- Email: [email protected]
Green waste collection and the public's recycling behaviour in the Borough of Wyre, England
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159 www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
Green waste collection and the public’s recycling behaviour in the Borough of Wyre, England I.D. Williams a,*, J. Kelly b a
Department of Environmental Management, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK b Wyre Borough Council, Civic Centre, Breck Road, Poulton-Le-Fylde FY6 7PU, UK Received 24 August 2001; accepted 16 August 2002
Abstract It is clear that achieving the statutory targets for recycling will be a considerable challenge for local authorities, who are increasingly involved in schemes to collect and recycle biodegradable municipal waste. However, there has been little published evaluation of the perceived effectiveness and public attitudes towards such schemes, and this is significant given that recycling schemes are currently heavily dependent upon the voluntary behaviour of the public. This research has begun the task of evaluating the public’s perception of a local authority recycling scheme by performing a social survey (using a postal questionnaire) to provide a snapshot of the public’s views of a newly developed Green Waste Collection Scheme in Wyre, England, and other recycling activities. The social survey results demonstrate that the scheme has been very successful in terms of generating participation and public satisfaction with its operation, but that considerably more could still be done to improve the public’s involvement and consequently, the Borough’s recycling rate. Further research is required to identify more clearly the public’s reasons for non-participation in local authority recycling schemes and to identify mechanisms for the maintenance and improvement of participation rates. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Green waste; Biodegradable municipal waste; Recycling; Social survey; Postal questionnaire
* Corresponding author. Tel.: /44-1772-893-961; fax: /44-1772-892-926 E-mail address: [email protected] (I.D. Williams). 0921-3449/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 3 4 4 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 0 6 - 4
140
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
1. Introduction The landfilling of municipal waste has been the subject of considerable legislative activity over the last 3 years. The European Union’s Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste requires a reduction in the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) in UK to 75% of 1995 arising by 2010, 50% by 2013 and 35% by 2020. Although the United Kingdom Government has set ambitious recycling targets for England and Wales */the aim is to recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005, 30% by 2010, and 33% by 2015 (DETR, 2000) */these levels will probably not be sufficient to meet the BMW landfill limit for 2013 (ENDS, 2001a). The targets present an arduous challenge to local authorities since municipal waste is growing by 3% or more per annum in UK (ENDS, 2001b) and the recovery of waste materials from domestic sources is heavily dependent upon the voluntary activities of individual householders. The current UK recycling rate for household waste is 9% (ENDS, 2001b); this figure is low in comparison with other European Union (EU) countries and is partly due to insufficient provision of practicable recycling schemes, poor utilisation of existing schemes, the ease of waste disposal for householders, public apathy and socio-economic factors such as poverty and inadequate end markets for recycled materials. Research by Tucker (2001) has found that the most commonly claimed barriers to recycling are not possessing a recycling container, not generating enough material to make recycling worthwhile, and not being aware of recycling provision or of how to use it. In addition, the way in which the public participates in waste minimisation and recycling schemes is just as important as how many people participate (Thomas, 2001). Price (2001) has pointed out that there is little incentive for the typical UK householder to divert waste from disposal in landfill as there is no penalty for non-participation in recycling schemes. Various studies have shown that if households bear the cost of waste disposal, they generally purchase products with less packing, recycle more, and reduce their contributions to landfills (Salkie et al., 2001), although Coggins (2001) claims that in UK, direct charging for household waste collection seems to have gone out of favour. Consequently, the successful management and marketing of any domestic recycling scheme will require both national and local governments to encourage (and subsequently maintain) high levels of participation (Tucker et al., 1998; Petts, 1997); this will require strategies that encourage and persuade the public to significantly change its current recycling behaviour. Addressing the public’s views on environmental issues is important; as Eden (1996) argues, behaviour is dependent upon public interpretation of these issues. Devising successful strategies will not be easy; the recent ‘‘Slim your Bin’’ campaign designed to raise awareness of household waste in the Anglia region of England failed to change recycling behaviour and led to a doubling of the number of people who felt that recycling and composting were too difficult (ENDS, 2000). A review of environmental attitudes and communication programmes in UK (Evison and Read, 2001) highlighted:
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
141
. The need for targeted publicity, especially for the lower-recycling groups in society; . The importance of education, publicity, and promotion for the success of recycling schemes; and . The link between regular, quality promotion and publicity, and better recycling performance figures. The EU Landfill Directive defines biodegradable waste as ‘‘waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, and paper and cardboard (EU, 1999). No current official European or UK definition of ‘‘green waste’’ appears to exist although it is potentially a significant fraction of BMW. However, the National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO, 1998) suggests that green waste would normally consist of: . . . . . . .
Grass cuttings; Hedge clippings; Prunings; Weeds; Leaves; Dead plant material; and Soil-bound roots.
They also suggest that compostable wastes such as raw fruit and vegetable peelings and uncooked reject fruit and vegetables be included subject to the handling/process technology utilised. In this study, we adopted the full NAWDO list and their latter suggestion in our definition of green waste. Recent studies show that 72% or more of household waste is biodegradable (ENDS, 2001b). A study by Woodward et al. (2000) showed that BMW comprised 36% of the total waste stream at a large civic amenity (CA) site in East Sussex, with green waste representing over 80% of these arisings. Benfield (1997) estimated that 55% of CA site users in Luton disposed of their green waste at CA sites. A study of household (dustbin) waste for the county of Lancashire estimated that putrescible waste accounted for approximately 54% (by weight) of analysed wastes during the summer, with garden wastes accounting for about 34% of the total (MEL Research Ltd., 2000). The winter analysis showed a reduction in putrescibles from 54 to 35%, with garden wastes accounting for just 7% of the total. Recent research by the Composting Association has shown that the quantities of BMW being composted in UK have increased significantly over the last 5 years, with nearly 620,000 t of municipal waste being composted in 1999 (Slater, 2001). Of this total, 72% was garden waste from bring sites, 17% was green waste from local authority parks and gardens, and only 7.5% was collected from the kerbside. The same study identified 45 schemes that collected just over 46,000 t of segregated organic waste from the kerbside in 1999, of which 37 were operated by local authorities. This paper describes and evaluates the Green Waste Collection Scheme (GWCS) developed and operated by Wyre Borough Council (BC) during 1999 /2001.
142
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
2. Wyre BC’s Green Waste Scheme The Borough of Wyre is a coastal district in the county of Lancashire in the northwest of England (see Fig. 1). The Borough covers an area of over 28,300 ha and has a population of over 105,000 almost three-quarters of which are resident in the three principal settlements of Fleetwood, Thornton-Cleveleys, and Poulton-le-Fylde. Wyre is very diverse in character, extending from the Pennine uplands in the east, across the agricultural mosslands of North Lancashire, to the coastal plain and the resorts of Fleetwood and Cleveleys. Its traditional employment strengths have been in fishing and agriculture, and their ancillary and associated industries, the chemical
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the Borough of Wyre in UK.
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
143
industry, and more recently, in the tourism and government agency sectors. The ACORN socio-demographic profile of Wyre (A/B, /40%; C/D, /42%; E/F, / 18%) suggests that it is a relatively wealthy area. Approximately 50,000 t of domestic waste was collected in Wyre during 2000/ 2001, a marked increase on the previous year, as shown in Fig. 2. Although Wyre has the best recycling record in Lancashire, with a recycling rate of 11.6% for household waste, it also produces more rubbish per household than any other district in Lancashire, a total of over 1 t per household per annum. There are currently 36 recycling points in Wyre collecting paper, cans, glass, textiles, books and shoes, and the Council also operates a fortnightly kerbside blue-bag paper recycling scheme. An estimate of the materials recycled in Wyre during 2000/2001 is given in Fig. 3. Wyre BC began its waste kitchen and garden waste collection programme in 1999. Initially, a green waste collection service covering 5500 households and using plastic sacks was trialed for 6 months in the Poulton le Fylde area. Green waste was collected on a fortnightly cycle by the Council’s Direct Works Organisation and transported to a privately owned waste management facility (Greenacres Plus Grow Compost) in Poulton for composting. All bags used in the trial area were provided free of charge. The total amount collected for the whole trial period was 605 t, a figure that exceeded all expectations as the predicted total for the trial period had been 290 t (see Fig. 4). However, this pilot study identified problems using plastic bags; in particular, overfilled bags led to problems with spillage, contamination with inappropriate material proved problematic and overweight sacks were potentially hazardous to the workforce attempting to lift and empty them. To evaluate the scheme, the Council distributed a questionnaire to all residents in the trial area. In excess of 2500 completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 50.7%. The questionnaire revealed that 96% of residents were extremely happy with the scheme and 98% wished the scheme to continue. Consequently, the trial was extended for a second year using wheeled bins, 8000 of which were purchased using funding from the LWS Lancashire Environmental Fund and provided free to the public. Each home in the trial area was notified about 4 weeks before the introduction of the wheeled bins and asked to telephone if they did not want to participate. The resultant database was then used during the bin distribution phase to identify the correct delivery points. The Council chose to trial two sizes of
Fig. 2. Total amounts of domestic waste collected and recycled in Wyre during 1995/1996 /2000/2001.
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Fig. 3. Estimates of recycled/re-used materials in Wyre during 2000/2001.
144
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
145
Fig. 4. Monthly tonnage of green waste collected in Wyre during the initial half-year trial (1999).
wheeled bin, 180 and 240 l, respectively. The residents were not given a choice of bin size so that distinct rounds of identically sized bins were created; this allowed evaluation on whether size of bin was a factor in residents being able to accept and adapt to the new collection method. Collections began on 1 May 2000 and in the first 11 months of operation, to the end of March 2001; the wheeled bin scheme collected and recycled 2032 t of green waste. It is perhaps worth noting that the rounds that used the smaller wheeled bin, did, predictably, collect and recycle 30/35% less than the rounds using the larger bin. However, other issues such as socio-economic status, size of garden, numbers of residents per property, etc. may have been contributory factors in the results achieved. As in year 1, the Council undertook a large-scale evaluation study, this time in partnership with the University of Central Lancashire. The aims of this study were: 1) To evaluate the effectiveness of, and public attitudes towards, the green waste clearing operations in Wyre; 2) To evaluate the effectiveness of, and public attitudes towards, other recycling operations in Wyre; 3) To identify reasons for non-participation in green waste clearing operations; 4) To assess the general recycling behaviour of the public in the Wyre area; and 5) To identify requirements for future research. The results of this study are presented and discussed in the following sections.
3. Experimental methods Two type of respondents were identified for study using postal questionnaires; participants and non-participants in Wyre BC’s GWCS. In order to allow the responses of the two groups to be compared, each questionnaire contained a number of common questions. Classification data such as sex and age were also collected so that the responses of specific groups to a particular question or set of questions could be compared. The interviewees’ responses were coded to allow the data to be stored, retrieved, and analysed by computer.
146
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
3.1. Questionnaire survey of participants in the Green Waste Scheme A postal questionnaire was designed and sent to 3648 households in the Wyre BC locale during November 2000. Only households in areas where the Wyre GWCS was in operation were contacted. A total of 2644 responses were received at a response rate of 72.5%. 3.2. Questionnaire survey of non-participants in the Green Waste Scheme A postal questionnaire for non-participants in Wyre BC’s GWCS was designed and sent to 1248 households during December 2000. This questionnaire was shorter than the one described in Section 3.1, but contained several identical key questions. Although the response rate for this grouping was lower than for participants in the scheme */a total of 611 responses were received at a response rate of 49.0% */it still represents a significant return.
4. Results and discussion In this section, the main results from the postal surveys are presented and interpreted. The classification data shown in Table 1 show that the 18/44 age group are under-represented and the 65/ age group are over-represented in the survey when compared with the 1991 National Census data (OPCS, 1993). This is not surprising given that older people are more likely to own homes or take responsibility for returning the questionnaire. The data in Table 1 also suggest that females in the 25/44 age group and males over 65 are more likely to claim participation in the GWCS than other groups. This is perhaps unsurprising; most males over 65 are likely to be retired and hence will have more time to participate in local schemes, and many studies have highlighted that there often differences in attitude towards environmental issues between males and females and between different age groups (e.g. Beaumont et al., 1999; Williams and McCrae, 1995). 4.1. Green waste clearing operations The overwhelming majority of participants in GWCS reported that their waste had been collected on the appointed day (Table 2), demonstrating the perceived efficiency of the collection system. There is a strong indication that the current fortnightly collection is popular and adequate (see Figs. 5 and 6). The 65/ age group is more satisfied with the fortnightly service than the younger age groups, although four times more respondents in the two lower age groups preferred a fortnightly to a weekly collection. Again, this probably highlights that the respondents are satisfied with the current operation of the GWCS, are familiar with its routine and do not wish to see it changed. The data in Fig. 7 and Table 3 show that the respondents are generally very satisfied with the sizes of their wheeled bins, suggesting that the council have
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
147
Table 1 Classification data for Wyre survey Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Participants in the GWCS Male Female
49.4 50.6
34.7 65.3
49.8 50.2
56.4 43.6
Non-participants in the GWCS Male Female
43.8 56.2
48.0 52.0
38.3 61.7
45.5 54.5
Overall
Female
Male
Participants in the GWCS 18 /44 45 /64 65/
19.7 40.4 39.9
25.6 40.1 34.2
13.9 40.7 45.4
Non-participants in the GWCS 18 /44 45 /64 65/
8.3 25.9 65.8
7.7 28.6 63.7
9.2 22.7 68.1
1991 Census data (OPCS, 1993) 18 /44 45 /pensionable age Pensionable age/
33.2 21.3 25.4
Table 2 Response to the question ‘‘Over the last year, has your green waste been collected on the appointed day?’’ Response
Yes Sometimes No Other/non-response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
98.9 0.9 0.2 0.0
99.1 0.7 0.1 0.1
98.7 1.0 0.2 0.1
97.7 2.1 0.2 0.0
98.8 0.8 0.2 0.2
99.5 0.4 0.1 0.0
identified the correct size of wheeled bin for the local population (85 and 15%, 240 and 180 l bins, respectively). As previously, the level of satisfaction is higher amongst the oldest age group. In addition, the vast majority of respondents report no difficulties in moving a fully laden wheeled bins (Table 4). Surprisingly, only a small percentage of people require assistance to move their bins, with women claiming slightly more difficulties than men. The data in Fig. 8 show that only about one in six respondents believes that a wheeled bin washing service is necessary, although women and younger people are more in favour than men and older people,
148
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Fig. 5. Response to the question ‘‘Is the fortnightly collection for your green waste adequate?’’
Fig. 6. Response to the question ‘‘Given a choice, which of the following collection periods would you prefer for your green waste?’’
Fig. 7. Response to the question ‘‘Is your wheelie bin large enough to collect all your green waste?’’
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
149
Table 3 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the statements listed below do you most agree with?’’ Statement
I am satisfied with the size of my wheelie bin I would prefer a larger wheelie bin I would prefer a smaller wheelie bin Other/non-response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
92.4 6.0 1.6 /
92.0 5.5 2.3 0.2
92.6 6.2 1.0 0.2
89.6 9.8 0.6 0.0
90.2 7.8 1.8 0.2
95.9 1.7 2.1 0.3
Table 4 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the statements listed below do you most agree with?’’ Statement
When full, my wheelie bin is easy to move When full, my wheelie bin is difficult to move I require assistance to move my wheelie bin Other/non-response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
88.0 9.7 2.0 0.3
83.2 13.1 3.1 0.5
93.1 5.9 0.9 0.1
86.3 13.1 0.6 0.0
90.4 8.1 1.3 0.2
86.4 9.7 3.4 0.6
Fig. 8. Response to the question ‘‘Do you think a wheelie bin washing service is necessary?’’
respectively. This may suggest that wheeled bins do not get sufficiently dirty to require a regular washing service, that the public are happy to wash the bins themselves, or that there is lack of understanding of the hygiene issues that may impinge on collection operatives and the public themselves. Economic factors may also be important; only 6.8% of the total respondents would be prepared to pay about £2 per wash for a bin washing service.
150
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Fig. 9. Response to the question ‘‘Do you think the collection service for green waste should close down during December, January and February?’’
We particularly wanted to know if the participants would prefer the collection service for green waste to close down during the winter months when green waste arisings are typically at their lowest. The data in Fig. 9 show that the majorities do not think the service should close down during the winter months, especially the 25 / 44 age group. It is noticeable that a significant percentage of respondents are unsure about this question, and it may be that they require a reduced service or further information about the costs/benefits of running the service during the winter before an informed decision can be made. Overall, it is clear that there is a very high level of public satisfaction with the green waste collection service provided by Wyre BC, with almost all respondents being ‘‘very’’ or ‘‘extremely’’ satisfied (see Table 5).
Table 5 Response to the question ‘‘Overall, how satisfied are you with the operation of the green waste collection service?’’ Response
Not at all satisfactory Not very satisfactory Moderately satisfactory Very satisfactory Extremely satisfactory Average score
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
0.0 0.0 0.0 38.7 58.8
0.0 0.0 0.3 39.1 57.8
0.1 0.1 1.8 38.1 59.9
0.0 0.0 4.6 39.8 55.6
0.1 0.0 2.0 36.9 60.9
0.1 0.2 1.4 40.1 58.2
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
151
4.2. Reasons for non-participation The reasons for non-participation in recycling schemes are likely to be complex and may vary by community and/or region. We wanted to identify and evaluate the public’s reasons for non-participation in the GWCS and so we targeted people, who according to records held by Wyre BC, were non-participants. The results, shown in Table 6, show that about one-fifth of these respondents felt that they did participate in the GWCS. This may indicate that Wyre’s records are not fully accurate or that individuals believe that by composting green waste themselves or taking it personally to a CA site, they are participating in the scheme. Respondents who claimed not to participate in GWCS were asked to explain their reasons for not doing so. Their responses, summarised in Table 7, indicate a variety of reasons for non-participation, including use of a home composter, low generation of green waste and opposition to the use of a wheeled bin. The data also indicate that only a small proportion of the respondents was not aware of, or not interested in, GWCS. However, these data must be viewed with caution given that a large percentage of those questioned chose not to answer this question, perhaps suggesting apathy, embarrassment or impatience. 4.3. Other council operations Respondents were asked two questions in order to enable an assessment of the public’s perception of the council’s activities to support their recycling behaviour. Approximately two-thirds of both participants and non-participants in GWCS felt that the council did enough to assist them to recycle their waste, with satisfaction increasing as respondent age increases and vice versa (Table 8). When asked which services would be useful in terms of recycling waste materials (Table 9), all four of the available choices proved to be very popular, with increased kerbside collections being (marginally) the most preferred option. 4.4. Recycling behaviour The questionnaires also included questions to investigate the general self-declared recycling behaviour of the public in the Wyre area. Paper was identified as the material most frequently recycled by respondents, with 93.8 and 89.9% of Table 6 Response of non-participants to the question ‘‘Do you participate in the Council’s GWCS?’’ Response
Yes No
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
20.4 79.5
18.8 81.2
22.8 77.2
23.5 76.5
14.4 85.6
22.4 77.6
152
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Table 7 Response of non-participants to the question ‘‘Why have you chosen not to participate in the GWCS?’’ Statement
Categories of respondent (%)
I was not aware of the GWCS My household does not generate much green waste I already recycle green waste in a home composter I prefer to place green waste in a regular dustbin I prefer to take green waste to a council disposal site myself I do not want to use a wheelie bin I do not want to participate in the GWCS Other/non-response
Overall Female Male 25 / 44
45 / 64
65/
2.1 13.7 14.8 10.3 1.9
0.9 14.1 12.4 11.5 2.0
3.9 13.2 17.9 8.9 2.1
2.0 10.0 24.0 4.0 4.0
5.0 10.6 18.0 9.9 1.9
0.7 15.4 12.5 11.0 1.7
12.7 0.5 44.0
15.3 0.9 42.9
9.6 0.4 43.9
14.0 0.0 40.0
12.4 0.6 41.6
12.7 0.5 45.3
Table 8 Response to the question ‘‘Does the council do enough to assist you in your efforts to recycle your waste?’’ Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Participants in the GWCS Yes No Do not know Other/non-response
66.5 18.2 7.1 8.2
65.2 18.6 7.2 8.9
67.6 18.0 7.9 7.4
50.8 32.8 12.0 4.4
64.2 20.8 6.0 8.9
76.3 8.8 5.6 9.3
Non-participants in the GWCS Yes No Do not know Other/non-response
63.7 19.7 3.8 12.7
64.4 17.2 4.6 14.0
62.9 23.2 2.9 11.0
38.0 32.0 8.0 22.0
59.9 25.3 3.1 11.7
68.2 16.1 3.7 12.0
participants and non-participants in GWCS, respectively, claiming that they recycle paper at least occasionally, and approximately seven out of 10 respondents declaring that they recycle paper all the time (see Tables 10 and 11). Overall, the respondents claimed a high participation rate in Wyre BC’s biweekly blue-bag recycling scheme, with two out of every three respondents claiming to participate in the scheme and others wanting to join (Table 12). However, these claims are not supported by Wyre BC’s own figures, which show a 37% participation rate in the scheme, less than half the self-declared recycling rate. The tendency of the public to exaggerate their proenvironmental behaviours, such as recycling, where people are inclined to over-claim their actual performance levels, is well established (e.g. Perrin and Barton, 2001; Chan, 1998; Thogersen, 1996; Barker et al., 1994; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994). If this ‘‘pro-environmental exaggeration rate’’ is typical of the locality, it would indicate
Service
Not at all useful
Not very useful
Moderately useful
Very useful
Extremely useful
Rank
Participants in the GWCS More kerbside collections More recycling centres More education and information More waste minimisation schemes
8.7 9.2 9.3 7.1
10.4 9.5 11.2 7.8
21.2 30.0 29.7 22.1
27.4 32.0 27.3 32.2
32.4 19.4 22.4 30.8
2.1 2.5 2.8 2.6
Non-participants in the GWCS More kerbside collections More recycling centres More education and information More waste minimisation schemes
14.7 18.0 17.9 16.7
7.7 7.5 11.4 8.4
21.2 24.0 24.6 23.0
23.7 29.0 22.1 22.5
32.5 21.5 24.0 29.4
2.1 2.3 2.7 2.7
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Table 9 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the following services would be useful to help you recycle your waste?’’
153
154
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Table 10 Response of the participants to the question ‘‘How often do you recycle the following items?’’ Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Paper Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
6.2 8.5 15.4 69.9
6.9 8.7 14.4 70.1
5.4 9.2 15.7 69.7
10.0 15.5 20.1 54.9
6.3 8.5 14.4 70.7
4.0 5.2 13.7 77.1
Glass Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
27.0 22.3 13.4 37.3
29.7 22.3 12.5 35.5
24.1 22.3 14.1 39.5
31.3 25.1 9.9 3.4
24.3 22.6 14.5 38.6
27.3 20.8 14.0 37.9
Cans Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
63.1 19.4 0.5 11.2
63.8 21.1 5.1 10.0
62.3 17.6 7.5 12.6
60.1 24.2 4.6 11.0
63.6 18.9 6.5 11.0
63.9 17.6 6.9 11.6
Plastics Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
83.4 11.1 3.1 2.4
88.5 10.8 2.5 2.2
82.1 11.2 3.8 2.7
84.5 12.4 2.3 0.8
85.2 9.9 2.6 2.3
80.8 11.7 4.0 3.4
Cardboard Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
17.2 16.1 19.4 47.3
18.6 14.7 17.9 48.7
15.6 17.4 20.9 46.1
12.3 16.8 23.4 47.5
16.9 17.5 19.5 46.1
19.8 14.4 17.3 48.5
Clothes Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
34.2 25.3 16.9 23.6
31.1 22.5 18.3 28.0
37.3 27.9 15.4 19.3
23.4 26.5 24.1 26.1
27.8 27.6 19.3 25.3
46.6 21.9 10.6 20.8
Engine oil Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
81.8 7.3 1.8 9.1
87.9 5.7 1.0 5.4
75.6 9.0 2.5 12.9
78.7 9.1 1.7 0.6
79.5 8.8 2.5 11.1
87.5 5.0 1.0 6.5
that in order to meet, e.g. the government’s target to recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005, more than 60% of the public in Wyre would have to declare regular recycling behaviour for all types of household wastes; the data shown in Tables 10 and 11 clearly show that this is not the case. Glass was the second most frequently recycled material, with 73.0 and 71.1% of participants and non-participants in GWCS, respectively, claiming that they recycle
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
155
Table 11 Response of non-participants to the question ‘‘How often do you recycle the following items?’’ Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Paper Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
10.1 7.7 9.6 72.7
10.3 8.8 10.7 70.2
9.9 6.7 8.5 75.5
12.2 26.5 10.2 51.1
10.3 9.7 6.4 73.5
9.7 4.5 10.8 75.0
Glass Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
28.9 18.6 10.5 42.0
26.7 20.9 10.1 42.2
30.6 16.3 11.2 41.9
41.7 22.9 6.2 29.2
28.3 18.8 12.7 39.6
27.1 17.9 10.1 44.9
Cans Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
67.4 15.7 5.3 11.6
67.0 16.5 5.2 11.3
66.8 15.2 5.7 12.3
59.6 27.7 6.4 6.4
71.8 12.6 3.7 11.8
66.6 15.2 5.9 12.4
Plastics Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
80.6 13.0 2.9 3.5
79.2 13.6 3.2 4.1
81.4 12.3 3.0 3.4
82.0 12.0 0.0 6.0
78.2 7.7 2.8 11.3
77.6 15.2 3.2 4.0
Cardboard Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
48.6 22.1 9.6 19.7
48.4 21.6 8.8 21.2
48.0 23.0 10.6 18.4
51.0 32.6 6.1 10.2
52.2 23.2 8.0 16.7
46.6 20.0 10.8 22.6
Clothes Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
40.0 24.0 12.4 23.6
34.9 23.4 11.9 29.9
44.8 24.9 13.3 17.0
30.4 32.6 19.6 17.4
27.6 26.2 16.6 29.6
47.4 21.8 9.4 21.4
Engine oil Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
83.9 6.7 1.1 8.3
87.3 6.1 1.9 4.7
79.5 7.6 0.9 12.0
80.4 10.9 2.2 6.5
77.3 8.6 2.3 11.7
87.7 5.0 0.4 6.9
glass at least occasionally, and over 50% claiming frequent or constant glass recycling behaviour. Approximately 35/40% of respondents stated that they were frequent or constant recyclers of clothing, although this figure is noticeably lower amongst the 65/ age group. More than 60, 80 and 80% of respondents claimed not to recycle cans, plastics and engine oil, respectively.
156
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Table 12 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the statements listed below applies to you?’’ Statement number
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Participants in the GWCS 1 2 3
68.7 14.2 17.1
66.9 15.4 17.7
70.5 13.1 16.4
47.6 33.7 18.8
68.0 14.0 18.0
79.9 4.9 15.2
Non-participants in the GWCS 1 2 3
66.8 8.2 25.0
65.0 8.1 26.9
69.1 8.6 22.3
36.7 24.5 36.2
61.8 10.5 27.6
72.2 5.1 22.7
Statement number: (1) I currently participate in the Council’s blue-bag paper recycling scheme. (2) I would like to participate in the Council’s blue-bag paper recycling scheme. (3) I do not want to participate in the Council’s blue-bag paper recycling scheme.
The most striking difference between participants and non-participants in GWCS was their recycling behaviour with respect to cardboard. Over 80% of participants claimed to recycle cardboard at least occasionally, whilst almost 50% of nonparticipants stated that they did not recycle cardboard at all. The 25/44 age group generally claims the least participation in all types of recycling. This phenomenon has been identified previously by other authors (e.g. Tucker et al., 1998) and generally attributed to lack of time amongst families with young children. In order to ascertain the public’s prevalent attitude towards the use of wheeled bins, we asked respondents whether they would prefer to use black refuse sacks or wheeled bins to collect household waste. The results are shown in Table 12, and reveal that those who use wheeled bins regularly (i.e. participants in the GWCS), showed a slight preference for their use to collect household waste, whereas the overwhelming majority of non-participants in GWCS, who generally do not use wheeled bins at all, stated a preference for black sacks. In addition, there is a clear trend for older people to state a preference for black sacks. These data suggest that whilst there may be a fear or distrust of using wheeled bins amongst older people, or even perhaps a reluctance to change a common and accepted routine, the new generation of householders is likely favour their use in future. This data are supported by the data shown in Tables 3, 4, 13 and 14, and by recent literature (e.g. Woodward et al., 2001). In particular, the data in Table 14 show that young householders who have tried using wheeled bins are overwhelmingly supportive of their future use for the collection of mixed household waste streams; this may be because they have heightened environmental awareness as a result of education and media campaigns, find them easier and more convenient to use, or simply because they unconcerned about new developments in waste collection. Waste volumes tend to increase when councils introduce wheeled bins, and there is also some evidence that collection services for garden waste are steering householders away from
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
157
Table 13 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the statements listed below do you most agree with?’’ Statement
Categories of respondent (%)
Participants in the GWCS I would prefer to use black refuse sacks to collect household waste I would prefer to use a wheelie bin to collect household waste Other/non-response Non-participants in the GWCS I would prefer to use black refuse sacks to collect household waste I would prefer to use a wheelie bin to collect household waste Other/non-response
Overall Female Male 25 / 44
45 / 64
65/
47.2
45.6
49.0
32.5
44.6
57.1
51.8
53.5
49.9
65.0
54.3
42.6
1.0
0.9
1.1
2.5
0.9
0.4
86.5
88.5
83.3
57.1
86.2
89.9
10.6
8.4
13.6
32.6
12.5
6.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
6.1
1.3
3.2
Table 14 Response to the question ‘‘Would you accept a single wheelie bin service for the collection of paper, cans and glass?’’ Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Participants in the GWCS Yes 70.2 No 19.2 Do not know 10.6
72.3 17.2 10.5
67.8 21.3 10.9
85.7 7.7 6.6
76.2 14.3 9.5
55.9 30.1 14.0
Non-participants in the GWCS Yes 26.4 No 65.9 Do not know 7.7
20.7 71.5 7.7
33.8 58.1 8.1
42.5 51.1 6.4
32.9 62.5 4.6
21.9 68.9 9.2
composting and burning at home (ENDS, 2001b). This clearly has implications for local authorities in terms of meeting their statutory recycling targets. Based on the success of GWCS to date, the Council decided to further expand the scheme and in March 2001, a further 12,000 wheeled bins were purchased. These bins will allow the scheme to be extended from Poulton-le-Fylde up through ThorntonCleveleys and into most of Fleetwood. Altogether, the Council now has 20,000 wheeled bins collecting green kitchen and garden waste, making it one of the largest schemes of its kind in the north-west.
158
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
5. Conclusions and recommendations This study has shown that Wyre BC’s pilot GWCS has been successful in terms of both public participation and satisfaction. In general, there is a high level of satisfaction with the operation and logistics of GWCS and with the services and equipment provided by the Council. The 180 and 240 l wheeled bins proved to be more practical and less hazardous to operators than the plastic bags for the collection of green waste and were also popular with the public. However, there is still significant support for the continued use of black sacks for the collection of household waste, although there are indications that future householders will be supportive of wheeled bins for the collection of mixed household waste streams. The likely increased use of wheeled bins for the collection of waste clearly has implications for local authorities, as there will probably be a consequent increase in the total volumes of waste collected. The public’s self-declared participation rates for recycling various items highlights that the 25 /44 age group are the least likely to engage in recycling activities, probably because of lack of time. The claimed recycling behaviours, particularly for green waste, paper, glass, and cardboard are encouraging. However, given the tendency of the public to exaggerate their pro-environmental behaviours, it would seem unlikely that boroughs such as Wyre will be able to achieve the recycling targets set by the United Kingdom Government, particularly in the short-term, unless rapid action is taken by both the relevant authorities and the public themselves. A variety of reasons were given for non-participation in the GWCS and it is difficult to identify any single determining factor. Further research will be required in order to facilitate an improvement in the overall participation rate. The study has also highlighted that the public is hungry for more services, information and education on recycling. There are potentially substantial opportunities for the increased recycling of cans, plastic, cardboard and clothes, and the survey has raised questions about the disposal of used engine oil. Further research is necessary in order to estimate material capture rates for green and household wastes, in order to estimate under-recovery and to identify mechanisms for the maintenance and improvement of participation rates.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Lisa Holmes, Karen Seymour, Julie Mellor, Barbara Heap and Neil McArdle from Wyre Borough Council for data input and technical support; Peta Carter from UCLan for cartography; and the valuable constructive comments from Nigel Mair at UCLan. The trialed schemes were funded by two grants from the LWS Lancashire Environmental Fund, and funding for the evaluation process was provided by Wyre BC.
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
159
References Barker K, Fong L, Grossman S, Quinn C, Reid R. Comparison of self-reported recycling attitudes and behaviours with actual behaviour. Psychol Rep 1994;75:571 /7. Beaumont R, Hamilton RS, Machin N, Perks J, Williams ID. Social awareness of air quality information. Sci Total Environ 1999;235:319 /29. Benfield T. Disposal of garden waste: methods used by householders. J Waste Manage Resourc Recovery 1997;4(1):47 /55. Chan K. Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: waste recycling in Hong Kong. J Environ Manage 1998;52(4):317 /25. Coggins C. Waste prevention */an issue of shared responsibility for UK producers and consumers: policy options and measurement. Resource Conserv Recyc 2001;32(3 /4):181 /90. DETR, Waste Strategy 2000. England and Wales, DETR, 2000, London. Eden S. Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and nonscientific contributions. Public Understanding Sci 1996;5:183 /204. ENDS, 2000. ENDS Report 301. Environmental Data Services Ltd., London, 2000. ENDS, 2001a. ENDS Report 315. Environmental Data Services Ltd., London, 2001, pp. 44 /45. ENDS, 2001b. ENDS Report 317. Environmental Data Services Ltd., London, 2001, p. 14. European Union, 1999. EU Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste. Off. J. Eur. Communities L182:1 / 19. Evison T, Read AD. Local authority recycling and waste awareness publicity/promotion. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;32(3 /4):275 /91. Gamba R, Oskamp S. Factors influencing community residents’ participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environ Behav 1994;26:587 /612. MEL Research Ltd.. Household (dustbin) waste analysis for the County of Lancashire. Aston Science Park, Birmingham: MEL Research Ltd, 2000. Office of Population Census and Surveys (OPCS), 1991. Census County Report: Lancashire Part 1, Vol. 2. HMSO, London. Perrin D, Barton J. Issues associated with transforming household attitudes and opinions into materials recovery: a review of two kerbside recycling schemes. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;33(1):61 /74. Petts J. The public /expert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibility and process. Public Understanding Sci 1997;6:359 /81. Price JL. The landfill directive and the challenge ahead: demands and pressures on the UK householder. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;32(3 /4):333 /48. NAWDO. Composting Green Waste: A Guidance to Local Authority Client Officers. Northampton: Institute of Wastes Management Business Services Ltd, 1998. Salkie FJ, Adamowicz WL, Luckert MK. Household response to the loss of publicly provided waste removal: a Saskatchewan case study. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;33(1):23 /36. Slater R, 2001. The state of composting in UK. Wastes Manage. 2001:32 /4. Thogersen J. Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature. Environ Behav 1996;28(4):536 /58. Thomas C. Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in Hampshire and Milton Keynes. Resource Conservation Recyc 2001;32(3 /4):259 /74. Tucker P. Recycling behaviour. Wastes Manage. 1993:18 /22. Tucker P, Murney G, Lamont J. The management and marketing of household waste recycling schemes: a review and evaluation of intervention-based approaches. University of Paisley, Faculty of Business, Working Paper, 1998. Williams ID, McCrae IS. Road traffic nuisance in residential and commercial areas. Sci Total Environ 1995;169:75 /82. Woodward R, Harder MK, Bench M, Philip M. Evaluating the performance of a fortnightly collection of household waste separated into compostables, recyclates and refuse in the south of England. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;31(3):265 /84. Woodward R, Bench M, Harder MK. Determination of civic amenity waste components. IWM Sci Technol Rev 2000;2(2):18 /21.
Green waste collection and the public’s recycling behaviour in the Borough of Wyre, England I.D. Williams a,*, J. Kelly b a
Department of Environmental Management, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK b Wyre Borough Council, Civic Centre, Breck Road, Poulton-Le-Fylde FY6 7PU, UK Received 24 August 2001; accepted 16 August 2002
Abstract It is clear that achieving the statutory targets for recycling will be a considerable challenge for local authorities, who are increasingly involved in schemes to collect and recycle biodegradable municipal waste. However, there has been little published evaluation of the perceived effectiveness and public attitudes towards such schemes, and this is significant given that recycling schemes are currently heavily dependent upon the voluntary behaviour of the public. This research has begun the task of evaluating the public’s perception of a local authority recycling scheme by performing a social survey (using a postal questionnaire) to provide a snapshot of the public’s views of a newly developed Green Waste Collection Scheme in Wyre, England, and other recycling activities. The social survey results demonstrate that the scheme has been very successful in terms of generating participation and public satisfaction with its operation, but that considerably more could still be done to improve the public’s involvement and consequently, the Borough’s recycling rate. Further research is required to identify more clearly the public’s reasons for non-participation in local authority recycling schemes and to identify mechanisms for the maintenance and improvement of participation rates. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Green waste; Biodegradable municipal waste; Recycling; Social survey; Postal questionnaire
* Corresponding author. Tel.: /44-1772-893-961; fax: /44-1772-892-926 E-mail address: [email protected] (I.D. Williams). 0921-3449/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 3 4 4 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 0 6 - 4
140
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
1. Introduction The landfilling of municipal waste has been the subject of considerable legislative activity over the last 3 years. The European Union’s Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste requires a reduction in the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) in UK to 75% of 1995 arising by 2010, 50% by 2013 and 35% by 2020. Although the United Kingdom Government has set ambitious recycling targets for England and Wales */the aim is to recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005, 30% by 2010, and 33% by 2015 (DETR, 2000) */these levels will probably not be sufficient to meet the BMW landfill limit for 2013 (ENDS, 2001a). The targets present an arduous challenge to local authorities since municipal waste is growing by 3% or more per annum in UK (ENDS, 2001b) and the recovery of waste materials from domestic sources is heavily dependent upon the voluntary activities of individual householders. The current UK recycling rate for household waste is 9% (ENDS, 2001b); this figure is low in comparison with other European Union (EU) countries and is partly due to insufficient provision of practicable recycling schemes, poor utilisation of existing schemes, the ease of waste disposal for householders, public apathy and socio-economic factors such as poverty and inadequate end markets for recycled materials. Research by Tucker (2001) has found that the most commonly claimed barriers to recycling are not possessing a recycling container, not generating enough material to make recycling worthwhile, and not being aware of recycling provision or of how to use it. In addition, the way in which the public participates in waste minimisation and recycling schemes is just as important as how many people participate (Thomas, 2001). Price (2001) has pointed out that there is little incentive for the typical UK householder to divert waste from disposal in landfill as there is no penalty for non-participation in recycling schemes. Various studies have shown that if households bear the cost of waste disposal, they generally purchase products with less packing, recycle more, and reduce their contributions to landfills (Salkie et al., 2001), although Coggins (2001) claims that in UK, direct charging for household waste collection seems to have gone out of favour. Consequently, the successful management and marketing of any domestic recycling scheme will require both national and local governments to encourage (and subsequently maintain) high levels of participation (Tucker et al., 1998; Petts, 1997); this will require strategies that encourage and persuade the public to significantly change its current recycling behaviour. Addressing the public’s views on environmental issues is important; as Eden (1996) argues, behaviour is dependent upon public interpretation of these issues. Devising successful strategies will not be easy; the recent ‘‘Slim your Bin’’ campaign designed to raise awareness of household waste in the Anglia region of England failed to change recycling behaviour and led to a doubling of the number of people who felt that recycling and composting were too difficult (ENDS, 2000). A review of environmental attitudes and communication programmes in UK (Evison and Read, 2001) highlighted:
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
141
. The need for targeted publicity, especially for the lower-recycling groups in society; . The importance of education, publicity, and promotion for the success of recycling schemes; and . The link between regular, quality promotion and publicity, and better recycling performance figures. The EU Landfill Directive defines biodegradable waste as ‘‘waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, and paper and cardboard (EU, 1999). No current official European or UK definition of ‘‘green waste’’ appears to exist although it is potentially a significant fraction of BMW. However, the National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO, 1998) suggests that green waste would normally consist of: . . . . . . .
Grass cuttings; Hedge clippings; Prunings; Weeds; Leaves; Dead plant material; and Soil-bound roots.
They also suggest that compostable wastes such as raw fruit and vegetable peelings and uncooked reject fruit and vegetables be included subject to the handling/process technology utilised. In this study, we adopted the full NAWDO list and their latter suggestion in our definition of green waste. Recent studies show that 72% or more of household waste is biodegradable (ENDS, 2001b). A study by Woodward et al. (2000) showed that BMW comprised 36% of the total waste stream at a large civic amenity (CA) site in East Sussex, with green waste representing over 80% of these arisings. Benfield (1997) estimated that 55% of CA site users in Luton disposed of their green waste at CA sites. A study of household (dustbin) waste for the county of Lancashire estimated that putrescible waste accounted for approximately 54% (by weight) of analysed wastes during the summer, with garden wastes accounting for about 34% of the total (MEL Research Ltd., 2000). The winter analysis showed a reduction in putrescibles from 54 to 35%, with garden wastes accounting for just 7% of the total. Recent research by the Composting Association has shown that the quantities of BMW being composted in UK have increased significantly over the last 5 years, with nearly 620,000 t of municipal waste being composted in 1999 (Slater, 2001). Of this total, 72% was garden waste from bring sites, 17% was green waste from local authority parks and gardens, and only 7.5% was collected from the kerbside. The same study identified 45 schemes that collected just over 46,000 t of segregated organic waste from the kerbside in 1999, of which 37 were operated by local authorities. This paper describes and evaluates the Green Waste Collection Scheme (GWCS) developed and operated by Wyre Borough Council (BC) during 1999 /2001.
142
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
2. Wyre BC’s Green Waste Scheme The Borough of Wyre is a coastal district in the county of Lancashire in the northwest of England (see Fig. 1). The Borough covers an area of over 28,300 ha and has a population of over 105,000 almost three-quarters of which are resident in the three principal settlements of Fleetwood, Thornton-Cleveleys, and Poulton-le-Fylde. Wyre is very diverse in character, extending from the Pennine uplands in the east, across the agricultural mosslands of North Lancashire, to the coastal plain and the resorts of Fleetwood and Cleveleys. Its traditional employment strengths have been in fishing and agriculture, and their ancillary and associated industries, the chemical
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the Borough of Wyre in UK.
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
143
industry, and more recently, in the tourism and government agency sectors. The ACORN socio-demographic profile of Wyre (A/B, /40%; C/D, /42%; E/F, / 18%) suggests that it is a relatively wealthy area. Approximately 50,000 t of domestic waste was collected in Wyre during 2000/ 2001, a marked increase on the previous year, as shown in Fig. 2. Although Wyre has the best recycling record in Lancashire, with a recycling rate of 11.6% for household waste, it also produces more rubbish per household than any other district in Lancashire, a total of over 1 t per household per annum. There are currently 36 recycling points in Wyre collecting paper, cans, glass, textiles, books and shoes, and the Council also operates a fortnightly kerbside blue-bag paper recycling scheme. An estimate of the materials recycled in Wyre during 2000/2001 is given in Fig. 3. Wyre BC began its waste kitchen and garden waste collection programme in 1999. Initially, a green waste collection service covering 5500 households and using plastic sacks was trialed for 6 months in the Poulton le Fylde area. Green waste was collected on a fortnightly cycle by the Council’s Direct Works Organisation and transported to a privately owned waste management facility (Greenacres Plus Grow Compost) in Poulton for composting. All bags used in the trial area were provided free of charge. The total amount collected for the whole trial period was 605 t, a figure that exceeded all expectations as the predicted total for the trial period had been 290 t (see Fig. 4). However, this pilot study identified problems using plastic bags; in particular, overfilled bags led to problems with spillage, contamination with inappropriate material proved problematic and overweight sacks were potentially hazardous to the workforce attempting to lift and empty them. To evaluate the scheme, the Council distributed a questionnaire to all residents in the trial area. In excess of 2500 completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 50.7%. The questionnaire revealed that 96% of residents were extremely happy with the scheme and 98% wished the scheme to continue. Consequently, the trial was extended for a second year using wheeled bins, 8000 of which were purchased using funding from the LWS Lancashire Environmental Fund and provided free to the public. Each home in the trial area was notified about 4 weeks before the introduction of the wheeled bins and asked to telephone if they did not want to participate. The resultant database was then used during the bin distribution phase to identify the correct delivery points. The Council chose to trial two sizes of
Fig. 2. Total amounts of domestic waste collected and recycled in Wyre during 1995/1996 /2000/2001.
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Fig. 3. Estimates of recycled/re-used materials in Wyre during 2000/2001.
144
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
145
Fig. 4. Monthly tonnage of green waste collected in Wyre during the initial half-year trial (1999).
wheeled bin, 180 and 240 l, respectively. The residents were not given a choice of bin size so that distinct rounds of identically sized bins were created; this allowed evaluation on whether size of bin was a factor in residents being able to accept and adapt to the new collection method. Collections began on 1 May 2000 and in the first 11 months of operation, to the end of March 2001; the wheeled bin scheme collected and recycled 2032 t of green waste. It is perhaps worth noting that the rounds that used the smaller wheeled bin, did, predictably, collect and recycle 30/35% less than the rounds using the larger bin. However, other issues such as socio-economic status, size of garden, numbers of residents per property, etc. may have been contributory factors in the results achieved. As in year 1, the Council undertook a large-scale evaluation study, this time in partnership with the University of Central Lancashire. The aims of this study were: 1) To evaluate the effectiveness of, and public attitudes towards, the green waste clearing operations in Wyre; 2) To evaluate the effectiveness of, and public attitudes towards, other recycling operations in Wyre; 3) To identify reasons for non-participation in green waste clearing operations; 4) To assess the general recycling behaviour of the public in the Wyre area; and 5) To identify requirements for future research. The results of this study are presented and discussed in the following sections.
3. Experimental methods Two type of respondents were identified for study using postal questionnaires; participants and non-participants in Wyre BC’s GWCS. In order to allow the responses of the two groups to be compared, each questionnaire contained a number of common questions. Classification data such as sex and age were also collected so that the responses of specific groups to a particular question or set of questions could be compared. The interviewees’ responses were coded to allow the data to be stored, retrieved, and analysed by computer.
146
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
3.1. Questionnaire survey of participants in the Green Waste Scheme A postal questionnaire was designed and sent to 3648 households in the Wyre BC locale during November 2000. Only households in areas where the Wyre GWCS was in operation were contacted. A total of 2644 responses were received at a response rate of 72.5%. 3.2. Questionnaire survey of non-participants in the Green Waste Scheme A postal questionnaire for non-participants in Wyre BC’s GWCS was designed and sent to 1248 households during December 2000. This questionnaire was shorter than the one described in Section 3.1, but contained several identical key questions. Although the response rate for this grouping was lower than for participants in the scheme */a total of 611 responses were received at a response rate of 49.0% */it still represents a significant return.
4. Results and discussion In this section, the main results from the postal surveys are presented and interpreted. The classification data shown in Table 1 show that the 18/44 age group are under-represented and the 65/ age group are over-represented in the survey when compared with the 1991 National Census data (OPCS, 1993). This is not surprising given that older people are more likely to own homes or take responsibility for returning the questionnaire. The data in Table 1 also suggest that females in the 25/44 age group and males over 65 are more likely to claim participation in the GWCS than other groups. This is perhaps unsurprising; most males over 65 are likely to be retired and hence will have more time to participate in local schemes, and many studies have highlighted that there often differences in attitude towards environmental issues between males and females and between different age groups (e.g. Beaumont et al., 1999; Williams and McCrae, 1995). 4.1. Green waste clearing operations The overwhelming majority of participants in GWCS reported that their waste had been collected on the appointed day (Table 2), demonstrating the perceived efficiency of the collection system. There is a strong indication that the current fortnightly collection is popular and adequate (see Figs. 5 and 6). The 65/ age group is more satisfied with the fortnightly service than the younger age groups, although four times more respondents in the two lower age groups preferred a fortnightly to a weekly collection. Again, this probably highlights that the respondents are satisfied with the current operation of the GWCS, are familiar with its routine and do not wish to see it changed. The data in Fig. 7 and Table 3 show that the respondents are generally very satisfied with the sizes of their wheeled bins, suggesting that the council have
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
147
Table 1 Classification data for Wyre survey Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Participants in the GWCS Male Female
49.4 50.6
34.7 65.3
49.8 50.2
56.4 43.6
Non-participants in the GWCS Male Female
43.8 56.2
48.0 52.0
38.3 61.7
45.5 54.5
Overall
Female
Male
Participants in the GWCS 18 /44 45 /64 65/
19.7 40.4 39.9
25.6 40.1 34.2
13.9 40.7 45.4
Non-participants in the GWCS 18 /44 45 /64 65/
8.3 25.9 65.8
7.7 28.6 63.7
9.2 22.7 68.1
1991 Census data (OPCS, 1993) 18 /44 45 /pensionable age Pensionable age/
33.2 21.3 25.4
Table 2 Response to the question ‘‘Over the last year, has your green waste been collected on the appointed day?’’ Response
Yes Sometimes No Other/non-response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
98.9 0.9 0.2 0.0
99.1 0.7 0.1 0.1
98.7 1.0 0.2 0.1
97.7 2.1 0.2 0.0
98.8 0.8 0.2 0.2
99.5 0.4 0.1 0.0
identified the correct size of wheeled bin for the local population (85 and 15%, 240 and 180 l bins, respectively). As previously, the level of satisfaction is higher amongst the oldest age group. In addition, the vast majority of respondents report no difficulties in moving a fully laden wheeled bins (Table 4). Surprisingly, only a small percentage of people require assistance to move their bins, with women claiming slightly more difficulties than men. The data in Fig. 8 show that only about one in six respondents believes that a wheeled bin washing service is necessary, although women and younger people are more in favour than men and older people,
148
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Fig. 5. Response to the question ‘‘Is the fortnightly collection for your green waste adequate?’’
Fig. 6. Response to the question ‘‘Given a choice, which of the following collection periods would you prefer for your green waste?’’
Fig. 7. Response to the question ‘‘Is your wheelie bin large enough to collect all your green waste?’’
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
149
Table 3 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the statements listed below do you most agree with?’’ Statement
I am satisfied with the size of my wheelie bin I would prefer a larger wheelie bin I would prefer a smaller wheelie bin Other/non-response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
92.4 6.0 1.6 /
92.0 5.5 2.3 0.2
92.6 6.2 1.0 0.2
89.6 9.8 0.6 0.0
90.2 7.8 1.8 0.2
95.9 1.7 2.1 0.3
Table 4 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the statements listed below do you most agree with?’’ Statement
When full, my wheelie bin is easy to move When full, my wheelie bin is difficult to move I require assistance to move my wheelie bin Other/non-response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
88.0 9.7 2.0 0.3
83.2 13.1 3.1 0.5
93.1 5.9 0.9 0.1
86.3 13.1 0.6 0.0
90.4 8.1 1.3 0.2
86.4 9.7 3.4 0.6
Fig. 8. Response to the question ‘‘Do you think a wheelie bin washing service is necessary?’’
respectively. This may suggest that wheeled bins do not get sufficiently dirty to require a regular washing service, that the public are happy to wash the bins themselves, or that there is lack of understanding of the hygiene issues that may impinge on collection operatives and the public themselves. Economic factors may also be important; only 6.8% of the total respondents would be prepared to pay about £2 per wash for a bin washing service.
150
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Fig. 9. Response to the question ‘‘Do you think the collection service for green waste should close down during December, January and February?’’
We particularly wanted to know if the participants would prefer the collection service for green waste to close down during the winter months when green waste arisings are typically at their lowest. The data in Fig. 9 show that the majorities do not think the service should close down during the winter months, especially the 25 / 44 age group. It is noticeable that a significant percentage of respondents are unsure about this question, and it may be that they require a reduced service or further information about the costs/benefits of running the service during the winter before an informed decision can be made. Overall, it is clear that there is a very high level of public satisfaction with the green waste collection service provided by Wyre BC, with almost all respondents being ‘‘very’’ or ‘‘extremely’’ satisfied (see Table 5).
Table 5 Response to the question ‘‘Overall, how satisfied are you with the operation of the green waste collection service?’’ Response
Not at all satisfactory Not very satisfactory Moderately satisfactory Very satisfactory Extremely satisfactory Average score
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
0.0 0.0 0.0 38.7 58.8
0.0 0.0 0.3 39.1 57.8
0.1 0.1 1.8 38.1 59.9
0.0 0.0 4.6 39.8 55.6
0.1 0.0 2.0 36.9 60.9
0.1 0.2 1.4 40.1 58.2
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
151
4.2. Reasons for non-participation The reasons for non-participation in recycling schemes are likely to be complex and may vary by community and/or region. We wanted to identify and evaluate the public’s reasons for non-participation in the GWCS and so we targeted people, who according to records held by Wyre BC, were non-participants. The results, shown in Table 6, show that about one-fifth of these respondents felt that they did participate in the GWCS. This may indicate that Wyre’s records are not fully accurate or that individuals believe that by composting green waste themselves or taking it personally to a CA site, they are participating in the scheme. Respondents who claimed not to participate in GWCS were asked to explain their reasons for not doing so. Their responses, summarised in Table 7, indicate a variety of reasons for non-participation, including use of a home composter, low generation of green waste and opposition to the use of a wheeled bin. The data also indicate that only a small proportion of the respondents was not aware of, or not interested in, GWCS. However, these data must be viewed with caution given that a large percentage of those questioned chose not to answer this question, perhaps suggesting apathy, embarrassment or impatience. 4.3. Other council operations Respondents were asked two questions in order to enable an assessment of the public’s perception of the council’s activities to support their recycling behaviour. Approximately two-thirds of both participants and non-participants in GWCS felt that the council did enough to assist them to recycle their waste, with satisfaction increasing as respondent age increases and vice versa (Table 8). When asked which services would be useful in terms of recycling waste materials (Table 9), all four of the available choices proved to be very popular, with increased kerbside collections being (marginally) the most preferred option. 4.4. Recycling behaviour The questionnaires also included questions to investigate the general self-declared recycling behaviour of the public in the Wyre area. Paper was identified as the material most frequently recycled by respondents, with 93.8 and 89.9% of Table 6 Response of non-participants to the question ‘‘Do you participate in the Council’s GWCS?’’ Response
Yes No
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
20.4 79.5
18.8 81.2
22.8 77.2
23.5 76.5
14.4 85.6
22.4 77.6
152
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Table 7 Response of non-participants to the question ‘‘Why have you chosen not to participate in the GWCS?’’ Statement
Categories of respondent (%)
I was not aware of the GWCS My household does not generate much green waste I already recycle green waste in a home composter I prefer to place green waste in a regular dustbin I prefer to take green waste to a council disposal site myself I do not want to use a wheelie bin I do not want to participate in the GWCS Other/non-response
Overall Female Male 25 / 44
45 / 64
65/
2.1 13.7 14.8 10.3 1.9
0.9 14.1 12.4 11.5 2.0
3.9 13.2 17.9 8.9 2.1
2.0 10.0 24.0 4.0 4.0
5.0 10.6 18.0 9.9 1.9
0.7 15.4 12.5 11.0 1.7
12.7 0.5 44.0
15.3 0.9 42.9
9.6 0.4 43.9
14.0 0.0 40.0
12.4 0.6 41.6
12.7 0.5 45.3
Table 8 Response to the question ‘‘Does the council do enough to assist you in your efforts to recycle your waste?’’ Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Participants in the GWCS Yes No Do not know Other/non-response
66.5 18.2 7.1 8.2
65.2 18.6 7.2 8.9
67.6 18.0 7.9 7.4
50.8 32.8 12.0 4.4
64.2 20.8 6.0 8.9
76.3 8.8 5.6 9.3
Non-participants in the GWCS Yes No Do not know Other/non-response
63.7 19.7 3.8 12.7
64.4 17.2 4.6 14.0
62.9 23.2 2.9 11.0
38.0 32.0 8.0 22.0
59.9 25.3 3.1 11.7
68.2 16.1 3.7 12.0
participants and non-participants in GWCS, respectively, claiming that they recycle paper at least occasionally, and approximately seven out of 10 respondents declaring that they recycle paper all the time (see Tables 10 and 11). Overall, the respondents claimed a high participation rate in Wyre BC’s biweekly blue-bag recycling scheme, with two out of every three respondents claiming to participate in the scheme and others wanting to join (Table 12). However, these claims are not supported by Wyre BC’s own figures, which show a 37% participation rate in the scheme, less than half the self-declared recycling rate. The tendency of the public to exaggerate their proenvironmental behaviours, such as recycling, where people are inclined to over-claim their actual performance levels, is well established (e.g. Perrin and Barton, 2001; Chan, 1998; Thogersen, 1996; Barker et al., 1994; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994). If this ‘‘pro-environmental exaggeration rate’’ is typical of the locality, it would indicate
Service
Not at all useful
Not very useful
Moderately useful
Very useful
Extremely useful
Rank
Participants in the GWCS More kerbside collections More recycling centres More education and information More waste minimisation schemes
8.7 9.2 9.3 7.1
10.4 9.5 11.2 7.8
21.2 30.0 29.7 22.1
27.4 32.0 27.3 32.2
32.4 19.4 22.4 30.8
2.1 2.5 2.8 2.6
Non-participants in the GWCS More kerbside collections More recycling centres More education and information More waste minimisation schemes
14.7 18.0 17.9 16.7
7.7 7.5 11.4 8.4
21.2 24.0 24.6 23.0
23.7 29.0 22.1 22.5
32.5 21.5 24.0 29.4
2.1 2.3 2.7 2.7
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Table 9 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the following services would be useful to help you recycle your waste?’’
153
154
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Table 10 Response of the participants to the question ‘‘How often do you recycle the following items?’’ Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Paper Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
6.2 8.5 15.4 69.9
6.9 8.7 14.4 70.1
5.4 9.2 15.7 69.7
10.0 15.5 20.1 54.9
6.3 8.5 14.4 70.7
4.0 5.2 13.7 77.1
Glass Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
27.0 22.3 13.4 37.3
29.7 22.3 12.5 35.5
24.1 22.3 14.1 39.5
31.3 25.1 9.9 3.4
24.3 22.6 14.5 38.6
27.3 20.8 14.0 37.9
Cans Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
63.1 19.4 0.5 11.2
63.8 21.1 5.1 10.0
62.3 17.6 7.5 12.6
60.1 24.2 4.6 11.0
63.6 18.9 6.5 11.0
63.9 17.6 6.9 11.6
Plastics Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
83.4 11.1 3.1 2.4
88.5 10.8 2.5 2.2
82.1 11.2 3.8 2.7
84.5 12.4 2.3 0.8
85.2 9.9 2.6 2.3
80.8 11.7 4.0 3.4
Cardboard Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
17.2 16.1 19.4 47.3
18.6 14.7 17.9 48.7
15.6 17.4 20.9 46.1
12.3 16.8 23.4 47.5
16.9 17.5 19.5 46.1
19.8 14.4 17.3 48.5
Clothes Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
34.2 25.3 16.9 23.6
31.1 22.5 18.3 28.0
37.3 27.9 15.4 19.3
23.4 26.5 24.1 26.1
27.8 27.6 19.3 25.3
46.6 21.9 10.6 20.8
Engine oil Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
81.8 7.3 1.8 9.1
87.9 5.7 1.0 5.4
75.6 9.0 2.5 12.9
78.7 9.1 1.7 0.6
79.5 8.8 2.5 11.1
87.5 5.0 1.0 6.5
that in order to meet, e.g. the government’s target to recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005, more than 60% of the public in Wyre would have to declare regular recycling behaviour for all types of household wastes; the data shown in Tables 10 and 11 clearly show that this is not the case. Glass was the second most frequently recycled material, with 73.0 and 71.1% of participants and non-participants in GWCS, respectively, claiming that they recycle
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
155
Table 11 Response of non-participants to the question ‘‘How often do you recycle the following items?’’ Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Paper Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
10.1 7.7 9.6 72.7
10.3 8.8 10.7 70.2
9.9 6.7 8.5 75.5
12.2 26.5 10.2 51.1
10.3 9.7 6.4 73.5
9.7 4.5 10.8 75.0
Glass Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
28.9 18.6 10.5 42.0
26.7 20.9 10.1 42.2
30.6 16.3 11.2 41.9
41.7 22.9 6.2 29.2
28.3 18.8 12.7 39.6
27.1 17.9 10.1 44.9
Cans Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
67.4 15.7 5.3 11.6
67.0 16.5 5.2 11.3
66.8 15.2 5.7 12.3
59.6 27.7 6.4 6.4
71.8 12.6 3.7 11.8
66.6 15.2 5.9 12.4
Plastics Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
80.6 13.0 2.9 3.5
79.2 13.6 3.2 4.1
81.4 12.3 3.0 3.4
82.0 12.0 0.0 6.0
78.2 7.7 2.8 11.3
77.6 15.2 3.2 4.0
Cardboard Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
48.6 22.1 9.6 19.7
48.4 21.6 8.8 21.2
48.0 23.0 10.6 18.4
51.0 32.6 6.1 10.2
52.2 23.2 8.0 16.7
46.6 20.0 10.8 22.6
Clothes Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
40.0 24.0 12.4 23.6
34.9 23.4 11.9 29.9
44.8 24.9 13.3 17.0
30.4 32.6 19.6 17.4
27.6 26.2 16.6 29.6
47.4 21.8 9.4 21.4
Engine oil Not at all Occasionally Frequently All the time
83.9 6.7 1.1 8.3
87.3 6.1 1.9 4.7
79.5 7.6 0.9 12.0
80.4 10.9 2.2 6.5
77.3 8.6 2.3 11.7
87.7 5.0 0.4 6.9
glass at least occasionally, and over 50% claiming frequent or constant glass recycling behaviour. Approximately 35/40% of respondents stated that they were frequent or constant recyclers of clothing, although this figure is noticeably lower amongst the 65/ age group. More than 60, 80 and 80% of respondents claimed not to recycle cans, plastics and engine oil, respectively.
156
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
Table 12 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the statements listed below applies to you?’’ Statement number
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Participants in the GWCS 1 2 3
68.7 14.2 17.1
66.9 15.4 17.7
70.5 13.1 16.4
47.6 33.7 18.8
68.0 14.0 18.0
79.9 4.9 15.2
Non-participants in the GWCS 1 2 3
66.8 8.2 25.0
65.0 8.1 26.9
69.1 8.6 22.3
36.7 24.5 36.2
61.8 10.5 27.6
72.2 5.1 22.7
Statement number: (1) I currently participate in the Council’s blue-bag paper recycling scheme. (2) I would like to participate in the Council’s blue-bag paper recycling scheme. (3) I do not want to participate in the Council’s blue-bag paper recycling scheme.
The most striking difference between participants and non-participants in GWCS was their recycling behaviour with respect to cardboard. Over 80% of participants claimed to recycle cardboard at least occasionally, whilst almost 50% of nonparticipants stated that they did not recycle cardboard at all. The 25/44 age group generally claims the least participation in all types of recycling. This phenomenon has been identified previously by other authors (e.g. Tucker et al., 1998) and generally attributed to lack of time amongst families with young children. In order to ascertain the public’s prevalent attitude towards the use of wheeled bins, we asked respondents whether they would prefer to use black refuse sacks or wheeled bins to collect household waste. The results are shown in Table 12, and reveal that those who use wheeled bins regularly (i.e. participants in the GWCS), showed a slight preference for their use to collect household waste, whereas the overwhelming majority of non-participants in GWCS, who generally do not use wheeled bins at all, stated a preference for black sacks. In addition, there is a clear trend for older people to state a preference for black sacks. These data suggest that whilst there may be a fear or distrust of using wheeled bins amongst older people, or even perhaps a reluctance to change a common and accepted routine, the new generation of householders is likely favour their use in future. This data are supported by the data shown in Tables 3, 4, 13 and 14, and by recent literature (e.g. Woodward et al., 2001). In particular, the data in Table 14 show that young householders who have tried using wheeled bins are overwhelmingly supportive of their future use for the collection of mixed household waste streams; this may be because they have heightened environmental awareness as a result of education and media campaigns, find them easier and more convenient to use, or simply because they unconcerned about new developments in waste collection. Waste volumes tend to increase when councils introduce wheeled bins, and there is also some evidence that collection services for garden waste are steering householders away from
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
157
Table 13 Response to the question ‘‘Which of the statements listed below do you most agree with?’’ Statement
Categories of respondent (%)
Participants in the GWCS I would prefer to use black refuse sacks to collect household waste I would prefer to use a wheelie bin to collect household waste Other/non-response Non-participants in the GWCS I would prefer to use black refuse sacks to collect household waste I would prefer to use a wheelie bin to collect household waste Other/non-response
Overall Female Male 25 / 44
45 / 64
65/
47.2
45.6
49.0
32.5
44.6
57.1
51.8
53.5
49.9
65.0
54.3
42.6
1.0
0.9
1.1
2.5
0.9
0.4
86.5
88.5
83.3
57.1
86.2
89.9
10.6
8.4
13.6
32.6
12.5
6.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
6.1
1.3
3.2
Table 14 Response to the question ‘‘Would you accept a single wheelie bin service for the collection of paper, cans and glass?’’ Response
Categories of respondent (%) Overall
Female
Male
25 /44
45 /64
65/
Participants in the GWCS Yes 70.2 No 19.2 Do not know 10.6
72.3 17.2 10.5
67.8 21.3 10.9
85.7 7.7 6.6
76.2 14.3 9.5
55.9 30.1 14.0
Non-participants in the GWCS Yes 26.4 No 65.9 Do not know 7.7
20.7 71.5 7.7
33.8 58.1 8.1
42.5 51.1 6.4
32.9 62.5 4.6
21.9 68.9 9.2
composting and burning at home (ENDS, 2001b). This clearly has implications for local authorities in terms of meeting their statutory recycling targets. Based on the success of GWCS to date, the Council decided to further expand the scheme and in March 2001, a further 12,000 wheeled bins were purchased. These bins will allow the scheme to be extended from Poulton-le-Fylde up through ThorntonCleveleys and into most of Fleetwood. Altogether, the Council now has 20,000 wheeled bins collecting green kitchen and garden waste, making it one of the largest schemes of its kind in the north-west.
158
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
5. Conclusions and recommendations This study has shown that Wyre BC’s pilot GWCS has been successful in terms of both public participation and satisfaction. In general, there is a high level of satisfaction with the operation and logistics of GWCS and with the services and equipment provided by the Council. The 180 and 240 l wheeled bins proved to be more practical and less hazardous to operators than the plastic bags for the collection of green waste and were also popular with the public. However, there is still significant support for the continued use of black sacks for the collection of household waste, although there are indications that future householders will be supportive of wheeled bins for the collection of mixed household waste streams. The likely increased use of wheeled bins for the collection of waste clearly has implications for local authorities, as there will probably be a consequent increase in the total volumes of waste collected. The public’s self-declared participation rates for recycling various items highlights that the 25 /44 age group are the least likely to engage in recycling activities, probably because of lack of time. The claimed recycling behaviours, particularly for green waste, paper, glass, and cardboard are encouraging. However, given the tendency of the public to exaggerate their pro-environmental behaviours, it would seem unlikely that boroughs such as Wyre will be able to achieve the recycling targets set by the United Kingdom Government, particularly in the short-term, unless rapid action is taken by both the relevant authorities and the public themselves. A variety of reasons were given for non-participation in the GWCS and it is difficult to identify any single determining factor. Further research will be required in order to facilitate an improvement in the overall participation rate. The study has also highlighted that the public is hungry for more services, information and education on recycling. There are potentially substantial opportunities for the increased recycling of cans, plastic, cardboard and clothes, and the survey has raised questions about the disposal of used engine oil. Further research is necessary in order to estimate material capture rates for green and household wastes, in order to estimate under-recovery and to identify mechanisms for the maintenance and improvement of participation rates.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Lisa Holmes, Karen Seymour, Julie Mellor, Barbara Heap and Neil McArdle from Wyre Borough Council for data input and technical support; Peta Carter from UCLan for cartography; and the valuable constructive comments from Nigel Mair at UCLan. The trialed schemes were funded by two grants from the LWS Lancashire Environmental Fund, and funding for the evaluation process was provided by Wyre BC.
I.D. Williams, J. Kelly / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 139 /159
159
References Barker K, Fong L, Grossman S, Quinn C, Reid R. Comparison of self-reported recycling attitudes and behaviours with actual behaviour. Psychol Rep 1994;75:571 /7. Beaumont R, Hamilton RS, Machin N, Perks J, Williams ID. Social awareness of air quality information. Sci Total Environ 1999;235:319 /29. Benfield T. Disposal of garden waste: methods used by householders. J Waste Manage Resourc Recovery 1997;4(1):47 /55. Chan K. Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: waste recycling in Hong Kong. J Environ Manage 1998;52(4):317 /25. Coggins C. Waste prevention */an issue of shared responsibility for UK producers and consumers: policy options and measurement. Resource Conserv Recyc 2001;32(3 /4):181 /90. DETR, Waste Strategy 2000. England and Wales, DETR, 2000, London. Eden S. Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and nonscientific contributions. Public Understanding Sci 1996;5:183 /204. ENDS, 2000. ENDS Report 301. Environmental Data Services Ltd., London, 2000. ENDS, 2001a. ENDS Report 315. Environmental Data Services Ltd., London, 2001, pp. 44 /45. ENDS, 2001b. ENDS Report 317. Environmental Data Services Ltd., London, 2001, p. 14. European Union, 1999. EU Directive 99/31/EC on the landfill of waste. Off. J. Eur. Communities L182:1 / 19. Evison T, Read AD. Local authority recycling and waste awareness publicity/promotion. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;32(3 /4):275 /91. Gamba R, Oskamp S. Factors influencing community residents’ participation in commingled curbside recycling programs. Environ Behav 1994;26:587 /612. MEL Research Ltd.. Household (dustbin) waste analysis for the County of Lancashire. Aston Science Park, Birmingham: MEL Research Ltd, 2000. Office of Population Census and Surveys (OPCS), 1991. Census County Report: Lancashire Part 1, Vol. 2. HMSO, London. Perrin D, Barton J. Issues associated with transforming household attitudes and opinions into materials recovery: a review of two kerbside recycling schemes. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;33(1):61 /74. Petts J. The public /expert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibility and process. Public Understanding Sci 1997;6:359 /81. Price JL. The landfill directive and the challenge ahead: demands and pressures on the UK householder. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;32(3 /4):333 /48. NAWDO. Composting Green Waste: A Guidance to Local Authority Client Officers. Northampton: Institute of Wastes Management Business Services Ltd, 1998. Salkie FJ, Adamowicz WL, Luckert MK. Household response to the loss of publicly provided waste removal: a Saskatchewan case study. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;33(1):23 /36. Slater R, 2001. The state of composting in UK. Wastes Manage. 2001:32 /4. Thogersen J. Recycling and morality: a critical review of the literature. Environ Behav 1996;28(4):536 /58. Thomas C. Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in Hampshire and Milton Keynes. Resource Conservation Recyc 2001;32(3 /4):259 /74. Tucker P. Recycling behaviour. Wastes Manage. 1993:18 /22. Tucker P, Murney G, Lamont J. The management and marketing of household waste recycling schemes: a review and evaluation of intervention-based approaches. University of Paisley, Faculty of Business, Working Paper, 1998. Williams ID, McCrae IS. Road traffic nuisance in residential and commercial areas. Sci Total Environ 1995;169:75 /82. Woodward R, Harder MK, Bench M, Philip M. Evaluating the performance of a fortnightly collection of household waste separated into compostables, recyclates and refuse in the south of England. Resourc Conserv Recyc 2001;31(3):265 /84. Woodward R, Bench M, Harder MK. Determination of civic amenity waste components. IWM Sci Technol Rev 2000;2(2):18 /21.