Pick That Shit Up!

This topic submitted by Kyle Dunnington, Sara Katz, Jennifer Tucker, Lindsey Wilson, Nathan Smith ( smithnl2@muohio.edu ) on 10/22/05. [Section: Winnubst]

Natural Systems 1 Syllabus---Western Program---Miami University

1. Introduction

How do different locations, time frames, and distances influence the percentage of individual passersby who will pick up a planted piece of litter?

Our objective is to determine to what extent location, time, and distance between the trash and the trash receptacle affect litter pick-up proportions. We will test three locations, Shriver, High Street, and Pearson; at three time frames: morning, evening, and afternoon. At each location, during each time frame, we will also test two distances, near and far. Also, we will note the gender of each person who picks up the trash.

We hypothesize that the highest percentages of litter pick-up will occur at Pearson. Furthermore, we predict that, in general, a morning time frame and a close proximity of the garbage to the trash bin will favor greater percentages of litter pick-up as well. Thus, we believe the maximum percentage of trash pick-up will occur at Pearson, during the morning time frame, when the trash is close to the receptacle.

Because test subjects will almost exclusively consist of collegians, and therefore of fairly well-educated young men and women, this experiment might suggest the efficiency or inefficiency of education in affecting litter pick-up. Of course, as there is no control for this variable, this is, strictly speaking, outside of the scientific scope of the experiment. Nevertheless, it could raise some interesting questions, and topics for further scientific inquiry and experimentation.

Ultimately we hope this experiment will explore the factors that impact the willingness of individuals to pick up trash. Although limited in scope by time and resource restraints, and therefore far from comprehensive, our tests will, ideally, foster interest and encourage further, broader research that might prove more conclusive.

2. Background Information

Although the mainstream view of littering is appropriately negative, surveys have shown that the general national sentiment retains that one can litter when in a hurry, or in certain other circumstances (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/litter/research.htm). As a case study, one environmental website surveyed Texans, finding that, despite their famous state slogan and attitude ÒDonÕt mess with Texas,Ó one in three Texans litter (http://www.enviromedia.com/casestudies dmwt.php). Finally, inquiries of several population sectors have found overall social and health concerns about pollution in general and litter in specific (Bostock). Apparently, one approach to litter reduction, education, attains mixed results. While the deleterious effects of littering seem to be common knowledge, this knowledge has perhaps not had the impact it should have.

Furthermore, an experiment that questioned beachgoers on the offensiveness of certain human items commonly littering the shoreline found that the most offensive pieces of trash included the unsanitary and potentially harmful. Thus, syringes, tampons, condoms, etc. were found most appalling. (Tudor and Williams, ÒPublic Perception and Opinion of Visible Beach Aesthetic Pollution: The Utilization of PhotographyÓ). Naturally, these most offensive items are also the ones people want to handle the least, even if it is their job to clean the shoreline. Due to these results, we will clean the litter in our experiment before using it.

Finally, there are some of the costs of litter not generally considered. As mentioned before, litterÕs negative impact on ecosystems has become part of common national dialogue. The damage does not stop there, however; there is a good deal of economic damage. Not only does litter clog storm drains, which costs taxpayers to repair,
but also there is the cost of extra crews to deal with the aesthetically unpleasant aspect of litter. Cities often give substantial grant money for groups that either organize pick-up parties or provide education about the dangers of litter (http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/ recycling/toolkits/sem/resources.asp). Litter damages the environment, the senses, and the taxpayerÕs checkbook.

Although a number of studies and a good deal of interest has been directed toward the act of littering itself, little seems to have been done on the willingness of others to pick up such litter. A substantial proportion of the population might feel that it is okay to litter sometimes, but do even those who sometimes litter also sometimes clean up litter?

Few people deem littering absolutely fine, so many must be bothered by it to some extent. An analysis of anti-littering tendencies seems appropriate in understanding the nuances of this problem. After all, it is easy to be a model non-litterbug on a questionnaire.

Undoubtedly, litter does a great deal of damage in several areas. Unlike the harmful mass-emission of factories, littering is a form of pollution that individuals can help reduce with relative ease. Hence the importance of research along the line of this experiment: Understanding of the factors that lead individuals to clean up litter could be applied, at least locally, to the practical purpose of encouraging a greater number of people to pick up trash.
Website References

http://www.cpia.ca/anti-litter/main.php?ID=412
This website is about the different litter studies performed and what types of trash are most likely going to become litter. It also talks about how much litter there is in different places like Canada and Europe.

http://www.enviromedia.com/casestudies_dmwt.php
This website is about the slogan ÒDonÕt mess with TexasÓ which 96 percent of Texans know, yet there are still 1 out of 3 Texans that litter.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/litter/research.htm
This is a general study on peopleÕs feelings toward littering. People generally feel that littering was bad, yet when they were in a hurry or other various instances it was okay for them to litter.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/recycling/toolkits/sem/resources.asp
This website shows different ways to bring awareness on litter to your community and shows how to get people to pick up trash. There are various grants given in the state of Ohio for litter prevention.

http://news.ufl.edu/2001/08/30/litter/
This website talks about the decline of litter in Florida by 30% since 1997. This is most likely due to litter awareness and planned volunteer sessions for people to pick up trash on the side of a road.

Literary References

Baker, Beth. ÒNations coming to agreement that polluted oceans need a cleanup.Ó
Bioscience, Mar 1996, Vol. 46 Issue 3, p183.
Describes a 1995 United Nations Environmental Program that set goals of reducing many types of pollution, including soil contamination due to litter and exposure to heavy metals.

Bostock, Janet. ÒParticipating in Social Enquiry and Action.Ó Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, Aug 93, Vol. 3 Issue 3, pp213-224.
Surveys of different groups that found a good deal of social and health concerns about litter.

Gillet, S. ÒHumus forms and metal pollution in soil.Ó European Journal of Soil Science,
Dec 2002, Vol. 53 Issue 4, pp529-540.
Studies Northern FranceÕs zinc smelters that add heavy metals to the soil, deleteriously affecting the local wildlife.

Grelle, C., et al. ÒMyriapod and isopod communities in soils contaminated by heavy
metals in northern France.Ó European Journal of Soil Science, Sep 2000, Vol. 51
Issue 3, pp425-433.
Explores negative effects on soil invertebrates of heavy-metal soil contamination.

Grigal, David F., and Nater, Edward A. ÒRegional trends in mercury distribution across
the Great Lakes states, north central USA.Ó Nature, 7/9/92, Vol. 358 Issue 6382,
p139-142.
Shows how humansÕ burning of wastes and fossil fuels has led to higher concentrations of mercury in the water supply.

Lavelle, Patrick, and Nahmani, Johanne. ÒEffects of heavy metal pollution on soil
macrofauna in a grassland of Northern France.Ó European Journal of Soil
Biology, Jun 2002, Vol. 38 Issue 3/4, pp297-301.
Shows correlation between the amount of heavy metal soil pollution and low densities of earthworm populations in Northern France.

Mol, Jan H. ÒDownstream Effects of Erosion from Small-Scale Gold Mining on the
Instream Habitat and Fish Community of a Small Neotropical Rainforest Stream.Ó
Conservation Biology, Feb 2004, Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp201-214.
Relates low species richness and low proportion of young fish to the widespread South American streamsÕ siltation, caused by gold mining.

Tudor, David T. ÒDevelopment of a ÔMatrix Scoring TechniqueÕ to determine litter
sources at a Bristol Channel beach.Ó Journal of Coastal Conservation, May 2004,
Vol. 10 Issue 1, pp119-127.
Applying numerical methods, this article articulates a cross-tabulated matrix scoring system to determine contributions of different source groups to litter on beaches. This matrix can be used for practical purposes to increase efficiency of litter-cleanup campaigns.

Tudor, D.T., and Williams, A.T. ÒPublic Perception and Opinion of Visible Beach
Aesthetic Pollution: The Utilization of Photography.Ó Journal of Coastal
Research, Fall 2003, Vol. 19 Issue 4, pp1104-1115.
Interviews people on the ÒoffensivenessÓ of 28 different pieces of litter; shows the interviewees photographs of the debris and has them rate the trashÕs unpleasantness. Least offensive were the ÒnaturalÓ debris, like driftwood and seaweed. Most offensive were potentially harmful items, such as syringes. Sewage itemsÑsanitary towels and condoms, for instanceÑwere also found to be highly offensive.

3. Research Design

We believe that a can of Coca-Cola will prove ideal as the experimental piece of litter, because it is bright red in color, which should ensure good visibility. Furthermore, it is easily attained en masse and is not repulsive in and of itself. We will clean the cans inside and out before their use in the experiment. By making sure the cans used are clean and empty, we reduce the possibility that a subject wanting to pick up the litter will choose not to because it appears gross.

As for the testing itself, the experiment will be conducted as follows: a researcher will remove all other litter from the immediate area, and then place a coke can a certain distance from a trash bin. Regardless of the magnitude of the distance, the litter will be clearly visible and well-aligned with the trash can; that is to say, if the trash can is on the sidewalk, so will the trash. The researcher will remain nearby, keeping track of the number of people who pass by, the number of these people who properly dispose of the litter, and the sex of those who do pick up the trash.

When a subject throws away the piece of trash, the researcher will stop counting passersby, and wait until the imminent pedestrians have moved on. Then, he or she will replace the trash as inconspicuously as possible, and resume the experiment. Members of maintenance crews, whose job it is to clean up such litter, will not be counted in the experiment.

These test runs will be performed for half an hour, at which time the researcher will assess his or her data. If less than fifty people total have been recorded throughout the run, the researcher can choose either to nullify that run and retest later or to continue for another fifteen minutes. After the additional quarter-hour, the researcher will reassess the data. If still under the fifty-person sampling limit, the researcher can decide to continue for another fifteen minutes, for a grand total of one hour. At this point, if the data still reflect fewer than fifty subjects, the run will be considered statistically unsound for sampling purposes and, therefore, be voided. Also, even the extended runs can not cross over the boundaries established by the different time frames.

Thus, with this design, all runs will be either thirty, forty-five, or fifty minutes in length, and they will all reflect sampling of at least fifty people. Data collected from successful runs will be entered onto a data sheet (see below). Later, the researcher will calculate from the data the percentage of passersby who picked up the piece of litter.

As previously mentioned, we shall conduct the experiment at three locations: Pearson, Shriver, and High Street. The specific trash can to be used at each location for the experiment has not yet been determined; however, the outdoor receptacle we designate at each location will remain constant throughout the experiment. Ideally, these trash cans will be relatively close to a good deal of pedestrian traffic, clearly visible, and in close proximity to a bench, stoop, etc., where a researcher could sit and take notes inconspicuously.

Furthermore, at each location we will run the experiment during three time frames: from eight to noon (ÒmorningÓ), noon to five (ÒafternoonÓ), and five to nine (ÒeveningÓ). We will conduct experimentation between Monday and Thursday, the assumption being that there is not much difference between, say, eight and nine in the morning, nor a great difference between the morning time frames of Monday and Tuesday, for example.

Finally, we shall test distance. Therefore, at each location, during each time frame, the litter will be placed in one of two ranges: within two feet of the trash can, which we consider Òclose,Ó versus between eight and ten feet from the trash can, or Òfar.Ó

To collect the data, our research team will break down into three smaller groups. Each of these groups will devote itself to one of the three locations. At each location, we will conduct three runs for each of the two distances during each of the three time frames. In total, this will amount to 18 runs for each group. When the data is compiled, therefore, we will have a total of 54 runs, which will translate into a huge amount of data. Because each group will be collecting data separately, however, this should not prove inordinately time-consuming for any one researcher or group of researchers.

Generally, we will control for as much as is feasibly possible. The trash cans used in the experiment will remain constant. Furthermore, we will control for weather as much as possible by only conducting experimentation on days with favorable weather conditions, i.e., days that are not dark due to storm nor days on which the ground is soggy or otherwise unappealing due to recent snow or rain. We will note on our data sheets the weather conditions during each run, and record these conditions along with general information (date, time, etc.)

4. Materials and Methods

As our experiment is fundamentally simple in design, the materials necessary for testing will only include watches, writing utensils, many empty Coca-Cola cans, notebooks, and a computer. The watches are needed for establishing the date/time at which the experiment was conducted. The Coca-Cola cans will be used directly in the experiment, while the notebook and writing utensils will be needed for recording data, which will be entered on data sheetsÑhence the computer. Our data sheets (see below) were created using the Microsoft Office program Excel.

The nature of our experiment precludes a research timeline. Because it is comprised of many separate, fragmented, short testing periods, we cannot at this time project a rigidly planned schedule of research. We will keep our classmates informed of our progress, however, and will involve them in the experiment itself by welcoming their suggestions and criticism.

5. Data Sheet Template

Passersby, Total Passersby, Pick up Percentage of Trash Pickup
(data) (data) (data)

Location: Date: Temperature (degrees C):
Time Frame: Time Began: Weather Conditions:
Distance: Time Ended: Run:
Time Total (min):

6. Projected Timeline of Research

By the end of the week of the 23rd: 6 runs (total) completed by each group
By the end of the week of the 30th: 12 runs (total) completed by each group
By the end of the week of the 6th: 18 runs (total) competed by each group

Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu