1. science
2. ecology
3. waste management
4. recycling

Introduction
The municipality in Rotterdam is responsible for the waste management (Appendix A) in the
city and surroundings. They aim to increase the degree of recycling and waste separation within
the city, however this proves to be rather challenging. Firstly, to the inhabitants of the city it
costs less effort to throw waste into a single garbage bin than separating it and going outside to
paper / glass containers. Secondly, these containers are perceived to be rather ugly, causing a
not-in-my-backyard effect; meaning people do not want to have them near their homes.
Thirdly, since many people live in apartment buildings they are reluctant to having multiple
garbage bins at home as they take up too much space. Finally, since the city is rather large,
there is little social control, meaning no one pays attention towards your waste separation
behaviour or judges you for it.
Research has shown that students are not very prone to recycling, since they often live in shared
housing, and may not be able to influence the waste management of the household. Moreover,
some do not realise that they pay waste taxes since it is embedded in the rent. Therefore the
Gemeente Rotterdam wants to challenge students to come up with an idea of waste
management for student housing.
In 2014 the municipality has introduced ‘Right to Challenge’ this is an initiative that gives
citizens the right to challenge the municipality on a certain task that they provide if they feel
they can execute it better. If this proposal is approved, the citizens can pursue their own
initiatives.
Key question:
How would you, propose an alternative for sustainable waste management in student
housing which will be more successful than the current programme executed by the
municipality. This programme has to suit the needs of students/ residents, must be realistic,
cost effective and it must be possible to rely only on the responsibility of the students.
Taking into account:









The current waste management program
Legal implications and (EU) guidelines
Sustainability and recycling
Waste separation and recycling
Cost-efficiency (should not cost more than current programme)
Transport efficiency of garbage collection
Hygiene
No inconvenience for other citizens
As little visibility on the streets as possible, e.g. no ugly waste bins etc.
Your task:
Create a proposal for the municipality of Rotterdam on how to stimulate waste separation and
recycling in student housing by creating a strategy that places the responsibility in the hands of
the students. This strategy must be part of the ‘Right to Challenge’ programme, meaning that
the students have to be able to execute the strategy themselves. The proposal has to take some
or all of the constraints into account. However, if a constraint is not taken into account, a
rationale has to be provided for not doing so. Additionally, it is possible to cooperate with some
services provided by the municipality, however a rationale has to be provided stating why this
task is better executed in cooperation with the municipality.
The following pages will contain additional information on:



Appendix A: Waste management policy, technical specifications, price and budget
information
Appendix B: How to create an effective sustainable strategy
Appendix C: Motivaction : A qualitative study about customer attitude and behaviour
towards separating glass
Appendix A: Waste management policy, technical specifications, price and budget information
Waste management policy municipality of Rotterdam 2013-2018
Principles of the Rotterdam waste management policy
This document summarizes the waste management policy for the municipality of Rotterdam
over the period of 2013 until 2018. The policy is based upon the principles of sustainability
and cost efficiency and tries to anticipate towards a future scarcity of resources. The past years
the waste management programme was focused on separating waste at the source, however
this has not generated a significant increase in the amount of waste separated.
Since Rotterdam has many highrise buildings and a very large and diverse population there is
respectively little space and little social control to execute waste separation at the source.
Therefore the biggest potential is in separation after collection. However this cannot be
accomplished for all types of waste so it is still important that for example paper is collected
separately.
To this end, the municipality will provide the tools and the logistics (enough garbage
containers, emptying of said containers and places where to deliver separated waste), however
the main responsibility is still for the citizens of Rotterdam to separate and collect their waste
properly. The programme will be financed through collective waste taxes al citizens are
obligated to pay.
Goal:
The goal for Rotterdam is that by 2018 it has the most sustainable waste management
programme of the 3 largest cities in the Netherlands (Rotterdam, Amsterdam & The Hague).
For this a waste separation plant will be realized. This plant will separate: plastics, organic
waste, metals and cartons containing liquids. Paper and glass will remain to be separated at
the source. Ultimately this programme will lead to a lower collective waste tax.
European guidelines
Currently, all regions in the Netherlands comply with the European guidelines of a minimum
of 50% recycling.
Due to depletion of resources, increasingly more pressure is exerted as to more sustainable
production and high quality recycling (upcycling). Some of these resources are for example
metals used in technological products. Furthermore in the Rotterdam area is the usage of heat
from the burning of rest-waste to heat the water in the city, these initiatives are also called
circular economy.
Current situation
Key numbers Rotterdam
Year 2011
Inhabitants
Households
Total household waste (tons)
Total household rest waste (tons)
Total waste per capita (kg)
Rotterdam
610,386
314,324
289,978
205,747
475
Total household rest waste per capita (kg)
Waste per household (kg)
Total percentage of waste recycled (%)
337
923
23
Laws and regulations
Objectives for waste separation per type of waste






Paper
Glass
Textiles
Small chemical waste
Organic waste
Large household waste
90%
85%
50%
90%
55%
75%
Furthermore: 65% of total waste should be recycled and 65% of total waste should be disposed
of in a useful manner (e.g. use heat from burning for heating water supply).
The collective waste tax (2013) €339.90, however this tax is adjusted for inflation every year.
Effective waste management and increased separation and recycling could lower this tax, since
it is based on the costs of the waste disposal.
Cooperations


For some types of waste it is possible to outsource its processing, these contracts are
usually priced very sharply and have the optimal duration for the specific type of waste.
AVR/Van Gansewinkel group: processing of 250,000 ton of rest waste (non-separated)
for 23 mln a year. However this contract is based on a per-ton cost rate and therefore
every ton that is separated saves money.
Specifics about the composition and disposal of the waste in Rotterdam







The biggest groups of waste are organic waste (36.7%), paper and cardboard (15.3%)
and plastics (7.5%)
E-waste are outdated technological products (TV’s, computers etc.) this waste should
be handed in at special environmental waste parks. It can be expected that this type of
waste will increase.
Used frying oil is often flushed in the toilet. However this is prohibited and very
harmful for the sewer system and the environment. This should also be handed in at
environmental waste parks.
Used batteries and large household waste (furniture etc.) should also be handed in at
the environmental waste parks
Textiles should be deposited into special textile containers, from where it will be sorted
and sent off to charities or Piekfijn second hand stores (best quality, 60%)
Except for the Rozenburg area there is no separate collection of organic waste due to
lack of space in highrise buildings.
Paper and cardboard should be deposited into special containers

Glass is separated into special containers based on the colour of the glass
Facilities: containers, environmental waste parks and trash cans
Containers and trash cans
In Rotterdam there are 6000 underground containers either for: rest waste, paper and cardboard,
glass or textiles and 8000 trash cans.


Division: paper 605, glass 521, textiles 126, rest .4786
In area’s with low-rise buildings, households are provided with smaller containers
which are emptied on a weekly basis
Environmental waste parks (Milieupark)
Are places where citizens can bring all types of waste. This includes chemical waste, large
waste objects and dangerous waste like asbestos. There are 7 environmental waste parks in
Rotterdam
Second hand stores (kringloopwinkels) called Piekfijn
These stores sell used products to increase the lifespan of these products. These stores sell
everything from books to fridges to clothing. These stores have 3 main goals:
1. Stimulation of separation and recycling
2. Provision of job opportunities
3. Offering of (good quality) second hand products for citizens who don’t have much
money
There are 4 Piekfijn stores, where objects are delivered after they are checked for quality.
Additionally clothing from the textile containers and bikes that are seized by the police and not
re-claimed are delivered at Piekfijn.
Costs of waste collection
Type of cost
Costs of collection from containers
Cost of collection: environmental parks
Costs Piekfijn second hand store
Containers and trash cans costs
Costs ( million)
59.1
7.7
3.7
7.7
Cost per type of waste
Rest waste
Glass
Paper
Large household waste
Other
45.7
0.6
2.3
7.8
2.6
Future situation and actions to be taken
Goal: maximum separation efficiency at lowest cost
Through



Increased responsibility of producers (financial responsibility for own products in waste
stage) leading to eco-design: designing and producing products that are sustainable,
easy to recycle and re-usable. This is necessary as resources are growing scarce.
Improving separation at the waste for paper, textiles and glass
Realization of a separation installation for all waste separated after collection.
Concrete goals:
1. Minimum of 12% decrease in household rest waste by 2018
2. Minimum of 31% recycling of all waste by 2018 ( 80% of waste is eligible for
recycling)
3. Minimum of 89 kton of evaded burning of waste
4. Keeping cleanness level 4 at lower cost
5. Minimum of 4% decrease in collective waste taxes related to collection and processing
of household waste.
Alternatives for separation after collection





Provision of monetary compensation for handing in waste at a special collection point.
Price of resources obtained from waste should cover the costs of the compensation.
Provision of mini-containers that allow people to separate waste and placing an
underground rest-waste container at a further distance to stimulate separation ( only
eligible for low-rise)
Switching from collecting large household garbage (Roteb) to having people take it to
environmental parks.
Stimulation of recycling of small goods (cd’s / dvd’s, batteries and lamps)
Make Piekfijn / second hand stores cheaper to exploit ( budget neutral)
Actions and goals per type of waste
Rest waste



Make consumers aware of consumption pattern (less packaging, proper portions, no
plastic cups but reusable mugs and reusable grocery bag.)
Eco-design
Goal: decreasing rest waste with 12%
Glass



Glass can be recycled infinite times.
Nr of extra containers based on return on investment
Goal: 62% of glass recycled
Paper and cardboard




Paper and cardboard can be recycled 7 times, new paper and cardboard is 75% recycled
Financially attractive because old paper can be sold
Communication, extra containers and collection initiatives will increase level of paper
recycled
Goal: 41% of paper recycled
Organic waste


Research will be done to see if the mini-container for organic waste can be reintroduced
Goal ( excluding possible through after collection separation) : 6% recycled
Textiles



Recycling of textile is very advantageous for the environment, since growing cotton is
costly in terms of water and pesticides.
Financially attractive to collect and sell used textiles
Goal: 33% of textiles is recycled
Plastics


Separation and recycling of plastics is not profitable (yet) , costs are reimbursed by
producers of plastic packaging
These costs were €430 per ton of waste in 2014

At the moment large bottles (PET bottles) have to be handed in at supermarkets and a
pre-paid premium of 0.25€ will be reimbursed. However if producers produce more
sustainably these pre-paid premiums could be discontinued and the bottles can be
separated at the source

Goal: 60% of all plastics recycled by 2018
Large household waste


Should be handed in at environmental parks or collected by the Roteb, however the
latter is rather expensive and should be discouraged
Goal: more than 75% of large household waste separated
Other types of waste eligible for separation




Matrasses and carpets
Leather
Diapers
Office and canteen waste
Scenarios
If all goals are met, the total of rest waste will decrease from 205 kton to 181 kton, this would
mean a decrease in waste collection taxes of €12.47 and 48kton of CO₂.
The budget for research towards waste separation is €250,000 a year (4 fte)
Litter, communication and enforcement
Litter
Each year 20 million euro will be available to reduce litter. Communications and initiatives
like ‘Nederland schoon’ are really important to raise awareness for the prevention of litter.
Communication
Communication is key in raising awareness for and motivating citizens to separate waste.
Currently the communications are focused on: paper and cardboard, glass and textiles. Each
type of waste might need a separate communications approach fit for the specific tasks
involved in the separation.
Enforcement
People who are known to pollute willingly are fined (€115 per garbage bag) or forced to do
community service.
Appendix B: How to create an effective sustainable strategy
Five shades of green: creating an effective sustainable strategy
1. The complexity of sustainability
The concept of sustainability is often used misused. Terms such as ecological, biological,
environmentally friendly and fair trade are often mixed-up. The issue is that there is no clear
definition of the term sustainability. People have many different associations with the word
sustainability. For the average consumer it is difficult to apprehend what organizations really
mean when they advertise with sustainability. In most cases sustainability means something
different for you than your neighbour. This problem is also partly caused by the media. Global
warming and technologic advancement are both associated with sustainability. On one side
fossil resources are becoming scarcer but on the other side new technique are developed so that
fossil resources can be gained from more distant places.
The notion of sustainability differs also per generation. The idealism seventies concept of
sustainability differs a lot from the hip and trendy concept of sustainability nowadays. If you
ask any persons if he or she is sustainable the most likely answers you will get is a “yes”. But
if you check if he or she is really sustainable you will most likely find out that the person is not
really sustainable. There is a lot of confusion with the concept of sustainability and most likely
this won’t change in the near future.
Besides the confusion what sustainability really entails there is also the question who is
responsible for working on the sustainable issues. The government is trying more and more to
withdraw from the communal goals and the responsibility is being moved more towards the
corporate side. In the Netherlands you can notice this with the increasing focus on corporate
social responsibility. The trend is that the large corporates are going forward on their
sustainable undertakings and implement sustainability best practices in their processes. Also
non-sustainable companies are on increasing terms working together with NGOs. However,
the increasing collaboration with NGOs makes the corporate lean more on the brand image and
knowledge of the NGO. The lack of unambiguously and objective focus on the precise
definition of sustainability and the question who is responsible leads to the problem that
sustainability initiatives are still performing suboptimal.
2. Five shades of green
Motivaction did a research on how the Dutch citizen experiences sustainability. They found
that there are five distinctive groups of consumers that are conscious about sustainability. The
five groups are briefly discussed i.e. what is important for this group, how can you stimulate
this group and how can you reach this group?
Dutiful
The dutiful group is strongly socially involved. They have a strong sense of solidarity towards
the weaker individuals in the society. This group lives a harmonious life driven by a strong
sense of duty. They are conservative and have often difficulties with the complexity of the
society. They find it unfortunate that society is becoming more and more individualistic. This
group sees the government as a powerful authority, which they hugely respect. This group is
strongly represented in the generation born between 1910-1940. Also, people with low income
and lower education are more represented in this group. The size of the group is approximately
13% of the Dutch citizens. Sustainability for this group is a problem, which they recognize,
mostly in their immediate environment. This results in that this group does a lot of volunteer
work. In addition, they are environmentally conscious and live a sober and frugal life. This
group is quite practical and is therefore best reached with a simple message. When the aware
raising message is direct to their personal context and their immediate surrounding this message
would be most effective.
Structure seekers
This group feels undervalued and is continuously searching for social recognition. In general
the individuals of this group are conformist and risk-adverse. They are materialistic and for
them pleasure in life is most important. This group consists mainly of lower or middle educated
and lower income individuals. For this group sustainability is a vague concept and this group
is worried more about other things than sustainability. They are more focused on their own
short-term perspective and also believe that they have no influence at all to improve their
environment. Regarding consumption, price is most important for this group, which results in
that they do not tend to buy environmentally friendly products. This group is difficult to
stimulate to become more sustainable. However, the group is sensitive to charismatic figures
such as celebrities. Also communicating the real value (in price) to this group could be effective
in terms of communication.
The responsible
This group is strongly driven by their social involvement in society. They have a large interest
in politics and take a critical stance towards the government. They are well informed and like
to push the government to solve communal issues. As they have a global view of the world
they feel responsible for the global environmental issues. This group is well educated and has
an above average income. This responsible group is relatively a large group and takes a share
of around 30% of the Dutch citizens. The responsible individual sees sustainability as broad
concept. They live a conscious life and tend to worry a lot about climate change. They believe
in the added value of sustainable initiatives. They are convinced that people can overcome this
problem. Due to their global perspective they are aware of the problems in third world countries
and often donate money to charity. For communication this group can be best reached by
sending a strong message that has some substance. The message should be informative, clear
and transparent.
The status conscious
This group is very individualistic and put its own interest before the interest of the society. The
goal of the individuals from this group is to have a good career and earn recognition and respect
from others. This is also reflected in their lifestyle. They tend to over consume, which you can
see in the fact that they are buying the latest tech and clothes of fancy brands. Due to their busy
and active life they rush through life. Their lifestyle can be best described as adventurous,
impulsive and materialistic. This group consists of a share of 15% of the Dutch citizen and
consists off slightly more males than females. In general they have the knowledge about what
sustainability entails but do no act upon it. They believe their actions are not effective to realize
a real change on sustainability issues like global warming. The status conscious individual is
materialistic and does not buy sustainable products often. This group is difficult to reach in
terms of communication. They consider sustainability only relevant if it earns personal gain for
them. Best way to reach this group is if you attach the communication to their status.
Evolver
The evolver is not really involved in the society. They maintain an adventurous and impulsive
lifestyle. Their main goal in life is self-enrichment so that they can distinguish themselves from
others in the society. They are not materialistic and take a very critical stance towards society.
Most important factor for this group is to be independent and to be able to decide their own
course. In general this group consist more out of males than females and takes up a share of
10% of the Dutch citizens. The group is not interested in sustainability and thus don’t feel
responsibility for these environmental issues. However, they tend to still live in a sustainable
manner because they consume less than the average. This group is hard to reach with
communication. They will only act upon sustainable communication if they can enrich
themselves with the initiatives.
3. Three levels of sustainability
The social culture streams describe the trends in society that influence the attitude and
behaviour of individuals. In this part three streams / layers are being introduced: environmental
knowledge, social ethics and voluntary austerity. These three layers are the building blocks to
develop sustainable consciousness in the various groups.



Environmental knowledge: The first layer is to attain knowledge on how people bring
harm to the nature and which effect this has on the future. You can gain this knowledge
by experiencing and solving current environmental issues. When a person is willing to
inform about product sustainability this level is reached.
Social Ethics: The second layer is the attitude i.e. the attitude of individuals,
organizations and companies that place in area of ethics. Both individuals and
companies are obliged to take responsibility for the social and environmental issues.
Voluntary austerity: The last layer is the behaviour of individuals i.e. the counter
reaction on the materialistic consumption society by voluntary consuming and working
less. When this level is reached status and materialistic objects are less important than
immaterial matters such as spare time, spirituality and nature.
4. Future development
When comparing the 5 shades of green, a division can be seen. At one side there are responsible
and dutiful people, who care about sustainability and feel responsible for this. The other
groups, structure seekers, status conscious and evolvers are less focussed on sustainability.
In general several developments can be identified. Firstly, according to the yearly mentalitymeasurement (1997-2013) the group that cares about sustainability relatively decreases and the
group that is indifferent increases. Since the latter group consists mainly of younger people, it
is expected that this trend will continue over the next years and the importance of sustainability
will continue to decline.
On the other hand, there are developments inside the segments. Dutiful and evolvers people
are becoming less cynical, and accept that the current way of life is unsustainable. Also
evolvers are accepting that sustainable living is necessary and can be trendy. The structure
seekers are hard to influence, since they focus mainly on their own local area, and are less
focused on the bigger picture.
To get out of this deadlock and to have sustainability catch on, it is necessary that producers,
policy makers and consumers work together, based on shared values. For this it is imperative
to have a clear overview of the various attitudes the segments have towards a subject.
5. Connecting values for sustainability
When you try to convince someone of a view about sustainability that is not similar to his own
view, it will be counterproductive. Therefore a productive approach would address all values
the different segments have, and focus on the aspects these groups consider important.
Some values are universally shared amongst social segments. Examples of this are
‘innovativeness’ and ‘exciting’. Therefore it is important to find such values that are shared
and that are also of importance to the maker of sustainability policy.
5 steps towards sustainability policy
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Define target group
Define value and lifestyle profile
Define tone of communications with target group
Co-create value proposition
Measure effects
6. Cases of sustainable entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurs are people who exploit new or existing markets in an innovative manner
to improve society. Social entrepreneurs have an innate sense of sustainability and usually
focus on one niche market. They also have a preference for sustainable relationship, meaning
that they can mean something for others and others for them.
Appendix C: Motivaction: A qualitative study about customer attitude and behaviour towards
separating glass
Background
In 2013, an online qualitative study regarding the attitudes and behavior of consumers for
separating glass has been conducted by Motivaction. This study was commissioned by
Nedvang. The glass collection and separation is for most Dutch people an ingrained habit: the
total collected amount of domestic glass has been stable for years. This holds true for the
collection of domestic garbage as well. Compared to other European countries the Dutch are
keener on separating glass packaging. The packaging industry (organized by a Waste Fund
executive from Nedvang) will therefore make an effort to make more glass end up in containers
all over the Netherlands.
Internal surveys show that the extra glass must come from the garbage of citizens, and that the
highest concentration of glass waste is in the urban areas (SK1, SK2 and high-rise). Nedvang
would like to know what happens 'in the kitchen' regarding the separation of glass. Questions
to think about are: have you used glass containers and what do you do with it? What do you
think? Is it hard or easy to make a choice? Nedvang wants to know why consumers throw glass
in the garbage rather than separating it. Key stakeholders are the municipalities. Therefore there
is a need to get input from Nedvang to help municipalities to facilitate effective public glass
recycling and in order to work towards the desired behavior.
Goals and Problem Statement
The objective of the study is:
Nedvang should provide insights regarding the behavior of citizens to separate glass waste
instead of throwing these into the garbage. In order to receive input for action strategies to
control the behavior of citizens towards a desired direction.
The objective includes the following questions:



What is the current behavior of citizens of SK1 and SK2 municipalities regarding the
separation of glass?
What are the reasons behind it for separating glass waste in households? Which barriers
are experienced by households and which actors play a role?
What are the conditions for behavioral change? Which of these conditions lie with the
individual? What conditions must be fulfilled by other actors?
Methods
The research was conducted through email and consists out of 18 respondents spread over
several cities in the Netherlands (SK1 and SK2). The focus was on the cities of Rotterdam and
Amsterdam. Fieldwork took place from 28 November to 3 December 2013. When recruiting
respondents the following selection criteria was taken into account:






2/3 high-rise, low-rise 1/3
Status of household (single, pre-family, families, empty nesters)
Sex, education, and ethnicity
Respondents are not opposed to the separation of waste glass
Respondents separation of glass waste is not yet optimal, but do it all (20-80%)
All respondents own a smartphone
Conclusions
Citizens do know that glass waste can be recycled and is good for the environment. Depositing
waste glass in the glass container also gives them a good feeling or makes them proud. Yet the
separation of waste glass is often experienced as a necessary evil or additional burden because
it is not part of the daily or weekly routine. A major annoyance are overfull glass containers,
where people need to put waste glass next to the containers. The importance of separating waste
glass is not something people do on a daily basis. When separating glass waste the next pattern
is visible: the glass is first collected in the kitchen, usually at a fixed location. If there is
sufficient waste glass collected at once, the glass is brought to recycling containers. During this
process, there are three options:
1. The glass waste is not classified as waste glass: This is especially common in smaller
glass waste, such as jars.
2. The glass waste remains too long in the kitchen and there is not enough incentive to
recycle glass: out of laziness this glass is therefore still thrown in the garbage.
3. An overflowing glass recycling container may cause the collected waste glass to still
be deposited in the garbage container.
Barriers
Barriers to entry to separate glass waste are both in-house and outside of the house of citizens.
There are thresholds in the house:






No routine: the dropping of waste glass in recycling containers is not in the daily or
weekly routine. In addition, the optimal separation of waste glass is not in the routine,
because some pots are not to be seen as waste glass.
Laziness sometimes prevails. Here it is simply 'easier' to throw the glass waste in the
garbage waste.
Lack of space in the house is an important reason not to separate waste glass.
No time: a sense of bustle is a clear form of cognitive dissonance when it comes to
separating glass waste and thus an excuse to avoid a trip to the recycling containers.
The cleaning of glass waste is also a threshold. On the one hand it is considered dirty
and on the other hand one does not want to go through so much trouble for something
that will be discarded.
Glass volume: small glass is usually not separated and fits easily in the trash as waste.
There are also thresholds outdoors:



The recycling containers are too far away, making it a big effort to bring out the waste
glass.
Poor weather conditions demotivate a trip to the recycling containers.
A full glass waste collection bin demotivates to go the next time.
Encouraging factors
Factors for separating glass waste and to share a positive influence are an important part of the
behavior of the citizens. The play both functional and emotional roles. External factors are:


Proximity: a recycling container in the area (up to 100 meters away) facilitates the
disposal of waste glass. (Functional)
Awareness: an increased awareness ensures that citizens know what the consequences
of their behavior is and thereby encourages them to do good.
(Emotional) Internal factors are:




Recycling should be part of the daily or weekly routine and is experienced as a burden.
(Functional and emotional)
A collection bin or bag ensures that waste glass in the house is not in the way.
(Functional)
To contribute to a better environment separating waste glass will give people a good
feeling. (Emotional)
For larger quantities of glass waste (such as after a dinner party or house party) there
will be a trip to the recycling containers. (Functional)
Solutions
Solutions that are proposed by citizens to achieve optimal separation of waste glass are:








Information can help raise awareness so that people separate glass out of intrinsic
reasons.
Placing more glass collection containers ensures that more people have a collection
point nearby and therefore it will be easier to drop off waste glass.
Glass-pickup service, when glass waste is collected at home and therefore the threshold
decreases to walk to the recycling containers.
Preview function: more empty glass containers show that the municipality thinks it is
important that glass waste is separated.
Encouraging reuse so that glass waste is given a new purpose by giving tips on how
you can reuse glass waste.
Install Glass chutes in high-rises so that waste separation is very approachable.
Decorating Glass Containers to make them stand out more and the trip to the recycling
containers is fun.
Rewards for people who optimally separate their waste glass.
Recommendations
There are recommendations for the long run:
- Increase the knowledge of citizens so that they become more aware of the consequences
of their behavior and they have the belief that they themselves can contribute to a better
environment.
Increase the level of knowledge on the following points:
-
Why it is important to separate glass waste?
How much influence the behavior of one person is looked at? (Personal behavior
effectiveness)
Who should separate glass waste? Which types of glass? Clean or dirty? With or
without lids?
Give tips that facilitate the separation of glass waste (for example, a collection box in
the house).
Make disclosures as accessible as possible, so that citizens can quickly understand what
is expected of them. Use images and texts that support each other.
Direct the campaign on the individual. Citizens must feel personally addressed.
Ensure that the tone of voice is not pedantic, but tell the message in an accessible,
optimistic tone.
Recognize that the separation of glass is a financial burden, so that they feel involved
and will identify with the message of the campaign.
Facilitate citizens to separate glass waste as easy as possible. Think for example of:
-
-
-
Placing more glass bins at strategic locations where people come in their daily or
weekly routine. Strategic locations include the supermarket, next to each remaining
container or high-rise at the door.
Ensure that glass containers are emptied on time. Full containers will lead to rubbish
on the streets, but also gives the message that waste glass separating is not important.
This discourages the separation of waste glass.
Another possibility is to facilitate a nicely designed box or container that can be used
to collect waste glass.