Integrated effects of a reduction in collection frequency for a kerbside newspaper recycling scheme

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 31 (2000) 149–170

Integrated effects of a reduction in collectionfrequency for a kerbside newspaper recycling

scheme

Peter Tucker a,*, Joy Grayson b, David Speirs a

a En6ironmental Initiati6es Research Group, Uni6ersity of Paisley, Paisley PA1 2BE, Scotland, UKb En6ironmental Health and Housing Department, Fylde Borough Council, Clifton Dri6e South,

St. Annes, FY8 1LH Fylde, Scotland, UK

Received 4 February 2000; accepted 30 June 2000

Abstract

In December 1998, the Borough of Fylde, UK, reduced the frequency of collection of theirkerbside newspaper recycling scheme from once every 2 weeks to once every 4 weeks. Thescheme incurred a drop of 8% in the overall tonnage collected, though over three quarters ofthis was recovered elsewhere through increased activity at the borough’s paper bank sites.The overall drop-out rate from paper recycling was estimated to be B2%. A computer-basedbehavioural model of the Fylde community was developed and it was shown that it correctlypredicted the observed changes in all major recycling performance indicators. A modellingstudy enabled more detailed investigations into the behavioural changes that may haveoccurred within the community. These analysis revealed general stabilities in behaviours,with only 18% of the model community changing their recycling behaviours with the changein the kerbside scheme. Over half of these simply picked-up on drop-off recycling, leavingjust 5% drop outs, though these were counterbalanced by 3% new recruits. Overall, thechange was considered to be a success. Cost savings of 60% accrued and the target tonnages(in the sales contract for the paper) were still met. The collection frequency change produceda net environmental benefit as well. The reasons why the change may have been so successfulare discussed. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Recycling; Kerbside; Newspapers; Waste management; Intervention; Environmental impact;Modelling; Simulation; Behavioural change

www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-141-8483000; fax: +44-141-8483204.E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Tucker).

0921-3449/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S0921 -3449 (00 )00078 -1

P. Tucker et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 149–170150

1. Introduction

In the UK, recovery of materials from the household waste stream relies heavilyon the voluntary behaviours of individual householders. The waste managementprofessional is charged with increasing these recoveries, at an economic cost and,increasingly, striving for a net benefit to the environment as well. The implementa-tion of the newly developed national waste management strategies are likely toincur significant changes at all planning levels, and amongst the individual house-holders who must respond and adapt to these changes. Aspirational targets set forEngland and Wales are to recycle or compost 25% of household waste by 2005,30% by 2010, and 33% by 2015 (DETR, 2000). Ultimately the success of the planswill be determined by the behaviours and attitudes of the individual households.This paper reports and analyses household responses to a change in kerbsidenewspaper collection operations in the Borough of Fylde in Lancashire, England.The change took place at the end of November 1998. Prior to that time, kerbsidecollections had been made at fortnightly intervals. The change-over was to a4-weekly collection across the whole borough. In monitoring the change, anopportunity was taken to develop an attitude-behaviour model of the local popula-tion, and to use the model to simulate individual householders responses to the newregime. The simulation study was aimed at providing a more detailed assessment ofindividual actions than could ever be achieved through traditional monitoringtechniques. This approach was made possible through the researches of Tucker andco-workers at the University of Paisley who developed an attitude-behaviour modelof kerbside newspaper recycling (Tucker, 1997; Tucker et al., 1998a,b) and, morerecently, have developed an integrated model for all household waste managementbehaviours (Tucker and Smith, 1999a,b).

Kerbside collection of newspapers in the Fylde commenced in September 1996for all 33 000 households in the borough. Collection was by blue bags placed at theproperty boundary by the householder. Whilst there were many operationalchanges during the scheme’s lifetime, only two were of high visibility to thehouseholder. The first, which occurred in May 1998, arose through a change ofcontractor. Larger bags with �50% increased capacity were issued to households,the collection rounds changed and the ‘caged-truck’ collection vehicle replaced by a6.5 tonne capacity refuse disposal vehicle. In December, that year, the rounds werere-designed again and the collection frequency halved. Whilst satisfactory tonnageswere being recovered across the borough as a whole prior to the change, there wasa marked discrepancy between the urban area of Lytham St. Annes, whichcomprises 60% of the households in the borough, and the rural villages which makeup the other 40%. Relatively poor payloads were being recovered from 1 day’s ruralcollection with the collection lorry returning less than half full. It was argued thatmoving to a 4-weekly collection in the rural areas would produce considerable costsavings. The possible effects on the urban areas, however, were less certain. It wasinitially proposed to the council’s environment committee that the paper collectionsshould be changed to 4-weekly in the rural areas only. However, it was decided bythe environment committee that an equal paper collection service should be

P. Tucker et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 149–170 151

provided across the whole borough. The committee proposed a 4-weekly collectionacross the whole borough, and this decision was approved at full council. Theoverall plan adopted was to optimise collection efficiency. It is outlined in boxes 1and 2.

The developed plan promised significant cost savings across the whole borough,with 12 less collection rounds needed over a 4 week period. The new regime couldnow be serviced by just one collection vehicle whereas two were needed previously.Services would be provided over all bank holidays except Christmas and New Year.

There was some apprehension, however, that the monthly tonnages collectedmight drop significantly as a result of the change. This apprehension was foundedon the recorded evidence that the monthly tonnages were typically 30% lower whena collection was missed because of a bank holiday. The authors were unable to findany documented case studies in the literature from which to draw further parallels.The literature, however, did provide some examples relating to the reverse change,i.e. increasing the collection frequency. These studies (summarised by the Institutefor Local Self Reliance (1991), Glenn (1988)) all concluded that recycling perfor-mances improved when the collection frequency was increased. Other researchershave compared schemes of different collection frequencies. Taylor (1986), Jacobsand Bailey (1982) also noted increased effectiveness with the higher frequencycollections. Folz (1991), Everett and Pierce (1993), however, reported that collectionfrequency appeared to have no effects on citizen participation, or on programmesuccess.

In the Fylde scheme, householders were informed individually by leaflet, whichgave the calendar of new collection dates. The leaflet also provided details of theborough’s bring sites as it was considered that some households may seek topatronise these outlets more because of the reduced kerbside collection. Twentythousand new blue bags were purchased. After the change, a second bag was issuedto those households setting out more than one bag full on collection day.

2. Monitoring results

During the 6 week transition period, there was some confusion amongst partici-pants, which was compounded by the Christmas break that occurred shortly after

2 Weekly

� 5 Tonnes/day LSA� 2.3 Tonnes/day – rurals� 8 rounds in LSA� 8 rounds in ‘rural areas’

TOTAL16 rounds over 2 weeks

4 Weekly Plan

� 6 Tonnes/day LSA� 5 Tonnes/day – rurals� 13 rounds in LSA� 6 ‘rural’+1 ‘mixed’

TOTAL20 rounds over 4 weeks


the change. However, the scheme had settled down by the end of the transitionperiod and has continued to operate stably to the date of preparation of this paper,9 months after the change.

The 4-weekly tonnages collected over the whole borough form the main perfor-mance parameter in the council’s evaluation. The measured tonnages spanning thechange-over period are shown in Fig. 1, where it is evident that the change has ledto a small decrease in overall recovery, although recoveries are still well-satisfyingthe target tonnages set for the scheme. (These target thresholds were set in thecontractual agreement for selling on the collected paper). Overall recoveriesdropped by �8% (averaging over the 6 months immediately prior to and posttransition).

More detailed monitoring was carried out in a small section of the urbancommunity. This section comprised three distinct neighbourhoods of:I �350 semi-detached and small detached properties,II �250 older terraced properties,III �1100 properties of mixed semi-detached (owner-occupied) and semi-detached

(local authority and former local authority) housing, and flats.The kerbside scheme per-collection set out ratio and the (4-week) participationratio, which records the percentage or residents who set out at least once per 4 weekperiod, were measured for each neighbourhood for the month prior to the transi-tion, and again once the scheme had settled down during late February and earlyMarch.

Set-out ratio (%)=

Number of households using the programme facilities in time for each collectionTotal number of households provided with the facilities

×100

Participation ratio (%)=

Number of households using the programme facilities at least once in a 4 week periodTotal number of households provided with the same facilities during the same 4 week period

×100

(Source: DETR, 1999).

Fig. 1. Measured weight recoveries (whole borough). The timing of the frequency change is shown as avertical line on the graph.


Table 1Measured 4-week participation ratio and set-out ratio

Sample Set-out ratio 4-Week ratio (%) Participation(%)

November 1998 March 1999November1998

Neighbourhood (I) 44.835 48.5Neighbourhood (II) 31.1 21.125Neighbourhood (III) Owner occupied 54.5 45.134

45.9 37.533Neighbourhood (III) Local Authority andex-LA

39.948.1331700 Household sample (all excluding flats)

Table 2Contributed weights per collection (Neighbourhood I)

March 1999November 1998

417Total weight per 100 serviced households (kg) 208

In addition to monitoring the participation, the bags set out by participants inneighbourhood I were diverted and weighed individually at two collections beforeand after the intervention, respectively. The average weights contributed perhousehold per collection were then calculated (Tables 1 and 2).

In these localised areas, the number of households participating during a 4-weekaccounting period dropped on average by �8% across the change, but with higherdrops recorded for neighbourhoods II and III than for neighbourhood I where thedrop was B4%. The total monthly weights for area I appeared unaffected by thechange (416 kg per 100 households before and 417 kg after). Thus, whilst reducedtonnages were recovered from the borough as a whole, neighbourhood I appearedto be largely unaffected.

The increase in per-collection set out rates across the change arises because thosewho normally participated just once 1 month anyway are now forced into phase, allparticipating on the same day of the month rather than splitting their participationacross two separate collection days. Ratios of participation rate to set out rate of�1.4 are typically recorded for 2-weekly collections (Tucker et al., 1997a; LutonCollege et al., 1993).

The recorded falls in the tonnages collected and drops in participation over a4-week accounting period do not necessarily mean that the material was totally lostto recycling or that the inferred drop-outs had ceased to recycle altogether. It wasanticipated, in advance, that some recyclers may switch their recycling activities tothe town’s paper bank bring facilities. The recorded monthly recoveries at theborough’s paper bank sites did show increases in the amount of paper collected at


the paper banks subsequent to the kerbside frequency change (Fig. 2, Table 3),which supports the notion that these sites would see a rise in activity. In terms oftonnages, a significant percentage (estimated to be �80%) of the kerbside shortfallwas being taken up through the increased drop-off recycling activity. The availablefigures, as presented, however can only provide approximate indicators to thechanges that took place, and by implication to the behavioural changes amongstthe Fylde residents. Some Fylde residents tend to patronise supermarkets, andpossibly recycling facilities, outside the accounting area of this study, for examplein the neighbouring authority of Blackpool. These sites have been excluded fromthe study. It must also be noted that other effects, such as possible seasonalvariations in weight arising, have not been taken into consideration when interpret-ing the figures. Taking these uncertainties into account, it is considered that theoverall loss of paper from recycling was probably below 2% of the pre-interventiontonnage.

3. Modelling study I: kerbside performance

A full technical description of the kerbside recycling model used in this study isgiven in Tucker and Smith (1999a,b). A review of the basic premises and majorpoints of detail are summarised in Appendix A.

Fig. 2. Paper recovery at independent paperbanks (excluding civic amenity sites).

Table 3Take up of kerbside shortfall by paper banks

Tonnage increase perSites % of kerbside shortfallmonth

Independent paper banks (averaged over 6 272.6months)

Civic amenity sitesa (averaged over 3 months) 5.3 55Total 7.9 82

a Refers to all waste paper collected.


Fig. 3. Simulated weight recoveries (kerbside collection).

Fig. 4. Simulated participation rates (kerbside collection).

The modelling study set out to simulate the behaviours of the residents in thethree target neighbourhoods (I, II and III) across the kerbside frequency change.The study applied the Integrated Household Waste Management Model of Tuckerand Smith (1999a,b) to the Fylde community, developing attitude/ behaviourlinkages for all the model residents within the target neighbourhoods. Tuning (orcalibrating) the model to the behavioural patterns of the real community allowed aset of model causal factors to be identified which provide hypotheses that can helpin explaining those behaviours. In the current study, the model was calibrated solelyon the pre-intervention performance data. These data comprised the per-collectionset-out ratio, the (4-weekly) participation ratio, the weights per participatinghousehold and mean weight recovery per serviced household. The adopted calibra-tion was chosen to provide the ‘best’ [simultaneous] fits to all these measurementsfor all neighbourhoods and for all housing types therein. The post-interventionperformances were predicted directly from the model.

The three target neighbourhoods were situated together within the urban part ofthe Borough of Fylde. The neighbourhoods were located �2 km from one of theborough’s two civic amenity sites and �2 km from St. Annes town centre wherea supermarket paper bank site was located. The simulations were run to take


account of these two drop-off facilities. The simulations were made for the periodMay 1998–October 1999, commencing just after the larger-sized bag were issuedand running through the collection frequency change of December 1998. No otherincidents that might have affected the target communities were identified for thatperiod.

The model results are shown in Figs. 3–8. Figs. 3 and 4 show the tonnagescollected and the 4-weekly participation rates over each of the three neighbour-hoods respectively, for the whole 18 month period. The measured participation ratesat the two monitoring horizons have also been included in Fig. 4 to allow a directcomparison.

The simulated results spanning the kerbside frequency change show generallygood numerical agreement with the measured participation data, with falls of �3,9 and 7% being predicted for areas I, II and III, respectively. The relatively largernumerical discrepancies between the modelled and simulated results for neighbour-hood III are partly due to differences in the sample bases. The participation of flatswere included in the simulated results but excluded from the monitoring results. Itproved impossible to accurately measure the participation from the flats, as the bagsset out there could not be uniquely matched to any one property. It was not known,therefore, whether one flat had set out multiple bags or whether multiple flats hadeach set out one bag. Also, prior to the intervention, it could not be determinedwhether one flat had set out on both collections or whether two flat had each setout once. Previous studies (Tucker et al., 1997a, 1998d) inferred that participationfrom flatted properties were generally lower than from single household dwellings.

Fig. 5. Simulated weight recoveries at civic amenity site (Drop-off 1) and supermarket site (Drop-off 2).

Fig. 6. Simulated weight recoveries (kerbside and drop-off combined).


Fig. 7. Simulated participation rate at civic amenity site.

Fig. 8. Weekly weight of newspaper deposited at civic amenity site.

With respect to weight recovery, the simulated neighbourhoods II and III showaverage 9 and 12% drops in collected tonnages after the frequency change, in linewith the results recorded for the borough as a whole. The model tonnage collectedin neighbourhood I, however appeared to be unaffected by the change which agreeswell with the findings from the detailed weight analyses undertaken in that area.Possible reasons are discussed later.

In order to accurately model the higher participation changes that occurred inneighbourhoods II and III compared to neighbourhood I, it proved necessary tointroduces a step-change (of −10% relative) in the kerbside ‘scheme-appeal’ modelparameter at the time of the intervention. Scheme appeal is a construct used in themodel that gives a numerical score to each recycling facility for each household.This score is compound according to factors rated to be important by the modelhousehold (e.g. nearness, convenience, multi-material provision). The reduction inscheme appeal was assumed to act uniformly across all residents of the borough.The implication of a change in scheme appeal is that it weakened the motivation forkerbside participation without weakening the general motivation towards recyclingper se. For some this would shift the balance from favouring to not-favouring thescheme. Those so affected would become drop-outs from the scheme. They mightthen switch to drop-off recycling if the scheme appeal of the available drop-off sitewas sufficiently high, personally, for those individuals. Further details relating tothe scheme appeal model parameter are discussed in Appendix A.

In the kerbside part of the simulation, the fall in participation levels because ofthe (assumed) weakened scheme appeal, were offset to some extent by the modeladditionally invoking new recruits to the scheme, particularly within neighbour-hood I. These new model recruits comprised two categories:


Table 48-Week participation rates (%)

Prior to change Post change

52.357.1Simulated (All neighbourhoods)54.0Not measuredMeasured (Neighbourhood I)

Table 5Behavioural changes in the model community (% of residents)

Before

Kerbside and paperbank Paperbank NeitherKerbside

0.3After 0.3Kerbside 2.839.2Kerbside and paperbank 6.1 3.3 0.2 0.1

0.8 5.02.2 0.0Paperbank5.1Neither 0.1 0.0 34.5

1. ‘Social’ recyclers, who were stimulated to be seen to participate because of thegreater number of their neighbours setting out on a given collection day. Sucheffects were most pronounced in the owner-occupied semi- and small detachedproperties in neighbourhoods I and III where the post-intervention set out rateswere highest (see Table 1).

2. Those who perceived that their contribution was worthwhile when accumulatedover 4 weeks where it had been previously perceived to be insufficient for a2-weekly contribution,

The origins of social recycling have been documented in a number of sources(Everett and Pierce, 1992; Spaccarelli et al., 1989; Oskamp et al., 1991; Vining andEbreo, 1992; Salimando, 1987; Tucker, 1999b). Model mechanisms for thesebehaviours are given in Tucker (1999b).

The other behavioural change that occurred are discussed later in the paper.When considering and trying to interpret the participation results, as presented

above, it must be borne in mind that there can be errors of indeterminationassociated with the performance indicator itself. The indicator based on a 4-weekaccounting period does not normally trap all the active recyclers. Some householdstend to recycle less regularly than one every 4 weeks (Tucker et al., 1997a). In orderto establish the actual levels of participation, it is necessary to use a longeraccounting period than 4 weeks. A total of 8 weeks might be considered to be areasonable expedient (Tucker et al., 1997a). The simulated 8-week participationrates for the community are given in Table 4. These results were compiled from theanalyses presented later in Table 5 (the sums of the first two columns and first tworows of that table, respectively). The drop in participation based on the longeraccounting period showed B5% net drop-out from the scheme across the change.


It is also noted that the 8-week participation rates are �14% higher than theparticipation given by the 4-week statistic. The scales of participation recorded inthese predictions were subsequently validated through a one-off measurement of theactual 8-week participation rate in neighbourhood I (Table 4). The quoted figurerefers to participation recorded over the months March and April 1999. The figureis quite comparable with the model predictions. It is also nearly 10% higher than its4-week counterparts. Assuming that the participation from the less frequent recy-clers are equally split over the two separate months, it would imply that of order20% of the sample in the Fylde were recycling less regularly than once each month.

4. Modelling study II: Integrated scheme performance

The model also predicted that tonnages at the two close-by drop-off sites wouldincrease as a result of the change in the kerbside collection frequency (Fig. 5), withhigher increases expected at the civic amenity site than at the town centre supermar-ket site. If scaled up from the 1700 household sample to the whole borough of33 000 households, the combined tonnage increases become quite comparable tothose actually recorded across the intervention (Table 3).

Overall, taking kerbside and drop-off recoveries together, the model predicted avery small drop off in the order of 2–3% in the total paper recovery from the threeneighbourhoods (Fig. 6). In these three model neighbourhoods, loss from thekerbside scheme was nearly balanced by increased recoveries at the drop-off outlets.One must, however, be cautious in interpreting these results. The three realneighbourhoods may indeed have suffered only a marginal overall weight loss,though this, of course, can never be proven. The model predictions must thereforeremain unvalidated. Other parts of the borough may have responded very differ-ently, perhaps depending on their respective proximities to the borough’s variousdrop-off outlets and in the local strengths of social pressure to recycle. Themodelling results indicate that weight losses may be quite heterogeneous across theborough. The modelling study, however, was too localised to pinpoint if and wherethe more significant changes may have occurred within the borough as a whole. Themonitored individual collection round weight recoveries (not shown) also proved tobe inadequate indicators for resolving the spatial fine structure of the changes thatoccurred. The rounds were restructured quite radically at the time of the interven-tion, and the temporal continuity in their spatial data was lost.

There was a small predicted increase of participation at the drop-off sites (Fig. 7)with the amount of newspaper deposited each week showing much strongerweek-to-week variations after the change (Fig. 8). Analysis revealed that the peaksin drop-off recovery occurred mid-way in the kerbside collection cycle. It wouldthus appear that some model households continued to operate on a 2-weeklydischarge cycle; saving for 2 weeks then using the drop-off sites, then saving for thenext 2 weeks and using the kerbside facilities.

Three main reasons emerge as to why the change proved to be successful. Firstly,there was alternative convenient drop-off provision close by, secondly strong social


Fig. 9. ‘Big bag’ scenario: Predicted kerbside weights.

influences in some neighbourhoods helped to sustain participation levels to counter-act any loss of scheme appeal, and thirdly some new recruits might have beenstimulated because of the changed minimum weight perceptions perceived for thenew regime (Appendix A). This third feature worked because residents were giventhe option to continue using one normal-sized collection bag, but were issued withadditional bags on request and when the operators noticed that they had set outlarge weights on collection day. If the operators simply given out a single larger bagto all then the model predicts that the fall in kerbside tonnages would have beenmore pronounced (Fig. 9). This extra fall would not be picked up at the drop-offsites and the total paper recoveries over all outlets would be down by an extra 4%overall. The element of choice given to the residents is thought to have provided aselective relaxation of the minimum weight perception for those who were mostaffected by that perception. Residents generating low weights can opt for just onebag and feel comfortable that 4 weeks contribution might now fill a respectablevolume of that bag, whereas their previous 2-weeks contribution would not.Conversely, residents generating more than one bag full per collection are nowissued with as many free containers as they need, which may discourage anyperception that one bag full per-household is all that the operators want.

5. Analysis of behavioural change

The model behaviours have provided quite reasonable matches to the observed‘macro’ indicators of performance and some inferences have already been drawn onsome of the micro-scale changes that may have occurred amongst individualhouseholds. With this confidence, the model might now be used to develop a fullerpicture of the changes that may have occurred within the community. Because ofthe errors of indetermination in the measured participation performance indicator,it was not possible to determine actual numbers of drop-outs and recruits from themonitoring data. Also, as the drop-off facilities were not surveyed, estimates of thenumbers of new users could not be made for the real community. However, theseestimates were possible for the model community, and these results can serve as a


working hypothesis of the behavioural changes that might have occurred in reality.The full model analysis of behavioural is given in Table 5. In these results (8-week),participation were computed for the 8 week periods prior to and following thesimulated kerbside frequency change. The analysis concentrates on four modes ofnewspaper recycling behaviour: those who only use the kerbside collection, thosewho only use paper banks, those who use both, and the non-recyclers who useneither.

These results show that 82% of the model residents maintained the same recyclingbehaviour across the change (given by the black shaded boxes in Table 5). Only aminority 18% changed their behaviour, and of these, nearly 10% had merelychanged their balance between kerbside and drop-off newspaper recycling (the greyshaded boxes), but still continued to recycle. This leaves just 5.2% drop-outs and2.9% new recruits. Overall, nearly 92% of the community continued to recycle orcontinued not to recycle. Those continuing to recycle readily adapted their be-haviour, where necessary, to cope with the upheaval of the change. The mostsignificant adaption was from previous kerbside only users now starting to use thepaper banks as well. Relatively few recyclers totally switched their allegiance fromthe kerbside scheme to the to other outlets. These predictions, however, can not bevalidated against measurement, as such measurements could not be undertaken inany practical sense.

The use of dual recycling outlets has been discussed earlier, in reference to theresults shown in Fig. 8. kerbside and drop-off activities both showed pronounced4-week cycles, but were 2 weeks shifted in phase. It is hypothesised that the dualusers either: (1) maintained their perceptions that their household storage capacitywas limited to 2 weeks worth of newspapers; or (2) visited the drop-off sitesanyway, roughly every 4 weeks, to recycle their glass and other materials (or todump bulky waste), and took opportunistic advantage of discharging their paper atthe same time.

6. Environmental impacts

The analysis to date has centred on the technical scheme performance andindividual behavioural changes. The environmental impact of the collection fre-quency change also needs to be considered. The net environmental benefit ordis-benefit depends on the balance between the reduced vehicle usage in thekerbside collections and the increased emissions associated with the increased usageof the paper bank sites. The environmental impact resulting from household carjourneys to the drop-off recycling sites is calculated explicitly within the IntegratedHousehold Waste Management Model. The model derivation assumes that impactsfrom transport emissions can only be unambiguously ascribed to the recyclingactivity if that activity is made through a special journey by car solely to recycle(Powell et al., 1996; Speirs et al., 1999). The model identifies that such a specialjourney has been made if either: (1) a household recycles at a site that is not‘convenient’, that is if the chosen site is not co-located with another amenity


Fig. 10. Predicted carbon dioxide emissions from consumer journeys to recycle.

normally patronised by that household; or (2) the model household storagecapacity for recyclables is reached, thereby triggering a premature discharge. Theweights discharged on a special trip, and the individual (household to drop-off-site)distances traveled in making that trip are both important and available within themodel. The emission factors used in the model are taken from White et al. (1985),based on whole fuel life-cycle. For simplicity, only the carbon-dioxide emissions arereported here (Fig. 10). Model predictions show that possibly marginally higheremissions (per tonne of material collected) occurred after the intervention (see Fig.10), though these did not increase pro-rata with the increase in participation levelsat the two sites. The percentage of special trips to the civic amenity site (Fig. 11)remained approximately constant across the intervention, which adds evidence thatthe ‘new’ drop-off users were mostly those taking opportunistic advantage of thepaper banks whilst using the other facilities at those site. The percentage of specialtrips to the supermarket site (not shown) was highly erratic from week to week, butagain no systematic change in pattern was discernible across the change. Overall,the total vehicle emissions attributable to the recycling journeys did increase withthe change. This increase was much more strongly linked to the increased paperbank tonnages, than it was to any other factor. Estimates of the increased vehicleemissions from consumer journeys to recycle are given in Table 7.

The recorded fuel consumptions for the kerbside collection vehicles were 41%lower in the new collection regime (Table 6). Previously two vehicles were workingthe paper collection, the first working full time with the other working 6 out of 10days but still exclusively on paper. The data presented are based on the dailyaverages computed over the 6 months immediately prior to the change and the first4 months after the change respectively.

With 20 collection days in each 4-week period and an average saving of 25.56l/day, the total fuel savings amount to 511 l over the 4 weeks. With 12 less

Fig. 11. Predicted percentage of special trips to the drop-off sites.


Table 6Fuel consumptions of kerbside collection vehicles

Average daily fuel consumption (l)

Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2 Total

61.7336.682-Weekly collection 25.054-Weekly collection 0.00 36.1736.17

collection rounds each 4-week period, the reduction in distance travelled by theservice vehicle(s) was in excess of 1000 km per 4-week period. The majority of thismileage was incurred travelling to and from the transfer station, located 37 kmfrom the vehicle’s depot, and from the urban area of the borough. Taking theemissions factors of 3.036 kg CO2/l of diesel (White et al., 1985), an approximatemeasure of the reduction in gaseous emissions was computed for the new regime(Table 7). Any additional emissions arising through the start-stops associated withthe collections were neglected.

The total vehicle emissions associated with servicing the paper banks are consid-ered to be at worst cost neutral across the change. These ‘worst case’ figures aregiven in Table 7. The frequency of emptying the banks did not alter. The marginalchanges in CO2 per tonne from the heavier payloads were not included in thecalculations.

The above sets of data enable an approximate carbon-dioxide balance to beconstructed across the intervention (Table 7). In interpreting the results it must beborne in mind that there are considerable uncertainties in the estimated consumerjourney emissions across the whole borough, in their time averaging, in theirextrapolation from a relatively small modelled sub-set of households, and because

Table 74-Week CO2 balance across the intervention (estimated total emissions)

CO2 (whole borough) (kg)Source

4-Weekly2-Weekly

3748 2196Kerbside collection1233Drop-off consumer journeysa,b 1453

14501450Drop-off collection vehicle (estimated)c

6431 5099All

a 46 tonnes/4 weeks collected prior to change and 54 tonnes/4 weeks after.b Taking a figure of 26.8 kg CO2 per tonne of paper delivered, which is the weighted average of the

modelling results for the two drop-off sites in the modelling study.c Based on one return journey of 75 km per week (larger sites) and one return journey every 2 weeks

(smaller sites).


of the simplified allocation procedures used in their calculation. Also it is recog-nised that there are similar uncertainties in the derived collection vehicle emissions,because of the simplifications and assumptions made in their estimation. The resultsshow that a net reduction of �1330 kg CO2 emissions may have been achieved foreach 4-week accounting period. This amounts to �20% of the pre-interventionemissions. The net overall percentage reduction has been moderated somewhat bythe environmental costs of servicing the paper banks, which were constant fixedcosts across the change.

The significance of the above estimates were tested through sensitivity analyses.Even when taking quite pessimistic estimates of the uncertainties in the data (e.g. ifthe kg CO2/km for servicing the paper banks was estimated to be 50% too low, andthe kg CO2/tonne for consumer journeys was estimated to be 100% too low),computations still show a net CO2 saving of over 1000 kg every 4 weeks, and a netreduction of 15% of the pre-intervention emissions. Thus, despite the uncertaintiesin the data, there is good confidence that a substantial net environmental benefithas resulted from the intervention.

The results also illustrate how the environmental impacts associated with thepost-consumer collection of recyclables tend to be more strongly associated withdrop-off collections than with kerbside collections. For the kerbside collection, theCO2 costs for collecting 115 tonnes per month after the collection were 19 kg CO2

per tonne collected. This compares with 26.8 kg CO2 per tonne deposited, fromconsumer journeys to the drop-off sites, plus an estimated additional 27 kg CO2 pertonne from servicing these sites. Previous studies (Powell et al., 1996; Butler andHooper, 1999) also reached similar conclusions for other study areas. Optimisationof drop-off provision would thus appear paramount to minimising the environmen-tal impacts from recycling collection schemes.

7. Other performance indicators

The net financial saving to the council resulting from the change from 2- to4-weekly collection has been calculated to be 61% of the pre-intervention costs. Thisfigure takes account of the sums paid to the contractors, income from paper sales,recycling credits, the costs of haulage from the transfer station to the reprocessor,miscellaneous administrative costs, and tonnage-related bonuses. The full break-down of the financial details behind these cost savings, however, remains confiden-tial. The intervention was implemented primarily as a cost-cutting measure, and assuch has fulfilled its main objective. It has done this without significantly compro-mising the performance targets set for the scheme, and has resulted in a netenvironmental benefit as well. The final question, however, must be ‘Are theresidents happy?’ The council utilises the number of notified complaints about thescheme as their performance indicator for consumer satisfaction. The number ofcomplaints about the scheme did not increase following the change over and stillremains extremely low. Council officers therefore consider that the residents haveremained satisfied with the service provided.


8. Summary and conclusions

Overall, the change from a 2-to a 4-weekly kerbside newspaper collection in theFylde is judged to have been a success. The operational change fully met itsprincipal objective of reducing costs. The 33 000 households in the borough arenow serviced by just one collection vehicle, where two had been needed previously.This vehicle now operates closer to capacity over more of its daily collectionrounds. A 41% saving in fuel usage has been achieved. This has had net environ-mental benefits in addition to its obvious economic benefit, due to the reductions inthe consumed energy and in the vehicle emissions produced. The net environmentalbalance, however, indicated real environmental savings that were somewhat lessthan 41% due to a small increase in residents transporting their own paper torecycling centres, and making less reliance on the provided kerbside collection, andbecause of the fixed cost of servicing the paper banks. The residents appeared toadapt quickly to the new regime, and did not voice dissatisfaction with it.

The observed shift in balance of recoveries from kerbside collection to theborough’s paper banks, accounted for a large percentage of the observed loss fromthe kerbside scheme, though overall there appeared to be a small sustained loss ofpaper being recycled. This loss was estimated to be B2% in overall recovery.Participation monitoring results indicated a small net drop-out from the kerbsidescheme of B8%, though this is thought to be an over-estimate because of theinherent weakness in the standard participation rate performance indicator infailing to account for all users of the scheme. The true net drop-out rate from thescheme is considered to be B5%.

The underlying behavioural changes that occurred in the community wereexplored in more detail through a complementary modelling study. This allowed afar more penetrating analysis that would ever be practical through conventionalmonitoring methods. A simulation model of paper recycling was developed for partof the Fylde community. The model provided a continued good fit to the observedkerbside performance over an 18 month period, including the effect of the manage-ment intervention. Whilst it can never be certain that the interpretations drawnfrom the model community fully represent the behaviours of the real residents, theydo provide a working hypothesis to help explain the changes that are observed. Thevalidity of the model interpretation is strengthened, though still not conclusivelyproven, when multiple aspects of performance can be matched concurrently, as hasbeen demonstrated here.

The model community portrayed a high degree of behavioural stability across thekerbside collection frequency change, with 92% of model residents continuing torecycle paper or continuing not to recycle. Over 80% of the recyclers continued withexactly the same outlets that they had used previously. The remainder tendedtowards making dual use of the paper banks alongside the kerbside scheme ratherthan switching their total allegiance to the paper banks. Scheme drop-outs werethought to occur because of a slight weakening of the appeal of the kerbsidecollection, though not of the recycling ethos overall. Weight recovery from thekerbside scheme fell partially because of these drop-outs but, at least as signifi-


cantly, because of the pick-up in use of the paper banks. The model interpretationis that more households may reach their respective perceived household storagelimit before the next kerbside collection opportunity arises, triggering a supplemen-tary use of the paper banks mid way through the kerbside collection cycle. A primereason why the change proved to be successful was the accessibility of convenientlocal paper bank sites within the borough. A second reason is believed to be thatstrong local norms towards participation may be operating in some neighbour-hoods. These neighbourhood social interactions may help to engender and preservesome uniformity and coherence in individual behaviours. A third reason could bethe resultant stimulation of more ‘low weight’ generators into participation. This isthought to be the consequence of allowing the consumers choice in the total volumeof the [free] recycling container(s) to be used.

Overall, newspaper recycling behaviours in the Fylde appear to have beenreasonably stable over the last 18 months. Such stabilities have been recognisedelsewhere. Pieters (1989), for example, noted that prior performance data were goodpredictors of current performances, and Boldero (1995) found that past behaviourwas the only significant predictor of the intention to recycle as well as actualrecycling behaviour. Bagozzi et al. (1992), Dahab et al. (1995) went on to show thatpast behaviours may also serve to strengthen the current intentions. The Fyldestudy has additionally shown that, given the right local circumstances, behaviourscan be maintained across an episode of significant procedural change. It wouldappear that the scheme might withstand considerable intervention before significantchanges could be induced. Exploiting the apparent underlying behavioural stabili-ties might realise some important new opportunities in waste management plan-ning. It opens up new possibilities for designing and implementing cost-cuttingmeasures with a greater confidence that natural resilience will help sustain house-hold participation through the change. Such benefits have been demonstrated forthe Fylde.

The study has also shown how important it is to take the integrated view of allwaste diversion activities when devising and implementing waste managementplans. This consideration and evaluation of the multiplicity of alternatives needs tobe carried out in the local context. What works in the Fylde may not work in othercommunities where social structures and existing waste management infrastructuresmay be different or where stable behavioural patterns are not yet developed. Theconstruction of integrated local models allows the impacts of changes to beevaluated holistically within that locality. The Integrated Household Waste Man-agement Model provides a tool with which to develop such models, and to applythose models for diagnostics and for forward waste management planning.

Acknowledgements

The modelling study was undertaken as a pilot application to demonstrate proofof concept of an integrated simulation approach for waste management planning.This research was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council


(ESRC) under the ROPA award scheme (Award No. R022250140). Part of themonitoring data was collected under the Newspaper Industry EnvironmentalTechnology Initiative, sponsored by Bridgewater Paper, Daishowa Forest Products,Donohue, Holmen Paper AB, Manders Oil Inks, Norske Skog, StoraEnso, SunChemical Inks, and UPM-Kymmene.

Appendix A. Outline description of the integrated household waste managementmodel

A.1. Basic premises

Household waste is modelled as a flux of individual materials flowing through thehousehold. Household choices on how to manage each material component of thatflux are represented as a sequence of models. These partition specific materials intothe compost bin, recycling container or other outlet as appropriate. The rules thatgovern these actions assume that:1. Each action is the result of one or more antecedent factors, principally the

attitudes, perceptions or beliefs held by the household.2. Each antecedent factor takes the form of a distributed variable over the

population as a whole, for which a generic form can be identified.3. The distribution means are correlated with identified demographic

characteristics.4. Individual (model) household attitudes are set through randomly sampling the

relevant generic distribution.Three classes of rules are included within the model:1. Rules which govern whether or not a household engages in a particular waste

diversion activity.2. Rules which govern how much of the available material is diverted through that

activity, and how much contrary material is diverted as well.3. Rules which govern how frequently a household engages in a given diversion.The participation rules are founded on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Azjen,1985). Firstly, an intention to behave is determined according to the balance ofattitudes, norms and self-efficacy of the household and of the conditions which canfacilitate the behaviour. Intention is converted to behaviour if the facilitatingconditions are favourable.

Choice between alternative outlets (e.g. different drop-off sites) is determinedthrough establishing an order of preference by ranking of the scheme-specificappeal of each site. Scheme appeal is a model construct that establishes a householdscore for each site based on distance, convenience, co-location with other fre-quented amenities, and number of materials collected.

In the material recovery rules, the major controlling attitudes are assumed to beignorance, forgetfulness/accident and ‘distaste’. Ignorance acts to stop a householddiverting all their materials of a given type to a scheme (e.g. magazines to a papercollection) or to contribute all their contrary materials of a given type to the scheme


(e.g. cardboard to a paper collection). Forgetfulness stops some wanted materialsfrom being diverted and accident allows some contrary material to be introduced.Forgetfulness and accident are modelled as random events. ‘Distaste’ allows for acontrolled decision on how much of each material type is diverted (e.g. paper to acompost bin).

Two classes of rules control participation frequency. The first relates to lifestylefactors. Irregularities in lifestyle such as holidays, absence from home, illness, andexternal events (e.g. a missed kerbside collection) can temporarily prevent theintention to behave or the translation of intention into behaviour. The second classof rules covers reasoned decisions for not discharging material at a given opportu-nity. Such reasons may be based on perceptions on the amount of materialavailable for diversion. If low weights are generated, the household may opt toaccumulate material until a threshold level is reached at which discharge isconsidered worthwhile. Conversely, a household may exceed its perceived storagecapacity before a normal discharge opportunity arises, and may seek to dischargethe material prematurely, perhaps through an alternative outlet.

The above rules provide a quasi-steady state model of household waste manage-ment behaviour, but do not account for behavioural change. In the model,behavioural change is generated from a time-dependent perturbation of one ormore household attributes. Three classes of change are catered for within themodel:1. Planned or unplanned ‘management’ interventions affecting groups of

individuals.2. Discrete events affecting individuals, for example ‘perceived catastrophes’ (such

as loss of a recycling container or vermin infestation of the compost heap),moving house or general non-specific background stimuli.

3. Social interaction between individuals.Social influences for kerbside recycling include the visual stimulus of seeing othersset out, and are most active in high set-out areas. Householders can also changeattitudes following social dialogue with neighbours or friends.

Each neighbourhood within the community is modelled separately. The simula-tion is run as a time series of weekly events, which are time-aggregated to provideweekly, 2-, 4-or 8-weekly performance indicators, respectively.

A.2. Model calibration

In deploying the model, estimates need to be made for each of the householdattributes. Definitive solutions are not yet possible, as the data on which they couldbe based are still far from sufficient or comprehensive enough in coverage.Nevertheless, working distributions for most of the parameters can be hypothesisedfrom the data that is available. The data sources used to set the these parameterswere as follows:

The mean waste generation rates and waste compositions of the communitiesstudied were estimated from the statistics compiled under the National HouseholdWaste Analysis Programme (DoE, 1994) The per-household waste distributions


were set according to distributions reported by Leach (1995), MEL (1996). Thematerial partition coefficients were derived from the first authors’ analyses of anumber of recycling schemes within the UK (Tucker et al., 1998c). Lifestyle andpersonal difficulty frequencies were inferred from disparities between monitoredparticipation frequencies and the measured age spans of material contributed(Tucker et al., 1998d). The forms of the probability distributions describingattitudes and barriers were inferred from questionnaire surveys of recyclers andnon-recyclers (Tucker, 1999a). The weight thresholds were based on the survey dataof Tucker et al. (1997b) for drop-off recycling and on the work of Tucker et al.(1997a) for kerbside recycling. Factors governing the choice between drop-off siteswere derived from the work of Speirs et al. (1999). The socio-demographic profilesof the communities studied were derived from small area census statistics, validatedand supplemented through visual inspections of the housing types represented inthose communities.

Final calibrations to fit local data were effected through empirical adjustments ofthe remaining model parameters. The empirical adjustments were by runningmultiple simulations, each with a different set of parameter values, systematicallychange from one model run to the next. The model performance indicators: set-outrate, participation rate, per-household weights and scheme recovery rates werecompared with all available spot measurements for all neighbourhoods and for allhousing types therein. The calibration was accepted when all monitored perfor-mance indicators fell inside the week-by-week ‘noise band’ of their predictedcounterparts.

References

Azjen I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In: Kuhl and Beckmann, editors.Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. New York: Springer Verlag, 1985.

Bagozzi RP, Baumgartner H, Yougai Y. State versus action orientation and the theory of reasonedaction: an application to coupon usage. J Consumer Res 1992;18:505–8.

Boldero J. The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: the role of attitudes, intentions andsituational factors. J Appl Soc Psychol 1995;25(5):440–62.

Butler J, Hooper P. Optimising recycling effort: an evaluation of local authority PCW recyclinginitiatives. Sustainable Dev 1999;7:35–46.

Dahab DJ, Gentry JW, Su W. New ways to reach non-recyclers: an extension of the model of reasonedaction to recycling behaviours. Adv Consumer Res 1995;22:251–6.

DETR. Monitoring and Evaluating Recycling Composting and Recovery Programmes. Department ofEnvironment, Transport and the Regions, London, 1999.

DETR. Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales, Part 1. CM 4693-1. HMSO, London, 2000.DoE. National Household Waste Analysis Programme, Phase 2, vol. 1. Report No. CWM O82/94.

Department of the Environment, London, 1994.Everett JW, Pierce JJ. Social networks, socio-economic status and environmental collective action:

residential curbside block leader recycling. J Environ Syst 1992;21(1):65–84.Everett J, Pierce J. Curbside recycling in the USA: convenience and mandatory participation. Waste

Manage Res 1993;11:49–61.Glenn J. Junior, take out the recyclables. Biocycle 1988;29(5):26–31.Folz DH. Recycling program design, management and participation: a national survey of municipal

experience. Public Adm Rev 1991;51(3):222–31.


Institute for Local Self Reliance. Beyond 40%, Record Setting, Recycling and Composting Programs,Island Press, 1991.

Jacobs HE, Bailey JS. Evaluating participation in a residential recycling program. J Env Syst 1982–1983;12:141–52.

Leach S. Kerbside weighing of household waste. J Waste Manage Resource Recovery 1995;2(3):111–7.Luton College, MEL Research and Warren Spring Laboratory. UK 2000 Sheffield Recycling City

Monitoring Report. Centre for Waste Management, University of Luton, 1993.MEL Research. Analysing Household Waste. MEL Research, Aston Science Park, Birmingham, 1996.Oskamp S, Harrington M, Edwards T, Sherwood PL, Okuda SM, Swanson DL. Factors influencing

household recycling behavior. Environ Behav 1991;23:494–519.Pieters RGM. Attitudes and Behavior in a Source Separation Program. A Garbology Approach, The

Netherlands: Eurobon, Delft, 1989.Powell JC, Craghill AL, Parfitt JP, Turner K. A life-cycle assessment and economic valuation of

recycling. J Environ Plann Manage 1996;39(1):97–112.Salimando J. Camden county sets the recycling pace. Waste Age 1987;18(7):48–53.Spaccarelli S, Zolik E, Jason LA. Effects of verbal prompting and block characteristics on participation

in curbside newspaper recycling. J Environ Syst 1989;19(1):45–57.Speirs D, Tucker P, Taylor I. Research into the Environmental Impact of Recycling in South West

Scotland. University of Paisley, Environmental Technology Research Report No. 022, University ofPaisley, Paisley, Scotland, 1999.

Taylor P. Barriers to curbside recycling. Biocycle 1986;27(2):48–9.Tucker P, Murney G, Lamont J. Participation in recycling: a comparative study of four kerbside

collection schemes. J Waste Manage Resource Recovery 1997a;4(1):11–26.Tucker P, Lamont J, Murney G, Smith D, Smith P. Statistics on Household Recycling Behaviour in

South Ayrshire: Material Capture Rates. University of Paisley Environmental Technology GroupResearch Report 014, University of Paisley, Paisley PA1 2BE, Scotland, 1997b.

Tucker P. Accounting for spatial and temporal variabilities in household recycling schemes: a simulationapproach. J Environ Syst 1997–1998;26(4):365–90.

Tucker P, Murney G, Lamont J. Predicting recycling scheme performance: a process simulationapproach. J Environ Manage 1998a;52:31–48.

Tucker P, Murney G, Lamont J. A decision support model for the management of recycling schemes.J Environ Plann Manage 1998b;41(4):445–62.

Tucker P, Lamont J, Murney G, Smith D. Material capture rates in household waste recycling schemes.Environ Waste Manage 1998c;1(3):169–81.

Tucker P, Murney G, Lamont J. What recyclers recycle and what they do not recycle. Environ WasteManage 1998d;1(1):33–56.

Tucker P. A survey of attitudes and barriers to kerbside recycling. Environ Waste Manage1999a;2(1):55–63.

Tucker P. Normative influences in household waste recycling. J Environ Plann Manage 1999b;42(1):63–82.

Tucker P, Smith D. Simulating Household Waste Management Behaviours, J Artif Soc Social Simula-tion 1999a;2(3), http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/2/3.html.

Tucker P, Smith D. Predictive Modelling For Integrated Household Waste Management. IWM Scientificand Technical Review 1999b:4–9.

Vining J, Ebreo A. Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes andchanges in recycling opportunities. J Appl Soc Psychol 1992;22(20):1580–607.

White PR, Franke M, Hindle P. Integrated Solid Waste Management. London: Blackie, 1985.

.

Documents

Integrated effects of a reduction in collection frequency for a kerbside newspaper recycling scheme