Middle America Litter Scorecard (2008)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Middle America Litter Scorecard (2008)

on

  • 704 views

Presented at Regional ASPA Conf., Michigan, November 2008

Presented at Regional ASPA Conf., Michigan, November 2008

Statistics

Views

Total Views
704
Views on SlideShare
702
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
3

1 Embed 2

http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • ATTENTION MICHIGAN RESIDENTS!!!:
    Contact:
    1) Gov. Rick Snyder
    website: https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/GovRelations/ShareOpinion.aspx
    PHONE: (517) 373-3400
    and
    2) Michgan DOT
    webesite: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-12960-64505--,00.html
    PHONE: (517) 373-2114
    Tell them you want a statewide anti-litter slogan covering ALL Cities and Counties (The Largest State in America WITHOUT ONE!)
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • WORST Region IV ASPA States, Public Spaces Cleanliness, 2011:
    #6 Indiana; 7 Illinois, Oklahoma; 10 North Dakota, Texas.
    BEST: Iowa.
    COLORADO, KANSAS--MOST DEADLY DANGEROUS Region
    IV STATES FOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS WITH DEBRIS!!!!
    (Source: 2011 American State Litter Scorecard)
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • TIPS for EFFECTIVE PUBLIC REPORTING of OFFENSIVE/PROBLEM DEBRIS(LITTER):
    a) Use internet Government Website, ’Contact Us’ icon or send to topmost specified individual--NO phone calls! (unless has no Internet contact icon/address)
    b) Describe location clearly, using landmarks, mile markers, etc.
    c) Mention state law/county-city ordinance still in effect, REQUIRES timely removal of litter/debris from ALL public properties. ALL states have these statutes.
    d) End of email: use this line ’This email communication IS public record’
    e) Resend email after two weeks if reported site not satisfactorily cleaned up
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Middle America Litter Scorecard (2008) Middle America Litter Scorecard (2008) Presentation Transcript

  • THE [REGION IV ASPA] MIDDLE AMERICA STATE LITTER SCORECARD : Winners, Losers and In-betweens, In Assessing Statewide Environmental Quality Through Public Property Litter Removal Performances Steve Spacek, M.P.A . The Region IV American Society for Public Administration Conference Western Michigan University, Grand Rapids November 7, 2008
  • Welcome to Michigan! Nationally Ranks “ Below Average ” in Statewide Public Property Litter Eradication
  • The Region IV ASPA “Middle America” States : Colorado; Illinois; Iowa; Kansas; Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri; Nebraska; New Mexico; North Dakota; Oklahoma; South Dakota; Texas; Wisconsin
  • 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 MIDDLE AMERICA 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 360 r esidents of the MIDDLE AMERICA 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).**
    • Indifference And Negligence by some public officials cause persistent litter /dumping problems in certain communities .***
    * 2005 Traffic Facts , NHTSA. **Bullard; Cochran, A., ***Ockles.
  • HUMANS Cause Littering: Factors Crafting An Unique Environmental Injustice Upon MIDDLE AMERICA
    • 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. *
    • State/Regional Environmental Values : Upper Midwest English, French, German settlers : orderly land to be cared for, respected. Southern Scotch-Irish: Bend disorderly land to meet man’s needs. Great Lakes: Strongest Environmental Values. Western Gulf Coast, Rockies, Dakotas: Weakest Environmental Values . **
    • State/Regional Political Culture : Moralistic (Colorado, Iowa , Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin) : public sector intervention to meet civilian goals. Individualistic ( Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska): Marketplace rules but some public sector intervention as warranted. Traditionalistic (Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas): little or no government intrusion--“[Most] non-reception in fostering ecological improvements.”***
    • Corporatist-influenced Government : Government Decision-Making “mirrors whims of business ,“ needs of Commercial Agriculture. Industrial development, new extracting resources, land settlements were basic regional needs. Environmental risks were unknown, disregarded in certain sections.****
    • 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!*****
    • * Bisbort; City Image,; Henning; McAndrews; Ockels; U.S. Justice-National Law.
    • ** Hays; White in McAndrew. ***Elazar; Neal; Vig and Kraft.
    • **** Bullard; Camacho; Cayton and Onuf; 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.
  • MIDDLE AMERICA Litter Source Reduction Activities
    • -> Physical
    • -Actual litter/debris Removals by Hired Crews, Inmates, Volunteers
    • -Adopt-a-Highway/Road/Street/Trails Programs
    • -Statewide Anti-litter Slogans ( NONE : Michigan, South Dakota, Wisconsin)
    • -Environmental Organizations
    • -Beverage Container Deposits (Iowa, Michigan)
    • -> Legal
    • - Litter Laws/Statutes (Minnesota’s Among America’s Toughest)
    • -Citation Writing--History of Inopportunity-Weak/No Enforcement
    • -Court Prosecutions—Largest Violators Taken Down!
    • -Punishment: Out of Court; Jail Time?
  • The MIDDLE AMERICA State Litter Scorecard
    • The attempt to rank fourteen “MIDDLE AMERICA” [Region IV ASPA] 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.
  • Methodology
    • Unit of Analysis :
    • Fourteen American central-most states:
    • Colorado ; Illinois ; Iowa ; Kansas ; Michigan ; Minnesota ; Missouri ; Nebraska ;
    • New Mexico ; North Dakota ; Oklahoma ; South Dakota ; Texas ; Wisconsin .
    • 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: Region IV ASPA Middle America, Nearby and Selected States                                                             Objective                Subjective           Designation           Remarks                                                                                                                                                                    New Mexico               4 6                        40                  WORST                    1, 3, 4                Oklahoma                 39                         39      BELOW AVERAGE      2, 3                    Texas                          38                        38      BELOW  AVERAGE        2, 3                  Michigan                    35                        28         BELOW  AVERAGE       4, 9, c, d            Illinois                        29                         32        BELOW AVERAGE       2, 6                Missouri                    27                         25                AVERAGE North Dakota            26                        22                AVERAGE                 1, 4, f        Colorado                    28                        16         ABOVE AVERAGE         1, 2, d , e Wisconsin                  21                         19      ABOVE AVERAGE         4, 9, d South Dakota            14                        21        ABOVE AVERAGE          9 Kansas                         12                        17        ABOVE AVERAGE         f Nebraska                    15                           8        ABOVE AVERAGE a, e Iowa                            11                          2                    BEST a, c, d, e Minnesota                  4                          1                  BEST a, b, d, e IN 30 26 BELOW AVERAGE OH                             25                         27                AVERAGE NY                   19                      24        ABOVE AVERAGE MD 8 13 ABOVE AVERAGE TN                  41                         43                  WORST NC             40                         41                  WORST FL                       33                        35        BELOW AVERAGE CA                   31                        36        BELOW AVERAGE WY                     5                          12                   BEST                  NV                         49                         44                WORST MS 50 50 WORST VT                      1                        4                  BEST Remarks: 1-High Litter Fatal Crash Deaths 2-Low Per Capita Environmental Spending 3-Poor Statewide Livability   4-High Per Capita Waste Disposal 5-Unconducive Political Administrative Culture 6- High Public Servant Corruption 7-Poor Statewide Government Performance 8-Poor Highway Performance 9-No Statewide Anti-litter Slogan                 a-Great Statewide Livability b-Low Per Capita Waste Disposal c-Beverage Container Deposits                 d-Conducive Political Administrative Culture e-Low/No Public Servant Corruption f-Great Highway Performance                                                                                            Copyright 2008, Steve L. Spacek
  •  
  • Case Study: Minnesota vs. North Dakota vs. Michigan vs. New Mexico
    • MN ND MI NM
    • POPULATION (2005 ) 5,154,586 637,460 10,096,000 1,955.000
    • ANTI-LITTER AGENCIES MNDOT, NDDOT MDOT NMHTD
    • MPCA, KNDC MDNR NMCB
    • MNDNR MDEQ
    • LITTER REMOVAL $$ $5 Million (2006) n/a $ 5.5 Million (2006) $5.58 Million (2007)
    • VOLUMES COLLECTED ) 26,000 Tons (2006) n/a 55,838 Bags (30 gal). 14.313 tons (2007)
    • PROGRAMS Adopt-A-Highway Adopt- A- Highway Adopt-A-Highway Adopt-A-Highway
    • Cigarettte Butt Litter Essential Debris Only Anti-Litter Hotline Waste-in Place
    • Missouri River shoreline Trails, Greenways Comprehensive Grant Funds
    • Dusty Roadrunner
    • TIMES PROPERTY CLEANED at least once annually Need basis only 3 times annually every 3 months
    • (when no flooding)
    • NUMBER ANTI-LIITER LAWS 10 4 32 6
    • (min.$400-max $700)
    • New: Jail /Cigarette Buttt Litters
    • LITTER/DEBRIS VEHICLE
    • DEATHS (2005) 15 8 37 8
    • NATIONAL REMOVAL STATUS Bes t Average Below Average Worst
    • Sources: State Agencies and their websites; confidential officials communications; Wikipedia.
  • Conclusion/Recommendations
    • Littering: Remains an harmful Injustice across Middle America !
    • 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 always tough enough.
    • Polls : Many believe public sector “Not working enough to protect the environment.”
    • The Scorecard : A “call” to FURTHER action, to eliminate inattentiveness into a poorly probed yet DEADLY matter.