Residential Recycling Policy: Making Reduce, Reuse ... · recycling ordinance of Fairfax County,...

120 Virginia Policy Review

!Residential Recycling Policy: Making Reduce, Reuse, Recycle a Reality! Whitney Stohr I. INTRODUCTION Local and regional governments and municipalities normally administer the disposal and long-term management of municipal solid waste (MSW). Historically, local governments disposed of MSW in nearby landfills, and today most continue to rely on landfilling as a primary strategy for waste management (Wagner, 2011). However, an increasing number of municipalities now recognize recycling as an alternative, more sustainable approach to landfilling, yielding broad environmental, economic and social benefits. Recycling removes a substantial amount of reusable material from landfills. In 2003, recycling and composting in the United States diverted over 72 million tons of material from landfills and incinerators (US EPA, 2013b) and the rate of diversion continues to grow; in 2012, Americans diverted nearly 87 million tons of MSW, achieving a 34.5 percent recycling rate nationwide (US EPA, 2014). Through waste diversion, recycling promotes resource conservation, pollution reduction and greenhouse gas mitigation (Acuff & Kaffine, 2013; Tonjes & Mallikarjun, 2013; Hopewell et al., 2009; Skumatz, 2008b). Recycling also supports economic growth!!creating local jobs at an estimated rate five times higher than landfilling (US EPA, 2013c). Through public education and outreach, recycling programs advance local knowledge of environmental issues, promote sustainability-based values and encourage environmentally friendly behaviors (Stohr, 2013).

Virginia Policy Review 121

!

!

However, successful recycling programs require community-wide participation and a commitment to recycling by local residents, leading many municipalities to offer residential, or curbside, recycling in addition to traditional waste management services. By 2006, approximately 8,875 municipalities provided residential recycling services for an estimated 48 percent of Americans (Kinnaman, 2006). These residential programs vary widely with regard to the services available (e.g., materials accepted for recycling), cost of service, and outcomes based on the percentage of household participation, cumulative diversion rates, and other measures of success. Yet, despite variations in policy, residential programs help municipalities meet state and local waste diversion goals and recycling target rates, and often generate broad public support (Gunter, 2007). Some economic assessments of municipal recycling programs find that the costs of recycling exceed any direct financial gains (e.g., Kinnaman, 2006). However, research that considers only economic costs and benefits does not account for the environmental and social benefits of recycling, or the external costs of landfilling (Reijnders, 2000). In contrast, sustainability analysis requires consideration of both the economic costs and benefits of a government program, in addition to the quantifiable environmental and social costs and benefits (Wager, 2011; Hediger, 2000). Only after comprehensive cost"benefit analysis (CBA) that considers all economic, environmental and social impacts can policymakers understand and engage in effective decision-making regarding municipal recycling and residential programs. This article contributes to existing research supporting residential recycling as a policy alternative to landfilling. Part II offers an overview of the variety of residential programs developed by municipalities across the United States in an


!effort to increase MSW diversion from landfills. It also discusses the benefits of recycling, generally, as well as the costs and benefits of residential recycling as an alternative waste management strategy. Part III identifies various political roadblocks and ideological viewpoints that may influence the development and implementation of residential programs. Lastly, Part IV presents as a case study the recycling ordinance of Fairfax County, Virginia, and draws from this example, and others, lessons learned to guide policy development. II. PARADIGMS: THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING !Extensive, cross-disciplinary research reveals the benefits of municipal recycling, as well as various economic, social and political challenges that may delay implementation of recycling programs in some communities. Part A of this section provides a general overview of the benefits of municipal recycling. Part B then introduces residential recycling as a strategy to enhance local participation in recycling programs and increase MSW diversion. The subsection also examines the variety of residential programs in the United States. Lastly, part C considers both the costs and benefits of residential recycling and postulates why residential programs remain popular despite claims of high economic costs. The Benefits of Municipal Recycling The principle of sustainable development dictates that government policies and programs implemented today bear in mind the development needs of both present and future generations (UN, 1992). This requires balancing three fundamental principles during the policy process:


!

!

environmental protection, economic development, and social development (UN, 2002). Recycling programs allow municipalities to incorporate sustainability into the MSW sector. As described below, these programs promote both social and economic development and generate significant environmental benefits. From an environmental perspective, recycling promotes sustainability by reducing the amount of waste deposited in landfills through waste diversion and encouraging the reuse of natural resources and other materials. The term “waste diversion” refers to the total amount of waste generated within a service area minus the amount of waste disposed of in landfills (CCC, 2012). Waste diversion through recycling can extend the lifespan of existing landfills, and help municipalities avoid the near-term funding commitment and social and political challenges of siting new landfill space (US EPA, 2014; Saltzman et al., 1993, p. 33). For example, community organizations and NIMBY movements may challenge siting decisions based on economic or social and environmental justice concerns. Studies of property value reveal a correlation between home values and their proximity to landfills; “a home located within one mile of a landfill is worth 5 to 10 percent less than a comparative home away from a landfill” (Kinnaman, 2006, p. 220). In addition, research on community justice issues identify a disproportionate number of noxious facilities already located near low-income communities and communities of color (NEJAC, 2000). Furthermore, developing a market for recycled materials and ensuring a steady stream of inputs reduces the pollution and land degradation associated with the extraction of virgin resources (US EPA, 2014; US EPA, 1998). The use of recycled materials in manufacturing and production can also


!achieve significant energy savings and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. For example, in 2012, Americans diverted approximately 87 million tons of MSW from landfills through recycling and composting, saving more than 1.1 quadrillion Btu of energy, or the amount of energy used by 10 million US households per year (US EPA, 2014, p. 4). The total emissions reductions achieved from the use of recycled materials in manufacturing reflects “the difference between virgin and recycled production emissions” and varies by material type (Acuff and Kaffine, 2013, p. 76). Using data from a 2009 report by the US EPA, calculating the lifecycle emissions of materials associated with production (including emissions from transportation), Acuff and Kaffine (2013) compared greenhouse emissions from manufacturing processes using virgin resources and recycled materials (p. 77). The authors found that aluminum and steel production from virgin inputs (12.94 and 2.82 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT !"!!! , respectively) produces significantly higher emissions than production using recycled inputs (0.95 and 0.99 MT!"!!). Using recycled materials in plastics production also produces fewer emissions: approximately 2.05 MT!"!! from production with virgin resources compared to 0.18 MT!"!! using recycled inputs. Recycling can also reduce the emission of methane gas from landfills. Methane is a short-lived, but potent, greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) more than twenty times greater than carbon dioxide (!"!) over a 100 year period (Franchetti and Kilaru, 2012; US EPA, 2013b). The decomposition of biomass materials (i.e. paper, food and yard waste, wood, leather and cloth) and petrochemicals, including plastics, produces methane, which escapes into the environment and contributes to climate change if not captured or burned off at the landfill (Themelis and Ulloa, 2007).


!

!

Recycling diverts biodegradable materials away from landfills, thus reducing methane emissions. In total, estimates projected that in 2005, recycling avoided the emission of 48 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT!"!!! from energy savings, avoided methane emissions, and forest carbon sequestration, an amount equivalent to removing 36 million cars from the road for one year (US EPA, 2013a). From an economic perspective, recycling generates revenue from the sale of recycled and post-consumer materials and contributes to local job growth. Municipalities receive compensation for recycled materials and save money through “avoided disposal costs,” such as “tipping fees” charged by landfills for the disposal of each ton of MSW, both of which offset the collection and processing costs of recycling (Tonjes and Mallikarjun, 2013, p. 2548; Schultz, 1999, p. 34). The recycling industry also contributes to local economic growth through tax contributions; in 2001, for example, the industry paid an estimated US$12.9 billion in federal, state and local taxes (US EPA, 2013a). In addition, recycling stimulates private sector growth and entrepreneurship and creates nearly five times more jobs than landfilling (US EPA, 2014c). In 2001, the recycling and reuse industry directly employed approximately 1.1 million people at more than 56,000 facilities across the United States (US EPA, 2012; Beck, Inc., 2001). That same year, the industry grossed approximately $236 billion in revenues, with employees generating a payroll of $37 billion. Industry jobs range from low- and semi-skills positions!!such as truck drivers, materials sorters and sales representatives!!to highly-skilled professionals, including engineers, chemists and accountants (US EPA, 2013c). Employees also typically receive higher wages than the national average for all industries (US EPA, 2013b). In addition, economic models


!estimate that the recycling industry sustains nearly 1.4 million jobs in support industries, and 1.5 million jobs in businesses that benefit from employee spending (Beck, Inc., 2001). Recycling programs likewise reinforce social development, and provide such benefits as “minimizing waste landfills, reducing odors and congestion associated with the transportation of disposal wastes,” and, as stated above, generating employment opportunities and above average wages in local communities (Marchek, 2000, p. 25). One study even reported a positive correlation between municipal “bottle laws” and reduced petty crime and poverty rates due to increased income generation and livelihood opportunities for low-wage workers (Ashenmiller, 2010). Bottle laws establish a deposit-refund for beverage containers that encourages recycling by returning a nominal fee to those that collect and properly dispose of the materials. The social effect of recycling also includes more intrinsic benefits. For example, participation in recycling programs may reinforce residents’ moral views and provide a “warm glow” of altruism (Halvorsen, 2008; Bruvoll & Nyborg, 2004; Werner & Makela, 1998). In addition, public outreach and information dissemination about recycling can strengthen public!private sector communication and create a gateway for future public education campaigns promoting sustainability and the importance of environmental action. In some cases, “[e]ducating the general public about environmental harms also sensitizes the public to the need for increased environmental regulation, thus increasing broad support for, and the legitimacy of, increasingly stringent regulations (Stohr, 2013, p. 17).” Understanding the potential benefits of recycling reinforces perceptions regarding program feasibility and sustainability


!

!

analysis, and helps foster local government and community support for recycling programs, notwithstanding the requisite financial investment. Residential Recycling Strategies and Structures In response to changing social values and the promise of sustainability, regional governments and municipalities now frequently include recycling goals in local planning documents and waste management programs. To increase participation in recycling and promote sustainability, many municipalities offer residential services. While program characteristics and fee structures vary, this section highlights some common brands of residential recycling, including flat-rate, no-cost and user-pay pricing schemes and recycling mandates. Flat-Rate Recycling: In a flat-rate pricing scheme, municipalities charge a set fee for residential recycling. Municipalities attach these fees to residential property taxes, garbage collection or utility invoices, or bill residents directly (Skumatz, 2008b). Residents pay for curbside collection regardless of how much (or if) they recycle (Batllevell & Hanf, 2008). For example, beginning in 2013, the City of Stillwater, Oklahoma, introduced an additional $1.57 fee to city utility bills to fund the “Stillwater Recycles: Curbside Single-Stream Program” (City of Stillwater, n.d.b.). Under this program, the city provides residents with a recycling bin to hold all recyclable items, which the city collects and sorts at a single-stream processing facility. However, despite the citywide service fee, participation in the residential program remains voluntary. Rather than mandating participation, the city seeks to educate residents about recycling and potential opportunities to reduce household utility bills by increasing recycling and opting for smaller, lower cost trash containers.


!No-Cost Recycling: Some municipalities offer curbside collection at no cost to residents. In Berkeley, California, a Refuse Fund, funded from MSW collection fees, covers the cost of recycling and organics collection in order to help meet the city’s goal of “zero waste” by 2020 (Raguso, 2013). However, under this fee structure, the city projects that the Refuse Fund will operate at an annual $2!3 million deficit over five years. In addition to recycling, the Zero Waste Program funds other services, including street sweeping and graffiti removal, and participation in the recycling program causes many residents to downgrade to smaller, lower cost trash containers, further reducing the revenues generated from waste collection (City of Berkeley, 2013; Deinkelspiel, 2010). Thus, in 2013, the city began working to develop a “sustainable rate structure” to address program cost overruns (Raguso, 2013). As this demonstrates, in the absence of a long-term plan to prevent budget deficits, no-cost residential recycling may prove impractical. User-Pay, or Variable Rate Recycling: A user-pay structure, also known as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT), incentivizes participation in residential recycling by charging residents a variable rate for refuse collection based on the volume of MSW set out in trash containers (Skumatz, 2008b). “PAYT systems are based on the joint application of two of the guiding principles of environmental policy: the polluter pays principle and the shared responsibility concept” (Batllevell & Hanf, 2008, p. 2793). In 2006, approximately 7,100 municipalities in the United States utilized a PAYT approach for residential recycling, resulting in an annual MSW diversion rate of 6.5 million tons (Skumatz and Freeman, 2006). Municipalities implement flexible PAYT programs in several forms, including container, bag, tag or sticker, and/or weight-based programs. Many municipalities prefer PAYT programs as they reward sustainable behavior, i.e. reducing


!

!

consumption and increasing recycling, and require residents who produce the most trash to pay higher service fees (US EPA, 2012; Batllevell & Hanf, 2008). Thus, many consider PAYT programs among the most equitable waste reduction pricing schemes as recyclers benefit from their participation (by paying less for MSW collection) and non-recyclers pay more for their higher consumption and waste generation (Batllevell & Hanf, 2008). Mandatory Residential Recycling: Municipalities will sometimes mandate residential recycling in an effort to increase participation and meet MSW diversion goals. Municipalities can introduce mandatory recycling under any of the above structures. For example, in 2003, the City of Seattle, Washington, adopted a recycling ordinance (effective January 1, 2005), mandating household participation in a no-cost, residential program (Langston, 2006; Young, 2003; City of Seattle, n.d.). Under the ordinance, refuse collectors will not empty trash containers when the contents include more than 10 percent recyclable material (City of Seattle, n.d.). Alternatively, the City of San Francisco, mandates residential recycling based on a variable rate framework (Zero Waste SF, n.d.). Under the fee structure set by the San Francisco Rate Board on July 30, 2013, the city charges residents $2.04 monthly for each 32-gallon blue recycling bin and $25.64 for a black landfill bin of the same size. Even a smaller 20-gallon black bin costs residents $16.03 per month, thus encouraging recycling. The city’s efforts to increase recycling and achieve zero waste by 2020 resulted in an 80 percent MSW diversion rate in 2012, the highest of any North American city (City of San Francisco, 2012). Despite policy structure, recycling programs typically benefit local communities and help municipalities meet MSW diversion goals, although this often requires continued


!financial support. Proving the economic feasibility of residential recycling, however, requires consideration of both costs and benefits. The Costs and Benefits of Residential Recycling Traditional economic analyses often find that the financial costs of municipal recycling exceed any direct (economic) benefits (Kinnaman, 2006). Many economists similarly doubt the economic feasibility of residential recycling, in particular, due to excessive costs (e.g., Gunter, 2007; Kinnaman, 2006). Yet, residential programs remain popular with the public. The decision by a municipality to implement residential recycling thus requires engaging in CBA to ensure both long-term economic viability and environmental and social sustainability. Cost!benefit analysis guides policymakers in their selection of the “best (most efficient)” and cost-effective policy option (Hanley & Spash, 1993, p. 9). CBA compares the “economic efficiency implications of alterative options” by contrasting the benefits of a proposed action with the costs (Gorlach et al., 2005, p. 6). When performing CBA, policymakers compare the estimated monetary value of each potential impact of a proposed policy. To determine the monetary value of non-economic or intrinsic environmental and social costs and benefits, policymakers utilize several methods of valuation, such as estimates of the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for a particular outcome. From an economic perspective, residential recycling can prove cost-effective when analysis shows that the benefits of the program exceed implementation and operational costs, or due to the higher cost of landfilling, recycling results in “avoided disposal costs” (Tonjes & Mallikarjun, 2013, p.


!

!

2548). Focusing primarily on the economic costs and benefits of a local policy, however, overlooks the potential environmental and social benefits that may result, and fails to consider long-term sustainability. Analysis of the costs and benefits of residential recycling at the local level reveals the total “net benefit” of a residential program, or rather, “the benefits to participating households minus the operating costs” (Kinnaman, 2006, p. 223). The operating costs relevant to this analysis include costs associated with materials collection and program administration, which may fluctuate based on “the age of the program, the frequency of collection, the number and types of materials collected, the use of city employees or contracted private employees, the population density, and the local costs of labor and fuel” (Kinnaman, 2006, p. 223). The type and scale of industries operating in proximity to the municipality also affect the costs of residential programs as manufacturing centers provide a market for the sale of recyclable materials. For example, in some instances, small municipalities located away from urban centers do not accept glass materials due to the lack of manufacturing facilities that utilize recycled glass (e.g., City of Stillwater, n.d.a.; Yakima County, n.d.). Lastly, comprehensive CBA should include all costs associated with continued MSW disposal, including maintaining existing landfills and siting new landfills (Gunter, 2007; Kinnaman, 2006; Huhtala, 1997). Although significantly more difficult to measure in monetary terms, CBA should also include the value of any potential opportunity costs accruing at the individual or household and municipal level. Opportunity costs refer to those investments of time and/or money foregone as a consequence of investment in other activities (Harberger, 1971). At the individual and/or household level, opportunity costs!!valued


!in relation to foregone wages and leisure time!!occur as a result of time spent cleaning and separating recyclable materials from trash (Berglund, 2006; Saltzman et al., 1993). Municipalities accrue opportunity costs due to allocations of time, money and other municipal assets to residential programs, leaving the resources unavailable for alternative uses (Kinnaman, 2006). The benefits of residential recycling include the many environmental and social benefits discussed previously, as well as the benefits of avoided MSW disposal, including saved disposal or “tipping” fees, and additional revenues from the sale of recyclable materials (Kinnaman, 2006, p. 220). While acknowledging requisite program costs, many municipalities instead choose to emphasize sustainability and the benefits of residential recycling. Public preferences and changing values and political ideologies also promote policy development and increase public support for residential programs. III. POLITICS: THE ROLE OF PUBLIC VALUES IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING Several factors influence the development, adoption and implementation of residential programs, including the personal and political beliefs of community members, existing public norms and values, the influence of local government leaders in the community, and concerns regarding fairness and social equity (e.g., Taylor & Tsigaris, 2012; Gunter, 2007; Schultz, 1999; Feiock & West, 1993). This section considers how community diversity and opposing viewpoints influence public perception of the value of recycling and the economic feasibility of residential programs. Part A explores common drivers of policy development at the local government level.


!

!

Part B then considers issues of social equity in local policymaking, including how the structure and implementation of residential programs may affect existing inequalities and how local governments can address these concerns. Finally, part C examines public attitudes regarding the role of government in shaping community behavior, and how these views impact residential programs. A. Municipal Policy Development, Considerations, and Objectives Government officials engage in policymaking for different reasons. At the local level, municipal officials may begin the policy process in response to an objective need for a new policy or civic program (Feiock & West, 1993). Local officials may also initiate policymaking due to pressure from interest groups or in response to decisions made in other jurisdictions. However, whether a municipality can support a particular policy or program depends largely on the administrative capacity of the local government, including the knowledge, skill set and expertise of local officials. External drivers also impact local policy development and the willingness of policymakers to support new programs. Communities with higher socioeconomic affluence, for instance, retain greater capacity to engage in policymaking and implement programs that require substantial seed funding or long-term investment. Heightened fiscal capacity can drive policy development to the extent that funding exists to support new programs. Additionally, local governments must comply with all federal and state laws and regulations, and thus local policies reflect decisions made at higher levels of government. For example, while municipalities typically oversee waste management, local agencies must follow all relevant state and federal mandates.


!B. Community Equity, Environmental Justice, and Residential Recycling Concerns regarding community equity often arise during the policy process as policymaking can directly impact local neighborhoods and communities. In the waste management sector, “[t]he clustering and disproportionate siting of noxious facilities [such as landfills and MSW processing facilities] in low-income communities and communities of color led to the creation of the environmental justice movement” (NEJAC, 2000, p. iii). In the past, municipalities also frequently built MSW transfer facilities in high-density housing and recreational areas, or near restaurants and small business establishments. These facilities can significantly impact quality of life in nearby areas and cause serious environmental harm. Communities often protest that the presence of noxious facilities creates more noise and odor, litter, increased traffic, poor air quality, and open vectors for disease-carrying rodents and insects. The environmental justice movement seeks to educate and protest the disproportionate siting of noxious facilities in historically disenfranchised communities, believing that such facilities cause “degraded health and environmental conditions, as well as displacement of community revitalization plans and economic activity” (pp. iii"iv). Individuals concerned with the equity, or inequity, of policymaking often question the procedural, geographical or social impacts of a proposed policy or program (Rosenbaum, 2014). For example, does the proposed policy apply equally to all areas of the community? Do the impacts of the policy benefit certain neighborhoods or demographic groups, while forcing the costs of implementation onto others? Does the policymaking process promote inclusive decision-making and reflect community diversity? As in other sectors, local


!

!

officials must address these questions as they pertain to municipal recycling programs. Concerns regarding economic and social equity in particular complicate residential programs. Disputes over economic equity, for example, may determine whether a municipality adopts a flat-rate or variable rate PAYT program. In the case of PAYT, “[e]quity has to do with making distinctions among different users with regard to the outcomes or impacts of the system on different groups or types of participants (households)” (Batllevell & Hanf, 2008, pp. 2793"94). In a PAYT program, collection providers assess service fees based on the amount of MSW generated per household (Skumatz, 2008a). Residents pay a substantially lower fee per recycling container than the amount charged for each trash container, therefore incentivizing recycling. This differs from a flat-rate program under which all users pay the same amount. As larger households typically generate more waste than smaller households, and thus pay more for collection services under variable rate systems, some question the equity of PAYT rate structures (Skumatz, 2008a). Yet PAYT programs provide these larger households with the opportunity to reduce their MSW collection fees by increasing the household recycling rate and/or reducing refuse!generating consumption. In fact, PAYT programs may actually affect smaller and fixed-income families to a greater extent than larger and more affluent households as these groups generally consume less with fewer opportunities to reduce waste through recycling (Batllevell & Hanf, 2008; Skumatz, 2008a). Equity requires that, “in the case of waste collection, the costs to all individuals using that service (per unit) should be equal; for if two individuals wishing to use the service face different costs of doing so, then the access to the service would be


!unequal” (Batllevell & Hanf, 2008, p. 2794). Hence, implementing a PAYT program may entail initial increases in the per!container service fee to account for average collection costs throughout a service area. For example, service fees must account for the higher costs of collection from larger, single-family home, residential neighborhoods, compared to high-density urban areas. In such instances, residents living in urban areas may pay more than the actual cost of collection from their neighborhoods in order to subsidize higher collection costs in other parts of the service area. Initial fee increases also raise equity concerns as they may force a higher premium per trash container on households that already generate less waste (Skumatz, 2008b). Thus, when developing a variable rate fee structure, municipalities must address concerns regarding the impact of additional costs and service fees based on the relative size and geographic location of participating households. Municipalities must also consider the social equity of residential policies as such programs can act to reinforce existing inequality. Issues regarding social equity, for example, may arise during implementation of residential programs where residents believe that local officials prioritize recycling programs or provide better services in affluent neighborhoods. For instance, when the City of Chicago adopted its blue cart program in 2007, the city purchased blue recycling bins and began a process of incremental distribution throughout Chicago’s various neighborhoods (Dumke, 2010; City of Chicago, n.d.). Unfortunately, due to budget shortfalls and other challenges, by 2010, many neighborhoods still lacked blue bins, reaffirming what one local official described as the city’s “haves and have-nots” (Dumke, 2010). Chicago finally completed distribution in 2013 under Mayor Rahm Emanuel, at which time he stated that: “With the final phase of the blue cart recycling expansion, Chicago is no longer the


!

!

tale of two cities when it comes to recycling” (City of Chicago, 2013). On the other hand, residential programs can also alleviate inequality. For example, by increasing the diversion rate of MSW from landfills, municipalities can reduce the pollution associated with landfills and avoid the siting of new landfills in the near-term (US EPA, 2013a; NEJAC, 2000). Environmental justice advocates often claim that the negative costs of otherwise desirable land uses (known as “locally undesirable land uses,” or LULUs), such as landfills, disproportionately impact low-income and minority populations (Been, 1993, pp. 1001"02), While recycling programs do not address the underlying causes of this disproportionate impact, policies that decrease pollution at these sites nevertheless reduce the negative impacts of existing inequities related to land use decisions. C. Government Regulation as a Driver for Sustainability Through policymaking, government officials can modify public behavior and signal the need for a shift in public values (Moseley & Stoker, 2013; Thomas et al., 2013). Over time, public policy can create social norms that support environmental action and encourage sustainable behaviors. However, perspectives vary regarding the role of government in shaping public values, generally, and therefore the extent to which government should compel household recycling. From a regulatory view, municipalities can coordinate waste management, including residential recycling, in three ways: (1) command and control; (2) market inducement via financial incentive; and (3) free market management. This section examines each approach.


!Command and Control Approach: Command and control regulation entails strong government oversight of the private sector and mandatory requirements (Gunter, 2007). Under this traditional approach of direct regulation, the government sets rules and guidelines to govern private sector activity and individual behaviors, and rigorously enforces these rules against violation (Stewart, 1988). In the waste management sector, municipalities may adopt command and control policies, such as mandatory recycling ordinances, for residential programs, where the state or local government sets high MSW diversion goals (Sidique et al., 2010; Everett, 1989). Proponents of direct regulation trust that command and control strategies can help municipalities meet mandated recycling targets (Gunter, 2007; Huhtala, 1997). However, others consider command and control regulations too rigid, costly, inefficient and litigious (Gunter, 2007; Stewart, 1988). Incentive!Based, Guided Market Approach: Whereas command and control regulations use mandatory rules and guidelines to achieve compliance with public policy, a guided market approach offers market!based, financial incentives to drive social change. Many economists favor this market!based strategy as it allows municipalities to utilize financial incentives to correct market failures that cause economic inefficiency and increase the costs of waste management (Rosenbaum, 2014; Gunter, 2007; Aidt, 1998). For example, Kinnaman (2006) contends that a landfill tax internalizing the costs of MSW disposal could replace mandated recycling targets, giving municipalities the freedom to adopt residential programs if and when efficiency analysis supports such policies. While a guided market approach seeks to maximize the economic efficiency of waste management, critics argue that such policies do not fairly consider the environmental and social benefits of recycling and the costs of MSW disposal (Gunter, 2007; Ackerman, 1997).


!

!

Free Market Approach: Free market economic theory accepts only minimal government regulation of private sector activity (Gunter, 2007). Proponents of a free market approach claim that both command and control regulations and market!based incentives waste public resources, and rather, that market forces should determine the price and optimum rate of recycling. A free market approach would instead promote voluntary recycling programs without established diversion goals and encourage private sector leadership. A review of available research by economist Matthew Gunter (2007) indicates that a majority of economists may favor a guided market approach to residential recycling, although opinions on this topic vary. As this subsection reveals, the personal views held by economists and policymakers, as well as members of the general public, defining the appropriate role of government in driving social change can dramatically impact policy development, even at the local level. IV. PREMIUMS: RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND LESSONS LEARNED As discussed in the preceding section, policymaking can drive social change and establish public norms to promote sustainability, social equity, or other desired outcomes (Moseley & Stoker, 2013). While several factors influence individual household participation rates, policy structure also affects the overall level of community participation in municipal recycling programs (Skumatz, 2008b). Part A of this section discusses residential recycling in Fairfax County!!a well-developed area in northern Virginia located within the Washington, D.C. metro region. Considered along with the analysis in the preceding sections, this study reveals the purpose and real-world premiums made practical by


!residential recycling. Part B concludes by offering recommendations for local governments and municipalities as they adopt new residential programs and/or revise current policies. A. Fairfax County, VA: Mandated Residential Recycling to Meet State Objectives In 1989, the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted legislation establishing a 25 percent recycling target rate for each locality (VDEQ, n.d.). The Virginia Waste Management Board additionally mandated that each region, city, county or town in Virginia develop a comprehensive and integrated waste management plan that considers solid waste source reduction, reuse, recycling and resource recovery as preferential to waste incineration and landfilling (Commonwealth of Virginia, 1990, 9 VAC 20-130-30). To comply with these mandates, in 2004 Fairfax County adopted a twenty-year waste management plan highlighting the importance of MSW reduction through recycling (Fairfax County, 2004). Policymakers subsequently amended the county’s solid waste management code to require recycling at all residential and non-residential properties, including single-family homes and apartment complexes, as well as institutions such as schools, hospitals and places of worship (Fairfax County, 2008). Fairfax County applies a two-pronged approach for MSW collection and residential recycling (Fairfax County, n.d.b.). The county provides MSW collection for residents living in designated Solid Waste Collection Areas, or Sanitary Districts, and collects service fees through annual tax assessments. Private companies, operating under permit, provide collection services to all residents living outside Sanitary Districts, and bill their customers directly (Fairfax County, 2006, 109.1-4-1; Fairfax County, n.d.b.). The county


!

!

oversees a petition process for any area seeking designation as a Sanitary District, which requires support from at least 55 percent of residents within an area of 50 or more homes (Fairfax County n.d.a.). Recycling and MSW collection occur at least once weekly (Fairfax County, 2006, 109.1-5-4). According to county code, waste collectors must offer residential recycling for cardboard and mixed paper, glass, metal food and beverage containers, plastic bottles and jugs, and scrap metal (as well as yard waste on a seasonal basis) (Fairfax County, 2006, 109.1-2-2). County code requires that residents of all single-family homes and townhouses participate in residential recycling. Waste collectors must provide outreach materials and information about recycling services at least once per year to area residents (Fairfax County, 2008). However, residents failing to separate recyclable materials from non-recyclable household refuse violate county code and may incur civil penalties (Fairfax County, 2006, 109.1-9-5). Once annually, Fairfax County must report to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) to demonstrate attainment of the mandated 25 percent recycling target for the preceding year (Fairfax County, 2008). Reporting records reveal that the rate of recycling in Fairfax County increased from just 32 percent in 1999 to over 50 percent by 2012 (Fairfax County, 2012). Since introducing the 25 percent target in 1989, the Commonwealth of Virginia likewise recorded substantial growth in recycling rates statewide, from 19.7 percent in 1991 to 41.5 percent in 2012 (VDEQ, n.d.). Residential recycling in Fairfax County advances both state and local priorities and supports the county’s goal of providing a balanced, efficient and economical waste


!management system (Fairfax County, 2004). Furthermore, through the policy process, local officials gain experience and identify lessons learned to improve residential programs and municipal recycling policies. The following section discusses a few critical lessons. B. Lessons Learned from Experience in Residential Recycling As discussed in the preceding sections of this article, municipalities may implement residential programs in different forms, which often reflect the demographic, political and personal preferences of the local community, as well as various economic considerations. However, despite policy structure, many of these residential programs share common elements, including public input during policy development, convenience of participation, and continuing public outreach. This section considers these common elements and offers policy recommendations. Recommendation 1: Request Public Input during Policy Development The public’s desire to fund specific programs and their willingness to pay to achieve policy objectives can substantially impact the success of residential recycling (Blaine et al., 2005). Hence, prior to adopting or revising residential policies, municipalities should establish a mechanism for public input and subsequent evaluation. This may include a survey to collect information about public preferences (e.g., City of Annapolis, 2013), or the creation of a citizen committee to assess various policy options, set goals and provide recommendations to policymakers (Skumatz, 2008b).


!

!

Recommendation 2: Prioritize Convenience for Household Participation While those expressing concern for the environment regularly engage in activities that promote environmental protection and sustainability (e.g., Park & Berry, 2013; Guagnano 2001; Everett, 1989), research indicates that the total level of public participation in residential programs depends largely on programmatic convenience (Park & Berry, 2013; Werner & Makela, 1998; Guagnano et al., 1995). In fact, prior research indicates “households may value convenience over actual cost savings or financial incentives” (Park & Berry, 2013, p. 900). Thus, when developing residential programs, municipalities should consider the relative ease of participation and seek to maximize convenience. Recommendation 3: Continue Public Outreach and Information Sharing Growing and maintaining high levels of participation in residential recycling requires continued public outreach and education on environmental issues and the benefits of recycling (Skumatz, 2008b). Residential programs that maintain voluntary participation may specifically benefit from effective public outreach (Everett, 1989). To promote participation, municipalities may provide information about recycling programs through, for example, city or county web pages, social media sites, agency newsletters or local news sources (Skumatz, 2008b). As in Fairfax County, local policies may require MSW collection service providers to distribute information about residential recycling to customers (Fairfax County, 2008) or municipalities may support targeted outreach and education initiatives organized by city departments, public utilities or other nongovernmental entities (e.g., City of Renton, 2014; City of Philadelphia, n.d.).


!While admittedly broad, these recommendations describe critical elements often included in residential programs. However, one should not overlook or underestimate the value of creative policymaking and local innovation as a means to advance the existing body of research and understanding of effective public policy. Rather, municipalities should strive to develop recycling policies that can respond to unique local concerns and maintain sufficient flexibility to weather shifts in local culture and politics. V. CONCLUSION Regional governments and municipalities promote recycling as a more sustainable alternative to waste disposal in landfills. Recycling diverts reusable materials from landfills, encourages resource conservation, and decreases pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Recycling programs also support economic growth through job creation, and promote environmentalism and more sustainable public behaviors by increasing local knowledge and awareness of environmental issues. While traditional economic analysis finds residential recycling inefficient!!as the financial costs of residential programs often exceed economic benefits!!municipalities can also cite a growing number of policy studies that consider the environmental and social impacts of recycling in addition to economic costs and benefits. These studies, including comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits, help to explain why municipalities adopt residential programs. Yet, while municipalities may work to maximize these environmental and social benefits, policymakers must nevertheless remain mindful of the underlying economic costs. Sustainability requires that residential programs promote environmental and


!

!

social goods while simultaneously enhancing economic development. In the waste management sector, local governments and municipalities drive policy development. Policymakers continue to learn from the recycling programs adopted in other jurisdictions and utilize information and lessons learned from previous experiences to advance local policies. And while recycling programs may differ in structure and fee arrangement, many share common elements that improve upon demonstrated achievements. Yet, policymaking also invokes creativity and inspires innovative policy solutions, and municipalities provide an environment in which to test new ideas and adapt existing policies to fit new scenarios. Thus, while experience may broaden public knowledge about recycling and prove certain strategies for residential programs effective, municipalities!!like all levels of government!!benefit from the proliferation of novel ideas that embolden public policy. ! Whitney G. Stohr, J.D., LL.M. is an attorney working in public policy and community development. She holds degrees from The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.; Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington; and the University of Montana-Missoula. She is currently working toward an M.S. in Ecological Restoration at the University of Florida.

Residential Recycling Policy: Making Reduce, Reuse ... · recycling ordinance of Fairfax County,...

Documents

Transcript of Residential Recycling Policy: Making Reduce, Reuse ... · recycling ordinance of Fairfax County,...