The effects on waste reduction and recycling rates when different components of the waste stream are counted

States differ in the components or solid waste management activities which they include when determining solid waste reduction and recycling rates. Thus, when attempting to draw comparisons among states, confusion arises in two ways: (1) use of two types of rates; and (2) use of different components or activities when calculating a given rate. This paper presents a mathematical basis for understanding the impacts on rate calculations when variations occur in the components and activities included in those calculations. Estimates of the incremental changes occurring in the rate calculations when incineration or selected components such as yard waste, construction and demolition wastes, and junked automobiles, are added to a base of municipal solid waste constituents are found using national data. Finally, the achieved rates reported by states counting different combinations are compared.     

Identifying the key factors in increasing recycling and reducing residual household waste: a case study of the Flemish region of Belgium

The competent waste authority in the Flemish region of Belgium created the 'Implementation plan household waste 2003-2007' and the 'Implementation plan sustainable management 2010-2015' to comply with EU regulation. It incorporates European and regional requirements and describes strategies, goals, actions and instruments for the collection and treatment of household waste. The central mandatory goal is to reduce and maintain the amount of residual household waste to 150 kg per capita per year between 2010-2015. In literature, a reasonable body of information has been published on the effectiveness and efficiency of a variety of policy instruments, but the information is complex, often contradictory and difficult to interpret. The objective of this paper is to identify, through the development of a binary logistic regression model, those variables of the waste collection scheme that help municipalities to reach the mandatory 150 kg goal. The model covers a number of variables for household characteristics, provision of recycling services, frequency of waste collection and charging for waste services. This paper, however, is not about waste prevention and reuse. The dataset originates from 2003. Four out of 12 variables in the model contributed significantly: income per capita, cost of residual waste collection, collection frequency and separate curbside collection of organic waste.     

An evaluation of four key methods for monitoring household waste prevention campaigns in the UK

Household waste prevention in England has been recognised in national strategy as a key component for future sustainable practice. To support the policy agenda, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in England has funded an extensive programme of fundamental research in the area. The specific research aim reported on here, in this Defra funded project, was to trial and assess methods for monitoring and evaluating approaches detailed in the National Resource and Waste Forum (NRWF)’s Household Waste Prevention Toolkit. The methods that formed the basis for the four research Objectives for the project were: using pilot and control areas (core Objective), tracking waste arisings, measuring specific activities and declared awareness and behaviour surveys. A primary objective of this research was to quantify the direct waste tonnage impacts of implementing a targeted household waste campaign in Dorset County, UK. A key performance indicator chosen for this assessment was the weight of waste collected at the kerbside from households. In an area where a waste prevention campaign is well planned and implemented then reductions in household waste arisings in pilot areas can be in the region of 2% per annum. This method for monitoring can be used, in the hands of an expert project team, to communicate to the public the direct benefits of waste prevention. It was found that there are a wide range of factors that need to be taken into account in the UK, and that these had hitherto been given little prominence, such as careful matching of pilot and control areas – this proved problematical in this research. However, a range of techniques used to support the methods, e.g. doorstepping surveys and focus groups could not show clear attributable waste prevention impacts but their findings could be used to direct new future messages to the public. The most successful and measurable campaign activities that were revealed by evaluation were: mail preference registrations, Home composting and doorstepping. An expert evaluation of all major methods found that no clear preference was revealed as to which were the most useful. None of the methods were judged very poor neither very good, all had major issues about their use. Tracking waste arisings and focus groups were assessed to be the best techniques in terms of input effort to output value. It is likely that waste prevention teams for household waste will need very careful training in the cost-effective use of the NRWF Toolkit before they are competent to apply it to a given place; the issues are more complex than were first thought.     

A Comparison of Waste Reduction Practices and the New Environmental Paradigm in Four Southern Chinese Areas

On domestic waste recycling, it was found that source separation of domestic waste in mainland China was supported by 85% of the urban population and about 11–13% of the household waste was recovered and sold by the householders for financial gains. It was also found that the lower income group tended to recover a greater portion of waste, indicating that voluntary waste recovery activities in mainland China were carried out largely due to economic reasons. Thus, the Western type of source separation program in which residents are requested to separate recyclables for the community may not be welcomed in mainland China. In Hong Kong, despite the presence of community waste recovery programs, the recovery of domestic waste is only about 6% and is therefore less than those of the mainland Chinese cities surveyed. On the choice of source separation programs, it was found that Hong Kong people ranked familiarity a more important criterion than convenience. Therefore, the collection frequency of recyclables and time and place for setting out recyclables should be as similar to those of normal waste collection as possible to attract high participation in source separation programs.