"Collection scheme costs are sensitive to many things, such as the price which can be achieved for recycled material, and new technology means material sorted by MRFs is likely to improve in quality. This means it would be wrong to assume that one type of collection scheme is always going to be cheaper or produce better quality material than another"
Phillip Ward, Director for Local Government Services at WRAP
Banbury, England, UK: WRAP published the results of a study yesterday (Monday), into different household recycling systems.
The report found that currently, kerbside sort schemes are more cost effective for local authorities than single stream co-mingled collections. However, the recycling enabling organisation says that two stream co-mingled collections where paper is kept separate, have similar net costs to kerbside sort schemes.
Quality of sorting is a further factor, and earlier work by WRAP found that kerbside sorting schemes gave higher quality recyclable materials than co-mingled collections. This is because there is less risk of non-recyclables materials being included.
However the report acknowledges that there is no such thing as a one-size-fits all “best scheme” and co-mingled schemes may be the preferred option in some areas such as inner cities, where on street parking prevents kerbside sorting and there are lots of multi-occupancy houses where it is difficult to store multiple containers.
Kerbside sorting of recyclables
The report
The report, Kerbside recycling: indicative costs and performance, looks at good practice in recycling services and models their relative costs and performance. Costs of widely used kerbside collection systems are considered in three main categories.
These are kerbside sorting, where different types of materials such as glass and plastic bottles are put into separate compartments of a collection vehicle - single stream co-mingled, where everything goes into one vehicle and is then sorted at a materials recovery facility (MRF) - and two stream partially co-mingled, where householders separate recyclables into two categories, usually fibres (paper and card) and containers (glass, cans and plastic bottles).
The report says, "growth from 7% to 31% in 2006/07 has been achieved through a mixture of investment and ingenuity, but it has resulted in the creation of a number of different collection systems with many local variations. Although opinions about the merits of the different systems are often firmly held, there has so far been little objective evidence about their cost and effectiveness or about the quality of the material they produce or the implications for service standards to customers".
Little variation in material yields between the three main scheme types was found, but variants within streams that collect glass and have an alternate weekly collection of refuse, showed the greatest rates for diversion of materials from the residual waste stream to recycling, according to the report.
Importance of size
WRAP says that the study found that contrary to the popular belief that co-mingling is more successful in collecting recyclable materials, what determines how much recycling people do is the size of the containers they have to put it in.
Phillip Ward, Director for Local Government Services at WRAP, said:
“The aim of this study is to provide a benchmark to help local authorities understand the cost of a good recycling system. The results will help the authorities understand how to limit the cost of the service to householders.
“Collection scheme costs are sensitive to many things, such as the price which can be achieved for recycled material, and new technology means material sorted by MRFs is likely to improve in quality. This means it would be wrong to assume that one type of collection scheme is always going to be cheaper or produce better quality material than another."
Further information
Copies of the report can be downloaded from the WRAP web site.
WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change.
Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by government funding from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.