nationwide biocycle survey residential food waste … · 2018. 5. 25. · 20 biocycle december 2017...

ResidentialFood Waste

Collection Access In The U.S.

NATIONWIDE BIOCYCLE SURVEY

BIOCYCLE WEST COAST18: ACCELERATING ORGANICS RECYCLINGMARCH 26, 27, 28, 29, 2018 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA • BioCycleWestCoast.com

BioCycle, Official Magazine of the

20 BioCyCle DeCemBer 2017

BIOCYCLE and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) un-dertook a survey of residential food waste collection programs across the U.S. from June to No-

vember of this year. BioCycle contract-ed with ILSR to conduct the 2017 Bio-Cycle Residential Food Waste Collection Access Study, which was last updated in 2014 (see “Residential Food Waste Collection In The U.S.,” January 2015). This year’s study — the eighth since BioCycle began the national survey in 2005 — includes residential food waste drop-off programs for the first time.

The 2017 survey is utilizing the term “access,” defined as number of house-holds able to participate in a given program, regardless of actual partici-pation. Therefore the number of house-holds with access does not necessarily equal the number of households par-taking in the service — not all house-

holds in service areas will choose to participate.

The 2017 BioCycle Residential Food Waste Collection Access Study only in-cludes programs that are actively of-fered or supported by local government. It does not cover private haulers offer-ing subscription service for residential food waste collection independent of the government’s involvement. A num-ber of private collection programs offer residential services, providing another means of access to numerous communi-ties, but these programs are outside the scope of this study.

This article is a Preview of the full report, available as a PDF that can be downloaded at BioCycle.net by Bio-Cycle readers with a paid subscription. The full report includes tables list-ing all the curbside and drop-off pro-grams in the U.S., numerous charts and graphs illustrating survey data, and

an analysis by ILSR and BioCycle. We thank all the residential food waste col-lection program managers, state organ-ics recycling agencies and many others for their participation in the 2017 Bio-Cycle Residential Food Waste Collection Access Study. BioCycle also thanks the Food Service Packaging Institute and the Biodegradable Products Institute for their underwriting of this study.

THE BIG PICTURE — CURBSIDEThe number of curbside collection pro-

grams has increased from 79 in 2014 to 148 in 2017, or 87 percent (Table 1). As many programs are administered by counties or solid waste districts, not in-dividual cities, the number of communi-ties being serviced is also counted. This year, households in 326 communities have access to food waste collection, up from 198 at the time of the last study (a 65% increase). There are curbside pro-grams in 20 states; three of those states added programs since 2014, and thus

Survey of residential food waste collection programs across the country from June to November 2017 ultimately identified 148 curbside collection and 67 drop-off programs.

Virginia Streeter and Brenda Platt

U.S. curbside programsco-collecting food and yard waste

Collects food scraps with yard waste

Collects food scraps without yard waste

29%

71%

149 Programs reporting

Scale of U.S. curbside programs73 Programs reporting

127

43

11

Full-scaleall

Full-scalesingle family

dwelling

PartialPilot

U.S. curbside program types76 Programs reporting

Reasons for successful U.S. curbside programs50 Programs reporting

Reasons for unsuccessful U.S. curbside programs5 Programs reporting

Reduced trash frequency

Avoided disposal costs

Participation rates

Customer satisfaction

Cost effective

Meeting diversion goals 41

26

14

6

25

21

Lack of participation

Cost to residents 1

4



48

8

MandatoryStandardOpt-in

22

U.S. households with access to curbside food waste collection by state149 Programs reporting

0

1

2

3

4

5

6In millions

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2012

2013

/1420

16/17

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

020

0520

0620

0720

0920

1120

1220

13/14

2016

/17

U.S. communities with access to curbside food waste collection by state149 Programs reporting

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Wisco

nsinWashingtonVirginiaVermont

TexasPennsylvania

OregonOhio

New YorkNew JerseyMinnesotaMichiganMassachusetts

Maryland

MaineIowa

Illinois

IdahoColoradoCalifornia

U.S. food waste dropoff programs by state


Was

hing

ton

Virg

inia

Verm

ont

Min

neso

taNe

w Ha

mps

hire

North

Car

olin

a

New

York

Mas

sach

uset

ts

Mai

ne

Illin

ois

Colo

rado

Conn

ectic

utW

ashi

ngto

n D.C

.

Calif

orni

a

Alas

ka

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

WisconsinWashington

VirginiaVermont

TexasPennsylvania

Oregon

OhioNew YorkNew JerseyMinnesotaMichiganMassachusetts

Maryland

Maine

IowaIllin

oisIdaho

ColoradoCalifornia

U.S. households with access to curbside food waste collection by state


0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

In thousands

Wisconsin

WashingtonVirginiaVermont

TexasPennsylvania

OregonOhio


Maryland

Maine

IowaIllin

ois


0

5

10

15

20

25

U.S. households with accessto curbside food waste collection

U.S. communities with curbsidefood waste collection

In thousands

Austin, TX, the newest program included in this year’s survey, just rolled out curbside service to 52,000 households at the beginning of October,

and plans to expand to all households by 2020.

Residential Food Collection

BIOCYCLE NATIONWIDE SURVEY PREVIEW

DeCemBer 2017 BioCyCle 21

are totally new to this study. Finally, 5.1 million households have access to curb-side collection, a growth of 2.4 million since the last study (Table 1).

Scale and Type of Curbside Curbside programs are classified as

either standard offering, opt-in, or man-datory. Of 77 programs reporting data for this question, 47 are “standard,” meaning organics collection is offered alongside trash and recycling, with no extra steps needed for residents to par-ticipate. “Opt-in” programs, which rep-resent 21 of the 77, require residents to sign up to receive food waste collection

service. Often, these programs are serv-ing only a small portion of households with access. For example, in Belling-ham, Washington, 19,000 households have access to curbside collection, but only 5,000 have signed up to participate. Finally, there are the mandatory pro-grams, where all residents must participate. There are eight mandatory programs, half of which are in Califor-nia. A summary table in the full study report identifies these 77 programs and the type of service.

Programs are also classified by their scale of service — either pilot, partial, full-scale single-family dwellings, or full-scale all. Out of the 73 programs reporting this data, 11 are pilots, serv-ing a relatively small number of house-holds. Seven programs are partially rolled out, with plans to expand service. The majority of programs are full-scale

single-family dwellings, meaning all single-family households receive ser-vice. (This may include small multifam-ily dwellings in cities that provide trash service.) Full-scale “all” means every

single household has access to service, including multi-family dwellings. Only 11 programs have reached this scale of service.

Curbside Materials Accepted

This year, the access study delved further into what materials each pro-

gram accepts. All 148 programs take fruit and vegetable scraps, and over 90 percent of programs accept meat, fish and dairy. After that, however, there is quite a lot of variation. The majority of programs take paper bags and uncoated food-soiled paper. Less than half of programs are accepting compostable plastic products, such as

U.S. curbside programsco-collecting food and yard waste

Collects food scraps with yard waste

Collects food scraps without yard waste

29%

71%


Scale of U.S. curbside programs73 Programs reporting

127

43

11

Full-scaleall

Full-scalesingle family

dwelling

PartialPilot

U.S. curbside program types76 Programs reporting

Reasons for successful U.S. curbside programs50 Programs reporting

Reasons for unsuccessful U.S. curbside programs5 Programs reporting

Reduced trash frequency

Avoided disposal costs

Participation rates

Customer satisfaction

Cost effective

Meeting diversion goals 41

26

14

6

25

21

Lack of participation

Cost to residents 1

4



48

8

MandatoryStandardOpt-in

22

U.S. households with access to curbside food waste collection by state149 Programs reporting

0

1

2

3

4

5

6In millions

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2012

2013

/1420

16/17

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2005

2006

2007

2009

2011

2012

2013

/1420

16/17

U.S. communities with access to curbside food waste collection by state149 Programs reporting

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Wisco

nsinWashingtonVirginiaVermont

TexasPennsylvania

OregonOhio


Maryland

MaineIowa

Illinois


U.S. food waste dropoff programs by state


Was

hing

ton

Virg

inia

Verm

ont

Min

neso

taNe

w Ha

mps

hire

North

Car

olin

a

New

York

Mas

sach

uset

ts

Mai

ne

Illin

ois

Colo

rado

Conn

ectic

utW

ashi

ngto

n D.C

.

Calif

orni

a

Alas

ka

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

WisconsinWashington

VirginiaVermont

TexasPennsylvania

Oregon

OhioNew YorkNew JerseyMinnesotaMichiganMassachusetts

Maryland

Maine

IowaIllin

oisIdaho

ColoradoCalifornia

U.S. households with access to curbside food waste collection by state


0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

In thousands

Wisconsin

WashingtonVirginiaVermont

TexasPennsylvania

OregonOhio


Maryland

Maine

IowaIllin

ois


0

5

10

15

20

25

U.S. households with accessto curbside food waste collection

U.S. communities with curbsidefood waste collection

In thousands

Anoka County, MN has two year-round drop-off locations at county yard trimmings sites. Each site has separate drop-off containers for food waste/soiled paper/compostable plastics, yard trimmings and tree waste.

Cambridge, MA (right) is in the midst of expanding curbside collection access from 5,000 to 25,000 households. Falls Church, VA (far right) started a curbside program in June, operated by Compost Crew, a local hauler. The city was able

to keep costs low through an innovative cost-sharing program.

Waste BIOCYCLE NATIONWIDE SURVEY PREVIEW

Online BioCycle.net

Complete report available to

BioCycle readers, with paid subscription,

at BioCycle.net.

Access In The U.S.

https://www.biocycle.net/2017/12/06/residential-food-waste-collection-access-u-s/

22 BioCyCle DeCemBer 2017

compostable plastic bags, compostable plastic-coated paper products, and com-postable plastic packaging and foodser-vice items. Molded fiber containers and food-soiled paper coated with conven-tional plastics round out the bottom of the list, with less than a quarter of programs accepting the fiber contain-ers, and about 7 percent taking conven-tional plastic-coated paper.

Curbside Program SuccessFifty-four out of 71 survey respon-

dents reporting for their programs con-sider their program successful. Fifty of those provided reasons for success. Meeting diversion goals was by far the most prevalent reason (41 of 50), fol-lowed by cost effectiveness (26 of 50) and avoided disposal costs (25 of 50). Only five out of 71 consider their program unsuccessful.

Twelve of 71 survey respondents re-porting for their programs weren’t sure whether their programs are successful. Most commonly, this was due to the newness of the program. Five of the programs are still in the pilot phase, and four had just started or were still in the process of rolling out at the time of the survey. The other three programs deemed they did not have the necessary tools to measure success.

THE BIG PICTURE: DROP-OFFAs noted, the 2017 BioCycle Resi-

dential Food Waste Collection Access Study includes data on drop-off pro-grams — a growing phenomenon — for the first time. While no historic data is available for comparison, according to survey participants, 26 of 49 drop-off programs reporting this data have

started in the past three years. In total, 67 drop-off programs are included in 15 states — five of which have no curbside programs, demonstrating the value of drop-off programs in introducing food waste collection to new areas (Table 2). These drop-off programs serve 318 communities; 6.7 million households have access. (Note: Due to New York City’s extensive drop-off program, all residents are considered to have access, meaning that NYC accounts for 3.9 mil-lion households of the 6.7 million.)

Types Of Drop-OffThe types of drop-off programs are

varied, from round-the-clock access to weekly availability at farmers markets. Some are located at transfer stations

or recycling depots, where residents can bring their food scraps along with household recyclables. New York City has been operating drop-off sites at more than 50 farmers markets for a number of years. More recently, drop-off locations were opened at subway stations, public libraries and other heavily trafficked areas.

Drop-off Materials AcceptedLike the curbside programs, all drop-

off programs accept fruit and vegetable scraps, and the vast majority also take meat, fish and dairy. Other feedstocks that the majority accept include un-coated food-soiled paper, paper bags, and compostable plastic bags. The re-maining materials are all accepted by less than half of programs, including yard trimmings and compostable plas-tic items other than bags. Once again, molded fiber containers and food-soiled paper coated with conventional plas-tics are the least accepted feedstocks. Around a quarter of all programs allow molded fiber containers, and only 6 per-cent include the plastic-coated paper.

Success Of Drop-OffOf 30 survey respondents reporting

on the success of their programs, not a

Communities with accessto curbside collection

States with the most ...

Vermont

Illinois

Minnesota

Washington

California

Colorado

Texas

New York

Washington

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Maine

Minnesota

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

North Carolina

Colorado

Minnesota

New York

97

69

52

24

24

Households with accessto curbside collection


(In millions)

1.74

.98

.79

.40

.29

Food waste drop-off programsStates with the most ...

23

14

5

5

4

Households with accessto drop-off programs


(In millions)

3.16

1.09

.5

.6

.4



Vermont

Illinois

Minnesota

Washington

California

Colorado

Texas

New York

Washington

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Maine

Minnesota

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

North Carolina

Colorado

Minnesota

New York

97

69

52

24

24



(In millions)

1.74

.98

.79

.40

.29


23

14

5

5

4



(In millions)

3.16

1.09

.5

.6

.4

Table 2. Drop-off programs summary

Drop-off Programs, 2016/17

Number of programs1 67Number of communities 318Number of states 15Number of households 6,701,927

1In some cases, one program covers multiple com-munities

Chittenden County, VT has operated a drop-off program for 16 years. Currently, eight sites are open to residents year round.

Opposite page: The DC Department of Public Works launched a Saturday food scraps drop-off program on Earth Day 2017 at farmers markets (top) in each of the District’s 8 wards. The DC Department of Parks and Recreation Community Compost Cooperative Network operates 46 compost cooperatives at community gardens throughout the District, giving local residents the opportunity to drop off food scraps and participate in the composting process (bottom).

Table 1. Curbside collection, 2013/14 vs. 2016/17 BioCycle studies

Year 2013/14 2016/17

Number of programs1 79 148Number of communities 198 326Number of states 19 20Number of households 2,740,000 5,073,069

1In some cases, one program covers multiple com-munities

DeCemBer 2017 BioCyCle 23

single one considers their program to be unsuccessful. Twenty-five of the 30 pro-grams were labelled a success. Among those 25, the most commonly cited rea-sons were meeting diversion goals and avoided disposal costs, which were also two of the top three reasons seen in curbside programs. Interestingly, only two of the 25 programs considered par-ticipation rates as a reason for success.

FULL REPORTThe full report on the 2017 BioCycle

Residential Food Waste Collection Ac-cess Study includes individual program information, along with data on types and sizes of curbside containers, collec-tion service providers, types of drop-off programs, drop-off site staffing, which programs collect food waste with yard trimmings, and more. BioCycle readers with a paid subscription can download the report at BioCycle.net. m

Brenda Platt directs the Composting for Community Project at the Institute for Lo-cal Self-Reliance and is the lead author of the State of Composting in the U.S.: What, Why, Where & How. Virginia Streeter is a Research Associate for ILSR’s Compost-ing for Community Project.



Vermont

Illinois

Minnesota

Washington

California

Colorado

Texas

New York

Washington

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Maine

Minnesota

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

North Carolina

Colorado

Minnesota

New York

97

69

52

24

24



(In millions)

1.74

.98

.79

.40

.29


23

14

5

5

4



(In millions)

3.16

1.09

.5

.6

.4



Vermont

Illinois

Minnesota

Washington

California

Colorado

Texas

New York

Washington

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Maine

Minnesota

Massachusetts

Massachusetts

North Carolina

Colorado

Minnesota

New York

97

69

52

24

24



(In millions)

1.74

.98

.79

.40

.29


23

14

5

5

4



(In millions)

3.16

1.09

.5

.6

.4

www.biocycle.net/subscribe

nationwide biocycle survey residential food waste … · 2018. 5. 25. · 20 biocycle december 2017...

Documents