**6. Case study: Efficiency of separate collection of the organic fraction in Spain**

In order to meet European targets on waste (Directive 2004/12/EC) and comply with Spanish law, which requires councils in towns with over 5,000 people to implement separate collection systems, Spanish councils have had to design new collection models to adapt to these laws. For this reason, there is a wide variety of collection systems in Spain.

We present the results of a research paper which analyses separate collection systems for organic waste in Spanish towns with between 5,000 and 50,000 inhabitants. The systems and their efficiency are studied using the indicators *Fractioning Rate and Quality in Container Rate*  and *Separation Rate*.

In the year taken into account in this study (2008), the population of Spain rose from 46,765,807 inhabitants in 2008 (INE, 2008a). In addition, according to data released by the Spanish National Institute of Statistics, 24,240,470 tonnes of municipal solid waste were collected in the year 2008, and the *per capita* collection rate was 611.82 kg (INE, 2008b).

The number of municipalities with between 5,000 and 50,000 inhabitants in 2008 was 1,145 (INE, 2008a). Studying this entire population would be a difficult task and would entail

The systems that can be applied to the collection of the organic fraction of urban waste are the same as those mentioned above. As described above, special attention must be paid to the pre-collection, which consists of separation in an organic waste bin, preferably in compostable bags, such as those made of corn starch. The bags are then deposited in special containers for transport to composting plants. In order to minimize the amount of improper materials appearing in the containers, initial campaigns and information maintenance initiatives are carried out, and biodegradable bags are often given away. It is also quite useful to conduct a pilot test in one part of the city, in order to gain experience and roll out

In order to increase the amount collected and reach more generation points, the collection of

Household (fruit and vegetable peelings, food scraps, fish scraps, meat bones and

After a separate collection system for the organic fraction of urban waste that meets the

It generates higher quality compost than the mixed waste fraction, which needs prior

Biocompartmentalized containers are available, making savings during collection

In order to meet European targets on waste (Directive 2004/12/EC) and comply with Spanish law, which requires councils in towns with over 5,000 people to implement separate collection systems, Spanish councils have had to design new collection models to adapt to

We present the results of a research paper which analyses separate collection systems for organic waste in Spanish towns with between 5,000 and 50,000 inhabitants. The systems and their efficiency are studied using the indicators *Fractioning Rate and Quality in Container Rate* 

In the year taken into account in this study (2008), the population of Spain rose from 46,765,807 inhabitants in 2008 (INE, 2008a). In addition, according to data released by the Spanish National Institute of Statistics, 24,240,470 tonnes of municipal solid waste were collected in the year 2008, and the *per capita* collection rate was 611.82 kg (INE, 2008b).

The number of municipalities with between 5,000 and 50,000 inhabitants in 2008 was 1,145 (INE, 2008a). Studying this entire population would be a difficult task and would entail

**6. Case study: Efficiency of separate collection of the organic fraction in** 

these laws. For this reason, there is a wide variety of collection systems in Spain.

needs of the population concerned has been established, its main advantages are:

Reduced costs of subsequent treatment of the compost (compost refining).

material can also be arranged according to its origin (Marrero, 2010):

scraps, spoiled food, grass cuttings, small prunings, etc.).

 Restaurants, bars, schools and public buildings. Waste from markets, shops and services. Waste from parks, gardens and cemeteries.

 It minimizes the problem of landfill leachate. It complies with regulations currently in force.

the service to the rest of the city.

treatment.

possible.

and *Separation Rate*.

**Spain** 

considerable time and effort. To that end, a representative sample of that population (279 towns) was defined according to a number of statistical variables. Each one was sent a survey by mail, requesting the following information:


After the entire information gathering process, data was available for 115 towns (41% of the towns in the sample), in 14 of the 17 Spanish regions.

Of all the towns for which information was available, 29.5% collect the organic fraction of urban waste, the majority are in the region of Catalonia, as the legislation there requires this type of collection. Such a low percentage is due to the fact that collection of the organic fraction of urban waste is still voluntary, and as such the majority of the towns have not yet implemented it. According to the study, there are 6 different collection systems, with the following characteristics:


The diagram of the 6 collection systems can be seen in Figure 6. Table 2 shows the towns that have implemented each of the systems above.

Table 2 shows how system B is used in most of the municipalities studied. There is a new fraction, multiproduct, in systems E and F, in order to optimize collection. This fraction is not very widespread, and is not found in large Spanish towns (Gallardo et al., 2010). Figures 7-12 shows the different *FRo* obtained by each system and Table 3 shows the *QCRo* and *SRo* for organic waste.

<sup>1</sup> Multi-product: light packaging and paper-cardboard

Separate Collection Systems for Urban Waste (UW) 129

Using the *FRo* and *QCRo* calculated, it can be seen which system works best from the point of view of collection of the organic fraction of urban waste. The best *FRo* results are obtained in system E, which also has the best *QCRo*. The collection is door to door, which is very convenient for citizens, who do not have to travel any distance to deposit their waste. This system is suitable for towns in which the containers can be located inside buildings or homes. The worst *FRo* and *QCRo* results are for systems C and A respectively. The low *FRo* is because the public participation is very low, as people prefer to deposit their waste in kerbside containers. Despite the low *FRo* in system C, its *QCRo* is high, which means that the few people

Fig. 8. System B Fractioning Rate

Fig. 9. System C Fractioning Rate

Fig. 10. System D Fractioning Rate

Fig. 6. Diagram of separate collection systems.


Table 2. Towns with between 5,000 and 50,000 inhabitants with each system.

Fig. 7. System A Fractioning Rates.

SYSTEM No. cities A 7 B 16 C 2 D 2 E 2 F 1

Table 2. Towns with between 5,000 and 50,000 inhabitants with each system.

Fig. 6. Diagram of separate collection systems.

Fig. 7. System A Fractioning Rates.

Fig. 8. System B Fractioning Rate

Fig. 9. System C Fractioning Rate

Fig. 10. System D Fractioning Rate

Using the *FRo* and *QCRo* calculated, it can be seen which system works best from the point of view of collection of the organic fraction of urban waste. The best *FRo* results are obtained in system E, which also has the best *QCRo*. The collection is door to door, which is very convenient for citizens, who do not have to travel any distance to deposit their waste. This system is suitable for towns in which the containers can be located inside buildings or homes. The worst *FRo* and *QCRo* results are for systems C and A respectively. The low *FRo* is because the public participation is very low, as people prefer to deposit their waste in kerbside containers. Despite the low *FRo* in system C, its *QCRo* is high, which means that the few people

Separate Collection Systems for Urban Waste (UW) 131

Ayerbe, S. (2000). La recogida selectiva: punto clave para el reciclado, *Proceedings of Seminario sobre cultura medioambiental en la gestión de los residuos urbanos*, Lorca (Spain). Ayerbe, S., & Pérez, S. (2005). Alternativas para la recogida de envases ligeros, *Ingeniería* 

Belton, V., Crowe, D.V., Matthews, R., & Scott, S. (1994). A survey of public attitudes to recycling in Glasgow (U.K.), *Waste Management and Research,* Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 351-367. Berbel, J., Peñuelas, J., Ortiz, J., & Gómez, M. (2001). Análisis comparado de modelos de

Blumenthal, K. (2011). Generation and treatment of municipal waste. Eurostat 31/2011 —

Bolaane, B. (2006). Constraints to promoting people centred approaches in recycling, *Habitat* 

Connett, P. (2011). Zero Waste: A Key Move towards a Sustainable Society. August 2011. Available from: http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/zerowaste.pdf Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., & Probert, SD. (1998). Municipal solid waste: a prediction

Dahlén, L., Vukicevic, S., Meijer J., & Lagerkvist, A. (2007). Comparison of different

Emery, AD., Griffiths, A.J., & Williams, K.P. (2003). In a depth study of the effects of socio-

Gallardo, A., Tejero, I., & Ferrer, J. (1999). Alternativas en la recogida selectiva ante el nuevo

Gallardo, A. (2000). *Metodología para el diseño de redes de recogida de selectiva de RSU utilizando* 

Gallardo, A., Bovea, M., Colomer, F., Prades, M., & Carlos, M. (2010). Comparison of

Gandy, M. (1994). A comparative overview of recycling in London and Hamburg, *Waste* 

Gilnreiner, G. (1994). Waste minimization and recycling strategies and their changes of

Gomes, A., Matos, M., & Carvalho, I. (2008). Separate collection of the biodegradable

González-Torre, P.L., & Adenso-Díaz, B. (2005). Influence of distance on the motivation and frequency of household recycling, *Waste Management*, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 5–23. Harder, M.K., & Woodard, R. (2007). Systematic studies of shop and leisure voucher

INE, 2008a. Demografía y población. Cifras de población y censos demográficos, In: *Instituto* 

INE, 2008b. Sociedad. Análisis sociales*,* In: *Instituto Nacional de Estadística*, Available from:

success, *Waste Management and Research,* Vol. 12, No. 3,pp. 271-283.

methodology for the generation rate and composition in the European Union Countries and the United States of America, *Resources, Conservation and Recycling*,

collection systems for sorted household waste in Sweden, *Waste Management* , Vol.

economic conditions on household waste recycling practices, *Waste Management and* 

marco normativo, *Proceedings of VI Congreso de Ingeniería Ambiental*, Bilbao,

*sistemas de información geográfica. Creación de una base de datos aplicable a España*,

different collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain, *Waste* 

fraction of MSW: An economic assessment, *Waste Management* , Vol. 28, No. 10, pp.

incentives for household recycling, *Resouces, Conservation and Recycling,* Vol. 51, No.

recogida selectiva de envases/orgánico, *Residuos* No. 59, pp. 52-57.

*Química,* No. 423, pp. 203-207.

*International, Vol.* 30, No. 4, pp. 731–740.

Statistics in focus.

Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 155-166.

27, No. 10, pp. 1298-1305.

February, 1999.

1711-1719.

4, pp. 732–753.

www.ine.es

*Research,* Vol*.* 21, No. 3, pp. 180-190

Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia.

*Management and Research,* Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 481-494

*Nacional de Estadística*, Available from: www.ine.es

*Management,* Vol*.* 31, No. 7, pp. 379-406.

Fig. 11. System E Fractioning Rate

Fig. 12. System F Fractioning Rate


Table 3. *QCRo* and *SRo* obtained in each system.

who do participate in this collection do it properly. The reason behind the low *QCRo* in system A is the proximity to the mixed waste container, as if the mixed waste container overflows, or even in cases of confusion, mixed waste can be deposited in the organic waste container. The mixed waste container in system A contains approximately 40% of organic waste, meaning that information campaigns are required so that citizens are more aware of this type of collection.

Regarding the *SRo*, it can be seen how system E has the highest value, which leads us to conclude that this is the best system. The proximity of the container to the citizen and a higher level of fractioning are undoubtedly factors in obtaining good results in the separate collection of organic waste.
