Joe E. Heimlich
In an integrated waste management system, perhaps no option provides as much choice for collection, management, process and return as does recycling. This fact sheet will examine the range of public and private roles In participating in materials recovery through recycling.
One goal of recycling programs is to remove a maximum amount of recyclable material from the waste stream. How a community chooses to do this will vary. Individual communities have personalities and what works for one community will not necessarily work for another.
Approaches to recycling may be placed on a continuum (Figure 1). The left end represents the -high public/low Individual participation,. with mass sorting at the disposal site. The right end of the continuum is the "low public/high individual participation. The middle represents mandatory collection. Located closer to individual initiative is the buyback center concept. The dropoff-donation center requires the most individual initiative.
It is important to understand that systems toward either end of the continuum have sharp tradeoffs. As noted below, some of these tradeoffs are in cost recovery, material recovery, participation rates and citizen involvement.
For a community or government body, the simplest, most familiar and least aggressive form of recycling is the dropoff-donation center. For the individual citizen. this type of recycling requires the greatest commitment to participation. This type of center does not pay for materials collected and does not actively collect materials. Many models of dropoff-donation centers exist in the United States, ranging from not-for-profit centers to clothing and materials - boxes" in parking lots.
An effective dropoff-donation program can divert about two percent of a municipality's waste; where participation is very high, this could reach a seven percent diversion. The potential success of such a program depends on the type of materials being collected, the convenience of drop off points, the commitment of the citizens to the program, and the quantity of materials collected consistently over time.
The buyback center is a variant of the dropoff that raises participation, The patrons sell recyclable materials to the center, which in turn provides the economic incentive to participate. Buyback centers can be operated by either for- profit or non-profit organizations. The goal of most recycling buyback centers is to make money. In order to do this, buyback centers are very cognizant of competition. Market prices for goods, which are normally volatile, determine prices paid per pound for materials collected. Each buyback center decides what materials it will purchase based on storage, processing and long-term buyers for the material. Because of the many different uses of post- consumer material, each center has its own requirements for accepting recyclables (e.g., paper tied with string versus paper in brown bags).
Centers are established based on proximity to population centers, efficiency and zoning considerations. The participation in buyback centers is higher than in donation centers but the commitment to -recycling" is often less by participants. On the continuum, the buyback center falls to the left of the donation center.
In source separation, the first step of materials reclamation, the segregating of materials by type is done by the user at the point of disposal. Typically this is done by the consumer at the household level. The members of participating households separate certain materials from their garbage and set these items out for collection one or more times per week. This is where the phrase "curbside collection of source separated materials" originates. This approach to recycling requires a marriage of public and individual effort. The government must commit to collection and maintenance of the program. Citizens must commit to participation to make the program work.
Several cities have implemented successful programs for residential collection of recyclable materials. These programs typically have higher participation rates than the previously discussed models. Curbside collection of source separated materials also has the potential for a strong, positive cash flow. There are many ways such a residential collection program can be designed, most of which are hybrids of residential collection systems "already in place) and recycling centers. Single-material collection is the simplest of residential collection programs. Multi-material collection (such as glass, paper, aluminum) Is the more aggressive of the types. The costs of this approach are higher, but the greater diversity of recycled materials and diversion of materials from landfills can make a well designed program cost effective.
Front end separation refers to mass collection and separation of industrial, commercial and residential wastes. It Is labor intensive but guarantees greater participation (up to the full 100 percent). Therefore, if a valuable commodity exists in large portions in waste not recovered by curbside or drop-off systems, front end separation may be worth considering.
In front end separation, large item waste is separated (usually by hand) on a conveyer system and then recyclables are further divided. Separation can be: 1) by hand; 2) through dry or wet processes such as magnetic separation, flotation, optical sorting, or eddy-current separation; or, more commonly, 3) a mix of labor intensive (hand) and capital intensive (technological) separation based on available resources.
A recycling program of any sort must be able to assure its buyer that it can deliver a certain amount of material of a certain quality. Only then will a buyer contract to buy the materials on a regular basis. Without a contract, it is usually not feasible for a community to make a commitment to recycling commodities from its solid waste stream.
In a voluntary recycling program, householders choose whether or not they participate; In a mandatory program, they are legally obligated to participate. The purpose of making source-separation mandatory is to increase participation rates and the potential economic viability of the recycling program. One policy issue that must be addressed in mandatory programs is whether mandatory participation is restrictive That is, is the goal (1) the removal of recyclables from the waste stream or (2) the ownership of materials by the municipality? Ideally, any recycling program should work with other recycling efforts to remove valuable commodities from the waste stream.
Scavenging and skimming are two problems that plague source-separation and unstaffed drop off programs. Recyclable materials have inherent value, and what can be marketed by the recycler can be marketed by others, The most obvious problem is that of source-separated materials on the curb being picked up by scavengers, Cities with curb collection often depend on high participation In order to pay the fixed costs of the program. Scavenging or skimming of the valuable waste may result in the costs of the program being maintained without the benefits of selling the profitable recyclable materials.
The overriding Issue for the future of community-based recycling programs Is that of markets for the recycled materials. The volatile nature of the existing markets makes long-term commitments to recycling efforts risky. Not ail recyclables have market values that make recycling worth the cost for a community. Energy gluts, renewable resources, and concerns of equity for taxes and transportation fees are factors that ideally have no impact on the lofty goals of recycling, but in the very real world must be considered. Market development must be explored on the consumer, manufacturing, and governmental levels.
Recycling is a choice for everyone. Increasingly, communities are beginning to make the choice to participate. Individuals will always have the choice to treat their used items as trash or as resources.
All educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability or Vietnam-era veteran status.
Keith L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Ag. Adm. and Director, OSU Extension.
TDD No. 800-589-8292 (Ohio only) or 614-292-1868