They Call It Filthadelphia:
How “Cash for Trash” Programs Abused Philadelphia’s Lower Class

by Juli Matlack

Site Description:

Philadelphia is notorious for being dirty. The nickname “Filthadelphia” was born based on its overwhelming amount of trash and litter throughout the city. In the 1980s, Philadelphia began work to encourage recycling programs and mandate residential recycling. Incentives were developed with the city’s most vulnerable inhabitants in mind: the lower class and the homeless. “Cash for Trash” programs that paid people who collected various recyclable materials voluntarily provided these people with an opportunity for wages, and it provided the city with cheap labor. Reliance on these programs comes with risks, including health risks of handling potentially dangerous materials as well as the risk of losing the opportunity for economic stability after professional programs are adopted to replace them. The incentives developed for mandated recycling programs disproportionately affect the members of the lower class who likely cannot afford the fines for improper material disposal, but also cannot afford to have their trash properly disposed of. The incentives for voluntary recycling programs, like Cash for Trash and other buy-back programs, are too good for the homeless or lower class to reject, forcing them into facing the aforementioned health and economic risks.

Author Biography:

My name is Juli, and I am an undergraduate senior history major at New Jersey Institute of Technology. I live in New Jersey, affectionately known as “Dirty Jersey” and grew up in the southern half of the state, close to Philadelphia and Delaware. I was inspired to research recycling programs after reading David Pellow’s book Garbage Wars, which focuses on environmental injustices in Chicago. I chose to focus on Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as my site for this research because it holds a special place in my heart, but it also holds an enormous amount of trash.

Final Report:

Introduction

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, collecting recyclable material is the fifth most dangerous job in the United States, indicating that it is more dangerous than truck drivers (6th) but less dangerous than roofers (4th).[1] Recycling collectors and sorters perform laborious work. They lift, push, and pull heavy bins full of materials that have been collected over two weeks, if not more. The collection and sorting of materials requires strength and good body mechanics. You lift, bend, and twist, which holds serious risk for your body’s knees, shoulders, neck, and back. It’s all too easy to obtain painful injuries like pinched nerves and muscle strains just by doing your job to the best of your ability. Collecting recyclables in the dark or poor weather can leave you exposed to extreme temperatures and careless drivers. As if the labor wasn’t bad enough, working such a low status job can do a number on your psyche as well. Lack of respect, support, and job security are all part of the job most times and allows the stress of the work to burden your body as well as your mind.

In 1987, Philadelphia became the first major US city to implement a mandated recycling program. This program had many goals, the most important of which was to recycle 25% of the city’s waste by 1989, and 50% by 1991.[2] A program like this would not only benefit the environment, but if successful, it could help Philadelphia outgrow its unfortunate nickname of “Filthadelphia,” which stemmed from the city’s abundance of trash. A clean city would improve tourism, make those who live there happier with their environment, and of course help to save the planet. In short, the city’s reputation would benefit the most from cleaning up its streets. To better understand both the good intentions as well as the dangers of Philadelphia’s recycling program, see this 3 minute video essay I made for this project:

By Juli Matlack

 

 

 

On paper the plan had no downside; it would benefit the environment, locals, tourism, and the city’s reputation. But there is a group missing from the list of beneficiaries: the lower class. The lower class would become the city’s “first line of defense regarding the program.”[3] The work done by the poor and working class is especially important for the program to run smoothly and efficiently, yet they are the least recognized groups and benefit the least. Monetary incentives were used by the city to encourage these classes to participate in the program, thus using these vulnerable classes as cheap labor.

But how did a plan intended to benefit Philadelphia as a whole turn into something that would disproportionately hurt the city’s poor and working class? Who was within the groups that were harmed by the implementation of the program, and how were they affected? What risks did recyclable material handlers face? We should also question what benefits came from the recycling program; does the chance of economic stability and job security outweigh the risks of bodily and mental harm?

To answer these questions, we have to analyze the program’s origins. From the very beginning, the program was flawed. It was rushed to launch without having completed logistical planning, which resulted in numerous challenges that caused city residents’ resistance to participate. To improve city participation, monetary incentives were offered to the city’s most vulnerable citizens, knowing that they would be unable to say no. The poor and the working class were targeted by the city to collect and sort recyclable material in exchange for a chance at economic stability, but their work put them and their health in danger. Ultimately, although the city of Philadelphia implemented its mandated recycling program with the intention of helping the city and its inhabitants, only members of the city’s upper-class community benefited from it, while the city’s poor and members of the working class were negatively impacted.

In this paper, I will analyze the city’s recycling program and how it hurt its most vulnerable citizens. We will first examine the city’s intentions to reveal that the interest in the program was likely not due to helping the citizens. I’ll next discuss the problems that the program faced from day one and on, and the solutions that Philly’s city officials put in place to correct the program. Finally, I’ll analyze the problems that arose from the “solutions” and clarify how they created additional problems for the poor, and why the city neglected further solutions due to who was being impacted. But in order to understand how the program hurt the economically unfortunate, first we need to understand what went wrong.

Philadelphia’s Recycling Program Proposal

Philadelphia city officials claimed to have the city’s best interests at heart when they passed a major recycling law in 1987, but their actions- or failure to act- speak louder than their words. The Philadelphia administration spent years talking about a recycling program before city council passed one in 1987.[4] It was agreed within the city government, particularly the Philadelphia Streets Department, that recycling needed to start in Philly at some point, though many suspect that the reason for it was to reduce trash disposal costs at landfills and incinerators.[5] Before the city council and Mayor Goode passed the 1987 recycling law, four consecutive mayors, including Goode, were pushing for a second incinerator as a way to combat the city’s abundance of trash.[6] Despite four mayors’ attempts, the city council continuously rejected the incinerator plans. Advocacy groups and environmentalists within the city were largely responsible for the council’s decision.

Advocacy groups played a large role in the program’s proposal; one group called Philadelphia for Recycling (PFR) was exceptionally present during the program’s proposal.[7] PFR argued that recycling benefits the city’s inhabitants by cleaning up the city and improving the standard of living as well as tourism. Other environmental advocacy groups cheered on the city’s program, though some of the council disagreed with the short timetable that was made.[8] They felt that the program’s implementation was being rushed, leaving too many logistical factors unplanned.[9] This rush to launch could be explained by remembering that if the program was successful, Philadelphia would be the first major city with a mandated recycling program, and this would no doubt improve the city’s reputation.[10]

In order to strengthen their argument, PFR established a connection with City Council Representative David Cohen. Cohen developed plans to fight the Mayor’s incinerator plan. He argued for recycling with economic reasoning; a recycling plan would help the city save money by lessening trash disposal costs. With recycling, the city would pay less in incinerator or landfill fees as well as forestall the need to dispose of 100% of city trash. Between the advocacy groups and Cohen’s defense for recycling, the city council was pressured into passing the 1987 recycling law.

When the Philadelphia Street Department’s administration began hiring staff for recycling coordination, it became clear that the city’s higher administration was not committed to recycling. They paid little attention to the coordinator by only giving their staff the bare minimum of support.[11] An employee of the recycling team described the administration’s commitment as “pure lip service,” indicating that the city was developing a recycling program only for good public relations.[12] Their lack of commitment, rush to launch, and disinterest in anything other than a good reputation led to the program having efficiency and financial problems. It was clear within the Streets Department that despite council approval, Philadelphia government was not taking the benefits of recycling seriously and still wanted an incinerator.

In the program’s trial period, weekly curbside pickup began in a large middle-class neighborhood.[13] When the program yielded good results, the Streets Department began expanding to more neighborhoods of both the upper and lower class. However, after expansion into poorer neighborhoods it became clear that upper class neighborhoods were participating far more and that poorer neighborhoods had little interest nor time to participate.

Early Problems with the Program

Lack of proper logistical planning made the program’s implementation ineffective. In order for the program to function well, the city needed to improve its participation rates. In doing so, administration unwittingly targeted the city’s most vulnerable populations. The program proved to be logistically difficult to manage and financially unrewarding. In their rush to launch, the Streets Department neglected to consider the bulk of materials and the space available within garbage trucks.  The department lacked proper equipment for city-wide curbside pickup.[14] Recycling trucks and garbage trucks are built based on the materials being collected in order to be more efficient. The city had only garbage trucks when the recycling program was implemented, causing inefficient collection. Bulky materials like plastic bottles as well as materials with little recycling worth were taking up too much space within the trucks. To improve collection efficiency, problem materials like these were removed from the approved material list.[15]

Budget cuts forced the city to cut the pickup schedule from weekly to biweekly. [16] Collection was expensive and the budget was unrefined prior to the program’s launch. In an attempt to make the program more cost-effective, trash and recycling collection was made less frequent, which also encouraged people to wait until their recycling bin was full before putting it on the curb.[17] Revisions of the schedule and accepted materials on top of having to adapt to separating trash from recyclables created confusion among the city’s participants, which damaged the already low participation rates.

Participation was a huge problem; affluent neighborhoods were carrying the weight of the poorer neighborhoods at 70-80% participation versus 20-30%.[18] Administration recognized that the inner-city neighborhoods, which were primarily low income, were resistant to participate due to a lack of connection with the administration. It should also be noted that the people in these neighborhoods were likely working more than one job, raising children, and had little time to worry about separating their trash or bringing it out for collection.

Still, these neighborhoods valued personability; they wanted face-to-face interactions before agreeing to changing their disposal habits.[19] A member of the Philadelphia Recycling Office (PRO) remembers “You can come around with buckets and circulars in the middle-class neighborhoods and get cooperation but the inner city is a different beast. People communicate over the stoop and wait for face-to-face contact before they participate in a program. I tried to let the people know that we were committed to helping them and that we weren’t just sending another suit into the community to promise great things.”[20] This shows that the recycling administration knew about a lack of trust the lower class already had towards city officials and proves that there was distrust towards the city’s “suits” and their promises about recycling. Still, there was low morale and resistance to the program. After the aforementioned revisions, participation dropped from 70-80% to 35%.[21] The city needed the poorer neighborhoods’ participation to improve in order to improve the program.

The Solutions

To get that participation, the city began “buying” the lower class’ participation. The city offered monetary incentives in poorer neighborhoods to employ the poor in collecting trash in exchange for cash, creating a mutual dependence between the city and the impoverished. There were two versions, one of which was a drop-off program in which a neighborhood would be paid to collect and bring their recyclables to a corner of their block for the city to pick up.[22] The payment would go back into the neighborhood in order to improve the community.[23] In this scenario, the entire neighborhood would benefit from the money, though they would all also have to collect, sort, and transport their own recyclables.

Drop-off programs were effective and cost efficient; they benefited the city because it offered employees Saturday hours, and it was far cheaper and easier than navigating each neighborhood for curbside collection.[24] It also benefited the neighborhoods by making recycling more convenient because they don’t have to transport it to recycling centers.[25] Also, the neighborhood benefited by the funds that were acquired based on the amount of materials recycled. Despite this program’s initial success, it was not applicable in all of the neighborhoods that needed a boost in participation. Instead, the recycling department developed a second incentive program.

The second program was a cash for trash program where individuals could collect materials throughout the city and bring them to a cash for trash facility in exchange for cash; each individual made their own money based on the materials they exchanged.[26] This program was most successful in the city’s poorest neighborhoods.[27] Philadelphia’s poor, many of which were homeless or without jobs, could use cash for trash programs as an opportunity for economic stability by supplementing the income of all who participate.[28]

However, this program came with additional risks because many neighborhoods had rules against where they could collect from, mostly banning collection of residential recyclables.[29] The city loses money when independent trash pickers collect from residential recyclables, making it difficult for pickers to find substantial materials worth anything.[30] It is important to note that with increased participation comes higher demand for workers within the city recycling centers. Collecting residential recyclables guarantees that these workers will have a job, and collecting materials independently and bringing them to a recycling center has the same result. Ultimately, pickers depend on non-residential streets, parking lots, and abandoned buildings, while the city is responsible for collecting residential and business trash; this dual-party system ensures that material collection covers most of the city.

These incentives seem beneficial, but they are problematic. By initiating them, the city created a mutual dependence between the PRO and the recycling collectors; the PRO needed the poor to increase participation rates, which would improve program efficiency and costs, and the poor as well as the working class needed the incentives in order to get by financially. The recycling collectors were “the city’s first line of defense in the city’s losing battle against skyrocketing trash disposal costs and shrinking landfill space.”[31] To clarify, they were an excellent form of cheap labor. Though the incentives did help the poor financially and guaranteed jobs for the working class, the pressure to work unfairly burdened the private collectors and city-employed workers with the health risks associated with this work.

Division of the Lower-Class

Two groups of the lower class were affected negatively by the city’s monetary incentives: the private collectors of the poorest communities and the city-employed workers of the working class. In order to understand the risks associated with their work, it’s important that we understand who these people were. In the 1980s, Philadelphia’s old and abandoned Nabisco factory was a recycling collector’s dream. Abandoned and bountiful with recyclable materials, scrap haulers frequented the property and filled their personal shopping carts with materials to trade for cash at local buy-back programs. Collectors would come with shopping carts and bags to hold their materials. The factory was eventually transitioned into a recycling center known as National Temple Recycling Center, where city-employed workers would sort recycling materials.

Using an environmental justice screening and mapping tool, EJSCREEN, I was able to study the demographics of people surrounding the old Nabisco factory. Within 0.25 miles from the old Nabisco factory, which was located in northeast Philly, 26% of the population was over the age of 64, as seen in the graph below. This is significantly higher than the average for the state or nation, putting this area in the 90th percentile in the USA. This suggests to us that the majority of recycling collectors who frequented the factory were elderly. This area also had many people with less than high school education. The value of people with this education is 10% and is actually pretty average for the state and the nation. However, having a population that is overwhelmingly elderly or undereducated allows researchers like myself to infer that there was probably little understanding of the environmental risks associated with the area.  It also suggests that these people had little upward mobility. There were probably few job opportunities for these people, forcing them to rely on the factory as a garden for recyclable material to sell and later as an employment opportunity when the recycling center opened.[32]

The old Nabisco factory was plagued with environmental indicators suggesting health risks for those who occupied or frequented the area. The lead paint indicator is outrageously high, as seen in the graph below. This indicator is a percentage of housing units that have possible exposure to lead paint due to being built before 1960; this is important to note because although the factory was not a residential building, having lead paint in surrounding houses makes it very likely that the old factory was also painted with lead paint. We know now that lead paint can have detrimental health effects. This property is in the 95th percentile for lead paint in the United States. The value of this data is 0.85; this is 3 times the national average of 0.28. This means that anyone who came into this area was very likely exposed to lead paint and we can be almost certain that the scrap haulers and recycling center employees who worked at the property were exposed as well. If you’re interested in more data from EJSCREEN regarding the demographics and environmental indicators within the area of the old Nabisco factory, you can find more of my data and analysis under the “Scientific Data Analysis” tab of this blog or by following this link: https://ejhistory.com/scientific-data-analysis-jm/.

 

Beyond the risks of the historic city’s buildings, recycling collectors were also exposed to more complex risks. A study on microbiological exposures from 2006 showed that handling waste puts people at risk for inhaling bioaerosols from bacteria and fungi that could negatively impact their health; this exposure is of “infectious, allergenic, and toxic hazards.”[33] The risk is raised when collection is less frequent, like Philadelphia’s biweekly collection system.[34] Also, the more trash there is, the higher the risk for exposure.[35] Both the independent collectors and the city’s employees risk exposure to these aerosols, although some may have better protection than others.

As I mentioned, the handling of waste and refuse is the 5th most dangerous job in the United States. This is because of the damage the job does to one’s body. Lifting heavy objects like full or overflowing recycling bins can lead to damage of the worker’s body. Lack of proper body mechanics, being overworked, and lacking mechanical equipment all put undue stress on workers’ bodies.[36] As a result of this grueling labor, recycling workers are at high risk for workplace-related musculoskeletal disorders, particularly of the neck, shoulders, and back.[37]

Not only are recycling collectors at risk for physical harm, but they are also exposed to psychological impacts. There is a stigma that comes from working with garbage, whether you are employed or not. There is a serious lack of respect for those who clean Philadelphia’s streets, leading to poor self-esteem among those who collect recyclables.[38] In an interview I conducted with a former Philadelphia resident Katie Tinklepaugh (pictured in the link below), she recalls private collectors “don’t want to be noticed or bother anybody. They just want to get what they need and go” and “they get pretty skittish when you look like you’re about to open your front door, so they would run away like they were thinking they were doing something wrong.”[39] It’s clear from this quote that private collectors felt self-conscious about their work, likely because of the negative stigma that damages their self-esteem. To hear more from Katie and her experiences with recycling in Philly, you can access the 17-minute interview below.

This is a phone interview with Katie Tinklepaugh, a former Philadelphian resident, where we talk about her experiences with curbside recycling and trash pickers.

 

Again, you did not have to be unemployed to face this stigma; workplace conditions often wear down employees of recycling centers. There is a lack of respect and support not only from the community, but also from some workplace supervisors.[40] Higher participation in the program leads to higher pressure placed on the employees responsible for sorting materials quickly and efficiently; this pressure and lack of support can severely damage a person’s psyche, as seen in a pilot study on musculoskeletal disorders done by Thomas Fisher.[41] In David Pellow’s book Garbage Wars, he details the working conditions within recycling facilities in Chicago. Pellow has testimonies from employees describing the brutal conditions they work in; extreme heat or cold both within and outside of the building, intensive labor that is exacerbated by supervisors choosing not to use conveyor belts, and little independence or dignity at work.[42] Many of these conditions are shared with the private collectors, although again, the workplace often had better protections for workers.

The image below displays a man with a shopping cart carrying recyclable materials he has collected along his route to what we can assume to be a recycling facility that participates in a buy-back program that pays collectors cash for certain types and amounts of recyclable materials. The jacket that he wears look well-worn and thin, but the hoodie underneath and the beanie on his head indicate that it is cold out. He doesn’t wear gloves, which would benefit him in both cold weather as well as while he is picking through the trash. In our interview, Katie mentions remembering the clothing that she usually saw pickers wearing as “darker clothing so they don’t really stand out.”[43] This makes it risky for them to be out in either early morning or late night where cars may not see them very well. It’s clear that whatever money he makes through the buy-back program is going to things other than clothing for himself, and the thinness of his face causes me to believe that the money is probably going to his daily meals.

You can see in this image that the poorest citizens of Philadelphia live extremely different lives and experience extremely different conditions than the middle or upper-class. The scarcity of upward mobility resources in Philadelphia creates the dependence on buy-back programs, and this system is replicated throughout the country in post-war America: poor citizens are unable to attain or access the same resources as middle or upper-class and must rely on scraps leftover from these people as a way to survive. Despite performing what is essentially a very similar job, private collectors lack the same protections as city-employees.

In the image below, we see a line of workers sorting through a massive amount of materials on a conveyor belt. Each worker is donned with safety gear including hardhats, safety glasses, fluorescent vests, masks, and gloves. This suggests that there is probably formal training and uniforms required to attain this job, and that is probably paid for by the employer, aka the city. They appear to have far more protections than what the image of the private collector shows, and this is reinforced by Katie. She remembers “the people who pick up the trash, obviously they need to be in their hazardous clothes because they have cars and everything else going on around them.”[44] However, at the same time, we can see in this image that at least one worker is not wearing his mask correctly, putting him at risk for airborne dangers like the aforementioned bioaerosols. To better understand aspects of both of these images in relation to risks and protections, I provide further analysis in the “Image Analysis” tab of this blog at: https://ejhistory.com/image-analysis-jm/.

 

As Katie and Pellow both suggest, although images like this suggests safety measures were in place for employees, not all shared them. Katie recalls that the workers who collected her trash might not have even worn gloves, and definitely did not have any type of face mask.[45] Pellow’s book contains the testimony of a worker who recounts coworkers being struck by hypodermic needles, injured by battery acid, and working in areas with poor air quality.[46] Between the physical demands and risks associated with recycling and the psychosocial implications from testimonies, it becomes clear that Philadelphia’s poor and working class were targeted by the city’s monetary incentives because they were not in a position to refuse.

Conclusion

As I wote at the beginning of this essay, Philadelphia’s recycling program was intended to benefit the city as a whole. It is clear through my research, however, that not all of Philadelphia’s citizens benefited. As is the case in cities far and wide, the poor and working-class communities were disproportionately hurt by an administration with good intentions. Although the program benefited from increased participation and the incentives offered income supplements and partial job security for private and employed collectors alike, the damage that accompanies the job of recycling collection, handling, and sorting impacted the poor and working-class in ways that, frankly, are not worth the money offered. The chance for economic stability and upward mobility were too good to pass on, despite the risks that were seemingly unavoidable. Recycling was seen as this city’s, and the planet’s, savior. But who is saving the people working to save us in one of the most dangerous jobs in the nation?

[1] Beth Braverman. “The 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in America.” CNBC. December 28, 2019.

[2] Robin Clark. “Recycling Bill Passed by City Council.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. June 12, 1987. Pages 1A, 12A.

[3] “Philadelphia Recycling: ‘It’s a Living.’” The New York Times. August 9, 1987. Page 39.

[4] Robin Clark. “Recycling Bill Passed by City Council.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. June 12, 1987. Pages 1A, 12A.

[5] Robin Clark. “Recycling Bill Passed by City Council.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. June 12, 1987. Pages 1A, 12A.

[6] Susan Minter. “Linking Environmental Police with Economic Development: A Case Study in Urban Recycling.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. June 1991. Page 76.

[7] Susan Minter. “Linking Environmental Police with Economic Development: A Case Study in Urban Recycling.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. June 1991. Page 78.

[8] Robin Clark. “Recycling Bill Passed by City Council.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. June 12, 1987. Pages 1A, 12A.

[9] Robin Clark. “Recycling Bill Passed by City Council.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. June 12, 1987. Pages 1A, 12A.

[10] Robin Clark. “Recycling Bill Passed by City Council.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. June 12, 1987. Pages 1A, 12A.

[11] Susan Minter. “Linking Environmental Police with Economic Development: A Case Study in Urban Recycling.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. June 1991. Page 78.

[12] Susan Minter. “Linking Environmental Police with Economic Development: A Case Study in Urban Recycling.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. June 1991. Page 78.

[13] Jack Siderer and Mark Bersalona. “A Computer Evaluation of the Philadelphia Curbside Recycling Program.” Columbia University. 1988. Page 213.

[14] Mark Jaffe. “Recycling is off to a slow start.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 10, 1988. Pages 1B, 2B.

[15] Adrienne Redd. “Recycling on the Streets of Philadelphia.” World Wastes. Vol 37, Iss. 8. August 1994. Page 40.

[16] Mark Jaffe. “Recycling is off to a slow start.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 10, 1988. Pages 1B, 2B.

[17] Peter Grogan. “New Approaches to Lower Program Costs.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. July 1992. Page 35.

[18] Adrienne Redd. “Recycling on the Streets of Philadelphia.” World Wastes. Vol 37, Iss. 8. August 1994. Page 40.

[19] Adrienne Redd. “Recycling on the Streets of Philadelphia.” World Wastes. Vol 37, Iss. 8. August 1994. Page 40.

[20] Adrienne Redd. “Recycling on the Streets of Philadelphia.” World Wastes. Vol 37, Iss. 8. August 1994. Page 40.

[21] Adrienne Redd. “Recycling on the Streets of Philadelphia.” World Wastes. Vol 37, Iss. 8. August 1994. Page 40.

[22] Susan Minter. “Linking Environmental Police with Economic Development: A Case Study in Urban Recycling.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. June 1991. Page 99.

[23] Susan Minter. “Linking Environmental Police with Economic Development: A Case Study in Urban Recycling.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. June 1991. Page 99.

[24] Robert Steuteville. “Big City Recycling Moves Forward.” BioCycle. July 1993. Pages 30-34.

[25] Robert Steuteville. “Big City Recycling Moves Forward.” BioCycle. July 1993. Pages 30-34.

[26] United Nations University. Mega-City Growth and the Future. United Nations University Press. 1994. Pages 208-209.

[27] Susan Minter. “Linking Environmental Police with Economic Development: A Case Study in Urban Recycling.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. June 1991. Page 49.

[28] United Nations University. Mega-City Growth and the Future. United Nations University Press.

1994. Pages 208-209.

[29] Megan Matuzak. “Trash Pickers in Fishtown: Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way.” The Spirit of the Riverwinds. May 20, 2015.

[30] Megan Matuzak. “Trash Pickers in Fishtown: Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way.” The Spirit of the Riverwinds. May 20, 2015.

[31] “Philadelphia Recycling: ‘It’s a Living.’” The New York Times. August 9, 1987. Page 39.

[32] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 version. EJSCREEN. Retrieved: April 5, 2020.

[33] J. Lavoie, C. Dunkerley, T. Kosatsky, A. Defresne. “Exposure to Aerosolized Bacteria and Fungi Among Collectors of Commercial, Mixed Residential, Recyclable and Compostable Waste.” Science Direct. August 22, 2006. Page 24.

[34] J. Lavoie, C. Dunkerley, T. Kosatsky, A. Defresne. “Exposure to Aerosolized Bacteria and Fungi Among Collectors of Commercial, Mixed Residential, Recyclable and Compostable Waste.” Science Direct. August 22, 2006. Page 26.

[35] J. Lavoie, C. Dunkerley, T. Kosatsky, A. Defresne. “Exposure to Aerosolized Bacteria and Fungi Among Collectors of Commercial, Mixed Residential, Recyclable and Compostable Waste.” Science Direct. August 22, 2006. Page 24.

[36] Thomas Fisher. “Role of Occupational Therapy in Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders with Recycling Workers: A Pilot Study.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017. Page 1.

[37] Thomas Fisher. “Role of Occupational Therapy in Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders with Recycling Workers: A Pilot Study.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017. Page 1.

[38] Thomas Fisher. “Role of Occupational Therapy in Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders with Recycling Workers: A Pilot Study.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017. Page 4.

[39] Katie Tinklepaugh (former Philadelphia resident) in discussion with the author, April 13, 2020. https://soundcloud.com/user-943153545/hist490-interview. 4min 43sec.

[40] Thomas Fisher. “Role of Occupational Therapy in Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders with Recycling Workers: A Pilot Study.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017. Page 2.

[41] Thomas Fisher. “Role of Occupational Therapy in Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders with Recycling Workers: A Pilot Study.” The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017. Page 1.

[42] David Pellow. Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago. The MIT Press. 2002. Pages 119, 129, and 126 respectively.

[43] Katie Tinklepaugh (former Philadelphia resident) in discussion with the author, April 13, 2020. https://soundcloud.com/user-943153545/hist490-interview. 10min 35sec.

[44] Katie Tinklepaugh (former Philadelphia resident) in discussion with the author, April 13, 2020. https://soundcloud.com/user-943153545/hist490-interview. 10min 40sec.

[45] Katie Tinklepaugh (former Philadelphia resident) in discussion with the author, April 13, 2020. https://soundcloud.com/user-943153545/hist490-interview. 9min 22sec.

[46] David Pellow. Garbage Wars: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago. The MIT Press. 2002. Pages 153-54.


Primary Sources:

This newspaper article discusses the passing of Philadelphia’s first mandated recycling law. Philadelphia was the first major US city to pass a mandating law like this. The article describes the opinions of those who both agree and disagree with the recycling plan, including critiques about logistics and costs. This article helps me to describe the community’s views towards mandating recycling while also suggesting that Philadelphia’s inefficiency was caused by a rushed law with logistical flaws.

Source 2: The Philadelphia Inquirer

Title: “Recycling Off to a Slow Start”

Date: February 10, 1988

Page: 1B, 2B

This is a newspaper article that was published the year after Philadelphia passed its mandated recycling law. It describes the “slow start” for the program and outlines problems that are affecting the efficiency, which includes lack of program promotion, suitable recycling trucks, and community participation. I will use this article to explain Philly’s efficiency problems and show how the city will end up depending on recycling collectors participating in cash-for-trash programs to meet their program participation goal.

Source 3: The New York Times

Title: “Philadelphia Recycling: ‘It’s a Living’”

Date: August 9, 1987

Page: 39

This is a newspaper article that describes how recycling collectors make money by collecting recyclable material and sell it to a local recycling center. Participants in the voluntary buy-back programs are referred to as recycling collectors, scrap haulers, scavengers, and more similar nicknames. Recycling collectors are acknowledged in this article as the “first line of defense” for Philadelphia’s stringent new recycling laws. This article also explains the history of the nickname “Filthadelphia”. I’ll be using this article as a source to describe the city official’s reliance on lower-class buy-back programs. Without such programs and collectors, Philadelphia’s need to control recycling costs would be damaged. I’ll also reference this article when describing the majority of citizens’ lack of participation in mandated recycling programs.

Source 4: The New York Times

Title: “Ed Woolard Walks DuPont’s Tightrope”

Date: October 14, 1990

Page: F1

This source is another newspaper article. Ed Woolard is DuPont Company’s chief executive and took responsibility for the recyclable materials the company discards. In this article, Woolard is quoted to say that corporations are more capable of solving environmental problems than government or environmental groups, placing more responsibility on companies. This source caught my eye because to me it suggests that Philadelphia’s recycling law and programs depend not only on legislation or scrap haulers, but it also depends on companies taking responsibility for their own material. I think that the reliance here helps to portray the lack of self-sufficiency that Philly’s program has. Also, companies with political or economic power may avoid taking responsibility for their pollution or waste through connections they have, which may create possibilities for corruption throughout the city.

Source 5: Waste360

Title: “Recycling on the Streets of Philadelphia”

Date: August 1994

URL: https://www.waste360.com/mag/waste_recycling_streets_philadelphia

This is a magazine article that describes the challenges Philadelphia faced after implementing the recycling law. These challenges include participation and budget problems. It is mentioned here that higher-class neighborhoods were the main contributors to curbside recycling pickup. There was little participation in lower-class neighborhoods, which Philadelphia recognized and resolved by developing a cash incentive for the neighborhood that improved participation rates the most. This displays what I believe is a type of extortion of the lower-class citizens by defining how Philadelphia legislation was failing to enforce recycling and turned to cash incentives to encourage lower-class communities, knowing that few people could pass on the offer.

Source 6: BioCycle

Title: “Big City Recycling Moves Forward”

Date: July 1993

Page: 30-34

This is a magazine article about Philadelphia becoming more efficient with curbside recycling pickup. There is a section in this magazine about drop off programs for impoverished neighborhoods. This is when a neighborhood collects their recyclable materials and drops it off at a designated corner of the neighborhood for city recycling employees to pick up. Neighborhoods are paid for their contribution and put the revenue back into the community. This source is helpful for showing how different types of buy-back programs are lucrative for impoverished neighborhoods. It also helps to define problems that would occur if curbside pickup was implemented in these communities, which would remove their opportunity of income. Curbside pickup was implemented and efficient in wealthier communities where recycling participation rates were higher, and this may be because these neighborhoods were the minority and did not take long to drive through or collect materials from.

Source 7: BioCycle

Title: “New Approach to Lower Program Costs”

Date: July 1992

Page: 35

This is a magazine article about how cities planned to make new recycling programs more affordable without raising taxes or taking money from other government-funded programs, like schools. It describes how Philadelphia cut costs by making recycling pickup biweekly instead of weekly. I’ll use this source to further elaborate on Philadelphia’s rush to implement a program with little or inefficient logistical pre-planning.

Secondary Sources:

Fuchs, Roland J. Mega City Growth and the Future. Tokyo: United Nations Univ. Press, 2004.

Fuchs’ book describes the health effects of handling dangerous recyclable material in third world countries. He devotes a chapter of the book to “Social and Welfare Impacts of Mega-City Development” which discusses how lower-class citizens are affected in mega-cities and what welfare becomes available to them. This book will hopefully help me describe why the lower-class citizens in Philadelphia are affected by the implementation or loss of buy-back programs, and what welfare opportunities are available for them.

Minter, Susan Miriam. “Linking Environmental Policy with Economic Development: A Case Study in Urban Recycling.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991.

Minter’s dissertation describes in detail the garbage and recycling crises of urban cities and provides a history of Philadelphia’s recycling legislation and programs. She also explains what financial opportunities are for recyclers participating in buy-back programs. This dissertation will help me describe what buy-back programs are, who uses them, and why Philadelphia depended on them for efficient recycling.

Pellow, David N. Garbage Wars the Struggle for Environmental Justice in Chicago. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.

Pellow’s book details environmental injustices in Chicago, with specific passages on recycling facilities and the buy-back programs offered to some homeless or lower-class community members. He also details the effects of dangerous working conditions for sorters and collectors working in the city’s recycling program. I will use Chicago’s recycling collectors to compare to Philadelphia’s and try to see where the two are similar or different based on working conditions.

Redd, Adrienne. “Recycling on the Streets of Philadelphia.” World Wastes 37, no. 8 (08, 1994): 40. https://search-proquest-com.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/docview/228354464?accountid=13626.

This article describes the budget problems Philadelphia was having when trying to implement recycling programs. It explains proposals for lowering the costs of these programs and the incentives the city had to make programs more efficient, which would also lower the costs of them. This source will allow me to critique Philadelphia’s way of implementing new programs and why they had a hard time with enforcement or success.

Siderer, Jack P., and Mark Bersalona. “A Computer Evaluation of The Philadelphia Curbside Recycling Program.” In Proceedings of… National Waste Processing Conference, no. 13, p. 213. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1988.

This evaluation looks at how cost-efficient residential recycling programs in Philadelphia were, as well as how efficient they were. It also analyses the community participation for these programs. I plan to use this source to describe community participation in recycling programs and explain why they were or were not effective.

Yepsen, Rhodes. “Encouraging Sustainable Recycling Behavior through Financial Incentives.” BioCycle 48, no. 12 (December 2007): 34–37. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=28038932&site=ehost-live.

This article is about Wilmington, Delaware’s recycling programs that were encouraged with financial incentives, like Philadelphia’s buy-back programs. It describes what made Delaware’s program more effective and efficient for residential recycling. I hope to use it to compare Philadelphia’s failed programs with Delaware’s successful one, and see if there are any similarities.

Image Analysis:

Through my research, I have located an image of a recycling collector. This image displays a man with a shopping cart carrying recyclable materials he has collected along his route to what we can assume to be a recycling facility that participates in a buy-back program that pays collectors cash for certain types and amounts of recyclable materials. The photograph was taken in Fishtown, a neighborhood within Philadelphia. Although not specific to Fishtown, my research is dedicated to recycling programs in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This image helps to reinforce my argument that some lower-class Philadelphians rely on buy-back programs for economic stability.

My chosen image was produced by a news reporting website called “The Spirit of the Riverwinds” in Philadelphia. It was produced in May of 2015. This image was attached to an article about the “trash pickers” of Fishtown detailing the daily lives of two men who made their money off of buy-back programs due to the difficulties of job attainment with a criminal background. The article seems to be written as a method of informing the audience, who are Fishtown and other Philadelphian citizens, about the life of the trash pickers seen on the streets. I believe that the image was attached as a way to personify the term “trash picker” and help ease the negative stigma that accompanies the term. At the time that this image and article were posted, Philadelphia was struggling to afford their recycling program due to an expired contract with a recycling facility. The new contract increased the prices the city must pay for recycling, and trash pickers who collected material from residential trash that was on the city’s trash collection routes took the profits of those recyclables away from the city.

In the photo, three things help to portray the meaning of the image that I have defined. The first is the contents of his shopping cart. If you look closely, you can see that the bottom of the cart is covered in aluminum soda cans. There is a large cardboard box from a microwave oven on top of another cardboard box. The man has a black garbage bag presumably full of more materials inside the cart as well as in his left hand. This is a lot of recyclable material that was discarded either incorrectly or picked up from the street. The amount of trash collected shows that there is money to be made through the work, and being in ‘Filthadelphia’ almost guarantees collectors will have more to find in the next day.

Secondly, the time of day is worth noting. I have found through my research that many recycling collectors will start searching for their materials in the early morning before people wake up or trash trucks come around. This image shows a dark background with street lights as the only illumination. I think that this speaks for the dedication these collectors have for their work while also proving that there is competition among the collectors. The phrase “the early bird gets the worm” comes to mind when I look at this image and try to decipher the time of day. Whether it is early morning or late at night, this man is dedicated to his work, which speaks for the level of reliance he has on being able to collect as much material as possible.

Finally, the man’s appearance helps us see his reliance on economic stability. The jacket that he wears look well-worn and thin, but the hoodie underneath and the beanie on his head indicate that it is cold out. He doesn’t wear gloves, which would benefit him in both cold weather as well as while he is picking through the trash. It’s clear that whatever money he makes through the buy-back program is going to things other than clothing for himself, and the thinness of his face causes me to believe that the money is probably going to his daily meals. Even the look the man is making in the image shows his weariness and fatigue. He almost looks as if he is wary of the photographer as if he sees them as a threat to his materials. Considering the article mentions collectors being cited by police officers in other cities, I think that this expression portrays his acknowledgment that what he is doing is looked down on and not accepted by authorities.

This image helps viewers see the dependency that recycling collectors have on trading recyclable materials. The abundance of material in the cart, the time of day, and the appearance of the collector himself all represent the dependence that I am trying to outline through my research. You can see in this image that the lower-class citizens of Philadelphia live extremely different lives and experience extremely different conditions than the middle or upper-class. The scarcity of upward mobility resources in Philadelphia creates the dependence on buy-back programs, and this system is replicated throughout the country in post-war America: lower-class citizens are unable to attain or access the same resources as middle or upper-class and must rely on scraps leftover from these people as a way to survive.

Image 2:

The second image that I came across in my research is from the inside of a recycling facility. This image portrays workers along a conveyor belt covered in recyclable materials. This image helps me show the efficiency problems that Philadelphia recycling programs faced and continue to face even in 2020. The number of workers and the amount of trash suggests the expense the city faces if they are to continue recycling. Analysis of this image can help me outline the expense issues that Philadelphia tackles while it attempts to implement efficient recycling programs.

In this image, we see a line of workers sorting through a massive amount of materials on a conveyor belt. There are large, metal bins labeled “Landfill” behind the workers, presumably where they must put materials that will not generate as much profit as others. The image was produced by Philadelphia Magazine in April of 2019. The article this image was located in was written to inform readers, who are mostly Philadelphian residents, about the increasing costs of the recycling industry. As previously mentioned, recycling facilities were charging more from the city but were accepting far less material. This left the city with higher costs to pay and less profit, but also with an overwhelming amount of non-profitable materials that were relocated to landfills.

To understand how recycling was becoming more expensive, it’s important to understand what this image shows. The image shows at least 6 city employees sorting this conveyor belt. Each of those employees must be paid for their work, and they are probably full-time considering that the amount of trash shown here represents a demand for labor. Each worker is donned with safety gear including hardhats, safety glasses, fluorescent vests, and gloves. This suggests that there is probably formal training and uniforms required to attain this job, and that is probably paid for by the employer, aka the city. Everything about these employees suggests that money is being spent on them. When I look at this image, I don’t see people, I see dollar signs.

The abundance of trash along the conveyor belt also suggests an expense. Each of those recyclable materials are worth something to the city, but the more trash there is, the more workers they need to sort through it. This is a cyclical problem; the city can make more money from more materials but loses money because they must pay people to sort the materials. Also, the city must dispose of the materials that cannot be accepted by the recycling center once they exceed their contractually agreed amount, so they must pay to have them sent to a landfill.

The large, metal bins labeled “landfill” also suggest that the city is spending more money than they are receiving. To pay for the disposal of excess materials that could yield profits if it weren’t for the contract with the recycling center is like throwing away money. The materials in this image have value, but the cost of them is greater than their worth because of the cost of transport to landfills, as well as the cost of maintaining the landfills themselves. There is more than one single bin for landfill-destined material as well, suggesting that there is a fairly large amount of material being tossed.

Everything in this image portrays another expense to the city of Philadelphia. From the workers, to the trash, to the facility the photographer is inside, all of it costs the city more than they can make from recycling their residents’ trash. The economic gain that this program lacks is a key factor in the inefficiency that plagues Philadelphia’s recycling attempts. When the efforts of the city become unprofitable, it cannot be expected by the public or city officials to endorse such a program. The economic inefficiencies will yield further inefficiencies throughout the program.

Data Analysis:

In the 1980s, Philadelphia’s old and abandoned Nabisco factory was a recycling collector’s dream. Abandoned and bountiful with recyclable materials, scrap haulers frequented the property and filled their carts with materials to trade for cash at local buy-back programs. Like the man in the first photo from my image analysis, scrap haulers would come with shopping carts and bags to hold their materials. The factory was eventually transitioned into a recycling center known as National Temple Recycling Center. Since this property was important for scrap haulers and recycling center employees both, I chose to use it as my site for this data analysis. To study the data, I centered my research on the property’s Northeastern Philadelphia address, 12000 Roosevelt Boulevard, Philadelphia. This is an urban area within a very large and densely populated city, so I established a 0.25-mile radial buffer around the property. Coming into this, I wanted to know what environmental risks plague this property and who are the people being exposed to them. Who is working on this property, and what risks do they face in doing so?

 

 

12000 Roosevelt Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA with a 0.25-mile radial buffer

 

The first data I want to analyze is the environmental indicators. Three indicators stuck out to me: the lead paint indicator, the air toxics respiratory hazards, and finally, the air toxics cancer risks. 12000 Roosevelt Boulevard’s lead paint indicator is outrageously high. This indicator is a percentage of housing units that have possible exposure to lead paint due to being built before 1960. We know now that lead paint can have detrimental health effects. This property is in the 95th percentile for the United States. The value of this data is 0.85; this is 3 times the national average of 0.28. This means that anyone who came into this area was very likely exposed to lead paint and we can be almost certain that the scrap haulers and recycling center employees who worked at the property were exposed as well. 

 

 

The graph for the site’s most relevant environmental indicators

 

The air toxics respiratory hazard value is the risk of air toxin exposure based on the concentration of toxins in the surrounding air. For this site, the national percentile was 60-70th. This is higher than both the state of Pennsylvania’s average as well as the country’s. The data is not as extreme as the lead paint value, but it still suggests that there was a significant risk for those who lived or worked in the area. The air toxins within the area do not stop here, unfortunately, because the air toxins cancer risk for the area was also higher than both the state and nation’s averages. This means that there was a higher lifetime risk of cancer for the inhabitants of this area than the rest of the state or nation. 

 

 

The data table for the site’s most relevant environmental and demographic indicators

Next are the demographic indicators. This data helps answer the “who” part of my research; who is being exposed to these environmental risks? According to the EJSCREEN’s data, it’s the elderly and the undereducated. 26% of the population within 0.25 miles from the old Nabisco factory is over the age of 64. This is significantly higher than the average for the state or nation, putting this area in the 90th percentile in the USA. Through this data, it’s very obvious that the elder population is prominent here; they are also probably more vulnerable to the environmental risks near the property due to their age. 

 

The site’s most relevant demographic indicators

 

This area also has many people with less than high school education. The value of people with this education is 10% and is actually pretty average for the state and the nation. However, having a population that is overwhelmingly elderly or undereducated allows researchers like myself to infer than there is probably little understanding of the environmental risks associated with the area. By layering additional demographics over the map of my area, I could see that there were also many people within the population here that are living below the poverty line. 

 

 

The map with an additional layer showing the population below the poverty line. The darker green up top is the side of the highway that the site is located on.

There are a few inferences to be made from this data. Each of these indicators relates to each other and help to answer my original questions of who and what was at this factory. The population being mostly elderly or undereducated suggests that there is a lack of understanding of the environmental risks this property is plagued with. It also suggests that these people had little upward mobility that would allow them to leave the area for a safer one. There were probably few job opportunities for these people, forcing them to rely on the factory as a garden for recyclable material to sell and later as an employment opportunity when the recycling center opened. Being below the poverty line also suggests that even if they wanted to, people probably could not afford to leave or repair the area for safer conditions. 

In my photos from my image analysis, you can see the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) that the private collector has. The data here suggests that this lack of PPE may have been a result of not knowing how to protect himself from hazardous materials or not having the financial means to access such equipment. The demographics surrounding this recyclable-material-rich factory reinforces my argument that the lower-class and vulnerable citizens like the elderly are dependent on buy-back programs for survival. It’s unfortunate that the dependence also forces these people to expose themselves to the environmental hazards shown to be in this area. 

It wasn’t only the scrap haulers exposing themselves here, though. The employees of the recycling center that the factory was turned into were just as exposed, although we can see from the second image in my previous analysis that they did have at least some PPE available to them. From the image, we see that there are gloves, goggles, masks, and hard hats protecting the workers. But this data shows that there are more risks than the handling of materials along a conveyor belt; employees won’t be protected from lead paint and air toxins through masks worn haphazardly as we saw in the photo. When these employees are not on the conveyor belt line like when they are in the bathroom or the breakroom, they are still at risk of these air toxins and are probably not wearing a mask when they are not in contact with the recyclable materials. 

This data creates a narrative for the scrap haulers and recycling center employees who worked in these hazardous conditions. Demographically they may have been different or lived in different areas, but they all came to the same site for work. The environmental risks that this property contains are not biased; they will affect a young working man in the recycling center just as much as an elderly woman collecting cans and newspapers. The environmental indicators show that this influential property exposed countless people who, based on the demographic indicators, were already vulnerable and marginalized. The dangers within this property’s area are not isolated to this site. These environmental hazards are widespread throughout Philadelphia and even the entire country. The members of the demographics for this site exist throughout America and are too often forced to expose themselves to similar-and sometimes worse- environmental risks simply because they have no other choice. 

Oral Interviews:

Below is the recording of a phone interview with my friend Katie Tinklepaugh. We discussed her experience of living in Philadelphia, participating in the city’s curbside trash and recycling pickup, and seeing trash pickers in the streets.

Video Story:

Below is a video essay detailing the creation and flaws of Philadelphia’s mandated recycling program that was implemented in 1987. The video describes what went wrong during implementation and how the lower-class residents and the city streets department developed a mutual dependence on each other.