1
Recycling in U.S. Cities
Mitch Carbullido
CreightonUniversity
I. Research Question
Recycling programs across the United States and across the world have dramatically evolved in the past thirty years, and particularly in the 1990s. The rise of the environmental movement in the 1970s sparked environmental consciousness and began to bring the concepts of conservation and environmental protection into mainstream awareness. It is at this time that the idea of recycling and reusing waste began to materialize (Strong 1997, 3). Initial recycling efforts and programs for the first decade and a half were modest, consisting primarily of businesses and individuals selling used commodities for reprocessing to make a profit. In the late 1980s, however, the recycling movement received a boost when it became apparent that cities across the country were experiencing significant obstacles with trash disposal, specifically rapidly declining landfill space and the climbing cost of garbage disposal services (Strong 1997, 4). Recycling served as a possible and partial solution to the waste management problems that were plaguing parts of the country and threatening others. Over the course of the 1990s, various governments, primarily local city governments, implemented and expanded upon a variety of recycling programs. Recycling rates, both population participation rates and diversion rates comparing the percentage of waste recycled to waste buried or incinerated, skyrocketed. From 1989 to 1996, alone, national recycling rates went from 9% to 28%, and have continued to climb into the twenty-first century. Some have said the dramatic recycling improvements in the 1990s were, “the singular environmental success story of the decade” (Folz 1999).
Recycling and waste management reform, however, has not been uniform across the country. While the majority of major cities in the United States have implemented some form of a recycling program, the extensiveness of these programs and the recycling diversion rates vary greatly across cities. In 2001, for example, Portland, Oregon had a recycling diversion rate of 53.6%, recycling over half of all waste collected in the city. Cleveland, Ohio, on the other hand, had a recycling diversion rate of only 2.0% during the same period, hardly making a dent on waste collection. Cities like New York and Memphis fell somewhere in between with recycling rates around 20%. What factors explain this drastic variation across cities in the United States? In other words, why do some cities have higher recycling rates than others?
The answer of this question is of great importance both to municipal governments and environmental interest groups. City governments hoping to increase the recycling rate in their city, whether out of necessity due to landfill constraints or a desire for improved environmental performance, can utilize information about what factors contribute to recycling rates to both assess the chances of success in their cities and design better programs to increase recycling participation. The results of this study may also prove to be applicable to governments outside of the United States, municipal, national, and transnational. In addition, environmental interest groups hoping to increase recycling efforts across the country or in specific cities can also find the answer to this question useful by knowing what needs to be done to facilitate increased recycling rates and by knowing which cities to target efforts at for change that have the highest likelihood for success. Determining what factors affect recycling rates will also contribute to a better understanding for politicians, scientists, and sociologists studying city government behavior as well as the progress and effects of the environmental movement in the United States. Depending on the answer to the question, the study could have greater implications on theories applied to environmental movements, city governments, and bureaucracies.
II. Literature Review
Indeed, in the last decade and a half, significant research has been done on recycling programs in the United States and abroad. Many, however, focus on different units of analysis, whether it is countries or counties. Some studies have addressed the question, “Why do recycling rates change over a period of time?” and others have attempted to explain overall participation rates, that is whether one recycles or not, not how much he recycles. Furthermore, most conclusions of these studies have been contradicted by other studies. As of yet, no one has posited a clear answer as to why some cities have higher recycling rates than others. Nevertheless, the research that has been done thus far points to some possible explanations that need to be tested.
One analysis done by Anne Scheinberg (2003) examines the recycling movement as a whole from its conception in the 1970s to the present. Scheinberg argues that the recycling movement is a case study example and a manifestation of the Ecological Modernization Theory formulated first by German political scientists Martin Janicke in the 1970s. Janicke’s theory states five transformations that make up ecological modernization: “(1) the changing role of technology and sciences; (2) increasing importance of market dynamics and economic agents; (3) transformations in the role of the nation-state; (4) modifications in the position, role and ideology of social movements; and (5) changing discursive practices and emerging new ideologies” (Mol 2000). Scheinberg applies this theory to the progression of recycling in the United States, which she categorizes into four periods: “(1) the baseline period, in the era before earth day in 1970; (2) the pre-modern period, 1970-1980, a period in which the conditions for modernization were put into place; (3) the transition period, 1980 to 1984-5-6, a somewhat truncated period of simple modernization; and (4) the modernization period, 1984 to 1996, a period of reflexive modernization and rapid social and technical change” (Scheinberg 2003, 51).
Through her historical and empirical analysis, Scheinberg successfully applies the Ecological Modernization Theory to the recycling movement in the United States. Her analysis, however, merely explains the general movement over the course of time. As previously discussed, within the United States there exists a broad discrepancy in recycling rates among cities. Though, overall, recycling has increased dramatically in the United States, which can possibly be explained by Scheinberg’s Ecological Modernization Theory, some cities have not experienced this change, and some have experienced it more than others. While Scheinberg’s analysis helps to explain the collective transformation over time, the variation in the United States at a single point in time must still be explained.
Another study, done by David Folz (1999), also examines the change in recycling rates over time, but does so using cities as the unit of analysis. His study consists of an analysis of the change of city recycling rates from 1989 to 1996. While national recycling rates during this period increased from 9% to 28%, the variation of change among cities is great. Folz determines several factors that have contributed to increases in recycling rates for cities. His analysis consists primarily of logistical factors, that is, which programs, if implemented, are most successful in increasing recycling rates in cities. In addition, Folz analyzed the various costs associated with different recycling programs. Folz found that recycling rates improved most dramatically in cities that began to mandate recycling. Recycling mandates vary from city to city, and some are at the state level, while others are at the county or city level. Nevertheless, mandatory recycling practices, when implemented, significantly affect recycling rates.
City governments that established a near term recycling rate goal, also experienced greater increases in recycling rates. A near term goal provides an incentive for both the population and the administration implementing the recycling program. Folz found a positive correlation between the cities that established near term recycling rate goals and increases in recycling rates.
Folz also found that convenience is an important factor affecting recycling rates. Those city governments implementing programs that increased the convenience for individuals to recycle usually found that recycling rates increased. This includes increasing the quantity of materials that can be recycled, providing free bins, and same-day pick-up for recyclables and non-recyclable waste. As can be imagined, curbside pickup programs, which several cities have implemented, dramatically increased the convenience of recycling and thus the recycling rates.
In his analysis of the cost of recycling and the change of the cost of recycling, Folz also tried to explain that recycling rates have increased because it has become cheaper to recycle, especially compared to the costs of traditional waste disposal. While overall costs of recycling in the United States have increased 220% from 1989 to 1996, per unit recycling costs have decreased 13% during that same period. In addition, though many believe that recycling costs considerably more than traditional waste disposal, Folz’s study found that the mean net cost per ton for a recycling program at the time of his study was about $85 compared to $131 for traditional waste collection and disposal, and that’s not taking into account the revenues that can be made by selling the recyclable goods, the costs associated with losing land space for landfills, and the value of conserving natural resources. According to Folz, the decrease in costs associated with recycling programs, coupled with the comparative costs of traditional waste disposal programs may have been a factor that increased recycling rates in cities and is also further incentive for cities to expand programs in the future.
Folz’s study does indeed contribute significant findings to explain changes in recycling rates. What his research has primarily done, however, is determine which programs, if implemented, are more successful than others. He found several factors of recycling programs and implementation that will likely produce higher recycling rates. Others have done similar studies with like results. What these findings make evident is that research has already been done showing which programs produce higher recycling rates and that information is readily available to civic leaders. In other words, they know what they have to do and how to do it; it is just a matter of actually doing it. But Folz’s research still begs the question why some cities have adopted these programs that lead to higher recycling rates while others have not.
A third study that analyzes the change of recycling rates over time was done by Richard C. Feiock and Lesley Graham Kalan (1999). Their study focused on the differences in the change of recycling rates in Florida counties from 1991 to 1996. Building off of Folz’s research, Feiock and Kalan limited their study to a single state in order to control for specific provisions of state laws that could effect policy decisions and varying environmental values and opinions across the country. Rather than focusing on what programs contribute to higher recycling rates, Feiock and Kalan focused more on contextual factors that effect recycling rates.
Feiock and Kalan made several key findings in their analysis of Florida counties. Perhaps just as important as the factors they found which do affect changes in recycling rates are the factors they found which do not. First, they found that program design was not a strong predictor of changes in recycling rates. This finding contradicts the overall basis of Folz’s study. Whereas Folz found key programs and initiatives that contribute to greater changes in recycling rates in cities, Kalan and Feiock found that the actual program has little to do with recycling rate changes among Florida counties. Whether this concept holds true for cities across the nation, though, is another question. Feiock and Kalan also found that environmental support was not a strong predictor of changes in recycling rates. This finding suggests that higher levels of environmentalism in a community has little effect on changes in the recycling rate. Other studies, however, of which some will be elaborated on later, contradict this finding when applied to other units of analysis.
The two main factors that Feiock and Kalan found are strong predictors in changes in recycling rates are levels of education and income levels in counties. Both of these factors account for more variation in recycling across Florida counties over time than program design or environmental support. Feiock and Kalan found that more educated counties had higher recycling rates over time than less educated counties. “Recycling programs in Florida exhibit much greater success when they are directed to citizens in better educated upper and middle-class counties” (30). This conclusion is supported by others (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980; Kinnaman and Fullerton 1997). The level of education in communities can contribute to the awareness of the problems associated with waste management and the solutions available to help solve the problems. In addition, “better educated people may have a greater preference for a clean environment, switching some of the disposal from regular garbage to recycling” (Kinnaman and Fullerton, 1997).
Counties with higher median incomes also had higher recycling rates over time. This finding is similar to the notion of environmentalism as a “luxury issue,” in which only those who are economically comfortable and have all of their needs met will contribute time and energy to environmental issues. Feiock and Kalan admit, however, that it is not clear whether success of recycling programs in higher income counties was the result of individual preferences of higher income people shaped by their community’s economic position or from the increased fiscal ability and financial resources of the local governments in higher income counties. Regardless of the reason why income levels affect recycling rates, however, the finding is significant.
Feiock and Kalan’s analysis contributes greatly to the study of recycling rates, but leaves questions remaining as to the issue at hand. First, again their analysis consisted of comparison of the changes of recycling rates over a period of time, not the comparison of recycling rates of different entities at a single point in time. In addition, Feiock and Kalan’s study is limited to Florida counties. While their finding may prove to be empirically applicable to all U.S. cities, this is not necessarily so. Across the United States there exists greater variation in the four factors that they analyzed, which could prove to have an effect on the results. In addition, using Florida as a microcosm of the United States as a whole may not be entirely accurate. Feiock and Kalan’s findings, therefore, must be applied to all United States cities.
A study that is related to Feiock and Kalan’s finding that counties with higher median incomes have higher recycling rates is a study done by David Satterthwaite which analyzes the environmental transformation of cities as they become larger and wealthier. Satterthwaite does not focus solely on recycling behavior, however, but on several environmental issues, including pollution and waste management. Satterthwaite found that, over time, cities become more environmental as they develop and become larger and wealthier. He believes that part of the explanation for this phenomenon is that wealthier cities are more capable of transferring their environmental costs to other people, other regions, and future generations. Though his partial explanation for why wealthier cities are more environmental does not have much relevance to recycling rates, since recycling is not associated with a transfer of environmental costs, his confirmation that wealthier communities tend to be more environmental may have implications when comparing recycling rates, since recycling sometimes goes hand in hand with other environmental programs.
Perhaps more pertinent to this study is an analysis done studying variation in recycling participation rates in countries of the European Union. The authors of this analysis observed significant disparities between recycling participation rates among European Union countries. This study, done by Daniel Guerin, Jean Crete, and Jean Mercier (2001), does a multilevel analysis of the factors that affect recycling participation rates. Guerin et al first analyzed what personal factors make an individual more likely to participate in recycling. The results of this level analysis were not surprising. First, they found that people who participate in local environmental protection programs tend to be more likely to participate in recycling. Basically, those that are concerned enough about environmental protection to take local action are probably also willing to take the extra effort to recycle. Guerin et al also found that those who are more concerned about the global environment tend to be more likely to participate in recycling. This finding is somewhat important because it shows that concern for the global environment is often also translated to care and concern for the individual’s local environment. Both of these findings, however, are fairly intuitive: environmentalists recycle more. What was intriguing about Guerin et al’s study of recycling participation at the personal level was what they found had little effect on participation. Their analysis found that both education and income had only modest impacts on recycling participation, conclusions somewhat contradictory to those made by Feiock and Kalan in their analysis of Florida counties, though Feiock and Kalan were studying the effects of these factors at the aggregate, contextual level, not the personal level. Nevertheless, it shows that there is significant debate about the factors affecting recycling behavior.