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

effects are not always verifiable in the ‘whole system’ sense, they are at least
suggestive of some degree of waste prevention in the case of some systems.
On balance, one might say the literature offers support for the prevention effects of
charging, but that the quality of evidence is somewhat variable, so that the accuracy
of the reported effects is not what it might be. It would be reasonable to assume,
however, that reported effects in schemes where the scope and convenience of the
kerbside collection service is extremely good – as it is in Flanders, for example – will
tend to give a more accurate picture than in those where the collection service is less
convenient, and where it is clear that the focus is on waste collected from the
doorstep only. In these systems, rather like a balloon, waste has greater potential to
be ‘squeezed’ from one part of the management system (doorstep collection) to
another (illegal dumping, bring sites, CA sites, etc.).
A final point worth making is that the prevention impacts of charging systems are
difficult to define in absolute terms due to the compounding complication of waste
growth. As indicated above there tend to be limited opportunities to reference to a
satisfactory counterfactual; instead, measurements of ‘prevention’ tend to be based
on ‘before’ and ‘after’ comparisons of waste arisings. The true impact, therefore, can
be somewhat obscured by waste growth, which can vary widely on a yearly basis due
to other factors besides (not least changes in the collection systems as discussed
above). Any data based on annual arising figures needs to be considered within the
context that waste prevention equates not just to ‘a reduction in waste’ but a
‘reduction in waste growth’.
8.5.9 Further Summarised Evidence Concerning Recycling
In a large number of studies in the literature, the demonstrable effect of PAYT is to
increase the proportion of waste being recycled and composted, as opposed to
increase the quantity.
A widely quoted meta-study is that of Kinnaman and Fullerton who used communitylevel
data on aggregate recycling quantities. 178 179 Correcting for endogenous local
policy choices, they suggest that a unit pricing program has an insignificant effect on
recycling while the presence of a kerbside recycling program has a positive and
significant effect. Yet the same work includes model specifications for the quantity of
residual waste. This shows the annual weight of garbage to be higher (under the
endogenous choice model) where kerbside recycling systems only are in place. Where
charging systems are also in place, the effect is to strongly reduce residual waste
quantities in a highly significant manner. In this context, the suggestion that recycled
quantities are not heavily affected by charging schemes is not a rejection of the
effectiveness of charging schemes in increasing the intensity of recycling (as
measured by capture rates). What the modelling seems to suggest (but what the
178 Thomas Kinnaman and Don Fullerton (1997) Garbage and Recycling in Communities with Curbside
recycling and Unit-pricing, NBER Working Paper 6021; NBER, Massachussetts, Cambridge.
179 Thomas Kinnaman and Don Fullerton (1998) Garbage and Recycling with Endogenous Local Policy,
Mimeo, 1998.
141
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes