Cities are squeezed. In 1950, the world played host to just 83 cities which each reported upwards of one million residents. In 2007, this had risen to over 460[1]. Speculation from the United Nations further suggests that today’s 3.2billion urbanised residents could rise upwards of 5 billion by 2030, squeezed within 26 “mega-cities” (populations exceeding 10million)[2].
In our own United Kingdom, there are 73 cities or towns with populations exceeding 100,000[3], known as “super-cities”. With populations rising and our spaces becoming more cramped, developers are increasingly building upwards to house the masses. Yet, with more of the population residing in high-density homes, those in apartments are lagging behind their counterparts in detached, semi-detached and terraced residences in their participation within recycling schemes [4]. With dense populations, it seems an idealistic opportunity to recycle great swathes of refuse; however this is not the case (see [4]). With a host of different approaches to appease and entice apartment-dwellers, this article shall outline a few different methods currently in practice.
Communal containers
These receptacles are shared between residents and include separate bring banks, partial separation or co-mingled collection schemes. Separate bring banks allow residents to separate their waste (i.e. paper bins, bottle bins, plastics) whilst partial and co-mingled options allow various types of waste to be deposited into one container, with partial containers accepting select recyclable materials together and co-mingled accepting all collected recyclable materials in one container.
Work undertaken by WRAP found that co-mingled bring banks with weekly collections elicited the greatest response from residents – with an average of 2.4kg/week being deposited per household[5]. This was followed by the partial separation bring banks with results of 2.52kg/week per household suggesting that convenience may be a motivator for residents. Separate bring banks for different materials returned deposits of 1.75kg/week per household whilst co-mingled bins – like those discussed earlier – with fortnightly collections returned just 1.15kg/week per household. The distinct difference in the success of each co-mingled collection seems to be dependant upon the frequency of collection with those with weekly collections showing more favourable results. From these findings it can be suggested that recycling schemes in high density residences should favour convenience and frequency of collections if councils are to successfully entice residents.
Door – to – door collection
In door-to-door collections, high density residents present their waste for collection at their doorsteps. The materials collected in this method can vary – with food waste being a key material collected from flatted residences in this manner. In the WRAP investigation, door-to-door weekly collections returned respectable results but slightly poorer returns compared to the bring banks. Door-to-door collections returned results of 1.83kg/week of recyclates. In this respect, this collection scheme supports the importance of the frequency of which waste is collected (collections here were weekly, reflecting higher returns opposed to poorer results from fortnightly collections). In addition, the successes of door-to-door schemes again suggest that service users have a preference for convenient services which require minimum effort.
Chute recycling
Many high rise buildings have residual waste chutes wherein residents deposit their waste into a chute on each floor, dropping into communal collection bins. These have been adapted in a few UK counties (Hammersmith, Fulham and Islington), each dedicating one or more chutes to the collection of recyclates. Chutes allow for mixed recyclates to be deposited by residents before being taken for separation at material recovery facilities (MRF’s) or, materials can be separated and deposited within designated collection bags – such as the orange bags used by flatted residents in Lambeth. Chute recycling has proven the most effective to date – however work to implement and explore such methods are limited. Whilst the WRAP study acknowledges significant successes, only three small scale projects were available for inclusion in Hammersmith, Fulham and Islington. From these, residents recycled 3.69kg/week per household on weekly co-mingled collections. Whilst these findings must be taken sceptically due to their small sample size, it does suggest that greater convenience in recycling can provoke significantly noticeable results.
Convenience
As we can elicit from the survey undertaken by WRAP, convenience is a key determinant in the success of recycling schemes. As suggested, residents will participate to a greater extent if recycling initiatives are simple and local to use and this is evident amongst all home types. In Bury, mixed bring sites are in operation for the convenience of residents [7] with similar services in Stockport [8] and Dundee proving successful with demand exceeding supply. It is important, however, that each building is treated individually to allow the most convenient method to be introduced and risks averted. Furthermore, whilst the convenient choice, placement and collection of select initiatives play a role in the extent of participation, so too is adequate communication with, and motivation of, residents to engage with implemented recycling schemes.
Awareness Campaigns
Sufficient awareness campaigns are imperative to ensure the successful implementation and sustainable success of any recycling scheme. In Stockport, for example, calls to a council recycling helpline doubled and formal complaints tripled when a change of tact and service by the council led to mass confusion [8]. Methods may include postcards, magnets, leaflets or media advertisements but crucially, each must provide adequate details of (i) what at present is being changed (ii) why are changes necessary (iii) what will the new system accept (iv) details of new collections and (v)contact details for further advice, help and feedback. To ensure effective support materials, tried and tested consultancy agents work with councils to determine the current baseline of resident attitudes and knowledge before designing and distributing targeted materials (see WRAP [9] or Zero Waste Scotland [10]) to minimise confusion and concern to pave the way for effective transitions.
Cost
The last of the selection factors which affect the choice and success of recycling schemes concerns – of course – the costs of designing, implementing and maintaining any given initiative. In highlighting the effect of costs, this allows the article to take a short look at a top-down factor which affects the choice and success of a recycling scheme. For example, in Manchester changes were implemented to collection schemes in a bid to both improve performance and save £12million of landfill costs [11]. These cost saving measures included; administration charges for new bins, strict collection rules and, finally, a reduction in the collections of residual waste – have proved beneficial with residents reporting greater ease in using the services. Whilst Manchester has shown an ability to fulfil resident needs and to satisfy financial constraints successfully, some complaints from larger families are filtering through. Despite this, council initiatives and processes here should give example to other authorities facing similar financial constraints. Failure to appease service-users, in place of financial determinants, can risk alienating residents and condemning the successful implementation of community schemes. This risk was shown clearly through the implementation of a new £7.5million scheme in Stockport – aimed at reducing costs and improving the service – which instead elicited a doubling of calls to council help-lines and a trebling of formal complaints, despite insistences from council staff that costs would be saved and environmental records improved [8].
Conclusion
This article has aimed to deliver a short, bite-sized, look at a range of recycling schemes available to those living in flatted accommodation. Large numbers of residents in dense accommodations allow for a unique opportunity for councils to make a real push towards their recycling targets. Whilst those in flatted accommodations notoriously participate, or recycle, less than their detached, semi-detached or terraced house dwelling counterparts, these challenges should be seen as an opportunity to engage with residents and provide services sufficient to their needs. It is imperative that council’s provide effective and efficient recycling schemes to optimise resident participation and avoid the risk of landfill fines impacting upon already strained budgets.
[1] “Principal Agglomerations of the World”. Citypopulation.de. http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html. Retrieved 2010-09-01.
[2] “Megacities Of The Future”. Forbes.com. http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/11/megacities-population-urbanization-biz-cx_21cities_ml_0611megacities.html. Retrieved 2010-09-01
[3] http://www.citypopulation.de/UK-UA.html
[4] DEFRA. (2007) “Report, questionnaire and data tables following Survey of Public Attitudes and Behaviours toward the Environment” and Scottish Government. (2008) “Scottish Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours Survey” and National Statistics (2008) “Attitudes to the Environment in Wales, Results from the Living in Wales Survey 2007”
[5] http://www.wrap.org.uk/local_authorities/research_guidance/collectionsrecycling/ recycling_collections_for_flats/operation_of_different_collection_schemes/chute_recycling.html
[6] http://www.bury.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6750
[7] http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/environment/wasterecycling/morewaste recycling/recycling/recyclingatflats
[10] http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/content/support-local-authorities
