Alternative management of organic waste in Chatham-Kent, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The municipal solid waste collected from Chatham-Kent is currently disposed to the Ridge Landfill in Blenheim, Ontario. Although the municipality implements recycling, the program does not include separate collection and processing of organic food waste. This paper presents an economic evaluation of composting alternatives for the organic food waste collected from households in Chatham-Kent. A cost-benefit analysis was performed for three scenarios: (i) continuing the current system of landfill disposal, (ii) backyard composting in detached dwellings, and (iii) centralized collection and off-site composting in London, Ontario. Results indicate that backyard composting is an economically feasible alternative to landfill disposal. The cost of backyard composting is comparable to landfill disposal (2% lower at a 25% participation rate and 8% lower at full uptake), suggesting that long-term benefits offset the initial investments on backyard composters. Centralized composting is twice more expensive than landfill disposal at all uptake rates. Despite the lower initial cost of the collection bins compared to backyard composters, the cost of waste collection and transport is significantly higher for centralized composting. In terms of waste diversion at full uptake, the centralized collection of source-separated organics results in a 6% increase in overall diversion rates compared to a 5% increase for backyard composting. Further, landfill life is extended by 16 years for the centralized composting and by 12 years for backyard composting. The analytical method employed in this study can be applied to other regions exploring similar decision options on composting. The decision criteria presented in this paper can be expanded and modified to accommodate regional variability such as access to facilities, materials costs, and social acceptability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".