The Relationship Between Demographics and Litter in the Dog River Watershed
Ryan L. Granier, Department of Earth Sciences, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Al,
36688, rlg701@jaguar1.usouthal.edu.
In the early 20th Century, Sociologists began researching Environmental Sociology,
which deals with how humans interact with their natural environment. Understanding this
relationship is important because humans have the ability to affect and alter the natural
environment around them. The people that live near Dog River have dealt with litter floating in
their river for many years, and I plan to lessen this problem. In this report I explain the link
between litter and demographic variables of the Dog River Watershed. I have tested the theories
of previous sociologists that believe people of lower income pay less attention to environmental
concerns. I did this by sampling different sectors of the Dog River Watershed for litter along
roadways and neighborhoods. This data was put into GIS software to be compared to U.S.
Census data of median household income, median value of owner occupied houses, race, median
rent asked for rental property. With this information the type of population that is more prone to
litter in their neighborhoods can be educated in the importance of a clean environment. In
addition, the Mobile City government will be able to use this data to focus clean up efforts on
problem areas.
Introduction
Litter is a human caused problem that is simple to fix. All we must do is determine what
type of person litters and why. Second, we must educate those that choose to litter on the
negative effects their actions have. Sociologists began researching the relationship between
society and the natural environment around them in the early 20th Century (Mehta 1995) If we
are able to understand how societies interact with their environments, we can then look at why
they do things in certain ways. Having this knowledge is important because “as human beings
we are ‘unavoidably organically embodied and ecologically embedded” in our environments and
we have the power to “regulate and refashion the environment” as stated in the International
Handbook of Environmental Sociology. This means we can change our surrounding environment
in positive or negative ways. In this paper I will show how the citizens of Mobile have
“refashioned” the environment around Dog River by correlating litter with demographics. With
this information Dog River Clearwater Revival will be able to educate the proper audiences on
keeping our watershed clean!
In 1977 Winett Neitzel wrote a paper Demographics, attitudes, and behavioral responses
to important environmental events.” In this study, Neitzel conducted a survey on environmental
concern. This study focused on the attitudes of people in a surrounding neighborhood. With
Environmental Psychology, they were hoping to be able to predict how people would treat their
environment, based on their attitude toward it. In my project, I will discuss the demographic
relationship, rather than attitudes, with the environment.
Research Question
Where is litter most commonly found in Mobile? What are the demographics of these
areas? Is there a relationship between litter
density and demographic variables such as
median household income, median value of
owner occupied houses, race, median rent
asked for rental property?
Methods
To survey the litter in Dog River
Watershed, I first used GIS to locate the
census blocks located within the watershed.
The watershed includes 108 census blocks. I
chose to sample 33% of all census blocks.
(Figure 1) I did this by sampling every third block, for example, 3, 6, 9, 12, and so one. To
gather this data, I drove around each of the 36 census blocks chosen for sampling. To quantify
this data I would rank each block on the amount of observed litter. A ranking of 1 was given to
blocks with very little to no litter.(Figure 2) A ranking of 2 was given to blocks with light litter
or mixed between moderate and no litter. (Figure 2) A ranking of 3 was given to areas of
moderate litter. (Figure 2) I feel that this sample shows a relationship to what types of areas in
Mobile have a problem with street and neighborhood litter.
To visualized the demographic data of Mobile using U.S Census long sheet data from
2000. The city of Mobile is divided into small census blocks consisting of up to 3,000 people.
108 of these blocks are located within the Dog River Watershed boundary. With this data I am
able to show median household income, median value of owner occupied houses, race, median
rent asked for rental property. Along with the litter data collected, I used GIS to relate the census
data to litter data.
Results
Median household income and litter
have shown to have a parallel
relationship. As shown in (Figure 3),
households with a median income of
above $50,000 were found to have very
little to no litter, rank 1. Households
with a median income of $40,000 $50,000 were found to have a rank of 1
or 2, light litter. The areas with a median
household income of less than $40,000
are the only areas with a ranking of 3, moderate litter. While this shows that those areas of higher
median household income have less litter in their neighborhood, there are still a few medium lower income neighborhoods, for example 54, 51, 48, 102, 66, and 69 (Figure 1), that were
ranked, 1, very little to no litter.
Median value owner occupied
housing and litter has shown to be in a parallel
relationship with litter. (Figure 4) almost
every block with a median value of $122,000
or greater was ranked 1, little to no litter. The
areas with less than $60,000 median value
were observed to have light to moderate litter,
rank 2-3.(Figure 4) Although, census block
88 has a high property value, but was an observed 2 because it is split between a nicer, clean,
neighborhood and lower middle
neighborhood where the litter was
observed.
In addition to median value for
housing correlating to litter, median
rental property asked price is also shown
to correlate with litter. Figure 5 shows
that areas with higher rental prices have
less litter than areas with cheaper rental
prices. Areas with rental prices of less
than $300 were almost all observed with light to moderate litter. Blocks 60 and 54 (Figure 3) are
two low rental price areas with little to no litter observed. Although these blocks are lower
income, housing value, and rental cost, they are low – middle ranking, not the lowest.
I found no real connection
between race and litter. (Figure 6) shows
the areas with a greater than 50% black
and white population. Although (Figure
6) shows most of the black population
live near downtown Mobile, the pie
graphs in (Figure 6) show the density of
each race in each census block. The pie
graphs show a better representation of
the distribution of racial density. Although the heaviest litter was observed in predominantly
black areas, figure 6 shows that both white and black areas contain litter. In addition, the pie
graphs show that many of the predominately white areas in are actually mixed between white
and black populations. Because of the information shown in (Figure 6), I have concluded that no
specific race can be linked to litter.
Conclusion
Based on my research, I have concluded that property value and household income both
have influence the amount of litter in a neighborhood. Property value includes median value of
owner occupied houses and rental property asking price. Both of these demographic variables
have shown to relate to litter sampled in Dog River Watershed. Median household income seems
to have a small relationship with litter, but not as much as property value. Lastly, race does not
seem to have any relationship with observed litter. I have not determined that any specific type
of person is prone to litter, but instead I have concluded that litter is correlated with property
value. I believe this is because individuals who spend more money on their property chose to
upkeep it better than those who spend little to nothing at all. Although income is shown to have a
connection, I feel that my data also shows that there are a few areas in which individuals with
lower income and lower property values still keep their neighborhoods clean.
With this information, certain areas can be targeted and educated on the importance of
not littering and cleaning up the litter in their neighborhoods. In addition, local law enforcement
will have a better idea of where to patrol for people littering and local government will know
what areas need to be cleaned up more regularly. With education and clean up of these specific
areas, Dog River Clearwater Revival will be able to help keep Dog River much more clean.
References Cited
Downey L., Hawkins, B. 2008. Race, Income, and Environmental Inequality in the United
States. Sociological Perspectives. Vol. 54, No. 4. pp. 759-781.Dunlap, R. Catton, W.
Environmental Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 5, (1979), pp. 243-273
Laska, Shirley. (1993). Social Forces. Environmental Sociology and the State of Discipline:
(Vol. 72. No. 1). University of North Carolina Press, 1-17.
Mehta, M., Ouellet, E. 1995. Environmental Sociology: Theory and Practice, North York,
Ontario: Captus Press Inc.
Nietzel, M., Winett. R. 1977. Demographics, attitudes, and behavioral responses to important
environmental events. American Journal of Community Psychology. Springer
Netherlands.Vol. 1. Issue. 2
Redclift, M. Woodgate, G. 1997. The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology.
Northhampton, Massachusetts. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Whitford, A, Wong, K. 2009. Political and Social Foundations for Environmental Sustainability.
Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 62, No.1, pp190-204.