Content uploaded by Veronica Sharp
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Veronica Sharp on Mar 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://wmr.sagepub.com/
Waste Management & Research
http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/256
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X10361507
2010 28: 256Waste Manag Res
Veronica Sharp, Sara Giorgi and David C. Wilson
Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaigns (at the local level)
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Solid Waste Association
can be found at:Waste Management & ResearchAdditional services and information for
http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://wmr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/256.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Mar 9, 2010Version of Record >>
by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore
http://www.sagepub.com
256
ISSN 0734–242X
Waste Management & Research
2010: 28: 256–268
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X10361507
© The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Delivery and impact of household waste prevention
intervention campaigns (at the local level)
Veron ica Shar p
The Social Marketing Practice, Didcot, UK
Sara Giorgi
Brook Lyndhurst, London, UK
David C. Wilson
Research Managing Agent, Defra Waste and Resources Evidence Programme, and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial
College London, London, UK
This paper presents one strand of the findings from a comprehensive synthesis review of policy-relevant evidence on household
waste prevention. Understanding what is achievable in terms of local household waste prevention intervention campaigns ena-
bles policy makers, local authorities and practitioners to identify optimum approaches to deliver effective behaviour change.
The results of the evidence have been assembled and are discussed in two contexts: (1) the delivery of intervention campaigns
as a package of measures used to ‘enable’, ‘engage’ and ‘encourage’ householders to change their behaviour; and (2) the impact
of local household waste prevention intervention campaigns in terms of tonnage data. Waste prevention measures adopted
include home composting, reducing food waste, smart shopping, donating items for reuse, small changes in the home, reducing
junk mail and using cloth/reusable nappies. In terms of diverting biodegradable municipal waste from landfill, the biggest
impacts can be attributed to food waste prevention (1.5 kg household–1 week–1) and home composting (2.9 kg household–1
week–1). Projects providing a package of other waste prevention interventions have shown a very wide range of impacts: a broad
indication is that such a package could achieve around 0.5 to 1 kg household–1 week–1 reduction at source. Disaggregating which
waste prevention measures influenced uptake is generally not possible, but the evidence suggests that this does not matter:
behaviour change has been supported by integrating a range of intervention tools and campaign promotions which have made
a collective rather than isolated difference: it is a collection and an accumulation of measures that will have impact.
Keywords: waste prevention, household waste, behaviour change, interventions, local campaigns, reduction, reuse, impact, delivery
Introduction
This paper is derived from a wider research project commis-
sioned by the Waste and Resources Evidence Programme
(WREP) of the UK Department for the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra), to consolidate the policy-relevant
evidence base applying to household waste prevention.
(Brook Lyndhurst, SMP and RRF, 2009). An overview of the
broader review is presented in this special issue of the journal
(Cox et al. 2010).
Waste prevention is at the top of the waste hierarchy, but
there is relatively little evidence available, either to national
or local policy-makers, as to what works and what does not.
This paper discusses the evidence derived from the main
review and discusses two contexts designed to assist policy-
makers, local authorities and practitioners in their under-
standing of the following two problems.
1. How best to deliver local intervention campaigns.
2. What is achievable in terms of tonnage of waste prevented,
i.e. their impact.
It assembles the available evidence from a range of literature
on delivering an intervention campaign aimed at changing
Corresponding author: Veronica Sharp, The Social Marketing Practice, 132 Lydalls Road, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 7EA.
E-mail: veronica@socialmarketingpractice.co.uk
Received 5 August 2009; accepted in revised form 29 November 2009
Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaigns
257
the behaviour of the population in order to reduce the quan-
tities of waste being generated by households. While in
aggregate the literature provides some sense of what may be
achieved and how, the impact data come with a strong health
warning: a major reason for this is that some of the projects
reviewed engaged only a small number of participants, so
that any extrapolations made need to be treated with extreme
caution.
The aim of this paper is to provide a discussion of the les-
sons learned on both delivery and impact, rather than to pro-
vide a critical review of the evidence. As discussed in the
overview paper, a particular focus of the original review was
on UK governmental evidence work, although a decision was
taken to include both ‘grey literature’ provided by stakehold-
ers, and to undertake a systematic trawl for other interna-
tionally available, policy-relevant evidence. The review is
thus international in its coverage of published and peer-
reviewed work, but is inevitably more UK (and indeed Eng-
land) focused in terms of its use of more detailed examples,
which is where much of the detailed impact data used herein is
sourced. Table 1 in Cox et al. (2010) provides some statistics on
household waste management in England, to help the reader
to relate the estimates of the impact on waste quantities of
particular waste prevention measures to their own situation.
By way of clarity, the term ‘intervention’ is a generic term
referring to any activity or project intended to effect change
and can comprise a mix of activities such as action learning,
project support, workbooks, diaries, prompts, etc. ‘Campaigns’
comprise the communication and promotional processes and
activities intended to raise awareness, encourage participa-
Table 1: Summary of the highlighted waste prevention intervention campaigns.
Project Duration and context No. of
participants
Impact
kg household–1
week–1
Monitoring approaches
Self
weighing
Collection
round
Dorset
(Dorset County
Council et al.
2008 [WR0116])
A 3-year intervention campaign delivering a ‘package’
of measures to engage households, e.g. home com-
posting, avoid junk mail and smart shopping. Used
doorstep teams, community events and waste reduc-
tion packs to support delivery.
1577 0.50 √
Armadale
(Changeworks 2008,
SISTech 2008)
A 1-year intervention campaign delivering a ‘package’
of measures to engage households in home compost-
ing and in the home activities. Used doorstep teams, a
toolkit, community events and workshops to support
delivery.
1150 0.98 √
Finland WP Kit
(WastePrevKit 2007)
A 2-year intervention campaign supported by a toolkit
for enterprises, schools and households. The campaign
included seasonal events, banners, newsletters, news-
paper articles and web pages.
14 0.53 √
EcoTeams
(GAP et al. 2008
[WR0114], GAP 2009)
A 5-month behaviour change project working with
small groups of households (EcoTeams) who weighed
their waste and undertook targeted action to reduce it.
3602 0.62 √
RoWAN
(Wickens 2005)
A 13-month step by step waste prevention programme
with a dedicated project worker. The project was sup-
ported by a local waste guide, fact sheets, feedback
charts, community events and free equipment.
127 1.87 √
NLWA Campaigna
(NLWA 2009)
A 1-week campaign including a launch and recruit-
ment event to engage households in a range of waste
prevention measures including reducing food waste
and reuse. The campaign worked with local schools,
businesses and residents.
125 5.97 √
Aberdeen Eco
challengeb
(Brook Lyndhurst and
Waste Watch 2006
[WR0504])
A 2-year step by step waste prevention project (includ-
ing energy and transport). Volunteer households were
provided with project support and issued with a waste
guide, vouchers for home compost bins, a reusable
shopping bag, weighing scales and workshops.
92 10.10 √
The Village Initiativeb
(Brook Lyndhurst and
Waste Watch 2006
[WR0504])
A 3-year project to engage rural households in waste
prevention. The project was supported by a dedicated
project worker who visited and engaged households.
Households were provided with home compost bins
free of charge. Feedback was provided via newsletter.
50 16.00 √
aIt is not clear whether the campaign included data on recycling.
bDid not have a kerbside recycling collection service. In both cases recyclables were not weighed separately. Therefore, it is not possible to
measure the increase in recycling levels or overall waste arising.
V. Sharp, S. Giorgi, D.C. Wilson
258
tion, promote the change and so forth. In all the cases exam-
ined, both contexts were used simultaneously to change
behaviour, hence the terminology used in this paper – ‘inter-
vention campaign’.
Methodology
The same methodology as outlined in Cox et al. (2010) was
adopted. A selection of evidence sources was identified in
the main project, on which a further in-depth review of local
household waste prevention intervention campaigns was
undertaken. These sources were selected on the basis of the
availability of quantitative estimates of waste prevented, i.e.
impact data, and where there was good evidence on the
range of waste prevention activities and how they had been
delivered to achieve the measured impacts. Many of these
sources were also those where a robust monitoring and eval-
uation method had been adopted and recorded (Sharp et al.
2010). A total of 30 evidence sources met these criteria, of
which eight were research projects commissioned by WREP,
14 were other UK reports and eight were international refer-
ences including a synthesis review (ACR+ 2008). A full list
of the sources is included below as part of Table 4.
Delivery of intervention campaigns
The waste prevention intervention campaigns discussed in
this paper have been delivered at a local level by, for example,
local authorities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
They do not cover central government policy interventions.
Only one intervention campaign was a pilot project (WRAP
and the Women’s Institute 2008). In most cases, they were deliv-
ered as a package of measures which involved providing intense
project support such as a dedicated project worker, guidance
and workbooks, and free equipment, through to providing a
broad campaign and promotional mix, including, for example,
door-step campaigns, events, and the provision of newsletters.
The waste prevention behaviour addressed through such inter-
vention campaigns include the following actions.
• Preventing/diverting biodegradable municipal waste, via
reducing food waste, and home composting and/or using
green cones (food waste digesters).
• A package of sustainable consumption type measures,
which include: shopping locally, buying loose goods and
buying in bulk, buying with less packaging, using refilla-
bles, reusing carrier bags, buying from the milkman.
• Donating bulky items for reuse, for example, using
Freecycle (a worldwide network with a UK-based website
for posting free items for reuse) and charity shops.
• Making small changes in the home, such as reusing con-
tainers, jars and bottles.
• Reducing junk mail.
• Using cloth/reusable nappies.
The insights derived from delivering the intervention cam-
paigns have been packaged under three headings which are
discussed in turn.
• Delivery (the implementation of intervention campaigns
structured according to enable, engage, encourage and
exemplify).
• Process (the design, management and coordination of
intervention campaigns).
• Factors that impact upon the delivery of intervention cam-
paigns, such as attitudes to waste prevention and social
norms.
A summary and overview of the individual waste prevention
intervention campaigns highlighted in this paper is given in
Tab l e 1.
Delivery
The delivery of intervention campaigns can be optimized
using the Defra 4Es behaviour change framework, ‘enable’,
‘engage’, ‘encourage’, and ‘exemplify’ (Defra 2005 and Fig-
ure 3 in Cox et al. 2010). It should be noted that the list of
enabling and engagement tools identified from the evidence
does not mean that all the tools should be delivered or that
they were necessarily successful, either individually or collec-
tively.
Enabling tools
A number of ‘enabling’ tools were developed to support the
delivery of household waste prevention intervention cam-
paigns. The resources provided are listed in Table 2 and were
designed to help motivate volunteer households and main-
tain commitment.
In the way that slimming support schemes (e.g. Weight
Watchers) do for dieters, the simple formula of providing an
integrated mix of information, support, encouragement,
progress-monitoring and feedback has helped put people on
the way to making a positive difference in their lives (Wickens
2005, GAP et al. 2008 [WR0114], Brook Lyndhurst and Waste
Watch 2006 [WR0504]). This type of approach is designed to
offer a structured, but informal approach to encourage feed-
back, expression of their own ideas and questions from partic-
ipants (Wickens 2005, Hampshire County Council & Brook
Lyndhurst 2008 [WR0117]). Love Food Champions provided
such a package of measures. Participants were provided with
workbooks, information, and kitchen caddies (containers) for
measuring their waste (by volume) and were asked to rate
their own abilities on the different aspects of planning, shop-
ping, cooking and storage. A training day was held to provide
resources to hold meetings that would seek to engage other
residents. The enthusiastic champions were a key success fac-
tor as they maintained the groups’ interest. As a result many
went on to discuss the project and the tips with family,
friends, colleagues and neighbours (WRAP and the Women’s
Institute 2008).
Self-weighing was found to have the advantage of connect-
ing participants to their consumption practices, by linking
them to the waste they produce, and providing personalized
feedback to help reinforce their commitment. Enthusiasm
was found to build momentum as participants saw a tangible
Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaigns
259
decrease in their waste arisings as volunteer households
were put in touch with their own waste (GAP et al. 2008
[WR0114], Hampshire County Council & Brook Lynd-
hurst 2008 [WR0117], WRAP and the Women’s Institute
2008, Wickens 2005). However, evaluation in Hampshire
concluded that relying on self-weighing diary data carries too
many risks and too high a resource cost for it to be recom-
mended for local authority led waste minimization projects,
and that baseline plus follow-up waste analysis offers a more
secure option if it can be resourced (Hampshire County
Council & Brook Lyndhurst 2008 [WR0117]).
Providing a large number of ‘enabling’ options was found to
give participants freedom to choose the easiest measures and
ignore those they found too challenging – which could include
the waste saving measures that would have the greatest impact.
Projects of this kind have to strike a difficult balance between
directing participants to specific actions on the one hand, and
wanting to maximize engagement on the other (Hampshire
County Council & Brook Lyndhurst 2008 [WR0117]).
Hampshire County Council’s Small Changes Big Differ-
ence intervention campaign found two aspects which were
especially liked and broke into participants’ habitual thinking:
drip-feeding information at regular intervals (rather than one-
off contact at the start of the project); and providing specific
tips on action that could be taken, supported by signposts to
local services or other sources of help (Hampshire County
Council & Brook Lyndhurst 2008 [WR0117]).
In some cases increasing recycling was built-in to the waste
prevention intervention campaign and, where deemed neces-
sary, recycling sacks, storage bags, dual waste kitchen bins
and recycling points, were provided (The Village Initiative,
Aberdeen EcoChallenge, and What Not to Waste – found in
Brook Lyndhurst and Waste Watch 2006 [WR0504]). In oth-
ers, pro-environmental behaviours were addressed as a part
of a wider package of waste prevention measures, such as
energy and transport issues (EcoTeams, Aberdeen EcoChal-
lenge and Maldon Waste Away Challenge – also found in
Brook Lyndhurst and Waste Watch 2006 [WR0504]).
Table 2: Enabling tools developed for waste prevention intervention campaigns.
Enabling tools Support provided
Dedicated project support or commu-
nity outreach (acting as a first point of
contact for participating households)
Dedicated project supervisor or officer or resource outreach advisor.
Specific community outreach officers either in the local authority or through a third sector partner.
Volunteer mentor households.
Outreach and business development support to third sector groups.
Waste prevention guidance and sup-
port
Waste prevention toolkits, personal organizer, start up packs, challenge pack.
Information booklets and fact sheets, a waste reduction pack (containing information on reduc-
ing junk mail, smart shopping).
Directories of local reuse and recycling centres or local waste guides.
Home visits.
Installation service, e.g. food waste digesters.
Repair Guide, Rental Guide, Second-hand shopping guide.
Small group challenges and action
plans
Activity pack or suggestions focused on e.g. school term time, new parents, work place, home,
garden, children, community.
Monitoring and feedback Diaries, feedback sheets or waste monitoring forms or charts.
Weighing scales.
Weigh sacks and pin numbers.
Web-based database.
Customized feedback (responding to participant requirements), e.g. via newsletters.
Consistent ‘hand-holding’.
Special events –
training and workshops
Workshops and training, e.g. home composting and reducing food waste. Youth workshops.
Monthly or quarterly meetings with volunteers.
Day out/visits to material recycling facilities and landfill sites.
Guest speaker events.
Drop in sessions.
Fashion swap, give and take days, real nappy events, bag amnesties.
Junk exchange and repair network.
Doorstep teams Specialist or trained advisors used to deliver messages, pledges and conduct surveys – repetitive
feedback.
Directories – paper and online Signposting to local services to support waste prevention, for example, reuse centres, repair serv-
ices etc.
Telephone helpline Used to support participating households.
Newsletters Regular (monthly) project bulletins or newsletters to provide information and feedback to partici-
pants.
Equipment (including freebies,
cash-back schemes, samples and
vouchers)
Free and subsidized equipment, e.g. home compost bins, green cones, wormeries, kitchen cad-
dies, shared shredders, weighing scales, junk mail stickers, reusable shopping bags, soap nuts,
money off and incentive vouchers.
V. Sharp, S. Giorgi, D.C. Wilson
260
Engagement tools
A number of ‘engagement’ tools (promotional activities and
messages) were used to recruit participants or support the
intervention delivery. This involved a range of promotional
tools including door stepping, community talks, and use of
media. The engagement tools are listed in Table 3.
Well-trained doorstep teams have been well received by
participants and residents. However, this needs to be well
planned, particularly among larger audiences, so that the
resource does not become diluted. Doorstep teams need to
be supported by a communication campaign that delivers clear
messages. In this context, ‘engaging’ is supported by a tailored
‘enabling’ support programme of well-written and timed deliv-
ery of workbooks, guides, action plans, fact sheets, provision
of training and equipment (e.g. free/subsidized and installa-
tion of home compost bins); all of which appear to have been
received well by most participants (Changeworks 2008, Dor-
set County Council et al. 2008 [WR0116]).
Positive lessons about communicating waste prevention
messages included the importance of ‘enabling’ action through
practical, achievable, lifestyle tips (rather than a general exhor-
tation to reduce waste); and engaging participants’ atten-
tion through repetition. Focusing on lifestyles rather than
waste also conveyed a sense of helpfulness (rather than
exhortation or instruction). Resources for Change et al.
(2008 [WR0506]) investigated a number of case studies, one
of which was Wiltshire Wildlife Trust who strongly believed
that promoting waste prevention as part of a wider package
of sustainable lifestyles increased participation and helped to
reach more people than would be the case if their work sim-
ply focused on waste (Brook Lyndhurst 2009). Drawbacks
to the lifestyles engagement approach were also identified
(e.g. in Hampshire County Council & Brook Lyndhurst 2008
[WR0117]).
Hampshire County Council’s Small Changes Big Differ-
ence branding provided a common identity and call to action,
which avoided a general exhortation to ‘reduce waste’ in
favour of a lifestyle message (Hampshire County Council &
Brook Lyndhurst 2008, [WR0117]). Branding is similarly cen-
tral to WRAP’s Love Food Hate Waste campaign, in which
the call to action is clearly communicated through a brand
that responds to the behavioural drivers and barriers identi-
fied through consumer research.
Home composting and reducing junk mail messages were
found to provide a platform for easier to sell messages rather
than generic waste prevention messages, e.g. smart shopping
(Dorset County Council et al. 2008 [WR0116]).
Encourage
The main forms of ‘encouragement’ identified were financial
incentives (Brook Lyndhurst, SMP and RRF 2009). In the
UK, incentives focused on specific waste prevention behav-
iours – such as subsidized home compost bins or nappies.
Other examples included the provisions of ‘freebies’ (e.g.
cloth shopping bags) or pledges, competitions and prize
draws. The latter was sometimes administered by doorstep
teams.
In the small group behaviour change models, group working
was found to act as a means of encouraging behaviour change
(e.g. GAP et al. 2008 [WR0114]). Self-weighing of waste and
reporting back to the group provides an effective tool to
encourage participation (and also had the benefit of making
waste prevention activity visible).
Exemplify
Very few examples of ‘exemplifying’ were found. They
existed mainly in the form of campaign feedback provided to
households or participants in waste challenge-type projects,
for example, via newsletters. In Hampshire County Council
& Brook Lyndhurst (2008 [WR0117]) staff in the local
authority were recruited as one of the participating groups,
to exemplify the County and waste officers’ commitment to
waste prevention to the other groups in the project.
Process
The following were identified from the literature as a means
by which a waste prevention intervention campaign can be
optimized.
•Designing a marketing communication strategy or action
plan at the outset is an important factor, as is planning the
monitoring and evaluation requirements at the design
Table 3: Engaging tools developed for waste prevention intervention campaigns.
Engagement tools Promotional activities
Branding In some cases interventions were branded and used their own logo
Printed literature Branded clothing
Shopping bags
Pop up banners (used for events)
Posters
Envelope reuse labels
Events Launch events, fashion show, local artistry, galas and fetes, local shows, supermarket open days, talks at com-
munity events, local libraries
Intermediaries Delivery organizations, working with schools and local businesses, compost or waste minimization champions
Website Websites and e-mail
Media and PR National and local articles, press releases, and editorial coverage
Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaigns
261
stage (Changeworks 2008, Hampshire County Council &
Brook Lyndhurst 2008 [WR0117], NLWA 2009).
•Careful planning is needed to consider the timing and how
the project fits with the local calendar and any funding con-
straints; and to ensure partners’ expectations and opera-
tional matters are clarified at the start of a project. In this
respect, potential tensions between project partners with
differing objectives need to be taken into account (Change-
works 2008).
•The role of dedicated project support is deemed essential in
terms of motivating participants and providing support
(GAP et al. 2008 [WR0114], WRAP and the Women’s
Institute 2008, Wickens 2005, Brook Lyndhurst and Waste
Watch 2006 [WR0504]).
•Partnership with other local authorities, council leaders, com-
munity and delivery organizations was found to be an
essential part of the development stage (Changeworks
2008, Hampshire County Council & Brook Lyndhurst 2008
[WR0117], NLWA 2009, Dorset County Council et al.
2008 [WR0116]).
Factors that impact upon delivery
Factors such as attitudes to waste prevention and social
norms were found to have both negative and positive impact
on intervention campaign delivery.
• In all cases, waste prevention has been a difficult con-
cept to understand. It was usual to find that participants
struggled to differentiate between recycling and waste
prevention and were often motivated by other factors,
such as saving money (Hampshire County Council &
Brook Lyndhurst 2008 [WR0117], Brook Lyndhurst and
Waste Watch 2006 [WR0504]). The most significant bar-
rier overall, though, was the general inability of partici-
pants to make a conceptual distinction between waste min-
imization/reduction/prevention and recycling (Hampshire
County Council & Brook Lyndhurst 2008 [WR0117]).
• The focus on ‘green’ behaviour is a put off for those
already (or perceived) to be taking part in these routines
within their lifestyles (GAP et al. 2008 [WR0114], Hamp-
shire County Council & Brook Lyndhurst 2008 [WR0117]).
• In terms of positive impact, engaging enthusiastic champi-
ons as part of the process early on is deemed a key success
factor, as is the support of participating friends and neigh-
bours and mentoring households, as they help to maintain
the groups' interest and help to develop social norms
(GAP et al. 2008 [WR0114], WRAP and the Women’s
Institute 2008, Wickens 2005, Brook Lyndhurst and Waste
Watch 2006 [WR0504]).
• Household waste prevention experience in Austria sug-
gests that waste prevention developments only become
viable if 15% of the population support them and if they
involve a number of social groups (Federal Waste Man-
agement Plan Austria, undated).
Impact of local intervention campaigns
Comparing impacts
Table 4 collates evidence from the literature on the impacts of
local intervention campaigns on household waste prevention.
The table provides details on project duration, sample size,
amount of waste prevented and an estimate of the converted
kg household–1 week–1 (the conversion is for illustrative pur-
poses only). However, it should be noted that the data presented
in the table are drawn from a range of sources and information
has been insufficient to accurately judge the level of robustness.
Therefore, the quality of the estimates is likely to be highly varied.
The biggest impacts identified can be attributed to food
waste prevention and home composting (1.5 kg household–1
week–1 through food waste prevention and 2.88 kg house-
hold–1 week–1 through home composting) (WRAP 2009a).
Impacts derived from two intervention campaign approaches
(Changeworks 2008, Dorset County Council et al. 2008
[WR0116]) sustained a reduction in household waste arisings
at moderate levels (0.5 and 0.98 kg household–1 week–1, res-
pectively). These moderate levels are due to the collective
impact of significantly larger sample sizes (circa 1500 hou-
seholds), which include non-participating households. Projects
involving small groups of participants tended to yield higher
tonnage savings because they are based on a small number of
active participants (e.g. from 14 to 127 participants). Is it, the-
refore, possible that the impact derived from Changeworks
(2008) and Dorset County Council et al. (2008 [WR0116]) is
more realistic in terms of tonnage reduction than interventions
targeting small groups? Furthermore, in Europe, four priority
waste streams and initiatives have been identified to help
municipalities achieve waste reduction of organics, paper,
packaging and reuse of between 70–140 kg individual hou-
sehold–1 year–1 (ACR+ 2008).
Using the above data as a benchmark, it could be estima-
ted that intervention campaigns targeting a package of mea-
sures could achieve around 0.5 to 1 kg household–1 week–1
reduction at source. Scaled up to England, this would amount
to between 0.57 million and 1 million tonnes prevention poten-
tial.
However, given the earlier caveats on data quality and
comparability, and taking into account the small size of some
of the samples, these aggregate figures should be treated as
indicative.
Impacts of different types of interventions
The impacts are discussed in more detail and are grouped
into the following activities.
• Preventing/diverting biodegradable municipal waste by
reducing food waste (including Love Food Champions),
home composting and use of green cones (food waste
digesters).
• Donating bulky items for reuse.
• Waste prevention projects providing a package of meas-
ures, including sustainable consumption practices and
small changes in the home.
V. Sharp, S. Giorgi, D.C. Wilson
262
Table 4: Impacts of household waste prevention behaviours (Brook Lyndhurst, SMP and RRF, 2009).
Project/activity Duration Sample size Waste prevented kg household–1
week–1
Source
Biodegradable municipal waste
Green cones Unknown Not given (assume multiple
studies)
1.7–3.9 kg household–1 week–1 1.7–3.9 Swabey & Harder
(2006), Harder &
Woodard (2009)
Home composting Unknown Not given 1.4–1.7 kg kitchen waste household–1
week–1 (plus 5 kg garden waste
household–1 week–1, in summer)
3.5–3.8
(5 months
garden)
Tucker and
Douglas (2007
[WR0112])
Home composting
(WRAP)
N/A Based on WRAP’s latest esti-
mates
150 kg household–1 year–1 2.9 WRAP (2009a)
Herefordshire and
Worcestershire
4 years
(April 2004
to March
2008)
76 500 (assuming 1 com-
post bin/household)
21 000 tonnes of
biodegradeable waste
diverted
Salisbury (2008)
Community com-
posting sector in the
UK
2007 170 composting sites 21 500 tonnes composted Open University
(2009 [WR0211])
Food waste preven-
tion – Committed
Food Waste Recycler
(CFWR)
N/A 1.46 kg total food waste week–1 LESS
than someone who is not a CFWR
1.46 WRAP (2009b)
Love Food
Champions
4 months 60–80 participants 2.5 kg household–1 week–1 2.5 WRAP and the
Women’s Insti-
tute (2008)
West Sussex At least
5 years
74 000 (18 000 Green
Johanna and Green Cones,
and 56 000 home compost
units – (assuming one cone
or composter perhousehold)
20 000 tonnes of waste diverted in
2005/06
5.2 Woodard &
Harder (2007),
Harder &
Woodard (2009)
Bulky waste
Reuse – private giv-
ing/selling & charity
collections
Unknown Not given 15% directed for reuse by household
269 000 tonnes diverted
Curran & Wil-
liams (2007)
Reuse – amount
dealt with through
Flanders reuse system
Annual
tonnage
2007
Data collected for the whole
of Flanders
6.5 kg inhabitant–1 year–1 collected
3.15 kg household–1 year–1 reused
0.06/
person
per week
Vandenbussche
(2008)
Reuse – estimated
total amount reused
by third sector organ-
izations in London
Annual
tonnage
2007
Data collated for the whole
of London from surveys with
reuse organizations
0.1–3.7 kg household–1 year–1
3777 tonnes for London in total
max 0.07 LCRN (2008)
Bulky waste –
Freecycle
Unknown Not given 100 tonnes working day–1
(equivalent to 25 000 tonnes year–1)
Widdicombe &
Peake (2008)
Bulky waste –
Freecycle
1 month Bexley and Enfield Freecycle
groups in London
(sample unknown)
0.65 tonnes per 1000 members per
month (if scaled across London)
0.15 per mem-
ber
LCRN (2008)
Waste prevention projects providing a ‘package’ of measuresa
Aberdeen Eco-
Challenge,
Aberdeen Forward
2 years 92 households 63% reduction in residual waste
Weight of waste to landfill declined from
16.11 to 6.04 kg week–1
Composting increased from 31 to 45%
Recycling increased by 5.85 to 12.54
items per person
(NB no k/s recycling or weighing of
recyclables)
10.1 Brook Lyndhurst
and Waste Watch
(2006 [WR0504])
The Waste Wise
Armadale Project,
Changeworks Waste
Prevention Team
Target area of 1150 house-
holds
6.1% diversion from landfill equivalent to
a total household waste arisings reduc-
tion of 0.98 kg household–1 week–1.
0.98 Changeworks
(2008), SISTech
(2008)
Big Lottery
Transforming Waste
Programme
3 years 296 projects 23 000 tonnes of furniture reused
22 000 tonnes of waste composted
– ERM (2007)
Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaigns
263
Dorset County
Council Household
Waste Prevention
Activity in Dorset
3 years Target area of
1577 households
0.5kghousehold
–1 week–1
(based on total household waste arisings)
0.5 Dorset County
Council et al.
(2008 [WR0116])
EcoTeams, Global
Action Plan
1–5
months
3602 (the total number of
households EcoTeams has
worked with to date)
Average total household waste arisings:
Before participation 9.42 kg household–1
week–1
After participation 8.79 kg household–1
week–1
(kg household–1 week–1 is based on total
household waste arisings, i.e. residual
waste reduced by 0.85, recycling
increased by 0.23)
Potential to achieve 125 kg reduction in
residual waste in 1 year
0.62 GAP (2009), GAP
et al. (2008
[WR0114])
Espace Environ-
ment (Belgian NGO)
home composting
and reduce packag-
ing (combined with
variable rate charg-
ing)
Unknown Not given Reduction of over 50% in waste from
282 to 137 kg person–1
– Enviros (2004)
Small Change Big
Difference, Hamp-
shire County
Council
2.5 years Potential audience of 4700
people, of which 9% (406)
signed up for active involve-
ment. 56% of participants
said they reduced their
waste (18% a lot). Equates
to 2–5% of the total poten-
tial target audience reducing
their waste.
7% reduction in total household waste
arisings equivalent to 2 kg household–1
week–1
NB this data cannot be generalized. It
was robust waste composition but con-
ducted on a trial of 4 households
selected from the 406 participants
2 Hampshire
County Council &
Brook Lyndhurst
(2008 [WR0117])
North London
‘Watch Your Waste
Week’ challenge,
NLWA
1 week 125 participating house-
holds returned evaluation
sheets
5.97 kg household–1 week–1
(NB not clear whether included
recyclables)
5.97 NLWA (2009)
Waste Free House-
holds, RoWAN
13 months 127 households recruited
(50 regularly returned moni-
toring forms)
22% reduction of total household waste
arisings equivalent to
1.87 kg household–1 week–1
1.87 Wickens (2005)
Waste Prevention
Kit, Viikki-Latokar-
tano, Helsinki,
Finland Waste
Prevention Strategy
2 years 14 households 11 kg inhabitant–1 year–1 0.53 WastePrevKit
(2007)
‘What not to
Waste’, Western
Riverside
6 weeks 16 households started (14
completed the project)
Total household waste arisings reduced
by 60 kg, from (approx.) 175 kg week–1
to (approx.) 115 kg week–1
It is not clear if this is based on 14 partici-
pants
4.3 Waste Watch
(2007 [WR0105])
Wiltshire Wildlife
Trus t
3 years
(2005/06–
2007/08)
Unknown Prevented a total of 8485 tonnes (Y1
3,168, Y2 31,156, Y3 2161 tonnes)
– Resources for
Change et al.
(2008 [WR0506])
Maldon Waste Away
Challenge – work-
ing with volunteer
families to undertake
monthly tasks
5 months 9 families (five with 2+ chil-
dren – with a pro-active atti-
tude to waste)
Reduction in total household waste aris-
ings from:
(a) 127 to 89 kg household–1 month–1 or
(b) 127 to 109 kg household–1 month–1
The impact figures have been taken from
two evidence sources and it is not clear
which source is correct
(a) 8.8
(b) 4.15
(a) Tucker &
Douglas (2007
[WR0112])
(b) Brook Lynd-
hurst and Waste
Watch (2006
[WR0504])
aNB In some cases, tonnage are averaged across whole populations (e.g. Dorset); in others they relate to direct participants only, e spe -
cially the small scale/small group projects where self-weighing has been used. Only two projects used collection round data (Dorset and
Armadale).
Table 4: Impacts of household waste prevention behaviours (Brook Lyndhurst, SMP and RRF, 2009).
(Continued)
Project/activity Duration Sample size Waste prevented kg household–1
week–1
Source
V. Sharp, S. Giorgi, D.C. Wilson
264
• Reducing junk mail.
• Using cloth/reusable nappies.
Selected examples on the level of participation reported
from the literature are provided. Tables 1 and 4 provide the
number of participating households where data were avail-
able. A full tabulation, discussion of possible reasons for
the wide variations reported, and sample details, can be
found in the corresponding detailed module of the original
report (Brook Lyndhurst, SMP and RRF (2009) – Level 3,
module 3–1).
Reducing food waste
Food waste is a big problem in the UK. Evidence suggests
that people throw away as much as a third (6.7 million ton-
nes) of all the food we buy (21.7 million tonnes) – most of
which (61%) is avoidable food waste (i.e. food which could
have been eaten if it had been managed better) (WRAP
2007b). Food waste in the UK is calculated to be 5.3 kg house-
hold–1 week–1 which equates to 270 kg household–1 year–1. Of
this 3.2 kg household–1 week–1 is avoidable (170 kg household–1
year–1 or 4.1 million tonnes overall). The average weight of
avoidable food waste per person regardless of household size is
1.3 kg week–1 (which equates to 70 kg year–1) (WRAP 2007b).
One study reports on food wastage from households in the
Brussels region, and estimates the potential for reduction as
4 to 7 kg individual household–1 year–1 (ACR+ 2008).
Love Food Champions
Love Food Champions was a 4-month project involving between
40 and 80 participants (of which 38 households provided both
before and after measurements), achieved a 50% reduction in
food waste equivalent to 2.5 kg household–1 week–1 (WRAP
and the Women’s Institute 2008). In terms of behaviour
change, participants classified as ‘Committed Food Waste
Reducers’ (see below) increased from 5% at the start of the
project to 29% at the end of the project (the national ave-
rage is 14%). There is also anecdotal evidence that partici-
pants began to notice a drop in their food bills after the first
of the monthly meetings, and by the end of the project one of
the participants estimated their food bills to have decreased
from around £100 to around £60/70 a week. Many said they
had discussed the meetings and tips with family, friends, col-
leagues and neighbours.
WRAP has devised a new Committed Food Waste Reducer
(CFWR) metric. This is used by WRAP and local authorities
to provide a measure of those who are actively reducing food
waste; that is, as a baseline and to evaluate the tonnage impact
of Love Food Hate Waste campaigns. In order to establish the
metric, the following three survey questions are asked of
households from which the potential for food waste diverted
from landfill is calculated.
How much uneaten food, overall, would you say you
generally end up throwing away?
[Response: ‘hardly any’ or ‘none’].
How much effort do you make to minimize the amount
of uneaten food you throw away?
[Response: a great deal].
To what extent, if at all, does it bother you?
[Response: a great deal].
In order to establish a CFWR, all three conditions have to be
satisfied. A CFWR wastes 1.5 kg household–1 week–1 of total
food waste LESS than someone who is not a CFWR.
In terms of food waste collection services, Resource Futures
for WRAP (2008) suggest that food waste collection can trig-
ger behaviour change and stimulate a further 1 kg house-
hold–1 week–1 reduction in food waste (Resource Futures
2008).
Home composting
The most extensive work has been undertaken by WRAP
(2007c) to provide detailed estimates of new and existing
home composting households. This work has involved two
rounds of waste composition analysis, questionnaires and
observational studies of compost bin use and land use in gar-
dens, follow-up work to assess the change in behaviour, a tel-
ephone survey of 20 000 households across Great Britain, a
household questionnaire in Scotland, and a telephone survey
of 6000 home composters.
WRAP’s home compost programme has distributed
1.7 million compost bins and has diverted 530 000 tonnes of
biodegradable municipal waste from landfill. The latest from
WRAP (to be published) estimates that 150 kg household–1
week–1 (equivalent to 2.88 kg household–1 week–1) is attribu-
table to home composting (WRAP 2009a).
Other research on home composting in West Sussex diver-
ted 20 000 tonnes of waste from landfill in 2005/06 (equiva-
lent to 5.2 kg household–1 week–1) (Woodard & Harder
2007). This 5-year home composting campaign distributed
56 000 home compost bins and 18 000 food waste digesters
(Green Cones). In Hereford and Worcester, 76 500 compost
bins were sold, preventing 21 500 tonnes of biodegradable
waste from landfill (equates to 1.35 kg household–1 week–1)
(Salisbury 2008). In a 2001 study, Tucker & Spiers report the
amount of kitchen waste diverted through home composting
was between 1.4 and 1.7 kg household–1 week–1 (plus 5 kg
garden waste household–1week–1 in the summer) (cited in
Tucker & Douglas 2007 [WR0112]). In Dorset, home com-
post bin sales in the target area increased at nearly 10 per
100 households. However, bin sales in some areas slowed due
to saturation (Dorset County Council et al. 2008 [WR0116]).
In Flanders around 25% of households compost at home
(mainly in rural areas). These households are supported by
‘compost masters’ who provide specific advice on compo-
sting at home. Promotion of home and community compo-
sting in the County of Landkreis Schweinfurt was found to cut
organic waste by 60 kg individual household–1 year–1 (ACR+
2008).
Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaigns
265
Home composting participation
Of those who had bought a subsidized compost bin, 41.5%
had no previous experience of home composting and 51.6%
had been previously home composting (usually either home-
made bin or heap) (WRAP 2007a). However, point of sale
data suggests that, out of those buying subsidized compost
bins, the proportion of new recruits is higher (approximately
70–75%) rather than the 45% suggested by the survey. Early
research (Gray & Toleman 2006) suggest that the observed
increase in home composting participation (between 1997
and 2000) is consistent with the pattern of subsidized com-
post bin distribution.
Green cones (food waste digesters)
Green cones provide an alternative to home composting,
which can digest all kitchen wastes, including meat and coo-
ked food as well as vegetable peelings. Research into green
cones has found that diversion levels vary from 1.7 to
3.9 kg household–1 week–1 (Bench et al. 2005, Swabey & Har-
der 2006, Harder & Woodard 2009).
Donating bulky items for reuse
Impact data focuses on how much bulky waste is collected for
reuse by third sector organizations. Only top line data is avail-
able that suggests 15% of bulky waste is directed for reuse by
householders (Curran & Williams 2007). London Freecycle
groups reused approximately 0.65 tonnes per 1000 members
(LCRN 2008). It is estimated that this could equate to
1160 tonnes of waste being reused per year (if scaled up across
all of London’s Freecycle groups). Widdicombe & Peake
(2008) cite an estimate that in the UK 100 tonnes of material
could be reused per working day (25 000 tonnes per year).
Vandenbussche (2008) cites the annual tonnage collected
for reuse for the whole of Flanders was 3.15 kg household–1
week–1 (reused), which is equivalent to 0.06 kg person–1 week–1.
Promotion of second-hand trade estimates that a ‘repair
work day’ in Munich and information on second-hand shops
in Vienna can generate 5 kg/individual household–1 year–1
(ACR+ 2008).
Further detail can be found in Brook Lyndhurst, SMP and
RRF (2009) – Level 3, module m6 (T) – attitudes and behav-
iours to reuse.
Bulky waste participation
ACS (2006) found that 94% of their survey respondents had
donated to a charity shop or furniture reuse organization and
81% had bought from these sources. Their research sug-
gested that promotions such as charity shop leaflets and
posters may have influenced people to do so, but the report
cautions that the cause-and-effect relationship may in fact
work in the opposite direction, with those who reuse more
likely to come into contact with reuse promotions.
Waste prevention projects providing a package of measures
Waste prevention projects which included a package of mea-
sures, and analysed as part of the evidence review, report a
wide range of impacts from 0.5 kg household–1 week–1 to as
much as 16 kg household–1 week–1. However, research on
community-led projects (waste prevention and recycling)
could not derive impact in terms of kg household–1 because
the number of participants was not clearly defined. Not all
the examples reviewed related to waste prevention; that is, a
number were more about recycling (Brook Lyndhurst and
Waste Watch 2006 [WR0504]).
A summary of eight projects is provided in Table 2 where
impact data could be converted to kg household–1 week–1
(for illustrative purposes). Further detail is provided in
Tab l e 1.
Participation as a result of providing a package of measures
Changes in reusable bags, packaging and shopping behaviours
– Dorset County Council et al. (2008 [WR0116]) showed a
substantial increase in the reported use of reusable shopping
bags as a result of intervention. Waste Watch (2007 [WR0105])
reported that 93% of participants used a ‘bag for life’ or own
a shopping bag. Following an awareness campaign in eight
supermarkets in Italy, approximately 200 000 plastic bags
were reduced (ACR+ 2008).
In terms of reducing excess packaging, notable shifts were
reported in behaviours: between 20 and 30% of partici-
pants started to avoid packaging (Hampshire County Coun-
cil & Brook Lyndhurst 2008, [WR0117]); and NLWA (2009)
reported that the most common change (49 out of 125
respondents) was to start buying goods with less packaging;
avoiding products with excess packaging was among the top
four behaviour changes among EcoTeams.
In Wallonia, Belgium (between 1999 and 2005), the pro-
portion of customers claiming to use disposable bags fell
from 89 to 53%, while those claiming to use reusable bags rose
from 26 to 43%. It was found that, where shops did not give
away disposable bags, shoppers made alternative arrange-
ments (CRIOC 2005). In Charleroi, Belgium, 3% of the pop-
ulation appeared to have changed their purchasing habits
(after stores had provided packaging information on prod-
ucts) (ACR+ 2008).
In terms of changing shopping behaviours EcoTeams
reported changes in food purchasing behaviour and in buy-
ing local products; Waste Watch (2007 [WR0105]) reported
that those buying concentrated products increased from 2 to
53%.
Reducing junk mail
Households opting out of direct marketing through the UK’s
Mail Preference Scheme (MPS) are estimated to prevent
73 570 tonnes of junk mail per year. Campaigns to reduce
unaddressed and/or junk mail in the Brussels region, includ-
ing ‘no junk mail’ stickers and accompanying enforcement,
achieved a reduction of 5 kg/individual household–1 year–1
(ACR+ 2008). A scheme similar to that run in Brussels has
been estimated to have the potential to reduce junk mail
between 112 500 to 187 500 tonnes year–1 in the UK (Euno-
mia et al. 2007 [WR0103]). Previous studies estimate a
V. Sharp, S. Giorgi, D.C. Wilson
266
reduction of 0.2 to 0.4% could be achieved through reducing
(non-packaging) paper waste, including junk mail (NRWF
(2004) cited in Tucker & Douglas 2007 [WR0112]). In
Vienna, if all households refused unaddressed advertising,
13.5 kg person–1 year–1 of paper waste could be prevented
(Salhofer et al. 2008).
Junk mail participation
Two campaigns which lasted 2 to 3 years achieved high par-
ticipation rates. In one, between 20 and 30% of participants
signed up to the MPS combined with other waste prevention
behaviours (Hampshire County Council & Brook Lynd-
hurst 2008 [WR0117]). Dorset County Council et al. (2008
[WR0116]) found there was a near doubling of registrations
to the MPS in their target area. A 1-week campaign in North
London in October 2008 was also considered successful, in
achieving a 0.9% increase in the number of people register-
ing with the MPS (1908 residents did so that month) com-
pared to the previous month (NLWA 2009).
Using cloth/reusable nappies
If 10–20% of households started using reusable nappies and
reduced their impact by 10%, this could lead to an overall
reduction on waste arisings of approximately 0.5–1%; a 10%
switch to reusable nappies alone could save around 0.2 to
0.3% of household waste (Tucker & Douglas 2007 [WR0112]).
Woodard & Harder (2007) refer to WRAP data which sugge-
sts that in 2005/06, 22 954 tonnes of waste was prevented
through the use of real nappies (number of participants not
reported). In Vienna, it is estimated that if 10–20% of
parents switched to reusable nappies, the quantity of residual
waste could be reduced by 2 kg household–1 year–1 (Salhofer
et al. 2008).
Reusable nappies participation
Following a 1-week intervention campaign, 114 real nappy
vouchers were issued in October 2008 – representing a 61%
increase compared to October 2007, or a 25% increase com-
pared to September 2008 (NLWA 2009).
Discussion
Relatively few local authorities (at least in the UK) have so
far undertaken large-scale waste prevention campaigns and
much of the impact data comes from small- to medium-scale
projects, as has been reported in previous studies (Waste
Watch 2007 [WR0105], Brook Lyndhurst and Waste Watch
2006 [WR0504], ERM 2007, CAG Consultants 2008). Fur-
thermore, the impact data is compounded by a number of
underlying factors which make it difficult, if not impossible,
to unravel how it was derived. Waste prevention has not
often been evaluated robustly; survey and project design vary
widely; and data are routinely presented in a way that makes
it difficult to decipher what they refer to (including whether
they include or exclude recycling) (see Sharp et al. 2010).
Due to these underlying factors, it has not been possible
to identify the specific underlying reasons why waste is being
prevented. Nor has it been possible to disaggregate the indi-
vidual waste prevention behaviours or measures which spe-
cifically influenced the uptake. That said, the evidence sug-
gests that this does not seem to matter. This is because
behaviour change has been supported by a number of inte-
grated ‘enabling’ tools and ‘engagement’ promotions – meas-
ures which have made a collective rather than isolated differ-
ence
In order to improve the delivery of intervention cam-
paigns, there is a need to differentiate between waste preven-
tion and recycling, and to promote greater awareness of prac-
tical waste prevention measures which can be undertaken by
participants. In general, waste prevention behaviour and
options need to become more ‘visible’. People need help to
identify what they can specifically do, and how to do it well.
There should not be an over-reliance on information provi-
sion alone. The importance of moral or pro-environmental
motivation needs to be given careful and further considera-
tion with respect to messaging. It is important to remember
that environmental motivations were identified in the litera-
ture as primary drivers of recycling behaviour before there
was mass adoption, whereas now the literature shows more
diversity in motivations. Nonetheless, the notion of ‘care’ –
for things, the environment or the wider world – emerged as
a potentially potent force (which is exemplified in the Love
Food element of Love Food Hate Waste).
It is often postulated that a disconnection exists between
reported behaviour and actual participation, which is often
termed the value-action gap. However, there is a lack of direct
evidence to prove that such a discrepancy exists (Chung et al.
2007). None of the projects examined here went to any
lengths to measure the disparity between declared and actual
behaviour.
Although the data provide variable outcomes and a wide
range of impacts (depending upon the factors outlined
above), it can be estimated that a package of waste preven-
tion measures could achieve around 0.5 to 1 kg household–1
week–1 reduction at source. More specifically, in terms of
diverting biodegradable municipal waste from landfill in the
UK, the biggest impacts can be attributed to food waste pre-
vention (1.5 kg household–1 week–1) and home composting
(2.9 kg household–1 week–1).
Conclusions and recommendations
New and different ways of delivering intervention campaigns
are needed in order to help participants make a conceptual
distinction between waste prevention measures and recy-
cling, and to engage new audiences, namely those not cur-
rently pre-disposed to waste prevention. Robust monitoring
and evaluation processes (see Sharp et al. 2010) are needed
to improve impact data and how it can be used to inform
future intervention campaigns. Although performance (or
impact) from small group interventions can be much greater
than for blanket geographical campaigns, there remain ques-
tions as to how far they can be scaled up, and at what cost.
These measures, and other community outreach approaches,
Delivery and impact of household waste prevention intervention campaigns
267
have been shown to provide a useful supporting role to wider
measures (e.g. WRAP and the Women’s Institute 2008).
Further work is needed to establish their potential for scale
up or replication.
The conclusions and recommendations emerging from
this evidence review are summarized below. They focus spe-
cifically on the delivery of intervention campaigns, and if
adopted would help to improve their impact.
• Engaging with households, not initially receptive to waste
prevention messages, requires concerted effort. Use should
be made of intelligence from front-line operational staff
and other staff who are dealing directly with household
waste.
• A dedicated project officer’s time is a valuable resource
and must not be spread too thinly, for example by sup-
porting too many participants, otherwise this will dilute
the value gained from that resource.
• Community development can provide local ownership of
a project. Identify ways that show householders their own
contribution to reducing waste in their community.
• Use an enthusiastic and local champion, but ensure they
are supported by the managing organization. Provide
mentoring for local champions and invest resources in
training and enthusing mentors. There is a need to ensure
greater scrutiny of applicants for mentor roles; define the
mentor’s role and tasks from the outset and maintain reg-
ular contact with regard to mentor tasks.
• Conduct further work to understand the usefulness and
impact of guidance and information, based on a similar
formula to schemes such as slimming support. This does,
however, need to be set within the context of a wider ‘ena-
ble’ and ‘engage’ mix.
• Promote campaigns by topic (i.e. a specific waste preven-
tion behaviour) rather than the more generic term of
‘smart shopping’ which is currently widely used.
• Provide a knowledgeable doorstep team of waste preven-
tion advisors that can convey wider initiatives and support
for waste prevention. Guidance needs to be provided on
how this technique can best be implemented.
• Self-weighing has an important role in motivating partici-
pants and connecting them to their lifestyles and waste. It
also has the potential to provide the ‘cue’ to disrupt an
existing habit where intervention support is provided to
embed a new one.
Delivering a package of interventions is important to achieving
behaviour change: ‘an accumulation of campaigns is what will
have the impact’ (Dorset County Council et al. 2008 [WR0116],
Brook Lyndhurst and Waste Watch 2006 [WR0504]).
Acknowledgements
The evidence review on which this paper is based was funded
by the Waste and Resources Evidence Programme (WREP)
of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra). Defra is committed to developing policy
from an evidence-based platform; and this project was com-
missioned to provide such an evidence base for household
waste prevention. The review is not a statement of policy;
and the inclusion of or reference to any given policy should
not be taken to imply that it has, or will be, endorsed by
Defra as an option for England. The views expressed in this
paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect
those of Defra.
The authors would like to express their thanks to the
Defra Steering Group, in particular Nick Blakey and Andrea
Collier of Defra, and Rachel Gray of WRAP; to the expert
panel, to those who participated in the stakeholder work-
shops and the electronic survey, and to those who gave tele-
phone interviews. Specific mention should also be made of
Kit Strange of the Resource Recovery Forum who undertook
the extensive International Review, and of several Brook
Lyndhurst directors and staff: Jayne Cox, who led the overall
evidence review; Ellie Kivinen and Rachel Drayson who gave
the unstinting, dedicated support; and David Fell who
helped draw the project to a close.
References
Note: Some of the references are to research projects commissioned by
Defra’s Waste and Resources Evidence Programme (WREP) or other Defra sci-
ence programmes. Full copies of the published reports for such projects
(marked in this reference list with an asterisk*) are available via the Defra
Research and Development web portal, http://randd.defra.gov.uk/ – click on
‘search’ and enter the reference number (e.g. WR1204, EV02004) as the key-
word.
ACR+ (2008) Analysis of Municipal Waste Management Practices in
Europe – an Image of some of the Best Performing Cities and Regions.
Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and Sustainable
Resource Management (ACR+), Brussels. http://members.acrplus.
org/upload/documents/document221.pdf Accessed 30 July 2009.
ACS (Association of Charity Shops) (2006) An Analysis into Public Percep-
tion and Current Reuse Behaviour Conducted in the East of England.
http://www.charityshops.org.uk/C2R/Choose2ReuseReportFull.pdf
Accessed 28 July 2009.
Bench, M.L., Woodard, R., Harder, M.K. & Stantzos, S. (2005) Waste min-
imisation: Home digestion trials of biodegradable waste. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 45(1), 84–94.
Brook Lyndhurst and Waste Watch (2006) WR0504: Establishing the Behav-
iour Change Evidence Base to Inform Community-based Waste Preven-
tion and Recycling. Brook Lyndhurst. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
Brook Lyndhurst, SMP (Social Marketing Practice) and RRF (Resource
Recovery Forum) (2009) WR1204: Household Waste Prevention Evi-
dence Review. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
CAG Consultants (2008) (in association with Eunomia Research and
Consulting) Appraisal of the CRED Programme. http://cred.rswt.
org/ Accessed 30 July 2009.
Changeworks (2008) (Fletcher, S.I., Tucker, P. & Speirs, D.) The Waste
Wise Armadale Project Final report. http://www.changeworks.org.uk/
uploads/WWA%20Final%20Report.pdf Accessed 28 July 2009.
Chung, S.S. & Leung, M. (2007) The value-action gap in waste recycling:
the case of undergraduates in Hong Kong. Environmental Manage-
ment, 40(10), 603–612.
Cox, J., Wilkins, C., Ledsom, A., Drayson, R. & Kivinen, E (2009) EV02004.
Environmental Action Fund (EAF): A Review of Sustainable Consump-
tion and Production Projects (SCP2.2) A report to the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra, London.
V. Sharp, S. Giorgi, D.C. Wilson
268
Cox, J., Giorgi, I., Sharp, V., Strange, K., Wilson, D.C. & Blakey, N.
(2010) Household waste prevention – A review of evidence. Was te
Management & Research, 28: 193–219.
Curran, A. & Williams, I.D. (2007) Maximising the recovery of house-
hold bulky waste in england. Proceedings: Sardinia 2007, Eleventh
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
CRIOC (2005) Courses et emballages: 7 ans de perception des emballages
en Wallonie (1999 – 2005). Centre for Research and Information for
Consumers’ Organisations. http://www.livinggreen365 (accessed 24
January 2010).
Defra (2005) UK Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing the Future
http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/uk-
strategy/ Accessed 30 July 2009.
Dorset County Council, AEA, The Social Marketing Practice, Mike
Read Associates and The University of Northampton Household
(2008) WR0116: Waste Prevention Activity in Dorset. Summary
Report and Technical Annexes. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
Enviros, (2004) International Waste Prevention and Reduction Practice for
Defra. Source document located on archive at Scottish EPA web-
site. http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/moving_towards_zero_waste/
waste_hierarchy/idoc.ashx?docid=5c50b3f9-acad-4ff1-b22b-
bff5906d635f&version=-1 Accessed 28 July 2009.
ERM (2007) Big Lottery Transforming Waste Programme. http://www.
biglotteryfund.org.uk/er_eval_transforming_waste.pdf Accessed 30
July 2009.
Eunomia, The Environment Council, Öko-Institut, TNO and Atlantic
Consulting (2007) WR0103: Household Waste Prevention Policy Side
Research Programme. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
Federal Waste Management Plan, Austria (undated) – http://www.bun-
desabfallwirtschaftsplan.at/article/archive/16685 Accessed 30 July
2009.
GAP (Global Action Plan) et al. (2008) Global Action Plan and Nye, M.
and Burgess, J., School of Environmental Sciences, University of
East Anglia. WR0114: Promoting Durable Change in Household
Waste and Energy Use Behaviour. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
GAP (Global Action Plan) (2009) EcoTeams Evaluation Report for Defra
Environmental Action Fund. See Cox et al. (2009), op. cit.
Gray, S. & Toleman, I. (2006) National home composting survey results,
1997–2005. Waste 2006: Sustainable Waste & Resource Management
Conference Proceedings, pp. 775–786.
Hampshire County Council & Brook Lyndhurst (2008). WR0117: ‘Small
Changes Big Difference’ – Towards a Materials Resource Authority:
Promoting Practical Waste Prevention and Exploring Options for
Resource Management. Summary Report, Technical Report and
Annexes. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
Harder, M.K. & Woodard, R. (2009) Use of home food digesters to
reduce household waste. Waste and Resource Management, 162(2),
69–73.
LCRN (London Community Recycling Network for the Greater London
Authority) (2008) Third Sector Reuse Capacity in London. http://
www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/environment/reuse-fullreport.
pdf Accessed 28 July 2009.
NLWA (North London Waste Authority) (2009) North London Watch Your
Waste Week 4th to 12th October 2008. http://nlwa.coopa.net/news/
eco_models_launch_london%27s_first_ever_watch_your_waste_week
Accessed 28 July 2009.
NRWF (2004) Waste Minimisation Too l k i t . http://www.nrwf.org.uk/Waste-
prevention.htm. For the latest version redeveloped by WRAP, see
also http://www.wrap.org.uk/applications/waste_prevention_toolkit/
restricted.rm (accessed 24 January 2010).
Open University (2009) WR0211: Open University Unlocking the Potential
of Community Composting. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
Resources for Change, The New Economics Foundation, Resource
Futures and Community Environment Associates (2008). WR0506:
The Benefits of Third Sector Involvement in Local Authority Waste
Management. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
Resource Futures for WRAP (2008) Separate Food Waste Collection Trials.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/FWT_Evaluation_-_final_report.
3f601bd5.5883.pdf and Eunomia for WRAP (2007) Dealing with
Food Waste in the UK. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Dealing_
with_Food_Waste_-_Final_-_2_March_07.aef259f5.3603.pdf Both
accessed 14 May 2008.
Salhofer, S., Obersteiner, G., Schneider, F. & Lebersorger, S. (2008)
Potentials for the prevention of municipal solid waste. Wast e Ma n-
agement, 28, 245–259.
Salisbury, V. (2008) Performance Evaluation of the Waste Challenge Team.
Hereford and Worcester County Council [unpublished].
Sharp, V., Giorgi, S. & Wilson, D.C. (2010) Methods to monitor and eval-
uate household waste prevention. Waste Management & Research,
28: 269–280.
SISTech (2008). Waste Wise Armadale. Project Evaluation. http://www.
changeworks.org.uk/uploads/WWA%20Project%20Evaluation.pdf
Accessed 30 July 2009.
Swabey, R. & Harder, M.K. (2006) Household food digesters: rigorous
testing of residual waste reduction. In: Proc. of the WASTE 2006
Sustainable Waste and Resource Management Conference, p. 125.
Tu c ke r, P. & Dou gl a s , P. (2 0 0 7) WR0112: Understanding Household Waste
Prevention Behaviour. Final Report & Technical Reports 1–4. A
project for Defra’s WREP*.
Vandenbussche (2008) Reuse in Flanders, Introduction in the Flemish Reuse
Sector. Presentation. http://www.eeb.org/events/Bart%20 Vanden-
bussche.pdf (accessed 24 January 2010).
WastePrevKit (2007) Waste Prevention Kit for Enterprises, Education and
Households. Viikki-Latokartano, Helsinki, YTV Waste Manage-
ment, Finland. http://www.ytv.fi/ENG/fiksu/background_information/
wpk_project/frontpage.htm Accessed 30 July 2009.
Wast e Wa tc h (20 07 ) WR0105: Project REDUCE Monitoring & Evaluation
– Developing Tools to Measure Waste Prevention. Campaign Evalua-
tion Report: ‘What not to waste’. A project for Defra’s WREP*.
Wickens, S. (2005) Waste Free Households Project, Ross-shire Waste Action
Network (RoWAN). Final Report. http://www.rowanweb.org.uk/User-
Files/File/final%20reports/Final%20Report%20-%20100%20WFH
%20Project2005.pdf Accessed 28 July 2009.
Widdicombe, H. & Peake, L. (2008) The rise of reuse. Resource 43 Sep-
tember/October.
Woodard, R. & Harder, M. (2007) Waste Prevention in the UK – A Review
of Current Initiatives. http://www.brighton.ac.uk/werg/publications.
html#papers (accessed 24 January 2010)
WRAP (2007a) Organics and Home Composting Marketing Research 2007.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/recycling_industry/market_information/
market_knowledge_portal/materials_markets/organics.html
(accessed 24 January 2010).
WRAP (2007b) Understanding Food Waste – Research Summary. http://
www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/report_the_food_we.
html Accessed 28 July 2009.
WRAP (2007c) (Lead author Gray, S.) Possible Method for Estimating the
Landfill Diversion Attributable to Home Composting for use in LATS
Calculations: A Discussion Paper by WRAP. http://www.wrap.org.uk/
downloads/Home_Composting_Diversion_District_Level_Analysis.
f2b14489.7747.pdf (accessed 24 January 2010).
WRAP and the Women's Institute (2008) Love Food Champions. http://
www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/report_love_food.
html Accessed 28 July 2009.
WRAP (2009a) Revised Estimates from WRAP which State that 150kg/hh/
year can be Attributable to Home Composting (forthcoming). http://
www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Home_Composting_Diversion_
District_Level_Analysis.f2b14489.7747.pdf (accessed 24 January
2010).
WRAP (2009b) Food Waste Prevention – Committed Food Waste Recycler
(CFWR). Personal communication with WRAP via e-mail 6 May
2009.
