IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v54y2009i1p9-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation of four key methods for monitoring household waste prevention campaigns in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Read, Mike
  • Gregory, Marten K.
  • Phillips, Paul S.

Abstract

Household waste prevention in England has been recognised in national strategy as a key component for future sustainable practice. To support the policy agenda, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in England has funded an extensive programme of fundamental research in the area. The specific research aim reported on here, in this Defra funded project, was to trial and assess methods for monitoring and evaluating approaches detailed in the National Resource and Waste Forum (NRWF)’s Household Waste Prevention Toolkit. The methods that formed the basis for the four research Objectives for the project were: using pilot and control areas (core Objective), tracking waste arisings, measuring specific activities and declared awareness and behaviour surveys. A primary objective of this research was to quantify the direct waste tonnage impacts of implementing a targeted household waste campaign in Dorset County, UK. A key performance indicator chosen for this assessment was the weight of waste collected at the kerbside from households. In an area where a waste prevention campaign is well planned and implemented then reductions in household waste arisings in pilot areas can be in the region of 2% per annum. This method for monitoring can be used, in the hands of an expert project team, to communicate to the public the direct benefits of waste prevention. It was found that there are a wide range of factors that need to be taken into account in the UK, and that these had hitherto been given little prominence, such as careful matching of pilot and control areas – this proved problematical in this research. However, a range of techniques used to support the methods, e.g. doorstepping surveys and focus groups could not show clear attributable waste prevention impacts but their findings could be used to direct new future messages to the public. The most successful and measurable campaign activities that were revealed by evaluation were: mail preference registrations, Home composting and doorstepping. An expert evaluation of all major methods found that no clear preference was revealed as to which were the most useful. None of the methods were judged very poor neither very good, all had major issues about their use. Tracking waste arisings and focus groups were assessed to be the best techniques in terms of input effort to output value. It is likely that waste prevention teams for household waste will need very careful training in the cost-effective use of the NRWF Toolkit before they are competent to apply it to a given place; the issues are more complex than were first thought.

Suggested Citation

  • Read, Mike & Gregory, Marten K. & Phillips, Paul S., 2009. "An evaluation of four key methods for monitoring household waste prevention campaigns in the UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 9-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:54:y:2009:i:1:p:9-20
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.05.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344909001268
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.05.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim Cooper, 2005. "Slower Consumption Reflections on Product Life Spans and the “Throwaway Society”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 9(1‐2), pages 51-67, January.
    2. Peter Tucker & David Speirs, 2003. "Attitudes and Behavioural Change in Household Waste Management Behaviours," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 289-307.
    3. Shaw, Peter J., 2008. "Nearest neighbour effects in kerbside household waste recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 775-784.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Victoria Norton & Stella Lignou & Omobolanle O. Oloyede & Geraldine Vásquez & Paulina Anguiano Arreola & Niki Alexi, 2024. "Exploring Food Waste from a Segmentation and Intervention Perspective—What Design Cues Matter? A Narrative Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Cole, Christine & Osmani, Mohamed & Quddus, Mohammed & Wheatley, Andrew & Kay, Kath, 2014. "Towards a Zero Waste Strategy for an English Local Authority," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 64-75.
    3. Luka Oreskovic & Rajat Gupta, 2022. "Enabling Sustainable Lifestyles in New Urban Areas: Evaluation of an Eco-Development Case Study in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tsiliyannis, Christos Aristeides, 2015. "Sustainability by cyclic manufacturing: Assessment of resource preservation under uncertain growth and returns," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 155-170.
    2. Jungell-Michelsson, Jessica & Heikkurinen, Pasi, 2022. "Sufficiency: A systematic literature review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Sezgin Çağlar Aksezer, 2023. "Sustainability via Extended Warranty Contracts: Design for a Consumer Electronics Retailer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Marcelo Vinhal Nepomuceno & Michel Laroche, 2017. "When Materialists Intend to Resist Consumption: The Moderating Role of Self-Control and Long-Term Orientation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 467-483, July.
    5. Ben Bridgens & Kersty Hobson & Debra Lilley & Jacquetta Lee & Janet L. Scott & Garrath T. Wilson, 2019. "Closing the Loop on E‐waste: A Multidisciplinary Perspective," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(1), pages 169-181, February.
    6. Jouzi, Fatemeh & Levänen, Jarkko & Mikkilä, Mirja & Linnanen, Lassi, 2024. "To spend or to avoid? A critical review on the role of money in aiming for sufficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    7. Nnorom, I.C. & Osibanjo, O., 2008. "Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices and legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 843-858.
    8. Torsten Hummen & Stefanie Hellweg & Ramin Roshandel, 2023. "Optimizing Lifespan of Circular Products: A Generic Dynamic Programming Approach for Energy-Using Products," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-27, September.
    9. Truttmann, Nina & Rechberger, Helmut, 2006. "Contribution to resource conservation by reuse of electrical and electronic household appliances," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 249-262.
    10. Erik G. Hansen & Ferdinand Revellio, 2020. "Circular value creation architectures: Make, ally, buy, or laissez‐faire," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(6), pages 1250-1273, December.
    11. Kua, H.W. & Wong, S.E., 2012. "Lessons for integrated household energy conservation policies from an intervention study in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 49-56.
    12. Lyas, Joanne K. & Shaw, Peter J. & van Vugt, Mark, 2005. "Kerbside recycling in the London Borough of Havering: progress and priorities," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-17.
    13. Elena Cristina Rada & Chiara Bresciani & Eleonora Girelli & Marco Ragazzi & Marco Schiavon & Vincenzo Torretta, 2016. "Analysis and Measures to Improve Waste Management in Schools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-12, August.
    14. Shira Daskal & Omar Asi & Isam Sabbah & Ofira Ayalon & Katie Baransi-Karkaby, 2022. "Decentralized Composting Analysis Model—Benefit/Cost Decision-Making Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Kant, Vivek & Tapia, Ridhima & Mondal, Saikat, 2022. "Sustainability of mobile IT sector in industrially developing countries by supporting repairability," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6).
    16. Zhongwei Zhu & Tingyu Qian & Lei Liu, 2023. "Evolutionary Simulation of Carbon-Neutral Behavior of Urban Citizens in a “Follow–Drive” Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-28, July.
    17. Aphale, Omkar & Thyberg, Krista L. & Tonjes, David J., 2015. "Differences in waste generation, waste composition, and source separation across three waste districts in a New York suburb," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 19-28.
    18. Shaw, Peter J., 2008. "Nearest neighbour effects in kerbside household waste recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 775-784.
    19. Alan Collins & Richard O'Doherty & Martin Snell, 2006. "Household participation in waste recycling: Some national survey evidence from Scotland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(1), pages 121-140.
    20. Struk, Michal, 2017. "Distance and incentives matter: The separation of recyclable municipal waste," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 155-162.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:54:y:2009:i:1:p:9-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.