Suchergebnisse

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

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

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

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

This article analyzes shifts in the delivery mode of waste collection in Dutch municipalities between 1999 and 2014. In approximately half of these entities, shifts took place, with 60% toward outside production and 40% toward inside production. In recent years, the number of shifts dropped remarkably, and re-municipalization has become more important. In addition, the amount of municipalities with reverse privatization is larger than that of privatization. Based on a logit model, some evidence of an ideological motivation for changing the mode of production is found. Conservative liberals are in favor of changing, particularly toward the market and privatization, whereas social democrats, in particular, are against change. These results provide some evidence for the unemployment or scale argument for changing the mode as well. In addition, there is an indication that political fragmentation increases the ability to privatize.

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