Improving the Drop-off Recycling Cooperative: Forsyth County

ASME Early Career Technical Journal 2011 ASME Early Career Technical Conference, ASME ECTC November 4 5, Atlanta, Georgia USA Improving the Drop-off Recycling Cooperative: Forsyth County Antonio Serna, Adeel Khalid Southern Polytechnic State University Marietta, GA, USA ABSTRACT Along with reducing consumption, recycling the waste is humanity s best means to counter the damage we have been doing to the earth for centuries. There are several communities that provide recycling facilities at the country, city, and county levels. The focus of this research is to investigate an approach for improving the drop-off recycling cooperative in Forsyth County, Georgia. The current operations and methodologies of the county s recycling centers are explored. Research conducted also provides the methodologies of other cooperatives that were in search of improvement methods for their recycling communities. Alternatives are then designed that are applicable for the county s recycling centers depending on their operations and methodologies. The alternatives are evaluated on criteria found by several studies to increase recycling. The results are utilized for recommendations to the county for implementation. The alternatives include new programs for the recycling center as well as informative documents to provide to residents. The costs and benefits of each alternative are explained for applicability to other communities in search of improving their recycling cooperatives. INTRODUCTION COUNTY HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Forsyth County is part of the Atlanta metropolitan area in North Georgia. The county has experienced rapid and consistent growth in the past decade. It has been one of the top ten fastest growing counties of the United States for several years. As more resident arrive, more waste is produced. According to the EPA a person generates on average 4.62 pounds of waste per day and only 1.54 pounds of this is recycled (EPA, 2007). The increase in recycling from the previous year was only 2.7 percent (EPA, 2007). Even if the waste quantity numbers were kept constant and recycling increased at a constant 2.7 percent rate the majority of individual s waste would still go to the landfill for the next 16 years. In Forsyth County it would mean that in sixteen years over a million pounds per day would still be going to the landfill as shown in Table 1. Landfills in the county or neighboring counties would certainly be filling up at a faster pace. The Clean Air Council [2009] estimates US landfills are closing at the rate of one per day. It would behoove the county to encourage more recycling by the residents. Table 1. Population and Recycling Forecasting Estimated Population +6.29%/yr Waste produced @ 4.62 /person Recycling (lbs.)/person +2.70%/yr Recycled Percentage Cumulative Year pounds Recycled To Landfill (in Landfill) 2009 178,631 825,275 1.54 275,092 33% 550,183 -- 2010 189,867 877,185 1.58 300,290 34% 576,895 1,702,460 2011 201,809 932,360 1.62 327,796 35% 604,564 1,809,545 2012 214,503 991,005 1.67 357,821 36% 633,184 1,923,365 2013 227,996 1,053,339 1.71 390,597 37% 662,743 2,044,345 2014 242,336 1,119,595 1.76 426,375 38% 693,220 2,172,934 2015 257,579 1,190,017 1.81 465,430 39% 724,587 2,309,612 2016 273,781 1,264,869 1.86 508,063 40% 756,806 2,454,886 2017 291,002 1,344,429 1.91 554,601 41% 789,829 2,609,299 2018 309,306 1,428,994 1.96 605,401 42% 823,593 2,773,423 2019 328,761 1,518,878 2.01 660,855 44% 858,023 2,947,872 2020 349,441 1,614,415 2.06 721,388 45% 893,027 3,133,293 2021 371,420 1,715,962 2.12 787,466 46% 928,496 3,330,377 2022 394,783 1,823,896 2.18 859,596 47% 964,300 3,539,858 2023 419,614 1,938,619 2.24 938,334 48% 1,000,285 3,762,515 2024 446,008 2,060,558 2.30 1,024,284 50% 1,036,274 3,999,177

OPERATIONS REVIEW The majority of the residents have private curbside pickup for their waste and recycling but the county does not require the private companies to include recycling in their service. Any regulation to require them may be difficult to pass. The city of Cumming does not provide recycling in their public garbage pickup from the solid waste department. Unless that is remedied, requiring private companies to include recycling would only be frowned upon. The county does provide dropoff recycling facilities for residents who wish to participate in recycling. Currently, the county has three recycling facilities for its residents. The recycling centers take the usual recycling items such as plastics, newspapers, glass, and cardboard. This has been successful for the past few years but more recycling need to be done. Although the recycling centers are in the same county, they do not all accept the same type of items. The three recycling centers are Tolbert Street Recycling Center, Old Atlanta Recycling Center, and Coal Mountain Recycling Center. Tolbert Street Recycling Center is located in the center of the county and is the oldest of the recycling centers. The center recycles paper, plastics of types 1 and 2, motor oil, cooking oil, alkaline and rechargeable batteries, printer cartridges, cell phones, clothing and shoes, food and beverage glass, aluminum, steel and tin, plastic bags, and books. The Old Atlanta Recycling Center is located in the southern part of the county and is the second oldest recycling center. The center recycles paper, plastics of types 1 and 2, motor oil, cooking oil, alkaline and rechargeable batteries, printer cartridges, cell phones, clothing and shoes, food and beverage glass, aluminum, steel and tin, plastic bags, and books. The Coal Mountain Recycling Center is located in the northern part of the county and is the most recently opened recycling center. The center recycles paper, plastics of types 1 and 2, motor oil, cooking oil, alkaline and rechargeable batteries, printer cartridges, cell phones, clothing and shoes, food and beverage glass, aluminum, steel and tin, plastic bags, and books. This center, unlike the other two, recycles scrap metal and accepts tires for a nominal of $3 per tire and $15 for on a rim. All three recycling centers accept bagged household trash for nominal fees. There is no minimum bag size. The maximum bag size is 32 gallons. The cost per bag is 25 cents for recycling customers and 1 dollar for non-recycling customers. There is a limit of 5 trash bags per day or there is a charge of $2 per bag for every bag over the 5 bag limit. The centers are run by Keep Forsyth County Beautiful (KFCB), which is a separate department from the solid waste division of the county. KFCB runs the facilities and educates the public on issues regarding solid waste and recycling. They also raise funds to extend the services provided and sponsor events through volunteers only. The recycling centers are staffed with only one hired employee per center. Volunteers doing community service or sent by their probation officers contribute to the recycling center operations. Recycled items are either transported or picked up by different cooperative partners. About half of the recycled items at the recycling centers are picked up. Items picked up include paper, motor oil, batteries, printer cartridges, clothing, shoes, cooking oil, books, scrap metal, and tires. The items that have to be transported include plastics, glass, aluminum cans, steel and tin, cardboard, plastic bags, and cell phones (KFCB, 2009). The county does generate funds from some of the material that they transport. This includes plastics, aluminum cans, steel and tin, cardboard, and plastic bags. The county is allowed to have a certain level of contaminants in each type of material so a perfectly separated load is not necessary. As long as the contaminants are not at an extreme level, the material purchaser will continue to take the materials from the county. Table 2 shows the county number for recycling in 2008. Table 2. Forsyth County Recycling 2008 Figures. Pounds 3,923,831 Material Total of all remaining materials at 3 Recycling Centers 71,575 Christmas Trees 46,211 Electronics 1,212 Print Cartridges 5,580 Tires (estimated at 20 lbs each) About seventeen types of items are recycled but as noted, not all the same items are recycled at all the facilities. The cooperative may benefit from recycling the same materials at all the facilities. In this research, we analyze the county s current recycling system by evaluating the overall process, internal procedures, materials logistics, recycling partners, and recycling center layout with a goal of improving recycling opportunities for county residents. Through the use of systems engineering techniques and methodologies, the recycling operations are analyzed, alternatives are researched and analyzed and alternative programs are designed to improve the recycling cooperative of the county. ALTERNATIVES RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES USED IN OTHER COOPERATIVES A study conducted by the United States Government Accountability Office in 2006 identified additional efforts that could increase municipal recycling. The study gathered information from across the country to find key practices that are being used to increase recycling in cities. In summary, there were several general practices. They include, making recycling convenient and easy for the residents, offering financial incentives for recycling, such as allowing residents who produce less waste through recycling to use smaller garbage cans and pay lower fees, and conducting public education and outreach (GAO report, 2006). Other practices also involved

targeting a wide range of materials for recycling and extending recycling programs to the commercial sector. Most of the recycling coordinators interviewed considered a convenient and easy-to-use recycling program to be the most important factor in increasing recycling. A random telephone survey was conducted in Kansas to learn more about the community and how could recycling be increased (ETC Institute, 2005). Most of the people surveyed thought that it was important to recycle but only two-thirds had indicated they had a bin from the city for the curbside recycling program. The reasons given were that they were not aware of where to get one, they have been too busy to get one, and not interested in the program. Seventy nine percent of those surveyed said that their residence did some type of recycling. The top three reasons residents of the city do not recycle were that they do not have a bin for recycling, and they do not think recycling is necessary, and they do not know enough about the city s program. The top three reasons the residents stated would encourage them to recycle were if there were incentives from the city, they increased the frequency of recycling pickups to weekly versus bi-weekly, and they were provided with additional bins to store recyclable materials. This study stresses the major points found in the GAO report regarding convenience, incentives, and education about recycling. One of the major aspects involved in recycling is the education. Residents don t know what can be recycled and where items can be recycled. When it s not convenient or involves no incentives they are less likely to get involved. New York City, which recycles anything from food scraps to containers to yard trimmings, educates their residents through its website, mailing, television, commercials, and advertisement on public transportation (GAO report, 2006). Minneapolis, Minnesota recycles typical recyclables like aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and household batteries and they educate their residents through inserts in the utility bills, annual recycling calendars, community events, and parades (GAO report, 2006). Austin, Texas and Chicago, Illinois educate their residents through television, radio, billboard ads, school programs, and press events. Denver, Colorado educates the public through television and radio ads, ads on trash trucks, flyers, brochures, website, and public meetings. There are countless methods of educating the public. The main idea should be high visibility so that residents will see it and acknowledge without having to go look it up or call anyone. The less effort it takes and the more convenient it is the more likely they will participate in recycling. Another important factor to consider is compensation. At times, all some residents need is the knowledge that they are helping keep their carbon footprint down but other residents need more incentives. They want to be rewarded one way or another. Minneapolis, Minnesota awards their recycling resident a $7 credit on their monthly garbage bill for households that recycle (GAO report, 2006). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has a program that gives each household up to $25 per month in retail coupons based on the weight of their recyclables (GAO report, 2006). Other cities include the recycling households in a contest each month (EPA, 1994). Through another approach, other cities have started charging for garbage based on the weight or on the size of the garbage can. The incentive is that if they have less garbage, they pay less since they re-route their waste to recycling. A program that exists in several states is the cash deposit incentive, bottle bills. If residents take their containers back, they will receive the deposit for the container. States that currently have bottle bills report higher recycling rates for these containers than states without them (GAO report, 2006). Yet another factor, noted as one of the most important one, involves the convenience and ease of recycling. Residents want it to be extremely convenient for them to recycle if they are not being well compensated for the effort. An EPA study found that providing a curbside and drop-off collection of recyclables increases recycling rates because of the ease of recycling for the residents (EPA, 1994). A very convenient system for residents is curb-side recycling on the same day as garbage pickup. Because this system keeps it simple for the residents, it was shown that cities with this system had higher rates of recycling than other cities with different recycling days (EPA, 1994). For curb-side recycling, cities such as Atlanta, Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and San Francisco, California have implemented single-stream recycling for their residents (GAO, 2006). The City of Griffin in Georgia also implemented single-stream recycling and won several awards including Best Collection System in 2007 (KGSB, 2009). In single-stream recycling, the residents do not have to separate the recyclables. They are all placed in a one single container. This method of recycling is very convenient compared to others that require newspapers or glass to be separated into bags or where all recyclables are required to be separated into 3, 4, or 5 containers. In a study by the EPA, recycling participation rates were 75% lower for cities that required separation into 5 containers (EPA, 1994). The same study reported that the convenience factor included targeting a wide range of materials for recycling and providing an adequate container for the residential recyclables (EPA, 1994). Many cities also have drop off facilities for residents opting out of curbside services or who do not have recycling services provided in their area. Cities such as Atlanta, Georgia; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington have drop off locations for their residents (EPA, 1994). Establishing recycling depots or drop-off sites is part of providing a convenient collection service for many reasons. The benefits of drop off facilities include being able to provide a wider range of items accepted as recyclables. Communities with some of the highest recycling numbers are communities that include a wider range of materials to recycle (EPA, 1994). It also significantly supplements to the overall recycling rate rural communities where residents primarily self haul their garbage. The cities of Bowdoinham, Maine and Peterborough, New Hampshire

recovered 43 and 42 percent of their residential waste through drop off locations strategically placed for convenience of recycling (EPA, 1994). This demonstrates drop off convenience can lead to a larger percentage of recovered materials in communities with self-hauling residents. Yet another method of drop off convenience known as block corner recycling is utilized in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The program allows residents to take their recyclable materials to designated street corners for weekly or biweekly collection where the city crew picks it up over a 3 hour period (EPA, 1994). Revenue from the program is also returned to the neighborhood for community projects. TECHNICAL ISSUES ASSUMPTIONS AND GROUND RULES The recycling improvement does involve several assumptions and ground rules. Improvements can be performed to a certain extent. One of the assumptions is that there will be no one hired for any of the programs or alternatives involved in the recycling improvement project. The cost of hiring one individual would be $30,000 or more and the recycling centers cannot support that as funds are minimally allocated by the county board of commissioners (Wright, 2009). Two other assumptions are that there will be no new curbside recycling programs or any new recycling center locations involved in this project. As with the previous assumption the funds involved are too great to be considered by the recycling centers. The ground rules involved are that if any new program is started it shall only consider utilizing volunteers. If the attendant is to participate it shall be minimal participation as to not deter them from their tasks currently assigned to them. MEASURES OF MERIT The overall project needs to improve recycling rates within the drop off centers with minimal cost and minimal effort by the attendants involved. The measures of merits are mainly qualitative measures. Each alternative shall be considered in respect to how well they cover the three aspects that are found to increase recycling by the GAO study (GAO, 2006). The factors include convenience, incentives, and education. The more an alternative possess an improvement factor the more successful the project will be. Some alternative will possess the improvement factors to a larger degree and those can carry a larger weight for implementation. DETAILED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN DESIGN, RETURNS, AND BENEFITS The alternatives gathered from communities around the country can be used to improve the recycling cooperative in the county. Although not all are directly applicable, the alternatives can be used to create new programs, new techniques, and new methods that will encourage residents of the county to recycle more of their household waste. The alternatives generated for the county are focused on the three aspects that were found by the GAO study to improve recycling in communities around the country, convenience, incentives, and education (GAO, 2006). An alternative for the county that would increase education is improved signage. The current signage in the centers is not inadequate, but some improvements would aid in educating the residents when visiting the recycling centers. The idea for signage is high visibility considering the human factors of the visual system. The county does have small flyers for those who ask, but clear and highly visible signage would do more for educating the residents as they stop by to recycle their materials. In a study conducted at the Tolbert recycling center, many of the residents were not aware that scrap metal is recycled in the Coal Mountain center as 5 out of 23 surveyed suggested adding scrap metals to the type of material recycled in the county (Serna, 2009). Here is where the signage should clearly include what is recycled in that center as well as what items are recycled in other centers that are not recycled there. This alternative tackles two of the three points found in the GAO study. It tackles educating the public about recycling within the county and creates convenience for the residents as they will not have to put forth any effort into finding out what other items are recyclable within the county. Another alternative to educate the residents about recycling includes creating a recycling directory of specific items and nearby locations where they are accepted for recycling (Fresno County, 2009). The directory should include items recycled in the centers as well as items not recycled in the centers which at times are hard to recycle items. The directory listing should include, minimally, the specific item (e.g. Styrofoam), the address, city, and phone number of where it is accepted for recycling. It should also include whether there is a fee for accepting the items; some location charge for recycling the items such as tires. If possible, two or more locations should be included for the convenience of the residents. The locations of where to recycle the specific items should also be verified frequently as to not give residents incorrect information and cause them to lose credibility of the directory information. The directory can be printed and placed in each of the recycling centers offices. As the residents stop by and bring something that is not recyclable at the center, they can look up in the directory where to take the material instead. It can also be included in the website for residents wishing to access it through the internet at any time. This directory will help in educating the public on where to take hard to recycle items and add to the convenience of their experience for cases where they stop by and don t know where to take items they brought into the center. A third education focused alternative is to send out a recycling information magnet for residents to locate on their refrigerator. Refrigerator magnets are highly visible and do not just get thrown away like flyers since they do have the utility of holding pictures or notes on refrigerator doors. Most of the household waste is produced in kitchen area. The magnets will do much in education. They will inform residents as to what is

recycled. They will help resident re-visit the idea of recycling. They will help them know where to go when items are only accepted at a certain center. They will inform residents of any new programs at the recycling centers. This alternative will be an effective method of informing residents who do not visit the recycling centers of where and what items are recyclable, items that they may just be including in their waste. If they see a convenience and incentive in the information, they will be encouraged to re-think recycling in their county. For ease of handling and delivery, the magnets can be included in their county water bills as was done for recycling inserts in a public outreach effort in Minneapolis, Minnesota (GAO, 2006). In an effort to increase convenience for the residents, a fourth alternative considered is expanding the variation of items recycled at each of the recycling centers. As an EPA study found, the wider the range of materials accepted for recycling the higher the recycling rates will be for the county (EPA, 1994). This alternative considers the expansion of scrap metal and tires recycling. Currently, scrap metal and tires are only accepted at the Coal Mountain center and the expansion would allow residents to recycle these two materials at the Tolbert and Old Atlanta centers. Since the scrap metal and tires are currently picked up by a partner in recycling, this alternative would only need containers and an agreement for the additional locations. The convenience factor of not having to drive to a different recycling center would increase the recycling of these items. The fifth alternative involves a new program that would offer a Single Stream Recycling Bin (SSRB) to residents willing to participate in a pilot program. The pilot program involves only the recycling center with the largest count of volunteers, Tolbert center (Wright, 2009), as they will do the sorting of the bins. The SSRB pilot program process includes providing a recycling bin to the residents with a deposit. The residents take the bin and place all their household recyclable materials in that bin without need for separation. As the residents visit the recycling center to dispose of their waste, all they do for their recycling is empty their SSRB items into a special container for the pilot program. They can then drive out of the recycling center as opposed to the current situation where they have to pre-sort at home or pre-sort before they drop them off at distinct containers at the recycling center. Essentially, this would become a single stream drive-thru recycling. As the residents empty their bins into the special container, the volunteers take the items and separate the materials into the large distinct recycling containers. The volunteers would be trained when they arrived. This training would be very beneficial for reducing the level of contaminants that the residents normally drop into the recycling containers. Keeping the levels of contaminants low is a must for the county as the payment received from the processing companies can be reduced for high level of contaminants (Wright, 2009). The SSRB would be designed to be wide and fit inside most vehicle trunks for ease in transporting. The design would also include information on the outer walls of the bin denoting what types of items are recycled in each recycling center. For households with large amount of recyclables, they have the option of acquiring two or more SSRBs, as long as the deposit is placed. For the pilot program, the sorting can only be done on SSRBs that were acquired from the county. The main purpose for the SSRB with volunteer sorting is to increase the convenience and simplicity in recycling for the county residents. Single stream recycling increases recycling rates as was shown in the curbside programs in recycling in Atlanta, Georgia (GAO, 2004) and Griffin, Georgia (KGSB, 2009). The advantage of the county providing the actual bin is that the county can purchase the bins through quantity discounts and in turn just ask for a deposit for the bin. The county provided bins also help keep track of those whose recyclable items can be placed in the special container. This may encourage more individuals to acquire an SSRB when they see the convenience involved. The SSRB takes a role in two of the three aspects found in the GAO study, convenience and education. The final alternative includes an SSRB as well but with an added bonus to the pilot program. The SSRB functions just as in the previous alternative, but in this alternative, the bin includes a serial number on the outside of the bin. The serial number is used for tracking and collecting valuable recycling participation data. In addition to collecting data, the serial number is used to award entries into a contest. The contest can involve different items or gift cards to retail stores. The process involves the resident giving their serial number to the attendant when they drop off their recyclables. As they drop off more recyclables, they earn more entries into the raffles. This alternative encompasses the three factors found to increase recycling in a community. The single stream aspect covers convenience. The information the side of the bin covers the educational portion. And the raffle aspect cover the incentive that many resident look for when recycling. The cost is minimal as with the previous SSRB alternative, but it does involve either acquiring funds for the awarded items or donations of gift cards from retailers. This alternative involves more tasks for the recycling center but as it covers all three aspects of recycling improvement the benefits can be greater than any of the other alternatives. A summary of the alternatives can be found in Table 3. EVALUATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES The evaluation of the alternatives involves a decision matrix to conclude which of the alternatives have the higher benefits in implementation. The first step involves relatively scoring each of the alternatives on how well they implement the improvement factors. The scores can fall anywhere from 0 to 10. Cost is also included and the higher the relative cost of the alternative the larger the score. In the end, a higher cost score will not benefit the alternative. Table 4 shows the scores assigned to each of the alternatives.

Table 3. Alternatives Summary Alternative Characteristics Signage Improvement Include items recycled at location, items recycled at other locations, items to inquire about (Directory is referenced here). Recycling Directory Include items recycled at recycling centers, hard to recycle items recycling locations, calendar of recycling events. Magnetic Information Less likely to be disregarded, than flyers, highly visible in kitchen, and delivery through mail to minimize cost. Expand Material Variety Expand tires, scrap metals, and other item: carpet, appliances, Styrofoam. Single Stream Recycling Bin Start pilot program, provide bin with deposit, residents with bin empty bin in special program container, and use trained volunteers. Single Stream Recycling Bin Start pilot program, provide bin with deposit, residents with bin empty bin in and Contest special program container, and use trained volunteers. Include a contest to provide resident with monthly awards and prices for recycling. Table 4. Scoring Alternatives Alternative 1- Signage Improvement Alternative 2- (Recycling Directory Alternative 3- Magnetic Information Alternative 4- Expanding Variation Alternative 5- SSRB Alternative 6- SSRB & Contest Convenience Incentives Education Cost 0 0 8 6 5 0 6 3 2 0 9 4 7 0 2 3 9 0 5 6 9 8 5 7 Table 5. Results of Decision Matrix Convenience Incentives Education Cost Totals Alternative 1- Signage Improvement 0 0 24-12 12 Alternative 2- (Recycling Directory 25 0 18-6 37 Alternative 3- Magnetic Information 10 0 27-8 29 Alternative 4- Expanding Variation 35 0 6-6 35 Alternative 5- SSRB 45 0 15-12 48 Alternative 6- SSRB & Contest 45 32 15-14 78

Each of the factors involved is assigned a weighted value. The weighted values are established relative to the importance of the criteria. The convenience factors is assigned a weight of 5 as it was found to be the most important factor in increasing recycling (GAO, 2009). The incentive factor is assigned a weight of 4 as it is the factor that will convince many residents to recycle and has proven to be successful in the bottle bills that exist in several states (GAO, 2009). The education factor is assigned a weight of 3 as it s the less effective of the three. On the other hand the cost factor is assigned a -2 to denote that if an alternative includes high costs it will lose implementation points. The scores for each alternative and each alternative are multiplied with the weights of each factor. The results can be seen in Table 5. The results include the added totals of each alternative. The total for alternative 6 shows it being the most beneficial alternative for the improvement project. The second highest scoring alternative is alternative 5 which is the implementation of the SSRB without the contest option. Implementing either of these will rule out the other as they are mutually exclusive. The order of implementation for the rest of the alternatives is the recycling directory, expanding variety, magnetic information, and signage improvement. RECOMMENDATIONS The main recommendation involves implementing the SSRB and contest alternative. This alternative encompasses all three improvement factors and can result in the largest increase in recycling in the drop off centers. This alternative provides valuable data and is expandable to other recycling centers if the pilot programs prove to be successful. The second recommendation involves creating a recycling directory. This directory will be a powerful tool for the recycling centers. It will show that they are well aligned with the recycling ideal. It will show that even if they do not recycle the items, they have the information readily available. The third recommendation involves expanding the variation of materials accepted in the recycling centers, mainly scrap metal and tires. If new partnerships are established that accept more materials, that should be considered for expansion to all three recycling facilities. CONCLUSIONS Research has shown that the earth resources are being depleted too fast for us to sustain our current life styles. This reinforces the need for educating the public, the severity of the problem at hand and the importance of recycling. The recycling initiatives can be taken at large and small scales. The project involves reviewing the operations and methodologies of the county recycling centers. Alternatives for the improvement are explored. More specifically, it involves finding what aspects encourage people to recycle more which in turn increase recycling rates within a community. The research conducted found many methodologies that other recycling cooperatives have utilized to increase recycling within their communities. The alternatives for this project are designed to be applicable toward drop off recycling centers. The design and benefits are used to qualitatively score and evaluate each of the alternatives. The results show that a single stream recycling bin would be the most beneficial alternative to implement and increase recycling within the community. It does involve higher costs, but with effort toward finding sponsors and volunteers, recycling can be impacted more than with any of the other alternatives. The recommendations also include creating a directory that can help the residents locate a center where they can take their hard to recycle items. The recycling organizations can be helpful in designing the possible alternatives for the drop off centers in the county. The alternatives suggested in this paper can increase recycling rates. They can also reduce the landfill costs the county incurs, and they can also generate funds as material is collected from residents. If the recycling centers implement any of the alternatives much will be learned and can be utilized to expand the idea to the other recycling centers or to other communities in need of improvement. REFERENCES [1] N. E. Russell, How to Recycle Anything, Real Simple, vol. 9 iss. 10 (2008), pp. 141. [2] ETC Institute, 2005 KC Recycles Survey Finding Reports, Missouri, 2005. [3] Wire Feed, City to Become Part of Model City Recycling Initiative, US Fed News Service, Washington D.C., December 18, 2008. [4] Forsyth County, Georgia, County Government Recycling Department, Retrieved from http://www.forsythco.com/department.asp?deptid=154, September 2009. [5] Clean Air Council, Waste Facts and Figures, Retrieved from http://www.cleanair.org/waste/wastefacts.html, September 2009. [6] C. LaFleur, Formula for Recycling Success, BioCycle vol. 44 iss. 7 (2003), pp. 65-68. [7] E. Svoboda, E. Mika, and S. Berhie, America's 50 Greenest cities, Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/americas- 50-greenest-cities?page=1, Posted February 08, 2008. [8] United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), Recycling: Additional Efforts Could Increase Municipal Recycling: Report to Congressional Requesters, Washington, D.C., December 2006, pp. 1-51. [9] Keep Griffin Spalding Beautiful, Retrieved on November 2009 from http://www.kgsb.org/ [10] Census Bureau, County Population Estimates. http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/co-est2008-01.html [11] EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures, Washington, D.C., November 2008, 1-12.