measuring waste prevention

Waste Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Waste Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /wasman

Review

Measuring waste prevention

Antonis A. Zorpas a,⇑, Katia Lasaridi b,1

a Cyprus Open University, Faculty of Pure and Applied Science, Environmental Conservation and Management, P.O. Box 12794, 2252 Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprusb Harokopio University, Department of Geography 70 El. Venizelou, 176 71 Kallithea, Athens, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 18 July 2012Accepted 19 December 2012Available online xxxx

Keywords:Waste preventionZero wasteWaste minimisationEvaluation of waste prevention activitiesMonitoring of prevention activitiesAttitude and behaviour surveys

0956-053X/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.017

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +357 99532025; fax:E-mail addresses: [email protected], ant

Zorpas), [email protected] (K. Lasaridi).1 Tel.: +30 210 9549164.

Please cite this article in press as: Zorpas, Aj.wasman.2012.12.017

a b s t r a c t

The Waste Framework Directive (WFD-2008/98/EC) has set clear waste prevention procedures, includingreporting, reviewing, monitoring and evaluating. Based on the WFD, the European Commission and willoffer support to Member States on how to develop waste prevention programmes through guidelines andinformation sharing on best practices. Monitoring and evaluating waste prevention activities are critical,as they constitute the main tools to enable policy makers, at the national and local level, to build theirstrategic plans and ensure that waste prevention initiatives are effective and deliver behaviour change.However, how one can measure something that is not there, remains an important and unresolvedresearch question. The paper reviews and attempts to evaluate the methods that are being used for mea-suring waste prevention and the impact of relevant implemented activities at the household level, as theavailable data is still limited.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In 2008, according to the latest official Eurostat statistics, thetotal waste generation in the EU-27 was 2.62 billion t with anincreasing trend. Of this quantity, 98 million t or 3.7% were classi-fied as hazardous waste. This means that in 2008 each EU citizenproduced on average about 5.2 t of waste, of which 196 kg werehazardous (Eurostat, 2011). Waste prevention means eliminatingor reducing the amount and/or the toxicity of waste, includingrecyclables. For businesses, government agencies and other organ-isations, it includes processes that: conserve supplies and inven-tory; eliminate, reduce and reuse products and packaging; deploywaste-reducing technology and equipment; use more durable,reusable, repairable and less toxic products and packaging; leavegrass clippings on the lawn to naturally decompose; and reducefood and yard waste, including through on-site composting. Forthe citizens, waste prevention also includes: buying products withthe least amount of packaging; buying only the amount of a prod-uct that is needed; buying less harmful products; and reusing,donating or repairing items that might otherwise be discarded orrecycled (NYCDoS, 2000; Sharp et al., 2010a,b).

Measuring waste prevention is a complex and difficult under-taking. It is not really clear what can be measured if it is not there.Unlike recycling, where the amount of material transferred fromthe ‘‘garbage can’’ to a ‘‘recycling bin’’ can be quantified, waste pre-

ll rights reserved.

+357 [email protected] (A.A.

.A., Lasaridi, K. Measuring w

vention often results to the elimination of the material. In this casethere is nothing to weigh or evaluate. According to WR1204(2009a), the aim of monitoring and evaluating household wasteprevention is to assist policy makers, local authorities and expertsto: ensure that robust decisions are made about where to prioritiseresource allocation; collect reliable, high quality data; and certifythat waste prevention programmes are being effective and provid-ing the required behaviour change.

In the UK, the Government has funded a large research pro-gramme on waste prevention, which has consolidated much of thescattered knowledge in the issue, enhanced understanding of wasteprevention and triggered relevant research and practice. The pro-gramme included a review of evidence analysing the behaviouralopportunities and barriers in household waste prevention, associ-ated with the effectiveness of various policy measures (Cox et al.,2010), assessing the impact of waste prevention campaigns (Sharpet al., 2010a) and developing methods to monitor and evaluatewaste prevention through mass reduction and behavioural studies(Sharp et al., 2010b). Today, waste prevention is becoming a priorityin many national policies, worldwide. In the EU especially, the WasteFramework Directive (WFD-2008/98/EC) has set clear waste pre-vention procedures, including reporting, reviewing, monitoringand evaluating. It also requires Member States (MSs) to establish na-tional waste prevention plans by the end of 2013 and actively devel-op waste prevention programmes. Moreover, the WFD places a legalobligation for MS to follow the waste hierarchy, where prevention isthe top priority of any waste management plan.

As waste prevention is becoming increasingly important forwaste and resources management, both at the level of planningand implementation, it is crucial to develop reliable methods to

aste prevention. Waste Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.017

mailto:[email protected]




http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0956053X

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman



2 A.A. Zorpas, K. Lasaridi / Waste Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

monitor, measure and evaluate waste prevention and its benefits,as well as to assess the effectiveness of actions aiming to promoterelevant awareness and behavioural changes. The aim of this paperis to review the methods that are being used for measuring, mon-itoring and evaluating waste prevention activities and the relevantimplementation programmes in the framework of household/con-sumer prevention.

2. Waste prevention in the Waste Framework Directive

According to the WFD (2008/98/EC) waste prevention is definedas ‘‘the measures taken before a substance, material or product hasbecome waste, that reduce the quantity of waste, the adverse im-pacts of the generated waste on environmental and human healthor the content of harmful substances’’. Preventing waste meansreducing the amount of waste generated, reducing the hazardouscontent of that waste and reducing its impact on the environment.Waste prevention includes strict avoidance of waste generation,qualitative and quantitative reduction at source and reuse of prod-ucts. It does not include recycling of materials and separate wastecollection (Pre-waste, 2012). In the last decade several efforts weretaken, both at national and international level, to define wasteminimisation and waste prevention, along with setting legal tar-gets and guidelines to reach an effective waste prevention (Salho-fer et al., 2008).

The WFD establishes the legal framework for the managementof waste within the European Union. It aims at protecting the envi-ronment and human health through the prevention of the harmfuleffects of waste generation and management. Member Statesshould take measures for the treatment of their waste in line withthe following hierarchy, which is listed in order of priority: preven-tion, preparing for reuse, recycling, other recovery, notably energyrecovery, disposal.

At a national level, the principle of waste prevention wasembodied in German (AbfG, 1986; KrW-/AbfG, 1994) and Austrianwaste management law (Salhofer et al., 2008) as the ultimate goal.In Cyprus the WFD got into a force at the end of 2011, while Greecetransposed it at the beginning of 2012, through the Law 4042/2012. Some nations have specified specific targets for waste pre-vention. Scotland, for example, in its national waste plan for Scot-land in 2003, stated its aim to stabilise waste generation by 2010and to continue progress afterwards with an actual reduction inwaste generation (Hughes, 2005). Also, the Municipality of Paral-imni, which is in the Eastern region of Cyprus Republic, establishedthrough a Life+ project (WASP-Tool), clear targets for waste mini-misation (Zorpas et al., 2012) especially focusing on food waste,paper, PMD, green waste, furniture and construction & demolitionwaste, in order to increase preparedness, as by the end of 2013 theCyprus Government must have in place a national Waste Preven-tion Strategic Plan. The City of Vienna in Austria defined a set ofmeasures for the Vienna Waste Management Plan, as a result ofa strategic environmental assessment (SEA) undertaken in 2001(Lechner, 2005). The main final result of the SEA was to stimulatequalitative and quantitative waste prevention and to allocate tothis goal a budget of 5 million €/yr (Büchl-Krammerstätter,2005). To these outcomes a strategic group was established forwaste prevention, consisting of representatives of the municipalgovernment. Among other activities, this committee arranged acompetition in 2003 and 2004, as a result of which 42 projects(17 basic studies, 13 awareness raising projects and 12 implemen-tation projects) were funded. It was calculated that these projectsprevented a total of 2190 t of non-hazardous waste (1.3 kg/cap/yr)and 4.5 t (0.03 kg/cap/yr) of hazardous waste (MA 48, 1999).

Some countries, such as Taiwan (Young et al., 2010), Australia(Zero Waste South Australia, 2007) and New Zealand (Ministry

Please cite this article in press as: Zorpas, A.A., Lasaridi, K. Measuring wj.wasman.2012.12.017

for the Environment, 2007) have adopted the target of zero wasteas a form of strategic waste prevention. Regrettably, zero waste isusually interpreted as zero waste to uncontrolled disposal or land-fill, mostly including recycling and, generally, it excludes environ-mental assessment (Gentil et al., 2011).

3. Household waste prevention definition

Focus groups consider waste reduction to include recyclingactivities (RECAP, 2008). This view, however, may lead to residents’belief that they are already ‘‘doing their best’’ for waste preventionand limit further interest or action. However, waste prevention,which is the highest priority of the waste hierarchy, is defined asthe prevention of waste at source through avoidance, reductionand reuse, but excluding off site recycling. Along this line, theWFD, especially in Article 3, clause 12–13, states that preventionmeans taking measures before a substance, material or producthas become waste, which reduce: (a) the quantity of waste, includ-ing through the re-use of products or the extension of the life spanof products; (b) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on theenvironment and human health; or (c) the content of harmful sub-stances in materials and products. In this respect, re-use is definedas any operation by which products or components that are notwaste are used again for the same purpose for which they wereconceived. Fig. 1 (EEA, 2002; Wilson, 2004) provides a graphic rep-resentation of the clear differences between waste prevention andrecycling. Home composting, according to Wilson (2004) will,however, be included to waste prevention, as it prevents wasteentering the residual waste stream. According to the EEA (2002)the term ‘‘waste minimisation’’ is commonly used, but a strict def-inition does not exist and in particular the distinction between pre-vention and minimisation can be difficult. The definition of wasteminimisation was agreed at the Berlin meeting in 1996 (OECD,1996). As it appears from this definition waste minimisation is abroader term than prevention. Waste prevention covers ‘‘preven-tion’’, ‘‘reduction at source’’ and ‘‘re-use of products’’. Waste mini-misation, however, also involves the waste management measures‘‘quality improvements’’ (such as reducing the hazard) and ‘‘recy-cling’’ (EEA, 2002).

4. Methods used to measure waste prevention

Several methods have been used to measure waste prevention,which can be summarised as following: (a) Direct quantification ofsource reduction, referred on reported measurements of changes inwaste stream quantities, either by volume or weight. This methodincludes direct monitoring programs through case studies, auditsand/or waste sorting studies. (b) Source reduction cost analysis,which generally incorporates two financial factors: the cost ofundertaking the source reduction effort and the savings in pur-chasing and disposal costs, combined to calculate the realised totalcosts of the effort. The basic steps include the identification of thesource reduction and the direct cost of implementing the sourcereduction as well as the costs to be measured (such as purchasing,disposal, labour and other relevant factors) before and after imple-mentation of the source reduction. (c) Another measurement tech-nique is the use of indicators (determined on either an economic,resource, or waste basis) to establish both the baseline potentialfor waste prevention programs and to measure the effectivenessof the program after implementation. Such indicators could in-clude per capita waste generation, per employee waste generation,or tons of waste per wage dollars. (d) Resource productivity ratiosare simple measurements of a product or service divided by the re-sources required to produce the product or service. Each ratio is ameasure of the efficiency with which resources are used. For




Prevention

Waste minimization

Preventive measures Waste management measures

Fig. 1. Graphic representation of waste minimisation.

A.A. Zorpas, K. Lasaridi / Waste Management xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

example, product sales divided by raw material costs provide ameasure of whether improvements in raw material use are effec-tive. If raw materials are conserved, the ratio of sales to raw mate-rials will be increased. (e) Side management is used for designingapproaches to evaluate waste prevention, reliance on existingmethods and approaches to the evaluation of waste prevention,as well as the results and costs of evaluations undertaken else-where would seem logical (Springer, 1994; NYCDoS, 2000).

5. Approaches to monitoring and evaluating household wasteprevention

Monitoring is the systematic collection and analysis of informa-tion as a project progresses. It is aimed at improving the efficiencyand effectiveness of a project or organisation. It is based on targetsset and activities planned during the planning phases of work. Ithelps to keep the work on track and can let management knowwhen things are going wrong. It enables the management to deter-mine whether the available resources are sufficient and are beingwell used, whether the available capacity is sufficient and appro-priate, and whether the organisation is doing what it was plannedto do. Evaluation is the comparison of actual project impactsagainst the agreed strategic plans. It looks at what was set out todo, at what has been accomplished, and how it has been accom-plished. It can be formative – taking place during the life of a pro-ject or organisation, with the intention of improving the strategy orway of functioning of the project or organisation – or it can besummative – drawing learning from a completed project or anorganisation that is no longer functioning (Shapiro, 2011).

According to another definition (M.M.E, 2006) monitoring is aplanning and management tool which provides the project man-agement with regular and continuous feedback that can be usedto make decisions, manage the project more successfully and planfor better project activities in the future. Monitoring is a crucialpart of the project management that will be carried out to observethe progress of the project implementation and to ensure that in-puts, activities, outputs and external factors (such as the projectassumptions) are proceeding according to the plan. Moreover,monitoring is also a tool to identify problems, which may occurduring project implementation, so that corrective measure couldbe taken before the project is affected adversely. Most fundingagencies require some form of progress report that indicate ordemonstrate the project achievements throughout the project lifeand at the termination of project. Good monitoring will also allowthe project to be effectively evaluated; therefore it is a continuous


process and periodic surveillance (for both observation and vigi-lance) of the project implementation. Evaluation is a field of ap-plied science that seeks to understand how successful theprojects are and to what extent they fulfil their objectives.

Drawing from the evidence on motivations and barriers, there isa need to differentiate waste prevention from recycling and to pro-mote greater awareness of practical waste prevention measuresthat can be taken (WR1204, 2009a). In general, waste preventionbehaviour and options need to become more visible. People needhelp to identify what they can do and how to do it well. The impor-tance of moral or pro-environmental motivations needs to be givencareful and further consideration with respect to messaging. Themain barriers are: (i) the extent to which it has not been possibleto identify the reasons behind why waste is being prevented; (ii)the extent to which the impact of specific (or individual) interven-tion or campaign measures remains little understood; (iii) theinability of participants to make a conceptual distinction betweenwaste prevention and recycling; and (iv) a new and different wayof intervening, targeting and messaging will be needed in orderto engage new audiences, i.e. those not currently pre-disposed towaste prevention (WR1204, 2009a).

The aim of the monitoring and evaluating household waste pre-vention is thus to enable policy makers, local authorities and ex-perts to (WR1204, 2009b; Read et al., 2009; Sharp et al., 2010a;Cox et al., 2010): (i) collect and accumulate robust and high qualitydata; (ii) confirm that the correct decisions are made about whereto prioritise resources; and (iii) ensure that waste prevention isbeing effective and is providing behaviour change. Measuringhousehold waste prevention is a complex activity; some impactscan be measured directly, while others can only be estimated(WRAP, 2009). Table 1 highlights the main methods and ap-proaches that have been used to measure waste prevention (GAP,2008; WR1204, 2009b,c; WR1204, 2009d; Sharp et al., 2010a;Tasaki and Yamakawa, 2011).

According to the Waste Watch report (2006) there are two typesof data: (a) the Outcome data, which measure and define the behav-iour change and resulting impact on waste arising and (b) the Outputdata on project deliverables, which usually is used as an alternativefor impact, e.g. number of registrations to the mail preference ser-vice. A different classification is found in WRAP (2006), in its GoodPractice Guidance which was designed to provide practical adviceto local authorities, where different terms for data gathering are pre-sented as following: (a) inputs (e.g. activities such as number of leaf-lets distributed, number of hits on the website) and (b) outcomes(e.g. number of residents more aware of the scheme); and impacts(i.e. number of residents participating in the scheme).

5.1. Self-weighing, monitoring or reporting

Self-weighing can be used effectively in small group activitiesand it requires close interaction with the householder with samplesizes generally being small, usually 50 or 60 households, if carriedout properly, i.e. with regular data collection and processing(WRAP and the Women’s Institute, 2008; GAP, 2008). This ap-proach of Self-weighing can have an important role in putting peo-ple ‘‘in touch’’ with their own waste and provides a visiblereminder of their commitment to reduce it. The procedure is oftenenjoyed by the contributors. These approaches range from evaluat-ing waste in short term campaigns, i.e. of 1 week–4 months, tolonger term interventions and campaigns, i.e. a period of 2–3 yr.

In spite of its aforementioned advantages, this method presentsnumerous issues: (i) The data submitted by participating house-holds needs critical analysis due to the impact of different startup times and drop outs during a project. (ii) Inconsistent andincomplete forms are often returned, i.e. participants forget toweigh their waste. In relevant studies, although experiencing a




Table 1Methods and approaches measuring waste prevention.

Methodology

Self-weighing, monitoring or reporting Working with volunteer households to prevent waste. Households weigh, orobserve, or audit the amount of waste they produce and record this using diaries orfeedback sheets

Use of collection round data to accurately measure waste increase Uses a mix of monitoring techniques, e.g. tracking waste increase via wastetonnage/collection round data and surveys, upon which to evaluate impact ofcampaigns

Control and pilot groups Compare performance in an area targeted with an intervention with a comparablearea where no intervention happens

Attitude and behaviour surveys including metrics, interviews and focus groups(outcome focused)

At times attitudes and behaviours are also captured through diaries. Surveys aretypically used to estimate how many people do a particular action; focus groupsare used to uncover why they act and/or their response to campaign material

Participation surveys (or participation monitoring) including enquiries to helplines, web statistics, number of registrants, publications disseminated, etc.(output focused

To gauge the reach of the initiative proposed. Also, they monitor the uptake ofincentives, e.g. nappy vouchers, sale of home compost bins, or registrations to themail preference service

Compositional analysis To understand the impacts of initiative across different waste materialsConversion factors, estimates and modelling Using conversion factors, proxies and ratio model with available detailed figures

on consumption and waste generationP.O.S (Point of Sales Data) Estimate the reduction of specific product wastes and explore the applicability of

using the methodology for waste prevention. POS data are generated whenproducts are scanned and purchased at retailers, providing us with detailed salesdata by product

Hybrid – a combination of any or more of the above approaches Uses a mix of monitoring and evaluation techniques


dropout rate in terms of weighing and measuring, many partici-pants were found to remain active, e.g. attending workshops,which makes it difficult to measure precisely the impact. (iii)Working with individuals and small groups is resource and timeintensive. (iv) Self-weighing can be ineffective in generating robuststatistical evidence of weight-based reductions (Hampshire CountyCouncil and Brook Lyndhurst, 2008). However, due to the ‘‘invisi-bility’’ of waste prevention, particularly the many small, in-homeactivities, often participation can only be monitored through self-reports by participants. (v) Community-led projects (waste pre-vention and recycling) were found to be more likely to estimate(rather than measure) waste diverted. A research study in 2005found that fewer than 1 in 3 projects monitored residual waste in-crease (Brook Lyndhurst, 2006).

Such approaches are combined with surveys, interviews or fo-cus groups. For example the following reductions have been re-ported in household waste generation: (a) GAP (2008) calculatedthat EcoTeams, achieved a reduction in total household waste gen-eration of 0.62 kg/hh/wk. (b) RoWAN (Wickens, 2005), a 13 monthproject monitoring 50 households (the original objective was 100)achieved a 22% reduction of the total household waste generation,equivalent to 1.87 kg/hh/wk. (c) From a 6 weeks project with 14participants, a 34% reduction in total household waste generation(equivalent to 4.3 kg/hh/wk) was reported (Waste Watch, 2006).(d) A 1 yr obesity prevention intervention targeting entire house-holds was effective in reducing TV viewing, snack/sweets intakeand eating out purchases according to French et al. (2011).

5.2. Use of collection round data

Collection round data can only be used to monitor waste gener-ation in a specific geographic location. However, not all waste pre-vention interventions, and therefore monitoring needs aregeographically based. For example, Hampshire County Counciland Brook Lyndhurst (2008) Small Change Big Difference projectwas based on delivering to dispersed ‘‘communities of interest’’and, therefore, collection round data was not a monitoring optionavailable. The way in which local authorities collate and use collec-tion round data for Waste Data Flow does not provide the level ofdetail or quality required to monitor waste prevention (DorsetCounty Council, 2008).


5.3. Use of control and pilot groups

There were two monitoring and evaluation examples using acontrol and pilot group environment (Dorset County Council,2008; Fletcher et al., 2008; Read et al., 2009). Both used collectionround data (in addition to surveys) to monitor and evaluate a coor-dinated programme of waste prevention campaigns. Using controland pilot groups involves a number of attentions: (a) long-termand careful planning is required and the population sample shouldbe strictly matched; (b) there should be no changes to service pro-vision during the monitoring period (in the control area); (c) wastemanagement service provision should be closely matched; (d) cor-rect and suitable detailed waste tonnage data is demanded.According to the Waste-Watch report (2006) a continuing view(in terms of strategic design and resource) in order to provideappropriate time for time series data and to be collected must beestablished.

According to Fletcher et al. (2008) reached a reduction, in itstarget area of 1150 households, up to 6.1%, which is equivalentto 0.98 kg/hh/week reduction in total household waste arising’s.Also, the Dorset County Council (2008) achieved a reduction, inits target area of 1577 households up to 2%, which was equivalentto 0.5 kg/hh/wk in total household waste arising’s, while the mon-itoring period were up to 3 yr. It must be noted that those twoexamples were carefully planned as the areas presented with sim-ilar populations and the collection system was the same. However,a number of challenging considerations had to be taken into ac-count by both approaches, e.g. changes to collection regimes,installation of new bring banks, missed collections (due to inclem-ent weather), vehicle breakdowns, county-wide and national cam-paigns, media, unoccupied new homes.

In practice, a control and pilot approach is difficult to achieve.The main reason is, if it could be achieved, then the longer time-frame required means that it lends itself to providing accurate dataon tonnage reductions, a broad range of targeted campaign activi-ties, and an integrated mix of monitoring and evaluationapproaches.

5.4. Attitude and behaviour surveys

The methodology is usually used to set a baseline (pre-campaign/intervention) and is then used to evaluate changes in





attitude or behaviour. Longer-term evaluations include a provi-sional survey or several target groups. WRAP’s Love Food HateWaste provides the only survey metric that calculates potentialdiversion from survey responses, i.e. a ‘‘committed food waste re-ducer’’ (CFWR) has the potential to divert 1.5 kg/hh/wk of foodwaste from landfill (which is 1.4565 kg less than someone who isnot a CFWR) (WRAP, 2009).

All the monitoring and evaluation approaches, used surveys inone form or another as a tool for determining an attitudinal and/or declared behavioural baseline and to evaluate changes or pro-gress. In all examples a follow up survey, usually post campaign,was showed. Surveys were found to provide a valuable baselineupon which an understanding of attitudes and behaviours is de-rived. Face-to face surveys were less popular because of their ex-tremely high cost (Brook Lyndhurst, 2006).

In most cases the average number of survey respondents was inthe order of 50–60 for which good quality data and informationcould be derived (a few cases interim surveys were conductedwhere the intervention timeframe was more than a year). Qualita-tive research proved to be an essential source of data and informa-tion in response to the project delivery and communications onbehavioural barriers and motivations (Dorset County Council,2008; Hampshire County Council and Brook Lyndhurst, 2008;GAP, 2008).

Barr (2000) used cognitive psychology to develop a conceptualframework for pro environmental behaviour and highlighted thatenvironmental values were instrumental in influencing waste pre-vention behaviour but not recycling. Tonglet et al. (2004) suggestrecycling behaviour is influenced primarily by opportunities, facil-ities and knowledge and secondly by not being deterred by issuesof physically recycling (e.g. time, space, inconvenience).

Prevention campaigns and communications must target envi-ronmental and community benefits for effective behaviour change.Tucker and Douglas (2007) for example, build a model based onsurvey findings to explain self-reported waste prevention behav-iour. They establish that the both the complexity of the relation-ships between variables [which include attitudinal factors (e.g.values, beliefs and norms), contextual factors (non-internal factorsand constraints), personal capabilities (e.g. behaviour-specificknowledge and skills), and habits and routines] and the paucityof data referring to those variables means that, it is unlikely thatwe will ever identify all the factors affecting household waste pre-vention behaviours (and their variability) sufficiently enough toprovide any definitive, deterministic explanation (or model). Sim-ilarly Barr (2007) explores and models a wide range of attitudinal,behavioural and contextual factors on the basis of survey results,and although not going as far as Tucker and Douglas (2007), never-theless concludes that the relationship between input variablesand predicted outcomes varies widely, in particular with respectto different waste prevention behaviours. It is particularly note-worthy that both researchers’ (Barr, 2007; Tucker and Douglas,2007) work was able to explain around 30% of observed changesin waste prevention behaviour. A remarkably similar finding (i.e.30:70) comes from the investigation of the Theory of PlannedBehaviour by Tonglet et al. (2004) (whose observation that manywaste prevention projects may have failed because they wereinsufficiently grounded in theory could easily be rebutted by theproposition that too many theories of behaviour change fail be-cause they are insufficiently grounded in what actually happens).

A number of authors have used behaviour change theorieseither to explain or predict waste prevention behaviour (Tongletet al., 2004; Gray and Toleman, 2006) or have reviewed otherswork in this area (Tucker and Douglas, 2007). One of the mostwidely tested is the theory of planned behaviour, which proposesthat intention to act derives from three factors: a person’s attitude,whether they feel able to act (known as perceived behavioural con-


trol) and wider social norms. Under the right external conditions(e.g. no limiting barriers), intention is expected to translate into ac-tion. The theory of planned behaviour is just one of the many socialpsychological frameworks that are being examined and applied inpro-environmental behaviour change research (including Defra’sprogramme on sustainable consumption). This body of applied the-ory points to the following as being important considerations at apractical level (Tucker and Douglas, 2007; Hampshire Country andBrook Lyndhurst, 2008): (i) Personal values, norms and identity:including whether I feel the issue is important, I feel responsible,I feel I am the kind of person who does this, and I feel I am ableto do it, the perceived difficulty and costs; (ii) Social norms andidentity: either whether I want to act because I see others do it(descriptive norm), or I feel obliged to do it because most peopledo it (injunctive norm), whether I get praise from others for doingit, or it gives me a sense of social belonging; (iii) External condi-tions: whether I have access to services or products or whetherthere are other barriers that are out my control; and (iv) Habits:behaviours that occur regularly and repeatedly without consciousreflection are referred to as habitual and are not directly subjectto the influence of values, norms and so on. Theoretical mecha-nisms have been described for breaking into habits and re-freezingnew ones (e.g. cueing of desirable habits, learning by doing etc.).

5.5. Participation surveys

Usually they are used to help monitor the number of responses.This is either claimed participation, e.g. response to home com-posting; or to gauge the reach of an intervention or campaign,e.g. enquiries to help lines, web statistics, number of registrants,publications disseminated, etc. The most widespread participationwork was undertaken by WRAP (2007) to provide detailed estima-tions of new and existing home composting households. This workhas involved a telephone survey of 20,000 households across GreatBritain, a household questionnaire in Scotland, and a telephonesurvey of 6000 home composters. This work was supported bycompositional analysis. Regarding, the surveys in most casesworked well. However, numerous issues need to be taken into ac-count like: (a) the good sample design, including large samplesizes, (b) the estimation of risk for small samples in some engage-ment models, (c) the Self-selecting and unrepresentative samplesand (d) Self reporting bias, including a tendency to over-estimatewaste reduction impacts (WRAP, 2007).

5.6. Participation monitoring

It helps to measure the impact, of specific campaign activities,e.g. number of mail preference service registrations, number ofhome compost bins sold, number of nappy vouchers given out.Participation monitoring was conducted by Dorset County Coun-cil (2008) to determine the number of waste reduction packs, re-use directories and jute bags disseminated. In addition, theindividual visits by the doorstep team and the materials theydisseminated were recorded. To provide an indication of the re-sponse by the public to targeted campaign activities, i.e. partici-pation monitoring, the number of registrations to the MailPreference Service and number of home compost bins sold werealso monitored.

5.7. Compositional analysis

This method is undertaken to understand different waste mate-rials and the impact of an intervention or campaign on reducingthe waste materials. Waste composition analysis was undertakenby WRAP (2007) to provide detailed estimates of new and existinghome composting households. Also, to investigate the feasibility of





quantifying the nature, scale and origin of food waste through acompositional analysis technique whereby waste is collected,sorted, categorised and weighed, which resulted in an analysis pro-tocol is reported. Moreover, compositional analysis technique isused to estimate in detail the nature, scale and origin of food wastewith survey work on household attitudes, claimed behaviour andsocio-demographics (WRAP, 2008). When using this approach, itis good practice to verify the data using separately collected dataon MSW generation, treatment and disposal, especially in caseswhere they are based largely on modelling. This method is onlymore accurate than the approaches given above if countries havegood quality, detailed data on each end point and have verifiedthe information (IPCC, 2006). Waste composition is one of the mainfactors influencing emissions from solid waste treatment, as differ-ent waste types contain different amount of degradable organiccarbon and fossil carbon. Waste compositions, as well as the clas-sifications used to collect data on waste composition in MSW varywidely in different regions and countries (IPCC, 2006). Regionaland country-specific default data on waste composition in MSWare given in Table 2. This data is based on weight of wet waste.However, waste compositional analysis provides significant infor-mation for the type and the kind of waste generated in one areaor in a whole country. The best composition data analysis (IPCC,2006) can be obtained by routine monitoring at the gate of dispos-als sites or incineration and other treatment facilities.

5.8. Conversion factors, estimates and modelling

Conversion factors are used to estimate figures on consumptionand waste generation. If observational methods are used to recordvolume or proportion of waste generated by participants (e.g.quarter or half full, or number of carrier bags or rubbish sacks),conversion metrics are needed to turn this into an estimatedweight (e.g. 0.55 kg/l for a kitchen caddy (WRAP and the Women’sInstitute, 2008), and 3.5 kg for a typical plastic carrier bag (NLWA,2009). In this context, participants are asked to measure differentcategories of waste materials, e.g. paper/card, plastic, glass etc.and record what happens to them, e.g. landfill, recycle, compost,burn (Wickens, 2005). This approach was also used as a participanteducational tool (Waste Watch, 2006). The North London WatchYour Waste Week (NLWA, 2009), asked residents to record theamount they had thrown away (the week before the campaign),

Table 2Regional compositional waste analysis (in%) (IPCC, 2006).

Region Food waste Paper/cardboard Wood

Eastern Asia 26.2 18.8 3.5South-Central Asia 40.3 11.3 7.9South-Eastern Asia 43.5 12.9 9.9Western Asia & Middle East 41.1 18.0 9.8

Eastern Africa 53.9 7.7 7.0Middle Africa 43.4 16.8 6.5Northern Africa 51.1 16.5 2Southern Africa 23 25 15Western Africa 40.4 9.8 4.4

Eastern Europe 30.1 21.8 7.5Northern Europe 23.8 30.6 10.0Southern Europe 36.9 17.0 10.6Western Europe 24.2 27.5 11.0

Australia and New Zealand 36.0 30.0 24.0Rest of Oceania 67.5 6.0 2.5

North America 33.9 23.2 6.2Central America 43.8 13.7 13.5South America 44.9 17.1 4.7Caribbean 46.9 17.0 2.4


and compare it with the amount they threw away during the cam-paign. Participants were given the option of either weighing theirwaste or estimating the proportion they threw away. Where pro-portions of waste were recorded, these were converted to weightsby using typical weights for different collection methods, i.e.: A1100 l four wheeled bin weighs 110 kg, A 240 l two-wheeled binweighs 22 kg.

The FRN (2009) has produced guidance data on estimating theaverage weights of a range of bulky goods, e.g. furniture, householditems, carpets, bedding, and WEEE (large and small householdappliances). Research currently undertaken by WRAP will producetonnage estimates for collected and donated bulky goods (not pri-vate sales or informal passing on. The potential for modelling theprevention of municipal solid waste is highlighted in Vienna (Sal-hofer et al., 2008). An extensive literature review of case studiesidentified two approaches used to calculate the potential reductionof waste (in kg/capita/yr): (i) For products with available detailedfigures on consumption and waste generation, the effects were cal-culated using a ratio model and (ii) Where implementation is re-ported from other regions, the effect was estimated by usingparticipation figures taken from the literature.

5.9. Hybrid approaches

Although it appears that there are no accepted or standardmethodologies for monitoring and evaluating household wasteprevention (Waste Watch, 2006), it is clear from analysing the evi-dence that some consensus appears to be emerging towards a ‘‘hy-brid approach’’. A collective review of the evidence reveals a typicalapproach comprising: (i) A baseline survey (and or interviews/fo-cus groups); (ii) Householder monitoring – comprising eitherself-weighing or observation analysis; (iii) Local authority (ordelivery organisation) monitoring – comprising waste compositionanalysis, waste audits or tracking waste arising via collection data(this is less frequently done); (iv) A follow up survey (sometimes)qualitative feedback (interviews/focus groups); (v) Dependingupon the timeframe and resources, interim surveys are also con-ducted. Using a suite of well-planned monitoring approaches isrecommended by WRAP’s current monitoring and evaluation guid-ance (WRAP, 2006) and it is further reinforced by the literature.Waste Aware Scotland’s Waste Prevention Programme has takena hybrid approach to monitoring and evaluating its programme

Textiles Rubber/leather Plastic Metal Glass Other

3.5 1.0 14.3 2.7 3.1 7.42.5 0.8 6.4 3.8 3.5 21.92.7 0.9 7.2 3.3 4.0 16.32.9 0.6 6.3 1.3 2.2 5.4

1.7 1.1 5.5 1.8 2.3 11.62.5 4.5 3.5 2.0 1.52.5 4.5 3.5 2 1.5

1.0 3.0 1.0

4.7 1.4 6.2 3.6 10.0 14.62.0 13.0 7.0 8.0

3.9 1.4 8.5 4.6 6.5 9.82.6 1.8 6.7 2.6 3.7 12.32.6 0.7 10.8 2.9 3.3 13.05.1 1.9 9.9 5.0 5.7 3.5





(Sharp et al., 2010b). Each initiative has a specific monitoring andevaluation stream including attitudinal surveys, web statistics,composition analysis and participation surveys.

5.10. Point of Sale (POS)

POS data (Tasaki and Yamakawa, 2011) is used to estimate thereduction of specific product wastes and to explore the applicabil-ity of using the methodology for waste prevention. POS data aregenerated when products are scanned and purchased at retailers,providing us with detailed sales data by product. If these dataare analysed in conjunction with other product information, suchas packaging weight, analysts can estimate the amount of wastereduction generated by changing product design, including reduc-ing packaging weight and using refill products. Otsuka et al. (2001)used POS data to estimate waste reduction in Japan for the year1999, and it was probably the first use of POS data for this purposein the world.

6. Benefits and dis-benefits

The presented methods for monitoring and evaluation have sev-eral advantages and disadvantages (WR1204, 2009a,b; Sharp et al.,2010a,b; Cox et al., 2010; Tasaki and Yamakawa, 2011). Table 2indicated the most significant issues (strength and weakness) fromeach of the above methodology. From Table 3 it is clear that it isvery important in order to have successful results to identify thetarget group which will take place in the research. Also, it is very

Table 3Advantages and disadvantages of the monitoring and evaluation approaches.

Methodology Advantages (strengths)

Self-weighing, monitoring or reporting Observable, direct and provide measurablequantitative data on reduction

Locates the participants in touch with theirvisibility impactProvides motivational feedback to participaObservational monitoring can provide alternweighing

Use of collection round data toaccurately measure waste increase

Allows accurate quantity and comparison ofwaste increase

Control and pilot groups Can provide sufficient timeframe and plannnumber of different evaluations to take placLarge sample sizes can provide representatipopulations which are likely to be more starobustCan help to reduce bias as target groups areselected

Attitude and behaviour surveysincluding metrics, interviews andfocus groups (outcome focused)

Provides a baseline for monitoring change

Provides both quantitative and qualitative dinformation for evaluationProvides valuable input to design a campaigAllows for large-scale surveys to be conducFocus groups can provide insight into attitubehaviours which can be relatively easy toand are cost effective

P.O.S (Point of Sales Data) POS data to estimate the reduction of specifiwastes and explore the applicability of usinmethodology for waste prevention

Hybrid – a combination of any or moreof the above approaches

Provides the context for built- in pre and powith interim self-weighing or observation rEnables mixed approaches to be used in bothlong-term monitoring and evaluationsThe results from one method can be used asanother (e.g. focus groups acting as check odata)


important that a campaign before of any action on measurement,monitoring and evaluation is applied in a specific target group.

7. Motivations and barrier’s for waste prevention

It is a fact that everyone needs a motivation to react to anything.Even Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which need to becomeenvironmentally responsible and minimise their waste. Accordingto Zorpas (2010) SMEs need motivations (Fig. 2) to react to any-thing, but is it the need to become environmentally responsible amotivation for small business? The answer is YES as several peopleare behind of any SMEs. In the European Union 85% of businessescited personal views economic benefits and beliefs as their motiva-tion for undertaking environmental activities with 76% citing goodbusiness practice (FSB, 2006; Zorpas, 2010). Over half highlighted acommitment to reducing their environmental impact and a quarterrecognised the public relations benefits of demonstrating environ-mental responsibility (Zorpas, 2010).

According to Wilson (2005) from a householder point of view,the review identified that there is no single activity involved inwaste prevention, is being not one but many of behaviours. Onthe basis of reported surveys these behaviours have very differentlevels of participation; with one source estimating that up to 60%of the public does at least one of them, at least some of the time.The motivations driving waste prevention are many and variedas the diverse activities under the waste prevention umbrella: theycover many of the aspects flagged by theory; and are often specificto particular behaviours (e.g. food, home composting, reuse, etc.)

Disadvantages (weaknesses)

Inconsistent data can be derived due to different start and stoptimes, new entrants, incomplete diaries, and lack of buy-in fromparticipants for weighing waste translate measurements

waste – Conversion factors are needed to

nts High drop-out rates are experienced as project progressesative to There are risks of self-selecting samples

Sample sizes can be too small to be statistically acceptedchanges in Can only be used to monitor waste increase in a specific

geographical locationing for ae

Detailed and careful planning is needed to ensure similarpopulations/collection systems

vetistically

Quality and detailed waste collection data is essential butchallenging to derive

pre- This approach cannot be used if communities are notgeographically definedSmall sample sizes or low respondent rates can be insufficient to berepresentative or robust

ata and Requires careful survey design to provide comparative analysiswith waste data

n Using a Citizen Panel can bias the sampleted Self-completion surveys can give potential for biasdes andorganise

Focus groups are not suitable for collecting weight data

c productg the

Providing us with detailed sales data by product

st surveyseporting

Can be complex and resource intensive evaluation of datamonitoring, surveys and self-weighing/observation needs to beintegrated which requires careful planning at the outset which canbe daunting for small-scale projects

short and

a check onn survey




0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Other

Peer pressure from other businesses

Public opinion expectation

Government pressure

Supliers pressure

Customer pressure

Financial health of business / affordability

Committed to reducing environmental impact

Pressure from employees

PR benefits / Good for bussiness image 24%

Alturism / putting something back

Good bussiness practice

Personal views / economic benefits

Fig. 2. SMEs motivation for their environmental responsibility (FSB, 2006).


(WR1204, 2009f,g). Importantly, research has recommended thatwaste prevention behaviours are poorly associated with recycling,and are sometimes even negatively correlated (Tucker and Doug-las, 2007; Barr, 2007), such that recycling may become a reasonfor not doing more to reduce waste. The same study also showeda degree of misunderstanding among the public between ‘‘recy-cling’’ and ‘‘reduction’’ and the two are often conflated in the pub-lic’s mind set. Studies that have tried to explain waste preventionbehaviour through statistical models or testing of behavioural the-ory have generally found that their models have only weak explan-atory power (WR1204, 2009e) 70% to 85% of the variation inbehaviour could not be explained, according to some others (Tuck-er and Douglas, 2007; Barr, 2007). Difficulty in explaining wasteprevention behaviour may be related to the fact that it is, in reality,not a single behaviour but many. Furthermore, it is possible thatthere are missing inputs to the models which are drivers of behav-iour but that do not relate either to waste, environmental values orworld views (for example, the strength of purchase and food man-agement drivers in WRAP’s food waste research (WRAP, 2007).However, various motivations are identified in the literature (Tuck-er and Douglas, 2007; GAP, 2008; Hampshire County Council andBrook Lyndhurst, 2008; Dorset County Council, 2008). The mostcommonly and generally declared are: (i) Values, universalismand moral motivations: Motivations for recycling are often de-scribed as more functional and influenced by external conditions(e.g. kerbside collection) than are those for waste prevention. Sev-eral authors link waste prevention behaviour to underlying per-sonal values, including what are commonly termed universalvalues (generally where an individual puts collective benefitsahead of their own personal gain) (Tucker and Douglas, 2007). Ageneral sense of responsibility for the essential value or on-goinguse of things has also been indicated (WR1204, 2009g); (ii) Per-sonal responsibility: Acceptance of personal responsibility is oftencited as a primary requirement for prevention behaviour. It may bemanifested, for example, as a sense of duty or obligation, satisfac-tion, embarrassment (or lack of it in relation to second handgoods), guilt, and active concern, and (iii) Self-efficacy: This de-scribes the personal capabilities, confidence, know-how and skills


needed to carry out a particular behaviour. Interventions or cam-paigns may address it by providing hands-on help or giving tipson how to perform an activity (GAP, 2008; Hampshire CountyCouncil and Brook Lyndhurst, 2008; Dorset County Council, 2008).

The more general monitoring and evaluation barriers included:(i) Even where changes in waste arisings or behaviour can be reli-ably measured, it can be difficult to distinguish the impact of awaste prevention initiative from the impact of other, external fac-tors (Waste Watch, 2006; NLWA, 2009); (ii) Besides when a localauthority is running a programme it is difficult to identify the im-pact of different initiatives; (iii) There are many problems of usingcollection round data: its quality and it being inappropriate fornon-geographically based interventions; (iv) The need for longitu-dinal data for monitoring and evaluation can pose a problem. Onesource recommended that baseline data for at least a year shouldbe gathered before a waste prevention initiative is launched andthe evaluation should track progress over time to see if change issustained (Waste Watch, 2006). The timeframes of the evaluationprojects reviewed ranged from one week (NLWA, 2009) to 5 yr(Woodard and Harder, undated); (v) It is often difficult to measurethe impact of social enterprises and community waste sector whenlooking at their overall contribution to recycling and reuse. Dataquality issues and a tendency of many organisations to focus on so-cial impacts rather than waste diversion are the main barriers(Hines et al., 2008); (vi) Lack of funds, lack of staff capacity, lackof skills (including data analysis), non-availability or unsuitabilityof data, unexpected problems (Waste Watch, 2006; HampshireCounty Council and Brook Lyndhurst, 2008); (vii) Projects werealso not always able to estimate the cost of monitoring, the re-sources required, or likely sample sizes before starting, meaningthat monitoring had to be abandoned or revised (e.g. leading tohaving baseline data, with no or very small sample sizes in followup). (Waste Watch, 2006; Hampshire County Council and BrookLyndhurst, 2008)

The principal barrier emerging from this element of the overallevidence review is that, as set out above, a chronic shortage of(time series) data allied to weaknesses in the conceptual under-standing of human behaviour limit the ability to construct formal





models or produce robust forecasts. Barriers to household wasteprevention were identified (AEA, 2006; Barr, 2007; Tucker andDouglas, 2007) and includes Environmental, Behavioural, Eco-nomic and Politics issues. Environmental factors can act as limitingfactors on waste prevention. Climate change, in particular, is ex-pected to have impacts on all aspects of social and economic lifeand, although this may be a small issue in the grander scheme ofthings, will, for example, impact on the nature, scale and timingof green waste. Household level factors such as habit, the difficultyposed by repeat behaviours, the level of service provision and so oncan act as barriers to waste prevention. Also, the basic premises ofconsumerism, for example to buy more food, to buy more clothes,to replace household items long before they have ceased to be ofuse etc., conflict with many of the precepts of waste prevention.Regarding the politics issues, many waste generation/preventionbehaviours are deal with in long-standing, deeply personal beliefsand values, territory that is exceptionally difficult for politics, andthe scale of political risk is a key barrier to adopting measures thatmay have the best prospects for preventing waste (Brook Lynd-hurst, 2007).

8. Guidelines for waste prevention programs

Waste prevention is a cross-cutting area of policymaking andhas a direct relevance to a considerable number of alreadyestablished policy areas, both in the field of the environment(e.g. environmental management systems) as well as specific pri-marily non-environmental areas (such as e.g. innovation policy),which have good potential to decrease the amount and/or the ad-verse impacts of generated waste, both at EU and Member Statelevels. Waste prevention programmes should keep in mind thegeneral aims of breaking the link between economic growth andthe environment impact of waste generation and moving towardsa zero waste economy. Within this framework, quantitative goalswith clear deadlines are helpful in mobilising a shift towards wasteprevention attitudes and practices or towards more efficient man-agement of materials. The following steps (EU, 2012) may be usefulin determining appropriate objectives: (i) Geographical scale oftargets, (ii) Quantitative or Qualitative targets, (iii) Data Collection,(iv) Timeframe (v) Voluntary or Obligatory as the target may beshared goals committed to through voluntary agreements. Wasteprevention programmes may include (a) awareness campaigns fo-cus on specific waste stream, (b) training programmes (c) informa-tion regarding the waste prevention techniques (d) Eco labelling,which help consumers identify products that fulfil environmentalcriteria including material efficiency and limits on packaging andhazardous materials, thus providing waste prevention informationdirectly to consumers at the time of purchase (EU, 2012).

9. Conclusion

Waste prevention is at the top of the waste hierarchy; however,it is notoriously difficult to measure. The problem is simply ex-pressed: how do you measure something that is not there. Witha rising level of prosperity in industrialised countries, an increasingnumber of products and services are being produced and con-sumed. This critical expansion is replicated in the amount of wastegenerated. It has therefore become of prime importance to specifybasic notions such as recovery and disposal, so as to better organisewaste management actions. It is also critical to reinforce measuresto be taken with regard to prevention as well as the reduction ofthe impacts of waste generation and waste management on theenvironment. Measuring, monitoring and evaluation of waste pre-vention are a complex and difficult undertaking. It is not reallyclear what can be measured if it is not there. Monitoring and eval-


uation requires data collection, and all of the methods have theirown challenges (advantages and disadvantages). It is too difficultto decide which the best one is. However, monitoring done prop-erly, it is an invaluable tool for good management, and providesa useful base for evaluation. From all the above methods a specifictarget croup is necessary and extremely important in order to havesuccessful results. The impact of waste prevention campaigns canbe easily calculated through mass reduction and behaviouralstudies and can be among the acceptable methods to monitorand evaluate waste prevention. Maybe a combination of all themethodology with a specific target group and on a specific timemay be fairer. On the other hand, monitoring and evaluating ofhousehold waste prevention needs to be approached in a way thatboth addresses the challenges and manages the potential sensitiv-ities. Finally, monitoring and evaluating on household waste pre-vention intent to enable policy makers, local authorities andpractitioners to set targets, to design their plans and to measurebehaviour change.

References

AbfG, 1986. Abfallgesetz vom 27. August 1986 (waste management act from 27August 1986), BGBl. I S. 2771; 1996 I S. 1354, aui9er Kraft seit 10/96 (overruledsince 10/96).

AEA, 2006. Energy and Environment, The Future Foundation and The SocialMarketing Practice Modelling the Impact of Lifestyle Changes on HouseholdWaste Arisings. Summary Report.

Barr, S., 2000. Pro-environmental behaviour. WRAP Waste Prevention TrainingManual.

Barr, S., 2007. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviours. A UKcase study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior 39 (4),435–473, <http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/4/435> (accessed24.05.12).

Brook Lyndhurst and Waste Watch, 2006. Establishing the Behaviour ChangeEvidence Base to Inform Community based Waste Prevention and Recycling.Brook Lyndhurst. A project for Defra’s WREP.

Brook Lyndhurst for the London Development Agency, 2007. Replicating Success:Social Enterprises and the Waste Sector in London.

Büchl-Krammerstätter, K., 2005. The Vienna Model Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment (SEA) and the round table—Experiences with a StrategicEnvironmental Assessment for the Waste Management Plan.

Cox, J., Giorgi, S., Sharp, V., Strange, V., Wilson, C.D., Blakey, N., 2010. Householdwaste prevention—a review of evidence. Waste Management and Research 28,193–219.

Dorset County Council, 2008. The Social Marketing Practice, Mike Read Associatesand the University of Northampton Household Waste Prevention Activity inDorset. WR0116.

EEA, European Environment Agency, 2002. Case studies on waste minimisationpractices in Europe, Topic report 2/2002, Copenhagen.

EU, 2012. Guidelines on waste prevention programmes. <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Waste%20Prevention_Handbook.pdf>(accessed 13.10.12).

Eurostat, 2011. <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Waste_statistics> (accessed 16.04.12).

Fletcher, S.I., Tucker, P. Speirs, D., 2008. The Waste Wise Armadale Project. FinalReport.

French, A.S., Gerlach, F.A., Mitchell, R.N., Hannan, J.P., Welsh, M.E., 2011. Householdobesity prevention: take action-a group-randomized trial. Obesity 19, 2082–2088.

FRN, 2009. Average Weights. <http://www.frn.org.uk/statistics.asp> (accessed02.03.12).

FSB, 2006. Federation of Small Businesses. Social and Environmental Responsibilityand the Small Business Owner. Office, Belgium.

GAP (Global Action Plan), 2008. In: Nye, M., Burgess, J (Eds.). School ofEnvironmental Sciences, University of East Anglia. Promoting Durable Changein Household Waste and Energy Use Behaviour. A project for Defra’s WREP.

Gentil, C.E., Gallo, D., Christensen, H.T., 2011. Environmental evaluation ofmunicipal waste prevention. Waste Management 31, 2371–2379.

Gray, S., Toleman, I. 2006. National home composting survey results, 1997–2005. In:Sustainable Waste and Resource Management Conference Proceedings, pp.775–786.

Hampshire Country and Brook Lyndhurst, 2008. Small Changes Big DifferenceTowards a Materials Resource Authority: Promoting Practical Waste Preventionand Exploring Options for Resource Management.

Hines, F., Morley, A., Frater, L., Cartwright, S., Chandrashekar, S. 2008. The ESRCCentre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society,Cardiff University; Social Enterprises and Sustainable Waste and ResourceManagement: Evaluating Impacts, Capacities and Opportunities. Annex 7:Literature Review.


http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/4/435

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Waste%20Prevention_Handbook.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Waste%20Prevention_Handbook.pdf

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Waste_statistics

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Waste_statistics

http://www.frn.org.uk/statistics.asp




Hughes, A., 2005. Household Waste Prevention in Scotland: Recommendations forIndicators. Dissertation at the University of Edinburgh.

IPCC, 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Waste Generation,Composition and Management Data. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf> (accessed 22.04.12).

KrW-/AbfG, 1994: Gesetz zur Förderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung derumweltverträglichen Beseitigung von Abfällen (KrW-/AbfG) (RecyclingEconomy and Waste Disposal Act), 27 September 1994, BGBl I, 2705.

Lechner, P. (Ed.), 2005. Waste Management in the Focus of Controversial Interests,1st BOKU Waste Conference. Facultas, Vienna, Austria, pp. 430–433.

M.M.E, 2006. A Manual on Monitoring and Evaluation for Alternative DevelopmentProjects. <http://www.unodc.org/documents/alternative-development/Manual_MonitoringEval.pdf> (accessed 01.02.12).

MA 48, 1999. Altstoff- und Systemmüllanalyse in Wien 1997/1998. (Analysis ofRecyclables and Residual Waste). Final report edited by Magistratsabteilung 48(MA48), Magistrat der Stadt Wien, Vienna, Austria.

Ministry for the environment, 2007. Targets in the New Zealand Waste Strategy2006 Review of Progress. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment,Wellington, New Zealand.

NLWA (North London Waste Authority), 2009. North London Watch Your WasteWeek 4–12th October 2008. <http://nlwa.coopa.net/news/eco_models_launch_london%27s_first_ever_watch_your_waste_week> (accessed 12.01.12).

NYCDoS, 2000, Measuring Waste Prevention in New York City, New York CityDepartment of Sanitation, Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse and Recycling, 44Beaver Street, New York, NY 10004.

OECD, 1996. Building the basis for a common understanding on wasteminimisation, OECD workshop, October, Berlin.

Otsuka, K., Masuda, N., Fujiyoshi, H., 2001. Effectiveness of waste reduction by theuse of refill products. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of theJapan Society of Waste Management Experts, pp. 119–121.

Pre-waste, 2012. <http://www.prewaste.eu/prevention-policies/item/55-what-is-waste-prevention?.html> (accessed 16.04.12).

Read, M., Gregory, K.M., Phillips, S.P., 2009. An evaluation of four key methodsmonitoring household waste prevention campaigns in the UK. Resource,Conservation and Recycling 54, 9–20.

RECAP, 2008. Waste Prevention Plan for Cambridge and Peterborough 2008-2022.<www.recap.co.uk>.

Salhofer, S., Obersteiner, G., Schneider, F., Lebersorger, S., 2008. Potentials for theprevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Management 28, 245–259.

Shapiro, J.C., 2011. Monitoring and evaluation. <https://www.civicus.org/new/media/Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation.pdf> (accessed 01.03.12).

Sharp, V., Giorgi, S., Wilson, D.C., 2010a. Delivery and impact of household wasteprevention intervention campaigns (at the local level). Waste ManagementResearch 28, 256–268.

Sharp, V., Giorgi, S., Wilson, D.C., 2010b. Methods to monitor and evaluatehousehold waste prevention. Waste Management Research 28, 269–280.

Springer, T., 1994. Source Reduction Measurement Methods for Cities and Counties,California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, CA.

Tasaki, T., Yamakawa, H., 2011. An estimation of the effectiveness of wasteprevention by using point-of-sales (POS) data – the case of refills for shampooand hair conditioner in Japan Resources. Conservation and Recycling 57, 61–66.

Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Bates, M.P., 2004. Determining the drivers for householderpro-environmental behaviour: waste minimisation compared to recycling.Resources, Conservation and Recycling 42, 27–48.

Tucker, P., Douglas, P., 2007. Understanding Household Waste PreventionBehaviour. A project for Defra’s WREP.

Waste Watch, 2006. Project REDUCE Monitoring & Evaluation – Developing tools tomeasure waste prevention.


Wickens, S., 2005. Waste Free Households Project, Ross-shire Waste ActionNetwork (RoWAN). Final Report. <http://www.rowanweb.org.uk/UserFiles/File/final%20reports/Final%20Report%20-%20100%20 WFH%20Project2005.pdf>(accessed 14.05.12).

Wilson, R.S., 2004. A UK Framework for Waste Prevention. National Waste andResource Forum.

Wilson, C.D., 2005. The Evidence Base for Household Waste Prevention: How BestTo Promote Voluntary Actions By Households Imperial College London andResearch Managing Agent, Defra Waste and Resources Evidence Programme,United Kingdom, 2005. <http://www.arc-cat.net/ca/publicacions/pdf/ccr/setmanaprevencio09/ponencies/14%20Ponencia%20David%20C%20Wilson.pdf>(accessed 10.04.12).

Woodard, R., Harder, M. (undated) Waste Prevention in the UK – A Review ofCurrent Initiatives.

WR1204, 2009a. Briefing Note (concise): Attitudes & behaviour – home composting(L3 m3/5). <http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR1204_8353_OTH.pdf> (accessed 22.12.11).

WR1204, 2009b. Household Waste Prevention Evidence Review: L2 m1 – TechnicalReport, A report for Defra’s, Waste and Resources Evidence Programme.

WR1204, 2009c. Household Waste Prevention Evidence Review: L3 m6–1 (D) –Approaches to monitoring and evaluating household waste prevention. A reportfor Defra’s Waste and Resources Evidence Programme.

WR1204d, 2009. Household Waste Prevention Evidence Review: L3 m6-1 (D) –Approaches to monitoring and evaluating household waste prevention A reportfor Defra’s Waste and Resources Evidence Programme.

WR1204, 2009e. Household Waste Prevention Evidence Review: L3 m5-1 (T) –Future waste growth, modelling & de-coupling. <http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR1204_8348_OTH.pdf> (accessed 24.04.12).

WR1204, 2009f. Overview: Engaging Consumers (L2 m3). <http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR1204_8362_OTH.pdf> (accessed 24.04.12).

WR1204, 2009g. Briefing Note (detailed): Impacts of public campaigns &interventions (L3 m3/3). <http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR1204_8343_OTH.pdf> (accessed 04.04.12).

WRAP, 2006. Improving the Performance of Waste Diversion Schemes, A GoodPractice Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation.

WRAP, 2007. Possible Method for Estimating the Landfill Diversion Attributable toHome Composting for use in LATS Calculations: A Discussion Paper by WRAP.

WRAP, 2008. Material Change for a better environment. Food waste report: the foodwe waste. <http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf> (accessed26.05.12).

WRAP, 2009. Improving the Performance of Waste Diversion Schemes: A GoodPractice Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation. <http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Monitoring_and_evaluation_guidance_-_full_document_91a054ae_2646.621ce217.2646.pdf> (accessed 04.05.12).

WRAP and the Women’s Institute, 2008. Love Food Champions.<http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/report_love_food html>(accessed 17.02.12).

Young, C.Y., Ni, S.P., Fan, K.S., 2010. Working towards a zero waste environment inTaiwan. Waste Management and Research 28, 236–245.

Zero Waste South Australia, 2007. South Australia’s Waste Strategy 2005–2010.Benefit Cost Assessment. Summary Report, vol. 1. Melbourne, Australia.

Zorpas, A.A., 2010. Environmental management systems as sustainable tools in theway of life for micro-enterprises. Bioresource Technology 101, 1544–1557.

Zorpas, A.A., Lasaridi, K., Voukkali, I., Chroni, C., Loizia, P., Fitiri, L., 2012. Wasteminimization and prevention activities in insular communities. The case studiesof Paralimni municipality in Cyprus. In: 3rd International Conference onIndustrial and Hazardous Waste Management, 11–14 September, Hania, Crete,Greece.


http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf

http://www.unodc.org/documents/alternative-development/Manual_MonitoringEval.pdf

http://www.unodc.org/documents/alternative-development/Manual_MonitoringEval.pdf

http://nlwa.coopa.net/news/eco_models_launch_london%27s_first_ever_watch_your_waste_week

http://nlwa.coopa.net/news/eco_models_launch_london%27s_first_ever_watch_your_waste_week

http://www.prewaste.eu/prevention-policies/item/55-what-is-waste-prevention?.html

http://www.prewaste.eu/prevention-policies/item/55-what-is-waste-prevention?.html

http://www.recap.co.uk

https://www.civicus.org/new/media/Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation.pdf

https://www.civicus.org/new/media/Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation.pdf

http://www.arc-cat.net/ca/publicacions/pdf/ccr/setmanaprevencio09/ponencies/14%20Ponencia%20David%20C%20Wilson.pdf

http://www.arc-cat.net/ca/publicacions/pdf/ccr/setmanaprevencio09/ponencies/14%20Ponencia%20David%20C%20Wilson.pdf

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR1204_8353_OTH.pdf








http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Monitoring_and_evaluation_guidance_-_full_document_91a054ae_2646.621ce217.2646.pdf





measuring waste prevention

Documents