International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

‘DIFTAR’ system types were reported in an AOO (2001) publication and are shown in
Figure 8-4. These results match the order of ranking for the impact on waste
prevention as listed above. However, the study and its outcomes could be questioned
on the basis that:
132
1. The municipalities using different systems may not be comparable in the
manner suggested (there may be other factors compounding the analysis);
and
2. Possibly more significantly, it has not been possible for us to clarify whether
this study addresses only door-to-door collections.
Figure 8-4: Quantities of Separated Waste and Refuse by Charge System Type, 1999
Waste Collected (kg/inhabitant)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Source: AOO (2001)
29/09/09
Volume-based Volume and
frequency-based
Sack-based Weight-based Without DVR
scheme
Type of Scheme
Vegetables, Fruit and Garden Waste
Textiles
Glass
Paper
Residual Waste
The Dutch studies by Dijkgraaf and Gradus looked at data from the Netherlands
Waste Management Council (AOO) for 1998, 1999 and 2000 to estimate the effects
of different charging schemes. 166 167 The later study suggested the following lending
further support to the ranking of charging systems:
� Weight-based schemes reduce total waste by 38%;
166 E. Dijkgraaf and R. Gradus (2003) Cost Savings of Unit-Based Pricing of Household waste, the case
of the Netherlands. Research Memorandum 0209, OCFEB, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
167 E. Dijkgraafand R. Gradus (2004) Cost Savings in Unit-based Pricing of Household Waste: The Case
of The Netherlands, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol.26 (2004) 353-71 (note, the former paper is
somewhat more extensive in its treatment).