AN ASSESSMENT OF PARTICIPATION RATES AT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
COLLECTION EVENTS IN CONNECTICUT
Thomas M. Metzner
Bureau of Waste Management
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Hartford, Connecticut
Abstract
Connecticut has been tracking participation rates at household hazardous waste (HHW) collections for all of its 169
municipalities over the last three years. Between 1996 and 1998, only four municipalities did not participate in at least one
collection. Most have annual collections with multiple opportunities. There are 36 municipalities served by the state’s
three permanent HHW facilities. Most of the remaining municipalities participate in shared one-day collections. This
participation rate data identifies the successful programs and allows us to examine what contributes to a successful HHW
collection.
This paper will look at:
The differences in participation rates between the permanent facilities and one-day collections;
The effects on participation when hosting a collection;
The impact on participation of the distance to the permanent facility;
The specific education strategies of municipalities that have the highest participation rates; and
The correlation between participation in HHW and the municipality’s recycling rate.
BACKGROUND
Connecticut has held HHW collections since 1984. The
first permanent HHW facility opened in New Haven in
1992. It currently serves 17 municipalities in south
central Connecticut with a total population of 550,000.
Permanent facilities opened in Willington (northeast
Connecticut) in 1994 and Manchester (central
Connecticut) in 1997. The Willington facility serves 12
municipalities with a total population of 90,000. The
Manchester facility serves seven municipalities with a
total population of 140,000.
There is a permanent facility scheduled to open in 2000
that will serve nine municipalities in southeastern
Connecticut with a total population of 50,000. The
majority of the remainder of the municipalities
participates in regional HHW collections administered
by a regional entity such as a council of governments.
Some regions hold collections annually; others hold them
sporadically.
Only four of Connecticut’s 169
municipalities did not participate in at least one
household hazardous waste collection between 1996 and
1998.
The municipalities and regions provided data on
collections from 1996 though 1998. The collection data
will look at the number of vehicles participating in HHW
collections. A few municipalities provide information
based on households rather than on number of vehicles.
For the purposes of this discussion, one household or one
vehicle equals one participant.
The participation rate is calculated as the number of
participants compared to the number of single family
housing units per municipality. This data was obtained
from the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management
for 1996 and 1997. The 1998 housing data came from
the Connecticut Department of Economic and
Community Development. Some municipalities with
high vacancy rates may have slightly higher participation
rates than reported.
Some with many units of
multifamily housing may have lower rates than reported.
Statewide and regional averages were determined by
taking the average participation rate in each town and
dividing it by the number of towns.
PARTICIPATION
AT
PERMANENT
HHW
FACILITIES
The three permanent HHW facilities in Connecticut
averaged 3.7% participation annually between 1996 and
1998. This is significantly above the state average of
2.7% for the same period. As one might expect, the host
municipalities for the three facilities had the highest
participation rates in their regions1. The Manchester and
Willington HHW facilities are located at the municipal
transfer stations. Participation rates for the Towns of
Manchester and Willington 8.7% and 10.4%
respectively, reflect to some extent the incidence of
residents making repeat trips to the facility because they
are stopping at the transfer station anyway. However
the New Haven facility is located in the parking lot of the
Regional Water Authority and is unlikely to get multiple
convenience visits from city residents. The City of New
Haven averaged 4.6% annual participation.
PARTICIPATION RATES AND DISTANCE TO
THE PERMANENT FACILITY
While there are many factors which can impact
participation rates at a HHW facility, the participation
rate data provides support to the widely held belief that
the distance to the permanent facility affects
participation. Distance takes into account not only the
miles driven but also the time it takes to get to the
facility.
Table 1 Comparison of Driving Times to a HHW
Permanent Facility and Participation Rates
Municipality
Lower Rates
Chaplin
Coventry
Eastford
Cheshire
Somers
Bolton
Hebron
Higher Rates
Mansfield
North Haven
North
Branford
West Haven
Vernon
HHW Rate
Driving Time to Facility
(one way)
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.6%
1.4%
1.6%
2.4%
20-30 minutes
20-30 minutes
15-25 minutes
20-30 minutes
20-30 minutes
20-30 minutes
15-25 minutes
5.2%
4.5%
4.5%
15-20 minutes
10-15 minutes
10-15 minutes
4.0%
5.9%
5-15 minutes
10-15 minutes
At the New Haven facility, the municipality with the
lowest participation rates, Cheshire, is at the perimeters
1
This does not include the satellite collection for Old
Lyme which pushed its participation rate over the New
Haven average.
of the region. The average one way driving time is about
20-30 minutes from Cheshire to the facility. The Town
of Wallingford (about 15 –20 minute one way drive from
the municipality to the facility) had a participation rate of
1.8% and 2% in 1996 and 1997 respectively. But a
satellite collection in 1998 increased participation to
6.2%.
The Willington HHW facility has not conducted satellite
collections. It also serves a more rural region with
municipalities having to use back roads to get to the
facility, increasing travel time.
The most distant
municipalities, Bolton, Eastford, Coventry, and Chaplin
have low participation rates. The average driving time
one way for the most distant municipalities is 20-30
minutes. Virtually all of the outlying municipalities are
below the annual state average of 2.7% for participation.
The municipalities are a little more compact in the
Manchester program. There are fewer of them but a
greater population than Willington. Through the first
two years of the program, the lowest participation is
again in the outlying municipalities. Somers, 1.4%, and
Hebron, 2.4%, had the lowest participation rates in the
region. The driving time to the facility for these towns is
about 20-25 minutes. Stafford, the most distant, had a
satellite collection which increased its participation to
3.2%. Marlborough is approximately the same distance
from the facility as Hebron but had a higher (4.1%)
participation rate - perhaps because of better public
education or because Marlborough has a major highway
running through connecting it to Manchester.
PARTICIPATION AT ONE-DAY COLLECTIONS
There are a few municipalities in Connecticut which
choose to participate in single one-day collections. Most
of the municipalities belong to regions that sponsor
collections days. For example, the Metropolitan District
Commission (MDC), a regional water and sewer
commission in the Hartford area, administers a program
for 30 municipalities with 21 collection days. Eight other
regional programs serve another 67 municipalities with
one or more collection opportunities per year.
The average participation rate for one-day events
between 1996 and 1998 was 2.8% for municipalities with
access to at least one HHW collection. Only 22% of
these had greater than 4% participation.
HOSTING A ONE-DAY COLLECTION
Common sense suggests that hosting a collection will
increase participation. But how much effect does it
really have? Table 2 gives evidence that towns should
host collections as a way to increase participation.
The average participation rate for a municipality hosting
a one-day collection from 1996 through 1998 was 4.7%.
This is well above the average of 2.7% for the state as a
whole. Municipalities with access to one-day collections
that did not host a collection had only 1.7% participation.
Table 2 Difference in Participation Rates When
Hosting a Shared Collection
Municipality
Hosted
East Granby
Prospect
Woodbury
Simsbury
North Stonington
Beacon Falls
10.4%
7.3%
5.5%
5.2%
7.4%
5.6%
Did not Host
(Average)
2.5%
0.6%
1.7%
0.7%
1.1%
0.6%
Some municipalities host collections every year; others
host every other year or less frequently. The difference
in participation in many municipalities is dramatic when
they host, even if the other collection opportunities are in
neighboring municipalities. The Town of East Granby
had participation rates of 2.1% and 3.9% in 1996 and
1997 when a collection was held in three bordering
towns and several other local towns. But when the
collection was held in East Granby, the participation was
10.4%. Prospect went from 1.1% in 1996 to 7.4% in
1997 when they hosted a collection.
Some towns did have good participation without hosting
a collection. Bridgewater averaged 4.2% over three years
without hosting a collection. The collection involved a
location in an adjacent municipality but still close to the
border. The program administrator also reported that the
municipality promoted the collection aggressively.
Chester had 6.1% participation in 1996 and Guilford had
an average of 4.0%. These municipalities have small
populations and collections were held in neighboring
municipalities.
Hosting a collection may also indicate a commitment
which results in higher participation. Municipalities that
do not host collections may not want to pay the costs
generally associated with the higher participation rates
and therefore do not promote the collection
COMPARISON OF PARTICIPATION RATES AT
ONE-DAYS VERSUS PERMANENT FACILITIES
As indicated above, the average annual participation rate
was higher at the permanent facilities than at the one-day
collections in Connecticut from 1996 through 1998 3.7% versus 2.8%.
Municipalities were not included in this collection unless
they had access to a collection in each of the three years
of this study. There were 135 municipalities that had
access to at least one annual collection from 1996-1998.
Thirty six of these were members of the three permanent
facilities. Satellite collections were included for the
permanent facilities’ participation rates.
The most likely reason for the difference between the
two types of collection is promotion.
Many of the
municipalities participating in one-day collections did
minimal promotion of the event. Many municipalities did
not host a collection themselves but instead depended
upon collections in other municipalities. Of the
municipalities participating in one-day collections, 40%
had an average of less than 2% annual participation.
Permanent facilities used one-day, satellite collections to
boost participation rates in outlying municipalities. The
host municipalities may also have had higher numbers
because of the repeat business from their residents. When
Manchester’s participation rate at their facility is
excluded, the average municipal participation decreases
from 4.3% to 2.9%. The average remains high in New
Haven even without including the host community,
possibly because there is not a lot of repeat business
from New Haven residents. Participation decreases only
from 4.0% to 3.7% when New Haven is excluded from
the calculation. When Willington’s participation rate is
excluded, the participation rate decreases from 3.2% to
2.3%.
Table 3 Permanent vs One-Day Participation Rates
One Day (Non-Host)
Permanent (Non-host)
1.7%
3.4%
One-Day (Host)
Permanent (Host)
4.7%
8.2%
The data seems to indicate that a municipality can
achieve higher participation rates by hosting a collection
than by being a member of a permanent facility. But this
is only one consideration for joining a permanent facility.
For example, this difference does not take into
consideration the costs associated with hosting a one-day
collection or the opportunity for permanent facility
member towns to host satellite collections.
HHW PARTICIPATION AND RECYCLING
RATES
Do residents have a commitment to protecting the
environment that extends to participation in both
recycling and HHW collections? Does high participation
in HHW events translate into higher recycling rates. The
data seem to indicate a correlation.
Recycling has been mandatory in Connecticut since
1991. Connecticut maintains annual data on the tonnage
of recyclables collected. In looking at this data, we find
there are some towns that have high participation in
HHW that also have successful recycling programs.
Manchester and Darien are both ranked in the top five in
annual participation in HHW collections. Manchester has
achieved a recycling rate of 48%, Darien 40%, well
above the state average of 25%. Ellington, Stamford,
Mansfield, and New Canaan also have well above
average recycling and HHW rates.
Table 4 Comparison of HHW and Recycling
Participation Rates
Top 20 (HHW) Bottom 20 (HHW)
HHW Rate
6.8%
0.5%
Recycling Rate
30.4%
17.6%
Reported State
Recycling Average
25%
25%
Over State Average
for Recycling
14
3
At the other end of the scale, there are municipalities that
are deficient in both recycling rates and HHW
participation. Bozrah and Voluntown are municipalities
that generally do not participate in HHW collections.
Both municipalities also have recycling rates well below
average.
The reported state average for recycling and source
reduction among Connecticut’s 169 municipalities is
25%. Of the municipalities with the top 20 participation
rates in HHW, 14 also were above the state average for
recycling and source reduction rates based on FY 1998
recycling data. Of the 20 towns which had the lowest
HHW participation rates or which did not offer
collections, only three were above the state average for
recycling and source reduction. The average recycling
rate for the municipalities with the top 20 HHW
participation rates is 30.4%. The average recycling rate
for the 20 municipalities not offering HHW collection or
with the lowest participation is 17.6%.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Municipalities with high HHW participation rates
indicated that aggressive and targeted promotion of
HHW is a key to success. The most frequently
mentioned strategies include: providing brochures to
students, advertising in local newspapers, sending direct
mailings to each resident, and using the same site and
same weekend for collections.
Municipalities with the highest rates indicated that they
used the public schools as a means of getting the word
out. The City of Stamford required the vendor to supply
information to all fourth graders as a part of the contract.
The Towns of Ellington, Norwalk, New Canaan,
Suffield, and Darien all indicated that they utilize the
schools to promote the collections.
Ellington uses town fairs and events to pass out flyers
promoting the collection. Civic groups also assist by
disseminating information. The Town of Wilton has
mailings to each household and has the trash haulers
drop information into the recycling bins.
Virtually all programs indicate they use newspaper
advertisements and stories to promote their collections.
While the New Haven permanent facility indicated that
participants most frequently mentioned newspapers as
the way they found out about the collection, the
Manchester facility felt newspapers were not very
effective.
The Willington facility reported that
newspapers were effective but slightly less so than word
of mouth and information placed at municipal transfer
stations and buildings.
The Manchester facility indicated that direct mail was
the most effective means of reaching the public. The
program administrator noted that participation is up
significantly in 1999 for municipalities that had problems
with the mailing in 1998. The New Haven facility
includes an information brochure in the quarterly water
bill. A number of programs utilize flyers, sandwich
boards and other displays placed at municipal facilities to
promote the collection. The Willington facility reported
that the information placed at each municipality’s
transfer station seemed to be the most cost effective.
The small municipality of Lyme and the Manchester
permanent facility both mentioned the importance of the
“history” of the program.
Both have sponsored
collections for a number of years. Lyme does little
promotion but holds the collection the same weekend
every year. The First Selectman supports the program
and is actively involved in its planning and promotion.
The City of Norwalk and the Towns of Ellington and
Wilton also emphasized the importance of conducting
the collection at the same site and on the same weekend
each year.
SUMMARY – WHAT ENCOURAGES HIGHER
PARTICIPATION RATES?
An analysis of the data from HHW collection events
from 1996 to 1998 provides evidence of what contributes
to a successful program. Whether the town chooses to
join a permanent facility or regional one-day collections,
there are common elements.

Make the Collection Convenient.
Municipalities closer to permanent facilities have higher
participation rates. Municipalities indicate that one-day
collections held on the same weekend and at the same
site increase convenience and participation.

Promote the Program . The top programs
utilize different ways of getting the word out including
using the schools, direct mailings, newspaper ads, and
brochures at municipal facilities.

Host a Collection. Host municipalities had
significantly higher participation rates than non-host
municipalities including those at permanent facilities.
Municipalities should host a collection at least once
every three years and members of permanent facilities
should host a satellite collection at least once every three
years depending on their current participation levels.

Join a Permanent Facility. The permanent
facilities had higher participation rates than the one-day
collections although hosting a collection was another
way to get high participation. The highest rates belonged
to the hosts of permanent facilities.

Municipal Commitment. Municipalities with
high participation had motivated individuals in charge of
promoting the program. Municipalities with high
participation tended also to have above average recycling
rates.