See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279244165

Success Stories for Recycling of MSW at Municipal Level: A Review

Article  in  Waste and Biomass Valorization · October 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s12649-015-9389-9

CITATIONS READS

25 688

5 authors, including:

Dimitris Xevgenos Christina Papadaskalopoulou

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
10 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   129 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vasiliki Panaretou Konstantinos Moustakas

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
14 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS    100 PUBLICATIONS   1,294 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CYP-ADAPT View project

Valorization of industrial secondary resources in industrial effluents treatment towards circular economy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitris Xevgenos on 04 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Success Stories for Recycling of MSW at
Municipal Level: A Review

D. Xevgenos, C. Papadaskalopoulou,
V. Panaretou, K. Moustakas &
D. Malamis

Waste and Biomass Valorization

ISSN 1877-2641
Volume 6
Number 5

Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657-684

DOI 10.1007/s12649-015-9389-9

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
DOI 10.1007/s12649-015-9389-9
REVIEW
Success Stories for Recycling of MSW at Municipal Level:
A Review
D. Xevgenos1 • C. Papadaskalopoulou1 • V. Panaretou1
K. Moustakas1 • D. Malamis1
Received: 19 January 2015 / Accepted: 30 May 2015 / Published online: 14 June 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Waste management is increasingly considered
one of the most critical environmental challenges on a
worldwide basis. Municipal solid waste and packaging waste
in specific is an important and growing waste stream. It has
been widely recognized that recycling practices and in
specific separation at source schemes should be adopted in
order to achieve sustainable management of municipal solid
waste and efficient resource use. Separation at source pro-
vides a promising option with environmental and economic
benefits, as it contributes to the recovery of high quality
materials with, eventually, cost savings for the waste man-
agement authorities. This paper provides a review and
evaluation of all instruments, as well as strategies employed
in operating waste management schemes at international
level. More specifically, nineteen case studies are presented
and assessed. Special emphasis was given in those best
practice schemes that follow the waste hierarchical
approach, namely prevention, preparing for re-use, recy-
cling, other recovery (e.g. energy recovery), disposal.
Additionally, local policies that encourage separate collec-
tion at source of at least four waste streams (paper, metal,
plastic, glass) were taken under consideration. The factors
found to influence recycling performance were the imple-
mentation of kerbside waste collection schemes, the provi-
sion of economic incentives as well as the use of legal
instruments. Furthermore, the level of public awareness and
engagement achieved, the population size as well as the
& D. Xevgenos
xevgenos@central.ntua.gr; d.xevgenos@gmail.com
1
Unit of Environmental Science and Technology, School of
Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of
Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechniou Str., Zographou Campus,
15780 Athens, Greece
•
duration of the implementation of the scheme were also
found to influence the effectiveness of the applied schemes.
Keywords Municipal solid waste
Recycling

Separation at source
Extended producer responsibility

Pay-as-you-throw
Deposit-refund
Landfill/incineration
taxes
Regulatory instruments
Zero waste
Success
stories
Introduction
The links between material resources and waste are
increasingly recognized. In 1995, around 10 million short
tons of raw materials (excluding food and fuels) were con-
sumed on a worldwide basis, a figure almost doubled since
1970 [1]. Valuable materials are leaking from our economies
through insufficient recycling, while low waste management
performance is causing sustainability problems.
Taking the example of Europe, on average, only 40 % of
the solid waste is being re-used or recycled, the rest going
to landfill or incineration [2]. In 2011 1629 million tonnes
of raw materials (biomass, manufactures and fuels/mining
materials) were imported, when only 568 million tons were
exported [3]. Material inputs needs (domestic extraction
and imports) can be reduced as much as 24 % by 2030, if
suitable measures are promoted [4] and a better use of
resources could represent an overall savings potential of
€630 billion per year for European industry [5]. Also, it is
estimated that around 5.25 billion Euro would be saved
from the recovery of recyclables such as paper, glass,
plastics, aluminium and steel per year while at least
500,000 new jobs would be created if EU Member States
could recycle as much as 70 % of MSW generated [6]
(Fig. 1).
123
 Author's personal copy
658
This paper presents a review on success stories of
recycling at municipal level. Several municipal solid waste
management case studies have been thoroughly examined
and evaluated, in countries around the world. The objective
of this work is to identify and assess success stories of
municipalities with high waste management performance,
especially in view of recycling rates achieved of the
recyclable part of Municipal solid waste (MSW) (i.e.
packaging waste and organics). Although there are several
published studies on the evaluation of the effectiveness of
applied methods on improving waste management perfor-
mance, this has either been performed in certain geo-
graphic regions [7] or with focus on particular instruments
and strategies such as the Extended Producer Responsi-
bility systems [8, 9], deposit refund systems [10–14],
landfill/incineration taxes [15–18], pay-as-you-throw sys-
tems [19–28] as well as regulatory instruments [29, 30] and
Zero Waste strategies [31–34], a holistic approach covering
the whole landscape of instruments at international level
has never been performed before.
Waste Policy and Legislation
Many waste policies at global level aim to promote
resource efficiency and circular economy, closing the
resource and waste loops. Following, a brief review of the
Fig. 1 EU-27 physical trade
balance with the rest of the
world, 2011 [3]
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
resource efficiency and waste management policies at the
wider administrative level of the case studies examined, is
provided.
Australia
In Australia, the first step towards sustainable waste man-
agement was made with the agreement of the Australian
Governments on the National Strategy for Ecologically
Sustainable Development in 1992. The governments
committed to improve efficiency in resource consumption
and to reduce the environmental impact of waste disposal.
Furthermore, since 2009 there is a National Waste Policy
‘‘Less Waste, More Resources’’ [35] in place, which pro-
vides direction on how to reduce waste generation and
disposal and manage waste as resources by 2020. With
regard to packaging waste, there is a voluntary instrument
in place since 1999, called Australian Packaging Covenant
[36], promoting resource conservation and facilitating re-
use and recycling of packaging waste.
Europe
Europe has the long term goal to be transformed into a
recycling society, ensuring that by 2020 waste is managed
as a resource. Over the last 30 years, EU waste policy has
evolved significantly through several Environmental
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
Action Plans (EAPs) and a framework of waste legislation
[37]. The EU’s 7th EAP (2014–2020) and the Roadmap to
Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011) 571) aim at
elimination of landfilling, limitation of incineration to non-
recyclable materials and to absolute decline of waste
generated per capita. To fulfil the resource efficiency
objectives, the 7th EAP calls for fully implementing waste
legislation including inter alia the following Directives:
(a) Directive 94/32/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste
(PPW): The packaging directive is intended to limit the
production of packaging waste and promote recovery of
waste in terms of recycling and re-use (overall target:
50 %); (b) Directive 1999/31/EC on the Landfill of Waste
(Landfill Directive): The Landfill Directive is intended to
prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the landfill of waste
on the environment. Article 5(1) that obliges the Member
States to ‘‘set up a national strategy for the implementation
of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills’’;
and (c) Directive 2008/98/EC Waste Framework Directive
(WFD): The Waste Framework Directive calls for separate
collection of at least paper, metal, plastic and glass
(European Parliament 2008).
Japan
Japan’s policy on waste is largely based on the ‘‘3Rs’’
principle, that is, Reduce, Re-Use, Recycle. The ‘‘Basic act
for establishing a sound material-cycle society (Basic
Recycling Act)’’ which was adopted in 2000, has as pri-
mary objectives to move away from mass production,
consumption and disposal and to foster the implementation
of the 3R and the sound management of waste. The Act
also sets the priorities for the management of recyclable
resources at the following order: control of generation,
reuse, recycling, thermal recovery and appropriate dis-
posal. The national targets for recycling of municipal waste
are set to 24 % and for the reduction of final disposal to
50 % [38].
United States of America
The Environment Protection Agency of the United States
issued in 2002 a vision document called ‘‘Beyond RCRA:
Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020’’ [39].
This document highlights the need for a shift from waste
management to material management and for the adoption
of a life cycle approach, aiming to increase the sustainable
use of resources and to reduce waste through source
reduction, reuse and recycling. In 2005, the US Govern-
ment set a national target for recycling 35 % of municipal
waste. Following in 2009, EPA published a roadmap called
‘‘Sustainable materials management: The road ahead’’ [40]
659
where detailed guidance is provided with the aim to
achieve the scope of material management.
Materials and Methods
This paper presents and assesses 19 case studies from 15
countries across the globe. The methodology involves the
following four (4) steps.
Step 1: Screening of Municipalities
Extensive literature review was performed in order to
identify case studies that have achieved high recycling
rates or/and significant improvement through the imple-
mentation of certain waste management instruments. Many
case studies were retrieved from organizations and projects
that have published best practice examples, such as Zero
Waste Europe, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alter-
natives (GAIA) and projects such as Regions4Recycling,
Pre-Waste. Moreover, the Eurostat database was used to
identify countries with high recycling rates, from which
different municipalities (belonging to these countries) were
further screened.
Step 2: Selection of Best Case Studies
More than 50 case studies were initially considered after
the screening process completion. A shortlist was then
developed for in-depth analysis using the following crite-
ria: (a) high recycling rate; (b) application of variety of
instruments involving technical, economical or/and legis-
lation; and (c) availability and quality of data.
The case studies selected are presented in Table 1.
Step 3: Identification of Assessment Criteria
In order to evaluate the selected case studies, a number of
criteria were used. The selection of the case studies ana-
lyzed in this paper was performed on the basis of specific
criteria reflecting the main requirements of the current
waste policy and legislation, as well as instruments and
strategies used to promote sustainable waste management.
These criteria provided the basis of a semi-quantitative
approach to reach a final ranking. The criteria are provided
below by instrument:
Technical instruments
Waste separation at source Provision of kerbside services
Collection services Existence of source separation
Treatment methods activity in packaging waste
123

660
Economic instruments
Extended producer
responsibility
Deposit-refund
Landfill/incineration tax and
tradable permit schemes
PAYT
Regulatory instruments
Landfill/incineration bans
and restrictions
Bans on products with low or
no recyclability
Mandatory separation of
non-packaging waste
Communicative instruments
Raising awareness and
participation rate
Strategies
123
Author's personal copy
Existence of source separation
activity of organics
Convenient location of collection
facilities
Combination of collection systems
Number of waste streams separated
Incineration rates
Producer responsibility (PR)
implemented prior to packaging and
packaging waste (PPW) directive
Communication and co-ordination
between local authorities (LA) and
industry
LA given operational responsibilities
under PR system
Transparent mechanism for financing
LA under PR system
Low overall cost compliance
achieved
Successful in achieving objectives of
PPW directive
Capture rate of packaging containers
Existence of landfill tax
Landfill tax rate
Landfill allowance trading schemes
Allocation of revenues from the
collection of taxes on sustainable
waste management
Existence of incineration tax
Prevention and recycling incentive
Technological complexity
Implementation cost
Maintenance cost
Reliability and transparency of tax
calculation
Certainty of revenue
Fraud risk
Collection efficiency
Correspondence between volume or
weight and charge
Convenience for users
Landfill bans on untreated/unsorted
or separately collected waste
Existence of incineration bans
Bans on plastic bags, etc.
Existence of legal requirements for
the separation of non-packaging
waste
Population size
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
Zero waste Zero Waste strategy/plan in place
Quantified targets for waste diversion
rates (incl. zero waste targets)
Waste prevention and re-use
activities
Following, the actual waste management performance
of the municipalities which was measured using as indi-
cator the recycling rates, was used to verify the results from
the evaluation of the instruments.
Step 4: Final Evaluation
The evaluation of the selected case studies is presented in
section ‘‘Results and Discussion’’.
Evaluation of Instruments
When designing a recycling program to achieve the best
recycling rates, a range of different instruments and strate-
gies may be adopted. The instruments can be grouped into
the following four (4) broad categories: technical, econom-
ical, communicative and legal [41], as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Technical Instruments
The presentation of the technical instruments has been
divided in three sections, as illustrated in Fig. 3. This paper
is focused mainly at the first section, providing information
about the collection system and infrastructure used in the
case studies examined. Limited reference is made to waste
transportation and treatment (section ‘‘Transportation and
Treatment’’).
Collection System and Infrastructure
Household waste collection can be divided into property-
close (kerbside) collection and collection at drop-off points
(bring systems) [42].
Property-close systems: In property close collection,
combinations of bins, racks sacks and bags are used [42].
Property-close systems can be categorized into the fol-
lowing categories:
• Kerbside collection: each household is provided with
container(s). The residents are obliged to place the
waste at the containers placed at the kerbside.
• Door to door collection: each household is provided
with container(s). The residents keep the waste con-
tainers at the household premises (either indoors or
outdoors). In some papers distinction is made between
door-to-door and yard collection. The former implies
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684 661

Table 1 List of case studies

No. Municipality Country/state Population Population density
examined and relevant
demographic data 1 Aarhus Denmark (DK) 324,330 689
2 Adelaide South Australia (SA) 1,304,631 396
3 Argentona Spain (ES) 11,716 464
4 Boras Sweden (SE) 66,273 2,111
5 Cappanori Italy (IT) 46,207 297
6 Dogliani Italy (IT) 4595 130
7 Flanders Belgium (BE) 6,200,000 456
8 Gloucester Massachusetts (USA) 28,789 270
9 Hernani Spain (ES) 19,300 485
10 Kamikatsu Japan (JP) 2042 19
11 Landkreis Schweinfurt Germany (DE) 113,007 134
12 Limerick Ireland (IE) 454,507 42
13 Lisbon Portugal (PT) 552,700 6427
14 M. Keynes United Kingdom (UK) 229,941 2584
15 Oslo Norway (NO) 634,463 1400
16 Palo Alto California (USA) 64,409 1041
17 San Fransisco California (USA) 837,442 6921
18 Verdu Spain (ES) 1008 28
19 Vienna Austria (AT) 1,794,770 4,326

Fig. 2 Instruments used to

increase waste performance

that the waste collector has to enter at household
property and collect the waste that is kept indoors. The
latter implies that the waste collector, collects house-
hold waste that is kept outdoors, usually at the yard of
each household. In [43] this collection system is
reported as a ‘‘full-service’’ kerbside waste collection
system.
In this paper, no distinction is made between kerbside
and door-to-door collection.

123
 Author's personal copy
662
Fig. 3 Technical instruments that may be applied along the value chain of packaging waste management Source: Adapted from [41]
Drop-off systems (‘‘bring systems’’): Drop-off systems
can be categorized into the following categories:
• Drop-off sites: each household has to bring its waste
(separated into different waste streams) to containers
placed at neighborhood level. Different sizes and
shapes of containers are employed [42]
• Drop-off centers: each household brings its waste
(separated into different waste streams) to containers
recycling centers/green centers
In Table 2, the collection systems of the source separated
waste streams are presented for the municipalities examined.
Comparative Analysis of Case Studies Paper: 12 out of 20
municipalities sort separately the paper stream, with 8
municipalities providing kerbside recycling programs (see
also Table 2). In Kamikatsu different grades of paper are
deposited in drop-off centers: Cardboard milk/juice cartons,
Cardboard boxes, Newspapers and leaflets, Magazines and
photocopying paper [44]. In Aarhus, a municipality in
Denmark with increased incineration rates (and reduced
source separation levels), paper packaging waste is collected
separately. At the city center where apartment blocks prevail,
a collection system was established in 2008, by the municipal
company AffaldVarme Aarhus with the replacement of the
conventional waste containers with larger semi-buried ones
(with a capacity of 4 m3 each) aiming to save space, to
increase storage capacity and to ameliorate landscape aes-
thetics [45–47]. In Belgium, paper is collected with news-
papers via kerbside and container stations [48]. Flanders has
introduced also quality thresholds for separately collected
waste streams. The threshold for paper and cardboard stream
is set at 5 % [49]. Paper is collected separately in bags, once a
week through kerbside in Hernani [34].
Glass: 14 out of 20 municipalities sort glass separately,
with 6 municipalities providing bring system services, 4
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
deposit in drop-off centers and 4 in kerbside recycling. In
Hernani and Argentona, glass comprises the only waste
stream that is delivered separately in large containers by
households, since the other waste streams are collected
separately through kerbside [34, 50]. In Verdu, glass is col-
lected once a week in small bins (40L) by kerbside collection
[51]. Glass is collected separately in semi buried large con-
tainers (*4 m3) through bring scheme in Aarhus [46]. Some
municipalities separate glass into different grades such as
Kamikatsu, where the following glass categories are sepa-
rately sorted by households: clear bottles, brown bottles,
recycled bottles, other bottles and other glassware (including
also ceramics and shells) [44]. In Belgium, glass packaging
waste is deposited in container stations (bring scheme) 60 %
out of which being separated also by color [48].
Plastics: Only 6 municipalities sort plastic waste sepa-
rately. In Oslo, plastics are source separated in blue bags
and are placed in the same bin with the organics (green
bag) and the residuals (shopping bag). The collection of
these waste streams is performed through kerbside and
their recycling in sensor waste separation plants [52]. Some
municipalities separate plastics into different grades such
as Kamikatsu, where the following plastic categories are
separately sorted by households: plastic (PET) bottles,
Plastic bottle lids, plastic containers and wrapping, used
agricultural plastic sheeting agrochemical bottles [44]. In
Belgium, plastic packaging waste is collected in transpar-
ent bags via kerbside (70 % of total weight) and container
stations (30 % of total weight) [48]. In 5 municipalities,
plastics are collected together with metals. This combined
stream is often called light packaging stream or Plastics,
Metals and Drink (PMD) waste stream. Light packaging is
collected separately in reusable bags, twice a week through
kerbside in Hernani, Verdu and Argentona [34, 50, 53].
Only 6 municipalities sort metal waste separately. Some
municipalities separate metals into different grades such as
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684 663

Table 2 Separately collected

# of streams
streams and collection systems

Recyclables
Cardboard

Packaging
Organics

Residual

Nappies
Plastics
Metals
Paper/

Mixed
applied by case study examined

Glass

Light
Municipality

Aarhus (DK) 3 B B B
Adelaide (AU) 3 K K K
Argentona (ES) 6 K B K K K K
Boras (SE) 6 B* B* B B K K
Cappanori (IT) 5 K K K K K
Dogliani (IT) 7 K B K K K K K K
Flanders (BE) 6 Κ D D Κ D Κ D Κ Κ
Gloucester (USA) 3 D K K
Hernani (ES) 5 K B K K K
Kamikatsu (JP) 34 D* D* D* D* D D D
Landkreis (DE) 6 D D D K K K
Limerick (IE) 3 K K K
Lisbon (PT) 4 K K K K
M. Keynes (UK) 4 K K K K
Oslo (NO) 5 Κ D Κ Κ Κ
Palo Alto (USA) 3 K K K
San Fransisco (USA) 3 K K K
Verdu (ES) 6 K K K K K K
Vienna (AT) 7 B K B* B K B K B K K
Notes: K: Kerbside, B: Bring, D: Drop-off center, *: more than one stream
Light packaging: plastics and metals

Kamikatsu, where the following metal categories are sep-
arately sorted by households: aluminum cans, steel cans,
spray cans, metal caps [44].
Organics: The vast majority of the examined munici-
palities (94 %) separates organic waste. Organics are col-
lected separately in small bins, thrice a week through
kerbside in Hernani, Verdu and Argentona [34]. Argentona
used the traditional Spanish waste management system
with the separate collection of four waste streams,
achieving low recycling rates (*20 %). By the time that
the separate collection of organics was introduced, com-
bined with access to kerbside collection the recycling rate
almost tripled [50]. The organic waste is collected sepa-
rately through kerbside in Boras and is transformed into
biofuels. The waste management program was initiated in
1988 as pilot (3000 households) and was expanded within a
decade across the municipality (48,500 households) [54].
In Boras, the other stream collected through kerbside is
residual waste which is used for incineration purposes. The
recyclables are sorted in four categories and deposited into
recycling stations [54]. Gloucester involves separate col-
lection of green waste only, which can be deposited by
households in drop-off centers [55].
With reference to the expansion of the pilot to roll-out
systems, different time frames have been applied. Milton
Keynes introduced food waste collections across the
municipality in two phases: 50,000 homes were delivered
kitchen caddies and green bins in July 2009 and 2 months
later 40,000 further houses were provided with bins [56].
Oslo initiated separate collection of food waste in October
2009 with 17,000 households and progressively expanded
throughout the municipality until June 2012. In this case
the organics stream comprises only food waste (excluding
garden waste) and, upon collection, it was delivered to
plants producing (a) biogas that is exploited locally as fuel
in city buses and waste trucks, and (b) bio-fertilizers that is
exploited by local farmers [52, 57]. The same applies also
for San Fransisco, where the pilot kerbside collection
system started in 1999 and was fully rolled-out in 2003
[34].
Residuals: Residuals are collected separately in bags,
once a week through kerbside in Hernani [34]. Residuals
are collected separately in semi buried large containers
(* 4 m3) through bring scheme in Aarhus [46]. One of the
most interesting findings for Capannori, is that in the
residuals stream more than 85 % can be prevented, com-
posted or recycled: 28 % are plastics, 22 % is biodegrad-
able and 13 % nappies. The Zero Waste Research center in
Capannori works towards this direction in order to reduce
the amounts of waste going to landfills to less than 5 %
[58]. In Oslo municipality, the residuals stream is directed
to Waste to Energy plants. The energy produced is used for

123
 Author's personal copy
664
district heating, covering the needs of about 84 000
households, while the produced electricity is delivered to
city schools [57].
Other waste streams: In Kamikatsu 34 waste streams are
separately collected and brought in drop-off sites. The
streams include but are not limited to the following: Alu-
minum cans/Steel cans, Sprays, Glass, Brown glass, Other
colours of glass, Ceramics, Batteries, Fluorescent lamps,
Broken Fluorescent lamps, Milk cartons, Paper, Newspa-
pers, Wooden chopsticks, Cooking oil, Books, Pet bottles,
Lighters, Mirrors, Cotton, Cloth, Nappies, Shoes, Furniture
etc. [44]. Two municipalities (Dogliani and Argentona)
separate nappies as they have been identified as a prob-
lematic waste stream, while it results to drastic collection
frequency reduction of residuals [50].
Kerbside collection: In countries such as Austria,
France, Germany and the UK kerbside systems are the
most common collection system in place, while in Spain,
Portugal and Greece, collection of recyclables is based on
bring systems [59]. One of the main benefits of kerbside
recycling is the increased recycling rate achieved. Studies
show increased collection rate with kerbside collection
compared to bring systems [60]. Another study that was
focused on plastics, showed double scores of source
separation in kerbside systems compared to bring systems
[60], resulting also to higher purity. Barr et al. [61] have
published a model of willingness to recycle and recycling
behavior that incorporates parameters such as: house type,
active concern, local waste knowledge as well as age and
awareness of norm to recycle [61]. One of the critical
parameters examined was the convenience/effort to
recycle. This study concludes that a well-run kerbside
program can have a critical impact on increasing recy-
cling levels [61]. All but two of the municipalities
examined (Aarhus and Kamikatsu), provide access to
kerbside recycling, either as sole collection system or in
combination with bring scheme and recycling centers.
Exclusive use of kerbside systems exists in 8 municipal-
ities: Adelaide (AU), Capannori (IT), Limerick (IE),
Lisbon (PT), Milton Keynes (UK), Palo Alto (USA), San
Fransisco (USA) and Verdu (Spain). Collection of MSW
in Adelaide (South Australia) is performed exclusively by
kerbside (three bins) [62]. In Lisbon the kerbside system
was firstly applied for residuals. Afterwards, it was also
used for glass, organics and light packaging. If collection
and transportation equipment, as well as personnel costs
are considered, for Lisbon the cost of the kerbside system
is estimated at 73€ per tonne of paper/cardboard and 167€
per tonne of packages [63]. The kerbside scheme has been
applied in the whole Palo Alto municipality as early as
1981 in Palo Alto. In 1991 the kerbside collection of yard
trimmings was also established (collection in green bins)
for all single-family houses, multi-family complexes and
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
commercial businesses that wished to participate [64].
Approximately 90 % of households (apartment buildings
and single-family houses) have access to kerbside col-
lection in Norway. Around 50 % of households in
apartment buildings and approximately 5 % of single-
family houses have access to kerbside collection in
Sweden [60]. Kerbside collection can also lead to local
job growth. A characteristic example is Argentonta, where
the service is provided by Arca Maresme empresa
d’Inserció SL, a social enterprise that employs people in
risk of social exclusion. It is reported that the turn to
kerbside collection has tripled the local job positions
created. This reflects a cost shift from equipment and
technologies to creating new jobs supporting local econ-
omy [50].
However, there is no ideal, successful design for kerb-
side recycling and combinations may be necessary in cer-
tain cases. Some studies suggest that a combination of
kerbside and bring system recycling services can prove
more effective compared to implementing separately the
two schemes [65, 66]. Also, drop-off systems are less
costly to operate, since they are less labor-intensive and
participants bear the transportation cost [65]. Flanders has
a long history of waste management plans, which included
source separation as early as 1986. Kerbside collection
combined with bring banks and container parks results to
the highest recycling rate (for both material and organic
recycling) of the region at national level [49]. Bring sys-
tems are the most common way to collect MSW in Nor-
way, Denmark, while in Norway kerbside is the dominant
collection system. 70 % of the Norwegian population has
access to kerbside collection of plastic packaging waste
[60].
High population density is another factor influencing the
possibility to implement properly kerbside systems. High
density households, as well as high rise flats and building
with limited internal or/and external storage comprise
housing arrangements that make it more inconvenient to
participate in kerbside programs [67]. Some studies char-
acterize such arrangements as the ‘‘long term non-recy-
clers’’ [68].
Transportation and Treatment
Transportation costs represent a significant part of total
collection costs. The main factors that influence trans-
portation costs are the collection frequency and the type of
collection system applied (kerbside, bring, combined etc.).
Indicatively, in Fig. 4 a comparison of the operation costs
between Belgium and Portugal is illustrated. The signifi-
cant difference with the operational costs is the result of
increased collection frequency demands in Portugal. Bel-
gium applied kerbside collection once a month for the
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
Fig. 4 Service cost recovery considering the tons of packing waste
collected in Portugal and Belgium (2010). Source: adapted from [69]
paper/cardboard fraction, compared to 1–3 times a week
for Portugal. These differences are also influenced by local
climatic conditions, given that the hot climate of Portugal
would cause unacceptable odor nuisance in case of repli-
cating collection frequencies used in Belgium [69].
In the same study, another critical factor is examined,
associated with inter-municipal cooperation (IMC) [69].
Flanders comprise a characteristic example applying IMC:
304 out of 308 municipalities perform collection and sep-
aration of packaging waste services through 20 multi-mu-
nicipal organizations. This fact has a considerable impact
on the economic viability of the applied scheme, making
benefit from economies of scale [69]. The size of the
municipality plays also a critical role for establishing co
operations between neighboring municipalities. Norway is
a characteristic example employing such schemes in small
Norwegian municipalities [50] (Table 3).
Economic Instruments
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
General Extended Producer Responsibility is a policy
tool intended to internalize environmental costs of prod-
ucts, ensuring smaller environmental footprint and greener
products [70]. It is implemented through producer fee
schemes, which reflect the responsibility of the industry,
and related trade companies, to finance the recycling of
materials that are brought into local markets (‘‘waste take-
back responsibility’’). The fees are country specific and can
be weight-based or/and material-specific.
665
These economic operators more often than not, delegate
this responsibility to the so called Producer Responsibility
Organizations (PRO). These companies are private non-
profit or for profit entities that organize the producer fee
scheme. It has been developed to implement Waste Leg-
islation. In Europe, this legislation includes the following
directives: Packaging and Packaging Waste (PPW) Direc-
tive (Directive 94/62/EC), WEEE (Directive 2012/19/EU),
ELV (Directive 2000/53/EC) and Batteries (Directive
91/157/EEC). Different waste streams may be included in
EPR schemes such as packaging waste, batteries, End-of-
Life-Vehicles (ELVs), Oils, Waste Electronic and Elec-
tronic Devices (WEEEs) etc. This paper focuses on pack-
aging waste, which is regulated by PPW Directive.
Applying the symbol of ‘‘Green Dot’’ signifies that the
producer of the packaging is participating in a producer fee
scheme and thus has made a financial contribution towards
recycling of this packaging.
EPR schemes may also vary significantly across Euro-
pean Countries with respect to the spectrum of packaging
waste, as certain countries have expanded EPR for indus-
trial and commercial packaging waste. For example, in
France and Germany the EPR scheme involves only
household packaging waste [71]. EPR can involve pack-
aging waste originating from households or commercial
activities (UK) or can involve both (Austria, Germany,
Belgium) [8]. Single compliance schemes operate in Ger-
many, Austria, Ireland, Italy and Belgium, while in others
countries a number of competitive compliance schemes
may be found. In the UK, there are more than 20 compli-
ance schemes in operation [8].
EPR was first introduced in Germany (1991), followed
by Austria (1993), Belgium and France. The national
policies adopted by these countries provided a template for
the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive that was
adopted by the European Commission later in 1994 [8]. In
Europe, the following 30 countries have Producer
Responsibility schemes in place: Austria, Belgium, France,
Spain, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Portugal,
Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Lithuania, Czech Republic,
Slovak Republic, Italy, Slovenia, Estonia, Romania, Bul-
garia, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Serbia, Israel, Nether-
lands, Poland, Macedonia, Bosnia. Three European
countries have packaging levy in place (no PRO): Den-
mark, Hungary, Croatia and one European country has a
totally different system in place, based on Tradable cer-
tificates (United Kingdom) [9].
The operational responsibilities for a producer respon-
sibility scheme can be divided into two broad categories:
physical responsibility and financial responsibility. A
common trend is that the physical responsibility of col-
lection activities lies with local authorities, while the
financial responsibility with the industry. License members
123
 Author's personal copy
666 Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684

Table 3 Municipal solid waste

Country Landfilled Incinerated Recycled Composted Total recycling
treatment rate (%) by method
and country/state, 2011 [2] Austria (AT) 3 35 28 34 62
Belgium (BE) 1 42 36 20 56
California (CA) 35 1 53 11 64
Denmark (DK) 3 54 31 12 43
Germany (DE) 1 37 45 17 62
Ireland (IE) 55 5 37 4 41
Italy (IT) 49 17 21 13 34
Japan (JP) 3 74 17 n.a. n.a
Massachusetts (MA) 20 42 29 9 37
Norway (NO) 2 57 25 15 40
Portugal (PT) 59 21 12 8 20
South Australia (SA) 39 5 n.a. n.a. 55
Spain (ES) 58 9 15 18 33
Sweden (SE) 1 51 33 15 48
United Kingdom (UK) 49 12 25 14 39
Total recycling: recycling including composting
n.a.: not available
Source: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/wastetreatment.htm

contribute a fee (to join and stay in the scheme e.g. on
annual basis) to the officially accredited company (Pro-
ducer Responsibility Organization, PRO). The fees are
country specific, while PRO EUROPE publishes detailed
data by European country each year. The financial revenue
of the PRO company comes from these contributions and
the revenues from the materials. Households are ultimately
the ones that bear the costs to finance the system, since the
costs shift to the total price of products [69].
A clear distinction must be made on the different levels
of cost coverage undertaken by the producers. However,
there are studies arguing that the cost may not be fully
supported by the industry. Ferreira et al. (2014), investi-
gates the viability of applied systems under a financial and
economic perspective, revealing interesting insights [72].
For instance, investigation for France and Portugal con-
cluded that adopting an ‘‘economic perspective’’ the cost
coverage of packaging waste management by the industry
is 128 and 135 % respectively. But from a financial per-
spective (i.e. excluding costs related to disposal avoidance
and subsidies) the respective shares drop down drastically
to 68 and 56 % [72]. Germany is one of few countries for
which a clear answer can be provided, since industry col-
lects all benefits and endures also all packaging waste
management costs (selective collection, transport, sorting
and storage). Germany, Austria and Belgium bear all rel-
evant financial costs related to packaging waste recycling,
while they are considered among the top five performing
countries in terms of packaging recycling and recovery
[17].
Following the Extended Producer Responsibilities
schemes applied in the examined case studies, are pre-
sented. Since the EPR systems apply at national scale, the
presentation is performed by country.
Austria The EPR system is run by Altstoff Recycling
Austria AG (ARA) and Austria Glass Recycling (AGR).
These two companies combined form the ARA system
which is the national PRO company in Austria. It com-
prises a non-profit organization that was founded in 1993.
More than 15,000 licensees (producers, fillers, packers,
importers, retailers) have transferred their obligations to
ARA and AGR. These license members contributed
approximately 144 million € in 2012 [73]. The system was
in place prior to PPW directive [8]. ARA comprises the
sole compliance system at national scale and thus has been
criticized for not being open to competition. However, it is
being characterized as one of the most effective EPR sys-
tems in Europe [8]. The financial and physical (collection)
responsibility for running the system lies with the pro-
ducers. Local authorities can be involved in the collection
activities of packaging waste and fully reimbursed
accordingly. At every case, the municipalities must
approve the situation of collection containers by ARA [8].
Belgium Belgium has introduced an EPR scheme prior to
the adoption of PPW Directive. It has set targets that
exceed the Directive requirements and has been very suc-
cessful in meeting these targets [8]. Although packaging
waste is managed at regional level, a Cooperation

123
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
Agreement was signed between the three Belgian regions
in 1997, which transposes the Packaging Directive into
national law. The Green Dot system is performed by a
private, non-profit organization, called FostPlus which was
founded in 1994. It covers household packaging waste,
while the responsibility for commercial packaging waste
lies with VAL-I-PAC (the national targets apply separately
for commercial and household waste). FostPlus is consisted
of 5233 companies while it has signed contracts with 35
intermunicipal authorities, serving 589 municipalities. This
is very characteristic for Belgium, as most cities apply
Inter-Municipal Cooperation (IMC), running waste man-
agement services cooperatively and thus more effectively
[74]. Local Authorities are involved in the collection
activities (physical responsibility) and FostPlus reimburses
only costs of a pre-determined level of service, which
includes: (a) separate collection of glass, paper and card-
board, and the PMD (Plastics, Metals and Drinks) fraction;
(b) kerbside collection and (c) at predetermined collection
frequency. This compensation scheme implies that the
financial cost of the service is covered fully by the con-
tributions of FostPlus and provides the basis for ensuring
transparency. It is considered a financially sustainable
system, since no public money is required: 90 % of the
financial costs are covered through the established Belgian
recycling system [69]. Belgium achieves a high recovery,
recycling and re-use rate (96 %).
Denmark Denmark comprises the only Member State that
has preferred to internalize the costs rather than set up an
industry-run funding system. Denmark had already a
packaging waste management system in place, before the
transposition of Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
into national law. A deposit system runs for beverage
packaging, all other packaging household waste streams—
for which no separate collection has been organised—fall
under the responsibility of municipalities (http://www.pro-
e.org/Denmark). Most of the other EU countries (except for
Hungary and Croatia) run industry-funded systems as they
apply EPR schemes [75].
Germany Germany had a producer responsibility system
established prior to the enforcement of the PPW Directive.
The national Packaging Ordinance was in place since 1991
and it was amended for the fifth time in 2009 [8, 72].
Laterial-specific targets have been established for post-
consumer packaging: glass (75 %), tinplate (70 %), alu-
minium (60 %), paper/cardboard (70 %), plastics (36 %)
and composites (60 %) apply to [72]. With its Duales-
Systems-Deutschland (DSD) established in 1991, Germany
comprises the forerunner on producer responsibility
schemes [72]. DSD is responsible for the coordination of
both the collection and recovery of packaging waste
667
materials. It bears all recycling costs, including the cost for
the separate collection of recyclable waste [76]. The
company is consisted of 15,000 licensed members. It
covers only packaging waste at household level (not
commercial and industrial packaging). The German system
is criticized for not promoting competition and for being
expensive, however it is one of the most effective applied
schemes in Europe, in terms of recycling rates. For
example, the fee can be as high as 100 times more in
Germany than in the UK [8]. It may comprise, however, the
best example for studying the effect of competition of
PROs [71]. Since 2003, DSD was the sole PRO company,
responsible to organize the packaging waste management
scheme. In 2004, DSD was privatized with a view to
increase competition and liberalize the packaging waste
market. There are nine compliance systems for packaging
waste, with DSD representing approximately 50 % of the
total market [71]. It is claimed however that the anti-
competitive institutional structure of DSD is financially
justified as it could not otherwise be sustainable [77]. All
cost burdens are covered from the industry, while in cases
where local authorities are contracted for collection activ-
ities, they are fully reimbursed [8]. Packaging producers
have had both the physical and financial responsibility for
the packaging they produce and place in the local German
market. Now, it is required to cooperate with local
authorities. However, there is no financial flow between
them [8].
Ireland The EPR scheme in Ireland is run by the single
national compliance scheme, the Green Dot Company
named Repak [8]. It was founded in 1997, when a voluntary
agreement was signed between the Irish government and the
industry [75]. The scheme originally involved the industrial
packaging waste stream only, while in recent years it was
expanded to household waste also (since 2004) [8]. The
industry has the responsibility for the collection, recycling
and trading of commercial packaging waste, while the
responsibilities are split between local authorities and
industry for the household waste stream (municipalities are
responsible only for their collection). The costs are shared
between local authorities and producers, while the munici-
palities are reimbursed fully by the producers for the col-
lection service provided [8]. However, local authorities are
not obliged by law, but can be contracted by the Repak
payment scheme to collect household packaging waste.
Repak contracts with service providers, either local author-
ities or private entities, with no discrimination, while it
provides guaranteed take-back of materials, reducing
therefore financial risk. Ireland is unique in terms of
enforcement responsibility provided to local authorities in
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) [8]. The fee paid by producers is relatively small
123
 Author's personal copy
668
compared to other Member States and it is based on weight
with no specification about the material of the packaging
waste.
Italy Italy applies a producer fee scheme. No Green Dot
system exists in Italy, while a self financed system is
applied that is called CONAI. It comprises the sole national
compliance scheme and it is based on the so called ‘‘first
transfer’’ which means the transfer from the last producer
of the product to its first user within Italy. It is consisted of
approximately 1.5 million members, including packaging
producers and users. More than 8000 local authorities have
participated in the CONAI system. The municipalities are
responsible for the collection activities (physical respon-
sibility) and play a central role in the CONAI system. The
industry has the financial responsibility [8], resulting to a
cost 6.35€ per inhabitant [48].
Japan Japan has a well established EPR scheme which
is based on the European model. The roles and respon-
sibilities of both local municipalities and the industry are
well defined in the Packaging Recycling Act of 1995 [78].
Local authorities have the operational responsibility of
household packaging waste collection and storage and
their respective financing. The reimbursement of the
municipalities is relative to actual recycling costs, which
in turn reflect to the quality achieved [78]. The EPR
scheme is run by the Japan Containers and Packaging
Recycling Association (JCPRA), which was modeled after
the German and French systems [75, 79]. It comprises the
sole national compliance scheme. The costs are split
between the local authorities (55 %) and the industry
(45 %). Some municipalities require that the residents sort
their waste as much as 47 categories (see also case study
Kamikatsu), resulting to high collections costs and
reduced sorting/treating costs [79]. Despite the fact that
the established scheme needs significant improvements,
strong cultural values on tidiness and clean environment
result to high rates [79].
Norway The EPR scheme is applied in Norway by the
Green Dot company Grønt Punkt Norge AS, which is a
private, not-profit company founded in 1997. Municipali-
ties have the operational responsibility for the collection of
household packaging waste. The costs for the collection are
covered by households through waste fees [60]. The sorting
and trading responsibility of the collected waste lies with
the Green Dot Norway company [48]. Local authorities are
financed through the fee scheme, getting support for each
ton of household packaging waste delivered to Green Dot.
The average cost per recovered ton is estimated at 59€ and
6.2€ per inhabitant [48].
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
Portugal The EPR scheme applied in Portugal is run by
the Green Dot company Sociedade Ponto Verde (SPV),
which is a private initiative that was founded in 1996. It is
consisted of more than 10,000 member (industries and
trade retailers) and it provides packaging waste manage-
ment services (collection and transportation) to 308
municipalities. SPV extended its reach, besides the
households, to include also trade and industry packaging
waste [72]. The physical responsibility for selective col-
lection, sorting lies with the municipalities (or public
regional companies) [72]. SPV has the financial responsi-
bility and since it reimburses the municipalities for their
activities, the waste is owned by SPV, meaning that
municipalities have no further involvement in the trading
activity. It has been reported that adopting a strictly
financial perspective, SPV must increase its financial
contributions to local municipalities in order to sustain the
applied recycling program [69].
Spain Spain has introduced EPR scheme through the
transposition of the Packaging Directive into national law
with Packaging and Packaging Waste Act 11/97. The
Spanish Green Dot company is called ECOEMBES and has
been founded by the industry and trade actors. It is
responsible for plastic, metals and paper, while ECOV-
IDRIO for glass [48]. It is consisted of more than 12,000
member companies while it has signed agreements with
more than 107 local and regional authorities. Local
authorities are responsible for the collection and sorting of
packaging waste, while ECOMBES for their trading in the
recycling market. The packaging recovery cost is approx-
imately at 250€ per tonne [80].
South Australia The EPR scheme is run by the Australian
Packaging Covenant (APC) which is based on a joint
financing model, with shared costs between the industry and
the government. Local authorities are responsible for
financing and implementing waste collection programs
through household property taxes [73]. APC comprises a
voluntary program aiming at reducing the environmental
impacts of packaging waste. The fee is determined according
to annual turnover and ‘‘position’’ in the supply chain.
Packaging manufacturers pay approximately three fold
compared to other participating industries [73]. The fee is not
differentiated according to the packaging material used.
Hence no incentive to design for recyclability is provided to
the industry signatories of APC are provided. The estab-
lished system favors single stream collection of recyclables.
Sweden Sweden had a packaging tax established prior to
the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme [80], which
is run by the PRO called FTI (Forpacknings- och
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
Tidningsinsamlingen). FTI is owned by five ‘‘material’’
companies, namely Plastkretsen, MetallKretsen, Returkar-
tong, Svensk GlasÅtervinning and Pressretur. These
material companies organize collection and recycling of
packaging waste. The fee is weight based and is differen-
tiated according to the packaging material used. There is no
fee for newspapers, while fees for glass packaging are paid
directly to Svensk GlasÅtervinning. The fee is paid at one
stage of the value chain and in specific by the fillers. The
collection activities can be performed either by private or
municipal organizations and companies [75].
USA Green Dot North America is a private entity that is
responsible to ensure that companies that carry the Green
Dot are authorized to use the trade-mark in North America
(United States of America, Canada and Mexico). The
Green Dot trademark does not signify financial contribu-
tion to any packaging stewardship program that may exist
in North America. In Massachusetts, an Act (Bill H729/17-
01-2013) was recently suggested to commission extended
producer responsibility including various waste streams
and inter alia packaging waste [81]. So far, Massachusetts
has enacted the Mercury Management Act and has founded
the Carpet America Recovery Effort (CARE) in order to
handle mercury products and carpets [82]. The same
applies for California, where EPR programs run for
architectural paint, carpets, mattresses and mercury ther-
mostats [70].
United Kingdom United Kingdom operates a unique EPR
system that involves more than 20 compliance systems. It
meets the targets set almost exclusively through the
recovery of the commercial packaging waste [8]. It is one
of the most competing markets, since more than 20 com-
pliance systems exist. This model is based on free market
trading of the so called Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs)
between the compliance schemes [8]. There are no specific
responsibilities for local authorities. The established
scheme allocates a specific percentage of the responsibility
to different ‘‘positions’’ in the value chain: (a) 47 % for
retailers, (b) 36 % for packers and fillers; (c) 11 % for
converters; and (d) 6 % for raw material processors [79].
Collection costs are covered by municipalities with no
reimbursement from the EPR scheme. Producers pay a
membership fee and are charged for required PRNs. This
scheme however does not ensure financial support to local
authorities. There is concern about how the PRN revenues
end up for funding recycling infrastructure. UK producer
compliance schemes claim that they have achieved one of
the lowest compliance costs due to increased market
competition. For instance, the cost associated with a 50-ml
detergent bottle is as low as 10 times than the Irish and
hundred times than in Austrian and German systems [8].
669
This is argued however, since these costs reflect almost
exclusively on commercial packaging waste [8]. It has been
reported that as much as 60 % of PRN revenue is re-in-
vested for recycling infrastructure.
Deposit—Refund Systems
Deposit—refund systems, also known as ‘Bottle bills’ or
Container deposit laws have been widely deployed as an
economic instrument with the aim of increasing and cap-
turing the used packaging (i.e. mainly beverage bot-
tles/cans) for recycling [12]. On a worldwide basis, this
instrument has been in place for many decades, as an
outcome of the shift of the packaging industry from reu-
sable/refillable containers to one-way beverage containers
during the mid-1900s [11].
The main objectives of the development of deposit—
refund systems were the reduction of littering, the reduc-
tion of waste disposal costs, the diversion of valuable
recyclable materials from the waste streams, the conser-
vation of energy and natural resources and the development
of new businesses and jobs [13, 14].
The concept is quite simple, as when the consumer buys
a product, he pays for a deposit on top of its price. This
deposit will be reimbursed to him partially or fully, when
the product is returned to a trader or a specialized treatment
facility. Traditionally, this scheme has been applied for
glass bottles and through the years, the use of deposit
refund schemes in other types of containers materials, such
as plastic containers, cans, batteries, fluorescent lamps and
tyres has become also popular [10, 83]. A deposit-refund
scheme could accept the following packaging types [12]:
• Reusable containers, on a voluntary or supported by
legal provisions basis, and/or
• One-way containers, under a voluntary or mandatory
system
More specifically, voluntary systems for reusable
packaging does not certainly lead to increased recycling of
reusable packaging because, taking also into account that
the market share of this type of packaging shows a steady
and significant decrease, as mentioned before. This falling
trend could be attributed to the higher price of products
contained in reusable containers and the preference of users
for separate collection in view of convenience. Moreover,
it is observed that European countries which have adopted
obligatory deposit-refund schemes for disposable, one-use
containers are found among the Member States with the
highest recycling ratios (i.e. DE, NO, DK, SE) [84].
The effectiveness of a deposit-refund scheme could be
influenced in the case of high transboundary movement of
products, though. For example, commodities produced in
one country and consumed in another are not captured by
123
 Author's personal copy
670
the ‘domestic’ deposit-refund scheme and might be also
lost in mixed municipal waste or even illegally disposed, if
there is not a deposit scheme in place. This phenomenon
can be met mainly in North European countries For this
case, if obligatory systems are employed nationally, then
problems could be caused for non-domestic packaging
producing industries [12, 85].
In regard to the implementation costs for deposit-refund
systems, the evidence based on different studies is not clear
whether it is a more expensive practice compared to sep-
arate collection, while it has been also considered to be
affected by the legislative framework on national level [10,
83]. A general observation derived from the implementa-
tion of this instrument, relevant to the quality of the
materials delivered to deposit-refund collection points is
that they have better purity levels than the materials col-
lected through kerbside collection [14]. Furthermore, a
significant and positive influence has been broadly con-
firmed through literature review, correlating the use of
deposit-refund systems and the achievement of satisfying
high recycling rates, since percentages above 80 % have
been recorded in numerous case studies [10].
In total, a deposit-refund system was regarded as an
advantageous and effective fiscal waste management tool
in terms of waste prevention and reduction of littering, over
direct obligatory taxes, such as the Pigovian tax, since it is
considered easier to manage and control costs included in
product sales.
The analysis performed among the selected success
stories, took into consideration the maturity of the scheme
applied, the mandatory-voluntary nature, the refillability or
not of the beverage containers accepted, the type of recy-
clable materials (i.e. metals, plastics, glass), the refund
price per packaging material and respective volume of
container, as well as the capture ratios achieved per waste
material. Based on the aforementioned factors, the fol-
lowing results were obtained. 8 out of 15 countries/states
deploy deposit-refund schemes, as presented in Fig. 6. It
should be noted that the overall capture rate shown per
country/state examined is the average rate of the packaging
containers (i.e. metals, plastics, glass), while the rates of
the materials shown in each bar is normalized according to
its contribution to the overall rate (not actual rates). 5 out of
8 countries accept both reusable and one-way beverage
containers as incoming waste flows to their deposit-refund
systems. 7 out of 8 countries, namely (MA, US), (CA, US),
(DE), (DK), South Australia, (NO), and (SE) use deposit-
refund systems for three materials (i.e. plastics, metals,
glass). The Austrian deposit-refund schme, however,
accepts only refillables PET bottles. For the case of reu-
sable containers, 4 schemes are voluntary and 3 schemes
are mandatory. Norway does not have a deposit scheme in
place for refillable containers. The maturity of the deposit
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
refund schemes within the countries studied ranged from
12 years for the case of (DE) (launching year: 2003) up to
40 years for South Australia (launching year: 1975). The
price refunded among the cases examined ranges from 0.04
to 0.40 Euro. The higher the volume of the beverage
container, the higher the price refunded. The average
capture rates of all packaging materials range from 30 %
(AT) to 90 % (DK). Capture rates will be used as a
reflecting indicator for the assessment and final ranking of
the various municipal case studies examined which shall be
performed in the corresponding evaluation section ‘‘Results
and Discussion’’ (Fig. 5).
Landfill Taxes
Landfilling is a relatively economic waste management
option compared to other options (e.g. recycling) and, as a
result, has been frequently preferred in the past for the
management of the majority of waste generated. To change
the relative costs of the alternative waste management
methods and discourage the adoption of one method in
favour of another method, economic instruments, such as
taxes, may be used [86].
The landfill tax (also called disposal levy in Australia) is
a charge levied by a public authority on the disposal of
waste and is usually calculated based on the amount of
waste disposed (weight-based). It should be noted that,
landfill taxes do not provide a direct incentive to citizens
for reducing their waste, as they are not based on the
amount of waste generated by each household (as in the
case of PAYT schemes). Landfill charges are calculated on
an overall basis (e.g. municipal level), while the cost is
allocated by local governments equally to households (flat
fee), or, in some other cases, based on the surface area of
their property, their electricity or water consumption [22].
Therefore, there exists a rather weak link connecting
household waste disposal and disposal cost [87].
The landfill tax has been applied in many countries
especially in the EU, as well as internationally, during the
last 2–3 decades [16, 17, 88–90]. Its principal aims are to
internalize external costs of landfilling, to provide incen-
tives for diverting waste from landfills and to promote a
shift towards more sustainable waste treatment methods,
according to the waste hierarchy of the WFD [18]. More-
over, the revenues raised by the tax may be invested back
in the waste management chain for the development of
sustainable waste management programs, technologies and
infrastructures. Landfill taxes are imposed additionally to
the gate fees (or tipping fees in USA), which are set by the
operators of landfills for the provision of the service. In
most states of USA, the charges on landfill disposal col-
lected by state or local governments to fund waste man-
agement, are called solid waste disposal fees (e.g.
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684 671

Fig. 5 Overview of deposit—

Capture rates
refund schemes including
capture ratios achieved per
packaging material contribution Sweden

Norway

South Australia

Denmark

Austria

Germany

California

Massachussets

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Metal Plasc Glass

Fig. 6 Landfill charges (gate fees and taxes) and landfill rates for the case study countries (reference year 2011/12)

California), while in other states they are called permit-
ting/operating or other fees and are mainly calculated on an
annual basis (e.g. Massachusetts) [88].
From the literature review conducted in the framework
of this study, it was found that landfill taxes are applied at a
national/state or regional level to all the municipalities
under examination, with the exception of Landkreis Sch-
weinfurt (Germany) [17], Gloucester (Massachusetts) [91]
and Kamikatsu (Japan) [92]. The case study municipalities
that first implemented the landfill tax are Aarhus (1987),
Vienna (1989), Flanders [16], Palo Alto and San Francisco
(1990) [88], while Lisbon is the municipality which most
recently implemented the tax (2007) [16]. The duration of
the implementation period of the tax may indicate whether
there was sufficient time for the tax to be transferred to the
citizens/businesses, as well as to be evaluated against its
effectiveness in achieving the desired results in order to be
adjusted accordingly.
The revenues raised by the landfill taxes are generally
invested in environmental protection and waste manage-
ment programmes, while some of them may be also
allocated to the state budget. In particular, Spain allocates
tax revenues to the management of organic waste and
prioritizes the support on kerbside systems. On the other
hand, Denmark, Norway and Sweden allocate the total
amount of revenues to the state budget [16]. To ensure

123
 Author's personal copy
672
that some of the revenues raised by the tax in UK will be
exploited for environmental and sustainable waste man-
agement purposes, the potential for a tax rebate is pro-
vided through the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS).
With this scheme, landfill operators who collect and pay
the tax, may claim a credit against the payment, provided
that they make a contribution to a non-profit environ-
mental trust [93, 94].
A uniform tax rate for all types of waste and landfills
could be inefficient considering that different types are
associated with different environmental and social costs
[95]. Taking this into account, some countries apply higher
rates for waste types such as biodegradable waste (Nor-
way), recyclable waste (Portugal) or non-separated waste
(Spain), while Belgium (Flanders) has established 14 tax
rates for different waste types [16]. Furthermore, Austria,
Belgium (Flanders) and Norway have differentiated rates
according to the landfill type [16].
The level of taxation varies greatly between countries in
the EU, as well between the EU and internationally. With
regard to the case study municipalities, the highest average
tax rates in 2012 were applied in Flanders (Belgium) and
Milton Keynes (UK) (82€/t and 79€/t respectively) and the
lowest in San Francisco and Palo Alto (California) (1€/t),
as well as in Lisbon (Portugal) (3.5€/t), while the average
tax rate was 38€/t [17, 88, 90, 96]. Low average landfill
taxes may also be attributed to the fact that bans for certain
waste streams have been imposed or that low standard
landfills, which are charged with higher rates, have been
closed (e.g. Oslo) [16]. It is worth noting that the average
solid waste disposal fee in USA which was imposed in 31
of its 50 states was 1.6€/t in 2013 [89]. When the overall
landfill charges (landfill taxes and gate fees) are examined,
the highest values are observed in Vienna (Austria) and
Boras (Sweden) (170€/t and 155€/t respectively) and the
lowest in Lisbon (Portugal) (14€/t) [16] with the average
total charge value being 107€/t [16, 17, 88, 91, 96, 97].
In most cases, it has been observed that when total
landfill charges are high, national/state landfill rates are
quite low (0–6 %) [2, 98–100], while for moderate and low
charges, landfill rates are quite higher. This is not the case
though for Denmark, where although the total landfill
charge is considered moderate (107€/t), the landfill rate is
quite low (3 %) [2]. This may be associated with national
policies promoting incineration, as the country’s incinera-
tion rate is particularly high (54 %). Furthermore, Cali-
fornia and Massachusetts although having relatively low
total landfill charges, present moderate landfill rates (35
and 20 % respectively) [98]. This may be attributed to the
establishment of other mandates, programs and policies for
increasing diversion from landfills, such as zero waste
policies [82, 89] and in particular for the case of Mas-
sachusetts, effective bans on landfilling and high
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
incineration rates [91]. In general, particular attention must
be given during the interpretation of landfill rates, as other
policies, such as bans on the landfilling of certain waste
streams (e.g. Vienna, Boras), usually exercise higher
influence on the rates. This is also the case for the corre-
lation of total landfill charges with recycling rates.
Although there is a positive correlation between these two
parameters, other economic, regulatory or technical
instruments applied for promoting recycling, may also
influence the results [17].
An increasing trend in tax rates is observed over time
in most countries. Although initial tax rates are usually
estimated based on the internalization of externalities
generated by landfilling, subsequent increases in rates
are frequently considered necessary in order to further
boost changes towards sustainable waste management
methods and to provide a stronger incentive for com-
plying with the landfill diversion targets [93]. The most
frequent and highest overall increases in tax rates have
been marked in the UK, where a yearly tax escalator on
active waste landfilling was introduced in 1999 and was
subsequently increased three times until 2014 [101–104].
The aim of the escalator was also to support long term
investment decisions on alternative waste management
plans [104].
In general, a comprehensive assessment of the optimum
landfill charges should be made prior to their introduction,
as low charges may not provide sufficient incentive against
landfilling while high charges may lead to illegal disposal,
especially when landfilling is the only available option
[Australia]. In addition, the introduction of taxes should be
in coordination with neighbouring countries or regions, as
strong differentials in taxes may result in transboundary
shipment of waste which conflicts with the principles of
proximity and self-sufficiency [86, 105]. In all cases, it has
been ascertained that a combination of instruments, besides
the landfill tax, is necessary to eliminate landfilling [17].
Where incineration is an available waste management
option for a municipality, landfill taxes must be accom-
panied by incineration taxes, for avoiding a mass shift
towards incineration [86].
Incineration Tax
The concept of the incineration is the same to that of
landfill tax. In particular, the objective of a tax imposed on
the waste being incinerated, is to give incentives for
recycling and moving further up the waste hierarchy [106].
They are complementary to landfill taxes, aiming to control
a potential mass shift of waste from landfills to incineration
[17].
Only 4 out of the 15 countries/states where the case
study municipalities are located, apply incineration taxes
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
(i.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain), although 14
countries/states have MSW incinerators operating at their
territory (all but Ireland) [17, 98, 100, 107]. The level of
taxation ranges from €5.70 per tonne in Spain to €44 per
tonne in Denmark and is always lower compared to the
respective national landfill tax [17]. However, the total
incineration charges (tax and fee) are higher than total
landfill charges in Austria, Germany, Spain and Italy, and
as a result, landfilling continues to be the most economic
option for waste management in these countries. Yet in
Austria and Germany, bans in place for landfilling of cer-
tain municipal waste, effectively regulate this adverse
effect [17].
Considering that the WFD permits shipment of waste
between EU countries provided that they are intended to be
subject to recovery operations, such as incineration with
energy recovery, the effectiveness of a national incineration
tax is hampered, as waste may be shipped to another country
for incineration where this option is more economic [108]. In
order to cut back tax revenue—and renewable energy pro-
duction- losses from the reduction in waste amounts being
incinerated domestically, countries are lowering their tax
rates to increase their competiveness. As a result, the
potential of the incineration tax to provide incentives for
alternative, more sustainable waste management methods is
weakened, while the environmental externalities from
incineration are under-recognized [109–112]. An extreme
outcome of international waste flows was marked in the case
of Norway and Sweden, which both had established incin-
eration taxes. In particular, mass waste flows from Norway to
Sweden, have led Norway to abolish its incineration tax and,
as a response, Sweden did the same immediately after [106,
109, 113]. To avoid this effect, Flanders imposes incinera-
tion taxes to waste exported for incineration as well [109].
Tradable Permit Schemes
Tradable permit schemes, or cap and trade schemes, have
been extensively used in the environmental policy, and
most recently, in the field of waste management [86, 114]
in the case of the UK. In particular, the UK in its effort to
ensure that the targets of the EU Landfill Directive will be
achieved on time and in a cost-efficient way, introduced in
2004/05 the Landfill Allowance Scheme (LAS) [93, 101].
In the framework of the scheme, allowances were allocated
to waste disposal authorities on the amount of biodegrad-
able waste permitted to be landfilled, at the level required
for each region to meet its contribution to the overall UK
landfill diversion targets [101, 114]. In England and Scot-
land (Milton Keynes), trading of allowances between
authorities was allowed, while in Wales and Northern
Ireland only banking (saving) present allowances and
borrowing future allowances was allowed [104]. Although
673
the LAS was an important driver, along with the landfill
tax, for diverting waste from landfills, it was found in 2010
that the landfill tax escalator constituted, at that point, an
even more strong driver and therefore it was decided to
phase out the LAS after 2013 [101].
Comparing the LAS with the landfill tax, Driesden [115]
maintained that taxes, in contrast with tradable permits, are
dynamic and allow for technological changes, while Calaf-
Forn et al. [104] claimed that with the tradable permits, the
achievement of diversion targets is more guaranteed.
PAYT
A key motivation for sustainable waste management is the
fair sharing of the waste management costs among those
who produce them, according to the burden imposed by
each user across the chain. Article 14 of the Waste
Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) reads that ‘‘In accor-
dance with the polluter-pays principle, the costs of waste
management shall be borne by the original waste producer
or by the current or previous waste holders.’’ [17]. The
pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) (also known as variable-rate
pricing or unit pricing) approach in waste management
implements essentially the ‘‘polluter-pays’’ principle in a
fair and transparent way [20, 22, 116, 117].
PAYT is a globally used economic instrument with
various social, environmental and legal dimensions that
finances and stimulates better recycling, given that a direct
economic incentive is created to recycle more and generate
less waste [17]. Thus, it has been selected to be studied and
evaluated in the framework of the present work as it is
considered one of the instruments whose impacts on waste
management could be clearly distinguished [17, 23, 87].
The first PAYT scheme in the world was introduced in the
USA, during the beginning of the 20th century [24]. PAYT
schemes were extensively applied since the 1970s and
beyond, especially in California, Washington and Canada
and subsequently became widespread to almost all European
countries. Watkins et al. [17] reports that 17 Member States
employ PAYT schemes for municipal waste, with some of
the most advanced and well-established schemes operating
in Austria, Germany, Finland and Italy [17]. However, the
financial mechanisms employed by European countries for
the management of household waste still vary greatly.
Certain of these schemes are entirely tax-based, such as
Great Britain being a case of a country that up to now denies
householders a financial motive for individualized waste
decrease by implementing a waste-specific charging system.
Whereas, other countries have applied systems involving a
completely waste generation-oriented and individualized
charging, as Switzerland and Luxembourg that deliver
leading examples with such mechanisms, covering the
whole territory of the country [23].
123
 Author's personal copy
674 Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684

Moving away from traditional charging systems

according to which users pay for the management of
municipal waste by means of property taxes, water con-
sumption or a fixed fee regardless the amount of waste they
generate, PAYT systems can be implemented in the fol-
lowing forms or a combination of them [10]:
• Volume-based schemes: households select specific-
sized bins to be delivered to their property, prior to
the implementation of the scheme. The charges depend
on the volume capacity of the bin. These schemes have
been widely applied in the US and, formerly, in Europe.
• Frequency-based schemes: in these schemes, users are
charged either for the waste collection services pro-
vided according to a fixed time-schedule or using
In terms of the implementation costs when comparing
tags/electronic chips in order to record each time a bin
the aforementioned forms of PAYT, they are related to the
is emptied. The popularity of these schemes increases
nature of infrastructure employed, as well as to the pre-
and is broadly deployed in Belgium, the Netherlands
existing waste management scheme. The basic costs
and certain regions of Germany as well.
incurring include information campaigns, purchase of
• Bag-based schemes: they are a variation of volume-
equipment (i.e. vehicles, containers), set up and operation
based systems. Standardized bags are used for the
of billing system, appointment of responsible team/board to
collection of waste. Users are charged depending on the
monitor possible illegal dumping, known as fly-tipping,
number of bags set out for collection.
allotting of bag retailers as necessary and establishment of
• Weight-based schemes: these schemes are based either on
telephone helplines to tackle with users’ enquiries [10]. As
manual weighing or automated weighing through elec-
pointed out by a report published by Defra, pay-per-bag
tronic devices/transponders incorporated on each bin
schemes are the most inexpensive to be introduced,
which is collected by special vehicles. These schemes
whereas pay-per-weight or frequency charging schemes are
include fixed annual fees which are charged per house-
multiple times more costly [22] although initial investment
hold, at most cases, as an element of a PAYT scheme [10].
expenses could be balanced by the savings gained due to
In general, this economic instrument, along with its the decrease of total waste generated [10] or because of the
inherent fairness, can be effective when the fees are at sale of source-sorted recyclables [19, 118]. The literature
levels high enough to trigger people’s reflection on their review reveals that the introduction of PAYT schemes can
waste generation behaviour, and engagement in sorting lead to a 40 % reduction in mixed waste generation, rela-
their waste [17]. However, special attention is needed as it tive to a setting with only drop-off or limited kerbside
is argued that high fees can lead also to illegal waste recycling service and no PAYT charges [17].
dumping [28]. The literature review reveals that there is no Based on the analysis performed among the selected
one size fits all solution. Rather, when designing a waste success stories, the following results were obtained. 10 out
management program, it is vital to examine carefully in of 19 Municipalities examined have adopted PAYT
which way, waste was managed before the implementation schemes in order to apply sustainable waste management
of a PAYT scheme. Also, a PAYT scheme should charge: practices and conform to waste policy, since the 1980s and
(a) the highest variable fee for residual waste; (b) a lower even earlier. More particularly, one frequency-based
(but non-zero) fee for biowaste; (c) zero fee for kitchen scheme is deployed in Cappanori (IT), one volume-based
waste; and (d) a low or zero fee for dry recyclables. PAYT system is applied in San Francisco, CA (USA), two weight-
schemes are better combined with kerbside waste collec- based schemes run in Landkreis, Schweinfurt (DE) and
tion so as to ensure maximized diversion [23, 26]. Low- Limerick (IE), four bag-based schemes operate in Dogliani
density municipalities make it easier to implement a (IT), Gloucester, MA (USA), Hernani (ES), Argentona
kerbside collection system [17, 19, 118]. (ES), whereas in Flanders (BE) both bag-based and weight-
Based on Holmes et al. [10] findings, a top-down based schemes are used and in Palo Alto, CA (USA) vol-
approach was indicated in regard to the effectiveness ume-based and frequency based schemes have been
among different types of PAYT schemes on recycling applied. Regarding the maturity of the operating PAYT
performance and waste prevention. Thus, the following schemes, Gloucester, MA (USA) counts 25 years of using
ranking was formed: ‘‘pay-as-you-throw’’, whereas Cappanori (IT) has launched

123
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
its PAYT scheme since 2012. The most common types of
waste streams targeted for ‘‘pay-as-you-throw’’ systems are
organics, dry recyclables and residuals. 40 % of the PAYT
Municipalities studied uses a three-pronged separation at
source goal (i.e. organics, recyclables and residuals), 20 %
aims at source sorting of 2 waste streams, 20 % of 4 waste
streams, 10 % requires the separation at source of 5 dis-
tinctive streams and another 10 % separately collects 6
different waste streams.
The assessment and final ranking of the various
municipal case studies examined shall be performed in the
corresponding evaluation section ‘‘Results and Discus-
sion’’, based on the comprehensive analysis presented by
Puig-Ventosa et al. [19] on existing pay-as-you-throw
schemes considering 10 different characteristics: (1) pre-
vention and recycling incentive, (2) technological com-
plexity, (3) implementation cost, (4) maintenance cost, (5)
reliability and transparency of tax calculation, (6) certainty
of revenue, (7) fraud risk, (8) collection efficiency, (9)
correspondence between volume or weight and charge,
(10) convenience for users [19] All the aforementioned
features are considered as reflecting factors in terms of the
effective performance of the unit-charging systems applied
in each examined case study.
Regulatory Instruments
Bans and Restrictions
The bans and restrictions on waste disposal are instruments
for regulating waste management. The aim of a landfill ban
or restriction is to reduce dependency on landfills and to
shift waste management up the waste hierarchy. A number
of countries where the case study municipalities are loca-
ted, have enforced state-wide landfill bans/restrictions on
municipal waste with several variations regarding the type
of waste, such as (i) unsorted/untreated waste (Belgium-
Flanders, Germany), (ii) separately collected (Belgium-
Flanders, Sweden, Germany, Massachusetts, California,
South Australia), and (iii) residual waste, based on their
combustibility (Denmark, Italy, Belgium-Flanders),
biodegradability (Denmark, Norway) and total organic
carbon value (Austria, Norway) [16, 89, 91, 119]. Bans and
restrictions on the first and second type of waste have the
potential for high recoverability, especially for material
recovery and, therefore, they have resulted in increased
rates of recycling and biological treatment [30]. On the
other hand, bans and restrictions on residual waste have
low potential for material recovery and usually result in
increased incineration rates [30]. Some countries and states
(i.e. Belgium-Flanders, Massachusetts) in order to ensure
that the landfill ban will not result in the incineration of the
675
waste banned from landfills, have also adopted an incin-
eration ban for the same type of waste [30, 91].
After the announcement of the landfill bans and
restrictions, there is usually a transition period during
which landfilling of banned or restricted waste is allowed,
in case alternative treatment options are not yet available.
During this period, increasing landfill taxes have been
reported to significantly contribute in establishing compli-
ance with the bans and restrictions, by providing an addi-
tional strong disincentive for landfilling [30]. In addition,
long transition periods have been proven to be very
important for the successful implementation of these
schemes [30].
To reduce the amount of non-recyclable plastic waste
ending up at landfills, several countries and local govern-
ments have adopted laws for banning the use of plastic bags.
In California, San Francisco has enacted laws on plastic bag
bans in restaurants (2007) and all retail stores (2012) [120]
and Palo Alto banned plastic bags in large supermarkets
(2009) and expanded the ban to all stores and restaurants
(2013) [121]. Furthermore, South Australia was the first
government of Australia in 2009 to adopt a ban on plastic
bags. Research showed that more than 9 in 10 shoppers now
take reusable bags for their shopping, while before the ban
the analogy was 6 in 10 [122]. Other examples of important
product bans enforced on the case study municipalities, are
found again in San Francisco where a law on the restriction of
the sale or distribution of small plastic bottles of water on
City property was passed (2014) [120].
Mandatory Source Separation
Mandatory separation of waste at source is a prescriptive
policy instrument that can contribute to economic and effi-
cient recycling [86, 123]. It may be addressed to munici-
palities or directly to households, while if the
municipalities/households do not comply with the require-
ment, they have to pay a fine. From our 15 case study
countries and states, 11 have mandatory source separation
laws in place for certain municipal waste types [29, 30].
Communicative Instruments
Communication instruments are considered a significant
part when developing and applying an integrated waste
management plan. Communication strategies related to the
implementation of waste management systems should be
focused on the awareness raising, while giving the oppor-
tunity for the consistent and effective flow of information
between key stakeholders, local authorities and citizens’
committees. The use of a variety of informative and
educative activities to specialized and non-specialized
individuals—members of the community targeted,
123
 Author's personal copy
676
Fig. 7 Zero waste hierarchy of
highest and best uses (ZWIA)
influences positively the behavioural change towards
environmental protection, while at the same time the
transparent information enables trust and eventually long-
term engagement of people to sustainable waste manage-
ment. In all case studies examined, a range of awareness
raising tools were employed, however it was observed that
in municipalities with low population, community outreach
and participation rate were substantially higher compared
to municipalities with moderate and high population.
Therefore, the former municipalities received higher
ranking in the comparative assessment of the waste man-
agement performance of the selected case studies (section
‘‘Results and Discussion’’).
Zero Waste Strategies
Recently, an increasing number of local, regional and
national authorities are adopting the ‘‘Zero Waste’’ goal in
their waste management strategies. Zero waste is a visionary
concept based on the principles of circular economy that
aims beyond recycling through a holistic plan for re-de-
signing products to conserve natural resources and avoid
waste generation, encouraging waste prevention and reuse
and, promoting recovery of resources against incineration
and landfilling [33, 124, 125]. The achievement of zero waste
objectives is quite challenging as it requires the active
involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, such as the
product designers, manufacturers, retailers and citizens [126,
127]. Last but not least, zero waste aims to bring a revolution
in the relationship between people and waste [34].
The first city to adopt a zero waste strategy was Can-
berra in Australia which adopted an official target of ‘‘No
waste by 2010’’, while New Zealand was the first country
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
to adopt a zero waste vision in 2002 [125]. The zero waste
hierarchy according to the Zero Waste International Alli-
ance (ZWIA) is presented in Fig. 7.
Following, the case study municipalities that have Zero
Waste strategies in place are presented.
Kamikatsu, Japan
The municipality of Kamikatsu adopted a ‘‘Zero Waste
Declaration’’ in 2003, which had as target to send zero
waste to landfill or incineration by 2020. Kamikatsu, a
small village in South Japan that until the late 90s burned
its waste in open burning holes, was forced to build an
incinerator and shortly after (2000), was forced to shut it
down due to the associated health concerns. As a result, the
municipality had to come up with an alternative waste
management plan. The Zero Waste Strategy in Kamikatsu
enjoys support from the residents of the municipality, who
voluntarily participate in a range of activities for achieving
the zero waste targets. For example, residents transport
their recyclable waste to the recycling center to separate
them into 34 different waste streams. Furthermore, there is
a ‘‘kuru–kuru’’ shop (circular in Japanese) in the town for
used items, as well as a ‘‘kuru–kuru’’ factory where bags
and clothes are made out of used clothing. However, it is
admitted that such a strong public participation and
engagement is more feasible in small villages than in cities
[44, 124].
Cappanori, Italy
In 1997, a movement against incinerators started to set up
in Cappanori, which later resulted in the successful
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
blocking of the incinerator construction. In 2007 the ‘‘Zero
Waste Strategy’’ was signed which aimed at landfilling
zero waste by 2020. For the successful implementation of
the Strategy, a series of prevention, reuse and recycling
activities were foreseen. In this direction, tax incentives are
provided to small businesses in order to sell products loose
in order for customers to fill their own refillable containers
(e.g. liquid detergents, milk) and reduce packaging waste.
Other such initiatives include inter alia the provision of free
composters and 10 % discount on waste tariffs to those
householders that employ home composting, the provision
of composting machines to public canteens, the promotion
of tap water consumption instead of bottled water, the
subsidization of washable nappies, the distribution of cloth
shopping bags, as well as, the launching of a Reuse Centre
where second-hand items in good condition are sold [128].
San Francisco, Unites States
The city of San Francisco, decided in 2002 to comple-
ment the target set in 2001 by the California Integrated
Waste Management Board for its cities and counties to
divert 50 % of waste from landfills, and signed a reso-
lution for adopting a 75 % goal of landfill diversion by
2010 and a goal for zero waste to landfill or incineration
by 2020. To achieve the goals, the city of San Francisco
has put into force a number of waste reduction laws, such
as the law on the recovery of construction and demolition
debris (2006), the law on the mandatory use of com-
postable or recyclable take-out containers (plastic bag
ban) in restaurants (2007) and in all retail stores (2012),
the law on the mandatory recycling and composting for
all residents and businesses (2009), the law on the
restriction of the distribution of yellow pages (2011) and,
most lately, the law on the restriction of the sale or
distribution of small plastic bottles of water on City
property (2014) [120]. Among the drivers for enforcing
these waste reduction laws were the high costs associated
with landfilling, as the adopted zero waste policy con-
tributes to substantial cost savings. Apart from the leg-
islation, the city in collaboration with a waste
management company, has established a source separa-
tion program for the recyclable, organic and residual
waste (the so-called Fantastic 3 program) and are work-
ing together on creating a recycling and composting
culture. Furthermore, the city awards grants to local
organizations for implementing activities which will fur-
ther contribute to achieving zero waste goals. Zero waste
activities are actually funded from the revenues raised by
the rates paid by citizens for garbage collection. The city
has achieved admirable landfill diversion rates while it is
estimated that from the 23 % of waste that still is dis-
posed of at landfills, 75 % is recyclable. In this phase,
677
efforts are concentrated in diverting this fraction too, with
the aim to reach a 90 % recycling rate. However, the
diversion of the last 10 % is expected to be the hardest
goal to achieve. Discussions evolve around the collection
of the recyclable fraction of bathroom waste, the use of
reusable diapers and the collaboration with manufacturers
to reduce the content of non-recyclable materials in
products [34].
Palo Alto, United States
In 2005, the city of Palo Alto adopted the Zero Waste
Strategy and set the goal for achieving zero waste
diversion from landfills by 2021 [129]. The Zero Waste
Policy was set up by city staff in collaboration with
residents and businesses that formed that the Zero Waste
Task Force, although public involvement was not very
satisfactory. The main reservation for the successful
implementation of the zero waste strategy was the con-
tract with the landfill accepting the city’s waste until
2011, which obliged them to pay a certain amount even if
no waste are delivered to the landfill. The Zero Waste
Operational Plan approved in 2007 [130], sets a number
of activities for achieving the zero waste goals, which
included inter alia the promotion of voluntary takebacks,
the expansion of reuse opportunities and recycling ser-
vices and the creation of a zero waste fund. In 2009, the
target for 100 % diversion rate of construction and
demolition waste was also added and a plastic bag ban
was applied to large supermarkets while in 2013, the
plastic bag ban was expanded to include all stores and
restaurants. In 2015, the next planned activities were the
residential collection of food scraps and the mandatory
commercial recycling and composting [131].
Milton Keynes
In 2002, the Council of Milton Keynes in its waste strategy
agreed to set zero waste as a long-term aspiration goal
[132]. In 2005, the zero waste target was further clarified
as a target for reducing residual waste, but at the same time
it was recognized that an actual zero waste target could not
be achieved without the support from the government,
industry and communities [133]. In 2010, the Scottish
Government publishes its first Zero Waste Plan [134]
which included quantified targets and specific measures
towards zero waste. In particular, the targets set refer to
recycling/composting and preparing for reuse 70 % of
waste and, sending to landfill maximum 5 % of waste by
2025. The measures for achieving the targets, consist of
requirements for full implementation of separate collection
of recyclables (by 1/2014) and food (by 1/2016), as well as
123
 Author's personal copy
678 Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684

Table 4 Evaluation scores for

Total evaluaon
Deposit-Refund
the case study municipalities

Zero Waste

Populaon
Regulatory
Technical

Taxes

score
PAYT
EPR
Palo Alto
Dogliani
Cappanori
Landkreis Schweinfurt
Verdu
San Fransisco
Kamikatsu
Argentona
Gloucester
Flanders
Boras
Hernani
Limerick
Adelaide
Aarhus
Vienna
Oslo
M. Keynes
Lisbon

Legend: Ranking score

Low
Low to Moderate
Moderate
Moderate to High
High

Fig. 8 Total evaluation score of the case study municipalities in relation to their recycling rate and the national incineration rate

bans on landfilling or incineration of these separately new targets and measures set. The Strategy also high-
collected waste streams. The Council of Milton Keynes lighted its opposing to mass-burn incineration of unsepa-
with its Waste Strategy Refresh in 2011 [135], aspired the rated waste.

123
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
Fig. 9 Correlation of recycling rate with population density below 2000 inhabitants/km2 (size of bubble: total score)
Results and Discussion
In this Section, the outcomes from the individual evalua-
tion of the instruments studied in section ‘‘Evaluation of
Instruments’’ are gathered in order to conduct an overall
evaluation of the schemes applied in the case study
municipalities.
As it can be seen in Table 4, four cases studies were
evaluated with a high score: Palo Alto, Dogliani, Cap-
panori and Landkreis Scheinfurt. All of them apply a
PAYT system as well as they employ regulatory instru-
ments, while two of them also have a Zero Waste Strategy.
In the next ranking category there are 9 municipalities, the
majority of which (6) apply PAYT systems, but also 6 of
them do not have a Deposit-refund system, whereas two of
them have a Zero Waste Strategy. In the next category
there are 5 municipalities, of which no one applies a PAYT
system and one has a zero waste strategy, but it does not
have an actual zero waste goal set (Milton Keynes). The
last ranking category consists of one municipality (Lisbon)
which does not apply many instruments, and on top of that,
it is a densely populated and historic place, where the wide
application of a kerbside system presents various technical
difficulties.
The results of the evaluation of each instrument and
the overall evaluation scores for the case study munici-
palities are presented in Table 4. Different colours in the
table represent different ranking categories, where red it
the lowest (worst) ranking category and green is the
highest (best) ranking category (see also legend below the
table).
The total evaluation scores of the case study munici-
palities are also presented in Fig. 8, in descending priority
order, along with the respective recycling (municipal) and
679
national incineration rates. As it can be seen, there is a
clear correlation between the evaluation scores and recy-
cling rates, according to which the municipalities which
have been evaluated with high scores also present high
recycling rates, while as the evaluation score decreases, a
decreasing trend is also observed in the recycling rate. The
cases where this relationship is not so clear, are the
municipalities of Boras (SE), Gloucester (MA), Limerick
(IE), Oslo (NO) and Vienna (AU). However, it must be
noted that the national policies of the majority of the
countries where these municipalities are located, present
high incineration rates (Sweden: 51 %, Massachusetts:
42 %, Norway: 57 %, Austria: 35 %), meaning that
incineration is promoted against recycling, and this is also
reflected at municipal level. This indicates that even if a
municipality has a well-established system in place for
managing waste in a sustainable way and promoting
recycling, the overall national policies must be in line with
the waste hierarchy in order for the efforts made to be
efficient and fruitful.
In the following figures, a correlation between the
recycling rate, the population density and the total score of
each case study municipality is provided. The score is the
result of the semi-quantitative assessment based on the
methodology developed in the framework of this study.
The higher the score, the higher is the bubble size. For
reasons of clarity, the 19 case studies are presented in two
separate diagrams.
In Fig. 9, fourteen case studies are presented with a
population density below 2000 inhabitants per km2, while
in Fig. 10, five municipalities are presented with a popu-
lation density more than 2000 inhabitants per km2. It is
obvious that there is a general trend that the smaller bub-
bles (low total score) have small y values, which was
123
 Author's personal copy
680
Fig. 10 Correlation of recycling rate with population density above 2,000 inhabitants/km2 (size of bubble: total score)
anticipated due to reduced recycling rate achieved (see also
Fig. 8). With reference to population density, high values
result to inconvenience to implement collection systems
(kerbside collection) that could improve recycling rates.
Conclusions
This paper presents nineteen case studies of successfully
implemented solid waste management schemes in munic-
ipalities throughout Europe as well as worldwide. The
schemes implemented aimed at reducing the amount of
waste disposed in landfills and to increase prevention, reuse
and recycling rates. The evaluation of the case studies
shows that a number of factors influenced the results
achieved. The factors found to influence recycling perfor-
mance were the following.
The collection system comprises one of the most critical
parameters, influencing the recycling performance of a
municipality. It has been recognized that access to com-
bined systems (kerbside, bring systems and recycling
banks) leads to higher recycling rates. Also, source sepa-
ration of MSW streams and especially recyclables has a
significant impact on the recycling rate. Finally, the sepa-
ration of organics at source (kitchen waste) can provide
high quality products such as compost, biofuel etc. which
can be further exploited locally. The Extended Producer
Responsibility principle has been widely adopted by many
countries. However, the models applied to implement EPR
differs significantly across countries. The most critical
difference is the share of responsibilities both at physical
(waste collection, sorting) and financial level. Even though
some schemes seem to be successful, importance must be
paid to the sustainability of scheme in financial terms.
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
Economic instruments such as landfill taxes were found
to have a rather weak effect on promoting sustainable waste
management practices, as they are not based on the amount
of waste generated by each household and therefore they do
not provide a direct incentive to citizens for reducing their
waste. Furthermore, low landfill rates were observed mostly
in the cases were the landfill charges are very high, while it
should be taken into account that the landfill charges consist
also of a fee which is paid to the landfill operators and not to
national/local authorities. On the other hand, the imple-
mentation of PAYT schemes aspire for more responsible
environmental behaviors, since they bring the users in direct
and continuous contact with the waste they generate.
Moreover, if they are combined with kerbside collection
schemes for more than three waste streams, then optimum
results can be achieved in terms of source-separated mate-
rials of high quality. However, the charge imposed to users
should not be very high, in order to deal with waste leakage
phenomena to neighbouring regions without pay-as-you-
throw systems in place. In addition, deposit-refund systems
could be also considered as supporting tools for enhanced
recycling performance since the user is directly rewarded
for delivering source-sorted packaging containers to
appropriate collection points and does not feel punished for
practicing illegal disposal methods or ineffective practice of
source separation of waste materials.
Regulatory instruments such as landfill/incineration
bans are considered to be quite powerful means for pro-
moting more sustainable waste management practices, but
they do not create revenues like the economic instruments
do, which can then be invested for the implementation of
waste management programmes. Product bans such as the
plastic bag bans are also considered very useful for
decreasing the non-recyclable content of waste.
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
The implementation of Zero Waste strategies is con-
sidered to be very challenging but at the same time
effective in improving waste management performance, as
the ambitious goals which they set require the implemen-
tation of continuous, radical and numerous measures for
their achievement.
Many of the case study municipalities studied that have
achieved high recycling rates have small population size.
This was mainly attributed to the fact, that community
outreach, awareness raising and citizen’s active participa-
tion and collaboration is easier to be achieved in munici-
palities with low population.
In conclusion, all instruments should be taken into account
when designing a waste management scheme, with emphasis
on source separation, kerbside collection systems, regulatory
measures and PAYT systems with a vision to zero waste. In
all cases, as there is no ‘‘one size fits all’’, the specific
characteristics of each municipality should be identified in
order for the set of instruments to be properly adjusted.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the European finan-
cial instrument for the Environment, LIFE?, for part financing this
work in the framework of the Recycling@home project (LIFE11
ENV/GR/000950) and the ISWM-TINOS project (LIFE10 ENV/GR/
000610).
References
1. United States Geological Survey: Materials Flow and Sustain-
ability (2008)
2. Eurostat: News Release 33/2013. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
documents/2995521/5160410/8-04032013-BP-EN.PDF/c8bcd2
cd-a8d0-4bf1-b862-62209408c532?version=1.0 (2013). Acces-
sed 14 Jan 2015
3. EEA: Laterial resources and waste—2012 update the European
environment state and outlook 2010. http://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/material-resources-and-waste-2014/download (2012).
Accessed 5 Jan 2015
4. Meyer, B.: Macroeconomic modelling of sustainable develop-
ment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/studies_model
ling/pdf/report_macroeconomic.pdf (2011). Accessed 7 Jan 2015
5. EC: COM (2014) 398Towards a circular economy: A zero waste
programme for Europe. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html
?uri=cellar:50edd1fd-01ec-11e4-831f-01aa75ed71a1.0001.01/
DOC_1&format=PDF (2014). Accessed 8 Jan 2015
6. More jobs, less waste. Potential for job creation through higher
rates of recycling in the UK and EU (2010). https://www.foe
europe.org/press/2010/Sep14_half_million_new_jobs_could_be_
created_by_recycling_more.html
7. Suttibak, S., Nitivattananon, V.: Assessment of factors influ-
encing the performance of solid waste recycling programs.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 45–56 (2008)
8. Cahill, R., Grimes, S.M., Wilson, D.C.: Extended producer
responsibility for packaging wastes and WEEE—a comparison
of implementation and the role of local authorities across Eur-
ope. Waste Manage. Res. 29, 455–479 (2010)
9. EXPRA: EPR for packaging in Europe Learnings and best prac-
tices. www.cicpen.cz/docs/201404/02.pptx. Accessed 19 May 2015
681
10. Holmes, A., Fulford, J., Pitts-Tucker, C.: Investigating the
Impact of Recycling Incentive Schemes, Full Report. Eur.
Commission. Eunomia Research & Consulting (2014)
11. Weisfeld, S.: Container Deposit Legislation in Ireland, A pro-
posed deposit and refund scheme. Report for Voice of Irish
Concern for the Environment, VOICE (2012) http://voiceireland.
org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/bottle-bill-final-July-2012.pdf
12. Astrup, N., Hedh, A.: European Refunding Scheme for Drinks
Containers (Report). Joint Parliamentary Committee, European
Economic Area (2011)
13. Anderson, R.C.: International Experiences with Economic
Incentives for Protecting the Environment. Report EPA-236-R-
04-001. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
(2004)
14. Anderson, R.C.: The United States Experience with Economic
Incentives for Protecting the Environment. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2001)
15. Nicolli, F., Mazzanti, M.: Landfill diversion in a decentralized
setting: a dynamic assessment of landfill taxes. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 81, 17–23 (2013)
16. Fischer, C., Lehner, M., & McKinnon, D.L.: Overview of the
use of landfill taxes in Europe. ETC/SCP (2012)
17. Watkins, E., Hogg, D., Mitsios, A., Mudgal, S., Neubauer, A.,
Reisinger, H., Troeltzsch, J., Van Acoleyen, M.: Use of eco-
nomic instruments and waste management performances. Final
report for the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/envir
onment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf (2012)
18. Bartelings, H., van Beukering, P.J.H., Kuik, O.J., Linderhof,
V.G.M., Oosterhuis, F.H., Brander, L.M., Wagtendonk, A.J.:
Effectiveness of landfill taxation. Institute for Environmental
Studies, Amsterdam (2005)
19. Puig Ventosa, I., Calaf Forn, M., Mestre Montserrat, M.: Guide
for the implementation of pay-as-you-throw systems for
municipal waste. Agència de Residus de Catalunya (2010)
20. US EPA: Pay-As-You-Throw. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
conserve/tools/payt/index.htm. Accessed on 19 May 2015
21. Batllevell, M., Hanf, K.: The fairness of PAYT systems: some
guidelines for decision-makers. Waste Manag. 28(12),
2793–2800 (2008)
22. Bilitewski, B.: From traditional to modern fee systems. Waste
Manag. 28(12), 2760–2766 (2008)
23. Reichenbach, J.: Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in
Europe–A review of pilot research and implementation studies.
Waste Manag. 28(12), 2809–2814 (2008)
24. Aldy, J.E., Bauer S.D., Miranda, M.L.: Unit pricing programs
for residential municipal solid waste: an assessment of the lit-
erature. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (2006)
25. Hogg, D., Wilson, D., Gibbs, A., Astley, M., Papineschi, J.:
Modelling the Impact of Household Charging for Waste in
England. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
(defra). Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd (2006)
26. Reichenbach, J. (ed.): Handbook on the implementation of Pay-
As-You-Throw as a tool for urban waste management, R&D&I
project funded by the European Commission (2004)
27. Hogg, D.: Financing and incentive schemes for municipal waste
management. Case Studies. Case 9, 55–60 (2002)
28. Fullerton, D., Kinnaman, T.C.: The Economics of Household
Garbage and Recycling Behavior. New Horizons in Environ-
mental Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK (2002)
29. European Environment Agency: Managing municipal solid
waste—a review of achievements in 32 European countries.
EEA Report No 2/2013 (2013)
30. DEFRA: Landfill bans and restrictions in the EU and US- A
Green Alliance project for Defra (ref WR1202) (2009)
123
 Author's personal copy
682
31. Song, Q., Jinhui, L., Xianlai, Z.: Minimizing the increasing solid
waste through zero waste strategy. J. Clean. Prod. (2014, in press)
32. Zaman, A.U.: A comprehensive review of the development of
zero waste management: lessons learned and guidelines.
J. Clean. Prod. 91, 12–25 (2015)
33. Zaman, A.U., Lehmann, S.: The zero waste index: a perfor-
mance measurement tool for waste management systems in a
‘zero waste city’. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 123–132 (2013)
34. Allen, C., Gokaldas, V., Larracas, A., Minot, L.A., Morin, M.,
Tangri, N., et al.: On the Road to Zero Waste: Successes and
Lessons learned from Around the World. Global Alliance for
Incinerator Alternatives, Berkeley (2012)
35. Australian Government: National Waste Policy: Less Waste,
More Resources—Fact sheet (2009)
36. Australian Government: Australian Government 2011–12
Report on the Australian Packaging Covenant Action Plan
2010–2015 (2014)
37. European Commission: Being wise with waste: the EU’s
approach to waste management. http://ec.europa.eu/environ
ment/waste/pdf/WASTE%20BROCHURE.pdf (2010). Accessed
19 May 2015
38. Ministry of the Environment of Japan: History and Current State
of Waste Management in Japan (2014)
39. US Environment Protection Agency: Beyond RCRA: Waste and
Materials Management In the Year 2020 (2002)
40. US Environment Protection Agency: Sustainable materials
management: the road ahead (2009)
41. R4R: Local instruments. http://www.regions4recycling.eu/upload/
public/Reports/R4R_Local_Instruments.pdf (2014). Accessed 12
Jan 2015
42. Dahlén, L., Lagerkvist, A.: Pay as you throw: strengths and
weaknesses of weight-based billing in household waste collec-
tion systems in Sweden. Waste Manage. 30, 23–31 (2010)
43. Kogler, T.: Waste Collection. http://www.iswa.org/uploads/tx_
iswaknowledgebase/ctt_2007_2.pdf (2007). Accessed 7 Jan 2015
44. Fujii, S.: International Workshop on Local Initiatives towards a
Low Carbon Asia Session 1-B Kamikatsu’s Approach. http://
www.iges.or.jp/en/archive/kuc/pdf/activity20110314/11_WS-S1
B-5-Kamikatsu_Fujii_E.pdf (2011). Accessed 19 May 2015
45. Larsen, A.W., et al.: Waste collection systems for recyclables:
an environmental and economic assessment for the municipality
of Aarhus (Denmark). Waste Manag. 30, 744–754 (2010)
46. The Danish action plan for promotion of eco-efficient technolo-
gies—Danish Lessons. Aarhus—making waste collection aesthetic.
http://eng.ecoinnovation.dk/media/mst/8051410/Affald_Case_Aar
hus_web_15.01.13.pdf (2013). Accessed 10 Jan 2015
47. State of Green: Underground waste containers in the Aarhus city
centre. https://stateofgreen.com/en/profiles/city-of-aarhus/solutions/
underground-waste-containers-in-the-aarhus-city-centre. Accessed
18 Jan 2015
48. Extended Producer Responsibiliyt Alliance (EXPRA): EXPRA
Inspiring Packaging Recycling. http://www.greendot.com.cy/ck
finder/userfiles/files/Expra_brochure_2014-02_lowres.pdf (2014).
Accessed 10 Feb 2015
49. European Environment Agency: Municipal waste management in
Belgium. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-muni
cipal-solid-waste/belgium-municipal-waste-management (2013).
Accessed 15 Feb 2015
50. ZeroWaste Europe: Case Study #2—The story of Argentona. http://
www.zerowasteeurope.eu/downloads/case-study-2-the-story-of-
argentona/ (2014). Accessed 9 Jan 2015
51. Verdu Recicla: Porta–Porta
52. Oslo Commune: Source separation of food waste and plastic
packaging in Oslo. http://www.ideaz.sk/*bwpow/47/scr/separ.
pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2015
123
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
53. Ascit: Calendario Raccolta. http://www.comune.capannori.lu.it/
sites/default/files/rifiutizero/CAPANNORI2015-nord.pdf (2015).
Accessed 10 Apr 2015
54. Björk, H.: Zero Waste Society in Borås City, Sweden Strategies
to Action. http://www.uncrd.or.jp/content/documents/Hans%20
Bjork-Sweden.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2015
55. City of Gloucester: 2015 Recycling and Trash Collection Infor-
mation. Pay as you throw for the city of Gloucester. http://www.
gloucester-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3188 (2015). Accessed
15 Jan. 2015
56. LG Action: Brief case study on local climate and energy actions #
23 MILTON KEYNES, United Kingdom Biogas from food waste
collection into National Grid. http://www.lg-action.eu/fileadmin/
template/projects/lg-action/files/it/case_studies/LG_Action_case_
Milton_Keynes_EN.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2015
57. C40 cities: Waste Management System. http://www.c40.org/case_
studies/waste-management-system. Accessed 18 May 2015
58. Zero Waste Europe: The first European Zero Waste Research
Center—Capannori, Italy. http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2011/
05/the-first-european-zero-waste-research-center-capannori-italy/.
Accessed 8 March 2015
59. Cimpan, C., Maul, A., Jansen, M., Pretz, T., Wenzel, H.: Central
sorting and recovery of MSW recyclable materials: a review of
technological state-of-the-art, cases, practice and implications for
materials recycling. J. Environ. Manage. 156, 181–199 (2015)
60. TEMA NORD: Collection and recycling of plastic waste.
Improvements in existing collection and recycling systems in
the Nordic countries. http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/upload/
publication_and_tool/file/427.pdf (2014). Accessed 3 Apr 2015
61. Barr, C., Gilg A.W.: Conceptualising and analysing household
attitudes and actions to a growing environmental problem
Development and application of a framework to guide local
waste policy. Appl. Geogr. 25, 226–247 (2005)
62. Adelaide City Council: Waste Management Action Plan
2011-2015. http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/assets/Policies-
Papers/docs/ACTION-PLAN-waste-management-2011-15.PDF
(2011). Accessed 26 Jan 2015
63. Regions for Recycling: Good Practices. Good Practice Lisbon:
Door-To-Door Selective Collection. http://www.regions4recy
cling.eu/upload/public/Good-Practices/GP_Lisbon_door2door-
collection.pdf (2014). Accessed 2 Feb. 2015
64. City of Palo Alto. Official Website. History of waste and the Bay-
lands. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/
about/timeline.asp. Accessed 5 March 2015
65. Sidique, S.F., Lupi, F., Joshi, S.V.: The effects of behavior and
attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 54, 163–170 (2010)
66. Sidique, S.F., Joshi, S.V., Lupi, F.: Factors influencing the rate
of recycling: an analysis of Minnesota counties. Resour. Con-
serv. Recycl. 54, 242–249 (2010)
67. Byrne, S., Regan, B.: Attitudes and actions towards recycling
behaviours in the Limerick, Ireland region. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 87, 89–96 (2014)
68. Timlett, R.E., Williams, I.D.: The impact of transient popula-
tions on recycling behaviour in a densely populated urban
environment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 498–506 (2009)
69. Marques, R.C., Cruz, N.F., Simões, P., Ferreira, S.F., Pereira,
M.C., Jaeger, S.: Economic viability of packaging waste recy-
cling systems: a comparison between Belgium and Portugal.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 22–33 (2014)
70. Hickle, G.T.: An examination of governance within extended
producer responsibility policy regimes in North America.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 92, 55–65 (2014)
71. BIO Intelligent service: Development of Guidance on Exten-
ded Producer Responsibility. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
 Author's personal copy
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
waste/pdf/target_review/Guidance%20on%20EPR%20-%20Final
%20Report.pdf (2014). Accessed 2 Apr 2015
72. Cruz, N.F., Ferreira, S., Cabral, M., Simões, P., Marques, R.C.:
Packaging waste recycling in Europe: is the industry paying for
it? Waste Manage. (Oxford) 34, 293–308 (2014)
73. PACNEXT: Policy Best Practices that Support Harmonization.
Summaries of eleven Global EPR Programs. http://www.pac.
ca/assets/epr-report.pdf (2014). Accessed 28 March 2015
74. Cecilia Allen: Flanders-Belgium. Europe’s Best Recycling and
Prevention Program. http://no-burn.org/downloads/ZW%20Flan
ders.pdf (2012). Accessed 24 March 2015
75. PRO-EUROPE, Official Website, http://www.pro-e.org/index.
html. Accessed 17 May 2015
76. Massarutto, A.: The long and winding road to resource effi-
ciency—An interdisciplinary perspective on extended producer
responsibility. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 85, 11–21 (2014)
77. Lehmann, M.A.: Voluntary environmental agreements and
competition policy: the case of the German system for pack-
aging waste management. Environ. Resourc. Econ. 28, 435–449
(2004)
78. OECD: The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsi-
bility (EPR): Opportunities and Challenges. http://www.oecd.
org/environment/waste/Global%20Forum%20Tokyo%
20Issues%20Paper%2030-5-2014.pdf (2014). Accessed 10 Jan
2015
79. Chacón, L., Friend, G., Kordesch, N., Reinhardt, S.: Product
Stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility. http://
aspensciencecenter.org/images/uploads/nli.pdf (2010). Accessed
2 Feb 2015
80. Comhshaol, Pobal agus Rialtas Áitiúil, Review of the Producer
Responsibility Initiative Model in Ireland. https://www.repak.ie/
files/documents/PRI-Review-_-Main-Report-2014.pdf (2014).
Accessed 3 Apr 2015
81. Bradley, H.J.: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. https://
malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H729 (2013). Accessed 2
May 2015
82. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: MAS-
SACHUSETTS 2010-2020 SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN
APRIL 2013 Pathway to Zero Waste. http://www.mass.gov/eea/
docs/dep/recycle/priorities/swmp13f.pdf (2013). Accessed 2
May 2015
83. Walls, M. (2011). Deposit-refund systems in practice and the-
ory. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, pp. 11–47
84. Hassi and Pietkäinen (2011): Creating an EU-wide deposit
system for bottles and cans. European Parliament. Parliamentary
Questions, 23 May 2011
85. Eunomia (2011): Options and Feasibility of a European Refund
System for Metal Beverage Cans. http://ec.europa.eu/environ
ment/waste/packaging/cans/intro.htm
86. European Commission: Towards a thematic strategy on the
prevention and recycling of waste. COM(2003) 301 final (2003)
87. Productivity Commission: Waste Management, Report no. 38,
Canberra (2006)
88. CalRecycle: Landfill Tipping Fees in California. California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (2015)
89. CalRecycle: State of Disposal in California. California Depart-
ment of Resources Recycling and Recovery (2015)
90. Environment Protection Authority: Waste levy regulations-
Guidelines. South Australia (2013)
91. DEFRA: Landfill bans and restrictions in the EU and US—A
Green Alliance project for Defra (ref WR1202). Final Report—
Annex : WR1202 ‘‘Landfill bans and restrictions in the EU and
US’’—Case Study Annex: Massachusetts (2009)
92. WSP Environmental Ltd: Investigation into the performance
(environmental and health) of waste to energy technologies
internationally (2013)
683
93. Davies, B., Doble, M.: The development and implementation of
a landfill tax in the UK. Addressing the Economics of Waste,
pp. 63–80 (2004)
94. Grigg, S.V., Read, A.D.: A discussion on the various methods of
application for landfill tax credit funding for environmental and
community projects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 32(3), 389–409
(2001)
95. Dinan, T.M.: Economic efficiency effects of alternative policies
for reducing waste disposal. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25(3),
242–256 (1993)
96. CEWEP: Landfill taxes and bans. Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants (2012)
97. WME-Hyder Consulting: Inside Waste Industry Report
2011–2012 (2012)
98. Shin, D.: Generation and Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) in the United States—A National Survey (2014)
99. Randell, P., Pickin, J., Grant, B.: Waste generation and resource
recovery in Australia Reporting period 2010/11—Final report.
DSEWPaC and Blue Environment Pty Ltd (2013)
100. United Nations: Environmental indicators—Waste, Municipal
Waste treatment http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/waste
treatment.htm (last update 2011)
101. Watson, D.: Municipal waste management in the United King-
dom. ETC/SCP EEA (2013)
102. Seely, A.: Landfill tax: introduction and early history. Note in
House of Common Library. Standard Note SN/BT/237. Last
updated 06/10/2009. Business and Transport Section (2009a)
103. Seely, A.: Landfill tax: recent developments. Note in House of
Common Library. Standard Note SN/BT/1963. Last updated
15/12/2009. Business and Transport Section (2009b)
104. Calaf-Forn, M., Roca, J., Puig-Ventosa, I.: Cap and trade
schemes on waste management: a case study of the Landfill
Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) in England. Waste Manag.
34(5), 919–928 (2014)
105. Scharff, H.: Landfill reduction experience in The Netherlands.
Waste Manag. 34(11), 2218–2224 (2014)
106. Sahlin, J., Ekvall, T., Bisaillon, M., Sundberg, J.: Introduction of
a waste incineration tax: effects on the Swedish waste flows.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 51(4), 827–846 (2007)
107. Smith, K., O’Farrell, K., Brindley, F.: Waste and recycling in
Australia 2011. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd (2012)
108. Sora, M.J.: Incineration overcapacity and waste shipping in
Europe: the end of the proximity principle? Fundacio Ent Jan-
uary 7th (2013)
109. Dubois, M.: Towards a coherent European approach for taxation
of combustible waste. Waste Manag. 33(8), 1776–1783 (2013)
110. Cassing, J., Kuhn, T.: Strategic environmental policies when
waste products are tradable. Rev. Int. Econ. 11, 495–511 (2003)
111. Barrett, S.: Strategic environmental policy and international
trade. J. Public Econ. 54, 325–338 (1994)
112. Kennedy, P.W.: Equilibrium pollution taxes in open economies
with imperfect competition. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 27, 49–63
(1994)
113. Van de Wiel, H.: Incineration tax unpopular with European
Industry. Reward good behaviour, punish bad behaviour.
Afvalforum. 6–9 (2010)
114. Salmons, R.: New Areas for Application of Tradeable Permits–
Solid Waste Management. In OECD, 2002: Implementing
domestic tradeable permits: recent developments and future
challenges. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Paris, pp. 187–226 (2001)
115. Driesen, D.M.: The Economic Dynamics of Environmental Law.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2003)
116. EC: Screening of waste management performance of EU
Member States. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/
pdf/Screening_report.pdf (2012). Accessed 15 Jan 2015
123
 Author's personal copy
684
117. Aldy, J.E., Bauer S.D., Miranda, M.L.: Unit pricing programs
for residential municipal solid waste: an assessment of the lit-
erature. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (2006)
118. Puig-Ventosa, I.: Charging systems and PAYT experiences for
waste management in Spain. Waste Manag. 28, 2767–2771 (2008)
119. Dawkins, E., Allan, P.: Landfill Ban Investigation. Hyder Con-
sulting Pty Ltd, Australia (2010)
120. Sfenvironment—Our Home. Our City. Our Planet. Legislation.
http://www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste/overview/legislation
121. Californians Against Waste: Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances. http://
www.cawrecycles.org/issues/plastic_campaign/plastic_bags/local.
Last updated on 19 Apr 2015
122. Ehrenberg-Bass UniSA: Plastic Bag Ban Research. Institute for
Marketing Science (2009)
123. Fullerton, D., Raub, A.: Economic analysis of solid waste
management policies. In: OECD: addressing the economics of
waste. OECD Publishing (2004)
124. Hill, J., Shaw, B., Hislop, H.: A zero waste UK. Institute for
public policy research and green alliance (2006)
123
View publication stats
Waste Biomass Valor (2015) 6:657–684
125. Zero Waste International Alliance. http://zwia.org/
126. Cole, C., Osmani, M., Quddus, M., Wheatley, A., Kay, K.:
Towards a zero waste strategy for an english local authority.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 89, 64–75 (2014)
127. Zaman, A.U., Lehmann, S.: Urban growth and waste manage-
ment optimization towards ‘zero waste city’. City Culture Soc.
2(4), 177–187 (2011)
128. Zero Waste Europe: Case Study #3 The Story Of Cappannori By
Aimee Van Vliet (2013)
129. City of Palo Alto: Palo Alto Zero Waste Strategic Plan (2005)
130. City of Palo Alto: Zero Waste Operational Plan (2007)
131. Holman, K.: Palo Alto’s Zero Waste Program, presentation
made by the Mayor (2015)
132. Milton Keynes Council: Draft interim report of the Waste
strategy review group. Cabinet 8(B) (2002)
133. Milton Keynes Council: Municipal Waste Strategy Draft for
Cabinet Approval 20th December 2005 (2005)
134. Scottish Government: Scotland’s zero waste plan (2010)
135. Milton Keynes Council Waste Strategy Refresh-Executive
Summary 2011