Smith 1

Allison Smith
Global Foundations 201
Professor Leinaweaver
12 December, 2017
Word Count: 3,017
Pay-As-You-Throw in Springfield, MO

Under Springfield, Missouri’s current waste management program, the city has had the

same prioritized goal since the 1990’s: reducing its solid waste generation (City of Springfield

Solid Waste Management Division [CSSWMD], 2017). However, the city has yet to lower its

solid waste generation in over fifteen years (Missouri Department of Natural Resources [DNR],

2017). If Springfield wants to finally accomplish this goal, government should act by changing

its waste management strategy. Springfield, Missouri’s government should implement a pay-as-

you-throw waste management strategy in order to decrease its municipal solid waste generation.

Developed areas, such as Springfield, should focus on reducing the amount municipal

solid waste it generates. Municipal solid waste includes every day residential, commercial,

municipal, agricultural, institutional, and industrial waste (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012).

Globally, municipal solid waste accounts for the largest component of waste generated with over

one billion tons of it being produced per year (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). Because this

type of waste is the largest contributor to excessive waste production, areas need to focus on

decreasing this type of waste generation. The generation of this type of waste is projected to

nearly double in less than ten years; if this happens, the effects municipal solid waste has on life

would also increase as more trash generated leads to a decrease in the ability to manage it

(Vrijheid, 2000). If areas want to limit the effects of waste generation in developed areas, like
 Smith 2

Springfield, Missouri, they must focus on reducing municipal solid waste generation as it the

largest contributor of global waste and is expected to increase further.

The plan presented will specifically target Springfield, Missouri; however, pay-as-you-

throw programs can be implemented and personalized in various location in the developed

world. This plan focuses on Springfield, Missouri not only for personal reasons, but also because

the area’s current waste management strategy has not met its waste management plan’s goal for

nearly two decades. Under Springfield’s current Integrated Solid Waste Management System,

garbage is collected by private haulers and dumped at a local landfill (CSSWMD, 2017).

However, Springfield notes in its waste management plan that landfills are to be used as the last

option for waste management, yet the area uses it as its primary waste management strategy.

Furthermore, Springfield’s waste management plan has stated that its primary objective is lower

its solid waste production since the 1990’s, but the exact opposite has been happening

(CSSWMD, 2017). Since 2005, the amount of waste put into Springfield’s landfill has increased,

implying that the amount of waste produced since 2005 has also increased (DNR, 2017). In an

attempt to align Springfield’s waste management goals with its plans, this paper targets this

locality with a governmental solution, but this plan could be used and adjusted to the area of

other places.

A pay-as-you-throw program should be used in Springfield over traditional solid waste

management programs because pay-as-you-throw programs do not generate as many harmful

effects as traditional methods currently used. The majority of traditional solid waste management

programs take the collected garbage to landfills, which are now the most used waste

management strategy globally; because of this, over half of the waste produced in developed

countries is put into landfills (EPA, 2016a; Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). The problem with
 Smith 3

landfills is that they create harmful effects to people, other organisms, and the environment.

Landfills have been found to generate air pollution as they increase methane levels, contributing

to global warming and climate change; in fact, landfills are among the top five contributors to

methane production in the United States (EPA, 2016). Landfills also create water pollution and

soil pollution through leachates, which can contaminate soil and water sources in localities when

harmful toxins leak into the surrounding area (Halfman, 2009). Furthermore, these leachates can

then bioaccumulate and biomagnificate in the environment, causing chemicals to enter organisms

and the food chain (Hoornweg &Bhada-Tata, 2012). In severe cases, this leads to death in non-

human organisms and humans. Pay-as-you-throw program decrease the amount of trash

generated, and thus the amount of refuse going to landfills (United States Environmental

Protection Agency [EPA], 2016b). With less trash going to landfills, landfills would experience

lesser amounts of air pollution, soil pollution, and water pollution as there are less harmful

materials present and as lesser amounts of waste present are more manageable. Pay-as-you-throw

programs should be used instead of traditional municipal solid waste management methods as

they decrease harmful effects of traditional waste management programs, allowing for safer

environments.

While a pay-as-you-throw solid municipal waste management plan needs to be

implemented in order to decrease waste generation, an understanding of this program is

necessary for its success. A pay-as-you-throw waste management program is one where residents

pay a fee for the collection of the solid waste they generate; each residential household’s fee is

based on the amount of waste they generate per collection period (EPA, 2016b). The amount of

waste generated by each household can be measured in three different ways: the size of the

garbage can, the size or amount of the trash bags, or the weight of the waste (Blackmer &
 Smith 4

Criner). This differs from traditional waste management strategies as in traditional methods a

fixed fee or property taxes from residents are used to pay for waste collection strategies. Instead,

pay-as-you-throw treats waste management waste services as other service expenses, such as

utilities, where residents pay varying fees based on their use of the service(s) in question.

Pay-as-you-throw programs are effective as they offer a variety of benefits to each

locality and its residents, provide incentives for residents to generate less waste, and require only

small changes to current methods. In the United States, communities which implement pay-as-

you-throw programs typically report an average waste reduction 17 percent (Hammer & Miller,

2003). In some places, the amount of waste generated even decreased by 50 percent (Blackmer

& Criner, 2014). By reducing waste, each town would decrease harmful effects caused by

landfills, increasing the health and safety of its residents. Community residents would also

benefit by generating less waste because this saves them money, as the less waste households

generate, the less they pay. This allows for residents to be in control of their bills and allows

fairness within the system. Residents have a strong financial incentive to reduce the amount

waste they generate. As in some towns that have already switched to a pay-as-you-throw waste

program, residents have been able to significantly lower their waste management bill as each bag

to trash they produce costs them $1.50 (about $2.13 today) instead having to pay a flat fee for the

service each month, costing more than the amount of garbage they produce per month in this

system (EPA, 1999). Furthermore, implementing a pay-as-you-throw system does not require

significant changes to traditional waste management methods, allowing for an easier transition to

this method. As methods already exist waste management in areas, such as truck haulers, routes,

plans for disposal, etc., these methods can still be maintained because they will still be necessary

(Ecoconservation Institute, 2015). This means trash providers are still in business, their routes do
 Smith 5

not change, their management of the trash does not change, and neither does their disposal

methods. The only changes necessary would be a local policy change from government requiring

a pay-as-you-throw method to be implemented in the area and changing how the waste

management service is paid for. Switching to this waste management strategy does not require

communities to start from scratch, it only requires small adjustments to current methods. As over

4,000 communities have made these changes, this demonstrates that the transition is not only

doable, but also that it has been successful as more and more places are making the switch to

pay-as-you-throw systems over time (Ecoconservation Institute, 2015). Pay-as-you-throw waste

management programs offer benefits to communities and residents, incentives for participation,

and do not require major changes to current waste management methods.

As other areas in the developed world have already implemented pay-as-you-throw waste

management programs, support for the success of these programs has already been demonstrated

and offer a key factor when employing one of these programs. For example, the town of

Falmouth, Maine implemented a pay-as-you-throw program in the early 1990’s; from this

program, the town was able to decrease its waste generation by 35 percent, saved the town

$50,000 in its first year, and brought an extra $30,000 for the community (EPA, 1997).

Falmouth’s program relied on having residents pay a tax on trash bags specially designed for the

area; the tax of the bag paid for the collection cost of the trash while the cost of the bag paid for

the disposal cost of the trash (EPA, 1997). The money saved in this town was due to the decrease

in amount of waste needed to transport and manage while the extra money brought into

community was due to an increase in recycling after implementing the program. The community

of Gainesville, Florida began its pay-as-you-throw program in 1994; in its program, the city

offered three different sized garbage cans for residents, the cost of garbage can increasing as its
 Smith 6

size increased (EPA, 1997). After switching to this plan for only one year, the area decreased its

waste generation by 25 percent and saved the city over $186,000, equating to a savings of nearly

$8 per home (EPA, 1997). The reduction in waste and expenses each area demonstrated from

switching their waste management system is undeniable. Each community was able to lower its

waste generation due to the pay-as-you-throw strategy’s incentive to produce less waste

financially. While both of these case studies demonstrate the success pay-as-you-throw waste

management strategies offer, both Falmouth and Gainesville identified one key factor as being

essential to their success: educating the public before implementing the new system (EPA,

1997). Gainesville offered public outreach publications six months before switching their system

and while Falmouth handed out brochures, gave away free trash bags to each household, sent

newsletters, and even conducted a logo contest for schools in order to spread knowledge, answer

questions, and increase public support of the program (EPA, 1997). Prior public education about

the programs before implementing them allowed for the pay-as-you-throw systems to be

successful because the communities were able to understand the programs, to understand the

benefits of the programs, and to become familiarized with the idea of the programs. These two

stories demonstrate that pay-as-you-throw systems have been successful in reducing waste

generation and pinpoint educating the public about the system before switching to it as being key

the program’s success.

For Springfield to implement an effective pay-as-you-throw municipal solid waste

management program, the program must be designed specifically to this locality. In order to

determine the cost or fee per household for the program, a method of determining the amount of

trash generated for each household must first be established. As previously stated, there are three

ways to measure the amount of garbage generated per each household: the weight of the trash,
 Smith 7

the size of the trash can, or the size or amount of trash bags generated. As weighing trash at each

household would increase the time spent in garbage routes for trash haulers and increase

expenses as each truck would have to add a device to weigh garbage, this method would not be

the best option for Springfield as it increases expenses and time. Additionally, if the amount of

trash generated was determined by the size of the trash can each household uses, trash cans of

varying sizes would have to be purchased and waste providers would have to transport each one

to each household and collect the old ones. Therefore, this method would also cost Springfield

time and money and is not the best option available. However, using the amount of garbage bags

generated by each household to determine waste generation would not require any additional

expenses and allows haulers to maintain their current waste collection and disposal methods. If

the only change made is a tax on trash bags when they are purchased, this method also allows

residents to continue to buy their bags the same way and for stores to sell them the same way.

The tax on the trash bags would need to cover Springfield’s expenses for waste management,

including the income of haulers’ employees, and waste disposal. To determine the average cost

per bag, the sum of Springfield’s waste management expenses should be divided by the amount

of bags expected to collect (the amount of households and the average amount of bags used, or

amount of waste generated, per household); a generic calculation the EPA recommends for areas

using a pay-as-you-throw system implementing a rate or tax per bag (1999). Thus, the following

equation could be used:

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚

𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑔 ($) =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑎𝑔𝑠

To find the tax rate needed for each bag, the number from the above calculation should then be

divided by the average current cost of a trash bag in Springfield. This calculation would allow
 Smith 8

for the lowest the tax rate could be set at to be found in order to cover the total expenses of waste

management. If there was concern about this amount not fully covering the expenses, the tax rate

could be increased in order to provide a safe cushion for the community, a strategy which

Onconee County in Georgia practices (EPA, 1999). Note that by using this calculation,

determining the amount of waste generated per bag of waste allows for the expenses of the waste

management to be lower than if the methods of weighing the trash generated or if using varying

trash cans sizes were implemented as both of these methods require additional expenses, raising

the total expenses of waste management. In order to enforce this tax, local government would

have to require its residents to use the pay-as-you-throw waste management system. By taxing

residents per trash bag generated, residents have an incentive to produce less waste and residents

pay for the expenses of waste management. To design a pay-as-you-throw program for

Springfield, the tax rate per trash bag should be specific to this area, allowing for the program to

specific to this area.

Pay-as-you-throw waste management programs have two major critiques: the concern

that illegal dumping may increase and that the community may not be accepting of the plan. In a

select few studies, places that implemented a pay-as-you-throw system experienced a large

increase in illegal dumping activity following the switch of their waste management strategy

(Blackmer & Criner, 2014). While there is a chance that this could happen following the

implementation of such a program in this locality, there is a way to prevent an increase in illegal

dumping from occurring. Before implementing the program, education the public far in advance

of starting it has been found to increase the success of the pay-as-you-throw program without

having significant increases in illegal dumping (EPA, 1997). Therefore, Springfield should start

educating the public about the pay-as-you-throw program well before switching its waste
 Smith 9

management system in order to prevent illegal dumping. This would allow residents to become

comfortable with the idea of the program, ask questions they may have, and enforce the benefits

of this program over the current traditional waste management strategy. As the pay-as-you-throw

program would need time to determine its effects and successfulness, after six months of

implementing the pay-as-you-throw system, Springfield government officials should meet and

discuss any issues that have arisen, ways to make the process smoother, and its success. At this

time if a drastic increase in illegal dumping has been observed, new ways to tackle this problem

could be determined at this time. As problems or kinks are likely to arise after switching a

system that has been in place for a long period in time, it is important that steps are in place to

reevaluate the program as needed in order to address any situations which do arise. Another

critique of switching to a pay-as-you-throw system is that the community may not initially accept

the switching of the program. However, by looking at prior programs, both successful and none,

the most important way to combat backlash was been by educating the public (EPA, 1997). As

educating has been pinpointed as being critical by other areas which have already implemented

pay-as-you-throw programs, Springfield should work to educate the public on the method as

least six months before the program begins. Furthermore, in order to increase the public support

of the program, the area could also hand out a free trash bag, or two, to each household or host a

logo design contest for the program. This would get residents talking about the program as well

as thinking about the program. Because other unforeseeable concerns with this program may

arise, Springfield government officials must take it upon themselves to meet and reevaluate the

program to address these concerns. Government officials should meet every six months after this

program is implemented for at least two years to assure that the transition in waste management

strategies occurs smoothly and to address concerns with the new program.
 Smith 10

In order to decrease the amount of waste the area produces, Springfield, Missouri should

transition from its current municipal solid waste management strategy rather to a pay-as-you-

throw program. This would allow Springfield residents to save money of municipal solid waste

management, decrease waste generation, and reduce the effects of waste generation in landfills

without having to make drastic changes to current methods of picking up, transporting, and

managing the waste. A pay-as-you-throw system also does not change how residents buy their

trash bags or how stores sell the trash bags; it allows these habits to remain in place and only

adds the incentive to produce less waste in order to save residents’ money. The success that this

program offers would not only increase healthy and safety of the area and its residents, but it also

allows Springfield to achieve its most prioritized waste management goal since the 1990’s:

reduce its solid waste production (City of Springfield Solid Waste Management Division, 2017).

It is time to achieve this goal, and a pay-as-you-throw system allows that to happen.
 Smith 11

Bibliography

Blackmer, Travis and George Criner. (2014). “Impacts of Pay-As-You-Throw and Other

Residential Solid Waste Policy Options: Southern Maine 2007-2013.” Maine Policy

Review, 23.2, 51-58.

City of Springfield Solid Waste Management Division. (2017, Feb.). “Springfield’s Integrated

Solid Waste Management System.” Retrieved from City of Springfield website:

https://www.springfieldmo.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/3098

Ecoconservation Institute. (2015, March 21). “Pay-As-You-Throw / Variable Rates for Trash

Collection.” Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency website:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/skumatz.pdf

Halfman, J.D., (2009). Landfills: Where Does Our Trash Go? Retrieved from Hobart and

William Smith Colleges website:

http://people.hws.edu/halfman/data/publicinterestarticles/landfills.pdf

Hammer, Stephen and Benjamin Miller. (2003, July 24). “It’s Your Garbage. Pay for It.” New

York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/opinion/it-s-your-

garbage-pay-for-it.html

Hoornweg Daniel A., & Bhada-Tata, Perinaz. (2012, March). “What a Waste? A Global Review

of Solid Waste Management.” Retrieved from

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/302341468126264791/What-a-waste-a-

global-review-of-solid-waste-management
 Smith 12

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. (2017, Aug. 25). “Tonnage Reports.” Retrieved from

the Missouri Department of Natural Resources website:

https://dnr.mo.gov/env/swmp/pubs-reports/tonnage.htm

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016a, Nov.). Advancing Sustainable

Materials Management: 2014 Fact Sheet. Retrieved from United States Environmental

Protection Agency website: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-

11/documents/2014_smmfactsheet_508.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016b, Feb. 21). “Pay-As-You-Throw.”

Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency website:

https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/payt/web/html/index.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999, May). “Designing a Rate Structure for

Pay-As-You-Throw.” Retrieved from Untied States Environmental Protection Agency

Website: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/payt/web/pdf/pw5-99.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1997, April). Pay-As-You-Throw Success

Stories. Retrieved form the United States Environmental Protection Agency website:

https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/payt/web/pdf/paytss.pdf

Vrijheid, M. (2000, March). Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a

review of epidemiologic literature. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(Suppl 1),

101–112.