| Forside | | Indhold | | Forrige | | Næste |

Eksempler på indsamlingssystemer for papir og pap fra husholdninger

Summary and conclusions

In the various municipalities of Denmark, a number of different programmes exist for the collection of waste paper. These programmes can roughly be divided into collection and delivery schemes.

The collection programmes can be divided into schemes which require specific collection equipment and those that do not.

When specific collection equipment is being used, the paper content is kept apart from and placed near the other waste. In principle, it should not be more difficult for the household to deliver paper separately, so that it may be recycled, than delivering any other refuse.

When no specific collection equipment is being used, the households should place their waste paper, bundled, in bags or in cardboard boxes at the side of the pavement on the specified day.

A delivery programme requires the households to take the waste paper to the containers/cubes provided in residential areas, malls, etc. or to the designated civic amenity stations.

In this Project, a total of eight collection programmes are described, i.e. five collection schemes and three delivery schemes.

Three of the five collection schemes have containers on wheels (the Municipality of Gundsø, the Municipality of Herning and SYSTEM 2000 in the Municipality of Aarhus). Furthermore, one collection scheme is based on the collection of the paper content in cassettes (the Municipality of Høje-Taastrup). The fifth collection scheme (the Municipality of Herlev) has no specific collection equipment.

The effect of living patterns, commuting and shopping routines have not been taken into consideration in this Project.

Collection Programmes

The table shows the amounts collected with the potential and collection efficiency of all eight following systems being dealt with in this Project.

"Total potential" and a "local system potential" are listed in this table. The total potential comprises eight paper categories (such as newspapers, local papers, magazines and monthly magazines, trade magazines, unaddressed advertising material, addressed mail, telephone books and miscellaneous paper) whereas the local system potential only comprises those of the eight paper categories that the sorting criteria of each individual municipality prescribe.

Collected Amounts, Potential and Collection

Municipality Averaged amount collected in kgs per household in 1998 Local system potential in kgs per household per year Total potential in kgs per year Collection efficiency for local system potential 15 Collection efficiency for total potential
Collection systems          
Gundsø 143.6 kg 148.0 kg 164.3 kg 97% 87%
Herning16 161.2 kg17 160.4 kg 160.4 kg 100% 100%
Aarhus
SYSTEM 2000		 214.2 kg during test period 94/95 207.3 kg 207.3 kg 103% during test period 94/95 103% during test period 94/95
Høje-Taastrup 127.6 kg 165.8 kg 180.5 kg 77% 71%
Herlev 92.3 kg18 155.6 kg 172.1 kg 59% 54%
Delivery systems          
Holbæk 98.1 kg 133.7 kg 156.1 kg 73% 63%
R9819 95.7 kg 142.2 kg 158.9 kg 68% 60%
Reno 7 i/s 103.9 kg 169.0 kg 193.4 kg 61% 54%

Collecting Systems

Looking at the five schemes based on collecting waste, a significant difference is noted in the results for systems with and without specific collection equipment.

Collection efficiency in the Municipality of Herlev is significantly lower when specific collection equipment is not being used. The households bundle their paper waste and place it at the side of the pavement on the collection day.

This type of collection scheme accounts for only about 25 kg per household on a yearly basis. This corresponds to 16 per cent of the local system potential and 15 per cent of the total potential for households participating in the lumber collection.

The Municipality of Herlev states that many households consider the bundling of paper for the lumber collection to be complicated and time-consuming. Therefore, quite a few households located within the area for the lumber collection take their paper waste to the containers provided at malls and the civic amenity stations.

Collection Volume

When comparing collection efficiency with collection volume based on average paper content per household per week, it is noted that higher volume leads to better efficiency.

Collection Volume and Efficiency

Municipality Collection volume per household per week for one-family houses and apartment complexes, respectively Average volume needed21 per household per week Collection efficiency for local system potential Collection efficiency for total potential
Gundsø One-family houses: 23 litres
Apartment complexes: 19 litres		 20.5 litres ± 20% þ 16-25 litres 97% 87%
Herning One-family houses: 30 litres
Apartment complexes: 26 litres		 22,5 litres ± 20% þ 18-27 litres 100% 100%
Aarhus

SYSTEM 2000

 One-family houses: 48 litres 29.0 litres ± 20% þ 23-35 litres 103%22 during test period 94/95 103% during test period 94/95.
Høje-Taastrup One-family houses: 17 litres
Apartment complexes: 14 litres		 22.1 litres ± 20% þ 18-27 litres 77% 71%

Delivery Schemes

The efficiency for the three schemes based on delivery (the Municipality of Holbæk, the R98-area and the Reno 7 i/s-area) range from 61% to 73% of the local system potential for paper and from 54% to 63% of the total paper potential.

In the suburbs of the Municipality of Holbæk and in the area of Reno 7 i/s, which have a delivery to containers and the civic amenity station, there are also household collections of paper waste by voluntary organisations. These are included in the collected amounts listed in Table 1.

Density of Collection Equipment

There is a considerable difference in the coverage provided for the three delivery schemes. However, this is not reflected in the collection efficiency.

The ratio of the collection equipment is 40 households per 600-liter container in central areas and 179 households per 600-liter container in the suburbs of the Municipality of Holbæk. In the R98 area one 290-liter container for each 13 households was installed and in the Reno 7 i/s area one 2.5 m3 cube per 210 households was installed.

Quality and Sale

In general, the paper quality for all collection schemes examined is estimated to be good. Minor contamination with unwanted material was found only in a few cases.

Only in one collection scheme (SYSTEM 2000 in the Municipality of Aarhus), was a subsequent sorting needed before sale to the paper company.

Financial Situation

When collecting paper from private households, a number of financial factors must be considered. On these will depend the chosen collection form(s) and level of service.

  1. Planning and management
  2. Collection and processing of information
  3. Household information
  4. Purchase of collection equipment
  5. Costs in connection with emptying
  6. Maintenance of collection equipment
  7. Cleaning of areas around the centrally installed cubes/containers
  8. Transportation to the treatment places/sales place
  9. Treatment/sale
  10. Return on investment and depreciation
  11. Waste taxes
  12. Paper prices
  13. Savings in treatment at incineration plants
  14. Savings in interest and depreciation as well as emptying of collection equipment

Local conditions such as existing collection schemes, demography, organisational conditions, etc. will often influence the financial factors.

| Forside | | Indhold | | Forrige | | Næste | | Top |