- Email: [email protected]
Recycling and householder attitudes
Recycling and householder attitudes A survey of Norwich
T. O’Riordan and R.K. Turner
This
paper
incorporates
of a survey
of recycling
attitudes
study
The
to
the
local
of
secondary
materials
householder recycling findings and
metals
products
indicate
that a paper exist
colour)
of of
better
materials,
deployment
authors
East Anglia,
groups
based
appear
Environmental
existing
of
volunteer/charity to
be
strategy
local authority
as
upon
As for the collection
secondary
‘economic’
in to
as far
to depend and
of
main
attitudes
seem,
(texture
new
The
does
is concerned,
quality
in
use
secondary
market
the product.
The
the
Householder
recycled
would
towards and
of the study
established
the
market
products.
well
Norwich.
identify
attitudes
paper
the aims
and to assess
ventures
recycled
the
and
principal
were
operation
paper
results
in one UK community,
city of Norwich. of the
the
activity
a
than
more direct
involvement.
are
with
the
Sciences, Norwich
NR4
School
of
University
of
7TJ. UK.
This work is part of a project on the costs and benefits of waste recycling supported by a grant from the Social Science Research Council.
42
UK source separation materials recycling schemes have experienced very mixed fortunes in the 1970s. Many local authority waste paper collection schemes have been discontinued because of high collection costs and fluctuating secondary material prices. Nevertheless, some authorities (notable examples being Harrogate, Worthing and some London boroughs) continue to operate successful collection schemes. The new ‘bottle bank’ scheme sponsored by the UK Glass Manufacturers Federation in selected towns also appears to be generating encouraging results with good participation rates. The scheme has the added advantage of a ‘no loss’ guarantee to the local authorities running such banks. A wide range of variables and conditions influence the viability of recycling ventures. Collection costs. guaranteed price and quota-free contracts for secondary materials, the current level of recycling activity and the role of volunteer organizations in collection of waste materials will all affect any proposed new recycling scheme. Few people both inside and outside government have, until recently, appreciated how well developed was the market for recycled goods in the UK. The combined activities of the highly competitive private materials reclamation industry and a wide variety of voluntary and municipal recycling ventures have served to push recycling rates up to fairly high levels (see Table 1). Given these fairly high recovery rates and making the not unreasonable assumption that the least cost recovery options have already been exploited, any extra recycling effort must concentrate, in the main, on the more dissipated sources of residential and small trader paper and board, glass and possibly metal can scrap flows. In areas where house-to-house collection schemes have involved, or are expected to involve, high collection costs, then some variant of a recycling centre system with satellite collection points (located in shopping area car parks, etc) or bottle-bank type ‘skip’ collection system may be feasible. Our survey of recycling activity (undertaken in March 1978) was
0301-4207/79/050042-09
$02.00
c 1979
IPC Business
Press
Recycling
and householder
attitltdes:
A survey of NoncYch
Table 1. UK recycling ratesa for selected materials, 197475 (%) Aluminium 1974 1975
Copper 1974 1975
30.3
45.5
37.2
38.8
a The concept of a ‘recycling rate’ is far from unambiguous, but the paper recovery rate, for is example, conventionally defined for any country as: R = recovery rate = Domestically recovered waste paper Apparent
so that
consumption
BD+
1975
Paper 1975 1974
60.2
60.6
27.6
where
BD BM BX wD
of paper Et board wD
R=
Lead 1974
BM-Bx
28.8
= domestically produced paper and board = imported paper and board = exported
paper and board
= domestically recovered waste paper.
Source: Adapted from R.P. Grace, ‘Metals recycling: A comparative national analysis’. Resources Policy, Vol 4, No 4. December 1978, pp 249-256.
designed in the context of these conditions. Its principal aims were to identify the operation of the market in secondary materials in one city (Norwich, Norfolk), to assess the degree to which individuals or voluntary organizations recycled paper and glass bottles, and to investigate attitudes towards new recycling ventures and the use of recycled (as opposed to virgin) paper products. The survey consisted of a household survey of consumer attitudes and behaviour toward waste paper and glass bottle recycling, and an investigation of waste material flows in the secondary markets in Norwich, in terms of source, collection/transport and destination.
Survey of recycling activity in Norwich Efforts were made to quantify the flows of paper and metal residuals being collected for ultimate recycling in Norwich. The collection of source separated solid residuals for recycling can be carried out in a variety of ways. First, the waste generator himself can take old newspapers or scrap metal to a local reclamation merchant. The Norwich survey indicated that some paper and metals residuals were collected by householders and by employees in some large institutions, but the quantities moved in this way do not appear to be very significant. By far the most important residuals collection flows, by weight, in Norwich are those organized by the private reclamation merchants. Some 60% (600+ tonnes) of the weekly metal residuals flow and about 85% (190 tonnes) of the paper flow were contributed by the private merchants’ own collection systems. The merchants concentrate their attentions exclusively on supermarkets, offices (including the University of East Anglia) and industrial sources of residuals. A second channel is through official local authority organized collection systems. A large, though declining, number of authorities in the UK operate paper collections either separately or integrated with general solid waste. Norwich does not operate an official paper collection arrangement, but there is an accepted ‘unofficial’ channel operated by local authority employees for the collection of paper and scrap metals. It is difficult to quantify the volume of residuals moved through this channel, but the survey indicated that about 5% (10 tonnes) of the total volume of paper residuals collected weekly in Norwich and delivered to merchant yards were collected in this way.
RESOURCES
POLICY
IViarch 1979
Reqcling and householder attitudes: A survey of Norwich
3 Shops
Offices
Industry
MERCHANTS 220 tonnes total
Figure
1.
Norwich
Flow
of
scrap
processed
merchants
paper
rl
in
MILLS
through
(tonnes/week).
Gypsies living in the locality provide a third channel for the collection of residuals, but their activities are confined to metals collection. It was not possible in the survey to identify metals collection flows for the city of Norwich in isolation. For Norwich and surrounding districts in East Anglia, gypsies and other scrap car dealers contribute over 30% (350-400 tonnes) of the total flow of metals residuals entering Norwich scrap metal merchant yards weekly. Finally, there are the activities of volumary waste collecting groups. The activities of groups such as boy scouts, schools and church groups are widespread in Norwich but confined to paper collection (except for very occasional bottle top and silver foil drives). About 10% (20 tonnes) of the paper residuals delivered weekly to merchant yards was collected by voluntary groups. These flows are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
The household survey The principal aims of the household survey were to identify how much paper and glass bottles were recycled by householders in Norwich, and how people felt about recycling generally and about the use of
7 Gypsies
Figure Norwich merchants
44
2.
Flow
of
scrap
processed
metal
0
Industry
in
through
(tonnes/week).
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
Recycling and householder attitudes: A survey of Table 2. Number residential areas
of interviews in Norwich
by
41 44 27 46 30
Bowthorpe Earlham Bluebell Road Newmarket Road Sprowston/Thorpe
190
Total
Norwich
recycled paper in particular. The point of the latter objective was to discover whether there is a potential market in recycled paper that might induce a greater recycling effort. Econometric work’ has suggested that future demand in the UK for secondary paper will be limited. The market profile forecasts, however, while allowing for technological change did not allow for changing consumer attitudes to final paper product quality. An increased consumer acceptance of lower final paper product specifications would allow a greater use of secondary (recycled) paper input and provide a larger market for recycled paper. The principal difficulty with this kind of survey lies in determining likely as opposed to actual behaviour. It is obviously easy for someone to state whether he recycles newspapers or buys returnable glass bottles, but it is far more troublesome for him to respond to hypothetical questions regarding possible behaviour given conditions which do not presently exist. For example, if some kind of bottle bank were to be opened regionally, would one actually use it for all bottles? It is fairly easy to obtain a picture of actual recycling behaviour, but more difficult to identify successfully some notion of recycling
intentions. Two methods were adopted in this study to avoid this dilemma. First, in the case of analysing the propensity to purchase recycled paper, respondents were given a package of five different papers of varying qualities of colour and texture, some recycled and some not, and asked to state the kinds of uses to which they would put each paper. The aim was to find out what qualities of paper determined usage and whether knowledge or ignorance of the genesis of the paper influenced intended usage. Second, respondents were presented with a number of statements relating to the supposed value of recycling, and were asked to comment upon them. The aim was to elicit feelings or motivations underlying the recycling idea to see how far people regarded recycling as a ‘good practice’. Admittedly, this technique only provides a clue to willingness to recycle should local authority policies change in favour of encouraging a greater recycling effort, but at least it is a guide which should indicate how best to mount a recycling campaign.
’ R.K. Turner, I?. Grace and D.W. Pearce, ‘The economics of waste paper recycling’, in D.W. Pearce and I. Walter, eds, Resource Conservation: Social and Economic Dimensions of Recycling, Longman, London, 1977, pp 296-343.
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
Survey methodology A number of target households were selected randomly from five different residential areas of Norwich. The areas selected were chosen to be representative of different housing types in the city. The breakdown of final interviews is shown in Table 2. Each householder interviewed was chosen at random from the relevant electoral register and contacted by letter beforehand. Due to the fact that the Chief Public Health Officer for Norwich kindly agreed to sign this introductory letter, the response rate was high (about 60%). The interview was conducted personally to enable the paper use ‘game’ to be played and to ensure that respondents answered questions without the knowledge of what questions were to follow. Personal interviewing also helps respondents to answer questions with less danger of bias or misinterpretation. Survey results Recycling of newpapers. Households newsprint,
1979
since few people
are basically a source of used use or are willing to separate higher
45
Recyclirlg arid householder attitudes: A survey of Norwich Table 3. Method newspapers
of disposal
DIscarded in rubbish bin Burned or otherwise disposed Recycled
quality grades. 90?6 of households contacted received a daily newspaper, though a further 3% bought a newspaper on occasion. Of the 184 households purchasing a newspaper regularly, 63% recycled (yO) their newspapers (see Table 3). Of the 115 households which recycled, 97 (84.3%) gave their 50 27.1 19 10.3 newspapers to voluntary groups (mainly scouts), 10 (8.6%) placed 115 62.6 them beside their refuse bins to be picked up by the municipal rubbish .collectors who pass them on to the waste paper merchants, and 8 (6.9%) took the paper directly to the merchants. These findings indicate
of
0
0
that a surprisingly high number of households in Norwich already recycle newspapers, suggesting that there is not much scope for increasing this effort; that the bulk of the work is done by voluntary groups or individuals who are prepared to undertake the time-consuming labour of collection and transportation to the waste paper merchants.
When questioned about this, people who gave their used newspaper to such groups did so because they wanted to rid themselves of the bulky useless product and they were happy to provide the voluntary groups with a little money. This motivation may have been stronger than the motivation to recycle. This movement of used paper from Norwich households should be placed in perspective. First, it is a low quality product for which prices are neither high nor the market buoyant. Second, it is only a relatively small proportion of the total waste paper movement in Norwich. Third, there is relatively little scope for increasing the total load moved. The 50 householders who presently throw away their used newspapers were asked whether they would be prepared to bundle them and place them beside the bin if they knew that the municipal collectors would take the bundles to the waste paper merchants. Some two-thirds replied in the affirmative, but even if they did so, the number of households moving waste paper would only increase from the present 63% to about 80%, which would not add significantly to the load of waste newspaper being moved in the city. intentions to use recycled papers. Newsprint is recycled into more newsprint, and the average consumer would not be able to tell how much of the newsprint contained in the daily paper is recycled. However, it is interesting to know whether consumers, when presented with a choice of papers, would purchase recycled or virgin products. In the game introduced earlier, respondents were presented with five sheets of paper and were asked to what uses they would put each paper, whether or not it was recycled, and on what basis they made that judgment. Judgments about whether the paper was recycled or not clearly depended on colour and texture. Any greying in the paper and any coarseness of look or feel prompted the majority to guess that a particular paper was recycled. Thus it appears that recycled paper is identified with inferior quality. To support this view, Table 4 presents the results of the ‘use’ test, and Table 5 the answers as to which paper was recycled. Tables 4 and 5 show that people are influenced by colour and texture in their choice of paper for certain uses. The coarse paper 4
46
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
Recyclirlg Table
4. Uses to which
paper
Paper 1 : Middle grade recycled paper. Paper 2: Non-recycled low grade (duplicating) paper. Paper 3: High quality non-recycled writing paper. Paper 4: Low grade recycled paper. Paper 5: High grade recycled paper.
writing typing books newsprint packaging no use sure
Table
5. Opinions
Recycled
1
5 7 5 47 30 3 3
on whether
paper Paper
a
be putt%
would Paper
For For For For For For Not
ard householder
favouring
Paper 2
Paper
26 28 20 10 7 _
56 17 15 1 3 _
9
8
was recycled Paper 2
la
attitudes:
or
A sun9e.v of Norwich
use) 3
Paper 4
Paper
5 2 17 4 55 4 13
48 30 8 2 5 _
Paper 4a
Paper
5
7
not
Paper
3
% stating paper was not recycled
79
31
7
60
10
% stating paper was recycled
10
46
74
10
69
% not sure
11
23
19
10
21
5a
paper
‘Economic dimensions of * B. Bower, and recycling reuse: Some waste definitions, facts and issues’, in D.W. Pearce and I. Walter, op cit. Ref 1, pp l22.
and the grey (but finely textured) paper 1 were generally regarded as being fit for newsprint and packaging, while the two white and finely textured papers (3 and 5) were commonly seen as suitable for writing and typing on. The implications of these findings are that if recycled paper products are to be used extensively in the place of virgin paper prod.ucts, then either they must be comparable in colour and texture or the consuming public will have to alter its views about the value of recycled papers. The dilemma here facing the manufacturers of recycled paper products is that they will have to produce a paper at a competitive price to the virgin product and they will have to deal with the effluent and additional energy requirements involved in bleaching and upgrading the quality of recycled paper.2 In this context, it is interesting to discover exactly what consumers’ attitudes are to recycling paper. Almost everyone thinks that used paper is valuable, so at least there is a willingness to see it recycled more so. it seems, than say g!ass or plastic (see Table 6). However, even more revealing, regarding motivations for recycling, are the responses to a series of statements about the merits or disadvantages of recycling. To visualize these feelings more clearly an index was derived ranging from +3.0 (very strongly agree) to -3.0 (very strongly disagree). Responses about recycling paper, ranged in descending order of agreement, are listed in Table 7. These results indicate clearly a high positive motivation to recycle paper and a fairly strong feeling that recycled paper would be acceptable. They also reveal the differences in attitudes toward the advantages and drawbacks of recycling held by those who do recycle Table
6. Attitudes
on value of certain
used materials
Worth Used Used Used Used Used
RESOURCES
POLICY
March 1979
paper metal rags glass plastic
96.8 93.2 84.2 61.1 24.2
money
1%) Not worth 0.5 3.2 8.4 23.2 49.5
money
Not sure 2.6 3.7 7.3 15.8 26.4
47
Reqcling
omi householder
attitudes: A survey of Norwich Table
7. Motivations
underlying
waste
paper recycling
Index value for all respondents
Index
value for:
Those not recycling waste paper More recycling of wastepaper
Those recycling waste paper
will:
reduce the nation’s import bill
+ 1.60
1.14
1.67
save trees reduce pollution and environmental damage
+1.56
1.51
1.52
+1.04
0.92
1.15
lower the cost of paper
+ 0.77
1.04
0.61
result in cheaper looking (ie poorer quality) paper
-0.11
-0.36
-0.15
lead to an excess in the supply of waste paper
-0.59
-0.48
-0.63
require too much effort on the part of the individual
-0.75
-0.68
-0.81
paper and those who do not. The valuation is fairly predictable, with those who consciously recycle believing more than those who do not that recycling will reduce import costs and improve environmental quality. The waste paper recycling group were also less inclined to believe that recycled paper would lower the cost of paper, save energy, take too much effort, result in too much waste paper or produce a poorer quality paper than those who did not recycle their used paper. It is interesting that the strongest motivations relate to saving the environment and helping the nation’s economy. One might conclude that even if there were only modest gains to be made in these two areas, the public would still support a recycling initiative. Indeed, Norwich householders were generally in favour of the local authority upgrading its waste material recycling programme. 69% of respondents accepted this situation (index value +0.68). Behind these motivations there is a strong conservationist streak at least if answers to the statement ‘too many products are overpackaged in the shops nowadays’ are to be believed. 40% very strongly agreed with this view, producing the highest index value (1.87) of the waste survey. Clearly, people do feel that there is too much waste involved in paper use and would support policies to curtail it.
Recycling of glass bottles. Because few opportunities exist in Norwich to recycle glass bottles, the principal means by which people can do this is by purchasing a returnable bottle. These are not always available, and usually are slightly more expensive to purchase, even excluding the deposit. Only 8% of the Norwich householders interviewed purchased returnable bottles regularly, and 64% never bought them. Only 10% claimed they purchased more than half of all the bottles they buy as returnable bottles, so actual behaviour toward bottle recycling is not very demonstrable. Intentions toward bottle recycling. The survey did uncover a fair degree of willingness among Norwich residents toward glass bottle recycling. 85% took the moral view that more bottles should be
48
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
Recycling atld householder attitudes: A survey of Norwich Table 8. Motivations
underlying glass bottle recycling Index value
More recycling of glass bottles will: reduce pollution and environmental damage save raw materials (sand, lime1 reduce the nation’s import bill lower the cost of bottles save energy lead to an excess in the supply of glass bottles require too much effort on the part of the individual produce a poorer quality glass bottle
+1.25 + 1.23
+0.81 +0.66 + 0.61 -0.64 -0.75 -0.90
returnable, but the manufacturers claim that it is uneconomic for them to collect returned bottles from dispersed outlets. In response to the attitude statements on the merits and drawbacks of bottle recycling, the responses followed a similar pattern to that observed for waste paper, but with some interesting differences of emphasis. These results indicate at least a willingness to respond to an initiative to recycle glass bottles, with strong motivations based on the saving of litter and raw materials. However, respondents were only moderately disposed to see Norwich City Council make a bigger effort to recycle bottles (62% agreeing, index value +0.64). Should this effort be made with careful attention given to promoting the scheme based on the motivations listed in Table 8, it might well prove successful. One way of promoting this is to encourage voluntary organizations to undertake the time consuming and arduous business of collecting waste materials from dispersed sources to central depositories. For instance, it might prove workable to pay such groups for transferring bottles from homes to neighbourhood skips. Certainly householders in Norwich were anxious to see such groups encouraged even more (index value + 1.40), and probably would support proposals to do this.
Conclusions The findings from this study indicate that a well established market in secondary materials flows exists in Norwich, particularly for paper and metals. The infrastructure is well developed and the collection arrangements well organized. Householders also recycle a surprising amount of paper, though much of this depends on the efforts of volunteer organizations. As far as interest in purchasing more recycled paper is concerned, much depends upon the quality (texture and colour) of the product. This may involve marketing difficulties for firms anxious to produce recycled paper without adding to general environmental pollution yet keen to compete in the paper market. There is interest for recycling glass bottles, but it remains for the correct mechanisms to be developed. The better deployment of volunteer groups as collecting agencies should be considered, as should a campaign to recycle glass bottles on the grounds of reducing dangerous litter and cutting down on the bulk of solid waste loads. The results of this survey in Norwich need not be typical of other towns in the UK. There is no substitute for a series of locally based data collection exercises which, hopefully, will be stimulated by the implementation of the survey and planning provision generally under
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
RccyYiq
3 R.K.
am/ hou.sehoIder
A survey of Norwich
and
‘Local authorities materials recycling’. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 6, 1978, pp 273-286. _ ,., ’ Environmental Protection Agency, AOIICT Recovery Programme in Waste Sommerville and Marblehead, Citizen Attitude Massachusetts EPA Telephone Study, Resource Recovery Division, Washington, March 1978.
50
Turner,
attildes:
Sections 2 and 20 of the 1974 Control of Pollution Act. There will be significant local variations in waste generation, disposal methods/facilities and collection and recycling systems.3 Nevertheless, it seems to be more than coincidence that fairly similar towns (in terms of a number of socio-economic indicators) such as Norwich, Worthing and Harrogate all have populations with an apparently high degree of environmental (recycling) consciousness. The environmental economics literature contains a number of references to the general hypothesis that environmental ‘awareness’ increases as incomes increase. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demonstration recycling programme in Sommerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts, provides some evidence for this hypothesis.4 Both towns are in the Boston metropolitan area, but Marblehead is a more affluent suburban community. Despite the similarity of the recycling schemes themselves, the Marblehead programme has been much more successful. In 1977 Marblehead recovered some 25% of its residential waste for recycling while Sommerville managed only 5%. The Marblehead programme yielded a net benefit of $16 788 while Sommerville had incurred net costs of $54 728. The attitude surveys undertaken by EPA in the two communities reveal that the more affluent population of Marblehead was generally much more enthusiastic about recycling.
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
T. O’Riordan and R.K. Turner
This
paper
incorporates
of a survey
of recycling
attitudes
study
The
to
the
local
of
secondary
materials
householder recycling findings and
metals
products
indicate
that a paper exist
colour)
of of
better
materials,
deployment
authors
East Anglia,
groups
based
appear
Environmental
existing
of
volunteer/charity to
be
strategy
local authority
as
upon
As for the collection
secondary
‘economic’
in to
as far
to depend and
of
main
attitudes
seem,
(texture
new
The
does
is concerned,
quality
in
use
secondary
market
the product.
The
the
Householder
recycled
would
towards and
of the study
established
the
market
products.
well
Norwich.
identify
attitudes
paper
the aims
and to assess
ventures
recycled
the
and
principal
were
operation
paper
results
in one UK community,
city of Norwich. of the
the
activity
a
than
more direct
involvement.
are
with
the
Sciences, Norwich
NR4
School
of
University
of
7TJ. UK.
This work is part of a project on the costs and benefits of waste recycling supported by a grant from the Social Science Research Council.
42
UK source separation materials recycling schemes have experienced very mixed fortunes in the 1970s. Many local authority waste paper collection schemes have been discontinued because of high collection costs and fluctuating secondary material prices. Nevertheless, some authorities (notable examples being Harrogate, Worthing and some London boroughs) continue to operate successful collection schemes. The new ‘bottle bank’ scheme sponsored by the UK Glass Manufacturers Federation in selected towns also appears to be generating encouraging results with good participation rates. The scheme has the added advantage of a ‘no loss’ guarantee to the local authorities running such banks. A wide range of variables and conditions influence the viability of recycling ventures. Collection costs. guaranteed price and quota-free contracts for secondary materials, the current level of recycling activity and the role of volunteer organizations in collection of waste materials will all affect any proposed new recycling scheme. Few people both inside and outside government have, until recently, appreciated how well developed was the market for recycled goods in the UK. The combined activities of the highly competitive private materials reclamation industry and a wide variety of voluntary and municipal recycling ventures have served to push recycling rates up to fairly high levels (see Table 1). Given these fairly high recovery rates and making the not unreasonable assumption that the least cost recovery options have already been exploited, any extra recycling effort must concentrate, in the main, on the more dissipated sources of residential and small trader paper and board, glass and possibly metal can scrap flows. In areas where house-to-house collection schemes have involved, or are expected to involve, high collection costs, then some variant of a recycling centre system with satellite collection points (located in shopping area car parks, etc) or bottle-bank type ‘skip’ collection system may be feasible. Our survey of recycling activity (undertaken in March 1978) was
0301-4207/79/050042-09
$02.00
c 1979
IPC Business
Press
Recycling
and householder
attitltdes:
A survey of NoncYch
Table 1. UK recycling ratesa for selected materials, 197475 (%) Aluminium 1974 1975
Copper 1974 1975
30.3
45.5
37.2
38.8
a The concept of a ‘recycling rate’ is far from unambiguous, but the paper recovery rate, for is example, conventionally defined for any country as: R = recovery rate = Domestically recovered waste paper Apparent
so that
consumption
BD+
1975
Paper 1975 1974
60.2
60.6
27.6
where
BD BM BX wD
of paper Et board wD
R=
Lead 1974
BM-Bx
28.8
= domestically produced paper and board = imported paper and board = exported
paper and board
= domestically recovered waste paper.
Source: Adapted from R.P. Grace, ‘Metals recycling: A comparative national analysis’. Resources Policy, Vol 4, No 4. December 1978, pp 249-256.
designed in the context of these conditions. Its principal aims were to identify the operation of the market in secondary materials in one city (Norwich, Norfolk), to assess the degree to which individuals or voluntary organizations recycled paper and glass bottles, and to investigate attitudes towards new recycling ventures and the use of recycled (as opposed to virgin) paper products. The survey consisted of a household survey of consumer attitudes and behaviour toward waste paper and glass bottle recycling, and an investigation of waste material flows in the secondary markets in Norwich, in terms of source, collection/transport and destination.
Survey of recycling activity in Norwich Efforts were made to quantify the flows of paper and metal residuals being collected for ultimate recycling in Norwich. The collection of source separated solid residuals for recycling can be carried out in a variety of ways. First, the waste generator himself can take old newspapers or scrap metal to a local reclamation merchant. The Norwich survey indicated that some paper and metals residuals were collected by householders and by employees in some large institutions, but the quantities moved in this way do not appear to be very significant. By far the most important residuals collection flows, by weight, in Norwich are those organized by the private reclamation merchants. Some 60% (600+ tonnes) of the weekly metal residuals flow and about 85% (190 tonnes) of the paper flow were contributed by the private merchants’ own collection systems. The merchants concentrate their attentions exclusively on supermarkets, offices (including the University of East Anglia) and industrial sources of residuals. A second channel is through official local authority organized collection systems. A large, though declining, number of authorities in the UK operate paper collections either separately or integrated with general solid waste. Norwich does not operate an official paper collection arrangement, but there is an accepted ‘unofficial’ channel operated by local authority employees for the collection of paper and scrap metals. It is difficult to quantify the volume of residuals moved through this channel, but the survey indicated that about 5% (10 tonnes) of the total volume of paper residuals collected weekly in Norwich and delivered to merchant yards were collected in this way.
RESOURCES
POLICY
IViarch 1979
Reqcling and householder attitudes: A survey of Norwich
3 Shops
Offices
Industry
MERCHANTS 220 tonnes total
Figure
1.
Norwich
Flow
of
scrap
processed
merchants
paper
rl
in
MILLS
through
(tonnes/week).
Gypsies living in the locality provide a third channel for the collection of residuals, but their activities are confined to metals collection. It was not possible in the survey to identify metals collection flows for the city of Norwich in isolation. For Norwich and surrounding districts in East Anglia, gypsies and other scrap car dealers contribute over 30% (350-400 tonnes) of the total flow of metals residuals entering Norwich scrap metal merchant yards weekly. Finally, there are the activities of volumary waste collecting groups. The activities of groups such as boy scouts, schools and church groups are widespread in Norwich but confined to paper collection (except for very occasional bottle top and silver foil drives). About 10% (20 tonnes) of the paper residuals delivered weekly to merchant yards was collected by voluntary groups. These flows are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.
The household survey The principal aims of the household survey were to identify how much paper and glass bottles were recycled by householders in Norwich, and how people felt about recycling generally and about the use of
7 Gypsies
Figure Norwich merchants
44
2.
Flow
of
scrap
processed
metal
0
Industry
in
through
(tonnes/week).
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
Recycling and householder attitudes: A survey of Table 2. Number residential areas
of interviews in Norwich
by
41 44 27 46 30
Bowthorpe Earlham Bluebell Road Newmarket Road Sprowston/Thorpe
190
Total
Norwich
recycled paper in particular. The point of the latter objective was to discover whether there is a potential market in recycled paper that might induce a greater recycling effort. Econometric work’ has suggested that future demand in the UK for secondary paper will be limited. The market profile forecasts, however, while allowing for technological change did not allow for changing consumer attitudes to final paper product quality. An increased consumer acceptance of lower final paper product specifications would allow a greater use of secondary (recycled) paper input and provide a larger market for recycled paper. The principal difficulty with this kind of survey lies in determining likely as opposed to actual behaviour. It is obviously easy for someone to state whether he recycles newspapers or buys returnable glass bottles, but it is far more troublesome for him to respond to hypothetical questions regarding possible behaviour given conditions which do not presently exist. For example, if some kind of bottle bank were to be opened regionally, would one actually use it for all bottles? It is fairly easy to obtain a picture of actual recycling behaviour, but more difficult to identify successfully some notion of recycling
intentions. Two methods were adopted in this study to avoid this dilemma. First, in the case of analysing the propensity to purchase recycled paper, respondents were given a package of five different papers of varying qualities of colour and texture, some recycled and some not, and asked to state the kinds of uses to which they would put each paper. The aim was to find out what qualities of paper determined usage and whether knowledge or ignorance of the genesis of the paper influenced intended usage. Second, respondents were presented with a number of statements relating to the supposed value of recycling, and were asked to comment upon them. The aim was to elicit feelings or motivations underlying the recycling idea to see how far people regarded recycling as a ‘good practice’. Admittedly, this technique only provides a clue to willingness to recycle should local authority policies change in favour of encouraging a greater recycling effort, but at least it is a guide which should indicate how best to mount a recycling campaign.
’ R.K. Turner, I?. Grace and D.W. Pearce, ‘The economics of waste paper recycling’, in D.W. Pearce and I. Walter, eds, Resource Conservation: Social and Economic Dimensions of Recycling, Longman, London, 1977, pp 296-343.
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
Survey methodology A number of target households were selected randomly from five different residential areas of Norwich. The areas selected were chosen to be representative of different housing types in the city. The breakdown of final interviews is shown in Table 2. Each householder interviewed was chosen at random from the relevant electoral register and contacted by letter beforehand. Due to the fact that the Chief Public Health Officer for Norwich kindly agreed to sign this introductory letter, the response rate was high (about 60%). The interview was conducted personally to enable the paper use ‘game’ to be played and to ensure that respondents answered questions without the knowledge of what questions were to follow. Personal interviewing also helps respondents to answer questions with less danger of bias or misinterpretation. Survey results Recycling of newpapers. Households newsprint,
1979
since few people
are basically a source of used use or are willing to separate higher
45
Recyclirlg arid householder attitudes: A survey of Norwich Table 3. Method newspapers
of disposal
DIscarded in rubbish bin Burned or otherwise disposed Recycled
quality grades. 90?6 of households contacted received a daily newspaper, though a further 3% bought a newspaper on occasion. Of the 184 households purchasing a newspaper regularly, 63% recycled (yO) their newspapers (see Table 3). Of the 115 households which recycled, 97 (84.3%) gave their 50 27.1 19 10.3 newspapers to voluntary groups (mainly scouts), 10 (8.6%) placed 115 62.6 them beside their refuse bins to be picked up by the municipal rubbish .collectors who pass them on to the waste paper merchants, and 8 (6.9%) took the paper directly to the merchants. These findings indicate
of
0
0
that a surprisingly high number of households in Norwich already recycle newspapers, suggesting that there is not much scope for increasing this effort; that the bulk of the work is done by voluntary groups or individuals who are prepared to undertake the time-consuming labour of collection and transportation to the waste paper merchants.
When questioned about this, people who gave their used newspaper to such groups did so because they wanted to rid themselves of the bulky useless product and they were happy to provide the voluntary groups with a little money. This motivation may have been stronger than the motivation to recycle. This movement of used paper from Norwich households should be placed in perspective. First, it is a low quality product for which prices are neither high nor the market buoyant. Second, it is only a relatively small proportion of the total waste paper movement in Norwich. Third, there is relatively little scope for increasing the total load moved. The 50 householders who presently throw away their used newspapers were asked whether they would be prepared to bundle them and place them beside the bin if they knew that the municipal collectors would take the bundles to the waste paper merchants. Some two-thirds replied in the affirmative, but even if they did so, the number of households moving waste paper would only increase from the present 63% to about 80%, which would not add significantly to the load of waste newspaper being moved in the city. intentions to use recycled papers. Newsprint is recycled into more newsprint, and the average consumer would not be able to tell how much of the newsprint contained in the daily paper is recycled. However, it is interesting to know whether consumers, when presented with a choice of papers, would purchase recycled or virgin products. In the game introduced earlier, respondents were presented with five sheets of paper and were asked to what uses they would put each paper, whether or not it was recycled, and on what basis they made that judgment. Judgments about whether the paper was recycled or not clearly depended on colour and texture. Any greying in the paper and any coarseness of look or feel prompted the majority to guess that a particular paper was recycled. Thus it appears that recycled paper is identified with inferior quality. To support this view, Table 4 presents the results of the ‘use’ test, and Table 5 the answers as to which paper was recycled. Tables 4 and 5 show that people are influenced by colour and texture in their choice of paper for certain uses. The coarse paper 4
46
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
Recyclirlg Table
4. Uses to which
paper
Paper 1 : Middle grade recycled paper. Paper 2: Non-recycled low grade (duplicating) paper. Paper 3: High quality non-recycled writing paper. Paper 4: Low grade recycled paper. Paper 5: High grade recycled paper.
writing typing books newsprint packaging no use sure
Table
5. Opinions
Recycled
1
5 7 5 47 30 3 3
on whether
paper Paper
a
be putt%
would Paper
For For For For For For Not
ard householder
favouring
Paper 2
Paper
26 28 20 10 7 _
56 17 15 1 3 _
9
8
was recycled Paper 2
la
attitudes:
or
A sun9e.v of Norwich
use) 3
Paper 4
Paper
5 2 17 4 55 4 13
48 30 8 2 5 _
Paper 4a
Paper
5
7
not
Paper
3
% stating paper was not recycled
79
31
7
60
10
% stating paper was recycled
10
46
74
10
69
% not sure
11
23
19
10
21
5a
paper
‘Economic dimensions of * B. Bower, and recycling reuse: Some waste definitions, facts and issues’, in D.W. Pearce and I. Walter, op cit. Ref 1, pp l22.
and the grey (but finely textured) paper 1 were generally regarded as being fit for newsprint and packaging, while the two white and finely textured papers (3 and 5) were commonly seen as suitable for writing and typing on. The implications of these findings are that if recycled paper products are to be used extensively in the place of virgin paper prod.ucts, then either they must be comparable in colour and texture or the consuming public will have to alter its views about the value of recycled papers. The dilemma here facing the manufacturers of recycled paper products is that they will have to produce a paper at a competitive price to the virgin product and they will have to deal with the effluent and additional energy requirements involved in bleaching and upgrading the quality of recycled paper.2 In this context, it is interesting to discover exactly what consumers’ attitudes are to recycling paper. Almost everyone thinks that used paper is valuable, so at least there is a willingness to see it recycled more so. it seems, than say g!ass or plastic (see Table 6). However, even more revealing, regarding motivations for recycling, are the responses to a series of statements about the merits or disadvantages of recycling. To visualize these feelings more clearly an index was derived ranging from +3.0 (very strongly agree) to -3.0 (very strongly disagree). Responses about recycling paper, ranged in descending order of agreement, are listed in Table 7. These results indicate clearly a high positive motivation to recycle paper and a fairly strong feeling that recycled paper would be acceptable. They also reveal the differences in attitudes toward the advantages and drawbacks of recycling held by those who do recycle Table
6. Attitudes
on value of certain
used materials
Worth Used Used Used Used Used
RESOURCES
POLICY
March 1979
paper metal rags glass plastic
96.8 93.2 84.2 61.1 24.2
money
1%) Not worth 0.5 3.2 8.4 23.2 49.5
money
Not sure 2.6 3.7 7.3 15.8 26.4
47
Reqcling
omi householder
attitudes: A survey of Norwich Table
7. Motivations
underlying
waste
paper recycling
Index value for all respondents
Index
value for:
Those not recycling waste paper More recycling of wastepaper
Those recycling waste paper
will:
reduce the nation’s import bill
+ 1.60
1.14
1.67
save trees reduce pollution and environmental damage
+1.56
1.51
1.52
+1.04
0.92
1.15
lower the cost of paper
+ 0.77
1.04
0.61
result in cheaper looking (ie poorer quality) paper
-0.11
-0.36
-0.15
lead to an excess in the supply of waste paper
-0.59
-0.48
-0.63
require too much effort on the part of the individual
-0.75
-0.68
-0.81
paper and those who do not. The valuation is fairly predictable, with those who consciously recycle believing more than those who do not that recycling will reduce import costs and improve environmental quality. The waste paper recycling group were also less inclined to believe that recycled paper would lower the cost of paper, save energy, take too much effort, result in too much waste paper or produce a poorer quality paper than those who did not recycle their used paper. It is interesting that the strongest motivations relate to saving the environment and helping the nation’s economy. One might conclude that even if there were only modest gains to be made in these two areas, the public would still support a recycling initiative. Indeed, Norwich householders were generally in favour of the local authority upgrading its waste material recycling programme. 69% of respondents accepted this situation (index value +0.68). Behind these motivations there is a strong conservationist streak at least if answers to the statement ‘too many products are overpackaged in the shops nowadays’ are to be believed. 40% very strongly agreed with this view, producing the highest index value (1.87) of the waste survey. Clearly, people do feel that there is too much waste involved in paper use and would support policies to curtail it.
Recycling of glass bottles. Because few opportunities exist in Norwich to recycle glass bottles, the principal means by which people can do this is by purchasing a returnable bottle. These are not always available, and usually are slightly more expensive to purchase, even excluding the deposit. Only 8% of the Norwich householders interviewed purchased returnable bottles regularly, and 64% never bought them. Only 10% claimed they purchased more than half of all the bottles they buy as returnable bottles, so actual behaviour toward bottle recycling is not very demonstrable. Intentions toward bottle recycling. The survey did uncover a fair degree of willingness among Norwich residents toward glass bottle recycling. 85% took the moral view that more bottles should be
48
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
Recycling atld householder attitudes: A survey of Norwich Table 8. Motivations
underlying glass bottle recycling Index value
More recycling of glass bottles will: reduce pollution and environmental damage save raw materials (sand, lime1 reduce the nation’s import bill lower the cost of bottles save energy lead to an excess in the supply of glass bottles require too much effort on the part of the individual produce a poorer quality glass bottle
+1.25 + 1.23
+0.81 +0.66 + 0.61 -0.64 -0.75 -0.90
returnable, but the manufacturers claim that it is uneconomic for them to collect returned bottles from dispersed outlets. In response to the attitude statements on the merits and drawbacks of bottle recycling, the responses followed a similar pattern to that observed for waste paper, but with some interesting differences of emphasis. These results indicate at least a willingness to respond to an initiative to recycle glass bottles, with strong motivations based on the saving of litter and raw materials. However, respondents were only moderately disposed to see Norwich City Council make a bigger effort to recycle bottles (62% agreeing, index value +0.64). Should this effort be made with careful attention given to promoting the scheme based on the motivations listed in Table 8, it might well prove successful. One way of promoting this is to encourage voluntary organizations to undertake the time consuming and arduous business of collecting waste materials from dispersed sources to central depositories. For instance, it might prove workable to pay such groups for transferring bottles from homes to neighbourhood skips. Certainly householders in Norwich were anxious to see such groups encouraged even more (index value + 1.40), and probably would support proposals to do this.
Conclusions The findings from this study indicate that a well established market in secondary materials flows exists in Norwich, particularly for paper and metals. The infrastructure is well developed and the collection arrangements well organized. Householders also recycle a surprising amount of paper, though much of this depends on the efforts of volunteer organizations. As far as interest in purchasing more recycled paper is concerned, much depends upon the quality (texture and colour) of the product. This may involve marketing difficulties for firms anxious to produce recycled paper without adding to general environmental pollution yet keen to compete in the paper market. There is interest for recycling glass bottles, but it remains for the correct mechanisms to be developed. The better deployment of volunteer groups as collecting agencies should be considered, as should a campaign to recycle glass bottles on the grounds of reducing dangerous litter and cutting down on the bulk of solid waste loads. The results of this survey in Norwich need not be typical of other towns in the UK. There is no substitute for a series of locally based data collection exercises which, hopefully, will be stimulated by the implementation of the survey and planning provision generally under
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979
RccyYiq
3 R.K.
am/ hou.sehoIder
A survey of Norwich
and
‘Local authorities materials recycling’. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 6, 1978, pp 273-286. _ ,., ’ Environmental Protection Agency, AOIICT Recovery Programme in Waste Sommerville and Marblehead, Citizen Attitude Massachusetts EPA Telephone Study, Resource Recovery Division, Washington, March 1978.
50
Turner,
attildes:
Sections 2 and 20 of the 1974 Control of Pollution Act. There will be significant local variations in waste generation, disposal methods/facilities and collection and recycling systems.3 Nevertheless, it seems to be more than coincidence that fairly similar towns (in terms of a number of socio-economic indicators) such as Norwich, Worthing and Harrogate all have populations with an apparently high degree of environmental (recycling) consciousness. The environmental economics literature contains a number of references to the general hypothesis that environmental ‘awareness’ increases as incomes increase. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demonstration recycling programme in Sommerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts, provides some evidence for this hypothesis.4 Both towns are in the Boston metropolitan area, but Marblehead is a more affluent suburban community. Despite the similarity of the recycling schemes themselves, the Marblehead programme has been much more successful. In 1977 Marblehead recovered some 25% of its residential waste for recycling while Sommerville managed only 5%. The Marblehead programme yielded a net benefit of $16 788 while Sommerville had incurred net costs of $54 728. The attitude surveys undertaken by EPA in the two communities reveal that the more affluent population of Marblehead was generally much more enthusiastic about recycling.
RESOURCES
POLICY
March
1979