{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009316770186335404, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021739130434782608, 'mean_word_length': 5.323529411764706, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Determination of Economic Hardship Under the Provisions of the Highway Beautification Act

South Dakota and three other states may lose 10% of their federal aid highway funds for 1978 and 1979 due to their noncompliance with the provisions of the 1965 Federal Highway Beautification Act. This article describes a study undertaken at the request of the South Dakota legislature to determine the economic impact on South Dakota and its regions of removal of outdoor advertising signs which are nonconforming under Federal statute. Economic regions are defined, survey methodology described, and results and limitations of the study discussed.