Trash and recycling rates across NH
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services recently released its summary of last year’s waste management and recycling activities across the state. I downloaded this data from the NH-DES website and did some calculations and sorting to compare the recycling efforts of New Hampshire cities and towns.
Ranking by recycling rate
The table below shows the rankings of New Hampshire communities according to their 2006 Recycling Rate. The recyling rate is calculated as the sum of municipal composted and recycled waste, divided by the total waste stream handled by the municipality, which could include industrial and commercial waste, as well as composted, recycled, and normal household waste (so-called Municipal Solid Waste, MSW). Construction and demolition waste is not included in the analysis.
Exeter leads the rankings, although the numbers for Exeter are suspect. The Portsmouth Herald reported that although Exeter is believed to have a high recycling rate, reliable values for the total waste stream could not be determined. Among other Seacoast-area communities, Dover, Portsmouth, Somersworth and Newmarket all ranked well, with recycling rates greater than 50%. Manchester, Nashua, the Keene region and Concord all have recyling rates below the statewide average of 20.6%, with Concord’s particularly low at only 5.4% (even though Concord does offer curbside recycling). Approximately 50 communities report no recycling, or have insufficient data to determine a recycling rate.
| Rank |
Community |
2006 Recycling Rate |
| 1 | Exeter | 98.9% |
| 2 | Peterborough (region) | 82.8% |
| 3 | Westmoreland | 79.1% |
| 4 | Marlow | 76.5% |
| 5 | Littleton | 70.2% |
| 6 | Fitzwilliam | 65.1% |
| 7 | Plymouth | 64.0% |
| 8 | Stewartstown (region) | 63.0% |
| 9 | Lancaster | 60.2% |
| 10 | Dover | 59.6% |
| 11 | Portsmouth | 56.0% |
| 12 | Wilton (region) | 53.2% |
| 13 | Somersworth | 52.9% |
| 14 | Newmarket | 52.7% |
| 15 | Piermont | 52.0% |
| …other selected communities… | ||
| 28 | Durham | 43.1% |
| 33 | South Hampton | 42.1% |
| 92 | North Hampton | 24.1% |
| 97 | Greenland | 23.2% |
| 101 | New Durham | 21.9% |
| 105 | Rochester | 21.4% |
| — | NH Statewide Average | 20.6% |
| 114 | Manchester | 19.4% |
| 117 | Hampton | 18.9% |
| 134 | Nashua | 16.1% |
| 138 | Keene (region) | 15.4% |
| 162 | Concord | 5.4% |
| Source: NH DES | ||
Ranking by “trash” generated per capita
The next table shows the rankings of New Hampshire communties according to their 2006 per capita MSW. This figure includes household non-recycled waste only, and excludes commercial, industrial, composted and recycled waste.
Exeter is again near the top in the ranking, but likely has a greater MSW value than was reported, as described above. Similarly, MSW values for some of the other communities near the top of this ranking are suspiciously low, less than 100 pounds per person, and less than 3 pounds per person in the case of Westmoreland. But clearly some communities are doing an excellent job of managing their municipal waste. With the exception of Durham, the Seacoast communities did not fare as well, although many did better than the statewide average of 0.422 tons MSW per person. Near the bottom of the rankings are a surprising mix of large and small communities, such as Nashua, Concord and the Keene region, along with the Jackson region and Waterville Valley. Assumedly, the rankings for these latter two are skewed by their small full-time populations, but large trash output due to tourist activities. The numbers for Nashua, Concord and the Keene region are more surprising, and show that there is great room for improvement in these larger communities. Again, approximately 50 communities have insufficient data to calculate a per capita value for MSW.
| Rank | Community | MSW (tons/capita) | 2006 Recycling Rate |
| 1 | Haverhill-NF | 0.001 | 0.0% |
| 2 | Exeter | 0.003 | 98.9% |
| 3 | Westmoreland | 0.019 | 79.1% |
| 4 | Marlow | 0.044 | 76.5% |
| 5 | New Ipswich | 0.049 | 76.5% |
| 6 | Peterborough (region) | 0.090 | 82.8% |
| 7 | Newmarket | 0.095 | 52.7% |
| 8 | Troy | 0.103 | 43.7% |
| 9 | Littleton | 0.110 | 70.2% |
| 10 | Fitzwilliam | 0.119 | 65.1% |
| 11 | Hinsdale | 0.126 | 7.4% |
| 12 | Chester | 0.127 | 40.5% |
| 13 | Durham | 0.132 | 43.1% |
| 14 | Milton | 0.144 | 40.6% |
| 15 | Dalton | 0.147 | 29.8% |
| …other selected communities… | |||
| 36 | Somersworth | 0.194 | 52.9% |
| 37 | Dover | 0.196 | 59.6% |
| 54 | Portsmouth | 0.260 | 56.0% |
| 70 | South Hampton | 0.302 | 42.1% |
| 78 | North Hampton | 0.322 | 24.1% |
| 83 | Greenland | 0.338 | 23.2% |
| 98 | Rochester | 0.372 | 21.4% |
| 117 | Manchester | 0.422 | 19.4% |
| — | NH Statewide Average | 0.422 | 20.6% |
| 124 | New Durham | 0.443 | 21.9% |
| 128 | Nashua | 0.449 | 16.1% |
| 154 | Hampton | 0.613 | 18.9% |
| 177 | Concord | 1.121 | 5.4% |
| 178 | Auburn | 1.160 | 6.2% |
| 179 | Lebanon | 1.431 | 7.9% |
| 180 | Keene (region) | 1.446 | 15.4% |
| 181 | Tilton | 1.575 | 0.6% |
| 182 | Jackson (region) | 2.671 | 10.2% |
| 183 | Waterville Valley | 3.168 | 13.0% |
| Source: NH DES | |||
Posted: Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 8:33 pm by adam
File as: Conservation and Sustainability; NH and Seacoast Area
Comments
Comment from Janice Brown
Time: Saturday, Oct 20, 2007, 11:04 am
I find these statistics, especially the per capita value for MSW to be unbelievable.
How could a household in Waterville Valley be so much greater than that of people living in cities such as Manchester or Nashua? Any ideas?
Comment from Adam
Time: Saturday, Oct 20, 2007, 1:04 pm
Janice, I share your concern, and I’ve tried to address what I thought might be causing the peculiarities in the data.
The numbers shown were taken directly from the DES report. The MSW/capita value I obtained simply by dividing the MSW by the town’s population, both of which were presented on the report.
My thinking is that the data for small towns, such as Waterville Valley, do not really represent the MSW generated by that town–I can’t imagine any community being that extraordinarily wasteful. There are at least three reasons I can think of here:
1. The reported data could simply be wrong. The data is compiled by DES from reports submitted by each town. Smaller communities may simply not know the value of the MSW they process, and may only estimate the tonnage.
2. The MSW shown is supposed to represent household waste only, and not include commercial, industrial or demolition waste. It’s possible that in a small town like Waterville Valley–which none the less has a larger effective population, due to tourism–that some commercial waste, perhaps from restaurants, B&B’s, and the like, gets processed or commingled along with household waste. Given the town’s small, permanent population (274), a small amount of commercial waste could easily skew the numbers.
3. Perhaps the waste reported for that community actually is generated by a larger population, such as from neighbors that quietly take their waste to the Waterville Valley facility, but are not included in the population count.
For towns with small populations, I am less concerned about the apparent oddities in the data, since the per-capita values are so easily skewed. I take greater interest in the larger communities that show such high values, such as Concord and Keene.
It’s my hope that since the NH DES takes the trouble to collect this data, it is also performing a similar analysis, and asking the same questions of the reporting towns. Either the reporting accuracy needs to improve, or the state needs to ask why are some communities apparently generating so much unrecycled waste.
Pingback from Things I Learned This Week « Kreblog
Time: Sunday, Oct 21, 2007, 9:54 am
[…] doesn’t do too bad in terms of recycling, although the state as a whole is not too […]
Comment from Dave Brooks
Time: Monday, Oct 22, 2007, 10:42 am
The Telegraph did a story about this last week. The weird numbers come about partly because some places (e.g., Concord) collect trash from companies and others (e.g., Manchester) don’t; if you collect it, then its included in your recycling rate, but if you don’t, it isn’t. From the story:
“For instance, Nashua recycled 16.1 percent of its solid waste, the DES said. In reality, that figure should be about 8 percentage points higher because private companies dumped 27,536 tons of commercial waste at the Nashua landfill, and that tonnage is included with total solid waste.”
Also, smaller towns that are part of a trash collective get the recycling rate for the entire collective, which could skew them up or down.
Comment from Adam
Time: Monday, Oct 22, 2007, 8:33 pm
As usual, good feedback Dave. Thanks for the info.
Adam
Comment from dave coulter
Time: Thursday, Nov 15, 2007, 7:50 am
As far as the concerns about communities be wasteful, I unfortunately believe that there are indivduals in some that are extremely wasteful. A neighborhood near my house would fill a regular stakebody truck(used by contractors) and this is only about 20 houses. Almost no-one recycles! the amount of cardboard on some days could easily overfill a stndard pickup truck. The amount of gross over purchasing of un-needed(goods?) is disgusting. Then the packaging is set out for trash day. Face it, curbside recycling probably wouldn’t really work because “people are just plain lasy”. The American society imbedded in gorging and tossing and letting someone else take care of it.
Comment from Pierre
Time: Monday, Mar 17, 2008, 3:15 pm
Unfortunately, people, as a rule are lazy. It is SO much easier to just “toss it out” than take the extra steps necessary to recycle. The real probelm is the disconnect. As consumers and citizens we just don’t feel or see the effects of our wastefulness fast enough to motivate us into changing our habits. I’m a devout environmentalist and even I have to get on my own case about keeping my waste down. This will sound really hokey, but I just tell myself that I will not allow myself to contribute to the extinction of polar bears. I profess to care so I had better SHOW I care. Aside, from everyone feeling like this, it will probably take some rather harsh legislation on our local government’s part to improve those numbers.
Comment from adam
Time: Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008, 7:32 pm
Thanks Dave and Pierre for your comments. I have a feeling that laziness will only be overcome by necessity, when we no longer have the convenience of cheap goods, cheap energy, and cheap disposal.
Comment from Richard
Time: Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008, 1:52 am
Recycling and Zero Waste has become a passion for me in recent years. Would someone please take a look at the small town of Warner, NH? The town and the Transfer/Recycling Station manager have done a great job, with more to be done. If you include the dumpster users in town, Warner is recycling at 32%. If you take away the dumpster users, we are recycling at 64%. Dumpster users make up 50 - 55% of the waste. Most of those users do not recycle. Although recycling is mandatory in Warner, it does not seem to be enforced.
I believe that educating residents about recycling is a step that if it equates recycling with added revenue for the community, it really opens eyes. Warner made about $43,000 in revenue and over $20,000 in cost avoidance. Not too bad for a town of 3000 people.
I believe that as stated in a comment above, that people are lazy, but education and that good old American dollar saved (which is not worth very much today) by recycling makes a point. Not to mention that good feeling in what you are doing for the future.
Comment from PORT CITY COIN AND JEWELRY
Time: Friday, Apr 18, 2008, 8:49 pm
I own a 3 unit on Maplewood Ave for 6 years and just this week the recycle truck put stickers on all 3 of my bins to seperate recycleables and didn’t take trash.
If the City Of Portsmouth thinks tenants are going to seperate recycleable in several different bins The City Of Portsmouth is crazy!!!
My tenants are great and I figure it was a new lazy city employee who refused to pick up my recycle bins this week!
It’s the city employee’s who are lazy my tenants have done their part to recycle for years!
Comment from adam
Time: Sunday, Apr 20, 2008, 9:40 pm
I’m surprised about the messages you’ve received. My experience is that pickup gets rejected only if recyclables are present in the normal trash, or if clearly non-recyclable items are present in the bins. As far as I know, there is no requirement to separate amongst the recyclables, other than to separate paper from plastics, glass and cans.
Comment from brooke
Time: Thursday, Jun 19, 2008, 12:48 pm
We run a golf course on the Seacoast, and presently do not recycle, because the town does not offer pick-up, and we would need to hire someone to deal with the waste. I decided I would take it upon myself this season to simply deal with the 100s of beer, water and soda bottles we throw away daily. I went to the town to request some help, the Administrator said she would locate some commercial bins (showed an example of what they use at the Town Hall). I have gone back to the Town Hall numerous times, but she says they are back-ordered. To purchase such bins online is outrageous ($500+ per trash bin). Can anyone help me with this quest!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Comment from adam
Time: Friday, Jun 20, 2008, 7:25 pm
Brooke, thanks for your comment. I can sympathize with your plight. As an apartment-dweller, I usually take my recyclables to the recycling center myself, rather than rely on curbside pickup.
I don’t know exactly what type of bin you are looking for, but I found some on this website that might do the trick. The prices are much lower than what you quoted, although still not cheap ($135). I hope that helps.
Please do let me know how it turns out for you.
Write a comment