Residential Recycling Infrastructure Analysis
Purpose
This analysis evaluates the District’s existing residential recycling infrastructure to determine how that
infrastructure is performing in relation to the goals and needs of the District and residents of Hamilton County.
Definitions
Non-Subscription: Residents in these communities do not have to sign up and pay separately for curbside
recycling service. They may pay a separate, combined fee for waste and curbside recycling, for example on their
water bill, or the community’s general fund may pay the expenses of the program. Non-subscription
communities include those that contract with the private sector on behalf of residents and those that collect
curbside recycling with community staff.
Subscription: Residents subscribe independently for waste and recycling services. Residents in these
communities subscribe with the waste hauler of their choice and can also choose to subscribe for recycling
services. Residents pay their waste and recycling haulers directly for the services.
Drop-Off Recycling: A community places one or more drop-off containers in the community to which residents
bring their recyclables (often contracted with private sector).
Pay-As-You-Throw: Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) or volume-based waste programs have residents incur a cost for
producing more trash. For example, residents would purchase a sticker per bag of waste or would be provided a
small container and pay extra beyond the base service. These communities have high recycling participation
(which is no additional cost) and have high recycling rates.
Residential Waste and Recycling Overview
Hamilton County has a strong overall residential recycling infrastructure. Over 98% of residents have access to
curbside recycling collection, roughly half of the communities offer non-subscription recycling, and there are 64
recycling drop-offs located throughout Hamilton County.
In 2014, Hamilton County residents landfilled 238,504 tons and recycled 40,350 tons for a county-wide
residential recycling rate of 14.47% (not including separate yard trimmings). Figure 1 depicts the historical tons
recycled by residents of Hamilton County from 1999 to 2014.
Page 1
*2013: Rumpke Recycling improved accuracy for calculating recycling drop-off tonnage leading to a decrease in reported
residential tons recycled.
In 2012, the District conducted a characterization study of residential waste entering Rumpke
Sanitary Landfill. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of material entering the landfill from residents. Of
this material, 40.9% is easily recyclable given the existing recycling infrastructure in Hamilton
County and 22.5% could be composted by residents using backyard composting methods.1
Figure 2: Hamilton County Residential Waste Landfilled
Yard Trimmings,
7.20%
Electronics, 1%
C&D Debris, 1.10% HHW, 0.20%
Paper, 31.70%
Organics, 19.20%
Glass, 3.80%
Other, 2.50%
Metals, 3.70%
Plastics, 21.40%
Textiles, 8.20%
1
See Waste Composition Study Summary of Results. Hamilton County Recycling and Solid Waste District, presented by SCS
Engineers (2012).
Page 2
Residential Recycling in Hamilton County
Forty-eight political subdivisions fall within the Hamilton County Recycling and Solid Waste District and each city,
township, or village chooses their community’s waste and recycling programs. Since inception, the District has
not mandated types of waste and recycling programs.
There are three basic recycling programs for traditional commingled recyclables (see Figure 3):
1. Non-Subscription:
 26 communities have non-subscription based recycling.
o 2 self-haul recyclables with community staff.
o 24 contract with a private hauler.
 10 communities contract for waste services only and allow their residents to subscribe
separately for recycling
(see #2).
2. Subscription:
 20 communities have
subscription based
recycling.
 11 are townships.
3. Drop-Off:
 2 communities offer
drop-off recycling with
no curbside option.
 28 communities offer
drop-off recycling.
 64 drop-offs total.
Communities with non-subscription based recycling tend to have higher participation than the communities with
subscription-based recycling. The primary barrier in subscription-based recycling programs is that residents must
sign up and pay an extra cost (generally about $3 per month) for recycling collection. Many residents do not
wish to pay the extra cost and choose not
to recycle. We have learned through
focus groups and conversations with
residents that they feel they are doing
something good by recycling and do not
understand why recycling should cost
more. All residents pay for recycling,
either in their taxes or by a fee assessed
separately, but charging a voluntary,
separate fee drastically reduces
participation in recycling.
Figure 4 compares the average pounds
recycled per resident for subscription,
non-subscription, and drop-off only
Page 3
communities in Hamilton County in 2014. Non-subscription based communities achieve the highest pounds per
household, followed by subscription communities, and then communities with drop-off recycling only.
Table 1 compares the 2014 reference year infrastructure with the infrastructure listed in our current approved
plan with a 2009 reference year. The non-subscription based recycling programs have remained constant with
one community contracting for recycling and another community switching from contracted recycling to
subscription-based recycling. Recycling haulers have added and maintained subscription-based recycling service
in four communities since 2009. Six additional communities now host recycling drop-off locations and the
number of total drop-offs in the county has increased by 18 locations.
Table 1: Residential Recycling Infrastructure 2009 vs. 2014
2009
Non-Subscription Curbside Recycling Communities
26
Subscription Curbside Recycling Communities
16
Communities with Drop-Off Recycling
22
Commingled Recycling Drop-Offs
46
2014
26
20
28
64
Communities with the following attributes and programs tend to achieve the highest recycling rates:





Contracting for curbside recycling services or self-hauling recyclables.
Using large, lidded recycling carts.
Having more affluent residents and/or more well-educated residents.
Maintaining PAYT waste programs or some limitation on waste set out.
Collecting residential yard trimmings for composting instead of landfilling.
Two communities (Madeira and Mariemont) in Hamilton County have a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) or volumebased waste program, where residents either purchase a sticker per bag of waste or are provided a small
container and pay extra beyond the base service. Both of these communities have high recycling participation
(which is no additional cost) and have high recycling rates. Currently, all residents in communities with curbside
recycling have access to carts for recycling. All but three communities allow residents to set out an unlimited
amount of waste.
Figure 5 shows the hierarchy of residential waste and recycling programs based on the programs that result in
the highest diversion rates.
Figure 5: Hierarchy of Residential Recycling Programs
Page 4
Drop-Off Recycling
Twenty-eight of the communities in Hamilton County offer commingled recycling drop-off sites. These drop-offs
generally consist of one or more 6-yard recycling containers, clearly labeled for recycling, in a central location
such as a community park or government building. These drop-offs accept all of the same materials residents
can recycle curbside with the same capacity to commingle materials (no need to separate).
Recycling drop-offs provide an important free recycling option for residents in subscription areas who choose
not to pay extra for curbside recycling or who live in multi-family dwellings without access to curbside recycling.
They are especially popular in subscription recycling areas. Fifteen of the 20 communities with subscriptionbased recycling have a free recycling drop-off option.
Multi-Family Housing
Most communities offer curbside recycling service to residents living in buildings with four units or fewer. Some
communities, such as the City of Cincinnati, work with larger buildings to provide access to recycling; however,
the larger buildings are considered commercial properties and thus do not qualify for residential service. A
separate analysis will be conducted on multi-family recycling.
Residential Recycling Incentive (RRI)
The District’s primary program to improve and maintain residential recycling infrastructure is the Residential
Recycling Incentive (RRI) program. The District budgets $1,050,000 annually (more than any other program) to
divide among participating communities. As a community increases its recycling rate, it receives more dollars per
ton recycled. Forty-six of the 48
Table 2: RRI Tier Levels
communities participate regularly.
Recycling Rate
Approximate RRI Dollars per Ton
Greater than 30%
25% - 29.99%
20% - 24.99%
15% - 19.99%
10% - 14.99%
5% - 9.99%
0% - 4.99%
$34
$30
$26
$22
$18
$14
$10
Table 2 outlines the tier levels of RRI funds
available. Communities must spend RRI
funds on recycling or waste reduction
related expenses such as a curbside
recycling contract, recycling drop-off costs,
community leaf collection, or recycling
promotion.
Target Community Program
The District has historically worked with several communities each year to improve recycling infrastructure and
participation. This process involves meeting with the community, developing a plan for outreach, and then
implementing that plan. These efforts involve significant technical assistance helping to draft bid specifications
to improve recycling access and marketing to improve participation in the curbside recycling program.
Materials Collected
The materials collected in curbside and drop-off recycling programs are almost completely dependent on what
materials can be accepted at Rumpke’s Material Recovery Facility in St. Bernard. At present that list includes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Plastic bottles and jugs
Glass bottles and jars
Aluminum and steel cans
Paperboard
Page 5
5.
6.
7.
8.
Office paper
Newspapers and magazines
Phone books
Paper cartons
Residents often ask about non-bottle plastic containers, such as yogurt cups, which are currently not accepted in
curbside or drop-off programs.
Contamination of recyclables is a significant issue and becomes problematic at the material recovery facility. In
the second period of 2014, Rumpke Recycling (the dominant recycler of residential recyclables in Hamilton
County) reported that 7.44% of the residential recycling stream was not recyclable. Contamination costs
recycling processors time and money, can cause significant damage to recycling equipment, and may negatively
impact the value of the recyclables.
Residential Recycling Promotion
Residents have access to information about recycling opportunities through a variety of methods as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sticker or brochure when cart/bin is delivered.
Community website, newsletter, and/ or welcome packet.
District website, direct mail, and paid advertising.
Take-home information from school programs.
Residents often access information about recycling from their local community and the quality of this
information varies by community. Some higher performing communities ensure residents receive information in
a welcome packet, regularly include articles about recycling in community newsletters, and post helpful
information prominently on the community website. Many communities could use assistance on the
information available to their residents.
The District budgeted $35,000 in 2014 for general outreach and awareness, which included billboards, radio,
and online advertisements, as well as a direct mailing to our target community.
Page 6
Gap Analysis and Solutions
A. Improving Drop-Off Recycling
1. Add a Drop-Off Recycling Option: The following communities have subscription-based recycling but no
free drop-off recycling option within their community:





Village of Addyston
Village of Arlington Heights
Village of Elmwood Place
Miami Township
Village of North Bend
Interestingly, all of these communities also contract for waste collection but not recycling. Access to
recycling options could be improved in these communities by placing a recycling drop-off.
 The District could work with these communities to make the case for siting a recycling drop-off
(cost, RRI revenue, resident need), find a location for the recycling drop-off, and provide
complementary signage and help with promotion. The District could fund the drop-off for one
year.
2. Increase Drop-Off Capacity: Some communities that offer drop-off recycling struggle to maintain
enough capacity at the most popular drop-off locations. Even with two or three pick-ups a week and
many containers, staff from these communities (such as Green Township and Delhi Township) have to
visit the sites and manage the overflow. These communities could benefit from more drop-off locations,
more containers at existing drop-offs, or contracting out for curbside recycling to reduce reliance on the
drop-offs.
 The District could encourage communities to have more drop-off sites or provide technical
assistance to contract for curbside recycling.
3. Improve Drop-Off Signage: Many communities could benefit from better signage directing residents to
the recycling drop-offs since they are not always visible from the road.
 The District could provide complementary drop-off signage to communities.
4. Improve Drop-Off Placement: Residents may be encouraged to use recycling drop-offs more if the sites
were located at popularly visited destinations such as grocery stores and schools. Allowing schools to
use the containers might make them amenable to providing the space for a drop off.
 The District could encourage communities to work with schools or grocery stores to site new
drop-offs.
B. Improving or Implementing Curbside Recycling
5. Upgrade from Drop-Off to Curbside: Two communities (City of Cheviot and Village of Lockland) have
community collected curbside trash programs and offer recycling drop-offs for recyclables. Both of these
communities have dense urban neighborhoods and could drastically increase recycling participation and
tonnage collected by offering a curbside recycling program. Making recycling as easy as trash collection
has proven effective at increasing participation. These communities could either contract out the
Page 7
recycling service or develop the infrastructure and staff needed to implement a curbside recycling
program themselves.
 The District could offer technical assistance and support through this process.
6. Upgrade from Subscription to Contract: Twenty communities in Hamilton County offer subscriptionbased recycling, which has lower participation than community-collected or contracted recycling
programs. Ten of the 20 communities with subscription-based recycling contract on behalf of their
residents for curbside waste service. These communities could include curbside recycling in their next
bidding process and start offering this service to their residents the next time they go out to bid. The
other 10 communities that only have subscription service available could improve recycling participation
by contracting out both waste and recycling service for their residents.
Contracted Waste and Subscription Recycling
 Village of Addyston
 Village of Arlington Heights
 Village of Cleves
 Village of Elmwood Place
 Village of Greenhills
 Village of Lincoln Heights
 Miami Township
 Village of North Bend
 City of Reading
 Village of Silverton
Subscription Waste and Recycling
 Anderson Township
 Colerain Township
 Crosby Township
 Delhi Township
 Green Township
 Harrison Township
 Springfield Township
 Sycamore Township
 Symmes Township
 Whitewater Township
 The District could offer technical assistance and support through this process.
7. Implement Pay-As-You-Throw: Encouraging communities to adopt a volume-based system could
increase their recycling rates. Even when the fee is low, residents are more aware of what they throw
away and can see a financial gain by throwing away less. PAYT programs also benefit elderly residents
and others who generate lower volumes of waste.
 The District could offer technical assistance and support through this process.
Other Programs for Improving Curbside Recycling: The District could implement a number of programs
to encourage communities to improve or implement curbside recycling.
 The District could host workshops on contracting out, PAYT, etc.
 The District could create sample and easily customizable bid specifications.
 The District could encourage consortiums for efficient use of resources.
8. Target Lower Performing Communities. Communities with low recycling rates often lack the internal
resources to improve recycling infrastructure in their community. The District could choose to work with
select communities every year with low recycling rates to improve the available recycling infrastructure.
This would align with the District’s current target community approach.
 The District could work with the community to establish goals, assist creating bid specifications,
help site a recycling drop-off, or offer other technical assistance as needed.
9. Implement Single Fee for Waste and Recycling. The primary barrier to recycling for residents in
subscription areas is choosing to pay the extra cost of curbside recycling. If all haulers agreed to offer
Page 8
recycling at no additional charge (combining the cost of recycling and waste into one figure), then
residents would have access to recycling at no apparent extra cost. This would maintain the
subscription-based service but make recycling a standard service. Warren County implemented a similar
program and communities with subscription-based recycling now achieve the same recycling rates as
non-subscription communities.
 The District could work with subscription recycling communities and waste haulers to develop a
county-wide policy.
C. Modifying the RRI Program to Encourage Program Improvement.
Since 2007, the RRI program has used a recycling rate tier system to award communities a dollar-per-ton
incentive for recycling. The RRI program could be modified to encourage communities to adopt a program
that would create more diversion. The District is scheduling meetings with communities to discuss changes
to the RRI program. A separate, detailed analysis on the RRI program will be available in September.
10. Modify the RRI Program:
 The District could change the tiers to focus on program type (non-subscription, PAYT,
subscription, etc.) versus recycling rate.
 The District could change the tiers to a per capita measure instead of recycling rate to give more
dollars to lower performing communities.
 The District could include organics recycling.
 The District could include materials collected during reuse events.
The last two program modifications would encourage communities to adopt or maintain more organics
collection and reuse events.
D. Expanding Promotion of Recycling
Many communities lack the resources to implement full-scale recycling promotion campaigns encouraging
their residents to recycle. The District executes a county-wide awareness campaign annually but could work
more specifically with communities to promote recycling to their residents. Recycling promotion does not
directly improve recycling infrastructure but it does encourage increased participation and interest in
recycling.
11. Encourage Community-Level Promotion. Highlight the process of recycling in a community recycling
promotion toolkit and host a tour of the material recovery facility at the kick off. Include magnets and a
video of the facility if possible and incorporate normative behavior tactics. The toolkit could include
tools for improving recycling information available on community websites and tips for implementing a
grassroots outreach program.
 Create Community Recycling Promotion Toolkit.
 Enhance District’s county-wide recycling advertising campaign.
12. Offer Incentive to Subscribers: A large barrier for residents in communities with subscription-based
recycling service is deciding to pay the additional cost for curbside recycling. Once residents get into the
habit, they will likely keep the service.
 The District could offer to pay for the first three months of recycling for these residents.
Page 9
E. Improving Access to and Awareness of Textile Recycling Infrastructure
According to the 2012 Waste Composition Study, 8.2% of the waste Hamilton County residents landfill is
textiles. This high percentage occurs despite a rather robust infrastructure for textile reuse in Hamilton
County consisting of Goodwill, St. Vincent de Paul, and Salvation Army, as well as consignment shops such as
The Snooty Fox. Many of the textile reuse outlets have multiple drop-offs and some will even pickup
material at a resident’s home.
The District identified two primary gaps in textile reuse and recycling. First, residents may be unaware that
convenient textile outlets exist, and may be unaware that some organizations like the Salvation Army will
even pick up the material. Secondly, many residents are unaware that unwearable or unusable textiles, such
as those ripped or stained, can still be recycled into other products. Some of the organizations collecting
textiles also want the unusable materials for textile recycling.
13. Promote Textile Recycling. Promotion could be on the District’s website or as part of the annual
marketing campaign.
 The District could promote all the types of textiles that can be recycled and what outlets exist.
14. Implement Curbside Textile Recycling. Staff could work with textile recyclers and communities to
implement or publicize an existing curbside collection program. A community in Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
is currently piloting the curbside collection of all textiles in bags separate from other curbside
recyclables. If the infrastructure were available, this could be a useful service to increase residential
recycling. The District has already taken the step of including textiles as an acceptable material for
communities to claim on their RRI applications.
 The District could work with textile recyclers and communities to implement or publicize an
existing curbside collection program.
Conclusions
Although the District has a strong existing residential recycling infrastructure, Hamilton County has not realized
the full potential waste diversion from the residential sector. Of the waste residents currently landfill, more than
40% can still be diverted for recycling given the local outlets available. This analysis identified the areas of
infrastructure improvement that could work to increase recycling participation and diversion.
The primary focus of the suggestions for infrastructure improvement involves making recycling more accessible
and attractive to residents of Hamilton County. The District knows which types of residential programs yield the
best results, so these suggestions work to upgrade communities into higher performing recycling programs.
Some suggestions could easily be implemented immediately, whereas others would require more funding, staff
resources, and policy changes.
Table 3 summarizes the narrative discussion presented in this appendix.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Table 3. Summary of Potential District Actions to Address Identified Gaps
Infrastructure Improvement
Gap Addressed
District Program
Suggestions
No free recycling option in 5
Add recycling drop-off
Technical assistance and funding
communities
Increase drop-off capacity
Overflowing drop-offs
Technical assistance
Residents unaware of drop-off
Technical assistance and
Improve drop-off signage
location
complimentary signage
Residents not using inconvenient
Improve drop-off placement
Technical assistance
drop-offs
Upgrade from drop-off to
Lower participation for drop-off
Technical assistance
curbside
only
Workshops
Upgrade from subscription to
Lower participation in
Sample bid specs
contract
subscription communities
Consortiums
Potential for decreasing waste
RRI modifications
Implement PAYT
landfilled
Communities often lack internal
Work with 2 target communities
Target communities
resources to improve
every year
infrastructure
Work with subscription
Incorporate single fee for waste
Lower participation in
communities and haulers to
and recycling
subscription communities
develop policy.
Change tiers to program type
Modify RRI to upgrade
Lack of incentive to change
Change tiers to per capita
community recycling program
recycling program
Include organics
Include reuse
Some communities lack resources Create community toolkit
Encourage more community-level
to develop recycling promotional More robust county-wide
promotion
materials
advertising
Lower participation in
Offer incentive to subscribers
Subscriber incentive program
subscription communities
Promote textile recycling
Promote textile recycling
8% of residential waste landfilled Technical assistance and
Implement curbside textile
is textiles
promotion
recycling
RRI modification
Questions for Policy Committee




Do you agree that Hamilton County has a strong residential recycling infrastructure?
What are your priorities?
Are there programs you would like staff to investigate further?
Should the District work to implement a county-wide policy shift as in Suggestion 9 or work with
communities on a more individualized basis?
 Would the Policy Committee rather staff focus on infrastructure improvement or recycling promotion?
 Should the District focus specifically on textiles?
Page 11