The hidden dynamics of household waste separation: An anthropological analysis of user commitment, barriers, and the gaps between a waste system and its users

Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

The hidden dynamics of household waste separation: An anthropological analysis of user commitment, barriers, and the gaps between a waste system and its users* Jiesper Tristan Strandsbjerg Pedersen a, b, *, Halaze Manhice c, d a

Social Science Institute (ICS), University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal CCIAM, Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal Instituto Superior T
ecnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal d Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Quelimane, Mozambique b c

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 23 December 2017 Received in revised form 22 January 2019 Accepted 26 March 2019 Available online 10 September 2019

The implementation of household waste separation in the European Union (EU) faces challenges, and argued less successful than expected. This article reports on an anthropological case study in five apartment buildings in the Copenhagen area, Denmark, analyzing the relationship between the local municipal waste system and its users. The results reveal that the implementation of increased source separation cannot rely solely on value appeals (as proposed in the EU strategy). The residents performed waste separation with different intensification and the majority of households (93%) has a yet unrealized potential to separate more waste. The residents stretching to separate as-much-as-possible-waste (7%) expressed strong sustainable values, or they had a daily life with sufficient available time (e.g., retired, unemployed, had a part-time job) to engage in waste separation. The critical barriers identified were cultural perceptions of household order, challenges regarding interim storage in the household, (bio) waste was perceived as disgusting, challenges regarding hygiene and potential extra cleaning, mistrust to the system, as well as expressed difficulties to changing to the new segregation habit. The study suggests adjustments in the policy approach to not only target waste separation as a single standing action but as a new routine that needs to be implemented in the existing network of household routines. A policy focus on a combination on "awareness" (shaping values), "user convenience", "the network of household routines", "the perception of household order", and "user trust in the waste system" may represent five keys to unlock the presently unrealized potential in household waste separation. Additionally, the EU statistics illustrate poor improvements on waste reduction and increasing numbers of packaging waste. This may reveal a policy gaps, which may endanger user trust in the system. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Handling editor: Zheming Tong

1. Introduction Waste management plays a central role in the EU plan for implementing a circular economy and is presented as a way to transform and modernize the European economy in a sustainable direction (Cobo et al., 2018; EC, 2017a; Rada and Cioca, 2017). In

* ^ncias da Universidade de Lisboa Permanent Address: CCIAM, Faculdade de Cie (FCUL) Campo Grande, Edifício C1, 1749-016 Lisboa Portugal. * Corresponding author. Social Science Institute (ICS), University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (J.T.S. Pedersen). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.281 0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

[email protected],

jiesper.

recent decades, continuous efforts in research, policy-making and municipal administration have led to improvements towards more ~ ez et al., sustainable urban waste management systems (Ordon 2015; Pinto et al., 2017; Ragazzi et al., 2017), which is closely related to the development of sustainable production patterns and involve discussions regarding producer responsibility and waste reduction (EC, 2010; Eriksson et al., 2005; Finnveden et al., 2013). However, in EU, large amounts of waste are still generated every year (EC, 2017b), and the complexity is increasing (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012) with still growing costs for nature, climate, and societies (IPCC, 2013; Jackson, 2009). Waste separation is a relatively new policy focus and several indicators reveal that waste separation is not yet implemented as a

2

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

general practice in EU households. An average EU citizen produces around 500 kg of municipal waste per year. It is stated that only around 40% of the waste produced in households were recycled in 2014 (EC, 2017b). In 2015 EU recycling targets were lowered (EC, 2015a; Sanderson, 2015), and tried reduced even further by national governments (Teffer, 2017). Especially the aims and potential for biowaste separation are not fulfilled (Bourguignon, 2015; Edjabou et al., 2016). For the EU it is essential to address obstacles on the ground (EC, 2015b), and it is argued that adaptation of waste management systems to particular situations requires a balance between policyrequirements, waste management infrastructure, and households ~ ez et al., 2015). Source separation in households is an (Ordon essential element in the politically desired conversion to achieve high rates of recycling. Campaigning and education are generally recommended (Mwanza et al., 2018) and central instruments in the EU strategy (EC, 2018; European Parliament, 2018). Although, the awareness and knowledge of people in caring about the natural environment are growing (EU, 2011; Gallup, 2009) many are not convinced of the need to separate municipal waste (Osuch et al., 2016). This creates an interest in understanding how households ~ ez et al., 2015; relate to source segregation (Oh and Lee, 2017; Ordon Petersen and Christiansen, 2017; Rada et al., 2016). This paper presents an anthropological analysis of sourcesegregation in apartment buildings within a multicultural setting. The aim was to investigate and analyze the challenges related to household waste separation in apartment buildings by analyzing a local waste system perceived from the residents’ perspective. This involved identifying and analyzing the gaps between users and the facilities offered by the system, and the merits of appealing to values (e.g., provided via education and campaigning instruments) versus other drivers and methods for increased source separation in households. The case study presented, included direct contact and interviews with 112 of 455 households, ten home visits, and a survey of 93 responses. Additionally, a waste composition study was carried out for three waste types (cardboard, plastic, and biowaste). The purpose of the methodology was to capture and analyze the relationship between resident perceptions, values, and the daily routines reproduced in households, and how these connect to the relatively new citizen obligation of source separation. Although the field of waste handling in multi-story apartment buildings is not exactly un-investigated, the households are less studied. The majority of studies in the field are based on quantitative methods (e.g., Osuch et al., 2016; Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017), which does not necessarily catch the total population of households (Rispo et al., 2015) nor the daily life activities and possible obstacles on the ground (Hargreaves, 2011; Shove et al., 2012). A great share of European households (42%) are apartments (DST, 2017; Eurostat, 2017), and therefore it's a crucial field which can create a significant impact on the overall EU recycling rates. The recycling program in some member states is argued to function as a barrier instead of being a motivator for household waste separation (Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017). Policies may work well in individual houses with a door-to-door collection, which implies direct feedback between the system and individual households, but not necessarily in ~ ez apartment buildings with collective curbside containers (Ordon et al., 2015; Petersen and Christiansen, 2017).

was carried out between December 2016 and August 2017. The apartment association was chosen since many disposal errors had been identified in apartment households with a curbside waste collection system in this area. The municipality had detected fewer segregation errors in households with door-to-door collection. The five apartment buildings are located in four geographical living areas with 100e200 m between them. There are three 3story buildings and two so-called “High Towers” (HT1 & HT2) with 12 and 16 stories. Relocation in the association's apartment had happened on a regular basis, especially in the High Towers with a relocation-rate above 10% (see Table 1). Waste separation was implemented in the three-story buildings in 2013, and in the High Towers in spring, 2016. Allocation of municipality information on waste separation (i.e., a waste separation guide) had been distributed once to all households and may not have reached the newest residents (Fig. 1). From each floor, residents have access to disposal of residual mixed waste via waste chutes, which is collected in containers in locked rooms on the ground floor of the buildings. In the outdoor living areas, residents and other people passing by have access to disposal of eight waste fractions: batteries, cardboard, paper, metal, glass, plastic, biowaste and small cardboard (e.g., packaging waste such as tetrapak1). No residual waste containers are installed in the outdoor areas. The three areas of Nør/Mag, HT1, and HT2, have underground containers (UG) as well as locked sheds (only access for residents) for bulky, hazardous, ceramic and electronic waste. Lillekær has no UGs. Three unlocked sheds with containers on wheels and with public access are located in Nør/Mag (1) and Lillekær (2). Container locations are illustrated in Fig. 2 (see Fig. 3). Table 2 shows the location, size and waste fraction for UGs and open container sheds in the four outdoor living areas. In Denmark, waste management was in 1973 enrolled under an environmental law representing a shift from waste as primarily perceived as a health issue, gradually to one perceived as (also) being an environmental issue. In 1989, a new law made local authorities more or less free to decide on how to collect and manage waste locally, as long as they comply with national targets and objectives (DAKOFA, 2018). Since 1942, and in particular with the passing of the “The Danish Bottle Bill” in 2000 a refund and deposit system has been established, representing an economic tool for citizens to separate and deliver used beverage containers such as metal cans, plastic, and glass bottles (Andersen, 2017; DEPA, 1999). 2.2. Methodology & methods The research design drew upon both qualitative and quantitative methods, involving anthropological participation, semistructured interviews, user survey, (see Table 3) and a waste composition analysis, aiming to better understand the daily life in households, and capture a broad sample of residents regarding waste perceptions and activities.

2.1. The case study background and the physical field

2.2.1. Home visits: participatory observation The ten home visits had a duration of 1e4 h. Four households visits were planned together with the association office, who asked for volunteers via phone calls and when meeting residents at the office. Those four visits involved a participatory approach with a three-step process of interacting with the household members during shopping, cooking/eating, and cleaning. This aimed to study residents in the process of producing and handling waste: consumption, use, and disposal. The interacting also involved semi-

The study was conducted in close collaboration with “Ved Milestedet,” an apartment association with five buildings located and Municipality of Rødovre, Copenhagen area. The data collection

1 Tetrapak is a term for beverage containers made of both plastic and cardboard materials, often manufactured for milk and juice.

2. Material and methods

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

3

Table 1 Overview of the four apartment localities: Households, Average renting period, Percentage of relocation/new residents and Household with non-Danish ethnicity per June 2017. Locality

Average renting period per household

Households living less than two years in the association

Percentage of households with another ethnicity than Danish

HT1 (12-stories) HT2 (16-stories) Mag/Nør (2 buildings/3-stories) Lillekær (3-stories) Total

19 years 14 years

20% 13%

39% (37/95 households) 35% (68/192)

14 years

10%

27% (28/105)

7 years

10%

38% (24/63)

13 years

13%

35% (157/455)

Fig. 1. Waste separation guide for Municipality of Rødovre. Front page (left), description of glass, paper and metal categories (middle), and recommendation for citizens to invest in a composting container for the garden (right). Source: Municipality of Rødovre (RK, 2013).

structured interviews regarding perceptions of waste, waste separation routines and performance, values, and knowledge of how to sort correctly (i.e., separation quiz). The six other home visits were conducted via resident invitations during “interactions by the bins” (section 2.2.2) and involved residents’ resumes of their daily waste routines and perceived challenges/barriers, values, and motivators. 2.2.2. Interactions by the bins: informal semi-structured interviews in the outdoor areas A method to conduct informal interviews was designed for the study, aiming to approach and catch a wide variety of residents, and in particular include non-separating residents. Residents were encountered randomly in the outdoor areas, while they were disposing of waste, talking to neighbors or doing errands. They were invited to answering a few questions regarding waste. The approach was open and informal, inspired by grounded theory (Martin and Turner, 1986) seeking to make residents openly reveal how they perceived and handled waste. Residents were first asked: “Where do you live?” and secondly “What do you do with your waste?” The neutral introductory questions aimed to liberally explore if residents engaged in waste separation or not. The following questions investigated their perception of waste, waste

routines, commitment, challenges, and knowledge about the system and waste fractions. 2.2.3. User survey A user survey in English and Danish was distributed to all 455 households in hardcopy. Residents could deliver the hardcopy in boxes at all entrances before two specific dates, and by the association's administrative office. One hundred homes additionally received an Email with a link to a web-based version (i.e., households registered with email addresses in the association office). The survey aimed to investigate tenants' waste performance and perception of waste separation and management. To make the survey clear and concise, we used five-point Likert scale items (36 questions), and multiple choice for social variables (9) such as age, communication with neighbors, number of household members, and work situation. To additionally guarantee high reliability the survey is replicable and the questions were tested by researchers (2) and citizens (4) to ensure non-ambiguous, simple, and neutral questions written in an easy-to-understand language. Residents were asked to evaluate their waste activities regarding “separation performance”, “barriers”, “enabling mechanisms”, and “values”, as well as their perception of waste,

4

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

Fig. 2. Map of the association (left) showing the five apartment buildings (dark blue), UG locations (blue circles); unlocked container sheds (orange circles); Locked sheds (green ovals) and the resident-driven garden (purple star). The images illustrate an “open container shed” (top right) and “UGs” (bottom right). Sources: “ved Milestedet” (map), Jiesper Pedersen (photos). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 3. Waste separation solutions made by residents. A semi-committed family have installed an IKEA kitchen with four separation bins in a drawer (left), and a very-committed family have created a solution via seven different IKEA boxes as well as residual waste bin under the sink (right). Photo: Jiesper Pedersen. Table 2 Curbside containers with public access in the apartment association's living areas: 21 containers on wheels and 15 UG containers for six waste types. Numbers in paragraph refer to locations shown on the map (see Fig. 2). Location Unlocked sheds (containers on wheels) Nør/Mag (no.4) Lillekær (no.5) Lillekær (no.6)

UG container installations HT1 (no. 1 HT2 (no.2) HT2 (no.2) Nør/Mag (no.3)

No of containers per location

Volume

Waste Fraction

1 1 1 1 1 2 (Total: 21)

1100 L 660 L 240e660 L 240e660 L 240 L 240 L

Cardboard Plastic Metal Paper Glass Bio

1 1 1 1 1 (Total: 15)

3000 L 2500 L/2500 L 5000 L 5000 L 5000 L

Table 3 Geographical distribution of informants for the methods: Home visits, Survey, and Interviews. Method

HT1

HT2

Nørrekær

Lillekær

Blank

Total

Home visits Survey Interviews

2 19 42

3 33 23

2 25 31

2 10 16

3

10 90 112

Bio Metal/Glass Plastic paper Small cardboard (packaging)

separation, and the system. Additionally they were asked which waste fractions they separated (in total eight), who is responsible for waste generation in households (consumers, retailers, manufactures, or policies), and if they think the waste gets mixed or stays separated. The data was processed in SPSS and R. Residents were classified as very-committed if they stated always in “separation performance” and separated all eight waste fractions, semi-

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

committed if they separated waste often, middle or seldom, and non-separators if they never separated. 2.2.4. Waste composition study: Weighing and visual assessment A waste composition study was designed and adjusted via introductory assessments made by the municipality on March 2nd and 10th; involving the fractions of cardboard, plastic, and biowaste (20 containers). From this, three categories of source qualities were defined: “Good” (no disposal mistakes); “Small mistakes” (e.g., tetrapak in plastic containers); and “Crucial mistakes” (e.g., bags of mixed waste in wrong source containers; metal or plastic in biowaste containers). Systematic assessments performed on April 6th and June 15th involved weighing and visual observation for UGs (HT1, HT2, and Nør/Mag) and visual inspection of open containers (Lillekær and Nør/Mag). By comparing weight and volume of the UG fractions examined, a rough estimation of hidden errors was possible (e.g., that biowaste has a higher density than plastic). Additionally, open containers were assessed frequently by researchers during the fieldwork. 3. Results 3.1. Home visits The results show that residents in eight households were perfectionistic in sorting waste. They sorted all possible waste and showed interest in improving the rate of materials separated. They showed interest in improving their knowledge to separate correctly (e.g., via the Internet, contacting the municipality or friends) and to separate more (i.e., reducing the amount of mixed residual waste). Although they found it easier to use the waste chutes, they were willing to invest the extra effort needed to go to the outdoor curbside containers. This perception of extra effort included: extra time spent on separating and searching for knowledge; a longer walking distance to the outdoor containers; and the fact that waste storing occupied more-than-wanted space in the home. Some of these residents perceived food waste or cans from food waste as disgusting, but adapted by inventing solutions to cope with this inconvenience: “We like canned fish, but the cans smell, so we store metal waste on the balcony,” said a 30-year old father, while a 33year old mother stated that she carried out biowaste daily to avoid potential smell. The residents in these households were characterized by giving waste separation high priority, which made them overcome challenges related to inconvenience and disgust. In some cases, only one person in the household was very-committed but pushed the other members to increase their performance. From now these types of households are referred to as very-committed. Two households were less perfectionist and the residents presented a more casual approach to the separation processes. They sometimes mixed recyclable waste in residual when separation became challenging and inconvenient (i.e., if they needed to invest more effort than they wished, experienced lack of time or had storage challenges). If waste separation required more space than they could hide behind kitchen flaps or drawers, they preferred to segregate fewer fractions. A 30-year old mother with Chilean roots stated: “If there is only one piece of metal or plastic when we cook, then we put it in the bag for residual waste. I only bother to separate it if there is more of the same kind.” This exemplifies that recyclable materials were sometimes thrown in residual waste if residents did not know how to separate an item correctly or only had a few items to separate. This category of residents is referred to as semi-committed. The very-committed showed a better understanding of correct separation. In a waste-quiz, they had 80% or

5

more accurate answers, while the semi-committed family taking the test had 70%. For both groups, waste separation was found to interfere with the social order (Douglas, 1966) and the cultural perceptions of a representable home (from now on referred to as household order). In general, residents valued a clean home, perceived biowaste as unhygienic the minute it entered the waste bin; and did not like waste to be visible and accessible to kids. The difference was that although all households emphasized household order, and found waste separation inconvenient, the very-committed did not compromise waste separation and invented solutions to cope with the challenges. For the semi-committed, disgust, inconvenience and interference with household order represented barriers that made them separate less. Fig. 2 exemplifies how a semi-committed household (left) preferred to hide the waste and separate fewer fractions, while a very-committed household (right) separated all fractions in noticeable waste boxes. All households connected waste separation with proenvironmental or pro-society support. Such sustainable values (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2011; EC, 2017c; Hargreaves, 2011) and resident perceptions of waste separation as a correct ‘behavior’ operated as motivational drivers, which made residents overcome challenges of disorder, disgust, and inconvenience. Here, the combination of time and sustainable values were critical factors affecting the commitment and waste activities. Some households were less busy (e.g., retired, part-time contract) than others (e.g., families with small children). A retired couple expressed moderate, sustainable values but separated all waste possible, while a young family with similar moderate values and a tight weekly schedule separated less than they could. Other families with a tight schedule and strong values were found to be willing to invest the extra time, compromising their wish for convenience and household order. The tendency was that when sustainable values were held by residents the better, they adapted to and coped with challenges. Nevertheless, having strong, sustainable values related to waste and waste separation (in the disposal process) was not present in the consumption process (e.g., buying organic, green-labeled or products with less packaging). None of the examined residents indicated signs of green purchase actions (Joshi and Rahman, 2015), nor reducing consumption or generation of household waste. The focus was on product utility and fulfilling needs, buying what they knew, liked, thought was healthy and to a fair price. It was not until the use (cooking moment) and disposal process, when products became waste that they indicated awareness, such as complaining about high amounts of packaging materials. 3.2. Interactions by the bins: interviews Informal interviews were conducted with residents between 11 and 81 years of age, from 112 households representing 25% of total households (112/455). They lasted for 4e45 min. Eight households (7%) expressed strong commitment (sorting all waste possible). A vast majority (88%) stated that waste separation was a reasonable and correct thing to do, but they did not stretch sorting actions beyond what was convenient for them. Six persons (5%) did not sort waste and will be referred to as non-separators. The most frequent reasons to not commit were perceptions of separation as inconvenient (distance and spending extra time in the separation process) and that It was too complicated to understand the system (too many different waste fractions). Besides being complicated, a retired non-separating woman stated that she had given up because society had developed in an irresponsible direction: “Especially young people consume too much. They buy and throw

6

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

out, and society does not do anything to stop this growing consumption.” A non-Danish speaking Arabic couple indicated that their waste was thrown in the waste chutes. A 50-year old man said that he only produced the same type of waste and that separation, therefore, was of no use; while two 30-year old men did not care about where their waste was thrown. The separating residents (95%) expressed that they separated waste because they “were asked to [by authorities]," as well as that waste separation was believed to support environment, future generations or society (sustainable orientation/values). Several separating residents had witnessed other residents making disposal mistakes, but although they perceived this as a social disorder, they did not discourage it. “You know you do not interfere in other people's affairs,” said a 30year old man of Arabic heritage. The following topics were not addressed by researchers but initiated by residents: Around 50% of the approached residents complained about lack of space or wished to get a space-reducing storage system in their kitchen. Visible waste in the home was for the majority not appropriate and was perceived as unhygienic, disgusting, or inappropriate. The very-committed said they compromised themselves or invented solutions of coping with lack of kitchen space. Mistrust in the economic system was expressed by a minority of residents. Two households expressed dissatisfaction with a specific kind of food packaging: “Sometimes we have packaging, which is made of metal, plastic, and paper glued together. You can't separate it. Where do you throw it?” asked a 30-year old very-committed mother. Her husband added: “Why don't they produce something made of degradable materials? I know it is possible." Six residents in HT1, HT2, and Nørrekær expressed uncertainty about if the waste fractions were mixed in the waste trucks or later in the process. I have looked from my window and it looks like they put different fractions in the same truck. Do they mix it?” asked a 32-year old very-committed mother from Ghana. Another 33-year very-committed mother stated that: “We separate here and at my job. But does it matter? Do they mix the waste we separate? I would like to know that!” While those very-committed residents continued to separate, the system-mistrust was by others used it as an argument to separate less. “Why should I support this [the waste separation system] when they [manufacturers] produce things that I can't sort anyway?” asked a 25-year old non-separating mother. “Does it matter what we are doing? Or does it [the waste] get mixed and burned anyway”, asked a 25-year semi-committed man. 3.3. User survey The response rate was 20%, with a sample of 93 adults (52 women and 41 men) between 18 and 92 years of age (M ¼ 55.8 years), and involving nine ethnicities (88% were ethnic Danish). All reported that they were committed to daily waste separation. Forty percent (37) were considered very-committed. Sixty percent (56) were classified as semi-committed. No non-separators returned the questionnaire. The responses neither mirrored the ethnic diversity of the population, nor the commitment variation previously observed (section 3.2), and are therefore analyzed as based on veryand semi-committed (and mainly ethnic Danish) residents.2 This was done to ensure validity of analyzes and results. On average the separating residents express that they sort 7 out of the 8 waste fractions examined. The fractions most separated were glass (100%), cardboard (96%), paper and plastic (90e92%).

2 However, it is possible that the most committed are more likely to participate in the survey: 38 very-committed answered, which is equal to 8% of the total population (38/455).

The materials least separated were biowaste (76%) and hazardous waste (72%). Ninety-two percent expressed that waste is a resource we should recycle. However, 44% stated that they found waste disgusting. Both very-committed (M ¼ 4.9) and semi-committed (4.3) find waste a natural part of life. However, the very-committed (3.0) think waste is less disgusting than semi-committed (M ¼ 3.5). Separating residents reported difficulties in changing to a new habit (M ¼ 2.6) to be an essential barrier. They found “time” (M ¼ 1.8), “knowledge about fractions” (M ¼ 1.8), and “walking distance” (M ¼ 1.6) to be less critical. 93% were motivated by environmental values and 73% by supporting society. The essential motivators on the ground were needs for more insight in the recycling system: information about the positive effects of recycling (M ¼ 3.6) and to be ensured that the sorted waste would stay separated and recycled (M ¼ 3.5). It was less important if the waste chutes were closed (M ¼ 2.2), while receiving kitchen separation designs (M ¼ 3.0) would increase motivation. Thirty-one percent believed or was in doubt if the separated waste was mixed after collection. Of this 23% very-committed and 54% semi-committed. Forty-three percent of the separating residents expressed that industry is most responsible for waste generation in Danish households, while 25% found households to be most responsible of the two. 3.4. Waste composition study For Cardboard, Plastic and Biowaste fractions, disposal mistakes were found in 79% of the examined containers in the April assessment (15 of 19 containers), which were reduced to 67% (12 of 18) in June. As illustrated in Table 4, the best fraction qualities were shown for plastic. In the last assessment, all six containers had good quality, and three had improved from small to no mistakes. Cardboard had small mistakes: often plastic bags. No crucial errors were identified in the UG cardboard and plastic containers. All biowaste containers had errors, and 80% had crucial errors. Nine of the bio containers were examined in both assessments. Three improved from “crucial” to “small mistakes (i.e., a plastic bag, newspaper, plastic folder)," while six remained with crucial mistakes (i.e., bags of residual waste, metal cans, metal folders, tetrapak). Field observations (researchers) identified good sorting qualities in glass, paper and metal containers. Frequent mistakes were observed in the small bio containers (b240), including bags of residual waste. Separated plastic packaging was found in cardboard containers, while separated cardboard was found in plastic containers. In Lillekær, tetrapak (juice and milk containers) were found in the plastic and cardboard containers (Fig. 4). Sometimes verycommitted residents and service technicians corrected misplaced materials in the open containers and can be classified as the “intermediary” (Petersen and Christiansen, 2017). The intermediary did not correct misplaced bags of residual waste. There were no containers for residual waste in the unlocked sheds (see Fig. 5). No analyses or observations regarding waste collection/separation and its composition before and after the proposed research exist. 4. Discussion Given the results from the case study, it is possible to define some strategies aiming to improve the source separated collection of solid waste in apartment buildings. This involves an analysis of the theoretical approach to evaluate and improve user commitment, to reshape the EU policy strategy, as well as considerations regarding data collection methods, and assessment of disposal mistakes.

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

7

Table 4 Visual assessments conducted for visible assessment of underground containers (UG) and open containers (b) in waste sheds. Location & map no., Number of p. 5 containers

Type

HT1 1

1 1

UG-Plastic UG-Bio

x

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

UG-Plastic UG-Plastic UG-Bio UG-Bio UG-Plastic UG-Bio b1100Cardboard b660-Plastic b240-Bio

x (E) x

HT2 2

Nør/Mag 3

1 2 6 Lillekær —5

1

1

b1100Cardboard b660-Plastic b240-Bio b1100Cardboard b660-Plastic

2

b240-Bio

1 2 1

Total

20

Assessment April 6th, 2017

Assessment June 15th, 2017

Good (none)

Good (none)

Small mistakes

Crucial mistakes

Small mistakes

x x

Change

x

Tetrapak Residual, metal, tetrapak Newspaper

Improved Improved

x x x x

x

x

x x

Plastic bag Metal, plastic

x

Metal

x

Residual bag Pizza box Plastic bag

x (E)

x

(E)

x

x xx

x

x

(E)

x

x xx

xx

x

(E)

x

x

xx 3

Description

Crucial mistakes

8

7

6

6

6

No change Improved/no change e

Meat in plastic pack No change Residual bag No change Plastic bag e Plastic folder (residual) Residual bag Paper

xx

Improved e No change No change No change e e

Improved No change Improved

Note: Empty not evaluated containers are marked (E).

Fig. 4. Content from UG plastic container in Nør/Mag indicating good source quality: ¾ full, weighing 75 kg, one small (cardboard) error visible (left). UG metal container in Nør/ Mag with good quality: containing beer and soda cans (right). Photos: Lene Sehested, Municipality of Rødovre.

Fig. 5. Disposal mistakes in containers in Lillekær. Tetrapak found in a cardboard (left) and a plastic container (right). Photo: Jiesper Pedersen.

8

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

4.1. The implications of values as drivers for increased source separation User participation is a critical component to develop and implement waste separation in households (Ghani et al., 2013; ~ ez et al., 2015). In the literature, conventional, individualistic Ordon and rationalist approaches to behavior change (Ajzen, 1991; Becker, 1978) focus on individual's beliefs, attitudes, and values as indicators of waste separation behavior (Osuch et al., 2016; Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017; Taylor and Todd, 1995). This theoretical framework has in the past decades been represented in the EU implementation plans (EC, 2015a, 2008, 2003) suggesting that human activity may be changed by identifying and modifying proenvironmental beliefs (Castagna et al., 2013; Longe et al., 2009; Osuch et al., 2016) via campaigning and educational policy instruments (EC, 2018, 2015c, 2003). However, the results of this research show that values alone do not drive social change regarding waste separation in apartment households. In theories of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) it is thought that social change depends upon values and attitudes, which are believed to drive the kinds of behavior that individuals choose to adopt (Ajzen, 1991; Shove, 2010). Moreover, that media influence and education affect individual agency (EC, 2015c, 2003; Shove, 2010). On one side, theories of behavior, argue that individual attitude, awareness, and values lead to increased user participation in waste separation (Ayob and Sheau-Ting, 2016; Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017; Zhang et al., 2015), while other studies, primarily based on theories of practice, argue that approaching the routines of everyday life provides a stronger foothold for social change (Gjerris and Gaiani, 2014; Hargreaves, 2011; Paddock, 2015; Shove et al., 2012). The results of the participatory method in this study (household visits) reveal that sustainable valuables arguably are essential drivers of social change in the field, but that awareness, attitude, and values cannot alone explain the degree of user commitment. In accordance with recent surveys and literature (EC, 2014; EU, 2011; Gallup, 2009; Ghani et al., 2013), the residents examined were positive towards waste separation, expressing commitment moved by a belief that recycling supports society, environment, or future generations. This can be considered sustainable values (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2011; Hargreaves, 2011; Nielsen et al., 2016). Nevertheless, this did not adequately explain the actual separation commitment for the majority of residents (88e93%). Some residents have transformed these values into actions and some into inactions (Chappells et al., 2011). In the literature, the existence of a value-action gap is widely discussed (Blake, 1999; Shove, 2010). It refers to people who express pro-environmental values, though they do not always act in alignment with those values. In general, households consist of repeated daily obligations and routines. In this study, waste separation was identified as competing with the existing network of routines (e.g., cooking, cleaning, homework). Therefore time became a factor affecting the final user commitment. Although expressing good intentions, the majority of residents either deliberately excluded challenging waste fractions (i.e., biowaste) or simply sorted less than they could to avoid extra work. The key barriers identified, besides other household routines, were perceptions of inconvenience regarding the extra effort needed to separate waste (e.g., interim storage, increased complexity, knowledge search, potential extra cleaning with biowaste bag leaks) and household order (i.e., visible waste, disgusting smell, hygiene risk). However, for separating residents, environmental justifications seemed essential to construct the separation activity as meaningful and as a way to legitimate the extra work they needed to invest to separate and to cope with violations of household order. Several semi-committed expressed that they

wished to support the environment or society, while their actions and statements indicated that they prioritized household order and convenience higher. The network of household routines and available time (to carry out all daily routines), as well as other issues such as household order and extra effort interfered with a full implementation of a waste separation routine in the majority of households. Fig. 6 illustrates how the degree of resident commitment depended strongly on the strength of “sustainable values” and additionally on “time available” and the residents “willingness to compromise household order” (see Fig. 7). In some cases, strong, sustainable values overweigh the daily life challenges related to separation (Users 1e2). Of the ten household visits, eight households were very-committed (i.e., separating all waste possible). Of them, four had strong values and busy daily life (i.e., little time available), while four had middle-strong values and a less-busy daily life (i.e., available time because they were retired, worked part-time, or didn't have a job). However the result was the same, they separated everything possible. The remaining two households had semi-strong values and a busy daily life. They had a tight daily schedule involving routines such as preparing meals, preparing children for school, work, laundry, etc., and also to finding time for leisure. Their daily life activities/routines interfered with the obligation of waste separation resulting in less separated waste compared to the four households sharing the same middlestrong values. The amount and intensity of daily routines were a factor affecting the waste separation outcome in households with middle or low sustainable values (Users 3e5). However very few residents expressed strong values. And they sometimes expressed frustration of compromising household order. Sustainable values were present amongst non-separators. However, this did not make them separate waste. For this, feedback between the users and the system is crucial to avoid adverse outcomes of the users’ perceived challenges and inconveniences to support contentment and commitment continuously. To cope with obstacles on the ground, the core policy focus, needs to both to focus at campaigning/education and separation as a routine, and local solutions which increase household order and user convenience. The relatively modest amount of waste separated by the majority of residents (semi-committed) represents an unfulfilled potential to improve recycling rates. It does not necessarily indicate a value-action gap, but that waste separation values are not always robust enough to overcome everyday challenges, wants, needs, obligations, and other values. 4.2. Implications regarding data collection A discrepancy was found between the data collected. Analyzing the distribution of very-committed, semi-committed and nonseparators (percentage of each category), the survey revealed a ratio of 40:60:0, while the interviews revealed a ratio of 7:88:5. A method of distributing questionnaires and making the users deliver them back to the researchers has been applied in recent literature ~ ez et al., 2015). Home visit and survey methods, in this (e.g., Ordon study, were not sufficient for capturing a representative sample of the total resident population (including non-separators). Analysis of data entirely based on such methods may bias and decrease validity of results. Alternatively, a method of systematically approaching informants (e.g., door-to-door survey) or a preselected pool of informants (e.g., Boldero, 1995; Stoeva and Alriksson, 2017) may cope with such type of sampling bias and may improve the validity of results. Additionally, analyzing proenvironmental actions, based on qualitative data collection (e.g., Chappells et al., 2011; Hargreaves, 2011) allows the researchers to

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

9

Fig. 6. The drivers of user commitment in waste separation: “sustainable values” (left), Household order” (middle), and “time available and pressure of household routines” (middle) defined the residents final waste separation commitment (right).

Fig. 7. An unlocked container shed in Lillekær. Cardboard and plastic containers (right) and the smaller containers (left) are more or less identical for non-aware residents. Photo Jiesper Pedersen.

evaluate the informant's reliability in ways surveys by nature are less capable of doing. This study stresses the importance of capturing the lived life, and the real considerations behind peoples choices and actions (Chappells et al., 2011; Shove, 2010) which does not exclude the use of surveys but encourages a face-to-face contact with informants. 4.3. Rethinking the EU strategy focus 4.3.1. Capture the complexity of daily life The EU suggests two types of policy instruments, economic and educational (EC, 2018, 2003). The results reveal that the residents examined have obtained a strong habit of separating glass, paper, and metal. The relatively strong separation activity regarding glass and metal may have been institutionalized via user practices enforced by the Danish return and deposit system (Andersen, 2017; DEPA, 1999). This may reflect a positive effect of economic instruments generating user perceptions of glass bottles as valuable, supporting the construction of separation routines and social change in waste practices (Osuch et al., 2016). Arguably, campaigning has had a fundamental impact on awareness and a comprehensive positive user approach. The awareness of EU citizens in caring about the natural environment is growing (Osuch et al., 2016), as well as the number of EU citizens expressing commitment in waste separation moved by the reasoning of it as a sustainable activity (EC, 2014; Gallup, 2009). Nevertheless, a study in Poland identified that financial penalties and reducing the payment for separated municipal waste could

increase the number of separating citizens, while increased awareness of reducing the natural resources consumed was less important (Osuch et al., 2016). If values alone do not drive waste separation or expressed more precisely, if the strength of sustainable values do not determine the rate of separated waste in an apartment household (where economic incentives are not applied on individual households), then there is room for rethinking the policies and evaluation methods. This paper suggests that implementation of waste separation needs to be addressed as the implementation of an additional household routine, which needs to fit into the existing network of household routines (e.g., Hargreaves, 2011; Shove et al., 2012), rather than the implementation of a single standing behavior. It is argued that the idea of desires and attitudes as driving behavior produces a blind spot at a particularly crucial point: making it impossible to see how the contours and costs of daily life (Shove, 2010), which interfere with the aim of well-intended policies (Hargreaves, 2011; Paddock, 2015). Integrating social practice theory in policymaking introduces an approach to embracing the variation of social conditions, as well as individualistic psychological behavior. The social practice theory provides a possibility to decenters individuals and turns attention also towards the social and the collective organization of practices, which offers a wide range of everyday life footholds for implementing change (Hargreaves, 2011; Shove et al., 2012) dealing with the entire network of household routines, as well as perceptions of household order and mistrust. Arguably, the core of the EU policy approach has a potential for improvements.

10

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

4.3.2. Biowaste: a disgusting challenge Biowaste is an EU priority with a still unrealized potential ~ ez et al., 2015; Vito, 2011), and also (Bourguignon, 2017, 2015; Ordon identified as the fraction with the second lowest commitment in this study. This may be due to implementation of policies at varying speed across the Member States, regions and municipalities (Bourguignon, 2015), as well as related to storage, convenience and collection times (Ghani et al., 2013; Vassanadumrongdee and Kittipongvises, 2018). This emphasize that the integration of waste activities in daily life routines are crucial (Gjerris and Gaiani, 2014). It is argued that 25% of residual waste from Danish households is appropriate for recycling (Edjabou et al., 2016), which indicates a potential for both waste reduction and increased source separation. Biowaste represent a potential disorder related to disgust and hygiene (Douglas, 1966) which makes it a challenge for optimal separation commitment. The key challenges identified were perceptions of disgust, interim storage, and potential extra cleaning, which may be due to a behavioral trade-offs presenting separation commitment as a choice between acting sustainable or preserve household order. It represents a contextual shaping of cultural perceptions of biowaste as something disgusting and a potential health risk, as well as the importance expressed by residents of presenting a clean home for the family and guests. Technical and behavioral solutions on the ground are possible, such as precautionary information about bio bag durability (to decrease the number of leaks and extra cleaning), or installing space optimizing separation systems in kitchens for all waste fractions (to hide the waste, improve interim storage, and ‘nudging’ residents to separate all waste factions). Alternative solutions may imply holistic approaches that implement awareness of recycling loops in everyday life routines. The apartment association examined, had a user-driven garden (see Fig. 1), which provides an opportunity to install composting containers. In this type of solution the users are present in both the separation and recycling process and benefits from the final result in terms of fertile soil. Such practice related experiences, which potentially increase the users' awareness of the biological circle may shape perceptions of biowaste as something beneficial and valuable (i.e., compost to the garden), rather than a disgusting health treat. As well as reduce waste management costs if implemented on a large scale. 4.3.3. Biowaste: a disgusting challenge3. Increase transparency and system trust Although positive attitudes towards the concept of waste separation (EC, 2014), mistrust to the system was discussed amongst residents. The user perception of “extra effort” implies that waste handling today (separating waste) is more complicated than the previous (mixing all waste). Because the users need to invest more awareness, time, and energy in the present waste activities, this has created a new need to evaluate the system and if the system returns the extra effort invested by the users. The residents’ overall understanding of the recycling processes were low, which created rumors and doubt amongst citizens if the waste separated by residents would be mixed during the municipal collection operations or later in the process. This lack of knowledge was a driver of mistrust, which made residents request more insight about the local recycling processes and the positive global effects of recycling (e.g., for environment and society). Although awareness is growing (Gallup, 2009; Osuch et al., 2016), more than 30% of the separating residents in this study indicate mistrust towards industrial actors and the waste system. From a user perspective industry and manufactures of packaging waste are actors, which should also contribute to the sustainable conversion by reducing waste. At the same time, none of the

examined residents indicated any awareness of their responsibility in the consumption process (i.e., when shopping). The EU and member states present a priority order of five strategies to cope with resource scarcity and environmental damage: reduce, reuse, recycling, energy recovery and reduced landfilling. However, the EU focus is on recycling and recovery, while reduction of waste is less prioritized (Bourguignon, 2017; Sanderson, 2015). The campaigned and applied strategies contradict (EC, 2008; Gharfalkara et al., 2015; Van Ewijk and Stegemann, 2016). Recycling may support “to decrease the consumption of primary resources, but it does not tackle the causes, only the symptoms” (Bartl, 2014). According to EU data, recycling has increased 42% and incineration 43% between 2005 and 2017, while reduction of total waste decreased around 2% during the same period (Eurostat, 2019b) and total production of household waste increased around 2% (Eurostat, 2019a). The top priority of the waste hierarchy seems less prioritized. Several of the residents examined, experienced increasing numbers of packaging waste. Between 2005 and 2016, EU packaging waste increased 10%, and of this plastic packaging increased 15% (Eurostat, 2019c). The frustration held by citizens, who are being asked by the system to separate waste, as a ‘necessary’ citizen action for society and environment, is inadvertently at the same time opposed to increased amounts of packaging waste. This may not seem fair from a citizen perspective nor sustainable from a system perspective. It may obstruct the system's attempts to motivate its citizens in the long-term. Targeting shopping behavior implies an opportunity to lower both generation of bio- and packaging waste. However, conflicting interests are identified in the field: “waste generation is a huge business, and numerous stakeholders are not interested in reducing waste” (Bartl, 2014). Although a ban of surplus purchases to “discourage of ‘buy one get one free actions’” was recommended (EC, 2010) there are no signs of implementation of such initiatives in the EU strategy (EC, 2018), although this may reduce waste generation, greenhouse gas emissions and side streams (i.e., waste) from recycling processes (Bartl, 2014); and in the entire
re
et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2011), production-waste system (Le Que which may improve the image of a sustainable (waste) system. 4.4. Reducing disposal mistakes on a local level For the fractions of biowaste, plastic, and cardboard, three types of recurrent disposal mistakes were observed throughout the fieldwork. Tetrapak belongs to the waste source “small cardboard.” In the literature uncertainty, related mistakes are referred to as “the structural mismatch between the layman logic and the logic of the waste management system that causes uncertainty” (Henriksson ~ ez et al., 2015). The layman logic (residents' et al., 2010; Ordon interpretation) in Lillekær, is likely to have caused tetrapak (consisting of both plastic and cardboard material) to be defined as either plastic or cardboard. This identifies a gap between the technical system and user interpretation related to information and disposal accessibility (i.e., no small cardboard containers were installed in Lillekær). Awareness related mistakes, such as bags of separated plastic were found in cardboard containers, and separated cardboard was found in plastic containers. Those errors of separated materials are possibly caused by separating residents, which have not been aware in the disposal moment (e.g., being in a hurry) because plastic and cardboard containers appeared almost identical (having the same color, height, and lid) making it difficult to tell the difference unless carefully reading the fraction description. Highlighting the fraction identity (e.g., via fraction colors) is recommended. Crucial disposal mistakes, such as bags of mixed (not-separated) waste were found in the open cardboard, plastic and bio containers.

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

They are probably delivered by non-aware and careless nonseparators, rather than aware residents. This indicates a need for residual curbside containers, which are not installed in the outside living areas. The waste chutes do not alone cover the need for disposal of residual waste. This was expected by authorities beforehand. Tetrapak, food in plastic packaging, pizza boxes and metal was found in biowaste; all of which are items containing biowaste. A solution to avoid mixing of inorganic and biological ‘nutrients’, and avoid technical nutrients in the environment (Skene, 2017) could be to install the ‘new’ residual containers by the open shed entrances to make them the most accessible containers and relocate biowaste to the least accessible locations in the sheds. 5. Conclusions The source separation strategy as pointed out by the EU and implemented in member states do to some degree support implementation of waste separation in apartment households, but it does not contain the full potential of implementing social change in the field. This research argues that values alone do not drive implementation, which is backed up in recent literature arguing that awareness and environmental protection is not the most critical component for citizens. The results show that residents perform waste separation with different intensification and that the majority of households (93%) has a yet unrealized potential to separate more. Of the sample examined 7% (very-committed) residents separated all waste possible, 88% separated what was convenient, while 5% was identified as non-separators. The residents stretching to separate asmuch-as-possible-waste expressed strong sustainable values, or they had a daily life with sufficient available time (e.g., retired, unemployed, had a part-time job) to engage in waste separation. Although almost all residents held some degree of proenvironmental awareness, sustainable values were simply not strong enough to overcome perceived inconvenience and time scarcity. Barriers interfering with the ‘good intentions’, were mainly available time combined with other household routines, and the perception of household order. The ladder involved the inconvenience regarding lacking space for interim storing, hygiene and potential extra cleaning (i.e., leakage of biowaste bags). Additionally and less visible, mistrust to the system represented potential barriers. The study recommends minor shifts in the policy approach to not only target waste separation as a single standing action but as a new routine that needs to be implemented in the existing network of household routines. A focus on increased “awareness” (shaping values), “convenience”, “household order”, and “trust in the waste system” represent four keys to unlock the presently unrealized potential in household waste separation. The more simple, easy, and convenient separation practices appear, the higher the user commitment is likely to be. Furthermore, the EU statistics demonstrate modest improvements on waste reduction and increasing numbers of packaging waste. This may reveal policy gaps in the overall waste strategy, which are crucial not only to develop sustainable societal systems but also to maintain the users’ trust in the system and provide reliable campaigning of a sustainable system. Conflicts of interest The authors have declared no conflicts of interest in this article. The Municipality of Rødovre founded the fieldwork to gain anthropological insight in the users' motivations and barriers as well as to get recommendations for system changes. This was

11

communicated via a research report (Pedersen, 2017). The municipality was not involved or engaged in this article, however improved the use and sharing of the data collected. Acknowledgments The research was completed with great support from Rødovre Municipal Department of Environment and Lene Sehested; the board of the building association of “Ved Milestedet”, Klaus Lind Bentsen and Mogens Jacobi; its administrative office (Ved Milestedet, AKB Rødovre, www.milestedet-akb.dk): Søren Lillevang and May-Brit Pakka Pritzl and the service technicians (especially Bent Svensson); as well as the openness and participation of residents. Thank you to all reviewers who engaged in the improvement of the article; to Reviewer 1 for specification on the aim; to Reviewer 3 for proposing relevant literature, and in particular to Paul Chakroff, Institute of Social Science at the University of Lisbon, for terminology suggestions and English language support. References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179e211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T. Andersen, A., 2017. Deposit System Law - Denmark [WWW Document]. ankerandersen.Dk, 9.20.17. http://anker-andersen.dk/deposit-laws/denmark.aspx. Ayob, S.F., Sheau-Ting, L., 2016. Key determinants of waste separation intention among students on campus. In: The 4th International Building Control Conference 2016 (IBCC 2016). MATEC Web Conf. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/ 20166 IBCC 2016 600066. Bartl, A., 2014. Moving from recycling to waste prevention: a review of barriers and enables. Waste Manag. Res. 32, 3e18. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0734242X14541986. Becker, G.S., 1978. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Blake, J., 1999. Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environ. 4, 257e278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725599. Boldero, J., 1995. The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: the role of attitudes, intentions, and situational Factors1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 440e462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01598.x. Bourguignon, D., 2015. Briefing Understanding Waste Management Policy Challenges and Opportunities. EPRS j European Parliamentary Research Service. Bourguignon, D., 2017. Circular Economy Package Four Legislative Proposals on Waste (No. PE 603.954). Members’ Research Service, Brussels. Castagna, A., Casagranda, M., Zeni, A., Girelli, E., Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Apostol, T., 2013. 3R’S from citizens point OF view and their proposal from a case-study, 75. U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D. Chappells, H., Medd, W., Shove, E., 2011. Disruption and change: drought and the inconspicuous dynamics of garden lives. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 12, 743e756. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011.609944. Cobo, S., Dominguez-Ramos, A., Irabien, A., 2018. From linear to circular integrated waste management systems: a review of methodological approaches. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135, 279e295. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.08. 003. Corral-Verdugo, V., Mireles-Acosta, J., Tapia-Fonllem, C., Fraijo-Sing, B., 2011. Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: a study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective wellbeing. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 18, 95e104. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5020711. DAKOFA, 2018. Article: Waste Regulation in Denmark - Waste and Resource Network Denmark [WWW Document]. Waste and Resource Network Denmark, 7.18.18. https://dakofa.com/element/test-article-today/. DEPA, 1999. Waste in Denmark. Douglas, M., 1966. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge and Keegan Paul. DST, 2017. Boliger Efter Beboertype, Område, Tid, Anvendelse Og Udlejningsforhold. EC, 2003. EU Waste Policy: the Story behind the Strategy. European Commission. EC, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counsil of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives, European Commission. Directive. EUR-Lex: 32008L0098, Brussles. EC, 2010. Summary of the Green Paper Stakeholder Consultation. EC, 2014. Attitudes of Europeans towards Waste Management and Resource Efficiency. https://doi.org/10.2779/14825. EC, 2015a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament , the Council, the European Economic and Social Commitee of the Regions Closing the Loop - an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy (No. COM/2015/0614 Final). EUR-Lex - 52015DC0614, Brussels. EC, 2015b. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (No. COM(2015) 595 Final). 2015/

12

J.T.S. Pedersen, H. Manhice / Journal of Cleaner Production 242 (2020) 116285

0275(COD), Brussels, 2.12.2015. EC, 2015c. Circular Economy Strategy: Closing the Loop - an EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy [WWW Document]. European Commision, Environment, Circular Economy Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/ . EC, 2017a. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan, European Commission Report. COM(2017) 33 final. EC, 2017b. Commission Helps 8 Member States to Improve Their Municipal Waste Management. Support to Implementation - Municipal Waste. Environment, European Commission. EC, 2017c. Consumption [WWW Document]. Environment, European Commission, 12.8.17. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/green-growth/sustainableconsumption/index_en.htm. EC, 2018. Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan: 2018 Circular Economy Package [WWW Document]. European Commission, 7.23.18. http://ec. europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/. Edjabou, M.E., Petersen, C., Scheutz, C., Astrup, T.F., 2016. Food waste from Danish households: generation and composition. Waste Manag. 52, 256e268. €rklund, A., Assefa, G., Sundqvist, J.-O., Eriksson, O., Carlsson Reich, M., Frostell, B., Bjo Granath, J., Baky, A., Thyselius, L., 2005. Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 241e252. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.JCLEPRO.2004.02.018. EU, 2011. Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment Special Eurobarometer 365 e EB75.2 (Summary Presentation). European Parliament, 2018. Circular Economy: More Recycling of Household Waste, Less Landfilling. News j European Parliament. Press room, News, European Parliament. Eurostat, 2017. Housing Statistics [WWW Document]. Statistics Explained, 11.26.17. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Housing_statistics. Eurostat, 2019a. Waste Generated by Households by Year and Waste Category [WWW Document]. TGM table, 1.21.19. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/ refreshTableAction.do?tab¼table&plugin¼1&pcode¼ten00110&language¼en. Eurostat, 2019b. Municipal Waste by Waste Management Operations [WWW Document]. v3.4.3-20180921-ca611-PROD_EUROBASE, 1.21.19. http://appsso. eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset¼env_wasmun&lang¼en. Eurostat, 2019c. Packaging Waste by Waste Operations and Waste Flow [WWW Document], 1.21.19. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do? dataset¼env_waspac&lang¼en. Finnveden, G., Ekvall, T., Arushanyan, Y., Bisaillon, M., Henriksson, G., ??stling, U.G., S??derman, M.L., Sahlin, J., Stenmarck, A., Sundberg, J., Sundqvist, J.O., Svenfelt, A., S??derholm, P., Bj??rklund, A.A., Eriksson, O., Forsf??lt, T., Guath, M., 2013. Policy instruments towards a sustainable waste management. Sustainability 5, 882e895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5030882. Gallup, 2009. Europeans' attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption and production. Analytical Report. Flash EB Series #256. Flash Eurobarometer 256 e The Gallup Organisation. Ghani, W.A.W.A.K., Rusli, I.F., Biak, D.R.A., Idris, A., 2013. An application of the theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source separation of food waste. Waste Manag. 33, 1276e1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.WASMAN.2012.09.019. Gharfalkara, M., Courta, R., Campbella, C., Alib, Z., Hillierac, G., 2015. Analysis of waste hierarchy in the European waste directive 2008/98/EC. Waste Manag. 39, 305e313. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.02.007. Gjerris, M., Gaiani, S., 2014. Food waste and consumer ethics. In: Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 1e8. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_99-2. Hargreaves, T., 2011. Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. J. Consum. Cult. 11, 79e99. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469540510390500. Henriksson, G., Åkesson, L., Ewert, S., 2010. Uncertainty regarding waste handling in everyday life. Sustainability 2, 2799e2813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092799. Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: a Global Review of Solid Waste Management. IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. The Fifth Assessment Report. Jackson, T., 2009. Prosperity without Growth? the Transition to a Sustainable Economy. Joshi, Y., Rahman, Z., 2015. Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. International Strategic Management Review 3, 128e143. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISM.2015.04.001.
re
, C., Andrew, R.M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Pongratz, J., Manning, A.C., Le Que Korsbakken, J.I., Peters, G.P., Canadell, J.G., Jackson, R.B., Boden, T.A., Tans, P.P., Andrews, O.D., Arora, V.K., Bakker, D.C.E., Barbero, L., Becker, M., Betts, R.A., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L.P., Ciais, P., Cosca, C.E., Cross, J., Currie, K., Gasser, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Houghton, R.A., Hunt, C.W., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A.K., Kato, E., Kautz, M., Keeling, R.F., Klein Goldewijk, K., €rtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefe vre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lima, I., Ko Lombardozzi, D., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P.M.S., Munro, D.R., Nabel, J.E.M.S., Nakaoka, S., Nojiri, Y., Padín, X.A., Peregon, A., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., € denbeck, C., Schwinger, J., Se
f e
rian, R., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Reimer, J., Ro

Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B.D., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I.T., van der Werf, G.R., van Heuven, S., Viovy, N., Vuichard, N., Walker, A.P., Watson, A.J., Wiltshire, A.J., Zaehle, S., Zhu, D., 2017. Global carbon Budget 2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. 1e79. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2017-123. Longe, E.O., Longe, O.O., Ukpebor, E., 2009. People's perception on household solid waste management in Ojo Local Government Area in Nigeria. Iran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 6, 201e208. Martin, P.Y., Turner, B.A., 1986. Grounded Theory and Organizational Research. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 22, 141e157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207. Mwanza, B.G., Mbohwa, C., Telukdarie, A., 2018. Levers influencing sustainable waste recovery at households level: a review. Procedia Manufacturing 21, 615e622. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROMFG.2018.02.163. Nielsen, A.S.E., Sand, H., Sørensen, P., Knutsson, M., Martinsson, P., Persson, E., Wollbrant, C., 2016. Nudging and Pro-environmental Behaviour. Copenhagen, Denmark. Oh, J., Lee, H., 2017. Exploring a zero food waste system for sustainable residential buildings in urban areas. Environmental Engineering Research 23, 46e53. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2017.009. ~ ez, I., Harder, R., Nikitas, A., Rahe, U., 2015. Waste sorting in apartments: Ordon integrating the perspective of the user. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 669e679. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.100, 0959-6526 (ISSN). Osuch, E., Osuch, A., Rybacki, P., Przybylak, A., Buchwald, T., 2016. Analysis OF the factors influencing the decision about segregation BY people not segregating the municipal waste with using the ahp method. Journal of Ecological Engineering 17, 255e263. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/64706. Paddock, J., 2015. Household consumption and environmental change: rethinking the policy problem through narratives of food practice. J. Consum. Cult. 1e18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515586869. Pedersen, J.T., 2017. Kildessortering i etageejendomme. ANTHS - Business and Change Anthropology, Copenhagen, Denmark. Peters, G.P., Minx, J.C., Weber, C.L., Edenhofer, O., 2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 8903e8908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006388108. Petersen, L.K., Christiansen, T.N.B., 2017. Kildesortering I Etageejendomme: Husholdninger Og Affaldsansvarlige. Pinto, R.A., de, F.R., Mondelli, G., Pinto, R.A., de, F.R., Mondelli, G., 2017. Potential de
veis em um condomínio residencial de grande porte de recuperaç~ ao de recicla ~o Caetano do Sul. Eng. Sanita
ria Ambient. 22, 647e656. https://doi.org/10. Sa 1590/s1413-41522017146383. Rada, E.C., Cioca, L., 2017. Optimizing the methodology of characterization of municipal solid waste in EU under a circular economy perspective. Energy Procedia 119, 72e85. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.07.050. Rada, E.C., Bresciani, C., Girelli, E., Ragazzi, M., Schiavon, M., Torretta, V., 2016. Analysis and measures to improve waste management in schools. Sustainability 8, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090840. Ragazzi, M., Fedrizzi, S., Rada, E.C., Ionescu, G., Ciudin, R., Cioca, L.I., 2017. Experiencing urban mining in an Italian municipality towards a circular economy vision. Energy Procedia 119, 192e200. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.07. 068. Rispo, A., Williams, I.D., Shaw, P.J., 2015. Source segregation and food waste prevention activities in high-density households in a deprived urban area. Waste Manag. 44, 15e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2015.04.010. RK, 2013. Klar besked om affald, Rødovre kommune. Municipality of Rødovre, Copenhagen Area. Sanderson, P., 2015. EU Recycling Target Lowered to 65 % in New Circular Economic Package. Resource Efficiency Business. Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ. Plan. 42, 1273e1285. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42282. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Watson, M., 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice. Everyday Life and How it Changes. SAGE Publications Ltd., London. Skene, K.R., 2017. Circles, spirals, pyramids and cubes: why the circular economy cannot work, 14. Sustainability Science Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-017-0443-3. Stoeva, K., Alriksson, S., 2017. Influence of Recycling Programmes on Waste Separation Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.005. Taylor, S., Todd, P., 1995. An integrated model of waste management behavior. Environ. Behav. 27, 603e630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595275001. Teffer, P., 2017. Lower Waste Targets Still Not Low Enough for EU States. EUObserver. Van Ewijk, S., Stegemann, J.A., 2016. Limitations of the waste hierarchy for achieving absolute reductions in material throughput. J. Clean. Prod. 132, 122e128. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2014.11.051. Vassanadumrongdee, S., Kittipongvises, S., 2018. Factors influencing source separation intention and willingness to pay for improving waste management in Bangkok, Thailand. Sustainable Environment Research 28, 90e99. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.SERJ.2017.11.003. Vito, 2011. Assessment of Feasibility of Setting Bio-Waste Recycling Targets. EU, Paris. Zhang, D., Huang, G., Yin, X., Gong, Q., 2015. Residents' waste separation behaviors at the source: using SEM with the theory of planned behavior in guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 9475e9491. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph120809475.