national backyard composting program: cost-benefit ... · glendale, california east chicago,...

p e s y t z

Cost-Benefit Analysis o f Home Composting Programs

in t h e United States

by:

Applied Compost Consulting Wells Fargo Building

2140 Shattuck Avenue Suite 705

Berkeley, California 94704

tor:

The Composting Council 114 South P i t t Street

Alexandria, Virginia 224 13 (703) 739-2401

fax Cf03) 739-2407 [email protected]

-May 1996

I ,

The ComposciGg Council, Al exandria, VA

mailto:[email protected]

1

Cost-Benefit Analysis o f Home Composting Programs

in the United States

by:

Applied Compost Consulting Wells Fargo Building

2140 Shattuck Avenue Suite 705

Berkeley, California 94704

for:

The Composting Council 114 South Pi t t Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22413

fax (703) 739-2407 [email protected]

(703) 739-2401

May 1996

The Composting Council, Al exandria, VA

mailto:[email protected]

2

Acknowkdgements Applied Compost Consulting would like to thank the

Composting Council (Alexandria, Virginia) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for finding of this study. Charles Cannon and Rebecca Roe of the Com- posting Council provided effective overall project management. Several government, academic and industry reviewers of this report desewe many thanks for their comments and assistance: Holly Johnson, University of Wiscon- sin Cooperative Extension Sewice, who also provided a useful l is t o f addresses of home composting programs; Eu- gene Lee, U.S.E.P.A.; Jim Hollyer, University of Hawaii; Bob Martin, Rodale Press; Rhonda Sherman, North Carolina

State University; and Craig Benton, independent consultant. Additional mention goes to Tom Richard, Cornell University, for his thoughtfulness and collegiality. Finally, we would like to offer our warmest appreciation of the 43 survey respondents (listed in the appendix) for their time and interest in helping t o provide t h e data which underpin this study.

Applied Compost Consulting was selected by the Composting Council as the best choice among eight candidates who were formally considered to conduct the work. This study was directed and written by Steven Sherman, managing partner. Bar- ton Blum, managing partner, conducted the statistical analysis and developed several case studies. Dail Miller, senior consultant, helped t o frame the economic approach used in the study. Lucinda Chiszar, research analyst, gathered and organized survey data and case study information. Applied Compost Consulting bears responsibility for any unintentional inaccuracies in the study.

An extra special thank you is extended t o Martin Simson, Director &Administration a t The Composting Council, for his extensive work on the design and layout of this

valuable document, _ _

The Composting Council, A exandria, VA

3

Ta6k of Contents Executive Summary 5

I. Purpose of the Study

A. Study Context B. Need for this Study C. Goals of the Study D. Analytical Approach

11. Analysis of Results

A. Demographics B. Categorization of Programs

D. Overall Program Costs . C. Regional Variations

1) Direct Cost Per Ton Diverted 2) Program Budgets

1) staffing 2) Home Composting Brochures 3) Workshops 4) Master Composter Training Programs 5 ) Compost Bin Distribution 6) Portable Displays and Hotlines

E. Program Elements

F. Role of Volunteers G. Participation Rates H. Diversion Rates

1) Quantities Diverted Per Program 2) Quantities Diverted Per Household

I. Grasscycling J. Complementarity with Centralized Composting K. Summary of Results

10 11 11 11

12 12 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19

111. Avoided Costs and Other Benefits

A. Note on Assumptions 19 B. Avoided Costs 20

1) Avoided Collection Costs-Public Benefits 20 21 21

4) Avoided Environmental and Social Costs 22

2) Avoided Collection Costs Individual Benefits 3) Avoided Disposal Costs

-.

The Composting Council, A_1 exandria, VA

4

IV.

C. Other Benefits 22 22 22

3) Additional Environmental and Social Benefits 23 0. Qualitative Summary of Benefits Er Avoided Costs 23 E. Recommendations for Developing Home Programs 24 F. Projections of Nationwide Estimates 24

1) Derived Benefits of Volunteers 2) Derived Benefits of Master Composters

Case Studies

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Alameda County, California Olympia, Washington Ann Arbor, Michigan Palm Beach County, Florida Glendale, California East Chicago, Indiana Am herst, Massachusetts Austin, Texas

26 28 30 32 35 37 39 40

Appendices

Appendix A: Research Methods 42 Appendix B: Home Composting Program Survey 46 Appendix C: List of Survey Respondents 52

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Survey Respondents,

by Population and Region 12A

TABLE 2: Typical Home Composting Program 13 Components by Size of Community

TABLE 3: Results of National Suwey of Home Composting Programs

19A

TABLE 4: Identified Benefits of Home Composting 24

TABLE 5: Recommendations for Developing Home Composting Programs

25


5

Execut ive Summayy Conclusion: Home composting is a viable and useful component of solid waste management. The results o f the study demonstrate tha t home composting programs are successful and cost-effective in communities large and small, urban and suburban, high income and low income, east and west, north and south.

The average total net benefit derived by local governments which have home composting programs is a t least $43/ton, based on a 1995 national survey conducted by Applied Compost Consulting (Berkeley, California). In other words, local governments reduce solid waste collection and disposal costs by an average o f a t least $43 for every ton of yard trimmings and kitchen scraps that are composted a t home by residents.

with education, encouragement, assistance, and incentives, many residents will s ta r t to compost yard trimmings and food scraps a t home, thus reducing the burden on the solid waste management system. The values of thrift, self-reliance and personal responsibility for the environment and community are affirmed by home composting.

Context: Home composting has emerged in recent years as a popular conservation strategy across the United States. People who compost a t home turn materials that otherwise would be discarded, such as leaves, grass, prunings, fruit and vegetable scraps, and other items, into soil products for use in their gardens. Home composting includes passive and active composting, grasscycling, and other forms of reducing waste generation a t the source.

City and county governments throughout the United States have started t o promote home composting as a way t o reduce trash disposal, to conserve natural resources, and t o save money. Local governments bear responsibility for collecting and processing solid waste; home composting reduces the amount of materials t ha t must be collected, transported t o a central facility, and disposed or otherwise processed.

Use of this Study

This analysis, conducted and written by Applied Compost Consulting, is intended to help program managers in determining the appropriate priority level for home composting efforts, and in estimating and justifLing budgetary requests. Many solid waste program managers want to know what budget outlays can be expected during program start- up, what elements are typically included in a home composting program, and what cost savings can be achieved. Until this study was undertaken, the direct fiscal costs and quantified benefits of home composting had not been well documented.


c 6

The results are based on a nation-wide 1995 survey of home composting programs tha t keep detailed records. More than one million people compost a t home in the 43 communities tha t provided economic data. Eight case studies of municipally-sponsored home composting programs are included in the report.

Home Composting Benefits

Home composting programs offer the following benefits, according to persons associated with home composting programs:

avoided collection, transfer, and centralized processing reduced disposal burden improved soil health and fertility lowered residential trash bills (where unit costing exists) new job creation (home compost program coordination and promotion) reduced air and water pollution reduced use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides increased residential interest in and dedication t o recycling efforts exercise and relaxation hands-on methods of science education (especially with worm composting) greater sense of personal responsibility and community pride

Program Costs and Benefits

Home composting is a highly cost-effective way to handle residential materials, such as yard trimmings and fruit and vegetable scraps. Home composting programs tha t responded t o the survey spent $12 on average for every ton diverted from the solid waste system, based on data obtained for fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95 (Staffing constitutes the majority of program costs, on average). Moreover, average costs per ton of material composted a t home are dropping over time for programs which offer subsidized bins: for each year (after the first) tha t bins are in use, materials are diverted from the waste stream with virtually no additional cost. However, the wide range in reported costs ($l/ ton to $134/ton) suggests tha t program managers should evaluate carefully how to structure their home composting efforts, and should monitor program results.

The costs for curbside collection, transfer, and centralized composting or disposal of yard trimmings are much higher than the costs for encouraging residents to compost them a t home. In addition, home composting can reduce overall direct costs of collection and disposal associated with other materials handling methods.

-- The table on the following page contains a summary of results on program costs

and benefits. As shown in the table, the average total net benefit accrued by local governments is a t least $43/ton for every ton diverted through home composting.

The Cornposting Council, Al exandria, VA

7

Home Composting Budgets

The median home composting program budget is $15,000, based on the survey results. Some large regional programs (metropolitan counties, etc.) have budgets which exceed $100,000. Home composting programs occur in communities of all different income levels.

Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Home Composting Programs, I995

Municipal Costs per Ton Composted at Home

Local government expenditures on home composting (average) $12/ton

Total Municipal Costs $12/ton

Municipal Benefits per Ton Composted a t Home

Avoided collection costs (average)

Avoided disposal costs (average)

$23 /ton

$3 2 /ton

Volunteer labor <$l/ton

Soil amendment creation Benefits accrue to individuals

Avoided air pollution Er resource depletion

Total Municipal Benefits (measured benefits only)

Total Net Benefit (Benefits minus Costs)

Not measured in $ value

$55 -5 6/ton

$43 -4-4 /ton

Home Composting Program Elements

Home composting program efforts range from basic t o comprehensive. A t minimum, most home composting programs:

0

0

distribute compost bins

In addition, some programs also have the following elements:

0 advertising

have a paid staff person distribute brochures on how to compost offer home composting workshops to residents

educate children and teachers about composting

training of volunteers t o teach others about composting (known as “master composters” o r “community composters”)

The Composting Council, A l exandria, VA

8

compost demonstration gardens additional literature for distribution a telephone hotline

Programs in communities with less than 100,000 population tend t o have part- time staff, while those between 100,000 and 700,000 population tend t o have up to one full-time staff person. Programs in communities with more than 700,000 tend t o have one o r more full-time staff,

Volunteers

On average, paid staff are supplemented by approximately 200 hours peryear of volunteer time. Volunteers provide valuable services in all aspects of home corn posting program implementation, and especially in distributing literature and giving workshops. More than 75% of the survey respondents indicated tha t volunteers help in various capacities with their community’s home composting program.

Bin Distribution

Home compost bins are distributed by many programs, often a t a subsidized rate. The average subsidy was $16 per bin (range: $0-$34/bin). The results of the survey did not provide clear evidence tha t bin distribution correlates with high rates of participation or waste diversion. However, in many communities, distributing compost bins probably increases participation and waste diversion.

Telephone Hotlines

Compost hotlines are used heavily by residents in communities t ha t have comprehensive home composting programs. The survey found tha t a median of 900 calls are received per year. Hotlines are low-cost education and outreach tools, compared with other promotional approaches.

Participation Rates

Home composting programs can achieve significant results in their early stages. In 1991, 10% of the single-family households in communities with home composting programs composted a t home, according to the survey results. Among survey respondents, an average of 16% of single-family households now compost a t home, as of 1995. The highest level of participation was 80% of single-family households in one community.

-- is expected to continue throughout the decade, as public works officials and community leaders gain appreciation for how it reduces costs and saves resources. Many if not most home composting programs have been set up in the past three years.

Home composting’s fast-growing importance as a solid waste management strategy


9

As a group, the sampled set of home composting programs has an average goal of 45% of single-family households composting a t home. These goals can be attained only through sustained efforts (education, outreach, incentives) over a number of years.

Waste Reduction (Quantified)

Home composting programs t h a t responded to the survey are diverting an average of approximately 14% of the total amount o f yard trimmings generated in their communities. More than half of these programs are diverting a t least 1,000 tonslyear through home composting.

On average, residents who compost a t home in these communities divert approximately 650 pounds per year from the solid waste system. This is roughly equivalent to one ton diverted per year for every three households tha t compost a t home. These residents generate approximately twenty cubic feet of compost annually; residential gardens typically can incorporate a t least this amount of compost into the soil every year.

Grascycl i ng

In some communities, grasscycling (leaving cut grass on the lawn) forms the most important component of source redudion o f residentially-generated organic materials. Communities which indicated tha t they have significant grasscycling programs have below- average program costs, in terms of dollars spent fo r every ton o f material t ha t is kept ou t of the solid waste system.

Complementarity with Centralized Composting

Nearly all (97%) of the suwey respondents affirmed tha t home composting complements centralized composting, making both successful.

Recommendations for Home Composting Programs

Home composting programs can be very cost-effective, especially when sustained Over a few years. Communities t h a t are planning to set up or to expand home composting programs should consider Applied Compost Consulting’s recommendations:

1 2 3 4

6 7 8

Focus efforts on single-family households, Target people who garden a t home first. Develop a home composting brochure, possibly adapted from existing ones. Gather support and assistance from volunteers.

Use media effectively to publicize the program. Disseminate information through existing community groups. Include grasscycling tips in any promotional o r educational information.

-. 5 Give how-to workshops on home composting.


10

9 10

11

12

13 14 15

Evaluate a mobile o r neighborhood chipping program for brush and branches Structure economic incentives for participation in home composting, by adopting refuse collection rates t ha t reward waste reduction. Consider having a subsidized compost bin purchase program, and especially one-day sales. Evaluate cost-sharing opportunities between cities within a county, for educational efforts and possible bin distribution programs. Provide a home composting hotline number. Remember tha t success is measured over the course of a t least a few years. Monitor results, especially participation and diversion rates, and costlton diverted.

Puypose of the Study Study Context

Home composting has emerged in recent years as a popular conservation strategy throughout the United States and Canada. People who compost a t home turn materials tha t otherwise would be discarded, such as leaves, grass, prunings, fruit and vegetable scraps, and other items, into soil products for use in their gardens. The values of thrift, self-reliance and personal responsibility for the environment and community are affirmed by home composting.

As with recycling in the 1980s and energy consewation in the 1970s, public interest in home composting has been propelled not only by its intrinsic environmental benefits, but also by economic pressures associated with rising costs of the municipal solid waste system. Local governments bear responsibility for collecting and processing solid waste; home composting reduces the amount of materials t ha t must be collected, transported to a central facility, and disposed or othenvise processed. Many North American municipal recycling programs and state cooperative extension agencies have started to promote home composting as a way to reduce trash disposal, to conserve natural resources, and to save money.


Need for this Study

Until this study was undertaken, the direct fiscal costs and quantified benefits of home composting had not been well documented. Lacking analytical information regarding overall program costs and benefits, many program managers have been hard-pressed t o determine the appropriate priority level for home composting education efforts or to justifL budgetary requests.

Many solid waste program managers want t o know what budget outlays can be expected during the first three years of program start-up, and what cost savings can be achieved fairly immediately. This quantified economic analysis of home composting programs nationwide is intended t o provide solid waste program managers with aggregate and comparative data that may be useful for planning purposes.

Goals of the Study

The main goal of this economic analysis of home composting programs was t o develop a composite view o f costs and benefits, based on results of a nationwide survey of home composting programs. These results are presented in Sections 11 and 111. Appendix A contains information on how t h e survey was conducted and what analytical methods were employed in analyzing results. The survey is presented in Appendix B.

The results presented herein are based on an August, 1995 survey of 137 home composting programs across North America. A total of 43 completed surveys were re- turned in time for tabulation and analysis. The respondents are listed in Appendix C.

Another goal of this study was to provide descriptive information regarding three program categories, based on population size. This information is presented in Section 11.

A third goal was to develop case studies of home composting programs, selected for their quality of data and their diver- sity in demographics and program elements. Eight case studies are included in Section IV.

Analytical Approach

Economic analyses often obscure important social and environmental costs and benefits of various public programs. However, in the case of home composting, this focus on direct fiscal costs will help readers to understand tha t home composting generally is highly cost-effective in reducing the solid waste management burden, even without considering the important and numerous other benefits of home composting.

-- The non-monetary social and environmental benefits of home composting (Section Ill), and projections of national estimates about home composting (Section HI), are discussed separately from the analysis of direct program costs incurred by local governments (Section 11). Unlike the direct fiscal cost analysis, the topics covered in Section 111 have a


1 2

greater amount of uncertainty associated with them, and should be viewed as assertions rather than as proven facts.

for the purposes of this study as including active or passive composting a t home, worm composting, grasscycling, and other activities undertaken by residents which reduce the need for pick-up and off-site handling of organic materials. Whether survey respondents consistently included all of these elements or just a portion of them when answering questions was not able to be determined with certainty.

The term “home composting” (also known as “backyard composting”) was defined

Section II Analysis of Results

Demographics

The total population represented by the 43 jurisdictions (n=43) which completed surveys is more than 1 2 million people. The number of people who compost a t home in the communities tha t responded t o the survey total more than 1 million. As shown in’Table 1: Population Distribution, by Region, survey responses were cover were

gathered-from all geographic regions-of the United States, -ing 2 1 states, and from two Canadian provinces. Surveys received from 2 7 cities and towns, 13 counties, and 3 solid

waste management districts.

Communities of all sizes responded to the survey, ranging from a minimum of 3,000 residents t o a maximum of 1.6 million residents. The median respondent has a population of approximately 130,000 residents. Results were received from 17 communities with a 1990 population of less than 100,000; from 2 1 communities having between 100,000 and 700,000 residents; and from 5 municipalities (all counties) having a population greater than 700,000.

Home composting programs occur in communities of all different income levels throughout North America. Median annual household income for communities which responded t o the survey range from a low of approximately $18,000 to a high of approximately $69,000. The results of the survey suggest tha t median household income, by it- self, is not a strong predictor for whether a community has a home composting program or for the extensiveness of a program.

Categorization of Programs

Table 2 provides a generalized portrait of home composting program elements found in communities of various sizes. This categorization is based on the relative frequency with which survey respondents utilize or offer these program elements. As shown ih the table, programs in larger communities tend to have a greater variety of program elements.

The Cornposting Council, A l exandria, VA

> 700,000

250,000- 700,000

Alameda Co, CA

Sacramento County, CA

San Francisco, CA

Sacramento, CA

lO0,bOO- 2 5 0,000

20,000- 100,000

Glendale, CA

Escondido, CA

Thousand Oaks,

Ventura, CA

12A

Table 1: Survey Respondents, by Population Region Geogra p hica\ Areas

I West Population North-

west South-

west South Midwest East CANADA Total

Palm Beach County, FL

Hillsborough co, n

Vancouver, BC

6

9

11

Milwaukee, WI

Dakota Co, MN

Lincoln, NE

Madison, WI

Ann Arbor, MI

Kalamazoo Co, M I

Austin, TX Sarasota Co, FL

Moms Co, NJ

1 MarinCo,CA Piano, TX

Grand Prairie, T X

Bibb County, GA

New Haven, cr

Nassau Co, FL Columbia, MO

Chittenden, VI-

Germantown, TN

Keene, NH Markham, ONT

Olympia, WA

Grapevine, Tx

11

6

- 43

Portage Co, WI

East Chicago, IN

Hutchinson, MN

Amherst, MA

rakoma Pk, MD

West Monroe, LA

tlpharetta, GA <20,000

Fryeburg, ME

~

8 ~

10 7 3 4 Total L

The Composting Council, M exandria, VA

Regardless of population category, home composting programs tend to have, a t minimum:

0 a paid staff person who is responsible for the program distribution of brochures on how t o compost a t home and resident workshops. a designated location where home composting techniques are demonstrated a subsidized home composting bin distribution program, by which the local jurisdiction and bin users each pay a portion of the cost of a bin a component of the outreach program which focuses on educating school children or teachers about home or in-school composting

TABLE 2: Typical Home Cornposting Program Components,

by Size of Community

Regional Variations

posting programs, in terms of relative direct costs and derived benefits (or avoided costs), size or scope, or diversion results. Tremendous variation was found within regions, most notably in tipping fees (a key avoided cost factor), and, perhaps more sur- prisingly, in poundslyear diverted per household tha t composts * a t home.

No distinct geographic patterns emerged for home com-


14

Overall Program Costs

I ) Direct Cost Per Ton Diverted

Home composting is a highly cost-effective way t o handle residential organic materials, such as yard trimmings and vegetative food scraps, in comparison with other solid waste management strategies. On average (n-20), home composting programs spent $12 for every ton diverted during fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95 (median, $ll / ton). These figures represent the pure budgetary cost, and exclude avoided costs, program benefits, and life-cycle costing of subsidized compost bins. Were these indirect benefits and life-cycle costing included in the calculation, implementing home composting programs would make even more sense than it already does. I t is noted that the above figures do not include any private costs borne by residents, such as for the purchase of compost bins or pitchforks. Regardless, the results compare highly favorably with the cost of collection, transfer, and centralized composting or disposal.

diverted to $134/ton diverted, based on information provided by 20 respondents. A t the low-cost end of the range, grasscycling figures prominently, and education efforts for this activity focus on developing and distributing brochures. A t the high-cost end of the range, grasscycling is not as important (due t o the different vegetative patterns found in urban, relatively arid climates). Program efforts include subsidized bin distribution and workshops about composting techniques, which appear to take more concerted effort than promoting grasscycling.

home composting bins last several years, and education efforts can lead t o life-long behav- ioral changes in how residents manage their household organics, i t is likely tha t such an analysis would yield a lower estimate for dollars expended per ton diverted. For the purposes o f simplification and program planning, the $12/ton figure is used as the report's conclusion of the average direct budgetary cost of all home composting programs.

2) Program Budgets

budget of nearly $36,000, and a median of $lS,OOO/yr. (n=30). The mean is skewed high due to the five regional (county o r solid waste district) programs where budgets are $100,000 o r greater.

I ) Staffing

The range in cost-effectiveness for home composting programs was from $l / ton

No life-cycle cost analysis of home composting programs was performed. Since

The survey results show tha t home composting programs have an average annual

Program Elements

Funding for paid staff varies greatly among respondents, ranging from less than $1,00O/yr t o $170,00O/yr. The mean value is slightly greater than $2O,OOO/yr, while the median is $9,30O/yr (n=25). For the average program, therefore, one staff person, a t approximately half-time (0.5 full-time equivalent (TTE)) t o threequarters time (0.75 FTE), is assigned to home composting activities.

The Composting Council, AJ exandria, VA

P

1 5

Paid staff are supplemented by an average of 0.1 FTE time provided by volunteers (see sub-section F). These volunteers provide services tha t are hard t o quanti*; some program managers indicated tha t their home composting programs were created originally by volunteers, and tha t the volunteers provide valuable services in all aspects of home composting program implementation.

2) Home Composting Brochures -

More than half a million home composting brochures have been distributed by the 29 respondents who provided quantified information. The median cost of a brochure is $0.25. I t was not determined how many of the respondents focus exclusively on encouraging active composting a t home, or tha t have, for instance, a separate grasscycling brochure.

3) Works hops

. Among the 35 communities which provided data on atten- dance, the total number of workshop attendees over the past three years is approximately 60,000 people. This figure has remained relatively steady a t approximately 20,000 attendees per year over the past three years, for these 35 communities.

A total of 740 workshopslyear are held by the 28 respondents who provided such information. Based on the fact t ha t fewer responses were received on the number of workshops (n=28) than on the number of workshop attendees (n=35), an unknown amount of additional workshops are held in the seven communities which provided quantified data on the number of workshop attendees but not on the number of workshops. A t the outside limit, by dividing 20,000 by 74-0, one sees tha t not more than an average of 27 people attend a given workshop,

4) Master Composter Training Programs

Master composter programs are an increasingly popular strategy among local governments to promote home composting. Typically, master composter programs train volunteers t o teach other residents how to compost a t home. A total of 18 master composter programs were reported by the 43 respondents to the survey. These programs are also much less commonly known as “community composter” programs. (The descriptive term “community” is thought t o be more appropriate than the term “master,” which tends to have a negative historical connotation among a sizable portion of the population.)

The following quantified results presented on master composter programs are based on the 18 survey respondents with master composter programs. The average cost of master composter training programs is approximately $5,800/yr. Nearly one out o f every three community composter programs reported by the survey respondents costs more


16

than $l2,000/yr. Several factors contribute t o this variability in cost, including number of participants, length of training, degree of supervision of volunteer outreach projects, extent t o which the costs for materials for volunteer outreach efforts are covered by program expenses, and other factors.

An average of 30 community composters are trained per program per year (n-15). The mean cost of training a community composter is approximately $200/each (n=15).

$16/bin, and the median

5) Compost Bin Distribution

Among survey respondents, the number of bins distributed has increased from 33,000 in fiscal year 1992-93 (n=22) t o 48,000 in fiscal year 1994/95 (n=29). One respondent has distributed over 50,000 of these bins since 1992.

The mean subsidy for home composting bins is nearly is nearly $2l/bin, based on data obtained from 25 respondents.

I t has been postulated elsewhere that home composting bin distribution programs lead t o program success. This is probably true in many instances. However, the results of t h e survey did not provide clear evidence tha t home composting bin distribution programs are correlated with high rates of participation in a given community. Likewise, t h e association was not clear between the number of bins distributed and the percent of diversion attained through home composting. Several programs which reported high rates of participation and diversion did not concentrate their efforts on bin distribution, subsidized or otherwise. Hence, what works well in one set of communities is not necessarily the most effective approach for another set of communities. Program managers should evaluate closely the likely effects of subsidized bin distribution for themselves.

6) Portable Displays and Hotlines

Portable displays are visited by an average of nearly 9,000 residentslyear, in the 16 communities which provided quantified information on the topic. The median level is 2,500 residentslyear.

Hotlines provide a relatively inexpensive education and outreach tool. The mean number of calls answered is nearly 2,60O/yr, with a median of 900/yr (n=16). Hotlines typically cost no more than a standard local business telephone line and an answering machine or voicemail. The cost allocation for responding to hotline inquiries is covered usually under staff time, rather than identified as a portion of t he hotline cost.


17

F. Role of Volunteers

Approximately 77% of the survey respondents indicated tha t volunteers help in various capacities with their community’s home composting program. This figure attests t o t h e importance tha t residents in many communities attach to home composting program efforts. Volunteers are usually involved in giving workshops and distributing home composting literature.

Volunteers provide a total of nearly 24,000 hourslyear of assistance t o the 33 home composting programs which reported receiving volunteer assistance. The median number of total

hourslyr contributed by volunteers is 200 hourslyr per home composting program. This is approximately equal to 0.1 FTE. As discussed earlier in sub-sedion El, t h e contributions volunteers make with their time extend the limited resources of staff in important ways.

On average, volunteers contribute 24 hourslyear of their time, according t o estimates made by the respondents. An unknown but small percentage of these volunteers hdve received training as master composters (“community composters”).

G. Participation Rates

and in their success, a t least within the survey sample. Among the 35 respondents t h a t . provided data, an average of 16% (+/-7%, @ confidence interval (CI) 95%) of single-family households now compost a t home, a s of 1995. In 1991, by comparison, the figure was 10% of single-family households (+/-6%, @ CI 95%) (n-24).

In the past few years, home composting programs have been growing in number

This does not mean tha t 16% of all single-family households in t h e United States compost a t home. Instead, based on a sample of communities which have home composting programs, what it means is t ha t an estimated 16% of single-family households in these communities now compost a t home, as opposed to an estimated 10% four years earlier.

I t is inferred tha t home composting programs can achieve significant results in their early stages, and tha t real success is built through sustained efforts (education, outreach, incentives) over a matter of years. Home comporting’s fast-growing importance as a solid waste management strategy is expected to continue throughout the decade, as program managers gain appreciation for reduced costs and saved resources.

The vast majority of home composting programs were set up in the past three years. The sampled set of home composting programs, as a group, has a long way to go to reach its mean goal of 45% of single-family households composting a t home. Since most of the programs are very young, it is too early to predict when or whether this goal will be attained.


18

Home composting programs tha t were surveyed appear t o be diverting increasingly greater amounts of materials from the solid waste management system over time, based on the median quantity o f tonslyr diverted. The median amount diverted through home composting has risen six-fold in three years, from 189 tonslyr in fiscal year 1992-93 (n=21), to 880 tonslyr in fiscal year 1993-94 (n=24), to 1,145 tonslyr in fiscal year 1994-95 (n-26). This means tha t half of the 26 programs which provided data divert a t least 1,145 tonslyr through home composting.

Home composting programs are diverting approximately 14% o f the total generation of yard trimmings in communities which have such programs, based on the survey results. The 14% figure represents both the mean and the median values of estimates provided by 20 communities. Data regarding the amount in previous years were not available.

2) Quantities Diverted Per Household

A key building block in determining the effectiveness of home composting programs is the number of pounds per year composted a t home by participating households. The survey yielded an average of 646 poundslyr (n=35), based on a combination of measured data and estimates provided by home composting program managers. The confidence interval a t the 95% level ranges from 467 Ibslyr t o 825 Ibslyr.

For the sake of completeness, it is noted here that the mean figure obtained from an analysis of the twelve programs which provided measured data, rather than a combination of estimates and measured data, was 770 Ibs/yr. However, because the result is based on a much lower number of programs, the aggregate result (646 Ibslyr) can be utilized rather than this sub-set.

The large standard deviation of 521 Ibslyr helps t o illustrate the variability in the amount of materials t ha t is composted a t home by participating households. The minimum reported value was 75 Ibslyr, while the maximum was 2,656 Ibslyr. Even within geographic regions, a high level of variability was observed. The variability of results can be accounted for, in part, by how broad or narrow a definition was used by respondents for home composting, or by whether partial o r complete information was available to them.

Several jurisdictions reported Ibs/yr data from published sources tha t focus solely on average amounts t ha t are composted in home

composting bins. Other jurisdictions used a broader definition of home composting, and included tonnage attributed to grasscycling and other organic source reduction methods.


19

Clearly, the enormous variability in results makes it difficult to conclude that a typical community can expect a certain level of diversion per participating household. For their own planning purposes, program managers have the choice of using: a) the 646 Ibs/ householdlyear figure, or roughly one ton diverted per year for every three participating households; b) the 770 Ibs/household/year figure, since it is based on actual measurements; c) their own estimate or measurement. The confidence interval shows statistically that there is a very high probability that the true nationwide average is somewhere between 467 Ibslhousehold/yr and 825 l bslhouseholdlyr.

I. Grasscycling

most important component of source reduction of residentially- generated organic materials. For example, one community reported tha t 50% of all households now engage in grasscycling (up from 30% four years earlier), and that, on average, each grasscycling household diverts over one ton of grass clippings per year from the solid waste management system.

In some cases identified by the study, grasscycling forms the

Communities which indicated that they had significant grasscycling programs generally had below-average program costs per ton diverted. This suggests that, in some communities, promoting grasscycling may be more cost-effective than promoting home composting, especially if subsidized compost bins are involved. In addition, the results suggest tha t certain communities may be able t o increase their rate o f diversion per participating household by emphasizing grasscycling more heavily in home composting education and outreach programs.

J. Complementarity with Centralized Composting

of centralized composting programs? Nearly all respondents (35 of 36) indicated tha t “home composting complements centralized composting, making both successful.”

Does home composting hinder, complement or have a neutral effect on the success

K. Summary of Results

Key findings from the survey results are summarized in Table 3: Results of Na- tional Survey of Home Composting Programs. The data presented in the table concentrate on direct program costs, demographics, and participation and diversion.

Section 111 A. Note On Assumptions

Avoided Costs and Other Benefits

The results in the previous section stand on their own t o show tha t home compost- hg programs generally make good fiscal sense and consewe resources. Home composting programs also provide several benefits t ha t are not provided by other solid waste management strategies, as discussed below.


19A

Table 3: Results of National Survey of Home Composting Programs, 1995

Program Element

Direct Cost of Home Composting Pro-

grams Program Budget

Staffing

Master Composter Training Programs

Compost Bin Subsi- dies

Volunteer Hours Re- ceived

% of Single-Family Households That Compost A t Home Annual Diversion

Annual Diversion per Participating House-

hold Population

Median Annual Household Income

--

Mean (Average)

$ W t o n

$36,00O/yr

$20,000/yr

$6,70O/yr

$16/bin

615 hrslyr

16%

5 150 tonslyr

646 Ibs.

300,000

$3 4,000

Median (M i dpoi nt)

$ l l / t o n

$15,00O/yr

$9,3 00 /yr

$2,000 /yr

$2l/bin

200 hrslyr

10%

1150 tonslyr

550 Ibs.

1 3 0,000

$3 0,000

Range (Low-H i g h)

$1 - $134/ton

$0 - $537,60O/yr

<$l,OOO - $170,00O/yr

$0 - $34/bin

10 - 3800 hrs/yr

<l% - 80%

4 0 - 81,225 tons/ Yr

75 - 2,656 Ibs.

3,000 - 1.6 million

$18,000 - $69,000


20

Obtaining reliable, measured data on the extent or monetary value of social and environmental benefits, and total and marginal avoided costs proved t o be highly prob- lematic. The same was true for estimating national averages and quantij/ing national trends, with respect t o home composting. As such, this study concentrates on developing reliable information on the direct fiscal costs of home composting. Since some of the data and conclusions in this section rely on assumptions, this section has been separated from the earlier section on direct costs of municipal home composting programs.

B. Avoided Costs

Avoided costs are indirect benefits. Typically, they are valued by measuring o r estimating the cost of foregone strategies (“opportunity cost”). Home composting can reduce the need for curbside collection of yard trimmings, either mixed with trash o r kept separate from other materials. The benefits (avoided costs) of reducing the need for collection are discussed in sub-sections 61 and 82. Home composting also reduces the costs of disposing of residential organic materials, and the costs of processing them in a centralized location into beneficial products. The benefits (avoided costs) of reducing the need for disposal are discussed in sub-section 63. The avoided social and environmental costs aisociated with reduced collection and disposal are discussed in sub-section B4. Additional benefits-such as volunteer assistance and training, making and using compost a t home, and others-are discussed in sub-sections C1 through C3.

I ) Avoided Collection Costs-Public Benefits

Based on the results of the survey, the mean cost of trash collection is $67/ton (n=29). The confidence level (@95%) for the true mean is between $53/ton and $8l/ton. For separate collection of yard trimmings, collection costs often are somewhat lower than for trash collection. The median cost for the separate collection of yard trimmings is $54/ton (n= 17); however, extreme variability in collection costs were reported.

The survey asked for information on the reduced cost associated with collecting a smaller amount of yard trimmings a t the curb, as a result of home composting efforts. Only a handful of respondents provided any information, and much of it was not easily comparable. Sufficient time se- ries data t o analyze changes in collection costs tha t can be attributed t o home composting efforts are lacking, due t o the relative newness of programs and factors related t o collection cost accounting.

I t is surmised that communities that divert significant amounts of yard trimmings through home composting are enjoying real savings in collection costs by reducing the amount of collection crew labor hours and collection vehicle-days. I t is inaccurate and too simplistic to assume tha t by reducing curbside collection of yard trimmings by one ton, the cost of collection will decrease by the average cost of collection per ton. In economic terms, the overall average cost of collection overstates the marginal cost, because it includes both fixed and variable costs. Since data on these


21

cost components were not available, the true marginal avoided cost could neither be calculated nor properly estimated. As a proxy, t h e cost-benefit analysis utilizes Franklin Associ- ates’ recent estimate of $23/ton for the average avoided marginal cost of collection.

2) Avoided Collection Costs-Individual Benefits

Depending on how collection rates are structured, people who compost a t home sometimes can reduce their refuse or separate yard trimmings collection fees. Some communities offer reduced rates for smaller refuse containers, such as mini-cans.” Many communities, however, do not offer direct

monetary benefits in the form of avoided collection costs t o residents who compost a t home.

cc

The suwey results did not reveal a clear picture of t h e average cost savings tha t participating households derive from avoiding the purchase of unneeded service. The numerous permutations of refuse collection rates cloud the identification of a usable and useful average value for individual cost savings.

3) Avoided Disposal Costs

Home composting reduces the need for disposal o r for the centralized processing o f recyclable materials into new products. The mean reported disposal facility tipping fee is $32/ton, based on 14 responses. The mean tipping fee a t centralized compost facilities used by survey respondents is $26/ton (n=18>.

No single value captures avoided disposal costs. The cost o f disposal is not priced in the marketplace a t full value; rather, i t systematically is underestimated. Full-value pric- ing would incorporate the costs of facility closure, monitoring, and other costs. The full costs of disposal are obscured by current tipping fees, which do not take into consideration tha t future disposal costs will be once, for instance, a landfill reaches its maximum holding capacity. In other words, current tipping fees do not provide an accurate measure of the t rue value of delaying the need for additional landfill space.

These perplexing economic considerations notwithstanding, program managers s t i l l can estimate the minimum level of benefits that come from avoiding disposal costs. This can be done first by determining which of the materials handling avenues (landfilling, incineration, centralized composting, etc.) are relevant to their own situation. Where tipping fees are in place, they would be used as the avoided disposal cost per ton. Where no tipping fees are charged-as happens with municipally-operated compost facilities tha t are not open t o the public-the operating cost can be used as an approximation of the avoided disposal cost.


22

4) Avoided Environmental and Social Costs

Social and environmental costs are not easily monetized, but are real nevertheless. These include environmental impacts (air, water, noise, soil pollution), traffic congestion, public health impacts, loss of open space, and other effects.

As indicated by program managers, home composting is believed t o reduce these and other environmental and social impacts of solid waste management. Home composting delays the need for additional landfill space and incinerator capacity, and reduces the need for off-site handling and processing of materials. As another example, if the number of collection routes are reduced in response t o home composting efforts, then air and noise pollution and traffic congestion associated with that number of collection routes can be eliminated.

C. Other Benefits

I) Derived Benefits of Volunteers

Volunteer labor can be valued a t an assigned rate of $11.45 /hour, in accordance with recent research on the topic by the non-profit Independent Sector (Washington, DC). By multiplying this assigned rate by the median amount of volunteer hourslyear contributed to home composting programs tha t responded to the survey, the median total benefit of volunteer assistance can be calculated per program. By this calculation, the derived median value gained from volunteers is a total of $2,29o/yr.

Volunteers’ t rue contribution to overall program effectiveness cannot be measured, nor can a monetary value be placed on the t rue contribution. Suffice it to say tha t har- nessing volunteer support has been a hallmark of home composting programs, and tha t volunteerism strengthens the sense of community while keeping program costs in check.

2) Derived Benefits of Master Composters

Using the assigned monetized value of volunteer time, $11.45 /hr, the contributions made by master composters can be approximated loosely. On average, the training of master composters costs slightly less than $200 per volunteer. Master composters therefore need to average roughly 17 hours of volunteer service in order for the monetized benefits derived from their labor time to match the average costs of their training.

In other words, if master composters average more than 17 hours of volunteer service, then the benefits of master composter training programs will exceed their costs, provided tha t training costs are approximately $200 per volunteer. of course, this highly simplistic analysis of labor t ime does not take into consideration the unmeasurable benefits of having knowledgeable, committed, and enthusiastic local volunteers as community resources.

The Composting Council, M exandria, VA

23

3) Additional Environmental and Social Benefits

The environmental and social benefits of home composting cannot be easily quantified, yet they are important t o an overall understanding of program benefits. Wider social benefits include: heightened community awareness o f environmental issues and solid waste management; greater community spirit and sense o f common purpose; exercise and relaxation; science education; and personal pride in taking responsibility for one’s own habits and behavior.

Another increased social and environmental benefit is the economic and environmental value o f creating usable soil amendments for home use. Among the programs surveyed, the average household that composts a t home generates approximately 0.75 cubic yards (approximately 20 cubic feet) of compost annually (n=l7). For residents in these communities, bagged compost costs approximately $1.50 per cubic foot on average, or $3 for a 2 cubic foot bag (n=17). Hence, the derived benefit of making one’s own compost, all else being equal, .is approximately $30/year per participating household, based on the sample data.

Making compost a t home adds to social wealth, since a valuable product is created from materials tha t otherwise are not valued (assumes disposal). I t is highly unlikely tha t home composting activity reduces demand for compost products in the marketplace. If anything, making compost a t home helps a large number of residents who have little experience with compost previously t o appreciate how it benefits their gardens. This product testing a t home may actually stimulate product demand in the marketplace, since many residents can make only a portion of the amount of compost t ha t they would like to use. So, overall, marketplace demand, usage, and home production of compost may be an out- growth o f home composting’s increased popularity.

Making compost a t home also adds environmental benefits, as has been well documented in numerous studies and publications. Put simply, compost helps t o create healthy soils and plants in numerous ways, including:

0

building good soil structure; adding nutrients to the soil; promoting deeper root growth; improving soil aeration; increasing soil’s water-holding capacity; neutralizing soil toxins; reducing mineral leaching from the soil; and reducing soil erosion.

D. Qualitative Summary of Benefits and Avoided Costs

The following quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits have been identified o r as- serted by persons associated with home composting programs. This information was gathered through a literature review and oral communication with a wide array of people involved with home composting programs. Home composting programs offer several real or perceived benefits to their communities, as shown in Table 4.


24

TABLE 4:

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

Identified Benefits of Home Composting

avoided collection, transfer and centralized processing reduced disposal burden lowered residential trash bills (where unit costing exists) improved soil health and fertility job creation (home composting program coordination and promotion) reduced air and water pollution hands-on methods of science education (especially worm composting) reduced traffic congestion (less hauling of materials) increased residential interest in and dedication t o recycling efforts exercise and relaxation reduced use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides greater sense of personal responsibility, and personallcommunity pride

E. Recommendations for Developing Home Composting Programs

Home composting programs have been shown t o be very cost-effective, especially when sustained over a few years. Communities tha t are planning to set up o r expand home composting programs should consider the suggestions contained in Table 5 . These suggestions are based on research conducted for this study and on Applied Compost Con- sulting's direct experience with several home composting programs.

Home composting is a viable and useful component of solid waste management. With a little education, encouragement, assistance, and incentives, many residents will start to compost yard trimmings and food scraps a t home, thus reducing the burden on the solid waste management system.

F. Projection of Nationwide Estimates

Home composting programs come in many shapes and sizes, and have proven t o be successful in communities large and small, urban and suburban, high income and low income, east and west, north and south. Local program managers may want to concentrate on lessons they can learn from these and other existing programs. Nevertheless, since considerable amounts of data were gathered from programs which s e n e a population base of 12 million people, preliminary national estimates, however speculative, may be of interest to national organizations.

-+

rived from incomplete information. A t the local level, decision-makers will rely more likely on the analysis of survey results presented earlier and on the case studies.

The nationwide projections tha t are presented here are preliminary estimates de-

The Cornposting Council, Al. exandria, VA

25

I t is estimated tha t there are approximately 1,000 home composting programs in the United States, as of 1995, with many more planned t o begin in the next two years. This estimate is based on extrapolations and aggregated information obtained through discussions with various state and local officials, cooperative extension agents, and industry representatives. Likewise, it is estimated that there are more than 100 master composter programs nationwide, and that 100,000 to 250,000 people nationwide have attended a home composting workshop since 1992.

Using the above estimate and extrapolating from the results of this study, it is estimated tha t there are a t least 3 million t o 5 million people nationwide who live in households which are composting a t home. More than half a million tons of material are estimated to be diverted through home composting annually. If grasscycling activities were fully taken into account, these participation and waste reduction figures probably would be much higher.

From a public policy or program planning perspective, the number of people who s t a r t grasscycling or composting a t home as a result of home composting program efforts is a more relevant figure than the pre-existing level. While this information is not available o i a national level, communities which are just beginning their home composting programs can derive an estimate of the pre-existing participation level in their own cam- munity by conducting a random sample.

TABLE 5:

Recommendations for Developing Home Composting Programs

Focus efforts on single-family households, targeting home gardeners first.

Develop a home composting brochure (possibly adapted from existing ones).

Harness volunteer assistance and community support. and offer workshops.

Use media for publicity and distribute information through local groups.

Include grasscycling tips in any promotional and educational information.

Evaluate a mobile o r neighborhood chipping program for brush and branches.

Structure economic incentives for participation in home composting, by adopt-

ing refuse collection rates t ha t reward waste reduction.

Consider having a subsidized compost bin purchase program, and one-day sales.

Evaluate cost-sharing opportunities between jurisdictions, especially for educa-

tional efforts and possible bin distribution programs. - 10 Provide a home composting hotline number.

11 Remember tha t success is measured over the course of a t least a few years.

12 Monitor results, participation and diversion rates, and cost per ton diverted.


26

Section IV Case Studies

HOME COMPOSTING PROGRAM CASE STUDY #1

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Overview

Alameda County is a major urban area in Northern California with 1.3 million in- habitants. The County is comprised of 1 7 cities, including Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward and Fremont. I t has nearly 500,000 households and a wide range of income levels.

funded by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. The Alameda County Home Composting Program (ACHC) began in 1990 and is

Quantification of Diversion

. Compost bins have been purchased through discount programs by 6.1% of single- family households in Alameda County compost a t home. ACHC staff estimates tha t actual participation in home composting is greater than six percent in Alameda County. Based on data gathered by ACHC, the average participating household composts 600 pounds per year. In fiscal year 1994-95,4,000 tons of yard trimmings and food scraps were diverted in Alameda County through home composting efforts. This amount represented a dou- bling from the previous year.

ing a t home, A t this level, more than 18,000 tonslyear of yard trimmings and food scraps would be composted a t home.

The program’s long-term goal is to have 60,000 single-family households compost-

Key Elements of Program

The key components of ACHC’s program are the distribution of composting bins, training Master Composters, and providing home corn posting workshops a t permanent compost demonstration gardens. Over the past three years, 18,400 bins have been distributed to residents a t a reduced price. For $33, a resident can receive a compost bin, in- structional materials, invitations t o free workshops, and a how-to book on home composting. ACHC provides a subsidy of $34 per bin purchase.

Since 1991, over 7,000 residents have attended home composting workshops and an equivalent number of children have been educated about home composting through school programs during this same period. In 1995, 110 workshops were held and 30 Mas- t e r Composters were trained.


27

Program Economics

This program is coordinated by 5.5 full-time equivalent staff. An estimated 80 volunteers provide additional program support, especially in bin distribution and educational outreach activities. The cost of this program is roughly $0.39/resident. The following table illustrates the program elements and cost of providing them in fiscal year 1994-95:

Home Composting Program Costs

Program Element staff (workshops, hotline)

Master Composter Taining

Demonstration Sites

Compost Bin Er Book Purchases

School Programs

Portable Displays

Advertising

Program Cost

$ 170,000

$ 15,000

$ 1,000

$ 10,000

$ 1,000

$ 340,000

$ 600

Total Cost $ 537,600

The cost per ton diverted through home composting in fiscal year 1994-95 was approximately $134/ton. This figure does not include amortization of bin costs over the expected life of the bin; rather, it measures the full up-front costs against the diversion achieved so far through the use of the bins. Since the bulk of the expenditures for this program is for compost bins which have a relative long life span, the cost per ton diverted will decrease substantially over time. ACHC projects a cumulative diversion of 16,574 tons ($35/ton) in 1997, rising t o 33,3 11 tons ($17/ton) by 2002, from existing participants.

Program Summary

This is the largest home composting program in California, and one of the most comprehensive programs in t h e United States. I t was initially funded with money from a grant, I t is well-staffed, multi-faceted, and has several permanent compost demonstration sites, and school programs. The program publishes an annual report, and prints many useful materials tha t have been adapted by other home composting programs. According t o Teresa Eade, program coordinator, the strength of the program is t ha t "each year existing bins are in use, yard trimmings are diverted from the waste stream with virtually no additional cost."


HOME COMPOSTING PROGRAM CASE STUDY #2:

CITY OF OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON

Overview

The capital of Washington State, the C i t y of Olympia is about 60 miles from Seat- tle. Olympia has 37,000 residents and a median household income about equal t o the national level.

Olympia’s public works department started the home composting program in 1993. The city also has separate collection of yard trimmings, a drop-off site for yard trimmings, and a neighborhood chipping program. The centralized composting facility to which the city hauls yard trimmings is ten miles away.


An estimated 60% of single-family households currently practice some form of organics source reduction, up from 30% before home composting education efforts began. The Ci ty does not have a specific goal for percentage of households composting a t home. However, with 60% participation in only its third year of operation, the program is clearly doing very well.

The City estimates that participating households compost approximately 500 poundslyear, based on data provided by other programs in Washington. This means tha t for every four participating households, one ton of yard trimmings is composted a t home. The level of organics source reduction has risen by 50% a year or more during t h e program’s first three years. In 1995, it is estimated that 1,500 tons per year will be composted a t home, compared t o 1,000 tons in 1994, and 500 tons in 1993.


A key component of the city’s backyard composting program is the distribution of composting bins. The City of Olympia and Thurston County co-sponsor a composting bin distribution program for participants who attend free composting workshops.

Afker completing a workshop, participants are able t o purchase one of six different bins, which the City sells a t wholesale cost. The bins are on display a t one of the two demonstration gardens in the city and county. The demonstration gardens are sponsored in part by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and are run by Washington State University Master Composters and Gardeners,

\f f f

Olympia has developed a full range of composting brochures which are freely dis- Gibuted to residents. These include a home composting resource guide, a schedule of workshops, a home composting/spring clean up brochure, and a yard trimmings curbside collection and drop-off guide.


29

On a small annual budget (about $0.3 1 per resident), Olympia manages t o achieve substantial results via home composting. The following table illustrates the program elements and cost of providing them:

.. II I Home Composting Program Costs

Program Element Annual Cos t staff $ 3,480

Brochures $ 3,600

Workshops $ 0

Master Com poster Training $ 150

Demonstration Sites $ 4,000

Compost Bins $ 0

Other $300

I Total Cost $ 11,530

Olympia has focused its efforts in several key areas. Staff t ime amounts t o only 10% of one full-time staff equivalent each year (200 hours), but is supplemented by over 830 hours each year in volunteer time donated for the master composter training, workshops, demonstration garden, and compost clinic. As these numbers illustrate, the program’s success depends in large part on cultivating volunteer assistance.

Program Economics

The cost per ton diverted through home composting in 1995 is estimated t o be $7.68. The cost per diverted ton in 1994 was estimated t o be $11.53. These numbers compare very favorably with the cost of trash collection and separate yard trimmings collection (and tipping fees). Public tipping fees a t the county landfill are $32 per ton for yard trimmings and $62.10 for trash. I t costs the City approximately $100 per ton t o collect and dispose residential trash; the cost for handling yard trimmings is approximately $70 per ton. The cost per diverted ton for organic materials composted a t home is much less than either of these system elements.

Households tha t compost a t home and recycle generally have reduced their need for trash collection. The number of households subscribing to the minimal 10 gallons/ week trash collection service has increased from 5% in 1988 to 15% currently. During the same period, the number of households using the 60-gallon/week service dropped from 15% to 7%. An average of only 1.1 Ibs. of residential trash per person per day were collected in 1994, fa r below the national average. While difficult t o isolate the impact of home composting, it clearly has become an integral component of solid waste management in Olympia.

The Composting Council, d exandria, VA

P

30

Summary of Program

The City of Olympia has steadily increased the diversion of yard trimmings and food scraps through home composting over the past three years. Through a combination of demonstration sites, a master composter program, and sophisticated public education materials, Olympia has developed a very successfir1 program. Volunteer efforts have been integral t o the breadth and depth of the program, representing almost 50% of one full- t ime staff equivalent. Olympia’s program has given assistance and permission t o use its literature to the State Department of Ecology for state-wide efforts t o promote home composting.

HOME COMPOSTING PROGRAM CASE STUDY # 3:

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN

Ovewiew

The City of Ann Arbor has a population o f 110,000 and more than 20,000 single- family households. The City has a relatively high standard of living; the median household income is $39,925.

The city’s home composting program began in 1989, and is administered by the Department of Solid Waste. The home composting program consists of a one-half acre demonstration site, displays (including a flower bed planted in compost on the city hall deck), workshops, school programs, and the distribution of books and brochures. The program has demonstrated tha t substantial diversion can be achieved without distributing home composting bins.


A suwey conducted by the Department of Solid Waste in 1988 indicated tha t 30% of single-family households were composting a t home. Currently, 50% of single-family households are participating, and the program’s long-term goal is 60% participation. Based on data gathered by the City, each participating household composts over a ton each year simply by grasscycling. Waste reduction in fiscal year 1994-95 amounted t o nearly 13,000 tons.

In addition to the home composting program, the City has a yard trimmings collection program during the summer. This program uses four collection vehicles, which pick up yard trimmings twice a week. The City sells the compost and mulch back t o the community for both residential and commercial use.


31

Key Elements of the Program

Workshops, displays, a demonstration site and school programs are the foundation o f the home composting education program. The program also emphasizes educating school-age children with a curriculum which covers composting, grasscycling, recycling, reusing, and reducing.

Four home composting workshops are held each year, educating 100 residents annually. The workshops focus on composting, but also explains and encourages grasscycling. Residents who call t h e City regarding composting are encouraged to visit the demonstration site.

Program Economics/Benefits

The overall cost of the home composting program is approximately $25,00o/year. On a per resident basis, this is approximately $0.22.

A t very minimal cost, Ann Arbor is diverting through grasscycling primarily nearly 13,000 tonslyear ofyard trimmings. The cost per ton diverted through home composting is less than $2. This amount compares highly favorably to the $80 (plus disposal site tipping fee) for each ton of trash collected, or $48 (plus $42 compost facility tipping fee) for each ton of yard trimmings collected.

Were i t not for the home composting program, more yard trimmings collection vehicles would be required during the summer, t o collect t he larger amount o f yard trimmings tha t would be set out by residents. No estimates, however, were provided by the City.

residential use. Compost sells for $12 per cubic yard in small quantities or $6 per cubic yard in quantities of 500 cubic yards or more; mulch is sold for $3 per cubic yard. Ac- cording t o the program coordinator, the community greatly appreciates this service.

The City is able t o sell all of the compost and mulch produced for commercial and

Program Summary

Ann Arbor’s residents participate a t a high level in home composting and grasscycling. The program is very economical, and demonstrates the effectiveness of grasscycling alone for waste reduction. Program coordinator Ray Ayer points out tha t bagging grass for curbside collection has been the only management tech- nique for Over 30 years, and that this behavior can be modified

effectively through encouragement and education, H e notes that research (e.g., fertilizer benefits, incidence of disease, and time and money savings) conducted by Michigan State University, the Turf Association of Michigan, and others on grasscycling has helped to con- vince residents t o adopt grasscycling as a popular method of conservation and waste reduction.


- 32


PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

Overview

Palm Beach is a large county in southeastern Florida with a diverse population of about 932,000, and a median household income of $32,230. There are 308,886 single- family households in the county. The cities of Boca Raton and West Palm Beach are both within the county limits. The economy is diversified with major components consisting o f the service industry, retail trade, agriculture and tourism.

The county’s home composting program began in 1993, and is administered by the Solid Waste Authority. The program includes compost bin purchases, advertising, a hotline, a demonstration site, and portable displays.


I t is estimated that over 5,000 single-family households compost a t home. This is approximately 2% of all single-family households in the county. Very few households composted a t home prior t o the program. The program’s long-term goal is for 7% of single- family households t o compost a t home.

The Solid Waste Authority estimates tha t participating households compost approximately 440 poundslyear, based on data gathered by the agency. Total diversion from home composting activities has risen rapidly since program inception. A total o f 1,391 tons were composted a t home in 1994-95, up from 423 tons in 1993-94 and 49 tons in 1992-93.


A key component of Palm Beach County’s backyard composting program is the distribution of composting bins to residents. To date, more than 9,000 bins have been distributed in the county.

The home composting budget has increased significantly each year, in response t o recognition o f the program’s importance and success. In 1993-94, the program’s budget for home composting bins was $5,000. The budget was increased by $30,000 in each of the following years, allowing a bin purchase budget of $65,000 for fiscal year 1995-96.

_ _ 1995-96, $35,000 is budgeted for a waste prevention media campaign, In August 1995, 4,000 compost bins were distributed in a well-publicized one-day event. The Solid Waste Authority purchases the bins for $32-35, and sells them t o residents for $10 about once a

Advertising is a key element of the Palm Beach County program. In fiscal year


33

month. Each sale is advertised widely in local newspapers prior to the event. The goal is to reduce the amount of yard trimmings being placed a t the curb for separate collection by distributing as many home compost bins as possible.

The program costs approximately $0.15 per county resident. The following table illustrates the program elements and cost of providing them in fiscal year 1995-96:


Program Element Annual Cost

staff $ 22,000

Hotli ne $ 3,000

Brochures $ 8,000

Demonstration site $ 500

Compost bin purchases $ 65,000

Advertising $ 35,000

Books $ 2,000

Portable displays $ 0

Master Composter training $ 0

Total Cost $ 135,500

+ -3feet-

Clearly, the emphasis in this program has been placed on providing subsidized compost bins, and on advertising their availability. The Master Composter training is provided and paid for by the Cooperative Extension Sewice. Palm Beach County also has separate collection of yard trimmings, and diverts 120,000 tons of yard trimmings annually t o a centralized composting. By promoting home composting, the costs of collection and off- site handling can be reduced, according to the program manager.

Program Economics

The estimated cost per ton diverted through home composting for fiscal year 1995-96 is $29.22. This compares favorably with the cost of residential collection of yard trimmings which is $62.89/tonJ including the t ip fee. The cost of ordinary residential trash collection is $28.27/ton, plus an $18 landfill tipping fee. Because many of the program expenditures are for compost bins with a minimum expected life of ten years, cost per ton diverted is expected t o decrease over time.


34

Program Summary

Palm Beach County’s home composting program demonstrates how advertising can effectively reach a large, diverse and dispersed population. According to program coordinator Susan Lancanese, local residents are environmentally conscious, and the program and its budget have grown in response t o the interest of residents. In summarizing the program, she says tha t “our goals are very straightforward: we seek t o reduce the amount of yard trimmings being placed a t the curb and t o educate residents on the benefits and simplicity of backyard composting.”

FROM 1993 U.S. E.P.A. MSW UPDATE

The Conposting Council, Al exandria, VA

35


CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

Overview

The Ci ty of Glendale is a Southern California city of about 190,000 residents. I t has 24,000 single family households, and its median family income of about $35,000 places it slightly above the national figure.

The city’s home composting program began in 1991. I t is administered by the City’s integrated waste management division. The program encompasses subsidized compost bin and tool purchases, a compost demonstration site, workshops, school presentations, and distribution of brochures and books. The city also has separate collection o f yard trimmings, and a program a t the city’s landfill to chip this material for use as daily landfill cover.


A n estimated 9.7% of single-family households have received composting bins and actively compost a t home. There was no quantified estimate of levels of composting in Glendale before the program began. The program’s long-term goal is for 25-33% of single-family households to compost a t home.

The City estimates tha t participating households compost approximately 860 poundslyear, based on data gathered by the City. In other words, for every 2.3 participating households, one ton of yard trimmings and food scraps is composted a t home each year. Ciiy staff view the amount of waste reduction achieved in the first three years of the program as “significant”; the amount of waste reduction continues t o rise a t a rate of over 17% each year. A total of 1,011 tons were composted a t home in 1994-95, up from 860 tons in 1993-94.


A key component of the city’s backyard composting program is the distribution of composting bins a t no charge t o residents who attend one-hour workshops. The City stud- ied the cost-effectiveness of providing free compost bins in the program’s first year, and determined tha t the economics of providing the bins were highly favorable considering the system costs for collection of trash and yard trimmings.

On a small annual budget (approximately $0.22 per Glendale resident), Glendale manages t o achieve substantial waste reduction via home composting, according to the program manager. The following table illustrates the program elements and cost of providing them:


I 36

I Home Composting Program Costs

P rogram Element Annual Cost

Staff, workshops, and school presentations

$ 4,680

Brochures $ 5,200

Demonstration sites $ 2,300 I

Compost bin purchases $ 24,000

Compost tool purchases $ 5,800

Books $ 1,170

I Total Cost $ 43,150

* Clearly, the emphasis in Glendale’s program has been placed on providing free compost bins, aeration tools, and low-cost pitchforks. The city has shown tha t the bin distribution and education programs cost less than $60 per household. Staff time amounts t o only 6% of one full-time equivalent staff position each year (primarily for workshop presentations); volunteers supplement staff by providing a total of K) hours of assistance each year. Glendale also operates a yard trimmings chipping site t o demonstrate the effectiveness of household-scale chippers.

Program Economics/Cost-Benefit Analysis

The cost per ton diverted through home composting in 1994-95 was estimated to be about $40.40, Because most of the program expenditures were for compost bins with a minimum expected life of ten years, cost per ton diverted is expected to decrease each year as the program matures. The cost per ton Over the first ten-year period is expected to be $14.63. This compares favorably with the cost of trash collection and plant trimmings collection (and tipping fees). The cost of residential trash collection in the City of Glendale is estimated to be $61.19/ton. Separate collection of yard trimmings is estimated t o cost $53.84/ton.

Glendale has also realized additional cost savings from eliminating separate yard trimmings collection routes. According t o program staff estimates, one yard trimmings collection route day could be eliminated for every 4-97 tons per year of yard trimmings tha t are composted a t home, assuming there is a reduction in the frequency o f curbside set out for yard trimmings. While it is difficult t o prove a direct correlation, program staff indicate tha t a fewer number of collection route-days are needed for yard trimmings collection, and tha t each regular route-day saves more than $27,000 each year in collection labor costs.


37

Program staff have also estimated tha t there are substantial system-wide savings in diverting food scraps through home composting efforts. The City estimated tha t the net cost per ton of diverting food scraps through home composting is $6, far less than the cost of diversion in any other recycling efforts.

Summary of Program

The City of Glendale has documented the cost-effectiveness o f providing free compost bins t o residents. Through a combination of bin subsidies and educational efforts, the program has steadily increased diverted tonnage o f yard trimmings and food scraps. The reduction in yard trimmings collection routes clearly shows tha t home composting can complement centralized composting efforts, making both successful. Glendale’s phi- losophy, as stated by coordinator Tom Brady, is tha t “home composting is so simple and cost-effective it should be our goal t o have a t least 25% o f America’s single-family households composting in the next ten years.”


CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, INDIANA

Overview

The City of East Chicago is located on Lake Michigan, southeast of Chicago and jus t west o f Gary, Indiana. East Chicago has approximately 10,000 single-family households, and a total population of about 33,500. The median household income is $19,391, a figure which is well below the national median.

The home composting program began in 1994. I t is coordinated by a staff person working slightly less than half-time on home composting. The main elements of the program are compost bin distribution, workshops, brochures, and advertising.


with barely any prior t o 1994. The program’s long-term goal is 30% participation. City staff estimate that 15-20% of households now compost a t home, as compared

According to staff estimates, each participating household composts about 1900 Ibs.lyear. Based on this estimate, an estimated 1,400 tons of yard trimmings were pre- vented from entering the solid waste system in the first year of the program. The Cily at- tributes the reduction of refuse collection routes from 12 to 8 as a result of t h e program. _-

In addition to home composting, 2,100 tons ofyard trimmings are diverted through centralized composting or chipping and 1,000 tons through landspreading.

The Cornposting Council, exandria, VA

38


Distributing compost bins and educating residents a t home composting workshops are the key components of East Chicago’s backyard composting efforts. In fiscal year 1994-95, 300 bins were distributed and 600 people attended workshops. In fiscal year 1993-94, 350 people attended workshops. The vast majority of single-family households that have started t o compost a t home do so without a municipally-provided compost bin.

In addition to staff time, the program utilizes volunteer labor. Currently, forty volunteers contribute an average of 20 hours per year.

Program Economics

The following table illustrates the program elements and cost of providing them:


Program Element Annual Cos t Staffiworkshops $ 10,000

School Programs $ 8,000

Compost Bin Purchases $ 5,000

Brochures $400

Advertising $ 1,000

Total Cost $ 24,400

The cost per ton diverted through home composting in 1994-95 is estimated to be about $17.43. While information on costs o f collection and disposal were not available from the City, this per ton cost suggests tha t home composting is the most cost-effective way to manage yard trimmings in East Chicago.

Summary of Program

has enjoyed immediate and substantial success by relying primarily on coordinated and extensive educational efforts (school programs, workshops, brochures, advertising), and sec- ondarily on compost bin distribution. In its first year, East Chicago has achieved a participation rate o f 20% (2,400) of single-family households. Very few households were composting a t home prior t o the inception of the program, according to program staff. Nearly 1,000 people have attended home composting workshops since 1994. Most of the residents who compost a t home do not utilize a municipally-provided compost bin. The number of refuse collection vehicle routes has dropped in response t o program success.

This program-in a community with a relatively low median household income-


39


TOWN OF AMHERST, MASSACHUSETTS Ovewiew

Amherst is a New England town with nearly 18,000 residents. The median household income is approximately $23,000.

Amherst began its home composting in 1991. Key components of the program include compost bin distribution, workshops, brochures, books, and school programs. The program will publish its first annual report in 1995.


In 1991, less than 1% of Amherst's single-family households composted a t home. Four years later, this percentage increased to 18% of all single-family households in Amherst. The program's goal is to reach 35% participation among single-family households. Program staff estimate tha t the 1,000 participating households compost about 500 poundslyear on average. This amount represents an estimated 250 tonslyear of waste reduction.


The distribution o f compost bins and books is the bulwark of t h e program. More than 1,100 compost bins have been distributed; more than 90% of these bins are actually being utilized, according t o data gathered by program staff.

The table below illustrates program elements and the costs of providing them:

Home Composting Program Costs I

Program Element Annual Cost Staff/Workshops/Hotline $ 9 0 0

Brochures $75

School Programs $ 1,200

Books $ 1,800

Demonstration Sites $ 0

--Compost Bin Purchases $ 9,600

Advertising $228

Total Cost $ 13,803 I

The Composting Council, exandria, VA

Program Economics

Based on the current budget and estimated diversion rate, the home composting program costs approximately $55 per ton diverted. Since most of the program expenditures are the purchase of composting bins with a minimum expected life of ten years, cost per ton diverted should decrease each year. By comparison, the cost of residential trash collection in Amherst, including tip fee, is estimated a t $ lW/ton . Current yard trimmings and leaf collection and on-farm composting program costs average $45/ton.

The public cost of fall leaf collection has decreased by $9,000 due to home composting efTorts, according to program staff.

Variable can rates for residential trash collection provide an incentive t o reduce waste generation. The fee for one 32-gallon container is $l$/month; for two containers, $16.25/month; and for three containers, $18.42/month. Hence, residents who are able t o reduce their need fo r containers as a result of home composting have been able t o reduce their disposal bills.

Summary of Program

Amherst’s home composting program benefits the community by increasing cost savings to residents directly (refuse collection bills) and indirectly (reduced public cost of separate collection). “Diversion of yard trimmings and leaves to backyard composting is a significant cost-avoidance measure for us,” says program coordinator Karen Bouquillon. In four years, the program has achieved an 18% rate of participation among single-family households, - +..’‘’‘.. L. :.> . (3 _.

t>?.+.,.. I ,


CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS

-+ .._ , ,.,. .1?. .;. ::t:3s .::*3?..::,:.. ...,.... 2.::::.. ~:;v:...::;a$:$$ .. ..’.’ . i i-.r.,...-Y

Overview

The capital of Texas, Austin is a large, expanding urban area with a total population of about 492,000. There are 126,000 single-family households in the city.

The city’s home composting program began in 1991, and is administered by the Department of Solid Waste Services. The training and use of master composters has been a key focus of the program, in addition t o conducting workshops, disseminating brochures, and staffing a hotline.


The City estimates that 3% of single-family households now compost a t home, as compared with 1% in 199 1. The program’s long-term goal is 20% participation of single- family households.


41

Each participating household composts 200 pounds per year, according to Ci ty estimates. In 1994-95,379 tons were diverted through home composting. In addition to home composting, 7,700 tonslyear of yard trimmings are diverted through centralized composting o r chipping.


Master Composter training comprises the main element of Austin’s home compost education program. Each year, 25 students are trained as Master Composters; these students are encouraged t o contribute 24 hours of volunteer time t o the program. In addition, 17,000 residents have attended home composting workshops in the last three years.

The program is not staffed by City employees, but rather relies on a $20,000 con- t rac t with the non-profit Austin Community Gardens t o provide all of the key elements of the education program. The program includes training Master Composters, maintaining a demonstration site, providing workshops, distributing brochures, and responding to about 1,000 hotline calls per year.

Program Economics

The cost per ton diverted in 1994-95 is estimated to be about $73.88. By comparison, the cost of residential trash collection is $106/ton (excluding t ip fee).

Currently, there is a flat fee for trash collection regardless of the number of cans. However, the city is in the process of converting t o a volume-based system, which will provide a more direct financial incentive for residents t o reduce the amount of materials that are discarded. Program staff anticipate tha t the popularity of home composting ofyard trimmings will grow in response t o the enactment of volume-based fees for trash collection.

Program Summary

The City of Austin is currently re-evaluating its approach to home composting and would like t o modi@ its emphasis on master composter training to programs which reach a higher percentage of the population. Program Man- ager Rick Fuszek says, ’The Master Composter program is great for teaching a lot of information to a few people, who then are able to effectively teach others in t h e community. Now we’re looking fo r ways t o reach a large number of people with a t least a little information.” Some ideas which are being considered include producing a home composting video t o distribute to neighborhood associations and emphasizing a “don’t bag it” approach to yard trimmings. The program manager expects tha t once the city converts t o a volume-based trash collection fee, home composting will become very popular among a broad cross-section of the community.


42

Appendix A Research Methods

A. Data Sources

Initial information used in formulating the scope of the study was gathered from a combination of telephone interviews and a literature search and review. Prior to this study, quantified primary data on the costs and effectiveness of home composting programs had been anecdotal a t best, or lacking. For this reason, i t was determined that this study should focus on gathering and analyzing primary data on the economics of home composting programs.

Primary data were collected directly from persons responsible for home composting programs in more than forty local governments across North America. The vast majority of the data was obtained from these primary sources.

Secondary data was collected from various published and unpublished sources, including draft documents made available for this study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from trade journals, and f rom annual reports ob-

tained from locally-sponsored home composting programs. Population data for cities and counties were obtained from the 1990 US Census Snapshot and from t h e 1995 County and Ciiy Extra Annual Metro, City and County Data. Data on volunteer labor were obtained from a 1994 survey report, Giving and Volunteering in the United States, completed by the non-profit organization Independent Sector and the Gallup Organization.

Substantial efforts were made t o obtain information from all geographical regions of the United States and representative regions of Canada, from communities of widely varying population levels and socio-economic bases, so tha t a representative cross-section of programs could be described. A s shown in the analysis of results, these efforts were largely successful.

B. Data Collection Methods

First, literature from existing files of Applied Compost Con- sulting, the Composting Council, and t h e US EPA was gathered and analyzed. Second, a broader literature review encompassing information from published and unpublished sources was conducted. Third, communities with home composting programs were identified and contacted in the course of the research. Fourth, other organizations, such as state agencies and recycling associations, were contacted; they provided useful general information about the current stafus of home composting in their geographical regions, and about trends in the fields of home composting.

_ _ Fifth, a l i s t was obtained of contact names and addresses of home composting programs identified during a 1994 University of Wisconsin a t Stevens Point survey. That survey determined which programs collected economic data, but did not gather or analyze it.

The Co-posting Council, Al exandria, VA

43

sixth, Applied Compost Consulting developed a draft questionnaire, which was cir- culated t o The Composting Council, US EPA, and other reviewers. After receiving oral and written comments, Applied Compost Consulting developed the final version of the questionnaire.

Seventh, the suwey was sent by regular mail to t h e home composting program contact in a total of 137 communities. This l i s t included respondents identified by the University o f Wisconsin survey as having maintained information on costs and program results, and additional communities known t o have programs or located in geographical areas not sufficiently represented by the University o f Wisconsin survey. Targeted communities were given two weeks t o complete the survey.

Eighth, after the two week period, communities which had not responded were contacted via by fax or telephone two times within one week. These reminders helped t o increase the rate o f response.

Ninth, after the closing date for receipt of completed sukeys had passed, all communities which had not sent in suweys were deemed non-responsive. Nevertheless, completed surveys received after this deadline helped t o round out the overall picture of “typical” home composting programs. These programs-a total of three-were not included in the data analysis.


44

C. Data Analysis

All completed surveys were closely examined to ensure responses were complete, accurate, and reasonable. In cases where respondents were thought t o have potentially misinterpreted a question, did not return all pages of the survey, or wrote illegible, incomplete, inconsistent or unintelligible answers, telephone follow-ups were made to the respondent, to clarify the response. In cases where inconsistencies in responses were de- tected and i t was clear which of the information was correct, changes were made directly t o the surveys.

Data from the surveys were inputted into a computerized spreadsheet and database. Printouts of these computer spreadsheets were cross-checked with the original surveys t o ensure consistency of data.

Some respondents sent accompanying information or annual reports on their programs, as requested in the survey. Several respondents did not complete their surveys, but referred t o their accompanying information to fill in missing responses. This information was inputted into the computer spreadsheets.

D. Statistical Analysis

A standard statistical analysis was used to analyze data. Among the most important statistical assumpti and calculations used in the analysis were:

Sample Mean: The sum of the responses included in set of data divided by the number of such responses. referred t o as “the average’’ or as the “mean.”

numerical ons, terms

the relevant Com m o n Iy

Population Mean: The sum of all points in a given population-whether included in the sample o r not-divided by the number of such points. Referred to as “the t rue mean.”

Median: The middle value of the relevant set of data. In other words, the median is the value tha t divides the set of data in half, with 50% of the measurements being above the median and 50% being below it. Commonly referred to as “the midpoint.”

Note: Both the mean and median are important and useful measures of the so-called typical case, In most cases, the mean was used. However, the median was used in cases where the mean was influenced strongly by extreme observations (“outliers”). The median is much less affected by extreme points a t the high or low end of the distribution.

Standard Deviation: A key measure of dispersion (or variation) around the mean of a sample. The greater the dispersion, the greater the standard deviation, If the frequency &sttibution of a population conforms t o the normal distribution, then approximately 68% of the measurements lie within plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean.


45

Normal Distribution: The results are viewed as normally distributed, in accordance with the Central Limit Theorem of statistics regarding the relationship between sample size and distribution. A normal distribution is symmetrical about the mean and bell-shaped, with its location and shape determined entirely by its mean and standard deviation. with a normally distributed set of data, confidence intervals can be developed.

Confidence Interval: An interval which has a certain probability of including the population mean. This probability is called the confidence level ("confidence coefficient"). A 95% confidence interval means that if samples were drawn from the population repeat- edly, the population mean would be included in the interval in 95% of the samples.

The Composting Council, AI exandria, VA

46

Appendix B Home Composting Program Survey

This survev should be completed bv your municipal or countv home compost promam administrator. (Fill in or uffuch business curd.)

Section I --Home Composting Program Evaluation

'Home Composting " includes active or passive composting at home, worm composting o f food scraps, grasscycling and others activities by residents which reduce the need for off-site handling o f organic materials, such as yard trimmings.

1. Do you have any annual reports on the home composting program in your jurisdiction? (Circle one,]

a Yes b N O

(If yes, please send a copy along with your completed survey.)

2. What is your estimate of the number or percentage of single-family households which compost a t home in your jurisdiction? (Fill in,]

CURRENTLY 1991 Number of households which compost a t home households _____ households

- OR _______ percent of total _____ percent of total

3. What is your long-term goal for the number or percentage of single-family households which will compost a t home? (Fill in or circle.)

a

b Don't know

______ single-family households which compost OR % single-family households which compost


47

4.

5.

6 .

7.

8.

9.

Of residents who participate in home composting in your community, what is your best estimate of the average amount composted per participating home per year? (Please round to the nearest hundred pounds)

poundslyear composted per participating household

Is your response based on data you have gathered? (Circle) YES NO

What is your estimate of the amount of waste reduction achieved in your community through home composting in each o f the past three years? (Fil l out as much asyou can.)

Fiscal year 1994-95: _____ tons per year QR ______ cubic yards per year 1993-94: ______ tons per year ______ cubic yards per year 1992-93: ______ tons per year QR ______ cubic yards per year

How many home composting bins were distributed in each of the past three years? .(Fill in dl that apply.)

Fiscal year 1994-95: _______ compost bins distributed 1993-94: _ compost bins distributed 1992-93: _______ compost bins distributed

How many people attended workshops on home composting in each o f the past three years? (Fill in dl that apply. Use estimates i f data is unavailable.)

Fiscal year 1994-95: people attended workshops 1993-94: _______ people attended workshops 1992-93: _______ people attended workshops

What is the estimated contribution volunteers make t o your jurisdiction's home composting education program (Circle letter and f i l l in.)

a

b C N o estimates available

Estimated number o f volunteers _________ Av. number of hours contributed per volunteer per year _____ OR Estimated total number o f volunteer hours per year _____ - OR

How has residential refuse collection changed in response t o the development of your jurisdiction's home composting program? (Circle all that apply and f i l l in.]

a b C d

Number of refuse collection routes has decreased from -,,-,to . Number of refuse collection vehicles has decreased from ,--,,to . Fall leaf collection costs has decreased by an estimated $ Jyr. Other examples of collection cost savings attributable t o home composting:


48

Section 2--Home Compost Program Economics

Answers to the following questions will be ofgreat value t o the cost-benefit analysis and to other new and emerging home composting programs. I f you ' re having difficulty answering this set o f questions, please call us a t 510-64-4-3693, and we'll go through i t together.

10. How much money has been allocated to your community's home composting program? (Fill in.)

FY 1995-9 6 FY 19 94-9 5 FY 1993-94 Budnet Budget Budget

11. How are yard trimmings handled in your community? (Fill in or check information tha t is not available. Please make an estimate if the information is not readily available.)

Home Composting: ________ tonslyear Centralized Composting or Chipping: Landfilling or Incineration: ________ tonslyear Landspreadi ng: TOTAL GENERATED: ________ tonslyear

________ tonslyear ____ No program

________ tonslyear ____ No program


49

12. Which of the following home composting program elements are used currently by your home composting program? What do they cost? (Circle dl t h a t apply; f i l l in where appropriate or attach a budget sheet, if easier. Responses to this question are very important, so please make your best estimate. I fyour program does not have a particular program element, please circle "not applicable " (NA).]

Program Element

Staff (Salary) NA

Brochures NA

Workshops NA

Master Composter Training NA

.Demonstration Sites

Compost Bin Purchases

School Programs

Portable Displays

Books o r Booklets

Hotline

Advertising

Other: _________________ Other: _________________ Other: _________________

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Annual Cost (Actual or Estimated)

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ fyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ /yr (net)*

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

$ _______ lyr

* Net equals cost o f bins minus revenue from sale of bins.

Service Delivered/Year (Actual o r Estimate)

_____ full-time equivalents

_____ brochures dist./yr

_____ workshops heldlyr

_____ students trainedlyr

_____ sites established

_____ bins distributedfyr

_____ students visitedlyr

_____ visitorslyr

_____ books distributedlyr

_____ calls answered

_____ ads placed

_____ (num ber)

_____ (number)

_____ (number)


I 50

Section 3-Centralized Processing

13. What is the estimated cost of residential collection (excluding tip fee) in your community? (Fill in or circle.)

TRASH YARD TRIMMINGS (Separate Collection]

a $-----/ton C $-----/ton b Don't know d Don't know

14. What is the approximate distance yard trimmings are transported from your service area t o the following processing facilities used by your community? (Fill in. Please circle NA if your program does not have or utilize a particular processing opera ti on .)

Composting Site: Transfer Station: Landfill o r Incinerator: Land Application Site:

______ miles (one way) NA miles (one way) NA miles (one way) NA miles (one way) NA

15. What is the tipping fee charged for yard trimmings a t the following processing facilities used by your community?(Fill in. Please circle NA i fyour program does not have or utilize a particular processing operation.)

Composting Site: ______ $/ton or $---/cy NA Transfer Station: ______ $/ton or $---/cy NA Landfill o r Incinerator: ______ $/ton or $---/cy NA Land Application Site: ______ $/ton or $---/cy NA

16. If your jurisdiction operates its own centralized composting facility and does not charge a tipping fee for municipally-collected material, what is the estimated cost of processing incoming yard trimmings a t the facility? (Fill in or circle.]

a $ /ton $ ______ /cu. yd. (incoming material) b Don't know C N.A. (jurisdiction doesn't operate its own composting facility)


51

17. Are residents charged a volume-based fee for trash collection or for separate collection of yard trimmings? (Answer dl that apply.]

a NO, a flat fee is charged, regardless of the number of trash cans set out.

b NO, there are no charges for collection of yard trimmings.

C YES, variable can rates (for residential trash collection)

$____/month for a _____-gallon container; and $____/month for a _____-gallon container; and $____/month for a _____-gallon container; and $__--/month for ______ (number of containers, if greater than

a single container) of --_---gallon containers.

d YES, carts or prepaid bags/stickers (residential vard trimminns onlv) $---,/bag of yard trimmings OR $--_-/month for yard trimmings carts

18. What are typical retail prices for yard trimmings compost sold by private busi- nesses in your community? (Fill in all that apply.]

a b C Don't know

$_____/bag, for a __-____ cubic foot bag $ ______ /cu. yd., in bulk

19. True or False: (Circle T or F.]

T F Home composting hinders centralized composting program success T F Home composting comulements centralized composting, making both

T successful

F Home composting has neutral effed on centralized composting program success

The Composting Council, AI exandria, VA

52

Appendix C

Grapevine, Texas List Of survey Respondents Larry Wilhelm, Composting Director

Alameda County, California Teresa Eade, Home Composting Program Co- ordinator

Alp h aret ta , Georgia Dee West, Director, Environmental Sewices

Am h ers t, Massachusetts Karen Bouquillon, Solid WastelRecycling Coor- dinator

Ann Arbor, Michigan Ray Ayer, Compost Manager

Austin, Texas . Rick Fuszek, Progam Analyst

Hillsborough County, Florida Polly Ryan, Compost Education Coordinator

C i ty of Hutchinson, Minnesota Gary Plotz, City Administrator

Kalamazoo County, Michigan Steve Leuty, Recyling Coordinator

Keene, New Hampshire Duncan Watson, Solid Waste Manager

Lincoln, Ne bras ka Gene Hanlon, Recycling Coordinator

Madison, Wisconsin George Dreckmann, Recycling Coordinator

Bibb County, Georgia Marin County, California Frank Funderbark, County Extension Agent tion Coordinator

Tahara Ezrathi, Home Compost Educa

Chittendon SW District, Vermont Nancy Plunkett, Recycling Coordinator

Columbia, Missouri Tina Hubbs, Program Coordinator

Dakota County, Minnesota Gayle Prest, Recycling Specialist

East Chicago, Indiana Lou Harding, Recycling Coordinator

Markham, Ontar io Dave Douglas, Program Coordinator, En vironmental Services

Mi Iwa u kee, Wis con s i n Mike Englebert, Residential Recycling Manager

Morris County, New Jersey Penny Jones, Recycling Education Coordinator

Escondido, California Nassau County, Florida Jeanne Funk, Recycling Specialist Robert McIntyre, Director

Fryeburg, Maine /Chatham, New Hampshire New Haven, Connecticut Robert Roberge, Solid Waste Manager Stephen Gallagher, Recycling Coordinator

Germantown, Tennesee Bo Mills, Solid Waste Coordinator

Glendale, California _ _ Tom Brady, Senior Planner

Olympia, Washington Lisa Fernandes, SW Program Specialist

Palm Beach County, Florida Ned Comm, Recyling Specialist

Grand Prairie, Texas Plano, Texas James Fisher, Solid Waste Manager Cindy Conner, Backyard Compost Coordinator


53

Portage County, Wisconsin Kathy Powell, Compost Education Program Coordinator

Sacramento (City), California Gary Van Do&, Technical Services

Sacramento County, California Steve Harriman, Recycling Coordinator

San Francisco, California Carl Grimm, Education Director, San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners

Sarasota County, Florida Jodi John, Recycling Coordinator

Snohomish County, Washington Marcia Rutan, Project Specialist

Spokane (City and County), Washington Ann Bailor, Public Information Coordinator

Takoma Park, Maryland Daryl Braithwaite, Recycling Coordinator

Thousand Oaks, California Carolyn Green, Solid Waste Planner

Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia

Beverly Weber, Compost Program Officer

Ventura, California Marialyce Pederson, Waste Management Program Assistant

West Monroe , Louisiana Office of Finance Director Er City Clerk


national backyard composting program: cost-benefit ... · glendale, california east chicago,...

Documents