Calculating Mprrp For Textile And Others

433 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
433
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Calculating Mprrp For Textile And Others

  1. 1. DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR RECYCLING M Harder & R Woodard Waste & Energy Research Group University of Brighton Waste 2006
  2. 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. 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. 4. <ul><li>BVPI 91: “The % of population served by: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>kerbside collection or </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>within 1km of recycling centre” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>better than no BVPI at all for recycling services </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>BVPI 91: “The % of population served by: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>kerbside collection or </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>within 1km of recycling centre” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>better than no BVPI at all for recycling services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>not material specific </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>BVPI 91: “The % of population served by: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>kerbside collection or </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>within 1km of recycling centre” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>better than no BVPI at all for recycling services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>not material specific </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>not sensitive to variations between services </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>BVPI 91: “The % of population served by: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>kerbside collection or </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>within 1km of recycling centre” </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>better than no BVPI at all for recycling services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>not material specific </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>not sensitive to variations between services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>room for improvement </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. BVPI 91 using GIS: (for Brighton & Hove 2003/4) Shows 97% coverage within 1km;
  9. 9. BVPI 91 using GIS: (for Brighton & Hove 2003/4) Shows 97% coverage within 1km; 59.4% kerbside cf. 57.5% reported.
  10. 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. 11. Shows up “Recycling Deserts” Some deserts can occur WITHIN the city also.
  12. 12. Shows up “Recycling Deserts” Some deserts can occur WITHIN the city also. Nice visuals, but not so useful…
  13. 13. BVPI 91 does NOT reflect Recycling Rate BVPI 91 reported at 97%
  14. 14. BVPI 91 does NOT reflect Recycling Rate BVPI 91 reported at 97% Recycling rate was 16%
  15. 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. 16. <ul><li>Main Weaknesses of the BVPI 91: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not sensitive to REAL performance differences: </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>Main Weaknesses of the BVPI 91: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not sensitive to REAL performance differences: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>number of materials collected </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>recycling rate achieved </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. <ul><li>Main Weaknesses of the BVPI 91: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not sensitive to REAL performance differences: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>number of materials collected </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>recycling rate achieved </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 km is not realistic </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. <ul><li>Developing a new BVPI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>usefulness of GIS as a tool </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 20. <ul><li>Developing a new BVPI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>usefulness of GIS as a tool </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Census data available </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  21. 21. <ul><li>Developing a new BVPI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>usefulness of GIS as a tool </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Census data available </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Realistic distances for facilities </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. <ul><li>Developing a new BVPI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>usefulness of GIS as a tool </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Census data available </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Realistic distances for facilities </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Which indicators are sensitive to the services provided </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  23. 23. <ul><li>What can GIS + Census do? </li></ul><ul><li>Provide, at the level of Output Areas (approx 270 hh): </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exactly how many hh </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exactly what land area (m 2 ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  24. 24. <ul><li>What can GIS + Census do? </li></ul><ul><li>Provide, at the level of Output Areas (approx 270 hh): </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exactly how many hh </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exactly what land area (m 2 ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demographic information from census </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. <ul><li>What can GIS + Census do? </li></ul><ul><li>Provide, at the level of Output Areas (approx 270 hh): </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exactly how many hh </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exactly what land area (m 2 ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demographic information from census </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to input data in layers e.g. by material, by collection method </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  26. 26. <ul><li>What can GIS + Census do? </li></ul><ul><li>Provide, at the level of Output Areas (approx 270 hh): </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exactly how many hh </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exactly what land area (m 2 ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demographic information from census </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to input data in layers e.g. by material, by collection method </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ABILITY TO MANIPULATE DATA ON A SPATIAL BASIS e.g. calculate population within 1km </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Example: all CARD collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone
  28. 28. Example: all CARD collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone Calculating the overall coverage: 54% of the population.
  29. 29. Example: all PAPER collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone
  30. 30. Example: all PAPER collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone Calculating the overall coverage: 97% of the population.
  31. 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. 32. Example: all PLASTICS collections Kerbside collections Bring banks and 1km zone Calculating the overall coverage: 32% of the population. Much less…
  33. 33. Example: all GREEN collections NO Kerbside collections ONLY taken at HWRCs
  34. 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. 35. What future needs will there be? Householders will expect MORE MATERIALS; and more via KERBSIDE
  36. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 47. So, the MPRRP is more useful… But how difficult is it to obtain?
  48. 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. 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. 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. 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. 52. Which for future use ? The old BVPI 91 can actually be replaced with a much simpler measurement: MPRRP for paper.
  53. 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. 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. 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. 56. DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR RECYCLING M Harder & R Woodard Waste & Energy Research Group University of Brighton Waste 2006

×