Economic rationalism or administrative rationalism? Curbside collection systems in Sweden and Japan

Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Economic rationalism or administrative rationalism? Curbside collection systems in Sweden and Japan Wakana Takahashi Faculty of International Studies, Utsunomiya University, Mine 350, Utsunomiya, 321-8505, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 30 September 2018 Received in revised form 28 August 2019 Accepted 4 September 2019 Available online 14 September 2019

Sweden and Japan are environmental leaders in their regions; however, Sweden has shown much better performance in the development of a circular economy. This paper suggests that different environmental discourses between the two countries help explain this gap. An actor-discourse analysis was conducted, taking the case of curbside collection systems. Results show that in Sweden, producers have physical and financial responsibility for collection and recycling while municipalities are responsible for planning and providing information. Economic incentives are well considered, and easy waste sorting at home is a shared norm, fostering systematic improvement of curbside collection systems and drastically increasing recycling rates. In Japan, in contrast, producers address recycling, municipalities do collection, and consumers cover sorting. The necessity of promoting consumer awareness of recycling is broadly accepted, but systematic thinking has not been introduced; as a result, primitive curbside collection systems remain mainstream in Japan, and it is not easy to sort waste at home. Thus, Sweden has favored economic rationalism while Japan administrative rationalism and, the former has been more effective. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Handling editor: Yutao Wang Keywords: Curbside collection systems Economic rationalism Administrative rationalism Sweden Japan

1. Introduction Sweden and Japan are environmental leaders in their regions (Europe and Asia, respectively). Sweden was ranked fifth globally in 2018 on high-priority environmental issues, while Japan was 20th, the highest in Asia (Wendling et al., 2018). Both Sweden and Japan achieve high performance in household waste management. In both countries, only about 1% of household waste goes to landfill (Avfall Sverige, 2017; Ministry of Environment, 2014).Both countries have mandatory environmental standards for waste incineration and landfill, which have become more stringent over time to lessen impact on soil, water, and air (Avfall Sverige, 2017; Ministry of Environment, 2013, 2014; Takahashi et al., 2010). However, performance on the circular economy differs substantially between the two countries. The circular economy concept was first defined by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012: p.7) as “an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design.” The concept promotes the reduction of environmental load from economic activities to help achieve a sustainable society. In a circular economy, as distinguished from a linear economy, the

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118288 0959-6526/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

same resources and goods recirculate through the various stages of economic activity (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012), to minimize resource and energy consumption and waste production; this approach should both increase economic growth and reduce environmental load by creating value through circulation. Fig. 1 illustrates circular economy performance in municipal waste in Sweden and Japan. Implementation of food-waste collection is expanding across Swedish municipalities (Andersson and Stage, 2018) but not in Japan (Takahashi, 2011, 2014). As biogas production from food waste has relatively low environmental impact, in particular from a valorization perspective (Brunklaus et al., 2018), related policy instruments exist in 16.2% of Swedish contexts. Some studies suggest that food-waste collection creates a positive spillover effect on packaging waste sorting (Ek and Miliute-Plepiene, 2018; Miliute-Plepiene and Plepys, 2015); and indeed, the packaging recycling rate in Sweden amounts to 34.6% but in Japan remains at 18.7%. Not only general recycling but also direct recycling rates influence incineration rates, and while 48.5% of waste is incinerated in Sweden, in Japan, 80.3% isda linear economy situation (Takahashi, 2018a). In addition, all Swedish incineration facilities practice heat recovery and most practice electricity cogeneration (Avfall Sverige, 2017). Waste incineration heat accounted for 12% of heating in the community in 2014 (Werner, 2017). In Japan, in contrast, only 32% of facilities have

2

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

Fig. 1. Municipal waste circular-economic performance Source : Made by author based on Avfall Sverige (2017, p. 9) Source: Made by author, based on Ministry of Environment of Japan (2017, p. 15).

electricity generation capacity as of 2016 (Ministry of Environment, 2018); further, much of this heat is underutilized, for example diverting a small amount for an adjacent heated swimming pool while the rest is wasted (Tabata and Tsai, 2015; Takahashi, 2018a). Thus, Sweden leads Japan in terms of circular economy. This paper helps show why by focusing on collection. No matter how effective recycling mechanisms are, a circular economy will not be achieved unless separate collection is secure. In this paper, we explore reasons for differences in circular economic performance between Sweden and Japan, by investigating cases of curbside collection systems. 1.1. Demographic differences Let us first consider basic differences in conditions in the two countries. Sweden is far less densely populated than Japan. Sweden's 450,300 km2, approximately 1.3 times larger than Japan, contain less than 10 million people, while Japan has 127 million. Stockholm, Sweden's capital and largest city, has 950,000 people, while Japan has 14 cities that are large or larger, as well as the Greater Tokyo Area, the world's largest urban area. Population scale and density are major obstacles to municipal waste management collection, transportation, and treatment/

disposal in Japan (Tanaka, 1995). In Tokyo, open dump landfills causing severe environmental destruction and strong NIMBY movements resulted in the declaration of “Waste War” by the Tokyo governor in 1971; claiming that “the emerging crisis of the waste came to threaten the life of the Metropolitan citizens,” the government embraced incineration (Tokyo Metropolitan Bovernmnet, Bureau of Public Cleaning, 2000), leading to rapid increase in incineration rates (Takahashi et al., 2010). If most waste is burnt, sorting household waste at home is useless, and recycling rates in megacities in Japan could be far lower than in other Japanese cities. To test this assumption, I examined correlations between population scale and recycling rate, using Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and Ministry of the Environment data, as shown in Fig. 2. The recycling rate of megacities (more than 1 million population) was indeed lowest, on average 17.7%; however, the recycling rate of other cities was around 20%e22%, far lower than in Sweden. Why is Japanese performance, disregarding megacities, so low? Kurishima (2002) analyzed correlations between population scale, collection services, and recycling policies (such as fees for waste disposal), and found that while megacities often have innovative waste reduction and recycling policies (e.g., waste fees, separate sorting), other cities are far behind. As only approximately 23% of

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

Fig. 2. Household waste recycling rate by population in Japan Source: Based on calculations of the data in Statistic Bureau of Japan (2015): Takahashi (2016).

the Japanese population live in megacities, and 68% in cities with less than 500,000 people, we need to understand factors affecting recycling in these cities. 1.2. Determinants of individual recycling behavior Given that the majority of academic studies related to Japan have been made in the Japanese languages only, it is worth reviewing them here. In short, it can be safely said that Japanese literature on recycling behavior has long emphasized individual morals and knowledge as decisive factors (Ichikawa, 1997; Fujinami, 1997; Katsutani, 1992). Matsui and others posited “information provision” and “consciousness enlightenment” factors (Matsui et al., 2001). This situation coincides with Japanese people's general international reputation as having “social responsibility, environmental sensitivity and general discipline” “vis
-vis regulations” (Gaidajis et al., 2010, 198). However, low recya cling rates and poor sorting behavior also prevail, in particular in urban areas. For instance, Fujii (2018) accused Japanese citizens of “immoral” waste sorting behavior posing risks for waste collection workers, and tried to raise awareness of the situation (Fujii, 2018). In Japan, the prevalence of separate collection and high recycling rate in Sweden are often felt to reflect the environmental awareness of Swedish people (Reinius, 2012). Environmental awareness is in turn felt to be the result of environmental education, and Swedish environmental education has therefore been researched and held up as a model in Japan (Asano, 2013; Shimizu, 2001; Takami, 2009). Other studies in Japan, however, in particular by environmental psychologists, have proposed different determinants of recycling behavior. For example, Hirose (1985) noted that recognition of environmental risk does not always result in concrete action, and suggested that recycling behavior is more heavily influenced by factors such as actions taken by others in the neighborhood. Yorifuji et al. (2005) argue that for a separate sorting system to be socially recognized and implemented, it should be easy to participate in, with an open procedure, easy access, and highly available information, including on its benefits. In fact, waste sorting is considered problematic in general in Japan (Onuma et al., 2002). The “moral enlightenment” approach to waste collection requires tremendous “time and labor” by “housewifves” (Takahashi, 2018b, p.51). The approach was also once valued for its educational effects on children, but the decrease in households with children, associated with current low birthrate Japanese

3

society, has reduced this benefit. Therefore, the user-friendliness of collection needs attention (Takahashi, 2018b). In the English-language literature, although less so in Japan, whether “human-environment system knowledge” (knowledge related to environmental problems caused by humans) is related to pro-environmental behavior has been a topic of interest (DíazSiefer et al., 2015; Hungerford and Volk, 1990). Although note that knowledge does not necessarily cause behavior change, Kaiser and Fuhrer (2003) assert that the structure of environmental knowledge is relevant: different forms of environmental knowledge bring diverse effects on environmental behavior. Díaz-Siefer et al. (2015) argued that not only human-environment system knowledge and “environmental action knowledge” (knowledge of possible courses of action to reduce human impact on the environment) “must work together in a convergent manner in order to foster pro-environmental behavior.” Ouellette and Wood (1998) showed that past recycling habits reinforce attitudes and intention and argued that to promote recycling behavior, it is effective to first promote initial action and develop conditions for easier habituationdreducing inconvenience by installing recycling facilities, making separation easier, and improving collection timing. n and Lagerkvist (2010) emphasized opportunity, that is, good Dahle access to places promoting separate sorting. Rousta et al. (2015) demonstrated correlations between distance to drop-off point, proper information, and sorting of recyclable waste. Otto et al. (2018) named these challenges “behavior costs” and suggested that structural improvements to reduce them, such as curbside collection and container deposits, are important determinants of separate collection. Rousta et al. (2017) suggested that it is crucial to establish convenient waste collection infrastructure to promote source separation. Lindhqvist (2000), formulator of the EPR (extended producer responsibility) principle, provided a holistic view, suggesting that economic incentives, convenience, information, behavioral costs, and motivation are determinants of household waste sorting and collection. 2. Theoretical framework: environmental discourse As discussed, the problem of separate collection has conventionally been looked at in terms of individual recycling behavior; in addition to psychological factors, however, social, livingenvironmental, economic, and policy factors influence people's environmental behavior and the development of a circular economy. On this basis, I propose environmental discourse as a theoretical framework. Dryzek (2005), in introducing this term, asserts the wide range of debates on environmental matters and the related areas mentioned above, and the many possible approaches to dealing with them. For example, for collection of plastic bottles, there are several options: a deposit system, as seen in many European countries,; store-based collection free of charge; collection boxes next to vending machines; curbside collection; collection at the recycling center; etc. At issue is not only which option to adopt but also how to implement it, who decides, and who pays. This in turn depends on what is valued and how the problem is constructed by government and other stakeholdersdwhich in practice often means whether to prioritize “morals” or convenience, or whether to attach economic incentives. Environmental discourse is a shared method of understanding and process of constructing basic concepts about the environment and environmental problems; interpreting, discussing and analyzing them; and providing solutions is referred to as environmental discourse (Dryzek, 2005, p. 11). My assumption is that dominant environmental discourses, or shared methods of understanding of environmental issues, differ in

4

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

Japan and Swedendleading to different constructions of concepts like separate collection and related problems and different outcomes even with the same goalda circular economy. The traditional paradigm of environmental discourse since the 1960s and 1970s when advanced economies developed basic laws on waste disposal, is one of “administrative rationalism.” It emphasizes the role of the expert rather than the citizen or producer/ consumer in social problem-solving; the people are then expected to passively follow expert pronouncements. This approach views environmental problems as fundamentally technical in nature; problems and agendas should be segmented, and the standard approach is “reactive, tactical, piecemeal and end-of-pipe” (Dryzek, 2005, p. 180). A politically neutral, professionalized bureaucracy is considered to produce the best public policy decisions, mobilizing scientific and professional expertise to claim authoritativeness. Methods include environmental impact assessment, expert advisory commissions, and planning. The basic administrativerationalist approach to waste management focuses on reducing the environmental impact of waste and deal with waste after it is generated rather than specifying changes in the production process to reduce waste from the source. Although administrative rationalism has been influential, it has also faced criticism for inefficiency (Bruijn and Hufen, 1998). This led to the birth of “economic rationalism,” which harnesses the market as a tool for changing individual and institutional behavior. The idea is that well-designed environmental objectives can be achieved at less cost and with less opposition by market mechanisms than through traditional regulatory approaches (Dryzek, 2005). Policy measures based on economic rationalism include emissions trading, environmental taxes, and in relation to waste management, household waste fees, deposit systems, and extended producer responsibility (EPR), which requires producers to cover not only production costs but also collecting and recycling costs, and encourages them to design products that internalize the environmental costs of final disposal. By doing so, EPR was expected to reduce waste generation, increase recyclable products at the production stage, and increase resource efficiency (OECD, 2001). EPR concept was initiated in Sweden and increased worldwide from the 1990s through the 2000s (Kaffine and O'Reilly, 2013). The related idea of “ecological modernization” has also been advanced since the 1990s, under the argument that the capitalist political economy could be restructured along more environmentally sound lines. Ecological modernization emphasizes “eco-innovations” and interplay between societal actors including governments, business, reform-oriented environmentalists, and scientists. In 2016, the International Resource Panel released a report on resource efficiency (International Resource Panel, 2016), which argues that resource efficiency is essential to the achievement of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate change mitigation goals, and would also promote economic growth and employment. Sweden is now witnessing the emergence of municipal waste management companies embodying ecological modernizations; Corvellec et al. (2012) mentioned that NSR and Sysav, two leading municipal waste management companies in the Skåne region, have been integrating public service, processing, and marketing to achieve sustainability and maximize recycling.

Swedish and Japanese policy-making and practices? And more importantly, how do these gaps influence actual policy-making and implementation of household waste collection at local sites, and eventually circular-economic performance? To investigate this question, this paper implemented actordiscourse analysis for the case of curbside collection system. The reasons for focusing on curbside collection were: 1) collection is a pivot of the circular economy (see Fig. 1) and 2) curbside collection is common in both Sweden and Japan. Actor analysis is a qualitative research method widely used for explaining differences in environmental policies. For example, Schreurs explained differences in global environmental policies of the US, Germany, and Japan by analyzing interactions among relevant actors and institutions (Schreurs, 2002). I have explained different regional approaches to combating transboundary air pollution between Europe, North America, and East Asia using a similar method (Takahashi, 2017). This paper follows those studies. First, I investigated how curbside collection has been perceived by decision-making actors and determined the nature of their environmental discourses. I paid attention to influential nationallevel actors: the Environmental Agency and the Waste Council in Sweden and the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in Japan. At the local level, I excluded megacities and focused on municipalities with a population of less than one million and with typical waste policies and facilities, to ensure comparability. The focus on non megacities of Japan is crucial, given their relative poor performance as discussed in section 1.1. Second, I analyzed how the above-mentioned discourses and perceptions are reflected at actual curbside collection systems. I tried to gain a holistic picture of construction, management, and implementation of curbside collection systems, and their effects on residents’ sorting behavior and motivations, including moral and economic incentives. This was qualitative research utilizing and integrating field study, semi-structured interviews, ethnography, and participatory observation. Table 1 shows basic questions for interviewees at collection points. Starting from these questions, I encouraged interviewees to share their experiences and opinions freely, including their impressions, concerns, and difficulties, and how they rated the convenience of waste collection services, among others. Interviews lasted approximately one to 2 h per site/ person (see Table 2).

3. Method and data collection

4. Results and discussion

3.1. Actor-discourse analysis

I start by considering decision-making-relevant perceptions of actors at national and local levels, to verify dominant environmental discourses around curbside collection in both countries and how those environmental discourses have influenced movement towards a circular economy.

Assuming that different environmental discourses between these two countries help explain this gap on circular economy performance, how are these environmental discourses revealed in

3.2. Data collection In addition to English- and Japanese-language previous studies and surveys, legal documents, official reports, and unofficial documentation, I conducted broad field studies including site visits to municipal-waste-related offices and facilities and curbside collection systems, and did interviews with the relevant actors. A questionnaire survey conducted in January 2013, to which 207 €, and Helsingborg responded with participants from Lund, Malmo information about their recycling behavior (Takahashi et al., 2013), and, a survey conducted by a group of master's students at Lund University were also utilized (Cassel and Ensegård, 2011).

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

5

Table 1 Scope of the actor-discourse analysis. 1) Major Actors/Policies (decision-making of curbside collection systems) Sweden

Japan

National level

SEPA/A Strategy for Sustainable Waste Management Waste Council/guidelines toward effective collection systems Avfall Sverige, Swedish Waste Management Report Producers and municipalities: Deposit system for beverage containers €, Lund and Helsingborg/waste management Local level Municipal waste companies of City of Malmo plan, Eco-city project

Ministry of Environment/Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing, Resource Recycling Law Ministry of Environment, Industry, METI, PET Industry Containers and Packaging Recycling Law City of Niigata, City of Tokyo

2)Research Items for field study (implementation of curbside collection systems)
Appearance of curbside collection systems: on-road/exclusive areas, outdoor/indoor, containers, UMS (underground system), collapsible net boxes, etc.
Sorting items: how many kinds, who decides, etc.
Access to discharge places and timing: 24 h, 365 days? A few times a week?
Actors involved in curbside collection systems: who and how?
Responsibility for preparing containers/building the system: local community? Municipalities? Producers? Individual residents?
Responsibility for managing and maintaining/cleaning the system: local community? Citizens? Superintendents? Volunteer or hired?
Finance: fee for collection? Free? (covered by public funds)? Charge for collection bags? How much? Finance for curbside collection systems?
Information, education and communication: who provides what? Emphasis on education and morals? Emphasis on sorting manner or problem-solving? Easy to understand? Convenient? Economic incentives? Languages? Legal aspects?

Table 2 Overview of field studies. 1) Sweden

Population (2015) (1) Land area in sq. km (1) Population density/sq. km (1) Interviews with waste company/facility personnel Curbside collection point visits and interviews (3) Ethnographic information

(2)

€ Malmo

Helsingborg

Lund

€v Eslo

322,574 156.60 2,060 Yes (2010.9, 2014.9, 2017.8) 7 (2013.8, 2014.9, 2015.8)

137,909 343.89 401 Yes (2010.9, 2017.8) 5 (2013.8, 2014.9, 2015.8) Yes (4)

116,834 427.07 274 Yes (2016.9) 5 (2016.9)

32,438 419.02 77 Yes (2015.9) 4 (2013.9)

2) Japan Niigata

Utsunomiya

Nasukarasuyama

Motegi

Population (2015) (5) Land area in sq. km (5) Population density/sq. km (5) Interviews with municipal/waste company personnel

810,157 726.45 1,115 Yes (2009.8)

518,594 416.85 1,244 Yes (2014.11, 2016.11)

27,047 174.35 155

Curbside collection point visits and interviews Participatory observation (6) Ethnographic information

Yes (5) Yes Yes (8)

Yes (3) Yes Yes (7)

Yes (1) Yes

13,188 172.69 76.4 Yes (2009.3, 2018.2) Yes (1)

1

SCB (2015). € (in English).Bjorn, L. Head or Research, NSR Major interviews include the following:Aspegren , H. Research and Development Manager, VA Syd, September 2, 2010, Malmo € ransson, P. (2015). Project Manager/Business Developer, PWS Norbic AB, September 10, 2015. Perstorp.Go €ransson, P. Company, September 1, 2010, Helsingborg (in English).Go (2017). Project Manager/Business Developer, PWS Norbic AB, August 25, 2017. Perstrop.Håkansson, D., Managing Director, PWS Norbic AB, August 23, 2017. Perstorp (in English).Holm, I.-H., Lund Renhållningsverk, September 5, 2016. Lund (witih SwedisheJapanese interpreting).Larsson, B., Head of Research, NSR Company, September 1, 2010. € Helsingborg (witih Swedish-Japanese interpreting).Lundberg, L. Superintendent, Scandinavian Green Roof, Augustenborg's Botanical Roof Garden, September 2, 2010. Malmo € € (in English).Ohman, € r strategiska frågor, H€ € AB, (in English).Nilsson-Djerf, J. Researcher, Avfall Sverige, September 7, 2010, Malmo D., officer, Utredare fo assleholm Miljo €ssleholm (in English).Pasic, A., environment communicator, MERAB, September 3, 2015, Eslo €v (witih Swedish-Japanesen translation).Rylander, H., September 9, 2016, Ha € (in English). former director, Sysav, August 25, 2017, Malmo 3 Interviews were made in Swedish with a Japanese interpreter or in English. 4 Living experience in Helsingborg was about a year in total (2012.4e2013.1, 2013.8e9). 5 Statistic Bureau of Japan (2015) 2015 Population Census: Table 1. Population, Population Change (2010e2015), Area, Population Density, Households and Households Change (2010e2015)dJapan. 6 As a member of the Cleansing Council of Niigata City (2013e2017), a director of the Utsunomiya Environmental Forum (2017e2019), and a member of the Environmental Council of Nasukarasuyama city (2013e2019). 7 Living experience in Niigata was about 3 years in total (2011.4e2012.3; 2013.1e2015.3). 8 Living experience in Utsunomiya was about 6 years in total (2007.8e2011.3, 2015.4e2017.1). 2

4.1. Comparison of actors in policy decision-making 4.1.1. Sweden The catchphrase used in Sweden is that “it must be easy to sort waste at home” (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, € claims that “waste collection points are p.34.). The City of Malmo aesthetically pleasing, signal accessibility and are easy to use” (VA Syd, 2010) Thus, user-friendliness and systematic thinking are ideas

shared at national and local levels. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2005) placed this idea as one of five priority issues to be tackled. A process of policy evaluation and reviewing of EPR preceded adoption of this idea. The producer's responsibility in Sweden covers physical and financial responsibility for both collection and recycling. Initially, Swedish municipalities did not take responsibility for EPR waste collection or any other recycling-related

6

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

responsibility. Producer responsibility organizations (PROs) had placed recycling stations on vacant land such as parking lots or at the roadside at supermarkets, throughout the whole country. This means people can bring recyclables at any time. However, these recycling stations have been criticized for ruining surrounding landscapes, and have sometimes been removed. Thus, the SEPA has demanded that PROs improve environments around recycling stations (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). In Sweden, the deposit system for beverage containers began in 1984 (Rylander, personal communication, August 25, 2017). Under this system, collection machines for canned aluminum are installed in retail stores and supermarkets; consumers receive 0.5 kronor (about 0.05 US dollars) for each aluminum can. This system is efficient and applies to refillable and one-way PET bottles. The return rate for all containers is over 80% (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). In comparison to containers under the deposit system, however, the return rate for packaging remained low. In particular, for plastic packaging it is only 19%, short of the legally mandated target of 30%. To achieve improvements, the Environmental Agency asserted that “producers and municipalities should … ensure that collection is perceived as a system by consumers” and that “the division of responsibility between producers and municipalities should not be changed, but cooperation between them should be further developed, [with] municipal responsibility for information and planning” (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, p.7). Furthermore, to assure improvement at municipal and local levels, the SEPA inaugurated the Waste Council to devise guidelines toward effective collection systems. The Waste Council conducted various surveys and interviews with municipalities, industry, and citizens, and published its first guidelines in 2006. These guidelines recommended ensuring participation of all stakeholders, including producers, municipalities, and condominium management unions, and the use of transparent processes for selecting and improving collection points, taking into account user convenience (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). Local municipalities share these perspectives; for example, a waste management plan from 2011 to 2015 in VA Syd, the company € , identified the with jurisdiction over waste management in Malmo three top priorities as 1) making it easy to choose sustainable consumption, 2) achieving environmental benefits, and 3) making it easy to do the right thing. Landlords are expected to “make it easy for their residents to sort their waste, both in their homes and in the waste sorting system in the building” (VA Syd, 2010, p.5). VA Syd also conducts regular surveys on users’ opinions of collection points. Importance is also placed on communication: “information should be adapted to the target groups. It should be explicit and conveyed through different media, meeting our users in their own environment”; “the information should impart knowledge, change attitudes and behavior and show good examples” (VA Syd, 2010, p.6). Additionally, consumers/inhabitants are not regarded as actors culpable for poor sorting or recycling. In this regard, we should remember that local waste companies in Sweden have been financially independent of government from the beginning, and are paid by consumers in return for collection services. Therefore, consumers/residents are often called “customers.” The more “customers” sort at the source, the better waste management by the company, meaning the companies have incentives to provide easyto-understand information and user-friendly, convenient services (Larsson, personal communication, September 1, 2010; Takahashi, 2014, 2016). Accordingly, VA Syd provides displays on how to put store waste-sorting boxes under the kitchen sink at their customer service office and online, in multiple languages. The Eco-city Augustenborg project implemented by the City of

€ and Malmo € Kommunala Bostadsbolag housing company is Malmo another useful example. The Augustenborg district has old public housings largely inhabited by immigrants and unemployed people. This area was transformed into a popular eco-town by engaging residents in decision-making and implementation. One of the most remarkable results was that recycling rates increased to 70%. This was achieved by providing information and improving facilities and services to make sorting and discharging easy (Lundberg, personal communication, September 1, 2010). Lund also embraces user-friendliness and convenience; to “make it easier for small households,” Lund has developed “a system to aid the recycling in the convenience of residents’ own homes. The system uses two bins that are divided into four compartments, where every compartment is for a designated waste material. This allows for the collection of eight different fractions. Emptying is done with four-compartment vehicles that empty all four fractions in the bin in one single cycle. Furthermore, the city of Lund claims that, by improving curbside collection systems, it achieves multiple environmental objectives including fewer pollutants in the air, climate change mitigation by using biogas power made from food waste, and a circular economy through higher material recycling rate” (Lund Renhållningsverk, 2015, p.2). 4.1.2. Japan Similar descriptions of user-friendliness to those in Sweden cannot be found in Japanese documents at national or local government level, due to the countries’ very different approaches to waste administration. As mentioned, since the 1970s, when full-scale waste administration started in Sweden, its financial management was based on toll collection, without relying on taxes. Meanwhile, in Japan, all waste administration expenses have been covered by taxes. It was based on the underlying idea of a national minimum rooted in Article 25 of the Constitution (Kurasaka, 2003; Miki, 2001; Ueda, 1977; Wada, 2004): that local and prefectural government should provide free or at low cost the goods and services necessary for a minimally healthy and culturally rich life. Emphasized in Japan has been full-burn incineration. The postwar period's open-dump method caused severe social problems, such as stench, vermin, and contagious disease epidemics (Kobayashi, 2006; Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of Public Tokyo Metropolitan GovernmentBureau of Public Cleaning, 2000). Decreasing the amount of waste by incineration and reclaiming incineration ash thus became the standard approach. The end-of-pipe method, which imposes thorough environmental regulation from waste generation to final disposal, became the basis of waste policy (Takahashi et al., 2010). As incineration technology development made significant progress, exceeding 80% in 1977 (Ministry of Environment, 2013; Takahashi, 2018b), waste disposal costs bloated to more than 2 trillion yen (about 170 million US dollars) in 1992 (see Fig. 3; Takahashi, 2018c)). leading to an amendment of the Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Act 1991 to legally define not only “disposal of waste” but also “suppression of waste emission” and “recycling of waste.” To improve waste reduction systems, related councils and treatment plans were established in municipalities. To minimize waste disposal costs, fees were allowed for bulky waste and trade refuse (only). From 1992 onwards, recycling plazas and centers were developed nationwide, with systems for collection of waste sorted by residents' groups and others, and projects for promoting recycling were implemented and subsidized, including in companies. With the Resource Recycling Law in 1992, and with the PET bottle industry as a leader, all industries started to jump into recycling. However, while the recycling rate of industrial waste was 39% as of 1993, that of household waste was only 8%. The Containers and

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

7

Fig. 3. Change in public municipal waste treatment expenses (unit: 100 million Japanese yen). Source: Made by the author based on data presented at Ministry of Welfare (1972e2000) and Ministry of Environment (2001e2017), Japan; Takahashi (2018a,b,c) * Data between 1979 and 1988 were not disclosed. * Conversion rates from Japanese yen to US dollar depend on the IMF's official annual change rate.

Packaging Recycling Law, established in 1995, promoted recycling of household waste, including PET bottles, glass bottles, and paper containers, and applied EPR (as of 1997) for the first time in Japan. However, unlike Sweden, producer responsibility was limited only to the recycling part (Yamakawa and Ueta, 2006; Otsuka, 1998). Municipalities were responsible for collecting sorted recyclables separately from municipal waste, and citizens bore responsibility for separating waste (the so-called shared responsibility theory). Informational campaigns were created to educate citizens in how to separate containers and packages and dispose of them. Thus, overall, in Japan, citizens have shared responsibility as subjects that should fulfill their obligations. There is no discourse which emphasizes user-friendliness for residents and/ or improvement of the system itself. Concerning curbside collection, concrete “guidance” was left to each municipality. For example, in Niigata city, curbside collection installation outlines set a goal of “striv [ing] to maintain cleanliness at all times by preventing scattering, cleaning, and so on.” Installers were required to “[p]lace on a location that does not hinder Road Traffic Act,” and reminded that “[w]aste can be stored sufficiently according to the type of waste, the amount of waste, and the number of storage days”; they were asked to “[p]rovide water supply/drainage, ventilation, lighting equipment, etc. as necessary, and [store waste] hygienically”; to “prevent the scattering of waste and outflow of odors, set fence and door and so on”; and “[p]revent mice from living, and mosquito, fly, and other pest outbreak” (Niigata city, 1995, 1e2). Conflicts and compromises occurred between related ministries and agencies related to the Containers and Packaging Recycling Law system that limits producer responsibility. The Environment Agency, sensitive to evolving international norms, comprehensively examined economic methods to promote recycling, including deposit systems, etc. However, in the policy decision process, this original plan was dropped, and the final law greatly limited producer responsibility based on agreement among the several involved ministries. That is, consumers have a responsibility of sorting, municipalities have a physical and financial responsibility

of collection, and producers have a responsibility of recycling. This aroused criticism from many experts and civic groups. As Yorimoto (1998) said: [The d]ecreasing trend in returnable containers is not stopped yet, the burden of [sorted collection in municipalities] rises greatly, the burden on businesses is relatively light, it cannot be said that restraining the use of containers and packaging and switching to recycling type packaging are beginning to proceed as expected. As Otsuka pointed out, “The viewpoint of restraining generating containers and packaging waste is not adequately taken into consideration and [we are] still not getting out of the idea of how to treat waste. In addition, this law is not regulating enough of recycling” (Otsuka, 2006, p. 13). At the Japan Association of City Mayors meeting, in addition to issues such as difficulty of separation and ambiguity of the rules, the heavy financial burden on local governments, and the fact that there was little effect of suppressing occurrence was taken as a serious problem. For that reason, the Japan Association of City Mayors requested an amendment to the law to “appropriately review the cost burden and segregation of duties among the municipality and businesses such as obliging manufacturing companies to collect, from the ‘expanding producer responsibility’ viewpoint” and “as part of measures to curb the generation of containers and packaging waste and to prevent illegal dumping, [to] promote expansion of returnable containers and introduce a deposit system.” Based on these problems, the Containers and Packaging Recycling Law added emission control to the legal purview over the issue in 2007. In 2008, a funding scheme for municipalities collecting waste was also created. Nonetheless, producer responsibility for sorted collection, both physically and financial, remains very limited (Kurita, 2009). Tasaki points out that such shared liability brings partial optimization, but the function of the system as a whole is rather hindered (Tasaki, 2014). In addition to EPR, in recent years a waste charge system known as pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) has been gradually expanding (Sakai et al. 2008), up to 57.3% municipalities throughout Japan in 2018

8

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

(Yamaya, 2018). This program can be traced back to the revision of basic policy with the Waste Disposal Act in 2005. The revised Article 5-2, Paragraph 1, required municipalities to make use of economic incentives to introduce household waste charge and promote recycling, fair sharing of burden according to amount of emissions, and public awareness. Waste charges are of course a policy tools embodying economic rationalism; however, the charge is quite low, making it superficially like but ultimately quite different from the policy in Sweden. 4.2. Implementation, structure, and process of curbside collection The previous section has shown that many policy instruments such as deposit system, waste fee and full implementation of EPR were applied in Sweden. This indicates that economic rationalism is widely accepted in Sweden. On the other hand, waste fee, full operation of EPR and introduction of deposit systems declined in Japan. The background of this was heavy dependence on waste administration expenses covered by tax. This indicates that administrative rationalism rather than economic rationalism has been dominant in Japan. This section considers the actual state of local curbside collection subsequently to policy developments described above, rooted in different discourses. 4.2.1. Sweden Table 3 shows curbside collection in condominium. Among the four types, 1) environmental houses and 4) underground collection systems are increasing in recent years. The former are preferred for their structural aesthetic harmony with nature and surroundings buildings. Buildings are often locked, and residents go in and out with keys. Waste is thrown into a container of about 2e4 m2 in the basement part. Negatives of 3) uncovered collection points were said by my informants to include bad sorting manners of residents and clutter, leading condominium complexes to move to 1) or 4), especially in Lund. According to the environmental communicator informant, an environmental house is suitable when residents' “consciousness level is high,” but underground collection is more suitable otherwise, because environmental houses are usually hard to monitor, often increasing cases of putting waste on the floor outside the cart, whereas underground collection is exposed to the public's eyes and therefore harder to abandon items at (Holm, personal communication, September 5, 2016). From the resident questionnaire survey, it was confirmed that systemized collection approaches like environmental houses and underground collection have higher sorting rates than the exposed type; for example, the food waste sorting ratio was 80% for the former and 60% for the

latter (Takahashi et al., 2013) (see Table 4). How is the cost of installing and operating sorted collection systems covered? As mentioned, in Sweden, each household pays administrative expenses, including a waste fee, heating management fee, yard maintenance cost, and repair expenses and so as part of condominium strata fees, varying greatly but ranging from 1,500 to 6,000 kronor (about 150e640 US dollars) per month; according to the Waste Association, the waste disposal fee accounts for about 1260 kronor (about 133 US dollars) of this on average (for 2011). The condominium management union manages these expenses (Avfall Sverige, 2017). Selection of a curbside collection system for condominium called BRF (Swedish housing collective) is normally done democratically within the resident's union. Unions provide residents with a briefing, sometimes followed by consultation with related professionals, and then the vote. The BRF union also conducts contracts with waste collectors, manages related funds, and so on. Collection frequency changes depending on the item (ranging from biweekly to semiannually). In the case of Lund, UMS (underground collection) is becoming more dominant. This is because, even if the initial cost is high the operating fee will be lower. Meanwhile, some unions also select environmental houses from the viewpoints of aesthetics or ease of use. One clear difference from Japan is which items are sorted is decided by the BRF union or management association of other type of condominiums. Some BRF unions provide their residents with separate collection of not only containers and packaging but electronics, batteries, light bulbs, and others. The exception is food waste. In recent years, municipalities are increasingly introducing mandatory sorted collection of food waste (Lund Renhållningsverk, 2012; VA Syd, 2010). Normally, burnable waste has the highest unit price, while recyclable waste such as food waste and containers and packages are set at lower price. For this reason, almost all unions limit the proportion of waste that is combustible to less than 30% of the total. For example, in one standard BRF, allotment is as follows: two carts of burnable waste (740 L), three carts of food waste (260 L), two carts of plastic container packaging (740 L), two carts of paper container packaging (740 L), two carts of used paper (740 L), one cart of colored bottles (370 L), one cart of colorless bottles (370 L), one cart of metal (370 L), one cart of fluorescent lamp and light bulb cart, one cart of dry cell batteries. Collection frequency is once or twice a week for burnable waste, food waste, plastic containers, packaging, and so on, and once every 2e4 weeks for other waste, except fluorescent lights and the like that are only collected when the container became full and the management asks for

Table 3 Classification of curbside collection systems in condominium in Sweden. 1) environmental house

2) fence/roof type

3) uncovered cart type

4) UMS (underground collection)

There are many carts for different types of recyclable waste, including WEEE and “rest of waste.” Residents open the door with keys in most cases.

Carts for recyclable waste and “rest of waste” are located. In some cases, members of condominium management union make the fence/roof as DIY.

Carts have stated location or placed ad hoc by corridor or by next to buildings the road side.

The collection points are usually installed along public rights-of-way. The capacity of the containers ranges. The collection and transportation of waste is carried out using specially adapted heavy trucks.

Source: Takahashi (2014); photos taken by the author.

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

9

Table 4 Curbside collection systems in detached housing in Sweden. €) 1) Mixed waste and food waste containers (Malmo

2) Multiple sorting carts: “Quattro system” (Helsingborg)

Only mixed waste containers (normally 190 L) and food waste containers are for € . Residents bring recyclable waste to recycling curbside collection use in Malmo stations, deposit machines, and/or recycling centers operated by municipal waste companies.

Two four-compartment sorting carts can separately collect food waste, paper containers, colored bottles, colorless bottles, metal, plastic, newspaper and used paper, and other waste. All four compartments empty into the bin in one single movement.

Source: Takahashi (2014); a picture from City of Helsingborg (2016); photos taken by the author.

collection. In detached houses, all municipalities provide door-to-door collection as a public service. A single cart is generally used for mixed waste, food waste, and garden waste (see Tables 4e1). Households using single carts cannot dispose in their neighborhood of waste producers are responsible for (under expanded producer responsibility), such as containers and packages, and have to bring the waste to the recycling collection place. Based on the criticism that such inconvenience is lowering the recycling rate, multiple sorting carts are increasing in the Skåne region in recent years (Tables 4e2). The multiple-compartment sorting carts were initially developed by joint consultation between the City of Lund; a plastic products manufacturer, the PWS company; and a truck bedding manufacturer, the NTM company. From its introduction in Lund in 2001, municipalities using the cart increased around the region, to 38 throughout Sweden in 2017. Carts are collected with a frequency ranging from once a week to once every 8 weeks. In Helsingborg, the sorting cart has two sizesd240 L and 370 Ldand there is also a separate garden waste cart. The collection fee is different depending on the size of the cart, collection frequency, and the distance from the installation site to the site boundary. For

€ v. Fig. 4. Sorting promotion effect of multiple sorting carts in Eslo € ransson, PWS Company. Source: made by the author based on a document provided by Go

example, when a household contracts two collection carts of 370 L at a collection frequency of 1e4 weeks, the annual contract fee is 176 kronor (about 16 US dollars). Some households leave the cart carelessly; others construct dedicated sites with their own DIY skill. The sorting promotion effect of multiple sorting carts should be noted. Fig. 4 shows change in recycling rate from before to after €v. Compared to before when two introducing the carts in Eslo single-compartment carts for combustible waste and food waste were used (2010), introduction of multiple sorting carts (2012) led “other waste” to decrease 12%, while recyclables, including bottles, paper containers, metals, plastic containers, and newspaper, increased from 28% to 44%. In more detail, burnable waste decreased by 21%, bottles waste increased 51%, paper containers were þ85%, metals þ113%, plastic container packaging þ135%, and used paper þ60%. The recycling sorting rate improved by 12% from €ransson, P. Personal Communication, September 10, 55% to 67% (Go 2015, August 25, 2017; Håkansson, D. Personal Communication2017; Pasic, A. Personal Communication, 2015). Note that with curbside collection, whether in collective or detached housing, regardless of collection time, consumers can

10

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

dispose of waste at any time. In addition, in the case of condominium, dedicated personnel conduct maintenance (Takahashi, 2013). As the above shows, highly user-friendly design is spreading and improves sorting rate, along with economic incentives.

4.2.2. Japan Table 5 shows curbside collection systems in Japan. For detached houses, we can categorize curbside collection into four types: 1) ad hoc placement, uncovered waste bags, 2) ad hoc placement, covered by foldable net, 3) ad hoc placement, collapsible net box, and 4) preset placement, uncovered/covered by foldable net. As for condominium use, there are three types; 5) metallic net box, 6) hut type, and 7) inside the building. In either case, residents bring waste at a fixed time and day. In Japan, since household waste collection is financed through taxes, collection times are broadly uniform: Monday and Thursday, burnable waste; Tuesday, recyclable waste; Wednesday, nonburnable waste, and so on. Some municipalities set a more detailed schedule and put it on a calendar for residents (or in many cases, nowadays, a smartphone app). Educational campaigns to promote collection are also carried out at eco-events. New residents in a location get information kits with household trash sorting and disposal instructions; the guide is not simple, usually around 10 to 20 pages. Notable is that in the guide, “burnable trash” covers food waste, produce waste (stems, etc.), clothing, rubber, and leather products, and plastic products not labeled PET or EPR. Sorting recyclable waste requires a lot of time and effort at home in Japan (Takahashi, 2018b). For example, milk cartons are in most municipalities collected and recycled separately from other paper packages. Residents are required to wash and rinse milk cartons, dry and cut with scissors to open and flatten, and bundle several cartons up with a string. This also applies to PET bottles: residents are expected to tear off the label, which goes to plastic packaging waste. The bottlecaps are collected separately, and the ring of the

bottlecap, which is often troublesome to put off, also needs to be removed. Finally, residents are expected to crush the main body of the PET bottle after rinsing it thoroughly. In contrast to the high technology used in incinerators and landfills, curbside collection sites are characterized by low technology and low cost. Plastic waste bags are expected to be put out at designated residential collection spots. In some municipalities, use of simple equipment, such as foldable nets and net boxes, is increasing, sometimes subsidizeddthis is to deal with scavenging from crows at communal waste collection stations. Many studies have looked for counters to this scavenging problem (Kurosawa et al., 2003; Kurosawa, 2005). Sugita, known as “Professor Crow,” developed anti-crow devices utilizing his knowledge about the life and habits of crows and is frequently consulted by companies and government on anti-crow measures (Sugita, 2005). There is no waste fee in Japan like that in Sweden; however, municipalities are increasingly introducing charges for designated waste bags for burnable and non-burnable waste, provided by the Ministry of Environment to help offset very high waste disposal costs (see Fig. 4). Since producer responsibility started to be expanded in the 1990s, the cost burden associated with increased collection of municipalities invited municipalities’ “recycling poor” (Machida, 1970). Nevertheless, bag income is not always used for general waste administrative expenses. There is also a notion that it prevents duplication of tax. That is, because waste management is considered a “national minimum”, which is covered by tax, the government should not add any additional charges to be paid by citizens. For this reason, Niigata city, for example, uses the bag income on provision of recycling information to citizens and for ecoevents only. In Japan where residents' awareness and moral responsibility have been key to recycling efforts, responsibility for separating waste is placed on residents, and residents' associations manage it. In a detached residential area, residents can dispose of waste at curbside only by joining a neighborhood community association;

Table 5 Classification of curbside collection systems in Japan. For detached house use 1)Ad hoc placement, uncovered waste 2) Ad hoc placement, covered by foldable 3) Ad hoc placement, collapsible net 4) Preset placement, uncovered/covered by bags net box foldable net

For condominium use 5) Metallic net box

Source: Takahashi (2014); photos taken by the author.

6) Hut type

7) Inside the building

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

the waste duty (cleanup and management of curbside collection systems) comes around to each household in turn. In some cases, volunteers also stand at curbside and teach people how to separate their waste. In tight-knit local communities, residents’ associations and neighborhood associations (for detached housing) function well and high sorting rates are seen. In these areas, curbside collection is a kind of social arena and place to interact. However, local communities are aging and tight-knit communities are unraveling, and in the urban areas to which young people tend to relocate there are fewer such ties and related activity. In modern, large-scale urban collective houses, curbside collection using administrative monies occurs, but less reliably and systematically. As a result, burnable waste increases, as do people who do not comply with waste rules (Takahashi, 2018b). Some municipalities instruct people on how to identify waste dumpers from mail items and return collected waste to the dumper. Shiiya (2008) says that spatial conditions such as the form and arrangement of the curbside collection affect improper disposal and waste remaining after pickup (Shiiya, 2008), and Okamoto points out that this situation is lowering quality of life in residential areas (Okamoto, 2016). These previous studies suggest that the current operational reality of curbside collection in Japan is not sufficient for good waste separation. Thus, in Japan, systematization of curbside collection as in Sweden largely did not occur, and it a simple local collection place became the main method. Waste separation and management is not easy for families, but as consumers’ disposal responsibilities and moral aspects are emphasized, there is little discourse on improving curbside collection. 5. Conclusion In summary, Sweden emphasizes user-friendliness and economic incentives, while in Japan shared responsibility and citizens' education are emphasized. These totally different approaches can be well explained by the different discourses and different perceptions of influential actors. The perspective of economic rationalism has been overwhelming in Sweden, with adoption of economic policy instruments including waste fees, deposit systems, and EPR, covering not only recycling but also collection by producers, and with very little opposition or alternative approaches. In contrast, in Japan we see a strong tradition of administrative rationalism and lack of economic rationalism. From the beginning, Japan did not introduce waste fees, deposits, or a principle of responsibility of producers, but used general taxes to establish a waste governance system resting on consumers’ responsibility. Of course, some policy tools involve economic incentives, such as expansion of EPR and the waste charge system; however, they are quite different from the analogous arrangements in Sweden. These differences are clearly reflected in curbside collection systems in the two countries. In Sweden, the norm that family sorting has to be easy is shared nationally, regionally, and locally. Thus, systematic improvement of curbside collection systems has relatively strong impetus, and leads in turn to significant improvement of sorting rate. The principle of producer responsibility, including collecting responsibility, and the fact that municipal waste management is an independent source of funds for municipalities also help. Residents are “customers,” and public waste corporations have incentives to provide information that is easy and convenient for them to use, because increased recycling rate means more profitability. Further, citizens who are “customers” are also more economical as they sort their waste. In Japan, none of these discourses is present, systemization of curbside collection is low, simple collection places are still mainstream, and sorting and management are complex and not easy for families.

11

Against this background, limited shared liability between country, municipality, and producer has been introduced, and there are circumstances in which consumers' moral disposal responsibility is emphasized. The administration, like in Sweden, is responsible for information provision, but its purpose is mainly to encourage residents’ awareness and moral responsibility. As we can see, “administrative rationalism” is strong in Japan, “economic rationalism” is strong in Sweden, and this paradigm difference helps create the gap between the two countries' policies and implementation on curbside collection. This study's findings suggest that there is a potential that the gap in environmental discourse between the two countries will explain not only aspects of curbside collection but also of other kinds of collection, and other aspects of the circular economy. Further studies are needed to test this assumption. Acknowledgement This work was financed by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant number 26301014). References Andersson, C., Stage, J., 2018. Direct and indirect effects of waste management policies on household waste behaviour: the case of Sweden. Waste Manag. 76, 19e27. Asano, Y., 2013. In: A Comparative Study of Environmental Education in Preschool a Municipalities Aiming to Be Sustainable Societies in Sweden and Japan, vol. 14. Kiyo of Graduate School of Human Life Science,Japan Women's University, pp. 9e20. Avfall Sverige, 2017. Swedish Waste Management 2017. Brunklaus, B., Rex, E., Carlsson, E., Berlin, J., 2018. The future of Swedish food waste: an environmental assessment of existing and prospective valorization techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 1e10. Cassel, A., Ensegård, H., et al., 2011. Study of recycling habits in Lund municipality. MVEN05 VT 2011, environment law in practice, module teacher. In: Naoko Tojo. IIIEE. Lund University. City of Helsingborg, 2016. Avfallsplan: Helsingborgs 2020. City of Helsingborg (Helsingborg). Corvellec, H., Bramryd, T., Hultman, J., 2012. The business model of solid waste management in Swedenea case study of two municipally-owned companies. Waste Manag. Res. 30, 512e518. n, L., Lagerkvist, A., 2010. Evaluation of recycling programmes in household Dahle waste collection systems. Waste Manag. Res. 28 (7), 577e586. De Bruijn, H.A., Hufen, H.A., 1998. The traditional approach to policy instruments. In: Peters, B.G., van Nispen, F.K.M. (Eds.), Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 11e32. Díaz-Siefer, P., Neaman, A., Salgado, E., Celis-Diez, J.L., Otto, S., 2015. Human-environment system knowledge: a correlate of pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability 7, 15510e15526. Dryzek, J.S., 2005. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ek, C., Miliute-Plepiene, J., 2018. Behavioral spillovers from food-waste collection in Swedish municipalities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 89, 168e186. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012. Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Acclerated Transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes. Fujii, S., 2018. The Work of Waste Collection: the Local Autonomy I Thought about on a Waste Collection Truck. Commons, Tokyo in Japanese). Fujinami, H., 1997. By public information, enlightenment activity uplift of the inhabitants awareness. Public Welf. 52 (7), 26e28 in Japanese). Gaidajis, G., Angelakoglou, K., Aktsoglou, D., 2010. E-waste: environmental problems and current management. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 3 (1), 193e199. Hirose, Y., 1985. Determinants of environment-conscious behavior. Res. Soc. Psychol. 10 (1), 44e55 in Japanese). Hungerford, H., Volk, T., 1990. Changing learner behavior thorugh environmental education. J. Environ. Educ. 21, 8e21. Ichikawa, S., 1997. A system for relationship with a school and its local community in the field of environmental education: environment counselor project of the Environment Agency, Japanese Government. In: Japan Science Educational Academic Society Annual Meeting Proceedings. Japan Science Educational Academic Society, Tokyo, pp. 441e442 in Japanese). International Resource Panel (Ed.), 2016. Resource Efficiency: Potential and Economic Implications: Summary for Policy-Makers. www.unep.org/ resourcepanel. (Accessed 9 July 2019). Kaffine, D., O'Reilly, P., 2013. What Have We Learned about Extended Producer Responsibility in the Past Decade? A Survey of the Recent EPR Economic Literature. OECD, Paris. Kaiser, F.G., Fuhrer, U., 2003. Ecological behavior's dependency on different forms of

12

W. Takahashi / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 118288

knowledge. Appl. Psychol. 52 (4), 598e613. Katsutani, T., 1992. Special issues: the present status and trends of waste-related laws. Law for the promotion of utilization of recycled resources. Waste Manag. Res. 3 (2), 104e107 in Japanese). Kobayashi, Y., 2006. From waste disposal law to sound-material recycling society fundamental law: history and overlook for future. J. Jpn. Waste Manag. Assoc. 59 (272), 315e322 in Japanese). Kurasaka, H., 2003. On designer responsibility principle: the cost sharing principle for environmental problems caused by artificial materials. Econ. J. Chiba Univ. 18 (3), 69e108 in Japanese). Kurishima, H., 2002. Domestic waste collection service and regional characteristics of municipalities in the Nagoya region. Geogr. Rev. Jpn. 75 (2), 69e87 in Japanese). Kurita, I., 2009. The new cost-sharing system under the containers and packaging recycling law. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 2 (2), 35e47 in Japanese). Kurosawa, R., 2005. A case of the coexistence of humans and crows: a town with decrease of waste dispersion (Chofu-shi, Tokyo). STRIX 23, 125e129 in Japanese). Kurosawa, R., Kanai, Y., Matsuda, M., Okuyama, O., 2003. Conflict between humans and crows in Greater Tokyo: garbage management as a possible solution. Glob. Environ. Res. 7 (2), 139e147. Lindhqvist, T., 2000. Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems. IIIEE, Lund. Lund Renhållningsverk, 2012. Avfallsplan (Waste Plan). Lunds kommun. Lund Renhållningsverk, 2015. The Lund Recycling System. Lund. Retrieved. https:// carbonn.org/uploads/tx_carbonndata/LundRecyclingSystem.pdf. (Accessed 9 July 2019). o  Acad. Machida, M., 1970. Paradox of separate collection and recycling. Mem. Chu Res. Inst. 42, 137e157 in Japanese). Matsui, Y., Ohsako, M., Tanaka, M., 2001. A Study for Structural Modelling on Recycling Behavior (692). Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu, Tokyo, pp. 73e81. in Japanese). Miki, J., 2001. The extent of the public/private sector involvement in garbage disposal. Rev. Econ. Bus. Manag. 29, 29e39 in Japanese). Miliute-Plepiene, J., Plepys, A., 2015. Does food sorting prevents and improves sorting of household waste? A case in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 101, 182e192. Ministry of Environment, Japan, 2013. Waste Treatment and Recycling Technology in Japan: towards Sustainable Society. MoE, Tokyo in Japanese). Ministry of Environment, Minister’s Secretariat, Waste Management and Recycling Department Policy Planning Division, 2014. History and Current State of Waste Management in Japan. MoE, Tokyo. Ministry of Environment, Japan, 2018. Situation of Household Waste Emission and Treatment in 2016. MoE, Tokyo in Japanese). Niigata city, 1995. Niigata City Waste Collection Site Guidelines (Niigata city). OECD, 2001. Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments. OECD, Paris. Okamoto, K., 2016. Actual conditions of garbage collection sites and evaluation by users in detached house area: basic study to realize the beautiful and comfortable detached house area. J. Archit. Plan. Environ. Eng. 81 (722), 1019e1028 in Japanese). Onuma, S., Hirose, Y., Sugiura, J., 2002. How did the citizen perceive a troublesome classification system? System evaluation by the Nagoya citizens. J. Jpn. Soc. Waste Manag. Expert. 13, 81e83 in Japanese). Otsuka, T., 1998. Moot points of the new recycling law and a propasal for a framework comprehensive law pertaining to waste management and recycling in Japan. Waste Manag. Res. 9 (6), 413e423 in Japanese). Otsuka, T., 2006. The evaluation of the container and packaging recycling law and future tasks. Waste Manag. Res. 17 (4), 166e173 in Japanese). Otto, S., Kibbe, A., Henn, L., Hentschke, L., Kaiser, F.G., 2018. The economy of e-waste collection at the individual level: a practice oriented approach of categorizing determinants of e-waste collection into behavioral costs and motivation. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 33e40. Ouellette, J.A., Wood, W., 1998. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychol. Bull. 124, 54e74. Reinius, K., 2012. School education on the environment and green tourism in Swedish style. J. Dev. Sci. Res. Miyagi Gakuin Women Univ. 12, 93e96 in Japanese). n, L., 2015. Quantitative assessment of disRousta, K., Bolton, K., Lundin, M., Dahle tance to collection point and improved sorting information on source separation of household waste. Waste Manag. 40, 22e30. ~ ez, I., Bolton, K., Dahle n, L., 2017. Support for designing waste Rousta, K., Ordon sorting systems: a mini review. Waste Manag. Res. 35 (11), 1099e1111. Sakai, S., Ikematsu, T., Hirai, Y., Yoshida, H., 2008. Unit-charging programs for municipal solid waste in Japan. Waste Manag. 28 (12), 2815e2825. SCB, 2015. Population and Land Area within and outside of Localities by Region, Type of Area, Observations Every Fifth Year. Retrieved. http://www. statistikdatabasen.scb.se/sq/73189. (Accessed 9 July 2019). Schreurs, M.A., 2002. Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Shiiya, A., 2008. A case study of circumstances of garbage collection sites' form, location and condition of residual garbage. Pap. Environ. Inf. Sci. 22, 275e280 in Japanese). Shimizu, M., 2001. A study of environmental education through school and community systems in Sweden: with a focus on outdoor education. J. Dep. Educ. Stud. Hiroshima Univ. 2 (50), 33e40 in Japanese). Statistic Bureau of Japan, 2015. 2015 Population Census. Population and household of Japan. Sugita, S., 2005. Urban life learning from crows. In: Utsunomiya University Environment Guide Editorial Commiitte ed., Looking into World from Tochigi, 15e17. Shimoduke Newspaper Company in Japanese). Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. A Strategy for Sustainable Waste Management. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm. €r Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Framtida Producentransvar Fo €rpackningar Och Tidningar. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Fo Stockholm. €v Syd, V.A., 2010. Waste Management Plan 2011e2015 for the Municipality of Burlo €. VA Syd, Burlo €v and Malmo €. and the City of Malmo Tabata, T., Tsai, P., 2015. Heat and electricity supply from municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration plants in Japan: the current situation and issues for the future. Proc. Jpn. Inst. Energy 24, 252e253 in Japanese). Takahashi, W., 2011. Food waste separate collection/recycling systems in Swedish urban area. J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 31, 117e128 in Japanese). Takahashi, W., 2013. Transformation of household waste separation and collection in Sweden: how has convenience been taken into account? J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 35, 57e72 in Japanese). Takahashi, W., 2014. Household recyclable waste sorting and collection system: policy development and implimentation in Sweden. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 8 (1), 99e103 in Japanese). Takahashi, W., 2016. An actor analysis of the rapid rise of well-equipped curbside recycling systems in Sweden. J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 41, 51e64 in Japanese). Takahashi, W., 2017. The Comparative Politics of Transboundary Air Pollution: Europe. Chikura Shobo, North America and East Asia. Tokyo in Japanese). Takahashi, W., 2018a. Governance issues in policy integration for waste energy use: a comparison of case studies of Jaapn and Sweden. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 11 (2), 39e44 in Japanese). Takahashi, W., 2018b. Decrease of housewife citizen and the user-friendly household waste classification and collection system: a comparison of Japan and Sweden. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 11 (1), 50e55 in Japanese). Takahashi, W., 2018c. Toward a sound material-cycle society History of Japanese policy and its interaction with international norms. In: Routledge Handbook of Japanese Foreign Policy. Routledge, London, pp. 119e135. Takahashi, W., Yagishita, M., Suzuki, K., Yokota, I., 2010. Development trajectories of waste and resource management policies : a comparative analysis of Japan and Korea. J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 29, 49e60 in Japanese). Takahashi, W., Itoh, S., Tojo, N., 2013. Waste sorting/disposal habits in Swedish households: relations with facilities, gender and knowledge of waste treatment. J. Fac. Int. Stud. Utsunomiya Univ. 36, 1e16 in Japanese). Takami, S., 2009. Environmental education of Sweden as a environmentally advanced country. Toshi Seiso 62 (288), 119e124. Tanaka, S., 1995. The conditions of the recycle social system: on the general waste in big cities. Econ. Manag. 26 (2), 185e224 in Japanese). Tasaki, T., 2014. A harmful influence of shared responsibility in recycling system and significance of the goal seting. Environ. Econ. Policy Res. 8 (1), 78e81 in Japanese). Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Bureau of Public Cleaning, 2000. 100-Year History of the Public Cleaning Enterprise of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Tokyo in Japanese). Ueda, M., 1977. A research study about regional development and welfare in Osaka Metropolitan Area: problems of welfare in the Large City. Compr. Res. Inst. Bull. 3 (1), 1e10 in Japanese). Wada, N., 2004. A study for dumping charge system. Stud. Commun. Dev. 31e42 in Japanese). Wendling, Z.A., Emerson, J.W., Esty, D.C., Levy, M.A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara, V., Esty, D.C., Jaiteh, M., 2018. 2018 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven. Werner, S., 2017. District heating and cooling in Sweden. Energy 126, 419e429. Yamakawa, H., Ueta, K., 2006. Reassessment of the containers and packaging recycling law issues concerning the revision of the containers and packaging recycling law and extended producer responsibility. Waste Manag. Res. 17 (4), 174e181 in Japanese). Yamaya, S., 2018. Current Status of Implementation of Charged Waste System of Municipalities in Japan. http://www2.toyo.ac.jp/~yamaya/survey.html. (Accessed 9 July 2019). Yorifuji, K., Hirose, Y., Sugiura, J., Ohnuma, S., Hagiwara, Y., 2005. Effects of prior voluntary recycling on social acceptance of mandatory resource separation system. J. Jpn. Soc.Waste Manag. Expert. 16 (1), 55e64 in Japanese). Yorimoto, K., 1998. Policy Making and Citizens: Enactment Process of Containers and Packaging Recycling Law. Yuhikaku (in Japanese).