Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Italian best practices in waste management: Italian best practices in waste management: Door to door waste collection in Italy:Door to door waste collection in Italy:yy
implementation in urban, rural and tourist areasimplementation in urban, rural and tourist areasand the Pay As You Throw (P.A.Y.T.) systemand the Pay As You Throw (P.A.Y.T.) system
Speaker:
Athens, 7 April 2011Speaker:
Raphael RossiYuliya Sanchenko
With contribution of:Attilio Tornavacca Salvatore Genova Mario ArutaAttilio Tornavacca, Salvatore Genova, Mario Aruta
Project co‐financed by the European Regional Development FundΤο έργο συγχρηματοδοτε
Italy: a heterogeneous situationItaly: a heterogeneous situationItaly: a heterogeneous situationItaly: a heterogeneous situation34,849,132,8
47 7
30,444,2
42 528,4
40,836,3
48,943,9
17,630,718,3
31,4
47,7
37,2
42,5
29,3
20,433,418,3
10 6
8,2
5,215,610,3
24,2
9,1
5,316,111,3
13,96 5
8,6
5,510,6
9,9
11,6
19,86,5
5,56,2
Source: APAT and CONAI processing of Regional Oversight Committee’s data
SortedSorted WasteWaste CollectionCollectionQualiQuali––QuantitativeQuantitative ModelsModels andandQualiQuali QuantitativeQuantitative ModelsModels and and goalsgoals achievedachieved
SWC: SWC: achievableachievable goalsgoals
9095
100
75808590
Sorted dry/wet household waste collection with P.A.Y.T. system
606570
Sorted dry/wet household waste collection
40455055
Sorted dry/wet waste street collection with household collection of other types of waste
(yard wastes, paper, etc...)
25303540
Sorted dry/wet waste street collection
10152025
Additional types of sorted waste
05
1
collection
Rifare il grafico?Rifare il grafico?
Per capita production Per capita production comparedcompared toto the the levellevel ofof SWC (2007)SWC (2007)
51,4%53,4%
700
800
50 0%
60,0%
kg/ab/a
% RD
37 0%37,7%
44,5%44,8%600
40 0%
50,0%% RD
27,8%
31,3%
36,1%37,0%,
400
500
30,0%
40,0%
18,6%19,0%21,0%
25,0%
300
400
.ann
o
20,0%
30,0%
RD
4 8%6,1%
8,1%8,9%9,1%12,1%
13,5%200
Kg/ab.
10,0%
% R
416 537 414 528 472 612 493 532 610 570 647 521 702 607 681 510 517 521 497 493
4,8%
0
100
0,0%
o
2 Advanced Waste Sorting2 Advanced Waste Sorting
OverallOverall deviationdeviation//variationvariation ofof costscosts€€//inhab.eql.yearinhab.eql.year comparedcompared toto % % ofof SWCSWCq yq y pp
Source: ARPA Lombardy “Valutazione statistico-economica dei modelli di gestione dei RU in Lombardia” feb 2010
Management Management costscosts ofof MunicipalitiesMunicipalities ofof TurinTurinProvince Province comparedcompared toto % % ofof SWCSWCpp
Source: Provincia di Torino Osservatorio Rifiuti
Per capita Per capita UrbanUrban CollectionCollection dependingdepending on % on % ofof SWCSWCTwoTwo modelsmodels: : householdhousehold colelctioncolelction withwith smallsmall containerscontainersand and streetstreet collectioncollection withwith big big containerscontainers
700,00
750,00
600,00
650,00
,
ab.a
nno)
450 00
500,00
550,00
U p
roca
pite
(kg/
350,00
400,00
450,00
0 0% 10 0% 20 0% 30 0% 40 0% 50 0% 60 0% 70 0% 80 0%
RU
0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0%RD (%)
Source: Federambiente - Gestione integrata dei rifiuti urbani – Ecomondo, Ottobre 2003
HouseholdHousehold wastewaste collectioncollection in big in big citiescities: : some some ItalianItalian examplesexamples
••RomeRomeSWC 23%SWC 23% All cityAll citySWC SWC 65%65% In In areasareas withwith doordoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection
TurinTurinSWC SWC 43,0%43,0% All cityAll city
••TurinTurinSWC SWC 61%61% In In areasareas withwith doordoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection
••TrentoTrento
SWC SWC 50%50% In all city with proximity serviceIn all city with proximity service
TrentoTrentoSWC SWC 68%68% In In areasareas servedserved byby doordoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection withwith
P.A.Y.T.P.A.Y.T. systemsystem••AstiAsti SWC SWC 63,9%63,9% All cityAll city
23 8%23 8% llll••AnconaAncona
SWC SWC 23,8%23,8% All cityAll citySWC SWC 55,7%55,7% In In areasareas withwith doordoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection
••NovaraNovara SWC SWC 68,5%68,5% All cityAll city
••BariBariSWC SWC 13,8%13,8% All cityAll citySWC SWC 55,0%55,0% In In areasareas withwith doordoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection
Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaSWC SWC 44,0%44,0% All cityAll city
••Reggio EmiliaReggio EmiliaSWC SWC 70%70% In In areasareas withwith doordoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection
••NaplesNaplesSWC SWC 16 %16 % All cityAll citySWC SWC 76%76% In In areasareas servedserved byby doordoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection6%6% yy
••LeccoLecco SWC SWC 50,9%50,9% All cityAll city
2 Advanced WSC
Analysis of waste sorted colection best experiences depending on qualitative –
quantitative optimization of ricycled materialsand costs
Preliminary version
January 23, 2011
Supervisione e coordinamento generale del Dott. Attilio Tornavacca (Direttore della ESPER)
Redazione effettuata con la collaborazione di: Dott. Giuseppe Abbenante (Presidente Consorzio Medio Novarese),Dott. Paolo Pepe (Assessore all’Ambiente del Comune di Novara),
Rag. Paolo Parisotto (AMCOS), Dott. Raphael Rossi (ESPER), Ing. Salvatore Genova (ESPER), Ing. Vincenzo Cenname (ESPER)
Analysis of sorted waste collection best experiences depending on quali-quantitative optimization of ricycled materials and costs
PeculiarityPeculiarity ofof residentialresidential SWC SWC yy
Door-to-door collection11 WhatWhat isis the the doordoor--toto--doordoor system?system?
General method
•• streetstreet binsbins removedremoved
Green Bin White Bin Blue Bin
Unsorted waste Paper Multi-material fraction
•• positivepositive impactimpact onon ““urbanurban decorumdecorum””il blil bl blibli l dl d•• moremore areasareas availableavailable onon publicpublic landland
•• cleanercleaner streetsstreets
9
Door-to-door collection in Rome testing11 WhatWhat isis the the doordoor--toto--doordoor system?system?
gContainers and collection frequency
FOOD WASTE AND COMPOST HEAP NON-RECYCLABLE
SMALL BIN/FOOD WASTE CADDY 40 L
3 TIMES/WEEK
MATERIALBAGS
2 TIMES/WEEK
PAPERP db d
MULTI-MATERIAL FRACTION:Paper, cardboard,
thin cardboard
FRACTION:Glass, plastic and metal containers/boxesBAGSBAGS
1 TIME/WEEK 1 TIME/WEEK1 TIME/WEEK
10
11 WhatWhat isis the the doordoor--toto--doordoor system?system?
Door-to-door collection in Rome testingDoor to door collection in Rome testingContainers and collection frequency
FOOD WASTE AND COMPOST HEAP
NON-RECYCLABLE MATERIAL
Not sorted materials120 L AND 240 L BINS
3 TIMES/WEEK
Not sorted materials
120 L, 240 L AND 360 L BINS
2 TIMES/WEEK2 TIMES/WEEK
PAPERP db d
MULTI-MATERIAL FRACTIONPaper, cardboard,
thin cardboard120 L, 240 L, 360 L BINS
1 TIME/WEEK
FRACTION:Glass, plastic and metal containers/boxes120 L, 240 L, 360 L1 TIME/WEEK1 TIME/WEEK
11
Family kitRomeRome
SHOPPING BAG
GUIDEBOOKBIODEGRADABLE PAPER BAGS MEMO SCHEDULE
FOOD WASTE CADDY
Choice of appropriateDesign elements
Choice of appropriate volume containers
Choice of appropriateDesign elements
Choice of appropriate volume containers
120 L120 L WheeledWheeled binsbins120 L 120 L WheeledWheeled binsbins
240 L240 L WheeledWheeled binsbins240 L 240 L WheeledWheeled binsbins
Users or street numbers whom the bins are assigned and fraction collected must be indicated on the bins
…For…For a a betterbetter qualityquality ofof sortedsorted fractionsfractions collectedcollected%% i li l ff hh
2 2 WhyWhy do so do so manymany citiescities choosechoose the the doordoor--toto--doordoor??
9 0
10,0% % typicaltypical gapsgaps ofof compostcompost heapheap
7 0
8,0
9,0
St t t iSt t t i
5 0
6,0
7,0 Street containerStreet container
3 0
4,0
5,0
NonNon monitoredmonitored2,0
3,0 Non Non monitoredmonitoredDoorDoor--toto--doordoor
MonitoredMonitoredDD tt dd
0,0
1,0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55
DoorDoor--toto--doordoor
Source: Etra Source: Etra –– Consorzio PD1Consorzio PD1
ELEMENTS AFFECTING THE COLLECTION’S QUALITY
COMPOST HEAP COLLECTION – TYPES OF BAGS
5,00%
6,00%
7,00%
Bidoni stradalicompostabileBidoni stradali non
1,00%
2,00%
3,00%
4,00% compostabileporta a portacompostabileporta a porta noncompostabile
0,00%MNC
Source: Massimo Centemero CIC –Consorzio Italiano Compostatori Source: ARPA Veneto
2 Advanced WSC
11 WhatWhat isis the the doordoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection??
MainMain StandardsStandards ofof the service the service providedprovided
MainfrequenciesofhouseholdserviceMain frequencies of household serviceN# of collections/week
North - typical management
South - typical management
Dry 1,00 2,00Wet 2,00 3,00Paper 0,50 0,50Plastics 1,00 1,00Glass 050 050Glass 0,50 0,50
TOTAL 5,00 7,00i 40%increase 40%
A rapid growth – the Province of Turin’s case history
EmploymentEmployment benefitsbenefits ofof doordoor toto doordoor service:service:EmploymentEmployment benefitsbenefits ofof doordoor--toto--doordoor service: service: The The exampleexample ofof PriulaPriula ConsortiumConsortium
System Operative staff
Non-profit organization
staff
SUB-TOTAL
Disabled individuals employed
Non operative
staff
TOTAL
Street bins 69 0 69 0 17 86Street bins 69 0 69 0 17 86
Door to door 100 25 125 17,5 31 156
All linked activities/employment generated and increased by the effect ofsorted collection materials disposal into recycling plants must be added tosorted collection materials disposal into recycling plants must be added toabove data
…because…because wherewhere disposaldisposal costscosts exceedexceed 100100€€/ton, /ton, dependingdepending on the on the locallocald hd h d ld l d dd d ii bb i lli ll ii
2 2 WhyWhy do so do so manymany citiescities choosechoose the the doordoor--toto--doordoor??
contextcontext and the and the modelmodel adoptedadopted, , itit can can bebe economicallyeconomically convenientconvenient
COMPARISON OF COLLECTION/DISPOSALCOSTS AS INCURRED. COMPARISON OF COLLECTION/DISPOSALCOSTS AS INCURRED. CHIERESE CONSORTIUMCHIERESE CONSORTIUMCHIERESE CONSORTIUMCHIERESE CONSORTIUM
MunicipalitiesMunicipalities Pop.Pop.
Street system costs Street system costs ((€€/per capita)/per capita)VAT includedVAT included
Integrated system costs Integrated system costs ((€€/per capita)/per capita)VAT includedVAT included
% Cost % Cost VariationVariation
SWCSWC(1(1°° quarterquarter
2005)2005)
CollectionCollectioncosts*costs*
Disposal Disposal real costsreal costs
CONAICONAIincomeincome TotalTotal
CollectionCollectioncosts*costs*
Disposal Disposal costscosts
CONAICONAIincomeincome TotalTotal
CambianoCambiano 5 9945 994 27 5527 55 42 1842 18 0 300 30 69 4369 43 35 3635 36 16 3216 32 5 065 06 46 6246 62 32 86%32 86% 58 9058 90CambianoCambiano 5.9945.994 27,5527,55 42,1842,18 --0,300,30 69,4369,43 35,3635,36 16,3216,32 --5,065,06 46,6246,62 --32,86%32,86% 58,9058,90
CarmagnolaCarmagnola 25.71825.718 21,5721,57 43,3143,31 --2,382,38 62,5062,50 46,0046,00 19,8819,88 --6,836,83 61,0061,00 --5,52%5,52% 58,0658,06
ChieriChieri 34.31134.311 19,9419,94 40,5540,55 --2,402,40 58,0958,09 48,8548,85 19,7919,79 --6,606,60 62,0462,04 6,8%6,8% 58,5358,53
* Collection costs in the chart are related to the main five fractions according to the provisions of the Regional Committee Resolution 1340/230043 of Province of Turin (paper and cardboard, compost heap,Regional Committee Resolution 1340/230043 of Province of Turin (paper and cardboard, compost heap, non-recyclable material, plastic and glass) for which the municipalities have switched from street collection to domestic door-to-door collection with P.A.Y.T. system
Source: Consorzio Chierese per i Servizi – (CCS)
Variation cost dynamics of collection and processing management ofVariation cost dynamics of collection and processing management of
2 2 WhyWhy do so do so manymany citiescities choosechoose the the doordoor--toto--doordoor??
Variation cost dynamics of collection and processing management of Variation cost dynamics of collection and processing management of urban waste after switching to household waste doorurban waste after switching to household waste door--toto--door systemdoor system
Street collectionsCollection costs Processing costs
Collection costs Processing costsHousehold waste
door-to-doorcollections
Case Case historieshistories: : metropolitanmetropolitan citiescitiespp
% of Sorted Waste Collection in the City of Turin
Source: Amiat www.amiat.it
City of Turin: diffusion of door-to-door collection
2009 Sorted collection City of Turin. By neighborhoods
Source: Amiat www.amiat.it
11 WhatWhat isis doordoor--toto--doordoor??
DoorDoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection in Trentoin TrentoDoorDoor--toto--doordoor collectioncollection in Trentoin Trento
By 2009 in Trentino Region it is mandatory to switch from parameter pricing toP.A.Y.T. system.
Municipality of Trento and Trentino Servizi with the support of Esper have set theMunicipality of Trento and Trentino Servizi with the support of Esper have set the rearrangement of collection services in order to allow that transformation. The resultof the first neighborhoods are very good.
G d lG d l dd MM SWC 68%SWC 68% CitCit AA SWC 48%SWC 48%
Pay As You Throw: tariff is waste quantity based.
GardoloGardolo and and MeanoMeano SWC: 68% SWC: 68% -- City City AverageAverage SWC: 48%SWC: 48%
Transponder
WetPaperLight packages
GlassNon recyclable fraction
Transponder
Trento case historyProgress of residential SWC in Trento in 2007
75,0%
70,0%
63,6%65,3%
66,2%67,5% 66,9%
69,7%
60,0%
65,0%
58,4%
63,6%
0 0%
55,0%
48 3%
52,7%
45,0%
50,0%48,3%
35 0%
40,0%
Average monthly data Gardolo-Meano
Average monthly data City of Trento
35,0%June July August September October November December January January
Naples Colli Aminei: pSWC results
JUL-SEPT PROGRESSJUL-SEPT PROGRESS
September
THE STREET BIN SAYS “GOODBYE!”
A
September
4a sett.3a sett.
SAYS GOODBYE!
August 3a sett.2a sett.1a sett.
65 70 75 80 85
July
65 70 75 80 85
Totale 74,59%Totale 74,59%
Customer satisfaction – QUESTION 7Customer satisfaction QUESTION 7“Would you come back to the previous collection system?”
Percentage
88,6%
75 0%
100,0%
50,0%
75,0%
5,5% 5,8%
0,0%
25,0%
The chart highlights that 88,6% of the interviewees would not gob k t th ld t ll ti t
No Si Non sa
back to the old waste collection system
Evaluation of kindness and professionalism of poperators (score 1 to 10)
Percentage
19,8% 20,4%21,9%
14 0%
20,0%
25,0%
1 – min
4,4%
11,7%
5,8%
14,0%
5 0%
10,0%
15,0% 10 – max
0,6% 0,0%1,5%
0,0%
5,0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The chart shows how kindness and professionalism of ASIA operators in execution of their duty are favorably perceived
Statistics index:
Mean 7,10Median 7 00Median 7,00Standard deviation 1,79
WRONG DISPOSAL INFORMATION CAMPAIGN
WELL DONE!YOUR SORTED COLLECTION
IS REALLY GOOD!
SORRY!WRONG DAY!
ATTENTION!ATTENTION!WASTE DISPOSED
WAS NOT THE CORRECT ONE!
GOOD START!BUT
YOUR SORTED COLLECTION CAN BE IMPROVED!CAN BE IMPROVED!
Case Case historieshistories: : touristtourist areasareas
Analysis of waste production weekly peaks in Municipalities of Alta Val di Susa, Home to 2006 Turin Winter Olympic Games
Disguise Facilities for mountain areas – Val di Susa and Val d’Aosta
Seaside tourist Municipalities
•Alba Adriatica (TE)•12.440 inhabitants that become almost 30.000 in Summer
•Example of leaflets and other info items
•Alba Adriatica (TE)•12.440 inhabitants that become almost 30.000 in Summer
MeseDic
2009Feb
2009Mar
2009Apr
2009Mag2009
Giu2009
Lug2009
Ago2009
Set2009
Ott2009
Nov2009
Dic2009
RU res. 448 425 542 587 342 438 514 662 344 256 192 227RD 143 109 160 192 404 438 703 664 455 413 350 329
RU tot. 592 535 702 780 746 876 1.217 1.326 798 669 542 556% RD 24,2 20,4 22,7 24,7 54,2 50,0 57,8 50,1 57,0 61,7 64,6 59,1
MeseGen2010
Feb2010
Mar2010
Apr2010
Mag2010
Giu2010
Lug2010
Ago2010
Set2010
Ott2010
Nov2010
Dic2010
RU res. 215 194 205 337 367 533 770 656 414 284 286 254RD 324 325 325 387 416 424 513 689 512 330 355 320RD 324 325 325 387 416 424 513 689 512 330 355 320
RU tot. 540 520 530 724 783 957 1.283 1.345 926 614 641 574% RD 60,1 62,6 61,3 53,5 53,1 44,3 40,0 51,2 55,3 53,7 55,3 55,7
CCCase Case historieshistories: : PayPay As As YouYou ThrowThrow feefee system in Italysystem in Italyyy y yy y
P.A.Y.T.: Municipalities of Navigli (canals) Consortium
Consorzio dei Navigli 1997 to 2006:Waste Collection with barcode labelled bags C i d i N i li f 2007
- Constant service monitoring; - Collection shifts time reduced thanks to a
g Consorzio dei Navigli from 2007 Waste collection with bins and trasponders
Service
Collection shifts time reduced, thanks to a decrease in the disposal frequency;
- Improved effectiveness in detecting IDs; - Ergonomically more comfortable grip for the
staff
Impact on
- Small effort required from users in laying in supplies of items for the WSC;
- Improved guarantee in terms of privacy; users - The bin is hygienically safer and better protects
its content and the environment
- Less costs compared to the barcode labels andManagement
costs
Less costs compared to the barcode labels and disposable ID;
- No cost due to purchase bags and to print/deliver/wash/barcode labels scanning
Pay As You Throw fee systems across EuropeCOUNTRY SPREAD CONTROL
CRITERIACRITERIAGermany Widespread Volume
Austria Widespread Volume, prepaid bagsAustria Widespread Volume, prepaid bags
Belgium Widespread (most important income in two of the three regions: Flanders and Wallonia)
Volume, prepaid bags, weight
Denmark Relatively spread(7% of the whole municipalities in 2002)
Volume
Irland Quite spread Volume, weight (minimally)
Finland Very spread Weight and collectionfrequency
France Uncommon Weight and collectionFrance Uncommon gfrequency
Italy Uncommon
Netherlands UncommonNetherlands Uncommon
Sweden Spread (since the 60’s the P.A.Y.T. system veryspread)
Volume, collectionfrequency
Switzerland Very spread (60% of the whole municipalitisrepresenting 67% of population in 2000)
Prepaid bags
Data processing ADEME Agence De l’Environnement et de la Maitrise de l’Energie
Opportunity:
Trends in Europe concerning the P.A.Y.T. system
Opportunity:• Reduction of Urban Waste (carefulness in consumptions, composting, reuse)• Increase in SWC• Functional use of the service (users present only full bins or dispose waste to disposal ( p y p p
facilities)
Contraindication:• Operational complexity for the operator• Operational complexity for the operator• Risk of unauthorized disposal (illegal dumping, domestic incenereration, non-authorized
compacting)
Wh t i ll dWhat is generally measured:• volume of non-recyclabe fraction, and, in center Europe, of the compost heap
(weight being basically never more used as parameter)
• Pay As You Throw systems:• Fee-paying bags (complicated in metropolitan cities)• Receipts of payment (complicated)Receipts of payment (complicated)• Bin weighing and automatic emptying (disputed)• Bins volume and/or emptying schedule• Accounting of number of emptyings (with trasponder)g p y g ( p )• Rewarding for SWC disposal
Instruments adopted to measure the quantity of Urban Waste produced by each condominiump y
A new system has benn recently tested: recycled waste bags or non-recyclabe fraction bags are labelled with passive disposable Radio-Frequency ID tags
(transponders)
Instruments adopted to measure the quantity of Urban Waste produced by each condominium
An ID code is provided to every bin assigned to one, specific household user (i.e. all families residing in an establishment) or non household
p y
All non-recyclable fraction bins are also equipped with a passive disposable Radio-Frequency ID trasponder. Thanks to particular reading instruments installed on the
families residing in an establishment) or non household
q y p p ggarbage trucks, the transponder allows to measure automatically the number of emptyings
A t f i t d d di i t t i d llAverage cost of passive transponder and reading instruments in dollars
Instruments to measure the quantity of various fractions (recyclable and non-recyclable) disposed by each
condominiumcondominiumPadova Tre Consortium
To encourage the domestic composting the To encourage the domestic composting, the transponder tags are applied only on bins and tubs used for waste considered “expensive”, according to Padova Tre system:
• NON-RICYCLABLE DRY WASTE• WET WASTE • YARD WASTE
All other recyclable waste (plastic, glass, paper, iron and tin cans) keep being managed as previously, without emptying monitoring, as this service is fee free for users. for users.
P.A.Y.T. systemConsorzio Priula and Consorzio ChiereseConsorzio Priula and Consorzio Chierese
Household usersFIXED FEE: the same for all familiesCHANGING FEE: it is determined on the basis of the number of emptyings ofnon-recyclable dry fraction, calculated through the transponders installed onthe bins
FIXED FEE: determined on the basis of the bin’s volume
Non household usersFIXED FEE: determined on the basis of the bin s volumeCHANGING FEE;NON-RICYCLABLE DRY FRACTION: determined on the basis of thenumbers of emptyings of the non-recyclable dry fraction, calculatedthrough the transponders installed on the binsRECYCLABLE FRACTIONS: determined on the basis of the recyclablefraction bins’ volume.
…Because…Because itit allowsallows toto holdhold down the production down the production ofof UrbanUrban WasteWaste
2 2 WhyWhy do so do so manymany citiescities choosechoose the transponder system?the transponder system?
P.A.Y.T.P.A.Y.T. system system forfor nonnon--recyclablerecyclable dry dry wastewasteAverageAverage emptyingsemptyings ofof 120 L family 120 L family contaniercontanier
The Passive Radio-Frequency ID
Components Emptyings/year
q ytrasponder istalled on each binfor non recyclable fractionidentifies univocally that container
1 6,78
2 9,21
thanks to a standard, uniquesignal.
3 11,78
4 13,46
The signal is picked up by the garbage truck and recordedeither on a memory card or on th hi l ’ PC5 15,85
6 17,67
the vehicle’s PC.
Beside user’s data, the system also records the date and time ofMEDIA 11,12
Source: Consorzio Priula. Sample 46.390 families per 1 year observation(2003)
also records the date and time ofdisposal.
Average and max emptying of nonP.A.Y.T.: Priula Consortium
Average and max emptying of non-recyclable dry waste bins (120 L)
18vuotamenti medi
11 913,0
14,915,3
14
16
005
vuotamenti minimi
8,7
10,0
11,9
10
12
med
i ann
o 2
6,4
8,7
56 6 6 6
6
8
10
uota
men
ti m
3,34,2
23
45
4
6
num
ero
sv
1
-
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
numero di componenti familiari
Fonte: Consorzio Priula. Campione di 46.390 famiglie per 1’anno di osservazione (2003)
P.A.Y.T.: Priula ConsortiumLevels of SWC of Priula Consortium after introduction of door-to-door system and after complete adoption y p p
of Pay As You Throw fee system.80% AVVIO TARIFFA PUNTUALE
60%
70%
65 64% 70,42% 73,82% 75,63% 76,99% 77,59%40%
50%
27,18% 33,64%
65,64%
20%
30%
0%
10%
CONSORZIO ANNO2000
CONSORZIO ANNO2001
CONSORZIO ANNO2002
CONSORZIO ANNO2003
CONSORZIO ANNO2004
CONSORZIO ANNO2005
CONSORZIO ANNO2006
CONSORZIO ANNO2007-primo sem (232000
(14 COMUNI)2001
(14 COMUNI)2002
(14 COMUNI)2003
(18 COMUNI)2004
(22 COMUNI)2005
(22 COMUNI)2006
(23 COMUNI)2007 primo sem (23
COMUNI)
Source: Consorzio Priula.
“A clever person solves a problem. A i id itwise person avoids it.
Thanks!Raphael Rossi – [email protected]
