COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKETING FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF COMMERCIAL WASTE MATERIALS IN

Abstract
Waste is an unwanted by-product of conducting business carrying heavy economic,
social, and environmental costs. Reducing waste generation by extending the life of
materials benefits businesses and society for multiple generations. This project follows
the Community-Based Social Marketing framework to engage stakeholders in
developing effective strategies for the City of Asheville to promote sustainable materials
management by businesses in downtown Asheville, NC. Sustainable materials
management programs promote the application of materials to their most productive use
across their entire life-cycle. Strategies identified for downtown Asheville may be
applied to the broader community as well as other comparably sized urban centers.
COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL
MARKETING FOR THE SUSTAINABLE
MANAGEMENT OF COMMERCIAL
WASTE MATERIALS IN
DOWNTOWN ASHEVILLE, NC
Alisha Goodman
Lenoir~Rhyne University
Center for Graduate Studies of Asheville
Masters of Science in Sustainability
2015 Graduate Capstone Project

1 | G o o d m a n
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was completed under the supervision of Keith McDade, Associate Professor of Sustainability Studies
and Co-Director of the Reese Institute for Conservation of Natural Resources with Lenoir~Rhyne University. This
project would not have been possible without his infinite patience and seasoned guidance. Appreciation is extended
to all of the exceptional professors and inspiring classmates with the Lenoir~Rhyne University Sustainability
Studies program.
The support of the City of Asheville’s Office of Sustainability was also essential for the completion of this
project. The passion of our civil servants lends great hopes for the future of our city. Particularly helpful current and
former representatives for the City of Asheville include: Maggie Ullman, former Chief Sustainability Officer, who
aided in shaping the direction of this project; Kerby Smithson, Energy Analyst; and Amber Weaver, current
Sustainability Officer.
This project would not have been possible without the businesses and citizens that offered their feedback as
stakeholders in the continual improvement of Asheville’s waste management practices. Dave Harrington, Restaurant
Manager for Wicked Weed, was kind enough to share the challenges and rewards associated with sustainably
managing materials in downtown Asheville. Amanda Fairly, Sustainability Manager for Waste Management, Danny
Keaton, Owner of Danny’s Dumpster, Carrie Woodward, Account Manager for Republic Services, and Nancy
Lawson with Curbside Management were all kind enough to share their experiences with sustainably managing
waste across Asheville.
Immense gratitude is offered to all of the aforementioned contributors. Special thanks is extended to: Blue Ridge
Biofuels, a business committed to its community and reimagining the values of waste, and the inspiration for this
study; Holston Gases of Asheville, for their kindness in making accommodations for my studies; WNC G.R.U.B.S
for allowing me to apply the knowledge gained from this experience; Kacey Scott for lending an editor’s eye; and
above all to Joshua Anthony for his tremendous and interminable support.

2 | G o o d m a n
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE & ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………….. Cover
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2
I. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
1.1 Objectives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….... 5
1.2 Community-Based Social Marketing for Sustainable Materials Management…………………………………… 5
1.2.1 Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) Framework……………………………………………... 5
 Community Stakeholders
1.2.2 Sustainable Material Management (SMM)……………………………………………………………… 8
 Waste Management Hierarchy
1.3 Commercial Waste Management in Asheville, NC……………………………………………………………... 11
1.3.1 Government Policies, Resources & Goals……………………………………………………………... 11
 The City of Asheville
 Buncombe County
 The State of North Carolina
1.3.2 Businesses in Asheville………………………………………………………………………………… 14
 Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises
 Tourism
II. Selecting Behaviors……………………………………………………………………………………………... 16
2.1 Impacts, Penetration, & Probability……………………………………………………………………………... 16
2.1.1 Source Reduction & Reuse…………………………………………………………………………...... 17
 Food Waste
2.1.2 Recycling & Composting…………………………………………………………………………..…... 20
 Recycling
 Composting
III. Identifying Barriers & Benefits…………………………………………………………………………….…. 26
3.1 Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………………………………..… 26
3.1.1 Stakeholder Barriers & Benefits to SMM……………………………………………………………… 26
 Businesses
 Waste Service Providers
 Municipalities
3.2 Observations……………………………………………………………………………………………………... 32
3.3 Engaging Stakeholders…………………………………………………………………………………………... 34
3.3.1 Case Study: Wicked Weed……………………………………………………………………………... 34

3 | G o o d m a n
3.3.2 Stakeholder Interview: Waste Management…………………………………………………………… 35
3.3.3 Stakeholder Interview: Republic Services……………………………………………………………... 37
3.3.4 Stakeholder Interview: Danny’s Dumpster…………………………………………………………….. 38
3.3.5 Asheville GreenDrinks Presentation…………………………………………………………………… 39
3.4 Survey…………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 40
3.4.1 Objective Clarification……………………………………………………………………………………. 40
3.4.2 Items To Be Measured……………………………………………………………………………………. 40
3.4.3 Survey Design…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40
3.4.4 Piloting the Survey………………………………………………………………………………………... 41
3.4.5 Selecting the Sample……………………………………………………………………………………… 41
3.4.6 Conducting the Survey……………………………………………………………………………………. 41
3.4.7 Analyzing the Data……………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
 Survey Results
IV. Developing Strategies………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
4.1 Stakeholder Considerations……………………………………………………………………………………. 47
4.1.1 Space Restrictions………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
4.1.2 Convenience………………………………………………………………………………………………. 47
4.1.3 Lack of Incentives………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
4.1.4 Resource Conservation & GHG Reduction………………………………………………………………. 47
4.1.5 Economic Growth………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
4.1.6 Community Support………………………………………………………………………………………. 48
4.2 CBSM Strategies……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48
4.2.1 Commitment……………………………………………………………………………………………… 48
4.2.2 Social Norms……………………………………………………………………………………………… 49
4.2.3 Social Diffusion…………………………………………………………………………………………... 50
4.2.4 Prompts…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
4.2.5 Communication…………………………………………………………………………………………… 52
4.2.6 Incentives…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53

4 | G o o d m a n
4.2.7 Convenience………………………………………………………………………………………………. 54
V. Applying CBSM for SMM in Asheville, NC…………………………………………………………………... 56
5.1 Commercial SMM in the City of Asheville, NC………………………………………………………………. 56
5.1.1 Moving Forward………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56
5.2 CBSM Strategies for Policymakers……………………………………………………………………………. 56
5.2.1 Commitment……………………………………………………………………………………………… 56
5.2.2 Social Norms, Social Diffusion, Prompts, & Communication…………………………………………… 57
5.2.3 Incentives…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57
5.2.4 Convenience………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57
5.3 Waste is a local & global issue………………………………………………………………………………….. 57
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 59
Appendix A: Impacts of Specific Recyclable Materials…………………………………………………………….. 59
Appendix B: Survey Distribution…………………………………………………………………………………… 62
Appendix C: Survey of Commercial Waste Management Practices in Downtown Asheville……………………… 63
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 67

5 | G o o d m a n
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVES
Commercial operations generate large volumes of waste, much of which is avoidable through adopting
sustainable materials management practices. The City of Asheville has made significant progress in reducing waste
from the residential and government sectors through the Zero Waste AVL program, but little attention has been
given to the commercial sector. The purpose of this Capstone project is to offer support to the Zero Waste AVL
program by determining current commercial waste management practices in downtown Asheville, and identifying
barriers and benefits for increasing commercial sustainable materials management practices. The Community-Based
Social Marketing (CBSM) framework is followed as a guide for identifying motivations for current waste
management practices and developing strategies for increasing sustainable materials management behavior changes
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). The sustainable materials management (SMM) framework serves as a guide for reducing
waste throughout the life-cycle of materials (Sustainable Materials Management: The road ahead, 2009).
Goals and Objectives
● Engage stakeholders to determine current commercial waste disposal trends
● Identify barriers and benefits to commercial sustainable materials management
● Develop strategies to remove barriers and increase benefits for commercial sustainable materials
management
The primary objective of this study is to identify strategies for enhancing commercial participation in waste
reduction programs at the community level. Sustainable materials management can benefit a business economically,
while increasing the social and environmental resilience of the surrounding community. Policy feasibility analysis
and suggestions are constrained by locally available services and resources. Commercial establishments, waste
haulers, policymakers, and other community members were interviewed and surveyed to determine current
practices, motivations for behaviors, and suggestions for improvements. Stakeholder feedback and research was
focused on downtown Asheville because of the exceptional challenges related to space availability for waste
disposal. Findings provide insights into resources and policies applicable to the greater Asheville area, as well as
NC.
1.2 COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKTEING FOR SUSTAINABLE
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
1.2.1 COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKETING (CBSM) FRAMEWORK
The Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) framework is built on research in the social sciences and
social marketing by environmental psychologist Doug McKenzie-Mohr. CBSM presumes behavior changes are
most effectively implemented at the community level by simultaneously removing barriers and increasing benefits
to participation. CBSM is an alternative to educational campaigns exclusively aimed at increasing awareness.
Providing individuals with information is frequently an insufficient motivator for inspiring behavior changes, even
when messages promote economic self-interest (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). Combining social sciences and
social marketing techniques allows for the identification of motivations for behaviors and the development of
strategies for behavior change informed by stakeholders (McKenzie-Mohr, Lee, Schultz, & Kotler, 2012). The
CBSM framework is utilized within this study to identify opportunities for the City of Asheville to encourage
participation in sustainable materials management practices by the commercial sector.

6 | G o o d m a n
The CBSM framework includes the following steps for developing strategies to effectively promote behavior
change:
Step 1: Selecting Behaviors
Step 2: Identifying Barriers and Benefits
Step 3. Developing Strategies
Step 4: Piloting
Step 5: Broad-Scale Implementation and Evaluation
(McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999)
The goals of this study are focused on selecting commercial waste management behaviors, identifying the
barriers and benefits to engaging in sustainable materials management practices, and developing strategies for the
City of Asheville to promote sustainable behavior changes. Though these steps of the CBSM framework are
discussed in detail they are not strictly followed. If feasible strategies are identified by the City of Asheville, they
will be further evaluated by City staff before conducting pilots or broad scale-implementation.
Because barriers are often behavior specific, Doug McKenzie-Mohr strongly recommends focusing on non-
divisible end state behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). SMM by commercial operations requires the adoption of a
suite of behaviors. To evaluate motivations for several management strategies the choice was made to explore a
divisible set of behaviors. Specific practices are explored in relation to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) program.
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
Western North Carolina (WNC) is a region rich in species and habitats that are deeply affected by human
activities. Asheville is a city known for its appreciation of diversity. The region’s biodiversity and the City’s cultural
offerings have facilitated the development of a strong tourism economy. The ability of the City to successfully cope
with the resource consumption and waste generation of large volumes of visitors can impact the natural features that
draw people to the region. Environmental stewardship has become synonymous with Asheville (Love, 2015). Many
residents and businesses have already realized the benefits of SMM and supported the development of affordable
infrastructure for sustainably managing many wastes. Businesses that engage in SMM practices can save money
while supporting the economic and environmental health of the surrounding community.
Public consultation is essential for developing effective strategies for changing behaviors. McKenzie-Mohr
recommends collecting community stakeholder feedback three times. After conducting a literature review,
stakeholders should be contacted to confirm the relevance of identified barriers and benefits. A survey about the
selected barriers and benefits should then be distributed to determine attitudes and present levels of engagement.
Last, strategies developed should be discussed in a public forum to gain additional feedback from stakeholders
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE
There are multiple stakeholders to consider when evaluating SMM by businesses in downtown and across
Asheville. This study is intended to advise the City of Asheville, which is responsible for considering the needs of
its citizens and the entire Asheville community. Business materials management practices impact the communities
in which they operate. Unsustainable materials management practices by businesses contributes high volumes of

7 | G o o d m a n
landfill waste, resulting in extensive social, environmental, and economic costs for the communities they are located
in. Policy makers are key stakeholders charged with protecting the interests of the communities they represent;
which includes ensuring tax funds are appropriately allocated and that the continued health and flourishing of the
community is promoted through responsible waste management.
PRIVATE WASTE HAULERS
Waste haulers are responsible for ensuring consumer wastes are taken to appropriate processing and
disposal facilities. Policies targeting business waste management practices can only be implemented if haulers have
the resources to collect and dispose of materials as directed. Haulers are responsible for accommodating the needs of
their customers and operating financially profitable businesses. While some haulers maintain landfills and recycling
facilities themselves, many must utilize facilities maintained by other agencies. The rates charged by waste haulers
must be able to cover the cost of collection, transportation, and disposal of wastes, as well as administrative and
other support staff. The ability to provide an affordable service greatly depends on available disposal infrastructure.
Robust recycling markets allow waste service providers to keep materials moving through the economy at
lower operation costs. Haulers can divert materials at reduced rates, no cost, or even pay for materials depending on
their value. If markets do not exist for these materials then haulers must pay landfill tipping fees or pursue siting
their own landfills; which carry heavy regulatory and maintenance costs. The expense and liability are so great that
the responsibility of maintaining landfills are often managed by counties.
BUSINESSES IN ASHEVILLE
Understanding the needs of businesses is essential for adopting effective policies to change materials
management practices. SMM practices can be a cost burden or benefit depending on when waste is managed and
what services are locally available. Ultimately the goal of this study is to determine strategies for incentivizing
SMM practices by businesses through City policies. Utilizing the CBSM framework, policy makers have a suite of
tools to increase the benefits to desired behaviors or increase barriers for undesirable behaviors.
The diversity of small business offerings makes determining best practices for waste disposal more
challenging (Hillary, 2004). Examining a business model for waste reduction opportunities from a systems
perspective can reveal many simple solutions, but business owners must be willing to dedicate staff and funding for
effective waste management plans. It often falls on owner-operators to make waste policy decisions; if management
and staff are not dedicated to making changes then they are unlikely to be successful.
GLOBAL COMMUNITY
While this study aims to seek feedback from the City of Asheville, waste haulers, and businesses, there are
many other stakeholders that may be impacted by how materials are managed within Asheville. With the exception
of compostable materials managed by Danny’s Dumpster, the majority of the waste generated by businesses and
residents in Asheville is managed and disposed of outside of city limits. While much of the City’s waste is sent to
the Buncombe County landfill, a significant portion is exported outside of the county, as are many recyclable
materials collected and sorted by Curbside Management, commonly referred to as Curbie. Buncombe County, Land-
of-Sky Council of Governments, and the State of North Carolina are all government agencies which have some
stake in how Asheville businesses choose to manage materials. Furthermore, the waste management industries
operating under the policies of these government agencies are impacted by the cumulative decisions of businesses
across the State.
Beyond the impacts at the State level, it is also important to reflect on the global consequences of current
business and consumer practices. The origins of the resources that become waste in Asheville are as diverse as the
places they are disposed of. The energy and resources required to provide consumers with goods should all be

8 | G o o d m a n
considered when determining how they are to be handled once they are no longer useful to the consumer. This is
why the choice was made to pair the CBSM framework with SMM practices.
1.2.2 SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS MANAGEMENT (SMM)
The critical problem is that, for the most part, the economy operates as an open system, drawing raw materials
from the environment and returning vast amounts of unused by-products in the form of pollution and waste.
The products that firms market are only a small portion of what their processes turn out; a significant portion
of their output eventually leaves the economy as waste and returns to the environment in forms that may
stress it unacceptably. As long as attention is limited to products and processes viewed in isolation, larger
systemic problems, such as the accumulation of persistent toxic materials, will not be addressed. Increased
economic output will still cause increased environmental harm in such a frame of analysis.
(Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997)
Over the past 25 years, the consumption of materials in the United States has increased 57% (Sustainable
Materials Management: The road ahead, 2009). Waste is an unwanted byproduct of conducting business carrying
heavy financial and environmental costs. As the materials commonly used throughout our society have evolved with
the globalization of markets, our waste has become much more abundant and complex. Physically, municipal solid
waste (MSW) contains the same materials as our market commodities, but mixing these materials into unknown
compositions results in products with little to no value (McDougall, White, Franke, & Hindle, 2001).
End of life-cycle disposal capacity shortages have resulted in increasingly efficient and environmentally
responsible management practices, but municipalities must continue to progress to avoid siting additional waste
disposal facilities (Garkowski, 2011). The 2009, report by the EPA, “Sustainable materials management: The road
ahead,” promoted SMM as an opportunity to use and reuse materials in their most productive way across their entire
life-cycle. The pervasive use of materials, including water and energy, throughout our society is extensive and
growing with our population and economy. This intense usage of resources is challenging the capacity of our life
support systems and unless behaviors are altered our future energy resources, economic stability, and climate will be
negatively impacted.
We do however have the ability to do better, by managing our materials on a life-cycle basis, building our
capacity to manage materials through the future, and having a public dialogue about how we can be sustainable and
resilient (Sustainable Materials Management: The road ahead, 2009). “Sustainable materials management
conserves resources, reduces waste, slows climate change, and minimizes the environmental impacts of the materials
we use” (“Sustainable Materials Management”, 2015).
Businesses and other institutions can help by identifying and reducing the life-cycle impacts of materials
across their supply chains through a life-cycle assessment (LCA) (“Sustainable Materials Management”, 2015). One
important way this is done is by ensuring materials come from renewable resources, are processed for extended life-
cycles, and do not contain toxins. The EPA’s SMM program includes several challenges serving as guidelines for
managing sustainable changes; the Food Recovery Challenge, the Electronics Challenge, and the Federal Green
Challenge (“Sustainable Materials Management”, 2015).
The responsibility of increasing the sustainable management of materials falls on all of society. Sustainable
infrastructure is required to facilitate this rethinking of waste to actions resulting in SMM. Municipalities and policy
makers are essential for defining standards and ensuring certain services are available throughout the community.
Sustainable waste management infrastructure must be environmentally resilient, integrated for efficient services,
affordable, profitable to initiate and maintain, and rich in co-benefits for the prosperity of communities (Roth, 2015).

9 | G o o d m a n
WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
SMM solutions must be tailored to a wide variety of stakeholders and circumstances. As part of the SMM
program, the EPA has developed a hierarchy of strategies for managing MSW. The Non-Hazardous Waste
Management Hierarchy (see Figure 1.), promotes source reduction and reuse as the most preferred method of waste
management, followed by recycling and composting, energy recovery, and treatment and disposal ("Non-Hazardous
Waste Management Hierarchy", 2013). This study will focus on the most preferred management methods with little
discussion of options for energy recovery or treatment and disposal.
Figure 1. Non-Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy
("Non-Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy", 2013)
SOURCE REDUCTION & REUSE
The EPA suggests the following methods for reducing waste at its source: eliminating the use of toxic
materials; redesigning products; reducing packaging; reusing and donating materials; and changing purchasing
habits ("Non-Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy", 2013). While there are opportunities for individuals and
businesses to contribute to several of these approaches, many changes need to be implemented at the extraction and
manufacturing stages.
Consumers and businesses can help with source reduction by purchasing reusable goods over disposable
items, used goods instead of new, and products with reduced packaging, as well as extending product life-cycles
through maintenance and repair, donating unwanted materials, and sharing infrequently used items (“Reducing and
Reusing Basics”, 2015). Many unwanted goods can be sold or donated to extend their usefulness. This can prevent
items from entering landfills, assist community members in need, and may include tax incentives for donors
(“Reducing and Reusing Basics”, 2015). This study will focus on a variety of opportunities for commercial
operations to reduce and reuse materials while highlighting options focused on food waste.
The EPA describes food waste as falling into one of three categories: avoidable, possibly avoidable, and
unavoidable. Avoidable food waste is the result of over preparation, improper storage, and spoiling; examining the
causes for this type of waste generation can help with identifying solutions. Possibly avoidable food waste refers to

10 | G o o d m a n
food that may be reused in a different dish. Unavoidable food wastes are not fit for human consumption but may be
utilized for composting, animal feed, or anaerobic digestion (Reducing wasted food & packaging, 2014).
The exceptional value of food waste calls for an additional management hierarchy. The EPA’s Food
Recovery Hierarchy serves as a guide for prioritizing food waste management practices (see Figure 2.). Source
reduction is prioritized through the elimination of excess food generation. Excess foods that are generated should
first be directed to feeding people in need, then used as feed for animals. Food waste should only be used in
industrial applications and composting if it is unsuitable for higher value applications. Landfills and incineration are
last resort disposal methods.
Figure 2. Food Recovery Hierarchy
(“The Food Recovery Hierarchy, 2014)
RECYCLING & COMPOSTING
Ecosystems provide valuable insights into opportunities for optimizing waste management. Elegant design
can result in waste that feeds back into supply chains or fuels business partnerships that rely on waste streams.
International markets have formed around reclaiming materials that are decreasing in availability, and increasing in
demand. Common commercial waste streams contain materials suitable for recycling through multiple generations.
The energy contained in even the most degraded materials can be recovered to reduce resource consumption and
displace fossil fuels.
The value of recycling is dependent on multiple barriers that should all be systematically examined before
pursuing solutions. The energy inputs and outputs required for product development serve as incentives for more
efficient processing methods and designing materials for longevity. Recycling is most effective when materials are
designed for the process, as some waste materials may require excessive amounts of energy to transform back into
usable products. The performance and capacity of recycling industries and markets is correlated with the ability of
first generation product designers to incorporate materials suitable for use by multiple generations (Hopewell,

11 | G o o d m a n
Dvorak & Kosior, 2009). Restricting the use of certain toxic compounds in the manufacturing of electronics is the
best way to decrease human health hazards and environmental degradation associated with recycling contaminated
materials. Many materials currently in circulation are not designed for a second life. Improving the efficiency of
recycling, and collaboration between waste producers and consumers, can be stimulated by increasing recycling
rates. There is no greater solution to reducing energy lost as waste than designing products to never become waste
(Sustainable Materials Management: The road ahead, 2009).
1.3 COMMERCIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN DOWNTOWN ASHEVILLE, NC
1.3.1 GOVERNMENT POLICIES, RESOURCES, & GOALS
THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE
The City of Asheville is an established leader in sustainability within the Southeast, continually setting
ambitious goals for the future. In 2012, the Zero Waste AVL program was launched and the City began providing
residents with a single stream recycling service. Responsibility for managing the program has fallen on the
Sustainability and Sanitation Departments, which are both divisions of Public Works. The City does not currently
employ a Recycling Coordinator or Supervisor to specifically oversee the development of SMM programs.
The City of Asheville has experienced significant waste reductions since beginning the program. Reduction
success thus far has been primarily within City agencies and the residential sector. Efforts have been made to
educate the broader community through school programs and presentations, radio and television promotions,
newspapers, mailings and newsletters, take-home items, a comprehensive website, the Recycle Guys program,
events, and social media. City waste reduction strategies are plotted across a 7-year plan with several of the planned
benchmarks benefiting from a study targeting the commercial sector; including the development of a recycling
education program, conducting a waste audit, and completing a composting feasibility analysis.
The City of Asheville offers residents and small businesses solid waste collection services for $7 per month
for the weekly collection of a 95-gallon capacity roll cart. For residential customers this fee includes the bi-weekly
curbside recycling collection service of an additional 95-gallon roll cart, collected by Curbie (“Recycling: The City
of Asheville”, 2015). The cost of waste services for businesses and residents are currently subsidized
by tax funds estimated to cost the City $2.5 million in 2015 (Burgess, 2015). Solid waste fees are
collected every other month through utility bills which also include fees for water, stormwater, and sewer services.
While one 95-gallon garbage roll cart is sufficient for most residents, more carts are available for an additional
monthly fee of $7 per cart (“Garbage Collection”, 2015). Businesses wishing to subscribe to recycling services must
contact private service providers directly. To receive the same 95-gallon recycling container residents receive, with
the same bi-weekly collection, businesses must pay an additional fee of approximately $15/month.
The cost of providing garbage and recycling collection services increases with the cost of landfill tipping
fees and transportation. The City is currently exploring options to shift financing away from city taxes through a
self-supporting solid waste service funded by consumers. The cost of this service for consumers is projected to more
than double over the next 4 years. A 2013 Solid Waste Management Plan, called for the fee to increase to $10.50 in
2015, $14 in 2016, and ultimately become a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) program, based on the amount of waste
collected, but City Council elected to delay the scheduled increases (Burgess, 2015).

12 | G o o d m a n
DOWNTOWN ASHEVILLE
All businesses located in Asheville’s Central Business District (Downtown Asheville) are automatically
enrolled in the City’s waste collection service. The Department of Sanitation collects bagged garbage from
businesses every Wednesday morning. Downtown businesses pay for this service as a $7/month solid waste fee on
their utility bills. Downtown businesses generating larger volumes of garbage, or wishing to subscribe to
composting or recycling services, must contract directly with private haulers.
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
For updating county solid waste management plans, NC requires local governments to evaluate current
programs with regards to the following elements: reduction, collection, recycling and reuse, composting and
mulching, incineration, transfer outside of geographic area, disposal, education, special wastes, illegal disposal and
litter, purchasing of recycled products, collection of discarded electronics, and management of abandoned
manufactured homes (Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2012). The 2012 Buncombe County: Solid
Waste Management Plan, called for a 10% waste reduction goal, from baseline data; with 60% coming from
increased participation in recycling, and 40% from source reduction. County strategies for increasing recycling and
reuse goals focus on increasing public awareness of opportunities and benefits, while improving current programs.
Strategies for increasing composting are centered on the residential sector, calling for the increased promotion of the
Back Yard Composting Program (Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan”, 2012).
In 2011, an estimated 293,826 tons of MSW were generated by local jurisdictions in Buncombe County.
This estimate represents 52.4% of the waste disposed of in Buncombe County; including approximately 41,000 tons
of recyclables. The remaining volume is managed by industries and businesses not monitored or operated by local
jurisdictions (“Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan”, 2012). The transfer of wastes outside of
Buncombe County’s borders limits their ability to enforce waste management policies. “Because much of the waste
that is transferred out of the County originates from commercial and institutional establishments serviced by private
waste haulers, the local jurisdictions would benefit from having more control over this waste in order to protect their
investment in the County‐owned landfill.”
BUNCOMBE COUNTY LANDFILL
The Buncombe County Landfill is located north of Asheville in Alexander, NC; it currently receives
approximately half of the waste generated within the county, including much of Asheville’s MSW (Buncombe
County: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2012). The Buncombe County Landfill is 18 years old and is divided into
10 cells, with 5 cells that have already been filled. Cells are double lined to prevent groundwater contamination by
leachate which is recirculated through the cells or diverted to the wastewater treatment plant after being tested.
Covering 600 acres total, 95 acres are actively being filled by approximately 500 tons of garbage per day. The site is
estimated to last 20-25 years longer depending on “population growth and recycling habits” (Sezak-Blatt, 2015).
Capped cells consist of up to 40 feet of compressed trash. The methane that accumulates within the
landfill’s 5 capped cells is captured through the Gas-to-Energy program. A generator is used to combust gas so that
it may be sold to Progress Energy and put on the electrical grid, adding enough energy to power 1,100 homes.
Through the sale of electricity and renewable energy credits, the Gas-to-Energy program generates approximately
$300,000 - $420,000 annually before operation expenses (Sezak-Blatt, 2015).
Landfill tipping fees account for 92% of the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Department’s
revenue. Tipping fees and accepted materials change as environmental costs are realized. Rigid plastics, aluminum
cans, wooden pallets, electronics, and many other recyclable materials are banned from landfills in North Carolina
("N.C. Division of Waste Management: Items banned from the landfill”). Businesses may drop e-waste off at the

13 | G o o d m a n
landfill at a fee of $0.30/pound. Electronics are also collected at Hard-to-Recycle events coordinated by Asheville
Greenworks 5 times per year. Many office supply stores and electronics retailers also offer e-waste recycling
services.
Landfills are adapting their policies in response to environmental concerns and market demands. In 2011,
Buncombe County charged commercial haulers $47 per ton to dispose of solid wastes, and an average of $39.60 per
ton to recycle commingled materials; if certain organic materials, metals, and concrete compose more than 5% of a
ton, then the landfill charges increase to $86 per ton ("County services: Landfill," 2011). The cost of waste is passed
on to businesses through haulers when tipping fees increase, this cost is reduced when waste is diverted through
recycling.
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) is responsible for
collaborating with citizens, government agencies, and businesses to maintain and enhance the State’s environment
and natural resources (NCDENR Mission Statement, 2015). The 2011 DENR report, Recycling in North Carolina:
Momentum towards Sustainable Material Management, details the transition of materials from waste to
commodities fueling businesses and job growth. From Fiscal Year 06-07 to 09-10, per capita waste disposal was
estimated to have declined by 26%. While much of this decrease can be attributed to a reduction in construction and
demolition waste related to the 2008 Recession, continued reductions have been correlated to increased participation
in recycling programs (“Recycling in North Carolina”, 2011). The expansion of curbside programs offered by local
governments is cited as a critical factor for increasing recycling rates across the State. The authors of the report
acknowledge that success has primarily been achieved within the residential sector and that multifamily residential
properties and businesses are underserved sectors (“Recycling in North Carolina”, 2011).
Recycling is described as benefiting the State by reducing the need for landfilling waste, which
subsequently reduces disposal costs for communities, while helping the State achieve environmental goals. In 2011,
local government recycling programs were estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) equivalent to 3.6
million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually (“Recycling in North Carolina”, 2011). Additionally, recyclable
materials serve as feedstock for industries in the state, while creating jobs, and stimulating economic development.
Increased waste diversion within the commercial sector is connected to key pieces of legislation and an
increase in service availability. North Carolina House Bill 1518, requires Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) permit
holders to provide proof of recycling. HB 1518 was passed in 2005, as part of an effort to supply glass for bottle
manufactures across the State. In 2011, an estimated 25,000 to 29,000 tons of glass were collected from businesses
as a result of the ABC program (“Recycling in North Carolina”, 2011).
House Bill 1465 was also passed in 2005, adding plastic bottles, wooden pallets, and oil filters to the list of
items banned from landfill disposal in NC. A condensed list of banned materials focused on those that might be
generated within the commercial sector includes: used oil; white goods; antifreeze; aluminum cans; whole scrap
tires; lead-acid batteries; beverage containers that are required to be recycled; recyclable rigid plastic containers;
oyster shells; discarded computer equipment; discarded televisions; and florescent lights and thermostats that
contain mercury (“Recycling in North Carolina”, 2011).
Commercial composting operations in the Triangle area, Mecklenburg County, and Buncombe County
were estimated to contribute to the diversion of more than 220,000 tons of organic materials in 2010, with the
capacity for managing more. Challenges to waste reduction and recycling in NC include insufficient access to
services and infrastructure, underdeveloped markets, and a lack of focus on large portions of the waste stream -
namely household food waste and other organics (“Recycling in North Carolina”, 2011).

14 | G o o d m a n
1.3.2 BUSINESSES IN ASHEVILLE
SMALL TO MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (SME’S)
The Asheville Metropolitan area contains a diverse abundance of small businesses. In 2012, an estimated
98% of businesses in Asheville could be described as small to medium enterprises having fewer than 100 employees
(see Table 1.); 96% were defined as small businesses with fewer than 50 employees (“Research and Reports:
Industry employment”, 2015; The new SME definition, 2005). Many of these small businesses are directly or
indirectly impacted by the tourism industry.
Table 1. Number of Business Establishments by Employment-Size Class
(“Research and Reports: Industry employment”, 2015)
TOURISM
Globally, tourism is one of the most dynamic and rapidly growing economic sectors (Shamshiry, et al.,
2011). In 2013, tourists spent approximately $901M in Buncombe County, an 8% increase from the previous year
(Neal, 2014). This increase in spending can be credited for the corresponding 5% increase in tourism employment.
The leisure and hospitality industries are estimated to account for 14.2% of employment in Asheville; third behind
private education and health services, and government (“Research and reports: Business Patterns”). Much of the
employment within the hospitality industry can be credited to tourism in Asheville; as can employment within the
retail and professional/business service industries.
The hospitality industry is the leading job creator within the County. From 2012 to 2013, Buncombe and
Dare counties experienced nearly $1 billion in visitor spending, Mecklenburg, Wake, and Guilford counties
experienced more than $1 billion each. North Carolina experienced a 4% growth in visitor spending from 2012 to
2013, when a record $20 billion was spent. Governor Pat McCrory attributes this growth to the draw of the State’s
cultural and natural resources (Neal, 2014).
While the economic benefits of the tourism industry in Asheville are undeniable it is important to consider
the externalities of the industry's success. In 2013, the population of Asheville was estimated to be 87,236 (US
Census Bureau, 2015). In 2012, an estimated 9.1 million tourists visited Asheville, indicating that 28% of the total
population in Asheville may be composed of tourists on any given day. Research on tourists’ waste generation rates
and the communities they impact is limited.

15 | G o o d m a n
One study of the Malaysian tourism industry found strong ties between the tourism industry and increased
waste generation. Like NC, Malaysia has experienced rapid growth in international and domestic tourism. On
Langkawi Island, the industry has many important economic benefits, but the generation of additional wastes has
been shown to impact the unique and vulnerable environmental resources that draw people to the island (Shamshiry,
et al., 2011). Information about sources of waste, its composition, and rates of production and disposal, aid in
developing effective solid waste management plans. The growth of the tourism industry in Langkawi Island has
been connected to an increased production and alteration in composition of waste streams.
Tourists put additional pressures on the islands environmental resources through excessive consumption,
consumerism, and waste generation. Shamshiry, et al., estimate that tourists generate twice the volume of waste per
capita compared to local Langkawi Island residents (Shamshiry, et al., 2011). Small disposable packaging is
generated by hotels in large quantities. Failure to properly dispose of wastes results in environmental degradation
that is detrimental to the tourism industry. To reduce the negative impacts of growth within the tourism industry,
efforts are being focused on first on conserving resources, then on reducing the negative impacts of waste treatment
and disposal on the environment (Shamshiry, et al., 2011).
Shamshiry et al., advise the municipality to encourage integrated waste management (IWM) through waste
separation and reduction at the source, followed by reuse, recycling, and composting. IWM includes many of the
same principles as SMM. Essential elements for IWM in hotels are managers’ initiatives and employee training
programs (Shamshiry, et al., 2011). All employee stakeholders must be continuously engaged for programs to be
successful. Service positions with high turnover rates are recognized as requiring more regular training.
Although, the rate of consumerism and materials management infrastructure in Asheville are likely to vary
from those found on Langkawi Island, the issues remain the same. Asheville is an urban center isolated in a sea of
natural resources. If the increased consumption of materials and generation of waste resulting from the tourism
industry are not managed appropriately then the environmental quality of the region, and subsequently the success of
the industry, will be degraded.

16 | G o o d m a n
II. SELECTING BEHAVIORS
2.1 IMPACTS, PENETRATION, & PROBABILITY
Behavior selection begins by determining which sectors will have the greatest impact on your area of
interest. Once sectors have been selected, they need to be analyzed according to how they affect the targeted issue
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). This study aims to identify barriers and benefits to commercial SMM practices for the
purpose of advising City policy makers on strategies for increasing the success of the Zero Waste AVL program. In
2008, MSW from commercial operations composed approximately 19.5% of the materials entering the Buncombe
County Landfill. This figure was estimated based on the County’s population and national averages; the residential
sector was the largest contributor (44.1%) followed by construction and demolition debris (32.8%) (Buncombe
County: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2012). These figures are not necessarily representative of the total volume
of MSW generated within the County, as nearly half of the County’s waste is currently being exported. The high
volume of residential waste may be partially attributed to City waste collection service providers, as well as those
contracted by the County, primarily utilizing county landfills. Tipping fees for the Buncombe County landfill are
higher than neighboring landfills, particularly outside of NC, indicating an incentive for private haulers to export
wastes for more economical disposal options. The cost of transporting waste is so high that this incentive is greatly
impacted by fuel costs. The uncertainty of commercial waste volumes, and a lack of available research indicating
sources and composition, inspired the selection of the commercial sector for this study.
This report focuses on commercial SMM behaviors within the categories of source reduction and reuse, and
recycling and composting. For the purposes of the CBSM framework, source reduction and reuse are evaluated
based on a variety of more specific behaviors with special attention given to food waste management, while
recycling and composting are considered individually, and within the context of component behaviors.
The penetration of behaviors is determined by observing or surveying the target audience to verify how and
if they engage in certain behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr, Lee, Schultz, & Kotler, 2012). McKenzie-Mohr et al. (2012)
advise examining a range of values and selecting those behaviors with lower penetration rates because they provide
more potential for change. Penetration was evaluated based on available data as well as through the Commercial
Waste Management Practices in downtown Asheville survey, described in “III. Identifying Barriers and Benefits” in
this study. Determining the penetration of SMM practices by businesses specific to Asheville using available data
was challenging. The majority of available data was calculated for the County or State, or by extrapolating figures
from other regions. Figures for Asheville described here are based on available data as well as information from
private waste service providers.
When considering the probability of a behavior being adopted by individuals not currently participating in
that behavior, the CBSM framework directs researchers to first consider existing programs, their generalizability,
how closely they match the context of the specific behavior, and then evaluate information regarding the per capita
costs and ROI. After examining current programs the target audience should be surveyed, with the goal of pursuing
behaviors with low penetration rates and high probabilities of adoption (McKenzie-Mohr, Lee, Schultz, & Kotler,
2012).
Asheville is recognized as the first green dining destination in America (Jackson, 2012). There are currently
sixteen businesses in Asheville, participating in the Green Restaurant Association’s Certification program; nine of
which are located in downtown Asheville. Waste reduction and recycling, the use of reusables and environmentally
preferable disposables, sustainable durable goods and building materials are three of the seven environmental
categories by which standards are set; the others are water efficiency, sustainable food, energy, and chemical and

17 | G o o d m a n
pollution reduction (“Green Restaurant Certification Standards”). Nearly all standards are related to SMM. For each
category the organization offers a list of behaviors that are associated with a point value. To be certified, restaurants
must pay an annual fee and maintain at least 100 points (“Green Restaurant Certification Standards”).
NC GreenTravel is a free program offered by NC DENR, which promotes the sustainable growth of the
State’s hospitality sector (“NC DENR: GreenTravel”). To participate businesses may consult Waste Reduction
Partners for assistance in conducting an environmental assessment, or they may simply complete the application
processes themselves. Participating businesses receive free advertising through the NC GreenTravel program. There
are currently eight restaurants and three commercial lodging properties in Asheville participating in this program;
there is also a category for breweries, but none of Asheville’s are listed.
The abundance of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Asheville indicates that behavior change
programs are likely to be more successful than if there were predominantly large enterprises. Small businesses are
able to respond and implement changes fasters than larger operations. Tiers of bureaucracy can be bypassed for
policies to be accepted and fewer employees need to be trained (Redmond, Walker & Wang, 2008).
The aforementioned programs as well as those discussed below offer a brief overview of an abundant
selection of examples of how to increase SMM in Asheville. Commercial participation in existing sustainability
programs in Asheville indicates a relatively low penetration of SMM, but the existence of these programs and the
ability of small businesses to quickly adapt imply a high probability of adoption. Questions of penetration and
probability for the adoption of SMM behaviors in Asheville are further examined in the survey of Commercial
Waste Management Practices in downtown Asheville. The following sections discuss the penetration and probability
of specific SMM practices.
2.1.1 SOURCE REDUCTION AND REUSE
The most effective method for reducing the negative impacts of waste is to prevent its creation. Source
reduction can help conserve natural resources and energy, reduce pollution generation and waste toxicity, while
saving consumers, businesses, and municipalities’ money ("Non-Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy", 2013).
The creation of valuable market goods requires large amounts of raw materials and energy for fabrication and
transportation. The end of life loss of these valuable materials must be considered in the context of their full impacts.
Extending the life of materials and encouraging reuse avoids excess energy consumption and additional wastes
generated during recycling.
Businesses are economically motivated to operate in such a way that purchases result in profits rather than
wastes. While it is in the best interest of businesses to utilize materials as efficiently as possible, measuring the
prevalence of waste reduction efforts can be challenging. The abundance of organizations selling or distributing
used items indicates that there is an interest in extending the life of materials throughout the Asheville community.
Manna Food Bank, Habitat for Humanity, Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and several other organizations provide
services aimed at connecting people with excess or used products.
There are also organizations offering services to help businesses reduce waste generation. The Waste
Reduction Partners program is supported by the Land of Sky Regional Council, a planning and development
organization composed of Buncombe, Haywood, Henderson, Madison and Transylvania counties. To assist with
commercial and industrial source reduction, Waste Reduction Partners offers no cost waste assessments to
commercial, industrial, and institutional operations in WNC; composed of retired and volunteer industry specialists,
the group has helped over 1,300 clients save approximately $36 million (“Waste Reduction Partners”, 2012).

18 | G o o d m a n
As there is no incentive for businesses to purchase materials which become waste, rather than marketable
goods, it would seem very probable that there would be an interest in identifying opportunities to reduce waste
generation. It is worth noting that businesses have little incentive to consider what becomes of products after they
are sold. As long as there is a market demand for products that quickly become wastes, businesses are likely to
continue providing them to customers.
FOOD WASTE
In 1997, an estimated 27% of food produced for human consumption was wasted (Finn, O’Donnell, &
Walls, 2014). By 2012, a report for the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) proclaimed that from farm to
fork the total amount of food waste had increased to approximately 40%. In 2010, approximately 34 million tons of
food was disposed of, with only 3% recovered (Reducing wasted food & packaging, 2014). For that same year
Buncombe County’s MSW stream was estimated to contain 40,442 tons of food scraps, based on the national
average, which estimates that food scraps compose 13.9% of the waste stream (Buncombe County: Solid Waste
Management Plan, 2012).
A 2012 study by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) found
that 47% of the State's food waste is generated by the commercial sector (Leven, 2012). For the purpose of the
North Carolina 2012 Food Waste Generation Study, commercial waste was measured in a category including
institutional and industrial sources (Leven, 2012). The Post Harvest Project estimates that currently 40-50% of all
food in America is wasted, with grocery stores throwing away as much as a ton of food per week (Sezak-Blatt,
2015). Additional resources are lost through the energy required to grow, package, ship, and prepare food. In a
report by Dana Gunders of the NRDC, it was estimated that 80% of our water, 10% of our energy, and 50% of our
land are used to grow our food (Gunders, 2012).
The volume of food waste sent to municipal landfills is currently higher than any other material (“U.S.
Food Waste Challenge FAQ's”). This is particularly disconcerting when considering that Asheville has
been described as the sixth most food-insecure metropolitan area in the US; with North Carolina
as the second most food-insecure state (Ammons, 2015). It is estimated that one in six Americans is
experiencing some level of food insecurity (Let’s Feed Families, Not Landfills,” 2014). There are numerous
applications for excess foods, but the most pressing application is within the social sphere. Some excess food is
being used to address food insecurity through regional food banks and discount grocery stores in low-income areas
(Finn, O’Donnell, & Walls, 2014). The Think. Eat. Save Guidance Version 1.0 tool, designed by the United Nations
Environmental Program (UNEP), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the
Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP), estimates that capturing 25% of global food waste could feed all of
the world’s hungry people (“New reports target food waste reduction”, 2014).
Food donation organizations benefit businesses by providing tax deductions as well as reduced trash
disposal costs. Businesses may also benefit by engaging employees to become more active members of their
communities through volunteering at local food banks (Finn, O’Donnell, & Walls, 2014). While much of the food
waste in America is generated on farms and in homes, a significant volume results from excessive portions and over-
preparation in restaurants, overstocking, inappropriate sell-by dates, and intolerance for blemishes by retail
establishments (Finn, O’Donnell, & Walls, 2014).
Additional socioeconomic benefits of reducing food wastes include reduction in cost of maintaining
landfills, elimination of costs associated with producing, processing, and distributing food that is not consumed, and
providing high-value calories to food insecure individuals which can reduce the demands of poor nutrition and
obesity on the healthcare industry. The vehicle miles travelled to take food to the landfill are often greater than for

19 | G o o d m a n
programs redistributing food within the community, reducing GHG emissions from transportation (Finn, O’Donnell,
& Walls, 2014).
The EPA’s SMM program promotes the Food Recovery Challenge as an opportunity for communities to
contribute to efforts to eliminate hunger, reduce environmental impacts, and save money on purchasing and disposal
costs (Reducing wasted food & packaging, 2014). The program provides participants with access to data
management software and technical assistance to continually increase sustainable food management practices. Data
collected is used to generate metrics for demonstrating the benefits of sustainable food management practices, such
as tons of carbon emissions avoided or equivalent measures such as number of cars off the road (“U.S. Food Waste
Challenge FAQ's”).
In their article “The time is ripe for food recovery”, Finn, O’Donnell, and Walls emphasize that there are
ample opportunities for more sustainable food waste management practices in the US. Continued population shifts
towards urban centers are increasing density and decreasing collection costs. Currently, only a few hundred
businesses out of the millions eligible for the EPA’s Food Recovery Challenge are participating (“Food Recovery
Challenge,” 2015). With ever increasing rates of food insecurity and obesity, there is a pressing need to responsibly
manage our valuable food resources. The social, economic, and environmental costs of disposing of these resources
can no longer be absorbed by communities in need (Finn, O’Donnell, & Walls, 2014).
In 2002, USDA researcher Dr. Timothy Jones investigated the sources of food wastes generated by
restaurants, convenience stores, and supermarkets in NC. Jones found fast-food establishments generate the most
food waste because of storage and delivery practices that failed to account for irregular customer demands ("North
Carolina 2012," 2012). Adjusting purchasing patterns would reduce upfront materials costs as well as disposal fees.
There are many organizations in Asheville that collect food waste for use by charitable organizations. The
DigLocal app, previously known as LocalFlavorAVL, is designed to connect people to businesses, products, and
services in their community. Their operations include the Food Connection program which connects food donation
programs to excess food from restaurants and catering services. The program relies on donations of 18 servings or
more, which are collected and delivered by Asheville Taxi. To increase the convenience of the service Asheville
Taxi commits to showing up within 30 minutes of being called (McReynolds, 2015). The taxi service is paid for
with donations from Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church. Donors are protected from liabilities concerning food
donations by the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act (“Curb hunger with a curbside donation”, 2015).
MANNA Foodbank is a division of Feeding America, serving WNC by distributing foods to community-
based assistance programs. In 2014, MANNA distributed 15 million pounds to approximately 248 agencies, across
16 counties; 11.2 million pounds of the food distributed by MANNA was donated by industry partners (“About
MANNA Foodbank”, 2015). While many of the donations are non-perishable goods provided by the general public,
contributions are also made by retailers, packing houses, and farmers. MANNA accepts all types of food safe for
human consumption, including products close to code expiration dates, mislabeled products, surplus production,
discontinued products, shipping errors, un-harvested or post-peak produce, cosmetically damaged produce, food
with imperfect packaging, and with production flaws (“Donate Food: MANNA Food bank”, 2015).
The EPA’s Food Waste Hierarchy includes animal feed as one potential use for food waste. Hog farmers
may sustain their livestock on food waste (“Feed animals: Food waste”, 2013). North Carolina is one of the nation’s
largest hog farming states, with more hogs than people (“North Carolina Facts: Factory Farm Map”, 2015). Much of
the spent brewers’ grain generated by breweries in Asheville is collected by area farmers. Black Soldier Fly larvae
are a “high-value feed source, rich in protein and fat,” that can also consume food waste (Makkar, Tran, Heuzé, &
Ankers, 2014). Black Soldier Flies are naturalized to our region and have long been recognized as a valuable
resource for converting food waste into a feed market commodity.

20 | G o o d m a n
Following the EPA’s Food Waste Hierarchy there are ample incentives and infrastructure available for
Asheville to manage food more sustainably. Food retailers and service providers are economically incentivized to
eliminate food that is wasted before it reaches customers. There are robust markets and disposal options for
businesses wishing to divert organic materials from landfill waste. The tax benefits for donating excess foods,
combined with convenient donation collection service providers, indicates there are few barriers for participation in
programs which connect food resources with those in need.
2.1.2 RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING
The second most efficient use of materials extends their life-cycles through recycling and composting.
Recycling is carried out through “a series of activities that includes the collection of used, reused, or unused items
that would otherwise be considered waste; sorting and processing the recyclable products into raw materials; and
remanufacturing the recycled raw materials into new products. Consumers provide the last link in recycling by
purchasing products made from recycled content” ("Non-Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy", 2013).
Recycling can also be used to describe composting of organic materials such as food waste and yard trimmings
("Non-Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy", 2013).
Recycling reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills and incinerators, sustaining the environment for
future generations, while creating well-paying jobs in the recycling and manufacturing industries (“Recycling
basics”, 2015). Paper, glass, plastic, metal, and electronics may be found in a variety of waste streams. Increasing
recycling rates of commercial establishments could impact several waste streams, particularly paper and electronics.
The waste of an individual commercial establishment is generally accrued in larger volumes than an individual
home. Influencing the multitude of commercial ventures can impact more diverse communities than targeting
industries generating massive volumes of process specific waste. Growing commercial participation in recycling
programs reduces the amount of these materials currently being sent to landfills, saving energy, while encouraging
further development of already established markets.
“Solid waste generation per person per day peaked in 2000 while the 4.38 pounds
per person per day is the lowest since the 1980’s. The recycling rate has
increased–from less than 10 percent of MSW generated in 1980 to over 34
percent in 2012. Disposal of waste to a landfill has decreased from 89 percent of
the amount generated in 1980 to under 54 percent of MSW in 2012.”
("Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for
2012", 2014)
Participation in recycling and composting programs, as well as waste generation rates, have changed
dramatically over the last few decades. In 2012, Americans generated approximately 251 million tons of trash, of
which 34.5% was recycled or composted (Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United
States: Facts and Figures for 2012, 2014). There are countless international, national, and state level examples of
opportunities for municipalities to facilitate increased participation in these programs. The continued success of the
industry indicates there is a high probability for the successful adoption of these behaviors by businesses in
Asheville.
RECYCLING
The EPA promotes the following as benefits to recycling materials: prevents emissions of GHG and water
pollutants related to landfilling and incinerating wastes, saves energy used for extracting and transporting raw
materials, creates jobs, stimulates circular economy, conserves resources for future generations, and reduces

21 | G o o d m a n
demands for landfills and combustors ("Non-Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy", 2013). Current resource
extraction methods for many industries are energy intensive and have devastating effects on the environment.
Recycling materials can reduce rates of extraction, if the recycled feedstock can serve as an economical substitute
for raw materials. Efforts to reduce the energy demands of extractions should be coupled with increasing
consideration for the energy demands of recyclability and bi-products of recycling, into the original products design
process. Waste materials that are challenging to separate for the recovery of individual components are less likely to
be used because of economic and energy costs.
Calculating the impacts of waste generation and the value of recycling requires an examination of the
embodied energy of materials and how transforming waste materials back into market commodities compares to
extracting raw materials. The embodied energy of materials is calculated by reviewing every step of the
manufacturing process, from the raw material to the final product (Birkeland, 2002). A complete analysis of a
material's embodied energy would entail an evaluation of every material involved in extraction, transportation,
production, use, repair, maintenance, disposal, and decomposition. Assumptions must be made in regards to specific
embodied energy, and they are useful for assigning value to energy lost and gained. As a material’s form is changed,
energy is consumed by the system performing work on the material. Transforming materials corresponds with
thermodynamic devaluation of matter (Gößling-Reisemann, 2008). As waste materials are recycled into other
products, significant amounts of energy are required to power transformation, resulting in products with a lower
value, but higher embodied energy, than before processing (see Appendix A).
Curbie is an Asheville based company that sorts mixed recyclable materials for distribution. “Waste Pro,
Waste Management, GDS, Republic Services all bring their recyclables,” to Curbie, as do many other waste
collection service providers (Sezak-Blatt, 2015). Curbie recycles 1000 tons of material, or more, every month; from
Buncombe, Henderson, Madison, Transylvania and Yancey counties ("Curbie: Commercial services”, 2013).
Curbie’s recycling service saves waste haulers over $550,000 per year in landfill tipping fees. The range of materials
accepted by Curbie has grown since its inception. Some materials are not accepted because there is no financial
value for end users to establish markets reusing, recycling, or composting some materials; others contain toxins that
can cause health problems. Curbie makes a great effort to ensure all materials are shipped within a 5-6 hour radius of
Asheville; the market value for most recyclable materials is not great enough to justify shipping beyond this radius
(N. Lawson of Curbside Management, personal communication, September 23, 2015).
NORTH CAROLINA
NC HB 1518 requires businesses that obtain ABC permits to offer proof of recycling. HB 1518 applies to
the entire State but only affects ABC permit holders, targeting glass waste. Broader policies at the State level have
been utilized by municipalities to establish more encompassing legislation.
The North Carolina General Assembly Statute 160A-317 (NCGS 160A-317), authorizes cities in NC to
require owners of improved properties to “participate in a recycling program by requiring separation of designated
materials by the owner or occupant of the property prior to disposal” (NCGS_160A-317). Several municipalities
have taken advantage of this legislation to establish policies aimed at reducing waste. However, there are few
examples of strictly enforced policies.
CITY OF DURHAM, NC
In 1997, the City of Durham passed an ordinance applying to residential, commercial, and industrial waste
generators, making it unlawful to place target recyclables in the trash; including newspapers, aluminum cans, glass
bottles and jars, cardboard, and steel cans (“City of Durham: State and local regulations”, 2012). This ordinance is
not currently enforced, but serves as a statement of values and offers a precedent for establishing regulations.

22 | G o o d m a n
Employees from the City’s Solid Waste Department are available to consult businesses on conducting waste audits
as well as developing and implementing recycling plans (“City of Durham: Business Recycling,” 2015).
The City of Durham provides trash and recycling services to 1,100 businesses as an effort to increase
participation in recycling programs (“City of Durham: State and local regulations”, 2012). Multi-family
developments with less than four residential units per building and businesses generating a maximum of two cubic
yards (four roll carts) of garbage per week, are eligible to receive a curbside garbage collection service provided by
the City of Durham. There is no charge for collection and the first cart is free; the service and first cart are paid for
through the City’s general fund (“Requirements for multi-family and commercial garbage and recycling facilities”,
2006).
CITY OF RALEIGH, NC
The City of Raleigh, NC offers curbside garbage and recycling services for businesses located within its
Central Business District. Businesses are provided 64-gallon roll carts which may be collected 6-7 days per week. A
Monday-Friday garbage and recycling service is $65, or $50 for recycling only. The Monday-Sunday service is $76
for garbage and recycling, and $58 for recycling only (“Garbage & recycling for businesses”, 2015). A list of over
150 businesses in downtown Raleigh that have elected to recycle is publicized on the City's Solid Waste Services
webpage. Some businesses outside of the downtown area are eligible for the City’s recycling service but they must
purchase a recycling cart and pay a monthly fee (“Garbage & recycling for businesses”, 2015).
CALIFORNIA’S MANDATORY COMMERCIAL RECYCLING LAW
California is a world leader in developing legislation to address environmental issues. As scientists have
become more aware of the effects of mishandling waste, California policymakers have responded with innovative
measures. Monitoring programs put in place 30 years ago, reveal the effects and contributors to climate change,
which have been dramatically impacting conditions in California. Assembly Bill 32, California's Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, is a broad piece of legislation which was passed as an effort to reduce climate change by
reducing GHG within the State (Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act). This facilitated the development
of other pieces of legislation targeting specific industries. Assembly Bill 341, California’s Mandatory Commercial
Recycling Law, was passed to reduce emissions related to commercial waste generation. Implementing these
policies was made possible by gaining input from a variety of stakeholders, agencies, and visionary leaders.
In June 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1018, an amendment to AB 341 requiring all
establishments generating 4 cubic yards of commercial solid waste, or more, per week, to sign up for recycling
services. Businesses that are accountable for compliance include multifamily dwellings that contain five or more
units ("Mandatory commercial recycling," 2013). By 2020, AB 341, is expected to save the State as much as $40-
$60 million, if the State is able to reach its goal of 75% diversion (Medina, 2012). A major challenge for waste
management is the size of California’s economy. Industry, agriculture, and tourism generate massive amounts of
waste. An estimated 470,000, businesses and multifamily dwellings were affected by this regulation. The
uninterrupted growth of California’s economy challenges their ability to meet diversion goals (The History of the
California EPA: Integrated Waste Management Board, 2009).
The data gathered from government studies in California has contributed to a better understanding of policy
effectiveness and issue development. Through comprehensive data analysis and stakeholder engagement
policymakers have been able to gain insights into what approaches are best able to address environmental, social,
and economic issues. All jurisdictions in California had recycling policies before AB 341 was passed. The financial
burden, and outcry from businesses that other states might face for passing similar legislation was dulled because of
the years of infrastructure that had already been established.

23 | G o o d m a n
Similar to current waste management policies for businesses established in NC, AB 341 is more symbolic
than specific; in that it does not define requirements for types of materials or volumes ("Mandatory commercial
recycling: F.A.Q.," 2013). Local governments are ultimately responsible for designing implementation, education,
monitoring, and enforcement programs. Compliance is measured by a jurisdiction's ability to demonstrate that a
good faith effort was made in implementing an effective program. The regulation does not require enforcement.
CalRecycle, California’s Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery, conducts annual site visits, including a
review of Electronic Annual Reports, and full evaluations of jurisdictions are carried out every two to four years.
Jurisdictions that fail to demonstrate a good faith effort in implementing a program may be placed on a compliance
order, but jurisdictions cannot hold businesses accountable unless they adopt their own enforcement rules
("Mandatory commercial recycling," 2013). It is left to local jurisdictions to determine how best to structure their
programs and which materials to include. Regulations were designed to allow flexible enforcement by local
governments, using what resources were available to them. Some cities have excelled and emerged as leaders in
creating effective programs, whereas others have lagged behind.
In an effort to aid jurisdictions in the development of effective programs, CalRecycle partnered with the
Institute for Local Government (ILG) to create a packet of materials for local governments to build on. Sample
ordinances, case studies, flyers, webinars, examples of other programs, discussion forums, and a series of other tools
are available to be used as models which can be customized for local preferences ("Mandatory commercial
recycling," 2013). These tools can be found at the Commercial Recycling Resource Center webpage through the
ILG, or through hyperlinks located on CalRecycles’ webpage ("Institute for Local Government: Commercial
Recycling Resource Center").
California legislators have been successful in implementing policies that direct the economy towards more
sustainable markets. Barriers for participation in recycling programs have been removed without forcing
unnecessary burdens on citizens and business owners. This has facilitated the creation of jobs through the growth of
the recycling industry with the added benefit of recovering materials that still have value rather than disposing of
them in landfills. The health benefits for the public and environment gained from reducing waste generation further
impact climate change by reducing air pollution. AB 341’s effectiveness will be determined in the next few years. If
it performs as well as previous legislation, AB 341 will become part of California’s legacy of successful
environmental policy. Though NCGS 160A-317 does not define requirements as strictly as AB 341, it does establish
municipalities’ right to develop more specific legislation. Additional incentives for municipalities in NC to establish
stronger SMM policies may be discovered as the impacts of California’s reforms are announced.
COMPOSTING
Compost is organic material that can be used as a soil amendment or as a medium to grow plants. Mature
compost is a soil-like material made by combining specific ratios of a variety of organic wastes into rows, piles, or
vessels, which accelerate the breakdown of organic materials. This process results in high-temperatures which must
be regulated to ensure pathogens and weed seeds are destroyed. The final soil amendment benefits communities
through a variety of applications including enriching soils supporting agricultural operations, habitat restoration, and
stormwater mitigation (“Composting for Facilities: Basics”, 2014).
The United Nations named 2015 as the “International Year of Soil” (Alexander, 2014). While agricultural
and landscaping operations use the most compost, many high value soil mixes are applied to stormwater
management systems. The application of organic matter to topsoil can reduce irrigation requirements and improve
stormwater penetration, reducing the risk of floods and drought.
Composting recycles organic materials back into economically beneficial products and releases less
methane, a GHG “with 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide”, than when organic materials

24 | G o o d m a n
decompose in landfills (“The Food Recovery Hierarchy”, 2014). Landfills currently account for approximately 20%
of the human-related methane generation in the US (“The Food Recovery Hierarchy”, 2014). Reducing the volume
of organic materials entering landfills positively impacts communities by reducing GHG emissions and keeping
valuable resources circulating through the economy and environment.
Danny’s Dumpster is currently the largest commercial composting service provider in Asheville, offering
recycling, composting, and garbage disposal services. Recyclables are delivered to Curbie and organic materials are
composted at their own local processing facility; some items still go to the landfill, but demands are drastically
reduced. Danny’s Dumpster processes 40 tons of food waste/per week, collected from 120 locations, on 6 acres of
land in East Asheville which is leased from the City. Danny Keaton estimates that he collects less than 5% of the
food waste generated in the area (Sezak-Blatt, 2015).
Danny’s Dumpsters offers the following testimonial from a local restaurant owner on their website:
We started recycling in 2006, two years ahead of the State law that required ABC permit holders to
recycle glass and plastic. It was the right thing to do and we have never regretted it, but at times it's
been difficult. We had recycling to take care of... and all the compostable material that a restaurant
of our size produces every day just going to the landfill.
When Danny's Dumpster came to see us we were excited to say the least. Danny now takes away
our recycling and our compostable goods and has reduced our trash pickups by 66 percent. Overall
our garbage and recycling bill has dropped slightly and most of what is leaving the building is
actually doing some good for the environment. Being environmentally conscious and saving money
doesn't have to be mutually exclusive!
- Kevin Westmoreland, Co-owner of The Corner Kitchen ("Danny’s Dumpster: Services and
products," 2012).
The cost benefits of composting are not always extensive and there are no strong policy incentives at the
state or local level supporting the industry. Examples of policies and incentive programs can be found in many other
states and municipalities.
MASSACHUSETTS ORGANICS BAN
On October 1, 2014 Massachusetts instituted a ban on landfill disposal of commercial organics from
establishments generating one ton or more of food waste per week (Goldstein, 2014). The ban is not enforced at the
commercial level but rather for haulers which may have loads refused or accepted at higher tipping fees when
delivered to landfills. Compliance is made possible by the organic hauling industry which has grown significantly
over the years (Goldstein, 2014).
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: SCRAPS PROGRAM
In 2010, the City of Aspen, in collaboration with Pitkin County, was awarded a grant from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment’s Recycling Resource Economic Opportunity Fund to establish a
food waste diversion program. Known as SCRAPS, the program is designed to encourage the diversion of food
wastes by removing barriers to participation. Residents and businesses are offered a free collection container and
educational resources with instructions on how to separate food waste and soiled paper so that it may be composted
at the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC) (Clark, 2015).
The City of Aspen’s Department of Environmental Health Services (DEHS) conducts direct outreach to
commercial operations to encourage participation, focusing on restaurants and hotels. Participation was also

25 | G o o d m a n
encouraged at the PCSWC where haulers were able to drop food waste off for free through July 2015, with the hope
that haulers would pass the savings on to customers. Tipping fees at the PCSWC are now $35/ton for organic
material, and $52/ton for landfill waste, allowing haulers to continue to offer collection services at reduced costs
(Clark, 2015).
Additional financial savings for restaurants was made possible when Pitkin County Landfill used part of the
funds from the grant to purchase a large compost grinder for breaking down food and paper waste. The compost
grinder allows the landfill to accept 60-70% more materials for composting (“Restaurant Compost Program”, 2010).
Currently the City of Aspen has a PAYT waste management plan for residents and commercial operations, creating
additional financial incentives for participation in the SCRAPS program. The City of Aspen and PCSWC also offer
discount coupons for SCRAPS participants who wish to purchase compost (Clark, 2015).
The St. Regis Aspen Resort is a luxury hotel that began participating in November 2014. The resort began
implementing the SCRAPS program in their kitchen where the staff has daily meetings, making it easy to offer
frequent reminders concerning materials accepted and instructions for sorting. The program has since been expanded
throughout the resort with the help of educational signs offered through the SCRAPS program. The educational
materials provided through the SCRAPS program are credited for preventing the contamination of food waste
streams (Clark, 2015). Staff are enthusiastic about participation because they see the full circle benefits for the
community. Enriched soils fuel the production of local foods utilized by the resort. Taking trash out and placing it
into separate bins is not seen as requiring any additional work but by diverting 6,000 pounds of materials weekly
throughout the SCRAPS program, the resort has been able to reduce the number of weekly trash collections and
subsequently operating costs (Clark, 2015).
Program prioritization can be tied to the small, rural, and remote nature of the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County. Citing another landfill within the County is perceived as unlikely or impossible. Even if the funds were
available, the need for reform is immediate. Once their current landfill reaches its capacity, they will be forced to
pay heavy transportation and tipping fees to ship waste outside of the County. While landfill capacity is cited as the
primary reason for reform, benefits surrounding GHG reduction and food security are also recognized (Clark, 2015).
Like Aspen, Asheville is a relatively small urban center with rural surroundings. The tourism and
hospitality industries benefit greatly from surrounding farmland and natural features and increasing composting rates
is one way these industries can benefit farmers and the environment. These rural features also make siting a landfill
logistically more challenging and requires the taking of valuable natural resources.

26 | G o o d m a n
III. IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND BENEFITS
The following steps developed by McKenzie-Mohr were applied for uncovering barriers and benefits:
Step 1. Conduct a literature review of relevant articles and reports
Step 2. Observe people engaging in the targeted behavior
Step 3. Explore attitudes of targeted audience (through focus groups)
Step 4. Survey target audience to enhance knowledge of perceived barriers and benefits
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1.1 STAKEHOLDER BARRIERS & BENEFITS TO SMM
The barriers and benefits for SMM by businesses are significantly impacted by barriers and benefits for
policymakers and waste service providers. While the primary objective of this project is to promote SMM by
businesses, the behaviors of businesses and their motivations for engaging in sustainable behaviors must be
considered within the context of the entire community. The following section reviews literature focused on barriers
and benefits to SMM for relevant stakeholders, and literature on related topics is referenced throughout this report.
Barriers to behaviors may be internal to an individual, such as a lack of knowledge, or external, as in
structural inconveniences. There can be multiple internal and external barriers to widespread participation in any
form of sustainable behavior, which can vary across individuals. Strategies for promoting behaviors cannot be
developed before identifying perceived barriers. For the City to develop effective policies, barriers to SMM policies
must be removed for businesses, waste service providers, and municipalities.
SMM offers many benefits throughout communities: municipalities do not have to site new landfills,
haulers and waste service providers have an opportunity to diversify and increase employment, and businesses
benefit from supporting circular economy. By keeping valuable materials circulating throughout the local economy
and preserving the integrity of natural resources, many of these benefits can extend across generations.
BUSINESSES
BARRIERS
INCONVENIENCE
To be profitable, many small businesses must utilize all resources as efficiently as possible. Reducing food
waste generation through participation in food donation programs can consume time and resources. Businesses do
not always have space available to store dead-stock items or time to deliver materials to donation centers. Donation
programs must often take responsibility for ensuring convenient and reliable pick-ups while carrying out
administrative tasks related to documentation for tax purposes (Finn, O’Donnell, & Walls, 2014).
Presently, the only recycling convenience centers located in Asheville are the Buncombe County transfer
station and Curbie’s recycling center. Many downtown businesses wishing to utilize either of these facilities must
drive more than 10 minutes, in one direction, and haul materials in personal or company vehicles.

27 | G o o d m a n
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
As with any efforts towards encouraging behavior changes, waste diversion programs must overcome
resistance to change (Craig, 2000). California State Bill 270 went into effect in July 2015, and grocery stores,
drugstores, and convenience stores are no longer be able to distribute single-use plastic bags (“California Passes
First Statewide Bag Ban”, 2014). The bill was passed despite resistance from many out-of-state plastic bag makers
and politicians. Though there was much opposition there was also support from “grocers, retailers, food workers,
waste haulers, local governments, and in-state bag companies” who helped shape SB 270 (“California Passes First
Statewide Bag Ban”, 2014). Businesses are still allowed to offer paper, reusable, and compostable bags at a
minimum charge of $0.10 cents each. In 2014, 124 cities and counties, covering 35% of the population, had already
adopted a local bag ordinance (“California Passes First Statewide Bag Ban”, 2014). Policymakers hope the bill will
encourage plastic bag manufacturers to transition to more sustainable bags and create green jobs (“California Passes
First Statewide Bag Ban”, 2014).
Many businesses in Asheville have voluntarily elected to adopt similar SMM practices. Grocers, French
Broad Food Co-op and Hopey & Company, located in downtown, as well as many other businesses across
Asheville, offer used cardboard boxes to customers who do not wish to use plastic bags. Reusable bags are popular
in many grocery and retail stores across Asheville. Businesses that might resist policies encouraging behavior
change can be referred to early adopters as examples for how transitions are more easily applied. SMM practices
have been successfully adopted by businesses across Asheville, and sharing their stories can help overcome
resistance to change.
LIABILITY CONCERNS
The Good Samaritan Act protects agencies that donate food from legal repercussions related to the
consumption of donated foods that may be unintentionally contaminated (Finn, O’Donnell, & Walls, 2014). The
Good Samaritan Act was specifically created to promote food donations by protecting companies from liability
related to their donations. Companies donating wholesome foods in good faith are protected from civil and criminal
liability (“Food Waste Reduction and Prevention”, 2015).
HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS
Compliance with health department regulations is often cited as a concern for businesses wishing to
participate in composting programs (Craig, 2000). Food waste generates unpleasant odors and attracts vermin
attributed with the spread of disease. Some businesses fear that this will result in penalties from health departments.
It is however important to note that if these materials are not separated from garbage for collection as compost, then
they still exist within garbage containers.
BENEFITS
REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF DISPOSAL COSTS
The financial benefits of recycling vary depending on the volume and variety of materials generated by a
small business. Offices and small businesses generating large amounts of paper have an opportunity to nearly cut
disposal costs in half by recycling. The range of materials accepted through Curbie’s co-mingled recyclable
collection service increases the number of businesses that can benefit from the program. Businesses that recycle but
also generate materials that must go to a landfill can still save money by reducing the size of garbage containers
when volumes and the frequency of trash collections are decreased.
Recognizing the value of waste can provide a competitive advantage when the cost of operating is
decreased (Redmond, Walker & Wang, 2008). To manage materials sustainably, businesses must consider a wide

28 | G o o d m a n
range of components, but effective supply chain management can improve operations and increase financial gains
(Khalili, 2011). Systematic waste reduction is best achieved by targeting its generation. Investing in appliances built
for longevity may have higher initial costs but they are more affordable when compared to buying multiple short-
term solutions. Economics Nobelist Sir John Hicks defined income as “the amount, whether natural or financial
capital, one could consume during a period and still be as well-off at the end of the period” (Khalili, 2011).
Purchasing standards can reduce the possibility of wasting finances on products that do not last.
Paper waste can be significantly reduced by adjusting printer settings to be double sided, and minimizing
margin and font sizes (“Paper Recycling: Schools and offices,” 2013). This requires little effort and reduces
purchasing costs. Businesses should examine their purchases and behaviors for unnecessary waste generation points,
excessive packaging, and harmful ingredients. Employee behaviors and standard business practices can be adapted
to reduce waste generation from multiple sources. Business relationships are strengthened when people
communicate concerns and suggest solutions. Suppliers that pay for unnecessary packaging are wasting their own
money and delivering materials to the end user who also absorbs some of the additional costs. Businesses do the
same thing when they provide bags at their own expense. Encouraging customers to bring their own reusable
containers reduces packaging expenses and consumer waste.
Food waste costs the commercial food service industry an estimated $100 billion dollars each year
(Reducing wasted food & packaging, 2014). There are many ways for businesses to reduce operation costs by
reducing food waste. Purchasing food that becomes waste is an inefficient use of finances and staff time. Businesses
can cut the time required for employees to order, handle, and dispose of food wastes by only purchasing materials
that are certain to be utilized (“The Food Recovery Hierarchy”, 2014). Businesses that reduce the amount of food
waste they generate can save money by reducing the size of their waste receptacles or frequency of collections.
As described above, the EPA’s Food Waste Hierarchy offers multiple options for diverting food wastes.
Businesses that choose to donate materials or excess foods to food banks and other charitable organizations are
eligible for tax benefits (“The Food Recovery Hierarchy”, 2014). This process is made easier by organizations
which exist to assist with tracking donations to simplify claiming tax benefits (“Food Waste Reduction and
Prevention”, 2015). While source reduction and feeding people are prioritized, businesses can also benefit in
reduced disposal costs by making food waste available for animal feed, further benefiting farmers and zoos’ in the
community who are then able to spend less on animal feed (“Feed animals: Food waste”, 2013). The infrastructure
for following this hierarchy already exists in Asheville.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Staff may benefit personally from waste reduction methods learned at work. Employee enthusiasm
increases when people feel they are contributing to a greater good. When people are not engaged with their work
they are less productive and waste time and finances. Interacting with their waste to ensure it can be used again
connects employees with the effects of their actions and consumption patterns. Employees that may not be inclined
to reduce waste generation to save their employers money may be more likely to change their behavior if they feel
like they are benefiting society. Emphasizing the value of waste materials reflects an understanding of the value of
reducing material waste.
IMPROVE SANITATION
Compost collection programs are often more sanitary than traditional garbage disposal methods. Compost
collection programs offer durable and leak proof containers which are generally collected more frequently than
intermingled garbage containers resulting in reduced odors and vermin (“The Food Recovery Hierarchy”, 2014).
Danny’s Dumpster collects from downtown Asheville six days per week, whereas the City’s Sanitation Department
only collects once per week.

29 | G o o d m a n
WASTE SERVICE PROVIDERS
BARRIERS
ENSURING ADEQUATE VOLUMES
Waste haulers have many factors to consider when setting collection fees. The cost of landfill tipping fees
and local fuel prices significantly impact collection costs. While disposal fees are much less for recycling haulers,
and many are actually able to profit from waste materials, setting appropriate collection fees has the additional
challenge of ensuring adequate volumes (Craig, 2000). The opportunity for recycling and compost haulers to pass
disposal cost savings onto customers is contingent upon the volume of materials collected from a business,
contamination rates, and the concentration of businesses in a collection area. Businesses generating large volumes of
recyclable and compostable waste materials may be able to cover collection costs by reducing the size of garbage
receptacles or frequency of garbage collections. However, if businesses are not generating significant volumes of
recyclable or compostable materials then additional service fees become economic barriers
UNDERDEVELOPED MARKETS
The high variety of commonly used plastics presents multiple challenges for reducing contamination of
varying grades and conserving embodied energy. Different plastic materials must be reprocessed using practices
specific to the material. Municipal recycling services often only address a select few grades of plastics. Many
plastics are unsuitable for reuse and it is exceptionally challenging for recycling service providers to find regional
markets that have applications for these materials (N. Lawson of Curbside Management, personal communication,
September 23, 2015). Recycling plastics begins with cleaning and sorting, followed by shredding, agglomeration,
and pelletizing, before reprocessing (Haggar, 2007). Sorting and cleaning must be carried out by the consumer and
again by the service provider. Depending on the application the recycling process may be completed in facilities that
are close in proximity, or spread out across the globe. Cleaning and sorting are often carried out by women and
children in developing countries; although there are mechanical processes that may also be employed (Haggar,
2007). Shipping materials back and forth across the globe is financially unsustainable. China has adopted a “green
fence” policy, and is no longer accepting imports of many low value plastics (N. Lawson of Curbside Management,
personal communication, September 23, 2015). To achieve SMM, there is a need to develop regional markets, or
reduce the prevalence of many of these materials.
TOXIC DESIGN
Many substances found in e-waste can be toxic to humans and the environment; the variety of toxins within
a single unit of waste can present multiple challenges. More than 40 periodic elements, including nickel, chromium
and lead, may be found in a single cell phone (Chen, Dietrich, Huo & Ho, 2011). The abundance of electronic
products containing toxic substances requires the availability of appropriate disposal methods. Increasing volumes
of e-waste, have resulted in state and federal policies concerning proper disposal (Sawyer, 2010). One barrier to
recycling e-waste is how widely distributed products have become, which is why many retailers and distributors
have been required to implement take-back programs (Harrison & Hester, 2009). E-waste returned to the
manufacturer for safe disposal is often sold internationally for scraps that may, or may not, be responsibly
processed. The pervasiveness of electronics within every sector of society, and the frequency at which these
materials become obsolete, carries externalities that governments will have to address soon. Promoting affordable
maintenance, repair, and reuse programs can help reduce the global impacts of these waste streams. Ultimately, this
issue falls on manufacturers to design products for longevity that can be easily repaired or remanufactured.

30 | G o o d m a n
BENEFITS
REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF DISPOSAL COSTS
Waste haulers’ collection fees and profits are significantly impacted by disposal costs. As aforementioned,
Buncombe County charges commercial haulers more to dispose of waste in landfills than to recycle, at $47 and
$39.60 per ton, respectively ("County services: Landfill," 2011). For waste haulers such as Curbie, and processors
such as Danny’s Dumpster, the cost of taking waste to the landfill is an expense, whereas recycling and composting
generate valuable market commodities contributing to profits.
MUNICIPALITIES
BARRIERS
DEVELOPING POLICY INCENTIVES
Municipalities are often restricted by their legislative powers to establish regulations that may be
considered as interfering with the private sector. Many municipalities wait until there is a waste crisis associated
with siting new disposal facilities before adopting waste reduction policies. The waste crisis for municipalities is
associated with the political challenges of siting waste disposal facilities (Garkowski, 2011). Municipal disposal
capacity shortages result in long-distance waste exports. While many municipalities are addressing these challenges
by diverting wastes at unprecedented rates, population growth and economic activities continue to result in
increasingly large and complex volumes of waste. Municipalities that delay addressing solid waste management
issues are often faced with tough decisions as landfills reach capacity. When two of the municipal landfills accepting
they City of Toronto’s waste closed, the Canadian municipality was forced to seek solutions within the private
sector. One of those solutions was to truck waste across international borders to a landfill in Michigan. This became
an important issue in the 2004 US Presidential elections, and a deal was made to stop the practice by 2010. Toronto
eventually purchased a new landfill, but only after several years of paying excessive transportation costs and tipping
fees to shift waste across international borders (Garkowski, 2011).
While many municipalities recognize the value in evaluating policies based on environmental, economic,
and social considerations, decisions regarding waste management are often limited by economic factors and resource
availability. The City of Asheville cannot easily influence the design of electronics that are imported from other
countries. Municipality budgets are tied to population size and tax base funding. Low population density further
impacts the availability of quality materials to feed developing markets (Garkowski, 2011). As municipally-owned
disposal capacity decreases waste diversion incentives increase. When municipal disposal capacity reaches a critical
state economic and political incentives for reducing waste are greater than siting a new facility or relying on the
private sector for waste disposal (Garkowski, 2011).
Asheville is widely recognized as having political views that differ from much of the State and Southeast
(Love, 2015). Thus far, NCGS 160A-317 has primarily been applied by municipalities to develop policies that are
not strictly enforced. If Asheville were to try to adopt programs with strong financial penalties for non-compliance,
the State would likely intercede on behalf of businesses. Current estimates assume that the Buncombe County
Landfill will last 20-25 years, so there is no immediate financial or political incentive for the City, County, or State
to enforce strict policies (Sezak-Blatt, 2015).

31 | G o o d m a n
BENEFITS
RESOURCE CONSERVATION & GHG REDUCTION
Food production requires water, fertilizers, pesticides, energy, and many other resources. In the US, 14% of
GHG emissions can be tied to the growing, manufacturing, transportation, and disposal of food (“Food Waste
Reduction and Prevention”, 2015). When food is wasted, the resources that were appropriated for its production are
also wasted. More than a quarter of annual freshwater consumption is directed to growing food that becomes waste
(Reducing wasted food & packaging, 2014). Reducing the amount of food wasted reduces the amount of resources
that are wasted to produce food (“Food Waste Reduction and Prevention”, 2015). It is estimated that an additional 3
billion middle class consumers will exist over the next two decades. Their additional consumption demands, coupled
with agricultural uncertainty related to the pressures of climate change, imply a critical need for addressing food
production inefficiencies (Finn, O’Donnell, & Walls, 2014).
The diversity and volume of products consumed by industrialized nation’s results in waste streams that can
be challenging to manage appropriately. Waste streams commonly contain materials that were developed through
energy intensive processes and maintain much of their original embodied energy after they have been used. Waste
materials left unsorted and sent to the landfill are frequently lost opportunities to save energy, improve
environmental and social sustainability, and possibly produce energy. The EPA estimates that the 87 million tons of
MSW recycled and composted in 2012, saved more than 1.1 quadrillion BTUs of energy, which was enough to
power 10 million households for a year; and eliminated 168 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, equivalent to the
emissions from 33 million passenger vehicles ("Infographic on MSW", 2014).
REDUCING FOOD INSECURITY
Approximately 50 million people in America do not have access to enough food (Reducing wasted food &
packaging, 2014). As previously mentioned, Asheville has gained notoriety as a food-insecure municipality.
Businesses that donate excess portions of edible foods help people in need and strengthen the resiliency of the
community.
SOIL IMPROVEMENT
Compost can be used for agricultural purposes to strengthen soils and reduce or eliminate the need for
chemical pesticides and fertilizers, while using less water, and promoting higher crop yields (“Composting for
Facilities: Basics”, 2014). Compost can also amend soils that have been contaminated or degraded, providing cost
savings of at least 50% over conventional remediation technologies (“Composting for Facilities: Basics”, 2014).
Developers often strip away and compact soils on construction sites. When topsoil is lost or compacted it
no longer functions as healthy soil. Unhealthy soils do not retain or filter water, leading to runoff and waterway
contamination. Compost can aid with stormwater management by filtering water contaminated with litter, oils, and
heavy metals (“Composting for Facilities: Basics”, 2014). Compost supports plant growth and increases disease
resistance; reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides, which harm water quality. Many municipalities have
adopted policies promoting compost application to amend soils in order to maximize the services offered by healthy
soils. The primary benefits are not directly related to the soil so much as the vegetation supported by healthy soils.
While healthy soils do offer better filtration and water retention services, long-term benefits are best seen when
plants are able to establish deep and stable root systems that further enhance these services (Cermansky, 2014).
Fort Collins, Colorado requires new building and development sites to apply soil amendments into at least
6 inches of soil in any turfed or landscaped area, at a minimum rate of 3 cubic yards/1000 square feet (Cermansky,
2014). Denver, Colorado requires all new residential, commercial, government, and industrial properties to apply
soil amendments to at least 6 inches of topsoil with 4 cubic yards of compost/1000 square feet of permeable area

32 | G o o d m a n
(Cermansky, 2014). Leander, Texas has an ordinance that requires new landscapes with turf to use at least 2 inches
of soil with 25% composed of compost, and a minimum soil depth of 6 inches (Cermansky, 2014). Facing runoff
and stormwater management challenges damaging to Chesapeake Bay, Maryland adopted legislation requiring a
minimum of 10% organic matter in planting beds and 5% in turf areas (Cermansky, 2014). These laws are enforced
through varying methods and intensity, some require developers to submit receipts, and others conduct inspections.
Quantifying the value and impacts of soil services is challenging and expensive. Denver and many other
municipalities are operating on the assumption that compost-amended soils require approximately 25% less water to
support turf and landscaping (Cermansky, 2014).
Asheville is currently experiencing a “1 billion dollar building boom” (Boyle, 2015). New construction is
occurring in every sector across Asheville. Compost legislation can help ensure that the features drawing people to
this region are strengthened, not degraded.
LANDFILL DIVERSION
Landfills are the third largest source of methane generation in the United States (“U.S. Food Waste
Challenge FAQ’s”). Approximately 95% of food waste that could be composted is sent to landfills and incinerators
("Infographic on MSW", 2014). Keeping large volumes of organic materials out of landfills extends the life of the
landfills and reduces the generation of methane and leachate (“Composting for Facilities: Basics”, 2014). Many
states have instituted bans on landfilling items such as organic waste because of the potential for a higher value
application, but also because of the excessive rates of methane and leachate generation (Alexander, 2014).
JOB CREATION
An estimated 2.5 jobs are created for every 1,000 tons of materials that are collected for recycling or
composting (Finn, O’Donnell, & Walls, 2014). In 2010, there were nearly 15,200 people employed in private sector
recycling related jobs in NC, with a 4.8% increase from 2008-2010 (Yarkosky, 2010). Approximately 54,121 people
are employed in positions related to recycling in SC, with a 44% increase in recycling employment from 2006 to
2014 (2014 South Carolina Recycling Industry Economic Impact Study). The average annual wage for recycling
jobs is $40,203; which is $1503 more than the average wage for all jobs in SC. Recycling-related companies
generate approximately $329 million in SC through state and local taxes annually. The total economic impact of the
recycling industry in SC doubled from 2006 to 2014, from $6.5 billion to $13 billion (2014 South Carolina
Recycling Industry Economic Impact Study). Asheville hosts many established sustainable waste service providers.
Increasing SMM legislation would boost employment within the waste management industry.
3.2 OBSERVATIONS
In Fostering Sustainable Behavior, McKenzie-Mohr promotes the observation of behaviors to further assist
in the identification of barriers and benefits. This can be particularly helpful if behaviors can be observed without
being influenced and if desired behaviors and competing behaviors are observed. As discussed, many sustainable
behaviors are divisible into sets of sub-behaviors. While this project focuses on SMM behaviors related to source
reduction and reuse, composting, and recycling, it is clear that these practices can be further divided into their
component behaviors. Source reduction and reuse, and composting behaviors were not observed as part of this
study.
The following images capture observed recycling practices related to preparation for collection, by
businesses in downtown Asheville (see Images 1-3). These images were taken at approximately 5pm, on a Tuesday
evening. They illustrate how businesses are gathering wastes to be collected by the City of Asheville Department of
Sanitation and Curbie on Wednesday mornings. When approaching businesses to invite participation in

33 | G o o d m a n
the Downtown Commercial Waste Management Survey, many indicated that they did not believe
they had any useful commentary to offer because they simply use the services provided by the
City of Asheville. While some businesses may be subscribing to private recycling services, several businesses
believed that the public sidewalk recycling bins were made available to extend this service to businesses as well;
although, as aforementioned, the City’s policy is to only offer garbage collection services to businesses, not
recycling. Several businesses also had the attitude that whatever they place on the street, the City will take
responsibility for proper disposal, so as to not disturb downtown aesthetics; one individual cited the illegal dumping
of furniture as an example.
Many businesses gather their recyclables and garbage beside sidewalk waste receptacles intended for the
public. Garbage and recycling volumes were observed taking up large portions of sidewalks. Whether businesses are
subscribing to private recycling collection services or not, there were many locations where cardboard boxes were
not properly broken down. Image 3 was taken outside of Woolworth’s, a popular art gallery and soda fountain,
where buskers often play.
Images 1 & 2. Downtown Asheville, Wall Street, 04/20/15
Image 3. Downtown Asheville, 25 Haywood St, 04/20/15

34 | G o o d m a n
3.3 ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS
McKenzie-Mohr suggests holding focus groups with randomly selected paid participants to discuss
perceptions of behaviors. Focus groups should consist of members already participating in behaviors as well as those
who are not. Time and resource constraints restricted the scheduling of focus groups, but multiple stakeholder
perspectives were captured through interviews. Through interviews do not facilitate the discussion of topics among
stakeholders the same way focus groups do, common concerns were identified and stakeholders were able to offer
detailed perspectives without being influenced by others. A business and three waste service providers were
interviewed. Waste service providers were primarily targeted for interviews prior to distributing surveys to
businesses to confirm which services were available. Additional feedback was offered after a presentation to the
general public at an Asheville GreenDrinks event. The presentation to Asheville GreenDrinks occurred after
stakeholders were interviewed and surveyed, in order to facilitate a discussion of survey and research conclusions.
While each of the waste service providers interviewed had different business models they discussed several
common points, including:
● Waste service providers and business customers are financially incentivized to reduce landfill waste
and avoid tipping fees
● Major challenges for waste service providers include: accessing collection containers, training
businesses customers to prevent contamination of valued materials, and ensuring collections are
efficient, safe, and considerate
● Policymakers can help waste service providers by requiring participation in SMM programs, assisting
with training programs, and ensuring that waste receptacles are accessible for collection vehicles
3.3.1 CASE STUDY: WICKED WEED
Dave Herrington - General Manager
03/02/2015
Wicked Weed was founded in December 2012, as a brewpub located in downtown Asheville. In 2014, their
first location produced approximately 5,000 barrels of beer (Neal, 2014). In October 2014, they opened their second
location in the area of downtown referred to as the South Slope (Kiss, 2014). Wicked Weed Brewing is slated to
have a third location open in Candler, NC by Fall 2015, which will be capable of producing up to 50,000 barrels of
beer annually (Neal, 2014).
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Efforts to reduce landfill waste on site are focused on composting and recycling through Danny’s
Dumpster, who also provides their trash service. Danny’s Dumpster was their first choice for waste collection
because they are a local small business providing a compost service. Spent grains from the brewery and food waste
are composted. Kitchen waste receptacles for compostables, recyclables, and landfill waste, are color coded,
strategically placed, and conveniently paired where space is available to increase ease of participation. The
Funkatorium, Wicked Weed’s second location, has less waste because they do not have the same volume of
visitation as their first location and they do not serve food which comes with a high variety of additional packaging.
Compostable carry out containers are provided to patrons as an effort to reduce waste disposal demands on
customers outside of their business.

35 | G o o d m a n
BENEFITS OF SMM
● Recognition as a good corporate citizen and neighbor
● Employees who are passionate about sustainable waste management are happy to help
● Danny’s Dumpster provides a convenient and quality service
CHALLENGES
● Employee and guest training present the greatest challenges to waste management
● More efforts towards waste reduction would be made if growth demands were not so intense
● Outdoor space waste storage is limited and waste receptacles must be stored adjacent to a
walkway
WASTE MANAGEMENT GOALS
● Their mission since opening was to be as sustainable as possible
● Would like to see more of their unconsumed food going to the needy
Wicked Weed is a company with a strong desire to operate sustainably, recognizing that there is always
room for improvement. While staff are aware of SMM practices, Wicked Weed’s customers may not be. They do
not have any green certifications and do not advertise their waste management practices online, though attention is
given to the sourcing of quality, and sustainably managed ingredients for their brewing and kitchen operations. The
success and growth of Wicked Weed restricts their ability to focus on non-essential tasks. Like many businesses
they cannot expend extensive resources on SMM practices when those resources are needed for maintaining daily
operations.
3.3.2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW: WASTE MANAGEMENT
Amanda Fairley - Sustainability Manager
03/18/2015
SUMMARY OF BUSINESS AND SERVICES
Waste Management (WM) is a national company offering sustainable waste services in Asheville. Their
commitment to sustainability is reflected in their biennial sustainability report. Green initiatives include recycling, as
well as landfill-gas-to-energy facilities, LEED building standards, land acquisition for conservation, and using
alternative fuels for transporting wastes. Their current goal is to manage 20 million tons of recyclable material by
2020 (Embracing the zero waste challenge: Sustainability report, 2012). WM collects single stream and sorted
recyclables in Asheville. Landfill waste is disposed of at the closest landfill. The majority of recyclable materials are
sent to Curbie, but some other recycling facilities are utilized to ensure the highest value application of materials; for
example, ceramic brick waste is diverted to a kiln for re-use by artists. When a customer has recycling needs that
cannot be met through existing partnerships, WM will assist their customers with finding other responsible disposal
options. Amanda Fairly, Sustainability Manager, provided an example of such an instance which resulted in
significant savings for their customer.
A WM customer had a trash compactor which needed to be hauled five times every week. The haul rate
was $175; averaging 5 tons each, costing the hauler $47 per ton to dispose of. Once WM found a recycling partner
that could accept the waste materials being generated, they were able to divert almost half of the waste from the
landfill. The pricing for the compactor remained the same, but they were able to reduce visits to three times per

36 | G o o d m a n
week. Combining less frequent visits with the reduced cost of recycling the majority of their waste, the customer
was able to save $675 per week.
If a business is generating a large volume of a specialty waste, WM has the resources to help find regional
markets if services are not locally available. The ability of WM to find markets is largely dependent on the volume
of waste and ability to collect without contamination. The convenience of single stream recycling must be paid for
by haulers. When customers sort materials themselves, they can potentially receive rebates for the materials
collected. Businesses generating large amounts of cardboard can find sorting particularly worthwhile for saving
money.
WM offers employee education programs and signs to ensure success of recycling programs. Waste audits
are provided to help prevent and reduce waste generation. Co-mingled recycling is offered to simplify participation
in their recycling program. WM contracts Danny’s Dumpster to provide composting services to their customers with
food waste. Experiences with customers in downtown indicate an above average interest in composting and
recycling.
BENEFITS OF SMM SERVICES
● Recycling reduces waste collection costs for customers
● WM offers hard-to-recycle services for items such as light bulbs, batteries, e-waste, and medical
waste to simplify participation
CHALLENGES
● Accessibility is an issue for servicing accounts in downtown, where poorly placed parked cars can
block service vehicles
● Need businesses to take time to train employees how to properly sort materials
● Sometimes WM cannot provide recycling services to businesses with extensive contamination
rates;
 Compostable corn cups are a significant source of contamination in recycling bins
● Continually focusing on educating customers about the positive impacts of recycling in order to
increase participation rates
● Hope to get help with accessing bins
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY OF ASHEVILLE
The City could help increase commercial participation in sustainable waste management programs by
implementing policies requiring participation. Increased participation in recycling and IWM programs might also be
achieved if bin accessibility was improved. It is also important for municipalities to fully utilize state resources such
as grants and greening education programs.
WM aims to ensure the materials they collect are managed as sustainably as possible. It is important for
municipalities to investigate the effectiveness of recycling services. There are some service providers offering a
convenient single-stream trash service with the promise that they will sort out recyclable materials at their facilities.
The issue with this model is that it is harder for recycling markets to manage materials contaminated by water and
food. Paper is an example of a material that must be sorted if it is to be transformed into a similarly valued product,
otherwise it is only suitable for compost. Sorting is an essential step for helping ensure products are utilized to their
highest recycling potential.

37 | G o o d m a n
3.3.3 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW: REPUBLIC SERVICES
Carrie Woodward - Account Manager
03/24/2015
Republic Services is one of the largest waste and recycling companies in the US. Their website highlights
environmental sustainability as a core business goal. Sustainable policies include holding suppliers accountable for
sustainable practices, experimenting with alternative fuels, and optimizing waste management for their customers.
Advisors develop customized strategies for sustainable waste and recycling services that make economic sense
("Republic Services: Business waste and recycling services," 2013). Account Manager, Carrie Woodward, stated
that their success in establishing recycling services has resulted in affordable pricing tiers that reflect market values.
Republic Services is the largest provider of commercial, industrial, and municipal waste management
services in WNC and the largest hauler of recyclable materials in Asheville. They are the only private provider that
assigns a personal account manager to each of their customers.
In order to respect taxpayers, waste is only sent from landfills within the county where the waste was
collected, despite the financial benefits of shipping waste to landfills with lower tipping fees. Most of the recyclable
materials they collect go to Curbie, but paper is sent to Asheville Waste Paper, and other materials are sent to
American Recycling.
● Recycling materials does not require tipping fees so haulers pass the savings on to their customers
● Personal account managers assigned by Republic Services increase service quality by:
 Conducting waste audits, which can lower waste management costs;
 Navigating permitting processes for businesses required to obtain ABC permits;
 Educating customers about potential markets for unique waste materials.
● The financial benefits of recycling vary by material but tend to increase with the scale of
generation
CHALLENGES
● Space to access containers with trucks is always a challenge but particularly within downtown
Asheville;
 Architects typically consider waste container placement in their designs for new
buildings, but little can be done for existing structures
● Waste collection staff risk injury when waste receptacles must be moved in hard to access areas
● Education;
 Many customers are not aware of what materials are accepted
 Cardboard boxes that are not broken down increase the need for more frequent
collections
● Cheaper materials are entering the waste stream
 Ex: Cardboard made from waste rice husks cannot be processed the same way as
cardboard made from paper

38 | G o o d m a n
● Looking to expand the use of plastic waste receptacles which would be easier for waste collection
staff to roll to access points
● Increasing route density to reduce collection costs and subsequent customer fees
● Would like to see more businesses with space restrictions sharing containers but this complicates
managing payments and can increase material mixing
● Need assistance with developing solutions to limited space available;
 Engage property owners to collaborate
 Ex: Madison County has a shared compactor paid for by the community
● Education and awareness are needed to help improve participation in sustainable waste
management programs
3.3.4 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW: DANNY’S DUMPSTER
Danny Keaton - Owner
04/27/2015
Danny’s Dumpster is a local waste collection and processing company offering composting services for
businesses across Asheville. Danny’s Dumpster currently collects and processes more than 40 tons of compostable
material per week on six acres of land owned by the City of Asheville. An agreement to lease space from the City
facilitated the move to their current facility in October 2012, after their previous site at Crowell Farms closed (Clark,
2013). By making this space available, the City of Asheville helped ensure Danny’s Dumpster is able to provide a
composting service to businesses in Asheville.
In addition to collecting compost, every week Danny’s Dumpster also collects 6-7 tons of recyclables per
week, which are sent to Curbie and Asheville Waste Paper, and 6-7 tons of trash that is taken to the landfill. Danny’s
Dumpster also offers consultation services for businesses interested in their waste management services. Training
videos and other educational materials can be found on their website. Danny recommends businesses seeking
comprehensive waste audits to Waste Reduction Partners.
● Aims to offer sustainable service that is also focused on quality
● Advises businesses on where to place containers for ease of access and reducing contamination
● Smaller collection receptacles are available to customers with extreme space restrictions;
 Partially made possible by their weekend collection service
● Composting does not require tipping fees so prices are competitive with landfilling
CHALLENGES
● Space for collection receptacles is the greatest challenge;
 They have to collect 6 days/week to keep up with waste generation rates
 Have also had to negotiate agreements between neighbors to share collection space
● Education is also a significant challenge;
 Processing compost is particularly difficult when organic materials are contaminated with
non-compostable materials

39 | G o o d m a n
● Collection logistics;
 Unpleasant odors have prompted some complaints
 Collection times are designed to avoid residential neighborhoods before daylight as much
as possible, but sometimes noises are reported to be a nuisance
● Would like to see legislation promoting composting in the residential, commercial, and industrial
sectors;
 Community drop-off centers, particularly downtown, could increase participation in
sustainable waste management practices
● Need to reduce trash generation and increase recycling rates
● Hard to recycle items (batteries, light bulbs, e-waste, etc) are logistically challenging to transport;
more convenience centers might help reduce landfill contamination rates
3.3.5 ASHEVILLE GREENDRINKS PRESENTATION
Green Sage
5 Broadway, Asheville, NC
June 24, 2015
Research findings were presented to the general public at Asheville GreenDrinks, a social networking event
focused on Sustainability. Approximately 20 individuals were in attendance. The nature of the event indicated that
attendees had a particular interest in issues related to sustainability or waste management in downtown Asheville. At
the end of the event, comments were made regarding the following topics:
● The need to evaluate siting waste collection areas in relation to residential units. There were
several individuals leasing residential units downtown that had experienced issues with waste
being disposed of, and collected, in a way that resulted in excessive noises.
● A desire to learn more about effectively delivering food to those in need. One individual had
helped collect meals to be distributed at a church event, but a low turnout resulted in the food
being wasted. As a result the individual was discouraged from organizing similar events.
● An interest in learning more about the specific impacts of waste on GHG emissions. If more
specific data were made available it would be possible to get an accurate figure of Asheville’s
Carbon Footprint. It was also pointed out that composting results in large amounts of methane
generation and that capturing that gas for energy might be a better use of resources.
Danny’s Dumpster makes an effort to be considerate of residents and businesses sensitive to offensive
odors and loud noises at certain times. The areas and hours that waste service providers are confined to make
avoiding conflicts exceptionally challenging. While businesses can negotiate solutions, additional success would
likely be achieved if the City were to join efforts.
No one wants to see food fit for human consumption go to the landfill, but transportation can be logistically
challenging for businesses as well as collection agencies. The City of Asheville could help several sectors of the
community by assisting with connecting those in need to available resources that would otherwise be disposed of as
waste. Beyond food, this could include a location for exchanging other materials such as furniture, art supplies,

40 | G o o d m a n
home goods, and countless other products that businesses and residents do not always have time to deliver to
donation sites.
The impacts of waste throughout our community are difficult to determine without data on waste
characterization, source identification, and generation rates. Obtaining this data is essential for developing effective
policies. The survey of Commercial Waste Management Practices in downtown Asheville attempted to get some
approximations of the volumes of materials generated by specific business types.
3.4 SURVEY
McKenzie-Mohr identifies seven steps for developing a well-constructed survey:
Step 1: Clarify objective
Step 2: List Items to be measured
Step 3: Design survey
Step 4: Pilot the survey
Step 5: Select the sample
Step 6: Conduct the survey
Step 7: Analyze the results
Each of these steps was followed to compose the survey of Commercial Waste Management Practices in
downtown Asheville. It is acknowledged that survey participants tend to inflate their likelihood of engaging in
certain behaviors and that respondents often have biases in favor of or against a topic, but surveys can provide
relative measures of likelihood (McKenzie-Mohr, Lee, Schultz, & Kotler, 2012).
3.4.1 OBJECTIVE CLARIFICATION
The purpose of this survey is to identify barriers and benefits to commercial sustainable MSW management
behaviors in the City of Asheville’s central business district (Downtown Asheville) and advise the City on strategies
for increasing commercial SMM. A secondary goal is to involve stakeholders representing businesses, waste
haulers, non-profits, and policymakers through the CBSM framework to assist with project design and development
of strategies for increasing SMM practices by businesses.
3.4.2 ITEMS TO BE MEASURED
● Barriers to SMM practices
● Benefits to SMM practices
● Are participants knowledgeable and able to make decisions about waste management practices?
● How do waste materials and generation rates vary across different types of businesses?
3.4.3 SURVEY DESIGN
To reduce barriers to participation clear instructions were provided, questions were mostly close-ended, and
it was possible to complete surveys in 10 minutes or less. Questions were designed so that participants would be
able and willing to answer questions which were written in such a way that they would mean the same thing to
everyone (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).

41 | G o o d m a n
3.4.4 PILOTING THE SURVEY
The CBSM framework suggests survey pilots consist of 10-15 participants and confirm that the survey can
be completed in 10 minutes or less; pilot data should not be analyzed with actual survey results (McKenzie-Mohr,
2010). Pilot surveys were distributed to 25 businesses in downtown Asheville. Businesses were contacted in person
and through email. Three responses were received indicating varying interests in increasing sustainable waste
management practices. The low response rate prompted further simplification and the shortening of the final survey.
3.4.5 SELECTING THE SAMPLE
The survey sample consisted of businesses in downtown Asheville. Downtown businesses were selected for
their unique space restrictions as well as for the high visitation rates by non-residents.
3.4.6 CONDUCTING THE SURVEY
The link to the online survey was shared through email, social media, a community newspaper, and on
business cards which were given to businesses in person. The survey was open for responses from 03/30/2015
through 04/22/2015, Earth Day (see Appendix B).
The City of Asheville helped with identifying email addresses for several businesses; email addresses were
also found by searching through business websites. In total, 190 businesses were contacted directly through email.
The Asheville Downtown Association (ADA) included the survey in three of their weekly email newsletters; on
04/09/15, 04/14/15, and 04/21/15. Their newsletter is sent to approximately 2,000 subscribers, with 400-500 views
typically. According to Jamie Carpenter, former Events & Operations Manager, “the last newsletter had 4 clicks on
your survey, 2 on the one before that, and 4 on the first one.”
Asheville Greenworks, Just Economics, and Lenoir-Rhyne University at Asheville shared the link to the
survey on Facebook with a brief introduction and invitation to participate. Asheville Greenworks is a division of
Keep America Beautiful, which promotes environmental conservation through outreach and volunteer projects.
They have 4,617 “likes” on Facebook. Just Economics is a regional living wage certification program with 806
“likes” on Facebook. Lenoir-Rhyne University Asheville has 1,710 “likes”. The link was also sent directly to 16
businesses on Facebook through private messages.
A Letter to the Editor of the Mountain Xpress inviting businesses to participate in the survey, was
published on April 15, 2015. The Mountain Xpress is a weekly publication with a print circulation of approximately
29,000. Articles are also available on their webpage, and the letter was viewed 800 times online before the survey
closed.
Business cards were distributed in person on eight days, for one to three hours each day, using geographic
convenience samples within downtown Asheville, on 03/30/15, 03/31/15, 04/06/15, 04/07/15, 04/08/15, 04/09/15,
04/13/15, and 04/20/15. A total of 141 businesses were provided business cards with the link to the survey.
Some of the businesses contacted directly also received emails or Facebook messages. In-person contacts,
direct emails, and Facebook messages are estimated to have reached 305 businesses, with 39 businesses contacted
twice.
3.4.7 ANALYZING THE DATA
The following methods for data analysis are recommended by McKenzie-Mohr: descriptive statistics,
frequencies, comparison of means, and multivariate statistics including multiple regression and discriminant
analysis/logistic regression.

42 | G o o d m a n
SURVEY RESULTS
RESPONSE RATE
The Commercial Downtown Waste Management Survey received 44 valid responses. Considering the 305
businesses that were contacted directly in person or via email, this indicates a 14.4% response rate. There are a
number of suspected factors that could have contributed to this low response rate. This survey was designed to be
completed in less than 10 minutes, but there may have been more responses if it had been shortened to 5 minutes.
While businesses cards with a link to the survey were distributed directly to 141 businesses, the cards may not have
reached decision makers with ample knowledge of MSW management practices. Many emails were sent to
addresses available on business webpages, which again, may not have reached appropriate decision makers.
The general attitude of businesses that were contacted directly indicated that there is little incentive to
pursue services outside of those currently offered by the City. Some businesses expressed that they did not believe
there was any value in them participating in such a survey because they believed the City was solely responsible for
making decisions about how waste is managed downtown. Others indicated that convenience and space restrictions
limited their ability to pursue services outside of those offered by the City. The low cost and convenience of the
City’s waste removal service would also seem to indicate that businesses have little incentive to participate in
sharing any information that might change the current system.
The low response rate, and high variety of response associated with the graduated scales utilized, make
conducting the statistical analysis recommended by McKenzie-Mohr challenging. While little statistical significance
was found, results can be analyzed based on their practical significance.
SURVEY RESPONSES
To identify the most effective way of eliciting responses, survey participants were asked how they found
out about the survey (see Figure 3). The majority of respondents, 77%, answered that they found out about the
survey through email. The second most popular source was through direct contact, 14%; a single respondent, 2%,
answered that they were contact via email and in person. Social media and the ADA newsletter incited the fewest
responses, with 5% and 2% respectively. No respondents indicated that they had found out about the survey through
the Letter to the Editor of the Mountain Xpress.
The decision making capacity of respondent’s was evaluated with several questions. The first question
examined the individual respondent’s role within the businesses. Nearly all respondents, 95%, indicated that they
have managerial roles or ownership of the businesses they represent. Though 80% of respondents leased their
properties, only 18% had property owners that made decisions about how their waste is managed, with 64%
answering that they were responsible for making decisions.
The majority of respondents, 91%, indicated that they had small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
This figure aligned with previous research done by the Chamber of Commerce, which suggested that 96% of
businesses in Asheville are small businesses (“Research and Reports: Industry employment”, 2015).
Responses were received from 10 different categories of businesses (see Figure 4). The highest number of
responses came from the following business categories: Food & Beverage Retail (25%), Professional Services
(20%), and Restaurants (25%).

43 | G o o d m a n
Figure 3. Method of contact
Figure 4. Business category
Data in Figure 5, represents volumes of materials disposed of weekly. Though responses are broken down
in relation to the volume of a full 55-gallon drum, many respondents reported having less than one full drum or less
than half of one drum. This implies that businesses are disposing of small volumes of a wide variety of materials.
While it was not possible to determine a statistical association among variables, it can be assumed that businesses
disposing of high volumes of food scraps and glass are likely categorized as restaurants or food and beverage retail.
The prevalence of cardboard, paper, and plastic can be associated with many categories of businesses.

44 | G o o d m a n
Respondents were asked about how they currently manage waste materials (see Figure 6). Nearly half
indicated that they take some measure to reuse or divert materials. The low participation rate in compost programs
may be associated with a low volume of food scraps generated by non-restaurant or food retail related businesses.
Over 80% of respondents indicated that they recycle half or more of their waste, and nearly all respondents indicated
that some volume of their waste is disposed of in landfills.
Figure 5. MSW composition
Figure 6. Materials management practices
Survey participants were asked to use a Likert scale to rate the importance of factors identified in the
literature review (see Figure 7). Ratings from “1 = Not at all Important” to “5 = Very Important” were categorized

45 | G o o d m a n
as being either important or not important. With over 80% of respondents indicating “Environmental Concerns” as
important, it is likely that there was a response bias from individuals that perceive themselves as concerned with
SMM. Space and convenience were also ranked high in importance for respondents.
When asked to rank the same topics based on the extent to which they were considered challenging,
respondents again indicated that space and convenience were top priorities (see Figure 8).
More than 50% of respondents indicated some level of interest in increasing participation in every category
of SMM practices provided (see Figure 9). Despite the high participation rate for recycling previously indicated by
respondents, over 80% expressed a desire to increase recycling rates. Respondents were the least interested in
increasing composting, which may be attributed to the low volume of compostable materials generated by non-
restaurant or food retail related businesses.
Figure 7. Important factors for decision making

46 | G o o d m a n
Figure 8. Challenges for MSW management
Figure 9. Interest in increasing SMM practices

47 | G o o d m a n
IV. DEVELOPING CBSM STRATEGIES
4.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSIDERATIONS
4.1.1 SPACE RESTRICTIONS
Downtown Asheville has experienced rapid economic growth over the past two decades, resulting in ever
increasing volumes of waste. The design of downtown Asheville, and many older urban centers, is the result of
organic growth, not efficient urban planning. While efforts have been made to shape the development of downtown,
more attention needs to be directed towards addressing the increasing volumes of waste associated with economic
growth.
Alley’s running between buildings are narrow and businesses must compete or collaborate to contract with
private waste haulers. This is particularly true for businesses generating large volumes of waste, or those that choose
to contract with private haulers for recycling or composting services. Space for waste management is further
complicated by a need for parking.
The abundance of businesses that use garbage collection services offered by the City’s Sanitation
Department, and benefit from public recycling receptacles or curbside collections paid for by their neighbors, has
resulted in ever increasing volumes of waste collected from sidewalks. The sidewalks cannot support pedestrian
traffic and growing piles of waste. By not assisting businesses with identifying solutions, the City is facilitating the
abuse of public and private services by businesses that are not contributing to payments for these services.
4.1.2 CONVENIENCE
Businesses must often select the most cost effective and efficient solutions for operating. Self-hauling
waste long distances is inconvenient and creates liabilities associated with having staff burdened with heavy loads
travel across busy intersections. Negotiating space for extra composting or recycling containers is also inconvenient
and time consuming, particularly when trying to accommodate large collection vehicles
Training busy staff on how to properly sort recyclable and compostable materials takes time and resources
away from essential business functions. Many businesses that would like to participate in food donation programs,
do not have the resources to research and maintain these programs.
4.1.3 LACK OF INCENTIVES
Aside from businesses that require ABC permits, there are no policies or overwhelming social demands for
businesses to sustainably manage materials. Downtown businesses, and all businesses subscribing to waste
collection services offered by the City of Asheville, are financially incentivized to not recycle or compost. By
offering a subsidized garbage collection service to businesses, that is much less expensive than composting or
recycling services, the City is dis-incentivizing SMM practices.
4.1.4 RESOURCE CONSERVATION & GHG REDUCTION
All types of businesses across Asheville benefit directly and indirectly from the region’s natural resources,
especially the tourism and hospitality industries. The thriving local food scene is built upon the success of farmers
throughout WNC. Hiking, kayaking, and other outdoor activities are enjoyed by residents and tourists. Asheville has
a history of drawing visitors interested in receiving conventional and alternative health services. Ensuring the
environmental health of the region is an essential component of securing economic prosperity.

48 | G o o d m a n
4.1.5 ECONOMIC GROWTH
Tourism is one of the fastest growing global industries and more people are recognizing its impacts.
Ecotourism and sustainability programs are also growing in popularity. Tourists’ appreciation for the region's
natural and cultural resources offers a solid foundation to build the City’s sustainable branding. When more
businesses participate in SMM programs, particularly in high density areas, haulers can charge less for collections.
This further supports the region by creating SMM jobs, thus ensuring the economic security of businesses who can
still thrive when fewer tourists are visiting Asheville.
4.1.6 COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Residents and tourists are drawn to Asheville for similar reasons. The people that choose to live here
recognize the value of the region’s natural resources and many want to be a part of securing its continued health.
Asheville has earned the title of America’s first green dining destination because so many businesses are willing to
take extra steps to reflect their values and those of their community.
4.2 CBSM STRATEGIES
Effective strategies for encouraging behavior change require extensive research regarding barriers and
benefits to desired behaviors. CBSM programs need to simultaneously address encouraging desired behaviors and
discouraging undesirable behaviors. It is important to address the behavior being discouraged to ensure desired
behaviors are more attractive (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). After identifying the most important barriers and benefits,
planners are better able to select behavior specific tools so that focus groups may scrutinize program designs, and
pilot tests can be conducted before launching strategies (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). McKenzie-Mohr discusses several
tools for developing effective CBSM strategies.
“Environmental concerns over the management and disposal of waste can be divided into two major areas:
conservation of resources and pollution of the environment,” (McDougall, White, Franke, & Hindle, 2001). SMM
encompasses this principle by acknowledging the primary need to conserve resources, then ensure that resources are
reincorporated into the economy and do not become environmental pollutants. As mentioned, the variety of
behaviors needed to address these issues makes the application of CBSM strategies challenging. In addition to the
variety of behaviors which need to be addressed, there are also regional and cultural nuances that must be made for
each community. An attempt is made to select strategies which apply to specific behaviors but may be applied to
broader issues in Asheville. There are many examples of strategies employed by other communities which could be
applied to Asheville. A single simple strategy can be used to target multiple barriers, and strategies can also be
combined to encourage behavior change
4.2.1 COMMITMENT
“Good Intentions to Action”
When people agree to small requests they are much more likely to agree to related larger requests
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). The individual’s self-perception that they are committed to a cause makes them more
likely to agree with consistently extending that commitment. In Fostering Sustainable Behavior, McKenzie-Mohr
describes an experiment where a researcher, posing as a sunbather, places a blanket and radio approximately five
feet from another sunbather, and settles there for a few minutes. After a few moments have passed the researcher
asks his neighbor for a light and walks away from his belongings. A second researcher then appears and poses as a
thief stealing the first researcher’s belongings. When the situation takes place as described above, 4 out of 10

49 | G o o d m a n
neighbors pursue the thief. However, when the first researcher asks his neighbor to “watch his things” before he
walked away, the neighbors pursued the thief 19 out of 20 times (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
Written communications are shown to be even more effective than verbal for gaining commitments. Public
or group commitments are also more likely to impact behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). Community wide
commitments can be encouraged by block leaders who engage in and promote behaviors. Commitment is further
increased when individuals are involved in the development of a pledge or agreement. Gaining commitment
voluntarily is more effective than pressuring individuals to participate (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
A Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) is one option for engaging stakeholders to commit to projects
and behaviors. These agreements are beneficial because stakeholders are given an opportunity to offer feedback
when developing terms that can be monitored and enforced, holding all participants accountable for program
success. A CBA was used to develop the Wilmington Organics Recycling Center (WORC) in Wilmington,
Delaware (Coker, 2014). Residents were concerned about siting because of odors, but interested in the development
of the WORC because of the associated job opportunities. As a result of negotiations, an odor complaint hotline was
offered for residents, truck traffic was restricted within residential areas, residents are able to dispose of their yard
waste at the facility free of charge, and the resulting compost is available for community gardens at no cost (Coker,
2014). The plan also includes a monitoring program aimed at ensuring members of the community continue to
benefit from employment opportunities. Approximately 75% of jobs at the WORC are filled by neighborhood
residents (Coker, 2014). The CBA is credited for giving the neighborhood a greater voice in how this development
would benefit the community.
The City of Asheville could develop a CBA to serve as an unbinding document proclaiming a business's
intention to sustainably manage materials to the best of their abilities. Gaining participation would offer an
opportunity to disseminate information materials with suggestions for best practices. Businesses advertising
participation could further the cause of establishing social norms through social diffusion.
Certification programs are another way for businesses to demonstrate a commitment to sustainable
practices. The NC GreenTravel program is a severely underutilized resource offered by the State of NC.
Participation requirements and costs are not as restrictive as for other programs. Many of Asheville’s Green
Certified Restaurants are not listed as participating in NC GreenTravel. Increasing participation in this program
would demonstrate business commitments to engage in green behaviors, and offer a reflection of the region’s
commitment to support sustainable business operations.
4.2.2 SOCIAL NORMS
“Building Community Support”
Norms characterize and guide societal behaviors; serving the dual role of defining what is currently normal
and what should be (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren, 1990). The CBSM framework describes these two types of norms
as descriptive and injunctive. Descriptive norms indicate which behaviors are most commonly engaged in, while
injunctive norms offer judgements about which behaviors are approved or disapproved of (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
It is important to carefully consider how norms are paired with behaviors. The more a behavior is observed the more
likely it is to be perceived as normal. Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren’s study, A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct:
Recycling the Concept of Norms to Reduce Littering in Public Places, determined that people were less likely to
litter in clean areas and more likely to litter in areas where litter was already visible. The extent to which norms
impacted behaviors was found to be contingent upon the actors focus on cultural, situational, or personal norms
(Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren, 1990).

50 | G o o d m a n
Research indicates that individuals will agree with some normative beliefs even if they recognize the belief
is clearly incorrect (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). Individuals have been shown to conform to norms for consequential
and inconsequential behaviors. A sustainable future requires the adoption of sustainable norms. Attempts to
discourage undesirable behaviors by describing how frequently individuals participate in them can have the opposite
effect by advertising the behaviors’ popularity (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
Because business practices are influenced by a variety of stakeholders, it is important to remember that all
stakeholders must be engaged for sustainable behaviors to be adopted. Employees of commercial operations are
essential for executing SMM plans. Employees may or may not express environmental concerns, but they are much
less likely to prioritize SMM if they are facing poor working conditions. The Asheville Sustainable Restaurant
Workforce is one organization focused on improving conditions faced by restaurant workers in Asheville. Asheville
has approximately 11,600 restaurant employees, many of which are facing issues related to “the cost of inequality,
low pay, and unfair working conditions” (Hunt, 2015). “We live in a community that is interested in sustainability -
where their food comes from, how it's treated. People should be just as interested in who’s preparing and serving it”,
notes Alia Todd from the Asheville Sustainable Restaurant Workforce (Hunt, 2015).
Multiple strategies are required to establish norms. Employees, business leaders, trade organizations,
residents, and policymakers all have a part to play in establishing social norms for SMM. When employees’ basic
needs are met they are better able to focus on quality work and effectively supporting SMM programs. The societal
benefits to SMM are extensive, but for sustainable behaviors to be adopted, stakeholders must be receptive to
making changes and benefits must be communicated throughout society; informed and willing stakeholders still
need reminders and incentives to change behaviors.
4.2.3 SOCIAL DIFFUSION
“Speeding Adoption”
Social diffusion describes the process of dissemination of information through direct contact with other
people. Conversations with like-minded individuals that are known and trusted are much more likely to lead to
behavior change than through brochures or advertising. Learning about innovative practices from peers can also aid
in establishing social norms. While media is effective for initiating diffusion, conversations are essential for
widespread adoption. Adoption is also more likely when commitments are combined with social diffusion
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). The adoption of sustainable behaviors can be influenced by the social diffusion of
perceptions regarding the behaviors relative advantage, risk, complexity, compatibility with audience values, and
observability (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
Fresno, California credits its 73% landfill diversion rate to partnerships with innovative recycling
companies, an extensive education and outreach program, and the support of the agriculture industry (Stone, 2012).
Waste processors and City officials’ direct efforts at communicating to children in schools, who can influence
behavior change at the family level. Community members recognize the value of recycling and composting for
supporting a healthy community. City officials believe that a 90% diversion rate is an attainable goal, but they have
ambitions for achieving a 100% zero waste goal (Stone, 2012). This could not be achieved without stakeholders
recognizing the urgency of addressing this issue for the entire community.
The Zero Waste AVL program has aided in significant waste reductions within the residential and
government sectors in Asheville. This program has the potential to further impact SMM within the commercial
sector through the social diffusion of values and goals. The City should encourage the social diffusion of best
practices for commercial SMM by facilitating communication among stakeholders through community meetings.

51 | G o o d m a n
4.2.4 PROMPTS
“Remembering to Act”
Good intentions can often fail to come to fruition because of unintentional negligence. Prompts are visual
or auditory aids which serve to remind people to take actions which they are already predisposed to (McKenzie-
Mohr, 2010). Prompts are most effective when they are explicit and specific, and delivered in the same time and
space that the behavior occurs. The presence of lids indicating which materials go into recycling containers has been
shown to increase recycling rates up to 34% while reducing contamination rates (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). Simple
reminders encouraging individuals to engage in positive behaviors have been shown to be more effective than
attempts to discourage harmful behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
Illustrations 4 and 5 are examples of prompts from World War I reminding people of the importance of
preventing food waste. The first poster communicates suggestions as to how to be address the issue of food waste.
The second poster emphasizes that food waste goes against the Christian social norms by taking resources from
those in need. Both posters communicate best practices for following social norms. While these may seem like dated
examples, they remind us that these issues are not new and that social conditions have successfully prompted
changes in the past.
Keep Durham Beautiful promotes “Reverse Recycling” as one method for prompting individuals to recycle
paper in offices (see Illustration 6). Staff are provided with waste receptacles for their desks featuring a small trash
container attached to a larger recycling container (“Reverse Recycling: Keep Durham Beautiful,” 2015). The
intention is to reverse attitudes about recyclables as trash and prompt individuals to reflect on the value of materials
entering the waste stream (“Reverse Recycling: Keep Durham Beautiful”, 2015).
Illustration 4. Food--don't waste it, World War 1
poster, c. 1917
(“Maine Historical Society,” 2015)
Illustration 5. Greatest Crime in Christendom, World
War 1 poster, c. 1917-1919
(“The National Archives Catalog,” 2015)

Illustration 6. Reverse Recycling Container
(“Reverse Recycling: Keep Durham Beautiful”, 2015)
Advertising campaigns centered on the Zero Waste AVL brand would provide an opportunity to direct
businesses to educational and promotional materials offering suggestions for best practices. The Zero Waste AVL
logo could become a prompt reminding businesses, their employees, other members of the community, and visitors,
that SMM is a community value. Other prompts in the form of stickers, magnets, and signs can also serve as useful
reminders and instructions as to how to engage in desired behaviors.
4.2.5 COMMUNICATION
“Creating Effective Messages”
There are several considerations for designing programs with effective messages. In Fostering Sustainable
Behavior, McKenzie-Mohr promotes utilizing captivating and credible information that is easy to remember and
targeted towards your audience (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). This aligns with the principles of sticky ideas promoted by
Dan and Chip Heath. Sticky ideas are made to be “Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and include
Stories” (SUCCESs) (Heath & Heath, 2008).
Simple messages are focused on specific behaviors offering guidance for continued mission development.
Unexpected ideas are attention grabbing and memorable. Messages that are concrete offer a mental picture that
audiences can relate to. The amount of waste Californians generate annually is “enough to fill a two-lane highway,
ten feet deep from Oregon to the Mexican border”, is a more vivid example than “each Californian produces 1,300
lbs of waste annually” (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). Credibility is contingent upon who your audience considers to be
credible and may be found within or outside of the target audience (Heath & Heath, 2008). Surveys and focus
groups can help with identifying who your audience considers to be credible. Emotional appeals also require
familiarity with audiences’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors; this can be challenging depending on the diversity of
the audience. Stories provide an opportunity to frame your message by describing model behaviors that tell people
what to do and why they should do it (Heath & Heath, 2008).
In 2013, the City of Hamilton, Ontario expanded its composting service for residents to include some
businesses (“Commercial food scraps diversion outreach”, 2015). When implementing the program, the Waste
Management Department for the City of Hamilton found that site visits were more effective at eliciting participation
than phone calls and provided an opportunity to train staff. Through contacting businesses directly, organizers
discovered that many of the staff responsible for carrying out composting spoke English as a second language. They
also discovered that the City staff’s working hours needed to be modified to reach businesses operating later in the
day and at night (“Commercial food scraps diversion outreach”, 2015).
Personal contact with audiences has consistently been shown to be more effective than media at inspiring
behavior changes; it also provides an opportunity to collect more valuable information than obtained through

53 | G o o d m a n
surveys alone (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). Community engagement is essential for knowing your audience and making
them aware of how issues affect them so that you can gain their commitment to change. Setting and monitoring
personal or community goals are shown to influence the success of recycling programs. “Posting signs above
aluminum can recycling containers that provide feedback about the number of cans that had been recycled during
the previous weeks increased capture rates by 65%,” (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). This example combines
communication with establishing norms, the social diffusion of program impacts, and providing a prompt.
Community block leaders can help with establishing personal contacts, gaining their commitment, and facilitating
the social diffusion of norms (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
It can be tempting to utilize fear as a motivator for inspiring behavior change when there is an
environmental crisis. Threatening messages should be considered carefully and should be combined with clear
suggestions as to how individuals can empower themselves to reduce threats (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
Communicating best practices, specific to business categories, and providing promotional materials that act
as prompts, which also diffuse social norms, are simple and inexpensive ways of adapting the Zero Waste AVL
program to include businesses.
4.2.6 INCENTIVES
“Enhancing Motivation to Act”
The CBSM framework offers several considerations for creating effective incentives. The size of incentives
needs to be substantial enough to motivate action while not exceeding the point of diminishing returns. Incentives
should be closely paired with the behavior being promoted. Making sure incentives are visible can aid in social
diffusion and prompting people to act. It is important to be cautious when removing incentives because the removal
of an incentive can become a disincentive for individuals that may have already been willing to engage in a behavior
Financial incentives, such as user fees, or PAYT systems, have been shown to dramatically reduce the
amount of waste going to landfills (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). These systems incentivize disposing of lower volumes
with lower fees, and disincetivize higher waste volumes with higher disposal fees. The implementation of San Jose,
California’s PAYT program, in which residents were charged based on the size of the container they placed on the
curb, resulted in a 48% decrease in waste going to landfills, and a 158% increase in recycling (McKenzie-Mohr,
2010).
Limits on waste and PAYT systems seem to have the most significant impact on waste diversion rates, but
contingency plans should be made to account for the avoidance of incentives (Garkowski, 2011). McKenzie-Mohr
suggests preparing for people’s attempts to avoid the incentive prior to implementation (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
PAYT programs can result in increased contamination of recyclable materials; to avoid fees, waste generators have
been shown to dispose of trash in recycling bins. Increased contamination rates resulting from PAYT programs
present expensive challenges for facilities that process recyclable materials (N. Lawson of Curbside Management,
personal communication, September 23, 2015). PAYT programs have also led to the illegal dumping of trash. In
Victoria, British Columbia the city was able to reduce illegal dumping by running classifieds ads in local
newspapers naming residents who were found to be illegally dumping their trash; this was made possible by the
personal information left in their waste (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010).
Incentives are best applied as rewards. Approaching a PAYT system as an opportunity to reduce costs for
individuals engaging in sustainable waste management practices is more likely to increase participation than
promoting the program as a punishment for large producers of landfill waste (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). Composting

54 | G o o d m a n
markets have been shown to benefit from regional policies promoting stormwater remediation systems centered on
green spaces. Rooftop gardens, rain gardens, and bioretention ponds are all green infrastructure systems with
applications for compost (Alexander, 2014). Composting policies perceived as burdensome can be framed in terms
of the multitude of benefits offered to communities.
The City of Asheville is currently evaluating options for transitioning to a PAYT waste collection service
for residential customers. As rates are increased and policies adapted, the City should make it a priority to re-
evaluate which services businesses are eligible for. The current policy of offering waste collection services to small
businesses is made negligible by the fact that 96% of businesses in Asheville are small businesses. Downtown
businesses downtown are evading the City policy that recycling services are not intended for businesses and
receiving free services intended for the public. Businesses engaging in this behavior may or may not be aware of
City policies but their actions reflect a desire to participate in SMM programs. By providing an affordable
garbage removal service to businesses that is not paired with a comparable recycling service, the
City of Asheville is currently dis-incentivizing businesses to subscribe to private recycling
services. To promote recycling, and eventually composting, the City should either discontinue offering garbage
collection services to businesses or ensure SMM practices are financially incentivized.
It is unlikely that the City would be able to discontinue offering garbage collection services downtown and
by offering these services, the City is in a position to promote SMM. Businesses should not necessarily receive the
same subsidies on waste services as residents, but by pooling resources and consolidating collection areas, the City
can help haulers offering recycling services to grow in a cost effective way, which would allow for those savings to
be passed on to their commercial customers.
Another suggestion for increasing recycling rates made in Buncombe County’s 2012 Solid waste
management plan, is enforcing landfill disposal bans. Inspecting waste before it is dumped and enforcing penalties
for non-compliance would offer disincentives for ignoring the bans. The effectiveness of enforcement would depend
on the volume of materials managed at the County landfill, which currently only accounts for 50% of the total waste
generated in the County (Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2012). Enforcement would largely fall
on the County but the City could offer some support.
Bottle deposits also offer financial incentives for recycling and litter reduction. “The introduction of bottle
deposits has been associated with a 68% reduction in litter in Oregon, a 76% reduction in Vermont, and an 82%
reduction in Michigan” (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). Through the California Redemption Value (CRV) bottle deposit
program, a financial incentive for recycling is offered in the form of a $0.05-$0.10 refund for certain types of
materials for up to 50 containers at a time. In 2013, Californian’s purchased more than 21 billion eligible containers
and 18.2 billion were recycled (“Beverage Container Recycling,” 2014). Municipalities are not equipped to enforce
this type of policy but they can advocate for change at the state level.
4.2.7 CONVENIENCE
“Making it Easy to Act”
The aforementioned strategies have been shown to be ineffective if behaviors are perceived as
inconvenient. For behaviors to be convenient, external barriers to participation must be identified and removed.
External barriers vary across communities and communities do not always have the resources to remove barriers

55 | G o o d m a n
The high usage among businesses of sidewalk recycling containers intended for the public in downtown
Asheville, indicates a desire by businesses to responsibly manage waste. If compost collection services were
similarly offered downtown, it is likely that businesses would utilize them. Also, many businesses are currently
offering compostable to-go containers. While their intentions are good, consumers do not always have access to
composting services and these plant-based containers often end up in recycling streams where they degrade the
value of plastics. Providing side-walk compost bins would reduce the volume of organic waste entering garbage
bins, offer businesses generating small volumes of compostable materials a cost-effective way to participate in a
composting program, and reduce contamination of recyclable plastics.
The City of Aspen’s SCRAPS program offers participants a variety of free compost containers convenient
to their needs. Residents and business have four container sizes to choose between. While many restaurants choose a
16-gallon open-top container for indoor storage, they can also choose between a 3-gallon kitchen countertop
container, a 6.5-gallon screw-top container, or a 20-gallon bear-resistant container that is popular with residents for
outdoor storage (Clark, 2015). Businesses that need larger outdoor storage containers can obtain 65 or 95-gallon
animal proof containers on loan from the SCRAPS program (Clark, 2015). Stickers with contact information for the
City of Aspen DEHS and PCSWC are included on containers. Text and images explaining which materials are
compostable and recyclable are provided on magnets and stickers (Clark, 2015). Community outreach includes radio
service announcements, weekly electronic newsletters, as well as advertisements in local newspapers and
magazines. The City of Aspen’s DEHS partners with community organizations to host events promoting the
SCRAPS program (Clark, 2015). This model could be applied in Asheville.
The challenges associated with curbside collection grow with downtown’s economic development. The
value of property for commercial operations, including parking, is a barrier for waste service providers. Composting
and recycling rates could be increased if businesses and residents had convenient drop off centers. Recycling
convenience centers can enhance the value of waste streams by reducing sorting costs and contamination. They can
also serve as educational centers and provide businesses and residents with a place to encourage shared values.
Service providers cannot afford to develop these centers without the support of the community. Policymakers would
have to assist with siting and maintenance costs (N. Lawson of Curbside Management, personal communication,
September 23, 2015).
There is little information available on the City of Asheville’s website targeted at SMM for businesses.
Subscribing to SMM services would be more convenient if businesses did not have to independently search for
service providers and best practices. The City could help with increasing food donations by advertising services
provided by local organizations or by distributing educational materials directly to businesses. The City might also
help by raising funds to support food collection programs.

56 | G o o d m a n
V. APPLYING CBSM FOR SMM IN ASHEVILLE, NC
5.1 COMMERCIAL SMM IN THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE, NC
The impacts, penetration, and probability of businesses adopting SMM practices in Asheville indicate that
there are ample opportunities for the City to assist with overcoming barriers and increasing benefits to participation.
The infrastructure to do better is already in place and there are many simple options for the City of Asheville to
facilitate increased participation in SMM behaviors. Though the public and private sector have supported the
development of some SMM infrastructure, policymakers need to do more to ensure natural capital is enhanced, and
not degraded, by commercial operations. Growth in residential and tourist populations is increasing every year and
the City has a responsibility to address the impacts of this growth.
5.1.1 MOVING FORWARD
This study attempted a broad overview of CBSM for SMM in downtown Asheville. Business attitudes and
practices identified in downtown Asheville are not necessarily representative of the entire Asheville business
community, but their success in adopting SMM behaviors means that the tools are available for wider application.
As stated, the CBSM framework is best applied to specific behaviors (McKenzie-Mohr, 2010). Some steps of the
CBSM framework were skipped because of time and resource constraints. Any further studies should continue to
engage stakeholders in identifying SMM solutions. Stakeholder committees that actively participate in shaping
CBSM strategies would be particularly helpful for designing policies for the greater Asheville area.
There is no information about the MSW management practices and environmental impacts of the tourism
industry for Asheville. The volume of multiple waste streams is growing with the region’s economic success. The
economic recession of 2008 stymied the flow of wastes into the Buncombe County landfill. Increasing economic
activity and construction are projected to continue to increase (Boyle, 2015). A comprehensive waste
characterization study would provide valuable insight into sources and volumes of materials disposed of in the City.
It can be determined that the region is not currently absorbing all of the impacts of its materials management
practices. Many commercial products are imported and much of the resulting waste is exported. With the global
impacts of these behaviors becoming increasingly evident, it is likely that these behaviors will become more
economically unsustainable over time. The resiliency of Asheville depends on the immediate examination and
correction of unsustainable materials management behaviors.
5.2 CBSM STRATEGIES FOR POLICYMAKERS
The suggestions below are based on available data and stakeholder feedback and represent the most simple
and cost effective strategies discovered for increasing SMM in downtown. Most of these strategies could be applied
to businesses across WNC, but several are specific to downtown Asheville. There is immense room for
improvement beyond these measures.
5.2.1 COMMITMENT
● Encourage participation in existing certification programs, primarily NC GreenTravel
● Develop CBA for businesses to reduce waste as part of the Zero Waste AVL program

57 | G o o d m a n
5.2.2 SOCIAL NORMS, SOCIAL DIFFUSION, PROMPTS, & COMMUNICATION
● Enhance Zero Waste AVL brand
 Expand educational services and materials
 Offer promotional materials and prompts
 Engage in direct communication with stakeholders for continued program development
 Develop Recycling Coordinator or Supervisory position
5.2.3 INCENTIVES
● Expand sanitation services to include recycling for businesses
 Include businesses if a PAYT program is adopted
● Encourage enforcement of landfill bans at the Buncombe County Landfill
● Lobby for the State of NC to adopt a container refund policy
● Develop policies that promote the application of compost on construction sites to reduce runoff
5.2.4 CONVENIENCE
● Offer public compost bins downtown
● Provide SMM convenience centers
● Promote food donation programs
The most critical steps for the City of Asheville to enhance commercial SMM in
downtown are to officially extend recycling services to businesses and to expand the services
offered by the Zero Waste AVL program. The development of the Zero Waste AVL program was a stride in
the right direction towards the sustainable management of waste materials in Asheville, but more work is needed.
The program has been pieced together by the Sustainability and Sanitation Departments, which provide and promote
recycling services for the residential and government sectors. The continued success of the program and expansion
to include commercial stakeholders is contingent upon the development of clear goals and focused efforts. Adequate
staffing and resources are essential for any behavior change program to be successful. A City staff position
dedicated to SMM would offer a voice focused on the community-wide commitment to achieving zero waste.
5.3 WASTE IS A LOCAL & GLOBAL ISSUE
Resources consumed in Asheville are extracted and disposed of across the globe. The cost to collect and
transport materials to a final recycling point can be financially demanding and energy intensive (Black, 1995).
Market demands for recycled materials have decreased financial costs associated with recycling many products but
valuable materials are still being mismanaged on a global scale. Plastics retaining some embodied energy and no
longer viable for reprocessing can supplement regional fuel markets, but require more fuel to be transported long
distances than can be recovered as fuel. Some waste streams can only be recycled as similar products, which are
often manufactured in developing countries. In countries with fewer industrial regulations, the long-term effects of
improperly recycling materials can be socially, environmentally, and economically devastating.
The growing international demand for consumer goods traditionally enjoyed by developed countries is
increasing as resources and waste disposal sites become scarcer. As domestic demands for resources and disposal
increase, developing countries are likely to reduce exports and turn away more wastes from industrialized nations.
Regional manufacturing and waste processing centers provide solutions for reducing the energy demands associated
with transporting reusable and recyclable materials. Domestic production requires domestic energy inputs as well.
The globalization of industry demands efficient use of domestic energy and resources, including garbage.

58 | G o o d m a n
Locality can decrease costs associated with transportation and increase incentives for participating in SMM
programs. The City of Asheville has the power to influence markets which would benefit WNC and serve as a
model for the State. After setting up regional markets to facilitate recycling, Brazil became the world leader in used
beverage can recycling, with 96% of cans being recycled (Green, 2007). For recycling programs to be effective,
planners must increase available services, reduce confusion, and increase transparency.
Building the City of Asheville’s economic growth on the integrity of natural resources is inherently
unsustainable if those resources are degraded as a consequence of that growth. Ecological systems provide
numerous examples of sustainable material flows that do not degrade the environment. Stable ecological systems are
not frequently subject to dramatic fluctuations in performance, disorder is minimized, and producers and consumers
rely on each other’s support (Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997). Principles of industrial ecology, which call for the
cascading use of energy and production by-products, can be applied to SMM at the local level. Waste energy and
materials can offer many benefits to society before being disposed of in a landfill. Industrial structures and public
policies can benefit from a system wide re-examination of how materials are utilized within an economy. Linear
throughput is an increasingly expensive and damaging practice that is draining finite resources and must be replaced
with closed-loop material and energy management (Ehrenfeld & Gertler, 1997). While reuse, remanufacture, and
recycling reduce economic throughput, system wide changes must be made to ensure all resources are used as
efficiently as possible.
The impact of businesses in Asheville can seem insignificant, but increasing SMM practices now is
essential for the continued resiliency of our region. Too many municipalities wait until there is a waste crisis
associated with siting a new landfill to begin adopting waste reduction strategies. The remaining life of the
Buncombe County landfill decreases as the economic throughput from a growing population and thriving tourism
industry increases. Changes must be made now if Asheville is to avoid contributing to the taking of another 500
acres of some of the most biodiverse land in the nation for the purpose of burying valuable materials. Much of the
Asheville business community recognizes the importance of adopting SMM behaviors but they need the help of
policymakers to change their behaviors. Likewise, policymakers need to engage stakeholders to ensure the
development of effective behavior change strategies. The resources and motivations needed to increase
SMM by businesses in downtown, and across Asheville, are available, but the City must take the
lead on making sure these tools are utilized.

59 | G o o d m a n
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: IMPACTS OF SPECIFIC RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
The sustainability of reusing and recycling certain materials is contingent upon several factors. This
sections serves as a more in depth discussion of the value of specific materials.
PAPER
In 2010, Buncombe County’s MSW stream contained an estimated 82,920 tons of paper and paperboard based on
the national average of 28.5% (Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2012). The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency reports paper as the primary source of Municipal Solid Waste, estimating that as much as 90% of
office waste is from paper materials (“Paper Recycling: Basics,” 2013). Increasing market demands and availability
of services for paper recycling have resulted in high participation rates. In 2010, approximately 63% of paper waste
was recycled (“Paper Recycling: Basics”, 2010). Utilizing recycled paper requires 68% less energy than virgin
materials (ISRI: paper, 2013). Recycling one ton of paper can save the energy equivalent to 165 gallons of gasoline
("Infographic on MSW", 2014). Product availability and reduction in energy costs have benefited manufacturers of
paper products. Recycled paper has many domestic markets. Domestic recycling reduces the energy and financial
demands of global transportation. In 2012, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) reported paper
recovered in the US had a market value of $8.4 billion, with 76% of US manufacturers using some recovered paper
(Institute of Scrap Recycling [ISRI]: Paper, 2013).
GLASS
In 2010, an estimated 13,384 tons of glass could be found in the Buncombe County’s MSW stream; based on the
national average of 4.6% (Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2012). Glass bottles and jars may
contain as much as 80% reclaimed scrap materials, called cullet (Haggar, 2007). Modern glass is a combination of
sand, soda ash, limestone, and additives for color, refraction, durability, and thermal conditioning. Depending on its
application, recycling glass may require thorough sorting by color and cleaning. As with all recyclables,
contaminants increase entropy and decrease embodied energy. Glass free of contaminants is especially useful
because it can be recycled repeatedly without losing much of its quality or purity; meaning every ton recycled is a
ton saved (ISRI: Glass, 2013).
Recycling six tons of container glass eliminates one ton of carbon dioxide emissions (ISRI: glass, 2013). Scrap
bottles may be recycled into new bottles, reducing energy demands for bottle manufacturing, or into other products,
reducing energy demands in a variety of other markets. Foam glass, made by trapping gases in recycled glass, is a
valuable insulation material that reduces the energy demand of controlling the temperature of buildings (Haggar,
2007). Though less energy is required than with virgin materials, the heating demands of recycling remain large.
PLASTIC
In 2010, an estimated 36,077 tons of plastic could be found in the Buncombe County’s MSW stream; based on the
national average of 12.4% (Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2012). The ability to retain
embodied energy has made PET and HDPE plastics particularly reliable market commodities. The versatility of
plastics has resulted in a wide variety of applications, which recycled plastics can also be applied to. A recycled PET
plastic detergent bottle may be recycled into another detergent bottle or into a carpet tile. Post-consumer HDPE
plastics are suitable for composite lumber, trash bags, or bins (Haggar, 2007).
Materials viable for primary recycling are more valuable by weight than those plastics which may only be useful
when incinerated. Materials suitable for secondary recycling as filler for products in other energy intensive markets
may have a lower embodied energy, but they replace the use of virgin materials with higher embodied energies.

60 | G o o d m a n
Products made from recycled plastics require 87% less energy than those made from virgin materials (ISRI: paper,
2013). The PET bottle recycling industry is estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.7 tons for every ton
recycled, while reducing landfill demands and energy consumption (Hopewell, Dvorak & Kosior, 2009)
ALUMINUM
Metal can be found at the heart of developed countries’ infrastructure and technology. Steel and aluminum are the
most widely used metals (Green, 2007). Mining in developing countries has fueled American prosperity for several
generations. Now, developing countries are utilizing more and more of their resources to meet the demands of their
own populations. Aluminum can be manufactured domestically, and is an energy intensive process accounting for
2% of the United States industrial energy use (Green, 2007). Recycling domestically allows the US to store large
amounts of embodied energy. The estimated embodied energy of aluminum currently in circulation is 50,000
petajoules, equivalent to the combined annual energy demands of Africa and Latin America (Green, 2007).
In 2010, an estimated 26,185 tons of metal could be found in the Buncombe County’s MSW stream, based on the
national average of 9% (Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan, 2012). The ability of metals to retain
their embodied energy has been exploited since humans abandoned stone tools. Using aluminum scrap rather than
bauxite ore for aluminum production requires 95% less energy (Green, 2007). The widely accepted value of scrap
aluminum has led many states to enact landfill bans. Aluminum has been recycled on some scale since entering
production, but it was the energy crisis of 1973 the spurred an expansion of a still flourishing scrap recovery
industry (Green, 2007). Recycled aluminum is an affordable and reliable substitute for manufacturers. In 2002, the
percent of aluminum manufactured from recycled material was greater than that of virgin material (Green, 2007).
Recycling and scrap collection programs for metals have long provided consumers with responsible disposal outlets,
that they can often benefit from financially. It is estimated that 73% of the aluminum humans have put into
production is still in use (Green, 2007).
The value of the recycled material is significantly affected by the amount of mixing that occurs. Contaminants
increase the entropy of the recycled metals, decreasing their potential energy (Gößling-Reisemann, 2008). Global
recognition and demand for the potential energy of metals includes a large market for aluminum that may have been
contaminated by impurities during recycling. In 2012, the US exported approximately $14 billion worth of
nonferrous scrap to over 90 different countries (ISRI: aluminum, 2013).
A life-cycle analysis of the energy required for aluminum production found approximately 45 kWh, emitting 12 kg
of CO2, is needed for primary aluminum production, whereas recycled aluminum required approximately 2.8 kWh
of energy, emitting 0.6 kg of CO2 (Green, 2007). Recycling one ton of aluminum cans saves the energy equivalent
of 1,665 gallons of gasoline ("Infographic on MSW", 2014). The benefits of using recycled content can be
experienced by multiple generations. Utilizing waste aluminum that might otherwise rest in a landfill keeps the
materials’ potential energy circulating through markets repeatedly. Recycling aluminum saves an estimated 84
million metric tonnes of GHG from being emitted every year (the equivalent of 15 million cars). Since the inception
of aluminum recycling, 1 billion metric tonnes of GHG emissions have been avoided (Green, 2007).
ELECTRONICS
Electronic waste (e-waste) is the fastest growing municipal waste stream, a result of technology become increasingly
available and frequently obsolete (Chen, Dietrich, Huo & Ho, 2011). Broken or obsolete electronics contain scrap
materials that are global commodities, sometimes including more weight in copper and gold than could be found in
the same amount of ore (Sawyer, 2010). Increasing volumes of e-waste have resulted in state and federal policies
concerning proper disposal. Many retailers and distributors have been required to implement take-back programs
(Harrison & Hester, 2009). The complexity of electronics demands special attention to sorting materials for
recycling.

61 | G o o d m a n
The diversity of materials that can be found within electronics requires labor intensive disassembly that can be
costly and still result in contaminated materials (Harrison & Hester, 2009). Designing materials to be easier to take
apart would reduce contamination and costs. An estimated 70% of heavy metals within landfills are believed to be
associated with electronics (Hart, 2011). These metals and other toxic substances accumulate as leachate, which can
threaten water supplies if improperly managed.
Recovering such a high variety of elements from e-waste can reduce mining demands for multiple compounds that
have large ecological footprints. The energy and resources required to produce common electronics outweigh the
resulting product. If, shortly after manufacturing, the resources and energy required to manufacture a product are
valued higher than the product, then there is a consumption pattern that will never be sustainable. Widely distributed
electronics are too frequently replaced by newer generations, increasing waste generation rates. Waste solutions
should be paired with smart resource allocation.
Manufacturing one 32Mb RAM mobile phone requires 32kg of water, 1.6kg of fossil fuels, 700g of gases, and
approximately 72g of varying chemicals (Harrison & Hester, 2009). Refurbishing or repairing for re-use as a similar
product is not always a possibility. When refurbishing is not an option, then those components must be recovered
piece by piece. As much as 95% of metal contained in electronics may easily be extracted with existing technologies
(Harrison & Hester, 2009). Other elements that are hazardous or harder to separate out and may require
transportation to a limited number of facilities. Plastic composes up to 20% of an electronics’ weight and consists of
several different polymers that are difficult to separate; the majority of these plastics are incinerated or go to a
landfill, though there are technologies to convert these plastics to liquid fuel (Harrison & Hester, 2009).
Risk of contamination from heavy metals that are hazardous to human health is high for the e-waste recycling
industry. Finding appropriate applications for waste can offers more potential energy recovery than landfills.
Incinerating aluminum and polyethylene plastics can be used to provide energy for cement manufacturing facilities,
resulting in a waste material that may also be used in the manufacturing process (Haggar, 2007). When toxic
materials are heavily mixed with aluminum and plastics, incineration can release toxins into the atmosphere, posing
significant human health hazards. Americans are reluctant to allow domestic waste incineration because of the threat
of pollution, but waste incineration technologies are employed and continually improved upon, by several
industrialized nations. Burning plastics to recover aluminum has been used in Europe as an efficient method of
processing mixed waste and recovering aluminum, while saving energy and reducing emissions (Haggar, 2007).

62 | G o o d m a n
APPENDIX B: SURVEY DISTRIBUTION
LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE MOUNTAIN XPRESS
ADA NEWSLETTER

63 | G o o d m a n
APPENDIX C: SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
IN DOWNTOWN ASHEVILLE

68 | G o o d m a n
REFERENCES
2014 South Carolina Recycling Industry Economic Impact Study. (2014, April 1). Retrieved May 2, 2015, from
http://www.scdhec.gov/HomeAndEnvironment/Docs/Economic_Impact_Study2014.pdf
“About MANNA Food bank”. MANNA FoodBank. (2015). Retrieved July 2, 2015,
https://www.mannafoodbank.org/who-we-are/about-manna-foodbank/
Alexander, R. (2014, September 18). “10 Trends in the Compost Marketplace”. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from
http://www.biocycle.net/2014/09/18/10-trends-in-the-compost-marketplace/
Ammons, J. (2015, July 22). Asheville-Buncombe Food Policy Council takes aim at local food security with metrics
project. Retrieved July 27, 2015, from
http://mountainx.com/food/asheville-buncombe-food-policy-council-takes-aim-at-local-food-security-w
ith-metrics-project/
“Asheville GreenWorks”. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2015, from http://www.ashevillegreenworks.org/
Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
“Beverage Container Recycling”. CalRecycle (2014, July 10). Retrieved July 12, 2015, from
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/BevContainer/
Birkeland, J. (2002).Design for Sustainability: A Sourcebook of Integrated, Eco-logical Solutions. London:
Earthscan Publications.
Black, H. (Nov., 1995) Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 103, No. 11 , pp. 1006-1009 Brogan & Partners.
Article Stable URL: http://0-www.jstor.org.library.acaweb.org/stable/3432626
Boyle, J. (2015, July 11). “$1 billion building boom: Development bounces back”. Retrieved July 27, 2015, from
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2015/07/11/billion-development-coming-asheville-
area/30011131/
Buncombe County: Solid Waste Management Plan. (2012, July 1). Retrieved May 11, 2015, from
http://www.buncombecounty.org/common/solidWaste/BCSolidWastePlan.pdf
Burgess, J. (2015, April 21). City garbage pickup fees to more than double in 4 years. Citizen-Times. Retrieved May
10, 2015, from http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2015/04/20/asheville-city-council- garbage-
taxpayer-subsidy-million-fee-increase-residents-recycling/26087065/
“California Passes First Statewide Bag Ban”. (2014, September 18). Retrieved March 8, 2015, from
http://www.biocycle.net/2014/09/18/biocycle-world-131
Cermansky, R. (2014, October 14). Ordinances to amend soils boost compost demand. Retrieved March 15, 2015,
from http://www.biocycle.net/2014/10/20/ordinances-to-amend-soils-boost-compost-demand/
Chen, A., Dietrich, K., Huo, X., & Ho, S. (2011, April) Developmental Neurotoxicants in E-Waste: An Emerging
Health Concern. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 119, No. 4, pp. 431-438. Brogan & Partners.
Article Stable URL: http://0-www.jstor.org.library.acaweb.org/stable/41203250

69 | G o o d m a n
Cialdini, R., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms
to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026.
Retrieved December 12, 2016, from
http://media.cbsm.com/uploads/1/AFocusTheoryofNormativeConduct.pd
“City of Durham: Business Recycling”. (2015). Retrieved July 3, 2015, from
http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/swmd/Pages/Business-Recycling.aspx
“City of Durham: State and local regulations”. (2012, October 12). Retrieved July 3, 2015, from
http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/swmd/Documents/State%20and%20Local%20Regulations.pdf
Clark, S. (2013, April 18). Waste Not In Asheville. BioCycle, Vol. 54, p. 20.
Clark, N. (2015, February 13). Mountain town zeros in on food scraps diversion. Retrieved March 13, 2015, from
http://www.biocycle.net/2015/02/13/mountain-town-zeros-in-on-food-scraps-diversion/
Coker, C. (2014, August 14). Organics recycling facility siting. Retrieved March 13, 2015, from
http://www.biocycle.net/2014/08/14/organics-recycling-facility-siting/
“Commercial food scraps diversion outreach”. (2015, February 13). Retrieved March 13, 2015, from
http://www.biocycle.net/2014/08/14/organics-recycling-facility-siting/
“Composting for Facilities: Basics”. (2014, June 27). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/composting/basic.htm
Craig, J. (2000). Building a Food Waste Diversion Program. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=b2b48c26-4786-4067-9b68-
0d964c66c872&groupId=38322
“County services: Landfill “. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.buncombecounty.org/Governing/Depts/SolidWaste/SolidWaste_landfill.aspx
“Curb hunger with a curbside donation”. (n.d.). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from
http://www.foodconnection.co/
“Curbie: Commercial services”. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.curbie.com/Curbie/Commercial.html
“Danny’s Dumpster: Services and products”. (2012). Retrieved from http://dannysdumpster.com/
“Donate Food: MANNA FoodBank”. (2015). Retrieved July 2, 2015, https://www.mannafoodbank.org/how-you-
can-help/donate/donate-food/
Ehrenfeld, J., & Gertler, N. (1997). Industrial Ecology in Practice: The Evolution of Interdependence at
Kalundborg. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 67-79.
Embracing the zero waste challenge: Sustainability report 2012. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.wm.com/business/commercial-waste-and-recycling-collection.jsp
“Feed animals: Food waste”. (2013, January 8). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/foodwaste/fd-animals.htm

70 | G o o d m a n
Finn, S., O'Donnell, T., & Walls, M. (2014, September 19). The time is ripe for food recovery. Retrieved March 8,
2015, from http://www.biocycle.net/2014/09/19/the-time-is-ripe-for-food-recovery/
“Food Recovery Challenge”. (2015, April 30). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/foodrecoverychallenge
“Food Waste Reduction and Prevention”. (2015, February 2). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/foodwaste/fd-reduce.htm
Garbage & Recycling for Businesses. (2015). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from
https://www.raleighnc.gov/services/content/SolidWaste/Articles/BusinessCollection.html
“Garbage Collection”. The City of Asheville (2015). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from
http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Departments/Sanitation/GarbageCollection.aspx
Garkowski, J., & Hostovsky, C. (2011). Policy versus practice in municipal solid waste diversion: The role of the
waste crisis in Ontario waste planning. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 20(1), 81-102. Retrieved from
http://0-search.proquest.com.lib'rary.acaweb.org/docview/915475260?accountid=13505
Gößling-Reisemann, Stefan. (2008). Entropy analysis of metal production and recycling. Management of
Environmental Quality, 19(4), 487-492. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777830810878678
Goldstein, N. (2014, September 18). Food waste collection companies grow with the flow. Retrieved March 9,
2015, from http://www.biocycle.net/2014/09/18/food-waste-collection-companies-grow-with-the-flow/
Green, J. S. (2007). Aluminum Recycling and Processing for Energy Conservation and Sustainability. Materials
Park, Ohio: ASM International.
“Green Restaurant Certification Standards”. (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2015, from
https://www.dinegreen.com/restaurants/standards.asp
Gunders, D. (2012, August 1). Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to
Landfill. Retrieved July 2, 2015, from http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf
Haggar, S. (2007). Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management: Cradle-to-cradle for Sustainable
Development. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.
Harrison, R. M., & Hester, R. E. (2009). Electronic Waste Management. Cambridge, UK: RSC Publishing.
Hart, T. (2011). Electronics and Environment. Delhi: English Press.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2008). Made to stick: SUCCESs Model. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from
http://heathbrothers.com/download/mts-made-to-stick-model.pdf
Hillary, R. (2004). Environmental management systems and smaller enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production,
12(6), 561-569. doi: http://0-dx.doi.org.library.acaweb.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.08.006
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., & Kosior, E. (2009). Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities.Philosophical
transactions: Biological sciences, 364(1526), 2115-2126.Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40485985

71 | G o o d m a n
Hunt, M. (2015, March 14). A seat at the table: Alia Todd and Asheville Sustainable Restaurant Workforce.
Mountain Xpress. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from http://mountainx.com/news/a-seat-at-the-table-alia-
todd-and-asheville-sustainable-restaurant-workforce/
“Infographic on MSW". (2014, February 28). Retrieved May 2, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/infographic/pdfs/Infographic_full-022514-2.pdf
“Institute for local government: Commercial recycling resource center”. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.ca-ilg.org/commercial-recycling-resource-center
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), Inc. (2013). The Scrap Recycling Industry: Paper. [Brochure].
Washington, DC: 2013 Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. Retrieved from:
http://www.isri.org/ISRI/_About/Scrap_Recycling_Industry/ISRI/_About/Scrap_Recycling_Industry.aspx?
hkey=1c15f9cb-6f70-4130-a053-ceba7a327c7f
Jackson, T. (2012, November 15). Asheville leads nation's Green Restaurant industry. Retrieved October 7, 2015,
from http://theashevillepost.com/food-and-drink/asheville-leads-nations-green-restaurant-industry/
Khalili, N. (2011). Practical sustainability: From grounded theory to emerging strategies. DOI:
10.1057/9780230116368 eBook ISBN: 9780230116368 PDF 9780230316133 EPUB Print ISBNs:
9780230104525 HB
Kiss, T. (2014, October 9). Wicked Weed Funkatorium opening Friday. Citizen Times. Retrieved May 3, 2015, from
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/beer-guy/2014/10/07/wicked-weed-funatorium-opening-
friday/16847137/
“Let's Feed Families, Not Landfills”. (2014, September 18). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/foodwaste/fd-donate.htm
Leven, R. (Ed.). (2012, August 1). North Carolina 2012 Food Waste Generation Study. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=ae965d91-c5a1-47aa-8f09-
9afbbfa6598f&groupId=38322
Love, B. (2015, July 8). Downtown Asheville: The South's Green, Progressive Mecca. Retrieved July 18, 2015,
from http://greenglobaltravel.com/2015/07/08/downtown-asheville-souths-green-progressive-mecca/
“Maine Historical Society” (2015). Food--don't waste it, World War 1 poster, c. 1917. Retrieved July 12, 2015,
from http://www.mainememory.net/artifact/15116
Makkar, H., Tran, G., Heuzé, V., & Ankers, P. (2014). State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed. Animal Feed
Science and Technology, 197, 1-33. Retrieved July 27, 2015.
“Mandatory commercial recycling”. (2013, January 28). Retrieved from
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/Commercial/
“Mandatory commercial recycling: Frequently asked questions”. (2013, January 28). Retrieved from
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/Commercial/FAQ.htm
McDougall, F., White, P., Franke, M., & Hindle, P. (2001). Integrated solid waste management: A life cycle
inventory (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.

72 | G o o d m a n
McKenzi-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based
social marketing. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2010, January 1). Step 2: Identifying Barriers and Benefits. Retrieved May 2, 2015, from
http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/step-2:-identifying-barriers-and-benefits/
McKenzie-Mohr, D., Lee, N., Schultz, P., & Kotler, P. (2012). Social marketing to protect the environment: What
works. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
McReynolds, K. (2015, March 23). Food Connection gets restaurants’ excess to those in need. Mountain Xpress.
Medina, S. (2012, July 02). California recycling law: Mandatory commercial recycling law in effect July 1.
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/califoria-recycling-
law_n_1643656.html
Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.
(2014, February 1). Retrieved May 2, 2015, from
http://epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf
NCGS_160A-317. (n.d.). Retrieved July 3, 2015, from
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_160A/GS_160A-
317.html
“NC Division of Waste Management: Items banned from disposal in landfills”. (n.d.). Retrieved from:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/sw/landfillbans
“NC DENR: GreenTravel”. (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2015, from http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/deao/ncgreentravel
Neal, D. (2014, August 1). Asheville’s Wicked Weed to build $5M production brewery. Citizen Times. Retrieved
May 3, 2015, from http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/08/01/ashevilles-wicked-weed-
build-m-production-brewery/13490407/
Neal, D. (2014, August 15). Asheville area leads state in growth of tourism dollars. Citizen-Times. Retrieved March
23, 2015, from http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/asheville-area-leads-statein-
growth-tourism-dollars/14122799/
“New reports target food waste reduction”. (2014, June 16). Retrieved March 11, 2015, from
http://www.biocycle.net/2014/06/16/biocycle-world-128/
“Non-Hazardous Waste Management Hierarchy”. (2013, November 22). Retrieved May 5, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/solidwaste/nonhaz/municipal/hierarchy.htm
“North Carolina Facts: Factory Farm Map”. (2015, May 1). Retrieved July 26, 2015, from
http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/states/nc/
“Paper Recycling: Basics” (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/paper/basic_info.htm
“Paper Recycling: Schools and offices”. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/paper/setting/schoolwork.htm

73 | G o o d m a n
“Recycling. The City of Asheville” (2015). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from
http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Departments/Sanitation/Recycling.aspx#Curbside Recycling Collection
“Recycling basics”. (2015, February 18). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from http://www2.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-
basics
Redmond, J., Walker, E., & Wang, C. (2008). Issues for small businesses with waste management. Journal of
Environmental Management, 88(2), 275-285. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.02.006
“Reducing and Reusing Basics”. (2015, March 11). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://www2.epa.gov/recycle/reducing-and-reusing-basics
Reducing wasted food & packaging: A guide for food services and restaurants. (2014, December 1). Retrieved
March 15, 2015, from
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/foodwaste/docs/reducing_wasted_food_pkg_tool.pdf
“Requirements for Multi-family and Commercial Garbage and Recycling Collection and Facilities”. (2006, March
21). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3072
“Republic Services: Business waste and recycling services.” (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.republicservices.com/Corporate/Business/business-waste-services.aspx
“Research and reports: Business Patterns”. (n.d.). Retrieved May 19, 2015, from
http://www.ashevillechamber.org/sites/default/files/EDC-FS-BusinessPatterns-01-15.pdf
“Research and reports: Industry employment”. (2015, March). Retrieved May 19, 2015, from
http://www.ashevillechamber.org/sites/default/files/EDC-FS-IndustryEmploy-07-14.pdf
“Restaurant Compost Program”. (2010). Retrieved May 7, 2015, from
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/GreenInitiatives/Recycling/GI_recycling_compost_resta
urant_update.pdf
“Reverse Recycling: Keep Durham Beautiful” (2015). Retrieved July 12, 2015, from
http://keepdurhambeautiful.org/programs/reverse-recycling/
Roth, R. (2015, January 1). Infrastructure crisis, sustainable solutions: Rethinking our infrastructure investment
strategies. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from
http://evergreen.edu/sustainableinfrastructure/docs/CSI-Infrastructure-Crisis-Report.pdf
Sawyer, P. L. (2010). Electronic Waste Management and Recycling Issues of Old Computers and Electronics. New
York: Nova Science.
Sezak-Blatt, A. (2015, March 23). The consequence of waste: Buncombe’s discarded problem is piling up.
Mountain Xpress. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from http://mountainx.com/news/the-true-cost-of-waste/
Shamshiry, Nadi, Mokhtar, Komoo, Hashim, and Yahaya, “Integrated Models for Solid Waste Management in
Tourism Regions: Langkawi Island, Malaysia,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2011,
Article ID 709549, 5 pages, 2011. doi:10.1155/2011/709549
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2011/709549/

74 | G o o d m a n
Stone, D. (2012, December 3). Fresno: A City Serious About Recycling. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/03/fresno-a-city-serious-about-recycling/
“Sustainable Materials Management”. (2015, May 5). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/index.htm
Sustainable Materials Management: The road ahead. (2009, June 1). Retrieved June 22, 2015,
http://www.epa.gov/smm/pdf/vision2.pdf
“The Food Recovery Hierarchy”. (2014, November 20). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://epa.gov/waste/conserve/foodwaste/
The History of the California Environmental Protection Agency: Integrated waste management board. (2009,
January 06). Retrieved from http://www.calepa.ca.gov/about/history01/ciwmb.htm
”The National Archives Catalog” (2015). Greatest Crime in Christendom. Retrieved July 12, 2015, from
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/512530
The new SME definition: User guide and model declaration. (2005). Luxembourg: [Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities]. Retrieved May 19, 2015, from
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/sme_definition/sme_user_guide_en.pdf
“U.S. Food Waste Challenge FAQ's”. (n.d.). Retrieved May 9, 2015, from
http://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm
“Waste Reduction Partners”. (2012). Retrieved May 11, 2015, from http://www.landofsky.org/wrp.html
Yarkosky, S. DENR (2010). Employment Trends in North Carolina’s Recycling Industry 2010. Retrieved July 12,
2015, from http://www.container-recycling.org/assets/pdfs/jobs/EmploymentTrendsInNC.pdf

COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKETING FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF COMMERCIAL WASTE MATERIALS IN

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKETING FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF COMMERCIAL WASTE MATERIALS IN

COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL MARKETING FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF COMMERCIAL WASTE MATERIALS IN