What action, if any, should the Director of Public Works of
Richmond, Virginia take to expand residential recycling programs?
Client: The Director of Public Works of Richmond, Virginia,
James Jackson. The Department of Public
Works (DPW) collects and disposes solid waste.
It partners with the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA)
to independently handle residential-based recycling collection and subsidizes
those costs. The CVWMA provides
recycling services to 13 local governments.
Background info (I have changed my project since the last
post):
Currently, the City of Richmond has arranged for the Central
Virginia Waste Management Authority (CVWMA) to provide residential recycling
programs. Bi-weekly curbside recycling
extends to residential units with four families or fewer [1]. The monthly service fee for CVWMA recycling
is $1.67 [2], paired with a monthly municipal subsidy of $1.90 per household
[3]. The city’s CVWMA program includes four drop-off recycling locations, open
to all residents [1]. 42.1% of residents live in multi-unit structures and are
not provided curbside recycling [4]. For
these individuals to recycle, they can access utilize the drop-off site or
services that might be arranged by property managers.
DPW, independently of CVWMA, provides weekly residential
solid waste collection. Households pay a
monthly-fee of $17.50 for disposal.
Apartment complexes are allowed four municipally-issued, 96-gallon
“Supercans”, and are charged $17.50/month per month per can. These fees are
included in water utility bills [5].
In 20008, city residents sent 88,004 tons to landfills and recycled 6,903 tons [2]. At 7,3%, this diversion rate lagged behind the greater Richmond area's total 52.8% recycling rate, and the state rate of 38.5 % [6].
In 20008, city residents sent 88,004 tons to landfills and recycled 6,903 tons [2]. At 7,3%, this diversion rate lagged behind the greater Richmond area's total 52.8% recycling rate, and the state rate of 38.5 % [6].
Policy options:
1. Maintain
existing recycling policies (Status quo)
Residents in four-family or fewer homes can utilize
bi-weekly curbside recycling services offered and subsidized through
CVWMA. Residents in five-family or
greater units can bring recyclables to four drop-off sites, utilize curbside
recycling if arranged by property managers, or not recycle.
2. Implement
a “Pay As You Throw” program to incentivize recycling (Tax policy)
Rather than flat monthly-fees for municipal trash disposal,
charge a variable amount based on waste generation. This policy would require
establishing a price schematic for different waste quantities and designing
appropriately-sized refuse containers. DPW must advertise this program and develop plans for distributing or
selling refuse containers. DPW should determine how reduced waste might reduce
sanitation staff needs, and impact recycling services through CVWMA and private
vendors: do they have the resources to intake expected hikes in
recyclables? The variable trash rate
might incentivize more diligent recycling behavior in homes with recycling
accessibility, and encourage property owners to offer and advertise
privately-organized recycling to residents.
3. Coordinate
a new contract with CVWMA to expand convenient, municipally-organized recycling
programs to all residential sectors (Policy expansion)
Such coordination would first require buy-in from CVWMA and
an expanded contract for these services. First, determine what recyclable items would be covered, and
how to best collect and incentivize recycling in multi-unit homes through the
design and positioning of recycle totters. Efficient pick-up scheduling in
congested areas would need to be gauged.
This option, to be successful, would require that residents are
knowledgeable of and committed to recycling; education and promotional efforts
are critical. DPW would need to determine how to finance this expanded service,
the extent it would subsidize CVWMA recycling, and the price extended to
residents. In addition to up-front costs, DPW will need to estimate long-term
financial and environmental gains to gain municipal approval through the Office
of Budget and Strategic Planning.
Hi Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteGood identification of client and possible alternatives along with multiple references. The only thing that is of concern is whether the policy alternatives are efficient. For example, the second policy alternative - "Implement a “Pay As You Throw” program to incentivize recycling (Tax policy)" - implementing such an alternative will cost a lot to the exchequer. Perhaps this is just an overview of the alternative. I am sure you are looking forward to a more in depth analysis in the upcoming blogs.
Overall a well though over blog.
Thanks
Varun
To be clear, your post is well researched. Moreover, the policy options are interesting. It is unclear how popular option two would be if implemented. Clearly, the matter is finding a suitable catalyst for recycling. This, of course, is an important issue. It is questionable whether the policy options would be politically salient, and receive the necessary buy in, though the options do appear to ostensibly manage the issue effectively. At this point, the ideas appear mature, and for certain I anticipate a strong final presentation. My only question, in the end, is whether these ideas would gain sufficient political traction. In any event, you presented good analysis.
ReplyDelete