Smart waste management in Schiedam

2016
May
David Rodríguez Relucio
Universitat de Girona
Smartcities master
Smart waste management in Schiedam

Smart waste management in Schiedam.
David Rodriguez Relucio
2
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Schiedam smart city ...................................................................................................... 4
1.2. Future in waste management ....................................................................................... 4
1.3. Basic rules in this project............................................................................................... 5
1.4. Mantra........................................................................................................................... 5
2. Definition of the problem...................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Management framework .............................................................................................. 5
2.2. Containers scheme........................................................................................................ 5
3. Behaviour analysis................................................................................................................. 7
3.1. Introduction: ................................................................................................................. 7
3.2. Existing data .................................................................................................................. 8
3.3. Other analysis................................................................................................................ 8
3.4. Data analysed and results: ............................................................................................ 8
3.5. Resulted......................................................................................................................... 9
Area analysed........................................................................................................................ 9
Deposits distribution by week and neighbourhood............................................................ 10
Average deposits per flat-home in a week per neighbourhood ......................................... 11
Deposits and demographic data ......................................................................................... 12
4. Proposed solution description ............................................................................................ 16
5. Implementation of the solution.......................................................................................... 17
5.1. Schiedam zero waste................................................................................................... 17
5.2. Schiedam compost...................................................................................................... 17
5.3. By current collection methods.................................................................................... 18
Underground container....................................................................................................... 18
Chute system....................................................................................................................... 18
Mini containers ................................................................................................................... 18
Above ground containers.................................................................................................... 19
5.4. Others.......................................................................................................................... 19
6. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 20
7. Annex................................................................................................................................... 21
7.1. Variables involved the behaviour of citizens in waste management.......................... 21
7.2. Proposals to analyse discarded................................................................................... 24
7.4. Existing data ................................................................................................................ 26
Data received: ..................................................................................................................... 26
Open data............................................................................................................................ 29

3
7.5. More about processing data ....................................................................................... 30
Woningkartotheek.csv ........................................................................................................ 30
WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood jan14-jun15.csv................................................ 31
7.6. Age targets at the neighbourhoods ............................................................................ 34
7.7. Basic ideas about waste management........................................................................ 36
7.8. Unrealized Ideas.......................................................................................................... 37
8. Proposed solutions.............................................................................................................. 38
8.1. SCW1 Schiedam zero waste ........................................................................................ 40
8.2. SCW2 Comunity manager. Feedaback. ....................................................................... 41
8.3. SCW3 Schiedam zero waste agency............................................................................ 42
8.4. SCW6 Zero waste app ................................................................................................. 43
8.5. SCW7 Barcode scan to recycle .................................................................................... 44
8.6. SCW4 Cooperative values, volunteer network. .......................................................... 45
8.7. SCW5 Promote the sustainable packaging. ................................................................ 46
8.8. SC1 Collaborative composters .................................................................................... 47
8.9. SC2 Automatic collaborative composters ................................................................... 48
8.10. SC3 Individual manual composters ......................................................................... 49
8.11. SC4 Individual automatic composters..................................................................... 50
8.12. SC5 Schiedam Compost ™ ...................................................................................... 51
8.13. SBT1 Identification systems. ................................................................................... 52
8.14. SBT2 Schiedam containers variables....................................................................... 53
8.15. SR1 Collection points for paper and cardboard...................................................... 54
8.16. SR2 Deposit-refund system (DRS) ........................................................................... 55
8.17. SD2D1 Schiedam door to door system.................................................................... 57
8.18. SD2D2 Schiedam smart door to door system ......................................................... 60
8.19. SSCS1 Chute system improvement ......................................................................... 62
8.20. SSCS2 Door-to-door with chute system .................................................................. 67
8.21. SAWC1 Automated waste collection system .......................................................... 68
8.22. SAG1 Schiedam above ground containers with access control .............................. 69
8.23. SAG2 Schiedam above ground containers with capacity sensors........................... 70

4
1. Introduction
The Smart waste management in Schiedam project, on the framework collaboration
agreement between the University of Girona and Schiedam municipality, will try to analyse the
current status of the waste collection in residential areas and propose some solutions in the
smart city vision. The main goal is to improve recycling and reduce waste volume in a more
sustainable city.
In the short term, the city of Schiedam has the goal to increase the average of recycling and
reduce the amount of residual waste per person. The goal inside the Dutch policies is 75 %
recycling and <100 kg / person per year. The main will be to propose solutions to get a better
rate of recycling and less amount of waste per person in the smart city context.
1.1. Schiedam smart city
For the realization of this project we have proposed solutions in a smart city context. This is
summarized in the following points:
1. Future: 2050 vision. How it will be the city in the future? Our proposed solutions are in
this timeline?
2. IOT. Internet of the things in waste management. Everything that can connect to the
Internet will be connected.
3. How to take all of the human potential in the city: interconnected citizen.
4. Collaborative cities.
5. Towards a circular economy: A zero waste (UE).
6. Govern as a platform and citizen oriented.
Increasingly, problems to be solved in cities are more complex. This means that it can’t solve
only by one part. In the future, organizations composed of several members of different
profile, called CIO will be created. In Schiedam for the waste management, we think it will
must create one, with the municipally, the university, the neighbours, associations, etc.
1.2. Future in waste management
It’s difficult to predict in the future how it will be the waste management, because we don’t
know how it will be the advance of technology. For example, during the execution of this
project, a news published about a “bacteria that eats plastic” discovered in Japan. (See for
example this link). We suppose that there could be two scenarios:
1. better technique in post collecting residual process allowing post separation.
2. better habits and sustainable economy, with less residual volume and better recycling.
We've decided to choose the scenario 2 to do this project, because we think the problem must
be solved at source, reducing the energy in post collection treatments.

5
1.3. Basic rules in this project
There are three mainly topics that we have been following to do this project:
1. Separating organic waste from the rest. Organic waste is the most difficult to separate
in post collecting methods and corrupting the recyclable material.
2. Decentralise the waste management process, developing and using all of the human
capital.
3. Finishing with anonymity generating feedback. Throwing the garbage is one-way and
anonymous operation that must be redefined.
1.4. Mantra
There are other important rules to understand other work:
 Technology changes fast. Not to focus on a solution.
 The most important is the philosophy, not the detail.
 Involve people.
 Prepare people for this challenge.
 Open data, real time, IOT.
 Waste as a resource (UE)
2. Definition of the problem
2.1. Management framework
Irado is a publicly owned company in charge of Schiedam waste management. The
municipalities of Schiedam and Vlaardingen are the owners of Irado. It has other activities
related with the cleaning and maintenance of the city, and also works in others two
neighbouring cities managing wastes.
The city council is in charge of policies on waste management and other tasks, like taxes,
citizen participation, etc. The municipally has accidentally meetings with associations. The
meetings are about cost, taxes, solutions and others, showing transparent management. For
example, in June, they will have a big one, with all of them.
In this scheme, the citizen is a passive actor of the waste management, like in the most
municipalities, headed by the city council.
After our visit in two buildings in Schiedam, it seems like there could be other illegal or not
controlled processes, like in other cities. For example, in the paper collection or support
among neighbours.
2.2. Containers scheme

6
In our project, the area to work is the domestic waste, not business or industrial. The current
waste management in the residential areas of Schiedam has three types of collecting, and the
common feature is that there isn't a separate way for collecting organic waste. There is a type
of truck for each system. They are:
1. Individual containers.
They are on the individual houses, located on their gardens. In every house or near there are
three containers: paper, organics and residual waste.
2. Underground containers
There are different types of underground containers distributed for all the city. These are for
paper, glass, plastic, textile and residual waste. The containers for residual waste are opened
by a card. Each citizen (previously requested) has a card to open two or three containers near
his living place. The most important reason for the card system on the residual waste
containers is the possibility to pick an efficient moment to empty the container (90% full), and
in a smart city vision, this system can give us a lot of data to analyse.
Also, this system prevents unauthorized users.
3. Chute system.
The chute system is especially in tall or big buildings. For example, we visited a building with
160 flats. The chute system is a tube inside the building with a hole in every floor. The
neighbours throw their residual waste by the tube and it falls into a container in the ground
floor. A maintainer moves the container every day to the truck can carry it. This a very dirty
system, has health problems (like rats and smelly) and the trouble to moving every day. It’s
very anonymous and the municipally has been changing this system for the underground
containers (the social housing company has only three buildings with the tube).
There are containers for recycling outside the buildings, too.
4. Others:
There is a small amount of organic waste containers for collective use and containers above
ground.

7
Image: waste collection method (Source: WM0 Area wastecollection 2015-01.pdf)
All of this scheme is in the initial data provided by the municipality and a layer of GIS system.
5. Pilot and other experiences
It's scheduled a pilot project to improve the organic waste collection for flats, in one building
by individual mini containers, like a door-to-door system.
There are machines at some supermarkets that pay the user to return a plastic bottle or
similar. This is a Deposit-Refund system, promoted by central government.
In the next figure we can see the summary per address:
MEANS OF WASTE COLLECTION PER ADDRESS
ONE BUILDING MAY INCLUDE SEVERAL ADDRESSES
WASTE COLLECTION METHOD NUMBER
ABOVE GROUND WASTE & ORGANIC 893
ABOVE GROUND WASTE / NO ORGANIC 52
AB GR WASTE /MINI CONTAINER ORGANIC 327
BUILT-IN WASTE/ABOVE GROUND ORGANIC 83
BUILT-IN WASTE/NO ORGANIC 5658
MINI CONTAINER WASTE / NO ORGANIC 70
MINI CONTAINERS WASTE & ORGANIC 6639
UNDER GROUND WASTE / NO ORGANIC 20351
OTHER WASTE COLLECTION METHODS 193
TOTAL 34266
Source: WM2 VERZAMELCONTAINERS-2015-01_DEF.xlsx
3. Behaviour analysis
3.1. Introduction:
The factors and variables involved in the behaviour of citizens to throw trash are very diverse
and would need a very complex study. In the Netherlands, for example, there is a study about
improving waste separation and collection in high-rises, by some authors, like Cees Midden , in
which they try to analyse about 21 variables, summarized in five areas:
1. Personal motivation.
2. Social motivation.
3. Facilitation and structure in the house.
4. Facilitation outside the house.
5. Prohibition of reward and punishment.
(See the annex Variables involved the behaviour of citizens in waste management for more
info about these factors).
The study is in Dutch and it isn’t finished yet, but we can see the scheme and the schedule. The
duration is more than a year, with three phases, pilot tests and many people involved. In our
study, much cheaper and short, we can only study existing data and try to relate to the citizen
behaviour.

8
3.2. Existing data
To carry out our work we have received certain data files on the city of Schiedam. There is also
information on open data portal. The most important is that Irado has an estimation of the
filling level of each residual waste container by the times that people open it. The volume is
not a real data, but it’s a good estimation.
The information of Irado or Mic-o-data company has not been analysed.
The list of all the information is in Annex We tried to do approximate solutions.
We discard the distance between a container and a flat, because we don’t have the real high of
the buildings.
Finally remark that, initially, the next ratios were discarded because they are very difficult in a
short time to do the project:
1. Chute buildings per neighborhood.
2. Buildings with underground containers without organic
3. Buildings with underground containers with organic
4. Waste deposits / buildings number 2
5. Waste deposits / buildings number 3.
6. Compare 4 to 5, per neighborhood.
7. Compare 4 and 5 to social data.
These rates could have been used to compare the behaviour and try to predict the actions in
the chute system buildings. I think it will be possible in a more accurate project.

9
Existing data
Not analysed and proposed analysis
At the annex Existing data can be seen the first proposals for analysis and the ratios that were
discarded. Fundamentally, the short time for the project and the lack of reliable information
has made dismiss some of them.
But there are some other problems that we can comment:
1. Privacy problems: the card users and the addresses are protected by the Data
Protection Act, and it can’t be used to analyses directly. It needs a better study about
the viability to be used.
2. The databases are stored in the Irado and City Council data centres. They aren’t linked.
With a best union, it could be possible to do better analysis.
Finally, the Irado and Mic-o-data company haven’t been analysed because we haven’t
received. These were the two proposals to do a big data analysis of them:
1. Containers opening times: when people open the container to throw the garbage. It
could be interesting to future door-to-door proposal. For that, it was required the daily of the
containers, the file with the container code, date and open time. If it was very big, we could
use a smaller, like daily in month, etc. Better by neighbourhood.
2. Other proposals: most popular container, less used container: with the daily, it could
be possible to calculate.
3.4. Other analysis
In this project, the analysis has been focused on data. We want to discuss how important it is
to know the reality of each district, for example see what is the collaboration level between
neighbours or how many maintainers are and what tasks do. In our visit to Schiedam, we saw a
possible level of collaboration at high rise building that we want to emphasize. We proposed
some solution to solve that (see SCW2 Comunity manager. Feedaback. Or SCW4 Cooperative
values, volunteer network.)
3.5. Data analysed and results:
Here are the data analysed and the results obtained. The tables can be found the following
sections:
Source: which files were used for analysis.
Pre-processing: calculations and treatments performed files.
Errors: any errors that may appear in both the source of the data and the pre-processing.
Results: briefly commented the results.
Result files: files obtained and annexed in this project.

10
3.6. Resulted
Area analysed
Name Area analysed
Description
The existing data about container used is only for undergrounds
container system. We want to know where is this system and how many
homes are using it in the city.
Source
 Woningkartotheek.csv (open data)
 wijken-en-buurten (open data)
 Inzamelmethode.dbf (existing data)
Pre-processing
 Woningkartotheek.csv has all of the Schiedam addresses including
industrial, shopping and other functions not included in our goal. We
must filter and comparing with the file WM3 Gallery flats and blocks
2015-1-1.xlsx
 We tried with QGIS the task Data management tools / Join attributes
by location, but we have problems with QGIS and we discard this
option.
 In Microsoft Access, we did a query between Inzamelmethode.dbf
and Woningkartotheek.csv, by the PAND field.
Error
Source
 Quality of the source data (not evaluated)
 There is not an equivalence between The BAG addresses
(Woningkartotheek.csv) and the real homes. For example, it could be
a block of flats with one address (and a lot of flats).
 We don’t know the date of inzamelmethode.dbf
Pre-
processing
 There is a little error (1,52%) between WM3 Gallery flats and blocks
2015-1-1.xlsx and Woningkartotheek.csv.
Results
 We have data from the 62 % of the flats in Schiedam.
 There are 43 neighbourhoods with underground containers.
 In 16 neighbourhoods from 43, there are more than 95% of the flats
with the undergrounds containers system.
Results files
 neighbourhoods and flats with methode.xlsx
 neighbourhoods and flats with method (QGIS Shape)
More info See the annex part Woningkartotheek.csv

11
Image: ratio flats with underground container system
Deposits distribution by week and neighbourhood
Name Deposits distribution by week and neighbourhood
Description Distribution during the week of the container use.
Source  Woningkartotheek.csv
Pre-processing
 Microsoft Access crosstab: WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood
jan14-jun15.csv and other queries, to obtain the averages, and
calculations on excel.
Error
Source  Quality of the WM5 data. We delete the 5% of the data. See more
info in this table.
 Different dates in the data series.
Pre-
processing
 We convert 177 addresses to 769 flats, because the surface of the
was upper 200 m2.
Results
 As shown in the graph, the general behaviour is peaks on Saturday
and Sunday and use is reduced during the week.
Results files  A graph with the distribution
More info See Annex part WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood jan14-jun15.csv

12
Average deposits per flat-home in a week per neighbourhood
Name Average deposits per flat-home in a week per neighbourhood
Description
Number of times per week that every flat uses the container, per
neighbourhood.
Source
 Woningkartotheek.csv
 WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood jan14-jun15.csv
Pre-processing
 Microsoft Access crosstab: WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood
jan14-jun15.csv and other queries, to obtain the averages.
 Link Woningkartotheek.csv processed grouped by neighbourhoods
and WM5 summaries, in Access.
Error
Source  Woningkartotheek.csv quality (not evaluated)
 Quality of the WM5 data. We delete the 5% of the data. See more
info in this table.
 Different dates in the data series.
Pre-
processing
 We convert 177 addresses to 769 flats, because the surface of the
was upper 200 m2.
Results
 The most common value is between 1.69 and 2.99 and it’s
distributed by all the city.
Results files
 deposits per flat and neighbourhoods.xlsx
 deposits per flat and neighbourhoods shape QGIS
More info See Annex More about processing data
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deposits distribution by week and neighbourhood
Ambachtenbuurt Botenbuurt De Akkers en De Velden
De Gaarden/Sveafors De Vlinderhoven/Sveaholm Distillateursbuurt
Fabribuurt Groenoord-Midden Groenoord-Noord
Groenoord-Zuid Haverschmidtkwartier Kastelenbuurt
Liduinabuurt Nassaubuurt Natuurkundigenbuurt
Newtonbuurt Nolensbuurt Oranjekwartier
Rotterdamsedijk Schiehart Schildersbuurt
Schrijversbuurt Singelkwartier Spieringshoek
Staatsliedenbuurt Stationsbuurt Sveaborg en -Dal

13
Map: deposit per flat and neighbourhoods
Histogram: most common value in deposits.
Deposits and demographic data
Name Deposits and demographic data
Description
Average deposits per flat-home in a week per neighbourhood comparing
with some demographic data:
 Number of inhabitants
 % children (0-4 years).
 % Dutch people
 % single family
 % owners
Source  deposits per flat and neighbourhoods.xlsx

14
 WM7 Demographic data per neighbourhood.xls
Pre-processing
 All of the operation discussed above to obtain the deposits per flat
and neighbourhoods.xlsx
 WM7 treatment, to obtain a measurable dimension.
Error
Source  deposits per flat and neighbourhoods.xlsx (discussed above)
 we discard the "Kethel-dorp" neighbourhood because has anomaly
value.
 Quality of WM7 Demographic data per neighbourhood (not
evaluated)
Pre-
processing
 Not in this case.
Results
 In general, no conclusive results.
 Number of inhabitants: there is a small trend between more
frequency of use and more number of inhabitants.
 % children: higher percentage of children, increased use of
containers (diapers).
 % Dutch people: in neighbourhoods with little presence of Dutch, the
behaviour is very similar, between 1.5 and 2.5 times a week. But with
a big presence, there isn’t patterns.
 % single family: there is a trend to higher percentage of single
families, greater use. It should logically be the other way around
(smaller families, lower waste generation, less use).
 % owners: Many dispersion of data, with a slight tendency for most
homeowners%, less use.
Results files  WM7 and WM5.xls
More info We have tried other tests without extreme values with similar results.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
number of inhabitants in neighborhood and times a week

15
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
% 0-4 years old in neighborhood and times a week
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
% ducth people / total and times a week

16
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
% single family / total and times a week
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
% owners and times a week

17
4. Proposed solution description
We have compiled a number of possible solutions all listed in annex Proposed solutions. These
are collected summarized in the following table:
Chapter Description
Zero waste Brand, marketing, cooperative values, IT, apps, etc.
Compost To compost the organic waste.
Door-to-door Systems for collecting door-to-door.
Mini containers Improve the mini containers system.
Recycling Paper and cardboard and packaging (glass, plastics).
Bags and tags Introducing RFID or barcode systems in the waste management.
Smart chute system Improve the existing chute system with smart solutions
Automated waste
collection system
Automated waste collection system
Others Others proposals.
Before choosing the solutions to implement, we did a SWOT matrix to evaluate the different
options:
Strengths:
 Current technology and people using
it.
 Frequency of containers used (low)
 High containers used in weekend.
Weaknesses:
 Population age. See Annex Age
targets at the neighbourhoods
 Anonymity on the waste
management (except mini
containers).
 No feed-back.
Opportunities:
 Schiedam smart city.
 There is no generalized system of
organic collection.
Threats:
 Resistance to change
And list the topics of every current system:
 Undergrounds containers:
o Good underground container network, integrated in the public space.
o Registered users and data compilation.
o Little flexibility to change.
o Low frequency of use
 Mini containers:
o Reduces anonymity in use.
o Nearby home.
 Chute system:
o Short distance between home and throw point.

18
After that, we decided to implement conservative solutions:
 Door to door collection system customized to the different types of current system
collection.
 Promote composting.
 Zero waste and others.
Remember that these decisions have been taken without regard:
 Inhabitant analysis and participation
 Big data analysis for choose the door to door timetable.
The better proposed would be a customized solution for every target.
5. Implementation of the solution
5.1. Schiedam zero waste
We propose actions economically cheaper having higher image and value:
SCW1 Schiedam zero waste
SCW2 Community manager. Feedback.
SCW3 Schiedam zero waste agency
SCW4 Cooperative values, volunteer network.
SCW5 Promote the sustainable packaging.
SCW6 Zero waste app
About: SCW6, it could be possible to adapt the existing app o create a new one.
We have discarded the SCW7 Barcode scan to recycle because it’s a task for a high level of
competence.
5.2. Schiedam compost
The brand Schiedam Compost is an idea for decentralise the waste management, generate
feed-back and create value waste. In this context, the citizen can be a part of the project (See
SC5) and not only a user. Because that, with this sense of belonging, it’s possible to propose
and foment collective purchases or crowdfunding, of any solution in the Compost Chapter (see
SC1 to SC4). The purchase will be effective if it reaches a minimum number of users.
But Schiedam is a small city. It’s possible not obtained required users to self-finance the
Project. In this contexts, where the city council pay the composters, the feed-back in all of the
process will be very important, both information and follow-up. In a smart city context will be
essential the app development discussed in SCW6.

19
5.3. By current collection methods
Here we present the implementation solution by current collection methods. All of the process
will must be monitored and collect data (waste collection and citizen feedback). The normal
implementation is by test or pilot projects.
Underground container
Door-to-door for organic waste, paper-cardboard and plastics/packaging (Solutions SD2D1 or
SD2D2). If the solution is the SD2D1, the app design in SCW6 will have the features for assist to
the citizen in the door to door.
To estimate the frequency, we only use the most common value in deposits, about the use
frequencies of the containers:
 Two or three days for organics / diapers
 One day for paper/cardboard.
 One day for plastics/other package.
Transform existing containers to:
 Emergency containers.
 Domestic waste containers.
 Glass.
 Containers variables: textile, batteries, medicines, etc., with RFID and tags. (SBT1 +
SBT2)
The emergency and domestic waste containers could transmit the information about their use
and register, pay per use, rewards, etc.
Glass: small entry, difficult to throw another residue.
Feed-back: rewards for textile deliveries, etc.
Chute system
Customized door-to-door: door-to-door high rises with chute-system SSCS1 or SSCS2
Transform existing containers, like underground containers proposal solution, for example:
 Emergency containers.
 Domestic waste containers.
 Glass.
 Containers variables: textile, batteries, medicines, etc., with RFID and tags. (SBT1 +
SBT2)
In the chute system, the number of existing containers is smaller than in the underground.
Mini containers

20
Our proposal is to introduce a container for organic in the missing premises and other
solutions to improve.
Premises and addresses without container for organic
Premises: 152
Addresses: 70
Source: WM2 VERZAMELCONTAINERS-2015-01_DEF.xlsx
The system of mini containers should be studied more precisely. The main idea is that there
should be a container for each household, to avoid the anonymity problems. For that, it could
be possible to reduce the container volume or change the location if there is not enough
space.
The second problem is that organic waste management in low density areas has the problem
to optimise the recollection. The truck maybe will collect few quantities of this residual waste
and it’s not possible to reduce the frequency because the smelly and health problems.
Depending on the number of households that have opted for the compost and the collection
of garden waste should be sized one type of collection or another, for example, use a truck to
collect two types of waste. To optimise the rest of waste recollection in these areas, it’s
possible to install a capacity sensor in every container (SAG2), but it could be studied better
the rate saving in the recollection versus inversion.
To prevent that non authorized users, a solution could be any type of door lock with a key or a
RFID system (SAG1)
In this system, it should do periodic inspections, with rewards and penalizations, to control
that inhabitants are doing correctly the waste separation.
Above ground containers
It is the smallest percentage of the city and has not been studied in detail by the lack of time.
The logical solution would be to implant the door to door, with glass containers and
emergency (For emergency container see SAG1)
5.4. Others
Finally, there are some interesting proposals to be researched:
SR1 Recycling Collection points for paper and cardboard
SR2 Recycling Deposit-refund system (DRS)
Twice could be uses as a commentary system, but we think the deposit-refund system is the
more sustainable way to recycling the packaging, and the process that will be used on the
future.
In our proposals, we have discarded the Automated waste collection system (SAWC1), because
it’s very expensive in existing areas and the results there isn’t a high impact in the final results.

21
6. Conclusions
We have tried to analyse citizen behaviour using the containers available and to provide
solutions to the problem of excess waste. A more detail analysis will must be done, but we
hope that this work has served to open a new stage in the city of Schiedam and closer to the
goal of the Smart city.

22
7. Annex
7.1. Variables involved the behaviour of citizens in waste management
Project name: Verbetering afvalscheiding en inzameling hoogbouw (Improving waste collection
and high-rises)
Authors: Jorn Horstman, Cees Midden, Odette van de Riet, Gijs Langeveld.
Schedule: More than 1 year (to have annual results)
Results publication: July 2017
The study design proposes this scheme to analyse the citizen behaviour:
English Google translation:
Waste in the high-rise:
INTERVENTION STRATEGY

23
Instrument - agent
“gedrag: kennis, facilitatie and motivatie” = behavior: knowledge, motivation and facilitation
PERSONAL MOTIVATION
1. Commitment - Commitment (contract / participation)
2. Setting goals - How much waste do you go for?
3. Enlarge utility / trust chain - Let's see what constitutes waste
4. Cognitive dissonance reduction - foot-in-door
5. Norm Activation - let express personal standard
6. Feedback own behavior - Back Linking private offering amount by only
7. Reduce reactance - Recognition of trouble
SOCIAL MOTIVATION
1. Social (description) standards - Let's see what the neighbors
2. Social comparison - Own behavior versus others
3. Social modeling - betting Famous residents
4. Reciprocity - A gift as offering a basis for waste separation
FACILITATION AND STRUCTURE IN THE HOUSE
1. Home storage facilitating - GFT Containers to sink.
2. Prompts / cues at the right time - Reminder on cutting board
3. Implementation intentions / Specifically create roadmap: eg if I eat a boil,
then?
4. Feedback (for they honor of structures) - Bin giving immediate feedback
FACILITATION OUTSIDE THE HOUSE
1. Familiarity / experience - Striking container street
2. Distance to shorten collection - pickup door or chute / shaft
3. Nudge / prompt - When walking outside, give instructions

24
PROHIBITION OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT
1. Conditioning (reward) - Waste pays / waste budget (loss aversion)
2. Penalties combination. maintain - Fines distribute to poor performers.c
3. Conversely collection - facilitating everything except residual
Sources:
http://www.vang-hha.nl/afvalscheiding/@153312/onderzoeksdesign/
http://www.iswa.org/
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm

25
7.2. Proposals to analyse discarded
In a first idea, we wanted try to analyse some of the variables at the Cees Midden study (see
part Variables involved the behaviour of citizens in waste management): distance to the
container, flat surface (facilities), number of containers to recycling and social or demographic
data.
These were the rates proposals:
1. Waste deposits / inhabitants with card in a neighbourhood.
Waste deposits file / number inhabitants with card (not numbers of cards)
2. Waste deposits / inhabitants with card per average surface in a neighbourhood.
Number 1 and calculate for every address with an underground container assigned, the
average surface.
3. Average distance travelled per inhabitant to the container in a neighbourhood:
(Minimal distance between address and container + mean height) / inhabitants with
card).
Calculate for every address (with an underground container assigned) the minimal distance
between the address and the container address. This distance will be added to the average
height (number of floors). Finally, this distance will be split by the inhabitants with card.
4. Waste deposits per inhabitants (number 1) / path to a container (number 3) per
neighbourhood.
5. Compare number 1 to demographic data.
6. Number of underground organic waste / inhabitants with card.
7. Compare number 6 to 1.
For these proposals, we request some data:
1. Number of inhabitants with card in a neighbourhood: we have the inhabitants per
neighbourhood, but in the same neighbourhood, there could be different ways to
collect waste, for instance, mini and underground containers. Caution, we need the
number of inhabitants that can use a card in a neighbourhood, not the number of
cards!!!!
2. Containers and address: container assigned to an address.
Data received:
1. There isn’t any data about users or inhabitants with card. So we decide to calculate
ratios about flats (homes).
2. We received a GIS shape about the INZAMELMETHODE-PAND, about the method of
waste collection by premises (building). One building may include several addresses, so
we don’t have the real number of card users or homes.
Conclusion:
We tried to do approximate solutions.
We discard the distance between a container and a flat, because we don’t have the real high of
the buildings.

26
Finally remark that, initially, the next ratios were discarded because they are very difficult in a
short time to do the project:
8. Chute buildings per neighborhood.
9. Buildings with underground containers without organic
10. Buildings with underground containers with organic
11. Waste deposits / buildings number 2
12. Waste deposits / buildings number 3.
13. Compare 4 to 5, per neighborhood.
14. Compare 4 and 5 to social data.
These rates could have been used to compare the behaviour and try to predict the actions in
the chute system buildings. I think it will be possible in a more accurate project.

27
7.4. Existing data
Data received:
File name Size Date Form
at
Description
WM0 Area wastecollection 2015-01 12 MB 05/01/2015 pdf Containers situation map
WM1 Amounts of waste by way of
collection
small 2014 xlsx Kg waste by way of collection. Years:
2012, 2013 and jan to nov 2014.
WM2 VERZAMEL CONTAINERS-2015-
01
small Jan - 15 xlsx Containers location in Schiedam
WM3 Gallery flats and blocks 2015-1-1 6 MB Jan -15 xlsx Flats and blocks addresses and other
related data.
WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood
jan14-jun15
small Jun-15 csv Number of deposits per day and
neighbourhood from jan14 to jun15
WM6 filling level waste containers per
neighbourhood jan14-jun15
small Jun-15 csv Level of the waste containers per day and
neighbourhood from jan14 to jun15
WM7 Demographic data per
neighbourhood
small 2015 xls Age, ethnicity, family type, persons per
address, moving, family type, owner,
building year
WM8 Data on education and social
cohesion
small 2015 xlsx Education and social cohesion per
neighbourhood group
INZAMELMETHODE-PAND 12 MB unknown GIS
form
at
Method of waste collection by premises
(building). One building may include
several addresses.
1. WM0 Area wastecollection 2015-01(F01):
It’s a not editable file, but you can see the current situation. The map's information is in Dutch,
but seeing the file “WM2 Verzamel containers 2015-01(F03)” we can do the translation:

28
and also using the Google translation for the rest of the information:
There are some abbreviations and that it’s important to know the translation:
● GFT: means “organic”.
● Rest equals Restvafal (means “Domestic Waste”).
● Geen: no
2. WM1 Amounts of waste by way of collection (F02):
This data set has the amount of waste by the collection method and other data. As a summary,
in domestic waste, we can see these methods:
● Delivery station: for a large variety of waste.
● Mini containers.
● Neighbourhood containers above ground.
● Neighbourhood containers underground.

29
● Rubbish bags: this method finishes at March - 2014
About the domestic paper collection, there are two ways to collect that could be interesting to
study later:
● associations: containers, mobile containers and packed loose.
● pilot project high-rise buildings: done in some months.
and there is not separated the data of the neighbourhood containers above and underground.
And also, there is collection method called door to door (ended in 2013) to collect textile.
In general, this dataset could be use to know more about the differents methods of collection,
and know more about other ways or pilot projects, but not to do a good data analysis of the
citizen behaviour, because the data is not located on the source (the container address). We
can’t linked these data with
3. WM2 Verzamel containers 2015-01(F03):
In this file there is a list of containers and its location. There are 1061 records and an extra
summary.
For each container, there is the following information:
● Unique number: it’s null in some records. The most of the underground type
have an unique id, but not all of them.
● Location id: it seems that is unique.
● Type: the most number are “above ground” and “separation and
underground”. The others have few number: delivery sation (1), inzamelvrtg (3),
retourette (1), .
● Model: not for all.
● Materials: the type of waste.
● Locations address: neighbourhood and other data.
● Location coordinates.
● Other data but not for all the containers.
4. WM3 Gallery flats and blocks 2015-1-1(F04):
There are 36582 records with the addresses of flats and blocks. Includes:
● Function and purpose: residential, health care, etc:
● Type of owner: private, organization, etc.
● Type of building: single family, multi family, etc.
● Floor surface: area.
● Resident: Rented or Owned.
● Capacity: we don’t know, perhaps number of flats, but not for all.
● Number of floors: maximum 20.
● Other data: coordinates, codes, etc.
5. WM5 and WM6 waste per neighbourhood jan14-jun15:

30
● WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood jan14-jun15: This dataset has the
number of deposits per neighbourhood and day.
● WM6 filling level waste containers per neighbourhood jan14-jun15: like the
last file, but with the level of the containers (% of occupancy).
6. Social data:
WM7 and WM8 have social data to do analysis of the behaviour and the target of the citizens.
They could be used to explain the results of the waste data analysis.
Open data
At the Schiedam open data website, there are some links to build our GIS system. There are in
the next figure:
Name Date Format Description
Afvalcontainers Schiedam 01/01/2015 csv https://schiedam.dataplatform.nl/r
esource/6d5198ef-d138-4a28-
b009-4b0e432dd96b
Containers situation map
wijken-en-buurten 28/01/2016 geoJS
ON
https://schiedam.dataplatform.nl/
dataset/wijken-en-buurten-
schiedam
Neighbourhoods and districts
of Schiedam
woningkartotheek 28/01/2016 csv https://schiedam.dataplatform.nl/
dataset/woningkartotheek-
schiedam
Cadastre data. Address with
some info.

31
7.5. More about processing data
Woningkartotheek.csv
Some interesting fields:
VLOEROPP
Dutch: VLOEROPP = BAG gebruiksoppervlakte volgens NEN 2580. NB Voor de WOZ wordt de
bruto vloeroppervlakte gebruikt; dit zal dus een andere waarde zijn.
Google translator: VLOEROPP = BAG usable area according to DIN 2580. Note: For the property
tax is used the gross floor area; this will therefore be a different value.
VERDIEPING
VERDIEPING = De gemeente probeert voor woningen vast te leggen op welke verdieping de
woonkamer zich bevindt. NB Dit is gebaseerd op de belangrijkste verblijfsruimte, niet de
ingang. Dit is geen voor de BAG voorgeschreven gegeven en wordt niet actief onderhouden
Google translator: FLOOR = The municipality is trying to capture for homes on which floor the
living room is located. NB This is based on the main common room, not the entrance. This is
not given prescribed for the BAC and is not actively maintained
FUNCTIES
FUNCTIES = BAG Opsomming functies (verblijfsobject). Dit geeft aan wat het gebruiksdoel van
het object is. Dit gegeven is niet beschikbaar voor stand- en ligplaatsen, en er zijn slechts een
beperkt aantal waarden mogelijk.
Google translator: FEATURES = BAG Summary functions (stay object). This indicates what is the
purpose of the object. This information is not available for stand and moorings, and there are
only a limited number of possible values.
Comparing Woningkartotheek.csv to WM3 Gallery flats and blocks 2015-1-1.xlsx:
In this table we can see the filter function that we used to obtain the residential homes.
Functies (function) Number of homes
bijeenkomstfunctie|woonfunctie 31
gezondheidszorgfunctie 69
gezondheidszorgfunctie|kantoorfunctie|woonfunctie 6
gezondheidszorgfunctie|woonfunctie 795
industriefunctie|woonfunctie 91
kantoorfunctie|woonfunctie 36
onderwijsfunctie|woonfunctie 1
overige gebruiksfunctie|woonfunctie 1
sportfunctie|woonfunctie 3
winkelfunctie|woonfunctie 119
Woonfunctie 35994

32
Total 37146
Total in WM3 Gallery flats and blocks 2015-1-1.xlsx : 36581
Error -565
Error % -1,52%
There is a little error (1,52%) between WM3 Gallery flats and blocks 2015-1-1.xlsx and
Woningkartotheek.csv.
Surfaces
We can see the histogram of the surfaces:
We convert 177 addresses to 769 flats, because the surface of the was upper 200 m2.
WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood jan14-jun15.csv
There are a number of data per neighbourhood, totalling 42. It is very difficult to analyse, but it
is noted that there may be errors in the quality of these data. For example, analysing the first
neighbourhood:

33
It seems like the system doesn’t start correctly and after goes normal. How it’s very hard to
analyse one by one 41 serials, we calculate the distance of each value to the median and
choose the interval with the 95% of the data. We can see in the next graph:
All these operations can be seen in the file WM5 deposits.xlsx
Another question is if all of the neighbourhood names are related with the GIS file:
Searching all the names of WM5 waste deposits per neighbourhood jan14-jun15.csv in wijken-
en-buurten-schiedam.json, we saw that there is no relationship between:
WM5 Wijken
Buurt 00
Nassaubuurt
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1/10/2014
2/10/2014
3/10/2014
4/10/2014
5/10/2014
6/10/2014
7/10/2014
8/10/2014
9/10/2014
10/10/2014
11/10/2014
12/10/2014
1/10/2015
2/10/2015
3/10/2015
4/10/2015
5/10/2015
6/10/2015
Deposits in Ambachtenbuurt
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1/1/2014
2/1/2014
3/1/2014
4/1/2014
5/1/2014
6/1/2014
7/1/2014
8/1/2014
9/1/2014
10/1/2014
11/1/2014
12/1/2014
1/1/2015
2/1/2015
3/1/2015
4/1/2015
5/1/2015
6/1/2015
Data brute / processed
Brute Processed

34
“Buurt 00” and “Nassauburt” don’t exist in wijken-en-buurten-schiedam.geojson. So we lost
the information of these neighbourhoods.

35
7.6. Age targets at the neighbourhoods
With the file WM7 Demographic data per neighbourhood.xls we can develop the following
histogram of ages in the city, year 2015:
We can quickly define targets age about his involvement with new technologies, the use of
mobile, aversion to change and the facilities to perform the tasks of managing waste. Under
our criteria define 2 types:
1. People between 15 and 30 years with full integration into new technologies, high
environmental awareness and little resistance to change.
2. Person over 55 years: the opposite.
To compare the neighbourhoods, we define the ratio "How Young is the neighbourhood" as
the following formula:
 Opinionated people: all inhabitants except those between 0 and 15 years.
 % [15-30] = population between 15 and 30 years / population opinionated x 100
 % [> 55] = inhabitants> 55 years / people with an opinion x 100
 Rate How young is a neighbourhood = %[15-30] / %[>55]
So if the ratio <1 55 more people between 15-30 years, and therefore is expected to be more
conservative, and if the ratio> 1, the neighbourhood is more dynamic.
We calculate the various ratios by districts and waste management system and its histogram:
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0-4years
5-9years
10-14years
15-19years
20-24years
24-29years
30-34years
35-39years
40-44years
45-49years
50-54years
55-59years
60-64years
65-69years
70-74years
75-79years
80-84years
85-89years
90-94years
95-99years
100+
Ages

36
overground
BUURTNAAM ratio young
Botenbuurt 0,380701754
Vogelbuurt 0,313920455
In all cases, there are many conservatives regard the most dynamic neighbourhoods.

37
7.7. Basic ideas about waste management
These are a basic argumentation about why and how people throw their garbage, by the
author of this project.
1. In general, citizens make minimal effort to the garbage management, so, when people
go to the container?
a. When their bag is full.
b. When smelly.
2. In what depends on the above?
a. if they have more than one container at home (recycling or not).
b. life style: how to cook, stay at home or not, etc.
c. if recycle organic waste or not.

38
7.8. Unrealized Ideas
This is a list of ideas that we haven’t analysed because their complexity or not viability, but we
think it’s interesting to mark:
Chapter Name Description
Bags and tags Tagging the waste
in the container
Some system to tag the bag when the user opens the
container. The citizen could print on the bag the
residual type and their data.
Bags and tags Improving data
collection: bascule
on truck crane
Place a bascule on the tip of the crane truck. Connected
to the RFID system would collect the container weight
and improve data collection.
Bags and tags Involve the
manufacturer
A reading system barcode in post collection treatments
to detect every packaging, and pass the real cost to
every manufacturer. To encourage the deposit-refund
system.
Zero waste Markets for
secondary: app
Wallapop
The markets to buy and sell second hand products help
to the volume of waste, because it increases the useful
life of the products.
Zero waste Time banks:
Maintenance/repair
services
Maintenance and repair services for home appliances
must be promoted, and in a smart city context, the time
banks are the best solution
Zero waste Involving children More than 10% of the inhabitants of Schiedam are
children between 5 and 14 years. It is a target segment
in the transition to a less waste production and a
circular economy.
Others Collecting diapers An specific method for collecting diapers.

39
8. Proposed solutions
The possible solutions for improving waste management list is this:
Viability
Id Chapter Name
finals
results
citizen
behaviour
technique economic competence risk
SAG1 Others
Schiedam above ground
containers with access control
3 3 3 3 5 2
SAG2 Others
Schiedam above ground
containers with capacity
sensors
1 1 3 2 5 2
SAWC1
Automated
waste
collection
system
Automated waste collection
system
3 2 4 5 3 3
SBT1
Bags and
tags
Identification systems. 4 5 5 4 5 5
SBT2
Bags and
tags
Schiedam containers variables 5 5 5 4 5 5
SC1 Compost Collaborative composters 5 5 1 2 5 4
SC2 Compost
Automatic collaborative
composters
5 4 3 4 5 3
SC3 Compost Individual manual composters 5 4 3 2 5 3
SC4 Compost
Individual automatic
composters
5 3 3 2 5 3
SC5 Compost Schiedam Compost ™ 3 3 3 3 2 5
SCW1
Zero
waste
Schiedam zero waste 3 1 2 1 5 3
SCW2
Zero
waste
Community manager.
Feedback.
3 1 3 1 5 3
SCW3
Zero
waste
Schiedam zero waste agency 2 2 1 2 5 3
SCW4
Zero
waste
Cooperative values, volunteer
network.
3 3 3 1 5 3
SCW5
Zero
waste
Promote the sustainable
packaging.
5 4 1 1 3 4
SCW6
Zero
waste
Zero waste app 3 1 3 3 1 3
SCW7
Zero
waste
Barcode scan to recycle 4 3 4 4 4 5
SD2D1
Door-to-
door
Schiedam door to door system 4 5 2 4 5 4
SD2D2
Door-to-
door
Schiedam smart door to door
system
4 4 4 5 5 5
SR1 Recycling
Collection points for paper and
cardboard
3 3 5 4 2 4
SR2 Recycling Deposit-refund system (DRS) 5 4 4 4 1 4
SSCS1
Smart
chute
system
Chute system improvement 3 3 3 4 3 4
SSCS2
Smart
chute
system
Door-to-door with chute
system
5 4 3 4 3 4
Meaning of each variable:
1. Final results: Direct impact that the proposal has on reducing waste.
2. Citizen behaviour: How much the citizen must change his habits because the proposal.

40
3. Viability:
a. Technique: Are there similar products on the market? Number, state of art,
etc.
b. Economic: how much it cost the proposal?
c. Competence: is this proposal a municipally competence
4. Risk: Evaluate the risk of failure of the proposals.

41
8.1. SCW1 Schiedam zero waste
SCW1 Zero waste Schiedam zero waste
Impact on Viability
Risk
Final results Citizen behaviour Technique Economic Competence
3 1 2 1 5 3
Description
Design a brand that accompany the process of transformation of waste management. For
example, Schiedam Zero Waste. From a smartcity context, the co-creation of the brand will make
the citizens to participate in the election process. We can see what the level of enthusiasm of
citizens before the waste management and the environment.
Impact on
Final results Citizen behaviour
Medium-low impact (social action). No
direct relation on the final results. Helps to
change the Citizens behaviour.
No direct impact.
Technique
Platform for citizen participation and accountability (like google forms) or social networks
(facebook ,twitter).
Economic
With this design, the most important cost is the people responsible for launching the campaign
and track.
Competence
Consulting citizens.
Risk
Low participation, no interest.
Benchmarking / sources
About brand:
Zero waste Europe: https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu
Zero waste Australia: http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/
More info
One way campaingns promoted by the city are not very effective. The best is to find leaders who
talk about you. And they will promote you better.

42
8.2. SCW2 Comunity manager. Feedaback.
SCW2 Zero waste Comunity manager. Feedaback.
Impact on Viability
Risk
3 1 3 1 5 3
Description
The transformation process of waste management should be monitored to receive feedback from
citizens. Previously, a search should be conducted to see what is the state of awareness of citizens
on social networks, organizations involved, social movements, opinion leaders, etc.
Impact on
No direct impact.
Technique
Some software to the comunity manager: Hootsuite (www.hootsuite.com), mention
(www.mention.com), websays.com.
Economic
The cost of a half part manager and the software rent (SAAS). The comunity manager can work in
other topics.
Competence
Local.
Risk
Community very small: few opinions, not getting the actual state. Not capture leaders of opinion.
Barcelona, Digital Marketing Manager: https://hootsuite.com/resources/case-study/how-
barcelona-built-an-innovative-social-media-strategy
(general comunity manager)
More info
A first study of the reality is required. Maybe there will be ecological groups to create synergies.
The first information will help to design better all the next actions.

43
8.3. SCW3 Schiedam zero waste agency
SCW3 Zero waste Schiedam zero waste agency
Impact on Viability
Risk
2 2 1 2 5 3
Description
Create an agency called for instance "Schiedam zero waste agency" to promote, consult and
design the zero waste transformation. Members: neighborhood leaders, local opinion leaders,
local associations, city council, cooperative networks, etc. Mission: to promote and involve
citizens about this topic.
Impact on
No direct impact.
Technique
Easy technique. Difficult to meet all the people in the same place, but it's possible to have
hangouts or skype calls.
Economic
Cheap.
Competence
Local.
Risk
Meetings failure. Reputation crisis: bad opinions about the council and its policies
More info

44
8.4. SCW6 Zero waste app
SCW6 Zero waste Zero waste app
Impact on Viability
Risk
3 1 3 3 1 3
Description
Promote an existing app, adapt or design an new one for smartphones with basic functions: How I
can do it? Where's the nearest container? Dates. Advertisements. Feedback. Etc. Citizens will can
have the all the information in their pockets immediately.
Impact on
No direct relation on the final results. Helps
to change the Citizens behaviour.
No direct impact. Easy to use.
Technique
Design app: there are a lot of companies to develop an app.
Economic
Perhaps the cost is hight, it's better to buy the app with other city councils or pay by use (if it's
possible)
Competence
Local.
Risk
No download or zombie apps. The app market is saturated.
Too many apps offered by the city council. If the municipally offers a lot of apps for differents
areas, it will be possible that the citizens don't donwload them.
The Netherlands: Recyclemanager. Installs: 10,000 - 50,000. Reviews rank: 2.5
Spain. Google Play: Palencia Recicla and ReciclaVidre.
Australia: RecycleSmart.
More info
The importance that citizens have the information in their pockets.

45
8.5. SCW7 Barcode scan to recycle
SCW7 Zero waste Barcode scan to recycle
Impact on Viability
Risk
4 3 4 4 4 5
Description
Design an app to scan the barcode of the products and know where trash it or how recycle it.
Impact on
No direct relation on the final results. Helps
to change the Citizens behaviour.
No direct impact. Easy to use.
Technique
Data base difficult to create.
Economic
Many variables and uncertainty
Competence
Better for a hight level of compentece.
Risk
Hight: no dowloaded, create the database, etc.
There are apps for shopping with a barcode scan, but not for recycling.
More info
This idea will be not developed in this paper. It's not for a local context.

46
8.6. SCW4 Cooperative values, volunteer network.
SCW4 Zero waste Cooperative values, volunteer network.
Impact on Viability
Risk
3 3 3 1 5 3
Description
Discover and promote a volunteers network to assist all the tasks. This network could be
neihborhood level, building level or for all the city.
Impact on
All aid contribute to a better outcome. No bad impact in the final user.
Technique
The solution may be creating a closed Facebook group, WhatsApp, a private blog, etc. The
technique exists.
Economic
Depending on the budget, you can create more customized solutions or less
Competence
Local.
Risk
Not enought volunteers.
European Clean-Up Day: http://www.ewwr.eu/en/take_part/lets-clean-up-europe
More info

47
8.7. SCW5 Promote the sustainable packaging.
SCW5 Zero waste Promote the sustainable packaging.
Impact on Viability
Risk
5 4 1 1 3 4
Description
The sustainable packaging could be used by citizens in their shoppings and reduce the volume of
waste generated. This packaging can be used several times, for example paper bags, tuperwares
or glass packaging, and it's easier to recycle.
Impact on
Waste that is not generated (mainly
plastics).
Citizen must carry their own packaging.
Technique
Easy.
Economic
Cheap solution.
Competence
Local competence, but local stores have to collaborate with the campaign.
Risk
Do not get a change in behavior and not to use them
http://www.cleanup.org.au/au/Whatelsewesupport/SayNOtoPlasticBag.html
https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/category/plastic-bag/
More info

48
8.8. SC1 Collaborative composters
SC1 Compost Collaborative composters
Impact on Viability
Risk
5 5 1 2 5 4
Description
Placing collaborative composters directed by one or more volunteers. Monitoring is required and
helping volunteers.
Impact on
Hight. Organic waste not collected. Hight. Citizens must separate organic waste and
walk to the composter. In addition, volunteers must
take responsibility for operations.
Technique
It is technically very simple but must be located in areas of countryside
Economic
Cheap solution.
Competence
Local
Risk
Before buying the risk of not finding volunteers or people to help.
Risk that the project be abandoned once underway: Collect the composter.
http://www.cogersa.es/metaspace/portal/14498/50220?vpg=2
More info

49
8.9. SC2 Automatic collaborative composters
SC2 Compost Automatic collaborative composters
Impact on Viability
Risk
5 4 3 4 5 3
Description
Installation of automatic collaborative composters. Automatic composters need maintenance and
a responsible of the installation.
Impact on
Technique
There are products on the market but are not designed to directly use the citizen. In addition, look
for locations for these machines in enclosed areas, probably soundproof, etc.
Economic
Half cost.
Competence
Local.
Risk
Risk of not using the composter and with consequent costs.
Makers:
http://www.ecomanenviro.com/
http://www.kollvik.com/es/
More info

50
8.10. SC3 Individual manual composters
SC3 Compost Individual manual composters
Impact on Viability
Risk
5 4 3 2 5 3
Description
The manual individual composters are cheap solutions to do the compost in every home with
outside place.
Impact on
Hight. Organic waste not collected. Medium-Hight. Citizens must separate organic
waste and walk to the composter, but the distance
is shorter than a cooperative one.
Technique
It is technically very simple but must be located in garden areas.
Economic
Cheap solution, but expensive solution with large volumes
Competence
Local
Risk
Risk that the project be abandoned once running.
More info
Image source: http://geociclos.cl/producto/compostador-huerto-
jardin/

51
8.11. SC4 Individual automatic composters
SC4 Compost Individual automatic composters
Impact on Viability
Risk
5 3 3 2 5 3
Description
The individual automatic composters are solutions to do the compost in every home. They are
more expensive than the manual ones, but it's easier to do the compost and doesn't needs an
outside place.
Impact on
Technique
We found very few manufacturers and none in Europe
Economic
Cheap solution, but expensive solution with large volumes.
Competence
Local.
Risk
Risk that the project be abandoned once running. Not get a vendor.
Makers:
http://www.naturemill.net/product-p/533-blk-na1.htm
More info

52
8.12. SC5 Schiedam Compost ™
SC5 Compost Schiedam Compost ™
Impact on Viability
Risk
3 3 3 3 2 5
Description
Creating a compost brand, for example Schiedam Compost. Sell composting generated by citizens
under this brand, bulk or detail (sacks) as potting soil. Collection of compost generated and sold to
third parties. Distribute dividends generated.
Impact on
This action does not directly impact, but it
helps to encourage people to compost the
organic waste.
Pack the compost and collection
Technique
Coordinate the collection of material and selling to customer, if it requires a certain monthly
volume.
Economic
Pending evaluate the project viability
Competence
It should be a corporation type irado, not the council directly.
Risk
Low involvement and economical viability.
Not have enough users.
No benchmarking
More info
Increase the viability joining several cities, to generate a greater volume of product, but possibly
worse brand image.

53
8.13. SBT1 Identification systems.
SBT1 Bags and tags Identification systems.
Impact on Viability
Risk
4 5 5 4 5 5
Description
Put a tag on each bag identifying the owner and the type of waste. This measure will provide
traceability to the bag and lose anonymity. Must be at the entrance of the container or chute
system a reader to open the door when you identify the tag.
Impact on
The anonymity of the bag is lost. Along with
rewards and penalties can get great results
is lost
Big change to the user. They must manage tags and
separate waste at home. Especially complicated
with cardboard and glass.
Technique
There are examples in cities by RFID operating system, but there are no examples of door opening
tag.
Economic
Implement the entire system would be expensive. Tag readers in each container, tag distribution
and management, etc. Should study in detail the savings generated with the necessary
investment.
Competence
Local
Risk
Not find the manufacturer who provides the solution for opening doors. Not find the necessary
funding for product development. Citizens oppose the system.
Italy: http://www.dbminternational.it/en/waste-recycling-products/erredi-traceability-syste-of-
waste-streams-barcode-rfid-based/
Metrosense system: http://www.metrosense.com/rfid-based-waste-sorting/index.php/how-the-
system-works
Study of RFID: www.academia.edu
More info
The identification systems in waste management use readers and tags. The tags are placed on
bags or containers and the readers are the devices to read the tag information. The system could
be RFID (radio frequency identification) or barcode.
With this system, you could throw the garbage bags in one container and then separate them into
further treatment. The maker Metrosense proposes this method.

54
8.14. SBT2 Schiedam containers variables
SBT2 Bags and tags Schiedam containers variables
Impact on Viability
Risk
5 5 5 4 5 5
Description
This is similar to propose SBT1 but with containers that changes the type of residual. The RFID
system identifies the label, and depending on the scheduled residue is opened or tells you not
applicable.
It can be used for collection campaigns (eg textiles) or to reinforce the door to door on certain
days, eg weekend.
Impact on
The anonymity of the bag is lost. Along with
rewards and penalties can get great results
is lost.
Big change to the user. They must manage tags and
separate waste at home. Especially complicated
with cardboard and glass.
Technique
Like SBT1, there are examples in cities by RFID operating system, but there are no examples of
door opening tag and containers variables
Economic
Implement the entire system would be expensive. Tag readers in each container, tag distribution
and managment, etc. Should study in detail the savings generated with the necessary investment.
Competence
Local
Risk
Not find the manufacturer who provides the solution for opening doors. Not find the necessary
funding for product development. Citizens oppose the system.
See SBT1
More info

55
8.15. SR1 Collection points for paper and cardboard
SR1 Recyling Collection points for paper and cardboard
Impact on Viability
Risk
3 3 5 4 2 4
Description
Promote the waste paper press machine or design one for citizens and street. Cardboard recycling
has two problems: you have to fold to put it in the container and takes up much inside the
container (with little weight). Because that, there are waste paper press machine, but not dessign
for the citizens.
Impact on
Perhaps increase the paper collect because
people don't have to fold the cardboard.
Helps citizen to recycle cardboard.
Technique
Waste paper press machine needs electricity. System to operate with only autorized users (by
card, phone, etc) is not
Economic
The machines are expensive (from 2000 €) and without evaluating the changes we propose..
Competence
Local
Risk
Not find a viable solution to our requirements. Neighbors do not want to use the machines. Not
find the right place to install it.
There isn't benchmarking. There are a lot of makers.
More info

56
8.16. SR2 Deposit-refund system (DRS)
SR2 Recyling Deposit-refund system (DRS)
Impact on Viability
Risk
5 4 4 4 1 4
Description
Develop the deposit-refund system in all the city. There are some examples now.
Impact on
Hight. The packing recovered is 100%
recycled.
The citizen must keep the packaging at home, and
return them the next time in the supermarket or
other point. He gets a reward for his effort.
Technique
There are machines on the market, but there are no accessible ads manufacturers.
Economic
There is not much information on the price of packaging machines return or how they are
financiaded. We assume that the cost will be high.
Competence
La compentencia para imponer la obligatoriedad del DRS no es local. A nivel local se puede
promover el uso, pero será voluntario.
Risk
Not get the necessary financial and support from the central authority or manufacturers.
Denmark: https://www.dansk-retursystem.dk/en/
Spain: http://www.retorna.org/es/
More info

57
Return machine on Street. Pamplona (Spain). Source: http://www.heraldo.es/

58
8.17. SD2D1 Schiedam door to door system
SD2D1 Door-to-door Schiedam door to door system
Impact on Viability
Risk
4 5 2 4 5 4
Description
Implementation of a system for collecting door-to-door. It consists of a daily separate collection at
different collection points for each household. Citizens separate waste at home and each day a
fraction of the waste (or more) is collected. Complementary, there could be emergency
containers. It should be given flexible hours for better acceptance by neighbors.
Impact on
Other cities have been successful with this
system. The increase of the recycling ratios.
The impact on the citizen behaviour is very big.
They must separate the residues in 5 parts at home,
and wait at the recollected day.
Technique
The door-to-door system has the complication of locating collection points in areas with little
space and high density. After, designing routes and collection days. Implementation is also
complicated, having a strong behaviour change.
Economic
Build the collections points, buy and distribute new bins, bags, etc.
Competence
Local
Risk
The main risk is the non-acceptance by the citizens. This risk could happen in the design time or at
the beginning of the collect.
Spain:
Guipuzcoa: http://www.gipuzkoazz.com/zerozabor/atez-ateko-bilketa/que-es-la-recogida-puerta-
a-puerta
Canet de Mar (Barcelona). 14000 inhabitants (+16000 in summer):
http://es.scribd.com/doc/102384600/Canet-de-Mar-porta-a-porta
Catalonia. http://www.portaaporta.cat/documents/arxiu_portaaporta_173.pdf
Others:
Italy, Milano 1.2 million inhabitants: http://www.regions4recycling.eu/upload/public/Good-
Practices/GP_Amsa_Food-Waste-Collection.pdf
More info
Main features:
Source: http://www.gipuzkoazz.com/zerozabor/atez-ateko-bilketa/que-es-la-recogida-puerta-a-
puerta/ (Spanish)
 Every bag and bin have a code, one by citizen.

59
 Organic:
The diapers and sanitary napkins are collected with
the organics, but in other chamber.
 Packaging:

60
 Paper:
 Residual waste:
 Glass: in this case, it doesn’t exist a door to door system to collect. The container entry is
small and it’s difficult to throw other garbage.

61
8.18. SD2D2 Schiedam smart door to door system
SD2D2 Door-to-door Schiedam smart door to door system
Impact on Viability
Risk
4 4 4 5 5 5
Description
This system is similar to the SD2D1 but with some technical improvements. These are an RFID
system on the bins and bags, and a smartphone application to receive information.
Impact on
Other cities have been successful with this
system. The increase of the recycling ratios.
Very big, but less than SD2D1,
Technique
Technical proposals should be studied in detail, but they seem viable
Economic
Price of a tag: 15-50 €, devices: 150 €. But, with a purchase of many units, the price may
decrease. However, it would be a hight investment.
Competence
Local.
Risk
Hight risk because is a design on demand.
There is not benchmarking.
Tags example: http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/bluetooth-tracking-devices/
More info
 RFID System on bags and bin to door-to-door:
Like other Bluetooth tracking devices, we propose one for the door to door waste system. The
scheme is one device at the collection point, a cloud server and Bluetooth tags for every bin or
bag. When the bin is located at the collection point, the device traces the tag and send a message
to the cloud server with the text ok. If the bin is not at the collection point at the schedule time,
the cloud server sends a remember to the phone: “Remember throw the garbage”. Finally, when
the time to have the container on the street expires, the device tries to connect with the different
tags, and if any are still there, the server sends a message to the user with the message
“remember to pick up your bag”.

62
This technology is now available to make this system, but it needs a detailed analysis and design.
It could be problems on the battery duration, communication between the devices and the cloud
server or with the data generated (every user will have 5 tags)
 Door to door app:
o Time remaining until the truck arrives: like other public transport apps.
o Reminders about the type of collect, the timetable, etc.
o Incidences

63
8.19. SSCS1 Chute system improvement
SSCS1 Smart chute system Chute system improvement
Impact on Viability
Risk
3 3 3 4 3 4
Description
Improve the smart chute system with with existing technology.
Impact on
The results increase since given the
possibility to each neighbor separately
throwing waste, but not all the fractions. It
will remain anonymous and voluntary. All
garbage including newspapers must first be
properly bound, packaged or bagged to
reduce or eliminate mess and odours.
Must separate waste at home, but the storage time
may be small.
Technique
All of the technology explained in this option is available and built in buildings, but some makers
are out Europe and we don't know if they can work on the Netherlands
Economic
No public information about prices.
Competence
The chute system is inside the buildings. We don't know if it is public area.
Risk
Economic: high prices and failure to finance it.
Use: the system helps to do the separation at home, but needs a correct use by the neighbors.
Makers:
http://www.unitech-ikk.com/catalogues/garbage.pdf
Canada: http://www.wilkinsonchutes.ca/
USA:
http://willcosales.com/
http://www.whrise.com/
Australia: http://www.elephantsfoot.com.au/ (actually not working in Europe)
More info
There are some chute makers with similar recycling system division. The chute system doors are
locked, and the resident must press one button (for example, organic, recyclable or non-
recyclable), the door will open (if there are not others open doors) and the person can throw the
garbage. At the ground floor there is a system that put the bag in the correct container. We have

64
found three different types as maximum (three kind of garbage). It’s possible to combine a
compactor with the container, to lengthen the time.
Chute system scheme. Source: http://www.ellipsecondo.ca/condo-rules/garbage-disposal.html
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYk97vWyHqc

65
Source: www.elephantsfoot.com.au

66
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRpyth702Rk
Source: http://www.wilkinsonchutes.ca/

67
About cleaning and odour, you also have invented solutions, for example
http://www.garbagedoctor.com.au/garbage-odours/ .

68
8.20. SSCS2 Door-to-door with chute system
SSCS2 Smart chute system Door-to-door with chute system
Impact on Viability
Risk
5 4 3 4 3 4
Description
Implementation of a door-to-door system in high rise buildings with existing chute system. The
collect point is the door of every flat (hall), and the maintenance manager, external worker or
volunteer collects garbage and throws by the chute. He will be the only authorized to open the
chute system. Every collecting will be for a type of residual.
Impact on
The results increase since given the
possibility to each neighbor separately
throwing waste, but not all the fractions. It
will remain anonymous and voluntary. All
garbage including newspapers must first be
properly bound, packaged or bagged to
reduce or eliminate mess and odours.
Must separate waste at home, but the storage time
may be small.
Technique
All of the technology explained in this option is available and built in buildings, but some makers
are out Europe and we don't know if they can work on the Netherlands
Economic
No public information about prices, the basic version is cheaper than SSCS1, because it hasn't to
modify every chute access, only a few change at the lock.
Competence
The chute system is inside the buildings. We don't know if it is public area.
Risk
Economic: high prices and failure to finance it.
Collection process expensive.
Not found.
More info
It can be combined with a system to separate at the ground floor by residual type (see SSCS1). So,
it could be used for more than one residual in each recollection (but separated).

69
8.21. SAWC1 Automated waste collection system
SAWC1
Automated waste
collection system
Automated waste collection system
Impact on Viability
Risk
3 2 4 5 3 3
Description
Different kinds of automated waste collection system: pneumatic, others.
Impact on
Final results Citizen behabiour
The system itself does not help to increase
recycling rates
It is very comfortable for the user, but must make at
home separation of waste
Technique
There are companies specialized in this technique and there are facilities operating. The problem
is the construction in existing buildings and streets.
Economic
They are very high investment, but long term, can be profitable.
Competence
The construction is done in public and private area (buildings, flats)
Risk
Not find the financial resources needed for investment
http://www.metrotaifun.com/automatic_solid_waste_collection_system****
http://www.rosroca.com/en/products/waste-collection/automated-waste-collection-system/
http://www.envacgroup.com/
http://www.stream-environment.com/how-does-stream-work
More info
There are two systems: separation in the entry or with a single entry and the final separation
plant.

70
8.22. SAG1 Schiedam above ground containers with access control
SAG1 Others
Schiedam above ground containers with access
control
Impact on Viability
Risk
3 3 3 3 5 2
Description
Above groun containers with access control similar to the existing under ground containers in
Schiedam. This proposal is for the mini containers and the big ones. To reduce the anonymity,
improve the data collection and the security.
Impact on
The impact on the final results is high in the
mini containers with an alone user,
combination with inspections. In the
communities is low.
Open the container with a personal card.
Technique
There are proposals on the market and manufacturers.
Economic
More expensive than traditional container solutions. It is expensive or nonviable transform a
traditional one container to access control.
Competence
Local.
Risk
Low risk because the rest of the city has a similar system.
Makers:
http://www.jcoplastic.com/index.pl?pos=01.04.01.02&lang=en&menu=04
http://www.dorlet.com/en/portal_dorlet_noticia.asp?idNoticia=6
http://wss.eu/products/barrow-access/
https://www.plasticomnium.com/env/uk/en/connected-solutions.html
More info

71
8.23. SAG2 Schiedam above ground containers with capacity sensors
SAG2 Others
Schiedam above ground containers with capacity
sensors
Impact on Viability
Risk
1 1 3 2 5 2
Description
Above ground containers with capacity sensors. This proposal is for the mini containers and the
big ones. To optimize the collection.
Impact on
There is no impact in final results. No impact.
Technique
There are proposals on the market and manufacturers.
Economic
More expensive than traditional container solutions. It's possible to adapt tracicional containers.
Must analyse the savings in the recollection versus inversion.
Competence
Local.
Risk
Low risk because the rest of the city has a similar system. In paper and cardboard containers,
sensors have problems.
Makers:
http://www.urbiotica.com/en/product/u-dump-m2m-2/
http://www.iotjournal.com/articles/view?12253
https://mobacommunity.com/blogs/entry/Bin-Level-Sensor-How-does-it-work-and-what-are-the-
benefits
More info

Smart waste management in Schiedam

Smart waste management in Schiedam

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Smart waste management in Schiedam

Similar to Smart waste management in Schiedam (20)

More from TECNIO Centre EASY & Smart Cities Master

More from TECNIO Centre EASY & Smart Cities Master (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Smart waste management in Schiedam