MASTER OF SCIENCE THESIS

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

ADRIAN GUHR GUHR@KTH.SE

MAY 14TH 2014

THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (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 KEYWORDS: WASTE MANAGEMENT, MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS, INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

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.

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

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

iv

Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives ....................................................................................... 2

1.3 Limitations of the Study .................................................................................. 2

2 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................ 3

2.2 Questionnaires and Interviews ........................................................................ 3

2.3 Data Evaluation and Material Flow Mapping ................................................. 4

2.4 Success of the methods and Quality of Data ................................................... 5

3 Waste Management Framework............................................................................. 6

3.1 The Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 6

3.1.1. Authorities and Consumers ...................................................................... 6

3.1.2. Collection Companies .............................................................................. 7

3.1.3. Treatment Companies .............................................................................. 8

3.2 The Elements of the System ............................................................................ 9

3.2.1 Waste generation ...................................................................................... 9

3.2.2 Disposal and collection ............................................................................ 9

3.2.3 Responsibility ........................................................................................ 12

3.2.4 Treatment ............................................................................................... 12

3.2.5 End-of-life .............................................................................................. 13

3.3 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................. 14

3.3.1. Producer responsibility .......................................................................... 16

3.4 Waste Amounts and Performance.................................................................. 17

3.4.1 Compliance with waste sorting .............................................................. 18

3.5 Costs of Waste Management ......................................................................... 19

3.5.1. Costs for the municipality ...................................................................... 19

3.5.2. Analysis of weight based waste fee ....................................................... 21

3.5.3. Costs for producers ................................................................................ 22

3.5.4. Costs for Biogas and Material Recycling Companies ........................... 23

4 Material Flow Description ................................................................................... 24

4.1 Data Sensitivity ............................................................................................. 24

4.2 Household Waste ........................................................................................... 25

4.3 Packaging Waste ............................................................................................ 25

4.4 Bulky Waste .................................................................................................. 26

4.5 Food Waste .................................................................................................... 26

v

5 Identified Problems .............................................................................................. 29

5.1 Transport and Traffic ..................................................................................... 29

5.2 Wrong sorting and economic losses .............................................................. 30

5.3 Accessibility and Safety at Work .................................................................. 30

5.4 Opacity of Data ............................................................................................. 32

5.5 Conflict of interest ......................................................................................... 32

6 ICT to Improve Waste Management .................................................................... 34

6.1 Vacuum System ............................................................................................. 35

6.2 Active waste monitoring ............................................................................... 35

7 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 37

7.1 The Waste Material Flows ............................................................................. 37

7.2 Technology based solutions .......................................................................... 39

7.3 System Perspective ........................................................................................ 40

8 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 42

Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 43

Appendices ................................................................................................................... 50

1

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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 weeks1 360,0 SEK/year

Weight based costs:

13,0 kg/week 7,0 kg/week1,5 SEK/kg 1,5 SEK/kg

52,0 weeks 52,0 weeks1 014,0 SEK/year 546,0 SEK/year2 374,0 SEK/year 1 906,0 SEK/year

without sorting with sorting of food waste

22

the income. A survey also showed that for some people the financial aspect is an incentive, while others say they sort waste because the see it as a social duty (Stare & Sundqvist, 2013). An analysis of the effects of weight fees in Stockholm showed that the number of collection tours for household waste between May 2012 and 2013 has slightly shifted from weekly towards two-week and monthly, with a minimal total increase. If this number considers the population growth is not pointed out. Neither has been calculated if fuel consumption has been affected by this development. The total number of single-family houses with separate food waste collection has in the same period increased from 2,518 (7 %) to 6,892 (20 %), which is a positive effect. The down side of this was that the contractor for food waste collection had difficulties to provide the service to all customers after this sharp increase of workload (Stare & Sundqvist, 2013). Household waste amounts decreased from 21,060 to 15,501 tons (30 %) in the same time period. For food waste this amount increased from 521 to 1,358 ton. A connection between the changed numbers on collected packaging material and the fees could not yet be drawn. However, the reduced amounts of household waste were considered an indicator of improved sorting. The risk of illegal disposal as a consequence of the fee has also here been considered. Potential ways to do this are burning at home, littering or disposal in the toilet, at work, apartment buildings or public bins. Reliable data to evaluate this is however unavailable (Stare & Sundqvist, 2013) Economically the system has not benefitted the city. Administrative costs have increased significantly, income from the waste fee has reduced8 and treatment costs increased. Furthermore did the food waste collection contractor scale its fleet up from 4 to 11 vehicles, which the city also subsidizes. Some of these costs, however, are expected to reduce over time once the system is adjusted (Stare & Sundqvist, 2013). In conclusion, the fact that the reduction of household waste was larger than the increase in food waste while the effects on packaging waste are unclear, it is assumed that the total amount of produced waste has declined. The development of the amounts of collected waste per capita between 2007 and 2012 supports this as the numbers are on a notable decrease (Stockholms Stad, 2013d). Though a reduction of CO2 emissions was not a direct aim, emissions were reduced by 5,000 to 10,000 tons. This was calculated based on data from LCA databases that calculate the climate saving potential of preventing different wastes (Stare & Sundqvist, 2013).

3.5.3. Costs for producers The total costs of the packaging waste collection and recycling system is about 1 billion SEK per year in Sweden. Since the value of the collected material does not cover these expenses the producers also pay a fee depending on the material type and the purpose of the packaging (FTI, 2014). Data regarding the costs on a local level is not available. Neither is information on how the sum of the total costs breaks down. The contract FTI has with its collection contractors is based on payment per number of driven kilometers and emptied bins (Nilsson, 2013).

8 Based on the fee calculation from 2012 and 2013 which has been replaced by a new system for 2014.

23

Producers get charged via a fixed or flexible fee (FTI, 2013). Depending on the material type they have to pay per kilo of material used. The fees also vary depending on the purpose of the packaging. The fees for product packaging that goes directly to the end consumer are the highest (1.35 – 3.49 SEK/kg). Service packaging for, for instance restaurants, is a bit lower (1.22 – 1.99 SEK/kg), and commercial packaging for material and products for transport between businesses is only a fraction of the other fees 0.01 – 0.28 SEK/kg). Latest changes in legislation have also reduced the fees for commercial packaging while increasing the fees for end consumer and service packaging material (FTI, 2013). Some also argue that the total costs of the system for society are significantly higher than the environmental benefits and that it only causes higher product prices and increased efforts (Flory, 2000). What calculations these conclusions are based on however is not known. For this analysis it will be assumed that material sorting and recycling is the right way to go and that cost reductions have to be achieved through less waste.

3.5.4. Costs for Biogas and Material Recycling Companies Besides the municipality and the producer’s costs, economic interrelations exist between other stakeholders as well. However, information is difficult to access as private companies do not publish their revenue streams and also hold it confidential upon request. This section can therefore only summarize hints that have been given during the interviews or information from other reports. As explained before the municipality pays companies for collection and treatment of food waste. The digestate that remains from anaerobic digestion processes at SYVAB is collected by a company who then treats the material and sells it to their customers. SYVAB does not pay or get paid for this (Aronson, 2013). In Sweden in general the costs of biogas vary significantly depending on the costs of the digested material and the corresponding biogas yield. Biogas companies charge a gate fee that makes about 25 % of their income when they receive the material. This fee is determined by the alternative cost for the gate fee at an incineration plant (Berglund, 2006). The biogas potential can rise in future. Since 2006 large scale petrol stations are required to provide renewable fuels to their customers. When these demands increase and spread to all stations demand for locally produced biogas will rise as well. Distribution of biogas is uncomplicated, because the natural gas grid can be used. Thus, need for new infrastructure is low. The system however is sensitive: Large scale digesters in Sweden were reported to have a capacity 60% above today‘s utilization rate. Profitability could thus be increased by using full capacity. However, over-capacity through increased competition could reverse these affects and additionally reduce gate fees (Berglund, 2006). The trend today is that fees for anaerobic digestion in Sweden are increasing while fees for incineration are decreasing (Avfall Sverige, 2012a). The local energy company Söderenergi gets paid ca 50 SEK/ton of combustible waste from its supplier depending on the quality of the material The prices are agreed in a contract that applies one to several years (Wedholm, 2013). Private collectors get paid for certain material fractions and have to pay for others to get rid of (Ribbing, 2013)

24

4 Material Flow Description

All the aspects described in the waste management framework work together to form a functioning system. The systems boundaries start at the element “waste creation” which is the source of the waste, as described earlier. The material then moves through a disposal system into the treatment system and finally ends up in an end-of life system. The end of-life system can be considered not part of waste management but will be included in the system boundaries here, as it is an important element. The output from the end-of-life system (recycled and recovered materials) is then redistributed to households and businesses. In this chapter the material flows will be described by following each of the four waste fractions through the system from source to sink. For this a subsection is dedicated to each waste fraction. The whole system including all processes and flows will then be summarized in a material flow diagram in the end of the chapter. As mentioned earlier, transport will not be illustrated as a process in this diagram but is rather considered incorporated in the flow.

4.1 Data Sensitivity Data sensitivity has to be discussed in this analysis, because a large part of the numbers is not “hard data”. The reason for this is that the total amounts of collected waste are known, but not always where the material came from and where it goes. Collected waste is being weighed at treatment facilities such as recycling facilities or the incineration plant. At this point it is registered which material fraction the truck loads, how much of it and in which area. The data regarding the area can be inaccurate, because collection routes sometimes cross boarders to maximize efficiency. This way waste from outside of Stockholm can appear in Stockholm’s statistics, or the other way round. This applies, for example, when a company located outside of Stockholm hires a collection contractor that unloads in Stockholm. The total numbers are accumulated over the year, reported to the municipality and made accessible for the public. However it is not always possible to backtrack whether the waste comes from households or from businesses. It also not possible to determine which disposal system was used. For this reason, many of the flows that describe the distribution of waste are based on assumptions and calculations. Some flows could not be quantified at all. Calculations were, for instance, necessary, when data was published per capita, while total amounts were required. Comparison of different sources often led to slightly varying numbers. A reason for this can be updated numbers on the population throughout the year. In theory it would be possible to determine the amounts of waste collected from businesses, because the contractors bill their customers by fraction and waste or volume. However, they do not evaluate nor publish this data (Ribbing, 2013). Another issue that leads to estimation and calculation of values is that incineration and biogas plants only report total output from their facilities. Since these facilities do not only process MSW from Stockholm, but also, for instance, wastewater, waste from other municipalities and from industries, the output numbers had to be adapted to the input.

25

4.2 Household Waste The definition of the term “household waste” has been described in section 1.3 (also see section 5.4). Of the 234,518 tons of household waste the majority is produced by private households. Most of it is disposed in bins and bags, and collected at the curbside. Some larger apartment complexes also use bottom-emptied containers. It is not possible to determine how much waste goes through this channel. An estimated 65,000 tons (Cronqvist, 2013) are produced by businesses. For simplification it is assumed that all businesses dispose their waste in large containers. However, many small stores and offices also use bins and bags. It is not monitored how much waste is disposed through the vacuum system. The amount of household waste disposed via vacuum system was calculated on 24.000 tons (see appendix C). As explained in section 3.2.3 the municipality is responsible for collection and treatment of all household waste. The two companies contracted by the city collect all the household waste and transport it to Högdalenverket for incineration. The incineration of Stockholms MSW produces about 600 GWh of energy (80 % district heating, 20 % electricity) per year. The energy is fed into the grid in south and central Stockholm (Dalgren, 2013). In total the household waste provides district heating for 80.000 households and electricity for 200.000 households (Stockholms Stad, 2013d). After incineration about 15 % of the burned materials remain as sludge and 5 % as ash. The sludge is separated from pieces of scrap metal and then used as filling material on landfills. The fly ash is stabilized with charcoal and cement and then also goes to landfill (Dalgren, 2013).

4.3 Packaging Waste A total of 64.674 tons of packaging waste and newspapers have been collected through FTI’s recycling stations and curbside collection from households in Stockholm (FTI, 2013d). 30 % of the households order curbside collection for their packaging waste (Nilsson, 2013). All other households bring their waste to recycling stations. Because businesses are not covered by producer responsibility there is no data on the amounts of packaging waste. They have to hire a collection service for their packaging waste (Dahlberg, 2014) or can bring it to recycling centers. In small amounts this does not cost anything (FTI, 2014a). The waste is collected by FTI’s contractors and transported to transshipment stations. Here the material is accumulated before it is transported to recycling facilities for sorting and recycling (FTI, 2013b; FTI, 2013h). The different materials undergo different processes from collection till recycling. For simplification all material recycling processes are summarized in “recycling facilities”. After treatment the recycled materials are sold back to the industry for reuse in consumer products. The glass goes 100 % to Svensk Glasåtervninning in Hammar and newspapers to Swedish paper mills. Though it is an open market the paper, plastic and metal packaging waste mostly goes to paper mills and scrap dealers in Sweden and Germany (Nilsson, 2013). About 20 % of plastic packaging material cannot be recycled. The reason for this is a low concentration of polymers in certain packaging

26

that does not allow recycling in a economically and environmentally beneficial way. This material is being incinerated after separation at a sorting facility (Dahlberg, 2014).

4.4 Bulky Waste In 2012 130,938 tons of bulky waste were collected by the city. 89,241 tons were collected by the city owned recycling centers and 42,375 by collection companies (Cronqvist, 2013). Regardless of who collects the bulky waste it is brought to sorting stations at various recycling facilities in the area. Collection companies generally choose the one closest by to avoid expensive travelling distance (Ribbing, 2013). Sorted metal is sold to scrap dealers who further sort the metals and then sell it back to the metal and steel industry. Sorted wood is shredded and sold as fuel. Recycled paper and cardboard goes back to the Swedish paper mills, glass to Svenska Glåsåtervinning (Olsson, 2013). Recycled plastic material is recycled and sold back to the market like plastic packaging. Numbers regarding how much of each material fraction is material recycled are not available for Stockholm. A large fraction of the bulky waste cannot be material recycled at all. Some paper, wood and plastic waste that cannot be sorted is also shredded and sold as a fuel type called bränslekross. 15.000 tons per year of this fuel go from the recycling facility Hagby to Igelstaverket in Södertälje. Here the material is incinerated and produces 70.000 MWh of energy that are fed into the grids of Telge Nät, Södertörns Fjärrvärme AB, and Fortum Värme (Söderenergi, 2013; Wedholm, 2013). Söderenergi cooperates with Fortum based on mutual support in peak situations. In winter when Stockholm needs extra energy Igelstaverket provides. In the summer, when Igelstaverket is in maintenance, Fortum supports (Wedholm, 2013).

4.5 Food Waste In 2012 8,849 tons of food waste were registered by the city’s collection system (Cronqvist, 2013). The majority of separated food waste comes from businesses that produce large amounts of organic waste such as restaurants and large-scale kitchens. Most of the material is disposed in bins and bags, but containers and in-sink disposals are also used. Households who separate food waste do this generally by using separate bins and bags, or in some cases also in-sink waste disposals. Since the available numbers only show how much has been collected it cannot be determined how much waste went through which disposal channel (Cronqvist, 2013). All food waste from Stockholm is treated by Uppsala Vatten and SYVAB, each of which receive about 50 % of the total amount, from which they produce biogas (Cronqvist, 2013). Since the numbers provided by the two companies do not match with the total number registered by the city, the 50 % split up (4,250 tons each) will be applied in the flow-diagram to make the numbers add up. The reason for this is, that all total numbers of collected waste were provided by the city, which is the most reliable source. However, in this section the companies’ numbers will be presented to display the discrepancy.

27

According to SYVAB their biogas plant receives a total of 5000 tons/year of food waste from Stockholm. 1,000 tons of material comes from large-scale kitchens and hospitals that use in-sink waste disposals. Thus, this material is ground and in a condition that can directly be processed in SYVAB’s biogas plant. The other waste has to be pretreated by another company before the waste arrives in the right quality at SYVAB’s plant (Aronson, 2013). As described in section 3.2.5 the pretreatment is not illustrated as a separate process in the diagram. Uppsala Vatten receives about 6000 tons/year of food waste from Stockholm (Nordin, 2013). The material comes from the recycling facility Hagby in the north of Stockholm. Here garbage trucks dump collected waste into a transshipment terminal, where it is loaded into 30-ton containers before further transport. The company also gave an estimate on how much biogas was produced from Stockholm’s food waste: the 6,000 tons produced 1,000,000 Nm3 biogas that consist 64 % of methane and 36 % of carbon dioxide. 10 % of the input-material remains as a process residue sludge that has to be incinerated9 (Nordin, 2013). 75 % of the vehicle gas is used in the busses in Uppsala, 25 % is sold to the gas company AGA Gas AB. Organic leftovers go into composting (Nordin, 2013). SYVAB does not monitor how much material comes from which source, but only the total amounts, which include sewage waste and materials from various areas. In consequence they only monitor the total amounts of produced biogas and cannot say how much biogas was produced from the food waste coming from Stockholm. For this reason the biogas output was calculated manually based on the conversion factor food waste to biogas, which is approximately 150 Nm3/ton with a 62 % methane concentration and 38 % carbon dioxide. 5 % of the material remain as sludge 10 (Aronson, 2013). After the upgrading from biogas to vehicle gas (CO2 removal) the final product is sold to E.on and AGA Gas AB who then distribute it to the customers (SYVAB, 2014). Both companies also have organic process sludge that can be used as fertilizer in agriculture. SYVAB pays a company to take the sludge and this company then sells it as bio fertilizer. The CO2 separated from the biogas is released into the air (Aronson, 2013). In order to be consistent in terms of units, the gas outputs from the anaerobic digestion processes will be translated from Nm3 to kWh. According to (2011) the energy content in 1 Nm3 vehicle gas (97 % methane) corresponds to 9.67 kWh. Multiplication of the produced amounts of vehicle gas with the conversion factor 9.67 kWh/Nm3 results in 4,000,0000 kWH (4 GWh) from SYVAB and 4,600,000 kWh (4.6 GWH) from Uppsala Vatten. Additionally, an unknown fraction of food waste is disposed through in-sink disposals that are connected to the sewage system. This waste is not accounted for in food waste statistics as it is mixed with black water (Aronson, 2013). The following material flow diagram illustrates the material flows in tons per year. Those flows that are not measured in tons indicate the respective unit (for further description see appendix E).

9 The conversion factor “amount of biogas produced per ton of food waste” here is 166.6 Nm3/ton. Calculated for the 4,425 tons this results in 737,500 Nm3 biogas of which 472,000 Nm3 is methane and 265,500 Nm3 carbon dioxide (other substances that occur in minor amounts neglected). 443 tons of sludge remain (see flow chart diagram). 10 Here the 4,425 tons of food waste produce 663,750 Nm3 biogas of which 411,525 Nm3 is methane and 252,225 Nm3 is carbon dioxide, and 221 tons of sludge.

28

29

5 Identified Problems

One of the aims of this study was to identify deficiencies in Stockholm’s waste management system. To learn about the problems the stakeholders were asked where they are experiencing the biggest challenges in their daily operations. This resulted in a list of many, partly very individual and process specific problems. Instead of listing all these problems they will here be summarized in different categories. While these categories have different focal areas, they are sometimes interrelated. Traffic, for example, can affect accessibility for garbage trucks. And bad access to waste disposal places can affect willingness for proper waste sorting.

5.1 Transport and Traffic Problems related to waste transport and inner city traffic are the main concern of the collection contractors. One challenge is logistics and efficient route planning. This applies particularly to those companies that do not have a contract for a given geographic area, but instead collect from customers all over the city. This issue is particularly difficult because every customer has special demands (time of collection, type of material, amount, etc.) (Linse, 2013). The traffic volume in Stockholm often causes garbage trucks to get stuck, especially during rush hour and close to construction sites (Schröderheim, 2013). This affects operations in several ways: it becomes very difficult, for instance, to schedule collection of bulky waste with a customer, because the time it takes to get to the customer cannot reliably be predicted (Randborg, 2013). This impacts customer satisfaction. The same applies to collection of other waste types. The contractors have to collect the waste from a given number of households and businesses in an area in a given timeframe. If they are unable to do so they do not meet their contractual responsibility. At the same time every extra hour in traffic or kilometer driven increases operational costs (Ribbing, 2013). And the costs for salaries and vehicles, together with tipping costs, are the top three matters of expense for waste collectors (Linse, 2013). Part of that are also unpredictable technical problems with the vehicles (Nilsson, 2013) and regular wear and tear (Vikström, 2013). Another traffic-related problem is illegal car parking. This on one hand makes the waste collectors temporarily unable to empty the respective bin, container or recycling station (Nilsson, 2013). Simultaneously it often forces the garbage truck to stop somewhere else, causing another roadblock and congestion. Especially in those situations in narrow streets it then happens that other cars or objects are damaged (Schröderheim, 2013). Nilsson (2013), speaking for FTI’s contra tors, mentioned that FTI has no legal authority to notify car owners when they impair waste collection. Furthermore it is viewed critically, that garbage trucks are not exempt from the city’s congestion fee. They obviously do not have free choice of alternative transportation such as public transport or bicycle. At the same time the service they provide is demanded and needed by the city on a daily basis (Ribbing, 2013). Collecting the waste during nights when the streets are empty could avoid many of these problems. However, due to noise regulations this is not allowed in Stockholm (Nilsson, 2013).

30

An in depth investigation of the environmental impacts of waste transport is not part of this study. However, according to estimates from different companies 11 each company drives thousands of kilometers each month depending on its fleet size. Considering fuel consumption of heavy, mostly diesel fueled trucks (Lindahl, 2013) this operation is very energy and CO2 intensive and should therefore be reduced. Particularly when facing the aim of becoming climate positive.

5.2 Wrong sorting and economic losses Waste sorted in the wrong fraction has been reported a problem by building owners, collection companies, and treatment companies. For building owners it becomes a problem when collection contractor refuses to take the waste. In that case the owner has to order expensive separate collection and until then deal with the waste (Cronqvist, 2013). Especially in the summer this causes complaints from the tenants who temporarily have to live with smelly waste in front of their door. For a collection company wrong sorted waste becomes a problem when they want to unload the waste at a treatment facility. Here the garbage trucks undergo frequent quality checks of the material they deliver. If the demanded purity degree is not met they get paid less, or not at all, and the material goes into incineration (Olsson, 2013; FTI, 2013a). In the same context the treatment facilities want clean fractions, because high impurity causes extra costs and efforts for them. In anaerobic digestion processes wrong sorted material causes two different problems. Firstly, undesired materials such as plastic bags clog pipes in the equipment and thus cause production stops (Stockholms Stad, 2014a). Secondly, it caused process reject that is expensive to get rid of. A clean biodegradable sludge can be given away for free to companies who then sell it as fertilizer (Aronson, 2013). All other materials are sent to incineration at cost of about 800 SEK/ton. Uppsala Vatten’s annual costs for removing residues from digestion tanks are about 700,000 SEK (Nordin, 2013). Another way in which wrong sorting of waste can be considered an issue is the high degree of recyclable material in the household fraction as illustrated in section 3.4.. Though unmentioned by the interviewed stakeholders, this poses a huge waste of material and energy and therefore is a problem for the environment.

5.3 Accessibility and Safety at Work The rooms or places for waste collection must fulfill the requirements of safety at work regulations for waste management. Thus, the facilities have to be easy and convenient to access for waste collection. Criteria are for example room size, ceiling height, a bump-free floor, wide doors, good light and ventilation (Avfall Sverige, 2009). The problem with this is that not everywhere the collection points fulfill these requirements. Especially in older buildings, built at a time where waste management was not planned for, the conditions of these rooms can be problematic (Cronqvist, 2013).

11 Some collection companies supplied data regarding driven kilometers, CO2 emissions and fleet size. But because the units were so random (km/year, km/month, km/day, per vehicle, whole fleet, etc.) it was not possible to calculate a meaningful average value.

31

Similar to waste sorting related problems safety at work issues in first place affect building owners and collection companies. Building owners have to make room for waste management. This can be difficult if the respective building is for instance in the dense city center and has very limited space for bins or containers. In those cases the waste room often is in the basement or backyard and difficult to reach (Lindahl, 2013). In case of heavy or torn bags that have to be carried upstairs – or any other form of incompliance with the safety at work regulations – it can happen that the collection companies refuses to take the waste (Haasmark, 2013). It therefore is in the interest of the building owner to supply good and safe access to collection points. And at the same time it is important for waste collection so they can carry out their work with as little effort as possible. As mentioned in chapter 3.5 good accessibility is one criterion that determines the weight fee for building owners. This was supposed to be an economic tool to sanction bad conditions and motivate investments in better facilities. However, the extra charge is too low to be an incentive to improve the situation (Millers-Dalsjö, 2013). From another perspective bad access to waste collection places does not only affect waste collection. From the perspective of the person disposing waste, bad access can also influence the willingness to sort waste properly. Naturvårdsverket (2006) found, every fourth person that does not sort waste at all, would start doing so, if a recycling station was closer. A study on recycling behavior carried out in Linköping showed that easy access to waste disposal is considered the most important criterion to motivate people to sort their waste (Schultzén & Magnusson, 2008). Thus, detours or long walking distances to reach the disposal place are likely to have a negative impact. Furthermore it has to be kept in mind that easy access for disposal must not automatically mean easy access for collection. As a matter of fact it can mean the exact opposite. On a property with a long driveway from the adjacent street to the building, convenient distance for the resident would be closed to the building, while for collection placement closed to the street would be of advantage. This little conflict of interest also affects efficiency in the collection process. It would actually be more efficient to empty fewer but therefore larger containers instead of a small bin in front of every house (Cronqvist, 2013). However, this again would affect the convenience of waste disposal. Curbside collection is a much demanded service that also affects the willingness to sort positively (Naturvårdsverket, 2006). The cost of providing a well-established recycling station infrastructure that allows easy packaging waste disposal is a major concern for FTI (Nilsson, 2013). A larger number of recycling stations could improve accessibility for the citizens. Frequent emptying and subsequent clean conditions facilitate usage and increase acceptance of the system. It also means more driven hours and kilometers and thereby higher operating and maintenance costs. Today FTI’s costs for packaging waste collection are higher than the revenues from selling scrap material. The difference is covered by the producer responsibility fees (Nilsson, 2013). This, in return, means that higher fees are necessary to improve the system.

32

5.4 Opacity of Data During the acquisition of data for this analysis it appeared, that it was sometimes difficult to identify waste types and allocate them to a certain category. The reason for this is that there is no standard that defines a waste category, which leads to a variety of different terms for the same thing and terms that are ambiguous. This applies most to the fraction, which in this report is called household waste (hushållsavfall). Among different sources this fraction is also called combustible waste (brännbart avfall), leftover waste (restavfall), mixed waste (blandat avfall) or waste in bins and bags (kärl och säckavfall). The terms relate to collection method, treatment method or condition of the material. Due to this lack of standardization of terms collection companies, for instance, can just give a material fraction any name for their internal monitoring and documentation (Ribbing, 2013). One collection company responded in the questionnaire that they collected 98.000 tons of newspaper in Stockholm in a year, while all packaging waste together registered by the city was only 63,000 tons with at 29,000-ton fraction of newspapers. On Stockholm City’s environmental website Miljöbarometern a number is published under the term “waste that is recycled”. This number describes the “fraction of household waste that is recycled via material recycling, including biological treatment” (Stockholms Stad, 2013d). The numbers published by the city’s traffic agency (which are mainly used in this report), however, use the term household waste for waste that cannot be material recycled and therefore is incinerated. Here a clear separation between the terms “household waste” and “waste from households” is missing. The former describes waste produced by households and businesses that is treated via incineration. The latter refers to all different waste types produced by households, which after collection undergo different treatment methods (material recycling, digestion, incineration). In the Environmental Code (Miljöbalken) the definition of household waste is all waste from households and comparable waste from businesses (Sveriges Riksdag, 2013).

5.5 Conflict of interest While waste is a large cost factor for municipalities and a burden for the environment it also is a business for all stakeholders from the private sector. Thus, what is good for the environment can be bad for business for others. Not everyone involved in waste management has the same incentives. Authorities would like to reduce waste, facilitate handling, keep the streets clean and protect the (urban) environment. On the other side are collection companies whose business depends on the amount of waste they collect (Ribbing, 2013). For them less waste would mean less business and further stiffen competition. Similar applies to recycling facilities whose business depends on waste. They however would benefit from improved sorting. For companies that operate waste incineration plants both a reduction of total waste production and improved sorting would be bad for business. This represents in particular a conflict of interest between incineration and anaerobic digestion (Aronson, 2013). However, biogas can also be used for district heating purposes (Berglund, 2006). The utilities running Stockholm’s district heating grid have special interest in energy from waste incineration, because they can market it as a green

33

alternative to fossil fuel. However, a reduction of locally produced waste could be replaced by waste imports from other countries, which is already done today to fill up incineration capacity.

34

6 ICT to Improve Waste Management

The last objective of this study is to take the “lessons learned” from the previous chapters and consider the potentials of ICT to solve these problems and improve waste management in the future Stockholm Royal Seaport. To gather ideas and learn about the current state of ICT in waste management the stakeholders were asked what a perfect waste management system would look like for them, and what role ICT could play in that scenario. The next step is a description of the technology situation in the Royal Seaport. Some of the answers to the question about the perfect system were already integrated in chapter 5, such as collecting waste during the nights or fewer, but larger waste bins/containers, and new regulation on congestion fees. Others spoke in favor of installing in-sink waste disposals in all households to avoid food waste transportation via trucks (Lindahl, 2013). Another idea was to make the costs of waste management more visible and tangible instead of hiding rents, taxes or product prices. Applying deposits (as today used in, for instance, aluminum cans) to all products would be one direction to go (Linse, 2013). From the perspective of the Swedish Property Federation it would be desirable to let building owners chose their own collection contractor from an approved list instead of the municipality organized collection. The argument is that the direct engagement between service provider and customer would result in better and faster problem follow-ups (Haasmark, 2013). This, however, is a highly controversial issue that has been debated many times, often in favor of municipal responsibility (Naturvårdsverket, 2011). Better information regarding the importance of waste sorting and rewards for smarter packaging and easier reuse of products is also needed. The potentials of ICT contribute to this are estimated to be high (Haasmark, 2013). The opinions on ICT varied among the stakeholders. Among the eleven collection companies that contributed to this study five said they have no knowledge or opinion regarding ICT and two did not respond to the question. Two companies pointed out that technology can be overrated and distract from simple solutions, while another expects new waste sorting technology in the future to facilitate pre-sorting (Aronson, 2013). One company mentioned its solution to connect all vehicles in their fleet to improve coordination. Also mentioned were the vacuum system and filling level sensors for large bottom-emptied containers (Cronqvist, 2013). The filling sensors, however, were also viewed critically (Nilsson, 2013). Some examples of ICT already in use in Stockholm today have however not been mentioned. One is that all waste bins of single-family houses are equipped with RFID tags that can be read by the collection vehicles. As described earlier this is part of the weight based fee system. On the City’s website those households can review their waste contract and monitor production on the “E-services” platform. Companies such as SITA and Smart Recycling Stockholm also have apps to help their customers with waste sorting and monitoring of amounts (Ribbing, 2013).

35

6.1 Vacuum System Compared to the rest of Stockholm in the Royal Seaport some problems can be avoided from the scratch thanks to planning for waste management and modern technology. The key technology for sustainable waste management in the SRS is Envac’s vacuum system. An economic, social and environmental feasibility analysis carried out by Envac, Stockholm City and the consultancy firm Sweco showed that the system has many benefits. After higher initial investment costs of the vacuum system, the annual running costs could be reduced by 60 %, from about 5 million to 2 million SEK calculated over a period of 20 years (Törnblom, 200?). A user satisfaction analysis, carried out through interviews, showed satisfaction with the vacuum system. However, the comparison was between two areas with vacuum system and therefore did not provide information about the attitude of residents in comparison with a regular waste collection system. The environmental analysis demonstrated that usage of garbage trucks could be reduced by 90 % in driven kilometers and 95 % in time (Törnblom, 200?).

6.2 Active waste monitoring The idea to use sensor technology to monitor the production of waste on a household or building level has several aspects and can be taken to different levels. The basic idea is to give those in charge of waste collection information about the actual filling level of bins. Johansson (2006) analyzed the effects of dynamic scheduling based on infrared sensors versus static scheduling in waste bins for cardboard packaging. The conclusions were that in certain scenarios cost savings between 10 and 20 % were possible with sensor utilization. With increasing system size (number of containers) and density, and decreasing variation of filling levels the benefits vanished. The SRS has already surpassed this technology with the vacuum suction system that monitors filling levels and empties bins automatically, as described earlier. Therefore the SRS is currently experimenting with possibilities to use the vacuum system to introduce the weight based waste fee to apartment buildings. In this system the user would be identified at the bin by using his house key (that holds an RFID chip) to open it. A weight sensor then identifies the amount of waste. Depending on the system in use, the fraction can either be identified by the color of the bag (OptiBag), or by having different bins for different fractions. The data from these sensors can continuously provide the users with information regarding their waste production and motivate them to improve their sorting (Stockholms Stad, 2014). Information and feedback are promising means of motivation towards better sorting. Studies conducted by Envac in the past showed that visual feedback in form of pictures of the fractions in the building entrance or waste rooms improved sorting behavior. However, the study also showed that the efforts disappeared when the visible feedback disappeared (Törnblom, 2013). Similar results came from a survey conducted by the research program SHARP. They conclude that a system to work has to fulfill several criteria to work in the long term. The main reason for this is that in many cases people have to sacrifice time, money or convenience in favor of more environmentally responsible behavior. They are aware that recycling is not an end, but a means to reduce environmental impact (Naturvårdsverket, 2011).

36

For that reason it is important to actually use the collected material in a way that proves there is a purpose to recycling. Information about this “output” (park benches made of recycled plastic for instance) has to be communicated to the people as a feedback to their recycling efforts. If the people then perceive the (environmental) benefits of this output as higher than the efforts they put into sorting/recycling, they will be motivated to continue doing it (Naturvårdsverket, 2011). According to them recycling behavior can also be influenced by economic incentives but the positive effects often disappear over time, or when the incentive disappears (Naturvårdsverket, 2006). All of this speaks for the benefits of a continuous feedback mechanism that the data from waste monitoring could provide. Since this technology is still in development statistical data on its actual impacts is not yet available. However, the idea stems not far from what is happening in the area of home and office energy management. Here the monitoring of energy consumption has already proven to be an effective instrument to raise awareness and in consequence reduce electricity consumption by up to 15 % in Sweden (Vassileva, et al., 2012). Another comparison of 38 studies on the effectiveness of measures to reduce household energy consumption resulted in reduction rates between 2 and 20 % (Abrahamse, et al., 2005). The company Opower, for example, uses comparison of electricity consumption among neighbors as the motivational factor of their clients. The principal of their method is a phenomenon called “social proof” in which we “view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it. Whether the question is what to do with an empty popcorn box […], the actions of those around us will be important in defining the answer.” (Cialdini, 2007). Thus, this effect has great influence on our behavior in countless daily situations. Opower already successfully applies this phenomenon to reduce electricity consumption (Jakubovitz, 2013). The question is, can it also positively affect waste management? As a matter of fact exactly this phenomenon of “compliance with social norms” has shown to positively affect recycling efforts among neighboring communities in Sweden (Naturvårdsverket, 2011). While compliance with social norms is one aspect that influences habits and behavior in home energy management, economic incentives can be effective as well. In their discussion about feed-in tariffs for energy saving Bertoldi, et al. (2013) introduced three economic incentive programs for energy savings that lead to consumption reductions of around 10 %. Though the results were similar among all three projects in different countries, the specific structures of the programs varied. Due to the low cost of waste management on a household level compared with energy (see chapter 3.5.) the impact of economic incentives for waste reduction/improved sorting could be lower. The digital feedback system, however, could solve the problem of rising costs of the weight based waste fee that was explained in section 3.5.2. From another perspective active monitoring of waste management data could be of help to improve standardization. This is, if collection companies would report their data regarding collected amounts in a centralized database. Thus, the city’s waste production would be visible in real time and not only in the end of the year. The same applies for data regarding driven kilometers, which would, for instance, allow conclusions regarding transport related emissions.

37

7 Discussion

The discussion will focus on three different issues: First, the question what would be the impacts for the system, if all waste would actually be sorted correctly. The second part discusses the mentioned technologies to improve waste management and the third part takes a much broader systems perspective on the topic of sustainable waste management.

7.1 The Waste Material Flows What strikes most when looking at the material flow diagram is, that the majority of the waste is incinerated and the residues landfilled. This is in spite of the fact that the majority of the material could have been treated with preferred methods such as material recycling or anaerobic digestion. One argument in favor of the incineration of household waste is that it replaces fossil fuels, which, in absence of combustible waste, would be necessary to provide the energy for the local district-heating grid. Thus, waste incineration can be considered a climate friendly alternative. Recycled material, on the other hand, also replaces fossil fuel in the extraction of resources and production of consumer products. An analysis of the environmental benefits of either of the treatment methods is not part of this paper, but it reveals that the ideal allocation of the material is difficult considering different stakeholder interests. Since improving material recycling rates is among the main objectives of waste management it would be interesting to see what happens if everybody would actually comply 100 % to waste sorting. Based on the results from the sampling inspections such a scenario will be discussed. Table 3 illustrates the difference between today’s waste sorting and the compliance scenario. Considering the complex infrastructure and various stakeholders with different responsibilities and capacities, the system would probably struggle with such a reallocation of waste material. The potential negative or controversial impacts therefore have to be considered as well. Table 7-1 Waste distribution with 100 % correct sorting

Current waste sorting

in tons

Change in %

100 % correct waste sorting

in tons

Household waste 234 518 - 75 % 58 630

Food waste 8 849 + 980 % 95 621

Packaging waste 64 674 + 116 % 139 720

A 75 % reduction in household waste would, first of all, significantly reduce the municipality’s costs for household waste collection and treatment, the two cost factors that constitute about 70 % of total costs for waste management. This would be accompanied with a corresponding reduction of landfilled material sludge and ashes. For district heating it would mean that the missing waste needs to be substituted with other fuels. This would likely be imported waste from other areas or countries, or even fossil fuels. The economic effects of this for Fortum have not been analyzed in this study, but Norway for instance might actually pay more for treatment of its waste than Stockholm (Millers-Dalsjö, 2013). A study by consultancy Profu AB (2010) on the impacts of waste reduction from a system perspective on the other hand argues

38

that, in the case of Gothenburg, alternative fuel would increase costs for the utility running the district heating grid. According to an analysis by Avfall Sverige (Avfall Sverige, 2009a) the climate impact of waste imports, compared to alternative treatment in the country of origin, stays positive as long as the transport distance is below 15,000 km12. Due to the currently low sorting and consequently low material recovery rate of food waste, the 100% correct sorting scenario would create an almost tenfold increase of food waste amounts that need to be collected and treated. The positive aspect of this is that the material would be used to produce biogas, which saves almost 500 kg CO2 equivalent per ton of food waste compared to incineration (Profu AB, 2013). This is calculated from a systems perspective and based on the replacement of fossil fuels and waste incineration. The latter considers that freeing capacity at Swedish incineration plants due to lower amounts of food waste enables increased imports of household waste. Simultaneously the digestate can be used as bio fertilizer. Transport will not increase due to improved sorting (Profu AB, 2013). A downside of increased food waste recycling is the costs. Today the cost per ton of food waste that the city pays the treatment companies is higher than the cost per ton for household waste. That means the reallocation of the material flows would actually increase total cost of waste management. The city could either pass these costs on through the waste fees or subsidize it with taxes. Either way, from a systems perspective sorting of food waste would increase costs for the citizens. The study by Profu AB (2013), which was conducted for Sweden and not specifically for Stockholm, however, argues that costs would decrease about 300 SEK/ton. Their calculation accounts a major increase in costs per ton for collection and treatment (+ 700 SEK/ton), which will then be offset by the revenues from selling the vehicle gas (- 150 SEK/ton), from waste incineration fees from other countries (- 700 SEK/ton), and other revenues (- 150 SEK/ton)13. Not considered in these calculations is the profitability of the biogas plant. This means, since Stockholm does not own any biogas plants, a certain cut will go to the company who owns the plant and therefore not reduce costs for the city. Treatment capacity would also have to be increased in line with the amounts of food waste. The 116 % increase of packaging waste in the material recycling system could have significant economic effects. Unlike in the case of food waste, the responsibility for collection and treatment of packaging material lies with the producers and not the municipality. Consequently, the 75,000 tons of wrong sorted packaging waste in the household fraction that previously were collected and treated by the municipality at ca. 388 SEK/ton, would be saved. These costs would then lie by the producers. Provided that producer responsibility works, their response would be to seriously invest in the development of smarter

12 The reason why this number is so high is, that the alternative treatment in countries without advance waste management infrastructure is landfilling, which causes tremendous methane emissions. In comparison to this the CO2 emissions from long transport distances are almost negligible (Avfall Sverige, 2009a). 13 The numbers are calculated for a 2020 scenario and very sensitive to various parameters (Profu AB, 2013).

39

packaging that is lighter and recyclable, and education of consumers on how to reduce packaging. Looking at the analysis of packaging waste development (see appendix D), however, suggests that that would not be the response. The increased packaging waste amounts would require an expansion of the recycling station network and increased collection intervals. This could partly be financed by the increased amounts of recycled and sold material. But just as today, it would likely not cover all costs and PR fees would be increased. The producers could then surcharge these fees on the product prices again, which the consumer pays for. What is more costly for the consumer, to pay a few fractions of a crown extra with every purchased product, or instead pay more for waste management fees, cannot be said at this point. From an environmental perspective the reallocation of material from incineration to material recycling would, according to the waste hierarchy be beneficial anyway. This includes the preservation of natural resources and energy, as well as the reduced amounts of sludge and hazardous ashes from incineration that have to be landfilled.

7.2 Technology based solutions Chapter 5 described various problems that have been identified in Stockholm’s waste management. In chapter 6 technology-based approaches were introduced to address the issues. This section discusses the potential limits of such technological approaches. The vacuum system helps to reduce transport distances and thus avoid traffic, improves accessibility for collectors and offers a tidy solution for disposal. However, while driven kilometers in the respective area are reduced, the waste still has to be collected from the terminals and from there transported to Högdalenverket or one of the recycling facilities. In the case of the Royal Seaport each tour this is at least 10-15 km through the same congested roads that are used without the vacuum system. The distance to the biogas treatment facilities is even significantly higher (see Figure 3-1). A study by Vivanco, et al. (2012) pointed out the importance to consider transport distances in the evaluation of the benefits of different waste treatment technologies. The total amounts of waste are not affected by the system. And since the Royal Seaport is a high-income area, purchasing power is high and correspondingly the per capita waste production. At this point the waste monitoring could be a tool to address people’s awareness about waste. The analysis of the weight-based waste fees in section 3.5.2 provided first positive results of an incentive-based system that raises awareness and links consumption to waste costs. But can detailed monitoring improve the effects? The collection of data and its visualization in a continuous, easy-to-access, and tangible way is an important factor in consumer attitudes to waste management. Comparisons of different packaging waste collection systems (curbside vs. recycling stations) could not determine if one results in better sorting. Instead a study carried out by Renova in 2006 showed that the overall system design and information for the inhabitants is more relevant (Naturvårdsverket, 2006). From this perspective the economic incentive might rather lie by the city, which could reduce administrative costs for waste monitoring and billing, than by the consumer who wants reduced bills.

40

An approach to further raise awareness of costs for the consumers could be monthly billing as done with electricity in some countries. This makes waste costs more present than a bill that appears only few times or once a year. Another way to improve the effectiveness of economic incentives could be to link rewards directly with the improvement efforts. This would be in line with peoples wish to see the impacts and benefits of their behavior (see section 6.2). An example for this could be a direct reward from the biogas company for better quality of food waste. The biogas company’s productivity would increase if the food waste contained fewer contaminations, because they had fewer production stops and lower costs for sludge disposal. A share of those profits could be returned to the households to show of how much value their efforts are. Such a concept would require a more in depth analysis of the economic interrelationships and specific margins. The maybe obvious conclusion to simply increase the waste fees to a point where waste costs are on a level with energy costs is not possible for two reasons: the municipality is not allowed to make profit with their waste management operations (see section 3.5.1.) Thus, fees cannot be increased without an actual increase in cost of operational cost, which would be counter-productive. On the other hand too high costs for waste management would increase littering and illegal dumping (see section 3.5.2). This was likely also the reason why Stockholm made food waste collection free of charge in the new weight-based feeing system. In return they actually get all the material they need to meet their own food waste to biogas goals.

7.3 System Perspective Considering the “climate positive by 2030“-goal of the SRS, it could also be interesting to think about the system boundaries in which this goal should be achieved. Sweden produced 113.4 million tons of waste in 2010. Out of this, 4 million tons come from households, 20.4 million from the industry and service sector, and 89.0 million tons from resource extraction. Consequently, even 100 % recycling of household waste would only scratch the tip of the iceberg. The majority of the waste is created before the product reaches the consumer (Naturvårdsverket, 2012; Naturvårdsverket, 2013). Thus, to really reduce the environmental impacts of waste, consumption has to be reduced. That the climate impact of the residents’ consumption will be considered in the calculation of the Royal Seaport’s total greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely. What is interesting, however, is to look at the waste management technologies from a wider perspective. The production of biogas from food waste, for instance, is widely acknowledged and unquestioned as the best way to treat food waste. This is true when the alternative use of the fuel is incineration or landfilling, but maybe not anymore when other alternatives are considered. A study by Tristram Stuart, an English author and environmental campaigner, compared the CO2 savings of using food waste to produce biogas with using food waste as fodder in the local pork industry. He concluded that one ton of food waste used in anaerobic digestion for electricity consumption saves 448 kg CO2, while the same amount of waste fed to pigs saves 11 600 kg of CO2. The reason for this is the large impact of animal agriculture on the climate. Depending on whether or not

41

factors such as deforestation are calculated, the sector contributes 10 to 25 % of global greenhouse gas emissions. Though the impact of pork is low compared to beef, cultivation and export of soy as pig feed from South America contribute significantly (UNEP, 2012). A study by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations supports this issue by saying “In various contexts, food wastes and agro industrial by-products could contribute substantially to the feed supply, and by the same token release pressure on land” (FAO, 2006, p. 49), but at the same time points out some limitations. This example shows that a narrow perspective can conceal opportunities. In this case biogas is the best solution on a local scale and at the same time easy to market, because fossil fuel in cars is so much debated. That the atmosphere is global and climate change a global problem, however, is not considered and much fewer people consider meat consumption a problematic climate contributor.

42

8 Conclusions

The two main results of the study provide a perspective on Stockholm’s waste management that had previously not existed. The material flow diagram summarizes and illustrates the data from different waste management reports in a comprehensive and coherent way. The interviews and questionnaire produced an overview over current problems in the system from the perspective of different stakeholders in the waste management industry. For the development of effective improvement measures for Stockholm’s waste management the results provide a knowledge basis. The material flow analysis revealed several trends in the waste management sector and can be used as a tool to better follow up those trends in the future. While total amounts of waste per capita have in recent years been decreasing, the amounts of packaging waste are on the rise. This trend was partly hidden in the published numbers due to an ascent in newspaper use. The increase in packaging waste can be based on better sorting and increased consumption, but it cannot be determined in specific how various trends affect waste amounts. Sampling inspections show that household waste incineration could be reduced by 75 % if households and businesses would strictly commit to waste sorting. Though the environmental emissions of waste transport were not part of this study the economic analysis revealed that collection and transport of waste are the biggest cost factors in waste management. The only way to reduce this is to produce less waste irrespective of new treatment methods. From a stakeholder one of the biggest problems in waste management (traffic) is also directly related to transport operations. Besides traffic, waste sorting, accessibility and a general lack of standardization were identified as problems. Some of these problems can be mitigated by technological solutions, while other issues such as the increasing packaging waste, would require political will to change. The potential of information and communication technology are yet widely unexplored and unknown to a majority of the stakeholders. Here further research projects are necessary. The Royal Seaport has the potential to become a platform for such projects and role model for more efficient sustainable waste management. Broad application of technologies such as the latest waste vacuum system, allow mitigation of many of the problems from scratch. Thus, considering waste management in the early stages of urban planning has been shown to be effective. From here future projects can combine financial incentives through weight based fees with consistent digital monitoring and feedback to improve sorting and reduce total waste. This could then potentially further evolve into new business models with more complex economic interrelations that include other stakeholders. In conclusion this study provides a foundation for further research in the field of ICT and waste management. Follow-up projects can specifically address the identified problems and approach individual stakeholders (or groups) for more in-depth assessment and data. The material flow diagram provides a first of a kind perspective on Stockholm waste management. Annual application of MFA with updated data can be used as a not yet existing tool to measure the performance of measures and projects to improve waste management.

43

Bibliography

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C. & Rothengatter, T., 2005. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), pp. 273-291.

Aronson, A., 2013. SYVAB och matavfall i Stockholm [Interview] (19 08 2013).

Avfall Sverige, 2009a. Klimatpåverkan från import av brännbart avfall (Rapport U2009:06), Malmö: Avfall Sverige.

Avfall Sverige, 2009. Handbok för Avfallsutrymmen. [Online] Available at: http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Rapporter/Handbok_f%C3%B6r_avfallsutrymmen/handbokAvfallsutrymmen.pdf [Accessed 24 09 2013].

Avfall Sverige, 2012a. Avfall Sveriges Deponihandbok (Rapport D2012:02), Malmö: Avfall Sverige.

Avfall Sverige, 2012a. Swedish Waste Management 2012, Malmö: Avfall Sverige.

Avfall Sverige, 2012. Hushållsavfall i siffror - Kommun- och länstatistik 2011 (Rapport U2012:18), Malmö: Avfall Sverige.

Avfall Sverige, 2013. Hushållsavfall i siffror - Kommun- och länstatistik 2012 (Rapport U2013:16), Malmö: Avfall Sverige.

Battaini, R., 2013. SITA och Sopsug i Stockholm [Interview] (02 09 2013).

Berglund, M., 2006. Biogas Production from a Systems Analytical Perspective, Lund: Lunds Tekniska Högskola.

Bertoldi, P., Rezessy, S. & Oikonomou, V., 2013. Rewarding energy savings rather than energy efficiency: Exploring the concept of a feed-in tariff for energy savings. Energy Policy, Volume 56, pp. 526-535.

Cialdini, R. B., 2007. Influence - The Psychology of Persuasion. 3 ed. New York: HarperCollins.

Cronqvist, M., 2013a. Kostnader [Interview] (03 09 2013a).

Cronqvist, M., 2013a. Kostnader avfallshantering Stockholm [Interview] (19 08 2013a).

Cronqvist, M., 2013. Avfallshantering i Stockholm [Interview] (22 05 2013).

Dahlberg, A., 2014. Återvinningsgrad plastförpackning [Interview] (11 02 2014).

Dalgren, L., 2013. Högdalenverket and waste management in Stockholm [Interview] (15 05 2013).

Ekstrand, A., 2006. Tävlingsbidrag från Sweco Viak, från avfallskvarn till biogas. Stockholm: Sweco.

Energigas Sverige, 2011. Biogas in Sweden, Stockholm: Energigas Sverige.

Envac, 2012. SVS-Anläggningar i Stockholm. Stockholm: Envac.

44

Envac, 2013. Sopsugsystem i bostadsområden. [Online] Available at: http://www.envac.se/anvandningsomraden/stadsmiljo/bostadsomraden [Accessed 03 09 2013].

European Parliament, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance). [Online] Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0098:EN:NOT [Accessed 13 08 2013].

FAO, 2006. Livestock's long shadow - environmental issues and options, Rome: FAO.

Fastighetsägarna, 2004. Fastighetsägarna och sopor - vad är det som gäller?. [Online] Available at: http://www.fastighetsagarna.se/BinaryLoader.axd?OwnerID=bab713c2-5e77-4cd3-953c-0a7bed902ae2&OwnerType=0&PropertyName=File1&FileName=Sopor.pdf [Accessed 14 10 2013].

Flory, I., 2000. Producentansvar i teori och praktik - en kritisk granskning av förpackningsinsamlingen. Stockholm: Timbro.

Fortum, 2012. Miljörapport 2011 Högdalenverket. [Online] Available at: http://www.fortum.com/countries/se/SiteCollectionDocuments/miljorapport-hogdalenverket-2011.pdf [Accessed 04 09 2013].

FTI, 2013a. Fastighetsnära insamling (FNI). [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/244.html [Accessed 12 09 2013].

FTI, 2013. Avgifter och regler - Avgifter. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/233.html [Accessed 09 10 2013].

FTI, 2013b. Filmer om Återvinning. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/143.html [Accessed 07 02 2014].

FTI, 2013c. Hitta en återvinningsstation. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/173.html [Accessed 03 09 2013].

FTI, 2013d. Insamlingsstatistik. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/179.html [Accessed 11 09 2013].

FTI, 2013e. Mottagningspunkter för Verksamhetsförpackningar. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/104.html [Accessed 09 10 2013].

FTI, 2013f. Mottagningspunkter. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/205.html [Accessed 03 09 2013].

45

FTI, 2013g. Vår Verksamhet - Om FTI. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/215.html [Accessed 15 04 2013].

FTI, 2013h. Återvinningsprocessen. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/182.html [Accessed 12 09 2013].

FTI, 2013i. Återvinningsresultat klart för 2012. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/517.html [Accessed 07 02 2014].

FTI, 2013j. Återvinningssstationer. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/243.html [Accessed 03 09 2013].

FTI, 2013k. Återvinningsstatistik. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/180.html [Accessed 11 09 2013].

FTI, 2014a. Mottagningspunkter. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/205.html [Accessed 12 02 2014].

FTI, 2014. Finansiering. [Online] Available at: http://www.ftiab.se/194.html [Accessed 12 02 2014].

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A., 1968. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Grontmij AB, 2011a. Plockanalys grovavfall 2011. [Online] Available at: http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/content/docs/tema/avfall/Plockanalys_2011.pdf [Accessed 12 09 2013].

Grontmij AB, 2011. Plockanalys kärl- och säckavfall 2011. [Online] Available at: http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/content/docs/tema/avfall/Plockanalys_2011.pdf [Accessed 20 08 2013].

Gustavsson, S. & Brandt, N., 2010. Hur ska man hantera matavfallet i Norra Djurgårdsstaden? Sammanfattning från KTH:s framtidsverkstad den 2 december 2009, Stockholm: KTH Avdelningen för Industriell Ekologi.

Haasmark, S., 2013. Fastighetsägarna och avfallshantering i Stockholm [Interview] (08 07 2013).

Jakubovitz, J., 2013. Opower's business model [Interview] (14 06 2013).

Johansson, O. M., 2006. The effect of dynamic scheduling and routing in a solid waste management system. Waste Management, 26(8), pp. 875-885.

Lindahl, F., 2013. Household waste collection in Stockholm - Hans Andersson Recycling [Interview] (24 05 2013).

46

Linse, J., 2013. Household waste collection in Stockholm Stad - Junkbusters [Interview] (29 05 2013).

Millers-Dalsjö, D., 2013. Revision flödsdiagram [Interview] (20 09 2013).

Ministry of the Environment, 2007. The Swedish Environmental Code - A résumé of the text of the Code and related Ordinances. [Online] Available at: http://www.government.se/sb/d/2023/a/20549 [Accessed 13 08 2013].

Naturvårdsverket, 2002. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2001 (Rapport 5237), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2003. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2002 (Rapport 5299), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2004. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2003 (Rapport 5380), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2005. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2004 (Rapport 5494), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2006a. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2005 (Rapport 5599), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2006. Framtida producentansvar för förpackningar och tidningar (Rapport 5648), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2008a. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2007 (Rapport 5902), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2008. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2006 (Rapport 5796), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2010. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret för 2008 (Rapport 6328), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2011. Sustainable Households: Environmental Policy and Everyday Sustainability - Final report to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency from the SHARP research program (Report 6464), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2012a. Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvar för 2009 (Rapport 6482), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2012. Avfall i Sverige 2010, Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2012b. Avfall i Sverige 2010 - Rapport 6520, Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2012b. Avfall i Sverige 2010 (Rapport 6520), Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2012. Från avfallshantering till resurshushållning - Sveriges avfallsplan 2012-2017, Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Naturvårdsverket, 2013. Avfallsmängder. [Online] Available at: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/Statistik-A-O/Avfallsmangder/ [Accessed 18 04 2013].

47

Naturvårdsverket, 2014. Utsläpp av växthusgaser från avfall. [Online] Available at: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/Statistik-A-O/vaxthusgaser-utslapp-fran-avfall/ [Accessed 14 04 2014].

Nils Holgerson Gruppen, 2011. Fastigheten Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genom Sverige - Lönsamhet vid effektivisering, s.l.: Nils Holgerson Gruppen.

Nilsson, H., 2013. FTI's role in Stockholm waste management [Interview] (03 05 2013).

Nordin, L., 2013. Uppsala Vatten's verksamheter i Stockholm [Interview] (28 08 2013).

Olsson, I., 2013. Avfall från Stockholm på Hagby [Interview] (12 06 2013).

Phellas, C. N., Bloch, A. & Seale, C., 2012. Structured Methods: Interviews, Questionaires and Observation. In: Researching Society and Culture. Third Edition. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 181-205.

Profu AB, 2010. Avfallsminskning i ett systemperspektiv - Fallstudie Göteborg, Stockholm: Profu AB.

Profu AB, 2013. Perspectives on future waste management - Waste management in Sweden from 2013 onwards, Göteborg: Profu AB.

Randborg, J., 2013. Household waste collection in Stockholm stad - SITA [Interview] (04 06 2013).

Ribbing, J., 2013. Smart Recycling's role in Stockholm's waste management [Interview] (03 06 2013).

Schröderheim, J., 2013. Household waste collection in Stockholm Stad - BIG BAG [Interview] (23 05 2013).

Schultzén, M. & Magnusson, B., 2008. Källsortering - attityder och beteenden. En studie gjord på Linköpings universitet och Landstinget i Östergötland. [Online] Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:18540/FULLTEXT01.pdf [Accessed 24 09 2013].

SITA, 2013. Koviks återvinningscentral. [Online] Available at: http://www.sita.se/Hemma/Atervinningscentraler/Kovik-/ [Accessed 03 09 2013].

Stadsbyggnadskontoret, 2010. Promenadstaden - Översiktsplan för Stockholm, Stockholm: Z:CO.

STAR, 2011. Avfalls- och återvinningsstatistik från STAR 2009 2010, Stockholm: Stockholmsregionens Avfallsråd.

Stare, M. & Sundqvist, J.-O., 2013. Utvärdering av viktbaserad avfallstaxa i Stockholms stad, Stockholm: Svenska Miljöinstitutet (IVL).

Stockholmregionens Afvallsråd, 2007. Deponeringsanläggningar i Stockholms Län. [Online] Available at: http://www.atervinningscentralen.se/web/page.aspx?refid=108 [Accessed 11 02 2014].

48

Stockholms Stad, 2013b. Statistik om Stockholm. [Online] Available at: http://www.statistikomstockholm.se/index.php/omradesfaktax [Accessed 11 04 2013].

Stockholms Stad, 2013c. Avfallsplan för Stockholm 2013-2016, Stockholm: Stockholms Stad.

Stockholms Stad, 2013d. Miljöbarometern - Avfall och återvinning. [Online] Available at: http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/main.asp?mo=9 [Accessed 16 08 2013].

Stockholms Stad, 2013. Ny avfallstaxa för 2013. [Online] Available at: http://www.stockholm.se/-/Nyheter/Bygga--Bo/Ny-avfallstaxa/ [Accessed 28 08 2013].

Stockholms Stad, 2013. Återvinningscentraler. [Online] Available at: http://www.stockholm.se/ByggBo/Avfall-och-atervinning/Har-lamnar-du-sopor/Atervinningscentraler/ [Accessed 03 09 2013].

Stockholms Stad, 2014a. Din sophhämtning. [Online] Available at: http://www.stockholm.se/ByggBo/Avfall-och-atervinning/Din-sophamtning-/ [Accessed 13 02 2014].

Stockholms Stad, 2014b. Smart IKT. [Online] Available at: http://www.stockholmroyalseaport.com/sv/rd-projects/smart-ikt/#.U3I7u1cfi80 [Accessed 14 04 2014].

Stockholms Stad, 2014. Ny avfallstaxa 2014. [Online] Available at: http://foretag.stockholm.se/-/Nyheter-for-foretagare/Regler-och-ansvar/Ny-avfallstaxa1/ [Accessed 13 02 2014].

Stockholms Stad, 2014. Smart avfallshantering. [Online] Available at: http://www.stockholmroyalseaport.com/sv/rd-projects/smart-avfallshantering/ [Accessed 30 01 2014].

Sveriges Riksdag, 2001. Förordning (2001:512) om deponering av avfall. [Online] Available at: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Forordning-2001512-om-depon_sfs-2001-512/ [Accessed 11 02 2014].

Sveriges Riksdag, 2013. Miljöbalk (1998:808). [Online] Available at: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Miljobalk-1998808_sfs-1998-808/#K15 [Accessed 14 08 2013].

SYVAB, 2014. Biogas. [Online] Available at: http://www.syvab.se/himmerfjardsverket/biogas [Accessed 07 02 2014].

49

Söderenergi, 2013. Produktion. [Online] Available at: http://www.soderenergi.se/web/Produktion.aspx [Accessed 11 09 2013].

SÖRAB, 2013. Gällande regler och villkor för privatpersoner vid ÅVC. [Online] Available at: http://www.sorab.se/index.asp?id=1&id2=1&page=avc_villkor [Accessed 03 09 2013].

Turner, B. A., 1981. Some practical aspects of qualitative data anlysis: One way of organising the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and Quantity, Volume 15, pp. 225-2247.

Törnblom, J., 200?. Underground Waste Collection vs. Conventional In A Modern Urban Residential Development, Stockholm: Envac Centralsug AB.

Törnblom, J., 2013. Envac's role in Stockholm waste management [Interview] (21 05 2013).

UNEP, 2012. Growing greenhouse gas emissions due to meat production. [Online] Available at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP-GEAS_OCT_2012.pdf [Accessed 10 06 2013].

University of Florida, 2013. Biogas a renewable biofuel - Frequently Asked Questions. [Online] Available at: http://biogas.ifas.ufl.edu/foodwaste/faqs.asp [Accessed 03 09 2013].

van de Klundert, A. & Anschütz, J., 2001. Integrated Sustainable Waste Management - the Concept, Gouda: WASTE.

Vassileva, I., Odlare, M., Wallin, F. & Dahlquist, E., 2012. The impact of consumers’ feedback preferences on domestic electricity consumption. Applied Energy, Volume 93, pp. 575-582.

Wedholm, S., 2013. Söderenergi och avfallshantering i Stockholm [Interview] (06 08 2013).

Vikström, T., 2013. Household waste collection in Stockholm - Ad Infinitum Recycling [Interview] (17 06 2013).

Vivanco, D. F., Ventosa, I. P. & Durany, X. G., 2012. Building waste management core indicators through Spatial Material Flow Analysis: Net recovery and transport intensity indexes, Barcelona: Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA).

50

Appendices

Appendix A Stockholm waste in 2012 in tons

Household waste 234 518 Bulky waste (RC1) 89 241 Bulky waste (CC2) 42 375 Food waste 8 849 Packaging waste 64 674 Glass 24 701 Paper/Cardboard 7 059 Metal 714 Plastic 2 212 Newspaper 29 988

MSW total 439 657 Number of citizens 881 235 MSW total per capita (kg) 499 1 Collected at recycling centers 2 Collected at the curbside

Appendix B Recycling rates of packaging waste 2006-2012

Appendix C Waste collected via vacuum system in Stockholm in 2012 The calculation is based on data provided by Envac (Törnblom, 2013). Number of Envac systems in Stockholm municipality1 52 Number of Envac systems considered in this calculation2 34 Total number of apartments using Envacs vacuum system3 44269

Average number of persons per household4 2 Household waste per capita per year in tons5 0,27 Household waste per household per year in tons 0,54 Total household waste collected (in tons)6 23 905

Total energy consumption of the system (in kWh)7 3 585 789 1 identified by name from a list of all systems. The list was provided by Envac 2 for these systems the number of connected appartments is known (the others are not considered)

3 appartments of the 34 systems added together 4 Source: www.boverket.se, appartment size always 70 smq accorging to list

Glass Paper and Cardboard Metal Plastic Newspaper Total2012 28,0 8,0 0,8 2,5 34,0 73,42011 27,1 7,5 1,1 2,7 38,9 77,22010 26,1 7,0 1,2 2,5 47,2 84,02009 22,9 6,2 0,8 2,1 54,0 86,02008 20,9 7,1 0,7 1,3 63,0 93,02007 20,7 5,2 0,6 1,3 67,6 95,42006 17,9 5,5 0,8 0,9 70,7 95,8

51

5234.518 divided by 881.235 6 waste per household times number of appartments 7 150 kWh per tonne

Appendix D The impacts of producer responsibility on packaging waste development The effects of producer responsibility are highly controversial. As described in section 3.3.1 PR was introduced as a tool to give the industry financial incentives to reduce the usage of packaging material. This would in return result in reduced amounts of packaging waste. Looking at the numbers of the past 10 years it appears this effect has not come true. A comparison of the follow-up analyses on producer responsibility from 2001 till 2010 shows that the total amounts14 of packaging material (excluding newspaper!) that penetrate the Swedish market do not indicate a positive trend. Figure 1 shows the development of the past 10 years (Naturvårdsverket, 2002; Naturvårdsverket, 2003; Naturvårdsverket, 2004; Naturvårdsverket, 2005; Naturvårdsverket, 2006a; Naturvårdsverket, 2008; Naturvårdsverket, 2008a; Naturvårdsverket, 2010; Naturvårdsverket, 2012a; Naturvårdsverket, 2012b).

Figure 1 Development of total amounts of packaging material penetrating the Swedish market (in tons)

14 The Swedish EPA publishes both the output according to the EU Directive 94/62/EC and the Swedish Ordinance (2006:1273). Due to slightly different definitions of what constitutes packaging, the value according to the EU standard has a 1 % increase to account for “additional materials” (Ministry of the Environment, 2006; European Parliament, 2013). Here the Swedish numbers will be used.

0

200 000

400 000

600 000

800 000

1 000 000

1 200 000Glass

Plastic

Paper/Cardboard

Metal

Total

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

2001200220032004200520062007200820092010

Glass

Plastic

Metal

52

The upper table shows that the total amounts of packaging waste have been fluctuating with a long term upwards trend. The recent drop in paper packaging is caused by a new way of calculating the amounts. Thus, it does not mean there was an actual decrease. The lower table allows a better view on glass and plastic packaging, which have increased significantly, and metal packaging, the only material with a recent, somewhat steady decrease (Naturvårdsverket, 2012b). The causes of the fluctuations are not discussed in the reports. One indicator, however, could be that, in the case of plastic for instance, the data sources and calculation methods have varied. Another important factor that defines the success of PR is the amount of material that eventually is recycled. Figure 2 shows the development of material recycling rates (FTI, 2013k).

Figure 2 Material recycling in percent of total amounts Similar to the total amounts the recycling rates have been unstable throughout the past 10 years. The national recycling goals have been well met for glass (70 %), paper/cardboard (65 %) and newspapers (75 %), while metal (70 %) is closed to the goal. The 30 % goal for plastic has not been met (Naturvårdsverket, 2006; Naturvårdsverket, 2012b). Newspapers are since 2010 no longer part of the statistic, because some municipalities developed their own collection systems and do not transfer their material to FTI. Thus, a national statistic is no longer sound (FTI, 2013i). In the years before the rates were between 80 and 90 % (FTI, 2013k). During the first 10 years after the introduction of PR in 1994, however, the material recycling rates improved from 40 % to 67 % (Naturvårdsverket, 2005). The loose regulation on producer responsibility also causes that the producers try to find ways to avoid their responsibility. Plastkretsen announced in 2006 that they will no longer subsidize free disposal of small amounts of plastic packaging for companies because the plastic market is strong enough that collectors can offer free collection and then sell the material. Another reason for this was however that purity of the waste was bad and the free acceptance of waste therefore expensive. Side effects of this action would be that small companies dispose their packaging waste in the household fraction or at recycling stations. These changes of responsibility affect the waste statistics in a negative way when fractions do not show up anymore (Naturvårdsverket, 2006).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Glass

Paper/Cardboard

Metal

Plastic

Newspaper

53

Nilsson (2013) also criticizes that there is no governmental regulation in place that describes who exactly is a producer (Naturvårdsverket, 2006), and how good the collection system has to be. A consequence of this is that some producers do not pay in the system without repercussion. The legal gray zone is, that the producers have legal responsibility for the collection, but they outsource the administration of the collection to the “material companies” (materialbolag). These organizations are not legally bound to provide the service and are therefore difficult to control and hold legally accountable (Naturvårdsverket, 2006). FTI would theoretically speak for increasing the producer responsibility fees as this would (1) allow them to operate on a larger budget and (2) give producers an incentive to rethink packaging design and invest in better and environmentally friendly packaging solutions. However, it is not FTI’s task to develop better packaging solutions (Nilsson, 2013). A good example for the lack of understanding of the producer responsibility comes directly from Naturvårdsverket (2006). The report claims that the system works well according to the polluter pays principle, but also mentions a few chapters later, that citizens can pay double for packaging waste handling when the municipality takes over the collection to improve the service level. The reason for this is that they also pay for it when they buy a product. The article even formulates it in a way that suggests it is supposed to be like that. In the context of the question to give packaging waste collection in municipal hands the risk is raised that producers could lose their incentive to improve packaging (Naturvårdsverket, 2006). That the incentive is already gone because prices are passed on is not considered. The increased numbers of collected packaging waste however is more ambiguous. On the one hand it can mean that people produce more packaging waste. It can also mean that the collection infrastructure has improved and people sort better so that more packaging waste ends up in the correct fraction. That however should be displayed in the results of the sampling inspections, which is not the case. They rather showed that the fraction of miss-sorted packaging waste in the household waste remained stable with about 31 % in 2003, 34 % in 2008 and 32 % in 2012 (STAR, 2011; Grontmij AB, 2011). According to Stockholm’s traffic agency however the packaging situation has improved since the introduction of the producer responsibility (Cronqvist, 2013a). The facts presented earlier however do not support that. This raises doubt about the effectiveness of producer responsibility as an economic tool to motivate producers to improve their packaging for the sake of the environment. Looking at FTI recycling statistics, the government does not seem to update their recycling goals, which have for some materials already been met years ago, and for some not yet (FTI, 2013k; FTI, 2013c). Appendix E The table on the following two pages provides further detail about the material flow diagram at the end of chapter 4.

54

Sour

ceTa

rget

Valu

eUn

itDe

finiti

onIn

fo S

ourc

eHo

useh

old

was

te23

4 51

8to

nsw

eigh

ed

(Cro

nqvi

st, 2

013)

Hous

ehol

ds &

bus

ines

ses

Curb

side

(bin

s &

bag

s)17

1 36

7to

nsw

eigh

ed to

tal v

alue

sub

stra

cted

by

othe

r flo

ws

belo

wHo

useh

olds

& b

usin

esse

sSt

atio

nary

vac

uum

sys

tem

24 0

00to

nsca

lcul

ated

bas

ed o

n En

vac

data

, see

app

endi

x (T

örnb

lom

, 201

3)Ho

useh

olds

& b

usin

esse

sM

obile

Vac

uum

sys

tem

6 93

9to

nsw

eigh

ed

(Sto

ckho

lms

Stad

, 201

2)Ho

useh

olds

& b

usin

esse

sLa

rge

cont

aine

rs19

036

tons

wei

ghed

(tot

al w

aste

in c

onta

iner

s su

bstr

acte

d by

was

te to

st

atio

nary

vac

uum

sys

tem

)(S

tock

holm

s St

ad, 2

012)

Hous

ehol

ds &

bus

ines

ses

Botto

m-e

mpt

ied

cont

aine

rs13

176

tons

wei

ghed

(Sto

ckho

lms

Stad

, 201

2)St

atio

nary

vac

uum

sys

tem

Larg

e co

ntai

ners

24 0

00to

ns-

Curb

side

(bin

s &

bag

s)M

unic

ipal

ity17

1 36

7to

ns-

Mob

ile v

acuu

m s

yste

mM

unic

ipal

ity6

939

tons

-La

rge

Cont

aine

rsM

unic

ipal

ity43

036

tons

wei

ghed

(lar

ge c

onta

iner

s pl

us s

tatio

nary

vac

uum

sys

tem

)Bo

ttom

-em

ptie

d co

ntai

ners

Mun

icip

ality

13 1

76to

ns-

Mun

icip

ality

Inci

nera

tion

(Hög

dale

nver

ket)

234

518

tons

-In

cine

ratio

n (H

ögda

lenv

erke

t)La

ndfil

l46

904

tons

estim

ated

20

% o

f tot

al w

aste

inci

nera

ted

(Dal

gren

, 201

3)In

cine

ratio

n (H

ögda

lenv

erke

t)Po

wer

Gri

d12

0GW

Hes

timat

ed 2

0 %

of 6

00 G

WH

ener

gy p

rodu

ced

from

tota

l was

te

inci

nera

ted

(Dal

gren

, 201

3)In

cine

ratio

n (H

ögda

lenv

erke

t)Po

wer

Gri

d48

0GW

Hes

tiam

ted

80 %

of 6

00 G

WH

(Dal

gren

, 201

3)Pa

ckag

ing

was

te64

674

tons

wei

ghed

FTI

Hous

ehol

ds &

bus

ines

ses

Curb

side

(bin

s &

bag

s)19

402

tons

estim

ated

30

% o

f hou

seho

lds

use

curb

side

col

lect

ion

(Nils

son,

201

3)Ho

useh

olds

& b

usin

esse

sRe

cycl

ing

stat

ions

45 2

72to

nses

timat

ed (i

n co

nseq

uenc

e) 7

0 %

use

recy

clin

g st

atio

ns(N

ilsso

n, 2

013)

Hous

ehol

ds &

bus

ines

ses

Larg

e co

ntai

ners

unkn

own

tons

Pack

agin

g w

aste

from

bus

ines

ses

that

is n

ot c

olle

cted

by

FTI

Curb

side

(bin

s &

bag

s)FT

I /Pr

oduc

ers

19 4

02to

ns-

Recy

clin

g st

atio

nsFT

I /Pr

oduc

ers

45 2

72to

ns-

Larg

e co

ntai

ners

Priv

ate

Colle

ctio

nun

know

nto

ns-

FTI /

Prod

ucer

sRe

cycl

ing

faci

litie

s64

674

tons

-Pr

ivat

e co

llect

ion

Recy

clin

g fa

cilit

ies

unkn

own

tons

-Re

cycl

ing

faci

litie

sM

ater

ial m

arke

t64

231

tons

calc

ulat

ed p

acka

ging

mat

eria

l tha

t is

mat

eria

l rec

ycle

d(F

TI, 2

013k

)Re

cycl

ing

faci

litie

sIn

cine

ratio

n (o

ther

)44

2to

nsca

lcul

ated

20

% o

f 221

2 to

ns p

last

ic p

acka

ging

that

can

not b

e re

cycl

ed(F

TI, 2

013k

)Re

cycl

ing

faci

litie

sM

ater

ial m

arke

tun

know

nto

nsPa

ckag

ing

was

te fr

om b

usin

esse

s th

at is

not

col

lect

ed b

y FT

I(F

TI, 2

013k

)In

cine

ratio

n (o

ther

)La

ndfil

l17

7to

nsca

lcul

ated

20%

of 4

42 to

ns =

88

tons

, 20%

of 4

43 to

ns =

89,

to

tal =

209

tons

55

Sour

ceTa

rget

Valu

eUn

itDe

finiti

onIn

fo S

ourc

eBu

lky

was

te13

0 93

8to

nsw

eigh

ed(C

ronq

vist

, 201

3)Ho

useh

olds

& b

usin

esse

sCu

rbsi

de (b

ins

& b

ags)

42 3

75to

nsw

eigh

ed(C

ronq

vist

, 201

3)Ho

useh

olds

& b

usin

esse

sRe

cycl

ing

cent

ers

89 2

41to

nsw

eigh

ed(C

ronq

vist

, 201

3)Cu

rbsi

de (b

ins

& b

ags)

Mun

icip

ality

42 3

75to

nsw

eigh

ed(C

ronq

vist

, 201

3)Re

cycl

ing

cent

ers

Mun

icip

ality

89 2

41to

nsw

eigh

ed(C

ronq

vist

, 201

3)M

unic

ipal

ityRe

cycl

ing

faci

litie

s13

0 93

8to

ns-

Recy

clin

g fa

cilit

ies

Inci

nera

tion

(Hög

dale

nver

ket)

unkn

own

tons

-Re

cycl

ing

faci

litie

sM

ater

ial m

arke

tun

know

nto

ns-

Recy

clin

g fa

cilit

ies

Land

fill

11 8

88to

ns

calc

ulat

ed 1

3,7

kg/p

erso

n bu

lky

was

te th

at g

oes

to la

ndfil

l w

ithou

t tre

atm

ent m

ultip

lied

with

num

ber o

f inh

abita

nts

(867

727)

(Sto

ckho

lms

Stad

, 201

3d)

Recy

clin

g fa

cilit

ies

Inci

nera

tion

(Igel

stav

erke

t)15

000

tons

wei

ghed

(Wed

holm

, 201

3)In

cine

ratio

n (H

ögda

lenv

erke

t)Ds

itric

t hea

ting/

cool

ing

grid

unkn

own

GWH

-In

cine

ratio

n (H

ögda

lenv

erke

t)La

ndfil

lun

know

nto

ns-

Inci

nera

tion

(Igel

stav

erke

t)Ds

itric

t hea

ting/

cool

ing

grid

70GW

Hnu

mbe

r fro

m in

terv

iew

with

Söd

eren

ergi

(Wed

holm

, 201

3)In

cine

ratio

n (Ig

elst

aver

ket)

Land

fill

6 00

0to

nsnu

mbe

r fro

m in

terv

iew

with

Söd

eren

ergi

(Wed

holm

, 201

3)Fo

od w

aste

8 84

9to

nsw

eigh

ed(C

ronq

vist

, 201

3)Ho

useh

olds

& b

usin

esse

sCu

rbsi

de (b

ins

& b

ags)

7 64

9to

ns88

49 -

1000

-200

= 7

649

Hous

ehol

ds &

bus

ines

ses

Larg

e co

ntai

ners

unkn

own

--

Hous

ehol

ds &

bus

ines

ses

Botto

m-e

mpt

ied

cont

aine

rs20

0w

eigh

ed(S

tock

holm

s St

ad, 2

012)

Hous

ehol

ds &

bus

ines

ses

In-s

ink

was

te d

ispo

sal t

o ta

nk1

000

tons

num

ber f

rom

inte

rvie

w w

ith S

YVAB

(Sto

ckho

lms

Stad

, 201

2),

(Aro

nson

, 201

3)Ho

useh

olds

& b

usin

esse

sIn

-sin

k w

aste

dis

posa

l to

sew

age

unkn

own

--

Curb

side

(bin

s &

bag

s)M

unic

ipal

ity7

649

tons

-La

rge

cont

aine

rsM

unic

ipal

ityun

know

n-

-Bo

ttom

-em

ptie

d co

ntai

ners

Mun

icip

ality

200

tons

-In

-sin

k w

aste

dis

posa

l to

tank

Mun

icip

ality

1 00

0to

ns-

In-s

ink

was

te d

ispo

sal t

o se

wag

eW

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent

unkn

own

--

Mun

icip

ality

Recy

clin

g fa

cilit

ies

7 84

9to

nsca

lcul

ated

Mun

icip

ality

Biog

as p

lant

(SYV

AB)

1 00

0to

ns-

(Aro

nson

, 201

3)Re

cycl

ing

faci

litie

sBi

ogas

pla

nt (S

YVAB

)3

425

tons

estim

ated

50%

of t

otal

food

was

te -

1000

Recy

clin

g fa

cilit

ies

Biog

as p

lant

(Upp

sala

Vat

ten)

4 42

5to

nses

timat

ed 5

0% o

f tot

al fo

od w

aste

Biog

as p

lant

(SYV

AB)

Ener

gy c

ompa

nies

/ pu

blic

tran

spor

t41

1 52

5Nm

3ca

lcul

ated

, see

repo

rt (a

lso

4 GW

h)(A

rons

on, 2

013)

Biog

as p

lant

(SYV

AB)

Agri

cultu

reun

know

n-

-Bi

ogas

pla

nt (S

YVAB

)At

mos

pher

e25

2 22

5Nm

3ca

lcul

ated

, see

repo

rt (a

lso

550

tons

CO

2)Bi

ogas

pla

nt (S

YVAB

)In

cine

ratio

n (o

ther

)un

know

n-

Biog

as p

lant

(Upp

sala

Vat

ten)

Ener

gy c

ompa

nies

/ pu

blic

tran

spor

t47

2 00

0Nm

3ca

lcul

ated

, see

repo

rt (a

lso

4.6

GWh)

Biog

as p

lant

(Upp

sala

Vat

ten)

Agri

cultu

reun

know

n-

Biog

as p

lant

(Upp

sala

Vat

ten)

Atm

osph

ere

265

500

Nm3

calc

ulat

ed, s

ee re

port

(als

o 57

9 to

ns C

O2)

Biog

as p

lant

(Upp

sala

Vat

ten)

Inci

nera

tion

(oth

er)

443

tons

est

imat

ed 1

0% o

f 442

5(N

ordi

n, 2

013)