Next Article in Journal
Effect of Single Bevel Groove Geometry on the Impact Strength of Dissimilar Welded Joint of P22 and P91 Steel
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Supply Chain System for Defective Products with Different Carbon Emission Strategies
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of Alkali-Activated Soda Residue-Blast Furnace Slag Composite Binder
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Micro- and Macrostructure of Atomised Water Jets on Ammonia Absorption Efficiency
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 18
10.3390/su141811753
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Household E-Waste Management: A Case Study of Wroclaw, Poland

by
Kamil Banaszkiewicz
*,
Iwona Pasiecznik
,
Wojciech Cieżak
and
Emilia den Boer
Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 27 Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego St., 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11753; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811753
Submission received: 28 August 2022 / Revised: 14 September 2022 / Accepted: 15 September 2022 / Published: 19 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Innovative Instruments and Technologies Within Sustainable Strategies in the Management Processes and Air and Climate Protection)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Improper collection and processing of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) pose a serious threat to the environment and prevent the recovery of valuable materials. Due to the decreasing availability of resources and production materials, the relevance of WEEE recycling has increased. WEEE should be seen as an important source of raw materials for European economies. Moreover, e-waste recycling has a positive impact on the environment by limiting energy use and CO2 emissions during ore processing. The objective of this study was the analysis of the product use times, the reasons for purchasing new devices, and the consumers’ behavior, knowledge, and awareness concerning WEEE collection and treatment. This study discusses these issues based on a survey on electronic waste management in Wroclaw (Poland). The results from 495 questionnaire respondents indicated a shortening use time of many types of electronic and electric equipment (EEE). The “failure of the device” was the primary reason respondents replaced their products. It was indicated by 90% of the respondents. In many cases, the repair of devices was unprofitable. The most important factor determining the purchase of new devices was their price. The environmental factors, mainly those giving economic benefits, were also considered. Despite the implementation of the extended producer responsibility, the functioning model of WEEE collection has proven to be ineffective. A significant amount of small WEEE ended up in waste bins. For this reason, the willingness of residents to pay an additional fee for WEEE collection was also estimated. The results indicated that campaigns to increase residents’ awareness of WEEE management should continue.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is considered the most rapidly growing stream of waste. Its average annual growth between 2010 and 2019 was 6.5%. Such a dynamic increase in the amount of generated waste is influenced by many factors, such as (i) economic growth, (ii) technological progress, (iii) digitization of technological processes (including automation of production processes), (iv) the appearance of new product groups on the market (e.g., electric bikes or scooters, drones, heat pumps, photovoltaic solar panels), (v) consumer behavior, (vi) quality of devices (including functionality and durability). Moreover, an increase in electronic content in vehicles has also been observed (e.g., screens or electrical motors) [1]. As a result, the amount of EEE put on the market has increased yearly and implies future growth in waste volume. It is estimated that the total volume of WEEE generated globally in 2019 was approximately 53.6 million tonnes [2,3,4]. Around 9.5 million tonnes (18.5 kg per inhabitant) were generated in the 28 member states of the European Union (EU) [4].
Unfortunately, only 17.4% of the annually generated WEEE is documented to be officially collected and recycled. Moreover, from 2016 to 2019, the amount of WEEE disposed of in residential waste in the high-income countries increased from 1.7 million tonnes (4% of e-waste generated in 2016) to 4.2 million tonnes (8% of e-waste generated in 2019). It is estimated that in the 28 EU member states, about 6.3% of e-waste generated is disposed of in residential waste bins [3,4,5].
Electrical and electronic equipment are characterized by a large variety of materials, and mainly the metals they are composed of. On one hand, WEEE is a source of valuable resources (such as iron, copper, aluminum, and plastics) and precious metals (such as gold, silver, platinum, and palladium) that can be recycled. Moreover, many e-waste elements contain materials that belong to the group of critical raw materials for the European Union, e.g., (i) rare-earth metals (REMs) such as La and Nd in printed circuit boards (PCBs); Gd, Ce, Tb, Eu, Y, La, Sm, Lu, Tm, and Dy in light-emitting diodes (LEDs); Y, Eu, La, Ce, Tb, Gd, and Pr in cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFLs); and Nd, Pr, Tb, and Dy in permanent magnets; (ii) platinum group metals (PGMs) such as Pd and Pt in PCBs; and Pt, Pd, Rh, and Ru in hard disc drive platters; (iii) as well as others, including Sb and Ta in PCBs; In as indium tin oxide (ITO) in liquid crystal display (LCD) screens; and Ga and In in LEDs [6,7,8,9,10,11].
These elements are hard to recover because of their low concentrations in end-of-life EEE and the high energy required in the recovery process. Currently, WEEE processing mainly focuses on the recovery of base and precious metals, while the fate of REMs has not been addressed yet.
On the other hand, WEEE contains toxic substances that pose a threat to human health and the environment (e.g., Pb, Hg, Cr, As, Cd, Cr(VI)), ozone-depleting substances, brominated flame retardant, or polychlorinated biphenyls) and require specific treatment [12,13].
The electronics industry is currently facing a challenge with the decreasing availability of resources and production materials, coupled with a continuous increase in demand. Thus, the necessity to maximize the recycling rate of e-waste becomes inevitable. It was estimated that the value of raw materials in the 53.6 million tonnes of WEEE generated in 2019 amounted to USD 57 billion [4]. Nevertheless, growing consumption means that even if all raw materials contained in generated e-waste are recycled, they will not cover the demand for raw materials in the production of new devices. In addition, the economic potential of recycling depends on many factors, such as the type of device (its construction and valuable material content), the amount of waste, quality of waste (its completeness), the operational recycling process costs, and the purity and value of materials obtained from the recycling process [4,14,15].
The construction and composition of devices have a significant effect on the costs associated with their recycling. The presence of valuable materials such as precious metals and copper currently determine the value of e-waste. Equipment characterized by high content of valuable elements includes tablets, notebooks, LCD/LED monitors and TVs, smartphones, and traditional mobile phones. Unfortunately, these are mainly included in composite components, such as displays and PCBs. Moreover, the PCB grades depend on the equipment type. For example, smartphones include high-grade PCBs, and in contrast, PCBs from printers are classified as low-grade [14]. The differences in PCB composition, depending on the type of device, have been discussed by Priya and Hait [11].
Plastics constitute another important component of e-waste. The types of polymers used and the shares of additives and fillers vary significantly from one device to another [16,17,18]. This applies in particular to small household appliances. For example, the plastic fraction is dominant in devices such as vacuum cleaners, kettles, or coffee makers (50–70 wt%) [17]. Additionally, the complexity of plastic mixtures used in EEE results in only about 55% being recycled [19]. The low recycling rate for plastics cam also be partly attributed to the presence of flame retardants and other toxic elements (Pb, Cd, Hg) [20]. Thus, the most frequently recovered and recycled plastics include PP, PE, PS, and ABS [19]. In the case of plastics recycling, the associated costs may exceed the profits from recyclates. Another economic factor that impacts plastic treatment costs is the quantity and classification of process waste (i.e., hazardous versus non-hazardous).
Moreover, the operating costs have a crucial impact on the profitability of e-waste recycling. Due to legal requirements in the field of environmental protection, the processing costs borne by the formal sector in Europe are much higher than in developing countries [15,21]. For this reason, a fraction of WEEE undergoes illegal recycling or is transferred to Africa or Asia [22].
Despite the indicated factors influencing the economic efficiency of recycling, the recovery of raw materials is essential. The importance of WEEE recycling results from the limited availability of so-called strategic resources. A list of critical raw materials for EU economies was published in 2020 by the European Commission [6]. Significant amounts of the above-mentioned raw materials are present in WEEE. Moreover, WEEE recycling helps to ensure the security of the supply of raw materials to European economies and limits energy use and CO2 emissions. Much less energy and water are consumed in the production of metals from scrap than in their extraction from ores [23]. For example, secondary copper production requires 30–80% less energy than its primary production [24].

The EEE Market in the European Union

From 2014 to 2018, the amount of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market in the EU increased by 22.5%, from 9.2 million tonnes to 11.3 million tonnes [25]. Most EEE has been introduced in Germany (2.38 million tonnes; ~21.0%), France (1.93 million tonnes; ~17.1%), and the United Kingdom (1.55 million tonnes; ~13.7%). In comparison, in Poland, about 0.66 million tonnes of EEE (~5.8%) were introduced to the market in 2018 (Figure 1). According to the data published by Forti et al. [4], in 2019, about 9.5 million tonnes of WEEE (18.5 kg per inhabitant) were generated in the 28 member states of the European Union. The available data on the WEEE formally collected and recycled in the EU refer to the year 2018. Roughly, 4.8 million tonnes of this type of waste were reported as officially collected. Unfortunately, despite the relatively high environmental awareness in the EU, a portion of e-waste (especially small devices) ends up in residential waste bins. The estimated data for 2012 show that 0.75 million tonnes of WEEE (~1.5 kg/inhabitant) were disposed of in residential waste bins [5]. Despite the observed decrease in the extent of this practice, it is estimated that still, about 6% of generated WEEE ends up in residential waste containers [4,26].
The proper and environmentally friendly disposal of WEEE is a key challenge for European waste management. The rules for managing WEEE are stated in Directive 2012/19/EU [27], which amended the original WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC. According to the original WEEE Directive [28], electrical and electronic products were grouped into 10 primary categories. From 15 August 2018, all EEE is classified into six categories [27]. The recovery levels established for each EEE category can be obtained from Supplementary Material—Table S1.
The prerequisite for WEEE recycling is a well-established collection system. From 2019, the minimum collection rate to be achieved annually was 65% of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the three preceding years, or 85% of WEEE generated within the territory of a member state. Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia may have delayed achievement of a targeted 45% collection rate by 14 August 2021 because of their lacking infrastructure and low levels of EEE consumption. Nevertheless, from 2016, these countries have been obligated to achieve a collection rate of at least 40% of the average weight of EEE placed on the market in the previous three years [27].
The rules for managing WEEE stated in Directive 2012/19/EU were integrated into Polish law on 11 September 2015. The Act, following the extended producer responsibility (EPR), obligates manufacturers and distributors of EEE to finance the collection and recovery systems. According to the Polish Act on WEEE [29], consumers can discard e-waste free of charge by (a) leaving a device at a service point when its repair is impossible or unprofitable, (b) returning used equipment on a one-to-one basis as long as the new product is of an equivalent type and fulfills the same functions as the used equipment, (c) returning during “one-day e-waste collection events” organized by the city/commune, e-waste collectors, and recyclers, (d) returning it at retail stores with an EEE sales area of at least 400 m2, or at WEEE collection points, including recycling centers or scrap yards holding a permit for WEEE collection issued by the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection.
In Poland, according to Article 88 of the WEEE Act 2015 [29], until 2018, the Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection (CIEP) was responsible for preparing an annual report on the state of management of WEEE. On 24 January 2018, a new register (known as the BDO) was put into operation, replacing the previous one, being administered by the CIEP. The BDO serves as the new product, packaging, and waste management database and constitutes a central registration and reporting point for all producers of EEE, batteries, and packaging. It also serves to monitor the activities of other entities involved in, e.g., WEEE management in Poland.
In 2017 in Poland, 6237 businesses were active in the field of introducing equipment to the market, 2253 businesses dealt with the collection of WEEE, and 154 businesses dealt with the processing of e-waste [30]. Table S2 shows the amounts of EEE put on the Polish market in the years from 2009 to 2018 according to the data contained in the CIEP [30,31] reports and Eurostat [25]. The amount of EEE put on the market in Poland increased from 440,000 tonnes in 2009 to 660,000 tonnes in 2018, which corresponds to growth of 48.8%. Data on the EEE introduced into the Polish market in 2018 showed that large household appliances (category 1) accounted for 59% of the total, while small household appliances (category 2) constituted the second-largest product category in Poland, accounting for 10.8% of the total. Toys, leisure and sports equipment (category 7), medical devices (category 8), monitoring and control equipment (category 9), and automatic dispensers (category 10) together accounted for only 5.1% of the total EEE put on the Polish market in 2018.
In Poland, the WEEE collection targets were set out in the Act of 11 September 2015 on WEEE [29] and the Ordinance of 21 July 2017 on the minimum annual collection rates for WEEE [32]. The required collection rates for 2018, 2019, and 2020 are presented in Table S1. From 1 January 2021, businesses entrepreneurs were obligated to collect at least 65% of the average annual weight of equipment placed on the market or 85% of the weight of WEEE generated [29]. Table S3 shows the collection rates for e-waste achieved in Poland from 2009 to 2018 (data sourced from [25,33,34,35]). Poland surpassed the 45% WEEE collection target in 2016 and 2017, while in 2018 (44.9%) came very close to it. It should be noted that the collection activities have not kept pace with the increase in EEE put on the market. Moreover, the increase in the volume of introduced heavy devices with a long lifetime, e.g., photovoltaic panels, may cause a problem with achieving the collection targets.
The collection of WEEE is a crucial step in the recycling process. The effectiveness of collection depends on many factors, such as the availability of free-of-charge WEEE collection points or the types and properties of end-of-life devices. Nevertheless, the consumer decides how to dispose of a broken or unused device. A lack of knowledge on WEEE disposal may cause a significant share of e-waste to not be recycled or end up in municipal waste bins. The objective of this study was the analysis of (1) product use times, (2) reasons for purchasing new devices, and (3) consumer behavior, knowledge, and awareness concerning WEEE collection and treatment. This study discusses these issues based on a survey on electronic waste management in Wroclaw.

2. Research Area and Methodology

The research was carried out in the city of Wroclaw (Poland). The authors decided on this location due to limited studies analyzing inhabitants’ awareness and behavior concerning the disposal of WEEE in Europe. Most of the published studies concern developing countries [36,37,38,39,40,41].
Wroclaw, situated in southwestern Poland, is the fourth largest city in Poland in terms of population (officially 640,648 inhabitants as of 31 December 2018). It is a dynamic center of business, commerce, and culture with a growing number of inhabitants. Wroclaw is also one of the largest academic centers in Poland. In the 2018/2019 academic year, the student population totaled 112,000 [42].
The study aimed to analyze product use times and consumer behavior, knowledge, and awareness concerning WEEE collection and treatment. The product lifespan questions were focused on equipment used in households. From a selection of survey methods and techniques, the authors decided to use in-person interviews and e-mail interviews. The first solution has a high response rate, but respondents may feel intimidated by the interviewer. In the second case, the respondents are anonymous, free to read and answer questions at their own pace, and can go back and change their answers. The respondents for this study were randomly selected.
The survey form consisted of several sections concerning (a) demographic and social profiles of the respondents, including age, sex, education, etc., (b) the equipment they used and the frequency of and reasons for updating it, (c) methods of dealing with WEEE. The survey questionnaire is in (Table S4).
The survey was conducted in 2018. At that time, the population of Wroclaw totaled 640,648 inhabitants. The sample size (n = 384 residents) was calculated according to the following formula [43]:
n = (P·(1 − P))/(e2/Z2 + (P·(1 − P))/N),
where P is an estimated fraction size (P = 50%), e is a maximum error of the estimate (e = 5%), Z value is calculated based on the adopted confidence level (Z = 1.96 for 95% confidence level), N is the size of the Wroclaw population. In total, 495 respondents completed the questionnaire survey.
The residents’ willingness to pay an additional fee for WEEE collection was also estimated based on the data collected. The relationship between the willingness to pay an additional fee and the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents was investigated using a logistic regression method. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistica 13 program (module: Interactive model builder).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Demographic and Social Profiles of the Respondents

Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. Women were more likely to participate in the survey than men. Of 495 respondents, 59.4% were female, and 40.6% were male. Most of the respondents (54.4%) were young people between the ages of 18 and 25. The age group over 66 years represented the smallest number of respondents (1.6%). A 62.4% share of the survey respondents had completed college or university. Respondents who had graduated from high school accounted for 35% of the total.
Many of the respondents (44.4%) had full-time jobs. The second-largest group of respondents comprised students/pupils (38.6%). About 6% of the respondents reported that they had businesses (5.7%) or worked part-time (6.1%). Retired citizens represented the smallest number of respondents (2.2%). In general, younger and more educated people are more likely to participate in surveys than older or less educated people.
The average surveyed household consisted of 2.95 people, slightly higher than in the Lower Silesia region (2.49 people in 2018). Respondents overwhelmingly lived in multifamily housing units (75.4%), which is consistent with the existing inventory of housing in cities in Poland.

3.2. Consumers’ Awareness of WEEE

Most of the respondents (83.4%) knew that WEEE contains valuable materials, whereas 5.3% said that WEEE did not contain them. The remaining 11.3% of respondents did not know the answer to this question.
Besides valuable resources, WEEE also contains hazardous substances harmful to human health and the environment and thus requires special treatment. The research conducted in 2015 in Wroclaw showed that a majority of respondents (75.7%) were aware that improper WEEE treatment posed a threat to the environment [44]. Due to this, another objective of WEEE selective collection is to enable the proper processing of toxic substances. Unfortunately, 47.9% of the respondents declared that they had not been informed about the obligation and rules for selective WEEE collection. According to the Polish Act on WEEE [29], manufacturers and distributors of electrical/electronic equipment are obligated to conduct public education campaigns. Inadequate education of the inhabitants may lead to the disposal of WEEE in residential waste bins.

3.3. Period of EEE Use

One of the crucial objectives of this research was to identify the reasons for and frequency of EEE replacement. Today, many consumers are open to novelties and buy new devices even though the devices they already have still work. As a result, many electronic and electrical devices are replaced during their designed service lifetimes [45,46].
For example, in 2016, the replacement cycle for smartphones was about 21.5 months [47]. However, there has been a decline in the dynamics of smartphone innovation and an increase in consumer use times. Longer cycles of use have been observed in developed markets for several years. In contrast to consumers’ behaviors, mobile network operators are trying to encourage consumers to upgrade their phones more frequently (even every 12 months) [47]. In Poland, the average replacement cycle is about 2–2.5 years, and it is connected to the length of the service contract signed with the mobile network operator [48]. As a comparison, it has been calculated that the actual lifespan of a smartphone is about 3 years [39,49]. Table 2 shows the frequency of replacement of selected EEE by respondents.
Date in the literature show that the lifetimes of analyzed products were 9–16 years for refrigerators, 13–15 years for electric cookers, 12–13 years for washing machines, 10–12 years for dishwashers, 7–13 years for TV sets, 5–8 years for vacuum cleaners, 5 years for electric irons, 3–5 years for printers, and 2–6 years for laptops [3,37,39,45,46,48,50,51,52,53].
Over 50% of respondents declared that they replaced their smartphones every 2 years (2/3 of smartphone lifespan). Another 8.5% stated that they upgraded their phones every year. Most of these respondents were young people aged 18–30 years (70%, n = 204). Such behavior of consumers leads to an increased number of smartphones in the market. In 2019, the number of smartphones introduced to the market was over 1.54 billion units. Following the pandemic slowdown in 2020, that number declined to 1.38 billion units. In 2021, their numbers rebounded to 1.43 billion units [54]. The survey results also showed that many other devices are replaced during their service lifespans. Almost 17% of respondents said that they replaced their TV sets every 5 years. Moreover, 5.3% each declared that they upgraded them every 4 and 5 years. Shorter periods of consumer use of large household appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers, cookers, and washing machines were also observed. About 12% of the respondents, in total, said that they updated their refrigerators and dishwashers within 5 years. Moreover, about 23% reported updating their washing machines before the units had reached even half their designed service lifespans (Table 2). The importance of product usage and lifetimes was highlighted in the report by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). According to an EEB study [55], extending the lifetimes of all washing machines, notebooks, vacuum cleaners, and smartphones in the EU by one year would save around 4 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030.

3.4. Reasons for Replacing Devices

There are many reasons for purchasing a new device. One of them is consumer preference. The desire for a better device is pivotal, even when it comes to large household appliances such as refrigerators. The reasons respondents cited for replacing EEE are shown in Table 3.
The main reason was failure of the appliance (89.7%). Additionally, 59.2% of the respondents stated that the repair of the device was too costly. The observed increase in the replacement of devices during their designed lifetime due to a defect is worrying. It may point to a planned shortening of product lifetimes on the part of manufacturers. Studies conducted in Germany by Prakash et al. [46] showed an increase in EEE sold to replace defective devices. The authors reported that between 2004 and 2012, the share of large household appliances that had to be replaced within five years due to a defect increased from 3.5% to 8.3%. Moreover, many consumers were not satisfied with the service lifespans of their electronic and electric appliances [46]. The problem of obsolescence was also noticed by the European Parliament, which in the resolution on a longer lifetime for products called on the Commission to propose an EU-level definition of planned obsolescence for tangible goods and software and examine the possibility of establishing a system for testing and detecting the built-in obsolescence in products [56]. The problem of built-in obsolescence in products has been taken into account in the criminal code in France. According to the law in force, a planned shortening of product lifespan is a crime punishable by two years imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR 300,000 [57].
For over 42% of the respondents, the reason for updating old appliances was their low power/or capacity. A 30.5% share of the respondents said that the desire to have a more advanced device was pivotal. The replacement of still-working devices poses an unnecessary burden on the environment. Products with a long lifespan usually have a lower environmental impact and make better use of resources. The rarest of reasons for replacing devices pointed out by respondents were an increase in income level (14.7%) and moving into a new house (14.9%). Nevertheless, they had a significant impact on product consumption. As a result of rising respondent incomes and falling costs of electrical and electronic devices, consumer preferences played an important role. This leads to shortened periods of EEE use and, as a result, the unprofitability of their repair [58].

3.5. Factors Analyzed by Respondents when Purchasing New Devices

The survey also included an analysis of factors that respondents consider when purchasing selected appliances: refrigerator, TV set, notebook computer. For most respondents (86.9–89.9%), the “price of the device” was the most important purchasing factor (Table 4). In the case of consumer electronics and information technology products, “technological innovations” were also included by the respondents (71.3% for notebooks, 60.4% for flat-screen TVs). It should be noted that the notebook market is moving towards products with higher processing capacity, resulting in higher energy consumption [55]. Moreover, the research highlighted the significance of the “device producer” (58.2–66.5%) and “product reviews” (59.4–72.7%) in decisions to purchase the analyzed devices (Table 4).
Among the environmental factors, the “energy efficiency class” was mainly considered in the case of large household appliances such as refrigerators (87.3% of respondents). Similar research confirmed that for many people, environmental factors that brought economic benefits took priority [45]. Factors such as “noise emitted by the device” and the “presence of ozone-depleting substances” were seldom taken into account by the respondents. However, it should be noted that under the Regulation of the European Parliament No. 517/2014, the European Union has introduced restrictions on the use of refrigerants with very high global warming potential [59]. The “noise emitted by the device” was the top factor considered by the respondents when purchasing refrigerators (40.2%).

3.6. Residents’ Handling of WEEE

The research showed that many respondents (32.9%) took part in recycling or take-back schemes offered by producers when purchasing a new device (Table 5). According to the regulations, the used equipment must be of equivalent type and fulfill the same functions as the newly supplied equipment [29]. At the same time, 32.9% of surveyed inhabitants claimed that they deposited WEEE in their homes/basements or garages. Similar behavior of the respondents was observed by Afroz et al. [45] and Miner et al. [41]. Storage of WEEE at home is a common phenomenon that could result from a low awareness concerning door-to-door collection programs or knowledge that the equipment consists of valuable materials and spare parts. Nowakowski [60] reported that many residents keep small equipment (e.g., mobile phones or computers), believing that it could be useful in the future. Over 29.3% of the respondents stated that they sold used or damaged electronic and electric equipment. This kind of activity also includes the storage of devices. Moreover, many respondents (42.0%) donated working devices to people who needed them, mainly lower-income residents.
Research has also shown that the ban on throwing WEEE into municipal waste bins was not fully respected. A 24.4% share of the respondents pointed out that they threw small devices into municipal solid waste (MSW) bins. Other research showed that discarding small WEEE into residential waste bins was still quite common in Poland [44,61]. Forti et al. [4] reported that around 8% of WEEE was discarded in waste bins in high-income countries. The appliances are subsequently landfilled or incinerated. This mainly applies to small appliances. The survey results also indicated that 5.8% of the respondents passed some of their e-waste to scrap collectors. However, some collectors dismantled valuable components from the equipment and threw the rest into MSW bins.

3.7. Payment for WEEE Management

An important element of the e-waste management system is its financing. One of the most commonly used financing models is the polluter-pays system [62]. In this option, the consumer of EEE pays to discard the electronic products or pays a fee when purchasing the new product. In the European Union, according to the WEEE directive [27], each member state ensures the implementation of the extended producer responsibility. The EPR mechanism obliges producers to finance the take-back and processing of waste from their products. As a result, the costs of WEEE collection and recycling are added to the price of new products. In Poland, retailers are required to inform customers about the e-waste management costs by itemizing them in the price of the equipment [29]. Despite the EPR mechanism, a large amount of WEEE still ends up in municipal waste bins. Therefore, respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay an additional fee to improve the WEEE collection system. A 25.3% share of the respondents said they were willing to pay an additional fee. Moreover, in the group of consumers willing to pay the additional fee, the majority were people with secondary (n = 37; 29.6%) and higher education (n = 87; 69.6%). Usually, well-educated young people have more knowledge of environmental protection and are more willing to take action to protect the environment. This relationship was also confirmed by Song et al. [63].
Most of the respondents (69.5%) expressed a negative opinion about paying an additional fee for managing e-waste. Moreover, 5.2% of the respondents did not express an opinion on this issue. Most of the respondents (83.4%) knew that e-waste contained valuable materials. This awareness was one reason that they often considered selling their devices. It could be another reason why incurring an additional fee for e-waste management was rejected by respondents.

3.8. Statistical Evaluation of the Willingness to Pay an Additional Fee for Improved WEEE Management

The relationship between the willingness to pay an additional fee for WEEE collection and the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents was investigated using a regression model. Logistic regression was used in this study. To carry out the analysis, among the dependent variables, only those cases were distinguished for which the result of the question about the willingness to pay an additional fee for WEEE was: Y—consent for paying an additional fee (n = 125) or N—refusal of paying an additional fee (n = 344). Cases in which there was no opinion on this issue (n = 26) were omitted. In total, a set of cases was obtained (n = 469) for which the dependent variable was dichotomous. The definitions of the independent variables are given in Table 1. The results of statistical analysis performed using the Statistica 13 program (module: Interactive model builder) are shown in Table S5. Among the variables analyzed in the study, those statistically significant were: level of education, gender, and employment status. The other independent variables (age, number of household members, type of building) did not have a significant impact on willingness to pay an additional fee. Therefore, the regression model was built for statistically significant independent variables: education level, gender, and employment status. Figure S1 shows a lift chart of the obtained model. In turn, Figure S2 shows the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.6373, so it was greater than 0.5 (p < 0.0001). Therefore, based on the developed model, it was possible to determine the probability of a “yes” answer to the question regarding the additional fee.
The results showed that education level plays an important role in terms of responsibility for WEEE recycling. This relationship was also indicated by Song et al. [63]. Usually, the awareness of the danger of environmental pollution increased with the education level. Although it is difficult to associate gender with this awareness, the results indicate that women would be less willing to pay an additional fee for WEEE collection (the gender regression coefficient was negative). A positive value of the regression coefficient regarding employment status indicates that students are more likely to consent to paying an additional fee. This shows that young people in education are more environmentally conscious.

3.9. Insights and Practical Implications for Improving the WEEE Management

The research showed that the functioning model of EEE collection is not fully effective. The results highlighted several areas where specific modifications could improve the efficiency of e-waste management. The research confirmed that many of the respondents were not informed about the possibility of e-waste disposal. The consumers’ knowledge of legal disposal methods for WEEE is the basis for effective waste collection. Thus, local education campaigns should be improved and conducted in the long term. For example, retail shops should inform consumers about the possibilities and locations of e-waste collecting points in a given city.
Moreover, more effort should be undertaken to develop the collection infrastructure. For example, in Wroclaw, with a population of over 600,000, there are only two recycling centers where inhabitants can leave their household waste free of charge.
An interesting initiative that has been undertaken by Wroclaw is the launch of mobile collection points for household hazardous waste (including small WEEE). Special vehicles appear twice a month in a specific location in each district. This measure contributes to shortening the distance to the collection point from the households. Reducing the distance to the collection point can have a significant effect on lowering the amount of small WEEE discarded in residential waste bins.
In the case of large household appliances, it would be beneficial to allow such devices to be discarded in bulky waste containers. Nevertheless, there is a risk of appliances being dismantled by scrap collectors for their valuable raw materials. In the case of valuable small-size devices, a supplementary solution to the system could be supplying containers in places frequently visited by residents.
In terms of eliminating the storage of valuable small WEEE at home, measures should be taken on a global level. For example, producers, through retailers, can encourage consumers to resell their devices when buying a new unit. Such activities are currently carried out in Poland, e.g., by Samsung and Orange [64,65]. Another solution that could change current consumer WEEE storage habits is the introduction of a deposit to be paid when purchasing a new device. This option is feasible to implement in developed countries with high incomes [66].
The research also showed that the “price of the device” is the most important purchasing factor. To draw consumers’ attention to other factors, they should be informed by manufacturers about each product’s composition, its lifespan, and the impact of improper disposal on the environment. This issue should be regulated globally.
According to the European waste policy, the reuse and recycling of WEEE should have a clear priority; however, actual practice is often far removed from the principle. Unfortunately, today, many consumers are open to novelties and replace still functioning devices. Even though e-waste can be prepared for reuse, the activities in this field are negligible within the current waste management system. To enforce reuse on a larger scale, modification of the current WEEE management system is necessary. An important element is the implementation of testing and repair points for collected devices. Such points may be set up at recycling centers. They can also be managed outside the municipal waste management system, by new private entities. In such cases, it will be necessary to provide access to WEEE by entities responsible for their preparation for reuse (PfR). Another element is the creation of distribution and selling points for second-hand equipment. These stores may be managed by non-profit organizations. The development of PfR schemes will also require the reorganization of the WEEE collection and transport system to handle WEEE more carefully. Otherwise, its reuse potential will be wasted [67]. The listed activities will generate additional costs. Summing up, the development of PfR will require significant institutional and organizational undertakings. Hence, it will be necessary to identify the demand for used products, including the identification of the groups of products with potential for reuse.

4. Conclusions

Rapid economic growth and technological progress have increased the availability of innovative and novelty electronic products on the market. As a result, many consumers phase out electronic and electric devices before they reach the end of their useful service lifetimes. Even if a slower pace of innovation is observed, such as in the case of smartphones, they are still replaced after about 2/3 of their designed lifetimes. In this study, over 58% of respondents declared that they replaced their smartphones within 2 years. Furthermore, the survey showed a shortening in the durations of use of large household appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers, cookers, and washing machines. About 23% of the respondents replaced their washing machines within half of their designed service lifetimes.
The main reason for replacing electronic and electric equipment was the failure of the previous device. This was the reason indicated by 90% of respondents. Additionally, 59% of the respondents stated that the repair of the device was not economical. Shorter electrical and electronic equipment lifetimes and increased disposable incomes have increased the amount of WEEE. The EEB study [55] suggested that extending the service lifetimes of all washing machines, notebooks, vacuum cleaners, and smartphones in the EU by one year would save around 4 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2030.
The study showed that the most important factor determining the purchase of new devices was their price. Among the environmental factors, those mainly bringing economic benefits were considered by respondents. Over 87% of the respondents declared that energy efficiency class was the most important factor taken into account when purchasing a refrigerator. Factors such as noise and ozone-depleting substances were rarely considered. Furthermore, most of the respondents considered technological innovations in the case of consumer electronics and information technology products (71% for notebooks, 60% for flat-screen TVs).
Despite implementation of the EPR policy, the functioning model of e-waste collection is not fully effective. Over 24% of the respondents admitted that they threw small devices into the municipal solid waste bins. These devices are then landfilled or incinerated. It was also confirmed that many respondents (33%) stored used or damaged appliances in the home, basement, or garage. WEEE storage may result from respondents’ low awareness of door-to-door collection programs or attempts to resell it.
Despite the implemented EPR program, respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay an additional fee to improve the WEEE collection system. Only 25% of the respondents declared that they were willing to pay. Results showed that the willingness to pay increased with education level. Moreover, respondents (83%) knew that WEEE contains valuable components, and thus in many cases, they would prefer to sell such goods rather than pay an additional processing fee.
This study will continue on a larger scale to identify the potential of preparing for the reuse of WEEE, in particular, in terms of measuring the interest of residents in purchasing used devices and the classification of equipment groups, the reuse of which could be profitable. An important element in this area will also be a more detailed study of the reasons for the prolonged storage of small WEEE by consumers in their homes, including the types of devices and their quantity.
Research on a larger scale will also verify whether the problems occurring in Wroclaw are local or national. Moreover, the continuation of the study will make it possible to observe changes in consumer behavior. Consumer behavior plays an important role in waste management. A change in behavior (a shift towards products with reduced environmental impact) could have a significant impact on existing business models.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su141811753/s1, Table S1. Categories of EEE covered by Directive 2012/19/UE and required WEEE collection targets in Poland from 2018 to 2020. Table S2. Electrical and electronic equipment put on the Polish market in 2009–2018, in tonne [13,18,19]. Table S3. Achieved collection rates for waste electrical and electronic equipment in Poland, 2009–2018 [13,21,22,23]. Table S4. Survey questionnaire. Table S5. Parameters of the performed statistical analysis. Figure S1. Cumulative lift chart. Figure S2. Receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC: 0.6373).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.B. and I.P.; methodology, K.B., I.P. and W.C.; formal analysis, K.B., I.P.; E.d.B. and W.C.; investigation, K.B. and I.P.; resources, K.B. and I.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.B. and I.P.; writing—review and editing, E.d.B. and W.C.; visualization, K.B., I.P. and W.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bachér, J.; Yli-Rantala, E.; Zu Castell-Rüdenhausen, M.; Mroueh, U.-M. Future Trends in WEEE Composition and Treatment—A Review Report; CLIC Innoowation Oy: Helsinki, Finland, 2017; No D2. 3-2 & D4. 2-6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baldé, C.P.; Wang, F.; Kuehr, R.; Huisman, J. The Global E-Waste Monitor-2014; United Nations University, IAS–SCYCLE: Bonn, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldé, C.P.; Forti, V.; Gray, V.; Kuehr, R.; Stegmann, P. The Global E-Waste Monitor-2017; United Nations University (UNU): Bonn, Germany; International Telecommunication Union (ITU): Geneva, Switzerland; International Solid Waste Association (ISWA): Vienna, Austria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  4. Forti, V.; Baldé, C.P.; Kuehr, R.; Bel, G. The Global E-Waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, Flows and the Circular Economy Potential; United Nations University/United Nations Institute for Training and Research: Bonn, Germany; International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland; International Solid Waste Association: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Huisman, J.; Botezatu, I.; Herreras, L.; Liddane, M.; Hintsa, J.; Luda di Cortemiglia, V.; Leroy, P.; Vermeersch, E.; Mohanty, S.; van den Brink, S.; et al. Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap; Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Consortium: Lyon, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. European Commission; Directorate-General for Internal Market; Industry; Entrepreneurship and SMEs; Blengini, G.A.; El Latunussa, C.; Eynard, U.; Torres De Matos, C.; Wittmer, D.; Georgitzikis, K.; et al. Study on the EU’s List of Critical Raw Materials–Final Report; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Buchert, M.; Manhart, A.; Bleher, D.; Pingel, D. Recycling Critical Raw Materials from Waste Electronic Equipment. Oeko-Institut e.V.: Darmstadt, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  8. Van schaik, A.; Reuter, M.A. Shredding, Sorting and Recovery of Metals from WEEE: Linking Design to Resource Efficiency. In Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 163–211. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tsamis, A.; Coyne, M. Recovery of Rare Earths from Electronic Wastes: An Opportunity for High-Tech SMEs; EPRS, European Parliamentary Research Service: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1336635/recovery-of-rare-earths-from-electronic-wastes/1943961/ (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  10. Ghodrat, M.; Rhamdhani, M.A.; Brooks, G.; Rashidi, M.; Samali, B. A Thermodynamic-Based Life Cycle Assessment of Precious Metal Recycling out of Waste Printed Circuit Board through Secondary Copper Smelting. Environ. Dev. 2017, 24, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Priya, A.; Hait, S. Comprehensive Characterization of Printed Circuit Boards of Various End-of-Life Electrical and Electronic Equipment for Beneficiation Investigation. Waste Manag. 2018, 75, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Zhang, L.; Xu, Z. A Review of Current Progress of Recycling Technologies for Metals from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jandric, A.; Part, F.; Fink, N.; Cocco, V.; Mouillard, F.; Huber-Humer, M.; Salhofer, S.; Zafiu, C. Investigation of the Heterogeneity of Bromine in Plastic Components as an Indicator for Brominated Flame Retardants in Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment with Regard to Recyclability. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 390, 121899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cucchiella, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Lenny Koh, S.C.; Rosa, P. Recycling of WEEEs: An Economic Assessment of Present and Future e-Waste Streams. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Magalini, F.; Huisman, J. WEEE Recycling Economics—The Shortcomings of the Current Business Model Countering. Conducted by United Nations University, UNU-VIE SCYCLE, Commissioned by EERA 2018. Available online: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24945.53608 (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  16. Nelen, D.; Manshoven, S.; Peeters, J.R.; Vanegas, P.; D’Haese, N.; Vrancken, K. A Multidimensional Indicator Set to Assess the Benefits of WEEE Material Recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 83, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bovea, M.D.; Pérez-Belis, V.; Ibáñez-Forés, V.; Quemades-Beltrán, P. Disassembly Properties and Material Characterisation of Household Small Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment. Waste Manag. 2016, 53, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maris, E.; Botané, P.; Wavrer, P.; Froelich, D. Characterizing Plastics Originating from WEEE: A Case Study in France. Miner. Eng. 2015, 76, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Haarman, A.; Magalini, F.; Courtois, J. Study on the Impacts of Brominated Flame Retardants on the Recycling of WEEE Plastics in Europe; Sofies Group: Geneve, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.bsef.com/publications/study-on-the-impacts-of-brominated-flame-retardants-on-the-recycling-of-weee-plastics-in-europe/ (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  20. Chaine, C.; Hursthouse, A.S.; McLean, B.; McLellan, I.; McMahon, B.; McNulty, J.; Miller, J.; Viza, E. Recycling Plastics from WEEE: A Review of the Environmental and Human Health Challenges Associated with Brominated Flame Retardants. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Murthy, V.; Ramakrishna, S. A Review on Global E-Waste Management: Urban Mining towards a Sustainable Future and Circular Economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Baldé, C.P.; Angelo, E.D’; Luda, V.; Deubzer, O.; Kuehr, R. Global Transboundary E-Waste Flows Monitor 2022; United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR): Bonn, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  23. European Commission; Directorate-General for Internal Market; Industry; Entrepreneurship and SMEs; Bobba, S.; Claudiu, P.; Huygens, D.; Alves Dias, P.; Gawlik, B.; Tzimas, E.; et al. Report on Critical Raw Materials and the Circular Economy; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilsbach, L. Copper-Sustainability Information; Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe: Hannover, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Eurostat Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) by Waste Management Operations. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-datasets/-/ENV_WASELEE (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  26. Baldé, C.P.; van den Brink, S.; Forti, V.; van der Schalk, A.; Hopstoken, F. The Dutch WEEE Flows 2020: What Happened between 2010 and 2018; United Nations University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR): Bonn, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  27. European Union Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0019 (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  28. European Union. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32002L0096 (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  29. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland, Act as of 11 September 2015 on WEEE. J. Laws 2015, Position 1688, 2015. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20150001688 (accessed on 1 September 2022). (In Polish)
  30. Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management System Functioning Report in 2017; Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection: Warsaw, Poland, 2018. Available online: https://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/gospodarka_odpadami/zseie/Raport_ZSEiE_2017_wersja_ostateczna.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2022). (In Polish)
  31. Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management System Functioning Report in 2016; Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection: Warsaw, Poland, 2017. Available online: https://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/gospodarka_odpadami/zseie/Raport_ZSEiE_2016-ostateczny.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2022). (In Polish)
  32. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of July 21, 2017, on the Minimum Annual Levels of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Collection. 2017. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20170001499 (accessed on 1 September 2022). (In Polish)
  33. Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management System Functioning Report in 2007; Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection: Warsaw, Poland, 2008. Available online: https://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/gospodarka_odpadami/zseie/raport_2007.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2022). (In Polish)
  34. Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management System Functioning Report in 2008; Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection: Warsaw, Poland, 2009. Available online: https://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/gospodarka_odpadami/zseie/raport_2008.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2022). (In Polish)
  35. Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management System Functioning Report in 2009; Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection: Warsaw, Poland, 2010. Available online: https://www.gios.gov.pl/images/dokumenty/gospodarka_odpadami/zseie/raport_2009.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2022). (In Polish)
  36. Dwivedy, M.; Mittal, R.K. Willingness of Residents to Participate in E-Waste Recycling in India. Environ. Dev. 2013, 6, 48–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Islam, M.T.; Abdullah, A.B.; Shahir, S.A.; Kalam, M.A.; Masjuki, H.H.; Shumon, R.; Rashid, M.H. A Public Survey on Knowledge, Awareness, Attitude and Willingness to Pay for WEEE Management: Case Study in Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 728–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Xu, M.; Wang, H.; Zuo, T. The Stability and Profitability of the Informal WEEE Collector in Developing Countries: A Case Study of China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 107, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cao, J.; Chen, Y.; Shi, B.; Lu, B.; Zhang, X.; Ye, X.; Zhai, G.; Zhu, C.; Zhou, G. WEEE Recycling in Zhejiang Province, China: Generation, Treatment, and Public Awareness. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rochman, F.F.; Ashton, W.S.; Wiharjo, M.G.M. E-Waste, Money and Power: Mapping Electronic Waste Flows in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Environ. Dev. 2017, 24, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Miner, K.J.; Rampedi, I.T.; Ifegbesan, A.P.; Machete, F. Survey on Household Awareness and Willingness to Participate in E-Waste Management in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Statistics Poland Higher Education Institutions in the 2018/2019 Academic Year. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/edukacja/edukacja/szkolnictwo-wyzsze-w-roku-akademickim-20182019-wyniki-wstepne,8,6.html (accessed on 26 July 2022). (In Polish)
  43. Szczepańska, A.; Zagroba, M.; Pietrzyk, K. Participatory Budgeting as a Method for Improving Public Spaces in Major Polish Cities. Soc. Indic. Res. 2022, 162, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chałat, J. Analysis, Assessment and Conception of Improvement of the System for Selective Collection of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the Selected City; Wroclaw University of Science and Technology: Wroclaw, Poland, 2015. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  45. Afroz, R.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Duasa, J.B. Survey and Analysis of Public Knowledge, Awareness and Willingness to Pay in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia—A Case Study on Household WEEE Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 52, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Prakash, S.; Dehoust, G.; Gsell, M.; Schleicher, T.; Stamminger, R. Influence of the Service Life of Products in Terms of Their Environmental Impact: Establishing an Information Base and Developing Strategies against “Obsolescence”; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kantar World Panel. An Incredible Decade for the Smartphone: WHAT’S next? The Future of Mobile Is in Combining Devices, Content, and Services; Kantar Worldpanel ComTech: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  48. Nowakowski, P. The Influence of Residents’ Behaviour on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Collection Effectiveness. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2016, 34, 1126–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jaeger-Erben, M.; Frick, V.; Hipp, T. Why Do Users (Not) Repair Their Devices? A Study of the Predictors of Repair Practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wilhelm, M.; Hutchins, M.; Mars, C.; Benoit-Norris, C. An Overview of Social Impacts and Their Corresponding Improvement Implications: A Mobile Phone Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 102, 302–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gallego-Schmid, A.; Mendoza, J.M.F.; Jeswani, H.K.; Azapagic, A. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Vacuum Cleaners and the Effects of European Regulation. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 559, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Harmer, L.; Cooper, T.; Fisher, T.; Salvia, G.; Barr, C. Design, Dirt and Disposal: Influences on the Maintenance of Vacuum Cleaners. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1176–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tecchio, P.; Ardente, F.; Mathieux, F. Understanding Lifetimes and Failure Modes of Defective Washing Machines and Dishwashers. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1112–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Statista Inc Number of Smartphones Sold to End Users Worldwide from 2007 to 2021, Technology & Telecommunications. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263437/global-smartphone-sales-to-end-users-since-2007/ (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  55. European Environmental Bureau (EEB). Coolproducts Don’t Cost the Earth. Full Report; European Environmental Bureau: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Coolproducts-report.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  56. European Parliament. Report on a Longer Lifetime for Products: Benefits for Consumers and Companies (2016/2272(INI)); European Parliament: Strasbourg, France, 2017; Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0214_EN.html (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  57. Official Journal of the French Republic, Journal Officiel de la République Française LOI N° 2020-105 Du 10 Février 2020 Relative à La Lutte Contre Le Gaspillage et à l’économie Circulaire (Law No 2020-105 of 10 February 2020 on Combating Waste and the Circular Economy). 2020. Available online: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGIARTI000041554736/2020-02-12/ (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  58. Bachér, J.; Dams, Y.; Duhoux, T.; Deng, Y.; Teittinen, T.; Mortensen, L.F. Electronics and Obsolescence in a Circular Economy; European Topic Centre of Waste and Materials in Green Economy: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  59. European Parliament Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/517/oj (accessed on 19 August 2022).
  60. Nowakowski, P. Investigating the Reasons for Storage of WEEE by Residents—A Potential for Removal from Households. Waste Manag. 2019, 87, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pasiecznik, I.; Banaszkiewicz, K.; Syska, Ł. Local Community E-Waste Awareness and Behavior. Polish Case Study. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2017, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Honda, S.; Khetriwal, D.S.; Kuehr, R. Regional E-Waste Monitor: East and Southeast Asia; United Nations University ViE–SCYCLE: Bonn, Germany, 2016; ISBN 978-92-808-1240-4, 978-92-808-7209-5. [Google Scholar]
  63. Song, Q.; Wang, Z.; Li, J. Residents’ Behaviors, Attitudes, and Willingness to Pay for Recycling e-Waste in Macau. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 106, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Samsung Samsung Buyback. Available online: https://samsung.kupimyto.pl/ (accessed on 12 September 2022).
  65. Orange Mission, Re. Available online: https://www.orange.pl/zobacz/odkuptelefonow (accessed on 12 September 2022).
  66. Ylä-Mella, J.; Keiski, R.L.; Pongrácz, E. Electronic Waste Recovery in Finland: Consumers’ Perceptions towards Recycling and Re-Use of Mobile Phones. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zacho, K.O.; Bundgaard, A.M.; Mosgaard, M.A. Constraints and Opportunities for Integrating Preparation for Reuse in the Danish WEEE Management System. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 138, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 11753 g001 550
Figure 1. EEE put on the market and e-waste generated/collected per country in 2016 and 2018/2019 (data sourced from [4,25]).
Figure 1. EEE put on the market and e-waste generated/collected per country in 2016 and 2018/2019 (data sourced from [4,25]).
Sustainability 14 11753 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic and social characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic and social characteristics of respondents.
VariableCategoryNumber of the RespondentsPercentage, %DescriptionSample Average
MeanSD
Age18–2526954.42028.111.8
26–307515.228
31–356112.333
36–40316.338
41–45163.243
46–55153.051
56–65204.061
≥6681.670
GenderFemale29459.400.410.49
Male20140.61
Education level *PS20.414.590.59
MS10.22
VS102.03
HS17335.04
C/U30962.45
Employment statusFull-time work22044.412.942.53
Part-time work306.12
Own business285.73
Retired/pensioner112.24
Student/pupil19138.65
Unemployed153.06
No. of household members1438.712.951.13
215030.32
314128.53
411222.64
≥5499.95
Type of buildingSingle-family12224.600.750.46
Multifamily37375.41
* PS: Primary school; MS: Middle school; VS: Vocational school; HS: High school; C/U: College/University.
Table
Table 2. The frequency of replacement of selected electrical and electronic devices by consumers.
Table 2. The frequency of replacement of selected electrical and electronic devices by consumers.
ProductParameterEvery YearEvery Two YearsEvery Three YearsEvery Four YearsEvery Five YearsAbove Six YearsTotal
Refrigeratorn*00101136438495
%0.00.02.02.27.388.5100
Dishwashern*03131230426484
%0.00.62.72.56.288.0100
Cookern*10101046415482
%0.20.02.12.19.586.1100
Washing machinen*00182371382494
%0.00.03.64.714.477.3100
Vacuum cleanern*085852100276494
%0.01.611.710.520.355.9100
Electric ironn*416829273228495
%0.83.216.618.614.746.1100
TV setn*02262684357495
%0.00.45.35.316.972.1100
Notebook computern*6207877137176494
%1.24.115.815.627.735.6100
Printern*015583996278486
%0.03.111.98.019.857.2100
Smartphonen*42249113532017494
%8.550.422.910.74.03.5100
* Total number of answering respondents (n).
Table
Table 3. Reasons for replacing devices.
Table 3. Reasons for replacing devices.
ReasonNumber of Respondents, PersonsPercentage, % *
Failure of the appliance44489.7
High cost of repair29359.2
Low power/low capacity of the previous appliance21042.4
Moving into a new house7414.9
Instability during use11022.2
No advanced features15130.5
Increase in income level7314.7
Purchasing a newer device7715.6
* Total number of answering respondents (n = 495).
Table
Table 4. Factors considered by respondents when purchasing new electronic and electrical products.
Table 4. Factors considered by respondents when purchasing new electronic and electrical products.
FactorParameterRefrigeratorTV SetNotebook Computer
Price of the devicen*431430445
%87.186.989.9
Technological innovationsn*232299353
%46.960.471.3
Device producern*288299329
%58.260.466.5
Product reviewsn*294348360
%59.470.372.7
Energy efficiency classn*432285209
%87.357.642.2
Noise emitted by the devicen*19975107
%40.215.221.6
Presence of ozone-depleting substancesn*701314
%14.12.62.8
Othersn*151815
%3.03.63.0
* Total number of answering respondents (n).
Table
Table 5. Residents’ methods of WEEE handling.
Table 5. Residents’ methods of WEEE handling.
Method of DisposalNumber of Respondents, PersonsPercentage, % *
Donation (passing working devices to people who need them, mainly lower-income residents)20842.0
Return to retail stores on a one-to-one basis16332.9
Return to retail stores (small WEEE)9819.8
Return to recycling centers12926.1
Return during one-day collection events18637.6
Return to scrap yards with a permit for WEEE collection9118.4
Storage at home16332.9
Resell14529.3
Discard into municipal waste bins (small WEEE)12124.4
Discard into municipal waste bins (all WEEE)295.9
Pass to scrap collectors (informal recycling)5110.3
* Total number of answering respondents (n = 495).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Banaszkiewicz, K.; Pasiecznik, I.; Cieżak, W.; Boer, E.d. Household E-Waste Management: A Case Study of Wroclaw, Poland. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811753

AMA Style

Banaszkiewicz K, Pasiecznik I, Cieżak W, Boer Ed. Household E-Waste Management: A Case Study of Wroclaw, Poland. Sustainability. 2022; 14(18):11753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811753

Chicago/Turabian Style

Banaszkiewicz, Kamil, Iwona Pasiecznik, Wojciech Cieżak, and Emilia den Boer. 2022. "Household E-Waste Management: A Case Study of Wroclaw, Poland" Sustainability 14, no. 18: 11753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811753

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop