| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

Vægtbaserede indsamlingssystemer for dagrenovation

Summary and conclusions

This report deals with three studies carried out in the municipalities of Tinglev and Nørre Rangstrup.

Table 0.1 hereunder shows the amounts recorded and the differences between them, in the analyses at the municipalities of Tinglev and Nørre Rangstrup.

Table 0.1
Analysis of the category "remaining waste"

The findings of the waste analysis carried out in the municipalities of Tinglev and Nørre Rangstrup show that the recorded amount of each category differs considerably.

Table 0.2 shows the amounts of animal food waste, nappies, ashes/cat litter/street litter, etc. as well as other types of waste (up-scaled in kg per household per year). All these four categories are collected as refuse in both municipalities.

Table 0.2
Study of categories collected as refuse

This shows that, in these categories, the waste collected in Nørre Rangstrup is almost double (97% greater) that collected in Tinglev.

Analysis of waste found in civic amenity site containers labelled "combustible waste".

Table 0.3
Refuse and garden waste found in containers labelled "combustible waste"

As can be seen from Table 0.3, there is a considerable difference between the amount of refuse and garden waste recorded for both municipalities (60% and 10%). The total amount of waste in the containers of the two municipalities, however, is practically identical (1,465 kg and 1,420 kg). More than half (60%) the content in Tinglev was recorded as refuse. In Nørre Rangstrup, the refuse only amounted to 10%.

Study of Waste Collected at Lay-bys and Service Areas

The recordings of waste collected at lay-bys and service areas in the four counties (Sønderjyllands Amt, Fyns Amt, Ringkøbing Amt and Viborg Amt) show that proportionally more refuse is collected from lay-bys and service areas in municipalities with weight-based collection schemes than from lay-bys and service areas in the remaining municipalities. The same conclusions cannot be made from the recordings from the county of Vejle. However, the findings from Vejle Amt do not exclude that citizens from municipalities with weight-based collection schemes tend to leave more waste at lay-bys and service areas than citizens would do from municipalities that do not have such a collection system.

Overall Assessment

Table 0.4 lists under various headings the amount of waste recorded in 2000 (up-scaled for one year). For the municipality of Tinglev, the difference in vegetable food waste and garden waste has been added (up-scaled for one year). It is presumed that equal amounts of these two categories are being produced in the two municipalities, but that the difference in vegetable food waste and garden waste constitutes an additional amount which is being home composted in Tinglev apart from the amount that is supposed being home composted in the two municipalities.

Table 0.4
Amount of waste recorded per household

Collected "remaining waste" per household for the entire country averaged 587⁶ kg in 1998 and 588⁷ kg in 1999.

After including the additional amount which it is assumed is being home composted in Tinglev, a difference in the amount of refuse in the two municipalities can be noted (see Table 0.4).

The difference in waste volume between Tinglev and Nørre Rangstrup amounts to 117 kg per household per year.

Since the findings of the questionnaire survey (published in the Environmental Project No. 576, 2000) do not show any difference in consumer habits for municipalities with and without weight-based collection schemes, it must be assumed that on average the same amount of waste is being produced in both municipalities.

As it appears from the above-mentioned project, the difference in the amount of waste being collected (including home composting) in the two types of municipalities might be due to the fact that the households in municipalities with weight-based collection schemes dispose of their waste in an alternative way. This could include bringing categories other than paper, cardboard and glass to civic amenity sites; incineration in stoves/furnaces and disposal of waste at lay-bys, service areas, etc.

The study shows (see chapter 3) - when analysing waste delivered to civic amenity containers labelled "combustible waste" – that the amount of refuse was significantly higher in Tinglev than in Nørre Rangstrup. When up-scaled for one year, the difference in the amount of refuse found in these containers amounts to 57 kg per household per year.

In addition, the analysis of waste left at lay-bys and service areas shows that the volume of refuse is higher in Tinglev than in Nørre Rangstrup.

However, the present study does not confirm the difference in home composting that was indicated by the questionnaire survey (published in the Environmental Project No. 576, 2000). The findings of the referenced questionnaire survey indicated a difference of approx. 80 kg per household per year on average. However, the waste analysis carried out in 2001 recorded only a difference in the amount of vegetable food waste of approx. 30 kg per household (up-scaled for one year).