No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2009
In our modern society, waste has become a necessary evil. And like sewage treatment, waste removal costs money. Fortunately, some waste materials are recycled. This paper identifies the economic value of removing and recycling waste materials. A statelevel model was developed, using Michigan data for the demonstration case. Specific volumes of some 14 major components of the waste stream as well as nine separate high-value recycled commodities were identified. Monetary values were derived for total waste removal and the high-value recycled materials. Michigan's waste stream was found to have an economic value of $1.73 billion per year, which equals $180/person/year. Of this total, municipal waste collection accounted for $1.07 billion per year and the high-value recycled materials accounted for the other $0.65 billion.
1. This research project is part of a larger effort to evaluate Michigan's natural resource industries under the “Status and Potential of Michigan's Natural Resources” (SAPMINR) program sponsored by Michigan State University's Agricultural Experiment Station. Its focus is to identify and evaluate the economic contribution of the raw material from which Michigan ultimately benefits. The report examines the revenues generated by the collection and use of Michigan's solid waste resources. It deals with solid waste as the first step in the value-added process-a source of employment and a source of collected or recycled raw material in Michigan.
2. “Characterizations of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,” 1996Google Scholar Update, Prepared for the U.S. E.P.A., Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office of Solid Waste, Report No. EPA-A530-R-97-015, Washington, D.C., 1997, p. 12.168 pages.
3. Philips, S., 1998, personal communication, 6 10Google Scholar, Chief of the Solid Waste Management Unit.
4. Nora, Goldstein, 1997, “The State of Garbage in America, BioCycle Nationwide Survey.” Biocycle 04, p. 62.Google Scholar
5. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992, Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities: 1992, Geographic Area Series, Washington, D.C., pp. 36, 37.Google Scholar
6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Transportation.Google Scholar
7. “Design for Recycling.” Phoenix: Voice of the Scrap Recycling Industry.Google Scholar Publication of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. Vol. 30, No. 1. Page 1.
8. That is, based on the EPA's figure for the national MSW per capita average, an MSW calculation is made for Michigan based on Michigan's population.
9. Robert J., Garino, 1997, “Commodity Markets; 1996–19972 A Wrap-Up and Midyear Outlook,” Scrap (Publication of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Washington, D.C.) 05/06.Google Scholar
10. Heidi, Ridgley, 1997, “The Markets Page,” “Waste Age's Recycling Times, 8 12, p. 8.Google Scholar
11. Based on industry utilization rates of recycled aluminum presented by Garino (1997).
12. Note that MSW refers to the municipal solid waste stream definition used by the EPA and thus does not include automotive scrap, construction scrap, or demolition debris in its totals.
13. “Characterizations of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,” 1995Google Scholar Update, Prepared for the U.S. E.P.A., Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office of Solid Waste, Report No. EPA-A530-R-96-015, Washington, DC., 1996, p. 22.
14. The EPA estimate is based on national figures and does not take into account the effect of beverage container deposit laws. Michigan is one of only 10 states with such a statute. It is assumed that the EPA numbers are not representative of Michigan's actual recycling rates with regard to aluminum beverage containers.
15. “Characterizations,” 1995 Update.Google Scholar
16. Garino, , “Commodity Markets.”Google Scholar
17. Ridgley, , “The Markets Page.”Google Scholar
18. “Characterizations,” 1995 Update.
19. Garino, , “Commodity Markets.”Google Scholar
20. Garino, , “Commodity Markets.”Google Scholar
21. Garino, , “Commodity Markets.”Google Scholar
22. Garino, , “Commodity Markets.”Google Scholar
23. Ridgley, , “The Markets Page.”Google Scholar
24. Ridgley, , “The Markets Page.”Google Scholar
25. Garino, , “Commodity Markets.”Google Scholar
26. Ridgley, , “The Markets Page.”Google Scholar