This research examines the relationship between the success of a residential curbside recycling program (RCRP), measured as material recovery rate (MRR), and two program factors: (1) whether or not participation is mandated; and (2) convenience, measured by container provision, collection frequency and collection day relative to municipal solid waste collection day. Residential curbside recycling programs, with correct strategies and program design, can be an important part of solid waste management plans world-wide. While residential curbside recycling programs are growing in popularity, many basic design questions lie unanswered and successful program strategies are not always obvious. Data from 357 residential curbside recycling programs in the United States are used to test the hypotheses. Mandatory participation residential curbside recycling programs are seen to collect more material than voluntary participation residential curbside recycling programs. Container provision appears effective for voluntary, but not mandatory, residential curbside recycling programs. Increasing collection frequency appears to have a small positive effect on residential curbside recycling program success, while collection day has little effect on material recovery rate.
Allan, T., Pratt, B. & Morris, D. (1989) Beyond 25 Percent: Materials Recovery Comes of Age. Washington D.C., U.S.A.: Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Bell, R., Grogan, P. & Schwartz, B. (1990) Legislative Evaluation: federal, state and local government. Paper presented at the 1990 Pennsylvania Recycling Conference on Waste Reduction and Recycling, Camp Hill, PA, U.S.A.
4.
Bethea, R., Duran, B. & Boullion, T. (1985) Statistical Methods for Engineers and Scientists . New York, U.S.A.: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
5.
Cooper, R.M. (1982) A survey of mandatory recycling ordinances. Resource Recovery1(2), 12-13, 27.
6.
Dawson, C. & Pines, C. (1984) Risking success: recycling in St Luis Park, Minnesota . Resource Recycling3(1), 22-23, 30-31.
7.
De Young, R. (1988-1989) Exploring the difference between recyclers and non-recyclers: the role of information. Journal of Environmental Systems18(4), 341-351.
8.
De Young, R. (1990) Recycling as appropriate behavior: a review of survey data from selected recycling education programs in Michigan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling3, 253-266.
9.
Dillman, D. (1978) Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method . New York, U.S.A.: Wiley.
10.
Everett, J. (1989) Residential recycling programs: environmental, economic and disposal factors. Waste Management & Research7, 143-152.
11.
Everett, J. & Peirce, J.J. (1991a) Recycling promotion strategies: statistical and fuzzy set comparisons. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, ASCE117(4), 154-167.
12.
Everett, J. & Peirce, J.J. (1991b) National analysis of recycling material recovery rates. Journal of Resource Management and Technology19(4), 148-152.
13.
Everett, J. & Peirce, J.J. (1992a) Measuring the success of recycling programs. Resources Conservation and Recycling6, 355-370.
14.
Everett, J. & Peirce, J.J. (1992b) Social networks, socioeconomic status, and environmental collective action: residential curbside block leader recycling. Journal of Environmental Systems21(1), 65-84.
15.
Foran, B. (1987) 1986-87 Oregon/California residential curbside recycling survey report. Eugene, OR, U.S.A.: Lane County Waste Management Division.
16.
Fulginity, J.R. (1985) Taking the myths out of curbside collection. Biocycle26(6), 24-27.
17.
Gilitz, J. (1989Curbside collection containers, a comparative evaluation . Resource Recycling7(7), 20-22, 51.
18.
Glenn, J. (1988) Junior, take out the recyclables. Biocycle29(5), 26-31.
19.
Glenn, J. (1989a) 'New age' drop off programs. Biocycle30(2), 42-43.
20.
Glenn, J. (1989b) Enforcing mandatory recycling ordinances. Biocycle30(3), 31-31, 36.
21.
Glenn, J. (1990) The state of garbage in America. Biocycle31(4), 34-41.
22.
Glenn, J. & Riggle, D. (1991) The state or garbage in America. Biocycle32(4), 34-38.
23.
Hageman, K. (1989) How to make a good recycling program better. Biocycle30(4), 62-64.
24.
Jacobs, H. & Bailey, J. (1982-1983) Evaluating participation in a residential recycling program. Journal of Environmental Systems12(2).
25.
Jacobs, H. & Bailey, J. (1982-1983) Evaluating participation in a residential recycling program. Journal of Environmental Systems12(2), 141-152.
26.
Long, L. (1989How to get results in residential recycling. Biocycle30(8), 76-77.
27.
Lund, J. (1990) Least-cost scheduling of solid waste recycling . Journal of Environmental Engineering116(1), 182-197.
28.
McGrath, S. (1990) Analysis of recycling recovery rates. Journal of Resource Management and Technology18(1), 2-10.
29.
Mersky, R. (1988) Basic design parameters for recycling programe . Journal of Resource Management and Technology16(2), 104-107.
30.
Mersky, R. & Mathew, K. (1987) Recycling opinion survey. Resource Recycling6(2), 25, 50.
31.
National Recycling Coalition (1989) The National Recycling Coalition measurement standards and reporting guidelines, draft. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: National Recycling Coalition .
32.
O'Leary, P. & Walsh, P. (1988) How to make a voluntary program work. Waste Age19(5), 98-194.
33.
Peters, A. & Grogan, P. (1988) Community recycling. Biocycle29(5), 32-36.
34.
Pieters, R. (1986) Participation in source separation projects: design characteristics and perceived costs and benefits. Resources and Conservation12(2), 95-111.
35.
Powell, J. (1989) All those surveys can help recycling. Resource Recycling8(7), 25, 67-68.
36.
Schmerling, E. (1990) Recycling container choices. Biocycle31(3), 36-37.
37.
Smedberg, J. (1989) Calculating participation: a look at that tricky multiplier. Resource Recycling8(6), 26-27, 64.
38.
Spurr, M. (1988) Curbside sampling of recyclables. Resource Recycling7(5), 26-29.
39.
Stevens, B. (1988) Cost analysis of curbside programs. Biocycle29(5), 37-38.
40.
Stone, D. (1985) Curbside in California. Biocycle26(4), 53-54.
41.
Stroessner, W. (1988) Small town recycling. Resource Recycling7(1), 18-19, 52-53.
42.
Usepa (1989) Promoting source reduction and recyclability in the market place. EPA 530-SW-89-066. Cincinnati, U.S.A.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
43.
Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1990) What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior22(1), 55-73.
44.
Walsh, P. & O'Leary, P. (1988) Recycling offers benefits, opportunities ... and challenges. Waste Age19(1), 54-60.
45.
Walsh, P. & O'Leary, P. (1988) How to implement a mandatory recycling program . Waste Age19(6), 65-70.
46.
Watson, T. (1989) The garbage police. Resource Recycling8(3), 32-33, 58-62.
