A system with property-close source-separation of thirteen different solid household waste fractions in a residential area in southern Sweden, including the implementation of new systems for source-separation of food waste, waste electric and electronic equipment, hazardous waste and fat, oils and grease was monitored over a 2-year period. Continuous weighing of disposed waste and repeated waste composting analyses were used to investigate recycling behaviour of households in the area and to monitor the composition of disposed waste. Results show that 34% of the total amount of generated waste was currently diverted to material recycling. The removal of recyclables from residual waste could be significantly increased, as more than 80% of all waste in the area (bulky waste excluded) was either covered by the Producer Responsibility Ordinances on packaging and newspaper or constitutes food waste suitable for biogas production. Food waste still represented almost 30% of all residual waste in the study area and was thus the fraction with the greatest potential (on weight basis) for increased source-separation.
BergerI (1997) The demographics of recycling and the structure of environmental behaviour. Environment and Behavior29: 515–531.
2.
BerglundC (2005) The assessment of households’ recycling costs; The role of personal motives. Ecological Economics56: 560–569.
3.
BernstadAla Cour JansenJAspegrenH (2010) Property-close source-separation of hazardous waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment – a Swedish case study. Waste Management31: 536–543.
4.
DahlénL (2008) Household Waste Collection: Factors and VariationsDoctoral thesis LuleåUniversity of Technology; p. 33.
5.
DahlénLLagerkvistA (2008) Evaluation of recycling programs in household waste collection systems, [Submitted to Journal of Environmental Management, Feb 2008. Published in Dahlén, L. 2009. PhD thesis. Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.].
6.
DahlénLVukicevicSMeijerJ-ELagerkvistA (2007) Comparison of Different Waste Sorting Systems in six Swedish Municipalities. Journal of Waste Management27: 1298–1305.
7.
DahlénLÅhbergHLagerkvistABergPEO (2009) Inconsistent pathways of household waste. Waste Management29: 1798–1806.
8.
DavidssonÅBernstadAEdnerB (2010) Source-separation of household fat, oil and grease (FOG) – Experiences from a Swedish case study. In proceedings from the Venice 2010 Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste. ISWA, Venice, Italy.
9.
DietzTSternPCGuagnoGA (1998) Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behaviour30: 450–471.
10.
European Commission (2002) Directive 2002/96/EG of the European Parliament and of the Council on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). European Comission, Brussells, Belgium.
11.
European Commission (2004) Methodology for the analysis of solid waste (SWA-tool)5th Framework Program; Vienna Austria. Retrieved from www.wastesolutions.org (accessed 15 February 2010).
12.
European Commission (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive). European Comission, Brussells, Belgium.
13.
EwertSHenrikssonGÅkessonL (2009) Uncertain or satisfied? (in Swedish). Royal Technical University, Environmental strategy analysis – FMS. Stockholm, Sweden.
14.
FolzH (1991) Recycling program design, management, and participation: A national survey of municipal experience. Public Administration Review51: 222–231.
15.
Gonzalez-TorrePLAdenso-DiazB (2005) Influence of distance on the motivation and frequency of household recycling. Waste Management25: 15–23.
16.
HageOSöderholmPBerglundC (2009) Norms and economic motivation in household recycling: Empirical evidence from Sweden. Resources, Conservation and Recycling53: 155–165.
17.
JenkinsRRMartinezSAPalmerKPodolskyMJ (2003) The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management45: 294.
18.
Nordtest (1995) Solid Waste, Municipal: Sampling and Characterisation. (Nordtest method NT ENVIR 001, Finland. Retrieved from www.nordtest.org (accessed 10 February 2010).
19.
OhlssonT (1998) Characterisation of MSW. Methods and Trends, Master’s thesis, Waste Science and Technology, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
20.
ParfittJPFlowerdewR (1997) Methodological problems in the generation of household waste statistics – An analysis of the United Kingdom’s National Household Waste Analysis Program. Applied Geography17: 231–244.
21.
PetersenCHM (2004) Conditions and Constraints for Waste Management. Collection, Characterisation and Producer Responsibility in Sweden, Doctoral thesis No. 2004:10Dalarna University College and Chalmers University of Technology, Borlänge and Gothenburg, Sweden.
22.
PhilippeFCulotM (2009) Household solid waste generation and characteristics in Cape Haitian city, Republic of Haiti. Resource Conservation and Recycling54: 73–78.
23.
PitardFF (1993) Pierre Gy’s sampling theory and sampling practice: recycling intensity. Environment and Behavior31: 267–290.
24.
SEPA (2007) Material Streams – a Better Alternative for Collection of Solid Household Waste [in Swedish]. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5752. Stockholm, Sweden.
25.
SFS1994aSFS 1994:1205. The Ordinance of Producers’ Responsibility for Waste Paper (in Swedish). Swedish Code of Statutes. Stockholm, Sweden.
26.
SFS1994bSFS 1994:1235. The Ordinance of Producers’ Responsibility for Packaging Materials (in Swedish). Swedish Code of Statutes. Stockholm, Sweden.
27.
SFS (2008) SFS 2008:834. Regulation on Producer Responsibility for Batteries (in Swedish). Swedish Code of Statutes. Stockholm, Sweden.
28.
SternerHBartelingsT (1999) Household waste management in a Swedish municipality: determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting. Swedish Environmental and Resource Economics13: 473–491.
29.
Swedish Association of Waste Management (2005) Municipal Solid Waste Composition Analysis Manual (in Swedish). Sweden: Swedish Association of Waste Management Malmö Report 2005: 19.
30.
SörbomA (2003) The One who Can Sorts More (in Swedish). FOI, Fms Report 180.
31.
ThanhPNMatsuiYFujiwaraT (2010) Household solid waste generation and characteristic in a Mekong Delta city, Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Management91: 2307–2321.
32.
VicentePReisE (2008) Factors influencing households’ participation in recycling. Waste Management and Research26: 140–146.
33.
Young deRDuncanAFrankJGillNRothmanSShenotJ. (1993) Promoting source reduction behavior: the role of motivational information. Environmental and Behavior25: 70–85.
