Despite decades of environmental policy and public awareness initiatives, recycling access in the United States remains highly uneven. While many urban centers benefit from established infrastructure for materials recovery and recycling, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that a large share of rural and economically underserved communities lacks practical access to recycling services. This disparity undermines national sustainability goals and limits the economic potential of recovered materials.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the national recycling rate for plastics has stagnated at approximately 8.7, and most mixed plastics—especially resin types #3 through #7—are rarely recovered for reuse or remanufacture. Meanwhile, the National Academies’ Municipal Solid Waste Recycling in the United States report indicates that that could be recycled are instead lost due to insufficient regional infrastructure, prohibitive transport costs, and lack of accessible local processing capacity. These structural deficiencies result in millions of tons of recyclable waste being sent to landfills each year rather than being transformed into economically valuable products.

This access gap is particularly acute in the southeastern and midwestern United States, where counties often lack the population density and economic base necessary to support traditional recycling facilities. Such disparities reflect not a lack of public willingness to recycle but rather the absence of accessible, cost-effective processing options.

Why Traditional Recycling Models Don’t Work Everywhere

Traditional material recovery facilities (MRFs) operate on centralized models that depend on large, consistent volumes of feedstock, proximity to population centers, and substantial capital investment. These conditions tend to be met in large metropolitan areas but rarely in rural or economically distressed regions.

Several structural constraints challenge centralized recycling models:

• Low population density diminishes the economies of scale needed to justify fixed facilities.
• Long hauling distances raise the cost of transporting waste to distant MRFs, often exceeding the value of the recyclables themselves.
• Limited municipal budgets restrict the ability of smaller jurisdictions to co-finance or maintain recycling infrastructure.
• Lengthy permitting and construction timelines delay project deployment and raise overall costs.

These dynamics mean that even communities with a strong desire to participate in recycling are often unable to do so, not because they lack interest, but because existing systems are simply economically and logistically impractical for them.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted that expanding centralized facilities alone will not close the recycling access gap, [LINK ADDED] particularly for plastics and other hard-to-recycle materials.

What Decentralized and Mobile Recycling Models Offer

In the United States, a real-world example of decentralized recycling is the Mobile PET Plastic Ocean Waste Recycler pilot in Alaska. Developed with support from USDA NIFA SBIR and EPA SBIR programs, the project resulted in a transportable recycling unit deployed in multiple Alaskan communities. While the project concluded at the pilot stage without confirmed large-scale commercialization, it demonstrated the practical feasibility of mobile, community-level plastic recycling in regions lacking centralized infrastructure.

Mobile systems are generally modular and scalable, incorporating equipment for sorting, cleaning, and processing recyclable materials into usable forms.

For plastics #3 through #7, this might include recycling mixed waste to make construction products such as paving tiles, modular building components, or feedstock for secondary manufacturing.

The operational advantages of mobile recycling include:

• Flexibility to serve multiple jurisdictions with a single unit,
• Lower capital barriers compared to fixed infrastructure,
• Adaptive deployment responding to local demand and seasonal changes,
• Direct integration with existing municipal or commercial waste flows.

These characteristics make decentralized recycling especially suited to regions with variable waste volumes and limited access to conventional MRFs.

Environmental and Economic Benefits of Decentralized Recycling

Decentralized recycling models create measurable environmental and economic impacts. Environmentally, localized recycling reduces landfill dependence and associated greenhouse gas emissions from long-distance waste transport. Diverting plastics from landfills helps preserve limited landfill airspace and supports broader sustainability goals outlined in federal strategies like the EPA’s National Recycling Strategy.

Economically, mobile recycling expands local market activity by:

• Creating jobs in operations, logistics, and materials handling;
• Retaining material value within regional economies instead of exporting raw waste;
• Supporting downstream industries that utilize recycled feedstocks;
• Reducing long-term waste management costs for municipalities.

The analytical framework used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), particularly the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), underscores how infrastructure investments generate direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts at the local and state levels. By enabling localized recycling capacity, decentralized models help catalyze these regional economic multipliers.

For example, a mobile unit capable of processing approximately 1,000 tons of mixed plastics annually contributes to waste diversion, local employment, and supply chain development without the need for extensive fixed facilities.

Practical Actions Communities Can Take

Local action is critical to lead national policy toward a distributed, effective recycling solution. Talk to your local representatives about projects that can set the example for the nation.

• Pilot programs for mobile recycling units in areas identified as underserved or economically distressed.
• Public–private partnerships to mitigate investment risks and share operational responsibilities.
• Regional collaborations where clusters of counties share mobile units and associated infrastructure.
• Integration with local industry by using recycled products in public works and construction projects.
• Tapping state and federal resources, including EPA grants and programs authorized under the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act (RIAA), which emphasize accessibility in addition to capacity.

These steps allow communities to test and refine systems based on empirical data and demand, rather than speculative large-scale investments.

Why Decentralized Recycling Models Will Matter More in the Future

Federal policy momentum reflects a growing recognition of the limitations of traditional recycling infrastructure. The EPA’s National Recycling Strategy identifies access gaps in underserved regions as key obstacles to achieving national recycling goals. The Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act similarly highlights the need for flexible, distributed solutions to meet evolving recycling targets.

As recycling goals rise nationally, such as the EPA’s target of a 50 percent recycling rate by 2030—mobile and decentralized models will become increasingly important. These systems are not intended to replace established MRFs but to complement them by closing geographic and economic gaps.

Steps Forward

The United States faces a structural recycling challenge: millions of tons of material that could be recycled are lost annually because existing infrastructure fails to serve large portions of the country. The problem is not one of public behavior but of system design.

Decentralized and mobile recycling models provide a practical, economically grounded solution to this challenge. By bringing processing capacity directly to underserved regions, these systems reduce landfill dependence, support local economies, and foster resilient regional supply chains. As national recycling goals evolve, flexible, scalable infrastructure solutions will play a central role in ensuring equitable recycling access and advancing sustainability

About The Author

This sponsored article was written by Olena Herasymova, a sustainable infrastructure project manager and founder of GreenPath Consulting, a U.S.-based initiative focused on expanding recycling access in underserved and rural communities through decentralized, mobile recycling systems. Prior to relocating to the United States, she participated in the implementation of similar recycling and resource-efficiency initiatives in Ukraine.