Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Calculating Mprrp For Textile And Others
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Calculating Mprrp For Textile And Others

236
views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
236
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR RECYCLING M Harder & R Woodard Waste & Energy Research Group University of Brighton Waste 2006
  • 2. BVPI’s used: 86.1 BVPI 91 % of pop. served by kerbside collection or within 1km of recycling centre 39.4 BV87 Cost of waste disposal per tonne for municipal waste £38.70 BV86 Cost of waste per household collection 438.5 BV84 Kg of household waste collected per head 71.9 BV82d Household waste - percentage landfilled 10.5 BV82c Household waste - percentage of heat, power and other energy recovered 3.9 BV82b Household waste - percentage composted 13.2 BV82a Household waste - percentage recycled National Average %
  • 3. BVPI’s used: 86.1 BVPI 91 % of pop. served by kerbside collection or within 1km of recycling centre 39.4 BV87 Cost of waste disposal per tonne for municipal waste £38.70 BV86 Cost of waste per household collection 438.5 BV84 Kg of household waste collected per head 71.9 BV82d Household waste - percentage landfilled 10.5 BV82c Household waste - percentage of heat, power and other energy recovered 3.9 BV82b Household waste - percentage composted 13.2 BV82a Household waste - percentage recycled National Average %
  • 4.
    • BVPI 91: “The % of population served by:
            • kerbside collection or
            • within 1km of recycling centre”
      • better than no BVPI at all for recycling services
  • 5.
    • BVPI 91: “The % of population served by:
            • kerbside collection or
            • within 1km of recycling centre”
      • better than no BVPI at all for recycling services
      • not material specific
  • 6.
    • BVPI 91: “The % of population served by:
            • kerbside collection or
            • within 1km of recycling centre”
      • better than no BVPI at all for recycling services
      • not material specific
      • not sensitive to variations between services
  • 7.
    • BVPI 91: “The % of population served by:
            • kerbside collection or
            • within 1km of recycling centre”
      • better than no BVPI at all for recycling services
      • not material specific
      • not sensitive to variations between services
      • room for improvement
  • 8. BVPI 91 using GIS: (for Brighton & Hove 2003/4) Shows 97% coverage within 1km;
  • 9. BVPI 91 using GIS: (for Brighton & Hove 2003/4) Shows 97% coverage within 1km; 59.4% kerbside cf. 57.5% reported.
  • 10. BVPI 91 using GIS: (for Brighton & Hove 2003/4) Shows 97% coverage within 1km; 59.4% kerbside cf. 57.5% reported. “ Deserts” on edges..
  • 11. Shows up “Recycling Deserts” Some deserts can occur WITHIN the city also.
  • 12. Shows up “Recycling Deserts” Some deserts can occur WITHIN the city also. Nice visuals, but not so useful…
  • 13. BVPI 91 does NOT reflect Recycling Rate BVPI 91 reported at 97%
  • 14. BVPI 91 does NOT reflect Recycling Rate BVPI 91 reported at 97% Recycling rate was 16%
  • 15. BVPI 91 does NOT reflect Recycling Rate BVPI 91 reported at 97% Recycling rate was 16% BVPIs will look the same for most LAs!
  • 16.
    • Main Weaknesses of the BVPI 91:
      • Not sensitive to REAL performance differences:
  • 17.
    • Main Weaknesses of the BVPI 91:
      • Not sensitive to REAL performance differences:
          • number of materials collected
          • recycling rate achieved
  • 18.
    • Main Weaknesses of the BVPI 91:
      • Not sensitive to REAL performance differences:
          • number of materials collected
          • recycling rate achieved
      • 1 km is not realistic
  • 19.
    • Developing a new BVPI
      • Explore:
          • usefulness of GIS as a tool
  • 20.
    • Developing a new BVPI
      • Explore:
          • usefulness of GIS as a tool
          • Census data available
  • 21.
    • Developing a new BVPI
      • Explore:
          • usefulness of GIS as a tool
          • Census data available
          • Realistic distances for facilities
  • 22.
    • Developing a new BVPI
      • Explore:
          • usefulness of GIS as a tool
          • Census data available
          • Realistic distances for facilities
          • Which indicators are sensitive to the services provided
  • 23.
    • What can GIS + Census do?
    • Provide, at the level of Output Areas (approx 270 hh):
          • Exactly how many hh
          • Exactly what land area (m 2 )
  • 24.
    • What can GIS + Census do?
    • Provide, at the level of Output Areas (approx 270 hh):
          • Exactly how many hh
          • Exactly what land area (m 2 )
          • Demographic information from census
  • 25.
    • What can GIS + Census do?
    • Provide, at the level of Output Areas (approx 270 hh):
          • Exactly how many hh
          • Exactly what land area (m 2 )
          • Demographic information from census
          • Ability to input data in layers e.g. by material, by collection method
  • 26.
    • What can GIS + Census do?
    • Provide, at the level of Output Areas (approx 270 hh):
          • Exactly how many hh
          • Exactly what land area (m 2 )
          • Demographic information from census
          • Ability to input data in layers e.g. by material, by collection method
          • ABILITY TO MANIPULATE DATA ON A SPATIAL BASIS e.g. calculate population within 1km
  • 27. Example: all CARD collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone
  • 28. Example: all CARD collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone Calculating the overall coverage: 54% of the population.
  • 29. Example: all PAPER collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone
  • 30. Example: all PAPER collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone Calculating the overall coverage: 97% of the population.
  • 31. Example: all PAPER collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone Calculating the overall coverage: 97% of the population. Same for glass, cans.
  • 32. Example: all PLASTICS collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone Calculating the overall coverage: 32% of the population. Much less…
  • 33. Example: all GREEN collections NO Kerbside collections ONLY taken at HWRCs
  • 34. Example: all GREEN collections NO Kerbside collections ONLY taken at HWRCs 1km not realistic; 2.7km found in another town study. 600m typical for bring banks…
  • 35. What future needs will there be? Householders will expect MORE MATERIALS; and more via KERBSIDE
  • 36. What future needs will there be? Householders will expect MORE MATERIALS; and more via KERBSIDE Council will need to achieve 25% Recycling Rate which will require 40-50% of waste materials
  • 37. What future needs will there be? Householders will expect MORE MATERIALS; and more via KERBSIDE Council will need to achieve 25% Recycling Rate which will require 40-50% of waste materials Perhaps these suggest a better, new indicator:
  • 38. What future needs will there be? Householders will expect MORE MATERIALS; and more via KERBSIDE Council will need to achieve 25% Recycling Rate which will require 40-50% of waste materials Perhaps these suggest a better, new indicator: Maximum Practicable Recycling Rate Provision (M P R R P)
  • 39. Calculating MPRRP: using local composition TOTAL % of waste % separation efficiency % participation % hh covered % Fit to Recycle 32 % Material Present in waste Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 40. Calculating MPRRP: using local composition TOTAL % of waste % separation efficiency % participation % hh covered 65 % Fit to Recycle 32 % Material Present in waste Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 41. Calculating MPRRP: using local composition TOTAL % of waste % separation efficiency % participation 59 % hh covered 65 % Fit to Recycle 32 % Material Present in waste Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 42. Calculating MPRRP: using local composition TOTAL % of waste 65 % separation efficiency 85 % participation 59 % hh covered 65 % Fit to Recycle 32 % Material Present in waste Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 43. Calculating MPRRP: using local composition 6.8 TOTAL % of waste 65 % separation efficiency 85 % participation 59 % hh covered 65 % Fit to Recycle 32 % Material Present in waste Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 44. Calculating MPRRP: using local composition 0.5 0.9 0.4 1.8 6.8 TOTAL % of waste 65 65 65 65 65 65 % separation efficiency 85 85 85 85 85 85 % participation 19 32 42 32 44 59 % hh covered 37 95 95 33 90 65 % Fit to Recycle 53 3 4 6 8 32 % Material Present in waste Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 45. Calculating MPRRP: using local composition 10.3 0.5 0.9 0.4 1.8 6.8 TOTAL % of waste 65 65 65 65 65 65 % separation efficiency 85 85 85 85 85 85 % participation 19 32 42 32 44 59 % hh covered 37 95 95 33 90 65 % Fit to Recycle 53 3 4 6 8 32 % Material Present in waste Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 46. Calculating MPRRP: using local composition Correct! Reported RR was 11%. 10.3 0.5 0.9 0.4 1.8 6.8 TOTAL % of waste 65 65 65 65 65 65 % separation efficiency 85 85 85 85 85 85 % participation 19 32 42 32 44 59 % hh covered 37 95 95 33 90 65 % Fit to Recycle 53 3 4 6 8 32 % Material Present in waste Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 47. So, the MPRRP is more useful… But how difficult is it to obtain?
  • 48. So, the MPRRP is more useful… But how difficult is it to obtain? Some of the information needed is quite standard - e.g. separation efficiencies The household coverage will be very LA dependent - can be calculated with GIS or otherwise
  • 49. So, the MPRRP is more useful… But how difficult is it to obtain? Some of the information needed is quite standard - e.g. separation efficiencies The household coverage will be very LA dependent - can be calculated with GIS or otherwise The waste composition should be known locally - but if not, could national values be used??
  • 50. Calculating MPRRP: using UK composition 11.2 0.3 1.8 0.4 2.0 6.8 TOTAL % of waste 65 65 65 65 65 65 % separation efficiency 85 85 85 85 85 85 % participation 20 32 42 32 44 59 % hh covered 40 95 95 33 90 65 % Fit to Recycle 57 2 8 6 9 32 % Material Present Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 51. Calculating MPRRP: using UK composition Hardly any difference: robust. 11.2 0.3 1.8 0.4 2.0 6.8 TOTAL % of waste 65 65 65 65 65 65 % separation efficiency 85 85 85 85 85 85 % participation 20 32 42 32 44 59 % hh covered 40 95 95 33 90 65 % Fit to Recycle 57 2 8 6 9 32 % Material Present Total Textiles Metals Plastics Glass Paper & card 2003/4
  • 52. Which for future use ? The old BVPI 91 can actually be replaced with a much simpler measurement: MPRRP for paper.
  • 53. Which for future use ? The old BVPI 91 can actually be replaced with a much simpler measurement: MPRRP for paper. By far, most of the recyclable waste is paper. So all councils WILL collect it.
  • 54. Which for future use ? The old BVPI 91 can actually be replaced with a much simpler measurement: MPRRP for paper. By far, most of the recyclable waste is paper. So all councils WILL collect it. So its MPRRP will reflect population coverage for the basic service – which is all the BVPI91 does now.
  • 55. Which for future use ? The old BVPI 91 can actually be replaced with a much simpler measurement: MPRRP for paper. By far, most of the recyclable waste is paper. So all councils WILL collect it. So its MPRRP will reflect population coverage for the basic service – which is all the BVPI91 does now. The overall MPRRP will provide a better indicator - distinguish between authorities with basic schemes and those with comprehensive schemes; - produce a number linked to the actual RR
  • 56. DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR RECYCLING M Harder & R Woodard Waste & Energy Research Group University of Brighton Waste 2006