Stout_C.pdf

Stout_C_pdf.txt

PAGE 1

HOW THE UNITED STATES COULD ADOPT ZERO WASTE: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES IN NEW YORK CITY AND SAN FRANCISCO By C ATHERINE M. STOUT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2022

PAGE 2

© 2022 Ca therine M. Stout

PAGE 3

To my parents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my fantastic committee for their guidance during this process and the inspiration to choose this topic. I thank my committee chair Dr. Kathryn Frank for the time she has taken to help me develop my research topic and lead me in the right direction. I would like to especially thank her for the information I was able to use from her URP6203 Planning Research Design class for the development of my t hesis. I thank my committee co chair, Dr. Ruth Steiner, whom I have worked with closely since my first semester in the MURP program. Her guidance throughout the URP6341 Urban Planning Project course helped me develop ideas on how to approach my thesis topi c. I am incredibly grateful to them for their support and for being an inspiration to me. I thank all my professors, everyone in the Urban and Regional Planning department, and the rest of the UF community. These past six years at the University of Florida have been some of my life's most memorable and rewarding years. Finally, I thank my family and friends, who have always been my most incredible supporters. I thank my Mom and Dad for always going above and beyond to ensure I could achieve anything I wante d. I would not have made it this far if it were not for them. I also thank my three sisters, who have always been there to listen to me, laugh with me, and help me through any problem. Finally, I thank my best friend, Shelby, for all the nights she listene d to me talk about my thesis and stayed up late with me to practice my defense. I am so lucky to have you all in my life.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Overview of Zero Waste and Urban Waste Management ................................ ....... 12 Context ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ . 14 Report Outline ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 Rise of Consumption and Waste in the U.S. ................................ ........................... 16 Waste Management Techniques ................................ ................................ ............ 19 Landfill and Incineration ................................ ................................ ................... 19 Recycling ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 19 Compost ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 19 Solid Waste Data ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 20 Frameworks ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 21 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ..................... 22 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ .................... 24 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 29 4 FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 33 Case Study: New York City ................................ ................................ ..................... 33 Overview of New York City's Zero Waste Planning ................................ .......... 36 OneNYC 2050 ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 38 Case Study: San Francisco ................................ ................................ .................... 42 ................................ ............................. 44 S.F. Environment Strategic Plan 2021 2023 ................................ .................... 47 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 54

PAGE 6

6 Application of the Literature in Findings ................................ ................................ .. 54 Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 56 L imitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 57 Final Words on Findings ................................ ................................ ......................... 58 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 59 Recommendations for Best Practices ................................ ................................ ..... 60 Further Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 61 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 63 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 67

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Sample table explaining the ranking of emphasis given to recommendations within each zero waste plan. ................................ ................................ .............. 32 4 1 z ero w aste p lan r ecommendations. ........................ 51 4 2 ze ro w aste p lan r ecommendations. ....................... 52 4 3 e mphasis t otals. ................................ ......... 53 4 4 p rimary e mphasis t otals. ............................ 53

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 New York City residential waste breakdown ................................ ....................... 26 2 2 Diagram of U.S. trash makeup ................................ ................................ ........... 26 2 3 Diagram of how U.S. waste is disposed of ................................ ......................... 27 2 4 C ircular e conomy m odel ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 2 5 Waste hierarchy model ................................ ................................ ....................... 27 2 6 Linear vs. circular metabolism model ................................ ................................ . 28 2 7 Sustainable city wa ste model ................................ ................................ ............. 28 2 8 Conceptual framework model ................................ ................................ ............. 28

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DSNY Department of Sanitation GHGs Greenhouse Gases MSW Municipal Solid Waste

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban and Regional Planning HOW THE UNITED STATES COULD ADOPT ZERO WASTE: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF WAST E MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES IN NEW YORK CITY AND SAN FRANCISCO By Catherine M. Stout December 2022 Chair: Kathryn Frank Cochair: Ruth Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning For thousands of years, economies produced little waste and were circular ec onomies, while the economy of today represents a more linear one. The call for cities to become zero waste is a recent phenomenon created in response to the acceleration in waste production attributed to a rise in consumption following World War II. Zero w aste is the point at which a city sends zero waste to incinerators and landfills. It is becoming a more popular concept in urban planning, given the growing issue of climate change. This thesis details the evolution of zero waste planning in San Francisco and New York City, from their earliest waste management methods to their lists of precise recommendations. It then assesses the recommendations through a comparative case study approach applying the conceptual framework provided by Zaman and Lehmann, deter mining the best practices for urban communities in the U.S. transitioning toward zero waste management. The findings determined that the final list of best practices for zero waste should include: Changing manufacturing and packaging processes toward life cycle oriented practices

PAGE 11

11 Organic scraps/food curbside collections reaching many homes Recycling, composting, and trash bins throughout cities

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Global climate change and its vast effects on society have created a trend t oward a more sustainable society (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Although waste is a small contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (<5%), the continuous depletion of global resources forces humankind to consider zero waste management as a response not only to help manage the waste but also the resources in a city (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). According to Zaman and Lehmann, good zero waste management systems should include social, economic, political, environmental, and technological aspects, which are dynamic and interrelated (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Overview of Zero Waste and Urban Waste Management driven society has contributed to an enormous amount of waste. This waste has caused more cities to feel the pressure of managing waste sustainably. However, since waste management has not historically received as much attention in planning processes as other sectors have, there exist gaps in how to respond to this type of city planning (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). The global population is g areas and more regions currently trending toward urbanization (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Urbanization is also higher in high consuming countries, like the U.S., compared to lower con suming countries, making the waste problem in more developed, urbanized countries even more concerning (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Sustainable city design can also be particularly challenging, with waste management being one of the essential components of d esigning a sustainable city

PAGE 13

13 (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). In high consuming cities in the industrialized world, substantial amounts of waste from paper, packaging, food, electronics, and textiles are causing environmental and socioeconomic problems (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). avoid the volume of waste and toxic materials, conserve, recycle, and recover 100% of all waste streams, and not burn or bury them, thereby producing no harmfu l waste for the environment. (Hanna, 2015; Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Regarding cities, zero be more efficient and sustainable (Hanna, 2015). Zero waste is challenging to achieve holistically (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Approximately thirty cities and counties throughout the U.S. approved zero waste plans for their communities in 2015 (Hanna, 2015). These municipalities represent large, urban, industrialized communities wit h geographic proximity and access to national and international markets (Hanna, 2015). The significant volumes of waste produced in urban communities, like New York City and San Francisco, coupled with existing infrastructure for solid waste management, ma ke them logical places to initiate zero waste plans. Context With a population of roughly 8.8 million, New York City is a highly populated and economically active city dealing with a large volume of MSW (New York City Department of City Planning, 2020; Le e Geiller & Kütting, 2021; United States Census Bureau, 2020). New York City is the most populous city in the U.S., and the most management practices (Galka, 2016). In 2013, New York City passed Local Law 84

PAGE 14

14 term strategic plan which includes New York City has begun its first steps in zer o waste planning, it is still disposing of most of its waste by trucking it outside of the city entirely (Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021; Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). With a population of 873,965, San Francisco is notably less dense and less populated than New Y ork City (United States Census Bureau, 2020). However, the West coast has historically been more welcoming toward zero waste practices and related practices in the earlier years of adoption than the East coast in general (Cohen, 2016). San Francisco adopte d zero waste planning practices in 2002. The city is a national leader for zero waste planning in urban communities, making it worthy of Research Question The main research question in this study is what are t he best practice recommendations for urban communities in the U.S. to use when transitioning from traditional waste management practices into zero waste practices based on the assumption that a zero waste city should emphasize the five community aspects pr oposed by Zaman and Lehmann: social, economic, political, environmental, and technological (2011)? This study aims to address the degree to which the emphasize those five community aspects. The analysis will consider the information found in the literature review and case studies to determine the effectiveness of New

PAGE 15

15 analysis of zero waste planning re commendations will fill a gap in the research currently available to urban communities in the U.S. on how to best approach their specific waste situation. The research uses a comparative case based methodology provided through news articles, city plans, an d academic and peer reviewed literature, focusing on MSW in both cities. As in Zaman and Lehmann, heavy industrial, clinical, agricultural, radioactive, and mining waste are excluded from this study, suggesting an area of focus for future studies. The conc lusion of this study will primarily focus on the best practices for zero waste in a city; therefore, specific waste management provisions, such as transport of goods and services, and waste collection service, will not be considered in this study. Report Outline Initially, this chapter provides a reference point to understand the progression toward zero waste in the U.S. Chapter two provides a literature review of historical and current data, a further context for MSW operations in the U.S., and an explan ation of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks guiding this research. Chapter three explains the methodological approach for the research. Chapter four includes the case study findings and analysis of current zero waste plans in New York City and San F rancisco. Chapter five discusses the findings including their application in the literature, implications, and limitations. Finally, chapter six offers concluding remarks and provides a list of best practices for zero waste planning in the U.S.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter serves as a review of the current literature on zero waste planning. This literature review aims to synthesize the current information on zero waste planning in the U.S. to determine any gaps in the research and g uide the findings on best practices. This qualitative study uses secondary sources to provide data for the findings , including current zero waste planning and policy documents from New York City and San Francisco. This study will not provide any quantitati ve analysis, as this study is holistic given the context of zero waste planning and will primarily rely on assessing the current literature. Not many studies have considered the best practices for zero waste planning in the U.S. as it is typically a city p lanning issue, and waste management is subject is that waste is becoming an increasingly prominent issue making it imperative for cities to implement their best practic es. As previously suggested, this research connects with existing knowledge from Hanna (2015), Lehmann (2011), and Zaman and Lehmann (2011). Rise of Consumption and Waste in the U.S. globalizing world as the capitalist system depends on never ending growth, thriving on the momentum it has gained over the course of the 20th century molding the everyday person int o the consumer (Higgs, 2021). While people have always been consumers, needing food, clothing, and shelter to survive, there a little economic motive for increased consumption before the 20th century and frugality w ere most appropriate for situations witho ut guaranteed rations (Higgs, 2021). After World War I, most people in

PAGE 17

17 the industrialized world no longer found themselves in the perils of famine, and by 1920 U.S. production was 12 times greater than it had been 60 years prior for a population that had o nly grown by a factor of three (Higgs, 2021). Production exploded during World War II helping the U.S. economy pull itself out of the Great Depression, and by the late 1940s, young adults had more jobs, more spending power, higher wages, and more goods tha n young Americans had ever known through the war (PBS, 2019). The U.S. found itself shifting toward a culture in which consumption became viewed as a means for achieving happiness, or the American Dream, in which the most desired items revolved around home and family life including televisions, cars, washing machines, refrigerators, among other appliances of the time (Higgs, 2021; PBS, 2019). Advertising images and product brands became popularized through the media throughout the 1950s and 1960s while U.S. factory production and economic prosperity continued to rise (Benedetti et al., 2018). The post war economic boom continued to progress throughout the 1960s where commercialized products permeated every billboard, advertisement, poster, sign, television , and radio in the U.S., and the U.S. reached a point in which advertising, commodities, and art became one with the consumer culture (Benedetti et al., 2018). Today, the world generates over 2 billion tons of MSW annually (World Bank, 2022) . This number is expected to increase to 3.4 billion tons by 2050 (more than double the expected population growth) if there is no urgent action ( World Bank, 2022; Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). High income countries, where 16% of the global population lives, comprise about Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). The U.S. alone generated more than 292.4 million tons of MSW in 2018, with a 32.1%

PAGE 18

18 recycling and composting rate (EPA, 2013). The increase in the MSW stream in high income countries is due to several factors, including rising affluence, cheaper products, built in obsolescence, packaging, changing patterns of taste and consumption, and demand for convenience goods ( Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). Consumers also want cheaper goods, so manufacturers have c ut costs to distribute lower quality products (Martin, 2014). In modern times, consumption has been primarily linear, following a cycle of make, use, then trash, requiring 1,000 years for most products to biodegrade (Martin, 2014). It is a more sustainable and better long term solution for companies to design goods with reuse in mind, as it is possible for many goods and materials to have multiple life cycles before composting them back into the earth (Martin, 2014). The prices of producing and disposing of these materials are typically not embedded in the environmental costs, meaning that there is no direct incentive for people or businesses to change (Bradford et al., 2018). With no direct incentive, producers build lower quality products for brief use so that people buy more, and consumers have no limit to the amount of waste they discard (Bradford et al., 2018). Looking at the current waste situation in the U.S., Americans spent $240 billion on goods in 2017, which is twice as much as they did in 2002 (Ma rtin, 2014). However, at the same time, the U.S. population only grew by 13%, suggesting people were spending much more than they used to (Martin, 2014). Unfortunately, modern day consumption has required the extraction of many natural resources to produce goods used only once or briefly before being thrown out (Bradford et al., 2018).

PAGE 19

19 Waste Management Techniques T here are four conventional types of waste management techniques used today: composting, recycling, incineration, and landfills (Lee Geiller & Küt ting, 2021). Landfill and Incineration Modern landfills are engineered and managed to dispose of solid waste and are designed and operated to fulfill federal regulations ( US EPA, 20 18 ). Waste incineration involves combustion to convert waste into ash, fluid, gas, and heat but creates air pollution (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). With incineration being more expensive, the environmental movement of the 1960s propelled landfills as the favored method of disposal since it was cheap, and with plastic, paper, and aluminum waste on the rise, burying it was considered better than burning it (Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021). Recycling Recycling is to convert paper, plastic, metal, and glass wastes into reusable material (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). The first municipal recycling center was established in New York City in 1898 to avoid ocean and land dumping (Lee Geiller & market for American recycling (Trickey, 2019). While it had previous ly been very cheap to send recyclables to China, the country instituted its National Sword policy, which nearly banned foreign recycling materials to focus on its waste (Trickey, 2019). Overall, recycling materials uses less energy than it requires to prod uce new materials ( Bradford et al., 2018). Compost Composting is the process of aerobic decomposition of natural organic components of solid waste, such as food and plant wastes and paper (Lee Geiller &

PAGE 20

20 Kütting, 2021). It is a climate action strategy that can sequester carbon back into the soil (Trickey, 2019). When organic waste that can be composted goes to a landfill, it decomposes and generates methane, a greenhouse gas roughly 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide (De Blasio et al., 2022). Solid Was te Data The average American generates and throws out seven pounds of trash every day, and the vast majority (~97%) of materials required to generate these products come from mining, manufacturing, and agriculture ( Bradford et al., 2018). A large portion o f U.S. garbage contains goods that are used for a short period, such as packaging ( Bradford et al., 2018). Packaging makes up nearly 30% of all U.S. garbage, while nondurable goods, such as textiles and newspaper, make up 20%, and organic materials, like f ood and yard trimmings, collectively make up a little less than 30% as shown in Figure 2 2 ( Bradford et al., 2018). The remaining 20% are durable goods, such as furniture and appliances that are thrown away instead of being reused or repurposed ( Bradford e t al., 2018). Roughly 28% of the organic matter (food and yard trimmings) from Figure 2 2 gets composted, and 8.9% of all waste is composted as shown in Figure 2 3 ( Bradford et al., 2018). Paper, which makes up over a quarter of U.S. trash could be compost ed or recycled ( Bradford et al., 2018). Plastics, metals, and glass, which make up another quarter of U.S. trash, can also be recycled ( Bradford et al., 2018). The remainder of U.S. trash comes from rubber, wood, leather, and textiles, which can be recycle d into new products ( Bradford et al., 2018). Despite being able to recycle, reuse, or repurpose most of what we throw away, American homes and businesses dump or incinerate

PAGE 21

21 65.4% of materials, meaning only 34.6% of all materials end up being composted or r ecycled as shown in Figure 2 3 ( Bradford et al., 2018). The U.S. has thrived on its material economy being linear in the sense that raw materials are often extracted, turned into goods, and then disposed of quickly, which has resulted in drastic impacts on the environment ( Bradford et al., 2018). Unlike other a process that starts with the human being and ends in the landfill (Werman, 2016). This process of extraction, prod uction, transportation an d disposal of waste is responsible for 42% of all U.S. GHG emissions ( Bradford et al., 2018). Frameworks The key findings of this literature review are to provide context for why zero waste planning is important for research. Hist ory has shown how traditional waste management systems have contributed to landfills and the rise of the current waste problem. Zero waste planning and a focus on circular economics is a more sustainable solution for urban communities. These case studies w ill provide current information on how urban communities are approaching zero waste planning to gui de more cities across the U.S. to begin the zero waste transformation. This research intends to fill a gap in the literature in which there is a lack of best practice solutions for urban communities to consider when transitioning to zero waste planning. This framework can be used to assess the elements of stewardship in case studies descriptively and to identify intervention and leverage points, this study ada pts this framework to holistically examine and compare two case studies in New York City and Seoul, like New York City and San Francisco in this specific study (Lee Geiller &

PAGE 22

22 Kütting, 2021). This comparative case study takes a heuristic approach, not aimin g to create a generalized theory (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). The two cities were selected since a substantial percentage of the population reside s in them, they are where economic activities are concentrated, and their city governments express a politic al interest in improving their waste governance (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). These same reasons applied to why San Francisco and New York City were chosen for this specific study. A wide range of documents including public reports, policy information, pe er reviewed articles, books, and news articles w as analyzed and then organized into major themes, categories, and examples based on the analytical framework from Bennett et al., 2018 (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). Then the two cases were synthesized and compared (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). This paper uses concepts from Hanna (2015), Zaman and Lehmann (2011), and Lehmann (2011) as the most notable and comparable zero waste planning studies that fit within the realm of this research. However, this study intends to fill a research gap to determine best p study by Lehmann (2011) guide the theoretical and conceptual frameworks. This research will attempt to build on the results found in these studies. Theoretical Framework with its primary goal of transforming business processes into sustainable, closed loop resource systems ( Fogarassy & Finger, 2020). The c ircular economy theory was identified in several different sources in the literature review, such as in the study from Lehmann (2011), as well as in the OneNYC 2050 plan as shown in Figure 2 4 ( De

PAGE 23

23 Blasio et al., 2022). Throu gh a circular design of material and product use, the model can replace the standard one way life cycle by using renewable energy sources (Fogarassy & Finger, 2020). Instead of thinking about waste as starting from human s and ending in a landfill, this stu dy will attempt to view waste as a process that can be approached cyclical ly (Werman, 2016). Given the obvious benefits to the environment as well, the U.S. should consider moving toward a circular economy, chara cterized by zero waste, to protect the environment from the dangers of climate change ( Bradford et al., 2018). This economic system is accomplished through local, state, and federal governments encouraging a circular, or closed loop economy, in which reduc ing consumption, reusing materials, recycling, and composting are at the forefront ( Bradford et al., 2018). Additional models, such as the waste hierarchy model shown in Figure 2 5 can be helpful to understand the circular economy theory. When considering the steps to take in the process of consuming a product sustainably, the first step is to initially avoid purchase or consumption of that product, then reduce consumption, reuse, recycle, recover, treat, and finally dispose of as it the last step (Lehmann, 2011). This process contributes to a more circular life cycle of a product. For this study, the models proposed by Lehmann in Figures 2 6 and 2 7 are most relevant as they best describe the link between waste and urbanization, which is the 7 is representative of t he linear metabolism model in Figure 2 6. The inputs, typically natural resources, go into the city and are outputted in a linear cycle, often to the landfills. On the other hand, 7 represents the circular economy in Figu re 2 6.

PAGE 24

24 Circular economies do not need as many resources as inputs, because those resources are cycled back into the city, instead of creating a direct stream of waste. Figures 2 6 and 2 7 are more indicative of how the circular economy works compared to F igures 2 4 and 2 5, clearly indicating the level of input and output in a linear versus circular economy. This current study fits into existing research that uses this same theoretical framework since the goal is to find the best practices for zero waste p lanning, which requires thinking about the city from a circular economic perspective. Conceptual Framework High consuming cities such as San Francisco and New York City have implemented different methods and policies to collect 100 % of waste from the sou rce of generation and manage it properly. However, these cities still face problems in the context of long term sustainable resource recovery as waste production trends indicate that waste volume reduction is one of the key challenges for all cities based on global economic growth and increased consumption rates ( Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Zaman and Lehmann acknowledged that cities are very dynamic in nature and combine different complex spheres, varying in geographical and environmental factors. Consequentl y, Zaman and Lehmann believe it is difficult to understand the dynamic nature of the factors involved in city development without holistic research approaches ( Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Figure 2 6 shows the complexity of designing zero waste cities, where the environmental sphere works as a rim for all other spheres including social, economic, political, and technological ( Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). These five aspects are considered the most important in transforming cities into zero waste cities ( Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Additionally, the tools, methods, or strategies developed for recycling or managing waste in zero waste cities should be

PAGE 25

25 affordable in the socio economic context, regulatory or manageable in the socio political context, applicable in the po licy and technological context, effective or efficient in the context of economy and technology, and finally , all these aspects should be directly related to environmental sustainability ( Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). This holistic model requires abandoning th e desire to consume, transitioning toward low carbon practices, making better, more efficient technologies available, and mobilizing changes in behavior and attitudes ( Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). Considering low consuming city contexts, like India and China, where consumption level has been increasing and landfill is the main waste treatment technology, waste management in developing cities is also very difficult to manage sustainably (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011). The global waste management and finite resource scenario will be more difficult to manage when low consuming countries reach the same consumption rates as the high consuming countries (Zaman and Lehmann, 2011).

PAGE 26

26 Figure 2 1. New York City residential waste breakdown. Source B. De Blasio et al. (2022). OneNYC 2050 . Figure 2 2. Diagram of U.S. trash makeup . Source A. Bradford et al. (2018). T rash in America: Moving from Destructive Consumption to a Zero Waste System .

PAGE 27

27 Figu re 2 3. Diagram of how U.S. waste is disposed of. Source A. Bradford et al. (2018). T rash in America: Moving from Destructive Consumption to a Zero Waste System . Figure 2 4. Circular e conomy m odel. Source B. De Blasio et al. (2022). OneNYC 2050. Figure 2 5. Waste hierarchy model . Source S. Lehmann. (2011). Optimizing Urban Material Flows and Waste Streams in Urban Development through Principles of Zero Waste and Sustainable Consumption.

PAGE 28

28 Figure 2 6 . Linear vs. circular metabolism model . Source S. Lehmann. (2011). Optimizing Urban Material Flows and Waste Streams in Urban Development through Principles of Zero Waste and Sustainable Consumption. Figure 2 7. Sustainable city waste model . Source S. Lehmann. (2011). Optimizing Urban Material Flows and Waste Streams in Urban Development through Principles of Zero Waste and Sustainable Consumption. Figure 2 8. Conceptual framework model. Source A. U. Zaman and S. Lehmann. (2011). Challenges and Opportunities in Transforming Waste City .

PAGE 29

29 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Since this research problem focused on zero waste planning best practices in the U.S., it was necessary to look at municipal zero waste plans to determine the recommen dations for both cities. The literature review uncovered zero waste case studies from other cities and countries. However, a gap existed in the research for best practices in urban communities within the U.S. In studies such as in Hanna (2015) and Zaman an d Lehmann (2011), zero waste planning approaches were holistic so that many cities with differing demographics could adopt them a goal of this study. San Francisco and New York represent two urban communities with varying demographics on opposite sides o f the U.S. They, therefore, require a more holistic approach in determining the best practices for zero waste planning and how those same practices could apply in different urban settings in the U.S. The research strategy used was a comparative case study of New York City and approach with secondary data from relevant documents, including formal studies by Hanna (2015), Lehmann (2011), and Zaman and Lehmann (2011); city pla ns, including the S.F. Strategic Plan for San Francisco and the OneNYC 2050 plan for New York City; and progress reports , such as the OneNYC 2050 2022 Progress Report . This data helped interpret the recommendations found in both the OneNYC 2050 Plan and th e S.F. Strategic Plan. In addition, the analysis used the same method as the Hanna study, on how well they emphasized each of the five spheres described in the conceptual

PAGE 30

30 framew ork provided by Zaman and Lehmann. The best practices were selected based on these results. These cases were selected, as previously stated because New York City is the most populous and wasteful city in the U.S. and should therefore be one of the top citi es transforming their waste management system to zero waste management. On the other hand, San Francisco is currently one of the top performing zero waste cities in the U.S. San Francisco was selected to compare its zero waste planning legislation to New York on the holistic approaches described in the frameworks. Each case study reviews the waste management history of each city, population, and density for context befor e applying the framework. Determining best practices New York City uses OneNYC 2050 as its current zero waste plan, while San . Strategic Plan. The case studies apply the aspects of the conceptual framework (Figure 2 6) to analyze both cities. As previously mentioned, Figure 2 6 uses a model for designing zero waste cities in which the environmental sphere works as a rim for the other social, economic, political, and technological spheres (Zaman & Lehmann, 2011). These five aspects are considered the most important in transforming cities into zero waste cities (Zaman & Lehmann, 2011). This study evaluated the recommendations from both plans to assess the degree of emphasis on these five aspects, building on the same approach Hanna used (2015). The study qualitatively examined keywords and phrasing for reference to particular

PAGE 31

31 aspects and designating emphasis based on the following numerical rankings. Each plan recommendation received at least one ranking of primary emphasis, indicated by a emphasis on more reflected no mention. T able 3 1 explains the format used to evaluate zero waste recommendations from both communities. Following this framework to determine best practices is most suitable for this type of holistic research as similar studies follow this qualitative approach to apply the concepts to other cities with different waste needs. However, unlike the Hanna study, this study targets urban communities compared to rural ones and can help determine if the framework applies to either type of city. One weakness of this study is that there is only research through secondary methods. A primary method, such as surveys in the case study areas or personal interviews in neighborhoods, could have helped to determine more information about the current recommendations in both cities. Finding the most up to date information can be complex, with only secondary sources. However, like other studies, reviewing the literature and planning documents is one of the essential steps in determining best practices. From there, future studies can build on this current research. Another weakness of this study is that the findings on ly consider one zero waste plan from each city based on how much it emphasized zero waste planning. Upon reviewing many different zero waste plans for each city and determining which would be most comprehensive and include a list of recommendations, this d ecision led to the OneNYC 2050 Plan and the S . F . Strategic Plan being the two plans used for the analysis.

PAGE 32

32 Table 3 1. Sample table explaining the ranking of emphasis given to recommendations within each zero waste plan . Recommendation Environmental (Env) Social (Soc) Political (Pol) Economic (Econ) Technological (Tech) Recommendation as stated in zero waste plan 0 = no mention 1 = minimal emphasis 2 = primary emphasis

PAGE 33

33 C HAPTER 4 FINDINGS This chapter aims to perform a comparative case study analysis of San Francisco and New York City's zero waste plans and recommendations to determine the best practices when transitioning to zero waste. These case studies will provide an overview of zero waste planning efforts in both cities before examining one selected plan from each city and analyzing the plan's recommendations based on the analysis method provided in the previous chapter. Case Study: New York City New York City has always been known for its waste, p rimaril y disposing of it by rendering plants, hog feeding, fill operations, and dumping in the ocean until the 20 th century (Galka, 2016). As written in a 1657 ordinance describing the trash situation in New York City: many burghers and inhabitants throw their rubbish, filth, ashes, dead animals and suchlike things into the public streets to the great inconvenience of the (Galka, 2016). In the late 1650s in the city, laws began banning people from deal with that trash (Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021). By the 19 th century, the population of New Yor k City was exploding, and people were dumping trash onto the streets to be picked up by scavengers, with piles of rotten food, dead animals, and horse manure beginning to form huge, odorous piles (Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021). It took several decades before or ganized street cleaning existed in which residents were instructed to leave their piles of dirt in front of their homes Friday to be removed Saturday night ( Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021). New York City was the first adopter of a municipal waste management syste m in the U.S., but the city has reduced its internal waste refuse

PAGE 34

34 capacities, taking a public private partnership approach, and has become one of the biggest waste exporters in the world (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). In 1995, New York State was the larges t exporter of waste in the country and the city has continuously failed to meaningfully reduce its waste (Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021). With New York City generating over 14 million tons of waste and recyclables each year, the city has had to manage it through two waste management systems: one private and one public, three modes of transport (trucks, trains, and barges), 1,668 city collection trucks, 248 private waste hauling companies, and an extensive network of temporary and permanent facilities that spread across the world (Galka, 2016; Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021) . New York City spends a combined $2.3 billion on waste management annually (Galka, 2016). The public waste system, known as t he New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY) oversees a quarter of the w aste generated by residences and government buildings, as well as some nonprofit organizations (Cohen , 2016 ; Galka, 2016; Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). DSNY is the largest waste management agency in the world with an annual budget of $1.5 billion, collecti ng more than 10 thousand tons of residential waste a day (Galka, 2016; Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). That number includes 33% of traditional recyclables like metal, glass, plastic, and paper and 31% of organic food waste, neither of which should be getting landfilled (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). However, 80% of non recyclable garbage picked up by DSNY is landfilled, while the other 20% is incinerated in a waste to energy plant (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). Commercial businesses create the other three qua commercial trash collecting agency (Galka, 2016; Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). The BIC

PAGE 35

35 was initially established to deal with corruption and organiz ed crime in the private residential and commercial waste collection that was prevalent beginning in the 1950s (Lee public waste management system, it is important to note for f uture studies that private firms take a larger role in waste collection and treatment in New York City than public organizations do (Lee waste management is the result of tense debates amon g the Advisory Board, the City Council, and the City Administration to determine whether and how to expand reduction, recycling, and composting or to export 80% of its residential and institutional waste stream to other neighboring st ates for disposal (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). Since the closure of the Fresh Kills landfill in 2001, New York City has shipped almost all its landfilled waste to out of state facilities, leading to rising costs and environmental concerns (C40 Cities, 20 16a), The Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island is of particular interest as its closure in 2001 was not about the environmental concerns of the time, but was a political decision (Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021). At the same time, New York City has developed its zero waste target and comprehensive strategy to reduce its waste generation, driven by concerns about the negative impact of waste on Landfills were never intended to serve as a long term solution for waste disposal, and incinerators began being placed throughout New York City in the early 20 th century, thought to be the future method of waste disposal at the time as ocean dumping was becoming illegal (Kaiser Schatzlein , 2021). In the ten years after World War I, solid waste in the city rose by 70%, but since incinerators were expensive, and pollution was

PAGE 36

36 unpopular, landfills became the favored method of disposal (Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021). One solution to landfilling has been increasing privatization and the export of trash, which is more expensive and can require cuts to recycling initiatives and programs, as in the case of New York City (Kaiser Schatzlein, 2021). Upon the closure of all waste incinerators and landfills in New York City in 2001, the city needed somewhere to bury or burn its garbage and began sending most of its waste to private transfer stations in neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx to be exported (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). O v erview of New York City's Zero Waste Planning According to OneNYC 2050, the average New Yorker throws away 15 pounds of waste at home and another nine pounds at work and other commercial establishments every week (C40 Cities, 2016a). In addition, the city spends ov er $350 million annually trucking garbage to out of state landfills, generating additional carbon emissions (C40 Cities, 2016a). New York City has set a goal to reduce waste by 90% by 2030 from a 2005 baseline, sending zero waste to landfills (C40 Cities, 2016a). New York City intends to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050, a goal introduced in 2014 and reaffirmed in its Climate Action Plan (C40 Cities, 2016a). DSNY is the main stakeholder relevant to this case study, as they are responsible for picking up residential and (some) commercial waste in the city (DSNY, 2022). New York City law mandates residents and businesses to sort and recycle their waste, separating them into three categories before being brought to the curb for pickup: paper, metal/glass/pl astic, and non recyclable mixed solid waste (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). While DSNY has fines for not recycling, starting at $25 for property owners who fail to recycle, recycling advocates suggest these inspections are

PAGE 37

37 inadequate, with New York City res idents becoming discouraged and ending up not recycling (Barnard, 2020). Through its zero waste initiatives, New York City has planned to implement the country's most extensive curbside organics program which will provide organics collection to more than 3 .5 million New Yorkers (De Blasio, 2017). However, the COVID 19 pandemic halted this program, and it was reintroduced in October 2022 with expansion into the Queens borough (Rosengren, 2022). However, New York City will not enforce this program, and in loc ations where DSNY does not offer composting bins, they have included where to find organic drop off sites on their website for those who wish to partake (DSNY, 2022; Rosengren, 2022). In addition, the city is not currently enforcing organics collection, so it does not appear to burden its residents (Rosengren, 2022). According to De Blasio, New York City increased its citywide residential landfill diversion rate to over 20%, using policies to hold product manufacturers accountable for sustainable design cho ices, including a ban on foam products (2017). However, the city's recycling and composting efforts have regressed recently, especially following the pandemic (Goldenberg & Dunn, 2022). As a result, residential recycling rates for metal, glass, and plastic dropped to 16.5% in July 2021 from 18.5% the year prior (Goldenberg & Dunn, 2022). In addition, individuals have paid limited attention to waste governance despite New York's diverse attitudes toward environmental issues (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). A r ecent consumer survey by the city government revealed that 32% of New Yorkers think that the current form of waste disposal is inadequate and problematic in terms of environmental issues in the city (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021).

PAGE 38

38 OneNYC 2050 New York City's government has one main plan regarding zero waste management: the OneNYC 2050 plan. OneNYC 2050 is New York City's Climate Action Plan and aligns with the Paris Climate Agreement goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsi us (De Blasio, 2017). The city created the plan under the requirements of Local Law 84 in 2013, with its first release in 2019, building on the OneNYC plan released in 2015 (De Blasio, 2017.) The OneNYC 2050 plan aims to reduce costs and waste generation ( C40 Cities, 2016a). The plan is more comprehensive than zero waste planning alone; however, as it pertains to this study, the document includes solid waste and environmental goals to help the city achieve zero waste, as well as annual progress reports. For example, the 2022 Progress Report for OneNYC 2050 described the 'LC.20.4 Adopt Zero Waste management strategies citywide' initiative as 'In Progress / Partially Funded' for April 2021 to April 2022 ( OneNYC 2050 2022 PROGRESS REPORT , 2022). The zero waste management strategies in the initiative included passing Local Law 64, which created restrictions on single use straws, stirrers, and splash sticks and promoted waste reduction and the use of reusable or compostable products ( OneNYC 2050 2022 PROGRESS REPO RT , 2022). The OneNYC 2022 Progress Report also suggested the city completed its milestone of implementing a foam ban, plastic bag ban, paper bag fee, and distribution of more than one million reusable bags at the end of 2020 ( OneNYC 2050 2022 PROGRESS REP ORT , 2022). 'A Livable Climate' is one of the eight main goals of the OneNYC 2050 plan and is the only zero waste goal . 'A Livable Climate' focuse s on achieving carbon neutrality and adapting the city to withstand and be resilient to the impacts of climat e change (De

PAGE 39

39 Blasio et al., 2022). Four initiatives belong to the 'A Livable Climate' goal: (1) achieve carbon neutrality and 100% clean energy; (2) strengthen communities, buildings, infrastructure, and the waterfront to be more resilient; (3) create econ omic opportunities for all New Yorkers through climate action; and (4) fight for climate accountability and justice (De Blasio et al., 2022). New York City is measuring progress for 'A Livable Climate' goals by tracking four indicators: GHG emissions elimi nated, reduced, or offset; share of electricity mix from clean sources; flood insurance enrollments; and city pension fund investments in climate solutions (De Blasio et al., 2022). The zero waste strategies in 'A Livable Climate' are part of its first ini tiative of achieving carbon neutrality and 100% clean energy, with no clear timeline in the plan. The zero waste recommendations in the OneNYC 2050 plan are listed below: 1. Transition to Mandatory Organics Collection Citywide The city will pursue expanding i ts organics management program with curbside pickup, drop off sites, and support for community composting opportunities (De Blasio et al., 2022). In addition, it will work with the City Council to establish mandatory organics recycling citywide, with phasi ng starting in low and medium density areas that already have access to organics collection and expanding over time to include the entire city (De Blasio et al., 2022). New York City also plans to divert more organics from commercial establishments, using them for compost and energy production (De Blasio et al., 2022). 2. Develop regional organics processing capacity to handle 1 million tons of food and yard waste per year

PAGE 40

40 New York City plans to increase its capacity to process organics inside and outside the city, working with its agencies and private sector partners to process organics for beneficial use (De Blasio et al., 2022). For example, some organic wastes can be processed into renewable natural gas using digesters. In contrast, others will be soil amen dments or compost for use in parks, green infrastructure, landscaping, street trees, gardens, and farms (De Blasio et al., 2022). 3. Reach zero waste across New York City government operations New York City will implement sustainable waste management strategi es and operations in city buildings, facilities, and programs (De Blasio et al., 2022). These strategies include organics collection service at all agencies, designing zero waste buildings in all new construction, leveraging procurement requirements to min imize the purchase of non divertible goods, maximizing capture rates of recyclables at city agencies, and beneficially using biosolids (De Blasio et al., 2022). 4. Maximize the diversion of traditional recyclables, textiles, and other products Since New Yorke rs throw away about half of their recyclables, and 10% of the waste stream consists of textiles and other divertible products, the city will provide universal access to programs to divert these materials and motivate New Yorkers through education and outre ach (De Blasio et al., 2022). In addition, they will pursue increased compliance through expanded enforcement and strengthen demand for recyclable items by working with manufacturers to use recycled content in new products (De Blasio et al., 2022). They wi ll also expand the use of extended producer responsibility measures to keep more products out of landfills and continue to reduce the amount of non recyclable products in the waste stream (De Blasio et al., 2022).

PAGE 41

41 Finally, they will work with city and stat e partners to implement a ban on single use plastic bags and a fee on paper bags (De Blasio et al., 2022). 5. Transition New York City toward a circular economy New York City will partner with the private sector to design and market products that are reusable , repairable, or recyclable (De Blasio et al., 2022). They will create incentives and infrastructure for city businesses to use recycled materials to support the growth of closed loop recycling (De Blasio et al., 2022). The city will use policy, advocacy, procurement, and regulation to drive brands and product manufacturers to design for the most use possible (De Blasio et al., 2022). The city will expand the use of extended producer responsibility measures to keep more products out of landfills, raise cons umer awareness, explore new business models, and incorporate technological innovations (De Blasio et al., 2022). The analysis of New York City's zero waste plan found in OneNYC 2050 to determine its emphasis on the five aspects of zero waste plann ing is in Table 4.1 . Based on this analysis, New York City has considered all five aspects proposed by Zaman and Lehmann prominently enough to be an example of a zero waste planning city. Every recommendation had a slight, if not a primary emphasis, on the environmental aspect. The primary emphasis was the social aspect of the first recommendation to transition to mandatory organics collection citywide. The second recommendation to develop regional organics processing capacity to handle 1 million tons of fo od and yard waste per year primarily emphasizes the technological aspect. The third recommendation to reach zero waste across New York City government operations primarily emphasizes the political aspect with a slight social emphasis. The

PAGE 42

42 fourth recommenda tion to maximize the diversion of traditional recyclables, textiles, and other products is primarily environmental with a slight economic emphasis. Furthermore, the last recommendation to transition toward a circular economy is primarily economic with a sl ight political emphasis. Based on this analysis, environmental emphasis appeared the most in the recommendations, with 6 points; each of the social, political, economic, and technological emphases had 3 points. Case Study: San Francisco The 1800s in the Sa n Francisco Bay was a time for gold mining, but untreated factory waste and other types of waste began to make their way into the Bay causing toxic pollution (Carlsson, 2010). Between 1853 to 1884, 3,500 tons of mercury used in gold mining caused the first large toxic pollution in the Bay, and by 1900, the Bay was contaminated with untreated human and factory waste (Carlsson, 2010). For more than 30 years, San Francisco dumped garbage into the Bay at Brisbane, below San Bruno Mountain, creating a 600 acre l andfill, 40 feet deep (Carlsson, 2010). Waste management found its beginnings when Italian immigrants came to San Francisco in the mid 1800s looking for opportunities and began hauling garbage across San Francisco on horse drawn wagons for a fee, dumping t he garbage in the Bay , formed two companies: the Sunset Scavenger Company, which controlled the ntown (Barba, 2021; Carlsson, 2010). Both companies were given exclusive refuse collection licenses for the City of San Francisco, and these licenses are still held today (Recology, n.d.). A 1932 ordinance divided San Francisco into 97 garbage routes that were

PAGE 43

43 controlled by the two firms (Barba, 2021). In 1935, the Sunset Scavenger Company and the Sanitary Fill Company (Recology, n.d.). As San Francisco grew more rapidly throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Sanit ary Fill Company intended to keep up with the pace and develop disposal capacity for the increasingly large amount of refuse (Recology, n.d.). Leonard Stefanelli, former president of Sunset Scavenger Company, worked to unite the two firms based on their sh ared Italian heritage (Barba, 2021). In 1965, as part Gate Disposal & Recycling Company, which was reorganized as Norcal Solid Waste Systems again in 1983 following aims to ward expansion (Barba, 2021; Recology, n.d.). In 1986, Norcal was sold to its 570 employees and their Employee Stock Ownership purchased Envirocal, (formerly Sunset Scavenge r Company), and the merged owned companies (Barba, 2021; Recology, n.d.). In 2009, Norcal Waste Systems changed its name to Recology (Barba, 2021; Recology, n.d.). Recology currently operates so lid waste management in San Francisco. As of 2016, Recology employee owners served 127 communities throughout California, as well as in Oregon, Washington, and Nevada (Recology, n.d.). The firm is the only licensed refuse collector in San Francisco today, and runs a specialized composting and recycling operation, dumping only what cannot be saved in a landfill (Barba, 2021). more for reuse than it sends to landfills a success onl y a few other cities have

PAGE 44

44 achieved (Trickey, 2019). However, a pproximately 1,100 tons, or 120 garbage trucks, of waste efforts of the city (Recology, n.d.). Recology suggests that more than half of this material could be recycled or c omposted (Recology, n.d.). The City regulates the refuse (trash, recycling, and composting) collection system while Recology provides the collection service, with properties paying a monthly bill for the collection services they use (Recology, n.d.). A typ ical single family household in San Francisco pays an average of $40 a month for the weekly collection of two 32 gallon bins for recycling and compost, and one 16 gallon trash bin. (Recology, n.d.; Trickey, 2019). This monthly service fee also pays for oth er collection and disposal services, such as bulky item collection and the Household Hazardous Waste Program (Recology, n.d.). However, leaving notes with images of common items detailing how to sort them, and charging customers if recycling and composting bins are contaminated (Trickey, 2019). San Francisco's incentivized and mandated diversion policies have existed for decades, with pilot programs for pay as you throw initiatives and commercial food waste collection first instituted in the 1990s and continuing to expand since (Hanna, 2015). Cal ifornia's state government enforced the 'Waste Management Act' in 1989, requiring each county in the state to reduce 25% of its waste by 1995 and 50% of its waste by 2000 through landfill diversion. (Hanna, 2015; Smartcity, 2017). In 2001, the city also la unched 'The Fantastic Three,' corresponding to three different color waste bins for trash, recycling, and composting (Smartcity, 2017). San Francisco was the first U.S. city to implement three stream sorting for compost, recyclables, and landfill and did

PAGE 45

45 s o through outreach with images and the use of many different languages (Hanna, 2015; US EPA, 2013). Recycling and composting became mandatory in 2009, causing residents and businesses to compost more than they recycle today (Trickey, 2019). In 2002, San Fr ancisco adopted the goal of diverting 75% of its waste from landfills by 2010 and a long term goal of achieving zero waste and not using incineration (Smartcity, 2017; US EPA, 2013). The Environment Code is a set of environmental policies and legislation c onsolidated from the City's Ordinances initiated in 2003 (US EPA, 2013; Environment Code, n.d.). This Environment Code is updated to adopt new ordinances, like its mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance (US EPA, 2013; Environment Code, n.d.). San Fr ancisco's Climate Action Plan was first released in 2004 by the San Francisco Department of the Environment as the city's plan to achieve net zero GHG emissions and address equity, health, and economic issues (San Francisco Department of the Environment, 2 020). The city updated the plan in 2013 with progress, success stories, and an action outline to take (San Francisco Department of the Environment, 2020). However, the impacts of climate change have only further intensified, at the same time as many social and economic inequalities have become more pronounced, making them driving forces for the 2021 Climate Action Plan (San Francisco Department of the Environment, 2020). The city reset its zero waste goals found within the Climate Action Plan to reduce MSW generation by 15% and dispose of it by incineration or landfill by at least 50% below 2015 levels by 2030 (San Francisco Department of the Environment, 2020). City departments, residents, businesses, and organizations are the main stakeholders providing da ta for this development (San

PAGE 46

46 Francisco Department of the Environment, 2020). San Francisco's Climate Action Framework, 0 80 100 Roots, includes the vision to meet these zero emissions challenges and includes sending zero waste to landfill, having 80% of tr ips made by sustainable modes of transportation, using 100% renewable energy, and protecting and enhancing urban green spaces, the forest, and biodiversity (Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, n.d.). San Francisco had exceeded its goals even earlier than anti cipated by putting forth these initiatives, and by 2012 the city was recognized as a global leader in waste management (Smartcity, 2017). According to the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance (CNCA), San Francisco is an example of a city that has used aggressive climate goals for economic success, health improvements, and increased well being (Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, n.d.). However, despite its efforts, San Francisco has still struggled to reduce its waste. After 2012, more trash began being sent to landf ills due to spiking populations, increasing wealth and consumption, and increased use of plastic and packaging (Trickey, 2019). Nevertheless, as of 2019, the city reduced its carbon emissions by 41% and increased its economic growth 199% since its 1990 bas elines, all while the population and local economy have continued to grow (Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, n.d.). San Francisco's zero waste planning has contributed to the lowest level of landfill disposal in decades, with a mid 2013 rate of 80% diversi on of waste from the landfill (1,593,830 tons in 2010), up from 35% in 1990 (C40 Cities, 2016b). Through these measures, San Francisco has reached a 78% recycling rate, collected 300 tons of food scraps per day in the current most significant urban food sc raps composting program in

PAGE 47

47 the U.S., and decreased the use of plastic bags by 100 million per year (C40 Cities, 2016b). San Francisco's reduction in landfill waste resulted in GHG emissions savings, contributing toward the city's carbon reduction goal of 8 0% by 2050 (C40 Cities, 2016b). San Francisco currently diverts 80% of its waste from landfills with world class composting processes after the S.F. Environment Department had initially set a goal of zero waste by 2020 (Cohen, 2016). Although they have no t yet achieved this goal, the S.F. Environment Department noted that half of the waste placed in non recycle bins could be recycled, potentially driving the waste diversion rate up to 90% (Cohen, 2016). According to S.F. Environment's website, San Francisc o plans to advocate for state legislation and partner with producers to develop a producer responsibility system in which producers design better products and take responsibility for their entire life cycle, requiring take back and recycling (Cohen, 2016). San Francisco's political and social culture is a significant factor in contributing to the success of its zero waste planning, with people behaving as though recycling and reducing waste are critical social behaviors (Cohen, 2016). Homeowners usually r ecycle and compost effectively, while apartment buildings, offices, hospitals, universities, hotels, and some large restaurants are some of the largest waste producers in the city (Trickey, 2019). Under a new law, building owners would have to hire waste s orters if they fail an audit with trash needing to be 75% uncontaminated, recycling 90%, and compost 95% (Trickey, 2019). S.F. Environment Strategic Plan 2021 2023 The San Francisco Department of the Environment is a crucial stakeholder in promoting San F rancisco's zero waste efforts and was created in 1996 (San Francisco Department of the Environment, n.d.). The S . F . Environment website, controlled by the

PAGE 48

48 San Francisco Department of the Environment, has listed several policies adopted by the city related to zero waste (San Francisco Department of the Environment, n.d.). The S.F. Environment Strategic Plan 2021 2023 is San Francisco's plan to advance climate protection and enhance the quality of life for its residents (S.F. Environment, 2022). It builds on previous strategic plans since 2012, focusing on 3 4 years at a time (S.F. Environment, 2022). The plan includes six goals: (1) Advance Racial Equity, (2) Promote Healthy Communities & Ecosystems, (3) Lead on Climate Action, (4) Strengthen Community Resili ence, (5) Achieve Zero Waste and Zero Toxics, and (6) Amplify Community Action (S.F. Environment, 2022). Within each goal are sub goals, which have objectives or strategies. For this study, Goal 5 from the strategic plan, which pertains to zero waste, cont ains six strategies that will be the recommendations in the analysis. Goal 5 has two sub goals. The first sub goal is to reduce solid waste generation and disposal (S.F. Environment, 2022). Within that sub goal are the strategies to (1) increase source red uction, reuse, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste collection, (2) expand accessibility and structure of programs for the collection of hazardous products and materials, (3) keep San Francisco's refuse collection and processing infrastructure at the leading edge, and (4) maximize reuse and recovery of construction and demolition materials (S.F. Environment, 2022). The second sub goal promotes responsible consumption by San Francisco residents and businesses (S.F. Environment, 2022). Within that sub g oal are the strategies to (5) prevent food waste and (6) reduce the proliferation of non reusable materials and hazardous products (S.F. Environment, 2022). Based on the key metrics from the S.F. Strategic Plan 2021 2023, the city sends 1,500 tons of mater ial to the primary landfill on

PAGE 49

49 an average workday (S.F. Environment, 2022). Table 4 2 analyzes San Francisco's Strategic Plan recommendations based on the five aspects of zero waste planning suggested by Zaman and Lehmann . Based on this analysis, San Franc isco has considered all five aspects proposed by Zaman and Lehmann prominently enough to be considered an example of a zero waste planning city. Like New York City, every recommendation had a slight, if not a primary emphasis, on the environmental aspect. In terms of the first recommendation to transition to increase source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste collection, the primary emphasis was the social aspect with a slight emphasis on economics. The second recommendation to expa nd the accessibility and structure of programs for the collection of hazardous products and materials primarily emphasizes the social aspect and slightly emphasizes the political aspect. The third recommendation to keep San Francisco's refuse collection an d processing infrastructure at the leading edge primarily emphasizes the technological aspect with a slight economic emphasis. The fourth recommendation to maximize the diversion of traditional recyclables, textiles, and other products is primarily politic al with a slight economic emphasis. The fifth recommendation to prevent food waste is primarily social, with slight political and economic emphases. Finally, the last recommendation to reduce the proliferation of non reusable materials and hazardous produc ts is primarily environmental with a slight social emphasis. Based on this analysis, environmental emphasis again appeared the most in the recommendations with 7 points; social had 6, political had 5, economic 4, and technological emphasis had 3.

PAGE 50

50 Based on the totals from Tables 4 1 and 4 2, Tables 4 3 and 4 4 look at the total number of points both cities contributed to each of the five aspects and the total number of recommendations with a primary emphasis for both cities, respectively. In Table 4 3, the e nvironmental aspect received the most points while the technological aspect received the least points. In Table 4 4, the social aspect received the most primary emphasis within the plan s recommendations while the economic aspect received the least primary emphasi s. Regarding how the recommendations provided by both city plans, these policies and practices also fit within the circular economy model (Figure 2 4) and waste hierarchy model (Figure 2 5) found in the theoretical framework section. As far as the recommendations from both cities go, they tend to either directly mention or indirectly describe the processes that are a part of the circular economy cycle which affect the manufacture, packaging, use, end of life, waste generation, collection, recycling, and recovered resources. These themes tend to come up in most, if not all, of these recommendations either directly or indirectly. With that being said, these processes are focused on a waste hierarchy that creates efforts to avoid the production and cons umption of products as the most preferable solution, and disposal of those products as the final, and least preferable solution.

PAGE 51

51 T able 4 1 . Analysis of New York City z ero w aste p lan r ecommendations. Recommendation Env Soc Pol Econ Tech (1) Transition to mandatory organics collection city wide 1 2 0 0 0 (2) Develop regional organics processing capacity to handle 1 million tons of food and yard waste per year 1 0 0 0 2 (3) Reach zero waste across New York City government operations 1 1 2 0 0 (4) Maximize the diversion of traditional recyclables, textiles, and other products 2 0 0 1 0 (5) Transition New York City toward a circular economy 1 0 1 2 1 Total 7 6 5 4 2

PAGE 52

52 Table 4 z ero w aste p lan r ecommendations. Recommendation Env Soc Pol Econ Tech (1) Increase source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste collectio n 1 2 0 1 0 (2) Expand accessibility and structure of programs for collection of hazardous products and materials 1 2 1 0 0 (3) Keep San collection and processing infrastructure at the leading edge 1 0 0 1 2 (4) Maximize reuse and recovery of construction and demolition materials 1 0 2 1 0 (5) Prevent food waste 1 2 1 1 0 (6) Reduce the proliferation of non reusable materials and hazardous products 2 0 1 0 0 Total 7 6 5 4 2

PAGE 53

53 Table 4 emphasis totals. Recommendation Env Soc Pol Econ Tech New York, New York 6 3 3 3 3 San Francisco, California 7 6 5 4 2 Total 13 9 8 7 5 Table 4 Recommendation Env Soc Pol Econ Tech New York, New York 2 2 2 2 2 San Francisco, California 2 6 2 0 2 Total 4 8 4 2 4

PAGE 54

54 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSS ION This section will discuss the above case studies to interpret the findings, examine how the planning for these two cities has differed, and determine the best practices for zero waste planning. Application of the Literature in Findings Th e f indings of these comparative case studies connect to the literature review and research question through the conceptual framework propos ed by Zaman and Lehmann. Regarding the analysis based on the five aspects of zero waste planning, every recommendation slightly emphasized the environmental aspect if it was not the primary aspect, given the dynamic nature of the conceptual framework. Ther efore, this analysis considers the environmental aspect less because of its implied fundamental nature when considering zero waste plans, which aim to benefit the environment. Taking the same approach as Hanna in not considering the environmental aspect be cause of its implied emphasis, the social aspect had the most emphasis between both plans. Political, economic, and technological emphases followed in that order. On the other hand, the primary emphasis between both plans was on the social aspect. Therefor e, the environmental, political, and technological aspects had some primary emphasis within the recommendations, with economic aspects having the least amount of primary emphasis. The New York City recommendations offered a more balanced approach to all fi ve aspects, compared to San Francisco's, which had a more primary emphasis on its social aspect. It could be that New York City needs more aggressive legislation like that of San Francisco to see the same progress as the West coast. While New York City's

PAGE 55

55 p lan meets the requirements set by Zaman and Lehmann for a zero waste city, it still falls behind in its progress. The value of this analysis for San Francisco and New York City lies in the reassurance that there is no standard plan, and all zero waste plan s emphasize social practices and political reinforcement by their very nature. Additionally, the findings connect back to the histories and contexts provided throughout the literature review, providing new insights into the relationship between San Franci sco and New York City , and their respective states . For example , California and other West Coast states ha ve used zero waste planning initiatives for a longer time, created stricter laws, and created a more positive relationship to reducing, reusing, and r ecycling than their East Coast counterparts . New York consistently underperforms West Coast cities, like San Francisco, whose government has implemented stricter municipal waste requirements over the past few decades, yielding better diversion rates (Golde nberg & Dunn, 2022). Although San Francisco's waste management history is much shorter than New York City's, San Francisco has drastically improved its waste management over time. New York City is a highly dense city, and difficulties exist in determining how to collect and dispose of its trash (Galka, 2016). New York City is a case study due to the extensiveness of its waste problem, while San Francisco is a case study because it is a model city for zero waste planning. However, it is notably less dense th an New York City. With San Francisco considering apartments and buildings as the more difficult places to implement zero waste practices and landfill diversion techniques compared to single family homes, New York City may struggle to divert more waste beca use of its high density environment.

PAGE 56

56 There is a prominent achievement gap between San Francisco's 80% landfill diversion rate and New York's 16% diversion rate (Cohen, 2016). New York City and San Francisco share the same goal of achieving zero waste by 20 30. However, compared to San Francisco's 80% diversion rate, it is challenging to consider how New York City's zero waste goal can be achieved (Cohen, 2016). The culture in Northern California may be more thoughtful regarding waste disposal, while it appea rs New Yorkers do not care. However, successful landfill diversion could be due to San Francisco's effective legislation. While Recology audits San Francisco residents' trash and charges them for contaminated waste, New York City's waste bins can hold impr operly sorted waste without repercussions. There is a requirement for the widespread perception of waste prevention and minimization in a city attempting to control its waste, with cultural factors also influencing the extent to which citizens engage in co mposting, recycling, and landfill diversion tactics (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). For instance, where recycling and composting bins are more accessible than landfill bins, citizens are more likely to engage in such waste behavior (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2 021). Implications This research has contributed to the topic of zero waste and the circular economy. This topic is helpful for researchers seeking to learn about zero waste initiatives or for urban communities to consider best practices in their cities. However, the findings confirm a need to take a stricter approach to zero waste planning initiatives to not fall behind in the way New York City has consistently done. This study not only highlights the best practice recommendations cities can take to diver t their waste to landfills but also provides insight into what issues within those plans, specifically in the

PAGE 57

57 case of New York City, contribute to the failure of implementation. The finding s of this study do tend to agree with previous research regarding t he framework and recommendations for best practices; however, this study compares two drastically different cities wanting to achieve the same goal. This study only considers urban communities in the U.S.; however, the previous literature that inspired thi s topic included research on rural communities and places outside the U.S. Limitations This research study relied upon qualitative data to determine the general best practices for urban communities. Therefore, it was beyond the scope of the study to use a quantitative approach when deciding best practices. However, it is possible and likely necessary also to consider specific waste management provisions from a point of view that is not as holistic or comprehensive. In addition, with this being a more holist ic study, the significant differences between these two cities, place, diversity, and size made it challenging to draw legitimate comparisons between them. Most importantly, this study considered one plan from each city, selected based on comprehensiveness . Therefore, this study was limited in that it only considered the zero waste recommendations from policies would affect these municipal plans. This study uses only seco ndary sources and does not consider the opinions of residents in the cities, which could have offered further insight into the effectiveness of the waste management approaches listed in the study. The study's outcomes also included the notion that commerci al waste traders collect most of the waste generated in New York City, but no annual statistics are available (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021).

PAGE 58

58 Therefore, this study heavily relied on statistics from the DSNY, New York City's public waste management agency, w hich only collects 25% of waste in the city. Final Words on Findings Cities looking to apply ambitious long term programs to reduce waste disposal, or strive for zero waste, can learn from San Francisco's and New York City's experiences. Cities must establ ish an efficient MSW management system to avoid adverse environmental, health, and social impacts like land and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, disease, and a feeling of social exclusion (Lee Geiller & Kütting, 2021). Good waste governance should in clude well functioning institutions and public policies and the participation of its stakeholders. New York City announced a zero waste aspiration by 2030 in 2015 while trucking most of its waste outside the city, highlighting how impractical the system is . While a system of recycling facilities, waste to energy plants, and changed behavior could be a cost effective and environmentally beneficial waste management system for New York City, it is uneconomical to put these facilities within the city (Cohen, 20 16). Instead, cities that face an increased need for resource optimization and constraints on landfill space, fuel consumption, and a need for improved service quality should identify clear targets to guide strategies (C40 Cities, 2016a).

PAGE 59

59 CHAPT ER 6 CONCLUSIONS analyze the emphasis of their recommendations on the five aspects of municipal zero waste considerations environmental, social, political, economic, and technological provided b y Zaman and Lehmann. The analysis helped to identify the best practices for zero waste planning in urban communities in the U.S. The histories, zero waste plans, and progress reports found in both cases provided only some context for developing zero waste best practices, with the analysis of the plan recommendations according to the five aspects guiding the findings the most. This study used the circular economy theory to describe an economic system that supports zero waste initiatives. The expectation that global MSW will increase makes the circular economy particularly important in place of a linear economy. Zero waste planning in San Francisco and New York City is significant, with both cities embracing big goals and a measured approach. However, the pat h for every city is not direct, and there is no current formula for the incremental achievement of zero waste. One question remains whether zero waste is a realistic goal for communities to try to achieve, with no city having achieved zero waste despite ef forts. This answer varies among communities, and for now, San Francisco maintains its ~80% landfill diversion rate while New York City maintains its ~16% diversion rate. Zero waste is not expected to be a viable option but should be considered a model or a spiration and can be a way to think about resource use and waste management instead of an absolute target (Cohen, 2016). While there is much to learn from communities like San

PAGE 60

60 Francisco, there is value in studying communities in their earlier phases of zer o waste planning, such as New York City. Recommendations for Best Practices As more people move to cities, more opportunities exist for efficient production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services (Cohen, 2016). Therefore, pursuing a comprehen sive approach to this problem is crucial to sustainable solid waste management. These best practice recommendations intend to provide urban communities in the U.S. with ways to transform their waste management practices to waste less, acknowledging that MS W will increase in the U.S. There exist systematic strategies for zero waste planning. Programs such as pay as you throw, multi stream collection, and incentivized diversion are everyday discourses among experts and advocates. However, individual communiti es must decide to implement these measures. This final list of best practices for zero waste is below. Changing manufacturing and packaging processes toward life cycle oriented practices This recommendation for best practices considers the theoretical fram ework regarding the circular economy. The ideas of the circular economy were directly stated n, manufacture, and package products for consumption. As suggested throughout the literature review, it is critical for a city striving for zero waste to make this process as sustainable as possible by reusing materials, limiting the number of packaging ma terials, and creating valuable returns to the environment. The goal is to extend the life cycle of products so that the process is more circular than linear.

PAGE 61

61 Organic scraps/food curbside collections reaching many homes Since organic materials in landfills contribute to increased methane GHG emissions, it is critical to divert as much of these materials as possible. New York City and San Francisco have implemented a form of organic waste collection to reach as many people as possible. As in the case of San F rancisco, enforcement of the collection of organic materials through local mandates has caused the city to divert most of its organics from landfills, with the city composting more than it recycles. This best practice recommendation is necessary for reduci ng GHG emissions. Recycling, composting, and trash bins throughout cities. Finally, this recommendation considers the three stream sorting techniques found in San Francisco. While New York City has attempted to implement its version of this technique, it d oes not include compost bins for every resident. Additionally, New York City does not enforce cooperation in the same way that San Francisco does. With Recology charging a monthly fee for all waste pickup and more for extra or contaminated waste, residents are more inclined to sort waste and throw fewer items away. Additionally, San Francisco uses universal images instead of words to show its residents how to sort specific materials. On the other hand, New York City residents have no incentive to sort their waste correctly, nor a disincentive to put recyclable or organic waste in a landfill bin since the city does not charge its residents for their waste . Further Research This study concludes that zero waste is likely not achievable, as no city has achieved it yet. However, cities like New York City and San Francisco still strive to do so. Since there are no set plans nor specific steps for a city to take when transitioning toward zero waste, this study intended to look at waste management from a holistic

PAGE 62

62 len s. However, further studies should take a more detailed approach to the topic and include waste from heavy industrial, clinical, agricultural, radioactive, and mining waste for a more comprehensive approach, as this study excluded them. In addition, it wou ld be necessary for future studies to consider specific waste management provisions, such as transport of goods and services and waste collection services, instead of looking for general best practices. While this study broadened the research gap regarding best practices for zero waste planning in urban communities in the U.S., there remains a gap in the research for private waste management companies. For example, in the case of New York City, this thesis did not consider its private waste collection servi ce and only briefly described how the city managed its waste through a public private partnership.

PAGE 63

63 LIST OF REFERENCES Barba, M. (2021, October 31). built its monopoly and could possibly lose it . San Francisco Examiner. https://www.sfexaminer.com/archives/recology how san francisco s garbage giant built its monopoly and could possibly lose it/article_da3d7a6b 1068 5a9f a20e 18de9da366cc.html Barnard, A. (2020, January 29). 7 Reasons The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/nyregion/nyc recycling.html Benedetti, A., Zu cker, S., & Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. (2018, July 11). Consumers, Warhol, and 1960s America . Smarthistory.org. https://smarthistory.org/seeing america 2/warhol coca co la2/ . Bradford, A., Frontier Group, Broude, S., Toxics Action Center, Truelove, A., & U.S. PIRG Education Fund. (2018, February 12). Trash in America: Moving from Destructive Consumption to a Zero Waste System . Frontier G roup. https://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/trash america C40 Cities. (2016a). C40 Good Practice Guides: New York City Zero Waste NYC . https://www.c40.org/case studies/c40 g ood practice guides new york city zero waste nyc/ C40 Cities. (2016b). C40 Good Practice Guides: San Francisco Zero Waste by 2020 . https://www.c40.org/case studies/c40 good practice guides san francisco zero waste by 2020/ Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance. (n.d.). San Francisco . Carbonneutralcities.org. Retrieved July 29, 2022, fr om https://carbonneutralcities.org/cities/san francisco/#:~:text=Through%20collective%20action%2C%20San% 20Francisco% 20will%20Net%20Zero Carlsson, C. (Ed.). (2010). . FoundSF. https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=San_Franc isco%27s_Trash Cohen, S. (2016, March 28). Zero Waste in San Francisco and New York: A Tale of Two Cities . HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.c om/entry/zero waste in san francis_b_9556380 De Blasio, B. (2017). 1.5°C: Aligning New York City with the Paris Climate Agreement . https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/sustainability/downloads/pdf/publications/1point5 AligningNYCwithParisAgrmt 02282018_web.pdf De Blasio, B., Fuleihan, D., Williams, D., & Zarrilli, D. (2022). OneNYC 2050 . https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/reports resources/

PAGE 64

64 DSNY. (2022). About DSNY . https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/site/about Environment Code. (n.d.). Sfenvironment.org Our Home. Our City. Our Planet. Ret rieved July 24, 2022, from https://sfenvironment.org/policy/environment code Fogarassy , C., & Finger, D. (2020). Theoretical and Practical Approaches of Circular Economy for Business Models and Technological Solutions. Resources , 9 (6), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9060076 Galka, M. (2016, October 27). Where Does New York City Garbage Go? [An Animated Journey of 3 Million Tons of Waste] . Metrocosm . http://metrocosm.com/where new york garbage goes/ \ Goldenberg, S., & Dunn, D. (2022, April 22). New York City fails zero waste pledge. kward. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/22/zero waste new yorkers recycle 00026708 Hanna, M. (2015). From Star t to Zero: The Initiation of Zero Waste Planning in Teton County, Wyoming [Review of From Start to Zero: The Initiation of Zero Waste Planning in Teton County, Wyoming]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/32248/HANNA MASTERSREPORT 2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Higgs, K. (2021, January 11). A Brief History of Consumer Culture . The MIT Press Reader. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/a brief h istory of consumer culture/ Kaiser Schatzlein, R. (2021, April 24). The History of New York, Told Through Its Trash . The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page turner/the history of new york told through its trash Lee Geiller, S., & Kütting, G. (2021). From management to stewardship: A comparative case study of waste gover nance in New York City and Seoul Metropolitan City. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 164 , 105110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105110 Lehma nn, S. (2011). Optimizing Urban Material Flows and Waste Streams in Urban Development through Principles of Zero Waste and Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability , 3 (1), 155 183. https://doi.org/10.3390/su301 0155 Martin, H. (2014). Consumer Culture/Materialism Lecture . YouTube; Glendale Community College. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BuVopxGbJ0&t=1251s New York City Department of City Planning. (2020). Population . NYC Planning. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/planning level/nyc population/nyc population.page

PAGE 65

65 OneNYC 2050 2022 PROGRESS REPORT. (20 22). https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/reports resources/ PBS. (2019). The Rise of American Consumerism | American Experience | PBS . Pbs.org; WGBH Educational Foundation. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/tupperware consumer/ Recology. (n.d.). Our History. Recology. Retrieved August 6, 2022, from https://www.recology.com/about us/our history/ Rosengren, C. (2022, August 9). New York City rolling out . Waste Dive. https://www.wastedive.com/news/new york curbside organics adams tisc h compost/629172/ San Francisco Department of the Environment. (n.d.). Policies Related to Zero Waste . SF Environment. https://sfenvironment.org/zero waste legislation San Francisco Department of the Environment. (2020). San Francisco Climate Action Plan . SF Environment. https://sfenvironment.org/climateplan S . F . Environment. (2022). SF Environment Strategic Plan . SF Environment Strategic Plan. ht tps://plan.sfenvironment.org/ Smartcity. (2017, October 13). Innovation Is The Name For San Francisco . Smart City Press. https://smartcity .press/san francisco most innovative city in us/ Trickey, E. (2019, November 21). . POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/21/san francisco recycling sustainability trash landfills 070075 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Data Profiles . Census.gov. https://data.census.gov US EPA. (2013, March 1). Zero Waste Case Study: San Francisco. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/transforming waste tool/zero waste case study san francisco U S EPA. (2018, October 26). National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling | US EPA . US EPA; US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/facts and figures about materials waste and recycling/national overview facts and figures materials Werman, Paige G. (2016). A Wasteful Disposition: How A Consumerist Society Can Slowly Become Zero Waste. Student Theses 2015 Present. 28. https://fordham.bepress.com/environ_2015/28

PAGE 66

66 World Bank. (2016). Trends in Solid Waste Management . Worldbank.org. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what a waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html Zaman, A. U., and Lehmann, S. (2011). Challenges and Opportunities in Transforming Challenges , 2 (4), 73 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe2040073

PAGE 67

67 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Catherine Stout began attending the University of Florida in 2016. She graduated with a dual undergraduate degree in s ustainability s tudies and a nthropology and minors in Spanish and u rban and r egional pl anning in 2020. Catherine began studying in the began working on her thesis in late 2021.