WRAP study sheds new light on recycling debate

WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) recently published the results of a comprehensive study into different household recycling systems. The report analysed recycling services by comparing the relative costs and performances of different systems.

For the report, kerbside collection systems were divided into three main categories: kerbside sort, 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).

According to the report, kerbside sort schemes are currently more cost effective for Local Authorities than single stream co-mingled. However, two stream co-mingled collections where paper is kept separate, have similar net costs to kerbside sort schemes.

The study found that although popular belief holds people will recycle more when allowed the ease of co-mingling, what actually determines how much recycling people do is the size of the containers they have to put their recyclables in.

WRAP's new research confirms its previous findings that kerbside sort schemes result in higher quality recyclables as there is less risk of non-recyclables being included. However, the report points out that certain system are more suited to different areas; different areas have different needs and there is no such thing as a one-size-fits all 'best scheme'.

In fact, in certain places, such as inner city areas where on street parking prevents kerbside sorting and multi-occupancy houses make it difficult to store multiple containers, co-mingling schemes may be the best option.

Phillip Ward, Director for Local Government Services at WRAP, commented: "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.

"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."