Differences in waste generation, waste composition, and source separation across three waste districts in a New York suburb

Abstract

Six tonnes of discards and recyclables from three waste districts in a New York suburb were sorted in 2012. The districts were chosen because one had a higher recycling percentage, one had median performance, and one was a low performing district. ASTM standards were followed for the waste composition sorting. The results showed, as expected, that the waste district with the highest recycling rate appeared to have the highest separation efficiencies, leading to greater amounts of recyclable materials being source separated. The waste districts also had different overall waste generation, both in terms of the amounts of wastes generated, and their composition. The better recycling district generated less waste, but had a higher percentage of recyclables in the waste stream. Therefore, in some sense, its waste stream was enriched in recyclables. Thus, although the residents of that district recovered materials at a higher rate, they also left large amounts of recyclables in their discardsas did the residents of the other districts. In fact, the districts only recycled between one quarter and less than half of all available recyclables, so that their discards were comprised of up to one third recyclable materials. This level of performance does not appear to be unique to this Town; therefore, we believe that additional recovery efforts through post-collection sorting for recyclables may be warranted.

Econometric Model for Measuring the Impact of the Education Level of the Population on the Recycling Rate in a Circular Economy

“…Socio-demographic characteristics that influence the intention to recycle and the recycling rate have also been included in numerous studies (Jones et al, 2010;Sidique, Lupi and Joshi, 2010b;Saphores and Nixon, 2014;Oztekin et al, 2017), although results of different researches on the impact of income, level of education and age are often contradictory (Saphores and Nixon, 2014;Aphale, Thyberg and Tonjes, 2015).…”

What motivates households recycling behaviour in recycling schemes of different maturity? Lessons from Lithuania and Sweden

“…Some studies on HRB focused on the effects of different WM system designs, such as the type and frequency of collection (Tucker et al, 2000), access to collection points such as kerbsides (Aphale et al, 2015;Dahlén et al, 2007;Starr and Nicolson, 2015), the number of waste fractions collected (Dahlén et al, 2007;MiliutePlepiene and Plepys, 2015), economic incentives (Dahlén et al, 2007;Miliute and Plepys, 2009;Starr and Nicolson, 2015), or information campaigns (Ebreo and Vining, 2000;Knussen and Yule, 2004;Miliute and Plepys, 2009). …”

Source separation of municipal solid waste: The effects of different separation methods and citizens’ inclination—case study of Changsha, China

“…According to the Classification and Evaluation Standard of Municipal Solid Waste (CJJ/T 102-2004), the evaluating indicators, such as awareness rate, participation rate, collection rate, and recycling rate, are defined explicitly. In previous studies, participation rate and recycling rate are the most common indicators to evaluate source separation (McDonald and Oates, 2003;Martin et al, 2006;Aphale et al, 2015). However, high participation rate and recycling rate do not always indicate good effects of source separation.…”