TALLER, JOHN ZEUS C.

Communication II (TFA1) The sign No Littering in the Philippines

Documented Essay April 26, 2011

Prohibitive signs and regulatory signs are here, there and everywhere. There are lots of established restrictions and rules regarding our actions especially when we are outside our very own homes. Restrictions are trying to make our behavior somewhat subject to the locals, neighborhood officials, or even to the government. Their primary purpose, as some of us didnt actually care about, is to put public in order and safety. However, apparently, the signs are ending up as fancy designs in the streets. They are being ignored, whatever the risks and danger imposed. One good example is the regulation sign no littering. We all know that signs or labels are efficient methods to spread the idea that littering is prohibited in all areas but as it turns out, the no littering signs are evidently, throughout the world, the most ineffective regulation yet most seen regulatory sign. The signs can even state the violations but it seems that street signs and warnings often fail to change peoples behavior. Either the signs were unnoticed or the sign was being clearly seen and understand but totally ignored (Green). Before we proceed to the concerns about the ineffectiveness of a particular sign, let us first know how the current street signs became as it is today. The very first sign used in a street where not really sign at all. They were tall columns made out of stones built by Romans to convey to travelers how far they were from Rome and what possible directions or ways they should travel. These tall stone

towers were called milestones. This technology was then also applied to several countries and had been adopted by other neighboring countries during the Middle Ages. (McGuinness) A street sign is primarily used to share information to the pedestrians. To accomplish this, a sign should have the words or message, or pictorial signs or both, which are usually based on international standard. To put more emphasis, signs are using color schemes, shapes and sizes. These techniques allow immediate grasp of the forwarded message even to the people with visual problems. The street signs and traffic signs were once commonly written on a stone, then, for convenience, to materials wood and iron and then finally, as the technology gradually progress, traffic signs were now commonly written on aluminum with reflective sheeting. To make sure the public gets the message, signs were also shown on tarpaulins, light-emitting diode (LED) screens, and even real-time traffic sensors to convey directly to the vehicle navigation system via FM radio. The European and American governments made standardized street signs in 1940s in which also been applied to other nations. It then became subdivided into eight categories, made by the Vienna Convention on Road and Signals in 1968 with the aim to increase effectiveness and convenience. The eight categories were danger warning signs, priority signs, mandatory signs, special regulation signs, information signs, direction signs, additional panels, and the most crucial and problematic of all, prohibitory or restrictive signs (Convention on Road Signs and Signals) The Vienna Convention on Road and Signals that took place in 1968 was Taller 2

contracted by several countries including the Philippines. Street signs themselves are obviously insufficient when it comes to regulation and prohibition. Moreover, when it comes to regulations and prohibitions on the streets, the no littering sign is perhaps, the most troublesome of all street regulations since then. We all know that if this no littering problem in the Philippines will continuously be neglected, a very dark future we may have. It will destabilize our economy, and much worse, annihilate our home, the environment. The Philippines, fortunately, had enough organizations and campaigns to firmly establish this regulation. The Philippine green department, the DENR or the Department of Natural Resources have the Administrative Order, in which pursue the Philippine Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 and promulgates several rules and regulations. Under the Rule XVII, Section 1 and 3 states that: Littering, throwing, dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads, sidewalks, canals, esteros or parks, and establishment, or causing or permitting the same . . . render the payment in the amounts not less than Three hundred pesos (P 300,000) but not more than One thousand pesos (P 1,000.00) (MMDA to Re-implement Anti-Littering Law). The MMDA or the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority makes it more efficient and surely implemented not only to the streets of Manila but also to other areas nationwide. MMDA implemented the Anti-Littering Law to affirm the said act of DENR on the twenty-second day of August, 1966 and re-implemented on the sixteenth day of

Taller 3

September, 2010: The Anti-Littering Law is MMDA Regulation No. 960009 entitled, Prohibiting littering of garbage, rubbish or any kind of waste in open or public places , and requiring all owners, lessees, occupants of residential, commercial, establishments, whether private or public to clean and maintain the cleanliness of their frontage and immediate surroundings and providing penalties for violation thereof (MMDA to Re-implement Anti-Littering Law). Aside from Philippine organizations and parties, even a simple citizen could implement regulations about littering on the streets without any clearance from barangay. Everyone could post something like Bawal magtapon ng basura dito (dont put your trash here). By seeing this often around the streets could assess that people would be always reminded about littering, but sadly, nothing happens. The MMDA, which was headed by Mr. Bayani Fernando, recently done a strategy that affected not only the entire Metro Manila, but also the entire Philippines: Partial abandonment of the Vienna Amendment of Road signs and signals. The team used a uniform color, which is pink, and used the Filipino language as the primary label on the street signs. These countermeasures were effective and totally changed the behavior of the people but only for a mean time (MMDA to Re-implement AntiLittering Law). Though the Philippines was part of the said treaty, implemented numerous rules, and strategies, after all, signs - especially the regulatory ones - were still surprisingly being hollow in the sense that they were imaginary, whatever implementations imposed.

Taller 4 Why does the no littering sign however it was strictly implemented, still being disregarded by the Filipinos? Many research and studies found that regulatory signs will be ineffective if there is a very high cost of compliance. The costs relate to the ability to achieve a certain goal as easily and as quickly as possible. For instance, there is a sign saying no smoking and there is no substitute area to smoke, the viewer must decide whether to ignore the sign and smoke or to find another place and give up his goal, to smoke. In that case, the cost of compliance is very high. A good prohibitive strategy is to provide a substitute method for achieving the goal or a substitute goal without gaining extra efforts. In littering, the mere words no littering is not effective if there is no trash cans nearby. The viewer will disregard the no littering sign if the trashcan is far away causing extra effort by walking. By this cost of compliance, it is important to know and understand where the viewers costs arise. (Terborgh 45) The next thing is about the hazard and risk if the prohibitive sign was ignored. Ignored signs do have a very low hazard and risk perception. The first factor that can influence the hazard and risk perception is the familiarization. Viewers history with the sign greatly affects its danger perception. The more experience with no negative outcome, the lower the level of perceived risk. The effect can be on both specific sign or can be generalize to all prohibitive sign with the same wordings. For example, diving team members or swimmers are most likely disregard the simple sign no diving. The same with the no littering signs. Litter bugs will continue to litter if there are no known perceived dangers, risks or hazards on a specific sign or as a general sign. The second

Taller 5 factor is the prohibitive signs appearance. A simple and plain no littering words would be ignored immediately because there is no danger if the viewer didnt comply with it. Additionally, sign in dull colors represents an unimportant sign (Green). The third factor that could determine the ineffectiveness of a regulatory sign is the Social and Cultural factor. A study in Orlando shows that: It is suggested the more environmentally destructive behavior typically occurs when there is evidence of previous misdeeds than when there is not that is, a social and cultural factor. It is found that a perfectly clean environment produces less littering than a dirty environment, it is also observed that the least littering occurs in a setting that is clean. . . They reasoned that a perfectly clean environment makes the no littering norm salient. With increasing violations, however, the norm becomes undermined, and littering is facilitated (Paul 488). A viewer clearly disregards a sign if everyone within the scope of the sign is deliberately not conforming to it. Also, a sign will be pointless if is no longer applicable to that area. For instance, a no littering sign posted on a messy open park. A new comer will instantly neglect the sign. A typical thought would run into his mind, if every one ignores the sign, why shouldnt I? This factor should be come into mind before placing a prohibitive sign. One should be aware about the surroundings when placing a sign. It is important that the surrounding should comply first before it is being conveyed with the people. These condition could be supported by other factors of ineffectiveness. (A.Columbus and F. H. Columbus 233)

Taller 6 The fourth important factor is the boring appearance. Research has shown that meaningfulness is the most important factor in sign effectiveness. Just as hearing your own name in a crowded place catches your attention over so many other conversations so as the sign is conspicuous over so many views. Viewers are likely to interpret warnings that are small, faint, or located peripherally as signaling lower risk. Similarly, crude and sloppy signs also appear to signal lower risk. The viewer will conceive that the designers didnt worked more effort into the warning, then they must not think it significant. (Green) Another factor is the poor location. One reason for street signs to get unnoticed is that is being superimposed by another street signs. The other material could block a no littering, are those pesky advertisement tarpaulins and boards. There is no regulation in the Philippines for placing advertisements on streets so far. As for personal experience, one example of area is at the street of Faura along Taft Avenue in Metro Manila. No one could clearly see those no jaywalking, no loading and unloading and keep the intersection open signs because of an international school advertisement ,an orange juice banner and some sort of sticker vandalisms. The last factor should be considered is the signs tone is in negative and regulatory as one study says that: When an adult tells a child Dont, it usually achieves its purpose (depending of course, on the child). But as adults, we respond to the dont word differently. There are probably a lot of reasons for this, but one may be that were simply not awed by the assumed authority of the dont sayer quite the way we

Taller 7 are children. . . Obviously, signs that simply say No or Dont to adult viewers arent going to be very effective. . . This being the case, one really must wonder why so many signs still have these awful words (Ham 345). There is no doubt that regulatory signs that starts with a word no and dont are automatically ineffective signs. With these factors and reasons that explain why does no littering signs are being ineffective, we should now know already what is an ideal condition of the said regulatory street sign. Let us then consider the following features that make a sign effective. As it tackled before, a regulatory sign, in order to be effective, it should have a high danger perception. New US roadwork signs are rendered into childs handwriting and say Please slow down, my daddy/mommy works here. In this way, it draws attention, and at the same time, instilled to their minds that it is risky and dangerous for them to not comply with the roadwork sign. The same with littering, the more it is dangerous and risky to litter, the least likely someone would litter. For example, a certain litter sign indicates that, one litter could destroy your home. The word home in the message could pertain to our home earth destroyed by global warming or to the building home, destroyed by floods due to clogged drainage. By these schemes, the words are not just a simple no littering but a different perspective on littering in which there is most people likely to comply. (Tobin 127) Next, striking appearance should also be considered. First rule is that dont say much. It is a mistake to put too much information on the sign that results confusion and

Taller 8 a waste of time to the targeted audience, which is the public. Next are the readability guidelines. An ideal text size is one inch letter height for every 10 feet of viewing distance. Signs should have larger text size proportionally to the importance of the message. Finally, the color and contrasts. It was discussed that the color red should be used to show danger and emphasis to the message but it is also important to take note other colors as well and how they maximize the visual impact against the background. If the sky is your background, silver or grey are a good choice for signs background, with a high contrast to color grey will boost the distinctiveness of a street sign. Appearance are not limited to the design of a particular sign, but it can also be striking when it comes to words or the content. A witty message, a sign that is not normal to the eyes could attract attention (Terborgh 15). One thing is a good strategic location. We all know that a street sign will be instantly ineffective if it is being obscured by vandals or superimposed by advertisements. An ideal location is not within the reach of the public but clearly be seen by the public to avoid further vandalisms and unwanted advertisements (R. Claude and B. Weston 34). An effective regulatory sign also uses graphics or symbols rather than pure textual. This usage of symbols is better for danger and immediate signal. Pictures help the public to recognize what is the main concern of the regulatory sign and sufficiently express indication and emphasis (Terborgh 22). The final point is that a regulatory and prohibitive signs, ironic as it may seem, should be positive and affirmative. It reveals that people less comply if they are being Taller 9

prohibited to what they want to do. Regulatory signs should straight to the point. It should state what exactly the public should do. The regulatory street signs and prohibitive street signs in the Philippines and even throughout the world are the most troublesome street signs of all. These factors that have been laid out are insufficient to predict human brain on how to respond and act on things. After all, these are the guidelines made by several researchers that can help to answer the question, why the no littering sign is being ineffective. These guidelines are enough to change the traffic and street signs system of the Philippines. These guidelines shed a light to answer the Philippines ever present problem: Pollution. After a thorough study, this concludes that the current signs no littering will continue to be disregarded by Filipinos because they are more likely to follow striking and affirmative then negative, regulatory, plain and boring signs.

Taller 10 Cited Works Bell, Paul et al. Environmental Psychology. Orlando: Routledge, 2005. Print Columbus, Alexandra, and Frank H. Columbus. Advances in Psychology Research. 53 vols. New York: Nova Publishers, 2008. Print Green, Marc. The Psychology Of Warnings. Visualexpert. N.p., 2009. Web Ham, Sam. Environmental interpretation: a practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets. Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 1992. Print McGuinness, Tim. Irrational Signs. Virgina: MentalWard Publishing, 2004. Print MMDA to Re-implement Anti-Littering Law Beginning September 16, 2010. www.mmda.gov.ph. N.p., September 8, 2010. Web Richard, P. Claude, and Burns Weston. Human rights in the world community: issues and action. 3rd ed. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Print Terborgh, John. Making parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature. Washington: Island Press, 2002. Print Tobin, Patrick. International Case Study: Litter Behaviour Studies In New South Wales, Australia. Litter. N.p., 2004. Web United Nations. Economic Commission on Europe. Inland Transport Committee. Convention on Road Signs and Signals. Vienna: ITC, 1968. Print

Taller 11