using observations, litter counts, and face-to-face surveys. Analy- Pennsylvania 1999 1,582 vs. 2,969 47% lower sis of the methods used showed a strong reliance on informal Mississippi 2000 3,600 vs. 1,900 89% higher rather than formal methods. An increased emphasis on the evaluation of programs and initiatives could provide valu- North Carolina 2001 1,250 vs. 1,350 7% lower able input into future policy, program, and regulatory devel- New Jersey 2004 1,532 vs. 1,756 13% lower opments (Victoria Litter Action Alliance 2006). Georgia 2006 1,074 vs. 1,236 13% lower Roadside Mowing Tennessee 2006 311 vs. 610 49% lower Roadside mowing has been investigated as a factor in visible Average 13% lower litter rates (Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Source: Modified from KAB (2007). Management 1997; Beck 2007a, b). The Florida Litter Sur- Note: AAH = Adopt-a-Highway. vey found that, as grass height increased, the amount of large

15 litter (litter that was 4 square inches or larger) increased and found on Tennessee roadsides, where 43 mowed sites and the amount of small litter decreased (Florida Center for Solid 52 nonmowed sites were compared (Beck 2007c). The aver- and Hazardous Waste Management 1997). For large litter, age number of items per mile for the mowed sites was 1,513, the litter density at sites with a grass height of 3 to 6 inches whereas the average number of items per mile for the non- was 22% higher than the litter density at sites with a grass mowed sites was 1,400. The researchers assumed that the height of less than 3 inches. Furthermore, long grass had mowed sites were possibly cleaned before mowing, and this 21% more large litter items per site than short grass. The lit- yielded the comparable litter rates. ter density and total number of items per site for small litter items are shown in Table 6. These results are not surprising There is a trend in the roadside maintenance industry, because roadside mowing typically involves maintenance particularly in the southern states, to move toward xeri- workers collecting large items before mowing (to avoid scaping--landscaping in ways that do not require supple- damage to the mowing equipment), or requires mowing over mental irrigation and promote water conservation. In some large items and shredding them into several smaller items. instances, xeriscaping involves the use of nontraditional roadside plantings and treatments that may affect the vis- Table 6 ibility of roadside litter or the ability of the roadside to cap- EFFECT OF ROADSIDE MOWING ON LITTER RATES ture and retain litter. This area of roadside litter requires IN FLORIDA further study. Number of Items Grass Height (inches) Litter Density per Site Incentives <3 167 158 Burgess et al. (1971) evaluated the effectiveness of six dif- 3 to 6 134 128 ferent antilitter procedures on children in neighborhood theaters. The procedures included providing litterbags, pro- >6 100 100 viding litterbags with instructions to use them, providing Source: Data from Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste extra trash cans, showing a special antilitter film before the Management (1997). feature attraction, and providing incentives for the appropri- Note: The results are dimensionless, because they have been ate deposit of litter. The incentive resulted in the removal of normalized. more than 90% of all litter and far outperformed the other five procedures investigated. The transferability of incen- The Georgia Visible Litter Survey (Beck 2007a) con- tives as a measure to reduce roadside litter is uncertain. firmed the Florida results. In Georgia, mowed areas were found to be more than twice as littered than nonmowed Overall, there is a dearth of information concerning areas (when measuring items per mile). However, roadside the impacts of legislation and enforcement on littering and mowing was not considered a factor in the amount of litter litter rates.

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.

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.

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.

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

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,

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.

22

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

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).

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.

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).

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

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).

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.

30 CHAPTER FOUR CASE STUDIES CASE STUDY CRITERIA AND DEVELOPMENT KFB serves as a statewide conduit for private and public sec- tor funding concerning litter and related solid waste man- agement issues. KFB offers organizational infrastructure The case studies presented in this section of the synthe- for local grassroots community-based volunteer programs. sis were selected from the state or provincial DOTs that KFB also acts as the conduit and manages the Department responded to the nationwide survey administered in connec- of Environmental Protection appropriation for the Approved tion with this synthesis project. The Principal Investigator Community-Based Program Grant. visited the websites for each of the respondents and based on this review, the literature review, and the survey results Creation of KFB occurred within the context of a vigor- identified Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Washington State as ous debate over the passage of a bottle bill and a legislative DOTs with diverse yet exemplary roadside litter prevention directive to the Department of Environmental Protection to programs. recommend items in the litter stream that could be subject to a litter tax. KFB was created and charged with accomplish- ing litter reduction without the passage of a bottle bill or CASE STUDY 1: FLORIDA a litter tax, but its creation implied a substantial long-term funding commitment by the private sector. Background Curiously, in 1993 when the 50% litter reduction target In 1988, the Florida legislature enacted the Solid Waste was set, the legislature provided KFB with only 25% of the Management Act that provided for a comprehensive solution recommended funding for a statewide litter prevention pro- to Florida's solid waste problems by involving state and local gram. KFB's request for funding, aimed at achieving the government entities and the private sector. Section 55 of the legislature's litter reduction goal, was $2 million for a mass Solid Waste Act provided that there must be a coordinated media campaign, $1 million for grants to affiliates, $500,000 effort to a cleaner environment through sustained programs for KFB, and $500,000 to purchase trash cans. The legisla- of litter prevention. As part of a 1993 rewrite of the 1988 ture provided no funding to KFB for the litter prevention Solid Waste Management Act, the legislature established a program in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Although many leading goal of reducing litter by 50% from January 1, 1994, through business, civic, government, and environmental organiza- January 1, 1997. tions had agreed to participate in the program, KFB rec- ognized that, in the absence of adequate funding for the The legislature directed Keep Florida Beautiful, Inc. statewide campaign, progress toward the legislature's litter (KFB) to assist with the implementation of the Florida Solid reduction goal was not likely. Waste Management Act. To help reduce litter and marine debris, the legislature established KFB as a working public- Target Audiences private partnership and designated KFB as the organization to coordinate Florida's efforts to reduce litter and marine The Florida litter prevention program did not appear to target debris. KFB, the state affiliate of Keep America Beautiful, any specific groups or entities. Instead, the local KFB affili- Inc., works with affiliate organizations at the local level to ates were expected to develop programs that were appropri- encourage individuals, organizations, and businesses to pre- ate for their specific situation. vent littering and to clean up their communities. Strategies KFB is directed by the legislature to coordinate Florida's litter prevention programs, including coordination of Flor- Florida's litter program involves a concentrated effort to ida's statewide media education campaign and grassroots reduce litter, marine debris, and illegal dumping. For 2001, community-based efforts. The organization serves as the the program's focus includes grassroots public education umbrella for volunteer-based community programs that pri- programs and public-private partnerships coordinated by marily are carried out through Florida's local KAB systems. Florida's local KAB affiliates, state agencies, businesses,

31 associations, civic organizations, and local government. in-person interviews of 20 businesses in 10 major Florida These grassroots programs are working to build individual cities. The businesses surveyed were from seven categories responsibility within local communities that work to reduce (food and drink, manufacturing, entertainment, retail, ser- habitual and thoughtless littering and illegal dumping. vice, residential, and businesses with drive-up windows). The average amount spent per business to clean up litter on To build the community-based grassroots effort, grants an annual basis was estimated to be $2,434.73. The most are provided to counties by the Department of Environmen- frequently littered items were cigarette wrappers, cigarette tal Protection. KFB assists in the review of these grants, butts, drink containers, fast food wrappers, and auto parts. which contain programs identified in the KFB Operating Most businesses reported that people put litter into their Plan. Counties are encouraged by the legislature to form dumpsters, onto their property, or in their parking lots. In public-private partnerships at the community level. the instance of placing litter in private dumpsters, the place- ment of any unwanted material on private property without One of the major efforts of KFB throughout the 1990s owner consent is considered illegal dumping under Florida was to build up the number of local KAB affiliates (such law. While this action does not bring about all of the impacts as Keep Tallahassee­Leon Beautiful, Keep North Miami of littering on the ground, the business owner incurs the cost Beautiful, and so on). During the first 2 implementing years, of disposal, which in the case of hazardous materials or gar- approximately 10 community litter programs were estab- bage that is not accepted at the landfill, can be significant. lished. Today, more than 40 community programs imple- Finally, 98% of the businesses surveyed thought that the ment their litter prevention education programs under the presence of litter lowers property values and has a negative KFB umbrella. Each local community program is certified effect on business. by the national KAB program. KFB and the local systems are the nucleus for the state's implementation of its litter prevention and recycling educa- tion programs at the community level. For example, pro- grams include the statewide annual Great Florida Cleanup, neighborhood cleanups, administration of local adopt-a- shore programs, and implementation of comprehensive envi- ronmental education programs in local school systems, to name a few. In particular, KFB is working with Florida's Front Porch Communities initiative (which helps communities revitalize distressed neighborhoods) with grants, technical support, and other assistance by conducting cleanups, supporting lit- ter prevention activities, and expanding the participation of local private businesses in Front Porch programs. KFB uses mass media campaigns to create awareness about litter prevention. The Solid Waste Management Act provides that the DOT must place signs discouraging litter at all off-ramps on the FIGURE 13 Florida litter prevention road sign. (Source: Interstate highway system. The Florida DOT has determined Florida Department of Transportation website 2009). that litter law signs may be installed on the Interstate where excessive littering occurs (Florida Department of Transpor- tation 2004). The official road signs are shown in Figure 13. Evaluations In 2005, Florida raised the minimum fine for littering from $50 to $100. The state of Florida adopted a 50% litter reduction goal, and the goal was not achieved. Unfortunately, the KFB plan Florida has been a pioneer in attempting to identify the recognizes that although adequate revenues existed in the tourist and economic impacts of litter (although not limit- Solid Waste Management Trust Fund, only partial funding ing the research to roadside litter). In the 1997 Florida Lit- was provided for the Statewide Anti-Litter Media Campaign ter Study, the state conducted a survey of local businesses for 1996­1997, and no funding was allocated in 1995­1996. to determine the economic impacts of litter. Data were Some funding was restored from 1997­2000, but it was collected through 200 perception surveys completed by eliminated once again in 2001.

32 The cost-benefit ratio average for Florida's KAB systems · Department of Transportation is approximately $1:$7.09, which means that for every dol- · Georgia Association of Code Enforcement Officers lar invested by local and state government, the local private · Georgia Beverage Association sector cash, donations, and volunteer hours provide a match · Georgia Chamber of Commerce of $7.09. · Georgia Chapter of the National Solid Waste Management Association The 2001 Florida roadside litter study determined that · Georgia Municipal Association visible litter on the state's roadsides had dropped by more · Georgia Police Chief Association than 30% since 1997. For the period from 1995 to 2000 there · Georgia Pulp and Paper Association was a net 15% decline. Although the goal required by the · Georgia Sheriffs Association statute was not met, the data suggest that the litter programs · Georgia State Patrol were effective. In 2001, the state was faced with the deci- · Georgia Tire Retailers Association sion of abandoning the current model/system or adopting an · Governor's Office of Highway Safety alternative model (e.g., Georgia, Pennsylvania, or Texas). In · Hands On Georgia the end, given the substantial reductions in Florida roadside · Keep Georgia Beautiful Executive Directors litter under the present system, and success in developing 40 Association local chapters of KAB, it was determined that the present · Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District system would be continued. · Prosecuting Attorney's Council of Georgia In 2002, it was recommended that the current litter goal In 2006 the Georgia General Assembly passed the Com- be modified to establish litter reduction rates on a per capita prehensive Litter Prevention and Abatement Act. The Act basis, and that the visible litter survey be conducted every 3 improves the ability of law enforcement to punish litter years rather than annually (3-year increments are adequate offenders, clarifies complicated statutes related to litter, and to detect trends). stresses personal responsibility as an overarching principle. The litter violations and penalties in Georgia are shown in Figure 14. CASE STUDY 2: GEORGIA Initial steps in the Georgia campaign included conduct- The state of Georgia launched the "Litter. It Costs You" ing both a visible litter survey and attitudes research. Both campaign in August 2006. An integrated and comprehen- of these efforts are intended to help Georgia with program sive approach to litter, the campaign encompasses education, development by identifying the types and locations of lit- eradication, and enforcement and leverages the resources of ter and by targeting audiences for litter education. This state agencies, city and county governments, and volunteer research will provide benchmark data that can be used in organizations to engage the public and effect change. future years to evaluate the performance of the litter preven- tion campaign. Background Target Audiences The state created the Litter Abatement and Prevention Team to create a long-term, sustainable strategy for reducing litter A specific target audience is not mentioned in the Georgia through increasing public awareness, personal responsibil- material. ity, and community involvement. The challenge before the team was to develop recommendations for more effective, Strategies coordinated, and innovative litter cleanup programs. The team clearly wanted to come up with ways to alter public The Georgia program has a well-developed set of strategies opinion to prevent littering. that reflects the multidisciplinary approach to litter preven- tion. The unapologetic litter prevention slogan is coupled The Litter Abatement and Prevention Team is adminis- with hard-hitting facts about the impacts of litter and includes tratively attached to the Department of Community Affairs various tools and materials that may be used by groups and (DCA). It is made up of representatives from the following individuals to educate others about litter prevention. state agencies, associations, and organizations: Georgia's youths are a primary target for litter preven- · Association County Commissioners of Georgia tion education, and the state has developed a litter prevention · Department of Community Affairs mascot: "Buster the Brown Thrasher." The mascot is promi- · Department of Economic Development nent in all school-age promotional and educational material, · Department of Natural Resources including trivia, online games, and free downloads from the · Department of Public Safety "Litter. It Costs You" website.

33 FIGURE 14 Violations and penalties for littering in Georgia (Source: http://www.litteritcostsyou.org). Evaluation The DMWT program was introduced as a public educa- tion campaign, and the DMWT phrase is prominently shown The Georgia litter prevention program is in its infancy and on road signs on major highways, as well as in television, evaluations have not yet been performed. radio, and print advertisements. It is a complement to the AAH program (roadside litter collection). Interestingly, the AAH program was a Texas creation that has been adopted CASE STUDY 3: TEXAS internationally. Background Contributing to the immediate success of the DMWT program is a star-studded campaign trail that continues to Texas roadside litter prevention is spearheaded by the Texas this day. Texans such as Los Lonely Boys, The Fabulous DOT through the statewide "Don't Mess With Texas" Thunderbirds, Willie Nelson, and LeAnn Rimes publicly (DMWT) advertising campaign. The highly successful state they won't litter, and in doing so, serve as role models campaign was created by a Texas-based advertising agency for others. and launched in 1986 as a television advertisement featur- ing Stevie Ray Vaughan. The DMWT program has garnered Funding for the DMWT program is assisted by the sale national attention, including being inducted into the Madi- of official DMWT products, such as baseball hats and son Avenue Advertising Walk of Fame in 2006. T-shirts.

34 FIGURE 15 Don't Mess With Texas advertisement (Source: http://www.dontmesswithtexas.org/view-ads-outdoor.php). The DMWT litter prevention program has a hard-hitting the 1998 survey data suggest that the top five predictors of message, and a look and feel that appeals to a younger audi- littering behavior are being young, smoking, eating fast food ence. The messages are presented using eye-catching adver- at least twice a week, driving more than 50 miles a day, and tisements (see Figure 15) and memorable phrases, such as going out to bars or other nighttime entertainment at least "Your first car was ugly, but Texas doesn't have to be," and once a week. In a follow-up survey in 2002, DMWT con- "It's take out. Not toss-out." ducted a Hispanic Attitudes and Behaviors Study to better understand and develop litter prevention programs for this Target Audience segment of the population that tends to be litter-prone. The DMWT program has used research to identify groups Strategies that are prone to littering so that targeted information and behavior-change campaigns can be developed. For example, The core of the DMWT program is an advertising campaign the 1998 Litter Attitudes and Behaviors Study classified Tex- that uses roadside billboards, television, radio, and print ans into one of five categories: mediums. The advertisements have been tailored to appeal to the target audiences identified through research and that 1. Gross Litterers--People who have personally dis- use famous Texans as spokespersons (e.g., Lance Armstrong carded significant litter in the past 3 months. and Willie Nelson). DMWT has developed Spanish-language DMWT advertising to target the Hispanic audience. 2. Micro Litterers--People who have personally dis- carded cigarette butts, food, candy wrappers, and A scholarship program for graduating high-school seniors other minor litter in the past 3 months. complements the promotional and advertising components of the DMWT program. 3. Reformed Litterers--People who have personally dis- carded major or minor litter in the past 36 months. The DMWT "Rock the Bag" outreach tour is a strategy used to motivate Texans to use a litterbag in their vehicles. 4. Tolerant Litterers--People who have not personally In 2008, the tour will make 28 stops in 16 different cities. At discarded litter, but have been with people who have, the DMWT display area, visitors can play litter trivia games, and did not condemn the behavior. watch famous DMWT television advertisements, receive free limited-edition litterbags, and win prizes. A giant inflat- 5. Non-Litterers--People who never litter. able "Rock the Bag" mascot prominently marks the DMWT area at special events. The Gross Litterer commits the most serious offense and is identified as a primary target for litter prevention educa- In 2007, the DOT released the "Litter Force Team" as a tion. Although gender is not a major predictor of littering strategy to teach elementary-age children about roadside behavior, the findings indicate that young males are more litter. The Litter Force Team is a group of four superheroes likely to be Gross Litterers (20% are Gross Litterers and 27% created to excite and inspire younger children to become litter- are Micro Litterers). Interestingly, young females are equally savvy. The Litter Force's mission is to use their special powers as likely as young males to be Micro Litterers. To that end, to protect Texas roadsides from a gang of trash villains. The

35 villains represent the most common types of litter found on 2. Establish a central function within the Department Texas highways as recorded by Texas DOT 2005 Visible Litter of Ecology to coordinate, integrate, and strengthen Study. Online games offer different education objectives. litter prevention and pickup efforts statewide. This would include regular information-sharing sessions Evaluation with other involved agencies, local government grantees, and other interested stakeholders on The campaign is credited with reducing litter on Texas high- methods for and progress toward the zero-litter goal. ways 52% between 1995 and 2001. A subsequent evaluation in 2005, demonstrates a further 33% drop in litter. However, 3. Set an enhanced baseline for the Ecology Youth this same research indicates one in two Texans still litters. Corps pickup program to maintain progress toward Whatever the results of the DMWT program on visible lit- zero litter. ter and behaviors, it is clear that the broadcasted advertising campaign is being received--in 2005, 71% of Texans knew 4. Establish a local government funding program for what "Don't Mess With Texas" meant, compared with 62% litter control activities by cities and counties. in 2001. 5. In addition to Recommendation 4, create an addi- The DMWT program boasts other benefits in addition to tional competitive source of capital and operating the reduction in roadside litter, including renewed pride in funds for local or state agencies. Equipment pur- the state by its citizens, free public service airtime valued at chases (e.g., trucks and tools) are to receive priority $8.9 million per year, and taxpayer savings on litter pickup from this fund. costs in 2000 totaling $8.4 million. 6. Continue to support waste reduction and recycling efforts as an effective tool for preventing litter and CASE STUDY 4: WASHINGTON STATE reaching the zero litter goal. Washington State has developed a leading litter prevention 7. Establish a "rainy day account" as a contingency program with the slogan "Litter and It Will Hurt!" The pro- for litter tax fund expenditures from currently unap- gram is directed at littering on roadways and is spearheaded propriated funds. by the Department of Ecology with cooperation from the DOT and others. The campaign provides a hard-hitting mes- 8. Conduct a statewide litter survey targeted at litter sage that littering is unacceptable and harmful, and is sup- composition, sources, demographics, and geographic ported by impressive penalties that indicate littering will not trends; maintain an information base to guide preven- be tolerated. tion and pickup efforts. Background 9. Conduct a statewide litter prevention campaign in partnership with local governments and taxpay- In 1997, Washington State formed a Litter Task Force (1997) ing businesses to raise awareness of litter issues and to examine the effectiveness of litter control in Washington encourage prevention. and to make recommendations to significantly improve litter prevention and collection for the future. The 17-member task 10. Increase emphasis on the existing legal system for force was composed of representatives from litter-taxpaying littering and illegal dumping to strengthen enforce- industries and agencies that receive tax funds or are respon- ment and include a strong enforcement message in sible for some part of the litter control and recycling effort. the statewide litter prevention campaign. The Litter Task Force determined that there should be a 11. Encourage the legislature to ensure that the Depart- commitment to a standard of zero litter throughout the state ment of Revenue works toward 100% compliance in of Washington, and it pledged to work cooperatively toward litter tax collection, including consideration of min- that goal. Recommendations that were made to support the imum and maximum levels of tax liability. zero litter initiative are as follows: 12.Make a statutory change to allow corporate logos on 1. Ensure that the Department of Ecology became AAH signs to enhance the DOT's ability to attract responsible and accountable for administering state corporate sponsors for highway cleanup. agency allocations of litter tax funds, working coop- eratively with other agencies (Corrections, Natural In preparation for developing and releasing a statewide Resources, Parks, and Transportation) to develop pro- antilitter campaign, the Department of Ecology conducted a grams and monitor progress and results. statewide litter survey that included field research and litter

36 sampling, focus groups with admitted and potential litterers, iors, including to dispose of litter properly, cover and secure and a telephone survey of the general population regarding the pickup truck loads, and clean out the back of trucks before litter problem. This study yielded invaluable information con- driving on roadways. cerning the composition of litter, who is littering and who may litter, the magnitude of the litter problem, and other informa- With the help of a team of consultants, the Department of tion necessary for developing a targeted marketing campaign. Ecology has developed a prevention strategy to reduce inten- tional littering on roadways. It is designed to reach a broad Subsequent to the completion of the litter survey, the audience to raise and maintain awareness, and to reach tar- Department of Ecology presented the results of the study geted audiences contributing to a majority of the problem. to various stakeholder groups and discussed appropriate It relies heavily on the partnership and involvement of state prevention strategies. Development of antilitter slogans and agencies, local governments, and (litter) taxpaying busi- messages to be delivered through various print, radio, and nesses. It plans for media sponsorships and includes a system television media was given the highest priority. In late Janu- to measure campaign outcomes. It reinstitutes a toll-free num- ary 2001, Washington State retained a media and public rela- ber to communicate the message that littering is not accepted tions firm to help it plan and begin implementation of a litter in Washington State and that people care enough about litter prevention campaign that would achieve the following: to report it. It includes a short-term plan to raise awareness, but it requires a long-term commitment for behavior change. · Focus on litter on roadways (interstate, state, and county roads). Target Audiences · Reach a broad audience to raise and maintain aware- ness over time. The two major audiences for the campaign are litterers and · Reach targeted audiences engaged in intentional litter- nonlitterers. Target audiences for littering include the two ing with more specific messages. segments creating the majority of intentional litter on road- · Raise awareness of the enforcement system and costs ways: (1) motorists or passengers who toss cigarette butts, for violating litter laws. alcoholic beverage containers, food wrappers, and other bev- · Develop a system to measure the effectiveness of the erage containers out the window; and (2) those who drive campaign, including a link to overall tracking of litter pickup trucks and are not properly covering or securing their survey pickup results. loads, and not cleaning out the back of their pickup trucks · Involve state agencies, local governments, and (litter) before driving on roadways. Campaign messages also will taxpaying businesses in both planning and implement- be aimed at those in the general public who are nonlitterers ing the campaign. traveling on Washington State roadways. The development process used a SWOT (strengths, weak- Strategies nesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis to assess internal and external influences on a proposed campaign, and exam- To create awareness, activities will focus on major promo- ined the successes from other state antilitter campaigns. tional channels used to spread the word that significant fines are associated with littering and that a toll-free number is A creative campaign sparked the most reaction by clearly available to report littering. Channels include roadway sig- conveying the message of "stiff fines and punishments" asso- nage, advertising, publicity, special events, messaging on ciated with littering. Litterers were surprised by the magni- such materials as litterbags and posters, and reminders on tude of Washington litter fines and were concerned about state agency materials. the possibility of getting caught, particularly when they were made aware of a toll-free phone number for reporting lit- To alter beliefs that littering is not noticed and that peo- tering. In light of this finding, the campaign slogan, "Litter ple do not care, additional strategies will need to be imple- and It Will Hurt," was selected as the overarching theme for mented, including letters to litterers (based on hotline calls); all communications. This slogan resonated the best with the law enforcement officials asking people during designated focus group and had the greatest longevity for a sustained litter awareness periods if they have a litterbag and remind- public education campaign. ing citizens that it is against the law to litter; ongoing pub- licity featuring stories of people who get caught littering; Campaign strategies have been designed to support three and window decals, signs, and bumper stickers providing separate objectives: (1) a short-term objective to create frequent reminders on the road. awareness that significant fines are associated with littering and that a toll-free number can be used to report littering; (2) Evaluation a long-term objective to make litterers believe their littering will be noticed and they could be caught; and (3) a long- A baseline and follow-up surveys of Washington State resi- term objective to influence litterers to change their behav- dents was conducted to measure (1) awareness of the stiff

37 fines associated with littering and (2) awareness of the toll- ­­ Metal alcoholic beverage containers showed a free number to report littering. In addition, a repetition of the strong downward trend on all road types in winter, 1999 litter survey in 2004 was used to measure changes in but not for the year as a whole. targeted categories of roadway litter. · The number of alcoholic beverage containers, as measured in Bottle Equivalents (litter was quantified Several additional important measures have been imple- by weight not item count, so bottle equivalents is the mented, including quantifiable reporting on the following: total weight collected divided by an estimated weight reach and frequency data from media, sponsorship and in- of a single bottle), showed a statistically significant kind contributions, press coverage, and participation levels decrease in winter on all road types combined, and a of other state agencies and local governments. Several of strong downward trend on all roads year-round. these measures can be combined with other campaign data · The number of all beverage containers combined, as (i.e., number of signs and calls to the hotline) to create overall measured in Bottle Equivalents, exhibited a strong numbers of campaign "impressions" with target audiences. downward trend on all road types combined in winter, but not for the year as a whole. The success of the Washington "Litter and It Will Hurt" campaign can be seen in a comparison of the 1999 and 2004 Roadside Litter Surveys. Highlights include the following: SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED · The estimated amount of litter on Washington State These four case studies highlight several specific program roadways decreased from 8,322 tons in 1999 to 6,315 features and components that can be transferred to other tons in 2004. states and that are especially promising to advance litter · The estimated amount of litter on interchanges in abatement. Overall, successful litter prevention programs Washington State decreased from 617 tons in 1999 to use a multidisciplinary approach and apply a multitude of 443 tons in 2004. strategies that are based on solid research concerning the · There is a statistical significant downward trend who, what, where, and why of roadside littering. It does not in overall litter generation on county roads and on appear to be important which department leads or is admin- interchanges. istratively responsible for the campaign as long as a lead · Individual components of litter showed statistically agency champions the cause of litter prevention. significant decreases between 1999 and 2004. ­­ All beverage containers combined decreased sig- The typical organizational structure for the litter preven- nificantly on both interchanges and all roadways tion program is for a state agency or department to assume combined. a lead role and to collaborate with other state departments, ­­ Glass beverage containers decreased on both inter- volunteer associations, private businesses, and so on. How- changes and all roadways combined. ever, the Florida model positions the state KAB affiliate as ­­ Construction and demolition debris on interchanges the lead agency, which in turn relies heavily on local affili- decreased significantly and showed a strong down- ates to develop and promote programs that are applicable and ward trend on all road types. appropriate to the local condition. ­­ The accumulation of tires/auto rubber products exhibited a strong downward trend on all road types, In three of the four case studies, the advertising compo- except interchanges. nents of the litter prevention campaigns are well developed ­­ The decrease in accumulation of fast food contain- and are comparable to traditional private sector commercial ers on interchanges was statistically significant, and advertising. The slogans that have been adopted in these showed a strong downward trend on all road types. jurisdictions are unapologetic, straightforward messages ­­ All alcoholic beverage containers combined and glass concerning the unacceptability of roadside littering. These alcoholic beverage containers showed a statistically slogans are the common thread through all of the litter pre- significant decrease on all road types combined. vention material.

38 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS Roadside litter and litter collection are significant issues for The literature review conducted for this synthesis indicates road authorities in the United States and Canada. In addi- that the effectiveness of individual litter prevention strategies is tion to the staggering cost of roadside litter collection, litter largely undetermined. The literature is replete with research on itself has been linked to motor vehicle collisions, injuries the effects of messaging, trash can design and placement, and to maintenance workers and wildlife, roadside bush fires, penalties on litter reduction. However, the majority of these stud- and the release of toxic substances into the environment. ies are not measures of success as it applies to roadside litter. It is Unproven impacts of roadside litter include increased preva- uncertain whether the results from a cafeteria or a campground lence of animal­vehicle collisions resulting from food dis- are directly transferable to a highway roadside. Still, some of pro- carded at the roadside and loss of tourism owing to a littered grams that have been studied have been found to be effective. environment. Specifically, facilities with Adopt-a-Highway (AAH) programs have 13% to 31% less litter than similar non-AAH facilities, and One of the primary tenets in litter prevention is that litter litter collection before roadside mowing is an effective method of begets litter. Research has shown repeatedly that keeping an reducing visible litter. Other measures such as passing container area litter-free will greatly reduce the incidence of new litter. deposit laws and establishing local Keep America Beautiful This suggests that prevention and collection efforts need to affiliates have documented successes but are perhaps outside of be maintained or bolstered. the mandate of the department of transportation (DOT). FIGURE 16 Example of promotional material showing a littered environment (Source: Tennessee DOT).

39 FIGURE 17 Example of promotional material showing a clean roadside (Source: Utah DOT). Research also purports that advertising and education Finally, the case studies strongly suggest that advertising material reflect a social norm that littering is not common- campaigns (for education and encouragement) be compa- place (i.e., visual messages would show a clean environment as rable to traditional private sector commercial advertising. It opposed to a littered environment). Displaying a littered envi- is important that slogans and other advertising material be ronment in advertisements and promotional material lessens attention-grabbing and memorable, delivering a straightfor- the effect of the message, yet this is a common mistake made ward, unapologetic message concerning the unacceptability in roadside litter prevention efforts (see Figures 16 and 17 for of roadside littering. littered and clean roadside environments, respectively). Roadside litter prevention efforts are hampered, however, The enforcement community has a promising opportunity because nationally the attempts to address the roadside lit- with closed circuit television to monitor high litter roadsides ter problem are largely fragmented and underresearched. and reduce litter. Privacy issues that arise would be similar Existing efforts lack the synergy that might be created by to those already considered by speed cameras and red light a national coordination of roadside litter prevention efforts. cameras that have been deployed in some states. The individual states are in various stages of program devel- opment, using different organizational structures and strate- The survey of state DOTs reveals that the cost of road- gies. In some cases, the DOT is the lead agency; in others, side litter collection and disposal is about $430 to $505 per the DOT is a supporting agency to other state departments. centerline-mile. Furthermore, although a variety of educa- The successes of the various programs in reducing roadside tion programs and encouragement strategies are available litter have been documented only by some of the well-devel- for roadside litter prevention, no distinct trends or patterns oped state programs. have emerged in the use of these strategies. The opposite is true for enforcement and litter collection for which the fol- This is not to say that roadside litter prevention efforts lowing trends are apparent: have not enjoyed some success. The findings from the Insti- tute for Applied Research demonstrate a drop in overall lit- · Penalties for roadside littering include monetary fines ter rates over time, which may indicate that litter prevention and community service for offenders. programs in the United States are working. Furthermore, the · Enforcement is provided by police and state officials. shift from intentional to accidental litter is significant, and is · In addition to state maintenance personnel (or con- a strong indicator that campaign efforts might now be better tractors), AAH, prison work crews, and community directed toward accidental litter prevention efforts. On that service programs are widely used roadside litter col- note, the litter prevention community has adopted the term lection strategies. "accidental litter" to describe litter that was not deliberately or knowingly deposited on a road. The term "accidental" may The surveyed agencies provided a variety of opinions on imply that this litter is random and not culpable. It may be an key elements for a successful antilitter program, including effective strategy to use the term "negligent litter" because partnering with others, funding, and good communications. willful acts, such as securing cargo, and being more diligent The case studies clearly support the need for a multistake- about the potential for litter may further reduce litter. holder approach that uses solid research on the who, what, when, where, and why of roadside littering to select and Overall, however, quality effectiveness evaluations con- implement multiple, targeted antilitter strategies. Further- cerning roadside litter are rare, and road authorities and more, it seems less important who leads the multistake- government agencies may be hesitant to invest in litter holder effort as long as a lead agency champions the cause. programs that have not been proven effective. Only a few

40 roadside litter prevention programs produce evaluations. One of the primary obstacles in developing effective litter Moreover, currently documented evaluations typically use prevention campaigns, and in attracting funding for these the frequency or density of visible roadside litter as the sole programs, is the lack of reliable data on the roadside litter measure of success. Other performance measures could problem. The state survey clearly demonstrates that state be considered, such as injuries to workers and volunteers, DOTs do not have a consistent metric for roadside litter motor vehicle crashes, roadside fires, and so on. Standard collection (e.g., weight, volume, and so on). The costs and data collection methods and templates will allow state and impacts of roadside litter need to be better documented and municipal road authorities to pool collected data and obtain widely publicized. The cost of roadside litter and litter col- a better understanding of causative factors in roadside litter lection in the United States is staggering and likely would be and appropriate target audiences for education and enforce- surprising to the general public and decision makers. ment programs.

41 REFERENCES AD Council, "Thirty Years after `The Crying Indian': Bullard, R., Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environ- Thoughts on Development of New Littering Campaigns," mental Quality, 3rd ed., Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., presented at the Georgia Litter Summit, Atlanta, Aug. 30, 2000. 2006. Burgess, R.L., R.N. Clark, and J.C. Hendee, "An Experimen- Andres, D.L. and C.J. Andres, "Roadside Litter and Current tal Analysis of Anti-Litter Procedures," Journal of Applied Maintenance Waste Management Practices: Are We Behavior Analysis, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1971, pp. 71­75. Making Any Progress?" Conference on Maintenance Caltrans, "The California Department of Transportation Lit- Management, Transportation Research Board Confer- ter Abatement Plan: A Strategic Plan of Actions Designed ence Proceedings No. 5, Transportation Research Board, to Improve California's Environment," California Depart- National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. ment of Transportation Litter Abatement Task Force, 135­143. May 2007. Baker, M.D., S.E. Moore, and P.H. Wise, "The Impact of CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), "Quebecers `Bottle Bill' Legislation on the Incidence of Lacerations May Face 20-Cent Tax on Plastic Bags," CBC News, in Childhood," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. Aug. 10, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/ 76, No. 10, Oct. 1986, pp. 1243­1244. canada/montreal/story/2007/08/10/plastic-bags.html Baltes, M.M. and S.C. Hayward, "Application and Evalua- (accessed Sep. 20, 2008). tion of Strategies to Reduce Pollution: Behavioral Con- Cialdini, R.B., "Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the trol of Littering in the Football Stadium," Journal of Environment," Current Directions in Psychological Sci- Applied Psychology, Vol. 61, 1976, pp. 501­506. ence, Vol. 12, 2003, pp. 105­109. Beck, R.W., "Georgia 2006 Visible Litter Survey: A Base- Container Recycling Institute, "Litter Studies in Seven Bot- line Survey of Roadside Litter," conducted for Keep tle Bill States," 2007 [Online]. Available at http://www. America Beautiful and Georgia Department of Commu- bottlebill.org/about / benef its /litter/7bbstates.htm nity Affairs, Atlanta, Jan. 2007a. (accessed on Sep. 12, 2008). Beck, R.W., "Literature Review--Litter: A Review of Litter Dan Jones & Associates, "UDOT Trash/Litter Survey," sur- Studies, Attitude Surveys and Other Litter-related Litera- vey conducted Dec. 26, 2007­Jan. 3, 2008, Results ture," conducted for Keep America Beautiful, July unpublished. 2007b. Davey Resource Group, "Ohio Statewide Litter Study," Final Beck, R.W., "Tennessee 2006 Visible Litter Survey: Final Report, Division of Recycling & Litter Prevention, Ohio Report," conducted for Tennessee Grocers and Conve- Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, June nience Store Association, Feb. 2007c. 2004. Bitgood, S., J. Carnes, and D. Thompson, "Control of Litter- de Kort, Y.A.W., L.T. McCalley, and C.J. H. Midden, "Per- ing: A Comparison of Three Approaches," Visitor Behav- suasive Trash Cans: Activation of Littering Norms by ior, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1988, pp. 7­8. Design," Environment and Behavior, Vol. 40, Nov. 2008, Black, D., "Litter Lout Drivers Face Hi-Tech Crackdown," pp. 870­891. The Journal, Apr. 19, 2006 [Online]. Available: http:// Dowling, E., "Don't Waste Our Roadsides: Regional Litter icteesside.icnetwork.co.uk/thejournal/news/tm_objectid Campaign," Final Report, Barwon Regional Waste Man- =16963823&method=full&siteid=50081&headline= agement Group, North Greelong, Australia, Mar. 31, litter-lout-drivers-face-hi-tech-crackdown-name_page. 2005. html#story_continue (accessed Aug. 30, 2008). Durdan, C.A., G.D. Reeder, and P.R. Hecht, "Litter in a Uni- Boyce, J., "Is Inequality Bad for the Environment and Bad versity Cafeteria: Demographic Data and the Use of for Your Health?" In Different Takes, No. 8, Population Prompts as an Intervention Strategy," Environment and and Development Program, Hampshire College, Amherst, Behavior, Vol. 17, No. 3, May 1985, pp. 387­404. Mass., 2001. Dwyer, W.O., F.C. Leeming, M.K. Cobern, B.E. Porter, and Bremer, S., "Review of US Litter Abatement, " Publication J.M. Jackson, "Critical Review of Behavioral Interven- No. 98-501, Solid Waste and Financial Assistance Pro- tions to Preserve the Environment: Research Since 1980," gram, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olym- Environment and Behavior, Vol. 25, No. 3, May 1993, pp. pia, 1998. 275­321.

42 FESA (Fire & Emergency Services Authority of Western Literature," Environment and Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 2, Australia), "FESA Annual Report 2005­2006," Fire & March 1995, pp. 153­183. Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia, Iowa Department of Transportation, "Adopt-A-Highway Perth, 2006 [Online]. Available: http://www.fesa.wa.gov. Program Dangers," Report to the State of Iowa 78th Gen- au/internet/upload/353351307/docs/fire2.pdf (accessed eral Assembly, Iowa Department of Transportation, Sep. 12, 2008). Ames, Jan. 2000. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), "Report on the Institute for Applied Research (IAR), "Litter Trends Over Study of Highway Litter, With Recommendations," Fed- the Last Thirty Years," Report S-2.4, March 2006. eral Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1974 [Online]. Abstract available: http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/ Keep Wales Tidy, "Plastic Bag Litter Position Paper," July record/tris/00264303.html (accessed Sep. 13, 2008). 2006. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), Manual on Uni- Kelling, G. and C. Coles, "Fixing Broken Windows: Restor- form Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highway, ing Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities," American Traffic Safety Services Division, American ISBN 0-684-83738-2, 1996. Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi- Krauss, R.M., J.L. Freedman, and M. Whitcup, "Field and cials, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and Federal Laboratory Studies of Littering," Journal of Experimen- Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2003. tal Social Psychology, Vol. 14, 1978, pp. 109­122. Finnie, W.C., "Field Experiments in Litter Control," Environ- Leistikow, B.N., D.C. Martin, and C.E. Milano, "Fire Inju- ment and Behavior, Vol. 5, No. 2, June 1973, pp. 123­144. ries, Disasters, and Costs from Cigarettes and Cigarette Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Lights: A Global Overview," Preventive Medicine, Vol. "The Florida Litter Study: 1997," Report #S97-14, con- 31, No. 2, Aug. 2000, pp. 91­99. ducted for the Florida Legislature and the Florida Depart- Liggett, R., A. Loukaitou-Sideris, and H. Iseki, "Bus Stop­ ment of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Nov. Environment Connection: Do Characteristics of the Built 1997. Environment Correlate with Bus Stop Crime?" In Trans- Florida Department of Transportation, "Traffic Engineering portation Research Record, No. 1760, Transportation Manual: Signs," Section 2.2.1: Florida Litter Law Signs, Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, June D.C., 2001, pp. 20­27. 2004. Litter Task Force, "Keeping Washington Clean--Litter Pre- Forbes, G., "The Safety Impacts of Vehicle-related Road vention and Pickup Recommendations to Washington Debris," AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washing- State Legislature," Publication No. 97506, Olympia, ton, D.C., June 2003. Wash., Dec. 1997. Geller, E.S., "Prompting Antilitter Behaviors," Proceedings "Meth-Lab Litter Poses Hazard for Road Crews," USA of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psycho- Today, 2006 [Online]. Available: at http://www.usatoday. logical Association, 1973, pp. 901­902. com /news /nation /2006 - 05-30 -meth-lit ter_ x.ht m (accessed Sep. 10, 2008). Geller, E.S., J.F. Witmer, and A.L. Orebaugh, "Instructions as a Determinant of Paper--disposal Behaviors," Envi- Mielke, R., "Study of Ecological Preservation (Littering ronment and Behavior, Vol. 8, 1976, pp. 417­438. Behavior): Attitude, Disposition and Social Norms as Predictors of Behavior," Zeitschrift Fuer Sozialpsycholo- Geller, E.S., W. Brasted, and M. Mann, "Waste receptacle gie, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1985, pp. 196­205. Designs as interventions for Litter Control," Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 9, 1980, pp. 145­160. O'Neill, G.W., Blanck, L.S., and M.A. Joyner, "The Use of Stimulus Control Over Littering in a Natural Setting", Grasmick, H.G., R.J. Bursik, and K.A. Kinsey, "Shame and Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol. 13, 1980, pp. Embarrassment as Deterrents to Noncompliance with the 379-381. Law: The Case of an Antilittering Campaign," Environ- ment and Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 2, Mar. 1991, pp. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Traffic Manual, 233­251. Toronto, Canada, 2000. Haines, B., "Litter on Georgia's Roadsides," presentation Rai University, "History and Nature of Social Change Cam- made to the Governor's Litter Summit, Georgia Depart- paigns," Social Marketing Lecture Notes, 2008 [Online]. ment of Transportation, Atlanta, Aug. 29­30, 2006. Available: http://www.rocw.raifoundation.org/ management / bba /socialmarketing /lecture-notes / Huffman, K.T., W.F. Grossnickle, J.G. Cope, and K.P. Huff- lecture-02.pdf (accessed July 28, 2008). man, "Litter Reduction: A Review and Integration of the

43 Reich, J.W. and J.L. Robertson, "Reactance and Norm Texas Department of Transportation, "The History of Don't Appeal in anti-littering Messages," Journal of Applied Mess with Texas" [Online]. Available: http://www. Social Psychology, Vol. 9, 1979, pp. 99­101. dontmesswithtexas.org/DMWT_History.htm (accessed Sep. 18, 2008). Reiter, S.M. and W. Samuel, "Littering as a Function of Prior Litter and the Presence or Absence of Prohibitive Signs," Tobin Consulting Engineers, "National Litter Seminar: Final Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, Summary Report," Revision 3, Tobin Consulting Engi- 1980, pp. 45­55. neers, Galway, Jan. 2008 [Online]. Available: http:// www.litter.ie/Website/2008%20Website/Seminar%20 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Workshop%20Final%202007.pdf (accessed Oct. 6, "Lethal Litter," West Sussex, Britain, Oct. 9, 2007 2008). [Online]. Available: http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/ Satellite?pagename =RSPCA/Page/RSPCAArchive Torgler, B., M.A. Garcis-Valinas, and A. Macintyre, "Justifi- NewsTemplate & cid =1110904571572 & a r t icleId = ability of Littering: An Empirical Investigation," The 1182868814469 (accessed Aug. 28, 2008). Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Note di Lavoro Series Index, 2008 [Online]. Available: http://www.feem.it/ Schnelle, J.F., M.P. McNees, M.M. Thomas, J.G. Grendich, Feem/Pub/Publications/WPapers/default.htm (accessed and G.P. Beagle, "Prompting Behavior Change in the July 27, 2008). Community: Use of Mass Media Techniques," Environ- ment and Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 1980, pp. Victoria Litter Action Alliance, "Litter Prevention Road 157­166. Signs," Victoria, Australia, 2006. Spacek, S., "The American State Litter Scorecard: A Socio- Victoria Litter Action Alliance, "Litter Strategy: Back- political Inquiry into Littering and the Response Role of ground Paper," Victoria, Australia, n.d. [Online]. Avail- 50 American States," presented to the 2008 American able: http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/ Society for Public Administration Conference, Dallas, documents/Litter_Strategy_Background_Paper.pdf Tex., Mar. 9, 2008. (accessed Sep. 23, 2008). Stein, S.R. and D.B. Syrek, "New Jersey Litter Survey: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, "Litter 2004--A Baseline Survey of Litter at 94 Street and High- Picks," Electronic Newsletter, Division of Environmental way Locations," performed for the New Jersey Clean Enhancement, Virginia Department of Environmental Communities Council, Trenton, Jan. 28, 2005. Quality, Richmond, Nov. 2007. Takahashi, N. "A Study of Litter Prevention at a Shopping Mall," Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 2, 1996, pp. 94­101.

44 APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire NCHRP Project 20-5 Synthesis Topic 39-07 Reducing Litter on the Roadsides Despite the annual expenditure of millions of dollars on litter prevention and removal, roadside litter is omnipresent. Roadside litter impacts roadway aesthetics, economic development/tourism, public health and safety, and diverts Department of Transportation (DOT) funds from other activities such as maintenance, congestion mitigation, roadway reconstruction and rehabilitation, and safety improvements. This National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) synthesis project will document current practices employed by road authorities to reduce roadside litter. It is anticipated this synthesis will provide useful information for all agencies involved in roadside litter prevention and abatement. The objective of this questionnaire is to gain a better understanding of the state-of-the-practice for designing, implementing, and measuring successful strategies in roadside litter reduction, to identify best practices, and to document gaps in existing knowledge and research needs. We would appreciate your participation in this survey. This survey should be completed by the person(s) in your jurisdiction who is (are) most familiar with roadside litter abatement. All responses will be included in a final study report, including the names of the responding agencies, and the name of the primary respondent. However, personal contact information will not be shared with any one except the study team. Please return the completed questionnaire by Friday, June 6, 2008, via e-mail, fax, or postal mail to: Gerry Forbes E-mail: gerry@intus.ca Intus Road Safety Engineering Inc. Fax: 905-332-9777 2606 Bluffs Way RR 2 Milton, ON L9T 2X6 CANADA If you have questions, please contact Gerry Forbes via e-mail (gerry@intus.ca) or telephone (905-332-9470). Your participation is appreciated.

45 PART 1: CONTACT INFORMATION 1. Name: _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Title: ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Agency: _____________________________________________________________________ 4. Address: _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Telephone: _________________________ 6. Fax: ______________________________ 7. E-mail: ______________________________________________________________________ PART 2: SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 8. Please provide your jurisdiction's statistical data concerning roadside littering for the three years indicated below. (Enter a number in each box or DK if you "don't know") Year 2007 2006 2005 a. How many citations were issued for littering and illegal dumping on roadways and roadsides in your jurisdiction? b. How many of the citations indicated above resulted in convictions? c. How many centreline-miles of road are under your jurisdiction? Specify: miles kilometers d. How much litter was collected from the roadways and roadsides in your jurisdiction? Specify: pounds tons kilograms tonnes cubic yards cubic metres e. What is the DOT's annual expense for litter collection on roadways and roadsides in your jurisdiction? f. What is the DOT's annual expense for disposal of litter that was collected on roadways and roadsides in your jurisdiction? g. How many workers or volunteers have been injured while collecting roadside trash (e.g., struck by vehicle, cut by broken glass, etc.)? 9. Who collects the litter from roadways and roadsides in your jurisdiction? ( Check all that apply.) DOT State police Private contractor Other agencies under contract (i.e., Conservation Corps, Division of Forestry) Volunteer groups Prison work crews Individuals conducting community service Other Æ Specify: ____________________________________________________________________

Next: APPENDIX B Survey Responses »
Reducing Litter on Roadsides Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 394: Reducing Litter on Roadsides explores the state of the practice in reducing roadside litter as it involves state departments of transportation (DOTs). The report provides information concerning the prevention and removal of roadside litter, unfulfilled needs, knowledge gaps, and underperforming activities. It covers enforcement, education, awareness, and engineering methods for both litter prevention and collection.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!