2006 Litter Index Report

Newsletter

Working within the Keep America Beautiful Litter Index guidelines, an evaluation of the litter situation in the city of Houston was performed on November 16, 17 and 18. A team of representatives from different organizations assessed 27 sites in all 9 council districts throughout Houston. In collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department, a neighborhood city park in each of the 27 target areas was rated separately as its own entity. The sites were rated using a simple four-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 - no litter to 4 - extremely littered) based upon the cleanliness of a park and the surrounding community area. Overall, the city of Houston rates 1.9 on the Litter Index scale. This is unchanged as Houston also rated 1.9 in 2004. The parks rate at 1.4; this is an improvement over the 2004 rating of 1.5.


Purpose

The Litter Index is an assessment tool used to measure the relative changes of litter in an area. The rating performances of the Litter Index allow community leaders and agencies to focus upon communities that need anti-litter education and to measure the success of beautification efforts. Community organizations and leaders are invited to join the Litter Index collaboration to achieve partnership solutions. Thus, the Litter Index empowers changes to be made at the local level.


Procedure

Due to the large population and land area of Houston, the city was divided into nine areas to correlate with the city council districts. Each area was further divided into 3 sub-areas for a total of 27 sub-areas. Working in conjunction with the Houston Parks and Recreation Department, 27 parks and their surrounding community area were randomly selected and assessed for visible litter. The parks and community areas were rated separately. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps were created of the area with designation of land-use, street names, and district boundaries. Community areas were charted on average within a one-mile expanse, encompassing a variety of land-use patterns and main thoroughfares.

The assessment team, composed of 6 individuals, represented local organizations, and Keep Houston Beautiful staff. On average, there were four people each day performing the litter survey. Training of the Litter Index procedures was given each morning to orient the participants for a fair analysis. The participants were shown a video and given a handout of the distinction between each category of the scale. Initial practice assessments were taken on the way to the first site in order to establish an agreement of the magnitude scale of litter. During the survey drive-around, participants were not allowed to discuss their opinions of the area so that they may not bias the other participants' ratings.



Score Instructions for Scorer
1 “No Litter” Virtually no litter can be observed in the sub-area being scored. The scorer has to look hard to see any litter, perhaps a very occasional litter item or two in a city block, or equivalent. Any litter seen could be quickly collected by one individual. The entire sub-area has a generally neat and tidy appearance; nothing grabs the eye as being littered or messy.
2 “Slightly Littered” Upon careful inspection, a small amount of litter is obvious to the scorer. The litter in the sub-area could be collected by one or two individuals in a short period of time. While the sub-area has a small amount of litter, the eye is not continually grabbed by litter items.
3 “Littered” Visible litter can readily be seen throughout the sub-area, likely requiring an organized effort for removal. This is “littered” and clearly needs to be addressed.
4 “Extremely Littered” A continuous amount of litter level is one of the first things noticed about the sub-area. Major illegal dumpsites might be seen in the sub-area, requiring equipment and/or extra manpower for removal. There is a strong impression of a lack of concern about litter in the sub-area.


Conclusion
One of primary indices for the unchanged litter index of 1.9 for the City of Houston from 2004 to 2006 is believed to be representative of the changed City of Houston population demographic. From the comments of the index scorers, the focus of litter prevention education should be on graffiti, bandit signs, unkempt vacant lots overgrown with weeds, open abandoned buildings, open residential storage, truck drivers parking 18-wheel rigs on narrow streets, entrances into the neighborhoods, commercial centers and main thoroughfares. The Litter Index for prior years has reported vacant lots and abandoned buildings. The observations note that a number of vacant lots and abandoned buildings have been identified and tagged by the Neighborhood Protection Corps.

The type of litter that pervades the cityscape varies in geography. Ubiquitous along every road are cigarette butts, paper, aluminum cans, plastic bottles and disposable cups. The 2005 Don’t Mess With Texas Visible Litter Study found that while the number of cigarette butts on Texas roads has decreased by 10 percent since 2001, they are still the single most common type of litter in America, representing nearly 30 percent of all items documented in cleanup initiatives, according to Keep America Beautiful President G. Raymond Empson.

Illegal dumping is most prevalent in less commercially developed areas and often times in abandoned lots. Often the case, once illegal dumping occurs in a vacant lot, more trash is deposited if the trash is not removed immediately. Large, bulky items such as tires, used furniture and grocery carts attract and perpetuate further illegal disposal. Keep Houston Beautiful has purchased barriers for use by Neighborhood Protection Corps to use at known illegal dump sites to prevent further dumping with a grant from Shell Oil Company. This pilot program was successful and Neighborhood Protection Corps received additional funding from Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) for additional barriers. The barriers are orange plastic barriers that hold water and are easily filled to stabilize, and are drained and moved to new locations when illegal dumping has been abated.

In the city parks, most litter is prevalent along sports fields, picnic areas, park fences and trashcans. Most litter consists of foodstuff related to picnics and sporting games. The scoring for the parks was often performed after the maintenance crews cleaned the site. Thus, the park scores tend to be lower than the community area.

Keep Houston Beautiful is addressing the litter situation in Houston by organizing litter cleanups city-wide, training civic leaders to address graffiti and community revitalization, and educating the public about litter prevention. Future programs will need to target communities in less developed areas and to place higher accountability for retail centers. By working with community and civic organizations, greater ownership and empowerment will dramatically improve the overall aesthetic of the community.

Greater education and community development will need to be focused upon council districts B, D, H and I due to their high-average score. Issues such as litter and graffiti abatement, beautification, and community leadership will need to be addressed with increased emphasis on cigarette litter prevention programs. Target areas in the Super Neighborhoods Program should be reassessed to prioritize the communities within these council districts. The overall quality of life for the city will be enhanced as individual communities strive to improve their areas.


Date Name Affiliation
November 16th, 17th, and 18th Calvin Wills
Keep Houston Beautiful
November 16th, 17th, and 18th
Robin Blut
Keep Houston Beautiful
November 16th, 17th, and 18th
Allen Isles
Pleasantville Civic League, Inc.
November 18th Daryl Hurd
Principal. Pleasantville Elementary school
November 18th Mark Fowler
Keep Houston Beautiful
November 16th, 17th Kirk Paul
Texas Southern University
Facilities Planning and Operations
November 16th, 17th, and 18th

Lester Howard Neighborhood Protection Corps


Council District

Park Score

Community Score

A

1.4

1.6

B

1.4

3.0

C

1.1

1.2

D

2.0

2.8

E

1.6

2.0

F

1.2

1.8

G

1.7

1.6

H

1.5

3.0

I

1.8

3.0

City Score

1.4

2.3

Overall Combined City Score

1.9

 

Privacy Policy                                                           Top of Page