Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T13:26:41.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In-Plant Costs for a Small Rural Town Recycling Plant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Richard Tichenor
Affiliation:
Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources, University of New Hampshire
Edmund F. Jansen Jr.
Affiliation:
Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources, University of New Hampshire
Get access

Extract

In the past, open dump burning has been the solid waste disposal method used by many small rural towns because from a strict monetary perspective, it was the least cost alternative available to them. Now, due to environmental legislation prohibiting open dumps, they must ex-tablish new disposal facilities. The traditional environmentally acceptable alternatives of incineration and/or sanitary landfill necessarily involve increased disposal costs for these towns, with the increases being especially pronounced for towns in areas like New Hampshire where fuel oil prices are high and suitable sites for sanitary landfill are scarce.

Type
Resource and Environmental Economics
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1/

This article is based on research which was conducted under Northeast Regional Research Project NE-77, Community Services for Nonmetropolitan People in the Northeast, and which is reported more extensively in [1]. Published with the approval of the Director of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station as Scientific Contribution No. 781.

References

1 Tichenor, Richard, Jansen, Edmund F. Jr., and Pickering, Judy, Economics of a Small Rural Town Recycling System: Implications of a Case Study, New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report No. 43, June 1975.Google Scholar