INTRODUCTION:
Since the consumption of city and urban centers, a major challenge has been brought forth for all of them, the idea of how to dispose of their trash. Over the years many nations have suffered through disease and widespread death due to their unsafe waste disposal practices. The bubonic plague in the mid-1400s was exacerbated by the abundance of household waste present on the streets and waterways. Killing an estimated 200 million people due to unhygienic practices. With better knowledge of hygienic practices, we would expect our waste to be handled in a healthy and safe manner for us and our environment. Unfortunately, even in a huge metropolis with a staggering 8.8 million residents, NYC did not safely dispose of its trash until 1934. With ocean dumping being one of the preferred waste disposal methods. While laws have been put in place in order to mitigate the toxic by-product of ocean dumping as well as laws meant to fix how trash is dumbed improvement is still needed. Departments have been made to continue to combat these issues, the relevance of our waste becoming more important as we move downwards in our relationship to our environment. Many toxic and pollutants are produced by the trash industry. Most notable is methane gas which is an extremely poutine greenhouse gas more dangerous than carbon dioxide. While CO2 is produced primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, methane is produced primarily through the decomposition of organic material. With practices now becoming better than they used to be, we have more or less stopped questioning what really happens to our trash after we leave it on the side of the road. The trash is only beginning its journey and has a long way to go. So how is it that we dispose of trash in NYC, are we any further along than we were less than a century ago? With a deep analysis of the life cycle of NYC trash, we are able to find what happens to our trash after we leave it on the street.
Methods
Source 1
Researchers Seulki Lee-Geillera and Gabriela Kütting (2020) conducted a comparative case study that emphasizes a comparison within and across contexts, which involves the analysis and synthesis of similarities, differences, and patterns across two or more cases that share a common focus or goal. Rather than taking a general approach to their study, they decided to take an analytical approach. The study used an interpretive case study by Lijphart (1971), in which researchers choose to use some theory or a set of hypotheses to direct his/her examination of a particular case, and the theoretical interpretation of cases provides some limiting leverage. The authors chose two cities where a large number of the population resides, where economic activities are concentrated, and city governments expressed a political interest in improving their waste governance. This study provides the reader with a wide range of documents such as public reports, policy information, peer-reviewed articles, books, and news articles to provide a strong thesis. After adding the documents, the authors then exploited the document analysis method. Which is a systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating content documents, and then organizing them into major themes, categories, and examples, based on the analytical framework. Finally, the authors synthesized and systematically compared the two cases to draw meaningful insights.
Source 2
Solid waste management in New York City using anaerobic digestion was discussed through a research paper written by Mayank Teotia (2013). In anaerobic digestion, the biodegradable, organic components such as food waste, garden waste, cardboard, and paper are metabolized by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen. This would produce biogas, primarily methane and carbon dioxide, and a solid byproduct called digestate. Anaerobic digestion consists of three parts; Environmental Review, Community Impact, and Economic Analysis. The environmental review provides information on the current system of managing New York City waste. It was found that New York City waste generates GHG (truck travel and incineration) and occupies land for landfilling in states where waste is transported and landfilled. Community impact was shown by Eddie Bautista, Executive Director of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance. Bautista mentioned that locating an anaerobic digestion facility within New York City will definitely reduce the truck traffic and truck idling problem. The environmental analysis was conceived by a study conducted by Alternative Resources Inc. in 2005. This source would inform Teotia on the city’s economical expenses when dealing with the disposal of garbage. Alternative Resources Inc. (2005) reveals the new technologies used to compare the projected tipping fee of the study for anaerobic digestion. As well as, the projected tipping fee of the current system by Citizens Budget Commission.
Source 3
Taking into account the environmental impacts of sorted trash, the paper on An Eco‐Balanced and Integrated Approach for a More‐Sustainable MSW Management sought to create an organized graph and formula which they proposed would aid in the financial and environmental organization of our trash (Paolo Viotti 2020). The initial step is the economic analysis of the whole procedure, they begin by creating a list then a graph of all of the expenditures and profits made. This meant adding up all of the costs such as the cost of transportation, the cost to process the material, the sales from the recyclables, and taxes applied. The system can be configured by defining three groups of input parameters; main parameters, system parameters, and LCA (life cycle assessment) parameters. Main parameters refer to site information (such as the number and type of waste generation sources, etc.). As well as, waste production and sorting by categories, and collection and treatment unit cost specification. Lastly, capital cost assumption according to the presumed developing trend. System parameters include treatment capacity and efficiency of each facility; and distances between transfer stations, treatment and disposal sites. The next step has been labeled as their “Life Cycle Assessment” they propose a list of eight categories for the trash to be sorted into. The categories are as follows; Acidification potential estimate the potential of a substance present in the trash to acidify the water, Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity estimates also the toxic emission impact on freshwater ecosystems such streams, rivers, and lakes that have a salinity of less than 0.05%, Eutrophication potential estimates the possibility of nutritious substances to cause eutrophication on water surfaces, Photochemical oxidation estimates the potential of gaseous emissions and their possibility to form photo-oxidant substances by photochemical reactions, Global warming potential estimates gaseous emission potential, Depletion of abiotic resources estimates various emissions’ possible capability to deplete natural energy resources such as iron ore and crude oil, Ozone layer depletion potential estimates the probability of the trash containing substances which may contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential estimates of substances which may potentially affect humans and plant life due to such substances containing heavy metals or bio-recalcitrant organics. Sorting of these impacts is then categorized as to whether they directly impact, indirectly impact, or is an avoided impact to done as a result of sorting our waste.
Source 4
During the summer of 2011, a survey was conducted by David B. Klenosky and his team in 2017 to assess the interest in facilities and programs likely to be offered, familiarity with other landfill-to-park projects, and household demographics. The sample was selected by using a technique called address-based sampling (ABS), which selected residents by address rather than by landline telephone. Staten Island residents were the main focus of this study due to the development of the Freshkills Park in their borough. Taken into account were their family sizes and personal backgrounds such as ages and economic standing. The questionnaire consisted of questions that aimed to analyze the resident’s previous history with the site, these questions sought to ask the opinion of residents who know of the site’s history of previously being a landfill. Looking forward, other questions were about their possible interest in the site after its transformation into a Park. The third set of questions were focused on identifying possible facilitators and or inhibitors to visiting the park. These included questions such as ones that asked respondents to estimate their probability for satisfaction based on previous park experiences and possible inhibitors were questions that asked on time, money, proximity, and constraints or concerns on health or security that they may experience.
Source 5
In a study conducted by Konkel, R. Steven (1987), estimated the nature and toxicity to decipher if dioxin was a natural byproduct of the combustion process. Dioxin in this study is referred to as PCDD (polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxins) and PCDF (polychlorinated dibenzo-furans). These dioxins are toxic organic compounds present in furnace emissions of gases or vapors. Study shows that the concentration of PCDDs and PCDFs depends on the temperature in which the waste is burned. Researchers show that over 99 percent of isomers are destroyed at temperatures above 700 degrees celsius. The Hart Report notes show that the Brooklyn Navy Yard facility was 498 nanograms per cubic meter of PCGF and 57.3 nanograms per cubic meter of PCDD. In the study two standard computer models were used to register data in the Hart report. The dispersion model (MPTER) was used to predict downwind concentration PCDDs and PCDFs in the soil, dust, dirt, and air. A similar dispersion was used to estimate pollutant concentrations by using data from power plant stacks. The meteorological data was collected at LaGuardia and Fort Trottent. Data collected here was considered to be the most representative source since it estimated site conditions. The second computer model used was the Industrial Source Complex model also known as ISC. The model was used to predict deposition rates for ingestion or dermal exposure.
Data and Results
Source 1
| 2018 outcomes | New York City | NY> or < SK | Seoul |
| Total waste / year | 3,506,494 NYDS: 16,494 Commercial: 3,490,000 | NY > SK | 3,464,909 |
| Waste generated / person | 0.42 | NY > SK By 0.6 | 0.36 |
| Recycling | 26% NYDS: 29% Commercial: 26% | NY < SK | 68% |
| Landfill | 74% | 9.2% |
The resulting data above was identified by the study conducted by Lee-Geiller, S., & Kütting, G. (2021). A comparative view of the waste data displays that New York is more likely to produce more trash and recycle less than Seoul. During the year 2018, New York City made 3.5 million tons of trash while Seoul made 3.46. Each New Yorker reveals to be creating 0.6 more trash than a person in Seoul. All the while the residents of Seoul recycle 42% more than New Yorkers. Our usage of landfills is indicated with the 74% along with the ban placed on incineration thereby resulting in the indicated 0%. On the other hand, 22.8% of South Korean trash from Seoul was incinerated.
Source 2
Table 2:
Above is a map of landfills at the time. Table 3:
| Borough | Acres | Borough | Acres |
| Staten Island | 3,050 | Bronx | 1,200 |
| Queens | 2,300 | Manhattan | 250 |
| Brooklyn | 1,480 | ||
| Total | 8,270 |
Further contributing to our data on New York’s waste is the data provided by Mayank Teotia (2013) which displays acres of landfill used by each of the New York City boroughs. By order of the acres of land they used during their activity (since they were closed down within the years after 2001) for the years 1954-1957 to 2001, the boroughs are as follows in the graph above.
Source 3
Different viable scenarios can be analyzed and compared in order to define the one which results in the best optimization taking into account both costs and environmental impacts. Viotti uses a three-step procedure to conduct his experiment. The first step was data input, then technical and economic analysis, lastly, life cycle assessment. Data input only consisted of system configuration and cost evaluation. For this evaluation, technical and economic analysis is based on an Objective Function (OF) to be minimized by means of an Optimization Algorithm. The OF is obtained by summing up all the costs associated with the whole system such as costs of transportation, costs of treatments and costs of final disposal. Mixed into the calculations are the capacities for the facilities to process the trash. (The algorithm and results can be referred to in the original document but are not mentioned in our paper due to a lack of mathematical understanding and under the assumption that it is not as pivotal in our thesis.) The graph they provided lists the data which they will be searching for, the categories that they will calculate, and the environmental assessments that they’ll have to make.
Table 5:
Disregarding the numbers that were used, this is a visual display of the sorted trash in their created categories. The step results in the label of these categories are the categories of Direct Impacts, Indirect Impacts, and Avoided impacts in which after the application of the algorithms provided by the original study then contribute to a sorted approach for managing realizing our waste emissions and their costs environmentally and economically.
Source 4
The study conducted by David B. Klenosky (2017), consisted of questions created by the researchers at the USDA Forest Service, staff at NYC Parks, and collaborators at the College of Staten Island, designed as a 12-page booklet with questions based on the experiences and opinions about living on Staten Island, and familiarity and satisfaction towards current Staten Island park areas. 3300 Staten Island residents were asked about their experiences with the site before and after the landfill closed, opinions on plans to develop the park, attitudes and intentions to visit FKP (Freshkills Park). The population used for this example included, residents that lived within two miles (3.2 km) of FKP, between two and four miles (3.2–6.4 km) of FKP, and over four miles (6.4 km) from FKP. Using Address Based Sampling (ABS), a total of 1006 Staten Island residents completed the surveys, resulting in an overall study response rate across the three mailings of 32%. For the residents that did not respond, they were divided into a separate section, the non-respondents.
Table 6:
| Example of the question asked | Agreed / Probable | Indifferent / Unsure | Disagreed / Unlikely |
| Chances of visiting the park | 76.4% | 12.2% | 11.3% |
| Assumed safety from health risks | 31.8% | 35% | 33.2% |
Respondents resulted in 76.4% stating that they would definitely or probably visit, 12.2% of respondents were unsure while 11.3% responded that they would not visit the park. As for the health risks assumed or estimated by the respondents, 31.8% agreed that they would be safe from health risks, 35% were neutral to the matter while 33.2% disagreed while proposed statements that they would be safe from possible health risks. Analysis suggested that the non-response bias did not make a difference in the conducted experiment.
Discussion
Following the 1934 lawsuit for ocean dumping New York City has since made steps in the right direction. By opening up inspiration plants as well as more safe landfills the amount of trash in nyc streets has declined over the following years. With surveys conducted for Staten Island residents close to the Fishkill (Freshkill?) parks as well as numerous studies conducted by (Klenosky 2017) The New York State sanitation departmentHas progressively limited the negative side effects attributed to landfills. With landfills now being more environmentally friendly and safe residents and staff are no longer exposed to potentially dangerous chemicals. The landfills produced today are reinforced. Once the landfill is dug and the topsoil removed 4 feet of clay are added In order to create a barrier that prevents any kind of absorption of toxic liquids and other potentially harmful substances. After this clay surface has solidified a 60mil synthetic layer of high density polyethylene is added in order to Reinforce the base. The polyethylene is designed to prevent liquids from seeping into the ground with a ground pipe also being set in order to capture any liquids. The polyethylene is protected by a geotextile fabric that’s made specifically to prevent any punctures into the polyethylene. Above this layer an assortment of rocks piled and flattened out to be a foot in thickness. The assortment of rocks are meant to allow any residual liquids to be absorbed into the removal pipe. While this pipe is meant to extract sewage excreted from the decomposing landfill, another pipe is also added in order to extract Methane gasses which are in turn used to produce electricity while the sewage pipes are taken to treatment centers in order to reuse the water. Over the past years so many different complicated processes of trash collecting and disposing have greatly improved. With extra steps in place in order to limit the dangers of toxins in the ground and surrounding environments, New York City can say that it has developed quite a lot since the 1930s.
Conclusion
Poor waste management can be traced back to lack of recycling facilities and lack of education about the proper disposal methods. If left to continue, the excessive amounts of garbage will continue to pollute waterways chemically, endanger wildlife, and irreparable damage to our environment. In order to combat that end, proper waste education forums can be held to inform the masses about the consequences of their actions and to show that just by an effort in separation of waste and proper landfill disposal, there wouldn’t be as much waste on the planet. In the war against climate change, we must all do our part to ensure that the planet not only lives, but thrives in order to support the future generations. This consists of finding better ways to dispose of daily waste and destroy it in ways that can not only be minimalistic, but can help the appearance of the city and the wildlife. Our hypothesis was to find the causes of excessive amounts of waste and what can we do to prevent this and with the information provided by the six scientific sources, we concluded that recycling, separation and proper disposal stations can not only help the planet now but for future generations to come.
References
Klenosky, D. B., Snyder, S. A., Vogt, C. A., & Campbell, L. K. (2017). If we transform the landfill, will they come? Predicting visitation to Freshkills Park in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 167, 315–324.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.07.011
Konkel, R. S. (1987). Risk Management in the United States: Three Case Studies Dioxin Emissions and Trash-To-Energy Plants in New York City. Environmental Health Science Faculty and Staff Research, 1–11.
Lee-Geiller, S., & Kütting, G. (2021). From management to stewardship: A comparative case study of waste governance in New York City and Seoul metropolitan city. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105110.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105110
Teotia, M. (2013). Managing New York City Municipal Solid Waste – Using Anaerobic Digestion. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 1–27.
Viotti, P., Tatti, F., Rossi, A., Luciano, A., Marzeddu, S., Mancini, G., & Boni, M. R. (2020). An Eco-Balanced and Integrated Approach for a More-Sustainable MSW Management. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 11(10), 5139–5150.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-020-01091-5
