Interventions Used to Increase Recycling with an Existing Curbside Program
RUNNING HEAD: INTERVENTIONS USED TO INCREASE RECYCLING
Interventions Used to Increase Recycling with an Existing Curbside Program
Interventions Used to Improve Recycling with an Existing Curbside Program
Today, policy makers and waste management companies have been trying to find new ways to reduce the amount of waste entering the landfills because we are rapidly running out of space for such use. In 2000, U.S. residents and businesses produced more than 221 million tons of waste, which is approximately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day. However, the amount of waste sent to landfills in 2000 was down 13% from the 1990 total, and the amount of waste recovered in recycling has nearly doubled during the same period (ASCE, 2005). Instead of building more landfills, there is a need to focus on methods such as recycling to keep waste out of landfills. Recycling can be more effective and less costly in every way. Landfills are sources of natural hazards which have risks both to the environment and human health.
In 1999, recycling and composting diverted 64 million tons of material from entering landfills (EPA, 2005). The longevity of landfills could possibly be extended if more people recycled and if those who do recycled more. A program such as recycling is the key to extending the life of landfills.
An increasingly popular program is curbside recycling. In 1978, only one curbside recycling program existed in the United States. As of 1998, there were more than 9,000 recycling programs across the nation (EPA, 2005). A program such as this has become popular because it reduces a household's cost of recycling by making it more convenient and less time consuming (Palatnik, R., et al, 2005). The benefits of recycling do not lie solely in diversion of waste away from disposal but, even more importantly, in the reduction of the amount of virgin resources that need to be harvested and processed for the manufacture of new products (Tuerff, K., 2005).
Interventions Used to Increase Recycling with an Existing Curbside Program
Interventions Used to Improve Recycling with an Existing Curbside Program
Today, policy makers and waste management companies have been trying to find new ways to reduce the amount of waste entering the landfills because we are rapidly running out of space for such use. In 2000, U.S. residents and businesses produced more than 221 million tons of waste, which is approximately 4.5 pounds of waste per person per day. However, the amount of waste sent to landfills in 2000 was down 13% from the 1990 total, and the amount of waste recovered in recycling has nearly doubled during the same period (ASCE, 2005). Instead of building more landfills, there is a need to focus on methods such as recycling to keep waste out of landfills. Recycling can be more effective and less costly in every way. Landfills are sources of natural hazards which have risks both to the environment and human health.
In 1999, recycling and composting diverted 64 million tons of material from entering landfills (EPA, 2005). The longevity of landfills could possibly be extended if more people recycled and if those who do recycled more. A program such as recycling is the key to extending the life of landfills.
An increasingly popular program is curbside recycling. In 1978, only one curbside recycling program existed in the United States. As of 1998, there were more than 9,000 recycling programs across the nation (EPA, 2005). A program such as this has become popular because it reduces a household's cost of recycling by making it more convenient and less time consuming (Palatnik, R., et al, 2005). The benefits of recycling do not lie solely in diversion of waste away from disposal but, even more importantly, in the reduction of the amount of virgin resources that need to be harvested and processed for the manufacture of new products (Tuerff, K., 2005).
References: ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). (2005). Report Card for America 's Infrastructure (on-line). Available: http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/index.cfm. Barr, S. and Gilg, A.W. (2005). Conceptualizing and analyzing household attitudes and actions to a growing environmental problem: Development and application of a Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., & Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026. Dixon, R., Knott, T., Roswell, H., & Sheldon, L. (1992). Prompts and Posted Feedback: In Search of an Effective Method of Litter Control. Behavioral Change, 9, 2-7. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). September (2005). Municipal Solid Waste (on-line). Available: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/recycle.htm. Goldenhar, L.M., & Connell, C.M. (1991-1992). Effects of Education and Feedback Interventions on Recycling Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors. Journal of Environmental Systems, 21, 321-333. George, Daniel P. (1993). Despite Problems, Curbside Recycling is Catching On. Beverage Industry, 64-65. Mitchell, A. (2005). The Carbon Decade: Innovation, Stagnation, Imagination. Canadian Geographic, 125, 60-65. Orenstein, D.E. (2004). Population Growth and Environmental Impact: Ideology and Academic Discourse in Israel Palatnik, R and Ayalon, O and Shechter M. (2005). Household Demand for Waste Recycling Services. Environmental Management, 35, 121-129. Schultz, W.P Tuerff, K. (2005). Putting recycling back on the map. Resource Recycling, 28-30.