Conclusions and Recommendations

The study of any human habit is complex. It is extraordinarily difficult to draw any certain
conclusions based on limited observation or experiment. To study how we manage
garbage is really a study of human habit and function within a certain environment.
In the case of this project, the environment is an urban core area, and the study
participants are the residents who unknowingly shared their garbage management
habits, as well as all of the stakeholders invested (to some degree) in changing or
improving waste management in Providence. Therefore, conclusions and
recommendations will be divided into the following sections:

Conclusions: Providence and our Case Study

The City of Providence needs to be concerned about three things related to garbage in the urban core.

1. The rat problem, rumored to be getting worse for the past few years, will not be resolved until garbage management improves.
2. The recycling rate lags far behind higher income neighborhoods.
3. Other general concerns, such as cost of service, reliability and quality of pickup, etc., are often even more salient for residents in these areas.

Based on the Smith Hill case study, and assuming that Smith Hill is truly representative of many of Providence's urban core neighborhoods, we can draw certain conclusions:

1. Recycling does not always go hand in hand with good trash management. It was fairly common, in the case study, to see recycling bins put alongside loose garbage bags, etc. At the same time, rat presence was especially strong where both recycling and garbage scores were poor. Based on the rat comparison maps, red areas for recycling consistently coincide with or near red areas for rats, signifying that trash is often poorly managed where there is low recycling participation. Comparison between rat-free and infested properties can also be seen numerically. See Rat Comparison.
Since recycling forces people to take more time in organizing and managing their trash, if those homes that do not recycle actually begin, then better overall garbage management would probably happen as well. Recycling is one way of showing responsible behavior towards garbage management. This does not mean that garbage and rat problems would disappear simply with better garbage management. Vacant lots or community gardens, restaurants, and illegal dumping or junk piles clearly contribute to the rat problem. But recycling and containing other trash would certainly help ameliorate the rat problem in a localized or totally residential area.

As for containment of trash, while the majority of garbage cans are not covered, rats have fairly easy access. The City Council considered supplying each household unit with a special rat-proof trash can. Due to the cost increase that would result from retrofitting the hauling trucks and from buying so many cans, the Council decided in September 2001 to focus on rat baiting and garbage education instead of new cans. Part of this plan was the new garbage ordinance. While the new ordinance does require landlords to provide two trash cans per tenant household unit, the uncovered can problem remains. Even if landlords comply and provide the two cans, there is no guarantee that the lids will remain on for long.

2. Providence will not meet its Maximum Recycling goals until the urban core areas are successfully brought into the program. (See Recycling Trends). Recycling is practiced, to some degree, by many urban core dwellers; yet these areas lag far behind. Looking at the weekly maps (See Recycling Maps), there is some variation for properties that sometimes have recycling bins out and sometimes do not. It is important to consider all of the factors or barriers that make recycling participation more difficult for urban core dwellers. One of these factors is the weekly order of garbage pickup. For neighborhoods like Smith Hill, that have their pickup towards the end of the week, residents have less options for storing the garbage and recycling from the weekend over the course of the week. Also, people might be less likely to always sort the recycling out of the trash when it has already been cumulating during the week.

Back to top

Conclusions: Communicating about Garbage

One of the central questions for this theis project was whether an "integrated" communications campaign about garbage would affect management habits. "Integrated" was the term chosen for approaching garbage management, including recycling and keeping rats away, as a single message. The idea behind this approach was to link the priority concerns of urban residents to solutions that they may never have considered. More specifically, for residents of urban core areas who are already concerned about a number of problems that affect their communities, your basic "Recycling is great!" message may not work. Or rather, that same message that works well for suburban and middle class communities will probably not generate a response from the inner city.

In this case study , the flyer which attempted to deliver an integrated message failed to produce any significant effect. The failure is most easily attributed to the lack of forewarning and follow-up, as pointed out in Results. An isolated flyer that is not followed up by networking in the community cannot be expected to produce impressive results. That is, the recycling bins that were picked up at the library, as a result of the flyer, were picked up in the first few days after flyering. This signifies that after a few days, those people who did not respond immediately either are not interested, or have forgotten and need a reminder.
Ideally, the flyer would have been delivered as part of a complete, integrated communications campaign. This would include the participation of the local recycling captains and the local CDCs to spread word and gain committment from their neighbors to participate in the campaign, as well as a repeat flyer or other communication delivery.

Finally, in areas where most residents are tenants, communication from landlords to tenant, and ideally the other way as well, is important. Asking landlords to arrange a system of trash management with their tenants, as part of the contract, could potentially have a significant effect. For example, if the landlord writes into the lease that he has provided the unit with 2 new garbage cans and 2 recycling bins, and that the tenants will be charged if the cans do not remain lidded or the bins disappear, then the tenants have a large incentive to take good care. Unfortunately, it is more difficult for tenants to require their landlords to fulfill their responsibilities, such as clearing a junk pile that is serving as a rat nest. It is at that point that the city's communication to property owners needs to come into effect.

Back to top

Recommendations and future work

City of Providence: First and foremost, through the course of this study, it has become clear that the City of Providence is not doing enough to support efforts to improve garbage management in the inner core. Now that the new garbage ordinance has gone into effect, it is essential that the DPW be supported in its rat abatement efforts, and that NGOs such as Groundwork Providence be supported in their efforts to work with urban core residents on trash management and recycling. The letter from the Director of DPW to property owners in the city should be sent as soon as possible. The longer this letter is held up, the longer the DPW effectively cannot begin enforcing code violations for the new ordinance.
The City also must not ignore the complex variables that play into garbage management, including the financial needs and culturally-influenced practices of various groups.

DPW: The Department of Public Works needs to prove to urban core residents that the city is dedicated to helping them solve the rat problem. With the passage of the new ordinance, DPW needs to carry out enforcement of rat and garbage code violations as it has claimed it will. In addition, the letter to property owners should be sent, and should make very clear to property owners what their responsibilities are for garbage management on their properties.

NGOs and Community Organizations: Organizations working to improve the quality of life for urban core residents should continue to address the living environment in these areas, with particular attention to litter problems and poor garbage management, and rats. It might be worthwhile for organizations to try an integrated approach to communicating with local residents, respecting both residents' concerns and the goals for the City and its communities. Organizations should continue to put pressure on the DPW and especially the City of Providence to increase enforcement of code violations and actually prosecute property owners who continue to violate code.

RIRRC: Rhode Island Resource Recovery should create educational materials encouraging the Maximum Recycling program that specifically target urban core residents! RIRRC should continue to work within schools, and with Groundwork Providence and other NGOs, to establish networks of recycling enthusiasts throughout the city of Providence.

For Future Work: It would be worthwhile for various city and community agents to know what kind of communication strategies are most effective for targeting these areas. I recommend:

• A study to monitor the effectiveness of a letter from the city to property owners, and then communications from property owners to tenants. This would help clear up the mystery of who ultimately is responsible for good garbage management.
• An integrated garbage education campaign carried out in at least one neighborhood over an extended course of time. This could be compared to the more traditional garbage communications happening in other neighborhoods, and their effectiveness compared.
• A street assessment, similar to that carried out in this case study, for the entire city. This could help the DPW and community organizations target resources for enforcement and education.
  

Back to top