This panel study examines trends in recycling participation, diversion, and costs among a national sample of municipal programs in 1989 and 1996 and identifies the recycling policies associated with changes in performance. This study finds that local recycling officials made recycling performance comparisons with other jurisdictions and engaged in a rational process of policy experimentation to fine-tune the performance of their programs during the 1990s. The policies that distinguished higher performing recycling efforts included mandatory recycling, curbside collection and free recycling bins, operating composting programs, and banning disposal of yard wastes. Recycling participation increased about 36% to a mean level of 73% by 1996. Diversion increased by 111% to a mean level of 33% by 1996. The total costs for recycling programs rose an average of 220%, but many cities with curbside collection also improved efficiency to the point where unit recycling costs were competitive with the costs of solid waste collection and disposal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, F. (1997). Why do we recycle?Washington, DC: Island Press.
2.
Alexander, J. (1993). In defense of garbage. Westport, CT: Praeger.
3.
Apotheker, S. (1993, December). Curbside recycling collection in the 40 largest U.S. cities. Resource Recycling, 27-33.
4.
Boerner, C. , & Chilton, K. (1994). False economy: The folly of demand-side recycling. Environment, 36(1), 6-15.
5.
Carless, J. (1992). Taking out the trash: A no-nonsense guide to recycling. Washington, DC: Island Press.
6.
Doherty, J. , & Lawitts, S. (1998). For many residents, recycling is just a part-time diversion. Resource Recycling, 17, 35-37.
7.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . (1994). Waste prevention, recycling, and composting options: Lessons from 30 communities. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
Feiock, R. ,& West, J. (1996). Explaining success of local recycling programs: Areassessment. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(7), 1065-1087.
9.
Folz, D. H. (1991). Recycling program design, management, and participation: A national survey of municipal experience. Public Administration Review, 51(3), 222-231.
10.
Folz, D. H. , & Hazlett, J. (1991). Public participation and recycling performance: Explaining program success. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 526-532.
11.
Goldstein, N. (1997, April). Biocycle nationwide survey: The state of garbage. Biocycle, 60-67.
12.
John, D. (1994). Civic environmentalism. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
13.
Kalan, L. , & Feiock, R. (1998). Assessing the performance of Florida solid waste recycling programs over time. Paper presented at the 1998 meeting of the Southeastern Conference for Public Administration, Pensacola, Florida.
14.
Khator, R. (1993). Recycling: A policy dilemma for American states. Policy Studies Journal, 20, 210-226.
15.
Luton, L. S. (1996). The politics of garbage. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
16.
O’Leary, R. , Durant, R., Fiorino, D., & Weiland, P. (1999). Managing for the environment: Understanding the legal, organizational, and policy challenges.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Schuman, T. , Bohm, R., Folz, D., Peretz, J.,& Tonn, B. (1997). Analysis of national solid waste recycling programs: A summary of the literature(EPA Report #CR822614-01). Knoxville, TN: Joint Institute for Energy and the Environment.
18.
Skumatz, L. (1996). Nationwide diversion rate study. Seattle, WA: Skumatz Economic Research Associates.
19.
Tierney, J. (1996, June 30). Recycling is garbage. New York Times Magazine, pp. 24-27, 44-44, 48-48, 51-51, 53-53.
