Click for next page ( 43

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 42
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.