By Harvey Gershman

Litter, which has frequently been defined as “solid waste in the wrong place” can now be more appropriately termed “solid waste or recyclables in the wrong place.” State definitions vary slightly, with some states regarding yard waste and animal waste as litter. Why, as solid waste management professionals, would we be overly concerned with litter issues?

The presence of litter is a bellwether for quality of life in a community. As noted in George Kelling’s landmark theory about “Broken Windows” as a measure of a community’s self-image, signs of physical decay—such as broken windows and litter—are invitations to further community decay. The development over the years of best practices in solid waste management, speaks to our industry’s innate dedication to community quality. The growing use of plastic carts over traditional metal cans or bagged trash left at curbside for collection is a model of improved industry standards. In addition, collection of solid waste from roadsides is the most expensive form of collection.

How much litter is discarded on our nation’s roads? The most recent EPA materials-generation data indicates that about 130.8 million tons of MSW were discarded in 2003 compared to approximately 105 million tons of MSW recovered through recycling or combustion.

The composition of litter has become a critical issue in determining how to effectively deal with this issue. Litter can be quantified in several different ways: weighing items, measuring by volume, or counting the number of items.

The state of Washington recently released its 2004 litter survey, which measured the amount of litter, and estimated that 6,758 tons of litter was discarded on the state’s roads and interchanges. Using Washington State’s 2004 population estimate of 6,167,800 puts per capita litter generation at about 2.19 pounds/year. If that same generation rate applied across the nation, 318,638 tons of litter would be found on our nation’s roads, a mere 0.13% of MSW generated in the US and only 0.24% of MSW disposal that represents a visual blight.

Washington’s survey identifies less than 15% of litter as beverage containers by weight. New Jersey’s 2004 litter study, which surveyed litter by count, noted that 10.5% of all litter was container-related. Both states included all containers, whether they were covered by bottle bill legislation or not. These two surveys, using completely different methodologies, show that containers are a small portion of litter found on roads.

Surveys that measure litter by weight do so because weight is a standard solid waste industry measure of waste used in solid waste and recycling generation, and composition studies. Utilizing this methodology means that higher-density items, such as glass containers, will appear to constitute a larger portion of litter than low-density items such as aluminum cans, which will tend to appear inappropriately low. Calculating litter by weight can distort the visual impact of litter and yield a higher margin of error—according to the Institute for Applied Research, the leading litter surveyors, having conducted over 60 litter surveys during the past 30 years. For instance, an average glass beverage container weighs more than 10 times its plastic equivalent. A weight standard would inappropriately show that 10 plastic bottles and one glass bottle are equivalent portions of litter.

Volumetric indices measure the amount of space consumed by litter. Since litter primarily constitutes a form of visual pollution, this is an important approach when gauging the offensiveness of litter. However, volume does not easily lend itself to statistical analysis. The utilization of volume-to-weight conversion factors can compound such statistical anomalies.

Data compiled by calculating the number of items littered lends itself to statistical analysis, especially when items less than one square inch are excluded. Item counts are preferable, as litter is typically collected by item count.

The difference in results relates directly to the methodology used. Comparisons are best made between surveys that have been conducted using similar methodologies.

Although it is a small portion of MSW, litter is inordinately expensive to collect. Four approaches to controlling litter removal have been used to calculate the cost of preventing a single item of litter. These include paid litter pickups, Adopt-a-Highway programs, beverage-container deposit legislation, and comprehensive litter programs.

Paid litter pickup by municipal workers to clean up litter on stretches of streets and roadways has been estimated along with contemporary data on costs of labor, crew and litter transport, and disposal costs. Depending on the locale, from two to eight cleanings per year were required to cut litter by 50%. This reflects the fact that picking up litter as an isolated solution is essentially self-defeating since it provides no reason to stop littering and because additional litter is constantly being generated. Paid crew litter collection costs about $1.29 per item collected.

Studies show that litter will build back up to the same level it was before cleaning within an average of seven to 31 weeks, depending on the locale. Furthermore, the sight of organized groups picking up litter will convince some persons that littering is acceptable behavior since someone else is willing to pick it up for them.

While the Adopt-a-Highway option is able to remove an item of litter for 18 cents, much lower than paid crew collection, there are still limits to the number of miles that can be adopted, particularly in rural counties. Currently about 45% of the nation’s state highway system is adopted. Most rural local roads and urban streets, which constitute as much as 90% of the street and highway mileage nationally, remain unaffected by this program.

While Beverage container deposit programs do tend to increase recovery of containers, they remove some of the most valuable commodities from recycling bins and tie up millions of consumer dollars in escrow accounts. In addition, beverage-container deposit programs are an expensive means of reducing litter since they do not appear to have any significant effect in reducing litter items not specifically covered by this legislation. As a consequence, the added handling cost per container must be absorbed solely by the reduction of beverage containers in litter covered by container-deposit legislation.

Data indicate that reduction effects achieved by deposit legislation are greater in urban areas than in rural, as excursions to sparsely populated rural areas to recover containers become a losing proposition.

Comprehensive litter control programs, including paid-advertising litter-control programs, are oriented primarily towards the prevention of litter, rather than its removal. Most comprehensive control programs operate on a statewide level and typically employ a variety of elements simultaneously, such as voluntary cleanups, elementary school education, enhanced litter law enforcement, litter hotlines, beautification projects, and media events.

Such programs can be very effective and reduced total litter by 74% in Hawaii and 76% in Washington. Beverage container litter was reduced by 90% in both states without the use of deposit legislation. The data from these two states, plus results from similar programs monitored for shorter periods in Kentucky, Alaska and Nebraska, showed that, on average, it cost about $0.23 to reduce litter by one item using this approach. The data also showed that, to achieve ongoing litter reduction, such comprehensive litter control programs must be maintained continuously, particularly if population growth and migration into a state occur.

In the state of Washington, for example, after a 76% reduction had been achieved, the program funding was cut back and shifted toward recycling. Subsequently, population and traffic growth occurred and, within seven years, the litter rate climbed back up again, wiping out a third of the litter rate reduction that had been achieved. A renewed, aggressive campaign in 2002 achieved a 24.4% litter reduction within 2 years without the use of container legislation.

The stated goals of various litter abatement programs vary. Site adoptions aim to clean up litter, but do not include stated educational goals to reduce litter. Deposit legislation strives to reduce a small portion of the litter stream through financial disincentives. These economic signals achieve a measure of success, but only with regard to the materials covered by deposits. Comprehensive litter management programs such as Keep America Beautiful proceed on the basis that clean communities are a result of integrated programs that promote education in schools and communities, enforcement of aggressive anti-littering ordinances and each citizen taking personal responsibility for their community's litter problem. Such integrated programs help promote clean communities by strongly discouraging littering and illegal dumping.

How do bottle bill results compare with their stated goals? Regardless of the methodology used, beverage containers are clearly a smaller portion of litter compared with fast-food and snacks packaging. Surveys vary in their assessment of the effect of bottle bills on other litter. Litter surveys based on the methodology developed by the Institute for Applied Research note that bottle bills have a minor impact on litter not covered by such legislation.

A report to the Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund analyzed the impacts of fraudulent redemption of containers covered by Michigan’s bottle bill and estimated that approximately 100 million containers were fraudulently redeemed each year at a net cost of $12.99 million per year. Redemptions in Michigan neared 100% in 1994 and actually exceeded 100% in 1992. More material is recovered, but at what cost? Several states attribute their reduction in overall litter to a presumed high percentage of bottle bill material.

Further studies are needed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of bottle bills in reducing overall litter rates, especially efforts to measure the cost of potentially overlapping bureaucracies and the impact of fraudulent redemption. Deposit laws do tend to raise recovery rates of containers covered under this legislation, but are they an effective litter reduction tool or are we comparing apples and oranges?

Harvey Gershman is president of Gershman, Brickner, & Bratton Inc. in Fairfax, VA, and a member of MSW Management’s Editorial Advisory Board.

MSW - November/December 2005