Distinct Urban Mines: Exploiting secondary resources in unique anthropogenic spaces.

Fear of scarcity of resources highlight the need to exploit secondary materials from urban mines in the anthroposphere. Analogous to primary mines rich in one type of material (e.g. copper, gold, etc.), some urban mines are unique/distinct. We introduce, illustrate and discuss the concept of Distinct Urban Mines (DUM). Using the example of a university DUM in the UK, analogous to a primary mine, we illustrate potential product/material yields in respect of size, concentration and spatial location of the mine. Product ownership and replacement cycles for 17 high-value electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) among students showed that 20 tonnes of valuable e-waste were in stockpile in this DUM and a further 87 tonnes would 'soon' be available for exploitation. We address the opportunities and challenges of exploiting DUMs and conclude that they are readily available reservoirs for resource recovery. Two original contributions arise from this work: (i) a novel approach to urban mining with a potential for maximising resource recovery within the anthroposphere is conceptualised; and (ii) previously unavailable data for high-value products for a typical university DUM are presented and analysed.

ICT reuse in socio-economic enterprises.

In Europe, socio-economic enterprises such as charities, voluntary organisations and not-for-profit companies are involved in the repair, refurbishment and reuse of various products. This paper characterises and analyses the operations of socio-economic enterprises that are involved in the reuse of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) equipment. Using findings from a survey, the paper specifically analyses the reuse activities of socio-economic enterprises in the U.K. from which Europe-wide conclusions are drawn. The amount of ICT products handled by the reuse organisations is quantified and potential barriers and opportunities to their operations are analysed. By-products from reuse activities are discussed and recommendations to improve reuse activities are provided. The most common ICT products dealt with by socio-economic enterprises are computers and related equipment. In the U.K. in 2010, an estimated 143,750 appliances were reused. However, due to limitations in data, it is difficult to compare this number to the amount of new appliances that entered the U.K. market or the amount of waste electrical and electronic equipment generated in the same period. Difficulties in marketing products and numerous legislative requirements are the most common barriers to reuse operations. Despite various constraints, it is clear that organisations involved in reuse of ICT could contribute significantly to resource efficiency and a circular economy. It is suggested that clustering of their operations into "reuse parks" would enhance both their profile and their products. Reuse parks would also improve consumer confidence in and subsequently sales of the products. Further, it is advocated that industrial networking opportunities for the exchange of by-products resulting from the organisations' activities should be investigated. The findings make two significant contributions to the current literature. One, they provide a detailed insight into the reuse operations of socio-economic enterprises. Previously unavailable data has been presented and analysed. Secondly, new evidence about the by-products/materials resulting from socio-economic enterprises' reuse activities has been obtained. These contributions add substantially to our understanding of the important role of reuse organisations.

Mobile phone collection, reuse and recycling in the UK.

Mobile phones are the most ubiquitous electronic product on the globe. They have relatively short lifecycles and because of their (perceived) in-built obsolescence, discarded mobile phones represent a significant and growing problem with respect to waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). An emerging and increasingly important issue for industry is the shortage of key metals, especially the types of metals found in mobile phones, and hence the primary aim of this timely study was to assess and evaluate the voluntary mobile phone takeback network in the UK. The study has characterised the information, product and incentives flows in the voluntary UK mobile phone takeback network and reviewed the merits and demerits of the incentives offered. A survey of the activities of the voluntary mobile phone takeback schemes was undertaken in 2008 to: identify and evaluate the takeback schemes operating in the UK; determine the target groups from whom handsets are collected; and assess the collection, promotion and advertising methods used by the schemes. In addition, the survey sought to identify and critically evaluate the incentives offered by the takeback schemes, evaluate their ease and convenience of use; and determine the types, qualities and quantities of mobile phones they collect. The study has established that the UK voluntary mobile phone takeback network can be characterised as three distinctive flows: information flow; product flow (handsets and related accessories); and incentives flow. Over 100 voluntary schemes offering online takeback of mobile phone handsets were identified. The schemes are operated by manufacturers, retailers, mobile phone network service operators, charities and by mobile phone reuse, recycling and refurbishing companies. The latter two scheme categories offer the highest level of convenience and ease of use to their customers. Approximately 83% of the schemes are either for-profit/commercial-oriented and/or operate to raise funds for charities. The voluntary schemes use various methods to collect mobile phones from consumers, including postal services, courier and in-store. The majority of schemes utilise and finance pre-paid postage to collect handsets. Incentives offered by the takeback schemes include monetary payments, donation to charity and entry into prize draws. Consumers from whom handsets and related equipment are collected include individuals, businesses, schools, colleges, universities, charities and clubs with some schemes specialising on collecting handsets from one target group. The majority (84.3%) of voluntary schemes did not provide information on their websites about the quantities of mobile phones they collect. The operations of UK takeback schemes are decentralised in nature. Comparisons are made between the UK's decentralised collection system versus Australia's centralised network for collection of mobile phones. The significant principal conclusions from the study are: there has been a significant rise in the number of takeback schemes operating in the UK since the initial scheme was launched in 1997; the majority of returned handsets seem to be of low quality; and there is very little available information on the quantities of mobile phones collected by the various schemes. Irrespective of their financial motives, UK takeback schemes increasingly play an important role in sustainable waste management by diverting EoL mobile phones from landfills and encouraging reuse and recycling. Recommendations for future actions to improve the management of end-of-life mobile phone handsets and related accessories are made.

Greening academia: use and disposal of mobile phones among university students.

Mobile phones have relatively short lifecycles and are rapidly seen as obsolete by many users within little over a year. However, the reusability of these devices as well as their material composition means that in terms of mass and volume, mobile phones represent the most valuable electronic products that are currently found in large numbers in waste streams. End-of-life mobile phones are a high value (from a reuse and resource perspective), high volume (quantity), low cost (residual monetary value) and transient (short lifecycle) electronic product. There are very large numbers of higher education (mainly university) students in the world--there are>2.4 million in the UK alone, 19 million in Europe and 18.2 million in the USA--and they often replace their mobile phones several times before graduation. Thus, because of the potentially significant environmental and economic impacts, a large scale survey of students at 5 UK universities was conducted to assess the behaviour of students with regard to their use and disposal of mobile phones. Additionally, a small scale trial mobile phone takeback service at one of the universities was carried out. The findings indicate that many students replace their phones at least once a year; replacing broken phones, getting upgrades from network operators, remaining "fashionable" and a desire to have a handset with a longer battery life are the main reasons for such rapid replacement. Almost 60% of replaced phones are not sent to reuse or recycling operations but are stockpiled by students mainly as spare/backup phones. Approximately 61% of students own an extra mobile phone with male students replacing their phones more often than females. In particular, the results highlight the potentially huge stockpile of mobile phones--and consequently valuable supplies of rare metals--being held by the public; we estimate that there are 3.7 million phones stockpiled by students in UK higher education alone (29.3 and 28.1 million stockpiled, respectively, for Europe and USA). Although many students are aware of UK mobile phone takeback services, only a moderate number have previously used the services. Students' recycling of other waste materials such as paper and glass did not have a significant impact on their disposal actions for their unwanted mobile phones, although students who often recycled these waste materials were also the most willing to participate in mobile phone takeback services. Monetary incentives such as cash payments and vouchers have the greatest influence over students' willingness to utilise takeback services, followed by convenience and ease of use of the services. The paper discusses these findings as well as the outcome of the trial mobile phone takeback. It is suggested that universities should partner with established takeback operators to conduct event-based mobile phone takeback services primarily targeting students. Lessons from mobile phone takeback applicable to takeback services for end-of-life gadgets similar to mobile phones are also discussed.

How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes.

This paper presents and critically analyses the current waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management practices in various countries and regions. Global trends in (i) the quantities and composition of WEEE; and (ii) the various strategies and practices adopted by selected countries to handle, regulate and prevent WEEE are comprehensively examined. The findings indicate that for (i), the quantities of WEEE generated are high and/or on the increase. IT and telecommunications equipment seem to be the dominant WEEE being generated, at least in terms of numbers, in Africa, in the poorer regions of Asia and in Latin/South America. However, the paper contends that the reported figures on quantities of WEEE generated may be grossly underestimated. For (ii), with the notable exception of Europe, many countries seem to be lacking or are slow in initiating, drafting and adopting WEEE regulations. Handling of WEEE in developing countries is typified by high rate of repair and reuse within a largely informal recycling sector. In both developed and developing nations, the landfilling of WEEE is still a concern. It has been established that stockpiling of unwanted electrical and electronic products is common in both the USA and less developed economies. The paper also identifies and discusses four common priority areas for WEEE across the globe, namely: (i) resource depletion; (ii) ethical concerns; (iii) health and environmental issues; and (iv) WEEE takeback strategies. Further, the paper discusses the future perspectives on WEEE generation, treatment, prevention and regulation. Four key conclusions are drawn from this review: global amounts of WEEE will continue unabated for some time due to emergence of new technologies and affordable electronics; informal recycling in developing nations has the potential of making a valuable contribution if their operations can be changed with strict safety standards as a priority; the pace of initiating and enacting WEEE specific legislation is very slow across the globe and in some cases non-existent; and globally, there is need for more accurate and current data on amounts and types of WEEE generated.

Estimating the impact of the "digital switchover" on disposal of WEEE at household waste recycling centres in England.

Using Hampshire County Council (HCC) as a case study, this paper evaluates and discusses the estimated impacts of the so-called digital switchover (DSO) (scheduled for 2012 in Hampshire) on Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) in England and the UK. Two public surveys of Hampshire residents were used to collect data on their preparedness for and awareness of the switchover and its implications. The survey also sought to establish the quantities of televisions (TVs) and TV related devices that are ready for the DSO. The quantities of TV and related devices that are likely to be disposed via HCC's collection network have been established and compared to the County's current handling capacities for waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE). Best and worst case potential net disposal scenarios have been established and the latter compared to Government projections. In addition, the potential environmental, logistical, financial and legal impacts of the WEEE arising as a consequence of the switchover have been identified and discussed. The results indicate that the majority of TVs both in Hampshire and the UK are digital ready and that awareness of the switchover is high. In contrast, most recording devices in Hampshire are not ready for the DSO. Awareness of the timeframe of the event remains modest however and about half of Hampshire households were not aware that TV recording devices will be affected by the switchover. A significant proportion of waste TVs and related equipment would be taken to HWRCs in contrast to smaller items such as remote controls that would more likely be disposed with normal household waste. Projected figures for the DSO year show that if Hampshire maintained its current collection capacity for WEEE it would experience a handling shortfall of around ∼100K for TVs and recording devices, respectively. The most important finding of the study is that the UK Government may have substantially underestimated the quantities of TV and related devices that will be disposed during the switchover. The potential impacts for local and national WEEE management have been discussed. The paper concludes by making recommendations to address identified issues.