Municipal Waste Collected By Local Authorities

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Contents

TITTLE???

Introduction

Consumerism and excessive consumption of resources are escalating, consequently leading to piles of waste accumulating on our planet. Mankind with its amassed affluence has evolved into a ‘throwaway society’ to the extent whereby demand for resources has accelerated to the point where the world’s resources are at risk of collapse due to over-exploitation, this rate of exploitation will only hasten as global population continues to rise and subsequently so shall stockpiles of waste.

Disposal is the least desirable option for waste management; therefore alternative reuse and recycling strategies have been implemented and promoted through legislation and set targets. However though recycling is endorsed by Government, attainment of achieving utmost efficiency principally depends upon wiliness of participation by society.

From 2011-2012 Wales generated 1,567,161 tonnes of municipal waste (StatsWales, 2012) inevitably there is always going to be waste accumulating as the population escalates. How society can best tackle management issues to combat this increase in discarded resources needs to be addressed.

Statement of the problem

In accordance with statuary targets set by the Welsh government through 2013 local authorities should be achieving a 52% recycling rate, at present Neath Port Talbot if failing to reach this objective only achieving 41% thus the authority is set to be facing mandatory fines.

These fines are in line with Waste (Wales) Measure 2010 which states an estimated £150,000 penalty is attached for every 1% failed to be met by the council; therefore Neath Port Talbot council is looking at facing large fines (Neath Port Talbot Borough Council, 2013). Increasing recycling rates is also important to decrease the amount of waste which ends in Landfill, as the Local Authority is required to pay Landfill tax at present £80 per tonne this is on top of gates fees for utilizing this facility. Taxation on Landfills is a step undertaken by the UK government to discourage the use of disposal sites as well as inspiring new waste management techniques (Morris & Read, 2001). Landfills also have large environmental impacts (El-Fadel et al., 1997; Kirkeby et al., 2007; Lou & Nair, 2009; Manfredi et al., 2010) such as greenhouse gas emissions therefore less waste going to landfill equates to reduced environmental impacts.

Justification

The targets within Neath, Port Talbot Council are not being met so the aim of this study is to acquire an understanding and to assess the factors that influence individuals to use Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC). By comprehending what induces people to recycle these explanations maybe applied into everyday day living (Martin et al., 2006), help to improve site efficiency as well as helping the Local Authorities (LA) who are diligent to the achievement of waste policies, increase recycling rates and meeting there statutory targets (Price, 2001; Williams & Kelly, 2003).

Background

There are numerous factors influencing why individuals recycle. The undertaking of a complete evaluation into all sectors of waste management in Neath, Port Talbot is not within the opportunity of this research; hence this project shall look specifically at the aspects which influence participants in the use of HWRC.

Neath, Port Talbot Council runs a weekly kerbside recycling scheme; as shown in Appendix A. In addition to this the Local Authority provides three free HWRC in its jurisdiction located at Briton Ferry Industrial Estate in Briton Ferry, Neath, Margam Street in Cymmer, Port Talbot and in Abernant Road, Rhyd-Y-fro, Pontardawe. HWRC were previously classified as Civic Amenity (CA) sites however the negative connotations of associations of derogative terms such as "the tip" or "the dump" caused the revamp to its name (Williams & Taylor, 2004). CA sites were set up under the 1967 Civic Amenity Act which enforced local authorities to supply waste facilities for refuse that could not be included in kerbside collections such as large furniture (Woodard et al., 2004).

These targets are outlined within ‘Towards Zero Waste, One Wales: One Planet’ a strategy set forward by the Welsh Assembly Government in June 2010 outlining detailed principles and policies which describe social, economic and environmental outcomes that are expected to be achieved, in addition it supplies targets for Wales. A key goal is for Municipal Waste which is collected by local authorities for reuse and recycling/composting to procure targets set out by the deadlines shown in figure 2 below.

Table 1 Goals for Municipal waste collected by local authorities

Municipal Waste collected by local authorities

2012/2013

2015/2016

2019/2020

2024/2025

Minimum levels of preparing for reuse and recycling/composting for municipal waste.

52%

58%

64%

70%

(Welsh Assembly Government, 2010)

Municipal Waste is defined as:-

""Municipal waste" means waste from households, as well as other waste which, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from household"

(Landfill Directive, 1999)

Since 2010 Municipal waste has been categorised as Local Authority Collected Municipal Waste (LACMW) though it continues to have the same definition (DEFRA, n.d.).

‘Towards Zero Waste, One Wales: One Planet’ was formed in line with overarching legislation for the UK such as the Waste framework directive (2008/98/EC) and Landfill Directive (1999/98/EC) transposed down in British regulations as the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (amended 2012) and Landfill England and Wales Regulation 2002 (amended 2005) these regulations implement important strategies and targets for example the Waste hierarchy as illustrated in figure 1.

Waste Hierarchy (Eng)

Figure 1: Waste Hierarchy (Waste Awareness Wales n.d.)

Significance

Across the years an abundance of literature studying recycling and participation in correlation with behaviour has been undertaken (De Young, 1990; McDonald & Ball, 1998; Read, 1999; Speirs & Tucker, 2001; Thomas, 2001; Thøgersen, 2003; Knussen et al., 2004; González-Torre & Adenso-Díaz, 2005; Morgan & Hughes, 2006; Sidique et al., 2010) to name just a few, however little research has been carried out into behaviour patterns in correlation with HWRC.

Though these studies have previously been conducted; this investigation has not been undertaken in Neath; Port Talbot as this LA is not meeting its statutory targets, by doing a survey into recycling behaviours at its three HWRC, the conclusions may be analysed and interpreted to help form an understanding why only a limited number of individuals are recycling besides identifying key areas that need to be improved to encourage more residents to participate enabling the LA to achieve its target.

Hypothesis

The aim of the investigation is to analyse factors which influence participation at HWRC. Though there are numerous factors influencing why individuals recycle the undertaking of a complete evaluation into all sectors of waste management in Neath, Port Talbot is not within the opportunity of this research, hence the research shall test four hypotheses to answer the overarching research aim:-

The closer the HWRC to individuals residents the higher the frequency of participation.

The larger the quantity/frequency of materials collected on Kerbside the lower the number of visit to HWRC.

The greater the efficiency of the site an increase in number of visitors.

Demographic components.

Literature Review

Participation is vital without which recycling could not occur (McDonald & Ball, 1998) though Thomas, (2001) reasoned that participation is only as important as how well it is carried out, however it is key to achieving councils targets, it should be noted that participation in recycling is not a legal requirement. Only by appealing to the public and encouraging them to participate can the council get the help they need to achieve the statutory targets therefore; by understanding the factors which highlight the reasons why certain individuals recycle can steps be taken to change or alter any problems to assist toward higher recycling rate.

A number of studies into behaviour and participation have been undertaken across the globe for varied forms of waste facilities; by studying the literature it is possible to learn and adapt programmes to best resolve any limitations accentuated.

Location

Woodard et al. (2004) in the UK found location a fundamental factor for usage to drop off sites and recycling with users more likely to participate if the site is located closer to their homes; Woodard et al., recorded 97% of participants resided within a 5 minute drive of the facility. Though postal codes where used to calculate the distance for the study; the method of observational surveys was also implemented as participants were depositing there waste; this method comes with multiply disadvantages such as not being able to control all the variables (Wheater & Cook, 2000, pp. 4–5) in addition to time constraints and observational bias.

Even so the correlation of location and participation have been recorded globally both Speirs & Tucker, (2001) and Knussen et al. (2004) from Glasgow, and Sidique et al., (2010) in the USA found participants more likely to take more frequent trips due to close proximity.

However González-Torre & Adenso-Díaz, (2005) found no significance to proximity and participation, though this result may have a form of bias as the research was looking into recycling habits in waste disposal sites within walking distance, though recyclers did claim proximity encouraged them to participate. A more significant finding was the number of materials being recycled reduced due to the proximity; this is due to possible weight issues when carrying heavy items.

Research has been carried out into the proximity of sites to other facilities, a strong correlation between nearness of amenities and types of visits have been recorded. According to McDonald & Ball, (1998) of 500 people surveyed visiting a recycling bank in Scotland; only 13% were on a specific visit to the site, with 72% on their way to the shops. Though the same correlation was recorded by Speirs & Tucker, (2001) who was looking at recyclers profile, found only 7% of participants making special trips to supermarket recycling centres, compared to 23% for civic amenities sites.

The same correlation though stronger was found by Coggins et al., (1986) as cited by Coggins, 1994) where 60% of visitors were on specific trips to six civic amenity sites across the UK. Therefore it can be concluded that though proximity does influence the type of journeys recyclers undertake; it is also dependent upon the type of facility they are visiting.

Kerbside Collections

Few studies have involved whether participation in Kerbside schemes influences the recycling rates at HRWC or any waste disposal sites. Perrin & Barton (2001) who reviewed two different forms of recycling schemes found a decrease in the use of bring sites for items collected in there kerbside scheme; which shows kerbside collections may have a negative impact on the use of HWRC. Sidique et al., (2010) found a similar result indicating drop off centres where utilised for items not collected at kerbside, with 75% of participants they interview only visiting the site as they did not have access to kerbside facilities however this study was undertaken in the United States where it is not obligatory for councils to provided Kerbside facilities unlike in the UK.

Efficiency

A study undertaken in 2004 by Williams & Taylor looked at how site improvements and efficiency had influenced visitors recycling performance for twenty six HWRCs in Lancashire, site efficiency can have a large impact upon recycling rates. The first part of the investigation was conducted by telephone interviews with site attendants; where 92% reported a change in how the public were utilising the sites since amendments, with addition of new skips, signage and availability correlated with increased recycling rates. Though half of the attendants reporting more queries relating to confusion due to these new appliances they also reported the main cause of increased recycling resulted from staff helping customers therefore the quires had a positive effect. The findings of higher site efficiency improving recycling rates are supported by research by Woodard et al. (2004) who established that the site being monitored had a lower recycling rate due to congestion difficulties and visitors becoming impatient and Maynard et al. (2009) who signified how staff are vital to participation of the visitors.

Collecting data through telephone interviews is inexpensive and respondents are less likely to be bias or persuaded by an in person interview; negatively there may be technical problems which hinder the process such as reception; timing of the interview must be convenient for both parties (Pieper, 2011) in addition telephone respondents maybe less willing to reveal information than in person (Siemiatycki, 1979; Tourangeau & Yan, 2007) and may be prone to fabrication of the truth.

Demographic

In many findings a clear pattern emerges between demographics and participation in recycling, numerous literatures looks at demographics in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, affluence and educational background. Most finding recycling rates increases with greater affluence, education and home-ownership (Perrin & Barton, 2001).

Common among literature reported is lack of participation from young adults with the highest participation occurring in mature adults commonly over 60 (McDonald & Ball, 1998; Speirs & Tucker, 2001; Williams & Taylor, 2004 and Martin et al., 2006) this may be due to young adults not having transportation to facilities or are living at home so recycling is not there duty or apathy. However (Williams & Kelly, 2003) found 25–44 age group to be the lowest participation rate, hypothesised as lack of time whilst (Coggins, 1994) found the opposite to this, young families had the highest percentage of participation concluded as a result of family pressure.

Morgan & Hughes (2006) study in Kentucky found people of higher income and education where more likely to recycle, though these conclusions were supported by Sidique et al. (2010) also found was a negative correlation between employment and recycling with people in full time employment less likely to recycle; this is probably due to lack of time. However Derksen & Gartrell (1993) and (Saphores et al. 2012) found no correlation between education or age towards recycling.

Though women are statically more likely to recycle Saphores et al., (2006) as cited by (Saphores et al., 2012) research by Williams & Taylor (2004) found males were the dominant gender at 72% which utilised HWRC this is likely due to the types of materials being taken to the facility.

Methodology

Though the literature review has highlighted various styles of methodologies; this study shall be conducted through in person structured questionnaires at the three separate sites:-

Briton Ferry Industrial Estate in Briton Ferry

Margam Street in Cymmer

Abernant Road, Rhyd-Y-fro in Pontardawe

The location of each site in the Neath Port Talbot district is shown in figure 2

C:\Users\Ruth\Documents\Map of neath.jpg

Fig 2 map of district boundary of Neath Port Talbot with the labelled three HWRC sites

The questionnaires will enquire into frequency of visit to the site, distance/type of journey undertaken, recycling activities of participants at their homes, site efficiency in addition to demographic factors. A rough version of the questionnaire is shown in Appendix B.

Before the survey is carried out the questionnaires will be piloted to allow any errors to be corrected and amendments made. When conducting the questionnaires it will be implemented in two hour periods, one session in the morning and the second in afternoon on dates that shall be randomly generated. It will consist of both open and closed questions including quantitative and qualitative factors.

The population in the 2011 Census was recorded to be 139,812 (ONS, 2012) with a confidence level of 95% and confidence interval of 5%, a representative sample valid to this number equates to 383 (Creative Research Systems, 2013). Divided between the three sites 130 questionnaires per centre is required.

2013

2014

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Literature Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pilot Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Identification of Limits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carryout improvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondary pilot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seek Consent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carry out Questionnaires

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluates and Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary and Conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A rough time scale for the research project as illustrated in the Gantt chart as labelled table 2.

Table 2 Time scale for project

Methodological review

As the research shall be carried out through an in-person questionnaire; though postal services may be utilised allow participants time to further read the questions (Wheater & Cook, 2000) a risk of low respondents may make the results invalid (McDonald & Ball, 1998) though incentives have been recorded to increase participation rates there is still the risk (Bhattarai & Fosgate 2010) whist in-person interviews allows for the interviewer to explain questions if not fully understood (Wheater & Cook, 2000).

Though there are both advantages and disadvantages to questionnaires, they enable a large amount of information to be recorded in a short period of time (McDonald & Ball, 1998) with its structured nature it allows for comparison and analysis to be relatively easy, though it limits the participants ability to express themselves (Broom, 2005).To resolve this issues both open and closed styles of question shall be structured into the survey. Also it is essential when undertaking the project to be aware of individuals giving answers they believe the interviewer wants to hear (McDonald & Ball, 1998) as well as some individuals exaggerating there levels of participation to recycling; compared against actual contribution (De Young, 1990; Chan, 1998; Perrin & Barton, 2001; Price, 2001; Robinson & Read, 2005). A similar result was recorded by Williams & Kelly, (2003) finding only 50% of what participates claimed was actually undertaken.

When considering timing of surveys it must allow for the widest variety of results to be recorded being aware of influencing factors such as fluctuation in participation daily also diversity through the seasons; such as a higher percentage of garden waste in summer months compared to winter. Due to the assignments time frame the questionnaires will be conducted during the summer months, the limitation of this is the bias that may be formed as highlighted by Williams & Taylor (2004). However to increase the diversity and to include the widest range of results the days shall be randomly generated; as done by Sidique et al. (2010) and separated into two hours intervals to cover both am and pm as done by Pieper (2011).

Result

The results expected for the project are the follow:-

The distances travelled and type of journey to the site shall be found.

A measurement of frequency of site visit.

Analysis of types of materials brought to the site.

An analysis of the reasons why they visited the site.

Demographic factors.

The results shall be analysed through a number of statistical tests calculating frequency of visit the Chi-squared test will be used, when measuring distance and frequency Linear regression will be used and when testing the types of visits the comparison of two results the use of the Mann Whitney U-test, through these test the null hypotheses can be tested and accepted or rejected.

Evaluation

As a result of the escalating amount of waste that has of be disposed of, limited available space, environmental impacts from landfill, the need for a reduction in this ‘waste’ is paramount.

Legislation directed from government has made it necessary to look into other methods to limit the accumulation of landfill. As these goals are not being met by NPTC this survey was compiled to look at areas within the 3 HWRC to see where improvements could be implemented to increase the involvement of residents and improve recycling efficiency.

Despite planning to visit all three sites on various days and at different times due to time scale of the project data will be collected within a limited period, results are based upon information collected through summer months rather than across the year this can influence the analysis of frequency of visit and types of material at this time. It is from these results any inadequacies highlighted can be amended to enhance performance rates.

Research Ethics

The research methodology requires in person contact with random members of the public at present no harm or risk has been identified. The questionnaires contain no personal of confidential questions, however when conducting the survey as a form of courtesy a cover letter will be attached, the questionnaire should not take too long to complete, obvious question such as gender can be filled in without asking the respondent and the surveyor shall carryout the questionnaire with the upmost politeness.