The following analysis is based on a research project carried out in Manchester City Centre and Salford Blackfriars Street in February 2012. Manchester and Salford City Councils are with no restrictions allowed to use these results for town planning purposes. For other users, especially cities with a population over 5 million, restrictions may apply. This project was funded by The Jeremy Clarkson Foundation for Pedestrian Safety in Salford.
Introduction
Chewing gum stains on pavements is a common nuisance that hasn't been extensively studied from the gum user's point of view. Numerous means for removing stains have been developed, but sand blasting or chemical removal are costly and time consuming. As strict measures, as those applied in Singapore, haven't reached us yet, some other, if possible preventive approach should be found. Consuming chewing gum is a persistent habit that too many have adopted. Among others, this group includes ice-hockey coaches, players, teenagers, sub-teenagers, many post teenagers, and their parents who sometimes are teenagers themselves. It seems to be a common conception that gum chewing helps to concentrate, or is relaxing like cigarette smoking. This definitely applies to coaches as it looks cool and they can't smoke during a game. But how does it apply to school children/teenagers as they, again I suppose, are not allowed to use it in classes. Also, they have been told that it is really uncool to have a hamburger, smoke a cigarette and chew gum at same time. Perhaps for these and some other reasons people seem to practise this "vice" in the streets. This of course applies to cigarette butts too, but they are much easier to remove. Letting city pavements become covered with a wall-to-kerb layer of gum would have consequences. There is a chance that having a walking surface resembling a polyurethane running track could make shoppers move faster from one store to another and collisions of pedestrians more likely to occur. Social problems would come up as heels exceeding 6 mm should be prohibited and street artists would have hard times as chalk most likely wouldn't stick. Hot days would be a disaster.
The hypothesis of this study: Litter bin location in relation to benches, walls, churches and kerbs correlates with the amount of stray litter and chewing gum stains on pavements.
Material and Methods
The image material for this study was collected at selected locations in Manchester City Centre, Lancashire, UK, and Blackfriars Street, Salford, UK, in February 2012. The locations were selected from a random screening of 2412 spots, and fifty of the ones (total n=100) with the highest and the lowest expression of gum residues were included.
The images of chewing gum stains and spots were acquired using a Canon 8215 camera (Canon INC, Japan) and analysed with computer software (Leica IM500 Image Manager) that provided the values of gum coverage as a percentage of the total area. The statistical software in this study was SPSS version 11.5 (Inc, Chicago, Illinois USA). Chi-square test was used for comparing the gum coverage in different groups. The level of statistical significance was set to p=0.05.
The samples were classified into six groups and expressed as CREPS values 1-6 (Chewing gum Residue Expression on Paved Surfaces).
Results
1) There was a suggestive, but not statistically significant difference in the CREPS values between the samples collected in the immediate vicinity of the litter bins in front of off-licence stores or hot dog and kebab bars and the bins standing alone at at least 50 metres distance from them (Chi-square: p=0.08).
2) Bright coloured, alone standing litter bins with attractive appearance collected gum residues more effectively than ugly looking bins. This difference was significant both in Manchester City Centre and in Salford (Chi-square: p=0.03). If the bin opening faced the pavement perpendicularly (on the left), CREPS value was smaller than if it was in the walking direction (on the right), however, the difference was only suggestive (Chi-square: p=0.07).
4) If there was a distance of at least 21 feet between the bench and the bin, the amount of gum residue was significantly smaller around them both than alone standing benches and bins (Chi-square: p=0.04 and p=0.006, respectively). The amount of wasted gum increased about 8% per every three feet the as bench and bin got closer.
Any posts along a wall collected effectively all loose litter as well as gum residues. Except of the actual litter, semi-fluid substances of apparently human origin were common findings.
If no real wall existed, but e.g. a metal fence on longitudinal border stones separated a park from a pavement, CREPS values next to the bordering stones were significantly higher than at the kerb (Chi-square: p=0.007).
If no fence or street bordered the pavement, a low stone border didn't collect almost any unwanted substances. The difference was statistically significant and most prominent in the vicinity of churches of any religion (Chi-square: p<0.001).
6) Where the pavement was wide, the expression of chewing gum residues per square foot was not statistically different from more narrow stretches.
Discussion
Chewing gum may occasionally also have constructive outcomes in society. According to an unconfirmed interview, if chewing gum had been invented in his time, the famous fictional Dutch boy, Hans Brinker, would probably have used a piece of gum instead of a finger for plugging a leaking dam and for saving his home town. However, for any urban, natural environment, chewing gum stains or continuous cover do not provide any substantial benefits.
If the pavements were completely covered with chewing gum stains, illegal personal prints, à la mode Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, would be much more common than nowadays. In this case, also an illegal name plate has been mounted between the foot prints. In hot weather, grayish pavement would at least for some time have a faint peppermint scent, but as illegal hand or foot prints, it would soon disappear.
People leaving stores or bars don't seem to dispose chewing gum differently. Our original assumption was that immediately after consuming food, bar patrons use chewing gum for refreshing breath, but those who purchase gum in a store don't need it right away. This theory was rejected. Surprisingly the opening of the bin was hit more accurately if the hole didn't directly face walking gum consumers. This could be the result of a required stopping in front of the bin. If the gum user, in general, has some intention to dispose the gum properly, he needs to stop instead of just spitting or throwing the gum in direction of the bin. If the bin window is supposedly too easy, a proper try may never occur, and a sloppy failure will result.
The problematics around the combination of a litter bin and a bench has bothered town architects for decades. If the bin is too close, the space between the bin and bench will be hard to clean. If the bin is too far, reaching it from the bench is difficult, and the gum will end up on the pavement after a missed fling. According to the results of this study, the bin should be placed far enough that the individual using a bench has to stand up and walk to the bin. It means that some effort has to be made for disposing any litter properly. The principle is pretty much the same as with the direction of a bin window. In another calculation, the amount of residue around benches with no bin was subtracted from that around benches with a bin. The idea was to extract the number of missed true attempts to hit the bin; i.e. to separate it from the background-noice that in this context coincides with an indifferent attitude to common interest. Vicinity of a church improved cleanliness in all cases.
The shelter of walls and eaves often attracts pedestrians when it is raining. Also, if someone is just trying to haphazardly dispose a gum, s/he may prefer aiming it at a random object that often is a wall or a post. Those who try to avoid getting hit by a car may also select the wall side of the pavement for walking. These factors explain why, not only the amount of loose litter, but also the CREPS values are higher next to walls. The finding that this can also be seen in areas where no wall but a fence borders the pavement can as well be explained with the security element. On the other hand, loose litter ends up in places where any obstacle stops it. Posts also provide a steady rest if the upper section of a pub patron's digestive system needs to operate in reverse direction.
It was surprising that gum stains didn't seem to concentrate where the pavement narrows. Again, there is a chance that, in terms of security, pedestrians have to pay attention to walking and balance rather than to disposing a gum. It is reasonable to deduct that narrowing pavements would serve town planning in this respect. The narrowing of pavements should be done on the wall side as the concentration of chewing gum waste there is higher than on the kerb,
A relatively narrow and clean stretch of pavement in Salford, UK. The latest town planning knowledge has been successfully utilised. A lonely, planted tree would collect randomly disposed waste and water, but a cleverly sloping surface drives unwanted materials away from compromising the health of the tree.
Conclusions
According to the results of this study, reasonable attention should be paid to the distance of litter bins to adjacent benches and the direction of the openings of bins. If pavements are narrowed, it should be done from the wall side and not from the kerb side.
Additional comments
Although no accurate data was collected, it became obvious that social pressure evident in the presence of other people at newspaper stands and kiosks or city officials' cars has a prohibitive effect on disposing chewing gum inappropriately. The authors of this study unofficially suggest that the amount of road work should be increased in the most populated urban areas.
Paradoxically, although some individuals find it hard to fit a piece of gum into a litter bin, they may find it amusing to try to squash a piece of city art in there. Unfortunately these findings were so few that no statistical results could be provided. However, when the object in these pictures had been removed from the bin, finding the bin window was easier.
Future plans
Like any muscle group, jaw muscles don't like being over exercised. Those who are prone to get their jaws or teeth sore should actually avoid excessive gum chewing as it is one of the many aggravating factors of the so-called TemporoMandibular Disorder (TMD). The group of symptoms may include pain and stiffness of masticatory muscles, poor mouth opening, pain in jaw joint or ear, migraine type of (morning) headache and even dizziness, only to mention a few. TMD is most often diagnosed by a dentist, and should always be treated by a dentist having experience in this field. The next phase of our series of studies is to find out if those suffering from TMD, because of distress, are less consistent in finding the trap door of a litter bin for disposing a piece of used chewing gum.
No comments :
Post a Comment