Original Masters ARP (Thesis) project on History, Causes of Littering and Environmental Degradation in The South and Nearby States, with Proposed Solutions and Recommendations.

1. DO MESS WITH IT!
A Sociopolitical Study of Littering and the Role of Southern and Nearby States
Master in Public Administration ARP Project (Thesis)
by
Stephen “Steve” L. Spacek
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY: The William P. Hobby Center For Public Service
Fall 2004
(Remastered for Slideshare.net Powerpoint, July 2012)
Copyright 2012, Steve Spacek Public Service Consulting.
NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE

2. ABSTRACT
Littering--an environmental crime throughout the United States--creates a danger to public health and safety.
Although environmental quality studies single out America’s Southern States as “ having the most befouled”
ecological conditions in the nation, experts (through 2004) have done little research on littering’s impingement
upon jurisdictional environmental degradation through the use of multivariate statistical analysis. This research is
twofold: First is found an examination of social and political mores in regard to state ecological surface degradation,
with an emphasis on twelve conventional southern and three nearby “fringe” states exhibiting “southern” cultural
characteristics. Second, the research examines the impact of salient sociopolitical factors that may influence
littering, through the consequential effects of environmental quality indicators, for the fifty United States.
A review of relevant literature, on the American sociopolitical, legal, commercial and governmental activities
that both create and curtail litter, focusing on The South and nearby states, is discussed. The review arrives at a
conceptual, “real world” framework, identifying noteworthy factors that may lead to statewide environmental
degradation: geographic location, demographic dynamics, environmental budgetary spending, political culture
and availability of existing litter reducing legislation. These aspects become independent variables,
operationalized into testable hypotheses through a multivariate model of regression analysis, with dependent
variables of livability (quality of life) scores, waste disposal tonnage prices, and daily per person waste disposal
for each state.
Findings indicate the created regression models were insufficient to support an idea that scores, pricings and
disposal amounts make adequate state-oriented ecological degradation determinants caused by littering.
However, findings illustrate a state possessing Southern-style Traditionalistic political culture and/or substantial
concentrations of impoverished residents negatively affect its livability score. The concentration of impoverished
individuals inside a government influence a chance to have waste disposal prices below national market average,
yet, a state that enacts beverage container deposits legislation influence a heightened waste disposal price for that
jurisdiction.

3. Preface
(modified)
I was born and raised in and around Houston—The South’s largest and America’s fourth largest populated city, known widely
for a lack of comprehensive land use planning (no zoning); dependence on both automobiles and poor public transportation; a recent
title of “Worst Urban Air Pollution in America.” Houston’s located in Texas, known for sharp economic ups and downs, old-fashioned,
one-party, conservative political domination (from solid conservative Democrat to solid conservative Republican), and a fierce
willingness by citizens—and historically supported by public officials--to prevent ANY individual and corporate income tax collections.
Growing up, I noticed dumped litter all over local roads, parking lots, even public parks and grasslands--seemingly everywhere I
walked and looked. From traveling to other locales nationwide, I noticed a lack of litter in places outside the South. In time, I took
university courses on campuses in Texas, Wisconsin and North Carolina on the urban environment, Southern history, public
administration and urban planning. I began to wonder why southerners and Texans took pride to live in litter and filth-inundated
environments. I asked myself, “What were the cultural attributes of ‘mother’s’ Scotch-Irish settlers…from the Carolinas to Tennessee
to Texas…and why did they… seem to repress embracement of educational and environmental advancements and a sense for a public
good, and instead , gave an stereotypical impression of appreciating violence, racial intolerance, sharp “rich-poor” class hierarchies
and stiflingly obedient , “boss-slave” political and economic customs? “Father’s” ethnic group—refugee Czechoslovaks from the
Austrian-Hungarian Empire--appeared to have polar opposite cultural traits for a typical, Southern “white” settlers group. They were
orderly; industrious; clean-living; politically progressive; worked for “common public goals.” Early Czech and German immigrants to
The South…most importantly… had a “strong bond” and respect for, the preservation of land. Unlike early Scotch-Irish and most other
“whites” who might ruin good land and then migrate onward to other property, Czechs and Germans settling the South and Texas
believed land was to be recycled and cared for (Gallup-Journey’s, 1998, pp. 6, 8). Their modern-day settlements had little –to-no litter
on their public and private spaces, unlike hundreds of other communities across the South and Texas--settled by “other” whites and
non-whites--who seemed, day after day, year after year, to not mind ugly, disease-laden piles of cups, bottles, paper and cardboard
blowing along and into streets, sidewalks, yards.
In finishing a Masters Degree in Public Administration, I felt I had “a calling” --a mission and ethical duty--to cover the little-
discussed topic of littering and dumping, so to benefit a public good, which seemingly both public officials and the public itself
constantly ignored. I wanted to achieve groundbreaking research and solutions to the region’s littering problem. *The selected title is
a takeoff on the “Don’t Mess with Texas” litter prevention slogan]. A hope is that this effort will not just benefit those living in the
South and in Texas, but the American nation as a whole.

4. (Introduction)
LITTERING:*
An American AND Southern Environmental CRIME!
* Ugliness Damages Landscapes
* Breeds Disease -Causing Rodents and Insects
* INJURES and KILLS Wildlife
* INJURES and KILLS Humans
*LITTERING:
Trash/Garbage-Throwing by a Human, in Small or Moderate Portions, Onto Surfaces
of Public or Private Property. Littering is ILLEGAL in ALL 50 states.
Sources: AAA, Bisbort; “City Image;” Dodge; Geller, Witmer and Tuso in McAndrew; Kentucky; National Institute;
U.S. Federal Highway Administration; Williams in Kentucky.

5. Purpose of Research:
* Examine Social and Political Mores Behind
State Environmental Degradation,
Emphasizing Southern and Nearby States
* Examine Salient Sociopolitical Factors
Influencing Littering Through Environmental
Quality Indicators For Fifty U. S. States

6. Identifying the South and Southerners:
Regional Highlights
• Focus on 12 Conventional Southern States and Three Nearby States
• Negatively-Viewed by Scholars for Long-Term Social, Political and
Environmental Processes
• Singled-Out by Researchers for Nation’s Worst Quality-of-Life and Public
Health Indicators
• Despite Racial Diversity, Still Experiences Less Schooling, Income, Voting
Turnouts and Life Expectancies Than Other Diverse Regions
• “Cultural and Political Maladies” Leave Its Air, Water, Land “Most
Befouled in the U.S.”
Sources: Boyce; Bullard; Cochran A.; Key in Cochran A.; U.S. Department of Justice-Law.

7. Humans and Litter
Litter IS:
* A Form of Solid Waste
* Most Common Littered Items in The South: Beverage Containers, Cigarette Butts,
Fast Food Wrappers
* Profiled Litterers: Youths, Males, Smokers, Partiers, Fast-Food Consumers,
Recreationists, Motorists, Construction Workers, Sports Enthusiasts
Why People Litter?
1) Litter “Begets” Litter
2) Personal Apathy
3) Inconvenience
4) Entitlement
5) Class Alienation/Non-Education/Generational
6) Government-allowed Neglect: For the first time, scholarly-questioned and proved
with evidence!
Sources: Bisbort; “City Image,” Environmedia Litter; Kentucky; McAndrew; Murphy; National Institute; Ockels;
Shireman, McFadden, Newdorf and Noga; U.S. Department of Justice-Law.

8. Literature Review Highlights:
Anti-Environmental Sentiment and the Sociopolitical South
* “God’s Will” Belief To “…Bend Nature to (meet) Human Will…”
* Tolerance For “Culture of Honor” Violence--Might Makes Right
* Commitment to Rash Agriculture Compliant with Hot, Sunny Climatic Conditions
* Local And State Governmental Support of Unregulated Land Affairs
* Corporations “Buyout” Communities, Destroying Local, Pristine Natural Resources
* Ecologically-Damaging Jobs A Tradeoff For Local, State Economic Development
* “Colonialism” Creates Class Mistrust Preventing Uplifting Quality-of-Life for All
* “Elitist” Traditionalistic Political Culture Creates Selfish, Corrupt Government “Antics”
* Anti-“Public Good” Sector: “Antics” Result of Business-Owned Public Officials, Citizen Exclusion
Sources: Bullard; Cochran, A.; Cochran N. and Chadwick in Nisbett and Cohen; Elazar; Feagin and Feagin in Bullard; Fritsch; Hightower;
Jarboe-Russell; Melosi in Wilson C. and Ferris; Neal; Nisbett and Cohen; Pillsbury in Wilson C. and Ferris;
Sussman, Daynes and West; White in McAndrew; Wilson C. and Ferris.

9. Litter Source Reduction Efforts
Essential and Mandated
* Laws, Ordinances, Slogans
* Law Enforcement/Prosecutions/Penalties/Incarcerations
* Physical Removals/Cleanups
* Recycling
* Taxation
* Container Deposits
Voluntary and Endorsed
* Slogans
* Physical Removals/Cleanups
* Organizations
* Recycling
* Container Deposits
Sources: Bisbort; Environmedia Litter; Garbage; Geller in McAndrew; Grasmick, Bursik and Kensey in McAndrew; Grassy in Garbage;
Kentucky; McAndrew; Melosi; Miller G. in McAndrew; Murphy; National Center-”Examine”-Consider Control;
National Center, “Review Laws”-Description; Ockels; Poore in Garbage; Reich and Robinson in McAndrew;
Schlossberg; Shireman, McFadden, Newdorf and Noga; U. S. Department of Justice, National-Environmental, Laws.

10. Methodology
To Explain An Outcome of
Statewide Environmental Degradation Through Littering,
An Association Between
Exclusive, Noteworthy Sociopolitical Factors [INDEPENDENT VARIABLES]
and Environmental Quality Indicators [DEPENDENT VARIABLES]
Is Studied Using Accessible Aggregated Data,
Processed Through A Highly Reliable, Easily Replicable,
Mathematical Formula of
Multiple Regression.
Sources: Babbie; Bingham and Felbinger.

11. Unit of Analysis:
The Fifty American States
* Each State: Regarded As A Separate “Political-Geographic Unit”
* Sampling Frame and Population Excludes District of Columbia, U.S. Territories
Particular Focus On:
* Twelve Standard Southern States: VA, TX, FL, NC, LA, SC, MS, KY, AL, TN, AR, GA
* Three Nearby “Fringe” States: WV, OK, NM
Sources: Babbie; Council of State Governments; U. S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Census-”Annual.

12. Because States Lack Uniform Litter Abatement Data,
Three Dependent Variables Were Created to Approximate A Litter Measure
Three Dependent Variables:
* State Livability Scores
* Waste Disposal Pricings By State
* Per Capita Waste Disposal Poundages By State
Sources: Morgan and Morgan; U. S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census-”Annual;” Waste News.

13. Representing Special Sociopolitical Measurements, Nine Independent Variables
Created to Explain Each of the Three Dependent Variables
Nine Independent Variables
* State Type (“Southern/Nearby” and “Not Southern/Not Nearby”)
* Percent Non-White Population By State
* Percent of State Population Living Below Poverty Line
* Percent of State Registered Voters Actually Voting
* Percent of State Budget Spending On Environmental Concerns
* Sharkansky’s Political Culture Score Scale
* States With/Without Comprehensive Recycling Laws
* States With/Without Beverage Container Laws
* States With/Without Litter Taxation
Sources: Council of State Governments; Grassy in Garbage; Koven and Mausloff; National Center; National Solid in Strong; Norusis;
Shireman, McFadden, Newdorf and Noga; U.S. Department of Commerce-National Oceanic, U. S. Census-Statistical.

14. Results
❶ A State possessing Southern-Style Traditionalistic Political Culture and/or large numbers of
Impoverished People negatively affects its Livability (Quality of Life) Score.
❷ A State with substantial numbers of Impoverished People influences below-market
Waste Disposal Prices within its boundaries.
❸ A State sanctioning Container Deposits slightly induces above-market Waste Disposal Prices
within its boundaries.
INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES
State Livability Score State Waste Disposal $ State Per Capita Waste Poundage
State Type NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT
% Non-White NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT
% Below Poverty SUPPORT SUPPORT NO SUPPORT
% Actually Voting NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT
% Environmental $ NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT
Political Culture SUPPORT NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT
Recycling States NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT
Deposit States NO SUPPORT SUPPORT WEAK SUPPORT
Litter Tax States NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT NO SUPPORT

15. Conclusion and Recommendations
--“Changing Attitudes” Influences a Solution To Littering
And ALL Environmental Degradation in The South and Across America
--Future “Poorly-Probed” Litter Research Can Look At
Health, Demographic, Psychological Variables to Enhance Southern Ecological Quality
Policy Recommendations--DEPENDENT Variables:
*Reduce Poverty Rates *More Sexual/Ethnic Governmental Diversity
*Raise Minority Voter Turnouts *Increase Educational Attainment
*Increase Disposed Waste Market Prices *Stronger Monitoring Disposal Firms
*Legislate Container Deposits * Encourage Household Garbage Reduction
Policy Recommendations-INDEPENDENT Variables:
*Anti-Litter Campaigns Appeal To State Pride *Anti-Litter Campaigns Target Non-whites, Hispanics
*Reduce Poverty Rates *Raise Young Adult, Hispanic Voter Turnouts
*More State Ecological Protection Funds *Ecological Legislation “Woos” Conservatives
*Push Recycling’s Fiscal/Source Reduction Benefits *Push Beverage Deposits Benefits/Popularity
*Push Taxation’s Benefits, Multi-State Success

16. DO MESS WITH IT!
Copyright 2012, Steve Spacek Public Service Consulting. NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
For actual Independent and Dependent Variable data used in this project, please see the following
ARP/THESIS website—a copyrighted property of Texas State University:
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/3763/fulltext.pdf
For updates and professional commentaries on surface environmental conditions of America’s 50 states
by Steve Spacek, please see The American State Litter Scorecard website:
www.statelitterscorecard.bellstike.com