RESUMEN
In response to the EU Landfill Directive and the challenge of mitigating climate change, the UK government (nationally and locally) must develop strategies and policies to reduce, recycle, compost and recover waste. Best practice services that yield high recycling rates, such as alternate weekly collections, are now largely mainstream in suitable areas. However, national recycling performance is short of what is needed; policy makers must look for innovative ways to meet challenging recycling targets. Increasingly, local authorities are using behaviour change interventions to encourage the public to recycle; these tend to be based on the premise that an individuals' behaviour is predetermined by their values. In practice, this has led to a host of initiatives that attempt to change individuals' behaviour without addressing situational barriers. In this paper, we argue that that a behaviour-centric approach has limited effectiveness. Using an analysis of the literature and studies that investigated recycling participation in the city of Portsmouth, we have identified three significant clusters that can facilitate effective recycling: infrastructure, service and behaviour (ISB). We present the ISB model - a tool that can be used by waste practitioners when planning interventions to maximise recycling to better understand the situation and context for behaviour. Analysis using the ISB model suggests that current best practice, "business as usual" interventions could realistically achieve a national recycling rate of 50%. If the UK is to move towards zero waste, policy makers must look "upstream" for interventions that change the situational landscape.
Asunto(s)
Modelos Teóricos , Política Pública , Reciclaje/legislación & jurisprudencia , Reciclaje/métodos , Eliminación de Residuos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Eliminación de Residuos/métodos , Benchmarking , Unión Europea , Eliminación de Residuos/instrumentación , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
It is widely accepted that climate change poses severe threats to freshwater ecosystems. Here we examine the scientific basis for adaptively managing vulnerable habitats and species. Our views are shaped by a literature survey of adaptation in practice, and by expert opinion. We assert that adaptation planning is constrained by uncertainty about evolving climatic and non-climatic pressures, by difficulties in predicting species- and ecosystem-level responses to these forces, and by the plasticity of management goals. This implies that adaptation measures will have greatest acceptance when they deliver multiple benefits, including, but not limited to, the amelioration of climate impacts. We suggest that many principles for biodiversity management under climate change are intuitively correct but hard to apply in practice. This view is tested using two commonly assumed doctrines: "increase shading of vulnerable reaches through tree planting" (to reduce water temperatures); and "set hands off flows" (to halt potentially harmful abstractions during low flow episodes). We show that the value of riparian trees for shading, water cooling and other functions is partially understood, but extension of this knowledge to water temperature management is so far lacking. Likewise, there is a long history of environmental flow assessment for allocating water to competing uses, but more research is needed into the effectiveness of ecological objectives based on target flows. We therefore advocate more multi-disciplinary field and model experimentation to test the cost-effectiveness and efficacy of adaptation measures applied at different scales. In particular, there is a need for a major collaborative programme to: examine natural adaptation to climatic variation in freshwater species; identify where existing environmental practice may be insufficient; review the fitness of monitoring networks to detect change; translate existing knowledge into guidance; and implement best practice within existing regulatory frameworks.