|
WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) has published
the results of a comprehensive study into different household
recycling systems.
The report looks at good practice in recycling services and
models the relative costs and performance of these. It covers
the costs of widely-used kerbside collection systems in three
main categories -
- kerbside sort - where different types of materials,
such as glass and plastic bottles, are put into separate
compartments of a collection vehicle
- single stream co-mingled - where everything goes
into one vehicle and is then sorted at a materials recovery
facility (MRF) - and
- two stream partially co-mingled - where householders
separate recyclables into two categories - usually fibres
(paper and card) and containers (glass, cans and plastic
bottles).
The report found that, in the current market, kerbside sort
schemes are more cost-effective for Local Authorities than
single stream co-mingled. However, two stream co-mingled collections,
where paper is kept separate, have similar net costs to kerbside
sort schemes. Co-mingled schemes had generally been thought
to be cheaper to run, but fare less well when the cost of
sorting the material at a MRF is taken into account.
The study found that, contrary to the popular belief that
co-mingling is more successful in collecting recyclable materials,
what determines how much recycling people do, is the size
of the containers they have to put it in.
Earlier work by WRAP found that kerbside sort schemes achieve
higher quality recyclable materials than co-mingled collections,
as there is less risk of non-recyclables being included. However,
the report acknowledges that different areas have different
needs and there is no such thing as a one-size-fits all 'best
scheme'. In fact, co-mingled schemes may be the best option
in some areas - such as inner cities, where on-street parking
prevents kerbside sorting and there are lots of multi-occupancy
houses where it is difficult to store multiple containers.
Phillip Ward, Director for Local Government Services at WRAP,
said - “The aim of this study is to provide a benchmark to
help local authorities understand the cost of a good recycling
system. The results will help the authorities understand how
to limit the cost of the service to householders."
He added - “Collection scheme costs are sensitive to many
things - such as the price which can be achieved for recycled
material - and new technology means that material sorted by
MRFs is likely to improve in quality. This means it would
be wrong to assume that one type of collection scheme is always
going to be cheaper or produce better quality material than
another.
“For any recycling scheme to be successful, it needs to be
easy to use, reliable, flexible and to manage health and safety
risks. Above all, it must be effectively communicated, so
householders are motivated to use it, buy in to the service
and are able to raise issues and problems knowing these will
be dealt with.”
To download the report - 'Kerbside Recycling: Indicative
Costs and Performance' - Click
Here
|
