Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A new model for solid waste management: an analysis of the

Nova Scotia MSW strategy
Travis Wagner a,*, Paul Arnold b
a
Department of Environmental Science, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, ME 04038, USA
b
Faculty of Engineering, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS B4P 2R6, Canada
Available online 16 October 2006

Abstract

In 1989 Canada established a national goal; divert 50 percent of the nations municipal solid waste from disposal by 2000. The province of
Nova Scotia was the first and only province to achieve this goal. In the early 1990s, Nova Scotia relied on substandard land-based disposal,
incineration, and open burning. Pollution prevention was minimal. In 1995, Nova Scotia adopted a comprehensive, province-wide strategy based
on pollution prevention to fundamentally change its historical approach and to achieve the diversion goal. The strategy has been effective, has
achieved substantial environmental benefits, and program costs are comparable to other North American systems. This paper examines and an-
alyzes the strategy and its current construct to assess whether the Nova Scotia strategy is a model program worthy of consideration at national
and other sub-national levels.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Solid waste policy; Source reduction; Pollution prevention; Landfill; Recycling; Waste management

1. Introduction Other countries, notably in Western Europe, have been suc-

A persistent challenge in modern society is the safe man-
agement of municipal solid waste (MSW). Society tradition-
ally has defined safe management as the isolation of
MSW from human receptors, primarily in landfills. As noted
garbologist William Rathje succinctly states, Not surpris-
ingly, a human beings first inclination is always to dump
[1]. While this disposal-based model can temporarily solve
the safe management challenge, in the long term, it presents
two problems. First, landfills are merely permanent storage
units for MSW and will eventually release constituents into the
environment with potentially negative effects. Second, be-
cause of the short-term economic advantages of landfilling,
a large portion of landfilled waste contains recoverable mate-
rials that are lost. In short, the disposal of otherwise valuable
materials is counterintuitive to the goals of sustainability.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 207 228 8450; fax: 1 207 780 5251.
E-mail address: twagner@usm.maine.edu (T. Wagner).
cessful in shifting from a disposal-based model to a pollution
prevention-based model and have become leaders in diverting
MSW from disposal. In contrast, North America lags far
behind. While a few large North American cities (e.g., San
Francisco and Seattle) and many smaller cities have achieved
similar diversion rates as Western Europe, success has eluded
national and sub-national governments. There are multiple
factors that help explain the difference. North America has
substantially more undeveloped land available, which can
make land disposal comparatively less expensive [2]. Al-
though there are local political challenges to siting, land dis-
posal remains a relatively inexpensive centerpiece of North
American MSW management. Fuel costs also are significantly
lower in North America, which undermine resource recovery
emphasis. Finally, North America historically views MSW as
a local responsibility (a bottom up approach) promoting
the product discard management paradigm that places the
burden on local governments and not producers [3]. Collec-
tively, available land, lower energy costs, local responsibility,
and the focus on managing discards promote short-term,

0959-6526/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.016
 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
economically-efficient centered decision making in North
America, which tends to favor disposal over pollution preven-
tion. As concern over global climate change increases energy
costs continue to rise, resources become scarcer, and land use
conflicts increase, the North American paradigm must change.
Working under the premise that the North American para-
digm of MSW management must change, an important question
is whether a relevant pollution prevention-based model
currently exists. One such model has been developed and
is currently implemented in North America e the Canadian
province of Nova Scotia. This predominately rural North Amer-
ican province has adopted an aggressive, integrated MSW strat-
egy based on the hierarchical approach of pollution prevention,
has mandated recycling to minimize disposal and maximize the
capture and recovery of resources, and has a province-wide or-
ganics recovery system. Before 1990, Nova Scotias disposal
rate was on par with other Canadian provinces and U.S. states.
In 1995 Nova Scotia began to implement its new MSW strategy.
In just five years, the province diverted 50 percent of its MSW
from disposal compared to 1989 rates.1 The province has
received international attention and acclaim because of its
success in significantly decreasing MSW disposal while
achieving associated environmental and economic benefits [4].
The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze Nova
Scotias strategy and its current framework to assess whether
this strategy is a model program worthy of consideration at na-
tional and other sub-national levels within the North American
paradigm. Assessment and analysis of Nova Scotias strategy is
a crucial step in determining the adoptability of the strategy in
whole or in part by other national and sub-national governments.
2. Background of the Nova Scotia MSW problem
Historically, Nova Scotias approach to MSW management
was comparatively antiquated. In the early 1970s, there were
more than 100 active dumps for a population of approximately
800,000.2 Many of these dumps practiced open burning with
no air pollution control and most lacked liners, increasing
the potential for groundwater and surface water contamination
[5]. By 1989, many dumps had been closed, but the provinces
waste management practices were still poor. In 1989 there
were 12 incinerators (i.e., engineered units, and teepee and
silo burners), 11 open-burn sites, 14 open dumps, and 26 land-
fills [5]. In 1989, only five percent of the province had
curbside recycling and there was no curbside pick-up for
organics [6].
In late 1988 and throughout 1989, Canadian media focused
on solid waste as a major problem e driven by a garbage crisis
in Toronto and the medical waste beach wash-ups in the U.S.
[7]. By 1989, this national media attention lead to the Cana-
dian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME)
1 4
Nova Scotia originally used the diversion rate to measure progress but is
replacing this metric with the disposal rate because of the inability to accu-
rately measure and fully account for source reduction with the diversion rate.
2
Based on Statistics Canada census figures, the population of Nova Scotia
in 1970 was 784,000 and 821,000 in 1975.
411
adopting a national goal of 50 percent diversion of solid waste
from disposal by 2000 [8]. In parallel with the national focus,
Nova Scotia also was focusing on garbage and in particular,
landfills. In 1989, the local media was reporting on the envi-
ronmental problems from Nova Scotias largest landfill, the
Highway 101 Landfill, 25 kilometers from Halifax, the prov-
inces capital [9]. The landfill, in operation since 1976, used
a clay liner for most of its life and an associated leachate treat-
ment system that was upstream of the effluents release through
a wetland and ultimately to the Sackville River. It was an open
hole in the ground, with very few environmental control fea-
tures, filled with garbage, even old school buses and telephone
poles [10]. Given the inadequacy of environmental controls,
among other problems, the media began focusing on the
discharge of landfill leachate into the nearby Sackville River
[11]. As a new replacement landfill was being considered, po-
tential host communities were bracing for a major siting war.
MSW management issues, symbolized by decrepit land-
fills, open burning, and beleaguered host communities, rose
on the national agenda and subsequently on the provincial
and local agendas. As the Highway 101 Landfill problem be-
came a focus of the Halifax media, the problem became
a prominent feature province-wide. This in turn increased
local attention on landfill problems throughout the province
establishing landfills as a province-wide issue. In 1994, two
culminating actions within the Halifax Regional Municipality3
(HRM) galvanized public sentiment and cemented support for
a new direction: the rejection of HRMs proposed replacement
landfill and rejection of HRMs proposed waste-to-energy in-
cinerator. Reliance on landfilling or incineration as the pri-
mary means of waste management was for all intents and
purposes rejected necessitating a new strategy. As the media
focus elucidated the many problems of relying on a dis-
posal-based strategy in HRM, throughout the province, the
public became increasingly supportive of a dramatic shift to-
ward a pollution prevention-based strategy, which was then
being considered by the Nova Scotia Department of the Envi-
ronment (NSEL).4
3. Evolution of the Nova Scotia MSW strategy
The 1989 CCMEs diversion goal of 50 percent coupled
with HRMs disposal crisis and the province-wide landfill cri-
sis created the demand for a reversal in MSW strategy. In
1989, Nova Scotia disposed of 641,375 tonnes of solid waste.
To achieve the national goal, Nova Scotia would have to divert
320,687 tonnes from disposal facilities within ten years [6].
3
On April 1, 1996, the municipal units for the cities of Halifax and Dart-
mouth, the town of Bedford, and the county of Halifax merged to form Halifax
Regional Municipality (HRM) e containing the provincial capital and largest
city, with approximately 40 percent of Nova Scotias population, and the prov-
inces media and economic center.
In 2001, the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment (NSDOE)
merged with the Nova Scotia Department of Labour (NSDOL) to form the
Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour (NSEL). To reduce con-
fusion, the department is referred to as NSEL (its present form) throughout this
paper.
412 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
(The 1989 annual per capita disposal rate in Nova Scotia was
747 kg per person requiring a diversion of 363 kg per person
per year.) The landfill crisis facing HRM and Nova Scotia
aroused intense media attention, stoked public demand, and
provided political impetus for significant change, but there
was one major barrier e Nova Scotia lacked a provincial strat-
egy to achieve the diversion goal. Between 1990 and 1993 var-
ious policies, guidelines, standards, and initiatives were
adopted to help achieve the 50-percent diversion goal. Al-
though the efforts undertaken were non-controversial, they
also were relatively ineffective in achieving the dramatic re-
sults necessary. There was no cohesive, consistent, or inte-
grated provincial approach [12]. Without a province-wide
strategy, only incremental, haphazard efforts on an as-
needed-basis could be expected at the municipal and regional
levels. The 50 percent goal could be achieved only through
a new top-down strategy based on province-wide regulatory
mandates, implementation through regionalization, and fairer
apportionment of economic costs [12]. This reversal in ap-
proach would be a hard sell. A key element of the new model
was, therefore, to reframe waste as possessing a positive eco-
nomic potential rather than a negative residual liability.
In 1993 the NSEL initiated the process to develop an
integrated provincial MSW strategy. NSEL commissioned
a series of MSW studies to be completed by 1994 to include
seven regional engineering studies to assess current waste
management practices in the regions and an assessment of
alternatives. Essentially, these studies looked at the entire
province and reported the financial and infrastructure
requirements needed to meet the 50-percent diversion goal
[13]. The results of these studies indicated that certain effi-
ciencies and economies of scale could be realized through
collaborative efforts at a regional or inter-municipal level
[14]. Another commissioned study identified a full range
of opportunities for recyclable materials with a special focus
on improving long-term economic viability and sustainability
of municipal recycling programs and the recycling industry
in Nova Scotia [15].
In July 1994, NSEL released a discussion paper on MSW
management to serve as a framework for generating public di-
alogue [16]. The discussion paper was based on three goals for
resource recovery and MSW management: 50 percent diver-
sion by 2000, improved environmental performance at waste
disposal facilities, and regional cooperation to minimize costs.
In January 1995, the Nova Scotia Legislature adopted an Act
to Reform the Environmental Laws of the Province and to En-
courage and Promote the Protection, Enhancement and Pru-
dent Use of the Environment. The act, commonly referred
to as The Environment Act, adopted the 50-percent diversion
goal and required the Minister of the Environment to estab-
lish a solid-waste-resource management strategy for the Prov-
ince. The act also authorized and/or mandated that
regulations be promulgated, to, among other things, ban the
disposal of certain materials, levy environmental fees, create
material recovery depots, manage beverage containers, and es-
tablish waste-separation standards and related management
facilities.
NSEL held seven public meetings to solicit input from
stakeholders, including the public, non-government organiza-
tions, the private sector, and municipal governments, which re-
sulted in a public consultation report released in March 1995
[12]. Based on the results of the public consultation, Nova
Scotias Solid Waste-Resource Management Strategy, promul-
gated on October 27, 1995, was composed of four primary
goals. First, achieve 50 percent disposal diversion by Decem-
ber 31, 2000. Second, implement new, more stringent disposal
standards by December 31, 2005. Third, achieve greater re-
gional cooperation to reduce costs. Fourth, recognize solid
waste as a valuable resource thereby increasing economic
opportunities [14].
In February 1996, NSEL promulgated the Solid Waste-
Resource Management Regulations, which implemented the
Environment Act. Among other requirements, the regulations
established landfill bans, created the beverage deposit/refund
system, created a system of material collection depots, tight-
ened incinerator emissions and landfill design requirements,
created MSW management regions, and created the Resource
Recovery Fund Board (RRFB) Nova Scotia.5 As a result of the
Environment Act, which committed the province to the 50 per-
cent disposal diversion goal, the strategy, which provided
a plan on how to achieve the diversion goal, and the regula-
tions, which implemented the strategy and the law, the Nova
Scotia MSW strategy finally came to be in 1996.
4. The Nova Scotia MSW strategy
Through the preceding events and initiatives, the Nova
Scotia MSW strategy evolved into its current form as
depicted in Fig. 1. As shown, its major foundational compo-
nents, in no specific order, are planning and implementation,
restricting disposal, system funding, increasing the recovery
of recoverable materials, and increasing the use of diverted
materials.
4.1. Planning/implementation
The planning and implementation aspect of the strategy is
a cooperative effort between NSEL, RRFB Nova Scotia, the
seven solid waste management regions, and municipalities.
The implementation framework of the MSW strategy is shown
in Fig. 2. Although legislated by the NSEL with support from
the RRFB Nova Scotia, implementation is primarily by the
seven regions and 55 municipalities. The NSEL also has direct
regulatory authority over the municipalities and regulatory
5
RRFB Nova Scotia, a non-profit organization created in 1996, is managed
by a board of directors with representatives from the private sector and govern-
ment and is responsible for implementing and administering the provinces
beverage container deposit/refund program, the diversion education program,
the tire and paint recycling programs, the industry stewardship program, and
the value-added manufacturing program (to foster the establishment of new
industries that use materials diverted from disposal).
 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421 413

PLANNING/ RESTRICT SYSTEM INCREASE INCREASE

IMPLEMENTATION DISPOSAL FUNDING RECOVERY USE

Nova Scotia Ban on Open Municipal Municipal 3- Value-Added

Department of Burning Property Taxes Stream Manufacturing
Environment and Collection
Labour System

Half-Back Provincial Drop-

Solid Waste Deposit-Refund off System for
Management Program Recoverables
Regions Organic and
Recoverable
Materials
Disposal Ban Environmental Product
Regional Waste
Management Fees on Select Stewardship
Plans Materials Programs

Strengthen
Incinerator
Emissions & Municipal MSW Provincial Industrial Waste
Regional Landfill Design Program Education Exchange
Chairs & Operation Funding Based Program
Committee on Diversion

Fig. 1. Conceptual Model of Nova Scotias MSW Management Strategy. (This model was developed by the authors based on interviews, documents, and consul-
tation with NSEL, municipal, and regional solid waste professionals).

control over various aspects of the industrial, commercial, and
institutional (ICI) sectors.6 Participation through diversion is
one of the most crucial elements of the Nova Scotia strategy
and is mandatory for households and the ICI sectors
(Fig. 2). Descriptions of the major foundational components
of the strategy follow.
In this strategy, the regions play a pivotal role. In 1995,
seven solid waste management regions were created and delin-
eated based on the provincially-sponsored engineering studies,
which looked at such things as regional demographics and
waste management needs and capacity. Although some of the
provinces 55 municipalities had cooperated in the past, some
municipalities that were grouped together for the MSW strat-
egy previously had not shared interests. The only provincial
regulatory requirement imposed on the regions was that each
region prepares a written regional MSW plan, which was
funded by the province, to create municipal/regional systems
to implement the strategy. Because each municipality had to
comply with the law, they could choose a system that was
cooperative or they could adopt their own system. Interestingly,
6 a factor not to be underestimated in fostering regional
Regarding direct regulatory control, there is a general prohibition on litter-
ing, which refers to not using proper collection containers, applicable to all
sectors in the province. Businesses that sell food or beverages in cartons, con-
tainers, foils, or paper must provide collection containers for these items and
their packaging. In addition, retailers and manufacturers of certain products
(e.g., tires, paint, and beverage containers) must comply with specified
NSEL regulations. Regarding indirect regulatory control, NSELs disposal
ban and permit controls on composting facilities, MSW and construction
and demolition disposal facilities control waste and materials being received,
which requires ICI compliance.
the regions themselves were not vested with any explicit legal
authority by the province with regards to MSW, but were used
to plan and implement the strategy primarily though funding.
The intent of creating regions was not to establish a new and
additional level of government, but to foster regional coopera-
tion among municipalities [13]. Basically, on an individual ba-
sis, small cities and towns could not afford to construct new
modern landfills, centralized composting facilities, and central-
ized material recovery facilities (MRFs) to comply with the
forthcoming more stringent requirements. Thus, cooperation
made economic sense. Beyond the preparation of the regional
MSW plan, other factors influenced the functionality of the re-
gions including geography, economics, and personalities [13].
For example, one region, the Valley Waste Region, serves as
the legal authority for the region, which was specifically
granted by its member municipalities. In contrast, Region 6,
which encompasses the south shore area of Nova Scotia, serves
a more passive role, primarily that of a consultant to the munic-
ipalities [13]. The regions have evolved naturally because of
the economies of scale [17]. Finally, RRFB Nova Scotia fund-
ing for the municipalities is funneled through the regions e
cooperation.
One outcome of this regionalization is that the regions
themselves cooperate with each other through the Regional
Chairs Committee, composed of the chairperson from each
region. Creation of the committee came about because the
province kept revisiting the same problems on a region-by-
region basis. A suggestion was made that instead of addressing
problems on a case-by-case basis, a mechanism to address
414 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421

NSEL
Regulates Regulates
Created Created Through Bans Through Bans

Resource 7 Solid Waste 55 Industrial, Commercial,

Recovery Management Municipalities & Institutional Sector
Cooperation Cooperation
Fund Board Cooperation Regions
Must Must Must
Manage Provide Utilize
Regional
Deposit/refund Chairs Composting Composting
system Committee Recycling Recycling
Education Disposal Disposal
Fund municipal MSW
programs Regional MSW
Support value-added Coordinators
manufacturing Residents ICI
Must Must
Develop new
Participate Participate
stewardship
agreements
Tire recycling
Paint recycling

Fig. 2. Implementation Structure of the Nova Scotia MSW Management Strategy. (Implementation occurs under Section 102 of the Nova Scotia Environment Act,
S.N.S. 1994e95, c. 1, O.I.C. 96e79 (February 6, 1996) N.S. Reg. 25/96 as amended up to O.I.C. 2002e94 (March 1, 2002) N.S. Reg. 24/2002. This model was
developed by the authors based on interviews, documents, and consultation with NSEL).

regional problems on a provincial basis would be more pro-
ductive. The Regional Chairs Committee serves as an advisory
planning committee that presents regional problems in a more
coherent voice by providing feedback on how programs are
working and potential new policies, in addition to serving as
an advocate for the regions [18]. RRFB Nova Scotia supported
the regional chairs concept and now funds the committee,
which meets 10 times per year. RRFB Nova Scotia also funds
the provincial Solid Waste-Resource Management Office of
the NSEL, the office responsible for the strategy.
4.2. Restrict disposal
One of the most crucial components to the success of Nova
Scotias MSW strategy is disposal restriction e essentially
a mechanism to mandate recovery of materials rather than re-
lying on voluntary participation. Prior to 1989, there were an
estimated 100 land-based disposal units including open dumps
and engineered landfills. By 1989 many of the dumps had
closed although as late as 1996, 20 open burning sites still ex-
isted [5]. The first step in disposal restriction was for the prov-
ince to ban open burning of MSW on April 1, 1996, which
included uncontrolled burning in teepee, pit, and silo burners.
Nova Scotia also embraced the traditional approach of
strengthening the design and operational requirements of
MSW landfills to reduce environmental impacts. An intended
consequence was to increase landfill tipping fees thereby
reducing the economic advantage of disposal over material re-
covery. Nova Scotia published its stricter design and operating
standards for landfills in October 1997. However, Nova Scotia
did not grandfather existing landfills as is a common
practice in the U.S.7 Instead, Nova Scotia established a two-
tier system for landfills: all pre-existing landfills that did not
meet the new criteria were deemed first generation landfills
while those satisfying the new criteria were considered second
generation landfills. (First generation landfills are those with-
out environmental controls, such as liners, leachate and gas
collection and removal systems, run-on/run-off control,
or groundwater monitoring. In contrast, second generation
landfills must have these basic engineering controls and be de-
signed to manage landfill-gas and leachate.) All sub-standard,
first generation landfills were required to close by January 1,
2006, resulting in the closure of 14 landfills. (Interestingly,
although all these landfills stopped accepting MSW, 12 opened
new construction and demolition debris cells, which have less
stringent requirements than MSW landfills [19].) As a result of
the strengthened landfill criteria, in August 2006, only seven
engineered landfills (so called second generation landfills)
were operating.
In 1996, the province also promulgated stricter emissions
standards for MSW incinerators. As of 1996, there was only
one engineered incinerator located in Sydney (Cape Breton),
Nova Scotia. Based on subsequent stack tests in 2004 and
2005, the incinerator significantly exceeded the allowable
emission standards for dioxins and furans [20]. In December
2005, the provinces last remaining MSW incinerator closed
even though $9.5 million in capital debt remained [20].8
7
A grandfather clause is a provision in a law or regulation that exempts cer-
tain pre-existing facilities, persons, or conditions from the scope of a new law,
regulation, or requirement.
8
All monetary figures in this paper are expressed as Canadian dollars.
 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
One of the strongest financial incentives to divert waste is
increased tipping fees. For example, before 1989, there was
no tipping fee in HRM; however, the tipping fee steadily
increased to $115/tonne by 2001 [21]. Tipping fees also in-
creased moderately in other regions of the province, averaging
$50/tonne [17] however, since the new landfill requirements
became effective on the first of January 2006, tipping fees out-
side of HRM now average $80/tonne [22]. In addition to the
increased tipping fees, because there are far fewer landfills,
transportation costs associated with the transfer of waste to
more centralized second-generation landfills will continue to
increase. These increased costs will further economically jus-
tify diversion practices and increase the material recovery
rate [17].
Arguably the more efficacious approach to increasing mate-
rial recovery was through command-and-control: the provin-
ces disposal bans. Nova Scotia banned the disposal of
a litany of recyclable materials from residential and ICI sour-
ces and remains the only Canadian province to ban composta-
ble organic material from landfill disposal [23]. On April 1,
1996, bans went into effect for redeemable beverage con-
tainers, corrugated cardboard, newsprint, used tires, automo-
tive lead-acid batteries, and leaf and yard waste. Waste paint
and ethylene glycol (automotive antifreeze) were banned on
April 1, 1997. Steel/tin food containers, glass food containers,
No. 2 HDPE non-hazardous containers, and stretch pallet wrap
for businesses were banned on September 1, 1998. Finally, on
November 30, 1998, compostable organic material (food
waste, yard waste, soiled and non-recyclable paper) was
banned. The NSEL believes that the 50-percent diversion
goal could not have been met without the ban on compostable
organic materials from landfill disposal [17].
Banning recoverables, especially organics, is a relatively
easy policy to adopt. However, implementation requires a
behavioral change over time that necessitates significant
resources by the regions and municipalities. Moreover, the
more difficult task is to manage the substantial increase in
supply of food and yard wastes at the residential level, and
biosolids, food wastes, and food processing wastes at the com-
mercial level. The market price for composted organics tends
to be lower than the cost of collecting, hauling, and processing
the waste, market forces cannot solely be relied upon to create
the infrastructure for processing organics e public funding is
essential. Given that the province created a large supply of
organics necessitating composting, centralized composting
facilities needed to charge a tipping fee of between $30 and
$77 per tonne to fund development of infrastructure and sub-
sequent operation [24].
The original vision of the provincial strategy included ac-
cess to curbside collection of organic material for all residents
of the province; however, Nova Scotia is very rural in many
areas. As a result, NSEL was convinced by a few rural juris-
dictions that curbside collection was not necessary, provided
that there was an extensive backyard composting program
for all these residents [25]. According to provincial officials,
the rural exemption probably should not have been granted
because many of these areas have failed to achieve the
415
50-percent diversion rate [13]. Although in theory this ap-
proach appeared reasonable, in reality it has not worked, due
in part to what the NSEL calls the lack of a contribution ef-
fect that produces a result greater than the sum of the individ-
ual parts. That is, the more wastestreams that are recovered,
the higher the participation in individual streams. (The empir-
ical evidence supporting this phenomenon is weak. A few lim-
ited studies suggest that a contribution effect may occur
[26,27].) For example, the inclusion of organics separation
and recovery with recyclables in a MSW program will in-
crease the participation in recyclables recovery. Moreover,
when backyard composting is compared with centralized com-
posting, fewer materials are composted as residents generally
should not compost fish, meat, and dairy wastes in their
backyard.
4.3. Funding
The primary funding sources for the Nova Scotia MSW
strategy are municipal property taxes and tipping fees. A sup-
plemental funding source is provided through RRFB Nova
Scotias beverage container deposit system. This system in-
cludes a two-tiered differential deposit and refund rate based
on container size and use. In Nova Scotia, this system is some-
times referred to as a half-back program. Excluding domes-
tic beer bottles (which return 100 percent of the 10-cent
deposit), consumers pay 10 cents on non-dairy beverage con-
tainers of 500 mL and below and receive 5 cents back when
the containers are returned to any of the 83 independently
run ENVIRO-DEPOTs throughout the province. (Alcoholic
beverages in bottles above 500 mL have a deposit of 20 cents
with 10 cents returned.) Of the 5 cents that remains from the
10-cent deposit, a handling fee of 3.56 cents per container is
paid to the ENVIRO-DEPOT. (This fee will increase to
3.63 cents on April 1, 2007 [28].) The remaining 1.44 cents
is used to fund municipal MSW programs, the four regional
material processing centers, transportation of diverted mate-
rials, and administration of the fund (the 20-cent deposit dou-
ble these returns). In addition, 10 percent of RRFB Nova
Scotias net revenue funds NSELs Solid Waste-Resource
Management office to assist with enforcement, policy, legisla-
tion, and staffing.
Interestingly, the province had a limited beverage deposit/
refund system before adoption of the strategy for beer and
liquor bottles only that was administered through the tightly
controlled Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation. However, the
beer and liquor system did not charge a fee at the point of pur-
chase; the deposit was incorporated into the list price dimin-
ishing the cognitive impact of the deposit/refund concept
[17]. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Nova Scotia created
a new deposit/refund system. Moreover, as proposed, the
Nova Scotia strategy could easily have been interpreted as
a tax, rather than a true refund program because of the half-
back concept. There was a lingering political charge that the
half-back system was, in fact, a hidden tax [29]. The NSELs
argument was that the half-back system was not a tax, per se,
but basically an environmental users fee; the more materials
416 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
consumed and the more waste produced, the more you pay.
Regarding the tax perspective of the deposit/refund system,
there were few complaints about the half-back system. Instru-
mental in this acceptance was the knowledge that money was
returned to the municipalities to help offset waste management
costs rather than being directed into the Provinces general
fund [6]. Also instrumental in accepting the funding system
was that the fund was administered by RRFB Nova Scotia,
an arms length, not-for-profit corporation. It is mandated to
fund solid waste management regions with a minimum of 50
percent of net revenues from the beverage deposit/refund
system to assist with waste management and educational
awareness programs. Municipalities receive funds based on
material recovery accomplishments as measured by NSEL-
determined disposal rates. This is an explicit reward system:
the more waste diverted, the higher the funding. Although it
is important to note that the funds the RRFB Nova Scotia pro-
vides are relatively minor compared with the cost of the pro-
grams, to some municipalities the funding can be significant
as it represents from 7 to 15 percent of their annual budget
[30] and demonstrates that the province is committed in help-
ing garner public and municipal support [31]. For example, in
fiscal year 2005, the RRFB Nova Scotia returned $8.2 million
(representing 72 percent of net revenues) to Nova Scotias 55
municipalities in diversion credits (funding is based on the
previous years per capita waste disposal rate) to fund local
recycling and composting programs and $1.46 million to
education and public awareness programs [28].
Another source of regional supplemental funding is through
levying environmental fees on certain items, including tires,
paint, and milk cartons. Generally, these fees are self-imposed
by the industry, which have been established through steward-
ship agreements, discussed below. Used tires, the nemesis of
MSW managers worldwide, are banned from disposal in
Nova Scotia landfills. To foster collection, and to reduce ille-
gal disposal, Nova Scotia tire retailers levy a one-time envi-
ronmental fee of $3 per passenger tire and $9 per truck tire
at the point of sale with used tires returnable free of charge
to any of the provinces 900 tire retailers [28]. These fees
are remitted to the RRFB Nova Scotia to support area tire re-
cycling programs. Since 1997, 6.1 million used tires have been
collected [28]. In 2005, 805,000 tires were collected represent-
ing a 72.4 percent recovery rate and $3.2 million collected by
the RRFB Nova Scotia [28]. An additional fee-based program
is the Nova Scotia Paint Recycling Program launched in the
June 2002.
Although, the paint recycling program is administered by
RRFB Nova Scotia, program costs are charged to Product
Care, an organization supported by the paint industry. With
2.28 million containers of paint purchased in Nova Scotia in
2005, 302,000 liters of leftover oil and latex paint were col-
lected at ENVIRO-DEPOTs for a return rate of 11.5 percent
[28]. RRFB Nova Scotia pays the depots and handles the
collection of returned paint; shipment to the Paint Recycling
Company in Springhill, Nova Scotia; and helps fund the
company to remanufacture the collected paint into a saleable
product [30].
4.4. Increase capture of recoverable materials
As organic and recoverable materials were banned from
disposal, a system had to be developed to capture these mate-
rials. What evolved was a four-pronged approach: (1) the es-
tablishment of a municipal three-stream (garbage, organics,
and recyclables) curbside collection system; (2) the establish-
ment of a provincial system of material drop-off centers; (3)
the development of industry stewardship agreements to foster
product-specific material capture and recovery; and (4) the
creation of a provincial education program to improve source
separation.
(1) Establishing a residential curbside collection system for
three streams involved the expansion of an existing system.
Most Nova Scotians were already served with municipal gar-
bage pickup, thus, the experience, system, and infrastructure
existed [13]. As of 2004, the modified collection infrastructure
provided residents and municipalities, representing 99 percent
of the population, with access to weekly curbside recycling
[32]. In addition, 76 percent of the population live in munici-
palities that offer curbside collection of residential organics,
and 53 of 55 municipalities offer centralized composting to
their business sector [32]. Using private collection contracts,
the average annual collection cost of two streams (waste and
recyclable materials) per collection point is $50 per household
per year. The average cost to collect three streams (waste,
recyclable materials, and compost) in 2002 was $56 per house-
hold per year [33]. The average cost to compost organic mate-
rials at central composting facilities (including operating and
amortized capital costs) in 2002 was $80 per tonne, which
did not include revenue generated from sales of composted
materials. Organics pickup is generally biweekly, which
makes it more cost-effective but has caused some problems
with flies, maggots, and odors in warmer months. Exceptions
to the bi-weekly collection include the towns of Barrington,
Clarkes Harbour, and Lockeport, and the urban regions of
HRM during July and August e all of which implement
weekly collection. Waste collection in the ICI sector varies
throughout the province, with municipally sponsored collec-
tion in some areas and contracted private haulers in other
areas.
(2) ENVIRO-DEPOTs were created to provide a provin-
cial system of material drop-off centers; they are licensed
businesses run by independent contractors. There are currently
83 ENVIRO-DEPOTs in Nova Scotia and 87 percent of
Nova Scotia households are within 20 kilometers of an
ENVIRO-DEPOT [34]. They are basically patterned after
the franchise concept in which each ENVIRO-DEPOT is
provided a service territory [35]. Beverage containers are col-
lected, counted, and accumulated in canvas bags or plastic tubs
provided by RRFB Nova Scotia. Trucks remove filled bags/
tubs from the ENVIRO-DEPOTs and take them to one of
four central processing facilities operated by, or for, the
RRFB Nova Scotia. Each canvas bag/tub has a bar code, which
is read, tracked, and recorded for handling fee payment. Depot
funding is through a fixed handling fee collected for each de-
posit on recyclable beverage containers. In fiscal year 2005,
 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
ENVIRO-DEPOTs received $8.2 million in handling fees
from the RRFB Nova Scotia [28]. Most rural ENVIRO-
DEPOTs collect additional recyclable materials with market
value including corrugated cardboard, metal, and paper and
most have other allied operations such as scrap yards or thrift
or corner stores [30]. Urban depots can be restricted in their
ability to collect additional materials because of insurance
coverage and limited footprints restricting storage capacity
[35]. Nevertheless, urban depots tend to handle substantially
larger numbers of beverage containers making the business
viable as stand alone depots [30]. In rural areas, transportation
is a major issue with the ENVIRO-DEPOTs because of more
remote locations [36]. Since ENVIRO-DEPOTs are given
exclusive rights they require large territories in rural areas
to remain economically viable. Thus, in rural areas, consider-
able distance may have to be traveled to redeem beverage
containers.
(3) The third component of the strategy to increase the cap-
ture of recoverable materials is through industry stewardship
agreements administered by the RRFB Nova Scotia and codi-
fied by the NSEL. Industry stewardship agreements are
arrangements with companies to share the responsibility for
recycling and disposal of specific waste items (i.e., product-
focused as opposed to producer-focused environmental poli-
cies). Stewardship agreements have been developed for used
tires, used paint, medical sharps, telephone directories, news-
paper, and milk containers. The agreements typically involve
some form of subsidy to the RRFB Nova Scotia, with the funds
used to support related recycling companies or off-set collec-
tion and management costs. For example, Nova Scotias four
dairies provide funds to Nova Scotias solid waste management
regions based on the number of milk cartons collected [37].
The industry stewardship agreement with the newspapers in-
volves an in-kind contribution. Daily newspapers that circulate
in Nova Scotia provide $10 worth of advertising to the RRFB
Nova Scotia for each tonne of newsprint purchased by the pa-
pers [38]. Although it was originally anticipated that steward-
ship agreements would be relatively easy to negotiate, the
program has had only limited success. Industrys disinterest
is in part due to the fact that the RRFB Nova Scotia does not
have a means of enforcement. This lack of authority translates
to only limited efficacy in negotiating stewardship agreements
[17]. The NSELs strategy for these agreements is not to estab-
lish environmental fees, but instead allow the RRFB Nova Sco-
tia to work out agreements with the retailers to determine fees
or alternatives. In the case of tires, the focus has been on retail
outlets rather than tire manufacturers; even though there are
three large tire manufacturing plants in Nova Scotia [13]. Since
most of the stewardship agreements include contributions that
are used to offset management costs, they are not really indus-
try stewardship initiatives per se, as they externalize the waste
management costs onto the products purchased by the public
rather than promoting source reduction or recovery.
(4) One of the original objectives of the RRFB Nova Scotia
was to create a provincial education and awareness program to
promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting.
RRFB Nova Scotia administers education contracts for each
417
of the seven solid waste management regions. These contracts
are written to ensure that the regions deliver a specified num-
ber of presentations to schools, community groups, businesses,
and institutions; work with groups to green events, schools,
and IC&I sector organizations; set up static displays at
malls, festivals and events; conduct waste audits at businesses
or institutions; and coordinate community clean-up events
[30]. In addition to the education contracts, RRFB Nova Scotia
administers an advertising assistance program, enhances
municipal education programs, a derelict vehicle removal pro-
gram, and the household hazardous waste programs with the
seven solid waste management regions [30]. Of the $1.46 mil-
lion RRFB Nova Scotia spent in 2005 for education, approxi-
mately $1 million went directly to the regions [30]. The
remaining $460,000 was spent on provincial education and
awareness programs that included, conducting regular work-
shops for the 25 regional educators hired through the
regional education contracts, coordination of a provincial
recycling contest in Nova Scotia schools, delivery of educa-
tional presentations using Moby the Recycling Robot, and pro-
duction of a wide range of educational tools, books, and other
materials designed to promote waste reduction, reuse, recy-
cling and composting [30]. The RRFB Nova Scotia also offers
a province-wide toll-free recycling hotline [28].
4.5. Increase use of diverted materials
The bulk of Nova Scotias MSW management efforts are on
increasing the capture of recoverable materials. As the supply
of recoverable materials increases, the challenge is to increase
the local demand for such materials. The traditional approach
by most MSW recycling programs is to rely on global markets.
Markets exist for paper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum, steel,
glass, and select plastics (e.g., HDPE and PET). However, these
markets historically have been volatile, creating challenges to
solid waste managers due to a steady supply and an unpredict-
able demand. To ameliorate market volatility and increase job
creation, Nova Scotia adopted a value-added program to
support local industries that would utilize diverted recover-
ables. The RRFB Nova Scotia provides funding towards the
cost of commercializing and marketing new and innovative
products, services, and equipment related to material recovery.
This approach is viewed as crucial to the provincial programs
success for three reasons. First, transportation costs are gener-
ally the greatest barrier to marketing recovered materials, espe-
cially plastics. Thus, transportation costs are minimized when
local markets are created. Second, local demand has the poten-
tial to increase stability in the resource recovery market by di-
versifying demand, thereby, reducing the impact of having to
speculatively accumulate sufficient materials without an eco-
nomically viable market in place. Third, local markets create
local jobs and associated spin-off employment, which remain
a key element in any projects success.
Since 1996, the RRFB Nova Scotia provided approximately
$6.5 million in funding to industries and municipalities to
promote value-added products and increase the demand of
418 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
diverted materials [6]. Part of this funding also supported
research to develop local markets for diverted materials
in Nova Scotia. In addition to creating and fostering demand
for diverted materials, the purpose of value-added manufactur-
ing was to create jobs, which was one of the original selling
points of the strategy. Jobs have been created from Nova Sco-
tia-based value-added manufacturing in paint, plastic, tire,
wood pallet, and paper recycling. This has become an increas-
ingly important component of the MSW strategy. An attractive
aspect about the jobs is that they are spread throughout the
province instead of being concentrated in one location or
area. As a consequence, as some provinces and states are offi-
cially indifferent about exporting their waste, in Nova Scotia,
most regions do not support exporting waste outside of the re-
gion for with the waste goes jobs [32].
RRFB Nova Scotia also funds the Nova Scotia Material Ex-
change [30]. This is a free service that seeks to reduce waste
by promoting the exchange of reusable materials. Through
the Nova Scotia Materials Exchange, companies with surplus
or by-product materials can connect with other businesses or
individuals who can reuse these materials productively.
5. Is the Nova Scotia MSW strategy a model program?
In assessing the question of whether Nova Scotias strategy
is a model program, it is necessary to review specific indica-
tors including effectiveness, costs to benefits, and impact on
environmental and public health protection. Regarding effec-
tiveness, the Nova Scotia MSW system met its 50-percent
diversion goal in 2000, just five years after adopting the new
strategy. Although, the solid waste diversion rate has since
dropped to 42 percent, recycling rates and composting rates
increased four and five percent respectively [17,21].
The reason for this seeming contradiction is that the per
capita MSW generation rate has increased at a greater pace.
This is due to increased non-recyclable packaging in the
wastestream and increased construction and demolition
debris [21]. The diversion rate should rise in 2006 with the clo-
sure of the provinces only remaining incinerator in Sydney,
since the nearest landfill is approximately 200 kilometers
away [30].
A comparison with other waste management programs
based on per capita disposal rates is presented in Table 1.
Nova Scotia has the lowest solid waste disposal rate in
Canada; 46 percent lower than the Canadian average. The
U.S., which relies primarily on voluntary recycling, has
slightly higher disposal rates than Nova Scotia; however, these
data are misleading because Canada and its provinces include
construction and demolition debris as MSW whereas data for
most of the U.S. does not. In Nova Scotia, construction and de-
molition debris accounts for 24 to 30 percent of all solid waste
generated [6] (data on generation for all sectors are not avail-
able). It is important to note that in U.S. cities and counties
where diversion participation is mandated, a diversion rate
of 40 to 65 percent has been achieved [39].
Other accomplishments of Nova Scotias MSW program in-
clude the recycling of over 1.7 billion beverage containers
Table 1
Comparison of selected disposal rates, 2002 [40e43]
Entity Per capita
disposal rate (kg)
Canada, national average 760
Nova Scotia 417
New Brunswick 551
British Columbia 667
Ontario 797
Quebec 745
Alberta 928
USA, national dataa 531
California 927
Mainea 567
a
Rate does not include construction and demolition debris.
since 1996 for a 79 percent recovery rate, and the composting
of more than 230,000 tonnes of organic material [32]. In 2005
alone, 79,000 tonnes of organic waste was diverted through
municipal composting facilities [28]. Since the start of the
used tire program, approximately 6.1 million used tires have
been diverted [28]. In addition, the province has established
material recovery programs for used medical sharps, derelict
vehicles, used paint, and household hazardous waste. The
province has also initiated an Electronic Product Stewardship
Program to address the some 4500 tonnes of electronic waste
disposed annually [28]. Clearly, the Nova Scotia MSW strat-
egy has been effective in meeting and trying to maintain the
Canadian diversion goal.
An assessment of the provincial program in terms of cost-
benefit is less certain due in part to the lack of comprehensive
data and relative subjectivity of some factors. Using traditional
accounting measures, based on a 2004 cost-benefit analysis,
Nova Scotias MSW strategy cost $72.5 million in fiscal
2001 compared to the estimated $48.6 million in 1989 [6].
The total annual per capita MSW management cost was
$75.19 in 2000 [40]. The annual, per person marginal cost
of adopting Nova Scotias MSW strategy is estimated to be
$26 in constant 2001 dollars [6]. As to be expected, using
traditional cost accounting measures, the direct cost to imple-
ment the strategy has increased by 49 percent. This, however,
does not represent a full cost accounting of the strategy, which
is important in evaluating the program [2]. The authors of a
recent study contend that the obvious costs are offset by a num-
ber of less obvious factors including reduced air emissions and
groundwater leachate, improved public health, cost avoidance
of siting new landfills, cost avoidance of remediating contam-
ination from landfills, reduced environmental liability, energy
savings, employment benefits, and reduced greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions [6]. Based on full cost accounting, the study
estimated a net cost savings from implementing the system of
$33 to $178 per person per year above the pre-strategy total
cost baseline of $31 million to $167.7 million [6]. Regardless
of the adherence to traditional cost to benefit analysis or full
cost accounting, available data suggest that the cost of Nova
Scotias waste management strategy approximates that of the
State of Maine (U.S.A.), but is less than the Canadian national
 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
average.9 (The annual, per person MSW cost for Canada is
$45.49 and the nearby U.S. state of Maine is $78.35, although
direct comparison should be viewed with trepidation given the
differences in data collection, classification, and analysis)
[42]. However, Nova Scotias disposal rate is far lower than
all other provinces and Maine, suggesting that the national
and Maine cost data includes inexpensive landfilling as the
dominant disposal practice of choice rather than more costly,
but protective pollution prevention-based management.
An additional important element of the Nova Scotia strategy
is that it has forced increased internalization of waste manage-
ment costs for households and the ICI sector. Historically,
waste was dumped in inexpensive, substandard landfills or
burned; transportation was the major cost. However, primitive
landfills and open burning sites have high social costs including
potential environmental damage and adverse short- and long-
term health effects. Consequently, a secondary benefit of ban-
ning the disposal of recoverable goods and first-generation
landfills is that residents and firms have had to internalize
some costs as they face increased management, collection,
transportation, and disposal costs. Thus, instead of teasing mar-
ket conditions sufficient to justify recycling, the Nova Scotia
approach was to legislate recycling and subsequently support
the development of industry and markets. This further consol-
idated regional approaches to MSW management as many mu-
nicipalities could not afford to construct new landfills. In fact,
some regions have opted not to construct new landfills and have
entered into cooperative agreements with those regions that
have new landfills compliant with second generation standards.
Consequently, because municipalities and regions face higher
tipping and transportation fees, there is an increased economic
incentive to divert waste from disposal. While the precise costs
and benefits are arguable and some economists would charge
that government intervention is inherently inefficient, it has
to be recognized that there are short-, and especially long-
term economic benefits, many of which are non-quantifiable
and relate to reduced future environmental and public health
impacts.
There is little argument as to the net environmental and
public health benefits of Nova Scotias MSW strategy. First,
the strategy resulted in the closure of dozens of dumps and in-
adequate landfills and being replaced with seven engineered
landfills. The closure of these substandard landfills has a direct
environmental and public health benefit for current and future
generations as it correspondingly decreases landfill gas and
leachate generation. In addition, the bans on landfill disposal
of organic materials reduce the biological activity and thus,
leachate generation and GHG (methane) production. One
study estimated that the reduction in landfilled biodegradable
solid waste resulting from Nova Scotias strategy between
1989 and 2001 reduced GHG emissions between 231,400
and 261,900 tonnes of CO2 equivalent [6]. In addition, because
the strategy promotes recycling over the use of virgin
9
Maine is used because it is similar to Nova Scotia geographically and de-
mographically and is one of the few states with solid state-wide MSW data.
Most other data in the U.S. are municipal.
419
materials an estimated 71,980 to 249,270 tonnes of CO2 equiv-
alent have not been emitted between 1989 and 2001 [6]. By
increasing source reduction, there are also significant life cycle
energy savings that decrease GHG generation, which are far
more difficult to quantify, but must be acknowledged. Second-
ary environmental benefits result from decreased upstream
waste generation from reduced raw material acquisition,
processing, manufacturing, transportation, and use [44]. In ad-
dition, there are similar local savings as there is less waste ne-
cessitating disposal. An important secondary effect of the land
disposal bans is that collectively, the cost of landfill disposal
has increased thereby decreasing the economic advantage of
disposal over recovery. Simultaneously, because of the dis-
posal ban, there was a significant increase in the supply of re-
coverable materials. In short, there is a dramatic reduction in
upstream wastes, associated energy, and waste going to land-
fills (no incineration) that are more protective and less
biologically active.
Given the increased tipping fees, decreased landfill avail-
ability, disposal restrictions, and the rural nature of the prov-
ince, the obvious question is whether there has been
a significant increase in illegal disposal? Intuitively, such con-
ditions would heighten the concern of incidences of illegal
disposal. Regardless of what type of disposal system is used
or adopted, historically, illegal disposal has always been a prob-
lem [45]. Reviewing surveys of communities adopting unit-
based pricing (pay-as-you-throw) MSW systems, a study found
that there was a short-term spike in illegal dumping but dimin-
ished with acceptance and familiarity [45]. However, the
studys authors caution that data on the frequency and amounts
of illegal dumping are virtually non-existent in most commu-
nities. Although in HRM, illegal dumping has been a signifi-
cant problem for many years, based on an analysis, there were
no data to support a relationship between illegal dumping and
increased disposal fees [46]. Based on a survey of Nova
Scotia regional waste reduction coordinators, illegal disposal
has and continues to be a problem, but there are no data linking
it with the strategy. Most incidences of illegal disposal are
white goods (large appliances), derelict vehicles, demolition
debris, and waste from households moving away [47]. On a
related issue, litter remains a significant issue in the province.
In a recent study, miscellaneous materials comprised 43 per-
cent of sampled litter, 23 percent was litter from the fast-
food industry, 15 percent was from snack foods, and 13 percent
was from tobacco products [48]. In response, in May 2006, the
Nova Scotia Minister of Environment and Labour proposed to
significantly increase the fines for individuals and businesses
littering and to broaden the definition of litter [49].
6. The future
Nova Scotia faces significant challenges in diverting waste.
Although disposal has decreased and recycling has increased,
diversion percentages have decreased because more MSW is
being generated. This trend is not unique to Nova Scotia.
There is a direct correlation between economic wealth and
waste generation. In addition, demographic changes typical
420 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
of western societies lead to greater waste production. In
Canada, the population has increased, but the number of indi-
viduals per household has decreased by 33 percent since 1961
[50]. In Nova Scotia, there were 2.5 persons per household in
2001 [51]. As the number of individuals per household
decrease, and the population increases, more dwellings must
be built. It is inevitable that more waste is generated to
support this living situation as more households consume
furniture, appliances, household maintenance products, food,
and so forth. Moreover, (Canadian) consumers increasingly
prefer disposable items such as plastic bags, paper plates,
and polystyrene cups [52]. The increasing reliance on con-
venience generates packaging wastes, cardboard boxes, plastic
and paper bags, plastic trays, and plastic film. Finally, the
increasing rapidity of product obsolescence based on techno-
logy, fashion, and functionality further increases waste
generation.
Faced with a seemingly overwhelming production of waste,
Nova Scotias strategy, based on the framework depicted in
Fig. 1, is well designed to address the diversion aspect, but
is limited in its ability to tackle the overall generation trend.
The obvious approach to combat overall waste generation is
to force producer cost internalization through such means as
extended producer responsibility as the product discard man-
agement paradigm is limited in its diversion ability. Without
national or large-scale regional leadership in this area, given
Nova Scotias population, the province is limited in its ability
to force such a dramatic change in major producers. Other
countries, provinces, and states are exploring various
approaches to force cost internalization and producer respon-
sibility, which will benefit Nova Scotia.
Nevertheless, additional and continuous modifications and
steps can be made within the framework to achieve further mar-
ginal reductions in the generation of waste and its subsequent
disposal. These include: (1) Additional and improved extended
product responsibility within the framework of Nova Scotias
product stewardship program. (2) Expanding the value-added
manufacturing program to increase local demand of diverted
materials. (3) Increasing the reclamation of construction and
demolition debris. (4) Continuing to increase individual partic-
ipation in the strategy. Interestingly, the province has observed
an increase in material separation by requiring the use of clear
bags for non-recoverable waste for disposal. Currently, 16 of
the 55 municipalities, covering 40 percent of the population,
now require clear bags [53].
7. Conclusion
An analysis of the Nova Scotia MSW strategy provides an
interesting case study. The strategy was a direct response to
a perceived MSW landfill crisis. Yet, instead of merely ame-
liorating the crisis incrementally and at minimal economic
and political cost, Nova Scotia embraced an aggressive and
novel approach based on creating an entirely new provincial
MSW strategy e adopting pollution prevention over disposal.
This in itself is an important lesson. As Nova Scotia demon-
strated, sometimes only a truly new approach can solve
a problem. To be sure, developing the program was not sim-
plistic and clearly there were, and continue to be, problems,
challenges, and disappointments. Yet, the strategy remains rel-
atively popular. Part of this popularity stems from a sense of
accomplishment. Nova Scotians are proud of their strategy,
which is confirmed when they travel to other provinces.
They realize that Nova Scotia has done something good and
it reinforces it for them [54]. Based on awareness, participa-
tion rates, and RRFB Nova Scotia-commissioned surveys,
there is an overall highlevel of public support for Nova
Scotias waste reduction efforts [55e58].
One of the crucial elements of Nova Scotias success is that
the province was able to link the environment to the economy,
reinforcing that they are not mutually exclusive [13]. This was
crucial to the strategys success as support from business
leaders was based on seeing MSW as a resource. For instance,
a Nova Scotia paper mill has the capacity to recycle all the
provinces old corrugated cardboard and newsprint and in
fact imports additional stock. This feedstock is important to
maintain plant operations, sustain employment, and close the
loop on recycling. The provincial strategy has secured addi-
tional jobs in plastic, paint, and tire recycling. Given that
jobs are very important to Nova Scotia, this attraction cannot
be overestimated. Moreover, the jobs are not limited to one in-
dustry or one location, but spread throughout the province
making them less susceptible to market downturns.
One of the important conclusions drawn from the study is
that Nova Scotias MSW strategy serves as a model sub-
national program, based on effectiveness, environmental and
health benefits, comparative costs, and cost to benefits based
on full-cost accounting. Admittedly, the cost and benefit
aspects are value judgments, but given the short- and long-
term benefits to environmental protection and to the provincial
economy, the marginal cost increase seems comparatively rea-
sonable, especially when compared to other popular public
subsides. Although the Nova Scotia MSW management strat-
egy is a model sub-national program, only limited improve-
ments are expected without extended producer responsibility.
Thus, more research is needed to identify and assess success-
ful sub-national extended producer responsibility programs. If
national and sub-national governments are serious about sus-
tainability, they should study Nova Scotias approach to MSW.
References
[1] Rathje W, Murphy C. Rubbish! The archaeology of garbage. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers; 1992.
[2] Dewees DN, Hare MJ. Economic analysis of packaging waste reduction.
Canadian Public Policy 1998;24(4):453e70.
[3] Brown DT. Landfills and legislation; overview of regulations affecting in-
ground disposal of non-hazardous solid waste in Canada and the United
States. In: Mustafa N, editor. Plastics waste management; disposal, recy-
cling, and reuse. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1993. p. 37e58.
[4] See for example, Isaacson F. Japan likes what we do, how we do our gar-
bage, The Halifax Herald; Saturday, March 8, 2003. Dooley C. Group
looks to Nova Scotia for lesson on treating waste. Irish Times; January
9, 2001. p. 9.
 T. Wagner, P. Arnold / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 410e421
[5] Goodick M. Assessing environmental improvements from changes in
waste management practices in Nova Scotia from 1990e2000, Masters
Thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS; 2002.
[6] Walker S, Colman R, Wilson J, Monette A, Harley G. The Nova Scotia
GPI solid waste-resource accounts. Glen Haven, NS: GPI Atlantic; 2004.
[7] See for example, Stein DL. Who will profit from trash crisis? Toronto
Star; March 30, 1989, p. A27; Smith M. Waste problem could halt con-
struction metro warns. Toronto Star; February 9, 1989, p. A7; Smith M.
Queens park promises to help solve waste crisis. Toronto Star; January
21, 1989, p. A6; Funston M. Taxpayers seen paying for Peel trash crisis.
Toronto Star; November 30, 1988, p. A7; Garbage war is approaching.
Toronto Star; April 19, 1988, p. N4; Temple J. Cost to get rid of trash
will double in calamity ahead, councilor says. Toronto Star; March 9,
1988, p. A15.
[8] Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment. Information re-
lease, Winnipeg, MB; April 19, 1989. p. 30.
[9] See for example, Mydron J. Landfill polluting river e expert. The Mail-
Star; March 16, 1989, p. 21. Hall F, Wild L. Testing shows high level of
ammonia, The Daily News; March 20, 1989. p. 3.
[10] Best practices. The Business Voice. Halifax Chamber of Commerce;
March 1, 2002.
[11] Wendt F. Pay now or pay later: a cost benefit analysis of Halifax regional
municipalitys integrated solid waste management system. Masters
Thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS; 2001.
[12] Towards a solid waste management strategy for Nova Scotia: a public
consultation report. Nova Scotia Department of Environment and
Labour; June 1995.
[13] Friesen B. Solid Waste-Resource Manager, Nova Scotia Department of
the Environment and Labour. Personal interview, Halifax, NS; August
11, 2004.
[14] Solid waste-resource management: a strategy for Nova Scotia. Nova
Scotia Department of Environment and Labour; 1995.
[15] Recycling e markets, marketing, and a coherent strategy for Nova
Scotia. Ernst and Young; 1993.
[16] Changing attitudes in a changing environment: a discussion paper for
solid waste management in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Department of
Environment and Labour; July 15, 1994.
[17] Kenney BM. Solid Waste-Resource Manager, Nova Scotia Department of
the Environment and Labour. Personal interview. Halifax, NS; August 5,
2004.
[18] Cotton R. Chair, Nova Scotia solid waste-resource management regional
chairs committee. Personal interview. Halifax, NS; August 5, 2004.
[19] Kenney BM. Solid Waste-Resource Manager, Nova Scotia Department of
the Environment and Labour. Personal communication; June 15, 2006.
[20] Macdonald TC. Incinerator emissions double the allowable limit. Cape
Breton Post November 19, 2005.
[21] Kenney BM. Solid waste-resource manager, Nova Scotia Department of the
Environment and Labour. Personal communication; December 10, 2004.
[22] MacQueen D. Environmental Engineer, Nova Scotia Department of the
Environment and Labour. Personal correspondence; July 26, 2006.
[23] Greene L. A less trashy Nova Scotia. Environmental Health Perspectives
2001;109(9):A418.
[24] Data for this were collected from an author survey with compost plant
operators throughout Nova Scotia conducted on July 27, 2006.
[25] Friesen B. Landfill ban stimulates composting programs in Nova Scotia.
BioCycle 2000;41(3):57.
[26] Koch KE, Domina T. Consumer textile recycling as a means of solid
waste reduction. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal
1999;28(1):3e17.
[27] Domina T, Koch K. Convenience and frequency of recycling:
implications for including textiles in curbside recycling programs.
Environment & Behavior 2002;34(2):216e39.
[28] RRFB Nova Scotia. 2005 annual report. Truro, NS: Resource recovery
fund board; 2005.
421
[29] Joseph R. Executive Director, Nova Scotia environmental industry asso-
ciation. Personal interview. Dartmouth, NS; August 6, 2004.
[30] McCarthy, MC. Director of communications, resource recovery fund
board Nova Scotia. Personal communication; July 3, 2005.
[31] Ferguson A. Regional waste coordinator, Pictou County solid waste man-
agement system. Personal interview. Stellarton, NS; August 10, 2004.
[32] Status report 2004 of solid waste-resource management in Nova Scotia.
Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour; 2004.
[33] Friesen B. A world leader in diversion. BioCycle 2002;43(6):34.
[34] RRFB Nova Scotia. 2003 annual report. Truro, NS, Canada: Resource
Recovery Fund Board; 2003.
[35] Burgess P. Canadian Recycling, Ltd. Personal interview. Dartmouth, NS;
August 11, 2004.
[36] Campbell M. Education Coordinator Region 1. Personal interview. Port
Hood, NS; August 9, 2004.
[37] Nova Scotia milk packaging stewardship agreement. Nova Scotia Depart-
ment of Environment and Labour; 2000.
[38] Nova Scotia daily newspapers stewardship agreement. Nova Scotia
Department of Environment and Labour; 2001.
[39] Platt B, Lease K. Cutting the waste stream in half: community record-
setters show how. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; 1999. EPA-530-R-99e013.
[40] Waste management industry survey business and government sectors
2002. Statistics Canada; 2004. Catalogue No. 16F0023XIE.
[41] Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2001 facts and figures.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2003.
EPA530-R-03-011.
[42] 2003 municipally submitted solid waste management data. Augusta,
Maine: Maine State Planning Office; 2003.
[43] California Integrated Waste Management Board. Statewide profiles,
<http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Statewide/>; [accessed June 19, 2006].
[44] Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P, Moberg A. Life cycle assessment of
energy from solid waste e part 1: general methodology and results.
Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13:213e29.
[45] Skumatz LA, Van Dusen H, Carton J. Illegal dumping: incidences, drivers, and
strategies. SERA Research Report Series No. 9431-1; 1994, updated 2001.
[46] Halifax Regional Municipality, Solid waste/regional advisory committee,
Minutes of meeting; May 12, 1999.
[47] Clarke R. Regional Waste Reduction Coordinator, Cape Breton regional
municipality, Nova Scotia. Personal communication; July 7, 2005.
[48] Allen SA, Saccary L, Wishart JG, Vigneau AM. A characterization of
Nova Scotian litter: 2004 Litter survey; 2004.
[49] Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour. News release:
amendments to the environment act tabled; May 8, 2006.
[50] Statistics Canada. Type of dwelling and population by type of dwelling
(1961e2001 Censuses), <http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil66.
htm>; [accessed June 15, 2006].
[51] Statistics Canada. Type of dwelling and population by type of dwelling
(1961e2001 Censuses), <http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil66.
htm>; [accessed June 15, 2006].
[52] Statistics Canada. Human activity and the environment, annual statistics
2005, Catalogue no. 16-201-XIE.
[53] Data for this was collected from an author survey with municipalities
throughout Nova Scotia conducted on August 3, 2006.
[54] Van Rooyen B. Policy coordinator, valley waste-resource management.
Personal interview. Kentville, NS; August 4, 2005.
[55] Public opinion survey: Final report. RRFB Nova Scotia; 1997.
[56] 1999 Public opinion survey on recycling and waste management. RRFB
Nova Scotia; 1999.
[57] Survey of recycling and composting in Nova Scotia. RRFB Nova Scotia;
2002.
[58] Moscoso, ADE. Factors influencing households participation in the
waste/resource management program of Halifax regional authority,
Masters Thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS; 2001.