Cost-Benefit Analysis Home Composting Programs Inthe: States

pes y t z
Cost-Benefit Analysis o f
Home Composting Programs
in t h e United States
by:
Applied Compost Consulting

Wells Fargo Building
2140 Shattuck Avenue
Suite 705
Berkeley, California 94704
tor:
The Composting Council

114 South P i t t Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22413
(703) 739-2401
fax Cf03) 739-2407
comeounci1@aol.com
-May 1996
I ,
The ComposciGg Council, Alexandria, VA

1
Cost-Benefit Analysis o f
in the United States
by:
Applied Compost Consulting

Wells Fargo Building
2140 Shattuck Avenue
Suite 705
Berkeley, California 94704
for:
The Composting Council

114 South Pitt Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22413
(703) 739-2401
fax (703) 739-2407
comcouncil@aol.com
May 1996
The Composting Council, Al exandria, VA

2
Acknowkdgements
Applied Compost Consulting would like t o thank t h e
Composting Council (Alexandria, Virginia) and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency for finding of
this study. Charles Cannon and Rebecca Roe of t h e Com-
posting Council provided effective overall project manage-
ment. Several government, academic and industry review-
ers of this report desewe many thanks for their com-
ments and assistance: Holly Johnson, University of Wiscon-
sin Cooperative Extension Sewice, who also provided a use-
ful list o f addresses o f home composting programs; Eu-
gene Lee, U.S.E.P.A.; Jim Hollyer, University of Hawaii; Bob
Martin, Rodale Press; Rhonda Sherman, North Carolina
State University; and Craig Benton, independent consultant. Additional mention goes to
Tom Richard, Cornell University, for his thoughtfulness and collegiality. Finally, we would
like t o offer our warmest appreciation of the 43 survey respondents (listed in the ap-
pendix) for their time and interest in helping t o provide t h e data which underpin this
study.
Applied Compost Consulting was selected by the Composting Council as the best
choice among eight candidates who were formally con-
sidered to conduct the work. This study was directed
and written by Steven Sherman, managing partner. Bar-
ton Blum, managing partner, conducted the statistical
analysis and developed several case studies. Dail Miller,
senior consultant, helped t o frame the economic ap-
proach used in the study. Lucinda Chiszar, research ana-
lyst, gathered and organized survey data and case study
information. Applied Compost Consulting bears respon-
sibility for any unintentional inaccuracies in the study.
An extra special thank you is extended t o Martin Simson,

Director &Administration a t The Composting Council,
for his extensive work on the design and layout of this
__
valuable document,
The Composting Council, Aexandria, VA

3
Ta6k of Contents
Executive Summary 5
I. Purpose of the Study
A. Study Context 10
B. Need f o r this Study 11
C. Goals of the Study 11
D. Analytical Approach 11
11. Analysis of Results
A. Demographics 12
B. Categorization of Programs 12
. C. Regional Variations 13
D. Overall Program Costs 14
1) Direct Cost Per Ton Diverted 14
2) Program Budgets 14
E. Program Elements 14
1) staffing 14
2) Home Composting Brochures 15
3) Workshops 15
4) Master Composter Training Programs 15
5 ) Compost Bin Distribution 16
6) Portable Displays and Hotlines 16
F. Role of Volunteers 17
G. Participation Rates 17
H. Diversion Rates 18
1) Quantities Diverted Per Program 18
2) Quantities Diverted Per Household 18
I. Grasscycling 19
J. Complementarity with Centralized Composting 19
K. Summary of Results 19
111. Avoided Costs and Other Benefits
A. Note on Assumptions 19
B. Avoided Costs 20
1) Avoided Collection Costs-Public Benefits 20
2) Avoided Collection Costs Individual Benefits 21
-.
3) Avoided Disposal Costs 21
4)Avoided Environmental and Social Costs 22
The Composting Council, A_1exandria, VA

4
C. Other Benefits 22
1)Derived Benefits of Volunteers 22
2) Derived Benefits of Master Composters 22
3) Additional Environmental and Social Benefits 23
0. Qualitative Summary of Benefits Er Avoided Costs 23
E. Recommendations for Developing Home Programs 24
F. Projections of Nationwide Estimates 24
IV. Case Studies
1. Alameda County, California 26

2. Olympia, Washington 28
3. Ann Arbor, Michigan 30
4. Palm Beach County, Florida 32
5. Glendale, California 35
6. East Chicago, Indiana 37
7. Am herst, Massachusetts 39
8. Austin, Texas 40
Appendices
Appendix A: Research Methods 42

Appendix B: Home Composting Program Survey 46
Appendix C: List of Survey Respondents 52
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Survey Respondents, 12A
by Population and Region
TABLE 2: Typical Home Composting Program 13

Components by Size of Community
TABLE 3: Results of National Suwey of 19A

TABLE 4: Identified Benefits of Home Composting 24
TABLE 5: Recommendations for Developing 25

The Composting Council, Alexandria, VA

5
Executive Summayy
Conclusion: Home composting is a viable and useful component
o f solid waste management. The results o f the study demonstrate
t h a t home composting programs are successful and cost-effective in
communities large and small, urban and suburban, high income
and low income, east and west, north and south.
The average total net benefit derived by local governments

which have home composting programs is a t least $43/ton, based on a 1995 national sur-
vey conducted by Applied Compost Consulting (Berkeley, California). In other words, local
governments reduce solid waste collection and disposal costs by an average o f a t least $43
for every ton of yard trimmings and kitchen scraps that are composted a t home by resi-
dents.
with education, encouragement, assistance, and incentives, many res-
idents will s t a r t t o compost yard trimmings and food scraps a t home,
thus reducing the burden on the solid waste management system.
The values of thrift, self-reliance and personal responsibility for the
environment and community are affirmed by home composting.
Context: Home composting has emerged in recent years as a popu-

lar conservation strategy across the United States. People who com-
post a t home turn materials that otherwise would be discarded, such
as leaves, grass, prunings, fruit and vegetable scraps, and other items,
into soil products for use in their gardens. Home composting in-
cludes passive and active composting, grasscycling, and other forms
of reducing waste generation a t the source.
City and county governments throughout t h e United States have

started t o promote home composting as a way t o reduce trash disposal, to conserve natu-
ral resources, and t o save money. Local governments bear responsibility for collecting and
processing solid waste; home composting reduces the amount of materials t h a t must be
collected, transported t o a central facility, and disposed or otherwise processed.
Use of this Study
This analysis, conducted and written by Applied Compost Consulting, is intended to

help program managers in determining the appropriate priority level for home compost-
ing efforts, and in estimating and justifLing budgetary requests. Many solid waste pro-
gram managers want to know what budget outlays can be expected during program start-
up, what elements are typically included in a home composting program, and what cost
savings can be achieved. Until this study was undertaken, t h e direct fiscal costs and quan-
tified benefits of home composting had not been well documented.

c
6
The results are based on a nation-wide 1995 survey of home composting programs
t h a t keep detailed records. More than one million people compost a t home in the 43 com-
munities t h a t provided economic data. Eight case studies of municipally-sponsored home
composting programs are included in the report.
Home Composting Benefits
Home composting programs offer the following benefits, according to persons asso-
ciated with home composting programs:
avoided collection, transfer, and centralized processing

reduced disposal burden
improved soil health and fertility
lowered residential trash bills (where unit costing exists)
new j o b creation (home compost program coordination
and promotion)
reduced air and water pollution
reduced use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides
increased residential interest in and dedication t o recy-
cling efforts
exercise and relaxation
hands-on methods of science education (especially with
worm composting)
greater sense of personal responsibility and community pride
Program Costs and Benefits
Home composting is a highly cost-effective way to handle residential materials, such

as yard trimmings and fruit and vegetable scraps. Home composting programs t h a t
responded t o t h e survey spent $12 on average for every ton diverted from t h e solid waste
system, based on data obtained for fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95 (Staffing constitutes
t h e majority of program costs, on average). Moreover, average costs per t o n o f material
composted a t home are dropping over time for programs which offer subsidized bins: for
each year (after the first) t h a t bins are in use, materials are diverted from t h e waste
stream with virtually no additional cost. However, the wide range in reported costs
($l/ton t o $134/ton) suggests t h a t program managers should evaluate carefully how t o
structure their home composting efforts, and should monitor program results.
The costs for curbside collection, transfer, and centralized composting or disposal
of yard trimmings are much higher than the costs for encouraging residents to compost
them a t home. I n addition, home composting can reduce overall direct costs of collection
and disposal associated with other materials handling methods.
--
The table on t h e following page contains a summary of results on program costs
and benefits. As shown in the table, t h e average total net benefit accrued by local govern-
ments is a t least $43/ton for every ton diverted through home composting.
The Cornposting Council, Alexandria, VA

7
Home Composting Budgets
The median home composting program budget is $15,000, based on the

survey results. Some large regional programs (metropolitan counties, etc.) have budgets
which exceed $100,000. Home composting programs occur in communities o f all different
income levels.
Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Home Composting Programs, I995

Municipal Costs per Ton Composted at Home
Local government expenditures

on home composting (average) $12/ton
Total Municipal Costs $12/ton
Municipal Benefits per Ton Composted a t Home
Avoided collection costs (average) $23 /ton
Avoided disposal costs (average) $32 /ton
Volunteer labor <$l/ton
Soil amendment creation Benefits accrue to
individuals
Avoided air pollution Er resource depletion Not measured in $ value
Total Municipal Benefits (measured benefits only) $55-56/ton
Total Net Benefit (Benefits minus Costs) $43-4-4/ton
Home Composting Program Elements
Home composting program efforts range from basic t o comprehensive. A t mini-

mum, most home composting programs:
0 have a paid staff person

0 distribute brochures on how to compost
offer home composting workshops t o residents
distribute compost bins
educate children and teachers about composting
In addition, some programs also have the following

elements:
0 advertising
training of volunteers t o teach others about composting (known
as “master composters” o r “community composters”)
The Composting Council, A lexandria, VA

8
compost demonstration gardens

additional literature f o r distribution
a telephone hotline
Programs in communities with less than 100,000 population tend t o have part-
time staff, while those between 100,000and 700,000 population tend t o have up t o one
full-time staff person. Programs in communities with more than 700,000 tend t o have
one o r more full-time staff,
Volunteers
On average, paid staff are supplemented by approximately 200 hours peryear of

volunteer time. Volunteers provide valuable services in all aspects of home corn posting
program implementation, and especially in distributing literature and giving workshops.
More than 75% of t h e survey respondents indicated t h a t volunteers help in various capaci-
ties with their community’s home composting program.
Bin Distribution
Home compost bins are distributed by many programs,

often a t a subsidized rate. The average subsidy was $16 per
bin (range: $0-$34/bin). The results of the survey did not pro-
vide clear evidence t h a t bin distribution correlates with high
rates of participation or waste diversion. However, in many
communities, distributing compost bins probably increases par-
ticipation and waste diversion.
Telephone Hotlines
Compost hotlines are used heavily by residents in communities t h a t have compre-

hensive home composting programs. The survey found t h a t a median of 900 calls are re-
ceived per year. Hotlines are low-cost education and outreach tools, compared with other
promotional approaches.
Participation Rates
Home composting programs can achieve significant results in their early stages.
In 1991, 10%of t h e single-family households in communities with home composting pro-
grams composted a t home, according t o the survey results. Among survey respondents,
an average of 16% of single-family households now compost a t home, as of 1995. The
highest level of participation was 80%of single-family households in one community.
-- Home composting’s fast-growing importance as a solid waste management strategy

is expected to continue throughout the decade, as public works officials and community
leaders gain appreciation for how it reduces costs and saves resources. Many if not most
home composting programs have been set up in t h e past three years.

9
As a group, the sampled set of home composting programs has an average goal of
45%of single-family households composting a t home. These goals can be attained only
through sustained efforts (education, outreach, incentives) over a number of years.
Waste Reduction (Quantified)
Home composting programs t h a t responded to t h e survey are diverting an average

o f approximately 14%of the total amount o f yard trimmings generated in their communi-
ties. More than half o f these programs are diverting a t least 1,000tonslyear through
home composting.
On average, residents who compost a t home in these communities divert approxi-

mately 650 pounds per year from the solid waste system. This is roughly equivalent t o
one ton diverted per year for every three households t h a t compost a t home. These resi-
dents generate approximately twenty cubic feet of compost annually; residential gardens
typically can incorporate a t least this amount o f compost into the soil every year.
Grascycling
In some communities, grasscycling (leaving cut grass on t h e lawn) forms the most
important component o f source redudion o f residentially-generated organic materials.
Communities which indicated t h a t they have significant grasscycling programs have below-
average program costs, in terms of dollars spent f o r every ton o f material t h a t is kept o u t
of the solid waste system.
Complementarity with Centralized Composting
Nearly all (97%) o f the suwey respondents affirmed t h a t home composting comple-
ments centralized composting, making both successful.
Recommendations for Home Composting Programs
Home composting programs can be very cost-effective, especially

when sustained Over a few years. Communities t h a t are planning t o set
up or to expand home composting programs should consider Applied
Compost Consulting’s recommendations:
1 Focus efforts on single-family households,

2 Target people who garden a t home first.
3 Develop a home composting brochure, possibly adapted from existing ones.
4 Gather support and assistance from volunteers.
-. 5 Give how-to workshops on home composting.
6 Use media effectively t o publicize the program.
7 Disseminate information through existing community groups.
8 Include grasscycling tips in any promotional o r educational information.
The Cornposting Council, Al exandria, VA

10
9 Evaluate a mobile o r neighborhood chipping program for brush and branches

10 Structure economic incentives for participation in home composting, by
adopting refuse collection rates t h a t reward waste reduction.
11 Consider having a subsidized compost bin purchase program, and especially
one-day sales.
12 Evaluate cost-sharing opportunities between cities within a county, for educa-
tional efforts and possible bin distribution programs.
13 Provide a home composting hotline number.
14 Remember t h a t success is measured over t h e course of a t least a few years.
15 Monitor results, especially participation and diversion rates, and costlton di-
verted.
Puypose of the Study

Study Context
Home composting has emerged in recent years as a popular conservation strategy

throughout t h e United States and Canada. People who compost a t home t u r n materials
t h a t otherwise would be discarded, such as leaves, grass, prunings, fruit and vegetable
scraps, and other items, into soil products for use in their gardens. The values of thrift,
self-reliance and personal responsibility f o r the environment and community are affirmed
by home composting.
As with recycling in the 1980s and energy consewation in t h e 1970s,public inter-

est in home composting has been propelled not only by its intrinsic environmental bene-
fits, but also by economic pressures associated with rising costs of t h e municipal solid
waste system. Local governments bear responsibility for collecting and processing solid
waste; home composting reduces the amount of materials t h a t must be collected, trans-
ported to a central facility, and disposed or othenvise processed. Many North American
municipal recycling programs and state cooperative extension agencies have started t o
promote home composting as a way t o reduce trash disposal, to conserve natural re-
sources, and to save money.

Need for this Study
Until this study was undertaken, the direct fiscal costs and quantified benefits of
home composting had not been well documented. Lacking analytical information regard-
ing overall program costs and benefits, many program managers have been hard-pressed
t o determine t h e appropriate priority level f o r home composting education efforts or to
justifL budgetary requests.
Many solid waste program managers want t o know what budget outlays can be ex-
pected during the first three years of program start-up, and what cost savings can be
achieved fairly immediately. This quantified economic analysis of home composting pro-
grams nationwide is intended t o provide solid waste program managers with aggregate
and comparative data that may be useful for planning purposes.
Goals of the Study
The main goal of this economic analysis of home composting programs was t o de-
velop a composite view o f costs and benefits, based on results of a nationwide survey of
home composting programs. These results are presented in Sections 11 and 111. Appendix
A contains information on how t h e survey was conducted and what analytical methods
were employed in analyzing results. The survey is presented in Appendix B.
The results presented herein are based on an August, 1995 survey of 137 home
composting programs across North America. A total of 43 completed surveys were re-
turned in time for tabulation and analysis. The respondents are listed in Appendix C.
Another goal of this study was to provide descriptive information regarding three
program categories, based on population size. This information is presented in Section 11.
A third goal was to develop case studies of home compost-

ing programs, selected for their quality of data and their diver-
sity in demographics and program elements. Eight case studies
are included in Section IV.
Analytical Approach
Economic analyses often obscure important social and environmental costs and
benefits of various public programs. However, in the case of home composting, this focus
on direct fiscal costs will help readers to understand t h a t home composting generally is
highly cost-effective in reducing the solid waste management burden, even without consid-
ering t h e important and numerous other benefits of home composting.
-- The non-monetary social and environmental benefits of home composting (Section

Ill), and projections of national estimates about home composting (Section HI), are dis-
cussed separately from the analysis of direct program costs incurred by local governments
(Section 11). Unlike t h e direct fiscal cost analysis, the topics covered in Section 111 have a

12
greater amount of uncertainty associated with them, and should be viewed as assertions
rather than as proven facts.
The term “home composting” (also known as “backyard composting”) was defined
for the purposes of this study as including active or passive composting a t home, worm
composting, grasscycling, and other activities undertaken by residents which reduce t h e
need for pick-up and off-site handling of organic materials. Whether survey respondents
consistently included all of these elements o r just a portion of them when answering ques-
tions was not able to be determined with certainty.
Section II Analysis of Results
Demographics
The total population represented by the 43 jurisdictions

(n=43) which completed surveys is more than 1 2 million people.
The number of people who compost a t home in the communities
t h a t responded t o the survey total more than 1million. As shown
in’Table 1: Population Distribution, by Region, survey responses
were gathered-from all geographic regions-of the United States,
cover-ing 2 1 states, and from two Canadian provinces. Surveys
were received from 2 7 cities and towns, 13 counties, and 3 solid
waste management districts.
Communities of all sizes responded t o the survey, ranging from a minimum of

3,000 residents t o a maximum of 1.6 million residents. The median respondent has a pop-
ulation of approximately 130,000 residents. Results were received from 17 communities
with a 1990 population of less than 100,000; from 2 1 communities having between
100,000 and 700,000 residents; and from 5 municipalities (all counties) having a popula-
tion greater than 700,000.
Home composting programs occur in communities of all different income levels

throughout North America. Median annual household income for communities which re-
sponded t o t h e survey range from a low of approximately $18,000 to a high of approxi-
mately $69,000. The results of the survey suggest t h a t median household income, by it-
self, is not a strong predictor f o r whether a community has a home composting program
or for t h e extensiveness of a program.
Categorization of Programs
Table 2 provides a generalized portrait of home composting program elements

found in communities of various sizes. This categorization is based on the relative fre-
quency with which survey respondents utilize o r offer these program elements. As shown
ih t h e table, programs in larger communities tend t o have a greater variety of program
elements.
The Cornposting Council, A lexandria, VA

12A
Table 1: Survey Respondents, by Population Region

Geogra p hica\ Areas
Population
I West
Alameda Co,
North-
west
South-
west
South
Palm Beach
Midwest East CANADA Total
CA County, FL
> 700,000 Sacramento Hillsborough Vancouver, 6
County, CA co, n BC
San Francisco,
CA
Milwaukee,
WI
250,000- Sacramento, Austin, T X Sarasota Co, Dakota Co, Moms Co, 9
700,000 CA FL MN NJ
Lincoln, NE
1 MarinCo,CA Piano, T X Madison, WI
lO0,bOO- Glendale, CA Grand Bibb County, Ann Arbor, New Haven, 11
250,000 Prairie, T X GA MI cr
Escondido, CA Kalamazoo
Co, M I
Thousand
Oaks,
Nassau Co, FL Columbia, Chittenden,
MO VI-
20,000- Ventura, CA Olympia, Grapevine, Germantown, Portage Co, Keene, NH Markham, 11

100,000 WA Tx TN WI ONT
East Chicago,
IN
West Monroe, Hutchinson, Amherst,
LA MN MA
<20,000 tlpharetta, GA rakoma Pk, 6
MD
Fryeburg,
Total 3 4
~
8
~
10
ME
7 L
-43
The Composting Council, M exandria, VA

Regardless of population category, home composting programs tend to have, a t
minimum:
0 a paid staff person who is responsible for the program
distribution of brochures on how t o compost a t home and resident workshops.
a designated location where home composting techniques are demonstrated
a subsidized home composting bin distribution program, by which t h e local juris-
diction and bin users each pay a portion of the cost of a bin
a component of the outreach program which focuses on educating school chil-
dren or teachers about home or in-school composting
TABLE 2:
Typical Home Cornposting Program Components,
by Size of Community
Regional Variations
No distinct geographic patterns emerged for home com-
posting programs, in terms of relative direct costs and derived
benefits (or avoided costs), size or scope, or diversion results.
Tremendous variation was found within regions, most notably in
tipping fees (a key avoided cost factor), and, perhaps more sur-
prisingly, in poundslyear diverted per household t h a t composts *
a t home.
The Cornposting Council, A lexandria, VA

14
Overall Program Costs
I ) Direct Cost Per Ton Diverted

Home composting is a highly cost-effective way t o handle
residential organic materials, such as yard trimmings and vegeta-
tive food scraps, in comparison with other solid waste management
strategies. On average (n-20), home composting programs spent
$12 for every ton diverted during fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95 (median, $ll/ton).
These figures represent the pure budgetary cost, and exclude avoided costs, program ben-
efits, and life-cycle costing of subsidized compost bins. Were these indirect benefits and
life-cycle costing included in the calculation, implementing home composting programs
would make even more sense than it already does. I t is noted that the above figures do
not include any private costs borne by residents, such as for the purchase of compost bins
or pitchforks. Regardless, t h e results compare highly favorably with the cost of collection,
transfer, and centralized composting or disposal.
The range in cost-effectiveness for home composting programs was from $l/ton
diverted t o $134/ton diverted, based on information provided by 20 respondents. A t t h e
low-cost end of the range, grasscycling figures prominently, and education efforts for this
activity focus on developing and distributing brochures. A t the high-cost end of the
range, grasscycling is not as important (due t o the different vegetative patterns found in
urban, relatively arid climates). Program efforts include subsidized bin distribution and
workshops about composting techniques, which appear to take more concerted effort than
promoting grasscycling.
No life-cycle cost analysis of home composting programs was performed. Since
home composting bins last several years, and education efforts can lead t o life-long behav-
ioral changes in how residents manage their household organics, i t is likely t h a t such an
analysis would yield a lower estimate for dollars expended per ton diverted. For the pur-
poses o f simplification and program planning, the $12/ton figure is used as the report's
conclusion of the average direct budgetary cost of all home composting programs.
2) Program Budgets
The survey results show t h a t home composting programs have an average annual
budget of nearly $36,000, and a median of $lS,OOO/yr. (n=30). The mean is skewed high
due to t h e five regional (county o r solid waste district) programs where budgets are
$100,000 o r greater.
Program Elements
I ) Staffing
Funding for paid staff varies greatly among respondents, ranging from less than
$1,00O/yr t o $170,00O/yr. The mean value is slightly greater than $2O,OOO/yr, while the
median is $9,30O/yr (n=25). For t h e average program, therefore, one staff person, a t ap-
proximately half-time (0.5 full-time equivalent (TTE)) t o threequarters time (0.75 FTE), is
assigned t o home composting activities.
The Composting Council, AJ exandria, VA
P
15
Paid staff are supplemented by an average of 0.1 FTE time provided by volunteers
(see sub-section F). These volunteers provide services t h a t are hard t o quanti*; some pro-
gram managers indicated t h a t their home composting programs were created originally
by volunteers, and t h a t the volunteers provide valuable services in all aspects of home
composting program implementation.
2) Home Composting
-
Brochures
More than half a million home composting brochures have

been distributed by the 29 respondents who provided quantified in-
formation. The median cost of a brochure is $0.25. I t was not deter-
mined how many of the respondents focus exclusively on encouraging
active composting a t home, or t h a t have, for instance, a separate
grasscycling brochure.
3) Workshops
. Among the 35 communities which provided data on atten-

dance, the total number of workshop attendees over the past three
years is approximately 60,000 people. This figure has remained rela-
tively steady a t approximately 20,000 attendees per year over the
past three years, for these 35 communities.
A total of 740 workshopslyear are held by t h e 28 respondents who provided such

information. Based on t h e fact t h a t fewer responses were received on t h e number of
workshops (n=28) than on t h e number of workshop attendees (n=35), an unknown
amount of additional workshops are held in the seven communities which provided quanti-
fied data on t h e number of workshop attendees but not on the number of workshops. A t
the outside limit, by dividing 20,000 by 74-0, one sees t h a t not more than an average of
27 people attend a given workshop,
4) Master Composter Training Programs
Master composter programs are an increasingly popular strategy among local gov-
ernments t o promote home composting. Typically, master composter programs train vol-
unteers t o teach other residents how t o compost a t home. A total of 18 master com-
poster programs were reported by t h e 43 respondents to the survey. These programs are
also much less commonly known as “community composter” programs. (The descriptive
term “community” is thought t o be more appropriate than the term “master,” which
tends t o have a negative historical connotation among a sizable portion of t h e popula-
tion.)
The following quantified results presented on master composter programs are

based on t h e 18 survey respondents with master composter programs. The average cost
of master composter training programs is approximately $5,800/yr. Nearly one out o f ev-
ery three community composter programs reported by t h e survey respondents costs more

16
than $l2,000/yr. Several factors contribute t o this variability in cost, including number
of participants, length of training, degree of supervision of volunteer outreach projects,
extent t o which the costs for materials for volunteer outreach efforts are covered by pro-
gram expenses, and other factors.
An average of 30 community composters are trained per program per year (n-15).
The mean cost of training a community composter is approximately $200/each (n=15).
5) Compost Bin Distribution

Among survey respondents, the number of bins distributed
has increased from 33,000 in fiscal year 1992-93 (n=22) t o
48,000 in fiscal year 1994/95 (n=29). One respondent has dis-
tributed over 50,000 of these bins since 1992.
The mean subsidy for home composting bins is nearly

$16/bin, and the median is nearly $2l/bin, based on data obtained from 25 respondents.
It has been postulated elsewhere that home composting bin distribution programs
lead t o program success. This is probably true in many instances. However, the results of
t h e survey did not provide clear evidence t h a t home composting bin distribution pro-
grams are correlated with high rates of participation in a given community. Likewise, t h e
association was not clear between the number of bins distributed and the percent of diver-
sion attained through home composting. Several programs which reported high rates of
participation and diversion did not concentrate their efforts on bin distribution, subsi-
dized or otherwise. Hence, what works well in one set of communities is not necessarily
the most effective approach for another set of communities. Program managers should
evaluate closely the likely effects of subsidized bin distribution for themselves.
6) Portable Displays and Hotlines
Portable displays are visited by an average of nearly 9,000 residentslyear, in the 16

communities which provided quantified information on the topic. The median level is
2,500 residentslyear.
Hotlines provide a relatively inexpensive education

and outreach tool. The mean number of calls answered is
nearly 2,60O/yr, with a median of 900/yr (n=16). Hotlines
typically cost no more than a standard local business tele-
phone line and an answering machine or voicemail. The
cost allocation f o r responding to hotline inquiries is cov-
ered usually under staff time, rather than identified as a
portion o f t h e hotline cost.

17
F. Role of Volunteers
Approximately 77% of the survey respondents indicated t h a t

volunteers help in various capacities with their community’s
home composting program. This figure attests t o t h e impor-
tance t h a t residents in many communities attach to home com-
posting program efforts. Volunteers are usually involved in giv-
ing workshops and distributing home composting literature.
Volunteers provide a total of nearly 24,000 hourslyear of as-

sistance t o the 33 home composting programs which reported
receiving volunteer assistance. The median number of total
hourslyr contributed by volunteers is 200 hourslyr per home composting program. This
is approximately equal to 0.1 FTE. As discussed earlier in sub-sedion El, t h e contributions
volunteers make with their time extend the limited resources of staff in important ways.
On average, volunteers contribute 24 hourslyear of their time, according t o esti-

mates made by t h e respondents. An unknown b u t small percentage of these volunteers
hdve received training as master composters (“community composters”).
G. Participation Rates
In the past few years, home composting programs have been growing in number
and in their success, a t least within the survey sample. Among t h e 35 respondents t h a t .
provided data, an average of 16% (+/-7%, @ confidence interval (CI) 95%) of single-family
households now compost a t home, a s of 1995. In 1991, by comparison, t h e figure was
10%of single-family households (+/-6%,@ CI 95%) (n-24).
This does not mean t h a t 16%of all single-family households in t h e United States
compost a t home. Instead, based on a sample of communities which have home compost-
ing programs, what it means is t h a t an estimated 16%of single-family households in these
communities now compost a t home, as opposed to an estimated 10%four years earlier.
I t is inferred t h a t home composting programs can achieve significant results in

their early stages, and t h a t real success is built through sustained efforts (education, out-
reach, incentives) over a matter of years. Home comporting’s
fast-growing importance as a solid waste management strategy
is expected t o continue throughout t h e decade, as program
managers gain appreciation for reduced costs and saved re-
sources.
The vast majority of home composting programs were

set up in t h e past three years. The sampled set of home com-
posting programs, as a group, has a long way to go t o reach its
mean goal of 45% of single-family households composting a t
home. Since most of t h e programs are very young, it is too
early to predict when or whether this goal will be attained.

18
Home composting programs t h a t were surveyed appear t o be diverting increasingly

greater amounts o f materials from the solid waste management system over time, based
on the median quantity o f tonslyr diverted. The median amount diverted through home
composting has risen six-fold in three years, from 189 tonslyr in fiscal year 1992-93
(n=21), t o 880 tonslyr in fiscal year 1993-94 (n=24), to 1,145 tonslyr in fiscal year
1994-95 (n-26). This means t h a t half of the 26 programs which provided data divert a t
least 1,145 tonslyr through home composting.
Home composting programs are diverting approximately 14%o f the total genera-
tion of yard trimmings in communities which have such programs, based on the survey re-
sults. The 14%figure represents both the mean and the median values of estimates pro-
vided by 20 communities. Data regarding the amount in previous years were not avail-
able.
2) Quantities Diverted Per Household

A key building block in determining the effectiveness of home composting pro-
grams is the number of pounds per year composted a t home by participating households.
The survey yielded an average of 646 poundslyr (n=35), based on a combination of mea-
sured data and estimates provided by home composting program managers. The confi-
dence interval a t the 95% level ranges from 467 Ibslyr t o 825 Ibslyr.
For t h e sake of completeness, it is noted here that the mean figure obtained from
an analysis of the twelve programs which provided measured data, rather than a combina-
tion o f estimates and measured data, was 770 Ibs/yr. However, because t h e result is based
on a much lower number of programs, the aggregate result (646 Ibslyr) can be utilized
rather than this sub-set.
The large standard deviation of 5 2 1 Ibslyr helps t o illustrate

the variability in the amount of materials t h a t is composted a t
home by participating households. The minimum reported value
was 75 Ibslyr, while the maximum was 2,656 Ibslyr. Even within
geographic regions, a high level o f variability was observed. The
variability of results can be accounted for, in part, by how broad or
narrow a definition was used by respondents f o r home composting,
or by whether partial o r complete information was available to
them.
Several jurisdictions reported Ibs/yr data from published sources

t h a t focus solely on average amounts t h a t are composted in home
composting bins. Other jurisdictions used a broader definition of home composting, and
included tonnage attributed to grasscycling and other organic source reduction methods.

19
Clearly, the enormous variability in results makes it difficult t o conclude that a typ-
ical community can expect a certain level of diversion per participating household. For
their own planning purposes, program managers have the choice of using: a) the 646 Ibs/
householdlyear figure, or roughly one ton diverted per year for every three participating
households; b) the 770 Ibs/household/year figure, since it is based on actual measure-
ments; c) their own estimate or measurement. The confidence interval shows statistically
that there is a very high probability that the true nationwide average is somewhere be-
tween 467 Ibslhousehold/yr and 825 l bslhouseholdlyr.
I. Grasscycling
In some cases identified by the study, grasscycling forms the
most important component of source reduction of residentially-
generated organic materials. For example, one community re-
ported t h a t 50% of all households now engage in grasscycling (up
from 30%four years earlier), and that, on average, each grasscy-
cling household diverts over one ton of grass clippings per year
from t h e solid waste management system.
Communities which indicated that they had significant grasscycling programs gen-
erally had below-average program costs per ton diverted. This suggests that, in some com-
munities, promoting grasscycling may be more cost-effective than promoting home com-
posting, especially if subsidized compost bins are involved. In addition, the results suggest
t h a t certain communities may be able t o increase their rate o f diversion per participating
household by emphasizing grasscycling more heavily in home composting education and
outreach programs.
J. Complementarity with Centralized Composting

Does home composting hinder, complement or have a neutral effect on the success
of centralized composting programs? Nearly all respondents (35 of 36) indicated t h a t
“home composting complements centralized composting, making both successful.”
K. Summary of Results
Key findings from the survey results are summarized in Table 3: Results of Na-
tional Survey of Home Composting Programs. The data presented in the table concen-
trate on direct program costs, demographics, and participation and diversion.
Section 111 Avoided Costs and Other Benefits

A. Note On Assumptions
The results in the previous section stand on their own t o show t h a t home compost-
hg programs generally make good fiscal sense and consewe resources. Home composting
programs also provide several benefits t h a t are not provided by other solid waste manage-
ment strategies, as discussed below.

19A
Table 3: Results of National Survey of Home

Composting Programs, 1995
Program Element Mean Median Range
(Average) (M i dpoi nt) (Low-H i gh)
Direct Cost of Home $W t o n $ll/ton $ 1 - $134/ton

Composting Pro-
grams
Program Budget $36,00O/yr $15,00O/yr $0- $537,60O/yr
Staffing $20,000/yr $9,3 00/yr <$l,OOO -

$170,00O/yr
Master Composter $6,70O/yr $2,000/yr

Training Programs
Compost Bin Subsi- $16/bin $2l/bin $0 - $34/bin

dies
Volunteer Hours Re- 615 hrslyr 200 hrslyr 10 - 3800 hrs/yr

ceived
% of Single-Family 16% 10% - 80%

<l%
Households That
Compost A t Home
Annual Diversion 5 150 tonslyr 1150 tonslyr 4 0 - 81,225 tons/
Yr
Annual Diversion per 646 Ibs. 550 Ibs. 75 - 2,656 Ibs.

Participating House-
hold
Population 300,000 130,000 3,000 - 1.6 million
Median Annual $34,000 $30,000 $18,000 - $69,000

Household Income
--

20
Obtaining reliable, measured data on the extent or monetary value of social and
environmental benefits, and total and marginal avoided costs proved t o be highly prob-
lematic. The same was true for estimating national averages and quantij/ing national
trends, with respect t o home composting. As such, this study concentrates on developing
reliable information on the direct fiscal costs of home composting. Since some of the data
and conclusions in this section rely on assumptions, this section has been separated from
the earlier section on direct costs of municipal home composting programs.
B. Avoided Costs
Avoided costs are indirect benefits. Typically, they are valued by measuring o r esti-
mating t h e cost of foregone strategies (“opportunity cost”). Home composting can reduce
the need for curbside collection of yard trimmings, either mixed with trash o r kept sepa-
rate from other materials. The benefits (avoided costs) of reducing the need for collec-
tion are discussed in sub-sections 61 and 82. Home composting also reduces the costs of
disposing of residential organic materials, and the costs of processing them in a central-
ized location into beneficial products. The benefits (avoided costs) of reducing the need
for disposal are discussed in sub-section 63. The avoided social and environmental costs
aisociated with reduced collection and disposal are discussed in sub-section B4. Additional
benefits-such as volunteer assistance and training, making and using compost a t home,
and others-are discussed in sub-sections C1 through C3.
I ) Avoided Collection Costs-Public Benefits
Based on the results of the survey, the mean cost of trash collection is $67/ton
(n=29). The confidence level (@95%) for the true mean is between $53/ton and $8l/ton.
For separate collection of yard trimmings, collection costs often are somewhat lower than
for trash collection. The median cost for the separate collection of yard trimmings is
$54/ton (n= 17); however, extreme variability in collection costs were reported.
The survey asked for information on the reduced cost associated

with collecting a smaller amount of yard trimmings a t the curb, as a result
of home composting efforts. Only a handful of respondents provided any
information, and much o f it was not easily comparable. Sufficient time se-
ries data t o analyze changes in collection costs t h a t can be attributed t o
home composting efforts are lacking, due t o the relative newness of pro-
grams and factors related t o collection cost accounting.
It is surmised that communities that divert significant amounts of

yard trimmings through home composting are enjoying real savings in col-
lection costs by reducing the amount of collection crew labor hours and
collection vehicle-days. I t is inaccurate and too simplistic to assume t h a t
by reducing curbside collection of yard trimmings by one ton, the cost of
collection will decrease by the average cost of collection per ton. In eco-
nomic terms, the overall average cost o f collection overstates the marginal
cost, because it includes both fixed and variable costs. Since data on these

21
cost components were not available, the true marginal avoided cost could neither be calcu-
lated nor properly estimated. As a proxy, t h e cost-benefit analysis utilizes Franklin Associ-
ates’ recent estimate of $23/ton f o r the average avoided marginal cost of collection.
2) Avoided Collection Costs-Individual Benefits
Depending on how collection rates are structured, peo-

ple who compost a t home sometimes can reduce their refuse
or separate yard trimmings collection fees. Some communi-
ties offer reduced rates for smaller refuse containers, such as
cc
mini-cans.” Many communities, however, do not offer direct
monetary benefits in the form of avoided collection costs t o
residents who compost a t home.
The suwey results did not reveal a clear picture of t h e average cost savings t h a t
participating households derive from avoiding the purchase of unneeded service. The nu-
merous permutations of refuse collection rates cloud t h e identification of a usable and
useful average value for individual cost savings.
3) Avoided Disposal Costs
Home composting reduces the need for disposal o r for the centralized processing o f
recyclable materials into new products. The mean reported disposal facility tipping fee is
$32/ton, based on 14 responses. The mean tipping fee a t centralized compost facilities
used by survey respondents is $26/ton (n=18>.
No single value captures avoided disposal costs. The cost o f disposal is not priced in
the marketplace a t full value; rather, i t systematically is underestimated. Full-value pric-
ing would incorporate the costs of facility closure, monitoring, and other costs. The full
costs of disposal are obscured by current tipping fees, which do not take into considera-
tion t h a t future disposal costs will be once, for instance, a landfill reaches its maximum
holding capacity. In other words, current tipping fees do not provide an accurate measure
of the true value of delaying the need for additional landfill space.
These perplexing economic considerations notwithstanding,

program managers still can estimate the minimum level of bene-
fits that come from avoiding disposal costs. This can be done
first by determining which of the materials handling avenues
(landfilling, incineration, centralized composting, etc.) are rele-
vant to their own situation. Where tipping fees are in place, they
would be used as t h e avoided disposal cost per ton. Where no tip-
ping fees are charged-as happens with municipally-operated
compost facilities t h a t are not open t o the public-the operating
cost can be used as an approximation of the avoided disposal
cost.

22
4) Avoided Environmental and Social Costs
Social and environmental costs are not easily monetized, but are real nevertheless.
These include environmental impacts (air, water, noise, soil pollution), traffic congestion,
public health impacts, loss of open space, and other effects.
As indicated by program managers, home composting is believed t o reduce these

and other environmental and social impacts of solid waste management. Home compost-
ing delays t h e need for additional landfill space and incinerator capacity, and reduces the
need for off-site handling and processing of materials. As another example, if the number
of collection routes are reduced in response t o home composting efforts, then air and
noise pollution and traffic congestion associated with that number of collection routes can
be eliminated.
C. Other Benefits
I) Derived Benefits of Volunteers

Volunteer labor can be valued a t an assigned rate of
$11.45/hour, in accordance with recent research on the
topic by t h e non-profit Independent Sector (Washington,
DC). By multiplying this assigned rate by the median amount o f volunteer hourslyear
contributed to home composting programs t h a t responded to the survey, the median total
benefit of volunteer assistance can be calculated per program. By this calculation, the de-
rived median value gained from volunteers is a total o f $2,29o/yr.
Volunteers’ true contribution to overall program effectiveness cannot be measured,

nor can a monetary value be placed on the true contribution. Suffice it to say t h a t har-
nessing volunteer support has been a hallmark of home composting programs, and t h a t
volunteerism strengthens the sense of community while keeping program costs in check.
2) Derived Benefits of Master Composters

Using the assigned monetized value of volunteer time, $11.45 /hr, the contribu-
tions made by master composters can be approximated loosely. On average, the training
of master composters costs slightly less than $200 per volunteer. Master composters
therefore need to average roughly 17 hours of volunteer service in order for the mone-
tized benefits derived from their labor time t o match the average costs of their training.
In other words, if master composters average more than 17 hours of volunteer ser-
vice, then t h e benefits of master composter training programs will exceed their costs, pro-
vided t h a t training costs are approximately $200 per volunteer. of course, this highly
simplistic analysis of labor time does not take into consideration the unmeasurable bene-
fits of having knowledgeable, committed, and enthusiastic local volunteers as community
resources.
The Composting Council, M exandria, VA

23
3) Additional Environmental and Social Benefits
The environmental and social benefits of home composting cannot be easily quanti-
fied, yet they are important t o an overall understanding of program benefits. Wider social
benefits include: heightened community awareness o f environmental issues and solid
waste management; greater community spirit and sense o f common purpose; exercise and
relaxation; science education; and personal pride in taking responsibility for one’s own
habits and behavior.
Another increased social and environmental benefit is t h e eco-

nomic and environmental value o f creating usable soil amendments
for home use. Among the programs surveyed, the average household
that composts a t home generates approximately 0.75 cubic yards
(approximately 20 cubic feet) of compost annually (n=l7). For resi-
dents in these communities, bagged compost costs approximately
$1.50 per cubic foot on average, or $3 for a 2 cubic foot bag (n=17).
Hence, the derived benefit of making one’s own compost, all else being
equal, .is approximately $30/year per participating household, based
on the sample data.
Making compost a t home adds to social wealth, since a valuable product is created
from materials t h a t otherwise are not valued (assumes disposal). I t is highly unlikely t h a t
home composting activity reduces demand for compost products in the marketplace. If
anything, making compost a t home helps a large number of residents who have little expe-
rience with compost previously t o appreciate how it benefits their gardens. This product
testing a t home may actually stimulate product demand in t h e marketplace, since many
residents can make only a portion of the amount of compost t h a t they would like to use.
So, overall, marketplace demand, usage, and home production of compost may be an out-
growth o f home composting’s increased popularity.
Making compost a t home also adds environmental benefits, as has been well docu-
mented in numerous studies and publications. Put simply, compost helps t o create
healthy soils and plants in numerous ways, including:
building good soil structure; adding nutrients to the soil; pro-
moting deeper root growth; improving soil
0 aeration; increasing soil’s water-holding capacity; neutralizing
soil toxins; reducing mineral leaching from the soil; and reduc-
ing soil erosion.
D. Qualitative Summary of Benefits and Avoided Costs
The following quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits have been identified o r as-
serted by persons associated with home composting programs. This information was gath-
ered through a literature review and oral communication with a wide array of people in-
volved with home composting programs. Home composting programs offer several real or
perceived benefits to their communities, as shown in Table 4.

24
TABLE 4:
Identified Benefits of Home Composting
8 avoided collection, transfer and centralized processing

8 reduced disposal burden
8 lowered residential trash bills (where unit costing exists)
8 improved soil health and fertility
job creation (home composting program coordination and promotion)
reduced air and water pollution
8 hands-on methods of science education (especially worm composting)
8 reduced traffic congestion (less hauling of materials)
8 increased residential interest in and dedication t o recycling efforts
8 exercise and relaxation
reduced use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides
8 greater sense of personal responsibility, and personallcommunity pride
E. Recommendations for Developing Home Composting Programs

Home composting programs have been shown t o be very cost-effective, especially
when sustained over a few years. Communities t h a t are planning to set up o r expand
home composting programs should consider the suggestions contained in Table 5 . These
suggestions are based on research conducted for this study and on Applied Compost Con-
sulting's direct experience with several home composting programs.
Home composting is a viable and useful component of solid waste management.

With a little education, encouragement, assistance, and incentives, many residents will
start to compost yard trimmings and food scraps a t home, thus reducing t h e burden on
the solid waste management system.
F. Projection of Nationwide Estimates

Home composting programs come in many shapes and sizes, and have proven t o be
successful in communities large and small, urban and suburban, high income and low in-
come, east and west, north and south. Local program managers may want to concentrate
on lessons they can learn from these and other existing programs. Nevertheless, since
considerable amounts of data were gathered from programs which s e n e a population base
of 12 million people, preliminary national estimates, however speculative, may be of inter-
est to national organizations.
-+ The nationwide projections t h a t are presented here are preliminary estimates de-
rived from incomplete information. A t the local level, decision-makers will rely more likely
on the analysis of survey results presented earlier and on t h e case studies.
The Cornposting Council, Al.exandria, VA

25
I t is estimated t h a t there are approximately 1,000 home composting programs in

the United States, as of 1995, with many more planned t o begin in the next two years.
This estimate is based on extrapolations and aggregated information obtained through
discussions with various state and local officials, cooperative extension agents, and indus-
try representatives. Likewise, it is estimated that there are more than 100 master com-
poster programs nationwide, and that 100,000 to 250,000 people nationwide have at-
tended a home composting workshop since 1992.
Using the above estimate and extrapolating from the results of this study, it is esti-
mated t h a t there are a t least 3 million t o 5 million people nationwide who live in house-
holds which are composting a t home. More than half a million tons of material are esti-
mated to be diverted through home composting annually. If grasscycling activities were
fully taken into account, these participation and waste reduction figures probably would
be much higher.
From a public policy or program planning perspective, the number of people who
s t a r t grasscycling or composting a t home a s a result of home composting program efforts
is a more relevant figure than the pre-existing level. While this information is not avail-
able o i a national level, communities which are just beginning their home composting
programs can derive an estimate of the pre-existing participation level in their own cam-
munity by conducting a random sample.
TABLE 5:
Recommendations for Developing
Focus efforts on single-family households, targeting home gardeners first.

Develop a home composting brochure (possibly adapted from existing ones).
Harness volunteer assistance and community support. and offer workshops.
Use media for publicity and distribute information through local groups.
Include grasscycling tips in any promotional and educational information.
Evaluate a mobile o r neighborhood chipping program for brush and branches.
Structure economic incentives for participation in home composting, by adopt-
ing refuse collection rates t h a t reward waste reduction.
Consider having a subsidized compost bin purchase program, and one-day sales.
Evaluate cost-sharing opportunities between jurisdictions, especially for educa-
tional efforts and possible bin distribution programs.
- 10 Provide a home composting hotline number.
11 Remember t h a t success is measured over the course of a t least a few years.
12 Monitor results, participation and diversion rates, and cost per ton diverted.

26
Section IV
Case Studies
HOME COMPOSTING PROGRAM

CASE STUDY #1
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Overview
Alameda County is a major urban area in Northern California with 1.3 million in-
habitants. The County is comprised of 1 7 cities, including Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward and
Fremont. I t has nearly 500,000 households and a wide range of income levels.
The Alameda County Home Composting Program (ACHC) began in 1990 and is
funded by t h e Alameda County Waste Management Authority.
Quantification of Diversion
. Compost bins have been purchased through discount programs by 6.1% of single-
family households in Alameda County compost a t home. ACHC staff estimates t h a t actual
participation in home composting is greater than six percent in Alameda County. Based
on data gathered by ACHC, the average participating household composts 600 pounds per
year. In fiscal year 1994-95,4,000 tons of yard trimmings and food scraps were diverted
in Alameda County through home composting efforts. This amount represented a dou-
bling from t h e previous year.
The program’s long-term goal is t o have 60,000 single-family households compost-
ing a t home, A t this level, more than 18,000 tonslyear of yard trimmings and food scraps
would be composted a t home.
Key Elements of Program
The key components of ACHC’s program are t h e distribution of composting bins,

training Master Composters, and providing home corn posting workshops a t permanent
compost demonstration gardens. Over t h e past three years, 18,400 bins have been dis-
tributed t o residents a t a reduced price. For $33, a resident can receive a compost bin, in-
structional materials, invitations t o free workshops, and a how-to book on home compost-
ing. ACHC provides a subsidy of $34 per bin purchase.
Since 1991, over 7,000 residents have attended home composting workshops and
an equivalent number of children have been educated about home composting through
school programs during this same period. In 1995, 110 workshops were held and 30 Mas-
t e r Composters were trained.

27
Program Economics
This program is coordinated by 5.5 full-time equivalent staff. An estimated 80 vol-

unteers provide additional program support, especially in bin distribution and educational
outreach activities. The cost of this program is roughly $0.39/resident. The following
table illustrates the program elements and cost of providing them in fiscal year 1994-95:
Home Composting Program Costs
Program Element Program Cost

staff (workshops, hotline) $ 170,000
Master Composter Taining $ 15,000
Demonstration Sites $ 1,000
Compost Bin Er Book Purchases $ 340,000
School Programs $ 10,000
Portable Displays $ 1,000
Advertising $ 600
Total Cost $ 537,600
The cost per ton diverted through home composting in fiscal year 1994-95 was ap-
proximately $134/ton. This figure does not include amortization of bin costs over the ex-
pected life of the bin; rather, it measures the full up-front costs against t h e diversion
achieved so far through the use of the bins. Since the bulk of t h e expenditures for this
program is for compost bins which have a relative long life span, the cost per ton diverted
will decrease substantially over time. ACHC projects a cumulative diversion o f 16,574 tons
($35/ton) in 1997, rising t o 33,3 11tons ($17/ton) by 2002, from existing participants.
Program Summary
This is the largest home composting program in California, and one of the most
comprehensive programs in t h e United States. I t was initially funded with money from a
grant, It is well-staffed, multi-faceted, and has several permanent compost demonstration
sites, and school programs. The program publishes an annual report, and prints many
useful materials t h a t have been adapted by other home composting programs. According
t o Teresa Eade, program coordinator, the strength of the program is t h a t "each year exist-
ing bins are in use, yard trimmings are diverted from the waste stream with virtually no
additional cost."

CASE STUDY #2:
CITY OF OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON
Overview
The capital of Washington State, the City of Olympia is about 60 miles from Seat-
tle. Olympia has 37,000 residents and a median household income about equal t o the na-
tional level.
Olympia’s public works department started the home composting program in 1993.
The city also has separate collection of yard trimmings, a drop-off site for yard trimmings,
and a neighborhood chipping program. The centralized composting facility to which the
city hauls yard trimmings is ten miles away.
An estimated 60%of single-family households currently practice some form of or-

ganics source reduction, up from 30% before home composting education efforts began.
The City does not have a specific goal for percentage of households composting a t home.
However, with 60% participation in only its third year of operation, the program is clearly
doing very well.
The City estimates that participating households compost approximately 500

poundslyear, based on data provided by other programs in Washington. This means t h a t
for every four participating households, one ton of yard trimmings is composted a t home.
The level of organics source reduction has risen by 50% a year or more during t h e pro-
gram’s first three years. In 1995, it is estimated that 1,500 tons per year will be com-
posted a t home, compared t o 1,000 tons in 1994, and 500 tons in 1993.
A key component of the city’s backyard composting program

is the distribution of composting bins. The City of Olympia and
Thurston County co-sponsor a composting bin distribution pro-
\f f f gram for participants who attend free composting workshops.
Afker completing a workshop, participants are able t o purchase one of six different bins,
which the City sells a t wholesale cost. The bins are on display a t one of the two demon-
stration gardens in the city and county. The demonstration gardens are sponsored in
part by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and are run by Washington State
University Master Composters and Gardeners,
Olympia has developed a full range of composting brochures which are freely dis-
Gibuted to residents. These include a home composting resource guide, a schedule of
workshops, a home composting/spring clean up brochure, and a yard trimmings curbside
collection and drop-off guide.

29
On a small annual budget (about $0.31 per resident), Olympia manages t o achieve
substantial results via home composting. The following table illustrates the program ele-
ments and cost of providing them:
.
.I
I Home Composting Program Costs
P r o g r a m Element Annual C o s t
staff $ 3,480
Brochures $ 3,600
Workshops $0
Master Com poster Training $ 150
Demonstration Sites $ 4,000
Compost Bins $0
Other $300
I T o t a l Cost $ 11,530
Olympia has focused its efforts in several key areas. Staff time amounts t o only
10%of one full-time staff equivalent each year (200 hours), but is supplemented by over
830 hours each year in volunteer time donated f o r the master composter training, work-
shops, demonstration garden, and compost clinic. As these numbers illustrate, the pro-
gram’s success depends in large part on cultivating volunteer assistance.
Program Economics
The cost per ton diverted through home composting in 1995 is estimated t o be
$7.68. The cost per diverted ton in 1994 was estimated t o be $11.53. These numbers
compare very favorably with the cost of trash collection and separate yard trimmings col-
lection (and tipping fees). Public tipping fees a t t h e county landfill are $32 per ton for
yard trimmings and $62.10 f o r trash. I t costs the City approximately $100 per ton t o col-
lect and dispose residential trash; the cost for handling yard trimmings is approximately
$ 7 0 per ton. The cost per diverted ton f o r organic materials composted a t home is much
less than either of these system elements.
Households t h a t compost a t home and recycle generally have reduced their need
for trash collection. The number of households subscribing to the minimal 10 gallons/
week trash collection service has increased from 5%in 1988 to 15% currently. During the
same period, the number of households using the 60-gallon/week service dropped from
15%to 7%. An average of only 1.1Ibs. of residential trash per person per day were col-
lected in 1994, f a r below t h e national average. While difficult t o isolate the impact o f
home composting, it clearly has become an integral component of solid waste manage-
ment in Olympia.
The Composting Council, dexandria, VA
P
30
Summary of Program
The City of Olympia has steadily increased the diversion of yard trimmings and
food scraps through home composting over the past three years. Through a combination
o f demonstration sites, a master composter program, and sophisticated public education
materials, Olympia has developed a very successfir1 program. Volunteer efforts have been
integral t o the breadth and depth of the program, representing almost 50% of one full-
time staff equivalent. Olympia’s program has given assistance and permission t o use its
literature t o the State Department o f Ecology for state-wide efforts t o promote home
composting.

CASE STUDY # 3:
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
Ovewiew
The City of Ann Arbor has a population o f 110,000 and more than 20,000 single-
family households. The City has a relatively high standard of living; the median household
income is $39,925.
The city’s home composting program began in 1989, and is administered by the
Department of Solid Waste. The home composting program consists of a one-half acre
demonstration site, displays (including a flower bed planted in compost on t h e city hall
deck), workshops, school programs, and the distribution of books and brochures. The pro-
gram has demonstrated t h a t substantial diversion can be achieved without distributing
home composting bins.
A suwey conducted by the Department of Solid Waste in 1988 indicated t h a t 30%

of single-family households were composting a t home. Currently, 50%of single-family
households are participating, and the program’s long-term goal is 60% participation.
Based on data gathered by the City, each participating household composts over a ton
each year simply by grasscycling. Waste reduction in fiscal year 1994-95 amounted t o
nearly 13,000tons.
In addition to the home composting program, the City has a yard trimmings collec-
tion program during the summer. This program uses four collection vehicles, which pick
up yard trimmings twice a week. The City sells the compost and mulch back t o the com-
munity for both residential and commercial use.

31
Key Elements of the Program

Workshops, displays, a demonstration site and school programs are the foundation
o f the
home composting education program. The program also emphasizes educating
school-age children with a curriculum which covers composting, grasscycling, recycling,
reusing, and reducing.
Four home composting workshops are held each year, educating 100 residents an-
nually. The workshops focus on composting, but also explains and encourages grasscy-
cling. Residents who call t h e City regarding composting are encouraged t o visit the
demonstration site.
Program Economics/Benefits
The overall cost of the home composting program is

approximately $25,00o/year. On a per resident basis, this
is approximately $0.22.
A t very minimal cost, Ann Arbor is diverting through grasscycling primarily nearly
13,000tonslyear ofyard trimmings. The cost per ton diverted through home composting
is less than $2. This amount compares highly favorably t o the $80 (plus disposal site tip-
ping fee) for each ton of trash collected, or $48 (plus $42 compost facility tipping fee) for
each ton of yard trimmings collected.
Were i t not for the home composting program, more yard trimmings collection ve-
hicles would be required during the summer, t o collect t h e larger amount o f yard trim-
mings t h a t would be set out by residents. No estimates, however, were provided by the
City.
The City is able t o sell all of the compost and mulch produced for commercial and
residential use. Compost sells for $12 per cubic yard in small quantities or $6 per cubic
yard in quantities of 500 cubic yards or more; mulch is sold f o r $3 per cubic yard. Ac-
cording t o the program coordinator, the community greatly appreciates this service.
Program Summary
Ann Arbor’s residents participate a t a high level in home com-

posting and grasscycling. The program is very economical, and
demonstrates the effectiveness of grasscycling alone for waste re-
duction. Program coordinator Ray Ayer points out t h a t bagging
grass for curbside collection has been the only management tech-
nique for Over 30 years, and that this behavior can be modified
effectively through encouragement and education, H e notes that research (e.g., fertilizer
benefits, incidence of disease, and time and money savings) conducted by Michigan State
University, t h e Turf Association of Michigan, and others on grasscycling has helped t o con-
vince residents t o adopt grasscycling as a popular method of conservation and waste re-
duction.

-
32

CASE STUDY #4:
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Overview
Palm Beach is a large county in southeastern Florida with a diverse population of

about 932,000,and a median household income of $32,230. There are 308,886 single-
family households in the county. The cities of Boca Raton and West Palm Beach are both
within the county limits. The economy is diversified with major components consisting o f
the service industry, retail trade, agriculture and tourism.
The county’s home composting program began in 1993,and is administered by the

Solid Waste Authority. The program includes compost bin purchases, advertising, a hot-
line, a demonstration site, and portable displays.
I t is estimated that over 5,000single-family households compost a t home. This is

approximately 2% of all single-family households in t h e county. Very few households com-
posted a t home prior t o t h e program. The program’s long-term goal is for 7% of single-
family households t o compost a t home.
The Solid Waste Authority estimates t h a t participating households compost ap-

proximately 440 poundslyear, based on data gathered by the agency. Total diversion
from home composting activities has risen rapidly since program inception. A total o f
1,391 tons were composted a t home in 1994-95,up from 423 tons in 1993-94and 49
tons in 1992-93.

A key component of Palm Beach County’s backyard
composting program is t h e distribution of composting
bins to residents. To date, more than 9,000 bins have
been distributed in the county.
The home composting budget has increased significantly each year, in response t o
recognition o f the program’s importance and success. In 1993-94,t h e program’s budget
for home composting bins was $5,000. The budget was increased by $30,000 in each of
t h e following years, allowing a bin purchase budget of $65,000f o r fiscal year 1995-96.
__ Advertising is a key element of t h e Palm Beach County program. In fiscal year

1995-96,$35,000 is budgeted f o r a waste prevention media campaign, In August 1995,
4,000compost bins were distributed in a well-publicized one-day event. The Solid Waste
Authority purchases the bins for $32-35,and sells them t o residents for $10 about once a

33
month. Each sale is advertised widely in local newspapers prior to the event. The goal is
t o reduce the amount of yard trimmings being placed a t the curb for separate collection
by distributing as many home compost bins as possible.
The program costs approximately $0.15 per county resident. The following table
illustrates t h e program elements and cost of providing them in fiscal year 1995-96:
P r o g r a m Element Annual Cost

staff $ 22,000
Hotli ne $ 3,000
Brochures $ 8,000
Demonstration site $ 500
Compost bin purchases $ 65,000
Advertising $ 35,000
Books $ 2,000
Portable displays $0
Master Composter training $0
+ -3feet-
Total Cost $ 135,500
Clearly, the emphasis in this program has been placed on providing subsidized com-
post bins, and on advertising their availability. The Master Composter training is provided
and paid f o r by t h e Cooperative Extension Sewice. Palm Beach County also has separate
collection of yard trimmings, and diverts 120,000 tons of yard trimmings annually t o a
centralized composting. By promoting home composting, the costs of collection and off-
site handling can be reduced, according to t h e program manager.
Program Economics
The estimated cost per ton diverted through home composting for fiscal year
1995-96 is $29.22. This compares favorably with the cost of residential collection of yard
trimmings which is $62.89/tonJ including t h e tip fee. The cost of ordinary residential
trash collection is $28.27/ton, plus an $18 landfill tipping fee. Because many of the pro-
gram expenditures are for compost bins with a minimum expected life of ten years, cost
per ton diverted is expected t o decrease over time.

34
Program Summary
Palm Beach County’s home composting program demonstrates how advertising can effec-
tively reach a large, diverse and dispersed population. According t o program coordinator
Susan Lancanese, local residents are environmentally conscious, and the program and its
budget have grown in response t o the interest of residents. In summarizing the program,
she says t h a t “our goals are very straightforward: we seek t o reduce the amount of yard
trimmings being placed a t the curb and t o educate residents on the benefits and simplicity
of backyard composting.”
FROM 1993 U.S. E.P.A. MSW UPDATE
The Conposting Council, Alexandria, VA

35

CASE STUDY #5:
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Overview
The City of Glendale is a Southern California city of about 190,000 residents. I t

has 24,000 single family households, and its median family income of about $35,000
places it slightly above the national figure.
The city’s home composting program began in 1991. I t is administered by t h e

City’s integrated waste management division. The program encompasses subsidized com-
post bin and tool purchases, a compost demonstration site, workshops, school presenta-
tions, and distribution of brochures and books. The city also has separate collection o f
yard trimmings, and a program a t the city’s landfill to chip this material for use as daily
landfill cover.
A n estimated 9.7% of single-family households have received composting bins and

actively compost a t home. There was no quantified estimate of levels of composting in
Glendale before the program began. The program’s long-term goal is for 25-33% of
single-family households to compost a t home.
The City estimates t h a t participating households compost approximately 860

poundslyear, based on data gathered by the City. In other words, for every 2.3 participat-
ing households, one ton of yard trimmings and food scraps is composted a t home each
year. Ciiy staff view the amount of waste reduction achieved in t h e first three years of
the program as “significant”; the amount of waste reduction continues t o rise a t a rate of
over 17%each year. A total of 1,011tons were composted a t home in 1994-95,up from
860 tons in 1993-94.
A key component of the city’s backyard composting program is the distribution of

composting bins a t no charge t o residents who attend one-hour workshops. The City stud-
ied t h e cost-effectiveness of providing free compost bins in t h e program’s first year, and
determined t h a t t h e economics of providing t h e bins were highly favorable considering
t h e system costs f o r collection of trash and yard trimmings.
On a small annual budget (approximately $0.22 per Glendale resident), Glendale

manages t o achieve substantial waste reduction via home composting, according to t h e
program manager. The following table illustrates the program elements and cost of pro-
viding them:

I
36
I Home Composting Program Costs
P r o g r a m Element Annual Cost

Staff, workshops, and school $ 4,680
presentations
Brochures $ 5,200
Demonstration sites $ 2,300
I
Compost bin purchases $ 24,000

Compost tool purchases $ 5,800
Books $ 1,170
I Total Cost $ 43,150
*
Clearly, the emphasis in Glendale’s program has been placed on providing free com-
post bins, aeration tools, and low-cost pitchforks. The city has shown t h a t t h e bin distri-
bution and education programs cost less than $60 per household. Staff time amounts t o
only 6%of one full-time equivalent staff position each year (primarily for workshop pre-
sentations); volunteers supplement staff by providing a total of K) hours of assistance
each year. Glendale also operates a yard trimmings chipping site t o demonstrate the ef-
fectiveness of household-scale chippers.
Program Economics/Cost-Benefit Analysis
The cost per ton diverted through home composting in 1994-95 was estimated to
be about $40.40, Because most of the program expenditures were f o r compost bins with
a minimum expected life of ten years, cost per ton diverted is expected to decrease each
year as the program matures. The cost per ton Over the first ten-year period is expected
to be $14.63. This compares favorably with the cost of trash collection and plant trim-
mings collection (and tipping fees). The cost of residential trash collection in t h e City of
Glendale is estimated to be $61.19/ton. Separate collection of yard trimmings is esti-
mated t o cost $53.84/ton.
Glendale has also realized additional cost savings from eliminating separate yard
trimmings collection routes. According t o program staff estimates, one yard trimmings
collection route day could be eliminated f o r every 4-97 tons per year of yard trimmings
t h a t are composted a t home, assuming there is a reduction in the frequency o f curbside
set out f o r yard trimmings. While it is difficult t o prove a direct correlation, program
staff indicate t h a t a fewer number of collection route-days are needed for yard trimmings
collection, and t h a t each regular route-day saves more than $27,000 each year in collec-
tion labor costs.

37
Program staff have also estimated t h a t there are substantial system-wide savings in divert-
ing food scraps through home composting efforts. The City estimated t h a t the net cost
per ton of diverting food scraps through home composting is $6, far less than the cost of
diversion in any other recycling efforts.
Summary of Program
The City of Glendale has documented the cost-effectiveness o f providing free com-
post bins t o residents. Through a combination of bin subsidies and educational efforts,
the program has steadily increased diverted tonnage o f yard trimmings and food scraps.
The reduction in yard trimmings collection routes clearly shows t h a t home composting
can complement centralized composting efforts, making both successful. Glendale’s phi-
losophy, as stated by coordinator Tom Brady, is t h a t “home composting is so simple and
cost-effective it should be o u r goal t o have a t least 25% o f America’s single-family house-
holds composting in the next ten years.”

CASE STUDY #6
CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, INDIANA
Overview
The City of East Chicago is located on Lake Michigan, southeast of Chicago and j u s t
west o f Gary, Indiana. East Chicago has approximately 10,000single-family households,
and a total population of about 33,500. The median household income is $19,391,a fig-
ure which is well below t h e national median.
The home composting program began in 1994. I t is coordinated by a staff person

working slightly less than half-time on home composting. The main elements of the pro-
gram are compost bin distribution, workshops, brochures, and advertising.
City staff estimate that 15-20% of households now compost a t home, as compared
with barely any prior t o 1994. The program’s long-term goal is 30% participation.
According to staff estimates, each participating household composts about 1900

Ibs.lyear. Based on this estimate, an estimated 1,400tons of yard trimmings were pre-
vented from entering t h e solid waste system in the first year of the program. The Cily at-
tributes
_-
t h e reduction of refuse collection routes from 12 to 8 as a result of t h e program.
In addition t o home composting, 2,100 tons ofyard trimmings are diverted

through centralized composting or chipping and 1,000 tons through landspreading.
The Cornposting Council, exandria, VA

38

Distributing compost bins and educating residents a t home composting workshops
are the key components of East Chicago’s backyard composting efforts. In fiscal year
1994-95, 300 bins were distributed and 600 people attended workshops. In fiscal year
1993-94, 350 people attended workshops. The vast majority of single-family households
that have started t o compost a t home do so without a municipally-provided compost bin.
In addition t o staff time, the program utilizes volunteer labor. Currently, forty
volunteers contribute an average of 20 hours per year.
Program Economics
The following table illustrates the program elements and cost o f providing them:
P r o g r a m Element Annual C o s t
Staffiworkshops $ 10,000
Compost Bin Purchases $ 5,000
Brochures $400
Advertising $ 1,000
Total Cost $ 24,400
The cost per ton diverted through home composting in 1994-95 is estimated t o be
about $17.43. While information on costs o f collection and disposal were not available
from t h e City, this per ton cost suggests t h a t home composting is the most cost-effective
way to manage yard trimmings in East Chicago.
Summary of Program
This program-in a community with a relatively low median household income-
has enjoyed immediate and substantial success by relying primarily on coordinated and ex-
tensive educational efforts (school programs, workshops, brochures, advertising), and sec-
ondarily on compost bin distribution. In its first year, East Chicago has achieved a partici-
pation rate o f 20% (2,400)of single-family households. Very few households were com-
posting a t home prior t o t h e inception of the program, according to program staff.
Nearly 1,000 people have attended home composting workshops since 1994. Most o f t h e
residents who compost a t home do not utilize a municipally-provided compost bin. The
number of refuse collection vehicle routes has dropped in response t o program success.

39

CASE STUDY #7
TOWN OF AMHERST, MASSACHUSETTS
Ovewiew
Amherst is a New England town with nearly

18,000 residents. The median household income is
approximately $23,000.
Amherst began its home composting in 1991. Key components of t h e program in-
clude compost bin distribution, workshops, brochures, books, and school programs. The
program will publish its first annual report in 1995.
In 1991, less than 1% of Amherst's single-family households composted a t home.

Four years later, this percentage increased t o 18% o f all single-family households in
Amherst. The program's goal is t o reach 35% participation among single-family house-
holds. Program staff estimate t h a t t h e 1,000 participating households compost about
500 poundslyear on average. This amount represents an estimated 250 tonslyear of
waste reduction.
The distribution o f compost bins and books is t h e bulwark of t h e program. More

than 1,100 compost bins have been distributed; more than 90% of these bins are actually
being utilized, according t o data gathered by program staff.
The table below illustrates program elements and the costs of providing them:
Home Composting Program Costs I

Program Element Annual Cost
Staff/Workshops/Hotline $900
Brochures $75
Books $ 1,800
Demonstration Sites $0
--CompostBin Purchases $ 9,600
Advertising $228
Total Cost $ 13,803 I
The Composting Council, exandria, VA
Program Economics
Based on the current budget and estimated diversion rate, the home composting
program costs approximately $55 per ton diverted. Since most of t h e program expendi-
tures are t h e purchase of composting bins with a minimum expected life of ten years, cost
per ton diverted should decrease each year. By comparison, the cost of residential trash
collection in Amherst, including tip fee, is estimated a t $ l W / t o n . Current yard trimmings
and leaf collection and on-farm composting program costs average $45/ton.
The public cost of fall leaf collection has decreased by $9,000 due t o home com-
posting efTorts, according to program staff.
Variable can rates f o r residential trash collection provide an incentive t o reduce

waste generation. The fee f o r one 32-gallon container is $l$/month; for two containers,
$16.25/month; and f o r three containers, $18.42/month. Hence, residents who are able t o
reduce their need f o r containers as a result of home composting have been able t o reduce
their disposal bills.
Summary of Program
Amherst’s home composting program benefits the community by increasing cost

savings to residents directly (refuse collection bills) and indirectly (reduced public cost of
separate collection). “Diversion of yard trimmings and leaves to backyard composting is a
significant cost-avoidance measure for us,” says program coordinator Karen Bouquillon.
In four years, t h e program has achieved an 18%rate of participation among single-family
households,
-+ .._ - +..’‘’‘.. >.: . _.
I,
L.
,
(3
,.,. .;
.1?. ::t:3s
t>?.+..i,.. .::*3?..::,:..
.,.. 2.::::.. .. ..’.’
i-.r.,...-Y
~:;v:..::;a$:$$
CASE STUDY #8
CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
Overview
The capital of Texas, Austin is a large, expanding urban area with a total popula-
tion of about 492,000. There are 126,000 single-family households in the city.
The city’s home composting program began in 1991, and is administered by t h e

Department of Solid Waste Services. The training and use of master composters has been
a key focus of t h e program, in addition t o conducting workshops, disseminating brochures,
and staffing a hotline.
The City estimates that 3% of single-family households now compost a t home, as

compared with 1%in 1991. The program’s long-term goal is 20% participation of single-
family households.

41
Each participating household composts 200 pounds per year, according t o City esti-
mates. In 1994-95,379 tons were diverted through home composting. In addition to
home composting, 7,700 tonslyear of yard trimmings are diverted through centralized
composting o r chipping.
Master Composter training comprises the main element of Austin’s home compost
education program. Each year, 25 students are trained as Master Composters; these stu-
dents are encouraged t o contribute 24 hours of volunteer time t o the program. In addi-
tion, 17,000 residents have attended home composting workshops in the last three years.
The program is not staffed by City employees, but rather relies on a $20,000 con-
t r a c t with the non-profit Austin Community Gardens t o provide all of the key elements o f
the education program. The program includes training Master Composters, maintaining a
demonstration site, providing workshops, distributing brochures, and responding to about
1,000 hotline calls per year.
Program Economics
The cost per ton diverted in 1994-95 is estimated to be about $73.88. By compari-
son, the cost of residential trash collection is $106/ton (excluding tip fee).
Currently, there is a flat fee for trash collection regardless of t h e number of cans.
However, the city is in t h e process of converting t o a volume-based system, which will pro-
vide a more direct financial incentive for residents t o reduce the amount of materials that
are discarded. Program staff anticipate t h a t the popularity of home composting ofyard
trimmings will grow in response t o the enactment of volume-based fees for trash collec-
tion.
Program Summary
The City of Austin is currently re-evaluating its ap-

proach to home composting and would like t o modi@ its em-
phasis on master composter training to programs which
reach a higher percentage of the population. Program Man-
ager Rick Fuszek says, ’The Master Composter program is
great f o r teaching a lot of information to a few people, who
then are able to effectively teach others in t h e community.
Now we’re looking f o r ways t o reach a large number of people with a t least a little infor-
mation.” Some ideas which are being considered include producing a home composting
video t o distribute to neighborhood associations and emphasizing a “don’t bag it” ap-
proach to yard trimmings. The program manager expects t h a t once t h e city converts t o a
volume-based trash collection fee, home composting will become very popular among a
broad cross-section of the community.

42
Appendix A
Research Methods
A. Data Sources
Initial information used in formulating the scope of the study was gathered from a
combination of telephone interviews and a literature search and review. Prior to this
study, quantified primary data on the costs and effectiveness of home composting pro-
grams had been anecdotal a t best, or lacking. For this reason, i t was determined that this
study should focus on gathering and analyzing primary data on the economics of home
composting programs.
Primary data were collected directly from persons re-
sponsible for home composting programs in more than forty
local governments across North America. The vast majority
of the data was obtained from these primary sources.
Secondary data was collected from various published

and unpublished sources, including draft documents made
available for this study by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, from trade journals, and from annual reports ob-
tained from locally-sponsored home composting programs. Population data for cities and
counties were obtained from the 1990 US Census Snapshot and from t h e 1995 County
and Ciiy Extra Annual Metro, City and County Data. Data on volunteer labor were ob-
tained from a 1994 survey report, Giving and Volunteering in the United States, com-
pleted by t h e non-profit organization Independent Sector and t h e Gallup Organization.
Substantial efforts were made t o obtain information from all geographical regions
of the United States and representative regions of Canada, from communities of widely
varying population levels and socio-economic bases, so t h a t a representative cross-section
of programs could be described. A s shown in the analysis of results, these efforts were
largely successful.
B. Data Collection Methods

First, literature from existing files of Applied Compost Con-
sulting, the Composting Council, and t h e US EPA was gathered and analyzed. Second, a
broader literature review encompassing information from published and unpublished
sources was conducted. Third, communities with home composting programs were identi-
fied and contacted in the course of the research. Fourth, other organizations, such as
state agencies and recycling associations, were contacted; they provided useful general in-
formation about the current stafus of home composting in their geographical regions,
and about trends in t h e fields of home composting.
__ Fifth, a list was obtained of contact names and addresses of home composting pro-
grams identified during a 1994 University of Wisconsin a t Stevens Point survey. That sur-
vey determined which programs collected economic data, but did not gather or analyze it.
The Co-posting Council, Alexandria, VA

43
sixth, Applied Compost Consulting developed a draft questionnaire, which was cir-
culated t o The Composting Council, US EPA, and other reviewers. After receiving oral and
written comments, Applied Compost Consulting developed the final version of t h e ques-
tionnaire.
Seventh, the suwey was sent by regular mail to t h e home composting program
contact in a total o f 137 communities. This l i s t included respondents identified by t h e
University o f Wisconsin survey as having maintained information on costs and program
results, and additional communities known t o have programs or located in geographical
areas not sufficiently represented by t h e University o f Wisconsin survey. Targeted commu-
nities were given two weeks t o complete t h e survey.
Eighth, after the two week period, communities which had not responded were con-
tacted via by fax or telephone two times within one week. These reminders helped t o in-
crease t h e rate o f response.
Ninth, after the closing date for receipt of completed sukeys had passed, all com-
munities which had not sent in suweys were deemed non-responsive. Nevertheless, com-
pleted surveys received after this deadline helped t o round out the overall picture of
“typical” home composting programs. These programs-a total of three-were not in-
cluded in t h e data analysis.

44
C. Data Analysis
All completed surveys were closely examined t o ensure responses were complete,
accurate, and reasonable. In cases where respondents were thought t o have potentially
misinterpreted a question, did not return all pages of the survey, or wrote illegible, incom-
plete, inconsistent or unintelligible answers, telephone follow-ups were made t o the re-
spondent, to clarify the response. In cases where inconsistencies in responses were de-
tected and i t was clear which of the information was correct, changes were made directly
t o the surveys.
Data from the surveys were inputted into a computerized spreadsheet and
database. Printouts of these computer spreadsheets were cross-checked with the original
surveys t o ensure consistency of data.
Some respondents sent accompanying information or annual reports on their pro-

grams, as requested in the survey. Several respondents did not complete their surveys,
but referred t o their accompanying information t o fill in missing responses. This informa-
tion was inputted into the computer spreadsheets.
D. Statistical Analysis
A standard statistical analysis was used t o analyze numerical
data. Among the most important statistical assumpti ons, terms
and calculations used in the analysis were:
Sample Mean: The sum of the responses included in the relevant

set of data divided by the number of such responses. Com m on Iy
referred t o as “the average’’ or as the “mean.”
Population Mean: The sum of all points in a given population-whether included in the
sample o r not-divided by the number of such points. Referred t o as “the true mean.”
Median: The middle value of the relevant set of data. In other words, the median is the
value t h a t divides the set of data in half, with 50% of the measurements being above t h e
median and 50%being below it. Commonly referred to as “the midpoint.”
Note: Both the mean and median are important and useful measures of the so-called typi-
cal case, In most cases, the mean was used. However, the median was used in cases where
the mean was influenced strongly by extreme observations (“outliers”). The median is
much less affected by extreme points a t the high or low end of t h e distribution.
Standard Deviation: A key measure of dispersion (or variation) around the mean of a
sample. The greater the dispersion, the greater the standard deviation, If t h e frequency
&sttibution of a population conforms t o the normal distribution, then approximately 68%
of the measurements lie within plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean.

45
Normal Distribution: The results are viewed as normally distributed, in accordance with
the Central Limit Theorem of statistics regarding t h e relationship between sample size
and distribution. A normal distribution is symmetrical about the mean and bell-shaped,
with its location and shape determined entirely by its mean and standard deviation. with
a normally distributed set of data, confidence intervals can be developed.
Confidence Interval: An interval which has a certain probability of including the popula-
tion mean. This probability is called t h e confidence level ("confidence coefficient"). A
95% confidence interval means that if samples were drawn from the population repeat-
edly, the population mean would be included in the interval in 95% of the samples.
The Composting Council, AI exandria, VA

46
Appendix B
Home Composting Program Survey
This survev should be completed bv your municipal or countv home
compost promam administrator. (Fill in or uffuch business curd.)
Section I --Home Composting Program Evaluation
'Home Composting " includes active or passive composting at home, worm composting o f
food scraps, grasscycling and others activities by residents which reduce the need for
off-site handling o f organic materials, such as yard trimmings.
1. Do you have any annual reports on the home composting program in your
jurisdiction? (Circle one,]
a Yes (If yes, please send a copy along with your completed survey.)
b NO
2. What is your estimate of t h e number or percentage of single-family households

which compost a t home in your jurisdiction? (Fill in,]
CURRENTLY 1991
Number of households
which compost a t home households _____ households
-
OR
_______ percent of total _____ percent of total
3. What is your long-term goal for the number or percentage of single-family
households which will compost a t home? (Fill in o r circle.)
a ______ single-family households which compost OR

% single-family households which compost
b Don't know

47
4. Of residents who participate in home composting in your community, what is your

best estimate of the average amount composted per participating home per year?
(Please round to the nearest hundred pounds)
poundslyear composted per participating household
Is your response based on data you have gathered? (Circle) YES NO
5. What is your estimate of the amount o f waste reduction achieved in your commu-
nity through home composting in each o f the past three years? (Fill out as much
asyou can.)
Fiscal year 1994-95: _____ tons per year QR ______ cubic yards per year
1993-94:______ tons per year ______ cubic yards per year
1992-93:______ tons per year QR ______ cubic yards per year
6. How many home composting bins were distributed in each o f the past three years?
.(Fill in dl that apply.)
Fiscal year 1994-95:_______ compost bins distributed

1993-94: _compost bins distributed
1992-93:_______ compost bins distributed
7. How many people attended workshops on home composting in each o f t h e past

three years? (Fill in d
l that apply. Use estimates i f data is unavailable.)
Fiscal year 1994-95: people attended workshops

1993-94: _______people attended workshops
1992-93:_______ people attended workshops
8. What is t h e estimated contribution volunteers make t o your jurisdiction's home

composting education program (Circle letter and fill in.)
a Estimated number o f volunteers _________

Av. number of hours contributed per volunteer per year _____ OR
b Estimated total number o f volunteer hours per year _____ -
OR
C N o estimates available
9. How has residential refuse collection changed in response t o t h e development of

your jurisdiction's home composting program? (Circle all that apply and fill in.]
a Number of refuse collection routes has decreased from -,,-,to .

b Number of refuse collection vehicles has decreased from ,-,to .
C Fall leaf collection costs has decreased by an estimated $ Jyr.
d Other examples of collection cost savings attributable t o home composting:

48
Section 2--Home Compost Program Economics
Answers t o the following questions will be o f g r e a t value t o the cost-benefit analysis and
t o other new and emerging home composting programs. I f y o u ' r e having difficulty
answering this set o f questions, please call us a t 510-64-4-3693, and we'll go through i t
together.
10. How much money has been allocated to your community's home composting pro-
gram? (Fill in.)
FY 1995-96 FY 1994-95 FY 1993-94
Budget Budget Budnet
11. How are yard trimmings handled in your community? (Fill in or check information
t h a t is not available. Please make an estimate if the information is not readily
available.)
Home Composting: ________tonslyear

Centralized Composting or Chipping: ________tonslyear ____ No program
Landfilling or Incineration: ________tonslyear
Landspreadi ng: ________tonslyear ____ No program
TOTAL GENERATED: ________tonslyear

49
12. Which of the following home composting program elements are used currently by
your home composting program? What do they cost? (Circle dl t h a t apply; fill in
where appropriate or attach a budget sheet, if easier. Responses to this question
are very important, so please make y o u r best estimate. I f y o u r program does not
have a particular program element, please circle "not applicable (NA).] "
Program Total Annual Cost Service Delivered/Year

Element (Actual or Estimated) (Actual o r Estimate)
Staff (Salary) NA $ _______lyr _____ full-time equivalents

Brochures NA $ _______ lyr _____ brochures dist./yr
Workshops NA $ _______ fyr _____ workshops heldlyr
Master Composter Training NA $ _______ lyr _____ students trainedlyr
.Demonstration Sites NA $ _______ lyr _____ sites established
Compost Bin Purchases NA $ _______ /yr (net)* _____ bins distributedfyr
School Programs NA $ _______ lyr _____ students visitedlyr
Portable Displays NA $_______ lyr _____ visitorslyr
Books o r Booklets NA $ _______ lyr _____ books distributedlyr
Hotline NA $ _______ lyr _____ calls answered
Advertising NA $ _______lyr _____ ads placed
Other: _________________ NA $ _______ lyr _____ (num ber)
Other: _________________ NA $ _______ lyr _____ (number)
Other: _________________ NA $ _______lyr _____ (number)
* Net equals cost o f bins minus revenue from sale of bins.
The Composting Council, A

lexandria, VA
I 50
Section 3-Centralized Processing
13. What is t h e estimated cost of residential collection (excluding tip fee) in your
community? (Fill in or circle.)
TRASH YARD TRIMMINGS (Separate Collection]
a $-----/ton C $-----/ton
b Don't know d Don't know
14. What is the approximate distance yard trimmings are transported from your service
area t o the following processing facilities used by your community? (Fill in. Please
circle NA if your program does not have or utilize a particular processing
operati on .)
Composting Site: ______ miles (one way) NA

Transfer Station: miles (one way) NA
Landfill o r Incinerator: miles (one way) NA
Land Application Site: miles (one way) NA
15. What is t h e tipping fee charged f o r yard trimmings a t t h e following processing

facilities used by your community?(Fill in. Please circle NA i f y o u r program does
not have or utilize a particular processing operation.)
Composting Site: ______ $/ton or $---/cy NA

Transfer Station: ______ $/ton or $---/cy NA
Landfill o r Incinerator: ______ $/ton or $---/cy NA
Land Application Site: ______ $/ton or $---/cy NA
16. If your jurisdiction operates its own centralized composting facility and does not
charge a tipping fee for municipally-collected material, what is t h e estimated cost of
processing incoming yard trimmings a t the facility? (Fill in or circle.]
a $ /ton ______
$ /cu. yd. (incoming material)
b Don't know
C N.A. (jurisdiction doesn't operate its own composting facility)

51
17. Are residents charged a volume-based fee for trash collection or for separate collec-
tion of yard trimmings? (Answer dl that apply.]
a NO, a flat fee is charged, regardless of t h e number of trash cans set

out.
b NO, there are no charges for collection of yard trimmings.
C YES, variable can rates (for residential trash collection)
$____/monthfor a _____-gallon container; and

$__--/month for ______ (number of containers, if greater than
a single container) of --_---gallon containers.
d YES, carts or prepaid bags/stickers (residential vard trimminns onlv)

$---,/bag of yard trimmings OR
$--_-/month for yard trimmings carts
18. What are typical retail prices for yard trimmings compost sold by private busi-
nesses in your community? (Fill in all that apply.]
a $_____/bag, for a __-____cubic foot bag

b ______ /cu. yd., in bulk
$
C Don't know
19. True or False: (Circle T or F.]
T F Home composting hinders centralized composting program success

T F Home composting comulements centralized composting, making both
successful
T F Home composting has neutral effed on centralized composting pro-
gram success
The Composting Council, AI exandria, VA

52
Appendix C
Grapevine, Texas
List Of surveyRespondents Larry Wilhelm, Composting Director
Alameda County, California Hillsborough County, Florida

Teresa Eade, Home Composting Program Co- Polly Ryan, Compost Education Coordinator
ordinator
C i t y of Hutchinson, Minnesota
Alph aretta, Georgia Gary Plotz, City Administrator
Dee West, Director, Environmental
Sewices Kalamazoo County, Michigan
Steve Leuty, Recyling Coordinator
Am h erst, Massachusetts
Karen Bouquillon, Solid WastelRecycling Coor- Keene, New Hampshire
dinator Duncan Watson, Solid Waste Manager
Ann Arbor, Michigan Lincoln, Ne bras ka

Ray Ayer, Compost Manager Gene Hanlon, Recycling Coordinator
Austin, Texas Madison, Wisconsin

.Rick Fuszek, Progam Analyst George Dreckmann, Recycling Coordinator
Bibb County, Georgia Marin County, California

Frank Funderbark, County Extension Tahara Ezrathi, Home Compost Educa
Agent tion Coordinator
Chittendon SW District, Vermont Markham, Ontario

Nancy Plunkett, Recycling Coordinator Dave Douglas, Program Coordinator, En
vironmental Services
Columbia, Missouri
Tina Hubbs, Program Coordinator Mi Iwa u kee, Wis con si n
Mike Englebert, Residential Recycling
Dakota County, Minnesota Manager
Gayle Prest, Recycling Specialist
Morris County, New Jersey
East Chicago, Indiana Penny Jones, Recycling Education
Lou Harding, Recycling Coordinator Coordinator
Escondido, California Nassau County, Florida

Jeanne Funk, Recycling Specialist Robert McIntyre, Director
Fryeburg, Maine /Chatham, New Hampshire New Haven, Connecticut

Robert Roberge, Solid Waste Manager Stephen Gallagher, Recycling Coordinator
Germantown, Tennesee Olympia, Washington

Bo Mills, Solid Waste Coordinator Lisa Fernandes, SW Program Specialist
Glendale, California Palm Beach County, Florida

__ Tom Brady, Senior Planner Ned Comm, Recyling Specialist
Grand Prairie, Texas Plano, Texas

James Fisher, Solid Waste Manager Cindy Conner, Backyard Compost Coordinator

53
Portage County, Wisconsin

Kathy Powell, Compost Education Program
Coordinator
Sacramento (City), California

Gary Van Do&, Technical Services
Sacramento County, California

Steve Harriman, Recycling Coordinator
San Francisco, California

Carl Grimm, Education Director,
San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners
Sarasota County, Florida

Jodi John, Recycling Coordinator
Snohomish County, Washington

Marcia Rutan, Project Specialist
Spokane (City a n d County), Washington

Ann Bailor, Public Information Coordinator
Takoma Park, Maryland

Daryl Braithwaite, Recycling Coordinator
Thousand Oaks, California

Carolyn Green, Solid Waste Planner
Greater Vancouver Regional District,

British Columbia
Beverly Weber, Compost Program Officer
Ventura, California
Marialyce Pederson, Waste Management
Program Assistant
West Monroe, Louisiana

Office of Finance Director Er City Clerk

\

Cost-Benefit Analysis Home Composting Programs Inthe: States

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Cost-Benefit Analysis Home Composting Programs Inthe: States

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

pes y t z

Applied Compost Consulting

The Composting Council

The ComposciGg Council, Alexandria, VA

Applied Compost Consulting

The Composting Council

The Composting Council, Al exandria, VA

An extra special thank you is extended t o Martin Simson,

The Composting Council, Aexandria, VA

I. Purpose of the Study

11. Analysis of Results

111. Avoided Costs and Other Benefits

The Composting Council, A_1exandria, VA

IV. Case Studies

1. Alameda County, California 26

Appendix A: Research Methods 42

TABLE 2: Typical Home Composting Program 13

TABLE 3: Results of National Suwey of 19A

TABLE 4: Identified Benefits of Home Composting 24

TABLE 5: Recommendations for Developing 25

The Composting Council, Alexandria, VA

The average total net benefit derived by local governments

Context: Home composting has emerged in recent years as a popu-

City and county governments throughout t h e United States have

Use of this Study

This analysis, conducted and written by Applied Compost Consulting, is intended to

The Composting Council, Alexandria, VA

Home Composting Benefits

avoided collection, transfer, and centralized processing

Program Costs and Benefits

Home composting is a highly cost-effective way to handle residential materials, such

The Cornposting Council, Alexandria, VA

Home Composting Budgets

The median home composting program budget is $15,000, based on the

Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Home Composting Programs, I995

Local government expenditures

Home Composting Program Elements

Home composting program efforts range from basic t o comprehensive. A t mini-

0 have a paid staff person

In addition, some programs also have the following

The Composting Council, A lexandria, VA

compost demonstration gardens

On average, paid staff are supplemented by approximately 200 hours peryear of

Home compost bins are distributed by many programs,

Compost hotlines are used heavily by residents in communities t h a t have compre-

-- Home composting’s fast-growing importance as a solid waste management strategy

The Cornposting Council, Alexandria, VA

Waste Reduction (Quantified)

Home composting programs t h a t responded to t h e survey are diverting an average

On average, residents who compost a t home in these communities divert approxi-

Complementarity with Centralized Composting

Recommendations for Home Composting Programs

Home composting programs can be very cost-effective, especially

1 Focus efforts on single-family households,

The Cornposting Council, Al exandria, VA

9 Evaluate a mobile o r neighborhood chipping program for brush and branches

Puypose of the Study

Home composting has emerged in recent years as a popular conservation strategy

As with recycling in the 1980s and energy consewation in t h e 1970s,public inter-

The Composting Council, Alexandria, VA

Goals of the Study

A third goal was to develop case studies of home compost-