Landfills and how to deal with the nation's garbage are hot political topics throughout the United States. Americans currently rankgarbage disposal asthe second most important issuefacing local governments. Only improving the nation's educational system is viewed as being more important (EPA 1989).

In West Virginia, the public's concern over the importation of out-of-state garbage has led West Virginia's state governmentto adoptthree major laws affecting landfills and garbage disposal. Legislation in 1988 established local solidwaste planning authorities andtougher environmental controls over landfills. The West Virginia Recycling Act of 1989 set a goal of reducing the waste stream by 20 percent in 1994 and established planning procedures for recycling. Then in 1991, legislation was adopted that required all West Virginia municipalities with a population between 10,000 and 40,000 to develop mandatory recycling plans by 1994. Municipalities larger than 40,000 are required to adopt either a recycling plan or a materials recovery program'.

This article examines current recycling efforts in West Virginia and surrounding states. A survey of municipalities in Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia was undertaken to determine what West Virginia's cities can learn from their efforts. In addition, a roundtable discussion on recycling markets was held and the recommendations reached by the participants of that discussion are presented.

WHY RECYCLE?

Recycling's main benefit is that it diverts a portion of the waste stream from landfills and incineration. Lanctfills, especially ones that lack modern liners and monitoring systems, present serious environmental hazards for

Alan R. Collins is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at West Virginia University. Susan Hunter is an Assistant Professor in the Departmentof Political Science at West Virginia University.

'Instead of separating waste at the household, a materials recovery program separates waste at a central location. Given their expenses, materials recovery programs are not economically feasible in smaller communities (Chottiner 1991).

groundwater supplies. Their construction and siting present majorpolitical problernsforboth state and localgovernment officials (Dickstein and Sayre 1989). Waste-to-energy incinerators, which were considered a viable solution to the solid waste disposal problem during the 1970s, have faced increasingly difficult siting problems due to public concern over the long-term environmental and health hazards from emissions.

Recycling programs are also viewed as being beneficial because they can significantly reduce air pollution in the manufacturing process (up to 95 percent for aluminum, 85 percent for steel, 74 percent for paper, and 20 percent for glass). Recycling can also reduce water pollution in the manufacturing process (up to 97 percent for aluminum, 76 percent for steel, and 35 percent for paper) and reduce water use (up to 40 percent for steel, 58 percent for paper, and 50 percent for glass) (Letcher and Sheil 1986).

Given these benefits, diverse segments of society have embraced recycling as a solution to solid waste environmental problems. For example, MTV runs advertisements which state "Recycle or Die", large corporations are beginning to place recyclable labels on many of their products in an effort to enhance sales, and many retail establishments use recycled materials for packaging. William Jones, Presidentof Stone and Thomas department store, expressed the prevailing mood rather well when he said, "Using recycled cardboard for packaging is not only good environmental practice, but it makes economic sense as well."

GOVERNMENT AND RECYCLING

Backed by overwhelming public support, state and local governments have taken the lead in promoting recycling. There are currently over2,700 curbside recycling programs in the United States (Glenn 1991). Thirty-eight states provide incentives to develop recycling programs and/or markets for recyclables (aluminum, glass, newspaper, plastics, etc.). As Table 1 indicates, 17 states go beyond incentives by mandating community recycling. In addition, 33 states require state agencies to give preferences to recycled productswhen purchasing products and32 states mandate recycling by state government agencies.

Although popular, recycling efforts have been plagued by the volatility of markets for recyclable materials (National Center for Resource Recovery 1974). These markets are notorious for large fluctuations in prices paid and demand for recyclables (Misner 1991). Moreover, because the markets for goods made from recycled materials are just beginning to develop, the market demand for recyclables, in general, has not kept upwith the growing supply. This has caused the prices for recyclable materials to fall. This imbalance in the supply and demandfor recyclable material creates a major problem for the long-term viability of recycling. Since government mandates are at least partially responsible for this imbalance, government should play a role in creating new and enhancing existing markets for recycled products.

The market for newspapers in the Northeast is a good example of how government mandated recycling programs can create a market imbalance. In the mid-1980s, many communities inthe Northeast (especially NewJersey) were implementing recycling programs to collect newspaper as a means to save landfill space. By the late 1980s, an oversupply of old newsprint contributed to a reduction in the price of newspaper from $25 perton to as low as minus $50 perton (i.e. communities were charged to haul it away). The market for recycled newspaper remains poor. Forexample, a public relations officer for Columbus, Ohio indicated that they currently pay $10 per ton to have recycled newsprint taken to paper processors.

SURVEY RESULTS

In an effort to determine what solid waste disposal programs are currently being used by municipalities in West Virginia and in surrounding states, a survey was mailed to
  all municipalities with populations over 10,000 in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland and all municipalities in West Virginia with a population over 6,000. Two hundred
  and ninety-five municipalities were mailed a survey. Eighty percent (236) of the surveys were returned.  Number  Eighty percent of the municipalities responding to the of States survey (179 out of 236) had recycling programs as of spring 1991. Over half of these programs (54%) were mandated by state or local governments. These mandates ranged from
  legislation requiring county governments to implement recycling programs (Pennsylvania) to state mandated solid waste reduction goals (Ohio). In West Virginia, slightly over half (54%) of the communities surveyed (13 out of 24) had   recycling programs. None of the West Virginia programs
  were mandated by state, county, or local law, and all involved voluntary citizen participation. In surrounding states, 24 the majority of recycling programs (58%) have voluntary
 15 participation by citizens, even when the program itself is 13 mandated. Mostof the recycling programs involved curbside 9 collection (75 percent), with the remainder involving dropoff
  centers. The survey respondents mentioned   inadequate markets, cost efficiency of collection, and the   lack of sufficient program funding to be the main problems   facing their recycling programs. Household opposition,   business participation, and citizen education were not seen as major problems in any of the states, but equipment   problems tended to be more prevalent in West Virginia than   in surrounding states. Not surprisingly, given the audience   of respondents (local government administrators and planners), recycling program planning and management were
  rarely considered problems.

Of those cities where recycling programs do not exist, all but two reported that they were considering the implementation of a recycling program. As with programs already in place, the main perceived obstacles to implementation were inadequate markets and program cost. These obstacles were listed as the first or second most importantforthe majority of citieswithout recycling programs. Household opposition and equipment (except in West Virginia) were not seen as important obstacles.

Currently, West Virginia cities rely on landfill disposal for 90 percent of their municipal solid waste. This is much higher than the region's average of 72 percent.  Nationally, about 77 percent of municipal solid waste is landfilled (Glenn 1991). WestVirginia relies more heavily on landfill disposal than surrounding states because itdoes not incinerate its wastes and has fewer recycling programs in operation. Virginia, which incinerates 16 percent of its solid waste, landfills the lowest percentage of its waste (60%). Pennsylvania, the only state in our survey that mandated local recycling, had the highest percentage of solid waste being recycled (about 16 percent). West Virginia cities currently recycle only about 4 percent of their solid waste, the lowest percentage for recycling in the region.

It is anticipated that nearly all of West Virginia's existing landfills will be forced to close by December 1993 because they either do not have liners or their liners do not meet state environmental specifications (Niiler 1991; Seiler 1991). Because of these regulations, West Virginia has the most imminent average anticipated closing date for its landfills (1993) of any other state in the region. The average closing date for Maryland's and Virginia's landfills is 1998. Ohio's landfills are expected, on average, to meet that state's needs until the year 2001 and Pennsylvania's are expected to meet their needs until the year 2005. It is interesting to note that Pennsylvania, the only state in the region that mandated recycling in 1991, has the longest availability of landfills in the region.

The average price of landfill disposal (called tipping fees) in West Virginia was much lower in 1990 ($16 perton) than in surrounding states ($27 perton). However, having lower tipping fees does not necessarily mean that West Virginians spend significantly less than their neighbors on solid waste disposal. Although West Virginians do spend the lowest amount in the region ($33 percapita), its disposalfees are much closertothe region's average than its tipping fees (Table 4). This occurs because, unlike local governments in other states, most of West Virginia's local governments do not contract out the collection and disposal of solid waste to the private sector. In the survey, cities that contracted out their waste disposal services to the private sector had significantly lower costs ($24 per capita) than cities that provided those services themselves ($38 per capita). The cost savings that can be achieved by contracting out waste disposal services has also been documented in other regions of the country (Stevens 1977; Fixler and Poole 1987).

Although current tipping fees for landfill disposal are relatively low in West Virginia, these fees are expected to rise dramatically in the near future. When asked to forecast their tipping fees for 1993, West Virginia city administrators projected that fees would double to $32 per ton (see Table 4). These predictions were made prior to the adoption of legislation in 1991 that imposed an additional $4 tipping fee for trash collected within the vicinity of a landfill (called inwasteshed trash) and $6 for trash that originated out of the landfill's vicinity (called out-of-wasteshed trash) to pay for the closure of landfills that lack appropriate liners. The legislation also authorized counties to impose an additional $2 to $5 tipping fee (Seiler 1991). Given these changes, West Virginia's tipping fees are expectedto, move closerto the region's average by 1993.

As tipping fees in West Virginia climb, city officials will be forced to increase their solid waste collection and disposal fees. They will also look for ways to reduce expenses to keep the fee increases to a minimum. Across the nation, cities have primarily relied on three strategies to reduce solid waste expenses. Two strategies (recycling and volume based fees) can constrain future costs but they do riot reduce expenses immediately. The third strategy (privatization) is effective in reducing expenses immediately.

First, many cities have implemented recycling programs to reduce the volume of waste that is landfilled. These programs have been implemented with the support of the general public and, in many cases, with state funding. However, because recycling programs can be expensive to operate and the markets for recyclables have been so poor recently, our survey results indicate that recycling has riot reduced solid waste expenses. Moreover, recycling does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the amount of solid waste. Despite mandatory recycling, per capita waste generation rates in Pennsylvania increased during 1990 (Strohl 1991).

Second, some cities have implemented collection fees based on the volume of waste produced in each household to encourage residents to reduce the volume of waste they send to the local landfill. Typically, residents are charged a fee for each bag or trash can that they place at the curb for
collection. While previous research indicates that volume based fees can reduce the amount of waste generated (Goldberg 1990), our surveys revealed that cities with volume based fees did not have lower solid waste costs than cities with flat rates. As with recycling, volume based fees constrain future cost increases rather than reduce present costs.

Finally, many cities contract out their waste collection to private haulersto reduce operating expenses. As mentioned previously, cities that contracted out their waste collection services to private contractors experienced a significant reduction in their solid waste collection expenses. As a result, our surveys suggest that contracting out solid waste disposal services is the most effective strategy for cities to reduce their solid waste expenses.

Most state and local governments have not had a problem with generating citizen support and participation in their recycling programs. Evidence from this survey and from public opinion surveys nationwide suggest that the lack of citizen participation is only a minor problem for most recycling programs. However, this success has led to collection of more recyclables than the markets can absorb. Depressed prices and difficulties in locating markets have been the consequences. This problem with markets is one which threatens the effectiveness of all recycling programs.

For this reason, the authors, with the assistance of a grant from the West Virginia Institute for Public Aff airs, held a roundtable discussion on June 28, 1991, entitled "Challenges to Recycling Market Development." The roundtable discussion's major goal was to develop recommendations for state and local government officials to promote markets for recyclable materials. It was attended by forty-six people representing local Solid Waste Authorities, communities concerned about recycling, waste haulers, private sector recyclers, state government officials, and academicians with research interests in recycling.

ROUNDTABLE RECOMMENDATIONS

The roundtable discussion participants addressed issues of recycling market development, state regulation and legislation, public and private collection programs, and state role in community level recycling. Their recommendations are divided into two sections: (1) Public support for recycling; and (2) Recycling market development.

Public Support for Recycling

Public support recommendations included the need to create public educational programs to encourage citizen participation in recycling. Specifically, participants recommended that an environmental studies component, with emphasis on solid waste reduction, should be added to the curriculum in teacher education as well as in elementary and secondary education (K-1 2), that ataskforce composed of representatives from the general public, private haulers, and recycling program directors should be created with the goal of developing educational materials on solid waste disposal, and that the state government should appoint a state coordinator for recycling education.

To increase citizen support for the state mandated 20 percentwaste stream reduction, participants recommended that the state government reduce the volume of solid waste entering the state's landfills by banning the disposal of recyclable materials in landfills; significantly increasing landfill tipping fees through a state tax on landfill disposal; and mandating that communities of 6,000 or greater develop recycling programs with curbside source separation. They also recommended that the state landfill tax be used to fund the closure of environmentally unsafe landfills. In addition, sincethese recommendations increase incentives forillegal dumping, participants recommended enforcement of mandatory solid waste collection and disposal for households and businesses with penalties for non-compliance.

From a market development perspective, the above recommendations increase the marketsupplyof recyclables, assist local recycling programs in achieving economies of scale in collection and processing of materials, and, by increasing the supply, promote lower market prices for recyclables. While lower market prices may enhance industry's demand for recyclables, these options may also act to glut the marketplace for recyclables.

Recycling Market Development

The economic law of supply and demand suggests that unless the demand for recyclable materials increases with supplythere is adangerthat aglutof materials mayfloodthe marketplace. In aworst case scenario, thepriceof recyclables could drop to the point where the private sector would no longer be willing to invest in recycling collection and processing. Cities could then be stuck with a lot of recyclables that have no market. If this happens, West Virginia's cities could end up having to pay forthe recyclables to be hauled to a landfill.

To prevent this worst case scenario from occurring, the roundtable participants recommended that the state government implement new procurement procedures to require state government agencies to give preference to products manufactured with recycled materials when they order products. Thirty-three states currently require their state agencies to give preference to products made from recycled materials. For example, Maryland sets aside 40 percent of its paper contracts for purchases of recycled paper. The disadvantage of this recommendation is that products made from recycled materials often cost more than the alternatives.

The roundtable discussion participants also recommended that the state government pursue reciprocal exchange agreements with surrounding states to develop industries that utilize recyclable materials. Because West Virginia is a relatively small state and markets for many recyclables are international in scale, reciprocal agreements could promote regional demand for a variety of recyclables beyond what could be accomplished solely by any market development program in West Virginia. Inthese agreements, each state would agree to assist in the development of an industry (for example, glass) that would use recyclables. In return, the industry would undertake long term contracts to provide a market for all recycled glass collected in each of the states that are part of the agreement.

Roundtable participants also recommended that West Virginia create an agency or office that is responsible for aggressively promoting, in a highly visible manner, the market for recycled materials in the state and region. Specif ically, they recommended that this off ice examine the possibility of developing a cooperative marketing association and establishing a computerized market information

data base. The marketing association would provide fulltime technical assistance in finding markets for recyclable materials. The New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association is the leading example of a cooperative marketing association which has been supported by state government (Kohrell and Olson 1990).

Recognizing that the lack of established markets for recyclables makes it difficult for many companies to secure the financing necessary to enter or expand recycling businesses in the private sector, roundtable discussion participants recommended that West Virginia follow the lead set by thirty-five other states that have established tax relief, loan, or grant programs for recycling market development. Tax breaks would encourage companies to engage in research and development on manufacturing uses of recyclable materials. Seed money (either in the form of low interest loans orgrants) could be provided to new industries which utilize recyclables. In addition, financial assistance could be provided to both private recyclers and cities to help them develop the ability to process recyclable materials for direct shipment to manufacturers.

Most states fund market development programs through a special landfill tax or tipping f ee. For example, Minnesota uses a six percent sales tax on solid waste collection and disposal services to fund its market development program. New Jersey imposes a $1.50 perton tax on landfill disposal to fund its recycling market development and collection programs (Schrader 1991).

Since many recycling market issues face all states, the roundtable discussion participants felt that West Virginia should urge the U.S. government to assist in the developmentof markets for recyclable materials. Recommendations included the need for national legislation to require product labelling that specifies the material content that has been collected through recycling programs and a change in the Federal government's specifications for material use in federally funded activities (i.e. highway construction) to encourage the use of products made from recycled materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Recycling can play an important role in solid waste management. Recycling has been successfully implemented in areas with high and/or rising tipping fees. However, recycling, excluding composting, has been projected to be realistically feasible for only about 25 percent of the waste stream (Thurner and Ashley 1990). This means there is a need for integrated solid waste planning which includes a role for landfill disposal and perhaps incineration.

Recycling programs in other states have sometimes caused a serious imbalance in the supply and demand for recyclable materials. In many instances the supply of recyclables has exceeded demand, driving prices to zero and even negative levels. Even at extremely low prices, tax supported recycling programs can continue to supply recyclables to the market as long as recycling costs less than incineration or landfilling. However, zero and/or negative prices can eliminate the private sector from recycling because they must make a profit to survive.

Market problems related to recyclables have been and continue to be addressed by innovative government legislation, primarilyatthe state level. Based on responsesto our survey and suggestions from roundtable participants, the following three recommendations for West Virginia's state government appearto have the best potentialfor improving market access for recycling programs in West Virginia. First, West Virginia should create an agency or office to coordinate a visible and aggressive program aimed at fostering a market for recyclable materials. Second, it should provide economic assistance to help both cities and private companies process recyclable materials and develop new markets. Third, West Virginia should implement procurement procedures that provide preference for recycled products. These recommendations would increase the ability of local recycling programs to find existing markets for recyclable materials and foster an economic environment that will help to create additional demand for recyclable materials.

The solid waste management law adopted in 1991 included two of these three recommendations. State government procurement procedures are now required to give preference for recycled products and the Solid Waste Management Board has been designated as the state agency responsible for recycling market development. The law also included several provisions recommended by the roundtable participants: landfill taxes were increased to fund the closure of landfills that do not meet environmental specifications, recycling was mandated for communities of 10,000 or greater, and the disposal of yard waste, lead acid batteries, and tires in landfills was banned (Chottiner 1991; Seiler 1991).

While our survey results found that recycling did not reduce solid waste collection and disposal costs, privatization of this service can lead to significant cost savings. Contracting out waste collection anddisposal serviceswith privatefirms has not only saved cities money but large companies, such as BFI and Waste Management, Inc., have been able to arrange agreements directlywith manufacturers to take the recyclables they collect. With large volume and quality guarantees, large solid waste firms have been able to create their own markets for recyclables.

Recycling in West Virginia faces two potential financial drawbacks. First, mandatory recycling has been initiated at a time of depressed prices for recyclable materials (Misner 1991). Communities may find that they cannot locate markets for their recyclables or that it is more cost effective to haul recyclablesto a landfill ratherthan transport them to market. Second, present legislation will close down almost all existing state landfills by 1993. This means that West Virginia's communities cannot count on recycling to extend the useful life of their local landfills. Those landfills will be closed for environmental reasons regardless of the success or failure of recycling efforts in West Virginia. Moreover, given the increased costs to meet stringent environmental standards, new landfills will have to charge more per ton than previous ones. In order to be economically viable, landfills may have to increase the volume of waste they accept. However, if recycling is successful and the amount of waste imported into the state remains stable the total amount of waste landfilled in West Virginia may noi be sufficient to meet the economic needs of these new landfills.

Solid waste management is a complex issue. Local public off icials will need to pursue a combination of disposal

alternatives in the future to properly manage wastes. In many cases, recycling should be included as an alternative. There are trade-offs, however, as successful recycling probably cannot be combined with low landfill tipping tees. If public officials wish to maintain low tipping fees at new landfills in the presence of recycling programs, out-of-shed waste may be required to achieve the disposal volumes necessary.

REFERENCES

Brown, F. Lee and A.0. Lebeck. 1976. Cars, Cans, and Dumps. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Chottiner, Lee. 1991. Waste bill puts funds in jeopardy. Dominion Post, October 27: 1 B, 2B.

Clayton, Kenneth C. and John M. Hule. 1973. Solid Wastes Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.

Dickstein, Carla and Greg Sayre. 1989. Socioeconomic Impacts of Landfills in West Virginia. The West Virginia PublicAffairs Reporter 6:4 (Fall): 1-6.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Promoting Source Reduction andRecyclabilityin theMarketplace. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.

Fixier, Philip E- and Robert W. Poole, Jr. 1987. Status of State and Local Privatization. In Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science: Prospects for Privatization 36:3:164-178.

Goldberg, Dan. 1990. The Magicof Volume Reduction. Waste Age 21:5: 98-104.

Glenn, Jim and David Riggle. 1991. The State of Garbage In America. Biocycle 32:4: 34-38.

Hemphill, Thomas. 1990. Loans and Grants for Recycling Businesses. Biocycle 31:5: 54-56.

Hemphill, Thomas. 1990. Demand and Market Incentives:A Look at Industrial Policies. Waste Age 211: 24-28.

Kohrell, Mary and Gary Olson. 1990. What's the Future of Cooperative Marketing. Resource Recycling (June): 34-37.

Kovacs, William. 1988. The Coming Era of Conservation and Industrial Utilization of Recyclable Materials. Ecology Law Quarterly 15: 537-621.

Krelth, Frank. 1990. Solid Waste Management. 1989-1990 State Legislation. Second Edition. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Letcher, Robert Cowles and Mary T. Sheil. 1986. Source Separation and Citizen Recycling. In The Solid Waste Handbook. Ed. William D. Robinson. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

Managing Solid Waste: Recycling. 1989. Lansing, Michigan:Legislative Service Bureau, Science and Technology Division.

Misner, Michael. 1991, Recyclable Prices Show Market Instability. Waste Age 22(9):36-44.

National Center for Resource Recovery. 1974. Resource Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Niiler, Eric. 1991. Landfill closure deadlines may be extended. Sunday Gazette-Mail, September 15: 1 C, 4C.

Rathbun, Pete. 1990. Just Say No: The Role of Material Bans in Integrated Waste Management. Washington, DC: The Center for Policy Alternatives.

Schrader, Richard. 1991. Creating Markets: The Next Step for State Recycling Programs. Washington, DC: The Center for Policy Alternatives.

Seiler, Fanny. 1991. Agreement reached on wastebill. Charleston Gazette, October 18: 1 A, 8A.

Stevens, BarbaraJ. 1977. The Costof Residential Refuse Collection. In The Organization and Efficiency of Solid Waste Collection. Ed. E.S. Savas. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Strohl,Lydia. 1991. The Vast Wasteland. Pittsburgh (November): 63-71.

Thurner, Christian and Dayna Ashley. 1990. Developing Recycling Mafkets and Industries. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.

United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1989. FacingAmerica's Trash: What Next forMunicipal Solid Waste. OTA-0-424. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.