A key lesson from recycling studies over the past several years is that, in order to increase diversion, communities need to look beyond curbside in a more serious and comprehensive way.

By Lisa A. Skumatz

Over the last couple of years, the author has conducted a number of projects for states and other clients designed to identify strategies that might be used to improve recycling progress and improve system and program cost-effectiveness.

In conducting these projects, several key methods were used:

• Statistical analysis of data from hundreds of communities nationwide to identify and compare effective and cost-effective solid waste management strategies,
• Interviews with recycling professionals and experts across the nation, and
• Spreadsheet modeling to use scenario analysis to estimate impacts of strategies and alternatives.

One key lesson was that communities need to look beyond curbside in a more serious and comprehensive way. Consolidating the results of this research, seven "steps" were developed that communities can walk through to continue to develop recycling and cost-effective solid waste management. A short summary of the steps follows.

1. Modify Residential Programs for Improved Cost-Effectiveness

Certainly communities always have observed other programs to gather ideas for improving their recycling and yardwaste programs. Most of this work is essentially "case study" in nature, however, and it is impossible for communities to separate out what effects they can expect in their own towns from similar program changes. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) gathered data from hundreds of communities nationwide and used reliable statistical techniques to develop transferable lessons on program changes that increase recycling and yardwaste diversion and changes that decease costs.

Changes that increase/decrease diversion and costs were identified. Note that the results are not only affected by program choices but also by how the effects vary based on demographics and community characteristics. The results are presented in Table 1.

Those strategies with the most potent impact on cost-effectiveness were found to include Pay As You Throw/variable rates (PAYT/VR), commingled collection of recyclables, collecting recyclables every other week instead of weekly, and reaching "threshold" levels of recycling.

Finally, communities should not forget to take credit for the diversion caused by their source-reduction programs. Several studies demonstrated reliable methods for measuring these impacts, and adding them into the analysis can improve the benefit-cost ratio for the community’s mix of programs.

2. Provide Incentives Through Enhanced and Well-Designed Rates

Examining PAYT/VR systems, we find several rate-related findings can also be used to help enhance recycling:

Implement PAYT/VR. These programs are the most effective strategy available for increasing recycling.

Pick a High-Performing PAYT/VR Program. Research shows that bag and hybrid programs seem to increase recycling more than variable can systems, although these might not fit well with automated collection (Resource Recycling, June 2001).

Rate Structure. Charging at least 80% more for a second can or using "bag" fees greater than $1 are important to maximize recycling incentives (SERA research, Resource Recycling, June 2001). It also was found that avoiding separate fees for recycling and yardwaste programs can increase recycling–but you might want separate fees (especially for yardwaste) for equity reasons and to encourage composting.

Adjust Container Sizes. SERA research indicates that communities with minimum containers more than 30 gal. are not maximizing the recycling incentive (20 gal. can be achieved with "inserts"). If your containers are 60 gal., reduce to 30; those with 90-gal. minimums should consider reducing to 60.

Garbage by the Pound. Detailed assessments by the author show that weight-based systems decrease disposal tonnage by 15% beyond volume-based programs, and certified equipment is available.

Consider Changes in Multifamily and Commercial Rates. Be sure rate structures encourage efficient collection choices (minimizing the number of collections) and recycling (so that adding recycling isn’t more expensive than garbage service alone) (Resource Recycling, October 1999). Other incentives and strategies also are presented.

3. Optimize Recycling Education and Outreach

It is clear that recycling education and outreach are crucial links in recycling. Imagine how ineffective a drop-off program would be if no one knew where the drop-off center was. The problem is that it has been difficult for researchers to separate out the impact due to the education program. The author recently completed work to measure the impacts and cost-effectiveness of alternative recycling education and outreach efforts. Statistical techniques were used to determine which outreach approaches and message types are most effective in increasing recycling. Some of the results are summarized in Table 2.

Continuing work on this project (for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources) also has examined which of the outreach methods and messages are most cost-effective. Information of this type can be used to:

• design outreach programs to maximize impact on recycling,
• identify the point at which recycling education expenditures have diminishing returns,
• compare the impacts of education with other recycling programs to optimize the program mix.

4. Analyze the Needs of the Commercial Sector

Communities have tended to concentrate their efforts on the residential sector. This is the natural evolution–the same pattern was used in developing energy conservation programs–but is even more understandable in developing recycling programs. Not only is the residential sector more homogeneous and easier to design programs for, but also the commercial sector often is not under the direct control or responsibility of the city. However, significant increases in recycling likely need to move beyond further tweaks of the residential sector and into new areas. The commercial sector is the natural next focus, especially given that this sector commonly represents 40-60% of the waste disposed.

Surveys to Understand/Track Sector and Needs. Phone surveys provide reliable information on materials used, activities at the site, recycling and source-reduction efforts, program needs and acceptability, problem materials, and other information essential for program design. On several projects, SERA has found that these surveys help communities avoid programs with little or no interest and more effectively target materials and business types for programs.

Consider Combined Resource Audit Programs. One of the most promising programs for this sector is a joint resource audit program. In research on more than 20 such programs, SERA studied, designed, evaluated, and recommended refinements to combined resource audit programs, particularly for the commercial sector. These programs use jointly trained auditors to assess options to save water, energy, waste, and other resources–all at one time. The programs save administrative costs, and participant interest and benefits are strong.

5. Develop Incentives and Policies for All "Actors"

One of the most important lessons carried away from the projects was to share the responsibility for bringing about recycling. If any one sector feels it has been assigned a majority of the burden, cooperation is more difficult. Asking the haulers to bear the bulk of responsibility for recycling limits options, and SERA would argue that it does not lead to maximum recycling.

Through a combination of program research and interviews with focus groups, recycling experts, and state and local officials, a list of more than 70 incentives, policies, and strategies was assembled for implementation to divide the responsibility for recycling among any or all of the "actors" involved in solid waste generation and management. Relevant sectors for which viable strategies have been identified include:

Developers and Builders. This might include introducing changes to building codes and requirements, construction and demolition deposit programs, or numerous other options. SERA has identified almost a dozen options for strategies to help build sustainability and avoid lost opportunities.

Commercial and Multifamily Generators. Communities can introduce required recycling plans, multiresource audits, cooperatives, or an array of other options. More than a dozen options have been identified to provide incentives and improve access to recycling for this sector.

Residential Generators. Residential programs can be refined to be more cost-effective, residents might be provided with rate incentives, and numerous other strategies can be introduced to increase recycling. Half a dozen innovative strategies beyond standard programs have been identified that can be used to improve efficiencies and increase diversion.

Haulers/Carters. An array of financial incentives, rewards, contractual arrangements/changes, and almost a dozen other strategies can be used to have haulers work with communities to achieve their goals.

Facility Owners (landfills, material recovery facilities, etc.). A list of almost a dozen strategies was developed to encourage adequate and efficient infrastructure, including innovative financial incentives and other policy and programmatic approaches.

Recycling Businesses and Manufacturers. Based on analysis of nationwide strategies, SERA developed more than a dozen strategies that can address barriers to help recycling businesses–both those that are recycling and those using recycled content. Strategies related to design for recycling for manufacturers also are included.

City/County Officials and State Policymakers. Nearly a dozen strategies were identified that can be taken at the local level (grants, surcharges, tax strategies, and many other options) to maintain progress and incentivize cities, counties, and states to implement strategies.

A community or state can implement a mix of policies that shares the responsibility for recycling among a set of actors and addresses the community’s goals and hierarchy cost-effectively.

6. Integrated Planning and Modeling to Lower System Costs

Planning and modeling can help the community identify the sets of programs and facilities that will lead to lowest system costs. Economic and spreadsheet models are key to this integrated planning process.

Understanding the Waste and Generation Stream. Gather data on tonnage and materials for each customer group (residential, commercial, government, and so on) and programs over a period of time. If a useful or reasonably applicable composition study is available, those data are also very useful.

Develop Forecasting Models. Using information from the wastestream analysis and time series of disposal and program tonnages, economists can construct forecasting models that project future tonnages and flows based on historic patterns and future/alternative changes in economic, demographic, and price variables.

Identify Targeted Materials, Flows, and Program Alternatives. Using the forecasting model, the analyst can identify target materials and sectors, as well as model alternative programs and associated costs.

Modeling Scenarios and Options. Using the model, the analyst can examine the short- and long-term cost and tonnage impacts of alternative sets of programs, growth, prices, policies, and other drivers. For some projects, SERA also modeled wastesheds, tonnage flows to facilities, and impacts of policies and programs to examine capacity issues. Options can be narrowed to those best meeting the community’s objectives at lowest cost.

Using these techniques, the community can develop a set of policies that make the most sense and address key needs. Further, the work lets the community make decisions supported by information on costs, tons, and options, and then make decisions that will minimize costs, or will balance costs and goals, or other choices. The enhancements allow development of the least-cost long-term solid waste management system, incorporating programs, incentives, and facility policies. Using this analysis, communities can make sensible long-term decisions and optimize recycling and disposal to meet their policy objectives.

7. Track and Evaluate Programs to Refine Them

Program evaluation is an extremely important piece of the process. Among other applications, program evaluations are used to:

• measure program progress toward goals,
• justify program budgets,
• identify problems to refine programs,
• assess customer satisfaction and remaining needs, and
• help inform the process of making tradeoffs between programs to develop the optimal mix of programs.

Given that many programs use public funds, it is crucial for communities to make sure that program funds are well spent. Based on evaluation workshops, SERA recommends conducting three key types of evaluation that have been applied to the evaluation of solid and hazardous waste programs:

1. Process evaluation: Process evaluations assess the process of delivering the program and analyzing program design, delivery, and activities.
2. Performance indicators: Performance indicators are quantitative and qualitative numbers that reflect program activities, costs, effects, and other factors measured on an ongoing basis. Cost-effectiveness and other indicators can be computed, compared, and tracked to examine program progress.
3. Impact evaluation: Impact evaluations use data from a number of sources to analyze the impacts the program has had beyond what would have happened without the program. These results are an important component of program cost-effectiveness, providing crucial data for program evaluation.

Note that the rule of thumb in some fields is that about 10-15% of the program’s budget is allocated to evaluation–the component that examines whether program funds are being well spent. The following steps can be used to help increase diversion.

Evaluate Existing Programs. Evaluation is an important step in determining which programs are performing well and moving toward the goals. The models and results of Step 6 can serve as the basis for setting up tonnage and timing goals as benchmarks for evaluation. A combination of process, performance, and impact evaluations helps determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of programs and whether there are refinements that can improve performance.

Apply Evaluation Results. Use the information to assess and compare program and performance, identify program refinements, and improve the mix of programs to achieve objectives.

Evaluations are an important component and source of information for improving the performance of the set of recycling programs in place. The information can be used to decide which programs compromise the optimal, sustainable set of waste management strategies for the community.

Summary and Conclusions

States and communities are finding that recycling progress is slowing. In addition, elected officials are scrutinizing program budgets relative to other municipal expenditures, such as public safety and other needs. The recycling industry is maturing, and as part of the evaluation, SERA identified a set of seven steps that communities can take to increase recycling and diversion. The steps are summarized in Table 3. Progress can be made toward improving effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of current residential programs, expanding programs to other appropriate sectors, and using quantitative methods to assess program performance and needs to get to the next level of recycling and diversion.

Based on the results for clients from New England to Hawaii, SERA has found that cost-effective programs can be developed for urban, suburban, and rural areas and that recycling can become a cost-effective piece of the waste management strategy set–in the long term.

Guest author Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D., is an economist and principal of Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc., an economics research and consulting firm. For a copy of the detailed report, contact the author at 303/494-1178 or skumatz@serainc.com.

MSW - September/October 2002