Here’s how we can increase recycling by Londoners who live in flats

A recycling bin at Wimbledon. Image: Getty.

Declaring a climate emergency – as the London Assembly and mayor of London have done – is an important first step in tackling the emerging environmental catastrophe. But what comes next?

The task ahead of us is so vast and the solutions appear so complex, that individual action alone – whilst incredibly important – won’t come close to solving the issue when systemic change is what’s really needed. We require the corporations that dominate so much of our economy to fundamentally reappraise how they do business – indeed, we all need to reconsider the role that capitalism plays in our climate crisis and how we might rethink what can at present be a destructive correlation between growth and climate breakdown.

With problems (and solutions) so vast, it may feel as though there is little that can be done on a personal or local level that can make a real, tangible and lasting difference. The recent Recycling Week is an opportunity to reflect on how we might bring this sort of change about.

Here in London we lag behind the rest of the country in terms of recycling. According to the latest statistics from DEFRA, 33 per cent of household waste in London is recycled or composted, compared to 43 per cent nationally. Even within London, the rate varies considerably from borough to borough, with recycling much lower in Inner London than Outer London: 14 per cent in Newham, 19 per cent in Westminster and 22 per cent in Lewisham, while Sutton and Bromley both manage 50 per cent, and in Bexley it’s 52 per cent. It’s in no doubt that we can and must do better – but what explains this significant discrepancy?

The London Assembly Environment Committee reported on household recycling in 2017, and found a strong link between the proportion of flats in a borough and the recycling rate. The simple fact is that many flats, and particularly high-rises, were built in such a way that the act of recycling can be inconvenient, particularly for those with mobility issues. The disposal of black bag rubbish, however, is often easy, with many blocks still using bin chutes.


With 50 per cent of London’s housing stock in flats, the difficulties are considerable – but it’s not an excuse not to drive up standards. In the municipality of Milan, where 80 per cent of residents live in flats, recycling rates have improved by 20 percentage points to 54 per cent in the past decade – a direct consequence of introducing better enforcement and food waste separation. This points not only to how we might improve recycling rates with state action, but also how the state might better incentivise individual action.

With London needing to build 65,000 new homes per year – most of which will inevitably be flats – the mayor of London and London boroughs must make sure proper recycling facilities are included in all new build homes. The ,ayor’s new draft London Plan states that developers need to consider how facilities are designed to ensure there is enough space for separate collection of dry recyclables, food waste and other waste.

Providing the space within the building is one thing, but councils also need to work closely with landlords and building managers to make sure the right kind of bins are provided, and residents know their obligations and how to use those facilities. This is an additional problem in London as people tend to move more often than elsewhere, and different boroughs have different recycling policies.

The Government’s proposals to introduce more consistency in household recycling is welcome, and the mayor should push local authorities to go further. Sadiq Khan has called for councils to provide all kerbside properties with six dry recycling streams (glass, cans, paper, card, plastic bottles and mixed plastics) and separate food waste collections by 2020 – but this absolutely must be for all types of property if we are to meet our target of 65 per cent recycling by 2030.

The evidence is that Boroughs can actually save money through this approach: Ealing reportedly saves between £1.7m and £2.3m a year by transferring dry recyclable and food waste recycling out of residual waste. However, the government needs to put its money where its mouth is by providing boroughs with the resources needed to scale up their recycling and collection infrastructure.

We should also be more creative about how we design space for waste and recycling inside the home. Guidelines could set out standard ways for recycling and food waste segregation to be built into new kitchens, which would increase the quality of materials collected and their efficiency for recycling. Too many people are limited to small spaces under sinks, and if we want them to recycle the majority of their refuse then this just isn’t good enough.

Experience has also found that limiting the amount of space for residual waste (i.e. that which isn’t recycled) increases recycling rates, so authorities should be careful not to overprovide wheelie bins for landfill rubbish, so that residents have plenty of space for recycling.

Finally, information is king. Partly due to the inconsistency of services, but also because manufacturers do not always put clear recycling instructions on products, many Londoners report confusion over what they can recycle and how. Clearer labelling must be mandated and regulated by the government. This is particularly crucial for single use products such as wet wipes, which many people don’t realise cannot be recycled, composted or flushed, and as a result end up contaminating recycling loads or contributing to horrifying fatbergs.

We have come a long way since London recycled just 8 per cent of its household waste twenty years ago, but to meet the climate challenges of the 21st century and beyond, we must push on. Recycling in London’s flats has lagged behind, but with stronger policies and creative thinking, we can design our homes and buildings to make it easier for everyone to recycle.

Tom Copley is a Labour member of the London Assembly.

 
 
 
 

How China's growing cities are adapting to pressures on housing and transport

Shenzhen, southern China's major financial centre. (Photo by Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images)

In the last 40 years, the world’s most populous country has urbanised at a rate unprecedented in human history. China now has over 100 cities with populations greater than a million people, easily overshadowing the combined total of such cities in North America and Europe. 

That means urban policy in China is of increasing relevance to planning professionals around the world, and for many in Western nations there’s a lot to learn about the big-picture trends happening there, especially as local and national governments grapple with the coronavirus crisis. 

Can Chinese policymakers fully incorporate the hundreds of millions of rural-to-urban migrants living semi-legally in China’s cities into the economic boom that has transformed the lives of so many of their fellow citizens? The air quality in many major cities is still extremely poor, and lung cancer and other respiratory ailments are a persistent threat to health. Relatedly, now that car ownership is normalised among the urban middle classes, where are they going to put all these newly minted private automobiles?


Yan Song is the director of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill’s Program on Chinese Cities and a professor in the school’s celebrated urban planning department. She’s studied Chinese, American, and European cities for almost 20 years and I spoke with her about the issues above as well as changing attitudes towards cycling and displacement caused by urban renewal. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

American cities face very different challenges depending on which part of the country they are in. The Rust Belt struggles with vacancy, depopulation, and loss of tax base. In coastal cities housing affordability is a huge problem. How do the challenges of Chinese cities vary by region?

Generally speaking, the cities that are richer, usually on the eastern coastal line, are facing different challenges than cities in the western "hinterland." The cities that are at a more advantaged stage, where socio-economic development is pretty good, those cities are pretty much aware of the sustainability issue. They're keen on addressing things like green cities.

But the biggest challenge they face is housing affordability. Cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Hangzhou are trying to keep or attract young talent, but the housing prices are really, really high. The second challenge is equity. How do you provide equal, or at least fair, services to both the urban residents and the migrants who are living in the city, to alleviate some of the concerns around what the government is calling “social harmony?” 

Then the cities in the hinterland, typically they are resource economies. They are shrinking cities; they're trying to keep population. At the same time, they are addressing environmental issues, because they were overly relying on the natural endowments of their resources in the past decades, and now they're facing how to make the next stage of economic transition. That's the biggest divide in terms of regional challenges.

These urban centers rely on migrant workers for a lot of essential services, food preparation, driving, cleaning. But they live tenuous lives and don't have access to a lot of public services like education, health care, social insurance. Are Chinese policymakers trying to adopt a healthier relationship with this vast workforce?

The governments are making huge efforts in providing basic services to the migrants living in the city. They're relaxing restrictions for educational enrollment for migrants in the cities. In health care as well as the social security they are reforming the system to allow the free transfer of social benefits or credits across where they live and where they work [so they can be used in their rural hometown or the cities where they live and work]. 

In terms of health care, it's tough for the urban residents as well just because of the general shortage of the public health care system. So, it's tough for the urban residents and even tougher for the migrants. But the new policy agenda's strategists are aware of those disadvantages that urban migrants are facing in the cities and they're trying to fix the problem.

What about in terms of housing?

The rental market has been relaxed a lot in recent years to allow for more affordable accommodation of rural-to-urban migrants. Welfare housing, subsidised housing, unfortunately, skews to the urban residents. It's not opened up yet for the migrants. 

The rental market wasn't that active in previous years. But recently some policies allow for more flexible rental arrangements, allowing for shared rentals, making choices more available in the rental market. Before it was adopted, it’s prohibited to have, for example, three or more people sharing an apartment unit. Now that’s been relaxed in some cities, allowing for more migrant workers to share one unit to keep the rates down for them. You see a little bit more affordable rental units available in the market now.

I just read Thomas Campanella’s The Concrete Dragon, and he talks a lot about the scale of displacement in the 1990s and 2000s. Massive urban renewal projects where over 300,000 people in Beijing lost homes to Olympics-related development. Or Shanghai and Beijing each losing more homes in the ‘90s than were lost in all of America's urban renewal projects combined. It didn't sound like those displaced people had much of a voice in the political process. But that book was published in 2008.  How has policy changed since then, especially if people are more willing to engage in activism?

First of all, I want to make a justification for urban renewal in Chinese cities, which were developed mostly in the ‘50s and ‘60s. At the time, [in the 1990s] the conditions weren’t good and allowing for better standards of construction would inevitably have to displace some of the residents in older settlements. In my personal opinion, that wasn't something that could be done in an alternative way.  

Still, in the earlier days, the way of displacing people was really arbitrary, that's true. There wasn't much feedback gathered from the public or even from the people affected. In the name of the public interest, in the name of expanding a road, or expanding an urban center, that's just directed from the top down. 

Nowadays things are changing. The State Council realized they needed more inclusive urban development, they needed to have all the stakeholders heard in the process. In terms of how to process urban development, and sometimes displacement, the way that they are dealing with it now is more delicate and more inclusive.

Can you give me an example of what that looks like?

For example, [consider] hutong in Beijing, the alleyway houses, a typical lower-density [neighbourhood] that needs to be redeveloped. In the past, a notification was sent to the neighbours: “You need to be replaced. You need to be displaced, we need to develop.” That's it. 

Nowadays, they inform all different sorts of stakeholders. They could include artists' associations, nonprofits, grassroots organisations that represent the interests of the local residents. Then they [the citizens groups] could say what they really want to preserve. “This is what we think is really valuable” and that will be part of the inputs in the planning process. Some of the key elements could possibly be preserved. They  [the authorities] also talk about the social network, because they realized that when they displace people, the biggest loss is the social network that they have built in the original location. So, it's not only conserving some of the physical environment, but also trying to conserve some of the social network that people have.  


(STR/AFP via Getty Images)

Speaking of urban renewal, there was a big emphasis in the ‘90s and 2000s on highways. A lot of auto-oriented development in Beijing, following more of a Los Angeles than New York model. There's this quote I saw from Hong Kong architect Tao Ho, during the 1990s development of Pudong in Shanghai, warning against replicating “the tall buildings and car-oriented mentality of the West." 

In the ’90s or the first decade of the 21st century, most cities in China were still making mistakes. When I was a student, in the late '90s, I was translating for the American Planning Association. At the time, Beijing was still taking out the bike lanes and the planners from APA were telling them: “No, don't do that. Don't make that mistake." 

In the past decade, that's not occurring anymore. It has been happening [adding bike lanes] for a couple of years in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen. More attention has been given to improving the service quality of green transportation, upgrades to buses, the bike lane system, and so on. 

As China got richer, bikes became a symbol of poverty and, like you said, urban planners began removing bike lanes. Cities like Nanjing and Shanghai considered banning bikes from the central city entirely. 

For a long time, bike lanes were abandoned and the road surface was more devoted to the car. But in the past few years this has been changing, more road space has been given to bus rapid transit and to bike lanes. The attitude giving precedence to the private car is giving way.

Another thing they are trying to do is behavioural change, teaching younger generations that biking is cool, creating a new set of values that's more sustainable. In some major cities, you see educational campaigns, posters around the cities, [saying] bicycling is really cool. 

A recent paper you worked on looked at air quality in Chinese cities and found they are still struggling. The paper cited a study suggesting “that Chinese cities face the worst air quality across different cities around [the] world based on an extensive research of 175 countries.” Your paper recommends transit-oriented development and significant green outdoor space. Is that something you see policymakers adopting?

Yes, definitely, although with regional variations still. The eastern and southern cities are seeing more policies toward transit-oriented development. They are adapting smart technology too. For example, Hangzhou, which is the model of smart cities, the tech tycoon Alibaba installed sensors on every single traffic signal there. Then they were using technology to change the light, so when they detect a higher volume of traffic, they streamline the green lights and the red light wouldn't stop the cars, so there are less carbon emissions at the intersections. They showed that there was a reduction of up to 15% emissions. 

What about in terms of parking policy? How are policymakers trying to deal with the influx of cars in these cities? Are there parking minimums like in many American cities?

I was visiting Hangzhou in December, their “Smart City” headquarters there. They were trying to use technology to let people know where there's parking, so they don't have to drive around, which increases carbon emissions. In other cities, like Shenzhen, they were increasing the parking fee in the downtown by 50 yuan, or seven US dollars an hour. That's pretty high in the context of Chinese cities. It was 10 or 20 yuan before. So, just increasing the parking cost in the downtown area so that you discourage people from driving.

What are you working on now?

My new research is still on air quality. We had a really cool collaboration with a counterpart of Google Street Map. In China, that’s Baidu StreetMap. We asked the company to install another sensor on their cars when they take pictures. We added a sensor for air quality. So, we will know at a street level what are the current emissions by geolocation, by time. That will be really cool when we have all that data. 

Jake Blumgart is a staff writer for CityMetric.