Article from Resource Management and Recovery 22 - August 2003
www.esauk.org
As councils intensify kerbside recycling efforts in order to meet government targets, Dr Darren Perrin of Entec looks at the realities of what does and doesn’t go in the box.
Over half of the local authorities within the UK have some form of collection for recyclables. A variety of schemes exist within the UK, which differ in terms of the socio-demographics of households served, the materials they collect, their operational characteristics and the level of communication with households served by the scheme. Unsurprisingly, the performance of schemes varies significantly within the UK. There has been a move away from paper only collections to multi-material collections, and, although concerns over quality issues have been raised, this move has largely been driven by the recognition of collection authorities that targeting the single material waste streams alone is unlikely to meet recycling targets.
Local authorities are fast approaching the 2003/4 targets. A substantial amount of material is still required in order for those targets to be met. Engaging the public is critical to the success of any recycling scheme and local authorities meeting challenging targets. It is now generally recognised that convenience is central to encouraging individuals to recycle. Easy to use recycling schemes, education and communication campaigns are essential.
A four-year PhD programme* demonstrated a series of significant relationships on household recycling behaviour. Different material capture rates reported on kerbside schemes, regardless of the other conventional factors, may suggest that a ‘ceiling effect’ for individual materials could exist. Regardless of the scheme design/maintenance or individuals attitudes, food cans and plastic containers may never reach the same recovery levels as newspapers and magazines.
Traditionally, the perception within the industry is that glass and paper achieve high recoveries whilst metals and particularly plastics often achieve substantially lower recoveries. However, differences between material capture rates are best understood when classifying materials according to their product group: 1) Media (high recoveries) and 2) Beverage (Medium recoveries) and 3) Food Containers (Low Recoveries).
This approach takes into consideration the different behavioural
characteristics of materials, recognising that some present more difficulties
to the individual
to recycle them than others. The performance of several schemes were monitored
and it was noticed that, regardless of the scheme design, the capture rates,
when normalised against newspapers (the most consistently and commonly
recovered material), were similar. Typical capture rates are shown in Table
1.
A key research finding was that the level of ‘inconvenience’ a particular material presents to an individual, preventing them from recycling it, is potentially the most important factor in determining if a material is recycled, and ultimately how well a scheme performs. Individual attitudes and scheme design were found to have the least effect on participation and recovery levels.
The ‘inconvenience’ of a material is determined by assessing the conditions of disposal within the home. This is identified by the following five issues,
1) Where and when the waste material is generated?
If the material is generated in the kitchen during meal times, it is likely
to be quickly disposed of in the interim residual bin located in the same
room. Contrary to this, if the material is generated in the living room on
a Sunday morning, there is more time to think about where the material will
be disposed of. If materials are gathered together as part of a ‘spring
clean’ clear out, the occasional drink can is unlikely to be separated
from the other materials when disposing of them.
2) Are the materials generated
in bulk or individually?
When materials are generated in bulk, there is a greater pressure on the
individual to recycle those materials. For example, an accumulation of the
week’s
newspapers, or glass bottles and drinks cans after a party. Disposing of large
quantities of materials at the same time enables the individual to recognise
the volume of waste they are generating. Throwing these away and not recycling
causes a greater sense of guilt. Households disposing of a single food can
or cereal packet will not be subject to the same level of guilt, especially
is the disposal of a material is infrequent.
3) Can the material be easily stored
or does it require cleaning, present hygiene problems, or danger to other
members of the household (especially children)?
Newspapers (media category) are a cleaner, safer material than the food
can (food category), and therefore are easier to store for longer periods
of times
without any effort. Newspapers can be stored for collection anywhere within
the household and are a safe material with minimal concern if they come into
contact with young children if placed in the wrong place. On the other end
of the scale, food containers cannot be stored for any period of time without
rinsing or cleaning to avoid causing hygiene problems. A dirty food can,
would not be stored in the lounge or bedroom or even its point of generation,
the
kitchen, for a long period of time. If cleaning is required, (which is often
dictated by many kerbside recycling programmes), there is an additional effort
required on behalf of the householder to recycle this material.
Even if food containers are cleaned, they still present a risk (e.g. sharp
edges) to other members of the household, especially children. The storage
opportunities for this material / product are limited, as a secure, enclosed
space is required. An open kerbside recycling box may be safe for adults,
but not young children, who may wish to rummage and play with the contents
inside.
Kerbside boxes are very similar to toy boxes in their appearance. Open food
cans could cause cuts and serious injuries if not handled correctly. There
is, therefore, a huge incentive to dispose of this material immediately in
the refuse bin, which is usually located next to the point of generation.
4) Are individuals actually aware that the material is recyclable
and are some materials more commonly known than others?
An uncertain public can incorrectly use a scheme unknowingly in 3 ways by,
1. Not placing of all targeted materials in the recycling container in fear
of contaminating the load,
2. Placing the wrong materials in the bin unknowingly,
3. Placing materials in the bin with the view that the collector will remove
them if they are not needed.
Unaware scheme participants will either contaminate
recycling loads or participate ineffectively; both are undesirable.
Combinations of non-uniform service provision and targeted material campaigns have potentially caused confusion amongst residents, regarding, which materials are recyclable and which are not. ‘Bottle banks’ are a recognisable phrase and commonplace in supermarket car parks. The name itself insinuates that only glass bottles and not jars are collected. ‘Plastic banks’ are not such a common phrase. Materials such as glass and paper have a long ‘history’ of recyclability, certainly amongst the older generations. Glass bottle deposit refund systems and scout clubs, collecting newspapers are often quoted as examples.
5) Is the material generated on its own e.g. a coke can, or a mixture of several
materials, e.g. a cereal box, containing a mixture of materials within the
same product?
A single material type is easily identifiable in accordance with instructions
on any communications efforts. For example, aluminium drinks can easily be
associated with a message requesting ‘drink cans’. However, does
a message requesting cardboard and plastic bottles render a cereal box with
a plastic inner bag as unacceptable without separation? From a household’s
perspective, this may cause confusion. If in doubt, or thought is required,
it is more likely that the material will be disposed of in preference to recycling
it.
When rolling out a new recycling scheme to residents, high participation and
recovery levels during the first 6 months of operation are paramount both politically
and economically. However, this has to be sustained over the long term and
a scheme cannot be neglected. The research highlighted 3 key factors, feedback,
education and quality control. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of feedback
on material capture rates. These effects were a result of a feedback leaflet
delivered to residents on a pilot kerbside-recycling scheme collecting all
dry recycables. Capture rates were monitored before and after the feedback.
Although the issue of waste and materials recovery / recycling
is being addressed, there a still a need for significant advances to be made
in understanding household recycling behaviour. If one does not thoroughly
understand this behaviour, how can one effectively manage and change / improve
it.
* Perrin D (2002) ‘The Importance of Determining Factors Affecting Household Recycling Participation and Efficiency Levels’. Unpublished Thesis. The University of Leeds.
Click here to load the Entec home page