United States        Office of Solid Waste and    EPA530-R-96-005
Environmental Protection    Emergency Response      September 1996
Agency           Washington, DC 20460
Pay-As-You-Throw Workbook
A Supplement to EPA's
Pay-As-You-Throw Guidebook
                          Printed on paper that contains at least
                         ^ 20 percent postconsumer fiber.

          EPA wishes to thank the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
          (CONEG) for its assistance in the development of this workbook
          and, in particular, for its contribution to the design and development
          of the worksheets.

Table  of Contents

About This Workbook	v
Section One: Presentation Materials	I
     Presentation Agenda	3
     Survey of Attendees	7
     Evaluation Form 	11
     Sample Script and Overhead Masters  	15
Section Two: Public Outreach Materials	91
     Pay-As-You-Throw Fact Sheets	93
     Other Outreach Strategies  	105
     Clip Art	111
Section Three: Worksheets	Ill
Section Four: Articles and Newsclippings	145
Section Five: Annotated Bibliography	173


About  This  Workbook
     oday, with waste amounts and disposal costs for many commu-
     nities rising, municipal solid waste (MSW) planners increasingly
     need to find ways to boost waste prevention and recycling
     among residents. Pay-as-you-throw programs, when properly
designed and implemented, can help you meet this challenge. To pro-
vide a source of information about how these programs work, EPA
developed a guide called Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit
Pricing. The guide introduces pay-as-you-throw, discusses its benefits
and potential barriers, and offers guidance on how to consider,
design, and implement a pay-as-you-throw program.
This supplement to the guide is designed as a user-friendly, hands-on
workbook. It is divided into five sections containing tools to help
you plan out your program in detail, convey the results of your
research in convincing presentations, and develop a strong outreach
program that will help you earn the support of community stake-
holders. This workbook also contains reprinted articles and refer-
ence materials that you can use to learn more about these
programs. Each of the tools in this workbook are designed to be
adapted as needed. To get started, review the table of contents or
read the five section introductions to find the specific materials you
need to make pay-as-you-throw successful in your community.


Presentation   Materials
     he first step in any pay-as-you-throw program is to review the
     benefits and potential barriers of pay-as-you-throw and learn
     how these systems work. MSW planners who have per-
     formed this step and decided that such a program can work
in their community will then need to earn the support of key com-
munity stakeholders. In most communities, stakeholders include
elected officials, municipal staff, residents, local civic groups, and, in
some cases, private haulers. A pay-as-you-throw presentation at a
meeting of municipal officials, a town meeting, or a citizens' adviso-
ry council meeting can be an effective first step.
Prior to your presentation, it is important to thoroughly research
pay-as-you-throw and its potential advantages for your community.
(Refer to the guide Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pric-
ing, which can be found in the "Guidebooks" section of this Tool
Kit, for more information about pay-as-you-throw. The worksheets
in Section Three of this workbook also can help with this process.)
Once you have  gathered data in support of the program, you can
use the following sample materials to help you organize an effective
pay-as-you-throw presentation:
•  A presentation agenda and photocopy master to help you plan
   out your meeting.
•  A survey of attendees that you can use before your briefing to
   better understand your audience and its level of awareness  of
   pay-as-you-th row.
•  An evaluation form to help you gauge how successful your pre-
   sentation was and decide whether further work will be needed
   to convince your audience about the program.

•  A sample script for your presentation and overhead masters
   that can be photocopied onto transparencies and used to help
   you present the key points concerning pay-as-you-throw.
In addition, be sure to consider whether materials found in the
other sections of this Tool Kit, including the pay-as-you-throw soft-
ware, videotape, or guidebooks,  might also help you strengthen
your presentation.

Presentation  Agenda
A       presentation agenda will help you provide your audience
       with an overview of the topics you plan to cover in your
       talk. It will also demonstrate that
you have carefully planned your briefing.
In addition, preparing an agenda in
advance can be an important exercise,
helping you clearly identify key areas of
your briefing and the approximate
amount of time you should spend on
each. You might want to provide
your attendees with the agenda
ahead of time, perhaps as part of
an invitation to the presentation.
In general, your briefing might
include an overview of the
pay-as-you-throw program,
followed by your analysis of
how it can help your com-
munity. You can refer to
the materials in this sec-
tion (including the Sam-
ple Script and Overhead
Masters, beginning on page
15) for more ideas on what to include in
the presentation. Begin by reviewing the sample agen-
da on this page. If you want to structure your briefing around these
topics, you can use the blank agenda template found on the
next page.

Or, if you prefer, you can create you own agenda that focuses on
the specific topics or issues that you think would be of greatest
interest to your audience.

Pay-As-You-Th row
Presentation Agenda
          Welcome and Introductions
          Overhead Presentation
          • Introduction to pay-as-you-throw:
           will it work in our community?

          • Planning for pay-as-you-throw and
           educating residents

          • Designing a successful program

          • Implementing and monitoring

          Questions and Answers

          Pay-As-You-Throw Worksheet
          • Goals

          • Barriers

          • Public outreach

          • Container and pricing options

          Next Steps


Survey  of Attendees
          Your presentation will be more effective if you can address
          the specific issues about pay-as-you-throw that are of partic-
          ular interest or concern to your audience. If you know who
     is likely to come to your presentation, you can prepare and send
     out a survey ahead of time to identify their
     primary concerns and
     what it is they would
     like to learn about
     your proposed
    This section includes a
    sample survey form that
    you can reproduce and
    send out to your atten-
    dees. Or you can adapt this
    master copy by developing
    your own questions, placing
    them onto the page below
    the title, and reproducing
    that, instead. Once you have
    the survey ready, distribute it
    to your attendees and review
    the results carefully. If needed,
    you can adapt your agenda and
    the content of your presentation
    to address directly any trends or
    issues you noted in the survey results.


Survey  of
Thanks for accepting the invitation to attend the upcoming presentation on our
proposed pay-as-you-throw program. To help focus the presentation on the most
important issues, please take a few minutes to respond to the following ques-
tions. Please return this form to the presentation organizers when you are done.

Your name:	
How familiar are you with pay-as-you-throw?

      D Very familiar

      D Somewhat familiar with the concept and how pay-as-you-throw

      D Have read about/been exposed to a small amount of pay-as-you-
        throw information

      D Unfamiliar with pay-as-you-throw

What do you think are the most important advantages of a pay-as-
you-throw program for our community? (Rank the following on a
scale of I to 3, with 3 indicating the most important advantages.)

	  Reduced waste generation amounts

	  Reduced waste collection and disposal costs

	  Greater recycling rates
        Greater equity for residents (residents pay only for the waste they

        Increased environmental awareness among residents


Survey of Attendees
Page 2
               What do you think are the most significant perceived barriers to a
               pay-as-you-throw program in our community? (Rank the following
               on a scale of I to 3, with 3 indicating the most significant perceived

               	    Enforcement issues (illegal dumping, burning of waste)

               	    Potential for uneven cash flow

               	    Perception of increased costs to residents

               	    Implementation in multi-family housing

               	    High administrative costs

               	    Extending pay-as-you-throw to residents with special needs

               	    Building public consensus

                What specific pay-as-you-throw topics or questions do you want to
                see raised at the presentation?

Evaluation  Form
             Once your presentation is complete, it may be useful to per-
             form a follow-up survey to generate feedback about the
             briefing  and the issues that were discussed. While reac-
     tions and questions at the presentation
     itself will provide a good sense of the
     impact of your briefing, an evaluation
     form will allow you to gauge in greater
     detail the attitudes and responses of
     your audience toward pay-as-you-
     throw. The results will help you deter-
     mine whether follow-up sessions will
     be needed and which particular
     aspects of pay-as-you-throw were
     well received—and which may
     require additional explanation.
     Review the sample evaluation
     form in this section. Prior to your
     presentation, you  can reproduce

     '""'•"oTo^ *"-
     this form. If you prefer, you can
     adapt this master copy by
     developing your own evalua-
     tion questions, placing them
     onto the page below the title,            	
     and reproducing  that, instead. Then,
     immediately after your briefing, distribute the form to your
     attendees and ask them to complete it before they leave. Review
     the attendees' evaluations carefully and begin planning how to incor-
     porate what you  learned into future outreach efforts.


Thank you for coming to this pay-as-you-throw presentation. We appreciate
your attendance and participation, and would like your feedback. Please
take a minute to complete the following evaluation, identifying the presenta-
tion's strong points as well as the points that warrant more attention. This
information will help us improve future presentations. It also will help us
learn if we need to provide more information about pay-as-you-throw or
answer any additional questions. When you are done, please return this
form to the presentation organizers.

Please rate your response to the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5.

1: Poor     2: Fair      3: Good     4: Very good    5: Excellent

I. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the presentation?
2.  How would you rate the presentation format?
                                 1     2
3.  How would you rate the presentation style of the speaker(s)?

Evaluation Form
Page 2
        4. How would you rate the handouts/presentation materials?
        5. Did the presentation meet your goals and expectations?

        6. How well were your concerns or questions about
          pay-as-you-throw addressed?
                                            1      2      3
        7. What other topics or areas of discussion would you like
          to see addressed?
        8.  Please list any other questions or comments about
           pay-as-you-throw or the presentation.

Sample  Script and
Overhead  Masters
            Overheads can be very helpful in
            conveying information about
            pay-as-you-throw to your pre-
     sentation audience. This workbook
     includes a complete set of overheads
     designed to address the main topic areas
     related to pay-as-you-throw: what a pay-as-
     you-throw program  is, what the results have
     been in communities with pay-as-you-throw,
     how these programs work, and how to
     design and implement one in your own com-
     munity. On the following pages you will
     find a sample script for your overhead
     presentation, intended to provide a
     starting point for your discussion of the
     different pay-as-you-throw topics. The
     sample script is followed by a set of
     master overheads that can be used to
     create your overhead transparencies.
     The overhead presentation is
     designed  to be flexible. You may
     decide to revise the order of the
     overheads based on the issues
     you feel merit particular atten-
     tion. You  also can remove any
     overheads or include your own transparencies to
     provide additional information, if needed. In addition, you can adapt

                 the suggested script or even prepare your own to further tailor the briefing to
                 your audience.
                 To prepare transparencies from the overhead masters, simply copy each of the
                 master overhead pages onto blank transparencies (available at office or stationary
                 supply retailers) using an ordinary photocopier. The transparencies will then be
                 ready to use.


        Unit  Pricing of
        Municipal Solid Waste
Pay-as-you-throw programs are incentive-based strategies for reducing
the amount of MSW community residents generate.

This briefing will include an introduction to pay-as-you-throw and a
discussion of how it can help our community better manage MSW.

We also will talk about how to design and implement a program that will
succeed in our community. Many of these strategies have been learned
from communities that have implemented programs of their own.

             MSW Hierarchy Pyramid
   Maintaining control over solid waste in the long term depends on
   emphasizing waste reduction.

   Landfilling and combustion, while necessary, are the least desirable
   management methods. They occupy the bottom of the hierarchy.

   Recycling, which reduces the amount of waste we have to dispose of,
   is preferable.

   Waste prevention, which prevents materials from becoming waste in
   the first place, is at the top of the hierarchy.

         Potential Benefits

           Encourages the Three Rs:
Pay-as-you-throw directly supports waste prevention and recycling.
Because residents pay for whatever they throw out, they tend to work
harder to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

              \3t'-> * '

    Because of this "pocketbook" motivation, it is likely that pay-as-you-
    throw will result in less total waste our community has to dispose of.
    Increased  recycling rates will be a  major factor in this.

    In addition, when  markets for collected materials are strong, greater
    recycling rates offer the potential for increased revenues from the sale
    of these materials.

           Potential  Benefits

             Encourages the Three Es:
The increased reducing, reusing, and recycling leads to further benefits,
called the Three Es.

Environment: Less waste means less landfill space is needed. In addition,
reduced need for manufacturing goods can result in less pollution.

Economics: For the municipality, less waste means lower collection and
disposal costs. For residents, they control their costs. If they throw away
less, they will pay less.

Equity:  Waste management costs money, but now the costs are spread
more fairly. Those residents that generate large amounts of waste will
have to take financial responsibility for it.

           Waste Reduction Results

              Perkasie, PA                  54%
              MN Town I                   60%
              MN Town 2                   37%
              Duke University
              Study of 14 cities              44%

            6 MA Cities
              Before Unit Pricing            1.5 - 4.5 ppd
              After Unit Pricing             0.89 -  1.09 ppd

              Cornell University,            76% of residents
              Tompkins County, NY         reduced waste
   What does the evidence show? In virtually every case, communities
   with pay-as-you-throw report that waste generation declined. Here are
   some examples.

   The average waste reduction reported by pay-as-you-throw
   communities is between 25 and 45  percent. (Results may vary,
   depending on  such factors as current waste collection systems and
   options chosen for pay-as-you-throw.)

        Different Unit Pricing
                                 Type of  Change in Change
          Community     Population Program  MSW    in recycling
          Plantation, FL
          Perkasie, PA
          High Bridge, NY
          Illion, NY
          Pasadena, CA
          Loveland, CO
          Austin, TX
          Dupage County, IL
         Data not avalilable
3 1 ,000
+ 18%
Those communities with existing recycling programs also show
significant increases in the amount recycled.
Studies also show that waste prevention and recycling amounts
increased in all the reporting communities, regardless of size or
geographic location.

            Deciding Whether to Use

              Will the program meet our
              MSW goals?
              Will residents support the
              Will costs and revenues
   Ultimately our community has to decide about pay-as-you-throw based
   on three issues:

   Will it meet our MSW goals? We need to compare the potential
   advantages of pay-as-you-throw to our MSW goals and make a
   judgment about whether the program will bring us closer to meeting
   these goals.

   Will residents support it? They  most likely will, if the program is well-
   designed and we reach out to educate them about pay-as-you-throw.

   Will costs  and revenues balance? The only way to determine this is to
   perform some detailed rate design work and evaluate the results.

       Pay-As-You-Throw Goals

         Raise sufficient revenues
         Encourage MSW reduction through
         price signals
         Convey a better understanding of social costs
         to citizens
         Charge for recycling and other
         complementary programs
         Allow for the needs of special groups
         Keep the program simple to  use and run
Pay-as-you-throw programs can help a community meet a number of
important goals. These are just a few examples.

Our goals include:

[List your community's MSW goals; discuss how well poy-as-you-throw will
meet them]

             Education and Outreach

               Need the support of residents!
               Build consensus with an outreach
               Citizens' advisory council
               can help:
                 Set goals
                 Build consensus
   If we decide to go with pay-as-you-throw, we must earn the support of
   residents. A key lesson from communities with pay-as-you-throw is that
   such programs will not succeed without residents' approval.

   To achieve this, the first step will be to initiate an outreach campaign.
   One goal of the campaign is to inform residents about why the new
   program is  needed.

   A second goal of the campaign is to involve residents in the actual
   planning for the program. Setting up a citizens' advisory council that
   includes civic leaders and other residents can help accomplish this.

The citizens' advisory council can assist in developing goals and in
finding ways to reach out to the community about the new program.
The council also can provide input on important decisions about how
the program will be structured.

            Building Consensus

              Explain current MSW issues
              Present community's MSW goals
              Explain how Pay-As-You-Throw
              can meet these goals
              Residents more likely to support
              program when they see tangible
   It is possible there may be some initial opposition to the program, since
   residents are going to be asked to pay for a service they may think they
   had been getting for free.

   To overcome this, our outreach campaign could first discuss the
   problem. For example, we can let residents know that the increasing
   amount of trash is making MSW management harder and more

   Then, we could relate these issues as goals. For example, we could say
   that a primary goal is to reduce MSW amounts.

   Finally, our campaign should explain pay-as-you-throw and discuss how
   it can help us reduce trash and achieve other goals as well.

       Techniques for Building

          Hold public meetings
          Issue press releases/outreach to
          local media
          Prepare briefs for elected officials
          Work with retailers
          Enclose information with utility
          bills/other mailings to residents
There are many different ways to structure the outreach campaign.
Presentations could be made at public meetings on pay-as-you-throw
and why it can  help.

Involving local news outlets via press releases and invitations to public
meetings is important. Achieving positive press coverage could go a long
way toward easing residents' concerns.

Briefings for elected officials can help them better explain the program
in public appearances.

Retailers can be educated about the program and also can display
materials about it in their stores. Direct outreach to residents through
mailings can  be effective as well.

   Another effective method of generating public support is to reach out
   to specific groups, such as the elderly or school children.

   Children in particular are an important audience. Children tend to
   bring the messages they receive back home to their parents, which can
   help pay-as-you-throw gain acceptance community-wide.

         Rate  Structure  Container



The next step is to design the structure of the program.

Some programs sell tags or stickers to residents to affix to their own
bags. Under this system, the price of the tag or sticker includes the
collection and management costs for the trash. The tag often indicates a
specific size container, and alerts collection crews that the waste has
been paid for.

Bags with some type of distinctive marking or color can be sold to
residents at retail outlets or municipal offices. The price of the bag
includes the collection and management costs for the trash.

Cans also can be used. One option is to offer a large can, and bill
residents for the number of cans they fill up. Smaller size cans also
could be used for any waste beyond the first large container.

    Bag and tag systems tend to allow for faster collection, and no billing is
    needed. Residents tend to find these systems easy to understand.

    There can be some revenue uncertainty, however, since residents may
    buy bunches of bags or tags at hard-to-predict intervals.

Can systems tend to offer greater revenue stability, and won't tear or
scatter trash. Cans also often are compatible with automatic collection

A system for billing residents for their can set-outs is  needed, however,
which can increase administrative costs.

             Rate Structure Systems for
             Unit Pricing


   The next step is to decide how to price the containers.

   Under proportional systems, a flat price is charged for each container.
   This provides a very simple, clear signal to residents to reduce waste,
   and it is  easy to administer.

   The variable rate is used when different size containers are available.
   One price is used for the large container, and different prices are set
   for the smaller containers residents might use.

   Because  revenues may fluctuate with linear and variable rate systems,
   some communities use two-tiered or multi-tiered systems. These
   options establish a monthly flat fee to cover the fixed costs of MSW
   management. Then, a per-container charge is set on top of that. This
   lessens the waste reduction signal somewhat, but minimizes any
   revenue  uncertainty.

Because residents have an incentive to reduce waste, it makes sense to
offer additional avenues to accomplish this. These options are called
complementary programs.

For example, nearly all communities with pay-as-you-throw include
curbside recycling collections. Recycling enables residents to divert a
large percentage of the waste they have generated.

            Complementary Programs
               Recycling collections
               Yard trimmings collections for
               Bulky items pickups
   Yard trimmings, which comprise a large percentage of the waste
   stream, also can be diverted through curbside collection or by
   encouraging backyard composting.

   Bulky items will need to be planned for. Because they cost more to
   collect and dispose of, many communities have established a special fee
   system for "white goods" or bulky items using tags or stickers. Residents
   often are asked to put a set number of tags or stickers on these large
   waste items to indicate that their collection has been paid for.

       Designing a Rate Structure
              Estimate Demand:
              	cubic yards/tons MSW
              Determine Services
              (curbside recycling, low-income
              assistance, etc.)
              Estimate Costs:
              $	fixed and variable costs
After making the basic decisions about the program, the next step is to
create a rate structure that balances costs and revenues.

The first step is estimating the demand for services, expressed as the
amount of waste you expect to collect annually. This figure should take
into account possible changes in the size of our community and the
waste reduction impact of the new program.

The next step is determining the services that will be offered with the
program. These services might include curbside recycling, a composting
program, bulky waste collection, or assistance to low- or fixed-income

Next, the cost of collecting the estimated amount of waste and
providing the planned services needs to be calculated.

            Designing a Rate Structure
              < < -  - \'^VW*^  ^ ** * % '*^  *

              SB  Revenues

                * Develop Rates: $	per unit

                « Calculate Revenues:
                  	units MSW  x $	per unit = $
   Revenues then need to be calculated.

   First, an estimated fee per container should be established. Then, this
   rate is multiplied by the annual number of containers residents are
   expected to fill. These are the revenues that the program will generate.

        Designing a Rate Structure

               Weigh costs against revenues
               Adjust costs and/or revenues as
         $             >' ••.     r "?F  $
             Costs                          Revenues
Now the expected costs and the projected revenues can be compared
and balanced.

It is likely that adjustments will be needed. It may be necessary to cut
back on some services or raise the  per-container fee to cover a

On the other hand, if a surplus is projected, then the container fee
could be lowered. A lower price  also might help convince residents to
support the program.

            Challenges and Solutions

          Illegal dumping       Education, legal
                                diversions, enforcement
          Multi-family          Include charges in
          housing              rent, bar code chutes
          Low-income groups  Rebates, discounts
          Covering costs &     Two-tiered billing
          revenue stability
          Regressivity &        Appropriate pricing
          hidden  tax issues     and refunds
There are a number of potential barriers we need to consider. With
the appropriate planning, these barriers can be overcome.

The most commonly voiced concern when pay-as-you-throw is
proposed is illegal dumping. However, experience from communities
with pay-as-you-throw has shown that illegal dumping typically is less of
an issue than originally feared. The key is educating residents to keep
them from dumping their waste and provide them with significant
opportunities (such as recycling and composting) to divert their waste
legally. Strong enforcement also should be available.

Residents in multi-family housing can be difficult to service, since they
often place their trash in common dumpsters. Possible solutions include
adding the charges to  rent or incorporating bar code readers  in
garbage chutes to monitor waste generation by residents.

To help low-income groups participate, rebates, discounts, or other
forms of assistance can be provided.

(Challenges and Solutions, continued)
If it turns out that a major priority is to ensure that revenues will consistently
cover costs, a two-tiered or multi-tiered rate structure can be used.

Residents also might be concerned about being taxed for solid waste services and
then, under the new program, also being charged the variable fee. Making a point
of lowering taxes by the appropriate amount or redirecting those revenues to
other programs that residents support can help diffuse this issue.




 o •—
 C  3

















           o r»»
       Irt  so M
             1   Os

            LO  00
             •   •

            —  o

              s «

               1A £
               V *
               s- "D

— »^ •" c ^. ^^ D t;




                    CO U U) U CO
          C^ LO
          TT* oT
                        o  o o
                        °t  °l °L
                        —~  cT co
                      — ro  in
* w




o ^
  •O *..
O •— C
  = W)
  •= o



-° U)
(d c
>^ «
> .ii
5 c
o ^



U) /ii
C rt w
rt *• *g
WQ* «o
•- 0. "°
73 °- 




h an outreac


•o   -u
c  ^
=  C   .2
=  C   MJ

              rt      j£
    <«   n
    u   U
             (U  3











        =   c  ,±

            8)  I


 J2  rt
 <  o
        Q.  £

_  £

 Q- c
 x  £
U  u


                         ^  fl
        1.  C



 S  E

                          00 ^
                          o  c



 V  ^




3 <«




  rt  -r
•£ _  Q.
                       '— C

                       •£ V
                       3 "
        O  ~  TS C
        *  rt  5 :=

        42  «  E rt

        •8  «•  .0 E

O  U J£




rt Q-
I-  co  U






 U  C

o:  D
                • B ^^^
                4J  i
                • •—


 ^ O

















*    «  c
 Q.  +i  3














        *3 .2
        rt  to
        u  1-
        3  «
        •o  >
        UJ *-U


Public  Outreach
      esigning and implementing an outreach and education effort
      directed at residents are critical steps in the development of
      your pay-as-you-throw program. Achieving a broad level of
      public support can help ensure not only that your program
will be successfully implemented, but that residents will begin
responding as hoped: by increasing recycling and taking more
aggressive measures to prevent waste. There is no single model or
solution to this challenge. The extent of outreach necessary to get a
pay-as-you-throw program up and running will vary from community
to community.
This section presents several ideas for outreach materials that can
help you begin to earn the support of your residents. Review the
materials described below with your unique outreach needs in mind
and select the tools that you think will  help you effectively deliver
your pay-as-you-throw message to the audiences you need to reach.
The outreach materials and ideas in  this section include:
•  A set of five fact sheets introducing pay-as-you-throw.
•  Other outreach ideas and strategies, including press releases,
   public  meetings, newsletters, and flyers.
•  A selection of clip art to help you create your own, customized
   outreach materials.
In general, successful public outreach efforts typically involve two
components. The first component focuses on soliciting input about
the program from community stakeholders prior to implementation.
For example, it may be the case that your community's residents
would support a pay-as-you-throw program if they considered it to

                              be sufficiently convenient. In this case, presenting them with possible
                              arrangements—such as a system of bags available for purchase at
                              local retailers versus a subscription-based system using cans—and
                              asking them which  system they would prefer can make a tremen-
                              dous difference in their ultimate willingness to support the program.
                              The second type of outreach should take place just before and dur-
                              ing program implementation. Once you have made a decision  about
                              the type of pay-as-you-throw system that is most appropriate for
                              your community, you will need to clearly convey detailed informa-
                              tion to residents about the program and how they can participate.
                              Residents will need to thoroughly understand how the program
                              works before they will begin to reduce and recycle more.
                              Review the materials in this section and decide which  products can
                              best help you solicit feedback and educate your residents about pay-
                              as-you-throw. In addition, you might consider whether items like the
                              videotape  included  in  this Tool Kit and the worksheets in the next sec-
                              tion of this workbook also can help strengthen your public outreach.

Pay-As-Yo u -Th row
Fact  Sheets
         Fact sheets can help community decisionmakers introduce pay-
         as-you-throw to local stakeholders and begin showing them
         why a pay-as-you-throw program might be a good idea. EPA
     developed the following five fact sheets to introduce pay-as-you-
     throw to what are, for many communi-
     ties, their most important audiences.
     These are: 1) community residents;
     2) MSW planners; 3) local elected
     officials; 4) state officials; and
     bers of civic and  environmental
 5) mem-    Jjsf
a'   ^J
    A quick and easy way
    to raise awareness about
    pay-as-you-th row,
    these fact sheets can be
    reproduced and distrib-
    uted to target audiences
    within your community.
    The fact sheets also can be      *
    adapted for your own, cus-
    tomized outreach flyers.
    (See the flyers and
    brochures ideas found on
    page 109 of this workbook.)
    The text can be revised as needed,
    and, in the Clip Art section that
    begins on page 111, you will find reproducible samples of
    each of the illustrations



                       United States
                       Environmental Protection
                      Solid Waste and
                      Emergency Response
             September 1996
  4>EPA           Pay-As-You-Throw
                        Throw Away  Less and Save
      Do you know
    how much you
  spend per month
on electricity? How
    about your gas
 utility? The person
 who pays the bills
 in your household
    probably has a
  pretty good idea.
  But do you know
    how much you
spend on garbage?
      Each time your city or town
      sends a truck down your
      street to pick up your waste,
      it costs money. It costs
money even if you drop your trash
off at a local dump. Ultimately, you
pay for this service, usually through
your local taxes. And it's not likely
that you have much control over the
amount you pay, regardless of how
much garbage you create.

There is a different system, how-
ever,  under which residents are
              asked to pay for
              waste  collection
          directly—based  on
   the amount of garbage they
actually generate. They're called
"pay-as-you-throw" programs, and
nearly 2,000 communities across
the country have begun using

What is
Pay-as-you-throw is a differ-
ent way of paying for waste
collection and disposal ser-
vices. In some pay-as-you-
throw communities, it works
on a per-container basis: house-
holds are charged for each bag or
can of waste they generate. A few
communities bill residents based on
the weight of their trash. Either
way, the system motivates people to
recycle more and to think about
ways to generate less waste in the
first place.

For community residents, however,
the most important advantage of
pay-as-you-throw may be the fair-
ness and greater control over costs
that it offers. Do you have neighbors
that never seem to recycle, and
always leave out six or seven bags of
trash? While you may not have
thought about it,
right now      .  «  •
   ,                   «
you re        •           «

helping them pay for that waste. Under pay-as-
you-throw, everyone pays only for what they
generate—so you won't have to subsidize your
neighbor's wastefulness anymore. It's only fair.
With pay-as-you-throw, when you recycle and
prevent waste, you're reward-
ed with a lower trash bill.
Because of these potential
cost savings, both you and
your neighbors will naturally
want to reduce the amount
of waste that you generate.
And when people reduce
waste, that can mean lower
costs for your community,
since it  costs less to collect
and dispose of everyone's
trash. This might even free
up funding for other munici-
pal services you depend
upon—like schools and fire
and police protection.

In addition, the pay-as-you-
throw incentive to put less
waste at the curb can make a
big environmental difference.
When people generate less
waste and recycle more,
fewer natural resources are
used and there is less pollu-
tion from manufacturing.
Valuable landfill space is con-
served as well, reducing the
need to  site new facilities.
Are there disadvantages to

While there are potential barriers to a success-
ful program, communities with pay-as-you-
throw report that they have found effective
solutions. Illegal dumping is a frequently
       raised issue. While people often assume that
       illegal dumping will increase once residents are
       asked to pay for each container of waste they
       generate, most communities with  pay-as-you-
       throw have found this not to be the case. This is
                     especially true when communi-
                     ties offer their residents recy-
                     cling, composting for yard
                     trimmings, and other programs
                     that allow individuals to reduce
                     waste legally. Others, particular-
                     ly lower-income residents,
                     worry about the  amount they
                     will have to pay.  In many com-
                     munities, however, coupon or
                     voucher programs are being
                     used to help reduce trash collec-
                     tion costs for these households.

                     What can I  do?
               If you're interested in pay-as-
               you-throw, talk to your town
               planner or local elected repre-
               sentatives! Ask them if they
               know about pay-as-you-throw,
               and whether they would con-
               sider using it in your commu-
               nity. If you or your town's
               officials want to know more
               about pay-as-you-throw, EPA
               has developed a guidebook
               you can use. Pay-As-You-
               Throw: Lessons Learned About
               Unit Pricing (EPA530-R-94-004)
               contains background informa-
               tion on the advantages of
pay-as-you-throw and provides detailed infor-
mation on how these programs work. To order
a copy, call the EPA/RCRA Superfund Hotline
at 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the
hearing impaired. For Washington, DC, and
outside the United States, call 703-412-9810 or
TDD 703-412-3323.

                      United States
                      Environmental Protection
                   Solid Waste and
                   Emergency Response
           September 1996
vxEPA           Pay-As-You-Throw
                       A  Fact Sheet for MSW  Planners
     MSW programs
today need to offer
 more than reliable
    waste collection
   services. In some
   communities, the
       issue is rising
       collection and
      disposal costs.
 Other communities
     are looking for
     ways to extend
    landfill capacity.
         As an MSW planner, you
         know how important it is
         to reduce the amount of
         waste residents put out
for collection (or bring to the landfill).

In fact, your community probably
started a recycling program to help
divert some of this waste from dis-
posal. Even with a strong recycling
program, however, it's likely that
your residents are steadily throwing
away more each year—pointing to
the need for not only more recy-
cling, but getting residents to gener-
ate less waste in the first place.

For MSW planners in nearly 2,000
communities, a program called "pay-
as-you-throw" is helping them meet
this challenge.

What is pay-as-you-
Pay-as-you-throw programs, also
known as unit-based pricing or
variable-rate pricing, provide a
direct economic incentive for
your residents to
reduce the
amount of waste they generate.
Under pay-as-you-throw, households
are charged for waste collection
based on the amount of waste they
throw away—in the same way that
they are charged for electricity, gas,
and other utilities. As a result, resi-
dents are motivated not only to
increase the amount they recycle but
to think about ways to generate less
waste in the first place.

Pay-as-you-throw programs can be
structured in several different ways.
Some communities charge residents
based on the volume of waste they
generate. Under volume-based pro-
grams, residents are charged a fee
for each bag or can they fill up.
Communities also can require that
residents purchase tags or stickers
and affix them to their own contain-
        ers. Other communities
          bill residents based on
          the weight of their
             because of
              the cost of the
              equipment needed
               to weigh the

and record the amount for billing purposes,
weight-based programs are far less common.

What are the benefits of
However it is structured,  pay-as-you-throw has the
potential to improve MSW programs in several
important  ways. First, there are significant econom-
ic benefits. Because of the incentive to generate
less, communities with programs in place have
reported reductions in waste amounts ranging from
25 to 45 percent, on average. For many communi-
ties, this can lead to lower disposal costs, savings in
waste transportation expenses, and other cost sav-
ings. Pay-as-you-throw communi-
ties also typically report
significant increases in recycling.
In some cases, this can yield
increased revenues from the sale
of collected materials.
In addition, pay-as-you-throw
programs can be designed to
cover the cost not only of waste
collection and disposal, but also
some or all of the community's
complementary MSW programs
(such as recycling, composting, and bulky waste
collections). Of course, there often are new costs
for the community when a pay-as-you-throw pro-
gram is adopted, including expenditures for edu-
cation and enforcement. These costs usually are
not significant, however—and they can be built
into a pay-as-you-throw rate structure to ensure
that they will be covered.

Another advantage of pay-as-you-throw programs is
the greater control over costs they offer to residents.
While they may not realize it, your residents pay for
waste management services. And whether they pay
through their taxes or a flat fee, those residents that
generate less and recycle more are paying for neigh-
bors that generate two or even three times as much
waste. With pay-as-you-throw, residents that reduce
and recycle are rewarded with a  lower trash bill.
This incentive to put less waste at the curb also
can make a big environmental difference. When
people generate less waste and recycle more, fewer
natural resources are used, there is less pollution
from manufacturing, and less landfill space is con-
sumed—reducing the need to site new facilities.

Are there disadvantages to pay-
While there are potential barriers to a successful
program, communities with pay-as-you-throw
report that they have found effective solutions.
Community officials often raise the prospect of
illegal dumping when they first learn about pay-
                as-you-throw. Most communities
                with pay-as-you-throw, however,
                have  found  that illegal dumping
                in fact did not increase after
                implementation. This is especial-
                ly true when communities offer
                their residents recycling, com-
                posting for  yard trimmings, and
                other programs that allow indi-
                viduals to reduce waste legally.
                Others, particularly lower-income
                residents, worry about the
                amount they will have to pay. In
many communities, however, coupon or voucher
programs are  being used to help reduce trash col-
lection costs for these households.

How can  I learn more about pay-
EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone inter-
ested in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-
Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit  Pricing
(EPA530-R-94-004) contains background informa-
tion on the advantages of pay-as-you-throw and
provides detailed information on how these pro-
grams work. To order a copy, call the EPA/RCRA
Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346 or TDD 800-
553-7672 for the hearing impaired.  For
Washington,  DC, and outside the United States,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.

                         United States
                         Environmental Protection
                       Solid Waste and
                       Emergency Response
              September 1996
   &EPA           Pay-As-You-Throw
                          A  Fact  Sheet for  Elected
      As an elected
    official in your
   community, you
         have many
 besides municipal
solid waste (MSW)
  it's an important
       Residents in most communi-
       ties have come to expect
       efficient, reliable trash col-
       lection and disposal, and
tend to support those officials that
can get the job done.

This task has been growing more
complicated, however. First of all,
it's likely that your residents are
generating more waste each year,
even if you have a recycling program
in place.

That can mean escalating costs. And
whether your residents pay for
MSW services through a direct, flat
fee or via their property taxes, it's
not a very equitable system: every-
one pays the same amount, no mat-
ter how much (or how little) trash
they actually produce.
What is
Fortunately, there is a system out
there that can help your MSW man-
agement personnel meet these chal-
lenges. In nearly 2,000 communities
across the country, a program called
"pay-as-you-throw" is offering resi-
dents a more equitable way to pay for
collection and disposal of their
trash—while, at the same time,
encouraging them to create less waste
and increase the amount they recycle.

Pay-as-you-throw programs, also
called unit-based or variable-rate pric-
ing, provide a direct economic incen-
tive for residents to reduce waste.
Under pay-as-you-throw, households
are charged for waste collection based
on the amount of waste they throw
away—in the same way that they are
charged for electricity, gas, and other
utilities. If they throw away less, they
 pay less. Some communities charge
    residents for each bag or can of
       waste they generate. In a few
         communities, households
          are billed based on the
             weight of their

What are the benefits of

Pay-as-you-throw gives residents greater control
over their costs. While they may not realize it, your
constituents are paying for waste management ser-
vices. And, whether they pay through taxes or a flat
fee, residents that generate less and recycle more are
paying for neighbors that generate two or even three
times as much waste. When a few
residents generate more waste, every-
one pays for it. With pay-as-you-
throw, residents that reduce and
recycle are rewarded with  a lower
trash bill.
 Pay-as-you-throw is
residents pay only for the
As a result, households under pay-as-
you-throw tend to generate less
waste. Communities with programs in
place have reported reductions in
waste amounts ranging from 25 to 45
percent, on average. Recycling tends
to increase significantly as well. And
less waste means that a community
might be able to spend less of its
municipal budget on waste collection
and disposal—possibly even freeing
up funds for other essential services
like education and police protection.
  Residents that reduce
    an*I recycle save
 money—and less waste
 helps municipalities cut
       costs, too.
Because residents stand to pay less (if
they generate less), pay-as-you-throw
communities have typically reported
strong public support for their pro-
grams. The initial reaction from resi-
dents can vary, however—some
residents might feel that the program
is no more than an added charge. To
address this, it is important to explain to residents at
the outset  how the program works, why it is a more
equitable system, and how they can benefit from it.
Pay-as-you-throw has tended to work best where
elected officials and other community leaders have
reached out to residents with a thorough education

Many of the resulting programs have been highly
successful, and have often attracted attention. In
 Fewer natural resources
  are used and landfill
 space is saved, reducing
  the need to site new
some cases, pay-as-you-throw has worked so well
that the communities have become models in their
region, demonstrating how MSW services can be
improved. And within the community, elected offi-
cials can point to pay-as-you-throw as an example of
municipal improvements they helped bring about.

Are there disadvantages to
              While there are potential barriers to a
              successful program, communities
              with pay-as-you-throw report that
              they have found effective solutions.
              Illegal dumping is a frequently raised
              issue. While it is often assumed that
              illegal dumping will increase once
              residents are asked to pay for each
              container of waste they generate,
              most communities with pay-as-you-
              throw have found this not to be the
              case. This is especially true when
              communities offer their residents
              recycling, composting for yard trim-
              mings, and other programs that allow
              individuals to reduce waste legally.
              Others, particularly lower-income res-
              idents, worry about the amount they
              will have to pay. In many communi-
              ties, however, coupon or voucher
              programs are being used to help
              reduce trash collection costs for these

              How can I learn  more
              about  pay-as-you-throw?
EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone interested
in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (EPA530-R-94-004)
contains background information on the advantages
of pay-as-you-throw and provides detailed informa-
tion on how these programs work. To order a copy,
call the EPA/RCRA Superfund Hotline at 800-424-
9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the hearing impaired.
For Washington, DC, and outside the United States,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.

                         United States
                         Environmental Protection
                     Solid Waste and
                     Emergency Response
            September 1996
   &EPA          Pay-As-You-Throw
                         A Fact  Sheet for  State Officials
     Like most state
        officials and
    planners, you've
      probably been
    emphasizing the
 MSW management
recommending that
 prevent waste and
 recycle as much of
      the remainder
         as possible.
       Today, the MSW management
       hierachy is the focus of solid
       waste planning in most
       states. This has helped recy-
cling programs to spread quickly,
and recycling markets have been
developed to purchase and process
the collected materials.

Source reduction, however, has fallen
behind this pace. While the rate of
increase is slowing, individuals in
this country are continuing to gener-
ate more waste each year—and, as a
result, waste management is growing
more difficult. Communities in your
state need programs that will do
more than increase recycling: they
need to encourage residents to pre-
vent waste, too.
For growing numbers of communi-
ties, "pay-as-you-throw" programs
are being used to achieve this goal.
While fewer than 200 programs were
in existence as recently as the mid-
1980s, today, nearly 2,000 communi-
ties across the country are using
pay-as-you-throw to better manage
solid waste.

What is
Pay-as-you-throw programs, also
known as unit-based pricing or vari-
able-rate pricing, provide a direct
economic incentive for individuals to
reduce the amount of waste they gen-
erate. Under pay-as-you-throw,
households are charged for waste
collection based on the amount of
waste they throw away—in the same
way that they are charged for
      electricity, gas, and
                                                                other utilities. As a result,
                                                               residents are motivated not
                                                              only to recycle more but to
                                                              think about ways to generate
                                                               less waste in the first place.

Pay-as-you-throw programs can be structured in sev-
eral different ways. Some communities charge resi-
dents based on the volume of waste they generate.
Under volume-based programs, residents pay for
each bag or can they fill up. Communities also can
require that residents purchase tags or stickers and
affix them to their own containers. Other communi-
ties bill residents based on the weight of their
trash—although, because of the cost of the equip-
ment needed to weigh the waste and
record the amount for billing pur-
poses, weight-based programs are far
less common.

What are the benefits of
However they are structured, all pay-
as-you-throw programs share impor-
tant benefits for both communities
and their residents. First, households
under pay-as-you-throw have more
control over  their solid waste man-
agement costs. While they may not realize it, resi-
dents pay for the waste management services they
receive. And whether they pay through their taxes or
a flat fee, those residents that generate less and recy-
cle more are  paying for neighbors that generate two
or three times as much waste. With pay-as-you-
throw, residents that reduce and recycle  are rewarded
with a lower trash bill.

In communities with pay-as-you-throw programs,
this incentive has resulted in reported average reduc-
tions in waste amounts ranging from 25 to 45 per-
cent. Recycling tends to increase significantly as
well, further cutting down on the amount of waste
requiring disposal. This can mean lower  disposal
costs, savings in waste transportation expenses,
potentially greater revenues from the sale of recov-
ered materials, and other cost savings.

And less waste and increased recycling at the local
level translates into an improved solid waste man-
agement picture statewide. Increased amounts of
recovered materials will become available to proces-
sors and remanufacturers, encouraging the develop-
ment of increased recycling capacity and  other
investments in the infrastructure of recycling. The
potential for lower costs can help increase the long-
term economic stability of your communities' MSW
programs. And less waste means fewer natural
resources will be depleted, less energy used, and less
landfill space consumed, helping preserve your state's
environment. Because of these kinds of advantages,
pay-as-you-throw has received bipartisan support at
both the state and local levels. The use of pay-as-you-
                    throw also has been endorsed
                    by the National Conference of
                    State Legislatures (NCSL).

                    Are there disadvan-
                    tages to pay-as-you-
                    While there are potential barri-
                    ers to a successful program,
                    communities with pay-as-you-
                    throw have found effective
                    solutions. Local officials, for
                    example, often assume that ille-
gal dumping will increase once residents are asked to
pay for each container of waste they generate. Most
communities with pay-as-you-throw have found this
not to be the case, however, especially when they
offer their residents recycling, composting for yard
trimmings, and other programs that allow individuals
to reduce waste legally. Others, particularly lower-
income residents, worry about the amount they will
have to pay. In many communities, however, coupon
or voucher programs are being used to help reduce
trash collection costs for these households.

How can I learn  more about
pay-as-y ou-th row?
EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone interested
in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (EPA530-R-94-004)
contains background information on the advantages
of pay-as-you-throw and provides detailed informa-
tion on how these programs work. To order a copy,
call the  EPA/RCRA Superfund Hotline at 800-424-
9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the hearing impaired.
For Washington,  DC, and outside the United States,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.

                        United States
                        Environmental Protection
                      Solid Waste and
                      Emergency Response
              September 1996
  <>EPA           Pay-As-You-Throw
                         A  Fact Sheet for Environmental
                         and Civic  Groups
encourage people
to save money by
     recycling and
 Imagine—a solid
   waste solution
   that's good for
   the wallet and
          helps the
           When it comes to man-
           aging solid waste, the
           goal for the past 10
           years has been to
reduce, reuse, and recycle. Today,
thousands of community recycling
programs are diverting millions of
tons of valuable materials—materials
that would otherwise be thrown
away—for remanufacturing     *
into useful products.
They're called "pay-as-you-throw"
programs, and nearly 2,000 commu-
nities across the country have begun
using them.

What is
    Pay-as-you-throw programs,
   ?     also known as unit-based
          pricing or variable-rate
           pricing, provide a
         *: direct economic
Despite the tremen-
dous growth in recycling,
however, waste genera-
tion rates among individu-     *
als continue to rise. Most of us
don't give as much thought as we
should to reducing the amount of
waste that remains after recycling.
One reason for this is we usually have
no incentive, beyond a general envi-
ronmental concern, to reduce waste.
Because individuals in most communi-
ties pay for collection and disposal
services through property taxes (or, in
some cases, through a flat fee), they
pay the same amount—no matter how
much they throw away.

There is a different type of program,
however, that communities can use
to motivate residents not only to
recycle more but to think of ways to
prevent waste in the first place.
                 for people to
           reduce the amount of
  i     waste they generate.
   Under pay-as-you-throw, house-
holds are charged for waste collec-
tion based on the amount of waste
they throw away—in the same way
that they are charged for electricity,
gas, and other utilities.

In some communities, pay-as-you-
throw is based on volume: residents
are charged for each bag or can of
waste they generate. A few commu-
nities bill residents based on the
weight of their trash. Either way,
pay-as-you-throw gives everyone a
little extra push to prevent waste.
While most people want less trash, a
pay-as-you-throw program helps
connect their environmental con-
cerns with their wallets.

What are the benefits of

Pay-as-you-throw programs have environmental and
economic advantages, and are often more equitable for
residents—a combination of benefits called the
"Three Es." Communities with programs in place have
reported reductions in waste amounts ranging from
25 to 45 percent, on average. This results in several
important environmental benefits. Less waste and
greater recycling means that fewer natural resources
are used, less energy is consumed, and less pollution
is created. In addition, landfill space is
used at a slower rate, reducing the
need to site additional facilities.

Pay-as-you-throw also can send an
important source reduction signal to
product manufacturers. When indi-
vidual consumers begin to under-
stand that their trash costs money,
they are likely to adjust their pur-
chasing habits to favor products that
will result in less waste—and, there-
fore, cost less—when discarded. As
more communities adopt pay-as-you-throw, manufac-
turers will have an incentive to redesign their prod-
ucts to appeal to this growing consumer preference.

There also are potential economic advantages, both
for communities and their residents. Because they
often have more recovered materials and less waste
to dispose of, many communities with pay-as-you-
throw find their disposal costs go down. Pay-as-you-
throw also can yield savings in waste transportation
expenses and potentially greater revenues from the
sale of collected recyclables.

In addition, while they may not realize it, residents pay
to throw away trash. And whether they pay through
their taxes or a flat fee, those individuals that generate
less and recycle more are paying for neighbors that
generate two or three times as much waste. Pay-as-you-
throw is more equitable: residents that reduce and recy-
cle are rewarded with a lower trash bill.

Are there disadvantages to
While there are potential barriers to a successful pro-
gram, communities with pay-as-you-throw have found
effective solutions. Local officials, for example, often
assume that illegal dumping will increase once residents
are asked to pay for each container of waste they gener-
ate. Most communities with pay-as-you-throw have
found this not to be the case, however, especially when
they offer their residents recycling, composting for
yard trimmings, and other programs that allow indi-
viduals to reduce waste legally. Others, particularly
lower-income residents, worry about the amount they
will have to pay.  In many communities, however,
coupon or voucher programs are being used to help
reduce trash collection costs for these households.

              How can our
              organization help?
              In many cases, local officials either
              are not aware of pay-as-you-throw or
              haven't considered how it might
              work in their community. While pay-
              as-you-throw may not be appropriate
              for all communities, municipal plan-
              ners  can benefit from learning about
              such programs. Your organization can
              work with local,  regional, or state
government officials to make them aware of the ben-
efits of pay-as-you-throw and how any potential bar-
riers might be overcome.

And, once communities in your  area begin to plan
pay-as-you-throw programs, your organization can
assist  in development and implementation. By help-
ing municipal officials plan programs that are rea-
sonable and equitable, and educating people about
the benefits of the new system, your organization
can play a role in improving the way we manage
solid waste in this country.

How can  I learn more  about
EPA has developed a guidebook for anyone interested
in pay-as-you-throw programs. Pay-As-You-Throw:
Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (EPA530-R-94-004)
contains background information on the advantages
of pay-as-you-throw and provides detailed informa-
tion on how these programs work. To order a copy,
call the EPA/RCRA Superfund  Hotline at 800-424-
9346 or TDD 800-553-7672 for the hearing impaired.
For Washington, DC, and outside the United States,
call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323.

Other Outreach  Strategies
          This section presents a number of other ideas for reaching out
          to residents in your community. As you review these products,
          keep in mind your community's
     specific public outreach goals and think
     about which combination of the follow-
     ing strategies might best help you
     meet them.
Press Releases

     As you begin to develop and pub-
     licize your pay-as-you-throw pro-
     gram, coverage by local radio
     and print media outlets is likely.
     For MSW planners, this
     should be considered a public
     outreach opportunity. At this
     point, you can provide local
     reporters, editors, and
     other news professionals
     covering your community
     with the key facts con-
     cerning pay-as-you-
                                    ,  «f
                                    he> <=«.,


                                                               * 'ess
                                ""-> "*


                                                    5 aid

    throw. This will help ensure
    that they understand the issues surrounding
    solid waste management in your municipality and why local
    officials are considering a pay-as-you-throw program-before they
    begin to develop their stories.

                             The most common way to accomplish this is to develop and submit
                             press releases to local media outlets. The press release should
                             briefly describe the essential information about your program: what
                             pay-as-you-throw is, why a change in the way residents pay for trash
                             collection and disposal is being proposed, and how residents can
                             participate—and, if they reduce waste, save money—under the new
                             program. Additional press releases can be developed later to
                             announce other news, such as town meetings on pay-as-you-throw
                             or any changes in the program.
                             You might also consider other ways to provide information to the
                             local media, including developing more comprehensive press kits (in
                             addition to  press releases, these can include items such as back-
                             ground reports and newsclippings from other pay-as-you-throw
                             communities in  your county or state) and conducting news confer-
                             ences or briefings for residents about your program.

Public Meetings
     Town meetings and other public gatherings offer a good opportunity
     to introduce residents to pay-as-you-throw, discuss how it can help
     the community, and answer any questions that people might have. If
     you are planning such a presentation, you might want to develop an
     invitation flyer to promote the
     event. (See Section One of this
     workbook for more information
     on planning a presentation on
     pay-as-yo u-th row.)
     The meeting invitation can
     include information describ-
     ing the concept of pay-as-
     you-throw and its
     advantages and  letting res-
     idents know that their
     community is consider-
     ing such a program. It
     also can indicate that
     the meeting is being
     called not only to
     present the pro-
     posed program
     but to hear what
     residents think—
     that this input will
     be seriously considered before
     decisions about  the final program are
     made. Be sure to include space on the invitation to list
     the date, time, and location of the meeting, and invite residents to
     come ask questions and learn about the program.

Many communities planning for pay-as-you-throw have developed
newsletters to publicize their program. Creating and distributing a
small (two- or four-page) monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly newslet-
ter offers a chance to provide more information about your pro-
gram than you are likely to get in the media. Newsletters also allow
you to  provide periodic updates as the program is developed—in
many communities, the newsletter is launched well before program
implementation—and help ensure that all residents are thoroughly
aware of the program. You also can provide ongoing information
about your program directly to the specific stakeholders you want
to target.
Your newsletter can be used to introduce residents to pay-as-you-throw
  and clearly describe how the program can  help both residents and
             the municipality to reduce waste and save money. You
                         also can use the newsletter to ask  residents
                                   for their input and  provide
                                              them with infor-
                                             mation about how
                                             to participate
                                            before and during
                                           implementation. To
                                          effectively reach your
                                          audience, be sure to
                                         write the newsletter
                                        articles in clear, everyday
                                       language. In addition, resi-
                                       dents will be more likely to
                                     pick up and read  a visually
                                    attractive newsletter. Refer
                                   to the Clip Art section, begin-
                                   ning on page 111 of this work-
                                  book, for a set of illustrations
                                  and mastheads that you  can  use
                                 when creating your newsletter.
                                         *>t,,^  'Vdti,,..  '°Payln, ***».„.

Flyers  and  Brochures
 Flyers and brochures are another way to provide pay-as-you-throw
 program information directly to households in your community. You
 can create a general flyer to introduce residents to pay-as-you-throw
 and its advantages or develop more specific versions that each focus
 on one particular aspect of your program (for example, procedures
 for purchasing bags or tips on how residents can reduce waste). Like
 newsletters, flyers and brochures can be used to deliver specific
 ideas  about pay-as-you-throw to target audiences within your
 An advantage to flyers and brochures is that they can be distributed
 through a number of different channels. They can be posted around
 town  to advertise an upcoming pay-as-you-throw meeting or event,
 placed in stores and municipal
 offices, or direct mailed to resi-
 dents  individually with utility
 bills or in other periodic
 mailings. To help get your          t*&Y®/4 e
 message across, try to                        ^"   fc
design flyers that will             »T>>^S^-              &
                                                     ^/a> ><

     attract the attention of
     your audiences. You
    can use the illustra-
    tions in the Clip Art
    section, beginning
    on page 111 of
    this workbook,
    to help create
    and assemble
    effective fact


Clip  Art
               Outreach and education
               materials often need to
               do more than provide the
      facts about pay-as-you-throw. To be
      effective, they need to be graphically
      interesting. Providing eye-catching
      fact sheets, newsletters, posters,
      brochures, and other materials can
      help you attract the attention of your
      audiences and get your message
      across. This section includes a set of
      over 40 clip art illustrations that you
      can use to help simplify the task of
      putting together well-designed
      outreach products.
      Once you have decided which public out-
      reach products you would like to develop,
      turn to the clip art that follows. Select the
      illustrations and icons you want (be sure
      to photocopy the original page or pages so
      the masters can be used again), clip them out, and
      or clear tape to lay out your own newsletters, flyers, or other publici-
      ty materials. If you plan to develop outreach materials on a computer
      and have access to a scanner, you might scan the images you want to
      use. The scanned clip art then can be electronically added to your
      computer-designed outreach  materials. Or simply refer to these illus-
      trations for ideas and develop your own clip art images-be creative!
      When your design is ready, use a photocopier to make as many
      copies as you need and distribute them to the target audiences in
      your community.


Pay-As-You-Throw Clip Art
                                                                          I 13


Pay-As-You-Throw Clip Art


Pay-As-You-Throw Clip Art


Pay-As-You-Throw Clip Art


     lanning and implementing a pay-as-you-throw program requires
     careful research and consideration. In the guide Pay-As-You-
     Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing (found in the "Guide-
     books" section of this Tool Kit), the key steps involved in
pay-as-you-throw program development are  explained in detail. The
worksheets on the following pages are designed to help you apply
this information to your own planning efforts. These worksheets
correspond to the guide's four program development steps:
•   Deciding if pay-as-you-throw is right for your community
    (Worksheets 1 and 2).
•   Planning for pay-as-you-throw and conducting an outreach
    campaign (Worksheet 3).
•   Designing a rate structure  (Worksheets 4 and 5).
•   Implementing and monitoring the program (Worksheets 6 and 7).
Completing these worksheets  will help you make and record the
critical decisions concerning your program's  goals, the messages you
will deliver in your public outreach, and the kind of container and
pricing options you will use. The worksheets also will help you
determine your specific program costs and the price you will need
to charge per container to recover these costs. As you complete the
worksheets, refer to the Pay-As-You-Throw guide as needed for more
information on each  of these program development steps.
The completed worksheets also can be  used in presentations and
other public outreach events or products to  help you make your
case for pay-as-you-throw. In a briefing for your elected officials, for
example, you can use the figures developed in Worksheet 5 (Rate

                             Structure Design) to help convince them that a well-designed pro-
                             gram will not result in additional costs for the community. Some of
                             the worksheets, such as Worksheet 1  (Program Goals) and Work-
                             sheet 2 (Program Barriers), also could be used during a presenta-
                             tion to obtain valuable feedback from attendees about how they feel
                             the program should be designed.

                      PROGRAM     GOALS
Use this worksheet to identify and prioritize the specific goals of your pay-as-you-throw program.
Begin with the goals listed below, ranking each goal on a scale of 1 to 5.  A ranking of 5 means it is critical that your
program meets this goal.  A ranking of 1 means the goal is of minimal importance.  List any other program goals that
come to mind, and rank them as well.

As you think about goals, consider other stakeholders in your community—to be successful, your program also will
need to have their goals in mind.  To help  you identify the issues other  stakeholders will want addressed, copy the
back of this form and use it to solicit more ideas about goals during pay-as-you-throw meetings or presentations.
 Reduce the amount of solid waste generated/increase recycling rates
  Reduce the total cost of solid waste management
  Remove solid waste management costs from the tax base entirely (by raising sufficient
  revenues to cover all solid waste management costs)
 Subsidize other solid waste programs (such as recycling)
  Increase equity by asking residents to pay only for the waste they generate
  Increase understanding among residents of solid waste issues/environmental issues

     Worksheet  1
   Program Goals: List below the different goals for the pay-as-you-throw program and rank them on a scale of 1 to 5. A
   ranking of 5 means it is critical that the program meets this goal. A ranking of 1 means the goal is of minimal importance.

               POTENTIAL     BARRIERS
Use this worksheet to identify barriers that might affect your program and consider how they can
be overcome.

Begin by reviewing the potential barriers on the matrix below. As you review these potential barriers, be sure to dis-
tinguish between perceived problems—challenges that have solutions or do not apply in your community—and real
barriers that might actually prevent you from  achieving your pay-as-you-throw goals. For example, illegal  dumping
often turns out to be a perceived barrier. It usually can be overcome with a strong education and outreach program
and effective enforcement. Multi-family housing, by contrast, may be a real barrier for some communities. A high con-
centration of population in multi-family housing might prevent a community from extending pay-as-you-throw to these

Then, on the following page, list the barriers that you feel might apply to your community's program.  For each  of
these, consider the ways in which  you might overcome them. The second page of this form  can be copied and used
during pay-as-you-throw meetings  or presentations to solicit other potential  barriers from attendees and  to  brain-
storm more solutions.
Sample Barriers  and Solutions
  Potential Barriers
  Illegal dumping/burning
  Uneven revenues/revenue shortfalls as
  residents generate less waste
  Multi-family housing
  Perception that waste collection is
  free/pay-as-you-throw is a tax increase
  Pay-as-you-throw is regressive/low-income
  residents feel greater impact
  Overstuffing of containers
  Lack of support from private waste haulers
Possible Solutions
- Educate residents about pay-as-you-throw
- Provide several legal diversion options
- Develop enforcement plan
- Use multi-tiered pricing
- Plan for reduced waste amounts in steady-state when setting prices
- Include charges in rent
- Under a bag-based system, have tenants purchase bags
- Use bar code readers on building garbage chutes
- Educate residents about pay-as-you-throw
- Set prices at levels residents will accept
- Offer these residents rebates, coupons, or discounts
- Offer free bags to recipients of general assistance
- Set weight limits on containers
- Involve haulers in the planning process
- Pass ordinance mandating haulers offer variable rates

      Worksheet  2
   Potential Barriers: List below potential pay-as-you-throw barriers and consider whether each is actually relevant to your
   community. For each potential barrier you feel may impact your program, list any possible solutions that come to mind.
     Potential Barriers
Possible Solutions

                    PUBLIC     OUTREACH
Use this worksheet to identify specific public outreach goals for your program and consider ways
to achieve them.  This worksheet will help you plan for the two distinct parts of public outreach: A) soliciting feed-
back about pay-as-you-throw during the planning stage and B) educating the community during implementation about
the program's final design and informing residents about how to participate (for example, where to buy bags and
how to handle bulky items). (Refer to the "Public Outreach Materials" section beginning on page 91 of this work-
book for more ideas on how to generate feedback and educate your community.)
  Part  A
Soliciting Feedback
Using this table, consider how you will obtain  input during the planning stage about the proposed pay-as-you-throw
program. Begin with the  audiences from whom you are seeking feedback. Then, consider possible methods of achieving
this.  In the last column, list when you should begin each of the different strategies for gathering input.
 Retailers/other businesses
        Outreach Methods
        - Direct visits to local retailers to discuss the
        program and ask them about distributing or selling
        bags In stores

        - Invite retailers to public pay-as-you-throw

        - Include retailers In your citizens' advisory council
        or other planning organization
About 6 months before
program implementation
        - Develop a pay-as-you-throw fact sheet introducing
        the program and asking for feedback

        - Issue press releases to the local media to get
        media coverage

        - Hold public meetings on pay-as-you-throw

        - Invite community residents to join your citizens'
        advisory council or other planning organization
About 6-9 months before
program Implementation
  Elected officials
        - Hold a briefing for elected officials to introduce the
         program and ask for their Input

        - Include elected officials In the citizens' advisory
         council or other planning organization       '•.
About 6 months before
program Implementation

     Worksheet 3
   Soliciting Feedback: For each of the audiences  listed below, consider possible outreach methods and a schedule of
   when to begin these strategies. Copy this page as needed to consider ways of reaching additional audiences.
    Retailers/other businesses
Outreach Methods
    Elected officials
    Solid waste staff
    Private haulers

  Worksheet  3
  Part  B
   Educating the  Community
Use the table below to consider how to educate your community about pay-as-you-throw. Begin by considering which
audiences you will need to reach. For each audience, list the specific goals of the outreach effort and the message you will
use to reach that group. In the last column, indicate what products you could develop to accomplish this.
 Audience       Goal
- Show residents that
 pay-as-you-throw is
- Convince residents the
 program is fair and not
 an added tax
- Explain how to use the
 new bag-based system
- The current MSW program
 ultimately Is not sustainable
- The program will save you money,
 If you reduce waste (include
 details about how to reduce
 - Participating Is easy—just buy
 bags for your trash at area
 retailers (include details on
 prices,  recycling, etc.)
- Flyers posted around town
- Public meetings
- Press releases
- Invite participation through
 the citizens' advisory council
- Brochure mailed to all
- Generate positive media
 coverage of pay-as-you-
- Convince media that the
 program is needed and
 will work
- The current MSW program
 ultimately Is not sustainable
• Pay-as-you-throw has multiple
 benefits: It will give both
 residents and the municipality
 money, reduce waste, and Is
 fairer to residents
- More and more communities are
 adopting pay-as-you-throw
- Press release/press kit
- Briefings for reporters
- Invite reporters to town
 meetings/other pay-as-you-
 throw presentations
 Civic groups
- Convince community and
 business leaders that
 pay-as-you-throw Is
 needed and will work
- Show that the
 municipality's long-term
 financial health will be
 compromised if no
 change Is made
- Involve these leaders in
 the development of the
 program and in selling it
 to residents
- The current MSW program is not
- Pay-as-you-throw will help both
 residents and the municipality
 to save money
- The municipality is interested in
 getting help from community
 groups in developing the program
- Briefings for civic groups at
 their meetings
- Public meetings
- OHe-on-one meetings with civic
 group leaders

     Worksheet  3
   Educating the community: For each of the audiences listed below, consider the goals of your outreach effort, the
   specific message of your outreach to that audience, and the products you might develop to accomplish this. Copy this page
   as needed to consider ways of reaching additional audiences.
    Audience       Goal
    Civic groups
     Private haulers

Use this worksheet to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the different container and
pricing choices and select the best system for your program. In Part A, rank in terms of importance the
characteristics of the main container and pricing combinations: bags or  tags/stickers that are sold at retail stores or
municipal offices; cans under a "pay as you go" pricing system (under which residents are billed based on the number
of cans they set out for collection); and cans under a subscription system. (Another pricing option that can be used in
combination with any of the container and pricing choices is a two-tiered system, which uses a per-container fee for variable
MSW costs while retaining a monthly flat collection charge for fixed MSW costs. This helps prevent revenue fluctuations).
After ranking the different container and pricing combinations, review your work and record a preliminary system choice
in Part B. Be sure to consider the overall program goals you established in Worksheet 1  when making this choice.
  Part   A
Container and  Pricing System Characteristics
Consider the different advantages and disadvantages of the container and pricing systems and how relevant they are
to your program. Rank each characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5. (A ranking of 5 means the issue is extremely impor-
tant for your program. A ranking of 1 means the issue is of minimal importance.)
              Residents might find buying and storing bags inconvenient

              Often incompatible with automated/semiautomated equipment

              Animals can tear bags, and bags can tear during lifting

Stronger waste reduction incentive than can systems
No billing system needed, so accounting costs lower
Residents find bag systems convenient and easy to understand
Lower implementation costs than can systems
Faster, more efficient collections than cans
Easy to monitor compliance
Easy to adapt for bulky item collections
Greater revenue uncertainty than subscription can systems
Bags must be purchased and made available to residents in stores or municipal offices
Staff time required for purchasing, storing, and selling bags in municipal offices





      Worksheet 4
     System       Advantage/Disadvantage
    Tag or
Stronger waste reduction incentive than can systems
                    No billing system needed, so accounting costs lower
                    Residents find tag/sticker systems convenient and easy to understand
                    Lower implementation costs than can systems
                    Cost of purchasing tags/stickers is less than bags
                    Easily adapted for different size containers
                    Easily adapted for bulky item collections
                    Greater revenue uncertainty than subscription can systems
                    Tags/stickers must be purchased and made available to residents in stores or municipal
                    Staff time required for purchasing, storing, and selling tags/stickers in municipal offices
                    Residents might find buying and storing tags/stickers inconvenient
                    Municipality must communicate size limits to residents, and collection crews must monitor
                    size-limit compliance
                    Tags/stickers can fall off in rainy or cold weather or be stolen by other residents
    (Pay As
    You Go)
Residents have flexibility to set out as few or as many containers each week as needed
New cans may not be required if residents already own cans of roughly uniform volume
                    Cans are reusable and prevent animals from scattering waste
                    Cans can work with automated/semiautomated collection systems
                    Greater revenue uncertainty than subscription can systems
                    Smaller waste reduction incentive if large cans are used
                    Complex tracking and billing system needed to count set-outs at each stop and bill
                    Billing system creates lag time between collecting waste and receiving payment for the
                    Greater implementation costs if purchase, inventory, and distribution of cans is required
                    Collection time greater than with bag systems
                    Alternate system needed for collection of bulky items

Worksheet 4
System Advantage/Disadvantage Importance
Revenues are stable and easy to forecast
Simplified collection process for collection crews
New cans may not be required if residents already own cans of roughly uniform volume
Cans are reusable and prevent animals from scattering waste
Cans can work with automated/semiautomated collection systems
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
Disadvantages ' ' < ' ' - • '• ' , .--.•;
Reduced waste reduction incentive, since residents have no incentive to reduce waste
below their minimum service level
Complex tracking and billing system needed to track residents' subscription level and bill
Billing system creates lag time between collecting waste and receiving payment for the
Greater implementation costs if purchase, inventory, and distribution of cans is required
Collection time greater than with bag systems
Alternate system needed for collection of bulky items
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2

     Worksheet 4
     Part   B
Choosing a Container and Pricing System
   After ranking  the different system characteristics, review your  work to see  which system offers the most relevant
   advantages and the fewest disadvantages. If you are very concerned about revenue instability or uneven cash flow, consider
   whether you should use a two-tiered pricing system.
   Next, go back to the prioritized list of program goals you created  in Worksheet  1. Consider which container and pricing
   system would best enable you to achieve your community's goals. If needed, use the table below to help you consider your
   options. List your program goals in the first column and consider  the impact of  each container/pricing system  choice on
   the goals.
                                                  Container/Pricing Systems
                      Tags/          (Pay As          Cans         Two-Tier
                     Stickers        You Go)     (Subscription)      Pricing
Reduce MSW as much
as possible
Minimize program costs
Achieve revenue stability


Bags tend to be
smaller, creating
a stronger waste
reduction incentive
Low accounting
costs, since no
billing system
Uneven cash flow

Tags/stickers for
smaller containers
create a strong
waste reduction
Low accounting
costs, since no
Wiling system
Uneven cash flow

Cans tend to be
larger, reducing
waste reduction
Billing system can
Increase costs
Uneven casn flow

Cans tend to be
larger, reducing
waste reduction
Billing system can
Increase costs
Steadier casn flow

Flat fee in
combination with
variable rate
reduces waste
reduction incentive
Potential for
Steadier cash flow

   With the different system characteristics and your overall program goals in mind, make a preliminary container and pricing
   system choice and record it below.

   Container and pricing system:	

Use this worksheet to design a rate structure for your program.  In Part A, estimate the amount of waste
you will be collecting under pay-as-you-throw.  In Part B, estimate your pay-as-you-throw program costs and the cost
of any complementary programs. Then,  estimate the per-container price needed to meet your program's costs in
Part C.  Complete this worksheet by considering whether this price strikes the right balance between costs and revenues.
  Part  A
Waste Collection  Forecast
Perform the following  calculations to estimate  the amount of MSW that  will  be collected from  residents under your
pay-as-you-throw program. Begin by estimating the amount of MSW collected in the year before program implementation (the
"base year"). Then, revise this figure to reflect MSW collections two years after program implementation (the "projection
year"). This is also called the steady-state, when residents' reductions in waste generation due to pay-as-you-throw have
  I. Current Waste Collection
   Tons of MSW collected in the base
 2.  Community Growth
  Tons of MSW per resident in the base
           year [from A-1]
                      Current number of community
                        residents in the base year
              Tons of MSW collected per resident
                      in the base year
                   Estimated number of residents in the
                            projection year
              Annual MSW tonnage expected in
                 the projection year without
                     pay-as-yo u-th row
 3. Waste Collection Under Pay-As-You-Throw
  100  -
             Percentage decrease in
             MSW expected under
                     MSW reduction
Annual MSW tonnage
  expected without
     [from A-2]
Annual MSW tonnage
   expected under
       Annual MSW tonnage expected under
                                                 Tons of MSW expected per month under

      Worksheet 5
     Part  B
Program  Costs
   In this section,  estimate your  monthly MSW curbside  collection  and  disposal  fixed  and  variable  costs  under
   pay-as-you-throw in the projection year. Then estimate monthly fixed and variable costs for your new (or existing) recycling
   program in the projection year. Be sure to take into account your residents' reduced MSW set-outs when estimating costs.
   (For composting/yard waste collections  or other complementary programs, copy this page  and use it to estimate their
   costs.) If you contract out for some or all of these services, enter this cost under the "contractor fees" line. Combine these
   costs at the end of this section to estimate the total cost of pay-as-you-throw and any complementary programs.
     I.  Fixed MSW Collection and Disposal Costs per Month
    Physical facilities (e.g., maintenance, mortgage, utilities)
    Salaries and benefits (labor costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of MSW         $

    Vehicle amortization                                                            $.

    Vehicle maintenance (vehicle maintenance costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of  $
    MSW collected)

    Vehicle operating costs (vehicle operating costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of  $
    MSW collected)

    Contractor fees (if any)                                                         $ .

    Other fixed costs                                                               $ .

    Total fixed MSW collection and disposal costs per month                  $
     2.  Variable MSW Collection and Disposal Costs per Month
    Salaries and benefits (labor costs that vary with amount of MSW collected)               $ .

    Vehicle maintenance (vehicle maintenance costs that vary with amount of MSW collected)   $ .

    Vehicle operating costs (vehicle operating costs that vary with amount of MSW collected)    $ .

    Contractor fees (if any)                                                          $ .

    Tipping fees                                                                    $.

    Other variable costs                                                             $ .
    Total variable MSW collection and disposal costs per month
     3.  Total MSW Collection and Disposal Costs per Month
      Total monthly fixed MSW collection
             and disposal costs
                 [from B-1]
                        Total monthly variable MSW
                        collection and disposal costs
                                [from B-2J
 Total monthly MSW collection and
disposal costs under pay-as-you-throw

   Worksheet  $   (C
  4.  Fixed Recycling Collection and Processing Costs per Month
  Physical facilities (e.g., processing equipment amortization, utilities)                       $ ,

  Salaries and benefits (labor costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of recyclables      $ ,
I  collected)

j  Vehicle amortization costs                                                          $ .

1  Vehicle maintenance costs (vehicle maintenance costs that remain fixed regardless of        $ .
  quantity of recyclables collected)

  Vehicle operating costs (vehicle operating costs that remain fixed regardless of quantity of   $ .
  recyclables collected)

  Contractor fees (if any)                                                             $ .

i  Other fixed costs                                                                  $ .

  Total fixed recycling costs per month                                         $
  5.  Variable Recycling Collection and  Processing Costs per Month
  Salaries and benefits (labor costs that vary with amount of recyclables collected)            $

  Vehicle maintenance costs (vehicle maintenance costs that vary with amount of recyclables   $

  Vehicle operating costs (vehicle operating costs that vary with amount of recyclables        $

  Equipment costs (e.g., baler, compactor. Bobcat operations) (equipment costs that vary     $
  with amount of recyclables collected)

  Contractor fees (if any)                                                             $ .

  Other variable costs                                                               $

  Total variable recycling costs  per month                                     $
  6.  Total Recycling Collection and Processing Costs per Month
   Total fixed recycling costs per month
              [from 8-4]
   Total monthly recycling costs under
      pay-as-you-throw [from 8-6]
  Total variable recycling costs per
        month [from 8-5]
Net revenue from sale of recyclables
           per month
 Total monthly recycling costs under
Adjusted total monthly recycling costs
      under pay-as-you-throw
  7.  Total Cost of Pay-As-You-Throw and Complementary Programs
  Total monthly MSW collection and disposal costs under pay-as-you-throw [from 8-3]

  Adjusted total monthly recycling costs under pay-as-you-throw [from 8-6]

  Other monthly complementary program costs, if any

  Total monthly cost of pay-as-you-throw and complementary programs

      Worksheet  5
     Part   C
Program Revenues
   Use this section to estimate the per-container price needed to meet your program's costs. If you plan to use more than
   one size container, estimate the amount of waste you will collect in each size container  per month (you might contact
   planners  in pay-as-you-throw  communities for help with this  estimate). Then  perform the calculations in this section
   separately for each container.  If you are uncertain about how to convert your container's capacity from volume to weight,
   refer to the report Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1995 Update. You also  might check with
   planners in other communities or weigh a random sampling of several filled containers and use the average weight for this
     I. Container Selection and Capacity
    Container selection:

    Volume of selected container:

    Convert container capacity to weight:
                                                       . (cans, bags, tags, or stickers)


     2.  Estimated Per-Container Price
      Tons of MSW expected per month
       under pay-as-you-throw [from A-3]
            Total monthly cost of
     pay-as-you-throw and complementary
            programs [from B-7]
                      Weight per container in tons
                              [from C-1]
                    Number of containers expected per
Number of containers expected per
   Estimated price per container
     Part   D
Program  Balance
   At this point, you have developed a price per container that will help you cover your estimated costs. Remember, however,
   that your per-container price is  based on program costs in  the projection year (once your program has reached the
   steady-state). Prior to the projection year, you can expect greater waste collection amounts. This will result in greater
   revenues, but also greater costs. You might consult with planners in nearby pay-as-you-throw communities for data on
   whether their costs  were greater  or less in  the two years before reaching the steady-state.  If needed, adjust  your
   per-container price to strike a balance between reasonable fees and covering your costs completely. Also consider whether
   your fee sends a strong enough waste reduction price signal to residents. Enter the revised per-container price below.
   Revised price per container

Use this worksheet to review the different potential  pay-as-you-throw program implementation
activities and check off the relevant ones as they are completed. This checklist is divided into three sec-
tions. All planners should use Section A, which contains a checklist of specific implementation activities suggested for
any pay-as-you-throw program. Then, select and use either Section B or C, depending on whether you plan on using
a bag- or tag-based systems or a can-based  system.
  Part   A
All Container Systems
    D Draft and enact any necessary ordinances to charge a variable rate for waste collection.

    D Draft and enact any additional needed ordinances:

         O  Banning waste dumping and/or burning

         O  Limiting container weights

         O  Mandating recycling

         O  Prohibiting unauthorized containers

    D Define enforcement responsibilities (work with the police and health department).

    D Reassign collection  and management staff as needed to new roles in outreach, enforcement, and

    D Prepare  staff to address residents' concerns and questions.

    D Plan your education and  outreach campaign. Develop outreach materials and schedule briefings and

    D Consider working with the business community to ensure that they lock their dumpsters to prevent
       midnight dumping.

    D Develop and implement policies for accommodating low-income residents and physically handicapped and
       elderly residents.

    D Develop and implement policies for accommodating residents of multi-family units.

     Worksheet  6
       D Develop and test your rate structure and your budgeting and tracking systems.

       D Develop procedure for gathering and analyzing data on waste generation amounts and costs. Conduct
          baseline data collection.

       D Develop a phase-in strategy (e.g., collect all wastes for several weeks, but leave "error tags" where
          needed to educate customers that only correctly paid and packaged trash will be collected in the future).
     Part  B
Bag- or Tag-Based Systems
       D  Determine weight limit for bags or size limit for trash that is tagged and the number of bags or tags to

       D  Identify vendors, develop specifications and RFPs, solicit bids, and purchase bags or tags.

       D  Plan and develop a distribution network (e.g., using town offices or local retailers).

       D  If distributing through retailers, arrange distribution logistics (e.g., delivery and invoice schedule and
           marketing agreements). Assign and train staff as necessary.

       EH  If distributing through municipal offices, develop and implement inventory management system. Assign
           and train staff as necessary.

       D  Develop an education program informing residents how to participate (e.g., the location of bag or tag
           sales outlets and the procedures for bulky wastes).

       D  Develop and implement plans for bulky items, including pricing.

Worksheet 6
Part   C
Can-Based Systems
  D  Evaluate whether residents can use their own cans or if the town will supply cans.

  D  Determine the container size and number of cans to purchase.

  D  Identify vendors, develop specifications and RFPs, solicit bids, and purchase cans.

  D  If you have a subscription system, develop and provide information to residents that allows them to
     estimate their trash set-out and select a subscription level.

  D  If residents will use one large can, develop plans for extra waste (e.g., supplement with bags or tags).
     Purchase necessary items and educate residents.

  D  Develop and implement plans to distribute new cans (for new residents, replacements for stolen
     containers, or changes in service level for subscription can systems).

  D  Distribute containers and maintain an inventory of extra containers.

  D  Develop and implement billing system.

  D  Develop and implement plans for bulky items, including pricing.


Use this worksheet to monitor waste generation amounts and the amount of material recycled
and composted. For the first year after program implementation, enter base year data in the first column and
data from the program's first year in the second.  For monitoring the program after the first year, enter the previous
year's data followed by the current year being evaluated. This information can be tracked over time to demonstrate
the  waste reduction impact of pay-as-you-throw and help inform decisions about potential changes in the program's
scope or structure.
  Part  A
Waste Collection  Amounts
                                                   Base Year
                                                          Current Year
  Tons of MSW collected:
  Part  B
Recycling Amounts
  Tons of recyclables collected:  Glass

                           High-Grade Paper

                           Mixed Paper

                           Corrugated Cardboard




  Total tons of recyclables collected:

     Worksheet 7
     Part  C
Composting Amounts
                                                        Base Year
                                                             Current Year
     Tons of organic materials collected for composting:
     Part   D
     Tracking the costs incurred and the revenues recovered under pay-as-you-throw is an important process. At least
     once a year, refer back to Worksheet 5,"Rate Structure Design," and re-calculate program costs and revenues. This
     information can be used to evaluate the program's economic sustainability on an ongoing basis. It also can be used
     to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the program to elected officials or planners from other communities inter-
     ested in pay-as-you-throw.

Articles  and   Newsclippings
                 Within the last several years, pay-as-you-throw has
                 begun to receive increasing attention in the print
                 media. A variety of solid waste management publica-
                 tions and newspapers serving communities with pay-
     as-you-throw have published articles about these programs. This
     section includes a few samples of recent coverage of pay-as-you-
     throw, including an article reviewing six communities with successful
     programs, an examination of unit pricing in rural and urban settings,
     and an article presenting strategies for overcoming potential barriers
     to pay-as-you-throw.
     In addition to providing you with useful background information on
     pay-as-you-throw, this section can assist in organizing any articles
     about your community's program that appear in print. Over the
     course of implementing pay-as-you-throw in your community, it is
     likely that the program will be covered in your local media. (See Sec-
     tion Two, Public Outreach Materials, for ideas on how to encourage
     positive coverage by the media.) It might be helpful to keep track of
     this coverage.
     As articles about your program appear, you can three-hole punch
     the clippings and add them to this section for later reference. This
     will help you gauge the effectiveness of your overall outreach and
     education effort and, in particular, the impact of your outreach to
     the media. In addition, tracking local press coverage can help you
     identify areas or issues on which you may need to focus greater
     attention. It also can  provide you with another measure of success,
     an important resource you might use when asked about your pro-
     gram's performance.


     After starting recycling, composting, and public education programs, are waste generation rates
     and MSWmanagement costs still high? Give residents an economic incentive to reduce waste.
           Let's say lhat each week your crews
           are collecting newspaper, glass, al u-
           rninuni.  steel, and  plastics at the
           curbside tor recycling. You're also
           collecting brush and leaves lorcom
     posting. Households are doing their part.
     and the amount of waste you're disposing
     ofisdeereasing  -hut not us much as you'd
     like. Tipping fees are still high, and you" re
     having a hard time covering the costs of
     providing service. What alternatives  do
     you have?
        One option is to consider a "unit  pric-
     ing" program, also called "pay-as-you-
     throw" or "variable rate pricing."Unit pric-
     ing is a fee-for-servtce  system in which
     residents pay for MSW  management ser
\ ices per unit of waste collected rather than
through taxes or a fixed tee. The system
creates a direct economic incentive for peo-
ple to prevent waste generation, to recycle,
and to compost. Wilh such a system some
communities have seen significant decreas-
es in waste disposal  and increases in the
amount of material recycled.
   These advantages are only pan of the
story, in addition to helping achieve waste
reductions (and  cost  savings), hy encour-
aging residents to think about waste gen-
eration, unit pricing of ten leads to a greater
understanding of environmental issues in
general. Residents also tend to welcome unit
pricing, viewing it as a more equitable way
lo  pav lor solid  waste services lhan tradi-
tional Hat fees,  which, in effect, require
households that reduce and recycle to sub-
sidize their more wasteful neighbors.
   All sixes and  types of communities can
realize benefits through unit pricing pro-
grams. These programs also work well
whether solid waste services are carried out
by municipal or  private haulers.

Setting the Stage
The first step is to establish the groundwork
for unit pricing. Adopting an effective pro-
gram requires making u series of decisions
about how to best  offer a variable rate to
residents. To be sure you are making the
right decisions, organi/e a team or council
that can determine the goals of your pro-
     66 • MSW Management
Reprinted with permission from March/April 1 995 MSW Management © Forester Communications, Ine. All rights reserved.

 gram and how to achieve them.
    Establish an advisory team. A unit pric-
 ing team typically consists of solid waste
 staff, interested elected officials, civic lead-
 ers, and representatives from affected busi-
 nesses in the community. Including these
 individuals in the planning process gives
 the community a sense of program owner-
 ship. Team members can help other resi-
 dents in the community understand the
 specifics of the program as it evolves, and
 can provide your agency with valuable
 input on residents' concerns about the pro-
 gram. In addition, members of the team can
 serve as a sounding board to help ensure
 strong community participation throughout
 the planning process.
    Set goals. Determine the goals of the
 program based on a review of your com-
 munity's needs and concerns. Specific
 goals can include encouraging waste pre-
 vention and recycling, raising sufficient
 revenue to cover MS W management costs,
 and  subsidizing other community pro-
 grams. Once you've come up with a list
 of preliminary goals, the team can help
 refine and prioritize them.
    Consider legal/jurisdictional issues.
 Generally, states extend to: local jurisdic-
 tions the authority to provide waste man-
 agement services and to charge residents
 accordingly. Taking the time to determine
 if this is the case in your state, however, is
 better than risking discovery of it during
    Involve  and  educate the public. The
 experiences of communities that have
 implemented unit pricing programs indi-
 cate that a good public relations program
 more than pays for itself. Public education
 can combat fears and myths about unit pric-
 ing (such as the fear of increased illegal
 dumping), and can help avoid or mitigate
 many potential implementation problems.
 It is critical to devise ways to involve and
 educate the community during the planning
 process, including holding public meet-
 ings, preparing briefing papers for elected
 officials, issuing press releases, and encour-
 aging retailers to display posters and other
 information about the program.
    To help organize some of these activi-
 ties, consider developing
 schedule. Planning for unit
 begin at least a year in advan<$|(|
 geted start date.  Begin explaf
 gram and  its goals to the
 between 9 and 12 months be:
 implementation. Public education Sbw*l4
 continue throughout the mom    '"""'"J '**""""
 start of the program and, to
 after the program is under way;,
 legal framework for the
 six months before the start of the;
   Drafting a blueprint. The next step is to
determine the features of your program.
Designing a working program requires that
you consider and decide on a range of spe-
cific issues. The process of selecting pro-
gram components and service options can
begin as much as nine months before the
start of your program.

Volume-Based versus Weight-Based
One of the first decisions to be made when
designing a unit pricing program is to deter-
mine how solid waste will be measured.
Under volume-based systems, residents are
charged for waste collection based on the
number and size of waste containers that
Weight-based systems
offer a  greater  waste
reduction   incentive,
since every pound  of
waste  that residents
prevent,  recycle,  or
compost  results  in
direct savings
they use. Under weight-based systems, the
hauler weighs at the curbside the waste that
residents set out for collection. Households
are then billed based on the pounds of trash
generated. Weight-based  systems offer a
greater waste reduction incentive, since
every pound of waanrmat residents prevent.
recycle, or compost results in direct sav-
ings. Residents can easily understand this
find of system, and the  system itself is
more precise. In addition, under a weight-
based program, residents  are not tempted
to compact their waste, which can occur
with volume-based systems.
   On the other hand, weight-based systems
typically are more expensive to implement
ajid operate than volume-based systeins.To
operate a weight-based system, commoni-
      MSW Management
                    ' needed, and more
                       agency person-

 nel often are required to manage the billing
 system. Most of the unit pricing experience
 and  data come from volume-based pro-
 grams. Many of the design and implemen-
 tation issues presented below, however,
 apply to both of these systems.

 Containers, Rate Structures & Billing
 Communities that decide to design a vol-
 ume-based program must consider the type
 and  size of waste collection containers on
 which to base their rate structure and billing
 system. A program can be based  around
 large cans, small or variable cans, prepaid
 bags, or prepaid tags or stickers. Each sys-
 tem  has its own specific advantages and dis-
 advantages related to such issues as offer-
 ing a system that residents view as equitable,
 creating as direct an economic incentive for
 waste reduction as possible, and assuring
 revenue stability for the agency.
   Large cans. Households are provided
 with single, large cans, which are typical-
 ly 50 to 60 gallons in capacity. Each house-
 hold is then charged according to the num-
 ber of cans it uses. The primary benefit of
 offering a single container size is revenue
 stability. The waste .reduction incentive is
 somewhat diluted, however, since house-
 holds pay the same amount whether they
 fill their container halfway or completely.
   Small or variable cans. Communities
 also could provide households with grad-
 uated can sizes, typically ranging from 20
 to 90 gal. in capacity. Such systems allow
 residents to realize savings fromeven mod-
 est reductions in waste generation. Track-
 ing  the amount of waste generated and
 charging households accordingly  can be
 more complicated.
   Prepaid bags. Standard-sized, distinc-
 tively marked trash bags, often 20 or 30
 gal.  in capacity, me wed. Residents pur-
 chase the bags from the solid waste agen-
 cy through such outlets as municipal offices
 and  retail stores. Bag systems are less expen-
 sive to implement and maintain, since there
 is no tracking  and billing required. Since
 residents might buy large numbers of bags
 and  then none for an extended period, rev-
 enue fluctuations may  occur.
   Prepaid tags or stickers. Tags or stick-
 ers specifying certain bag sizes can be sold
 to residents through municipal offices or
 retail stores. These systems offer many of
: the same advantages as bag-based systems.
   In addition to container choices, MS W
 planners need to decide on the rate or pric-
 ing structure. There are four basic rate struc-
 tares: proportional (linear), variable con-
 tainer, two-tiered, and multi-tiered. Pricing
 ajji container choices  ate closely related,
• flto types of containers selected often dic-
 tate the rate structure and Wiling system to

                         March/Apnl 1995

use. In olher cases, an existing billing sys-
tem that cannot be overhauled could gov-
ern container type and rate structure.
   A proportional (linear) rate system, the
simplest  rate  structure, entails charging
households a flat price for each container
of waste  they place out for collection. A
variable container rate can be used by com-
munities  interested in  offering a greater
waste reduction incentive to residents.
Under this system, communities charge
varying rates for different size containers.
   Communities also might opt for a two-
tiered rate structure under which households
are assessed both a fixed fee and a per-con-
tainer fee. The fixed fee helps ensure that
revenues will  never drop below a certain
linking recycling and com-
posting with  unit  pricing
lets communities recover
these expenses without
creating economic disin-
centives to recycle
 Prying Rouble, a 90*^ o* axperte aod
 level, while the per-containerfee provides
 a strong waste reduction incentive. This rate
 structure is the most complex and, there-
 fore, is difficult to administer and bill.
   Designing a unit pricing program also
 requires  that a community choose from
 among three types of billing systems: direct
 payment, subscription, and actual set-out
 systems. Direct payment systems typical-
 ly are used with bag-, tag-, or sticker-based
 programs. Residents pay forMSW services
 by purchasing  bags, tags, or stickers from
 the solid waste  agency.  They are then
 affixed to containerized waste placed out
 for collection. Under subscription systems,
 residents select in advance a specific sub-
 scription level  (the number of containers
 they anticipate setting  out each collection
 cycle). The customer is then billed on a reg-
 ular basis for these containers. If customers
 are able to reduce the amount of waste they
 generate, they can select a lower subscrip-
 tion level and save money. Under an actu-
 al set-out system, the solid waste agency
 bills customers based on the actual num-
 ber of containers set out for collection.

 Choosing Important Services
 The next step in planning a unit pricing pro-
 gram is to determine which solid waste ser-
 vices are most important  to residents. A
 carefully selected and priced service array
 allows a community to offer the different
 waste collection services that residents feel
 are important,  while generating sufficient
 revenues to support core services.
   Some services can  contribute signifi-
 cantly to the overall effectiveness of unit
 pricing.  Recycling and collection of yard
 trimmings for composting enhance the pro-
 gram's waste reduction goals. Linking recy-
 cling and composting with unit pricing pro-
 vides residents with an environmentally
 responsible way to manage waste. In addt-y<
 tion, since the cost of these prograsKi can
 be built  into unit pnciQg^S, COOHWBB- *
 tics can recover ,l*Wie expMPW without
 creating economic disincofeestorecyclc
   Other services are viewed as important
 conveniences,orevennecessities, by some •
 residents. Incorporating them can-add to
 enthusiasm for your new program. For
 example, backyard collection of  waste
 and/or recyclables can bean important ser-
 vice for eWerly or disabled residenis.  Back-
yard collections also can beotlered tooiber
residentsatahigho-cost (oiefteatiie added
service resoarces required.     -.»-; -1'.:
 Because waste often is collected from res-
 idents of multi-family structures on a per
 building rather than per unit basis, offer-
 ing these residents a direct economic incen-
 tive to reduce waste with unit pricing may
 be difficult. One way to resolve multi-fam-
 ily challenges is to have the building man-
 ager sell bags or tags to each resident.
 Another approach is to modify the system
 of setting out waste for collection in multi-
 family buildings so thai only waste that has
 been paid for can be left for collection. Sys-
 tems that employ technological solutions,
 such  as using magnetic cards  to open
 garbage chutes, usually are expensive.
   Many communities considering unit
 pricing are concerned about ensuring that
 the waste reduction incentives of unit pric-
 ing can  be brought to  residents living on
 fixed  or low incomes.  Communities may
 wish to consider providing assistance to res-
 idents with special financial needs by reduc-
 ing the  per-household waste collection
 charges by a set amount, offering  a per-
 centage discount, or providing a credit on
 the overall bill. Assistance also can be
 offered through existing low-income pro-
 grams, particularly olher utilities' efforts.

 Launching the Program
 There are two distinct  schools of thought
 about the timing of implementation. One
 maintains that unit pricing should be imple-
 mented within a brief period of time. The
 other bel ieves that households respond bet-
 ter when asked to make changes in  small,
 manageable increments over time.
   Regardless of your  schedule of imple-
 mentation, a number of tasks need  to be
 performed. They include educating the pub-
 lic about the ngWAHgrani and organi/mg
 your solid WMBiM.be able toeffec-
                              . Other


                                                                              the process of i
                                                                              ttan, r
                                           ^ Jbi.
                        ,        .

      '''"* ^



                                         TRASHTAG PROGRAM
   Since the program
   began, 51 percent
   of county
   surveyed recycle
   more, 15 percent
   compost more,
   and almost 40
   percent pay more
   attention to

         Sarah Stone
      and Ellen Harrison
A          TRASHTAG program was im-
          plemented in Tomkins County,
          New York in March,  1990, re-
          quiring residents to purchase
          a tag for each container of
          garbage put out for collection.
          The user fee program is one
part of an overall waste reduction effort dur-
ing the last two years in the county (pop.
94,000). Other aspects include  curbside
pickup of recyclables, a central recycling/
trash baling processing facility, a home com-
posting program, and a yard waste com-
posting program.
  The trashtag and curbside recycling pro-
grams are designed to work together, with
the trashtag program creating economic in-
centive for people to reduce their household
waste while the recycling program provides
a convenient method for people to do so. An
extensive educational effort which included
working with citizens, municipal govern-
ments, and waste haulers, was another vital
part of this strategy.
  Before the trashtag program was adopted,
waste disposal costs were embedded in prop-
erty taxes. Because of this institutional frame-
work, some of the big users of the county's
landfill, including Cornell University and
Ithaca College, did not have to pay for waste
disposal due to their tax exempt status. Fur-
thermore, it was believed that a direct charge
for waste disposal would create an  incentive
for households to recycle and  to reduce the
amount of garbage they produce. Using prop-
erty taxes to handle disposal costs created no
such incentive since the cost was essentially
  The trashtag program is a cooperative effort
between private haulers, municipal haulers,
and the county. Tags are sold by both munici-
pal and private haulers. Each can add admin-
istrative and collection fees to the county's per
tag charge. While some opted to incorporate all
their fees into the tag, others have chosen to
make these two separate charges.
  Tags are weight based. A 'large tag," which
allows for the collection of up to 30 pounds of
trash costs $1.08 each. A "small tag," costing
$.62 can be used for up to 15 pounds. The coun-
ty also developed a subsidy program for low in-
come families that provides each eligible per-
son  12 tags per year.
   Last year the County's Solid Waste Man-
agement Division, in cooperation with the Cor-
nell Waste Management Institute and Cor-
nell's Department of Consumer Economics &
Housing,  conducted a survey of Tompkins
County residents to determine how they felt
about the trashtag and recycling programs.
The objectives of the survey included an as-
sessment  of attitudes about how future in-
creases in waste disposal should be handled,
determining the public's attitude concerning
trashtags and the recycling programs, and
whether behavior has changed as a result of
the trashtag program.
  The survey was sent to a random sample of
3,034 Tompkins County residents in Septem-
ber of 1990. Those who didn't respond to the
first mailing were sent a second survey. The
overall response rate was approximately 49
percent. The final sample obtained compared
favorably with the known population of Tomp-
kins County both in terms of geographic dis-
tribution and demographic characteristics.
  The results of the survey indicate that re-
spondents not only feel that the trashtag pro-
gram is the best of possible alternatives in
terms of paying for waste disposal, but that
the trashtag program has also aided other
waste reduction behavior.

  Overall, respondents indicated that they felt
favorably towards the trashtag program. Six-
ty-three percent said that they are very much
in favor or somewhat in favor of the trashtag
program, 15 percent somewhat oppose the pro-
gram, 11 percent oppose the program, and the
rest either didn't care one way or the other (8
percent), weren't aware of the program (1 per-
cent) or didn't respond to the question (3 per-
  Since it is expected that waste disposal costs
will increase in the future, residents were
asked how they would like to see these in-
creases handled. The largest percentage of re-
spondents felt they would like to see increases
in waste disposal costs handled through high-
er trashtag fees (48 percent).  This was fol-
lowed by higher flat rate fees paid to waste
haulers (18 percent), higher property taxes (9
percent), higher sales tax (8 percent), and
higher income tax (4 percent). Fifteen percent
Reprinted with permission from BioCycle. For sample copy of publication, contact BioCycle, Journal of Composting
                                              and Recycling, 419 State Avenue, Emmaus, PA


  of the respondents chose not to answer this
    One of the key questions in volume or
  weight-based fees is how it affects household
  waste reduction behaviors, such as recycling,
  composting, and precycling? Nearly 51 percent
  of the respondents claim to recycle more since
  the trashtag program began, 16 percent claim
  to compost more and nearly 39 percent believe
  they pay more attention to product packaging
  when they shop since the trashtag program

    The Tompkins County recycling programs
  include either curbside pickup of recyclables in
  certain towns and villages, or drop off centers
  for recyclable materials. Full County-wide
  curbside collection will be implemented this
  summer. Nearly sixty percent of the respon-
  dents use the curbside service, whether once a
  week (26.7 percent), once every two weeks
  (17.6 percent), or less frequently (14.5 per-
  cent). Almost seventeen percent of the respon-
  dents bring all of their recyclables to a dropoff
  center, while almost 32 percent bring some of
  their recyclables to a dropoff center.
    This final figure has some overlap between
  those who use the curbside service and those
  who use a dropoff center. This may be due to
  the fact that curbside pickup in most areas
  does not include the collection of plastic or
  cardboard. Therefore, some respondents may
  use curbside for glass, newspaper, and metal
  cans while using a dropoff center for plastic
  and cardboard.
    Table 1 shows the high recycling rates in
  Tompkins County, as well as the impact that
  the trashtag program has had on recycling
  rates for each material. Overall, less than half
  of the sample claims to recycle the  same
  amount of garbage (40.2 percent), while about
  half (51.2 percent) claim to recycle more.
    The questionnaire also tried to identify rea-
  sons why some don't recycle. Almost 28 per-
  cent of the respondents have storage space for
  recyclables but still find it inconvenient. Al-
  most 19 percent said that they do not have
  enough space for recyclables. Three percent of
  the respondents said that they don't bring any
  recyclables to  a dropoff center because they
  don't have transportation.
    Beyond the recycling program, another
  means of reducing the amount of trash set out
  is composting.  Based on the survey, after the
  trashtag system was put in place 47.2 percent
  of the respondents composted, versus 39.6 per-
  cent prior to it. Approximately 15.5 percent
  claim to compost more now than before the
  program was put into effect. About 96 percent
  of all respondents that compost do so at home.

    According to the study, citizens claim to be
  placing more emphasis on buying products
  with less packaging. When asked if they try to
  reduce the amount of household garbage by
  buying products with less packaging, 31.5 per-
  cent said "yes" and 44.8 percent indicated they
  did so occasionally. Only 22.7 percent said
  "no". Additionally, 38.9 percent claim to pay

 Table 1. County Recycling Rates
Metal cans
 Do you recycle?
Did you recycle (before the trashtag program)?
Yes            55.6%         44.9%
No             42.8%         54.0%
Do you recycle (since the trashtag program)?
More 25.0% 35.9%
Don't recycle
more attention to packaging.
  The percentage of people who responded af-
firmatively to trying to reduce their household
waste by reducing the amount of packaging is
very high: 76.3 percent answered "yes" or "oc-
casionally" to this question, while almost 40
percent of the respondents claim to pay more
attention to packaging since the trashtag pro-
gram went into effect.
  Beyond these methods  of reducing the
amount of material, 25.2 percent of the re-
spondents identified additional ways of reduc-
ing household garbage. Among the more pop-
ular were reusing containers, using cloth
grocery bags, buying bulk foods, stopping junk
mail, sharing magazine and newspaper sub-
scriptions and giving away unwanted items.

  The results of the survey were positive and
should encourage other municipalities to
adopt user fees. Respondents seem interested
and willing to  participate in the county's ef-
forts to reduce the waste stream. Fifty one per-
cent claim to recycle more since the trashtag
program, 15 percent compost more  and ap-
proximately 39 percent pay more attention to
product packaging since the trashtag pro-
gram. Additionally, residents favor user fees
over alternative  methods of handling waste
disposal costs. The enthusiasm was even more
evident in the write-in sections of the ques-
tionnaire where many respondents voiced
support for the county's programs. Many re-
spondents also expressed their willingness to
do even more in terms of waste reduction if
they knew how.                        •

Sarah Stone recently completed her graduate
work at Cornell University's Department of Con-
sumer Economics andHousing. EllenHarrison is
Associate Director of Cornell's Waste Manage-
ment Institute. The authors  would like to ac-
knowledge the contribution and assistance of
Barbara Eckstrom and Susan LaBarre of Tomp-
kins County Solid Waste Management Division
and Jeanne Hogarth and Jim Reshovsky, both
Assistant Professors, Consumer Economic and
Housing, Cornell University, in putting this arti-
cle together.
                              Residents say the
                              trashtag program is
                              the best way to pay
                              for waste disposal,
                              and that it has  also
                              aided other waste
                              reduction behavior.
                                                        AUGUST 1991    59

T        R
                                                                           D       S
                           collection, legislation, international, recycling and technology

        Program  Succeeds

         In Urban Setting

         Worcester, Mass., officials were
       uncertain If a volume-based collec-
       tion program combined with curb-
       side recycling could work in a
       large, urban area with a diverse
       population. Undaunted, they de-
       cided to try.
         With 170,000 residents, Worces-
       ter is the second largest city In New
       England. The population of this
       central Massachusetts community
       encompasses all socio-economic
       backgrounds. Housing is equally
       divided between single- and multi-
       family dwellings.
         Until July 1993, the property
       tax funded approximately 50
       percent of the city's municipal
       solid waste (MSW) collection
       and disposal services. How-
       ever, the Department of Pub-
       lic Works (DPW)  competed
       with the school, police and
       fire departments for limited
       funds. After repeated cuts
       in its tax levy budget, DPW
       decided to  evaluate alter-
       native collection and dis-
       posal options rather than
       decrease its services.
        Worcester officials con-
       sidered a flat user fee
       and volume-based  collec-
       tion. The flat  fee was  dis-
       missed because it requires all
      users to pay an equal amount.
      regardless  of the  amount of
      waste generated. In addition,
      flat fees offered no incentive
      to participate in recycling.
      Instead, Worcester opted for
      a curbside recycling pro-
      gram with a fee requiring
      residents to purchase spe-
      cific bags for refuse dis-
        Bright  yellow  bags,
      priced at 50 cents  each,
      have been printed  with
      the program's logo "Pay
      a Little, Save a  Lot."
      The bags are sold at
      115 retail outlets. DPW
      also developed an  exten-
                         sive public education and aware-
                         ness campaign  including bro-
                         chures in three languages, newspa-
                         per, radio and airplane adver-
                         tisements, bumper stickers, bill-
                         boards and radio talk shows.
                          Enforcement methods to encour-
                         age compliance and to avoid Illegal
                         disposal Include fines and two noti-
                         fication stickers. The first, a bright
                         orange "warning" sticker, is placed
                         on non-program bags and informs
                       Worcester, Mass., Solid Waste
                          And Recycling Collection
Average Tom P*r Week
                   Tons Per Year
                   Per Ei
 residents of the new, official bags.
 Residents are allowed 24 hours to
 remove the bag and must comply
 with the  program by the following
 week. The second sticker is placed
 on bags that weigh more than 30
 pounds  or contain recyclables
 mixed with refuse. If residents fail
 to respond to these stickers, DPW
 enacts a progressive fining system
 starting at $25 and Increasing to
  Since late 1993, the program has
 effectively reduced the amount of
 MSW sent to landfills (see table).
 For example, solid waste tonnages
 have declined nearly 45 percent.
The city's recycling rate is slightly
 more than 3? percent and has re-
 mained at that level during most of
the program. When yard wastes are
included,'Worcester diverts more
 than 50 percent of its solid waste
 to recycling and composting.
    Program compliance among
   the 50,000 participating house-
   holds has been 99,9 percent.
    allowing the city to reduce the
    amount of MSW collected and
     incinerated by more than 40
     million pounds. With less
     trash oft the curb for city
      crews to .collect, the  DPW
       has reduced Its collection
       crews by 38 percent. Two-
       person crews, rather than
        the previous three, now
         collect garbage on the
         city's 11 routes. Savings
         from the reduced  crew
         sizes and tipping fee
         costs have allowed the
         department to re-allo-
         cate more than $1 mil-
         lion  to other public
          works programs.
            In addition, a free
           bulk and hazardous
          waste collection day
          has been re-institut-
          ed. Public response to
  these services has been positive
 and, as a result, illegal dumping
  has been reduced.
    The program has teen modi-
  fied further for public conve-
  nience. For example, small re-
  cycling bins with handles were
   introduced for those residents
   who find the tege recycling
   bins too cumbersome. Small
eprinted with permission from
         Pastes, copyright Intertec Publishing Corp., A K-III Media Company, May 1996

                                          T  R  E
                    D  S
      half-size trash bags also are avail-
      able for residents who do not fill a
      30-gallon bag on a weekly basis.
       The results of Worcester's solid
      waste program have shown officials
      that volume-based programs can
      succeed in an urban area.
                 — Robert L. Moylan Jr.
                       Worcester DPW
      Congress Attempts
           To Stem The
       Tide  Of Mew Regs

       The new Congress seems bent on
      fundamentally changing the degree
      to which federal regulations affect
      businesses and consumers.
       Three types of reform proposals
      are under way: shutting the door
      on new federal regulations; limiting
      federally-imposed unfunded man-
      dates on  state  and local govern-
      ments; and scrutinizing the eco-
      nomic costs and benefits of pro-
      posed laws and regulations.
  The House-passed moratorium
on new regulations would likely be
difficult to enforce — even if the
Senate went along with the House
bill. At press time, a Senate com-
mittee had approved its own rule-
blocking bill. The Senate version is
somewhat more moderate than the
moratorium passed by the House.
For example,  it would exempt all
regulations that cost the economy
less than $100 million a year.
  Even when  Republican appoin-
tees controlled federal agencies, it
seemed that nothing could stem
the tide of new regulations.  Pres-
ident Bush ordered a 90-day mora-
torium during which agencies were
supposed to find ways to stream-
line and improve their output. De-
spite several promising concepts
that emerged from the exercise, the
overall nature  and number of regu-
lations were unaffected.
  A Congressionally-mandated halt
to regulations, which the Executive
Branch uses  to implement Con-
gress's laws, cannot promise better
results than a moratorium dictated
by the President himself. Indeed,
the conservative House majority
that voted for the moratorium also
created a sizable loophole. Any a-
gency would be able to issue a reg-
ulation in response to an "immi-
nent threat to health and safety."
  One branch of Congress is now
to the awkward (not to mention le-
gally suspect) position of telling the
Executive Branch not to carry out
its constitutional function: imple-
menting the laws that Congress
passes. A more direct — and obvi-
ous — solution would be to change
the laws themselves.
  Of course, the 104th Congress
will say that it can't be blamed for
the "sins" of previous Democrat-
dominated legislative sessions. Put-
ting the brakes on the Executive
Branch, as the current leadership
might argue, is making the best of
a bad  situation. Still, the regulatory
reform measures in the works are
likely to have^ery significant im-
  For its part, the House has clear-
ly stated that it wants to slow the

                                      CURBSIDE COLLECTION
            VARIABLE curbside disposal
            fees have received increasing
            attention as a means to fund
            refuse services while promoting
            waste reduction and recycling.
            Variable fees — also referred to
            as variable can rates or bag-
  and-tag fee systems — are assessed direct-
  ly on users and reflect, to some degree, the
  cost of service. They contrast with fixed fees
  and tax-based systems, where the customer
  sees no direct financial incentive to mini-
  mize the level of service.
    To more fully understand the use and
  extent of variable curbside disposal fees,
  R.W.  Beck and Associates conducted a
  survey in 1993 of 80 cities and counties
  nationwide. The survey used a random
  sample of 40 large cities and counties (pop-
  ulations greater than 100,000) and 40 medi-
  um-sized communities (populations from
  50,000 to 100,000).
    In 68 percent of cities surveyed, a public
  or governmental authority is responsible for
  residential solid waste collection, with the
  remaining 32 percent served by private
  haulers. Household refuse pickup is usually
  provided weekly (for 91 percent of those sur-
  veyed) and waste collection containers are
  furnished in 44 percent of the communities.
    Fees for disposal are charged in 65 per-
  cent of the communities; 35 percent use
  property taxes or other indirect means. One
  quarter of the cities with fees — 13 commu-
  nities, or 16 percent of those surveyed — re-
  port some type of variable disposal fee for
  residential households in 1992.
    Funding for recycling and yard trim-
  mings programs also were explored. Recy-
  cling programs for residential households
  were reported in 80 percent of the commu-
  nities, and of these, more than 80 percent
  indicated that curbside collection services
  are provided. Yard trimmings programs
  were reported by 46 percent of the commu-
  nities, and  about 80 percent of those
  included curbside service. Large cities gen-
  erally report having a recycling and yard
  trimmings program; nearly 90 percent offer
  some form of recycling. Medium-sized cities
  were  less likely to  have each of these
  services; only 70 percent provide recycling
    Less than  18 percent of the municipali-
  ties surveyed indicated that they charge a
  specific fee for collection of recyclables, and
Six case studies
provide a good
overview of what
happens when
variable fees are
in place for at
least one year.

    Richard Cuthbert
less than 13 percent reported a fee for yard
trimmings service. Large cities are twice as
likely to charge for recycling services as
medium-sized cities, but were only half as
likely to charge for yard trimmings collec-
tion. Additionally, six communities (eight
percent) report some form of financial re-
bate for participation in a recycling pro-
gram and three communities (four percent)
reported a rebate for participation in their
yard trimmings program. The rebates may
come as a surprise because in most cases,
programs cost more than can be offset by
revenues from the sale of collected materi-
als, at least in the short run.
  Each of the communities was asked what
factors influenced its decision to implement
recycling and yard trimmings programs. A
legislative mandate was  reported by 80 per-
cent of those surveyed while local interest or
disposal problems were cited by 36 percent.
  Measuring the effectiveness of variable
curbside disposal fees in promoting waste
reduction is complicated by the difficulty of
isolating the specific  role of the collection
and disposal fee from  the other elements of
waste reduction programs, as well as from
other elements of the economy in general.
In addition, many communities do not have
adequate disposal data, either for their cur-
rent situation or for the time before the im-
plementation of waste reduction programs.
A scientifically rigorous analysis  of the
causes of solid waste reduction would be
time-consuming, costly and, in the end, per-
haps impossible. Thus,  only anecdotal in-
formation on the effectiveness of variable
curbside disposal fees,is available. The fol-
lowing six  case studies provide a good
overview of what happens when variable
fees are in place for at least one year.

  In Portland, 61 independent collection
companies provide residential disposal ser-
vices; most have had variable  can rate
structures in effect for more than 10 years.
Before February, 1992,  residential  collec-
tion rates and service territories were un-
regulated. A new franchise system provides
for mandatory variable curbside  rates,
weekly recycling services on the same day
as garbage services and recycling contain-
ers. In 1987, monthly curbside residential
recycling collection was implemented
throughout the city, and in early  1992 this
                                                                                            MAY 1994
Reprinted with permission from BioCycle. For sample copy of publication, contact BioCycle, Journal of Composting and Recycling, 419 State Avenue, Emmaus, PA
18049. 610-967-4135.


 Seattle estimates
 that a 10 percent
 increase in charges
 for residential
 collection and
 disposal results in
 an approximately
 two percent
 reduction in overall
 solid waste
service was increased to weekly recycling
curbside collection. The city also imple-
mented monthly curbside yard trimmings
collection in April, 1992.
  During the last 10 years, landfill dispos-
al costs in the Portland area rose from
$17/ton to $75/ton. In response to this in-
crease, collection rates for single can service
more than doubled,  from  approximately
$7.50/month to $17.50/month. In early
1992, a rate increase of about 25 percent
was implemented in conjunction with new
recycling services, including a less expen-
sive 20 gallon mini-can service level. Eigh-
teen percent of residents chose the mini-
can. As a combined  result of the higher
collection fees and availability of recycling
services, Portland residents increased their
recycling levels from 740 tons/month in
1988 to 2,583 tons/month in 1992 — more
than tripling the recycling tonnages  over
five years.

  Seattle has had variable curbside collec-
tion Mites since 1981.  Before that, residents
paid a fixed fee charge for unlimited solid
waste disposal. Both the structure and level
of the city's rates changed numerous times
between 1981 and 1992, with the cost of sin-
gle can service more than doubling from
$6.40 in 1981 to $14.98 in 1992. Between
1985 and 1987, rates increased by 82 per-
cent as the city sought to cover the costs in-
curred from closing its landfills. Subscrip-
tion levels for single-can service rose from
approximately 18 percent of the city's house-
holds in 1981 to almost 65 percent of house-
holds by 1988, when residential curbside re-
cycling and yard trimmings programs were
implemented. By 1992, more than 89 per-
cent of customers shifted to either a one can
or half can subscription level.
  Seattle estimates that it  recycled 40 per-
cent of its waste stream in 1991 through re-
cycling, composting  and yard trimmings
programs. This compares to a 24 percent re-
cycling rate in 1988 when curbside recy-
cling programs were first established, and a
15 percent recycling  rate before the intro-
duction of variable can rates in 1981. In
1992, the city estimated that more than 88
percent of Seattle residents participated in
the curbside recycling programs, and 67
percent in the curbside yard trimmings col-
lection program.
  Seattle has studied the effects of the fee
increases on total solid waste disposal, as
well as the interactive effects of other fac-
tors on disposal fees. The Seattle Solid
Waste Utility has produced several studies
and reports since volume-based rates were
first introduced in  1981. Among other
things, the city has quantitatively estimat-
ed both price and income elasticity factors
for its system. Holding all other factors con-
stant, it was determined that as rates in-
creased, customers disposed of less waste
either by recycling more or by more selec-
tive purchasing. Based on the city's past ex-
perience, the Solid Waste Utility estimates
  64   BlOCYCLE

that a 10 percent increase in charges for
residential collection and disposal results in
approximately a two percent reduction in
solid waste disposal — because residents
have the ability to reduce their overall
charges through variable rates.
  The city  also has determined that
increases in household size and income can
disguise and even counteract the price elas-
ticity effects of its rate programs. For in-
stance, household  size and income levels
were positively related  to solid waste
disposal. The city estimates that with every
10 percent increase in household real in-
come, roughly 5.9 percent more solid waste
is disposed.

  Tacoma has had variable curbside dispos-
al rates for solid waste collection for more
than 20 years. The city is converting its res-
idential solid waste collection program from
cans to 60 gallon and 90 gallon containers;
more than two-thirds of all Tacoma resi-
dents are now provided containers. In re-
cent years, solid waste rates have increased
significantly as disposal costs have contin-
ued to rise. For instance, in 1990 the one
can/60-gallon container rate was $7.10  a
month. It rose to $8.05 in 1991, and to
$10.10 in 1992 — a 42 percent increase in
two years. The two can/90-gallon container
rate also jumped 42 percent over the same
time period, from $10.35 to $14.75.
  Concurrent with the implementation of
these rate increases, Tacoma also began
several residential recycling programs.
Curbside yard trimmings service and recy-
cling was started in 1990, both offered at no
extra charge. Yard trimmings collection in-
creased from 6,000 tons in 1990 to 7,237
tons in 1991, while the amount of recy-
clables collected jumped three-fold during
the same period, from 507 tons to 1,854
  Some of the effects of these rate increas-
es and waste diversion programs can be
seen in the  landfilling data. Disposal at
Tacoma's municipal landfill fell six percent
between 1989 and 1991 (from 200,593 tons
to 188,449 tons), despite significant popula-
tion growth in the area. The city attributes
some of the decrease to its refusal to accept
large loads of demolition materials begin-
ning in 1989. Tipping fees also have risen
significantly. The fee for city residents rose
from $22/ton in 1990 to $32/ton in 1992. At
the same time, the tipping fee charged to
noncity residents rose from $64/ton in 1990
to $80/ton in 1992.

   Wilkes-Barre operates a residential vol-
ume-based rate program that differs signif-
icantly from the other case studies. The city
first introduced a voluntary bag program
for multifamily (five units or more) cus-
tomers in 1988. The bags cost $1 each and
are sold to residents in packages of eight.
With this program, the city estimates that
the  average household living in  a multi-


family residence spends $95.90/year for sol-
id waste and recycling services. Currently,
50 percent of all multifamily households
participate in the bag program, while the
other 50 percent contract with private
haulers for solid waste collection services.
Single family households (four units or less)
are charged an annual flat fee of $50/house-
hold. However, the city hopes to expand its
bag program to include the single family
residences in the future because the pro-
gram has proven to be popular.
   During the first year of the multifamily
bag program, there was a 15 percent reduc-
tion in the total amount of waste collected
city-wide. Recycling services for all resi-
dential customers have been increasing
each year since 1985 as new programs are
added and others expanded. Wilkes-Barre
now has both curbside recycling and yard
trimmings collection, as well as a home
composting program. The recycling partici-
pation rate reached 65 percent in 1992, and
residents are now diverting an estimated
20 percent of the waste stream.  Between
the bag and recycling programs, the city
has seen more than a 25 percent decrease
in total solid waste  disposal at the local
landfill. Tipping fees  at the landfill in-
creased six-fold since 1985, climbing from
$8.65/ton to $51/ton by 1992.

   Before February,  1991, the suburban
Seattle community of Bothell charged a flat
fee for disposal services of $8.1 I/month.
Then the city implemented curbside recy-
cling and yard trimmings collection pro-
grams and, to support them, set variable
curbside collection rates. The rates were
implemented at $10 for one can, $14 for two,
$18 for three, and $24 for four. These cov-
ered all collection services, including recy-
cling and yard trimmings. This choice was
made in lieu of an increase in the monthly
flat fee  to approximately $13 to cover the
same services.
  When the programs  were first started,
initial subscription levels in  Bothell were
71 percent at the one can level, 28 percent
at the two can level, and less than one per-
cent using three or four cans.  One year lat-
er, subscription levels were at 78 percent for
one can, 21 percent for two, and less than
one percent using more than two cans.
   Significant waste reduction resulted from
the program. Initially, an estimated 40 per-
cent  of BothelPs residential waste stream
was collected in the curbside recycling and
yard trimmings programs, leaving 60 per-
cent going to disposal. By 1992, the two pro-
grams were collecting 48 percent of the res-
idential waste stream.

  Minneapolis charges a flat fee for unlim-
ited residential solid waste collection but
has a rebate for participation in its curbside
recycling program.  Residents were not
specifically charged for solid waste
collection services until October, 1987,
when the city instituted a $5 monthly fee for
solid waste collection and disposal. The
original fee was a direct result of rising
disposal costs. In 1982, disposal costs were
$21/ton; by January, 1988, the tipping fee
was $38/ton. With an increase to  $42/ton in
January, 1989, the residential charge was
increased to $7/month. When  forced  to
respond to a $75/ton tipping fee in June,
1989, the city increased the residential fee
to $12/month, and added a recycling rebate
of $5/month to stimulate the waste reduc-
tion program that had begun in 1983. Fur-
ther increases in the tipping fee that re-
sulted in higher residential costs were
mitigated by increases in the residential re-
cycling rate. The 1992 tipping fee  of
$99.55/ton  was supported by a $17.50
monthly residential fee, accompanied by a
$7 monthly recycling rebate.
  As disposal costs rose in the 1980s, Min-
neapolis  began making additions  and re-
finements to its recycling programs that
complemented the rebate.  The first curb-
side recycling pilot program began in 1982,
when 1,026 tons of recyclables were collect-
ed, less than one percent of the  total of
131,995 tons of solid waste. A yard trim-
mings program was added in 1987, and the
city began collecting large metal items
(such as major appliances) in  1990. By
1992, the participation rate in the curbside
recycling program reached 90 percent.
More than 40,375 tons of recyclables, in-
cluding yard trimmings and major appli-
ances, were collected in 1992 (approximate-
ly 28 percent of the waste stream), and solid
waste disposal dropped 21 percent from the
1982 level to 104,561 tons.
  To be fair, the city's recycling efforts are
one factor in this reduction: A large drop in
tonnage occurred between 1989 and 1991
when the city changed from cans  to carts. A
number of people stored their cans under the
driplines  of their garages, causing  them to
gather water and snow that made the waste
heavier. Switching to covered carts  reduced
the amount of water collected, which the city
estimates lowered tonnages significantly.

  Taken  together, these case studies pro-
vide evidence that variable curbside dis-
posal fees do. assist and support waste re-
duction  efforts. Although the specific
effects depend on social, demographic and
economic factors where they are imple-
mented, communities that  have variable
disposal fees tend to be enthusiastic about
them. Most of these communities report
that the variable fee structures  have sup-
ported other waste reduction activities and
have consequently helped reduce solid
waste disposal levels.                  •

Richard Cuthbert is an executive economist
with R.W. Beck in Seattle, Washington, where
he conducts demand forecasting, financial
impact analyses, rate studies and statistics for
electric, water and solid waste utilities
Portland residents
increased their
recycling levels
from 740 tons per
month in 1988 to
2,583 tons per
month in 1992 —
more than tripling
the tonnages.
                                                                                                MAY 1994   65


      Program Planning

      Clearing  Hurdles  in  Switching  to
      Variable Rate  Pricing

      Attracted by the benefits of solid waste unit pricing but concerned about some of the
      potential drawbacks? An understanding of potential problems and how to overcome them
      may help your community's decision-making when exploring unit pricing—and ease the
      transition if such an approach is adopted.

      By Michael Shapiro
            Unit pricing programs offer com-
            munities an impressive lineup of
            benefits: greater attention by
      residents to waste reduction; increased
      participation by households in recycling
      and composting programs; reduced dis-
      posal costs; and a more equitable waste
      management fee structure. Unlike tradi-
      tional  pricing  systems, where every
      household pays the same—regardless of
      how much trash is set out on collection
      day—unit pricing programs charge resi-
      dents only for the waste they discard.
      The less residents toss, the less they pay.
        The benefits certainly have attracted
      many communities. More than 1,600
      communities have switched to some
      form of variable rate pricing for solid
      waste  collection  services in  recent
      years. (See Table 1). In addition, several
      state legislatures now either encourage
      or mandate use of variable rate pricing
      for solid waste.'
        The  result  for many communities
      with unit pricing programs has been sig-
      nificantly less waste, lower costs, and
      improved service. Table 2 lists several
      communities that have  implemented
      variable  rate  pricing programs  and
      shows some of the waste reduction and
      recycling rate increases. For communi-
      ties concerned about getting squeezed
      between growing waste generation rates
      and  shrinking  disposal  options, unit
      pricing might provide the margin their
      waste management programs need.
        However, the switch from traditional
      pricing  to unit pricing worries some

      Mike Shapiro is director of the Office of
      Solid Waste for the U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agencv.
Table 1: Variable Rate Pricing Program* in Local Governments, By State1
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
South Dakota


' States not listed do not have variable rate pricing programs.
3 Minnesota regulations required the use of variable rate tees tor solid waste collection in all 855 communi-
ties beginning in 1993; however, some were exempted or granted delays in implementation.
3 Estimate from Peter Spendetow of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Source: Synergic Resources Corporation,  1993
MSW planners. While change is rarely
simple, local officials may be concerned
that restructuring the way the commu-
nity conducts and administers its waste
collection program might be more than
they want to take on.  In the experience
of communities with variable rate pro-
grams, however, potential  barriers to
implementing" unit pricing can be over-
come with some advance preparation.
These barriers include;
  —Building a consensus in the com-
munity about the goals of the program
and the need for changes that unit pric-
ing may bring.
  —Establishing prices that cover the
costs of waste collection and that resi-
dents feel are fair.
  —Obtaining   participation  of  the
entire community, including residents of
multi-family housing.
  —Ensuring that illegal dumping does
not increase significantly after imple-
menting unit pricing.

Consensus First: Is Change Needed?
Switching to unit pricing means changes
for both residents and the municipality
administering the program. Concern,
even resistance, can accompany these
changes. To win support for unit pric-
ing, the municipality needs to think of
residents as customers whose satisfac-
tion is critical to the program's success.
This means developing an effective
pricing program and supporting it with a
strong public education effort.
  When Long Beach, California, began
planning its variable rates program in
1991, residents were skeptical. Accord-
ing to Jim Kuhl, manager of the city's
Integrated Resources  Bureau, "People
were saying 'Garbage has been collected
the same way for a hundred years. Why
fix something that's not broken?'" Over-
coming the sense that  no changes were
                                                         SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGIES/ NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 1994  17
Reprinted with permission from Solid Waste Technologies Magazine, Adams/Green Industry Publishing, Inc.

      Table 2: Selected Communities With Unit Pricing Programs
Mansfield, CT
Seattle, WA
San Jose, CA
Pennsville, NJ
Bound Break.NJ
Antigo, Wl
Chartemont, MA
Plains, PA
Mt. Pleasant, Ml
Du Page County, IL
Plantation, FL
Perkasie, PA
High Bridge, NY
Illion, NY
Program MSW
Type Reduction
Subscription can
Subscription can
Subscription can






     needed was Kuril's biggest hurdle.
        Educating residents about solid waste
     challenges  in  Long  Beach—-and  the
     ways in which unit pricing could help—
     was critical to building support for the
     program. California had passed a law
     mandating  specific recycling  levels.
     Failure to  meet these levels carried
     potential fines  of  up to $10,000  per
     day—money  that  ultimately  would
     come from  community taxpayers.
     Through presentations at town meetings
     and gatherings of civic and private
     groups, distributing flyers, and meeting
     with the city's elected  officials, Long
     Beach showed how the plan's waste pre-
     vention incentives offered a cost-effec-
     tive way to boost the city's  recycling
rate, enabling it to meet the states man-
date, and avoid costly fines.
  In addition, the city showed how the
program  would  save  a  significant
amount of money for those  residents
who already were generating less waste.
To  help  drive home this  point, Long
Beach officials compared the rates for
waste collection with the other utility
services residents receive. This argument
made sense to residents,  said Kuhl:
"People understand that no one can just
go to a gas station and buy 20 gallons for
the price of 5—residents have to pay for
the amount of service they use." Through
its public education program, the city
convinced residents that waste reduction
incentives would help the city succeed in
     Mailing Trash
     When a unit pricing systems was started in Loveland, Colorado, residents were asked to buy
     trash bags for 75 cents apiece at retail outlets. Residents soon complained, apparently compar-
     ing the cost of the trash bags with other plastic bags they could buy for pennies. To make the
     connection between the cost of the bags and collection and disposal service, the city changed
     to bag tags, and compared the tags to stamps. Now, to "mail" their garbage to the landfill, Love-
     land residents afix one 75-cent stamp on each 30-gallon bag they put out for collection. A 40-
     cent stamp is good for a 13-gallon bag, and a sofa will set you back about 13 stamps.

its overall solid waste program. In turn,
residents supported unit pricing.

At What Price?
Switching to unit  pricing  also  often
means convincing residents about their
bottom line results. Cases in Mansfield,
Connecticut, and Loveland, Colorado,
illustrate the point.
  Before implementing its variable rate
program in 1990, the town of Mansfield
worked to find a price structure that res-
idents would consider fair. Lon  Hult-
gren, Director of Public Works, said his
department began by designing a sub-
scription-based program to replace the
private waste collection service resi-
dents had previously used. (Under the
old system, residents paid a flat fee of
about $20 per month for unlimited ser-
vice). For the new  program, the  town
decided to offer four service levels: one,
two, and four cans per week, plus a
"mini" service level of just one bag per
week. The town established prices for
each level that would, in the aggregate,
cover all program costs.
   Next, since the  amount set for  the
most common service level was about
10 percent higher than the flat fee resi-
dents were paying previously for waste
collection services,  planners lowered it
to a figure they felt was closer to what
the market would bear. The result was a
fee of $20.75 per month for two-can ser-
vice (with each can 35-gallons), The
prices of other  service  levels  were
adjusted slightly to maintain the costs-
revenues balance. The price was set at
$14.50 per month for one-bag service,
$17.50 for one-can (or two bag) service,
and $26.50 for four cans.
  The city  overcame what Hultgren
described as the "classic resistance" to
a user-fee system, and the program is
now well accepted. With customers get-
ting used to it, there has been a general
trend of residents subscribing for lower
level service.
  Mick Mercer, the Streets and Solid
Waste Manager in Loveland, Colorado,
agrees that price  concerns are key.
Despite good intentions, "most people
don't pay much attention to solid waste
issues. Pocketbook concerns are  what
really matter." The key, said Mercer, is
to design a program that will cost about
the same or save money.
  In Loveland, the switch to variable
pricing began with a pilot program serv-
ing about 2,000 households three  years
ago. Loveland took the program city-
wide (14,000 households) in April  1993.

 Table 3: Effect of VartaM* RM* Pricing on Htegai Dumping and Recycling Rates
Cities with notable problems
Harvard, IL
Ithaca, NY
Woodstock, IL
Mt. Pleasant, Ml
Cities with minor problems
Downers Grove, IL
Perkasie, PA
Lisle, IL
Cities twffi no apparent problems
High Bridge, NJ
Chartemont, MA
Antigo, WA
llton, NY
Rock Falls-Sterling, IL




Residential Landfill

-34% to -31%



% Change



 " Seattle reported no apparent problems with illegal dumping, but did not report changes in waste genera
 tkxt or recycling changes NA=no applicable data
 Soutce: "Under What Conditions Should Cities Adopt Volume-Based Pricing for Residential SoHd Waste Col-
 lection?" Daniel Blume, Master's Memo Study, Duke University. May 1991
 City planners estimated that most resi-
 dents would probably use one 30-gallon
 bag per week, down from the previous
 two to three bags per week. A year into
 the full program, studies verify that the
 average set out is now about  0.88 bags
 per household per week.
   Under  the old program,  residents
 were paying $5.75 per month for unlim-
 ited waste collection services; the city
 wanted to be sure not to come  in too
 much over this for those households that
 were able to increase their waste preven-
 tion and recycling.
   The city decided that a rate of 75 cents
 per 30-gallon bag would encourage resi-
 dents to reduce and recycle while keep-
 ing per-household costs at a reasonable
To help interested
   leant more about the process of
   -f.t-.-v^.t-, p. ,I4^^J>-->|->
     central waste dumpster.

     Illegal Dumping: Enemy No. 1?
     When a community introduces the pos-
     sibility of unit pricing to its residents,
     one  concern frequently mentioned is
     whether residents might dump waste
     illegally to avoid paying fees. Accord-
     ing to Henry Fisher,  the Solid Waste
     Manager for McHenry County, Illinois,
     the first thing that should be understood
     is that illegal  dumping  has  always
occurred. In addition, although this is
difficult to gauge, there is no evidence
of a large-scale increase in illegal dump-
ing due to of variable rate programs.
  McHenry County's experience is sim-
ilar to that of many communities that
have adopted variable rate pricing. A
report by the Reason Foundation cited
several multi-community studies that
show illegal dumping is not a significant
problem.1 Another study covering 14
cities reported no problem in six cities,
minor  problems  in  four  cities,  and
notable problems in four cities.2 Table 3
shows the effect of illegal dumping on
recovery in these 14 cities. Since these
communities do  not  use  a standard
methodology for  gauging changes in
waste generation  and recycling rates,
these data should be considered esti-
mates. The extent of illegal dumping in
the communities had either no effect or
only a marginal effect on the effective-
ness of the programs. Another study of
eight cities show no dumping problems
in seven of the eight cities.1-2

Tempering the Temptation
Difficulties with illegal dumping can
be addressed through a combination of
enforcement and public education. One
method McHenry County's Fisher sug-
gests is to reduce residents' incentive
to dispose of waste outside the system
by adopting a multi-tiered rate struc-
ture  that includes a flat rate for a basic
level of service and a modest per-unit
charge for any additional  waste col-
lected.  In this way, residents  pay a
direct price that is less than if the pro-
gram relied entirely on per-unit charges
for program revenue. And households
also  receive a certain level of trash col-
lection  they might perceive as free.
(Residents pay for this basic service, of
course, in the traditional manner—via
taxes or flat fees.) With this combina-
tion, individuals who might otherwise
be tempted to dump waste believe the
new  prices are reasonable and are more
inclined to participate.
  Loveland's Mercer agrees that illegal
dumping  is "perceived  as a bigger
problem than it really  is." Where it
does occur, illegal dumping in Love-
land typically takes the form of indi-
viduals leaving trash in commercial or
apartment building dumpsters. To pre-
vent this, Mercer's office conducted
extensive public  education about all
aspects of unit pricing, including ille-
gal dumping. The office also  works
hard to investigate complaints of viola-
tions. Where illegal dumping is sus-
pected, the office  often finds the name
and  address of the  violator in mail
found in the trash. The individual is
notified of the finding and warned that
any  additional violations will result in
prosecution. "We  haven't had  any
repeat violations yet," said Mercer.

Other Forms of Beating the System
When illegal dumping occurs, it com-
monly  takes  the form  of roadside

dumping  or citizens dumping  their
trash in commercial dumpsters. Some-
times, residents cut hack on waste by
dropping nonrecycable materials into
recycling bins.
   Long Beach. California, found an
increase in contamination of  recy-
clables soon alter implementing its
variable pricing system for trash. To
correct the behavior, the city  did not
collect the materials from any  recy-
cling bins containing nonrecyclable
materials.  Instead, collection crews
attached notes to the bins that listed the
program's  recyclable materials and
explained that residents could  remove
the nonrecyclables and call the city to
reschedule the pickup—often on the
same day. Since implementation of the
policy, contamination of recycling bins
has dropped dramatically.
  Another way  residents have found to
beat unit pricing systems is to compact
their waste to  fit as much trash into
fewer bags or smaller cans. Loveland
dealt with this potential problem by es-
tablishing  a   50-pound   maximum
weight for trash bags set out for collec-
tion. Besides providing more accurate
estimates of waste collected, this pro-
tected sanitation workers. When over-
stuffing does occur, the collection crew
leaves a note for the resident, explain-
ing why it didn't collect the waste and
inviting the resident to  call with any

Changes in the Office
Some communities find that changing to
unit pricing for solid waste also brings
increased administrative demands,  in-
cluding the need for additional personnel
or equipment. Communities can structure
programs to minimize these demands. In
Loveland, one reason why planners
decided upon the "postage stamp" con-
cept was the low overhead in such a sys-
tem. Several stores in town agreed to sell
the  stamps with no mark-up. As a result,
the city has few additional expenses asso-
ciated with stamp sales and distribution.
Loveland simply bills the stores monthly
for the stamps they sell. Only one addi-
tional person has been hired—a customer
service person used to answer questions
that come in by phone.
Making the Move
To make the move to unit pricing, com-
munities should take steps ahead of time
to deal with potential barriers—before
they become a problem. In addition to the
issues discussed here, there inevitably
will be other, community-specific con-
cerns that need to be addressed. Accord-
ing to communities with variable rate
programs,  however, these  issues are
manageable and that switching to unit
pricing is worth investigating.       •

Inquiries about this article should be
directed to  the RCRA  Hotline. (800)

'Skumatz,  L.. "Variable  Rates for
  Municipal Solid Waste: Implementa-
  tion Experience, Economics,  and
  Legislation,"  June  1993,  Reason
  Foundation, Los Angeles, California.
2Blume, D.. "Under What Conditions
  Should Cities Adopt Volume-Based
  Pricing for Residential Solid Waste
  Collection?" Master's Memo Study,
  Duke University, May 1991.
                                                       SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGIES/ NOVEMBER /DECEMBER  1994  25


       Using  volume-based
 user   fees   in  rural  areas:
                 How  do they  work?
                     Implementing volume-based user fees in rural
                     locales is easier, and more successful, than
                 conventional wisdom would have us believe.
 bv William M. Park
 As the "solid waste crisis" has unfolded over
 the last five to 10 years, most attention has
 heen focused on urban and suburban areas,
 whete huge volumes ot solid waste and re-
 cydahlcs must he managed. Naturally then,
 discussions of the role of user tees in solid
 v\aste management, particularly volume- or
 weight-based lees, have centered on their im-
 piementation within a context of door-to-door
 garbage and recycling collection. But in some
 sense, col lection ot solid waste and recyclables
 in rural communities through a drop-off svs-
 lem [»oses an even greater challenge, partic-
 ularly trorn the standpoint of financing this
 public serviLX- and providing incentives for
 source reduction and recycling.
  Historically, rural Communities have faced
 relatively low solid waste management costs
 that in most cases were tunded by general
 pn>|ieiiy luxes. But tunes have changed. Fed-
 eial landfill regulations and slate mandates
 toi mure comprehensive collection systems
 and diversion of materials from landfills
 through iccvcling or other means have
 changed the situation dramatically, exacer-
 bating the inherent difficulties of small total
 population bases and low population densi-
 ties that rural communities face,
  ( osts have risen to the point that they rep-
 resent a maior claim on rural community hud-
gets  Kutal counties, often tagged as the "re-
sponsibic unit ot government" in state solid
waste management legislation, are in a par-
ticularly difficult situation. Because low pop-
ulation densities limit the incentive to private
haulers to serve residents in outlying areas.
many rural counties have gotten into the col-
lection business by converting old landfill
sites to transfer stations primarily for self-
haulers or by implementing what is typical-
ly called a "convenience center" system. Such
a system involves a number of conveniently
located sites with access controlled during
open hours by an attendant, where residents
can drop off their household garbage and per-
haps separate out a number of recyclable ma-
William M Park is professor of Agricultural Economics and is affiliated with the Waste Management
Research and Education Institute at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. The research was con-
ducted while the author was a visiting professor in the Western Rural Development Center at Oregon
State I Diversity, in conjunction with the National Rural Studies Committee, a project sponsored by the
Keilogg foundation.
           (mm Kcsomxc Raveling. I'O. Box 10540. Portland, OR 97296-0540. 503-227-1319.

  terials.  As such, the question naturally aris-
  es about whether volume-based user fees
  fVBUFs) could, or should, be implemented
  within such u system.
    According to conventional wisdom, the
  answer to this question is, "No." Rural solid
  waste managers and elected officials may
  readily acknowledge the two basic arguments
  in support of volume-based user fees, name-
  ly the equity of households paying in pro-
 Volume-based fees:
 A recycling incentive
 •  Residents can reduce volume-based
     user fees by separating recyclable
     materials from waste.

 •  Backyard composting allows resi-
     dents to control their user fees.

 •  Special wastes (yard debris, white
     goods, furniture, tires, etc.) are usual-
     ly accepted at drop-off sites at a
     nominal cost, or none at all.
portion to the amount of solid waste they gen-
erate and the incentive such fees offer for
source reduction and recycling.  However.
most would be equally quick to point out that
volume-based fees may encourage some res-
idents to employ inappropriate disposal trteth-
ods, e.g., illegal dumping or on-site burning
or burying. They would also likely express
concern about other possible political and ad-
ministrative impediments.
   This conventional wisdom is reflected as
well by the absence of any explicit attention
to the  rural drop-off collection context in the
several local decisionmaker guides to unit
pricing lhat have been published in recent
years.  The purpose of the research reported
upon in this article is to call into question this
conventional wisdom by assessing the expe-
rience of several rural communities that have
implemented volume-based user tees within
a drop-off collection context.
   The first step involved identification of
what are considered to  be successful exam-
ples. A June 1993 article in Resource Recy-
cling ("Community adoption of variable rates:
An update") indicated the number of "vari-
able rate pricing" programs by state as of ear-
ly 1993. Contact was made with state agency
personnel in those states with the highest num-
ber of programs, as well as other persons
knowledgeable about rural solid waste man-
agement across the country.
   Eventually, this process yielded six exam-
ples within a drop-oft 'context that varied with
respect to geographic and demographic char-
acteristics of the jurisdiction, as well as char-
acteristics of the user fee system. Once this set
of six was fmali/ed. a five-page questionnaire
was sent to the person most closely involved
with administration of the solid  waste man-
agement system and was used as an outline for
an extensive telephone interview.
   Contact was also made with elected offi-
cials or others in each community who could
provide some perspective on either the polit-
ical and administrative considerations in im-
plementing the user fee system or the impacts
of the system, both positive and negative.
This article provides a summary of compa-
rable information from all six case studies.
More detailed information on each case study
will be included in a comprehensive report to
be published later.

Information on the basic geographic and de-
mographic characteristics for each jurisdic-
tion is presented in Table 1. This  information
demonstrates the wide variation across the ju-
risdictions with respect to land area, popula-
tion, population density, and the estimated
percentage and number of residents who use
the drop-off system.
   The jurisdictions portrayed here consid-
ered user fee systems for a few months to
more  than two years before they were im-
plemented.  Before user fee systems were im-
plemented, waste management was funded
      IResount' Ret VC/I'N.I; January 11W5

•^nH^^^B Geographic and demographic characteristics
jurisdiction Dubois
l^pe of jurisdiction County
State Indiana
Area (square miles) 433
Total population 36,600
Population density
(per square mite) 85
population, percent
using drop-off sites 50%
Total population
using drop-off sites 18,300
(1) Volume-based user fees implemented by
Source: William M. Park, 1994.















1 1 towns within Monroe County.

by general property tax revenues in four cas-
es, a serial property tax levy in one case and
a flat per parcel assessment in the other. Al-
though the administrative and political as-
pects of the consideration and implementa-
tion period vary across the cases, and in every
case represent an interesting story, space lim-
itations do not permit a detailed discussion of
each one. A common element, however, was
a concerted effort to publicize plans to im-
plement the user fee  well ahead of time and
to educate residents as to the need and logic
for it.
   Another commonality was that significant
changes were made in the solid waste man-
agement system at the time user fees were
implemented. Dubois County. Indiana and
lift County, Georgia converted an existing
waste collection drop box system to a con-
venience center system, and recycling op-
portunities were initiated. In Houston Coun-
ty, Minnesota, collection of solid waste and
recyclable materials was provided by the
county for the first time. In Lane County,
Oregon, existing transfer sites were secured,
recycling was expanded and a recycling cred-
it was introduced. In general, towns in Mon-
roe County. Wisconsin implemented user tees
at the time small individual town dumps were
closed and were converted to transfer stations.
When the Town of Weathersfield, Vermont
initiated user fees, it also expanded its set of
recyclable materials collected.
   The basic characteristics of each user fee
system are summarized in Table 2. All ex-
cept Lane County were implemented between
1990 and 1992. In terms of the "type" of sys-
tem, two require purchase of a special bag,
two require purchase of a token or sticker to
attach to the residents' own bag, and two re-
quire cash payment at the drop-off site for the
residents' own bags. Converting the fees to
a consistent basis indicates a range of $0.50
to $2.00 per 30-gallon bag. Although none
of the systems charge  for recyclables, Hous-
•UJJJHuserfee systems: Basic elements
... t ,
Jurisdiction Pubois Houston
{Me initiated April "91 Oct. '91
Type of bag Own Own
Fee mechanism Sticker Cash
Fee per unit of volume $.75/45-gal. $ 1 ,30/30-gal.( 1 )
Minimum fee $0.75 $1.30
Credit or payment for No Buy-back for
recyclables aluminum
Pee paid at drop-off sites Yes Yes
Pee paid at municipal offices Yes No
Bee paid at stores No No
Percentage of total cost 33% 26%
covered by fee
General property tax funding Yes Yes
Rat assessment No $,75/HH/month
Gal. = Gallon.
HH = Household.
July '80
$1.50 credit
for 10 Ibs. +
- No


Oct. '92
No -


(1) Or $.07 per pound.
(2) Other rates: $12 per pickup load or $5 per cubk yard.
(3) Other bag sizes and fees: $.45 per 8 gallon and $.75 per 16 gallon.
(4) Although the solid waste management system 'a self-supporting overall, the rural drop-off collection component is "subsidized" to some extent
by other system components.
Source: William M. Park, 1994.
                                                                                           Resource Recycling January  1995

                           Table 4

                           Participation in recycling (1)
                           Recyclables recovered (2)
                           Diversion/recovery rales (3)
der of the decreases
were  due to  actual
source reduction efforts
motivated   by   the
VBUFs and how much
was due to other factors.
   Although it was dif-
ficult to calculate a valid
diversion or recovery
rate for the rural drop-off
systems alone, as noted
in Table 4, three counties
had computed county-
wide rates for state re-
ports that ranged from
20 to 34 percent.  In ad-
dition, information from
the Town of Weathers-
field indicated a diver-
sion or recovery rate of
about 29 percent.
   Per capita amounts of recyclables collect-
ed were computed in four of the cases, based
on rough estimates of the number of people
using the drop-off systems. For Dubois, Lane,
and Tift counties, annual recovery ranged
from 40 to 60 pounds per capita.  For the
Town of Weathersfield, approximately 150
pounds per capita were collected in 1993. For
Houston and Monroe counties, only a coun-
tywide generation rate could be computed,
which thus included recyclables from curb-
Measures of impact on recycling
                           N.A.=Not available.
                                      of residents using drc^K^f sifts for gait^e dfaposal who »i^B«eD« some lecycUstes, based on careful head
                                       &c&aadTOcountk»andiMghaHTOxtoa^           ,••,•,-.''
                             various forms of paper, to Houston and Monroe OttiMie^ only a^^                              Thus,too-
                             nage is divided by total exility population, iw^                                                  to the oth-
                             er four jurisdictions, tonnage collected only from dK^^^a^<^M^^e^a^ps^^^^agAesite&.
                           O) to lucent in im These dhmiB^^
                             cycling collection programs as well as hems Hte white goods and ywJ waste. Exactly wta« is cowaed may differ some-
                             what across cases.                         .                              •        ,   •
                           Source: William M. Park, 1994.
                                             side recycling collection in some municipal-
                                             ities. Annual pounds per capita were 146 for
                                             Houston and 98 for Monroe.
                                                Finally, perhaps as useful an indicator as
                                             any of the impact of VBUFs in these case stud-
                                             ies is the level of participation in the separa-
                                             tion of recyclables, measured in percent.  In
                                             two of the cases, participation had been care-
                                             fully monitored or tracked over a long period
                                             of time: in three others, an estimate was made
                                             on the basis of general observations by atten-
                                             dants and solid waste managers. The range
                                             across the five cases was 65 to 95 percent, with
                                             the average at 80 percent, which is relatively
                                             high compared to previous estimates for drop-
                                             off recycling systems elsewhere without vol-
                                             ume-based user fee systems.

                                             As noted in the introductory section, con-
                                             ventional wisdom has it that user fee systems
                                             in a rural drop-off collection system context
        Resource Recycling January 1995

are likely to generate serious problems in the
form of increased illegal dumping and
burning, as well ax less serious ones such as
excessive compaction, use of private com-
mercial collection containers and out-
of-jurisdiction disposal. Although at least
one of these problems was noted as minor in
each of the systems studied, in no case did
solid waste managers or elected officials view
any problem as serious enough to undertake
a fundamental reconsideration of the user fee
system. It is good to keep in mind, however,
that these assessments are admittedly sub-
jective and are based on interviews with peo-
ple closely involved with each system who
may have some vested interest in portraying
their system in the best light.
   In several cases, where an increase in ille-
gal dumping occurred, a show of willingness
to enforce applicable ordinances was appar-
ently sufficient to reduce the illegal dumping
fairly quickly to more usual levels. A typical
approach has been to identify the responsible
party from mail in household garbage and
send a letter stating that cleanup is required
by a certain date, with the threat of a modest
fine if it is not done.  Some counties have pub-
lished names in the newspapers or required
citizens to appear before a county judge.  The
increased burning in some cases was not nec-
essarily looked upon as a problem, because
burning of clean wood or paper is allowable
in some rural areas, although concern was ex-
pressed in some cases about burning of oth-
er materials. To avoid any problems with ex-
cessive compaction. Houston County insti-
tuted a weight limit of 30 pounds per bag from
the beginning. In several cases, minor prob-
lems with use of private commercial collec-
tion containers were eliminated with the use
of locks. Tift County initially had some prob-
lem with residents going across the county
line to use unattended containers at a waste
collection drop box system in a neighboring
county, but those containers were soon relo-
cated away from the county line.
   Another concern expressed often is that
administration of a VBUF system in a rural
drop-off context might be infeasible or pro-
hibitively costly. Although minor adminis-
trative adjustments have been made along the
way in all of the systems, in no case were the
basic administrative changes major impedi-
ments. In addition,  in most cases adminis-
trative costs were not increased substantial-
ly, because the commitment had already been
made, quite separately from the VBUF ques-
tion, to have attended drop-off sites. Costs
associated with sale of the bags, stickers or
tokens have been minimal, and no billing sys-
tem is required in any of the systems.

Although VBUFs may not be the most ap-
propriate financing strategy for all rural ar-
eas, the experience of these rural counties and
towns warrants the following conclusions.
Implementing a volume-based user fee sys-
tem in a rural drop-off context appears feasi-
ble across a wide range of geographic and de-
mographic conditions, as well as a wide range
of system characteristics, without prohibitive
administrative problems or costs.
   Most residents appear willing to support
(or at least accept) a volume-based user fee
system if they are well informed of the need
for and logic of the system in advance, and
are given reasonable options for gaining some
measure of control over their total bill.  Hy-
brid financing strategies allow per-bag fees
to be kept  at modest levels. Support comes
more easily if VBUFs are initiated at the time
of a significant enhancement of the collec-
tion system.
   VBUFs within rural drop-off collection
systems appear capable of motivating rela-
tively high levels of participation in the sep-
aration of recyclables, thus contributing to
relatively high per capita generation rates for
typical recyclables and countywide diversion
or recovery rates.
   At least minor problems  with increased il-
legal dumping and burning can be expected,
but a show of willingness to enforce ordi-
nances against such practices can lead to fair-
ly quick subsidence.                  RR
                                                   < ink- 203 on RR service card

Annotated   Bibliograp
     lanners considering pay-as-you-throw may want to conduct
     additional research to help them learn more about how these
     programs work. This section includes an annotated bibliogra-
     phy and an additional list of references to help facilitate your
research. Compiled in the following bibliography are over 50 recent
articles that appeared in a variety of publications, from solid waste
trade magazines to reports from universities and private institutions.
The entries in this bibliography were selected to help provide a com-
prehensive review of the economic, environmental,  and legislative
issues surrounding pay-as-you-throw. A number of articles analyze
the impact of pay-as-you-throw on waste reduction amounts and
recycling rates. Other studies examine the financial benefits of pay-
as-you-throw as a solid waste management strategy for municipali-
ties. A few articles identify successful public outreach and education
mechanisms used by particular communities when instituting their
pay-as-you-throw programs. In addition, if you find additional
resources on pay-as-you-throw in the course of your research, you
can three-hole punch a sheet of paper with those references and
add it to this section.
This bibliography was developed by Marie Lynn Miranda of Duke
University as part of a research project on the impact of pay-as-you-
throw programs.


Pay-As-You-Throw Annotated
  Adamec, Barbara. "Volume-Based Collection Fees: A Success Story." Resource Recy-
      cling. March, 1991.
      A review of the unit pricing program in Lisle, Illinois.  The community's variable rate sys-
      tem has successfully increased recycling participation and reduced waste generation with-
      out significant problems. The author based her conclusions on a survey of 100 residents.
      She divided the respondents into four socio-economic groups and found that recycling
      participation was high across all groups, but that average set-out levels seemed to rough-
      ly increase with income. She also found that the average decrease in garbage from 1989
      to  1990 was 53 percent, with 63 percent in the highest month (August) and 38 percent in
      the lowest (October). The average loss in total volume was 31 percent, with 46 percent in
      the highest month (August) and 8 percent  in the lowest (October).

  Albrecht, Oscar W. "An Evaluation of User Charges for Solid Waste Collection and
      Disposal." Resource, Recovery and Conservation. Vol. 2. 1976/1977.
      An early introduction to the concept of user fees for waste collection services. Variable
      rates, like effluent charges for air and water pollutants, provide a pricing incentive to
      reduce the amount of garbage generated. A University of California study estimated the
      price elasticity of demand for solid waste service at 0.44, and an analysis by the City of
      Chicago found that waste production had a per capita income elasticity of 0.53. The  key
      question with unit pricing is: will it result in  lower system costs and higher net benefits
      than other pricing systems. Other questions include: does  unit pricing lead to other dis-
      posal activities, including burning and  littering; and,  does unit pricing affect household
      choices of service levels?

  Alderden, Jim. "Volume-Based  Rates, Dream or Nightmare?" Recycling Today.
      November, 1990.
      Unit pricing has been shown to encourage recycling and reduce the amount of municipal
      waste collected. Communities utilizing  variable rates  have reported an average reduction
      in garbage of 28 percent, with a range of 25 percent to 50 percent. It is also fairer to
      those that produce less waste. The downside of unit pricing is that it can encourage illegal
      dumping, especially at the beginning of the program, and lead to insufficient revenue for
      waste haulers. McHenry County, Illinois, had problems with residential garbage being
      thrown into commercial dumpsters. Blazier Disposal  in Harvard, Illinois, set its rates based

                  on an estimated pickup of 1.6 bags per household and it only got 1.2 bags, leaving it short
                  of revenue. Issues to consider include the demographic mix of the community, whether it
                  is urban or rural, the level of community environmental awareness, the recyclables that
                  will be collected, whether adequate revenue will be generated, and whether the program
                  will be voluntary or mandatory.

              Andresen, Katya. "Communities Weigh  Merits of Variable Rates: Residents' Fees for
                  Garbage Disposals." World Wastes. November,  1992.
                  A review of volume-based programs, experiments with weight-based fees, and technologi-
                  cal innovations in waste collection. The author spoke with several solid waste profession-
                  als and academics who have studied variable rates, including Lisa Skumatz and Glen
                  Morris. She summarized different system options, and reported on the success of unit
                  pricing in Santa Maria,  California, Seattle, Washington, Perkasie, Pennsylvania, and ///on,
                  New York. Weight-based systems hove been tested in Seattle, Washington, Farmington,
                  Minnesota, and Durham, North Carolina. Charging by weight, while more difficult to
                  implement, would provide a more accurate pricing signal to residents than volume-based
                  fees. Illegal disposal is a significant concern with unit pricing, but the problem can be
                  headed off by providing free drop-off days, locking commercial dumpsters, and strictly
                  enforcing anti-dumping ordinances. Technological developments, like bar coding cans,
                  make waste collection easier and cheaper. Concerns about accuracy can be addressed
                  by high standards and hauler education.

              Bender, Rodd; Briggs, Wyman; De Witt, Diane. Toward Statewide Unit Pricing in
                  Massachusetts; Influencing the Policy Cycle. Master's Degree Project. John F.
                  Kennedy School of Government. January, 1994.
                  The Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs advocates unit pricing for
                  municipal solid waste collection, but the decision to implement variable rates is up to
                  localities. This study is an effort to judge community perceptions of unit pricing. The
                  authors found that financial concerns (such as the cost of waste disposal or  the solvency
                  of the collection service), a desire to encourage recycling and reduce waste,  and grass-
                  roots lobbying efforts are all factors that can put unit pricing on a community's agenda.
                  The study showed that the three biggest problems with unit pricing are: citizen percep-
                  tions that trash service should be free, failure to recognize the benefits of unit pricing,
                  and fears about negative side effects, such as illegal dumping and customer resistance.
                  The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and MassRecycle support
                  unit pricing at the community level by, among other things, functioning as information
                  clearinghouses and addressing community concerns in statewide seminars.

Blume, Daniel. Under What Conditions Should Cities Adopt Volume-Based Pricing for
    Residential Solid Waste Collection? Master's Memo, Institute of Policy Sciences
    and Public Affairs, Duke University. May, 1991.
    A study of 14 communities with unit pricing programs. The study showed that these sys-
    tems reduced the amount of garbage produced in those cities and increased recycling
    activity with few significant problems. The paper also explored different features of unit
    pricing and their effectiveness, and assessed factors that would determine whether unit
    pricing was appropriate for a given community.

Browning, Marilyn; Becker, Jeanne.  Volume-Based Garbage Collection Fees: An Analy-
    sis of Ten  Illinois Programs. A Report Prepared by Becker Associates, Inc. Novem-
    ber, 1990.
    A summary of the structure and components of 10 unit pricing programs in Illinois. A sur-
    vey of solid waste officials in each  of the 10 communities found that the use of commer-
    cial dumpsters for residential waste was, on average, the most significant problem,
    receiving an average score of 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 5. The next most significant problem
    was insufficient revenue, followed by roadside dumping, uneven cash flow, and excessive
    garbage compaction. These problems can be addressed through  better citizen education,
    locks on commercial dumpsters, the use of a minimum fee to cover fixed expenses,
    tougher enforcement of anti-littering provisions, and strict limits on the weight of a pre-
    scription container or bag.

Canterbury, Janice. Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About  Unit Pricing of Munici-
    pal Solid Waste. EPA Office of Solid Waste. EPA530-R-94-004. April, 1994.
    In December 1992, the EPA's Unit Pricing Roundtable met to discuss variable rates for
    waste collection. The result of that meeting is this guide for communities considering unit
    pricing. Before adopting variable rates, a community needs to consider its waste manage-
    ment needs and whether the potential benefits of unit pricing, reduced waste,  increased
    recycling, pricing equity, and greater environmental awareness will meet those needs. A
    community also must be aware of potential problems with unit pricing, including illegal
    dumping, higher costs, service to multi-unit housing complexes, and citizen resistance.
    When designing a unit pricing system, a community must decide  among container
    options, set a pricing structure, create a billing system, and design program options.
    Implementation of unit pricing must be accompanied by public educational and out-
    reach, and program monitoring.  The  report contains a number of brief case studies and
    information about specific programs, and a roundtable discussion with a number of unit
    pricing experts.

              Cargo, Douglas R. Solid Wastes: Factors Influencing Generation Rates. Research
                  Paper No.  174. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Department of Geography.
                  The author analyzed the 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices to
                  determine actual amounts of waste generation.  The survey assessed household and com-
                  mercial waste generation. Cargo found that the actual amounts of waste generation were
                  larger than EPA estimates. After employing regression analysis to determine the effects
                  of socio-economic variables on waste generation, he found that "greater solid waste gen-
                  eration rates occur in areas with large populations, with high densities, and occupied by
                  lower-income groups." While generation rates increase with city density and city popula-
                  tion size, they decrease with income.

              Chua, Dale H.H.; Laplante, Benoit.  Litter and  Waste Management: Disposal Taxes,
                  User Charges, and Penalties. April, 1991.
                  The authors expand upon Ian Dobbs' 1991 report, which recommended a combination
                  of disposal fees on commercial products that would incorporate the potential cost of lit-
                  tering and of refunds for proper disposal of product waste. This report advocates the
                  addition of penalties for littering to further encourage the proper disposal of waste. It is a
                  completely theoretical piece that bases its findings on an  economic model.

              Cuthbert, Richard. "Variable Disposal Fee Impact." Biocycle. May, 1994.
                  Six case studies of unit pricing programs in Portland, Oregon, Seattle and Tacoma,  Wash-
                  ington,  Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and Bothel and Minneapolis, Minnesota. The article
                  described the structure of each program. The case studies were the result of a random
                  80-city survey conducted by the author. Forty of the survey cities were large (100,000+)
                  and 40 had populations between 50,000 and 100,000. Sixty-eight percent had city-run
                  waste service, and 32 percent contracted out to a private hauler. Thirty-five percent
                  financed their service from property taxes. The other 65 percent used fees, and 13 of
                  those, or  16 percent of the survey group, had variable rates.  The general  conclusions of
                  the case studies were that unit pricing encourages waste reduction, that residents were
                  accepting of the variable rate systems, and that variable rates supported  other waste
                  reduction activities, such as recycling.

              Dinan, Terry. "Solid Waste:  Incentives That Could Lighten the Load." EPA Journal.
                  May/June, 1992.
                  Faced with increasing per capita waste generation and growing waste disposal costs, the
                  United States should consider pricing systems that provide an incentive to reduce
                  garbage.  Unit pricing and disposal taxes are two such systems. Unit pricing enables

    households to save money by limiting the amount of garbage they put out for collection.
    A study of three variable rate programs in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, ///on, New York, and
    Seattle, Washington found that the amount of waste landfilled or incinerated could signif-
    icantly decrease. The author provided no specific figures.

Dobbs, Ian M. "Litter and Waste Management: Disposal Taxes Versus User Charges."
    Canadian Journal of Economics. February, 1991.
    An examination of user charges and disposal taxes as waste management techniques.
    The author recommends a strategy that employs a combination of each. A user fee
    would recover the marginal cost of waste disposal, while a disposal tax with a refund for
    proper disposal would significantly reduce the potential for illegal dumping. The article is
    completely theoretical and bases its conclusions on an economic model.

Efaw, Fritz; Lanen, William. Impact of User Charges on Management of Household
    Solid Waste. Report prepared by Mathtech, Inc. August, 1979.
    The authors conducted case studies of five communities (Burbank and Sacramento, Cali-
    fornia, Provo, Utah, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Tacoma, Washington) to determine
    the effect of particular pricing systems for solid waste collection on waste generation.
    The report contains in-depth descriptions of each community's systems, three of which,
    those in Sacramento, Grand Rapids, and Tacoma, have some variable rate component.
    The authors concluded that  while choices between types and levels of sanitation service
    may be sensitive to price, the quantity of waste generated at the household level may not
    be sensitive to price. In Tacoma, residents had a high price elasticity of demand with
    respect to the number of cans or the choice of backdoor pickup, but because of the
    availability of waste drop-off centers, the price elasticity of garbage production was not
    significantly different than zero. The same was true in Grand Rapids and Sacramento.
    The report also found that as household income  increases, so does the quantity of
    garbage produced.

Emmer, Terri; Neidhart, Jim. An Analysis of the Effects of Volume-Based Waste Dis-
    posal Fees on Consumer Behavior. Department of Resource Economics, Universi-
    ty of New Hampshire.
    The authors of this report surveyed residents of Dover, New Hampshire, to determine
    the effect of Dover's variable rate system on consumer behavior. The report concluded
    that unit pricing led to higher recycling participation rates and lower waste generation in
    Dover. The survey also found that while there was initially a wide range of consumer atti-
    tudes about recycling, 6 months into the program there was a convergence of attitudes
    and a more uniform level of commitment to the program's goals.

              Enos, Gary. "Residents Clean Up With Waste-Cutting Incentive." City and State. Feb-
                  ruary 25, 1991.
                  A study of three areas (Bellevue, Washington, Lansing, Michigan, and the state of Rhode
                  Island) that have either implemented or are considering implementing a variable rate sys-
                  tem. Bellevue and Lansing reported success with their systems. In Bellevue, more resi-
                  dents switched to a smaller can, and in Lansing, the amount of waste sent to the city
                  landfill fell by nearly 20 percent. The only difficulties with the system in either city
                  involved setting the rate structure and concern that if too many customers reduced their
                  waste too much, the waste haulers  would not receive enough revenue  to operate.

              Fletcher, Jeff. "Why  Unit Pricing Makes Sense for Solid Waste: U.S.  Environmental
                  Protection Agency Project." Nation's Cities Weekly. October 19, 1992.
                  This article concerned EPA's plan to run  a unit pricing demonstration project. At that
                  time, the Agency was looking for communities interested in participating. The author con-
                  tends that variable rates send a more accurate pricing signal  to waste  generators than
                  traditional flat  rate systems and encourage garbage reduction. They are also fairer than
                  flat rate systems, because residents that produce less garbage pay lower collection costs.

              Folz, David H. "Recycling Program Design, Management, and Participation: A National
                  Survey of Municipal Experience." Public Administration Review. May/June, 1991.
                  The author conducted a survey of 264 recycling coordinators to determine what factors
                  influence citizen participation in recycling programs.  The study identified eleven specific
                  operational policies, of which variable rates for garbage collection was not one.  The sur-
                  vey showed that allowing public input during the planning and design process, mandating
                  recycling participation, providing curbside service and free bins, and utilizing public edu-
                  cation programs all contributed to higher participation rates. Same-day recycling and
                  garbage pickup, and permitting commingling did not seem to significantly impact partici-
                  pation rates.

              Fullerton, Don; Kinnaman, Thomas. Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping.
                  National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #  4374. May, 1993.
                  Analysis of an economic model of household waste disposal behavior shows that given
                  three disposal options, collection, recycling, and illicit disposal, a unit fee would lead to
                  some burning or dumping. However, a disposal tax on products, coupled with rebates for
                  proper waste disposal, would encourage legal disposal of garbage. The study is purely
                  theoretical and involves no empirical data.

Fullerton, Don; Kinnaman, Thomas. Household Demand for Garbage and Recycling
    Collection with the Start of a Price per Bag. National Bureau of Economic
    Research Working Paper # 4670. March, 1994.
    A survey of a random sample of 75 Charlottesville, Virginia, households measured house-
    hold garbage generation before and after the city implemented a unit pricing system.
    The survey found that while recycling increased 15 percent and the volume of garbage
    was reduced by an average of 37 percent, the weight of garbage was only reduced 14
    percent. The authors concluded that residential trash compaction accounted for the dif-
    ference between the volume reduction and the weight reduction. The survey also showed
    that approximately 28 percent of the total reduction was accounted for by illegal dispos-
    al. The authors based this figure on respondents that indicated they used "other
    means," as opposed to recycling, composting, and demanding less packaging at stores,
    to reduce their waste.

Goldberg, Dan. "The Magic of Volume Reduction." Waste Age. February, 1990.
    Unit pricing has led to reduced levels of garbage and increased recycling participation  in
    several communities that have adopted the pricing system. In St. Paul, Minnesota, house-
    hold participation in the recycling program increased on average from 15 percent to 32
    percent. In Olympia, Washington, there was a 50 percent increase in the number of resi-
    dents utilizing a smaller can. Illegal dumping is a potential concern with a unit pricing sys-
    tem, but it has not been a problem in Perkasie,  Pennsylvania, or Seattle, Washington.
    Generally, problems with the system appear when it is first implemented, and they can
    be quickly corrected. Finally, 93 percent of Perkasie residents who were asked their opin-
    ion of unit pricing approved of the system. It has met with similar citizen satisfaction in
    other communities.

Harder, Greg; Knox,  Linda. "Implementing Variable Trash Collection Rates." Biocycle.
    April, 1992.
    Variable rate systems in 36 Pennsylvania communities have shown success at reducing
    garbage generation and encouraging recycling. Citizen education at the outset of a unit
    pricing program is  a critical element of the system. Communities should also be aware of
    the potential for backyard burning or illegal dumping, and take proactive steps to prevent
    such behavior. Other problems common to the 36 municipalities in this report were: bags
    that tear or are attacked by animals, tags that fall off,  illegal grass dumping, service to
    apartments, and the use of counterfeit bags. The authors present case studies of Carlisle,
    Perkasie, and Forest City. They also describe the failure of unit pricing in Nanticoke,
    which  lost 68 percent of its municipal customers when it switched to variable rates. The
    failure seemed largely due to the lack of a curbside recycling program in the town.

              Hayes, Jeffrey. "Let the Market Replace the Madness: How to Control Rising Solid
                  Waste." Public Works. December, 1992.
                  The author advocates variable rate pricing as a tool to reduce waste. Variable rates not
                  only encourage recycling, but they also induce garbage reduction, a preferable waste
                  management strategy. Under unit pricing, Somersworth and Dover, New Hampshire,
                  have reduced their residential waste by 50 percent. The structure of variable rate sys-
                  tems vary with different receptacles and different pricing schemes.

              Hong, Seonghoon. An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes:
                  The Case of Portland, Oregon.  Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Agriculture and
                  Resource Economics. Ohio State University. November 21, 1991.
                  The author designed a model of household waste generation behavior and applied it to
                  Portland, Oregon, to see how a marginal pricing system, as well as other socio-economic
                  factors, affect recycling behavior and the demand for garbage collection services. The
                  analysis showed that increasing the price of collection increased household recycling par-
                  ticipation, but did not significantly reduce demand for garbage collection services. Educa-
                  tion level and value of time were also significant factors influencing households' degree of
                  recycling participation. Income was a determinant of total waste generation, but demand
                  for collection services  was inelastic with respect to income.

              Jenkins, Robin. The Economics of Solid Waste Reduction. Edward Elgar Publishing,
                  Ltd., 1993.
                  This book grew out of Jenkins' dissertation on the same subject. The author presents a
                  model for residential waste generation that shows that user fees can have a significant
                  impact on the level of waste generation, and that society's welfare gain from switching to
                  unit pricing is substantial. The book also looks at commercial generation of solid waste
                  and concludes that increasing already existing unit fees can have a significant impact on
                  waste generation levels. The book contains a literature review, models of household and
                  firm waste generation behavior, demand equations for residential and commercial waste
                  collection services, descriptions of the elements of the model, and the results of manipu-
                  lating the model. The  author studied five unit pricing communities (San Francisco, Cali-
                  fornia, Estherville,  and Highbridge, New Jersey, and Seattle and Spokane,  Washington)
                  and four flat fee communities (Hillsborough County and St. Petersburg, Florida, Howard
                  County, Maryland, and Bernalillo County, New Mexico).

Kemper, Peter; Quigley, John M. The Economics of Refuse Collection. Ballinger Pub-
    lishing Company, Cambridge, MA.  1976.
    The authors provide a general overview of the economic issues in waste collection. Chapter
    five surveys the issues involved in a system employing user charges. They compare user
    charges to two other financing mechanisms: general revenues and service fees. The chapter
    addresses efficiency in theory, equity, federal income tax deducibility, revenue from tax-
    exempt institutions, and efficiency in practice. The authors note that "true user charges are
    rare" and do not provide much  empirical evidence of the issues they discussed.

Lambert, Abigail F. Rate Proposal for a Weight-Based  Pricing System for Residential
    Waste Collection in Durham, North Carolina. Master's Project, School of the
    Environment,  Duke University. 1991.
    The author contends that the city of Durham, North Carolina, which currently funds resi-
    dential garbage collection through general property tax revenues, ought to consider
    implementing weight-based rates to finance its collection service.  Weight-based rates
    would send a more accurate pricing signal to city residents and might reduce waste and
    encourage recycling. Five issues that the city would need to be aware of before imple-
    menting a variable rate system are the need for political support and aggressive public
    education, the impact of variable fees on low-income residents, potential problems with
    illegal dumping, and necessary departmental changes. Lambert conducted an economic
    analysis of Durham's waste management system, considering collection  costs, disposal
    costs, the added costs of a weight-based system, and estimated environmental and social
    costs. Based on this analysis, Lambert presented five options for a weight-based rate
    structure. She recommended a system that uses variable fees to cover landfill disposal
    costs, including environmental and social costs, and continues to finance the other costs
    of waste collection through property taxes. Such a system would give some price incen-
    tive to residents, but would still provide a stable revenue stream for the collection system.
    The author also recommended reduced rates for lower-income residents.

Lewis, Thomas A. "Waste Not, Want Not." National  Wildlife. June/July, 1993.
    As landfills across the country approach capacity, disposal costs rise, and per capita
    waste generation  continues to increase, source reduction has become a top priority for
    solid waste managers. Recycling is gaining popularity, both among solid waste officials
    and private citizens. Unit pricing provides an inducement to recycle, and to reduce the
    amount of waste put out for collection. Seattle, Washington, and Perkasie, Pennsylvania,
    have both had successful variable rate systems.

              Menell, Peter S. "Beyond the Throwaway Society: An Incentive Approach to Regulat-
                  ing Municipal Solid Waste." Ecology Law Quarterly. Vol. 17, 655. 1990.
                  Traditional pricing systems for garbage collection do not provide incentives for reducing
                  waste or manufacturing products that produce less waste. The authors use an economic
                  framework to analyze a variety of policy options for correcting this market distortion. The
                  article provides an overview of the waste stream and available technologies for collecting
                  and regulating waste, describes traditional flat rate or tax financed systems for funding
                  waste disposal, and examines alternative methods,  including curbside charges, retail dis-
                  posal charges, and two-tier charges. According to the economic model, variable rate pric-
                  ing and/or retail charges based on the disposal cost of different products are the best
                  waste management strategies. They provide an accurate pricing signal to households and
                  product suppliers. Local governments are best suited for designing the ideal solid waste
                  regulatory system for their specific localities. The federal government can provide infor-
                  mation and correct macroeconomic distortions, and the states can coordinate various
                  local policies. The article is primarily theoretical, although it does briefly describe unit
                  pricing systems in Seattle, Washington, and Perkasie,  Pennsylvania.

              Miedema, Allen K. "Fundamental Economic Comparisons of Solid Waste Policy
                  Options." Resources and Energy. Vol. 5. 1983.
                  The author developed a macroeconomic model to analyze the effects of several waste
                  management policy mechanisms. Miedema compared user fees,  recycling subsidies, dis-
                  posal charges, and litter taxes to the status quo (i.e., none of these policy mechanisms
                  were in effect). He analyzed the real income effects, net waste effects, waste generation
                  and resource recovery effects, and recycling rate effects for these four policy tools given
                  three different policy scenarios (the scenarios varied according to hypothesized changes
                  in the diseconomies of scale for recycled materials suppliers and virgin materials suppli-
                  ers). He found that user fees and litter taxes always had the same effects. The disposal
                  charge always had a larger real income effect and the smallest net waste collected and
                  disposed. In two out of the three simulations,  the disposal charge had the highest recy-
                  cling rate, while the recycling subsidy had the  highest recycling rate in the simulation
                  characterized by greater diseconomies of scale for virgin materials suppliers.

              Miller, Chaz. "Pay as You Throw:  Less Weight? More Stuffing!" Waste Age. Septem-
                  ber, 1993.
                  Unit pricing has been touted as a way for municipalities to encourage higher recycling par-
                  ticipation and reduce household waste generation. However, the system can also encour-
                  age overstuffing of garbage  receptacles, illegal burning and dumping, and contamination

    of recycling receptacles with nonrecyclable material. Can-based systems hove complicated
    billing requirements. On the other hand, bags can tear and tags can be separated from
    set-outs. Furthermore, variable rates may be unfair to lower-income residents, and political
    support for unit pricing is lacking in many areas. The author contends that there is no con-
    clusive evidence that variable fees reduce residential waste generation. He bases most of
    his conclusions on anecdotal evidence and interviews with a few solid waste professionals.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. State Solid Waste Policy Report: A Focus on
    Greater Minnesota.
    A review of Minnesota's waste management system. The report examines historical and
    contemporary statewide programs, county initiatives, industrial and residential waste gen-
    eration trends,  waste collection and transportation systems, and collection system costs.
    The report also highlights public education efforts, and waste reduction,  recycling, com-
    posting, waste-to-energy, and land disposal programs. Unit pricing is reviewed briefly, and
    St. Louis Park, a unit pricing town, is mentioned in  the report.

Miranda, Marie Lynn; Everett, Jess W.; Blume, Daniel; Roy, Barbeau A., Jr. "Market-
    Based Incentives and  Residential  Municipal Solid Waste." Journal of Policy Analysis
    and Management. Vol.  13,  No. 4. 1994.
    The authors gathered waste generation data from 21 unit pricing communities. The data
    showed municipal waste generation before and after the implementation of variable
    rates. The average reduction in tonnage of waste landfilled was 40 percent, with a high
    of 74 percent and a low of 17 percent. Recycling increased, on average, by 126 percent,
    with a high of 456 percent and a low of 3 percent. The average reduction in overall waste
    generation was 40 percent, with an average recycling rate of 19 percent. Even account-
    ing for illegal disposal and measurement error, the authors concluded that some of the
    waste reduction must have resulted from source reduction behavior. There were few
    problems among the 21 municipalities with illegal dumping. Burning was  a problem in
    three of the cities, but it seemed to only account for about 20 percent of the total waste
    reduction. Burning stopped in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, when the city adopted an antiburn-
    ing ordinance.

Moriarty, Patrick.  "Financing Waste Collection for  Maximum Diversion."  Biocycle. Jan-
    uary, 1994.
    Illinois has set a statewide waste diversion mandate of 25 percent by 1996. The author sur-
    veys 23 municipalities in the Chicago area to determine how localities are  responding to
    the mandate. Seven of the 23 communities have changed their rate structures since 1988,

                  six of them adopting some form of variable collection fees. The average fee among the flat
                  rate communities was $11.60, while the average per-bag fee in Downers Grove, Hoffman
                  Estates, and LaGrange Park was $1.40. Thus, members of a household that put out less
                  than two bags of garbage per week under the variable fee systems would spend less for
                  waste collection than they would have under a flat rate system. The unit pricing communi-
                  ties also had higher recycling participation rates than the flat fee communities, and higher
                  percentages of total waste recycled. The average tonnage recycled for flat fee communi-
                  ties was 18 percent, while for Hoffman Estates it was 31 percent and for Downers Grove it
                  was 28 percent.  The author also provided a case study of Hoffman Estates that described
                  that community's program.

              Morris, Glenn E.; Holthausen, Duncan M., Jr. "The Economics of Household Solid
                  Waste Generation and  Disposal." Journal of Environmental Economics and Man-
                  agement. Vol. 26. 1994.
                  The authors designed a model  of household waste disposal behavior, taking into account
                  various disposal options (including garbage pickup, recycling, and source reduction) and
                  fee levels, both flat and variable. The simulation showed that households' elasticity of
                  demand with respect to price for solid waste collection services varied significantly with
                  the price of that service. Supported by actual waste and demographic data from
                  Perkasie, Pennsylvania, the model showed that a typical household's utility was higher
                  with  variable rates than with a  fixed rate system. Furthermore, as the user charge
                  increased, households responded with greater  waste minimization behavior and less recy-
                  cling. Emphasizing one type of disposal option, recycling, for example, could dampen
                  households' incentive to pursue another type, such as source reduction.

              "New Jersey Town Weighs in on Trash by the Pound: Mendham, New Jersey." World
                  Wastes. February, 1993.
                  This  article presents an interview with the recycling coordinator of Mendham Township,
                  New Jersey. Mendham switched to variable rates after its successful recycling program
                  reduced residents' need for garbage collection services. The town went from two collec-
                  tions to one each week and its households each saved an average of $200 annually. Recy-
                  cling increased 83 percent, garbage  was reduced 55 percent, and the town has saved
                  money. The town has not experienced dumping or other significant problems. According
                  to the coordinator, before adopting unit pricing, a municipality should consider whether a
                  majority of residents will  benefit financially from the system. The community might also
                  want to consider having a base charge to cover fixed collection costs, and basing the vari-
                  able rates on the city's disposal costs.

Morris, James L. "Recycling and Computerized Garbage Tracking Cut City's Costs."
    Public Works. February, 1994.
    Athens, Ohio, facing a state-mandated 25 percent waste reduction goal, adopted a multi-
    tiered rate system for garbage collection to induce greater participation in the town's recy-
    cling program. Since its inception in  1982, the curbside recycling program has already
    reduced waste by as much as 50 percent. Athens also has a computerized billing system
    that keeps track of the amount of garbage each resident puts out for collection each week.
    The system is easy to use and has eliminated inaccuracies resulting from human error.

Owen, Melissa.  "Integrated Waste Minimization (With Composting)." Biocycle.
    April, 1994.
    Piano, Texas, has an aggressive yard waste diversion program. The program includes a
    "Don't Bag It" Lawn Care Plan, which reduced yard trimmings collection by 50 percent
    from 1991 to 1993, a backyard composting program, and biodegradable collection bags
    (20 for $5). Collected yard waste goes to a centralized composting facility. Piano's waste
    management system also includes a higher garbage collection fee for household waste in
    excess of the city-provided 95 Ib container.

"Pay-As-You-Throw Shows Rapid Growth." Biocycle. August, 1993.
    A recent Reason Foundation study shows that over 1,000 communities have adopted
    some form of variable rate pricing for garbage collection, and the number is rapidly
    increasing. Moreover, the towns report average reductions of 25 percent to 45 percent in
    the amount of waste sent to disposal facilities.

Project 88 - Round II. Incentives for Action: Designing Market-Based Environmental
    Strategies. A Policy Symposium Sponsored by Senator Timothy Wirth and Sena-
    tor John  Heinz. May,  1991.
    The symposium explored market-based solutions  to environmental problems. Unit pricing
    was examined as a way to reduce waste generation by providing a better pricing signal to
    residents than traditional flat rate systems.  Wh//e variable rates are implemented at the
    local level, the federal government can act as an information clearinghouse and  can facili-
    tate local  efforts to implement unit pricing. Seattle, Washington, and Perkasie, Pennsylva-
    nia, have both experienced success with unit pricing, and problems like illegal dumping
    and the disparate impact of variable fees can  be alleviated with proactive efforts on the
    part of the municipality. Perkasie reduced billing costs by using bags instead of varying
    prescription can sizes.

              Reschovcky, James D.; Stone, Sarah E. "Market Incentives to Encourage Household
                  Waste Recycling: Paying for What You Throw Away." Journal of Policy Analysis
                  and Management. Vol.  13, No. 1. Winter, 1994.
                  Unit pricing, which sends a more accurate pricing signal to households than traditional
                  flat collection fees, has reduced waste and encouraged recycling in cities like Seattle,
                  Washington, and High Bridge, New jersey. There are, however, practical concerns with
                  unit pricing: rates are difficult to set, revenues are hard to predict, illegal dumping could
                  occur, administrative costs may be high,  variables fees could have a regressive impact on
                  low-income residents, common receptacles in multi-unit housing complexes preclude
                  application of variable rates, and politicians may be unwilling to risk unpopularity. The
                  authors studied unit pricing in Tompkins  County, New York. They surveyed 3,040 random
                  households and performed a statistical analysis of the survey results. They found that
                  curbside service had the greatest impact on recycling participation. While variable rates
                  alone seemed to  have only a minor impact, the combination of unit fees, curbside ser-
                  vice, and mandatory recycling had the largest impact on participation. The survey was
                  unclear on the potentially regressive impact of variable fees, and it found no evidence
                  that the pricing system encouraged illegal dumping, although 51 percent of the residents
                  surveyed said littering had increased, and 20 percent said they burned their trash. Two-
                  thirds of the respondents said they favored unit pricing.

              Richard, Bill. "Recycling in Seattle Sets National Standard but Is Hitting Snags." Wall
                  Street Journal. August  3, 1993.
                  The author contends that Seattle will have trouble reaching its 60 percent recycling goal.
                  According to the article, most avenues for increasing the rate of recycling have been
                  exhausted, and it will require draconian measures to make 60 percent. The article also
                  questioned the savings the city was receiving from recycling, and said there was a glut in
                  the market for recyclables. Finally, the author provided anecdotal evidence that residents
                  were stomping on their garbage, rather than actually reducing it or recycling more.

              Richardson, Robert A.; Havlicek, Jr., Joseph. "Economic  Analysis of the Composition
                  of Household Solid  Wastes." Journal  of Environmental Economics and Manage-
                  ment.  Vol. 5. 1978.
                  The authors analyze the  social and economic factors that affect the  quantity and compo-
                  sition of the household solid waste stream. The weekly per capita and per household
                  quantities of eleven household waste components were analyzed: clear glass, green glass,
                  brown  glass, aluminum, other metals, newsprint, other paper, textiles, plastics, grass,
                  and garbage/other. Waste generation is positively correlated with income, age, and

    household size, and negatively correlated with ethnic background (percentage of black
    households in a census track). Results indicate that if glass, plastics, textiles, paper, and
    metals were recovered through recycling and incineration for energy production, around
    53 percent of the summer household waste stream could be diverted from landfills. The
    economic feasibility of such resource recovery was not discussed.

Savas, E.S.; Baumol, Daniel; Wells, William. "Financing Solid Waste Collection." The
    Organization and Efficiency of Solid Waste Collection. Lexington Books.  1977.
    This is a chapter in Savas' book. The authors examined the effect of different methods of
    financing solid  waste collection on the amount of residential waste generated and the
    cost of the collection service. They relied on a survey of private citizens living in communi-
    ties with a variety of collection systems. According to the survey,  variable rates had little
    effect on either the amount of waste generated or the level of service requested. They
    also found that unit fees, whether flat or variable, increased billing costs for municipali-
    ties. Finally, they found that because local taxes are deductible from federal income tax
    returns, there was an incentive for communities to raise taxes to pay for garbage collec-
    tion rather than institute user fees. These findings were based on comparisons of waste
    generation figures, service levels, and collection costs across tax financed, flat fee, and
    variable fee collection systems.

Scarlett, Lynn.  Mandates or Incentives? Comparing Packaging Regulations with User
    Fees for Trash Collection.  Reason Foundation. Publication No. 158. May, 1993.
    U.S. and Massachusetts solid waste management policy is beginning to address the
    nation's growing garbage crisis by stressing source reduction and recycling. Massachu-
    setts is considering a state-level initiative that would set recycled content requirements for
    consumer products and require reusable, reduced, or recycled packaging.  An alternative
    market-based solution is unit pricing for residential waste collection. Unit pricing would
    create an incentive among consumers to source reduce, and that would cause producers
    to respond with reduced or recyclable packaging and products. The author rew'ews prob-
    lems with recycling markets and reports on the success of unit pricing in communities like
    Perkasie,  Pennsylvania,  and Seattle, Washington. She identifies illegal disposal, garbage
    compaction, citizen resistance, and the impact of variable fees on low-income residents
    as outstanding  issues. The author conducts a cost-benefit  comparison of packaging man-
    dates and user  fees for trash collection. She compares the reduced waste benefits of
    each system and their implementation costs. The author concludes that unit pricing can
    have a greater  impact on the waste stream than packaging mandates, and it would be
    $210 to $215 cheaper per household each year.

              "Seattle Engineers Say: Variable Can Rate Encourages Recycling." Waste Age. Novem-
                  ber, 1985.
                  Since the start of unit pricing in Seattle in 1980, recycling tonnage has increased 60 per-
                  cent. Also, the city's per capita waste generation rate climbed more slowly than other
                  cities' rates. Moreover, 80 percent of the city's residents favor the system, and it had a
                  91.5 percent compliance rate.

              "Seattle Stomp." Garbage. Spring, 1994.
                  A short description of the "Seattle stomp" phenomenon. Residents in Seattle and other
                  unit pricing communities compact their trash to avoid higher collection fees. The author
                  makes no effort to quantify the problem. Strategies to combat the "stomp" include
                  weight-based fees and instructing haulers to not collect receptacles that are overloaded.

              Shanoff, Barry. "Communities Switch to By-the-Bag Billing System." World Wastes.
                  October, 1992.
                  A report on the successes of unit pricing  in several communities with variable rate sys-
                  tems. Utica, New York, Chester Township, New Jersey, Stonington, Connecticut, and
                  Seattle,  Washington, have all adopted unit pricing.  Each community's system has differ-
                  ent features and different fee schedules.  Proponents  of variable rates argue that it is fair-
                  er than flat fees: those that produce less trash should be able to pay less. In some unit
                  pricing communities, residents that reduce their waste pay significantly lower garbage
                  collection fees than they did under a flat rate system. Unit pricing can also encourage
                  illegal dumping, but localities have responded by locking commercial dumpsters.

              Sherman, Steven. "Local Government Approaches to Source Reduction." Resource
                  Recycling. September, 1991.
                  In recent years, solid waste management policy has emphasized source reduction as a
                  waste management strategy. Decreased solid waste generation can be accomplished by:
                  reduced product weight or volume, reduced packaging, increased product durability,
                  alterations in  consumer purchasing patterns, greater efficiency in manufacturing process-
                  es, composting and other organic waste reduction techniques, and changes in the waste
                  stream making it less hazardous. Strategies available to local governments to encourage
                  waste reduction include public education, economic incentives, legislative mandates, on-
                  site composting, and hazardous waste reduction. One of the economic incentives the
                  author mentions is unit pricing. Unit pricing can be implemented by using metered bags
                  or tags,  or subscription containers. It provides a clear pricing signal to households that
                  can lead to source reduction and increased recycling  participation. It also influences con-
                  sumer behavior, which will cause producers to respond with reduced product packaging.

Skumatz, Lisa A. Variable Rates for Municipal Solid Waste: Implementation Experience,
    Economics, and Legislation. Reason Foundation. Publication No. 160. June, 1993.
    Unit pricing programs have a variety of different features. They can use bags, tags, or pre-
    scription cans, they may be city-run or contracted out to a private hauler, they are often
    accompanied by various complementary programs, including curbside recycling and back-
    yard composting, and they sometimes have special features for servicing multi-unit housing
    or helping low-income residents. Successfully implementing unit pricing requires political
    support, the involvement of all concerned parties, citizen education, and program flexibili-
    ty. Variable rates in cities like Seattle, Washington, and Perkasie, Pennsylvania,  have
    reduced landfilled waste and increased recycling participation. Concerns about the pro-
    gram include illegal dumping, backyard burning, and unstable hauler revenues. Three
    states, Washington, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, have laws requiring variable fees for waste
    collection. Indiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Vermont, Illinois, and Montana all
    encourage local authorities to use unit pricing.  The author lays out four steps for evaluat-
    ing the performance of a unit pricing program: 1) determine the level of participation, 2)
    measure any changes in residential waste disposal patterns, 3) assess the linkage between
    variable rates and the observed changes in disposal behavior, and 4) identify the net bene-
    fit and cost effectiveness of the program.

Skumatz, Lisa; Van Dusen, Hans; Carton, Jennie.  "Garbage by the Pound: Ready to
    Roll with Weight Based  Fees." Biocycle. November, 1994.
    Several communities across the country have run weight-based pricing pilot programs.
    They include Seattle, Washington, Columbia, South Carolina, Durham, North  Carolina,
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Farmington and Minneapolis, Minnesota. Residents partici-
    pating in Seattle's program reduced their waste, by weight, an extra 15 percent. Collec-
    tion times did not increase in Columbia during its pilot study. The scales used in
    Durham's test did not meet some accuracy standards,  but those deficiencies have since
    been corrected by the manufacturer. Milwaukee was scheduled to run a test in the fall of
    1994, and Farmington and Minneapolis, though their pilot studies went well, have put
    plans to fully implement weight-based rates on hold. Though weight-based systems incur
    high initial costs, communities  can achieve long-term savings from reduced waste.

Skumatz, Lisa A.; Zach, Philip A. "Community Adoption of Variable Rates:
    An  Update." Resource Recycling. June, 1993.
    Spread across 26 states, variable rate systems are often  adopted in response to  increasing
    tipping fees, a desire to increase recycling efforts, and statewide or regional diversion
    requirements. Some of the issues involved with  implementing a variable rate system include
    its compatibility with the existing collection system, the size of the community, illegal dump-

                  ing, and multi-family housing facilities. Political support for the system is crucial, design plan-
                  ning is important, and the system should include a strong citizen education effort.

              Sproule, Kimberly A.; Cosulich, Jeanne M. "Higher Recovery Rates: The Answer's in
                  the Bag." Resource Recycling. November/December,  1988.
                  The authors surveyed 12 per-unit fee systems, and the article describes five of them: Hol-
                  land, Michigan, Perkasie, Pennsylvania, Woodstock, Illinois, Newport, New York, and High
                  Bridge, New Jersey. It also provides basic information, such as container type, fee, and com-
                  plementary programs offered, for all 12. The five cities described in the article all reported
                  success with their systems, although reduction rates are not given for all of them.

              Stavins, Robert N.  "Market Forces Can Help Lower Waste Volumes." Forum for
                  Applied Research and Public Policy. Spring, 1993.
                  In response to tougher federal regulations and the need for more effective waste man-
                  agement strategies, communities have experimented with a number of innovative sys-
                  tems. They include different pricing schemes for waste collection services, including unit
                  pricing, retail disposal charges and virgin material charges, tradeable permits for indus-
                  try-wide recycling mandates, and a deposit/refund system for discouraging illegal disposal
                  of waste.  The author uses Seattle's unit pricing system as an example.

              Stevens, Barbara. Pricing Schemes for Refuse Collection Services: The Impact on
                  Refuse Generation. Research Paper No. 154. Columbia University Graduate
                  School of Business. January, 1977.
                  A variable rate pricing scheme is administratively feasible, and it would convey to con-
                  sumers the true  cost of waste disposal. The author uses an economic model of household
                  waste generation behavior to predict the effect of variable  rates for refuse collection on
                  the demand for those services. She also conducted a survey of 93 cities with variable fee
                  systems. She found that for a 10 percent increase in the price of collection, demand for
                  service went down 9 percent. However,  refuse generation only decreased by 0.5 percent
                  to  1.17 percent.

              Stone, Sarah; Harrison,  Ellen. "Residents Favor User  Fees." Biocycle. August, 1991.
                  Tompkins County, New York,  has a county-wide unit pricing program for waste collection.
                  The authors surveyed 3,034 randomly selected households in the county and received a
                  49 percent response rate. Sixty-three percent of the respondents were "very much in
                  favor" or "somewhat in favor" of the county's variable fee system. Fifty-one percent said
                  they recycled more because of the program, 16 percent said  they composted more, and
                  39 percent said  they were more attentive to product packaging when they shopped.

"Taking the Innovative Approach to Waste Hauling." Biocycle. July, 1993.
    Tom Kraemer Sanitation Co. provides collection service to a half-dozen small towns in
    Minnesota near St. Cloud. The hauler charges a flat base rate and sells tags for each 30-
    gallon container put out for  collection. It also uses a truck-based co-collection system for
    garbage and curbside recycling. The hauler saves money from reduced disposal costs,
    and brings in increased revenue from the sale of recyclables.

U.S. Conference of Mayors. A Primer on Variable Rate Pricing for Solid Waste Ser-
    vices. June,  1994.
    An introductory brochure for municipalities considering a unit pricing system. Unit pricing
    passes variable waste disposal costs onto the household producers of garbage. It encour-
    ages waste reduction and increased recycling. It is fair, it helps to conserve landfill space,
    and it increases collection efficiency. Unit pricing systems can use prescription cans,
    bags, or tags, and can  be based on weight, volume, or a hybrid of flat rates and variable
    rates.  Implementation  issues include ensuring sufficient revenues, the impact on poor
    residents, illegal dumping, public acceptance, recycling contamination,  and service to
    multi-unit housing. To develop a successful program, localities must clearly define their
    goals, develop a complete plan, start with a pilot study, obtain political support, and
    develop  a public education strategy.

U.S. EPA. "EPA Probe of Household Waste Reduction to Focus on  Per Volume
    Charge." Inside EPA. August 10, 1990.
    This article concerns EPA's evaluation of the pros and cons of variable rate pricing to
    determine if the Agency should recommend it as a waste reduction incentive. The EPA
    study involved weighing the costs and benefits of unit pricing, as compared to flat rate
    pricing for garbage collection service. Unit pricing provides a clearer pricing signal to
    households, but it could also lead to illegal waste disposal and higher administrative costs.
    The Agency is unlikely  to seek national unit pricing legislation, but may incorporate vari-
    able rates into its waste reduction guidelines for localities.

U.S. EPA. Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Composting Options: Lessons  Learned
    from 30 Communities. EPA530-R-92-015. February,  1994.
    This report focused on various strategies for municipalities to reduce net waste through
    composting, recycling,  and education. The report details approaches to increase levels of
    composting and recycling, as well as improving materials recovery from commercial activ-
    ities and construction.  The report provides a brief overview of variable refuse rates, and
    further comments on the positive effects of variable pricing on recycling participation

                  and source reduction. Three additional volumes provide case studies on rural areas, sub-
                  urbs and small cities, and urban areas.

              Wertz, Kenneth. "Economic  Factors Influencing Households' Production of Refuse."
                  Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Vol. 2. 1976.
                  The author uses a series of economic models to determine the impact of several waste
                  collection service options on the level of household garbage generation. He also surveys
                  six communities in the Detroit area and studies the collection system in Son Francisco.
                  There is an economic externality associated with traditional flat rate pricing systems for
                  waste collection. Flat rates  do not take into account the marginal disposal cost of incre-
                  mental levels of garbage. Increasing flat rates somewhat decrease waste generation, but
                  only through an income effect. There will be no substitution  to lower waste generating
                  behavior. However, variable rate pricing will more directly encourage waste reduction.
                  The author also concluded that waste generation increases with income, with more fre-
                  quent municipal collection service, and with less convenient collection sites (i.e., curbside
                  rather than backdoor).

              Zimmerman, Elliott.  Solid Waste Management Alternatives:  Review of Policy Options
                  to Encourage Waste Reduction. A Report to the Illinois Department of Energy and
                  Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Affairs Division. February, 1988.
                  Waste reduction should be a top priority for the state of Illinois. Unit pricing is one finan-
                  cial incentive that could be used by localities to encourage households to reduce garbage
                  put-outs and increase waste reduction and diversion efforts. There are three potential
                  drawbacks to this pricing method. First, a  1979 EPA study found no statistically significant
                  relationship between variable rates and garbage generation, so  unit pricing might not
                  have an impact on residential waste. Also, user fees, unlike property taxes, are not
                  deductible from federal tax returns, so residents could lose money in increased tax pay-
                  ments. Finally, federal revenue sharing arrangements do not take into account user fees
                  as local tax revenue, so municipalities could lose federal support by lowering property
                  taxes  in favor of variable rates.

Additional Sources of Information

  Angelo, James J. Should Brevard County, Florida Adopt a Unit Pricing Program for
      Municipal Solid Waste? Undergraduate Honors Project; Sanford Institute of Public
      Policy, Duke University. April, 1993.

  Felton, Mary K. "A Snapshot of Waste Generation and Recovery." Resource Recy-
      cling. January, 1995.

  Fiske, Gary S. "Rates: A Powerful Tool to Reduce the Waste Stream." Solid Waste
      and Power. March/April, 1992.

  Franklin Associates, Ltd. The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste Management
      to the Year 2000. Prepared for Keep America Beautiful, Inc. September, 1994.

  Guerrieri, Tony M. An Assessment of Unit Pricing for Municipal Solid Waste. A
      Report for the Pennsylvania Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and
      Conservation  Committee. September, 1994.

  Hong, Seonghoon. An Economic Analysis of Household Recycling of Solid Wastes:
      The Case of Portland, Oregon. PhD  Dissertation. Department of Agriculture and
      Resource Economics, Ohio State  University. November 21, 1991.

  Jenkins, Robin. Municipal Demand for  Solid Waste Disposal Services: The Impact of User
      Fees. PhD Dissertation. Department of Economics, University of Maryland. 1991.

  Miranda, Marie Lynn; Aldy, Joseph E. Unit Pricing of Residential Municipal Solid
      Waste: Lessons from Nine Case Study Communities. School of the Environment,
      Duke University. 1995.

  Skumatz, Lisa A. "Introducing the Hybrid Variable Rate System." Biocycle.
      November, 1993.

  Toomey, William A. "Meeting the Challenges of Yard Trimmings Diversion." Biocycle.
      May, 1994.
•U.S. Government Printing Office: 1997 - 520-913/90197                                                          I 95