A new study has shown that kerbside collection schemes are more cost-effective for local authorities than the traditional single stream co-mingled, or mixed, collections.
The research, recently published by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), was titled ‘Indicative Costs and Performance of Kerbside Collection Systems’. The purpose was to examine the cost effectiveness and performance of recycling services which include standard kerbside sort collections as well as single stream co-mingled and two stream partially co-mingled services.
Kerbside collections remain the most cost effective yet two stream co-mingled collections, which keeps paper separate, have “similar net costs to kerbside sort schemes”.
Research did, however, learn that the success of co-mingled collections is “determined by the size of the collection containers”. The study also showed that co-mingled schemes may be the best option in areas where on street parking prevents kerbside sorting efforts.
Phillip Ward, director for local government services at WRAP, said: “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.
“For any recycling scheme to be successful, it needs to be easy to use, reliable, flexible, and to manage health and safety risks. Above all it must be effectively communicated so householders are motivated to use it, buy in to the service, and are able to raise issues and problems knowing these will be dealt with.”
|
|
