KAB.

ORG
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Litter in America: National Findings and Recommendations
P. Wesley Schultz, California State University
Steven R. Stein, Environmental Resources Planning LLC
Keep America Beautifbl (KAB) is a non-profit organization dedicated to community
improvement through litter prevention, waste reduction/recycling, and beautification. KAB was
founded in 1953 and has grown into the nation's leading community involvement organization,
with more than 1,200 local affiliates and participating organizations. Much of the litter
prevention work completed by KAB and its affiliates is based on seminal research conducted in
the 1960s and 1970s about the sources and causes of litter.
In an effolt to update and advance the research foundation for their litter prevention
activities, KAB funded a series of studies in 2008 and 2009 with financial support from Philip
Morris USA, an Altria Company. These studies focused on two broad topics: litter and littering
behavior. With regard to litter, the research team explored the composition of litter across
America: its volume, locations and costs to local communities and businesses. With regard to
littering behavior, the research team explored how often people litter, the individual and
contextual variables that contribute to littering, and the effectiveness of various approaches to
reducing littering rates.
Technical reports from these two sets of studies are available through the KAB website
(www.kab.orgiresearch09). In this integrated executive summary, we summarize the basic
methodology and results from the two funded studies, highlight key findings, and offer
recommendations for ways to integrate these findings into litter prevention activities.
1. Litter: Sources, Characterization and Costs
Tln'oughout this summary, we differentiate between litter (the item) and littering (the
behavior). Litter is any piece of misplaced solid waste, and it can range in size from tiny bits of
paper to large appliances and automobiles. While litter accumulates in all areas of the country,
roadways are a particular focal point. Across the country, there are about 3.8 million miles of
roadway, maintained by national, state, county, and municipal entities. To estimate the amount of
litter along roadways, the research team selected a random sample of 240 roadway segments,
stratified by type and by rural/urban areas. In each segment, a sample area of 300 x IS feet was
identified along the side of the roadway. Observations were then made of littered objects of 4+
inches within the sample site. Separate observations were made within a IS x IS foot subarea for
littered objects less than 4 inches.
Using the percentage of found litter in theit' random national sample, the researchers were
able to statistically weight and estimate the amount and types of litter across all roadways. Their
results indicate that there are 51.2 billion pieces of litter on roadways nationwide; and of this, the
majority (91 %, or 46.6 billion pieces) is less than four inches. This estimate translates into 6,729
pieces of litter pel' mile of roadway (on each side).
1
The characterization of litter (of all sizes) is shown in Figure I below. As shown, the
most frequently counted littered items were tobacco products (38%), which were predominantly
cigarette butts. Paper (22%) and plastic (19%) comprise the next largest types of materials.
Figure 1: Aggregate Composition of Litter, All U.S. Roadways
Constructi:>n
Debris,
Tobacco
37.7%
Vehicle
Organic,
4.2%
19.3%
Each item of observed litter was also coded into a likely source. As might be expected,
the majority of roadside litter was attributed to motorists (53%). However, a sizeable percentage
was attributed to pedestrians (23%), improperly covered loads (16%), debris from the vehicles
themselves (2%), and spillage from receptacles in the surrounding vicinity (1 %).
Historically in studies of litter, there has been a specific emphasis on beverage containers.
The current estimates project a total of 1.4 billion beverage containers on our nation's roadways
(3% of all litter). While the majority of these containers are beer (30%) and soft drinks (25%),
there has been a growth in the number of water (6%) and sports drinks (3%).
Multi-linear regression analyses were performed of site attributes that correlated with the
quantity of observed litter. Key findings included:
Residential areas were 40% less littered than roadways in general.
Locations near loading docks were 29% less littered.
Roadways near convenience stores were 11 % more littered.
Roadways near commercial establishments were 11 % more littered.
Solid waste and recycling facilities were associated with less litter than average
within 1 mile, but more litter for 2-5 miles. This effect increased as the number of
facilities increased.
2
The methodology used in the 2009 study allowed for comparisons to a 1969 national
litter study, also funded by KAB. Several significant conclusions can be drawn when comparing
the 1969 and 2009 litter surveys:
The actual count of overall litter is down by 61 % since 1969.
This decrease, a result of successful education, ongoing cleanup effotts and changes in
packaging, is reflected in dramatic reductions of paper, metal and glass litter since 1969.
Plastic litter has increased by 165% since 1969.
Figure 2: Challge ill Litter Sillce 1969
200.0% ,----------------------------------------------
150.0% -j----------------------------------------
100.0% -j----------------------------------------
50.0% -j----------------------------------------
0.0%
-50.0%
-100.0% -'----------------------------------------------
The results from these comparisons suggest that litter along roadways, at a national level,
decreased by 61% between 1969 and 2009. The reductions are particularly notewotthy in metal
(down 88%), glass (down 86%), and paper (down 79%). Reflecting the increasing use of plastic
in packaging materials over the past 40 years (+340% per capita, source: U.S. EPA), plastic litter
has predictably increased (+ 165%).
The study also sampled six types of non-roadway areas (180 sampling sites) using the
same coding methodology: transition points, storm drains, loading docks, recreation areas,
construction sites, and retail sites. Of these, transition sites and storm drains were the most
littered, though different litter characteristics were repotted at all six types of sites. This is
particularly important given that litter neal' storm drains is likely to wash into local waterways,
with potential for serious environmental contamination.
3
The national costs of litter abatement were estimated using data collected from cities,
counties, states, educational instihltions, and businesses. Indirect costs were estimated with
surveys of real estate brokers, business development officers, property appraisers, and
homeowners. While some obstacles were reported in obtaining comparable data from the diverse
sources, the available data lead to a projected cost of $11.5 billion in annual litter clean-up and
prevention. The bulk of this ($9.1 billion) is incurred by businesses. This estimate is likely an
underestimate, given that many cleanup costs are buried in staff, maintenance and various
departmental budgets.
In addition to the direct costs of litter, the team also explored the indirect costs of litter,
particularly to propelty values and housing prices. The team cites other evidence indicating that
the presence of litter in a community decreases property values by 7%. The repol1ed data bear
out the impact of litter on property values, as 40 percent of homeowners surveyed think that litter
reduces home values by 10-24 percent, while 55 percent of realtors think that litter reduces
property values by about 9 percent, and 60 percent of property appraisers would reduce a home's
assessed value if it was littered.
2. Littering Behavior
The second set of shldies focused on individuals and their littering behaviors. We begin
from the assumption that litter is caused by human behavior, whether intentional or accidental.
To examine individual littering behaviors, the team conducted three studies: an observational
study, intercept interviews with observed litterers, and a nationwide telephone survey.
Behavioral observations. In an eff0l1 to go beyond the typical self-report measures used
to study littering behavior, the research team developed a protocol for observing the disposal
behavior of individuals in public places across the country. Nearly 10,000 individuals were
observed from 130 different locations in 10 states, with sites evenly split between rural, urban
and suburban. Locations included fast food, recreation, gas stations, city centers, rest stops,
medical/hospital, bars/restaurants, convenience stores and retail. The majority of observations
focused on general disposals (that is, any item). The team also conducted some additional
observations focused exclusively on the disposal of cigarette butts.
Each of the 130 sites was coded for refuse infrastructure and existing litter. Across the
130 locations, 118 (91%) had at least one trash receptacle. However, ash receptacles were
considerably less common, and only 61 sites (47%) had an ashtray of any kind. Similarly,
recycling containers were generally uncommon, and only 16 sites (12%) had at least one
recycling bin. Litter was common across the sites, and only two were litter free. The most
frequently observed types of existing litter were cigarette butts, miscellaneous paper, and food
wrappers.
Commensurate with the volume of litter, our team observed a high amount of littering
behavior. Across the sites, our team unobtrusively observed the disposal behaviors of 9,757
randomly selected individuals. Among these, there were 1,962 disposals -- 17% of which were
litter. That is, of the individuals we observed disposing of something while they passed through
the site, 17% resulted in litter. The most frequently littered items were cigarette butts (57% of all
4
cigarette butts were littered), along with food remnants and wrappers. These findings are shown
below in Table I. Contrary to expectations, 81 % of the littering occurred with notable intent.
Table 1: Type and Fl'eqllellcy of Disposed Objects
Butt 146 194
Combo/Mixed Trash 325 12 4%
Paper 251 20 7%
Beverage Cup 180 5 3%
Napkin/Tissue 110 9 8%
Beverage Bottle: Plastic 100 5 5%
Food Renmants 65 16 20%
Food Wrapper 85 14 14%
Beverage Can 59 8 12%
Food Container 57 I 2%
Plastic Bag 38 2 5%
Beverage Bottle: Glass II 0 0%
Unknown II6 10 8%
Other 77 46 37%
TOTAL 1,620 342 17%
Statistical analyses using multi-level modeling examined the contextual and personal
variables that were predictive of littering. Contextual variables included aspects of the physical
surroundings, such as availability of trash receptacles, existing litter, weather, and time of day.
Personal variables were aspects of the individual, such as their age and gender, as well as
motivational variables like awareness, attitudes, and feelings of personal responsibility. The
results showed that 15% of littering behavior was attributable to contextual demands, while 85%
resulted from the individual. The strongest contextual predictors of littering rates included the
availability of trash receptacles (negatively), the distance to the receptacle at the time of disposal
(positively), and the amount of litter already present (positively). At the individual level, age was
predictive of littering, with older individuals littering less than younger. Surprisingly, gender was
not related to littering rates; males and females were equally likely to litter.
A similar set of analyses was conducted on the disposal of cigarette butts. As with
littering in general, the majority of cigarette butt litter (62%) was attributable to personal
variables, while 38% was due to the contextual demands (primarily lack of disposal
infrastructure). Also consistent with the finding for general litter, availability and convenience of
ash receptacles was predictive of littering, as was the presence of existing litter (of any type, not
necessarily cigarette butt litter).
Intercept interviews. The team also conducted intercept interviews with 102 of the
observed individuals. While we did not confront the individuals who were observed littering, we
did ask questions about attitudes, motivation, and past littering behavior. Among the individuals
we interviewed, 23% had just been observed littering. Of these observed litterers, 35% denied
5
littering in the past month, despite the fact that we had just seen them do so. Across the full 102
interviews, 43% reported littering in the past month. The most frequently reported items were
cigarette butts, food wrappers and remnants, and paper. In comparing non-litterers to litterers, a
key distinguishing difference was the repmied personal obligation not to litter; individuals who
were observed littering were much less likely to report a personal obligation to not litter.
National telephone survey. The results from the nationwide observations are compared to
findings from a random digit dialing telephone survey. A sample of 1,039 residents of the United
States completed survey items about their past littering behavior, beliefs and norms about
littering, motivators and barriers for propel' disposal, and demographics.
In the current 2008 national survey, 15% of the sample reported littering in the past
month. By comparison, a 1968 national telephone survey using a nearly-identical set of items
found a 50% admitted littering rate. This finding speaks to the dramatic drop in littering and the
increase in social disapproval of littering over the past 40 years.
While the overall repmied frequency of littering is small, the most commonly repmied
items were cigarette butts, food remnants (apple core or banana peel), and confections
Respondents repolied littering more when: the item was biodegradable, the item was not
recyclable, no trashcan was nearby, and when they were in a hurry. Community appearance was
associated with littering rates, whereby respondents were less likely to repmilittering into clean,
attractive, and beautified areas.
3. Key Findings
The research findings described in this executive summary and detailed in the two
technical reports available through the KAB website, support a number of conclusions and
recommendations. Below we highlight foUl' key findings from across the studies.
A. Litter and littering has decreased in the past 40 years, but it remains an important
problem. In the litter characterization study, visible roadside litter was found to have decreased
by about 61 % since 1968. Similarly, the results from the nationwide telephone survey showed
that 15% of Americans reported littering in the past month, down from 50% in 1968.
Yet despite these marked reductions, litter remains an impmiant problem. Nationwide,
our research estimates that there are 51.2 billion pieces of litter on our nation's roadways, and the
large majority of this litter is less than 4 inches. The nationwide observations showed a national
littering rate of 17% -- that is, of all the disposals that take place in public places (at least, the
types of places we observed), 17% result in litter.
ll. The cost of litter is substantial. Litter has a number of negative consequences,
including substantial costs to business and government, and reduced propeliy values. Estimates
for the cost of litter show that $11.5 billion are spent on abatement and clean-up activities each
year, and this number probably underestimates the true costs.
C. Preventing litter-the person. The cumulative results from both sets of studies clearly
indicate that individuals are the key source of litter. In fact, the observational results found that
6
81 % of observed littering acts were intentional. Similarly, the litter characterization study
estimated that more than 90% of litter found at transition points could be traced back to an
individual's disposal decision. Our estimates show that as much as 85% of littering behavior can
be attributed to the individual (and conversely, 15% to the context).
Two important person-level variables emerged from our analyses. The first is age, where we
consistently find that younger individuals are more likely to litter (and report littering) than older
individuals. This group presents a clear market segment for focused messaging and campaigns.
But going beyond the passive media and messaging campaigns, the finding also highlights the
need to actively involve youth in clean-up and beautification activities. Involving individuals in
clean-up activities can help to raise their awareness about litter as an issue, and to increase their
commitment to prevent litter. A second variable that emerged from our findings is a personal
obligation to not litter. Individuals who hold the belief that littering is wrong, and consequently
feel a personal obligation not to litter, are less likely to do so (both in their self-reports, and in
their observed littering rates).
D. Preventing litter-the context. While it's tempting to focus exclusively on the
person as a source of litter, our research clearly shows that littering is a function of both the
person and the context. Consequently any effort to reduce litter and littering needs to focus on
both.
One of the strongest contributors to littering is the prevalence of existing litter. Consistently
in our results, we find that litter begets litter. Individuals m'e much more likely to litter into
littered environments (as seen in the observational studies), and they are less likely to repOIi
littering into beautified environments (from the telephone survey). These findings strongly
support the need for ongoing clean-up and beautification efforts. Indeed, posting litter prevention
messages or signs in already-littered environments is likely to exacerbate the littering problem,
rather than fix it.
4. Next Steps
The cumulative results from the research reported in this summary provide a foundation for
the next generation of litter prevention activities. In the short section below, we sketch four
broad areas of work and next steps.
A. Areas for new partnerships. Corporate sponsors have been an ongoing source of support
for Keep America Beautiful and its affiliates. While the results from our research show that these
partnerships have been fruitful, it also points to industries and materials that constitute a
significant portion of litter and thus, a responsibility to support KAB's efforts going forward.
I) Plastics. The results from the nationwide study of visible litter show a dramatic increase
in the amount of plastic litter. This shift highlights a change in consumer materials, as
well as packaging practices.
2) Recyclables. In the early days of litter prevention, the focus was on placing and installing
trash receptacles. The current data show that trash receptacles are quite common in public
spaces across the country (91% of the public spaces observed by our team had at least
one receptacle). But recycling containers are far less common, and there is evidence that
7
people have a heightened interest in properly disposing of recyclable materials.
Recyclable items, pat1icularly paper items, were found to be a notew0l1hy portion of
roadside litter and offer an opportunity to both reduce litter and increase recycling rates at
the same time.
3) Cigarette butts. Across all of the data collected in this project, cigarette butts were the
most frequently found pieces of litter, and they were the most frequently littered item.
4) Confections. In both the observational study and the survey of visible litter, confections
emerged as a source of litter.
5) Waste haulers. Trash and recycling collection vehicles have been found to be a source of
litter. When improperly secured during collection and delivery to disposal facilities, these
vehicles can contribute to the litter problem, particularly of smaller items. Developing a
program in pat1nership with hauling stakeholders can help to reduce roadside litter.
B. Messaging. Given the results showing the central role of the person in producing litter, we
recommend developing a consistent set of messages to be used across various media and litter-
prevention communications. The results fi'om our research will be instructive for informing such
messages, but more importantly, they also suggest strategies to avoid. First, we find no evidence
for gender differences in littering rates, and based on these findings, targeting one gender over
another seems unwarranted. Second, there is a clear cOlJl1ection between littered enviromnents
and littering behavior. The presence of litter conveys a norm that littering is acceptable. Thus,
messages that depict litter-strewn environments Ot images of individuals littering - even when
such messages are accompanied by a message that littering is wrong - are imidvisable. The
stronger message is one that emphasizes a clean environment, beautification, and the general
community norm against littering.
C. National litter prevention campaign. The findings from our research indicate that litter
and littering remains an important national issue. But the results also show that change is
possible, and that both litter and littering have decreased over the past 40 years. To this end, we
recommend conducting a multi-year, national litter-prevention campaign. The campaign should
be conceived at the national level, but implemented locally through affiliates and partner
organizations. The campaign should focus on both contextual and personal variables. At the
contextual level, impot1ant elements should include: providing available and convenient
receptacles, regular and ongoing community clean-ups, and a focus on beautification practices
that encourage people not to litter. At the personal level, the campaign should provide media and
outreach materials that emphasize clean communities, general social disapproval for littering,
and an individual's personal obligation to not litter.
D. Continued monitoring. Given the large network of KAB affiliates and partnering
organizations, we recommend coordinated data collection and monitoring of both litter and
littering. These efforts could include a consistent and integrated system for collecting, coding,
and aggregating both accumulated litter, and littering behaviors in communities across the
country. In addition, we see value in developing a uniform reporting mechanism for KAB
affiliates about the costs of litter that can be rolled up at the national level. And finally, we
recommend a data analytic and reporting plan that makes use of this national dataset to track
changes in litter, evaluate and inform campaign and program activities, and examine the effects
of litter at both the local and national levels.
8
In closing, we want to emphasize the importance of focusing on local contexts. While the
results from the reported research provide a window into litter and littering behavior in America,
there was considerable variability across the country. These findings and recommendations will
be useful to structure a national-level program and campaign, but we want to emphasize that
littering is primarily a local issue.
The national-level agenda can help to guide and structure litter-prevention efforts, but these
activities need to be implemented locally. With its network of more than 1,000 affiliates and
participating organizations, Keep America Beautiful is well-positioned to coordinate a national-
level campaign with local involvement. In conducting this work, it will be imp0l1ant for local
organizations to understand the motivational and structural barriers that exist within their
communities, and to devise intervention strategies that are tailored to meet their needs. The
research summarized here can provide an excellent starting point, and the national-level findings
can help to frame and bring focus to the work. But it is the commitment of local organizations,
communities, and ultimately individuals, working in pat1nership with Keep America Beautiful
that will bring an end to litter.
P. Wesley Schultz, Ph.D.
California State University
9
Steven R. Stein, Principal
Environmental Resources Planning LLC
MSWCONSULTANTS
KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL, INC.
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
2009 NATIONAL VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY
AND LITTER COST STUDY
Final Report
September 18, 2009
MID ATLANTIC SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS
6225 Sawyer Road, New Market, MD 21774 301/607-6428
842 Spring Island Way, Orlando, FL 32828 407/380-8951
3407 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 7171731-9708
1705 Sherwood Dr, Fredericksburg, VA 22405 703/942-6307
www.mswconsultants.us
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1
ES 1. In traduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
ES 2. Research Highlights ..................................................................................................................... 1
ES 3. Litter on our Nation's Roadways ............................................................................................... 2
ES 3.1. In traduction ......................................................................................................................... 2
ES 3.2. National Litter Quantification and Composition .......................................................... 2
ES 3.3. Quantity of Litter by Roadway Type .............................................................................. .4
ES 3.4. Sources oELitter on Roadways ......................................................................................... 5
ES 3.5. Focus on Specific Material Types .................................................................................... 5
ES 3.6. Comparisons with 1969 National Litter Smvey ............................................................. 6
ES 4. Litter on Non-Roadway Sites ..................................................................................................... 8
ES 4.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8
ES 4.2. Non-Roadway Litter Survey Results ................................................................................ 8
ES 5. The Cost of Litter Abatement.. ................................................................................................ 1 0
ES 5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 10
ES 5.2. Litter Cost Smvey Results ............................................................................................... 10
ES 5.3. Litter and Illegal Dumping Quantities ........................................................................... ll
ES 6. Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 11
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1. Litter: the Problem Defined .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2. Background ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3. Project Objectiyes .................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4. Report Organization ................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.5. Project Team ............................................................................................................................. 1-3
2. METHODOLOGy ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2. lVIaterial Definitions ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3. Defining and Determining Litter Sources ............................................................................ 2-1
2.4. Roadway Site Sampling Plan """".""""""""""""".""""""""."""""""."."".""""""."""". 2-5
2.4.1 Roadway Types and Sampling Targets ............................................................................ 2-5
2.4.2 Seasonality ............................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.4.3 Metropolitan Area Selection Process ............................................................................... 2-6
2.4.4 II'Ietropolitan Area GIS-Based Smvey Site Selection ..................................................... 2-9
2.5. Non-Roadway Site Sampling ................................................................................................ 2-10
2.6. Field l\Iethodology ................................................................................................................. 2-11
2.6.1 Roadway Site Survey Methodology ................................................................................ 2-11
2.6.2 Non-Roadway Site Smvey Methodology ...................................................................... 2-13
2009 National Litter Study
MSWCONSUlTANTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.7. Da ta Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 2-15
2.7.1 Litter Source Proximity Analysis .................................................................................... 2-16
2.7.2 Waste and Recycling Facility Proximity Analysis ......................................................... 2-16
2.7.3 Comparison widl Prior Results ....................................................................................... 2-17
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................. 3-1
3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2. Roadway Litter Survey Results ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Quantity and Characterization .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Sources of Litter .................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.2.3 Focus on Beverage Containers ....................................................................................... 3-11
3.2.4 Focus on Tobacco Products ........................................................................................... 3-14
3.2.5 Focus on Packaging Litter ............................................................................................... 3-15
3.2.6 Correlation of Roadway Litter to Certain Conditions ................................................. 3-17
3.2.7 Correlation of Litter to Waste Facilities ........................................................................ 3-19
3.3. Comparisons with 1969 National Litter Smvey ................................................................ 3-21
3.4. Non-Roadway Litter Survey Results ................................................................................... 3-24
3.4.1 Transition Points ............................................................................................................... 3-24
3.4.2 Loading Docks .................................................................................................................. 3-27
3.4.3 Storm Drains ..................................................................................................................... 3-29
3.4.4 Retail Areas ........................................................................................................................ 3-32
3.4.5 Recreational Areas ............................................................................................................ 3-34
3.4.6 Constmction Sites ............................................................................................................. 3-37
3.4.7 Comparison of Non-Roadway Litter ............................................................................. 3-39
3.5. Correlation of Conditions to Litter Rates ........................................................................... 3-42
3.5.1 Overview - Econometric Analysis ................................................................................. 3-42
3.5.2 Correlation of Non-Roadway Litter to Certain Conditions ....................................... 3-42
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................... 4-1
4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2.1 Defining Smyey Populations ............................................................................................ 4-1
4.2.2 Smyey Preparation .............................................................................................................. 4-3
4.2.3 Conducting the Survey ....................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.4 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3. Litter Cost Smvey Results ....................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.1 States ..................................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.2 Counties ................................................................................................................................ 4-6
4.3.3 Cities ..................................................................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.4 Businesses ............................................................................................................................ 4-7
4.3.5 Educational Institutions (School Districts and Universities) ....................................... 4-8
4.3.6 Litter Organization Costs .................................................................................................. 4-9
4.3.7 Comparative Da ta ............................................................................................................. 4-1 0
MSWCONSULTANTS
ii 2009 National Litter Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.4. Indirect Costs of Litter .......................................................................................................... 4-14
4.4.1 Homeowners ..................................................................................................................... 4-15
4.4.2 Business Development Officials .................................................................................... 4-16
4.4.3 Real Estate Agents ............................................................................................................ 4-17
4.4.4 Property Appraisers .......................................................................................................... 4-19
4.5. Summaty and Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 4-20
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 5-1
5.1. Summaty and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2. Recommendations fot Futute Study ..................................................................................... 5-3
List of Figures
Figure ES-l Aggtegate Composition of Littet, All u.s. Roadways ............................................................ 3
Figute ES-2 Top 10 Aggtegate Littet Items, All U.S. Roadways .............................................................. ..4
Figure ES-3 Soutces of Aggtegate Littet on All U.S. Roadways ................................................................ 5
Figure ES-4 Litter Types of Interest (Aggtegate) ........................................................................................ 6
Figute ES-5 Change in Visible Littet on Rural Intetstates and Ptitnaq Roads Since 1969 ................... 7
Figute ES-6 Compatison of Littet Incidence by Non-toadway Atea (items pet 1,000 sq.ft.) ............... 9
Figute ES-7 Breakdown of Direct & Indirect Littet Costs in the U.S ..................................................... 10
Figure ES-8 Breakdown of Litter and Illegal Dumping Quantities in the U.S ....................................... 11
Figute 2-1 Sources of Litter ........................................................................................................................ 2-4
Figute 2-2 lVIettopolitan Areas Selected for Litter Surveying ................................................................. 2-9
Figute 3-1 Aggregate Composition of Litter, All U.S. Roadways .......................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2 Composition of 4-inch-plus Littet, All U.S. Roadways ....................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-3 Top 10 Aggregate Litter Items, All U.S. Roadways .............................................................. 3-3
Figute 3-4 Top 10 4-inch-plus Litter Items, All U.S. Roadways ........................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-5 Littet Types of Intetest (Aggtegate) ......................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-6 Littet Types of Intetest (4 inch-plus) ...................................................................................... 3-6
Figute 3-7 Sources of Aggtegate Litter on All U.S. Roadways .............................................................. 3-8
Figute 3-8 Sources of 4-inch-plus Litter on All U.S. Roadways ............................................................ 3-8
Figute 3-9 Comparison of the Soutce of Aggtegate Littet by Roadway Type .................................... 3-9
Figute 3-10 Compatison of the Soutce of 4-inch-plus Littet by Roadway Type .............................. 3-10
Figute 3-11 Compatison of the Source of Aggregate Littet by Utban vs. Rural Roadway Type ... 3-10
Figure 3-12 Compatison of the Source of 4-inch-plus Litter by Utban vs. Rutal Roadway Type.3-ll
Figute 3-13 Types of Beverage Containets, All U.S. Roadways .......................................................... 3-12
Figute 3-14 Types of Beverage Containets (4 it,ch plus), All U.S. Roadways ................................... 3-13
Figute 3-15 Soutces of Beverage Containers, All U.S. Roadways ........................................................ 3-14
Figure 3-16 Packaging Litter by Matetial, All U.S. Roadways ............................................................... 3-16
Figute 3-17 Packaging Littet by Type, All U.S. Roadways .................................................................... 3-17
Figure 3-18 Change in Visible Littet on Rural Intetstates and Ptimary Roads Since 1969 ............. 3-22
2009 National Litter Study iii
MSWCONSULTAtnS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 3-19 Composition of Litter at Transition Points ........................................................................ 3-25
Figure 3-20 Top 10 i\Iost Common Litter Items at Transition Points (Items/l,OOO sq ft) ............. 3-26
Figure 3-21 Sources of Litter at Transition Points ................................................................................. 3-27
Figure 3-22 Composition of Litter at Loading Docks ............................................................................ 3-27
Figure 3-23 Top 10 Most Common Litter Items at Loading Docks (Items/l,OOO sq ft) ................. 3-28
Figure 3-24 Sources of Litter at Loading Docks ..................................................................................... 3-29
Figure 3-25 Composition of Litter at Storm Drains ............................................................................... 3-29
Figure 3-26 Top 10 Most Common Litter Items at Storm Drains (Items/l,OOO sq ft) .................... 3-30
Figure 3-27 Plastic and Other Materials at Storm Drains ...................................................................... 3-31
Figure 3-28 Sources of Litter at Storm Drains ........................................................................................ 3-31
Figure 3-29 Composition of Litter at Retail Areas .................................................................................. 3-32
Figure 3-30 Top 10 Most Common Litter Items at Retail Areas (Items/l,OOO sq ft) ....................... 3-33
Figure 3-31 Sources of Litter at Retail Areas ........................................................................................... 3-34
Figure 3-32 Composition of Litter at Recreational Areas ...................................................................... 3-35
Figure 3-33 Top 10 Most Common LitterItems at Recreational Areas (Items/l,OOO sq ft) ........... 3-36
Figure 3-34 Sources of Litter at Recreational Areas ............................................................................... 3-37
Figure 3-35 Composition of Litter at Construction Sites ...................................................................... 3-38
Figure 3-36 Top 10 Most Common Litter Items at Construction Sites (Items/l,OOO sq ft) ........... 3-38
Figure 3-37 Sources of Litter at Construction Sites ................................................................................ 3-39
Figure 3-38 Comparison of Litter Incidence by Non-roadway Area (items per 1,000 sq.ft.) .......... 3-40
Figure 3-39 Comparison of Tobacco as a Percent of All Litter on Non-roadway Areas ................. 3-41
Figure 4-1 Breakdown of Direct Litter Costs in the U.S ...................................................................... .4-11
Figure 4-2 Breakdown of Litter and Illegal Dumping Quantities in the U.S ..................................... .4-12
Figure 4-3 Breakdown of Annual Litter Grant Funding in the U.S .................................................... .4-13
List of Tables
Table ES-l Aggregate Litter Incidence by Roadway Type ........................................................................ ..4
Table ES-2 Comparison of 1969 and 2009 Study Results: Visible Litter on Rural Interstates and
Primary Roads ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Table ES-3 Top 5 Most Common Litter Items at Non-Roadway Sites (Items/l,OOO sq ft) .................. 9
Table 2-1 Litter Material Categories ........................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2 U.S. Total Roadway Mileage ...................................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2-3 Targeted and Actual Roadway Samples ................................................................................... 2-6
Table 2-4 Allocation of Roadway Sampling Targets to States ............................................................... 2-7
Table 2-5 Targeted and Actual Non-Roadway Samples ................................................................. ; ..... 2-11
Table 2-6 Collection Provider Summary ................................................................................................. 2-14
Table 3-1 Aggregate Litter Incidence b), Roadway Type ........................................................................ 3-6
Table 3-2 4-inch-plus Litter Incidence by Roadway Type ...................................................................... 3-7
Table 3-3 Aggregate Beverage Container Incidence b), Roadway T)'pe ............................................. 3-14
Table 3-4 Tobacco-related Products ........................................................................................................ 3-15
MSWCONSULTANTS
iv 2009 National Litter Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-5 Tobacco Utter by Roadway Type .......................................................................................... 3-15
Table 3-6 Roadways - Variable Impacts ................................................................................................. 3-18
Table 3-7 Utter Generation Test: Sites within 1 Mile of Facility (ies) ............................................... 3-20
Table 3-8 Utter Generation Test: Sites Within 2 Miles of Facility (ies) ............................................. 3-20
Table 3-9 Litter Generation Test: Sites Within 5 Miles of Facility (ies) ............................................ 3-20
Table 3-10 Impact of Solid Waste and Recycling Facilities on Utter Generation ............................ 3-21
Table 3-11 Comparison of 1969 and 2009 Study Results: Visible Utter on Rural Interstates and
Primary Roads ...................................................................................................................................... 3-23
Table 3-12 Summary of Transition Points Surveyed ............................................................................. 3-24
Table 3-13 Summary of Recreational Areas Surveyed .......................................................................... 3-34
Table 3-14 Portions within Recreational Areas Selected for Surveying ............................................. 3-35
Table 3-15 Comparisons of Litter Items/l,OOO Sq Ft. at Non-Roadway Sites ................................. 3-41
Table 3-16 Non-Roadway Variable Impacts ........................................................................................... 3-43
Table 4-1 Definition of Entities to be Surveyed ...................................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2 Summary of Direct Litter Cost Survey Responses ................................................................. 4-4
Table 4-3 Summa,y of Indirect Litter Cost Survey Responses .............................................................. 4-5
Table 4-4 Results of Litter Cost Survey of U.S. States ............................................................................ 4-6
Table 4-5 Results of Litter Cost Survey of U.S. Counties ...................................................................... 4-6
Table 4-6 Results of Litter Cost Smyey of U.S. Cities ............................................................................ 4-7
Table 4-7 Results of Utter Cost Survey of U.S. Businesses ................................................................... 4-8
Table 4-8 Results of Litter Cost Survey of U.S. Educational Institutions ............................................ 4-9
Table 4-9 Estimated Annual Volunteer Hours and Costs Spent on Litter Clean-ups .................... .4-10
Table 4-10 Direct Litter Costs to Various Organizational Entities ..................................................... 4-10
Table 4-11 Estimated Annual U.S. Costs for Litter Clean-up and Prevention ................................. 4-11
Table 4-12 Estimated Annual Tons of Litter Collected ....................................................................... .4-12
Table 4-13 Estimated Annual Grant Funding Received by Entity Type ........................................... 4-13
List of Appendices
Appendix 1\ - Material Types and Definitions
Appendix B - Visible Litter Field Forms
Appencli.x C - Rules for Determining Sources of Litter
Appendix D - Roadway Sampling Sites
Appendix E - Results by Roadway Type
Appendix F - Site Survey Photographs
Appendix G - Litter Cost Survey Instrument
AppendLx H - 1969 to 2009 Study Comparison
2009 National Litter Studr v
MSWCONSULTANTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
vi 2009 National Litter Study

ES 1. INTRODUCTION
The non-profit organization Keep America Beautiful, Inc. (KAB) is the nation's largest
volunteer-based community action and education organization. KAB has a network of nearly
1,000 affiliate and participating organi):ations, with which it forms public-private partnerships
and programs that engage individuals to take greater responsibility for improving their
community's envtromllent. KAB is dedicated to community improvement primarily through
litter prevention, beautification and recycling.
One of KAB's focal points since inception has been to spread awareness of and develop
abatement strategies for litter on our nation's roadways, public spaces, and waterways.
Beginning in 1968 and continuing through the present, KAB has sponsored numerous studies
to inform about vadous aspects of litter. In 2008, KAB continued tlus trend with help from
project sponsor Philip l\<forris USA (PlvIUSA), an Attria Company. Specifically, Pl\-IUSA
funded a KAB-direct research project (performed in 2008 but completed in 2009 and referred
to as the 2009 Study) that represents the most comprehensive analysis to date of the issue of
litter. The major components of the 2009 Study included:
Statistically representative and defensible estimates of the quantity and characterization of
visible litter on our nation's road\vays;
Detailed investigation into the quantity and characterization of visible litter on selected
non-roadway sites; and
National estimates of the direct and indirect cost of litter abatement expended by our
nation's municipalities, institutions, residents, and businesses.
The ultimate goal of tlus research was to supply defensible, comprehensive data to aid KAB in
its ongoing efforts to elevate the issue of litter among national and local leaders as an
important quality-of-life issue, and suggest actionable strategies based on conclusions in the
final report.
ES 2. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS
Tlus study represents the most comprehensive effort to date to measure the quantity,
cOlnposition, sources, and costs of litter incurred by public, private, and institutional
orgaluzations. \'(f]llie the study yielded extensive data that may prove useful for more in-depth
analysis, the key findings of the study are as follows:
There are over 51 billion pieces of litter on our nation's roadways, 4.6 billion of wluch
are larger than four inches in size.
Litter costs U.S. governments, businesses, educational institutions, and volunteer
orgaluzations almost $11.5 billion annually.
Tobacco products continue to be the most prevalent aggregate litter item, comprising
roughly 38 percent of all litter.
2009 National Litter Study ESj
MSWCONSULTANTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Visible litter on rural interstate and primalY roads has decreased significantly since 1969,
according to a detailed comparative analysis of tills 2009 Study and the first national litter
study conducted by KAB in 1969. Tills comparative analysis suggests that visible litter
has decreased approximately 61 percent in the past 40 years.
Paper, metal, glass, and beverage container litter has decreased significantly since
the last national study was conducted in 1969. However, the incidence of plastic items
in the litter stream has increased over 165 percent. This plastic bas the ability to end
up in storm drains and eventually in our waterways causing significant harm to marine life
or on land to wildlife.
Packaging litter comprises 18 percent of all litter; two-thirds of packaging material is
plastic packaging.
Past food packing, Snack Packaging, and Other packaging items comprised 41 percent of
litter 4 inches and greater
The vast majority of litter - 76 percent - appears to originate from motorists and
pedestrians.
The highest incidence of non-roadway litter was found at "transition points,"
which arc entrances to Inovie theaters, bus stops, and other places where sotneone
consuming a food or tobacco product is reCJttired to discard the product before entering.
These bighlights are among the numerous CJuantitative findings contained in the main body of
the report. This Executive Summary expands on these and other findings of particular
interest.
ES 3. LITTER ON OUR NATION'S ROADWAYS
ES 3.1. INTRODUCTION
This executive summary Illghligbts the findings of tbe aggregate litter stream. The body of tbe
report also shows results separately for items of litter tbat are four incbes or more at tbeir
largest dimension.
ES 3.2. NATIONAL LITTER QUANTIFICATION AND COMPOSITION
TillS study found that there were approximately 51.2 billion pieces of litter on our nation's
roadways. Of this total, 46.6 billion (91.0 percent) litter were less than four inches in size
while tbe remaining 4.6 billion items (9.0 percent) were larger than 4 incbes. Figure ES-l
summarizes the aggregate composition of littered items projected to be on our nation's
roadways in 2008.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
ES-2 2009 National Litter Study
EXECUTIVE SUMlVlARY
Figure ES-l Aggregate Composition of Litter, All U_S_ Roadways
Vehicle
Debris,
Construction
Debris, __
Tobacco
37.7%
Organic,
4.2%
2.5%
Paper,
19.3%
4.5%
As expected based on past litter studies, tobacco products - primarily cigarette butts (but can
include cigars, chewing tobacco, and packaging among other items), are the single largest type
of litter (38%), followed by paper (22%) and plastic items (19%).
Figure ES-2 on the following page highlights the top ten individual types of litter, which
collectively contribute 40.3 billion pieces of litter. Results are shown in terms of the number
of pieces per mile of roadway. Consistent prior litter studies, cigarette butts continue to
be the most cotmnon litter item by a margin. The presence of confection litter and
paper fast-food itetns on this list is notable. In total, these top ten litter itetns make up 79
percent of all litter. .
2009 National Litter Study ES-3
MSWCONSUlTANTS
EXECUTIVE SUIvlMARY
Figure ES-2 Top 10 Aggregate Litter Items, All U.S. Roadways
Cigarette Butts -
- - -- ------- -- ------------
36.3%
Other Paper
14.2%
Other Plastic
5.7%
Other Metal & Foil Packets -
4.2%
Confection
Other Expanded Polystyrene
Broken Glass or Ceramic -
Paper Fast-Food Service Items
Construction Debris
Other Plastic Film
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
ES 3.3. QUANTITY OF LITTER BY ROADWAY TYPE
Table ES-1 summarizes the breakdown of litter by roadway type. The total litter items shown
in this table are driven to a great degree by the underlying roadway nlies for each road type.
However, there is a greater amount of litter on national and state roads compared to county
and municipal roads.
Table ES-1 Aggregate Litter Incidence by Roadway Type
Roadway Type Average Items U.S. Road U.S. Litter
per Mile Shoulder Miles (billion)
Urban Roads 7,784 1,983,892 15.4 billion
Rural Roads 6,357 5,621,252 35.7 billion
Subtotal 6,729 7,605,144 51.2 billion
National Roads 19,186 93,216 1.8 billion
State Roads 13,011 1,461,288 19.0 billion
County Roads 5,539 3,562,828 19.8 billion
Municipal Roads 4,277 2,487,812 10.6 billion
Subtotal 6,729 7,605,144 51.2 billion
All Roads 6,729 7,605,144 51.2 billion
As shown, including the shoulders of roads to a 15 foot depth, U.S. roadways in general have
6,729 items of litter per mile or about 1.3 pieces per foot. These data show:
Urban v. Rural: Rural roads and urban roads were found to have a roughly
comparable litter items per mile, but rural roads contribute about 2.3 times more litter
because there are tuany lnore road tnites.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
ES-4 2009 National Litter Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Road Type: The number of litter items per mile decreases as one goes from national
down to municipally maintained roads. National roads are the most heavily littered
per mile, due to heavy traffic and limited access, yet contribute relatively little to the
overall litter rate because of the low number of road miles. State roads are also highly
littered, and contribute over one-third of all litter. Although County roads exhibit a
lower number of litter items per mile, they also contribute roughly one-half of all litter
because of the high number of roadway nilles. 1vlunicipal roads have the lowest litter
incidence per mile, yet also contribute 20 percent of aU litter.
ES 3.4. SOURCES OF LITTER ON ROADWAYS
One of the unique aspects of this study included the use of "context clues" to determine the
like!)' source of litter for each of the individual items. that were documented on the 240
roadways sites. Figure ES-3 summarizes the sources of aggregate litter on all roadway types
based on a first-of-its-kind attempt to categorize litter by source.
Figure ES-3 Sources of Aggregate litter on All U.S. Roadways
Debris, ~ , , ' ' ' ____
Loads,
16.4%
1.5%
Pedestrians,
52.8%
Not unexpectedly, the dominant sources of litter for aU items on all roads are Motorists
(52.8%) and Pedestrians (22.8%), which contributed a combined 76 percent of aU litter. Tlus
suggests that education campaigns targeting individual behavior should continue to prevail as
a strategy for influencing litter generation.
ES 3.5. Focus ON SPECIFIC MATERIAL TYPES
KJ\B has identified a number of litter types which are of particular interest for future
abatement initiatives. These are shown in Figure ES-4. As shown, tobacco products
(primarily cigarette butts) comprised 38 percent of the total litter. Snack, fast food and other
packaging totaled 16.9 percent willie beverage containers totaled 2.7 percent of all items.
Taken together, these items comprise 80 percent of all litter, so any initiatives to reduce litter
2009 National Litter Study ES-5
MSWCONSULTANTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
from any of these sources (especially from tobacco products) could have significant positive
consequences.
Figure ES4 litter Types of Interest (Aggregate)
Tobacco
Products, 37.7%
Other Litter,
18.9%
Total Packaging: 16.9%
Miscellaneous
Beverage
2.7%
Miscellaneous
___ Plastics, 6.3%
Other
Packaging, 9.8%
Snack Food
Packaging, 1.8%
Fast Food
Packaging, 5.3%
ES 3.6. COMPARISONS WITH 1969 NATIONAL LITTER SURVEY
Another goal of tills project was to compare the roadway results of the 2009 Study to a similar
national litter survey that had been conducted in 1968 and 1969, also sponsored by KAB. In
order to align differences in the methodologies of each study, results from the 1969 study
were compared to large litter items (four inches) on rural interstates and rural primary roads
sampled in 2008. It is important to note that the U.S. population has increased from 200
million people in 1969 to 300 million in 2008 - an increase of 50 percent. All else being equal,
it would be expected that the number of litter items per mile would increase by roughly the
same percentage as the overall population. The number of litter items pel' mile has therefore
been normalized to account for the impact of population growth on littering. Figure ES-S
and 'fable ES-2 compare the ROW-adjusted, population-normalized 1969 Study results to the
2009 Study results.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
ES'G 2009 National LittCl' Study

Figure ES-5 Change in Visible Litter on Rural Interstates and Primal)' Roads Since 1969
200.0% ,-----------------------
150.0% +---------------------
100.0% +---------------------
50.0% +---------------------
0.0%
Beverage
Cont:a.i.uen
Misc. PlJ.!otic
-100.0% ..1-______________________ _
Table ES-2 Comparison of 1969 and 2009 Study Results: Visible Litter on Rural Interstates and
Primal)' Roads [1]
Material Change in Litter
Paper -78.9%
Metal -88.2%
Plastic 165.4%
Misc 13.1%
Glass -86.4%
Total -61.1%
Beverage Containers [2J -74.4%
[1] The results In this table are based on a comparison of the results of the 1969 and 2009
National Litter Studies. In order to enable reasonable comparisons, the 1969 Study data
was statistically adjusted to capture only the first 15 feet of the right-of-way, and results
were also normalized to account for the 50 percent growth in population that occurred
from 1969 to 2008.
[2] Beverage containers were segregated in both the 1969 and 2009 Studies and are shown
separately. In the case of beverage containers only, data from the 2009 Study includes all
beverage containers, regardless of size (e.g. 4" and greater and less than 4"). Because
beverage containers are recognizable in their own specific category, it was considered likely
that the surveyors from the 1969 Study counted all beverage containers - regardless if
they had been crushed or were still intact.
2009 National Litter SttHly ES'7
MSWCONSULTANTS
EXECUTIVE SUIvlMARY
Several significant conclusions can be drawn when comparing the 1969 and 2009 litter
sunTeys:
The actual count of overall litter is down 61 percent since 1969.
This decrease, a result of successful education, ongoing cleanup efforts and changes in
packaging, is reflected in dramatic reductions of paper, metal and glass litter since
1969.
Plastic litter has increased by 165 percent since 1969.
Taken together, these data show that visible litter on our nation's roads has declined
significantly in the past 40 years. However, changes to the mix of packaging materials and the
physical characteristics of some items leave additional opportunities for future improvement.
ES 4. LITTER ON NON-ROADWAY SITES
ES 4.1. INTRODUCTION
Six non-roadway areas \verc evaluated in tius study:
Transition Points;
Loading Docks;
Storm Drains;
Retail Areas;
Recreational Areas; and
Construction Sites
Unlike the roadway surveys, there are no national databases that compile the "universe" of
non-roadway sites, and therefore it is not possible to provide a national estimate of litter on
non-roadways. Rather, the results presented herein are intended to convey the extent of litter
as an observable problem on a range of non-roadway areas that have been found or believed
to harbor meaningful quantities of litter.
ES 4.2. NON-ROADWAY LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Table ES-3 below displays the top five most common items of litter found at each of the non-
roadway sites. As is shown, cigarette butts are the number one itenl found in five of the six
non-roadway sites, with confection litter also among the top five at multiple non-roadway
types.
MSWCONSULTANTS
ES'S 2009 National Litter Study
EXECUTIVE SUM:MARY
Table ES-3 Top 5 Most Common Litter Items at Non-Roadway Sites (Items/1,000 sq tt)
Ranking Transition Loading Storm Retail Recreational Construction
Points Docks Drains Areas Areas Sites
1 Confection Cig. Cig. Butts Cig. Butts Cig. Butts Cig. Butts
Litter Butts
2 Cig. Butts Other Confection Confection Confection Other Paper
Metal Litter Litter Litter
and Foil
3 Vehicle Wooden Other Other Other Paper Other Plastic
Debris Pallets Paper Paper
4 Broken Other Brol<en Paper Food Waste Confection
Glass or Plastic Glass or Fast Food Litter
Ceramic Ceramic Service
5 Other Other Other Plastic Other Plastic Other Metal
Paper Paper plastic Bags and Foil
It is inforn1ativc to evaluate the litter results of the SL'{ non-roadway arcas in cotnparison to
one another. Figure ES-6 compares the relative number of litter items per 1,000 square feet at
non-roadway sites targeted in this project.
Figure ES-6 Comparison of Litter Incidence by Non-roadway Area (items per 1,000 sq.tt.)
584
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

(0
1& 0
1&
".\' .
"'Q"
('r.
".\'

0
19

'/Q'
0",
'l't".
0"
0"
('t-.
0 1:>
('1-
'7
2009 National Litter Study ES'9
MSWCOt4SULTArus
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As shown, on a per 1,000 square foot basis, transition areas are significantly more littered than
any other non-roadway type, at more than l \ , ~ c e the litter as the second closest litter rate.
Retail areas harbor the least litter.
ES 5. THE COST OF LITTER ABATEMENT
ES 5.1. INTRODUCTION
Litter is known to financially impact a , , ~ d e range of entities and organizations in a variety of
\vays. For example, many entities Qoeal govermnent, institutions) and businesses) incur direct
costs by expending resources (personnel, equipment, disposal fees, etc.) for collecting litter.
Indirect costs may also be incurred if litter reduces the value of a parcel of real estate or deters
a customer from entering the premises of a business because of litter or other debris. There is
a great breadth of litter abatement efforts that are ongoing in our economy on a regular basis.
Despite the intuitive awareness that a great deal is expended on litter abatement, there are few
means of quickly and accurately measuring the costs associated with these abatement efforts.
Therefore, a critical part of tlus project was to develop a far-rea clung research protocol that
spanned a wide range of entities involved in litter abatement.
To investigate the estimated direct costs of litter borne by a , , ~ d e range of public and private
entities in the U.S., tlus project utilized a series of surveys of national databases of
governOlcnts, institutions, and businesses which were in turn benchtnarked over a three
11100th titne span.
ES 5.2. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
Tlus study suggests that public, private, and institutional organizations spend at least $11.5
billion annually in direct c.osts to clean up litter. The majority of tlus cost is borne by
businesses. The relative breakdown of litter costs from each entity type is shown in T'igure
ES-7 below.
Figure ES-7 Breakdown of Direct & Indirect litter Costs in the U.S.
Businesses,
79.5%
Cities, 0.<170. __ =
MSWCONSULTANTS
Counties,
1.6%
ES'lO
States, 3.2%
Institutions,
2.1%
Organizations,
5.9%
Volunteer,
0.8%
2009 National Litter Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES 5.3. LITTER AND ILLEGAL DUMPING QUANTITIES
This study also sought to quantify the amount of litter collected by states, counties, cities,
businesses and educational institutions on an annual basis in the United States. This effort
determined that an estimated 4,660,930 tons of litter (43 percent of which is collected by
businesses) is collected each year by these various entities. For perspective, this is more than
the total residential waste generated in the five boroughs of New York City in a one year time
frame. Figure ES-8 below shows the percent breakout of the aggregate litter collected by
entity type.
Figure ES-8 Breakdown of Litter and Illegal Dumping Quantities in the U.S.
Businesses,
42.
States, 3.
Institutions,
1.5%
_ . v l l ' ' ' ~ , 34.2%
17.9%
ES 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following broad conclusions can be made from the work performed in this study.
The amount of visible litter (4" and greater) found on rural interstates and primary roads
has decreased 61 percent since 1969. This decrease is reflected in significant reductions of
paper, glass, and metal litter items, offset in part by an increase in plastic litter.
Litter is pervasive. Perhaps ironically, because litter abatement efforts along our nation's
highways have become commonplace in many jurisdictions, the true extent of litter is
likely obscured.
The cost to clean up litter for all entities is significant.
l'I'Iany entities have no idea of the costs they incur to clean up litter.
l\Jany entities depend on volunteers to clean up litter, a trend that will likely grow in the
current econolluc clitnate.
2009 National Litter Study ES'll
MSWCDtJSUlTANTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Litter consists of a matrix of different problems involving individual carelessness and
negative littering behavior. Thus, there continues to be a need for multiple strategies to
combat the problem.
Continuing population growth of about 3.5 million/year will continue to put pressure on
litter abatement efforts. Even if litter is reduced on a per capita basis, more people will
still tend to result in more litter.
As the U.S. struggles through the difficult economic situation in 2009, budget cuts may
prove detrimental to litter clean-up programs among many public and private entities.
As with any field of study, initial efforts lead to ideas that may enhance future understanding.
In the case of litter, improved understanding serves to inform policy makers, political and
business leaders, community activists, and the public at large about litter as a critical issue.
\\lith these ideas in mind, the following are considerations for future study.
Continue Tracking National Litter Rates: This national study should optimally be
repeated every five to 10 years to provide trend data that can defensibly document
changes in litter rates and inform leaders and the public at large.
Improve Access to Litter-related Data: The results of this study are conducive to
placement on a dynamic, query-driven web-site that allows users to project litter quantities
and composition based on an underlying roadway proftle. Such an on-line interactive web
page, which provides rough projections on the quantity and composition of litter given
underlying roadway types and nmes, would provide KAB and its affiliates ,vith detailed
data regarding litter across the U.S.
Enlist Industry Participation for Litter Cost Research: This study took a broad-based
approach to detelmining litter costs. However, it is hypothesized that it would be highly
informative to recruit a single industq (e.g., fast food restaurants) or a single large
company (e.g., McDonalds) and to enlist assistance at the corporate level to study tile hard
and soft costs of litter throughout the organization. TillS strategy is appealing for two
reasons. First, it starts with a corporate commitment at the top level, willch provides
greater chance of success. Second, it will provide KA13 ,vith a reason to approach a ,vider
range of corporations to explore the problem of litter in a way that may ultitnatel)'
broaden support.
Advanced Sampling Protocol for Non-Roadway Sites: Visible, volumetric and weight
based litter studies have been conducted on various types of roadways \ \ ~ t h i n the United
States over the last 30 plus years. To obtain a truly holistic picture of the amount and cost
of litter in the United States, it would be necessary to develop methods to representatively
sample the many non-roadway locations that are known to harbor litter. A basic
methodology for this could entail field surveying of randomly selected parcels in a city or
county, ,vith the goal of measuring (a) the incidence of litter per unit area covered by the
parcel, and (b) the range of characteristics (such as number of storm drains, transition
points, retail areas, litter and ash receptacles, etc.) contained in the parcel. This idea would
require significant effort to expand into a workable study methodology, but the results, if
successful, could significantly improve the understanding of the total quantities,
dispersion, and composition of litter on non-roadway sites.
A complete discussion of the project methodology, results, and conclusions can be found in
the body of tllls report.
MSWCQtjSUlTANTS
ES'12 2009 National Litter Stucl"
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. LITTER: THE PROBLEM DEFINED
Utter is a form of pollution caused by the willful or careless mishandling or improper disposal
of waste materials. People litter for many reason, but broadly littering behavior stems from a
lack of personal ownership. Citizens sometimes assume that littering is acceptable because
they believe that someone else will take responsibility to clean up that litter. When waste
materials are handled carelessly, such as waste paper out the open of a vehicle
or an empty beverage bottle discharged from an unsecured truck bed, it only adds to the
problem. Both forms of litter become a costly issue to be dealt with by our communities,
institutions, residents, and businesses. As the U.S. population continues to grow, and as our
society becomes increasingly multi-cultural and multi-lingual, the issue of effective litter
abatclnent has become lnore important than ever.
The problem of litter has continued to be difficult to solve precisely because it is not
perceived to be anl0ng the many critical issues facing our nation's environmental
PolicYlllakers. Litter competes with climate change, renewable resources, alternative energy
sources, air and watcr pollution, traditional waste managclnent, and other environmental
issues for media coverage, funding, and policy making. Yet, while recycling rates have grown
steadily since the concept of recycling reached the national consciousness litter rates have
stayed stubbornly high in many parts of the country.
George Kelling's landmark research contained in BlVkell WilldolVs has shown that seemingly
minor problems such as litter can serve as the starting point for a broader community decline,
highlighting the importance for all citizens to assume responsibility for the state of their
community. Viable solutions lllust include comtnunity involvement, ongoing public education
and willingness to volunteer. Ultimately, the ability of politicians, indusu), leaders, community
leaders, policymakers, and planners to effectively deal with litter will require defensible data
about the extent, causes, costs, and possible solutions to the problem. This study is intended
to greatly expand the dialog on the topic of litter.
1.2. BACKGROUND
Non-profit organization Keep America Beautiful, Inc. (KAB) is the nation's largest volunteer-
based community action and education organization. KAB has a network of nearly 1,000
affiliate and participating organizations, which it forms public-private partnerships and
programs that engage individuals to take greater responsibility for improving their
conununity's environment. KAB is dedicated to community improvement primarily through
litter prevention, beautification and recycling.
One of KAB's focal points since inception has been to spread awareness of and develop
abatctncnt strategies for litter on our nation's road\vays, public spaces, and \vaterways. In
1968 KAB sponsored what was at the time a revolutionatl' study on the incidence of litter.
TillS research led to a groundbreaking study in the 1970s that identified seven major sources
of litter:
Pedestrians or cyclists who do not use receptacles.
2009 National Litter Study 11
MSWCONSULTANTS
1. Introduction
l\lotorists who do not usc car ashtrays or litter bags.
Business dumpsters that arc improperly covered.
Loading docks and commercial or recreational marinas inadequate waste receptacles.
Constmction and demolition sites tarps and receptacles to contain debris and
waste.
Tmcks with uncovered loads on local roads and highways.
Household trash scattered before or during collection.
Together, these early research efforts inspired what today has become an ever improving set
of procedures and tools for measuring and tracking litter generation and subsequendy
communicating effectively about the implications of the issue.
Philip Morris USA, An Altria Company (PMUSA), manufacturer of tobacco products which
are known to be a major contributor to litter, has long sponsored KAB in its pursuit of litter
research and abatement. In 2006, PlVlUSA awarded Keep America Beautiful a grant to
conduct research that would provide a revised look at the sources and causes of littering in
America. The findings from tills research would become the backbone for a revised campaign
to address littering issues and bring the significance of tills problem to the public.
In 2008, P1'lUSA continued their commiunent to the issue of litter by funding another KAB-
directed research project that would represent the most comprehensive analysis to date of the
issue of litter. Taken together, the grant encompassed the components of litter:
National estimates of the quantity and characterization of litter on roadway and
non-roadway sources;
National estimates of the direct and indirect cost of litter abatement expended by our
nation's municipalities, institutions, residents, and businesses; and
Groundbreaking behavioral research to identify the environmental and social constructs
that lead to littering.
The ultimate goal of this research was to supply defensible, comprehensive data to aid KAB in
its ongoing efforts to elevate the issue of litter among national and local leaders as an
important quality-of-life issue, and suggest actionable strategies based on conclusions in the
final report. To successfully complete this important research, KAB retained MidAdantic
Solid \V'aste Consultants (MS\V' Consultants) to implement the visible litter survey and litter
cost research components of the grant. I
1.3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The prin1ary objectives of tills project were to:
Comprehensively quantify and characterize litter found 011 U.S. roadways, stratified
based on the entity responsible for roadside litter abatement: national/federal highways,
I The research component involving littering behavior was awarded to a second firm, Action Research, which
specializes in such analysis.
MSWCONSULTANTS
\-2 2009 National Litter Study
1. INTRODUCTION
state-maintained roads, county-maintained roads, and municipally-maintained roads (city,
town, borough, etc.).
Quantify and characterize litter found on the six types of non-roadway areas:
constnlction sites, loading docks, recreational areas, stonn drains, retail shopping, and
transition points (i.e., places such as bus stops where people must discard food, drinks, or
lit tobacco products before entering).
Quantify the direct costs of litter collection, education and enforcement to cities,
counties, businesses, colleges and universities, school districts, and all 50 states and the
District of Columbia.
Qualitatively explore the indirect costs of litter by surveying a random sample of real
estate brokers, property appraisers, homeowners, and business development officers
regarding the suspected effect of litter on the values of homes and on the efforts of cities
and states to persuade businesses to locate in their communities.
1.4. REPORT ORGANIZATION
The full report is divided into the following remaining sections:
Section 2 - Visible Litter Survey Methodology: This section provides a detailed
overview of the methodology used to representatively sample, survey, and statistically
analyze road\vay and non-roadway litter.
Section 3 - Visible Litter Survey Results: TIllS section presents national projections of
the quantity and characterization of litter on our nation's roadways, as well as findings of
interest about litter in non-roadway areas. It also explores factors that correlate to litter
generation. Comparative data are shown by roadway type and by non-roadway area.
Finally, this section also contains a comparison of the findings of this study against a prior
study conducted by KAB in 1 968and completed in 1969.
Section 4 - Litter Cost Survey: TIllS project included an ambitious survey effort aimed
at public and private organizations of all kinds that nlight be engaged in litter abatement
and clean-up. This section outlines the tIlllverse of entities targeted for surveying, details
the survey methodology, and summarizes the results.
Section 5 - Conclusions and Recommendations: While much remains to be
accomplished, tIllS section attempts to offer some conclusions and recommendations
based on the in1plications of the research performed.
Appendices: The report contains a range of appendices that contain more in-depth
results to certain segments of the analysis, as well as supporting study documentation.
1.5. PROJECT TEAM
The professional staff assembled for tills project brought together nationally recognized
experts on the subject of litter. Key experts who participated in tills project included:
John Culbertson, Principal of MSW Consultants, has extensive experience developing
innovative and statistically rigorous waste stream characterization sampling plans and field
data collection projects. He has conducted state-level and national survey research
2009 National Litter Study \'3
MSWCONSUlTANTS
1. Introduction
projects based on rigorous sampling and statistical analysis. Mr. Culbertson co-managed
the project with a focus on internal project performance and provided quality control
throughout the analysis and development of the final report.
Steven Stein, Principal of Environmental Resources Planning, LLC, has managed
and performed visible litter studies in North Carolina, New Jersey, California, Georgia,
and Tennessee and has provided pro bono setvices to Ocean Conservancy's National
lVIarine Debris Management project and to Potomac \'<iatershed Initiative. He has
participated in extensive research regarding the quantification and sourCes of litter
throughout the U.S., including participation in the National Litter Forum during which
dus project was conceived. Mr. Stein, who was employed by j'I'IS\,' Consultants at the
time of the study, developed the overall project approach, served as subject matter expert
on litter and marine debris, and co-managed the project.
Kristian Ferguson, Litter Analyst for MSW Consultants, has performed visible litter
studies in l'I'Iississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, California, Georgia, and Tennessee.
l,,[r. Perguson provided day-to-day support throughout the field data collection effort, co-
wrote the national litter survey report and also developed, performed and managed the
litter cost portion of the study. In addition, Mr. Ferguson conducted a wlute paper on the
amount of plastic bag litter in the overall waste stream from land and water based sources,
for a major industrial trade organization. Mr. Ferguson also has worked pro bono for the
Ocean Conservancy's Nationall'l'Iarine Debris Management program and to the Potomac
Watershed Initiative in Waslungton, D.C.
Katie Kennedy is a Project Manager for sub consultant Cascadia Consulting Group,
a leading \Vest Coast firm in d,e performance of waste and recycling stream
characterization studies. Ms. Kennedy has in depth experience , , ~ t h several important
litter-related projects, including most recendy the State of Washington Litter Study in 2004
and a study of street basket waste for New York City in 2005. 10[s. Kennedy advised on
elements of both the visible litter survey and the indirect cost research.
Together, the MSW Consultants Project Team was assembled to provide KAB \ ~ t h the litter
management leaderslup, statistical sampling expertise, and breadth of experience in litter-
related work to assure that the outcome of this project reflects best practices and is
informative to a wide population.
MSWCONSUlTArus
1'4 2009 National Litter Study
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Keep America Beauriful first commissioned a study of litter generarion in the late
1960s. Published in September 1969, this first study was performed by the Highway Research
Board of the National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering. , Tlus report
(1969 Study) indicated that it was attempting the first-ever comprehensive analysis of the
composition and quantity of litter on the nation's "primary rural lughways" in the United
States.
\'\Thile the 1969 Study was groundbreaking for many reasons, it ultimately relied on field
observations from only 29 states as the basis for tabulating results. As a consequence, the
1969 Study authors cited as an opportunity for improvement the development of a nation-
master sample of all states to assure complete representativeness of the study findings.
The 2009 National Visible Litter Survey and Litter Cost Study (2009 Study) has sought to
develop a true national sample not only for rural roads but for all roadway types, while also
applying current visible litter study best data collection and analysis practices. This section of
the report describes the overall approach to the project, covering the sampling plan, field data
collection procedures, and analytical methods.
2.2. MATERIAL DEFINITIONS
Items of litter found in the field were characterized according to a list of 61 material types.
The list of 61 material types was developed based on a review of contemporatT surveys to
lughlight items currently interest.' Table 2-1 summarizes the materials and material
groups used for this study. A complete list of material types and definitions is included in
Appendix A.
2.3. DEFINING AND DETERMINING LITTER SOURCES
Changes in waste management, transportation infrastructure and cultural attitudes have
contributed to significant changes in littering sources and rates. Understanding the
percentages attributable to various sources of litter is critical to addressing the problem of
littering. "Then communities target litter reduction education and enforcement, the emphasis
tends to be inordinately placed on litter that is generated by pedestrians and motorists.
1 "National Study of the Composition of Roadside Litter," a Report from the Highway Engineering Board of the
Division of Engineering, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of
Engineering; prepared for Keep America Beautiful; prepared by A. L. Finkncr, Director, Statistics Research
Division, Research Triangle Institute (Research Triangle Park, NC), September 12, 1969.
2 The 61 material types were drawn from prior litter studies in conducted in Australia (1997-2007), California
(1975, 2005), Federal Highway Administration Highway Litte, Survey (1974), Florida (1997-2002), Georgia
(2006), Iowa (2001-2003), I,eland (2000-2004), National Academy of Sciences' (1968); New Jersey (2004), Ohio
(2004), San Francisco (2007), Tennessee (2006) Texas (1975-2004), Washington State (1975-2005) and the 2007
Literature Revie\v on Litter conducted for Keep America Beautiful.
2009 National Litter Study 21
MSWCONSULTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
Ho\vever, unintentional sources of litter - such as debris escaping frorn commercial refuse
collection trucks as the), drive their routes in residential communities - may not get the level
of attention commensurate with their contribution to the problem. Consequend)" programs
may, at times, spend inordinate amounts of their allocated budgets targeting only one source
of litter and leave other significant sources inadequately addressed. Litter reduction programs
can become more effective once sources are more clearly identified for targeting.
Table 2-1 litter Material Categories
Material Material Category Material Material Category
Group Group
Paper OCC Plastic Plastic Soft Drink Bottles
Kraft bags Plastic Wine & Liquor Bottles
Office Paper & Discarded Mail
Plastic Sports & Health Drink
Bottles
Newspaper & Inserts Plastic Juice Bottles
Magazines & Books Plastic Tea Bottles
Advertising Signs & Cards Plastic Water Bottles
Receipts Plastic Jugs
Paper Fast-Food Service Items Other Plastic Containers
Aseptic & Gable-Top Containers Other Beverage Packaging
Beverage Carriers & Cartons Plastic Bags
Paper Home Food Packaging Food Packaging Film
Other Paper Other Plastic Film
Glass Glass Beer Bottles Plastic Fast Food Service Items
Glass Soft Drink Bottles EPS Fast Food Service Items
Glass Water Bottles Other Expanded Polystyrene
Glass Wine & Liquor Bottles Plastic Home Food Packaging
Glass Sports and Health Drink
Other Plastic
Bottles
Glass Juice Bottles Metal Aluminum Beer Cans
Other Glass Bottles Aluminum Soft Drink Cans
Broken Glass or Ceramic
Metal Sports & Health Drink
Cans
Other Glass Metal Juice Cans
Organic Human Waste Metal Tea Cans
Food Waste Other Metal Cans
Confection Litter
Other Metal Beverage
Packaging
Other Other Hazardous Metal Home Food Packaging
Road Debris Other Metal & Foil Packets
Bulky Items
Construction
Construction Debris
Debris
Textiles & Small Rugs Vehicle Debris Vehicle Debris
Toiletries & Sundries Tobacco Cigarette Butts
Entertainment Items Cigar Butts
Other Items Other Tobacco Related
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2-2 2009 National Litter Studs
2. METHODOLOGY
\,(lJllIe it is conceptually simple to recognize that there are tuultiple sources of litter, in practice
it is more complicated (and at times impossible) to determine the source of a littered item.
Specifically, unless the litter item is observed when it is actually littered, the process of
assigning a source is educated guesswork.
Nonetheless, a goal of tlus visible litter survey was to attempt to determine the actual source
of items of litter based on context clues. At the outset of the study, the MSW Project Team,
working KAB, developed and refined a set of rules to use as a guide to help detern1ine
the likely source of litter items on both roadway and non-roadway locations. The likely
sources of litter used during the field sampling originated from Keep America Beautiful's
seven primary sources of litter, wluch are: I) pedestrians or cyclists; 2) motorists; 3)
improperly covered business dumpsters; 4) loading docks, and commercial or recreational
marinas with inadequate waste receptacles; 5) construction and demolition sites; 6) trucks with
uncovered loads; and 7) household trash scattered before or during collection. However, for
the KAB national litter study, these seven likely sources of litter were modified based on MS\V
Consultants staffs prior field experience as well as input from KAB.
Ultimately, for tlus project, the following sh: sources of litter were defined and used:
Motorists: On the surface, tlus would appear to be the most common form of litter,
which occurs when a motorist discards trash while driving.
Pedestrians: SinllIarly, pedestrians traversing the sidewalk by the roadside or
walking through a non-roadway area can also discard trash improperly.
Improperly Secured Loads: Whether a small pick-up truck with loose paper
wrappers in the bed of the truck, or commercial trucks hauling construction debris in a
40-yard roll-off box, carelessness and inadequacy of the material containment method
can result in litter. Tlus is a form of negligent litter. An example of a velucle an
improperly secured load is shown in Figure 2-1.
Overflowing Containers: \'(llllle many communities have deployed litter receptacles,
and most businesses have conllnerciul refuse containers, there are tnany opportunities
for these containers to overflow, causing litter in the inunediate proxitnity. Also a
form of negligent litter, an example of an container is shown in Figure 2-
1.
Vehicle Debris: Bl1)roducts of road transportation create their own form of
negligent litter, which includes tire retread and other parts that may disengage from an
otherwise operational vehicle, as well as the range of particles and items that are
generated during traffic accidents. The negligence in tlus casc comes from a lack of
responsibility for anyone to recognize that littering has taken place and to clean up the
litter.
Unknown: Despite the best use of context clues, it is to be expected that the source
of some litter items cannot be reasonably determined.
Examples of the types of context clues that were used to make the determination of the likely
source of litter include:
2009 National Litter Study 23
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
Cigarette butts on national highways were reasoned to be from motorists because there is
no meaningful pedestrian traffic, nor are other sources likely contributors;
Fast food wrappers and packaging found on the street next to a fast food restaurant with
an overflowing container would suggest the overflowing container as the most likely
source;
Spillage of papers on an exit ramp headed toward a recycling facility suggests that a
recycling collection vehicle (Le., an unsecured load) would be the most likely source; and
Snack packaging found at a corner where there was a traffic light, but no bus stop,
suggests that motorists would be the most likely source.
Figure 2-1 Sources of litter
Improperly Secured loads Overflowing Containers
While the examples above are straightforward, in many cases the mles are more nuanced. As
an example, a corrugated box that is cmshed, but is otherwise , , ~ t h o u t a putrescible stain or
odor, may have been discarded by a motorist or perhaps from an unspecified unsecured load.
If that same cmshed box has a putrescible stain or odor, or is coated \ \ ~ t h significant powder
residue, it is more likely to have fallen from a trash collection or construction vehicle and its
source can be considered an unsecured load.' The complete set of litter sourcing mles
developed for use in this project is contained in Appendix B. Ultimately, the decision was
made to attempt to assign as many litter items as possible to a source (i.e., our attempts were
aggressive). \,Ihile field crews made evel,), attempt to follow the litter sourcing mles for this
study, it is possible that some mischaracterization of the likely source(s) of litter occurred.
2 Spillage and uncollected residue from residential trash and recyclables collection are a known source of litter.
However, statistically representing the portion of litter attdbutable to that source would have required field crews
to only survey on days when both residential trash and recyclables were being collected. Since a number of the
sites randomly selected were not adjacent to such collection, it was not feasible to determine the percentage of
litter attributable to such sources. This may represent an area of future study.
MSWCDrlSULTANTS
2'4 2009 National Litter Study
2. METHODOLOGY
2.4. ROADWAY SITE SAMPLING PLAN
2.4.1 ROADWAY TYPES AND SAMPLING TARGETS
For the study results to defensibly project litter on our nation's roadways, it was critical to
develop a sampling plan that representatively captured the different roadway types. In the
litter industry, roadway types are defined primarily based on the entity that maintains the road
(and therefore has responsibility for litter abatement). Specifically, there are four main types
of roads that were considered for tlus study:
National Roads: Primarily interstates, these are the roadways maintained at the federal
level.
State Roads: Roads that are maintained by state departments of transportation;
County Roads: Roads that are in the unincorporated area of a county; and
Municipal Roads: These are the local roads in incorporated cities, towns, boroughs,
villages, etc. that receive local maintenance.
In addition to roadway type, the study also sought to segment roads based on the population
density of the surrounding area. Therefore, for each of the four roadway types, the study
captured samples from both urban and rural roadway segments.
Table 2-2 summarizes the total roadway mileage for each road type, based on data provided by
the Federal Highway Adnunistration.
Table 2-2 U.S. Total Roadway Mileage
Centerline Mileage Percent of Mileage
Roadway Type Urban Roads Rural Roads Urban Roads Rural Roads
National 15,703 30,905 2% 1%
State 125,210 605,434 13% 22%
County 182,696 1,598,718 18% 57%
Municipal 668,337 575,569 67% 20%
Total 991,946 2,810,626 100% 100%
..
Source: Federal Highway Administration
As shown, there are 3,802,572 total centerline miles of roadway in the U.S. National roads,
including all interstates, comprise only a minor percentage of both urban (2 percent) and rural
(l percent) roads, although the traffic levels on these roads are significantly lugher than other
roads that are not generally intended for lugh-speed travel.
Although an objective of the study was to develop national estimates, a secondalY
consideration was to compare and contrast litter generation among the different roadway
types. Consequently, the sampling plan for tlus study sought to acquire a sufficient number of
samples from each roadway stratum. Ultimately, the study targeted 240 total roadway
samples, allocated evenly across the eight roadway types. Table 2-3 shows the targeted versus
actual roadway samples for the study.
2009 National Litter Study
MSWCDtdSULTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
Table 2-3 Targeted and Actual Roadway Samples
Roadway Type Sub Example Samples Samples Difference
Category (Connecticut) Targeted Acquired
Urban 1-95 30 30 0
National Roads
Rural 1-95 30 26 -4
Urban SR 106 30 25 -5
State Roads
Rural SR 106 30 37 +7
Urban None 30 38 +8
County Roads
Rural None 30 34 +4
City Roads
Urban N/A 30 30 0
Rural N/A 30 23 -7
Totals 240 243 +3
As shown in the table, roughly 30 samples were targeted from each of the eight roadway
strata. The reasons for variations to the sample targets are described below.
2.4.2 SEASONALITY
A significant amount of research has been done to test the seasonality of litter generation,
noting sun11ller as the highest generation season and \vinter as the lowest in tnost areas.
Although the possibility of seasonal sampling was considered, it was determined at the outset
of the study that only a single season of sampling, in the summer of 2008, would be
performed, due to project schedule constraints. Field sampling was initiated immecliately
following Memorial Day and was completed by August 2008.
It should be noted that summer vacations typically begin in June in many areas, and summer
weather is more conducive to driving with the windows down. Further, it is hypothesized that
pedestrian traffic on roads with sidewalks is also higher in the summer. For tlus reason, it is
possible that the amount of litter encountered in tlus project may have been higher than had
the field study been performed at other times of the year or if there were multiple seasonally
clistributed samplings."
2.4.3 METROPOLITAN AREA SELECTION PROCESS
In litter studies, it is desirable to sample roadway segments based on transportation
metrics such as street centerline mileage or daily veluele miles (DV11'1). For more limited
geograpluc areas such as a state, it is possible to obtain lughly accurate GIS data for the entire
roadway system. For tlus study, wluch not only was national in scope but also targeted '100
3 It should also be noted that many other factors can influence the quantity of litter observed, including the depth
of the surface area to be surveyed, the assumptions made about sampling on medians or in areas that may be
unsafe because of roadside barriers, and other factors. The MS\x' Project Team believes the data obtained from a
single season of sampling was reasonabl)T representative of visible litter on our nation's roadways.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2'6 2009 National Litter Study
2. METHODOLOGY
percent of the nation's roads from interstates down to local residential streets, it was not
possible to utilize solely a national transportation metric as the basis for sampling.
Rather, a two-step process was used. Step one involved randomly distributing the targeted
number of samples for each roadway type (30 per type) based on centerline miles within each
of the 50 U.S. states. In general, tlus resulted in states , , ~ t h more miles of a particular road
type to have more samples allocated to them, while states , , ~ t h fewer miles of a particular road
type to have fewer samples allocated. For example, Florida has the most urban county
roadway miles of any state, and as might be expected had allocated to it the largest number of
urban county roadway samples. Likewise for the remahung seven roadway types, although it
was important to note that the universe of centerline miles all had statistically equal chance of
being selected. Table 2-4 summarizes the results of tlus allocation process.
Table 2-4 Allocation of Roadway Sampling Targets to States
Rural Urban
State National State County City National State County City Total
AK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AL 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 4
AR 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 5
AZ. 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
CA 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 9
CO 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 4
CT 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FL 1 0 0 0 1 1 12 1 16
GA 1 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 9
HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IA 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
ID 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
IL 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 9
IN 2 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 9
KS 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
KY 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
LA 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 5
MA 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6
MD 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4
ME 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
MI 0 0 4 0 2 0 3 1 10
MN 0 2 1 4 1 1 0 1 10
MO 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 5
MS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
MT 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3
NC 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 1 9
ND 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5
NE 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4
NH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 Nntional Litter Studr 27
MSWCONSULTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
Rural Urban
State National State County City National State County City Total
NJ 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 4
NM 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
NV 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
NY 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 9
OH 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4
OK 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
OR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
PA 3 2 0 2 3 3 0 0 13
RI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 4
SD 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 6
TN 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 5
TX 1 4 3 1 1 4 1 2 17
UT 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
VA 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 5
VT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
WA 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4
WI 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 4
WV 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Total 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 240
As shown, the ultimate sample allocation captured roadway segments in 45 out of the 50
states, , , ~ t h only Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island not having a
sufficient number of roadway miles in any of the eight roadway types to warrant on-site
sampling.
The second step of the national sampling process was to select metropolitan areas that would
serve as the sampling centroids (or "hubs") within each state. From a purely academic
standpoint, the optimal sampling process would literally give evety mile of each type of
roadway an equal chance at being selected. The result would be 240 geographically dispersed
data points, each of which could require extensive travel just to reach the sampling site.
However, for budgetaty purposes, purely random sampling of roadway sites was not feasible.
Rather, once the allocation of samples to each state was made based on state-level centerline
miles, a metropolitan area was selected in each state from which to base field sampling
operations in that state. IVIetropolitan areas were selected, not randomly, but rather to be
reasonably dispersed from one another (e.g. not adjacent), yet to minimize travel time and
costs during the course of field sampling. In other words, the selection of the metropolitan
areas was performed with field logistics in mind. Figure 2-2 shows a map of the metropolitan
areas that were ultimately selected.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2'8 2009 National Litter Stud},
2. METHODOLOGY
Figure 2-2 Metropolitan Areas Selected for Litter SUiveying
Lincoln!.
Fort tomns
Wichita
'"
'"
Albuquerque
Tulsa A
Tex rkana
Fort WorthA
Note that dus method of allocating samples around individual metropolitan areas was driven
by two other factors. The first is that the project also required sampling of non-roadway sites,
many of wluch would have been difficult if not impossible to find in rural areas of the
countly. The second factor involves direction received from KAB, which expressed an
interest in focusing on areas of population density ("where people live").
2.4.4 METROPOLITAN AREA GIS-BASED SURVEY SITE SELECTION
Once the randomly selected number of samples was allocated to the metropolitan hub areas
selected for the field sampling process, GIS software was used to randomly select sites
each metropolitan area based on roadway data. The U.S. Census Bureau's 'l1GER
(Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing) format was used as the
GIS database. TIGER shows land attributes such as roads, rivers, etc. as well as
areas such as political designations as counties, census tracts, l'l'fetropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs), etc. Specifically, the 2007 TIGER/Line Shapeflles are extracts containing selected
geograpluc and cartograpluc information from the Census Bureau's l'l'lAF /TIGER database.
The lvlAF /TIGER database was developed at the Census Bureau to support a variety of
geograpluc programs and operations including functions such as mapping, geocoding, and
geograpluc reference flies that are used in decennial and econonlic censuses and sample survey
programs.
Within each metropolitan area, the universe of roadways to be sU1veyed was divided into the
eight road types defined for dus study. Once again to nlinimize travel time, the random
selection of specific sites in each metropolitan area was first confined to a radius of 10 miles
2009 National Litter Study 2'9
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
from the metro area centroid. In other words, all of the samples for each roadway type (urban
interstate, urban state, urban county, etc.) were plotted within the 10-mile radius.
However, for many metropolitan areas, the to-mile radius was not sufficient to capture rural
road types (e.g., Chicago). For these metropolitan areas, primarily those with a population
greater than 500,000, the radius was extended to 40 miles to assure that it was possible to find
both urban and rural sample sites.
Several additional samples beyond the targeted number of samples were selected within each
metropolitan area for each road type. This was done to allow for sample sites that were found
to be unsafe or otherwise inappropriate for field sampling. Ultimately, limitations with the
underlying GIS data source, as well as recent road modifications and a high incidence of
unsafe or inappropriate field sampling locations, resulted in a greater number of samples being
inaccessible than was anticipated in the planning stages of the process. In such cases,
substitute samples of other roadway types were made to assure that global sampling targets
were met. In several instances both the originally selected site and the back-up site were
found to be unsuitable for visual surveying. In these instances, the field data collection team
relied on local maps to identify the closest point on a like roadway type, which was then
substituted for the primary and back-up sample.
It is the opinion of ]'"IS\V Consultants that no statistical bias was introduced by the
replacement of the randomly selected sites by the field surveyors. Tlus is because field
surveyors used a systematic approach to make the replacement (i.e., they selected the closest
discernible replacement location based on a local map).
2.5. NON-ROADWAY SITE SAMPLING
In conjunction with the roadway sampling, tlus project also sought to obtain samples from the
following six non-roadway sites that are known to be sources of various types of litter:
Construction Sites, including active residential or cOlnnlercial construction;
Loading Docks, typically situated behind retail and wholesale entities where various
products are loaded or unloaded from large trucks and trailers;
Recreational Areas, including parks, beaches, courts, and open areas where people
congregate for leisure activities;
Storm Drains, wluch are located primarily in street gutters along roadways and in areas
wluch experience heavy rainfall or flooding, are designed to drain excess rain from paved
streets, parking lots, etc. Most storm drains have gratings to prevent large objects from
falling into the sewer system. The bars are widely spaced so that water flow is not
impeded, but consequently, smaller items of litter and trash can fall through and travel
into waterways 01' to various treatnlent facilities;
Retail Shopping, including shopping centers, strip malls, and conveluence stores;
Transition Points refer to points such as entrances to movie theaters, bus stops, and
other places where someone consuming a food or tobacco product is required to discard
the product before entering.
Contrary to the roadway sampling, wluch was driven by rigorously applied statistical sampling,
the non-roadway site sampling was performed on an opportunistic basis by the field sampling
MSWCONSULTANTS
210 2009 National Litter Study
2. METHODOLOGY
teams. In other words, non-roadway sites were primarily sampled as they were encountered
during the roadway sampling process. This was done as practical matter, as there are no
readily available national databases of the various non-roadway sites that could serve as the
universe of sites to be sampled. Although the non-roadway survey results are highly
informative and provide excellent insight on the relative litter generation occurring at each site
type, it should be noted that the non-roadway visible litter survey result do not purport to
provide a nationally representative snapshot of litter generation.
It should also be noted that, to improve the variability of non-roadway sites surveyed, each
field data collection team was instLUcted to vary the sub-category type and location of their
non-roadway sites. For instance, if a field data collection team had a total of five recreational
areas to sample, the team was instLUcted to sample various types of recreational facilities (for
example a community playground, a county park, a beach, and a state park).
The study targeted 180 total non-roadway samples, allocated evenly across the eight roadway
types. As shown in Table 2-2, it was possible to obtain the targeted number of samples.
Table 2-5 Targeted and Actual Non-Roadway Samples
Non-Roadway Type Samples Samples
Targeted Acquired
Construction Sites 30 30
Load i ng Docks 30 30
Recreational Areas 30 30
Storm Drains 30 30
Retail Shopping 30 30
Transition Points 30 30
Total 180 180
2.6. FIELD METHODOLOGY
The l'vIS\,\1 Project Team developed and applied a uniform set of procedures to tabulate litter
itellls in the roadway and non-road\vay sites.
2.6.1 ROADWAY SITE SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Field sampling was performed by two-person teams of professional staff. The following is a
description of the procedure that each field team used when surveying the public right-of-way
areas adjacent to the various roadway locale types.
Proceed to the sample site based on the randomly selected coordinates
Pull over at a safe distance from the road , , ~ t h no barriers or hazards blocking the sample
area.
2009 National Littel' Study 211
MSWCmJSUlTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
Fill out the field log as complete as possible. The field log recorded the location, road
type, weather and other characteristics of each site.
Fill out the top of the roadway Litter Tally Sheets (site number, 10, dimensions,
influencing factors, etc.).
Measure the 300 x 15 foot full sampling area and the 15 x 15 sub-sample area along the
edge of the roadway.
Perform a "meander count" of the 300 by 15 foot area to tabulate only those items that
were 4 inches and larger ("4 inch-plus").
As the meander count of 4 inch+ objects was in progress, the second field crew person
performed a secondary "cross section sub-count" of objects 4 inches and under, including
cigarette butts ("4 inch-minus"). This sub-count began at the same spot that the meander
count began.
Using the litter source rules, assign each litter item to one of the fiye defined sources, or
else classify as '\mknown."
Photograph the sutvey site.
Ensute all equipment has been collected, all forms are filled out, and proceed to the next
sample site.
In no case did field crew walk on or attempt to sample litter on the roadway itself due to
safety concerns.
In addition to the visible count of litter and the sautee determination performed on the
various roadways, the field observation team also noted whether any of the following eight (8)
"influencing factors" were present either within or adjacent to the sampling area:
Was the site in or adjacent to a Residential neighborhood?
\'Iiere any Fast Food Restautants nearby?
Were any Convenience Stores nearby?
Were any Other Commercial parcels nearby?
\Vas the site near a Construction Site?
Was the site near a Loading Dock?
Were there any schools, churches, libraries, or other public buildings nearby?
Were Litter Receptacles present? \Vas the roadway segment in or adjacent to a
Beautification Zone (an area that had been actively landscaped)?
As a final evaluation, the state of the atea was assigned a numerical score fratn one to five,
with one being extremely littered and five being perfectly maintained (no litter). The basis for
the scoring criteria is the KAB litter scale scoring system'. Specific evaluation criteria
definitions are shown below:
5 Keep America Beautiful, Inc. Community Appearance Index: State of the Community, 2008.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2-l2 2009 National Litter Study
2. METHODOLOGY
Extremely Littered: A continuous amount of litter is one of the first things noticed
about the site. IVIajor illegal dumpsites might be witnessed. Equipment and/or extra
manpower for removal are required. There is a strong impression of a lack of concern
about litter in the site. No beautification or landscaping efforts exist.
Very Littered: Visible litter can readily be seen throughout the area, likely requiring an
organized effort for removal. This area is "velY littered" and clearly needs to be
addressed. It would require two or three individuals and several hours to clean up.
Landscaping, maintenance and beatification efforts have not been realized in some time.
Littered: Visible litter can readily be seen sporadically throughout the sub-area, likely
requiring an organized effort for removal. This area is "littered" and clearly needs to be
addres.sed. One or two individuals could clean up the area a few hours.
Landscaping, maintenance and beatification efforts have been performed, but perhaps not
recently.
Slightly Littered: Upon careful inspection, a small amount of litter is obvious. The litter
in the site could be collected by one or two individuals in a short period of time. \\ihile
the site has a small amount of litter, the eye is not continually grabbed by litter items.
Obvious and apparent landscaping and/or beautification efforts although perhaps not
recent.
No Litter: Virtually no litter can be observed in the site being scored. The scorer has to
look hard to see any litter, perhaps a very occasional litter item or two in a city block, or
equivalent. Any litter seen could be collected quickly by one individual. The entire site
has a generally neat and tidy appearance. Nothing grabs the eye as being littered or messy.
Obvious and apparent landscaping and/or beautification efforts recendy performed or
lnuintained.
2.6.2 NON-ROADWAY SITE SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Non-roadway samples were performed in roughly the same manner as the roadway sites,
although the surface area to be surveyed was dictated by the specific non-roadway site.
Descriptions of the field procedure that were used for non-roadway sites are
provided in Table 2-6.
2009 National LittCl' Study 213
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
Table 2-6 Collection Provider Summary
Non-roadway Sampling Area Sampling Procedure
Construction Sites
15' outside the perimeter of the construction site spanning 300'
or entire perimeter, whichever is less
The interior of the loading dock plus a 25' circumference around
Loading Docks loading dock borders that are not walled. Walled areas (if
present) represent the perimeter of the site.
Maximum area of 4,500 sq ft. May be many dimensions
Recreational Areas
depending on specific features of each area. Surveyed area
targeted perimeter of high use areas (courts, picnic tables,
walkways, etc).
Storm Drains 5' circumference around the sample area
Retail Shopping
300' x 15' linear count or entire retail frontage, whichever is less
(similar to roadway sampling methodology)
Entire Transition Point Area. Normally, this would be a 10 foot
Transition Points circumference around the front doors to theaters, public
facilities, etc.
Specific site sUl'veying procedures are described below.
Construction Sites, Loading Docks and Retail Shopping: Within construction sites,
loading dock areas and shopping centers, a 300' x 15' linear section of the site was visibly
sampled. For these areas, all items four inches and greater were sampled first. After the initial
sample was performed, a sub-sample count of items less than foUl' inches was performed in an
area measuring. 15' x 15' beginning in the same point where the initial linear count was
performed.
Recreational Areas: For pUl'poses of this study, recreational areas included state and national
parks and forests, beaches, waterways, fairgrounds, and other recreation sites. For each of the
recreational sites, the Project Team attempted to identify the "high-use" areas. High use areas
are defined as areas where users tend to congregate, such as courts, picnic tables, pavilions,
and walkways. In order to help determine high-use areas, personnel at the recreational sites (if
present) were consulted and a listing of the high-use areas was determined.
If no park personnel were present, the Project Team members walked or drove around the
area to determine the high-use areas. \\lhen the sample site was determined the Project Team
measured an area no larger than 4,500 square feet (equivalent to 300' by IS' area used for
linear samples). For these areas, all items four inches and greater were counted first. After the
initial sample was performed, a sub-sample count of items less than foUl' inches was
performed in an area measUl'ing 15' x 15' beginning in the same point where the initial count
was performed.
Storm Drains: Various starn1 drains were randonuy selected while field crews were in the
field sampling. Each field team attempted to sample storm drains observed while conducting
sampling of other areas. In addition to the storm drain itself, an area five feet on all four sides
MSWCONSUlTAfUS
2-14 2009 National Litter Study
2. METHODOLOGY
of the storm drain was sampled. Tlus was done as litter within tlus zone can easily end up in
the storm drain due to rain, wind, or other factors.
Transition Points: Transition points are places beyond which citizens are not allowed to
bring certain products such as lit cigarettes, beverages and certain food products into a given
area. Transition points may include bus stops or entrances to theaters, shopping malls,
libraries and schools. Transition points are of particular interest because they are known to
cause the generation of wastes (as people discard their food, beverage or cigarettes), and thus,
the opportunity to litter arises. Transition point sampling zones included an area
approximately 10 feet in all directions outward from the transition point (e.g. doorway, bus
loading zone, etc.).
2.7. DATA ANALYSIS
Given the breadth of data collection, a critical component of the effort involved management
and assembly of the data for statistical analysis.
The field data collection effort relied on field forms to be completed by hand. Based on
experience of the l\<fS\'(1 Project Team, this is the best method for collecting complex data in a
variety of outdoor weather conditions. On a daily basis, field sUi'vey teams assembled and
organized their field forms according to the pre-assigned sampling sites. Pield forms reflected
the location, date and time of collection to eliminate the potential for mis-classified samples.
On a regular basis (in most cases (ughtly, but sometimes after two 01' three days), field forms
were transmitted for data entry. Field data was entered into a custom database that tracked
survey site characteristics, litter piece counts, and all other data collected.
Ultimately, results were tabulated according to the roadway and non-roadway strata targeted in
the study. However, it was first necessary to normalize the survey area of each site for
statistical analysis. For roadway sites, all field data was normalized to reflect the number of
pieces per mile of roadway to a depth of 15 feet from the edge of the road. For non-roadway
sites, litter counts were normalized to reflect litter counts per 1,000 square feet.
Litter counts were averaged over each sanlple in each roadway and non-roadway strata to
arrive at average litter counts by type and by SOUi'ce on a per mile or per-1,000-square-foot
basis, respectively. The per-mile litter counts were subsequently applied to national centerline
nilles - multiplied by two to capture both sides of the road - to project national totals for each
roadway type. It is therefore important to note that the roadway litter totals projected in tlus
report likely underestimate the total litter for the following reasons:
No attempt was made to estimate litter in the median. \'(Ilille many roads do not have
medians, it is certain that additional litter accumulates in the median on the roads that
have tnedians.
Visible litter observations stopped at a depth of 15 feet from the road's edge. In reality,
many road miles have public rights-of-way that go beyond 15 feet.
Certain roadway areas - especially intersections and on/off ramps - were observed to
accumulate litter at a lugher rate compared to stretches of roadway \ \ ~ t h no such
intersections. However, because of the rcquircll1cnt for field crews to take appropriate
safety precautions, tnany such areas that \vere observed to have large litter accumulations
could not be captUi'ed in the study. (It seems possible that one of the reasons these sites
2009 National Litter Study 2'15
MswcmdSUlTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
have a higher accumulation of litter is that litter clean-up crews also face the same safety
concerns and cannot safely reach these sites on a frequent basis.)
2.7.1 LITTER SOURCE PROXIMITY ANALYSIS
In addition to tabulating the quantity and characterization of litter, dus study also sought to
explore the impact of certain variables on litter generation and accumulation. Specifically, dus
stndy tested the correlation between observed litter and the following variables:
Was the site in a Residential Area?
Were there any conveluence establishments nearby?
Were there any Fast Food establishments nearby?
Were there loading docks in the observable vicinity?
Were litter receptacles present at or near the site?
Was the area a school, church, or other public area?
Were there signs of beautification efforts (e.g. flowers) in the area?
Cleanliness of the area (coded as Level 1 through LevelS)
Through the use of regression analysis, the relationships between the potentially explanatory
variables (collected by field teams based on observation) and total litter items were identified
and quantified. The statistical model examined took the fOim:
Y
i
= f(X)
where Y is the number of total litter items, and X is an array of one or more of the
explanat01Y variables. The explanatory variables were binary in natnre (1/0 responses). A
multi-linear model was utilized in dus analysis.
2.7.2 WASTE AND RECYCLING FACILITY PROXIMITY ANALYSIS
As a final step, the study perfoimed a detailed analysis of the impact on solid waste and
recycling facility proximity and litter generation. This phase of the analysis was performed by
overlaying a national database of solid waste and recycling facilities' over the GPS coordinates
of the randomly selected sample sites, followed by testing of the litter generation.
Once the solid waste and recycling facility locations were plotted, a sinUlar econometric
analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of proxin1ity of these facilities on litter. This
model took the form:
Y
j
:::: f(Xl) X
2
_
h
where Y is the nun1ber of total litter items, is the number of waste and
recycling facilities "i" miles. So X, is the number of waste and recycling facilities within
1 nUle of the observed litter, X,., is the additional number of waste and recycling facilities
2 miles, and X,., is the additional number of waste and recycling facilities widUn S
miles. A linear model was examined in dus particular analysis.
5 Directory and Atlas of Non-Hazardous \Vaste Sites 2007, If/mit? Emilltss JOlfmal. San Diego, CA.
MSWCONSULTANTS
216 2009 National Litter Study
2. METHODOLOGY
2.7.3 COMPARISON WITH PRIOR RESULTS
As a final step, the 2009 Litter Study results were compared against the results of the 1969
Study performed by KAB to measure national litter rates. Ultimately, there were limitations to
making a meaningful comparison. These limitations included demographic and roadway
mileage increases and a different sample methodology. The 1969 Study focused specifically
on rural interstate and rural primatT roads and as such, could only be compared to compatible
roadway types sampled in the 2009 Study. Section 3.3 and Appendix H of this report
compare the composition and generation litter between the 1969 and 2009 visible litter studies
in greater detail.
2009 National Litter Studr 2'17
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2. METHODOLOGY
[This page intentionally left blank]
MSWCONSULTANTS
2-18 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This section provides comprehensive results of the visible litter survey, including both
roadway and non-roadway sources of litter. Given the volume of data that was collected and
assembled for this project, tlus section strictly presents national aggregate results.
Because dus study separated litter items at a four-inch threshold, and the vast majority of litter
items were 4-inch-minus in particle size, the larger litter items are obscured in the aggregate
results. Therefore, dus report will provide parallel results for the 4-inch-plus litter items in
addition to litter in the aggregate. Four-inch-plus litter items are those that are most visible to
passing n1otorists and pedestrians, and so are more likely to reflect a "littered" environment.
However, the 4-inch-plus litter results effectively exclude the impact of cigarette butts. Both
aggregate litter and 4-inch-plus litter results are presented throughout the section.
3.2. ROADWAY LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
3.2.1 QUANTITY AND CHARACTERIZATION
Tlus study found that there were approxinlately 51.2 billion pieces of litter on our nation's
roadways. Of tlus total, 46.6 billion (91.0 percent) litter were less than four inches in size
while the remaining 4.6 billion items (9.0 percent) were larger than 4 inches. Figure 3-1
summarizes the breakdown of litter items projected to be on our nation's roadways in 2008.
Figure 3-1 Aggregate Composition of litter, All U.S. Roadways
Construction
Vehicle
Debris, 1.5%
Debris, L.C"O __
Tobacco
Products,
37.7%
2009 National Litter Study
Organic,
4.2%
31
,2.5%
Paper,
9%
19.3%
\ _ ~ , " " ; s 4.5%
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
As expected based on past litter studies, tobacco products - primarily cigarette butts, but
including cigars, chewing tobacco, and packaging among other items - are the single largest
type of litter, followed by paper (21.9 percent) and plastic (19.3 percent) items.
Figure 3-2 shows the breakdown of the 4.6 billion pieces of 4 inch-plus litter found to be on
our nation's roadways.
Figure 32 Composition of 4-inch-plus Litter, All U.S. Roadways
Vehicle Other, 5.0%
Construction Debris, 5.1%
I
Debris, 5.2%
Paper. 31.0%
Tobacco, 5.1%
Organic, 0.5%
Glass,
Plastic. 37.6%
As shown in Figure 3-2, plastic (at almost 38 percent) is the most common large litter item,
followed closely by paper products, which comprised 31 percent of the large items of litter.
Interestingly, vehicle debris and construction related debris comprised over 10 percent of all
large items of litter. This leads credence to the notion that accident and construction sites are
not properly cleaned up.
Figure 3-3 below highlights the top ten individual types of litter (aggregated), which
collectively contribute 40.3 billion individual pieces of litter. It should be noted that while this
study had multiple individual categories of plastic and paper, only certain individual categories
were prevalent enough to make the top ten list of items shown in the figure. Consistent with
prior litter studies, cigarette butts continue to be the most common litter item by a wide
margin. Because tills grapillc is donlinated by the under 4-inch litter items, it is also not
surprising that nliscellaneous paper, plastic and broken glass are on the list. The presence of
confection litter and paper fast-food items is notable. In total, these top ten litter items make
up 79 percent of ulllitter.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3'2 2009 National LittCl' Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-3 Top 10 Aggregate litter Items, All U.S. Roadways
Cigarette Butts 'ilililili
Other Paper J
Other Plastic --
Other Metal & Foil Packets
Confection
Other Expanded Polystyrene
Brollen Glass or Ceramic
Paper Fast-Food Service Items
Construction Debris
Other Plastic Film
0% 10%
36.3%
20% 30% 40%
In addition to the aggregate number of items of litter found on our nations roadways, an
analysis of items four inches and greater was performed. Figure 3-4 below shows the top ten
most common litter items greater than four inches. Focusing on the large items presents a far
different picture. As shown, the most common larger litter items include a range of packaging
materials among other categories. It should be noted that "other plastic" does not include
items such as plastic water bottles which are excluded from tlus table as they were not in the
top ten. Together, there were 2.9 billion of these top ten 4-inch-plus items, making up 62
percent of aU 4-inch-plus litter.
2009 National Litter Study 3'3
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-4 Top 10 4-inch-plus Utter Items, All U.S. Roadways
Paper Fast-Food Service Items
Other Paper
Food Packaging Film
Plastic Fast Food Service Items
Construction Debris
Other Tobacco-Related
Vehicle Debris
Other Plastic
Other Plastic Film
Office Paper & Discarded Mail
11.8%
0% 5% 10% 15%
In addition to the aggregate composition of litter and the top ten aggregated litter items, KAB
identified several classes of litter that are of particular interest to the field of study. These
classes of litter are l'"liscellaneolls Paper, l'vliscellaneolls Plastic, Past Pood Packaging, Beyerage
Containers, Snack Food Packaging, Other Packaging and Tobacco Products. Together, these
litter classes make up 80 percent of all litter, comprising oyer 40 billion litter items. The
aggregate breakdown of these materials is shown in Figure 3-5.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3-4 2009 National Litter Study
Tobacco
Products, 37.7%
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-5 litter Types of Interest (Aggregate)
Other Litter,
18.9%
Miscellaneous
Beverage
Containers,
2.7%
Miscellaneous
'--__ Plastics, 6.3%
Snack Food
Packaging, 1.8%
Total Packaging: 16.9%
Other
Packaging, 9.8%
Fast Food
Packaging, 5.3%
As shown in the Figure, tobacco products (primarily cigarette butts) comprised 38 percent of
total litter. Total packaging comprises 17 percent of the aggregate litter stream. Beverage
containers, snack food packaging and fast food packaging are minimized in the total litter
stream, based largely on the significance of tobacco products, especially cigarette butts.
The same data for 4 inch-plus litter items - which effectively removes tobacco products so as
not to obscure the contribution of the other items of interest - paints a different picture. This
is shown in Figure 3-6. As shown, there were relatively few tobacco-related items above four
inches, and all of these products were packaging. Fast food packaging, snack packaging and
beverage containers make a far larger contribution to the 4 inch-plus litter. When items
(mostly cigarette butts) less than 4 inches were removed, total packaging litter (excluding
tobacco packaging) equates to almost 46 percent. Tlus is quite significant as items over 4
inches are more likely to be visible to pedestrians and motorists alike.
2009 National Litter Study 3'5
MSWCOfJSUlTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-6 litter Types of Interest (4 inch-plus)
Other Utter,
18.3%
Tobacco
Product
Packaging,
5.1%
Other
Packaging,
13.7%
Total Packaging: 45.8%
Miscellaneous
Paper, 16.1%
Beverage
14.5%
Miscellaneous
Plastic, 5.2%
Food
Packaging,
7.6%
Table 3-1 summarizes the breakdown of litter by roadway type. Of course, the total litter
items shown in this table are driven to a great degree by the underlying roadway miles for each
road type. Ho\vevel', there is a dratnatic increase in the incidence of litter itenlS on national
and state roads compared to county and municipal roads.
Table 3-1 Aggregate litter Incidence by Roadway Type
Roadway Type Average Items U.S. Road U.S. Litter
per Mile Shoulder Miles (billion)
Urban Roads 7,784 1,983,892 15.4 billion
Rural Roads 6,357 5,621,252 35.7 billion
Subtotal 6,729 7,605,144 51.2 billion
National Roads 19,186 93,216 1.8 billion
State Roads 13,011 1,461,288 19.0 billion
County Roads 5,539 3,562,828 19.8 billion
Municipal Roads 4,277 2,487,812 10.6 billion
Subtotal 6,729 7,605,144 51.2 billion
All Roads 6,729 7,605,144 51.2 billion
As shown, including the shoulders of roads to a 15 foot depth, u.s. roadways in general have
6,729 items of litter per mile or about 1.3 pieces per foot. These data show:
Urban v_ Rural: Rural roads and urban roads were found to have a roughly
comparable litter items per mile, but rural roads contribute about 2.3 times more litter
because rural roads make up 74 percent of all road nilles.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3'6 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Road Type: The number of litter item per mile decreases as one goes from national
down to municipally maintained roads. National roads are the most heavily littered
per mile, due to heavy traffic and limited access, yet contribute relatively little to the
overall litter rate because of the low number of road nilles. State roads are also highly
littered, and contribute over one-third of all litter. Although County roads exhibit a
lower number of litter items per mile, they also contribute roughly one-half of all litter
because of the high number of roadway miles. Municipal roads have the lowest litter
incidence pel' mile, yet also contribute 20 percent of all litter.
Table 3-2 provides parallel results of the breakdown of 4-inch-plus litter by roadway type.
These results track reasonably closely with the relationships documented in Table 3-1 for all
litter items.
Table 3-2 4-inch-plus litter Incidence by Roadway Type
Roadway Type Items per U.S. Road Litter Items Percent of
Mile Shoulder Miles in Billions Total Items
Urban Roads 674 1,983,892 1.3 Billion 28.9%
Rural Roads 586 5,621,252 3.3 Billion 71.1%
Subtotal 608 7,605,144 4.6 Billion 100.0%
National Roads 1,484 93,216 0.14 Billion 3.0%
State Roads 869 1,461,288 1.3 Billion 27.5%
County Roads 654 3,562,828 2.3 Billion 50.4%
Municipal Roads 357 2,487,812 0.90 Billion 19.2%
Subtotal .608 7,605,144 4.6 Billion 100.0%
All Roads 608 7,605,144 4.6 Billion 100.0%
3.2.2 SOURCES OF LITTER
Figure 3-7 summarizes the sources of aggregate litter on all roadway types based on the
context clues described in Section 2 of tills report.
2009 National Litter Studr 3'7
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-7 Sources of Aggregate litter on All U.S. Roadways
Vehicle
Debris, 2
Unta u",u ,/
Loads,
16.4%
1.5%
Pedestrians,
2.8%
52.8%
Not unexpectedly, the dominant sources of litter for all items on all roads arc lV[otorists and
Pedestrians, which contributed a combined 76 percent of all litter. TillS suggests that
education campaigns targeting individual behavior should continue to prevail as a strategy for
influencing litter generation. However, focusing on 4-inch-plus litter items paints a slightly
different picture. Figure 3-8 shows the sources of 4-inch-plus litter observed in the study.
Figure 3-8 Sources of 4-inch-plus litter on All U.S. Roadways
Vehicles,
5.1%
Loads,_
20.7%
3.0%
MSWCONSULTANTS
Unknown,
17.5%
52.2%
38 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
The source of 4 inch-plus litter shifts more items from pedestrians to negligent forms of litter,
including unsecured loads and overflowing containers. Tlus is largely due to eliminating the
cigarette butts, which only originate from pedestrians or motorists.
Figure 3-9 compares the sources of aggregate litter among the four roadway types included in
this study. Motorists remain the most common source of litter on three of the four road types
- however, on city roads tlus study found that motorists and pedestrians contribute roughly
comparable amounts. Note that these results are driven highly by the presence of cigarette
butts.
Figure 3-9 Comparison of the Source of Aggregate litter by Roadway Type
80%
70% Pedestrians
60%
Motorists
50%
, Containers
40%
30%
Untarped Loads
20%
.. Vehicle Debris
10%
.. Unknown
0%
National Roads State Roads County Roads City Roads
As national roads are predominantly lughways with limited access, motorists are responsible
for 71 percent of the litter along those roadways and unsecured loads are responsible for 15
percent. The numbers sluft slightly on county roads, where motorists are still the dominant
source of litter (68 percent), while pedestrians (16 percent) and unsecured loads (13 percent)
are still issues as well. On state and city roads, the data slufts further away from motorists (42
percent and 40 percent) and more toward pedestrians (20 percent and 43 percent) as well as
unsecured loads (25 percent and 10 percent).
Figure 3-10 provides similar data for the 4-inch-plus litter items.
2009 National Litter Study 3-D
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-10 Comparison of the Source of 4-inch-plus litter by Roadway Type
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
National
Roads
State
Roads
County City Roads
Roads
II Pedestrians
.. Motorists
[J Containers
"Untarped Loads
III Vehicle Debris
II Unknown
Focusing only on 4 inch-plus items, it is shown that negligent litter on national and state roads
increases significantly, which corroborates previous staff research identifying improperly
secured loads as a major source of litter on certain roadways.
It is also of interest to compare the sources of litter between urban and rural roads. Tills is
shown for aggregate litter in Figure 3-11.
Figure 3-11 Comparison of the Source of Aggregate litter by Urban vs. Rural Roadway Type
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Urban
MSWCONSULTANTS
3'10
Rural
Pedestrians
Motorists
Containers
, Untarped Loads
III Vehicle Debris
III Unknown
2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-12 shows the same comparison for urban roads and lUral roads for litter 4" and
greater.
Figure 3-12 Comparison of the Source of 4-inch-plus litter by Urban vs. Rural RoadwayType
3.2.3
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Urban Roadways Rural Roadways
Focus ON BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
_ Pedestrians
iii Motorists
UContainers
U Untarped Loads
IiIVehicle Debris
_Unknown
Throughout the history of litter studies, there has been emphasis on beverage containers. The
litter categories were defined in this study to enable detailed analysis of beverage container
litter, the results of which are presented here. Note, however, that combined there were 1.4
billion beverage containers estimated on all U.S. roadways.
Figure 3-13 shows the breakdown of all beverage containers regardless of size by type of
beverage on our nation's roads, while Figure 3-14 shows the breakdown of beverage
containers 4" and greater.
2009 National Littel' Study 3'11
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-13 Types of Beverage Containers, All U.S. Roadways
Juice,
Wine & liquor,
2.3%
Tea,0.6%
Unrecognizable,
.8%
,30.5%
Breaking down the beverage container categolY into its component parts showed that beer
containers (31 percent) and soft drink containers (25 percent) were most freguendy littered
beverage container types. However, these results are likely understated because over 30
percent of the beverage containers observed in the study were unrecognizable' due to damage
sustained before or after littering occurred. Aside from beer and soft drink containers, no
other type of beverage container contributed more than si." percent.
I The Unrecognizable category also includes Other Beverage Containers including aseptic packages (1 percent)
and plastic milk jugs (4 percent). However, the vast majority of the containers in this category were other
beverages that could not be recognized due to exposure to the elements and the fact that a number of them had
been shredded by mowing machines.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3-12 2009 National Litter S t u d ~ '
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-14 Types of Beverage Containers (4 inch plus), All U.S. Roadways
Wine & liquor,
5%
Unrecognizable,
13%
The majOrity of beverage containers 4" and greatet wefe soft drink and beer containers.
Beverage containers four inches and greater were 1110re easily recognized con1pared to
beverage containers and fragments smaller than 4 inches.
Figure 3-15 shows the sources of beverage containers by type of beverage on our nation's
roads.
2009 National Litter Study 3-13
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 315 Sources of Beverage Containers, All U.S. Roadways
Pedestrians,
14.6%
Motorists,
81.5%
Loads, 1.6%
1.7%
Table 3-3 shows the incidence of beverage containers by roadway type.
Table 33 Aggregate Beverage Container Incidence by Roadway Type
Roadway Type Containers Percent of Total
per Mile All Litter Beverage
Containers
All Roads 179 2.7% 1.4 Billion
Urban Roads 142 2.1% 0.3 Billion
Rural Roads 192 2.9% 1.1 Billion
National Roads 392 5.8% 0.04 Billion
State Roads 173 2.6% 0.3 Billion
County Roads 236 3.5% 0.8 Billion
Municipal Roads 93 1.4% 0.2 Billion
3.2.4 Focus ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Tobacco products (which can consist of cigarette butts, cigars, chewing tobacco and packing)
comprise over 37 percent of all litter items, and there are over 19.3 billion tobacco-related
items estimated to be on all u.s. roadways in 2008. Table 3-4 summarizes the different
MSWCOIIISUlTAIIITS
2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
components of tobacco litter. Cigarette butts make up more than 96 percent of tobacco litter.
This may be due, in part, to the fact that cigarette butts may not be targeted during cleanups as
much as larger items of litter.
Table 3-4 Tobacco-related Products
Litter Type Items per Mile Percent of U.S. Total
All Litter
Cigarette Butts 2,444 36.3% 18.6 Billion
Tobacco Packaging 75 1.1% 0.6 Billion
Cigar Butts 17 0.3% 0.1 Billion
Total 2,536 37.7% 19.3 Billion
Table 3-5 shows the breakdown of tobacco litter by roadway type. Tobacco litter is virtnally
the same percent of litter for all roadways except national roads, where it is a larger fraction of
all litter.
Table 3-5 Tobacco litter by Roadway Type
Roadway Type Items per Mile Percent of Total Tobacco
All Litter Litter
All Roads 2,536 38% 19.3 Billion
Urban Roads 2,759 35% 5.5 Billion
Rural Roads 2,457 39% 13.8 Billion
National Roads 9,084 47% 0.8 Billion
State Roads 4,725 36% 6.9 Billion
County Roads 2,179 39% 7.8 Billion
Municipal Roads 1,514 35% 3.8 Billion
3.2.5 Focus ON PACKAGING LITTER
Prior litter stnilies have identified packaging material as contributing to litter rates. Packaging
litter comprised 17 percent of the total amount of litter found during the stndy. This section
focused on packaging litter. Figure 3-16 shows the breakdown of packaging litter by material.
2009 National Litter Study 3'15
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-16 Packaging Litter by Material, All U.S. Roadways
Other,
10.0%
Plastic,
66.6%
I
Paper,
As shown, about two-thirds of all packaging was plastic, willie about one-forth was paper.
Other materials such as glass and metal only made up 10 percent of packaging. As a
percentage of the entire litter stream comprised of packaging, four percent was paper
packaging, 11 percent was plastic packaging, and two percent was other packaging.
In an effort to better inform about packaging type, packaging was examined to determine
\vhich components were cOlrunerciul in nature, home usc, fast food or snack. Each categoty
is defined below. It is of interest to note that commercial packaging was most prominent,
followed by fast food and home use packaging which were similar. At 10 percent, snack
packaging was less prominent than expected.
Commercial Packaging: This includes all packaging that serves to transport
products from manufacturing or wholesale locations to retail establishments.
Examples of commercial packaging include coftugated cardboard boxes, shrink wrap
and strapping.
Home Use Packaging: Packaging that is used to bring products from the retailer to
the home.
Fast Food Packaging: \,\Irappers for single-use items that originate from drive-
through eateries, taverns, concessions, the fast-food section of a grocery store, and
other such establishments.
Snack Packaging: Wrappings or bags used to package candy, gum, chips, or other
food items.
Figure 3-17 summarizes the type of packaging found in the study.
MSWCONSULTANTS
3'16 2009 National Litter Study
3.2.6
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-17 Packaging litter by Type, All U.S. Roadways
Commercial.
33.5%\
I
Home
27.2%
Snack, 10.2%
Fast Food,
1%
CORRELATION OF ROADWAY LI'ITER TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS
\\lhile the science of tabnlating litter is well established, study is ongoing to identify and better
quantify the factors and local site conditions that contribute to the prevalence of litter. An
objective of tIus study \vas to record, for each survey site, the presence of seven potential
predictors of litter to quantitatively test their predictive ability.
This analysis was performed by testing to what extent the existence of one or morc of the
factors in close proximity to the litter survey site appeared to impact litter relative to a "base"
litter rate (i.e., the amount of litter that would have been found had that factor or condition
not existed), which was found to be 1,267 pieces of litter per site (+/- 219 pieces) This base
rate signifies the expected litter that would be at a site that was not influenced by any of the
factors below. Table 3-6 shows the results of these tests, which were tun at a 90 percent level
of confidence.
2009 National Litter Study 3-17
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Table 3-6 Roadways - Variable Impacts
Condition Tested Impact on Percent Uncertainty
Litter Items Change (# of Items)
The roadway site was close to a residential - 513 -40% 135
area
The roadway site was close to a convenience 137 11% 80
store
The roadway site was close to a commercial 137 11% 80
establishment
There were litter receptacles in proximity -74 -6% 40
There were loading docks in close proximity -363 -29% 146
The site benefited from some form of 471 37% 243
landscaping effort
Improvement from being poorly maintained -179 -14% 252
to being maintained to an average or higher
level
Improvement from being an average -296 -23% 122
maintained to a perfectly maintained level
Improvement from a well maintained level to -189 -15% 94
a perfectly maintained level
In summary, for each condition tested, the table shows how many more (positive number) or
fewer (negative number) litter items were found compared to the base litter rate. So, for
example, if the roadway site were located in a residential area, there arc projected to be 513
fewer pieces of litter on that site. The statistical analysis also developed confidence intervals at
a 90 percent level of confidence to measure the uncertainty associated \ \ ~ t h the impact. So, in
the residential area example, although the mean impact is 513 fewer pieces, the actual impact
of a litter site being in a residential area may be as large as 648 (513 + 135 pieces) or as small
as 378 (513 - 135 pieces). Technically, these values are the standard errors of the coefficients
shown in the "Ilnpact" colutnn.
The following observations arise from these data:
Residential Areas: Sites neal' residential areas tended to be 40 percent less littered
than other sites.
Convenience Stores: Sites near convenience stores tended to be 11 percent more
littered than other sites.
Commercial Establishment: Sites ncar places of business other than convenience
stores tended to be 11 percent more littered than other sites.
Litter Receptacles: Sites where litter receptacles were found nearby tended to be 6
percent less littered than other sites.
MSWCONSULTANTS
3'18 2009 National Litt(n' Shldy
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Loading Docks: Sites near loading docks tended to be 29 percent less littered than
other sites.
Landscaping: Sites near intentionally planted landscaping such as neady trimmed
bushes or flower beds tended to be 37 percent more littered than other sites.
Site Maintenance Condition: Note that the impacts shown for State of the Area
levels are marginal in nature. For example, if the area is classified as Level 4, the total
impact would be the sum of the impacts shown for State of the Area>1 (-179) and
State of the Area>3 (-296).
Of the results obtained, lllost arc intuitive: locations near convenience stores and other
cOlrunerclal areas increase observed litter, while locations near residential areas, where
receptacles are located, and improving 'state of the area' indicators all decrease litter. Some
results may appear counterintuitive, although convincing explanations may be forthcoming.
For instance, the presence of Loading Docks reduces the number of items found. In addition,
roadway sites that exhibited some form of beautification appear to attract more litter. One
example of an explanation for this latter result might be that flower beds are considered to be
a form of beautification. However, certain types of flower beds and landscaping, due to their
design and prevailing local wind patterns can end up instead acting as traps for wind-blown
litter.
3.2.7 CORRELATION OF LITTER TO WASTE FACILITIES
Litter is an issue faced by virtually every solid waste landfill, regardless of size or location.
Landfill litter is defined as any solid waste that is blown away from a landfill, whether it came
from the active area or not. A1though definitions of landfill litter and associated mitigation
requirements vaty from state to state, federal landfill regulations address litter control through
a requirement for cover n1aterial to be placed at certain intervals, as necessary, to ensure that
inlpacts from blowing litter are minimized.
A number of factors influence the likelihood of fugitive landfill litter including prevailing
winds, landfill slope, type of landfill cover material used and the frequency of cover, weather
conditions (wind velocity), local tarping reqnirements and enforcement, and local climate
(number of dty days annually). Further, whether a solid waste facility is receiving wastes or
recyclables, and regardless of the type of facility, numerous vehicles arrive at the facility evety
day canying materials that are susceptible to blowing out of an inlproperly secured vehicle.
The following tables summarize the apparent inlpacts of solid waste facilities on litter
generation. These tables provide incremental litter generation on a pieces-per-mile basis for
sutyey sites that were found to be located within one, two or five miles of one or more solid
waste or recycling facilities. As the radius is expanded, survey sites were found to be
proxinlate to more than one solid waste recycling facility.
Eighteen of the roadway survey sites were within range of one solid waste or recycling facility.
The litter generation for these 18 sites is compared with the remaining 225 sites in Table 3-7.
It is of interest that these 18 sites were found to have slightly lomel' litter generation compared
to sites that had no facility , , ~ t h i n the one mile radius.
2009 National Litter Study 3'19
MSWCONSUlT/UUS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Table 3-7 Litter Generation Test: Sites within 1 Mile of Facility (ies)
# of Waste Facilities
# Survey Sites Avg. Pieces of litter/Mile
within Proximity
1 facility 18 904
o facilities 225 1,003
When the test radius was expanded to two miles, a total of 54 survey sites potentially fell
under the influence of local solid waste and recycling facilities. The analysis of these survey
sites revealed a clearer correlation. Survey sites that fell two nilies of two or three waste
or recycling facilities had litter rates that were 60 percent greater than sites within range of
only one such facility. Further, survey sites that fell two miles of any facility had 27
percent more litter than sites that fell outside the test radius. This is shown in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8 Litter Generation Test: Sites Within 2 Miles of Facility (Ies)
# of Waste Facilities
# Survey Sites Avg. Pieces of Litter/Mile
within Proximity
2 or 3 facilities 12 2,838
1 facility 43 1,147
o facilities 188 843
\'\7hen the test radius was expanded to five nilles, a total of 108 survey sites potentially fell
under the influence of local solid waste and recycling facilities. The analysis of these survey
sites also shows a correlation hetween litter generation and the number of solid waste and
recycling facilities. These results are shown in Table 3-9. As shown in the right-hand column
of the table, the number of litter items per nUle increases with the number of solid waste and
recycling facilities that are located a five nille radius.
Table 3-9 Litter Generation Test: Sites Within 5 Miles of Facility (ies)
# of Waste Facilities
within Proximity
# Survey Sites Avg. Pieces of Litter/Mile
4-6 facilities 11 2,875
2-3 facilities 36 1,391
1 facility 61 921
o facilities 135 770
Table 3-10 ties the data together by the projected increase in the number of litter
items that would be expected depending on the distance of a site to a solid waste or recycling
facility. For example, for each waste facility between one and two nilles from the observation,
it is estimated that 775 additional pieces of litter will be observed. For each waste facility
MSWCONSULTArus
320 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
between two and five miles from the observation, we estimate that 328 additional pieces of
litter will be observed.
Table 3-10 Impact of Solid Waste and Recycling Facilities on litter Generation
Distance from Survey Additional Litter Items Range of Uncertainty
Site to Facility Observed * (No. of Litter Items)
1 mile or less 0 N/A
1 mile to 2 miles 775 373
2 miles to 5 miles 328 166
* per waste facility
Tlus analysis suggests the following conclusions:
No Correlation within One Mile: Survey sites within range of one waste or
recycling facility did not support lugher litter generation. \'1'lUle it was beyond the
scope of tlus study to explain this outcome, the relatively small number of samples
that fell witl1in tlus radius may not have represented the most common access roads to
the facilities where littering nught be expected to occur. Alternatively, it may be that
the facilities themselves receive greater litter dean-up effort close proxin1ity in a
direct attempt to nunimize litter that could be attributable to the solid waste or
recycling facilities.
Strong Correlation within Two and Five Miles: Expanding the analysis to two and
five miles showed a strong correlation between solid waste/ recycling facilities and
litter rates.
Strong Correlation by Number of Facilities: Sinillarly, an increase in the number of
nearby solid waste or recycling facilities also correlates to more litter generation.
Again, it was beyond the scope of this study to investigate the range of other causes that might
explain this phenomenon, and it must at least be noted that solid waste and recycling facilities,
if they arc in urban or suburban areas, are uniformly located in industrially zoned areas with
other businesses that receive significant truck traffic and possibly receive a lower level of
effort towards litter remediation and beautification. However, the results may also suggest
that inlproperly secured waste and recycling vehicles may contribute to local litter rates as they
converge on their destination facilities. Tlus would be consistent qualitative littering field
observations lllade in prior litter surveys.
3.3. COMPARISONS WITH 1969 NATIONAL LITTER
SURVEY
An important component of tlus project was to compare the results of the 2009 Study to the
1969 Study sponsored by Keep America Beautiful. However, differences in study design,
methodology, and underlying demograpluc and transportation metric data complicated the
study comparisons. To more fully explore the sinUlarities and differences of the 1969 and
2009 Studies, a detailed comparative analysis of the Studies is contained in Appendix H to tlus
report, and interested readers are encouraged to review this appendix for a more thorough
discussion. The results of the cOll1parative analysis are summarized here.
2009 National Litter Study 321
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
The comparisons were limited because the 1969 Study sampled only rural interstate and
primary roads. \'\'hen reviewing these results, readers should be aware that comparisons are
therefore limited to the following subsets of the 2009 Study:
Rural roadways only;
Interstate and primary roads only; and
Larger (> 4") litter items only.
It is also important to note that the unadjusted results from the 1969 Study encompass the
entire width of the right-of-way (RO\'\0 for each roadway segment analyzed - specifically,
litter was measured as far back as 500 or more feet from the edge of the road, and the average
ROW width was reported to be 169 feet as calculated using a weighted average. In contrast,
the 2009 Study measured litter in the ROW only to a width of 15 feet from the roadway's
edge. It was therefore necessary to adjust the 1969 Study results to reflect only the first 15
feet of ROW.
Finally, it is noted that the U.S. population has increased from 200 million people in 1969 to
300 million in 2008 - an increase of 50 percent. All else being equal, it would be expected that
the number of litter items per mile would increase by roughly the same percentage as the
overall population. The number of litter items per mile has therefore been normalized to
eliminate the impact of population growth on littering.
Figure 3-18 and Table 3-11 compare the ROW-adjusted, population-normalized 1969 Study
results to the 2009 Study results. The percent change shown in Table 3-11 were calculated
from a series of weighting factors.
Figure 3-18 Change in Visible litter on Rural Interstates and Primary Roads Since 1969
200.0% -,------------------------
150.0% -j----------------------
100.0% -j----------------------
50.0% -j---------------------
Glass
0.0%
-50.0%
Beveoge
Conttinecs
j\lisc. Phs tic
-100.0% -L _______________________ _
MSWCOIIISUlTANTS
3'22 2009 National LittCl' Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Table 3-11 Comparison of 1969 and 2009 Study Results: Visible litter on Rural Interstates and
Primary Roads [1]
Material Change in Litter
Paper -78.9%
Metal -88.2%
Plastic 165.4%
Mise 13.1%
Glass -86.4%
Total -61.1%
Beverage Containers [2] -74.4%
[1J The results 10 thiS table are based on a comparison of the results of the 1969 and 2009
National Litter Studies. In order to enable reasonable comparisons, the 1969 Study data
was statistically adjusted to capture only the first 15 feet of the right-of-way, and results
were also normalized to account for the 50 percent growth in population that occurred
from 1969 to 2008.
[2J Beverage containers were segregated in both the 1969 and 2009 Studies and are shown
separately.
As shown above, the comparison of the 1969 and 2009 Studies shows a 61 percent decline in
overall litter. This decline is reflected in the significant reduction of visible paper, glass, metal,
and beverage container litter on our nation's roadways. Conversely, the comparison 8ho\V8
there has been a significant increase - 165.4 percent - in visible plastic litter.
These results also indicate a slight increase in miscellaneous litter, which includes automotive
parts and accessories, tires and retread, lumber and other construction/ dClnolition/ renovation
materials, and non-container metals and glass items. Readers should bear in mind that it was
not possible to precisely align the materials captured under miscellaneous litter between the
1969 and 2009 Studies, and some of the apparent increase to miscellaneous litter may be the
result of a more comprehensive material list used in the 2009 Study. Appendix H contains a
detailed overview of the 1969 Study, and also documents the methodology and assumptions
used to arrive at the comparative results sho\vn above.
While it was beyond the scope of this study to determine the causes of the apparent changes
to litter incidence and composition since 1969, the lower overall litter rate may be due, in part,
to a significant increase in educational efforts and litter cleanups since 1969. The Adopt-A-
Highway program, by itself, which began in 1985, now has about 1,000,000 volunteers
nationwide that cleanup litter on close to 500,000 miles of roadways. Similarly, it is possible to
point to the significant increase in the use of plastics for numerous uses - from beverage
containers to packaging materials to vehicle parts - to explain the rise of plastic litter. As
plastic containers and packaging have become more glass and metal containers
have decreased.
Several significant conclusions can be drawn when comparing the 1969 and 2009 litter
surveys:
+ The actual count of overall litter is down 61 percent since 1969.
2009 National Litter Study 3-23
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
This decrease, a result of successful education, ongoing cleanup efforts and changes in
packaging, is reflected in dramatic reduction in paper, metal and glass litter since 1969.
Plastic litter has increased 165 percent since 1969.
3.4. NON-ROADWAY LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
There were she non-roadway areas evaluated in this study. Unlike the roadway surveys, there
are no national databases that compile the Huniverse" of non-roadway sites, and therefore it is
not possible to provide a national estimate of litter on non-roadways. Rather, the results
presented herein are intended to convey the extent of litter as an observable problem on a
range of non-roadway areas that have been found or believed to harbor meaningful quantities
of litter. The presentation of results for each non-roadway site contains parallel information,
including:
Particular background data about the sites selected for sampling:
The average items of litter per thousand square feet for that non-roadway site;
Top 10 most common litter items;
Composition of litter at the site; and
Sources of litter at the site.
3.4.1 TRANSITION POINTS
A total of 30 transition points were surveyed. A summaty of the specific transition points is
shown in Table 3-12. Like other non-roadway sites, these locations were chosen as the field
crcv'l came upon thetn in their travels between roadway sites.
Table 3-12 Summary ofTransition Points Surveyed
Transition Point Type Total
Bus Stop 11
Conv. Store Entrance 6
Movie Theater Entrance 6
Mall Entrance 1
Rest Area Entrance 1
Train Station Entrance 1
Educational Center Entrance 1
Post Office Entrance 1
Fast Food Establishment Entrance 1
Hotel Entrance 1
Total 30
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Littel' Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Survey results showed that there was an average of 859 items of litter (large and small items
combined) per 1,000 square feet at transition points. The average area of transition points
measured for this study was 187 square feet. Figure 3-19 shows the composition of these
litter items.
Figure 3-19 Composition of litter atTransitlon Points
Tobacco,
Organic, .... '''0 . .....--
Metal,2.1
2.0%
Lno",,,,,.6.1%
Confections,
7%
As shown, confection litter was the predominant type of litter observed at transition points,
followed by tobacco products. Figure 3-20 breaks down the ten most commonly occurring
litter items at transition points.
2009 NatiolltJ.l Litter Study 3-25
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-20 Top 10 Most Common litter Items atTransltion Points (Items/l,OOO sq tt)
Confection
Cigarette Butts
Vehicle Debris
Broken Glass or Ceramic
Other Paper
Food Waste
Other Metal & Foil Packets
Other Tobacco-Related
Paper Fast-Food Service Items
Food Packaging Film
o
5
5
4
3
2
2
*Per 1,000 square feet of Transition Area.
174
50 100 150 200
Confection litter was the predominant component of litter at these sites followed by cigarette
butts. Confection litter is most likely to reflect an accumulation as it is difficult and expensive
to clean up. Virtually all litter found in transition areas (97 percent) were small items.
Figure 3-21 shows the breakdown of litter by source. As expected, most of the litter found at
transition points was deposited by pedestrians. Motorists were deemed responsible for 10
percent, due to certain items of litter such as broken glass found at bus stops.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3'26 2009 National Litter Study
3.4.2
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-21 Sources of litter at Transition Points
Containers,
0.6%
LOADING DOCKS
Pedestrians/
Shoppers,
95.8%
3.3%
Survey results showed that there was an average of 126 items per thousand square feet of litter
(large and small items combined) at loading docks. The average loading dock area of the sites
measured for this study was 452 square feet. Figure 3-22 shows the composition of these
litter items.
Figure 3-22 Composition of litter at loading Docks
Other, .L .... 07c'.
7.7%
Tobacco,
26.8%
2009 National Litter Study
Organic, 0.2%
327
,-""'[1<;.16.9%
__ " ' ' ' , o , ~ , 4.2%
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
It should also be noted that Loading Docks contained by far the most otherwise unclassifiable
materials that were grouped in the "Other" category. Specifically, loading docks were
frequently found to contain broken pallets and a wide range of construction debris that did
not fall under any of the 61 categories defined for tills project.
Figure 3-23 breaks down the ten most commonly occurring litter items at loading docks.
Figure 3-23 Top 10 Most Common Litter Items at Loading Docks (Itemsj1,000 sq ttl
Cigarette Butts
Other Metal & Foil Packets
Wooden Pallets
Other Plastic
Other Paper
Confection
Broken Glass or Ceramic
OCC
Construction Debris
Other Plastic Film
o 10
33
20 30 40
Cigarette butts were the predominant component of litter found in loading dock areas. Other
notable components were foil packets and small pieces of plastic and papel. Most of the items
found at loading docks were smaller pieces (86 percent).
Figure 3-24 shows the breakdown of loading dock litter by source. Most litter (85 percent)
found on loading docks was attributable to workers loading and unloading goods. Note that
this figure references '\varkel's" in place of "pedestrians," simply because workers or
employees (of either the business itself or the hauling company) was used as the main source
in tills category instead of "pedestrians," as logic dictates that within a loading dock zone, the
majority of persons would be considered workers as very few non-workers or pedestrians
frequent these areas. Overloaded containers, at SLX percent, were the second highest source of
litter \ \ ~ t l l l n loading docks.
MSWCONSULTANTS
328 2009 National Littet' Study
3.4.3
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-24 Sources of litter at loading Docks
Workers,
85.1%
STORM DRAINS
Unknown,
5.7%
6.0%
Loads, 3.2%
Survey results showed that there was an average of 191 items per thousand square feet of litter
(large and small items combined) at storm drains. The average storm drain area of the sites
measured for this study was 120 square feet. Figure 3-25 shows the composition of these
litter items.
Figure 3-25 Composition of litter at Storm Drains
16.1%
Products,
32.0%
2009 National Litter Study
Other, 3.1%
329
Paper,
9%
Plastic,
"--'" Idl"", 8.6%
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-26 breaks down the ten most commonly occurring litter items at storm drains.
Figure 3-26 Top 10 Most Common Litter Items at Storm Drains (Items/1,000 sq ttl
Cigarette Butts
Confection
Other Paper
Broken Glass or Ceramic
Other Plastic
Plastic Fast Food Service.
Other Metal & Foil Packets
Other Plastic Film
Other Expanded Polystyrene
Paper Fast-Food Service ...
o 20
57
40 60
As is shown in Figure 3-27, litter near storm drains was predominantly cigarette butts and
confection litter. l\'lost litter observed in these sites was smaller items (83 percent). Field
crews also made notes regarding litter that had already been washed into the storm drains and
was still visible. These items included smaller plastic bags filled , , ~ t h trash. It was not possible
to accurately quantify the materials that had fallen into the storm drains.
Because storm drains lead to waterways, there are certain types of litter that are of particular
interest around storm drains. Plastics can pose a potential hazard to marine life if tllis material
ends up in our nation's water ways. As is displayed in the above figure, plastic items account
for four of the top ten most common littered items found at storm drains. To further
quantify the percent of various plastic materials at storm drain sites Figure 3-27 below details
the incidence of plastic drink products, plastic bags, plastic fast food service items, and other
plastic materials , , ~ t l l i n the storm drain sample area. As shown, these various types of plastic
comprise roughly 20 percent of all material Oarge and small items combined) found.
MSWCONSULTANTS
3'30 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-27 Plastic and Other Materials at Storm Drains
Inorganic
Utter, .1.'-'.u;'o_
Products,
32.0%
Other
10.2%
Utter,
32.2%
_Plastic Drink
Products,
2.0%
,--Plastic Bags,
0.9%
IPlastilc Fast
Food
Products,
7.0%
Figure 3-28 shows the breakdown of storm drain litter by source. l'vIany storm drains were
equally accessible to pedestrians and motorists and were evaluated with tlus dynanilc in mind.
Pedestrians were deemed responsible for 59 percent of tlus litter willie motorists were
responsible for 32 percent.
Figure 3-28 Sources of Litter at Storm Drains
Unsecured
Loads, 5.3%""
32.4%
2009 National LittCl' Study 3'31
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
3.4.4 RETAIL AREAS
Smvey results showed that there was an average of 46 items per thousand square feet of litter
0arge and small items combined) at retail areas. The average retail area of the sites measmed
for this study was 2,621 square feet. Figme 3-29 shows the composition of these litter items.
Figure 3-29 Composition of litter at Retail Areas
19.9%
Tobacco,
27.0%
Other, 3.2%
",mE'r. 24.6%
_""'SlIG.17.7%
Figure 3-30 breaks down the ten most commonly occurring litter items at retail areas.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3'32 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-30 Top 10 Most Common Litter Items at Retail Areas (Items/1,000 sq tt)
Cigarette Butts
Confection
Other Paper
Paper Fast-Food Service Items
Plastic Bags
Other Tobacco-Related
Other Plastic
Newspaper & Inserts
Office Paper & Discarded Mail
Other Metal & Foil Pacllets
17
a 5 10 15 20
Because cleanups were observed in many of the retail sites that were surveyed, the litter found
was more likely to be fresh litter (recently occurring litter) rather than accumulated litter.
Exceptions to this arc confection litter and cigarette butts (it is uncertain whether these items
were cleaned up regularly). Small items comprised most litter found in these sites (83
percent). Very lillie litter was found in these sites other than these items. All 30 retail areas
sUlveyed were shopping centers.
Figure 3-31 shows the breakdown of retail area litter by source. Shoppers were deemed
responsible for most litter in retail areas (92 percent), while unsecured loads were noted as a
minor issue (6 percent).
2009 National Litter Study 3'33
MSWCotlSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-31 Sources of litter at Retail Areas
Pedestrians/
3.4.5
1.0%
Unsecured
Loads, 16.6%
RECREATIONAL AREAS
80.4%
2.0%
A total of 30 recreational areas were surveyed for tlus study. These are shown in Table 3-13.
Table 3-13 Summary of Recreational Areas SUiveyed
Recreation Area Type Total
Parlls 25
Beaches 2
Community Centers 1
Mountain 1
School Rec. Area 1
Total 30
Although the recreational areas were predominantly classified as "parks," the sites themselves
were extremely diverse and ranged from small local parks \ \ ~ t h one or two courts or
playgrounds to large county and state parks with vast acreage of open space. Throughout,
field surveyors sought out areas of the parks that experienced the greatest use before making
litter observations. So, it must be noted that the litter rates for recreational areas are not
reflective of what nlight be found on average for the entire area, but rather is indicative of
litter in the highly used areas. Specifically, Table 3-14 summarizes the portions of each
recreational area chosen for litter surveying.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
334 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Table 3-14 Portions within Recreational Areas Selected for SUiveying
Portions Total
Picnic Areas 15
Courts/Sport Fields 6
Beach 1
Misc. (Paths, Walkways, Fields, Clubhouses) 8
Total 30
Survey results showed that there was an average of 105 items pel' thousand square feet of litter
and small items combined) at recreational areas. The average recreational area of the
sites measured for this study was 5,094 square feet. Figure 3-32 shows the composition of
these litter items.
Figure 3-32 CompOSition of litter at Recreational Areas
Confection,
Tobacco,
31.5%
_ra ... ",,15.7%

Metal,7.0%
Organic, 7.8%
Figure 3-33 breaks down the ten most commonly occurring litter items at recreational areas.
2009 National Litter Study 3'35
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-33 Top 10 Most Common litter Items at Recreational Areas (ltems/l,OOO sq ttl
Cigarette Butts
Confection
All Other Litter Material
Other Paper
Food Waste
Other Plastic
Broken Glass or ..
Other Metal & Foil..
Other Metal..
Other Plastic Film
Food Packaging Film
34
~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~
o 10 20 30 40 50
Litter in recreational areas was evenly split between large (50 percent) and small (50 percent)
items. No other non-roadway categoty had as much large litter (4 inch-plus) as recreational
sites. However, the predominant items were still cigarette butts and confection litter. i\Iost of
the large litter was food-related.
Figure 3-34 shows the breakdown of recreational area litter by source. As most of the
recreational areas surveyed were not accessible for vehicles, virtually all litter was attributable
to pedestrians.
MSWCONSULTANTS
3'36 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
3.4.6
Figure 334 Sources of litter at Recreational Areas
Unknown,
0.3%
Vehicle
Debris, 0.1%
CONSTRUCTION SITES
98.5%
--__ Motorists,
Containers,
1.0%
0.1%
Survey results showed that there was an average of 101 items per thousand square feet of litter
(large and small items combined) at construction sites. The average area of the sites measured
for this study was 4,174 square feet. Figure 3-35 shows the composition of these litter items.
2009 National Litter Study 3-37
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 3-35 Composition of Utter at Construction Sites
Tobacco
Products,
35.7%
Confection,
7.4%
I
Debris, 5.4%
Organic, 0.3%
per, 19.8%
\PI'lstiic.20.7%
,-""owl, 6.7%
Figure 3-36 breaks down the ten most commonly occurring litter items at construction sites.
Figure 3-36 Top 10 Most Common Utter Items at Construction Sites (Items/l,OOO sq ttl
Cigarette Butts
Other Paper
Other Plastic
Confection
Other Metal & Foil Packets
Construction Debris
Other Plastic Film
Food Packaging Film
Paper Fast-Food Service Items
Cigar Butts
MSWCONSULTANTS
34
~ - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - .
a 10 20 30 40
3-38 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
l\{ost of the litter found at construction sites was smaller items (93 percent) and consisted
mostly of cigarette butts and small pieces of paper and plastic as well as confection litter. Tlus
site type referred to areas in the process of construction, which is a known source of litter,
mostly by workers (69 percent) on site (see Figure 3-32) throwing their trash from snacks,
meals, smoking, etc. in areas immediately outside of the fenced area or that have blown past
the fencing. Although confection litter was the number four item, the actual number of all
litter items, including confections, was generally low. The unknown portion was deemed
attributable equally to either pedestrians or motorists.
Figure 3-37 shows the sources of litter at constmction sites.
3.4.7
Figure 3-37 Sources of litter at Construction Sites
28.7%
Workers,
69.3%
COMPARISON OF NON" ROADWAY LITTER
It is infornlative to evaluate the litter results of the sLx non-roadway arcas in cOlnparison to
one anothet. A range of conlparisons are shown here.
Figure 3-38 compares the relative number of litter items per 1,000 square feet ~ a r g e and small
combined) at non-roadway sites targeted in tlus project.
2009 National Litter Study 339
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 338 Comparison of Litter Incidence by Nonroadway Area (items per 1,000 sq. ft.)
584
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
~
<%
<0
~ C'o -?<9
<$>
""0
Q!. 0,...,
"&
~ 1 '
"&.
~ .
'QQ;, %
<9<$>
0-
0"
<$>0
If'o
"'0 0/5'
Of
"
"0
"
As shown, on a per 1,000 square foot basis, transition areas are significantly more littered than
any other nonroadway type, at more than twice the litter as the second closest litter rate.
Retail areas harbor the least litter.
The size of littered items was also compared among the nonroadway areas. Table 315 below
shows clearly that most litter found on non-roadway sites consists of smaller items. The one
exception is recreational sites, at which there were equal counts of 4-inch-plus and 4-inch-
nunus litter iteills.
MSWCONSULTANTS
340 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Table 3-15 Comparisons of litter Items/1,OOO Sq Ft at Non-Roadway Sites
Site Type Large Items Small Items All Litter
Transition Areas 23 561 584
Storm Drains 34 158 191
Loading Docks 17 108 126
Recreation Areas 52 52 105
Construction Sites 7 94 101
Retail Sites 8 38 46
The size of littered Items was also compared among the non-roadway areas. Table 3-13 below
shows clearly that most litter found on non-roadway sites consists of smaller items. The one
exception is recreational sites, at which there were equal counts of 4-inch-plus and 4-inch-
minus litter items.
Figure 3-39 plots the incidence of tobacco-related litter at each non-roadway site.
Figure 3-39 Comparison ofTobacco as a Percent of All litter on Non-roadway Areas
40%
Construction Sites
Recreational Areas
Loading Docks
Transition Sites
Retail Sites
Storm Drain
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Tobacco found in non-roadways consisted primarily of cigarette butts. However the
percentage of tobacco litter varied greatly. ConstlUction sites exhibited the highest fraction of
tobacco litter, followed by recreational sites, loading docks and transition points. Storm drains
and retail sites contained much less tobacco litter. \'I7hile it was beyond the scope of tlus study
to deternune the reasons fat the variances in tobacco litter among non-roadway sites, it is
hypothesized that retail sites are cleaned up more often and more thoroughly than other sites,
storm drains may not trap cigarette butts (wluch rather may wash down the drain).
2009 National Litter Study 341
MSWCONSUlTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
3.5. CORRELATION OF CONDITIONS TO LITTER RATES
3.5.1 OVERVIEW - ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Once the litter management database was complete, data from the database was exported for
analysis into a statistical package. Econometric Views software was used for the statistical
modeling of litter quantification and characterization data.
The econometric modeling approach has been utilized by the solid waste industry for more
than 15 years and has become a powerful tool, allowing concurrent testing and analysis of the
relationships of a number of complex economic and demographic conditions. In the case of
litter, it allows a correlation between observed litter quantities and composition and specific
site conditions such as proximity to known or suspected sources of litter generation.
Multi-linear regression was used to test for relationships between a broad range of conditions
including solid waste facility proximity, roadway maintenance levels, and beautification.
This approach resulted in determining which of these conditions were key drivers of litter
rates overall, and by specific source, across the U.S., providing a broad range of data that
noted differences in such drivers in rural and urban areas, specifying the different drivers of
litter on municipal, county, state roads and national highways. This modeling tool also
numerically defines the significance of these relationships - whether they are strongly or
weakly correlated.
The result was a series of tables, showing which conditions exhibit strong relationships to
litter rates and which ones will be useful in developing policies and educational programs to
address specific drivers of litter roadways and non-roadways.
3.5.2 CORRELATION OF NON" ROADWAY LITTER TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS
As with the roadway samples, non-roadway samples were tested to determine if certain
conditions correlated to litter generation.
The prelinuna,y analysis took two paths. First all non-roadway sites were exan1ined to the
extent allowed by the data. Second, the six non-roadway types were examined separately.
Tlus was done to study the potential for location-specific relationslups that might be obscured
when evaluating the entire dataset.
For the analysis examining all non-roadway sites, 148 observations were able to be used.
Construction site observations wefe ultimately excluded because they were, by our
observations, not in the process of being maintained. Priot experience suggests that
construction sites are not always cleaned on a regular basis. In fact, at certain residential and
commercial construction sites su",'eyed, litter was left belund after construction had been
completed.
Table 3-16 summarizes the conditions that correlate to littering at non-roadway sites. The
values in the table show how many additional litter items (per 1,000 square feet)' can be
expected to be found given the external condition noted. Analysis of the proximity of
residential areas and convenience stores did not result in the presence of more or less litter,
thus those variables are not included in the table below.
MSWCONSULTANTS
3-42 2009 National Litter Study
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Table 3-16 Non-Roadway Variable Impacts
Condition Tested Impact on Litter Items
per Site
The non-roadway site was close to a commercial area - 56
How each improvement in the level of maintenance (from -27
poor to average to good to perfect) will impact litter
There were one or more fast food restaurants in close +43
proximity
There was a Public Area in close proximity to the survey site +54
There was Landscaping in close proximity to the survey site +60
The table shows the incremental number of litter items that would be expected to be observed
at non-roadway sites exhibiting the conditions shown. For example, if the area is near a Fast
Food restaurant, it was found that there were 44 more litter items per site than would
be at that particular site.
All but one of the conditions that correlated litter generation exhibited positive
reinforcement of litter accumulation. The only condition that correlated to lower litter at non-
roadway sites was the level of n1aintenance. Notable observations are:
Maintenance: For the variable "lvlaintained," each level of maintenance will reduce
the number of litter items found by 26. For example, improving the level of
maintenance from 2 to 5 would reduce the number of litter items by 3 x 26, or 78
fc\ver itellls.
Landscaping: Roadway sites that included landscaping tended to be result in 60
additional items of litter compared with sites that did not have landscaping. TIllS was
attributable to the landscaping (hedges, flowers, the edge of planting beds, etc.)
harboring litter items that might have been more dispersed.
Commercial establishments: Sites near businesses other than convenience stores or
fast food establishments tended to have 56 fewer items of litter compared with other
sites.
Fast food restaurants: Sites near fast food establishments tended to have 43
additional items of litter compared other sites.
Public areas: Sites near public areas tended to have 54 additional items of litter
compared with other sites.
Of the results obtained, those shown for Fast Food, Public Areas, and Maintained are each
intuitive: locations near fast food restaurants, locations that are public areas, and the level of
maintenance would all be expected to influence the number of litter items found. The
relnaining two results are sOlnewhat counterintuitive.
In addition to the analysis of all non-roadway data, survey data for each non-roadway type
were independently analyzed for correlations. The correlations were found for
individual non-roadway types:
2009 National Litter Studr 3'43
MSWCONSULTANTS
3. VISIBLE LITTER SURVEY RESULTS
Retail: Results showed that Fast Food establishments again correlated with more
litter (+37), while Convenience stores (-45), Receptacles (-66), ]'vlaintenance (-18 per
level) correlated with less litter. The convenience store result may be counterintuitive,
although perhaps convenience stores provide some measure of litter removal as a part
of their employee duties.
Storm Drains: Results showed that ]'vlaintenance correlated ,vith reduced litter (-23
per level), while close proximity of Convenience stores (+127), Residential areas (+85),
Landscaping (+159), Receptacles (+113), and Public areas (+92) each correlated ,vith
more litter.
Loading Docks: Results again showed that J\'Iaintenance correlated ,vith less litter (-
3D per level), as did the proximity of Public Areas (-123). Other commercial
establishments correlated with more litter (+101).
Construction Sites: Construction sites, by nature, would not yield meaningful
Maintenance data, so this external variable was not considered for this portion of the
analysis. Interestingly, the presence of Landscaping (-84), Convenience stores (-78),
and Loading Docks (-113) each correlated with less litter. Other commercial
establishments (+74) and Receptacles (+136) each correlated ,vith more litter.
Transition Points: Other commercial establishments (-309) and Maintenance (-118
per level) correlated with less litter, while Fast food restaurants (+235) and
Landscaping (+229) correlated with more litter.
Recreational Areas: These results were the strongest, statistically speaking, and (not
surprisingly) were therefore fairly intuitive. Landscaping (-57) and Residential areas (-
98) each correlated with less litter, while Loading Docks (+ 192) and Receptacles (+85)
each correlated with more litter. Interestingly, Maintenance did not correlate to the
level of litter in tlus specific category.
In conclusion, better maintained sites generally yield less litter, as one would expect.
However, the presence of certain types of landscaping and litter receptacles each appear to
increase litter. \,'hile this n1ay seem counter-intuitive at first glance, some qualitative reasons
can be offered. Certain landscaping may act as a trap for litter, either against fencing or
caught in the spacing of several inches between the ground level and the point at which
bushes or flowers and leaves grew. Qualitatively, field observations of landscaping that did
not have such spacing showed less trapped litter. Litter receptacles that were not maintained
enough to keep up with the trash deposited in them tended to result in overflow, and thus
were producers of litter.
MSWCONSULTANTS
344 2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
4.1. INTRODUCTION
Litter is known to financially impact a wide range of entities and organizations in a variety of
ways. For example, many entities (local government, institutions, and businesses) incur direct
costs by expending resources (personnel, equipment, disposal fees, etc.) for collecting litter.
Indirect costs may also be incurred if litter reduces the value of a parcel of real estate or deters
a customer from entering the premises of a business because of a negative perception about
the cleanliness outside of the building. There is a great breadth of litter abatement efforts that
arc ongoing in our economy on a regular basis.
Despite the intuitive awareness that a great deal is expended on litter abatement, there are few
means of quickly and accurately measuring the costs associated , , ~ t h these abatement efforts.
Therefore, a critical part of tlus project was to develop a far-rea clung research protocol that
spanned a wide range of entities involved in litter abatement.
4.2. METHODOLOGY
4.2.1 DEFINING SURVEY POPULATIONS
To investigate the estimated direct costs of litter borne by a wide range of public and private
entities in the U.S., tlus project utilized a series of surveys of national databases of
governments, institutions, and businesses. In many cases, the universe of entities to be
surveyed was stratified to better enable meaningful comparison of responses, as well as to
improve the sinlllarity of responses for extrapolation of results. The following entities were
ultimately researched as part of tlus project:
State Agencies: l'vISW Consultants contacted state agencies responsible for litter
education, enforcement and abatement in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Counties: There are 3,141 counties (including related entities such as parishes in
Louisiana and Boroughs in Alaska) in the u.s. according to the u.s. Census Bureau.
These entities are typically responsible for litter management in their unincorporated areas,
and at times may provide litter abatement to some or all of the incorporated areas witlun
their boundaries. POI' purposes of this study, counties were stratified by population to
separately research, large, tnedium, and slnall counties.
Cities: Also according to the u.s. Census Bureau, there are over 27,000 incorporated
cities, towns, boroughs, townships, villages, and related entities in the u.s. These entities
frequently provide their own litter abatement efforts. For purposes of tlus study, cities
were stratified by population to separately research, large, medium, and small counties.
School Districts: There are thousands of school districts in the U.S., and tens of
thousands of school buildings housing kindergarten through 12th grade students. This
study targeted the 500 largest school districts based on a database from the National
Center for Education Statistics wluch is part of the U.s. Department of Education.
Colleges and Universities: There are almost 2,000 colleges and universities in the U.S.,
according to a list by the National Center for Education Statistics.
2009 National Litter Study 4\
MSWCONSUlTANTS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
+ Busiuesses: While there are multiple business and market data providers offering
proprietaty lists of businesses, ]'I'IS\,(' Consultants opted to rely on a database of
businesses' physical locations provided by third party data provider I'ifoUSA. Tl:tis list of
businesses was ultimately selected because it clearly defined the universe of businesses and
their actual locations. For purposes of tI:tis study, businesses were stratified into four
groups based on total employment indicated to be at each physical location.
+ Organizations that Combat Litter: In addition to the universe of public and private
organizations that deal with litter as a necessaty part of their existence, there has grown in
the U.S. a network of organizations that exist in whole or in part to educate, inform, and
otherwise attempt to eradicate litter. Keep America Beautiful and its affiliates, as well as
the International Adopt A Highway Association (lAAHA) are two of the main
organizations involved in the enterprise of reducing litter, through local and state affiliates
and from thousands of volunteers.
With the exception of the KAB and IAAHA organizational data, data for the remaining
groups required acquisition and definition of the survey population, followed by random
sampling and direct surveying. Table 4-1 summarizes the universe of entities targeted for
survey-based litter cost research.
Table 4-1 Definition of Entities to be SUiveyed
Entity Type Stratification
Number of Population of
Organizations Organization
Cities <301< pop 26,090 86.9 million people
30k to lOOk pop 952 53.0 million people
>100k pop 247 82.1 million people
Counties <30k pop 1,717 15.0 million people
30k to lOOk pop 894 32.3 million people
>100k pop 530 127.6 million people
States All 50 states and DC 51 305.0 million people
Educational Institutions School Districts 500 largest 48.7 million students!l]
Universities 1,994 17.5 million students
Businesses 0-19 employees 4,504,763 21.2 million employees
20-99 employees 692,677 20.1 million employees
100-1,000 employees 438,587 22.5 million employees
1,000+ employees 948,342 50.7 million employees
t Although the 500 largest school districts were sampled, the extrapolations presented In subsequent
sections were for the entire universe of students in all school districts.
A second objective of the litter cost survey was to explore the indirect costs of litter. An
indirect cost is defined as a cost that is not attributable to actively managing and removing
litter. Examples of indirect costs include: the degree to which litter increases the perception
of a less desirable neighborhood or business district, thereby diminisl:ting property values; or
the influence litter may have on the decision of a consumer to patronize a business
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
establishment. little prior research has been performed on the indirect costs of litter,
primarily because there are many other neighborhood characteristics that also influence
property values and! or business visitation.
Tlus study sought to explore perceptions of litter on homeowners, realtors, and business
development officials who are generally aware of the factors that influence real estate
purchasing, neighborhood attractiveness, and development. Specifically, tlus study included
less rigorous surveying of homeowners, realty companies, and business development entities
to investigate the potential indirect impact of litter.
4.2.2 SURVEY PREPARATION
There were two basic steps to conducting the survey of direct litter costs. In the first step,
l'vISW Consultants randomly selected entities from each of the strata to be contacted. This
was performed using randonUzation functions and selecting several hundred entities from
each stratum to serve as the contact list. In SOlne cases, such as for the businesses, contact
information was contained in the database acquired for the study. For other entities,
especially the cities and counties, it was necessary to research appropriate contact numbers on
the internet.
The second step involved development of separate survey instruments and survey response
meclJalusms. A list of survey questions was developed for each entity type, and ultimately
approved by KAB.
4.2.3 CONDUCTING THE SURVEY
Given the extent of surveying that was required to obtain a meaningful number of responses,
the l\{S\\l Team utilized a combination of professional and tempora,y office staff to conduct
litter surveys. Such effort required survey staff to be trained prior to conducting survey phone
calls. Surveyor trahung included the following topics:
litter basics;
An introduction to KAB, its mission, and this project's overall objectives;
An overview of the type of entity (e.g., cities) along with strategies for identifying the
individual(s) witl-.in the entity organizational structure who might be knowledgeable about
litter;
Survey processes, including the provision of official e-mail and fax communications, as
well as an internet-based survey response site developed for the project; and
An overview of the cost components involved in litter clean-up, including estimation of
the volume of litter and estimation of the labor or other resources applied to litter clean-
up.
Table 4-2 summarizes the targeted number of survey responses from each of the survey
populations, as well as the number of responses ultin1ately obtained.
2009 National Littel' Study 4-3 MSWCONSULTAfns
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
Table 4-2 Summary of Direct Litter Cost SUlVey Responses
Initial
Targeted Actual
Entity Type Descriptor Random
Selection
Responses Responses
Cities <30k pop 120 30 39
30k to 1001( pop 120 30 36
>100k pop 120 30 33
Counties <30k pop 120 30 38
30k to 100k pop 120 30 38
>1001( pop 120 30 29
States All 50 states and DC 51 51 51
Educational Institutions School Districts 125 20 19
Universities 1,994 20 18
Businesses 0-19 employees 300 30 42
20-99 employees 300 30 32
100-1,000 employees 300 30 37
1,000+ employees 303 30
o [1[
Total 4,093 391 412
1 Significant obstacles were encountered in obtaining responses from large businesses. These
are discussed below.
As shown in Table 4-2, approximately 30 responses were targeted from each entity stratum.
In most cases, the target number of responses was achieved (although not all responders may
have provided complete data for all sets of questions). However, a notable exception involved
businesses with 1,000 or more employees. As noted in the methodology section, the universe
of businesses was based on a database provided by a third party market data aggregator. This
database was selected precisely because it contained the universe of U.S. businesses, which in
themy would allow resuits of a random slltvey to be projected to a national total.
In practice, these large businesses immediately emerged as those that were the least likely to
provide meaningful responses. In brief, large businesses were much more likely to defer
surveyors to a corporate office. Not only were corporate offices less likely to respond to
slltveys, but in every case the responses that may have been provided by the corporate office
would not apply to the specific location surveyed. By disassociating responses from the
underlying entities targeted for slltveying, there would have been no way to apply survey
results to the universe and project national totals.
If large companies are to be slltveyed in the future, it is recommended that a different
approach be taken to first compile a known universe of companies (e.g., all companies in the
S&P 500 list of publicly traded companies), and then to work more closely with KAB to
approach the cmporate offices of these businesses to solicit participation in litter cost
research.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
The second set of surveys reflected less statistically rigOrotlS questioning of entities that may
have insight on indirect litter costs. Table 4-3 summarizes the survey research applied to these
entities.
Table 43 Summary of Indirect litter Cost SUlVey Responses
Organization Type
Random Targeted Actual
Selection Responses Responses
Real Estate Brokers 40 10 10
Business Development Officers 40 10 10
Property Appraisers 40 10 10
Homeowners 30 30 30
Total 150 60 60
As shown, the targeted response rates were achieved.
4.2.4 DATA ANALYSIS
Given that each target population \vas to be evaluated separately, survey responses were
tabulated in a simple spreadsheet format. Responses from entities surveyed for direct litter
costs were aggregated and extrapolated to the universe of each entity, providing a national
estimate of litter costs and estimated quantities. Responses from entities surveyed for indirect
costs were aggregated, but no extrapolation was possible.
Given the inherent challenges associated with surveying such a \ \ ~ d e range of entities, the
completeness of survey responses varies by entity type. While the I'viSW Team made efforts to
complete each survey, and applied our Team's logic and past experience to validate the
reasonableness of responses, the prospect for some inaccuracies must be acknowledged.
However, because of the relatively narrow range of responses to many questions, the MS\'\!
Team believes that the responses received for the range of entity types was reasonable for use
in projecting the order of magnitude of national litter costs.
4.3. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
4.3.1 STATES
All fifty states and the District of Columbia were contacted and benchmarked for the Litter
Costs portion of the study. State agencies that responded include department of
transportation, department of environmental protection, state Adopt-a-Highway, and state
Keep America Beautiful coordinators. As was to be expected, some States were able to
provide complete data, while others could only answer select questions.
2009 National Litter Study MSWCONSUlTANTS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
Table 4-4 below sutnmarizes the cost and quantities of litter managed at the state level.
Table 4-4 Results of Litter Cost SUlVey of U.S. States
Result
Annual Litter Cost $362.5 million
Litter Costs $/Capita $1.19
Tons of Litter 171,164 tons
Annual Lbs/Capita 1.12 pounds
Litter Grant Funding Received $21.0 million
Grant Funding/Capita $0.07
In most instances, cost data in tllls and subsequent tables reflect FY07 or FY08 dollars.
\,\There no recent data exists, some entities may have provided eadier data. No attempts were
made to normalize or standardize for inflation. It should be noted that some states did not
track their litter-related costs, and consequently it is believed that the state-wide totals may be
understated. Tracking of litter related costs is frequendy, if not always, obscured because such
costs are not typically accounted for separately in the budgeting or expense tracking process.
Utter abatement costs are usually grouped with other programs. In addition, litter abatement
costs at the state level were potentially incurred by more tl,an one department or agency.
4.3.2 COUNTIES
One hundred and five county responses were obtained in response to litter cost inquiries.
County contacts that provided the necessatl' data to MS\V Consultants ranged from
highway/road departments, public works departments, solid waste/recycling departments, and
KAB county affiliates. Some counties were able to provide reasonably complete data, while
others only answered select questions for willch they had data available. Results are shown in
Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Results of litter Cost SUlVey of U.S. Counties
Litter
LItter &
Annual
Litter Grant Grant
Entity Type
Annual Litter
Costs
Illegal
Lbs. per
Funding Funding
Cost (million $)
$/Capita
Dumps
Capita
Received $/Capita
(Tons) (million $)
Counties <
$24.8 $1.66 56,022 7.49 $4.9 $0.33
30k Pop
Counties
30k-100k $97.9 $3.03 249,746 15.47 $25.6 $0.79
Pop
Counties>
$62.4 $0.49 529,035 8.30 $16.6 $0.13
100k Pop
Total $185.1 $1.06 834,803 9.54 $47.1 $0.27
MSWCONSULTANTS
016 2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
Similar to the experience with state-level research, county departments did not accurately
separate or track litter clean-up costs, and it is believed that litter abatement costs mal' be
unders ta ted.
4.3.3 CITIES
One hundred and eight city responses were obtained in response to litter costs surveys. The
city contacts that provided the necessary data to l'I'IS\\1 Consultants included streets,
landscaping, public works, sanitation, and local KAB coordinators. Some cities were able to
provide complete data, while others could only answer select questions. Table 4-6 below
details the estimated cost for litter collection and prevention efforts
Table 4-6 Results of litter Cost Survey of U.S. Cities
Annual Litter Litter
Litter &
Annual
Litter Grant Grant
Entity Type Cost Costs
Illegal
Lbs. per
Funding Funding
(million $) $/Capita
Dumps
Capita
Received $/Capita
(Tons) (million $)
Cities < 30k
$462.6 $5.32 482,489 11.1 $98.3 $1.13
Pop
Cities 30k-
$96.0 $1.81 153,537 5.8 $4.0 $0.08
lOOk Pop
Cities>
$238.7 $2.91 955,817 23.3 $1.6 $0.02
lOOk Pop
Total: $797.3 $3.59 1,591,843 14.34 $103.9 $0.47
As was the case \ \ ~ t h counties, city departments were not typically able to provide complete
litter cost and quantity data, and as such, their costs may be underrepresented. In discussions
, , ~ t h various departments, it was learned that litter collection and remediation costs are
grouped with other programs and extrapolating those costs was not possible \ \ ~ t h o u t
significant review of progranls.
It should be noted that the number of cities willing or able to provide usable data for this
study was almost double that of the counties. TillS possibly suggests that counties do not
track litter costs as thoroughly as cities do.
4.3.4 BUSINESSES
One hundred and eleven businesses, representing three different business size strata,
ultimately responded to litter cost surveys. Business contacts responding to the survey
included company owners/ officers, office managers, accountants, operations staff, and
custodial management.
Unlike states, cities and counties, willch at least are aware of litter as an issue and may have a
litter abatement strategy in place, to many if not most businesses litter is not an issue that is
being consciously addressed. Business surveys were generally more challenging to complete
because nobody at most businesses had "litter abatement" in their job description. Yet, as our
surveys found, a great many businesses do in fact devote resources to removal of litter.
2009 National Litter Study 4-7 MSWCONSULTAtnS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
\Vhile successful strategies varies slighdy, almost all business surveys were more free-form
questions aimed at understanding the grounds maintenance responsibilities and resources in
use. In many cases, it took respondents several questions to become aware that in fact the
business was expending resources on litter. Surveyors then proceeded to construct estimates
of the volume of litter and the labor and resource commitments made by the business, which
were subsequendy used to estimate total costs. Table 4-7 summarize the estimated cost of
litter among businesses.
Table 4-7 Results of litter Cost Survey of U.S. Businesses
Annual Litter Litter Costs Litter & Illegal
Annual
Entity Type
Cost (billion $) $/Employee Dumps (Tons)
Lbs. per
Employee
Businesses 0-19 emp. $2.8 $131.80 473,481 44.67
Businesses 20-99 emp. $2.0 $97.76 191,978 18.60
Businesses 100-1,000 emp. $1.3 $58.90 513,206 45.54
Businesses 1,000 + emp. [1J $3.0 $58.90 813,039 32.07
Total $9.1 $79.48 1,991,704 34.79
..
[lJ The very largest bUSinesses were unable to provide locatlonspeclflc responses and therefore
it would not have been possible to project national results for this stratum. Results for
businesses with 1,000 or more employees were therefore calculated based on responses
from businesses with 100 to 1,000 employees.
It must be reiterated that the largest businesses were found to be unable to provide litter cost
data at individual locations. For this reason, the costs shown in Table 4-7 for businesses with
greater than 1,000 employees arc based on the litter costs per employee and litter generation
per employee that was calculated for the businesses with 100 to 1,000 employees.
Other observations include:
Businesses spend an order of nlugnitudc more on litter abatenlcnt than cities, counties, or
states. Where litter abatement costs for these municipal entities are stated in the hundreds
of /llilliolls, the cost of litter abatement for U.S. businesses is almost $10 billioll. At a
minimum tillS number should give pause to companies in many industries who may be
devoting meaningful time and resources to a problem they may not know existed .
The litter cost per employee dimilllshed as the size of the business increased. TIllS would
seem to be a logical relationship, as a smaller fraction of employees would be expected to
provide litter abatement for the entire business location as the size of the business
increases.
4.3.5 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
UNIVERSITIES)
The MSW Team obtained responses from nineteen school districts and eighteen colleges and
universities across the country. In lll0St instances the contacts within these educational
institutions that provided the necessary data headed the maintenance, facilities, or janitorial
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
departments. Similar to the other entities surveyed, in most cases only partial data was
available. Table 4-8 summarizes the direct costs of litter at educational institutions.
Table 4-8 Results of litter Cost SUivey of U.S. Educational Institutions
Entity Type
Annual Litter Cost Litter Costs Litter & Illegal Annual Lbs.
(million $) $/Student Dumps (Tons) per Student
School Districts $172.6 $3.54 7,415 0.30
Universities $68.0 $3.89 64,001 7.32
Total: $240.6 $3.63 71,416 2.16
Of interest, the direct cost of litter abatement pel' student was comparable for both school
districts and colleges/universities. Yet, colleges and universities reported over 20 times the
quantity of litter and illegal dumps removed. TillS appears to have been driven by the fact that
k-12 schools are unoccupied other than during the school day, while colleges and university
students reside on campus and generate much more litter. Also, colleges and universities
reported that beginning and end of semester move-in and move-outs create extensive
amounts of illegal dumping whose costs are reflected in these results.
4.3.6 LITTER ORGANIZATION COSTS
In addition to public and private organization above, there are non-profit organization and
volunteer resources devoted to litter remediation as well. Non-profit organization operating
costs, such as Keep America Beautiful, and volunteer groups such as Adopt-a-Highway
programs represent another form of direct cost. A breakout of direct costs incurred by litter
organizations and their affdiates and volunteers has been factored in to the total cost
estimates.
It is well known that placing a dollar value to volunteer time has been a challenge for
nonprofit organizations. Neglecting to account for the value of volunteered services,
however, results in discounting the value of volunteer services' provided. Thus, the Financial
Accounting Standards Board issued rules requiring nonprofits to report volunteer services
provided.
When estimating the dollar value of volunteers, it is important not to fall into the trap of using
nlinimum wage as the only basis for computing the value of time provided since the majority
of volunteer assigruncnts are worth more than lnininlUln wage. The value of volunteer
assignments should be based on the cost of that type of work in the marketplace. Volunteers
are not free, rather they allow organizations to extend their allocated budget and accomplish
more through the use of volunteers.
The costs shown below in Table 4-9 represent the estimated number of volunteers and the
average amount of time spent annually on litter-related activities. Costs are calculated based
on tnininlU111 wage, the national value of volunteer tlllle and an avcrage of those two costs. As
shown, the estitnated real value of volunteer tlnle associated with litter abatctnent ranges ffOlll
$340 million to just over $1.0 billion depending on the assumed hourly wage level.
2009 National Litter Study 4'9 MSWCONSUlTANTS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
Table 4-9 Estimated Annual Volunteer Hours and Costs Spent on Litter Clean-ups
Minimum
True Value
Average
Volunteers Hours per Total Hours Wage Value
of Time
Value of
Volunteer Group (millions) Year (millions) ofTime
(millions)2
Time
(milllons)1 (millions)
~ a H
1.1 16 18 $117.9 $351.2 $234.5
KAB - Affiliates
3
1.0 16 16 $104.8 $312.:2 $208.5
KAB - Additional
4
2.0 8 16 $104.8 $312.2 $208.5
Ocean Conservancy5 0.5 4 2 $13.1 $39.C $26.1
Total 4.6 44 52 $340.6 $1,014.e $677.e
. .
1 Based on the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour, effective July 2008 .
2 Based on the national value of volunteer time is estimated to be $19.51 per hour for 2008
(www.independentsector.org/programs/research/volunteertime.html!.
3 Represents the volunteer costs for the state and local affiliates themselves.
4 Represents the additional value of volunteer time for KAB's annual Great American Cleanup.
5 Estimated portion of Ocean Conselvancy budget allocated to issues related to litter and marine debris.
The direct costs shown in Table 4-10 below represent KAB's estimated costs for office
expenditures, educational materials, and media events and specifically exclude the value of
volunteer time noted in Table 4-9 above. This adds another $92 million to the cost of litter.
Table 4-10 Direct litter Costs to Various Organizational Entitles
Organization Level Direct Costs (millions) 1
Affiliates Reporting $69
Non-Affiliates (KAB est.) $13
KAB - National $10
Total $92
1 Includes office costs, educatIOnal matenals and media.
Assuming the combined $769 million dollars in volunteer and organizations costs shown in
this section are included , , ~ t h the $10.7 billion already described in Section 4.3, then it could
be legitimately argued that the true annual litter collection and prevention costs to the varies
entities within the United States approaches $11.5 billion dollars.
4.3.7 COMPARATIVE DATA
Litter costs for each of the targeted entity types discussed in the above sections are combined
to estimate a national cost of litter collection and prevention in the United States on an annual
basis. In summar)" the research perf01med in this project suggests that a conservative
estinlate for the direct costs of litter to goverrul1ents, educational institutions, businesses,
volunteer and litter organization costs in the U.S. is $11.5 billion. The percent breakdown of
litter costs from each entity type is shown in Figme 4-1.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Littel' Shtdy
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 4-1 Breakdown of Direct litter Costs In the U.S.
Businesses, _
---
79.5%
1.6%
These data are also summarized in Table 4-11.
States, 3.2%
0.8%
Institutions,
2.1%
5.9%
Table 4-11 Estimated Annual U.S. Costs for litter Clean-up and Prevention
Estimated Litter Percent of
$ per Capita,
Entity Type
Cost (million $) Total
Employee, or
Student
States $362.6 3.2% $1. 19/capita
Counties $185.1 1.6% $1.06/capita
Cities $797.3 6.9% $3.59/capita
Businesses $9,127.5 79.5% $79.48/employee
Ed. Institutions $240.6 2.1% $3.63/student
Organizations $677.6 5.9% N/A
Volunteer $92.0 0.8% N/A
Total: $11,482.7 100.0% N/A
As shown, U.S. businesses pal' an unwittingly large fraction of the total cost of litter (80
percent). States, cities and counties together expend another $1.3 billion dollars on litter
abatement. This equates to $4.41 for every man, woman and child in the country on an
annual basis. Educational institutions, an area not frequently thought off when addressing
2009 National Litter Study 4-11 MSWCONSULTANTS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
litter issues, expend approximately $241 million dollars combined, which equates to
approximately $3.71 per student annually.
Given the estimates shown above, it appears that litter costs are a legitimate issue and that
many entities, especially in the commercial sector, may benefit from programs that reduce
litter around their workplaces and elsewhere.
Figure 4-2 compares the quantity of litter and illegal dumping that was found to have been
collected and removed by entities in the u.s.
Figure 4-2 Breakdown of litter and illegal Dumping Quantities in the U.S.
States, 3.
Educational
Institutions,
1.5%
These data are also summarized in Table 4-12.
Cities,
17.9%
Table 4-12 Estimated Annual Tons of litter Collected
Entity Type Tons Collected
Percent Lbs per capita, student
or employee
States 171,164 3.7% 1.12
Counties 834,803 17.9% 9.54
Cities 1,591,843 34.2% 14.34
Businesses 1,991,703 42.7% 34.79
Ed. Institutions 71,416 1.5% 2.16
TOTAL: 4,660,930 100% N/A
MSWCONSULTANTS
4'12 2009 Na tional Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
As Table 4-12 shows, an estimated 4.6 million tons of litter is collected by public and private
organizations on an annual basis. Por perspective, tlus is more than the total residential waste
generated in the five boroughs of New York City in a one year time frame.
As a final topic of research, surveys of governmental entities explored litter-related grants that
were received. The amount of litter grants available to and from the various states and local
governments can, in most instances, be tied to econonuc andlor political factors. During
difficult econoollc times, budgets for environmental programs, such as litter collection and
prevention programs, can be cut or eliollnated altogether. It should be noted that none of the
businesses and educational institutions that were surveyed reported receiving grant money for
litter. Further research into whether or not these entities receive grant funding should be
considered in future studies.
Results of the survey suggest that $172 million of grant funding was received by cities,
counties and states. These results are shown in Figure 4-3 and Table 4-13.
Figure 4-3 Breakdown of Annual litter Grant Funding In the U.S.
Counties,
27.4%
States,
12.2%
I
Table 4-13 Estimated Annual Grant Funding Received by Entity Type
Estimated Litter
Estimated
Entity Type
Grants (million $)
Percent Grants received
per capita ($)
States $21.0 12.3 $0.07
Counties $47.1 27.4 $0.27
Cities $103.8 60.3 $0.47
Total $172.0 100% N/A
200!) National Litter Shldy MSWCONSULTIUJTS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
As shown, cities obtained the greatest proportion of litter grants, almost doubling that of
counties on a per capita basis. This seems to suggest either that cities do a better job than
counties in requesting litter collection and education grants from the state and local
government entities or that the available funding mechanisms are targeting cities and ground-
level operations. One key component that could be studied for future calculations is funding
mechanisms for county wide KAB affiliates. Consideration of this data might in the01Y
increase the estimated litter grants to county programs and thus increase the estimated grants
received on a per capita basis.
4.4. INDIRECT COSTS OF LITTER
There are many factors that in1prove the attractiveness of a neighborhood or area that are
documented to contribute to higher property values and housing prices. Such factors include
a good public school system, a safe neighborhood, close access to open spaces, walking trails
and public transportation, to name but a few. Conversely, other factors reduce the
attractiveness and corresponding property values of a neighborhood. These include proximity
to undesirable commercial or industrial facilities, roads in disrepair, abandoned properties,
poor schools, and lack of safety.
To explore these factors, both positive and negative, the National Association of Home
Builders (NAI-IB) built a hedonic pricing model' based on data from a large survey conducted
by the U.S. Census Bureau. This model is one where the component variables were directly
related to the quality of a home that one might consider purchasing. The NAI-IB model
deconstmcted the price of a home into selected components, so that estimated factors were
developed for each price-influencing variable while addressing problems of nonlinearity.
Based on this model, NAHB determined that the presence of litter tended to reduce the value
of property in that neighborhood by about 7.4 percent. Due to the functional form used in
the NAHB model, the percentage varied and was actually higher in certain cases.
A study of Philadelphia neighborhoods found that the presence of an abandoned house on a
block reduced the average value of other adjacent properties by $6,720. It went on to suggest
that property abandonment could become a self-sustaining contagion. It is possible that litter
is subject to a similar dynamic and that early intervention could produce positive results much
quicker than when litter rates become high and neighborhoods began to fall into a negative
feedback loop of decay.
\\lith these dynamics in mind, surveys of property appraisers, realtors, business development
officials and homeowners were conducted to further research into the relationship of litter to
healthy communities. As opposed to the entities surveyed to investigate direct costs, the list
of questions presented to homeowners, business development officials, and realty officials
were Inore qualitative in nature, and no attempt \vas made to project national results. The
results of this study are presented in subsequent sections below.
I NABB House Price Estimator (www.nahb.org)
MSWCONSULTANTS
4'14 2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
4.4.1 HOMEOWNERS
Thirty home owners from twenty states were randomly selected and surveyed over the phone
during the month of July 2008. Each home owner was asked four questions about their
impressions of litter and its affect on home values. Responses are shown below.
Questiolll: How 111ucb of all issue/proble111 is litter ill your Ileigbborbood?
7% Litter is not a problem in my neighborhood
57% Litter is a slight problem in my neighborhood
30% Litter is a moderate problem in my neighborhood
7% Litter is a heavy problem in my neighborhood
0% Litter is an extreme problem in my neighborhood
Questioll 2: If/ould all ullkempt lleigbborbood illfluellce your decisioll ill purcbasillg a
property?
93% Yes
7% No
Respondents overwhelmingly said that an unkempt neighborhood would indeed influence
home buying decisions. Some went on to say, "I would not be interested if it was littered" or
"I absolutely wouldn't buy if it was littered."
Questioll 3: If/ould a littered lleigbborJ100d decrease your assessmellt of a b0111e's
lm/lle?
93% Yes
7% No
I-lome owners sUi'Veyed overwhelmingly thought a littered neighborhood would decrease their
assessment of a hon1c's value. One respondent who said H yes" commented on the bigger
picture and said "litter can bring rats and other problems to a neighborhood." Others said
they "can't stand litter" or that they "wouldn't \vant to tnovc to an area that is dirty."
Interestingly enough, one respondent who said "no" went on to elaborate that while he
thought litter "should" affect the value of a home, in reality he did "not believe it is an
important enough factor to actually affect the value of a home."
Questioll 4: By wbat percell( do you tbiJ1k a littered area would reduce property
values?
17% 0-9% reduction in property values
40% 10-24% reduction in property values
20% 25-50 % reduction in property values
3% 51-75% reduction in property values
13% 76-100% reduction in property values
7% Uncertain/Unknown
2009 National Litter Study MSWCONSUlTArns
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
The majority of respondents said they felt they were not in a position to predict an accurate
reduction in property values and at first abstained from answering the question. However,
when further encouraged to give their "best estimate," 93% of respondents were willing to
answer and only 7% continued to abstain.
4.4.2 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS
Eleven officials from business and econolnic development agencies across eleven states were
randomly selected and surveyed over the phone during the month of July 2008. Each
business development officer was asked the following four questions regarding their
impressions of litter and its affect on businesses relocating to a particular city or region.
Question 1: What do you dlll1k are d,e major factors tbat itlOuence a busil1ess to locate
itl your cOlnlnlll1ity?
45% Taxes
45% \,(Iorkforce
36% Infrastmcture/ accessibility
36% Incentives
27% Location
27% Economy/business climate
27% Upkeep/ cleanliness
27% Cost of Living/ affordability of housing
9% Ratings/public unage of town
9% Density
9% Disposable income of community
9% Available land/ properties
9% Cost of labor
9% Foot traffic
9% Price charged per square foot
9% \V'eather
9% Educational systems
Questiol1 2: From your discussions witb prospective busitlesses, ( l l O n ~ do littered
areas tbat tbey observe affect decisions to move or relocate?
36% Litter has an impact/ the area must be clean before showing
18% Litter is often associated with blight and presents a negative picture of local
goverruncn t
9% Litter can speak about the type of people who use the retail corridor
9% Litter would affect most prospective businesses if they were looking for
somewhere cheap
MSWCONSULTANTS
'H6 2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
9% litter can have a effect on whether a company considers a
community setious about the location
9% litter can affect the quality of life of employees
9% Litter is not an issue in our clean community
Questioll3: Do you keep allY data regardillg litter tilat you couldsbare witb us?
No development officials knew of any litter studies or sources of data, but two offered
additional information via the following websites:
htt;p:llwww.nctcog.org - The North Texas Council of Governments has little brochures
available for download.
http://www.cleanslatechicago.org - Clean Slate, a job training program, is a neighborhood
beautification business cleaning sidewalks, parkways, public gardens and vacant lots in
Chicago.
Qllestiol1 4: Allytilillg else we SilO11ld kllow?
Story from Ft. Collins, CO - Anheuser Busch sponsors a summer youth program in their
town and generally gives grant funding for litter clean ups. However, Ft. Collins was so
clean that Anheuser Busch was able to get permission from corporate to do a new project
beyond litter. They now build houses, work on trails, repaint houses for elderly, and run a
Youth Corps program in the summer.
Comment from Texarkana, AR - The director of tourism joined the call to inform about
volunteers in her city with the local affiliate of KAB and thinks it's very important to have
a nice looking community.
Comment from South Bend, IN - The town has "ambassadors" who clean litter, plant
flowers, provide security, and offer tourist infonnation for ,risitors.
Comment from Seattle, \,\1 A - The President/CEO of Enterprise Seattle felt very strongly
that litter is "a quality of life issue. If you're not a clean city, it doesn't communicate the
right unage."
4.4.3 REAL ESTATE AGENTS
Ten real estate agents from ten states were randomly selected and sutveyed ovet the phone
during the month of July 2008. Each real estate agent was asked the following six questions
about their impressions of littet and it's affect on a home's value.
Qllestiol1 1: Does all lJ11kempt Ileighborhood illDuel1ce your decisioll to sholl' a ilOme
to prospective buyers?
50% Yes
20% No
30% Not Applicable
Multiple agents said that "yes," littet can influence them but that littet would not detet them
for showing a home if it is a home the dient wanted to see it. Agents made comments about
their role in the home buying process, noting that the teal estate agent isn't responsible for
deciding which propetties to show and that instead it is the buyers who make decisions about
which homes to look at. One agent noted that the decision would be influenced "if the whole
2009 National Litter Study 4'17 MSWCONSULTANTS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
neighborhood is littered or if a specific house is just unkempt. The status of neighborhood
would be less of a problem if buyer were an investor. However, if an entire block looks bad
then buyers are less likely to want to see the house." Another agent noted that "some clients
might not care about litter because price is their main concern."
Questioll 2: What criteria do you use to evaluate the value of a lJOme itl a
lwighborhood?
73% Comparable prices in neighborhood
18% Overall appearance of neighborhood
9% Crime Rate
9% Previous sales
9% Assessor's office information
9% 1-1ultiple listing service
9% Features
9% Number of rooms
9% Yard
9% Location
9% Condition
The majority of real estate agents determined values of homes by looking at the prices of
comparable homes in the same neighborhood.
Questioll 3: How would a littered l1Cigllborhood illfluellce your assesS111el1( of a
l1ome's value?
55% Litter would decrease value
9% litter does not look good, however it is not a big deal
9% It is up to the client to evaluate if litter is important to them
9% Agent would feel obligated to describe the look of the neighborhood and how
it might influence the value of the home
9% Litter can be cleaned up; it's not a problem
9% Litter in a neighborhood affects a city's reputation
\\!lille many agents thought litter would decrease a home's value, it was noted that the value of
a home is determined by the desire of the client, not by a price set by real estate agents. One
agent discussed litter and said "If people don't take care of litter in their yards, they probably
don't take care of their homes." Another said if she was giving her opinion to a buyer she
would "feel obligated to describe the look of the neighborhood and how it might influence
the value of the home." i\nother said if "litter is a problem in an entire neighborhood, it
would effect their reputation in the city and even the
Questiol1 4: Do you thilll> a littered area would reduce property values? If yes, by
what percellt?
MSWCONSULTArus
4'18 2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
55% Yes (Average decrease 9%)
0% No
36% Not Certain
Agents hypothesized an average expected decrease of approximately 9%. One agent
commented that the "percent can really vary depending on how much litter there is. For
example, whether there are old cars in yard or just some trash on street." Another agent said
that they have "never had to deal with a litter problem."
Questiol1 5: Are you aware of al'Y studies that show wllether or llOt litter reduces
property values?
No agents knew of any studies regarding litter and home values. One agent suggested perhaps
the National Association of Realtors might have some information.
Questioll 6: Is tIl ere allythirlg else we sllOuld ialOW?
Comments from real estate agents included:
"Litter is a problem. You can't control this problem by putting signs up or fining people.
Parents have to teach children not to litter."
"This is an interesting topic. I would like to see a study on litter and property values."
"There is way too much litter in my community and no one has the time to clean up litter.
There is only time for an annual clean up. TillS is not enough."
4.4.4 PROPERTY APPRAISERS
Ten property appraisers from ten states were randomly selected and surveyed over the phone
during the month of July 2008. Each property appraiser was asked the f o l l o , , ~ n g six questions
about their inlpressions of litter and it's affect on home values. Numbers and averages are
rounded to the nearest whole number. Due to tllls rounding, the percentages presented in
tlllS report, when added together, may not exactly match the totals shown.
Questiol1 1: Does all ul1kempt l1eigllborllOod il1fluel1ce tIle decisiol1 to purchase a
home?
100% Yes
0% No
All respondents answered "Yes, an unkempt neighborhood would influence their decision to
purchase a home."
Questioll 2: What criteria do you use to evaluate the value of a home il1 a
lwigllborhood?
50% Condition
40% Location
30% Size
20% Comparable prices in neighborhood
10% Appeal
2009 National Litter Study 4'19 MSWCONSUlTANTS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
10% Conformity
10% Updates/renovations
The two most common criteria for property appraisers placing values on homes were the
condition and location of the home.
Questioll 3: If/ould a littered lleigbhorbood decrease your assessmel1t of a l10111e's
value?
60% Yes
10% No
30% Possibly
One property appraiser thought litter probably would not influence the first time home buyers
market since they often can't afford nicer areas, therefore litter wouldn't make much of a
difference.
Question 4: If yes, by what percent do you think a littered area would reduce property
values?
l'vlultiple agents reported having a hard time estimating an appropriate percentage. One
appraiser thought that location was a "bigger issue than litter" and another said it "differs by
neighborhood." Two agents commented on the volume of litter, saying "a small amount of
litter wouldn't decrease the value much" and that "reduced values would depend on the
amount of litter."
Questioll 5: Are you aware of al'Y studies tl18t sbow wlletber or l10t litter reduces
property values?
No property knew of any studies regarding litter and home values.
One appraiser suggested calling the Appraisal Institute in Chicago, home of the Lum Library,
to find out if they had any sinillar studies in their collection. Another appraiser suggested that,
wlille he didn't know of any studies, perhaps there is a study published somewhere by a
graduate student for their dissertation.
Questiol1 6: Is tbere al1ythitlg else we should k11ow?
All respondents ans\vercd "No."
4.5. SUM:MARY AND CONCLUSION
}\vlS\\' Consultants estitnates that on an annual basis it costs states, counties, cities, businesses,
educational institutions, and litter abatement organizations approximately S11.S billion per
year for litter clean-up, education and/or disposal programs. \'\1Jille tlus amount is sure to be a
surprise to the average citizen, and even to the various entities that were benchmarked, tlus
amount is most likely lower than the true costs. This is a result of many of the entities either
not properly tracking their true costs, or not being able to properly identify and benchmark all
deparunents that are involved litter clean up and prevention efforts.
In addition to the cost of litter to the various entities, IVIS\\f Consultapts estimates that
4,660,930 tons of litter and illegal dumps are collected and remediated each year while
MSWCONSUlTANTS
4'20 2009 National Litter Study
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
approximately $172 million of grant funding is received by governmental and state entities on
an annual basis.
It should be noted that in 2007, the average U.S. employee was paid approximately $17.00 per
hour. In addition, the average disposal fee for regular garbage and trash (in which category
most types of litter would fall) in 2004 was $34.30/ton. With both the average hourly rate and
disposal fee shown above, it is no wonder that the cost of litter, both for collection prevention
and disposal efforts, is so high. Ensuring that local governments, businesses, states and
politicians understand these costs is instrumental in furthering I<AB's goal of reducing litter
across the U.S.
The intent of the litter cost research undertaken for this study was to make a systematic and
comprehensive effort to estimate the national cost of litter and the quantities of litter being
abated by public, private and institutional organizations in the U.S. The results from this
study can ideally be used as a benchmark for further studies to detennine if costs are
increasing or decreasing, while also providing I<AB with a key tool in infomling private
citizens, businesses, and governments of the rate and extent of the litter problem \ \ ~ t 1 l i n the
United States. It should be noted, however, that the survey efforts undertaken represent a
starting point, and suggest that more detailed investigation, especially among certain strata of
businesses and/or particular industries that may experience "llidden" costs of litter clean-up
(e.g., fast food restaurants) will provide additional insight into litter costs.
With the cost of litter in the United States detailed, it is of interest to gain insight on the
perception of litter among homeowners, realtors and property appraisers. The more
qualitative surveys performed on these subjects suggest that litter is not, at the outset, an issue
that is cited as being meaningful and relevant to property values and neighborhood
attractiveness. Yet, when litter is raised as a discrete issue, most agree that it has a negative
impact on neighborhood attractiveness, and possibly even on property values. While it is not
possible to draw strong quantitative conclusions from this effort, it appears that educational
efforts aimed at separating litter as a meaningful issue warrants consideration.
2009 National Litter Study 4-21 MSWCONSULTANTS
4. LITTER COST SURVEY RESULTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
4-22 2009 National Litter Study
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. SUM:MARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study represents the most comprehensive effort to date to measure the quantity,
composition, sources, and costs of litter incurred by public, private, and institutional
organizations. This study yielded extensive data that can be the basis for more in-depth
analysis. The key findings of the study are as follows:
Quantity
There are over 51 billion pieces of litter on our nation's roadways, 4.6 billion of wbich are
large items more than four inches in size.
Based on available data about visible litter on rural interstates and primalY roads in 1969,
large litter items have decreased 61 percent in the past 40 years.
The decrease in large litter items since 1969 is reflected in a dramatic reduction in the
amount of paper (79 percent), metal (88 percent) and glass (86 percent) litter found on
rural interstates and primary roads since 1969, offset, in part by an increase in plastic litter
of 165 percent.
Composition
Tobacco products - predominantly cigarette butts - continue to be the most prevalent
litter item, comprising roughly 38 percent of all litter.
Paper and plastic items make up 22 percent and 19 percent, respectively, of litter.
However, excluding the impact of tobacco products, approximately 66 percent of litter
consists of paper (35 percent) and plastic (31 percent) material.
The number of plastic items per mile on rural interstate and primalY roads has increased
between 114 and 313 percent since the 1969 Study. \'\T]ille paper, glass and metal items
have decreased since 1969, the dramatic increase in plastic litter is troubling because more
than other materials, plastic has the ability to cause significant harm to marine life.
Packaging litter is significant. Packaging material comprises 16.9 percent of all litter; two-
thirds of which is made of plastic. In addition, packaging comprises 40.7 percent of litter
items 4 inches and greater. This is important as items greater than 4 inches are most
visible to both pedestrians and passing motorists.
Beverage Containers comprise 3 percent of all litter. The majority of beverage containers
found was either beer (30 percent) or soft drink (25 percent) containers. Beverage
container litter has decreased by 74.4 percent since the 1969 Study.
Sources
As might be expected, the vast majority of litter - 76 percent - appears to originate from
motorists and pedestrians.
Another goal of the 2009 Study was to more accurately determine the actual source of
items of litter based on context clues. At the outset of the study, the Project Team,
working , , ~ t h KAB, developed and refined tillS set of rules to use as a guide to help
2009 National Litter Study 5'1
MSWCONSULTANTS
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
detelmlle the likely source of litter items on both roadway and non-roadway locations.
The rationale for making these determinations may be subject to refinement for future
studies.
Roadway Comparison
Litter density is highest on national and state roads, less so on county and city roads. This
is understandable given the relative vehicle density. More litter can be found on county
and city roads simply because there are more such roadway miles.
Litter density is comparable on urban and mral roads.
Direct Costs
The total direct cost of litter in the U.S. is estimated to be at least 11.5 billion annually. At
$9.1 billion, businesses bear the bmnt of this cost.
The tme cost of litter remains largely hidden among our governments, institutions, and
businesses. Most of the organizations surveyed were not able to compile the full costs,
especially among the business community.
Indirect Cost:
\\'hen asked about the effect on property values and business development, litter was
uniformly cited as being a notable, negative issue by real estate agents, property appraisers
and business development officials.
These key findings suggest the following broad conclusions:
Litter is a pervasive issue. The true extent of litter is likely obscured because litter clean-
ups along our nation's highways have becol11e so con1tnonplace in many jurisdictions. It
may become necessary in future studies to consider an analysis of litter accumulation to
better understand the role that frequent clean-ups play in minimizing the presence of litter.
Litter near storm drains can play a major role in the contamination of waterways -
especially plastics. Results showed that plastic material was the third most littered item at
storm drains accounting for 25 items per 1,000 square feet.
The cost to clean up litter for all entities is significant. Based on the data gathered during
tIlls study, the costs for litter cleanups and educational efforts runs into the billions for
diverse entities such as cities, cQunties, states, businesses, schools and universities. Tlus
cost is likely understated as there were entities that this project did not thoroughly address,
such as litter cleanups after sports events, concerts and festivals. One entity noted that the
cleanup after each sporting event costs $25,000 for each e,'ent.
Many entities have no idea of the costs they incur to clean up litter. As the project team
surveyed entities of various types across the U.S., it became clear that most of them had
no idea what litter cleanups cost them. TillS was particularly true for businesses.
l'vIany entities (e.g. DOT'S) depend on volunteers to clean up litter, a trend that will likely
grow due to the current economic climate, wlllch has spurred budget cutting for public
and private organizations alike. A number of survey respondents noted their dependence
on volunteer cleanup crews such as Adopt-a-Highway.
MSWCONSULTANTS
52 2009 National Litter Study
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Litter consists of a matrL" of different problems. Some of the more persistent problems
observed were: (1) fast food and snack packaging, (2) tobacco products, (3) improperly
securing vehicles and (4) solid waste facility policies. Addressing these four key problem
areas will likely result in the largest reduction of litter in America.
The current population growth of about 3.5 million/year will continue to put pressure on
litter abatement efforts. The population in the U.S. has grown from about 200 million in
1968 to 305 million in 2008. This represents a growth factor of more than 50 percent in
just 40 years. A continuation of this growth rate could result in additional litter along
roadways and community areas even if littering on a per capita basis remains constant.
5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
Improved understanding of litter related issues gained through tlus study will inform policy
makers, political and business leaders, community activists, and the public at large about litter
as a critical issue. \\lith tI,ese ideas in nUnd, the follO\ving recommendations are suggested for
future study.
Continue Tracking National Litter Rates: A key to reducing litter is consistent,
measured indicators of the extent of the problem. Policy making and political action arc
geared towards having a measurable impact. This national study should optimally be
repeated every 10 years to provide trend data that can defensibly document changes in
litter rates and inform leaders and the public at Lorge.
Improve Access to Litter-related Data: \\1hile state-wide litter studies have been
performed in multiple states, litter data remains relatively inaccessible and static. In
today's electrOluc age, affiliates could benefit greatly from relevant and useful data to the
general public on litter behavior habits and the quantity and types of litter along our
nations roadways on IoCAB's website. The availability of such data would help students,
governmental entities, and the public alike understand the true social and econonuc impact
of litter witlun the United States.
Enlist Industry Participation for Litter Cost Research: This study took a broad-based
approach to determining litter costs. Specifically, it surveyed a ,vide swath of businesses in
all industries, based on a national database. Yet, tlus research demonstrated that litter
impacts all businesses differently. Of equal importance, there was a different learning
curve to adequately capture the costs of litter ,vith each type and size of business. It
would be beneficial to recruit a single large company (e.g., McDonalds) and enlist
assistance at the corporate level to study the hard and soft costs of litter throughout the
organization. Tlus strategy is appealing for two reasons. First, it starts ,vith a corporate
comnlitrnent at the top level, wluch provides greater chance of success. Second, it will
provide KAB with a reason to approach a ,vider range of corporations to explore the
problem of litter in a way that may ultimately broaden support.
Develop a Cost Effective Litter Study Methodology for Municipal-level "Rapid
Litter Assessment": Although visible litter survey methods are well developed, they are
too costly for application at the county or municipal level. Yet, the statistics of litter
suggest that it mal' very well be possible to develop much lower-cost strategies for gauging
litter quantities witlun a single city or county to help politicians and senior managers
2009 National Litter Study 5'3
MSWCONSUlTtUnS
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOl\1lVlENDATIONS
understand the extent of litter and determine remediation commitments. A pilot test of a
municipal-level litter assessment could identify an alternative, lower-cost strategy .
Advanced Sampling Protocol for Non-Roadway Sites: Visible, volume and weight
based litter studies have been conducted on various types of roadways within the United
States over the last 30 plus years. To obtain a holistic picture of the amount and cost of
litter in the United States, methods should be developed to representatively sample non-
roadway locations known to harbor litter .. A basic methodology for tllls could entail field
surveying of randomly selected parcels with the goal of measuring (a) the incidence of
litter per U!llt area covered by the parcel, and (b) the range of characteristics (such as
number of storm drains, transition points, retail areas, litter and ash receptacles, etc.)
contained in the parcel. Tills idea would require significant effort to expand into a
workable study methodology, but the results could significantly improve the
understanding of litter on non-roadway sites.
MSWCONSULTANTS
5-4 2009 National Litter Study
2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIX A
Material Types and Definitions
MSWCONSULTANTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIX A - MATERIAL DEFINITIONS
Group Material Description
Paper OCC Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard usually has three layers. The center
wavy layer is sandwiched between the two outer layers. It may have a
wax coating on the inside or outside. Examples include entire
cardboard containers, such as shipping and moving boxes, computer
packaging cartons, and sheets and pieces of boxes and cartons. This
type does not include chipboard
Paper Kraft bags Paper bags and sheets made from Kraft paper. Examples include
paper grocelY bags, fast food bags, department store bags, and
heavyweight sheets of Kraft packing paper.
Paper Office paper/junk Paper used in offices. Examples include manila folders, manila
mail envelopes, index cards, white envelopes, white window envelopes,
white or colored notebook paper, carbonless forms, and junk mail.
Paper Newspaper/ Printed groundwood newsprint, including glossy ads, inserts, and
inserts Sunday edition magazines that were delivered with the newspaper.
Paper Magazines/ Magazines, catalogs and similar products with glossy paper, as well
books as paperback and hardback books.
Paper Advertising; Glossy or matte cardboard and cardstock used for advertising, signs,
signs/cards
and cards. Examples include political yard signs and business
advertising signs.
Paper Receipts Paper items showing purchases or receipt of items or goods.
Paper Paper fast-food Paper items used to serve one-time or fast-food service items
service items originating from restaurants, taverns, drive-ins, concessions, the fast-
food section of a grocelY store, and other such establishments.
Examples include paper cups, plates, bowls, wrappings, individual
serving condiment packages, cup and beverage holders, napkins or
towels, pizza boxes, and paper bags known to be from such
establishments.
Paper Aseptic and Gable-top containers such as milk cartons and orange juice cartons
gabletop and aseptic containers, such as for soy milk.
containers
Paper Beverage carriers Paperboard boxes used to hold 6 or more individual soft drinks or
and cartons beer bottles or cans.
Paper Paper home food Low-grade recyclable papers used in food packaging, including
packaging chipboard and other solid boxboard (not polycoated) such as for
cereal, egg cartons (molded pulp), and other boxes. Also includes ice
cream cartons and other frozen food boxes.
Paper Other Paper Items made mostly of paper that do not fit into any of the above types
and may be combined with minor amounts of other materials such as
wax or glues.
Plastic Soda Plastic bottle or container of any size (excluding plastic cups)
designed to contain soft drinks.
2009 National Litter Study A-l
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIX A
Group Material Description
Plastic Wine & liquor Plastic bottles or containers of any size (excluding plastic cups)
designed to contain alcoholic beverages, wine, wine coolers, vodka,
gin, rum, and liqueurs.
Plastic Sports & health Plastic bottle or container of any size (excluding plastic cups)
drinks designed to contain sports and health drinks.
Plastic Juice Plastic bottle or container of any size (excluding plastic cups)
designed to contain juice.
Plastic Tea Plastic bottle or container of any size (excluding plastic cups)
designed to contain tea.
Plastic Water Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) (#1) plastic bottle or container of
any size (excluding plastic cups) designed to contain water.
Plastic Plastic jugs Translucent high-density translucent polyethylene (HDPE) (#2) bottles
and jars. Examples include milk, juice, beverage, oil, vinegar, and
distilled water.
Plastic Other Plastic bottle or container of any size (excluding plastiC cups) that is
not distinguishable by type of beverage.
Plastic Plastic bags Plastic trash bags, and plastic grocery, and other merchandise
shopping bags used to contain merchandise to transport from the
place of purchase, given out by the store with the purchase (including
dry cleaning bags). This category includes full bags; bags will not be
opened for the study.
Plastic Food packaging Wrappings or bags used to package candy, gum, chips, or other food
film items.
Plastic Other film Plastic film used for purposes other than packaging. Examples
include agricultural film (films used in various farming and growing
applications, such as silage greenhouse films, mulch films, and wrap
for hay bales), plastic sheeting used as drop cloths, and building
wrap.
Plastic Plastic fast food Plastic items (excluding Styrofoam) used to serve one-time or fast-
service items food service items originating from restaurants, taverns,
concessions, the fast-food section of a grocery store, and other such
establishments. Examples include plastic cups, lids, straws, utensils,
plates, bowls, wrappings, individual serving condiment packages, cup
and beverage holders, and plastiC bags known to be from such
establishments.
Plastic Expanded Polystyrene items used to serve one-time or fast-food service items
polystyrene fast originating from restaurants, taverns, drive-ins, conceSSions, the fast-
food service food section of a grocery store, and other such establishments.
items Examples include Styrofoam platters, plates, bowls, cups, beverage
holders, and clamshells.
Plastic Other expanded Non-food packaging and finished products made of expanded
polystyrene polystyrene. The SPI code for polystyrene (PS) is 6.
Plastic Other beverage Plastic 6-pack rings to hold soft drinks or beer cans, pull tabs, bottle
packaging caps, lids, and seals, made of plastic, used in the packaging/sealing
of beverage containers.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
A-2 2009 National Litter Studr
APPENDIX A
Group Material Description
Plastic Plastic home All other non-film packaging that does not fit into the above
food packaging categories including cookie tray inserts and plastic frozen food trays.
Plastic Other plastic Items that are predominantly made of plastic, but are combined with
other material, and/or do not fit into the above categories. Includes
durable plastic products other than toys, games, and furniture, such
as durable water bottles.
Glass Beer Glass bottles or containers of any size designed to contain beer or
other malt beverages.
Glass Soda Glass bottle or container of any size designed to contain soft drinks.
Glass Water Glass bottle or container of any size designed to contain water.
Glass Wine & liquor Glass bottle or container of any size designed to contain alcoholic
beverages. wine, wine coolers, vodka, gin. rum, and liqueurs.
Glass Sports & health Glass bottle or container of any size designed to contain sports and
drinks health drinks.
Glass Juice Glass bottle or container of any size designed to contain juice.
Glass Tea Glass bottle or container of any size designed to contain tea.
Glass Other Container Glass bottle or container of any size that is not distinguishable by type
of beverage.
Glass Broken glass or Broken glass pieces and ceramic products that do not fit into another
ceramic category. Examples include broken glass beverage bottles, ceramic
dishware, porcelain, china, garden pottery, and used toilets and sinks.
Does not include automotive window glass.
Glass Other glass Items that are predominantly made of glass, but are combined with
other material, and/or do not fit into the above categories. Does not
include automotive window glass.
Metal Beer Aluminum cans of any size designed to contain beer or other malt
beverages.
Metal Soda Aluminum cans of any size designed to contain soft drinks.
Metal Sports & health Aluminum cans of any size designed to contain sports and health
drinks drinks.
Metal Juice Aluminum cans of any size designed to contain juice.
Metal Tea Aluminum cans of any size designed to contain tea.
Metal Other Metal bottle or container of any size that is not distinguishable by type
of beverage.
Metal Other beverage Pull tabs, bottle caps, lids, and seals, made of metal, used in the
packaging packaging/sealing of beverage containers.
Metal Metal home food Includes steel/tin cans made mainly of steel, such as canned food
packaging containers, bimetal containers with steel sides and aluminum ends
and aluminum foil.
Metal Other metal Products made entirely from metal or predominantly metal products.
Includes ferrous metal (iron or steel) that is magnetic or any stainless
steel item, such as metal clothes hangers, metal pipes, small
appliances comprised mainly of metal, and scrap ferrous items.
2009 National Litter Study A-3
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIX A
Group Material Description
Organic Human waste Containers of any size or shape that contain human feces or urine.
(trucker bottles & Examples include disposable baby diapers, protective undergarments
diapers) for adults, and plastic beverage bottles filled with urine.
Other Other hazardous Latex water-based paints, oil-based paints (including varnishes and
(includes stains), motor oil and other vehicle fluids, and medical wastes
medical, vehicle (needles, syringes, I.V. tubing, medications, ointments, creams, etc.
fluids, paint) used to heal persons or animals, but does not include their packaging
unless negligible by weight).
Other Vehicle debris Vehicle hubcaps, tailpipes, tires of all types (including bicycle tires),
and packaging and tire rims if attached. Car, motorcycle, and other lead-acid
batteries used for motorized vehicles. HOPE motor oil bottles.
Molding, exterior light covers, rearview mirrors, lights, or window glass
known to be from an automobile or other motorized vehicle. Special
waste that cannot be put in any other type including asbestos-
containing materials such as certain types of auto fluff, auto-bodies,
trucks, trailers, and truck cabs.
Other Construction Construction and demolition includes rocks and brick, concrete, soil,
material and fines, dirt, non-distinct fines, gypsum board, fiberglass insulation,
debris other fiberglass, roofing waste, asphalt paving, asphalt roofing,
lumber (non-treated), treated wood waste, pallets, and other C&D
materials that did not fit into one of the above categories.
Other Textiles/Rugs Items made of thread, yarn, fabric, or cloth. Examples include
(includes clothes, fabric trimmings, draperies, and bathroom rugs (flooring
bathroom rugs) applications consisting of various natural or synthetic fibers bonded
to some type of backing material). This type does not include cloth-
covered furniture, mattresses, or leather.
Other Bulky items Mixed material furniture, mattresses, box springs, appliances,
(furniture, refrigerators, and area rugs (flooring applications consisting of various
mattresses, natural or synthetic fibers bonded to some type of backing material).
appliances, area
rugs)
Other Confection Any type of candy, chocolate, gum or other sweet preparation
containing sugar or artificial sweetener as its principal ingredient.
Tobacco Cigarette butts The discarded ends, pieces or filters of fully or partially smoked
Cigarettes.
Tobacco Cigartips The discarded ends, pieces or plastic filters of fully or partially
smoked cigars.
Tobacco Other Tobacco- All other tobacco-related products other than discarded cigarette
related Products ends (butts). This includes unsmoked cigarettes, cigars, chewing
and Packaging tobacco, pipe tobacco, matches, matchbooks and packaging for
tobacco products such as paper boxes, plastic or foil wrappings, or
other materials used to package cigarettes, cigars, chewing or pipe
tobacco, including individual Cigarette packages and unused cigarette
papers. Spent smokeless tobacco is included.
Other Toiletries/drug Bottles and containers of health care products such as cosmetics,
bottles/ personal shampoo, hair care styling products, lotion, personal hygiene
hygiene products products, make-up sponges, gloves, and condoms. Drug bottles
include containers for vitamins, over the counter medicines, and
prescription drugs.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
A-4 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIX A
Group Material Description
Other Entertainment Games, music cassettes, CDs, golf balls, Frisbees, small cars, and
items other toys.
Organic Food Any item of food, excluding packaging.
Other Other items Any other material not otherwise described.
2009 National Litter Study A-5
MSWCONSUlTANTS
APPENDIX A
Tlus page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
A-6 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXB
Visible Litter Survey Field Form
2009 National Litter Study
MSWCONSULTAI\ITS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
- -------------
" "

0
" .

Site/Source Location GPS
Mowing
County Rood_ KAB
0
)
s
From: (Starting Point) Coord. City/ParisblTown AAH. YIN
0; '1 '"
Nores
2
i>
.., v
Street or Highway Name
-g.$";:;r
::a Q ,e. ...,c.,e. To: (End Point) etc. lndexNum.
1
2
3
,
I
4
5
6
7
8
DavofWeek: Additional Notes .about the sites:
""'"
Start Time:
Doilv End
I S Sunny: pc .. P:ntly Cloundy: C - Cloudy: R '" Rain; W Wind
,
"M' Recently Mowed
,
Ml
KAB Liner Index Number: 1 .. No Litter: 2" Slightly Linered; 3 Littered; 4 E.xtremely Littered
KAB Nationwide Litter Roadways Only Litter!aIly Sheet (SUB SAMPLE)
Site#: 10#: City, State: Dimensions of site: ft x ft (attempt 15' x 151
Site Notes:
State of the area: 1 (poorly mainL) 2 3 4 5 (well-maint)
Additional Site Notes:
Material
Category


t!L


.s
"
8
Material Type Pedestrians Motorists Unsecured! Overflowing Containers Unsecured Loads Vehicle Debris
. otc .. /1 1
Kraft bags
/1
Newspaperfinserts
Magazines1books :1 i I 'p
Advertising/signs/cards
Receipts " " ":1
1 1 ...
Paper fast-food serv.1tems
I' ",:;1 > I'
Beverage carriers/cartons
Paper homefood.packaQingr I iii
Other Paper
Soda.
Wine & Jiquor
Sports & health drinks I
Juice
Teal"
fl----
Water

Plastic jugs r "I rl

Other
Other beverage packaging 1
plastic bags
,,;
5:e

6

Page 1 of2
Unknown
KAB Nationwide Litter Survey: Roadways Only Litter Tally Sheet (SUB SAMPLE)
Site#: 10#: City, State:
Material
Material Type Pedestrians Motorists Unsecurecll Overflowing Containers Unsecured loads Vehicle Debris Unknown
Cateaorv
-
Plastic fastfood serv;items ,
,", 'Y,;''''
.<,..... . " .. >,,'" ',."';"...., . i ............ ' .. 7<." ,;. ii';'.i I,;'
.. ". '0,' , E
'"
EPS fast food service items ,.
"
. Otherexp. polystyrene ' ,
'.' ','." ..
;,J'"",,', """ ',,", <', """.O,i' """'"C,,. I'" .'.' . ,., . ",<, , ...
'. .. ... .;.i,
I""<'i"" .,.;....



Plastic home food packaging
is , ',' <,9ther plastic, ',;. . .... .y.'.; .. >-" I. .... , ... .. ... ; ... i.;.. ..., . ; .. ,; .... I,,' ;; . ,., ..... i,\ii. .. '( ; ..... ; .....

" .. ' Beer' i .. , ; i";;;"
!'. ,>, ... Y.'"'' ., . ,,';i.';: ; '" .\".,;. ' .... ' ... ; ... ' .... ;
.., ...... <;;
"
Soda
:
"
'. <Water. . ".
'"
.... ... i .... '>,' . ,>; .. ' ..', .. ,./ .... ,.;,' ....
I,V./'.;;, .
... ..<,.i,.;i>
"'.
."i,;, .. , ...... , .. 0
U
Wine & liQuor
"
.
Sports & health drinks . "
'.' .... i
<;;; '.', . < .> C' ."" ; ...... >.C.:.... .. , .", .... /; i .... <.".', ..... ....... ;<.,.>. '.' " .


'"
Juice
-
-
Tea
, ..... '.' ..... ., ....
. >
... .. , .....
",i
.., ..... ,.;< ....
' ..
..
'"
'"
Other
---
. '. Broken glass o,ceramic ....... ' '...... .", . C.' ... ,.,.'.,P.
,......., .;' ;" '. ;.C ., .... /'., .. '.... .';' ..... 1><'. . ,;;.'.,' .;'i ";';< /;/iCC ..... .;..., ... '..
.si9g
0<.:)=
Other glass
. '. . Beer
.' ........... ; .......
"',' . "'.'
....". '.:
;.........; ..... ', ... ,.,;,,.,.
I':.>, ",', {J '..'
("".;';'", .'.
Soda

" - Sports & health drinks .'
..... '.
;.: ;
"i. "
; '.,<.;;.",.". .... 'i' "';' ........... ;"/' ". ,. '." I." " ;'<.C.;;;"." .;.,.....,. "'; ,i,, ... .> ..... .
> "

"E Juice
o;U
.' .. ' .' Tea .. ','. '.'
.
. " ",
",.'
>'x ;. ,. . . "., ..... , ..... , ...... ..... <,.<' .. ,';< .' . '.
I,,;', ;............' .... ;' . .:. .< .;<;';";"'" '.; ..
"
Other
'"
Other beverage packaging .'.
.. '.' .............. ....; ................. , ...... ' .. " ";' ...................... "
'':.,.'''';''.'.
I,';, ...>.; ;,;':'Y;;" i" 1': ; . ,;; . , ... < ..
:4E
Metal home food packaging
-.
-

0
.. ' Other metal ar<! foi pkts . ;.: .. < .
.. , .. ;; ....... 1..' .. ....... ; .. ; .....;., ;.', . ":" .... "".', . ;'.: i., I,';; ....,;; ... :<." .... ; ...... '; . ;.' ..;;.......> .;;..; ......
"
Humanwaste
.... '.; .,',.
i"
; .; .. ; I'; '.' '.' ...... ;'.."; ,
"'."
";' 1...< .. ;.;;;' ....
. : .. , ...... ' ............. ;
00
-
Food Waste

x

- .. .. ;;
..... '; ..; .. ;
CIGARETTE. Butts .';".

, ""..; ........ ;; .. ;.
Construction debris
. Vehicle debris. '.; ..
."' .. " .
,'" ',. . ... ';
h.. ........ ......;.;;.;... C, ..:; .... x;,; ';. ... .. ' ' .. ; .. , .... ;; .. , .. ;;.....;.;
.... ;................. ..
Road Debris
.
Gum '.' ;';
................... ; ........... '
I,.,;,, ;' ..... ";;;;''''''.' I;" .... " ........ / .. : .... " .. , ;.;:." ;;;":"" .'
E
Bulky items


CIGAR Butts
'"
..
y.'" .<:'. .......
';' .....
.... C,';, .;;;;;' ','.:','" ';;":" ; ....
:5
All utller looaCCO-Keralea "roaucts &
Packaailla
Textiles/Small Rugs

,;. , ;'i,:.
,..........; ....... ;; .. , .
1;";'.;;""'" .. ", .. ;
,;'" :.':,.;,;; ..... : ..... .'''.;;; ........ ;
"";",,'.;";;";' .. :.. ,.'.
Toiletries/drug boWes/pers.hyg. products
. . . Entertainment items .' ;
I..,.
I .' ..... ,
....... , ........ ' ......... ;; ....... I( .... : ............ :.;' ; . ; ;;; ; .. ;:\ ... ,;" ...............
Other items
p",,., ... ?,, ?
KAB Nationwide Litter Survey: Roadways Only Litter Tally Sheet (FU LL SAMPLE)
Site#: 10#: City, State:
Dimensions of site: ftx ft
(attempt 300' x 15')
Site Notes:
State of the area: 1 (poorly maint.) 2 3 4 5
(well-maint.)
Sampling Roadways: Urban interstate / Rural interstate / Urban state roads / Rural state roads / Urban county Roads / Rural county roads / Urban city roads / Rural city roads
Area (Circle one)
Check all found on or within 1 block of site:
[ I Residential [ I Conv. Stores # [ I Fast food # [ I Other comm. [ I Loading docks
[ I Litter Receptacles # [ I Public Areas - [ I Beautification:
Additional Site Notes:
Material
Material Type Pedestrians Motorists
Unsecured! Overflowing
Unsecured Loads Vehicle Debris Unknown
Category Containers
" .... '.OCC' .. " .... . T>.,. .
.: .. " ""' .. ".'. ...", .... I"' ... '... . ..,...)... . ' .
if;2..... "t'
fY:",,"
I "''.>;i.';;"<'' ' .
Kraft bags
>. Office
',' ,,"" T' '/.'
... '.' ...., ..... ,'., .. , ..... ,' ...' .. "" . '."< . >'... .....
'':i<.'.''" 1<";',.>""';;",""':,
1
1
:, . , i... .:.: '.",;.,; '"
Newspaperflnserts
'"
.. :Magazines/books '. .'. .... . t ' , . ...... ' ,'" . i:, ... < I .. />'. ..', .',"> .'./ ':; .. ' ...... ',.: I.' ./,:':,:, . >: .. 1::\"':; >.. .
E

Advertising/signs/cards

. . . . ReceiptS' ;;
........ > . ,. ", ,'., ... ; ........... ' .........
'." ... : ..... , '.'.': .. ':'
.)" . :.< ... : . ;.. .... I.> ...... :.....:!...: I .. ;;:: ... c .. .':

c..
'"
c-
Paper fast-food servo Items
Aseptic/gable'topcontiliners T.,:
............ ;.... .............. ' .. ...... ..,' .. ;. >,.:.'. : ....... : ...........:., .... ;'.. , ... :!: I' i.::;>.. ...... ....;
Beverage carriers/cartons
Paper home foodpack3ging
..... , .......... .................... ... : .. ;.J.;; .... 1<' .:...:> .... . ; ..... ,.;:,.,... ::
I:., '.; .. : . > '.""; 1:.,: .... ., .c:.....: ....
Other Paper
Soda
",
I,
.. .: ....... , .............
i.' ..../.:..... " ... <". ..;; .....
I';':"':"',;' . >,c)., I;>;: ;,

Wine & liquor
en
. Sports & health drinks ..; .'. . ... " .: ' . ,.c, I . .; .C'
.' ;".'. :: .. ' ':"';;"''''''';.,.':.'
I ...... ,... .. c. ..... ,.. . ,.

Juice

> " .-
:
Tea ... <
.... .. , .... , .. .. , ... " .., .........
...... '"
[ . .' ...... .. ,;
'.";"'", .;.,
1:"".'/,'"
.. C'..> " . ,;;'.;;':."
"'.!S
" "
Water "'::: 0
"''-'
,,'

1 ,.::;. .. , .,.
'"
'.,
. Plastic iugs ... '
' < ......
'.' ". .; ...... '., . : ........ '. I... ". '.' "/' "'. ....;>/ ..... ;.
c::
Other
Other beverage packaging
... ......... .... ... ;. 'o' . "> ,...!:,,' . ';";., .. ; .... : .... . .. ?,"'.;., I.;'>"; ;::";;;>?;(i . ';
. .... :;., .......
..... 0 (/)
.'
Plastic Iraq!! .' . ..,
I.
.v.
.... > .. " ........ . .. ;. ."....".. ... :.;'
.;. ",,,;;,.
I;; ...... '" h..., .; .; ...... ",,0" ..
l::V;E
Food packaging nlm
- '"
Dc:.:::
'.' .other film ..... I ". c
......;;:..,,; ..
I: i'.
.",,,
. .... )., . :;<." IC., )",,;' ,) .. ,...):." .....
1 .... ),.,...
Page 1 of2
KAS Nationwide Litter Survey: Roadways Only Litter Tally Sheet (FULL SAMPLE)
Site#: ID#: City, State:
Material .
C t
Matenal Type Pedestrians Motorists
Unsecuredl Overflowing
Containers
Unsecured Loads Vehicle Debris
a e 0
'" Plastic fastfood ,serv.Iterns
'l:,
E

.S2
;n

c::
I;;
.c
i5
"
C>
e
" "
> "
" .-
"'!!;
'" "
'" 0
.!!!u
'"
EPS fast food service items
Other expo polystyrene'" I; ': 1'\ 'I I' 'I' 'I c,,:,
Plastic home food packaging
Other plastic " 1/':'1',' ' 'i.e"': ',; I h:,;,:;
Beef II
Soda
Water I I
Wine & liguor
"IT
Sports & health,drinks I I II I
JUIce
Tea
I r F' "'I
Other
,I;; ;g
"'-'"
is '" Other lass
"

" "
",!!;
-" 0
"U
:E
Beer
Soda
Sports &,healthdrinkS
Juice
Tea
Other
II
I I
Other beveraqepackaqinqll .:1
I

- " "

j :;; "I
'" E


" .c
i5
Construction debris
Vehicle debris I I '>1:
Road Debris
Bulk)iitems I I ::1
CIGAR Butts
All otherTObacco-Relatedl l
Textiles/Small Rugs
"",:;;;,==="""\",,,,,,
Entertainment ITems
Otheriterns
Page 2 012
Unknown
I
I
APPENDIXC
Rules for Determining Sources of Litter
2009 National Litter Study
MSWCONSULTANTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIX C - DETERMINING SOURCES OF LITTER
This appendix summarizes the logical considerations that were applied to attempt to
determine the sources of litter by field data collection personnel.
It should be noted that field data collection personnel for this project were MSW Consultants
professional staff with significant prior experience in the fields of litter, solid waste, and/or
recycling. In addition to being provided with written field data collection instructions that
included the list of rules in this appendix, these staff underwent a full day training session to
observe and collectively discuss approaches to determining the source of litter. Based on the
professional experience of the field data collection staff, and based on the intent of this
research effort, the management decision was made for field staff to make an aggressive
attempt to assign each item of litter to a source. It is acknowledged that attempting to
aggressively assign litter to sources has almost certainly introduced some potential for error
into the results. However, the alternative to aggressively determining sources would be to
have a large fraction of litter itelllS categorized as having an "unkno\vn" source. Ultimately, it
was decided that a large percentage of litter items being classified as "unknown" would be
uninformative, and so discretion was given to field data collectors to use their judgment.
Broadly speaking, the determination of the source of litter at each roadway and non-roadway
sampling site was based first and foremost on obvious characteristics in the immediate
surroundings, and on the type of litter item. Some obvious indicators that factored into the
determination included identification of litter or trash receptacles nearby, certain types of
commercial establishments in the vicinity, observations of the mix of vehicle traffic on the
roadway, and an assessment of "what part of town" was the selected site 10cated in. Further,
certain litter items could always be assumed to be from a particular source, such as cigarette
butts on an interstate road - these would almost certainly always be attributed to motorists
flicking them out their vehicle windows.
In the planning stages of this project, MSW Consultants staff and KAB also spent time in the
field working through the determination of litter sources. This process resulted in a
compilation of more nuanced context clues that further informed the field data collectors in
the efforts to determine sources.
The long table in this appendix contains the list of context clues that were considered, along
, , ~ t h the basic observations about each sample site. This list of clues is not intended to be
comprehensive, but rather meant to provide examples of how to reason through the most
likely litter source for various litter items. Others attempting to perform a sinlliar study to
determine the sources may have different interpretations, or may not choose to apply these
rationales as aggressively as was performed in tills project.
Source Material Material Type Rule for Determining
Category Source for Litter
Pedestrians Paper Items acc
not likely to be from
pedestrIans
Kraft bags
not compacted, Ilolding
beverage or otller items
200!) National Litter Study C!
MSWCONSUlTAl\ITS
APPENDIXC
Source Material Material Type Rule for Determining
Category Source for Litter
Paper fast-food service items
several items near each
other
Beverage carriers and cartons with beverage containers
Paper home food packaging not likely
Plastic items Other film not likely
Plastic fast food service items
several items near each
other
Expanded polystyrene fast food several items near each
service items other
Other expanded polystyrene
not likely to be from
pedestrians
Plastic Beverage Water
intact
Containers
Glass Beverage
Beer
Intact, In a six-pack ring
Containers oreation
Metal Beverage Beer
Intact, In a six-pack ring
Containers orearton
Household Human waste (trucker bottles &
NjA
Waste diapers)
Other Items Vehicle debris and packaging N/A
Construction material and debris near construction sites
Bulky items (furniture,
mattresses, appliances, area not likely
rugs)
Cigarette packs, matches,
most likely
cigars, tobacco
Toiletries/drug bottles/personal
less likely
hygiene products
Entertainment items small toys likely here
Other items
depends on sample area
and material
Motorists Paper items ace smaller but not likely
Kraft bags
not compacted, holding
beverage or other item
Office paper/junk mail crumpled receipts, alone
Paper fast food service items
several items near each
other
Paper home food packaging not likely
Other paper
depends on sample area
and material
Plastic items Plastic bags loose/empty
Other film N/A
MSWCONSULTANTS
C-2 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXC
Source Material Material Type Rule for Determining
Category Source for Litter
Plastic fast food service items
several items near each
other
Expanded polystyrene fast food several items near each
service items other
Other expanded polystyrene N/A
Plastic Beverage
Water intact
Containers
Glass Beverage Beer
shattered but still
Containers together
Metal Beverage
Beer intact or crushed
Containers
Other Items Vehicle debris and packaging N/A
Construction material and debris not likely
Bulky items (furniture,
mattresses, appliances, area most likely
rugs)
Cigarette packs, matches,
most likely
cigars, tobacco
Toiletries/drug bottles/personal
less likely
hygiene products
Entertainment items likely
Other items
depends on sample area
and material
Unsecured/
Overflowing Paper items I\raft bags dirty, next to container
ContaIners
Newspaper/inserts next to container
Plastic items Plastic bags next to container
Other film N/A
Other expanded polystyrene next to container
Plastic Beverage
Water next to container
Containers
Glass Beverage
Beer next to container
Containers
Household Human waste (trucker bottles &
N/A
Waste diapers)
Other Items Vehicle debris and packaging N/A
Construction material and debris near construction sites
Bulky items (furniture,
next to container
mattresses, appliances, area
rugs)
Cigarette packs, matches,
unlikely
cigars, tobacco
2009 National Litter Study C'3
MSWCOIIISULTAIIITS
APPENDIXC
Source Material Material Type Rule for Determining
Category Source for Litter
Other items
depends on sample area
and material
Unsecured Loads Paper Items OCC compacted, dirty
I\raft bags dirty, crumpled
Office paper/junk mail dirty, office paper here
Paper fast food service items crushed, dirty
Beverage carriers and cartons dirty, crushed
Paper home food packaging
almost always from
unsecured loads
Plastic Items Plastic bags dirty, crushed
Plastic fast food service items crushed, dirty
Expanded polystyrene fast food
crushed, dirty
service items
Other expanded polystyrene likely
Plastic Beverage
Water
crushed, Slightly crushed,
Containers dirty
Glass Items Broken glass or ceramic Likely
Metal Beverage
Beer compacted
Containers
Household Human waste (trucker bottles &
N/A
Waste diapers)
Other Items Vehicle debris and packaging N/A
Construction material and debris likely
Bulky items (furniture,
mattresses, appliances, area likely
rugs)
Cigarette packs, matches,
unlikely
Cigars, tobacco
Toiletries/drug bottles/personal
most likely
hygiene products
Entertainment items likely
Other items
depends on sample area
and material
MSWCONSUlTANTS
C-4 2009 National Littet' Study
2009 National Litter Stud}'
APPENDIXD
Roadway Sampling Sites
MSWCONSULTANTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
Appendix D
S mpling Sites
# .
1 I.n I tRRe
,(if
2 I 33.1597 5C -8 '.533170
3 133.199613C _:8 bUtiL
4 133.1943')0 -8 "". '''u
5 133.422700 _,)4 030110 4571 East Stree t (after
6 -94.01257C US HWY 82 & . Oats St
7 133.474060 SR :erry Road near r.(II,nl_
8 ! Ii'MOOO -93.97061' Road 108
9 l3. 7! '701 M , Road
10 l1. :110.2742f7iE
11 l2:'L9! -110.00" 0.11-10
12 37. ""00 -12? t St
13 37.797,
14 . ru t Ave
15 46.183 - I
16 37. -122.261500 Doolittle St
37 """DU 122.2'12 . 880
874983 12: .31 WV 80
881433 ,Ave
20 -122 ,St
21 dO RO?770 -105.07674C IN r."I1""" Ave
22 40.61 11b', N Taft Road
23
24 40.5: N I Ave
25 41.801390 -72.815950
26 41.815890 -72
27 '6' -,.
28
29
30
-I
.""OfUU -R?
3unn HWY & Nixon Rd
& River Oaks
,& IHWY
?R n?Ii??O _R?
;nn IW I & Nola Ave
& N.
I Bears Ave
34 21 - :.4159' 1140th & E Hu . St
35 27.921940 -82.517720 Ave & w.
27.onLOL ? !90 is. Dale Mab HWY & r.""n'" Road 573
275C 12. B vd E
:lU '& Jean
39 "OU 'U
40 27. _R?. 1-75 South
41 27. -82.401 {UU HW1 41S & 36th Ave
42 27. Rd & Terrace View Dr
43 27. -82.' 21st Street & Dr
44 34. -85.159860
45 34.2183' 700
46 34 17,
47 10'
48 34.: -85.1035:
34.Lf "U.lU _RIi.?'l! 190
-85.24' ,10
34.!uo"oU
2009 National Litter Study
Drive
, Rd (GA State Road 53)
. of Paqe Road & Kelsey Road
1 of 5
,
ICity
IT
II
IT
IT
II
II
Texarkana
II,
I I'
I Sierra V la
I Sierra V la
IFort Collins
Fort '''II'no
Fort I
Fort Collins
I\von
lAvon
ampa lav
lav
ampa lay
lampa Bay
lampa Bay
ampa Bav
I Bay
ampa Bay
Ilampa Bay
ampa lay
ampa lav
ampa lay
lampa Bay
tampa Bay
lampa Bay
lampa Bay
Rome
Rome



Rome
Rome
Rome
I State
IAL
IAL
IAR
IAR
IAR
IAR
IAZ
IAZ
CA
CA
CI
CA
CA
CA
ICA
CO
CO
CC
C(
Cl
CT
CT
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
L
FL
:L
:L
3A
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
MSW Consultants
i {if
I 1 Street
53 141.972550 --=93.bfU4uu
-! 59
12. '-1 10 2nd Ave &
37 -1 '30
-=114. EO
58 '42.57' l67 . E
59 42.64' ,33 Ira ,3
60 117 - 104 12' ::itate 79
61
62
63
64 39 )1
65 41
66 41
67 41
68 41.8834
"6941

74 l41.ib425l
75 141.6(
76 141.68
77 141.
78 141.
79141.
80 13.
- .

-i:7]' 12'
-i '.6' 11
-i .f
-=87.B:193l
Q7
-86.133341
= fL

i2
- 1.1
-
'88 ["" ---::3]1
89 I32.49148C --:g:
-7:
J< --=73.1
93 142 f3339l
94 I42.7344Oi - 1.2
95 142.73457 -
96 I 39.52121 -.
97 139:
98 I'iQ -:n.7452i
9 37 -77.7432:
)0 144.815340
)1 I 42.2floBli
102l42.274U6(
io: 12 128( -85.18070(
iO l210
101 12. '370 f fUL
2009 National Litter Study
16 ( lund Rd (::iK2Ut 1)

r of Il & I Street
. 715 & N. Hearn SI.
i ,Hill
li5rive& E
2 of 5
ICity
IRome
lAmes
I Boone
ITwin Falls
ITwin Falls
-win Is
-win Is
-win Is
ITwin Falls
'win Falls
ChicaQo
Oak Park
IPalos Park
I River Forest
IElkhar
IG
I I ih"rty
ISouth Bend
ISouth Bend
IKechi
IMaize
I "k,,;UQ
1 ,';O,,;UQ
,,!I
I Battle Creek
I Battle Creek
I Battle Creek
I State
IGA
110
D
D
D
110
D
IL
IN
liN
liN
liN
liN
liN
liN
IN
IN
KS
IKS
IKY
<Y
,Y
LA
LA
LA
U
U
IMA
IMA
IMA
IMA
IMA
IMA
IMO

IME
IMI
IMI
IMI
IMI
IMI
MSW Consultants
/I I
106 4 10

107 -
108 42.281200 -85.
42.30130
11 4
I tj\i4
I 8998C
- .140330
112 4ii
4<;
45.5'184 14. 1327:J(
45.5172 - 14.
116 45.500830 -94.1 4C
117 -94.2'
118 41 -94.1
119 -94.1223
120 1 45.01LLUL -94.144250
!1139.11 'l0
'2 139.1 -94.
'3 1 38.! -94.503180
124 139.118520
II ou
Address 'applicable)
12 I 39.HO/"L
121 US N 11
12
128 . 733171-108.513800 ?nrl Ave
129 I 45.74160C 1-108.Hwy 90 W
o 145.801 1-108.41: 700 Ln & Ford St
11 ;919' I i I Oaks
12 135.196 -80.933740 Nest 'aul , Rd (Hmy 160)
133 Ie -80. II ""uu ,vves! Blvd
134 I 35.LI"1II _RO 'u Iyron, &
135.2'15
138 _RO !'l?f;720
13! I 35.'l4?ROn 170
IR. 1-' JO. '11 '"
I -' )0.571 133
42 ! -' OO.OIUUUU
143 4R ,,'-100."1
Ho Iv
Ho Iy
lid
Iwy
Iwv
U(I >t
, Bristol
8 Spring Rd
,& : Gr.
SR115
I road)
46.79001 -1 Jld Hwy 10 (Old Apple Creek)
lJ O. I
147 7240 -96.6513
148 U R? 00
149 -75.1( I. Blvd
150 3! 1.9 -75.11.
151 3!i.9 -75.
152 -75.021910
53 34.\i"L 06.657:
54 35.132111 IU I
55 35.101 18 - 06.631060 I
156 :lii -106.71
11 39.459900 -1 'R?R<;O !':I
11 42.641960-
11 - u, IOU
2009 National Litter Study 3 of 5
City
Battle Creek
I Battle Creek
I Battle Creek
I Battle Creek
i Battle Creek
'Avon
Foley
: Lake
oud
loud
1St Cloud
tCloud
tCloud
I Cloud
:;tate
MI
IMI
IMI
I rv
, rv
rv
MN



IMN
St Cloud 'MN

Kansas City 10
,City IMO
Sugar Creek IMO
lennet
Lincoln
jncoln
I
e
MS
MS
MT
MT
INC
NC,
r.
IC
INC
INC
D
D
ND
ND
NE
INE
INE
INE
Mt. Holly Cherry Tree ! NJ
I que
ue
ue INM
I INV
Averill Park INY
INY
MSW Consultants
#
160 -73.671260
161 .71
32 4'
33,42.'''0''", -73.7
34 142.7412'
165 142.71)5690 -73
'42. -73
41.11)73..Q -81
.
169 411 Q' -8' )f. ou
41.1" 54 -8'1.4,2 3C
-91
36.1552 -96.001310
173 4!i -122. 13!)67 ; 30
-122.
-122." 11

HWY 1& N
-75.::nl 141
; (if
177
10.06783(
1 ,1
1
-75.14, W I Ave 19th
Spring Ave & Ly _ -75.
-75.1451 ,& Willow Ave
181
182 39
13 139
14 139
15
-75.183371
-, . 1337C IRe : Blvd 200th Block
-, 15580lW 'Ave & I I Street
-.. ;7370
-75.153270 I Broad Street 611
-75.LU'I IGIIai I AVE near 41st 186 I 39.97408C
1871'l' -, US IWY 1 & Citv Ave
-, 110 195 at Exit 322
13".0 -, <L
134. -82.0312' 12621 New Cut Road
191 134.96031C -81.986'160 ,flWY
1)2 -( '0 299 Pear' Street
)3 u(opor: f3cL
)4 I -11 Island View Dr
)5 144.4161 I-inn ?!iR:lfin ISage PI &
196 44. OU "OJ : & Karen
I -'
,-' .38101
nnR '-'
200 I 35. -85.323950
201 I 30 -85. ?140
202 I 35.0: '20 -85. 0900
tn
203 I (Str 17) & Daisy to Taylor Road
204
205 I 32.0
2( 132.1'
.1.( , 32.:
IU -85.
IU -97.
-97
160
2( 32. -97.4742'
209:l? "u -97.
2' .746830 -:l7.328: 10
2' .731120 -,l7
2' oooou -,l7
213 32.IOIOU -97.LO
2009 National Litter Study
580
.& II I
Sta.te Road 303
""" Street Muse turns into Merry
& I 1St
4 of 5
ICity
uelmar
lEast
Latham
AlhAm
'roy
'rov
I Norton

>tow
land Spring
ITulsa
Drexel Hill
Ixel Hill
'ark
'ark
I Park
Ridely 'ar
Ridley Par
'ierre
I Pierre
S
Pierre
,Pierre
"'"
"rn
,nnM
IFor Worth
,For Worth
'For Wort
Fort Worth
For: Wor:h
I Fort Wor
!Fori Wor
Fort Wort
Fort Worth
I State
INY
IY
IY
IY
INY
INY
INY
IH
OH
H
H
OK
OR
OR
OR
IPA
IPA
IPA
IPA
IPA
PA
PP
PP
IPP
IPA
PA
ISC
C
ISD
D
IS
ITN
rN
'X
'X
"X
ITX
rx
'X
'X
"X
ITX
MSW Consultants
# Latitude Longitude Physical Address (If applicable) City State
214 32.765290 -97.287830 N. Beach Circle & First SI. Fort Worth TX
215 32.721660 -97.434560 SR 80 & Lackland Rd Fort Worth TX
216 32.627400 -97.394520 Fort Worth TX
217 32.737870 -97.456690 130 East Fort Worth TX
218 32.741010 -97.440500 Fort Worth TX
219 32.821740 -97.456960 Fort Worth TX
220 33.091240 -97.141740 Fort Worth TX
221 32.543940 -97.211320 Fort Worth TX
222 32.574570 -97.214540 SR 1187 Fort Worth TX
223 40.768750 -111.939050 State 68 & S Folsom Bountiful UT
224 40.836617 -111.934383 State 68 & N Pointe Circle Bountiful UT
225 38.835480 -77.182910 Annandale VA
226 38.869660 -77.271710 Circle Woods Drive Fairfax VA
227 38.870620 -77.269460 St HWY 237at Fauille Dr Fairfax VA
228 38.854540 -77.307420 St HWY 123 at Providence Way Fairfax VA
229 38.847010 -77.268920 Fairfax VA
230 42.867120 -73.187340 Bennington VT
231 42.833490 -73.200150 Bennington VT
232 47.549890 -122.160850 Lakehurst & 106th Ave SE Seattle WA
233 47.522600 -122.160850 Coal Creek Pkwy & 89th Ave Seattle WA
234 47.589500 -122.393700 Beach St & W Seattle Seattle WA
235 44.719830 -91.526230 Eau Claire WI
236 44.793110 -91.504440 Eau Claire WI
237 44.756320 -91.472480 Eau Claire WI
238 44.785140 -91.635590 Eau Claire WI
239 39.453750 -77.964920 Martinsburg WV
240 39.489140 -77.958400 Martinsburg WV
241 44.276800 -105.468850 Boxelder Rd Gillette WY
242 44.292900 -105.493950 Douglas Hwy Gillette WY
243 44.290467 -105.361067 1-90 E & Wodak Rd Gillette WY
2009 National Litter Study 5 of 5 MSW Consultants
2009 National Litter
APPENDIXE
Results by Roadway Type

This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
2009 National Litter Stud}'
Combined Large and Small Litter Tables and Figures by
Roadway Type
2009 National Litter Study
MSWCONSULTANTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
Summary Data for Urban Roadways - Large + Small Items
Percent of Urban
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 3,117 40% 6,184,148
Motorists 2,919 37% 5,790,423
Containers 50 1% 98,839 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 1,461 19% 2,899,212 Pieces 2,759
Vehicle Debris 86 1% 170,621 Percent of Total 35%
Unknown 151 2% 298,957 Urban 5,474,455
Total 7,784 100% 15,442,200
Percent of Urban
Litter by Material Group Pieces
Total Total (1,000)
Paper 1,627 21% 3,227,060
Plastic 1,364 18% 2,705,625
Glass 435 6% 863,068
Metal 311 4% 616,960
Organic 730 9% 1,448,008
Tobacco Products 2,759 35% 5,474,455
Construction Debris 302 4% 599,941
Vehicle Debris 69 1% 136,349
Other 187 2% 370,734
Total 7,784 100% 15,442,200
Percent of Percent of Urban
Pacl<aging SummaI:.l:: Pieces Total Packaging Total (1,000)
By Material
Paper 348 4% 27% 690,475
Plastic 796 10% 62% 1,579,250
Other 148 2% 11% 294,215
Subtotal 1,292 17% 100%
2,563,940
By Type
Snack 234 3% 18% 465,210
Fast Food 500 6% 39% 991,225
Home Use 257 3% 20% 509,388
Commercial 301 4% 23% 598,116
Subtotal 1,292 17% 100%
2,563,940
Percent of Percent of Urban
Beverage Container Summa!:y Pieces Total Beverage Total [1,000)
Beer 47 1% 33% 92,831
Soft Drinks 26 0% 18% 50,702
Water 12 0% 9% 24,143
Wine & liquor 3 0% 2% 6,065
Sports & Health Drinks 5 0% 4% 10,156
Juice 2 0% 2% 4,802
Tea 1 0% 1% 1,656
Unrecognizable 46 1% 32% 90,990
Total 142 2% 100% 281,345
Summary Data for Urban Roadways - Large + Small Items
Litter by Source
Untarped
Vehicle
Debris,
Loads,
Containers,
37.5%
Unknown,
Packaging Summary by Material
Other. 11.5%
I
61.6%
Beverage Containers
Tea,
sports & ne'"",oJ
Drinks, 3.6%
Litter by Material Group

VehIcle
DebrIs,
Construction
Debris, d.""' ____ _
Tobacco
35.5%
9.4%
Packaging Summary by Type

23.3% '\
Home
19.9%
33.0%
Drinks,
18.0%
"'---Wa'te',,8.6%
2.4%
20.9'1'0
5.6%
38.7%
Summary Data for Rural Roadways - Large + Small Items
Percent of Rural
Sources ofLitter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 975 15% 5,483,139
Motorists 3,777 59% 21,232,801
Containers 122 2% 687,049 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 981 15% 5,516,419 Pieces 2,457
Vehicle Debris 179 3% 1,006,056 Percent ofTotai 39%
Unknown 322 5% 1,808,226 Rural 13,808,786
Total 6,357 100% 35,733,690
Percent of Rural
Litter bl Material Groul! Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 1,418 22% 7,969,547
Plastic 1,274 20% 7,160,946
Glass 260 4% 1,463,327
Metal 417 7% 2,346,176
Organic 128 2% 717,076
Tobacco Products 2,457 39% 13,808,786
Construction Debris 130 2% 730,517
Vehicle Debris 115 2% 646,082
Other 159 2% 891,234
Total 6,357 100% 35,733,690
Percent of Percent of Rural
Packaging Summarl Pieces Total Packaging Total (1,000)
By Materiai
Paper 261 4% 22% 1,466,719
Plastic 812 13% 69% 4,562,738
Other 112 2% 9% 627,888
Subtotal 1,184 19% 100% 6,657,345
By7ype
Snack 84 1% 7% 471,236
Fast Food 302 5% 25% 1,696,696
Home Use 355 6% 30% 1,996,695
Commercial 443 7% 37% 2,492,718
Subtotal 1,184 19% 100% 6,657,345
Percent of Percent of Rural
Beverage Container Summarr Pieces Total Beverage Total (1,000)
Beer 57 1% 30% 321,930
Soft Drinks 51 1% 26% 284,003
Water 10 0% 5% 56,479
Wine & liquor 4 0% 2% 24,811
Sports & health drinks 6 0% 3% 31,604
Juice 2 0% 1% 13,675
Tea 1 0% 1% 6,598
Unrecognized 61 1% 32% 341,633
Total 192 3% 100% 1,080,734
Summary Data for Rural Roadways - Large + Small Items
Litter by Source
15.3%
Motorists,
59.4%
5.1%
1.9%
Untarped
Loads, 15.4%
Summary of PacKaging by Material
Paper, .. un ......
PlasUc,
9.4%
Beverage Containers
Tea,
Juice, 1.3.% __ ---
Sports & He,mn--"
Drinks, 2.9%
Wine& Liquor,
2,3%
Litter by Material Group
Organic,
Metal,6.6%""
Glass,4.1%
20.0%
22.3%
Summary of PacKaging by Type
Home Use,
30.0%\
.5.2%
25.5%
,29.8%
Drinks,
26.3%
Tobacco
38.6%
Vehicle
\.1)eb'fI5,1.8%
2.5%
Commercial,
(7.4%
\ ';n",o.K.7,1%
Summary Data for National Roadways - Large + Small Items
Percent of National
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total (1,0001
Pedestrians 859 4% 80,076
Motorists 13,691 71% 1,276,261
Containers 82 0.4% 7,623 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 2,820 15% 262,862 Pieces 9,084
Vehicle Debris 1,581 8% 147,368 Percent of Total 47%
Unknown 153 1% 14,248 National 846,768
Total 19,186 100% 1,788,438
Percent of National
Litter b ~ Material Group Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 2,396 12% 223,340
Plastic 3,158 16% 294,404
Glass 804 4% 74,992
Metal 1,041 5% 97,009
Organic 106 1% 9,905
Tobacco 9,084 47% 846,768
Construction Debris 724 4% 67,462
Vehicle Debris 1,529 8% 142,517
Other 344 2% 32,043
Total 19,186 100% 1,788,438
Percent of Percent of National
Packaging S u m m a r ~ Pieces Total Packaging Total (1,000)
By Materiai
Paper 580 3% 22% 54,063
Plastic 1,868 10% 70% 174,161
Other 215 1% 8% 20,011
Subtotal 2,663 14% 100% 248,235
By Type
Snack 209 1% 8% 19,514
Fast Food 752 4% 28% 70,123
Home Use 571 3% 21% 53,200
Commercial 1,131 6% 42% 105,398
Subtotal 2,663 14% 100% 248,235
Percent of Percent of National
Beverage Container SummaII Pieces Total Beverage Total (1,0001
Beer 159 1% 41% 14,835
Soft Drinks 46 0% 12% 4,271
Water 19 0% 5% 1,762
Wine & liquor 3 0% 1% 301
Sports & health drinks 19 0% 5% 1,750
Juice 1 0% 0.3% 111
Tea 1 0% 0.3% 102
Unrecognizable 143 1% 37% 13,367
Total 392 2% 100% 36,498
Summary Data for National Roadways - Large + Small Items
Litter by Source
Debris,
8.2%
Loads,
14,7%
Motorists,
,0.4%
Packaging Summary by Material
Plastic,
Paper,
22%
"-',,mer, 8%
Beverage Containers
36.6%
Tea, u .,' ,, ____ -""
Juice, u.,,,,. ____
Sports &
Hrinks, 4.8%
litter by Material Group
Organic,
0.6%
Construction
Debris, 3.8%
I
Metal,5.4%
Packaging Summary by Type
Commercia
1,42.5%\
Snack,
7.9%
Home Use,
21.4%
Drinks,
11.7%
,4.8%
Vehicle
Debris, 8.0%
1.8%
12.5%
16.5%
4.2%
Food,
28.2%
Summary Data for State Roadways - Large + Small Items
Percent of State
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total [1,000)
Pedestrians 2,614 20% 3,820,370
Motorists 5,508 42% 8,049,200
Containers 124 1% 181,209 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 3,204 25% 4,681,583 Pieces 4,725
Vehicle Debris 386 3% 564,097 Percent of Total 36%
Unknown 1,174 9% 1,715,885 State 6,904,715
Total 13,011 100% 19,012,344
Percent of State
Litter bl:: Material Group Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 3,059 24% 4,469,456
Plastic 2,408 19% 3,518,927
Glass 626 5% 914,441
Metal 593 5% 866,810
Organic 707 5% 1,032,985
Tobacco 4,725 36% 6,904,715
Construction Debris 314 2% 458,695
Vehicle Debris 197 2% 288,193
Other 382 3% 558,122
Total 13,011 100% 19,012,344
Percent of Percent of State
Packaging Summa!:.!: Pieces Total Paclmging Total [1,000)
By Materiai
Paper 303 2% 15% 442,618
Plastic 1,609 12% 78% 2,350,596
Other 152 1% 7% 221,450
Subtotal 2,063 16% 100% 3,014,665
By Type
Snack 207 2% 10% 302,908
Fast Food 367 3% 18% 535,800
Home Use 361 3% 17% 526,874
Commercial 1,129 9% 55% 1,649,083
Subtotal 2,063 16% 100% 3,014,665
Percent of Percent of State
Beverage Container Summary Pieces Total Beverage Total [1,000)
Beer 72 1% 41% 104,715
Soft Drinks 48 0% 28% 69,743
Water 13 0% 7% 18,583
Wine & liquor 5 0% 3% 6,748
Sports & health drinks 6 0% 4% 9,169
Juice 3 0% 2% 4,273
Tea 3 0% 2% 4,208
Unrecognizable 24 0% 14% 35,549
Total 173 1% 100% 252,987
Summary Data for State Roadways - Large + Small Items
Litter by Source
i
20.1%
Motorists,
42.3%
Packaging Summary by Material
Paper,
Beverage Containers
Beer, 41.% __ _
Unrecognizable,
14%
Tea.
Litter by Material Group
Construction
Debris,
Packaging Summary by Type
Commerci81'1
54.7% \
17.5%
Heahh
Drinks, 4%
Drinks,
28%
Wine & Liquor.
3%
,7%
i ,18.5%
Food,
17.8%
Summary Data for County Roadways - Large + Small Items
Percent of Connty
Sonrces of Litter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 884 16% 3,149,805
Motorists 3,768 68% 13,424,853
Containers 56 1% 201,203 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 681 12% 2,426,041 Pieces 2,179
Vehicle Debris 92 2% 326,767 Percent of Total 39%
Unknown 58 1% 206,078 County 7,764,815
Total 5,539 100% 19,734,747
Percent of County
Litter by Material Group Pieces Total Total [1,000)
Paper 1,201 22% 4,277,450
Plastic 1,131 20% 4,030,639
Glass 179 3% 636,235
Metal 445 8% 1,586,494
Organic 50 1% 177,408
Tobacco 2,179 39% 7,764,815
Construction Debris 161 3% 572,216
Vehicle Debris 84 2% 300,531
Other 109 2% 388,960
Total 5,539 100% 19,734,747
Percent of Percent of County
Pacl<aging Summar!:: Pieces Total Packaging Total (1,000)
By Material
Paper 336 6% 28% 1,198,763
Plastic 729 13% 62% 2,598,440
Other 116 2% 10% 413,975
Subtotal 1,182 21% 100% 4,211,178
By Type
Snack 89 2% 8% 317,438
Fast Food 382 7% 32% 1,361,990
Home Use 409 7% 35% 1,456,900
Commercial 302 5% 26% 1,074,849
Subtotal 1,182 21% 100% 4,211,178
Percent of Percent of County
Beverage Container Summa!:! Pieces Total Beverage Total [1,000)
Beer 61 1% 26% 217,707
Soft Drinks 58 1% 24% 205,188
Water 13 0% 6% 47,189
Wine & liquor 5 0% 2% 19,213
Sports & health drinks 7 0% 3% 25,454
Juice 3 0% 1% 10,434
Tea 1 0% 0.4% 3,160
Unrecognizable 88 2% 37% 312,309
Total 236 4% 100% 840,655
Litter by Source
16.0%
Summary Data for County Roadways - Large + Small Items
1.0%
1.7%
Litter by Group
68.0%
1.0% Vehicle ___ .. ~ _ ,
Untarped
12.3%
Packaging Summary by Material Packaging Summary by Type
Paper, ,"."," /
9,8%
Beverage Containers
37%
Tea,
Juice, 1% ___ _
Sports & Meimn . .../'
Drinks, 3%
Wine & Uquor,
2%
Com mere
ial,
Use,
34.6%
26%
Drinks,
24%
Snack,
7.5%
1,8%
\.ullganlic,l%
Fast
Food,
32.3%
Summary Data for Municipal Roadways - Large + Small Items
Percent of Municipal
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total 11,000)
Pedestrians 1,856 43% 4,617,036
Motorists 1,718 40% 4,272,911
Containers 159 4% 395,854 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 420 10% 1,045,145 Pieces 1,514
Vehicle Debris 56 1% 138,444 Percent of Total 35%
Unknown 69 2% 170,972 Municipal 3,766,944
Total 4,277 100% 10,640,361
Percent of Municipal
Litter by Material Group Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 895 21% 2,226,361
Plastic 813 19% 2,022,601
Glass 282 7% 700,728
Metal 166 4% 412,823
Organic 380 9% 944,787
Tobacco Products 1,514 35% 3,766,944
Construction Debris 93 2% 232,084
Vehicle Debris 21 0.5% 51,190
Unrecognizable 114 3% 282,843
Total 4,277 100% 10,640,361
Percent of Percent of Municipal
Pacl<aging Summary Pieces Total Pacl,aging Total (1,000)
By Material
Paper 186 4% 26% 461,749
Plastic 410 10% 58% 1,018,790
Other 107 3% 15% 266,667
Subtotal 702 16% 100% 1,747,207
By Type
Snack 119 3% 17% 296,585
Fast Food 289 7% 41% 720,008
Home Use 189 4% 27% 469,108
Commercial 105 2% 15% 261,505
Subtotal 702 16% 100% 1,747,207
Percent of Percent of Municipal
Beverage Container Summar,r Pieces Total Beverage Total 11,000)
Beer 31 1% 33% 77,504
Soft Drinks 22 1% 24% 55,503
Water 5 0% 6% 13,089
Wine & liquor 2 0% 2% 4,614
Sports & health drinks 2 0% 2% 5,387
Juice 1 0% 2% 3,660
Tea 0 0% 0.3% 784
Other 29 1% 31% 71,398
Total 93 2% 100% 231,939
Summary Data for Municipal Roadways - Large + Small Items
Litter by Source
Vehicle
Untarped Debris,
Loads. 9.8%\
Containers, ..............
3.7% ..........
Motorists,
40.2%
Unknown,
1.6%
Packaging Summary by Material
Other. 3%\
Plastic, lU"' __ -
43.4%
4%
Beverage Containers
Tea,
Sports & neoOUIU
Drinks, 2%
Litter by Material Group
Vehicle Debris,
Debrls,2,2%
Packaging Summary by Type

15.0% '-....,
26,8%
Drinks,
24%
____ "" "". 6%
Wine & Uquor.
2%
...... 2.7%
41.2%
Large Litter Tables and Figures by Roadway Type
2009 National Litter Study
MSWCONSULTANTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
Summary Data for Urban Roadways
Percent of Urban
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 307 45.6% 608,895
Motorists 186 27.6% 368,545
Containers 8 1.2% 16,668 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 151 22.5% 300,196 Pieces 29
Vehicle Debris 14 2.1% 28,363 Percent of Total 4.3%
Unknown 7 1.0% 13,502 Urban 57,660
Total 674 100.0% 1,336,169
Percent of Urban
Litter by Material Groll Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 299 44.4% 593,328
Plastic 233 34.5% 461,325
Glass 19 2.8% 37,506
Metal 28 4.1% 54,668
Organic 4 0.5% 7,291
Tobacco 29 4.3% 57,660
Construction Debris 25 3.7% 49,216
Vehicle Debris 15 2.3% 30,580
Other 22 3.3% 44,594
Total 674 100.0% 1,336,169
Percent of Percent of Urban
Packaging Summary Pieces Total Packaging Total (1,000)
By Material
Paper 179 26.6% 48% 354,875
Plastic 161 23.9% 43% 318,865
Other 31 4.6% 8% 61,235
Subtotal 370 55.0% 100% 734,976
By Type
Snack 57 8.4% 15% 112,407
Fast Food 217 32.3% 59% 431,112
Home Use 57 8.5% 16% 113,947
Commercial 39 5.8% 11% 77,510
Subtotal 370 55.0% 100% 734,976
Percent of Percent of Urban
Beverage Container Su Pieces Total Beverage Total (1,000)
Beer 20 3.0% 32% 40,520
Soft Drink 12 1.8% 19% 24,213
Water 10 1.5% 16% 20,390
Wine & liquor 3 0.5% 5% 6,065
Sports & health drinks 3 0.4% 4% 5,666
Juice 2 0.4% 4% 4,802
Tea 1 0.1% 1% 1,656
Unrecognizable 12 1.8% 19% 24,307
Total 64 9.6% 100% 127,620
Utter by Source
Vehicles,
1%
Loads, 22%\
28%
Summary of Packaging by Material
Plastic,
43.4%
Other, 8.3%,
Beverage Breakdown
Unrecognizable,
Tea, .
Juice, . N ___ _
Sports & .",lth ,1,;01
4.4%
IMne & liquor,
Summary Data for Urban Roadways
46%
Paper,
Litter by Material Group
Tobacco,
Glass, .
Construction
Debris,3.
Summary of Packaging by Type
Commercial,"""'\.
31% "
Home Use,
15.5% "
31.8%
Water, .
, - ~ ; o f t [lrink 19.0%
44.4%
Summary Data for Rural Roadways
Percent of Rural
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 36 6.1% 202,338
Motorists 365 62.3% 2,049,333
Containers 22 3.7% 121,112 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 117 20.0% 657,160 Pieces 32
Vehicle Debris 37 6.2% 205,551 Percent of Total 5.4%
Unknown 10 1.7% 56,057 Rural 179,259
Total 586 100.0% 3,291,550
Percent of Rural
Litter Material Group Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 149 25.5% 839,947
Plastic 227 38.8% 1,276,769
Glass 17 2.9% 96,880
Metal 54 9.2% 302,262
Organic 3 0.4% 14,668
Tobacco 32 5.4% 179,259
Construction Debris 34 5.8% 190,937
Vehicle Debris 36 6.2% 205,091
Other 33 5.6% 185,736
Total 586 100.0% 3,291,550
Percent of Percent of Rural
Pacl<aging Pieces Total Packaging rotal (1,000)
By Material
Paper 57 9.8% 23% 320,974
Plastic 155 26.4% 63% 869,030
Other 35 5.9% 14% 195,325
Subtotal 246 42.1% 100% 1,385,329
By Type
Snack 42 7.3% 17% 238,762
Fast Food 83 14.1% 34% 465,443
Home Use 64 10.9% 26% 359,395
Commercial 57 9.8% 23% 321,729
Subtotal 246 42.1% 100% 1,385,329
Percent of Percent of Rural
Beverage Container Summ Pieces Total Beverage rotal (1,000)
Beer 30 5.1% 31% 168,175
Soft Drink 31 5.4% 32% 176,304
Water 10 1.7% 10% 56,479
Wine & liquor 4 0.8% 5% 24,811
Sports & health drinks 6 1.0% 6% 31,604
Juice 2 0.4% 3% 13,675
Tea 1 0.2% 1% 6,598
Unrec0B,nizable 12 2.0% 12% 65,612
Total 97 16.5% 100% 543,259
Summary Data for Rural Roadways
Litter by Source __________ _
Unknown,
2%
Vehicles,
6%
Pedst., 6%
Containers,
4%
Summary of Packaging by Material

Beverage Breakdown
Tea,
Motorists,
62%
P"DE". 23%
Plastic,
63%
Unrecognizable,
12%
Juice,
Sports & health
drinks, 6%
Wine & liquor,
Water I
Litter by Material Goup
Constructi Vehicle
on Debris,
5.8%
Tobacco,
5.4%
Organic,
0.4%
Metal,
9.2%
Glass,
2.9%
Other,
5.6%
Paper,
25.5%
Plastic,
38.8%
Summary of Packaging _b __ y_T __ y-'-p_e ______
Commercial
,31%
Home Use,
26%
Soft Drink, 32%
31%
Snack, 17%
Fast Food,
34%
Summary Data for National Roadways
Percent of National
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 82 5.5% 7,635
Motorists 615 41.5% 57,353
Containers 15 1.0% 1,397 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 464 31.2% 43,217 Pieces 32
Vehicle Debris 292 19.7% 27,202 Percent of Total 2.2%
Unknown 17 1.1% 1,559 National 2,982
Total 1,484 100.0% 138,362
Percent of National
Litter b ~ Material Groul! Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 425 28.6% 39,610
Plastic 399 26.9% 37,174
Glass 11 0.7% 1,003
Metal 113 7.6% 10,493
Ot'ganic 5 0.3% 464
Tobacco 32 2.2% 2,982
Construction Debris 129 8.7% 11,996
Vehicle Debris 302 20.4% 28,178
Other 69 4.7% 6,463
Total 1,484 100.0% 138,362
Percent of Percent of National
Packaging Summar.!: Pieces Total Pacl,aging Total (1,000)
By Material
Paper 256 17.2% 46% 23,861
Plastic 257 17.3% 47% 23,947
Other 39 2.6% 7% 3,605
Subtotal 552 37.2% 100% 51,414
By Type
Snack 53 3.6% 10% 4,912
Fast Food 315 21.2% 57% 29,335
Home Use 12 4.8% 13% 6,701
Commercial 112 7.6% 20% 10,466
Subtotal 552 37.2% 100% 51,414
Percent of Percent of National
Beverage Container Summ Pieces Total Beverage Total (1,000)
Beer 38 2.5% 35% 3,519
Soft Drink 33 2.2% 30% 3,065
Water 15 1.0% 14% 1,393
Wine & liquor 3 0.2% 3% 301
Sports & health drinks 7 0.5% 6% 644
Juice 1 0.1% 1% 111
Tea 1 0.1% 1% 102
Unrecognizable 11 0.7% 10% 985
Total 109 7.3% 100% 10,120
Summary Data for National Roadways Large Litter
Litter by Source
Loads, 01.;',,-___
Unknown, 1.1%
COntainers,
1.0%
Summary of Packaging by Material
Plastic, 46.6%
Beverage Breakdown
Tea,
41.5%
Paper, 46.4%
Litter by Material Group
VehIcle
20.4%
COnstruction
Debris, 8.
Summary of Packaging by Type
Commercial, \
20.4%
Home Use,
13.0''\
Beer, 41.8%
~ __ SoftD"ink,36.4%
28.6%
26.9%
Fast Food,
57.1%
Summary Data for State Roadways
Percent of State
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 61 7.0% 88,458
Motorists 415 47.7% 606,368
Containers 14 1.6% 19,934 Tobaccorelated Litter
Untarped Loads 296 34.0% 432,065 Pieces 45
Vehicle Debris 74 8.5% 108,520 Percent of Total 5.2%
Unknown 10 1.2% 15,234 State 65,854
Total 869 100.0% 1,270,579
Percent of State Recycled PaEer Summa!:y
Litter by Material Group Pieces Total Total (1,000) Pieces 44
Paper 241 27.7% 351,760 Percent of Total 5.1%
Plastic 309 35.5% 451,122 State 64,646
Glass 21 2.5% 31,215
Metal 73 8.3% 105,964
Organic 3 0.4% 4,649
Tobacco 45 5.2% 65,854
Construction Debris 78 9.0% 114,436
Vehicle Debris 69 7.9% 100,151
Other 31 3.6% 45,428
Total 869 100.0% 1,270,579
Percent of Perceut of State
Packaging Summary Pieces Total Packaging Total (1,000)
By Material
Paper 90 10.4% 25% 131,609
Plastic 222 25.5% 62% 323,948
Other 47 5.4% 13% 68,078
Subtotal 358 41.2% 100% 523,635
By7ype
Snack 62 7.2% 17% 90,905
Fast Food 121 13.9% 34% 176,128
Home Use 80 9.3% 22% 117,608
Commercial 95 10.9% 27% 138,995
Subtotal 358 41.2% 100% 523,635
Percent of Percent of State
Beverage Container Summ Pieces Total Beverage Total (1,000)
Beer 40 4.6% 38% 58,636
Soft Drink 27 3.1% 26% 39,652
Water 13 1.5% 12% 18,583
Wine & liquor 5 0.5% 4% 6,748
Sports & health drinks 6 0.7% 6% 9,169
Juice 3 0.3% 3% 4,273
Tea 3 0.3% 3% 4,208
Unrecognizable 8 0.9% 8% 12,043
Total 105 12.1% 100% 153,311
Summary Data for State Roadways Large Litter
Litter by Source
Unknown,
loads,
47.7%
1.6%
Summary of Packaging by Material
Other,13.0%"
Plastic,
,25.1%
Beverage Breakdown
8.9%
Tea, ~ . " ' ~ __ -'
Juice, 3.2%
Sports & Health
Drinks,6.S'/,
Litter by Material Group
Construction
Debris,
5,2%
Organic,
Metal,8.3%
Vehicle
Summary of Packaging by Type
CommerClal,\
26.5%
Home Use.
22.5%
Snack,
7.4%
,27.7%
Summary Data for County Roadways
Percent of County
Sources of Litter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 108 16.6% 386,399
Motorists 400 61.1% 1,423,667
Containers 28 4.2% 98,509 Tobaccorelated Litter
Untarped Loads 84 12.9% 300,271 Pieces 32
Vehicle Debris 23 3.5% 81,137 Percent of Total 4.9%
Unknown 11 1.7% 40,564 State 113,980
Total 654 100.0% 2,330,546
Percent of County
Litter bl:: Material Groul! Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 215 32.9% 765,790
Plastic 243 37.1% 865,178
Glass 20 3.0% 69,716
Metal 54 8.2% 192,027
Organic 2 0.3% 6,423
Tobacco 32 4.9% 113,980
Construction Debris 26 3.9% 91,326
Vehicle Debris 26 3.9% 91,387
Other 38 5.8% 134,719
Total 654 100.0% 2,330,546
Percent of Percent of County
Packaging Summa!):: Pieces Total Packaging Total (1,000)
By Material
Paper 108 16.6% 36% 385,839
Plastic 159 24.4% 52% 567,796
Other 36 5.5% 12% 127,899
Subtotal 304 46.4% 100% 1,081,534
BY'lYpe
Snack 42 6.5% 14% 150,838
Fast Food 140 21.4% 46% 498,207
HOUle Use 69 10.6% 23% 246,343
Commercial 52 8.0% 17% 186,146
Subtotal 304 46.4% 100% 1,081,534
Percent of Percent of County
Beverage Container Summary Pieces Total Beverage Total (1,000)
Beer 30 4.6% 27% 108,245
Soft Drink 38 5.8% 34% 135,598
Water 12 1.9% 11% 43,805
Wine & liquor 5 0.8% 5% 19,213
Sports & health drinks 6 0.9% 6% 22,069
Juice 3 0.4% 3% 10,434
Tea 1 0.1% 1% 3,160
Unrecognizable 16 2.4% 14% 56,413
Total 112 17.1% 100% 398,936
Summary Data for County Roadways Large Litter
Litter by Source

16.6%

4.2%
61.1%
Summary of Packaging by Material
Other. 11.8%"
Beverage Breakdown
Tea, 0.8%
Sports & neoIUI_/
Drinks, 5.5%
35.7%
Beer, 27.1%
Litter by Material Group
Construction
Debris. 3.9%
Summary of Packaging by Type
Commercial,
17.2% \
22.8%
_ou" Drink,
34.0%
32,9%
Summary Data for Municipal Roadways
Percent of Municipal
Sources ofLitter Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Pedestrians 132 37.0% 328,741
Motorists 133 37.2% 330,490
Containers 7 2.0% 17,939 Tobacco-related Litter
Untarped Loads 73 20.5% 181,804 Pieces 22
Vehicle Debris 7 1.9% 17,056 Percent ofTotal 6.1%
Unknown 5 1.4% 12,201 Municipal 54,103
Total 357 100.0% 888,232
Percent of Municipal
Litter bl:: Material Group Pieces Total Total (1,000)
Paper 111 31.1% 276,115
Plastic 155 43.3% 384,620
Glass 13 3.7% 32,453
Metal 19 5.5% 48,445
Organic 4 1.2% 10,424
Tobacco 22 6.1% 54,103
Construction Debris 9 2.5% 22,395
Vehicle Debris 6 1.8% 15,956
Other 18 4.9% 43,721
Total 357 100.0% 888,232
Percent of Percent of Municipal
Pac1<aging Summarl:: Pieces Total Packaging Total (1,000)
By Materiai
Paper 54 15.1% 29% 134,540
Plastic 109 30.6% 59% 272,203
Other 23 6.4% 12% 56,979
Subtotal 186 52.2% 100% 463,722
By Type
Snack 42 11.8% 23% 104,514
Fast Food 78 21.7% 42% 192,886
Home Use 41 11.6% 22% 102,690
Commercial 26 7.2% 14% 63,632
Subtotal 186 52.2% 100% 463,722
Percent of Percent of Municipal
Beverage Container Summary Pieces Total Beverage Total (1,000)
Beer 15 4.3% 35% 38,295
Soft Drink 9 2.5% 20% 22,202
Water 5 1.5% 12% 13,089
Wine & liquor 2 0.5% 4% 4,614
Sports & health drinks 2 0.6% 5% 5,387
Juice 1 0.4% 3% 3,660
Tea 0 0.1% 1% 784
Unrecognizable 8 2.3% 19% 20,479
Total 44 12.2% 100% 108,511
Summary Data for Municipal Roadways Large Litter
Litter by Source
Vehicles,
_UnlKnollm, 1%
loads, 20%\
Containers,
Motorists,
Summary of Packaging by Material
Other, 12.3%\
Beverage Breakdown
21.5%
Tea,
37%
29.0%
Litter by Material Group
COnstruction
Tobacco,
Organic,
Summary of Packaging by Type
Commercial, _____
13.7% -----..

4.80/0
31.1%
,22,5%
41.6%
2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXF
Site Survey Photographs
MSWCONSULTANTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIX F - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
A total of 243 roadway samples and 180 non-roadway samples were obtained over the course
of this study. The digital photographs in tlus appendix are intended to provide representative
examples of each of the roadway and non-roadway types. Street segments were selected witlun
either a 10 mile buffer or a 40 mile buffer of the city's center point and then identified as
either "urban" or "lural" based on the U.S. Census listing of urbanized areas.
1.1. NATIONAL ROADS
National roads are defined to include all federal interstates and other federally maintained
roadways. National roads were categorized as being urban or lUral depending on the
population density of the surrounding area. Urban and mral national roads are shown in
Figures F-I and 1'-2, respectively.
Figure F-l National Roads: Urban
Albuquerque, NM Texarkana, AR
Figure F2 National Roads: Rural
South Bend, IN Fort Worth, TX
2009 National Litter Study Pl
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXF
1.2. STATE ROADS
Urban state roads are maintained by state department of transportation officials. Figures F-3
and F-4 shows urban and lUra! state roads, respectively.
Figure F-3 State Roads: Urban
Chattanooga, TN Spartanburg, NC
Figure F-4 State Roads: Rural
Fort Worth, TX Tampa, FL
MSWCONSULTANTS
F2 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXF
1.3. COUNTY ROADS
County roads are maintained by county public works and streets personnel. Figures F-S and
F-6 depict urban and lUral county roads, respectively.
Figure F-5 County Roads: Urban
Spartanburg, NC Tampa, Florida
Figure F-6 County Roads: Rural
Fort Worth, TX Shreveport, LA
2009 National Litter Study F3
MSWCONSUlTANTS
APPENDIXF
1.4. MUNICIPAL ROADS
Municipal roads are maintained by the public works and streets departments of an
incorporated city, town, borough, or other entity. These tend to be residential roads. Figures
F-7 and F-8 depict urban and iUral municipal roads, respectively.
Figure F 7 Municipal Roads: Urban
Chattanooga, TN Tuscaloosa, AL
Figure F8 Municipal Roads: Rural
Louisville, KY Rome,GA
1.5. TRANSITION POINTS
Transition points are congregating areas beyond which cltlzens are not allowed to bring
certain products such as lit cigarettes, beverages and certain food products into a given area.
Transition points may include bus stops or entrances to theaters, shopping malls, libraries and
schools.
MSWCONSULTANTS
F4 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXF
Figure F-9 - Transition Points
Meridian, MS Texarkana, AR
1.6. LOADING DOCKS
Loading docks are characterized as an area within an expos!t1on facility where freight is
received and stripped. Loading Docks are commonly found in the back of commercial and
industrial establislunents. In most instances the entire circumference of the ramp leading into
or out of the loading dock was sampled.
Figure F-1D - Loading Docks
Rome,GA Martinsburg, WV
1.7. STORM DRAINS
Storm drains are characterized as an opening leading to an underground pipe or open ditch
for carrying surface runoff and which can be separate from the sanitaty sewer or wastewater
system.
2009 National Litter Shtdy F'5
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXF
Figure F-ll- Storm Drains
Meridian, MS Philadelphia, PA
1.8. RETAIL AREAS
Retail areas are characterized as the walkways immediately outside of stores within a shopping
malls and shopping strips. Convenience stores and fast food establishments are not included
in this category.
Figure F-12 - Retail Areas
Hagerstown, MD Annandale, VA
1.9. RECREATIONAL AREAS
Recreational areas included "high-use" areas within state and national parks and forests,
beaches, waterways, fairgrounds, and other recreation sites. High use areas arc defined as areas
where users tend to congregate, and include courts, vending areas, pavilions, playgrounds,
docks and parking lots.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
F'G 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXF
Figure F-13 - Recreational Areas
Camden, NJ Hagerstown, MD
1.10. CONSTRUCTION SITES
Construction sites are characterized as residential, commercial or industrial parcels that are
under any phase of constmction. Due to safety and legal issues, onJy the area immediately
outside of the constmction "border" was sampled. This could include signs, silt lun-off
fences, roped off areas, and other temporary borders.
Figure F-14 - Construction Sites
Gaithersburg, MD Drexel Hill, PA
2009 National Litter Study F'7
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXG
Litter Cost Survey Instrument
MSWCONSULTANTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIX G - LITTER COST SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Appendix G contains a summary of the survey questions and types of open-ended interview
strategies that were used to obtain the litter cost estimates. The litter cost survey spanned three
distinct entity types: 1) Government Agencies (States, Counties and Cities); 2) Educational
Institutions (School Districts and Colleges and Universities); and 3) Businesses (by employee size).
\'(1hile the list of questions was similar for many of the entity types, in some cases additional
questions andlor interview strategies were utilized to obtain the necessary information. Pertinent
content from the various SUiyey instruments has been compiled below.
Keep Ame,;", Bealltijiti is (Olldlldillg a lIatiolllvide slln,,!)' to estimate tbe total amollilt ,pmt Oil litteN-e/ated (osts
illdlldillgpm!el/tiol/ ~ f 1 0 ! t s cadI )'etl/: Utte/' is deflllCd to il/tillde trasb O/' IVtydables tbat a/'e abal/dollCd O/' disposed qf
impmpe/'Iy. Pleas< aliSIPe/' tbe follO/vilig qJlesliol/s 10 Ibe best O/)Oll/, ability. As ),011 jill 0111 tbe J/m!D', plCtlse lise tbe
/I/osl ""'II ',()IIJjJlete ",Iel/da/' o/'jisml )'ea/' Ibat daltl is {/l!ailable 10 draw)'o/ll' aI/JIPm"jivm. 11/ additiol/, fo/')'O/I/'
",pol/se plerlSe il/tillde tol/tral10/' ('(}sts if appli",ble.
Tbal/k )'oll.fo/' ltlkil/g tbe time 10 jill 0111 Ibis slln'!Y. YOI//' assis!al/lv will belp .folilitale KeJjJ Alm!i", Beal/lijitl's litte/'
!ct/1/l1iol/ al/d edllM!ioll goals:
1. Survey ID Number ______ _
2. What entity type are you filling this survey out for?
Government Agency (check one below)
State
_County
_City
Educational Institution (check one below)
__ College or University
School District
Business (check one below)
_ 0 to 30 employees
_ 30 to 99 employees
_100 to 1,000 employees
__ Over 1,000 employees
2009 National Litter Study G'l
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXG
3. For Government Agencies
During the most recent year that data are available for, how much did your agency expense for litter-
related collection and prevention efforts? Please include any costs for contractors who may have
performed these services for you.
I. \\1]1Ot is the name of your department or agency? _________ _
2. For which year are you reporting data? _________ _
3. How much were your agencies direct expenses (capitol spent from agency budget) for each
of the following categories? If it is possible to break down your expeuses into the categories
shown below, please do so. Othei'\vise please enter the total expenses at the bottom.
a. Utter Collection and/ or Disposal $, ___ _
b. Illegal Dumping Programs $. __ _
c. Public Education and Outreach Program $ __
d. Total $ __ _
4. How much grant funding did you receive in the last calendar or fiscal year from other
government agencies and/or not-for-profits for the following efforts? If it is possible to
break down grants provided to other governmental entities or not for profits into the
categories shown below, please do so. Otherwise please enter the total grants provided at the
bottom.
a. Utter Collection and/ or Disposal $ __ _
b. Illegal Dumping Programs $ __ _
c. Public Education and Outreach Program $ __
d. Total $, __ _
5. If applicable, which entities provided your state, department, or agency , , ~ t h grant funding?
(please choose as many as apply).
a. States __ _
b. Counties
c. Cities __ _
d. Community Groups ___ _
e. Law Enforcement ____ _
f. Other (List) ____ _
6. How much grant funding did you provide in the last calendar or fiscal year to other
government agencies and/or to not-for-profits for the following efforts?
MSWCONSULTANTS
G'2 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXG
a. Litter Collection and/or Disposal $ __ _
b. Illegal Dumping Programs $ __ _
c. Public Education and Outreach Program $ __
d. Total $. __ _
7. If applicable, what types of groups did you offer grant funding to? (please choose as many as
apply)
a. States
b. Counties
c. Cities
d. Community groups __
e. Law enforcelnent
f. Other (list) ____ _
8. How much litter did your agency or organization collect in the last year for which data
exists? This can include both direct litter collection in addition to volunteer community
collection events that you sponsored or organized. Please enter "0" if your organization did
not engage in litter collection efforts.
________ (Tons); or
________ (pounds); or
________ (Cubic Yards).
9. How much waste from illegal dump sites did your agency or organization collect in the last
year for which data exists? Please enter "0" if your organization did not engage in illegal
dump collection or remediation efforts.
_________ (Tons); or
_________ (pounds); or
________ (Cubic Yards).
10. Is there other important information about your litter efforts that is not covered in the
questions above?
2009 National Litter Study G-3
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXG
4. For Educational Institutions
During the most recent year that data are available for, how much did your school district or
college/university expense for litter-related collection and prevention efforts? Please include any
costs for contractors who may have performed these services for you.
1. \'I?hat is the name of your school district or university? ________ _
2. For which year are you reporting data? __ _
3. \'(lhat were your expenses related to litter, including contractors who may have performed
these services for you? Please itemize expenses if known; otherwise enter a total at the
bottom.
a. Litter Collection and/or Disposal $ ___ _
b. Illegal Dumping S __ _
c. Education and outreach programs on litter $ ____ _
d. Total Costs (S) ___ _
4. Did your school district or college/university receive litter related grants or other outside
litter funding?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I f "Yes," enter an10unt $ ___ _
5. If you answered "Yes," to question 5 above, who were the tnajor sources of the grants?
a. States
b. Counties
c. Cities
d. Community Groups _
6. Did you award any litter related grants?
a. Yes
b. No
c. If "Yes," what was the aggregate dollar amount of the awards? $. ___ _
7. How much litter did your school district or college/university collect last year? Please enter
"0" if you did not engage in litter collection efforts.
a. (Tons); or
MSWCONSULTANTS
G'4 2009 National Litter Studr
APPENDIXG
b. (pounds); or
c. (Cubic Yards).
8. How much waste from illegal dumpsites did your school district or college/ university collect
last year? Please enter "0" if you did not engage in illegal dump remediation efforts.
a. (Tons); or
b. (pounds); or
c. (Cubic Yards).
9. What is the size of the total student body at this school district or campus? _____ _
In the likely event that the educational institutions contacted did not keep records of, nor document
the amount of time or costs related to litter collection efforts within or on their property, additional
follow-up questions were asked. The response to these additional questions provided lvIS\'(l
Consultants a means to estimate the annual tons and collection and disposal costs ourselves, which
were then extrapolated to the universe of educational institutions as a whole.
1. Please estimate how many tons or number of plastic bags (with size as small, medium, or
large) that are collected from your educational institution.
____ Tons (Circle one - daily, weekly, monthly); or
____ Number of bags collected (Circle one - daily, weekly, monthly).
2. Please approximate the number of man-hours per week utilized to collect litter.
(You can calculate by using, for example, 10% of a person's time 40 hours per week
performing his/hers normal work duties taken up by collecting litter)
__ Employee number 1: hours per week
__ Employee number 2: hours per week
__ Employee number 3: hours per week
__ Employee number 4: hours per week
__ Employee number 5: hours per week
__ Employee number 6: hours per week
__ Employee number 7: hours per week
__ Employee number 8: hours per week
__ Employee number 9: hours per week
__ Employee number 10: hours per week
3. What is the average pay rate per hour for the personnel who are collecting the litter?
2009 National Litter Study 0'5
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXG
$ __ Employee number 1: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 2: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 3: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 4: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 5: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 6: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 7: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 8: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 9: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 10: average hourly pay rate
4. Can you estimate the total percentage of litter disposed with the rest of the trash? (i.e. 3% of
the total trash is comprised of litter) ___ %
5. How many dumpsters or containers does you school district or college/university utilize?
6. What size are the dumpster(s)/ container(s)?
__ Dumpster/ container number 1 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster! container number 2 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/container number 3 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/ container number 4 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/ container number 5 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/container number 6 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/container number 7 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster! container number 8 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/ container number 9 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/container number 10 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
7. How often are the dumpster(s)/containers collected? (check one below)
__ One time per week
__ T,vo times per week
__ Three times per week
_ Four times per week
MSWCONSULTANTS
G'G 2009 National Littcr Study
__ Five times per \veek
__ Six times per week
APPENDIXG
8. Please provide or estimate your trash disposal costs (i.e. S800.00 per month)
S __ per week; or
S __ bi-weekly; or
S __ month; or
S __ every three tnonths; or
S __ every four months; or
S __ every six months; or
S __ per year.
9. Within the last year, have you had any illegal dumping on your property that your
educational institution had to remove?
__ Yes; or
No.
10. If "Yes" to question 9 above, please estimate how many pounds, tons, or cubic yards were
removed.
__ pounds; or
__ tons; or
__ cubic yards.
11. If possible, please estimate the cost (S) and/or time spent removing the waste?
__ S per year
__ Hours per year
12. Can you estimate the annual cost to dispose of illegal waste or the percentage of illegal waste
of all waste disposed from you normal waste collection?
S ___ Annual cost; or
___ Percent of illegal waste disposed of in normal waste stream.
2009 National Litter Study G'7
MSWCONSUlTANTS
APPENDIXG
5. For Businesses
During the most recent year that data are available for, how much did your business expense for
litter-related collection and prevention efforts? Please include any costs for contractors who may
have performed these services for you.
1. What is the name of your business? _____ _
2. For which year are you reporting data? __ _
3. What were your expenses related to litter, including contractors who may have performed
these services for you? Please itemize expenses if known; otherwise enter a total at the
bottom.
a. Litter Collection andlor Disposal S ___ _
b. illegal Dumping S __ _
c. Total Costs (S) ___ _
4. How much litter did your business collect last year? Please enter "0" if you did not engage in
litter collection efforts.
a. (fans); or
b. (Pounds); or
c. (Cubic Yards).
5. How much waste from illegal dumpsites did your business collect last year? Please enter "0"
if you did not engage in illegal dump remediation efforts.
a. (fans); or
b. (Pounds); or
c. (Cubic Yards).
6. How many employees work at tlus location? _____ _
7. How much land does your business, including any surrounding property, occupy?
a. A c r e s ~ o r
b. Square Feet ___ .
8. Is there other important information about your litter efforts that is not covered in the
questions above? __________________________ .
MSWCOIIISULTAIIITS
Gg 2009 National LittCl' Study
APPENDIXG
In the likely event that the businesses contacted did not keep records of, nor document the amount
of time or costs related to litter collection efforts within or on their property, an additional 12
follow-up questions were asked. The response to these additional questions provided MSW
Consultants a means to estimate the annual tons and collection and disposal costs ourselves, which
were then extrapolated to the universe of businesses as a whole.
1. Please estimate how many pounds or number of plastic bags (with size as small, medium, or
large) that are collected from your business.
____ Pounds (Circle one - daily, weekly, monthly); or
____ Number of bags collected (Circle one - daily, weekly, monthly).
2. Please approximate the number of man-hours per week utilized to collect litter.
(You can calculate by using, for example, 10% of a person's time 40 hours per week
performing his/hers normal work duties taken up by collecting litter)
__ Employee nnmber 1: hours per week
__ Employee number 2: hours per week
__ Employee number 3: hours per week
__ Employee number 4: hours per week
__ Employee number 5: hours per week
3. What is the average pay rate per hour for the personnel who are collecting the litter?
$ __ Employee number 1: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 2: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 3: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 4: average hourly pay rate
$ __ Employee number 5: average hourly pay rate
4. Can you estimate the total percentage of litter disposed with the rest of the trash? (i.e. 3% of
the total trash is comprised of litter) ___ %
5. How many dumpsters or containers does you company utilize? ___ _
6. \,'hat size are the dumpster(s)/container(s)?
__ Dumpster/ container number 1 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/container number 2 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
2009 National Litter Study Gg
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXG
__ Dumpster/ container number 3 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/ container number 4 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
__ Dumpster/ container number 5 (Circle one - gallons or cubic yards)
7. How often are the dumpster(s)/containers collected? (check one below)
__ One time per week
__ Two times per week
__ Three times per week
__ Four times per week
__ Five times per week
__ Six times per week
8 .. Please provide or estimate your trash disposal costs (i.e. $800.00 per month)
$ __ per week; or
S __ bi-weekly; or
$ __ month; or
S __ evety three months; or
S __ every four months; or
S __ every six months; or
S __ per year.
9. \'(lithin the last year, have you had any illegal dumping on your property that your company
had to remove?
__ Yes; or
No.
10. If ''Yes'' to question 9 above, please estimate how many pounds, tons, or cubic yards were
rctnoved.
__ pounds; or
__ tons; or
__ cubic yards.
11. If possible, please estimate the cost ($) and/or time spent removing the waste?
__ Speryear
MSWCONSULTANTS
G-IO 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXG
__ Hours per year
12. Can you estimate the annual cost to dispose of illegal waste or the percentage of illegal waste
of all waste disposed from you normal waste collection?
$ ___ Annual cost; or
___ Percent of illegal waste disposed of in normal waste stream.
2009 National Litter Study 0'11
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXG
Tlus page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
0-12 2009 National Litter S t u d ~ '
APPENDIXH
1969 to 2009 Study Comparison
2009 National Litter Study
MSWCONSULTANTS
This page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National I.itter Study
APPENDIX H - COMPARISON OF THE 1969 AND 2009
NATIONAL LITTER STUDIES
A.I. INTRODUCTION
Keep America Beautiful first commissioned a study of litter generation in the late 1960s.
Published in September 1969, tillS first study was performed by the Highway Research Board of the
National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering.' TillS report (1969 Study)
indicated that it was attempting the first-ever comprehensive analysis of the composition and
quantity of litter on the nation's "primal')' rurallllghways" in the United States.
Although there have been many state-wide studies conducted in the ensuing decades, no other litter
quantification and composition studies that are national in scope have been performed (to the
knowledge of the Project Team) since 1969. Consequently, tillS senUnal work represents the only
known benchmark to the 2009 National Visible Litter Survey and Litter Cost Study (2009 Study).
It is likely that littering behaviors and the composition of littered items has changed in the almost 40
years between these two national studies. TillS appendL" describes and compares the methodologies
used in both the 1969 and 2009 Studies, and subsequently attempts to draw defensible conclusions
about the changes in roadside litter that can be drawn from a comparison of the two studies' results.
A.2. OVERVIEW OF 1969 STUDY
The 1969 Study was ground breaking in several ways. First, it applied statistical sampling techniques
to the problem of roadside litter for the purpose of estimating the composition and quantity of litter.
Second, it drew samples from 29 states, giving it a legitimate claim to being national in scope. It
introduced, or at least tested, a number of concepts that are still relevant to litter analysis today.
The main body of the 1969 Study includes 18 pages of narrative and contains an introduction, a
statement of the problem, description of the methodology, presentation of results, and offers
summal')' and conclusion statements. In addition to the main body of the report, the 1969 Study
includes eight appendices containing the field forms, sampling procedures, statistical estimation
methods, and a list of "special" items noted in the field observations. The last appendL" in the 1969
Study contains 86 full-page tables shO\wng statistical results generated by the field data collection
effort. This appendLx is particularly of interest as it provides statistical tabulations of the study
results segregated by:
Aggregate weighted results of all samples (the overall results of the "national" study);
State (29 states participated);
Highway Class (Interstate, Primal')', Other, Non-responsive);
I "National Study of the Composition of Roadside Litter," a Report from the Highway Engineering Board of the
Division of Engineering, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of
Engineering; prepared for Keep America Beautiful; prepared by A. L. Finkner, Director, Statistics Research Division,
Research Triangle Institute (11esearch Triangle Park, NC). September 12, 1969.
2009 National Litter Study H'I
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXH
Highway Use (Intercity, Recreational, Local including Farm and Commercial, Cross country,
Tmnkline, Bypass, Arterial, Other, Non-responsive);
Number of Lanes and Median (fwo Lanes, Three Lanes, Four Lanes Not Divided, Four
Lanes Divided, Six Lanes Divided, Eight Lanes Divided, Non-responsive);
Access Control (None, Free, lVlinimum, Partial Linuted, Full, Other, Non-responsive);
Average Daily Traffic measured as the number of velucles traveling over the roadway over a 24
hour period (Less than 400; 400 to 999; 1,000 to 1,999; 2,000 to 2,999; 3,000 to 3,999; 4,000 to
4,999; 5,000 to 9,999; 10,000 to 14,999; 15,000 to 19,999; 20,000 and Over; Non-responsive);
Average Width of Right-of-Way measured in feet from the road's edge to the end of the right-
of-way (Avg. Width of Right a Way 30,30 to 49, 50 to 69, 70 to 99,100 to 149, 150 to 199,
200 to 299, 300 to 499, 500 and Over, Non-responsive);
Variability of Width of Right-of-Way (Constant, Variable, Non-responsive);
Roadside Cover (Grass Alone; Grass with Trees, Slllubs, Vines, etc.; Trees, Slllubs, etc.
l'vlentioned Separately; Sagebrush, Wleeds, Etc. with Grass or Alone; Dead Grass, and Grass with
Snow; No Cover, Free Shoulders, etc.; \\later; Seeded and Strmved; Non-responsive);
As shown above, the presentation of statistics is extensive. The 1969 Study authors devote some
discussion to the limitations that exist in making detailed analysis of the results subsets, stating "tlus
report can examine only a few of the large number of comparisons and rclationslups that could be
studied with the given data. The full tables are presented, however, to allow the reader to examine
those aspects which interest him most (p. 6)."
The 1969 Study makes a number of interesting observations, and offers a range of results and
conclusions that are of interest. These are itenlized below.
Accumulated Versus Fresh Litter: Accumulated litter includes any and all litter that is found
the first time a roadway segment is observed. Accumulated litter may have been in situ for one
day, or for one year or even longer. No attempt is made to discern or correct for the length of
time litter has been on the ground. Accumulated litter is measured the first time field data
collection is performed at any given roadway segment. Alternatively, fresh litter is measured on
roadway segments where a first visit has been performed to remove accumulated litter, such that
any subsequent litter occurs on a clean roadway segment (and therefore that litter is "fresh").
The 1969 Study reports both the accumulated litter data (i.e., the first time the roadway segments
were obselved and the litter picked up) and the fresh litter (i.e., the second time the same
roadway segment was observed and the litter picked up). Interestingly, the 1969 Study authors
indicate that analysis and interpretations of the 1969 Study should be based primarily on the
fresh litter results (p. 11). Both the accumulated and fresh litter results are equally informarive,
although only the accumulated litter results are comparable to the 2009 Study.
Litter Composition: The 1969 Study's primary objective was to deternline the composition of
roadside litter. Figure H -1 shows pie charts that break down litter composition by the five
material groups defined in the Study. As shown, paper items comprised the majority of fresh
litter (almost 60 percent), but less than 50 percent of accumulated litter. This reduction in paper
magnifies the apparent percentage increases in the other litter types. The 1969 Study authors
offer the theory that paper contributes more highly to fresh litter than accumulated litter because
it deteriorates faster than other items and is also more subject to being out of the
roadside right-of-way, both dinunislling the contribution of paper to accumulated litter counts.
MSWCONSULTANTS
B2 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXH
Figure H-l Composition of Litter as Reported in 1969 Study
Bott!es
and Jars
227
Accumulated Litter
(1st Pickup - Items/mile)
Miscellaneous \
364
11.1%
Plastic .
28.3%
Fresh Litter
(2nd Pickup - Items/mile)
Miscellaneous
163
12.5% _______
59.5%
Total Litter Generation: Figure H-I above also shows the observed pieces of litter per mile.
Specifically, the 1969 Study found that there were 3,279 pieces of accumulated litter per mile,
and 1,304 pieces of fresh litter per mile. Tills was found to equate to three cubic yards (82 cubic
feet) of accumulated litter per mile and one cubic yard (29 cubic feet) of fresh litter per mile,
respectively. The confidence intervals reported in the 1969 Study confirm that these estimates
2009 National Litter Study H-3
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXH
are within 8 to 12 percent at a 95 percent level of confidence. Table B-2 shows the accumulated
and fresh litter generation reported in the 1969 Study for the aggregate, national results.
Table H-1 1969 Study Results - Roadside litter Composition
Accumulated Litter Fresh Litter
Litter Type Pieces/Mile Percent Pieces/Mile Percent
Newspapers or Magazines 58 1.77% 25 1.89%
Paper Pacl(ages or Containers 352 10.73% 150 11.52%
Other Paper Items 1,195 36.43% 601 46.08%
Subtotal Paper Items 1,605 48.93% 776 59.49%
Beer Cans 710 21.65% 153 11.75%
Soft Drink Cans 143 4.36% 40 3.11%
Food Cans 33 1.01% 8 0.64%
Other Cans 43 1.31% 11 0.82%
Subtotal Cans 929 28.32% 213 16.32%
Plastic Packages or Containers 63 1.92% 34 2.57%
Other Plastic Items 92 2.80% 42 3.20%
Subtotal Plastic Items 155 4.73% 75 5.77%
Auto Parts and Accessories (Not
tires) 27 0.82% 11 0.83%
Tires (or tire pieces) 99 3.02% 39 3.00%
Lumber or Construction Items 87 2.65% 52 3.97%
Unclassified Items 151 4.60% 62 4.73%
Subtotal Miscellaneous Items 364 11.10% 163 12_53%
Returnable Beer Bottles 13 0.40% 5 0.41%
Non Returnable Beer Bottles 90 2.74% 30 2.31%
Returnable Soft Drink Bottles 53 1.62% 21 1.62%
Non Returnable Soft Drink Bottles 26 0.79% 7 0.51%
Wine or Liquor Bottles 25 0.76% 8 0.64%
Food Bottles or Jars 8 0.24% 3 0.22%
Other Bottles or Jars 12 0.37% 2 0.17%
Subtotal Bottles and Jars 227 6_92% 77 5.88%
Total 3,279 100% 1,304 100%
Source: Appendix VII. Table A-Oi. Totals may not sum preCisely due to rounding.
MSWCONSULTANTS
2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXH
Paper is Predominant: As shown above, paper was the most commonly littered item in 1969,
whether accumulated or fresh litter was observed. Within the Paper material group, 36 to 46
percent of all litter was labeled as "Other IVliscellaneous Paper." This is one of the reasons that
paper categories have been greatly expanded in subsequent studies, and the 2009 Study
contained 12 paper categories.
Bottles, Jars and Cans: Over 35 percent of observed litter items per mile were found to be
bottles, jars and cans, with over 20 percent being beer cans. TIlls data point suggests that the
1969 Study focused primarily on larger items of litter, rather than on eveq scrap of material that
may have been visible. Had smaller items of litter been tabulated in the study, it is unlikely that
over one-tlilld of all litter items would have been bottles jars and cans.
Cigarette Butts: Notably absent from the 1969 Study results are cigarette butts. Field forms
contained in Appendix IV explicitly indicate that "pieces of the size of cigarette or gum
wrappers should not be counted." Recent visible litter studies that have counted cigarette butts
show that cigarette butts tend to be the predonlinant item in roadside litter. From the available
in the 1969 Study, including the absence of cigarette butts and the exclusion of paper
items sinUlar to or smaller than "cigarette or gum wrappers" in the 1969 study, the focus of the
study was primarily on larger items of litter that would have been clearly to a pedestrian
surveyor.
Variability of State Results: The 1969 Study comments that most of the state-specific results
mirrored the aggregate results of the study, although variability from state to state was much
wider. TIllS is to be expected given ti,e relatively small sample sizes within each state (from 5 to
15 samples per state).
Comparison of Results by Roadway Type: The 1969 Study points out that litter volume was
greater on interstate roads compared to prinlary highways. Detailed results by road type are
shown in Table H-2. 'As shown, there was 60 percent more accumulated litter on interstate
roads, and over one and one half times more fresh litter on interstate roads. It is also noteworthy
that five times as many samples were obtained from primary roads compared to interstates. At a
minimum, tllls suggests that the national aggregate results reported in the 1969 Study are
weighted towards litter on primary roads rather than interstates, which appropriately reflects the
distribution of roadways.
Table H-2 1969 Study Results - litter Comparison by Road Type
Road Type Number of Accumulated Fresh
Samples Pieces/Mile Pieces/Mile
Interstate 39 5,344 2,844
Primary 205 3,298 1,082
Other 33 1,818 1,395
Non-Responsive 11 3,180 1,566
Totals 290 3,279 1,304
Source: AppendiX VII, Tables C-01 through C-04.
Comparison of Results by Highway Use: The 1969 Study authors also comment on the
differences in litter by roadway usage. These data are sununarized in Table H-3. It was
2009 National Litter Stud)' H'5
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXH
reasoned in the 1969 Study that recreational roads were found to have less litter primarily
because litter surveying took place predominandy in the fall and winter. Low sample sizes limit
the ability to compare some of the road uses.
Table H-3 1969 Study Results - Litter Comparison by Road Use
Road Use Number of Accumulated Fresh
Samples Pieces/Mile Pieces/Mile
Intercity 49 4,062 1,205
Recreational 47 2,168 548
Local including Farm & Commercial 58 2,586 1,543
Cross Country 95 4,035 1,348
Trunkline 3 1,916 800
Bypass 2 5,382 2,754
Arterial 8 3,206 2,171
Intercity 1 985 580
Other 27 3,237 1,400
Non-Responsive 49 4,062 1,205
Totals 290 3,279 1,304
Source: AppendiX VII, Tables D-Ol through D-09.
Comparison of Results by Lanes and Median: The 1969 Study also comments on the
differences in litter volume by roadway usage. Not surprisingly, the 1969 Study found that the
quantity of litter increases as the number of lanes increases, aldlOUgh there were very small
sample sizes for se,'eral of these strata. It was also noted that the composition of litter did not
val')' dramatically based on lanes. Of particular relevance to the 2009 Study, it should be noted
that the vast majority of samples in the 1969 Study were taken on two lane highways. Tllis
llighlights the rural focus of the 1969 Study. These data are summarized in Table H -4.
MSWCONSULTANTS
H'G 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXH
Table H-4 1969 Study Results - litter Comparison by Lane Characteristics
Lanes and Median Number of Accumulated Fresh
Samples Pieces/Mile Pieces/Mile
Two Lanes 224 2,607 943
Three Lanes 5 4,279 815
Four Lanes - Not Divided 2 4,305 1,315
Four Lanes - Divided 54 5,509 2,606
Six Lanes - Divided 2 3,297 2,378
Eight Lanes - Divided 1 21,675 8,560
Non Response 2 2,060 865
Totals 290 3,279 1,304
Source_ Appendix VII, Tables E-Ol through E-07.
Comparison of Results by Road Access Control: Access control refers to roadway segments
with access restricted to a limited number of entrance and exits. As shown, the majority of
samples were obtained from non-access controlled roads. These data are summarized in Table
H-S.
Table H-5 1969 Study Results - litter Comparison by Road Access Control
Access Control Number of Accumulated Fresh
Samples Pieces/Mile Pieces/Mile
None, Free, Minimum 210 2,738 959
Partial limited 16 4,527 1,742
Full 50 5,623 2,759
Other 1 0 325
Non Response 13 2,604 1,536
Totals 290 3,279 1,304
Source. Appendix VII, Tables F-Ol through F-05.
Comparison of Results by Average Daily Traffic Volume: Daily traffic volume refers to the
number of vehicles that pass the section of roadway in a 24 hours period. The 1969 Study
found a positive relationship between average daily traffic volume and litter volume. These data
are summarized in Table H -6.
2009 National Litter Study H-7
MSWCONSUlTANTS
APPENDIXH
Table H-6 1969 Study Results - litler Comparison by Daily Traffic Volume
Daily Traffic Volume (vehicles Number of Accumulated Fresh
per 24 hours) Samples Pieces/Mile Pieces/Mile
Less than 400 19 1,429 326
400 to 999 43 1,972 568
1,000 to 1,999 57 2,212 900
2,000 to 2,999 45 3,096 941
3,000 to 3,999 19 3,029 1,225
4,000 to 4,999 18 3,867 1,299
5,000 to 9,999 26 6,347 2,886
10,000 to 14,999 17 5,346 2,266
15,000 to 19,999 6 7,436 3,465
20,000 and Over 9 9,070 10,368
Non Response 33 3,790 1,205
Totals 290 3,279 1,304
Source_ Appendix VII, Tables G-Ol through G-l1 .
Comparison of Results by Width of Right-of-Way: Most of the visible litter studies
performed in the past decade have focused on a relatively narrow band of the right-of-way
(RO\'\') directly adjacent to the roadway edge. The 1969 Study did not limit the , , ~ d t h of the
right-of-way to be measured, and consequently has tabulated litter volume and composition in
some samples more than 500 feet from the road's edge. The 1969 Study found a posithe
relationship between the , , ~ d t h of the ROWand the volume of litter. Given that the 2009 Study
measured on1y the first 15 feet of ROW', this difference is one of the most critical to consider
when comparing the 1969 and 2009 Study results. Litter counts by width of right-of-way are
summarized in Table H-7.
MSWCONSULTANTS
H'S 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXH
Table H-7 1969 Study Results - litter Comparison by Width ot Right-ot-Way
Average Width of Right-of- Number of Accumulated Fresh
Way (feet) Samples Pieces/Mile Pieces/Mile
< 30 3 3,241 263
30 to 49 11 1,571 624
50 to 69 54 2,005 949
70 to 99 43 2,476 769
100 to 149 70 2,890 1,065
150 to 199 27 3,471 1,011
200 to 299 36 3,544 1,178
300 to 499 36 6,968 3,573
500 and Over 5 6,857 1,668
Non Response 5 4,471 1,384
Totals 290 3,279 1,304
Source. Appendix VII, Tables Ii-01 through 1i-10.
Comparisoll of Results by Variability of Right-of-Way: The 1969 Study also compared litter
volume and composition on roadway segments with even and variable right-of-way widths. No
significant differences were noted. These data are summarized in Table J-J-8.
Table H-8 1969 Study Results - litter Comparison by Variability ot Right-ot-Way
Variability of Right-of-Way Number of Accumulated Fresh
(feet) Samples Pieces/Mile Pieces/Mile
Constant 210 3,182 1,050
Variable 35 4,969 2,635
Non Response 45 2,763 1,248
Totals 290 3,279 1,304
Source: Appendix VII, Tables 1-01 through 1-03 .
Comparisoll of Results by Roadside Cover: The 1969 Study recorded characteristics about
the roadside cover, paying particular attention to woody versus grass right-or-ways. These data
relect a wide range of roadside cover areas, comparable to the 2009 Study, and are summarized
in Table H-9.
2009 National Litter Study H'9
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXH
Table H-9 1969 Study Results - litter Comparison by Roadside Cover Type
Average Width 01 Right-aI-Way (Ieet) Number 01 Accumulated Fresh
Samples Pieces/Mile Pieces/Mile
Grass Alone 152 3,097 1,163
Grass with Trees, Shrubs, Vines, etc. 67 3,331 1,171
Trees, Shrubs, etc. Mentioned Separately 6 3,690 1,182
Sagebrush, Weeds, Etc. with Grass or Alone 37 3,698 1,079
Dead Grass, and Grass with Snow 9 1,148 1,500
No Cover, Free Shoulders, etc. 9 4,153 868
Water 1 2,695 920
Seeded and Strawed 1 0 325
Non Response 8 9,303 12,451
Totals 290 3,279 1,304
Source. AppendiX VII, Tables )01 through )-09 .
Special Interest Items: The 1969 Study contains a two page appendh: that lists roughly 150
items that were labeled "special interesf' items. The special interest items range in size fron1
extremely large (telephone pole, washing machine) to very small (2 coins, 4 pens, 1 nut/bait, 1
dice), and span all material types. Dead animals, both domestic and wild, are listed. No specific
definition of "special interest" is provided, and it appears that these items were listed primarily
because of their novelty, not because of any particular contribution made to the overall study
and analysis.
Because of the length of the 1969 Study, it is not feasible to include the entire study as an appendi.x
to the 2009 Study. However, detailed data for each of the results summarized in the bullets and
tables above are included in tlus appendix in Exlubit H-1.
A.3. COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGIES USED
There are numerous differences in the study used for the 1969 and 2009 Studies. Some of these
differences are nunor, but others materially impact one's ability to compare the results of the two
studies. The columns below intend to compare and contrast the two studies. Page numbers from
the 1969 Study are referenced parenthetically for certain assumptions that were not clearly stated.
MSWCONSULTANTS
H!O 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXH
Table H-10 Comparison of 1969 and 2009 Study Methodologies
Study Parameter 1969 Study 2009 Study
Participating States 29
46 states sampled based
on roadway miles
Roadway Types
Interstate highways and Primary All roads representatively
roads (p. 4) sampled
Each participating state defined the
FHWA, U.S. Census Bureau
Roadways Type Defined by roadways to the best of their ability
MAF/TiGER GIS database
(p.4)
Demographic Areas Rural Roads (see Foreword)
Both Urban and Rural
Roads
Most samples obtained in October or All samples obtained in the
Seasonal Representation November; some samples obtained summer months of July and
the following spring (p. 3) August
Type of Litter Measured Accumulated and Fresh Accumulated
Random Sampling of
Yes Yes
Roadside Segments
Total Samples Taken 290 240
Length of Roadway Segment 2/1Oths of a mile or 1,056 feet 300 feet
Width of Right-of-Way (ROW) Entire ROW to depths up to and
15 feet from edge of road
Measured beyond 500 feet
Not clearly stated; available evidence Two strata to capture all
Litter Particle Size suggests a focus on larger, intact litter: 4 inches and larger;
items of litter and less than 4 inches
State Department of Transportation
Dedicated professional
Data Collection Staff employees (multiple data collectors
field survey team
from each participating state)
Litter Metrics Used
Litter volume per mile; Pieces of litter
Pieces of litter per mile
per mile
Sampling Error Provided In
Yes No
Study Results
Individual Material Categories 20 64
Definition of Glass Includes only container glass
Includes container glass
and all other glass
Definition of Metal Includes only metal cans
Includes metal cans and all
other metal
J\-1any of these differences do not materially impact the ability to compare the results, and both
studies provide subsets of the collected data such that it is possible to match up comparable data to
2009 National Litter Study H'l1
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXH
a significant extent. The following differences between the studies, however, require particular
attention and/ or adjustment to enable a reasonable comparison:
Urban/Rural Focus: The 1969 Study clearly focuses on rural roads, while the 2009 Study
attempts to capture both urban and rural roads representatively. When comparing the two
studies, it is appropriate to compare results from rural areas.
Road Type: The 1969 Study focuses on roadway types defined as being either interstate or
primary. The 2009 Study attempts to segregate roadway types based on the entity responsible
for litter removal on the roads, and therefore roads are classified as national, state, count)' and
municipal. Mapping for the road types was based on data provided by FH\'('i\, Interstate roads
(1969 Study) are a subset of national roads (2009 Study), willie primary roads (1969 Study) map
to either national or state roads (2009 Study). As shown below, regardless of how the data are
mapped, the conclusions do not change.
Accumulated Litter: The 2009 Study focused strictly on accumulated litter, and consequently
all comparative data reflects only the accumulated litter data from the 1969 Study.
Litter Particle Size: The 2009 Study sought to measure all litter, and provides data on both
large (greater than 4 inches) and total litter items. Categ01), descriptions in the 1969 Study
suggest that it sought to quantify primarily "large" items that were intact and readily visible to
field smveyors. Consequently, all comparative data reflects only larger litter items.
Width of Right-of-Way: A major difference in tl,e two studies is the width of right-of-way
measured. The 1969 Study provides data for right-of-way widths up to and beyond 500 feet
from the road's edge. Clearly, this is not comparable to the 2009 Study, which only measmed
litter in the first 15 feet. Fortunately, the 1969 Study provided data separately for nine bands of
RO\'(' width. As there is a linear relationship between the , , ~ d t h of the right-of-way and the
number of litter pieces per nllie, a linear regression analysis of these data was conducted in order
to estimate the expected pieces per mile at a RO\'(' , , ~ d t h of 15 feet. The results of the
regression analysis are shown in Table H-11. TillS analysis suggests that the number of litter
items within 15 feet of the ROW amounts to between 39 and 61 percent of all litter items for the
entire ROW width. Therefore, reported results from the 1969 Study should be reduced by 39 to
61 percent, or an average of 50 percent, to reflect only the first 15 feet of the RO\\l.
MSWCONSULTANTS
H12 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXH
Table Hll 1969 Study Results - Correlation of ROW Width to litter Items per Mile
ROW Width No. of Pieces/ Estimated Estimated
Samples Mile Pieces/Mile, Pleces/ Mile,
Min Max Average
All Data [1J Adjusted [2J
0 30 15 3 3,241 2,293 1,285
30 49 39.5 11 1,571 2,461 1,618
50 69 59.5 54 2,005 2,598 1,889
70 99 84.5 43 2,476 2,769 2,229
100 149 124.5 70 2,890 3,042 2,772
150 199 174.5 27 3,471 3,385 3,451
200 299 249.5 36 3,554 3,898 4,470
300 499 399.5 36 6,969 4,924 6,507
unknown
500 [3] 800[3] 5 6,857 7,665 9,231
[1J Results of a linear regression of the pieces per mile and average ROW Width for all ROW strata.
[2J Results of a linear regression of the pieces per mile and average ROW for all ROW strata for which
more than 10 samples were obtained in the 1969 Study.
[3J The maximum width of ROWs varies from state to state, and may have evolved over time since the
1969 Study was performed. The average number shown is intended to reflect a reasonable
estimate for the five samples that were classified as having more than 500 foot width of ROW.
A,4. CONCLUSION
Comparing the 1969 and 2009 Studies required detailed analysis and adjustments to the 1969 Study
data to align the results. It is possible to draw defensible conclusions about changes in overall litter
quantities per mile, as well as changes to the number of items per mile of five major material groups
as well as beverage containers.
Table H12 shows the raw data reported by both studies for large litter items on mral roadways.
\,(fhile a precise comparison is difficult to establish - due to complex changes such as population
growth, roadway expansion and packaging changes - the unadjusted data show that litter has
declined significandy since 1969. Based on the unadjusted results, there are close to 80 percent
fewer items of litter per mile on our nation's mral roadways. Despite the overall decrease in the
unadjusted litter items per tnile, plastic litter items per mile increased by 49 to 91 percent
(unadjusted).
2009 National Litter Study Ht3
MSWCONSUlTANTS
APPENDIXH
Table H-12 Comparison of Unadjusted Results, 1969 and 2009 Study
1969 Study, 2009 Study,
Items/Mile Items/Mile Change
Interstate/ Primary/
Material Interstate Primary National State National State
Paper 2,621 1,635 259 255 -90.1% -84.4%
Metal 1,197 983 121 77 -89.9% -92.1%
Plastic 220 165 328 316 49.0% 91.4%
Mise 1,067 291 506 246 -52.6% -15.4%
Glass 239 224 12 23 -95.2% -89.7%
Total 5,344 3,298 1,226 918 -77.1% -72.2%
Beverage Containers [1] 1,308 1,110 405 170 -69.0% -84.7%
Samples 39 205 30 30
[1) Beverage containers were segregated In both the 1969 and 2009 Studies and are shown
separately. Data from the 2009 Study includes all beverage containers, regardless of size.
A more accurate comparison requires adjusting the 1969 Study results to reflect only the first 15 feet
of ROW. This adjustment reduces the 1969 Stud), raw data by an average of 46 percent. Table H-
13 shows the comparison of 1969 Study results, adjusted for ROW width, to the 2009 Stud),. Of
particular interest, dus comparison draws similar conclusions to the comparison of raw data. The
ROW-adjusted data show that litter has declined between 40 and 51 percent since 1969, but plastic
litter has increased 221 to 313 percent.' \,(ihether the raw or adjusted data are used, the overall
trends of "less overall litter" and "more plastic litter" rClnain the satne.
2 Note that average adjustments arc utilized in this analysis. Arguments could be made to rely on minimum or ma..ximum
threshold assumptions in some cases. Such changes to the underlying assumptions change the magnitude of the increase
or decrease, but do not materially change the macro level comparison.
MSWCONSULTANTS
H'14 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXH
Table H-13 Comparison of 1969 and 2009 Study Results, Adjusted for ROW Width
1969 Study, Adjusted 2009 Study,
Items/Mile [1[ Items/Mile Change
Interstate/ Primary/
Material Interstate Primary National State National State
Paper 1,216 758 259 255 -78.7% -66.3%
Metal 555 456 121 77 -78.2% -83.0%
Plastic 102 77 328 316 221.1% 312.7%
Mise 495 135 506 246 2.3% 82.4%
Glass 111 104 12 23 -89.6% -77.7%
Total 2,479 1,530 1,226 918 -50.5% -40.0%
Beverage Containers [2] 607 515 405 170 -33.2% -67.0%
[1] Results of a Imear regression of the pieces per mile and average ROW width for all ROW strata.
[21 Beverage containers were segregated in both the 1969 and 2009 Studies and are shown
separately. Data from the 2009 Study includes all beverage containers, regardless of size.
As a final consideration, the U.S. population has increased by 50 percent since 1969, from 200
million people to 300 million people. All else being equal, it would be expected that the number of
litter items per mile would increase by roughly the same percentage as the overall population.
However, this is not the case. As litter education, removal efforts and expenditures have changed, so
has the quantity and composition of litter observed along roadways.
A final adjustment to normalize for population growth since the 1969 Study data in effect escalates
the results by 50 percent to capture the impact of increasing the population to 2008 levels. Table H-
14 shows the comparison of population-normalized and RO\V-adjusted 1969 Study results to the
2009 Study. Once again, this comparison reflects less overall litter (declines of 60 to 67 percent) and
more plastic litter (114 to 175 percent increase).
2009 National Litter Study H15
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXH
Table H-14 Comparison of 1969 and 2009 Study Results, Adjusted for ROW Width and Normalized for U_S_
Population Growth
1969 Study, Adjusted 2009 Study,
Items/Mile [1] Items/Mile Change
Interstate/ Primary/
Material Interstate Primary National State National State
Paper 1,823 1,138 259 255 -85.8% -77.6%
Metal 833 684 121 77 -85.4% -88.7%
Plastic 153 115 328 316 114.1% 175.1%
Mise 742 202 506 246 -31.8% 21.6%
Glass 166 156 12 23 -93.1% -85.1%
Total 3,718 2,294 1,226 918 -67.0% -60.0%
Beverage Containers [1] 910 772 405 170 -55.5% -78.0%
[1] Beverage containers were segregated In both the 1969 and 2009 Studies and are shown
separately. Data from the 2009 Study includes all beverage containers, regardless of size.
In order to concisely report results of this comparative analysis, a weighted estimate of the changes
to roadside visible litter since 1969 was developed. The 1969 Study reported a total of 39 samples
(16.0 percent) from interstates, and 205 samples (84.0 percent) from primary roads. These sample
counts represent the weighting factors used for combining the interstate and primal')' roads, to arrive
at a weighted estimate of the changes to litter since 1969. Table H-1S provides the weighted average
changes in visible litter on rural roads from the 1969 Study to the 2009 Smdy.
Table H-15 Comparison of 1969 and 2009 Study Results: Visible Litter on Rural Interstates and Primary
Roads
Material Change in Litter
Paper -78.9%
Metal -88.2%
Plastic 165.4%
Mise 13.1%
Glass -86.4%
Total -61.1%
Beverage Containers [1] -74.4%
[1] Beverage containers were segregated In both the 1969 and 2009 Studies and are shown
separately.
Several significant conclusions can be drawn when comparing the 1969 and 2009 litter surveys:
The actual count of overall litter is down by 61% since 1969.
MSWCONSUlTANTS
H'W 2009 National Litter Study
APPENDIXH
This decrease, a result of successful education, ongoing cleanup efforts and changes in
packaging, is reflected in dramatic reductions of paper, metal and glass litter since 1969 .
Plastic litter has increased by 165% since 1969.
These results also indicate a slight increase in miscellaneous litter, which includes automotive parts
and accessories, tires and retread, lumber and other construction/ demolition/ renovation materials,
and non-container metals and glass items. Readers should bear in mind that it was not possible to
precisely align the materials captured under miscellaneous litter between the 1969 and 2009 Studies,
and some of the apparent increase to miscellaneous litter may be the result of a more comprehensive
material list used in the 2008 Study.
All of the data that were used to develop this comparison are avaiL1ble elsewhere in the 2009 Study
report, and interested parties are encouraged to evaluate the evidence and available data for
thetnselves.
2009 National Litter Study H'17
MSWCONSULTANTS
APPENDIXH
Tlus page intentionally left blank.
MSWCONSULTANTS
H'18 2009 National Litter Studr
Prepared for Keep America Beautiful
January, 2009
C ~ ~ . ~ J R ~
2009 Keep America Beautiful
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 1
1. BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................... 1
2. INTERCEPT INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................ 3
3. NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY ............................................................................................. 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 4
PART I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 6
PROJECT GOALS ..................................................................................................................................... 8
PART II: BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................ 10
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 10
METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 10
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 14
PART III: INTERCEPT INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................ 29
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 29
METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 29
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 30
PART IV: TELEPHONE SURVEy ......................................................................................................... 34
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 34
METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 35
Report to Keep America Beautiful
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 38
PART V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 54
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 59
APPENDIX A: REFERENCE TABLES ................................................................................................ 63
APPENDIX B: BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION DOCUMENTS .................................................. 67
General Litter Observation Booklet ............................................................................................ 68
Cigarette Butt Litter Observation Booklet ............................................................................... 71
APPENDIX C: INTERCEPT SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................................................... 74
APPENDIX D: TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................................................. 77
Litter Behavior in America
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Site Locations ......................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Observed Littering Rate by Distance to Receptacle .............................................. 21
Figure 3: Mean Litter Scores for Overall Litter Behavior, Litter Type, and Litter
Location ................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4: Group Means for Littering Behavior (0-10) by Current Smoker Status ....... 42
Figure 5: Group Means for Littering Behavior (0-10) by Indoor and Outdoor Work
Environment.. ........................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 6: Group Means for Littering Behavior (0-10) by Indoor and Outdoor Work
Environments and Smoke-Free Workplaces ........................................................... 44
Figure 7: Group Means for Cigarette Butt Disposal Behavior (0-10) by Smoke-Free
and Not Smoke-Free Workplaces and Outdoor Work Environment.. ........ ..45
Figure 8: Group Means for Littering Behavior (0-10) by Saw or Heard Litter
Prevention Messages ......................................................................................................... 48
Report to Keep America Beautiful
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Types and Number of Trash Receptacles at Locations ......................................... 15
Table 2. Number of Sites with Existing Litter by Type ........................................................... 15
Table 3. Frequencies of Where General Litter was Littered in Observation Locations
..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 4. Frequencies of Where Cigarette Butts were Littered in Observation
Locations ................................................................................................................................. 16
Table 5. Number of Observations across Sites ........................................................................... 17
Table 6. Type and Frequency of Disposed Objects ................................................................... 18
Table 7. Frequencies of Disposal Methods for General Litter .............................................. 19
Table 8. Frequencies of Litter Disposal Strategies for General Litter .............................. 20
Table 9. Frequencies of Disposal Methods for Cigarette Butt Litter ................................. 25
Table 10. Frequencies of Litter Disposal Strategies for Cigarette Butt Litter ............... 26
Table 11. Reported Location of Messaging .................................................................................. 30
Table 12. Items Reported Littered ................................................................................................... 31
Table 13. Respondent Reported Littering Locations ............................................................... 31
Table 14. Place of Disposal for Cigarette Butt Litter ................................................................ 32
Table 15. Self-Reported Littering Behavior in the Past Month ........................................... 38
Table 16. Group Means of Littering Behavior by Community Livability ......................... 40
Table 17. Group Means for Littering Behavior (0-10) by Motivators and Barriers
Items ......................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 18. Group Means of Littering Behavior (0-10) by Gender, Education, Type of
Residence, and Type of Vehicle ..................................................................................... 49
Table 19. Unstandardized Regression Coefficients from a Multiple Regression
Analysis: Littering Behavior by Predictor Variables ........................................... 50
Litter Behavior in America
Table 20. Group Means for Importance of Littering in Your Town (0-10) by
Community Livability Items ........................................................................................... 51
Table 21. Sites by Location and Observation Type ................................................................... 63
Report to Keep America Beautiful
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Contractor:
Action Research, Inc" 910 W, San Marcos Blvd, Suite 108, San Marcos, CA, 92078, USA.
Principal Investigator:
p, Wesley Schultz, Ph,D,
Senior Scientist, Action Research
Professor of Psychology, California State University
Action Research Team:
Lori Brown Large, M.A.
Project Manager, Action Research
Jennifer Tabanico, M.A.
Director of Research, Action Research
Coral Bruni, M.A.
Data Management and Analysis, Action Research
Collaborators:
Renee Bator, Ph,D,
Associate Professor of Psychology, SUNY Plattsburgh
Actipn Research Field Team
Jenna Albert
Sara Agu Har
Michelle Cugini
Tracy Galea
Elizabeth Morales
Belinda Rojas
Michael Stringham
SUNY Plattsburgh Field Team
Montgomery Bopp
Kara Carpenter
Ashley Doyle
Cassie Fortney
jamieKuhn
Nicole Le Fevre
Andrea Martino
Eva Richardson
Ashlee Rock
Angela Bryan, Ph,D, (Coordinator, NM)
Maddie Ikeda
Jenna Kicklighter
Stefan Klimaj
Eva Padilla
jenna Tonelli
KianiWong
A special thanks to Susanne Woods and the staff at Keep America Beautiful for their
encouragement, support, and dedication to this important research, The research
summarized in this report was made possible with funding from Philip Morris USA,
an Altria Company,
Litter Behavior in Amelica
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Like many social problems,litter is caused by human behavior. Whether
intentional or accidental,litter begins with the individual. Given the social,
aesthetic, and environmental problems that result from litter, numerous
interventions have been developed, implemented, and evaluated. Yet despite these
efforts,litter continues to be a problem.
This report summarizes the findings from a nationwide study of littering
behavior. Our goals were three-fold:



To conduct a landmark study that could serve as a platform for the next
generation of litter prevention activities,
Develop a valid and reliable set of methodologies that could be replicated
over time and in different locations,
Utilize a multi-method approach, including both self-report and behavioral
observations, in ways that would allow for conclusions about litter at a
national level.
To achieve these goals, the Action Research team conducted three sets of
studies, all with nationwide samples. The first was a series of behavioral
observations, in which trained researchers observed thousands of individuals in a
diverse sample of locations across the country. The second set of research activities
involved intercept interviews with a small sample of the observed individuals.
Finally, our third research activity involved a nationwide telephone survey. In this
Executive Summary, we highlight several of the key findings from each of these
research approaches.
1. BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
In an effort to go beyond the typical self-report measures used to study
littering behavior, our research team observed individuals in a diverse sample of
public locations nationwide. Using a strict research protocol, the observers
randomly selected individuals in 130 locations nationwide. These randomly selected
individuals were monitored as they moved through the location, and their disposal
behaviors were recorded.
In all, the team observed 9,757 individuals across 130 different locations.
The locations were divided across 10 states, evenly split between rural, urban, and
suburban settings, and included nine site types: fast food, recreation, gas stations,
city centers, rest stops, medical/hospital, bars/restaurants, retail, and recreation.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
The majority of the observations examined general disposal behaviors, and a
smaller subset focused specifically on the disposal of cigarette butts. Statistical
analyses were conducted using Hierarchical Linear Modeling, which allowed for
analyses of both individual- and context-level predictors of littering behavior.
Key Findings:







Trash receptacles are common at public places nationwide. Of the 130
locations our team visited, 118 (91 %) had at least one trash receptacle,
including trash can, tr/ash combination, ashtray, dumpster, and recycling
bin. In comparison, cigarette receptacles are far less common, and only 61
(47%) of the sites we visited had at least one receptacle (ashtray or trash can
/ ashtray combo).
Despite the widespread availability of trash receptacles in public spaces,
litter is still quite common. Of the 130 sites we visited, only two were litter
free. The most commonly found existing litter was cigarette butts (106 sites,
82%), miscellaneous paper (87 sites, 67%), and food wrappers (58 sites,
45%).
Commensurate with the volume of litter, our team observed a high amount of
littering behavior. Of all the disposals that we witnessed across our sample,
17% were litter.
The most frequently littered item was cigarette butts (in our focused
observations of smokers, we observed a 65% littering rate). With regard to
disposals, our team also observed high littering rates for food remnants and
food wrappers.
Contrary to expectations, the majority of littering behavior (81 %) occurred
with notable intent. This included dropping with notable intent (54%),
flick/fling of the item (20%), and other notable intent (7%).
Our statistical analyses revealed that 15% of the variance in general littering
behavior was due to contextual demands, and the remaining 85% resulted
from the individual. That is, while some types of contexts invited more litter,
there was a large amount of variability in the behaviors of individuals within
a site. This finding has implications for programs designed to reduce littering
behavior: the most effective strategy will include both contextual efforts (like
clean-ups, improving waste collection infrastructure, or beautification) and
efforts to increase individual motivation to properly dispose.
With regard to general littering, our statistical analyses revealed several
important predictors. At the individual level, age was strongly negatively
related to littering behavior, with older individuals littering less than
younger individuals. At the level of the context, the availability and distance
of trash receptacles was strongly predictive of littering behavior. In addition,
the amount of litter already present contributed to the littering rate.
Litter Behavior in America
With regard to cigarette butt litter, our statistical analyses showed that
cigarette butt litter was more strongly influenced by the context than was
general litter. Indeed, 38% of cigarette butt littering was due to context, and
62% was due to individual variability. At the individual level, age was
significantly predictive of littering, with older smokers being less likely to
litter. At the level of the context, both the availability of ash receptacles and
the amount of existing litter affected the littering rate. This find has
important implications for programs designed to reduce cigarette butt litter:
the most effective strategy will involve increasing the availability of ash
receptacles, decrease the amount of existing litter through clean-up activities,
and motivational messages targeting individual responsibility and obligation.
2. INTERCEPT INTERVIEWS
In addition to our systematic observations of disposal behaviors, we
randomly selected locations where we conducted intercept interviews with the
observed disposers. Our goal was to obtain a small, representative sample of
individuals and to link the responses from our intercept interview to the observed
disposal behaviors. At each of the selected intercept locations, individuals who had
been observed disposing (either properly 01' improperly) were approached to take
part in a face-to-face survey. The interviewer did not know if the person of interest
had littered or not, and she asked a set of pre-determined questions, including
demographic items and questions about litter behavior.
In all, 102 intercept interviews were conducted across 15 locations.
Key Findings:




ConSistently across the locations, respondents expressed to us the
importance of littering as an issue, and they expressed a strong personal
obligation not to litter.
A sizeable percentage of respondents reported seeing or hearing litter
prevention messages (40%), messages about community clean-up activities
(41 %), or messages discouraging cigarette butt litter (25%).
Yet when asked if they had littered in the past month, only 43% of
respondents indicated that they had littered. Interestingly, the most
frequently mentioned items that were reported matched those that we
observed in the locations, and those that we observed being littered:
cigarette butts, food wrappers or remnants, and paper.
Our statistical analyses showed that a personal obligation not to litter was
Significantly related to lower rates of observed littering behavior.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
3. NATIONAL TELEPHONE SURVEY
Finally, we compare the results from our systematic observations to those
from a random digit dialing telephone survey. Data are reported on a national
probability sample of 1,039 respondents. Survey items included self-reported
littering behavior, ratings of community livability, personal norms against littering,
attitudes about litter, motivators and barriers for littering, and demographic
variables.
Key Findings:





Using the same eight littering items reported in a 1968 national survey, we
found that only 15% of the sample reported littering in the past month. This
figure is substantially lower than the 50% admitted littering rate found in
1968, and it speaks to the dramatic drop in Jittering behavior over the past
40 years.
Across a range of items and situations, the overall rate of reported Jittering
was very small. The most frequently reported littered items were cigarette
butts, food remnants (apple core or banana peel), and gum.
Although the reported littering rate was small, it is significant in terms of the
number of people it represents and how that plays out in our communities.
Community appearance was associated with lower rates of reported littering
behaviors. Community appearance included cleanliness, low rates of visible
litter, maintained streets and sidewalks, attractiveness of plants, flowers, and
trees, and attractive infrastructure.
Littering was reported more frequently in instances when the person was in
a hurry, no trash can was nearby, the item was biodegradable, there was a
sense that someone else would pick it up, and when the item was not
recyclable.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Taken together, the results provide a glimpse into littering in America. While
littering rates have fallen substantially over the past 40 years, littering remains an
important social and environmental issue. The methodology developed for this
project was intended to inform national-level litter prevention strategies. However,
the approach also lends itself to understanding the issues pertinent at the
community level. The methodology and protocols were created in such a way (and
Litter Behavior in America
reported in sufficient detail) to allow for replication in local communities, and to
provide a core set of measures to assess changes in littering rates over time.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
PART I: INTRODUCTION
Like many environmental problems, litter is caused by human behavior.
Whether intentional or accidental, litter begins with the individual. Given the social,
aesthetic, and environmental problems that result from litter, numerous
interventions have been developed, implemented, and evaluated. Unfortunately, the
majority of these programs are not based on sound principles of human behavior.
While there is an eXisting research base on litter dating back more than 40 years,
the findings have not been systematically integrated and the topics studied are only
loosely connected.
In research conducted in the 1970s, Keep America Beautiful (KAB) found that
litter originated from seven primary sources: (1) pedestrians or cyclists who do not
use receptacles, (2) motorists who do not use car ashtrays or litter bags, (3)
business dumpsters that are improperly covered, (4) loading docks and commercial
or recreational marinas with inadequate waste receptacles, (5) construction and
demolition sites without tarps and receptacles to contain debris and waste, (6)
trucks with uncovered loads on local roads and highways, and (7) household trash
scattered before or during collection (KAB, 2007).
The findings from this early research served as a foundation to inform
outreach and clean-up activities. Since that time, there have been more than 100
studies conducted on the topic of public litter. These studies have been conducted
by private research firms, nongovernmental organizations, academic research
groups, and to a lesser extent, local entities (e.g., cities, counties). The most
frequently studied topics include: litter composition, where litter occurs, who litters,
and litter prevention strategies. While the current project was designed to update
and inform the next generation of litter-prevention activities, it is useful to begin
with a short summary of the existing knowledge.
1. What is Litter? According to Geller (1978), litter consists of items found
in socially unacceptable locations. However, it is also a "function of specificity and
convenience." Studies have shown that the top five types of litter are: (1)
miscellaneous paper, (2) miscellaneous plastic, (3) vehicle debris, (4) packaging,
and (5) beverage containers (R.W. Beck, 2007). A recent review of studies on litter,
from 1993 to 2006, found that the top 10 most frequently littered items were: (1)
takeout food packaging, (2) snack wrappers, (3) miscellaneous paper, (4)
miscellaneous plastic, (5) vehicle debris, (6) beverage containers, (7) napkins, bags,
and tissues, (8) miscellaneous metal and glass, (9) other beverage related litter, and
(10) construction debris. These studies did not take into account cigarette butts as a
form of litter, and other studies have shown that cigarette butts are the most
frequently littered item when counted, and they are the number one item littered by
volume (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2004; Sibley & Liu, 2003).
Litter Behavior in America
2. Who Litters? Recent studies looking at the types of littering behavior
over time (from 1990 to present) have shown that there is a trend away from
deliberate littering, with littering as a whole dropping by approximately 2% per
year since the 1990s (R. W. Beck, 2007). Younger people are more likely to litter
than older people, with those aged 19 and below more likely to litter than any other
age group (Krauss, Freedman, & Whitcup, 1978; R W Beck, 2007). One study
suggested that adults 21-35 are three times more likely to litter than those over the
age of 50 and two times more likely to litter than those aged 35-49 (Geller, 1968).
Other demographic predictors of littering include gender, urban living, and
household size. While gender effects in littering tend to be small, men are more
likely to admit littering than women (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Krauss et aI.,
1978; Meeker, 1997). In addition, there is some evidence that people living in rural
areas are more likely to litter than people living in cities. And individuals from small
households (1-2) are less likely to litter than those from large households (5+)
(Geller, 1968; as cited by R.W. Beck, 2007).
3. Preventing Litter. A third area of research on litter has focused on
strategies for reducing litter.
A. Litter begets litter. One of the largest factors affecting a person's decision
to litter is the condition of the physical surroundings. Individuals are substantially
more likely to litter into dirty or already littered environments than into clean ones
(Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Geller, Witmer, & Tuso, 1977; Herberlein, 1971;
Reiter & Samual, 1980). The difference is often as much as 2-3 times as much litter
in dirty environments.
B. Litterillg follows the lIorm. Numerous studies have shown that social norms
playa powerful role in an individual's decision to litter. Survey data suggests that
personal norms about littering have changed considerably over the last 50 years,
from a moderate level of concern for littering in the 1950s, to a strong feeling of
personal obligation to not litter by the early 2000s (cf. Grasmick, Bursik, & Kinsey,
1991; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000). As social sanctions against littering grew,
studies showed that activatillg norms about littering could substantially increase or
decrease one's own littering decisions. For example, seeing a person litter, seeing a
pile of swept litter, or seeing a person or group pick up litter, can all activate norms
and mobilize behavior. These situations activate a person's normative beliefs, and
the resulting feelings of shame (violating a social norm) and guilt (violating a
personal norm) have been incorporated into Public Service Announcements with
documented success (Cialdini, 2003; Cialdini et aI., 2005).
Report to Keep America Beautiful
C. The convenient truth: A third established finding is that littering rates
decrease as the convenience of using a proper receptacle increases (Cope, Huffman,
Alred, & Grossnickle, 1993; Geller, Brasted, & Mann, 1980; Geller, Winett, & Everett,
1982). As a general rule, more trash receptacles reduce litter, including cigarette
butts. Furthermore, the salience of the receptacle can also decrease litter rates. A
brightly colored, themed, or decorated receptacle attracts considerably more trash
than does a plain or ordinary appearing receptacle.
D. Programs: Programs through organizations such as KAB and Adopt-a-
Highway have worked to reduce litter. Studies have shown that sites where KAB
and Adopt-a-Highway programs were present were cleaner and had less litter than
sites where these programs were not present (R.W. Beck, 2007).
E. Sanctions. While threats of fines and punishment are commonplace in litter
prevention programs, there are few systematic evaluations of their efficacy. In fact,
research by Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000) suggests that threat can undermine
intrinsic motivation (e.g., the motivation to do something based on enjoyment). As a
result, any change in behavior that results from threats or sanctions is likely to be
specific to the behavior at hand, limited to instances where such threats of
punishment are enforceable, limited in the ability to generate long-term results, and
not generalized across situations. In addition, the way a threat of enforcement is
worded may also playa part in whether or not it is effective, such that just
mentioning the undesirable behavior can act as a prime. Recent psychological
research has suggested that priming a behavioral category increases the probability
that it will occur (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Thus,
enforcement may not only be specific to the extrinsic motivations mentioned above,
but it may also trigger the wrong effect and produce more littering in areas where
enforcement is used.
PROJECT GOALS
It is against this backdrop of prior work that we developed our current research
plan. Our goals were three-fold:



Assemble an accomplished team to design and implement a landmark study
that could serve a platform for the next generation of litter prevention
activities,
Develop a valid and reliable set of methodologies that could be replicated
over time and in different locations,
Utilize a multi-method approach, including both self-report and behavioral
observations, in ways that would allow for conclusions about litter at a
national level.
Litter Behavior in America
The Action Research team set out to conduct an extensive and rigorous set of
studies examining littering behavior. While the traditional approach to litter
research has focused on the littered items that accumulate along roadways or in
public spaces, our emphasis was on the behavior itself. That is, our focus in this
work is on understanding the factors that contribute to littering behavior, and not
on the litter per se. We built our research design and analysis along the premise that
litter results from human behavior and that understanding this behavior is central
to any effort to prevent and reduce litter. The report below is divided into three
sections, each summarizing the methods and resUlts from different aspects of our
research project.
In the first section, we report findings from systematic observations of
littering behavior. These observations are the heart of our approach and the
methodology allows us to go beyond the typical survey approach and to observe the
behaviors of individuals across a range of everyday settings. The analyses we report
examine both the individual-level and location-level predictors of littering behavior.
On the one hand, if littering results from individual-level variables like lack of
concern, apathy, or low motivation, then we would expect to see considerable
variability within locations, and little variability across locations. But on the other
hand,littering behavior may result from contextual variables (location-level) like
lack of receptacles, no signage, or the cultural milieu of a particular city or region of
the country. The methodology and analyses reported below take a first step toward
answering this important question.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
PART II: BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Between May and July, 2008, our research team conducted systematic
observations of individuals in a wide range of public locations across the country.
The research design was developed as a multi-level model, and analyzed using
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) statistical software. The number oflocations,
number of sites, and number of individuals were selected to optimize the statistical
power and generalizability of the results. At each location, we randomly sampled
individuals and then monitored their behavior as they moved through the site.
Separate ohservation protocols were developed for monitoring the behavior of
smokers and for observations of general littering behaviors.
METHODS
Site Selection
The specific sites selected for the observational research component were
the result of a stratified sampling procedure. We began by sampling regions of the
country, states, cities, types of sites, and finally specific locations and addresses.
State: A total of 10 states were selected from across the continental United
States: Arkansas, California, Georgia, JIlinois, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, New
York, Utah, and Vermont. The states were selected to represent a variety of regions,
as well as states with varying levels of tobacco use (see Figure 1). Adult tobacco use
prevalence data was gathered from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov Ibrfss) and we sampled both high-prevalence (e.g.,
Kentucky) and low-prevalence (e.g., Utah) states. The final selection of states
represented a diverse range of the country's population.
Litter Behavior in America
Figure 1: Map of Site Locations
) "
)
,
'\
LEGESO
II'
III ,,-"
III ,,"
0"
0:
0,
City: A total of 30 cities were selected from across the 10 states, Three cities
were selected in each state in order to represent urban, suburban, and rural areas.
The selection of the three cities within each state was made based upon population
density data obtained from the U,S. Census, proximity to primary transportation
points, as well as logistical and situational constraints (e.g., distance between cities),
See Table 21 in Appendix A for a complete list of states, cities, and sites,
Sites: There were five site types for the general litter observations (fast food,
recreation, gas stations, city centers, and rest stops), and four site types for the
focused cigarette litter observations (medical/hospital, bars/restaurants, retail, and
recreation). The site types were chosen in cooperation with KAB to represent
critical litter source areas, as well as for their potential to provide opportunities for
studying human behavior. At the initial selection, each city had an equal
opportunity of being assigned to anyone site type. For both the cigarette litter and
general litter observation sites, a fully crossed design was used to represent all of
the possible combinations of city and site, and each possible combination was
treated as a site. The target research sites were then randomly selected from the list
of all possible combinations. An initial target of 70 sites was selected for general
Report to Keep America Beautiful
litter observations, and 30 sites for cigarette litter observations. Due to logistics and
practical considerations, the final dataset included 130 locations across the U.S.: 86
general litter and 44 focused on cigarette disposals. Of the total number of sites,
there were 30 recreational locations, 24 city centers, 22 fast food restaurants, 12
retail stores, 12 bars or restaurants, 11 gas stations with convenience stores, 11 rest
stops, and 8 medical hospitals.
Locations: With the exception of city centers and rest stops, the exact site
locations were chosen using information from www.areaguides.net and a random
selection method. For example, for gas station sites, a list of all retail gas locations in
the selected city was generated, and from that list the site was chosen randomly
(along with several back-ups). Using a random selection procedure at the site
location level eliminated potential bias by ensuring that locations were not selected
because of convenience or ease of access by the field research team. All locations
were selected prior to traveling to the observation area. The field research team
traveled with the randomized list of all locations to allow them to move to the next
location on the list if for some reason the first location did not meet the criteria
specified in the observation guidelines. Observations were conducting during the
day and evening hours.
Observation Protocol
Systematic observations were made of the individuals in each site following a
strict research protocol. The protocol included detailed procedures for defining the
physical boundaries of the observation area, random selection of individuals,
location description information, and behavioral observations. Appendix B provides
a more detailed description of the materials used, and the basic protocol is outlined
below.
1. Defining of Physical Boundaries: Once the field research team arrived at the
selected location, the physical boundaries of the observation area were defined.
Individuals were randomly sampled and observed within the defined physical
boundaries. Once the individual exited this boundary, they were said to have
"left site" and the observation was terminated.
2. Location Description Worksheets: Location description worksheets were
completed in order to characterize the physical surrounding, and to allow for
analyses of the degree to which particular site characteristics influenced the
disposal behaviors. Included in this worksheet were measurements of:
Physical Aspects: These included weather, temperature, time of
observation period, information about the presence and physical
characteristics of trash receptacles (including how full and type),
recycling bins, and ash receptacles at the location. In addition,
Litter Behavior in America
information about the presence of litter and cigarette butts at a given
location, and the presence of planters and their littered condition was
also noted. At the end of each observation period, observers coded the
highest and lowest number of people at the site, and minimum and
maximum crowded ness during the observation period.
Livability: An important aspect of the location description worksheet
was the section on the physical appearance of the site. [n this we
compiled a livability quotient, which included information about the site's
cleanliness, walkability, landscaping, and infrastructure. Each aspect was
rated on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the best in that categOlY.
Signage and Enforcement: Information regarding the presence of anti-
littering and anti-smoking signage and enforcements were noted.
Sitetch and Pictures: A sketch of each location was created and pictures
were taken of each location. Pictures of each location are provided on a
CD accompanying this report.
Prior to conducting our observations, the team underwent extensive training,
and a variety of strategies were used to ensure reliable and vaJid data coding.
3. Behavioral Observations: Behavioral observations were conducted at each site
during the observation period. Observations generally began in the morning,
and lasted until the day ended, or until the target number of observations were
reached at the site. Observations included:
General Litter: All ages of individuals were observed in the general Jitter
observations. Individuals were observed until they disposed of an item or
left the observation field. During these observations, we coded whether
the individual disposed of an item, and if so whether the disposal was
proper or improper. During the observations, notations were also made
regarding demographic characteristics of the individuals (e.g.,
approximate age and gender). Other individual-level characteristics such
as presence of other group members and proximity to trash receptacles
were also coded.
Cigarette Butt Litter: Only smokers over the age of 21 were included in
the observations. Smokers were observed in order to better understand
how often and under what conditions they litter Cigarette butts. Smokers
were observed until the cigarette was disposed or they left the
observation field with the cigarette. Individual and group dynamics were
recorded. From these observations, disposals were coded as proper or
improper. During the observations, notations were made regarding their
approximate age and gender.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
4. Randomization: Throughout the observational period, researchers assessed the
flow of traffic (i.e., number of people) at the site and chose an appropriate
randomization sequence to obtain a representative sample of individuals.
Randomization was achieved by selecting the Nth person, with N based on the
flow of traffic and ranged from observing every person (N=l) to observing every
sixth person (N=6). Random selection of individuals at each site is a key aspect of
our research protocol, and one that allows us to calculate a littering rate for each
site, and to estimate the littering rate nationally.! The strength of this element
should not be underestimated, and teams considering a similar study of littering
behavior are strongly advised to implement random sampling techniques
(rather than simply finding and recording "disposers").
RESULTS
Observation Sites
The observation sites represent a large and diverse sample of locations
across the country. Observations were conducted at 130 locations across the
country: 86 general litter and 44 observations of smokers. Of the total number of
sites, there were 30 recreational locations, 24 city centers, 22 fast food restaurants,
12 retail stores, 12 bar or restaurants, 11 gas stations with convenience stores, 11
rest stops, and 8 medical hospitals. Note that this number exceeded our target
sample of 100 for a variety of reasons (e.g., in some locations the target of 30
observations was reached quickly and the team was able to visit a second site in the
same city, in some locations the flow of traffic was too slow and after a few
observations the team chose to move to the next randomly selected site). Forty sites
were rural, 45 sites were suburban, and 45 sites were urban. The weather at these
locations during the observations was mostly sunny (34%), or cloudy (partly cloudy
= 26%; mostly cloudy = 14%, and cloudy = 16%), with the mean temperature of 71
degrees F. Only 4% of the locations had some form of rain (light showers = 2%;
heavy showers = 2%). At 3% of the locations it was windy and at 1 % of the
locations there was light snow.
At 118 of these locations (91 %) there was at least one trash receptacle (trash
can, trash can / ashtray combination, ashtray, dumpster, recycling bin). On average
the receptacles were 45 feet apart (SD = 44.22). Table 1 shows the type and number
of trash receptacles noted at the locations. Because most sites contained more than
one type of receptacle, the total sums to more than 130.
1 Note that our estimates for national-level littering rates must be qualified by the fact that we did
not randomly select locations across the country. Thus our estimated littering rates apply only to the
eight types of locations we observed.
Litter Behavior in America
Table 1: Types and Number of Trash Receptacles at Locations
Trash Can, Uncovered (no lid) 18 17 11 8 10 64
Trash Can, Covered (with lid) 22 5 6 8 17 58
Trash Canl Ashtray Combo 6 6 1 1 4 18
Ashtray Only 24 11 3 2 3 43
Dumpster(s) 8 4 12
Recycling Bin(s) 3 9 1 3 16
The research team rated the extent to which each location was littered, on a
scale from 0 (not at all littered) to 10 (extremely littered). The existing KAS Litter
Index uses a 4-point scale, but our goal here was to allow for a more refined
analysis. The team also counted and coded the type of litter in each location. Only
two sites had no litter. The top items found were: cigarette butts (N = 106 sites),
paper (N = 87 sites), and food wrappers (N = 58 sites). Table 2 shows the number of
sites with various types of litter. Table 3 shows the location of the litter at each
location. Again, the total exceeds 130 because many of the sites contained more than
one type of litter.
Table 2. Number of Sites with Existing Litter by Type
I .,
Cigarette Butts
Paper
Food Wrappers
Confections
Napkin/Tissue
Misc. Plastic
Food Remnants
Beverage Cup
muFii:quell.cy
106
87
58
44
44
43
31
21
Beverage Bottle: Plastic
Food Containers
14
12
II
8
6
6
Plastic Bags
Beverage Can
Beverage Bottle: Glass
Yard Waste
Other 35
p,erceufagej
82%
67%
45%
34%
34%
33%
24%
16%
11%
9%
8%
6%
5%
5%
27%
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Table 3. Frequencies of Where General Litter was
Littered in Observation Locations
[,,';
Ground
Bushes/Shrubbery
On or around trash receptacles
Planters
Other
tilili I
121 93%
49 38%
31 24%
19 15%
10 8%
The research team also rated and counted the number of cigarette butts.
When rated on a scale of 0 (not at all littered) to 10 (extremely littered), the average
site was rated at 3.48 (SD = 2.61). When littered cigarette butts were counted, the
average site had 69 cigarette butts (SD = 138) within the observation field, with one
site having more than 1,000 littered cigarette butts. When examining where the
cigarette butts were littered in these locations, 11 0 locations had cigarette butts
littered on the ground. Table 4 shows the frequency of where the cigarette butts
were littered at the observation locations.
Table 4. Frequencies of Where Cigarette Butts were
Littered in Observation Locations
I
Ground
Bushes/Shrubbery
On or around trash receptacles
Planters
Other

110 85%
48 37%
32 25%
20 15%
6 5%
The number of planters in a site ranged from 0 to 40, with the average site
having 2.10 planters in its location. When the type of litter that was in these
planters was noted, 10 sites had no litter in their planters. However, the most
frequent type of litter in the planters was cigarette butts, with 21 locations having
planters littered with cigarette butts.
The physical appearance of each location was also measured. Using a
compiled metric, sites ranged from 2.5 to 10 on a scale from 0 (no beautification) to
10 (extreme beautification), with the average site rating of 6.41 (SD = 1.76).
The number of people in the locations was also noted at both the lowest and
highest points during the observation period. Crowded ness was also rated on a scale
of 0 (not at all crowded) to 10 (extremely crowded). At the beginning of the
observation period, the average crowdedness of a location was 1.21 (SD = 1.73) and
at the peak, the average crowdedness of a location was 4.99 (SD = 2.39).
Litter Behavior in America
General Litter Observations
Observations were made at 86 sites, across 10 states. Of these, there were 23
city centers, 22 fast food restaurants, 19 recreational sites, 11 rest stops, and 11 gas
stations with convenience stores. A total of8,990 observations were made, with
33% from rural areas, 34% from suburban areas, and 33% from urban areas.
Twenty-seven percent of the observations were made in the morning before 11:59
a.m., 58% were made in the afternoon between the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 3:59
p.m., and 16% were made in the evenings between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:59
p.m. The number of sites and observations is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Number of Observations across Sites
Recreational Sites 19 1206 11 82
City Center 23 2648 1 30
Fast Food 22 2294
Bars and 12 97
Restaurants
Retail 12 354
Rest Stops 11 1398
Gas Stations 11 1444
MedicallHospital 8 204
TOTALS 86 8990 44 Sites 767
Sites Observations Observations
Fifty-six percent of those observed were male and 44% were female.
Observed ages ranged from 1 to 82 years (M = 37.92, SD = 15.97), and 50% of those
observed were in a group.
Of the 8,990 people who were observed, 2,472 left the site with no object
(28%), 4,534 left site with an object (50%), and 1,962 disposed of an object (22%)
while on site. Twenty two of the observations were not codable (e.g., the observer
was unable to see the behavior). Across the full number of general observations,
there were 342 observed instances of littering. Of all individuals observed (N =
8,990) in the selected locations, 4% littered. Among the sample of individuals who
disposed of an item (N=l,962), 17% disposed improperly.
Disposals. Among the 1,962 observed disposal behaviors, the most frequently
disposed items were: cigarette butts (N = 340), combo/mixed trash (N = 337), and
paper (N = 271). Table 6 shows the types and frequencies of the objects disposed.
In terms of percentage, cigarette butts (57%), food remnants (20%), and food
wrappers (14%) were the most frequently improperly Included in the
Report to Keep America Beautiful
"other" category were several low frequency disposals, including: pet waste,
confections, matches, diapers, straws, chewing tobacco, and product packaging.
Table 6. Type and Frequency of Disposed Objects
i-',','
i<
'; .. 'p:rSpet>';;'
iiliipropeI"i <%1.ittei'etl
'I
Cigarette Butt 146 194 57%
CombofMixed Trash 325 12 4%
Paper 251 20 7%
Beverage Cup 180 5 3%
Napkin/Tissue 110 9 8%
Beverage Bottle: Plastic 100 5 5%
Food Remnants 65 16 20%
Food Wrapper 85 14 14%
Beverage Can 59 8 12%
Food Container 57 1 2%
Plastic Bag 38 2 5%
Beverage Bottle: Glass 11 0 0%
Unknown 116 10 8%
Other 77 46 37%
TOTAL 1,620 342 17%
With regard to method of disposal, using a trash receptacle was the dominant
method (N=1180), followed by littering on the ground (N=287), pocketing (N=176),
and handing the item off to someone else (N=120). The categorization of all
disposals is shown in Table 7, along with the frequency and percentage of disposals.
Litter Behavior in America
Table 7. Frequencies of Disposal Methods fOI' General Litter
Trash Receptacle
Groundt
Pocketed
Handoff
Ashtray
Recycling Bin: Correct
On/Around Trash Receptaclet
Left on Table, Bench, or Ledget
Bushes/Shrubberyt
Other impropert
plantert
Separated (trash / recycle)
Waterway (river or lake) t
Recycling Bin: Incorrect
Other proper
TOTAL
t DeSignates methods coded as improper

1180 60%
287 15%
176 9%
120 6%
113
20
14
17
10
4
8
7
2
2
2
1962
6%
1%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
100%
Littering. Of the 1,962 observed disposals, 342 were coded as acts of littering.
Each act of littering was classified as to the type of material and to the strategy of
litter. The most frequently littered items were cigarette butts (N=198), followed by
paper or napkins (41 and 14 respectively, N=55), food remnants or wrappers
(N=39), and beverage cups or cans (N=37).
The litter strategy was coded using an adaptation of the categories developed
by a prior study in Australia (Williams, Curnow, & Streker, 1997):
Drop with intent-the person subtly dropped the item on the ground,
but with notable intent to litter. We dubbed this group "Dirty
Droppers."
Flagrant flingers: blatant littering of objects out in the open without
attempt to conceal their actions.
Inch away: "inchers place their litter beside them and slowly inch
away from it until they no longer be identified as the litterer."
Foul shooters aim to discard their item in a receptacle, but after
missing leave the object on the ground.
Wedgers are individuals who "stuff disposable objects into small
spaces where they will not be seen.
Sweepers collect their litter by brushing it off a flat surface into their
hand or a bag, but in the process drop items on the ground.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
90%ers dispose of the large conspicuous items, but leave behind as
litter the smaller less visible objects.
When items were littered, drop with intent was the most frequently used
strategy (N = 183, 54%), followed by flagrant flicking (N = 68, 20%), and 12% drop
by accident. Drop with intent includes spitting, confections, and items intentionally
left behind. Drop without intent includes items that left behind with no noticeable
intent, and items that the person dropped without any observed recognition.
Combined, we find that 81 % of observed littering acts occurred with notable intent.
Table 8 shows the frequency of litter strategies used.
Table 8. Frequencies of Litter Disposal Strategies for
General Litter
Drop: Intent t
Flick/Fling t
Drop: No Intent
Shoot & Miss t
Placed item on table, bench, or ledge t
Inch Away t
Wedge t
Sweep t
90%ers t
Blew away
TOTAL
,,>"Freguency-,::;<';
183 54%
68 20%
42 12%
8 2%
21 6%
8 2%
4 1%
3 <1%
2 <1%
3 <1%
342 100%
Note: t designates littering that occurred with notable "intent."
The observation team also coded the distance (in feet) from the disposer to
the nearest receptacle (trash, recycling, or ashtray). While there were several
instances oflittering that occurred immediately adjacent to a receptacle, most
littering occurred at a considerable distance from a receptacle. At the time of
improper disposal, the average estimated distance to the nearest receptacle was 29
feet. As shown in Figure 2 (below), the observed littering rate when a receptacle
was 10 feet or closer was only 12%, and the likelihood of littering increased steadily
for receptacles at a greater distance. For receptacles that were more than 60 feet
away, the littering rate remained relatively stable at 30%.
Litter Behavior in America
Figure 2: Observed Littering Rate by Distance to Receptacle
35%
QI
30%
~
..
'"
..
25%
c
.;:
QI
20%
B
15%
'C
QI
~
10%
QI
VI
.c
5%
0
0%
()
Distance (In feet) from Trash Receptacle
Understanding General Littering Behavior
A series of statistical analyses were conducted to examine the individual and
contextual variables that are predictive of littering. The primary analysis was
conducted using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM), in which the individual was
treated as Levell (gender, age, in a group), and the site characteristics were
analyzed as Level 2 (e.g., presence of receptacles, presence of litter, physical
appearance, rural/urban/suburban location, signage/litter enforcement). The
analysis was conducted using only data from observations where a disposal
occurred (N = 1,962).
The initial "null" model showed that the overall litter rate was .17. Across the
1,962 individuals (0 = .12, Z = 30.66, p< .01) and the 86 locations ('too = .022, Z =
5.71, p< .01). there was considerable variability in the litter rate. The IntraClass
Correlation coefficient (ICC) was .15. This statistic is directly interpretable and it
indicates that 15% of the variance in littering behavior results from contextual
variables, while 85% results from individual variability. This finding shows that on
a national level, the large majority (85%) of littering behavior results from
individual-level variables. Some examples of individual-level variables include lack
of awareness, lack of concern, or lack of motivation, among others. This is not say
that physical context does not matter, and in fact our results show that 15% ofthe
Report to Keep America Beautiful
variance in observed littering behavior was due to some aspect of the context (e.g.,
existing litter, lack of convenient receptacles, etc).
Our second set of analyses focused on individual-level predictors of littering
behavior: age, gender, and whether the individual was in a group. Age showed a
negative lineal' trend, with the highest littering rate (26%) found for young adults
(age 18-29). For adults 30 and older, the littering rate remained steady at -15%.
Children and adolescents (younger than 18) had a littering rate of 13%. While
gender was not statistically significant, there was a trend for men (21%) to litter
more than women (15%). Given the historical interest in gender as a predictor of
littering, we explored the gender effect in more depth. While there was not an
overall effect for gender in the hierarchical lineal' model, males were more likely to
litter with intent than females (particularly flick/fling).
No other individual-level variables were predictive of littering. However, the
variability in the Level-1 equation remained statistically significant, indicating that
other variables are required to fully explain individual variability in littering. We
explore this issue in more detail using intercept surveys and a national telephone
survey (see below).
Using the hierarchical structure of our data, we proceeded to analyze the
contextual predictors of littering behavior. We examined 10 predictor variables:










temperature,
time of day,
availability and number of receptacles (trash, ashtray, or recycling),
amount of litter present,
physical appearance of the area,
posted signage about litter,
number of other people in the location,
weather,
location type (rural, urban, suburban),
and site type (e.g, city center, fast food).
At the simple bivariate level, several of these variables were significant
predictors of littering behavior. However, when the clustered nature of the data
was taken into account statistically, along with the overlap of the predictors (for
example, physical appearance was generally correlated with lower amounts of
existing litter r = -.40 and with more trash receptacles = .30), only two variables
emerged as uniquely and statistically significant predictors: availability of disposal
receptacles, and amount of litter present.
Litter Behavior in America
The first was the availability of and number of disposal receptacles. As part of
our site obselvations, the team counted the number of receptacles (trash, recycling,
cigarette, dumpster), along with the distance from the person at the time of disposal.
The average was 5.8 bins per location, with a range from 0 to 19. The analysis for
presence of receptacles revealed an intuitive finding that when no receptacle is
present, any disposal is an improper disposal (e.g., a 100% littering rate). But more
relevant to the current research questions, the statistical analysiS showed that
locations with more receptacles had a lower littering rate (y = -.01, p< .05). This
statistical coefficient can be interpreted directly, such that for evelY added trash
receptacle, the littering rate decreased by 1 % (from the overall rate of 17%).
The second statistically significant predictor of littering behavior was the
presence of litter in the site. Locations with more litter were associated with a
higher littering rate. The statistical analyses showed that the presence of existing
litter (both counted and rated by the observers on a scale from 0-10) was predictive
of littering behavior (y = .02, p< .001 for the objective counts).
None of the other contextual predictors were statistically significant. However,
there was a trend toward greater littering in urban (23%), compared to suburban
(18%), and rural (15%) locations.
Conclusions
The results from the statistical analyses of the general litter observations
support a number of interesting conclusions. Of all the disposals that we observed
at 86 locations across the countlY, 17% were improper. This is a strikingly high
number, and despite the strong norm favoring proper disposal that has emerged
over the past 40 years (see phone survey below), the rate of littering remains
relatively high. Importantly, this littering rate is generated from a random sample of
individuals across a range of different locations, and not just a few isolated
observations. When analyzed using the total number of individuals that we
obselved (8,990) we find that 4% litter. While low, this is still a striking number-
4% of ALL individuals that we observed in diverse locations across the country,
littered.
A second important finding pertains to the variability in littering behavior.
While a large volume of data has been collected about litter and littering over the
years, none has afforded the opportunity to simultaneously test the degree to which
it is affected by personal and contextual variables. Our findings indicate that 15% of
littering acts result from contextual variables, and 85% result from personal
qualities. This finding is particularly instructive, because it indicates that given the
same infrastructure and opportunities to properly dispose, individuals will valY
tremendously. Note that if the trend had been reversed, such that 85% of the
Report to Keep America Beautiful
variance was due to the situation, it would indicate that while individuals vary
across settings, within a setting they act similarly (e.g., littering or not).
Finally, the results from our statistical analyses of littering behavior
identified only a couple of significant predictors. Interestingly, gender was not a
significant predictor of littering behavior. This finding runs contrary to prior data
showing that men are more likely to litter than women. Given the observational
nature of the current data, we tend to favor the explanation that men are more likely
to report littering, but in reality men and women are equally likely to do it. At the
individual level, we did find good evidence that age is negatively related to littering,
with young adults more likely to litter than persons 30 and over.
At the level of the location, presence of trash receptacles and amount of litter
present were significant predictors of littering behavior. It's tempting to ask about
the "optimal" number of receptacles in a location. While our data do not speak
directly to this issue, we do have evidence that the lowest littering rate occurs when
receptacles are available and close at hand. Indeed, the littering rate was only 12%
of disposals that occurred within 10 feet of a receptacle, compared with a 30%
littering rate for disposals more than 60 feet.
Cigarette Litter Observations
[n an effort to expand upon our general litter observations, the Action
Research team conducted a smaller sample of observations focused on smokers.
Note that these observations were conducted in addition to the smokers captured as
part of the general litter observations reported in the prior section. As shown in
Table 21 (Appendix A), smoker observations were conducted at 44 locations, of foul'
site types: recreation (11 sites), bar/restaurant (12 sites), retail (12 sites), and
medical/hospital (8 sites). The team also made one unplanned set of cigarette
observations at a city center. As with our general litter observations, the study was
designed as a hierarchical multilevel model, and observations were conducted using
a detailed protocol.
Smokers were randomly selected within each location, to ensure a
representative sample. A total of 767 observations were made of smokers. One
hundred and twenty-seven observations were conducted in a rural area (17%), 230
observations were conducted in a suburban area (30%), and 410 observations were
conducted in an urban area (54%). Two hundred and fourteen observations (28%)
were conducted in the morning, before 12:00 p.m., 435 observations (56%) were
conducted in the afternoon between the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 3:59 p.m., 112
observations (15%) were conducted in the evening between the hours of 4:00 p.m.
and 7:59 p.m., and 6 observations (1 %) were conducted at night after the hour of
8:00 p.m.
Litter Behavior in America
There were 412 males and 344 females, ranging in observed age from 21
to 72 eM = 40.64, SD = 13.00; 11 not coded). When disposing, the sample was fairly
evenly split between being in a group eN = 367) or alone eN = 391). Groups ranged
in size from 2 to 21, with the most frequent groups being groups of two eN = 205),
three eN = 79), and four eN = 46). Nine were not codable.
Of the 767 individuals that were observed, 206 left the site still smoking and
31 were not codable e observers could not determine what happened to the cigarette
butt); 187 properly disposed of the butt; and 343 improperly disposed. This
resulted in a littering rate of 65%, slightly higher than the 58% rate found in the
general litter observations.
The most frequent method of disposal was to place the cigarette butt on the
ground eN = 303), followed by leaving the site with an unfinished cigarette eN =
206), or placing it in an ashtray eN = 119). Table 9 shows the frequency of disposal
method type used for cigarette butt litter.
Table 9. Frequencies of Disposal Methods for Cigarette Butt Litter

"'\\freC)"uency <I
Ground t 303 40%
left Site with Cigarette 206 27%
Ashtray 119 15%
Trash Can 31 4%
Unknown/Unseen 31 4%
Pocketed 18 2%
othert 16 2%
Recycling Bin 16 2%
Planter t 12 1%
Bushes/Shrubbery t 7 1%
On/ Around Trash 5 1%
Receptacle t
Field Strip 3 1%
TOTAL 767 100%
Note: t designates disposals coded as littering.
When items were littered on the ground, drop with intent was the most
frequently used strategy eN = 122), followed by flick/fling eN = 94). Table 10 shows
the frequency of litter strategies used.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Table 10. Frequencies of Litter Disposal Strategies
for Cigarette Butt Litter
(-
t-_" ______ _
Drop with Intent
Flick/Fling
Stomp
Other
Bury
Wedge
Shoot & Miss
TOTAL
:' q
122 35%
94
92
17
9
6
3
343
27%
27%
5%
3%
2%
1%
100%
At the start of each observation, the mean distance to the nearest trash
receptacle was 31 feet (SD = 29), and the mean distance to an ash receptacle was 30
feet (SD = 29). At the time of disposal, improper disposers were an average of 31
feet from an ashtray.
Understanding Cigarette Butt Littering
Our data analytic strategy followed the multi-level model, in which we
examined both the individual and contextual variables that are predictive of
littering. The analysis was conducted using Hierarchical Linear Modeling, in which
the individual was treated as Levell (gender, age, in a group) and the site
characteristics were analyzed as Level 2 (e.g., presence of ash receptacles, presence
of litter, physical appearance, rural/urban/suburban location, signage). The
analysis was conducted using the 530 observed cigarette disposals (187 proper
disposals, 343 improper).
The initial "null" model showed that the overall litter rate was .66. Across the
530 individuals (0 = .135, Z = 15.70,p< .01) and the 44 locations (-too = .081, Z = 3.65,
p< .01), there was considerable variability in the littering rate. The Intra Class
Correlation coefficient (ICC) was .38. This statistic is directly interpretable and it
indicates that 38% of the variance in cigarette littering behavior results from
contextual variables, while 62% results from individual variability. Examples of
individual-level variables include awareness, concern, or motivation, and examples
of contextual variables include presence of receptacles, convenience, 01' cleanliness
of the area. The observed clustering effect (38%) is considerably higher than that
observed for general littering behavior (15%), and it suggests that more structural-
level interventions are needed for smokers (see analyses below, and
recommendations).
Litter Behavior in America
Following the null model, we proceeded to test for individual-level and site-
level predictors of improper disposal. At the level of the individual, we tested
gender, age, and being in a group. The only statistically significant effect was age,
with younger smokers more likely to litter than older ((3 = -.01, p< .01). For
clarification, age was coded into demographic categories. The highest littering rates
occurred for smokers in their 20s (.66, N = 150) and 30s (.72, N = 123), compared to
smokers in their 40s (.58), 50s (.66), or 60s (.50). .
Pursuant to the hierarchical nature of our data, we proceeded to analyze the
contextual predictors of littering behavior. We examined nine predictor variables:









physical appearance,
presence of signage about litter,
temperature,
time of day,
availability of ash receptacles (total number of ash receptacles in the
location),
amount of litter present (any type, not just cigarette),
weather,
location type (rural, urban, suburban),
and site type (e.g, city center, fast food).
While the simple bivariate relationships revealed a number of significant
correlations, the multilevel model identified three uniquely predictive variables:
location, existing litter, and presence of ash receptacles. One of the strongest
predictors of cigarette littering was the number of ash receptacles (y = -.09, p< .01).
The parameter estimate from the analysis is directly interpretable and indicates that
for every added ash receptacle, the littering rate for Cigarette butts decreased by 9%
(from the initial base littering rate of 65%).
A second predictor of cigarette littering was the amount of existing litter (y = .06,
P = .03). More littered environments attracted more littering. This finding occurred
for both rated amount of litter (on a 0-10 scale) and counted litter. In addition, the
results showed that the type of existing litter was not related to cigarette littering
behavior. That is, the presence of existing litter was predictive of littering behavior,
but the type was irrelevant. Smokers were more likely to litter if the context
contained any type of litter, not just cigarette butts.
Finally, the third predictor of cigarette litter was location type. Retail locations
were associated with the lowest littering rate (.58), followed by city centers (.58).
Bars and restaurants were third (.62), while recreational (.74), and medical/hospital
sites (.75) had the highest littering rates. However it's important to point out that
while the differences were statistically significant, the overall littering rate was
quite high-more than 50% of all smokers that we observed littered, regardless of
Report to Keep America Beautiful
location.
Conclusions
The results for the smoking observations support several interesting
conclusions. First, the overall littering rate for cigarette butts was 65%. That is,
across 44 locations and 767 observed smokers, 65% of the cigarette disposals were
improper. Consistent with this high rate of improper disposal was the finding that
cigarette butts were the most frequently observed item of existing litter when our
research team canvassed the sites prior to observation (see Table 3). And that
among the 130 sites we visited across the country, the average site contained 69
littered butts.
A second notable finding was the high degree of consistency of individuals
across sites. When we statistically analyzed the data, we found that 38% of cigarette
butt littering was associated with the context, while 63% was attributable to
individual sources. This suggests that cigarette butt disposal was more of a product
of the situation, than was general littering (where the ICC was 15%). The finding has
important implications for litter prevention strategies, and it suggests that both
structural and motivational approaches are needed. At the structural level,
decreasing the amount of existing litter and increasing the availability of ash
receptacles emerged as key contextual predictors of littering. In addition, individual-
level messages and activities that promote a personal obligation not to litter are
important for targeting the motivational side of the equation.
Consistent with this finding, our statistical analyses revealed several
meaningful predictors of cigarette butt littering. As with the general littering
observations, littering was not related to gender, and men and women were equally
likely to litter cigarette butts. And also consistent with our general litter
observations, age was negatively related to littering, such that younger adults were
more likely to litter than older adults. In addition to these individual-level
predictors of littering, we also examined the site-level predictors. Here we found
two important predictors of littering. While our initial univariate statistics revealed
differences in littering rate by locations (e.g., more littering at medical and
recreational sites, and less at retail and city centers), these differences were entirely
explained by two aspects of the site: existence and number of ash receptacles, and
the amount of existing litter. Note that the significant effect here is for ash
receptacle and not any receptacle. That is, the presence of trashcans or recycling
containers did not reduce the rate of cigarette butt littering. It was only the
presence of ash receptacles, either as stand-alone, or integrated into a trashcan, that
correlated with lower rates of cigarette butt littering.
Litter Behavior in America
PART III: INTERCEPT INTERVIEWS
INTRODUCTION
In the second part of our research project, we conducted intercept surveys at
randomly selected observation sites. The purpose of the intercept surveys was to
enhance the results from the observations, allowing us to better understand the
attitudes as well as the behaviors of individuals who litter. Our goal here is to
report both the basic frequency and pattern of responses from the intercepts, and to
examine the relationship between these variables and observed littering.
METHODS
Selection of Intercept Sites
The location of the intercept sites was determined at random and included
both general litter and smoking sites. Our goal was to obtain a small, representative
sample of individuals and to link the responses to our intercept interview to the
observed disposal behaviors.
Intercept Protocol
At each of the selected intercept locations, individuals were approached to
take part in a face-to-face survey. For the intercept sites, the field research team
members were defined as either observers or interviewers. Observers watched
individuals within a specified boundalY using the protocol summarized earlier in
this document. Following the observation, the observer communicated with the
interviewer, via a Bluetooth hands-free device, and described the person selected
for the interview. The interviewer then approached the selected person to ask for
participation in a short oral survey (less than four minutes) and individuals were
offered $5 in return for their participation. The interviewer did not know if the
person of interest littered or did not litter. The interviewer asked the person a set of
pre-determined questions, including demographic items and questions about litter
behavior, adopted directly from the national telephone survey (reported below).
See Appendix C for the full intercept survey used in this study.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
RESULTS
Our focus here is on the 102 interviews conducted in 15 general litter sites.
Across the 15 sites, 196 individuals were randomly identified for an interview. Of
the 196, 102 completed the survey, 58 left the site before contact could be made,
and 36 refused to complete the interview (resulting in a 52% response rate, and
74% completion rate). Nineteen percent of the intercepts were conducted in a rural
area, 46% were conducted in a suburban area, and 36% were conducted in an urban
area. Fifty-five percent of participants were male and 45% were females. Ages of
the participants ranged from 19 to 71 (M = 36, SD = 13).
When asked how important the issue of litter was in the given location, on a
scale of 0 (not at all important) to 10 (extremely important), the average respondent
said that it was very important (M = 8.27, SD = 2.04). When asked what percentage
of people littered in this location, the responses ranged from 0 to 90%, with an
average response of 40% (SD = 27.66).
In the past year, 40% of respondents reported that they had seen or heard
something about litter prevention, 41 % had seen or heard something about
scheduled community clean-up, 25% had seen or heard something discouraging
cigarette butt litter, and 65% had seen or heard a message simply telling people 'do
not litter.' For those respondents who had seen or heard any message, the most
frequently reported place was on a public service announcement, commercial, or
news report on the television. Table 11 shows the frequency of places where these
messages were seen or heard.
Table 11. Reported Location of Messaging
I
PSA on the radio
PSAjCommercial/New Report on TV
Billboard
Newspaper
Community Flyer/Bulietin

5
21
12
1
1
When asked ifthey had littered in the past month, 57% of respondents
reported that they had not littered. Of the 43% of respondents who reported that
they did litter, the most frequently reported littered item was cigarette butts (19%).
Table 12 shows the items reported to be littered by the respondents. The most
frequently reported place to litter was on the street or in a parking lot.
Interestingly, only three respondents explicitly reported that they had littered at the
current location. Table 13 shows these reported places of littering.
Litter Behavior in America
Table 12. items Reported Littered

Beverage Bottle: Plastic
Beverage Bottle: Glass
Beverage Can
Food Wrapper
Food Remnant
Cigarette Butt
Paper
Mixed Trash
Other
freguen6l1
1
1
3
8
4
21
5
1
1
Table 13. Respondent Reported Littering Locations
Everywhere
Vehicle
Beach
Bus Stop
Other
Street/Parking Lot
N/A
Ground
Home
Park
School
Stairwell
'-.' '-: ;:1
1
1
1
1
3
21
2
2
2
3
1
1
Fifty-five percent of respondents reported that they smoked cigarettes. And,
77% of respondents reported that they thought cigarette butts were litter. When
asked how they disposed of their cigarette butts when they were outside, an ashtray
was the most commonly reported place of disposal.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Table 14. Place of Disposal for Cigarette Butt Litter
Pocketed
Trash can
Ashtray
Ground
Field Strip
Personal Ashtray
Cigarette Pack
'Fi.egoe-ncii'l
2
8
26
7
5
2
1
Finally, personal anti-littering obligation was examined. The respondents
were asked a series of five questions rega'rding the extent to which they felt a
personal obligation to not litter. These five questions were averaged into a
composite score, ranging from 0 (no personal obligation) to 10 (very high personal
obligation). Most respondents reported having a high personal obligation to not
litter (M = 8.61, SD = 1.90).
Linking Intercepts and Observations
Of the 102 respondents who completed the survey, 23 were observed to have
littered (23%). Of these 23 observed litterers, 15 reported littering in the past
month while 8 denied littering. That is, 35% of the individuals we spoke with
denied littering in the past month, when in fact, we had just seen them do so. This
figure is nearly identical to the findings from a similar study in Australia, where
37% of individuals observed littering denied littering in the past 24 hours. The
finding suggests that relying on self report of littering behavior is problematic, and
that there will be a general tendency to underreport the behavior.
In an effort to expand on our earlier analyses of observed littering, we
conducted a regression analysis using the interview items to predict observed
littering. In this analysis, we used five individual-level predictors (age, gender,
personal obligation to not litter, attitudes about litter, and perceptions about the
frequency that other people litter in this location). From this analysis, two variables
emerged as important predictors of observed littering: age (beta = -.26, p=.Ol), and
personal obligation to not litter (beta = -.22, p=.02).
Similar results were found from an analysis using self-reported littering
behavior. Age was an even stronger predictor of self-reported littering (beta=-.40,
p<.OOl), with younger adults much more likely to report littering than older adults.
In addition, a personal obligation to not litter was also significantly predictive
(beta=-.24, p<.Ol).
Litter Behavior in America
Report to Keep America Beautiful
PART IV: TELEPHONE SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
Although a great deal of research has been done on littering, very few studies
have looked at self-reported littering habits on a national level. This telephone
survey was developed in cooperation with Keep America Beautiful and is the first
national-level litter survey in 40 years.
In the 1968 study, titled "Who Litters - and Why," the results from two
national surveys are reported. While the data and detailed results are lost to history,
there were several broad findings that warrant comment. The results showed that
despite high reported rates of littering, a large majority of the public saw littering as
a problem, and supported laws and fines to reduce littering. Approximately 50% of
the sample admitted to one or more littering practices, and littering was most
common among young males. Thus this early research showed a marked gap
between "awareness" and behavior, and the report concluded that:
"the public believes there should be laws against this evil, and a majority
believe that there should be greater enforcement of the laws. But the same
person who describes a litterer as a "slob" and believes he should be arrested,
still-in almost the next breath-say they themselves are guilty of littering."
The goal of the survey was to build on this early study, and to provide a
research foundation for the variables affecting littering behavior. items were
created to measure littering behavior in conjunction with various environmental,
demographic, and psychological factors. A thorough review of community and
state-level surveys was conducted in order to include commonly used measures,
where possible. In addition, we created unique measures for colllmunity livability
and litter behavior by type and location.
The instrument is intended for use by KAB affiliates and community leaders
when regional data are needed for monitoring or comparison. The results also
provide baseline data for current programs, as well as foundations for the
development of new programs. The telephone survey items can be found in
Appendix D.
Litter Behavior in America
METHODS
We collected 1,039 telephone interviews between May 29 and June 16, 2008.
In an effort to obtain a representative sample, we employed a random-digit-dialing
sampling method. Telephone numbers for all households nationwide had a non-
zero chance of being selected. Using this method, listed and unlisted numbers were
included in the sample. The only qualification for participation was that the
respondent be eighteen years of age 01' older.
Data
The sample was made up of 360 men (35%) and 679 women (65%).
Respondent age ranged from 18 to 101, with a mean age of 54 years. Seven percent
described themselves as Hispanic, 8% as Black 01' African American, and 81 % as
white. Over a third of the respondents reported being college graduates (38%),
while 56% were high school graduates and 6% reported not graduating from high
school. Over half of the respondents (55%) stated they currently work for pay.
Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents were classified as current smokers.
Measures
The main objective of the analysis was to create a measure of self-reported
littering behavior in order to identify the variables that are related to, as well as
predict littering behavior. A series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to
look at littering behavior across various grouped variables. The next step was to
conduct a multiple regression analysis to look at the contribution of several
predictor variables on self-reported littering. Scales were created in order to
measure self-reported littering behavior, community livability, and personal norms
against littering.
KAB Litterillg Items. Eight questions from the KAB 1968 telephone survey
were included in this study. Respondents were asked if over the past month they
had dropped, left behind, or thrown various materials (gum or candy wrappers,
facial tissue, food or food wrappers, beer or soda cans or bottles, paper containers,
newspaper, or paper or food remnants).
Self-Reported Litterillg Behavior. The majority of the analyses use a littering
behavior scale created to understand the variables that affect littering behavior.
Respondents were asked to rate the likelihood they would litter five different types
of litter (apple core or banana peel, gum or candy wrapper, food container, gum, and
cigarette butt), across three different location types (out a vehicle window, on the
ground while walking to a vehicle or transit area, and on the ground when at a park
Report to Keep America Beautiful
or outdoor area). All respondents were asked the twelve main questions (four litter
types by three location types) and smokers received an additional three questions
regarding cigarette butt disposal. The responses ranged from zero to ten, where
zero equaled not at aI/likely to litter and ten equaled very likely to litter. The overall
littering behavior scale was constructed by calculating the mean of the rating scores.
The scores range from zero to ten, and higher scores represent more littering
behavior.
Additionally, separate scales were constructed to represent each litter type and each
location type. For example, the three questions that asked about the likelihood of
dropping food containers (across the three location types) were averaged to create
a food container scale. This gave us information about littering behavior across
litter and locations types. For each scale, the range of scores was from zero to ten.
Community Livability. Community livability questions were constructed to
examine the effects of clean, safe, and attractive community characteristcs on
littering behavior. Respondents were asked eight questions which measured
various dimensions of the current state of their community. Although no standard
scale exists to measure community livability, extensive research was done to ensure
the scale included items that would reflect the full range of issues. The items
measured community cleanliness, structural maintenance, walkability, safety,
landscaping, and infrastructure. Each question consisted of four response
categories and the ratings from each of the eight questions were averaged to
produce a score-a livability quotient. The range of scores for the scale was from
one to four, with higher scores indicating ratings of greater livability.
Personal Norms. Respondents were asked an abbreviated version of the
Personal Norms Against Littering Scale (Kallgren, Reno, and Cialdini, 2000). This
scale was used to measure the effect of personal norms on littering behavior. A set
of five situational questions were asked to measure personal obligation not to litter.
Ratings on the individual questions ranged from zero (no personal obligation) to ten
(a very strong personal obligation). The ratings were averaged to provide each
respondent with a personal obligation against littering score. Scores ranged from 0
to 10, with higher scores indicating a stronger personal obligation not to litter.
Work Environment. In order to understand the relationship between work
environments and littering behavior, respondents who stated they currently
worked for pay were asked if they worked in an indoor or outdoor environment and
whether the area was designated smoke-free or not.
Current Smokers. Prevalence data from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) shows that in 2006, 20 percent of American adults were defined
as cigarette smokers. Of particular interest in this research was cigarette butt
littering habits of smokers. We used the CDC questions to identify respondents as
current smokers. Respondents were asked if they had smoked at least 100
Litter Behavior in America
cigarettes in their entire life, and if so, if they currently smoked all days, some days,
or not at all. Respondents who indicated they smoked all days or some days were
defined as a current smoker. Current smokers were then asked a set of questions
about cigarette butt disposal. They were asked whether they had receptacles at
work or in their vehicle, and whether or not they owned a pocket ashtray.
Litter Motivators and Barriers. All respondents were given a set of six items
regarding litter motivators and barriers. The statements were an attempt to
understand some of the barriers and motivators to proper litter disposal.
Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed
with statements such as, I am more likely to litter when the item I'm holding isn't
recyclable, and I am more likely to litter when I am in a bad mood. The response
categories were: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree.
Litter Importance and Messages. Lastly, respondents were asked about the
importance of the issue of litter in their town or city, and whether or not they had
seen or heard any litter prevention messages in the past year. For those who stated
they had seen or heard litter prevention messages, they were then asked the
subject-matter (e.g., community clean-up or prevention) and where they saw or
heard the messages (e.g., television, radio, hillboard, or poster).
Report to Keep America Beautiful
RESULTS
Litter Behavior
The survey contained two types of self-reported litter behavior questions.
The first set consisted of eight dichotomous (yes - no) items adopted from the 1968
KAB survey of littering in America, which asked if the behavior had occurred in the
past month. Table 15 shows the results. It's important to note that the frequencies
and percentages reported in Table 15 are for the entire sample, and not just
individuals who reported littering. Thus, the percentages shown in the Table reflect
a generally low level of reported littering behavior.
Table 15. Self-Reported Littering Behavior in the Past Month
Dropped Gum Wrappers on Ground
Left Newspaper Behind
Thrown Things Out of Car or Boat
Dropped Food or Wrappers on Street
Dropped Paper Containers on Ground
Dropped Facial Tissue on Ground
Left Paper or Food at Picnic Area
Dropped Cans or Bottles Outdoors
N = 1,039

68 6.58%
53 5.11%
42 4.05%
38 3.67%
25 2.41%
14 1.35%
16 1.55%
9 0.87%
Eighty-five percent of the respondents reported none of the listed littering
behaviors in the past month (N=876). Twelve percent reported participating in one
or two behaviors (N=127), while 2.5% reported participating in three or more
behaviors (N=25). The resulting data showed that the reported littering rate in 2008
was 15%, compared with a 50% littering rate in 1968.
The primary focus of our analyses was on the second measure of self-
reported littering behavior. Respondents were asked the likelihood they would
drop specific items (apple core or banana peel, gum or candy wrapper, food
container, gum, and cigarette butt), across specific locations (out a vehicle Window,
on the ground while walking to a vehicle or transit area, and on the ground when at
a park or outdoor area). The littering behavior scale provides us a combined
measure of all the behaviors, as well as measures of behavior for the specific types
of litter and at the specific locations. Figure 3 shows the mean scores for the overall
litter behavior scale, the litter type scales, and the location type scales. The scale
range is from zero to ten.
Litter Behavior in America
Figure 3: Mean Litter Scores for Overall Litter Behavior,
Litter Type, and Litter Location
2.0
1.5 +------------
1.0 +------------
0.5
0.0
Apple Gum or Food Gum Cigarette Out a Ground Ground Overall
Core or Candy Container
Banana Wrapper
Peel
Butt Vehicle While at a Park
Window Walking
The mean score for the overall behavior was .61 (SD=1.45), on a 10-point
scale. Respondents reported the greatest likelihood of littering behavior with
cigarette butts (M=1.63, SD = 2.87), apple cores and banana peels (M=.86, SD = 1.98).
Respondents were twice as likely to report dropping a cigarette butt as an apple
core or banana peel.
Litter Behavior and Community Livability
Analysis of variance was performed to identify group differences in littering
behavior within each of the eight community livability variables. Table 16 shows
frequencies for the responses, along with means and standard deviations for each of
the community livability items.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Table 16. Group Means ofLittering Behavior
Visible litter (QBI1)"
Virtually no visible litter 355 0.53 1.47
Upon careful Inspection a small amount of litter is obvious 526 0.60 1.33
Visible litter can be seen throughout the area 130 0.67 1.49
Major illegal dumpsites are present 21 1.77 2.84
TOTAL 1032 0.61 1.45
How Clean Is Community (QBI2)'
Very clean 553 0.59 1.58
Somewhat clean 424 0.58 1.20
Not very clean 43 0.81 1.20
Not at all clean 8 2.15 3.67
TOTAL 1028 0.61 1.45
Streets and Sidewalks Maintained (QBI3)
Very well maintained 509 0.57 1.48
Somewhat maintained 308 0.69 1.42
Not very well maintained 87 0.67 1.44
Not at all maintained 44 0.48 0.85
TOTAL 948 0.62 1.43
Streets and Sidewalks Safe During Day (QBI4)"
Very safe 665 0.61 1.47
Somewhat safe 238 0.49 1.08
Somewhat unsafe 46 0.95 1.83
Very unsafe 20 1.74 2.78
TOTAL 969 0.62 1.46
Streets and Sidewalks Inviting (QBI5)
Very inviting 455 0.60 1.56
Somewhat inviting 370 0.59 1.22
Somewhat uninviting 58 0.92 1.84
Very uninviting 54 0.75 1.23
TOTAL 937 0.63 1.44
Number of Flowers, Plants, and Trees (QBI6)
There are a lot of flowers, plants, and trees 551 0.57 1.42
There are some flowers, plants, and trees 362 0.64 1.47
There are not many flowers, plants, and trees 85 0.68 1.43
There are no flowers, plants, and trees 29 0.75 1.98
TOTAL 1027 0.61 1.45
Attractiveness of Flowers, Plants, and Trees (QBI7)'
They are very attractive 547 0.62 1.58
They are somewhat attractive 387 0.54 1.14
They are somewhat unattractive 57 0.67 1.04
They are very unattractive 26 1.44 2.76
TOTAL 1017 0.61 1.45
Litter Behavior in America
Attractiveness of Infrastructure (QBI8)'
They are very attractive 316 0.60
They are somewhat attractive 486 0.58
They are somewhat unattractive 116 0.58
They are very unattractive 41 1.31
TOTAL 959 0.62
Note: Frequency = number of occurrences, Mean - average, SD - standard deviation.
* differences significantly at the p < .05 level, ** difference significant at the p < .01Ieve[
1.49
1.38
1.12
2.35
1.45
Significant differences were found for groups in all variables, except for the
streets and sidewalks are well-maintained for people who are walking (QBI3), the
streets and sidewalks in your commllllity are an inviting place for people to walk
(QBIS), and the number of flowers, plants, and trees in your community (QBI6).
Participants were three times as likely to report littering behavior if they lived in
communities with a major amount of litter (QBI1), than if they lived in communities
with virtually no visible litter. Those who reported living in communities that were
very clean and somewhat clean (QBl2) were much less likely to report littering
behavior than those who lived in communities that were somewhat unclean and
very unclean. The safety of streets and sidewalks during daylight hours (QBI4) also
showed significant differences between groups. Those who reported living in
somewhat unsafe and very unsafe communities reported significantly more littering
behavior. Where respondents reported living in communities where flowers, plants,
and trees (QBI7) were very unattractive,littering behavior was significantly greater
than in the other three groups. The same pattern was true for the attractiveness of
the infrastructure, things like benches, planters, street signs, and street lights
(QBI8). Respondents who reported living in communities where the infrastructure
was very unattractive, reported significantly higher rates of littering than for the
other three groups.
Conclusion
An overall pattern emerged between several dimensions of community
livability and littering behavior. These data suggest that those living in communities
where there is less visible litter, the community is clean, the streets and sidewalks
are safe to walk during daylight hours, and the plants, as well as the infrastructure
are attractive, are less likely to report littering behavior. Although this has been
suggested in other literature, a standard instrument for measuring community
livability does not yet exist. The results reported above underscore the relationship
between community appearance and littering behavior.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Litter Behavior and Cigarette Smokers
Current smokers comprised 18.4% of the sample (N=191). Those current
smokers who worked for pay (N=170) were asked if their work location had
receptacles for cigarette butts (QCD1); 41.8% stated their work location did not
have receptacles for cigarette butts. Current smokers were also asked if they had a
receptacle for cigarette butts in their car (QCD2); 28.1 % indicated they did not have
a receptacle in their car. Fourteen percent of the current smokers reported owning
a pocket ashtray (QCD3) (N=27).
Analysis of variance was used to understand the littering behavior
differences between non-smokers and current smokers. Figure 4 displays the mean
differences for littering behavior between non-smokers and current smokers using
the litter measure including Cigarette butt disposal, excluding cigarette butt
disposal, and using age as a covariate. The scale range is from zero to ten.
Figure 4: Group Means for Littel'ing Behavior (0-10) by Current Smoker Status
2.0 ,------------------
1.8 +----------------
1.6
1.4 -1-------------------
1.2 -r-----------------
1.0 -r---=
0.8 +---
0.6 +---.-
0.4
0.2
0.0
Litter Including
Cigarette Butts
Litter Excluding
Cigarette Butts
Mean Estimates
With Age
Covariate
II Non-Smokers
II Current Smokers
Using the litter behavior measure including cigarette butt disposal, current
smokers (M = .97, SD = 1.90) reported nearly twice the littering behavior as non-
smokers (M = .53, SD = 1.31). The difference is statistically significant at the p < .01
level. Removing cigarette butt disposal from the littering behavior measure still
showed significant differences between current smokers (M = .80, SD = 1.88) and
non-smokers (M = .52, SD = 1.31). The difference is statistically significant at the p
< .01 level. However, in order to further explain the relationship between smoking
Litter Behavior in America
status and littering behavior, we performed an analysis of variance using age as a
covariate. The results show that age explains a significant amount of the variation in
smoking status and littering behavior. After age was introduced as a coviariate with
smoker status, the mean difference between current smokers and non-smokers was
estimated at .71 and .54, respectively.
Conclusion
At first glance, the results appear to show a predictive relationship between
current smoker status and self-reported littering behavior. However, because the
relationships between smoking and age, and littering behavior and age are negative
(as age increases, both smoking behavior and littering behavior decreases), further
analyses were conducted in which we statistically controlled for the age effects.
These new analyses showed that the relationship between smoking and littering
behavior was confounded by age. While at first glance the data appear to show that
smoking predicts littering behavior, when age is used as a covariate, the relationship
between current smoking status and littering behavior becomes nonsignificant. That
is, the high rate of littering among smokers is due in part to the tendency for
smokers to be younger than nonsmokers.
Litter Behavior and the Work Environment
Analysis of variance was used to look at group differences across two
workplace variables. For those who reported working for pay, we examined
littering behavior differences between indoor and outdoor work environments
(QWE2). Figure 5 shows the group differences. The scale range is from zero to ten.
Figure 5: Group Means for Littering Behavior (0-10)
by Indoor and Outdoor Work Envil'Onment
2.0 ,-----------------
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Indoor Outdoor
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Participants working in an outdoor environment reported nearly twice the
littering behavior as those working in indoor environments. The difference was
significant at the p < .01 level.
The relationship between indoor and outdoor environments and smoke-free
environments (QWE3) was examined as well. Figure 6 shows the littering behavior
differences for these four groups. The scale range is from zero to ten.
Figure 6: GI'OUp Means for Littel'ing Behavior (0-10)
by Indoor and Outdoor Work Environments and
Smoke-Free Workplaces
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Indoor Smoke- Indoor Not Outdoor Outdoor Not
Free Smoke-Free Smoke-Free Smoke-Free
While those in the outdoor work environment group showed the largest
mean for littering behavior. the smoke-free workplace groups (indoor and outdoor).
report less littering behavior than those working in environments that are not
smoke-free. Again. the littering behavior measurement includes cigarette butt
disposal, but it is important to note that these results are not exclusive of cigarette
butt disposal. The differences are significant at the p < .01 level.
Figure 7 shows the group means for cigarette butt disposal behavior in the
smoke-free workplace groups and in the outdoor work environment.
Litter Behavior in America
Figure 7: Group Means for Cigarette Butt Disposal Behavior
(0-10) by Smoke-Free and Not Smoke-Free Workplaces and
Outdoor Work Environment
3.0 ,---------------
2.5 t---.--- ---.. -------
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Smoke-Free NotSmoke-Free Work Outdoors
There were no differences for cigarette butt disposal behavior between those
working in a smoke-free workplace and those not working in a smoke-free
workplace. While those working in an outdoor work environment showed a greater
mean for cigarette butt disposal behavior (M=3.0, SD = 4.34), the difference was not
statistically significant.
Conclusion
These data show that the outdoor work environment group reported more
littering behavior than the indoor work environment group. Respondents not
working in smoke-free workplace environments also reported more littering
behavior. For cigarette butt litter disposal, although working outdoors increased
litter behavior, working in smoke-free work environment or outdoors did not
significantly alter behavior. With the increase of smoke-free work environments
nationwide, adequate infrastructure for proper disposal is an emerging issue. This
is an important topic for future research.
Litter Behavior and the Motivators and Barriers
Analysis of variance was used to look at the relationship between littering
behavior and six situational scenarios. Respondents were asked if they strongly
agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the likelihood they would
litter in the following situations: (QLB1) when the item I'm holding isn't recyclable,
(QLB2) when I am in a bad mood, (QLB3) when I know someone else will be around to
pick it up, (QLB4) when I don't have time to take care o/it any other way, (QLBS)
when there isn't a trash can nearby, and (QLB6) when the item is biodegradable.
Table 17 displays the means and standard deviations for these items.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Table 17, Group Means for Littering Behavior (0-10) by
Motivators and Barriers Items
When the item I'm Holding Isn't Recyclable (QLB1)**
Strongly Agree 25 1.48
Agree 61 1.77
Disagree 350 0.71
Strongly Disagree 585 0.39
TOTAL 1021 0.61
When I'm In a Bad Mood (QLB2)"
Strongly Agree 16 3.28
Agree 74 1.56
Disagree 397 0.60
Strongly Disagree 538 0.41
TOTAL 1025 0.61
When someone Else Will Pick It Up (QLB3)**
Strongly Agree 16 2.01
Agree 42 2.07
Disagree 407 0.71
Strongly Disagree 566 0.39
TOTAL 1031 0.61
When I Don't Have Time (QLB4)**
Strongly Agree 17 1.98
Agree 89 1.50
Disagree 410 0.70
Strongly Disagree 506 0.33
TOTAL 1022 0.61
When there Isn't a Trash Can Nearby (QLBS)**
Strongly Agree 16 1.97
Agree 74 1.84
Disagree 440 0.66
Strongly Disagree 494 0.34
TOTAL 1024 0.61
When the Item Is Biodegradable (QLB6)**
Strongly Agree 44 1.57
Agree 186 1.26
Disagree 393 0.56
Strongly Disagree 393 0.25
TOTAL 1016 0.61
Note: Prequency = number of occurrences, Mean = average, SD = standard deviation.
** difference significant at the p < .01 level
Litter Behavior in America
2.73
2.29
1.75
0.89
1.45
3.57
1.94
1.64
0.88
1.45
3.44
2.35
1.69
0.89
1.45
2.94
1.80
1.78
0.77
1.45
3.01
2.16
1.66
0.78
1.45
2.09
1.75
1.61
0.73
1.45
Significant littering behavior differences were found across groups for all the
motivators and barriers items. Respondents who reported they are more likely to
litter when the item isn't recyclable (QLB1) were twice as likely to report littering
behavior than those who disagreed with the statement. Those who reported they
are more likely to litter when they are in a bad mood (QLB2) reported significantly
higher rates of littering behavior than those who disagreed with the statement.
Respondents who stated they are more likely to litter when someone else will pick it
up (QLB3) reported much greater littering behavior than those who reported they
were unlikely to litter in that situation. Respondents who stated they were likely to
litter when they didn't have time to take care of it any other way (QLB4) reported
significantly higher rates of littering behavior than those who stated that time was
unlikely to be a factor. Those who reported they were more likely to litter in the
absence of a trash can or bag (QLBS) showed significantly greater rates of litter
behavior than those who unlikely to litter in that situation. And lastly, respondents
who stated they were more likely to litter when the item was biodegradable (QLB6)
reported much more littering behavior than those for whom biodegradability was
unlikely to be a factor.
Conclusion
The analysis indicates there are personal (bad mood, no time), situational
(someone else will pick it up, no trash can nearby), and item-specific (item isn't
recyclable, item is biodegradable) evaluations that affect littering behavior. All
differences were statistically significant.
Litter Behavior and the Messages
Analysis of variance was used to explore the relationship between littering
behavior and litter prevention messages. Figure 8 shows the group littering
behavior differences for those who reported they had and those who reported they
had not seen or heard litter prevention messages in the past year. The scale range is
from zero to ten.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Figure 8: Group Means for Littering Behavior (0-10)
by Saw or Heard Litter Prevention Messages
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
No Yes
There was no significant difference between those who reported they had
seen or heard litter prevention messages in the past year and those who reported
they had not. While this finding is somewhat discouraging, we do not interpret it as
evidence that messaging is ineffective at reducing littering behavior. First, the
overall reported rate of littering is extremely small (.5 on a scale from 0 to 10).
Second, the findings from our observations suggest that self-reported littering rates
are subject to reporting bias, and might not accurately reflect actual littering rates.
Indeed, the same individuals who are likely to underreport littering are likely to
over-report exposure to litter prevention messages. And third, we do not
differentiate here between different types of litter prevention messages, and some
messages are surely more powerful at affect behavior than others (see
recommendations section at the end of this document).
Litter Behavior in America
Litter Behavior and Demographic Variables
Analysis of variance was used to look at littering behavior group differences
for gender and education. Table 18 displays the means and standard deviations for
these variables.
Table 18. GI'OUp Means ofLittering Behavior (0-10) by
Gender, Education, Type of Residence, and Type of Vehicle
It;-
"MeaW'S
/>:>:"',J
'!.,.SD'1
Gender (Iel)"
Female 677 0.49 1.28
Male 358 0.83 1.70
1035 0.61 1.45
Educational Attainment (Q04)
Less Than High School 61 0.78 1.74
High School Graduate 562 0.66 1.57
Coliege Graduate 386 0.47 1.11
1009 0.60 1.42
Type of Residence (Q06)
House single detached 799 0.56 1.38
Apt or Condo 157 0.69 1.67
Mobile home 54 0.97 1.84
1010 0.61 1.45
Type of Vehicle (Q07)
Car 571 0.57 1.45
Pick-Up Truck 126 0.91 1.96
Van or Mini-Van 104 0.64 1.42
SUV 151 0.53 1.04
Don't Drive 51 0.41 1.13
Other 5 0.46 0.79
1008 0.60 1.46
Note: Frequency = number of occurrences. Mean = average, SO = standard
deviation.
** difference significant at the p < .01 level
These data show significant differences between males and females for self-
reported littering behavior. Males are much more likely to report littering behavior
than are women. This finding is consistent with other research on self-reported
littering behavior. These data show no significant differences for littering behavior
across educational levels, type of residence, or type of vehicle. Although the data
indicate a rise in littering behavior as educational level drops, the differences are
not statistically significant.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Predicting Littering Behavior
This survey was designed to understand the variables associated with
littering behavior. A Multiple Regression Analysis was performed to predict the
impact of selected variables on littering behavior. This analysis shows the effect of
this group of predictor variables on littering behavior. Table 19 displays the
unstandardized regression coefficients (b) for the predictor variables.
Table 19. Unstandardized Regl'ession Coefficients from
a Multiple Regression Analysis: Littering Behavior by
Predictor Variables
Age -0.010
Gender 0.196
Level of Education -0.021
Current Smoker 0.234
Importance of Litter -0.047
Heard or Seen Litter Message 0.141
Livability quotient 0.015
Personal Norms Scale -0.019
Motivators and Barriers Scale 0.107
..
N" 881; p<.OS, p < .01
Nine predictor variables were chosen to gauge the impact of their presence
on self-reported littering behavior. Five variables emerged as predictors of littering
behavior. Age, gender, current smoker, importance of litter, and the motivators and
barriers scale all show statistically significant relationships to self-reported littering
behavior.
The current smoker variable was dummy coded in order to include it in the
model (smoker = 1, non-smoker = 0). The correlation coefficient indicates that in
the context of all the other variables in the model, current smoker status has the
greatest impact on self-reported littering behavior. The relationship between age
and littering behavior is negative; as age increases, littering behavior decreases. The
variable for gender was dummy coded in order to include it in the model (male = 1,
female = 0); therefore, the positive correlation coefficient indicates higher self-
reported littering rates among men. There is also a negative relationship between
the importance of litter in your town and littering behavior; as the perceived
importance of litter as an issue increases, littering behavior decreases. Finally, the
analysis shows a relationship between the motivators and barriers scale (those
Litter Behavior in America
likely to be motivated to litter because of mood or lack of trash cans) and littering
behavior.
Conclusion
In the context of this group of predictor variables, current smoker status
emerged as an important predictor of self-reported littering behavior. Although, the
littering behavior variable includes general litter as well as cigarette butt litter, this
finding is consistent with land survey litter studies that show cigarette butts as the
most littered item in the United States. The effect of age on littering behavior is
consistent with other research results which show that as age increases, littering
behavior decreases. The model showed that men are more likely to report littering
than are women. Past research, as well as the results of our current observational
research suggests that there are no observed littering behavior differences between
men and women. The differences materialize in the self-reported behaviors. The
perceived importance of litter as an issue shows an impact on littering behavior;
those indicating a greater perceived level of importance of litter as an issue, display
lower levels of littering behavior. The motivators and barriers scale also helped to
explain littering behavior. Respondents who were more likely to agree with the
barriers statements were more likely to report littering behavior. In other words,
the more likely one is to report that being in a bad mood or the absence of a trash
can induces them to improperly dispose of litter, the more likely they are to report
littering behavior. (Reliability analysis and bivariate correlations were conducted
for both scales to insure the variables were not measuring the same constructs;
while reliabilities for both scales exceeded .9, the correlation between the two
variables was only modest, I' = .312).
The Importance of Litter
Analysis of variance was used to explore the relationship between the
perceived importance of litter in the town or city (QM1), and community
appearance (QBI). Table 20 displays the group means for the importance a/littering
in your town by each community livability item.
Table 20. Group Means for Importance ofLittering in Your Town (0-10) by
Community Livability items
i
to,
t
Visible Litter (QBI1)**
1 Virtually no visible litter
2 Upon careful inspection a small amount of litter is obvious
3 Visible litter can be seen throughout the area
4 Major illegal dumpsites are present
Total
"- --,', ,- '\. - ',", ,,," - - " - - - -,
c', - -
342 8.42 2.72
S07 8.04 2.43
125 7.48 2.71
21 7.33 3.40
995 8.09 2.61
Report to Keep America Beautiful
1'. ... ....i ....C
J
"'.;,> '.
How Clean Is Community (QBI2)**
1 Very clean
2 Somewhat clean
3 Not very clean
4 Not at all clean
Total
Streets and Sidewalks Maintained (QBI3)**
1 Very well maintained
2 Somewhat maintained
3 Not very well maintained
4 Not at all maintained
Total
Streets and Sidewalks Safe During Day (QBI4)"
1 Very safe
2 Somewhat safe
3 Somewhat unsafe
4 Very unsafe
Total
Streets and Sidewalks Inviting QBI5**
1 Very inviting
2 Somewhat inviting
3 Somewhat uninviting
4 Very uninviting
Total
Number of Flowers, Plants, and Trees QBI6**
1 There are a lot of flowers, plants, and trees
2 There are some flowers, plants, and trees
3 There are not many flowers, plants, and trees
4 There are no flowers
l
plants, and trees
Total
Attractiveness of Flowers, Plants, and Trees (QBI7)**
1 They are very attractive
2 They are somewhat attractive
3 They are somewhat unattractive
4 They are very unattractive
Total
Attractiveness of Infrastructure (QBI8)**
1 They are very attractive
2 They are somewhat attractive
3 They are somewhat unattractive
4 They are very unattractive
Total
535
409
41
8
993
499
296
81
43
919
647
227
45
20
939
445
356
57
52
910
535
349
79
29
992
532
370
56
25
983
310
471
113
38
932
8.49
7.72
7.00
5.13
8.08
8.52
7.65
7.57
7.19
8.09
8.23
7.89
6.93
8.20
8.08
8.64
7.62
6.84
6.96
8.03
8.38
7.82
7.49
7.90
8.10
8.45
7.88
7.20
6.12
8.10
8.63
7.93
7.73
7.21
8.11
Note: Frequency = number of occurrences, Mean = average. SO = standard deviation.
"indicates statistical significance at the p < .01 level.
Litter Behavior in America
2.46
2.56
3.35
4.52
2.61
2.33
2.68
2.84
3.24
2.58
2.49
2.79
3.01
2.67
2.61
2.25
2.72
3.12
3.25
2.63
2.39
2.74
2.76
3.30
2.59
2.44
2.52
2.96
3.91
2.59
2.31
2.55
2.64
3.60
2.56
All relationships between the importance of litter in your town and the
community livability items were statistically significant. The analysis showed that
the groups that reported more litter in their community (QBI1), also reported that
litter was less important. The same was true for the how clean is your community
item (QBI2); those groups reporting they lived in communities that were not very
clean and not at all clean, stated that litter was less important. Respondents who
reported their streets and sidewalks were somewhat maintained, not very well
maintained, and not at all maintained (QBI3) indicated that litter was less important
in their town than those who reported their streets and sidewalks were very well
maintained.
The safety of streets and sidewalks during daylight hours variable (QBI4)
showed a much different pattern; those who indicated their streets were very safe
and those who indicated their streets were very unsafe reported litter being of
greater importance in their towns than respondents in the other two groups
(somewhat safe, or somewhat unsafe). For respondents stating their streets and
sidewalks were a very inviting place or somewhat inviting place to walk (QBIS), the
importance of litter in their town was greater than for those who stated their streets
and sidewalks were somewhat inviting or very uninviting. Respondents who
indicated their community had a lot of flowers, plants, and trees (QBI6), were more
likely to state that litter was an important issue in their community than the other
three groups. Those who indicated the flowers, plants, and trees in their community
were very attractive (QBI7) were more likely to state that litter was an important
issue in their town. The same pattern existed for the attractiveness of the
infrastructure (QBI8); groups who indicated the community infrastructure was very
attractive reported a greater level of importance, compared to those who indicated
that their community infrastructure was very unattractive.
CONClUSIONS
The overall pattern of relationships for these items is quite interesting. The
pattern indicates there are significant differences between groups of people who
live in towns or cities with little visible litter, with attractive landscaping and
infrastructure, and with streets and sidewalks that are pleasant to walk, and those
groups who do not. The groups that live in more attractive surroundings perceive
the issue of litter as more important in their town or city than those who live in less
attractive surroundings. This is not to say that the individual does not perceive
litter to be an issue. More likely, the presence of litter and less attractive
surroundings is an indicator that litter is not an issue in their town or city. In other
words, if litter were an issue, than it would not be present, the town would be more
attractive, and perhaps a more pleasant place in which to walk.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
PART V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this report, we have summarized the findings from three methodological
approaches to studying littering behavior. In the first, we conducted systemic
observations of9,757 individuals randomly selected from 130 sites across the
country. In the second, we report findings from a small sample of intercept
interviews conducted with 102 individuals at 15 sites. In the third study, we report
findings from a national telephone survey of 1,039 households. Each of these three
approaches provides a unique perspective on littering behavior, and in this final
section, we want to step back and draw some broad conclusions and
recommendations.
Littering Rates
One of the first questions that emerges in discussions of littering is: "how
often do people do it?" In the 1968 survey, results showed "exactly half' of the
respondents in a national survey reported at least one littering behavior (among 8
scenarios). While the details from this 40-year-old study are no longer available, the
50% figure is a meaningful mark.
Our current data indicate that littering rates have declined dramatically in
the past 40 years. In our telephone survey, where we replicated as closely as
possible the measurement procedure from 1968, we found that only 15% of
respondents report a littering act in the past month (using the same 8 KAB
scenarios). And across a range of different locations and litter types, we find that
Americans report a very low frequency of littering.
However, it's important to point out the limitations of self-report surveys.
Given that people almost unanimously view littering as a bad thing, it's not
surprising that very few report doing it. In addition to the problem of self-report
bias, it may also be the case that littering happens by accident. In this case,
respondents would be reporting correctly, but still underestimating the amount that
they litter.
To address these limitations, we conducted a series of observations with a
random sample of individuals across the country. Our results indicate that 17% of
all disposals in the public spaces we observed were litter. In addition, 4% of all
individuals that passed through the public spaces we observed littered. It's also
clear from our observations that most of these acts of littering are /lot by accident,
and a large majority (81 %) of all observed acts of littering occurred with clearly
notable intent.
In terms of littered items, our results show that the most frequently littered
items are also those most commonly found on the ground. While our methodology
Litter Behavior in America
does not allow solid conclusions about the percentage of litter on the ground that
originates from individuals dropping or throwing an item (as opposed to trash cans
blowing over, litter blowing from uncovered loads, or an inefficient trash collection
system), it does seem clear that a large majority of litter originates from the
individuals that pass through a public space. The most frequently observed items
that were littered included: cigarette butts, food remnants, and food wrappers.
The methods that we have developed and reported were intended to be
"replicable." That is, we have attempted to build an observational methodology that
can be implemented over time and in a range of locations. In adopting the same
methodology, it will be possible to draw solid conclusions about change over time,
to inform both local and national litter-prevention programs, and to evaluate the
success of litter prevention strategies.
Understanding Littering Behavior
The results reported in this document show that as of 2008, littering
behavior remains a serious national problem. Americans view litter as a serious
issue; many individuals feel a personal obligation not to litter; and they want to live
in clean, litter-free communities. But yet the behavior persists.
The unique research design developed for our national observations draws
on the quantitative technique of multi-level modeling. By observing random
samples of individuals within a location, and multiple locations across the country,
we are able to ascertain the amount of variability in littering behavior that is due to
the person, or due to the context. For general littering, we find that 15% of the
variance in littering behavior results from contextual constraints (e.g., insufficient
number of receptacles, existing litter on the ground), while the remainder results
from the individual (e.g., lack of motivation). For cigarette butt litter, we find that
more than twice as much variance in littering behavior (38%) is due to the
contextual demands, and 62% is due to the individual.
With regard to the situational factors that contribute to littering, two
consistent findings emerged from our observations. First is the availability of trash
receptacles. While our data show that almost all public places have at least one trash
receptacle (up from 56% reported in the 1968 KAB study), the number and
convenience of receptacles strongly influences littering behavior. While we certainly
observed the rare exception of an individual littering right next to a receptacle, the
average littering behavior occurred at a distance of 29 feet from the nearest
receptacle. In addition, the amount of litter already present in a site strongly
influenced the probability that a person would litter.
With regard to individual factors that contribute to littering, we want to
highlight two general findings. The first is age. Consistently across all three
intpl'I-pnt, and we find that older individuals are
Report to Keep America Beautiful
less likely to litter than younger. This finding echoes the conclusion made in the
1968 report. The second predictive factor is a person's belief in the importance of
litter. In the telephone survey, those individuals who believed that litter was a more
important issue were less likely to report littering. In addition, our observation and
intercept data show that individuals who feel a personal obligation not to litter were
less likely to do so.
Another finding of interest pertains to gender. While much has been said
about the high rate of littering behavior among males (particularly young males),
our data present a conflicting stOlY. While it is clearly the case that young males are
more likely to report littering, and to report a lower personal obligation to not litter,
our observations failed to show any overall gender effects in observed littering
rates. To us, this suggests that the gender effect is more a product of self-report bias
than behavioral differences, and that outreach efforts should target both men and
women.
Litter Prevention
The findings from our research point to several strategies for preventing
litter. These strategies include a combination of both structural and motivational
activities. We present three strategies below that are consistent with our research
findings. But we do not propose this as an exhaustive list, and we encourage the
reader to think creatively about ways to link the reported findings to litter
prevention strategies.
1. Beautification (and clean-up). Across our data we consistently found that
littered environments attract more litter. This finding is not new, and indeed it was
noted in the research findings 40 years ago. In essence, individuals use a variety of
cues from their surrounding environment to determine what is common and
accepted behavior. The presence of litter communicates the norm for that situation,
and the acceptability of littering. In addition, the existing litter will require clean-up,
so one more piece won't matter.
To this end, we recommend consistent and ongoing community clean-up
activities. Reducing the amount of existing litter in a location is a surefire way to
reduce the rate of littering behavior.
However, we also recommend going beyond community clean-ups. While such
efforts are laudable in their goals and impact, the outcomes are likely to be short
lived. Clean-up efforts deal with the symptoms, but not the underlying problem. In
addition to the "social norms" aspect of existing litter, we also found significant
effects for physical appearance. Throughout our studies, we found consistent
evidence that communities that make an effort to "beautify," either through
landscaping, hardscape, maintenance, and cleanliness, generally result in lower
rates behavior. In an attractive communicates a social
norm, but it also promotes a sense of responsibility and a personal obligation not to
litter. Communities and cities that expect individuals to feel a personal
responsibility to not litter (and to care about the appearance of the local
community) should set the example. Beautification efforts set a standard for the
community, and model the responsible behaviors that community leaders hope to
engender among residents. Indeed, clean-up efforts in the absence of infrastructure
changes are likely to produce effects that are short-lived.
2. Behavioral Affordances. Related to our recommendation to support
beautification efforts (above), we also find consistent evidence for the importance of
opportunity. That is, the context should provide a convenient and accessible means
for proper disposal of trash and litter. While our data show a large increase in the
availability of receptacles in public places over the past 40 years, we also found that
distance to a trash can was a strong predictor of littering behavior. Providing easily-
identifiable and accessible receptacles can go a long way toward reducing littering
rates. This recommendation echoes that made in the 1968 KAB report, which states:
... the obvious fact must be kept in mind that no matter how "sold" a person may
be annat littering, ifhe can find no place to dispose of his litter he will almost
certainly discard it wherever it is convenient and not too conspicuous.
The issue of behavioral affordances is especially important for cigarette
butts. Our observational data suggest that disposal of cigarette butts is more
strongly clustered within locations, and yet less than half (47%) of the locations we
visited provided an ash receptacle. Given the increase in legislation regarding
indoor smoking, an increasing number of smokers are moving outside to smoke.
However, the infrastructure for collecting ashes and lit cigarettes is woefully behind
these policies, and our data suggest that more efforts to afford smokers an
opportunity for proper disposal are needed.
3. Awareness and Motivation Campaigns. In addition to our
recommendations for beautification and infrastructure, we continue to see an
important role for awareness and motivation campaigns. In our observational data,
we find that 85% of the variance in general littering, and 62% of the variance in
cigarette butt littering results from individual differences. These include
demographic (for example, income, age, gender), attitudinal (for example, lack of
concern about litter), and motivational differences, and they speak to the
importance of a consistent and ongoing message about the importance and reasons
for not littering.
However, we want to begin by suggesting what not to do. Too often,
awareness campaigns convey messages about a high littering rate, or depict images
of highly littered environments. While well intentioned, such messages convey a
normative message that other people litter. And consistently across our research
(and in other published studies), normative messages about the high rate of littering
Report to Keep America Beautiful
can increase littering rates. As we observed repeatedly across the countlY: litter
begets littering. Messages that show littering as common (i.e., normative) make it
acceptable, and will generally undermine the ultimate goal of reducing litter. We
strongly advise against such messages. Instead, we advocate for messages that
highlight the dramatic decline in littering rates over the past 40 years, the generally
infrequent overall littering rate, and the widespread belief that littering is wrong.
Across our research, we find the neal' unanimous belief that littering is
wrong. This, coupled with other research on the role of injunctive and personal
norms, suggests a promising avenue for motivational messages. With regard to
personal norms, we find strong evidence in both the behavioral observations and
telephone surveys that individuals who feel a strong personal obligation not to litter
are less likely to do so, even in situations that do not afford opportunities for propel'
disposal. In addition, prior work has shown that an injunctive norm of social
disapproval can provide a strong behavioral motivation. In short, only a few deviant
individuals will continue to litter, and these individuals are disapproved of by the
majority (see Cialdini, 2003; Schultz et aI., 2008).
Finally, we want to reiterate the importance of focusing on the local
community, and local contexts. All of our observations focused on public, outdoor
spaces, and there was a considerable degree of variability across the country. While
our findings and recommendations will be useful to structure a national-level
program and outreach campaign, we want to emphasize that littering is a local issue.
While the national-level agenda can help to guide and structure litter-prevention
efforts, these activities need to be implemented locally. As such, we urge local
organizations to understand the motivational and structural barriers that exist
within their communities, and to devise outreach and intervention strategies that
are tailored to meet their needs. The data in this report can provide a starting point,
and the national-level findings can help to frame and bring focus to the work. But it
is local organizations, communities, and ultimately individuals, that will bring an
end to litter.
Litter Behavior in America
REFERENCES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007). Adults who are current smokers.
Behavioral risk factor surveil/ance system map. Retrieved August 23, 2007
from http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov /gisbrfss/select_question.aspx.
Cialdini, R B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to project the environment.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12,105-109.
Cialdini, R B., Barrett, D. W., Bator, R., Demaine, L., Sagarian, B. J., Rhoads, K., &
Winter, P. L. (2005). Activating and aligning social norms for persuasive
impact. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cialdini, R 8., Kallgren, C. A, & Reno, R R (1991). A focus theory of normative
conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation ofthe role of norms in
human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21,201-234.
Cialdini, R 8., Reno, R R, & Kallgren, C. A (1990). A focus theory of normative
conduct: Recycling in concept of norms to reduce littering in public places.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
Cope, J. G., Huffman, K T., Allred, L. J., & Grossnickle, W. F. (1993). Behavioral
strategies to reduce cigarette litter. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
8,607-619.
Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW). (2004). New South Wales
litter report 2004. Retrieved March 15,2007 from
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/litter/research.htm.
Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Marsden, P. V. GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEYS, 1972-2006
[CUMULATIVE FILE] [Computer file]. ICPSR04697-v2. Chicago, IL: National
Opinion Research Center [producer], 2007. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for
Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-
university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 2007-
09-10.
Durdan, C. A, Reeder, G. D., & Hecht, P. R (1985). Litter in a university cafeteria:
Demographic data and the use of prompts as an intervention strategy.
Environment and Behavior; 16, 387-404
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Finnie, W. C. (1973). Field experiments in litter control. Environment and Behavior,
5(2),123-144.
Geller, E. S. (1973). Prompting anti-litter behaviors. Proceedings of the 8ist Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, 8, 901-902.
Geller, E. S. (1975). Increasing desired waste disposals with instructions. Man-
Environment Systems, 5, 125-128.
Geller, E. S., Brasted, W., & Mann, M. (1980). Waste receptacle designs and
interventions for litter control. journal of Environmental Systems, 9, 145-160.
Geller, E. S., Winett, R A, & Everett, P B. (1982). Preserving the environment: New
strategies for behavior change. Elmsford, NY:Pergamon.
Geller, E. S., Witmer, J. F., & Orebaugh, A. L. (1976). Instructions as a determinant of
paper-disposal behaviors. Environment and BehaviO/; 8(3), 417-493.
Geller, E. S., Witmer, J. F., & Tuso, M. A (1977). Environmental interventions for
litter control. journal of Applied Psychology, 62(3), 344-351.
Grasmick, H., Bursik R, & Kinsey, K. (1991). Shame and embarrassment as
deterrents to noncompliance with the law: The case of an antilittering
campaign. Environment and BehaviO/; 23(2), 233-251.
Herberieiin, T. A (1971). Moral norms, threatened sanctions and littering behavior.
Unpublished doctoral dissertations, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Kallgren, C. A, Reno, R R, & Cialdini, R B. (2000). A focus theory of normative
conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personalit;y and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26,1002-1012.
Keep America Beautiful (2007). KAB's seven primary sources of litter. Retrieved
September 1, 2007 from
http://www.kab.org/site/PageServer?pagename=littecsevensources.
Krauss, R M., Freedman, J. L., & Whitcup, M. (1978). Field and laboratory studies of
littering. journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 109-122.
Meeker, F. L. (1997). A comparison of table-littering behavior in two settings: A case
for a contextual research strategy. journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,
59-68.
Litter Behavior in America
Nolan, j., Schultz, P. W., & Knowles, E. (in press). Using public service
announcements to change behavior: No more money and oil down the drain.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Reiter, S. M., & Samuel, W. (1980). Littering as a function of prior litter and the
presence or absence of prohibitive signs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
10,45-55.
R. W. Beck (2007). Literature Review - Litter: A review of litter studies, attitudes
surveys and other litter related literature. Retrieved September 1, 2007 from
http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/Litter_Literature_Review.pdfldoc1D=4
81.
Sansone, c., & Harackiewicz, j. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search
for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schultz, P. W., Tabanico, j., & Rend6n, T. (2008). Normative beliefs as agents of
influence: Basic processes and real-world applications. In R. Prislin & W.
Crano (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 385-409). New York:
Psychology Press.
Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, j. (2008). Community-based social marketing and
behavior change. In A. Cabaniss (Ed.), Handbook on household hazardous
waste (pp. 133-157). Lanham, MD: Government Institutes Press.
Sibley, C. G., & Liu, j. H. (2003). Differentiating active and passive littering: A two-
stage process model of littering behavior in public. Environment and
Behavior,35,415-433.
Williams, E., Curnow, R. & Streker, P. (1997). Understanding littering behaviour in
Australia. A beverage industlY environment council publication: A
community change consultants report. Victoria.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Litter Behavior in America
APPENDIX A: REFERENCE TABLES
Table 21. Sites by Location and Observation Type
AR
little Rock Urban
City Center General 160
Bar/Restaurant Smoking 7
Recreation General 95
Rest Stop General 155
Gas Station General 165
North little Rock Suburban
City Center General 192
Recreation General 37
Medical/Hospital Smoking 7
Gas Station General 94
Maumelle Rural
Recreation General 68
CA
San Diego Urban
City Center General 150
Fast Food General 78
Recreation General 78
Recreation Smoking 15
Carlsbad Suburban
City Center General 193
Fast Food General 89
Bar/Restaurant Smoking 15
Recreation General 177
Recreation Smoking 19
Rest Stop General 207
Ramona Rural
Fast Food General 130
Rest Stop General 207
Retail Smoking 22
Gas Station General 172
GA
Atlanta Urban
City Center General 140
Fast Food General 138
Rest Stop General 139
Retail Smoking 29
Marietta Suburban
City Center General 224
Bar/Restaurant Smoking 6
Gas Station General 189
Report to Keep America Beautiful
IL
KY
NV
Chicago Urban
Elgin Suburban
Fox River Grove Rural
Louisville Urban
Jeffersontown Suburban
Prospect Rural
Las Vegas Urban
Henderson Suburban
Fast Food
Recreation
Recreation
Gas Station
Fast Food
Medical/Hospital
Retail
Fast Food
Rest Stop
City Center
Fast Food
Bar/Restaurant
Recreation
Recreation
City Center
Rest Stop
Medical/Hospital
Fast Food
Recreation
Retail
Gas Station
Retail
General
General
Smoking
General
General
Smoking
Smoking
General
General
General
General
Smoking
General
Smoking
General
General
Smoking
General
Smoking
Smoking
General
Smoking
City Center General
Fast Food General
Recreation Smoking
__ .:cR:=e"ta::.:iI _____ SmokinL ...
City Center General
Recreation General
~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - -
Boulder City Rural
Litter Behavior in America
Fast Food
Rest Stop
Retail
Gas Station
General
General
Smoking
General
" Numb",!,,,,!
---; db."",allons;
69
147
7
73
187
42
118
110
138
56
269
24
43
9
78
173
58
131
9
28
167
12
235
79
10
52
272
91
159
108
36
196
f
State<'

Olls"litalio,,' NumWEiif
' :"-':;;;':
i
i"
-.----,'
. .
, ....
NM
Albuquerque Urban
City Center General 316
Gas Station General 101
Paradise Hills Suburban
City Center Smoking 30
Medical/Hospital Smoking 31
los Ranchos Rural
Recreation Smoking 4
Rest Stop General 73
NY
Albany Urban
City Center General 96
Recreation General 72
Medical/Hospital Smoking 34
Plattsburgh Suburban
Fast Food General 70
Bar/Restaurant Smoking 35
Retail Smoking 44
lake Placid Rural
Recreation General 85
UT
Salt lake City Urban
Fast Food General 117
Bar/Restaurant Smoking 4
Recreation General 78
Recreation Smoking S
Rest Stop General 93
Medical/Hospital Smoking 32
West Valley Suburban
City Center General 182
Fast Food General 203
Recreation General 74
Bountiful City Rural
City Center General 156
Fast Food General 140
Recreation General 79
Retail Smoking 13
Gas Station General 287
VI
Burlington Urban
City Center General 119
Fast Food General 63
Recreation General 67
Recreation Smoking 4
--------------------------------
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Suburban
Burlington
Fast Food General 108
Bar/Restaurant Smoking 6
Williston Rural
City Center General 79
Fast Food General 154
Recreation General 15
Rest Stop General 105
TOTAL 10 30 100 9,757
Litter Behavior in America
APPENDIX B: BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION
DOCUMENTS
Report to Keep America Beautiful
General Litter Observation Booklet
Litter Behavior in America
General Litter Observations
Book of __
Researcher: Date:
----------------
Location:
----------------------------------
POST OBSERVATION SUMMARY (per booklet)
Total Observed
Total "Left with No Visible Object"
Total "Left Site with Object
Total Disposers
.
.
.
. .
Conunents/Concerns/Problems Encountered
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Object Disposed Disposal Method Litter Strategy
DPockeled
,
to Beverage Bottle: Plastic
DTrashCan
Beverage Bottle: Glass
Recycling Bin: Correct
Beverage Can
Recycling Bin: Incorrect
DNfA
-
D Beverage Cup
DAshtray
D FoodWrapper
DSeparaled
lC=:J Wedge
E:J Food Container
EJ Flick/Fling
rc::::J Food Remnants

,
El Shoot & Miss
ICJ Cigarette Butt (21+ only)

DBuoy
EJ Paper Bushes/Shrubbery
EJ Drop: Intent
NapkinfTissue
fI2.::J On/Around Receptacle
lD Drop: No Inlent
[[] PlasUc Bag
[C]Other:
II=:J Inch Away
I!IJ Combo/Mixed Trash
ICJ Sweep
[[] Other:
E]90%
Other:
Receptacles: At Start Receptacles: At DisDosal
Nearest Trash Can: feet Nearest Trash Can: feet
Nearest Recycling Bin: feet Nearest Recycling Bin: feet
Nearest Ashtray: feet Nearest Ashtray: feet



Describe: Describe:
Group Setting at Disposal
.
Randomization Sheet
D
Alone
D
In Group #
1 2 3 4 5 6
D
Nearby #
Notes Survey Sites Only
Anything unusual? Other Enforcements? Selected for Intercept?
[I] YES [I\NO
Survey Result:
MISSED REFUSED COMPLETED
Litter Behavior in America
Cigarette Butt Litter Observation Booklet
Report to Keep America Beautiful
Cigarette Litter Observations
Book __ of __
Researcher: _____ Date: _______ _
Location: ________________ _
POST OBSERVATION SUMMARY (per booklet)
Total Smokers Observed
Total "Left Site" or "Unknown"
Total Disposers Observed
(Observed-Left Sile/Unknown)
..
Comments/Concerns/Problems Encountered
Litter Behavior in America
Time
__ : __ DAM DPM
Gender
[] Male [] Female [] Unknown
Receptacles: At Start
Nearesl Trash Can: __ feet
Nearest Ashtray: __ feet
Disposal Method
D Left Site with Cigarette
D Unknown/Unseen
D Pocketed
D Trash Can
D Ashtray
EJ Recycling Bin
D Field Strip
D Ground
D Planter
D Bushes/Shrubbery
~ On/Around Receptacle
IlI:J Other: _____ _
Activity Before Disposal
Describe:
Group Setting at Disposal
D Alone
D In Group # = __ _
D Nearby # = __ _
Notes
Anything unusual? Other Enforcements?
Sunset
D Before Sunset D After SUnset
Age (21+)
#=
Receptacles: At Disposal
Nearest Trash Can: __ feet
Nearest Ashtray: __ feet
Litter Strategy
DN/A
D Wedge
D Flick/Fling
D Shoot & Miss
D Bury
EJ Drop
D Stomp
D Other: _____ _
Activity Afler Disposal
Describe:
Randomization Sheet
2 3 4 5
Survey Sites Only
Selected for Intercept?
II:::J YES lI:JNO
Survey Result:
6
MISSED REFUSED COMPLETED
Report to Keep America Beautiful
APPENDIX C: INTERCEPT SURVEY
INSTRUMENT
Litter Behavior in America
TO BE COMPLETED BY INTERVIEWER:
Observation' IDfI __ Location: IDII:
Sfart Time _:_: __ ~ m / p m
Iutervie,"'cr mil:
t. What brings you here today? _________________ _
2. In a typical month, how often do you come here? ___ _
3. Using this scale from 0 to 10, where 0 equals "not at all important" and 10 equals "vcry
important," in this location how important is the issue of litter to you? __
4. Of the people who pass through this location, what percentage of the people do you think litter?
----_%
5. Have you seen or heard a specific message about litter prevention in the past year? 0 Yes D
No
6. Havc you seen or heard a specific message about a scheduled community clean up in the past year?
DYes DNo
7. Have you seen or heard any messages discouraging cigarette butt litter in the past year? DYes
ONo
8. Havc you seen or heard any messages simply telling people 'do not litter' in the past year? DYes
GNo
9. [IF 5-8 ~ NO, SKIP TO QIO] Think of the most recent litter prevention message you've seen or
heard in the past year. "'here did you see it or hear it? (check one)
o I. PSA on the radio
o 2. PSAlCommerciallNews Report on Television
o 3. Billboard
o 4. Newspaper
o 5. Community Flyer/Bulletin
o 6. From a FriendlFamily Member
07. Other
Nexllam goinglo ask YOll a sel of situalional (Juesliol1s. Ther(! are 110 right or wrong answers, Please
ans}ver using lhis scale/rom 01010 where 0 equals "110 personal obligaiion" and 10 equals' ''liel)' sh'ong
obl{gation. ," Do you/eel a personal obligation ...
__ lOa. to not litter when you are holding an empty soft drink can and there are no trash cans
available?
__ lOb. to not litter when you are holding a gum wrapper and there are no trash cans available?
__ 10c. to stop and pick-up a piece of scrap paper that blows off a big stack of papers that you are
carrying in both arms?
__ lOd. to not litter n'hen you are ill (feYer, headache, muscle ache) and you would haye to walk
out of your way to reach a trash receptacle?
__ IOe. to pick-up a piece of paper you dropped when it is raining and you are getting soaked?
11. In the past month, have YOlllittered? 0 Yes 0 No [SKIP TO QI2]
Report to Keep America Beautiful
11a. Where did you litter?
lib. What did you lilter? (Probe for Specific Litter Type)
11c. 'Vhat would you say is the reason that you littered?
Now I would like 10 askyoll afew queslious aboullobacco IIse ... [x-QUT IF < 21 YRS)
..
.
12. Do you smoke cigarettes? DYes D No [SKIP TO Q 12l
12a.\Vhen you smoke outside, how do you usually dispose of the cigarette butt?
13. Do you consider cigarette butts to be litter? DYes DNo
For classification plIIposes, I'd like toaskyoll afew questions about YOllrse/[. ..
... ..
14. In what year were you born? (2lyears old ifbom on or before 1987)
15. 'Vhat is the highest grade of school you have completed?
ThaI's aI/the questions 1 havefor yorltoday. Thank youfor'sharingyour thoughts.
. .
Do you have any questions?
TO BE COMPLETED BY INTERVIEWER:
Interview End Time __ : __ um/pm
Gender: D l.Male o 2.Fcmalc 03. Unknown
How well did the respondent understand the questions?
D l.Vcry Well o 2.Solllcwhat Well D 3.No! Well
How attentive was the respondent?
o I.Very Attentive o 2.Somewhat Attentive D 3.Not at all Attentive
Notes:
Litter Behavior in America
APPENDIX D: TELEPHONE SURVEY
INSTRUMENT
Report to Keep America Beautiful
INTRO I. Hello, my name is and I'm calling from Action Research, Inc., a public
opinion research company. We are not selling anything. Your number was chosen randomly and
I would like to ask you some questions about the health and well-being of your community. This
survey will take less than 10 minutes to complete. You are one of 1,200 people across the nation
who will be taking part in this important research project.
INTR02. Are you at least 18 years of age?
I. YES
2. NO [ ~ A S K FOR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE]
INTR03. We will not ask for your name or any other personal information that can identify you.
The answers you give will be kept strictly confidential. You do not have to answer any questions
you do not want to and you may stop the interview at any time.
LIVABILITY QUOTIENT
TBI. Okay, let's begin. For each of the following questions please choose the answer
that best describes the physical environment in your community.
[RANDOMIZE ORDER OF QUESTIONS IN THIS SECTION]
QBI1. How much litter is visihle in your community?
I. Virtually no visible litter
2. Upon careful inspection a small amount of litter is obvious
3. Visible litter can be seen throughout the area, likely requiring in an organized clean-up
4. Major illegal dumpsites are present, likely requiring equipment or extra manpower for
removal
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QBI2. How clean is your community?
I. V Cly clean
2. Somewhat clean
3. Not velY clean
4. Not at all clean
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
Litter Behavior in America
QBI3. Are the streets and sidewalks in yOUI' community well-maintained for people who are
walking? [CLARIFY, IF NECESSARY: "I am asking about your community, not
necessarily your specific neighborhood 01' area in front of your home." IF
RESPONDENT CONTINUES TO STATE HE/SHE DOESN'T HAVE SIDEWALKS, CODE
AS "NA."]
1. Very well maintained
2. Somewhat maintained
3. Not very well maintained
4. Not at all maintained
7. NA - NO SIDEWALKS
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QBI4. Are the streets and sidewalks in your community safe for people to walk during the
daylight hoUl's? [CLARIFY, IF NECESSARY: "I am asking about your community, not
necessarily your specific neighborhood 01' area in front of your home." IF RESPONDENT
CONTINUES TO STATE HE/SHE DOESN'T HAVE SIDEWALKS, CODE AS "NA."]
1. Very safe
2. Somewhat safe
3. Somewhat unsafe
4. Very unsafe
7. NA - NO SIDEWALKS
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QBIS. Are the streets and sidewalks in your community an inviting place for people to
walk? [CLARIFY, IF NECESSARY: "I am asking about your community, not
necessarily your specific neighborhood 01' area in front of your home." IF
RESPONDENT CONTINUES TO STATE HE/SHE DOESN'T HAVE SIDEWALKS, CODE
AS "NA."]
1. VelY inviting
2. Somewhat inviting
3. Somewhat uninviting
4. VClY uninviting
7. NA - NO SIDEWALKS
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
Report to Keep America Beautiful
QBI6. How would you describe the landscaping in your community, for instance, the
number of flowers, plants, and trees?
I. There are a lot of flowers, plants, and trees
2. There are some flowers, plants, and trees
3. There aren't many flowers, plants, and trees
4. There are no flowers, plants, and trees
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QBI7. How would you describe the attractiveness of the flowers, plants, and trees in your
community?
I. They are velY attractive
2. They are somewhat attractive
3. They are somewhat unattractive
4. They are velY unattractive
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QBI8. How would you describe the attractiveness of things like, benches, planters, street
signs, and street lights in your community?
1. They arc very attractive
2. They are somewhat attractive
3. They are somewhat unattractive
4. They are VCIY unattractive
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
WORK ENVIRONMENT
TWE. Okay, I'd like to switch subjects for just a moment.
QWEI. Do you currently work for pay?
1. YES
2. NO [ ~ S K I P TO TTUj
8. DON'T KNOW [ ~ S K I P TO TTUj
9. REFUSED [ ~ S K I P TO TTUj
QWE2. Do you currently work primarily in an indoor or an outdoor envil'Omnent?
1. INDOOR
2. OUTDOOR
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
Litter Behavior in America
QWE3. Is that location designated as a smoke-fl'ee environment?
I. YES
2. NO
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
CURRENT TOBACCO USE
TTU. Now I would like to ask you a few questions about tobacco use.
QTU I. Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?
I. YES
2. NO TO TKAB]
8. DON'T KNOW TO TKAB]
9. REFUSED TO TKAB]
QTU2. Do you smoke cigarettes every day, some days, or not at all?
I. EVERY DAY SMOKER QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT SURVEY]
2. SOME DA YS SMOKER QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT SURVEY]
3. NOT AT ALL TO TKAB]
8. DON'T KNOW TO TKAB]
9. REFUSED TO TKAB]
CIGARETTE DISPOSAL
QCD I. Does the location where you currently work have receptacles for cigarette butts?
I. YES
2. NO
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QCD2. Does the vehicle you ride in most often have a receptacle for cigarette butts?
I. YES
2. NO
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QCD3. Do you olVn a pocket ashtray?
I. YES
2. NO
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
Report to Keep America Beautiful
LITTERING BEHAVIOR - TYPE - KAB 1968
TKAB. For the next set of eight questions please think about your daily activities at home, at
work, while shopping, and while socializing with friends and family.
In the past month have you ...
[RANDOMIZE QUESTIONS]
QKABl. dropped gum or candy wrappers on the ground, sidewalk, or street?
QKAB2. dropped facial tissue on the ground, sidewalk, or street?
QKAB3. dropped food or food wrappers on the street or highway?
QKAB4. dropped heel' or soda cans, or bottles on beaches or other outdoor areas?
QKABS. dropped paper containers of any kind on the ground, sidewalk, or street?
QKAB6. left a newspaper behind for someone else to pick up?
QKAB7. left paper, food remnants, or other discards at a picnic area?
QKAB8. thrown things out of a cal' or boat on the highways or waterways?
1. YES - - - 2. NO - - - 8. DON'T KNOW - - - 9. REFUSED
LITTERING BEHAVIOR - TYPE/LOCATION COMPARISONS
TCOMP. The next set of questions is about the types of items commonly seen on our
sidewalks, streets, in OU!' parks, and on our highways.
Using a scale from zero to ten, where zero equals not at all likely and ten equals very likely
how likely are you to drop ...
[RANDOMIZE BLOCKS OF QUESTIONS - BLOCK1, BLOCK2, BLOCK 3, BLOCK 4]
QCOMP1a. an apple core, or a banana peel out of a vehicle window?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
Litter Behavior in America
QCOMPlb.
QCOMPlc.
QCOMP2a.
QCOMP2b.
QCOMP2c.
QCOMP3a.
QCOMP3b.
QCOMP3c.
QCOMP4a.
QCOMP4b.
QCOMP4c.
an apple core, 01' a banana peel on the ground when you are walking to 01'
from your vehicle 01' transit area?
0-- - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
an apple core, 01' a banana peel on the ground when you are at a park 01'
other outdoor area?
0-- - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
wrappers from gum, snack food, or candy out of a vehicle window?
0-- - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
wrappers from gum, snack food, 01' candy on the ground when you are
walking to 01' from your vehicle 01' transit area?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
wrappers from gum, snack food, 01' candy on the ground when you are at a
park 01' other outdoor area?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
paper 01' plastic fast food containers out of a vehicle window?
0- - - 1- - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
paper 01' plastic fast food containers on the ground when you are walking
to 01' from your vehicle 01' transit area?
0-- - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
paper 01' plastic fast food containers on the ground when you are at a park
01' other outdoor area?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
gum out of a vehicle window?
0-- - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
gum on the ground when you are walking to 01' from your vehicle 01' transit
area?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
gum on the ground when you are at a park 01' other outdoor area?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
Report to Keep America Beautiful
FOR SMOKERS ONLY [ASK IF QTU3 ~ I OR 2, ELSE SKIP TO TPN]:
QCOMPSa.
QCOMPSb.
QCOMPSc.
cigarette butts out of a vehicle window?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 OK - - 99 REF
cigarette butts on the ground when you are walking to or from your vehicle
or transit area?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 OK - - 99 REF
cigarette butts on the ground when you are at a park or other outdoor
area?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 OK - - 99 REF
PERSONAL NORMS SCALE
TPN. Thank you for your patience, we are more than half-way done. Next I am going to ask
you a set of five situational questions. There are no right or wrong answers. Please answer
using a scale from zero to ten where zero equals no persona/ obligation and ten equals a velY
strong persona/obligation.
Do you feel a personal obligation to ...
[RANDOMIZE QUESTIONS]
QPN1.
QPN2.
not litter when you are holding an empty soft drink can and there are no trash
cans available?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 OK - - 99 REF
not litter when you are holding a gum wrapper and there are no trash cans
available?
0- - - 1- - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 OK - - 99 REF
Litter Behavior in America
QPN3.
QPN4.
QPN5.
stop and pick-up a piece of scrap paper that hlows off a big stack of papers that
you are canying in both arms?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
not litter when you are ill (fever, headache, muscle ache) and you would have
to walk out of your way to reach a trash receptacle?
0- - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
pick-up a piece of paper you dropped when it is raining and you are getting
soaked?
0- - - 1- - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 4 - - - 5 - - - 6 - - - 7 - - - 8 - - - 9 - - - 10 - - - 98 DK - - 99 REF
LITTER BELIEFS AND ACTIONS
TLB. Acknowledging that we all have the potential to litter, I'm going to read you six
statements that describe reasons why and situations where you might litter. Please tell me
if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements:
I am more likely to litter ...
[RANDOMIZE QUESTIONS]
QLB1. when the item I'm holding isn't recyclable.
QLB2. when I am in a bad mood.
QLB3. when I know someone else will be around to pick it up.
QLB4. when I don't have time to take care of it any other way.
QLB5. when there isn't a trash can or bag nearby.
QLB6. when the item is biodegradable.
1 Strongly Agree - - 2 Agree - - 3 Disagree - - 4 Strongly Disagree - - - - - - - 8 DK - - 9 REF
Report to Keep America Beautiful
MESSAGES
TM. Now, I have a few questions about litter and litter prevention.
QMI. Using a scale from zero to ten where zero equals not at all important and ten equals very
important, in your town or city, how important is the issue of litter?
98. DON'T KNOW
99. REFUSED
QM2. In the past year, have you seen 01' heard any messages about litter prevention?
I. YES
2.
8. DON'T KNOW TO TD]
9. REFUSED TO TD]
QM3. What was the subject of the information you saw 01' heard?
[CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
I. INFORMATION ABOUT GENERAL LITTER
2. INFORMATION ABOUT CIGARETTE BUTT LITTER
3. INFORMATION ABOUT A COMMUNITY/BEACH CLEAN-UP (EVENT)
4. OTHER ___ _
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QM4. Where did you see 01' heal' it?
[CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
I. PSA ON THE RADIO
2. PSAICOMMERCIALINEWS REPORT ON TELEVISION
3. BILLBOARD
4. NEWSPAPER
5. COMMUNITY FL YERIBULLETIN
6. FROM A FRIENDIF AMIL Y MEMBER
7. OTHER
8. DON'T K'-::N:-:-::COC:
W
-=--
9. REFUSED
Litter Behavior in America
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
TD. We are almost done. This last set of questions is for classification purposes only.
QD1. In what year were you born?
98. DON'T KNOW
99. REFUSED
QD2. Are you of Hispanic 01' Latino origin?
1. YES
2. NO
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QD3. What is your race?
[IF RESPONDENT SAYS ANTHING OTHER THAN RESPONSES LISTED, PUT IN
OTHER] [FOR EXAMPLE, "ITALIAN" OR "BLACK AND JAPANESE"]
1. AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE
2. ASIAN
3. BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN
4. HISPANIC OR LATINO
5. NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER
6. WHITE
7. OTHER ___ _
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
Report to Keep America Beautiful
QD4. What is the highest grade or year of school you have completed?
[CLARIFY, IF NECESSARY]
1. NEVER ATTENDED SCHOOL OR ONLY ATTENDED KINDERGARTEN
2. GRADES 1 THROUGH 8 (ELEMENTARY ONLY)
3. GRADES 9 THROUGH 11 (SOME HIGH SCHOOL)
4. GRADE 12 OR GED (HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE)
S. SOME COLLEGE OR TECHNICAL SCHOOL
6. COLLEGE GRADUATE (4-YEAR DEGREE)
7. GRADUATE COLLEGE DEGREE
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QDS. Including yourself, how many people live in your household?
98. DON'T KNOW
99. REFUSED
QD6. In what type of residence do you live?
I. House, single detached
2. Apartmentffownhollse/Condominium
3. Mobile Home
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QD7. What type of vehicle do you drive most often?
1. Car
2. Pick-up tl1lck
3. Van/mini-van
4. Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV)
5. I DON'T DRIVE
6. OTHER
8. DON'T K-N-O-W----
9. REFUSED
QD8. What is your postal zip code?
88888. DON'T KNOW
99999. REFUSED
Litter Behavior in America
QD9. Please stop me when I get to the category that best describes your annual household
income.
1. below $40,000, or [fliSKIP TO QD9A]
2. $40,000 or above [fliSKIP TO QD9B]
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QD9A.
1. $30,000 to under $40,000
2. $20,000 to under $30,000
3. $10,000 to under $20,000
4. under $10,000
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QD9B.
1. $40,000 to under $50,000
2. $50,000 to under $60,000
3. $60,000 to under $70,000
4. $70,000 to under $80,000
5. $80,000 to under $90,000
6. $90,000 to under $100,000
7. $100,000 to under $150,000
8. $150,000 or more
98. DON'T KNOW
99. REFUSED
CLOSE. Thank you very much for your time and participation.
Report to Keep America Beautiful
INTERVIEWER ONLY
lCl. INTERVIEWER: RECORD GENDER
1. MALE
2. FEMALE
8. DON'T KNOW
IC2. HOW WELL OlD THE RESPONDENT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTIONS?
1. VERY WELL
2. SOMEWHAT WELL
3. NOT WELL
IC3. HOW ATTENTIVE WAS THE RESPONDENT?
1. VERY ATTENTIVE
2. SOMEWHAT ATTENTIVE
3. NOT AT ALL ATTENTIVE
IC4. HOW COOPERATIVE WAS THE RESPONDENT?
1. VERY COOPERATIVE
2. SOMEWHAT COOPERATIVE
3. NOT AT ALL COOPERATIVE
Litter Behavior in America