Does
“Only Trash Litter?”
Tammy L. Pounds, Department
of Earth Sciences,
The rivers,
streams, and creeks that comprise the Dog River Watershed are constantly filled
with trash. Litter in the water affects water quality in such ways as blocking
out sunlight for bottom-dwelling plants and animals, destroying the waters’
delicate chemical balance, and/or just being an eye sore. This project pin-
points the type of communities of
Keyword: litter, educational attainment, environmental degradation
Introduction:
Recent indicators suggest that a broad range of the American public cares
about the environment and is trying to change personal and professional habits
to ensure a cleaner, more sustainable environment. For example, in the early
1980s, the top three environmental concerns of Americans were hazardous waste
disposal, toxic pollution of lakes and rivers, and the balance of nature being
easily upset by humans (Kuzmiak, 1991). Yet, this upwelling of environmental
concern is contrasted by the persistent social problem of littering, thus
raising questions as to just how dedicated American people are towards the
environmental movement.
Locally, the rivers, streams, and
creeks that make up the
Litter in the water affects water
quality, and these effects differ in severity, depending on the type of
material of which it is made. Litter can affect water quality by doing such
things like blocking sunlight from bottom-dwelling plants and animals,
destroying the waters’ delicate chemical balance, and/or just being an
unsightly burden for a frequented city. Mainly, litter enters the waters of the
A conventional wisdom has been that African Americans are not as concerned as whites about environmental quality issues (Bryant and Mohai 1998). Yet, there are sound theoretical reasons to expect them to be less concerned than are whites about some issues but more concerned about others. Where significant differences existed, they were over local environmental problems, with African Americans expressing substantially greater concern than did whites. Racial difference in concern about such issues is a function of the disproportionate burden of environmental injustices in African American neighborhoods, and was demonstrated from an analysis that employed a wide range of local environmental quality indicators. Thus, working class hostility towards environmental issues has probably been over-emphasized in the literature (Buttel & Flinn, 1978).
Locating the groups of people who are most responsible for littering would help Dog River Clearwater Revival target the right groups to mass educate, alter their attitudes about environmental degradation, help improve water quality, and perhaps also positively affect other community issues, such as social deterioration. “Litter…and other signs of negative behavior left uncorrected contribute to neglect, apathy, and a downward spiral of deterioration” (Beverage Industry, 1998).
Research Question:
Is the
amount of litter from an area entering the
Methods
: To answer
the research question, I determined the educational attainment for the census
tracts of the city of
Results:
According to the data, there was a no relationship (0 correlation) between sex and littering. However, the data is significantly insignificant with a confidence level of 46%, meaning that one cannot use this data to make confident conclusions (Figure 2). There is an extremely slight indirect relationship (-0.05 correlation) between age and littering. However, the data is statistically insignificant with a confidence level of 54% (Figure 3). There is a slight indirect relationship (-0.33 correlation) between labor force status and littering. However, the data is also statistically insignificant with a confidence level of 87% (Figure 4). There is a slight direct relationship (0.38 correlation) between fertility and littering. The data is statistically significant because I can say with 91% confidence that these two variables are directly related (Figure 5). There is a moderate indirect relationship (-0.44 correlation) between race and littering. The data is statistically significant because I can say with 94% confidence that these two variables are indirectly related (Figure 6). There is a relatively strong indirect relationship (-0.5 correlation) between income and littering. The data is statistically significant because I can say with 96.2% confidence that these two variables are indirectly related (Figure 7). There is a strong indirect relationship (-0.72 correlation) between educational attainment and littering. The data is statistically significant because I can say with 99.71% confidence that these two variables are indirectly related (Figure 8).
Discussion and Conclusions:
The
statistically insignificant data are sex, age, and labor force status. Based upon my analysis, a relationship
between these variables and an increase in littering cannot be claimed. The
statistically significant data are fertility, race, income, and educational
attainment. Thus, I can accept a
hypothesis claiming that the amount of litter entering the
Some reasons why more children in a community would cause more litter to be found in these neighborhoods include perhaps minimal supervision, children are less inclined to retrieve litter, they are more likely to create litter, they are more likely to include eating outside (thus increasing the likelihood for littering), and they are not aware of environmental destruction caused by their actions. Those within higher economic brackets may not necessarily litter less, but they have the resources to employ others (usually of a lower class) to retrieve trash in their immediate environments. Individuals in the lower economic brackets are less likely to own property, thus perhaps fostering apathy towards immediate environments. The city government may direct more resources for upkeep towards higher income neighborhoods. Those who are more highly educated are more aware of environmental concerns and ramifications of littering. They also may have a greater sense of responsibility toward the "larger" community, and may become more involved with community service.
Even though there was a statistically significant relationship between race and littering, I think the data is not indicative of a racial issue, but instead illuminates the fact that a majority of the underclass is disproportionately African American, thus producing this specific result. Thus, littering is about "class" issues not "race" ones. Ultimately, littering is a socioeconomic dynamic. There are many factors that contribute/are intertwined with this social problem that cannot be fully explained or understood with simple correlation methods. Thus, more complex examinations/sophisticated correlation tests of the associations of these socioeconomic variables with each other (along with others not studied in this research) would better illuminate how they are related in dynamic fashion to littering.
References:
Bryant, Bunyan, & Mohai, Paul. (1998). Is there a “Race” Effect on Concern for Environmental Quality? Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 475-505.
Buttel, F.H. & Flinn, W.L. (1978). The politics of Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior, 10, 17 – 36.
Dunning, John B., Jr. (1997, Feb.). The Missing Awareness, Part 2: Teaching Students What a Billion People Looks Like. Conservation Biology, 11, 6-10.
Kuzmiak, D. T. (1991, Nov.). The American Environmental Movement. Geographical Journal, 157, 265-278.
The New Fight on Environmental Blight: Strategies to Prevent Urban Litter Initiative. (1998, Jul.). Beverage Industry, 89, 26.
Official 1990 Census Tract Maps: All of
1990
