{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018091079226450407, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.628099173553719, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The community choice between high and low technology approaches to resource recovery

Traditional methods for disposing of municipal solid waste, landfilling and incineration, have in many communities been unable to meet local disposal needs and various environmental regulations. In recent years, resource recovery -the recovery of materials and/or energy from household waste -has offered an alternative. There are two generic approaches to resource recovery: the "low technology" approach involves household separation of recyclable materials and the "high technology" approach involves processing mixed wastes to recover energy and perhaps materials. The debate over the merits of each approach has focused on national issues of resource conservation, consumption habits, and disposal impacts. However, the decision to implement or participate in a resource recovery program is usually municipal. The thesis thus examines the appropriate technology issue from a community perspective. Using a case study approach, it observes how communities view the lowversus-high technology issue, and defines some elements of a choice process for communities considering resource recovery. The case studies suggest that municipalities typically do not face a binary choice between low and high technology approaches. Rather, they can select combinations of resource recovery options or sequence their choices so as to best address local needs. A community's particular objectives and circumstances with respect to solid waste management will have a major influence on its evaluation of resource recovery options.