MAG Litter Survey
December 2006

Prepared For:
RIESTER
&
Maricopa Association of Governments
2702 North 44th Street Suite 100-A Phoenix, AZ 602-707-0050 www.westgroupresearch.com

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page i

Table of Contents
Section:

Page #:

Executive Summary ......................................................................................... ii
Conclusions ........................................................................................................ iii
I.
A.
B.

Introduction..............................................................................................1
Background and Methodology ....................................................................1
Demographics ............................................................................................1

II.

Driver Characteristics ...........................................................................5

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Driving Habits .............................................................................................5
Litterbag Use ..............................................................................................7
Trash Accumulating Inside Vehicle.............................................................8
Smokers ...................................................................................................10
Truck Drivers ............................................................................................11

III.

Litter Awareness ..................................................................................13

A.
B.
C.

Perception of the Problem along Freeways ..............................................13
Littering Material .......................................................................................16
Littering Circumstances ...........................................................................21

IV.

Campaign Awareness.........................................................................27

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

Awareness of Campaign...........................................................................27
Don’t Trash Arizona Awareness ...............................................................30
Awareness of Litter Hotline.......................................................................33
Likelihood to Use Litter Hotline .................................................................35
Persuasive Campaign Messages .............................................................37
Effective Advertising Messages................................................................40
Personal Litter Messages .........................................................................43
Additional Litter Resources.......................................................................44

V.

Spanish Media Use ..................................................................................45

VI.

Profiles of Litterers....................................................................................47

Questionnaire....................................................................................... Appendix A
Cross Tabulations (available in some copies) ...................................... Appendix B

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page ii

Executive Summary
RIESTER, on behalf of its client the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG),
commissioned WestGroup Research of Phoenix to conduct a telephone study with residents in
the state of Arizona. The purpose of the study was to evaluate overall awareness of and attitudes
towards litter. WestGroup Research conducted interviews during December 2006.
Results are based on 1,233 fifteen-minute telephone interviews with Arizona residents. All
respondents were randomly selected from a Random Digit Dial (RDD) database comprised of
phone numbers from the targeted zip codes. The margin of error for the survey is approximately
+3.0% at a 95% confidence level.
Driver Characteristics
¾ On average, Arizona residents drive slightly more than 20 miles per day with residents living
in the outlying areas of the state reporting more daily miles than other residents (22 miles vs.
20.7).
¾ Residents most commonly reported driving a 4-door sedan (mentioned by 38%). Sports
Utility Vehicles (SUV) and pick-up trucks were the next most frequently mentioned vehicles
driven by Arizona residents (20% and 18%, respectively).
Trash in Vehicles
¾ Three in five residents (62%) indicated they keep a litterbag or trashcan in their vehicle.
Those who do not currently have a litterbag or trashcan in their vehicle were asked if they
would consider keeping one in their vehicle; approximately half (54%) answered in the
affirmative.
¾ Arizona residents were most likely to report that the most common type of trash that
accumulates in their vehicles is small pieces of paper such as gum wrappers, receipts and
lottery tickets (mentioned by 34%).
Smokers
¾ Approximately one in six Arizona residents indicated they are smokers (17%). This
percentage was slightly higher, but not significantly so, among residents in outlying areas of
the state than those in Maricopa or Pima Counties (20% vs. 17% and 16%, respectively).
¾ Of those who currently smoke, only 5% do not feel that throwing cigarette butts out the
window is littering, and only 3% report that they actually throw their cigarette butts out the
window.
Truck Drivers
¾ Slightly fewer than one in five Arizona residents indicated they drive a pickup truck (18%).
This percentage is highest in the outlying areas of the state (28%).
¾ Truck drivers were most likely to report that soda cans/bottles is the most common type of
litter that would be found in the back of their truck (mentioned by 20%). Plastic bags/other
plastics (11%), small pieces of paper (9%), as well as construction (10%) or lawn debris
(7%) were among the other types of litter that can be found in truck beds.

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page iii

Litter Awareness
¾ Four in five Arizona residents believe that litter along the freeways throughout the state of
Arizona is a “big” (38%) or “moderate” (42%) problem.
¾ Overall, residents were slightly less likely to see litter as a “big” or “moderate” problem
along their county freeways than along Arizona freeways in general (74% “big” + “moderate
vs. 80% for Arizona freeways). Residents living in Maricopa County were more likely to
indicate that litter along the freeways in that county is a “big” problem than residents in other
areas of the state (37% vs. 25% for Pima County and 30% for outlying areas).
¾ Residents were asked to respond with the first thought that came to mind when they heard the
word “litter.” The most common definition offered was “trash” or “garbage” or “junk”
(mentioned by 38%).
¾ Soda and beer cans top of list of items that residents are most likely to label as a “severe”
litter problem (soda cans/bottles – mentioned by 34%; beer cans/bottles – 31%), however, an
additional 12% mention water bottles as a severe litter problem.
¾ Three items dominated the list of “minor litter” – biodegradable items, such as food and gum
(19%), small pieces of paper such as receipts, lottery tickets and gum wrappers (19%), and
cigarette butts (13%).
Littering Circumstances
¾ When asked to itemize what items they thought they had littered in the past year, the vast
majority of Arizona residents insisted that they had not littered at all during the past year
(69%) – this was particularly true among Pima County residents (77%).
¾ Among those who indicated they had littered in the past year, food or organic material
(including gum) was the most common type of litter (listed by 39%).
¾ Residents who indicated they had littered in the past year were most likely to report that the
littering happened while they were driving and/or riding in a vehicle (mentioned by 46%) or
when they were walking outside (15%).
¾ Approximately half of those who reportedly littered in the past year indicated that they were
alone when the littering occurred (47%).
¾ The vast majority of those who admitted that they have littered in the past do not believe they
will get caught for littering at some point in the future (71%).
¾ Residents were most likely to report that at some point in time they “noticed trash falling out
of the vehicle” they were driving or riding in (19% within the past 3 months; 18% 3+
months). The next most commonly experienced litter situation was throwing or having a
cigarette butt thrown out of the window (10% within the past 3 months, 13% more than 3
months).
Campaign Awareness
¾ Approximately one in four residents indicated they had seen advertising related to litter or
littering in the past three months (26%).

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page iv

¾ “Don’t litter” or “Keep Arizona clean” were the main message residents recalled from litterrelated advertising (mentioned by 32%). Other messages recalled included information about
the fines for littering (15%), littering is unlawful (9%), and highway clean-up efforts such as
“Adopt a highway” (5%).
¾ Approximately one-third of residents who remember seeing litter-related advertising in the
past three months were able to recall some type of slogan (30%). Two of the most
commonly recalled “slogans” were actually messages – “do not litter” (mentioned by 14%)
and “you will be fined” (mentioned by 5%).
¾ Actual slogans that were most frequently recalled were “Don’t Trash Arizona” (6%), Arizona
Clean and Beautiful (4%) and “Keep Arizona Beautiful” (4%).
“Don’t Trash Arizona” Awareness
¾ Slightly more than two in five Arizona residents indicated they have heard the slogan “Don’t
Trash Arizona” (42%).
¾ Residents who were familiar with the “Don’t Trash Arizona” slogan reported seeing and/or
hearing the slogan from a variety of sources – television (26%), billboards (22%), radio
(14%), and street/highway signs (12%).
¾ Most residents were unable to name a sponsor for the “Don’t Trash Arizona” slogan (72%).
One in ten correctly identified the Arizona Department of Transportation (10%) and 12%
generically cited the “state” or “local” government.
¾ The primary meaning associated with the slogan was to not litter and put trash where it
belongs (mentioned by 59%).
Litter Hotline
¾ When specifically asked about three sources for information about litter, only one in ten
residents indicated awareness of the “Don’t Trash Arizona” website (11%) or the toll-free
hotline (10%). One in twelve indicated awareness of the Phoenix-based hotline (8%).
¾ Overall, the combined awareness of the specific hotlines as well as the aided awareness of a
general hotline was 28% for all Arizona residents surveyed.
¾ When asked how likely they would be to call the litter hotline to report someone who was
littering, approximately three in five residents indicated they would be at least “somewhat”
likely to call (31% “very likely” and 32% “somewhat likely).
Persuasive Campaign Messages
¾ The three messages receiving the highest proportion of “very persuasive” ratings from
Arizona residents are those that address the impact of littering on individuals or the state:
o “Littering can cost drivers and passengers a misdemeanor fine of $500” (48% very
persuasive; 71% combined 4+5 ratings)
o “More than 85,954 bags of trash were picked up along the Maricopa County freeway
system last year alone. This costs us an average of $2.3 million per year in cleanup”
(46% very persuasive; 68% combined 4+5 ratings)

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page v

o “Debris on roadways nationwide caused 25,000 accidents each year and more than
80 fatalities.” (44% very persuasive; 68% 4+5 ratings).
¾ In addition to receiving high ratings for persuasiveness, an advertising message that informs
residents of the $500 litter fine also received the highest percentage of effectiveness ratings
from Arizona residents (70% “4” or “5” ratings).
¾ When asked to describe what they would say to someone to convince them not to litter, the
largest proportion of Arizona residents indicated they would simply tell the person not to do
it (34%) or pick it up and put it in the trash (12% and 10%, respectively).
¾ Arizona residents indicated they would primarily turn to the Internet if they wanted more
information about litter or littering (mentioned by 53%).
Spanish Media Use
¾ Approximately one in ten Arizona residents interviewed (11%) reported that Spanish was
spoken in their home. This percentage was highest in Pima County (14%).
¾ Approximately half of the Spanish-speaking Arizona residents (47%) indicate they speak
“mostly English and some Spanish” and another 27% report to speak the two languages
equally.
¾ Slightly more than two in five Spanish-speaking residents indicated they watch and/or listen
to Spanish TV and radio regularly (33% daily and 11% two to five times a week).

Conclusions
1.

2.

3.

4.

The majority of Arizona residents believe that litter is a problem along freeways
throughout the state, but interestingly, they are more likely to believe litter is a
problem in “other” areas of the state than along the freeways where they live. Cans
and bottles are perceived to be the biggest litter problems.
A definite challenge for an anti-litter campaign will be the perception by a majority of
residents that they do not litter, and the subsequent perception among litters that they
will not be caught if they do litter.
Unaided awareness of current and past litter campaigns and specific messages other
than “don’t litter” is relatively low. Specific messages/slogans recalled were
primarily related to general statewide campaigns to “Keep Arizona Clean,” “Keep
Arizona Beautiful” and “Don’t Trash Arizona.” This may suggest that these types of
messages also resound with residents and reflect sentiments they support.
Although the tested message that was most often selected as “persuasive” and
“effective” touted the $500 fine for littering, it is unlikely that residents in general
would personally find this to be compelling reason not to litter based on the earlier
findings that most either do not think they litter or will not get caught. Since there
was a positive response to the messages about the importance of keeping Arizona
beautiful, a message that supports this concept is more likely to resonate with and be
“embraced” by residents.

2006 MAG Litter Survey

I.

Introduction

A.

Background and Methodology

Page 1

RIESTER, on behalf of its client the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG),
commissioned WestGroup Research of Phoenix to conduct a telephone study with
residents age 16 and older living in the state of Arizona. The purpose of the study was to
evaluate overall awareness of and attitudes toward litter. WestGroup conducted these
surveys in December 2006.
Results are based on 1,233 fifteen-minute telephone interviews conducted with 616 male
and 617 female residents. Respondents were randomly selected from a Random Digit
Dial (RDD) database comprised of phone numbers from targeted zip codes. The margin
of error for the survey is approximately +3.0% at a 95% confidence level.
Data is reported by total sample as well as by the three areas identified by MAG –
Maricopa County, Pima County, and outlying areas. Thirty-four interviews (3%) were
conducted in Spanish.

B.

Demographics

Per established quotas, 50% of Arizona residents interviewed were males and 50% were
females. The average age of the residents was 45, 60% were married, and 44% had
children under the age of 18 living in their household. The majority had at least some
college experience (72%), 58% are employed either full or part-time, and approximately
one-fourth (26%) reports a household income of more than $75,000. Three fourths of the
residents are Caucasian (76%), while 82% report that “only English” is spoken in their
home.
Additional detail on the demographic profile of the respondents is provided in Tables 1a
and 1b while Table 2 provides a breakdown of the city of residence represented in the
sample.

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 2

Table 1a: Respondent Demographics
Characteristic

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

50%
50%

50%
50%

51%
49%

50%
50%

6%
4%
19%
20%
20%
14%
17%
45.6 yrs

6%
3%
23%
24%
16%
12
16%
44.3 yrs

4%
4%
10%
12%
24%
18%
28%
51.5 yrs

8%
7%
16%
17%
26%
14%
12%
44.0 yrs

Marital Status
Married
Single
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
D/K or Refused

60%
25%
6%
5%
1%
2%

61%
26%
6%
5%
1%
2%

61%
21%
9%
7%
1%
1%

58%
28%
5%
5%
1%
3%

Education
Less than H.S.
H.S. graduate
Some college
College graduate
Graduate degree

8%
18%
34%
25%
13%

7%
16%
35%
27%
13%

7%
14%
33%
27%
16%

12%
26%
33%
17%
11%

Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
African American
Asian
Other

76%
11%
2%
1%
7%

79%
9%
3%
2%
4%

75%
12%
3%
1%
8%

66%
13%
16%

HH with Children <18

44%

45%

37%

46%

Male
Female
Age
>21
21-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
66+
Average

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 3

Table 1b: Respondent Demographics
Characteristic

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

HH Income
<$10,000
$10-$20,000
$20-$30,000
$30-$40,000
$40-$50,000
$50-$60,000
$60-$75,000
$75-$100,000
$100,000+
Refused

4%
7%
9%
8%
9%
6%
9%
11%
15%
23%

3%
6%
8%
7%
8%
7%
9%
12%
18%
22%

4%
8%
10%
7%
8%
7%
7%
8%
14%
27%

6%
9%
10%
13%
10%
4%
10%
12%
6%
21%

Employment Status
Full-time
Part-time
Retired
Homemaker
Student
Unemployed

49%
9%
24%
8%
4%
4%

51%
10%
21%
8%
4%
4%

42%
7%
35%
7%
3%
5%

48%
10%
22%
9%
4%
5%

14%
9%
8%
9%

16%
9%
7%
10%

11%
10%
9%
9%

11%
8%
8%
6%

6%
5%
5%

6%
5%
5%

3%
3%
4%

9%
7%
5%

82%
10%
1%
4%

85%
8%
1%
4%

80%
13%
4%

77%
11%
1%
5%

2%

2%

2%

3%

Profession
White collar/mgmt
Blue collar
Trade
Professional
(medical/legal)
Education
Clerical/admin
Self-employed
HH Language
English only
English & Spanish
Spanish only
English + other
language
Other language only

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 4

Table 2: Sample Breakdown by City
Frequencies reported, NOT percentages
Characteristic

Total
(n=1,233)

Apache Junction
Avondale
Buckeye
Carefree
Cave Creek
Chandler
El Mirage
Flagstaff
Fountain Hills
Gilbert
Glendale
Goodyear
Green Valley
Kingman
Laveen
Litchfield Park
Mesa
New River
Payson
Page
Peoria
Phoenix
Prescott
Queen Creek
Scottsdale
Show Low
Sierra Vista
Sun City
Sun Lakes
Surprise
Tempe
Tolleson
Tucson
Yuma
Other*
Refused

9
12
8
1
5
49
6
16
7
41
58
13
13
16
2
5
107
1
5
3
42
210
10
8
49
6
17
23
2
26
23
1
205
20
181
33

*includes all mentions less than1%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 5

II.

Driver Characteristics

A.

Driving Habits

On average, Arizona residents drive slightly more than 20 miles per day with
residents living in the outlying areas of the state reporting more daily miles than other
residents (22 miles vs. 20.7). Males reported more average daily miles driven than
females (24.9 vs. 17.1)
Table 3: Average Miles Driven
(On Average Day)
Average Miles

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

0-10 miles
11-20 miles
21-30 miles
31-50 miles
50+ miles
Average miles
Don’t know

41%
20%
13%
12%
12%
21.0
2%

42%
18%
14%
12%
12%
20.7
2%

39%
23%
11%
12%
12%
20.6
4%

38%
22%
11%
14%
14%
22.2
1%

Q8: In a typical day, how many miles do you drive or ride in a motor vehicle?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 6

Residents most commonly reported driving a 4-door sedan (mentioned by 38%).
Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV) and pick-up trucks were the next most frequently
mentioned vehicles driven by Arizona residents (20% and 18%, respectively). Maricopa
County residents were most likely to report driving a 4-door sedan (38%) or an SUV
(21%), whereas Pima County residents and those living in the outlying areas of the state
were more likely to report driving 4-door sedans (41% and 33%, respectively) or pick-up
trucks (20% and 28%, respectively).

Type of Vehicle Driven/Ridden
38%
38%

4-door Sedan

41%
34%
20%
21%
19%
17%

Sports utility

18%
15%

Pick-up truck

20%
28%
11%
12%
12%
10%

Van/Minivan
7%
8%

2-door coupe

4%
5%
2%
1%
1%
3%

Other

3%
4%

Don't drive

2%
2%

0%

10%

20%
Total Sample

30%
Maricopa

Pima

40%
Outlying

Total sample n=1,233; Maricopa n=748; Pima n=243; Outling n=242

50%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

B.

Page 7

Litterbag Use

Three in five residents (62%) indicated they keep a litterbag or trashcan in their
vehicle. Interestingly, Maricopa County residents are significantly less likely to have a
litterbag/trashcan in their vehicles (57%) than Pima County residents (65%) and
particularly residents living in the outlying areas of the state (74%). Residents most
likely to report having a litterbag or trashcan in their vehicle are females (66%), older
residents (71% of those age 55 or older), and those with household incomes less than
$40,000 (68%).
Those who do not currently have a litterbag or trashcan in their vehicle were asked
if they would consider keeping one in their vehicle; approximately half (54%)
answered in the affirmative. Again, residents in the outlying areas of the state were
more amenable to putting a litterbag in their vehicle than those in Maricopa or Pima
Counties (64% vs. 53% and 49%, respectively).

Litterbag or Trashcan Use in Vehicle
Yes
54%

Yes
62%

No
38%

Don't Know
3%

No
43%

Currently Have or Use

Would Consider Using

2006 MAG Litter Survey

A.

Page 8

Trash Accumulating Inside Vehicle

Arizona residents were most likely to report that the most common type of trash
that accumulates in their vehicles is small pieces of paper such as gum wrappers,
receipts and lottery tickets (mentioned by 34%). Four of the five next most common
items are food and drink items – soda cans/bottles (19%), fast food wrappers (17%),
water bottles (15%), and miscellaneous other food wrappers such as chip bags and candy
wrappers (12%). One in four residents, however, indicated that they always remove trash
from their vehicle so nothing accumulates (25%).

Six Most Common Types of Trash
Inside Vehicle
34%
36%

Small pieces of paper

30%
32%
19%
18%

Soda cans/bottles

15%
26%
17%
17%

Fast food wrappers

12%
21%
15%
17%

Water bottles/cans

11%
13%
14%
19%

Paper/newspaper

12%
9%
12%
16%

Other food wrappers

9%
14%

0%

10%

20%

Total Sample

Maricopa

30%
Pima

40%

50%

Outlying

Total sample n=1,233; Maricopa n=748; Pima n=243. Outlying n=242

Residents in the outlying areas of the state are more likely than those in the metro areas to
report an accumulation of soda cans (26% vs. 18% Maricopa and 15% Pima) or fast food
wrappers (21% vs. 17% Maricopa and 12% Pima) as well as plastic bags or other plastic
items (12% vs. 5% others). Pima County residents were most likely to report that they
keep their vehicles clean (37% vs. 23% Maricopa and 18% outlying).
In general, residents under the age of 35 are significantly more likely than residents ages
55 and older, to report all types of trash in their vehicle (14% report “nothing” vs. 41%).
Females were more likely than males to report an accumulation of paper and snack items.
Males were more likely to indicate that soda cans/bottles are commonly found in their
vehicle.

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 9

Table 4: Trash Accumulated in Vehicle – Total Responses
Items

Small pieces of paper (receipts, lottery
tickets, gum wrappers)
Soda cans/bottles
Fast food wrappers
Water cans/bottles
Paper/newspaper/napkins
Other food wrappers
Plastic bags/other plastic
Cups (Styrofoam, plastic, paper)
Food/organic material
Cigarette butts
Beer cans/bottles
Nothing/always clean out vehicle
Other
Don’t know

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

34%

36%

20%

32%

19
17
15
14
12
7
4
3
3
1
25
7
2

18
17
17
16
13
6
4
3
2
1
23
6
2

15
12
11
12
9
5
3
3
2
1
37
7
1

26
21
13
9
14
12
6
3
4
2
18
7
1

Q26: What kinds of trash tend to accumulate INSIDE your
vehicle?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

D.

Page 10

Smokers

Approximately one in six Arizona residents indicated they are smokers (17%). This
percentage was slightly higher, but not significantly so, among residents in outlying areas
of the state than those in Maricopa or Pima Counties (20% vs. 17% and 16%,
respectively). Males (20%), those with household incomes of less than $40K (23%),
those without any college experience (24%), and single residents (24%) were more likely
than those in comparative groups to admit they were smokers.
Of those who currently smoke, only 5% do not feel that throwing cigarette butts out
the window is littering, and only 3% report that they actually throw their cigarette
butts out the window. Interestingly, only Maricopa County smokers indicated they
occasionally throw their cigarette butts out the window (5%; the primary reason being
they do not have an ashtray in their vehicle – mentioned by 4 of the 6 respondents). The
majority of smokers report that they either use the ashtray in their vehicle (56%) or do not
smoke in their vehicle (14%).
Table 5: Smoking Habits
Response

Smoker
Agree throwing cigarette butts
out window is littering

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

17%
(n=205)
95%

16%
(n=121)
94%

15%
(n=36)
94%

20%
(n=48)
96%

Q13: Do you smoke? Q14: If yes, in your opinion, is throwing cigarette
butts out the window or on the ground littering?
Table 6: Disposing of Cigarette Butts
(Among those indicating they smoke)
Response

Ashtray in vehicle
Don’t smoke in the car
Something else in vehicle
It varies
Throwing out window
Other
Don’t know/refused

Total
(n=205)

Maricopa
(n=121)

Pima
(n=36)

Outlying
(n=48)

56%
14%
12%
8%
3%
2%
5%

46%
16%
13%
12%
5%
2%
5%

61%
8%
14%
3%
14%

75%
10%
8%
4%
2%
-

2006 MAG Litter Survey

E.

Page 11

Q15: When you are in a vehicle, do you USUALLY dispose of cigarette
butts…?
Truck Drivers

Slightly fewer than one in five Arizona residents indicated they drive a pickup truck
(18%). This percentage is highest in the outlying areas of the state (28%). Overall,
62% of truck drivers report that they put things in the bed of the truck, with Maricopa
County drivers being more likely to use the truck beds than truck drivers in the rest of the
state (67% vs. 60% Pima and 53% outlying).
Table 7: Truck Drivers
Response

Drive a truck

Put things in truck bed

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

18%

15%

20%

28%

(n=186)

(n=36)

(n=40)

(n=49)

62%

67%

60%

53%

Q24: TRUCK DRIVERS ONLY – Do you ever put anything in your truck bed?

Truck drivers were most likely to report that soda cans/bottles is the most common
type of litter that would be found in the back of their truck (mentioned by 20%; see
Table 8). Plastic bags/other plastics (11%), small pieces of paper (9%), as well as
construction (10%) or lawn debris (7%) were among the other types of litter that can be
found in truck beds. Slightly more than one in ten (12%) indicated that they do not
believe they put any type of litter in the bed of their truck.

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 12

Table 8: Litter Via Truck Bed – Total Responses
(Among those who indicate they drive a truck)
Items

Soda cans/bottles
Nothing
Plastic bags/other plastic
Construction debris
Sm. pieces of paper
Lawn debris
Fast food wrappers
Food/organic material
Paper/ newspaper/ napkins
Beer cans/bottles
Other food wrappers
Cardboard
Water bottles
Litter that falls out accidentally
Tires
Car parts/ batteries
Wood

Total
(n=173)
20%
12
11
10
9
7
6
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2

Maricopa
(n=97)
16%
14
7
9
6
9
8
4
4
4
3
2
1
2
1
2
1

Pima
(n=40)
18%
10
10
10
10
5
8
5
2
2
2

Outlying
(n=36)
31%
6
22
14
17
3
6
3
3
11
6
8
8
6
3
3
3

Other
10%
8%
15%
9%
Don’t know
25
25
32
19
Q25b: What types of items do you ever put into your truck bed that you consider to
be litter or trash? What else?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 13

III.

Litter Awareness

A.

Perception of Litter as Problem along Freeways

Four in five Arizona residents believe that litter along the freeways throughout the
state of Arizona is a “big” (38%) or “moderate” (42%) problem. Residents in Pima
County are slightly more likely than residents living in other areas of the states to
describe the litter problem as “moderate;” particularly in comparison to residents living in
the outlying areas of the state (46% vs. 37%).
Those most likely to consider litter along freeways a “big” problem are:
¾
¾
¾
¾

Residents ages 55 and older (45% vs. 30% of those under the age of 35)
Those with lower household incomes (42% of those with incomes under $40K vs.
29% of those with household incomes of $75K or higher)
Residents who are not employed (40% vs. 36%)
Residents who are aware of anti-litter advertising (43% vs. 36%)

Perception of Litter along Freeways
across Arizona
38%
38%
35%
40%

Big problem

42%
43%
46%

Moderate
37%
14%
14%
11%
15%

Small problem
3%
3%
4%
3%

No problem

0%

10%

20%

Total Sample

30%

Maricopa

40%
Pima

Outlying

Total sample n=1,233; Maricopa n=748; Pima n=243. Outlying n=242

50%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 14

Table 9: Freeway Litter As A Problem in Arizona
Rating

Big problem
Moderate problem
Small problem
Not a problem at all
Don’t know

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Other
(n=242)

38%
42%
14%
3%
3%

38%
43%
14%
3%
2%

35%
46%
11%
4%
5%

40%
37%
15%
3%
5%

Q10: In your opinion, how big of a problem is litter along freeways in
Arizona? Would you say it is a…
In addition to their perceptions of litter along Arizona freeways in general, residents were
also asked to indicate their perception of the litter specifically along the freeways in the
county where they live. Overall, residents were slightly less likely to see litter as a
“big” or “moderate” problem along their county freeways than along Arizona
freeways in general (74% “big” + “moderate vs. 80% for Arizona freeways). Residents
living in Maricopa County were more likely to indicate that litter along the freeways
in that county is a “big” problem than residents in other areas of the state (37% vs.
25% for Pima County and 30% for outlying areas).

Perception of Litter along Freeways
in Specific County
37%
25%

Big problem

30%
40%
47%

Moderate

37%
16%
14%

Small problem

17%
4%
5%

No problem

9%

0%

10%

20%
Maricopa

30%
Pima

40%
Outlying

Total sample n=1,233; Maricopa n=748; Pima n=243. Outlying n=242

50%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 15

Table 10: Freeway Litter As A Problem in County of Residence
Rating

Big problem
Moderate problem
Small problem
Not a problem at all
Don’t know

Total
Sample
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Other
(n=242)

33%
41%
16%
5%
6%

37%
40%
16%
4%
4%

25%
47%
14%
5%
10%

30%
37%
17%
9%
7%

Q11: In your opinion, how big of a problem is litter along freeways in your
County? Would you say it is a…

2006 MAG Litter Survey

B.

Littering Material

1.

Definitions of Litter

Page 16

Residents were asked to respond with the first thought that came to mind when they
heard the word “litter.” The most common definition offered was “trash” or
“garbage” or “junk” (mentioned by 38%). The remaining definitions had a consensus
of less than one in fifteen residents. Several definitions, however, reflected back on the
individual who litters rather than the litter itself (people who litter – 6%; irresponsible –
5%; lazy/slobs – 3%). Others referred to the way litter looks (dirty/disgusting – 5%;
ugly/unsightly – 3%) or the way it makes them feel (angry/upset – 2%).
Table 11: Definition of “Litter”
Items

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

Trash/garbage/junk/mess
Paper
People throwing things out car
windows/not using receptacles
Irresponsible/disrespectful/
careless/inconsiderate
Dirty/disgusting/filthy
Empty cans/bottles/cups
Lazy/slobs/pigs/messy people
Ugly/looks bad/unsightly
Anger/makes me upset
Roads/freeways
Cigarette butts
Should be cleaned up/ problem
needs to be fixed
Plastic bags
Pollution/bad for environment
Cat litter
Don’t do it

38%
6
6

40%
7
6

33%
6
9

36%
5
4

5

6

5

4

5
4
3
3
2
2
2
2

5
3
3
3
2
2
3
2

6
4
4
3
2
3
2
3

4
5
4
2
4
2
1
2

2
1
1
1

2
1
1
1

2
1
1
-

3
2
1
2

Other*
Don’t know

14%
2

13%
2

14%
2

16%
2

Q12: What is the first thought that comes to your mind when you hear the
word “litter”? *Includes all mentioned less than 1%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

2.

Page 17

Perceptions on Types of Litter

Soda and beer cans top of list of items that residents are most likely to label as a
“severe” litter problem (soda cans/bottles – mentioned by 34%; beer cans/bottles –
31%), however, an additional 12% mention water bottles as a severe litter problem.
More than one in five residents also mentioned plastic items and cigarette butts as litter
they consider to be a “severe” problem (27% and 22% mentions, respectively). Paper,
food wrappers, and tires were also mentioned by more than one in six residents (16% to
18%).
Pima County residents were slightly more likely than Maricopa residents to list soda
cans/bottles as a severe litter problem (39% vs. 33%). Pima County and residents in the
outlying areas of the state were significantly more likely than Maricopa residents to
include plastic bags and other plastics on the list of items that are a severe problem (35%
and 34% vs. 21%). Maricopa and Pima County residents, on the other hand, were more
likely than residents in outlying areas of the state to cite cigarette butts (25% and 22% vs.
14%) and fast food wrappers (18% and 16% vs. 11%) as severe litter problems.

Most Common Types of Trash
Labeled as a’Severe’ Litter Problem
34%
33%

Soda cans/bottles

35%
31%
30%

Beer cans/bottles

21%

Plastic bags/other plastic

22%
Cigarette butts

22%

14%
Small pieces of paper

18%
17%

Fast food wrappers

16%
18%
16%

39%

35%
34%

27%
35%
34%
25%

21%
20%

11%
Tires

12%

0%

10%

Total Sample
Maricopa
Pima
Outlying

16%
16%
19%

20%

30%

40%

Total sample n=1,233; Maricopa n=748; Pima n=243. Outlying n=242

50%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 18

Table 12: Litter Perceived as a SERIOUS Problem – Total Answers
Items

Soda cans/bottles
Beer cans/bottles
Plastic bags/other plastic
Cigarette butts
Small pieces of paper
Fast food wrappers
Tires
Water cans/bottles
Construction debris
Litter that falls out of pick up
trucks accidentally
Trash (unspecified)
Paper/newspaper/napkins
Other food wrappers
Glass
Cardboard
Everything
Diapers/baby wipes
Furniture (couches, beds)
Cups (Styrofoam, plastic, paper)
Car parts/batteries/motor oil
Aluminum cans
Bottles/containers (unspecified)
Cardboard
Food/organic material
Other
Don’t know

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

34%
31
27
22
18
16
16
12
8
7

33%
30
21
25
17
18
16
10
10
8

39%
35
35
22
21
16
12
19
4
4

35%
34
34
14
20
11
19
13
4
6

6
6
4
4
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
10%
4%

6
7
5
4
2
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
12%
3%

5
6
4
5
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
1
5%
4%

9
4
4
5
1
4
6
2
3
5
2
2
2
1
10%
4%

Q18: What types of materials do you think are a serious litter problem?

After discussing the items they considered to be “severe” litter problems, residents were
asked to list additional items they considered to be “minor” problems. Three items
dominated the list of “minor litter” – biodegradable items, such as food and gum
(19%), small pieces of paper such as receipts, lottery tickets and gum wrappers
(19%), and cigarette butts (13%; see Table 12). Interestingly, Maricopa County
residents were more likely than other residents to include cigarette butts on the “minor”
list (16% vs. 9%).

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 19

Table 13: Litter Perceived as a MINOR Problem – Total Answers
Items

Food/organic material
Small. pieces of paper (receipts,
lottery tickets, gum wrappers)
There isn’t minor litter/ all litter is
major
Cigarette butts
Other food wrappers (chip bags,
candy wrappers)
Soda cans/bottles
Paper/ newspaper/ napkins
Fast food wrappers
Beer cans/bottles
Plastic bags/other plastic
Lawn debris
Tires
Litter that falls out of truck
accidentally
Cardboard

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

19%
19

19%
18

14%
18

25%
20

18

17

17

21

13
4

16
5

9
3

9
3

4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1

4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1

3
5
3
3
4
2
2
2

5
4
3
4
2
2
1

1

-

2

2

Other
11%
12%
12%
Don’t know
22%
21%
25%
Q19: What types of materials do you think are a minor litter problem?

10%
22%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 20

When asked to itemize what items they thought they had littered in the past year,
the vast majority of Arizona residents insisted that they had not littered at all
during the past year (69%) – this was particularly true among Pima County residents
(77%). An additional one in six residents (16%) said they “did not know” if they had
littered or not. In general, residents under the age of 35 are more likely to indicate that
they have littered in the past year than those over age 35 (50% vs. 28% of those ages 35
to 54 and 16% of those age 55 or older).
Among those who indicated they had littered in the past year, food or organic material
(including gum) was the most common type of litter (listed by 39%). Once again,
Maricopa County residents are more likely than residents in other areas of the state to
report that they have discarded cigarette butts (15% vs. 9% and 6%). In general, females
and older residents are more likely than those in comparative groups to list organic
materials as items they personally have discarded (53% of females and 50% of those age
55 or older). Males and younger residents are more likely to report other types of
littering.
Table 14: Items Personally Discarded as Litter – Total Responses
Items

Have not littered in past year
Don’t know
Food/organic material
Small pieces of paper
Cigarette butts
Other food wrappers
Soda cans/bottles
Paper/newspaper/napkins
Plastic bags/other plastic
Fast food wrappers
Litter that accidentally falls out of
pickup truck
Water cans/bottles
Wood/toothpicks
Beer cans/bottles
Other*

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

69%
16%
(n=328)
39%
23
12
10
6
4
2
2
2

69%
13%
(n=206)
41%
21
15
8
7
4
1
2
2

77%
27%
(n=44)
32%
23
9
20
4
7
2
2

62%
18%
(n=78)
40%
27
6
6
6
3
4
3
1

2
2
1
11%

2
2
1
12%

4%

1
1
3
10%

Q20: Can you think of items that you yourself might have discarded as litter (by
litter we mean items you did not put in a trash receptacle) in the past year?
*Less than 1% mentions by total sample

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 21

C.

Littering Circumstances

1.

Littering Circumstances among those who Litter

Residents who indicated they had littered in the past year were most likely to report
that the littering happened while they were driving and/or riding in a vehicle
(mentioned by 46%) or when they were walking outside (15%).
Table 15: Littering Situation – Total Responses
(Among those who indicated they have littered in the past year)
Items

Total
(n=378)

Maricopa
(n=231)

Pima
(n=56)

Outlying
(n=91)

Driving/riding/traveling in vehicle
Walking outside
Opened door/window – flew out
No trash can around
I didn’t litter
Eating food/chewing gum
Flew out of truck bed
Cleaning out car
At home
In the desert/ middle of nowhere

46%
15
4
7
2
2
2
1
1
1

47%
16
3
8
1
2
2
1
1
2

45%
11
4
5
4
2
2
-

45%
14
6
6
6
2
1
2
1
-

Other
Don’t know/can’t remember

7%
16

7%
15

6%
27

8%
14

Q21: To the best of your knowledge, what were the general circumstances in terms of
where and what you were doing when you discard litter?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 22

Approximately half of those who reportedly littered in the past year indicated that
they were alone when the littering occurred (47%). Males are most likely to indicate
they are alone when littering occurs (54% vs. 38%).

Tend to Be Alone When Littering
(Among those who said they littered in the past year n=378)

Yes
Don't
know

47%
12%

41%

No

2006 MAG Litter Survey

2.

Page 23

Perception of Accountability

The vast majority of those who admitted that they have littered in the past do not
believe they will get caught for littering at some point in the future (71%). Residents
most likely to believe that they may get caught for littering include:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾

Those living in the outlying areas of the state (30% vs. 20% of those in Maricopa
and 18% of those in Pima)
Younger residents (33% of those under age 35 vs. 5% of those age 55 or older)
Those with lower household incomes (31% of those with incomes under $40K vs.
14% of those with incomes greater than $75K)
Residents with a high school or less education (31% vs. 15% of those with a
college degree)
Minority residents (39% vs. 16% of Caucasian residents)

Believe Will Get Caught for Littering
(Among those who said they littered in the past year n=378)

No

71%

7%
Don't
know

22%

Yes

When asked why they do not believe they will get caught littering, more than half of
those who previously indicated they had littered replied, “I don’t litter” (49%) and an
additional 19% indicated they do not litter “very often.” A small percentage believes
they will not be caught littering because they are careful (8%) or they only throw away
things that will disintegrate like food (6%) or gum (2%). Others do not believe littering
laws are enforced (7%) and/or it simply is not “a big deal” (3%).

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 24

Table 16: Reasons Why People Believe they will not get Caught Littering
(Among those who indicated they have littered in the past year
and believe they will not get caught)
Responses

I don’t litter
I don’t litter very often
I’m cautious/ careful/ make sure no one is
looking
Nobody gets caught/ not enforced/ other
things for cops to do
Only litter food/ things that will
disintegrate
It’s not a big deal/ nobody cares
I carry a trash container in the car/ hold
on to it and throw it away later
I don’t throw out anything big
I don’t think a piece of gum is littering
Cigarette butts aren’t a big thing
Other
Don’t know/refused

Total
(n=269)

Maricopa
(n=171)

Pima
(n=40)

Outlying
(n=58)

49%
19
8

47%
21
7

55%
18
5

50%
16
12

7

8

8

5

6

6

8

5

3
2

3
2

2
2

2
2

2
2
2

2
2
2

2
-

3
2
-

2
4

2
4

10

2
3

Q23B: Why don’t you believe you will ever get caught for littering?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

3.

Page 25

Personal Experience with Specific Littering Situations

Residents were read a list of eight specific littering situations and asked to indicate if
they personally had experienced that littering situation in the past three months, more
than three months ago, or had never experienced that specific situation.
Residents were most likely to report that at some point in time they “noticed trash
falling out of the vehicle” they were driving or riding in (19% within the past 3
months; 18% 3+ months). In particular, Maricopa County residents and those living in
outlying areas of the county were more likely than Pima County residents to indicate they
had experienced this in the past three months (19% and 23% vs. 14%).
The next most commonly experienced litter situation was throwing or having a
cigarette butt thrown out of the window (10% within the past 3 months, 13% more
than 3 months). Approximately one in fourteen residents indicated they had been in a
vehicle where something else was thrown out of the window (7% paper, 6% can/bottle,
6% beverage container) or they had left debris on the roadside after having problems with
their vehicle (7%). Only 2% of all residents reported ever receiving a warning or ticket
for littering.
In general, males, residents under age 35, those with household incomes under $45K, and
those with a high school education or less were more likely than those in comparative
groups to report having experiences with the specific littering situations that were
queried.

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 26

Experience with Specific Littering Situations
Trash fell out while driving/riding

Threw cigarette butt out window

19%

10%

63%

18%

77%

13%

Threw can/bottle out window

6%

13%

81%

Threw out small paper out window

7%

11%

82%

Threw out trash in area with litter

6% 10%

84%

Vehicle problems/left roadside debrise

7% 8%

85%
88%

Threw beverage container out window 4% 8%

98%

Ticket/warning for littering 2%

0%

(n=1,233)

20%

40%

Past 3 months

60%

3+ months

80%

Never

100%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 27

Table 17: Personal Experience with Littering Circumstances
Past 3 Months

Circumstance

Noticed trash falling out of vehicle you
were driving or riding in.
Rather than keep a cigarette butt in the
vehicle, you or someone in the car threw
it out the window.
You had vehicle problems and left debris
like a tire or other things on the side of
the road.
You threw out a small item from your
vehicle like a candy wrapper, scrap
paper, etc.
Someone in a vehicle you were in threw
trash out in area with lots of litter.
Someone in a vehicle you were in threw
out a can, bottle or litter on to the side of
the road.
You or someone in car threw out a
beverage container.
You or someone you were with got a
ticket or warning for littering.

Total
Sample
(1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

19%

19%

14%

23%

10%

11%

7%

10%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

6%

6%

4%

8%

6%

6%

6%

6%

4%

4%

4%

4%

-

-

-

-

Q17: I am going to read you a few statements pertaining to your litter awareness. For
each of the following statements, please respond by telling me if this is something you
–“Have experienced in the past 3 months,” “Have experienced over 3 months ago,”
or “have never experienced.”

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 28

IV.

Campaign Awareness

A.

Awareness of Campaign

Approximately one in four residents indicated they had seen advertising related to
litter or littering in the past three months (26%). There were no differences in
awareness by region or between demographic subgroups.

Have Seen Ads for Litter
Within last 3 months
Don't
know

3%

Yes

26%
71%
No

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 29

“Don’t litter” or “Keep Arizona clean” were the main message residents recalled
from litter-related advertising (mentioned by 32%; see Table 18). Other messages
recalled included information about the fines for littering (15%), littering is unlawful
(9%), and highway clean-up efforts such as “Adopt a highway” (5%). Other residents
could only report the type of advertising they recalled such as billboards or signs along
the road (13%), television (5%), or radio (4%). Maricopa County residents were more
likely to recall information about fines than Pima County residents (17% vs. 8%) and
residents in the outlying areas were more likely than other residents to recall the highway
signs (12% vs. 4% Maricopa and 2% Pima). Males and residents under age 35 were
more likely to remember seeing information about fines for littering than residents in the
comparative groups (18% and 23%).

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 30

Table 18: Recalled Messages of Litter-related Advertising
(Among those who indicated they remember seeing ads
related to litter or littering in the past 3 months)
Responses

Don’t litter/ keep Arizona clean
The fines
It was a sign along the road/billboard
Littering is unlawful/ can get a ticket
Clean up efforts/ Adopt a highway
Saw on TV/ commercial/ public service
announcement
Prisoners picking up trash
Heard on radio
Cost of cleaning up / tax dollars
It’s a big problem/ becoming an issue
Litter is bad for the environment/ bad for
wildlife
Call a number to report littering
Littering/ dumping things in the desert by
illegal immigrants
Read article in newspaper
Indian crying
Other*
Don’t know

Total
(n=315)

Maricopa
(n=188)

Pima
(n=62)

Outlying
(n=65)

32%
15
13
9
5
5

29%
17
11
9
4
5

37%
8
19
8
2
5

37%
14
14
8
12
3

5
4
4
4
3

8
4
4
2
2

6
2
6
6

2
5
3
3

3
2

2
3

6
3

3
-

2
2

3
2

2
3

2
-

17%
10%

13%
10%

19%
5%

20%
15%

Q30? What specifically do you remember about the ads related to litter or
littering?*Less than 2% mentions

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 31

Approximately one-third of residents who remember seeing litter-related
advertising in the past three months were able to recall some type of slogan (30%).
Two of the most commonly recalled “slogans” were actually messages – “do not litter”
(mentioned by 14%) and “you will be fined” (mentioned by 5%). Actual slogans that
were most frequently recalled were “Don’t Trash Arizona” (6%), Arizona Clean and
Beautiful (4%) and “Keep Arizona Beautiful” (4%).
Table 19: Main Slogan of Recalled Advertising
(Among those who indicated they remember seeing ads
related to litter or littering in the past 3 months)
Responses

Total
(n=315)

Maricopa
(n=188)

Pima
(n=62)

Outlying
(n=65)

Do not litter
Don’t Trash Arizona
You will be fined
Arizona Clean and Beautiful
Keep Arizona Beautiful
Littering is unlawful
There was no slogan/ it was a sign/ gave
information
Litter costs everyone/ save taxpayers’
money
Give a hoot, don’t pollute
Litter hurts everyone
Don’t mess with Texas
Keep our freeways clean
Adopt a highway
It is a freeway, its not free to litter

14%
6
5
4
4
2
2

13%
5
6
2
3
3
2

13%
6
2
8
2
3
3

20%
6
6
9
5
2
2

2

3

2

-

2
2
1
1
1
1

1
2
1
1
1
-

3

5
3
3
2
3
-

Other
Don’t know

3%
68%

3%
70%

3%
71%

3%
62%

Q31? What was the main slogan used in the ads?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

B.

Page 32

Don’t Trash Arizona Awareness

Slightly more than two in five Arizona residents indicated they have heard the
slogan “Don’t Trash Arizona” (42%). Overall awareness of the slogan was highest
among males (47% vs. 38%) and employed residents (45% vs. 39%).

Total Awareness - Have Heard Slogan
“Don’t Trash Arizona”
(Unaided + aided)

Yes

42%

54%
4%
No

n=1,233

Don't
know

Table 20 on the following page shows that residents who were familiar with the
“Don’t Trash Arizona” slogan reported seeing and/or hearing the slogan from a
variety of sources – television (26%), billboards (22%), radio (14%), and
street/highway signs (12%). Residents living in the outlying areas of the state were
more likely than others to report seeing the slogan on street/highway signs (17% vs. 12%
Maricopa and 7% Pima). Residents under age 35 were more likely than those ages 55 or
older to report seeing the slogan on billboards (32% vs. 15%) or on the radio (19% vs.
6%).
Table 21 shows that most residents were unable to name a sponsor for the “Don’t
Trash Arizona” slogan (72%). One in ten correctly identified the Arizona Department
of Transportation (10%) and 12% generically cited the “state” or “local” government.

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 33

Table 20: Where Saw “Don’t Trash Arizona” slogan - Total Responses
(Among those indicating they had heard the slogan)
Media

Television
Billboards
Radio
Street/highway signs
Newspaper
Bumper stickers
Bus signs
Trash cans
Other
Don’t know

Total
(n=522)

Maricopa
(n=322)

Pima
(n=95)

Outlying
(n=105)

26%
22%
14%
12%
5%
2%
1%
1%
5%
25%

26%
20%
14%
12%
5%
1%
1%
4%
25%

30%
21%
11%
7%
2%
3%
3%
1%
27%

19%
29%
18%
17%
9%
3%
1%
12%
22%

Q33: Where have you seen, heard or read the slogan “Don’t Trash
Arizona?”

Table 21: Who Sponsors “Don’t Trash Arizona” slogan
(Among those indicating they had heard the slogan)
Sponsor

State/local government
Arizona Dept. of Transportation
Maricopa Assoc. of Governments
Other
Don’t know

Total
(n=522)

Maricopa
(n=322)

Pima
(n=95)

Outlying
(n=105)

12%
10%
2%
5%
72%

14%
12%
2%
3%
70%

7%
10%
1%
6%
76%

9%
9%
2%
5%
76%

Q34: Who sponsors the “Don’t Trash Arizona”
advertisements?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 34

All residents, whether they were aware of the slogan or not, were asked to indicate what
the slogan “Don’t Trash Arizona” meant to them. The primary meaning associated
with the slogan was to not litter and put trash where it belongs (mentioned by 59%).
Similar meanings included do not throw trash out the window and keep roads clean
(18%) or take care of your own trash (6%). More than one in five residents assigned an
environmental meaning to the slogan – do not ruin our state/keep it beautiful (18%) or
have respect for and protect the environment (6%).
Table 22: Meaning of “Don’t Trash Arizona”

Don’t litter/ put trash where it belongs/
don’t make a mess
Don’t throw trash out the window/ keep
roads clean
Don’t ruin our state/ keep it beautiful/
take care of it
Pick up after yourself/ take care of your
own trash/ be responsible
Have respect for the environment/
protect environment/ take pride in the
state
It means what it says/self-explanatory
Litter makes AZ look bad/ look like a
trashcan
Don’t graffiti/ vandalize
Don’t speak badly about Arizona
Do your part/ pick up trash when you
see it

Total
(n=1233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

59%

61%

55%

57%

18%

19%

24%

12%

18%

18%

16%

21%

6%

6%

11%

4%

6%

6%

7%

7%

4%
2%

3%
3%

5%
2%

4%
2%

2%
2%
2%

2%
2%
1%

2%
1%
1%

1%
1%
3%

Other
6%
5%
6%
6%
Don’t know
4%
2%
4%
7%
Q35: In your own words, please tell me what the slogan “Don’t Trash Arizona” means
to you?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

C.

Page 35

Awareness of Litter Hotline

When specifically asked about three sources for information about litter, only one in
ten residents indicated awareness of the “Don’t Trash Arizona” website (11%) or
the toll-free hotline (10%). One in twelve indicated awareness of the Phoenix-based
hotline (8%).
¾

¾
¾

Awareness of the website was highest among lower income residents (13% of
those with incomes under $40K vs. 9% of those with incomes over $75K), those
with less than a college degree (12% vs. 8%), and residents with a minority ethnic
background (16% vs. 10%).
Awareness of the toll-free litter hotline was highest among Pima County residents
(14% vs. 9% for Maricopa and 7% for outlying), males (12% vs. 8%), and
residents between the ages of 35 and 54 (12% vs. 8% of those ages 55 or older).
Surprisingly, awareness for the Phoenix-based hotline phone number was the
same across residents from all three areas surveyed (8% Maricopa and 7% for
Pima and outlying). Once again, awareness was highest among males (9% vs.
6%) and residents between the ages of 35 and 54 (10% vs. 5% of those under the
age of 35 and 6% of those age 55 or older).

Aided Awareness - Litter Resources

www.azgovernor.gov/
donttrashaz

11%

87%

2%

1-877-3-LITTER

10%

88%

2%

Litter Hotline
(602) 721-4683

8%

90%

2%

0%

20%

40%
Yes

60%
No

80%

Don't know

100%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 36

Table 23: Aided Awareness - Litter Hotline
Source

Those indicating awareness
Total
Maricopa
Pima
Outlying
(n=1,233) (n=748)
(n=243)
(n=242)

NET aware all three
www.azgovernor.gov/don’ttrashaz
Litter Hotline 1-877-3-LITTER
Litter Hotline 602-721-4683

11%
10%
8%

10%
9%
8%

13%
14%
7%

12%
7%
7%

Q36: Have you heard of the following information source?

Residents who were not aware of the two telephone hotlines were asked about their
awareness in general of a litter hotline they could call to report someone who litters.
Overall, the combined awareness of the specific hotlines as well as the aided
awareness of a general hotline was 28% for all Arizona residents surveyed. Those
most likely to be aware of the hotline were Pima County residents (37% vs. 26% of all
other residents), males (31% vs. 25%), and residents ages 35 to 54 (32% vs. 23% of those
under age 35).

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 37

Total Awareness of Litter Hotline
(Aided + Unaided)

Yes
28%

Don't
know
2%

No
70%
n=1,233

2006 MAG Litter Survey

D.

Page 38

Likelihood to Use Litter Hotline

When asked how likely they would be to call the litter hotline to report someone
who was littering, approximately three in five residents indicated they would be at
least “somewhat” likely to call (31% “very likely” and 32% “somewhat likely).
Residents who were most likely to indicate that they are “very likely” to call the litter
hotline and report a violation include:
¾
¾
¾

Residents living in the outlying areas of the state (40% vs. 34% of Pima and 27%
of Maricopa)
Residents ages 35 to 54 (37% vs. 24% of those under age 35)
Non-white residents (38% vs. 29% of Caucasians)

Likelihood to Report Littering via Hotline
31%

Very likely

32%

Somewhat likely

21%

Not very likely

13%

Not at all likely

3%

Don't know

0%
Total n=1,233

10%

20%

30%

40%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 39

Table 24: Likelihood to Report Littering

Likelihood
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not very likely
Not at all likely
Don’t know

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

31%
32%
21%
13%
3%

27%
35%
22%
13%
3%

34%
31%
20%
12%
4%

40%
24%
21%
12%
4%

Q 38: If you were to see someone litter, how likely are you to report this
behavior

2006 MAG Litter Survey

E.

Page 40

Persuasive Campaign Messages

Residents were read a list of 10 messages and asked to indicate how persuasive they felt
each message would be in motivating residents not to litter along state freeways.
The three messages receiving the highest proportion of “very persuasive” ratings
from Arizona residents are those that address the impact of littering on individuals
or the state – “Littering can cost drivers and passengers a misdemeanor fine of $500”
(48% very persuasive; 71% combined 4+5 ratings); “More than 85,954 bags of trash
were picked up along the Maricopa County freeway system last year alone. This costs
us an average of $2.3 million per year in cleanup” (46% very persuasive; 68%
combined 4+5 ratings); and “Debris on roadways nationwide caused 25,000 accidents
each year and more than 80 fatalities.” (44% very persuasive; 68% 4+5 ratings).
Rounding out the top five messages receiving the highest persuasive ratings are “Have
pride in your state. Don’t Trash Arizona.” (60% combined 4+5 ratings) and “Cigarette
butts are small, but with over 200 billion littered each year it becomes a big problem and
toxic chemicals add up” (54% 4+5 ratings).

Five Most Persuasive Messages
(Percentage giving ‘4’ or ‘5’ rating; 5 = very persuasive)

48%

Littering can cost $500 fine

85,954 bags of trash cost
more than 2.3M/yr

Roadway debris causes
25,000 acc./80 fatalities

23%

46%

22%

44%

24%

37%

Have pride/
Don't Trash Arizona

34%

Cigarette butts small/
200 billion littered is big

0%

20%

23%

20%

40%
'5' - very persuasive

(n=1,233)

60%
'4'

80%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 41

Overall females, those with household incomes under $40K, those with lower education
levels, and minority residents tended to be more likely than residents in the comparative
groups to give all of the messages a “4” or “5” rating. Interestingly, younger residents
were more likely than residents ages 35 and older to find the messages that quoted
statistics to be most persuasive, whereas residents ages 55 and older were more likely
than younger residents to give “4” or “5” ratings for the messages that focused on the
beauty of Arizona and personal responsibility.
Table 25: Persuasive Messages

Messages

Littering can cost drivers and
passengers a misdemeanor fine of
$500
More than 85,954 bags of
trash/costing us $2.3 million per
year
Debris on roadways nationwide
caused 25,000 accidents ea. year/80
fatalities
Have pride in your state. Don’t trash
AZ
Cigarette butts are small/200 billion
littered each year becomes a big
problem and toxic chemicals add up
Be responsible & please dispose of
litter properly.
Keep a litterbag in your car
Walk a few extra steps to use a trash
can
If you don’t litter in front of people,
why would you litter alone?
It is your responsibility to report
someone littering by calling the
Litter Hotline

Not at all
Persuasive
1
2

3

Very
Persuasive
4
5

Average
Rating

5%

5%

18%

23%

48%

4.0

7%

8%

16%

22%

46%

3.9

7%

7%

17%

24%

44%

3.9

7%

11%

21%

23%

37%

3.7

12%

13%

20%

20%

34%

3.5

12%

15%

27%

17%

29%

3.4

15%
10%

17%
18%

23%
26%

14%
16%

30%
28%

3.3
3.3

16%

15%

23%

18%

24%

3.2

19%

22%

27%

13%

17%

2.9

Q41: How persuasive do you believe the following messages are:

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 42

There were slight differences between residents living in the three regions studied in the
perceived persuasiveness of some of the messages.
¾

As expected, Maricopa County residents were more likely to highly rate the
message regarding the number of bags of trash picked up along Maricopa County
freeways than were residents living in other parts of the state (70% giving a 4 or 5
rating compared to 66% for Pima and 64% for outlying areas).

¾

Pima County residents were more likely to give higher ratings than Maricopa
County residents for two messages – “Keep a litter bag in your car “ (48% giving
a 4 or 5 rating compared to 40% of Maricopa residents) and “It is your
responsibility to report someone littering by calling the Litter Hotline” (36%
giving a 4 or 5 rating compared to 27% of Maricopa County residents)

¾

Residents living in the outlying areas of the state were more likely than others to
give high ratings to six of the 10 messages tested. Most notably, the one message
that received the highest percentage of “4” or “5” ratings among these residents
was “Debris on roadways nationwide caused 25,000 accidents each year and more
than 80 fatalities” (72%). This message ranked third among Maricopa and Pima
County residents.
Table 26: Persuasive Messages – Regional Information
Percentage giving a “4” or “5” Rating

Message
Littering can cost drivers and passengers a
misdemeanor fine of $500
More than 85,954 bags of trash/costing us $2.3
million per year
Debris on roadways nationwide caused 25,000
accidents ea. Year/80 fatalities
Have pride in your state. Don’t trash AZ
Cigarette butts are small/200 billion littered
each year becomes a big problem and toxic
chemicals add up
Be responsible & please dispose of litter
properly.
Keep a litterbag in your car
Walk a few extra steps to use a trash can
If you don’t litter in front of people, why would
you litter alone?
It is your responsibility to report someone
littering by calling the Litter Hotline

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

70%

71%

72%

69%

68%

70%

66%

64%

68%
60%

68%
57%

63%
62%

72%
67%

54%

54%

50%

60%

45%

41%

46%

57%

44%
44%
42%

42%
40%
41%

46%
58%
45%

50%
53%
44%

30%

27%

36%

31%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

F.

Page 43

Effective Advertising Messages

Next, residents were read a list of seven types of advertisements and asked to indicate
how effective they felt the message from each ad would be in persuading people not to
litter.
In addition to receiving high ratings for persuasiveness, an advertising message that
informs residents of the $500 litter fine also received the highest percentage of
effectiveness ratings from Arizona residents (70% “4” or “5” ratings). Residents also
felt it would be effective to give litter prevention materials to elementary age children
(69% “4” or “5” ratings). The next tier of advertising messages that received “4” or “5”
ratings from close to three in five residents included ads showing or describing Arizona’s
scenic beauty (59%), ads urging residents to take pride in Arizona (58%), and ads
concentrating on specific, prevalent forms of trash such as cigarette butts, bottles, tires or
fast food trash (57%).

Five Most Effective Ad Messages
(Percentage giving ‘4’ or ‘5’ rating; 5 = very effective)

Ads informing residents of
litter fines

44%

26%

Litter prevention materials
for school children

44%

25%

34%

Ads showing AZ
scenic beauty

32%

Ads urging residents
to take pride in AZ

30%

Ads focusing on
specific forms of trash

0%

20%

25%

25%

26%

40%
'5' - very effective

(n=1,233)

60%
'4'

80%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 44

Once again, females, those with lower incomes, a high school or less education, and
residents with minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely than those in comparative
groups to give a “4” or “5” effectiveness rating to all the ad messages. Residents age 55
and older were significantly more likely than residents age 35 and younger to give high
effectiveness ratings on six of the seven messages.

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 45

Table 27:Effectiveness of Advertising Messages
Messages

Not at all
Effective
1

Ads informing residents if they litter
they will be fined
Litter prevention awareness materials
for elementary school children
As showing or describing AZ scenic
beauty
Ads urging residents to take pride in
the state of AZ
Ad focusing on specific, prevalent
forms of trash
Ads informing residents if they litter
they will be caught
Ads urging residents to report those
who litter by calling litter hotline

Very
Effective
4
5

Average
Rating

2

3

6%

7%

17%

26%

44%

4.0

4%

6%

20%

25%

44%

4.0

7%

10%

22%

25%

34%

3.7

6%

11%

25%

25%

32%

3.7

6%

10%

26%

26%

30%

3.7

10%

13%

24%

21%

30%

3.5

12%

18%

29%

19%

22%

3.2

Q42: Please rate how effective you think each would be in persuading people not to litter:

There were slight differences between residents living in the three regions studied in the
perceived effectiveness of some of the potential advertising messages.
¾

In general, Maricopa County residents were less likely than residents in other
areas of the state to give a “4” or “5” rating to all of the messages.

¾

Although most of the ratings given by Pima County residents were higher than
those given by Maricopa County residents, Pima County residents were
significantly more likely than Maricopa County residents to give a “4” or “5”
effectiveness ratings for ads urging residents to take pride in Arizona (61% vs.
55%) and ads urging residents to report those who litter by calling a litter hotline
(46% vs. 38%).

¾

Residents living in the outlying areas of the state also gave significantly higher
ratings than Maricopa County residents for the two ad messages pointed out for
Pima County (62% and 46%, respectively), they also gave higher ratings than
residents of both Pima and Maricopa Counties for ads showing or describing
Arizona’s scenic beauty (66% “4” or “5” ratings compared to 57% Maricopa and
59% Pima).

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 46

Table 28: Effectiveness of Advertising Messages - Regional Information
Percentage giving a “4” or “5” Rating

Message
Ads informing residents if they litter
they will be fined
Litter prevention awareness materials
for elementary school children
As showing or describing AZ scenic
beauty
Ads urging residents to take pride in
the state of AZ
Ad focusing on specific, prevalent
forms of trash
Ads informing residents if they litter
they will be caught
Ads urging residents to report those
who litter by calling litter hotline

Total
(n=1,233)
70%

Maricopa
(n=748)
68%

Pima
(n=243)
71%

Outlying
(n=242)
73%

69%

68%

71%

72%

59%

57%

59%

66%

58%

55%

61%

62%

57%

56%

58%

57%

51%

49%

53%

56%

41%

38%

46%

46%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

G.

Page 47

Personal Litter Messages

When asked to describe what they would say to someone to convince them not to
litter, the largest proportion of Arizona residents indicated they would simply tell
the person not to do it (34%) or pick it up and put it in the trash (12% and 10%,
respectively). Others indicated their message would be something that would make the
person feel guilty, such as “don’t be lazy,” “do you do that at your house?” or “that’s
disrespectful, why did you do that?” (mentioned by 18%).
A proportion of residents would point out the ramifications of littering either on the
person who litters (“you will get fined – 5%), the environment (7%), other people (“think
of future generations” – 2%; someone has to pick it up – 2%), or cost to city/state to clean
it up (2%). A small percentage indicated they would not say anything (5%) and/or would
just pick the trash up themselves (1%).
Table 29: Personal Message to People Who Litter

Message
Don’t do it/ Don’t litter/ Don’t trash
Arizona
Something to make them feel guilty/
make them feel ashamed/ don’t be lazy/
do you do that at your house?/ It’s
disrespectful, why did you do that?
Put it in the trash
Pick it up/ Clean up after yourself
It looks trashy/ messy
Explain harmful effects to the
environment
You will get fined for that/ its illegal
I wouldn’t tell them anything
Think of the next generation/ the future
Money spent to pick up trash/ could be
put to use somewhere else
Someone has to pick it up/ who’s going to
pick that ups?
Something graphic/ would cuss them out
I would just pick it up/ I would take care
of it

Total
(n=1,233)
34%

Maricopa
(n=748)
34%

Pima
(n=243)
35%

Outlying
(n=242)
32%

18

18

15

21

12
10
9
7

12
10
8
6

10
10
7
8

11
12
12
7

5
5
2
2

5
4
2
2

4
6
2
2

5
4
4
1

2

1

2

2

2
1

1
1

2
2

2
1

Other
6%
6%
5%
6%
Don’t know
8%
8%
10%
8%
Q40: In your own words, please tell me what would you say to someone to convince them
not to litter?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 48

Males and younger residents (under age 55) are more prone to indicate they would say
something to make the person littering feel guilty (20% for each), whereas older residents
would be more likely to tell them to pick it up and clean up after themselves (12%).
Residents with a minority ethnic background are more likely to say they would simply
tell people not to do it (42% vs. 32% of Caucasian residents) or pick it up (15% vs. 11%).
Caucasian residents were more likely to indicate they would say something to make the
person feel guilty (19% vs. 14%) or talk about how messy/trashy it looks (10% vs. 6%).
H.

Additional Litter Resources

Arizona residents indicated they would primarily turn to the Internet if they wanted
more information about litter or littering (mentioned by 53%). This was particularly
true among residents living in Maricopa County (59% vs. 46% Pima and 40% outlying)
and those under age 55 (69% of those under age 35; 58% of those 35 to 54; 30% of those
55 or older). Older residents were more likely to go to the litter hotline (6% vs. 3%) or
other government entities, such as the city, state, ADOT, city council, etc.
Table 30: Source for Litter/Littering Information

Source
Internet
Police/ highway patrol/DPS
The “city”
Litter hotline
Phonebook/ yellow pages
I wouldn’t need that information/
wouldn’t contact anyone
The state/governor
ADOT
Waste Management/garbage
company
City council/ councilmen/ mayor
Friend/ neighbor/ family
member/ teacher
Newspaper

Total
(n=1,233)

Maricopa
(n=748)

Pima
(n=243)

Outlying
(n=242)

53%
5
4
4
4
3

59%
4
5
4
4
3

46%
6
4
3
4
2

40%
7
3
6
3
2

3
3
2

3
2
2

2
3
4

2
3
2

2
2

1
1

2
1

3
2

1

1

1

2

Other*
9%
8%
11%
14%
Don’t know
16
13
18
21
Q39: If you wanted to find out more information about litter or littering, where
would you go or who would you contact to find that information? *all mentions less
than 1%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

V.

Page 49

Spanish Media Use

Approximately one in ten Arizona residents interviewed (11%) reported that
Spanish was spoken in their home. This percentage was highest in Pima County
(14%).

Language Use in Home
82%
85%
80%
77%

English
Only
10%
8%
13%
11%

English & Spanish
1%
1%
0%
1%

Spanish
Only

4%
4%
4%
5%

English & Other
Language

2%
2%
2%
3%

Other Language
Only
0%

20%

40%
Total

Maricopa

Total n=1,233; Maricopa n=748; Pima n=243; Outlying n=242

60%
Pima

80%
Outlying

100%

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 50

Approximately half of the Spanish-speaking Arizona residents (47%) indicate they speak
“mostly English and some Spanish” and another 27% report to speak the two languages
equally.

Amount of Spanish Spoken
13%
14%
3%

Only Spanish

21%
12%
11%
12%
14%

Mostly Spanish
some English

27%
27%
27%
28%

Equal Spanish
& English

47%
46%
58%

Mostly English
some Spanish

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%
Total

Maricopa

40%
Pima

50%

60%

70%

Outlying

(Among Spanish-speaking residents; n=125)

Slightly more than two in five Spanish-speaking residents indicated they watch and/or
listen to Spanish TV and radio regularly (33% daily and 11% two to five times a week).
Table 31: Spanish TV & Radio – Viewing Habits
Among those indicating they speak Spanish at home
Frequency

Daily
Regularly (2-5x per week)
Occasionally (1x every 1-2 weeks)
Rarely (less than 1x every 2-5
weeks)

Total
(n=125)

Maricopa
(n=63)

Pima
(n=33)

Outlying
(n=29)

33%
11%
23%
33%

32%
11%
19%
38%

33%
12%
27%
27%

35%
10%
28%
28%

QD7B: Thinking about your habits in regard to Spanish television and radio, would
you say you watch Spanish television…?

2006 MAG Litter Survey

VI.

Page 51

Profiles of Litterers

Residents were segmented into three categories based on their reported littering behavior.
“Admitted Litterers” are defined as those who specifically mentioned items that they
recall littering (27% of the total population). “Accidental Litterers” are defined as
residents who indicated they had never littered themselves, but reported being in a
vehicle when littering occurred (39% of the total population). “Non-Litterers” are those
who indicated they had never littered themselves and also indicated they had never
experienced other littering situations (34% of the total population).
Table 31: Demographic Comparison based on Littering Behavior
Admitted
Litterers
(n=335)

Accidental
Litterers
(n=478)

NonLitterers
(n=420)

Gender
Male
Female

59%
41%

51%
49%

41%
59%

Age
>21
21-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
66+
Average

16%
11%
23%
21%
16%
8%
5%
36 years

3%
3%
22%
21%
22%
14%
15%
46 years

1%
13%
18%
21%
17%
30%
53 years

Marital Status
Married
Single
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
D/K or Refused

52%
39%
2%
4%
2%
1%

63%
22%
6%
6%
3%

63%
18%
10%
5%
1%
2%

Education
Less than H.S.
H.S. graduate
Some college
College graduate
Graduate degree

13%
18%
34%
21%
12%

6%
18%
35%
26%
13%

6%
17%
33%
27%
13%

Characteristic

2006 MAG Litter Survey

Page 52

Table 31b: Demographic Comparison based on Littering Behavior
Characteristic

Admitted
Litterers
(n=335)

Accidental
Litterers
(n=478)

NonLitterers
(n=420)

Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
African American
Asian
Native American
Other

73%
15%
2%
2%
4%
4%

76%
12%
3%
1%
3%
4%

84%
6%
2%
1%
2%
5%

HH with Children <18

56%

43%

35%

HH Income
<$10,000
$10-$20,000
$20-$30,000
$30-$40,000
$40-$50,000
$50-$60,000
$60-$75,000
$75-$100,000
$100,000+
Refused

6%
8%
9%
8%
9%
5%
9%
10%
17%
19%

3%
6%
8%
9%
10%
6%
9%
14%
14%
21%

3%
7%
10%
8%
6%
8%
7%
9%
14%
28%

Employment Status
Full-time
Part-time
Retired
Homemaker
Student
Unemployed

52%
11%
11%
9%
8%
6%

54%
9%
22%
7%
2%
5%

40%
8%
35%
10%
2%
3%

82%
10%
1%
4%

80%
10%
1%
5%

85%
8%
1%
2%

2%

2%

2%

HH Language
English only
English & Spanish
Spanish only
English + other
language
Other language only