THE POTENTIALS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN STOCKHOLM

(1)

M ASTER OF S CIENCE T HESIS

T HE P OTENTIALS OF I NFORMATION AND C OMMUNICATION T ECHNOLOGY TO

I MPROVE W ASTE M ANAGEMENT IN S TOCKHOLM

A DRIAN G UHR

GUHR@KTH.SE

MAY 14^TH2014

T

HE

R

OYAL

I

NSTITUTE OF

T

ECHNOLOGY

(KTH)

SCHOOL:ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT:SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

DIVISION:INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY

EXAMINER:NILS BRANDT | NILSB@KTH.SE

SUPERVISOR:HOSSEIN SHAHROKNI | HOSSEINS@KTH.SE

KÊYWORDS:WÂSTEMÂNAGEMENT,MÂTERIALF^LOWA^NALYSIS,INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TÊCHNOLOGY

(2)

i

Abstract

This study analyzes the potential of information and communication technology (ICT) as a means to solve current problems in Stockholm’s waste management. As a basis to develop effective new solutions, this report identifies the issues that need to be resolved in the future to make waste management more efficient. Previous work has failed to provide a comprehensive overview of Stockholm’s waste management system that is well-illustrated and considers the perspectives of various involved stakeholders. A material flow analysis (MFA) was carried out to investigate today’s system performance and additionally the personal views and opinions of stakeholders working in the field were collected. A review of statistics and reports from the city government and other organizations provided quantitative data about waste amounts and helped to identify the key stakeholders, which were then contacted and interviewed personally or via an open questionnaire. The study identified several shortcomings in today’s system and presents an overview over the potentials and limits of ICT to contribute to a sustainable waste management in the future Stockholm Royal Seaport.

(3)

ii

Acknowledgements

This thesis project was carried out between spring and autumn 2013 for the division of Industrial Ecology at The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

I want to thank my supervisor Hossein Shahrokni for the ongoing support and advice throughout this period. I also want to thank Nils Brandt for taking the time to comment and grade my thesis. My gratitude also goes to Eva Myrin, for providing me office space at the waste management group at Sweco Environment AB and always being supportive. Here I also want to thank Daina Millers-Dalsjö for sharing her professional experience and giving valuable advice, and the rest of the group for making the seven month such a pleasant experience.

The success of the project depended heavily on the collaboration with the stakeholders in Stockholm’s waste management sector. Thus, I want to thank everyone who provided information that was necessary to write this report. Here, special thanks goes to Mats Cronqvist for explaining Trafikkontoret’s role in waste management in two interviews and providing the numbers the study was fundamentally built on. I also want to thank Ingrid Olsson for the interview and the tour through SÖRAB’s recycling facility Hagby. I want to thank Jonas Törnblom and Jakob Ribbing for the interesting interviews and the openness, and Sylwe Wedholm for the guided tour through the cogeneration plant Igelstaverket.

Furthermore, I want to thank all those who were available for an interview via telephone, kindly responded to e-mails and filled out the questionnaire. Without all this information the study would not have been possible.

Finally I want to thank everyone for being patient and supportive with my limited Swedish skills throughout the numerous conversations, especially during the first weeks.

Adrian Guhr

(4)

iii

Index of Abbreviations, Units, Figures and Tables

Abbreviations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency GIS Geographic Information System

ICT Information and Communication Technology MFA Material Flow Analysis

MSW Municipal Solid Waste PR Producer Responsibility

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

SHARP Sustainable Households – Attitudes, Resources & Policy

Units

Nm³ Normal cubic meter, volume of gas at atmospheric pressure (1,013 bars) and 0°C

KWh Kilowatt hour

MWh Megawatt hour (1 MWh = 1.000 KWh) GWh Gigawatt hour (1 GWh = 1.000 MWh)

Figures

Figure 3-1 Waste treatment facilities in the Stockholm area ... 14 Figure 3-2 Total amounds of MSW in Stockholm in 2012 ... 17 Figure 3-3 Results of sampling inspection of household waste in Stockholm ... 18

Tables

Table 3-1 Waste Management Budget Stockholm 2013 (in million SEK) ... 19 Table 3-2 Example calculation annual waste fee ... 21 Table 7-1 Waste distribution with 100 % correct sorting ... 37

(5)

iv

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Stockholm Royal Seaport (SRS) is an urban development project with high ambitions to become a role model in sustainable urban living. The most promoted aim is to be fossil fuel free by the year 2030. Along with buildings, energy and transport systems, waste management operations are key to a functioning sustainable city.

Though waste management contributed only 2.8 % to Sweden’s CO2 emissions in 2012 (Naturvårdsverket, 2014) the related operations cause traffic, costs, noise, and pollution, even with a very advanced system.

A research project in the SRS investigates the potentials of an open and shared Information and Communication Technology (ICT)-infrastructure to help build a sustainable urban district. Such a system could improve process efficiency, networking and communication among stakeholders from all sectors, and open possibilities for new business models (Stockholms Stad, 2014b). A prerequisite to determine such potentials is to understand how the system works. For this reason an analysis of each sector is necessary. This study looks at the waste sector.

Since the Royal Seaport is still under construction it is not possible to analyze how its waste management system is currently working. However, the new district will be part of Stockholm, thus, the same stakeholders and a majority of the infrastructure will be used. Therefore the waste management system of Stockholm will be looked at in this study in order to draw conclusions for the future.

Today it is difficult to get a comprehensive picture of waste management in Stockholm. Data regarding collected amounts of waste, waste types, and treatment methods is available. However the path of the waste from source to sink is difficult to comprehend. As a consequence the monitoring of waste amounts is less meaningful than it could be. The reason for this is, for example, that changes in waste amounts after a policy change mean less waste has been produced, or the waste has just ben reallocated. A comprehensive illustration of the systems metabolism is not available.

Problems and ideas for the future in the waste management system are mostly described from a policy maker perspective in the form of aims (Stockholms Stad, 2013c). Thus they describe general issues such as increased recycling rates or less total amounts. However nobody actually asked the stakeholders for their perspective, though they are the ones who work with the issue every day.

The purpose of this study was to close these gaps and provide a comprehensive yet tangible map of the system that points out its weaknesses and potentials to address them in future. The paper starts off with an introduction of the key stakeholders and system elements. Then information regarding the systems performance will be presented in quantitative terms and summarized in a material flow diagram. After that problems identified by the stakeholders will be outlined. Finally the situation will be viewed in context of the Stockholm Royal seaport where new technologies and advanced planning already provide a different framework for waste management.

(8)

2

1.2 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this report is to map out the municipal solid waste management system in Stockholm to provide profound understanding of how waste material flows today, how the stakeholders interrelate, and what problems occur in the process. The analysis will further discuss the potentials of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) as a means to avoid those problems and create an advanced, smart waste management system in the Stockholm Royal Seaport. This study is relevant because understanding the system and its current deficiencies is crucial to determine, if and how the application of ICT can be a means of improvement. To do so the following objectives have been formulated:

- Describe the framework conditions of the municipal solid waste management system in Stockholm

- Identify key stakeholders, contact, and interview them regarding (1) their daily operations

(2) personal attitudes and experiences concerning today’s problems, future outlooks and the role of ICT

- Map out the system in a material flow chart - Evaluate and analyze the identified problems - Propose what an ICT based solution could look like

1.3 Limitations of the Study

The geographical boundary of the investigated system is Stockholm municipality, excluding the other 25 municipalities of Stockholm County. The reason for this is that the results of the study are supposed to be translatable to the Stockholm Royal Seaport, which is a dense urban area. Therefore data from Stockholm city is more suitable as an object of comparison than data from outer suburbs. However several vital treatment facilities, located outside of these geographical boundaries, are included in the ‘functional system boundaries’.

The second limitation is the type of waste of the study. The term “waste” in includes countless different materials and substances from different sources. This study analyzes the flows of municipal solid waste. This means waste produced by households and businesses (Sveriges Riksdag, 2013), but excludes the primary and secondary wastes from the mining and manufacturing industries. Furthermore excluded are hazardous waste and wastewater. In this study municipal solid waste considers the following four waste types and terminologies:

- Household waste: Waste leftovers that cannot be recycled and are therefore incinerated. This waste comes from households, as well as from businesses.

- Packaging waste: Paper & cardboard, plastic, metal and glass packaging and newspapers that are material recycled

- Bulky waste: Waste that is too big to be disposed in the household waste. It can partly be material recycled, partly incinerated, and partly has to be landfilled.

- Food waste: Organic leftovers from food.

The temporal limitation of this study is one year to identify the annual material and energy throughput of the system. It makes also sense to use this timeframe, because authorities and companies report their data on an annual basis

(9)

3

2 Methodology

To illustrate the Stockholm waste management system in a comprehensible way a material flow analysis was used in this study. This chapter describes the research approach in the order in which the steps were taken.

2.1 Literature Review

The first step was a literature review to obtain profound background knowledge about the waste management system in Stockholm. Since municipal waste management is a rather local issue the primary data sources were reports from city authorities and organizations in the field of waste and environment. Much information, especially statistical data, was also retrieved from websites from the municipality and organizations in the waste sector. Third opinions and analyses in the field of waste were mostly found in dissertations from Swedish universities. The research produced information regarding quantities of waste, types of waste, collection systems, treatment methods, involved stakeholders, key responsibilities and costs of the system.

The concept of combining waste management with ICT is rather new. For this reason only little literature is available in this field. Instead, most of the reports that were used in this study come from the fields environmental and behavioral psychology and smart energy management.

2.2 Questionnaires and Interviews

The second step in the study was to get in touch with relevant stakeholders. The aim of this was to fill the knowledge gaps that remained after the literature review and acquire additional information that has not formerly been collected. Thus, a more comprehensible, detailed and up-to-date system overview could be produced. Of interest were two types of information: (1) quantifiable data regarding material flows and technical and economical interrelations, (2) qualitative information considering system deficiencies from the perspective of each stakeholder.

Authorities, companies and organizations were contacted via phone and the matter of subject introduced to identify the right contact person within the organization. It was then agreed on to either answer the questions directly on the phone, send them via email or to meet for a personal interview. Though personal interviews were the preferred method, using different instruments for data collection had two benefits in this study. Firstly, it allowed to react flexibly to the preferences and availability of the contact person and thus increased chances of response. Secondly, it allowed to make the best choice in relation to size of the stakeholder group as well as the questions to be asked. This was useful, because stakeholders with different functions in the system were to be asked different questions.

In order to cover all questions systematically and to have a guideline during the interviews a semi-structured questionnaire with open and fixed choice questions was developed. The first questions addressed operational issues of the respective company.

In a second section three questions regarding current problems, a desirable future, and the role of ICT were asked. The questionnaire was designed with Google Forms, as

(10)

4 this tool is suitable for small data sets and automatically summarizes responses in an Excel sheet.

Eventually the questionnaire was sent out only to the largest stakeholder group, the collection contractors. The reason for this simply was that it was more convenient to address single contacts directly via email. However, the questions regarding problems, the future and ICT remained unaltered. The interviews were semi- structured, and guided by sets of open questions in the structure of the questionnaire, but leaving room for additional input (Phellas, et al., 2012). To facilitate evaluation, the interviews were recorded, which the interviewee was asked to permit in the beginning. The interviews were held in English, Swedish or German depending on the preference of the interviewee. The questionnaire was in English, but with the option to respond in Swedish. The interviews were planned for May and June 2013.

However, not all responses came in time.

The approach to use quantitative data analysis has been inspired by Glaser and Strauss’ (1968) Grounded Theory model. The reason for this is that a holistic overview of Stockholm’s waste management system in a smart city context could not yet be found. Thus, as mentioned before, the question that have yet to be answered are

“What is going?” and “What problems are the stakeholders facing today?” (Glaser &

Strauss, 1968). Another reason supporting this form of data is that the results will be tangible for those who work in the field and thereby facilitates commenting and correction (Turner, 1981). This is desirebale as this research work strives to provide a knowledge fundament and does not claim to give final solutions. To find the best solutions in the research field more collaboration will be necessary and should therefore be facilitaded.

2.3 Data Evaluation and Material Flow Mapping

The literature review, interviews and questionnaires were conducted to understand and map out the system. New pieces of information that helped to create the system map were added to a sketch of the system. This way, throughout the research period, new elements, and flows between elements, were continuously added until the flow diagram was complete. A color was assigned to each of the four studied material flows to make the diagram easy to read. Finally also numbers were assigned to quantify the different flows. The numbers were collected in an Excel sheet, which also serves as a clarification of the flow diagram. The system map was created with Microsoft Visio. The software was chosen, because it is an easy to use tool to create flow diagrams.

The stakeholders’ answers regarding problems were evaluated separately. The purpose of the objective to identify problems was to determine, which issues need to be resolved by many stakeholders, who in consequence cold have an interest in ICT solutions to these problems. For that reason the analysis aimed to determine, which problems were mentioned most. Due to the nature of open questions the answers varied strongly, making a quantitative analysis insignificant. For that reason similar answers that showed multiple times were grouped into the categories: traffic and transport, waste sorting and accessibility. This way the results are more descriptive than a list of all problems mentioned, and simultaneously portray how certain issues affect multiple stakeholders.

(11)

5 Problems that were mentioned only once and seemed too company specific were not further considered in this study.

2.4 Success of the methods and Quality of Data

One important factor when drawing conclusions from empirical data is to consider where exactly the data came from. In this study the aim of the empirical analysis was to get as much information as possible from as many stakeholders as possible in order to produce a representative picture. However, to evaluate the significance of a named problem by means of the frequency it was mentioned was difficult in this study. This was due to the condition, that the different stakeholder groups have different tasks and responsibilities and accordingly different problems. Also were the stakeholder groups of different size.

In some cases a stakeholder is the only one in its specific field of operations. For example is Stockholm city the only authority, Envac the only company that provides the waste vacuum system, and FTI AB the only organization that organizes the packaging waste collection. From each of these one opinion could be considered. On the other hand 16 collection contractors were contacted, of which ten responded to the questions. Even though the four companies that collect the largest share of waste were not among the ones who responded, it was assumed that the answers were representative for most waste collection companies. Their activities are very similar.

Five responses came from companies that work with waste treatment: one that produces energy from household waste incineration, one from pretreated waste-pellet incineration, one recycles materials, and two produce biogas from food waste. If the number of answers from collection companies had been lower, transport and traffic would not have been the most mentioned problem. An issue that was not successful was the acquisition of quantitative data regarding collected waste and driven kilometers from the collection companies. Here, better questionnaire design with shorter and clearer questions inclusive requesting specific units would have produced better answers.

The material flow analysis was successful, however, several flows could not be quantified, because the data was not available. In other cases the values were estimated or calculated based on partly vague data. The software Microsoft Visio was suitable, but for a follow-up analysis a MFA software could facilitate the process.

(12)

6

3 Waste Management Framework

To meet the first two objectives, the definition of the waste management framework conditions and the stakeholders, van de Klundert & Anschütz’ (2001) integrated sustainable waste management (ISWM) is used as a structural guideline. ISWM is a tool to analyze and understand waste management systems in a holistic way, identify problems and find suitable solutions. The basic structure of the assessment is based on the three dimensions of ISWM: (1) The Stakeholders, (2) the elements of the system, and (3) the aspects of the local context.

The stakeholders are all persons or organizations that are somehow involved in the waste management system. Each involved party has a different role in the process and level of influence and importance. Stakeholders can be local authorities, non-profit and non-governmental organizations, companies that provide collection, treatment and end-use services, and the citizens.

A waste management system comprises a number of elements, which each represents a certain stage in the flow of waste through the entire system. The authorities of a city or region develop waste management plans to define how the waste should pass through the elements of the system. In this strategic plan each element has a certain function to deal with the waste.

The aspects of the local context are the different “lenses, through which the existing waste system can be assessed and with which a new or expanded system can be planned” (van de Klundert & Anschütz, 2001). They help the decision maker to consider and understand all involved elements and stakeholders in context and prioritize among different options. The six categories are environmental, political/legal, institutional, socio-cultural, financial-economic, and technical and performance aspects. In this report the aspects will not be presented in these categories, but considered in the respective section (van de Klundert & Anschütz, 2001).

3.1 The Stakeholders

The key stakeholders are here sorted in three groups. The first group, authorities and consumers, also comprises all stakeholders that do not fit in the two other groups:

collection companies, and treatment companies.

3.1.1. Authorities and Consumers

Stockholm City is responsible for collection and treatment of household waste, food waste and bulky waste from households. The traffic agency (Trafikkontoret) is responsible for all waste management operations, makes the contracts with collection contractors and treatment facilities.

FTI AB (Förpacknings- och Tidningsinsamlingen) represents the companies in the producer responsibility program (explained in section 3.3.1). FTI is owned by the four

“material companies” Plastkretsen, RK Returkatong, Svenska MetallKretsen and Pressretur, and furthermore collaborates with Svensk Glasåtervinning, who is however not an owner. Each organization is responsible for the recycling of the respective material group and financed by the respective packaging industry.

(13)

7 Pressretur is obliged to guarantee the recycling of all collected newspapers independent from external market conditions (FTI, 2013g). FTI does not have its own collection services but contracts companies for 3-5 year contract periods for this (Nilsson, 2013).

Building owners can either be owners of single-family houses or owners of apartment buildings. Single-family house owners are provided with waste disposal equipment by the city. Apartment building owners are since 1975 responsible to provide the facilities for waste disposal and collection to their tenants (Fastighetsägarna, 2004). They are also in charge of maintenance of the collection place and providing relevant information for the tenants. To get curbside collection for packaging waste the building owner himself has to commission a contractor that cooperates with FTI¹ (FTI, 2013a). Households have to correctly sort and dispose waste at the available infrastructure and comply with waste management regulations (Avfall Sverige, 2012a).

In this study the Swedish Property Federation (Fastighetsägarna) was interviewed to represent the opinion of building owners. They offer administrative services to ca.

5500 members in Stockholm, half of them private or municipal property owners, half are tentant-owners’s association. Their subsidiary Fastighetsägarna Service offers waste management services to their clients.

Businesses are responsible to provide appropriate disposal and collection facilities for their waste. Household and food waste from businesses is taken care of by the municipality and financed by a waste fee. Businesses have to organize collection of packaging waste and bulky waste by themselves. For this they hire collection contractors.

Envac developed the vacuum system installed in multiple areas in Stockholm. Envac sells the equipment and provides maintenance service to the customers (Törnblom, 2013).

3.1.2. Collection Companies

While Stockholm is responsible for the collection of household waste, the actual collection operations are 100 % in the hands of contractors (Avfall Sverige, 2013).

The city contracts two companies for collection of household, and one for collection of food waste. FTI pays four contractors for collection of packaging material and newspapers from recycling stations. In addition to that a number of other companies collect bulky waste, provide curbside collection of packaging waste to building owners and collection of waste from businesses. Listing all of these companies, however, would not add any quality to this study.

Reno Norden AB is one of two contractors to collect the city’s household waste.

During the current 3-5 year contract period the company is responsible for the following six of twelve areas: the north-western suburbs (Hässelby/Vällingby, Spånga, Tensta, Rinkeby, Kista), Bromma (from Tranebergsbron, Åkeshov till Råcksta), Kungsholmen/Lilla Essingen, Norrmalm/Vasastan (west of Sveavägen), southern area (Enskede/Årsta, Älvsjö/Vantör till Farsta Strand), and

1 A list of FTI’s collection contractors can be found on their curbside collection website (FTI, 2013a).

(14)

8 Östermalm/Gärdet. Reno Norden also empties the two mobile vacuum systems in Stockholm, for which it has 3-5 trucks (Cronqvist, 2013).

Liselotte Lööf AB is the other contractor that collects household waste. They are currently responsible for the other six areas: Gamla Stan/Stora Essingen/Djurgården/Ladugårdsgärde, Södermalm, south-western suburbs (Aspudden, Bredäng, till Skärholmen/Vårberg), south-eastern suburbs (Södra Hammarbyhamnen/Johanneshov, Tallkrogen, till Sköndal), and Norrmalm/Vasastan (east of Kungsträdgården/Sveavägen till Norra Djurgården). Liselotte Lööf and Reno Norden together employ a fleet of 70 - 85 trucks to collect household waste (Cronqvist, 2013; Stare & Sundqvist, 2013).

SITA Sverige AB is contracted by FTI for the collection of all glass packaging in Stockholm (Nilsson, 2013). They also have the monopoly on collection of food waste from private households in Stockholm, for which they employ an 11 truck fleet. SITA also employs special trucks to empty different types of containers from businesses and vacuum system terminals (Cronqvist, 2013). Containers from businesses can contain all different types of waste. SITA collects everything. SITA collects from about 20 vacuum stations in Stockholm, which contain household waste only (Battaini, 2013).

TÅV AB is contracted by FTI for the collection of newspapers in Stockholm in the area north of Slussen.

Hans Andersson Recycling is contracted by FTI for the collection of newspapers in Stockholm in the area south of Slussen.

Ad Infinitum Recycling is the company employed by FTI to collect all metal, plastic and paper packaging in Stockholm.

Smart Recycling Sverige AB is a small scale waste collection company that provides its services to offices in Stockholm. They have four multi-compartment-vehicles and collect ca. 300 tons a year (Ribbing, 2013).

3.1.3. Treatment Companies

They receive the collected waste and are responsible for proper treatment of the respective waste fraction. Waste in Stockholm is either treated via material recycling (packaging waste, newspapers and bulky waste), anaerobic digestion (food waste), or incineration for energy recovery (household waste and parts of bulky waste that cannot be recycled).

Fortum AB runs the incineration plant Högdalenverket south of Stockholm and the local district heating grid. Högdalenverket receives all household waste from Stockholm (Cronqvist, 2013a) to produce energy for the local district heating grid.

The facility has a capacity of 700,000 tons of waste per year.

Sydvästra Stockholmsregionens Va-Verksaktiebolag (SYVAB) runs the wastewater treatment plant Himmerfjärdsverket in the south of Stockholm. The plant receives half of the food waste collected in Stockholm to produce biogas via anaerobic digestion (Cronqvist, 2013).

(15)

9 Uppsala Vatten is a water-, wastewater, and waste management company and operator of a biogas plant north of Stockholm. The facility receives the other half of Stockholm’s food waste (Cronqvist, 2013).

Söderenergi is a local energy company that incinerates that incinerates shredded bulky waste from Stockholm in its cogeneration unit at Igelstaverket in Södertälje.

Söderhalls Renhållningsverk AB (SÖRAB) is a municipality owned waste collection company with responsibilities primarily in the municipalities north of Stockholm. They also run a number of recycling facilities in the area. The largest and most visited of these is Habgy, which also receives all waste types from Stockholm except for household waste.

Beside these three companies that handle the household and food waste, there is a network of material recycling facilities in charge of treatment of packaging material and bulky waste. What these companies do will be described in section 3.2.4.

3.2 The Elements of the System

This section explains all the physical elements, related methods and technologies of the system. Though transport is a highly significant element in waste management it will not be illustrated as an element in the material flow analysis, because transport takes place between all other elements and not just at one point.

3.2.1 Waste generation

This element represents the source or origin of waste. In view of the scope to analyze municipal solid waste only, waste is generated by private households and businesses.

As private household count single family houses as well as apartment buildings.

Businesses are anything from supermarkets, restaurants, stores, hospitals, hotels, large scale kitchens, and offices.

3.2.2 Disposal and collection

This element represents the hub where the “waste generators” dispose of their waste and make it accessible for collection. In Stockholm exist numerous systems and technologies to dispose and collect waste, which will be introduced in the following.

Curbside collection/Collection in bins and bags (fastighetsnära insamling/kärl och säck) is the most common collection method for household waste, but is available for all waste fractions. In single family houses 190 l bins are most common for household waste and 140 l for food waste (if collected separately) (Avfall Sverige, 2013). The term can be considered ambiguous². Collection in bins and bags means that the waste is made accessible for collection at a dedicated location on, or very near-by, the

2 It does not always mean that the bins or bags can be directly collected “at the curbstone”, though it is often the case. For instance, sometimes bins have to be carried out of basement waste rooms or tons rolled down a drive way. The term therefor rather refers to the condition, that the waste is being collected at the source, without the producer having to dispose it at an intermediate place. But at the same time a large container or a recycling station can also be located at the source closed to the respective property, making the term near property collection rather circumstance than method specific.

(16)

10 property. From here a collection contractor picks the waste up, manually in the case of bags and some bins, or directly with a specially equipped vehicle for other bin types.

Depending on the agreement of the building owner different bins are provided at the curbside to enable sorting in different fractions. For food and other biodegradable waste brown paper bags are available that are also collected in a separate bin.

Recycling stations (återvinningsstation or miljöstation) are disposal places for packaging waste and newspapers - materials that fall under the producer responsibility (see section 3.3.1). In Stockholm 260 recycling stations are spread all over the city (FTI, 2013c). There is no general rule how many of these stations have to be in an area. To provide the best possible compromise between convenient access and efficient service their allocation complies with demand. Thus, they are more frequently found in densely populated areas, close to places where people often walk by, such as grocery stores. With decreasing population density in an area the environmental and economic benefits are lost as well. This is because some materials lose their recycling properties over time, and emptying and maintenance services become less efficient and more costly. Locations for recycling stations are decided upon in corporation among FTI AB, the municipality and the owners of the respective real estate (FTI, 2013j).

Recycling stations are also often located at recycling centers and facilities. Here households have the chance to dispose packaging that is too large to be disposed at regular recycling stations. Only households are allowed to dispose their packaging waste and newspapers at recycling stations, while businesses have to order a collection service (FTI, 2013j).

Recycling centers (återvinningscentral) are facilities where households and businesses can dispose waste that is not regularly collected, such as bulky or hazardous waste. Stockholm runs six municipality-owned recycling centers, but numerous others that are run by private waste management companies can be found in the area. Not all recycling centers take all types of waste. Information about whether a private person or business is allowed to bring a certain waste type, for instance hazardous waste, has to be requested at the respective center (SÖRAB, 2013; SITA, 2013). Businesses for instance businesses cannot dispose any hazardous waste at the municipality owned centers (Stockholms Stad, 2013).

Private households can use the municipality owned centers up to a certain vehicle size for free³ (Stockholms Stad, 2013; SÖRAB, 2013). Waste disposal at private recycling centers costs depending on the disposed volume, also for private persons (SITA, 2013). Businesses always have to pay for waste disposal.

FTI has contracts with six recycling centers in Stockholm and 18 more in Stockholm County, where businesses can dispose their paper, plastic and metal packaging waste for free. This applies for small amounts of maximum 1 m³ per material type in well sorted and dry condition (FTI, 2013f).

Stationary/Mobile Vacuum System (sopsug) is an automatic system to empty bins and transport the waste up to two kilometers to an intermediate storage place.

3 This service is included in the waste fee building owners pay to the municipality.

(17)

11 The user disposes the waste into an inlet similar to a garbage can that is connected to a pipe network that leads to terminal. This terminal runs an engine that, in given intervals, sucks the air out of the pipe network and thereby also sucks the waste out of the inlets towards the terminal. Inside the terminal the waste falls into a container of the respective material type and can then be picked up by a contractor. In the case of the mobile system the terminal is a special garbage truck that sucks the waste directly into its waste compartment and brings it away. The idea is to reduce transport distance and avoid door to door collection in dense urban areas (Envac, 2013).

In Stockholm are about 50 vacuum systems installed in apartment complexes, large scale kitchens, or hospitals (Envac, 2012). The first generation systems built in the 1970’s can only dispose of one waste fraction, generally household waste. The latest system that is installed, or in planning, in the Royal Seaport, has several inlets for different waste fractions, respectively recognized different colored bags and sorts them automatically (Törnblom, 2013). The waste is billed by weight (Stockholms Stad, 2014)

Large Containers are mostly used by businesses that produce large amounts of waste such as hotels, restaurants, supermarkets or large offices. Some containers also have an integrated waste compressor. The collection contractor generally charges its customer by weight of the waste. Containers that are emptied into a garbage truck (vippcontainer) and mobile vacuum systems are charged by volume (Stockholms Stad, 2014). There are at least two companies in Stockholm (SITA and Big Bag) that have special vehicles to pick up containers (Cronqvist, 2013).

Bottom-emptied containers (botten-tömmande behållare) are more common for large apartment complexes. Special vehicles with a crane are needed for emptying, as the largest part of these containers often lays hidden underground (Stockholms Stad, 2014), to offer large storage room while occupying little surface area. Another benefit of these containers is, that the more stable temperature in the ground delays the forming of bad odors of stored household and food waste (Cronqvist, 2013; Avfall Sverige, 2012a). For these containers the building owner is charged by weight (Stockholms Stad, 2013).

In-sink waste disposal (matkvarn) is a technology designed for convenient and odor- free food waste disposal. An electronic grinder installed below the kitchen sink shreds the food waste before it is flushed down the drain. Different versions of this technology then convey the material into the normal sewage, a tank in, or closed to, the building, or directly to a treatment plant in a separate pipe (Gustavsson & Brandt, 2010; Ekstrand, 2006). The third option is not common in Stockholm and will therefore not be considered. The benefits of this technology are controversial. The ground material is optimized for anaerobic digestion, because small particles are easier accessible for the bacteria, than the gross food waste from conventional disposal in bags. On the other hand the higher moisture content has a negative impact on biogas production (University of Florida, 2013; Törnblom, 2013). The ideal solution that is convenient to use, economical and produces fine ground and dry material does not exist yet. Thus, the best available solution has to be evaluated in each project in a local context.

(18)

12 3.2.3 Responsibility

This element is not a physical element like the ones previously described but helps to illustrate who is in charge of different waste management operations in Stockholm.

The municipality is responsible for collection of household and food waste and also provides recycling centers where households can dispose bulky waste. For the collection of household and food waste the city tenders contracts that cover the whole city area. These normally 4-5 year contracts are currently in the hands of Liselotte Lööf and Reno Norden AB who each have a monopoly contract for parts of the city.

The packaging producers, represented by FTI, are in charge of collection and treatment of all packaging waste and newspapers from private households. FTI pays collection companies to empty the recycling stations. Additionally they pay compensation to the companies that collect packaging waste and newspapers directly from the households. This is because everyone pays this fee to FTI through product prices, even though it is not FTI who eventually collects it (Nilsson, 2013; FTI, 2013a).

Private collection applies to all MSW that is not covered by the municipalities or producers. This applies for instance to packaging waste from businesses or extra collections of bulky waste.

3.2.4 Treatment

Waste treatment includes the transformation of waste into another material by applying chemical, physical or thermic processes (Naturvårdsverket, 2012b). A waste treatment method should always be applied according to the waste hierarchy (see section 3.3). In Stockholm three different treatment methods are used for MSW.

Incineration (förbränning) of waste, also referred to as energy recovery or energy recycling (energiåtervinning), is used to exploit the energy value in the waste to produce energy for district heating and electricity. The process left-overs, sludge from the burning chamber and fly ashes are then landfilled (Fortum, 2012). Though considered only the second last step in the waste hierarchy, incineration of waste is today in Sweden considered an environmentally sound treatment method, thanks to modern filter technology.

Recycling (återvinning) takes place at large waste management facilities (återvinninvsanläggning) that often comprise a recycling center, sorting platform, transshipment station, composting, hazardous and electronic waste handling, and landfill with gas extraction (SÖRAB, 2013a). Recycling facilities directly receive the MSW from collection contractor for treatment or intermediate storage. The sorting platforms take bulky and some sorts of industrial waste and partly, mechanically, partly manually sort it by material. Wood is shredded to chips used for fuel, metals sorted by type and sent to scrap dealers. Those materials that remain after the sorting process and cannot be incinerated are landfilled (Avfall Sverige, 2012a).

Transshipment stations help to reduce transport distances for garbage trucks between their collection route and the final treatment facility (SÖRAB, 2013a). Here the garbage trucks dump household waste in large funnels that convey the waste into 10

(19)

13 ton containers. These are then transported to Högdalen for incineration by normal trucks. The same process applies to food waste that is then shipped to Uppsala Vatten for biogas production.

Anaerobic digestion (rötning) is used to transform food waste (and other biodegradable materials that are not considered in this analysis) into biogas. During the process microorganisms decompose the waste material into methane (ca. 60-70

%), carbon dioxide (ca. 30-40 %) and a small amount of other compounds. The composition depends on material contents and applied technology (Berglund, 2006).

Biogas can be used to produce electricity, heating or used as fuel for vehicles. The latter requires an additional purification process called “upgrading”, in which the carbon dioxide is separated from the methane. After this the remaining methane is considered vehicle gas, which is also the primary use of biogas from Stockholm’s food waste (Energigas Sverige, 2011). Furthermore, the plant nutrients in the waste remain preserved, which allows for their use as fertilizer in agriculture. This processed fertilizer also has improved properties compared to the preprocessed material, such as improved nutrient availability (in particular nitrogen), reduced spread of weed seeds, pathogens and odor (Berglund, 2006).

3.2.5 End-of-life

The end-of-life system describes what happens with the waste after treatment. Since these elements comprise a multitude of different facilities, stakeholders and relationships that were not studied in detail in this report, each element summarizes various processes.

Landfills (deponi) are designated places for long term storage of waste materials that cannot be further recycled. In the case of MSW this applies primarily to the residues from previous treatment processes. This is because direct landfilling of household and organic waste is illegal in Sweden (Sveriges Riksdag, 2001). Today seven active landfills exist in the area around Stockholm (STAR, 2011).

Power grid is used as a simplified term for the district heating and electricity grid in Stockholm. The energy produced by the incineration plants is fed into these grids, operated by Fortum and other energy companies

Material market stands summarizing for the infrastructure that handles recycled materials. These are scrap metal dealers and companies that buy and sell recycled plastics or glass.

Energy Companies/Public transport is the element to represent the companies that buy the biogas and distribute it to end customers. These are companies such as AGA, but also municipalities who directly buy the gas for the bus fleets (Aronson, 2013).

Agriculture stands representative for the pretreatment as well as final use of bio- digestate from biogas and water treatment companies. The material is first collected by companies who process the sludge, before selling it to agricultural companies that use it as fertilizer.

Figure 3-1 (next page) illustrates some of the waste treatment facilities in and around Stockholm. The map on the left shows the city boundaries of Stockholm municipalities. The

(20)

14 red lines show the borders of the different areas of responsibility for household waste collection. The blue symbols point out the city’s six recycling centers. The red flame symbol represents the incineration plant Högdalenverket Stockholm (Stockholmregionens Afvallsråd, 2007).

Figure 3-1 Waste treatment facilities in the Stockholm area

The map on the right illustrates how spread out the system is when the most important treatment facilities are considered. The red triangles stand for the seven active landfills, which often are part of large recycling facilities. The red flame symbol in the south represents the incineration plant Igelstaverket in Södertälje and the two yellow symbols the biogas plants run by Uppsala Vatten (north) and SYVAB (south). The maps are simplified and do not include all existing waste management facilities.

3.3 Regulatory Framework

The Swedish Environmental Code (Miljöbalken) from 1998 contains aims and basic regulations to assure environmental sustainability and health in Sweden. Regulations and definitions regarding waste management are to be found in chapter 15, which outlines the concept of waste, producer responsibility, municipal responsibilities and waste management. Part of the municipality’s responsibilities is to administrate a city cleaning agenda (Renhållningsordning) and a waste management plan (Avfallsplan).

The former defines how building owners and consumers have to handle their waste.

The waste management plan defines goals and measures to reduce the amounts of waste and associated risks, as well as general information within the municipality. It describes a waste management strategy for the City of Stockholm and the involved stakeholders. Focus of the waste management plan is household waste, according to the previous definition. Both documents can become subject to change. That is in most cased when the distribution of responsibility for waste management changes.

(Stockholms Stad, 2013c; Sveriges Riksdag, 2013; Ministry of the Environment, 2007).

The underlying challenge is to reduce the waste amounts, and supply an accessible and cost-effective waste management, tailored to the given circumstances (Stockholms Stad, 2013c; Stadsbyggnadskontoret, 2010).

(21)

15 Since the implementation of a set of environmental goals for Sweden in 2000, landfilling of household waste has been reduced to less than 1 % in 2011. Two new goals regarding waste management have been decided on in 2012: By 2018 minimum 50 % of all food waste from households, stores, large-scale kitchens and restaurants should be separated and biologically treated for nutrient recovery, and at least 40 % treated for energy recovery. The other objective targets the minimum 70 % in weight reuse or recycling of construction waste (Avfall Sverige, 2012).

Waste management is regulated on European Union (EU), national, regional and local level (Stockholms Stad, 2013c). Like all members of the EU, Sweden has to organize its waste management in compliance with the EU directive 2008/98/EC. This framework for waste management for EU member states supplies general rules, terms and definitions, as well as the following waste hierarchy:

- Prevention (avoid the creation of waste)

- Preparation for reuse (measures to maintain functionality) - Reuse (use product again for the same purpose)

- Recycling (recover materials)

- Other recycling (recover energy from the materials)

- Disposal (any operation that is not recovery) (Avfall Sverige, 2012a;

Stockholms Stad, 2013c; European Parliament, 2008)

This hierarchy applies irrespective of who is in charge of handling the waste, or the waste type, if reasonable from a technical, financial or environmental point of view.

Furthermore, the EU-directive demands a waste management plan, as well as a waste prevention strategy from all member states.

National level

Within this EU-framework the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag) defines national environmental goals and regulations including waste management.

These regulations include that municipalities are obliged to take care of collection and treatment of household waste, producers of packaging, electronics, cars, batteries and tires of their respective products, and all other waste has to be treated in the best possible way for health and environment by the industry that caused the waste.

The Swedish Parliament developed 16 environmental goals to lead the country towards a sustainable society. Several of these goals (such as Good built environment, Reduced climate impact, Clean Air, Non-toxic environment) are influenced by waste management, which is why a number of sub-goals directly address this issue. The Swedish EPA is in charge of the national waste goals and also developed the waste management from 2012-2017. This plan has five focus areas and demands cooperation among municipalities, authorities, the industry and the scientific community. The waste prevention strategy for Sweden is under development (Stockholms Stad, 2013c; Naturvårdsverket, 2012).

Regional Level

The county administration (Länsstyrelsen) of Stockholm County works together with other local authorities, municipalities, industry, organizations and others to meet the national waste goals on a county level. The regional development plan RUFS 2010

(22)

16 serves as umbrella strategy to communicate environmental and development goals among all stakeholders (Stockholms Stad, 2013c).

Local Level

As written earlier, municipalities have to have a local cleaning agenda that includes waste management plan and corresponding regulations. In addition to this Stockholms traffic agency, who also comprises the city’s waste agency, supplies instructions on how to comply with regulations to businesses and building owners. The agency also provides the directive Projektera och bygg för god avfallshantering (Plan and build for sound waste management) that helps to implement convenient waste management already during building planning stage (Stockholms Stad, 2013c).

The municipal council furthermore assigns directed goals (Kommunfullmäktiges inriktningsmål) for all of the cities operations in its annual budget. These goals include specific policies, plans and programs – partly with quantitative indicators and temporal limits – to steer all sectors of the city towards the overall environmental goals. The waste management sector is part of this.

Painting a picture of a desired future society to strive for Stockholm developed its Vision 2030. The walkable City Stockholm City Plan has been developed as a planning guide towards this vision. Decision makers from all sectors of the city are asked to develop in line with this vision (Stockholms Stad, 2013c;

Stadsbyggnadskontoret, 2010). Specific plans and goals for waste management however are part of neither of the two documents.

Stockholm furthermore has an environmental program (Miljöprogram 2012-2015) to improve the environmental performance of the city’s own operations. One of this program’s six main goals is environmentally efficient waste management. Data regarding progress towards these aims can be viewed on the city’s Miljöbarometern website.

Waste management plan

Stockholm’s waste management plan (Avfallsplan) has four goals, each comprising a number of sub-goals and a future condition in line with the Vision 2030.

Goal 1: Waste from households and businesses shall be reduced and the waste that is created shall be handled in a resource efficient way.

Goal 2: Waste that can be harmful to people or the environment shall be handled separated.

Goal 3: Waste management should be designed from a people’s perspective.

Goal 4: Waste management should be a natural part of planning processes.

3.3.1. Producer responsibility

Producer responsibility was introduced by the government in 1994 as a means to hold trade and industry responsible for the environmental impacts of the goods they produce and distribute. The industries response was the formation of FTI, a non-profit organization that provides about 5800 recycling stations for plastic, paper, metal and glass packaging as well as newspapers all over Sweden. This recycling system is officially financed by a fee that companies who produce, import and sell goods, including those who only fill packaging, have to pay (FTI, 2013g). The packaging

(23)

17 waste collection service of producer responsibility however only applies to households. Businesses have to take care of their packaging waste themselves and are also not allowed to use recycling stations for disposal. It is free to dispose packaging waste amounts below 1 m³ per material type and visit when bringing it with the own vehicle (FTI, 2013e). The impacts producer responsibility has had on the development of packaging waste is controversial and explained in appendix D.

3.4 Waste Amounts and Performance

This chapter describes the waste management performance in Stockholm of the year 2012. The total amount of municipal solid waste collected in Stockholm in 2012 is 439,657 tons⁴. With a population of 881.235 inhabitants (Stockholms Stad, 2013b) this results in 499 kg per capita. The city has 43,914 households in single family or semi-detached houses and 401,762 in apartment houses (Avfall Sverige, 2013). The Waste management services are provided to 32.447 single-family households and 12.301 business or apartment building customers. Food waste separation is voluntary in Stockholm and according to Avfall Sverige (2013) 20 % of the households sort food waste extra. Compared to 7 % the year before that is a significant increase (Avfall Sverige, 2012).

The left chart in Figure 3-2 shows how the total amounts of MSW split up in the different fractions. The right chart shows how the packaging waste⁵ fraction splits up into the different materials (Cronqvist, 2013; FTI, 2013d).

Figure 3-2 Total amounds of MSW in Stockholm in 2012

4 2,045 tons of hazardous waste collected by the municipality in 2012 are not included in this number.

5 The numbers for packaging waste are available only in kg per capita and were therefore multiplied with the population number.

(24)

18 With 53 % household waste is by far the largest fraction, followed by bulky waste, packaging waste, and, food waste. The majority of the packaging waste is newspapers and glass packaging (also see appendix A). Looking at the development of the packaging amounts over time it becomes visible that the total amounts per capita have decreased during the past 7 year⁶. However, this appears only due to the fact that the largest fraction, newspapers, has decreased by 50 %. All other fractions have increased, or in the case of metal remained stable (see appendix B).

3.4.1 Compliance with waste sorting

The amounts of collected waste material show that there is functioning system and that the given number of waste was sorted in the right way. However, these numbers do not say how much of the material in each fraction is also supposed to be in that fraction. Therefore the city commissions sampling inspections.

Sample inspections of municipal waste reflect on how well waste sorting is being applied by households and businesses. The latest inspection from 2011 (Grontmij AB, 2011) showed that only 25 % of the materials found in household waste leave no other treatment method than incineration. Figure 3-3 summarizes the results of this inspection. The left chart shows how much of each material fraction was found in the household waste. The right chart shows how the materials would be treated in comparison to incineration, if the material was sorted correctly.

Figure 3-3 Results of sampling inspection of household waste in Stockholm

With the 32 % share of packaging waste in the household waste Stockholm is slightly above the average in Sweden (29 %). The municipalities with the lowest amounts were at 6 %, while the worst were up to 50 % (Avfall Sverige, 2013). The nationwide analysis of household waste also showed that single-family households were better at separation of packaging waste compared to apartments (Avfall Sverige, 2012a).

To evaluate the quality of waste management regulations or methods comparing sampling inspections over time is maybe the most reliable indicator. Just comparing

6 Period in which data was available.

(25)

19 the amounts of collected material over time does not provide the same information, because it does not consider the wasted potentials of material that was treated in an environmentally or economically less desirable way. However, there is not yet much data.

Sampling inspections in Stockholm from 2003 and 2008 show very similar results to today and indicate no measureable improvement during the past 10 years (STAR, 2011). Another sampling inspection carried out by Grontmij AB (2011a) showed that in Stockholm’s bulky waste about 36 % are miss-sorted. About 20 % of this is packaging waste and newspapers, 13 % household waste and the rest minor amounts of hazardous and electronic waste. Packaging waste that ended up in the bulky waste can eventually be recycled correctly. The difference is that the municipality pays for the collection and not the producers.

3.5 Costs of Waste Management

In chapter 3.2.3 it was already explained how the responsibilities for waste management are split up among the municipality, the producers and the business sector that has to organize waste collection from private companies. This chapter describes the costs of waste management for the municipality, reviews critical analyses of policies to incentivize waste reduction, and finally presents the costs of waste management for packaging producers and other stakeholders in the system.

3.5.1. Costs for the municipality

The municipality’s finances its waste management operations through a waste fee charged to building owners and businesses. The fee is calculated based on the costs to perform all waste management operations required by the city cleaning agenda. The total income from this fee may not be higher than the expenses spent on waste management – it is a non-profit by law. This is regulated in chapter 27 of Sweden’s environmental code (Sveriges Riksdag, 2013) In Stockholm all waste management activities are outsourced to private companies who are contracted by the city. Table 1 shows Stockholm’s waste management budget for 2013 (Cronqvist, 2013a). The amounts are calculated based on the costs from the previous year.

Table 3-1 Waste Management Budget Stockholm 2013 (in million SEK)

Costs (Mnkr) 487,0

Collection household waste 226,5

Collection organic waste 16,5

Treatment household waste 91,0

Treatment organic waste 6,5

Recycling centers (operation) 76,9

Treatment bulky waste from recycling centers 25,0

Collection hazardous waste 3,5

Treatment hazardous waste 2,5

Planning & development 13,6

Administration & communication 25,0

Income (-) -487,4

Income from fees from building owners and businesses -459,4

(26)

20

Other income -28,0

Operations net costs excl. Capital costs -0,4

Depreciation 9,1

Internal interest 2,7

Sum costs 498,8

Sum income -487,4

Net balance 11,4

The largest cost factor is the collection of household waste, followed by household waste treatment, and operating costs of the city’s recycling centers. The total costs are covered by the total income from the waste fees, plus the returns from recycled and sold material from the recycling centers. This is the position “other income”.

Including depreciation and interest, however, the costs are 11.4 million SEK higher than the income. This gap can be funded by taxes. To avoid such deviations the waste fees will be adjusted to varied costs in the next budget (Avfall Sverige, 2012a).

Dividing the total costs for treatment of household waste (91 million SEK) by the total amount of household waste (234.518 tons) results in 388 SEK/t. Doing the same for food waste (6.5 million divided by 8.849 tons) results in 735 SEK/t. These costs represent the gate fee the city has to pay the treatment company to take their waste.

Stockholm’s traffic agency confirmed the first number and corrected the second to an average of 588 SEK/ ton of food waste (Cronqvist, 2013a). Both values are in line with the average gate fees for food waste from households at biogas plants in Sweden (Berglund, 2006).

The amount of the fee a building owner has to pay depends on different location specific factors such as number and size of bins, collection interval and accessibility and comfort for the collection contractor. When the respective options are defined these costs are fixed. In 2012 an additional weight based fee was introduced for single family houses. The intention of this fee is to give an incentive for reduced household waste production and improved sorting of packaging and food waste. The fee costs 1.50 SEK/kg of household waste. Separated collection of food waste is completely free. Weight based fees of household waste for apartment houses and business is still in development. The reason for this is, that they have their own bins, which, unlike the municipality owned ones, are not equipped with RFID chips to calculate the fee for the respective household (Stockholms Stad, 2014a). The chips allow to identify the owner of the bin, the time, and the place (Stare & Sundqvist, 2013).

Billing of the fees is quarterly and includes the fixed fees plus the accumulated weighed fees. While single-family households pay the fee directly to the city, owners of apartment buildings distribute the costs for waste management to their tenants through the rent (Stockholms Stad, 2014a). According to Avfall Sverige (2012a) an average single-family house pays about 2000 SEK a year in waste fees and an apartment around 1,260 SEK. The newest waste fee system increased the fees by ca.

10 % (Stockholms Stad, 2014). A simplified example calculation for a family living in a single house could look like this⁷:

7 An average household disposes ca. 13 kg of household waste per week, of which 5 kg are food waste, and pays for collection every other week (Stockholms Stad, 2014).

(27)

21 Table 3-2 Example calculation annual waste fee

The calculation shows that separate sorting of the 5 kg of food waste allows to reduce weight based costs for household waste by almost 50 % and total costs by 20 %. This does not include potential further savings through correct sorting of packaging waste (see appendix D). Though this shows that weight based fees can reduce costs, one has to consider that waste costs make up only 6 % of total operating costs of a building besides warm water (18 %), electricity (28 %) and district heating (48 %) (Nils Holgerson Gruppen, 2011).

3.5.2. Analysis of weight based waste fee

Most interesting about the weight based waste fee is if the concept works. In other parts of Sweden weight based fees have partly already been introduced years earlier and the analyses led to various conclusions.

In the municipality Askims by Gothenburg the result was a reduction of waste amounts of 18 % in five month for single-family houses. The same study also showed that in apartment buildings no reductions were found because the potential cost savings were not communicated and forwarded to the tenants. This is the responsibility of the building owner. On average the studies measured reductions of 20 – 30 % and 95 % of the municipalities were satisfied with the effects. In some cases feedback was also contradictory or negative. One claim was that administrative costs rose as a consequence. In another case they decreased. One conclusion was also that it increased littering (Stare & Sundqvist, 2013).

Another observation was that while amounts of household waste decreased by 20 % the amounts of collected recyclable material did not increase in municipalities with weight fee, compared to municipalities without. This could indicate that a decline in total amounts of waste, increased home composting, dumping in the nature or dumping at recycling centers were the reason for the changes. Another study that analyzed material flows concluded that waste amounts reduced, but that this effect cannot be directly linked to the weight fees. Reasons for this can be increasing waste amounts due to economic trends, and lack of data on specific material flows and continuous development of sampling inspection results. Personal attitude was also identified as a relevant factor. Although the general reductions point out that the fee does motivate people to sort better, it has also shown that the height of the fee (1.25 SEK/kg up to 3.60 SEK/kg) among different municipalities has no impact on the success. This was explained with the still comparably low share of costs for waste of

Fixed costs for collection every two weeks 1 360,0 SEK/year

Weight based costs:

13,0 kg/week 7,0 kg/week 1,5 SEK/kg 1,5 SEK/kg 52,0 weeks 52,0 weeks 1 014,0 SEK/year 546,0 SEK/year 2 374,0 SEK/year 1 906,0 SEK/year without sorting with sorting of

food waste

THE POTENTIALS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN STOCKHOLM

M ASTER OF S CIENCE T HESIS