It is of utmost importance to collect organic waste from households as a separate waste stream. If collected separately, it could be used optimally to produce compost and biogas, it would not pollute fractions of materials that can be recovered from residual waste streams and it would not deteriorate the quality of some materials in residual waste (e.g. paper). In rural areas with separate organic waste collection systems, large quantities of organic waste are recovered. However, in the larger cities, only a small fraction of organic waste is recovered. In general, citizens dot not have space to store organic waste without nuisances of smell and/or flies. As this has been the cause of low organic waste collection rates, collection schemes have been cut, which created a further negative impact. Hence, additional efforts are required. There are some options to improve the organic waste recovery within the current system. Collection schemes might be improved, waste containers might be adapted to better suit the needs, and additional underground organic waste containers might be installed in residential neighbourhoods. There are persistent stories that separate organic waste collection makes no sense as the collectors just mix all municipal solid waste after collection, and incinerate it. Such stories might be fuelled by the practice that batches of contaminated organic waste are indeed incinerated. Trust in the system is important. Food waste is often regarded as unrein. Users might hate to store food waste in their kitchen that could attract insects, or the household pets. Hence, there is a challenge for socio-psychological research. This might also be supported by technology, e.g. organic waste storage devices and measures to improve waste separation in apartment buildings, such as separate chutes for waste fractions. Several cities have experimented with systems that collect organic wastes by the sewage system. By using a grinder, kitchen waste can be flushed into the sewage system, which in general produces biogas by the fermentation of sewage sludge. This is only a good option if the sewage is separated from the city drainage system, otherwise it might create water pollution. Another option might be to use grinders, that store the organic waste in a tank. This tank could be emptied regularly by a collection truck. Clearly, the preferred option depends on local conditions and culture. Besides, the density of the area, the type of sewage system and its biogas production, and the facilities that are already in place for organic waste collection are important parameters. In the paper, we will discuss the costs and benefits of future organic waste options and by discussing The Hague as an example.
DOCUMENT
One behavioural intervention that can help increase the opportunity to separate organic waste is offering a organic waste bin and bags. But which type of bin is best to offer to residents, do you give a choice or not, and how can you best manage the distribution? We tried to answer these questions through a study on the use of organic waste bins in the Netherlands.
DOCUMENT
This research contributes to understanding and shaping systems for OFMSW separation at urban Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs, such as offices, shops and service providers). Separating SMEs’ organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) is both an opportunity and a serious challenge for the transition towards circular cities. It is an opportunity because OFMSW represents approximately 40% of the total waste mass generated by these companies. It is challenging because post-collection separation is not feasible for OFMSW. Therefore, SMEs disposing of waste should separate their solid waste so that processing the organic fraction for reuse and recycling is practical and attainable. However, these companies do not experience direct advantages from the extra efforts in separating waste, and much of the OFMSW ends up in landfills, often resulting in unnecessary GHG emissions. Therefore, governments and waste processors are looking for ways to improve the OFMSW separation degree by urban companies disposing of waste through policies for behaviour change.There are multiple types of personnel at companies disposing of waste. These co-workers act according to their values, beliefs and norms. They adapt their behaviour continuously, influenced by the physical environment, events over time and self-evaluation of their actions. Therefore, waste separation at companies can be regarded as a Socio-Technical Complex Adaptive System (STCAS). Agent-based modelling and simulation are powerful methods to help understand STCAS. Consequently, we have created an agent-based model representing the evolution of behaviour regarding waste separation at companies in the urban environment. The model aims to show public and private stakeholders involved in solid waste collection, transport and processing to what extent behaviour change policies can shape the system towards desired waste separation degrees.We have co-created the model with participants utilising literature and empirical data from a case study on the transition of the waste collection system of a business park located at a former harbour area in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. First, a conceptual model of the system and the environment was set up through participatory workshops, surveys and interviews with stakeholders, domain experts and relevant actors. Together with our case participants, five policies that affect waste separation behaviour were included in the model. To model the behaviour of each company worker’s values, beliefs and norms during the separation and disposal of OFMSW, we have used the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory by Stern et al. (1999). We have collected data on waste collection behaviour and separation rates through interviews, workshops and a literature study to operationalise and validate the model.Simulation results show how combinations of behaviour profiles affect waste separation rates. Furthermore, findings show that single waste separation policies are often limitedly capable of changing the behaviour in the system. Rather, a combination of information and communication policies is needed to improve the separation of OFMSW, i.e., dissemination of a newsletter, providing personal feedback to the co-workers disposing of waste, and sharing information on the (improvement of) recycling rates.This study contributes to a better understanding of how policies can support co-workers’ pro-environmental behaviour for organic waste separation rates at SMEs. Thus, it shows policymakers how to stimulate the circular transition by actively engaging co-workers’ waste separation behaviour at SMEs. Future work will extend the model’s purpose by including households and policies supporting separating multiple waste types aimed at various R-strategies proposed by Potting et al. (2016).
MULTIFILE
