Worldwide, litter is a growing problem. Increased populations, urbanization, the use of plasticfor bags and containers - all contribute to unsightly and unhealthy landscapes. In a few areas, environmental awareness has made headway against the problem of litter. But little overall progress has been made. A better approach is needed.

Present efforts to combat litter emphasize public awareness and occasional punishments for major offenders. These efforts are helpful, but do not motivate most people. Many are too lazy to dispose of their trash properly or believe that someone else will remove it . When a site is already littered, people ofen feel that adding to it is “no big deal.” Those who liter are almost never caught or pay any consequences. In short, there is little motivation for them to change.

Carrots: awards and recognition for clean environments A litter-free landscape can be profitable. Places like Switzerland and Hawaii have excellent reputations as tourist destinations, and their clean environments are part of what attract visitors to them. If there were a well-developed list of the best countries, regions, and cities for being litter-free, it would inspire clean-ups at the local level. Magazines like Travel + Leisure now measure locales for tourist desirability. They could be one source of litter-free ratings. National and state goverment organizations like the US Environmental Protection Agency could also develop and publicizze such rating systems. A list of the best and worst litter areas (like the US cities with the fattest people) would create a lot of interest, and not cost much to develop.

A further incentive to reduce litter would be to award prize money to locales, based on their place on a littering list. The greatest cash awards might go to cities with the lowest rankings - they obviously have the greatest need. Both government and non-governmental organizations could grant anti-litter prizes. Individual citizens could too. It would be good publicity for all concerned, and help motivate a community. pCommunities might also be ranked in terms of the success of their anti-litter programs. Simply having a large budget to clean up trash is not as desirable as a community where few people drop trash on the ground in the first place. Some measure of community cleanliness compared to the budget outlay for clean up expenses would also be helpful.

Sticks: better enforcement of anti-litter laws Many local governments put a low priority on anti-litter enforcement. It is usually seen as a budget cost with minimal benefits. But anti-litter enforcement can pay for itself. The fines from traffic speeding tickets often contribute to police budgets. Similarly, the cash and community service labor from litter convictions could more than pay for enforcing anti-litter laws.

It is argued that litter violations are hard to catch and prove. But police or part-time assistants could use small video cameras at weekend recreation spots to catch litterers in the act. Dropping a cigarette butt or food wrapper and leaving it on the ground for 15 seconds could be considered a litter violation, when caught on video. The police should write a ticket on the spot and point out a nearby trash bin. As part of a sentence, the offender could be required to return to the same area to pick up trash. Using both fines and added labor, a community could soon clean up its landscape - at no added cost to its budget.

With good publicity of its litter enforcement and improvement in anti-litter rankings, citizens would cheer the community's efforts. Newspapers should jump at the chance to tell a good story about local government .