On the Way to the Convenient Hazardous Waste Collection System in Malmo, Sweden. Users’ Perspective

(1)

On the Way to the Convenient Hazardous Waste

Collection System in Malmo, Sweden.

Users’ Perspective

Author: Olga Belorusova

Tutor: Dr. Peter Parker

(2)

1

This research study is prepared within the one-year Master program in Sustainable Urban Management at Malmö University, Sweden. It is as multi-disciplinary international program aimed at providing students with theoretical and practical knowledge for working with urban development processes with focus on urban sustainability. The student receive in-depth knowledge of environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainability and learn to combine these perspectives in real-life cases. The programme as well develops skills in managing projects and processes with multiple and diverse stakeholders.

Supervisor of this research Peter Parker is a Senior Lecturer in Urban Studies department at Malmö University. His research interests include studies of informal organization and social networks, business and regional development projects, and the concept of urban commons in relationship to social sustainability.

Summary:

Master Programme: Sustainable Urban Management, 2011-2012

Thesis: On the Way to the Convenient Hazardous Waste Collection System in Malmo, Sweden. Users‟ Perspective

Author: Olga Belorusova (OB) Tutor: Peter Parker

Date of Submission: 24 May, 2012.

Waste management is an integral part of sustainable urban development. In the modern world, when attitude to waste is being shifted towards “waste as resource” and “waste as income generator”, ensuring separation of hazardous waste from the general waste stream becomes increasingly important. Sorting hazardous waste is critical in light of the whole recycling idea. Hazardous elements, while bearing a certain value if properly handled, can negate the costs of the recyclable materials if found in their stream. They present enormous long-term losses, if introduced into the environment, and can negatively influence our ability to benefit from recycling.

Convenience is one of the most effective tools in increasing recycling rates (Carlson 2001, p.1275). It is a personally defined concept, and often depends on the users‟ lifestyle-related factors. This thesis explores users‟ understanding and habits of handling hazardous waste, as well as the challenges they encounter and their views and suggestions on convenience of hazardous waste recycling systems. The main method used in this comparative case study research is qualitative interviews conducted with a variety of people with different lifestyles living in Malmo.

First, the thesis develops a list of lifestyle-related factors which lower the perceived convenience of recycling. People consider recycling to be effort demanding or easy not just because they are women or men, young or old, live in a dense area or not. But this perception is influenced by having or not having access to a transporting vehicle and time available, their household‟s waste producing rates, time spent living in a certain place, available space for storing waste; physical constraints or difficulties with self-organization at home; established or not recycling habits or level of environmental concern. People‟s recycling behavior is determined by these personal lifestyle-related factors.

(3)

2

Second, aspects of convenience are being presented as the focus areas which planners should consider in increasing recycling rates. The convenience aspects are developed with regards to the challenges people with different lifestyles experience in recycling. While lifestyle-related factors cannot be influenced directly, aspects of convenience can be employed in ensuring efficiency of hazardous waste collection system. It is important that the hazardous waste collection system design takes them into the full account. Detailed descriptions of the aspects of perceived convenience are presented. They are grouped into convenience of access to information and convenience through facilities and services. The final conclusion of the thesis is that involving users would assist in addressing key aspects of recycling systems‟ perceived convenience and increase their efficiency.

It is hoped that the information can be helpful in designing successful hazardous waste collection systems with increased capability to reach national goals in recycling and reduce the amounts of hazardous substances in general waste.

Keywords: recycling, hazardous waste, waste collection system, design, perceived convenience, lifestyle factors, convenience factors, user‟s perspective, waste sorting, participatory design, Malmo, Sweden.

Special thanks to my thesis supervisor Dr. Peter Parker for his highly valuable guidance and engagement. I am grateful to Mimmi Bissmont, Vasyd development engineer, for her continuous assistance in receiving up-to-date and quality information, and to all the people who agreed to be interviewed and share with me their thoughts and ideas.

And finally many thanks to my husband Alexander for his strong encouragement and adjusting his lifestyle for us to be able to live in Sweden.

(6)

5

Chapter I. Introduction, Aim and Problem

Urgency of Recycling Hazardous Waste. Waste management is an integral part of sustainable urban development. Misra and Pandey (2005, p. 429) stress that generation of waste created many problems through pollution and resource depletion that is why “degradation and detoxification of the waste are also essential for sustainable environment-friendly area development”. According to UN Habitat (2010, p.26), there is a rapid increase in hazardous materials in waste composition. The increase is aligned with the population growth and due to growing trade in chemical products, rising share of hazardous components in household appliances and increasing healthcare (Secretariat of Rotterdam Convention, 2010). At the same time the velocity of this growth is not being coped with by treatment and disposal capacity.

Hazardous waste released out into nature can cause detrimental environmental impact. It is contained in small amounts in many kinds of products, and it is of great importance to handle it in the correct way (Avfall Sverige 2009, p.10).

Throughout many countries the attitude to waste is being shifted towards its perception as “waste as resource” and “waste as income generator” and recycling activities are more and more being included into household units as a part of urban waste management (Singhirunnusorn, Donlakorn and Kaewhanin 2012, p. 691). Sorting hazardous waste is critical in light of the whole recycling idea. Hazardous elements while bearing a certain value if properly handled, can negate the costs of the recyclable materials if found in their stream. They present enormous long-term losses, if introduced into the environment, and can negatively influence our ability to benefit from recycling.

Household hazardous waste includes pesticides, batteries, lamp bulbs, paints and polishes, medicines, solvents and chemicals. It is also contained in electronic and electrical equipment, as well as garden furniture. Most hazardous elements contained in household waste have effects both on environment and health and are characterized by long-term persistence in the environment, accumulating in fatty tissues of living organisms, causing cancer, death and birth defects, having adverse effects on ecosystems and bio-diversity poisoning water and land for decades, potentially disrupting immune, reproductive system and impairing intelligence (Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention International Environment House, 2011, Secretariat of Basel Convention, 2012). UN Habitat (2010) urges the governments to ensure the separation of hazardous materials from municipal wastes by the population, „not only for environmental reasons but also to lower the risks for waste workers‟, and stresses that hazardous waste streams should be „clearly and effectively segregated from municipal solid waste in management, policy and financing‟.

Although many cities in western countries have their own hazardous waste collections, still only few can boast with well-working systems, and municipal solid waste reaching the disposal in many countries still contains some of the hazardous waste (UN Habitat, 2010). In the waste typology developed by UN Habitat (2010, p.169), healthcare waste, hazardous wastes, chemicals, fluorescent light bulbs, used engine oil, end-of-life e-waste, automobiles, accumulators, batteries, white-/brown goods, which in sum constitute less than 5% of household waste, are related to negative value materials that damage the environment. This means that their residual value is not enough to cover the costs of safe management with or

(7)

6

without recovery (UN Habitat 2010, p.169). This is probably the main cause why hazardous waste collection systems all over the world do not receive proper attention.

Users’ Perspective on Convenience. This thesis draws on Carlson‟s claim (2005, p.1), that convenience is the most effective approach to increase recycling rates and volume of recycling per person, both of recyclers and non-recyclers. According to her (Carlson 2001, p.1275), „increasing the convenience of recycling results in larger increases in recycling behavior than virtually any other policy option‟.

The comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities conducted by UN-Habitat (2010, p.25), indicates that in improving solid waste management system in different parts of the world „there is no „one size fits all‟: rather, there is strength in diversity‟. They suggest the decision makers to start from and build on the strength of their own city, and to involve all „the stakeholders in designing their own local models‟ (2010, p.25). I explore the theme further on. In my thesis I claim that in order to understand how the concept of convenience could be used to its full potential, we need to explore it better from the users‟ point of view, considering that the users have their own characteristics and lifestyles influencing perceived convenience and special needs in terms of it.

Households are important stakeholders in waste generation and collection, and are the ones who decide whether the recycling system is convenient or not. Their commitment and awareness is a decisive factor in the waste management success. „The research found that successful schemes were well designed (in consultation with local residents) and tailored to the location‟ (Timlett and Williams, 2009). However, the design of the waste collection system in most of the countries is defined by existing power relations, where economic factors and commercial interests of the business sector are prioritized.

Underrepresentation of end-users in urban planning caused a disturbing urban problem: “the extraordinary passivity of the people most directly involved those who are affected by projects, influenced by strategies” (Lefebvre, 1970 cited in Lee, 2006). The reason is that there is a gap in the way professionals plan and citizens use the systems, created by lack of communications between the two. The waste collection systems are designed mostly with the participation of „the scientists‟ (Rhoads, Wilson, Urban and Herricks, 1999), and the users‟ views are usually underrepresented. Setting up a dialogue, which would encourage expression and interaction of multiple perspectives, is challenging but would allow introducing users as very important stakeholders into the very beginning of the design process. The importance of seeing the service from the customer‟s perspective in the very beginning of the design process is stressed by Parker and Heapy (2006) cited in Holmlid (2009). Therefore this research turns to exploring users‟ perspectives on the recycling systems convenience.

Previous Research. From the literature devoted to recycling behavior it is seen that most of the previous studies concentrate on the „soft‟ factors of recycling – awareness, concern for the environment, education, subjective norm, intent to recycle, demographic characteristics (Hornik, Cherian, Madansky and Narayana, 1995; Dahab, Gentry and Su, 1995; Tonglet, Phillips and Adam, 2004; Timlett and Williams, 2009 Mahmud and Osman, 2010). And as put by Latif and Omar (2012, p.707) „there is a broad agreement that there is a gap between the increasing awareness for recycling and recycling behaviour among the consumers.‟ There are not so many studies that develop the theme of convenience. Nevertheless it has been acknowledged as a very strong factor influencing recycling behavior of both recyclers and non-recyclers (Carlson, 2001).

(8)

7

There is not so much research focusing on involvement of users in developing public services, apparently because the examples are scarce. However, according to the House of Commons (2008, p. 5), in recent years the planning for the public services has been experiencing more intensive consideration of the users‟ needs. As Liz Stone of Mencap was cited in the 6th Report of Public Administration Select Committee of the House of Commons „User Involvement in Public Service‟ (2008, p. 7), “…for a lot of people with learning disability they want to be very active in the whole design and delivery of service because it is about them; it is about you; it is about your life.”

But in reality decision making with citizen involvement encounters many barriers, including lack of time, finances and political will or the difficulty of the task (Bramwell and Sharman 1999 cited in Vernon, Essex, Pinder and Curry, 2005). Mason, Johnston and Twynam (2000) cited in Vernon, Essex, Pinder and Curry, (2005) stress that „incomplete representation, unequal power relations of stakeholders, or lack of accountability can weaken the effectiveness of policies and initiatives‟ and „the views of „„strong voices‟‟ can often prevent alternative perspectives, held by „„weaker‟‟ or even unarticulated positions, from being aired.‟

One recent example of a research project where the users‟ opinions were regarded for designing of a trash handling system is a project on user driven innovation called DAIM and implemented by Danish school of design by 2010 (Danish school of design, 2011).The workshops for users organized within the projects showed that except for the existing ones there are many other ways of developing waste recycling systems, which would appeal and more actively incorporate the users, consider their habits and perspectives.

Problem Statement. Most of the recycling systems, including hazardous waste recycling, are designed by the waste management professionals and other stakeholders in power. The ultimate users are underrepresented from the very beginning of this communication process and are introduced to it only in the phase of the system‟s utilisation. Therefore the systems do not incorporate the comprehensive picture of the citizens‟ views about what would be really convenient and simple for them in sorting hazardous waste properly, which in its turn negatively affects recycling rates for this kind of waste. Gaps exist between the way systems are meant to be used and the way they are used. The systems are not fully efficient as they do not consider the full scope of the users‟ convenience aspects. In order to fill the existing gap, the concept of convenience needs to be explored with the help of the users.

Research Question and Aim. This study focuses on answering the following research question:

Which are the key convenience aspects in relation to hazardous waste collection system according to the users’ perspective?

Answering this research question will allow us to find out which different dimensions and perceptions of convenience in recycling exist according to different lifestyles of the users. This can provide us with understanding of what the focus in designing hazardous waste collection systems should be in order for them to be successful. The results of the study in the long-run have implications for policy makers and professionals working in waste management in solving the challenge of increasing recycling rates and reducing the amounts of hazardous substances in general waste flow.

(9)

8 Disposition. Further on in Chapter II theoretical approach to perceived convenience of users with different lifestyles is explored. Chapter III presents methods used for the collection of data and analysis. Chapter IV is devoted to background information on resent hazardous waste collection system in Malmo and overview of user involvement tactics in its design process. Chapter V through presenting the collected empirical data develops the concept of convenience in relation to users‟ lifestyles and discusses the importance of user involvement in recycling systems design. Chapter VI summarizes and discusses the analysis as well as present opportunities for future research.

(10)

9

Chapter II. Theoretical approach to convenience

Efficiency of measures aimed at increasing convenience of recycling. This thesis‟ topic was inspired by the research conducted by a professor of law of the University of California, Los Angeles, Ann Carlson. In her work Recycling Norms (2001), she examined a wide number of empirical quantitative studies on recycling behavior. She found out that although many scholars support the view that social norms play utmost importance governing collective behavior, development and management of social norms by itself is not an efficient approach and should be supported by other measures (Carlson 2001, p. 1250).

Carlson‟s proposition (2001, p.1232) is that the governments will have more success in reaching high recycling levels by reducing the amount and complexity of efforts needed for recycling, rather than involving themselves in strengthening social norms. She refers to the past recycling programs which historically developed into a complex mix of law, norms management, market incentives and architectural changes (2001, p.1262) and indicates utmost importance of recycling convenience and low effort in ensuring the behavioral changes. If the recycling is highly convenient, then the norms are of „little predictive value in determining whether someone will recycle‟ (Carlson 2001, p.1282).

Therefore the thesis is aimed at further investigation of the concept of convenience with regards to hazardous waste recycling. This received knowledge is aimed at providing assistance to waste management professionals in designing waste collection systems, particularly collection system for hazardous waste.

EU-level as well as national Swedish documents, also refer to convenience in waste collection systems. In its interim report in 2007 the Environmental Protection Agency stresses that simplicity of waste sorting by the households should be ensured (Avfall sverige, 2011, p.1). According to Avfall Sverige, Swedish Waste Management association, this includes easy access and timely, clear and understandable information, which encourages waste sorting and satisfies the needs of users. The users‟ ideas and needs are also named as important in the report (Avfall sverige, 2011, p.6).

In-depth look into convenience theme. It is acknowledged that a gap exists between the awareness, intention on one side and recycling behavior on the other side (Latif and Omar 2012, p.707). To my mind, convenience as a recycling factor has potential to fill this gap in many cases. However, the vast body of existing research has focused mostly on the personal factors of recycling (personality, values, demographics and attitudes of environmental concern), not as much on situational ones (Schultz, Oskamp and Mainieri, 1995; Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang, 2012). Convenience is one of the situation factors. Although these factors are mentioned as strong ones by many researchers (Tonglet, Phillips and Adam D, 2004; Barr and Gilg, 2005 cited in Timlett and Williams, 2009; Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang, 2011; Nixon and Saphores, 2009 cited in Singhirunnusorn, Donlakorn and Kaewhanin, 2012), there is no research fully devoted to developing the theme.

Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang (2011) having conducted empirical quantitative study of the influence of situational factors of recycling behavior in Malaysia concluded that situational factors are strong determinants of recycling behavior and intention to recycle. Provision of facilities making recycling process more convenient was named as a situational factor. The researchers suggested that introduction of a wider scope of situational factors is needed (Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang, 2011)

(11)

10

Now let us take an in-depth look into the concept of convenience as a situational factor. It is often referred to as cost in terms of effort (Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang, 2011). Dahab, Gentry and Su (1995) write the following: „Recycling is not without cost. In some communities individuals must make a special effort to take materials to drop-off sites. If recycling is voluntary, these costs are weighed against the benefits in the individual decision processes.‟ Convenience is related and associated with personal estimations; that is why it is often mentioned together with the word „perceived‟. To some people it is convenient to separate and dispose their waste just inside of their house, for others a 10-minute bike ride to the collection center is convenient enough. Perceived effort significantly influences recycling behavior. For developing effective recycling programmes it is important to be aware of the perceived convenience for recycling by the population living in the area in focus.

Having examined the efficiency of various recycling programs, Carlson (2001) concluded that convenience is achieved through architectural changes. Among the results of her study was that curb-side collection programme significantly increases recycling rates, and that commingled recycling programmes, which allowed people to put all the recyclables in one bin, proved to be more effective than separate recycling, where people were supposed to separate every type of waste into a separate container.

Avfall Sverige, Swedish Waste Management Association (2011, p.10) agrees that „the system chosen for collection also affects the degree of sorting‟ and reports that „several municipalities have stopped using the unmanned recycling stations and have instead introduced some form of curbside collection.‟

The different propositions about convenience made by different researchers who conducted quantitative studies on recycling behavior are presented. Although literature is extensive, only few authors go beyond just mentioning some of the aspects of convenience, and even less discuss them in terms of users‟ perception. When talking about convenience they mention time, facilities and services.

Several researchers list time as an important factor related to convenience. Time condition is named as one of the factors of pro-environmental behavior (Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang, 2011). Tonglet, Phillips and Read (2004) consider that recycling schemes should be developed with consideration of convenience of time. Timlett and Williams (2009) write that time can be a practicality barrier that limits the effects of information and timely information can assist residents in developing recycling habits. The latter insist that one should consider real/perceived effort/time required for recycling (Timlett and Williams, 2009). Matsumoto (2011) indicates that the people, who consider that recycling takes little time, are more likely to participate in a recycling programme.

Facilities conditions as well are named as a factor of pro-environmental behavior (Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang, 2011). Lack of facilities deter from recycling (Tonglet, Phillips and Read, 2004), create perceived inconvenience of recycling and have detrimental effects on intention to recycle (Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang, 2011). And vice versa numerous conveniently located trash-cans encourage people to use them regardless of their intent, and curbside pick-up programs are named as most effective government measure in increasing recycling rates (MaTar and Leebm, 1993; Carlson, 2001).

People recycle more with the availability of facilities for recyclable materials, their close proximity of the collectors combined with prompting, and increased variety of items available

(12)

11

for recycling (Derksen and Gartrell, 1993; Dahab, Gentry and Su, 1995; Schultz, Oskamp and Mainieri, 1995). At the same time studies indicated that commingled recycling programs, which provide that people put all types of recyclables in one bin, are more effective than separate recycling programs, when people have to sort the recyclables in two or several different bins (Carlson, 2001).

Many researchers point to the importance of storage space availability (Tonglet, Phillips and Read, 2004; Timlett and Williams, 2009; Derksen and Gartrell, 1993; Matsumoto, 2011) and the way the physical environment is organized (MaTar and Leebm, 1993; Calrson, 2001; De Kort, Teddy, and Midden, 2008). Adjusting the physical environment (including easy identifiable bins, modeling or cleanliness) does not lose efficiency over a longer period of time like other norm activation means such as for example verbal prompts (Carlson, 2001; De Kort, Teddy, and Midden, 2008; Dahab, Gentry and Su, 1995).

While talking about service, authors mention frequency of collection as a very strong external motivator of recycling (Hornik, Cherian, Madansky and Narayana, 1995). Researchers suggest that it should be introduced in parallel with the adoption of comprehensive recycling programme to ensure its efficiency (Matsumoto, 2011). Convenience in transporting recyclables is as well mentioned as an important factor in recycling (Derksen and Gartrell, 2009).

To sum up, time and efforts devoted to recycling, condition of facilities and existing infrastructure, availability of a recycling program and service provision, proximity of recycling stations, frequency of waste collection, amount of waste types for recycling, external and in-house available space for waste storage, physical settings such as easily identifiable bins and design, cleanliness of the recycling facilities, convenience in transport and timely information are mentioned as external or situational factors which can be related to perceived convenience of recycling. Almost all the aspects, except for cleanliness and frequency of pick-up services, could be achieved through or with assembly of physical settings and design.

The list of propositions reflecting the key aspects of convenience in recycling can be applied to recycling of hazardous waste. The propositions mainly relate to facilities, services and time. But this review is not sufficient enough to develop full specter of convenience factors. The listed aspects of convenience are not always the central focus of the research referred to, and therefore have not been collected and systematized in any of the mentioned above research papers.

In terms of convenience, hazardous waste recycling poses bigger challenges compared to recycling of other materials. These challenges are connected with the fact that it represents additional category in recycling which is not yet fulfilled 100% in any country. Another reason is that hazardous waste is more complex in its essence and is contained in heterogeneous groups of products. As recycling of other materials has a longer history, as well the history of research on various factors increasing recycling, there is a lot to learn from in developing effective hazardous waste collection systems.

Impact of lifestyle on recycling. Most of the modern literature on recycling has been devoted to exploring the factors, such as awareness, concern for the environment, education, subjective norm, intent to recycle, demographic characteristics (Hornik, Cherian, Madansky, Narayana, 1995; Dahab, Gentry and Su, 1995; Tonglet, Phillips and Read, 2004; Timlett and Williams, 2009; Mahmud and Osman, 2010). Few researchers conduct in-depth look at what

(13)

12

characteristics that define perceived convenience are influenced by lifestyle, and none develops a comprehensive description and system of these characteristics, which are critical to recycling behavior, let us from now on call them „lifestyle-related factors‟. „Lifestyle is characterized by distinctive behavioural patterns and sustained by a particular habitus„(Clark, 2011).

Below there is a selection of the research, mentioning the factors, which may be related to people‟s lifestyles.

Timlett and Williams (2009) mention the shift in life stages (new parents, retirement) as the reason for environmental behavior change, and state that people‟ surroundings can influence our behavior. Change of a life stage can significantly influence lifestyles. But in what way the changes in the lifestyle make impact on the recycling behavior? Is it more or less time spent at home, or overall free time? Or is it a purchase of a car? Or are there other factors?

A number of studies are devoted to exploring the differences between the areas with single-family housing and apartment blocks (Derksen and Gartrell, 1993; Timlett and Williams, 2009). Living in a single family-house or apartment block can be related to and define a person‟s lifestyle. Derksen and Gartrell (1993) come to conclusion that those who live in single-family houses were more likely to participate in a curbside recycling programme. But living in a single-family house by itself does not explain people‟s willingness to recycle. The researchers mention storage space as a possible reason for the result, and this factor is more illustrative in terms of its influence on recycling behavior. Availability of storage space could possibly influence whether or not people are willing to recycle at home, and single-family houses offer more storage space than apartments.

Timlett and Williams (2009) as well state that medium and high-density housing is a negative predictor of recycling because storage space outside and inside is limited or non-existent. Additionally to the storage space factor the researchers point to high transience of this kind of housing, and indicate that most non-recyclers living in such housing are low-income and do not own the apartments. The authors note that high transience is not restricted to high density areas but is greater in urban areas. According to them while population flux increases, recycling becomes more problematic (Timlett and Williams, 2009). With regard to personal lifestyle we can talk about mobility of people, who change their places of living.

Dahab, Gentry and Su (1995) who studied the theory of reasoned action found out that prior behavior can break barriers to recycling and is more effective than attitudes and norms. Prior behavior represents a certain lifestyle. If a person was an active recycler before then more likely he or she will continue recycling or have intent to recycle even if the place of living or a life stage is changed. Dahab, Gentry and Su (1995) indicate that as prior behavior is very important in predictive recycling its positive experience and consequences encourage a person‟s future intention to recycle and decrease the perceived effort. Matsumoto (2001) developed a typology of people with regards to their recycling behavior: sustained recycler, non-recycler, stopped recycler, and new recycler.

Time, mentioned in the previous subchapter of this research can relate to personal factor of lifestyle. People with more time spending at home, running errands are able to devote more time to recycling (Latifa, Omar, Bidina and Awang, 2011). The research states that recycling program should be developed with consideration of convenience of time (Tonglet, Phillips and Read, 2004), and this means considering that different people have different lifestyles. Some work 9 to 5 hours, and others are flexible in their schedules.

(14)

13 Participatory approach to finding out perceived convenience. As was mentioned before, „convenience‟ is a very personal notion, and varies from one person to another. In this sense I introduce the themes of participatory design and its methods, into this research. They are described in more detail below in the chapter on research methods. Turning to participatory design allowed me to find out users‟ views on what would make hazardous waste collection system more convenient. In this thesis I use the following definition of the term. „Participatory design involves a sample of users that is supposed to represent (but is not identical to) the actual end users‟ (Muggea, Schoormansa and Schifferstein, 2008).

In 1971 an international conference „Design Participation‟ for the first time placed user involvement issues into the level of worldwide discussion. Björgvinsson, Ehn and Hillgren (2010) note that nowadays we witness design reorientation towards everyday life and public sphere. But although, participatory design has been actively practiced in various projects, its traditions had little impact on service development, even in Scandinavia (Holmlid, 2009). There is vast research on participatory design as a technique of involving users in organizational field, software and product development for commercial purposes. But there are not so many encounters of participatory design projects within the realm of public services. Even the area of E-Government in the European Union (EU), which is all about user involvement and increase of user participation, does not consider citizen‟s views. Anthopoulos, Siozos and Tsoukalas (2007) describing e-Government services in the EU state that the way to e-Government „is currently based on general and political plans, which do not include citizen or public administration expectations.‟

According to Holmlid (2009), participatory design is aimed at decreasing „the asymmetry in knowledge in both directions‟, using this asymmetry „as strength for innovativeness‟. Finding out users‟ views and perceptions on existing and desirable hazardous collection system is a process which decreases this asymmetry in both directions. The users extend their knowledge of hazardous waste and its handling, and at the same time share their challenges in recycling, habits of handling the products containing hazardous elements and finally come up with suggestions on what would be convenient for them in an enhanced collection system. Due to time limitations and other constraints this study does not engage itself in the full-scale design process, but is aimed to fulfill a part of it in terms of getting information on users perspectives and suggestions through qualitative interviews. Participatory design is rather a method than classic theory in this case, but it is used in the study to test the claim that user involvement into hazardous waste collection system design should be explored further.

(15)

14

Chapter III. Social Research and Participatory Design Methods

The research design of this study is qualitative comparative case study. „Comparative design is a research design that entails the comparison of two or more cases in order to illuminate existing theory or generate theoretical insights as a result of contrasting findings uncovered through the comparison‟ (Bryman, 2008, p. 692). The qualitative nature of this comparative study is ensured by interview research of cases of several groups of people defined according to their moment in life. Views of people with different lifestyles are compared in the analysis. Both primary and secondary data is used in the paper. Primary data constitutes the core of the research. It was collected through qualitative semi-structured interviews with various users (see Annex 1. Interview Guide and List of Objects).

The users were divided into the following categories according to their current phase of life: 1. Students (4 interviews), 2. Singles or Couples before 50 working without children (4 interviews), 3. Families having children and living together with them in one household (4 interviews), 4. Singles or Couples after 50 working, not having or having children who already moved out from their household (3 interviews) 5. Pensioners (4 interviews). Such typology is relevant as the phase of life clearly influences a persons‟ lifestyle. It does not represent the categorization of lifestyles, but just ensures that views of the variety of people are present in the study. 3 to 4 people of each category were interviewed. Total quantity of interviews amounted to 19.

From the literature reviewed it is seen that gender, age, stage of life may affect the way people recycle. Therefore to increase the relevance of the research‟ possible findings, the interview sample included people with the diversity of these characteristics. In each category of interviewed people as far as it was possible I made sure to cover the types of people with or without cars, those living in apartments and those in houses. Among the interviews are females and males, people having both very and not very comprehensive waste sorting systems in their neighborhoods, people who are actively involved in sustainability issues and who do not have strong professional or personal attachment to them. The aim here is not to test the existing theories, but to develop further understanding of what has been already discovered. And therefore the interviews did not intend to find out to what extent people recycle but to build a picture of perceived convenience of recycling with their help.

As put by Bryman (2008, p.437), „in qualitative interviewing there is much greater interest in the interviewee‟s point of view‟ and „in qualitative research there is an emphasis on greater generality in the formulation of the initial research and on interviewees‟ own perspectives‟. The core themes for the questions were meant to help answering the research question of this paper. They were designed to find out 1. The use scenarios of handling out of date objects containing hazardous elements 2. Perceived challenges in the existing hazardous waste collection system and 3. Suggestions for important aspects related to the perceived convenience of the users with different lifestyle, if a new collection system would be developed. Additional questions were asked when clarification or elaboration on a mentioned topic was needed.

In order to take advantage of the qualitative nature of the interviews to a greater extent, an exercise was conducted prior to the interviews. The participants, sometimes in couples if they lived together in one household and shared the recycling responsibilities, were asked to sort a number of objects into groups. Most of the objects contained hazardous waste, but in order to

(16)

15

encourage discussion, some of the non-hazardous objects were included (see Annex 1. Interview Guide and List of Objects). The list of objects was agreed on together with waste management professionals at Vasyd, the municipal joint authority responsible for waste management in Malmo. At this point the participants still did not know what the research was about, and could define any typology they first thought of while seeing the objects.

This exercise allowed me to see first, how people think of different material objects and second, to include a greater variety of products into the discussion about recycling of hazardous waste. As the objects were in front of the interviewees during the entire interview, they could redefine their typologies and better recollect their handling scenarios. People were asked to express their thoughts out loud during the sorting exercises and afterwards to describe their defined typologies and present their arguments. The exercise and the real objects in front of the people ignited the discussion. The interviews were conducted in convenient places and times for the interviewees, and were recorded.

The idea with the exercise and having all the objects in front of the people was inspired by participatory design practice as a technique of involving users in product of systems development. As was mentioned before, „convenience‟ is a very personal notion, and varies from one person to another. „Participatory design involves a sample of users that is supposed to represent (but is not identical to) the actual end users‟ (Muggea, Schoormansa and Schifferstein, 2008).

According to Holmlid (2009, p.7), participatory design is aimed at decreasing „the asymmetry in knowledge in both directions‟, using this asymmetry „as strength for innovativeness‟. The asymmetry in the knowledge caused by excluding a „weaker‟ group of stakeholders from the planning process creates discrepancies between the way the system is meant to be used and the way the citizens use it. Finding out users‟ views and perceptions on existing and desirable hazardous waste collection system is a process which decreases this asymmetry in both directions. This study illustrates an attempt to include the users as most underrepresented stakeholders in the communication process accompanying system‟s design. The users extend their knowledge of hazardous waste and its handling, and at the same time help us to fill the knowledge gap of which challenges the current hazardous waste collection system causes, which of their habits of handling the hazardous products it does not take into account and which aspects of convenience for them have to be addressed to enhance the system.

Such themes of participatory design as „use scenarios‟ and „agonistic spaces‟ can be recollected with relation to this study. „Use scenarios‟ is a „concrete description of activities that users do as part of their life that can be used to drive the ongoing design and evaluation… They can indicate the usefulness of a system relative to the background of the social environment within the site of study‟ (Foth, 2006, p.174). Through getting use scenarios (method of participatory design) of how people handle hazardous waste and use the existing collection system in reality, we are able to receive the information on „the usefulness of a system relative to the background of the social environment within the site of study‟ (Foth, 2006, p.174).

In cases when interviews were conducted with two interviewees together, the presence of a peer encouraged the people to express out loud their thoughts and provide sound arguments while performing the sorting exercise. This, coupled with common goal to be reached in collaboration with the other, in a way created an agonistic space, which „facilitated critical feedback, and in which visions and insights were revealed and engaged‟ (Thorpe and Gamman, 2011, p.26).

(17)

16

According to participatory design practice, numerous user suggestions on how hazardous waste collection system could be organized would require immediate developing of prototypes, which could test the efficiency of the findings. But due to time limitations and other constraints of this particular study, I was not able to engage in the full-scale design process. Probably this study could be an inspiration for future research with involvement of users.

A semi-structured interview with development engineer at Vasyd Mimmi Bissmont (2012) and materials from the lecture by Mimmi Bissmont and development engineer Savita Upadhyaya (2012) at Vasyd (the municipal joint authority responsible for waste management in Malmo) on hazardous waste collection system were used in order to verify and get assistance in structuring the collected information from the secondary data sources. They allowed me to collect the in-depth information about the design process of the hazardous collection system in Malmö and pointed to some secondary data sources useful for the background information.

The secondary data for this research derives from the customer survey results, compilation of best practices in developing hazardous waste collection systems, reports, surveys, statistics and web-site information. This data is necessary in receiving the overall situation of designing hazardous waste collection system in Sweden. It allowed me to get initial insights about the extent to which the users are involved in the design process, as well the information, which helped to conduct most effective collection of primary data. Secondary data analysis presents the advantages of saved time and high-quality of the available data (Bryman, 2008, p. 297-300).

The major limitation of my research is my inability to speak the interviewees‟ native languages. Especially challenging were the interviews conducted with people over 50, who were struggling with the English language. At certain times an interpreter was invited. This obstacle to some extent discouraged people‟s free flow of thoughts and ideas. The interviews as well did not cover the people who have physical constraints and newly migrated to Sweden people who yet do not know both Swedish and English languages. But these groups of people would require additional research which would exceed the required volume for this paper. Due to ethical reasons all the names of the interviewees are changed. As recycling is a strong social norm in Sweden, questions aimed at finding people‟s habits of handling hazardous waste sometimes caused certain discomfort. To mitigate the discomfort I reassured people that the challenges they come across are normal and could be solved through altering the system itself. Therefore, I underlined that the study is aimed at finding out their perceptions and challenges as well as suggestions in order to improve the existing system, and that their collaboration was very important.

(18)

17

Chapter IV. Hazardous waste collection system in Malmö, Sweden

Background facts. Malmö is experiencing steady population increase which is forecasted to grow from 300 000 in 2011 to 400 000 in 2030 (Malmo Stad, 2012). Presence of a large university attracts many people who come to the city for a short period of time, contributing to the high level of turnover. The city, having a strategic geographical position, as well is characterized by high share of immigrant population. Some of new comers come from the places with no tradition and low level of waste sorting. In the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 Malmo experienced inflow of 5,000 people per year (Malmo Stad, 2009). Constant influx of new people creates challenges to sustaining the results of awareness-increasing campaigns aimed at increasing recycling rates, not to mention hazardous waste recycling.

The analysis of average waste samples shows that the average Swedish household waste bin contains 0.2 percent hazardous waste and 0.3 percent electronic waste (Avfal Sverige, 2010, p.5). For Malmö this sums up to 82 tons per year (Bissmont, 2012). According to statistics, if excluding impregnated wood, every year starting from 2005 the population in Sweden recycles a little less of hazardous waste (Avfall Sverige, 2009, p.9).

Vasyd, the municipal joint authority responsible for waste management in Malmö, set up aims to bring the percentage of hazardous waste in the household waste down to zero (Bissmont, 2012). This is a very ambitious goal, and requires involvement of different stakeholders, implementing different approaches and investments.

The current collection system of hazardous waste involves the following: environmental stations, collection lockers for batteries, bulbs and small electronic appliances in two supermarkets and some apartment blocks, „green car‟ visiting every area in Malmo twice a year and collecting hazardous waste containing products up to the size of a microwave oven, call-up service for picking up bulky stuff. The photos of the facilities and location of the recycling centers are presented in Annex 2. Facilities for disposing hazardous waste in Malmo, Sweden, as of May, 2012.

There are two environmental stations, which are located in two opposite sides in the suburbs, and are parts of manned recycling centers with professional personnel. The centers work from Monday to Thursday from 11.00 to 18.00, and Friday to Sunday from 9.00 to 15.00. There were 4 stations but two were closed as the number of visits was too small (Bissmont, 2012). Collection lockers for batteries, lamp bulbs and small electronic appliances are situated in two Swedish chain grocery outlets Maxi ICA, as well in one of Malmo neighborhoods – Augustenborg. The facility in Augustenborg additionally allows disposing chemicals. Due to their high maintenance price the landlord owning the apartment blocks in this and other areas in the city, is not planning to expand the amount of the collectors (Bissmont, 2012). After a citizens‟ proposal, submitted through Malmo municipality feedback form at www.malmo.se, the „green car‟ was introduced. It visits every Malmo neighbourhood twice a year, and the residents can bring their hazardous waste to the car during certain hours. There is sms-service to which the users can subscribe in order to receive a reminder one day before the car‟s arrival (Sysav, 2012). Bulky waste can be picked up by Vasyd Customer Service to the amount of up to 5 objects for 100 SEK per 1st and 50 SEK per every additional package as of May, 5, 2012 (Vasyd, 2012).

(19)

18

According to the latest customer survey conducted through telephone interviews with 500 users in Malmo, places for hazardous waste recycling scored 3.75 out of 5, with people under 25 being more critical, and people 56-65 years old and those living in building cooperatives are more satisfied (Bissmont and Upadhyaya, 2012). In terms of practical handling while recycling hazardous waste, the current system scored 3.8 out of 5, and people after 65 and living in apartment blocks were less satisfied with it (Bissmont and Upadhyaya, 2012). Vasyd undertakes various approaches to increase the percentage of recycled hazardous waste: architectural, social norms, marketing, and legislative (Carlson, 2001).

Waste management goals are being addressed at the latest stage of urban planning, which considerably blocks the potential for its development and opportunity to influence its convenience. Although the new 2010 Planning and Building Act provides that waste management should be included into the early phases of the urban planning process (Avfall Sverige, 2011, p.21). This research paper is aimed at investigating the citizens‟ perceptions of hazardous waste recycling and what could be enhanced in the hazardous waste collection system to make it more convenient, including as well during the early phase of urban development projects.

User Involvement in Hazardous Waste Collection System Design. Since 1974 through the provision of municipal self-governance Swedish municipalities are responsible for developing their own waste collection system based on the EU regulations and the Environmental Code (Avfall Sverige, 2011, p. 6). This allows those working with waste management to meet the needs of local people in their variety of circumstances and consider the local social contexts, which is so important in environmental decision making (Roads, Wilson, Urban and Herricks, 1999, p.297).

The hazardous waste collection system for Malmo is in its large share designed by the professionals working at Vasyd, South Scania Waste Company Sysav, representatives of environmental and health sectors (Bissmont, 2012). The decision process is based on the previous waste collection statistics, as well as customer satisfaction data received through telephone interviewing. Vasyd takes into account other examples of waste collection systems all around Sweden. Every 5 years waste management plan is prepared. During the preparation phase workshops involving landlords, commercial sector representatives, organizations working in waste sector, are organized.

For working with the population Vasyd is utilizing a web-site, as well as Facebook page and a twitter account. The web-site and social networks are mostly used for information dissemination to the population. Sysav, waste management plant, being one of the stakeholders in promoting recycling additionally to traditional advertisement as well uses its web-site and social networks in communication with the population.

The citizens‟ proposals are being accepted for consideration through the feedback form on Malmo municipality web-site www.malmo.se. The „green car‟ collecting hazardous waste from the population once per half a year from every area in Malmo is an example when a citizens‟ proposal was taken into account and implemented. Additionally to the proposed public facilities to dispose hazardous waste such as recycling centers, collection lockers in the supermarkets and the „green car‟, each housing cooperative has a possibility to order an extra service, such as another locker in the housing area or another stop by the „green car‟. This goes with extra cost. The decisions are made through voting during the meetings where the people living in the cooperative are invited. According to Avfall Sverige „the municipalities in

(20)

19 Sweden do not implement any real follow up on the system use and customer satisfaction‟ (Avfall Sverige, 2011, p.21)

Although the existing legal framework allows the current design system for hazardous waste collection to incorporate citizens‟ views, ideas and needs, the decisions are mostly made by the professionals, being driven by existing experience and economic constraints. Scarce number of efforts aimed at including citizens‟ views is limited in their capacity. Therefore there is no comprehensive picture of the citizens‟ views about what would be really convenient for them in sorting hazardous waste properly.

(21)

20

Chapter V. Analysis. Users’ Perceived Convenience of the Hazardous

Waste Collection System

Empirical vignettes and description of analysis.

To start the analysis, first, empirical vignettes (see in Annex 3. Vignette 1, Vignette 2 and Vignette 3) are proposed here to illustrate some of the profiles of the people interviewed. The vignettes represent the summary of the conversations flavored with numerous citations. They are structured according to the main three themes of the interview guide: understanding and handling of hazardous waste, challenges experienced in hazardous waste sorting and suggestions for the main aspects of convenience in hazardous waste collection systems. From reading the selected illustrations one can identify particular challenges in understanding of hazardous waste and using the current hazardous waste collection system that are repeatedly brought up in the interviews with different people. One can as well notice that the challenges in using the collection system are connected with certain situations created by the people‟s lifestyles.

Further on, the list of these lifestyle-related situations is developed. The situations are the factors which influence people‟s perceived convenience or effort of recycling and it is critical to be aware of them in order to address the key aspects of convenience.

Personal lifestyle-related factors help in better understanding of the perceived convenience. After going through the lifestyle-related factors influencing the perceived convenience, the analysis presents main aspects of convenience that should be addressed by the developers of the hazardous waste collection systems, with regards to these factors.

Personal lifestyle-related factors as determinants of the perceived effort of recycling

The interviews showed that people with different level of mobility have different perception of the cost or effort required for recycling. People who are temporary or new renters of a place had less knowledge on which facilities exist for hazardous waste disposal, and they were less likely to have certain arrangements for sorting hazardous waste. These people had relatively limited time spent at a certain place (an apartment or a house) and sometimes in the city or in the country. If these people did not grow up in Malmo, they had different recycling experience from what Malmo offers. Some of them had more developed recycling system (Carla, 2012), others – less (Katarina, 2012). In Malmo many rent second-hand (not from the owner of the place – corporate landlord, but from another private renter), and thus sometimes they feelx to be cut off from the information provided by the landlord (Kajsa, 2012). They are newcomers in the areas, they do not know the rules and existing facilities and possibilities to dispose waste unless it is designed clearly, and is understandable without anyone‟s help. Another constraint for such people is time – they have limited time to devote themselves into waste separation. Limited time spent in a new place does not allow the people to devote themselves fully in finding out the recycling options.

The existing recycling options such as manned recycling centers outside of the city, and a car visiting every area twice a year, do not satisfy their needed level of convenience. One can see this in the situation described in the Vignette 1 about Katarina. The young woman arrived to Sweden three years ago into an apartment where all the waste was collected in one bin.

(22)

21

Recently she moved to a new place of living, where some things are recycled, but she still does not know where to dispose batteries and small technical stuff. As she is not sure if this can be disposed into the other waste, she collects it in one big bag. But she admits that there will be a moment when she will just „dump‟ this bag in the general waste, if the situation is not solved (Katarina, 2012).

People do not devote themselves to searching for places of disposal while they have other urgent issues: „I lived with my sister, and we were thinking: what should we do with these batteries. We did not know where the service is. I know where it is in Lapland, where we come from. We had this bag and it got more and more during the years and we were saying to ourselves that we will look it up‟ (Olof, 2012). Collection lockers in limited number of stores in Malmo as well do not cover fully this population. And even if some of them happen to visit one of these shops, it is very hard to notice them unless the person is looking for them purposefully. Thus the facilities for such people should have the highest level of convenience. With regards to the above, transient or permanent living can be introduced as a personal lifestyle-related factor having impact on the perceived effort of recycling. This factor is as well mentioned in the previous research. Timlett and Williams (2009), explored the role of transience in recycling performance of one of the densest cities in Europe Portsmouth and found that „a key issue was population transience, which was found to be greater in urban areas. It seems that once the recycling habit is established it is very difficult to break. Changes in “physical” circumstances were the drivers behind those properties that stopped recycling: a change of address, a change in occupants, a bin going missing.‟

People on transit are most often encountered among young people - students and young working professionals, who are highly mobile and mostly are concentrated in dense areas. According to the United Nations Population Fund and the World Bank young people before 30 constitute half of the worldwide migrant flow (UNFPA, 2006). Malmo population is relatively young. People under 25 years of age make up nearly 30% of the population in Malmo (Malmo Stad, 2011). Another type of people on transit is migrants who come to Sweden for permanent stay, but their lifestyle does not allow them to make recycling their priority unless it is obvious and convenient. During 2011 more than 19 000 people moved to Malmo, and 30% or 92 200 of Malmo population were born abroad (Malmo Stad, 2012). The interviews revealed as well that the household’s volume and rates of producing waste differed among people with different lifestyles. In the Vignette 2 we can see that a family of 6 people living in the house clearly acknowledges that they produce a lot of waste. They mention that the renovations going on when the interview was recorded created the need to go to the recycling center in the nearest future. While those who live alone, vice versa, indicate that they do not have that much waste, such as in the example with food waste here: „The problem is now, where I live myself. They are trying to get all of us to sort food separately. But I live alone, and it would take me two weeks to fill one of those bags, which they gave me. Or I have to empty it when it‟s nothing there because it is starting to smell‟ (Olof, 2012). Those who represent small families: singles, often students, families or partners without children, or people, whose children moved out, and retired people living in apartments, are more likely to produce less waste than families with children and those living in houses and doing gardening. Families who have children indicated that very often they deal with toys, which contain batteries (Bengt, 2012; Emilia, 2012). People living in houses indicated that they have renovations going on, which produce large amounts of waste, as well have a lot of waste from the garden (Mikael, 2012). The statistic shows that amount of electronic waste

(23)

22

found in general waste of apartment blocks is lower than in single-family houses, 0.01/apartment/week against 0.02kg/single family house/week (Vukicevic, 2011).

The volume and rates of producing waste are related to people‟s lifestyles and directly guide the recycling behavior. People living in houses and producing more waste than those living in apartments potentially are more likely visitors of the manned recycling centers. All the people interviewed indicated that they go to a recycling center, when fairly large volume of waste is collected in advance.

Compared to other types of waste, such as plastic and paper for example, the volume and frequency of dealing with hazardous waste is lower. This makes it more difficult to ensure that people develop a habit sorting it. It is very important that at these relatively rare times, when a person is about to dispose a product containing hazardous waste, the person will get handy and timely information about the ways of disposal. And the ways should be convenient enough for this person to make the correct choice. With regards to this it is important that the provided boxes or plastic bags (as in the case of pharmacies) for collection of hazardous waste are correspondent to the household‟s waste producing rates and frequency of disposal. One more reoccurring theme in the interviews related to a person‟s lifestyle was the amount of space for storing waste. One can see that in multiple examples. In the Vignette 2 the family complained that they need space for other activities rather than for „piling up‟ waste (Thomas and Hanna, 2012). And in another example a young working woman living alone in a small apartment and recycling to the minimum indicated that she recycles only at those times when the product does not fit into her small kitchen bin, or if disposed there would fill it up too quickly. At those moments she goes downstairs to their yard‟s recycling area and disposes this one thing: „Also this would just use up my whole trash can. In my case it is a matter of space. My apartment is so small, it has got smallest-smallest kitchen. And there is no room to collect those big things. Under the sink. It has to be thrown out immediately‟ (Sophia, 2012).

People living in the apartment blocks indicated that they do not have enough space to collect all sorts of waste for a long time. While in Malmo people living in the apartment blocks have specially designated public areas in the yards where they can dispose different kinds of waste, there are almost no opportunities to dispose the hazardous waste there. Battery collection lockers are introduced in some yards, but it is not efficient to ensure that hazardous waste avoids general waste flow. While not having enough space at home, some people are not interested in having many bags for the waste (Bengt, 2012).

As also confirmed by previous research (Derksen and Gartrell, 1993), single-family houses provide more space for storing additional waste, so people have the opportunity to collect waste for a longer time. However, some of the interviewees indicated that usually hazardous waste is collected out of sight in basements or storage rooms, and can be easily forgotten when the people set off to a manned recycling center with their bulky stuff (Helena and Tobias, 2012).

Many people while talking about the facilities to dispose hazardous waste mentioned that having no access to a private car was the main obstacle for them in reaching a recycling center. As most people go there with high volumes of garbage a car is the only way to get there. In Vignette 3 Teresia (2012) who has lived in an apartment for the last 20 years of her life and has never had a car, experiences certain discomfort in disposing bulky stuff at a

On the Way to the Convenient Hazardous Waste Collection System in Malmo, Sweden. Users’ Perspective