This thesis aims to test the viability of a countywide recycling program in Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Many experts in the field of recycling believe that the consolidation of recycling centers can lower per capita costs and increase the profitability of recycling. Larger, more mechanized facilities such as the Keene Recycling Center can process large quantities of recyclables in a short amount of time. It makes economic sense for small recycling centers to shut down and join larger nearby facilities.

1. KEENE STATE COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
Live Green or Die:
Recycling in
Cheshire County,
New Hampshire
LAUREN EVANS
AUREN VANS
JARED GASCO
ARED ASCO
LAURA JALETTE
AURA ALETTE
CANDRA MERREIIGHN
ANDRA ERRE GHN
December
2008
FACULTY SPONSOR: DR. CHRISTOPHER CUSACK

2. ii
Acknowledgements:
Special thanks to the following people: Duncan Watson and Michael Hartness
from the City of Keene Recycling Center for participating in an interview and providing a
surplus of valuable information regarding recycling trends in Keene; Mary Jensen from
Recycling on Campus at Keene State (R.O.C.K.S) for taking the time to participate in an
interview and informing the group of how the college goes about recycling; the entire
staff and volunteers of Walpole Recycling Center for all of their kindness, and willingness
to help, Dr. A. L. Rydant and Mr. Ted Miller of the Keene State College Geography
Department for your contributions; all the individuals who attended the Solid Waste
Managers’ Meeting on October 1, 2008 in Troy, New Hampshire; Brian Lacasse for his
help with SPSS, ArcGIS and for always being in the lab when we needed him; and all who
participated in the surveys.
We would like to extend a very special thank you to Dr. Christopher Cusack for
his involvement, hard work, and guidance and always reminding us to enjoy ourselves
and have fun; as well as all of the members of this group, who dedicated endless
amounts of time and energy to create an eye-opening and educational resource.

3. iii
Abstract:
This thesis aims to test the viability of a countywide recycling program in
Cheshire County, New Hampshire. Many experts in the field of recycling believe that
the consolidation of recycling centers can lower per capita costs and increase the
profitability of recycling. Larger, more mechanized facilities such as the Keene Recycling
Center can process large quantities of recyclables in a short amount of time. It makes
economic sense for small recycling centers to shut down and join larger nearby facilities.
However, this consolidation process is difficult to initiate because of several obstacles.
Two obstacles relate to social and convenience factors. Whether they acknowledge it or
not, many recyclers enjoy the social component of recycling. They enjoy spreading and
hearing local news and events. Many recyclers are also not willing to travel very far to
their recycling centers. In order to test whether factors such as these significantly curtail
the consolidation process, secondary and primary data was collected and analyzed.
Secondary data was primarily collected from the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NH DES) and the New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market
Information Bureau (NH ELMB). Primary data was collected from two surveys: a general
public survey and a recycling expert survey (experts were defined as individuals who
work in the recycling industry or have a considerably higher than average understanding
of the recycling process). Public and expert opinions were necessary for an enhanced
perspective on recycling. Differences in public and expert opinion were suspected to
reveal interesting and valuable conclusions.

4. iv
After primary and secondary data was collected, three null hypotheses were
established. The first null hypothesis states there is not a significant correlation
between educational attainment and the percent of municipal solid waste (MSW)
recycled. The second null hypothesis states there is not a significant correlation
between median age and the percent of MSW recycled. Lastly, the third null hypothesis
states that there is no significant difference in the enjoyment of the social component of
recycling between Keene and Walpole. Two correlation tests and one two sample
difference test was conducted in SPSS to test these null hypotheses. All of the tests
revealed no significance, and thus all three null hypotheses were not rejected. Both
educational attainment and age do not significantly correlate to increased recycling
percentages. Furthermore, there is no significant difference in the enjoyment of the
social component of recycling between Keene and Walpole.

5. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction 1
History of Recycling in the United States 2
Present Recycling Programs in the United States 6
CHAPTER 2: RECYCLING AT THE COUNTY LEVEL IN THE UNITED STATES 9
Setting the Stage: Cheshire County, New Hampshire 11
Recycling in Cheshire County 13
CHAPTER 3: GENERAL PUBLIC SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 18
Methodology 18
Results 21
CHAPTER 4: EXPERT SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 25
METHODOLOGY 25
RESULTS 25
CHAPTER 5: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 28
CHAPTER 6: LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 36
LIMITATIONS 36
CONCLUSIONS 37
REFERENCES 39

6. vi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Timeline of Recycling in the United States. 5
Figure 2 Percent of Communities with PAYT in the United States 2006. 7
Figure 3 Relative Location of Cheshire County, New Hampshire. 11
Figure 4 Cheshire County Per Capita Income 1999. 12
Figure 5 Population of Cheshire County 2007. 13
Figure 6 Exact Locations of Recycling Centers in Cheshire County, 14
New Hampshire.
Figure 7 Keene Recycling Center (KRC). 15
Figure 8 KRC Cardboard Drop-off. 15
Figure 9 Walpole Reuse Center. 15
Figure 10 Walpole Recycling Center. 15
Figure 11 Percent Recycled in Cheshire County. 17
Figure 12 Population for the City of Keene. 17
Figure 13 Administering Surveys at the Keene Recycling Center 18
Oct. 18, 2008.
Figure 14 Administering Surveys at the Walpole Recycling Center 18
Oct. 18, 2008.
Figure 15 Gender Distribution of Survey Participants. 19
Figure 16 Age Distribution of Survey Participants. 20
Figure 17 Percentage of Homeowners Among Survey Participants. 20
Figure 18 Perceived Effectiveness of PAYT, Curbside, and 26
Mandatory Recycling Programs Based on a Scale From 1 to 5.
Figure 19 Importance of Consolidation, Mechanization, and 26
Socialization in Respect to Recycling Based on a Scale From 1 to 5.
Figure 20 Maximum Distance (in miles) Keene and Walpole 34
Recyclers Are Willing to Travel to Recycle.
Figure 21 Mean Time Spent (in minutes) at Keene and Walpole 35
Recycling Centers.
Figure 22 Mean Amount of Years Recyclers Have Lived in Their Towns. 35
Figure 23 Most Recent Recycling Information Available, Cheshire County. 37

7. vii
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Secondary Data for Cheshire County 29
Municipalities with Recycling Centers.
Table 2 Presence or Absence of Different Recycling Programs in 32
Cheshire County Municipalities with Recycling Centers.

8. 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Recycling has become a major part of American society in recent decades, but has
always been a part of Earth’s natural cycle. The definition of recycling is “the series of activities
by which discarded post consumer materials are collected, sorted, processed, converted into
raw materials, and used in the production of new products” (EPA 2002c). The economic
benefits of recycling are one of the many reasons that communities continue to recycle.
Recycling consists of three stages: separating and collecting recyclable materials, manufacturing
recycled-content products, and buying recycled-content products (EPA 2008). Buying and
selling the products of recycling is one of the most important factors in recycling. Without this,
recycling would be a dead-end process. A recycling program must have a strong relationship
with companies that purchase and sell recycled goods. “Without a strong market for recycled
materials, there is no incentive to collect recyclables and manufactured recycled-content
products” (EPA 2008c).
In 2002, the United States Recycling Economic Information Study was published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The study was conducted to determine the economic
benefits of recycling and to inform citizens of the United States (and companies involved in
recycling) that their efforts were not in vain. This study explains the importance of recycling,
and it also has a section on how to improve recycling efforts. From this study, it was shown that
recycling collected for the federal government earned $200,000,000 and the processing of
recycled materials earned $700,000,000 (EPA 2002c). The manufacturing of recycled materials

9. 2
makes the most money for any local or state government in the country. In other words,
recycling makes money and it will continue to do so in the future.
Recycling is a very important practice in the United States today because it helps
promote sustainable community development. Sustainable development is often defined as
forms of development that allow people to meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Recycling is also
important to study because natural resources in the United States continue to dwindle.
Recycling is one of the easier and more effective ways to slow the depletion of natural
resources. Unfortunately, not nearly enough municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United States
is recycled. Only 32.5 percent of all MSW in the United States was recycled in 2006 (EPA 2007).
Potentially, a much greater percent of MSW could be recycled. The importance of recycling
needs to be fully realized in the United States in order for it to reach its maximum potential.
History of Recycling in the United States
The United States’ solid waste problems followed Europe’s in the seventeenth century
at the time of the settlement of the colonies. Streets were used as dumping grounds for trash
and other forms of waste. Disease was overtaking cities such as New York and Boston. It was
not until the 1800’s that city officials across the country realized that efforts had to be made to
keep cities clean for the population to become healthier. The changing values of hygiene and
health contributed to the modern notions of waste management (Zimring 2005). Curbside
recycling began in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1874. Cans of garbage were filled and taken away

10. 3
from residential neighborhoods on a weekly basis (see Figure 1 for timeline of recycling in the
United States).
In 1895, Colonel George E. Waring was appointed the Street-Cleaning Commissioner of
New York City. Waring developed a system that required households to sort organic wastes,
paper, ashes and street sweepings into different containers for pick-up. Waring also helped
New York City profit from source separation by reselling recovered goods (California EPA 1997).
The nation’s first aluminum can recycling plants were opened in Chicago, Illinois, and Cleveland,
Ohio, in 1904 (California EPA 1997). Following this, in the 1920’s, land filling, by means of
reclaiming wetlands with layers of garbage, ash, and dirt, was introduced and it became a
popular disposal method, especially around cities (California EPA 1997). Also in the 1920’s the
term “recycling” was first used regularly by the petroleum industry (Zimring 2005). Until World
War II, it was not uncommon for the public to believe that scrap collecting was a “dirty”
business. Americans did not realize that the new cars they purchased were being made out of
their own scraps and those of their neighbors. It was not until the start of World War II that
Americans saw how beneficial scrap collecting could be. Between the years 1939 and 1941
thousands of tons of materials were recycled to help support the troops during World War II
(California EPA 1997). Scrap drives were also held by various organizations and communities
including the Boy Scouts, public schools, and neighborhoods. Americans were no longer afraid
to expose themselves and their children to scrap and waste (Zimring 2005).
In 1965 the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) was passed by Congress. The SWDA was a
legislation passed by President Lyndon Johnson and Congress to help the federal government

11. 4
take the first step to become involved in the nation’s solid waste management. The SWDA
focused on researching “new methods of solid waste collection, storage, processing, disposal,
and reduction of unsalvageable solid waste” (Melosi 2005, 201). Shortly after, in 1969, Seattle,
Washington, created one of the first successful curbside recycling programs. Cities all over the
country followed in Seattle’s footsteps.
The state of Oregon, in 1972, was the first state to pass a bottle bill designed to increase
the recycling rate across the state by giving citizens money in exchange for their cans and
bottles. The states of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New York, and Vermont adopted similar programs between 1973 and 1987 (Zimring 2005). It
was not until 1976 that the federal government passed the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. This bill was made to assist state and local governments with improvements in
their solid waste management techniques.
By the early 1980’s, there were about 140 communities in the United States that used a
curbside recycling program, and by 1989, there were 10,000 recycling drop off centers in the
country. In 1986, Rhode Island became the first state to pass a mandatory recycling law. The
law required that aluminum and steel cans, glass, plastic bottles and newspaper must be
separated into different bins from trash and recyclables (California EPA 1997). It was around
this time that curbside recycling started to become popular around the country. By 1990, there
were over 1,000 communities using a form of curbside recycling. Also during this time, cities
began to privatize their solid waste management systems.

12. 5

13. 6
Present Recycling Programs in the United States
Presently there are three different types of curbside recycling programs. The first is
single-stream recycling. This involves households commingling recyclable materials into one bin
and not separating it. Haulers prefer single-stream recycling because it involves less trucks and
pick-ups. Questions still remain about the various materials contaminated with this program;
however there is evidence of increases in the quantity of household recyclables (Earth911
2008). The second program is dual-stream recycling. This is the most popular form of curbside
recycling. Containers go into one bin and then papers, such as newspapers, magazines, and
direct mail, go into a separate bin. Both bins are then set out on the curb for pick-up (Earth911
2008).
Pay-as-you throw (PAYT) is a third recycling program included in the curbside recycling
program category, and it is one of the most effective programs. Residents are charged for
collection of their Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) based on the amount that they throw away.
Households pay a variable rate depending on how much MSW they produce. They are charged
by the weight of their trash, or they pay a fee for each bag or bin that they generate (EPA
2008b). Figure 2 shows the percent of PAYT communities in the United States in 2006. New
Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon have the highest percentages of
PAYT communities in the United States. Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon have 100 percent
PAYT in all communities (EPA 2008a). Many of the lowest percentages occur in the central
plains and southern states, as well as Alaska and Hawaii. Mississippi, Hawaii and the District of
Columbia have no PAYT communities at all resulting in a negligible percent for those areas. As

14. 7
apparent from Figure 2, recycling in the form of PAYT takes place all around the United States.
Some states have higher percentages than others, but most are making a positive impact on
recycling.
Figure 2 Percent of Communities with PAYT in the United States 2006.
There are several different types of PAYT systems. ‘Variable or subscribed can’ is a
system in which households sign up for a specific number of containers that goes towards their
usual garbage service and if the number of containers is higher the household gets a bill. The
‘bag program’ system is one in which households purchase special bags imprinted with a
particular city or hauler logo for a price. Individuals may purchase these bags through
community centers or grocery stores. The next program is called ‘tag or sticker program’ and is

15. 8
very similar to the bag program. In place of a bag, individuals place a sticker or tag on the waste
they want to be collected and these are also purchased for a price. The ‘hybrid system’ is a
combination of the current collection system and an incentive based program used to limit the
amount of waste an individual produces. This system works well because there is no change in
billing systems, containers, or collection systems. It provides wasteful individuals with an
incentive to reduce. ‘Weight-Based Systems’ or ‘Garbage by the Pound’ (GBTP) uses truck scales
to weigh garbage containers and charges costumers based on the pounds of waste they have
produced. A radio frequency (RF) tag is affixed to the garbage container to identify households
so that they can be billed directly based on the weight of their garbage. Many communities
offer PAYT as an extra option along with the standard system of waste collection (Skumatz and
Freeman 2006).

16. 9
CHAPTER 2: Recycling at the County Level in the United States
Recycling has become a part of American culture, and counties across the nation are
trying to develop programs that benefit communities both environmentally and economically.
Many communities in the United States have come together to form countywide recycling
programs. These programs are especially beneficial for rural and small communities because
they can share the economic responsibilities of the program together. Countywide recycling
programs are a form of regionalization. Regionalization is “the process whereby neighboring
cities, towns and counties pool resources to address local challenges” (EPA 1994). Rural and
small communities often have a lower tax base, which makes financing solid waste
management difficult. The solution is to develop a countywide program that will improve the
area’s recycling rates and also increase economic profits.
To start planning a countywide recycling program, community leaders must first study
the proposed countywide project. Plans must be made for landfills and recycling centers that
are easily reachable by citizens in all of the county’s municipalities. Locations of the recycling
centers and municipal solid waste (MSW) facilities are a very important factor in the process.
Next, community leaders must inform residents that a countywide program is beneficial.
Educational meetings should be planned for the community where residents have the
opportunity to ask any questions they might have. The process of the project would then be
explained. More specifically, how the facility would continue to operate after its inception (EPA
1994). Before the project is accepted by the community, funding must be considered. Many
foundations may provide funding for the countywide program, but funding could also come

17. 10
from the community, and plans would have to be made to be sure that funding would continue
through the years. After that, it is up to the community to stay involved in the program to
ensure that it is successful.
Cheshire County could benefit from a variety of waste management programs. As
researched in the Cheshire County, New Hampshire Municipal Solid Waste Study, two different
programs could increase Cheshire County’s recycling participation. One of the plans involves a
coordinated effort between public and private sectors. Citizen participation is necessary for a
successful waste management plan therefore, “…all stake holders [should be] represented in
the decision-making process via a planning committee” (Monahan 2004, 10). Planning
committees help make citizens more interested in recycling.
A second plan that could benefit Cheshire County is a waste-to-energy (WTE) plant, as
seen in Pinellas County, Florida (Monahan 2004, 11). WTE plants consist of two systems:
thermal and non-thermal. The thermal system includes mass burn, gasification, pyrolysis, and
plasma arc, while the non-thermal system includes anaerobic digestion and hydrolysis (Weitz
2008, 17). Cheshire County’s WTE facility would not be large scale like Pinellas County’s, but it
would still be profitable enough to get more citizens involved in recycling. Depending on its
size, a WTE facility in Cheshire County would also provide energy for most, if not all, of the
county.

18. 11
Setting the Stage: Cheshire County, New Hampshire
Prior to providing analysis of recycling in Cheshire County, the case study region must
first be discussed. Cheshire County is located in the southwest corner of New Hampshire and
includes 23 towns (Figure 3). In 2000, 26.6 percent of Cheshire County’s population 25 years of
age and older had a Bachelor’s degree or higher (US Census Bureau 2008).
Figure 3 Relative Location of Cheshire County, New Hampshire.
Figure 4 represents Cheshire County’s per capita income for the year 1999. The town of
Nelson has a per capita income of $31,624 for 1999 (US Census Bureau 2008). Nelson does not
have its own recycling center, but residents can take their recyclables to Keene, Harrisville or
Stoddard. It is interesting to note that the town with the highest per capita income does not
have a recycling center, while Troy, Winchester, and Hinsdale, the three towns with the lowest

19. 12
per capita income, do have recycling centers. The 2007 population of Cheshire County was
77,725 (US Census Bureau 2008). Figure 5 displays the population of Cheshire County for the
year 2007. The town of Nelson, having the highest per capita income, is one of the
municipalities with a small population. The City of Keene has the highest population in the
county with 22,893 residents. The county is home to three colleges and universities: Antioch
University New England, Franklin Pierce University, and Keene State College. These three
institutions are very helpful economically to Cheshire County and play a substantial role in
recycling within the county. Keene State College contributes to this large population due to its
enrollment of 5,282 students and provision of numerous jobs for residents of Keene and the
surrounding municipalities. Furthermore, many students live in the city year-round. The
majority of the municipalities with lower populations are located in the northeastern corner of
the county with the exception of Richmond which is located in southern Cheshire County.
Figure 4 Cheshire County Per Capita Income 1999.

20. 13
Figure 5 Population of Cheshire County 2007.
Recycling in Cheshire County
The Northeast Resource Recovery Association (NRRA) is a non-profit organization that
gives communities, like Cheshire County, the opportunity to further their education on
recycling and also to make a market for their recycled goods. The NRRA was established to
“provide a clearinghouse for current, up to date information and a source of technical and
marketing assistance in the general areas of waste reduction and recycling” (NRRA 2008). The
association was originally founded by four New Hampshire municipalities in 1981 and it now
includes over 300 municipalities and businesses in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and Southern Maine. The main goal of the NRRA is to assist rural, small, and large

21. 14
urban communities in the creation and support of their own recycling programs. Eighteen
municipalities in Cheshire County operate recycling centers. Richmond uses the Winchester
recycling center, Roxbury uses the Marlborough recycling center, and Sullivan, Nelson, and
Surry use the Keene recycling center (Figure 6).
Figure 6 Exact Locations of Recycling Centers in Cheshire County, New Hampshire.
The organization of the facilities varies by municipality. For example, the Keene
Recycling Center has areas where residents throw their recyclables into separate piles. The
Walpole Recycling Center has designated areas for each recyclable material. Walpole recyclers

22. 15
must separate glass into different groups based on color. The Keene Recycling Center does not
require separation to this extent. Additionally, the Walpole Recycling Center has a reuse area
where residents can drop off their old belongings and/or take items that have been dropped off
for a small donation. The Keene Recycling Center has a book swap, but not a reuse center as in-
depth as Walpole (Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10).
Figure 7 Keene Recycling Center (KRC). Figure 8 KRC Cardboard Drop-off.
Figure 9 Walpole Reuse Center. Figure 10 Walpole Recycling Center.
Population size has no relation to the percent of MSW recycled in each respective
municipality. For example, the towns of Dublin, Richmond, Sullivan, and Roxbury all have small
populations. However, Dublin has a relatively high recycling percentage while the other three

23. 16
towns do not (Figure 11). Recycling in Keene is positively influence by Keene State College
(KSC). KSC in the City of Keene has a successful recycling program integrated into the campus
community. Mary Jensen, KSC’s sustainability and recycling coordinator for the program
Recycling On Campus at Keene State (ROCKS), makes many efforts to increase recycling on
campus. All of the recycling from KSC goes to the Keene Recycling Center to be processed, and
funding for the ROCKS program is included in students’ tuition. Jensen has worked hard to
improve the availability and visibility of recycling containers in academic buildings on the KSC
campus. It has not been an easy process. According to Jensen, there needs to be a “behavior
change for both faculty and students to throw away after class” for the program to be
successful (Jensen 2008). The ROCKS program is similar to regionalization, in that the student
body, faculty and campus staff pool together resources to ensure that the program is
successful. ROCKS placed designated bins for glass, plastic, paper and waste in every hallway of
the Science Center while taking trash bins out of classrooms to essentially force students and
staff to recycle. The program has flourished in the Science Center and it has recently been
extended to other academic buildings such as Morrison Hall. The ROCKS program has certainly
improved the recycling habits of both students and faculty.
KSC, in the year 2007, accounted for 5,282 people in the City of Keene (KSC 2007). It can
be seen from Figure 12 that the age group of 20-24 years is the largest, which comprises mostly
of students from KSC, explaining the dramatic drop in the number of people between the age
groups 20-24 and 30-34. This could be a result of students graduating and moving away from
the Keene area. Nonetheless, recycling rates have not decreased dramatically with the outflow
of students, because there is a continuous influx of new students every fall.

24. 17
Figure 11 Percent Recycled in Cheshire County 2007.
Figure 12 Population for the City of Keene 2000.

25. 18
CHAPTER 3: General Public Survey Methodology and Results
Methodology
While secondary information available allows for the municipalities in Cheshire County
to be examined separately as well as comparatively in multiple aspects, survey analysis was
utilized to gather additional insight. One survey, a general public survey, was created and
administered at both the Keene Recycling Center and the Walpole Recycling Center. The Keene
Recycling Center was chosen because of its central location as well as its size. The Keene
Recycling Center also serves several towns which allowed for a variety in survey results. The
same general public survey was also distributed at the Walpole Recycling Center. This recycling
center was chosen for its proximity as well as its smaller size. The small size of Walpole’s
population coupled with Keene’s population helped create a more representative sample of all
the Cheshire County municipalities. The City of Walpole has PAYT recycling, which provided
different insight than the results at Keene, and proved to be one of the most successful
recycling centers in Cheshire County (according to secondary data analysis). The surveys were
administered at the Keene Recycling Center on Saturday, October 11, 2008, and at both the
Keene and Walpole Recycling Centers on Saturday, October 18, 2008 between 10:30 am and
1:30 pm (Figures 13 and 14).
Figure 13 Administering Surveys at Figure 14 Administering Surveys at
the Keene Recycling Center Oct. 18, the Walpole Recycling Center Oct. 18,
2008. 2008.

26. 19
The general public survey consisted of 20 questions (Appendix A). It was administered
through face-to-face interaction by members of the group to the individuals at the recycling
centers. Each survey required two to four minutes to complete. Different Likert scales were
used in different portions of the survey and were clearly labeled with directions on how to
respond to each question. Likert scales are frequently used in various fields of research. A
statement is given, and the endpoints correspond to strongly disagree and strongly disagree
(Sclove 2001). Seventy-eight surveys were completed; most of them were used towards data
collection. The goal of questions one through three on the survey was to gather general
information on the participants including gender, age, and whether they were a renter or
homeowner. This information was valuable in studying the male to female ratio and average
age at both recycling centers (Figures 15, 16 and 17). The third question was important to study
accessibility and ease of recycling in which town they resided, and was followed by question
five which asked how long they had lived in their town. This information was gathered to see
residents of which municipalities were traveling to which recycling centers.
Figure 15 Gender Distribution of Survey Participants.

27. 20
Figure 16 Age Distribution of Survey Participants.
Figure 17 Percentage of Homeowners Among Survey Participants.
Questions five, six and seven were created to find out how often participants were
recycling and how long they were spending at the recycling center. Questions eight and nine
were asked to find out how far people were traveling to recycle as well as how far people were
willing to travel. These questions were asked to see if the consolidation of recycling centers in
Cheshire County would have an influence on recycling participation.

28. 21
For Question 10, the participants were asked to rank the materials that they recycle by
amount (1 being the largest amount and 5 being the smallest amount). The materials rated
were plastic, metal, paper, glass, and cardboard. This question was included to acquire
descriptive statistics on which materials participants were recycling the most and the least.
In questions 11 through 20 the participants were asked to answer by reading the
question and circling the appropriate number. For these questions a five-point Likert scale (1 =
Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree) was used in order for
the data collected to be easily tested through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS).
Results
Questions 11, 12, 13, and 14 were general questions about recycling and the drive
behind it. The questions were created from general reasons why people all throughout the
United States have chosen to recycle. Question 11 gave the statement: “I recycle because it
reduces the strain on the environment.” The mean response was 4.5584, indicating that most
people agree or strongly agree with this statement. This is not surprising; advertisements to
promote recycling often emphasize the environmentally friendly aspects of recycling. The MA
DEP participation study yielded a similar result – 90 percent of the participants strongly agreed
with the statement that they recycle because it is “good for society” (MA DEP 2000).
Question 12 presented the statement: “I recycle because it helps the economy and
creates many jobs.” The mean response was 3.9737, indicating that most people agree or are
neutral with this statement. Again, no surprise here, the environmental advantages of recycling
seem to overshadow the economical advantages. The economic benefits of recycling really are

29. 22
not stressed enough to the general public – this is something that should be addressed. The MA
DEP participation study again revealed a similar result – only 38 percent of the participants
strongly agreed with the statement that they recycle because it “provides jobs for
Massachusetts residents” (MA DEP 2000). Question 13 stated: “I recycle because it reduces the
amount of waste in my house.” The mean answer was 4.3378, suggesting that most people
either agree or strongly agree with this statement. This statement is relatively similar to
number 11, thus it received a similar mean value.
Question 14 gave the statement: “I am willing to pay more taxes for better recycling
programs.” The mean response was 3.3467, indicating that many people are about neutral with
this statement. This was a somewhat surprising outcome; a mean under three was expected.
After all, high taxes are frequently complained about by Americans. This outcome suggests that
increased spending on recycling is not completely out of the question in Cheshire County.
However, it is important to mention that higher per capita costs on recycling do not significantly
correlate to greater percentages of MSW recycled in Cheshire County, as one of the secondary
data correlations displayed. Arguably, the most important factor for increased recycling relates
to the types of recycling programs that are utilized.
Question 15 was created specifically to test the significance of the social aspect to
recycling centers. This question was important to test the difference from the Keene Recycling
Center to the Walpole Recycling Center. The mean answer was 3.0133, indicating neutrality
with this question. A slightly higher mean was expected, though it is likely that many people
view recycling as a chore or something they want to get over with as soon as possible.
However, it is also possible that many recyclers are unconsciously aware that they enjoy the

30. 23
social component. Their subconscious mind may drive them to the recycling center each week
because it craves that social component or that sense of involvement.
Question 16 is about the availability of recycling centers and how they directly affect the
amount people recycle. The mean response was 3.0270, resulting in another question met with
neutrality. This was a rather surprising outcome – a mean over four was expected. However, in
retrospect, this is a type of question that would favor asking participants who are not at a
recycling center. After all, all of the survey participants were at a recycling center which implies
that they have found the time to recycle.
Questions 17 and 18 were created to gather insight on how the general public would
feel about consolidation throughout Cheshire County of recycling centers and programs. The
mean response for both of these questions indicated opposition towards consolidation. These
questions were met with disagreement by many recyclers probably because they were unaware
of the advantages of consolidation. If the survey could have somehow explained the
advantages of consolidation, the results would likely be much different.
Question 19 is also related to the consolidation of recycling centers but the focus is on
the sharing of city resources such as dump trucks among neighboring towns. The mean
response was 3.7083, indicating a mix of neutrality and agreement. This is an odd result.
Recyclers are against the consolidation of recycling centers, but not the consolidation of
resources. Perhaps the statement was met with more agreement than questions 17 and 18
because the advantages of shared resources are easier to visualize.
The last question on the general public survey is a question about the involvement of
politics in a town’s recycling program, and whether or not they affect the way the programs are

31. 24
run. The mean answer was 3.5429, indicating a mix of neutrality and agreement similar to
question 19. Similar to questions 17 and 18, an explanation of how politics curtail the
improvement of recycling programs would likely bring the mean closer to five. The bottom of
the survey contains an area for additional comments. This was created to gather direct quotes
and give the participant a chance to add any additional information or feelings on recycling in
Cheshire County, Keene, and Walpole.

32. 25
CHAPTER 4: Expert Survey Methodology and Results
Methodology
Another type of survey was distributed at the Municipal Solid Waste Managers’ Meeting
on October 1, 2008 in Troy, New Hampshire. This survey was created to gather more
knowledgeable information from “experts” in the field of recycling and waste management.
Experts were defined as anyone who worked in the recycling industry, or had a considerably
higher than average knowledge of the recycling process. Additional surveys were distributed
through email to contacts throughout Cheshire County. The participants were asked to provide
their town affiliations and positions at the top of the survey to determine where the responses
were coming from in relation to the towns’ recycling programs. The survey consisted of 10
questions, nine of which used a five-point Likert scale. The last question was an open-ended
response question.
Results
Unfortunately, only 10 participants were involved in this survey. Consequently, only
descriptive statistics could be obtained (Rogerson 2006). While no statistical tests could be
conducted, the descriptive statistics still revealed some interesting results. For example, one of
the survey questions asked participants to rate the effectiveness of each type of recycling
program (PAYT, Curbside, and Mandatory) based on a five-point Likert scale (1= Very
Ineffective, 2= Ineffective, 3= Neutral, 4= Effective, 5= Very Effective). The results (Figure 18)
make sense based on the results of the statistical tests that were conducted on the secondary
data. In other words, the recycling experts are aware that both PAYT and mandatory recycling
are more effective than curbside recycling.

33. 26
Figure 18 Perceived Effectiveness of PAYT, Curbside, and Mandatory Recycling Programs Based
on a Scale From 1 to 5.
The experts were also asked to rate the importance of consolidation, mechanization,
and socialization in respect to recycling. The results were both interesting and surprising (Figure
19). The average expert disagrees with the statements: “The number of recycling centers in
Cheshire County should be decreased,” and “All recycling facilities in Cheshire County should
become mechanized to increase effectiveness.”
Figure 19 Importance of Consolidation, Mechanization, and Socialization in Respect to Recycling
Based on a Scale From 1 to 5

34. 27
On average, it was expected that both of these statements were going to be met with
either agreement or strong agreement. After all, during an interview with Duncan Watson, Solid
Waste Manager of the Keene Recycling Center, he said with certainty that mechanization would
considerably improve the economics of recycling in Cheshire County. He went on to add that in
comparison to nearby recycling centers, the Keene recycling center processes much more
recyclables in a short amount of time. He suggested that it would make economic sense for
some of these nearby recycling centers to shut down and join the Keene recycling center. Some
nearby municipalities such as Nelson, Surry, and Sullivan are already a part of the Keene
recycling center. However, not all of the nearby municipalities have joined Keene; Watson
attributed this situation to the social aspect of recycling. Many residents enjoy socializing at
their local recycling centers. Watson and the average expert agree that the social aspect of
recycling is important.
The open ended question was about whether or not a consolidated (countywide)
recycling program in Cheshire County would benefit the economy of Cheshire County. This
question was left to be answered in the participants’ own words; to gather personal accounts
and ideas as well as direct quotes to enhance further research. An additional comments section
was also included at the bottom.

35. 28
Chapter 5: Statistical Analysis
In order to better understand what variables affect recycling participation in Cheshire
County, secondary data was analyzed in SPSS. It is important to note that five municipalities
(Nelson, Richmond, Roxbury, Sullivan, and Surry) in Cheshire County were not analyzed because
they do not have recycling centers (NH DES 2007). The variables chosen for analysis for all 18
municipalities were: percent MSW recycled in 2007, per capita recycling costs in 2007, per
capita income in 1999, percent of population with Bachelor’s degree or higher in 2000, median
age in 2000, people per square mile in 2006, and the presence or absence of PAYT, curbside
recycling, and mandatory recycling in each respective municipality in 2001. The percent MSW
recycled in 2007 data and the per capita recycling costs in 2007 data were both obtained from
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES), while the rest of the data
was obtained from The New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau (NH
ELMB).
After all of the data was entered into SPSS, descriptive statistics were calculated for all
of the variables (Table 1). The mean of the percent MSW recycled in 2007 is remarkably close to
the 2006 national mean which was 32.5 percent (EPA 2007). The annual per capita cost on
recycling certainly varies by municipality, ranging from 27.61 to 181.06 dollars. This variation is
likely the result of lowly populated municipalities that are unwilling to merge with nearby
recycling centers, even though a merger would likely lower their per capita cost on recycling.
Substantial variation also exists in the percent of population with Bachelor’s degree or higher in
2000 and the people per square mile in 2006 variables. The question of whether or not this
variation affects the percent of MSW recycled needs to be answered. To answer this question

36. 29
two correlation tests were run. A correlation test measures the strength of the linear
association between variables (Rogerson 2006).
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Secondary Data for Cheshire County Municipalities with
Recycling Centers.
Minimum Maximum Mean
Percent MSW Recycled in 2007 6.92 53.84 32.98
Per Capita Recycling Costs in 2007 27.61 181.06 79.13
Per Capita Income in 1999 16,012.00 27,028.00 21,040.39
Percent of Population 25 Years and
Older with a Bachelor’s Degree or 9.00 44.60 26.28
Higher in 2000
Median Age in 2000 24.50 43.30 38.86
Population Per Square Mile in 2006 19.90 611.90 120.76
The first test correlated the percent recycled variable with the Bachelor’s degree
variable. The test concluded that the correlation is both weak (0.281) and insignificant (0.258
significance level). This confirms that educational attainment does not significantly correlate
with the percent of MSW recycled. Consequently, the null of the first hypothesis, which states
that there is not a significant correlation between educational attainment and the percent of
MSW recycled, is not rejected. The second test correlated the percent recycled variable with
the people per square mile variable. The test concluded that the correlation is both
insignificant (0.801 significance level) and weak (-0.064). This confirms that population density
does not significantly correlate with the percent of MSW recycled. This correlation test was
conducted because it has been suggested that recycling participation increases with increasing
interactions between residents of a municipality (McKenzie-Mohr 2002). It is likely that a higher
population density equates to increased interactions.
In addition to the first two tests, the other three variables from Table 1 were also
correlated with the percent MSW recycled variable. The correlation test between the percent

37. 30
recycled variable and the per capita recycling cost variable revealed a weak (-0.286) and
insignificant (0.250 significance level) correlation. This indicates that increased spending on
recycling does not significantly lead to greater percentages of MSW recycled. This is a rather
surprising outcome – a significant correlation was expected. However, this outcome was likely
influenced by the inherent problem with per capita variables. For example, if two municipalities
with vastly different populations had identical recycling programs, the municipality with the
higher population would have lower per capita costs, but the same percent of MSW recycled.
In other words, the per capita cost variable is not normalized, unlike the percent MSW recycled
variable.
The correlation test between the percent recycled variable and the per capita income
variable also revealed a weak (0.271) and insignificant (0.276 significance level) correlation. This
indicates that wealthier municipalities do not recycle significantly more. This is not really a
surprising result – an individual with more money does not necessarily want to recycle more.
The final correlation test, between the percent recycled variable and the median age variable,
also resulted in a weak (-0.155) and insignificant (0.539 significance level) correlation.
Consequently, the null of the second hypothesis, which states that there is not a significant
correlation between median age and the percent of MSW recycled, is not rejected.
After all of the correlations were conducted, the effectiveness of each of the three types
of recycling programs in Cheshire County was analyzed. The analysis was performed by
conducting three two sample differences of means tests. A two sample difference of means test
compares a sample mean with another sample mean, rather than with some known population
value (Rogerson 2006). The first test compared the means of the percent MSW recycled

38. 31
variable between two groups: municipalities with PAYT and municipalities without PAYT in 2001
(Table 2). The test revealed that the percent of MSW recycled between the two groups was not
significant (0.922 significance level). This outcome was unexpected – PAYT programs usually
improve recycling percentages by a large margin. A recycling participation study was conducted
in Boston by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) in June
2000. The study revealed that recycling participation for individual materials is noticeably
higher in PAYT communities (MA DEP 2000). The abnormality of this outcome is a likely result
of Hinsdale, a PAYT municipality with an extremely low MSW recycling percentage (6.92). To
determine whether or not Hinsdale was the culprit, the same test was run again but with
Hinsdale excluded. The results were again insignificant, but the significance level was much
more favorable (0.182).
The second test compared the means of the percent MSW recycled variable between
another two groups: municipalities with curbside recycling and municipalities without curbside
recycling in 2001. The test concluded that the percent of MSW recycled between the two
groups was insignificant (0.217). This is not really a surprising outcome. Curbside recycling
programs do not necessarily lead to increased recycling percentages.
The third test compared the means of the percent MSW recycled variable between yet
another two groups: municipalities with mandatory recycling and municipalities with voluntary
recycling in 2001. The test revealed that the percent of MSW recycled between the two groups
was significant (0.019 significance level). Although as noted by Watson (2008), mandatory
recycling is usually frowned upon, people in Cheshire County do recycle significantly more if
forced by law. It is also interesting to note that, out of the 18 selected municipalities, Hinsdale

39. 32
has the lowest percent of MSW recycled. Hinsdale uses both PAYT and voluntary recycling. This
suggests that PAYT needs to be coupled with mandatory recycling to reach its full potential.
Marlow and Walpole are proof that mandatory recycling and PAYT work synergistically. Marlow
had the highest (53.84) and Walpole had the second highest (47.88) percent of MSW recycled.
They are the only municipalities in Cheshire County that utilize both PAYT and mandatory
recycling (NH ELMB 2001).
Table 2 Presence or Absence of Different Recycling Programs in Cheshire County Municipalities
with Recycling Centers.
Percent MSW
Mandatory
Municipality Recycled in Curbside 2001 PAYT 2001
2001
2007
Alstead 15.29 No No Yes
Chesterfield 38.21 No No Yes
Dublin 43.89 No No Yes
Fitzwilliam 41.64 No No Yes
Gilsum 25.54 No Yes Voluntary
Harrisville 35.91 No No Yes
Hinsdale 6.92 Yes Yes Voluntary
Jaffrey 27.15 No No Yes
Keene 31.51 No No Yes
Marlborough 28.22 No No Yes
Marlow 53.84 No Yes Yes
Rindge 45.72 No No Yes
Stoddard 24.07 No No Yes
Swanzey 38.96 Yes No Yes
Troy 45.72 Yes No Yes
Walpole 47.88 No Yes Yes
Westmoreland 21.76 Yes No Voluntary
Winchester 21.33 Yes No Yes
While the statistical analysis of the secondary data revealed some interesting recycling
trends in Cheshire County, an in-depth look at the data obtained from the general public

40. 33
surveys should provide another useful perspective. As mentioned earlier, the mean responses
to questions 17 and 18 from the general public surveys indicate that most recyclers oppose the
consolidation of recycling centers in Cheshire County. This opposition incites several questions.
Why do Keene and Walpole recyclers oppose consolidation? Is it because they enjoy the social
component, or is it simply because they do not want to drive further? To answer these
questions two correlation tests were conducted. The first test correlated question 15 to
question 18. The results revealed a weak (0.075) and insignificant (0.534 significance level)
correlation. This confirms that the social component of recycling is not a significant reason for
opposing consolidation. The second test correlated a maximum distance (Figure 20) variable
(survey participants were asked to write the maximum distance in miles that they would travel
to recycle) to question 18. The results revealed a weak (-0.072) and insignificant (0.575
significance level) correlation. This confirms that travel distance is also not a significant reason
for opposing consolidation. The results of these two correlations make it clear that opposition
towards consolidation is difficult to statistically define. There are many possible reasons as to
why these recyclers oppose consolidation.
The null of the third hypothesis states that there is no significant difference in the
enjoyment of the social component of recycling between Keene and Walpole. In order to test
the null, another two sample difference of means test was conducted. The test compared the
means of question 15 between Keene and Walpole. The test revealed a 0.127 significance level;
consequently the null of the third hypothesis was not rejected. However, while 0.127 is
statistically insignificant, it still indicates an 87.3 chance of being right if the null was rejected.
Therefore, it is clear that many Walpole recyclers enjoy socializing more than Keene residents.

41. 34
Figure 20 Maximum Distance (in miles) Keene and Walpole Recyclers Are Willing to Travel to
Recycle.
The third hypothesis was initially established because it was expected that a
municipality with a substantially lower population would have significantly more social
enjoyment among its residents. After all, it is generally easier to socialize with people in smaller
municipalities. However, as the previous test revealed, Walpole’s smaller population did not
exhibit significantly higher social enjoyment. If a smaller population does not lead to increased
social enjoyment, what does then? To answer this question, two more correlation tests were
conducted. The first test correlated a ‘time spent’ (Figure 21) variable (survey participants were
asked to estimate the average amount of time in minutes that they spend at their recycling
centers) to question 15. The test revealed a weak (-0.005) and insignificant (0.964) correlation.
This result indicates that recyclers who spend more time at the recycling center are not
necessarily socializing more. The second test correlated a ‘years in town’ (Figure 22) variable
(survey participants were asked to write in the number of years that they have lived in their
towns) to question 15. The test revealed a weak (0.267) though significant (0.023 significance

42. 35
level) correlation. This outcome answers the question: increased tenure in a town results in
increased social enjoyment at recycling centers.
14.52
Walpole
15.82
Keene
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 21 Mean Time Spent (in minutes) at Keene and Walpole Recycling Centers.
19.1754
20
15.0714
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Keene Walpole
Figure 22 Mean Amount of Years Recyclers Have Lived in Their Towns.

43. 36
Chapter 6: Limitations and Conclusions
Limitations
A few limitations were encountered during the development of this thesis. Only a
handful of solid waste and recycling center managers attended the Municipal Solid Waste
Managers’ Meeting. It would have been helpful if managers from every town in Cheshire
County had attended to obtain more information and opinions on recycling issues in the
county. Another major limitation was the lack of current information from the towns in
Cheshire County. Data varied between different sources, and many towns did not have up to
date information on their recycling programs. Recycling programs are always changing. Keene’s
recycling program provides an example of the ever-changing nature of recycling. In 2001, Keene
had a mandatory recycling program (NH ELMB 2001), but in 2002, the program was no longer
mandatory (Governor’s Recycling Program 2002). Figure 23 displays the most recent
information on the three different types of recycling programs in Cheshire County. Information
for the town of Troy was updated in 2005. For the towns of Winchester and Richmond, the
information was updated in 2007. The towns of Roxbury, Marlborough, Keene and Marlow
were updated in 2008, and the remaining towns’ information was used from the year 2002.
There were also some limitations with the surveys when they were being conducted.
Some of the surveys were not filled out completely, and some participants either did not have
enough time to complete the surveys, or they did not want to complete them. Consequently,
some participants may have circled random answers. Despite these limitations, the study still
revealed some important findings about the status of recycling in Cheshire County.

44. 37
Figure 23 Most Recent Recycling Information Available, Cheshire County.
Conclusions
Since recycling started as a form of sanitation in the 1800’s, it has come a long way. It
started as a means to control sanitation and evolved into a method for resource conservation.
Different recycling programs have been developed over the years including curbside,
mandatory, and PAYT. Each program is effective, but a combination of certain programs works
the best. Together, PAYT and mandatory recycling are the most effective recycling programs.
The towns of Marlow and Walpole were the only municipalities in Cheshire County to have a
combination of both programs in 2001, and these towns had the highest percentage of MSW
recycled.
Analysis of the primary sources showed that there is no significant difference in the
enjoyment of socialization at the Keene and Walpole recycling centers. Primary data analysis
also revealed that greater lengths of time spent at recycling centers does not significantly

45. 38
correlate to the percent of MSW recycled. From analysis of secondary data, it was determined
that education does not correlate to an increase in the percent of MSW recycled. This was
unexpected; it was originally thought that higher education would increase the percent of MSW
recycled.
Analysis of the Recycling Center Experts Survey determined that recycling experts are
against the consolidation of recycling programs in Cheshire County, not unlike recyclers from
the towns of Keene and Walpole. However, residents of these two towns do support the idea of
the consolidation of recycling resources. Recycling experts also believe that socialization is
important and that mechanization is unimportant.
The average per capita costs on recycling varies between municipalities. Towns with
smaller populations are spending more money per capita on recycling than towns with larger
populations. If the small towns merged their recycling programs with larger towns, their
average per capita cost for recycling would decrease.
Recycling in Cheshire County has greatly improved in the past decade. If the county
could consolidate its recycling programs, then it would profit both environmentally and
economically. Residents of the 23 municipalities need to be educated in the different recycling
programs before major planning can begin. But once it does, recycling in Cheshire County will
dramatically increase.

46. 39
References
California EPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 1997. The Illustrated History of
Recycling. Sacramento: EPA.
Earth 911. 2008. About Curbside Recycling. Scottsdale, AZ. Accessible from:
http://earth911.org (last accessed 8 October 2008).
NH ELMB (New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau). 2001.
Community Profiles. Accessible from: http://www.troy-
nh.us/communityprofile.html (last accessed November 12, 2008).
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Joining Forces on Solid Waste Management:
Regionalization Is Working in Rural and Small Communities. Washington, DC.
Accessible from: www.epa.gov (last accessed 13 October 2008).
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Solid Waste Management: A Local
Challenge with Global Impacts. Washington, DC. Accessible from: www.epa.gov (last
accessed 13 October 2008).
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b. Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for
Decision-Making. Washington, DC. Accessible from: www.epa.gov (last accessed 21
August 2008).
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. Recycling is Working in the United States.
www.epa.gov. Accessible from:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/rmd/rei-rw/pdf/factsheet_nat.pdf
(Last accessed November 4, 2008)
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling,
and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2006. Washington, DC.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008a. 2006 PAYT Programs. Accessible from:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/payt/states/06comm.htm (last
accessed 11 November 2008).
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008b. Pay-As-You-Throw. Washington, DC.
Accessible from: www.epa.gov (last accessed 5 October 2008).
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008c. Recycling. Accessible from:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm (last accessed 12 October 2008).

47. 40
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008d. Recycling Market Development. Accessible
from: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/rmd/ (last accessed 11 November
2008).
Governor’s Recycling Program. 2002. An Overview of Recycling in New Hampshire: Summer
2002. Governor’s Recycling Program.
GRANIT. 2008. Layers by Data Category. Accessible from: www.granit.unh.edu (last
accessed 16 October 2008).
Jensen, Mary. 2008. Informative Recycling Interview. October 16.
KSC (Keene State College). 2007. Quick Facts for 2008-09 Academic Year. Accessible from:
http://www.keene.edu/aboutksc/ (last accessed 02 December 2008).
MA DEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. Recycling
Participation Study. Boston, MA. Accessible from: www.mass.gov/dep/ (last
accessed 20 August 2008).
McKenzie-Mohr, D. 2002. Recycling: Why People Participate; Why They Don’t. Boston:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Melosi, Martin V. 2005. Garbage in Cities: Refuse, Reform and the Environment
(Revised Edition). Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Monahan, M. 2004. Cheshire County, New Hampshire: Municipal Solid Waste Study.
Durham: University of New Hampshire.
New Hampshire Labor Market Information Bureau. 2008. Community Profiles. Accessible
from: http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/communpro.htm (last accessed 14 October
2008).
NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2001. State of New
Hampshire Transfer Station and Recycling Center Design and Operations
NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2001. Best Management
Practices for Transfer Stations/ Recycling Centers
NH DES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2007. Solid Waste
Disposal Tonnages and Recycling Rates for Municipalities. Accessible from:
http://www.keenepubliclibrary.org/ (last accessed on 15 October 2008).

48. 41
NH DES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 2008. 2007 Municipal
Recycling Rates and Per Capita Costs. Concord, NH. Accessible from:
http://des.nh.gov (last accessed 8 October 2008).
NRRA (Northeast Resource Recovery Association). 2008. Accessible from:
http://www.nrra.net/index.html (last accessed 14 October 2008).
Recycling Centers. 2008. History of Recycling. Accessible from:
http://www.recyclingcenters.org/history_of_recycling.php (last accessed on 15
October 2008).
Rogerson, P. A. 2006. Statistical Methods for Geography: A Student’s Guide. New York: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Sclove, S. L. 2001. Notes on Likert Scales. Chicago: University of Illinois.
Skumatz, L.A. and D.J. Freeman. 2006. Pay As You Throw (PAYT) in the US: 2006 Update and
Analyses. Superior, CO: SERA.
United States Census Bureau. 2006. Fact Sheets. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the
Census. Accessible from: www.census.gov (last accessed 14 October 2008).
United States Census Bureau. 2008. Quick Facts on Cheshire County. Accessible from:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/33/33005.html (last accessed 15 October
2008).
Watson, Duncan. 2008. Informative Recycling Interview. September 4.
Weitz, K. 2008. Life Cycle Management of Municipal Solid Waste: Perspectives and
Tradeoffs. RTI (Research Triangle Institute).
Zimring, C. A. 2005. Cash for Your Trash: Scrap Recycling in America. Piscataway: Rutgers
University Press.