Recycling in High Density Residential Buildings

STUDY OF RECYCLING IN HIGH DENSITY DWELLINGS

Assessment of Options for the Provision of Waste Infrastructure and Procurement Services —Recycling in High Density Residential Buildings

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289

http://aus.hybis.info/projects0/vc/awarded/aa004437/f_reports/mud report feb 2012/act_mud report final 21 feb 2012.docx

Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd

ABN 76 104 485 289

Level 5, 141 Walker Street Locked Bag 6503 North Sydney NSW 2060 Australia

Tel: +61 2 8907 9000

Fax: +61 2 8907 9001

www.hyderconsulting.com

ACT GOVERNMENT

ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS FOR THE PROVISION OF WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROCUREMENT SERVICES

Recycling in High Density Residential Buildings

Supplementary

Author

Victoria Bond & Tanya

Rajaratnam

Checker Ron Wainberg

Approver Ron Wainberg

Report No AA004437_R03_Supplementary

Date 21 February, 2012

This report has been prepared for ACT Government in

accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for

Assessment of Options for the Provision of Waste

Infrastructure and Procurement Services dated August

2011. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN 76 104 485 289)

cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance

on the contents of this report by any third party.


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page i

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .......................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Project aims & outcomes ..................................................... 1

2 Methodology ......................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Task 1 Data Gathering ......................................................... 4

2.1.2 Task 2: case study identification .......................................... 5

2.1.3 Task 3: reporting .................................................................. 5

3 Research Findings ................................................................................ 6

3.1 Scheme Design: Methods of collection ................................................. 6

3.1.1 Collection type ..................................................................... 7

3.2 Scheme Implementation Considerations ............................................ 13

3.2.1 Building Types and Access ................................................ 13

3.2.2 Equipment Required .......................................................... 16

3.2.3 Frequency of collection ...................................................... 19

3.2.4 Attitudes & behaviour ......................................................... 20

3.2.5 Communication .................................................................. 22

3.2.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................. 24

3.2.7 Additional issues for consideration .................................... 26

3.3 Implementation in High Density areas of the ACT .............................. 28

3.4 Summary of Collection Methods ......................................................... 31

4 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................. 35

4.1 Best practice Recycling in MUDs ........................................................ 35

4.2 Case Studies ...................................................................................... 36

4.3 Recommendations .............................................................................. 37

Appendix A.................................................................................................... 38

Appendix B.................................................................................................... 51

Appendix C ................................................................................................... 53


Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289 Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The ACT’s draft Sustainable Waste Strategy 2010-2025 (‘the draft Strategy’) was released in

December 2010. It recognised waste as a resource and proposed to develop alternatives to

landfill to deal with waste in the future.

In line with the ACT’s aim to become sustainable and achieve full resource recovery,the draft

Strategy proposed four desired Outcomes:

1 Less Waste Generated 2 Full Resource recovery 3 A Clean Environment 4 Carbon Neutral Waste

A mixture of programs are required to achieve these outcomes, including the diversion of

biodegradable waste from landfill and the development of new waste recovery and treatment

technologies including Energy from Waste (EfW). One of the options considered in the draft

Strategy was the introduction of a third bin to collect household organics. This report was

originally commissioned as a precursor to the possible introduction of a household organic

waste collection system across the Territory.

This report addresses the significance of complex collection issues, and best practice methods,

related to the removal of dry recyclables and source-separated organics from hard to reach

properties, in particular Multi Unit Dwellings (MUDs). The report also provides examples of best

practice methods.

For the purposes of this study, a MUD may be defined as apartment blocks including both high

rise developments and low rise converted houses containing more than one dwelling.

The ACT Waste Management Strategy 2011-2025 (the Strategy) was released in December

2011. The Strategy ruled out the introduction of a household organic waste collection service as

not cost effective. Nonetheless, the findings of this study are as relevant to improving the dry

recycling system and preventing undesirable materials (such as recyclables and hazardous

items) from entering the residual waste stream as they are for food waste collection systems.

1.1 BACKGROUND

Resource recovery from high density residential buildings is a particular concern for the ACT.

The Canberra Spatial Plan launched in 2004 promotes residential intensification within a 7.5

kilometre radius of the city centre over 15 years (i.e. to 2019). A key principle of the Plan is to

‘ensure that up to 50 per cent of the predicted future urban growth will be located close to

existing major employment areas and existing services and facilities including schools’, and

reduce urban encroachment on surrounding agricultural and Greenfield areas.

As part of a wider study into options for waste infrastructure and service options, Hyder

Consulting was commissioned to undertake a detailed desk-top review of experiences in dry

recycling and organic waste collections from high rise buildings. This review includes research

into Australian and overseas experiences, using best practice case studies and publications, as

listed in Appendix C.

1.1.1 PROJECT AIMS & OUTCOMES

The objective of the study was to identify examples of best practice collection of recyclables and

organics from high rise developments, and to highlight the principal elements which enabled

these systems to achieve high yields and participation rates.


Page 2 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd-ABN 76 104 485 289

The study provides examples and analysis of the following:

Method of collection and associated issues:

o Collection type: door to door, bring, chutes and floor by floor

o Building type

o Equipment: containers, liners, vehicles

o Frequency of collection

Communication

Monitoring and Evaluation

Additional issues for consideration

The research identified six best practice case studies, applicable to the ACT Government

context. The case studies, contained within Appendix A are provided in a format that can be

utilised by the ACT for amendment and use in relevant publications / web pages etc.



2 METHODOLOGY

Desktop research was conducted across the available literature relating to municipal recycling

and organics services delivered to high density dwellings in Australia, the UK and Europe.

Research also included verbal communication with several local and state government

departments in Australia with experience in delivering recycling and / or organics services to

MUDs.

2.1.1 TASK 1 DATA GATHERING

A preliminary internet based desktop study was undertaken to identify any past, current or

planned organics waste collections from MUDs as well as any associated best practice

guidance within Australia and overseas.

The Australian Story

The initial task was to research and identify local governments undertaking recycling and

organics collections in MUDs within Australia. National reports were used to identify those local

governments already collecting organics, which is 10% of all Australian councils1. Research into

the activities of these councils has demonstrated that the MUD recycling experience is in its

infancy, with only a handful of schemes recently introduced.

The International Picture

Desktop research was undertaken to identify international best practice, predominantly

focussing on the UK and Europe. Significant work has been undertaken in the UK over the past

10 years on recycling in MUDs and food waste recycling, with guidance documents and case

studies commissioned by the UK Government.

The more advanced systems evident in the European Union (EU) have been driven by

legislation, and the requirement to remove biodegradable waste from landfill or face fines and

an increasing landfill tax. With 19% of English households categorised as MUDs, 42% of

households in France, 61% in Germany, 62% in Spain and 65% in Italy2, there was an evident

need to address collections from MUDs in order to comply with the relevant EU Directives.

1 Industry Edge Report, WME, 2011

2 Recycling for Flats, DEFRA, 2006



2.1.2 TASK 2: CASE STUDY IDENTIFICATION

From the research undertaken in Task 1, councils collecting organics and dry recyclables from

MUDs were identified for further investigation as potential case studies. The Australian councils

selected for more detailed examination were as follows:

1. Melbourne City

2. Coffs Harbour

3. South Australian Councils (collaboration)

4. Bankstown

5. Waverly & Randwick

6. Woollahra

7. Leichhart

Each of these case studies was examined in detail, including telephone contact with the

respective local governments to gather further information. This resulted in selecting the final

three case studies of Coffs Harbour, South Australia, and Bankstown based upon the

information available.

To support the Australian experience with more advanced programmes, a number of overseas

studies were also selected for further investigation. Two case studies from UK were chosen,

South Shropshire, and Newtownabbey as these examples have been documented with

detailed information and data regarding scheme design, performance, roll out, use of liners and

improvement opportunities. A case study from Toronto, Canada has also been included.

2.1.3 TASK 3: REPORTING

Following the selection of case studies, all data was analysed and results reported in a format

easily useable and adaptable for the ACT’s requirements. The report contains a best practice

summary of relevant MUD recycling data and case studies, coupled with the potential capture

rates and participation rates of any particular scheme.

This data is aimed to inform the ACT Government when designing recycling and organics

collections systems for MUDs, to achieve the best outcomes in terms of diversion of waste from

landfill, and to contribute to the zero waste to landfill target.

NSW OEH, Love Food Hate Waste Logo (www.lovefoodhatewaste.nsw.gov.au accessed 26th

August 2011

http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.nsw.gov.au/



3 RESEARCH FINDINGS

The following sections present the results of research into both the overseas and Australian

experience. Given the longer history of MUD collection programmes in the EU, specific design

elements are largely based on EU examples. However, with the growing interest in MUD

recycling systems in Australia, there is a considerable body of literature being developed by

state and local Australian governments regarding public perception and education in regards to

programmes.

Important lessons can be learned from the EU experience: traditionally in the EU, recycling and

food waste collection schemes were rolled out to flats as a blanket service, with all blocks of

flats within a local government area receiving the same type of collection scheme. However,

blocks of flats vary considerably, from the waste disposal methods used to the communication

opportunities available, meaning that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is unlikely to provide the most

effective recycling solution for all types of multi-unit dwellings.

Increasingly, overseas councils are recognising the value of assessing blocks of flats

individually, and are introducing different schemes to best fit the needs of each community. This

approach has several benefits over blanket schemes3:

• Schemes can be designed to make recycling as easy as refuse disposal for residents,

increasing participation in recycling schemes and hence capture of materials

• The risks associated with recycling at each block can be assessed and managed,

including storage capacity, fire hazard issues, and accessibility

• Specific opportunities related to recycling schemes and communications can be identified

and harnessed

This approach requires a greater level of management than the introduction of a blanket

scheme but can still be simplified at the operational design stage. The options for scheme

design are described throughout this section, and provide the ACT with an opportunity to learn

from the experiences of others to conduct efficient well-designed schemes at the outset.

3.1 SCHEME DESIGN: METHODS OF COLLECTION

Although Australia is only recently embarking on MUD recycling and organics collections, a

large number of local authorities in the UK and EU have introduced kerbside food waste

collections, providing reliable results on which to base the design of future services in the ACT.

The majority of these examples combine food with garden waste collected in mobile garbage

bins (MGBs, or wheelie bins) however there is a significant number of examples where food

waste is collected separately in smaller receptacles (WRAP, 2009). The following section draws

largely upon UK/EU examples as well as some of the recently introduced Australian examples.

When food waste is combined with an existing green waste service it can be collected by

existing green waste and/or refuse collection vehicles in existing MGBs and according to similar

collection schedules (often increased from fortnightly to weekly collections). Food waste volume

is much lower and has little seasonal variation and so the additional vehicle capacity required

for the food component remains constant (WRAP, 2009).

3 Recycling collections from flats, WRAP, 2011 (www.wrap.org.uk accessed 26

th August 2011)

http://www.wrap.org.uk/



In many cases there is no existing green waste service for MUDs either due to a lack of garden

materials or the fact that garden waste is managed and collected by a caretaker or landscaping

contractor. In this situation, introduction of a separate food waste collection (not combined with

garden waste) is preferred and will result in more reliable processing.

3.1.1 COLLECTION TYPE

When considering implementation of a dry recycling or organics service for MUDs, the method

of collection must be considered. The four main types of collection from MUDs are:

1. Door to door collections

2. ‘Bring’ services

3. Chute services

4. Floor by floor collections

1. Door to Door Collections

During door to door collections, recyclable materials or food waste are collected from each

residents’ doorsteps and transported to ground level by collection crews. This is different to

kerbside collections that might be provided for flats where residents set out containers at ground

level for collection from the street.

Door to door collections can be carried out in a number of different ways but the most common

processes that are implemented overseas are:

a) First step, materials are firstly collected by crews from resident’s doorsteps and

transported to a central collection point on the ground floor. The materials can be

transported in various ways, for example:

In Falkirk, Scotland, materials are emptied into bulk sacks and carried

downstairs

In the City of London dry materials are transported in a caged part of a

trolley and food waste is put into sliding drawers at the bottom of the trolley

In the London Borough of Camden collection crews put recycling down the

refuse chute which leads into a recycling bank

On the Clapham Park Estate in the London Borough of Lambeth bags of

recyclables are manually carried downstairs or taken down by lift

b) Second step, materials are then bulked up ready for transportation for onward

processing or treatment. Different methods of bulking material are used:

Materials may be loaded or sorted directly into a collection vehicle. Local

councils should assess the efficiencies involved in having a collection vehicle

waiting outside the block while collections take place inside

Materials may be put into bring banks; potentially with some on site sorting if

materials are not collected fully co-mingled

Scheme performance

The performance of door to door collection schemes can vary significantly. In general dry

recycling schemes that have more frequent collections from the doorstep and use single use

recycling sacks capture the most material.

From a recent UK exercise comparing kilograms of recycling collected per household per week

(kg/hh/wk) from a variety of recycling collections from flats, it is evident that:

The average performance of a weekly door to door collection was 1.83 kg/hh/wk



Average collections were lower where a ‘Bring’ site was provided near to the block of

units i.e. it appeared that residents were using the bring site in between collection

days

High-rise properties (over five floors) recycled more (1.8 kg/hh/wk) with door to door collections

than low-rise properties (1.5kg/hh/wk) in the same borough. This could be attributed to

perceptions of ease of participation in door to door collection systems by residents in high rise

properties when compared to participating in near entry systems.

2. 'Bring' Systems

‘Bring’ schemes for flats are based on residents bringing their own recycling or food waste to

communal collection containers located near their block of flats. Often also referred to as near

entry schemes. This is commonplace in Northern Italian councils, where containers are placed

in a communal area (usually 120L MGBs) and / or at the kerbside (30L containers4).

30litre containers for communal

bring food waste collection, Milan,

Italy, Food Waste Collection

Guidance, WRAP, 2009

As per door to door, there are a number of methods for implementing a bring scheme. For

example, reusable bags are provided to residents in Bristol for food waste collection and small

single use bags are provided in Hammersmith and Fulham for organics recycling. In Cinisello

Balsamo and also Milan, Italy, liners are used in the dwellings and delivered to 30 litre

communal organics containers.

Underground and semi-underground systems for communal recycling are becoming more

common in high-density areas throughout Europe, North America and Asia. For example, the

Dutch city of Zoetermeer has installed more than 1,000 units of the Sulo ‘Iceberg’ underground

collection containers which are located in public spaces for recycling collection. Only the inlet

receptacle is visible above-ground, while all waste material is stored in large-capacity

underground containers and access for residents can be controlled by an electronic card.

4 Recycling for flats, DEFRA, 2006



Sulo Iceberg Above-ground Inlet Receptacle

Source: Sulo Australia

Collection of underground waste container

Source: Sulo Australia

Generally there are three steps for ‘bring’ recycling and food waste collection schemes5:

a) First step, residents deposit material: residents deliver materials to collection containers.

To make recycling easier, some local councils provide residents with bags, boxes or kitchen

caddies in which to contain their materials for transportation.

Feedback from residents in Bristol showed that one of the barriers to recycling was

the lack of a suitable container in which to store and transport their recycling

materials. In response reusable bags were provided to residents.

In the London Borough of Hackney householders are provided with kitchen caddies

and compostable liners for food waste. The liner enables residents to transport their

food waste to the collection container on their way out instead of having to return the

kitchen caddy back to their property. The use of liners also helps to prevent food

waste from sticking to the side of the communal bin, reducing the need for cleaning,

and ensuring all the food waste is emptied.

In a trial launched by North Fulham and the Hammersmith and Fulham Council,

residents have been provided with small single use bags to transport recycling to

recycling containers. These bags are designed to fit through the aperture of the

recycling containers although some residents have said they would like the bags to

be bigger so they can contain more material.

b) Second step, collection of materials: Materials are assessed and loaded into the

collection vehicle by collection crews. On arrival at the site collection crews will usually

visually assess the recycling and food waste containers for problems such as

contamination, littering, damage to containers and overflows. Reports are collated and

monitored over time and used to improve schemes.

Several methods may be used to load materials into the collection vehicle and these

methods may even vary within the same council for different sites:

The collection vehicle may park next to the containers and empty them

The collection crew may move collection containers to the vehicle for emptying

Full containers may be exchanged for empty ones. For example, in Glasgow,

operatives take two empty 240 litre recycling bins through the tenements to the rear

5 Food Waste Collection Guidance, WRAP, 2009



courtyard and exchange them for the full bins which are then taken to the vehicle for

emptying. The bins are then emptied and taken to the next tenement6.

c) Third step, container cleaning: Examples from the UK found it to be important following

emptying, to clean the containers. Cleaning containers encouraged residents to participate

in the scheme and to prevent odours from the containers from becoming a nuisance.

Frequency of cleaning varies depending on:

The time of year – in the summer more frequent cleaning may be required

Whether liners are used to contain food waste – liners prevent food waste from

sticking to the containers and reduce the need for cleaning

The location of the containers

The procedures for cleaning the containers e.g. whether they can be cleaned on site

(possibly by the building caretaker) or need to be collected and moved to another

area for cleaning.

Scheme performance

Performance of various ‘Bring’ schemes varies between sites and often depends on the relative

ease with which residents can recycle. For example if containers are located next to refuse bins

which residents can bring material to (rather than use a chute) they are likely to capture more

material.

WRAP conducted an exercise gathering data from various MUD ‘Bring’ recycling schemes, to

identify total kilograms per household per week (kg/hh/wk), and found that the average

performance was dependent upon:

1. Frequency of collection – residents on weekly co-mingled collections recycled an average

(median) of 2.54kg/hh/wk compared to fortnightly collections of 1.15kg/hh/wk.

2. Low rise vs High rise – Low rise blocks were found to recycle more than high rise. This

could be explained by the barrier of additional distance and effort and / or perceptions of

additional effort required by residents to take their recycling down to recycling bins.

3. If chutes were present for refuse disposal. Overall, residents without chutes for residual

waste recycled an average of 2kg/hh/wk while residents with access to residual waste

chutes recycled 1.24 kg/hh/wk.

4. Internal container provision - Average collections were higher where an internal receptacle

was provided to residents to store their recyclables. In these examples, residents were

provided with either a reusable sack or a recycling box. Overall, sites where residents were

provided with internal receptacles collected an average of 2.26 kg/hh/wk, while those

without internal receptacles collected an average of 1.18 kg/hh/wk.

3. Chute recycling systems

Chutes in most buildings are designed for residents to dispose of refuse but there are a number

of options for the collection of recycling which are discussed in this section.

In blocks of flats where there is more than one chute, a chute or several chutes can be

dedicated to the collection of recyclables with any remaining chutes being used for refuse

disposal. In blocks of flats where there is only one chute, it may be possible to build an extra

chute within the building or as an external element to the building.

Generally the refuse and recycling chutes will be located side by side so that recycling is easy

for residents and the likelihood of contamination is reduced.

6 Multi Occupancy Property Recycling Feasibility Project, Scottish Executive, 2006



Signage and paint is used on the chute doors to indicate to residents that the chute should be

used for recycling. It should also be used at the base of the chute so that caretakers and

collection crews know which chute the recycling containers should be positioned under.

Containers at the base of the chute need to be rotated as they become full. Residents may be

given reusable bags or small single use bags to contain and transport their recyclable materials.

Mechanical Chutes: Mechanical chute recycling systems usually have a lever or control panel

next to or on the chute door at each level of the building. This moves a mechanism that guides

recycling or refuse into the correct collection containers at the bottom of the chute. For example

containers may rotate on a platform beneath the chute or a basket may catch materials at the

base of the chute and drop them into the correct container. An electronic system is usually

used to ensure that chute doors at each level remain locked until residents have chosen a

disposal option.

Mechanical chute systems can be retrofitted to existing refuse chutes but are generally easier to

introduce in new developments.

Vacuum Chutes: Vacuum chute systems create a vacuum to draw materials to a central

location meaning that instead of collecting materials from multiple different areas the collection

vehicle only has to visit one location.

For example in the Envac7 system, sacks of waste, dry recyclable materials or food waste are

put into separate chute apertures and are temporarily stored in the chute on top of a discharge

valve. At regular intervals a control system automatically switches on fans which create a

vacuum in the network of pipes. Discharge valves below each of the chutes are opened and

sacks fall by gravity into a horizontal network of pipes. The three material streams are

vacuumed at separate times of the day ensuring materials are kept separate and only one

system of pipes needs to be laid. The vacuum that has been created pulls sacks to a central

collection point via a pre-filter that separates the sacks from the air. Sacks fall into a compactor

while the transport air passes through a silencer and dust and deodorant filters.

These systems are most suited to being built into new developments, and can be seen in larger

scale developments in the United Arab Emirates. The use of the Ros-Roca8 systems is being

heavily implemented in Spain at present, with 9 schemes in operation and a further 5 in

planning / construction.

Other Chutes: It may be possible to introduce other types of chute recycling schemes

depending on local circumstances. For example if the correct processing infrastructure is

available it may be possible to provide residents with thick clear plastic bags (referred to as

‘survival bags”). These can then be put down the same chute as refuse and sorted later at a

recovery facility.

Residents could be consulted about the potential to use a single chute for recycling and refuse

at different times of the week. The caretaker or collection crews would need to make sure that

the correct container was under the chute at the correct time, and significant communications

would need to be used to provide clear information and give residents an understanding of

which day and/or time is for which materials.

7 https://www.envacgroup.com

8 http://rosrocaenvironment.com

https://www.envacgroup.com/

http://rosrocaenvironment.com/



Performance of Chute Systems

Little performance data was available at the time of this research, but chute systems are in

operation and becoming more widespread throughout Scandinavia, Spain, Portugal and the

United Arab Emirates.

These systems are not yet widely used in the UK, however, from three small trials in three

separate London Boroughs, residents recycled an average of 3.69kg/hh/wk. This is the highest

performing collection system for flats recorded. However as this is not a wide-scale service it

may not provide a clear indication of a typical performance.

4. Collections from each floor

In this system, recycling collection containers are installed on each floor of a block of flats.

Material from these containers is then taken to a central bulking area on the ground floor of the

building.

Although not widely used by local councils in the EU there are currently two schemes like this

known to be operating in the London Boroughs of Islington and in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Both are trials of dry recycling collections that the local authorities have launched in partnership

with local New Deal for Communities. In theory, these schemes could also be used for food

waste collections although odours and leakage of liquids would need to be closely monitored

and controlled.

In Islington, as well as Hammersmith and Fulham, residents are provided with single use bags

to store their recycling within the home and transport it to the recycling containers. Caretakers

use a trolley to transport recyclable materials to the ground floor where they load recycling into

large recycling banks ready for collection.

Performance

There is little data and information available on their performance, as they are not yet widely

used in the UK.

From two small trials in two separate London Boroughs, residents recycled an average of

2.52/hh/wk. This is higher than door to door or near entry collections. However as this is not a

wide-scale service it may not be a clear indication of a typical performance.



3.2 SCHEME IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS

This section details collection scheme considerations, in terms of method to be used and

supporting systems / services, should the ACT decide to introduce recycling / food waste

collections in MUDs.

3.2.1 BUILDING TYPES AND ACCESS

When considering collection from MUDs, the type of property, vehicle access and container

space all need attention. Storage and sorting space for recyclables within MUDs is an issue that

is often overlooked but social research conducted by DECC (2008) indicates that this is a major

impediment to the use of recycling services in high density units and should be considered

during the development application under the Planning and Development Act 2007 (in line with

Territory Plan, R76, Section 3.3, 28 January 2012).



The following factors should be considered when designing a door to door MUD recycling scheme for each type of service:

Door to Door Bring Systems Chute Systems Floor by Floor

Residents’ access to property OR communal recycling facility

If MUD is a converted house, or older style property, is there room for doorstep containers. Could these containers cause a trip hazard or block access to fire exits.

If MUD provides sheltered accommodation, accessibility for wheelchairs must be considered.

In sheltered accommodation blocks residents may have physical difficulties that make it difficult for them to carry materials to recycling containers at the ground level. Communications with building managers may lead to a solution, for example a warden or care assistant may transport recycling for residents.

If MUD is a converted house, or older style property, is there room for doorstep containers. Could these containers cause a trip hazard or block access to fire exits.

If MUD provides sheltered accommodation, accessibility for wheelchairs must be considered.

Collection vehicle access

Suitable parking locations for the collection vehicle can be an issue for flats above shops

Privately managed blocks do not always have trade entry or fire access arrangements which may make them difficult for collection crews to access.

Suitable parking locations for the collection vehicle can be an issue for flats above shops.


Solutions may include the requirement for bins to be placed at the kerbside.



Solutions may include the requirement for bins to be placed at the kerbside.



Health & Safety Manual handling of large quantities of moist food waste could pose a health and safety hazard to crews / caretakers. Larger containers on wheels / trolleys could be used where there are lifts available. If there are no lifts time consideration must be given to potential multiple trips to the same floor.

Manual handling of large quantities of moist food waste could pose a health and safety hazard to crews / caretakers. Larger containers on wheels / trolleys could be used where there are lifts available. If there are no lifts time consideration must be given to potential multiple trips to the same floor.




Container space Having appropriate space on the doorstep for recycling containers can be difficult for units in older style / smaller properties and converted houses where corridor space is often limited.

Few MUDs have purpose built recycling areas, unless a new development.

Finding appropriate space for recycling containers can be difficult, in particular for units above shops and converted houses where external space can be limited. Even in high density MUDs, container space may be limited as they may have been designed to contain only a single residual bin .

Finding appropriate space for recycling containers can be difficult for units in older style / smaller properties and converted houses where corridor space is often limited.

Other Most premises that have been converted into flats are unlikely to have an existing chute in the building. Chute schemes are usually easiest to plan into new developments rather than to retrofit into existing buildings. In older blocks of flats chutes are likely to be narrow and prone to blockages. Chute schemes generally require maintenance so are best suited to blocks with a caretaker regularly on site



3.2.2 EQUIPMENT REQUIRED

Equipment that may be required per service is outlined in the table below:


PPE Personal protective equipment for collection crews and/or caretakers.

Personal protective equipment for collection crews and/or caretakers.



Residents Containers

Containers for residents to store and set out materials (this may include kitchen caddies, doorstep bins, liners*).

Containers for residents to store and transport materials.

Containers for residents to store and transport recycling.

Containers for residents to store and transport materials (this may include kitchen caddies, doorstep bins, liners, single use bags or reusable bags).

Bulk Containers Large containers to bulk store materials (if not loaded directly onto a vehicle). Trolley to move materials.

Suitable recycling / food waste collection containers for transportation to communal bin, and collection by crews. Consideration may be given to manual handling of food waste collection containers by the crew as the high moisture content of food waste may make containers heavy. Dependent upon space and access smaller containers could be used.

Recycling containers for the base of the chute.

Recycling containers for each floor of the building Recycling banks to bulk materials at the ground level Trolley to move materials.

Residents Communications

Communication materials for residents such as leaflets informing residents how and why to use the scheme and notes, stickers or letters to communicate if containers are contaminated or set out on the wrong day.

Communication materials for residents such as leaflets / letters informing residents how and why to use the scheme and the location of the collection containers.

Communication materials for residents detailing which chute(s) to use. Signage and paint to communicate which chute should be used for recycling.

Communication materials for residents including notes, stickers or letters to communicate if containers are contaminated or set out on the wrong day. Communication materials for residents (including signage to go on or near the container at each level.

Crew Communications

Information packs for the crew, caretakers and call centre staff







Collection Vehicle

Collection vehicle: new dedicated vehicle, or can existing vehicles be used either by double-shifting or by splitting the vehicle / adding a pod for food waste. To be considered in line with container type for collection.




Other Locks for the door to the chute room to control access to the base of the chute

Mechanical chute systems will require the mechanical addition for the base of the chute and supporting equipment (e.g. electronics for the chute doors, an electrical isolator to ensure that work can take place on the chute without affecting the electricity supply to the rest of the building and lighting for the chute chamber to assist maintenance work)

*See section below for use of liners, pros and cons



The Use of Liners in Food Waste Collections

The provision of liners has been carefully considered and researched in the UK, taking into

account the pros and cons of providing them to residents. Some of the key advantages and

disadvantages of using liners are summarised in the following table.

Pros Cons

Makes the process cleaner for residents

Many residents prefer to use liners

Potentially higher capture rates and yields achieved

Potentially higher participation rates achieved

Collections are easier for crews – food waste doesn’t stick to containers and all food waste is emptied from the container

Collection chambers in vehicles are kept cleaner and chances of spillages /leakages are reduced.

Adds an additional cost to the service, if councils supply them to residents

Can be time consuming to distribute if not done by collection crew

Wastage of liners if distributed inefficiently and to non-participating households.

A few key points from the 19 WRAP Food Waste Trials revealed:

Yields: Of the trials that used liners, yields were slightly higher than those that did not.

Costs: Provision of liners to participating households could cost approximately $6 to $8 per

household per year. Therefore, if free liners are provided at the outset of a scheme, the

introduction of charges is likely to have an adverse effect on the performance of a scheme.

In a survey conducted of two trials, 38% of participants stated that they would not continue to

use the service if a charge for liners was introduced.

Anecdotal evidence from some of the trials suggests a mixed approach is sensible – for

example, supplying a certain number of liners free of charge during the launch of a scheme and

requiring residents to purchase their own liners thereafter.

Food Waste Collection Trials – use of liners for kerbside containers and kitchen caddies, WRAP, 2009



3.2.3 FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION

Throughout the literature and systems reviewed, MUD services for dry recyclables are common

for weekly and fortnightly collection frequencies. Often for fortnightly collections, green waste

tends to be collected on the alternate fortnight. Fortnightly collection frequency is more suitable

for smaller buildings, particularly those where each dwelling has an individual bin kept within

their own property. However for larger buildings, weekly collections of all services tend to

prevent resident confusion, thereby reducing contamination levels, improving participation and

avoiding the likelihood of bins left at kerbside uncollected.

From schemes reviewed, it appears that only a proportion of food waste can be captured in an

organics collection service and this amount is dependent on factors such as collection

frequency, climatic conditions, current recycling rates, cultural food habits, amount of food left in

packaging and a wide range of other variables.

The collective Australian food waste collection programmes of Waverley and Randwick,

Leichhardt, Burnside and Coffs Harbour resulted in diversion rates ranging from 18% to 51%.

Quantities varied considerably from 0.79 to 9.2 kg of food waste per household per week

(kg/hh/week). In general, weekly collection of food waste combined with fortnightly collection of

residual resulted in the highest levels of food waste diversion. The same trend has been

observed in extensive organic waste collection trials in the UK.

For example during 19 food waste trials in England, yields ranged from 2.5 to 4kg/hh/week,

capture rates ranged from 44% to 74%, with participation of 55% to 70%9. Of those trials

conducted in MUDs, participation was significantly less with only 26% to 31% participation, and

yields of 0.42 to 0.54 kg/week from door to door and 0.24 to 0.34 kg/week on the bring system.

There is consistent evidence in Australia and the UK that higher food capture rates tend to be

achieved with weekly food or organics collection and fortnightly residual waste collection

frequencies. Yields also tend to be higher in more affluent areas, corresponding to the higher

generation of food waste by this demographic.

9 Evaluation of Food Waste Trials, WRAP, 2009



3.2.4 ATTITUDES & BEHAVIOUR

A range of social research conducted by Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) NSW

identifies that there are several key barriers that prevent people in MUDs from recycling

correctly10

.

Barrier

Physical Poor or insufficient recycling facilities were a barrier to positive recycling

behaviour.

Behavioural Recycling behaviour was more closely aligned to an individual's

commitment to the issue rather than any external environmental factors.

Lack of Knowledge Many respondents were unable to identify where or how they learnt to

recycle, exactly what to do and why, indicating that there are significant

knowledge gaps and that information disseminated to residents may not

necessarily yield the desired behaviour or outcomes.

Attitudes and Perceptions Recycling over the years has become a routine issue thus viewed as

important but not urgent in relation to other environmental issues such as

climate change and water conservation.

Lack of consistency between recycling systems in different buildings and areas is cause for

residents’ confusion, particularly those who are very transient or those with a culturally and

linguistically diverse (CALD) background. Confusion about using the system is likely to lead to

non-participation or contamination.

Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW 2008 (DECC, now OEH) (Social

Research in MUDs) indicates that perceived ‘Social Norms’ are a very important factor in

resident recycling behaviour. For example, when people perceive that ‘everyone else’ is using a

system correctly then they feel more obligation to do the same. Conversely, when incorrect use

of the system becomes a routine occurrence, it lessens the ‘guilt’ of others when they knowingly

use the system incorrectly.

There continues to be many misconceptions within the community about what can and can’t be

recycled. This appears to be more prominent in the more transient populations of higher density

dwellings. However, DECC (2008) also highlights that there are gaps in knowledge relating to

the reasons for and benefits of recycling. The study also found that increasing understanding in

this area was likely to improve resident responses.

Research regarding ‘Barriers to Recycling’ has been conducted in the UK, and some of the

main issues raised were as follows11

:

Situational barriers include not having adequate containers, a lack of space for

storage, unreliable collections, and residents being unable to get to drop-off sites;

10 Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in MUDs, Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, 2008

11 Barriers to recycling at home, WRAP, 2008



Behaviour, for example not having the space or systems in place to recycle, being too

busy with other preoccupations, difficulties in establishing routines for sorting waste

and remembering to put it out;

Knowing what materials to put in which container, and understanding the basics of

how the scheme works; and

Attitudes and perceptions such as not accepting there is an environmental or other

benefit, being resistant to householder sorting, or not getting a personal motivational

reward from recycling.



3.2.5 COMMUNICATION

National Communications Campaigns have been funded in the UK and NSW to target food

waste. The ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign12

aims to raise awareness about the impact of

food waste and reduce how much 'good' food is wasted. The campaign provides information to

help the public avoid food waste, save time and money and reduce environmental impacts by

planning better, shopping smarter and storing food effectively.

Research has identified the following types of communication as essential and beneficial when

rolling out new waste collections schemes, particularly for food waste:

Communication

Type

Communication Description Examples13

Literature Lots of Graphics; Clear, Concise Text

Introduction leaflet –introduce the new service, when

it will start, as well as the benefits to householders and

the environment. Deliver approximately two weeks

before the delivery of food bins and caddies

Instruction leaflet –leaflet and calendar explaining

how to use the service and when the collections will

take place. Deliver with the food bins and caddies and

colour photos for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

residents.

Caddy sticker –sticker stuck to the kitchen caddy to

act as a permanent reminder of what can be recycled.

Contamination tag – for crews to attach to

contaminated food bins, repeating the things that

could and should not be put in the food waste

collection.

Follow up leaflet – to be sent out after the scheme

has been in operational for a while to provide feedback

and inform householders of progress.

12 http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.nsw.gov.au/ / http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com

13 Photos courtesy of WRAP UK, and Hyder UK

http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/



Communication

Type

Communication Description Examples13

Roadshows Taking the message to the public, creating a buzz

around the new collection scheme so people are

aware of the scheme and why it is happening. This

provides them with the opportunity to ask questions.

Roadshows can be held at shopping centres, public

events, showgrounds etc.

Canvassing /

Doorstepping

Doorstepping is a mechanism that can be used to

raise awareness and communicate a new scheme at

the outset, and / or to target poor performing areas

and high contamination.

This can be labour intensive, but the benefits are

significant. Doorstepping campaigns in the UK

resulted in:

Increase number of calls / visits to website

More complaints (more participation and more

awareness)

10 - 20% increase in participation

10% increase in recycling tonnage

5% increase in contamination (due to increased

number of households using the scheme)

Advertising Dependent upon budget media advertising can be

conducted via TV, radio, bus backs, bill boards etc.

Social Media The use of websites, blogs, text message facilities and

live chat can reach different audiences.



3.2.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Monitoring and evaluation are perceived to be critical to determine scheme progress. Monitoring

and evaluating will give a better understanding of how well recycling / organics, re-use and

waste reduction schemes are working. It can help measure and understand the impact of a

communication campaign. It can also help explain why schemes, initiatives and campaigns

have succeeded or failed. It is due to effective monitoring and evaluation of world-wide schemes

that best practices in waste collection and communications have been identified.

Typical monitoring and evaluation activities are as follows:

Monitoring /

evaluation Type

Monitoring / Evaluation Type Description Examples

Participation

Monitoring

&

Contamination

Monitoring

Claimed participation is often 20% to 30% higher

than actual participation. Therefore it is

recommended to monitor ‘real’ rather than perceived

participation.

The standard protocol for doing this is to monitor

containers / bins placed out for recycling on at least

three consecutive collections (as some residents

may not place materials out each collection due to

low quantities etc).

The results will advise council of where / who to

target with additional communications to increase

participation.

The ability to achieve this with MUDs recycling will

depend upon the system in place.

Contamination monitoring may be conducted at the

same time as participation monitoring by visual

container / bin inspection.

Set-out rate

monitoring

Set out rates can be achieved during a one time visit

only. This will not give you an accurate participation

rate, but it will provide an indication as to how many

households are recycling.

The ability to achieve this with MUDs recycling will

depend upon the system in place.



Monitoring /

evaluation Type

Monitoring / Evaluation Type Description Examples

Compositional

Analysis

Compositional analysis will provide information on

waste generation and composition per round

(average).

Should this be conducted prior to scheme roll out on

the residual bin, then during the scheme on the

residual and food waste bins (and dry recycling bin if

affordable), the organic waste composition and

capture rate will be identified, along with remainder

of organics and recyclables available for capture in

the residuals.

This can inform targeted communications for scheme

improvement.

Attitudinal

Surveying

This is beneficial when conducting a pilot trial.

Surveying residents on the trial area will provide

council with an indication of who is using the

scheme, why / why not they use it, any changes in

purchasing behaviour since the scheme has been

implemented, ease of use of containers / liners,

perceived barriers to using the scheme.

Council can then refine the scheme prior to full roll

out.



3.2.7 ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

When rolling out recycling / organics collections to MUDs, there are also the following issues for

further consideration:

Key stakeholder communication: Establishment of good working relationships

with caretakers / building managers could prove to be fundamental in a scheme’s

success. Building relationships and an understanding of the scheme can take time

and is an investment from technical waste staff, taking them away from their ‘day to

day’ duties.

Route planning: The number of storeys in a building may have a significant impact

on servicing times. Dependent upon method of collection, particularly if door to door

/ per floor collections, the amount of time involved for crews in walking / using lifts in

high rise blocks will need to be factored in to the design of collection rounds.

Health & safety: Manual handling, especially for door to door / per floor collections

where lifts are not available, can pose service design issues. If door to door is

pursued, additional collection times may need to be factored in. Risk assessments

may be necessary, or a pilot trial could be conducted to investigate further.

Communications & education: provision of literature, newsletters, discussions

with residents, and continuous feedback and communication to reinforce the

scheme with e.g. posters and information displayed in communal areas, will remind

residents of the scheme and its correct use.

Container location: in particular for ‘Bring’ systems the careful consideration of

food waste container location, e.g. next to recycling bins and / or residual bins, will

make it easier for residents and encourage participation. The more convenient the

service, the better the participation. It is suggested that food waste containers

located close to the refuse / recycling bins would be convenient for residents.

Collection vehicle access: parking for the collection vehicle will be required, in

particular if door to door / per floor collections. Accessibility, parking space and

health and safety implications associated with leaving the vehicle unattended and

manoeuvring in car parks should be reviewed on a MUD by MUD basis.

Cost implications: the cost implications of introducing different methods and

availability of funds to spend on capital items (bins and vehicles), plus staff costs

and education campaigns, may have a bearing on the scheme choice.

Material capture rates: be aware that MUDs recycling is likely to achieve lower

yield of materials than in single unit dwellings. This may be due to several factors

such as lower overall participation rates, lower convenience of communal systems

for participants and/or lower recycling bin capacities per household.

Visual Amenity: In some residential building complexes, the use of MGBs can

often lead to unsightly presentation, both during storage and on collection day.

Some methods to reduce visual impacts and support tidy presentation include bin

storage rooms and cages, bin stands and bin runners to return bins after collection.

The use of large-capacity recycling containers including bulk hoppers is common

but can lead to problems such as contamination and illegal dumping. Although in

limited use in Australia at present, there are opportunities to use underground and

semi-underground communal collection containers, where only the inlet receptacle

is visible, while the storage capacity is hidden from sight.



Bin Security: The uncontrolled use of bins can pose problems in high density

areas, including gross contamination with garbage, stolen bins which leave

residents without a waste service, or overflowing bins which poses issues for safety,

visual amenity and clean-up costs, Bin security can sometimes be addressed by

appropriate bin placement. Other supporting tools include the use of bins with

constricted ‘bottle-sized’ holes in the lid and gravity locking systems. For new

developments, chute systems are cost-effective alternatives to MGBs and can

sometimes be retrofitted. Although relatively untested in Australia, where storage

space is restricted but vehicle access is good, it may be feasible to completely

replace MGBs with an underground collection container or on-site compactor

system.



3.3 IMPLEMENTATION IN HIGH DENSITY AREAS OF THE ACT

In Outcome Two of its Draft Sustainable Waste Strategy 2010- 2025, the ACT Government

committed to a ‘Full Resource Recovery’ target of diverting over 90% of waste from landfill by

2025. This target was maintained in the final waste strategy which was released 15 December

2011.

For the domestic waste stream, this target is based on the recognition within the draft strategy

that up to 50% of household waste currently sent to landfill is organic material while 15-25% is

recoverable dry recyclables and a further 15-25% is materials with a high energy content that

may be suitable for energy generation. Given that ACT residents already divert a high

proportion of garden waste material from landfill, food waste and dry recyclables can be

considered as higher priorities for further recovery efforts in the medium term. The draft waste

strategy identified key recovery options that included introducing a third collection bin for

source-separated organics and the construction of new infrastructure to sort organic and other

residual waste fractions after collection. Thorough investigation has recently been undertaken to

determine the most effective of these recovery options (Hyder 2011). This report was originally

commissioned as a precursor to the introduction of an organics collection system across the

territory, which is now not expected to occur.

As discussed previously, experience in both Australia and internationally shows that food

capture rates through source-separated food and/or mixed organics collections can vary widely.

Although recovery of less than 20% of total food disposal volumes has occurred in some

Australian trials, there is evidence that when combined with appropriate education and other

support measures, it is possible to achieve household participation rates of up to 90% and

capture approximately 60% of total food waste from the residual waste stream. For example, the

ACT government’s organics collection trial in the suburb of Chifley in 2000-2001 reached a 63%

reduction in the average quantity of food waste in residual bins throughout a 12-month period.

In comparison, a collection trial by Coffs Harbour City Council found a total 50% reduction in the

quantity of food in residual waste bins, while a subset of the trial in 11 Council areas of South

Australia captured approximately 60% of total food in organics bin (outlined in Case Study1). It

should be noted that food waste in the ACT represents 39% of the total residual waste bin, and

total organics (paper, cardboard etc. as well as food waste) is 60%. If 60% of the foodwaste is

removed this, would represent 39% of the total organic component. All three of these trials

achieved high household participation rates, being 90% in the ACT and approximately 80% in

the other two trials.

Organics collection from MUDs has so far been limited in Australia but in general has tended

result in lower participation rates than for single dwelling households. This was not the case,

however, for the ACT trial in Chifley which found that participation by multi-unit complexes was

similar to single dwellings and a similar result of over 60% food capture was also possible for

MUDs in a source-separated organics collection service. It should be noted however that this

trial only included four multi-unit buildings and may not be representative of the average

situation in ACT MUDs. In comparison to source-separated organics collections, a Residual

Waste MRF has the potential to divert over 50% of total materials within the residual waste

stream, with high capture rates possible for some individual materials, such as up to 80% of all

organics and up to 90% of all metals. One of the benefits of this technology is that these results

can be achieved irrespective of the source of the waste, whether from low or high density

dwellings or even from commercial premises. Recovery rates higher than 55-60% of total

material and 80% of organics can be achieved if the facility can produce and sell a Refuse

Derived Fuel (RDF). Markets for RDF have been investigated by Hyder on behalf of the ACT, as

per the Hyder 2011 report.



In late 2011, Hyder Consulting undertook an environmental, financial, and qualitative

assessment of six scenarios to improve the current domestic waste management system within

the ACT. The current 2-bin system was compared against an intensive waste avoidance

education program, the introduction of a third bin for the source-separated collection of either

garden or food and garden organics and the construction of a Residual Waste Materials

Recovery Facility (Residual Waste MRF). The evaluation suggests that the preferred system for

management of domestic waste would be a Residual Waste MRF which could accept and sort

residual waste from the existing garbage stream, allowing additional recovery of dry recyclables

and a separate organic fraction to be composted in an enclosed environment. Hyder’s

assessment estimated that in the next 20 years, despite the capital costs of new infrastructure,

a third bin service for organics would be more expensive per tonne of material collected than a

Residual Waste MRF and would recovery considerably less organics.

This advice helped inform the finalisation of the ACT Waste Management Strategy 2011-2025

(the Strategy) which was released in December 2011. The Strategy ruled out the provision of a

household organic waste collection service and instead proposed the procurement a Residual

Waste MRF. The Hyder (2011) assessment estimated a five year lead time to deliver such a

facility.

In principle, a Residual Waste MRF requires no behaviour change on the part of service users.

However another key consideration is the quality of product generated by the technology. The

compost produced from a Residual Waste MRF is limited by regulation in NSW to use in

forestry, mine site rehabilitation and non-contact cropping systems14

, particularly due to

concerns about the content of glass fines and hazardous substances.

A community education program in combination with improved household hazardous waste

recycling services, could assist in minimising the heavy metal contamination from products such

as as car batteries, fluorescent lights, and electronics, particularly smoke detectors. This would

support the ability of the MRF to cost effectively produce a product which complies with the

requirements of the NSW Government’s General Exemption (granted under Part 6, Clause 51

and 51A of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005) for use of

these composts.

The findings of this study are as relevant to improving the dry recycling system and preventing

undesirable materials (such as recyclables and hazardous items) from entering the residual

waste stream as they are for food waste collection systems.

Improvements to the current dry recycling system for high density households may include a

number of territory-wide initiatives.

There are various opportunities within the ACT to make changes to collection methods for

recyclables in MUDs which can be grouped into the following main systems:

‘Door to door’ collections

‘Bring’ communal services

Chute services

‘Floor by floor’ collections

14 Non-contact agricultural use is defined as application to land where the land is used for the growing of fruit or nut trees

or vines but not where fallen produce is or may be collected off the ground. It does not include application to land where

the land is used for grazing or for any other cropping purpose.



For example, in some buildings where space permits, participation and contamination can be

improved by door-to-door services, providing individual containers instead of communal bins to

improve convenience and encourage a sense of ownership. Alternatively, the provision of

dedicated in-unit recycling crates which are used to transfer recyclables from the household to

the recycling receptacle are shown to encourage recycling participation and reduce

contamination, as discussed in Case Study 4 (Toronto, Canada). In many buildings, communal

waste containers are necessary due to access and storage space restrictions but recycling

capacity could be greatly increased by the use of ‘hidden capacity’ collection containers, in

which all or a proportion of the recyclables storage is underground. Systems for further

investigation, which may be suitable for the ACT, are simple ‘deep collection bins’ such as the

‘Iceberg’ range (supplied by Sulo in Australia) or the ‘Molok’ range (supplied by Northland

Waste, New Zealand). There are also several suppliers of on-site compactor bins which are

suitable for residential applications and increase storage capacity even further, such as the

systems supplied in Australia by BigBelly Solar or Elephant’s Foot Recycling Solutions. For

large building complexes, mechanical chute systems also provide a convenient and cost-

effective collection method for recycling collection and even when a dedicated recycling chute

does not exist, the garbage chute can be fitted with a diverter system to direct recyclables to a

separate container. Inlet receptacles can also be fitted with card-based user control systems to

restrict access to waste disposal, allow pay-by weight charging for some users (e.g. commercial

customers) in mixed-use developments and even to track the source of recycling contamination

in large complexes. Findings of feasibility studies by Melbourne City and City of Sydney

Councils indicate that at this point in time, automated chute collection systems, such as Envac,

are unlikely to be cost-effective in the territory.

This study highlights importantly that improvements to the recovery of recyclables from MUDs in

the ACT should include building-specific considerations such as:

• Household access and convenience

• Collection vehicle access

• Health and safety considerations

• Space requirements for containers

• Cultural and demographic factors

Communications strategies and behaviour-change programs which are based on monitoring

and evaluation are particularly critical for targeting specific reject materials from both the

recycling and residual waste streams. Importantly, there is evidence to suggest that positive

reinforcement strategies to encourage correct waste management practices provide

complementary support to disincentive strategies for incorrect recycling, as shown in Case

Study 3 (Bankstown Council). Furthermore, Case Study 7 (Ascot Vale Public Housing Estate)

demonstrates how effective targeted education programs can be in achieving high recycling

rates, even in high density areas of public housing, where resource recovery is typically low. Of

course, it should be highlighted that in addition to improving the use of the dry recycling system,

suitable alternative collection options and waste prevention programs need to be provided for

the community to also prevent problem reject materials from entering the residual waste stream

at the Residual Waste MRF. These support strategies may include household chemical

collections, battery recycling, real nappy campaigns, product stewardship schemes and material

reuse programs, for example.



3.4 SUMMARY OF COLLECTION METHODS

Method of

Collection

Scheme Advantages Potential Issues Summary

Door to

Door

Usually seen to provide an ‘equal’ service to residents

receiving kerbside collections

It is often easier for residents to recycle than to

dispose of refuse via bulk bins or chutes

Easy to explain to residents

Easy for residents to use – particularly elderly and

disabled residents

Low capital costs

Ability to monitor the performance of particular

households. Households setting out recycling and

contaminating containers can be identified and

communications can be targeted

Can achieve high participation and capture rates

Opportunities for on-site staff to be involved in

recycling (e.g. by removing containers set out on the

wrong day or championing recycling)

Containers need to be set out in corridors, which can cause the

following:

Fire risk can be increased (as containers may be targeted

in arson and can block fire escape routes)

Containers or materials may be used for antisocial activities

(e.g. kicked around or thrown from balconies)

Requesting residents to put containers in the corridors may

contravene management policies of keeping corridors clear

Residents are likely to have limited space within their homes to store

recycling / organics internally between collections. This can be an

issue if recycling is collected only once a week from the doorstep,

and if there are no nearby drop-off sites for use between collections

Manual handling of materials and containers is needed during

collection, particularly if there are no lifts or lifts are out of order.

The impact of missed collections is high and procedures need to be

put in place to cover sickness / absence of collection crews

Relatively high operation costs and potentially low capture

Collection crews may have difficulty accessing buildings

Ongoing co-operation from the manager of the block is needed

Supply of drop-off sites / communal bins may

benefit the system for residents to deposit

recycling / organics when their household bin is full

Having building managers / caretakers on board

can improve the efficiency of a scheme. Some

schemes (in Australia and overseas) use

caretakers, who are regularly on site, to provide

door to door collections and deliver the recycling to

the communal bins on ground floor for collection.

Fire safety inspections have prohibited door to

door collections in a number of older style MUDs

due to potential fire escape blockages / trip

hazards and fire hazard of materials to be

collected. This has been mitigated in some

circumstances by providing floor by floor

collections if waste storage rooms are available.

The alternative is communal bring schemes.



Method of

Collection


Bring Relatively low capital and revenue costs

Can capture larger amounts of material and achieve

higher participation rates in some instances

Can usually be introduced quickly and easily

Can be easy to communicate how to use them to

residents

Residents are able to recycle as often as they wish i.e.

there is no requirement to store recyclables for a week

at a time

Generally lowest capture of any recycling scheme

Generally requires most effort from residents and may be difficult for

some residents to participate e.g. elderly residents or wheelchair

users

Performance varies greatly between sites

The sites likely to capture the most material may be more likely to be

opposed (e.g. because they may be very visible or close to the

building)

Can attract fly tipping and use by commercial users

Contamination may be difficult to identify

The largest expense of a new bring system is often

the cost of new bins for recyclate and / or food.

The addition of liners for the household can

increase participation, but also increase cost to

council.

Any council installing a food waste bring collection

must have clear policies and working practices for

collection and cleansing of sites. This should

include roles and responsibilities especially when

dealing with private land, overspills and response

times. Containers will need regular monitoring and

collections adjusted when necessary. For

example, some councils in Italy implement a twice

weekly food waste collection from MUDs and

households due to the heat.



Method of

Collection


Chute Can be easy to communicate and for residents to use

Potential for systems to be built into new

developments and to introduce schemes in existing

buildings (e.g. dedicated chute schemes in blocks with

more than one chute and fitting of mechanical

additions to existing chutes)

Potential for blockages of chutes to be reduced by

providing residents with small bags for recycling

Revenue and capital costs can be low (for dedicated

and survival sack chute systems)

Lower fire risk than collection schemes where

containers are placed in corridors

Manual handling minimal

Little involvement from caretaker needed

Difficult to identify households participating and / or contaminating

Chute blockages may cause problems such as contamination and

dumping of materials and refuse in corridors next to chute doors

Some types of chute schemes are likely to be unsuitable for food

waste collection as chutes would require frequent and intensive

cleaning

Difficult to amend schemes once chutes are installed

Space required at base of chute for collection containers (and

possibly mechanical equipment)

Most suited to co-mingled recycling

Arrangements may need to be made for residents that do not have

access to chute doors (e.g. households on the ground floor that do

not use communal areas). Residents should not be encouraged to

bring materials to containers under the chute due to the risk of injury

from falling refuse / recycling

Little information available on mechanical chute schemes

Dedicated chute schemes can be difficult to introduce as multiple

chutes side by side are rare in existing buildings

Mechanical chute schemes and building new

chutes can involve high capital costs. This might

have a financial impact on residents that own the

lease to their flat and have to pay for building

works.

The cost per household of improvements

(mechanical chute schemes and new chutes) can

vary significantly depending on the number of

households per building. The best value will be

obtained in blocks with many households and few

chutes.

Chute recycling schemes are easier to include in

new developments than to retrofit in existing

properties.



Method of

Collection


Collections

per floor

Allows residents to easily dispose of their recycling as

often as they need

Containers remain in one location which can reduce

collection times compared to door to door collections

and also reduces the number of containers set out in

corridors

Easy for residents to understand and use and the

profile of recycling remains highly visible

Containers can be located in frequently passed areas

or next to refuse chutes to make recycling as easy as

refuse disposal

There are opportunities for on-site staff to be involved

in recycling (e.g. by removing containers set out on the

wrong day or championing systems)

Capital costs can be relatively low (depending on the

type of container purchased)

The correct location is needed for the containers to reduce risk,

particularly fire risk (e.g. the managing agent may require containers

to be away from stairs or behind a fire door)

This type of scheme is relatively untested and there a lack

information available on how food waste collection schemes may

perform

Containers need to be installed permanently into the corridors or

other internal communal space which may increase fire risk / be

prohibited by building manager.

Manual handing of recyclables is needed during collection,

particularly if there are no lifts or they are regularly out of order.

Collection crews may have difficulty accessing buildings, particularly

private blocks which don’t always have trade entry or fire access

arrangements

Ongoing co-operation from the building manager is needed

The impact of missed collections is high as containers may start to

overflow. Procedures need to be put in place to cover sickness of

collection crews

Clear signage is required at the recycling container

and stickers on the lid of the container are used to

inform residents about what they can recycle

Containers may be bolted to the floor to prevent

them from being moved

Trolleys may be required to transport materials to

the ground floor.

Caretakers may be consulted and agree to collect

the recycling / organics from each floor and deposit

in the communal bin ready for collection. This may

enable more frequent collections of food waste per

floor, and still only one collection per week of the

communal bin.



4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section briefly summarises the findings of the research relating to best practice recycling

and food organics collection systems, highlighting considerations for their implementation in

MUDs. A selection of case studies are also outlined which demonstrate some aspects of the

research findings that may be applicable to implementation in the ACT. This section also

provides a summary of recommendations for the ACT government in improving resource

recovery from MUDs through the current dry recycling system, in light of the recent decision to

construct a Residual Waste MRF rather than introduce a source-separated organics collection

system for households.

4.1 BEST PRACTICE RECYCLING IN MUDS

As per experiences in Australia and overseas, the best practice guidance in relation to organics

and recycling collections from MUDs suggests the following:

Issue to consider Addressing the issues

Scheme Design:

method of

collection

Four main methods of collection to choose from:

1. Door to Door

2. System

3. Chute System

4. Floor by floor

One size does not fit all. It is likely that the ACT will require a mixture of the above

services dependent upon MUD type. New developments may wish to consider

addition of recycling / food waste chutes.

Key

considerations in

choosing a

collection method

Building type: accessibility for residents, crews and vehicles

Equipment: containers, bins, liners, vehicles, crew health and safety equipment all

needs to be factored in. Will new dedicated vehicles be required or can existing

vehicles be used.

Frequency: collection frequency may be determined by container space within the

MUDs. Food waste collections are most often collected weekly.

Communications To gain the best performance and / or to target poor performing areas,

communications are vital and can come in the form of:

Printed Literature: leaflets, posters, stickers

Face to Face: via roadshows, focus groups, community group meetings,

doorstepping

Advertising: via radio, TV, billboards, newspapers

Media: use of websites, blogs, social media

No one communication method will capture all levels of society. A mix of the above

will be required.



Issue to consider Addressing the issues

Monitoring &

Evaluation

This is imperative to manage any scheme. Various methods can be used to target

different information required:

Participation, Contamination & Set-Out: identifying who is participating and

enabling targeted communications to poor performing areas.

Attitudinal Surveying: crucial at pilot trial to identify any issues prior to roll out to

whole population

Compositional Analysis: valuable information on what materials are available for

capture, how much is being generated, captured and what remains. Again, can

provide useful information to enable targeted communications.

4.2 CASE STUDIES

The availability of case studies in Australia is limited in relation to recycling in MUDs and food /

mixed organics waste collections in general. With a reported 10% of local governments in

Australia having implemented organics waste collections, it is believed that further results of

Australian schemes will become apparent in the near future.

Eight case studies have been identified and are provided in Appendix A, These case studies

provide successful examples of collection systems and education programs that have resulted

in increased resource recovery within both the dry recyclables and organics streams, providing

possible strategies that may be adapted and implemented in the ACT. The following case

studies include four from Australia, three from the UK and one from Canada:

1. South Australia – Organics Collection

2. Coffs Harbour, NSW - Organics Collection

3. Bankstown Council, NSW – Recycling Program

4. Toronto, Canada – Recycling Program

5. South Shropshire, UK – Organics Collection

6. Newtownabbey, UK – Organics Collection

7. Ascot Vale Public Housing Estate, VICTORIA – Recycling Program

8. London Borough of Bexleyheath, UK – Recycling Program



4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

A parallel study has been undertaken by Hyder Consulting on behalf of the ACT government

which indicates that a source-separated organics collection for households is not the most

feasible option to increase resource recovery in the ACT. In December 2011, the ACT

government announced that the existing two-bin waste system for households would be

maintained and a new Residual Waste MRF will be constructed, which is expected to be

operational within 5 years.

As a result, the recommendations of this final report relate only to improving dry recycling

systems in MUDs and therefore information within the report related to organics collection

systems is considered as being for information only.

The following infrastructure improvements, design considerations and communication strategies

for MUD recycling systems could be implemented within the ACT, in line with the introduction of

a new Residual Waste MRF:

In-unit recycling crates provided for households to transfer recyclables in ‘Bring’

communal collection systems

Where possible in new developments, installation of dedicated chute systems with

sufficient basement storage and vehicle access

Where possible, support retrofitting of existing single chute systems with recycling

diverters to allow convenient co-collection of garbage and recycling

Support the installation of access control systems where gross contamination is an

issue (e.g. specialised MGB lids to restrict material types, gravity-controlled bin

locks, card-readers for bin storage areas or chute inlet points etc.)

Support or fund installation of new waste infrastructure technology, such as

containers with underground or hidden storage capacity (e.g. Sulo Iceberg, Molok

bins, Bigbelly Solar bins etc.)

Support floor-by-floor recycling collection systems in large multi-storey buildings

through infrastructure funding assistance and communication strategies for Strata

Managers and building maintenance companies

Door-to-door recycling collections involve greater manual handling requirements

and safety issues, so should generally be considered only when there is no

communal storage area for recycling bins

Positive reinforcement of good recycling practices in addition to disincentives for

incorrect recycling practices (see Case Study 3 and 4)

Engagement activities for residents of building complexes that are targeted and

appropriate to the specific audience, including door-knocking, workshops and social

events.

This study concludes that there is no one-size-fits all approach to recycling systems for high-

density dwellings due not only to the wide diversity of building infrastructure (including number

of dwellings, storage space and accessibility), but just as importantly due to the diversity of the

communities living within these buildings. The research findings and case studies suggest that

new strategies should always be tested on a smaller scale before full implementation and be

subject to thorough ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure that approaches are effective

in the long term.



APPENDIX A

CASE STUDIES



CASE STUDY 1: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

‘Valuing our food waste’: South Australia’s Household Food Waste Recycling Pilot 2010

Overview

Zero Waste SA coordinated a 12 month household food waste collection pilot which was completed in early

2010. It was the largest trial of its kind in Australia and involved 10 local councils trialling three different

collection system configurations as part of the kerbside garden organics service across 17,000 households.

A total of 589 tonnes of food waste was collected throughout the period with an average yield of 1.8kg of

food per household per week in the most effective system trialled. During the pilot, total diversion rates from

landfill in areas with fortnightly residual waste collection were 59.7% compared to 55.6% in areas with weekly

residual collection.

Objectives This pilot project was designed to identify the key factors within a residential collection system that maximise the diversion of food waste from landfill. The main objectives of the trial were to:

Test the co-collection of food waste as part of an existing fortnightly garden organics collection

Assess response to a fortnightly residual waste collection compared to a weekly collection

Assess the effectiveness of a lined, ventilated kitchen bench-top collection system (bio basket with biodegradable bags) compared to an unlined, unventilated container (plastic kitchen caddy)

Methods

Key elements of the pilot food waste collection included:

Collaboration between Zero Waste SA, 10 Local Councils in South Australia (six metropolitan and

four regional) and several waste collection companies

Benchmark waste audit of 1130 households was conducted in 2009

Pilot collections were conducted over 12 months between 2009 and 2010

In total approximately 17,000 households participated

Range of participants was intended to be representative of the demographic across South Australia

Comparison of two in-kitchen systems - participants provided (at no cost) with either an enclosed

kitchen caddy or ventilated Bio Basket with biodegradable liners for the collection of food waste in

the home

Food and garden organics were co-collected weekly in 240L MGBs in most LGAs

Organics was commercially processed through open windrow composting

Tested collection of residual waste bins was reduced from weekly to fortnightly in parts of each LGA

Targeted education materials included a multi-lingual brochure, stickers for kitchen receptacles and

bins and collection calendars

Research and evaluation included focus groups, telephone surveys, door-to-door interviews,

kerbside waste audits and visual bin inspections

Results

A total of 589 tonnes of food waste was collected for processing during the 12 months of the pilot, which is

equivalent to 60 tonnes C02-e avoided. The average recovery rate of food waste was greater for participants

using the Bio Basket (with 1.3 kg per week or 28% of total household food waste diverted from landfill)

compared to those using the unlined kitchen caddy (with only 0.38 kg per week or 9% of total household

food waste diverted from landfill). The average recovery rate of food waste was higher (with 1.86 kg per

week or 54.5%of total household food waste diverted from landfill) for participants using the Bio Basket who

additionally had their residual waste collection reduced to fortnightly.

The highest average food waste recovery rate achieved in a collection area was 4.3 kg per week or 74% of

the total household food waste. This area was utilising the Biobasket system with weekly organics collection

and fortnightly residual collection. Feedback from participants found that 64% were supportive of reduced

frequency of residual waste collection. An overall household participation rate of 81% in the pilot collection

areas was reported and the majority of those who did not participate at all reported that they were already

composting at home. The most common reasons reported for households under-utilising the food waste



collection system was the issue of flies and odour. Contamination rates were very low in all areas throughout

the collection period and remained well below 1% of the total organics bin.

Conclusions

This large pilot project demonstrates a successful model for the implementation of a combined food and

garden organics collection. The results indicate that households using an aerated kitchen receptacle (with

liner bags) achieve a greater food waste diversion rate than households using a standard kitchen caddy. In

addition, a fortnightly collection of residual waste supports improved diversion of food waste in a weekly

organics collection service, although the reduced collection frequency was undesirable for at least a third of

participants. Evaluation clearly indicated that the effectiveness of education materials was a major factor in

the rate of food waste recovery. An unintended outcome was that the targeted education program also

improved participant use of the other waste stream collections and understanding of waste issues in general.



CASE STUDY 2: COFFS HARBOUR, NSW

Coffs Harbour City Council - Domestic Waste Trial

Summary

Coffs Harbour City Council conducted a food waste collection trial in both single and multi-unit dwellings in

early 2004 over a 12 week period to compare the results of two bin sizes and collection frequencies in

addition to three different kitchen organics transfer systems. Results for multi-unit dwellings indicated,

particularly where space is limited, that shared 240L MGBs for organics collected weekly with shared 240L

MGBs for residual waste collected fortnightly is the most appropriate configuration. Use of kitchen

receptacles lined with newspaper was found to be more successful, and structures for contamination control

and collection including a caretaker and bin runners was strongly recommended.

Objectives:

The objective of the trial was to determine the most successful collection system for domestic organics

recovery to achieve maximum diversion from landfill.

Methods:

The trial systems tested and compared the following elements in different areas to a control area:

240L versus 140L MGBs for organics (food and garden)

240L versus 140L MGBs for residual waste

Weekly organics collection versus fortnightly organics collection

Weekly residual collection (with fortnightly organics) versus fortnightly residual (with weekly

organics)

Use of kitchen organics bins (Bio-bins) either unlined with direct transfer versus biodegradable bag

liners versus newspaper lining

Effect of education on quality and quantity of organic waste separation

The sharing of bins among residents for various configurations and service arrangements

Results:

Overall there was approximately a 50% reduction in total organics and recyclables in the residual waste

stream at the end of the trial with an average food waste yield of 9.77L per household per week in the

organics stream. The participation rate for multi-unit dwellings was lower than for single dwellings.

Contamination rate at the end of the trial was 5.9%.

The highest food capture rates were found in areas where Bio-bins were lined with newspaper, however the

larger and thicker biodegradable liners also appeared to facilitate high food capture rates, and these results

were confirmed by participant surveys. The use of unlined kitchen bins was shown to be more likely to lead

to pests, odours and reduced participation in the system.

For Multi-unit Dwellings, it was found that where an individual dwelling has space for storage of bins on the

property and placement of bins at the kerb, then it should be treated as a single dwelling with individual bins

of suitable capacity. For higher densities and where space is limited:

A purpose-built bin storage area should be provided for shared organics with adequate access for all

residents and service providers

Organics bins should be isolated from heavy-lidded bulk bins where they occur to reduce

contamination

A structure should be in place to ensure that residents or a caretaker of the property bears

responsibility for contamination issues and presentation of bins

Where required, a bin-runner service is provided to ensure collection



Conclusions:

The majority of trial participants expressed a preference for the trial waste system to the current waste

system and were satisfied with a fortnightly residual waste collection when combined with weekly organics

collection. Education was shown to be a critical factor in the effectiveness of source separation of organics.

The trial also resulted in improved recycling rates and decreased contamination across all three the waste

streams which was attributed to the effect of additional education.



CASE STUDY 3: BANKSTOWN, NSW

Bankstown City Council – ‘Recycle Right!’ Contamination Reduction Trial

Summary

Bankstown Council, with a population of 186,000 people and 32% in high density dwellings, has had

recycling contamination rates as high as 30% in some areas even after 20 years of experience with kerbside

recycling collection. A recent active research trial has systematically tested and compared the effectiveness

of several resources and strategies in both single and multi-unit dwellings throughout the culturally diverse

community. The trial has provided an evidence base for the Councils new approach to recycling education

and contamination reduction procedures for both single and multi-unit dwellings.

Objectives

The overall education campaign aims to reduce recycling contamination rates to below 10% by 2013. The

‘strategy testing’ component of the campaign aimed to identify the most effective contamination reduction

strategies to be implemented across the community in order to achieve the reduced contamination target.

Methods

The Council conducted research on experiences elsewhere and explored a range of behaviour-change

approaches including community-based social marketing (CBSM) and other theories based on behavioural

psychology.

Based on this research and community consultation sessions, a set of nine different strategies were

developed for testing in addition to a new campaign brand, campaign message and several new education

resources. The strategies were developed to target multi-unit dwellings, single dwellings or both audiences

and each strategy was then tested and measured for a 3-month period in representative sample areas.

Results were gathered through regular visual bin inspections on collection days.

The nine strategies were designed to address a set of key principles identified by the research. These

principles included overcoming specific barriers to correct recycling behaviour which are outlined in social

research by the Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, improving understanding of the reasons for

recycling, providing positive reinforcement, portraying correct recycling as a social norm and requesting

small personal commitments from individuals. The following table outlines the strategies tested.

Strategy Name Strategy Components

Personal Feedback Placement of ‘Well Done’ or ‘Oh No’ themed postcard in all letterboxes after bin

inspection

Flag and Tag Placement of ‘Well Done’ or ‘Oh No’ themed tag on bin handle after bin inspection

Door Hanger Placement of ‘Well Done’ or ‘Oh No’ themed door hanger on all unit doors after

bin inspection

Feedback by Poster Installation of ‘Well Done’ or ‘Oh No’ and How-to-Recycle poster in recycling area

Changing Recycling Bin Lids Replacement of all recycling bins to include lids with a constricted square hole to

fit un-bagged individual recyclable containers



Strategy Name Strategy Components

‘I Pledge’ Personal visit to residents to request signing of a ‘pledge’ to recycle correctly

Delivery of ‘Well Done’ or ‘Oh No’ postcards or door hangers to all residents

Installation of Well Done’ or ‘Oh No’ and How-to-Recycle poster in recycling area

Recycling Tub Personal delivery of a small recycling tub to each dwelling for indoor use and

transfer of un-bagged recyclables to shared MGBs or bulk bins

Bulk Recycling Bin Replacement of 240L yellow-lid MGBs with 1100L bulk recycling bins

Delivery of ‘Well Done’ or ‘Oh No’ door hanger or postcards to all residents

Door knocking Personal visit to residents to provide information and advice after bin inspection

Delivery of ‘Well done’ or ‘Oh No’ door hanger or postcard if resident not home

Results

The most effective strategies in reducing overall recycling contamination in MUDs were installation of

feedback posters and the ‘I Pledge’ agreement. The provision of indoor recycling tubs was also relatively

effective. Bin lid replacement was very effective in reducing general contamination but surprisingly less

effective in preventing plastic bags from entering recycling bins.

The use of door hangers was somewhat effective for small unit complexes but not for larger complexes and

the placement of postcards in letterboxes was shown to be not at all effective for multi-unit dwellings. As

expected, the replacement of recycling MGBs with larger bulk recycling bins led to a significant increase in

recycling contamination.

Conclusions

The Bankstown Council trial demonstrates that supporting infrastructure and education tools which promote

social norms, provide positive reinforcement of correct recycling and specifically identify incorrect recycling

behaviour are very effective in reducing recycling contamination in multi-unit dwellings. The trial also

suggests that individuals who make a written commitment in the form of a pledge are also more likely to

recycle correctly, which may prove to be a useful education tool during public events such as workshops.



CASE STUDY 4: TORONTO, CANADA

City of Toronto – Recycling Programs for Multi-Unit Dwellings

Summary

Close to half of Toronto’s 2.5 million residents live in multi-unit dwellings, apartments, condominiums, and

some types of townhouses. The City of Toronto has implemented a pilot kerbside organics collection

specifically for large multi-unit dwelling complexes and demonstrated that it is easy for residents to use and

results in high participation rates.

Objectives

At present, the ‘Green Bin Program’ food waste collection service has been rolled out to approximately

510,000 single dwellings in City of Toronto. With a 90% participation rate, the collection service has

contributed to a city-wide diversion rate of 58%. The recent pilot program aimed to determine whether a

similar collection system is viable for multi-unit dwellings and capable of achieving the 70% diversion from

landfill goal.

Methods

The pilot organics collection involved 30 large multi-unit dwelling complexes including apartments,

condominiums and housing cooperatives and tested several methods of collecting organics.

In chosen collection system, residents were provided with an enclosed 10 litre kitchen container with a

heavy-duty handle and a hanging bracket to fit under the kitchen sink. The service accepted all food

products (including meat and bones), animal wastes, soiled paper packaging, towels and plates, plants, soil,

nappies and sanitary pads. Residents were also allowed to use polyethylene bags (shopping bags) to line

the kitchen containers and instructed to place the entire bag in the collection bins, provided that they were

only loosely tied. This is also the case with the existing collection service for single dwellings.

Each building complex was supplied with communal 140L green MGBs or larger bulk bins, depending on the

storage space and number of dwellings. Two large buildings with a three-stream chute sorting system for

waste were also included in the trial. Bins were collected weekly as part of the existing kerbside collection

service. The material collected was processed biologically along with the existing organics and garden waste

streams through anaerobic digestion. Plastic bags and large items of contamination were extracted

mechanically during the pre-sorting process.

Conclusion

The pilot program was very successful in diverting organic material from the waste stream, although

participation rates were not as high as for single dwellings. Toronto City plans to implement a city-wide

organics collection for all multi-unit residential dwellings as soon as possible, based on availability of

organics processing capacity.

The Green Bin program complements the ‘In-Unit Recycling Container’ program which provides rigid

recycling caddies or soft-shell recycling bags as a free resource to residential building managers for

distribution to residents. The recycling containers or bags are designed to improve the convenience of

sorting and transferring recyclables to communal recycling bins and have improved the diversion of waste in

multi-unit dwellings. Through these programs the city is expected to easily reach its waste diversion target of

70%.



CASE STUDY 5: SOUTH SHROPSHIRE, UK

South Shropshire Food Waste Collection Trial

Summary

During South Shropshire District Council carried out a food waste collection trial with 5,547 properties in

2007. The trial was among the most successful of a number of similar trials carried out in the UK at this time.

The trial combined a weekly organics collection with alternate fortnightly residual waste collection. A source

separated food waste collection has since been extended across the entire council area and achieved an

average food capture rate of 73% by 2008.

Method

Prior to the trial, residents were able to place limited types of food waste out fortnightly in the ‘green’ MGB

mixed with garden. During the trial, residents were provided with a 10 L kitchen caddy and a small blue 25L

collection container and 16 micron biodegradable liner bags. The 25L container was placed directly at the

kerb and collection was carried out through a ‘slave bin’ system, where several containers were manually

emptied into a larger ‘slave bin’ which was only transferred back to the collection vehicle when full.

Council delivered 1 roll of 26 liners during roll-out and householders obtained further liners by leaving a note on their container or by calling the local authority call centre. Replacement liners were kept on the collection vehicle and delivered by the crew. The source-separated food waste processed along with the existing garden waste stream at a local anaerobic digestion facility.

Results

The 25L caddies ensured a single collection container for each household which could be collected directly

in front of each property, even in areas of higher density dwellings or narrow streets.

The trial collection achieved a 70% participation rate and the current collection service has achieved a 62%

participation rate. In the current service area, the average yield of food waste per household is 3.2 kg

although this amount is as high as 4.7kg in one collection area. Approximately 73% of all food waste in the

household waste stream is captured.

The system was promoted to the householders through leaflets and the local media and surveys were

conducted through the trial. Surveys indicated that 98% of residents were satisfied with the biodegradable

liners and less than 1% found problems due to leakage. Households used on average 2-3 kitchen caddy

liners per week although there was high variability between areas and households.

Low levels of contamination have been reported and in particular there are very few problems from the use

of unsuitable liners. 83% of participants were happy with the change to fortnightly residual collection and

weekly organics collection while 80% found the weekly source-separated organics collection easier to use

than the previous mixed food and garden service.

Conclusion The trial collection was so successful that the Council extended the collection to the entire district as a weekly service. An extremely high food capture rate and good participation rate has significantly increased the diversion of organics in the Council area. The high food capture rate has also improved the operation of the local anaerobic digestion facility which was designed to process a 50:50 mixture of food and garden waste.



CASE STUDY 6: NEWTOWNABBEY, UK

Newtownabbey Food Waste Collection Trial

Summary

The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP UK) supported food waste collection trials within 19

council areas in 2007/08. Newtownabbey was chosen as a trial area due to its proportion of communal flats /

high rise properties. The trial was conducted in an urban area with high and low rise multi-unit dwellings with

a few properties in semi-rural locations. In total there were six high rise blocks in the trial area.

Objectives

The objective of the food waste trials was to gauge how food waste collection schemes could work in both

urban and rural areas, and among different types of housing (including flats) and communities.

Methods

The householders were supplied with a 7 litre kitchen caddy, a 25 litre external container and a roll of liners.

Collections from the six high-rise blocks took the form of door to door collections with crews using slave

bins (tipping food waste containers into a wheeled bin). Crews started collections from the top of each

building and worked their way down. The crews carried out a double sweep of the high rise flats to

minimise any missed collections.

A different collection method for the low rise / individual properties was implemented, with a door to door

service operated where access to individual residences was relatively easy. Other flats had a communal

collection point, the use of which was promoted through posters on-site and clear instructions to the crews

not to collect anything that was not presented at the communal collection point.

Additional liners were supplied to residents who left a note on the collection container or by calling the

Council’s call centre. The liners were usually delivered within 2 to 3 days. Newtownabbey did not carry out

any blanket drops of liners.

Communications

In the run-up to the launch of the trial a canvasser was employed to carry out doorstepping visits. The

canvasser worked flexible hours in order to maximise the likelihood of visiting when residents were at home

and all properties in the trial areas were ‘door-knocked’. Once the trials were up and running, the canvasser

carried out targeted doorstepping to deal with specific issues, such as contamination or residents not using

communal collection points.

Council officers ensured that housing associations and landlords were informed about the scheme. Posters

were displayed in the communal areas of flats, in particular providing clear information about collection points

for food.

Details about the food waste trials were included in recycling presentations at schools and residents

associations. An educational vehicle was available to provide general advice about recycling, including

details of the food waste trial, although use of this option was fairly low. Press releases were issued reporting

on progress with the food waste trial and full details of the scheme were provided on the Council’s website.



Leaflet promoting food waste trial collections to residents in Newtownabbey

Results

The collection yields and participation rates for the MUDs were relatively low compared to kerbside

services to Single Unit Dwellings. Several anecdotal factors were highlighted throughout the trials that

could help explain this:

The authorities in Newtownabbey carried out door step collections of food waste while, in the

majority of cases, refuse is deposited in communal containers within external bin storage areas.

This meant residents had to keep their food waste containers within the confines of their properties

over the course of the week whereas they are used to disposing of refuse at their convenience.

Newtownabbey worked alongside landlords and housing bodies to ensure access to the flats by

the crews was not inhibited and that key fobs / access codes were obtained in advance. However

in practice access still proved problematic on occasions, especially when crews were carrying out

multiple trips into blocks. The crews often had to rely on tradesmen’s buttons or wait for residents

to give them access. Additionally some landlords only provided access for collection crews to car

park areas, and not to individual blocks.

Conclusions

The following conclusions were reported from the trials:

Establishment of good working relationships with landlords / management agents is essential to

reduce the risk of access problems to communal collection points.

The number of storeys in a building has a significant impact on servicing times, as does the amount

of time involved in walking / using lifts in high rise blocks

Manual handling, especially for door to door collections and where lifts are not available in blocks,

and other health and safety considerations need appropriate assessment.

Continual communications and reinforcement of the scheme is necessary with posters and information

displayed in communal areas.

Consider collection vehicle parking availability whilst collections are being carried out



Case Study 7: ASCOT VALE, VICTORIA

Ascot Vale Public Housing Estate

Summary

In 2009, the Wingate Community Centre conducted a household recycling scheme in the Ascot Vale Public Housing Estate in collaboration with Moonee Valley Council, Melbourne Waste Management Group, the local Office of Housing and Sustainability Victoria. The project primarily involved community development and education initiatives, particularly focused on engaging residents from many cultural backgrounds with varying competency in English. The outcome of the project was the introduction of a successful dry recycling collection scheme within the housing estate. Objectives

The main objectives of the education program was to improve understanding about the environmental need for recycling, waste minimisation and informed consumer choices which would support the establishment and effectiveness of a recycling scheme for households of the Housing Estate. Method

The project was designed to establish an education strategy, test education materials and identify successful engagement strategies to support the successful re-introduction of recycling to the estate. The trial involved three housing blocks within the public housing estate. Participating residents were from 15 different countries; spoke over 10 different languages and adults ranged in age from 17 to 81 years. The trial methodology included:

Literature review

Resident Engagement Strategy

Education and communications strategy and materials

Trial of multiple approaches to infrastructure and bin placement

Celebrating the successes of the community and the project

Continuous Improvement and Evaluation A wide range of educational activities were undertaken including a program launch day, a festival, field trips to a MRF and sustainability centre, and a science day. Communications methods included brochures, posters, ‘walkabouts’ or doorknocks, a street party, a recycling bin ‘sound-system’, workshops, community forums and meetings and bilingual information and activities. Recycling infrastructure included bin stands for the new recycling MGBs and in-unit recycling crates for households. Ongoing evaluation of the project ensured that education was relevant and was instrumental in reducing contamination rates in recycling bins. Visual audits were undertaken on a weekly basis and were supported by resident surveys, informal and formal community discussions and observations. Results

Resource recovery by residents of the Housing Estate increased dramatically as a result of the program. The presence of recyclables within the garbage stream dropped from 25% to 3.9% by the end of the trial, with these materials being diverted to the recycling bins. The average estimated contamination rate for recycling bins on the trial site was initially very low, although increased slightly to 6.6% which is comparable to the rest of the Council area. The majority of contamination was due to bagged recyclables. The multitude of educational and social activities also leads to a range of other environmental and social outcomes for the economically-disadvantaged target audience. Conclusion

This project demonstrates a good practice approach to the roll-out of recycling infrastructure, supported by well-planned and audience-appropriate education. This trial shows that even in a high-density and low socio-economic community that is traditionally very difficult to engage in recycling, it is possible to achieve high resource recovery and low contamination rates.



Case Study 8: LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY, UK

London Borough of Bexley, Improving Recycling in High Rise Flats

Summary

Between 2006 and 2008, the London Borough of Bexley undertook an intensive communications campaign to overcome recycling problems in blocks of flats. The project involved research to identify the key barriers to successful recycling for the target audiences. The program lead to effective strategies to overcome these barriers and improved the rate of resource recovery in the Borough.

Objectives

The program was initiated on the recognition that high-rise flats had a much lower rate of recycling than low-

rise accommodation. Social research showed that the transiency of the population, language and cultural

barriers, limited knowledge about recycling services, lower convenience of recycling compared to residual

waste disposal and a history of low-quality written communication methods used by Council were major

factors in preventing effective recycling in areas of high density. A comprehensive communications campaign

was developed to both increase participation in recycling and reduce recycling contamination.

Methods

The first stage of the project involved research into the problem, consisting of:

‘Committed Recycler Surveys’ to gauge attitudes, behaviours, perceived barriers

Visual assessments of communal recycling bin usage and volume

Focus groups to identify recycling barriers, highlight relevant communication channels, and test

messages and new resources

The 2-year communications campaign implemented a range of activities and new resources, including:

Development & testing of new targeted messages;

Development of a high-rise recycling guide;

Incorporation of strong, well-tested graphic elements into all communications;

Translation of all campaign material for target communities;

Development of map signage for recycling services;

Installation of new, more convenient facilities within estates of high-rise flats;

Door-to-door canvassing, based on a ‘conversation guide’ which incorporated issues highlighted in

research (brief summaries of conversations also recorded).

Results

The 2-year program led to lower contamination of communal recycling bins and a modest 3.5% increase in

the total dry recycling rate, with a higher recovery rate for some materials such as paper and cardboard,

which increased by 20%. However, the most significant result was a major decrease in the overall disposal of

residual waste within the target area, which dropped by 108kg per household per year. The decrease in

waste generation was attributed to a general improvement in the environmental awareness of residents,

leading to improved purchasing habits and the handling of resources, which was reflected in attitudinal

surveys. During the campaign, recycling promoters spoke to 5,380 residents, which provided direct two-way

communication with the audience that simultaneously served as ongoing program monitoring and evaluation.

Conclusions

At a total cost over two years of less than £50,000, this program demonstrates a cost-effective approach to

increasing resident engagement in recycling services and supporting environmental purchasing behaviour.

Comprehensive research and evaluation and the use of personal contact through door-to-door canvassing,

in combination with well-tested and targeted supporting resources, were crucial in the program’s success.



APPENDIX B

GLOSSARY



GLOSSARY

SOD Single Occupancy Dwelling

MUD Multi-Unit Dwelling

Food waste

capture rate

The amount of food captured in a dedicated organics collection as a proportion of

the total amount of food in all waste streams, including landfill

Food waste yield The amount or tonnage of food waste collected in a dedicated organics collection,

usually measured as kg of food waste per household per week



APPENDIX C

REFERENCES



REFERENCES

Title Author Date

Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in

Multi-unit Dwellings: case studies

Department of Environment, Climate

Change and Water NSW

2011

Industry Edge Report WME 2011

Recycling collections from flats Waste and Resources Action Programme 2011

Flats recycling service implementation plan Waste and Resources Action Programme 2011

Green Bin Pilot Program for Multi-Units City of Toronto 2011

Progress Report June 2011: Contamination

Reduction Campaign

Bankstown City Council 2011

Guide to Best Practice for Waste Management in

Multi-unit Developments

Sustainability Victoria 2010

Food Waste Collection Guidance Waste and Resources Action Programme 2009

Evaluation of Food Waste Trials Waste and Resources Action Programme 2009

Food Waste Collection Trials – use of liners for

kerbside containers and kitchen caddies

Waste and Resources Action Programme 2009

Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in

Multi-unit Dwellings

Department of Environment and Climate

Change NSW

2008

Barriers to recycling at home Waste and Resources Action Programme 2008

Food Waste Collection Trials: weekly collections of

food waste operating alongside alternate weekly

collections of refuse

Waste and Resources Action Programme 2008

Biocycle South Shropshire: Biowaste Digester

Demonstration Project

DEFRA 2008

London Boroughs Flats and Estates Recycling Trials Waste and Resources Action Programme 2007/08

Recycling capacity requirements for block of flats Waste and Resources Action Programme 2007

Multi Occupancy Property Recycling Feasibility

Project

Scottish Executive 2006

Recycling for Flats DEFRA 2006

Domestic Waste Trials Coffs Harbour City Council 2004

Recycling in High Density Residential Buildings

Documents

Transcript of Recycling in High Density Residential Buildings