In England, recycling levels have been stagnating for a decade, and over the last 2 years, 39% of local authorities have seen a reduction in their recycling rates [
1,
2]. Reasons for this include government spending cuts impacting front-line services [
3], recycling behaviour not being maintained—referred to as ‘recycling decay’ [
4]—and a lack of consistency, with local authorities using different containers to collect different materials at different frequencies [
5]. This lack of a joined-up approach can lead to confusion amongst the public on how to recycle [
6]. The government committed to addressing the stagnating recycling rates in its most recent waste strategy, ‘Our Waste Our Resources’, whilst pledging to maximise resources to move towards a circular economy [
5]. One specific area that has historically been overlooked in waste policy, recycling service provision, and the literature is waste management in social housing.
The aim of this research was to evaluate the impact of interventions for improving the management of waste in social housing. The research was conducted in partnership with two housing associations and their residents by following an inclusive approach. The objectives of the research were to:
The paper presents the outcome of engaging with residents and implementing interventions across 24 Recognition sites. A qualitative and quantitative approach to monitoring was deployed with data collected at the baseline and throughout the project in order to understand changes in recycling levels and resident behaviour. For comparison, data were collected in parallel from 19 Control sites. This paper presents a review of the relevant literature on waste management in social housing and flats, followed by the methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
Literature Review
There is a surprising absence of peer-reviewed literature on waste management in social housing. However, 39% of English housing association dwellings are classified as flats, and studies have been published that evaluated waste management in flats. As such, this review focuses on flats and, where possible, integrates studies on social housing.
Flat dwellings include homes in purpose-built flats, converted buildings, and apartments above shops or in commercial buildings, and they range from high to low rise [
10]. They can vary from luxury high-end flats to social housing or student residences. Waste management research in flats has been conducted in very different social contexts—for example, in private high-rise housing in Canada [
11] and Hong Kong [
12], socially deprived housing estates [
13], student residences [
14,
15,
16], and countries with cultures and social dynamics different from those of England [
12,
16,
17,
18]. Waste services for flat residents are influenced by who is managing the housing, the approach by the waste service provider (in England, this is the local authority), and the layout of the housing complex. Waste and recycling containers might be located on each floor, at centralised points, and internally or externally [
16,
19]. Due to these variables, care must be taken when interpreting the results. The findings from one study may not directly relate to those of another. By reviewing the literature, two main themes emerge: barriers to recycling in flats and interventions for changing the behaviour of residents.
Historically, the management of waste in flats has been poor, with recycling rates lower than those of single-occupancy housing [
20,
21]. Research suggests that many high-rise blocks still suffer from poor or non-existent recycling and food waste collections [
22]. The lack of access to recycling bins was cited as the main barrier to recycling in high-density households in London [
13]. Linked to this is convenience [
11,
14,
20,
23]. Inconvenience may stop people from recycling; Ando and Gosselin [
20] described this as the ‘transaction cost of recycling’—with recycling participation being a function of time and effort. Studies have also identified the lack of services for specific waste streams—for example, electrical waste, textiles, and reuse [
13,
24].
The lack of storage space has been identified as a barrier to recycling in flats with limited internal and external space for containers [
13,
23,
25]. The condition of communal waste and recycling areas can also be a barrier, with concerns regarding poor maintenance of these spaces, plus the presence of fly tipping and vermin [
13].
Research suggests that the social contexts of flats can be a barrier and residents may feel social isolation, anonymity [
26], and a lack of a sense of community [
27], particularly in large, densely populated developments. Benton and Fox [
28] suggested that the demographics of flat residents could also be a barrier to recycling. Their research found that flat dwellers are single, young, mobile, and less predisposed to recycle. The high turnover rate of residents could be a further barrier. McQuaid and Murdoch [
23] supported this, suggesting that in multi-story flat dwellings with high resident turnover, there may be low levels of social networks that promote recycling. However, research suggests that the perception of transient populations in flats is not always the case—for example, Pedersen and Manhice [
19] found that the average renting duration of flat dwellers in Copenhagen was 13 years.
Historically, local authorities have relied on passive forms of communication to engage with the public on waste, but since the 1990s, there has been greater emphasis on interactive forms [
29]. An early example from 1991 is from Claremont, California, where consistent recyclers were invited to become ‘recycling block leaders’ and engage non-recycling neighbours in recycling [
30]. De Young et al. [
21] conducted one of the first studies to evaluate the impact of intervention techniques in multi-family flat complexes. The research found that no intervention performed better than the others; however, the size of the housing complex seemed to influence behaviour. The smaller the complex, the greater the weight of recycling per resident, with less contamination in recycling collections. Again, this might be due to the closer sense of community in smaller residences compared to the sense of anonymity and non-involvement in larger communities.
Christie and Waller [
31] reported on the positive use of face-to-face contact when introducing communal composting in flats in Australia, and other studies have highlighted the positive impact of personal contact when introducing food waste collections in flats in China [
17,
18]. Studies have highlighted that, for a recycling scheme to be successful in social housing, close consultation among residents, housing management, local authority officers, and contractors is required. The scheme and messages should be tailored to the specific community, and frequent information and engagement are required [
32]. Research has noted the lack of feedback to flat residents about their recyclable-sorting behaviour and that waste engagement campaigns should be developed by using a more collaborative approach [
24].
The literature has highlighted the important role that housing companies and management can play in changing behaviour and improving waste management on site—they are the link between the residents and the waste collection system [
21,
24]. This view was supported by Ng [
16], who researched the behaviour in flats in Hong Kong. The study found that 93% of residents living in sites where the management was proactive (e.g., organised recycling-related events) recycled compared to 81% where engagement from the management was low. Research has suggested that financial incentives can influence behaviour. Yau [
12] showed how incentive schemes are common in Hong Kong—for example, property management companies have launched reward schemes in which residents exchange recyclable materials for commodities, such as food, toiletries, and dining vouchers. Li et al. [
33] reported a similar scheme in flats in China. However, there are strengths and weaknesses to incentive schemes [
33], and previous research has shown the varying responses to incentive schemes in terms of behaviour in flats [
34,
35].
This literature review informed the development of the intervention in this research in order to promote sustainable pro-environmental waste behaviour among social housing residents. The intervention aimed to improve the accessibility of services [
11,
13,
14,
22,
23] by using a collaborative approach with the residents and the wider eco-system [
21,
24,
32,
34] to affirm their important role in waste management. It aimed to build social cohesion in order to overcome the social challenges identified by the literature [
26,
27] and it integrated interactive face-to-face engagement [
17,
18] with residents on an ongoing basis [
31,
32].