Reducing Litter on Roadsides (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 1-55
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
NCHRP NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM SYNTHESIS 394 Reducing Litter on Roadsides A Synthesis of Highway Practice
|
From page 2... ...
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.
|
From page 3... ...
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.
|
From page 4... ...
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 comerative 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.
|
From page 5... ...
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress 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.
|
From page 6... ...
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.
|
From page 7... ...
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.
|
From 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
|
From page 11... ...
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.
|
From page 12... ...
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 personnel.
|
From page 13... ...
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.
|
From page 14... ...
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.
|
From page 15... ...
documents that were related to litter prevention and abatement measures, litprograms 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.
|
From page 16... ...
Any reports in the field of litter prevention and abatement were reviewed and are included in The first appearance of a comprehensive review of existthe 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 Washon 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)
|
From page 17... ...
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.
|
From page 18... ...
and found to be unsuccessful because major factors that significantly affected litter rates (i.e., trafof 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)
|
From page 19... ...
The exposure-adjusted litter rates significant results. show that urban freeways and residential streets present the greatest exposure to litter.
|
From page 20... ...
compared the effect of two types tion campaign. The campaign stressed threats of shame and of litter prevention signs (threatening versus cooperation)
|
From page 21... ...
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)
|
From page 22... ...
reported on the effectiveness of a shortterm 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.
|
From page 23... ...
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)
|
From page 24... ...
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 communithan 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.
|
From page 25... ...
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.
|
From page 26... ...
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 stadents)
|
From page 27... ...
For example, in 60% of the responding juristhe 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.
|
From page 28... ...
. 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.
|
From page 29... ...
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. Jurisdicfollowing 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.
|
From page 30... ...
Littering is a criminal offense in 18 of the lecting roadside litter) , imprisonment, and restitution or res31 responding jurisdictions (58%)
|
From page 31... ...
. 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.
|
From page 33... ...
23 FIGURE 6 Litter laws and penalties in Texas. (Source: Texas Department of Transportation)
|
From page 34... ...
. Table 10 Litter hotlines that allow citizens to report roadside litterFREQUENCY OF LITTER ENFORCEMENT AND ILLEGAL ing are being used or are being considered by 46% of responDUMPING CAMPAIGNS dents (N = 35)
|
From page 35... ...
"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.
|
From page 36... ...
. Two jurisdictions mentioned that the general driving public was the In the responding jurisdictions, roadside litter collection is specific target audience.
|
From page 37... ...
27 FIGURE 10 Does your DOT have "cover your load" measures? FIGURE 11 Roadside litter collection programs.
|
From page 38... ...
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.
|
From page 39... ...
Frequency of roadside litter surveys; (b ) Frequency of behavior and/or attitudes surveys; (c )
|
From page 40... ...
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 vigoridentified 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.
|
From page 41... ...
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.
|
From page 42... ...
· Prosecuting Attorney's Council of Georgia In 2002, it was recommended that the current litter goal In 2006 the Georgia General Assembly passed the Combe 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)
|
From page 43... ...
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)
|
From page 44... ...
. 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.
|
From page 45... ...
Increase emphasis on the existing legal system for force was composed of representatives from litter-taxpaying littering and illegal dumping to strengthen enforceindustries 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.
|
From page 46... ...
It reinstitutes a toll-free numary 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.
|
From page 47... ...
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.
|
From page 48... ...
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.
|
From page 49... ...
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.
|
From page 50... ...
The cost of roadside litter and litter cola 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.
|
From page 51... ...
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]
|
From page 52... ...
123144. ries, Disasters, and Costs from Cigarettes and Cigarette Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Lights: A Global Overview," Preventive Medicine, Vol.
|
From page 53... ...
2, June 1980, pp. Victoria Litter Action Alliance, "Litter Prevention Road 157166.
|
From page 54... ...
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.
|
From page 55... ...
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")
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.