THE [SeCOPA] SOUTHERN STATE LITTER SCORECARD: Assessing Statewide Environmental Quality Through Public Property Litter Removal Performance

Steve Spacek, M.P.A. The 2008 Southeastern Public Administration Conference

Orlando, Florida September 27, 2008

Welcome to Florida! Nationally Ranks “Below Average” inStatewide Public Property Litter Eradication

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

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

Environmental Injustice: Litter/Source Reduction Activities Amongst the SeCOPA States are UNEQUAL, UNJUST!!

Poor Litter Eradication has led to damaged scenic environments, breeding grounds for diseases, insects and rodents, and wildlife devastation. In 2005, at least 265 residents of the SECOPA states died as result of traffic accidents caused by littering/movable debris along roadways.*

States Are Lacking in efforts to collect uniform litter abatement data for research comparisons (i.e. volumes of waste collected by mileage/location, budget funding sources/expenditures; number of required annual/seasonal cleanups;

performance standard surveys; persons cited/prosecuted for infractions).

Most SeCOPA States are “increasingly plagued with [appalling health] symptoms produced by [tolerated] cultural and political maladies, leaving their air, water and land conditions ‘seriously contaminated’”**

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

HUMANS Cause Littering: Factors Crafting An Unique Environmental Injustice

on The South Reasons to Litter: Litter Begets Litter; Apathy; Inconvenience; Community Attitudes; Entitlement; Class Alienation, Greed/Ignorance*

Governmental Neglect: Millions spent to combat litter, but humans disrespect money and efforts spent.Also, indifference and negligence by some officials makes for persistent litter problems*

State/Regional Environmental Values: Early settlers (especially Scotch- Irish) perpetuate Judeo-Christian beliefs: Bend nature to meet man’s needs. Deep South, western Gulf Coast: Weakest Environmental Values. **

State/Regional Political Culture: Traditionalism (The South): little or no government intrusion--“Non-reception in fostering ecological improvements.”***

Corporatist-influenced Government: Government Decision-Making “mirrors whims of business.” Companies, “outsiders” buy natural resources at bargain prices. Environmental risks were unknown, disregarded--traded for broadened tax base.****

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

Persons of Low-Income, Color (Blacks, Hispanics):: Environmentalism NOT a Priority. Slow to challenge violators. “Mistrust [of government and corporations]…engendered amongst these groups.” “Resented” environmental reforms as misdirecting tax dollars to improve social, economic plights. Movement: “Too white,” “mainstream.”*******Bisbort; City Image,; Henning; McAndrews; Ockels; U.S. Justice-National Law. **Hays; White in McAndrew. ***Elazar; Neal; Vig and Kraft. ****Bullard; Camacho; Clarke and Cortner; Feagin and Feagin in Bullard; Miller J.; Miller V.;Sussman, Daynes and West; *****Bisbort; National Center, “Review Laws;” US. Justice-Environmental; U.S. Justice-National Laws.******Bullard; Camacho; Vig and Kraft; Will in Bullard.

Southern Litter Source Reduction Activities

• Physical-Actual Litter/debris Removals by Hired Crews, Inmates, Volunteers-Adopt-a-Highway/Road/Street/Interchange Programs-Statewide Recognized Anti-litter Slogans (except Kentucky)-Environmental Organizations-Some Comprehensive Municipal Curbside Recycling (poor rates)-Litter Source Taxation (Virginia only)• Legal-Litter Laws/Statutes -Citation Writing--History of Inopportune, Weak/No Enforcement-Court Prosecutions—Largest Violators Taken Down!-Punishment: Out of Court; Jail Time?

The [SECOPA] Southern State Litter Scorecard

The attempt to rank ten SeCOPA southern states, using results from The American State Litter Scorecard, for public property environmental outcomes through overall litter removal efforts.

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

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

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

Subjective

◊ State Political Culture Scale Score

◊ State Public Corruption Conviction Rate

◊ State Government Performance Grade

◊ State Highway Performance Score

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

MethodologyUnit of Analysis:Ten American Southeastern-most [SeCOPA] states:Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee.

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

Scoring Rubric:Created for each objective, subjective factor. Calculated, aggregated by state. Hierarchal rankings, national designations derived from computations.

SCORECARD SUMMARY: SeCOPA, Nearby Southern and Selected States

Objective Subjective Designation Remarks Mississippi 50 50 WORST 1,2,3,5,6Louisiana          45         49              WORST          1,,3,5,6       Alabama                43                       48              WORST                    1,2,3,5,7,8 Arkansas               47                        47             WORST                   1,2,3,5,6 South Carolina         44                    46             WORST                  3,4,5Tennessee              41                      43              WORST                 3,5 Kentucky                42                      42            WORST                    2,3,4,6,9 North Carolina      40                    41              WORST                  3,5 Georgia             34                       37    BELOW AVERAGE    5 Florida                33                        35       BELOW AVERAGE      6,8

VA 10 10 BESTTX 38 38 BELOW AVERAGE

NY 19 24 ABOVE AVERAGEIL 29 32 BELOW AVERAGEOH 25 27 AVERAGEMO 27 25 AVERAGEMI 35 28 BELOW AVERAGECA 31 36 BELOW AVERAGEWY 5 12 BESTNV 49 44 WORSTVT 1 4 BESTMN 4 1 BEST

REMARKS: 1=High Litter Fatal Crash Deaths 2=Low Per Person Environ. Spending 3=Poor Statewide Livability 4=High Per Person Waste Disposal Uncitizen -friendly Political Administrative Culture 6=Very High Public Servant Corruption 7=Poor State Gov’t Performance 8=Poor Hwy. Admin. Performance 9=No Anti-Litter Slogan

Case Study:Virginia Vs. Mississippi/Louisiana

VA MS LA

POPULATION (2005) 7,567,465 2,921,088 4,523,628

ANTI-LITTER AGENCIES VDOT, VDEQ MDDOT,KMB LADOTD,LADEQ

LITTER REMOVAL $$ (2006) $7Miliion $3.2 Million n/a Locality Grants $1.9 Million

VOLUMES COLLECTED(2006) over 11,000 tons over 7,987 bags over 200,000 cubic yards

PROGRAMS Adopt-A-Highway Adopt- A- Highway Adopt-A-Highway Assign-A-Highway(Inmates) Adopt-An-Interchange Litter Reduction and Public Action Adopt –A—Stream Inmate Litter Removal Clean Virginia Waterways Cigarette Litter Prevention

TIMES PROPERTY CLEANED Assign-a-Highway: 26 per year n/a Adopt -A-Highway; 4 times per year

NUMBER ANTI-LIITER LAWS 26 17 40+ ($2500 max fine) ($1000 max fine) ($1000 max fine)

LITTER/DEBRIS VEHICLEDEATHS (2005) 11 34 38

NATIONAL REMOVAL STATUS Best Worst Worst

Sources: State Agencies and their websites; confidential officials communications; Wikipedia.

Conclusion/Recommendations

Littering: Remains an harmful Injustice across The South!

Numerous States: “In the rear” or secretive/non-compliant,in providing uniform, categorical litter abatement data for scientific analysis; many are not performing mandated duties paid for or expected with the PEOPLE’ S money. Citizens ARE still losing lives.Laws are not enforced; convictions/fines not tough enough.

Polls: Many believe public sector “Not working enough to protect the environment.”

The Scorecard: A “call” to REAL action, to eliminate inattentiveness into a poorly probed yet DEADLY matter.