Understanding Resident Participation in New York City’s Curbside Composting Program: A Case Study of Queens

Abstract

Food waste is a significant contributor to climate change, causing 58% of methane emissions from landfills in the United States. To manage its food waste, New York City (NYC), the largest city in the United States, instituted a citywide Curbside Composting program in 2015. Using a mixed methods approach, this research focuses on its implementation in New York City’s most diverse borough (Queens), examining residents’ awareness, participation, and attitudes toward the program. Data collection methods included an online survey of 83 residents of Queens, eight follow-up semi-structured interviews, and an interview with an informant from the NYC Department of Sanitation (DSNY). Findings from the survey indicate that while the majority of respondents identified benefits of the program, only 49% participated in some capacity. The most common motivators for participation were environmental and sustainability benefits. Additionally, the main deterrent to participation was lack of awareness. Findings from this study provide a community-specific understanding of the behaviors regarding NYC’s Curbside Composting Program. While this study is centered on Queens, these findings could provide insights for NYC and cities internationally looking to implement or improve organic waste collection and composting programs.

1. Introduction

Food waste must be diverted from landfills to reduce methane emissions, the second-highest leading contributor to climate change [1]. Specifically, food waste decomposition causes 58% of methane emissions from landfills in the United States [2]. As a response to this issue, cities across the United States have begun to institute organic waste collection programs [3]. New York City (NYC)’s Curbside Composting program (hereinafter referred to as “the program”) is the city’s attempt to address the issue of food waste. This program began as a voluntary pilot program in 2013, expanded citywide by 2015, and paused at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 [4]. The program resumed in 2021 [5], became mandatory in Queens in 2022, and expanded to the rest of the boroughs in 2024, making it the largest curbside composting program in the nation covering around 2.2 million residents [6,7]. Part of the municipal composting strategy included the establishment of “Smart Compost Bins” in certain areas of the city in which residents could dispose of their organic waste using the NYC Compost app [8]. Outreach efforts for the program have included door knocking, events, distributing free leaf bags and kitchen containers, and distributing finished compost throughout the boroughs [9]. On the 1 April 2025, the city began to fine residents for not participating in the program or for participating incorrectly [10]. Despite its long history, capture rates—i.e., a percentage of total tonnage of waste that is diverted from landfills—for this program never exceeded 10% in the borough of Queens [8,11]. Although the NYC Department of Sanitation (DSNY) has claimed that this system is “easy” and “for everyone” [8], low capture rates suggest there are barriers to participation that are not being addressed.

Even though fines were paused after the initial three weeks for buildings with 30 or fewer units, reports show the average Queens capture rate increased from 3.8% in March 2025 to 12.6% in April 2025 and to 15.5% in May 2025 [12]. According to MacBride (2025), this increase was not necessarily due to the issuance of fines, but by the announcement that enforcement would begin [13]. While fines were paused, the DSNY continued to issue warnings and offered training to “tenants, building owners, supers and property managers” who were not correctly participating [12]. After the fourth violation, buildings with 30 or more units were fined [12]. As of January 2026, the DSNY has reinstated fines for all buildings [14]. Despite the increase in participation after fines were implemented, MacBride [13] argued that capture rates must increase to “at least 30% over the next five years at most” in order for the program to be sustainable, comparing it to NYC’s recycling program that has a 50% capture rate and Seattle’s organics program that has a 60% capture rate. While the amount of waste sent to landfills has been marginally reduced as a result of these improvements, the majority of NYC’s organic waste is still being landfilled [13].

Previous research on organic waste collection programs has examined behavioral and demographic factors that shape resident participation. Through a survey in Australia, Nguyen et al. [15] found that sustainable food waste disposal behaviors were positively associated with perceived personal benefit, pro-environmental self-identity, pre-existing recycling habits, access to a dedicated food scrap collection tool in the kitchen, and higher educational attainment [15]. Age emerged as a significant predictor of program participation both in Shanghai [16] and San Francisco [17], where older residents were more likely to participate in organic waste collection programs than younger ones.

Research has found that factors like perceived inconvenience, insufficient knowledge about sorting, practical issues, lack of time, and hygiene-related concerns deter residents from participating in organic waste collection programs [17,18,19,20,21,22]. For instance, in a study of a pilot community composting program in Florida, Campbell et al. [23] found that while the majority of study respondents identified positive impacts of food waste reduction and composting, a lack of knowledge, and concerns about odor, pests and theft eroded respondents’ willingness to participate in the program [23]. Similarly, through a survey of United States residents, Oehman et al. [21] found that odors, pests, and mess in their homes would deter residents from separating their household food waste [21].

In addition, researchers have illuminated the importance of effective outreach methods to increase engagement and correct participation in organic waste collection programs. Findings from Bernstad et al.’s [24] study in Sweden suggest that relational forms of communication can improve sorting quality [24]. Relatedly, in a residential food waste pilot program in Shanghai, Xu et al. [16] found that communities that partnered with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to implement and inform the community about the organic waste collection program achieved higher capture rates than those that followed the standard government model. NGOs played a central coordinating role: they delegated responsibilities among stakeholders, facilitated communication, and enhanced program credibility [16].

Limited research has examined municipal organic waste collection programs in the United States, and no other research has focused on examining factors that shape participation in NYC’s Curbside Composting program. While the city collects data on capture rates for the Curbside Composting program, it does not collect information about program participation directly from residents. To this end, MacBride [25] argued that, beyond quantitative data on capture rates, collecting data directly from residents is necessary to gain a better understanding of the successes and limitations of the program [25]. Our research collected quantitative and qualitative data directly from Queens residents to understand their participation, and lack thereof, in the DSNY’s Curbside Composting program.

Through an exploratory case study of Queens, this research identifies barriers to participation, and highlights residents’ key motivators in Queens, NY, the most diverse Borough of NYC, in the country’s largest city, which has yet to be studied. This paper provides insights that can enhance the program’s success—including its future outreach campaigns and infrastructure—as well as inform the design of future research. Specifically, we seek to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the extent of Queens’ residents’ awareness of the DSNY’s Curbside Composting program’s implementation and how to participate? (2) What factors shape residents’ participation in the program and what challenges do they experience? (3) What are residents’ attitudes toward the program?

2. Methods

This research used a case study methodology and mixed methods approach, utilizing qualitative and quantitative data. Below, we describe the research design, case study selection, data collection methods, and data analysis methods. The study was approved under Exempt Review procedures of Hofstra University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) (HUIRB Approval Ref#: 20260911-GEO-HCL-ALB-1).

2.1. Research Design

This research uses a case study methodology, focusing on residents of the borough of Queens. Queens was selected as a case study because of the program’s longevity in this borough, its high demographic and geographic diversity, and because two of the authors are Queens residents. The program started as a pilot program in Queens in 2012 and, in 2022, it was the first borough to receive mandatory service after the program’s pandemic pause [26,27]. Queens is organized into 14 Community Board Districts (CBDs), varying in population density (ranging from 13,001 to 75,427 persons per square miles). Queens is also a highly diverse borough in terms of race, ethnicity, and national origin. Queens has a total population of 2,316,841 with the following racial and ethnic groups making up the majority of the population: 28.5% Hispanic or Latino, 26.3% Asian American, 22.5% White, 16.3% Black or African American [28]. Foreign-born residents make up an estimated 47% of the Queens population [28]. At least 138 languages are spoken in Queens, and about one quarter (25.5%) of residents have Limited English Proficiency (LEP) [23,29].

2.2. Data Collection

An online survey was administered through Qualtrics and included a mix of multiple-choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. The purpose of the survey was to acquire information on residents’ extent of awareness of the program and how to participate, participation in the program, reasons for participating or not participating, attitudes toward the program, and household and demographic characteristics (Appendix A includes the survey questionnaire). The survey was available in both English and Spanish. Only respondents who lived in Queens and were 18 or older were eligible to participate. Respondents were asked whether they were interested in receiving compensation ($25 gift card) for completing the survey and whether they would participate in a follow-up interview. Those who expressed interest were prompted to provide their email addresses for further contact.

This research used a convenience sampling approach, since participants were recruited primarily based on ease and availability [30]. The survey was distributed through online forums and by mail, in order to reach both residents who are and are not on social media. The letter mailed to residents explained the survey, provided information about compensation that was available for participating in the study, and included a QR code that could be used to access it. It was double-sided, with one side written in English and the other in Spanish.

Our recruitment strategy focused on targeting districts 1, 3, and 11 because they each represent a different level of population density (Appendix B shows the breakdown of population density across the districts). For mailing the letters, we randomly selected 41 addresses (including addresses across districts 1, 3, and 11) using Google Maps. The survey link was also posted online on the Nextdoor social media app and neighborhood-specific Facebook groups. On Nextdoor, “anyone” was allowed to see the post, as there was no way to set the post’s visibility to specific neighborhoods other than those around the account user’s (one of the authors) neighborhood (Bellerose). Finally, the survey was posted on the Nextdoor group “Queens Helping Hands.” On Facebook, it was posted on these groups: “East Elmhurst and Corona,” “Jackson Heights/East Elmhurst 11369,” “Jackson Heights Elakabashi,” “Astoria Community Connect,” and “Long Island City Neighborhood.”

The survey was open for 19 days, from 18 February 2025, to 19 March 2025, and it garnered 770 responses. After the survey closed, all submissions were exported into an Excel spreadsheet for data cleaning. Since many responses were received in a short time frame (between 26 February and 27 February, the sample went up from 42 to 671), responses were screened for validity based on several criteria. Storozuk et al. [31] and Pinzon et al. [32] were used as references for how to identify bot responses [31,32], in addition to other criteria added by the authors. The first and second authors reviewed all responses together to minimize the impact of internal bias. Submissions were deemed invalid and removed if they met any of the following conditions (in order):

• Multiple entries from the same email address (23 observations removed by Qualtrics; 747 observations remained)
• Multiple responses submitted consecutively with identical start and end times (581 observations removed; 166 observations remained)
• Low Qualtrics CAPTCHA scores in combination with other criteria (26 observations removed; 83 observations remained). Qualtrics’ bot detection feature uses Google’s invisible reCaptcha technology to calculate the probability of a survey response coming from a bot instead of a human. Qualtrics flags survey responses that earn scores less than 0.5. Because CAPTCHA score is based on probability and is not foolproof, it was not sufficient to determine whether responses were invalid. For responses that got a score of 0.5 or lower (109 observations), we examined responses to open-ended questions manually to see if they also met other criteria, including at least one or a combination of the following:

  ○

  Internally inconsistent answers (e.g., a respondent who indicated in one question that they participate in the program consistently but then expressed they stopped participating in the program in an open-ended question)

  ○

  Short-answer responses that were not relevant to the question asked (e.g., “Contributes to a better environment for the local music scene”)

  ○

  Short-answer responses that mirrored AI-generated writing styles, particularly the use of headings followed by an explanation, such as, “Reducing Landfill Waste: Food scraps and organic materials make up a large portion of landfill waste. Composting keeps them out of landfills, reducing methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas.” As another example from a different respondent, “Supporting Local Agriculture: Many cities use compost to support urban farms, community gardens, and green spaces.”

After removing all invalid entries, a total of 83 valid survey respondents remained, who responded to at least 50% of the survey questions. Because many questions were not mandatory, sample sizes varied across the different questions (the only survey questions that were mandatory were those that determined participant eligibility). Although our recruitment focused on districts 1, 3, and 11, we received many responses from other districts, which were all kept in the data.

In addition to surveys, we conducted follow-up semi-structured interviews with residents who responded to the survey. The design of the interview questionnaire was informed by preliminary findings from the survey. The goal of the interviews was to gain a more in-depth and nuanced understanding of survey results (See Appendix A for interview questions).

All survey participants who expressed interest in a follow-up interview were invited to participate via email and were offered a $10 electronic gift card for participating. Two rounds of emails were sent (first in June 2025 and a follow-up in July 2025) and we were able to conduct eight interviews via Zoom Version 7.2.2 in July–August 2025. Audio recordings were transcribed using Otter.ai and edited for accuracy. To protect the confidentiality of interview participants, we use pseudonyms when quoting them in the results section.

In January 2026, we interviewed the DSNY Public Affairs and Customer Experience Deputy Commissioner. We sought a first-hand report from the DSNY to better understand how the program works. After connecting through LinkedIn, we conducted an interview via the Zoom platform.

2.3. Data Analysis

Quantitative survey data were analyzed with descriptive statistics using Microsoft Excel. We used inductive qualitative thematic coding to analyze responses to open-ended survey questions based on emerging themes. To analyze follow-up interview responses, we used a deductive approach to thematic coding using codes from open-ended survey responses and identified emerging themes. For the DSNY respondent’s interview, all codes were inductive. We used Microsoft Excel to analyze survey responses and MaxQDA Version 26.4.0 to analyze interview responses. For both open-ended survey and interview responses, qualitative coding was performed collaboratively and went through an iterative process. The second and third author (students) performed an initial analysis in which they identified recurring themes, and the first author (faculty) reviewed it and discussed adjustments until reaching an agreement.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Description

The online survey collected a total of 83 valid responses. Responses were recorded from 40 different neighborhoods, which represent 11 of the 14 Community Board Districts in Queens. District 13 was the most represented in the survey (33%, n = 27) and District 11 had the second highest number of respondents at 16% (n = 13); both districts are of relatively low population density (Appendix B includes a detailed breakdown of respondents across districts, as well as districts’ population density data). The survey collected responses across various household characteristics. Respondents who indicated that they live in a single-family house or a townhouse/brownstone were grouped together as a single-unit household (62.5%, n = 50). Respondents who indicated that they live in a duplex/triplex, an apartment, a co-op, or a condo were classified as those who live in multi-unit buildings (35%, n = 28). Of those who responded to a question about house ownership, a majority (62%, n = 21) owned their household, while a small percentage (21%, n = 7) rented their household. The most common income range was $61,000–$90,000 (32%, n = 25).

We conducted eight follow-up interviews with survey participants. The interviewees were from seven different neighborhoods, which represent five of the 14 Community Districts in Queens. District 13 was the most represented in the interviews (38%, n = 3) and District 11 had the second highest number of interviewees (25%, n = 2).

3.2. Program Awareness

3.2.1. Awareness of Program Implementation

The majority of survey respondents (80%, n = 66) were aware of the program before taking the survey. Among participants of follow-up interviews, six were aware of the program prior to taking the survey and two stated they had not been aware of it (though one of them had become aware of the program between the time of the survey and interview through a friend and started participating).

During the DSNY interview, the respondent described their program outreach campaign as a series of mailers and paid media, “hundreds” of information sessions, as well as door-to-door canvassing at all buildings with fewer than nine apartments (“around 750,000 buildings”). Participants who responded that they were aware of the program prior to taking the survey, were asked to identify all the ways they were informed about the program in a “select all that apply” question. In total, 59% (n = 49) of respondents learned about the program from the DSNY through mailers (39%, n = 32), via email, text, or over the phone (11%, n = 9), when someone from the DSNY came to their door (6%, n = 5), or by watching a virtual info session (4%, n = 3). The remaining 41% (n = 34) of respondents learned of the program through a community event (12%, n = 10), heard about it through a friend/relative/neighbor (20%, n = 17), or were informed by their landlord/landlady (1%, n = 1). Six respondents (7%) selected “other.” During follow-up interviews, two interviewees discussed learning about the program when they received the bins from the DSNY.

We did not include a question in the survey specifically asking about residents’ awareness of the program’s enforcement through fines, but this was discussed in three of the interviews, with only two of those interviewees reporting being aware of the fines—even though fines had been issued for at least three months at the time of the interviews. One of the interviewees, Sabrina, shared she learned about the fines through Reddit.

3.2.2. Awareness of How to Participate in the Program

A question in the survey asked participants to select all the items that can be placed in the organics collection bin. We treated this question as a quiz question to assess participants’ level of knowledge of organic waste sorting. For each respondent, we added one point for every correct answer they selected and subtracted a point for every incorrect answer they selected, with the highest possible score being 11, and the lowest possible score being −4. The rationale for this scoring scheme was to reflect the impact a respondent’s knowledge has on the quality of waste they sort into the organics stream. Selecting an incorrect answer detracts from the overall quality by contributing items that contaminate the waste stream, which is represented by the subtraction of one point from the score. In turn, selecting a correct answer choice increases the amount of organic waste the respondent diverts from the landfill, thereby increasing the program’s capture rate. Leaving out a correct answer choice does not subtract one point, but it still passively leads to a score that is lower than the maximum potential score, because not knowing an item should be diverted means it was landfilled, lessening the amount of organic waste diverted by the program. The average score was 4.7, the median was 5, and the mode was 4.

Table 1 shows the options available in this question, whether it was a correct or incorrect answer, and the frequency each one was selected. The most common choices selected were fruit peels (89%, n = 71) and leaves (83%, n = 66). Frequently left out correct choices were paper plates (19%, n = 15), pizza boxes (20%, n = 16), napkins (24%, n = 19), and dairy products (26%, n = 21).

Table 1. Frequency of answers to question “To the best of your ability, select all items that can be placed in the organics collection bin: (Select all that apply)” (N = 80) (Sample size is based on the total number of responses to this question).

Answers	Correct (C) or Incorrect (I)	Count (n)	% of Responses (N = 80)
Fruit peels	C	71	89%
Leaves	C	66	83%
Tea bags	C	50	63%
Grass	C	46	58%
Meat	C	39	49%
Bones	C	36	45%
Prepared foods	C	34	43%
Dairy	C	21	26%
Napkins	C	19	24%
Animal waste	I	18	23%
Pizza boxes	C	16	20%
Paper plates	C	15	19%
Plastic bags	I	13	16%
Wrappers	I	6	8%
Foam	I	6	8%

Overall, respondents displayed familiarity with the concept of placing inedible plant waste, such as fruit peels, leaves, and grass, in the organic waste bin. Respondents were not as familiar with the concept of placing food-soiled paper products or animal-based products in the organic waste bin.

Another survey question asked participants to identify all the ways they received guidance for how to participate in the program. The most common information source was mailers from the DSNY (37%, n = 29). Others received guidance when someone from the DSNY came to their door (6%, n = 5), through a community event (8%, n = 6), digitally from the DSNY (through email, text, or over the phone) (10%, n = 8), through a friend/relative/neighbor (19%, n = 15), or through their landlord/landlady (6%, n = 5). Nine (11%) respondents had not received any guidance. Respondents who received information about the program from the DSNY sources had a higher number of scorers within the 8–11 range (20%, n = 9) than those who received information from other sources (9%, n = 3) or did not answer where they got their information from (10%, n = 2).

3.3. Program Participation

A Likert-scale question in the survey asked respondents to choose the statement that best reflected their level of participation in the Curbside Composting program. A slight minority of respondents (49%, n = 40) reported that they participated in the program in some capacity, with the remainder of respondents (51%, n = 42) indicating that they have never participated in the program (40%, n = 33) or that they used to participate but stopped (11%, n = 9). The majority of interviewees (75%, n = 6) indicated that they participate in the program, and seven of the eight interviewees discussed sorting organic waste from their garbage as part of their routine, regardless of participation in the program.

3.3.1. Reasons for Participating

Those who indicated that they participated in the program more than “rarely” (n = 31, 38%) were asked an open-ended question that stated, “What are the reasons you participate in the Curbside Composting program?” Responses to this question were coded based on recurring themes (Table 2).

Table 2. Reasons participants reported for participating in the program (summary of themes of open-ended survey answers, N = 25). (Sample size is based on the total number of responses to this question. Percentages calculated out of total responses to the question, not total number of coded segments). Themes are not mutually exclusive.

Themes and Sub-Themes	Count (n)	% of Responses (N = 25)
Environment: Environment (general) (n = 7) Waste reduction (general) (n = 6) Soil improvement (n = 3) Conserving resources/recycling (n = 3) Reducing GHG emissions/pollution (n = 2)	17	68%
The program being legally required	5	20%
Personal benefit: Gaining knowledge (n = 1) Less garbage at home (n = 1) Makes them feel like a good person (n = 1)	3	12%
It’s easy and convenient	2	8%

A majority of participants expressed motivations centered on environmental and sustainability benefits (68%, n = 17). Among them, several (n = 7) expressed the desire to benefit the environment in an unspecified way (e.g., “[the program] is better for the environment”). Others mentioned more specific environmental benefits such as waste reduction (n = 6) and soil improvement (n = 3). Other environmental benefits mentioned included conserving resources or recycling (n = 3) and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or pollution (n = 2). In follow-up interviews, one resident, Sabrina, mentioned that she wanted to participate because she is “an environmentally conscious person.”

The second most common reason for survey respondents to participate in the program was that it was legally required (20%, n = 5). During follow-up interviews, none of the respondents cited the program being mandatory as a personal motivation to participate but one of them, Margaret, explained that her landlord only agreed to participate in the program once it became mandatory.

Three survey respondents (12%) conveyed motivations that were centered on personal benefits. These included having “less garbage” at home as a result of the program and gaining “knowledge on how to … decrease pollution.”

Two survey respondents (8%) started participating because they found the program easy to participate in and more convenient than home composting. One of them explained, “I used to compost at home, but this is better since it takes cooked foods as well and a home compost cannot.” Similarly, one of the interviewees, Tina, stated, “when the city started the compost program, [we] quickly moved there, because you can do bones and cooked foods, whereas at home, we can [really] only do vegetable cuttings.” Another interviewee, Sabrina, discussed simplicity as the reason for participating, stating, “when I saw how freaking simple it was, and … I didn’t even have to pay for the brown bin … so I think it’s awesome.”

The DSNY respondent expressed that the program being free, mandatory, and easy is the main reason residents participate, which was supported by some of the responses above. On the other hand, the DSNY respondent did not think an environmental message would be effective in motivating residents to participate. In his words,

“[A]n environmental message was not an effective motivating factor at a mass scale. … I wish that you could say to people, ‘do the right thing and help the environment’ and get them to do it just like that. That was not effective … [a]nd so instead, by focusing on rodent mitigation … and by just treating it as a normal service we provide … By not acting like this is a niche program for people who have to care. I don’t have to convince you to put your trash out. I don’t need to give you a motivating factor for putting your trash out. … you participate because it’s the law and it’s a free service … That’s the motivation.”

The DSNY respondent explained that, for this reason, the DSNY focuses on other benefits like rodent mitigation and making the program easy for residents.

3.3.2. Reasons for Not Participating

Those who indicated that they participate in the program less than “consistently, every week” (82%, n = 67) were asked an open-ended question that stated, “Please describe reasons you do not participate/do not participate consistently in the Curbside Composting program.” Responses to this question were coded based on recurring themes (Table 3).

Table 3. Reasons participants reported for not participating in the program (Summary of themes of open-ended survey answers, N = 56) (Sample size is based on the total number of responses to this question. Percentages calculated out of total responses to the question, not total number of coded segments). Themes are not mutually exclusive.

Themes and Sub-Themes	Count (n)	% of Responses (N = 56)
Lack of awareness: Unaware of the program being implemented (n = 14) Lack of knowledge of how to separate organic waste (n = 4) Unaware of how to participate (n = 2)	20	36%
Perceived inconvenience and low motivation: Perception that it is too much work or challenging (n = 4) Feeling overwhelmed by too much waste sorting (n = 2) Forgetting to participate (n = 2) Lack of interest (n = 1) Perception that it is personally inconvenient and out of the norm (n = 1)	10	18%
Perceived lack of need or relevance: Belief that participation is not mandatory (n = 3) Living in a building (n = 2) Belief that composting is handled by someone else (n = 2) Belief that program is not available in their area (n = 1) Not generating yard waste (n = 1) Not generating sufficient organic waste to participate (n = 1)	10	18%
Concerns about program efficiency, reliability, and cleanliness: Concerns about cleanliness, odors, and pests (n = 3) Inconvenient collection schedule (n = 1) Lack of trust in program working correctly (n = 1)	5	9%
Uses personal backyard composting instead of curbside program	4	7%
Does not have required composting bin	3	5%
Reluctance to purchase compostable bags due to cost	3	5%
Physically unable to carry bins due to injury	1	2%

The most common reason (36%, n = 20) survey respondents did not participate or did not participate consistently was lack of awareness, which included lack of awareness of the program being implemented (n = 14), lack of knowledge of how to separate organic waste (n = 4), and lack of awareness of how to participate (n = 2). Some respondents stated that if they received more information, they would participate or participate more consistently, as this quote illustrates: “I think the information sent to homeowners was very general. If I received specifics, I would maybe participate more.” In follow-up interviews, Michael said that they “would love to participate” but they would need to get “the right information of what this group [DSNY] actually does, … [such as] in-depth information and how it helps.”

The second most common theme (18%, n = 10) was perceived inconvenience and low motivation. This included some vague responses that described the program as “too time consuming” or “inconvenient.” In addition, four respondents expressed that the program was too much work or challenging, two respondents expressed that they already do too much waste sorting at home, another two said they forget to participate, one expressed they were not interested in participating, and another said it was too out of the norm of what they normally do.

The third most common theme (18%, n = 10) was a perceived lack of need or relevance. This theme included responses that suggested respondents’ perception that the program is not mandatory or that it is not relevant to them because of where they live or the amount of food and yard waste they produce (e.g., “I have no yard waste since I rent a basement apartment”).

The following most common reason for lack of participation or lack of consistent participation (9%, n = 5) related to concerns about program efficiency, reliability, and cleanliness. Three participants expressed concerns about the cleanliness and odors that may be caused by food waste, as well as the possibility of attracting pests. As one respondent expressed, “I don’t like the smell of the rotting food waste, there are stray cats, racoons and opossums in the neighborhood, I think this keeps them coming. It’s messy and annoying.” Another respondent expressed a lack of trust that the program is working correctly, and the other respondent expressed discontent with the collection schedule, stating “[t]he pickup schedule is incredibly inconvenient. I work long hours and often leave home before the scheduled pickup time”.

A few respondents (7%, n = 4) reported that they do their own backyard composting instead of disposing their food and yard waste in the DSNY brown bins. Three respondents said they do not participate because their household or building does not have brown bins. Another three respondents expressed that they did not want to have to buy compostable bags, some of whom pointed to their price as a reason. Lastly, one respondent expressed that they are “not physically able to carry bins” due to an injury.

3.3.3. Positive Experiences and Challenges of Program Participation

During follow-up interviews, participants discussed what makes participating in the program easy or challenging for them, ways they navigate challenges, and what they would change about the program to make it easier to participate.

Four interviewees identified the following aspects of the program that make participation easy for them: that there is a set pick up schedule (n = 2), that it is easy to look up information on what can go in the brown bin (n = 1), and that it is “not a big deal” since it goes out on the same days as the recycling collection (n = 1). In addition, three interviewees discussed ways they approach participating that make it easier for them. For example, Margaret said that, for her, participating is “really not a big hassle.” She has a system in the kitchen with three bins and once she gets “into the habit of doing it, it’s really no bother.” Similarly, Caroline stated she thinks there is nothing “that dramatic about it.” Meanwhile, Tina, identified that living in a “one family home area” lowers the logistic complications of participating in the program, as compared to an apartment building where participation is more challenging.

On the other hand, interviewees identified the following challenges associated with their participation in the program: issues with provided bins, dealing with odors and pests, difficulty changing habits, and their work schedule. Six interviewees discussed issues they have experienced with bins provided by the DSNY. Steven, who lives in an apartment, stated that there are not enough bins provided in his living space for the amount of people who need to dispose of their waste. Albert expressed that he noticed that some bins are smaller than others in his neighborhood, including some bins with “a whole lot of trash coming out of it.” Two interviewees mentioned issues relating to the provided countertop bin: Tina said, “they literally fall over and they’re not really appealing, … It’s not even shaped properly to put a bag in it.” She resolved her issue by purchasing a larger, sturdier bin to use as a replacement, describing it as a “cheap cook pot [from] Target. … it’s [a] heavier weight than those plastic things that they gave out from the city.” Caroline thought the countertop bins were too messy to use without bags and explained that she solved the problem by “buy[ing] the little biodegradable plastic bags that go inside.” Separately, Margaret discussed that more “public bins” (Smart Bins) should be available to make participation easier since the closest one to her is “about a mile away.”

3.3.4. Participation Barriers Associated with Housing Type

A Likert-scale question in the survey asked participants to rate the extent to which they agree with the following statement: “The Curbside Composting program is accessible to me.” A majority of respondents believed the program was accessible to them (69%, n = 56). Participants’ perception of program accessibility varied across housing types. The vast majority of survey participants who lived in single-family homes (77%, n = 40) indicated that they agreed that the program is accessible to them, whereas a smaller rate of survey participants who lived in apartments (54%, n = 14) agreed that the program was accessible to them.

Qualitative survey and interview data showed that study respondents experienced barriers to participation associated with living in multi-family residences. For example, one survey respondent described the lack of infrastructure to support the program in their building, stating, “I am not aware of a convenient place for me to dispose of my organic waste. My building doesn’t have a bin in the trash and recycling area. I have seen some composting bins on the curb near my building sporadically, but not regularly.” Another respondent stated, “my apartment building is not participat[ing].” Even when a bin is made available to residents of multi-family residences, what is provided may not be enough to support the waste disposal of multiple households.

Last, respondents identified barriers particular to renters. For example, one interviewee, Margaret, expressed that she was unable to participate for a while because her landlord “didn’t want to do it.” Three survey respondents expressed that they were not informed of the program’s implementation. For example, one respondent stated, “my rent office did not [say] anything about it in the beginning till just recently last year.” This is also consistent with feedback the DSNY received, in which respondents reported wanting to compost but were prevented by their landlords’ lack of compliance and information provision. To this end, at the time of the interview, the DSNY respondent shared that they were planning to launch an EPA-funded bus and subway ad campaign that targets residents of high-density neighborhoods and empowers them to “tell their landlord this is the law, and we want to participate.” This ad campaign launched in April 2026 [32].

3.4. Residents’ Attitudes Toward the Program

Survey and interview responses reflected varied perceptions of the program, including both positive opinions and skepticism of the program, and lack of trust in the DSNY’s workers. On the one hand, a majority of survey respondents agreed—to some degree—that participating in the program is beneficial (82%, n = 66) and a few respondents expressed wanting to help the DSNY and the city government. For example, Albert, who expressed “wanting to mak[e] it easier” for the sanitation workers who pick up the garbage. Similarly, Caroline stated that because a lot of people “complain about the program,” she wanted the city to “at least have some people saying it’s fine.”

On the other hand, some respondents expressed a lack of trust in the city government and the DSNY’s sanitation workers. For instance, a survey respondent stated: “It’s better for the environment but the city is going to turn it into a way to penalize people and use them as an ATM.” When surveyed, four respondents expressed skepticism of the proper execution of the organic waste collection, including the belief that sanitation workers are inconsistent in their pickup practices and that they add all waste to the same container. For example, one survey respondent said, “[n]ot so sure collection is properly collected separately from regular garbage. I have read [that] some workers just throw it in the same compartment as regular trash.” Another respondent stated that they “noticed that the compost bin was left in a different spot after pick up” which made them “worry about the carelessness of the collectors”.

4. Discussion

Study respondents’ attitudes towards the program varied, with some seeing it as beneficial and accessible, and others being skeptical of its reliability and impacts. The majority of survey respondents agreed to some extent that the program is beneficial, and most respondents also agreed to some extent that the program is accessible to them. However, specific opinions on the accessibility of information and infrastructure of the program varied. Moreover, several respondents expressed skepticism in the integrity of the program and a lack of trust in sanitation workers (e.g., some respondents’ suspicion that the materials collected end up mixed with regular trash). Public distrust could be addressed by increasing transparency of how the program works and what happens to the collected material.

The DSNY respondent emphasized his belief that NYC residents are not motivated by an environmentalist message, which somewhat stands in tension with our findings that: (1) environmental values motivated several respondents’ decision to participate in the program and (2) several respondents identified environmental benefits of the program. We did not specifically collect data on participants’ environmental values and behaviors, nor the impact of different types of DSNY messaging. However, findings from this research suggest that awareness of the environmental benefits of curbside composting may play a role in encouraging and maintaining participation. Future research could be conducted to identify what kind of messaging is most effective to motivate participation.

Yet, when it came to discussing environmental motivations, most respondents made broad or vague statements, such as “to help the environment,” and only a few mentioned benefits associated with a reduction in greenhouse gases and climate change mitigation, which suggests that residents may not be as knowledgeable of the specific environmental benefits of organic waste sorting and composting. Future research could collect data on residents’ values and their level of awareness of environmental and community benefits of organic waste sorting to analyze whether there is a statistical association between these variables and participation in curbside composting. Findings from that research could inform the design of DSNY outreach to reflect the potential benefits that are more likely to mobilize people to participate in the program.

Our research found that although the majority of respondents perceived the program to have some environmental, societal, and personal benefits, only about half of respondents reported that they participated in the program to some extent. Several barriers to participation were identified, which we discuss below. Our findings also revealed key barriers associated with living in a household that is rented or in an apartment building: Renters depend on landlords to access program information and infrastructure, and some multi-unit buildings lack adequate bins.

Lack of awareness was a key barrier to program participation, as there were prominent gaps in respondents’ understanding of the program’s purpose, operation, and benefits. Many respondents were unclear about how to participate in the program, how to separate their organic waste, and what types of materials were accepted. In some cases, respondents reported barriers that reflected misconceptions about the program (e.g., respondents who cited not wanting to purchase compostable bags as a barrier although residents are allowed to use plastic bags). In addition, some respondents expressed uncertainty about what ultimately happens to the collected organic waste.

Although many respondents correctly identified many of the materials that should go in the brown bin, a few correct materials (e.g., animal-based products and food-soiled paper) were missed many times, which suggest that oftentimes residents may not be participating to their full potential. This limited understanding suggests that even when access to the program exists, insufficient information can hinder participation or correct participation. Program outreach and education should include efforts to develop a stronger association between frequently missed materials and organic waste amongst New York City residents, in order to increase correct separation when participating. Notably, study participants who received information about the program from DSNY sources had higher scores than those who received information from other sources. However, many study respondents reported that they did not receive any guidance from the DSNY on this regard.

Another barrier to participation was a perceived lack of need or relevance, which could also be attributed to a lack of information about the program. The fines and mandatory nature of the program was another area that confused study respondents. The DSNY respondent’s opinion that residents participate because it is mandatory contrasts with the fact that only four respondents discussed the fact that it was mandatory as a reason to participate, and three respondents explicitly reported that they did not know it was mandatory. The DSNY could ensure clear and consistent communication that emphasizes the mandatory nature of the program, as well as how exactly the program is enforced. For example, it would be helpful for residents to receive information on aspects of enforcement such as, the difference in enforcement between single-family residences versus 9+ unit apartment buildings, the difference between receiving a warning versus a fine, and how the fines increase with repeat offenses. While some resources are available on the DSNY website, residents may not be proactive in seeking out this information or know how to access it. Additionally, tracking repeat offenders to see whether fines decrease over time, could help examine whether communication efforts are effective, as well as assess the effectiveness of monetary fines as an enforcement mechanism.

Lack of infrastructure was another common barrier to program participation, as nearly one-third of respondents (31%) reported not having access to a composting bin, while an additional 15% were unsure whether a bin was available to them. Without a clearly designated and conveniently located bin, residents may be unable to participate, even if they are otherwise supportive of the program, particularly those who live in apartment buildings. The relatively high proportion of respondents who were unsure about bin availability also reinforces that there are gaps in outreach. To address these issues, the DSNY could take an apartment-focused approach offering large apartment buildings an evaluation by a DSNY contractor that can provide a recommendation for the appropriate size and number of brown bins required for proper handling of organic waste and offer incentives for apartment buildings to provide the proper infrastructure for their residents. While the DSNY offered free brown bins for a short period of time at the beginning of the program, they could relaunch the service and offer brown bins again to provide a second chance to access bins.

4.1. Additional Recommendations

Informed by our study’s findings, as well as a review of DSNY documents, publicly held city meetings, the literature, and existing municipal organic waste collection programs, we developed additional policy recommendations that could increase program accessibility and engagement, which we describe below.

First, the DSNY should ensure that materials and information sessions are detailed, consistent, and accessible in various languages commonly spoken in NYC and across the different neighborhoods of the city. Furthermore, the DSNY respondent was unable to provide us with specific data that measured the effectiveness of their outreach and enforcement strategies. Thus, the DSNY could consider collecting data on event attendees to track whether information reaches a representative pool of the NYC population. In addition, collecting feedback from residents who attend events could help identify information gaps, as well as effective or ineffective communication methods to inform future information sessions and outreach. They could similarly track the effectiveness of campaigns. For instance, the DSNY’s 2026 marketing campaign focuses on empowering residents of non-compliant apartment buildings to call 311 to report their buildings [33], so they could analyze data on the 311 calls since the campaign’s inception to measure its impact.

Second, a plan should be implemented to ensure the program is accessible to seniors and residents with disabilities, as this is an area that has not been focused on by the DSNY, as discussed during the 6 April, 2026, New York City Council meeting [34].

Third, the DSNY could require large buildings that are repeat offenders to hire a DSNY contractor to come to their facility to train building supervisors on proper compliance, a program that would be similar to one in San Francisco where large buildings that have failed audits are legally required to hire a Zero Waste Facilitator to help them decrease contamination in their building [35].

Next, to increase engagement, the DSNY could work with apartment buildings to institute a formal compost “champion” program. This concept was discussed in a guide prepared as a public service by the Residential Recycling and Reuse Committee of the Manhattan Solid Waste Advisory Board (MSWAB) in 2024, titled “Engaging Residents of NYC Multifamily Buildings in Mandatory DSNY Organics Collection” [36] but has not been implemented, based on DSNY’s Commissioner, Gregory Anderson’s comments during the 6th of April, 2026 meeting. When asked if there were recycling or organic lead programs for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings, the commissioner stated, “nothing that I am aware of currently … I am happy to work with you to set them up” [34]. A “compost lead” or “compost champion” can provide support for the building, promote the program, report issues, disseminate information, and answer resident questions.

Last, environmental policies like municipal composting programs often place responsibility on individuals to manage household waste while devoting less attention to regulating commercial and industrial waste. Furthermore, this focus on individual responsibility often obscures already existing collective environmental stewardship, such as the work of community-based composting programs in NYC, which recycle food waste into soil and engage the community to create grassroots circular economies [37]. To increase interest in program participation, the DSNY could leverage existing and future collaborations with community-based composting groups and environmental organizations to increase outreach and education about the program, building upon the outreach currently being conducted by groups such as GrowNYC, and previously by Big Reuse [27,38]. As Xu et al.’s (2016) research showed, residents may be more motivated to participate in the program if they learn about it through more relational, community-based outreach, as opposed to simply receiving information about it from the city government [16]. Further research could examine the role of these community initiatives in contributing to sustainable waste management in NYC and the extent to which they interact with the municipal program.

4.2. Limitations of the Study and Future Research Opportunities

The sample size from our survey was small and not representative of Queens, which limits our ability to perform more complex statistical tests or make broad generalizations. Although survey participation was incentivized by a gift card and the invitation to participate was posted on an array of forums, it is possible that it attracted residents who are more interested in the topics of composting and environmental issues, or who are familiar with the program. Further, we were unable to determine the distribution of responses along the recruitment channels. We added a question about how respondents learned about the survey after data collection started and were only able to collect 19 responses to that question (with 17 learning about the survey through the Nextdoor App and 2 through a letter in mail).

To add, the geographic distribution of the survey sample was uneven—some districts were highly represented (e.g., 32.5% of respondents were in District 13) and some districts were not represented at all (Districts 4, 9, 10). Capture rates in community districts with lower density increased faster than community districts with higher density [13], which suggest there may be accessibility differences across districts of varying densities. Future surveys that include a representative sample across districts could determine the extent to which information about the program’s implementation and how to participate was widely accessible across districts and demographic groups.

We sought to address the small sample limitation by supplementing quantitative data with qualitative data from the survey’s open-ended questions and follow-up interviews. Still, we were only able to recruit eight interview participants within the timeframe of the study, with six out of the eight follow-up interview respondents being participants in the program. Thus, we did not collect as much follow-up qualitative data from non-participants. To add, we only conducted one interview with a representative from the DSNY. Although this provided valuable information about the program, this single interview could not be used to represent the views of the agency. Further research could use preliminary findings from this pilot research to inform the design of a wider and more representative survey of Queens residents and include additional interviews with DSNY representatives.

Our data relied on respondents’ self-reporting of their engagement with the program. Therefore, we cannot ascertain their waste sorting behaviors and whether they correctly sort their organic waste. Further research that collects data on residents’ waste sorting behaviors would need to be conducted to assess the extent of organic waste diversion.

In addition, there were temporal gaps between the implementation of the survey (February–March 2025), follow-up interviews (July–August 2025), and the DSNY respondent’s interview (January 2026). These stages reflect different regulatory contexts since the program was enforced through fines beginning April 2025, which may have shifted study respondents’ views of the program in ways that were not captured by our data collection.

We only focused on resident’s participation in the Curbside Composting program but did not capture data on residents’ various organic waste management practices (e.g., backyard composting, community-based initiatives). Future research could involve a broader analysis of organic waste management practices, including DSNY programs, backyard composting, and community-based initiatives.

Our survey was available in both Spanish and English, but we did not capture any responses in Spanish. Further, because of our lack of proficiency in other languages, we could not translate the survey to languages other than English and Spanish. Future research could involve a collaboration with community-based organizations to reach underrepresented communities, such as those of limited English proficiency, as well as to translate the survey to more languages commonly spoken in Queens and New York City. Including these communities could enable researchers to understand the extent to which language barriers play a role in residents’ access to information about the DSNY’s programs, as well as their ability to participate.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to discussions about sustainable waste management by examining participation in municipal composting programs. Among study respondents, lack of awareness of the program and of accepted materials, as well inadequate access to infrastructure emerged as prominent barriers to participation. At the same time, many respondents cited environmental values and community benefits for composting, which suggests that both practical considerations and environmental concerns played a role in shaping participation in our sample.

Because this exploratory case study draws on a limited sample, its findings are best understood as a foundation for further research. This study provides a nuanced initial understanding of the barriers and motivations shaping resident participation in the Curbside Composting program in Queens. Findings from this research can be used to inform the design of a broader and representative survey of Queens residents to more systematically assess drivers and barriers across the borough’s diverse housing types and community districts, and to evaluate whether the patterns observed here hold at scale. Further research would also be directly relevant to municipalities globally looking to implement or improve their composting programs.

While residential composting programs are an important component of sustainable waste management, they should not be viewed as a complete solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from landfills [39]. Household and commercial solid waste represents only a small proportion—approximately 3%—of all solid waste generated, with the vast majority originating from industrial activity [35,36]. Thus, efforts to increase household participation should form part of a broader strategy that gives greater attention to commercial and industrial organic waste. A more sustainable future will require accessible municipal programs that divert food waste from landfills, systemic reforms that hold industries accountable for their disproportionate contribution to waste production, and support for community-based composting initiatives.

Appendix A1. Survey

• Informed Consent
• Title of Research: Understanding capture rates for the New York City Department of Sanitation’s (DSNY) Curbside Composting program in Queens, NY
• Principal Investigator, Affiliation and Contact Information: Allison Alberti, Hofstra University, aalberti1@pride.hofstra.edu
• Advisor: Dr. Sasha Pesci—Sasha.Pesci@hofstra.edu
• Institutional Contact: Institutional Review Board, Hofstra University, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
• 516-463-5054 or IRB.help@hofstra.edu

• Introduction and Purpose of the Study

• This study is being conducted to get a better understanding of the New York City Department of Sanitation’s (DSNY) Curbside Composting program. Specifically, user experience with the program is being investigated. This study is not affiliated with the DSNY, nor with the city of New York.

2.

Description of the Research

• When you agree to participate in this study you will be asked to answer a series of survey questions. Completing the survey should take approximately 10–15 min.

3.

Subject Participation

• You must be able to answer questions in English or Spanish, be 18 years old or older, and live in Queens. Participation is voluntary and the survey can be exited at any time. If you decide to participate in this study, you are free to withdraw your participation at any time. You may skip any questions you do not feel comfortable answering.

4.

Potential Risks and Discomforts

• There are no known risks. Participation in the Curbside Composting program is mandatory and will become enforced through fines starting April 2025, but your survey responses will not be tied to your name, addresses, or IP address. See Section 7 for more information about data confidentiality. Data from this research will be used exclusively for academic purposes. This study has no affiliation with the DSNY or with the city of New York.

5.

Potential Benefits

• You will have the opportunity to anonymously express your thoughts and opinions on the Curbside Composting program, including what you believe is or is not currently working for you. Findings from this research will allow us to understand the strengths of the program, as well as the challenges that users experience.

6.

Compensation

• The first 100 respondents will receive a $25 gift card and the remaining respondents will be entered into a drawing to receive one of 10 $100 gift certificates. To receive a gift card or be entered into the drawing, you must respond to at least 50% of the survey questions. If you are interested in receiving an electronic gift certificate, you must provide your e-mail address when prompted. Your e-mail address will be exclusively used to send you the e-gift certificate.

7.

Confidentiality

• To ensure anonymity, e-mail addresses will be removed from your responses before data analysis. Your survey responses will not be tied to your name, address, or IP address. Data will be aggregated via the Qualtrics reporting function. All data will be saved in a secure location and only the Investigator and her advisors will have access to the data. Individual survey responses will not be made publicly available. All data will be aggregated upon analysis and publication.

8.

Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.

9.

Concerns/Complaints About the Study

• If you have any questions or concerns about the study, you may contact the primary investigator, Allison Alberti, within the Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability at Hofstra University at aalberti1@pride.hofstra.edu. If you would like a copy of the anonymized results upon completion of the project, you may contact the primary investigator at the same email address. You may also contact the Institutional Review Board Office of Grants and Research at 516-463-5054 or by emailing IRB.help@hofstra.edu.

10.

Authorization

• By selecting “Yes” below, you indicate you have read the form in its entirety and authorize the use and disclosure of your survey responses in the study.

• Do you provide consent to participate in this survey?
  • Yes
  • No
• Please verify you are not a robot:
• Are you 18 years old or older?
  • Yes
  • No
• What neighborhood do you live in? [Drop down menu]
• Do you live to the left or to the right of the black line? [Image of map]
  • Left
  • Right
• Do you live above or below the black line? [Image of map]
  • Above
  • Below
• Do you live above or below the black line? [Image of map]
  • Above
  • Below
• Do you live above or below the black line (Hillside Avenue)? [Image of map]
  • Above
  • Below
• Through the Curbside Composting program, New York City’s Department of Sanitation (DSNY) collects leaf, yard, and food waste from residences throughout the city.
• Were you aware of the Curbside Composting program before taking this survey?
  • Yes
  • No
• How did you learn about the Curbside Composting program’s implementation? Select all that apply.
  • Someone from DSNY came to my door
  • Through a community event
  • I received information from DSNY in the mail
  • I received information from DSNY digitally (email, text, over the phone)
  • I attended a DSNY virtual info session or watched a recording
  • I heard about it through a friend/relative/neighbor
  • My lessor (landlord/landlady) informed me
  • Other: __________________________________________________
• How, if at all, did you receive guidance on what to dispose of in the collection bins? Select all that apply.
  • Someone from DSNY came to my door
  • Through a community event
  • I received information from DSNY in the mail
  • I received information from DSNY digitally (email, text, over the phone)
  • I attended a DSNY virtual info session or watched a recording
  • I learned about it through a friend/relative/neighbor
  • My lessor (landlord/landlady) explained it to me
  • I have not received any guidance
  • Other: __________________________________________________
• Choose the statement that best describes you. Note: Participation refers to placing your organic waste in a labeled bin with a secure lid or a Department of Sanitation Brown Bin. Unless you live in a building where this is taken care of for you, participation also refers to setting the bin out on the sidewalk on your recycling day.
  • I have never participated in this program
  • I used to participate in this program, but I have stopped
  • I rarely participate in this program
  • I participate a few times every few months
  • I participate at least once every month
  • I participate at least once every couple of weeks
  • I participate consistently, every week
• What are the reasons you do participate in the curbside composting program? Be as specific and detailed as possible.
• What are the reasons you do not participate/do not participate consistently in the Curbside Composting program? Be as specific as possible.
• Does your building/household have an organics collection/Curbside Composting bin?
  • Yes
  • No
  • I don’t know
• To what extent do you agree with this statement? “Participating in the Curbside Composting program is beneficial.” The benefits can be societal, personal, environmental, etc.
  • Disagree
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Neither agree nor disagree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Agree
• In your opinion, what are the benefits of participating in the Curbside Composting program?
• To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? “The Curbside Composting program is accessible to me.”
  • Disagree
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Neither agree nor disagree
  • Somewhat agree
  • Agree
• To the best of your ability, select all items that can be placed in the organics collection bin: (Select all that apply).
  • Napkins
  • Plastic bags
  • Fruit peels
  • Wrappers
  • Tea bags
  • Leaves
  • Meat
  • Foam
  • Bones
  • Dairy
  • Prepared foods
  • Animal waste
  • Paper plates
  • Grass
  • Pizza boxes
• Choose the option that best describes your residence:
  • Single-family house
  • Duplex/triplex
  • Apartment
  • Townhouse/brownstone
  • Co-op
  • Condo
  • Prefer not to answer
• How many people live in your household?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3–6
  • 7+
  • Prefer not to answer
• How many hours of paid work do you do per week?
  • 0
  • 1–20
  • 21–40
  • 41–60
  • More than 60
  • Prefer not to answer
• What is your total annual household income? (Approximately)
  • $0–$30,000
  • $31,000–$60,000
  • $61,000–$90,000
  • $91,000–$120,000
  • $121,000+
  • Prefer not to answer
• Which of the following applies to your current residence?
  • I rent my current residence
  • I own my current residence
  • Other: __________________________________________________
  • Prefer not to answer
• What is your level of educational attainment?
  • Some High School
  • High School Diploma
  • Less than 4 years of college
  • College degree
  • Advanced degree
  • Prefer not to answer
• How did you learn about this survey?
  • Nextdoor App post
  • Facebook group post
  • Mail
  • Friend
  • Other __________________________________________________
• Anything else you would like to share about your experience with the Curbside Composting program?
• Are you interested in receiving an electronic gift certificate? If so, please enter your e-mail address below. As a reminder, your e-mail address will be removed from your responses prior to data analysis. Your e-mail address will be exclusively used to send you the e-gift certificate.
  • Yes: __________________________________________________
  • No
• Would you be interested in participating in a follow-up interview? (compensation would be available)
  • Yes
  • No
  • Maybe, I would need more information
• Please provide a phone number or e-mail address where we can reach you to schedule an interview or provide more information.

Appendix A2. Interview

• Informed Consent
• Title of Research: Assessing access, participation, and outcomes in organic waste management: A case study of Queens, NY
• Principal Investigator, Affiliation and Contact Information:
• Dr. Sasha Pesci, Hofstra University, sasha.pesci@hofstra.edu
• Institutional Contact: Institutional Review Board, Hofstra University, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
• 516-463-5054 or IRB.help@hofstra.edu

• Introduction and Purpose of the Study

• This project investigates how residents in Queens, New York engage with organic waste management, including curbside composting, smart bins, backyard composting, and community-based practices. This study is not affiliated with the DSNY, nor with the city of New York.

2.

Description of the Research

• When you agree to participate in this study you will be asked to answer a series of survey questions. Completing this interview will take approximately 45 min to an hour. The meeting will be recorded.

3.

Subject Participation

• You must be able to answer questions in English or Spanish, be 18 years old or older, and live in Queens. Participation is voluntary and the interview can be exited at any time. You may skip any questions you do not feel comfortable answering.

4.

Potential Risks and Discomforts

• There are no known risks. See Section 7 for more information about data confidentiality. Data from this research will be used exclusively for academic purposes. This study has no affiliation with the DSNY or with the city of New York.

5.

Potential Benefits

• Findings from this research will allow us to understand the level of accessibility, engagement, and participation in composting in Queens.

6.

Compensation

• You will receive a $10 gift certificate for participating in this interview.

7.

Confidentiality

• To ensure anonymity, e-mail addresses will be removed from your responses before data analysis. Your survey responses will not be tied to your name, address, or IP address. All data will be saved in a secure location and only the Investigators will have access to the data. Individual survey responses will not be made publicly available. All data will be aggregated upon analysis and publication.

8.

Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

• There is no conflict of interest.

9.

Concerns/Complaints About the Study

• If you have any questions or concerns about the study, you may contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Sasha Pesci (sasha.pesci@hofstra.edu). You may also contact the Institutional Review Board Office of Grants and Research at 516-463-5054 or by emailing IRB.help@hofstra.edu.

10.

Authorization

• By saying “yes, I provide consent,” you indicate you have read the form in its entirety and authorize the use and disclosure of your survey responses in the study.

• Do you sort your waste at home?
  • If so, how?
• How long have you been sorting your waste? [specifically ask about recyclables and organic waste if mentioned]
• [If they separate organic waste] When did you start separating your organic waste and what made you start?
• What do you do with your organic waste? Have you always done this or has that changed?
• [For those who divert their organic waste another way] Why do you choose to divert your organic waste in this way instead of participating in the Curbside Composting program?
  • What do you perceive to be the benefits of this method?
  • How did you learn about this method?
  • Is there anything that makes participating in this method easy for you? Please describe.
  • Is there anything that makes participating in this method challenging for you? Please describe.
• Were you aware of the Curbside Composting program before participating in our study?
• How and when did you become aware of the Curbside Composting program?
• How would you describe the program? (In other words, what does the program do/how does it work?)
• How would you define compost? What, if anything, do you know about what composting entails?
• [If they participate in the program] When did you start participating in the curbside composting program? What made you start?
• [If they don’t participate] Are you planning on starting to participate in the curbside composting program now that you are aware of it? Why/why not?
• [If they participate] Prior to April 2025, how often (on average) did you participate in the program?
• [If they participate] Since April 2025, has your participation in the program changed? If so, how?
• What about the program makes participating challenging for you?
• What about the program makes participating easy for you?
• Are there any factors in your life that make participation difficult for you? If so, what are they? [Consider your type of residence, schedule, physical ability]
• [If they live in a multi-residence building] Where do you drop your organic waste off? How is the area set up?
• [If they don’t participate] What could change about the program to get you to participate?
• How and when did you learn about the program?
• [If they participated in a virtual webinar] how did you learn about it?
  • [If they mentioned a community event in the survey] You mentioned a community event in the survey, could you tell me more about that? Where was it located? Who organized it? What did you learn?
• Which source of information do you think was most effective in making you aware of the program and why?
• Which source of information do you think was most effective in getting you to participate in the program and why?
• How did you learn about how to sort your organic waste? (in other words, how do you know what should go into the compost bin?)
• Which source of information do you think was most effective in providing guidance to you on how to participate and why?
• How confident do you feel in your ability to correctly separate your organic waste?
• How do you feel about the rollout of the program so far?
• Have your feelings about the program changed at any point in time? Explain.
• Are you aware of how the program is enforced?
• How did you learn about the program’s enforcement?
• What do you think are the benefits of the curbside composting program?
• Are you aware of the compost giveback events facilitated by DSNY? [If they’re not, explain what it is]
• Is this something you would be interested in participating in?
• Do you think there are ways that separating organic waste at home can be beneficial to you personally? If so, how?
• [For those who separate organic waste] Has separating your organic waste at home impacted you personally? For example, has it affected your perception of food waste? If so, how?
• Is there anything else you’d like to share in relation to the topic of this research project?