The influence of residents’ behaviour on waste electrical and electronic equipment collection effectiveness

Abstract

Government agencies have implemented regulations to reduce the volume of waste electrical and electronic equipment to protect the environment and encourage recycling. The effectiveness of systems through which waste electrical and electronic equipment is collected and recycled depends on (a) the development and operation of new programmes to process this material and (b) on information dissemination programmes aimed at manufacturers, retail sellers, and the consuming public. This study analyses these two elements. The main focus is to better understand household residents’ behaviour in regards to the proper methods of handling waste electrical and electronic equipment and possible storage of the obsolete equipment that brings disturbances with collection of the waste equipment. The study explores these issues depending on size of municipality and the household residents’ knowledge about legal methods of post-consumer management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in Poland, where the collection rate of that type of waste is about 40% of the total mass of waste electrical and electronic equipment appearing in the market.

The research was informed by various sources of information, including non-government organisations, Inspectorate of Environmental Protection and Central Statistics Office in Poland, questionnaires, and interviews with the household residents. The questionnaires were distributed to daytime and vocational students from different universities and the customers of an electronic equipment superstore. The results show that a resident’s behaviour in regards to the handling of obsolete waste electrical and electronic equipment can significantly reduce the collection rate, especially when the waste is discarded improperly – mixed with municipal waste or sold in scrapyards. It is possible to identify points that are necessary to be improved to achieve a higher collection rate.

Keywords

Household waste resident behaviour waste electrical and electronic equipment waste electrical and electronic equipment collection waste electrical and electronic equipment disposal

Introduction

Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is a significant component of municipal waste streams throughout the world. For example, in the European Union (EU) an estimated 3.47 million tonnes in 2012 (Eurostat, 2014). And mismanagement of this material can adversely affect public and workers’ health and the environment. Many jurisdictions have introduced regulations to require proper handling of WEEE to minimise the adverse effects (Bakar and Rahimifard, 2008). For example, Switzerland introduced a WEEE management programme in 1998 (Hischier et al., 2005). Similar programmes are in place in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (Chung and Murakami-Suzuki, 2008; Lee et al., 2007). In the EU, the first regulations concerning WEEE were applied in 2003 based on two directives (European Union, 2003a, 2003b). An updated directive was introduced in 2012, which sets forth important changes including limitation of the number of WEEE in six categories instead of the existing 10 categories and setting a target of collecting 65% of electronic equipment introduced in the consumer market (European Commission, 2012). In the United States of America, although there is no Federal Law addressing the management of WEEE, many states have implemented their own regulations for the collection and recycling of this material in lieu of local disposal or export to countries with weaker WEEE management programmes (Horner and Gertsakis, 2006; Kahhat et al., 2008). Two countries with a population of over 1 billion – China and India – introduced WEEE management systems based on the European model (He et al., 2006; Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2010; Sinha-Khetriwal et al., 2005; State Council PRC, 2009).

One of the most important factors impacting the level of WEEE collection is the behaviour of household residents in removing such equipment from their homes (Darby and Obara, 2005). The way residents dispense with such waste depends on the preparation of collection schedules and the setup of the collection containers in the municipality where they live. The knowledge about the necessity for removing such equipment from households per se, and where such collection points are located, are other attributes that have an impact on the collection level. Other factors to also consider include the environmental consciousness of a resident and the possibility of storage of the waste equipment in households, which is especially possible for large houses or in other buildings in rural settlements.

This study is focused on an analysis of the household residents’ behaviour in removing and stockpiling this kind of equipment. The case study is based on the research in Poland using the surveys of the daytime and vocational students from different universities, questionnaires of the customers of the electrical and electronic equipment superstore replacing unwanted equipment while buying new equipment, and the reports from other sources. In Poland, a great majority of daytime students live together with their parents and do not reside on the campuses as is more commonly observed in Great Britain or other EU countries. Also, all students from vocational studies live on their own. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions are considered as household residential opinions and therefore they are extrapolated to the larger population of Poland. The collection schemes vary depending on the size of the municipality, and hence, this is a significant factor included in the study. Also the storage of the waste equipment is much easier in a house than in a flat.

The framework of the reverse supply chain of WEEE is shown in Figure 1 (Dyckhoff et al., 2004) and includes information and material flow. The components shown for official WEEE treatment are in compliance with the WEEE Directive. They also indicate illegal methods of disposal, such as discarding the equipment, together with general waste or sales at scrapyards. Storage of the obsolete equipment in households can also cause disturbances in the collection. This kind of behaviour postpones the decision of WEEE disposal. In some cases, long-term storage can last for years. The collection effectiveness of the WEEE depends on the proportion of WEEE items disposed of through the official collection channel compared with the unofficial channel.

The total mass of the stream of WEEE m_ws (equation (1)) includes all individual streams from households depending on the behaviour of the residents (equations (2)–(4)):

m_{w s} = m_{o f} + m_{u n o f} + m_{s}

(1)

m_{o f} = \sum_{i = 1}^{n} m_{i}

(2)

m_{u n o f} = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} m_{i}

(3)

m_{s} = \sum_{i = 1}^{l} m_{i}

(4)

where m_of is the mass of WEEE from official (legal) collection, m_unof, is the mass of WEEE from unofficial collection, m_s is the mass of WEEE stored in households, n is the number of items of WEEE in official collection, k is the number of items of unofficial collection, and l is the number of WEEE stored in households.

To inform the residents about WEEE collection schemes, general communication channels, such as TV, radio, message boards, websites, or mobile applications are used. Each method has a specific range of influence on the residents depending on age, type of living area, and favourite communications channel (Winer, 2009). Information about waste handling options should include the schedules of collection in selected areas or location of stationary collection points. Municipal registered authorised collecting companies or WEEE organisations can provide that information. Suitable communication channels can be used for different generations; for example, applications for smartphones, (e.g. eSCHROT, 2015; Ewaste App, 2015) can be used for younger generations, while printed materials dropped in letter boxes can be used for older generations. The information ought to include schedules of mobile collection or stationary points’ locations.

Collection and treatment of WEEE: Case study of Poland

Several issues contribute to lowering the collected mass of WEEE. This article identifies where such issues occur.

To verify the effectiveness of system operations, it is necessary to examine each type of flow. Therefore, the scope of this study was focused on the analysis of the following.

Factors depending on organisation of collection and treatment of WEEE:

- information about WEEE collection schemes;

- locally available collection methods;

- capabilities of dismantling plants.

Factors depending on the behaviour of the residents:

- awareness and knowledge about obligatory separate collection of WEEE;

- knowledge about collection points or schedules;

- replacement of the equipment and its lifespan;

- behaviour relating to the disposal of obsolete equipment;

- storage of obsolete or unwanted equipment in households.

Poland has a population of 38.5 million (WorldBank, 2014). According to the Inspectorate of Environmental Protection (IEP), in 2013, the collection level was 4.25 kg cap^-1 (GIOS, 2014).

Table 1 shows the collection rate of individual categories of WEEE in 2013 as a percentage of the average weight of EEE introduced in the market or as in a nomenclature of the WEEE Directive placed on the market (POM).

Table 1.

Indicator of mass of WEEE COL to POM for the main groups of equipment in Poland in 2013 (GIOS, 2014).

Category of WEEE	Indicator m_c m_p^-1 (COL/POM)(%)
Large household appliances	31
Small household appliances	35
IT equipment and telecommunications	57
Consumer equipment	63
Electrical and electronic tools	24
Toys, leisure, and sports	35

COL: waste collected; POM: placed on the market; WEEE: waste electrical and electronic equipment.

Concerning the category relating to consumer electronics, IT equipment, and telecommunications, the ratio is relatively high. This type of equipment is rarely disposed of improperly owing to the high amounts of precious metals and copper (Cui and Zhang, 2008), and the high prices offered by waste collection companies or scrap yards. Other types of WEEE category collection ratios are below 35%.

This study analyses official reports of the Polish IEP (GIOS, 2012, 2014), the report from the Gdansk Institute for Market Economics – a non-government organisation (IBNGR, 2011) – data from waste collection companies, and WEEE organisations. The reports describe the issues with the WEEE management of the Polish market. One issue is the improper reporting and errors in the documentation. The data is sometimes prepared to falsify the real numbers of equipment collected from the market. The other problem encountered is the illegal disassembling of the collected equipment, or disassembling of the equipment without removal of hazardous substances, especially cooling agents from refrigerators or air conditioning systems. In this case, the quality of disassembly is worse and potentially hazardous substances can have an impact on the natural environment. It has been proposed that an information system be utilised to collect both the data on the electrical and electronic equipment sold on the market, and the WEEE collected and disassembled.

The study includes the results of surveys aimed at household residents, and a separate survey conducted in an electrical and electronic equipment superstore.

Stationary collection points are provided for the disposal of WEEE from households and companies in the majority of towns and cities. Retailers selling electrical and electronic equipment encourage customers to bring obsolete equipment, regardless of whether they want to buy new equipment or not. Networks of shops and supermarkets have been equipped recently with containers to collect small electrical and electronic equipment and lighting equipment.

A popular method of WEEE collection is a phone call requesting that an obsolete large household appliances (LHA) or consumer equipment be collected by a company. A transportation service is usually free of charge, but in some cases the residents are required to cover additional costs relating to the removal of the equipment from a flat or house. In addition to regular collection schemes, special offers are made available to clients; for example, they can receive a plant or other gift in exchange for bringing in obsolete equipment.

Mobile collections are provided in rural areas and suburbs of towns and cities with detached or semi-detached houses. The residents can put the waste equipment in front of their house. This type of collection is preferred in small towns and villages, but in the cities there is a problem with illegal collecting companies that usually take WEEE prior to authorised companies that planned the service.

Transportation of the waste equipment to municipal collecting points by the residents themselves is rare. Municipal collecting points are not popular in Poland for WEEE disposal, as they are usually located on the outskirts of a city or town; this means that residents incur petrol costs.

There are seven large WEEE disassembling plants in Poland that are capable of processing up to 50,000 t of the waste equipment per year. Their total processing capability is about 300,000 t per year. There are also some minor plants that each have the capacity to process 10,000–50,000 t per year. The total capacity of treatment of WEEE was estimated to be over 610,000 t in 2012 (GIOS, 2012). This number fulfils the requirement for Poland to collect and process 65% of electrical and electronic equipment introduced into the market by 2021.

The infrastructures for WEEE treatment, collection schemes, and information exchange between collecting companies and the residents are in compliance with the WEEE Directive. However, there is no aggregated web source from the Polish IEP covering all collection points. Residents from all municipalities who would like to find a collecting company can locate one through a web search or by contacting the local municipal administration. Therefore, it can be assumed that the behaviour of residents is the main issue that lowers the collection levels of WEEE.

To analyse these issues, the research focused on collecting the following data from the residents’ households.

- Knowledge about WEEE collection (location of stationary points or mobile schedules).

- Methods of handling WEEE from a household.

- Lifespan of the equipment.

- Number and types of WEEE stored in households.

The research was based on data collected from questionnaires prepared for the residents.

A separate survey included the questionnaires prepared for customers of large electrical and electronic equipment superstores, which bring WEEE to its premises. In addition, the research analysed the records of the superstore’s logistics department, which delivers new equipment to customers and removes obsolete equipment from the households.

The first survey focused on retrieving data about residents’ behaviours with unwanted or used electrical and electronic equipment. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. In the first part, the equipment was classified into four groups: LHA, small household appliances (SHA), IT and TV equipment (TV-sets, PC computers, notebooks), and mobile phones. This section of the questionnaire included the following questions.

How do you discard the obsolete equipment?

How long do you use the equipment from a specified group?

Do you know the location of the stationary collection point or mobile collection schedule for your area?

The other section of the questionnaire included a list of the most popular electrical and electronic equipment in households. The respondents were asked to answer the following questions.

Do you store any obsolete or unwanted electrical and electronic equipment in your house?

If you have such equipment, how many items from the specific groups do you have?

The anonymous questionnaires were distributed to students at Silesian University of Technology and other universities in the region. Respondents were aged between 22 and 60. A total of 409 questionnaires were completed.

An analysis was focused on the results for three types of municipality: Small towns/villages (<20,000 inhabitants), medium towns (20.000–50.000 inhabitants), and big towns and cities (>50.000 inhabitants). This structure is in compliance with the real distribution of municipalities in Poland based on a Central Statistical Office report (GUS, 2012). The analysis of the number of respondents for chi squared = 2.188 with two degrees of freedom (P = 0.3349) is not considered to be statistically significant and the group of residents is representative for the population. The minimal number of respondents for the required confidence level was 384 for a 95% confidence level.

A simplified survey that focused only on knowledge of collection points or mobile collection was conducted in 2012 with a group of 300 students from Silesian University of Technology.

Results

Methods of discarding WEEE from households

By comparing the results from 2012 and 2014, the residents’ knowledge about the location of WEEE collection points or mobile collection schedules increased from 42% in 2012 to 68% in 2014.

The results from the survey conducted in 2014 are presented separately in Table 2 according to two groups: Residents who knew about the locations of stationary points or mobile collection schedules (Group A) and those who do not know (Group B). To simplify the questionnaire, the equipment was divided into four groups as mentioned above: LHA, SHA, IT and TV equipment, and mobile phones.

Table 2.

Method of discarding WEEE by population.

Method of WEEE discarding:		Organised collection (stationary, mobile)	1:1 replacement sale	With general waste	Scrap-point	Storage at household	Other answer	Sale or charity
Size of municipality	Type of equipment	Organised collection (stationary, mobile)	1:1 replacement sale	With general waste	Scrap-point	Storage at household	Other answer	Sale or charity
Group A^a	LHA
<20 k		27.8%	18.1%	6.9%	43.1%	2.8%	0.0%	0.0%
20–50 k		27.1%	31.3%	4.2%	31.3%	4.2%	2.1%	0.0%
>50 k		21.8%	32.7%	6.4%	32.1%	2.6%	3.8%	0.6%
Group B^b
<20 k		11.5%	3.8%	23.1%	46.2%	3.8%	11.5%	0.0%
20–50 k		0.0%	9.5%	19.0%	66.7%	4.8%	0.0%	0.0%
>50 k		1.2%	25.6%	15.9%	48.8%	6.1%	1.2%	1.2%
Group A^a	SHA
<20 k		31.9%	12.5%	22.2%	18.1%	13.9%	1.4%	0.0%
20–50 k		18.8%	10.4%	35.4%	14.6%	18.8%	2.1%	0.0%
>50 k		16.8%	12.3%	41.3%	10.3%	16.1%	2.6%	0.6%
Group B^b
<20 k		7.7%	3.8%	53.8%	23.1%	7.7%	3.8%	0.0%
20–50 k		14.3%	9.5%	57.1%	9.5%	9.5%	0.0%	0.0%
>50 k		1.2%	3.7%	61.0%	9.8%	18.3%	4.9%	1.2%
Group A^a	IT and TV equipment
<20 k		29.2%	16.7%	11.1%	8.3%	27.8%	5.6%	1.4%
20–50 k		27.1%	20.8%	8.3%	8.3%	31.3%	4.2%	0.0%
>50 k		24.5%	23.9%	9.0%	6.5%	27.1%	5.8%	1.9%
Group B^b
<20 k		11.2%	1.2%	22.8%	26.6%	30.5%	7.7%	0.0%
20–50 k		9.5%	19.0%	28.6%	14.3%	23.8%	4.8%	0.0%
>50 k		6.1%	19.5%	19.5%	11.0%	37.8%	3.7%	2.4%
Group A^a	Mobile phones
<20 k		8.3%	6.9%	5.6%	5.6%	63.9%	8.3%	1.4%
20–50 k		13.0%	4.3%	6.5%	2.2%	67.4%	4.3%	2.2%
>50 k		9.0%	5.2%	8.4%	5.2%	60.6%	5.2%	5.8%
Group B^b
<20 k		0.0%	0.0%	20.0%	4.0%	64.0%	4.0%	8.0%
20–50 k		0.0%	9.5%	9.5%	4.8%	61.9%	14.3%	0.0%
>50 k		1.2%	2.4%	19.0%	3.6%	63.1%	6.0%	4.8%

Group A – declared they knew the location of stationary collection points or mobile collection schedules.

Group B – declared they do not know the location of stationary collection points or mobile collection schedules.

LHA: large household appliances; SHA: small household appliances; WEEE: waste electrical and electronic equipment.

Residents used three main methods for the disposal of LHA: Stationary or mobile collection, replacement of obsolete equipment after buying new equipment, or sale at a scrap point. The last type is not legal (unless the scrap point is registered for WEEE collection), but it is still popular. There are several iron works operating in Poland that cooperate with scrapyard networks. A significant difference was found between the two groups with regards to their knowledge of legal disposal and collection scheme options. Of respondents from small towns and villages in Group B for mobile collection, 11.5% indicated they can follow other residents in bringing obsolete equipment to the front of the house.

The most popular method for the disposal of SHA is with general waste for both groups. It is considered as an easy and comfortable method. This behaviour is specific for Group B, where over 50% of respondents chose that answer. Group A indicated other methods of disposal, such as bringing the obsolete equipment to an electrical and electronic equipment shop while purchasing a new one; above 10% of respondents. Another common method for both groups was the storage of SHA in their homes. It is because the equipment is small and could be used in the future.

The third group of WEEE in the questionnaire was TV sets, personal computers, and audio equipment. As this electrical and electronic equipment is used by residents for entertainment or education, it was included in one query. The respondents from Group A preferred legal collection methods or storage in the household. For Group B, storage of the obsolete equipment in the household was most common (about one-third of the respondents). Other illegal methods of disposal in this group of WEEE included discarding it with general waste or sale at a scrapyard. The latter refers to computers and notebooks, as residents could sell either the whole product or parts of it.

Mobile phones were included in a separate group. Many models from this group are expensive, which influences the discarding decision. More than 60% of respondents from both groups tended to stockpile mobile phones in their home. In many cases, the equipment was relatively new because many telecommunication companies offer phone replacements every 2 years. On average more than 15% of respondents from Group B also discarded their phones with general waste. In both groups, some equipment was sold or given to charity.

Estimation of a mass of WEEE stream

To estimate a mass of the waste stream for an individual group from this survey equations (2) and (3) were used. A potential mass of WEEE stored in households can be calculated from equation (4). The results of the calculations are shown in Table 3. They are based on extrapolation of the survey results on total mass of a waste stream for three groups of WEEE: LHA, IT and TV equipment, and SHA.

Table 3.

Estimated average mass of three categories of WEEE per year in Poland.

Group of respondents	Type of EEE	m_WS as 65% of EEE mass POM(t)	m_of (equation (2))(t)	m_unof (equation (3))(t)	m_s (equation (4))(t)	Sum (equations (2)–(4))(t)
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Group A^a	LHA		56,100	43,800	3400	103,300
		160,600
Group B^b			9150	38,800	2600	50,550
Group A^a	IT, TV equipment		20,000	7260	12,100	39,360
		64,000
Group B^b			3300	2350	13,500	19,150
Group A^a	SHA		7020	9700	3340	20,060
		31,100
Group B^b			1400	7300	1220	9920

Group A – declared they know location of stationary collection point or mobile collection schedule.

Group B – declared they do not know location of stationary collection point or mobile collection schedule.

EEE: electrical and electronic equipment; LHA: large household appliances; POM: placed on the market; SHA: small household appliances; IT: information technologies.

A method of calculation included behaviour of the residents for both groups for official (legal) disposal, unofficial disposal, and storage of the waste equipment in households. The mass of the WEEE stream is assumed as 65% of the mass of electrical and electronic equipment POM in compliance with the WEEE Directive target. The share for Group A was 68% of the population and 32% for Group B. The slight difference between a sum of the mass shown in columns 7 and 3 is related to excluding the ‘other answer’ results from the questionnaires.

Owing to the dimensions of LHA products, it was rarely stockpiled in households. The estimated waste stream for LHA indicates it is necessary to promote legal ways of disposal or prepare scrapyards to be able to handle this type of equipment in compliance with environmental standards and the WEEE Directive. The total mass of LHA going through unofficial channels is estimated as 50% of waste stream, that is about 80,000 t.

A significant difference between the respondents’ answers for the disposal of IT and TV equipment reveals those in Group A are likely to choose the official ways rather than stockpiling the equipment. For Group A, about 20,000 t of waste goes through official channels, while 7200 t through unofficial channel. However, over 35% of the waste stream mass for this group is estimated to be stored in households. The estimated mass of waste stored in households (for Group B) is about 19,000 t, while the mass going through official channels is only 3300 t.

A task for WEEE organisations and collection companies is to encourage the residents to dispose of it through official collections and prepare education activities encouraging people not to stockpile the equipment in their homes. A mass of the equipment stored in households is about 25,000 t.

The mass of the SHA introduced into the market is the lowest in comparison with LHA or IT and TV equipment, however, about 50% of the mass of this waste stream ends up in municipal waste. The respondents from Group B are likely to store these items in their homes, while those from Group A are more likely to dispose of it through official collection channels.

Another factor that impacts on the waste stream from households is EEE lifespan. The results from the survey show that residents replace LHA generally after very long periods of use (~15 y) or long periods of use (~10 y); for the IT and TV equipment, the average time of use was 4–5 y. SHA is replaced every 3–4 y.

Storage of WEEE items in households

The second part of the survey included questions about the types of WEEE stored in households.

A number of obsolete items from a specific category of WEEE stored in households is shown in Figure 2 (medium and large equipment) and Figure 3 (small equipment).

The number of small appliances items stored in homes is large. Some frequently stored items include chargers, mobile phones, and small computer accessories. The number of these items exceeds 1.5 per household. In addition, medium-sized equipment exceeds one item per two households. The results shown in Figures 2 and 3 give more detailed information about the type of the equipment stored in households. If we compare them with the estimated mass of the equipment from Table 3, the main activities in the nearest future for the collection companies and WEEE organisations should be focused on education and encouraging residents to discard the equipment from households as storage is common. It should be supported by mobile collections that are convenient for residents and the placement of containers close to living areas.

A survey in EEE store – customers replacing unwanted equipment

Another part of the study was conducted in an electrical and electronic equipment superstore in a city in the Silesian region. The analysis includes the results obtained from a survey of customers replacing unwanted equipment (old for a new one – 1:1) or bringing in obsolete equipment without purchasing new ones. The superstore’s personnel interviewed customers at the point of sale (POS). The survey period was from December 2013 to May 2014 and included all WEEE collected at the POS within this period. There were 234 items of WEEE collected, in majority large- or medium-sized equipment.

The customers were asked about the reasons for bringing in obsolete equipment. Multiple answers choices were provided: Legal disposal (87.4%), purchase of the new item (73.6%), and dissatisfaction with equipment operation (28%). Of all WEEE, 39% were in working condition. For the majority of products, it was possible to identify manufacturing date on the label attached to the equipment. The average lifespan of collected refrigerators was 13.4 years (34 items); for washing machines, 12.1 years (29 items); and for TV sets, 12.9 years (82 items).

The average lifespan of LHA corresponds with the survey’s results from the first part of this study. The lifespan of old TV sets and the large number of collected items is a reflection of stockpiling them at households and change to digital broadcasting in Poland. Usually they served as spare TV sets and many of them were cathode ray tube.

Discussion

The WEEE management and collection is considered as a very important issue in numerous countries worldwide. Although it requires preparation of information and physical components of the reverse supply chain, social attitudes towards methods of removing such equipment from households are very important.

Key factors in removing waste equipment through official collection schemes include having knowledge about the location of the collection points and developing environmentally conscious behaviour, as shown in the findings from the superstore’s customer surveys. Stockpiling old equipment, placing it with general waste and possibly selling it as scrap, as shown in the other survey results, are the main problems that occur and are responsible for a low collection rate in Poland. While the new regulations of the 2012 WEEE Directive set ambitious targets of collection rates, Eurostat data shows that it is a difficult task to achieve. Difficulty could relate to problems with collection, treatment, and the response of the household residents in discard of the obsolete equipment.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the system, detailed information is required from all elements of the system (Elia and Gnoni, 2015).

Decision factors differ by country, education, or income (Byrne and O’Regan, 2014; Edumadze et al., 2013; Milovantseva and Saphores, 2013). In low-income countries, large home appliances that might otherwise be waste can be sold as scrap. Also, WEEE collection programmes are not as effective in locations where end users have available ample spare space (e.g. in garages) to store for their obsolete electronic equipment for an extended period of time.

In some countries, WEEE is considered additional income after sale at scrap points (Li et al., 2012), but even in highly developed countries, this kind of equipment is disposed of improperly. This group can also include small equipment (Darby and Obara, 2005; Huisman et al., 2012). Sale of obsolete LHA is viewed as an additional source of income owing to steel and copper used in these products. This type of behaviour would be expected for end users with low income. About 7% of the population in Poland is classified in a group of social minimum with incomes of 100€ per capita per month (Szukiełojć-Bieńkuńska, 2013). Therefore, any type of additional income is considered.

Prior to 1990, there was a deficit of any electrical and electronic equipment in Poland. Therefore, even broken or obsolete equipment was stored for reuse or for repair. This kind of behaviour is likely to be observed in other countries with lower incomes (Gerxhani, 2004; He et al., 2006; Kojima et al., 2009).

Similar behaviour was witnessed for mobile phones (Yin et al., 2014). These products have small dimensions, but include significant contents of precious metals, rare earth metals, and hazardous substances (Chancerel, 2009; Ongondo and Williams, 2011). Many models from this group are expensive, which influences the discarding decision. A recent survey in Germany indicates that approximately 100 million obsolete mobile phones and smartphones are stored in residents’ homes (BITKOM, 2015).

Storage of obsolete equipment in households also contributes to lower collection rates, which is significant for many household residents (Ongondo et al., 2010).

Further studies could explore the reasons for keeping obsolete equipment in a household. However, stockpiling of WEEE only postpones the decisions, so it can be assumed that the majority of small appliances would be disposed of from households in similar ways, as suggested by the questionnaires.

Preparation of more choices of mobile collections, for example efficient collection on demand (Król et al., 2016), would be another choice for the residents. This method of collection is the most convenient for residents, who can be discouraged by distant location of a stationary collection point and difficulties with carrying heavier equipment from a household. More containers should be offered to collect small appliances together with information campaigns to encourage end users to bring in any kind of SHA. It is important to place the containers within a convenient distance from a household or in frequently used places with ease of access with possible parking place.

Other options for stationary collection are special events or collection at schools, for example small equipment, mobile phones, or toys. Some examples of successful projects aiming to encourage younger generations in WEEE collection issues have been presented by Solé et al. in Spain (Solé et al., 2012).

Equations (3) and (4) evaluated the potential loss of raw materials escaping official schemes of WEEE collection and stockpiled in households. Encouraging residents to dispose of the waste equipment using official schemes can be communicated through information campaigns and events for all target groups, since the amounts of raw materials is significant.

Conclusions

Numerous WEEE collection programmes are operating throughout the world today; each programme is customised to the local conditions reflecting specific generator and market conditions. Thus, those responsible for planning and operating WEEE collection programmes should gather and consider pertinent data for each specific market.

This article included an analysis of the reverse supply chain of WEEE through an interdisciplinary approach. It focused on availability of collection points, mobile schedules, or return schemes, and then looked at other effective information exchanges between organisations responsible for collection from the households and the residents.

The number of residents who knew the location of collection points or mobile collection schedules of WEEE increased from 42% in 2012 to 68% in 2014 in Poland.

The study indicates the behaviour of household residents to be the main factor driving the collection rate. Behaviour in disposal of WEEE is determined by knowledge of legal methods of waste collection. The residents who know where a collection point is located or what is a schedule of mobile collection are likely to discard the waste equipment via legally organised collection schemes. WEEE discarding decisions undertaken by a resident depends on education about environmental issues, acquisition of information about collection, ease of access to collection points, and storage of obsolete equipment in households.

LHA, especially washing machines and dishwashers, escape legal methods of disposal, although there is a fine of approximately 1200€ for placement of such equipment in a waste bin or container. SHA and mobile phones are the least likely electrical and electronic equipment to be discarded correctly, as the majority of respondents preferred the easiest handling method – with municipal waste or storage in households. The number of the obsolete equipment from these groups stockpiled in households is large.

Residents’ behaviour can be changed through improving the operational systems. On the education level, courses and campaigns from WEEE organisations should focus on adult groups, as this group makes the decisions regarding disposal. Collections of equipment require stable schedules similar to collection of municipal waste. The information about collection schemes should be disseminated via websites or mobile apps with location of collection points administrated by the local divisions of IEP or directly by collection companies.

A reduction of WEEE stockpiled in households and improvement of convenient methods of WEEE returns is a key factor to increasing the collection rate and waste stream to be recycled.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bakar

MSA

Rahimifard

(2008) Ecological and economical assessment of end-of-life waste recycling in the electrical and electronic recovery sector. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 1: 261–277.

BITKOM (2015) BITKOM-Presseinfo_Altgerate_01_04_2015_final.pdf. Available at: https://www.bitkom.org/files/documents/BITKOM-Presseinfo_Altgerate_01_04_2015_final.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015).

Byrne

O’Regan

(2014) Attitudes and actions towards recycling behaviours in the Limerick, Ireland region. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 87: 89–96.

Chancerel

(2009) Substance flow analysis of the recycling of small waste electrical and electronic equipment-An assessment of the recovery of gold and palladium. Technische Universität Berlin: Universitätsbibliothek. Available at: https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/2701 (accessed 18 August 2013).

Chung

S-W

Murakami-Suzuki

(2008) A comparative study of e-waste recycling systems in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan from the EPR Perspective: Implications for developing countries. Available at: http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Spot/pdf/30/007.pdf (accessed 19 October 2011).

Cui

Zhang

(2008) Metallurgical recovery of metals from electronic waste: A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials 158: 228–256.

Darby

Obara

(2005) Household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards the disposal of small electrical and electronic equipment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44: 17–35.

Dyckhoff

Lackes

Reese

(2004) Supply chain management and reverse logistics. Springer Science & Business Media.

Edumadze

JKE

Tenkorang

Armah

. (2013) Electronic waste is a mess: Awareness and proenvironmental behavior among university students in Ghana. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 12: 224–234.

10.

Elia

Gnoni

(2015) How to design and manage WEEE systems: A multi-level analysis. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management 15: 271.

11.

eSCHROT (2015) eSCHROTT RECYCLING – Nicht für die tonne. Application for finding WEEE collection points [in German]. Available at: http://www.umweltmanager.net/recyclingsuche-app (accessed 18 June 2015).

12.

European Commission (2012) Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Text with EEA relevance – LexUriServ.do. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:197:0038:0071:en:PDF (accessed 4 April 2013).

13.

European Union (2003a) Directive 2002/95/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:037:0019:0023:en:PDF (accessed 17 October 2011).

14.

European Union (2003b) Directive 2002/96/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:037:0024:0038:en:PDF (accessed 28 October 2011).

15.

Eurostat (2014) Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/wastestreams/weee (accessed 1 October 2014).

16.

Ewaste App (2015) Ewaste App. Application for requesting free electronic waste recycling services. Available at: http://app.appsgeyser.com/Ewaste%20App/ (accessed 18 June 2015).

17.

Gerxhani

(2004) The informal sector in developed and less developed countries: A literature survey. Public Choice 120: 267–300.

18.

GIOS (2012) Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. Raport o funkcjonowaniu systemu gospodarki zużytym sprzętem elektrycznym i elektronicznym w 2011 roku [Waste electrical and electronic equipment in 2011 – Inspectorate of Environmental Protection of Poland – report]. Available at: http://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/gospodarka_odpadami/zseie/raport_2012.pdf (accessed 10 January 2016).

19.

GIOS (2014) Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. Raport o funkcjonowaniu systemu gospodarki zużytym sprzętem elektrycznym i elektronicznym w 2013 roku [Waste electrical and electronic equipment in 2013 – Inspectorate of Environmental Protection of Poland – report]. Available at: http://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/gospodarka_odpadami/zseie/raport_2014.pdf (accessed 10 January 2016).

20.

GUS (2012) Gospodarstwa domowe w 2011 roku – wyniki spisu ludności i mieszkań 2011. Główny Urząd Statystyczny Departament Badań Demograficznych i Rynku Pracy [Household survey in 2011. Central Statistical Office of Poland]. Available at: http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/warunki-zycia/dochody-wydatki-i-warunki-zycia-ludnosci/wybrane-tablice-dotyczace-gospodarstw-domowych-i-rodzin-wyniki-narodowego-spisu-powszechnego-ludnosci-i-mieszkan-2011-r-,2,1.html (accessed 12 June 2015).

21.

. (2006) WEEE recovery strategies and the WEEE treatment status in China. Journal of Hazardous Materials 136: 502–512.

22.

Hischier

Wager

Gauglhofer

(2005) Does WEEE recycling make sense from an environmental perspective? The environmental impacts of the Swiss take-back and recycling systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 525–539.

23.

Horner

Gertsakis

(2006) Literature review on the environmental and health impacts of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, Government of New Zealand. Available at: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/weee-literature-review-jun06.pdf (accessed 19 June 2015).

24.

Huisman

Van der Maesen

Eijsbouts

RJJ

. (2012) The Dutch WEEE flows. United Nations University, ISP – SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. Available at: http://www.ihdp.unu.edu/file/download/9654.pdf (accessed 17 June 2015).

25.

IBNGR (2011) Najważniejsze wydarzenia na rynku zużytego sprzętu elektrycznego i elektronicznego (ZSEE) w okresie ostatnich dwunastu miesięcy. Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową, Warszawa [The most important events on WEEE market in Poland in last year – Gdańsk Institute for Market Economics] http://www.ibngr.pl/content/download/967/9461/file/zsee (accessed 12 July 2015).

26.

Kahhat

Kim

. (2008) Exploring e-waste management systems in the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52: 955–964.

27.

Kojima

Yoshida

Sasaki

(2009) Difficulties in applying extended producer responsibility policies in developing countries: Case studies in e-waste recycling in China and Thailand. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 11: 263–269.

28.

Król

Nowakowski

Mrówczyńska

(2016). How to improve WEEE management? Novel approach in mobile collection with application of artificial intelligence. Waste Management 50: 222–233. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.033.

29.

Lee

Song

Yoo

(2007) Present status of the recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment in Korea. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 50: 380–397.

30.

Liu

Ren

. (2012) Behavior of urban residents toward the discarding of waste electrical and electronic equipment: A case study in Baoding, China. Waste Management & Research 30: 1187–1197.

31.

Milovantseva

Saphores

J-D

(2013) E-waste bans and U.S. households’ preferences for disposing of their e-waste. Journal of Environmental Management 124: 8–16.

32.

Ministry of Environment and Forests (2010) Report of the Committee to Evolve Road Map on Management of Wastes in India. Available at: http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Roadmap-Mgmt-Waste.pdf (accessed 28 October 2011).

33.

Ongondo

Williams

(2011) Mobile phone collection, reuse and recycling in the UK. Waste Management 31: 1307–1315.

34.

Ongondo

Williams

Cherrett

(2010) How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Management 31: 714–730.

35.

Sinha-Khetriwal

Kraeuchi

Schwaninger

(2005) A comparison of electronic waste recycling in Switzerland and in India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 492–504.

36.

Solé

Watson

Puig

. (2012). Proposal of a new model to improve the collection of small WEEE: A pilot project for the recovery and recycling of toys. Waste Management and Research 30: 1208–1212.

37.

State Council PRC (2009) State Council Decree of the People’s Republic of China No. 551. Available at: http://www.chinarohs.com/chinaweee-decree551.pdf (accessed 28 October 2011).

38.

Szukiełojć-Bieńkuńska

(2013) Ubóstwo w Polsce w świetle badań GUS. Warszawa: Główny Urząd Statystyczny [Poverty in Poland in CSO of Poland research. Central Statistical Office of Poland]. Available at: http://stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/WZ_ubostwo_w_polsce_2013.pdf.

39.

Winer

(2009) New communications approaches in marketing: Issues and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23: 108–117.

40.

WorldBank (2014) Population, total. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL (accessed 19 November 14).

41.

Yin

Gao

(2014) Survey and analysis of consumers’ behaviour of waste mobile phone recycling in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 65: 517–525.