The Determinants of Municipal Solid Waste

Post on 24-Feb-2016

22 views 0 download

description

The Determinants of Municipal Solid Waste. Consumption. · 16% of population consumes 80% of natural resources · 25 tons of raw materials per American · The U.S. (1/25 of world population) operates 1/3 of the world’s automobiles and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of The Determinants of Municipal Solid Waste

The Determinants of Municipal Solid Waste

Consumption

·  16% of population consumes 80% of natural resources

· 25 tons of raw materials per American

·   The U.S. (1/25 of world population) operates 1/3 of the world’s automobiles and

consumes 1/4 of the global energy supply

Consumption Begets Waste

·      1986: 3.66 lbs of MSW per person per day

·      2009: 4.34 lbs

·      More municipal solid waste per capita than any other OECD country

Problems with Waste

·  Resource Depletion·  Scarcity of Storage Sites·  External Costs·  Reflections of Larger Societal Inefficiencies

MSW Make Up

Recycling Rates

· 24% of MSW is from non-renewable resources

· 33.4% of MSW is “recovered” for recycling or composting

Scarcity of Storage Sites 1988: 8000 landfills in the U.S.

2008: 2122

• Urban sprawl makes convenient sites less viable

• Waste transport has high $ and enviro cost

• Groundwater contamination or adverse trends at 90% of land fills

• Ash toxicity problems at incineration facilities (17% of MSW is incinerated)

EXTERNAL COSTS - Removal

Transportation of Resources

Production

Transportation of Products

Use

Transportation of Waste

Dumping

Incineration

Illegal Dumping

Reflections of Larger Societal Values?

1970s

12 percent increase in per-capita waste generation

1980s“The me! Me! Me! generation of status seekers.  

‘If you've got it, flaunt it,’ ‘Shop Til you drop,’ and ‘You can have it all!’ were catchphrases. 

Binge buying and credit became a way of life.Labels were everything.  Tom Wolfe dubbed the baby-boomers as the

‘splurge generation.’” --Kingwood college website on American cultural history

34 percent increase in per-capita waste generation

1990s and 2000s

No Change

Demographic Trends may affect Levels of Waste

·  74 LDC’s will double in population size over the next 25 years.

·  World population grows by about 78 million each year.

· Materialism may be increasing

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Col

lege

Gra

duat

es

Year

Number of College Graduates in the United States

Personal Income Per Capita in the U.S. in Constant (2001) Dollars

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Year

2001

Dol

lars

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1964 1970 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997

Farm

s

Year

Number of Farms in the United States

Median Age in the United States

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1960 1970 1975 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

Med

ian

Age

Question: Which trends pose the greatest threats?

Definitions and DataThe U.S. Census Bureau defines municipal

waste as:

“That which is collected and treated by or for municipalities: household waste and bulky waste as well as comparable waste from small communities or industrial enterprises; and market and garden residue.”

Data are from mid 1990’s

1055 U.S. counties in 17 states

Figures are for waste disposed of (generation net of reclamation)

Variable Definitions

WASTE Annual tons of solid waste generated by county

HIGH SCHOOL Percent high school graduates, but not college graduates

COLLEGE Percent college graduatesESTABLISHMENTS Private non-farm establishments

per capita

SERVICE INDUSTRY Percent of firms that are in service industries

LAND Land area in square miles per capita

FARMS Number of farms per capitaSERIOUS CRIMES Serious crimes per 100,000

population

NORTH Regional dummy variable: 1 if county resides in northern U.S., 0 otherwise.

EAST Regional dummy variable: 1 if county resides in eastern U.S., 0 otherwise.

SOUTH Regional dummy variable: 1 if county resides in southern U.S., 0 otherwise.

ESKIMO / ALEUTIAN

Dummy variable: 1 if American Eskimo or American Aleutian

AFRICAN AMERICAN

Dummy variable: 1 if African American, 0 otherwise

HISPANIC Dummy variable: 1 if of Hispanic origin, 0 otherwise

ADULTS Percent of population between the ages of 22 and 64 inclusive

SENIORS Percent of population above the age of 64

REPUBLICAN Percent of republican votes in the 1992 election

INCOME Income per capita in dollars

Table IVSample Means and Standard Deviations (N=1055)

Variable Mean Standard DeviationWASTE 135,399.47 522,051.18HIGH SCHOOL 69.31 10.22COLLEGE 13.49 6.62ESTABLISHMENTS 0.023 0.0068SERVICE INDUSTRY 31.27 4.81LAND 0.079 0.22FARMS 0.030 0.034SERIOUS CRIMES 2,892.01 2,549.22

NORTH 0.31 0.46EAST 0.04 0.20SOUTH 0.31 0.46ESKIMO / ALEUTIAN 1.06 4.39AFRICAN AMERICAN 7.48 11.94HISPANIC 7.03 14.69ADULTS 53.07 3.21SENIORS 14.75 4.50REPUBLICAN 40.31 8.71INCOME 17,171.79 4,076.70

Estimate of Log Waste Equation

Variable Coefficient t-ratioINTERCEPT -2.739*** -3.34HIGH SCHOOL 0.00474 0.99COLLEGE -0.0118* -1.73ESTABLISHMENTS 17.153*** 3.38SERVICE INDUSTRY 0.0214*** 3.10LAND -0.305** -2.05FARMS -3.779*** -3.03SERIOUS CRIMES 0.0000293** 2.05

R-square = 0.154, Adjusted R-square = 0.141

NORTH 0.0512 0.58EAST -0.329** -2.10SOUTH -0.000534 -0.01ESKIMO / ALEUTIAN -0.00922 -1.45AFRICAN AMERICAN 0.00583** 2.01HISPANIC 0.00321 1.16ADULTS 0.0195 1.47SENIORS -0.00771 -0.85REPUBLICAN 0.00723** 2.18

Log Waste Equation With Income Variable

Variable Coefficient t-ratioINTERCEPT -1.711** -2.46INCOME 0.0000172** 2.13LAND -0.323** -2.24FARMS -7.193*** -6.67NORTH -0.0960 -1.32EAST -0.411* -2.70SOUTH -0.0573 -0.71ADULTS 0.0217* 1.71SENIORS 0.00135 0.17REPUBLICAN 0.00674** 2.06

R2 = 0.119, Adj. R2 = 0.111

SOLUTIONS

Awareness

Education

Alternatives

Incentives

Social Motivation