On the relationship between set-out rates and participation ratios as a tool for enhancement of kerbside household waste recycling
Introduction
Although recent statistics show a downturn in per capita waste arisings and an increase in the mass of household waste recycled in England (Fig. 1), the quantities of waste generated in the UK still test severely the available resources for waste disposal, particularly through the high proportion of waste disposed of via landfill (DEFRA, 2005a). The generation and management of waste generated by domestic households have been identified as key focal points in this regard (Evison and Read, 2001; Price, 2001). This situation has led, through the Household Waste Recycling Act (HWRA), 2003, to the statutory requirement for Waste Collection Authorities to collect at least two types of recyclable waste separated from household waste (DEFRA, 2005b). The recovery of recyclables via collection of householder-separated wastes at the kerbside must, therefore, form a part of strategies applied in English Local Authorities (LAs). Guidelines for implementation of the HWRA highlight that collection of more than two material types at the kerbside may be of additional value (DEFRA, 2005b).
Waste collection and handling have been recognized as key aspects of systems for resource recovery that merit further research and development (DEFRA, 2004). Kerbside collection scheme designs are numerous and vary greatly between LAs (Parfitt et al., 2001) but two aspects are key if statutory targets for household waste recycling are to be met. First, the design of any scheme for the separation and recovery of recyclables from the domestic waste stream must facilitate householders’ use (Perrin and Barton, 2001; Price, 2001; Mattsson et al., 2003). Secondly, improvements must be supported by effective promotional and educational campaigns that are focused on the shortfalls in householders’ use of the scheme provided (Tucker and Speirs, 2003) and which recognize limiting and enabling factors underpinning householders’ recycling behaviour (Tucker, 1999; Thomas et al., 2003).
The motivations behind householders’ use of recycling schemes and the barriers to the use of such facilities are, on the whole, well understood (e.g. Perrin and Barton, 2001; Tucker and Speirs, 2003; Robinson and Read, 2005). How and why promotional and educational campaigns affect householders’ participation in and use of kerbside collection schemes has also been well established (e.g. Bowman et al., 1998; Evison and Read, 2001; Lyas et al., 2004; Robinson and Read, 2005; Woodard et al., 2005). In this respect, approaches to performance enhancement that identify and prioritize areas of concern are of particular value (Tucker et al., 1998). If an enhancement strategy is to succeed, such approaches necessitate both meaningful assessment of householders’ recycling behaviour and understanding of the interactions between householders and a kerbside recycling scheme (Woodard et al., 2005).
Surveys to elucidate householders’ self-reported attitudes, motivations and behaviour are highly valuable in the appraisal and development of household waste recycling schemes and promotional strategies (e.g. Robinson and Read, 2005). However, self-reported data do not necessarily provide reliable performance indicators (PIs) of householders’ recycling activities (Corral-Verdugo, 1997; Perrin and Barton, 2000). Direct, quantitative measurement of recycling activities offers advantages in providing data that are unbiased by the disparities between intent and action (Barker et al., 1994; Corral-Verdugo, 1997; Barr and Gilg, 2005). Such data can be employed both to evaluate patterns of and influences on householder participation (Wang et al., 1997; Tucker, 1999) and to identify opportunities for enhancement of scheme performance (e.g. Tucker, 1999).
In the UK, the DETR (1999) guidelines specified a range of quantitative PIs to quantify householder participation in kerbside collection schemes including “set-out rates” (SOR; Eq. (1)) and “participation ratios” (PR; Eq. (2)). Both these PIs are characterized by a requirement for street-level surveys that require only visual observations:
SOR provides a measure of recyclate container set-outs at the kerbside per collection but measures neither recyclate weight nor the number of containers set out by individual households per collection. PR can be interpreted as a measure of the proportion of householders who are aware of the kerbside scheme in operation and have demonstrated an ability to use the facilities provided. PR does not, however, discriminate between scheme users who set out materials at high frequency and those householders who use the scheme only once over the monitoring period.
SOR and PR cannot thus be considered as absolute measures of householder engagement in kerbside recycling schemes. The numbers of participants determined by such methods are in part an artifact of sampling effort; the longer surveys are conducted, the more likely surveys will capture those householders who do use a kerbside recycling scheme but less often than once per four collections. Nonetheless, the operational definitions of SOR and PR (Eqs. (1), (2)) provide a degree of robustness and consistency. SOR and PR are instructive, for example, in (1) measuring the impacts of promotional and educational campaigns (e.g. Lyas et al., 2004); (2) elucidating behavioural mechanisms underpinning recycling behaviour using model-based approaches (e.g. Wang et al., 1997), and (3) exploring normative and social influences on householders’ recycling behaviour (e.g. Tucker, 1999).
We propose that there is further merit in SOR and PR as tools for identifying priorities for enhancement of kerbside collection scheme performance. If, for example, surveys of a collection round showed a PR of 80%, a promotional campaign strategy could focus on the 20% of households that were not observed to participate in kerbside recycling. In this case, reasons for non-participation would have to be identified and strategies devised and implemented to engage these householders in recycling. On the other hand, a promotional campaign could focus on the 80% of households that have demonstrated through their participation their capacity to use the scheme. For these participating households, insight to patterns of recycling behaviour will be instructive. If the SOR is 80% and the PR is 80%, it can be inferred that all participants set out recyclables at every collection. In contrast, if the average SOR over four collections is 20% and the associated PR is 80%, the inference is that each participant sets out recyclables only once over the four possible collections. The relationship between SOR and PR is thus sensitive to householders’ recycling behaviour and thereby provides a basis for evaluating the frequency of recycling participation.
Section snippets
Theory, calculation and methods
The premise of this study is that diagnosis of householders’ recycling behaviour requires an appropriate reference point against which behaviour can be measured. We first aim to establish a quantitative model that provides a benchmark for the diagnosis of householders’ recycling behaviour in terms of the frequency of set-outs. Secondly, this model will be applied to data acquired in the study area (the London Borough of Havering; LBH) and from elsewhere as a means of determining recycling
Results
The probability and random number models were first employed to establish a relationship between the number of set-outs (over four collections) and the average SOR. Random number model output produced a narrow envelope encompassing the output of the probability model (Fig. 2); this correspondence was consistent through the whole range of SOR. Model outputs for set-outs were highest at average SOR of ca. 15–35% for one set-out (Fig. 2A), 40–60% for two set-outs (Fig. 2B) and 65–85% for three
Appraisal and adaptation of set-out and participation models
This study has shown that householders’ recycling behaviour can be interpreted using SOR and PR in comparison to modelled relationships that assume that householders’ set-out behaviour is uniformly random (Fig. 2, Fig. 3). The random number and probability models (2.1 Probability model, 2.2 Random model) thus provide a benchmark against which observations of householders’ recycling can be compared and evaluated.
The close agreement between the two models (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) indicated a high level
Conclusions
The approach employed in this study facilitates identification of householders’ recycling behaviour by comparing PR to SOR to random and probabilistic models as behavioural benchmarks. The results obtained show a pattern of behaviour that is characterized by a higher frequency of recycling by participants than would be expected relative to a random and uniform set-out pattern (Fig. 3). The model can be easily adapted as a tool to characterize modal recycling behaviours for kerbside schemes of
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the sponsorship of the Cleanaway Havering Riverside Trust under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. The authors also wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of research partners at the London Borough of Havering and Cleanaway Ltd., and to thank three anonymous reviewers whose comments and suggestions have contributed to the integrity of this paper.
References (38)
- et al.
Conceptualising and analysing household attitudes and actions to a growing environmental problem: development and application of a framework to guide local waste policy
Applied Geography
(2005) - et al.
Households’ recycling efforts
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
(2002) Dual ‘realities’ of conservation behaviour: self reports vs. observations of re-use and recycling behaviour
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(1997)- et al.
Curbside recycling in the USA: convenience and mandatory participation
Waste Management and Research
(1993) - et al.
Local authority recycling and waste—awareness publicity/promotion
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
(2001) - et al.
An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: the roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2004) - et al.
Kerbside recycling in the London Borough of Havering: progress and priorities
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
(2005) - et al.
The development of systems for property close collection of recyclables: experiences from Sweden and England
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
(2003) - et al.
Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling scheme
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
(2003) - et al.
Effect of design variables on participation in residential curbside recycling programs
Waste Management and Research
(1997)
A classification scheme of local authority waste collection and recycling strategies in England and Wales
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Issues associated with transforming household attitudes and opinions into materials recovery: a review of two kerbside recycling schemes
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
The landfill directive and the challenge ahead: demands and pressures on the UK householder
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
“A weekly doorstep recycling collection, I had no idea we could!” Overcoming the local barriers to participation
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Recycling behaviour in a London borough: results from large-scale household surveys
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
A profile of recyclers making special trips to recycle
Journal of Environmental Management
Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in Hampshire and Milton Keynes
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Relationships between set-out rate, participation rate and set-out quantity in recycling programs
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Green waste collections and the public's recycling behaviour in the borough of Wyre, England
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Cited by (18)
Collection behaviour of lightweight packaging waste by individual households and implications for the analysis of collection schemes
2019, Waste ManagementCitation Excerpt :This method is based on three elements; minimal participation rates, net collection yields and the hypothesis of indicator items with ideal selection rates for participating civilians. Participation rates are well-accepted parameters to describe separate collection systems (Woodard et al., 2006; Shaw et al., 2007; Dahlén and Lagerkvist, 2010). Unfortunately, these rates are often difficult to measure or estimate in practice (Dahlén and Lagerkvist, 2010) and are consequently hardly used.
Community participation in household solid waste reduction in Surabaya, Indonesia
2015, Resources, Conservation and RecyclingCitation Excerpt :The reasons of respondent not to recycle HSW in Table 5 were laziness, not knowing the procedure of recycle, and lack of time. They were similar to the previous studies which stated that the barriers of recycling were limited of time to do (Alexander et al., 2009; Grodziń ska-Jurczak et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2006), lack of incentive to recycle (Robinson and Read, 2005; Timlett and Williams, 2008), public attitudes toward recycling activities and their perceptions of the constraints in recycling (Alexander et al., 2009), assumption of “produce little waste” (Grodziń ska-Jurczak et al., 2003), apathy towards recycling (Robinson and Read, 2005), lack of public awareness and participation (Grodziń ska-Jurczak et al., 2003; Robinson and Read, 2005; Shaw et al., 2007; Singhirunnusorn et al., 2012), lack of enthusiasm and stimulus (Shaw et al., 2007). Based on Table 5, the reasons of respondent not to compost were lack of time, not knowing the procedure of composting, and laziness.
Destined for indecision? A critical analysis of waste management practices in England from 1996 to 2013
2015, Waste ManagementCitation Excerpt :The effects of key design variables for kerbside recycling schemes (Noehammer and Byer (1997) upon recycling behaviour have been evaluated in terms of: promotion and education (Evison and Read, 2001; Mee et al., 2004), economic incentives (Harder and Woodard, 2007; Shaw and Maynard, 2008), materials collected (Woodard et al., 2006) and collection frequency (Williams and Cole, 2013). There has been focus on increasing public participation and stimulating behaviour change (Perrin and Barton, 2001; McDonald and Oates, 2003; Davis et al., 2006; Harder et al., 2006; Shaw et al., 2007), and the interactions between neighbouring properties (Shaw, 2008). Conceptual frameworks have also played a role in understanding public attitude and behaviours towards waste management (Barr et al., 2001; Barr, 2004; Barr and Gilg, 2005; Timlett and Williams, 2011), whilst others have investigated the optimum geographical level for managing waste (Longden et al., 2007; Broitman et al., 2012).
Modeling packaging waste policy instruments and recycling in the MENA region
2012, Resources, Conservation and RecyclingCitation Excerpt :The effort in developing countries should be oriented to decrease consumers’ heterogeneity by examining factors influencing consumers’ awareness and to determine how heterogeneities can be attenuated. Many works focusing on these issues show that the lack of time (Alexander et al., 2009), the lack of motivation (Shaw et al., 2007), the amount of effort needed (McDonald and Oates, 2003) and people's environmental knowledge (De Feo and De Gisi, 2010) influence the level of awareness. The growth in the amount of packaging waste in the MENA region due to industrialization highlights recycling as the most appropriate treatment for packaging waste.
Mobilizing citizen effort to enhance environmental outcomes: A randomized controlled trial of a door-to-door recycling campaign
2009, Journal of Environmental ManagementCitation Excerpt :They were provided with scripts to use as prompts but were encouraged to adapt them to their own conversational style. Canvassers were asked to take a different approach dependent on whether the household were currently recyclers or non-recyclers (Shaw et al., 2007). Existing recyclers were thanked for using the recycling box, reminded of the variety of recyclable materials and – if they seemed enthusiastic – asked if they would like to become recycling champions.