Business waste prevention: a review of the evidence.

Waste prevention is a policy priority in many countries. For example, European Union member states are currently required to prepare a national Waste Prevention Programme. This article reports on a major international review of the evidence base for business waste prevention to underpin such policy-making. A strict definition of waste prevention is used, including waste avoidance, waste reduction at source or in process, and product reuse-recycling is outside the scope of this article. The review was organised with two key dimensions. Eight types of policy intervention were identified: standards, labelling, procurement, commitments and voluntary agreements, communication, incentives, waste minimisation clubs and other business support. Six illustrative sectors were selected: construction and demolition, food and drink, hospitality, retail, automotive and office-based services. Four broad approaches to business waste prevention have been distinguished and used as part of the analytical framework, classified into a two by two matrix, using supply- and demand-side drivers as one axis, and incremental versus radical change as the other. A fundamental focus was on attitudes and behaviours. A conceptual framework is presented to navigate the various behavioural influences on businesses, and to discuss those motivations and barriers for which the evidence is relatively robust. The results suggest that the (financial) benefits to business of waste prevention are potentially huge, and that some progress is being made, but measurement is a challenge. A taster of some of the learnings on the effectiveness of the different policy interventions to promote waste prevention is also presented.

Household waste prevention--a review of evidence.

This paper reports a synthesis of policy-relevant evidence on household waste prevention, based on a UK portfolio of primary research and a broad international review. Waste prevention was defined as strict avoidance, reduction at source (e.g. home composting) and reuse (for the product's original purpose) - recycling was excluded. A major focus was on consumers. Waste prevention is not one but many behaviours; the review revealed a general hierarchy in their popularity, from donating goods to charity at the top; through small reuse behaviours around the home; to activities involving changes in consumption habits at the bottom; one estimate is that 60% of the public does at least one of these activities, some of the time. Barriers to engaging householders include both modern consumer culture and a genuine confusion that waste prevention is equivalent to recycling. The public can be engaged through local or national campaigns, with a wide range of interventions and communications approaches available. On the products and services side, the primary opportunity within the scope of the review was identified as increasing reuse. The barriers included operational difficulties (funding, capacity, logistics) and consumer attitudes towards second-hand goods. The main opportunities are to ensure more strategic planning for reuse by local authorities and better co-ordination and joint working with the third sector. The review examined the impact or potential of various policy measures designed to influence household behaviour directly or the products and services provided to them. Overall, the international evidence suggests that waste prevention benefits will be derived from a 'package' of measures, including, for example, prevention targets, producer responsibility, householder charging, funding for pilot projects, collaboration between the public, private and third sectors, and public intervention campaigns. UK evidence suggests that the greatest tonnage diversions can be achieved on food waste, home composting and bulky waste. The principal evidence gaps relate to robust and comprehensive quantitative data. Better evidence is needed of what actually works, and what outcomes (weight, carbon and costs) can be expected from different measures. More sensitive and effective monitoring and evaluation is needed to provide the evidence required to develop the necessary basket of future policy measures at local and national level.

Using research-based knowledge to underpin waste and resources policy.

The concept of a knowledge-based approach to policy making (also referred to as 'evidence-based policy making' or 'science meets policy') has been around for 10 years, and is widely 'signed up to' by Governments. This paper examines the theory and the practice at national government (using the UK as a case study) and European levels, looking at how the knowledge-based approach has been applied in waste and resources management. There is general agreement that a knowledge-(or evidence-) based approach to policy making is a 'good thing'; however putting the concept into practice has proven challenging and is still evolving. The linkages between researchers and policy makers need to be further strengthened, as does the 'demand' for evidence from policy; requiring policy specialists to articulate their requirements for evidence sufficiently well in advance, and to do so routinely, is still an area of weakness. Using a model developed by the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), we examine in detail some of the implications of changing the question from 'is this good research on waste and resources issues?' to 'is this good evidence for waste and resources policy?'. The paper also provides recommendations for further work required to achieve this at a European level, and for priority areas where international co-ordination of waste and resources research could add most value to policy.