This is actually the first time I have heard of a green bin program. It's nice to see how larger cities like Toronto has set up such a system although the article/background information supplied did not provide a progress report or any numbers to show performance. Good to see Whitehorse garnered municipal council support - but only after showing the bottom line numbers, which still costs money.

It appears that moral suasion may be an effective policy tool for increasing compost collection and organic waste sorting as part of a comprehensive waste management program; however I don't see any hard evidence of other policies that could be more favourable including incentives. In my town, we need garbage bag stickers, for $2/bag, to access curb side pick up. You can purchase these from A&P grocery stores or other corner stores. Recycling is unlimited and free provided it is in clear bags, and the recyclables are sorted properly. These are picked up on the same day that the other garbage is picked up. Therefore by diverting as much recyclables as you can - you reduce your own costs of accessing curbside pick up for your other garbage. Adding compost bags (green bags) would benefit this further.

The positive comments regarding the collection and re-use of green wastes has been enlightening. Metro Vancouver has been mandated by the municipalities of the Lower Mainland of BC to reduce their carbon footprint by changing the method in disposing of solid wastes by creating a green waste program within the Lower Mainland. AS each municipality is directly responsible for the collection of all solid waste materials from both residential and commercial sectors, it has taken considerable cooperation to initiate the construction and subsequent operation of green waste composting facilities where all the organic wastes can be handled (estimated at 50%.

The collection of the green waste component that is presently in the general waste stream may present an initial problem in relationship to the volume of homes and businesses that will have to be serviced. Additionally, the majority of municipalities have been providing individual composting bins to residents for many years for backyard composting. As shown in the Toronto example, there is a significant capital cost in providing curbside containers that will move the organic wastes from the residence to a centralized facility or multi-facilities that are envisioned.

Another key threshold that I see is the collection frequency as many residents use garborators to dispose of the organic portion of their wastes. Which method is more effective? WIth the upgrading of wastewater treatment plants also proposed, the organic portion has been calculated into the criteria for the design of the secondary treatment works.

As the centralization of green waste collection and treatment provides an alternative to landfill disposal or to incineration, the best management of the centralized facility will require provisions for wastewater treatment, odour control and markets for the finished product.

I wonder how effective it would be to implement a green bin program by divvying up the costs through regular tax payments. Basically I can think of 2 scenarios when the initial capital cost of green bins can be distributed to the residents equally presuming the cost of a medium-sized green bin is ~ $75:
1) The $75 would be divided into 4 separate equal payments (monthly or whatever the proposed tax payment schedule is in a particular city)on top of the existing property taxes;
2) The $75 could be paid initially, which would eliminate the need to add this to your regular taxes; or
3) The intial cost could be in regular payments to the Municipality as a separate account and not added to the property taxes (like a rent to own plan).

This can be implemented through a pilot study led by volunteers. Is it equitable? perhaps not, but I would argue that it is the cost of owning a home or living in a city with a landfill space problem. Cities would need to look at opportunity costs and this can be significant especially in a large urban setting with little available landfill space (like Zoe said it's likely more difficult to implement a green bin program in a city with lots of room in their landfill).

Another scenario can be the purchase of compost (good ones) from the residents themselves. While it may be little profit, it can be an additional source of income and empowerment (through rewards) for the residents.

I seem to be the rural representation for the group, so I would like to point out the difficulties from our perspective. Because of our small population setting up the infrastructure and resources for a program like this would be not cost effective. The small tax base does not allow for the staff to collect waste and maintain a program like this. We only have drink container and paper recylcing in our community. The emissions necessary to transport waste products to a larger centre would cancel out many of the benefits. A program in a rural area might involve education and resources for a backyard or small neighborhood composting program.

The collection of green waste has a considerable advantge over regular household waste as it can be turned into a very valuable commodity. Quality compost is very desirable both for backyard gardeners and larger industrial-sized nurseries and greenhouses. There must be some accounting for the money that the sale of the compost (after processing, marketing and distributing) would bring in to help offset the up-front costs of the green bins, collection process and infrastructure costs for the central compost stations. Lisa also mentioned the potential to capture the leachate coming off the coposting pile as "compost tea" and bottling this product for sale. If we offered a discount for participating households to purchase the final products of their green bins, that may encourage greater participation in the program.

Don Harrison

The exmples for composting, whether it be backyard programs or centralized facilities had one common goal; the removal of the organic wastes from the solid waste stream that was being disposed of through landfilling. Issues were identified regarding the viability of centralized composting due to climate, collection, size of service community and peoples' attitude towards the suggested methods.

Use of cogeneration would identify another series of issues associated with the collection, treatment, location of the centralized facility and ability to market the power from the disposal process. Using the organic wastes to create biofuels would have similar issues as the cogeneration and composting in that the collection system would be similar, location of a facility to produce the biofuels may present the issue of "not in my backyard" and marketability of the final product.

The issue of sustainability can be dealt with through the economic, social and environmental aspects. Composting has been promoted for several decades as an economic means of removing the organic wastes portion from the solid waste stream. Cogeneration has been initiated in many jurisdictions (e.g., Vancouver) where a small percentage of the wastes are diverted from landfilling to the cogeneration facility. Initially, marketing of the surplus generated steam presented a problem and an additional capital outlay was required to add a steam turbine for power generation.
Additional issues with cogeneration was the int cost of building and operating the facility (currently estimated at 400 million dollars per facility -2007.

Socially, the installation of a cogeneration facility has been opposed by the local community through their concerns of "not in my backyard". the process of securing a site and getting the necessary authorizations is a lengthy process. Environmentally, there is still a problem with the residues (bottom ash) as it normally contains metals, etc. as the organic portion is not separated from the overall waste stream.

Which is more sustainable is a matter of choice. The cost of building and operating a composting facility is significantly less than a cogeneration facility. Public reaction to the composting facility can be lessened through locating within an industrial area rather than in the residential.

Ideally, the operation of a combination of composting and cogeneration facilities that remove 100% of the solid waste stream from the landfill would be more sustainable and more cost-effective.

In response to Chris' comments, I find that the comparison of urban to rural systems is a misnomer. The population base of a rural community cannot support a centralized system of collection which results in the higher carbon footprint per individual for the collection and disposal of the solid waste stream. However, it also allows for a more robust composting program whereby all organic wastes can be re-used and/or recycled within the homeowner's property.
Having lived in rural communities in BC and operating an orchard, it was our policy to minimize the amount of wastes that we generated, separated all reusable items and recycle. Additionally, the disposal of all wastes was done on the most infrequent basis to minimize our carbon footprint.
Lisa was correct in adding the social aspect to the rural community as the majority of organic wastes would be recycled through composting, either on your land or that of your neighbours.

In regards to the urban aspect, centralized recycling programs were developed to encourage the reduction of wastes generated. However, these programs have developed into an easier means of disposing of wastes while feeeling good that you are helping the environment. As Louise stated today, many of the products cannot be re-used or recycled (e.g. glass) and large open spaces are now used to store this material until markets are more favourable or alternate uses are developed.

Orlando gave me an article from the Abbotsford News that demonstrates the contraversy with the disposal of the solid waste component in the Lower Mainland of BC. While Metro Vancouver wants to build waste to energy facilities to dispose of the wastes and generate power, Abbotsford is opposed due to the implications of increased GHG emissions.
The benefits include lower energy consumption, reduced land use for disposal and economic wellbeing of the communities through power generation. If the plan is defeated, the majority of the wastes will be transported to landfills in the interior of BC or USA.

If agreement is not reached between the communities, the social network is placed at risk, environmental impact may be increased to other communities including rural ones and the economic impact will be detrimental to the homeowner due to the increased disposal costs.

"Which type of living has most to offer sustainable development do you think? The efficiencies of complex urban systems, or the mutually supported independence of rural living?"

The response to Chris' inquiry is difficult to answer given the differences in population densities and other attributes between a rural area in Saskatchewan or one in Ontario. For example the "boundary" that separates rural areas to urban areas in Southern Ontario is becoming unclear as urban sprawl occurs quickly. This, of course, only reinforces the need to add an organic waste collection program into a comprehensive waste management system. So in larger areas where rural areas are somewhat close to urban areas, then why can't we develop or construct a compost-only landfill for biodiesel near a rural area where the tax base can increase and the rural residents benefit (as Lisa stated, a biodiesel plant in a rural area would increase social capital for the rural residents).

To support everyone's points so far, a comprehensive waste program will not work in a rural setting because of the lesser dense population. Conversely, there is increase social capital in a rural setting because relationships are much "closer".

I would say that a local (backyard) composting program would work better because, frankly, there is more space for rural residents to compost. This is not possible in an urban location. Have you seen the size of the backyards in newer homes? :)

Therefore to bring it back to Chris' question, I would say that an urban (centralized) system would be more sustainable because there will be probably more support in a door-to-door service (as Nicole stated) in a larger setting (as Etobicoke) because waste production is larger (due to a denser population) and less carbon footprint (as Jim stated). A central drop-off location may work, but people will likely just drive to the location (in their massive V8 trucks) and emit more GHG emissions than a municipal truck picking up the green bins. Unless of course more central-drop off locations are installed within walking distance; at this point a cost-benefit analysis would be required.

A local system would be "equally" sustainable in a rural setting because there is backyard space. So people just walk to their backyard and get rid of it (the waste program in a particular urban location, however, must discourage the organic waste going into the regular garbage, which can be discouraged by requiring garbage tags as I mentioned in my first posting).

I read a couple articles that are relevant to our case studies. I included the links - copy them into Word and the hyperlink should work. They claim in one article that the cost of municpal recycling programs rarely come close to recovering the collection and processing costs. One exception, though, was "largely near ports in dense urban areas that charge high fees for landfill disposal and enjoy good market conditions for the sale of recyclables." This sounds a lot like Vancouver to me.

I still think if you are in a rural area, it is a lot easier to take care of your own green waste by composting it yourself. They don't have the economies of scale to make a logistically complex system viable. Those enjoying the simple life should be more able to resort to simpler solutions.

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=…

http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9249262

Don Harrison

I touched a little bit on how the boundaries/buffers between large urban areas and rural areas are diminishing, which means the ability to provide comprehensive waste management pick-ups offered by urban municipalities can be extended to the nearby rural municipality. This implies that a person/group that can bridge the gap between the different municipalities would be integral to the success of such a co-op green waste program. A co-op compost dump shared by both "urbanites" and rural residents will decrease costs of implementation and maintenance, if this was a concern.

Another node is required for bridging the residents and also the municipal officials with respect to education about green wastes. This will garner support from both stakeholders and identify common concerns. Stakeholders can then formulate solutions. Once implemented, as a pilot project (like Whitehorse's case), then the same node can ensure that the results are communicated to all stakeholders that otherwise would not have been able to communicate together.

Nodes play an important role specially if we want a culture change within our society. There is need to educate our stakeholders specially our youth.

I think that we can all agree with Nicole's summary that one solution does not fit all applications.

Where we have not touched on is the identification of associated problems with composting of green wastes (e.g., odour, effluent, rodents). When Metro Vancouver began the process of sellecting sites, choosing a methodology and describing the possible negatives of the process, we had to examine the locations in relationship to adjacent land use criteria. WOuld it be appropriate to site a centralized composting facility in a residential area, near a commercial centre or where the transportation of the wastes would increase the carbon footprint that we were trying to reduce.

In regards to the odours associated with composting, we had experience with the composting of mushroom manure operations. Large scale composting generally under a covered but open area. If located in a semi-rural area, odours occurred and carried significant distances. When the process was upgraded to fully enclosed facilities with BACT requirements, the number of odour complaints were reduced significantly (e.g., 2000 vs. 10 per year).

The second area that we have had to examine is the wastewater generated. As Lisa stated this wastewater can be considered a commodity due to it high nutrient value. However, the large volume that is expected to be generated from several proposed operations will require a marketing plan and alternately, a treatment plan if the markets are too small.

We are all aware of the "not in my backyard" approach that most municipalities and individuals take when dealing with waste materials. Orlando gave me an article earlier this week dealing with the proposed waste to energy facilities that will be part of the overall management plan to handle the solid waste stream of the Lower Mainland of BC. Abbotsford does not want us to build any of these facilities; however they do not provide any alternatives. Sensitive issue for most municipalities.

Siting of the individual composting facilities requires easy access to the major routes within the lower mainland. this means finding suitable locations within industrial parks whereby several adjacent municipalities can be serviced.

Another aspect that was discussed in the case study was the financial implications of getting the necessary funding to build and operate these facilities. Early composting facilities in the lower mainland were mainly started by the private sector. None are currently in operation due to the lack of adequate funding from the various levels of government. This means that government will have to provide the funding to both construct and operate each of these facilities.

I know that I have been long-winded in my summation of the composting aspect of solid waste management but it is a complex subject that requires examination of many different areas. I am interested in how each of you could forsee the operation of similar facilities in your community. What size would the facility be? how would it be funded? Who would provide the operating capital?

One point I took away from Louise's talk that relates to our case study is the degree of pent-up public willingness to act. They want to do what they can to make a difference in their local environment, just are not educated enough in the isuues. I think that most would be suprised to know that the Blue Box program is not making much of a difference. Their intentions are good, just they don't know where to focus their eneries.

The municipality where I live offers a program (unfortunately for a fee) where they will come to a homeowner's proerty and do an audit of their landscaping and composting activities. The prime driver in this is the conservation of water, though the reduction of green yard waste collected by the municipality is also a goal. If more information like this were made available, then the increased education level of the citizens would lead to more innovations. The old "teach a man to fish argument" comes into play. (I suppose that should be "teach a woman to fish" as well but having gone fishing with my wife once, the image is too disheartening).

Don Harrison

OK, I am going to try and apply some of the lecture material to this debate. Imagine if you will a community that has this green waste problem and starts to organize itself for their mutual benefit. For example, if a group of serious gardners get together in their neighbourhood to teach and help other homeowners to start backyard composting. These other people may or may not want the compost product, however, they could donate or possibly sell their compost to the other gardners or the municipality. It could then be used for any community garden projects or to help out the local parks department: this would reduce their costs for buying compost commercially and could provide tax relief (ok, it wouldn't be much but who knows what the futures market holds in store for good compost?)They could engage the local high-school to help organize the distribution and possible sales of the compost. The students could get some credits for community involvement and also learn small business skills.

The process, over time, would lead up the graph that Ann showed of moving from engagement to cooperation towrds a shared community future. There would be a sense of accomplishment from turning waste produced going outside the community to a full-cycle conversion within the community that enriches local ecosystems. Bridging and bonding network ties would be built that, once in place, could be used to help out in other community issues.
Don Harrison

It was interesting to read everyone's thoughts so far. Thank you because I have learnt quite a bit. To add to Don's comments about possibly using green compost as a commodity where farmers can sell or donate excess/unwanted compost to other farmers, I wondered how other non-residential members of our community can also benefit. In particular, industries/commercial enterprises can benefit from additional compost as an organic layer for remediating disturbed sites.

Mines, for example, or aggregate pits have bare ground that have been disturbed through resource extraction. When a mine closes, it is sometimes difficult to find an organic soil layer for reseeding and revegetation. Consequently, this is an opportunity for "composters" to establish a mutualistic relationship. This can build morale and overall increase social (partnership in the community), economic (monies from selling/purchasing of compost), and environmental (remediation of disturbed sites) capital.

I liked Rosano's scenario on the difficulty that mines may have finding suitable quantities of organic material for the rehabitation of their mine waste piles and/or sites. Metro Vancouver has been involved in a program to provide sanitary sewage sludge (nutrifor) to such operations as an organic layer for anchoring vegetation. As it becomes a product rather than a waste from the WWTP's, it has a greater value in being used for this application than having to either landfill or incinerate it.

Both The City of Chilliwack and Toronto have their unqiue challenges and innovative strategies of addressing their water pollution.

However, these two design examples suggest that more actions from property owners are required. Water pollution is caused by human activity after all. Although the City of Toronto identified cost as the debilitating factor in retrofitting older homes, there is the need to encourage owners to accept responsibility for the effects of their activities. Awareness of the impacts of human activities on water quality does not necessarily translate into ownership of the problem and a willingness to change patterns of behavior. That is why on-going education has an intrinsic value but on-going learning should go beyond the dos and don’ts of behavior. Community engagement has even more intrinsic value as this is where finding a balance between what is needed by humans and what is needed in the environment is an important step in the sustainability of water resources and management. It has been noted by researchers that collaborative actions in the early stages of a plan have shown a higher rate of participation and stewardship projects (Tetra Tech, n.d).

As argued by Pahl-Wostl there is a new paradigm shift towards adaptive and participatory approaches to water management rather than “predict and control” mechanisms. This entails collaborative and interdisciplinary learning to manage the interdependence complexities and uncertainties of catchment (Rogerson et. al., 2011). Perhaps the problem is that cities like Toronto and Chilliwack are looking for big solutions to address a wicked problem and may not realize that small actions by local residents could have cascading sustainable results to their infrastructure.

Small actions can reap larger economic and social benefits:

Rain barrels can be purchased from just about any hardware store but are simply designed to store water from run offs. The water can be used for irrigation such as watering your vegetable garden and your lawn. Rain water can be stored in a cistern which stores the water and can be used for many practical uses such as your flushing toilets, for the shower or even for washing dishes. Mind you, Cisterns are not always applicable in places where you don’t get much rain. Green roofs have the added benefits of keeping the rain run offs as the soil will absorb the rain but at the same time, green roofs have proven to reduce energy bills as it keeps the home cool in the summer (River West, n.d). Another community actions plan are Bio-retention practices which was developed in the early 1990s. Bio-retention systems are designed to mimic processes that occur in the natural environment. These systems and devices filter and store runoff water from rainstorms and snow melt, rather than being flushed through the stormwater sewer system.

In concluding, there are many innovative ideas that go beyond the scope of environmental tools (hydrology, monitoring, testing, and policy) and we should not limit ourselves to just one school of thought. There is also the need to broaden our lens by looking at other theoretical approaches not traditionally used in water management. I am doing my thesis on a local water management system in the City of Burnaby, British Columbia. What is unique with this research paper is the approach taken to address pollution problem. CPTED is a multi-disciplinary approach designed to deter criminal behavior through environmental design principles. The principles (natural access, maintenance, territoriality, access control) have been successful in changing and deterring criminal behavior and activities. This paper will examine these same principles and whether they can be used to deter and prevent pollution.

River West (n.d.) Water on the land: sustainable stormwater management guide. Retrieved from http://greenmanitoba.ca/umedia/Water-on-the-Land-Mar_1-2013.pdf

Robertson, J., Sadler, S., Green, A., & Wong., C. (2011). Sustainable communities: skills and learning for place making. Hatfield, Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press

Tetra Tech. (n.d). Getting in step: engaging and evolving shareholders in your watershed. Retrieved from http://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/stakeholderguide.pdf

This is an interesting problem, in being that it is coupled with the issues that the city of Toronto was dealing with in 2003 and continues to deal with in regards to the West Nile virus (WNV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARSs) and the heightened public and media perceptions. “To a family directly affected by SARS or WNV, no media [or other] report can overestimate the pain and damage involved. But if you run a business in an area affected by either concern, any amount of media discussion of problems seems excessive, because it inevitably has a negative impact on the bottom line.” (Wilson, 2003)

West Nile virus first appeared in Ontario in 2001, “the virus is transmitted by mosquitoes that [have] become infected by feeding on an infected bird” (Government of Ontario, 2012) and then can infect humans through contact. Toronto has been addressing this issue by providing ample information through various media sources on the preventive measures regarding WNV and its transmission. The question of lagoons and ponds therefore becomes complicated due to the conflicting opinions based on the benefits and issues surrounding mosquito breeding areas.

By creating and or reestablishing lagoons and retention ponds municipalities would be able to reintroduce and increase the biodiversity of particular regions. This would in return provide various positive outputs but through sustainable development and monetarily through savings. The lagoons and ponds could potentially act and be utilized as reservoirs and alleviate the water runoff issues that municipalities are facing between 30-50 times a year from combined sewer over flows in Toronto for example (Ling, 2007). These runoffs are leading to the break down in ecological life at the end of pipe systems (discharge from water treatment plants) in our lakes which has therefore led to decreased water quality and directly impacting animal resilience leading to the break down in biodiversity. By using these lagoons and ponds there would exist the possibilities for the water runoff to be naturally purified via aerobic water treatment systems. This is one example of offsetting potential costs by evaluating the bigger picture in respect to waste water. By combining these two issues the solution would be mutually linked and could be therefore be taken on and shared by the two departments of the municipality and lower the overall costs associated with running and implementing the projects.

It is important to remember our past when planning or implementing decisions about our future, as the world continues to grow so will its city’s and therefore it is important to look at the infrastructure surrounding one of our most precious resources, water. Lessons can be learned through the experiences of places such as Toronto, where decisions made in their past are having major ramifications in the ways and options available to them in regards to water runoff and treatment and as a consequence water quality. There is a growing amount of information and exposure to various reports outlining specific case studies surrounding these problems and providing possible solutions, all of which provide recommendations and direction which are too often difficult to implement due to poor existing infrastructure planning. Municipalities need to actively plan for growth and ensure they do not box themselves in with their future options available requiring large public expenditures which the public will unlikely be happy about or understand. The possibility to address this issue and learn from previous mistakes should be motivation of any municipality and its constituents to grow and set the right examples.

The utilization of sustainable development practices will also be a key factor for developing cities. Municipalities must ensure that development plans are sustainable and take full advantage of the natural ecosystems we occupy. The utilization of natural systems will help to minimize impacts of issues such as water runoff, which can be absorbed locally therefore reducing strain on sewer systems and in turn water treatment plants. Knowledge is also important and should be available for all, from the individuals to businesses and the local government, being aware of the impacts of our development are key and effectively planning and minimizing future development impact will ensure a more resilient regards to ways of reducing water runoff and diminish hazardous pollutants which if left unchecked affect the water supply.

Chilliwack and Toronto are early adopters of integrated stormwater management planning (ISMP). As defined by the BC Stormwater Planning Guidebook, ISMP considers more than end-of-the-pipe solutions for stormwater and takes a systems approach to manage stormwater from the source. This is a very proactive approach and can go far in minimizing disruption to natural hydrologic patterns. It's much easier to install in new development than trying to retrofit, so in that case Chilliwack has an advantage over Toronto. But best management practices don't replace good land use planning based on Smart Growth or low impact development principles. Because while it's important to manage stormwater, it's more important to develop in an ecologically sensitive way which minimizes disruption to natural systems.

I like the approach that Chilliwack it taking with concentrating on new developments. Retrofitting is incredibly difficult and the costs become prohibitive for the homeowners in an area. In a new development, it can be built into the selling price of the lot. It is true that geotechnical considerations must be made. In my neightbourhood (which I always seem to talk about - its really nice for a new suburbany sprawl area) has a series of "dry ponds" and a little stream that channel water from parts of the community when it rains excessively. The dry pond fills (not sure why it is called a dry pond) and then the water can slowly infiltrate. Most of the time the pond is dry and acts as a sort of park, so this is also a nice feature.
Calgary is also in the process of developing some constructed wetlands, I'll get more information on this as it seems as this seems to be another progressive way to deal with wastes.