You are here:
EVALUATION OF DIVERSION AND COSTS FOR SELECTED DROP-OFF RECYCLING PROGRAMS - A MITE PROGRAM EVALUATION
Citation:
U.S. EPA. EVALUATION OF DIVERSION AND COSTS FOR SELECTED DROP-OFF RECYCLING PROGRAMS - A MITE PROGRAM EVALUATION. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-95/109 (NTIS 95-269635), 1995.
Impact/Purpose:
information
Description:
This analysis was undertaken in 1993-94 to examine a sample of drop-off recycling programs in the United States and Canada to determine the quantities of recyclable materials diverted, the cost of diverting those materials, and the impact of a wide range of independent variables on diversion and costs. Case studies were developed for eighteen drop-off systems in twelve programs that included multiple sites, central sites, buy-back facilities, block corner and combination systems. Case study programs were selected to include rural, urban, and suburban communities. Case study data is either calendar or fiscal year 1993, as available. The independent variables included site characteristics, drop-off technology, degree of separation, presence of competing recycling programs, population and number of households served, size of the geographic area served, requirements of state legislation, median income, education levels, and population density. Because the case study communities were selected to provide information on programs of various types in different regions rather than as a representative sample, findings from the study cannot be considered statistically significant. However, a positive correlation between high diversion rates and high levels of education hi the target area was found. Communities with positive site evaluation ratings (convenience, cleanliness, etc.) also showed the highest percent diversion rates. It appears that sites serving relatively small, neighborhood populations (two to four thousand persons) also show higher diversion rates. Costs did not appear to directly correlate to the amount of materials diverted. In general, the number and types of materials targeted for recovery did not appear to affect total costs. The inclusion of plastics, in particular, did not positively correlate with total costs. This paper has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication.