Suchergebnisse

The Netherlands is a frontrunner in the EU regarding the circular economy. On a national scale, there are higher targets than the EU for different packaging materials as plastics, glass, pa-per/cartons, and aluminium. For glass, the government advocates a recycling rate of more than 90%. In 2017, the rate realised was 86%. To reach this 4% higher goal, the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate wants to improve the collection infrastructure by increasing the number of bottle banks, with 800 by 2021. However, in the literature, an effectiveness analysis is lacking. Based on empirical evidence with data from 2007–2019, we show that increasing the number of bottle banks is not effective. Implementing a unit-based pricing system as a priced bag or container for unsorted waste can be more effective in achieving this goal, although this can have serious drawbacks.

The Netherlands is a frontrunner in the EU regarding the circular economy. On a national scale, there are higher targets than the EU for different packaging materials as plastics, glass, pa-per/cartons, and aluminium. For glass, the government advocates a recycling rate of more than 90%. In 2017, the rate realised was 86%. To reach this 4% higher goal, the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate wants to improve the collection infrastructure by increasing the number of bottle banks, with 800 by 2021. However, in the literature, an effectiveness analysis is lacking. Based on empirical evidence with data from 2007–2019, we show that increasing the number of bottle banks is not effective. Implementing a unit-based pricing system as a priced bag or container for unsorted waste can be more effective in achieving this goal, although this can have serious drawbacks.

AbstractThe European Union advocates a plastic waste recycling rate of more than 55%. Even for the Netherlands, which has already invested heavily in recycling plastic waste of households, it will still be a challenge to meet this target. The preferred solution to fulfil this target in the Netherlands is implementing separate collection schemes at the curbside, although some municipalities invested in post-separation. We show, based on data for 2013–2014, that post-collection separation is an advisable alternative, with an increased separation of plastic waste compared with home separation. This is even slightly the case if home separation is combined with a unit-based pricing system for unsorted waste and with a frequent door-to-door collection of plastic waste. Moreover, there are indications that the cost effectiveness of recycling plastic waste increases if post separation is chosen. In addition, some claim that unit-based pricing of unsorted waste is important to create an awareness effect to buy less packaging material. However, based on the combination of post separation and unit-based pricing, we have no indication for such awareness effect as the price effect on the amount of plastic waste is insignificantly small.

The European Union advocates a plastic waste recycling rate of more than 55%. Even for the Netherlands, which has already invested heavily in recycling plastic waste of households, it will still be a challenge to meet this target. The preferred solution to fulfil this target in the Netherlands is implementing separate collection schemes at the curbside, although some municipalities invested in post-separation. We show, based on data for 2013–2014, that post-collection separation is an advisable alternative, with an increased separation of plastic waste compared with home separation. This is even slightly the case if home separation is combined with a unit-based pricing system for unsorted waste and with a frequent door-to-door collection of plastic waste. Moreover, there are indications that the cost effectiveness of recycling plastic waste increases if post separation is chosen. In addition, some claim that unit-based pricing of unsorted waste is important to create an awareness effect to buy less packaging material. However, based on the combination of post separation and unit-based pricing, we have no indication for such awareness effect as the price effect on the amount of plastic waste is insignificantly small.

This study investigates the drivers of unit-based pricing systems for waste in the Netherlands using an administrative database from 1999 until 2017. As these unit based pricing systems are effective in reducing waste, more and more Dutch municipalities adopt these programs. Based on their incentive, systems are ranged from green ('weight' or 'bag') to less green ('frequency' or 'volume'), or not green ('flat rate'). In one-third of the municipalities shifts took place from one unit-based pricing system to the other, with 84 percent becoming greener and 16 percent less green. There is some evidence for political motivation of these shifts. Particularly, Social Liberals councilors are in favor of waste pricing, whereas Social Democrats councilors are not in favor. In addition, municipalities in low income and less political fragmented councils are more in favor of waste pricing.

This paper analyzes whether Dutch municipalities became greener between 1999 and 2014 by investigating whether they implement different unit-based pricing systems. Based on their incentive, systems are ranged from green ('weight') to less green ('volume'), or not green ('flat rate'). In one-third of the municipalities, shifts took place, with 83 percent becoming greener and 17 percent less green. Political fragmentation (measured in three ways) plays a key role in explaining these shifts. There is less evidence for political motivation. Particularly, Conservative Liberals are not in favor of unit-based pricing, whereas Social Liberals are in favor. In addition, municipalities in rural and shrinking areas are more in favor of unit-based pricing.

The European Union (EU) advocates a plastic waste recycling rate of more than 55% through home separation by households. Even for the Netherlands, which has already invested heavily in plastic recycling policies, there is still a challenge to meet this target. We show that post separation is an advisable alternative with more separation of plastic waste and lower collection costs. Based on data for 2013-2014, Dutch municipalities with post-separation have 6.2 kilogram more plastic than municipalities with only bring locations. Moreover, the effectiveness of post separation increases significantly over time to 8.4 kilograms in 2014. Also curbside collection of plastic waste can be effective, if it is combined with an unit-based pricing system, but in such a case the collection costs are higher. Therefore, there are indications that the cost effectiveness of recycling plastic waste increases, if post separation is chosen.

The EU advocates a household waste recycling rate of more than 70%. Although the Netherlands already years ago invested in recycling policies heavily, this is still a large challenge as nowadays on average this rate is approximately 50% and nearly no municipalities have a rate above 70%. Given the experience, it is possible to learn from the Dutch experience which policies are effective in increasing the recycling rates. Based on a large panel data set for the Netherlands , we show that unit-based pricing, avoiding a duo-bin or unsorted and compostable waste, and moving back the frequency of collecting unsorted and compostable waste at the curbside are effective in raising the recycling rate. However, only unit-based pricing has a substantial effect. In nearly all cases changing the frequency of collection of recyclables had no or very small effects. We find some evidence for the effectiveness of adding bring locations to curbside collection. Based on an estimation of the cost function most policies have no effect on costs, except for unit-based pricing (saving on cost) and increases in the frequency of unsorted waste collection (cost increasing). Overall, it seems nearly impossible to reach the EU-goal of 70% with the policies applied.