Explaining the Growth in Municipal Recycling Programs: The Role of Market and Non-Market Factors

The implementation of thousands of municipal recycling programs in the United States has increased recycling’s portion of solid waste from 10% to 30% over the past decade. But the lack of accurate data has spurred a debate over whether the growth in recycling can be attributed to market or nonmarket factors. To address this issue, this article conducts a benefit-cost analysis of a municipal recycling program. Results suggest recycling is costly. So why, then, does it remain popular? This article suggests that local governments could be responding to households that perceive a benefit from recycling services. These benefits are estimated with a contingent valuation survey.

The Costs of Municipal Curbside Recycling and Waste Collection

This paper estimates cost functions for both municipal solid waste collection and disposal services and curbside recycling programs. Cost data are obtained from a national survey of randomly selected municipalities. Results suggest, perhaps unsurprisingly, that both marginal and average costs of recycling systems exceed those of waste collection and disposal systems. Economies of scale are estimated for all observed quantities of waste collection and disposal. Economies of scale for recycling disappear at high levels of recycling - marginal and average cost curves for recycling take on the usual U-shape. Waste and recycling costs are also estimated as functions of factor costs and program attributes.

Determining the Socially Optimal Recycling Rate

What municipal recycling rate is socially optimal? One credible answer would consider the recycling rate that minimizes the overall social costs of managing municipal waste. Such social costs are comprised of all budgetary costs and revenues associated with operating municipal waste and recycling programs, all costs to recycling households associated with preparing and storing recyclable materials for collection, all external disposal costs associated with waste disposed at landfills or incinerators, and all external benefits associated with the provision of recycled materials that foster environmentally efficient production processes. This paper discusses how to estimate these four components of social cost to then estimate the optimal recycling rate. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Why do Municipalities Recycle?

The disposal of municipal solid waste is believed to emit foul odor, threaten groundwater, and increase road congestion. As remote regional landfills have replaced local town dumps, these costs are no longer internalized by garbage-producing households or their municipalities. Instead, rural property owners located adjacent to large regional landfills and along the roadways accessing those landfills bear the external costs of garbage disposal. This paper uses a comprehensive nine-year panel data set of aggregated state data to empirically examine why 8,937 municipalities continue to operate costly recycling programs designed to reduce the external costs of garbage disposal. Results suggest that local tastes for recycling drive municipal decisions. If household preferences for recycling are short lived, then we can expect a future decrease in the number of municipal recycling programs. Recent data indicate the number of recycling programs in operation in the U.S. has indeed fallen.

The Economics and Nutritional Impacts of Food Assistance Policies and Programs

Recent evidence on malnutrition and poverty raise important questions on the role of food assistance policies and programs. In this review article, we examine evidence on the economic and nutritional impacts of international food assistance programs (FAPs) and policies. The returns on investments in FAPs are, on average, high but depend considerably on the targeting and cost structures as well as on food quality and role of complementary activities. We disaggregate findings into four classes of recipients. Returns to FAPs are highest for children under two. But, FAPs oriented towards early childhood interventions are less well funded than are interventions aimed at school-age children or at the broader, largely adult population even though available evidence indicates that these latter classes of interventions offer considerably lower average returns in economic, health, and nutrition terms. Nonetheless, FAP effectiveness in achieving any of several objectives varies with a range of key factors, including targeting, additionality, seasonality, timeliness, incentive effects, social acceptability and political economy considerations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evaluating Bucknell's Waste Stream

This thesis examines three questions regarding the content of Bucknell University‟s waste stream and the contributors to campus recycling and solid waste disposal. The first asks, “What does Bucknell‟s waste stream consist of?” To answer this question, I designed a campus-wide waste audit procedure that sampled one dumpster from each of the eleven „activity‟ types on campus in order to better understand Bucknell‟s waste composition. The audit was implemented during the Fall semester of the 2011-2012 school year. The waste from each dumpster was sorted into several recyclable and non-recyclable categories and then weighed individually. Results showed the Bison and Carpenter Shop dumpsters to contain the highest percentage of divertible materials (through recycling and/or composting). When extrapolated, results also showed the Dining Services buildings and Facilities buildings to be the most waste dense in terms of pounds of waste generated per square foot. The Bison also generated the most overall waste by weight. The average composition of all dumpsters revealed that organic waste composed 24% of all waste, 23% was non-recyclable paper, and 20% was non-recyclable plastic. It will be important to move forward using these results to help create effective waste programs that target the appropriate areas of concern. My second question asks, “What influences waste behavior to contribute to this „picture‟ of the waste stream?” To answer this question, I created a survey that was sent out to randomly selected sub-group of the university‟s three constituencies: students, faculty, and staff. The survey sought responses regarding each constituency‟s solid waste disposal and recycling behavior, attitudes toward recycling, and motivating factors for solid waste disposal behaviors across different sectors of the university. Using regression analysis, I found three statistically significant motivating factors that influence solid waste disposal behavior: knowledge and awareness, moral value, and social norms. I further examined how a person‟s characteristics associate to these motivating factors and found that one‟s position on campus proved a significant association. Consistently, faculty and staff were strongly influenced by the aforementioned motivating factors, while students‟ behavior was less influenced by them. This suggests that new waste programs should target students to help increase the influence of these motivators to improve the recycling rate and lower overall solid waste disposal on campus. After making overall conclusions regarding the waste audit and survey, I ask my third question, which inquires, “What actions can Bucknell take to increase recycling rates and decrease solid waste generation?” Bucknell currently features several recycling and waste minimization programs on campus. However, using results from the waste audit and campus survey, we can better understand what are the issues of the waste stream, how do we go about addressing these issues, and who needs to be addressed. I propose several suggestions for projects that future students may take on for summer or thesis research. Suggestions include targeting the appropriate categories of waste that occur most frequently in the waste stream, as well as the building types that have the highest waste density and potential recovery rates. Additionally, certain groups on campus should be targeted more directly than others, namely the student body, which demonstrates the lowest influence by motivators of recycling and waste behavior. Several variables were identified as significant motivators of waste and recycling behavior, and could be used as program tactics to encourage more effective behavior.