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

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 provides 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 management 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, recycling, other recovery (e.g. energy recovery), disposal. Additionally, local policies that encourage separate collection 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 implementation of kerbside waste collection schemes, the provision 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 duration of the implementation of the scheme were also found to influence the effectiveness of the applied schemes.

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 consumed 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).

Fig. 1

EU-27 physical trade balance with the rest of the world, 2011 [3]

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 performance, this has either been performed in certain geographic regions [7] or with focus on particular instruments and strategies such as the Extended Producer Responsibility systems [8, 9], deposit refund systems [10–14], landfill/incineration taxes [15–18], pay-as-you-throw systems [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 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 management 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 provides 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 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 primary 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 disposal. 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 Government 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] 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 implementation 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 Alternatives (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 criteria: (a) high recycling rate; (b) application of variety of instruments involving technical, economical or/and legislation; and (c) availability and quality of data.

The case studies selected are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 List of case studies examined and relevant demographic data

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 analyzed 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 Collection services Treatment methods	Provision of kerbside services Existence of source separation activity in packaging waste Existence of source separation activity of organics Convenient location of collection facilities Combination of collection systems Number of waste streams separated Incineration rates
Economic instruments
Extended producer responsibility	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
Deposit-refund	Capture rate of packaging containers
Landfill/incineration tax and tradable permit schemes	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
PAYT	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
Regulatory instruments
Landfill/incineration bans and restrictions	Landfill bans on untreated/unsorted or separately collected waste Existence of incineration bans
Bans on products with low or no recyclability	Bans on plastic bags, etc.
Mandatory separation of non-packaging waste	Existence of legal requirements for the separation of non-packaging waste
Communicative instruments
Raising awareness and participation rate	Population size
Strategies
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 indicator 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 strategies may be adopted. The instruments can be grouped into the following four (4) broad categories: technical, economical, communicative and legal [41], as illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Instruments used to increase waste performance

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”).

Fig. 3

Technical instruments that may be applied along the value chain of packaging waste management Source: Adapted from [41]

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 following 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 containers at the household premises (either indoors or outdoors). In some papers distinction is made between door-to-door and yard collection. The former implies 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 household 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.

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.

Table 2 Separately collected streams and collection systems applied by case study 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 aesthetics [45–47]. In Belgium, paper is collected with newspapers 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 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 collected once a week in small bins (40L) by kerbside collection [51]. Glass is collected separately in semi buried large containers (~4 m³) through bring scheme in Aarhus [46]. Some municipalities separate glass into different grades such as Kamikatsu, where the following glass categories are separately 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 separately. 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 transparent 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 Kamikatsu, where the following metal categories are separately sorted by households: aluminum cans, steel cans, spray cans, metal caps [44].

Organics: The vast majority of the examined municipalities (94 %) separates organic waste. Organics are collected 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, combined with access to kerbside collection the recycling rate almost tripled [50]. The organic waste is collected separately 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 collection 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, composted or recycled: 28 % are plastics, 22 % is biodegradable 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 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: Aluminum cans/Steel cans, Sprays, Glass, Brown glass, Other colours of glass, Ceramics, Batteries, Fluorescent lamps, Broken Fluorescent lamps, Milk cartons, Paper, Newspapers, 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 problematic 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 recycling 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 municipalities: 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 commercial businesses that wished to participate [64]. Approximately 90 % of households (apartment buildings and single-family houses) have access to kerbside collection 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 economy [50].

However, there is no ideal, successful design for kerbside recycling and combinations may be necessary in certain 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 systems are the most common way to collect MSW in Norway, 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 characterize such arrangements as the “long term non-recyclers” [68].

Transportation and Treatment

Transportation costs represent a significant part of total collection costs. The main factors that influence transportation 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 significant difference with the operational costs is the result of increased collection frequency demands in Portugal. Belgium applied kerbside collection once a month for the 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 replicating collection frequencies used in Belgium [69].

Fig. 4

Service cost recovery considering the tons of packing waste collected in Portugal and Belgium (2010). Source: adapted from [69]

Fig. 5

Overview of deposit—refund schemes including capture ratios achieved per packaging material contribution

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 separation of packaging waste services through 20 multi-municipal 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).

Table 3 Municipal solid waste treatment rate (%) by method and country/state, 2011 [2]

Economic Instruments

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

General

Extended Producer Responsibility is a policy tool intended to internalize environmental costs of products, 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.

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 Legislation. In Europe, this legislation includes the following directives: Packaging and Packaging Waste (PPW) Directive (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 Electronic Devices (WEEEs) etc. This paper focuses on packaging 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 European Countries with respect to the spectrum of packaging waste, as certain countries have expanded EPR for industrial and commercial packaging waste. For example, in France and Germany the EPR scheme involves only household packaging waste [71]. EPR can involve packaging waste originating from households or commercial activities (UK) or can involve both (Austria, Germany, Belgium) [8]. Single compliance schemes operate in Germany, 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 compliance 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, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Serbia, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Macedonia, Bosnia. Three European countries have packaging levy in place (no PRO): Denmark, Hungary, Croatia and one European country has a totally different system in place, based on Tradable certificates (United Kingdom) [9].

The operational responsibilities for a producer responsibility scheme can be divided into two broad categories: physical responsibility and financial responsibility. A common trend is that the physical responsibility of collection activities lies with local authorities, while the financial responsibility with the industry. License members contribute a fee (to join and stay in the scheme e.g. on annual basis) to the officially accredited company (Producer 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), investigates the viability of applied systems under a financial and economic perspective, revealing interesting insights [72]. For instance, investigation for France and Portugal concluded that adopting an “economic perspective” the cost coverage of packaging waste management by the industry is 128 and 135 % respectively. But from a financial perspective (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 collects all benefits and endures also all packaging waste management costs (selective collection, transport, sorting and storage). Germany, Austria and Belgium bear all relevant 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 presented. 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 comprises 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 systems in Europe [8]. The financial and physical (collection) responsibility for running the system lies with the producers. 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 successful in meeting these targets [8]. Although packaging waste is managed at regional level, a Cooperation 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 management 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 cardboard, 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 contributions 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]. Μaterial-specific targets have been established for post-consumer packaging: glass (75 %), tinplate (70 %), aluminium (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 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 activities, 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 municipalities are reimbursed fully by the producers for the collection 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 authorities 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 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 responsibility) 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 responsibilities 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. Municipalities 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].

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 management 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 collection, sorting lies with the municipalities (or public regional companies) [72]. SPV has the financial responsibility 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 ECOVIDRIO 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 approximately 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 established 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 Tidningsinsamlingen). FTI is owned by five “material” companies, namely Plastkretsen, MetallKretsen, Returkartong, Svensk GlasÅtervinning and Pressretur. These material companies organize collection and recycling of packaging waste. The fee is weight based and is differentiated 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 contribution 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 thermostats [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 compliance 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]. 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-invested 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 capturing the used packaging (i.e. mainly beverage bottles/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 reusable/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 reduction of waste disposal costs, the diversion of valuable recyclable materials from the waste streams, the conservation 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 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 separate 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 implementation 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 collected through kerbside collection [14]. Furthermore, a significant and positive influence has been broadly confirmed 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 recyclable 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 following 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 reusable 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 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).

Fig. 6

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

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 incentives 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]. Moreover, 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 collected by state or local governments to fund waste management, are called solid waste disposal fees (e.g. California), while in other states they are called permitting/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 Schweinfurt (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 management 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 that some of the revenues raised by the tax in UK will be exploited for environmental and sustainable waste management purposes, the potential for a tax rebate is provided 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 environmental 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 (Norway), 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 incineration rate is particularly high (54 %). Furthermore, California 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 Massachusetts, effective bans on landfilling and high 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 correlation 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 complying 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 accompanied 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 (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 certain 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 production- 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 incineration 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 incineration 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 biodegradable 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 Scotland (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 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 accordance 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 20^th 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].

Moving away from traditional charging systems according to which users pay for the management of municipal waste by means of property taxes, water consumption or a fixed fee regardless the amount of waste they generate, PAYT systems can be implemented in the following 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 provided according to a fixed time-schedule or using tags/electronic chips in order to record each time a bin is emptied. The popularity of these schemes increases and is broadly deployed in Belgium, the Netherlands and certain regions of Germany as well.

• Bag-based schemes: they are a variation of volume-based systems. Standardized bags are used for the collection of waste. Users are charged depending on the number of bags set out for collection.

• Weight-based schemes: these schemes are based either on manual weighing or automated weighing through electronic devices/transponders incorporated on each bin which is collected by special vehicles. These schemes include fixed annual fees which are charged per household, at most cases, as an element of a PAYT scheme [10].

In general, this economic instrument, along with its inherent fairness, can be effective when the fees are at levels high enough to trigger people’s reflection on their waste generation behaviour, and engagement in sorting their waste [17]. However, special attention is needed as it is argued that high fees can lead also to illegal waste dumping [28]. The literature review reveals that there is no one size fits all solution. Rather, when designing a waste management program, it is vital to examine carefully in which way, waste was managed before the implementation of a PAYT scheme. Also, a PAYT scheme should charge: (a) the highest variable fee for residual waste; (b) a lower (but non-zero) fee for biowaste; (c) zero fee for kitchen waste; and (d) a low or zero fee for dry recyclables. PAYT schemes are better combined with kerbside waste collection so as to ensure maximized diversion [23, 26]. Low-density municipalities make it easier to implement a kerbside collection system [17, 19, 118].

Based on Holmes et al. [10] findings, a top-down approach was indicated in regard to the effectiveness among different types of PAYT schemes on recycling performance and waste prevention. Thus, the following ranking was formed:

In terms of the implementation costs when comparing the aforementioned forms of PAYT, they are related to the nature of infrastructure employed, as well as to the pre-existing waste management scheme. The basic costs incurring include information campaigns, purchase of equipment (i.e. vehicles, containers), set up and operation of billing system, appointment of responsible team/board to monitor possible illegal dumping, known as fly-tipping, allotting of bag retailers as necessary and establishment of telephone helplines to tackle with users’ enquiries [10]. As pointed out by a report published by Defra, pay-per-bag schemes are the most inexpensive to be introduced, whereas pay-per-weight or frequency charging schemes are multiple times more costly [22] although initial investment expenses could be balanced by the savings gained due to the decrease of total waste generated [10] or because of the sale of source-sorted recyclables [19, 118]. The literature review reveals that the introduction of PAYT schemes can lead to a 40 % reduction in mixed waste generation, relative to a setting with only drop-off or limited kerbside recycling service and no PAYT charges [17].

Based on the analysis performed among the selected success stories, the following results were obtained. 10 out of 19 Municipalities examined have adopted PAYT schemes in order to apply sustainable waste management practices and conform to waste policy, since the 1980s and even earlier. More particularly, one frequency-based scheme is deployed in Cappanori (IT), one volume-based system is applied in San Francisco, CA (USA), two weight-based schemes run in Landkreis, Schweinfurt (DE) and Limerick (IE), four bag-based schemes operate in Dogliani (IT), Gloucester, MA (USA), Hernani (ES), Argentona (ES), whereas in Flanders (BE) both bag-based and weight-based schemes are used and in Palo Alto, CA (USA) volume-based and frequency based schemes have been applied. Regarding the maturity of the operating PAYT schemes, Gloucester, MA (USA) counts 25 years of using “pay-as-you-throw”, whereas Cappanori (IT) has launched 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 distinctive 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 Discussion”, based on the comprehensive analysis presented by Puig-Ventosa et al. [19] on existing pay-as-you-throw schemes considering 10 different characteristics: (1) prevention and recycling incentive, (2) technological complexity, (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 located, 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 waste banned from landfills, have also adopted an incineration 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 compliance with the bans and restrictions, by providing an additional 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 governments 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 efficient recycling [86, 123]. It may be addressed to municipalities or directly to households, while if the municipalities/households do not comply with the requirement, 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 opportunity 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, 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 management. 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 management 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-designing 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 Canberra in Australia which adopted an official target of “No waste by 2010”, while New Zealand was the first country to adopt a zero waste vision in 2002 [125]. The zero waste hierarchy according to the Zero Waste International Alliance (ZWIA) is presented in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Zero waste hierarchy of highest and best uses (ZWIA)

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 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 complement 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 resolution 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 compostable 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 contributes to substantial cost savings. Apart from the legislation, the city in collaboration with a waste management company, has established a source separation program for the recyclable, organic and residual waste (the so-called Fantastic 3 program) and are working together on creating a recycling and composting culture. Furthermore, the city awards grants to local organizations for implementing activities which will further 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 disposed of at landfills, 75 % is recyclable. In this phase, 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 contract 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 services 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 bans on landfilling or incineration of these separately collected waste streams. The Council of Milton Keynes with its Waste Strategy Refresh in 2011 [135], aspired the new targets and measures set. The Strategy also highlighted its opposing to mass-burn incineration of unseparated waste.

Results and Discussion

In this Section, the outcomes from the individual evaluation 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, Cappanori and Landkreis Scheinfurt. All of them apply a PAYT system as well as they employ regulatory instruments, 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.

Table 4 Evaluation scores for the case study municipalities

The results of the evaluation of each instrument and the overall evaluation scores for the case study municipalities 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 municipalities are also presented in Fig. 8, in descending priority order, along with the respective recycling (municipal) and national incineration rates. As it can be seen, there is a clear correlation between the evaluation scores and recycling 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.

Fig. 8

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

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 population density more than 2000 inhabitants per km². It is obvious that there is a general trend that the smaller bubbles (low total score) have small y values, which was 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.

Fig. 9

Correlation of recycling rate with population density below 2000 inhabitants/km² (size of bubble: total score)

Fig. 10

Correlation of recycling rate with population density above 2,000 inhabitants/km² (size of bubble: total score)

Conclusions

This paper presents nineteen case studies of successfully implemented solid waste management schemes in municipalities 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 performance 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 combined systems (kerbside, bring systems and recycling banks) leads to higher recycling rates. Also, source separation of MSW streams and especially recyclables has a significant impact on the recycling rate. Finally, the separation 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.

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 implementation 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 materials 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 promoting 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.

The implementation of Zero Waste strategies is considered to be very challenging but at the same time effective in improving waste management performance, as the ambitious goals which they set require the implementation 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 participation and collaboration is easier to be achieved in municipalities 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.