6.1.1 Availability of Residential Recycling Programs

As discussed in Chapter 2, U.S. residents can recycle their household materials in two ways (Sustainable Packaging Coalition, 2021):

1. Curbside recycling collection at their home by public or private service providers, either automatically or on an opt-in basis or subscription basis.
2. A publicly or privately operated drop-off recycling location within their municipality.

Alternatively, households can dispose of recyclable materials in general trash bins intended for the landfill or incinerator. Intermediate diverters (sometimes referred to as scavengers) may collect recyclable material from curbside recycling or trash containers and drop it off at recycling centers to receive payment for those materials. Scavengers’ role in diverting material from the waste stream to the recycling stream is important, because otherwise those materials would have ended up in landfills or incinerators. Finally, materials recovery facilities (MRFs) obtain recyclable materials from curbside haulers or drop-off centers (see Figure 6-1).

The availability of these residential recycling programs varies substantially across the United States, which becomes important to consider in the attitudes of individuals toward recycling, as discussed in the next section. A study by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (2021) on the availability of recycling programs in 1,950 U.S. communities found that approximately 34 percent of the sampled population had only curbside collection available, 25 percent had both curbside programs and drop-off programs available, 32 percent had only drop-off programs available, and 9 percent had no recycling program available.¹ Recycling program availability was found to be strongly correlated with housing type: only about 3 percent

___________________

¹ The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (2021) defines the availability of recycling as a resident having access to either one or more of consumer recycling services at their place of residence.

of respondents living in single-family homes reported no access to recycling programs, and nearly one in four respondents who live in multifamily housing reported no access to recycling programs (Sustainable Packaging Coalition, 2021).

Other organizations estimate lower rates of recycling access. For instance, The Recycling Partnership (2024) estimates recycling access to be only 73 percent across all households in the United States. However, this lower rate partly reflects the organization’s definition of access, which does not count access to deposit-return systems. Yet, similar to other studies, The Recycling Partnership (2024) also found differences by housing type, where access for single-family households is 85 percent and for multifamily households it is 37 percent. Additionally, while 73 percent of households have access, only 59 percent of those who have access participate in recycling (43 percent of all households participate) (The Recycling Partnership, 2024).

Availability of recycling also varies by type of product. While metal, paper, and plastics are commonly assumed to be recyclable, what can actually be recycled depends on the characteristics of products and not just their material. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (2021) assessed the availability of residential recycling programs by product type. Products with the highest recycling availability included aluminum beverage cans (89 percent), corrugated boxes (88 percent), steel food cans (87 percent), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (87 percent), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles (87 percent), and paperboard boxes (84 percent). Materials with the lowest recycling availability included aluminum foil and foil packaging (37 percent); rigid polystyrene packaging (45 percent); PET cups (52 percent); and PET clamshells, tubs, and trays (54 percent).

Figure 6-2 shows substantial heterogeneity in recycling participation by state, with participation rates lagging access rates in all states. The recycling participation rate is the percentage of all households that participate in recycling; analogous rates can be defined for composting, incineration, and landfill (The Recycling Partnership, 2024). The lowest recycling participation rates are 20 percent (Mississippi) and 21 percent (Louisiana); the highest are 62 percent (California) and 59 percent (Oregon), and the national average recycling participation rate is 43 percent (The Recycling Partnership, 2024). The fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW) that gets landfilled follows similar patterns to the recycling rate. For instance, the South-Central region has the highest landfilling rate, 83 percent, whereas the Northeast has the lowest landfilling rate, 47 percent (The Recycling Partnership, 2024).

Figure 6-3 depicts the fate of recyclable materials in the residential recycling process in number of tons. The materials are differentiated by the amount recycled, lost at the MRF, and lost to trash. On average, 21 percent (10 million tons) of residential recyclable materials are recycled, 3 percent are lost to processing at the MRF, and the remaining 76 percent of recyclable materials are thrown out by households as trash (The Recycling Partnership, 2024). However, as indicated by Figure 6-3, heterogeneity of recycling rates by material is considerable: the highest rates nationally are for cardboard (32 percent) and aluminum cans (30 percent), while the lowest rates are for film and flexible materials, bulky rigid plastics, and plastic types 3–7 (at or below 1 percent).

6.1.2 Availability of Residential Food Waste Programs

In the United States, the availability of residential food waste programs is much lower than the availability of recycling programs. A 2023 survey of cities, counties, and solid waste authorities estimated that 12 percent of U.S. households had access to residential food waste collection programs (BioCycle, 2023). However, the number of residential food waste programs has been growing over the past decade. A prior version of this survey found that less than 3 million U.S. households had access to residential food waste programs in 2013–2014; over the next 10 years, this number grew five times to roughly 15 million households (BioCycle, 2023; see Figure 6-4).

findings have implications for targeted recycling programs and support (e.g., in counties with lower household incomes). Huber and colleagues’ (2023) findings are supported by other studies, as compiled by Shaw and colleagues (2014):

Individual characteristics that increase likelihood of recycling:

• Women (Ando and Gosselin, 2005; Barr, 2007; Harris Poll, 2014; Oates and McDonald, 2006)
• Older adults (Barr, 2007; Harris Poll, 2014; Jenkins et al., 2003; Nixon and Saphores, 2009; Sidique et al., 2010)
• Larger households (e.g., Ando and Gosselin, 2005; Nixon and Saphores, 2009)
• Higher education (Owens et al., 2000; Sidique et al., 2010)
• White (Johnson et al., 2004)

Individual characteristics that decrease likelihood of recycling:

• African Americans (Johnson et al., 2004; Nixon and Saphores, 2009)
• Foreign-born Latinos (Johnson et al., 2004)
• Renters (Nixon and Saphores, 2009; Owens et al., 2000)

Public Policy Survey conducted by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (Horner et al., 2022a,b, 2023). In Michigan, 86 percent of local leaders report that recycling is somewhat or very important to their community. Additionally, 67 percent of local leaders from jurisdictions with at least some recycling services are satisfied with the current recycling opportunities available, while only 24 percent of local leaders from communities with no access to recycling services are satisfied with their lack of services. Local leaders were more likely to say their community would choose lower taxes and fewer recycling services instead of higher taxes and more services, but many such leaders expressed uncertainty (Horner et al., 2022a,b, 2023; see Figure 6-10).

6.2.5 Willingness to Pay for Recycling Programs

People may have different views regarding the benefits of a proposed program and its anticipated outcomes. In order to assess consumers’ valuation of recycling programs, several studies estimate willingness to pay, or the maximum price a consumer is willing to pay for a product or service. Willingness to pay estimates, and their variations across groups, can inform decisions about what policies or projects to implement. Estimates of average household willingness to pay for recycling services vary from $1.47 to $28.35 per month (in 2017 USD; see Table 6-3).

The methodologies applied to generate the results in Table 6-3 have been used for many years by scientists, economists, and planners to inform decisions about public perspectives on the benefits and costs of the decision. These methodologies are often used to place a value on public goods, services, or programs for which market transactions are not available, and for which social preferences are expressed indirectly through political decisions. Examples include a proposed program’s associated taxes, budgets, regulations, approvals, and mandates.

The methodologies chosen can result in nuanced results. For example, the Jakus et al. (1996) and Tiller et al. (1997) willingness to pay studies examined drop-off centers in Williamson County, Tennessee. This rural area has households dispersed across wide distances, making curbside recycling pick-up services prohibitively costly and unavailable. Similarly, garbage collection services are limited for some residents.

As a result, many households rely on “convenience centers” for both garbage disposal and recycling. Jakus and colleagues (1996) employed a two-stage model to estimate recycling demand while accounting for selection bias. They found an average willingness to pay of approximately $10.10 for drop-off recycling services. In contrast, Tiller et al. (1997) used a contingent valuation method (CVM) to assess consumers’ hypothetical willingness to pay for additional drop-off centers. Their findings revealed an average willingness to pay ranging from $7.08 for nonrecyclers without curbside trash collection to $20.51 for recyclers with access to curbside trash pick-up.

6.2.6 Approaches for Comparing Willingness to Pay and Recycling Costs

The analysis in this report is limited to a direct comparison of the range of costs and willingness-to-pay values reported in the literature for curbside programs.² As shown in Table 6-3, for the 11 curbside studies reviewed (spanning locations in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia), the estimated values of willingness to pay ranged from $1.47 to $28.35 per month per household (in 2017 USD). In comparison, our review of curbside cost estimates in Chapter 4 found costs in North Carolina municipalities ranging from $2.79 per month to $3.75 per month per household (in 2021 USD). These cost estimates overlap the range of reported willingness to pay in Table 6-3. Similarly, the average U.S. household time costs estimated in Table 6-1, ranging from $2.62/month to $18.90/month (in 2024 USD), are within the range of willingness-to-pay values. This comparison provides moderate (though not definitive) evidence that the elicited benefits in these cases generally exceed reported costs, though perhaps not by much. This finding for curbside recycling is similar to that of Aadland and Caplan (2006) who studied 40 western U.S. cities and found that the average unit cost and the average willingness to pay were nearly identical, though with a high degree of variability around each mean.

6.3 STRATEGIES FOR PROMOTING BEHAVIOR CHANGES

Municipalities and researchers have applied various psychological intervention strategies for promoting household recycling. In a meta-analysis of randomized field studies, Varotto and Spagnolli (2017) grouped 70 interventions into six types, based on previous work by Osbaldiston and Schott (2012, p. 272):

1. Prompts and information: providing information on recycling (factual, persuasive, or merely reminders) to targeted individuals to encourage recycling behavior. Information can be delivered face-to-face, though written information (in print or online) is more common as it can reach a considerable number of people with low effort and costs.

___________________

² The willingness-to-pay estimates capture the maximum price an individual is willing to pay for a certain recycling feature, the perceived benefits, and willingness to pay. It does not include external benefits.

2. Feedback: providing either individuals or groups with information regarding their recycling behavior along with a comparison to a predefined standard, to show the difference between the standard and their current recycling behavior.
3. Commitment: asking individuals to commit to produce a certain behavior or reach a certain goal.
4. Incentives: any kind of benefit received by consumers as a result of their participation in a recycling program (e.g., monetary rewards, refund and unit pricing programs, gifts, prizes, lottery tickets, discount coupons).
5. Environmental alterations: making recycling more convenient and easier to perform by modifying the physical environment, for instance by increasing bin proximity or number, changing bin appearance, or providing home equipment for sorting waste.
6. Social modeling: any kind of passing of information via demonstration or discussion in which the initiators indicate that they personally engage in the behavior.

Varotto and Spagnolli (2017) found that all six types of interventions increased recycling behavior on average, but the magnitude of the behavioral change varied substantially across interventions. Social modeling was by far the most effective intervention technique, followed by environmental alterations; the remaining groups were about equally effective.

Social Modeling

The assumption behind social modeling is that people learn through observation of the behavior of their peers. The field studies that examined social modeling recruited community members who already participated in a recycling program to act as block leaders. These block leaders were then tasked with modeling proper recycling behaviors and informing and convincing their nonrecycling neighbors to also participate in recycling. Varotto and Spagnolli (2017) pull from Burn (1991) to posit that social modeling techniques are effective because they (1) communicate to individuals that their neighbors are recycling, engendering a social recycling norm, and (2) may lead individuals to perform the behavior out of a desire for social approval. While social modeling has low costs compared with other techniques, its effectiveness depends on the extent to which block leaders are present and willing to participate, and the extent to which residents see themselves as part of the community.

Environmental Alterations

The second most effective strategy was environmental alterations. Varotto and Spagnolli (2017) suggest that the effectiveness of environmental alterations may be due to the reduced amount of effort required to recycle and thus the perceived costs of recycling. However, no single bin size and collection frequency suits all households, and households report wanting to choose their bin sizes depending on their waste habits and home storage space (Willman, 2015).

Prompts and Information

Prompts and information are the most commonly tried interventions because of the relative ease and low-cost nature of disseminating written information via fliers, brochures, and websites that advocate recycling and explain how, why, and when to carry it out. When lack of information is the main barrier to household recycling (i.e., households are motivated to recycle but do not know how to recycle), then simple dissemination of information can lead to changes in recycling behavior (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). This situation often occurs at the start of a new recycling program or when the existing program changes or is particularly complex (NRC, 2002). However, lack of information may not be the main barrier to recycling (e.g., the program may be difficult to use). In that case, households can choose not to read the information

provided, and information interventions may not lead to behavioral change. The type of information provided also matters. Beyond informing households how to recycle and what can be recycled, some initiatives provide information on the broader benefits of recycling. While some studies found no additional effects of highlighting the benefits of recycling (Klaiman et al., 2017), other studies found positive effects of this information (Winterich et al., 2019). Together, these studies suggest that providing information may not always increase recycling rates, but at least it does not seem to reduce recycling rates, nor is it particularly costly to implement.

In the domain of food waste, Schäufele-Elbers and colleagues (2024) found that guests at a European hotel who were made aware of the food waste problem were responsive to information nudges on the topic. Messages were posted at the buffet providing arguments for reducing personal food waste, such as “Use instead of waste—Reduce food waste for a sustainable future,” and “1/3 of all food never reaches the human stomach. You can help reduce this by wasting less.” Guests reduced their average rate of food waste generation significantly during the study period (Schäufele-Elbers et al., 2024).

Incentives

Several monetary incentives aimed at encouraging recycling have been used in the United States, as surveyed in Kinnaman and Fullerton (2000) and Kinnaman (2000). Chapter 3 describes the use of corrective (“Pigovian”) taxes as a market-based instrument for promoting recycling behavior, essentially imposing a fine when recycling behavior is not correct.

Another monetary incentive is a deposit-return system, which requires consumers to pay a small deposit for each eligible beverage container at the time of purchase; consumers can get the deposit back as a refund when the container is properly returned to a drop-off recycling center. The idea behind this model is that the potential for a financial return will encourage recycling. See Box 3-3 in Chapter 3 for more information on incentives via deposit-return systems and Chapter 4 for deposit-return system policies and examples of their implementation.

While many of the policies mentioned above and discussed in previous chapters are market based, a few additional policies are available that center on household-level behaviors. These include pay-as-you-throw policies and fines for illicit dumping and burning. The idea with these methods is to make garbage collection relatively more expensive than recycling appropriately.

Pay-as-You-Throw Policies

Most U.S. households pay for garbage collection through annual property taxes or a fixed monthly fee. Thus, they do not pay for each additional bag of garbage they add to their weekly collection. However, some municipalities have pay-as-you-throw systems, where households pay for the amount of waste they produce by volume, weight, number of bags (using specially labeled bags or stickers), or frequency of collection (Gradus et al., 2019). Empirical studies of pay-as-you-throw programs have found that they are associated with decreases in household disposal of MSW and increases in recycling, such as in Virginia (Fullerton and Kinnaman, 1996), Minnesota (Sidique et al., 2010), Massachusetts (Starr and Nicolson, 2015), Italy (Bucciol et al., 2015), the Netherlands (Dijkgraaf and Gradus, 2017), and South Korea (Lee, 2023).

Fines for Illicit Burning and Dumping

However, charging a price per bag of garbage may unintentionally provide incentives for illicit burning and dumping (Fullerton and Kinnaman, 1995). It may also increase the amount of “wish-cycling,” when households use their recycling bin for waste that is not recyclable, in order to avoid paying the price for landfill waste. This behavior in turn increases contamination in the recycling stream, making it more expensive for MRFs to sort. Thus, another policy option is using fines to punish illicit dumping and burning and improper recycling sorting. In a randomized field experiment, Vollaard and van Soest (2024) found

that informing households about fines for not separating their recycling led to more than a 10 percent reduction in residual waste.

However, any such fine would require monitoring, enforcement, and administration. If these behaviors cannot be easily monitored or controlled, then a household subsidy for recycling might provide more effective incentives for recycling. While subsidies are popular with consumers, as discussed above, governments must find a way to raise funds to pay the subsidy, which often entails using other taxes, which could have their own social costs. Additionally, subsidies may raise the amount of wish-cycling (to gain the subsidy even for nonrecyclable materials). For these reasons, deposit-return programs, discussed at length in Chapter 4, have been shown to be preferable to pricing garbage collection or subsidizing recycling collection in most cases (Palmer and Walls, 1997).

Commitment

Varotto and Spagnolli (2017) identified commitment (e.g., someone following through on their intended behavior or goal to do something) as a highly individual motivator. Some of the eight studies they examined (e.g., Werner et al., 1995) indicated that garnering commitment is a more effective strategy than providing information or incentives. However, this strategy would be difficult to implement on a large scale.

Feedback

More recent studies demonstrate and compare the effectiveness of different types of feedback campaigns (see Box 6-2; Hewitt et al., 2023; McKie et al., 2024; Schäufele-Elbers et al., 2024).

Another type of feedback is bin tagging, where haulers put a tag on curbside recycling bins that are contaminated with nonrecyclable material. Box 6-3 discusses an example of how bin tagging is used in Seattle. McKie and colleagues (2024) compared recycling quality (as measured by lower contamination rates) for households that received recycling information only against those that were also penalized for excessive contamination or missorting. Households that were also penalized for these errors were subject to temporary loss of their recyclable collection service. The study found that those who were subject to penalties reduced contamination more than those who were only provided with information (McKie et al., 2024).

6.3.1 State-Level Policies and Household Behavior

State-level recycling policies vary substantially across the United States (see Figure 6-12). Cecot and Viscusi (2022) categorized state laws into five types: goal laws, plan laws, opportunity laws, mandatory recycling laws, and deposit laws. Goal laws are aspirational laws that advocate that local governments set a recycling goal but have no concrete policy mechanism that will assist in meeting that goal. Plan laws require municipalities to develop a plan for meeting their recycling goals and to evaluate their current recycling programs. Plan laws are the most common form of recycling law, implemented in 15 states. Opportunity laws, the third level of stringency, include laws that require local governments to implement policies that provide recycling opportunities for households to engage in recycling but do not mandate that all residents recycle. Finally, mandatory laws require all residents to separate their recyclable products from other household waste and appropriately recycle those products. Additionally, some states have deposit laws (i.e., deposit-return systems, discussed in Chapter 4).

Viscusi and colleagues (2022) examined how moving between states with more or less stringent recycling laws impacts a household’s recycling rate. Moving to a state with a deposit-return system increased the number of material types recycled by households by 41 percent, while moving to a state with a strict recycling law (either mandatory or opportunity law) increased the number of materials recycled by 9 percent. Moving out of a state with a deposit-return system decreased the number of materials recycled

by 13 percent, while moving out of a state with a strict recycling law impacted only recycling of plastic, which decreased by 12 percent (Viscusi et al., 2022).

BOX 6-2
Social Feedback Case Study

In New York City, Hewitt and colleagues (2023) studied recycling rates among residents of multifamily buildings. They compared families that received feedback on recycling only in their building (noncomparative feedback) to families who received feedback regarding recycling both in their own building and in another nearby building (comparative feedback; see Figure 6-11). Both buildings exhibited increased recycling, providing evidence for the effectiveness of feedback that appeals to social norms. However, the comparative feedback information in the left panel of Figure 6-11 showed a greater apparent impact than the noncomparative feedback in the right panel (Hewitt et al., 2023).

In a related study, Viscusi and colleagues (2023) examined factors beyond state policy that lead to changes in household recycling behavior. They found that increased market prices for cans and glass were associated with increases in recycling, but the same was not true for increased market prices for plastic and paper. Viscusi and colleagues (2023) hypothesized that the financial return that municipalities can reap from cans and glass, relative to plastic and paper, may “provide an inducement to promote recycling as a revenue source, and the resources obtained by selling the recycled materials may enable the municipality to promote household recycling efforts” (p. 4). Additionally, they found that declines in recycling are associated with large positive or negative household income shocks greater than 20 percent, moving into an apartment, getting married, and having a baby (Viscusi et al., 2023).

6.3.2 Increasing Recycling Access Through Business-Led Programs

As noted in previous chapters, access to municipal recycling collection and drop-off locations varies substantially across regions in the United States, across residential housing types, and across material types. Private-sector businesses sometimes fill in accessibility gaps by providing alternative collection programs. For instance, Ridwell³ provides a subscription service to collect items from subscribers’ doorsteps that are traditionally not accepted in municipal recycling programs, such as multilayered plastics, plastic films, batteries, and lightbulbs. And Terracycle⁴ collects hard-to-recycle materials via mail; customers purchase from the company a Zero Waste Box, which they can fill and ship back to the company. NexTrex⁵

___________________

³ See https://www.ridwell.com.

⁴ See https://www.terracycle.com/en-US.

⁵ See https://nextrex.com.

provides drop-off locations for recycling plastic bags and film in major retailers such as Kroger, Albertsons, Meijer, and Kohl’s. More research and data are needed on the extent to which these business-led programs increase recycling access and recycling rates.

Nespresso is an example of a company trying to foster recycling partnerships between households and businesses. In New York City (and Jersey City in the near future), households may dispose of their aluminum Nespresso capsules into the blue recycling bins. In addition, these aluminum capsules can be recycled across the entire country if consumers order a bag that they fill with used capsules and the filled bags are mailed via the post service for recycling.⁶

6.3.3 Available, Convenient, and Accessible Infrastructure

To assess whether recycling is convenient for consumers requires an understanding of how consumers define convenience for a given recycling option. Consumer recycling convenience for a curbside program includes the time and space needed to sort and store materials. Consumer recycling convenience for drop-off programs involves transportation costs, as most of the existing drop-off centers are located outside city limits. However, some drop-off recycling centers have the benefit that consumers get paid when they redeem their recyclables (e.g., states with container deposit-return laws).

For drop-off options, identifying attributes of a visit that consumers value is key. Berck and colleagues (2021) found that consumers in California generally find drop-off recycling centers convenient when they are close to home, open at convenient times, and have short lines. Drop-off recycling centers in California seem to meet this definition for typical users, who tend to have lower levels of income and education. Those who do not choose to recycle at drop-off centers tend to be more affluent and hence may not find the money gained at drop-off centers to be worthwhile. Instead, they choose to recycle through curbside collections and at businesses (Berck et al., 2021).

Beatty and colleagues (2007) consider what would happen to overall recycling rates in California if access to curbside pick-up services were extended to more consumers. Using a panel regression framework, where material recycled is regressed on share of the population with access to curbside services, they found that marginal gains from extending these services would be small, as they would mostly induce consumers switching from drop-off to curbside recycling (Beatty et al., 2007). Best and Kneip (2019) found that a curbside scheme in Germany had no effect on paper recycling but increased recycling participation by 10–25 percentage points for plastic and packaging. In the United Kingdom, Abbott and colleagues (2017) found that the findings on the trade-off between recycling via curbside or noncurbside methods are ambiguous.

Berck and colleagues (2024) simulated the elimination of government-subsidized recycling drop-off centers, finding that closing them would not significantly alter consumer well-being for any major demographic group and would have little impact on whether households chose to recycle, given households could switch to nonsubsidized recycling drop-off centers and/or curbside recycling.

6.3.4 Community and Household Campaigns to Address Inconsistencies Across Programs

As discussed earlier in this chapter, misleading product labels, such as the chasing arrows symbol, are being used on products that are not accepted by most MRFs in the United States (EPA, 2023). For instance, many consumers are confused by on-product resin identification codes, which use the chasing arrows symbol around a number 1 through 7, as an indicator of a product’s recyclability. However, resin identification codes indicate only the type of resin (e.g., PET, high-density polyethylene [HDPE], polypropylene) and not whether a product is widely recyclable. Section 6.7.1 discusses federal guidelines to restrict the use of the chasing arrow symbol on products and packaging.

___________________

⁶ See https://www.nespresso.com/us/en/circularity.

tribute information on what can and cannot be recycled; for example, see the “What Can I Recycle?” website provided by Hamilton County, Ohio (Hamilton County Environmental Services, n.d.). Box 6-4 provides a case study on the online tools provided in Seattle, Washington.

Private companies are also beginning to provide more information to households. For instance, Recycle Coach⁷ is a mobile app that provides users with fast information about their local recycling program, including personalized recycling schedules, pick-up reminders, and information on what goes where. Recycle Coach has the goal of making recycling education fun, simple, and engaging. However, as with many crowdsourced mobile apps, Recycle Coach works best when more users verify that the local information is correct. Thus, these types of mobile apps may not be effective in places where recycling rates are currently low.

6.3.5 Targeted Programs for Different Demographics

As discussed earlier in this chapter, surveys and academic studies consistently find differences in recycling rates and recycling attitudes across demographic groups. For instance, groups found to be less likely to recycle include renters, those with lower levels of formal education, smaller households, younger adults, men, foreign-born Latinos, and African Americans (Shaw et al., 2014). Efforts to calibrate campaigns to the specific characteristics of the groups they target (e.g., providing informational material in Spanish in neighborhoods with high Spanish-speaking populations; using forms of media preferred by different demographics) can strengthen campaigns and make them more effective (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). While some groups (especially older adults and homeowners) with medium to high recycling rates are motivated to recycle for environmental reasons and for concern about neighborhood cleanliness, those with low recycling rates are more motivated by convenience (Shaw et al., 2014) and understanding how to recycle (Varotto and Spagnolli, 2017). In neighborhoods with high turnover of residents, social modeling and norm initiatives may be less effective, since social modeling works best when residents see themselves as part of the community (Schultz et al., 1995). Thus, ascertaining convenience and information needs for low-recycling populations, as well as social norms, is an important first step for campaigns targeting these groups.

Rural recycling is characterized by long hauling distances, sometimes four times those of urban and suburban areas. Low population density in rural areas results in lower waste generation and high usage of burn barrels. While recycling efforts in rural areas predominantly uses collection boxes scattered throughout large areas of rural counties, maintenance problems associated with those boxes have driven most programs to switch to staffed convenience centers, where both recyclables and mixed waste are collected for transport to more distant landfills. However, rural programs face challenges in finding markets for the materials they have collected, because of low market value and long distances to markets. Thus, efforts are necessary to find and create new markets close to home (Link and Stoke, 2021).

Funding can be tailored to enhance incentives for different demographic groups. For example, in the National Strategy for Reducing Food Loss and Waste and Recycling Organics (White House, 2024), substantial funding is available for tribal communities and communities with environmental justice concerns. More research specifically examining how groups with low recycling rates respond to recycling campaigns is needed. For instance, Lakhan (2016) examined how first-generation ethnic minorities respond to different types of recycling promotion and education campaigns used by municipalities in Ontario, Canada. Lakhan (2016) found that none of the recycling campaigns tested were able to increase recycling awareness or change recycling behavior among first-generation ethnic minorities. Participants reported that the campaigns were excessively complex and confusing, and they were skeptical of what municipalities did with the waste after it was collected. This study shows that (1) municipalities may need to rethink and redesign recycling initiatives to better engage minority communities and (2) more research is needed on what types of campaigns are effective in minority communities (Lakhan, 2016).

___________________

⁷ See https://www.recyclecoach.com/solutions/home.

1. basic needs category, which would include sanitation and waste disposal facilities, as well as through the health category, which is affected by waste management practices.

Each of these frameworks offers a unique perspective on assessing waste management from a social perspective and emphasizes the importance of considering a wide range of social dimensions. Each serves as a valuable tool for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners for measuring and improving social outcomes, ensuring that development efforts lead to a more equitable and sustainable future for all. In their review of several additional frameworks, Gionfriddo and Piccaluga (2024) emphasized that these models lack scientific rigor and flexibility.

While frameworks can be helpful individually, it is essential to develop a standardized framework to be used across multiple settings and scales, including firms and local governments. Such standardization would enable scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to share a consistent understanding of the social dimensions critical to these systems.

6.4.3 Social Impacts Considerations for Value Chain Actors

Social impact studies on waste management have traditionally concentrated on the direct impacts at the point of waste treatment, such as health outcomes from toxic leakage and livelihood effects from recycling centers. While important, these do not account for the entire waste life cycle.

A product’s waste life cycle includes choices and outcomes with significant social implications, including product design choices, consumer purchase and disposal choices, material recovery, material treatment, and material reuse (Hafsa et al., 2022). Hafsa and colleagues (2022) describe how decisions at each of these value chain stages impact end of life waste.

Building on the waste life cycle concept, each value chain stage has social impacts. For instance, the way products are designed can either facilitate or hinder recycling and reuse, impacting the volume and toxicity of waste and, ultimately, public health (Fullerton and Wu, 1998). Retailers influence consumer choices through packaging options and marketing, which can either promote sustainability or contribute to a throw-away culture. Consumer purchasing decisions—often based on price, convenience, or brand loyalty—directly affect the amount and type of waste generated. Additionally, the way consumers dispose of products—whether through recycling, composting, or simply discarding—can be influenced by social norms, education, and the accessibility of waste management infrastructure (as described earlier in this chapter). Finally, social impacts considerations are relevant to waste treatment methods and the functioning of recycling markets (see Chapter 5). These markets are shaped by a complex interplay of social, economic, and policy factors that determine who participates and who benefits. A comprehensive approach to social waste studies that encompasses the entire waste value chain would provide a more holistic understanding of the social impacts at each stage and offer insights into more effective interventions for sustainable waste management.

It would be important, however, to consider the key social dimensions for each value chain actor. To identify some research opportunities for holistic social impact research on waste management and recycling, the committee combined the key social dimensions identified by Ballon Fernandez and Cuesta Leiva (2024) with the waste value chain decision-making framework shown in Table 6-5. Potential research questions are identified for each value chain stage and social dimension. For example, at the product design stage, what sort of considerations can influence inclusion, resilience, social cohesion, and process legitimacy, which will trickle down into waste management? These questions indicate that while the problem-framing remains similar, the nature of the value chain stage impacts the sort of action that can be taken to promote a healthy social impact.

6.5 COMMUNITY IMPACTS

Recycling programs play a pivotal role in enhancing community cohesion and resilience, with impacts that reach beyond environmental benefits to foster social and economic value. Effective recycling

initiatives encourage local participation and shared responsibility, helping to establish recycling as a community norm. Through outreach and education tailored to diverse populations, these programs promote widespread engagement and support long-term behavioral shifts toward sustainability. In smaller communities, such targeted efforts have proven particularly effective, where interpersonal connections can amplify community involvement.

6.5.1 Awareness and Education Initiatives

In a Pew Research Center poll (2016), 28 percent of Americans reported that their community’s social norms strongly encourage recycling and reuse, while 22 percent reported that most people in their community do not encourage recycling. The remaining 48 percent reported being somewhere in the middle (Pew Research Center, 2016).

replaced human labor, in some cases automation was implemented because a shortage of sorters (Pyzyk, 2019).

While waste disposal has traditionally involved labor in the garbage collection and landfilling industries, Morris and Morawski (2011) found that the number of jobs created by disposing of material pales in comparison with the job creation potential in the circular economy through reuse, recycling, and remanufacturing.

6.6 PURSUING FAIRNESS IN ACCESS TO BENEFITS OF RECYCLING

Environmental justice considerations in recycling involve ensuring that all communities have fair access to waste management services, including convenient recycling facilities and infrastructure for waste sorting and recovery. Environmental justice includes addressing disparities in service availability, such as differences between public and private facilities, and ensuring that decision-making processes in waste management are inclusive and transparent. Expanding the extensive research on environmental justice to include the impact of recycling and waste management policies on vulnerable communities can help create more effective recycling systems.

6.6.1 Environmental Justice in Recycling Services

Environmental justice in the context of recycling and waste management focuses on two primary approaches: equity and justice. These approaches aim to address the fair distribution of waste management resources and just processes for their allocation. Despite the importance of these issues, scholarship has been limited on how environmental justice intersects with waste and recycling, compared with areas such as emissions and infrastructure. This section explores the current trends in environmental justice related to waste management, the existing gaps in the literature, and directions for future research.

Equity in waste management includes the fair allocation of segregated recycling collection centers, the establishment of recycling markets, the placement of MRFs, and the availability of services for collecting hard-to-recycle waste. It ensures that all communities, regardless of income or race, have access to

facilities and services that allow them to manage waste responsibly. Without equity, low-income and marginalized communities often face the brunt of poor waste management practices, leading to increased exposure to pollution and health hazards.

Procedural justice in waste management focuses on fairness of the processes used to allocate resources and manage waste, including transparent decision-making, inclusive participation, and accountability in setting up waste management systems. Procedural justice ensures that community members have a voice in decisions that affect their environment, particularly in marginalized communities that have historically been excluded from such processes. By incorporating procedural justice, waste management practices can be made more democratic and reflective of the needs and rights of all community members.

According to Chowkwanyun (2023), the environmental justice literature has focused predominantly on issues of income and race, environmental emissions, and infrastructure (e.g., schools, highways). The existing literature has effectively identified reasons for disproportionate exposure to environmental harms and issues of mitigation and maldistribution. However, relatively little literature has been devoted to environmental justice issues specific to MSW and recycling. Several critical areas are in need of further research:

1. Policy decisions and regulations: Given a gap in understanding of how policy decisions and regulatory frameworks shape waste management practices, the literature often fails to address how different policies may lead to unequal outcomes in waste distribution and exposure.
2. Demographic transformations: Changes in population demographics, such as urbanization and aging, have significant impacts on waste generation and management. The environmental justice literature has not adequately explored how these transformations affect waste management practices and the resulting effects on justice.
3. Migration patterns: The movement of populations, whether due to economic opportunities or environmental displacement, affects waste management. But little research has tried to understand the intersection between migration and waste management from an environmental justice perspective.
4. Political arrangements: The role of local, state, and national political structures in shaping waste management policies and practices is another area not thoroughly examined. Political arrangements can influence how resources are allocated and which communities are prioritized.
5. Corporate behavior: The actions of private corporations, which often manage waste facilities, play a crucial role in waste management practices. The environmental justice literature has not fully addressed how corporate behavior influences environmental justice outcomes, particularly in terms of waste management.

To address these gaps, future research needs to focus on broader social impacts and historical accounts of policies that explain modern-day problems. Understanding the historical evolution of recycling infrastructure and policies can shed light on current disparities in waste management. By examining how past policies and practices have led to present-day issues, researchers can better identify pathways for more equitable waste management systems. The following research questions could guide such studies:

• How have historical waste management policies impacted different communities over time?
• How have race and socioeconomic status influenced the placement of landfills, incinerators, and recycling centers? What historical policies or practices led to these patterns?
• What are the long-term health impacts on communities that were historically exposed to poor waste management practices?

Environmental justice research has often been closely related to litigation, which has been a crucial tool for addressing disparities. Ongoing litigations or government accounts of waste management practices can provide valuable insights into the systemic issues that lead to unequal outcomes. For instance, the United Church of Christ (1987) highlighted that communities of color disproportionately bore the burden of exposure to toxic waste. And a study by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (1995) identified spatial

patterns of landfill and hazardous waste locations along race and income. These studies underscore the importance of using litigation and governmental research to uncover and address environmental injustices in waste management. Some questions to consider:

• What waste-related litigation has led to significant policy or regulatory changes?
• How do federal and state policies differ in their approach to environmental justice litigation?
• Are disparities in litigation outcomes based on the demographics of the plaintiffs? How do these disparities reflect broader societal inequities?

Addressing these gaps requires a focus on equitable distribution of waste management resources and just processes for decision-making. By expanding the scope of environmental justice research to include waste management, policymakers and scholars can develop more comprehensive strategies for ensuring that all communities are treated fairly in the distribution and management of waste.

6.6.2 Sources for Environmental Justice–Related Data

Two data sources have been developed for understanding the social impacts of waste management. After describing each one, the committee offers suggested questions for guiding research using the data offered in these sources.

EPA’s Interactive Recycling Infrastructure and Market Opportunities Map

EPA’s Interactive Recycling Infrastructure and Market Opportunities Map⁸ offers a detailed overview of waste management facilities across the United States, supporting the goals of the National Recycling Strategy and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This map provides information on existing recycling infrastructure, per capita waste generation, and recycling rates for postconsumer materials, along with other market-related factors.

By mapping these details, the tool aims to bolster both primary and secondary markets for recyclable materials, promote cleaner communities by reducing landfill waste, and support climate change initiatives by diverting waste from landfills. The map covers all stages of the recycling process from waste generation to end use. It identifies the locations of 15 types of waste management facilities, including MRFs, composting sites, electronics recyclers, recycling facilities for various specific materials, anaerobic digesters, municipal solid waste landfills, transfer stations, and secondary processors for glass and wood. For each facility, the map provides comprehensive data such as the facility’s name, address, contact information, type, and feedstock, where available.

Additionally, the map offers insights into the estimated tons of generated and recycled materials, categorized by zip code and material type. It includes data on 16 types of recyclable materials, such as aluminum, cardboard, electronics, various plastics, food waste, glass, steel cans, tires, paper, textiles, yard trimmings, and wood.

The data presented in this tool are based on the best available information from 2021 to 2022. The map serves as a valuable resource for understanding the current landscape of recycling infrastructure and opportunities for market development in the United States.

Complementing EPA’s waste management map with demographic information and historical accounts offers promising research opportunities to explore the social impacts of recycling infrastructure and waste management practices. By correlating facility locations with socioeconomic indicators such as income levels, education, and employment, researchers can examine how economic factors influence recycling rates and access to infrastructure, potentially revealing disparities between affluent and lower-income communities. Integrating health statistics can provide insights into whether areas with more robust recycling programs and better waste management infrastructure experience improved health outcomes, especially concerning waste-

___________________

⁸ See https://www.epa.gov/circulareconomy/recycling-infrastructure-and-market-opportunities-map.

related illnesses. Additionally, studying the evolution of recycling practices and infrastructure over time can reveal trends and the historical impact of waste management policies on different communities. Analyzing historical pollution and landfill data can further illustrate past environmental burdens and assess how advancements in recycling have addressed these issues over the years.

Plastic Litigation Tracker

In 2022, the New York University School of Law launched the Plastics Litigation Tracker,⁹ which provides a database of the past and pending cases involving plastic products or pollution. The database includes 44 distinct cases dating back to 1971. The tracker enables environmental justice scholars to identify examples of waste-related litigation and observe how they may lead to policy changes.

For example, in 2018, Smith v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (No. 4:18-cv-06690),¹⁰ a federal court approved a class-action settlement involving claims that a company misled customers about the recyclability of its single-use coffee pods. The lawsuit argued that the company violated laws in California and Massachusetts by falsely advertising the pods as recyclable, which could contribute to plastic waste and climate change. The settlement includes a $10 million payment for customers, legal fees, and other costs. The company must also add a disclaimer, “Check locally—Not recycled in many communities,” on packaging and ads. Any leftover settlement funds will go to Ocean Conservancy and Consumer Reports.

In Minnesota, Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit against Reynolds Consumer Products and Walmart for misleading consumers by advertising Hefty recycling bags as recyclable, even though they are made from low-density polyethylene, which cannot be processed at recycling facilities (No. 62-CV-23-3104 [Minn. Dist. Ct. 2024]). As a result, recyclable items placed in these bags end up in landfills. In August 2024, the companies reached a settlement, agreeing to halt the sale of the bags in Minnesota for 2.5 years. Afterward, they will label the bags as “not recyclable.” The companies will also pay $216,670, covering profits from the bags, and Reynolds will implement antigreen washing training and revise its marketing review process.

These litigations show that many states are concerned about recycling labels on products and following the “polluter pays” principle. In both cases the firms were asked to retract their labels and use information that correctly portrayed whether the product could be recycled locally (in those states).

6.7. KEY POLICY OPTIONS

6.7.1 National Recycling Labels and Regulations for Products and Packaging

One of the primary objectives of MSW recycling programs is to make them easy to understand and use. Surveys show high levels of confusion on the part of consumers as to what can be recycled and how to dispose of recyclables “correctly.” Labels on products and their packaging are sometimes inconsistent with local rules about what consumers can recycle. For an important example, in the 1980s, the American Society of the Plastic Industry developed resin identification codes (1–7) to indicate the type of plastic used in a product or packaging. In addition to the plastic code number, these codes use the chasing arrows symbol, which is an internationally recognized symbol for recycling. The arrows lead consumers to believe the product or packaging can be recycled, even though the codes indicate only the type of plastic and technical feasibility of recycling and not whether it can be recycled in any given location.

While several U.S. cities offer consumer-oriented programs to improve information and reduce confusion in recycling, more could be done at the national level to evaluate existing efforts and develop consistent messaging to reduce confusion at the point of recycling decisions. Specifically, the Federal Trade Commission and EPA could support the adoption of on-product recycling labels that reflect the recyclability of products more accurately, as well as the variability of recycling across the United States. The same labels

___________________

⁹ See https://plasticslitigationtracker.org.

¹⁰ See the Plastics Litigation Tracker at https://plasticslitigationtracker.org/?keywords=18-cv-06690.

should be used for online purchases. An example of a state law is California’s SB 343 (Allen, Chapter 507, Statutes of 2021), which “directs CalRecycle to publish data about the types of materials actually recycled in California. Manufacturers and other interested parties must use that information as part of their assessment of whether products can be considered recyclable for labeling purposes. The law outlaws manufacturers and others from selling products or packaging labeled as recyclable unless the items are regularly collected and processed for recycling in the state” (CalRecycle, n.d.).

National labeling standards have been enacted in Australia and New Zealand through the Australasian Recycling Label (ARL).¹¹ This label was developed by the nonprofit Australian Packaging Covenant Organization. The Australian National Government (2023) supports the ARL with educational materials (see, e.g., Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, n.d.) and by investing “$5 million to support 20,000 small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to improve the sustainability of their packaging and adopt the Australasian Recycling Label (ARL) on their packaging through the SME ARL Program” (para. 13). The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation assumes responsibility for the ARL, and since 2022, has owned and operated the label with the support of other nonprofits, such as Planet Ark and PREPDESIGN.

Similarly, EPA, in partnership with producers, could support national recycling label standards; the How2Recycle labels presented in Table 6-6 were created by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. If EPA considers a new label instead, it would be important to pretest to ensure that it is accurate and clear to consumers across a full range of educational and demographic backgrounds. Additional costs for this program include:

• Funding regular, nationwide analyses at MRFs to identify which materials are commonly collected, sorted, sold, or transferred for recycling in the United States. This data collection would be similar to what was required in California under SB 343.
• Monitoring the proper use of the new label, as well as any improper use of chasing arrow symbols.
• Creating funds for businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, to adopt the new label.

Regulating the use of the chasing arrow symbol would eventually reduce consumer confusion and restore trust in on-package recycling information. The label could be developed in a similar fashion to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s USDA Organic label to clarify and coordinate market information. Additionally, it can be used in conjunction with other policy options as part of an extended producer responsibility program. A trade-off for this policy is the monitoring it would require on the part of the federal government.

Implementation of this policy could begin with a 2-year initial product labeling study at the national level. It could draw on waste characterization studies already being conducted or funded by states (e.g., California), federal agencies (e.g., Department of Energy, Bioenergy Technology Office), and industry groups (e.g., Sustainable Packaging Coalition) to identify data gaps. The study would then collect data to fill in identified gaps in evidence available. New prohibitions against mislabeling products could be enforced 2 years after completing the initial study. Future product studies would then be needed every 5 years after the first study.

A consumer survey could be developed to assess the effectiveness of the policy implementation, investigating consumer recognition of new labels and their clarity and effectiveness in communicating the intended information (e.g., Boyer et al., 2021; Donato and Adıgüzel, 2022; Fischhoff et al., 1998). Curbside audits could collect measures of contamination before and after the policy is implemented. Regular monitoring of misuse of recycling labels would also be needed.

___________________

¹¹ See https://arl.org.au/about.

or any other indicator of recyclability on products and packaging unless the items are regularly and widely collected and processed for recycling across the United States. Furthermore, with or without a mandate to do so, producers should adopt and use updated resin identification symbols that do not include the chasing arrows symbol.

Key Policy Option 6-1: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in partnership with producers could support and evaluate national recycling label standards—through education, outreach, and funding—such as the How2Recycle symbols created by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. Additionally, the U.S. Congress, through EPA, could provide funding for small- to medium-sized companies that lack capability for transitioning to a new national recycling label standard.

6.7.2 Funding Social Modeling Programs

Social norms are beliefs or behaviors held by individuals in a social network or in a perceived identity group with whom individuals wish to affiliate. This group identification can be local (e.g., family, friends, coworkers) or regional, national, or global, especially as facilitated by the internet. Social norms may be used to design communications that address the concerns and values of a target population.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, Varotto and Spagnolli (2017) found that social modeling was by far the most effective intervention for increasing recycling behaviors. Many of the programs studied recruited community members who were already participating in a recycling program to act as leaders in their community. These “block leaders,” as they are often known, are tasked with modeling proper recycling behaviors and informing and convincing their nonrecycling neighbors to participate in recycling. Block leaders may organize meetings or may have more informal face-to-face interactions with those in their community. Other means of education and communication, such as a website or library display, may support block leaders’ efforts and provide further opportunities for social modeling.

Varotto and Spagnolli’s (2017) findings are consistent with other studies of recycling behavior (Burn, 2006) and studies in other domains, such as energy and water conservation, where social modeling with the block leader approach is used to promote targeted behaviors (Abrahamse and Steg, 2019; Champine, 2023; Fiorillo and Senatore, 2024; Geiger et al., 2019; Niemiec et al., 2021). The block leader approach, and social modeling more generally, are consistently found to be effective at influencing individual behavior. The intuition behind social modeling programs is that the desire to comply with social norms often provides a strong motivation for individual and group behavior.

The objectives of the proposed policy are to advance social and environmental goals (including distributional effects); increase community engagement in recycling; and reduce household confusion, in order to ultimately reduce contamination. Face-to-face programs and sharing advice have been shown to be very effective at influencing beliefs and behaviors. These programs are typically run among neighbors or other residential groups (e.g., homeowners’ association, local charitable organization), or in work and office settings.

An advantage of social modeling is its low cost, as compared with other techniques. A disadvantage is that it depends on the extent to which block leaders are present and willing to participate and the extent to which residents see themselves as part of the community. Face-to-face programs require ongoing effort to recruit and retain block leaders and to provide programming and feedback to block leaders. The ability to maintain and spread these programs over a large area and for a long time has not (as far as we know) been demonstrated. Additionally, the broader impact may be limited by the participant makeup. Residential groups tend to attract participants who are already environmentally conscious and already recycle, with less potential for significant upward shifts by a more representative demographic. Workplace groups may include a mix of those who volunteer and those that are “voluntold,” and a range of workplace concerns and agendas may distract from the recycling purpose. Thus, rather than relying solely on residential and workplace groups, block leaders can likely increase their impact by going out into the community and reaching people in “third places”—informal public gathering places, such as cafes, coffee shops, community and recreation centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, and church groups (Oldenburg, 1989).