Journal Article•DOI•

Participation in curbside recycling schemes and its variation with material types.

Ryan Woodard¹, Marie K. Harder¹, Matthew L. Bench¹•Institutions (1)

01 Jan 2006-Waste Management (Elsevier)-Vol. 26, Iss: 8, pp 914-919

TL;DR: It is found that the participation rate is higher in schemes that collect more types of materials, and appears to be related not only to extra participants setting out the additional materials, but also increased participation for the common materials.

read less

Abstract: Local authorities throughout the UK are refining or implementing curbside recycling schemes as they attempt to achieve challenging statutory recycling targets. Despite the importance of curbside schemes there are few published studies that have reported on actual measured levels and frequency of participation by residents, hindering transferability of lessons learned nationally and internationally. This paper reports measurements and analysis over at least four weeks for three different curbside recycling schemes operating in England, with at least 1400 samples in each. It is found that the participation rate is higher in schemes that collect more types of materials. Participation rates of 38%, 49% and 65% were measured for schemes that collected 1, 2 and 3 material types, respectively. The increase appears to be related not only to extra participants setting out the additional materials, but also increased participation for the common materials. It is found that for one scheme, more households tend to set out plastics and cans compared to newspapers.

...read moreread less

Summary (3 min read)

Jump to: [Introduction] – [1.1 Background] – [1.2 Participation rate measurements] – [1.3 Review of published participation rates for the UK] – [1.4 Frequency of Levels of participation] – [3.1 Participation rates and levels of participation] – [3.2 Differences in participation frequencies between Schemes] – [3.4 Increased participation and additional materials] – [Insert Table 4.] – [4 Discussion] – [Insert Fig. 1] and [5 Conclusions]

Introduction

Local authorities throughout the UK are refining or implementing curbside recycling schemes as they attempt to achieve challenging statutory recycling targets.
It is found that the participation rate is higher in schemes which collect more types of materials.
The increase appears to be related not only to extra participants setting out the additional materials, but also increased participation for the common materials.
It is found that for one scheme, more households tend to set outplastics and cans compared to newspapers.
Curbside recycling schemes, Participation rates, Recycling targets, Household waste, Participation frequency, also known as Keywords.

1.1 Background

Few studies have presented extensive and reliable measured information on the levels of participation by residents and the frequency at which they set materials out for collection.
This paper presents the results from quantitatively monitoring three curbside recycling schemes operating in similar areas of Sussex, England, using a large sample of households.
This provides precise data for other authorities to compare their participation rates against.
Numerous studies have investigated the reasons why residents participate in recycling schemes (e.g. Perrin and Barton, 2001).

1.2 Participation rate measurements

In the UK the participation rate is defined "as the number of households that actively take part in recycling over a four week period" (DETR, 1999).
Some residents may not place recyclable materials out in each collection (e.g. weekly or fortnightly) as they may not generate enough material or they may forget.
The preferred form of recording the participation rate is by collecting quantitative data by directly surveying how many households set recyclable materials out for collection.
Many local authorities use questionnaires, postal or face-to-face, while other authorities use 'focus groups' to estimate participation, even though extensive studies show that the claims of residents do not always reflect their actions (e.g., Tucker and Speirs, 2003b; Woolam et al., 2003).
The weighing of each individual recycling box is very labour-intensive, and is not a viable method for measuring the recycling rate.

1.3 Review of published participation rates for the UK

It is not usually clear whether they were actually indirectly obtained via questionnaires or focus-groups.
In some instances the sample sizes were small i.e. less than 300.
Many studies have also been conducted into the levels of participation in North America.
Everett and Peirce (1993) found that approximately 50% of recycling schemes operating schemes in the USA were mandatory.

1.4 Frequency of Levels of participation

Though the participation rate is a useful tool it does not take into account the level or frequency at which residents recycle.
Several studies have been carried out where residents have been questioned in regards to how regularly they recycle.
Scheme B collected newspapers & magazines and also mixed paper in the same collection, fortnightly.
The demographics for the three schemes are also similar, using ACORN (A Classification Of Residential Neighbourhoods) profiles (CACI, 2002).
Neither was any found when each Scheme was considered individually.

3.1 Participation rates and levels of participation

From Table 2 it can be seen that the participation rates varied from 38% in Scheme A to 65% in Scheme C. In Schemes A and B the recyclable materials were collected fortnightly, and households were classified as non-, medium- or high-recyclers if they set out materials 0, 1 or 2 times respectively in the four week surveying period.
In Scheme C the residents had an opportunity to set out materials each week, and they were categorised as non-, low-, medium- and high- recyclers if they set out materials 0, 1, 2 and 3-4 times respectively during the surveying period.
Table 3 summarises the observed breakdown of the schemes’ households into these groups, allowing a comparison.

3.2 Differences in participation frequencies between Schemes

Of this eleven-point difference, only four are due to extra medium recyclers, whereas seven points are due to extra high recyclers.
One possible interpretation is that mixed paper is easier to recycle and thus more participants can do it regularly; another is that high recyclers prefer to set out mixed papers rather than newspapers.
A different contribution of medium and high recyclers is found, however, when comparing results from Schemes A and C – participation rates of 38% and 65% respectively.
Of the 27 point difference in participation rates, seventeen are from extra contributions from low recyclers participating– households that would otherwise be non-participants.
Another possible interpretation is that recyclers generally prefer to set out cans and plastics to newspapers, and this could explain why Scheme C had a higher participation rate.

3.4 Increased participation and additional materials

The results from Scheme C can be used to investigate the interpretation that greater participation occurs when more materials are collected only because of the new materials collected.
Such analysis is only possible for Scheme C, as only this scheme has different materials collected on alternate weeks - and even so, Scheme C only allows for a comparison of newspapers against cans and plastics.
Table 4 shows the results for Scheme C showing the participation by material and number of set-outs.

Insert Table 4.

Of the 65% households participating in Scheme C, 46.9% set out newspapers once in the two fortnightly collections measured.
Scheme C also has a further 18.4% who participate by setting out only cans and plastics.

4 Discussion

Scheme C had the highest participation rate at 65% whilst A had the lowest at 38%.
There are many different parameters that influence the propensity of an individual to recycle.
In this instance a reason for the variation in the levels of participation recorded could be the range of materials collected.
Scheme B incorporated newspapers & magazines with mixed paper and achieved a participation rate of 49%, and scheme C included newspapers and magazines with aluminium and steel cans plus PET and HDPE plastic bottles and reported the highest participation rate of 65%.
Figure 1 shows the results from Table 1 along with the new results provided by this study.

Insert Fig. 1

There are several possible explanations for this trend.
Whereas scheme A only catered for 15% of the mass of materials present in the residual waste stream, scheme B catered for 23%, and scheme C for 26%..
Higher participation and capture of materials in this Scheme might be explainable because of this.
When more materials are incorporated into the collection of recyclables, the population may shift their perception of the process from one of waste collection with a limited recycling service to a system dominated by recycling with minimal actual 'residual waste'.
It should be noted that though some households may have been observed as never participating in the curbside scheme they may have been recycling through other mechanisms (transfer stations, drop-off centres, etc).

5 Conclusions

This paper provides considerable detail on samples of over 1400 households on each of three different curbside schemes.
A bias for participants to set out cans and plastics over newspapers is shown overall as well as separately for low-, medium- and high-recyclers.
The schemes were investigated at slightly different times of year, may have subtle demographic differences, and did not have control groups.
Ideally, the result indicated would best be directly tested using one single group with varying number of materials, and a control group.
It remains that a significant effect is shown through the use of the data presented, whereby the schemes that collect more materials show more participation with all material groups.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Figures (5)

Fig. 1. Relationship between the number of materials collected in a kerbside service and the participation rate, from published studies (listed in Table 1) and the three schemes reported in this study (denoted in black)

Table 2 Summary of scheme characteristics of Schemes A, B, C carried out in this study

Table 3 Breakdown of participation frequency in Schemes A, B and C

Table 4 Detailed breakdown of participation rates (%) in Scheme C by number of set-outs and material set-out over the four week monitoring period.

Table 1 Reported measured participation rates in the UK

Frequently Asked Questions (1)

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Participation in curbside recycling schemes and its variation with material types" ?

In this paper, a bias for participants to set out cans and plastics over newspapers is shown overall as well as separately for low-, medium- and high-recyclers.