top | item 21008760

We picked up, tracked, and analyzed 130k pieces of litter in SF

112 points| EminIsrafil | 6 years ago |medium.com

129 comments

order

EminIsrafil|6 years ago

It’s inspiring to see that picking up litter consistently had a big impact on a neighborhood. We were also surprised to see the strong effect the California Camp Fires had on litter. Hope you enjoy!

Background: My friends, Elena and Felipe, and I have been picking up litter 3x per week on Polk Street for year now. We logged all the litter we picked up to see what we can find. After a year picking up we decided to see what we can learn from the data and we wrote an article with the results.

We used the https://www.rubbish.love, which I helped program, to track all the items.

deftnerd|6 years ago

Can you give us more information on the "Rubbish Beam", pictures, tech details, and why it's so expensive? You say on a request form that you're hoping to make it cheaper, but what's the biggest block to making that happen?

Is it just a standard grabber but with a cellphone holder and some kind of bluetooth trigger embedded in the "grabbing handle" that triggers the phone to take a picture?

bgentry|6 years ago

I used to wonder what caused the crazy amount of litter in SF. After working in SOMA for years, I believe the vast majority is due to people rummaging through trash cans in search of food/recyclables/whatever, often dumping the entire contents directly onto the sidewalk. I've seen this more times than I can count.

More trash cans would be great, but they absolutely won't fix the problem when people regularly empty their contents onto the street.

steve19|6 years ago

There is a school of thought that less trash cans reduces litter. I am a little skeptical of the idea but I see the point.

atombender|6 years ago

Cigarette butts seem to be the most common by count, but what about weight and volume?

On the streets of NYC, I don't really notice the cigarettes, but I do notice the enormous amount of plastic bags (much of it stuck in trees), plastic or paper cups, straws, takeout containers. And gum. If you ever look at a sidewalk and see dark splotches [1], that's discarded chewing gum. It's absolutely everywhere. Not as invasive, of course, just odd.

I don't know what SF is like, but NYC has a fascinatingly ugly system [2] where you're supposed to put trash and recycling out on the sidewalk for it to be collected, where it's effectively temporary litter. NYC's sanitation workers are notoriously careless about handling the trash, and my pet theory is that a sizable portion of street litter actually originates in the sanitation workers spilling trash on pickup day.

NYC's trash problem is also exacerbated by the fact that landlords can get away with not doing their part in keeping the outside of the building litter-free.

[1] https://www.ediblegeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/S...

[2] https://i.redd.it/x0iye2nog6m31.jpg

MisterTea|6 years ago

> NYC's sanitation workers are notoriously careless about handling the trash, and my pet theory is that a sizable portion of street litter actually originates in the sanitation workers spilling trash on pickup day.

DSNY, aka Sanitation, does not pick up trash from commercial businesses, only residencies. Businesses have to hire a private carter. Private carters are notorious for not giving two fucks. They have also been responsible for many pedestrian accidents as well.

I have never really noticed a surge in trash in the streets after DSNY comes by. Though, after schools opened, my house is around the corner from a public school and I see an immediate surge of snack wrappers tossed on my lawn. Same with the building I own near another school, wrapper trash all over.

ndespres|6 years ago

In NYC, those piles of garbage bags also have the effect of being seen as de facto garbage bins, so people will throw their litter on top of the piles as if they are some type of container to hold their trash.

hapless|6 years ago

SF makes NYC look like Disneyland.

rob74|6 years ago

And then they wonder why they have a rat problem...

diogenescynic|6 years ago

Love this article because it's something that has also intrigued me. I used to live in the Inner Richmond and someone would always dump a big pile of trash near the corner of my block. Finally I got sick of this and rummaged through the trash and found some bank statements and RX bottles (all with the same name and address). I called the person and sent a photo with their trash and told them to find somewhere else to drop their garbage or I'd be reporting them. Seemed to address the problem (or realistically shifted it to someone else's property).

Gibbon1|6 years ago

If you report to the city they'll fine them for that.

newnewpdro|6 years ago

Did you have a conversation about the dumping? Or was it simply you threatening them then goodbye?

irrational|6 years ago

This was a fascinating read. I'm surprised tobacco is the number 1 litter. I rarely see people smoking anymore where I live, so I would assume it would not be a top contributor to litter. Is smoking still very prevalent in San Fransisco?

Reedx|6 years ago

> Is smoking still very prevalent in San Fransisco?

No, but for some reason people think throwing cigarette butts on the ground and out of car windows isn't littering.

brenden2|6 years ago

I have a dog, and when we're walking around I always notice all the cigarette butts on the ground (because my dog tries to eat everything off the ground so I have to watch). It doesn't surprise me that so much litter is just tobacco products.

(Also I live in NYC these days, but I used to live in SF).

toomanybeersies|6 years ago

Most smokers assume that filters are actually biodegradable (it is possible to buy biodegradable filters if you roll your own), when in fact they aren't.

I never chuck my butts on the ground, if there isn't a rubbish bin nearby, I'll either put the butt back in my packet, or just put it in my pocket. When I see friends tossing their butts I always have a go at them for littering, most just don't even realise what they're doing is wrong.

CriticalCathed|6 years ago

I think it's not so much that it's very prevalent, I think it's that most smokers don't carry their butts away with them if there's not a trash can 30 millimeters from their hands.

eldenbishop|6 years ago

Some interesting tidbits on cigarette litter in San Francisco.

A study commissioned by SF Public Works in 2009 determined that the direct costs for cigarette related litter in San Francisco could be remediated with a 22 cent per pack tax. The actual tax in San Francisco is 85 cents per pack known as the "Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee". The 2009 study claimed around 30 million packs/year are sold in San Francisco which would be roughly 25 million dollars a year in taxes collected for this purpose with an estimated cleanup cost of only 7-8 million. So not only are cigarette smokers already paying for the cleanup they are paying nearly four times the actual cleanup cost for their litter.

The 2009 study: https://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/tobacco_litter...

The tax: https://sftreasurer.org/cigarette

gdulli|6 years ago

In my city, cigarettes and scratch-off lottery tickets seem to be the things that people don't feel any particular need to dispose of properly.

codeddesign|6 years ago

It’s a little subjective though. 800 Starbucks cups is a much larger issue compared to 1500 cigarette butts (for example)

roguecoder|6 years ago

Yes: people smoke walking down the street all the time. It is a real challenge having asthma.

I blame the lack of a real winter. In the northeast people quit smoking when it was banned indoors, because they didn't want to smoke in the freezing cold snow, whereas in SF people just go outside all year around.

hapless|6 years ago

Every smoker is producing 20 to 40 pieces of litter per day -- every butt that gets tossed.

cies|6 years ago

I played with the thought that municipalities should hold the producers of the product (packaging) that can be foud in the streets responsible for the cleanup cost.

Some kind of data needs to be collected by a team like this team an based on that data the offending brands get bills.

Besides that I think littering could benefit from heavy fines, the same way speeding tickets helped with traffic safety.

Basically a near little free environment should be our aim, I do not see why cannot make this happen.

IfOnlyYouKnew|6 years ago

25 cents deposits on cans and bottles did wonders in Germany. You can leave them anywhere in the city and they'll be gone within five minutes. This also turned out to be a surprisingly effective, although somewhat sad, wealth redistribution scheme.

It's unfortunately not realistic to do for every kind of wrapper. Although maybe a weight-based rough measurement might work: I. e. a cents/gram of packaging, and your recycling is spot-checked for contamination. It seems slightly too convoluted, invasive, and draconian even for me, a German green. But might be a possible application of AI ("estimate the number of product wrappings in this heap").

agota|6 years ago

Why would you hold the companies that produce the products responsible when they have no control over what someone does with the packaging of their products?

eldenbishop|6 years ago

San Francisco already does this with cigarettes. An eighty five cent tax per pack is levied specifically for this purpose. So around 4.25 cents per cigarette. I don't see why this could not be applied to other problematic litter sources.

https://sftreasurer.org/cigarette

dmckeon|6 years ago

> April 22, 2019, is a prominent example, though we don’t know for sure what happened that day to cause it.

Monday, 4/22, was Earth Day, after Good Friday, Passover, Easter, and of course 4/20 - so a near-perfect storm for SF.

olliej|6 years ago

I’d be interested in seeing the correlation with the existence (or not) of trashcans. Huge swathes of commercial/retail areas in SF have no/few trashcans, and I would assume that there’s a limit to how long people will carry trash/empty containers before just dropping them on the ground

Tharkun|6 years ago

I've noticed a similar pattern in my neighbourhood. No rubbish bins and plenty of littering. When I approached the city council about this, I was told they wouldn't install rubbish bins because -- I kid you not -- that would encourage people to put their waste in the bins...

It's not uncommon to see less well-off people walk around town, putting a little bit of rubbish into any bin they pass. It's risky, because fines for dumping household waste in public bins are steep.

Disposing of household waste is quite expensive here, only waste in "official" bin bags is collected, and they're over 1eur/ piece. It's a contributing factor to poverty, and, in my opinion, to fly tipping. After all, why pay for expensive bin bags when you can just chuck your litter anywhere with impunity?

lozaning|6 years ago

One of the things that I've noticed traveling internationally for work is how much this differs from country to country. You'll be hard pressed to find a public trash can anywhere in Suwoon, South Korea. Meanwhile there's a trashcan on every single street corner in Düsseldorf, Germany. Neither city had much trash.

lxe|6 years ago

Tokyo has almost no public trashcans. And the crowds are significantly larger than SF, and it's significantly cleaner in Tokyo (at least from what I've seen).

Gibbon1|6 years ago

I visited a friend in South America. The city was, and I just checked still quite clean. My friend said the reason was city took over the trash service (which got them in trouble with the IMF) and put out dumpsters every few blocks. Soon as it was 'free' people stopped dumping trash on the street. Two answer the question people at least there would carry a bag of trash a few blocks.

waynecochran|6 years ago

I am surprised that poop wasn't mentioned. Nor drug paraphernalia. That kills the attractiveness of SF far more than anything else.

cjensen|6 years ago

Both were mentioned, you just missed it :-)

WalterBright|6 years ago

I once visited Ogden, Utah, on business. The city was remarkably free of litter.

jxramos|6 years ago

"""Rubbish is working with cities and communities to create a smart approach to litter, using data to put cigarette disposals and trash cans where they will have the biggest impact."""

I really like that approach to quantitate where the hotspots are and to deliver bins accordingly.

Animats|6 years ago

Wait until DNA reading gets cheap enough to be used for this. Then we can downgrade the social credit scores of litterers.

phil248|6 years ago

Most of the people I see litter in SF already have zero social credit and don't look like they're trying to earn any.

amelius|6 years ago

Curious, did you also remove chewing gum from the streets? And is this in the "food" category? I would expect the numbers for food to be higher than for tobacco then.

pbhjpbhj|6 years ago

Do people still chew gum?

misterirony|6 years ago

I thought this would be a recent batch review…

jeromebaek|6 years ago

Treat the symptoms, not the disease. Way to go!

frostyj|6 years ago

"Many of the peaks in this dataset correspond to holidays and/or events that bring more people out onto the street — Halloween, for example, shows up prominently."

yeah I guess so