IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v48y2006i3p263-279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative analysis of recyclable materials composition: Tools to support decision making in kerbside recycling

Author

Listed:
  • Shaw, Peter J.
  • Lyas, Joanne K.
  • Hudson, Malcolm D.

Abstract

For UK statutory recycling targets to be met, kerbside collection schemes must strive towards optimal performance levels at which the quantities and composition of materials recovered closely matche potentially recoverable materials in the household waste stream. Multivariate analysis of recyclable materials data for regions in the UK showed that there exist substantial differences between the composition of recovered and recoverable materials per household, per week. The similarity between recovered and recoverable materials was not closely related to the range of materials collected at the kerbside. The provision of kerbside recycling facilities for two or more materials, as required by the Household Waste Recycling Act [Household Waste Recycling Act. Office of Public Sector Information, London, UK; 2003, http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030029.htm (accessed 19 May 2004)], does not appear to lead necessarily to high levels of recycling. Modes of behaviour revealed by statistical analysis showed that frequently recycling households were characterised by elements of episodicity and persistence; enhancement of cans and plastics recovery should be a key aim for the promotion of kerbside recycling amongst such households. We conclude that if multi-material kerbside recycling of household waste is to perform well, modification of kerbside schemes to broaden the range of targeted materials must be accompanied by promotional and educational campaigns, focused, as a short term priority, on medium and high recyclers and with emphasis on recognition of cans and plastics.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaw, Peter J. & Lyas, Joanne K. & Hudson, Malcolm D., 2006. "Quantitative analysis of recyclable materials composition: Tools to support decision making in kerbside recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 263-279.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:48:y:2006:i:3:p:263-279
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.12.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344906000188
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.12.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annegrete Bruvoll & Karine Nyborg, 2002. "On the value of households' recycling efforts," Discussion Papers 316, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    2. Thomas C. Kinnaman & Don Fullerton, 2002. "Garbage and Recycling with Endogenous Local Policy," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 6, pages 120-143, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. David Aadland & Arthur Caplan, 1999. "Household Valuation of Curbside Recycling," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(6), pages 781-799.
    4. Peter Tucker & David Speirs, 2003. "Attitudes and Behavioural Change in Household Waste Management Behaviours," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 289-307.
    5. Robinson, Guy M. & Read, Adam D., 2005. "Recycling behaviour in a London Borough: Results from large-scale household surveys," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 70-83.
    6. Lyas, Joanne K. & Shaw, Peter J. & van Vugt, Mark, 2005. "Kerbside recycling in the London Borough of Havering: progress and priorities," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-17.
    7. Jenkins, Robin R. & Martinez, Salvador A. & Palmer, Karen & Podolsky, Michael J., 2003. "The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 294-318, March.
    8. Turner, R. K. & Thomas, C., 1982. "Source separation recycling schemes : A survey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 13-24, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Waite, Steve & Cox, Paul & Tudor, Terry, 2015. "Strategies for local authorities to achieve the EU 2020 50% recycling, reuse and composting target: A case study of England," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 18-28.
    2. Shaw, Peter J., 2008. "Nearest neighbour effects in kerbside household waste recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 775-784.
    3. Pacheco, Elen B.A.V. & Ronchetti, Luiza M. & Masanet, Eric, 2012. "An overview of plastic recycling in Rio de Janeiro," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 140-146.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hage, Olle & Söderholm, Patrik & Berglund, Christer, 2009. "Norms and economic motivation in household recycling: Empirical evidence from Sweden," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 155-165.
    2. Shaw, Peter J., 2008. "Nearest neighbour effects in kerbside household waste recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 775-784.
    3. Alan Collins & Richard O'Doherty & Martin Snell, 2006. "Household participation in waste recycling: Some national survey evidence from Scotland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(1), pages 121-140.
    4. Boyer, Tracy A., 2006. "Talking Trash: Valuing Household Preferences for Garbage and Recycling Services Bundles Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21074, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Sidique, Shaufique F. & Lupi, Frank & Joshi, Satish V., 2010. "The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 163-170.
    6. Maarten A. Allers & Corine Hoeben, 2010. "Effects of Unit-Based Garbage Pricing: A Differences-in-Differences Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 405-428, March.
    7. Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Vittucci Marzetti, Giuseppe, 2019. "Recycling and Waste Generation: An Estimate of the Source Reduction Effect of Recycling Programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 321-329.
    8. Starr, Jared & Nicolson, Craig, 2015. "Patterns in trash: Factors driving municipal recycling in Massachusetts," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 7-18.
    9. Viscusi, W. Kip & Huber, Joel & Bell, Jason, 2023. "Changes in household recycling behavior: Evidence from panel data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    10. Sahlin, Jenny & Ekvall, Tomas & Bisaillon, Mattias & Sundberg, Johan, 2007. "Introduction of a waste incineration tax: Effects on the Swedish waste flows," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 827-846.
    11. Usui, Takehiro, 2008. "Estimating the effect of unit-based pricing in the presence of sample selection bias under Japanese Recycling Law," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 282-288, June.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Kądziela, Tadeusz & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "We want to sort! Assessing households’ preferences for sorting waste," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 290-306.
    13. Brandon C. Koford & Glenn C. Blomquist & David M. Hardesty & Kenneth R. Troske & Margaret Hughes & Fred Morgan, 2012. "Estimating Consumer Willingness to Supply and Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 745-763.
    14. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
    15. Valente, Marica, 2023. "Policy evaluation of waste pricing programs using heterogeneous causal effect estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    16. Ida Ferrara & Paul Missios, 2005. "Recycling and Waste Diversion Effectiveness: Evidence from Canada," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(2), pages 221-238, February.
    17. Olle Hage & Krister Sandberg & Patrik Söderholm & Christer Berglund, 2018. "The regional heterogeneity of household recycling: a spatial-econometric analysis of Swedish plastic packing waste," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 245-267, October.
    18. Best, Henning & Kneip, Thorsten, 2014. "Curbside Collection and Participation in Household Waste Recycling: A Causal Analysis," MEA discussion paper series 201415, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    19. Bueno, Matheus & Valente, Marica, 2019. "The effects of pricing waste generation: A synthetic control approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 274-285.
    20. Dijkgraaf, E. & Gradus, R. H. J. M., 2004. "Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: The case of The Netherlands," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 353-371, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:48:y:2006:i:3:p:263-279. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.