ensc 430 final report · ensc 430 final report: solid waste management in the frontenac arch...

ENSC 430 Final Report:

Solid Waste Management in the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Network

Jeremie Warshafsky

Tear McDermott

Teri Clark

Simon Koehler

December 6th, 2012

ENSC 430

Jeremie Warshafsky Tear McDermott Teri Clark Simon Koehler



1

1. Abstract

This state of the environment report focuses on waste management in the Frontenac

Arch Biosphere Reserve. The biosphere reserve is located in southeastern Ontario and

comprises an area of 150,000 hectares. With a population of 50,000 people the goal of attaining

a sustainable region is not easy. Waste management in the region is a scattered mosaic of

townships operating as independent units trying to solve issues of growing waste volumes. This

makes solving waste management issues difficult due to financial constraints and the relatively

low population density. Some regions of the arch display more forward thinking approaches in

terms of reaching a sustainable goal. This includes reducing pure solid waste and producing

more recycling and utilizing greener technology such as converting waste to energy.

Through the use of interviews and secondary research, a comprehensive analysis of the

issue of solid waste management was conducted. By studying collection programs and

population dynamics, we made predictions concerning future trends in waste production and

suggestions for improving waste management in the biosphere. Case studies were useful points

of comparison to determine if programs or practices implemented in other biosphere reserves

and communities across Canada were effective. This way we were able to provide a more

realistic plan for the future of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve.

The primary solution suggested is collaboration between the townships in the region. The

townships are small, and have relatively low populations to function as sustainable independent

units. Financially they are unable to support fully sustainable waste management programs that

deal with all of the different pathways of waste such as recycling, composting and electronic

waste. If the townships were to collaborate, certain programs could be implemented that reduce

the overall footprint of the region and bring them closer to reaching their goal of a sustainable

biosphere reserve. The Frontenac Arch Biosphere Network can look to this report as a blueprint

for their waste management practices in the future.




2

2. Table of Contents

1. Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 2

3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 What is the FAB? .............................................................................................................. 5

3.2 What is a Biosphere Reserve? ......................................................................................... 5

3.3 Definition of Waste and Waste Management .................................................................... 6

3.4 Objectives of the Report ................................................................................................... 6

4. Scope..................................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Geographic Boundaries .................................................................................................... 7

4.2 Time Frame ...................................................................................................................... 8

4.3 Why Solid Waste? ............................................................................................................ 9

4.4 Target Audience ............................................................................................................... 9

4.5 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 9

5. Relationship to Sustainability ................................................................................................10

5.1 UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme ..............................................................10

5.2 Pillars of Sustainability .....................................................................................................10

5.3 Waste Management through a Sustainable Lens .............................................................11

6. Methods ................................................................................................................................12

6.1 Data Resources ...............................................................................................................12

6.2 Contact Resources ..........................................................................................................13

6.3 Data Organization ............................................................................................................13

6.4 Indicators .........................................................................................................................13

6.5 Sustainability Scale .........................................................................................................15

7. Results ..................................................................................................................................19

7.1 Waste Volume per Capita per Year .................................................................................19

7.2 Financials of Waste Management Practices ....................................................................19

7.3 Population Data ...............................................................................................................20




3


8. Analysis ................................................................................................................................22

8.1 State of Waste Management in the FAB ..........................................................................22

8.1.1 Qualitative Assessment of Programs .........................................................................22

8.1.2 Waste Volumes .........................................................................................................23

8.1.3 Waste Budgets ..........................................................................................................23

8.2 Trends .............................................................................................................................24

8.2.1 Population Trends .....................................................................................................24


9. Case Studies .........................................................................................................................27

9.1 Sustainable Kingston: Waste Innovation in a Growing City Centre ..................................27

9.2 Parry Sound in Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve ...........................................................31

9.3 Integrated Sustainability: Community Reflections in Leeds and Grenville ........................31

10. Recommendations ..............................................................................................................33

10.1 Potential Future Problems .............................................................................................33

10.2 Recommendations to the FAB .......................................................................................34

10.3 Emerging and Alternative Technologies.........................................................................35

11. Sustainability as a Long-term Goal ......................................................................................38

12. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................39

13. Works Cited ........................................................................................................................40

14. List of Figures .....................................................................................................................45

15. List of Tables .......................................................................................................................46

16. Appendices .........................................................................................................................47

16.1 Summary of Data Collected for Waste Volume per Capita by Township ........................47

16.2 Summary of Data Collected for Waste Budgets by Township ........................................48

16.3 Summary of Data Collected for Population Statistics by Township ................................48

16.4 Summary Charts of Sustainability Points Awarded to Townships...................................49

16.4.1 Kingston ..................................................................................................................49

16.4.2 Rideau Lakes/Westport ...........................................................................................49

16.4.3 Brockville.................................................................................................................50




4

16.4.4 Tay Valley ...............................................................................................................50

16.4.5 South Frontenac ......................................................................................................51

16.4.6 Leeds and the Thousand Islands ............................................................................51

16.4.7 Athens .....................................................................................................................51

16.4.8 Elizabethtown-Kitley ................................................................................................52

16.4.9 Front of Yonge ........................................................................................................52

16.5 Kingston Online Survey .................................................................................................53

16.6 Tenets of the Leeds and Grenville Integrated Community Sustainability Plan ................56

16.7 Ethics Form ...................................................................................................................57

17. Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................58




5

3. Introduction

3.1 What is the FAB?

The Frontenac Arch Biosphere (FAB) is a UNESCO recognized biosphere under the

Man and Biosphere Program. The FAB is one of the 16 biosphere reserves located in Canada

and one of the 580 located in 114 countries around the world. Found in southeastern Ontario on

the Frontenac arch, the biosphere comprises 150,000 hectares. The FAB sits on an ecologically

important land bridge for a variety of species between Algonquin Park and the Adirondack

mountains. As well, it is an important junction between terrestrial and riverine ecosystems; the

arch and the St. Lawrence River respectively. The biosphere reserve aims to create a

sustainable region which balances human activity and development with protection of the

region’s local diverse flora and fauna.

3.2 What is a Biosphere Reserve?

To become a biosphere reserve recognized by UNESCO, certain criteria must be met.

The region must have taken measures to increase its sustainability and demonstrated an

interest in maintaining the integrity of its natural features. The suitability of the title of ‘biosphere

reserve’ must also be agreed upon by the majority of the members of the local population before

nominations can be prepared and sent to UNESCO for approval. There are benefits and

incentives to being a recognized biosphere reserve that promotes sustainability. Some benefits

include access to a database of scientific knowledge which helps facilitate sustainably managed

ecosystems. As well, residents can enjoy the benefits of living in a clean environment in which

natural resources are protected and flora and fauna are maintained.

The Man and Biosphere program aims to improve humanity’s relationship with nature

based on community efforts and sound science. The program also aims to establish areas of

sustainable living around the globe, where the economic, ecological, and social dimensions of

living are conducive to a healthy environment. The focus of biosphere reserves has changed

since its start as a research and conservation intensive approach. Recently it has become a

way to integrate human development into nature in a sustainable manner. Therefore the

program focuses on all aspects of human development including food production, agriculture,

waste management, water resources etc.




6

3.3 Definition of Waste and Waste Management

Our working definition of waste is: Items that are discarded when an individual or group

no longer has immediate use for them. Therefore waste management is the collection,

transport, handling, managing, disposing, and monitoring of waste in a region. Essentially, we

are looking at all the steps in the process regarding waste.

Proper management of waste is done for a number of reasons. While reducing human

impacts on nature is considered to be important, more anthropocentric incentives relating to

aesthetics and health are the main driving forces behind waste collection and management.

Waste management differs based on human population patterns and development of

counties. As an example, large cities warrant collection and disposal of garbage whereas a low

population density would make this type of management unnecessary. Therefore each region

determines what a good strategy is for them.

Waste management encompasses a variety of categories of waste. Commonly these

are: solid waste, recyclables, electronics, and compostable material. However, it is dependent

on each municipality whether or not all of these materials are collected.

3.4 Objectives of the Report

The objective of this report is to provide a comprehensive analysis of waste

management in the FAB and provide a sustainability scale pertaining to waste management for

the region. This scale will allow us to determine relative strengths and weaknesses of the

townships within the FAB. This encompasses all aspects of waste management including

financial, waste volume per capita, recycling programs, composting programs, and waste

diversion. Future patterns in population and waste production will provide insight into potential

upcoming problems in the region so that we are able to suggest ways that these can be

prevented and or remedied. This report is meant to help the FAB to gain an understanding of

waste in the region and use it as a guide to reach their goal of a sustainable biosphere reserve.




7

4. Scope

4.1 Geographic Boundaries

Geographically, our scope extends across the entire FAB. We looked at all of the

individually recognized townships (with the exception of Gananoque) and tried to evaluate them

on a consistent set of indicators in order to paint a broader picture of the biosphere as a whole.

The municipalities we evaluated are

● Township of Athens

● City of Brockville

● Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands

● Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley

● Township of South Frontenac

● Township of Front of Yonge

● Township of Tay Valley

● Township of Rideau Lakes

● Village of Westport

Figure 1. Map indicating geographic location of the FAB.




8

Figure 2. Map of the townships under study within the FAB.

Previous reports have focused primarily on Brockville in 2009 (Campbell, Ouseley, Klein, Sugar,

and Zhou, 2009), and on South Frontenac and Leeds and the Thousand Islands in 2011 (Allen,

Kingston, Roper, and Srivastava, 2011). We hope that by investigating all of municipalities from

within the FAB we can contribute to a better overall understanding of waste.

Furthermore, we also performed some case studies for; the city of Kingston, Ontario;

Parry Sound (located in a similar biosphere in Canada); and community reflections from Leeds

and Grenville.

4.2 Time Frame

We focused on recent data available to us regarding the state of waste management in

the FAB. The most recent possible waste volumes were used when assessing waste generation

(usually volumes were given for 2011), and any population data was taken from the 2006




9

census. We chose to focus mainly on the most recent waste management trends as this gives

the best insight into the current status in the FAB, and the best estimate of upcoming trends.

4.3 Why Solid Waste?

Previous waste reports performed an analysis on waste and energy in 2009 (Campbell,

Ouseley, Klein, Sugar, and Zhou, 2009), and a waste study focusing on landfills was done in

2011 (Allen, Kingston, Roper, and Srivastava, 2011). As a result, our decision to focus on solid

waste was partially dictated by the gaps in information as indicated by previous years’ reports.

With the completion of an analysis into solid waste management, we hope to contribute to a

more thorough understanding of waste management in the region.

For the purposes of the report, we have considered solid waste to be inclusive of all

recyclable materials, biodegradable waste, wood & foliage waste and electronic waste

composite. We decided not to include analysis of sewage or septic systems due to the

difficulties proposed by obtaining the relevant data.

4.4 Target Audience

We hope that this report will be of interest to all individuals from within the biosphere

who are interested in learning more about solid waste in the region. Education is a key element

in waste management practice, and by providing access to this report through the FAB and the

ENSC 430 website, we hope to allow community members to be more educated and therefore

fulfill a larger role in policy making towards future waste management decisions. This will help

the community become an active player in reaching a sustainable biosphere reserve, a key

tenet of the Man and Biosphere program.

The primary audience for this report will be members of the FAB, and its constituent

townships. We hope this report will serve those individuals to show them what data is currently

readily available in regards to each of their townships waste management strategies, to use this

data to make better and more informed future decisions and to promote better practices of data

collection and reporting within the realm of waste management.

4.5 Limitations

The primary limitation that we encountered during our investigations was a lack of

consistent data recording and reporting methods across the different municipalities. This made




10

our objective of developing a broad picture of the Biosphere as a whole difficult as we often

lacked the data necessary to make quantifiable observations. As a result, where data was

lacking we were forced to make educated inferences as to the wider results often in a more

qualitative nature. These inferences and interpolations will be elaborated upon in the relevant

sections of this report. Furthermore it is important to note that the format in which data was

available to us varied from township to township and as such research-informed conversions

were made.

5. Relationship to Sustainability

5.1 UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme

Sustainability can be defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising

the needs of the future,” (Brundtland Report 1987, paraphrased) but within this definition it must

be recognized that the ‘present’ and the ‘future’ do not refer to fixed points in time that are static

and unchanging; rather they are dynamic social constructs that are constantly overlapping and

feeding into one another. As such, efforts toward sustainability must reflect this understanding

by being equally fluid and adaptable. In other words, sustainability means abandoning patterns

of living that are driven by the prevailing notion that the future does not yet exist. Implicit in this

definition is any action that propagates overuse of natural resources and excessive pollution of

the environment.

As a biosphere recognized under UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme, the

FAB is considered a site of “excellence for experimentation in sustainable development”

(UNESCO, 2011). As part of this experimentation, the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Network has

elected to use an approach to sustainability which takes into consideration the “four equally

important pillars” of environment, culture, society, and economy (The Frontenac Arch Biosphere

Reserve, 2012).

5.2 Pillars of Sustainability

For waste management practices and programs the adoption of a four pillar approach to

sustainability is especially relevant. While the traditional three pillar approach serves as a useful

framework for incorporating environmental, economic, and social concerns into a single

scheme, in a society such as that of Canada where there is a marked drive to consume - and

intensively at that - the addition of the ‘culture’ category to any sustainability agenda regarding

waste and its management is absolutely compulsory. Consumerism and the waste that it

creates are arguably the most pronounced signifiers of contemporary western culture, and few




11

other societies can boast the commitment to unnecessary over consumption and commodity

fetishism that is characteristic of Canadian societies specifically.

The planned obsolescence of products in which companies create products with limited

life spans and the perceived obsolescence of products in which the companies upgrade the

product often enough that the consumer begins to believe that the model that they possess is

no longer valuable has contributed to an overall detachment of individuals from their waste. As a

result of our ‘buy it, use it for a short period of time, and then throw it away’ mentality we do not

form connections with our waste, and this ultimately detracts from the care with which we

dispose of this waste. With that said there is a definite disconnection on both the production and

the disposal end of the life-cycle of waste.

The lack of investment that individuals put into their waste is a direct result of our

obligatory participation in and reliance on the market economy. When humans enter into

relations of production in which they are forced to trade or sell the products of their labour, the

value of the product that they produce is necessarily lessened. By the time the consumer comes

into contact with the product it is generally in a box store with middlemen and inaccurate pricing

schemes, and the relations of production are further skewed. Because consumers generally

only deal with the company that sells the product to them, the exchange of money is not made

with the real ‘value’ of the product in mind, but rather the generally arbitrary price that has been

applied to it by the middleman. The resultant feeling of disconnection is a fundamental ill of

western society and the capitalist system upon which it is built.

Even in more rural regions of Canada such as the FAB, where residents are very

fortunate to have access to local and independent businesses through which they are able to

witness more closely the relations of production, the ‘throwaway’ element of western culture is

arguably still present. It is therefore important that in addition to social, economic, and

environmental aspects, any program aimed at curbing waste production and improving the

waste disposal process also makes a point of addressing the processes and factors which

influence consumption and which are a large part of western culture.

5.3 Waste Management through a Sustainable Lens

In the past waste has been viewed as a natural by-product of development, but now with

emerging reinterpretations of sustainability as an important consideration for development, it is

becoming increasingly clear that this is not the way forward. Ideally, the most sustainable waste

management system would be a system whereby all waste is repurposed or reused, and many

townships within the FAB have set high standards of diversion to recycling and composting for

themselves with this overarching goal in mind. The adoption of waste management models




12

which target specific problems within the whole life cycle of waste, as opposed to models which

involve trade-offs between interests such as economics and taxpayers’ satisfaction, and the

strategic use of available waste infrastructure to curb the negative impacts of over consumption

are efforts toward securing the ability of all future generations to lead lives that are unburdened

by the waste management decisions of the past.

6. Methods

Our methods can be divided up in terms of the steps that we took to acquire, organize,

and analyze information about waste management within the FAB. Firstly, the FAB was

examined in terms of its municipalities and a comprehensive report card of the municipalities’

respective waste volumes and the waste management policies and activities that influence them

was compiled. Secondly, this report card was used to create a sustainability scale which would

allow for comparison between the different townships within the FAB and serve as a guide for

recognizing trends and waste patterns in the region relating to collection methods, composting

programs, population demographics, etc. Finally, any observed trends were used to predict how

waste management in the FAB might change in the future and as a basis for the development of

useful recommendations and opportunities.

6.1 Data Resources

The main sources from which we obtained our data were: (1) representatives from each

of the townships’ respective offices, and (2) each townships’ respective website. Each

municipality has a website with a specific section dedicated to waste management in their

region of control. Data specifically on what programs are in place is easily accessible in this

format since the websites are dedicated to informing citizens on how to dispose of their waste.

We were therefore able to determine if curbside collection was available, the extent to which

each type of waste was collected, or whether residents were responsible for the transport of

their waste. Data on the financial aspects of waste management in each municipality was

collected by phone contact, through each township’s respective consolidated financial report

(generally available online) and through in person meetings. The group went to visit each

municipality that we were unable to collect data from on the phone or online. Waste volume was

mostly collected in person, and through follow up correspondence via e-mail and phone calls.

Demographic information was obtained from the 2006 Canadian census, as the information

needed from the 2011 census has yet to be released. Statistics Canada’s website was the

starting point, and each municipality was researched via their respective website. Maps and

other tables were most helpful since they provided spatially organized data that we could then

combine with our results.




13

6.2 Contact Resources

The scope of our research required communication with a number of township waste

management representatives. As authorities on waste management in their respective districts,

these individuals were indispensable resources. Contact information was gathered from

municipal websites and from visits to the townships’ respective offices. As a rule the questions

posed to these individuals were strictly related to and for the purposes of collecting quantitative

data. Implicit in this is that all qualitative analyses provided in this report are our own and are

based on print or electronic sources and materials available to us rather than comments made

by representatives.

6.3 Data Organization

The spatial organization of our data was especially necessary in terms of conveying the

importance of our results in a clear and accessible manner. In the preliminary stages of data

collection all information gathered was organized into tables specific to each municipality under

study. Once the bulk of our data had been collected, cross-comparative maps, graphs and

charts were produced in order that the quantitative and qualitative values related to waste

volume, demographics and recycling and composting programs of each township could be

compared with ease. The final stage of our data organization was to develop a sustainability

scale from the data collected which could then be used to quantify previously qualitative

information gathered on each township.

6.4 Indicators

In most regions of Canada waste management is conducted at the municipal level. This

means that cities, towns and townships will generally have their own independent waste

management strategies. With this in mind, we deemed it necessary to evaluate waste

management within the FAB through a process of independently evaluating the waste

management programs, practices, and policies of its 11 constituent townships as discussed in

the preceding scope section. For the purposes of our analysis we selected indicators that would

be mostly present and comparable across all regions. These were volume of waste generated

per capita per year, presence of and amount of diversion of waste to recycling and composting

programs, and the operating costs of waste management within each township’s respective

environmental services budget.




14

Volume of Waste Generated

All waste management practices and policies are a direct result of the anthropogenic

generation of waste through residential, industrial, commercial and institutional means.

Therefore, as the overarching factor which defines all aspects of waste management, the

volume of waste generated is a critically important indicator for evaluation. The examination of

the volume of waste generated on a per capita basis has the potential to provide valuable

insight into other aspects of waste management such as the efficiency of existing recycling and

composting programs as waste volumes are ultimately reflective of a respective township’s

dedication to the diversion and reduction of waste within its limits.

Volume of Waste Diverted

The lifecycle of waste is not determinate, meaning that any waste that does not end up

in a landfill can be redirected toward reuse. As part of this, waste diversion is a process which

allows for reduced waste generation by recycling, repurposing or composting materials

otherwise bound for landfills or incinerators. As a result of its contribution to an overall decrease

in the energy required to dispose of old items as well as the energy required to produce new

items, a high percentage of waste diversion is indicative of successful waste management

processes and is therefore a key indicator in assessing the overall sustainability of a township’s

waste production and management.

Quality of Recycling Programs

Recycling is a critically important aspect of waste management as it reduces the amount

of waste bound for landfills. In addition to being important for diversion, recycling also helps to

reduce the requirement for new resources in the creation and manufacturing of products, and

this ultimately decreases the energy required in the overall waste management process. The

quality of a township’s respective recycling program is directly linked with the overall quality of

its waste management system and as such it is an essential indicator of waste sustainability.

Quality of Composting Programs

Composting is an important aspect of waste diversion, especially in more rural areas

where it is less likely to be collected by municipally funded collection services. Biodegradable

materials such as natural food waste and yard waste are unique in their ability to be broken

down in such a way that they blend nicely with the rest of nature. In addition to this they are full




15

of valuable nutrients and thus serve as excellent fertilizers. Composting is the easiest and

cheapest way for a township to decrease its landfill waste volume, however composting options

must be provided to deal with issues that traditionally accompany composting such as odour

and animals.

Financials of Waste Management Practices

The sustainability of waste management in a township can also be evaluated in terms of

its economics. Though the relationship between the budget directed towards waste

management in a township and the quality of that township’s resultant waste management

program is not necessarily linear as the costs of managing waste fluctuate dramatically with

changes in population, land use, resident income levels, etc., waste financials are arguably still

a valuable indicator of a township’s collective investment into waste management.

6.5 Sustainability Scale

The sustainability scale is a method of gauging how sustainable each township within

the FAB’s waste management strategies are, relative to each other. This scale was based on

our indicators: volume of waste generated per capita per year, presence of and amount of

diversion of waste to recycling and composting programs, and the operating costs of waste

management within each township’s environmental services budget. For each of these

categories, a certain number of points was established and awarded to townships based on

performance. For the purposes of our scale, evaluations were made based on the premise that

a low waste volume per capita and a high diversion rate are sustainable. As well, it was

assumed that collection services increase the sustainability of waste management as this

reduces the amount of transportation required for transferring waste to landfills by individual

households. Finally the townships’ respective operating costs of waste management were

analyzed under the assumption that the greater the budget directed towards waste

management programs, the better the overall waste management system is. It is important to

note that in identifying strong and weak points in the FAB this scale has not been created to

point out flaws in any areas of the biosphere, but instead to indicate areas of sustainable

practices and highlight them as examples for the rest of the biosphere to follow in their efforts to

improve all aspects of waste management.




16

Volume of Waste per Capita

The first metric of the sustainability scale is volume of waste per capita. For this category each

township could receive a maximum of three points toward their overall sustainability score with

three points being awarded for a low volume of waste generated per capita, two points for a

medium volume and one point for a high volume.

Figure 3. Illustration depicting the volume of waste per capita aspect of the sustainability scale.

.

Quality of Recycling Programs

The second metric of the sustainability scale was recycling. Points were established for waste

diversion to recycling programs in a qualitative method. One point was awarded to townships

that implement some sort of recycling program but do not offer collection, and 2 points were

awarded to townships that both recycle and collect.

Figure 4. Illustration depicting the recycling program aspect of the sustainability scale.

Quality of Composting Programs

Next on our sustainability scale was composting. As composting collection services are typically

only offered in larger cities, the quality of the recycling programs within the FAB was less

obvious. For this reason the decision was made to examine the individual townships’




17

composting efforts in terms of their passivity or activity. A township that encourages composting

but does not actively promote it to residents through the use of its website or other available

advertising resources was deemed to be practicing ‘passive composting’ and was awarded one

point on our scale. Accordingly, as township that actively encourages and promotes composting

through the advertised provision of multiple composting options including personal composting

bins, access to a landfill compost pile, and/or collection programs was deemed to be practicing

active composting and was awarded two points on our scale. For the purposes of this report, if it

was not evident from a township's respective website whether or not a composting program was

in place, or what initiatives it was undertaking to promote composting, we determined it to be

practicing passive composting - however if it was evident that it offered programs and was

promoting them then it was assumed to be engaged in active composting.

Figure 5. Illustration depicting the composting program aspect of the sustainability scale.

Waste Diversion

The waste diversion metric of our scale was based on the Ontario provincial goal to divert 60%

of all waste (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2004) . Though the purpose of our scale was

to compare the townships within the FAB to each other rather than to the rest of Ontario, a

waste diversion value of 60% was made the target for townships to reach under the assumption

that a provincial target is set with the capacities of all regions within that province to meet that

target. As such, a township with a high diversion value closer to the provincial target of 60% was

awarded three points while a township with a medium diversion value less than 40% was

awarded two points, and a township with a low diversion value of less than 20% was awarded

one point.




18

Figure 6. Illustration depicting the waste diversion aspect of the sustainability scale.

Waste Financials

The townships’ respective operating costs of waste management were used as an indicator to

analyze the sustainability of each township from an economic perspective. As the audited

financial reports available to us did not usually outline the costs of solid waste management

independently the overall costs of “environmental services” were used for each township. It is

important to note that these “environmental services” costs also include the cost of such things

as water and sewer services within the townships and as such our results may be impacted. To

mitigate this problem, we analyzed the townships’ environmental expenditures in terms of their

total respective budgets. This allowed us to use percentages rather than analyzing the raw

costs which would vary with the population and area of each township. It was decided that

townships that spent a higher percent of their budget on Environmental Services were more

invested in waste management and thus more sustainable. Accordingly, townships that spent

20% to 30% of their budget on Environmental Services were awarded three points, townships

that spent 10% to 20% of their budget were awarded two points, and townships that spent less

than 10% were awarded one point. In spite of the interpretive nature of our analysis regarding

waste budgets, this indicator is critically important, as it allows us to analyze solid waste

management practices in the FAB from a financial viewpoint.

Figure 7. Illustration depicting the waste financials aspect of the sustainability scale.




19

7. Results

7.1 Waste Volume per Capita per Year

Through our collection of data, it was found that the townships with lower volumes of

waste per capita were Kingston, Brockville, Rideau Lakes and Westport, and South Frontenac.

Leeds and the Thousand Islands also had quite a low value for volume of waste, however this

info was inferred from other waste volume data, and it is possible this data may not be as

accurate as the other townships. Alternatively, Athens, Tay Valley, and Front of Yonge showed

higher waste volumes per capita. Waste volumes ranged from 207 kg/person/year to 582

kg/person/year with an average of 331.03/kg/person. For exact numbers, see Appendix 14.1. It

should be noted that these figures are relative and only serve as a comparison between

townships within the FAB (and Kingston). As well, no waste volume was reported for

Elizabethtown-Kitley. The exact values of volume of waste per capita were used in part to

determine the sustainability score for each township which is discussed later in this report.

Figure 8. Graph of waste volume per capita by township within the FAB.

7.2 Financials of Waste Management Practices

Amount of financial assistance dedicated to waste management was expressed as a

percentage of each township’s budget. These values ranged from 8% to 16% with an average

of 11.7%. Brockville spent the most on waste management, followed by Kingston and South

Frontenac. Leeds and the Thousand Islands, Tay Valley, Rideau Lakes/Westport, Front of




20

Yonge, Athens, and Elizabethtown-Kitley tend to devote smaller amounts of their budgets to

waste management. See Appendix 16.2 for exact amounts.

Figure 9. Graph detailing percentage amount of budget of each municipality directed toward Environmental Services.

7.3 Population Data

A comprehensive analysis of waste management requires an examination of population in the

FAB. The compiled data was organized so that it could be examined in comparison with other

metrics in this report. Each townships population, density, population change and whether or not

the township was rural or urban are compiled in Appendix 16.3. Trends in the population data

are examined in section 10.3.1.


Presented here are the quantified results of our research, expressed as points as the basis of

our sustainability scale. Table 1 is a summary of the total sustainability points awarded to each

township, and Figure 10 is a map illustrating the relative sustainability of each township based

on these points. For a complete view of how these points were assigned by indicator see

Appendix 16.4.




21

Table 1. Summary chart of total sustainability points awarded by township.

Township Total Sustainability Points Awarded

Kingston 9

Rideau Lakes/Westport 7

Brockville 8

Tay Valley 8

South Frontenac 8

Leeds and the Thousand Islands 6

Athens 6

Elizabethtown-Kitley 6

Front of Yonge 6

Figure 10. Map depicting the relative sustainability scale scores of townships within the FAB.




22

8. Analysis

8.1 State of Waste Management in the FAB

By analyzing the FAB both quantitatively and qualitatively we have been able to identify

strengths and weaknesses across the biosphere regarding sustainability. Those townships that

are implementing weekly garbage, recycling, and composting services, and proper landfill

management fare the best in terms of sustainability. Unfortunately, due to financial constraints,

not every township is able to implement such a well rounded waste management system. In this

case, composting and or recycling programs may be left out, or there may be constraints on the

ability to collect waste on a regular basis. Here we will assess the programs in the FAB as a

whole, and indicate sustainable practices as well as areas that could use improvement.

8.1.1 Qualitative Assessment of Programs

Recycling

All of the townships in the biosphere recycle, which is an effective method of diverting

waste from landfills and reducing overall impact on the environment. Some townships have a

more effective recycling program in place than others. Based on a reduced need for

transportation, we deemed collection based recycling to be the more sustainable method of

recycling. Townships that participate in collection based recycling are Kingston, Elizabethtown-

Kitley, South Frontenac, Athens, Tay Valley, Front of Yonge, Rideau Lakes/Westport, and

Brockville. Specifically, Brockville is quite innovative in terms of their recycling. They have

recently implemented a new strategy in which both grey and blue box recyclables are collected

each week, eliminating the need for the residents to sort. This increases the ease of recycling

and will likely increase participation in recycling in Brockville, which is of course a step in a

positive direction in terms of sustainability. In addition, Brockville offers a service online that acts

as a forum for the trading and selling of unwanted items called “Brockville Reuses”. The

utilization of this service by residents can reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills by instead

reusing items. The innovative approach used by Brockville is an example that the rest of the

townships in the biosphere could follow. In terms of areas of improvement, townships such as

Leeds and the Thousand Islands could implement full collection services for recycling, so as to

reduce transportation emissions. These townships could follow the example of Rideau Lakes

and Westport, who collaborated together in order to extend collection services to Westport, a

small area with limited funds that would have otherwise neglected collection.




23

Composting

After conducting research into the various composting programs in the FAB, we found

there was quite a bit of variation. It was determined that Kingston, Brockville, Front of Yonge,

Leeds and the Thousand Islands, South Frontenac, and Tay Valley participate in active

composting, however in Kingston it is collected and in Brockville, Tay Valley, South Frontenac,

Front of Yonge and Leeds and the Thousand Islands it is encouraged as “backyard composting”

(individual households are responsible for composting). Alternatively, Elizabethtown-Kitley,

Athens and Rideau Lakes/Westport did not indicate that any composting program was present

and thus participate in passive composting.

In rural areas, we believe residential at home composting to be the most sustainable

method of composting due to the fact that it requires less transportation. However, in more

urbanized areas with larger populations and less yard space, it may be more practical to have

composting collected. In this case, having a collection service for composting is more

sustainable because it will encourage residents to compost. Most townships encourage

composting, but some may benefit from implementing a collection service to increase

sustainability. Rural areas like Elizabethtown-Kitley, Athens, and Rideau Lakes/Westport should

do their best to encourage composting to residents so as to increase their sustainability.

8.1.2 Waste Volumes

As for the waste volume per capita indicator, waste reduction is more pertinent than

management. Front of Yonge, Athens, and Tay Valley produced the highest waste per capita,

although they were below the national average of 640 kg/person/year (Nation Master, 2002).

The rest of the townships showed more conservative waste volumes, but there is room for

improvement in all townships within the FAB. Instead of relying on higher diversion rates to deal

with waste volumes, it is important to produce less waste and therefore increase sustainability, a

goal that all the townships can continue to work toward. This can be done through conservation

education and an increased emphasis on recycling and composting programs, so that more

waste is diverted.

8.1.3 Waste Budgets

It was assumed that the more money put toward Environmental Services by a township,

the more effective their waste management system was. Due to the assumptions made in the

quantification of the townships’ waste budgets, this information should be regarded with caution

as there is a certain margin of error associated with the results. While some of the townships




24

contributed a significant amount of their budget toward waste management, they were not

necessarily the townships with the best recycling and composting programs. This could be due

to some inefficiency in their waste management plan. More research is required to look into

which townships are allocating their funds in the most economically sound manner. Overall, it

seemed that most townships were dedicating a significant portion of their budget to waste

management, which is a positive trend that should continue.

8.2 Trends

This section of the report examines some of the indicators and data that was used in the

sustainability scale. General trends in the data are highlighted here as well as how these trends

apply to waste management in the FAB region.

8.2.1 Population Trends

Demographics of the FAB provide important insight into waste production in the region.

Once a trend has been noticed, the spatial organization of individuals can provide a lot of insight

into a particular theme. This includes how individuals produce waste based on their human

environment. One would think that a general trend of more individuals would result in more

waste, but that might not be the case. How do density and the number of dwellings affect the

volume of waste?

8.2.1.1 Total Population and Waste Volume

It is clear from Figure 11 that a larger population results in a lower waste volume per

capita. There are slight deviations but when examining the overall trend there is a clear

relationship. Since a higher population is usually accompanied by a higher density (and number

of dwellings), we examine the relationship between density of each township and waste volume.




25

Figure 11. Graph relating waste volume per capita to population for biosphere municipalities.

8.2.1.2 Township Density and Waste Volume

As is evidenced by Figure 12 there was no relationship between township density and

waste volume, which might be attributed to the large size of each township. There are parts of

the townships that might have high density and those that have very low density. When the

township density is calculated it is the average number of individuals and therefore is not a

proper indication of the spatial distribution of individuals in the township. Density can be

changed by extraneous points in the overall calculation. For example, one region of the

township might have very high density, but the other 95% might have extremely low population

density. Therefore each region of varying density should be examined to determine if there is a

relationship between population density and waste volume.




26

Figure 12. Graph relating waste volume per capita to population density for biosphere municipalities.

8.2.1.3 Number of Dwellings and Waste Volume

The more private dwellings present, the lower the waste volume per capita. Although

there was no relationship between density of township and waste volume, the number of

dwellings is a stronger indicator of a relationship between demographics and waste. This is

because the number of dwellings is a value that encompasses the whole township, and is

representative of the number of individuals in the township. The dichotomy of density does not

allow for easy comparison across the region and each part that has a varying density should be

examined by itself. Therefore the number of dwellings looks more at the raw population than the

spatial distribution of those individuals.




27

Figure 13. Graph relating waste volume per capita to the number of private dwellings for biosphere municipalities.


The overall sustainability score of each township can be seen in section 7.4 and Appendix 16.4.

The score dictates the sustainability level of each township. The categories in which the

township did poorly on are the areas in which they should focus their efforts more heavily to

improve their sustainability rating. This does not mean that the categories for which they were

awarded higher scores cannot be improved upon as well. They should still strive for

improvement in each category until a wholly sustainable FAB exists.

9. Case Studies

9.1 Sustainable Kingston: Waste Innovation in a Growing City Centre

Kingston is the largest municipality in the FAB region. Although it is not part of the

biosphere reserve, it does warrant study due to its proximity and unique waste management

system. The region of the FAB has much to learn from this forward thinking community. To

begin our analysis of Kingston a quick survey was conducted online to determine the knowledge

about waste management and the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve in Kingston. A sample of

the survey may be found in Appendix 16.5.




28

This survey is intended to help us understand the mindset of the Kingston resident

regarding waste, which can shed light on the analysis of the waste management practices. As is

suggested by Figure 14 below, the majority of residents knew nothing or very little of the FAB

meaning the program is mostly unknown even in regions very close to the FAB.

Figure 14. Survey results of respondents’ knowledge of the existence of the FAB.

We suggest more information be provided about the FAB, and more of a focus on

education, to increase involvement in the region. This will provide more sustainable practices

and perhaps education at a younger age that can ensure forward environmental thinking in the

future generation of the FAB.

Kingston is a single tier municipality with a population of 152,000 people. Since it is a

medium sized city, the density in the downtown core is relatively high. As you migrate outwards,

density decreases slowly with an overall city density of 79.9 per square km. Kingston is a

growing city, with an average growth rate of 3.8% between 2001 and 2006. Due to its large and

growing population, waste collection is a viable option for the city, instead of everyone bringing

his or her waste to the landfill. The landfill the city uses for most of its waste is the Kingston East

Landfill, which was recently closed to the public drop off. The rest of the waste is contracted

through Waste Management and transported out of the city. Garbage collection is the only

means of disposing of your waste in the city which is funded by municipal taxes.

Kingston has a recycling and composting program, which is picked up weekly with the

garbage. Most paper, metal and plastic products are now collected in the blue and grey box

system. The grey box is for paper and cardboard items, while the blue box is for plastics and

metal containers. Electronic waste is collected under the Waste Electrical and Electronic

Equipment (WEEE) program, and collection sites can be found on the Kingston website.




29

Kingston recently implemented a one bag per household system to reduce the waste

volume produced by the city. If a household wishes to dispose of more than one bag of garbage

they must purchase a $2 bag tag and attach it to any extra bags they have. Garbage may be put

in regular bags or containers at a maximum weight of 20 kilograms, or 44 pounds and with a

maximum volume of 135 litres.

Most Kingston residents knew some information about the waste management practices

in the city. The majority of residents are from Toronto or larger metropolitan areas, and said that

waste management did not compare to their hometown. Figures 15, 16 and 17 divide the

responses into regions of Ontario. It can be seen that compared to central and eastern Ontario,

Kingston waste management was worse than the applicants’ respective towns. In western

Ontario though, applicants answered that their waste management was worse than Kingston’s.

Figure 15. Survey results comparing Kingston waste management to respondents’ hometown for Central Ontario.

Figure 16. Survey results comparing Kingston waste management to respondents’ hometown for Western Ontario.




30

Figure 17. Survey results comparing Kingston waste management to respondents’ hometown for Eastern Ontario.

The most common responses as to why Kingston’s waste management was worse were

the number of collection programs, the one bag policy, and the blue box and grey box

separation as reasons for this discrepancy. In terms of sustainability residents said that

Kingston was somewhat sustainable, with a focus on the student area of Queen’s University

being the least sustainable. Many responses discussed forward thinking idea such as green

energy, but in terms of waste management residents felt that nowhere is truly sustainable if we

are to continuously produce garbage solid waste.

Although most residents dislike the one bag policy, it does get them thinking about the

amount of solid waste they produce and reduce that to an extent. It will be difficult to become a

truly sustainable city - ne that does not produce any garbage waste and has a 100% waste

diversion rate - but to reach maximum sustainability certain measure such as this must be

implemented. In regards to Kingston comparison to larger metropolitan areas, it is difficult to

facilitate certain aspects of waste management with limited funding. Although Kingston is a mid-

sized city and manages its taxes well, the comparison to a metropolitan area like Toronto can

highlight the discrepancy in waste management funding. (See financial analysis of Kingston).

On the sustainability scale in section 7.4, Kingston scored highest in the FAB region

most likely due to its’ size and availability of collection services. By comparing Kingston to the

FAB we are able to put the region into perspective in terms of their waste management policies.

If we were to just compare between the townships, we would have a very limited view of forward

thinking waste management policies. As well, Kingston was selected due to its size and

proximity to the FAB. Proximity is important since many aspects of life in the region are similar,

but a more urban region also presents more contrast. This allows us to determine flaws and

strengths in the FAB and present a comprehensive analysis of waste management and to

suggest realistic goals for the FAB.




31

9.2 Parry Sound in Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve

Parry Sound is a town on the eastern shore of Georgian Bay, comprising about 18,000

people during the off season, and up to 60,000 people during peak cottage season. Parry sound

falls under the area of the Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve, another UNESCO certified

biosphere reserve, similar to the FAB. We chose Parry Sound as a point of comparison to the

FAB because of its similarity in population and mixture of rural and urban areas, presenting the

same collection challenges as the FAB.

Overall Parry Sound seems to have a sustainable waste management program. Like

most townships in the FAB, Parry Sound collects garbage and recycling on a weekly basis, with

grey and blue box collection alternating. This improves the level of sustainability, as collection

efforts are more concentrated and less transportation is required. Any excess waste that needs

to be disposed of is the responsibility of the resident and requires a charge. This may serve as a

disincentive, thus reducing waste. Alternatively, any excess recycling is handled free of charge,

therefore encouraging residents to recycle.

Parry Sound does not have a regular collection of compost, but does offer a composting

site for residents to drop off their organic waste. According to our analysis of the FAB, this is not

the most sustainable way of dealing with compost, especially in highly populated areas. This

could be an area for improvement. However, Parry Sound is quite innovative in that they take

compost and resell it back to residents for use in gardens. This turns a profit which can be

redirected back into the waste management budget, thus making their system more effective.

Unfortunately, due to data gaps we were unable to place Parry Sound on the

sustainability scale for comparison to the townships in the FAB. However, it seems that Parry

Sound and the FAB are practicing similar waste management policies and are around the same

level of sustainability.

9.3 Integrated Sustainability: Community Reflections in Leeds and Grenville

In the fall of 2011 a Leeds and Grenville “Integrated Community Sustainability Plan”

(ICSP) was drawn up by Dillon Consulting for the townships of Athens, Augusta,

Edwardsburgh/Cardinal, Elizabethtown-Kitley, Front of Yonge, Leeds and the Thousand Islands,

Rideau Lakes, Westport, Brockville, Prescott, Merrickville-Wolford, North Grenville, and

Gananoque. The purpose of this ICSP was to determine an appropriate and balanced approach

to sustainability in the region based on the unique needs of its constituent communities. As part

of this process, in January of 2012, resident volunteers from the communities that were involved

in the development of the new sustainability plan were asked to participate in workshops in




32

which they assessed the validity of the tenets of a draft ICSP and their relevance to the entire

county. These tenets included such things as a respect for the natural environment, building

connections and establishing a balance between economics, environment, culture, and society,

and developing community support and engagement. The complete list of sustainability tenets

for Leeds and Grenville’s ICSP can be viewed in section 16.2 of the Appendix.

Particular to waste management, as many of the townships of the FAB were included in

this master sustainability plan for Leeds and Grenville, the comments and responses from these

community sessions are especially relevant for the FAB board of directors and township

decision makers as they provide valuable insight into the mind of the FAB citizen and also serve

to demonstrate the discrepancy between how residents feel about the waste management

technologies and schemes being employed within their own townships, and how their respective

communities have chosen to respond to these sentiments in the past. The residents’

prioritization of governmental accountability and transparency in the municipal planning process

over balancing the economy with protection of small communities suggests that residents have

perhaps grown weary of old waste management plans and that it is time for new plans which

reflect residents’ primary interests and concerns to be developed. A marked need for more

opportunities for resident involvement in municipal planning processes was also expressed and

this is something that the FAB specifically should take note of, as an increase in community

input could prove beneficial and lead to positive, community-sanctioned changes in the

biosphere as well as an overall strengthening the FAB network. As depicted in Figure 18. below,

certain residents also felt strongly about the need for townships to collaborate and combine their

efforts towards sustainability in order that their existing strengths might be recognized and used

to their full potential.

Figure 18. Resident response to the tenets of Leeds and Grenville’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plan.

As a result of the public feedback obtained in the sessions as well as through surveys,

the ICSP was adapted to reflect the new themes and priorities which had not been formally

addressed in the previous draft. Among the changes made was the addition of a category

specific to “Waste Management and Resource Use” in which goals such as the reduction of




33

waste requiring landfill through the promotion of recycling and composting, as well as the

reduction of the impact on natural resources through the promotion of sustainable resource use

were outlined.

As previously mentioned, though many of the townships within the FAB were active

participants in the ICSP process and will thus reap the benefits of these sessions, we would like

to suggest that perhaps on a smaller scale, the FAB could create an ICSP for itself which would

be specific to the biosphere and which would also include those communities not affected by the

Leeds and Grenville ICSP. The Leeds and Grenville ICSP and the process through which it was

developed are an excellent example of the effectiveness of promoting a sustainable approach at

both the municipal and community level, and in terms of waste management, much of the

feedback obtained from residents has already resulted in clearer, more structured goals. With

this past effort towards sustainability as a guide, the FAB could potentially implement a similar

sustainability plan specific to waste management within the biosphere as a step to achieving its

sustainability goals.

10. Recommendations

10.1 Potential Future Problems

As a region with a growing population such as the FAB, certain consideration must be

taken to estimate future trends pertaining to waste management. We foresee that some of the

problems the FAB may encounter are an aging population, a growing population, and the

closure of local landfills.

Along with the rest of Ontario, the FAB is experiencing an aging baby boomer

generation. We predict that if some townships continue to neglect collection services, this could

prove to be a problem in the near future. With an increasing amount of seniors in the area, it

may not be feasible for older generations to take care of the transport of their own recycling,

garbage and compost. To deal with this, it may be wise to implement more expansive collection

services to cater to the needs of the aging population.

With a growing population, of course a larger amount of waste volume is to be expected.

To deal with this, the FAB should be assessing their current waste infrastructure and dealing

with any shortcomings it may have. While the FAB may be aiming to close landfills as an

incentive to curb waste production, unless the proper recycling and composting infrastructure

exists, not enough waste will be diverted from landfills. This is a potentially issue that will need

to be addressed.




34

10.2 Recommendations to the FAB

First and foremost we would recommend to the FAB that they work with the

municipalities towards establishing more consistent records in regards to waste management

data that are universal and therefore easily comparable. Some potential areas to consider would

be keeping track of waste volume, waste diversion rates, the breakdown of different diversion

methods as well as the financials of waste management. Most municipalities do already keep

records of this data, however through various methods. With consistent record keeping, trends

can be more easily observed and more efficient waste management strategies can be designed

and implemented for the future.

One of our findings was that many of the rural townships tend to struggle with

sustainable waste management whereas the more heavily populated areas are more efficient in

dealing with their waste. Our suggestion to deal with this discontinuity within the FAB is for rural

areas to team up with nearby urban centres. This way, financial resources can be pooled and

waste management strategies can be extended to rural areas that were otherwise neglected.

The more the townships work together within the biosphere, the more attainable the collective

goal of sustainability will be. The FAB as a whole does not seem to have one collective waste

management system, perhaps due to the fact that the biosphere network has limited influence

on municipal actions. However if the entire FAB were to come together on one consistent plan,

this could be beneficial for individual townships within the biosphere.

One way in which this may be achieved would be for the biosphere to focus on reducing

the number of landfills that it actively operates. This would allow for funding to be focused on a

smaller number of landfills which would allow for greater investment in advanced waste

management strategies to increase the rates of waste diversion. If a focus was placed on filling

and closing certain existing landfills, those sites could then be converted into transfer stations in

the future, allowing the same level of access to waste disposal for residents - yet allowing for a

consolidation of resources by the waste management teams from throughout the biosphere.

There is also a need to bring attention to the entire life cycle of waste. While the majority

of communities within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve have implemented incentives

toward reducing waste production such as bag tags, one bag policies, and

composting/recycling, there is not as much emphasis on the source of waste. We think that the

majority of communities' sustainability plans are lacking in terms of efforts to curb production of

materials that contribute to waste in the first place. Policies regarding materials used in

production processes should be created. It is recommended that the biosphere continues to

promote and expand upon it’s programs such as “Biosphere Reuses” and “Local Flavours”, that

latter of which promotes purchasing products from within the community and avoids external

sources which can contribute waste. Another suggestion that we have is for the FAB




35

communities to perform packaging audits on their businesses including restaurants, grocery

stores, and drug stores. Packaging should be compostable or biodegradable or even simply

recyclable if it is not already. This is in line with a shifting in focus from waste management to

resource management. While we recognize that this type of strategy may be out of the control of

the FAB, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction and should be considered as a potential

waste-curbing action.

An additional recommendation specific to the FAB is to reduce the production of paper

based promotional material. The ability to advertise electronically is a beneficial alternative

which can reduce resource use and lessen costs. The FAB should attempt to gauge the level of

internet use by citizens, decrease their paper ads moderately in response, and divert more

information to be available through internet access.

We acknowledge the need for realistic goals in terms of curbing waste production,

especially in consideration of how much money would be needed to implement the suggested

program, however, we think that if this program proved successful eventually the communities

would have curbed enough waste through increasing packaging standards to justify diverting

funds from the waste disposal process to smarter packaging programs or subsidies to offer

businesses. Efforts to convince businesses and restaurants and stores to stop producing

packaging that is not recyclable may be met with some resistance at first but financial subsidies

provide a small incentive. The FAB might also benefit from outfitting its communities with more

recycling bins to encourage on-street or in-business recycling. Eventually the goal would be to

not have anything but paper waste, plastic waste, biodegradable waste, and compostable waste

entering or leaving the FAB.

10.3 Emerging and Alternative Technologies

The ArrowBio system is a new, and brilliant, way of managing all forms of solid waste. It

eliminates the need to separate waste before collection since it uses a series of processes that

separate the waste mechanically.

The waste is brought to the management area and dumped in a large pit. This allows the

separation of the much larger and bulkier items. As well, the garbage bags are opened so that

the waste can be sorted. Based on the principle that most of the organic materials are smaller,

the waste is then transported into a trommel to filter out the organics. This is a dry step in the

process and the larger materials will be sent through to the next step.

The next step is the first wet step in the ArrowBio process. Heavier materials such as

glass and metals sink to the bottom and enter the primary vat. Lighter materials, those that




36

would not sink in water, such as plastics, cardboard and any other organic material that was not

removed by the trommel, are sent through to the secondary vat.

Materials from the primary vat are sent through a series of steps that separate them.

Magnetic force removes metal objects, while eddy currents remove smaller objects. Manual

picking of materials also occurs at this stage. The items that are found to be “garbage waste”

are sent to the landfill. Those items sent to the secondary vat are separated manually and the

plastics and paper are packaged and sent to the market for recyclable materials including metal

items from the primary vat.

Organic materials are combined and sent through another trammel. The very fine items

that get separated are sent to a hydro crushing unit. The larger items are sent through a rough

shredder and then to the hydro crushing unit as well. The organic material then enters a filtering

system. The contaminants are filtered out while small bits of metal, plastic, or any other

undesirable material, are screened out using a vat. Those items go through air sifters and are

separated on their own as well. The remaining watery organic material is then sent to biological

reactors to yield fertilizer, water and biogas. The products of the biological reactors also produce

methane which is sold for clean energy production.

Figure 19. Illustrated depiction of the ArrowBio process.

If this system was implemented in the FAB it would create a much more sustainable

system than the one that is currently in place. Firstly, one or two central plants could service the

region due to its low population and the high capacity of most ArrowBio plants. Secondly, the




37

whole region would have garbage, compost and recycling collection. The residents would not

require separation of the materials which would make it easier to collect all types of solid waste.

Thirdly, collection could be implemented in the whole region since only one type of collection

truck would need to be sent out. This would reduce the cost and they would be able to service

the whole region. This would reduce GHG emission by individuals bringing their waste to the

landfill and due to the low population density in most of the region it would make collection much

easier.

The ArrowBio system also has a high output of materials, meaning it collects more of the

recycleable and organics than collection methods currently in place and diverts more waste

from landfills (e.g. 80-90% of recyclable materials) (See Figure 20).

Figure 20. Graph comparing ArrowBio system with alternatives.

As well it produces much less pollution than landfills and other methods of dealing with waste.

Lastly the cost of the ArrowBio system is lower than most other methods of waste management,

partly because it is self sufficient in producing its own energy. If the ArrowBio system were

implemented in the FAB region, it would be a large step towards reaching the goal of a wholly

sustainable biosphere reserve.




38

11. Sustainability as a Long-term Goal

A fully sustainable waste management system is a futile objective. In regards to the

Bruntdland definition, allowing future generations to meet their own needs might be a more

realistic goal. Essentially it is impossible in our society to achieve a goal of zero waste, but it is

possible to reduce our waste production to an extent that allows our impact to be negligible.

Unfortunately, to calculate this value that needs to be attained so that our waste does not

impact the environment to a point of no return is difficult. Therefore, we must strive for the least

amount of waste possible, and the highest waste diversion that we can.

As difficult as it is to create a truly sustainable waste management system, setting high

goals allows for a greater rate of success. Setting low, attainable goals might mean that the

region is able to achieve them, but the room for reaching sustainability is small. Setting high

goals such as zero waste might not be attained but if this goal is not reached it will still allow for

a greater improvement in current waste management practices than a low goal. Therefore, a

goal of zero waste and total waste diversion should be set for the region.

Waste diversion allows us to re-use the raw materials that we have taken from the

environment. Although the initial act of cutting down a tree, or mining for a metal is intrusive and

unsustainable, it is a harsh reality that our society requires these things. That does not mean

that we have a right to continuously pillage the natural resources we have, and therefore once

they have been removed we should focus our efforts on re-purposing them.

To achieve this goal of improved sustainability a number of factors require attention.

Firstly, proper data collection and recording is necessary. It is difficult to grasp the full extent of

a region’s waste management practices if the data is not quantifiable, comparable, and trusted

by those conducting the research. The township of Front of Yonge for instance, does not have

scales to weigh their total waste and must therefore estimate their annual volumes. How are

they able to determine or watch if their waste volume is changing from year to year? This is the

first step so that the FAB region is able to determine the direction they are headed and fix

problems along the way.

Our indicators are a representation of the aspects of waste management that determine

sustainability. For example reduction in waste volume and an increase in waste diversion would

increase the FAB’s sustainability greatly. But sustainability also relies on an incorporation of

human society into future plans. An exploration of financial spending, and an increase in

spending on sustainable factors of waste management would greatly improve this as well.

Waste must also be disposed of in a proper manner. In some townships residents are

encouraged to burn any excess waste that they produce that is not handled by the township.




39

This might include items such as christmas trees or bulky oversized yard waste. Burning is not a

proper way to dispose of these waste items, and actions like this have to stop. Although it might

cost more money to dispose of these items properly, if the region aims to become truly

sustainable it must be done. This is why a joint system of collection and waste handling has

been suggested for the region, as a system that would allow for the most cost effective,

sustainable way to deal with the FAB waste problem.

12. Conclusion

An understanding of waste management is a vital aspect of ensuring a sustainable

future. As a core tenet of human development, waste is, and always will be created. There is no

perfect method to handle waste, and each region needs to determine what is best for their

population. The FAB is a unique area which strives to meet higher sustainability goals than

most. This report has tried to arm the FAB with the tools necessary to combat the growing issue

of waste and its management in the townships. One of the major issues that we found was poor

data collection, which should be rectified if the region wishes to create a plan to manage their

waste. This report attempted to use what information was currently available, through various

methods of data collection (e.g. online resources, in-person consultation etc.) and extract the

necessary information to paint a vivid picture of waste management in the region and how it

might be improved. Our main recommendation is collaboration between the townships that

enables them to implement certain programs that can handle a wider variety of waste. We

understand that making the FAB sustainable is not an easy task, but in fact a complex one that

requires much planning and communication between the residents and decision makers

involved. All policies regarding waste and its management should be reflective of the multitude

of interests at play within the biosphere. True to the United Nations’ definition of sustainability, it

is necessary to examine all aspects of society, environment, economics and culture to create a

truly sustainable FAB, but in terms of waste management the indicators selected here provide a

good starting point for the region to reach its goal.




40

13. Works Cited

Allan Chartered Accountants. (2012). Tay Valley Township Consolidated Financial

Statements. Retrieved from http://tayvalleytwp.ca/files/2010/05/2011-Audited-

Statements1.pdf (Accessed October 31, 2012)

Allan Chartered Accountants. (2012). The Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley

Consolidated Financial Statements. Retrieved from

https://elizabethtownkitley.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=1328

(Accessed November 1, 2012)

Allan Chartered Accountants. (2011). The Township of Leeds and The Thousand

Islands Consolidated Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_Leeds%20and%20the%20Thousand%20

Islands%20Tp.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2012)

Allen, N., Kingston, S., Roper, K., Srivastava, A. (2011). “Waste Management: Analysis

and Opportunities Regarding Waste within the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve.”

Queen’s University ENSC 430 Report. Retrieved from http://e

nsc430.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/analysis-and-opportunities-regarding-waste-

2011/ (Accessed September 27, 2012)

Bennet, Lewis, McMahen, and Stillan Chartered Accountants. (2012). The Township of

Front of Yonge Consolidated Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://www.frontofyonge.com/index.cfm/linkservid/8DC4BCA8-C9D8-9E39-

D3A86C7E4C0A44AB/showMeta/0/ (Accessed November 1, 2012)

Bennet, Lewis, McMahen, and Stillan Chartered Accountants. (2011). Corporation of

the City of Brockville Audited Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://city.brockville.on.ca/UploadedFiles/City%20of%20Brockville%202010%20stmts.pdf

(Accessed October 30, 2012)

Burns, J. B. Chartered Accountant (2011). The Corporation of the Township of Rideau

Lakes Audited Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_Rideau%20Lakes%20Tp.pdf (Accessed

October 31, 2012)

Burns, J. B. Chartered Accountant. (2012). The Corporation of the Village of Westport

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_Leeds%20and%20the%20Thousand%20Islands%20Tp.pdf



http://ensc430.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/analysis-and-opportunities-regarding-waste-2011/



http://www.frontofyonge.com/index.cfm/linkservid/8DC4BCA8-C9D8-9E39-D3A86C7E4C0A44AB/showMeta/0/



http://city.brockville.on.ca/UploadedFiles/City%20of%20Brockville%202010%20stmts.pdf

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_Rideau%20Lakes%20Tp.pdf

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_Rideau%20Lakes%20Tp.pdf




41

Audited Financial Statements. Retrieved from http://village.westport.on.ca/wp-

content/2011-Audited-Financial-Statements-Village-of-Westport.pdf. (Accessed October

31, 2012).

Brockville (2010). Long Term Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan. Retrieved

from

http://city.brockville.on.ca/UploadedFiles/SSWMP%20Final%20Report%20Dec%

209%202010.pdf (Accessed November 8, 2012)

Burns, B. J. Chartered Accountant. (2011). The Township of Athens Consolidated

Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_Athens%20Tp.pdf (Accessed

October 25, 2012).

Campbell, S., Ouseley, M., Klein, S., Sugar, M., Zhou, Y., (2009). Waste and Energy: A

Resilience assessment of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. Queen’s

University ENSC 430 Report. Retrieved from

http://ensc430.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/waste-and-energy-a-resilience-asses

sment-of-the-frontenac-arch-biosphere-reserve-2009/ (Accessed September 27, 2012)

Dillon Consulting (2012). Leeds and Grenville Integrated Community Sustainability Plan.

Retrieved from

http://www.leedsgrenville.com/en/govern/committeesboards/integrationcommunitysustai

nabilityplan.asp (Accessed November 6, 2012)

Employment Ontario (2007). Front of Yonge Township Community Profile. Retrieved

from http://www.frontofyonge.com/default/assets/File/OE_69-159-214-22.pdf (Accessed

November 6, 2012)

Hunt, G. and Kennedy, D. Chartered Accountants. (2012). The Corporation of the City

of Kingston Audited Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://www.cityofkingston.ca/pdf/budget/2011_AuditedFinancials.pdf (Accessed October

31, 2012)

Morrissey, A.J., and Browne, J. (2004). Waste Management Models and Their

Application to Sustainable Waste Management. Waste Management, 24(3),

297-308. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X03001818 (Accessed

November 6th, 2012)

Nation Master (2002). Municipal Waste Generation by Country. OECD Environmental Data

http://village.westport.on.ca/wp-content/2011-Audited-Financial-Statements-Village-of-Westport.pdf

http://village.westport.on.ca/wp-content/2011-Audited-Financial-Statements-Village-of-Westport.pdf

http://city.brockville.on.ca/UploadedFiles/SSWMP%20Final%20Report%20Dec%209%202010.pdf

http://city.brockville.on.ca/UploadedFiles/SSWMP%20Final%20Report%20Dec%209%202010.pdf

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_Athens%20Tp.pdf

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_Athens%20Tp.pdf

http://ensc430.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/waste-and-energy-a-resilience-assessment-of-the-frontenac-arch-biosphere-reserve-2009/

http://ensc430.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/waste-and-energy-a-resilience-assessment-of-the-frontenac-arch-biosphere-reserve-2009/

http://www.leedsgrenville.com/en/govern/committeesboards/integrationcommunitysustainabilityplan.asp

http://www.leedsgrenville.com/en/govern/committeesboards/integrationcommunitysustainabilityplan.asp

http://www.frontofyonge.com/default/assets/File/OE_69-159-214-22.pdf

http://www.cityofkingston.ca/pdf/budget/2011_AuditedFinancials.pdf



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X03001818




42

Compendium: 2002. Retrieved from

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_mun_was_gen-environment-municipal-waste-

generation

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (2004). Ontario’s 60% Waste Diversion Goal - A

Discussion Paper. Retrieved from

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/reso

urce/std01_079752.pdf (Accessed November 30, 2012)

Orr, W. Chartered Accountant (2011). The Corporation of the Township of South

Frontenac Audited Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/View/FS10_South%20Frontenac%20Tp.pdf

(Accessed October 30, 2012)

Ross, D. (2012). UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserve Information: Frontenac Arch.

Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=CAN+12


Statistics Canada (2007). Athens, Ontario (Code3507042) (table). 2006 Community

Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa.

Released March 13, 2007. Retrieved from

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm


Statistics Canada (2007). Elizabethtown-Kitley, Ontario (Code3507014) (table). 2006

Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE.

Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007. Retrieved from

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?

Lang=E (Accessed November 4, 2012).

Statistics Canada (2007). Front of Yonge, Ontario (Code3507017) (table). 2006

Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no.

92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007. Retrieved from

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-

591/index.cfm?Lang=E (Accessed November 5, 2012)

Statistics Canada (2012). Gananoque, Ontario (Code 0310) and Ontario (Code 35)

(table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no.

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/std01_079752.pdf

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/std01_079752.pdf




http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=all&code=CAN+12

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm




43

98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released October 24, 2012. Retrieved from

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E


Statistics Canada (2012). Leeds and the Thousand Islands, Ontario (Code 3507021)

and Ontario (Code 35) (table). Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada

Catalogue no.98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released October 24, 2012. Retrieved from

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lan

g=E (Accessed November 2, 2012)

Statistics Canada (2012). Tay Valley, Ontario (Code 3509015) and Ontario (Code 35)

(table).Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE.

Ottawa. Released October 24, 2012. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E (Accessed November 2, 2012)

Tay Valley Township (2011). Consolidated Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://tayvalleytwp.ca/files/2010/05/2011-Audited-Statements1.pdf (Accessed

November 3, 2012)

Tay Valley Township (2012). Waste Management. Retrieved from

http://tayvalleytwp.ca/resident-services/recycling-and-waste/ (Accessed

November 3, 2012)

The Corporation of the Township of Front of Yonge (2012). Waste Disposal

Site/Recycling. Retrieved from

http://www.frontofyonge.com/index.cfm/environmental-advisory/ (Accessed November

20, 2012)

The Frontenac Arch Biosphere Network (2011). The Frontenac Arch Biosphere

Network's "Strategies for Sustainable Communities" Workshop Series. Retrieved from

http://www.fabr.ca/Workshop%20Series.html (Accessed November 20, 2012)

Town of Gananoque (2011). Consolidated Financial Statements. Retrieved from

http://www.gananoque.ca/sites/gananoque.ca/files/Financial%20Statements-2011.pdf


Township of Athens (2012). Waste Management Documents. Retrieved from

http://athenstownship.ca/documents/cat_view/29-waste-management (Accessed

November 30, 2012)






http://tayvalleytwp.ca/files/2010/05/2011-Audited-Statements1.pdf

http://tayvalleytwp.ca/resident-services/recycling-and-waste/

http://www.frontofyonge.com/index.cfm/environmental-advisory/

http://www.fabr.ca/Workshop%20Series.html

http://www.gananoque.ca/sites/gananoque.ca/files/Financial%20Statements-2011.pdf

http://athenstownship.ca/documents/cat_view/29-waste-management




44

Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley (2012). Waste Disposal Site & North End Garbage

Pick-Up. Retrieved from

http://www.elizabethtown-kitley.on.ca/siteengine/activepage.asp?PageID=36 (Accessed

November 30, 2012)

Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands (2012). Garbage Label Requirements.

Retrieved from

http://www.leeds1000islands.ca/sites/default/files/user%2316/PublicWorks/2012WasteSi

teandRecyclingRules.pdf (Accessed November 20, 2012)

Township of South Frontenac (2011). Township of South Frontenac Waste Recycling

Strategy. Retrieved from

http://www.township.southfrontenac.on.ca/sites/default/files/April%205-

201%20WRS[1].pdf (Accessed November 20, 2012)

UNESCO (2012). Biosphere Reserves – Learning Sites for Sustainable Development.

Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-

sciences/biosphere-reserves/ (Accessed November 20, 2012)

http://www.elizabethtown-kitley.on.ca/siteengine/activepage.asp?PageID=36

http://www.leeds1000islands.ca/sites/default/files/user%2316/PublicWorks/2012WasteSiteandRecyclingRules.pdf




http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/




45

14. List of Figures

Figure 1. Map indicating geographic location of the FAB. ........................................................... 7

Figure 2. Map of the townships under study within the FAB. ...................................................... 8

Figure 3. Illustration depicting the volume of waste per capita aspect of the sustainability scale.

.................................................................................................................................................16

Figure 4. Illustration depicting the recycling program aspect of the sustainability scale. ............16

Figure 5. Illustration depicting the composting program aspect of the sustainability scale. ........17

Figure 6. Illustration depicting the waste diversion aspect of the sustainability scale. ................18

Figure 7. Illustration depicting the waste financials aspect of the sustainability scale. ...............18

Figure 8. Graph of waste volume per capita by township within the FAB. ..................................19

Figure 9. Graph detailing percentage amount of budget of each municipality directed toward

Environmental Services. ...........................................................................................................20

Figure 10. Map depicting the relative sustainability scale scores of townships within the FAB. .21

Figure 11. Graph relating waste volume per capita to population for biosphere municipalities. .25

Figure 12. Graph relating waste volume per capita to population density for biosphere

municipalities. ...........................................................................................................................26

Figure 13. Graph relating waste volume per capita to the number of private dwellings for

biosphere municipalities. ...........................................................................................................27

Figure 14. Survey results of respondents’ knowledge of the existence of the FAB. ...................28

Figure 15. Survey results comparing Kingston waste management to respondents’ hometown

for Central Ontario. ...................................................................................................................29


for Western Ontario. ..................................................................................................................29


for Eastern Ontario. ...................................................................................................................30

Figure 18. Resident response to the tenets of Leeds and Grenville’s Integrated Community

Sustainability Plan. ....................................................................................................................32

Figure 19. Illustrated depiction of the ArrowBio process. ...........................................................36

Figure 20. Graph comparing ArrowBio system with alternatives. ...............................................37

Figure 21. Graph depicting answers to “Waste management in Kingston is better than in my

hometown” by region.................................................................................................................55

Figure 22. Graph depicting answers to “Waste management in Kingston is the same as in my


Figure 23. Graph depicting answers to “Waste management in Kingston is worse than in my


Figure 24. Sustainability tenets of the Leeds and Grenville County Integrated Community

Sustainability Plan. ....................................................................................................................56




46

15. List of Tables

Table 1. Summary chart of total sustainability points awarded by township. ..............................21

Table 2. Summary chart of waste volume per capita by township. ............................................47

Table 3. Summary chart of budget directed towards environmental services by township. ........48

Table 4. Summary chart of population statistics by township. ....................................................48

Table 5. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Kingston. ......................................49

Table 6. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Rideau Lakes/Westport. ...............49

Table 7. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Brockville. .....................................50

Table 8. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Tay Valley. ...................................50

Table 9. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to South Frontenac. ..........................51

Table 10. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Leeds and the Thousand Islands.

.................................................................................................................................................51

Table 11. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Athens. .......................................51

Table 12. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Elizabethtown-Kitley. ..................52

Table 13. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Front of Yonge. ...........................52




47

16. Appendices

16.1 Summary of Data Collected for Waste Volume per Capita by Township

Table 2. Summary chart of waste volume per capita by township.

Township Waste Volume Waste per capita (kg/person)

Rideau Lakes/Westport 2500 Tonnes 227.4 total

Kingston 12714.06 tonnes of garbage

2775 tonnes of organics

9595.3 tonnes of recycling

83.4 garbage

18.2 organics

63.0 recycling

164.6 total

Front of Yonge 3400 cubic metres

1632 tonnes of waste

For 0.48 tonnes per cubic m

582 total

Elizabethtown-Kitley

Athens 697.19 tonnes of waste

182.69 tonnes of recycling

123.6 tonnes of yard/organic

waste

226.0 garbage

59.2 recycling

40.1 organics

325.3 total

Brockville 4527.09 tonnes of waste 207 total

Leeds and Thousand

Islands

Tay Valley 4300 cubic metre

2064 tonnes of waste

370.5 total




48

16.2 Summary of Data Collected for Waste Budgets by Township

Table 3. Summary chart of budget directed towards environmental services by township.

Township Budget Directed toward Environmental Services

Total Budget Percentage of Budget Spent on Environmental Services

Elizabethtown-Kitley $533,578 $7,092,062 8%

Leeds and the Thousand Islands

$2,051,670 $10,077,253 12%

Athens $177,360 $2,234,645 8%

Front of Yonge $194,025 $2,049,784 9.5%

Tay Valley $633,958 $5,497,177 11.5%

Rideau Lakes - Westport

RL: $1,016,871 W: $571,688

RL: $13,264,127 W: $1,699,125

11% (RL = 8%; W = 34%)

South Frontenac $2,644,136 $18,886,688 14%

Brockville $7,939,797 $49,129,493 16%

Kingston $57,536,000 $384,325,000 15%

16.3 Summary of Data Collected for Population Statistics by Township

Table 4. Summary chart of population statistics by township.

Township/ County

Population Population change (2001-2006)

Density (people/km2)

Total private dwellings

Kingston 152,358 3.8% 79.9, 260.2 70,003

Rideau Lakes/ Westport

RL: 10,350 W: 645

RL: 6.8% W: -0.3%

14.6 6,468

Brockville 21,957 2.7% 44.6 10,394

Tay Valley 5,634 3.6% 10.7 3,511




49

South Frontenac 18,227 11% 19.4 9,069

Leeds and Thousand Islands

9,435 4% 15.5 5,306

Athens 3,086 1.1% 24.4 1,320

Elizabethtown- Kitley

10,201 1.6% 18.4 3,818

Front of Yonge 2,803 6.2% 21.9 1,218

16.4 Summary Charts of Sustainability Points Awarded to Townships

16.4.1 Kingston

Table 5. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Kingston.

Indicator Score

Waste Volume per capita 164.6 kg/person 3 points

Recycling Yes, collected 2 points

Composting Program Active composting 2 points

Financial 15% of budget 2 points

Waste Diversion N/A

Total 9 points

16.4.2 Rideau Lakes/Westport

Table 6. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Rideau Lakes/Westport.

Indicator Score






50

Composting Program Passive composting 1 point


Waste Diversion N/A

Total 7 points

16.4.3 Brockville

Table 7. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Brockville.

Indicator Score

Waste Volume per capita 207 kg/person 2 points




Waste Diversion 41.5 % Diversion

Total 8 points

16.4.4 Tay Valley

Table 8. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Tay Valley.

Indicator Score




Financial 11.5% of budget 2 points

Waste Diversion N/A

Total 8 points




51

16.4.5 South Frontenac

Table 9. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to South Frontenac.

Indicator Score

Waste Volume per capita 274 kg/person 2 points


Composting Program Active composting 2 point


Waste Diversion 20% diversion rate

Total 8 points

16.4.6 Leeds and the Thousand Islands

Table 10. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Leeds and the Thousand Islands.

Indicator Score

Waste Volume per Capita 2 points

Recycling Yes, not collected 1 points



Waste Diversion 50%

Total 6 points

16.4.7 Athens

Table 11. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Athens.

Indicator Score






52


Financial 8% of budget 1 point

Waste Diversion N/A

Total 6 points

16.4.8 Elizabethtown-Kitley

Table 12. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Elizabethtown-Kitley.

Indicator Score

Waste Volume per capita N/A (medium volume assumed)

2 points



Financial 8% of budget 1 point

Waste Diversion N/A

Total 6 points

16.4.9 Front of Yonge

Table 13. Summary chart of sustainability points awarded to Front of Yonge.

Indicator Score

Waste Volume per capita 582 kg/person 1 point


Composting Program Active composting 2 point

Financial 9.5% of budget 1 point

Waste Diversion N/A

Total 6 points




53

16.5 Kingston Online Survey

PART 1: THE FRONTENAC ARCH BIOSPHERE RESERVE

What does the term "biosphere reserve" mean to you?

Have you ever heard of the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve?

[ ] Yes

[ ] I don't know

[ ] No

If yes, how did you hear about the Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve?

[ ] I have lived in this biosphere reserve

[ ] I have visited this biosphere reserve

[ ] From friends

[ ] In a course

[ ] Through the media

[ ] Independent research

[ ] Other (please specify) ______________________________

Do you know of any other examples of biosphere reserves in Canada or elsewhere?

PART 2: WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KINGSTON

How much do you know about waste management in Kingston?

[ ] A lot

[ ] A little

[ ] Very little

[ ] Nothing

How does waste management in Kingston compare to waste management in your home town?

[ ] I am from Kingston

[ ] It (waste management in Kingston) is much better

[ ] It is better

[ ] It is only marginally better

[ ] It is the same

[ ] It is only marginally worse

[ ] It is worse

[ ] It is much worse




54

Could you elaborate on this response?

What is your hometown?

Is there anything about waste management in Kingston that you would like to see changed?

What does sustainability mean to you?

Would you describe Kingston as sustainable?

[ ] Yes

[ ] Somewhat

[ ] No


Would you describe waste management in Kingston as sustainable?

[ ] Yes

[ ] Somewhat

[ ] No


Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions!

We appreciate your participation!

SURVEY DEBRIEF

UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme lends the internationally recognized title of

“biosphere reserve” to ecologically diverse areas that demonstrate excellence and innovation in

sustainability. The Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve (FAB) is one such area surrounding

Kingston, which extends east from Gananoque to Brockville and North to Westport and Athens.




55

Figure 21. Graph depicting answers to “Waste management in Kingston is better than in my hometown” by region.

Figure 22. Graph depicting answers to “Waste management in Kingston is the same as in my hometown” by region.

Figure 23. Graph depicting answers to “Waste management in Kingston is worse than in my hometown” by region.




56

16.6 Tenets of the Leeds and Grenville Integrated Community Sustainability Plan

Figure 24. Sustainability tenets of the Leeds and Grenville County Integrated Community Sustainability Plan.




57

16.7 Ethics Form




58

17. Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the following individuals for their provision of information and guidance

regarding this project:

Sarah Matherson - Frontenac Arch Biosphere Network

The Frontenac Arch Biosphere Board of Directors

Dr. Ryan Danby - Queen’s University Professor and ENSC 430 Course Director

Dr. Graham Whitelaw - Queen’s University Professor and ENSC 430 Course Director

Robyn Laing - Teaching Assistant for ENSC 430

Samantha Tavenor - Teaching Assistant for ENSC 430

Elaine A. Covey, A.M.C.T. - Front of Yonge Township Clerk and Zoning Administrator

Michelle Hollingsworth - Administrative Assistant for the Township of Athens

Michael A. Touw - Manager of Public Works for the Township of Rideau Lakes

Dale Kulp, C.R.S.S. - Director of Public Works for the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley

James Lolley - Chair of Waste Management Committee for the Township of Leeds and the

Thousand Islands