Waste prevention and Pay as You Throw, a collective case ... - lumes

Appendix A – Results of Primary Data Analysis:
Municipality
Härryda
Recycling/Composting
Options
‐26 drop‐off centers for
packaging.
‐2 large recycling centers
‐50% report to homecompost.
‐Plan to add compost
collection next year,
within variable fee.
Waste Trends Fee Structure Adjustments Illegal Disposal Education Efforts Household Opinion Main Advantages Main Disadvantages
‐See Figure 3‐2
‐Started at
50:50 (1kr/kg).
‐Variable portion
now 40%.
‐Not reported as
serious problem .
‐Road authorities
occasionally
report dumpsters
at rest stops to
have extra trash.
‐No serious
problems with
dumping in
nature areas.
‐Send out a waste
newsletter each
month with the
bill, and as well as
a packet of
education
materials each
year.
‐Send packet of
materials to new
subscribers.
‐Questions in yearly
survey that relate to
waste.
‐GIS system
allows for
excellent control
and tracking of
waste system.
‐Quality waste
data, ability to
track changes in
waste levels.
‐Easier for
customer service
‐Ensures “extra”
waste doesn’t end
up collected.
‐Extra work during
transfer to the new
system
‐Technical system
Lerum
Partille
‐FTI drop‐off stations for
packaging.
‐One larger recycling
station.
‐33 drop‐off stations for
packaging.
‐Allowed to compost at
home without a permit
since 1997.
‐See Figure 3‐2
‐Quantity of
diverted materials
increased for the
first 6 years, but
now has leveled
off. See Figure 3‐2
‐Started with
variable fee of 1
kr/kg
‐Fixed fee
depends on size
of bin and
frequency of
collection.
‐The avg
customer pays
425kr in
variable charge
and 827kr for
the fixed
portion.
‐Variable fee now
at 2kr/kg
‐Fixed fee has
increased 104%.
‐Fee mix changes
all the time
‐Goal is always to
find a balance
between
expenditure and
revenue.
‐No significant
problems
reported.
‐Risk is
exaggerated.
‐Those who have
before continue
but no noticeable
increase.
‐Written
information to
households and
evening meetings
before
implementation.
‐Many mailings to
households.
‐Advertisements.
‐Newspapers
were very
interested to
write about it, as
were first in the
region with the
weight‐based fee.
‐None reported.
‐Surveys, but not
directed at PAYT.
‐Decrease in
waste per person.
‐Can see how
waste was
collected.
‐Fair
‐Encourages
greater source
separation
‐Very technical
system, and thus
vulnerable
‐Need careful
training/handling
‐Requires a lot of
information
collection
‐Need technical
system to function
well
‐More complex
billing
Borgholm
‐Recycling of packaging
takes place at FTI, no
curbside collection.
Composting allowed for
property owners. No
curbside of compost
collection yet. Garden
waste can be left that
‐Initially, waste
volumes reduced
sharply, but have
subsequently
increased. As
much of the
waste in the
municipality
‐Everyone pays
a fee based on
container size
and retrieval
frequency. The
proportion of
fixed rate thus
depends
‐Fees are indexed
occasionally, but
at the moment
the variable
portion is quite
high and there are
plans to reduce
this portion
‐It is well known
that some owners
burn their waste
at home. There
are no serious
problems with the
dumping of waste
elsewhere,
‐Not known.
‐In 2009 a general
customer survey
that showed
significant
dissatisfaction with
PAYT.
‐Perceived as
more fair, since
those with a lot of
waste also pay
more.
‐The sorting
increases as
people become
‐There are those
who do not want to
pay anything at all
and therefore burn
waste at home, or
put it in public bins
or in a neighbor's
rubbish bins.
34