Economic and climate impacts from the incorrect disposal of WEEE

Highlights

• Study on WEEE that is incorrectly disposed of in residual waste bins.

• Analysis of public behaviour, motivation and general knowledge on WEEE management.

• Resale value of WEEE disposed of in UK residual bins ~£196–215 million by 2030.

• Reducing incorrectly disposed WEEE gives reductions ~312–344 Mt CO2e by 2030.

• Correct WEEE capture gives significant economic, environmental & resource benefits.

Abstract

This study focused on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) that is incorrectly disposed of in residual waste bins. An analysis of public behaviour, motivation and general knowledge on WEEE management was undertaken in Southampton, England. All respondents were members of the People's Panel run by Southampton City Council. The potential monetary value that could be secured via the resale of WEEE that could be repaired was estimated. The value was calculated for three scenarios – low, middle and high for the years 2020, 2025 and 2030. Carbon footprints were calculated for four disposal routes to enable a comparison of the three scenarios. Analysis of the survey shows that respondents’ knowledge about WEEE management is deficient. The survey results highlighted a high level of confusion regarding correct identification and management of WEEE and a perception that collection services are inconvenient. The incorrect disposal of WEEE is costly; the potential resale value of WEEE disposed of in UK residual waste bins could be as much as £196–215 million by 2030. Reducing the quantity of WEEE entering UK landfills, including WEEE incorrectly disposed via the residual waste stream, via reuse and recycling could allow total emission reductions of between 312 and 344 Mt CO₂e by 2030. Incinerating WEEE also leads to carbon savings, however at the cost of losing recyclable materials and critical metals. The correct capture of this waste stream would therefore generate significant economic, environmental and resource benefits nationally and globally. The study has also highlighted the crucial need for raising public awareness about WEEE management and indicated that kerbside collection services for WEEE would probably be beneficial and popular.

Introduction

WEEE has been identified as one of the fastest growing waste streams globally (Menikpura et al., 2014; Islam et al., 2016; Shittu et al., 2021). Therefore, capturing as much of it as possible is essential to protect the environment and avoid economic losses. This approach aligns with the principles of Circular Economy (European Commission, 2019) and with recovery targets set by national governments (e.g. GOV.UK, 2019a).

There have been a substantial number of studies on the potential of recycling WEEE in order to preserve valuable resources and precious metals. However, little attention has been paid to the potential economic and climate consequences of WEEE that is incorrectly disposed of in the residual waste stream (RWS). The public's habit of disposing WEEE in residual waste bins is well documented (Gutiérrez et al., 2010; Borthakur and Govind, 2017; Pérez-Belis et al., 2017). In the UK, around 1.5% of WEEE enters the RWS annually (DEFRA, 2018).

In order to improve management of WEEE, it is important to identify any factors that prevent residents from using the infrastructure and services provided (Timlett and Williams, 2011). This can be achieved by surveying people's knowledge and attitudes towards WEEE. Many researchers globally rely on public surveys as a robust source of primary data (e.g. Wang et al., 2011; Nnorom et al., 2009; Chi et al., 2014; Yin et al., 2014; Islam et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016). In the UK, the Recycling Electrical Producers` Industry Consortium (REPIC) conducts an annual survey investigating recycling behaviour and management of WEEE (REPIC, 2019). The purpose of such surveys is often to understand attitudes, motivations and awareness of residents towards management of WEEE.

Estimating the economic value potentially gained from correct disposal of WEEE according to the waste management hierarchy (DEFRA, 2011) can serve as a strong incentive for policy-makers to introduce mechanisms to capture this value. The value of WEEE is often investigated in terms of value of critical metals that can be reused through recycling. Bakas et al. (2014) investigated the value of 13 critical metals in mobile phones, computers, flat screens and rechargeable batteries in the EU. The economic benefits of recycling have been confirmed by several studies (Li et al., 2016; Zeng et al., 2017; D'Adamo et al., 2019). An estimated value of 57 billion dollars of secondary raw materials is present in total WEEE generated in 2019 (Forti et al., 2020). However, little attention has focused on estimating the economic value of WEEE incorrectly diverted to the RWS.

WRAP (2011) carried out a project to estimate the value of WEEE that can be reused rather than disposed of. Their research shows that electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) is often disposed of while in full working condition or requiring only a slight repair. According to WRAP (2011), respondents consider purchasing new EEE cheaper and easier than repairing an old item. This is particularly important for small EEE, because the greatest potential economic recovery value (nearly 75%) can be gained from resale of these items. The recovery of these items can bring significant value back into the economy.

Global warming and climate change are significant environmental threats to our planet (Menikpura et al., 2014). Many countries, including the UK, are planning to reduce all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to net zero by 2050 (e.g. GOV.UK, 2019a). Global WEEE generation in 2019 was approximately 54 million tonnes (MT) (Forti et al., 2020), therefore, the management of this proportion of waste stream can be a significant contributor to the impact on total GHG emissions.

Life cycle assessment is a common method used to investigate the environmental impacts of WEEE management worldwide (e.g. Duan et al., 2009; Bigum et al., 2012; Song et al., 2012; Lu et al., 2014; Zanghelini et al., 2014; De Meester et al., 2019). Quantification of net GHG emissions associated with different disposal routes of WEEE can aid in decision-making and consequently help to achieve UK's GHG reduction targets. It can be also used to highlight the importance of proper WEEE management in awareness campaigns. Several recent studies confirmed climate benefits resulting from recycling and reuse of WEEE at the end-of-life stage (e.g. Foelster et al., 2016; Ibanescu et al., 2018; Park et al., 2019). However, no study has yet focused on calculating the climate footprint of misplaced WEEE placed directly in the RWS via kerbside collection. Thus, this study is going to utilise a recently developed tool, adapted from Clarke et al. (2019), which has been specifically designed to calculate carbon footprint of WEEE based on different final disposal destinations in the UK.

The aims of this investigation were: i) to critically examine reasons for the incorrect disposal of WEEE in residual waste bins and ii) to estimate the economic and climate impacts of this misplacement, using Southampton (England) as a case study. Southampton is the eleventh most densely populated area in the UK. The city's coastal location draws transient populations via tourism and maritime activities, further contributed to by large student populations (NOMIS, 2016). As urban areas are more densely populated, the WEEE management issues in Southampton may be globally illustrative of those likely to be faced by municipal authorities with high rates of population flux and high population densities in future, especially university cities (Timlett and Williams, 2009). The study incorporated the following WEEE categories: C1 Large household appliances; C2 Small household appliances; C3 IT and telecommunications equipment; C4 Consumer equipment and photovoltaic panels; C5. Lighting equipment; C6 Electrical and electronic tools; C7 Toys, leisure and sports equipment (GOV.UK, 2016).