12RDSC19

1

Assessing the potential utility of informal recycling as a tool for solid waste

reduction in New York City.

1. Problem Statement

Solid waste generated in urban areas continues to present many challenges to

municipalities worldwide. New York City is no exception, producing nearly 14 million tons of

solid waste and recyclables annually (PlanNYC 2011). In an ambitious effort to divert 75% of

the solid waste from landfills by 2030, NYC is now employing a variety of management

strategies aimed at reduction, reuse, and recycling (PlanNYC 2011). We see an opportunity at

The New School – a university with over 10,000 students and 2,000 faculty across more than two

dozen buildings in the heart of Manhattan – to not only contribute to NYC's solid waste

diversion objective, but to introduce and assess an innovative approach to solid waste

management known as informal recycling (The New School 2012).

Informal recycling of solid waste is a method of reducing waste tonnage economically by

"employing" citizen recyclers who make a profit from what is salvaged in the regular waste

stream. The role of informal recycling is substantial in urban areas in the developing world,

accounting for the majority of recyclables collected and achieving recycling rates of 20-50%

(Wilson et al. 2009). Little is known, however, about the contributions by informal recyclers in

cities of developed nations, where more formal recycling infrastructure and policies are set in

place. Unsurprisingly, salvageable materials still contribute significantly to the solid waste

stream in the largest city in the United States. (City of New York, 2005)

Most research studies completely ignore this unsanctioned sector from waste stream

operational models (Besiou et al. 2012). An objective evaluation of the potential value of

incorporating or promoting informal recycling strategies in New York City clearly seems

warranted, and we have chosen the New School campus as a starting point.

12RDSC19

2

2. Project Summary / Background

Our project evaluates the potential for increasing informal recycling at The New School

campus in lower Manhattan. For the purposes of this study, we define informal recycling as the

extraction of recyclable and reusable material from the waste stream by people devoid of any

official institutional directive and motivated by financial incentives. We conducted a pilot waste

composition profile for The New School (TNS) facilities to determine the amount of salvageable

material in the university waste stream by building type and the potential cash value of this

salvageable material.

There is growing literature on the significance of informal recycling on municipal waste

management in cities around the world (Nzeadibe 2009, Sembiring & Nitivattanon 2010). There

are many social and economic benefits associated with this practice, ranging from decreasing the

tonnage of solid waste to be transported and processed to providing income to some of society’s

most vulnerable populations (Wilson et al. 2006, Wilson et al. 2009). Despite its apparent utility

in developing countries, applications of informal recycling strategies have often been met with

resistance due to its perceived association with unhygienic conditions and criminal behavior

(Wilson et al. 2009, Besiou et al. 2012). This perception has led to precautionary and inhibitory

policies by various governmental and institutional agencies that have stunted these recycling

opportunities (Gutberlet & Baeder 2008, Sembiring & Nitivattanon 2010).

The New School uses both public and private services for the pickup and transfer of its

waste. Knowledge of the composition of the New School’s waste, described both by waste

category and collection location (dorm, classroom building, etc.), is by itself very useful to New

School facility managers and executives in determining future waste management policy and

practice.

12RDSC19

3

This project is innovative in that it aims to decrease salvageable waste in the waste

stream without adding new waste management infrastructure or the need for additional labor or

transportation. It represents the application of the practice common in the developing world into

a new socio-economic context.

3. Relationship to Sustainability

The customary protocol to create landfills for our growing waste production is taking a

toll on our environment and nearby populations. Landfills are expensive to build, maintain and

to eventually fill and cap. Though technology has advanced in the past several decades, landfills

are by no means a “cradle-to-grave” solution for handling waste (EPA, 1993). Advanced gas

piping systems and multilayered sediment provide prevention against seepage of hazardous

decomposition into the air and soil, but even with such sound engineering, once a landfill is

capped – typically at its maximum capacity – there is no guarantee that a manmade structure will

not compromise in the future. Thus, the threat to exposures of hazardous materials by wildlife or

humans is real, even if not in the immediate future (EPA, 2006).

This project promotes sustainability and social benefit using a practice that by definition

does both. Informal recycling has been successful in many parts of the developing world,

significantly reducing waste and providing income to citizen recyclers (Besiou et al. 2012).

There are countless societal, economic, and environmental benefits of the proposed project.

Societal benefits include a smaller waste stream, which can lead to a diversion of resources from

waste management to other civic investments. Economic benefits include saving taxpayers

money in the process of waste management by lessening the load of current landfills and

delaying the creation of new landfills, and even providing new revenue streams to supplement a

poor employment landscape. Potential environmental benefits include the reduction of hazardous

12RDSC19

4

waste into the local ecosystems through contamination like seepage now and in the future (EPA,

1993). More locally with informal recycling, New School students could gain a revenue source

with flexible hours, the New School administration could save money managing less facility

waste, and the school overall could further develop its mission to be a sustainable community.

We see a large opportunity for these benefits to come to fruition on a large scale in NYC.

It is important for citizens and managers to understand that oftentimes informal recycling can be

complementary to modern waste management schemes (Besiou et al. 2012). Our study could

prove useful for future research to evaluate the contributions of informal recyclers in the

developed world and serve as a launching point for informal recycling programs in NYC.

4. Project Objectives:

Given the impact positive impact that informal recycling practices have had around the

world, we conducted a pilot study to assess the potential for informal recycling at TNS. The

project had three fundamental objectives, which will be described in detail in later sections.

1. To conduct a quantitative analysis of New School waste to determine the necessary

scale of a comprehensive study.

2. To create informational materials and bring attention to the practice of informal

recycling throughout the campus community.

3. To develop a network of groups, officials, faculty and student volunteers whom could

be drawn upon for future waste analysis or program implementation.

5. Materials/Methods

Over the course of the project, we have developed a methodology, defined explicit team roles,

and defined team milestones.

Project Milestones:

Table 1. Project timeline

12RDSC19

5

Project Tasks Timeframe

Project outreach January-February 2013

Build website February 2013

Information gathering February-March 2013

Purchase required gear for waste sorting February-March 2013

Safety Training for waste sorting March 2013

Waste sorting events March 4, 11, 18, 2013

Data analysis and report preparation April 2013

Team member roles

Each team member played a vital role in the entire project. Apart from designated roles as

outlined here, each team member was actively involved in the waste sorting events and the

writing of this report.

Table 2. Team Roles

Ryan Ahern Team Leader

Laura Merli Website Design and Management

Sarah Frazier Graphic Design

Devashree Saha Marketing and Outreach

Identifying Waste Components

Waste composition varies between organizations and locations; characterizing waste is

essential in accurately describing a waste stream. (Dahlén & Lagerkvist, 2008). Initially, the

team reviewed several industry (waste resource management industry) best practices to gain a

clear picture of the types of waste and how it is converted into resource across several countries

across the globe. After considering specific conditions at TNS (scale, location, demographics),

the team agreed with the following classification of waste components prior to starting the waste

sorting events in March 2013 (Table 3).

Table 3: Identification of Waste components (modified from Dahlen & Lagerkvist 2008).

Waste component Description

Biodegradable / Compostable

Bio-waste, fermentable waste, food waste, organic waste, degradable

waste, kitchen waste, bio-waste, undefined residue, bread, refuse and

natural organic products

Paper Newsprint, paper, cardboard, mixed paper, total paper, high grade paper,

corrugated sheets, paper packaging, non-packaging paper

Plastics (Recyclable) Plastic packaging, plastic film, dense plastic, any plastic that had a

recyclable symbol with no. 4 or higher, foamed plastic packaging

12RDSC19

6

Plastics (Non-recyclable) Any plastic that had absolutely no recyclable sign

Wood (Mainly seen in the form of Chopsticks and was incorporated after first

waste sorting event)

Metals Metal packaging, non-packaging metal, cans, lids, aluminum, ferrous

metals and non-ferrous metals

Glass Packaging and non-packaging glass of any sort

Textiles Textiles, leather, healthcare textiles, non-woven and woven textiles

Fines Residue and liquids remaining

Non-compostable (inorganic) Unclassified combustibles, etc

Waste Sorting Events

To accomplish our first objective, we conducted three waste stream analyses on March

4th

, 11th

, and 18th

of 2013. All sorting events began with a safety training session provided by

Facilities Management. All volunteers were equipped with the essential safety equipment

(Tyvek suits, puncture resistant gloves, safety glasses) and instructed on simple measures to take

to reduce risk of injury.

During each sampling event, 10 bags of waste were bought to sorting tables and weighed

individually before being sorted into waste categories (Table 3). Two of the events were

conducted at the Lang Courtyard inside of an academic building; the third event was conducted

at a student dormitory. Both of the sorting sites had similar receptacles for recycling and

composting, thus eliminating a significant variable between sites. Each sampling event yield a

profile of waste composition broken down into the 10 components listed in Table 3.

Methods of Quantitative Analysis

To determine the amount of sampling events needed to get a more robust understanding

of a waste stream, we used Equation 1 derived from (Dahlén & Lagerkvist, 2008). In equation 1,

S is defined as the co-efficient of variation, T is the number of samples in this investigation, E is

the desired level of significance, and x is the mean component proportion.

Equation 1 𝑵 = [𝑺 ∗ 𝑻/𝒆 ∗ 𝒙]²

12RDSC19

7

We calculated the number of sampling events required to be able to detect significant

differences amongst each waste group (Table 2). Even though the application of this equation has

been criticized for being largely theoretical and potentially irrelevant for waste studies (Dahlén

& Lagerkvist, 2008), we find it useful for understanding the potential sampling scope required

for future studies. This approach has been criticized for due to its incorporation of relative

standard deviation, and the general difficulty of utilizing a statistical model to model significance

of waste analyses. We chose this model due to its widespread use, despite its limitations.

6. Results/Demonstration

The first objective of our project was to determine the scope and scale of a campus wide

investigation of informal recycling potential. We assessed different sampling techniques and

determined how many samples would be needed to ensure high statistical power. The results of

the three sampling events are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Waste composition profile from sampling events. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated as the

ratio of standard deviation to the mean.

Tota

l Wei

ght

(KG

)

Bio

deg

rad

able

Was

te

Pap

er

Pla

stic

(Rec

ycla

ble

)

Pla

stic

(N

on

-

Rec

ycla

ble

)

Gla

ss

Met

als

Wo

od

Text

iles

Haz

Was

te

3/4/2013 Academic

Building

13.70 5.74 2.70 1.35 2.11 0.64 0.18 0.03 0.09 0.00

41.89% 19.68% 9.88% 15.43% 4.64% 1.31% 0.20% 0.66% 0.00%

3/11/2013 Dormitory

40.16 14.77 11.63 2.41 5.90 2.60 1.24 0.27 1.32 0.43

36.78% 28.97% 6.00% 14.70% 6.47% 3.09% 0.67% 3.29% 1.08%

3/18/2013 Academic

Building

10.708 4.27 2.37 0.92 2.87 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.14 0.02

39.90% 22.13% 8.63% 26.82% 1.68% 1.64% 0.41% 1.27% 0.22%

CV 6.51 20.41 24.24 35.80 56.70 47.03 55.18 79.11 131.7

0

Required Samplings

At p=.1

11 299 3521 1423 70672 218073 6611543 826401 36672

835

Notes: Haz Waste was made up of batteries, lightbulbs, and biomedical waste. The three categories of "Other Organic, Other inorganic and Fines are not displayed, because nothing was found.

12RDSC19

8

Equation 1 accounts for both variation in waste composition, as well as relative waste

significance. The higher the variance of any given waste component, the more sampling events

would be required to achieve the desired statistical power. In addition, the larger the mean

proportion that a given waste component makes up, the less that it need be analyzed. Therefore,

the smaller percentage that a particular waste component makes up of a given waste stream, the

more waste that would need to be analyzed to confidently project its relative proportion.

This dynamic has interesting implications for our project. For example, the mean

proportion of “organic” waste was roughly 40% across all sampling events, with minimal

variance. Despite only having three sampling events, we can say with some degree of certainty

that organic waste (excluding paper), potentially makes up a large percentage of the New School

waste stream. Conversely, metals (the primary target of informal recyclers) made up a small

percentage of overall waste (roughly 2% by weight). Based on equation 1, it would take

thousands of sampling events to get a good measure of how much metal is in New School Waste.

We found that three of the four most proportionally significant waste categories

(Biodegradable Waste, Recyclable Plastic, Paper) were recyclable/compostable materials. Both

sampling locations had recycling and composting receptacles, along with highly detailed and

specific instructional signage. Regardless of this, over half of the waste that we analyzed from

the waste stream was both recyclable/compostable and could have been diverted to the proper

receptacles. The lesson is two-fold. Explicit informational signage paired with recycling

receptacles does not guarantee recycling behavior, even at an institutional community that strives

for sustainability.

12RDSC19

9

From 2004-2005, the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY) conducted a

waste analysis of house hold waste. Our results provide for an interesting comparison of a

university community to the city at large. (City of New York, 2005) In our study we observed a

similar waste stream profile. DSNY found roughly 33% of waste to be organics, our study

showed about 40%. In addition, one quarter of NYC trash could have been recycled given

existing programs. We found that at the New School, roughly one third of waste could have been

recycled. In both cases, there was more salvageable waste at the New School than in New York

in general.

In addition to analyzing the New School’s waste stream, we were successful in raising

awareness of waste management issues throughout campus. We held a project kickoff event

which attracted students and faculty alike to an informal discussion of informal recycling at the

New School, in New York and around the word. Our website

(http://recyclingefficiency.wix.com/informalrecycling) served as a clearinghouse of information

for the projectOur project was featured on campus wide blogs (The New School, 2013) and was

the subject of a feature article in the New School’s monthly newspaper, The New School Free

Press. Each of the three waste sorting events were conducted in public places visible by

passersby. We often took breaks to discuss the project with curious observers. All of our

informational material and web design were unified by a logo and color scheme, making our

project recognizable around campus.

Figure 1. Photos of Waste

Sorting at the Lang Courtyard.

Photos by Laura Merli

12RDSC19

10

7. Conclusions

The New School prides itself in being an incubator of innovation and sustainability. Our

study of two campus facilities shows that a significant amount of the recyclable or compostable

materials still remains in the campus waste stream, despite the ample availability of recycling

and composting bins on campus. The situation at the New School is hardly unique; encouraging

recycling is a challenge faced by institutions worldwide.

The fact that waste is not sorted perfectly is not a surprise. Volunteers expressed

confusion between seemingly contradictory recycling policies at the TNS, other private

institutions and municipalities. Furthermore, the volunteers were mainly graduate students

seeking advanced degrees in environmental issues and urban policy. Despite their informed

background, even student volunteers often had questions about how to sort certain materials.

Relative levels of income might not make conventional informal recycling a strong

option here at TNS, but other financial incentives could be put in place to achieve a similar

effect. Cities around the world (San Francisco, Toronto) have systems in place to reward people

for minimizing waste. Moral or ethical justifications could be supplemented with financial

incentives to stimulate change in people’s waste sorting behavior at TNS, in New York and

beyond.

The dialogue that we sparked and the volunteerism that we inspired were perhaps the

most meaningful outcomes of our project. Whether on Blogs, in group meetings or in casual

discussion, our project brought people together to consider issues related to waste management

and to think critically about potential solutions.

12RDSC19

11

8. Acknowledgements

Thank you to Katherine Perkins and Thomas Whalen from Facilities Management for

providing professional safety training and helping us to procure a light so our experiment could

go on past sunset. Dr. John Clinton and Dean Neil Grabois for their constant support and

encouragement. Our volunteers who remained enthusiastic no matter how foul the waste got:

Lisabeth Tremblay, Julia Connors, Jason Manuso, Katherine Nehring, and Josselin Philippee.

Thanks to the New School Sustainable Cities Club for their support. Part time faculty

Konstantine J. Rountos served as faculty advisor and sponsor of this project. For his inspiration

and guidance, we are grateful.

9. Works Cited

Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2006). RealWorld Evaluation: Conducting Evaluation

with Budget, Time, Data, and Political Constraints. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage

Publications.

Besiou, M., Georgiadis, P. and Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2011), Official recycling and

scavengers: Symbiotic or conflicting? European Journal of Operational Research Volume 218,

Pages 563-576

Binion, E., & Gutberlet, J. (2012). The effects of handling solid waste on the wellbeing of

informal and organized recyclers: a review of the literature.International Journal of

Occupational and Environmental Health, 18(1), 43-52.

City of New York, Department of Sanitation (2005) 2004-05 NYC Waste Characterization Study annualized composition ofResidential Refuse

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/resources/wcs_charts.shtml#mgp

Dahlén, L., & Lagerkvist, A. (2008). Methods for household waste composition studies. Waste

Management, 28(7), 1100-1112.

12RDSC19

12

Gutberlet, J. and Baeder, A. M. (2008) Informal recycling and occupational health in Santo

André, Brazil International Journal of Environmental Health Research Vol. 18, Iss. 1

The New School. Website. 2013. http://blogs.newschool.edu/epsm/2013/02/14/new-school-students-work-to-reduce-waste/ (Accessed April 5, 2013)

The New School. Website. 2013. http://milanoschool.org/archives/96509 (Accessed April 5, 2013)

The New School. Website. 2012. http://www.newschool.edu/about/quick-facts/ (accessed April 1,

2013)

Nzeadibe, T., C. (2009) Solid waste reforms and informal recycling in Enugu urban area,

Nigeria, Habitat International, Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 93-99.

PlanNYC. 2011. PlanNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. The City of New York. Mayor's

office. p. 200.

Sembiring, E. and Nitivattananon, V. (2010) Sustainable solid waste management toward an

inclusive society: Integration of the informal sector Resources, Conservation and Recycling,

Volume 54, Issue 11, Pages 802-809.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (1993). Safer Disposal For Solid Waste: The

Federal Regulations for Landfills. Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS-305), United

States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/530 SW-91 092.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006, September 8). Standards of Performance,

Emission Guidelines, and Federal Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills . Federal

Register , 71 (40 CFR Parts 60, 62, and 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215; FRL–8217–6] RIN

2060–AJ41 and A2060–AH13 ) , 174. Washington, DC, USA.

Wilson, D. C., Araba, A. O., Chinwah, K. and Cheeseman, C. R. (2009) Building recycling rates

through the informal sector. Waste Management Volume 29, Pages 629-635

Wilson, D. C., Velis, C. and Cheeseman, C. (2006) Role of informal sector recycling in waste

management in developing countries Habitat International, Volume 30, Pages 797-808