title: An environmental-economic assessment of residential curbside collection programs in Central Florida.
abstract: Inefficient collection and scheduling procedures negatively affect residential curbside collection (RCC) efficiency, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and cost. As Florida aims to achieve a 75% recycling goal by 2020, municipalities have switched to single-stream recycling to improve recycling efficiency. Waste diversion and increased collection cost have forced some municipalities to reduce garbage collection frequency. The goal of this study was to explore the trade-offs between environmental and economic factors of RCC systems in Florida by evaluating the RCC system design of 25 different Central Florida communities. These communities were grouped into four sets based on their RCC garbage, yard waste, and recyclables collection design, i.e., frequency of collection and use of dual-stream (DS) or single-stream (SS) recyclables collection system. For the 25 communities studied, it was observed that RCC programs that used SS recyclables collection system recycled approximately 15-35%, by weight of the waste steam, compared to 5-20% for programs that used DS. The GHG emissions associated with collection programs were estimated to be between 36 and 51kg CO2eq per metric ton of total household waste (garbage and recyclables), depending on the garbage collection frequency, recyclables collection system (DS or SS), and recyclables compaction. When recyclables offsets were considered, the GHG emissions associated with programs using SS were estimated between -760 and -560, compared to between -270 and -210kg CO2eq per metric ton of total waste for DS programs. These data suggest that RCC system design can significantly impact recyclables generation rate and efficiency, and consequently determine environmental and economic impacts of collection systems. Recycling participation rate was found to have a significant impact on the environmental and financial performance of RCC programs. Collection emissions were insignificant compared to the benefits of recycling. SS collection of recyclables provided cost benefits compared to DS, mainly due to faster collection time.
authors.affiliation: Joyce Engineering, Inc., Charlotte, NC, United States. Electronic address: mousamaimoun@knights.ucf.edu.
authors.forename: Mousa A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Maimoun
authors.affiliation: Department of Civil, Environmental and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States. Electronic address: debra.reinhart@ucf.edu.
authors.forename: Debra R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Reinhart
authors.affiliation: Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: k.madani@imperial.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Kaveh
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Madani
mesh_terms: D002947:Cities / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005431:Florida; D005735:Garbage; D059027:Recycling / Q000191:economics; D012037:Refuse Disposal / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data
keywords: Curbside collection; Dual-stream; Emissions; Florida; Recycling; Single-stream