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 ActivitiesAmongst 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 residents 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 AMERICALitter 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 AccidentsSources: 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              46                        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                AVERAGENorth Dakota            26                        22                AVERAGE                1, 4, f        Colorado                    28                        16        ABOVE AVERAGE        1, 2, d , eWisconsin                  21                        19      ABOVE AVERAGE        4, 9, dSouth Dakota            14                        21        ABOVE AVERAGE         9Kansas                        12                        17        ABOVE AVERAGE        fNebraska                    15                           8        ABOVE AVERAGE a, eIowa                            11                          2                    BEST a, c, d, eMinnesota                  4                          1                  BEST a, b, d, e

IN 30 26 BELOW AVERAGEOH                             25                         27                AVERAGENY                   19                      24        ABOVE AVERAGEMD 8 13 ABOVE AVERAGETN                  41                         43                  WORSTNC             40                         41                  WORSTFL                       33                        35        BELOW AVERAGECA                   31                        36        BELOW AVERAGEWY                     5                          12                   BEST                 NV                         49                         44                WORSTMS 50 50 WORSTVT                      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 Best 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.