The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry

Transcription

1 Final report The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry A research study to develop a method for estimating the composition of mixed waste disposed of by pubs, restaurants, hotels and quick service restaurants. The report presents indicative estimates of the composition of mixed waste sent for disposal for each UK nation. Project code: RES ISBN: Research date: January 2009 to July 2010 Date: July 2011

2 WRAP s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at Contributors to the main report Phil Williams, Barbara Leach, Katie Christensen (WRAP) Gary Armstrong, Darren Perrin (SKM Enviros) Rebecca Hawkins (CESHI Oxford Brookes University) Andrew Lane (RLP) Glyn Jones (ADAS) Peter Scholes (Urban Mines) Peer review Robin Curry (SRI) Front cover photography: Hotel kitchen from istockphoto.com WRAP believes the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP s Terms & Conditions on its website:

3 Acknowledgements WRAP is grateful to everyone who contributed to the report, in particular: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the orkshire and Humber Assembly, all of which jointly funded the research; the consortium comprising SKM Enviros, the Centre for Environmental Studies in the Hospitality Industry (CESHI) at Oxford Brookes University, the University of Reading Statistical Services Centre, RLP and NTouch for conducting the literature review, designing and administering the survey, carrying out the waste audits and compositional analysis, and preparing the first few drafts of the report on which this final version is heavily based; ADAS and Urban Mines for calculating national estimates of waste arisings; Robin Curry at SRI for carrying out the peer review; all the members of the project steering group within WRAP and the funding bodies, but particularly Alan Bell (now retired) of the Environment Agency and David Lee of Defra for commenting on sampling and statistical matters; and all the anonymous hospitality premises that spared staff time to take part in the study. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 3

4 Executive summary Background, aims and objectives For many years it has been known that the UK hospitality sector is a significant producer of waste and that much of this waste could be recycled or recovered. 1 However, because hospitality businesses tend to dispose of their waste in a mixed form in general waste containers, not much is known about the make-up of that waste. Knowing what the waste consists of is essential if the hospitality industry is to save money and reduce its carbon footprint by becoming more resource-efficient. It is this knowledge gap that the research summarised in this report seeks to address. Although analysing the composition of waste is a commonplace activity for household waste, few previous studies have sought to look at business waste in this way. There are significant logistical challenges as well as confidentiality and health and safety issues to overcome, and major difficulties in ensuring that the research can draw reliable conclusions. The research therefore had two key objectives: 1. to develop and test methods for quantifying mixed waste sent for disposal by businesses, using the UK hospitality sector as a test bed; and 2. to provide estimates of the amount of each type of waste found in the mixed waste that would normally go to landfill. Scope and definition The hospitality sector is commonly split into two subsectors: the profit sector: businesses where providing catering and/or accommodation services is the primary purpose of the business and where the aim is to maximise profit (e.g. hotels, guesthouses, bed & breakfast establishments, youth hostels, restaurants, QSRs and pubs); and the cost sector: businesses where providing hospitality services is not the main function of the organisation and where the aim is not to maximise profit (e.g. catering and accommodation services within the premises of schools, hospitals, prisons, military facilities etc.). This work focuses on the profit sector and for the purposes of this research, is defined as follows: includes hotels, restaurants, pubs and quick service restaurants (QSRs); excludes the leisure sector, including self-catering businesses; excludes the cost sector; and excludes businesses that do not pay for their waste to be removed on the grounds that they will produce only very small amounts. Methods The research, which was conducted in 2009 and 2010, consisted of: a literature review to gather information to help in the development of a sampling strategy; a collation of waste data from 60 large hospitality chains; a telephone survey of 1660 individual business sites; and 1 For example, a 2004 Scottish survey showed that the hotels and restaurants sector produced 14% of all business and public sector waste in Scotland, the second most significant sector after wholesale and retail ( industrial_waste/business_waste_surveys.aspx). Defra s 2004 survey found that in England the sector contributed more than 5% of business waste arisings and 11% of commercial waste arisings. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 2

5 a site audit of 138 businesses across the UK, together with removal and compositional analysis of their mixed waste (mainly waste for disposal but also some waste for recycling where two or more materials were collected co-mingled). In total, 12 tonnes of mixed waste was collected from the selected hospitality businesses and sorted into 37 categories of material. The findings from the compositional analysis of this mixed waste were then used alongside Defra s 2010 survey of industrial and commercial waste, the Environment Agency s 2002/03 industrial and commercial waste dataset and Office of National Statistics (ONS) business population data for 2009 to estimate the quantity and composition of mixed waste in the UK. The figures presented in this report should be regarded as indicative of the waste being sent to disposal by pubs, hotels, restaurants and quick service restaurants in the UK. The sample size is quite small and there are errors associated with both the Defra survey data used to derive quantities and the compositional data used to estimate the material make-up of the waste. Also, seasonal differences in waste composition could not be taken into account in this study. The amount of waste produced, recycled and disposed It is estimated that in 2009 UK hotels, pubs, restaurants and QSRs produced just over 3.4 million tonnes of waste; of this, 1.6 million tonnes (47%) was recycled, reused or composted and nearly 1.5 (43%) million tonnes was mixed waste that went for disposal, mainly to landfill. The remaining 10% consisted of relatively rare waste types and disposal/treatment routes. This is shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 The waste produced, recycled and disposed by the UK hospitality industry in 2009 by sub-sector and nation (rounded to the nearest 1,000 tonnes) Nation Subsector Total waste England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Mixed (residual) waste destined for disposal Waste destined for recycling/reuse Non-mixed waste or mixed waste managed in other ways Hotels 370, , ,000 9,000 Pubs 1,376, , , ,000 QSRs 202,000 88, ,000 3,000 Restaurants 894, , ,000 88,000 Subtotal 2,842,000 1,228,000 1,334, ,000 Hotels 27,000 10,000 17,000 1,000 Pubs 89,000 35,000 41,000 12,000 QSRs 11,000 5,000 6,000 0 Restaurants 41,000 21,000 16,000 4,000 Subtotal 168,000 71,000 80,000 17,000 Hotels 76,000 27,000 47,000 2,000 Pubs 112,000 45,000 52,000 15,000 QSRs 23,000 10,000 12,000 0 Restaurants 97,000 49,000 38,000 9,000 Subtotal 308, , ,000 26,000 Hotels 12,000 4,000 8,000 0 Pubs 34,000 14,000 16,000 5,000 QSRs 11,000 5,000 6,000 0 Restaurants 40,000 20,000 16,000 4,000 Subtotal 97,000 43,000 46,000 9,000 Hotels 485, , ,000 11,000 Pubs 1,610, , , ,000 QSRs 246, , ,000 4,000 Restaurants 1,072, , , ,000 UK Total 3,415,000 1,473,000 1,609, ,000 The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 3

6 Characteristics of the waste sent for disposal Of the almost 1.5 million tonnes of waste that was sent for disposal: businesses in England disposed of just over 1.2 million tonnes; businesses in Scotland disposed of just under 133,000 tonnes; businesses in Wales disposed of just over 72,000 tonnes; and businesses in Northern Ireland disposed of just over 42,000 tonnes. The waste disposed of, mainly to landfill, represents an opportunity for reuse, recycling and recovery; 78% of it was made up of four potentially recyclable materials: food (600,000 tonnes or 41%); glass (213,000 tonnes or 14%); paper (196,000 tonnes or 13%); and card (134,000 tonnes or 9%). Waste management practices Management of waste destined for disposal is very traditional, with most companies relying on four-wheeled bins to contain mixed waste for disposal. The use of council-provided services such as bottle banks in pub car parks is relatively common; it may be that many of these council-run services are used without permission or payment, and possibly illegally if the Duty of Care is not complied with. On-site waste treatment such as the use of compactors and composting is relatively rare. Recycling is widespread but not universal: overall, 76% of businesses claim to recycle at least one material. Glass and card are the most commonly recycled materials. By contrast, only 26% of businesses recycle plastics and just 21% recycle metals. Food waste recycling is rare while recycling of cooking oil is widespread. Many businesses would like to recycle, or recycle more, but cited a lack of recycling services and space as the main barriers. This study does not focus on the waste already going for recycling but looks at the opportunities for increased recycling presented by the waste that still goes for disposal. Opportunities for waste prevention Waste prevention involves not producing waste in the first place. This research has identified that the hospitality sector has a major opportunity to reduce the amount of food waste it produces. Two-thirds of the food that was thrown away could have been eaten if it had been better portioned, managed, stored and/or prepared, with the remaining one-third consisting of items that are unavoidable waste as they are not usually consumed (e.g. banana skins, vegetable peelings). This study estimates that the UK hospitality sector (profit only) threw away 400,000 tonnes of avoidable food waste in The costs associated with avoidable food waste are estimated to be in the order of 722 million 2 which includes food costs, haulage and disposal to landfill. Although the prevention of food waste offers the sector a significant opportunity to reduce waste and cut costs, doing so in practice may be challenging because of the need to ensure that customers feel they are getting value for money. WRAP will continue its work with the sector to look at ways in which food and packaging waste can be reduced without damaging customer perceptions. There are also opportunities to reduce packaging waste, but this is generally not within the control of any one hospitality business but needs to be tackled across the industry as a whole, through the whole supply chain. 2 The costs figures used to estimate potential savings are taken from work conducted in 2007 and These factors are likely to be updated as new evidence emerges. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 4

7 Opportunities for waste recycling and recovery The hospitality sector has made good progress in recycling, with the sector overall recycling 47% of the waste produced in 2009, our analysis suggests that over 70% of the waste that went to landfill could have been recycled using existing markets. This increases to 80% if emerging markets for materials that are currently difficult to recycle (e.g. mixed plastics, liquid cartons) are included. Although this study did not investigate the composition of recycled waste, the questionnaire survey found that glass and card were widely recycled and that paper, plastics and metals were recycled to some extent (see Figure 12, page 56). Food waste presents a particular opportunity. Because not all food waste can be avoided, improvements could focus on diverting waste away from landfill into less environmentally damaging treatment processes. Currently, 200,000 tonnes of food waste is unavoidable and disposed of without any original packaging. This waste could be captured in a separate recycling collection and sent for anaerobic digestion (AD) where energy can be recovered from it. If the recyclable waste generated by the hospitality industry was diverted to recycling it is estimated that savings of 0.95 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent emissions could be made. This research estimates that UK hospitality businesses pay around 1.02 billion a year to buy all the food that is wasted. If all this waste was diverted from landfill where most currently goes to AD, businesses could potentially save 6.6 million a year because AD is typically a cheaper option than landfill ( currently around 11 cheaper per tonne; the potential savings from diverting unavoidable food waste are in the region of 2 million a year). As AD facilities and associated collections of food waste from businesses become more widespread in the UK, more and more hospitality businesses should be able to take advantage of these economic savings. If avoidable food waste was prevented and unavoidable food waste diverted to AD, the potential savings to the hospitality industry are in the region of 724 million a year. Methodological lessons The research has demonstrated that a compositional analysis of business waste is possible, albeit challenging and relatively expensive. The methodological lessons described below should prove valuable for future studies of the composition of business waste. We attempted to reduce the costs of the research by making use of information held by companies rather than surveying and sampling waste. However, despite contacting many large chains, few of these responded to requests and, in the event, none of the corporate records received could be used owing to the different methods of recording waste data. A significant investment of time and effort is required to work with large corporations to obtain and standardise waste data in order to make it useful. By contrast, Defra s large-scale study of industry and commerce in England found that many head offices of large corporations could provide useful information; 28% of the data points in the hotels and catering sector in Defra s survey came from corporate records. The explanation for this could lie in differences in the type of information being requested, and the timescales within which it had to be provided. The research substantiated our expectations that engaging businesses to participate in waste audits would be difficult. Overall, 18% of businesses who completed the telephone survey agreed to a site audit and to have their waste taken away for analysis. Participation could be improved in future studies by being more explicit about the process for the site audit and compositional analysis; at the time recruitment was carried out for this research, the methods had not been finalised and this uncertainty may have deterred some businesses. Ensuring that waste audits were scheduled to maximise the quantity and types of waste collected also proved difficult. This might be addressed by contacting waste contractors directly when scheduling the audit rather than relying on information provided by the business. A longitudinal study to calibrate variations in waste generation over time would also be useful but would be expensive. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 5

8 The logistics of collecting and sorting waste proved challenging. Sorting waste on businesses premises was ruled out at an early stage due to concerns about customer perceptions, health and safety and lack of space. Sites where waste could be sorted were difficult to find and, as a result, travel times between business premises and sorting sites were longer than anticipated. Future studies should build in plenty of time to secure suitable sorting sites close to the areas where waste is likely to be collected. Applying the well-developed waste composition analysis methods used for household waste to business waste was relatively unproblematic. Established volume-to-weight conversion factors were found to overestimate the density of waste as measured at the point of collection. This work has generated new estimates for the density of waste materials found in small containers (i.e. 1.1m 3 and under) and has supported the notion that the density of a given material will vary according to the container used to hold the waste. The timescale for this research was very limited for funding-related reasons. Future studies should allocate several months simply to plan the work and secure suitable sorting sites. An important note The exploratory nature and intrinsic complexity of this research resulted in relatively small sample sizes. The information in this report should therefore be regarded as indicative of the quantities of waste produced by elements of the hospitality sector. Although levels of confidence are expressed for the compositional results in Annex B, further work is needed to generate confidence intervals around the tonnage data; this will be part of a future project. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 6

9 Contents 1.0 Introduction Background The hospitality sector The waste and resources agenda Aims and objectives What is classified as a hospitality business in this research? Report structure Methodology Overview Literature review Corporate survey Telephone survey Drawing up the sampling framework Telephone survey sample sizes Development of the telephone questionnaire Telephone survey bias Telephone survey completion rates Waste audit methodology Waste audit sampling framework Securing sufficient samples and potential bias The on-site waste audit process Off-site sorting and analysis of waste Final sampling for waste audits Calculating the composition of mixed waste Estimating the total quantity of mixed waste each year Calculating the overall composition of mixed waste for each subsector Generating UK estimates of mixed waste quantity and composition The total amount of mixed waste the choice of the Defra dataset The total number of hospitality businesses the ONS data Assessing the suitability and compatibility of the different datasets The average amount of mixed waste per company Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates of total waste Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates of total mixed waste and its composition Calculating carbon benefits of preventing, recycling and recovering waste Carbon savings from food waste recovery Carbon savings from food waste prevention Carbon savings from preventing and recycling key waste streams Calculating cost savings from preventing and recovering food waste Potential cost savings from reduced food purchasing Potential cost savings from reduced food waste disposal Total potential cost savings from preventing food waste Total potential cost savings from diverting waste away from landfill to AD The remainder of the report The waste disposed of by the UK hospitality industry Introduction Recap on methods Recap on sources of error Summary waste estimates for the UK hospitality profit sector The composition of mixed (residual) waste produced by the UK hospitality industry The opportunities for increased recycling of mixed waste Opportunities for carbon savings The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 7

10 3.8 Opportunities for financial savings Business waste benchmarks Waste management practices of the hospitality sector Waste collection How mixed waste is kept on-site On-site waste treatment technologies Extent of recycling Materials recycled Recycling services used Barriers to recycling amongst non-recyclers Waste minimisation policies Implications of the study for future research into industrial and commercial waste Is a composition-led approach practicable? Location of the sampled businesses Encouraging businesses to participate Getting the timing right Is a composition-led approach affordable? The need for expertise The size of the sample needed for the telephone survey The logistics of collecting and sorting waste Is self-reported information on quantities of waste from telephone surveys an adequate proxy for an on-site audit? Is useful data available from large corporate companies? How reliable are existing bulk density factors? How reliable is the approach to scaling up the results? Conclusions Significant quantities of waste are produced by pubs, hotels, QSRs and restaurants there is considerable scope for waste prevention and increased recycling and recovery Most waste goes for disposal there is considerable scope for increased recycling On-site waste management is still very traditional there is considerable scope for the introduction of new services The overall approach taken by this study has proved to be effective The telephone survey provided useful information but is not on its own an adequate technique for quantifying the composition of waste The logistics of collecting waste from the sites proved challenging Opportunities for hospitality businesses Appendix A The composition of mixed waste in the UK nations Appendix B The composition of mixed waste from waste audits Appendix C Example of waste audit map Appendix D Corporate waste survey Appendix E Bulk density data Appendix F Telephone survey questionnaire Appendix G Recycling market assumptions Appendix H Average estimated meal weight Appendix I Literature review and bibliography Appendix J Peer review by SRI Research and WRAP s comments on the points made The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 8

11 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The hospitality sector Latest figures indicate that the hospitality sector employs around 2.4 million people across the UK. 3 The sector comprises a diverse range of business activities including hotels, pubs, restaurants, catering services, holiday parks and caravan/camping sites. Major five-star hotels and corporate catering and facilities management companies are included alongside modest bed and breakfast establishments and seasonal cafés. 4 Statistics on the size and composition of the sector are available from a number of sources; a report prepared by Horizons for Success gives the following figures in its latest research in terms of number of outlets. 5 Table 2 Profile of the hospitality sector in the UK in 2010 Subsector Parameter Number of outlets % of sector % of sector eligible for inclusion in this research Hotels 45, Restaurants 27, Profit Quick Service 31, Pubs 45, Leisure 19, Not included Staff catering 19, Not included Cost Healthcare 31, Not included Education 34, Not included Services 3, Not included Total 259, The sector is characterised by: a large number of very small businesses (around 22% of the businesses are run by the proprietor and have no employees, and 99% are classified as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); an operating model that dictates a large number of relatively small premises, even within large commercial groups; businesses that are operated as a lifestyle option (e.g. as a way of financing retirement to the coast) rather than a profit-driven business; 6 and a very young workforce with high levels of staff turnover The waste and resources agenda Food and packaging waste continues to be a priority area for the European Union (EU), the UK and the devolved governments. The hospitality sector is likely to be a significant producer of this type of waste. However, there is very little information available at a UK level on the amounts of different types of waste generated and the Oxford Economics (2010) Economic contribution of UK hospitality industry British Hospitality Association 2008 Horizons (2011) UK Foodservice Industry in 2010 (updated March 2011) Morrison, A., Andrew, R., Baum, T. (2001) The lifestyle economics of small tourism businesses Journal of Travel & Tourism Research 1 no People 1 st (2006) The workforce hokey cokey who's in, and who's out? The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 9

12 opportunities for further recovery and recycling. Although relatively recent studies have been carried out in each of the four UK nations on waste generation overall, detailed information is lacking on the composition of the mixed waste streams that go for disposal, streams that are significant for most sectors of the economy including the hospitality sector. This presents a significant knowledge gap to both WRAP and its stakeholders which this research has sought to address. UK governments have come under increasing pressure to improve their knowledge of the industrial and commercial waste stream. 8 As well as aiming to generate new information on the waste generated by the hospitality sector, one of the key objectives of this project was therefore to develop a workable method for gathering more detailed information on mixed waste composition in businesses more generally. Although analysing the composition of mixed waste is common practice for the household waste stream, no studies that we are aware of have attempted to do so systematically across a whole sector of the economy. We acknowledged from the outset that this would be a costly and difficult project logistically, statistically and operationally. It was expected that the lessons learnt from the project would feed into the commissioning process for future industrial and commercial waste surveys. Although systematic UK-level data on the quantity and composition of hospitality waste is lacking, a number of individual studies have previously been conducted into the waste production characteristics of the sector. These have found that: the sector produces a relatively large quantity of waste that is broadly similar to domestic waste; 9 waste from the sector is relatively heavy and heavier than comparable waste from other service sector sites; 10 the sector produces a considerable quantity of glass waste and a high percentage of this is not recycled; 11 the sector produces a large quantity of food waste, much of which is not recycled/composted; 12 recycling rates within the sector are relatively low, with a high percentage of businesses utilising facilities that are supposed to be restricted to households; 11 and there is considerable awareness within the sector that good environmental practices reduce operating costs. A survey by NetRegs 13 indicated that 72% of hotel and restaurant SMEs considered this to be the case. Many corporate businesses within the sector also make specific commitments to waste reduction. 14 There are, however, a number of barriers to effective engagement in waste minimisation or waste recycling especially for the proprietor-run businesses and SMEs. These barriers include limited staff resources, lack of access to commercial recycling services and lack of storage space. 15,16, Aims and objectives The aim of the research was to produce reliable estimates of the amounts and types of waste generated by the UK hospitality sector through the development of a method that would enable the composition of mixed waste to be quantified. Specific project objectives were to: 8 The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Seventh Report on Waste Reduction (2008) recommended that the Government arrange for comprehensive surveys to collect data on the various waste streams in the UK thus enabling the formation of an overall strategic direction and policies. 9 Todd, M. and Hawkins, R. (2001) Waste counts: a handbook for accommodation operators CESHI, Oxford Brookes University: Oxford 10 Thomas, C., Dacombe, P., Maycox, A., Banks, C., Khan, T., and Slater, R. (2007) Identification of key resource streams in commercial and industrial waste from small businesses in the food sector The Open University: Milton Keynes (Integrated Waste Systems Research Group) 11 Hawkins, R., Carlton Smith, J. and Todd, M. (2004a) Recycling urban glass. WRAP: Banbury Hawkins, R., Carlton Smith, J. and Todd, M. (2004b) Glass goes green WRAP: Banbury 12 Oakdene Hollins (2008) Hospitality sector glass collection WRAP: Banbury 13 NetRegs (2007) SME environment 2007 UK summary 14 E.g. The Hilton s commitment 15 WRAP (2007) Glass collected from licensed premises: determination of how much glass is collected for recycling from licensed premises WRAP: Banbury 16 Oakdene Hollins (2008) Hospitality sector glass collection WRAP: Banbury 17 Bohdanowicz, P. and Martinac, I. (2003) Attitudes towards sustainability in chain hotels results of a European survey The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 10

13 estimate the amount of different types of waste being produced by the sector, with particular emphasis on the composition of the waste currently sent for disposal; draw conclusions about the reasons for the waste being produced, the extent to which it is avoidable or, if it is unavoidable, the extent to which it could be managed in a more resource-efficient manner; and draw conclusions about how successful the research method was, how it might be improved and how it could be applied to other industrial and commercial sectors. During the initial project inception and scoping meetings, the scope of the project was refined to: focus on the four main subsectors that comprise the profit element of the hospitality sector, i.e. hotels, pubs, restaurants and quick service restaurants (QSRs) (58% of hospitality outlets as Table 2 above shows); focus on mixed waste going for disposal rather than waste that is already collected for recycling; assess the extent to which waste that is avoidable could be managed in a more resource-efficient manner; and contribute to the development of an evidence base for resource efficiency decision-making in the hospitality sector. Throughout the project, there was a tension between its exploratory aspects and the need to produce robust estimates in a cost-effective manner. 1.3 What is classified as a hospitality business in this research? The hospitality sector is generally considered to consist of two discrete elements: the profit sector: businesses where providing catering and/or accommodation services is the primary purpose of the business and where the aim is to maximise profit (e.g. hotels, guesthouses, bed & breakfast establishments, youth hostels, restaurants, QSRs and pubs); and the cost sector: businesses where providing hospitality services is not the main function of the organisation and where the aim is not to maximise profit (e.g. catering and accommodation services within the premises of schools, hospitals, prisons, military facilities etc.). It was agreed during the early stages of the project that it would be beneficial to focus the study on the profit sector. This was because: profit-sector hospitality businesses are legally responsible for their own disposal arrangements, whereas businesses in the cost sector often dispose of their waste alongside that generated by the organisation they are operating within, making identification and analysis of hospitality-specific waste a more complex piece of research; and profit-sector hospitality businesses are likely to have greater control over the range of products they buy, which means any recommendations relating to smarter purchasing would be more straightforward for the profit sector to implement. Following an initial literature review, the scope of businesses included in the study was further refined to include only those that pay for their waste to be collected and to exclude those that use household waste collection systems. Evidence from other studies has suggested that a significant proportion of hospitality businesses use household waste collection systems for some of their waste, especially for recycling. Rural businesses are also more likely to make use of household collection systems. 18 These businesses were excluded because they were likely to be very small businesses and including them in the research would not be consistent with ensuring value for money. This resulted in 4% of the 150,809 businesses included in table 2 as being in scope being subsequently removed from scope; this is show in Figure 1 below. 18 Hawkins, R., Carlton Smith, J. and Todd, M. (2004a) Recycling urban glass WRAP: Banbury Hawkins, R., Carlton Smith, J. and Todd, M. (2004b) Glass goes green WRAP: Banbury BREW Centre for Local Authorities (2008) Highlights of local authority trade waste and recycling reports 2007/08 BREW Centre: Oxford The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 11

14 Businesses for which self-catering was the primary form of hospitality service (e.g. caravan/camping sites, selfcatering cottages) were also excluded from this study. This was because policy approaches for this type of business would be very different than for others in the sector, focusing much more on influencing the behaviour of the guests than on anything directly within the control of the business. The scope of the study and the results presented in this report are, therefore, based on a subset of the four main subsectors in the profit sector of the hospitality industry (i.e. hotels, restaurants, pubs and QSRs), excluding the leisure sector and those establishments that do not pay for their waste to be removed. This is shown in figure 1 below. Figure 1 Proportion of the hospitality industry establishments covered by the research 1.4 Report structure Chapter 2 focuses on the study s methodology. It describes how a review of existing literature and a corporate business survey were used to refine the scope and methodology of the project. The chapter then sets out the methods employed to gather waste composition data and to derive UK estimates of the quantity and composition of mixed waste. Chapter 3 presents results, with estimates of the quantity and composition of mixed waste, opportunities for increased recycling and business waste benchmarks. Chapter 4 summarises the findings from the telephone survey, focusing on self-reported waste management practices of surveyed businesses. Chapter 5 considers some key methodological questions related to this research and sets out exactly what this project has learned. Chapter 6 draws together the key findings of this project and discusses the key issues and opportunities highlighted by its findings. There are a number of appendices which provide a greater level of detail on the methodology employed (e.g. the literature review, the corporate waste survey, the waste audit sampling framework and the questionnaire used during the telephone survey). The appendices also provide data from the compositional analysis of mixed waste undertaken at the time of the waste audits and estimates for the composition of mixed waste in the UK s constituent nations. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 12

15 2.0 Methodology 2.1 Overview This section of the report details the methodology used in the project, which comprised eight stages undertaken during 2009 and ) A literature review to assess the available information on waste production, waste composition and waste management practices within the hospitality sector. This identified a number of gaps that could be addressed by this project and so was used to refine the project s scope and the methodology used for data gathering. See Section ) Sampling of businesses for a telephone survey, involving quantifying the range of hospitality businesses within the UK, subdividing these businesses into meaningful categories for sampling purposes and developing a statistically valid sampling framework. See Section ) A telephone survey, involving approaching businesses across the UK that matched the sampling criteria and asking them to participate in a survey about their waste, plus recruitment of those surveyed for a subsequent audit of their waste. Telephone surveys were also used to gather data on attitudes to waste management and recycling, as well as on current waste management practices and the types of materials recycled. See Section ) Sampling of businesses for the waste audits, involving pragmatic compromises between maximising the sample size and the financial and logistical constraints of the project. See Section and Section ) On-site waste audits, including an interview with the site manager, a visual inspection of the waste and containers, and the collection of presented waste. See Section ) Waste composition analysis, including sorting of waste into 37 material categories, with emphasis placed on the composition of mixed waste. See Section and Section ) Production of UK and national waste estimates, involving the different sets of data being reviewed and combined and then estimates being generated for the quantity and composition of mixed waste in the UK hospitality sector. See Section 2.7. In addition a corporate business survey was carried out to capture data from centrally run businesses with a large number of premises/outlets (e.g. restaurant and pub chains); this is referred to in the remainder of the report as corporate data. The purpose of the survey was to gather data from head offices rather than approach many individual premises which were in any case unlikely to hold the data because arrangements were made by head office on their behalf. However, this did not obtain any useful information; see Section 2.3. The remainder of this chapter sets out in more detail the methods associated with each of these stages. 2.2 Literature review The first stage of the project was a literature review to identify gaps and limitations in current knowledge that could be addressed by this research. The literature review also helped to inform the methodologies used at later stages of the project. The review included 136 items found in the public domain. Of these, only a handful of studies provided detailed information on the composition of waste from the hospitality sector collated from samples of 10 businesses or more. The key themes arising from the literature research were as follows: most of the literature concentrates on providing advice for hospitality businesses that are usually focused on complying with regulations and/or minimising waste disposal costs; The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 13

16 many of the surveys that have been undertaken: o have only achieved acceptable response rates using telephone calls or personal visits to persuade staff to complete questionnaires; 19 o do not provide reliable data about quantities of waste or its cost to the business, most relying on estimating waste by asking businesses to assess the number of bins and how full they are: Oakdene Hollins 20 suggests such estimates may overstate the volume of waste generated as a result of errors associated with converting reported volumes into weights; and WRAP 21 suggests that estimates of the weight of glass available for recycling from licensed premises are likely to be overstated because respondents to self-completion surveys tend to overestimate the amount of glass they produce; o focus on the activities of the profit sector partly because of the difficulties of analysing waste from the cost sector where the catering organisation has little control over the final waste disposal options see Huhtamaki ; and o do not provide detailed attitudinal data about wastes; much of what has been written focuses on: o glass specifically; o food waste and the impact of specific technologies; 23 o the licensed retail trade or hotels, with almost no data available for catering outlets; 21 o the economics of changing waste collection procedures, with a focus on waste collection organisations rather than hospitality businesses; and o businesses that have direct influence over their own waste management rather than those for whom waste is managed by a third party; 24 there is very limited information available on: o difficult-to-manage wastes (especially hazardous wastes) from the sector, with the exception of fats, oils and greases; o wastes that are recycled or disposed of in ways other than a regularly collected bin, e.g. packaging returned to manufacturers or waste disposed of via a macerator; o relevant decision-making points in businesses, e.g. many head office businesses have waste recycling as a key priority, but few are able to actively enforce this throughout all units. There is very little data that identifies why some units under the management of the same head office implement waste management programmes and others do not; and o different approaches to waste within the sector mapped onto different types of recycling service provision and different levels of fee-charging; most of the compositional data available for the sector: o is developed from very small sample sizes; o has been gathered using varying audit methodologies, e.g. auditing all waste or a sample of waste; o has rarely been correlated against key business performance criteria (e.g. occupancy for hotels, number of meals served for restaurants etc.), with the exception of the reports generated for benchmarking purposes by hospitality businesses; and most of the data presented across the sector as a whole: o is based on very small samples, sometimes grossed up to represent the sector, using different methodologies; 19 CESHI (2007) Glass collection from licensed retail sector WRAP: Banbury 20 Oakdene Hollins (2008) Mapping waste in the food industry Defra and the Food and Drink Federation: London 21 WRAP (2007) Glass collected from licensed premises: determination of how much glass is collected for recycling from licensed premises WRAP: Banbury 22 Unpublished research undertaken by CESHI 23 Environmental Protection Division (2005) Wales public sector sustainable waste management guidance manual [Accessed 24/01/09] 24 Envirowise case studies CESHI (2004) What s worth 9m and gets chucked in a large hole in the ground? CFES, Oxford Brookes University: Oxford 26 Caterer & Hotelkeeper (2007) Green Month special edition 3 October 2007 Surrey, RBI Publishing. 27 Environment Agency (2000) Commercial and industrial waste production survey 1998/9 (unpublished) 28 SLR Consulting (2007) Determination of the biodegradability of mixed industrial and commercial waste landfilled in Wales The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 14

17 o o uses methodologies that gross up making no allowance for seasonal fluctuations/volume of trade; and is not representative of the range of different models of working that are implemented across the sector (e.g. tenanted, managed, facilities management contract etc.). These findings suggested that it was beneficial to collect data via both a telephone survey and site waste audits. A telephone survey would ask businesses to report on their own waste production, management and policy, whilst the site waste audits would actively quantify waste production and composition at individual business premises. Appendix I contains more information about the literature review. 2.3 Corporate survey A small number of corporate brands dominate the hospitality sector. In many of these organisations, the head office makes arrangements for waste collection on behalf of individual sites. The aim of this part of the project was to capture waste management data from head offices, rather than approaching individual premises. During project inception, it was hoped that corporate businesses (i.e. those with over 100 outlets) would provide a mass of useful data that could be incorporated into the project. However, the different methods of recording and storing data meant that the outputs from this part of the work could not be directly compared to the datasets generated from other parts of the project. The methodological lesson learnt from the corporate survey was that gathering data from large corporate businesses is not a quick route to obtaining a large amount of analysable data. It would appear that a number of corporate businesses do not collect waste data at all. When data is collected, a significant amount of time is needed to work with the corporate sector not only to obtain data but also to standardise the data before any analysis can be conducted. A fuller description of the corporate survey s methodology and findings is presented in Appendix D. 2.4 Telephone survey The telephone survey stage of the project consisted of four principal activities: drawing up the sampling framework, i.e. deciding which criteria are important when selecting businesses to sample; deciding how many businesses to include in the sample for the survey; selecting the individual businesses to be included; and carrying out the survey to obtain a representative sample of businesses Drawing up the sampling framework The sampling framework sets the parameters within which decisions are made on individual companies to survey. The nature of the sampling framework is normally dictated by the kind of information that is to be produced. In this case, one of the key sampling criteria was dictated in advance at least some samples had to be in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland because (a) information was required by nation and (b) all four nations had funded the work. In early project meetings, it was also agreed that information would be required for each of the four subsectors hotels, restaurants, pubs and QSRs so this became a parameter within the sampling framework too. A key requirement was therefore up-to-date population counts for hotels, restaurants, pubs and QSRs across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The hospitality industry has a number of specialist data providers and each of the datasets available has subtle differences. The database selected for the telephone survey and waste audit parts of the project was Caterlyst ( for the following reasons: The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 15

18 it is the only industry-specific database that has been developed to cover the total population of all hospitality service providers. The other industry databases that are available have been created to drive the circulations of specific trade magazines and are therefore skewed by subsector and size; it is used as a sales database by a number of leading food and equipment suppliers to the industry and the header records are therefore being checked, validated and updated on a regular basis; it contains approximately 325,000 records and could provide information on the four subsectors selected for inclusion within this project; the header records contain company name, address, telephone number and subsector data. In certain subsectors it is also possible to append additional data to the record. i.e. number of bedrooms for a hotel. and this data can help to inform data analysis; and the subsectors can be related back to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes if required, so that data can be sense-checked against other national surveys. A general count of businesses within the four subsectors was obtained from Caterlyst on 20 January 2009 to specify the actual size of the total population. This was then refined on 5 February 2009 to ascertain the numbers of outlets within each subsector and to exclude head offices, duplicate records, businesses that fell outside of the sampling framework, and regional offices of groups. This resulted in 138,773 individual sites from across the UK being included in the scope of the work. One further parameter for the sampling framework was dictated by the logistics of the subsequent waste auditing exercise a reasonable proportion of the selected businesses had to be within a 50-mile radius of the sites where the waste was to be sorted (Belfast, Glasgow, London, Cardiff, Wrexham, Ormskirk and Barnsley). This was in order to maximise the number of businesses that could be included within the fixed cost of the work. One possible source of error was that these locations missed some of the very seasonal parts of the UK, e.g. the Devon and Cornwall coast, so the study may have over-sampled businesses that operate all year or most of the year. Provision was made to supplement the sample with an additional 960 surveys, targeted to geographical areas within which the site waste audits were to be conducted. This would ensure that the telephone survey provided a sufficient number of businesses that could be searched to participate in the site waste audit within a reasonable driving distance (50 miles) of the waste sorting depots. Figure 2 shows the location of the waste sorting sites and the business recruitment areas. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 16

19 Figure 2 UK survey area showing the six waste sorting depots (Belfast, Glasgow, London, Cardiff, Wrexham, Ormskirk and Barnsley) and business recruitment areas (50-mile radii) The final parameters for the telephone sampling framework were therefore: 1. nation (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland); 2. subsector (hotels, restaurants, pubs, QSRs); and 3. within or outside a 50-mile radius of a sort site Telephone survey sample sizes For the telephone survey, it was agreed that the project team would attempt to obtain completed questionnaires from at least 1% of all hospitality businesses. A further requirement was that a 20% response rate should be achieved by the telephone survey. The desired completion rate, therefore, required at least 5% of all hospitality business contacts to be called to deliver the required number of completed telephone survey questionnaires (6938 calls based on the Caterlyst contact database of 138,773). The sample was divided: equally across the subsectors (hotels, pubs, QSRs and restaurants); in direct proportion to the number of businesses in each country; and on a geographically random basis for most of the samples but with 240 of the sampled businesses (distributed equally across each subsector) being within a 50-mile radius of potential waste sorting depots to ensure there were enough within the catchment area of each site to be used for sorting waste samples. Table 3 summarises the sample framework. Businesses that fitted each of the cells in the sampling framework were then selected at random. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 17

20 England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales Grand total Table 3 Sample framework for the telephone survey Subsector Parameter % of all UK businesses belonging to this subsector Hotels Number of telephone calls allocated at random Number of telephone calls allocated to businesses within 50 miles of sorting depots % of all UK businesses belonging to this subsector Pubs Number of telephone calls allocated at random Number of telephone calls allocated to businesses within 50 miles of sorting depots % of all UK businesses belonging to this subsector QSRs Number of telephone calls allocated at random Number of telephone calls allocated to businesses within 50 miles of sorting depots % of all UK businesses belonging to this subsector Restaurants Number of telephone calls allocated at random Number of telephone calls allocated to businesses within 50 miles of sorting depots Development of the telephone questionnaire The questionnaire for the telephone survey was informed by the literature review and previous benchmarking studies within the literature, such as that undertaken by the International Hotels Environment Initiative 29 (now the International Tourism Partnership). In developing the first draft, the questionnaire was intended to be used only to collate the following data: the contact details for each organisation; the subsector of the industry the business is drawn from; operating periods for the business; current waste disposal policies/technologies/practices; the size (e.g. number of rooms, meals served per day) and characteristics of the business; and the corporate affiliations of the business: a snowball technique was proposed in which businesses that are a part of a corporate group or management company would be contacted to request data for the whole group. It was agreed that the questionnaire would also be used to collect data on the approximate amounts of waste produced (residual and recycling), potential drivers/barriers that influence the amount of waste produced, and attitudes towards waste management. An initial draft of the questionnaire was piloted to test ease of use and response rates. Further redrafts were then piloted, which improved response and completion rates. A copy of the final questionnaire is presented in Appendix F. The information in the questionnaire on container numbers, types, size and collection frequency was used to estimate the approximate scale of the business s waste production. This exercise was principally used as an input to the sampling framework for the waste audits and not for generating estimates of waste for reporting. To this end, the questionnaire survey used a simple container classification of: 29 International Hotels Environmental Initiative (1993) Environmental management for hotels: the industry guide to good practice Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 18

21 two-wheeled bins; four-wheeled bins; sacks; skips with compaction; skips without compaction; and other. Assumptions about the typical size of each container were then applied to derive an estimate of waste generation. In reality, of course, there are a range of different container capacities even within the same container type. However, the sites audits confirmed that the majority of containers on-site were the typical size (80l for a sack, 240l for a two-wheeled bin and 1100 litres for a four-wheeled bin), although skips varied more widely. This suggests that the approach taken in this study was correct that telephone surveys alone would result in lower confidence in estimates, but that these generic descriptions (which are easy for businesses to recognise) are generally standard enough to be used as a proxy for waste generation Telephone survey bias As with all surveys, the results will only be representative of the whole sector if non-response bias is low or preferably non-existent. Non-response bias is introduced if the respondents are different in some way to the nonrespondents, e.g. if they recycle more or if they produce more waste. For the purposes of this research, we have assumed that non-response bias is insignificant, but in reality we have no evidence to either support this or refute it. It is likely that if there is any non-response bias, it is due to under-sampling larger waste producers because the questionnaire is longer for businesses which produce more waste, leading to higher levels of noncompletion in larger businesses. As with all telephone surveys, there may also be a degree of response bias. It is quite common for survey respondents to overstate behaviours that are seen to be good (e.g. recycling) and understate behaviours that are seen to be bad (e.g. pouring cooking oil down the drain). In this research we ensured that the interviewer minimised this risk through their introduction to the survey, and we have compensated for this in part through the site audit process, but we accept this bias may still be present Telephone survey completion rates A questionnaire was considered to be complete once a respondent had confirmed that they currently pay for the removal of their general waste. A total of 1659 questionnaires were recorded as fully completed. Businesses that do not pay for their own waste to be disposed of were excluded from the study because it was felt that they would produce such little waste that the effort to collect it would be disproportionate; 122 businesses exited the survey for this reason. Thus a total of 1659 businesses paid for their waste to be disposed of either directly (1587) or via their head office (72), were taken through the survey questions and had their responses included in the final data. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 19

22 Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Totals % Table 4 Call outcomes for the telephone survey of 9281 businesses Responses Calls made 1,924 1,947 1,747 3,663 9, Completed responses (businesses paying for waste disposal) Completed responses (businesses not paying/don t know whether paying for waste disposal) , Refused to answer , No reply ,415 2, Call back required , Number not recognised Business has moved Unsound other The completion rate for the survey was 18%, which is approximately what would be expected for a survey of this kind. Response rates were better in the pub sector (25%) and lower in the restaurant sector (14%). This is likely to relate partly to reclassification of businesses from restaurants to pubs during the quality assurance process. 30 The distribution of the responses across the nations of the UK is shown in Table 3. The responses achieved largely reflected the population of businesses in each of the four subsectors and UK countries. Statistical advice was sought from the Statistical Services Centre (SSC) at Reading University regarding the number of completed questionnaires required per sector and country. It was considered that the achieved responses were sufficiently close to the targets set in the sampling framework and that no further telephone questionnaires were required. Table 5 Coverage of survey responses by nation and subsector Subsector England Scotland Wales Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Total Northern Ireland Total Sample* Population** 18,506 3,700 1, ,376 % coverage Sample Population 35,432 3,037 2,529 1,313 42,311 % coverage Sample Population 38,476 3,906 2,229 1,344 45,955 % coverage Sample Population 22,278 2,151 1, ,131 % coverage Sample ,659 Population 114,692 12,794 7,503 3, ,773 % coverage * Completed questionnaires ** From the Caterlyst database 30 A number of pub businesses had stated that they were restaurants in response to the questionnaire survey. However, further investigation demonstrated that they were pubs with a substantial catering function, i.e. they provided a drinks-only service as well as food. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 20

23 2.5 Waste audit methodology The waste audit stage of the project consisted of the following activities: development of a sampling framework based on the telephone survey; the on-site audit which included an interview, visual inspection and collection of waste; and off-site sorting and analysis of waste Waste audit sampling framework The telephone questionnaire was used as a basis from which to select the businesses to participate in the on-site waste audits. Rather than selecting businesses at random, a waste audit sampling framework was developed in an attempt to align the sampled businesses as closely as possible with the structure of the UK population of hospitality businesses. Categories of waste production were developed for each subsector by analysing the results of the telephone survey to calculate the estimated amounts of waste produced (low, medium or high). This was achieved by taking the respondent s answers to how many containers they have on-site, multiplying by the size of the container and by how many times it is collected, and assuming it is always 100% full when collected. CESHI s expert knowledge was then applied to assess what range of amounts could be described as low, medium and high, as shown in Table 4 below. Table 6 Businesses falling into each category of waste production Waste production category Hotels Restaurants Pubs QSRs Likely range based on expert knowledge (litres per week) Number of observations from survey falling within each category Low 1,100 1, Medium >1,100 and 6,600 >1,200 and 12,000 >960 and 3,600 >920 and 6,000 High >6,600 >12,000 >3,600 >6,000 Low Medium High Overall Relationships between estimates of waste production and a series of business characteristics were analysed by the project team. Following this analysis, the variables considered to be the best indicators of waste production were identified as: 1. number of rooms (for hotels); 2. whether part of a group (for hotels, restaurants and QSRs); 3. whether managed or not (for pubs); 4. number of meals served per day (for hotels and pubs); 5. volume of business (for restaurants and QSRs); 6. whether takeaway or eat-in (for QSRs); and 7. whether the business recycles (for restaurants). The total number of waste audits was dictated by resource constraints and based on some assumptions about how long it would take to audit the sites, how much waste would be expected and how long it would take to collect and sort it. At the outset of the research, approximately 90 audits were envisaged. Later, the orkshire and Humber Assembly and the Welsh and Scottish governments provided additional funding that helped increase the number of audits across the UK; approximately 40 additional sampling points were added as a result. Table 7 shows the final waste audit sampling framework. In some cases, there are quite small samples (at an extreme, for example, only one audit was conducted for high waste-producing pubs); in these cases we have had to assume that the sampled companies represent The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 21

24 others in the same category but that assumption is obviously problematic hence we have suggested that the data from the study is regarded only as indicative. As set out above, the final number of audits achieved was limited by the available resources, timescales and the information gathered during the waste audits, which was not always adequate to include in the final data. This was despite using a recruitment and scheduling process that aimed to maximise the number of audits achieved and is a key lesson learnt from the project. Table 7 The sampling framework for the on-site waste audits carried out across the UK during 2009 (subtotals may not add up to 100% due to rounding) Subsector Waste production factor Estimated level of waste Number identified in the survey Estimated population distribution Number of waste audits Sample distribution 0-10 rooms Low % 12 34% Hotels rooms Medium % 14 40% >50 rooms High 65 20% 9 26% Subtotal % % Not managed & 50 meals/day Low 88 46% 16 55% Managed & 50 meals/day Low/medium 26 14% 4 14% Pubs Not managed & >50 meals/day Medium 46 24% 8 28% Managed & >50 meals/day High 30 16% 1 3% Subtotal % % QSR Either takeaway OR not part of a group Low % 10 31% Not takeaway AND part of a group High 78 30% 22 69% Subtotal % % Not part of a group Low % 26 62% Restaurants Belong to a group & recycle Medium % 12 29% Belong to a group & don t recycle High 89 16% 4 9% Subtotal % % Total 1, Securing sufficient samples and potential bias An essential part of the waste audit scheduling process was obtaining informed consent. During the initial telephone survey, 298 respondents had confirmed they would be willing to participate in a waste audit. Of these, 60 fell within the relevant postcode areas (i.e. within a 50-mile radius of a waste sorting depot) but seven of them had not provided sufficient data to enable the audit to take place. That meant more businesses had to be recruited. However, it was critical to keep the sample as random as possible and not specifically target particular types of business. To overcome this challenge, a second round of telephone interviews was carried out, targeting all businesses that had completed the questionnaire but initially declined to participate in the audits, asking them to reconsider. This approach proved successful and further businesses were recruited. The failure of the initial approach is believed to have been due in part to the fact that the audit methodology was still under development, so telephone interviewers were unable to reassure companies effectively about potential disruption and confidentiality concerns. It is recognised that sampling businesses from the subset of telephone survey respondents that agreed to participate in waste audits may have led to a degree of bias. For example, those with a greater interest in waste management and/or participation in recycling may be more inclined to take part in waste audits. This is a common methodological challenge in this type of study. This was unavoidable in order to avoid bringing the project partners into disrepute; informed consent to have their waste removed for analysis was obtained from every businesses. Because the location of the businesses had to be within reasonable driving distance of the sorting sites, and the sorting sites were all in urban areas, there were initial concerns that sampling just from a city centre location The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 22

25 may bias the data collected. To test whether these concerns were justified, Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping was carried out that suggested a diverse range of urban and rural businesses could be captured. A detailed example of such a map is provided in Appendix C. Although the intention was to select businesses within a 50-mile radius of a waste sorting depot, in some cases there was insufficient representation of the required business subsectors within this radius and some samples had to be taken from a wider radius. For example, in Cardiff, samples were collected from Gloucestershire, the South Midlands and South West Wales in addition to Cardiff itself. Therefore samples were taken from a wide geographical spread of businesses across the UK from both urban and rural locations The on-site waste audit process 31 The on-site audits commenced in March 2009 and consisted of three distinct elements: a pre-arranged interview with the site manager about waste production; a visual inspection of the waste and on-site containers; and collection of the waste for analysis off-site The interview On arrival at site the most appropriate staff member (or point of contact from the telephone survey) was identified. The interviewer asked to be taken to the area of the site where waste was kept prior to removal. A brief interview was then conducted to determine when each of the waste types was last collected and whether the waste available was typical of an average week. The auditor also asked for information on the number of meals served per day and asked for permission to remove the waste for analysis. Even though the focus of the study was on mixed waste, information was also collected about bulky waste. However, in every case where bulky waste was found, the interviewee stated that it was generated on an ad-hoc basis and found it impossible to quantify the amount. Within larger establishments the bulky waste tended to be generated as part of a refurbishment programme or as a result of the breakdown in a specific piece of equipment, but this would not take place at regular intervals. Hotels under corporate ownership generally undergo a major refurbishment every 7-12 years with more minor work being completed on an ad-hoc basis, with contractors managing the waste. Because in most cases there was no physical waste to sample and little knowledge on the part of the site manager about what waste was generated at the last refurbishment, bulky waste had to be excluded from this research The visual inspection The remainder of the time on-site consisted of a visual inspection of the waste. The information was recorded in a table provided to the waste auditor and included: waste type (e.g. residual waste, recycling (mixed glass), co-mingled recyclables); container type (e.g. wheeled bin, drum, sack, loose); volume of container; estimates of how full the container was at point of collection (%); number of days worth of waste presented in the container; and whether all, a sub-sample (specifying the amount) or none of the waste was collected for compositional analysis. Using this data, information could be calculated on the levels of waste generation at each business in terms of litres per day and kg per day. For oils and special and hazardous waste material, a note was made on the number and size of containers. For health and safety reasons, these materials were not handled. 31 In some parts of this chapter, we refer to 139 site audits and in others to 138 site audits. This is because although 139 site audits were carried out, the data from one had to be removed from the analysis because it was abnormal and deemed an outlier. Although this premises data is not relevant to the project, the methodological lessons learnt whilst visiting it are relevant, so sometimes it will be appropriate to refer to 139 audits and sometimes to 138. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 23

26 Observed Sampled Observed Sampled Observed Sampled Observed Sampled Observed Sampled Table 8 shows the number of different types of waste containment observed and sampled at the 138 businesses visited during the site audit. Throughout the waste audits, emphasis was placed on collecting as much residual waste as possible. Table 8 Number of each waste stream observed and sampled at the 138 audited premises Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Total Waste type Brown glass recycling Card recycling Clear glass recycling Co-mingled recycling Food recycling Green glass recycling Metal recycling Mixed glass recycling Mixed plastic recycling Oil recycling Paper & card recycling Paper recycling Mixed (residual) waste Total This is clearly a snapshot of waste from each business, and the project could not take account of seasonal differences in waste set out for disposal which may be important for some sub-sectors. The data presented in this report should therefore be regarded as indicative of the waste sent to disposal by the sector rather than definitive Collection of waste Early in the project, a key task was to consider the best approach to collect and sort waste from businesses within the hospitality sector on a national scale. Two approaches were considered: sorting on location at the targeted premises; and a central sorting approach where waste would be collected and brought to a central location. A review of the relative merits of each approach was undertaken and the central sort approach was adopted. This was because, during the first few pilot audits, it became immediately apparent that sorting waste on-site at the business was going to be impossible due to a lack of space, public perception and issues surrounding health and safety. Whilst it was recognised that taking waste off-site for analysis could result in a smaller weight of samples being collected at each business due to limited space on the collection vehicle, the sorting on location approach was simply out of the question. On-site, the waste had to be emptied into another container to be removed from site. This was because, when recruiting businesses, it became clear that companies had concerns about their business s waste containers being removed from the property. Where practicably possible, all waste available for collection was collected, including co-mingled waste destined for recycling. Where this was not possible, a sub-sample was taken from the container trying to ensure that as representative a sample as possible was taken. This was then transferred to one of the seven central waste sorting depots. In some cases there was no material to collect. The priority throughout the project was to ensure The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 24

27 that, as a minimum, the mixed residual waste was collected since this was the focus of the research. The waste from the businesses was hand-loaded into separate containers and coded with the date, a unique business code and the waste type. The waste was collected and transported in one of two 3.5-tonne Luton vans to the central sorting facility. Waste from up to six businesses each day was collected. Table 9 shows the amount of material sampled as a proportion of the total volume of material presented for collection at the time of the waste audit. The volume of material sampled was measured from how full containers of material were before and after a sample had been taken. Out of a total of 413 instances of a material being presented for collection by the 138 businesses audited, 168 instances were not sampled. A very large proportion of residual waste samples collected represented 100% of the volume of waste presented (118 samples out of 138). Waste kitchen oil was not collected as it was assumed to be 100% kitchen oil (in practice there would have been some contamination, but this is thought to be minimal). Table 9 Number of samples by waste stream grouped by % of available material that was sampled Material type sampled % of material presented that was sampled None collected 0% to <20% 20% to <40% 40% to <60% 60% to <80% 80% to <100% All collected Total Food recycling Paper & card recycling Glass recycling Metal recycling Plastic recycling Oil recycling Co-mingled recycling Residual waste Total One key source of error associated with this aspect of the study is the uncertainty about what proportion of a week s waste was collected. This was because businesses varied considerably as to when their waste was collected: in central London, for example, waste is collected all through the night, whilst in more rural settings or for smaller businesses it might be collected once a week. Although respondents were asked when their waste is normally collected, this information proved unreliable. As a result, it was not possible to generalise about the best time to arrive for the audit in order to yield the maximum amount of waste; sometimes teams would arrive and there would be no waste to collect. No analysis was done on whether day of the week on which the waste was collected affected the results and we were unable to check the sensitivity of the approach to calculating a weeks worth of waste on the resulting data Logistical constraints and their effect on-site audit data Participating businesses were allocated a collection time within a one week collection slot in each of the seven areas. This was dictated by the limited time available at each of the central sorting sites. Whilst it was important that as much waste as possible was collected from each business, this had to be balanced against a range of other criteria. For example: all recruited businesses had to be sampled within the one-week programme due to the resources available to the project (e.g. sorting site availability) and the timescale of the research; the maximum amount of time had to be left between when the waste was last collected and when the sample was collected (i.e. to generate the maximum number of days worth of waste). Only one visit per business could be made, so where recycling and mixed waste were collected on different days the priority had to be the mixed waste; due to the wide geographical spread, waste from businesses in close proximity to each other was collected together in order to minimise travel time; and only three or four premises could be scheduled for the same collection due to the limited payload of the collection vehicle. Waste could not be compacted as it had to be hand-sorted later. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 25

28 Because it was not possible to prioritise all criteria, compromises were made on the number and weight of samples collected. Additional vehicles and sampling crews were allocated to the project to help increase the overall weight of material collected, in an attempt to mitigate some of the issues raised during the early audits. Despite these efforts, two issues influenced the quality of the data collected. 1. Some samples only represented between one and three days worth of waste. This was a result of scheduling constraints or incorrect information being provided by the business about collection days/times during the on-site interview. Although this factor was corrected for when scaling up, some types of waste could have been missed if they are only generated on specific days of the week. 2. As the sample of businesses was selected at random using the sampling framework, there were occasions where only a small amount of waste was produced, particularly by small or remote businesses. Although it is correct that these businesses were included, it does mean that a smaller amount of waste has been analysed, increasing sample errors Off-site sorting and analysis of waste On arrival at the waste sorting facility, each waste stream (i.e. residual waste, organic waste and recyclable waste) from each business was emptied onto the floor, weighed and then placed onto a 10mm sorting screen for hand-sorting. Each waste stream from each business was processed separately. The material was hand-sorted by a team of around five people into the 37 categories listed in Table 10. Once sorted, the weight of each waste material was recorded and it was then disposed of or recycled as appropriate. The waste was not returned to the participating business. Apart from kitchen waste, the waste sorting categories shown in Table 8 are standard material categories used in other sort and weigh waste composition projects. This approach means that the results can be readily compared and could also be easily recoded into the Substance Oriented Category (SOC) list and European Waste Catalogue (EWC) list if required. 32 During waste category development, two factors were identified by WRAP as important for the classification of food waste whether the waste was avoidable/unavoidable and whether the waste was in packaging or loose in the waste container (packaged/non-packaged). The use of these categories will provide an indication of the opportunities for both the prevention of avoidable food waste and the level of pre-treatment required to remove packaging prior to processing in composting/digestion facilities. Food/kitchen waste was separated into one of the four following categories: packaged avoidable kitchen waste: food waste which could be avoided and was contained inside packaging, e.g. a packet of frozen beef burgers, a packet of frozen peas and a bag of whole potatoes; packaged unavoidable kitchen waste: food waste which could not be avoided and was contained inside packaging, e.g. an apple core put into some empty packaging for disposal (in practice, this classifier was very unlikely to occur and is not recommended for future studies); non-packaged avoidable: food waste which could be avoided and was not contained inside any packaging, e.g. food scrapings from a half-finished meal or a half-eaten pizza; and non-packaged unavoidable: food waste which could not be avoided and not contained inside any packaging, e.g. a banana skin or melon rind. Waste disposed to sewer was not included in the study. 32 Both of these are waste classification systems used in the EU. The UK has to report data to the European Commission based on these categories, so it is important that information is available in this format if required. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 26

29 Table 10 Waste categories used for compositional analysis Primary category Secondary category 1.1 Newspaper, magazines, catalogues & other recyclable paper 1 Paper 1.2 Paper packaging 1.3 Non-recyclable paper 2.1 Liquid cartons 2 Card 2.2 Board packaging 2.3 Card packaging 2.4 Other card 3.1 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles 3.2 High-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bottles 3 Dense plastic 3.3 Other plastic bottles 3.4 Other dense plastic packaging 3.5 Other dense plastic 4 Plastic film 4.1 Plastic film 4.2 Carrier bags 5 Textiles 5.1 All textiles 6.1 Green glass bottles and jars 6 Glass 6.2 Clear glass bottles and jars 6.4 Brown glass bottles and jars 6.3 Other glass 7 Miscellaneous combustibles 7.1 All miscellaneous combustibles 8 Miscellaneous non-combustibles 8.1 All miscellaneous non-combustibles 9.1 Ferrous food and beverage cans 9 Ferrous metal 9.2 Ferrous aerosol 9.3 Other ferrous metal 10.1 Non-ferrous food and beverage cans 10 Non-ferrous metal 10.2 Foil 10.3 Non-ferrous aerosol 10.4 Other non-ferrous metal 11 Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) 11.1 All WEEE 12 Hazardous waste, batteries and clinical waste 12.1 All hazardous waste, batteries and clinical waste 13 Garden waste 13.1 All garden waste 14.1 Packaged avoidable 14 Kitchen (food) waste 14.2 Packaged unavoidable 14.3 Non-packaged avoidable 14.4 Non-packaged unavoidable 15 Fines 15.1 Fines (<10mm) 16 Liquids 16.1 Liquids (including oil) The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 27

30 For all the waste categories listed in Table 10, standard waste-sorting practices and quality control procedures were employed. For example: waste materials were separated into their material parts, e.g. an empty cereal box would be separated into plastic film and card packaging; where two materials were inseparable (or composite), the item was allocated to the material category contributing the main weight (the exception to this rule was packaged food waste which was always classified as kitchen waste); liquids in containers were separated and weighed separately, e.g. where a full bottle of cola was identified, the liquid was emptied into a separate container and weighed separately from the plastic bottle; materials which could not be clearly allocated into an appropriate material category, or were unidentifiable by material type, were categorised based on whether or not the majority of the material would combust and were allocated to either the miscellaneous combustible or the miscellaneous non-combustible category; material falling through the 10mm screen was classified as fines whilst material was passed over and sorted on top of the screen, no material was forced through the screen holes or passed over the screen indefinitely until the material fell through; prior to weighing each sorted material category, the contents of the container were checked by the site supervisor and any incorrectly sorted material was removed and placed into an appropriate container; when weighing each sorting container, the container including the contents was weighed, the contents were removed and then the container without the contents was weighed again to provide an accurate sample weight; and the weighing scales were regularly checked with a known weight to ensure consistency in the weights displayed Final sampling for waste audits Figure 3 shows the location of the 139 businesses that were visited during the waste audits and Table 11 shows the number of businesses sampled, by subsector and UK nation. Figure 3 Final waste audit business locations The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 28

31 Table 11 Final number of businesses sampled during the waste audit exercise Subsector England Scotland Wales N. Ireland Total Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Total Whilst there is an underlying assumption that the country location itself should not be a sampling criterion, i.e. a pub in England with a similar business profile to one in Wales will have the same waste generation characteristics, a reasonable cross-section of premises is included in the sample. Table 12 shows the weight of all material hand-sorted from each sampled waste type. Given the budget and logistical constraints highlighted previously (e.g. see Section ), emphasis was placed on collecting as much residual waste as possible. Waste consisting of a single material was recorded but not taken for sorting (e.g. cooking oil). Table 12 Total weight (kg) of samples collected and hand-sorted Material Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Total Brown glass Card Clear glass Co-mingled Food Green glass Metal Mixed glass Mixed plastic Paper & card Paper Mixed waste for disposal 3,031 2,471 2,193 4,211 11,906 Total 4,261 2,957 2,465 4,691 14, Calculating the composition of mixed waste This section describes the calculations that were made to generate estimates of the amount of waste produced by each sampled business per year and overall. Table 8 above has summarised the number of recycling samples achieved by the end of the project, whilst the logistical constraints of waste collection have been described in Section Given the emphasis of the research on the mixed waste stream going for disposal, a relatively small number of samples were taken of waste set out for recycling, so the decision was taken not to use recycling data from the waste audits in any subsequent calculations. Future studies should consider whether it is worth collecting any recycling samples if data on total amounts exists, as in this case. From the compositional analysis work described in Section 2.5.4, an estimate was derived of the proportion of the mixed waste accounted for by each waste material. Appendix B provides summary figures from this dataset (e.g. mean and standard deviation); these are based on the observed composition of mixed waste measured at each business. The data shown in Appendix B is not normalised to variables that will affect the quantity of waste produced, e.g. number of days trading each year and how many days worth of waste the sample represented. A number of steps were required to normalise this data into an annual estimate of the total amount of mixed waste by material component. The following section describes the calculations required to do this, together with a The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 29

32 worked example. The likely sources of error introduced with these calculation steps are also highlighted. The end product of these calculations is a typical composition of mixed waste for each subsector Estimating the total quantity of mixed waste each year During the waste audit, information originally collected in the survey was confirmed, i.e. the number of waste containers at the premises and their capacity. In addition, information was collected on how full they were on the day of the audit and the number of days worth of waste they contained on the day of collection. In cases where it was logistically impossible to take away all of the waste available, the approximate volume of the sample was recorded at the site. Each sample of mixed waste taken away for analysis was weighed in its entirety at the sort site to establish its weight accurately. Where some of the waste available was not sampled (see Table 9 on page 25), a bulk density factor was applied to the estimated volume of the uncollected waste. These bulk density factors were calculated from the sample that was taken away by dividing the known weight by the estimated volume to obtain kg per litre. This factor was then applied to the unsampled waste. Appendix E provides the average bulk densities for mixed waste and Section 5.5 compares these figures with those generated from previous studies. This approach enabled an estimate to be made of the weight of mixed waste produced per day on each sampled premises. During the telephone survey, businesses were asked how many days a year they typically trade. This was then applied to the weight per day for each waste stream to estimate weight generated per year. A worked example of the calculation steps is shown in Table 13 below. Table 13 Calculating weight per year for a sample of mixed (residual) waste from one premises worked example Stage in the calculation Result Source of information a. Container type Continental Site audit visual inspection b. Container capacity 1280l Site audit visual inspection c. Number of containers 3 Site audit visual inspection d. Fullness Container 1 90% Container 2 80% Container 3 20% Site audit visual inspection e. Total waste on-site on day of audit 2432l (90% of 1280l= 1152) + (80% of 1280l = 1024) + (20% of 1280l = 256) f. Number of days worth of waste 2 Site audit interview g. Volume of waste sampled 2000l Recorded during waste collection where not all of the waste could be taken for logistical reasons h. Weight of sample taken 190kg Recorded on delivery to sort site i. Bulk density (kg per litre) 0.095kg per litre h g j. Weight per day sampled waste 95kg h f k. Weight per day unsampled waste 20.52kg (e g) x i 2 ( ) x l. Weight per day total waste kg j + k m. Number of days trading per year 342 From telephone survey n. Total weight of waste per year 39,508kg or 39.5 tonnes l. x m for tonnes There are several likely sources of error associated with this approach. 1. The sample of waste collected for waste composition analysis is unlikely to have been representative of the waste produced over the whole course of the year. Resource constraints meant that this research could not address seasonal, week-on-week or day-by-day variations in waste production. 2. It assumes that all types of waste produced over the course of a year were available on the day of the site audit. Feedback on bulky waste has suggested this is not the case and common sense would indicate that The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 30

33 this will be the same with other one-off waste streams or wastes generated as a result of unusual events. Again, resource constraints did not permit return visits and previous disappointing experiences with asking for this kind of information in questionnaires meant that we deliberately did not cover this in the telephone survey. 3. Although applying the bulk density factor derived from the sampled waste to the unsampled waste in any particular company is probably robust, there is evidence from the study that bulk densities varied quite significantly between apparently similar establishments. 4. The calculation above relies on a visual estimate of how full a bin was. Whilst a full container should be relatively consistent, estimates of less than 100% are subject to variations in judgement. 5. Where information was missing on the number of days trading each year, 365 days was assumed. This assumption was applied in 13 of the 138 audited businesses. This is expected to be a relatively small overestimate as just over 70% of audited businesses reported more than 350 days trading per year. 6. Number of days trading per year was calculated from two questions in the telephone survey how many days a week the establishment trades and how many weeks per year it trades, divided into five bands each of ten weeks (0-9, 10-19, etc.) and one band of 49+. The midpoint of each band was taken and multiplied by the number of days per week. This introduced a degree of inaccuracy but it is not thought to be significant. 7. The research has not accounted for different business opening hours; this was not asked about in the questionnaire nor during the site audit, so we have had to assume that all businesses within each subsector are open for the same number of hours each year. 8. It proved very difficult to get an accurate measure of the number of days worth of waste in the container. In large hotels, for example, waste arises in different departments at different times and is brought to the containers at different times, with the result that no one person in the organisation has a clear knowledge of timescales. This was also different for different waste streams because they were often collected on different days. All days worth of waste figures have been rounded up for consistency; e.g. if the audit took place on a Friday at and the normal collection was on a Monday at 16.00, this would be counted as four days worth of waste Calculating the overall composition of mixed waste for each subsector After estimating the total amount of mixed waste produced by an individual business each year, the next step was to translate individual business data into a typical composition of mixed waste for each subsector. This was required for estimates of UK mixed waste composition (see Section 2.7). The weight of individual material components of the mixed waste was firstly summed across each subsector (e.g. the quantity of ferrous metal cans from hotel 1 s mixed waste was added to that appearing in the mixed waste in hotel 2, 3, 4 and so on). This calculation was repeated for each material type. The percentage that each material makes up of the total mixed waste in each subsector was calculated by dividing the total for each material by the total for the subsector as a whole. Because these estimates are based on the annualised data for each business, they are subject to the same sources of error highlighted in Section above. Confidence intervals have been calculated for this data and are included in Annex B. It should be borne in mind that these intervals reflect sampling error and not the other types of error described above. 2.7 Generating UK estimates of mixed waste quantity and composition One of the principal objectives of the research was to produce reliable estimates of the waste arising from the UK hospitality sector. The waste audit work described in Section 2.5 resulted in 138 snapshot observations of the composition of mixed waste across four subsectors across the UK. This is a relatively small number of samples but it was all that was affordable within the timescale. Throughout the research it was accepted that it would be difficult to generate reliable national estimates of waste production based on this size of sample, but that the samples would provide usable information on waste composition in combination with national data from much larger sampling programmes on the amount of each type of waste generated. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 31

34 The original intention was to take published data on the amount of mixed waste produced by the hospitality sector in each of the four countries of the UK and apply typical composition figures from this research to it. This approach proved over-simplistic because: not all of the nations could provide data in suitable form; each nation s definition of the hospitality sector and of mixed waste was slightly different; and the quality and timeliness of the surveys varied. This section describes how UK estimates for the composition of mixed waste were calculated using a combination of the waste audit data (see Section 2.5), existing industrial and commercial waste datasets, and ONS population numbers for the hospitality subsectors of interest. Figure 4 summarises the datasets used and a more detailed description of each calculation step is given in the following sections. Figure 4 Summary of the datasets used to estimate UK hospitality mixed waste composition (hotels are used as an example of one of the four sub-sectors in the research) The total amount of mixed waste the choice of the Defra dataset A number of large-scale surveys have been undertaken in the UK to provide estimates of industrial and commercial waste. The most recent surveys are set out in Table 14. The data from the most recent Defra survey was selected as the most appropriate to be used in this research. National and regional surveys of industrial and commercial waste tend to follow similar methodologies. The sampling framework is generally based on industry type (SIC) and employee numbers to generate a matrix of all the relevant business sites. This data is typically obtained from the ONS, although alternatives such as the ellow Pages Business Database have also been used. A random sample is then taken within each stratum of the matrix. The level of required statistical accuracy is sometimes set out in advance and the number of samples determined to meet this requirement. For other surveys, sample size is dictated by available resources. To calculate overall estimates, average waste per business is calculated for each cell in the matrix. This is then multiplied by the total number of businesses within that cell. All the cells are then summed to produce an estimate of total arisings and outliers are added to the total. For empty cells (i.e. no business sampled), average data from neighbouring cells is commonly used. Where a survey has made an assessment of mixed waste The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 32

35 composition, normally through asking the respondent to estimate a typical composition, proportions are also taken from the sample for each cell and applied to the estimated cell total. Surveys can be undertaken by telephone, post or, more recently, by or using the Internet. The preference is for site visits where the surveyor will meet with the business person responsible for waste management, but not all funders have been able to meet the costs of doing so and as a result have had to rely on postal or telephone surveying. For surveys based on-site visits, estimates of annual waste arisings are based on company records or a visual survey of the containers. The degree of accuracy reported for the surveys assumes that any variation of the estimate from the true figure is due only to sample size and that each survey response is an accurate assessment of annual arisings. Table 14 Summary of the four national industrial and commercial waste datasets that were candidates for use in this research Country Funder Date Notes on methodology Defra via the Environment Agency 2002/03 Of smaller sample size than the previous 1998/99 national industrial and commercial waste survey (and therefore suffered from broader limits in terms of data confidence), but used a robust and statistically valid sampling strategy based on the 1998/99 survey, which has been used in other more recent surveys. Generated from face to-face surveys of companies selected from a developed sample frame. The most dated of all the surveys. England Defra 2010 Used a similar sampling strategy to the 2002/03 survey but a wider variety of data sources, with just over half of the data records coming from face-to-face interviews and the rest from a mixture of telephone interviews, corporate data and Pollution Prevention Control (PPC) data. The data collected was combined with that gathered from a separate survey for the North West region. No 0-4 employee size-band businesses were surveyed. They were estimated using the 0-4:5-9 ratio from the 2002/03 survey which was then applied to the 5-9 size-band 2010 estimates. This is the most up-to-date dataset in the UK. Scotland Scottish Government via the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) 2006 Postal and internet survey with telephone chase-up, with a response rate of 16.9%. Companies with more than 50 staff were mailed. Wales Welsh Assembly Government via Environment Agency Wales 2007 Sampling strategy based on a developed sample frame with pre -defined confidence limits in the data obtained and grossed up. Predominantly face to face survey of 1500 companies. Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Department of the Environment 2004/05 Postal and electronic survey with a 17% response rate. Some face-toface visits to larger companies. Companies of 10 employees or less were not surveyed. Data for the hospitality subsectors of interest from each of the four UK national datasets was requested from the respective funders. Specifically, the data required was individual, anonymised business survey returns crossreferenced with employee size-bands and the specific hospitality SIC subcode. Employee data was captured as part of the waste audit process and this allowed application of the waste composition data to the sample frameworks used in the national datasets. This data could then be placed into current estimates of hospitality sector population figures (e.g. the number of hotels of a given size in Scotland) and then scaled up. The following is a summary of what was provided and how it was subsequently used. England (1) As the most up-to-date, the Defra 2010 survey was the most appropriate to use. The data for businesses within Hotels and Catering was used but subsectors such as campsites which were not covered by this research were removed leaving a sample of 249 businesses. Like all the datasets considered, this still left some of the size-bands for some of the subsectors unrepresented. The data was obtained from Defra. As mentioned, the Defra 2010 survey omitted the 0-4 size-band. An estimate was provided using the Defra 2003 ratio of the average weight of 0-4 size-band businesses to the 5-9 size-band companies (which was around 15%). This ratio was then applied to the Defra size-band average weight to obtain a 0-4 size-band estimate. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 33

36 (2) The data from the 2002/03 England survey was obtained directly from the Environment Agency. The 2002/03 Environment Agency survey for England included 153 businesses in the hospitality sector of which 132 were from the subsectors of interest. Scotland SEPA provided detailed survey returns from their 2006 survey for 264 businesses from the hospitality subsectors of interest. Following provisional analysis (see Section 2.7.4), the average amount of waste per business was significantly higher than from the Environment Agency dataset. Because time and resources meant further investigation of the differences was not possible, and because the Scottish survey had not been able to use the preferred face-to-face method, it was decided not to use the dataset any further. Wales Provisional enquiries with the Welsh Assembly Government identified that SIC codes 55 (Accommodation) and 56 (Food Services) were grouped together, which meant the level of detail obtained from the waste composition work could not be matched up. For this reason it was decided not to use the Welsh data any further. Northern Ireland The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment provided data from its 2004/05 survey. The data for the appropriate SIC codes was commonly recorded as waste volumes rather than weights, which would have required recalculating weights from volume data. More significantly, there appeared to be a number of discrepancies in the volume figures. It was therefore decided not to use the Northern Ireland data any further. Three of the national datasets are considered further the Defra 2010 survey, the Environment Agency survey from 2002/03, and the SEPA 2006 survey. For the SEPA dataset, the business averages are considered in Section but then it is not used further The total number of hospitality businesses the ONS data To scale up the findings, a hospitality business population database was required. This research has used the hospitality industry database Caterlyst (see Section 2.4). Most national surveys of industrial and commercial waste use ONS data on the number of businesses for a given SIC code and geographical area. There are pros and cons with both databases, but of principal concern at this point in the project was providing national waste estimates that would be replicable in the future. For these reasons, it was decided to use ONS figures in the calculation of UK figures. The total UK hospitality sector according to ONS data (March 2009) is shown in 0. The ONS data is based on Value Added Tax (VAT) and Pay As ou Earn (PAE) returns and is unlikely to pick up smaller businesses such as bed & breakfasts. According to the ONS, over 70% of the businesses in the sector have fewer than 10 employees, with less than 3% of businesses having 50 employees or more. It should be noted that the smallest size-band in the table is a combination of the ONS 0-4 and 5-9 groups as different surveys use slightly different groupings and 0-9 captures all of these. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 34

37 Table 15 ONS individual site count of hospitality businesses in the UK for the four subsectors of interest (March 2009) by size-band (number of employees) 33 Subsector Total Hotels ,290 Pubs 33, ,270 QSRs 27, ,040 Restaurants 29, ,350 Total 96, , Assessing the suitability and compatibility of the different datasets The next step was to compare the sample distribution of the four datasets under review (Defra, Environment Agency, SEPA and WRAP waste audits) using the sample framework in 0. The data from all the surveys could be fitted into a standard framework. In general, the distributions across the sample framework are relatively even across the datasets. As is commonly observed with industrial and commercial waste studies, all have fairly sparse coverage of the larger companies; this is particularly the case for the WRAP waste audits due to the failed reliance on corporate datasets for the larger companies. However, given that the vast majority of businesses in the sector have less than 50 employees, it is not thought to be a significant issue. For the whole hospitality sector, a sample approaching 400 would be required to achieve a confidence interval of +/-5% at 95%. Using a stratified random sampling method, the required sample would be in excess of 2000 businesses. None of the surveys has sufficient sample sizes within the hospitality sector to produce estimates to this degree of confidence. Further, the different survey methods employed are likely to introduce different types and levels of error that produce different estimates. It is therefore important to bear in mind that the estimates quoted here should be regarded as indicative The average amount of mixed waste per company To calculate UK estimates, a figure for the average quantity of mixed waste per company was required from the national data for each subsector and employee size-band. Since the reliability of this figure has a very significant impact when grossing up to UK estimates, before going ahead the average amounts of total waste from the Defra, Environment Agency and SEPA datasets were reviewed. The average total waste per company from the WRAP waste audit data (for total waste, not just residual waste) is also shown in 0 for comparative purposes only; it was not intended to be used for scaling up. 33 The distribution of hospitality businesses in the ONS data is different to that observed in the Caterlyst database. This is because the data is collected and categorised differently; see section The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 35

38 Table 16 The average waste per company (tonnes per year) by subsector and employee size-band from the three datasets available for this study (WRAP data for comparative purposes only) Size band Dataset Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants WRAP Environment Agency Defra SEPA WRAP Environment Agency Defra SEPA WRAP Environment Agency Defra 40 67* SEPA WRAP Environment Agency Defra * 118* SEPA WRAP Environment Agency Defra SEPA WRAP Environment Agency Defra 614* 17* SEPA * Analysis of the Defra dataset showed some anomalies that only appear when analysing the data at a subsector level. As such, survey data from six businesses was removed from these cells for the subsequent scale-up and analysis. Of particular note in 0 is the lack of consistency in the average quantity of mixed waste produced across the majority of subsector samples. Waste quantities generally increase as the method of estimation moves away from on-site collection of waste (as in the WRAP waste audits), to site visits (Defra and Environment Agency) and finally to postal returns (SEPA). Of the 45 compared observations, only one (restaurants, size band 1-9 in the Environment Agency sample) is within 10% of the WRAP waste audit estimates. There is also a similar lack of consistency between the Environment Agency and SEPA samples. However, the Defra and Environment Agency results are very broadly similar, possibly reflecting the similar method adopted in these studies. Following provisional grossing up using the SEPA data for Scotland, the analysis confirmed that it would produce a significantly larger total waste figure (approximately 65% higher) when compared to using averages from the Environment Agency and Defra datasets. Therefore, despite the larger sample size in the SEPA survey, the decision was taken to use the average waste per business from the Defra 2010 study for all UK nations with one significant adjustment. As mentioned, to provide an estimate for the 0-4 size-band, the Defra 2010 study used the ratio of the average weights of 0-4:5-9 size-bands from the 2002/03 and applied these to the Defra results. The ratio was around 15%. However, the WRAP dataset provides a more up to date picture with a ratio a little over 51%. This compares with the SEPA data ratio of 55%. Given the more recent nature of the WRAP data and the approximate agreement with the SEPA data, the 51% ratio of 0-4:5-9 weight was used to scale up. The subsequent estimated average waste for the 1-9 size-band was different for each of the four UK nations reflecting the different proportions of companies in the two smallest size-bands. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 36

39 2.7.5 Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates of total waste To gross up the Defra 2010 data, it is necessary to calculate the average waste per company for each cell in the sample framework. For some cells in the framework, no businesses were sampled so an estimate was calculated using samples from the surrounding cells. To do this the average weight per employee of the sampled cells was calculated and applied to the non-sampled cell and the relevant employee size-band (using the mid-point). This was carried out using the total waste from the Defra 2010 survey data and the number of businesses surveyed for each cell (i.e. each size-band and subsector). Table 17 shows the average waste per employee for each cell using the mid-point of the employee size-band, with the exception of 250+ employees where 250 was used. In general, businesses with fewer employees produce more waste per employee, suggesting economies of scale with respect to waste production. For cells with missing data (e.g. QSRs, shaded grey cells in Table 17), average waste per employee was assumed that broadly reflected the trends in the data from the other sectors. Figures are rounded to one decimal place. Table 17 The average total waste per employee (tonnes per year) using Defra data by size-band mid-point (cells shaded grey denote missing survey data) Employee size-band mid-point Sector Hotels Restaurants QSRs Pubs The completion of the missing cells above produced the average waste figures in Table 18 for each cell in the framework. Table 18 Average total waste per company for each sample cell (tonnes per year) Employee size-band Sector Hotels Restaurants QSRs Pubs The total waste produced in the UK hospitality sector was estimated by multiplying the total number of hospitality businesses in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from ONS data (March 2009) with estimates of total waste per business, as shown in Table 18. This provided a grossed-up total waste figure for each subsector, size-band and nation Gross up methodology for UK waste estimates of total mixed waste and its composition The next calculation step was to define the proportion of the total waste figure in Table 18 which comprises mixed (residual) waste. The Defra 2010 dataset uses Substance-Oriented Codes (SOCs) from the European Waste Catalogue, which includes a mixed waste category. The amount of mixed waste not composted, recycled or reused was expressed as a proportion of the total amount of waste for each subsector. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 37

40 A similar calculation was carried out to provide the summary recycling/reuse figures in Section 3.4 by combining waste tonnages classified as recycled and reused and expressing this as a proportion of total waste within the Defra data. 34 The mixed waste composition data from the WRAP waste audits carried out as part of this project was then applied to the corresponding grossed-up mixed waste tonnages to estimate the quantity of each waste material in the UK hospitality sector s mixed waste going for disposal. It has been assumed that the total waste per business (by subsector and size-band) and the ratio of mixed waste to total waste from the Defra 2010 dataset of hospitality businesses in England is representative of UK businesses as a whole. Additionally, because of the relatively small sample size the annualised mixed waste composition data from the WRAP waste audits was calculated at the subsector level (rather than by employee size-band within a given subsector), so it has been assumed that the proportion of mixed waste is the same across all the employee size-bands for a given subsector that were subsequently used in the grossing-up procedure. Whilst the WRAP waste audits took place across the UK (see Figure 3 ), there were insufficient samples across the four subsectors to apply individual composition data for each individual UK nation. We have therefore assumed that the composition of mixed waste is the same in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Confidence intervals have not been calculated for the tonnage data. This is because it proved statistically difficult to combine several sources of error together into one measure of error in the time available. A further study will be carried out to derive estimates of the error associated with the tonnage data reported here. 2.8 Calculating carbon 35 benefits of preventing, recycling and recovering waste This section outlines the approach taken to estimating the carbon benefits of preventing, recycling and recovering hospitality sector waste, focusing on: the CO 2 equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) associated with the dominant waste streams currently going to landfill; and the potential carbon savings to be made through prevention, recovery or recycling of them. WRAP has been unable to find much information on the environmental impacts of out-of-home eating. For this reason this report uses data on in-home eating combined with an estimate of in-school eating, although it is recognised that there will be differences, particularly in the transport impacts, but currently these cannot be quantified Carbon savings from food waste recovery Best available evidence suggests that 0.5 tonnes of CO 2 e emissions are generated for every tonne of food waste currently sent for disposal; this could be saved if the waste was diverted into AD. 36 To calculate the total amount of CO 2 e that could be saved if food waste was diverted to AD the total amount of food waste being disposed of was multiplied by Carbon savings from food waste prevention Best available evidence indicates that 4.2 tonnes of CO 2 e emissions are produced for each tonne of food disposed. 36 This estimate includes emissions from food production, transport and food waste disposal. The factors were then multiplied by the total amount of food waste produced to generate estimates of the savings that could be realised if the waste was prevented. 34 In addition to composting, recycled and reused, the other disposal routes used in the Defra dataset were landfill, thermal treatment, transfer, other treatment and unknown. It is likely that an unknown proportion of the waste classified as transfer may subsequently have gone on to be recycled. 35 By carbon we mean CO 2 equivalent emissions. Factors for converting tonnages to CO 2e are generated by WRAP based on best available evidence. Factors are regularly reviewed. The most up to date set of factors can be provided on request from evaluation@wrap.org.uk. 36 WRAP (2010) Waste Arisings in the Supply of Food and Drink to Households in the UK WRAP: Banbury The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 38

41 2.8.3 Carbon savings from preventing and recycling key waste streams The carbon benefits of recycling derive from avoided raw material use, assuming that recycled material replaces virgin raw material. Table 19 shows the factors that have been used for preventing and recycling one tonne of the key materials. These were then multiplied by the amount of each material sent to landfill to generate estimates of the carbon that could be saved if the materials were diverted to recycling. Table 19 Tonnes of CO 2 e emissions saved as a result of preventing and recycling one tonne of waste 37 Material Tonnes of CO 2e emissions saved from waste prevention Tonnes of CO 2e emissions saved from recycling Glass Average board Wrapping papers Dense plastic Plastic film Calculating cost savings from preventing and recovering food waste This section sets out the approach to quantifying, in monetary terms, the impact of the avoidable food waste. This is done from two perspectives: 1. looking at the costs of food purchased and then wasted; and 2. looking at the costs of food waste disposal. Costs associated with packaging have not been calculated on the basis that they generally cannot be avoided by the hospitality business Potential cost savings from reduced food purchasing If the wasted food could in some way be prevented, for example through better planning and storage, it would avoid the need to purchase new food. This is admittedly a simplistic approach as not all avoided food waste will avoid additional purchasing; if diners could be persuaded to avoid leaving food on their plates, for example, this would not avoid additional purchasing. Since this study was not able to distinguish between food waste that would and would not avoid additional purchasing if prevented, we have made a simple assumption that all prevented food waste would avoid additional purchasing. There are some elements of food waste that are unavoidable, for example peelings and bones. Unavoidable food waste has not been included in the weight of food that is potentially preventable although it will be included in the weight of food purchased. This will lead to an underestimate of the cost of disposing of avoidable food waste. No published information on the commercial costs of food in hospitality could be identified. However two studies were found which were felt to bear some relevance to the sector and the mean cost per tonne was calculated from them. The first is a study on the cost of food and drink wasted in the home states that the wasted food and drink costs 2,264 a tonne to buy 38 and the second is a study on food waste in schools from which it can be calculated that the food purchased to make school dinners costs 1,152 a tonne. 39 The mean cost of buying the food and drink that goes on to be wasted is therefore 1,708 a tonne. Due to the very obvious differences 37 Figures taken from source data within WRAP (2011) Methodology for assessing the climate change impacts of packaging optimisation under the Courtauld Commitment Phase WRAP (2009) Household food and drink waste in the UK WRAP: Banbury 39 School Food Trust (2007) School meal provision in England and other Western countries: a review The figures quoted here have been derived from the figures stated in the report, converting to tonnes and taking the average of the costs in the four UK nations. More information is provided in Appendix H. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 39

42 between school dinners, in-home dinners and meals provided by the hospitality industry, and the underestimation introduced by including the costs of purchasing unavoidable parts of food items, this figure should be regarded as at best indicative of likely costs. Further research would be needed to generate a more precise estimate Potential cost savings from reduced food waste disposal If food waste is prevented from occurring, the total cost of disposing of waste will be avoided. However, if food waste is diverted to AD there will still be costs to the business so it is important that only the net savings are considered. Typical haulage costs for food waste in the mixed waste are around 15 per tonne, accounting for a range of different transport methods and distances. There are some potential additional costs from diverting food waste to AD because separately collected food waste is more likely to require bulking up before onwards transport for processing compared to mixed waste which tends to be collected in bulk in refuse collection vehicles and delivered direct to landfill. Typical costs of transferring waste after bulking up are 7-10 a tonne; this report assumes the higher value. There will also be some savings. A typical cost per tonne of disposing of food waste to landfill is 78, including gate fee and landfill tax, while diversion to AD is currently 57 per tonne. 40 Food waste recovery via AD may therefore save around 21 per tonne. The on-going increases in landfill will make the difference between these two options more extreme as time goes on Total potential cost savings from preventing food waste Cost savings resulting from preventing food waste occurring in the first place are therefore: avoided cost of purchasing food ( 1,708 a tonne); plus avoided cost of haulage ( 15 a tonne for waste going to landfill or 25 for waste going to AD); plus avoided cost of disposal ( 78 a tonne for waste going to landfill or 57 a tonne for waste going to AD); making a total cost saving of between 1,790 to 1,801 depending on whether the waste would have otherwise gone to landfill or AD 41 Given the uncertainties in the numbers we have assumed a typical cost saving of 1,800 per tonne of food waste Total potential cost savings from diverting waste away from landfill to AD By simply diverting waste to AD purchase costs are not avoided so the savings to be considered are those from avoided landfill costs alone. Assuming that costs and savings are passed on by the waste management company to the business, diverting food waste to AD could result in the following cost savings: an additional haulage cost of 10 a tonne; minus avoided cost of landfill disposal of 21 a tonne; making a total cost saving of 11 a tonne. 40 WRAP(2010) Comparing the Costs of Alternative Waste Treatment Options Banbury: WRAP 41 Costs savings that may result from avoided preparation time have not been included here so the real cost savings may be higher. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 40

43 2.10 The remainder of the report The rest of this report presents the results of the work and the conclusions and recommendations derived from them. Chapter 3 The waste produced by the UK hospitality industry: what we know about the waste generated by the hospitality sector as a result of this project, with emphasis on mixed waste and its composition; Chapter 4 Waste management practices of the hospitality sector: what we know about the waste management practices of the sector as a result of the telephone survey that was part of the project; Chapter 5 Implications of the study for future research into industrial and commercial waste: what we have learned about quantifying waste as a result of this study of the hospitality sector; Chapter 6 Conclusions. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 41

44 3.0 The waste disposed of by the UK hospitality industry 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents what we know about the waste generated by the hospitality sector as a result of this project. To re-emphasise, the scope of the hospitality sector for the purposes of this study includes: the profit sector, i.e. hotels, pubs, QSRs and restaurants; and excludes: canteens, cafés and other catering establishments that are situated in other organisations (sometimes referred to as the cost sector);and the leisure sub-sector including self-catering profit establishments such as caravan sites and holiday cottages. The chapter is broken down into the following sections: Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are a brief recap on methods and sources of error, referring the reader to the appropriate methodology section for more detail; Section 3.4 provides a summary of the total waste produced by the UK hospitality sector, by subsector and nation, and summary estimates of mixed waste and recycling/reuse; Section 3.5 presents more detailed data on the contents of the mixed (residual) waste stream; Section 3.6 highlights the potential for increased recycling of the contents of the mixed waste stream using existing and also emerging recyclate markets; Section 3.7 looks at the opportunities for carbon savings from recycling more; Section 0 assesses the financial savings that could be made from recycling and reducing waste; and Section 3.9 considers the relationship between the quantity of mixed waste and the number of meals served in order to identify if this would be a useful benchmark for hospitality businesses. 3.2 Recap on methods Chapter 2 sets out in detail the methods used to derive estimates of the quantity and composition of mixed waste going for disposal and outlines the thought process that decided which method would be used. The research uses a combination of industrial and commercial waste data from the recently completed national survey alongside the findings from the compositional analysis of mixed waste from the current study. The value of the compositional analysis is in its depth (e.g. detailed material types) rather than its breadth (e.g. waste over time), whilst the opposite is true for the national waste survey. To summarise, the final method involved the following calculations and assumptions: for each subsector, estimating the typical composition of mixed waste based on a sample of 138 waste audits; and applying the typical composition to the amount of mixed waste produced by UK hospitality businesses, calculated using the Defra 2010 data on average amounts of waste per business and 2009 ONS data on the number of businesses (adjusting the estimate for the 1-9 size-band using the WRAP survey data). 3.3 Recap on sources of error Chapter 2 discusses sources of error in detail. For the purposes of this chapter, it is necessary to bear in mind the following points, which are likely to be significant but were not measured and are not taken into account in the figures presented: respondent error (e.g. people remembering incorrectly); observation error (e.g. inaccuracies associated with estimating how full a container is or its volume); estimation error (e.g. inaccuracies in bulk density factors or in information about the size of the population); and representativity error (e.g. assuming that the sample taken is representative of a whole year s waste). The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry42

45 When grossing up to the sector level, assumptions used can also affect the total. For example, using the same assumption as used in the Defra 2010 survey to produce estimates for the 0-4 size-band reduces the total in this analysis by almost 450,000 tonnes. For these reasons the figures presented in this report should be taken as indicative of the nature and scale of waste produced by the hospitality sector i.e. our current best estimate. Unless stated otherwise, figures in the following tables are rounded. Where averages are presented, it must be remembered that these are statistical averages and are unlikely to reflect the waste produced by any individual company in the real world. Confidence intervals are not presented for reasons given in section 2.7.6, but readers should bear in mind there is likely to be a considerable degree of uncertainty due to the small sample sizes. 3.4 Summary waste estimates for the UK hospitality profit sector Just over 3.4 million tonnes per year of waste is generated by the sector. Just under 1.5 million tonnes (43%) of this is mixed waste that goes for disposal. Just over 1.6 million tonnes (47%) is recycled, reused or composted. 42 Table 20 shows the estimated waste total, mixed (residual) waste and recycled/reused produced by the UK hospitality sector, whilst Table 21 shows the proportions that these represent (which are the same for each of the UK nations due to the method used to generate the data). Most waste destined for disposal will be going to landfill but a small amount will be sent to other options. Waste managed in other ways is mainly spread on land. Table 20 The waste produced by the UK hospitality sector in 2009 by subsector and nation (rounded to the nearest 1000 tonnes) Nation Subsector Total waste England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK Mixed (residual) waste destined for disposal Waste destined for recycling/reuse Non-mixed waste or mixed waste managed in other ways Hotels 370, , ,000 9,000 Pubs 1,376, , , ,000 QSRs 202,000 88, ,000 3,000 Restaurants 894, , ,000 88,000 Subtotal 2,842,000 1,228,000 1,334, ,000 Hotels 27,000 10,000 17,000 1,000 Pubs 89,000 35,000 41,000 12,000 QSRs 11,000 5,000 6,000 0 Restaurants 41,000 21,000 16,000 4,000 Subtotal 168,000 71,000 80,000 17,000 Hotels 76,000 27,000 47,000 2,000 Pubs 112,000 45,000 52,000 15,000 QSRs 23,000 10,000 12,000 0 Restaurants 97,000 49,000 38,000 9,000 Subtotal 308, , ,000 26,000 Hotels 12,000 4,000 8,000 0 Pubs 34,000 14,000 16,000 5,000 QSRs 11,000 5,000 6,000 0 Restaurants 40,000 20,000 16,000 4,000 Subtotal 97,000 43,000 46,000 9,000 Hotels 485, , ,000 11,000 Pubs 1,610, , , ,000 QSRs 246, , ,000 4,000 Restaurants 1,072, , , ,000 UK Total 3,415,000 1,473,000 1,609, , The 9% of waste in the final column is a combination of relatively rare waste types and disposal/treatment routes. The estimates for recycling, reuse and composting are based on proportions taken from the Defra 2010 dataset. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 43

46 Table 21 The proportion of waste from the UK hospitality sector managed by recycling/reuse and treatment/disposal in 2009 Waste management method Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants Recycling and reuse 62.4% 46.7% 54.6% 39.1% Disposal 35.3% 40.1% 43.7% 51.1% Other 2.3% 13.2% 1.7% 9.8% Total % % % % The overall amounts of waste produced that are shown in Table 20 are, to some extent, a reflection of the number of companies in the sector. Table 22 shows the average amount of waste produced per business for each subsector from the Defra 2010 results excluding outliers. This shows that, on average, hotels produce the most waste and pubs the least. Two measures of the average amount of total waste are presented in Table 22. The mean is the most appropriate measure to use when discussing the sector as whole. When looking at the waste that any one company within the sector is most likely to be producing, the median is the most appropriate measure to use. When using the median, though, it should be borne in mind that there will be a few businesses that are producing significantly more than the median amount. Table 22 The total waste produced per company in the UK hospitality sector (tonnes per year) (rounded to the nearest tonne) Total waste Subsector Mean Median Hotels Pubs QSRs Restaurants The composition of mixed (residual) waste produced by the UK hospitality industry Section 3.2 provides a brief recap on methods and should be read before reading this section. Whilst waste audits were carried out across the UK, there was an insufficient number of audits across the four subsectors (see Table 11 on page 29) to calculate individual mixed waste composition data specific to each UK nation. Theoretically, there is little reason why the average composition of mixed waste from a hotel in Wales will be any different to that of a hotel elsewhere in the UK. Limitations of the industrial and commercial waste datasets for individual UK nations also meant that mixed waste data (average per business type and size-band) from the Defra 2010 survey in England were used in all subsequent calculations for each UK nation. However, countryspecific business population numbers (sourced from ONS figures for March 2009) were used in the calculation of national estimates. For the reasons above, only UK estimates for the composition of mixed waste are presented and discussed in the following section. Estimates of the quantity of different materials in the mixed waste stream are calculated for each nation and provided in Appendix A. We suggest that the national tonnages in Appendix A for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are considered as indicative and a best estimate with the tools available. Figures 4-8 provide a summary of the composition of mixed waste from the UK hospitality sector as a whole as well as from the subsectors hotels, pubs, QSRs and restaurants. For clarity, material categories with a relatively low occurrence have been combined as other. 43 The number of mixed waste samples which these figures are based on is provided. 43 Other comprises textiles, miscellaneous combustibles, miscellaneous non-combustibles, ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal, WEEE, hazardous waste (including batteries and clinical waste), garden/green waste, fines (<10mm) and liquids. The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 44

47 Figure 5 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by the hospitality sector (138 samples) in the UK by primary material category Figure 6 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by hotels (35 samples) in the UK by primary material category The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 45

48 Figure 7 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by pubs (29 samples) in the UK by primary material category Figure 8 The composition (%) of mixed (residual) waste disposed of by QSRs (32 samples) in the UK by primary material category The Composition of Waste Disposed of by the UK Hospitality Industry 46