Increasing participation in rational municipal waste management—a case study analysis in Jaslo City (Poland)

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88 www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Increasing participation in rational municipal waste management* a case study analysis in Jaslo City (Poland) /

Malgorzata Grodzin´ska-Jurczak a,*, Marta Tarabula a, Adam D. Read b a b

Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa, 3, 30-387 Krakow, Poland International Waste Management Team, Environmental Resources Management, Eaton House, Wallbrook Court, North Hinksey Lane, Oxford OX2 0QS, UK Received 20 July 2002; received in revised form 3 September 2002; accepted 3 September 2002

Abstract In the City of Jaslo (Poland), a separate household waste collection system was introduced in 1993. Although the system was extensively promoted, quality and quantity of recyclables remained low. The City Council looked at alternative ways of increasing residents’ participation in the City’s integrated waste management services. The UK approach to public education (‘the Recycling Roadshow’ programme) has been modified and adopted by the City. The programme is based on visiting as many households as possible by home advisorsindividuals selected from the local secondary schools and carefully trained in MSW management and communication principles. Home advisors inform residents about the local waste recycling system, conduct a short survey and provide people with specific educational materials. To date, advisors have visited 14% of the City’s households including the tenement block estates. The survey results show that nearly 75% of respondents actively recycled at least one type of scrap material, whilst of those that did not, 50% claimed they would. The educational campaign produced not only an increase in recycled tonnage, but also in material types and recycling rates from both the tenement block estates and the private housing areas of the City. The impact varied for the different materials in the domestic waste stream, with the greatest improvement in paper recycling, and a significantly lower impact for glass. The City Council was so pleased with the campaign results that it has decided to extend the programme and the funding for another year. This paper discusses in detail the programme and the results

* Corresponding author. Tel.: /48-12-269-0980x161; fax: /48-12-269-0927 E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak). 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 2 4 - 6

68

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

achieved. Recommendation are made regarding those features of the campaign that need to be included in other local MSW management campaigns and programmes across Poland in order to maximise their effectiveness. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Poland; MSW management; Home advisors; Public participation; Promotional and educational campaigns

1. Introduction Perhaps the worst legacy of the 45 years of state socialism experienced in Poland has been the environmental degradation that was associated with the industrial development that was prevalent during the second half of the 20th Century. Probably, only in the old Soviet Union was the environmental degradation worse (Nowicki, 1993). The heart of the problem has been the unbalanced structure of the Polish economy, which followed the Soviet plan post WWII for rapid expansion of its energy and heavy industries (coal mining, electricity production, steel, concrete and ship building). All these industries contributed to the rising level of soil and atmospheric pollution, which was becoming evident. However, the institutional structures of state socialism made matters worse, with an inefficient Polish economy which required that the older and more polluting plants were kept running for longer than was environmentally acceptable. It was not until the political revolution in the 1980s, that the environmental problems of the country began to be recognised and addressed. Waste management is viewed in Poland as one of the most crucial environmental policy issues of the current decade. As a country, Poland is one of Europe’s largest sources of industrial waste both in absolute terms and as a function of GDP. Only about 2% of all industrial wastes are currently being neutralised (or managed). Percapita generation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is still below the OECD average but the current transition period, which this country has been recently experiencing, has already affected a significant increase in MSW production. Since 1975, the amount of MSW has almost doubled, and during the period 1985 /1998 there was an 8% per annum growth rate, resulting in the 12.3 million tonnes which are produced annually (Glo´wny, 1999). In general, the national MSW management situation parallels, to a high degree, with the situation in many OECD countries in the 1980s. In 1998, 12.3 million tonnes of MSW were generated in Poland (Chomicka, 1998), equivalent to 0.29 tonnes per household per annum. This level of per-capita waste generation is comparable with Greece and Slovenia (0.3 tonnes), but lower than the average figure for OECD countries of some 0.5 tonnes per person per annum. The composition of MSW in Poland is shown in Table 1. There has been a recent noted trend of increasing plastic content in the waste stream, due on the most part to western influence in the ‘new’ Poland with increasing numbers of fast food restaurants, chain supermarkets and pre-packaged meals. On average, MSW

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

69

Table 1 Municipal waste composition and production in Poland (Indra, 1999)

Organics Fines and mixed organics Paper Glass Plastics Metal Others

Tonnes (million)

Percentage (%)

3.3 2.6 2.3 1.0 0.5 0.5 2.1

32 21 19 8 4 3 13

contains 30/50% organic material by weight, is low in paper and relatively rich in plastic (up to 10%). Municipal waste is not being managed efficiently in Poland. Only a small proportion of the MSW stream (2%) is recycled or used as an energy resource, whereas the rest is discharged directly to landfill (European Environment Agency, 1999; Indra, 1999; McGarity and Wo´jcik, 2001; Grodzin´ska-Jurczak, 2000). Clearly there is a lot to be achieved and a long way to go towards the ultimate aim of sustainable waste management. In order to make national waste management more effective, several aspects need to be improved. According to leading commentators (Jurasz, 1998; Ambrozewicz, 1999), efforts should focus on: 1) 2) 3) 4)

operational issues (introducing alternative ways of waste disposal); legislation (making waste management policies compatible with the EU); financial issues (increasing funding of waste management projects); and publicity and educational aspects of waste management schemes (promoting principles of sustainable waste management among the public).

The public’s education and subsequent acceptance are essential elements of the success of any waste management programme (Evison and Read, 2001). Waste management initiatives, especially waste treatment techniques, which ignore social aspects, are fated to fail. A number of Polish municipalities (e.g. Krako´w, Os´wie˛cim, ˙ ywiec, Raciechowice, Slubice, and Jaslo) have recently introduced Mikolo´w, Z recycling initiatives, the majority of them however are focused on technical and economic issues apart from some emphasis on social interaction and in particular communicating recycling to the public (Nowicki, 1993). The new Waste Act (Ustawa o Odpadach-Waste Management Strategy, April 27th 2001) imposes on local authorities an obligation to prepare waste management plans and establish a system of waste segregation. In contrast to EU countries, the Polish Waste Act does not introduce any obligation on local authorities to conduct information campaigns about segregation and recycling (Pauli-Wilga, 1996; Matusik

70

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

et al., 1998; Ustawa, 2001). This clearly needs to become an essential component of sustainable and successful waste management in Poland, because without appropriate information and awareness raising new plans will fail to be implemented and new systems not effectively utilised (Read, 1999). This paper uses a case study approach to illustrate how an effective promotional and educational campaign conducted in the City of Jaslo (Poland) resulted in a significant increase in segregated recycling tonnage and in raising public participation in the waste services in the City.

2. Waste management in the city of Jaslo, Poland One of the Polish cities leading the development of integrated waste management planning and promotional campaigns is Jaslo. This relatively small (39 500 inhabitants) City is located in south-eastern part of the country, 50 km from the Polish-Slovak border, in the Wisloka, Ropa and Jasiolka rivers’ valley (Milewska, 1994; Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Map of Poland and the City of Jaslo (Grodzin´ska-Jurczak and Read, 2000).

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

71

Municipal waste management in the City is relatively well developed. Despite the fact that land filling is still the major disposal route for all categories of municipal waste the local landfill site has been operating effectively, being modernised when appropriate. Data from the year 2000 shows that 13 000 tonnes of waste was disposed of at the landfill site in Jaslo. The City does not have any waste composition data, other than for the recycled materials segregated for reprocessing, but intend to correct this in the near future as they continue to improve their waste data and planning. The City’s new Waste Management Strategy (2000) has resulted in the establishment of a new modern landfill site on the outskirts of the City, financed jointly with a neighbouring borough (an agreement with the Municipality of Gorlice was signed in September 2000) and with assistance from national and international financial sources. A location for the new landfill has been already defined and an agreement with the Municipality of Gorlice, on further collaboration was signed in September 2000. Jaslo, as a progressive environmental municipality, has responded to the problems of MSW management by developing their own initiatives. In 1993, the City Council assessed regulations on cleanliness maintenance and established a separate waste collection system in the City Jaslo (Jaslo 2000, 2000). A local monthly charge for waste removal ($0.65 USD) was implemented under the provision of a municipal referendum in 1995, and a reduction of 10% was introduced for inhabitants who segregated their recyclables (Urza˛d Miasta, 1999; Jaslo City, 2001). The preliminary waste recycling scheme focused on tenement block estates (where 60% of the City’s population live) using a series of bins for a range of separate materials (paper, glass, and plastic) and a bin for general waste, placed in front of the blocks. Containers at the tenement blocks are emptied every second day (Grodzin´ska-Jurczak and Read, 2000). The people who segregate are encouraged to do so by paying a ‘reduced fee’ for their waste collection. Currently, there are 92 collection stations in operation, paralleled with a regular scrap paper collection. In September 2001, the recycling scheme was extended to all of the tenement block housing in the City. In contrast, to the tenement blocks, private houses (more suburban in location and at a lower housing density) are provided with a kerbside collection. Inhabitants deposit all their generated wastes in one plastic bag, and all of their recyclable materials in another, and place them in front of their house for collection. Once the bags have been collected they are sorted into their material streams for recycling (paper, glass, plastic and metal). Residential areas (private housing) are provided with regular collection services from private-owned companies (Przedsie˛biorstwo Zwia˛zkowe Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Uslugowe and Spo´lka z o.o. SOL-K-JAS) who operate as independent entities from the City Administration. A municipal waste company is also in charge of post-collection cleansing. Street sweeping is effective, so most City streets tend to be clean, swept daily, and residents pay a separate waste tax for these services. One company collects all the recyclables in the City and they are paid by the City council for collection and by the reprocessor for the materials they deliver (Jaslo 2000, 2000). The wastes (excluding plastic) collected through this system are sent to

72

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

the Waste Carrier Company, where they are re-sorted and transported to the depots of segregated materials. The number and type of collected materials (including metals) as well as the collection of wastes at source are planned to be extended during 2002/2003. Besides the implementation of new technologies for waste management, the City Council has extensively promoted household waste segregation amongst the public. Representatives of the Department of Environmental Protection and Agriculture at the City Council carefully designed information and promotion campaign materials based on a variety of traditional methods of communication (newsletters and brochures). These include the distribution of information leaflets to all residents, exhibitions of posters at the City notice boards, giving short speeches on the local radio and TV stations, and organising meetings with local residents. The first few years of integrated solid waste management planning in Jaslo City could be described as successful in some respects but limited in others. Although the City Council achieved numerous milestones for waste recycling, in materials utilisation, on legislation, and with promotional and educational programmes, the participation of residents in the recycling services remained low (as noted by the council’s recycling figures and site inspections). Moreover, the public’s attitudes and interest toward solid waste issues appeared to be limited and even apathetic in places. In the early stages of the systems development, the waste recycling bins at the tenement blocks were often packed with different materials from that for which they were designed and containers discharged their content onto the streets because they were not emptied frequently enough. This ultimately led to an increase in fly-tipping and street litter across the City Jaslo (Jaslo City, 2001). 2.1. The promotional programme Public behaviour was a major barrier to the successful implementation of sustainable waste management principles in the City. Until residents fully acknowledge the waste problem in their City (and their role in its creation), they do not feel responsible for the waste they produce or feel compelled to participate in any schemes being provided. The City Council of Jaslo realised the need to make the public more aware of the benefits of sustainable waste management (and recycling). They decided there was a need to design an innovative, reliable and appropriate campaign for long-term promotion within the City, and it is this campaign that is discussed in more detail in this paper. It is planned that other Polish municipalities will learn important lessons from the experiences of this programme (Jaslo 2000, 2000; Grodzin´ska-Jurczak and Read, 2000). The main goals of the programme are: 1) to increase segregated recycling tonnage and; 2) to raise public participation in the waste service in the Jaslo City through: a) raising peoples knowledge and awareness of waste generation; b) making residents think differently about the wastes they produce; c) increasing the level of personal ownership and responsibility for waste; and

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

d)

73

better understanding and recognition of the need for waste management facilities (including waste minimisation at source (within the household, and through smart shopping), and the segregation of waste material in households.

This programme utilises the UK approach to public education (Read, 1999), which was adopted by partners in Poland and developed to suit the local circumstances and conditions. The project was implemented in Jaslo City in September 1999 and was delivered through an exchange programme between Jaslo City Council, Jagiellonian University (Poland) and Kingston University (UK). The project is co-ordinated and financed by Jaslo City Council. City officials along with Jagiellonian University representatives, in co-operation with Environmental Resources Management (an UK consultancy company), who are acting as an advisor to the project and have helped to develop the general concepts, the materials used and the project schedule.

3. Methodology A number of different studies on the effectiveness of promotional campaigns for waste have suggested that ‘active methods’ of promotion including home visits and interactive surveys (Read, 2000) are significantly more effective than information delivered in a more traditional manner (including meetings with local groups, media campaigns, leaflet drops, newsletter, newspaper adverts etc.) in changing people’s behaviour (Hopper and Nielson, 1991). Only these types of waste management campaigns have proved successful in increasing recycling tonnage with residents being contacted and informed personally (at least in the initial stage of the programme) about the important role they play in ‘sustainable waste management’ (Larkin et al., 2000). A number of examples of successful programmes recently implemented in the United States, Canada and UK relied on door-to-door or home advisors’ techniques (Read, 2001). Besides a significant increase in average weekly recycling tonnage; researchers noticed considerable change in ‘one time public behaviours’ (e.g. introducing home composers, changing shopping habits to buy recycled goods, and participation in recycling) among the majority of residents (Read, 1999; Yusof et al., 2001). One of the highly successful campaigns used in the UK was the ‘Recycling Roadshow’, designed and implemented in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, London (UK). The initial campaign visited and communicated directly with 8% of all households in the local community, using two dedicated home advisors, which resulted in an increase of 24% in the average tonnage of recyclable material being collected by the targeted crews in the borough. The effectiveness of the campaign relied upon improved understanding and higher participation by the public in the recycling services (Read, 1998, 1999). It was decided by Jaslo City officials that a similar approach could prove worthwhile in the Polish context.

74

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

During the planning of the Jaslo communication campaign, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea facilitated a second round of the Recycling Roadshow. This time the activities were targeted on low performing areas, with over 8000 doorstep interviews being conducted in a 6-month period (25% of all service users in the borough). Again the campaign was a success with an average increase in recycling rates of 15% in each area visited, due to greater understanding and awareness by the residents. The feedback from the campaign has also proved useful to the Waste Management Department in Kensington, enabling them to restructure their services, providing more effective services for the public, and in helping answer complaints (Read, 2002). The information from this campaign was utilised by the Steering Committee for the Jaslo City Campaign. The use of home advisors as a communication technique is a simple one, based on visiting and talking to as many local residents as possible; to change their lifestyles and promote sustainable practice, whilst generating a more positive attitude towards waste management (recycling, re-use and reduction). Besides the ‘active method’ of promotion (home advisors) several more traditional approaches were included in this project: . meetings and talks on integrated waste management with the local public; . leaflets and newsletters were distributed widely promoting and explaining segregation and waste minimisation to the residents; . information packs on waste management were available from the City Council and were directed at students; . posters on local notice-boards; . media campaigns (on local radio stations and in the local press); and . school and kindergarten programmes on segregating wastes and its minimisation.

4. Results The Jaslo promotional and educational campaign started in September 1999. The first phase of the project (6 months) focused on the: . development of a detailed programme and time schedule; . presentation of the programme tasks to the City Council and representatives of the local municipalities; . selection and training of the home advisor team; and . development of the educational materials. 4.1. Initial phase of the programme On the basis of UK experience, and local factors, a panel of experts was formed to oversee the promotional campaign, including members of the Institute of Environmental Sciences (Jagiellonian University, Krako´w), the Department of Environ-

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

75

mental Protection and Agriculture (City Council of Jaslo), and the International Waste Management Team (Environmental Resources Management, UK). This group designed the working programme and developed the appropriate tasks for the communities of Jaslo. In September 1999, a series of meetings were organised by the City Council for Council representatives, visitors from the neighbouring municipalities, and teenagers from local secondary schools. The UK and Polish partners presented the main principles of the waste management programme intended for Jaslo, the feedback from these meetings was very positive. Further phases of the work, focused on the development of training and educational materials to be used by the home advisors. Training materials were produced by the Jagiellonian University representatives, in consultation with specialists from Kingston University (UK) who had leaded the second ‘Recycling Roadshow’ campaign in Kensington. A group of 30 candidates were selected for the role of home advisors, they were taken from the local high schools that had attended the earlier meetings. Additionally, undergraduate and postgraduate students from Jagiellonian University were included in the home advisors’ team. All candidates were subjected to two intensive training sessions. Both sessions were delivered by the ‘Environmental Management Company’ (based in Krako´w) who had been selected for designing the materials and developing the training, as they are a leading company for this type of work in Poland. The sessions were designed to combine theoretical information with practical methods of conducting campaigns and public surveys. The material included in the first course was designed to inform students about general waste management issues in Poland including: . . . . . .

waste generation; municipal waste disposal, treatment and neutralisation methods; toxicity of waste to the natural environment; principles of sustainable MSW management; environmentally responsible attitudes in the home; and local waste management systems. Additionally course participants were familiarised with basic information on:

. public communication methods and approaches; . questionnaire typologies (multiple choice, open-ended questions, focus groups, personal data sheet) and methods of their construction. At both sessions each participant was provided with a full set of the relevant educational materials. Out of the many logos and slogans designed by the students (during the course) for the programme, the best looking and most appropriate were chosen to help ‘rebrand’ the recycling service in the City. Every home advisor was provided with a set of recycling shirt, hat, clipboard, pens and ID badge with the

76

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

programme logo and slogan as well as an assortment of leaflets, posters and booklets on local waste management and the residential survey.

4.2. Household visiting In June 1991, 15 teams (of two home advisors each) started to visit the households across the City. It was planned that the campaign would visit 15% of the 11 122 households in the City. In order to evaluate the campaign’s effectiveness the City Council monitored the tonnage of segregated materials across the City prior to the campaign and during the campaign. Students talked to the residents that were at home between 15:00 and 19:00 h, 5 days per week (Monday through Friday). The pilot phase of the project focused on two long streets of tenement blocks. Home advisors concentrated on the blocks where the local recycling system was first established (8 years previously). In support of the campaign the City also provided refurbished containers for recyclable materials. At each household, home advisors conducted a short survey on how residents treat their wastes, informed residents about the local waste services and promoted environment oriented behaviour (e.g. how to minimise the waste generated at home; how and why to segregate waste, and how to shop smartly etc.). The survey contained 14 questions distributed over two sections. The first part focused on personal information (gender of the resident, address etc.). In the second part of the survey, people were asked to provide their opinions about the local recycling services and state their practical involvement in the recycling activities (motives of participation or non-participation in the local system, composting etc.). Filling in the survey took advisors about 4 min per household. After the advisors completed filling in the survey, they promoted recycling, re-use and reduction providing residents with details of local facilities within the City. In the case of non-recyclers they tried to persuade them to start segregating. Advisors had also an opportunity to answer any questions that people had concerning the services provided. To date 1547 (14% of all households) interviews have been completed (including 615 on the housing estates and 932 from the tenement block apartments). According to feedback from those interviewed, the face-to-face contact and youth involvement were well received and have appeared to result in a better response than traditional methods of promotion previously used in the City. Common problems, the home advisors noticed while interviewing, were the residents’ lack of knowledge about waste management and recycling, and their traditional way of thinking about MSW management. Many knew what recycling and composting activities were, but the words (western in origin) were not familiar to them. Another problem, although not as significant, was residents exaggerating their active participation in the waste recycling service. They would state they recycled all their raw materials, but when it came to more detailed questions about their everyday approach to waste and its management it became evident that they were confused about what they did and did not recycle.

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

77

4.3. Promotion at the tenement block apartments In the pilot phase of the programme (during June 2001) home advisors interviewed inhabitants of the apartments situated in the tenement blocks. Afterwards, the campaign was continued in the remaining Districts that were not a part of a pilot phase and comprised both tenement blocks and single house estates. The pilot phase of the project aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the home advisors’ visiting, in particular on the validity and reliability of the constructed survey, and residents’ attitudes towards the youth advisors as educators. Since the start of the campaign, a total of 615 (of which 405 were in the pilot phase) apartments in the tenement block estates have been visited and interviewed. Residents who were missed by the first visit were provided with relevant leaflets and information on the education campaign and contacted twice more if needed. Of the residents visited, 63% answered the survey, whilst 37% did not want to talk to the home advisors claiming that they were not willing to join the campaign (13%) or were simply too busy (5%). Of the sample interviewed, 62% were women and 38% were men. When asked ‘Do you segregate waste in your household?’ 78% answered positively, 19% claimed they did not, and the rest (3%) did not know how the waste was treated in their homes (see Fig. 2). The majority of inhabitants were practising some form of recycling in their households, although not always on a regular basis. Most of the active recyclers segregated three raw materials (49%), others segregated four (28%), some did two (17%) and only 5% segregated one material only. Plastic, glass and paper were the most common recycled materials (respectively, 30, 30 and 29% of responses) whereas metal was separated significantly less frequently (11%). Such a recycling approach might be due to the fact that during the pilot phase of the recycling scheme development the tenement block estates were provided with four

Fig. 2. Rates of waste recycling participation at tenement blocks and private housing estates.

78

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

Fig. 3. Frequency of tenement block and house estates inhabitants recycling various types of materials.

types of waste bins for glass, paper, plastic and wastes. Metal was collected only in some regions of the City (Figs. 3 and 4). When asking non-recyclers about the motives for non-participation in the recycling service they mentioned: lack of time (30%), storage space (25%) or lack of interest and can not be bothered (11%). Other commonly quoted reasons were: ‘did not know about the service’, and ‘would not store the recyclables in the house’ (Fig. 5). An important point to be underlined is that only a minor number of those interviewed stated that the local recycling service was bad.

Fig. 4. Frequency of tenement block and house estate inhabitants recycling a number of materials (maximum being 4).

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

79

Fig. 5. The reasons for not recycling in the tenement block estates of the Jaslo City (%).

More than half (53%) of non-participants declared that they would start waste segregation in the near future. Most of them already knew where the nearest collection bins were. Others demonstrated rather low level of involvement in recycling issues, whilst 29% refused any level of participation in the scheme. Only a few inhabitants delivered a list of demands or problems that they wanted to be solved by the City Council. The most commonly requests were ‘to increase a number of bins in the City’, ‘change the paper bins for more convenience’, and ‘the need for a more frequent (at least two times a week) service’. Moreover, residents suggested to the Council that they provide toxic (mainly batteries), organic (a separate collector for a stale bread), textile and non-coloured glass collections. However, few inhabitants proposed financial penalties for non-recyclers. Individuals who claimed that: (1) the recycling service made no sense, (2) they were badly organised or (3) they were simply not informed about the action, were asked to give their reasons. Very few respondents who gave the above-mentioned responses, responded fully to the further questions of the survey (‘If a bad service, why?’ and ‘If a service does not make any sense-why?’, and ‘If you do not know about service, why?’). This suggested that those questions were either not properly constructed (designed or delivered) or simply should be omitted in the final version of the survey, to be used in the rest of the City. The final items of the survey focused on composting. Out of the tenement block inhabitants, only 8% owned gardens, and 40% did not want to answer the ‘composting question’. To probe their recycling behaviour further they were asked whether they compost organic waste. It is noticeable that 69% of the garden owners did regularly practice composting, 11% of non-composters would start doing this shortly, whereas the rest were not interested or simply said nothing.

80

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

The pilot phase of the campaign was improved through changes to some of the survey questions, in particular to ‘if yes, why’ and ‘if not, why?’ items. In Phase 2 of the programme, while interviewing, home advisors were told to focus on those questions and explain to residents the importance of the survey and the data to the final results of the programme. 4.4. Promotion at the housing estates The promotional campaign for the housing estates had started a few months before (June 2001) the new recycling scheme begun in this part of the City. This awareness programme was introduced to promote the recycling services and stimulate people to join the action. It was focused on talking about principles of sustainable MSW management, using technical information about waste segregation and local recycling activity. One month after the recycling service started (November 2001) home advisors begun interviewing inhabitants of the private houses. To date, a total of 932 have been interviewed. Despite three ‘visits’, only 69% of individuals were contacted personally. The majority (94%) of them however responded to the survey. Among all the interviewed respondents living in the single houses, 69% were practising some form of recycling, 28% claimed they did not recycle any raw materials, and the rest (3%) did not know what happened to the waste at their households (Fig. 2). One in three (38%) recyclers, separated the full range of materials (glass, metal, plastic and paper) whilst others chose to focus upon three (35%), two (22%) or just one (4%) type of waste. The level of glass, plastic and paper recycling did not differ much ranging from 29 and 29 to 27%, respectively, whereas metal was separated by only 16% of respondents (Figs. 3 and 4). When asking non-recyclers about their plans to join the local scheme, less than half (41%) declared they would; the rest either refused any participation (22%) or did not respond (37%). Most non-recyclers (75%) were not well informed about the location of waste bins in the immediate vicinity of their homes, an important barrier to participation. Lack of time was cited in most cases as the main reasons for nonparticipation, other reasons cited were: ‘Do not produce enough waste’ (20%); ‘Not interested/can not be bothered’ (12%); and ‘do not know about the service’ (12%; Fig. 6). In general, it appears that the majority of inhabitants were satisfied with the recycling service claiming it was worthwhile to make an effort to join the scheme. Only a few suggested they were not fully informed about the programme. As expected, recyclers saw some disadvantages with the current service. The most common inconveniences are illustrated by quotes from the residents: ‘irregular collection of the separated waste’, ‘low quality and irregular provision of the plastic bags to the households’. Similar to the block estates, only a few people responded to questions 5 and 6 (‘If a bad service, why?’ and ‘If a service does not make any sensewhy?’, and ‘If you do not know about service, why?’). Most of the answers simply duplicated responses for question no. 4 (focused on non-recycling motives). Although the majority (77%) of people living in the houses possessed gardens,

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

81

Fig. 6. The reasons for not recycling at the housing estates in Jaslo City (%).

only 61% did compost on a regular basis. Only 24% of non-composters said they would start composting.

5. Comparison of campaign output Results of the surveys differed significantly between the City regions. Awareness of the scheme appeared to be similar in both groups of respondents whereas there were clear associations between the participation rate and social classes (standard of living and type of the house the individuals originated from). In general, tenement block estate inhabitants’ showed slightly higher participation rates (78%) than those from the single houses (69%) as noted in Fig. 2. Several factors might explain this. Firstly, the educational campaign started later at the residential areas. Moreover, it differed in technical principles from the day-to-day recycling scheme, as kerbside collection was a novel development in the City, whereas the Jaslo inhabitants used the 4 bin system for the last 9 years. In practical terms, waste separation requires an effort to sort, store and package materials to collection. In single houses, this became more time and energy consuming than in blocks, especially when barriers to recycling were not minimised, for example a delay in bag delivery or poor collection service etc. (Larkin et al., 2000). The motivation of the inhabitants may also be a function of age and social pressure to recycle. In tenement blocks, recycling was more visible and participation by one’s neighbours played a significant role in encouraging participation. It also might have been stimulated by the community ‘block leaders’-inhabitants who were able to raise the segregation rate in their local area. In the case of single-family houses, intrinsic satisfaction was more influential than the social pressures of neighbours (Oskamp et al., 1991; Holland, 2000). Many single households were

82

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

inhabited by older people. Being rather conservative and sceptic they needed much more reassurance that recycling was effective. Without question, recycling has to reinforce new behavioural patterns if old ones are not to recur (Yusof et al., 2001). The type of housing impacted on both the type and number of materials recycled. Despite the general lack of metal containers at the block estates (only available at few blocks), 11% of their inhabitants actively separated that type of material. Owners of single houses joined the metal separation only occasionally; more frequently even where they were provided with plastic bags for all the material types (Figs. 2/4). The most important determinant of recycling behaviour seemed to be an access to a structured (co-ordinated by the local authority) programme that made recycling easy and convenient. The relationship between people’s attitudes toward solid waste management and their recycling motives were affected by the increased accessibility to recycling opportunities. Similar differences appeared in the case of organic waste. Composting was undertaken slightly more often by the residents of a tenement block. It is interesting to note however, that possession of a private garden and participation in composting were not dependent on each other. The results do not parallel those that have previously suggested that the motivation of the householder is a function of socioeconomic factors. Researchers suggest that high rates of recycling participation appear mainly in largely educated, financially secure localities where the requirements of basic needs have been fulfilled (Tikka et al., 1999). The inhabitants of the tenement blocks, are generally poorer than those who are private homeowners, and have different priorities and concerns, including environmental behaviour. However, irrespective of financial status, participation in recycling occurs when inhabitants’ motivation is maximised (for whatever reason, environmental or economic) and when availability to the local segregation system is simplified (Holland, 2000). Perhaps availability is the key motivator in this City.

6. Evaluation of the programme The average monthly tonnage of recyclable materials collected increased in both zones and more importantly across the whole City (see Table 2). In the tenement block estates improvement varied according to the streets and the months of the campaign (Fig. 7). The highest tonnage for the main three recyclable materials was achieved in June-1 month after the campaign had started. Although it dropped off in the following months levels never dipped below those registered prior to the campaigns introduction (Fig. 8). Surprisingly, the tonnage of the materials collected varied significantly from each other. Residents of the tenement blocks deposited most frequently paper and plastic. The amount of glass deposited in the waste containers was considerably lower (Fig. 9). This might have been caused by the habits and financial motives of the householders. Most of them were used to purchasing beverages in returnable glass rather than plastic bottles. Selling the bottles back to the shops may allow them to

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

83

Table 2 Average monthly tonnage of recycled materials across the whole of Jaslo City before and after the educational campaign (January 2001 /March 2002; m3) Month/material recycled

Glass

Paper

Plastic

Total

January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March Total

3 5 6 9 12 10 15 14 10 8 7 6 21 18 29 173

30 33 39 56 75 85 120 131 109 89 79 41 76 67 94 1124

12 14 17 31 37 55 70 52 67 62 30 22 61 59 88 677

45 52 62 96 124 150 205 197 186 159 116 69 158 144 211 1974

Fig. 7. Tonnage of materials recycled at the estates on three of the main streets of Jaslo City during the campaign (m3).

derive a higher economic profit than those resulting from the 10% discount on the local monthly waste charge for active recyclers. In the residential areas (houses) tonnage of recycled materials fluctuated across the months achieving its maximum in March 2002, 6 months after the home advisors

84

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

Fig. 8. The impact of the promotional campaign on average monthly recycling rates in Jaslo City (January

Fig. 9. Percentage breakdown of separated recyclables at the tenement block estates located on three main streets of Jaslo City during the campaign (%).

had been in the City. Owners of single houses separated mostly glass (45%), paper (31%), metal (12%) and plastic (12%), as noted in Table 2 (Fig. 10). In the City as whole, recycling tonnages have improved (Table 3). Recycling differed among the material types with greatest change in paper and plastic and significantly lower impact associated with glass (Tables 2 and 3; and Fig. 11).

Fig. 10. Percentage breakdown of separated recyclables at the private housing estates (on a kerbside collection) from October 2001 to March 2002.

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

85

Table 3 Total weight of recycled waste in the housing estates (from kerbside collection) post campaign (October 2001 /March 2002; kg) Month/material recycled

Glass

Paper

Plastic

Metal

Total

October November December January February March Total

1543 1722 889 718 2129 2916 9917

957 1056 826 544 1621 2369 7374

203 488 419 419 940 1823 4291

420 348 342 228 570 1328 3236

3123 3613 2475 1909 5260 8436 24 816

The tonnage of collected materials in the City as whole fluctuated over time according to the home advisor activities. The highest average tonnage appeared twice: in July 2001 and March 2002, respectively, 3 and 11 months after the campaign began. It considerably declined in winter, achieving in December 2001 a comparable level to that before the implementation of the programme (Table 2). Waste segregation seemed to be technically much more difficult to be performed in winter. Additionally, especially in single houses, raw materials may be simply burned in the stoves or fireplaces instead of deposited in the refuse banks. To date, the promotional campaign required a co-ordinator from the City Council (Environmental Protection Department), a group of students and academic consultants. Costs of the education programme were low; comprising promotional materials, T-shirts, hats, bags and home advisor training. Manpower costs have been minimised, and the programme uses voluntary work students and an officer employed by the City Council. The cost of the programme was 35 000 zl (Polish Zloty), which is equivalent to $9000. This has been spread over the 3 years of the programme as follows; $1000 (in 2000), $6500 (in 2001), and $1500 (in 2002). The programme is being financed by the City Council along with support from the Voivodship Fund for Environmental Protection, which awarded the City a grant for their proactive campaigning.

Fig. 11. Overall proportion of separated recyclables in Jaslo City (January 2001 /March 2002).

86

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

7. Conclusions The most appropriate method of communicating with the public differs according to location, types of recycling system in use, and a host of other socio-economic factors Larkin et al., 2000. The educational campaign used in Jaslo City has proved a success; utilising ‘active methods’ of promotion to help survey public opinion on recycling services whilst influencing the way residents think and act towards the wastes they produce. It, without doubt, has reached sections of the community which other communication methods could not. Although the recycling tonnage and participation rate fluctuated within the City, personal motivation to recycle has risen. The improved recycling rate comprises three ‘theoretical’ Phases: . increases with awareness and availability in the short term (Phase I); . stabilisation (Phase II); . and a slow decrease (Phase III) as tenement and community awareness get used to packaging, waste and resource scarcity (Foo, 1997). Recycling may also decrease as the management of resources becomes more efficient. The case study of Jaslo City appears to have reached Phase I thus far. Many residents reached an increased level of environmental awareness causing them to start recycling. However, recycling activity has not become a habit for the whole community. If recycling is to be initiated in non-recyclers and maintained within existing recycling households continual and sustained efforts need to be undertaken (Joos et al., 1999). Firstly, barriers within the local MSW management system need to be removed. Secondly, the campaign needs to be continued to reach as many residents as possible. Finally, the City Council should continuously focus on involvement of young people in the campaign. Such an approach will provide opportunities for environmental stewardship amongst the student population and decrease the costs of the scheme. The City Council is pleased with the results achieved and has decided to extend the programme (and funding) for another year. According to the City Officials ‘it has been invaluable to utilise western experiences in the field of waste management in the City of Jaslo (Poland), specifically in implementing the Recycling Roadshow promotion campaign’. The UK approach to recycling promotion has resulted in environmental attitude changes and improved participation in a City in Poland.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to students of secondary schools in Jaslo and M.Sc. students of Jagiellonian University (Krakow) for visiting and talking to the households in the City. Thanks also to the Department of Environmental Protection (City Council of Jaslo) for their fruitful co-opeartion. Finally thanks go to Kingston University for

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

87

sharing their experiences and to Environmental Resources Management for their strategic advice.

References Ambrozewicz P. Zwarty system zagospodarowania odpado´w. Bialystok, Poland: Wydawnictwo Ekonomia i Srodowisko, 1999. Chomicka J. Poland new waste law. Bank of America, Trade Directory International Copyright, US & Foreign Commercial Service and US Department of State, USA, 1998. European Environment Agency. Europe’s Environment. The Second Assessment. Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Elsevier, 1999. Evison T, Read AD. Local authority recycling and waste awareness publicity/promotion. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2001;32:275 /92. Foo TS. Recycling of domestic waste: early experiences in Singapore. Habitat International 1997;21:277 / 89. Glo´wny Urza˛d Statystyczny. Ochrona S´rodowiska. Informacje i opracowania statystyczne, Warszawa, Poland, GUS, 1999. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak M. Management of industrial and municipal solid wastes in Poland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2000;32:85 /103. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak M, Read A. Increasing Public Participation in Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management-a promotional and educational campaign in Jaslo City (Poland). Presented at the 16th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. Philadelphia, PA, December 2000. p. 10 /13. Holland L. Recycling domestic waste: a proxy for environmental sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development World Ecology 2000;7:271 /6. Hopper JR, Nielsen JM. Recycling as altruistic behaviour: normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling programme. Environment and Behavior 1991;23:195 /220. Indra S. Gospodarka odpadami w Unii Europejskiej. Warszawa, Poland: Ekoprofit, 1999. Jaslo 2000. Wydawnictwo Unitex. Sp. Z o.o. Bydgoszcz, Poland, 2000. Jaslo City. Jaslo City homepage (http://www.um.jaslo.pl). Municipal Office in Jaslo, Jaslo, Poland, 2001. Joos W, Carabias V, Winistoerfer H, Stucheli A. Social aspects of public waste management in Switzerland. Waste Management 1999;19:417 /25. Jurasz F. Kompleksowa gospodarka odpadami w gminie. Warszawa, Poland: ARP-Poligrafia, 1998. Larkin CE, Morrison KD, Buchan GD. Social forces in the promotion of recycling: case study analysis in rural New Zealand. Presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. Philadelphia, PA, December 2000. p. 10 /13. Matusik M, Gluszyn´ski P, Rymarowicz P. Przepisy Unii Europejskiej w zakresie odpado´w. Os´wie˛cim, Poland: Ogo´lnopolskie Towarzystwo Zagospodarowania Odpado´w ‘3R’, 1998. McGarity AE, Wo´jcik WA. Solid waste management in Poland. Presented at the 17th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. Philadelphia, PA, October 2001. p. 21 /24. Milewska MI, editor. Slownik geograficzno-krajoznawczy Polski. Wyd. II zmienione. Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1994. Nowicki M. Environment in Poland. Issues and solutions. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. Oskamp S, Harrington MJ, Edwards TC, Sherwood DL, Okuda SM, Swanson DC. Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior 1991;23:494 /519. Pauli-Wilga J. Zagospodarowanie odpado´w z rejonu Krakowa, 16-17 maja 1996, Osieczany, Krako´w, Poland: ‘SAVE’ Grzegorz Ciszewski, 1996. Read AD. Getting the message across: recycling in Kensington and Chelsea. International Journal of Environmental Education and Information 1998;17:299 /314.

88

M. Grodzin´ska-Jurczak et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 67 /88

Read AD. A weekly doorstep recycling collection, I had no idea we could!’ Overcoming the local barriers to participation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1999;26:217 /49. Read AD. Raising Awareness of Recycling and Helping authorities meet Targets */the Roadshow Approach, Recycling and Waste Management Exhibition, Birmingham, September 2001. Read AD. Pounding the streets? Public participation is vital for the success of kerbside recycling. Recycler Review 2000;2:6 /8. Read AD. Public Education Campaigns and Engaging the Public in Recycling Services */Opportunities for Devon, the Devon Waste Management Forum, February 2002. Tikka PM, Kuitunen M, Tynys SA. Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels and knowledge concerning the environment. The Journal of Environmental Education 1999;31:12 /8. Urza˛d Miasta. Regulamin utrzymania czystos´ci i porza˛dku na terenie gminy miejskiej Jaslo, Krosno. Jaslo, Poland: Drukarnia Chemigrafia, 1999. Ustawa o Odpadach 27.04.2001.-http://www.most.org.pl/prawo/index.html. Yusof M, Othman F, Salim M. Solid Waste management: public attitudes and behaviors toward recycling programs in Malaysia. Presented at the Seventeenth International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and Management. Philadelphia, PA, October 2001. p. 21 /24.