3 Assessing and Comparing Organic Waste Collection Systems

This section consolidates the information about kerbside organic waste collection issues set out in section 2. Table 1 gives the advantages and disadvantages for each of the issues that would need to be considered when assessing options for a collection system. These include the:

type of material collected
provision of kitchen containers
provision of kerbside containers
frequency of collection
kerbside collection method.

The sub-issues presented in Table 1 are options for how each key issue could be approached.

Cost-benefit analyses of various kerbside organic waste-collection systems are not within the scope of this report. However, household surveys and pilot trials are an appropriate way to quantify the advantages and disadvantages of each issue as part of any cost-benefit analysis (see also section 2.4).

By way of example, a comparison of three kerbside organic waste-collection systems using the methodology presented in Table 1 is given in Table 2.

Table 1: Issues and options to consider when assessing kerbside organic waste collection

Issue	Sub-issue	Advantages	Disadvantages
Material collected	Kitchen waste only	Compost facility can control material mix Achieves substantial diversion of organic waste from landfill, in particular diverting the portion of the organic waste stream away from landfill that has the highest potential for vermin attraction and the release of odour, leachate and landfill gas Single collection system can apply to all dwelling types	Decreased yield/diversion of total organic material if there is no green waste collection However, in some areas a private contractor may already collect green waste
Material collected	Green waste only	Compost facility can control material mix Achieves diversion of organic waste from landfill. How large a diversion that is depends on the current method for collection of green waste (eg, if green waste is collected with refuse)	Decreased yield/diversion of total organic material if there is no kitchen waste collection Seasonal variation of green waste generation may affect volumes
	Combined green waste and kitchen waste collection	Increased yield of organic material/diversion Only one receptacle for organic waste required Increased convenience for householder, which should result in higher participation Addition of green waste may help to control odour and leachate from the food waste (by absorption, masking of odour effects, etc)	Compost facility cannot control material mix as easily A secondary system for food-waste collection may be required from properties where there is no green-waste generation (eg, apartment dwellings) Seasonal variation of green waste generation may affect volumes Larger, more expensive bins are required Contamination rates could be higher, with users able to dispose of refuse in larger bins, among organic wastes
	Green waste and kitchen waste both collected but in separate containers	Increased yield of organic material/diversion Material mix into treatment facility can be better controlled	Two receptacles for organic waste are required (greater cost) Decreased convenience for householder Seasonal variation of green waste generation may affect volumes
Kitchen tidy bin	Council-provided kitchen tidy bin	Increased convenience for householders, which should result in higher participation Decreased cost to householder	Higher capital, administration and operating costs for council
	Householder-provided kitchen tidy	Decreased cost and administration for council	Decreased convenience for householders, which may result in reduced participation Increased cost for householders
	No liner	Reduced cost for householder and/or council	Frequent cleaning of kitchen tidy needed Less convenient to wrap waste in newspaper Less convenient to transfer waste to kerbside bin
	Biodegradable paper or corn-starch bin liners	Increased convenience for householder, which should result in higher participation Reduced odour potential Reduced moisture content and therefore weight of waste to be transported Infrequent bin cleaning required Can be fed straight into the composting facility	Higher capital cost and operating cost Increased cost of council-provided bags to the householder, or increased cost to the householder of purchasing bags
	Plastic shopping bag liner	Increased convenience encourages participation Infrequent bin cleaning needed Reduced cost for householder and council	Increased odour potential because bags do not 'breathe' No reduction in moisture content, therefore no reduction in mass of waste to transport Need to mechanically or manually split and separate bag from waste at composting facility, causing increased pre-treatment costs Higher risk of plastic contamination in end product
Kerbside container	Bins	Increased convenience encourages participation Reduced odour potential of aerated bins Mechanical collection, decreases health and safety issues Reduced susceptibility to animal strike and vermin	Higher capital, administration and operating costs for council Increased odour potential of non-aerated bins Can be difficult for elderly to manoeuvre Cleaning required
Kerbside container	Bags	Reduced capital, administration and operating costs for council No cleaning required	Manual collection required, creating increased health and safety issues Increased odour potential Greater susceptibility to animal strike and vermin
Frequency of collection	Weekly	Reduced odour potential Reduced risk of animal strike and vermin Can reduce collections of residual waste and/or commingled recyclables to fortnightly frequency	Higher operating costs
	Fortnightly	Reduced operating costs Can reduce collection frequency of residual waste and/or commingled recyclables	Increased odour potential Increased risk of animal strike and vermin
	Summer weekly/ winter fortnightly	Reduced frequency during months when odour potential greatest reduces costs	Increased communication to householders required Increased odour potential during fortnightly collection period
	Seasonal green waste collection	Reduced frequency during months when green waste generation is least reduces costs	Increased communication to householders required
Kerbside collection	Mechanical collection	Decreased health and safety risks	Reduced contamination management
Kerbside collection	Manual collection	Improved contamination management at kerbside	Increased health and safety risks at kerbside

Table 2: Comparison of three kerbside organic waste collection systems

Case study	Collection system summary	Advantages	Disadvantages
Mackenzie District, New Zealand (Appendix 1.2)	Kitchen and "light" green-waste collection, householder-provided kitchen tidy, user-pays non-biodegradable bag, weekly collection, manual collection	Increased yield of organic material/ diversion as both green waste and kitchen waste collected Only one receptacle for organic waste required Increased convenience for householder should result in higher participation Weekly collection reduces odour potential Reduced capital, administration and operating costs for Council No cleaning of bin required Improved contamination management at kerbside	Compost facility cannot control material mix as easily Seasonal variation of green waste generation may affect volumes Manual collection required Bags manually split at treatment plant Increased health and safety risks Greater susceptibility to animal strike and vermin
Lismore City, New South Wales (Appendix 2.1.2)	Kitchen and "light" green-waste collection, householder-provided kitchen tidy, council-provided kerbside bin weekly collection, mechanical collection	Increased yield of organic material/ diversion as both green waste and kitchen waste collected Only one receptacle for organic waste required Increased convenience for householder should result in higher participation Weekly collection reduces odour potential Reduced risk of animal strike and vermin Can reduce collections of residual waste and/or commingled recyclables to fortnightly frequency Decreased health and safety risks	Compost facility cannot control material mix as easily Seasonal variation of green waste generation may affect volumes Higher capital, administration and operating costs for council Increased odour potential of non-aerated bins Can be difficult for elderly to manoeuvre Cleaning required Reduced contamination management at kerbside
City of Toronto, Ontario (Appendix 2.2)	Kitchen waste, nappies, animal waste collection, council-provided kitchen tidy, council-provided kerbside bin weekly collection, seasonal green-waste collection, mechanical collection	Increased yield of organic material/ diversion as both green waste and kitchen waste collected Material mix into treatment facility can be better controlled Increased convenience for householder should result in higher participation Weekly/seasonal collection reduces odour potential Reduced risk of animal strike and vermin Can reduce collections of residual waste and/or commingled recyclables to fortnightly frequency Decreased health and safety risks	Two receptacles for organic waste required Seasonal variation of green waste generation may affect volumes Higher capital, administration and operating costs for council Increased odour potential of non-aerated bins Can be difficult for elderly to manoeuvre Cleaning required Reduced contamination management at kerbside

[ Previous|Next ]