The development of systems for property close collection of recyclables: experiences from Sweden and England

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57 www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

The development of systems for property close collection of recyclables: experiences from Sweden and England Cecilia H. Mattsson a, Per E.O. Berg a, Paul A. Clarkson b,* a

Department of Energy, Environment and Construction, Dalarna University College, 781 88 Borlange, Sweden b SITA Centre for Sustainable Wastes Management, School of Environmental Science, University College Northampton, Park Campus, Boughton Green Road, Northampton NN2 7AL, UK Accepted 24 July 2002

Abstract This study presents a multiple case study of systems for collection of recyclables from domestic properties. A model for describing the development process is presented together with six examples from Sweden and one from the UK. Six Swedish systems that have been in operation since 1994, when the Ordinance on Producers’ Responsibility was enforced, are presented. They are considered in the light of the driving forces behind their development: cooperation between municipality and producers, collection efficiency through vehicle development, quality of recyclables, Agenda 21 and environmental concerns, service to users and recycling as a marketable product, respectively. The Swedish systems are compared to a recently introduced collection program in Northamptonshire, UK. The results from an evaluation of the Swedish systems shows that what differentiates them is not technical details but how, where, by and for whom they were developed. The conclusion drawn is that a collection system should be adapted to local conditions, both in technical design and social factors. At present the lessons from Sweden are being used to design new recycling strategies in Northamptonshire, demonstrating the importance of international comparisons to develop ‘best practice’. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Waste collection; Household waste; Producer’s responsibility; Bring system; Property close collection

* Corresponding author. Tel.:
/44-1604-735500 E-mail address: [email protected] (P.A. Clarkson). 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 0 9 5 - 2

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

40

1. Introduction The Swedish government has adopted a policy which aims to ensure that all waste is treated according to its characteristics thereby theoretically decreasing reliance on landfill (Skr, 1998/99:63). Within this policy, it is assumed that some degree of source separation will be necessary to achieve the desired outcome. Fehr and Calc¸ado (2001) suggest that mixed collection: ‘. . .ostensibly degrades the quality of potential recyclable components and thus does not target landfill diversion. . .’. This study presents a survey of collection systems that have been in use since the Ordinance on Producers’ Responsibility (PR) was introduced in Sweden, in 1994. The survey was initiated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The aim was to provide an overview that could facilitate the implementation of similar systems across Sweden. The results from the Swedish survey are compared to a recently implemented system in Northamptonshire, a county in the East Midlands of England. The Swedish survey was conducted in co-operation with a reference group consisting of representatives from the EPA and other organisations and companies in the field of waste management1. This group made the final selection of best practice solutions described in this paper.

2. Waste management and collection of recyclables in Sweden and the UK 2.1. Waste management in Sweden The Swedish Ordinance on PR, introduced in 1994 states that physical and economical responsibility for handling packaging and paper/newsprint lies with the producer2. It also states that these fractions should be handled in systems that facilitate recycling. Consumers are requested to separate recyclables from the rest of the waste flow, and leave it in the systems provided by the producers (SFS, 1997:185). Thus, by law, source separation extends throughout the whole of Sweden. The fractions under PR are listed in Table 1. The Ordinance on PR is one measure to support this policy. Another is the Landfill Tax which was introduced in January 2002. The tax was 250 SEK/tonne (30a/£20) but a rise to /300 SEK/tonne (33a/£22) occurred in January 2002. The law also requires that combustible waste should be sorted from the rest of the waste stream (SFS, 1998:902). Separated combustible waste and organic wastes are to be 1

Swedish Association of Waste Management, Swedish Cardboard Recycling, Swedish Consumer Agency, Swedish Association of Local Authorities and I L Recycling 2 That is anyone manufacturing, importing or selling those items.

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

41

Table 1 Fractions under PR in Sweden Fractions under PR Plastic packaging Metal packaging Paper packaging/newsprint Paper Glass packaging (clear) Glass packaging (coloured) Today electrical and electronic waste lies under the PR, but did not when the survey was done and is therefore omitted.

banned from landfill under legislation to be introduced in 2002 and 2005, respectively (SFS 2001:512). No percentage goals for diversion from landfill have so far been stated in Sweden. To handle collection and recycling, the producers of paper, plastic, glass and metal packaging have formed five different material companies. These companies have the right to collect all PR-material and can contract the municipality or private companies for collection. The material companies have joined together and formed the service organisation */Fo¨rpackningsinsamlingen (Packaging collection) */that takes care of information, establishment and operations of recycling stations. The present system may be seen as a constraint on consumers. A more productive method of approaching this issue may be to focus on the design of the collection system to make it easier for the consumer to ‘do the right thing’. If the systems which are developed are better suited to the lifestyles of the modern society, perhaps the burden on the consumer may in fact become smaller allowing much better participation rates to be achieved. Goals for recycling of PR-material are set on a national level in Sweden (Table 2). Traditionally, in Sweden, waste management organisations within the municipalities have had responsibility for the collection of all household waste. Although the municipalities still have responsibility for collection of what is classified as household waste, the collection work can be distributed to other organisations. Table 2 PR-recycling in Sweden (% of total industrial/commercial and household waste) Material

Material companies result 2000

Governmental goals for June 2001

Plastic Well Paper/cardboard

37 84 40

30 65 30

Metal Steel Aluminium

68 50

50 50

Glass

70

70

42

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

Today, about 50 of the 289 Swedish municipalities have waste management systems that include additional source separation, above that which is required in the PRordinance. The municipal fee for waste collection is set on a self-cost basis but can be differentiated to motivate source separation. Due to the Landfill Tax, and the fact that the municipalities still have responsibility for what is classified as household waste, including packaging found in those fractions, the municipalities have incentives to actively participate in finding functioning systems for the collection of PR material. In practice, some demonstrate more advanced practice than others. The municipalities must also establish a waste management plan, including measures for collection and treatment of all waste generated in their region, including PRmaterial. The treatment of household waste is presented in Table 3. 2.2. Waste management in England The Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales sets a number of targets and goals for improvements in waste management within England and Wales (DETR, 2000). These are: . By 2005 to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill to 85% of that landfilled in 1998; . To recover value from 40% of municipal waste by 2005, 45% by 2010 and 67% by 2015; . To recycle or compost at least 25% of household waste by 2005, 30% by 2010, and 33% by 2015. The Waste Strategy also proposes statutory targets for recycling by local authorities. The emphasis is on ensuring that all local authorities achieve levels of recycling which are greater than those set for municipal solid wastes (MSWs). These targets are: . Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) with 1998/99 recycling and composting rates of under 5% to achieve at least 10% by 2003; . WDAs that recycled or composted between 5 and 15% in 1998/99 to double their recycling rate by 2003; . The remaining WDAs to recycle or compost at least one third of household waste by 2003. Table 3 Treatment of household waste, Sweden (% weight of total household waste collected) Material recycling Biological treatment Incineration Landfill Hazardous waste Source: RVF (2000).

28.7% 9.5% 38.8% 22.8% 0.5%

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

43

The management of MSW in England and Wales is centred upon local authority responsibility. The system is based on Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) and Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs), which may function within a single authority, as in the case of a ‘unitary authority’, or as two separate authorities within a single county. Northamptonshire has a two-tier system of Local Government, having a County Council and seven District and Borough Councils. The County Council is the WDA, with the responsibility for ensuring that waste generated in the County is disposed of appropriately. Northamptonshire County Council, grants waste management licenses to waste disposal companies and instructs District and Borough Councils, the WCAs, where to dispose of MSW. Under present legislation, local authorities (the WDAs and WCAs) have the responsibility of collecting and disposing of domestic and some types of commercial waste. However, no responsibility is placed on them to collect industrial waste and therefore businesses must arrange for the collection and disposal of their waste in the manner which best meets the demands of current legislation (Cheeseman and Phillips, 2001). The UK Landfill Tax was introduced by the Finance Act 1996 under the Landfill Tax Regulations (HMC, 1996). The overall aim of the Landfill Tax is twofold. First, to make sure that the price of landfill properly reflects the environmental cost of this option. Second, to encourage a more sustainable approach to waste management in the UK; where less waste is produced and a greater percentage reused or recycled (HMC, 1998). When it was first introduced, the tax was set at £2 per tonne for inert or inactive waste and £7 per tonne for active wastes, which is in addition to the normal landfill ‘gate fee’. However, under a review of the Landfill Tax Regulations in 1998, the cost for active waste increased to £10 per tonne, increasing by £1 per tonne until 2004. However, WCAs do receive a Landfill Tax credit from WDAs for every tonne of waste which is reused or recycled and therefore diverted from landfill. It is hoped that this financial incentive will provide WCAs with the ability to finance alternative outlets for wastes generated in their local authority areas (Morris et al., 2000). In England, therefore, it is the local authorities which have the statutory responsibility to achieve the recycling targets set by the UK Government. The local authorities have no power to require consumers to participate in recycling schemes and therefore the greatest barrier to success is limited public participation. Moreover, unlike in the case of Sweden, the producers of packaging, which is passed on to the final consumer, have no statutory responsibility to collect materials from those consumers for recycling. The EU PR Packaging Regulations only influence the amount of packaging which should be recycled by those handling it within the packaging chain from manufacturer to final supplier. The final consumer has no responsibility placed upon them to recycle (DETR, 1997; DTI, 1998). Consequently, diversion and recycling rates across England are quite low in comparison to most other EU Member States. A typical example is Northamptonshire, which has local authorities who perform at both ends of the national scales, from Corby amongst the worst in England to Daventry, one of the best (Table 4).

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

44

Table 4 Local authority recycling rates in Northamptonshire, UK Local authority

Corby Daventry East Northants Kettering Northampton South Northants Wellingborough County

% County population

% County MSW

8.5 10.8 11.8 13.6 31.6 12.4 11.3 100

% Increase MSW (p/ Recycling rate WCA a) (%)

8 16 11 13 29 12 11

4.2 6.3 5.7 4.1 5.0 3.3 4.0

1.5 42.6 15.1 3.4 12.6 7.5 10.3

100

4.6

13.4

Source: NCC (2002).

The way that the EU Packaging Regulations have been integrated into UK law, also limits the necessity for detailed waste composition analysis. The amount and types of packaging entering the UK’s economic system are known, but as the producers have no responsibility to recover these items from the ultimate consumer, a similar detailed breakdown of the final waste composition in line with that of Sweden does not occur.

3. Analysis of waste composition in Sweden and the UK A direct comparison of waste composition in Sweden and the UK is made problematic by the differences in legislation, method for analysis and how the results Table 5 Waste composition in Sweden and the UK (%weight of A */waste in sacks and bins; B */total) Weight (kg)

Swedena Daventry/UKb A Sacks and bins (kg/hh & w)

Single family Apartments

11.3 7.4

Material Compostable Combustible Paper/newsprint Plastics packaging Glass packaging Metals packaging

% by weight 50 12.5 16.9 10 2.9 2.3

a b c

Vikicevic (2001). DETR (2000). Mattsson and Berg (2000a,b).

Sweden a c B Total (kg/hh & w) 14.3 10.4

% by weight 20 27 16 2 5 7

% by weight 36 /40 10 28 /32 8 8 /10 2

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

45

are presented. Table 5 presents a summary of waste component analyses carried in Sweden and the UK. The results from the analysis of waste in sacks and bins collected in domestic properties in Sweden (Vikicevic, 2001) and the UK (DETR, 2000) are given in the first two columns of Table 5. Approximately 30% of the material left in sacks and bins is recyclable PR-material. The composition of the Swedish household waste, including material left at recycling stations is given in the third column of Table 5. Approximately 50% of the total waste produced in the Swedish households are recyclables. Comparing this with the data of how household waste was treated in Sweden in 2000 (Table 2) demonstrates that the full potential for recycling has not been reached.

4. Development of a collection system A collection system will always be a trade off between several opposing interests. First, there is the conflict of physical accessibility for the collector and the consumer (Fig. 1). For the collection organisation, central collection points will seem attractive since they have the potential to make collection more efficient. On the other hand, centralised collection points may inconvenience the consumer and thereby make the system effectively inaccessible for many householders. Accessibility for householders also includes the transparency of the system: how easy it is to understand and manage.

Fig. 1. Driving forces in the development of a waste collection system.

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

46

The other contrast is what drives the development of a collection system. To compare technical features does not give an indication of the major differences between the systems. Even though it is possible to develop technology or equipment which theoretically makes collection more efficient, a system may be too dependent on social or human factors to allow it to be effective in practice. Many of the systems studied here are superficially similar, but the way they were developed makes them function differently. In Sweden, another factor which is likely to influence the function of a system is how the municipality interprets the PR-ordinance. The municipalities are required within their waste management plan3 to account for all waste streams in their region. Some municipalities however, also see it as their responsibility to effectively manage all waste streams. Others interpret the law literally and claim that collection of PRmaterial should be undertaken by the producers. There are also major differences in how the collectors see the role of the consumers. Some see that the collector’s job is providing a service which makes consumers not effectively involved in waste management. Others see the waste issue as a way to promote pro-environmental behaviour and so make consumers increasingly aware of environmental issues. Although the PR-ordinance states that a basic system for collection of PRmaterial must be available in Sweden, nothing is said about the service level. The ‘traditional’ way of handling the collection of recyclables has been to use the ‘half and half’ approach of recycling stations; halfway between ‘Accessibility for the consumer’ and ‘Accessibility for the collector’ (Fig. 1). Today, the number of recycling stations in Sweden corresponds to an average of 1150 inhabitants per station. The median distance from household to station is 400 m (Fo¨rpackningsinsamlingen, 2001). In Sweden, recycling stations have not always achieved the desired recycling rates. There have been a wide range of public complaints, e.g. littering (RVF, 1999 Hemstro¨m, 1999) and the producers’ organizations are now taking measures to solve these problems. In some municipalities, the collector has wanted to provide a higher service level for consumers, partly to increase the collection rates. The Swedish government has decided to increase the goal for collection/recycling and to achieve this it is necessary to have collection systems that encourage higher participation through efficient collection. This has spurred the development of new systems for the collection of PR-material closer to households. The systems described here have been chosen to represent different areas with different constraints, i.e. rural and urban areas and different approaches to waste management. Collection points consist of bins or containers placed indoors or outdoors.

3

The Swedish Environmental Code states that every municipality has to establish solid waste management plan including all waste streams in the region, and measures to reduce amounts and hazardousness.

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

47

5. Description of best practice solutions in Sweden Kerbside or ‘property close’ collection has been in used in some Swedish municipalities since the 1980’s, but it was not until 1994, when the Ordinance on PR was introduced, that these have been adopted across the country. 5.1. Colour co-ordinated collection points for properties (system A) The key step here is to place the collection points close to households. In one municipality, a company has been given the task of collecting PR-material (Fo¨rpackningsinsamlingen, 2001). The containers for PR-material were put at the same spot where refuse was collected, one collection point for each building block. In order to reduce costs, it was found necessary to decrease the total number of collection points; this of course led to increased travel distances for the householders. The property owners in this region (A) decided how many fractions were to be collected. The collection points consist of plastic bins or, on large properties, containers with a fence around them. To make the system blend in more with their surroundings, and therefore to be more acceptable, the collection points are ‘colour co-ordinated’, i.e. painted in the same colour as the surrounding buildings. The property owner pays rent for the containers and provides the space necessary. Incomes from reclaimed material sales, and avoided landfill fees reduces these costs for the householders. System A has been used since 1994. 5.2. Close collection points on property and co-operation (system B) The producers’ representative and the municipality began to co-operate at an early stage in the development of this particular system. Recycling stations were introduced in this area in same year as the PR-ordinance. After 1 year, most items of packaging remained within the general household waste. To investigate the interest in property close collection, and avoid working on something not supported by the householder, a letter was sent to the property owners in the region where system B is now used. The majority of those asked were interested and all were invited to an information meeting where the conditions for a new system were discussed. This meeting facilitated the introduction of a new household close collection system shortly afterwards. Two standard models have been developed. First, a house with 660-l bins for larger properties. Second, an open, fenced version with 370-l bins for smaller properties. Here, the property owner can chose how many fractions are to be collected, the majority have opted for the collection of all six fractions. After the introduction of this system, the total volume of waste increased by about 20% as material that was formerly transported to recycling stations was now placed at the property. The special feature of this system is the close co-operation between the municipality and the producers’ representative. They have together developed model

48

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

collection points which include signboards with text and illustrations for each fraction, and have put a great deal of resources into dissemination (via newspapers, radio, and flyers). This co-operation has resulted in greater process efficiency and has helped to control the total waste arisings 5.3. Vehicles (system C) The municipality handles all waste collection in system C. Collection of newsprint and glass was carried out in the 1980’s. In 1996, after the PR-law was introduced, it was complemented with collection of paper, metal and plastic packaging. A great deal of work has been put into developing vehicles to make collection more efficient. At present, a three-compartment vehicle is used for ‘property close’ collection of metal, clear and coloured glass, these PR-fractions are collected at apartment blocks and single-family houses with a common collection point. A four-compartment vehicle with corresponding four-compartment bin for single-family houses is presently under development. Three to six PR-fractions are collected depending on the property owner’s requirements, the interval for collection is 1/2 weeks. 5.4. The production chain (system D) Collection is carried out by a company which started waste management in the paper industry. The company has been involved in the collection of recyclables since the early 1990’s. The first system consisted of recycling stations for newsprint/paper and glass which were financed by, and located close to, retail outlets in a given area. The main idea was that there should be no extra costs to the consumer. An evaluation of the program after 1 year showed that most packaging was still discarded in general household waste. Since the collection points were obviously too far from the source, a system with ‘home close’ collection was introduced in 1996. In Sweden, such collection points are usually called ‘property close’. In other words, this name was given to emphasize the awareness of how important accessibility is to the consumers for a collection system to succeed. To keep the same service level (distance to collection points) and costs, when more fractions were to be collected at the source, collection points were, when possible, located in previously used locations. Some of the waste bins were exchanged for bins with colours corresponding to different fractions. It was observed that collecting all fractions at the same place gave a better result than collecting ‘waste’ in one location and recyclables in another. A three-compartment vehicle is used for the collection of paper, plastic and metal packaging. Since the company itself uses some of the fractions (paper and paper packaging) in its operations, it has a genuine interest in obtaining clean fractions, which justify the expense of this operation, something that would be difficult for a local authority. An important feature of this program is that recycling and environmental management has strong support from the company.

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

49

5.5. Accessibility for consumers (system E) This system has been developed, by a municipality, for collection from singlefamily houses. It is oriented towards accessibility for the consumers and has a high service level. All six PR-fractions, refuse and batteries are collected from the house ‘yard’ where each household has a specially designed waste cabinet. The cabinet holds boxes for recyclables and a paper-sack for refuse. Waste is collected by a twocompartment back-loader, with two smaller compartments underneath. In total, eight4 fractions are collected in two trips, on the same day, with a 2-week interval. Originally, paper and glass were collected in paper boxes placed on the ground next to the waste bin. This caused problems with quality and work conditions, the material and boxes often became wet and the staff had back problems from bending down to pick up the boxes. To solve these problems, a cabinet was designed with shelves to put the paper boxes on and a compartment for the refuse. As the number of PR-fractions increased, this cabinet was found to be too small and also too high, and therefore unstable. A number of improved cabinets have been developed, but since the consumers pay for their own it has not been possible to replace all of the old ones. The work condition problems are still not completely resolved but the system has proved very popular with the householders.

5.6. Agenda 21 (system F) System F was developed by a municipality, based on Agenda 21 thinking. It attempts to make consumers take more responsibility for their waste generation and the environment in general. The work started with an education program on environmental issues and source separation aimed at children (posters, theatre etc. in day-care centres, schools and shops). In this way, people were (through the children) motivated to source separate even before the system was introduced. As this is a small municipality (14 000 inhabitants) where most people live in single family households it was natural to focus on them. The size and rural setting also meant that both the pre-introduction campaign and the introduction of the system had a great impact through the local media and helped raise awareness Table 6. On introduction, households were asked to organise into groups of 10 /30 households. These groups were responsible for the construction/building of collection points. They chose the location and, together with the municipality, signed a contract to take responsibility for maintenance and cleaning. The municipality agreed to take responsibility for the collection of household waste. Participation is totally voluntary (a condition seen essential for the end result) but as an incentive for source separation, a higher fee is charged for the collection of mixed waste. By letting the groups chose the location, the normal complaints (bad smell, blocked view) have so far been very limited. Most collection points lie on the 4

6 PR-fractions, batteries and refuse.

50

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

Table 6 Demographic of municipality/council where described system are found, and dwelling type the systems are developed for, (a.b., apartment block, s.f., single family houses) Area (km2) Inhabitants Households Dwellings in single family house (%) Sweden A B C D E F G

411 000 1 165 956

4 043 378 36 343 28 899

390 154

8 910 559 80 782 59 703 99 593 124 873 118 539 13 772 257 574

UK 244 193 Daventry 665

59 775 790 70 000

System for. . .

120 464

46 38 44 37 38 33 66 19

a.b. a.b. a.b./s.f. a.b. s.f. s.f. a.b.

24 554 000 23 691

78 90

s.f.

55 089

outskirts of the locations; so much of the heavy traffic in the housing areas is avoided. In apartment blocks, the same system is used, collection points are usually located in the building and the property owner is responsible for the maintenance. In rural areas, it was not possible to form groups because of the physical distance between householders. Here, the collector takes responsibility for the maintenance and building of collection points. The system comprises collection of 6 PR-fraction, batteries and refuse. A local entrepreneur is contracted to do the collection. The municipality wanted to use multi-compartment vehicles so as to decrease environmental impact. This was, however, not possible and all waste is now collected in a single-compartment vehicle.

5.7. Recycling as a package deal (system G) This last example is from the south of Sweden. The PR collection system here has been developed by a business-oriented company. This system, as most others, consists of plastic bins behind a fence or in a room or house and is designed for collection from apartment blocks. The property owners do not just pay rent for the bins, instead they buy a ‘recycling concept’ including bins, collection, planning, and quality control and follow-up (included in an information package). The collector also gives what they call a recycling guarantee; a promise to the consumers that material will be treated as described in the supplied information about the scheme. This is also intended to increase credibility. If sorting results are too low, the collector will take responsibility for providing more information to consumers or make the necessary changes.

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

51

Written information is available in different languages. The bins have lids of different colours and corresponding signs with text and symbols. If necessary, Braille can be added on the lids. In the basic system, the 6 PR-fractions, batteries, and refuse are collected. More fractions can be added if needed, for example textiles and cooking oil. Focus is on accessibility and motivating the consumers. The collector stresses that good quality for each fraction is important for marketing and therefore an important factor for the credibility of the system.

6. Collection methodology in the UK Kerbside collection schemes have been operated in the UK since the late 1980’s. The most common type of scheme employed in the UK has been the collection of dry recylables. Generally, two main approaches have been utilised: . Sorting materials into a multi-compartment vehicle at the kerbside; . Collecting mixed recyclables, such as paper, plastic and metal. Systems range from the collection of recyclables in separately coloured bags which are collected with the normal refuse and separated at a Municipal Recycling Facility (MRF). A variety of systems are in use, depending on the target material. For example, in some cases householders are asked to use one bag for mixed paper, another for mixed containers, a third for garden/green wastes etc. This type of scheme is used throughout Bedfordshire, a county adjoining Northamptonshire, UK. The benefits of this system are that no vehicle modifications are needed and collection costs are lower as materials do not need to be sorted at the kerbside. The negatives are that schemes in the UK which rely upon this strategy do not collect glass, there may be a loss of recylables due to bags splitting and the scheme requires there to be a MRF in operation. Another type of scheme, operated by a number of local authorities, utilises two wheeled bins */one for recylables and one for residual waste. Fractions are collected on alternate weeks. The benefits of the system include, cost and enhanced environmental advantages, as no additional collections are required. The system is easier to implement if a wheeled bin is already used for collecting refuse, so the system may achieve higher participation rates. Many local authorities use schemes whereby a separate vehicle collects compostables from a wheelie bin on a fortnightly basis. Another approach is to use a separate vehicle to collect recylables and compostables on alternate weeks; a system adopted by Test Valley and which forms the basis of Daventry District Council’s recycling scheme (NCC, 2000; Resource Recovery Forum, 2001). In the UK, the box method, utilising a separate collection vehicle with sorting at the kerbside, is the most common form of collection. Schemes, which co-collect, refuse and recyclables using conventional vehicles need to provide a container for each recyclable fraction (Resource Recovery Forum, 2001).

52

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

The scheme seen as best practice by many in England, is operated by Daventry District Council, in Northamptonshire (Read and Reed, 2001). Daventry’s approach differs from that of many authorities by virtue of a 4 bin system; a 240-l ‘grey’ bin for refuse (landfilled), a 240-l ‘brown’ bin for kitchen and garden organic waste (composted) along with a ‘blue’ recycling box for cans, glass, aerosols and plastic bottles (recycled) and a ‘red’ recycling box for newspapers, pamphlets and textiles (recycled). The system is based on a biweekly collection; of recyclables 1 week and organics and refuse the next. Dry recyclables are segregated at the kerbside by the crew into separate sections of the truck before being taken to a local materials recycling facility where the various fractions are bulked prior to transfer to reprocessors (Read and Reed, 2001; NCC, 2002). Recycling rates in Daventry have improved considerably since the introduction of the scheme; from 9% in 1998 to 46% in 2001. This has placed the District amongst the best performers in the UK (NCC, 2000, 2002). However, even in this highly successful system, barriers to public participation occur. In Daventry District, it is the rural areas which are achieving the highest recycling rates; in some areas over 60%. This may be related to the attitude of the rural population and their greater connection and understanding of the environment? Certainly, the kerbside collection of recyclables has benefited recycling rates by eliminating the need to travel large distances to use the centrally situated ‘bring’ sites. In many areas of the largest urban area, situated in the town of Daventry itself, participation rates remain lower than expected. This would seem rather strange considering that the same system and method of promotion was used in both urban and rural areas. However, an analysis of the different types of housing in two settings highlights the problem. The Daventry approach of a ‘4-bin’ system is ideally suited to single family dwellings which benefit from sufficient storage space for the necessary bins. The majority of rural housing tends to permit the successful use of this system in that homes generally have a separate rear entrance and sufficient storage space for the bins. However, in the urban areas where terraced housing is the most common type of dwelling, 4 bins is a problem. Householders have insufficient space to store the bins and in many cases have no rear entrance and have to carry waste bins through their homes to the kerbside. It is then clear that a single system cannot adequately serve all housing types. A trend common to both Daventry and Sweden was the increase in the quantity of wastes when the collection of recyclables was introduced. However, the introduction of the ‘4 bin’ system did see the overall volume of the general waste bin reduce which made householders more aware of the need to recycle.

7. Discussion The main differences in the existing collection systems described do not lie in technical details but rather in the way */how, when and by whom */the system was developed. Systems that are similar in appearance can, due to their ‘driving forces’

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

53

Fig. 2. Driving forces in the development of described collection systems (A /G). Recycling stations at intersection.

and context, have quite different functions. Fig. 2, plots the driving forces behind the 6 systems in Sweden. The use of recycling stations has been set as the norm and placed in the intersection between the axis because it is the most common system of collection. Recycling stations have experienced problems of geographical inaccessibility; people found them situated too far away and therefore collection rates were low. The systems described have all been developed to obtain higher collection rates, collection points have been moved closer to the households, and the best practice solutions are those plotted higher on the Accessibility for households */scale. At one extreme of this study is a municipality which based its whole collection on Agenda 21 (F). The main idea was to get the average member of the population involved so as to increase overall pro-environmental behaviour through better waste management practice. Increased interest in household waste management can cause a positive ‘spill-over effect’ to other issues, for the broad mass of society (Ahberg, 2000). The householders were involved in deciding the location of collection points which gave them greater psychological accessibility. Both system F and C were developed in line with the traditional waste managers mind set */‘guild-thinking’ */ that existed in Sweden. This originates from the time when the municipalities still had full responsibilities for collecting household waste. Initially, the ‘cleaningprinciple’ was foremost, i.e. all material left out should be cleaned away. This is in contrast to the ‘recycling-principle’ which currently prevails, where the waste manager is primarily interested in reclaiming value. ‘Guild-thinking’ can be a way of understanding how the municipal waste organisation sees itself as responsible for maintaining the collection of recyclables.

54

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

At the other extreme, there is the company using a collection system for recyclables as a marketable product (G). The main issue here is to provide a system with a high degree of service satisfaction to the consumers and thereby achieving a high collection ratio for recyclables collected. Lying between the two extremes (Fig. 2), there is the company that uses some of the collected material in its own processes and thereby has a genuine interest, partly economic, in obtaining clean fractions (D). In this system, emphasis lies in high accessibility for the householder to make it possible to collect a large part of the recyclables that are of acceptable quality. Due to the economic advantages that could accrue, as well as a strong environmental interest, the implementation in this system had support from the management and it was therefore possible to acquire the required resources for the project. It became clear during the development of the system that a viable system needs three pillars to stand on: working conditions, economy and service to consumers. Working conditions for the collection staff must be acceptable; working routines and equipment must be designed so that the staff are not exposed to hazardous situations. There are, however, some indications that new work related problems can occur when source separation is introduced. For example, separation of organic material can lead to mould development and/or dust release, which in turn can cause inhalation problems (Thorn, 2001). Characteristics of a collection system are decided by population density, number of households covered by the program and waste stream characteristics (Jahre, 1995). Noehammar and Byers (1997) research on design variables of a collection system (voluntary vs. mandatory, if container is provided or not, collection day, collection frequency), indicate that there is no ‘. . .single ideal residential kerbside recycling program. . .’. There are possibilities for efficient collection by creative route planning and vehicle development, but social and human factors still have to be taken into consideration. The economics are dealt with in different ways in different systems. As it is closely associated with fuel consumption, however, it can go hand in hand with environmental interest. Some degree of co-collection is included in most systems, either ‘pure co-collection’, i.e. two or more fractions in the same vehicle or ‘effective co-collection’, i.e. longer intervals (Jahre, 1995). Another way for the system to become increasingly economic is its ability to provide marketable products. Analysis of waste fractions shows that sorted material keeps a higher quality in single-family households than in apartment blocks (e.g. Mattsson and Berg, 2000a,b; VAFAB, 1998). In single-family houses it is usually easier to get information to an individual that feels responsible for the management of their waste (Berg, 1993); aspects considered in system E and F. Property close collection will probably increase transportation costs within the collection organization. System E is an example of a case where market interests are not a hindrance for developing functioning waste systems. The central requirement is to generate sufficient flexibility in the system so that it can respond to altered circumstances. Service to consumers is ‘. . .a complex matter with a number of measures. . .’ (Jahre, 1995). One is the distance to collection/drop off points. There is the risk that

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

55

consumers will dislike, and therefore abandon, the system if it is perceived as inconvenient for them. ‘Too far’ is here a very relative measure. In some areas the distance from the door to the ‘right’ bin seems too far while in other systems, householders must drive their waste up to 3 km. Ka˚ks (1998) states that a person must be well motivated to want to make themselves amenable to radical change. There are five factors that might restrict a persons ability to make these changes: availability, time, economy, convenience and knowledge/information. Noehammar and Byers (1997), states that ‘. . .education programs can be very important to program effectiveness. . .’. According to Fehr and Calc¸ado (2001), ‘A functioning public relations program is essential to implementing the model’. The importance of information was the thing that all the Swedish ‘systems developers’ stressed; both during implementation and while the system is in use in the form of feedback. Fehr and Calc¸ado (2001) report having spent 4-person months implementing their model in 60 households and thereby estimate the time required for the next project which incorporates 120 households would be 8 months. Time that must be dedicated to dissemination of environmental information might be the only parameter that can be generalised/extrapolated for other places and circumstances. In a pilot project of households in Sweden, it was concluded that sufficient collection efficiency was not achieved. However, it was expected that the positive attitude of the consumers concerning property close collection and source separation in general, would be the spring board for future improvements (Mattsson and Berg, 2000a,b). Although a positive attitude within the consumer group is a necessity for satisfactory results, it will never be sufficient on its own. To achieve a good function in total, a system needs support from all three pillars. It can be seen that collectors have chosen a different focus depending on the context. These differences give an incentive, to the kind of ‘solutions on a case-by-case basis’ that Wolf (1988) advocates. Even though useful information can be found by studying best practice solutions, one general conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not certain that a system, even though well tested and functioning in one area, can automatically be transferred to another setting. The development of a collection system should always be adapted to the local conditions. The Swedish experience has shown very clearly that systems need to be developed around the needs of communities in balance with the needs of operating an efficient collection system. In many cases it is the lack of infrastructure in many parts of the UK which limits success; the use of ‘integrated systems’ is behind that of central Europe. However, perhaps the biggest difference between the two countries is their respective interpretation of the Packaging Regulations. In Sweden the responsibility for recycling lies with the producer of the packaging, whereas in the UK it is left to WCAs to achieve all recycling rates. Businesses handling packaging (manufacturing etc.) although purchasing Packaging Recovery Notes to the value of their obligation, do not have to actively oversee recycling themselves. This leaves WCAs with responsibility for recycling without sufficient power or funds to operate systems effectively.

56

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

8. Conclusion An evaluation of the six systems used in Sweden has profound implications for domestic waste management in Northamptonshire. As the seven WCAs struggle to reach or maintain their statutory targets for recycling it is clear that even within a single county conditions are too varied to allow the reliance on a single collection system. Certainly while the rural areas would be well served by the Daventry ‘4 bin’ system the urban areas need a mix of perhaps a more simple kerbside collection along with a higher density of ‘bring’ sites. As WCAs suffer from a lack of available financial resources the operation of two different collection systems per WCA area is not feasible. The outcomes of this study highlight a number of points. Firstly, that Governments need to ensure that European legislation is incorporated into National legislation in a manner which not only limits the financial implications for the Member State (a natural reaction to legislation) but also to take the long term view of how that legislation may initiate a change for the better in society. Clearly, the UK interpretation of the Packaging Regulations has done nothing to enhance recycling rates or the infrastructure necessary to allow the wider adoption of sustainable waste management. It is clear that all systems need to be suited to the needs of the consumer and that no single system can achieve that in all settings. Finally, this study has helped to highlight that case studies from other nations bring very important lessons to others, in many cases showing that the problems faced by society as a whole are in fact quite similar.

References Ahberg H. Sustainable waste management in household */from international policy to everyday practice. Experiences from two Swedish field studies. Sweden: Department of Home Economics, Go¨teborg University, 2000. Berg P. Ka¨llsortering, teori, metod och implementering. (Source separation, theory, method and implementation). Go¨teborg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology, 1993. Cheeseman K, Phillips PS. The Northamptonshire resource efficiency project: the exit strategy. Resour, Conserv Recycling 2001;32:203 /26. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (packaging waste) Regulations 1997. London, UK: DETR Publications, 1997. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Waste strategy 2000 for England and Wales. Part 1 and 2. London, UK: DETR Publications, 2000. Department of Trade and Industry. Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998. London, UK: DTI Publications, 1998. Fehr M, Calc¸ado MR. Divided collection model for household waste achieves 80% diversion from landfill. J Solid Waste Technol Manage (Philadelphia, USA) 2001;27:22 /6. Fo¨rpackningsinsamlingen/Packaging Collection. Fo¨rpackningsinsamlingens INFO. nr 2, 2001, (Information from the Packaging collectors, no 2, 2001). Stockholm, Sweden; 2001. Hemstro¨m P. Omfattning, orsaker och fo¨rslag till a˚tga¨rder mot nedskra¨pning vid a˚tervinningsstationer (extent, causes and measures against littering at recycling stations). Sweden: WinAgain AB, 1999. Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise. The Landfill Tax Regulations. London, UK: HMSO, 1996. Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise. Review of The Landfill Tax: Report. London, UK; 1998.

C.H. Mattsson et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 39 /57

57

Jahre M. Logistics systems for recycling */efficient collection of household waste. Go¨teborg, Sweden: Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, 1995. Ka˚ks H. Ma¨nniskor och miljo¨ansvar (people and environmental responsibility) (NRC no 3). Sweden: Falun, 1998. Mattsson C, Berg P. Husha˚llsavfall i Borla¨nge kommun- Analyser av material en- och flerfamiljshus (household waste in Borla¨cnge municipality */analyses of material from single-family households and apartment blocks) (Working paper http://www.du.se/ekos). Sweden: Dalarna University College, 2000. Mattsson C, Berg P. Husha˚llsavfall i Falu kommun-Analyser av material en- och flerfamiljshus (Household waste in Falu municipality */analyses of material from single-family households and apartment blocks). Sweden: Dalarna University College, 2000. Morris JR, Phillips PS, Read AD. The UK Landfill Tax; financial implications for local authorities. Public Money Manage 2000;20(3):51 /4. Noehammar HC, Byers PH. Effects of design variables on participation rate in residential curbside recycling programs. Waste Manage Res 1997;15:407 /27. Northamptonshire County Council. Waste in Northamptonshire. Parts 1 and 2. Northampton, UK; 2000. Northamptonshire County Council. Waste in Northamptonshire */Joint Waste Strategy. Northampton, UK; 2002. Read AD, Reed S. How to exceed 50% waste diversion through composting and recycling from kerbside */Daventry’s Green Waste Scheme. Proceedings of the ‘Towards the Future */Waste in the 21st Century Conference. Northampton, UK: University College Northampton; 2001. Resource Recovery Forum. Assessment of kerbside collection schemes for dry recyclables. London, UK: Resource Recovery Forum; 2001. RVF. Nedskra¨pning vid a˚tervinningsstationer, resultat fra˚n RVFs kommunenka¨t i januari 1999 (littering at recycling stations, results from questionnaire). Sweden: Swedish Associatioin of Waste Management; 1999. RVF. Svensk avfallshanteringen 2001 (Swedish Waste Management 2001). Sweden: RVF/Swedish Ass. of Waste Management; 2001. Available from http://www.rfv.se. SFS. Fo¨rordningen om producentansvar fo¨r fo¨rpackningar, (Ordinance on producers’ responsibility). Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of the Environment; 1997:185. SFS. Renha˚llningsfo¨rordningen (ordinance on waste management). Stockholm, Sweden: Ministry of the Environment; 1998:902. SFS. Fo¨rordning om deponering av avfall, (ordinance on waste to landfill). Stockholm, Sweden: Svensk fo¨rfattningssamling; 2001:512. Skr. Regeringens skrivelse. En nationell strategi fo¨r avfallshanteringen (Government communication. A national strategy for waste management). Stockholm, Sweden; 1998/99:63. Thorn J. Seasonal variations in exposure to microbial cell wall components among household waste collectors. Ann Occup Hyg 2001;45(2):153 /6. VAFAB. Sammansta¨llning av plockanalysresultat (Summary of waste component analyses). Va¨stera˚s, Sweden; 1998. Vikicevic S. Karakta¨risering av avfallsflo¨det fra˚n svenska husha˚ll (Characterisation of waste from Swedish households). Stockholm: Stiftelsen Reforsk, 2001. Wolf K. Source reduction and the waste management hierarchy. The Int J Pollut Control Hazardous Waste Manage 1988;38(5):681 /6.