Fordele og ulemper ved gebyrdifferentierede indsamlingssystemer for husholdningsaffald
Summary and conclusions
Currently a number of various fee-differentiated collection schemes exist for household waste in Denmark.
This project, however, deals with those collection schemes where the scale of the refuse fee covers only the "remaining waste" category (refuse collection less paper and glass). We have chosen to focus mainly on weight-based schemes.
The project was carried out by two methods. The project is based partly on comparing a number of data from municipalities with fee-differentiated collection schemes with data from reference municipalities; and partly on a questionnaire survey.
Data has been collected from five municipalities with weight-based collection schemes, two municipalities with volume-based collection schemes and one municipality granting a reduction on the refuse fee if the households make their home composting5.
For each of these eight municipalities, a reference municipality has been chosen that does not have a fee-differentiated collection scheme.
The questionnaire survey was carried out in eight municipalities (five municipalities with weight-based collection schemes and three reference municipalities).
All municipalities participating in the project have between about 3,000 and 12,000 households and the number of blocks of flats in these municipalities is quite limited. Therefore, this report deals mainly with data collected from residential areas with one-family houses.
A number of reservations have to be made regarding the findings of the project.
Reservations
The method of comparing data from municipalities with fee-differentiated collection schemes and reference municipalities is subject to some uncertainty since it was not possible to find reference municipalities which in all respects matched the municipalities using fee-differentiated collection schemes.
We have tried to remedy this problem by attaching primary importance to findings which compare a whole group of municipalities with the group of their respective reference municipalities.
This method, however, does not allow for circumstances and errors of measurements which systematically occur in one of the two municipality groups. Particularly, the following four situations might contribute to a systematic shortcoming in the findings:
Differences in communication and information collection
Differences found in collection schemes for the recycling of waste
Change of collection equipment and collection frequency
Collection of company waste, gardening waste and lumber-like waste together with the remaining waste.
Collection Efficiency for Paper and Glass
A significantly higher collection efficiency for paper and cardboard exists in the municipalities with weight-based collection schemes than exists in their corresponding reference municipalities; whereas the collection efficiency for glass reaches the same level in the two groups of municipalities.
The collection efficiency for paper as well as glass reaches much the same level in the two municipalities with volume-based collection schemes, whereas a very big difference in the collection efficiency of the two reference municipalities is noted. Therefore, the figures for each of the two reference municipalities have been added to the average calculations for the two reference municipalities.
Collected Amounts of Waste in kg per Household in 1999 and
Collection Efficiency for Paper and Glass
| Municipality | Remaining waste | Paper and cardboard | Glass | Total | Collection Efficiency6 | |
| Paper and cardboard | Glass | |||||
| Weight- based collection schemes | 325 | 108 | 38 | 471 | 71% | 87% |
| Reference municipalities | 729 | 67 | 34 | 830 | 41% | 77% |
| Volume-based collection schemes |
552 | 104 | 40 | 696 | 61% | 89% |
| Reference municipalities | 660 (740 kg and 579 kg) |
76 (36 kg and 116 kg) |
30 (8 kg and 51 kg) |
766 (784 kg and 746 kg) |
44% (20% and 70%) |
67% (18% and 115%) |
| Reduction due to home composting | 573 | 63 | 28 | 664 | 46% | 63% |
| Reference municipalities | 533 | 86 | 38 | 657 | 64% | 86% |
Amounts of Waste
The amounts of waste collected by the municipalities with weight-based collection schemes differ from the results of their corresponding reference municipalities.
On average 359 kg more refuse collection is collected per household per year in the reference municipalities than in the municipalities with weight-based collection systems.
When taking into account a higher tendency of home composting in municipalities with weight-based collection schemes than in their reference municipalities, the difference may be reduced to 279 kg per household per year.
The scope of home composting in the municipalities can only be gauged by the questionnaire survey carried out in connection with this project.
59% of the municipalities with weight-based collection schemes state that they home compost all or almost all fruit and vegetable remains, whereas the corresponding percentage for the reference municipalities is 21%.
The findings of the questionnaire survey do not show any difference in consumer habits for the households in the municipalities with weight-based collection schemes and the reference municipalities. Therefore, it must be assumed that on average the same amount of refuse is produced in households in municipalities with weight-based collection schemes as in the households in the reference municipalities.
Households with weight-based collection schemes, however, may dispose of their waste in an alternative way. They might deliver refuse other than paper, cardboard and glass to the recycling stations. They might burn it in a wood-burning stove at home or leave the refuse at lay-bys or service areas. Eventually, the collected amounts of remaining waste from the reference municipalities may contain waste other than the day-to-day refuse collection. It could be that in municipalities with no weight-related fee for refuse, company waste, garden waste, a lumber-like waste and similar items were collected together with the daily refuse collection.
Illegal and Inappropriate Disposal of Refuse
The respondent road authorities in almost all countries find that more refuse is dumped in lay-bys and service areas in municipalities which have weight-based collection schemes than in municipalities without a weight-based scheme.
In several of the municipalities with weight-based collection schemes, problems with refuse burning are noted. Primarily we refer to refuse burning in oil drums and wood-burning stoves.
Recycling Behaviour
The findings of the questionnaire survey show that knowing that the household is living in a municipality with a weight-based collection system probably explains about 14 per cent of the variation in recycling behaviour.
The most important parameter for the recycling behaviour is not that the household is living in a municipality using a weight-based collection scheme. Greater importance can be attached to the following matters:
 | the citizens’ sense of duty towards recycling |
| the nuisance connected with recycling |
| whether the household has a composting place or container |
If these three factors could be influenced in a positive way, individually each of them would have greater impact on the overall recycling (more sorting for recycling and more home composting) than the introduction of weight-based fee differentiation.
The findings of the questionnaire survey show, however, that these factors are closely connected with the fact that the municipality has a weight-based collection scheme.
Conclusion
Taking into consideration the above reservations and that surveys are lacking which could explain the difference in the amounts of refuse collected at households in municipalities with fee-differentiated collection schemes and the reference municipalities, the following can be concluded:
| A difference exists in the amounts of the refuse collected in municipalities with weight-based collection schemes and the amounts of refuse collected in the corresponding reference municipalities. |
| A higher collection efficiency for paper and cardboard waste is recorded in municipalities with weight-based and volume-based collection schemes than in their corresponding reference municipalities. |
| More households in municipalities with weight-based collection schemes state that they compost fruit and vegetable remains than households in the reference municipalities. |
| 14 pct. of the attitude regarding increased recycling is because people know that the refuse fee varies according to the amount of refuse collected from their home. |
The impact would be higher if:
- the citizens’ sense of duty towards recycling could be increased
- the nuisance connected with recycling could be reduced
- the households had a relevant composting place or container.
| The respondent road authorities in most counties report that problems with waste found in lay-bys and service areas are worse in municipalities with weight-based collection schemes than in municipalities without such a scheme. |
| In several municipalities with weight-based collection schemes, problems caused by burning refuse have been noted. This primarily refers to burning waste in oil drums and wood-burning stoves. |
| The findings of the questionnaire survey show that most citizens in the municipalities with weight-based collection schemes believe that a weight-based fee is an advantage to them. |
| Most citizens in the municipalities with weight-based collection schemes state that they believe a weight-based system is the fairest way of calculating the refuse collection fee and that there should not be a flat fee for refuse collection. |
| In three of the five municipalities with weight-based collection schemes, large families (more than four people) financially benefit from the weight-based collection schemes. |
| Municipalities with weight-based collection schemes report an increase in administrative hours since the introduction of the collection scheme. |
Based solely on the results from the two municipalities with volume-based collection schemes and the municipality giving a reduction in the refuse collection fee when home composting, these schemes do not seem to bring about an increase in recycling (paper cardboard, glass and home composting).
5One of the reference municipalities (to a municipality with a weight-based collection scheme) has a volume-based collection scheme.
6 The collection efficiency was calculated on potentials which for paper were different for the municipalities, whereas the applied glass potential is the same for all municipalities.