Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Alternative-Policies-For-Paper-Recyclin 👈

1. Alternative Policies for
Paper Recycling
More Effective Policies for Paper and General
Recycling at Residential Level
Orhan Gurbuz
12/5/2011
The ecological footprint of paper at production and disposal levels increases the importance
of recycling policies. Current recycling policies are not effective for household wastes. The
purpose of this paper is to point out alternative policies for increase the rate of paper recycling
for residents. The roles of stakeholders are also presented for the alternative polices and these
policies are unit pricing and residential targeted rewarding policies.

3. Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................4
2. Background Information...........................................................................................................................5
2.1. Environmental Impact of Paper and Paper Recycling........................................................................5
2.2. Paper Recycling Policies.....................................................................................................................8
2.3. Challenges in Paper Recycling Policies.............................................................................................10
3. Stakeholder Analysis...............................................................................................................................11
3.1. Identification of Stakeholders and Their Positions..........................................................................12
3.2. Stakeholder Interests.......................................................................................................................13
4. Alternative Policies for Paper Recycling..................................................................................................15
4.1 Unit Pricing Policies...........................................................................................................................15
4.2. Household Rewarding Policies.........................................................................................................18
5. Summary of the Outcomes of Alternative Policies.................................................................................20
6. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................21
7. References ..............................................................................................................................................23

4. 1. Introduction
Paper is an indispensable product that can be used every day and anytime in daily life. Paper
is originated from wood and wood obtained from trees. Trees provide important ecosystem
services. In order toprotect trees andreduce the amount of paper wastes, recycling policies have
been implemented as a resource management model.
Paper has the larger portion among other municipal wastes due to the direct or complex
usages. Today, according to the recent survey of American Forest and Paper Association
(AF&PA), the recycling policies are efficient. The recycling rate of paper is at 63% in 2010.
However, current policies about recycling are not efficient for household levels because the
current policies about any recycling type do not directly target the collection of residential
wastes. This paper presents two alternative financial-based policies for this environmental policy
issue. The alternative policies, the unit pricing and residential rewarding, are presented with their
benefits, costs, and effectiveness.
Firstly, the environmental impact of the paper is discussed and the importances of the
recycling activities are presented. The recent data-sets, which show the historical increase in
paper recycling actives in the US, are obtained from AF&PA. The general characteristics of
these policies are promoting activities such as the big scale rewarding policies and the code
enforcements for local levels.
Second, the Starbucks’ paper-based coffee cups recycling issue analyzed in order to present
specific stakeholders for a paper recycling issue. The result of the studies of the Starbucks’ case
shows that the system and the technology portion of the recycling policies working effectively
for each stakeholder group, but the recycling is very inefficient at residential levels.

5. Finally, the paper presents two alternative solutions and the positions of the direct
stakeholders to eliminate the paper and general recycling issues at individual levels.The unit
pricing model has been used by local governments. The local level rewarding policy model is a
recent decision and more effective than the unit pricing model.
2. Background Information
2.1. Environmental Impact of Paper and Paper Recycling
Paper recycling is an environmental policy for resource management by providing raw
materials for paper manufactures. The efficient way to understand the importance of paper
recycling is evaluating the environmental impacts of the paper. First impact could occur because
of individual’s consumption patterns. Today, paper has been used by industry to compensate the
customers’ demands. After usage, paper products become wastes and they are collected for
burying in landfills orincineration. These methods are inefficient and cause new environmental
and economic problems. For example, incineration causes air quality issues and also causes the
elimination of reusable products from the market.
Second impact could occur during the production of the paper because of using dyes,
chemicals, and energy during the mechanical processes. Moreover, during the industrial
production of paper, the usage of wood causes resource depletion. Trees have irrevocable
ecosystem services such as trees can use the CO2 emissions for producing energy and they can
adjust the CO2 and O2 balance of the Earth.
The willingness to use paper and its environmental impacts are growing rapidly
throughout the history. %35 of the Earth’s trees has been cut down for paper production. In the

6. last 40 years, 4 billion trees have been cut down for the higher demands for paper products
(Martin, 2011). In Figure 1, the paper consumption patterns for one year are listed.
Figure 1 Paper Consumption Values Courtesy of (Martin, 2011)
Paper consumption causes solid wastes that to be sent to landfills and recycling is a type
of solid waste control by eliminating the waste with the phenomenon of reuse (Strong, 1997, p.
7). According to municipal solid waste generation data of USEPA, at the residential level, paper
wastes has higher values contribute to other non-hazardous waste types. Figure 2 shows the
percentages of total non-hazardous waste types in 2009(“Municipal Solid Waste Generation,
Recycling,and Disposal in the United States:Facts and Figures for 2009”, 2009, p. 3). Recycling
is a solid waste management strategy that has two main goals. The first goal is to reduce the
amount of resources that have been used and to provide new products. Second goal is to reduce
land usage for dumping activities (“Municipal Solid Wastes”, 2011).
Figure 2 Municipal Solid Wastes before Recycling in 2009 Courtesy of Muni ipal “olid Waste Generation, Re y ling,and
Disposal in the United States:Facts and Figures for , , p.

7. Landfills and trash burning are not effective ways for paper waste management. Landfills
cause suspension of reusable papers from human usage and also paper markets. Also these
dumping areas are not efficient to decomposition of organic compounds such as paper.
According to a study for the researching the wastes in landfills show that even 30-year-old
newspapers can be read due to the anoxic conditions of landfills. Oxygen needed for
decomposition of organic wastes and dumping paper products in landfills is not an effective way
of treatment. Trash burning, another inefficient way of dealing with paper, causes air quality
degradation, energy consumption, and bring about ashes that is a new type of solid waste(Lyle,
2004, p. 166).
Due to the abundance usage of chemicals, solid wastes, and air emissions, the paper and
pulp mills are one of the dirtiest industries according to United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) (Martin, 2011). Paper manufacturers could buy recycled paper and could use
them in order to degrease water usage, chemical usage, and electricity usage by implementing
recovering processes for fiber and pulp(“Paper Making and Recycling”, 2011).Air emissions are
mostly generated at pulping process especially, while chemical methods are being used. The
usage of sulfate and sulfite can contribute to generation of sulfur dioxides (SO2) and nitrogen
dioxides (NO2). For water quality issues, Because of the organic composition of wood, the
effluent contains phosphor and nitrogen. And finally solid wastes could generate during the
separation of fiber processes (“The Paper Making Process”, p. 396).
As an ecosystem, in other words biome, forests offer a variety of services. The largest
portion of the forest ecosystem comprise of trees. Trees help the reduction of greenhouse gases
such as CO2 by photochemical reactions called photosynthesis and they are irrevocable sources
of O2. Trees can also manage the moisture in air by evaporation and aid the water cycle in

8. ecosystem. In spite of playing important environmental services, deforestation is still an
issue(Maczulak). Forests can also be used or water quality management. Trees can hold storm
water and reduce the run-off. Forests have also been used for waste water treatment systems. To
sum up, forests, as a whole system have priceless services and paper recycling could save forests
and their ecological services.
Today, many paper making industries have tree farms in order to supply paper and pulp
that are needed. Trees are a type of renewable resources but these farms could not be same as
natural forests. The reason is the lack of biodiversity, therefore these tree farms does not have the
same features and same quality of ecosystem service. Also, these farms are supplied for only
16% of paper production industries (Martin, 2011).
2.2. Paper Recycling Policies
Chronologically, the recycling activities were accelerated by public education in the U.S.
in 1990s. These educations basically told people how to recycle their own wastes and why
recycling is important. The year 1991 was one of the tipping points of the amount of recycled
municipal wastes in USA. The main reasons were globalization of industries and the demand of
waste disposal was equal to the demand of recycling(Strong, 1997, p. 14).
In the early 1990s recycling is harder for citizens. People who wanted to recycle should
have collected and separated their wastes and brought them to the facilities. In the later 1990s,
the curbside recycling implemented in order the increase the efficiency of recycling. This method
increased the amount of wastes that were recycled and provides easy transportation for hauler
firms with timely manners. Moreover, in the transfer station, manual separation was switched to
mechanical separation and sent to the industries as raw materials. (Strong, 1997, pp. 15,16).

9. Today, paper recycling policies are varied and can be categorized into two approaches;
mandatory, and promoting. However, there isn’t any national recycling regulation in USA at
mandatory level. Especially, EPA policies include starting paper recycling programs in small
offices and schools, at residential levels such as neighborhood and county, and at commercial
such as commodity producers(“Wastes - Resource Conservation - Common Wastes & Materials
- Paper Recycling”, 2011).
In a policy framework perspective, these promoting activities are followed by rewarding
policies. American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), which is a national trade association
for forest and paper industry, leads an award-giving contest for schools, communities, and
industries. Benefits of this rewarding policy are that the award winners achieve monetary prices
and promotion. For the paper recycling, the amount of paper recycled is growing annually and
new policy models can be comprised(AF&PA, 2011) .
Some states such as Rhode Island, New York,etc. have planned and implemented policies
and enactments for recycling for various materials(Strong, 1997, pp. 93,101). Financial
incentives have been used for some states in order to foster recycling practices. For instance,
New York enacted the New York City Recycling Law in 1989 that covers residents, agencies,
businesses, and institutions. The framework is established based on identification of recyclable
materials that includes paper, setting up the goals for the amount of recycled materials, and fines
for nonobservant concerned institutes and agencies(“NYC Recycling Law”).
Overall, the recycling paper policies in the U.S. are working. Figure 4 shows the linear
increase in recovery rates of paper since 1990. According to AF&PA, 81,209 papers are supplied

10. and 51,545 papers are recovered. And also AF&PA is planning to increase this rate as 70% by
2020(“Paper & Paperboard Recovery”, 2011).
Figure 2 Paper Recovery Rates Courtesy of Paper & Paper oard Re overy ,
2.3. Challenges in Paper Recycling Policies
Logistic systems for recycling policies are highly related to the individual participation.
Consumers are the generators of solid wastes and their disposal habits shape the quality of the
recycling policy and its frameworks. For example, the contamination is the main problem for
paper and paper-based products. Separation process mostly done by professional recyclers that
collect the wastes, separate them base on waste type, and find market for used paper or other
used products. Contaminated wastes are formed due to individual disposal habits(Johnson,
2011).
Why people recycle is the main question that can clear the challenges in paper recycling.
According to the sociologists, recycling is highly related to the individual behaviors. Basically,
people, who care more for environment, will probably recycle more. Because today, recycling is
a domain of morality(Thogersen, 1996, p. 2).
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Recovery Rate
Recovery Rate

11. On the other hand, in the era of Motivation Period of environmental policies, many
people consider environment as a win-win concept. In other words, people respond to
environmental policies to maximize their utilities (Thogersen, 1996, p. 1). In order to increase
the recycling rates, environmental policies about recycling should locate this concept.
Another problem could generate in separation process. Recycling is a costly policy to
implement and monitor (Lave, Hendrickson, Conway, & McMichael, 1999, p. 4). This challenge
is overcome in community buildings by providing recycling bins, therefore waste separation can
be done at the initial level. There are still challenges for wastes that have mixed products, other
products with paper, such as take-away coffee cups. An also, contamination of the waste due to
inappropriate recycling causes extra burden on separation processes (Johnson, 2011) .
Another issue could occur at the outcome level of a recycling policy. Remanufacturing of
recycled paper could not be used very often. Due to the reproduction, the paper fibers become
weaker.A regular paper can be used for five to seven times. Another approach to this issue is
thatthe usage featured mills that combine raw pulp with recycled fibers to produce enduring new
products (“Paper Making and Recycling”, 2011).
3. Stakeholder Analysis
Today’s recycling policies are statistically effective. However, some paper mixed
products and consumer’s recycling habits still exist as challenges for paper recycling. Therefore,
giving an example about how related stakeholders act towards this issue is important. Actually,
Starbucks coffee company have tried to overcome these challenges since 2008. The company
prefers to do negotiations and create a brainstorming platform by inviting relevant stakeholders

12. to find key solutions for this paper recycling issue. In this section the stakeholder analysis and
stakeholder interest will be presented by Starbucks Coffee Cup Summit case.
3.1. Identification of Stakeholders and Their Positions
There are many stakeholders involve in this paper recycling issue. The first important and
direct stakeholder is of course the Starbucks Company. Because this cooperation is responsible
for generation of the waste and it should reduce the amount of waste that will be sent to the
landfills. The role of the company for recycling is obvious. Company should come up with a
management plan for reduce its waste generation and use recyclable coffee cups.
Second important stakeholder is government agencies. Starbucks is a national and
international company and each community could have different policies such as focusing on
mixed recycling or one-type recycling. For example, New York State Department of
Environment role would be the promoting and regulating the progress of coffee cup
recycling(“Recycling & Composting”, 2011).
Third stakeholder is the firm that collects the recyclable material. In cup recycling case,
the firms who collect the recyclable materials, separate them, and find facilities to sell them. For
instance, Starbucks in New York have a deal with Action Carting Environmental Services, which
is a professional recycling firm, collects wastes and find customers such as pulp mills.
Professional recyclers’ main role is creating a bridge between company and
manufacturers(“2011 Starbucks Cup Summit”, 2011).
The fourth stakeholder is paper manufacturers. These utilities take the wastes and use
them as raw materials to produce new products. In our case, paper industries such as Paper Co.
or Mississippi River Pulp LLC are one of the important stakeholders. Their roles are producing

13. recyclable products due to compensate the demand, and reuse paper wastes to make
profit(Johnson, 2011).
The fifth and may be the most important stakeholders are the individuals. As it is
discusses earlier, individuals have a significant role for recycling. Their attitudes are linked with
the amount of recycled products and their quality. Also these individuals could create customer
groups to warn the company to use recyclable products.
Finally, there are a wide variety of indirect stakeholders that are present especially in the
case of paper cups. These stakeholders could be university researchers to help identify the issues
and help to visualize scenarios. Furthermore, non-governmental organizations could be included
to create a communication atmosphere and come up with objective commends about polices. On
the other hand, other coffee retailers could be involved to present their policies toward the issue.
3.2. Stakeholder Interests
For the recycling paper-based coffee cup recycling issue, why Starbucks have a desire to
make their coffee cups fully recyclable. As a company policy, Starbucks wants to be greener to
locate the requests from their customers. And also Starbucks wants to be more environmentally
responsible. Moreover, local governments could have mandatory regulations for forcing
companies to implement a mixed recycling policy. These mandatory acts could pressure the
organization for penalties. Such legislations are implemented in New York State in Solid Waste
Management Act(“Recycling & Composting”, 2011). In an economic perspective, as an outcome
of recycling, company will achieve cheaper products such as recycled napkins or recycled cups
from retailers. For all these benefits and mandatory sanctions, Starbucks have a leader position in
the policy debate.

14. Local governments request coffee companies to carry the waste burden to solve the
landfill problem to create more sustainable communities. Their interest is to reduce paper-based
wastes via enacting or promoting the relevant companies. After implementing these rules or
guides, local communities can achieve new markets and job opportunities to robust the local
market.
The transporting firms and paper industries interests are profit-making interests. The
professional recyclers want low contaminated wastes in order to sell them with higher prices to
paper mills. Therefore, in the policy debate they want appropriate recycling from individuals.
And also paper mills want high quality wastes due to the easy separation of fibers and efficient
production. For easy separation, in the policy debate, their policy frame is based on focusing on
eliminating polyethylene from paper cups(“2011 Starbucks Cup Summit”, 2011).
Individual’s interest could be varied based on personal perspective to recycling and
environmental views. Their ability to recycle is an important indicator to monitor the recycling
infrastructure systematically(“2011 Starbucks Cup Summit”, 2011). The interests of individuals
are neither economic, nor political. Their view of environmental issues is the key factor that
nudges people recycle.
The indirect stakeholders could have distinct interest. NGOs could present political
interests by rising questions or arguments to make policy clear. Firms could seek economic
interests. They can present their processes and technologies for this issue.
Overall, there are alternative policies to increase the quality of the recycling material
from household levels. These policies could be based on market incentives with or without

15. government controls. The main purpose of these policies should be target the individual
behaviors towards recycling.
4. Alternative Policies for Paper Recycling
Although the paper recycling policies are efficient and in 2010 the recycling rate was the
highest, there are still issues are present. The main problem of the recycling is not in the
technological portion of the policy. The problems are generated due to the consumers recycling
behaviors. In order to nudge people to recycle, market incentives have been using. These policies
are implemented for general municipal solid waste management. The indirect results of these
policies could increase recycling activities in households such as pay-as-you-throw policies.
Secondly, in order to increase individual participation for recycling is scaling down the
rewarding policies toward individual levels.
4.1 Unit Pricing Policies
Economic burden for solid wastes based on the waste volumes could attract individuals to
recycle. The underlying idea of this policy is to make people pay for their wastes that cause
externalities. By implementing this cost-effective method, people carry the responsibility to
generate waste. If they have more waste, they will pay more to the government to compensate
the disposal costs. Therefore, people are willing to recycle more in order to avoid paying extra
fees. The main objective of this policy is providing solid waste reduction at the initial levels and
improves recycling activities by individuals (Reschovsky & Stone, 1994, p. 121).
Unit pricing or also known as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) type of policies is implemented
by small scale local governments, when the local government cannot compensate the costs of
disposing or transporting wastes. The methodology of the policies could vary. Today, bag

16. programs, tag programs, hybrid programs, and weight-based systems for PAYT policies are
existed. Basically, the bag programs force the residents buy garbage bags under the conditions of
extra garbage production. The cost of the bags includes the price for disposal and transportation.
The tag program has the same underlying idea. The hybrid program includes the traditional
collection system with an option of fees for the amount of the waste on different selected dates.
The weight-based systems include billing activities by monitoring the household weight.
Technologically advance tags have been using for collection of the weight data and the property
owner pays based on his or her garbage weight (Skumaz, 2002, p. 2).
As outcomes of this political implementation, reduction of the amount of the collected
municipal wastes and increase in the rate of the household recycling practices are expected. A
study done by Gannett Fleming, Inc. for Parkesburg Borough in Chester County, Pennsylvania
noticed that as a future outcome of implementing a PAYT policy will increase the municipal
recycling at the rate between 8% and 12%. In depth, if the borough reaches 10% increase in
recycling, the 140 tons of waste will be separated from disposal actives for reuse actives (“Pay-
As-You-Throw Waste Collection and Recycling Program Implementation”, 2007, p. 14).
According to Figure 2, collecting paper wastes more than other waste types will be a correct
expectation.
PAYT policies can increase the recycling market and can greater new job opportunities
because people will intent to recycle more in order to reduce their solid wastes. The costs PAYT
action will burden the home owners with higher trends of solid waste disposal and lower income
levels. Also implementation cost will consider the local governments.

17. Unintended consequences could occur after the implementation of a PAYT policy. These
consequences could be varied. Due to the financial burden, the garbage burning and the illegal
dumping could be seen in communities especially in vacant lots. Another problem could occur
for low income households. In order to overcome these problems, code enforcements for illegal
actives must be developed. Identification of low income families is also important and discounts
can be applied for these homeowners (“Pay-As-You-Throw Waste Collection and Recycling
Program Implementation, 2007”, p. 11).
The stakeholders for a PAYT policy are residents, elected officials, municipal staff, and
private sector. Residents are the targeted waste producers and their first attitude can be an
opposition to any PAYT policy. The main reasons of the objections are framed by economic
burdens and resistance to the new techniques for collection waste. After implementation, many
residents are intent to recycle more in order to avoid financial penalties(“Consensus Building”,
2011).
The second stakeholder is the elected officials such as majors. Before implementation of
a PAYT policy, this stakeholder group could have a skeptical attitude due to financial burden to
the residents. For example, majors could fell anxious about authority lost over residents. During
implementation, this stakeholder group has an important role for enacting necessary ordinances
for illegal actions. The third important group of stakeholders is the staff of municipal works. The
convincement of these workers about the policy will increase the efficiency of the outcomes
(“Consensus Building”, 2011).
The final stakeholder group is the private sector such as professional recyclers. The
expectation of increase in recycling activities, the recycling sector takes a supporting stage for

18. the policy implementation. Another sector could be included such as tag or bag producers to
compensate the demand and the methodology of the policy action(“Consensus Building”, 2011).
4.2. Household Rewarding Policies
The local governments can robust the recycling activities with the help of private sector
by generating rewarding policies for individual levels. Today, the promoting actives about
recycling cause rewarding policies for community buildings, businesses, and neighborhoods.
However, scaling down this activity towards individual household levels could provide the
distributions of benefits equally. For example, in a pilot area in the United Kingdom, residents
could earn approximately $200 in one year by selling their recyclable wastes. In the same pilot
area the recycling rate increased at the rate of 35%(Pickles, 2010).
The UK’s political frame has an easy-to-apply action plan. The residents collect and
separate their wastes and basically sell them to a company or a professional recycler. The
background philosophy of the policy is make people volunteer to the environmental activity and
create a zero waste generation for a future goal (Pickles, 2010).
In depth, first, local governments should provide recycling bins with technologically
advanced tags that measure the weight of the bins. The bins can be various according the type of
the waste such as paper recycling bins. Technologically advance tags can be used to identify the
weight of these bins. The data about the recycling effort are monitored and saved by recycling
banks as recycling points. The residents can turn their points to money with these recycling
banks (“RecycleBank”, 2011).
The distributions of costs are very low because there aren’t any financial burdens or
mandatory powers. The supply for equipment and the education of the residents and staffs could

19. be the costs of the whole policy. The policy is beneficial for all stakeholders. Residents can earn
money for recycling, local government can save money reduce the usage of landfills, and also
private firms also make profit due to the increasing recycling market.
During the policy implementation, an important unintended consequences, the
oversupply of recycled material that local governments can experience. However, government
can overcome with this problem by trading the recycled materials with other markets in other
regions. For example, they can sell the paper products to international paper manufacturers to
make profit and local economy will be increase.
The most important key political actors for rewarding policy are the local government
and recycling banks. Local governments have a supportive stage for this alternative recycling
policy because the unintended consequences of other policy alternatives will not be generated.
By the willing participation of the residents, there will not be any political stress for the authority
of the local government. Recycle bank is the professional collectors of the recyclable products
from residents and sells them to the local businesses. Also these companies pay residents for
their recyclable materials.
Local manufacturers are the third important stakeholder group that can buy the materials
from the recycle bank. In terms of paper, local paper manufacturers could use these recycled
papers from these recycle banks. Therefore, local businesses have a supporting position for the
residential level rewarding policies.

20. 5. Summary of the Outcomes of Alternative Policies
The outcomes for the stakeholders that are in the market level are same and based on
profit-making and economic advantages for the two alternative policies. Local businesses and
professional recyclers could have a possible supporting side at the implementation step.
The outcomes of the unit pricing model not profitable for each stakeholder group. The
outcomes could be beneficial for local governments because they transfer the burden of handling
the municipal solid wastes by encoding the fees. On the other hand, the residents could
inefficient actions such as illegal dumping. Therefore, rewarding policies and recycle banks are
the most efficient municipal recycling policy for both governments and local residents.
Today, paper recycling policies are efficient and yearly increasing. However, in order to
attain future goals, governments or companies must target their policy frameworks towards
residential collection of paper. These recycled papers should be used in local markets for
enhance the local economy and create a more sustainable community. In a holistic perspective,
people should spend their money that they had earned from recycling in local markets(Pickles,
2010). More specifically they should spent their money for local recycled paper products.
Paper is one of the most collected wastes from the households. Individual targeted or
voluntaristic involvement approaches towards paper recycling could reduce the environmental
impact of paper production and could reduce the amount of paper that is sent to the landfill
operations. The presented financial approaches as environmental policies are the cost effective
ways that can build a sustainable resource management.

21. 6. Conclusions
Paper causes environmental stress. The paper production is one of the dirtiest industries
and regulations that target the point sources control the impact at the production level of paper.
Moreover, wood have been using for produce paper products. Trees have important ecosystem
services and to protect inestimable benefits of trees, the recycling policies are crucial. The other
perspective is to prevent the increase in land fill areas.
Today, recycling policies are efficient, especially in businesses and community buildings
such as schools. The efficiency rate could be increased by providing the participation of
households. For example, Starbucks Co. has the technology and systemic approach to collect
their paper-based coffee cups. However, the rate of recycling these cups is at the lower levels for
residential collection.
In order to increase the rate of paper recycling at household levels, two alternative and
innovative policies have been recommended. The unit pricing policy could increase the recycling
rates and also paper recycling. On the other hand this framework could cause new problems such
as illegal dumping.
For implementation of a rewarding policy that targets the households, government
participation for code enforcements is not needed. Local governments could establish a recycle
banks or they can compromise with a privately own recycle banks. The framework of the policy
is an easy-to-apply and easy-to-control type. Firstly, the home owners should be informed and
educated by explaining how they can make money by doing recycling activities. Then the
recycle banks place the recycling bins with special tags that can measure the amount of the
recyclables. Next, individual recyclers can take their money from these banks for their recycling

22. activity. More recycling brings about more money and this attractive solution to individual
recycling problem can generate a growing recycling market at local or interstate level. Finally
with less unintended consequences the recycling rate could be increased approximately 30% at.

23. 7. References
2011 Starbucks Cup Summit. (2011). Retrieved November 19, 2011, from Starbucks:
http://www.starbucks.com/
AF&PA. (2011). Retrieved November 18, 2011, from Paper Recycles:
http://www.paperrecycles.org/news/press_releases/2011_awards_entries.html
Consensus Building. (2011, July 26). Retrieved November 25, 2011, from Environemtal Protection
Agency: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/payt/top4.htm
Johnson, J. (2011, September 19). Starbucks, others search for the perfect recyclable cup. Retrieved
November 19, 2011, from Waste & Recycling News:
http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/arcshow.html?id=11091901903
Lave, L. B., Hendrickson, C. T., Conway, N. M., & McMichael, F. C. (1999, July 07). Municipal Solid Waste
Recycling Issues. Retrieved October 15, 2011, from
http://msl1.mit.edu/classes/esd123/2003/bottles/MunicipalSolidWasterRecyclingIssues.pdf
Lyle, J. T. (2004). Waste as a Resource. In S. M. Wheeler, & T. Beatley, The Sustainable Urban
Development (pp. 165-172). New York: Routledge.
Maczulak, A. (n.d.). Conservation, Forests, and the Water Cycle. Retrieved October 01, 2011, from
Science Online: http://www.fofweb.com/Science/default.asp?ItemID=WE40
Martin, S. (2011, September 10). Paper Chase. Retrieved November 8, 2011, from Ecology:
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/10/paper-chase/
Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling,and Disposal in the United States:Facts and Figures for
2009. (2009, November). Retrieved November 10, 2011, from Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf
Municipal Solid Wastes. (2011, July 27). Retrieved November 10, 2011, from Environmental Protection
Agency: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/
NYC Recycling Law.(n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2011, from NYC Recycle More Waste Less:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/laws/local_recycling.shtml
Paper & Paperboard Recovery. (2011). Retrieved November 21, 2011, from Paperless.org:
http://paperrecycles.org/stat_pages/recovery_rate.html

24. Paper Making and Recycling. (2011, November 1). Retrieved November 11, 2011, from Environmental
Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/paper/basics/papermaking.htm#recycled
Pay-As-You-Throw Waste Collection and Recycling Program Implementation.(2007, January). Retrieved
November 23, 2011, from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=589542&mode=2
Pickles, E. (2010, June 8). We'll Boost Recycling with a Gentle Nudge. Retrieved November 25, 2011,
fromTHe Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-
green/2010/jun/08/recycling-reward-scheme
RecycleBank. (2011). Retrieved November 25, 2011, from The Royal Borough of Windsor and
Maindenhead: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/wm_recyclebank.htm
Recycling & Composting. (2011). Retrieved November 19, 2011, from New York State Department of
Environemntal Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/294.html
Reschovsky, J. D., & Stone, S. E. (1994). Market Incentives to Encourage Household Waste Recycling:
Paying for What You Throw Away. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 120-139.
Skumaz, L. (2002, July). Variable-Rate of Pay-As-You-Throw Waste Management: Answers to Frequetly
Asked Questions. Retrieved November 23, 2011, from Reason Foundation:
http://reason.org/files/a4e176b96ff713f3dec9a3336cafd71c.pdf
Strong, D. L. (1997).Recycling in America: A reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO,
Inc.
The Paper Making Process.(n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2011, from Sappi Fine Paper North America:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.na.sappi.com%2Fc%2Fdocument_library%2Fget_file%3Fuuid%3Dfbc5b3f
3-a259-4a9e-acd9-03d18dd7a5d5%26groupId%3D10165&ei=G5a5TtG7E-
SLsQKb5uXSCA&usg=AFQjCNGKzPaYcQgK
Thogersen, J. (1996). Recycling and Morality A Critical Review of the Literature.Environmenta and
Behavior, 28, no. 4.
Wastes - Resource Conservation - Common Wastes & Materials - Paper Recycling. (2011, November 1).
Retrieved November 18, 2011, from Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/paper/setting/index.htm