The American State Litter Scorecard:A Sociopolitical Inquiry into Littering

And The Response Role of 50 American States

Steve Spacek, M.P.A.2008 ASPA National Conference

The Fairmont Hotel—Dallas, Texas Sunday March 9, 2008

Welcome to Texas!Ranks 38th (Objectively/Subjectively) in U.S. Litter Removal Effectiveness

Quality

Source Reduction-Environmental Justice--Maintaining a Clean Environment

• Environmental Justice: Condition exists when environmental-related investments, benefits, natural resources, information access, decision-making and justice are equally distributed and enjoyed by ALL, without discrimination, at ANY jurisdictional level.**

• Source Reduction: Physical or Legal endeavor in diminishing the amount of litter/garbage generated or thrown away by individuals*

• Maintaining a Clean Environment: Litter Eradication/Abatement is a source reduction physical activity that provides a healthy, enjoyable surface environment for humans and wildlife.

• *Littering Throwing of small amounts of trash/garbage in small, individualized portions. Dumping is littering on a larger, voluminous scale. Both are environmental crimes creating dangers to public health, safety and welfare.

• **(condensed definition) Central European Workshop on Environmental Justice, Budapest, December 2003.

Environmental Injustice: Litter/Source Reduction Activities Amongst 50 States are Unequal!!

Poor Litter Eradication has led to damaged scenic environments, breeding grounds for diseases,

insects and rodents, and wildlife devastation. In 2005, 1,122 Americans died as result of traffic

accidents caused by littering/movable debris along roadways.*

States Are Lacking in efforts to collect uniform litter abatement data for research comparisons (i.e.

volumes of waste collected by mileage/location, budget funding sources/expenditures; number of

required annual/seasonal cleanups; performance standard surveys; persons cited/prosecuted for

infractions).

Particular States are in regions “increasingly plagued with [appalling health] symptoms produced by

[tolerated] cultural and political maladies, leaving their air, water and land conditions ‘seriously

contaminated’”**

Some Expanses of America continue to suffer perpetual environmental, as well as social and

economic discrimination, leading to lower life expectancies than other regions.***

*2005 Traffic Facts, NHTSA. **Bullard; Cochran, A., U. S. Department of Justice-Law. **Bullard; Cochran A.; Sullivan.

HUMANS Cause Littering: Factors Crafting An Unique Environmental Injustice

• Reasons to Litter: Litter Begets Litter; Apathy; Inconvenience; Community Attitudes; Entitlement; Class Alienation, Greed/Ignorance; Governmental Neglect.*

• State/Regional Environmental Values: Early settlers (especially Scotch- Irish) perpetuate Judeo-Christian beliefs: Bend nature to meet man’s needs. New England, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, Pacific Coast: Strongest Environmental Support. Deep South, western Gulf Coast, Rocky Mountains, Dakotas: Weakest. **

• State/Regional Political Culture: Moralist/Individualism (Northeast, Midwest, Far West): significant public intervention to meet citizen interests. Traditionalism (The South): little or no government intrusion--“Non-reception in fostering ecological improvements.”***

• Corporatist-influenced Government: Government Decision-Making “mirrors whims of business.” Companies,“outsiders” buy natural resources at bargain prices. Extracting, low-tech jobs viewed as enabling economic development. Environmental risks were unknown, disregarded--traded for broadened tax base.****

• Perception by Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, Courts: “Not a real crime.” “Simply not enforced, or with lowest Priority” Be witnessed for written citation. Limited convictions: “Insufficient evidence or inability’ to recognize evidence.” NO incarcerations!*****

• Persons of Low-Income, Color (Blacks, Hispanics):: Environmentalism NOT a Priority. Slow to challenge violators. “Mistrust [of government and corporations]…engendered amongst these groups.” “Resented” environmental reforms as misdirecting tax dollars to improve social, economic plights. Movement: “Too white,” “mainstream.”******

• *Bisbort; City Image,; McAndrews; Ockels; U.S. Justice-National Law. **Hays; White in McAndrew. ***Elazar; Neal; Vig and Kraft. • ****Bullard; Camacho; Clarke and Cortner; Feagin and Feagin in Bullard; Miller J.; Miller V.;Sussman, Daynes and West; *****Bisbort;

National Center, “Review Laws;” US. Justice-Environmental; U.S. Justice-National Laws.******Bullard; Camacho; Vig and Kraft; Will in Bullard.

Previous Research:DO MESS WITH IT;

Take Pride In Florida

• Focus: Impact of most salient sociopolitical factors upon littering for all 50 States, with attention on 15 Southernmost states (Florida paper was state-specific).

• Used multiple regression.

• Results 1) Regression models disproved proposal: State Livability Scores, State Waste Disposal Pricings; State Per Person Waste Disposals make ample, state-oriented outcomes approximating a litter measure.

• 2) States possessing Southern-style Traditionalistic Culture or ample impoverished citizens negatively affect their overall livability/quality of life scores.

• 3) Ample Impoverished Citizens drive below national average waste disposal prices; Beverage Deposits influence above national average disposal prices.

The American Litter Scorecard

• First Attempt to rank 50 states for public property environmental outcomes through overall litter removal efforts.

• Cumulative Objective, Subjective Measures chosen for noteworthiness: Objective: Standing determined using reliable, limited, up-to-date scientific data. Subjective: Standing determined using previous emotive, public-sector supplementary scored evaluations.

Methodology• Unit of Analysis: 50 American states excluding District

of Columbia and Territories.

• Data Source providers: Governments; Academicians; Trade Organizations; Think Tanks; Associations— regularly used in scholarly research.

• Scoring Rubric created for each objective, subjective factor. Calculated, aggregated by state. Hierarchal rankings derived from computations.

Objective• State Livability Scores• States with Litter Taxation• States with Beverage Container Laws• States with Comprehensive Recycling Laws• States with Anti-Litter Slogans• Per Capita State/Local Environmental Spending• State Per Capita Daily Waste Disposals• Percent Litter/Debris-related Fatal Car Accidents

• Sources: Congressional; Grassy; Morgan and Morgan; National Solid in Strong; Shireman, McFaddden, Newdorf and Noga; U.S. Transportation; Waste.

Subjective

• State Political Culture Scale Score

• State Public Corruption Conviction Rate

• State Government Performance Grade

• State Highway Performance Score

• Sources: Corporate; Haregen and Karanam; Koven and Mausloff; Pew.

Rankings• OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE• 1 Vermont 1 Minnesota• 2 New Jersey 2 Iowa• 3 Connecticut 3 New Hampshire• 4 Minnesota 4 Vermont• 5 Wyoming 5 Connecticut • 6 Massachusetts 6 Oregon• 7 Maine 7 Utah• 8 Maryland 8 Nebraska• 9 New Hampshire 9 Washington• 10 Virginia 10 Virginia• 11 Iowa 11 Maine• 12 Kansas 12 Wyoming• 13 Delaware 13 Maryland• 14 South Dakota 14 New Jersey• 15 Nebraska 15 Massachusetts• 16 Washington 16 Colorado• 17 Idaho 17 Kansas• 18 Rhode Island 18 Idaho• 19 New York 19 Wisconsin• 20 Utah 20 Delaware• 21 Wisconsin 21 South Dakota• 22 Alaska 22 North Dakota• 23 Hawaii 23 Rhode Island• 24 Oregon 24 New York• 25 Ohio 25 Missouri• 26 North Dakota 26 Indiana• 27 Missouri 27 Ohio• 28 Colorado 28 Michigan• 29 Illinois 29 Arizona • 30 Indiana 30 Pennsylvania• 31 California 31 Hawaii• 32 Pennsylvania 32 Illinois • 33 Florida 33 Montana• 34 Georgia 34 Alaska• 35 Michigan 35 Florida • 36 Montana 36 California• 37 Arizona 37 Georgia• 38 Texas 38 Texas• 39 Oklahoma 39 Oklahoma• 40 North Carolina 40 New Mexico• 41 Tennessee 41 North Carolina• 42 Kentucky 42 Kentucky• 43 Alabama 43 Tennessee• 44 South Carolina 44 Nevada • 45 Louisiana 45 West Virginia• 46 New Mexico 46 South Carolina• 47 Arkansas 47 Arkansas• 48 West Virginia 48 Alabama• 49 Nevada 49 Louisiana• 50 Mississippi 50 Mississippi

Best• Ten Best Objective Programs Ten Best Subjective Programs

• • 20.5 Vermont 26.0 Minnesota• 19.5 New Jersey 20.5 Iowa• 19.0 Connecticut 20.5 New Hampshire• 19.0 Minnesota 20.5 Vermont• 17.5 Wyoming 19.0 Connecticut• 17.0 Massachusetts 18.5 Oregon• 16.5 Maryland 18.5 Utah• 16.5 Maine 18.0 Nebraska• 16.5 New Hampshire 18.0 Virginia• 16.0 Virginia 18.0 Washington

• Features: Non-Sunbelt states with above normal livability scores, lowest per person waste disposals, average per capita state/local environmental expenditures, and little or no public corruption convictions.

Worst• Ten Worst Objective Programs Ten Worst Subjective Programs

• • -1.5 Mississippi -10.5 Mississippi • 0 Nevada -3.5 Louisiana• 1.0 Arkansas -3.0 Alabama• 1.0 West Virginia -2.0 Arkansas• 1.5 Louisiana 1.0 Nevada• 1.5 New Mexico 1.0 West Virginia• 2.0 Alabama 1.5 Kentucky• 2.0 South Carolina 1.5 Tennessee• 2.5 Kentucky 2.5 North Carolina • 3.5 Tennessee 2.5 New Mexico

• Features: Mostly southern Sunbelt states with excessive Traditionalistic political cultures, low livability marks, anti-litter slogans, and above normal, litter-related fatal crashes.

Conclusion/Recommendations

• Littering: Remains an Injustice!

• Numerous States--“In the rear” in providing uniform, categorical litter abatement data for scientific analysis; many are not performing mandated duties paid with the people’s money. Citizens are losing lives.

• Polls: American Majority believes public sector “Not working enough to protect the environment…Economic growth should be sacrificed to do so.”

• The Scorecard: NOT a definitive causation marker. Contributing inquiry into a poorly probed matter.