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 9
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
OCR for page 10
OCR for page 11
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
OCR for page 12
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.
OCR for page 13
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.
