By Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D.,

Vice Chair, Citywide Recycling Advisory Board

April 17, 2002

EPA's November, 2001 study on multi-family recycling shows both the characteristics of successful, cost-effective and efficient programs and those that are not, studying 40 programs in all. New York was included in the middle group between the best and worst recycling cities, and though its recycling program does some things that more successful programs do, it can lower its recycling costs and achieve higher recycling and waste prevention rates by following the lead of the more successful communities in this study.

The communities that collect abnormally low amounts of recyclables, tended to have huge costs. In these cases little public education or onsite instruction was provided. These communities did not track recycling specifically in apartment buildings. New York City doesn't track recycling rates in apartment buildings or have special programs directed at the special challenges in apartment buildings. NYC spends only about 50 cents per person per year on recycling education, as compared with over ten times that much in San Francisco, for example. Newark also spends much more per capita on recycling education, and has a successful program to show for it.

This EPA publication indicates that recycling costs have decreased significantly in single-family homes nationwide because of increased participation in recycling. For those programs where single-family homes recycle about 20%, the cost is $50/ton less than those programs where diversion is 17%. This shows the value of increasing participation even a little via recycling education and enforcement. As for apartment buildings, increasing curbside diversion rates from 14% to 28% was shown to decrease collection costs by $46/ton. The study also found that those programs with the highest recycling diversion rates had the lowest generation rate for combined waste and recyclables, a possible sign of waste prevention by the participants (see Fig. 1). Finally, EPA found that as recycling rates increase, the cost per ton of apartment building refuse collections goes up because the tonnage collected goes down (see Figure 2). This is even more true when single-family recycling rates increase (see Figure 3). Eventually recycling became cheaper than refuse collections.

The EPA also found that

• requiring multi-family households to place their recyclables in 3 or more containers increased diversion rates,
• accepting many materials (at least 10) is a key element in achieving a high diversion rate,
• Higher diversion rates are attained when apartment dwellers share fewer sets of containers -- no more than 1 set per 15-20 households (e.g., adequate numbers of containers exist on each floor vs. the basement),
• Communities having higher recycling rates are more likely to accept mixed paper and other plastics besides PET and HDPE (#s 1 and 2) as well as textiles and used oil.
• Communities having higher recycling rates are more likely to use either a volume-based or separate estimate for tonnage from apartment buildings, which EPA believes is an indication that the community cares more about the performance of the program, and is better able to target educational resources to encourage participation. The study points to Seattle and San Jose as exemplary in both record-keeping and high diversion rates.
• Residents of 36 of the 40 communities surveyed paid for refuse collections via fees, most frequently "Pay as you Throw" volume-based systems, vs. the 4 communities (including New York) that rely on taxes.
• Communities with higher recycling rates are more likely to have Pay as you Throw systems, where collection is billed based on usage. (This is because residents have an economic incentive to recycle more.)
• Only 27% of communities having higher recycling rates pay for recycling from taxes (like NYC residents), whereas 63% of these better recycling communities have a monthly flat fee, making the charge clear.
• Contamination of recyclables is considered to be a greater problem in communities with lower recycling rates.
• Communities with higher recycling rates are 3 times as likely to issue fines, summonses and liens to enforce recycling.
• Communities with higher recycling rates are twice as likely to have increased visits to each apartment complex to provide technical assistance, to have trained "captains" there, and are the only communities that issue an annual recycling handbook.
• Communities with high diversion rates are more likely to have more frequent mailings to individual households, whereas those with lower rates are more likely to rely on supers.

First, it's penny-wise and pound-foolish to "save" on public education programs, and skimp on enforcement, since we pay dearly for it in suboptimal participation rates and contaminated recyclables that we have more difficulty (and greater expense) in marketing.

Second, we can decrease recycling costs by increasing collection efficiency if we invest in more and better continuing recycling education programs targeted to specific situations (e.g. apartment buildings) and using a variety of approaches.

Third, enforcement of recycling, including looking for and citing recyclables in black bags from apartment buildings, will yield violations is most places, since we only collect 45% the recyclables that DOS targets. Thus, enforcement can augment the positive impact of increased education by adding an economic incentive to the educational message, as well as pay for itself and more.

Fourth, increased recycling could have corollary benefits of decreasing total generation (i.e., waste prevention), reducing total waste management costs much further.

Fifth, "Pay as you Throw" systems can increase recycling rates and also reduce waste generation. Improving record-keeping for various types of apartment buildings would help DOS to target problem areas and design remedies (education/enforcement).

Sixth, increasing the availability of sufficient numbers of recycling containers of sufficient size will make it easier for residents to participate and increase recycling, decreasing costs,

Seventh, increasing the universe of recyclables to include more materials (e.g., mixed plastics, textiles, food) will increase the recycling rate.