Click for next page ( 41


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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

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

OCR for page 40
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,

OCR for page 40
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.