Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Measuring Waste Prevention
in the City of Seattle Phoebe Hwang & Shengyuan Zhang
Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance
University of Washington
May 2016
Capstone Project
Prevent Waste in the First Place
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................................4
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..........................................................................................................................5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................1
Background .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
What is Waste? ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
PRIORITIZING WASTE PREVENTION .....................................................................................................................4
What is Waste Prevention? .................................................................................................................................... 4
Why Does Waste Prevention Matter? ............................................................................................................... 5
What Waste Prevention Activities Currently Exists? ............................................................................... 8
Why Quantify Waste Prevention? ....................................................................................................................... 9
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 11
The Definition and Forms of Waste Prevention Activities ..................................................................12
The Environmental Impact of Waste Prevention .....................................................................................13
Waste Prevention Strategies ...............................................................................................................................13
Waste Prevention Measurement and Monitoring ....................................................................................14
Existing Government Waste Prevention Strategies ................................................................................16
RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................................................................................................. 22
Research Question 1: What waste prevention activities and quantification of those
activities have been undertaken by Seattle businesses and residences? ....................................22
Research Question 2: What additional methods can be used to quantify and measure
waste prevention practices in the city? .........................................................................................................22
Research Question 3: Can Seattle Public Utilities officially adopt any of the waste
prevention measurement methods for citywide practices? ...............................................................23
DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
Report and Survey Review ...................................................................................................................................24
Business Follow-up Interviews..........................................................................................................................24
Analysis of Existing Frameworks......................................................................................................................24
Informal Expert Interviews .................................................................................................................................25
FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Findings from Survey and Report Review ...................................................................................................26
Findings from Existing Frameworks ...............................................................................................................29
Findings from Informal Expert Interviews ..................................................................................................30
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................... 33
Recommendation 1: Utilize social norms to measure and change behavior .............................33
Recommendation 2: Estimate individual material streams related to priority .......................34
Recommendation 3: Estimate per capita waste reduction data over time .................................35
Recommendation 4: Estimate the social impact of waste prevention ..........................................36
CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 38
Cost Effectiveness .....................................................................................................................................................38
Environmental Impact ............................................................................................................................................38
Social Impact................................................................................................................................................................39
Equity ..............................................................................................................................................................................39
Sustainability and Robustness ...........................................................................................................................39
Political Feasibility ...................................................................................................................................................40
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................................................... 41
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 42
PHOTOGRAPH REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 45
APPENDIX A: EXPERT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ..............................................................................................1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report is possible because of the following people who provided us with their
guidance and unique perspectives.
Thank you, Professor Alison Cullen at the Evans School of Public Policy and
Governance, for helping us progress this report promptly and providing us precious
guidance and feedback to the difficulties and challenges we encountered.
Thank you, Sego Jackson at Seattle Public Utilities, for being patient and supportive
in a vibrant client-consultant relationship. Without you, we could not be able to get
access and compile the information in a professional and logical manner.
Last but not least, we would also like to express our deepest gratitude to
David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Jeanette Brizendine, City of Federal Way
Ashley Zanolli, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Tom Watson, King County
for taking time out of their busy schedule to provide their expert input in this report
either via a phone interview or by providing us valuable information.
Phoebe and Shengyuan would like to thank each other for being supportive and
regardful to each other when any difficulties came along. We both love our team
dynamics, and we acknowledge it as part of the success of this report.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
DEQ: State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality
EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU: European Union
PCE: Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index
RSJI: City of Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative
SPU: Seattle Public Utilities
WA: State of Washington
WFD: European Union Waste Directive Framework
Page | i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Waste prevention reduces the amount of waste generated. Many experts
recommend waste prevention as the preferred method of waste management.
Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) aims to emphasize and reinforce the importance of
waste prevention within its programming. To signal its dedication to waste
prevention, SPU must implement measurements for success. In this report, we
outline potential measurement tools SPU can adopt. We focus on the following
questions:
● What waste prevention activities and quantification of those activities have
been undertaken by Seattle businesses and residences?
● What additional methods can be used to quantify and measure waste
prevention practices in the city?
● Can Seattle Public Utilities officially adopt any of the waste prevention
measurement methods for citywide practices?
We reviewed past surveys and reports conducted by SPU. We also participated in
follow-up interviews with local businesses. We derived our recommendations
based on existing measurement methods in findings through literature review and
informal expert interviews.
Our findings are as follows:
Many Seattle businesses do not measure waste prevention due to limited
knowledge of tools and incentives to invest in measurement. If businesses do
measure waste prevention, other metrics besides tonnage are used.
The European Union and regions of the U.S. has adopted multiple waste
prevention measurement programs. Measurement tools are program specific
and target individual material streams.
Measurement costs should constitute between 5% - 10% of total program
investment.
Based on our findings, we recommend four potential measurement tools:
Utilize social norms to measure and change behavior
Estimate individual material streams related to priority
Estimate per capita waste reduction date over time
Estimate the social impact of waste prevention
Page | 1
INTRODUCTION
Background The City of Seattle is considered a forerunner in waste reduction efforts. In 1988,
Seattle began its citywide curbside recycling program.1 The city has since diverted a
significant amount of recyclables from people’s trash cans.2 Today, Seattle is a
national leader in recycling. Seattle single-home families recycle 70% of their waste
(the nation's highest rate).3 In 2014, Seattle passed groundbreaking municipal code
mandating commercial and residential organics composting. Seattle's recycling and
composting programs have produced tangible achievements in solid waste
management. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), the public agency responsible for
Seattle's waste management programs, is now considering to increase focus on
waste prevention and reduction. As part of this new focus, the agency aims to
establish an effective waste prevention measurement system.
In 2005, Seattle Public Utilities surveyed Seattle businesses. SPU concluded
measuring waste prevention was possible, but difficult to implement. Seattle has
since adopted efforts to address citywide waste prevention. In 2007, the city
adopted the Zero Waste Resolution. The resolution outlined the city's commitment to
"managing resources instead of waste" and "conserving natural resources through
waste prevention".4 Seattle resolved to dedicate more time and money towards
waste reduction in the city.5 Furthermore, the 2011 revision of Seattle's Solid Waste
Plan stresses promoting and managing:
● Reuse
● Sustainable Building
● Product Stewardship
● Organics
The plan stresses the importance of product stewardship, a "strategy that places
responsibility for lifecycle environmental impacts on designers, producers,
marketers, and users of products."6
1 Chan, Sharon Pian. (2006) . Seattle Getting Better at Recycling Its Trash. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-getting-better-at-recycling-its-trash/ 2 Seattle Public Utilities (n.d.). Strategic Business Plan 2015-2020. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@diroff/documents/webcontent/01_030439.pdf 3 ibid 4 City of Seattle (2011). Zero Waste Resolution (30990). In Seattle Solid Waste Plan 2011 Revision (Appendix B) Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/parks/docs/zero%20waste%20resolution.pdf 5 ibid 6City of Seattle (2011). Waste Prevention. In Seattle Solid Waste Plan 2011 Revision (Chapter 3) Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@garbage/documents/webcontent/02_015205.pdf
Page | 2
Implementing measurement tools for waste prevention will be a strong indicator of
SPU’s commitment to reducing waste. SPU needs to provide evidence of success to
policy-makers and the public. These measurements will showcase how the city
performance in waste prevention.
What is Waste? Waste is a product of human activity. Waste is anything that is "eliminated or
discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process."7 When
referring to waste, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses
the term “solid waste”. The EPA defines solid waste as:
Statutory: Any garbage, refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water
supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, and other discarded
material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material, resulting
from industrial, commercial, mining, and
agricultural operations and from community
activities. [§1004(27)]8
Regulatory: definition of solid waste
encompasses the following materials: (1)
materials that are abandoned; (2) materials
that are recycled; (3) materials that are
inherently wastelike; and (4) waste military
munitions.[ §261.2(a)]9
The definition of solid waste is all encompassing. As a result, many methods of
waste prevention exist for the many different types of solid waste. In this report, we
specifically look at the City of Seattle’s definition of solid waste:
“All putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not
limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge,
demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof,
7 Waste. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/waste 8 Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (2011). Definition of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Recycling (40 CFR §§261.2 and 261.9). In RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Call Center Training Module. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/defsw.pdf 9 ibid.
Page | 3
contaminated soils and contaminated dredged material, and recyclable
materials.”10
In this report, we examine different sources of solid waste in residential, industrial,
and commercial production streams. The sources we look at include:
● Food waste in households
● Textile waste in households
● Packaging waste in consumer products
● E-Waste in local businesses
● Construction waste in local property development.
The various waste streams make quantifying waste prevention efforts difficult.
There are different waste prevention methods for each type of waste. Each waste
prevention activity has a unique set of measurement tools and indicators of success.
This report focuses on the following research questions:
● What waste prevention activities and quantification of those activities have
been undertaken by Seattle businesses and residences?
● What additional methods can be used to quantify and measure waste
prevention practices in the city?
● Can Seattle Public Utilities officially adopt any of the waste prevention
measurement methods for citywide practices?
This report aims to provide
an overview of existing waste
prevention activities and
measurement methods used
by Seattle residents and
businesses. We explore
additional waste prevention
measurement tools used in
national and international
models. SPU can potentially
adopt these tools.
10 City of Seattle. (2013). Glossary. In Seattle Solid Waste Plan Revision (Appendix A) Retrieved from Http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@garbage/documents/webcontent/02_015859.pdf
Page | 4
PRIORITIZING WASTE PREVENTION
What is Waste Prevention? SPU's 2005 Measuring Waste Prevention report outlines the confusion surrounding
waste prevention efforts. The report’s results consist of responses from thirty-one
leading environmental businesses in Seattle. Despite being environmental leaders,
these businesses have a limited understanding of waste prevention. For example,
the respondents often mistook recycling for waste prevention.11
Recycling is only a portion of waste reduction efforts. Waste prevention is the other
important, often overlooked, part. Waste prevention is a more impactful method to
reduce waste.
The European Union Waste Framework Directive (WFD) breaks down the definition
of waste prevention. According to the WFD:
“‘prevention’ means measures taken before a substance, material or product has
become waste, that
(i) reduce the quantity of waste, including the re-use of products or the
extension of life span of products; and
(ii) reduce the negative impacts to the environment and health of the waste
generated, and reduce the content of harmful substances in material and
products.” 12
According to the EPA, waste prevention is "using less material to get the job done."
It helps create less waste in the first place – before recycling.13 The EPA advocates
the following waste prevention goals:
11 Burton Hamner. (2005). Measuring Waste Prevention: Report to Seattle Public Utilities. 12 Lilja, R. (2009). From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: change of discourse in the waste policy of Finland. Journal of cleaner production, 17(2), 129-136. 13 Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Waste Prevention. In WasteWise Program. Retrieved from https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/wastewise/web/html/prevent.html
Page | 5
Figure 114
In this report, waste prevention is the reduction of the amount of waste generated,
the reuse of durable products, and decreased use of disposable products.
The idea behind these goals is to use the products that are already in the system.
Purchasing new products requires new natural resources to enter the system.
Extending the useful lives of existing products extends the life of the raw materials
used to produce the products. As a result, fewer natural resources are used to
produce new products. Preservation of our natural resources is necessary for
ecological and future use purposes.
Waste prevention also promotes a more efficient use of materials. Waste prevention
efforts preserve natural resources by not using them in the first place. Fewer
products produced means less material ends up entering the waste stream.
Waste prevention is defined further in the literature review section.
Why Does Waste Prevention Matter? Waste management often focuses on recycling. Recycling is an easy and flexible step
for both consumers and suppliers. In the United States, recycling efforts are often
systemized in municipalities. Cities can, therefore, set clear recycling metrics and
target goals. Most cities have programs incentivizing consumer recycling. Society
has also transformed recycling into a moral obligation. Recycling is often perceived
by consumers as a convenient way to be environmentally friendly.
14 Ibid.
Page | 6
However, when looking at
the lifecycle of waste,
recycling is not always the
most favorable option in
waste management. While
recycling is effective in
diverting large amounts of
materials from landfills,
large amounts of energy and
natural resources go into the
recycling process.
Furthermore, recycling often incentivizes increased consumption. A 2014 study by
in the Journal of Consumer Psychology found increased material consumption when
recycling bins were present compared to when no recycling bins were present.15
According to the study:
“The increase in consumption found in our study may be partially due to the fact
that consumers are well informed that recycling is beneficial to the environment;
however, the environmental costs of recycling (e.g., water, energy, etc. used in
recycling facilities) are less salient.” 16
Waste prevention targets consumption. Waste prevention stops waste from being
generated. Recycling and landfills are ways to handle materials at the end of the
products’ life cycles. Waste prevention targets waste at the beginning of its lifecycle
and keeps garbage from being generated in the first place.
The WFD’s waste hierarchy (Figure 2) to prioritize waste management practices.
Policy interventions should be increasingly targeted higher up the hierarchy17. Waste
prevention is listed at the top and thus requires the most attention.
15 Catlin, J. R., & Wang, Y. (2012). Recycling gone bad: When the option to recycle increases resource consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 16 Ibid. 17 Gregson, N., Crang, M., Laws, J., Fleetwood, T., & Holmes, H. (2013). Moving up the waste hierarchy: Car boot sales, reuse exchange and the challenges of consumer culture to waste prevention. Resources, conservation and recycling, 77, 97-107.
Page | 7
Figure 218
The EPA uses the same waste management hierarchy. According to the EPA, source
reduction and material reuse are the most preferred waste management strategies.
Prioritizing waste prevention can preserve natural resources, conserve energy,
reduce pollution, and reduce the toxicity of waste.19 Preventing waste also reduces
associated pollution. Reducing and reusing goods means using fewer virgin
materials to manufacture new commodities.
At the state level, the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 70.95.010 outlines the
WA waste management strategy. The code requires WA prioritize solid waste
management in the following order: a) waste reduction; b) recycling; c) energy
recovery, incineration or landfill. The “Three-R” slogan (“Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”)
comes from WA’s strategy. This slogan prioritizes reduce and reuse activities over
recycling.
Waste prevention is the least expensive approach to waste management.
Manufacturers can save cost by cutting down the materials for product packaging.
Compared to recycling and composting, reducing waste lowers the total amount of
18 European Commission. (n.d.). Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (Waste Framework Directive). In Environment. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/ 19 Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchy
Page | 8
waste sent to recovery or disposal facilities. Waste prevention ultimately incurs
fewer transportation, processing and administrative costs. 20
Waste prevention is the first step in mitigating the environmental impact of solid
waste. However, municipalities often put little focus and emphasis on reducing and
reusing.
What Waste Prevention Activities Currently Exists? Since solid waste defines a wide range of outputs, municipal governments often do
not have codified methods of tracking waste prevention activities. Waste prevention
activities are not often officially sanctioned. However, waste prevention activities
happen at all societal levels in Seattle.
At the individual level, household waste prevention includes a wide range of
activities, including:
buying used products
using tool libraries
donating usable household
goods to charity thrifts
backyard composting and
grasscycling
SPU has a few surveys that monitor some of these household activities. Since 1995,
SPU has conducted Home Organics Waste Management Survey every five years. The
most recent survey, conducted in 2010, found a decreasing trend in home
composting and an increasing trend in curbside composting.21
Waste prevention efforts exist in various forms at the organizational level. Major
retail businesses in the city have adopted more efficient packaging and shipping
methods. Hospitality businesses reduce their waste by replacing disposable items
with reusable ones and donating unused toiletries to local shelters. Other
businesses have made changes such as using durable dishware in the employee
20 Watson, T. (2004). The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner (Ed.). 3rd ed. Vol. 6. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 4276-282. 21 FBK Research. (2010). 2010 Home Organics Waste Management Survey. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@garbage/documents/webcontent/SPU01_006650.pdf
Page | 9
cafeteria, reducing the amount of printing materials used, and donating outdated
electronics to underserved communities.
At an overarching societal level, there are various for-profit and non-profit thrift
stores that perform large-scale reuse activities through donations and resale.
Materials are resold to either the public or second stream markets for reusable
goods. The thrift store industry covers almost all kinds of products, including
textiles, furniture, home items, toys, electronics, and books. Also, there are many
organizations, such as RE Store that reclaim construction and demolition materials
and resell them to the public.
In addition to formal organizational waste prevention efforts, there are many
informal goods exchanges. Free and For Sale and Closet Exchange groups, most
popular in college and university neighborhoods, allow people to exchange
unwanted goods for other goods and services. People exchange products from
clothes, handbags, shoes, furniture, used electronics, used books, and even used
moving boxes. All these items stay in circulation for reuse, instead of entering the
recycling and landfill waste streams. Goods exchanges are strong demonstrations of
the Seattle community's commitment to practicing
reuse to prevent waste.
Waste prevention activities are not always
categorized as such. Waste prevention efforts are
often undertaken as money-saving or organizational
efficiency projects. This is evident in the correlation
between periods of reduced waste production and
periods of economic recession. In addition to cost-
saving benefits, waste prevention also provides
associated environmental benefits. “Green” organizations often adopt activities as
part of a larger plan to reduce the use of valuable, often non-renewable, natural
resources, air pollution, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Why Quantify Waste Prevention? SPU prepared the 2005 “Measuring Waste Prevention” report in response to the
Seattle City Council’s request to “quantify waste reduction, especially documented
achievements by industries in the city, and…incorporate and give credit for waste
Page | 10
reduction in calculations of environmental outcomes.” 22 Seattle’s dedication to
targeting waste at the beginning of the lifecycle needs to translate into quantifiable
measures of success.
These quantifiable measures of success are important for the following reasons:
● Measurement reflects what the city values. Measurement tools are time
and resource intensive. Willingness to implement these tools signifies the
city’s dedication to their priorities.
● Measurement reflects
performance. Measurements can
determine whether city programs
are functioning as intended.
Information gathered from the
tools can educate the city on how
to proceed with the programs.
● Measurement evaluates
success. Measurements help
determine whether city programs are hitting the proper target goals. Missed
targets can inform the city on the shortcomings of implemented programs.
● Measurement provides opportunities for program evaluation.
Measurement tools can inform the city of the impact of city programs.
Program evaluation can determine any program’s effect on waste prevention
in the city.
Despite these benefits, measuring waste prevention efforts is difficult compared to
measuring recycling and composting efforts. The City of Seattle has officially
implemented recycling and composting programs. As a result, measuring recycling
and composting efforts is less complicated. Seattle’s recycling and composting are
tracked by transfer stations and private haulers on a regular basis.
Waste prevention, however, has characteristics that make the quantification in a
municipal setting complicated. These difficulties include:
● Waste prevention typically involves avoided impact. Measuring something
that is not produced is more difficult than measuring a tangible material.
22 Burton Hamner. (2005). Measuring Waste Prevention: Report to Seattle Public Utilities..
Page | 11
● Waste prevention efforts are often undertaken for reasons other than waste
reduction. These reasons include cost-saving and organizational efficiency.
Separating the waste prevention from other cost-saving and efficiency efforts
can be difficult.
● Measuring waste prevention can be expensive and time-consuming.
Measurement tools involve massive interviews, monitoring and data tracking
efforts. These activities are time and labor intensive.
Despite difficulties in measuring waste prevention, City of Seattle should attempt to
measure existing and planned efforts and programs. Quantifying waste prevention
can provide a scale for the city’s vision. Measurements provide a baseline from
which the city can improve. Furthermore, quantifying the City of Seattle’s waste
reduction and reuse activities can help policy-makers understand the significance of
waste prevention. City of Seattle has invested significantly in measuring recycling
programs. Likewise, comparable investment should be made for waste prevention
measurement.
Photo credit: D’Arcy Norman
Page | 12
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Definition and Forms of Waste Prevention Activities Different definitions for waste prevention can be widely found in the academic
literature. Waste prevention is the "strict avoidance, reduction at source (e.g. home
composting) and reuse (for the product's original purpose) - recycling is
excluded".23
Some experts, such as Julian Cleary, consider reuse a form of waste prevention.
Reuse reduces the waste that would have been sent to landfills.24 In his article,
Cleary outlines several examples of waste prevention activity. These examples are
outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: The Properties of Each Type of Waste Prevention Activity 25
Type of waste prevention
activity
Examples
1. Reduction in material
consumption without product
service substitution
Reduced generation of junk mail
Dematerialization
2. Reuse of disposable goods Reuse of a disposable shopping bag
3. Substitution of a service,
provided by a capital good, for a
disposable good
Drying of hands by means of hand dryers
instead of hand towels, drinking water
supplied by water faucets instead of bottles,
newspaper articles available online instead of
printed on newsprint
4. Substitution of a reusable good
for a disposable one
Substitution of refillable glass wine bottles for
disposable ones, substitution of reusable
shopping bags for disposable ones
5. Lightweighting of a good Substitution of lightweight plastic containers
for glass ones (both containers are single-use)
6. Lengthening the lifespan of a
durable good
Increasing the lifespan of a refrigerator
through improved design
23 Cox, J., Giorgi, S., Sharp, V., Strange, K., Wilson, D. C., & Blakey, N. (2010). Household waste prevention—a review of evidence. Waste Management & Research, 28(3), 193-219. 24 Cleary, J. (2010). The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: methodological issues. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,15(6), 579-589. 25 ibid
Page | 13
Waste prevention at collection
7. On-property residential waste
treatment
Backyard composting, grasscycling
8. Storage of waste products and
materials
Storage of obsolete appliance
Cleary distinguishes between waste prevention and waste generation. Types 1 to 6
are categorized as reducing waste generation. This reduction is in accordance with
the EPA’s definition of waste prevention. Types 7 and 8 are considered waste
prevention at the collection stage of the waste management life cycle.26 However,
types 7 and 8 can be more accurately defined as waste diversion. In these types,
waste is already generated but has not been sent to waste treatment facilities. Type
8 is especially controversial because storage does not reduce, reuse, or dispose of
waste. Type 8 should be considered “stockpiling” instead of “waste prevention at
collection”.
The Environmental Impact of Waste Prevention Emmanuel Gentil evaluates the environmental consequences of preventing three
types of waste: food waste, unsolicited
mail and beverage packaging. They find
that including the avoided production due
to waste prevention provides significant
environmental benefits.27
Prevention measures generate additional
benefits when a cascading effect is
considered in the modeling. The authors
conclude that waste prevention can play
an important role in reducing emissions and mitigating climate change and should
be favored and promoted by policy-makers.
Waste Prevention Strategies The literature also establishes strategies to change people's behavior and challenges
of implementing those strategies. In her 2010 article, Jayne Cox conducts an
evidence review to show United Kingdom households' behaviors and attitudes on
26 Ibid. 27 Gentil, E. C., Gallo, D., & Christensen, T. H. (2011). Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention. Waste management, 31(12), 2371-2379.
Page | 14
waste prevention. The research finds that waste prevention consists of many
behaviors. Society participates in small reuse behaviors, such as donating goods to
charities. Furthermore, changes in consumption habits can spur waste prevention.28
There are barriers that prevent more households from further reducing waste.
These barriers include the confusion people have with "reducing waste" and
"recycling". The invisibility of personal waste prevention behaviors also reduces the
efficacy of social norm intervention. One potential solution to combat these barriers
is to raise the profile and visibility of waste prevention. The city can identify specific
activities and educate the public on the effective method of preventing waste.
Another suggestion from the literature recommends that sound waste prevention
policies should be designed with convenience. These policies should be based on
households' preferences of time and space. Convenience can encourage households
to engage in waste prevention behavior.29
Waste Prevention Measurement and Monitoring Existing literature has potential suggestions on tools and methods to measure waste
prevention. However, these suggestions are limited.
Some potential methods to measure waste prevention, as outlined by Zorpas et al,
include:
● “Direct quantification of source reduction, referred on reported
measurements of changes in waste stream quantities, either by volume or
weight. This method includes direct monitoring programs through case studies,
audits and/or waste sorting studies.
● Source reduction cost analysis, which generally incorporates two financial
factors: the cost of undertaking the source reduction effort and the savings in
purchasing and disposal costs, combined to calculate the realised total costs of
the effort. The basic steps include the identification of the source reduction and
the direct cost of implementing the source reduction as well as the costs to be
measured (such as purchasing, disposal, labour and other relevant factors)
before and after implementation of the source reduction.
28 Cox, J., Giorgi, S., Sharp, V., Strange, K., Wilson, D. C., & Blakey, N. (2010). Household waste prevention—a review of
evidence. Waste Management & Research, 28(3), 193-219. 29 Bortoleto, A. P., Kurisu, K. H., & Hanaki, K. (2012). Model development for household waste prevention behaviour. Waste Management, 32(12), 2195-2207.
Page | 15
● The use of indicators (determined on either an economic, resource, or waste
basis) to establish baseline potential for waste prevention programs and to
measure the effectiveness of the program after implementation. Such indicators
could include per capita waste generation, per employee waste generation, or
tons of waste per wage dollars.
● Resource productivity ratios: measurement of a product or a service divided
by the resources required to produce the product or service. Each ratio is a
measure of the efficiency with which resources are used. For example, product
sales divided by raw material costs provide a measure of whether
improvements in raw material use are effective. If raw materials are conserved,
the ratio of sales to raw materials will be increased.” 30
Some literature focuses on household waste prevention. Some barriers include the
invisibility of waste prevention behavior, the uncertainty of whether waste
prevention programs contribute to total waste volume decrease, and the
uncertainty of whether waste prevention behavior is intentional. 31
Despite these barriers, methods to monitor and evaluate household waste
prevention exist in the academic literature. A list of potential methods is outlined in
Table 2.
Table 2: Methods to Monitor and Evaluate Household Waste Prevention32
Monitoring and Evaluation Methods Context Applied
Self-weighing, monitoring or reporting Work with volunteer households to
prevent waste. Households weigh, or
observe, or audit the amount of waste they
produce and record this using diaries or
feedback sheets.
Use of collection round data
to accurately measure waste
Uses a mix of monitoring techniques, e.g.
tracking waste via waste
tonnage/collection round data and
surveys, upon which to evaluate the impact
of campaigns.
30 Zorpas, A. A., & Lasaridi, K. (2013). Measuring waste prevention. Waste management, 33(5), 1047-1056. 31 Sharp, V., Giorgi, S., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Methods to monitor and evaluate household waste prevention. Waste Management & Research,28(3), 269-280. 32 ibid
Page | 16
Use of control and pilot groups Control and pilot approaches compare
performance in an area targeted for an
intervention with a comparable area where
no intervention happens.
Attitude and behavior surveys including
metrics, interviews and focus groups
(outcome focused)
Before, during and after surveys which are
based on declared participation, attitudes,
behaviors. At times attitudes and behaviors
are also captured through diaries. Surveys
are typically used to estimate how many
people do a particular action; focus groups
are used to uncover why they act and/or
their response to campaign material.
Participation surveys (or participation
monitoring) including inquiries to help
lines, web statistics, number of registrants,
publications disseminated, etc. (output
focused)
To gauge the reach of the initiative
proposed – at times this can be either
actual (e.g. web hits) or claimed
participation. Also monitors the uptake of
incentives, e.g. nappy vouchers, sale of
home compost bins, or registrations to the
Mail Preference Service.
Compositional analysis To understand the impacts of initiatives
across different waste materials.
Conversion factors, estimates and
modeling
Using conversion factors, proxies and ratio
model to derive detailed figures on
consumption and waste generation.
Hybrid - a combination of any one or more
of the above approaches
Uses a mix of monitoring and evaluation
techniques.
Existing literature agrees that measuring waste prevention efforts is difficult. As a
result, there are limited recommendations for how municipalities can measure
waste prevention efforts.
Existing Government Waste Prevention Strategies Although the literature recommendations are limited, practical waste prevention
measurements exist. Waste prevention's many associated benefits have persuaded
many regions of the world to adopt waste prevention as a focus in their waste
management plans. These regions include the European Union (E.U.) and areas
throughout the United States.
Page | 17
In 2008, the European Union
revised their Waste
Framework Directive. This
directive tries to define waste
prevention clearly and
strengthen existing waste
prevention measures in E.U.
countries. The directive
stresses that waste policy
should "aim [to] reduc[e] the
use of resources […] and
favour the practical
application of the waste
hierarchy".33
The Council of the European Union (the Council) defines waste prevention as:
"Measures taken before a substance, material or product has become waste, that
reduce:
● the quantity of waste, including through the re-use of products or the
extension of the life span of products;
● the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human
health; or
● the content of harmful substances in materials and products"34
Waste prevention is now defined as an opportunity to reduce the use of natural
resources. The definition switches the waste management strategy towards the
entire lifecycle of a commodity.35
At the time, existing waste management stressed the importance of recycling and
other forms of waste diversion. The Waste Framework Directive recognizes these
existing waste diversions are the current viable alternatives to waste. However, in
33 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain
Directives [2008] OJ L312/3 34 ibid 35 ibid
Page | 18
the directive, the Council establishes waste prevention as the major focus in waste
management.36
As a result of these waste management changes, European state waste policies must
place waste prevention as a priority over reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal.37
The directive mandates that all E.U. member states have national waste prevention
initiatives in place by the end of 2013.38 Each member state is required to describe
their program in detail and has an evaluative process to justify the relationship
between their program and the directive's goals. Innovative new programs
throughout Europe are aimed to reduce waste in areas such as:
● Food Waste
● Construction and Demolition Waste
● Packaging Waste
Examples of these programs include:
● The Love Food, Hate Waste program, implemented in the United Kingdom in
2007 targets food waste, which costs the nation £10 billion a year. The
program tries to implement behavioral
changes by raising awareness of food waste
habits. The program also links wasting food
with wasting money and negative
environmental impacts. Love Food, Hate
Waste offers the public money saving
advice, food storage tips, ingredient
maximizing recipes, and meal planning
lessons. Most recently, the program
released a mobile phone application that provides a convenient medium for
the public to plan meals, save money, and save food while shopping.39
Through Love Food, Hate Waste, people maximize the potential of the food
they buy and minimize the amount of wasted food. The program has targeted
36 ibid 37 European Commission. (n.d.). Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (Waste Framework Directive). In Environment. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/ 38 European Commission. (n.d.). Waste Prevention. In Environment. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/legislation.htm 39Love Food Hate Waste. (n.d.) Download the New Love Food Hate Waste Free App. Love Food Hate Waste. Retrieved from http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/content/download-new-love-food-hate-waste-free-app
Page | 19
1.8 million households, saved £296 million, and prevented 151,000 tons of
food from entering landfills.40
● In France, the Eco-Emballage Packaging Advisory targets packaging waste.
This program targets packaging designers and engineers. The advisory holds
training sessions on how current packaging producers can minimize
packaging. The advisory also targets engineering students with collaborative
projects at the Ecole Supérieure d'Ingénieurs de Reims, an engineering
school in Reims, France. The program measures approximately a 10-20% in
reduction in weight of manufactured packaging.41
In addition to these programs, the EU has also started a partnership, Pre-Waste, with
ten dedicated waste management organizations in nine member countries and the
European Regional Development Fund. The goal of this partnership is to develop a
set of best practices that can be replicated and implemented. An important part of
this project involves monitoring and outlining results and impact indicators. The
project outlines potential indicators for areas such as bio-waste, bulky waste,
hazardous material, and paper.42
These potential indicators are used by the identified best and good practices. These
indicators are outlined in Table 3.
Table 3: Waste Prevention Programs in the EU and Identified Measurement
Methods43
40 The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2009). Love Food, Hate Waste (United Kingdom). In Waste Prevention Best Practice Factsheets. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Lovefoodhatewaste_Factsheet.pdf 41 The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2009). Eco-Emballages Packaging Advisory (France). In Waste Prevention Best Practice Factsheets. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Eco_Emballages_Factsheet.pdf 42 PRE-WASTE. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.prewaste.eu/ 43 PRE-WAST. (n.d.) Web Tool. PRE-WASTE. Available from http://webtool.prewaste.eu/Login/Login.aspx
Page | 20
Program Type Countries Measurement Method
Bulky goods reuse
programs
Italy ● Sales amount
● % recovered, % repaired, %
disposed
● # of returned goods
● Total Avoided Quantities=
(Avoided Quantities Per Person
Per Year) X (Participation)
Dematerialization
programs targeting
paper use in offices
Belgium ● # of people who changed their
behavior
● Amount of printing
● Changes in paper consumption
● Avoided Quantities = (Avoided
Quantities Per Employee Per Year)
x (Participation)
Food waste programs
in schools and
universities
France, Italy,
Sweden
● Weight of food donated to soup
kitchens
● Weight of food consumed before
and after implementation of
program
● Weight of food diverted to
composting or landfills
Textile reuse Centers Austria, Italy,
Sweden
● Amount of costs saved by a less
collection
● Amount of costs that would have
been generated by the treatment
of the waste avoided
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has also developed programs
and initiatives to target waste prevention. One effective way that the EPA markets
waste prevention is “pollution prevention”.44 The EPA focuses waste prevention
44 Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Pollution Prevention (P2). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/p2
Page | 21
efforts on source reduction and focuses on the external benefits associated with
reducing waste at the production stage.
The EPA has also established the voluntary WasteWise program targeting regional
communities and businesses. This program helps organizations “conserve
resources, reduce wastes, improve operational efficiencies and save money45”
Participation in the WasteWise program is voluntary. Participation requires
organizations set annual goals for waste prevention and submit previous year’s
information.
The EPA also links waste prevention to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Success
is measured using the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) tool. The WARM tool
focuses on the total greenhouse gas emissions of baseline and alternative waste
management options.46 The tool compares carbon dioxide, carbon, and energy use.
The EPA, with the help of the Tellus Institute, conceived a method to measure waste
prevention in tons. This method uses the following equation:
Actual Waste Generated-Estimated Waste Generation= Waste Prevention47
In this model, the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index (PCE) is a proxy
for waste generation. The PCE measures consumer-spending habits and translates
that information into economic terms. The EPA uses the PCE because of the strong
correlation between waste generation and consumer spending.
45 Re-TRAC Connect. (n.d.). EPA-WasteWise. Retrieved from https://connect.re-trac.com/register/epawastewise 46 Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Available from https://www.epa.gov/warm 47 Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality. (2007). Solid Waste Generation in Oregon – Composition and Cause of Change. In Waste Prevention Strategy – Background Paper #1. Retrieved from http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/WPSBkgd01.pdf
Page | 22
RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter introduces the research questions and the methods used to answer
each question.
Research Question 1: What waste prevention activities and quantification of those activities have been undertaken by Seattle businesses and residences? SPU is aware of and has already documented a few current waste prevention
activities. However, this knowledge is not enough for SPU to explore all waste
prevention activity in Seattle.
To answer this question, we
reviewed interviews and surveys
conducted by SPU in 2015 to
businesses that have standing in
waste prevention efforts, such as
thrift stores, used-goods exchange
groups, and local hotels and
hospitals. We also participated in
follow-up interviews during the
course of this research.
Research Question 2: What additional methods can be used to quantify and measure waste prevention practices in the city? We reviewed existing information and programs to outline for waste prevention
measurement models. We outlined national and international waste prevention
programs and initiatives. Each program has a different method of measuring and
defining success.
Furthermore, we performed informal interviews with waste prevention experts at
the city, state, and federal level to find existing measuring methods used in waste
prevention efforts. These interviews provide useful insights into the opportunities
and challenges of measuring waste prevention from the perspectives of local, state
and federal governments. These interviews outline some of the many waste
prevention programs that exist outside of Seattle and provide insight into feasible
methods of measuring waste prevention.
Page | 23
Research Question 3: Can Seattle Public Utilities officially adopt any of the waste prevention measurement methods for citywide practices? Using the results from our analysis of the first two questions, we determine whether
there are potential measurement tools that will greatly benefit SPU.
We will focus on existing programs around the world for potential
recommendations. Existing programs help determine what methods of measuring
waste prevention are feasible and cost effective. We will select appropriate methods
and refine them to fit the context of the City of Seattle. Qualitative data analysis is
used to extract information gathered from both standing group surveys and
informal expert interviews. This information serves as a basis to refine and develop
potential measurement tools.
Page | 24
DATA SOURCES
We gathered data from a variety of sources to inform our recommendations in this
report. We analyzed information from the following sources:
● Report and Survey Review
● Business Follow-up Interviews
● Analysis of Existing Frameworks
● Informal Expert Interviews
Report and Survey Review SPU has been involved in waste prevention related work. We reviewed existing
research conducted and data gathered by SPU. Burt Hamner previously conducted
research on waste prevention for SPU in 2005. We reviewed the results of that
research to look at the annual recycling report results. We also looked at results
from surveys conducted by SPU and Cascadia Consulting Group.
Business Follow-up Interviews In March, we participated in a follow-up interview with Tiffany Hatch, Operations
Coordinator at Goodwill. The interview was led by Sego Jackson. Tiffany articulated
some of the challenges that Goodwill experiences when measuring waste prevention
efforts and reporting waste prevention efforts in the annual recycling report for
SPU.
Analysis of Existing Frameworks We gathered information from academic and research articles in journals discussing
waste management. These articles presented a clear definition of waste and waste
prevention. The research also outlined the importance of waste prevention in the
waste management framework. The research also presented potential measurement
models.
We also examined existing models. Internationally, we focused on the EU cases and
policies. We looked at the mandates and frameworks the E.U. imposes on the
member states. We also examined programs implemented at the national level in
Europe, as well as the corresponding evaluation and measurement methods for each
program.
Page | 25
At the national level, we examined existing programs and measurement methods
used by the EPA.
Informal Expert Interviews Information from experts in the waste management and waste prevention field
informs a large portion of this report. We received contacts from experts throughout
the Pacific Northwest Region and conducted the interviews throughout April 2016.
The interview questions used are attached as Appendix A. We contacted five experts
and conducted interviews with:
● David Allaway, State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
● Ashley Zanolli, State of Oregon, DEQ
● Jeanette Brizendine, City of Federal Way.
We also received valuable contacts and information from Tom Watson at King
County.
Page | 26
FINDINGS
Findings from Survey and Report Review Measurement metrics exist mostly in tonnage or sales volume. They are tracked
through SPU’s recycling reports and internal managerial systems from businesses.
SPU’s conducted the surveys and reports find that:
● Businesses are confused about the difference between recycling and
waste prevention.
● Tracking and documenting waste prevention varies among different
business types and different materials.
● Seattle Public Utilities' annual recycling report tracks some reuse
efforts from recycling businesses throughout the city.
● Current recycling reports are only sent to businesses specializing in
recycling. Reports are meant to capture reuse and recycling activities.
Many businesses participate in recycling and waste prevention efforts. However,
waste prevention efforts are not distinguished in the same way as recycling efforts.
According to the survey results collected by SPU, leading businesses in Seattle
confuse recycling as waste prevention. Many businesses
are unaware that recycling are not actually categorized
as a way of waste prevention.
SPU data shows that the city reduced waste generation
during the Great Recession. This coincides with the
belief that waste production is associated with
economic activity. Waste prevention efforts in the Great
Recession were adopted as cost saving measures. Waste
generation has increased in the years after the
recession, but some waste prevention efforts have
remained.
Continued waste prevention efforts are often associated with more permanent
organizational changes. For example, hotels in Seattle have replaced disposable
items with reusable ones. Retail businesses, Amazon included, have significantly
reduced the amount of packing in order to reduce production and shipping costs.
The problem is that these businesses do not recognize and track the efforts as waste
prevention.
Photo credit: KOMO News Photo credit: KOMO News
Page | 27
Existing waste prevention efforts are difficult to measure due to different
measurement methods and purposes. Some organizations track waste prevention
efforts as organizational process improvement efforts. Other organizations track
waste prevention efforts as cost-saving endeavors. Even if organizations are
dedicated to reduction and reuse activities, there are many types of materials. These
different materials require different types of measurement methods.
Seattle Goodwill, for example, is dedicated
to waste prevention, specifically with
reuse activity. Goodwill operates by
selling donated second-use goods and
investing the profits in its job training
programs. Due to its business model and
its dedication to reuse, Goodwill has been
keeping track of its three material
streams. However, these three streams
are measured in different metrics.
Sellable donated goods are measured in
sales volume (dollar). The other two
streams, those that are sold to second
stream recycling industries and those that
are disposed of as garbage, are measured
in weight (tonnage).
Other businesses, whose business models are not based upon reduction and reuse,
often reduce waste to save cost. These businesses often do not have the motivation
to track waste prevention efforts. Measuring waste prevention efforts are not a top
priority for most local businesses.
Some businesses in Seattle are required to report their recycling tonnage. SPU
requires that recycling organizations submit yearly recycling reports. These
organizations include e-Waste reuse and recycling facilities, thrift stores, lumber
reclaiming shops, and construction material salvage and resale businesses. SPU’s
reports request organizations measure their reuse efforts in tons. However,
recycling is the priority in these reports, not reuse. As a result, recycling facilities
often do not clearly mark their reuse efforts. Many organizations do not even know
that reuse activities are meant to be reported. In an effort to clear up confusion
Page | 28
about the reuse activity in the reports, SPU has produced a new recycling report that
clearly defines the reuse aspect of the recycling report.
Other organizations and households in the city also conduct waste prevention
efforts. However, since these organizations do not specialize in recycling, the
organizations are not required to report. Reuse and reduction activities from these
organizations are therefore not reported to the city.
Many types of waste prevention efforts are not reported to SPU. For example,
hospitality businesses in Seattle, in addition to using more durable products, send
unused toiletries to homeless shelters, rather than throwing them out. Many stores
donate non-expired foods that have not been sold to food banks throughout the city.
Households that forgo disposable products (such as water bottles, plastic forks,
paper plates) for more durable products also prevent waste from going into landfills
and recycling streams. However, the city currently has no method to track these
various waste prevention activities and their waste stream to demonstrate the
holistic environmental and societal impacts.
The majority of businesses, even if they have a commitment to waste prevention,
rarely measure their waste prevention activities. Even businesses, who track their
recycling tonnage and rate, lack the knowledge, incentives and tools to track the
waste that they have reduced and prevented. Thrift stores, who are major
contributors to waste prevention through reuse, mostly track their on-floor sales by
sales volumes instead of tonnage, which also makes it complicated to measure their
waste prevention impacts.
Key Takeaways:
Businesses and residents often do not measure their waste prevention efforts
due to limited knowledge and incentives. Organizations that do track waste
prevention efforts, such as thrift stores, track waste prevention in a different
metric system (dollar) that is not consistent with SPU metrics (tonnage).
Page | 29
Findings from Existing Frameworks Existing research and models provide us with the following insight into measuring
household waste prevention:
● Waste prevention data are often inconsistent and incomplete.
● Voluntary programs make quantifying household waste prevention
efforts difficult.
● Programs that target a specific type of waste are able to set cleared
goals and targets.
Existing programs are often voluntary and require self-reporting from businesses
and households. However, this leads to inconsistent and incomplete data. Voluntary
programs do not have a 100% societal participation rate. Participants in voluntary
waste prevention programs are often not representative of a city’s population.
These participants are most likely the businesses and households concerned most
with waste prevention. As a result, information gathered from program
participation are often biased.
Furthermore, self-weighing may lead to inaccurate data. Since waste prevention is
often confused with recycling, recycling data may be calculated into waste
prevention measurements. Also, without a standardized and codified method of
measurement, residents and businesses have the freedom to decide how to
measure. Organizations and residents can self-select what activities count as waste
prevention and what method of calculation to use.
Page | 30
Measurement tools, such as attitude and behavior surveys, will also only target a
small population. The collected data from these efforts, if tracked incorrectly, may
not be representative of the city population. Unrepresentative data will not provide
a clear picture of the city’s waste prevention efforts.
Despite the difficulty associated with waste prevention measurement, programs,
and initiatives in the EU and the United States have implemented specific
measurement methods. These tools target a specific waste material and are often
program-based. The specificity allows for clearer goals, targets, and definitions of
success.
Findings from Informal Expert Interviews We conducted several informal phone interviews with experts who have worked in
the solid waste management field. Important insights and opinions from our
interviews include:
● Measurement must be cost-effective.
● Measuring overall, society-wide waste streams at the municipal level
may be too difficult due to the lack of data.
● Measurements can be used for program evaluation purposes.
● Tonnage is not the only metric available to measure waste prevention.
Measurement matters, but the results must be meaningful and impactful. Since
measurement methods are costly, the tools must be designed to provide meaningful
information to the municipality. Furthermore, the information must be valuable
enough to make the monetary value worth it.
According to David Allaway at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the
cost of measurements should be limited to from 5% to 10% of the program budget.
If meaningful information cannot be collected within these limits, then it is
unjustifiable to spend large amounts of public money to measure waste prevention.
Key Takeaways:
Voluntary measurement methods provide data that can be biased or
incomplete. This data may not be representative of the municipality. However,
clear, practical measurement tools can be developed. These tools are
program-based and target specific, individual waste streams.
Page | 31
Measuring waste prevention at the municipal level may be too difficult and too
expensive. Using EPA’s calculation methods, information, such as a municipality’s
PCE, may be necessary. This type of information is often not available at the
municipal level. Some of the existing waste prevention methods have to be
conducted at the national level.
Measuring waste prevention at a national level is a possible alternative. Federal data
collecting agencies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau, standardizes and aggregates
demographic information. The aggregated data may present a more meaningful
picture of waste prevention efforts than state or municipal data. Since data
collection is already well integrated at the federal level, measuring national waste
prevention may also be more cost effective.
If data are collected at the municipal level, the
data needs to be impactful. The data can be
used to reinforce, prioritize and emphasize
what is important. However, in order for data
to be effective, clear goals and definitions of
success must be set by the city and the waste
prevention programs.
The city must consider whether the data are
informative. Tonnage may be easy to gather
for some waste streams, but may not actually
signify all the benefits associated with waste
prevention. Tying waste prevention efforts to
other important metrics, such as greenhouse gas emissions, organizational
efficiency, social benefits and potential health issues may be more effective methods
of measuring success. Furthermore, linking waste prevention with other issues may
increase public awareness and support for the city’s waste prevention efforts.
Measurement signals what’s
important. We invest
measurement in what we
care about.
- David Allaway
Page | 32
Key Takeaways:
The investment in measurement out of the overall investment in the program
should follow the rule of thumb of 5% to 10%. An alternative to municipal
level waste prevention measurement is national level waste prevention
measurement. Furthermore, tonnage is not the only metric to measure waste
prevention. Other indicators, such as greenhouse gas emissions and social
benefits can also be evaluated.
Page | 33
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the existing literature, our analysis, and our findings, we have established
a set of four recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Utilize social norms to measure and change behavior Widespread waste prevention efforts require societal-level behavior changes. Many
of the existing waste prevention efforts have been driven by changes in consumer-
based preferences. These changes in preferences can be the result of changes in
average family sizes, product preferences, cost-effectiveness, convenience, and
environmental consciousness. In order to promote effective waste prevention
efforts, Seattle residents and businesses should realize the importance of waste
prevention and change their lifestyles and operation routines. Thus, waste
prevention programs need to be designed to educate and incentivize change.
One possibility is inspired from the utility sector. In the water and electrical utilities
sector, usage is easily tracked on monthly bills. These bills can be used to encourage
household energy and water-saving behavior. For example, instead of receiving a
traditional bill, which only shows how much money a household spends on utilities,
a household can receive a bill that shows how their utility usage compares with
their neighbors’. If the household used less electricity than their neighbors did, there
is a smiley face on the bill. By contrast, if they used more electricity than their
neighbors did, there is an unhappy face reminding the household to be mindful of
home energy conservation.
Likewise, we recommend implementing a similar program to measure waste
reduction while evoking behavior change at the same time. However,
Page | 34
measuring waste at the individual level is not feasible. Retrieving information from
the individual generators is not possible since weighing happens after the truck
collects all the waste from its route. Furthermore, weighing individual generation
costs massive financial and labor resources that the city may not find worth
investing.
However, instead of examining waste reduction performance at the individual
household level, these measurements can be comparisons at the city level. Many
cities neighboringg Seattle have waste prevention efforts. These cities can choose to
participate and compare waste prevention results with each other. Seattle’s
performance against rival cities can be distributed amongst city residents monthly
or quarterly.
Furthermore, since not all cities in proximity to Seattle have the same size
population, per capita waste generation can be a potential metric. This equation
involves:
Total Citywide Waste Generation =Per Capita Waste Generation
Total Citywide Population
Per capita waste generation information may provide a more meaningful
benchmark for performance between cities.
Recommendation 2: Estimate individual material streams related to priority Academic research and expert perspectives have shown us the difficulty of
measuring the holistic picture of all materials streams. Tools, such as focus group
surveys, waste service provider reporting, recycler reporting, are not only complex
to conduct but also impractical.
● First, these tools often involve extensive human and material resources that
could increase the financial cost. For example, SPU has been conducting
residential organics survey once every five years since 1995. Each time, the
survey costs a significant amount of money and effort.
● Second, the tools can only capture a portion of the waste streams. For
example, the focus group survey is by nature an extraction of a large
population. There might be quantitative tools to predict the whole picture
from that sample, but the number is still an extrapolation, not real data. Also,
if not designed well, the samples might not be representative of the entire
population that SPU tries to measure.
Page | 35
● Third, the outcome of measurements might not be as valuable and impactful
as program managers expect initially. To some extent, measurement can
signal important things that policy-makers care about and can show the
success and impact that certain things are creating, such as recycling
diverted from landfills. However, policy-makers also need to consider the
balance between investment and outcome. Large quantities of resources are
invested in the measurements while the actual outcome is proved not as
impactful as it is expected to be, then the investment in measurement is
unjustifiable.
Recognizing the concerns and
challenges of measuring the
comprehensive waste streams,
we recommend SPU
prioritizing their waste
prevention target on
individual programs and
estimating the individual
programs accordingly. The
individual programs can be targeted either at the residential level or at the
commercial level. For example, SPU can measure residential food waste prevention,
commercial packaging waste, or residential reuse of durable items through multiple
channels. Measuring and tracking waste prevention is less complicated when
focused on a single material stream. Furthermore, targeting priority streams can
help SPU drive significant environmental, social, and behavioral changes.
Recommendation 3: Estimate per capita waste reduction data over time Since, SPU has already been tracking solid waste generation data on a monthly and
yearly basis, historical per capita waste generation data is available. We
recommend using historical data to track waste prevention in the city. If there is a
reduction in one year compared to a previous year, we can attribute waste
prevention efforts to the reduction, to some extent.
Collecting per capita waste generation data is more intuitive than referring to a
gross reduction data. Although this method is not as costly as our other
recommendations, the method has its problems. Numerous variables can affect the
waste generation data, such as the health of the economy, population change,
consumption levels, and weather conditions. Excluding these variables to
Page | 36
extrapolate a per capita waste prevention data is difficult. However, City of Seattle
has been tracking some of the external variables, such as population trend, which
can be accounted for in the model.
Recommendation 4: Estimate the social impact of waste prevention As we mentioned in the findings chapter, charity thrifts such as Goodwill, track their
donations and sales either in dollars or weights according to the destinations of
materials. These two measures are entirely different because they serve different
program purposes. In addition to diverting usable goods from landfills, Goodwill
invests the thrift revenue into its job-training programs. Goodwill tracks its
operations in sales volume not tonnage. Tracking Goodwill’s materials in tonnage
simplifies measurement for SPU, but does not provide Goodwill with a meaningful
metric to track the performance of its operations and programs.
Recognizing the different measurement purposes between businesses and SPU, we
recommend estimating the social impact of waste prevention. Instead of
measuring how many tons of waste are prevented, measure the impact that reuse
has created. In Goodwill’s case, the impact of reuse is attaching new economic
values to the goods and investing the profits into job-training programs. The impact
can be estimated by how many participants are employed through the waste
prevented by the society. Similar cases with food banks can be interpreted in the
same way. The food waste that food banks help prevent can be estimated by how
many meals are provided to tackle hunger.
It is complicated to integrate
different measures together
among different organizations
and programs. The metrics
and standards of the
measurements differ from
program to program, and it is
complicated to convert them
into one standardized metric
that SPU can measure.
However, when a single metric
system is not available to measure waste prevention, using multiple indicators to
estimate the social impact still paint a picture of the magnitude of social benefit that
waste prevention can potentially create.
Page | 37
Table 4 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of each recommendation.
Table 4: Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation Strength Weakness
1. Utilize social norms to
measure and change
behavior
Social norm comparison
can evoke significant
behavior change which
leads to waste reduction.
Approaches to weighing
household’s individual
garbage volume currently
are unavailable.
2. Estimate individual
material streams related
to priority
Single program
measurement is more
effortless and simple.
Limited in providing
waste prevention data for
all material streams.
3. Estimate per capita
waste reduction data over
time
Provides holistic data for
all material streams.
Other variables, such as
economic health,
consumption levels, and
seasonality, can account
for waste generation and
are hard to be excluded.
4. Estimate the social
impact of waste
prevention
Provides flexibility of
measures and impactful
data.
Different material
streams may be
represented by different
metrics. Difficult to
integrate.
Page | 38
CRITERIA
When considering the recommended options, SPU needs to consider how the
information will be used and received within the organization and the city. Each
measurement method will present different information, which may spur different
types of programs and different reactions from Seattle’s residents and businesses.
We have outlined the following criteria SPU can utilize to evaluate each option:
● Cost Effectiveness
● Environmental Impact
● Social Impact
● Equity
● Sustainability and Robustness
● Political Feasibility
Cost Effectiveness Measuring waste prevention efforts can be financially costly for SPU. The cost of
measurement needs to be justified. Measurements need to be collecting using the
most effective method. Data retrieved from measurement methods need to provide
the maximum amount of information for the least amount of money invested. Based
on our conversation with David Allaway, we recommend that the cost of
measurement fall between 5% and 10% of a project budget.
SPU should also be aware of the impact of measurement. Measurements must be
well developed and financially efficient. Spending large amounts of money to
measure the success and impact of a program is not reasonable if the program’s
expected outcome from the investment is not achieved.
Environmental Impact SPU’s environmental priorities should be reflected in the measurement methods the
agency chooses to use. SPU should consider which measurement tools prioritize
assessing environmental impact. Data presentation affects how people’s actions will
change. Measurement tools that target broader impacts may bring about fewer
environmental benefits because the environmental benefits may be lost in a large
pool of data.
Page | 39
Social Impact Social impact considerations are similar to environmental impact considerations.
Waste prevention produces many other social benefits. These benefits should be
measured and monitored. If social impacts are a priority for SPU or Seattle residents
and businesses, measurements that track the social benefits associated with waste
prevention can spur more waste prevention.
SPU can potentially connect both social and environmental impacts. Aggregating
these would demonstrate the City of Seattle’s commitment to tackling important
issues prioritized by the people in Seattle. However, considerations must be given to
how information is presented and received by the population.
Equity In light of the City of Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), equity is an
important criterion to consider. Measurements need to inform SPU on the effects of
programs within the framework of the RSJI.
Waste prevention programs can have different impacts on different strata of the
population, varying especially with race and income levels. Measurement methods
need to be constructed in a way that will help the city measure the differential
effects of the programs. This will allow the city to make changes if programs are
negatively targeting specific groups of people.
Furthermore, surveys administration can be problematic. When distributed online
or via phone, surveys may exclude low-income communities’ perspectives if internet
and phone are not accessible to them.
Sustainability and Robustness This criterion assesses whether the measurement programs can be sustained over a
long timeframe. Measurement tools should be financially affordable while producing
the outcomes that may influence the society to change their environmental behavior
– reducing waste and reusing durable goods to prevent the loss of resources from
sending materials to landfills.
Page | 40
Political Feasibility Since measuring waste prevention can be costly, methods must be developed in a
politically practical way. SPU will need to consider the political feasibility when
adopting any tool to measure waste prevention in the future.
This chapter is not an exhaustive list of criteria that SPU should consider but rather
it is a sample selection of criteria that may help inform SPU’s decision-making
process. SPU now has the opportunity to choose which criteria best represent their
vision, mission and priorities.
Page | 41
CONCLUSION
Waste prevention should be a priority when it comes to solid waste management
practices. Measurements indicate the importance of waste prevention.
Measurement can signal and reinforce what cities perceive as important, and can
help reflect performance and evaluate the success of waste prevention programs.
However, measuring avoided outcomes is difficult.
Our findings and recommendations provide an analysis of existing metrics and tools
targeting waste prevention. This report aims to provide potential instruments for
SPU to use when developing future waste management strategies.
When considering potential tools and metrics, SPU will need to incorporate their
agenda. SPU’s waste management goals will determine which recommendation fits
best with SPU’s future vision for solid waste management. We have outlined a range
of potential criteria against which SPU can measure the recommendations.
However, the range of useful criteria is not limited to the six presented here. SPU
has the opportunity select criteria reflecting SPU’s priorities.
Despite the difficulty to measure waste prevention, practical waste prevention
measurement tools still exist. Combined, these tools can potentially capture a
holistic picture of Seattle’s waste prevention efforts. A successfully implemented
measurement tool can provide meaningful information for SPU. Quality information
can clearly present the significant impacts waste prevention arouses in Seattle.
Page | 42
REFERENCES
1. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (2011). Definition of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Recycling (40 CFR §§261.2 and 261.9). In RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Call Center Training Module. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/defsw.pdf
2. Bortoleto, A. P., Kurisu, K. H., & Hanaki, K. (2012). Model development for household waste prevention behaviour. Waste Management, 32(12), 2195-2207.
3. Burton Hamner. (2005). Measuring Waste Prevention: Report to Seattle Public Utilities.
4. Catlin, J. R., & Wang, Y. (2012). Recycling gone bad: When the option to recycle increases resource consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology.
5. Chan, Sharon Pian. (2006). Seattle Getting Better at Recycling Its Trash. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-getting-better-at-recycling-its-trash/
6. City of Seattle. (2011). Waste Prevention. In Seattle Solid Waste Plan 2011 Revision (Chapter 3) Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@garbage/documents/webcontent/02_015205.pdf
7. City of Seattle. (2011). Zero Waste Resolution (30990). In Seattle Solid Waste Plan 2011 Revision (Appendix B). Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/parks/docs/zero%20waste%20resolution.pdf
8. City of Seattle. (2013). Glossary. In Seattle Solid Waste Plan Revision (Appendix A) Retrieved from Http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@garbage/documents/webcontent/02_015859.pdf
9. Cleary, J. (2010). The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: methodological issues. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,15(6), 579-589.
10. Cox, J., Giorgi, S., Sharp, V., Strange, K., Wilson, D. C., & Blakey, N. (2010). Household waste prevention—a review of evidence. Waste Management & Research, 28(3), 193-219.
11. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Pollution Prevention (P2). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/p2
12. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Hierarchy. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-management-non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchy
13. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Waste Prevention. In WasteWise Program. Retrieved from
Page | 43
https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/wastewise/web/html/prevent.html
14. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
Available from https://www.epa.gov/warm
15. European Commission. (n.d.). Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (Waste
Framework Directive). In Environment. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/
16. European Commission. (n.d.). Waste Prevention. In Environment. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/legislation.htm
17. FBK Research. (2010). 2010 Home Organics Waste Management Survey. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@garbage/documents/webcontent/SPU01_006650.pdf
18. Gentil, E. C., Gallo, D., & Christensen, T. H. (2011). Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention. Waste management, 31(12), 2371-2379.
19. Gregson, N., Crang, M., Laws, J., Fleetwood, T., & Holmes, H. (2013). Moving up the waste hierarchy: Car boot sales, reuse exchange and the challenges of consumer culture to waste prevention. Resources, conservation and recycling, 77, 97-107.
20. Lilja, R. (2009). From waste prevention to promotion of material efficiency: change of discourse in the waste policy of Finland. Journal of cleaner production, 17(2), 129-136.
21. Love Food Hate Waste. (n.d.) Download the New Love Food Hate Waste Free App. Love Food Hate Waste. Retrieved from http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/content/download-new-love-food-hate-waste-free-app
22. Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality. (2007). Solid Waste
Generation in Oregon – Composition and Cause of Change. In Waste
Prevention Strategy – Background Paper #1. Retrieved from
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/WPSBkgd01.pdf
23. PRE-WASTE. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.prewaste.eu/ 24. PRE-WAST. (n.d.) Web Tool. PRE-WASTE. Available from
http://webtool.prewaste.eu/Login/Login.aspx 25. Re-TRAC Connect. (n.d.). EPA-WasteWise. Retrieved from https://connect.re-
trac.com/register/epawastewise 26. Seattle Public Utilities. (n.d.). Strategic Business Plan 2015-2020. Retrieved
from http://www.seattle.gov/util/cs/groups/public/@spu/@diroff/documents/webcontent/01_030439.pdf
Page | 44
27. Sharp, V., Giorgi, S., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Methods to monitor and evaluate household waste prevention. Waste Management & Research,28(3), 269-280. 1047-1056.
28. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2009). Eco-Emballages Packaging Advisory (France). In Waste Prevention Best Practice Factsheets. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Eco_Emballages_Factsheet.pdf
29. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). (2009). Love Food, Hate Waste (United Kingdom). In Waste Prevention Best Practice Factsheets. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Lovefoodhatewaste_Factsheet.pdf
30. Waste. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/waste
31. Watson, T. (2004). The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner (Ed.). 3rd ed. Vol. 6. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 4276-282.
32. Zorpas, A. A., & Lasaridi, K. (2013). Measuring waste prevention. Waste management, 33(5)
Page | 45
PHOTOGRAPH REFERENCES
In the order of appearance
1. Robb Reece Photography
2. KOMO News
3. Yuyudevil
4. QUARTZ
5. CoolCalifornia.org
6. Shopwithpippa.com
7. Wehatetowaste.com
8. Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship
9. D’Arcy Norman
10. Getty Images
11. US Environmental Protection Agency
12. Love Food Hate Waste
13. Robb Reece Photography
14. Cascadia Consulting Group (The photo is copiers awaiting recycling)
15. Goodwill
16. Wikimedia Commons
17. Freepik (quotation bubble)
18. Building Performance Institute, Inc
19. Natural Society
20. Cross Food Ministry
21. Justin Ritchie
Page | 1
APPENDIX A: EXPERT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Q1: Why is it important to measure waste prevention? What are the benefits? Do
you believe the benefits outweigh the costs?
Q2: Is it practical to measure waste prevention at the municipal level for cities such
as Seattle? What other organizations or entities, besides municipal governments,
would be (more) successful measuring waste prevention efforts?
Q3: Between residents, businesses and institutions, which group is the hardest for
municipalities to measure waste prevention efforts? Why?
Q4: What are the potential uses of good waste prevention measurements? (Besides
informing us of trends in municipalities)? What actions should municipalities take
with information gathered measuring waste prevention?
Q5: Have you found effective ways to measure waste prevention? What kind of
methods are you currently using in your programs? Have you run into different
measurements that exist in other regions of the U.S. or internationally that might be
potentially applicable in a municipal setting?
Q6: Do you know of anyone else in this area who are currently working on waste
prevention measurement methods that could be helpful connections for us?
Q7: Are there methods to comprehensively measure waste prevention, rather than
just in individual programs?
